What are the basics of Reformed Theology

[Crucible]

This is double speak aka talking out of both sides of your mouth aka waffle-burger aka I blew out my flip-flop

Says you, who states they are a Christian of their own will and preach that others are Hindus by theirs- even though if you grew up in India you'd be as Hindu as the rest of them.

You do not choose God, but are chosen by providence.

The intellectual folly of you people is astounding.

"Man falls according as God's providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault."

 

[Epoisses]

"Man falls according as God's providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault."

Says you, who states they are a Christian of their own will and preach that others are Hindus by theirs- even though if you grew up in India you'd be as Hindu as the rest of them.

Therefore, you do not choose God, but chosen by providence.

The theological folly of you people is astounding.

I've never said that Christians are saved by their will. We are saved by believing in Christ and this same belief is said to be the gift of God. Both of these truths need to be accepted like two sides of the same coin. To focus on one to the exclusion of the other leads to Arminian 'righteousness by choice or will' and Calvinist 'righteousness by predestination or hyper-grace'.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Maybe it's because nobody really sees it as legitimate. You act like Reformed doctrine is so weak and that the great Reformers would be contradicted by something so simple.

Indeed. Not a day passes on internet discussion sites where these sort of facile arguments are made, by the poorly equipped budding theologian who assumes those that have come before us have not grappled with such arguments more thoroughly advanced and wrestled them to ground. These same folk will charge ahead , "Look at what I have discovered!" assuming there is something new under the theological sun heretofore left unanswered by those far exceeding their weight class.

The usual reason no one will take up such "new arguments" is that the one's offering them up have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the topic at hand coupled with no openness to being corrected, and are only interested in being seen as they toady to the crowd.

These folks can be readily identified by their usual shibboleths:
- If no one answers, I win.
- No response means no argument exists to defeat my argument exists.

What they seek more than anything else is to be seen. Never mind that they are seen to be naive, immature, or even fools.

Sigh.

Not a few think that repentance is saying a prayer, sorrowful weeping, and some regret. No doubt there is an aspect of these things that may accompany repentance. But the very word repentance is pregnant with the view of actually turning from one's sins. We know from Scripture that the unregenerate cannot turn from their sins until regenerated. Repentance is a fruit of the faith that comes from regeneration. Never in Scripture is repentance given a treatment that implies repentance is means to our being born-again versus the way faith is credited with the instrumentality of accomplishing one's re-birth (e.g. Eph. 2:8).

Repentance and faith are both necessary for salvation, but they are related to justification in different ways. Faith alone is the instrument by which Christ is received and rested on as Savior. Justification is by faith, not by repentance. But faith (and therefore justification) cannot exist without repentance. Repentance is as necessary to salvation by faith as the ankle is to walking. The one does not act apart from the other. I cannot come to Christ in faith without turning from sin in repentance. As one cannot have true faith without faith yielding works, so one cannot have true faith without simultaneously having repentance. Genuine repentance is the proof of one's faith.

Because of the close association between faith and repentance in Scripture (e.g., Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21; Hebrews 6:1), when we talk about conversion in terms of the logical order of salvation, we often speak of these two as alternate sides of one coin, or some similar analogy. In general, then, repentance unto life (Acts 11:18) is the ordinary, proper, and reasonable heartfelt reflex of saving faith (Heb.10:39). The Pharisees demonstrated the exact opposite reaction (Matthew 21:32). This does not negate the historical experience of salvation, whereby we are often brought to great hatred and disgust at our own sin, and turn from it to look unto Jesus (Heb.12:2), the object of our faith. But it is not the turning that delivers us nor the faculty of faith (nothing in man), but Christ the object of faith outside of man. Nor should we wish to deny that further acts of repentance even after we "first believed" may feel stronger than our earlier repentance. This only makes sense, as stronger faith only opens our heart's understanding further, both to the nature and corruption of sin, as well as the surpassing greatness of the Savior. This is but growth in grace.

“Then God also granted repentance to life to the Gentiles” (Act 11.18). The Arminians hold that it is in our power to repent. No, we can harden our hearts, but we cannot soften them. This crown of freewill has fallen from our head. No, there is not only impotency in us, but obstinacy (Acts 7:51). As Thomas Watson once wrote, therefore beg God for a repentant spirit. He can make the stony heart bleed. His is a word of creative power. See here.

AMR

 

[Lon]

While AMR attempts to challenge my understanding, his argument only serves to make my point.

:think: Not seeing that at all.

Further, John 6 does not support these claims either. While John 6:44 does speak of our inability to come to God, John 6:45 gives us a reason quite different from the article.

To me? Looks like pure agendized assertion rather than proper exegesis. You are saying that this 'reveals' Calvinism but when we are simply asking "what does the text say?" no, it certainly does not and you are 'shown' wrong with blind asserting. There really is an odd thing going on with Open Theism to see these unfounded assertions. Is it true we read scripture completely opposite at times? Yes, because I assume the Omni's as an overarching truth of scripture. Pedantic passages then push narrative ones. "Now I know" isn't the best translation of the Hebrew word, for instance. I proved this in OT part 2 and none of you could argue that Calvinist agenda is the culprit. Rather, we must support our systematic theologies.

