Reformed Theology

[steaver]

I've been on injured reserve. :tongue3:

Seriously, I have a hard time following your threads. They are kind of like the lady at everybody's church who thinks she's the best singer in the world. She gets up to do special music, and its just awful. But everybody in the audience just sits there and smiles while tapping on their knee, someone will be bold enough to throw out a "Bless Her Lord" (which is code for help her hear how really bad she is). The crowd can't wait for the whole ordeal to end so they can get to Golden Corral.

That's really sad. We actually had a person in our church, not a lady, but a man, who could not carry a tune, I mean he was really bad, but he sure could move our hearts for his passion for Jesus Christ and his willingness to get up in front of everyone and not be ashamed of it. I suppose there are those who would sit in the pews and mock a person like that, not sure it says much for that congregation and the pastor leading them.

I think oftentimes when a person gets so hung up in the theological they lose sight of the simplicity that is in Christ. You would think all of that pouring over the scriptures would lead them to understand God judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Not sure what to think of these mockers you speak of. This man was so humble and submissive to the Lord, he has since past over, I miss his solos, he was a lovely man. I pray the Lord helps you understand these Christians......raying:

 

[Thousand Hills]

That's really sad. We actually had a person in our church, not a lady, but a man, who could not carry a tune, I mean he was really bad, but he sure could move our hearts for his passion for Jesus Christ and his willingness to get up in front of everyone and not be ashamed of it. I suppose there are those who would sit in the pews and mock a person like that, not sure it says much for that congregation and the pastor leading them.

I think oftentimes when a person gets so hung up in the theological they lose sight of the simplicity that is in Christ. You would think all of that pouring over the scriptures would lead them to understand God judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Not sure what to think of these mockers you speak of. This man was so humble and submissive to the Lord, he has since past over, I miss his solos, he was a lovely man. I pray the Lord helps you understand these Christians......raying:

Oh, I understand and your proving my point perfectly. There are some that are motivated to do things out of sincere spirit, others that do things out of arrogance and pride (look at me).

Let's look at good ol BB land. There are a few folks here that are really set in their belief that Calvinism is wrong, but are civil and are sincere when they ask a question about the opposing view. A couple that come to mind are PreachTony and Sapper Woody. SW just posted his own version of the misconceptions of his view. At the end of the day I don't agree with him but I respect him for taking the time to articulate his thoughts.

Then there are folks like you. You rail 24/7 about Calvinism. Yet you come and ask a question like the OP. Nothing wrong with debating and iron sharpening iron. But it appears that you have no familiarity with what you are debating, other than what you understand from an elder brother at your CMA church. Reformed suggested a book to you by RC Sproul. Will you read it and then come back and tell folks where you think they are wrong? Ever spent any time at the Puritan Board, I'm sure they would love you over there.

I'm beginning to think like another poster suggested that you are just here to sow discord.:wavey:

 

[steaver]

Then there are folks like you. You rail 24/7 about Calvinism. Yet you come and ask a question like the OP. Nothing wrong with debating and iron sharpening iron. But it appears that you have no familiarity with what you are debating, other than what you understand from an elder brother at your CMA church. Reformed suggested a book to you by RC Sproul. Will you read it and then come back and tell folks where you think they are wrong?

Actually, everything I know about Calvinism has come from Calvinist. I must have listened to hundreds of lessons from Sproul, MacArthur, Piper. And then there are all the Calvinist here on the BB. All of my thread topics were derived from things Calvinist have proclaimed here on the BB. TULIP is the Gospel, No belief in TULIP = No sheep, No belief in Calvinism = No sheep, God hates the non-elect, all these topics came from Calvinist right here on the BB!! I challenge their thought and they simply don't like it. So rather than point out parts of my post which are dishonest and why, they just cry "you don't understand Calvinism" :tear: Yet I quote their very words and IN CONTEXT! Even when they try to pull things out of context as an attempt to discredit what I say.

