What are the basics of Reformed Theology

[Lon]

I like the way Reformed folk always accuse posters that disagree with them, as being ignorant of the fundamentals of Calvinism. As if, the Calvinists are intellectually superior to whoever they're conversing with. Well, after all, they are the "Elect."

Not true. It is more a matter of what we scripturally understand and conversely scripturally understand. For instance, there are two understandings among Arminians that Atonement is universally applied OR is universally available. Such drives theology and if an Arminian tells you or I or even another Arminian 'you don't understand' it is because there are assumptions drawn from an applied atonement like universal salvation if it is applied. But, the Arminian doesn't have to be a Universalist, yet he might be. If anyone arguing with him doesn't understand, they will quickly assume he is a Universalist (no need for repentance all are saved).

Further, some Calvinists indeed do believe a universal atonement logically leads inevitably to universal atonement. So, an Arminian must tell that Calvinist he doesn't understand (because he is not a universalist and is very much against that heresy).

 

[Lon]

LOL... Nice attempt at distraction. It's worthy of Lon.

Thanks for the honorable, er dishonorable? mention. I can do exegesis, just fine. I don't 'think' like an Open Theist, so we can chalk a bit of back and forth to that, but again two points 1) this thread is asking about the basics of Reformed Theology (see, I'm not distracted).
2) I didn't want to run interference, but I'll be glad to pick up the ball in a day or two (from the top of page 6). I kind of feel like second-string when it comes to this specific thread. It is better to let those who have been Reformed longer than me, answer first. As an Open Theist, you are lucky, it is only a few years old, there is nobody better suited to discuss it than you (or is that not a good thing?). -Lon

 

[themuzicman]

Well, I think I could do this incredibly longer and better with Open Theism but this thread isn't about that. You hold to your system, flaws and all because it works for you, but I find it less biblically viable and further away from the main of Christianity.

But, since this is about Reformed theology, knock yourself out. -Lon

Hey, you're the one who brought up Open Theism, not me.

And you're deluding yourself if you think Calvinism is historical.

 

[themuzicman]

Thanks for the honorable, er dishonorable? mention. I can do exegesis, just fine. I don't 'think' like an Open Theist, so we can chalk a bit of back and forth to that, but again two points 1) this thread is asking about the basics of Reformed Theology (see, I'm not distracted).
2) I didn't want to run interference, but I'll be glad to pick up the ball in a day or two (from the top of page 6). I kind of feel like second-string when it comes to this specific thread. It is better to let those who have been Reformed longer than me, answer first. As an Open Theist, you are lucky, it is only a few years old, there is nobody better suited to discuss it than you (or is that not a good thing?). -Lon

Actually, the ideas of open theism go further back than even Calvinism. There are references to the ideas of open theism as far back as around 400AD. Calvinism only goes back to 1550.

 

[themuzicman]

By whose standards yours, mine or God's? If God's then this, which is a process and not an event. Per John 6:40 KJV: "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." . . . John 17:3 (KJV)

Think "adoption" and the means by which it can only happen. Enduring for it is a discipline . . . as in discipleship. For one in Christ is given this mission and note, it is not for salvation but something in the afterwards of it: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," Matthew 28:19 (NASB)

Since mine comes directly from John 6, and uses the words of John 6, I'd say that attempting to import John 17 into John 6 to change its meaning in context is invalid.

 

[Cross Reference]

Since mine comes directly from John 6, and uses the words of John 6, I'd say that attempting to import John 17 into John 6 to change its meaning in context is invalid.

I only gave you God's perspective. Given your understanding John 6, how does it change ITS meaning?

 

[themuzicman]

I only gave you God's perspective. Given your understanding John 6, how does it change ITS meaning?

Oh, I see. You're claiming to be speaking directly from God?

Is it an audible voice? On what basis do you claim this authority?

 

[Cross Reference]

Oh, I see. You're claiming to be speaking directly from God?

Is it an audible voice? On what basis do you claim this authority?

I quoted Jesus. Wanna ask Him that question?

 

[Samie]

There is no dilemma in Calvinism, only people who simply fail to understand predestination theology.

The 'dilemma' proposed here is utterly proof of that- you can't even resolve such to some people because it's obvious that if they can't understand the rudiments of predestination, then they aren't going to understand the complexities therein either

Yes, the Calvinists' Dilemma exists. And predestination is not an issue in that thread. Pretending the dilemma doesn't exist won't resolve it. You could try addressing it, if you think you are able to.