Problems:

1) Open Theism has no systematic theology. There are no volumes like there are for every other systematic position
2) There "can't" be any systematic theologies, you guys don't have the scholars for it.
3) There are many systematic theology multi-volumes for Calvinism justifying and showing clearly our assumptions coming to scripture that there is not much use for caricatures and strawmen. All one has to do it read a Reformed volume that is readily available.
4) "We are against Calvinism" isn't an acceptable theological stance. It is incredibly more important to simply state your own systematic theology and exegetic work than simply to say "this is a Calvinist problem (or presumption)."

Philippians 1:29 only speaks, again, of being granted the ability to believe, but does not speak to why this is necessary.

Imho? Once you concede the first point of scripture, the caveat is ineffectual and voided. You've admitted to what I already said: either that you 1, AMR corrected your misconception, but more importantly to me, 2, that you concede the point as to make all your objection null. It becomes a gimme with only cognitive dissonance expressed against it.

2 Tim 2:25 isn't even speaking about salvation, but rather Christians whose doctrine is in error.

My point here is that correct thinking is granted by God. This means that God is in control, whether you are talking about our ability to come to Christ, or become more cogent in our thinking. A cool thing: From my perspective, it means prayer over our disagreement here is our command AND that God is Sovereign and will do the correcting. When? Don't know, but God is indeed sovereign. Proverbs 16:9 We are both Calvinistic on this verse, yes? :up:

So, again, careful critical exegesis of Calvinist proof texts almost always expose some Calvinist imposition on the texts in question.

God's truth isn't an imposition on His other verses. All you are saying, imho, is that you believe scripture doesn't support Omni's and I believe it emphatically does. Wouldn't that more clearly reflect on factuals? Especially as it is EVERY systematic theology BUT Open Theism, correct?

:think:
1Co 1:17 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
1Co 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1Co 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart."
1Co 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
1Co 1:21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.
1Co 1:22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
1Co 1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
1Co 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
1Co 1:25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. :think:

This just further's my case.

How? You said it wasn't talking about the gospel. I even highlighted you saying so and then highlighted the verses that clearly mentioned the gospel. I can't fathom that you think the opposite or otherwise :idunno: :think:

It feeds directly into chapter 2, where Paul describes preaching the gospel without wisdom and fancy words.

And then in verse 6, Paul transitions to "wisdom" which is spoken of "among the mature." This wisdom, too, is not understood by the rulers of the world. And it is this context in which 2:14 occurs, where the "things of the Spirit of God" refer to this wisdom Paul spoke of.

Again, that you've already conceded a few scriptures means a couple of scriptures where you don't think it says that, aren't effective against the concession. We are talking about whether our beliefs are enabled by God both before and after conversion. I believe the gospel of John is yet a great passage between them 'choosing' to follow, at least by implication, yet Christ emphatically and pedantically tells them "...you did not choose Me, but I chose you..." I'd suggest, to whatever extent you embrace this verse and call it scripture, whatever extent that happens to be, has you in a Calvinist's corner (that you are a Calvinist to whatever extent you actually embrace it). I heard at a Billy Graham conference that we all believe the 'follow me' scriptures and we all believe the 'I chose you' scriptures which makes us all in the other's camp to some certain degree. He said that is why Arminians and Calvinists have traditionally existed within the same church walls. Just a thought :think:

 

[Epoisses]

Indeed. Not a day passes on internet discussion sites where these sort of facile arguments are made, by the poorly equipped budding theologian who assumes those that have come before us have not grappled with such arguments more thoroughly advanced and wrestled them to ground. These same folk will charge ahead , "Look at what I have discovered!" assuming there is something new under the theological sun heretofore left unanswered by those far exceeding their weight class.

The usual reason no one will take up such "new arguments" is that the one's offering them up have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the topic at hand coupled with no openness to being corrected, and are only interested in being seen as they toady to the crowd.

These folks can be readily identified by their usual shibboleths:
- If no one answers, I win.
- No response means no argument exists to defeat my argument exists.

What they seek more than anything else is to be seen. Never mind that they are seen to be naive, immature, or even fools.

Sigh.

Not a few think that repentance is saying a prayer, sorrowful weeping, and some regret. No doubt there is an aspect of these things that may accompany repentance. But the very word repentance is pregnant with the view of actually turning from one's sins. We know from Scripture that the unregenerate cannot turn from their sins until regenerated. Repentance is a fruit of the faith that comes from regeneration. Never in Scripture is repentance given a treatment that implies repentance is means to our being born-again versus the way faith is credited with the instrumentality of accomplishing one's re-birth (e.g. Eph. 2:8).

Repentance and faith are both necessary for salvation, but they are related to justification in different ways. Faith alone is the instrument by which Christ is received and rested on as Savior. Justification is by faith, not by repentance. But faith (and therefore justification) cannot exist without repentance. Repentance is as necessary to salvation by faith as the ankle is to walking. The one does not act apart from the other. I cannot come to Christ in faith without turning from sin in repentance. As one cannot have true faith without faith yielding works, so one cannot have true faith without simultaneously having repentance. Genuine repentance is the proof of one's faith.