Hey, feel free to look over my sermon I wrote and point out which part is dishonest and why. Nobody else could. So what da ya wanna be? Just another whiner?? Step up brother! :thumbsup:

 

[Thousand Hills]

Actually, everything I know about Calvinism has come from Calvinist. I must have listened to hundreds of lessons from Sproul, MacArthur, Piper. And then there are all the Calvinist here on the BB

As my dear departed father used to say "Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck?" I seriously doubt that you have spent countless hours listening to Sproul, Mac, and Piper. You are either being dishonest in your OP or you are being dishonest in your statement I've quoted above.

I've already wasted too much of my precious time over the past 24 hours interacting with you. Time for you to join Dude.

 

[steaver]

As my dear departed father used to say "Do you think I just fell off the turnip truck?" I seriously doubt that you have spent countless hours listening to Sproul, Mac, and Piper. You are either being dishonest in your OP or you are being dishonest in your statement I've quoted above.

I've already wasted too much of my precious time over the past 24 hours interacting with you. Time for you to join Dude.

Well, I have been listening to these men's programs for about 17 years now and still do today. So I would wager it has been hundreds of hours. Read a couple of Piper's books, Spectacular Sins is an excellent read, I highly recommend it.

Well, thanks for spending some of your precious time with me! Love you man! Blessings! :love2:

 

[steaver]

Well, I have been listening to these men's programs for about 17 years now and still do today. So I would wager it has been hundreds of hours. Read a couple of Piper's books, Spectacular Sins is an excellent read, I highly recommend it.

Well, thanks for spending some of your precious time with me! Love you man! Blessings! :love2:

What is nice about listening to these teachers is I have access to the same Holy Spirit and the same Bible as they do. I can learn truth and at the same time learn error. All one has to do is match up what is being said as commentary with what is actually written, and of course the entire time you are asking the Holy Spirit to confirm the truths and let you also see the errors.

If all a Christian had was the Bible and no man's commentary to read at all, and they read the NT from beginning to end, they would conclude that in God's election includes within it the freewill choice of man.

I was listening to John MacArthur the other day and he was preaching from John chapters 1-3 and was declaring that two seemingly conflicting truths were articulated in these first three chapters. God's will in regeneration apart from anything a person does, having no choice in the matter. And the second truth being everyone is responsible to believe the gospel. John Mac admits, these two factors are to the human mind, opposing each other.

But if I say Election and Freewill are both taught in the scriptures, the Calvinist declares that cannot be, both cannot be true. Mac says "I know it sounds at odds with each other, but we have to just let the scripture say what it says, we cannot know the full mind of God and the why He operates the way He does" (Paraphrasing of course). But if I say the same about Election and Freewill, Oh no, it cannot be so crys the Calvinist! Kinda hypocritical I think.

 

[blessedwife318]

If all a Christian had was the Bible and no man's commentary to read at all, and they read the NT from beginning to end, they would conclude that in God's election includes within it the freewill choice of man.

I would disagree with this. I was raised Wesleyan (can't get more free will then that) so the preaching and the commentaries I was exposed to had that bent yet it was as I studied the Scriptures on my own that I became more and more reformed. I wasn't sure what I was for a long time and would denied being a Calvinist since that was a four letter word in the circles I grew up in. And ironically it was when I was reading a book making a case against reform theology that I realized I was reformed from my own study of the Bible and the Spirits illumination.

 

[thatbrian]

If all a Christian had was the Bible and no man's commentary to read at all, and they read the NT from beginning to end, they would conclude that in God's election includes within it the freewill choice of man.

I find it interesting that you say, ". . .entire NT. . ." and not Bible. Why do you exclude 3/4 of God's revelation?

Also, I must object to the statement on two grounds.

