My Theological Stance after Searching with All of My Heart

I have been researching Martin Luther for a talk I shall be giving shortly with reference to the Reformation.
Towards the end of his life he did say some dreadful things about the Jews, and he certainly did not see as far as many other reformers (otherwise we'd all be Lutherans). However, he did find salvation by grace through faith, and he put his life at great risk by holding to it under the most extreme pressure to recant.

This is simply not true.

Nor is this. Henry certainly was mumbling, but he was clutching the hand of Thomas Cranmer who was trying to lead him to Christ.

 

Rippon,
You need to moderate your language. Mr Yeadon is certainly mistaken about Calvin, but that does not make him a liar.

 

He spoke falsehoods about John Calvin [edited]

 

The Calvinist argument is that since "they" could not see the end from the beginning and still make free will - neither can God.
The is the ultimate flaw of calvinism - it tries to sit in God's chair and tell God what He cannot possibly do.

in this case it claims that even for sinless beings - God cannot know the future and still give them anything other than man-mad-robbot will. programmed as He wills to "arrange" the future He predicts.

Calvinism makes a very poor all-knowing God.

 

Correct. Nor can we romanticize the times in which Luther, Calvin, and Whitfield lived in. Man-stealing has always been a sin. The same with profanity-laden tirades. If the Lord tarries for another 1000 years, what will that generation of Christians say about this present generation?

 

Hi Steven, I only read your opening post, and skipped the predictable disparagement from the exhaustive determinists.

Lets consider Psalm 139:15-16:

My frame was not hidden from You,
When I was made in secret,
[God forms our spirit within us and therefore knows us from conception]

And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
[apparently a figurative expression of the unknown development within the womb]

16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
[God is aware of every step of our development until fully formed and thereafter]

And in Your book were all written
[OT book of life listed all the living]

The days that were ordained for me,
[Here we come to the "problematic" phrase. Does the Hebrew word translated here (NASB) as ordained mean (as the exhaustive determinists claim) predestined? Probably not. Instead the idea actually intended with this vague phrase, is that God forms us with a purpose and design intent, therefore the days that were intended for me. If you look at various translation choices, you find planned and fashioned. Thus the duration of the design intent. ]

When as yet there was not one of them.
[Yes God has a plan for us from conception, before our days numbered from birth. Our God is not only the God of second chances, He is the God of the continuous chance to follow His fresh plan for out lives.]

 

What are they saying now? Seriously does it matter what has happened historically .....but if you insist in digging into the work of understanding Jesus and his times, then you will invariably find the NT to be a far richer source of spiritual life.

For a few years now, I have been fascinated by the Sermon on the Mount....so much so that I read it over & over, then studied books on it. And its no surprise to anyone that I have also endorsed Martyn Lloyd Jones book on the sermon (he brakes it down well into digestible pieces). From my prospective, this sermon that was pronounced by Jesus himself, is the blueprint of the Christian lifestyle.....So I was encouraged when Steve listed it as a major factor in his own studies.

However Steve has given at least given 4 years of his life to studying theology & is still very confused as to what to believe. Are we to believe Luther, Calvin, Augustine, Arminius, Whitfield, Wesley etc .... they have all molded Jesus to their own persevered forms ..... probably that's to a large part where we all take our definitions from ( Like I am a Reformed, Calvinistic Baptist however I'm not a Covenitiantalist.....that's only one example & you know that their are many more I could illustrate). Given these scenarios, what are we to actually believe? Then we may well ask, "what did Jesus really teach & are we anywhere close to the Lords intentions?"

And of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention all the biases of each belief system that has developed from every group who has come to know the different belief system teaching. Hopefully we can jettison our past, open our eyes & ears to allow Him to speak to us through the scriptures....I applaud Steve for taking that journey.

 

The scriptures themselves prove the truth and validity of how Calvinism sees the issue of salvation proper.

 

None of them wiere either inspired or perfect, but they did bring back to the Church the real Gospel message!

 

Yes, he did say some dreadful things.

However, I still contend his break from the papists was reluctant. Had the papists not challenged his writing, he possibly would have never have departed from the Roman church.

Politics and political substances had more to do with pushing him and the reformation, than did his desire to separate from the ungodly. I wondered if his legal training was more directive and one reason the items I listed that reflect papist teaching were never been purged, for they had no Scripture support.

I, too, thought the same, but a recent history account, the PBS "Inside the Court of Henry VIII," about Henry and in particular his personality and temperment behind his character revealed that Henry did indeed cluctch the rosary.

The rosary was not "band" at the time. Henry did not have rational coherence the last 24 hours or more, and although the doctors knew possibly a week or more that he was going to die, there is no account that he was told. It would have to be that the account of squeezing the hand of Cranmer be held as more unlikely than him clutching to religious training and tradition that he had set aside for personal gains.

Politics, as in the case of Luther, also was revealed by Henry's death being kept silent, even from servants who would bring meals to the chamber doors for two days.

Political power played more in living and dying of the reformation characters than did the Scriptures.

In reading about Cranmer and his accomplishments, a person just cannot escape that he published alloed on the political will of the times, he had to hide his marriage for some years until political favor allowed the introduction, and eventually re-embraced the papists though admittedly tortured into doing again by the wind of political expediency.

But, then did not politics call for the crucifixion?

 

But does it really matter?

Ultimately, the truth is that God does not create what is not planned. That is clearly set out not only in Scripture, but creation itself.

There is nothing that surprises God, be it insignificant or significant.

There are none that come to Christ that the Father has not already specified would come and given the authority to come.

One cannot read John's clear statements in his acccounts and come away without acknowledging all believers are merely responders to and not instgators of the Saving Grace of The Father. From the first open statement to the final close of the Revelation, God is in total control, and with purpose chooses what and who will glorify Him.

History classes are time constrained to cover a certain amount of material, and unfortunately are totally inadequate when it comes to being the most unbiased.

 

Hi Steven, now lets look at John 6:39-40:

39 This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.”

I am not sure why this verse is listed a problematic? Here is my guess, you think it is possible God "gave" to Jesus every individual to be saved before the foundation of the world? So again we are dealing with a vague phrase, on which commentators differ as to meaning. My view is God "gives" individuals to Christ when He transfers them into Him. Thus the "predestination" occurs when placed in Christ and saved, because we will never be cast out and lost.

So if we are chosen through faith in the truth, then we are chosen individually during our lifetime, and not before creation. There are several verses that require being chosen during our lifetime, For example 1 Peter 2:9-10 says we were not a people before we were a chosen people. And we lived without mercy before we obtained mercy. Thus our individual election occurred after we lived on earth.
Therefore John tells us we were chosen out of the world.

So the real problem is a mistaken understanding of Ephesians 1:4 which says we were chosen in Him before the foundation of the world. When you have at least 4 passages saying we were chosen individually during our lifetime, and one (Eph. 1:4) that might say we were chosen individually before our lifetime, which understanding is probably in error? So lets look at Eph. 1:4. What might chosen in Him mean? When was our Redeemer, the Lamb of God chosen? Before the foundation of the world. 1 Peter 1:20. So when you choose a Redeemer, would you not also have a plan to redeem? Of course. So the idea could be when God chose His redeemer He also chose us corporately as the target group of His redemption plan, thus He chose us in Him. Any other view requires us to nullify passage after passage, such as James 2:5 where we were chosen as not only poor to the world but also rich in faith and heirs to the kingdom promised to those who love God.

Once Ephesians 1:4 is understood and corporate, and 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as individual, everything falls into plance.

 

You are describing here on this tirade Open Theism, but not Calvinism!