Because of the close association between faith and repentance in Scripture (e.g., Mark 1:15; Acts 20:21; Hebrews 6:1), when we talk about conversion in terms of the logical order of salvation, we often speak of these two as alternate sides of one coin, or some similar analogy. In general, then, repentance unto life (Acts 11:18) is the ordinary, proper, and reasonable heartfelt reflex of saving faith (Heb.10:39). The Pharisees demonstrated the exact opposite reaction (Matthew 21:32). This does not negate the historical experience of salvation, whereby we are often brought to great hatred and disgust at our own sin, and turn from it to look unto Jesus (Heb.12:2), the object of our faith. But it is not the turning that delivers us nor the faculty of faith (nothing in man), but Christ the object of faith outside of man. Nor should we wish to deny that further acts of repentance even after we "first believed" may feel stronger than our earlier repentance. This only makes sense, as stronger faith only opens our heart's understanding further, both to the nature and corruption of sin, as well as the surpassing greatness of the Savior. This is but growth in grace.

“Then God also granted repentance to life to the Gentiles” (Act 11.18). The Arminians hold that it is in our power to repent. No, we can harden our hearts, but we cannot soften them. This crown of freewill has fallen from our head. No, there is not only impotency in us, but obstinacy (Acts 7:51). As Thomas Watson once wrote, therefore beg God for a repentant spirit. He can make the stony heart bleed. His is a word of creative power. See here.

AMR

AKA he believes in double predestination which means God created sinners. Just cut to the chase you moron.

 

[Lon]

God's call for repentance is the Calvinists' Dilemma. They pretend to have not seen the thread and choose to remain silent on the issue. 8 days and counting.

Well, I answered and gave you the time of day for a few moments, but you might entertain the idea that you just aren't that well known or popular or theologically noticeable or some such (you kind of slap like a girl here and there so ignoring you might be what's going on here, please don't take offense, I just don't find many of your so-called challenges very weighty or manly - its hard to notice a slap on the back from a silk glove). There is a bit of funnin' ya here but there is a small bit of truth underlying it as well. You are pretty new and some of us have been here pushing ten years. It takes awhile to get attention.

 

[Cross Reference]

Your opening claim that every righteous man in the Old Testament was in the natural need plenty of unpacking before anyone could respond appropriately.

Job was a regenerated believer, as were all believers, OT and NT.
AMR

Lets stop there before moving on:

Job, nor any other of his time, could never have been regenerate if you believe as I do that regeneration required the Blood of Jesus Christ shed to make regeneration possible because of redemption. Now, please explain how it could have been otherwise before the cross?

"For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth" Job 19:25 (KJV)

“Shall I hide from Abraham that thing which I do?”Genesis 18:17.

Obviously, in the time frame of those verses, regeneration was never a requirement for man to be directly addressed by God, making intimacy with Him a rare occurance that few were permitted to enter into. In this, Abraham, Moses, David come qickly to mind. And then we see Mary who had the most intimate relationship with God in the natural.

 

[Cross Reference]

Your opening claim that every righteous man in the Old Testament was in the natural need plenty of unpacking before anyone could respond appropriately.

Job was a regenerated believer, as were all believers, OT and NT. The same Holy Spirit that regenerates us now was doing the same thing for the OT saints. People were regenerated in the Old Testament just as they are regenerated in the New Testament, and one cannot be regenerated except through the influence of God the Holy Spirit. David needed the regenerating power of God just as much as the apostle Paul needed it in the New Testament.

As per Romans 1, one must distinguish between between the first book, general (natural) revelation (non-redemptive, through Creation) revealed to natural man, and, the second book, special revelation (redemptive, through Scripture) revealed to the regenerate.

God has revealed enough about Him, His attributes through the nature of the created world so that natural man (all unregenerate mankind) is without excuse to not worship Him. The extent of general revelation is limited, although leaving man without an excuse, and hence the need for special revelation (the Scripture). From general (natural) revelation, man knows there is a God to whom he will give an account and he hates this knowledge.

Yet, even though the natural man has "seen" and "understood" enough about the God of Creation, the natural man can only reason wrongly as they are suppressing this knowledge of the divine (sensus divinitatas)—the fact that God exists—and refuse to worship Him. As such, God is just in condemning man in judgment since the natural man had been given enough light from general (natural revelation) to not have warrant to deny the existence of God.

AMR

Ok. I read the rest of your "wanderings".

It amazes me that someone as yourself with a lot of letters behind your name, who professes to 'know' his theology, wills to reject anything of the scripture that comes against Calvin's take on the issues; twisting the evidence to such a degree that one can't figure out whether or not you are "fer it or agin it". Example OT: No Holy Spirit could be given and yet we find you extolling the indwelling of Him, all to obviously protecting Calvin. Can you explain that?

 

[meshak]

It amazes me that how any "Christian" justify Calvin's teachings are biblical to follow.

Jesus says we know them by their fruit.

Calvin was a violent teacher. Jesus' true followers have nothing to do with violent. I know most of you have no qualm about endorsing violent faith but this is part of being corrupt religious system.

BTW, Pharisees had the same kind of spirit too; violent.

Jesus called them "hypocrite".

 

[Cross Reference]

Says you, who states they are a Christian of their own will and preach that others are Hindus by theirs- even though if you grew up in India you'd be as Hindu as the rest of them.

You do not choose God, but are chosen by providence.

The intellectual folly of you people is astounding.

"Man falls according as God's providence ordains, but he falls by his own fault."

If it can be understood that God never opposes man's will for himself, how would that effect your thinking about what God ordains or chooses for Himself?

 

[themuzicman]

You are misunderstanding what is happening in the passages in question.

Paul rebukes the Corinthians for their behavior and speaks to them as though they were unsaved persons in order to rebuke and shame them for their behavior.

Technically, he rebukes them as "fleshy", or immature, as we see in 3:3.