First, Calvinists DO NOT believe that God's election and man's "freewill choice" are at odds. We DO NOT think that men are robots, for the 1,000th time. We simply have the order: God chooses first, and we follow. God is always the initiator; the seeker. Read the entire 66 books, and that is crystal clear in his interactions with his people.

Second, reading the gospel of John, alone, is more than enough evidence to see how this works - to see that God's electing is the deterring factor in man's fate.

 

[convicted1]

I find it interesting that you say, ". . .entire NT. . ." and not Bible. Why do you exclude 3/4 of God's revelation?

Also, I must object to the statement on two grounds.

First, Calvinists DO NOT believe that God's election and man's "freewill choice" are at odds. We DO NOT think that men are robots, for the 1,000th time. We simply have the order: God chooses first, and we follow. God is always the initiator; the seeker. Read the entire 66 books, and that is crystal clear in his interactions with his people.

Second, reading the gospel of John, alone, is more than enough evidence to see how this works - to see that God's electing is the deterring factor in man's fate.

John 5:39 `Ye search the Writings, because ye think in them to have life age-during, and these are they that are testifying concerning me;


Jesus was telling the people to search the writings/scriptures. Now, what scriptures were they to search? The OT writings. The NT writings hadn't been written yet. When you post this post, that verse automatically came to mind...

 

[steaver]

I find it interesting that you say, ". . .entire NT. . ." and not Bible. Why do you exclude 3/4 of God's revelation?

I was being generous. :wavey:

First, Calvinists DO NOT believe that God's election and man's "freewill choice" are at odds.

Ah, you better not paint your camp with such a broad brush there. I know a few on the BB here who declare there is no such thing as freewill found in the bible.

Read the entire 66 books, and that is crystal clear in his interactions with his people.

You mean there are more than 27 books!!!!!! I will have to check these out!

Second, reading the gospel of John, alone, is more than enough evidence to see how this works - to see that God's electing is the deterring factor in man's fate

Yes, that is why I said NT :thumbs:

 

[steaver]

I would disagree with this. I was raised Wesleyan (can't get more free will then that) so the preaching and the commentaries I was exposed to had that bent yet it was as I studied the Scriptures on my own that I became more and more reformed. I wasn't sure what I was for a long time and would denied being a Calvinist since that was a four letter word in the circles I grew up in. And ironically it was when I was reading a book making a case against reform theology that I realized I was reformed from my own study of the Bible and the Spirits illumination.

We all have our own different testimonies of how we came to Christ and how we came to understand the doctrines we embrace. With me, I started out with an open mind towards both arguments, listening to commentarians from both camps. It took about two years of study of the Bible and the Spirit's illumination, but I then understood man's freewill in choosing Christ.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I only find that predestination discussed in scripture where it refers to ones salvation. Everything else is free will....however if you have been given a conscience, a new mind and a heart for the lord, then I consider that Gods plan....it gives you new prospective so then you make better informed decisions.

I believe that ones perspective on abortion is a good example. I was once a proponent of abortion...afterall why should someone bring an unwanted child into the world --- think of all the complications, the expence etc. Upon my rebirth, I developed a conscience & a heart softened....my Lord became Jesus, and my studies now took on a furver for understanding Gods plan....NOT the worlds. So I'm free to select my own path but it has been greatly influenced by my understanding of God and his agenda.

 

[steaver]

I believe that ones perspective on abortion is a good example. I was once a proponent of abortion...afterall why should someone bring an unwanted child into the world --- think of all the complications, the expence etc. Upon my rebirth, I developed a conscience & a heart softened....my Lord became Jesus, and my studies now took on a furver for understanding Gods plan....NOT the worlds. So I'm free to select my own path but it has been greatly influenced by my understanding of God and his agenda.

Amen! :thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

Also... The waters are muddied because there is a reformed soteriology that is often affirmed by those who don't fully embrace Reformed Theology (big "R").