The verse 2 Cor 2:14 makes it clear that the natural man cannot understand spiritual things, for the natural man is lost

The text never states that the natural man is "lost." This is your imposition on the context.

and

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- is not able to come to Jesus unless given to by God (Eph. 2:2);
- must be quickened by God (Eph. 2:4-5);
- cannot choose righteousness until regenerated (Titus 3:5);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

None of these are correlated to Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 2:14. This is what I call a "scripture spam", where many proof texts are presented without context in order to try to create the appearance of a theme in order to overcome a difficulty in the current text.

It is not valid exegesis, nor does it actually make a point.

Accordingly, what follows in 1 Cor 3 from the clear teaching that the lost are unable to receive spiritual things in 1 Cor. 2:14 is an argument of reductio ad absurdum for the benefit of the Corinthians. The argument is used to demonstrate that their behavior was so egregious that Paul is treating them as though they are unregenerate (unregenerate is the assumption of 1 Cor. 2:14)

First, "unregenerate" is your imposition on 2:14, as it is not stated nor implied in the text.

Second, nowhere in 3:1-3 does Paul speak of them "as though they are unregenerate." He does state that they could not be addressed as spiritual people, pointing back to verse 15, where the "spiritual man" judges/discerns all things, and states that they needed "milk" (the gospel, from 2:1-5), and could not handle "solid food" (from 2:6-16), but this only implies their immaturity, not that they are being treated as "unregenerate."

So, again, the text is twisted to hold on to a position that has fallen apart.

and that they need to recognize that they, being regenerate, were failing to comprehend and take upon themselves (receive it) the wisdom of the cross as evidenced by their strife and jealousy.

The wisdom of 2:6 is not specifically "wisdom of the cross". This is yet another imposition on the text. As we've already seen, 2:1-5 speaks of the gospel, taught without wisdom or fancy words, but verse 6 indicates a change to speaking of wisdom "among the mature." Clearly those who have just heard the gospel are not mature, and thus are not exposed to such wisdom, thus the wisdom Paul is speaking of in 2:6-16 cannot include the gospel.

Just as the parent tells the wayward teenager, "if you are going to act like a child, I am going to treat you as one" to shame and provoke them to mature behavior, Paul scolds the Corinthians, using "infants in Christ" pejoratively to highlight the synthetic substitutes which the Corinthians have preferred. It is not that Paul does not or cannot give them wisdom in the form of solid food, nor is it that the regenerate Corinthians are incapable of receiving the wisdom Paul is offering them; rather the Corinthians do not recognize what he gives them to be wisdom because the Corinthians were refusing to abandon their present behavior, impeding their appreciation the milk for what it really is, “solid food.” Just as one's bad behavior stunts one's growth in their walk of faith, it is only until one moves beyond their childishness, that they can enjoy the greater blessings of that which they hold dear. (bold emphasis mine)

Interesting that you directly contradict the text, here:

1 Cor 3:1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able (bold mine)

Your statement that the regenerate Corinthians are actually able to receive this wisdom is refuted directly, here. The Greek word, here, speaks directly to ability.

You have taken issue with the summary of the state of the unregenerate in the article that cites 1 Cor 2:14:

Due to the effects of the fall (of Adam) on the mind and will, man's spiritual condition by nature is such that he is dead in trespasses and sins, enslaved to sin, wholly incapable and unwilling to come to God (1 Cor 2:14, Rom 8:7, John 3:19), and under the wrath of God. (Eph.2:1-3; Titus 3:3; 2 Tim.2:26). As such, man is utterly incapable of saving himself, or even to cooperate with God in his salvation.
​

And, again, we have the scripture spam in an attempt to save the proposed (and refuted) interpretation of a passage.

The full context is worth examining:

1 Corinthians 2:12-16 (NKJV)
1 Corinthians 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
1 Corinthians 2:13 These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
1 Corinthians 2:16 For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

The natural man possesses no Spirit who is from God, to know that which has been given by God.

This is not stated in this text. It is pure imposition. All Paul has stated is that the natural man is unable to receive this wisdom which is spoken "among the mature."

Paul lays claim to speaking as he has been taught by the Spirit, for Paul has received the Spirit from God, been regenerated.

But this isn't the nature of the claim. Paul makes this claim because he claims to have the mind of Christ. He is a spiritual person (v15), and thus able to discern all things.

Natural man—all others not indwelled by the Spirit—cannot receive things of the Spirit of God—spiritual things—for the natural man thinks of them as but nonsense. The natural man cannot even know spiritual things—spiritual knowledge—true knowledge. The natural man possesses no ability when it comes to spiritual matters.

The implication is that is one is regenerate, one must be spiritual (v15), and therefore the "natural man" must be unregenerate.

However, 3:1-3 expose this as untrue. The saved Corinthians are unable to receive these things, as Paul says quite directly. So, the "spiritual person" must require something more than simply to be born again. And, indeed, as we go back to verse 6, we find that one must be "among the mature" in order to receive this wisdom.

Thus, the "natural man", while it may include the unsaved, it is not exclusively this group, as there are saved Corinthians who are not "spiritual persons" (v15), as they are unable to grasp the things of the spirit of God from 2:14.

From my now two responses, and a closer look at 1 Cor 2:14, I see nothing in what you have argued from 2 Cor. 2 that overcomes this accurate summary within the article in question concerning the teachings of the whole counsel of Scripture.

AMR

That's a nice claim. Unfortunately, there are some very large holes in your argument which need to be addressed, not the least of which is your direct contradiction of Scripture.

 

[Cross Reference]

That's a nice claim. Unfortunately, there are some very large holes in your argument which need to be addressed, not the least of which is your direct contradiction of Scripture.

AMR is a perfect example of why commentaries and study Bibles need to be scrutinized for their subjectivity. The subtilizes will amaze you if you are on your toes when reading it of those who are.

I'll bet dollars to donuts he doesn't own a Thompson Chain Reference Bible from which he is to produce from its pages his own God gifted understanding.

 

[themuzicman]

:think: Not seeing that at all.
To me? Looks like pure agendized assertion rather than proper exegesis. You are saying that this 'reveals' Calvinism but when we are simply asking "what does the text say?"

LOL.. You've made an assertion as to what the text says, and I'm simply showing that what you're claiming isn't in the text.

no, it certainly does not and you are 'shown' wrong with blind asserting.

I could cite the verse and make it obvious, if you want:

45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

Looks like God's teaching (and not regeneration) is required, as is a response of "hearing and learning" from the Father.

Is that better?

There really is an odd thing going on with Open Theism to see these unfounded assertions.

This has nothing to do with open theism. Indeed, open theism doesn't address this topic.

Is it true we read scripture completely opposite at times? Yes, because I assume the Omni's as an overarching truth of scripture.

There's your problem: You assume.

Pedantic passages then push narrative ones. "Now I know" isn't the best translation of the Hebrew word, for instance. I proved this in OT part 2 and none of you could argue that Calvinist agenda is the culprit.

Genesis 22:12 has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It seems as though you have a need to divert us from it. Perhaps because there is a problem with Calvinism?

Rather, we must support our systematic theologies.

Problems:

1) Open Theism has no systematic theology. There are no volumes like there are for every other systematic position

That's because Open Theism only deals with a specific area of theology. It does not attempt to make sweeping claims about theology.

2) There "can't" be any systematic theologies, you guys don't have the scholars for it.

There are many scholars. But Open Theism is different from Calvinism in that it doesn't need to re-explain all of Scripture based upon assumptions.

3) There are many systematic theology multi-volumes for Calvinism justifying and showing clearly our assumptions coming to scripture that there is not much use for caricatures and strawmen.

And this is why Calvinism require a multi-volume systematic theology. You need to make scripture fit your assumptions, and you do so often.

All one has to do it read a Reformed volume that is readily available.

And all one has to do is think critically about Calvinist claims, and do some exegesis of the passages Calvinist claim to draw truth from to find Calvinism's errors.

4) "We are against Calvinism" isn't an acceptable theological stance. It is incredibly more important to simply state your own systematic theology and exegetic work than simply to say "this is a Calvinist problem (or presumption)."

I do all my own exegesis. A systematic theology isn't necessary to make counter claims. If a verse doesn't say what Calvinists claim it says, then Calvinism is in error. It's that simple.

Imho? Once you concede the first point of scripture, the caveat is ineffectual and voided. You've admitted to what I already said: either that you 1, AMR corrected your misconception, but more importantly to me, 2, that you concede the point as to make all your objection null. It becomes a gimme with only cognitive dissonance expressed against it.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

My point here is that correct thinking is granted by God. This means that God is in control, whether you are talking about our ability to come to Christ, or become more cogent in our thinking.

And this is one of the assumptions you impose on Scripture, which is why you find what you find.

If we think critically for a moment, we might think about what it means to be "granted to run". It's awkward, to be sure, but the implication is clearly that one has been given the ability to run, not that someone is making someone else run.

Likewise, "granted to believe" isn't someone forcing someone else to believe, but rather granting the ability to do so.

A cool thing: From my perspective, it means prayer over our disagreement here is our command AND that God is Sovereign and will do the correcting. When? Don't know, but God is indeed sovereign. Proverbs 16:9 We are both Calvinistic on this verse, yes?

Not at all. The Calvinist fails in the exegetical process to consider the genre of Proverbs. The Calvinist, when using this method, must blame the parents when a child goes astray.

God's truth isn't an imposition on His other verses.

Are you claiming that Calvinist truth IS inerrantly God's truth?

All you are saying, imho, is that you believe scripture doesn't support Omni's and I believe it emphatically does.

That's not only a straw man, it's false.

Wouldn't that more clearly reflect on factuals? Especially as it is EVERY systematic theology BUT Open Theism, correct?

I've never made the claim that open theism is inerrant. Indeed, I've stated many times that ALL theologies are man-created, and thus subject to error.

Again, that you've already conceded a few scriptures means a couple of scriptures where you don't think it says that, aren't effective against the concession.

As opposed to the arrogance that every verse Calvinism cites is an inerrant interpretation?

We are talking about whether our beliefs are enabled by God both before and after conversion. I believe the gospel of John is yet a great passage between them 'choosing' to follow, at least by implication, yet Christ emphatically and pedantically tells them "...you did not choose Me, but I chose you..."

Ah, but what were they chosen for? The fact is that they were chosen to be disciples. To confuse this with salvation is a basic exegetical error.

I'd suggest, to whatever extent you embrace this verse and call it scripture, whatever extent that happens to be, has you in a Calvinist's corner (that you are a Calvinist to whatever extent you actually embrace it).

LOL... This after I've exposed the verse as not supporting the Calvinist claim about it?