Typically full-on "Reformed Theology" is expressed concomitantly with "Covenant Theology." Both of these closely-related (perhaps synonymous) expressions of a particular theological worldview stress the continuity between the testaments. Hence, most adherents to Reformed Theology are Paedo-baptists.

But, when the Second London Confession was written, it was essentially Westminster (which was Presbyterian) except that it was a baptist understanding of baptism, etc.

Now, several--including myself--are more of what is described as "New Covenant" in our theological outlook. New Covenant Theology is decidedly Calvinistic in soteriology, but it acknowledges the discontinuity between the testaments. It sees Israel and the Church as separate groups, but--as I describe it--heirs of the same promises.

The dispensationalists tend to describe the church as a parenthesis in redemptive history. Actually, Israel is the parenthesis simply because the Law does not and cannot save and Christ and the cross were never "plan B." Essentially, this is Paul's argument in Galatians.

Historically, baptist have been very Reformed in their theology, but to varying degrees. It is a recent hiccup in Baptist History that so many Baptists are Arminian-leaning and dispensational in their theology. It wasn't always so.... The so-called Calvinistic resurgence is not really a resurgence. Rather it is a return to the deeper roots of the Baptist movement, but I digress--another topic for another day.

Blessings,

The Archangel

So would the new Covenant Theologians in this branch of calvinism be getting more towards a central position regarding salvation/isreal/and the Church, much the same way the progressive dispy movement has tried to move towards what they seen as a more balance central viewpoint in these issues?

So you would place the major emphasis on salvation itself?

 

[Yeshua1]

Actually, everything I know about Calvinism has come from Calvinist. I must have listened to hundreds of lessons from Sproul, MacArthur, Piper. And then there are all the Calvinist here on the BB. All of my thread topics were derived from things Calvinist have proclaimed here on the BB. TULIP is the Gospel, No belief in TULIP = No sheep, No belief in Calvinism = No sheep, God hates the non-elect, all these topics came from Calvinist right here on the BB!! I challenge their thought and they simply don't like it. So rather than point out parts of my post which are dishonest and why, they just cry "you don't understand Calvinism" :tear: Yet I quote their very words and IN CONTEXT! Even when they try to pull things out of context as an attempt to discredit what I say.

Hey, feel free to look over my sermon I wrote and point out which part is dishonest and why. Nobody else could. So what da ya wanna be? Just another whiner?? Step up brother! :thumbsup:

The main thing to understand is that there is no real "calvinism" proper, as many hold to the presby view of it, some with the reformed Baptist, and still others focus the main importance on Sotierology, such as the New calvinists and even the Dispy ones like myself and John M!

 

[The Archangel]

So would the new Covenant Theologians in this branch of calvinism be getting more towards a central position regarding salvation/isreal/and the Church, much the same way the progressive dispy movement has tried to move towards what they seen as a more balance central viewpoint in these issues?

So you would place the major emphasis on salvation itself?

I don't know what others would say, frankly.

The Archangel

 

[steaver]

The main thing to understand is that there is no real "calvinism" proper, as many hold to the presby view of it, some with the reformed Baptist, and still others focus the main importance on Sotierology, such as the New calvinists and even the Dispy ones like myself and John M!

If this is the case (and it appears that it is after seeing all the infighting among those who label themselves Calvinist here) then I do not see the point in wearing such a label. I don't see any unity in it.

 

[thatbrian]

The main thing to understand is that there is no real "calvinism" proper, as many hold to the presby view of it, some with the reformed Baptist, and still others focus the main importance on Sotierology, such as the New calvinists and even the Dispy ones like myself and John M!

And, some folks who call themselves Calvinists are on the fringes (or beyond) of what almost all Calvinists would agree upon.

Sampling the BB is no way to get a consensus of what Calvinists believe, as the bulk of Calvinists would be found in Presbyterian circles. Even still, of corse there are disagreements within those groups as well.

No two people hold the exact same theology, in my experience, and we often disagree most strongly with the people who hold views which are very close to our own.