 

[Cross Reference]

LOL... This after I've exposed the verse as not supporting the Calvinist claim about it?

Open Theism notwithstanding, You performed exceedingly well in this against the master diversionsist. I'm impressed!

 

[Lon]

LOL..

:think:

You've made an assertion as to what the text says, and I'm simply showing that what you're claiming isn't in the text.

Doesn't that make it an assertion game?

I could cite the verse and make it obvious, if you want:

Looks like God's teaching (and not regeneration) is required, as is a response of "hearing and learning" from the Father.

Joh 6:39
And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
Joh 6:40
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

You are trying to draw a distinction yourself, as if it "doesn't" mean regeneration:
Joh 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Is that better?

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you,theyare spirit, andtheyare life.
Now it is.

This has nothing to do with open theism. Indeed, open theism doesn't address this topic.

Sort of. Let's move the ball back to Calvinism:

There's your problem: You assume.

It is a 'scriptural' assumption, as I already stated so your rejoinder is, imho, inconsequential.l It isn't just Calvinism, it is nearly all of Christendom which was my point.

Genesis 22:12 has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It seems as though you have a need to divert us from it. Perhaps because there is a problem with Calvinism?

:nono: Example which you needn't let divert you or distract.

That's because Open Theism only deals with a specific area of theology. It does not attempt to make sweeping claims about theology.

Not true. It is odd you think it doesn't rewrite the entirety of every systematic theology. You cannot use a Dispensational or Reformed Systematic Theology without a need to virtually correct and rewrite the whole thing.

There are many scholars. But Open Theism is different from Calvinism in that it doesn't need to re-explain all of Scripture based upon assumptions.

Incorrect. Twice.

And this is why Calvinism require a multi-volume systematic theology. You need to make scripture fit your assumptions, and you do so often.

For Peter, even some of Paul's writing were difficult to understand. I know you are reflexively just turning it back around, but I'm not really attacking your theology, simply saying your group, imho, hasn't stepped up to the plate in 'needed' discussion. This kind of retort reveals that, but it is a challenge, not a hazing.

And all one has to do is think critically about Calvinist claims, and do some exegesis of the passages Calvinist claim to draw truth from to find Calvinism's errors.

I realize this is surely going to be frustrating, but when were you going to do that? You still haven't done well at the correction of error. Show it clearly, I'm a big boy. I will change if you sufficiently and adequately prove error. Have you done so? :nono: I haven't seen it. I've seen assertion. I 'think' we are reading the same bible but you are coming up with a conclusion that it isn't talking about the gospel. I believe, by bolded words that said "gospel" that you are surely wrong.

I do all my own exegesis. A systematic theology isn't necessary to make counter claims. If a verse doesn't say what Calvinists claim it says, then Calvinism is in error. It's that simple.

:doh: Didn't they make you write a short one in Bible college when you attended? How many years did you go?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

A concession on ANY one scripture about the sovereignty of God and God ensuring salvation is a wholesale concession. It is an all/none proposition. You've already conceded several verses saying this about God:

While John 6:44 does speak of our inability to come to God, John 6:45 gives us a reason...
Philippians 1:29 only speaks..., of being granted the ability to believe...

If we think critically for a moment, we might think about what it means to be "granted to run". It's awkward, to be sure, but the implication is clearly that one has been given the ability to run, not that someone is making someone else run.

Likewise, "granted to believe" isn't someone forcing someone else to believe, but rather granting the ability to do so.

:doh: It is awkward. I "can't" run if I haven't been granted the ability. With this concession, your refutation of Calvinism is null and void. I really hope you see that. You've just validated, not deposed, Calvinism :doh:

Not at all. The Calvinist fails in the exegetical process to consider the genre of Proverbs. The Calvinist, when using this method, must blame the parents when a child goes astray.

:nono: If they are the Lord's that isn't going to happen. Even you, as an Open Theist, believe this. Hebrews 12: 5-8 I realize calling you a Calvinist had to be answered 'not at all' but the point was, between the Proverb and other verses, I believe you are wrong to disagree. Putting it in question format allowed you to save face or avoid eating crow lest you pitted yourself against scriptures. See the following verses:

Are you claiming that Calvinist truth IS inerrantly God's truth?

I'm claiming God's Word interprets all passages such as:

Jeremiah 10:23 O Jehovah, I know that the way of man does not belong to man; it is not in man who walks to direct his steps.
Proverbs 20:24 Man's steps are of Jehovah; how can a man then understand his own way?

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know what I have planned for you,'says the LORD. 'I have plans to prosper you, not to harm you. I have plans to give you a future filled with hope.

Proverbs 16:9 The mind of man plans his way, But the LORD directs his steps.

Pro 3:5 Trust in Jehovah with all your heart, and lean not to your own understanding.
Pro 3:6 In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.

Proverbs 21:1 The king's heart is in the hand of Jehovah as the rivers of water; He turns it wherever He will.

Psa 33:9 For He spoke, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood.
Psa 33:10 Jehovah brings the counsel of the nations to nothing; He breaks the plots of the people.
Psa 33:11 The counsel of Jehovah stands forever, the thoughts of His heart to all generations.
Psa 33:12 Blessed is the nation whose God is Jehovah; the people He has chosen for His inheritance.
Psa 33:13 Jehovah looks down from Heaven; He beholds all the sons of mankind.
Psa 33:14 From His dwelling place He looks on all the people of the earth.
Psa 33:15 Together He forms their hearts; His understanding is to all their works.

Psa 37:18 Jehovah knows the days of the upright, and their inheritance shall be forever.
Psa 37:23 The steps of a good man are ordered by Jehovah; and He delights in his way.
Psa 37:24 Though he fall, he shall not be cast down; for Jehovah upholds his hand.

Job 14:5 For his days are fixed, the number of his months is with You, and You have set his bounds so that he cannot pass;

Isaiah 46:9 Remember former things from forever; for I am God, and no other is God, even none like Me,
Isaiah 46:10 declaring the end from the beginning, and from the past things which were not done, saying, My purpose shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure;
Isaiah 46:11 calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my purpose from a far country. Yes, I have spoken, I will also cause it to come; I have formed; yes, I will do it.

Rom 9:19 You will then say to me, Why does He yet find fault? For who has resisted His will?
Rom 9:20 No, but, O man, who are you who replies against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him who formed it, Why have you made me this way?
Rom 9:21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor?

John 10:27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.

That's not only a straw man, it's false. I've never made the claim that open theism is inerrant. Indeed, I've stated many times that ALL theologies are man-created, and thus subject to error.

Logically, if you believe He is omniscient, there are other truths that follow from such. Which Omni's do you believe? If it isn't omniscience, you believe, then it certainly is neither, but such a concession makes this conversation pointless as you'd have to agree with Calvinism in exegesis at that point. The rest is just closing formalities in proving the point.

As opposed to the arrogance that every verse Calvinism cites is an inerrant interpretation?

:nono: This is a "what is Calvinism" thread. All I'm doing is explaining and defending a bit here. I'm not even attacking Open Theism, just trying to use it as your frame of reference to answer questions. I'm not really doing much more than that.

Ah, but what were they chosen for? The fact is that they were chosen to be disciples. To confuse this with salvation is a basic exegetical error.

Let's see: Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
And then:
John 14:29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.
Realize 'saved' and 'apostles' must/necessarily be synonymous. There was no question they were to receive the Holy Spirit and become new creations. I'd say your distinction is superficial, but we are talking about Calvinism and I think this shows that it is substantiated.

LOL... This after I've exposed the verse as not supporting the Calvinist claim about it?

I suppose it depends on how hard you are kicking at the horns. In trying to give a ready defense, I'm trying to say that even as an Open Theist, you carry many assumptions that a Calvinist does and am merely trying to show it is a reasonable theology. This particular thread isn't even about the disagreement as much as simply trying to explain it, is it?

 

[themuzicman]

:think:

Doesn't that make it an assertion game?

It makes this a "game" of prove your point. You're the one asserting Calvinism.

John 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.Joh 6:40
And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.



You are trying to draw a distinction yourself, as if it "doesn't" mean regeneration:
Joh 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

We have to look at the context to see if it means regeneration. John 6:39 (and 37) are referring to assurance. John 6:40 tells us that the one who behold's Christ still must respond by believing. No reference to regeneration there.

John 6:45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught of God.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me.

Looks like the requirements for coming to Christ are two fold:

1) Be taught of God.
2) Respond by hearing and learning.

So, there's nothing here about regeneration.

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you,they are spirit, and they are life.
Now it is.[/SIZE]

Now it is what?

Sort of. Let's move the ball back to Calvinism:

Trying to distract didn't work, huh?

It is a 'scriptural' assumption, as I already stated so your rejoinder is, imho, inconsequential.l It isn't just Calvinism, it is nearly all of Christendom which was my point.

Calvinism didn't exist until 1550.

Not true. It is odd you think it doesn't rewrite the entirety of every systematic theology. You cannot use a Dispensational or Reformed Systematic Theology without a need to virtually correct and rewrite the whole thing.

So much for being on topic.

For Peter, even some of Paul's writing were difficult to understand. I know you are reflexively just turning it back around, but I'm not really attacking your theology, simply saying your group, imho, hasn't stepped up to the plate in 'needed' discussion. This kind of retort reveals that, but it is a challenge, not a hazing.

Then start another thread.

I realize this is surely going to be frustrating, but when were you going to do that? You still haven't done well at the correction of error. Show it clearly, I'm a big boy. I will change if you sufficiently and adequately prove error. Have you done so? :nono: I haven't seen it. I've seen assertion. I 'think' we are reading the same bible but you are coming up with a conclusion that it isn't talking about the gospel. I believe, by bolded words that said "gospel" that you are surely wrong.

Given that your MO is to divert and distract and try to draw attention away from Calvinist error, I suspect you do the same to yourself so you don't actually have to address the problems that are brought up.

How about sticking to 1 Cor 2:14 and context, rather than running to "omni"s and open theism and systematic theology?

:doh: Didn't they make you write a short one in Bible college when you attended? How many years did you go?

There was a series of classes where we had to address particular questions (oddly enough taught by a Calvinist), but my answers were exegetical in nature, rather than forming assumptions and trying to fit scripture into it.

A concession on ANY one scripture about the sovereignty of God and God ensuring salvation is a wholesale concession. It is an all/none proposition. You've already conceded several verses saying this about God:

Oddly enough, I actually read what Scripture says. I've never claimed that God's drawing wasn't necessary before one is able to come. Indeed, I've been quite consistent on that.

However, Calvinists take this much further, making 6:44 into "God's drawing means one MUST come", and the text doesn't go that far.

Likewise with Phil 1:29. I've acknowledged what it says, but also pointed out the Calvinist error in its interpretation.

So, there isn't any "concession" at all. It's just exegesis.

:doh: It is awkward. I "can't" run if I haven't been granted the ability. With this concession, your refutation of Calvinism is null and void. I really hope you see that. You've just validated, not deposed, Calvinism :doh:

Nice try, but Calvinism states that one MUST believe. Granting the ability doesn't equate to one must actually do it.

If you can't make that distinction, then you're not going to get any of this.

:nono: If they are the Lord's that isn't going to happen.

Calvinist assumption, and a false one at that. We all know parents whose children have gone astray.

Even you, as an Open Theist, believe this. Hebrews 12: 5-8

That says nothing about this topic at all.

I realize calling you a Calvinist had to be answered 'not at all' but the point was, between the Proverb and other verses, I believe you are wrong to disagree.

Because you need these proof texts to prove your point. However, exegesis includes examining genre. And you've not done that.

Putting it in question format allowed you to save face or avoid eating crow lest you pitted yourself against scriptures.

Actually putting it in the form of a question was a test to see if you are arrogant enough to claim that Calvinism is without error.

And you've decided to dodge the question, which suggests that you DO think so, but you also know it's arrogant to make that claim.

See the following verses:




I'm claiming God's Word interprets all passages such as:

Scripture spam isn't exegesis. It's an attempt to try to make one's point look legitimate (when it isn't) through proof texting.

Logically, if you believe He is omniscient, there are other truths that follow from such. Which Omni's do you believe? If it isn't omniscience, you believe, then it certainly is neither, but such a concession makes this conversation pointless as you'd have to agree with Calvinism in exegesis at that point. The rest is just closing formalities in proving the point.

I believe God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

I have doubts as to whether Calvinists actually believe God is omnipotent.

:nono: This is a "what is Calvinism" thread. All I'm doing is explaining and defending a bit here.

Really? That's what calling in Open Theism was about?

I'm not even attacking Open Theism, just trying to use it as your frame of reference to answer questions.

And you haven't even asked a good one, much less answered it

I'm not really doing much more than that.
Let's see: Joh 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
Joh 14:7 If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.
And then:
John 14:29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe.
Realize 'saved' and 'apostles' must/necessarily be synonymous.

Synonymous? You mean that anyone who isn't an apostle isn't saved?

Or do you mean that apostles should at some point become saved?

(You might want to get a dictionary.)

There was no question they were to receive the Holy Spirit and become new creations. I'd say your distinction is superficial, but we are talking about Calvinism and I think this shows that it is substantiated.

If you cannot understand the distinction, then you're not going to really be able to participate in the conversation.

Let me ask you this:

Did they believe in Christ before or after they became disciples?

I suppose it depends on how hard you are kicking at the horns.

Ah, yes, using the bible to abuse others. One of the last vestiges against the lost and arrogant.

In trying to give a ready defense, I'm trying to say that even as an Open Theist, you carry many assumptions that a Calvinist does and am merely trying to show it is a reasonable theology.

Calvinism isn't 100% wrong, if that's what you're getting at. That's fine. But these discussions don't generally revolve around agreement.

This particular thread isn't even about the disagreement as much as simply trying to explain it, is it?

We appear to disagree on whether John 6 speaks of regeneration.

 

[Cross Reference]

John 6 is Jesus speaking to His disciples before anyone could even be regenerated. Ergo, though Jesus was speaking of the Spiritual, everyone was in the "natural" who were listening. How could they be in the Spirit when the Spirit was yet not given? So, since God is Spirit, how could anyone approach Him even by Jesus Christ?
Can you see now, the need for regeneration which could only be provided by God? By this is one brought into a personal relationship with God which opens the door to direct access to His Throne, . . . in the Name of Jesus.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I'll bet dollars to donuts he doesn't own a Thompson Chain Reference Bible from which he is to produce from its pages his own God gifted understanding.

Pay up then. :AMR:

Even better that the Thompson, use SS deluxe with the TSK: http://www.swordsearcher.com/video/kjv-tsk.html

Q.E.D.

Do you understand that you really have no idea what you are talking about most of the time?

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It amazes me that how any "Christian" justify Calvin's teachings are biblical to follow.

Jesus says we know them by their fruit.

Calvin was a violent teacher. Jesus' true followers have nothing to do with violent. I know most of you have no qualm about endorsing violent faith but this is part of being corrupt religious system.

BTW, Pharisees had the same kind of spirit too; violent.

Jesus called them "hypocrite".

[MENTION=13959]meshak[/MENTION]

Do you understand that your post is but an appeal using the genetic fallacy?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

It is the same as my posting something along the lines that anything someone of Japanese origin writes should not be taken seriously, for they have shown themselves to be a race of folks interested in only their own nationalistic hegemony. Now does such a statement add anything of substance to the actual discussion or is it just an appeal to history devoid of any real understanding of the matter at hand? Do you understand my point here, meshak?

In any case, thanks for stopping by and weighing in, such as it is. :AMR1:

AMR

 

[meshak]

[MENTION=13959]meshak[/MENTION]

Do you understand that your post is but an appeal using the genetic fallacy?

I know you don't think it is worth reading, but I am assessing from what is going on in the churches and Calvin followers are the main ones that not taking Jesus' warnings, admonishing and teachings seriously.