 

[themuzicman]

I quoted Jesus. Wanna ask Him that question?

I quoted Jesus from the context of John 6. You're ripping Jesus' words from John 17 and trying to change the meaning of Jesus' words in John 6.

So, yeah, let's ask that question.

 

[Cross Reference]

I quoted Jesus from the context of John 6. You're ripping Jesus' words from John 17 and trying to change the meaning of Jesus' words in John 6.

So, yeah, let's ask that question.

Please show me where I changed ANYTHING by quoting John 17? I don't see It.

 

[Crucible]

Yes, the Calvinists' Dilemma exists. And predestination is not an issue in that thread. Pretending the dilemma doesn't exist won't resolve it. You could try addressing it, if you think you are able to.

A genuine perception of predestination itself is all you need- but will never have because you are against it. Arguing with those such as yourself is pointless; people driven by prejudice are by definition unreasonable. All you anti-Calvinists on here are exactly the same.

One cannot address a so called 'dilemma' that, in and of itself, doesn't even propose reasonably a DILEMMA.

 

[Lon]

Actually, the ideas of open theism go further back than even Calvinism. There are references to the ideas of open theism as far back as around 400AD. Calvinism only goes back to 1550.

:nono: The ideas of Calvinism come from Augustine and scripture. You can't get any further back than scripture. I realize you'd say the same thing about Open Theism, but I'm not debating that. The only reason, again, I bring up Open Theism is to help explain Calvinism to you from 'your' reference point. It was a favor. I'm not as easily off topic as you think, however, I am a global thinker and more often than not, that accusation sticks, just not this particular time.

 

[Samie]

A genuine perception of predestination itself is all you need- but will never have because you are against it. Arguing with those such as yourself is pointless; people driven by prejudice are by definition unreasonable. All you anti-Calvinists on here are exactly the same.

One cannot address a so called 'dilemma' that, in and of itself, doesn't even propose reasonably a DILEMMA.

You are right in calling the Calvinists' Dilemma unreasonable dilemma because you know you have nothing to reason against it.

Did you know I am not against predestination? I believe all in Adam's race were predestined by God for adoption as children by Jesus Christ to Himself. But only overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life.

Someone tried to reason for the Calvinists, but failed. Seems there's no end to the Calvinists' Dilemma. 11 days and counting.

 

[Lon]

You are right in calling the Calvinists' Dilemma unreasonable dilemma because you know you have nothing to reason against it.

Did you know I am not against predestination? I believe all in Adam's race were predestined by God for adoption as children by Jesus Christ to Himself. But only overcomers will not be blotted out from the book of life.

Someone tried to reason for the Calvinists, but failed. Seems there's no end to the Calvinists' Dilemma. 11 days and counting.

:nono: "ignorant-bliss" isn't really a happy state in which to prognosticate or pontificate from. lain:

 

[Samie]

:nono: "ignorant-bliss" isn't really a happy state in which to prognosticate or pontificate from. lain:

I understand you, brother. What more can you say after you tried and failed to resolve the Calvinists' Dilemma?

 

[Lon]

I understand you, brother. What more can you say after you tried and failed to resolve the Calvinists' Dilemma?

Well, if you are happy, I guess I can be done then. Can I ask a question? Who is this thread for? Does it benefit me? Another Calvinist? You? As a warning to other wary would-be-Calvinists? I'm just asking so I can determine if you need me here any longer for anything.

 

[Samie]

Well, if you are happy, I guess I can be done then. Can I ask a question? Who is this thread for? Does it benefit me? Another Calvinist? You? As a warning to other wary would-be-Calvinists? I'm just asking so I can determine if you need me here any longer for anything.

I believe we need each other, being our brother's keeper.

But as to who is this thread for and whether you are needed in this thread or not is not for me to determine because I did not start this thread. The Calvinists' Dilemma thread is the one I started, not this thread.

 

[themuzicman]

Please show me where I changed ANYTHING by quoting John 17? I don't see It.

If you didn't change anything, then there's no need to cite it at all, and we can just look at John 6.

 

[themuzicman]

:nono: The ideas of Calvinism come from Augustine and scripture.

Calvin borrowed a few ideas about Total depravity from Augustine. The ideas of limited atonement, unconditional election and irresistible grace are novel to Christianity. Augustine never espoused them. Further, Augustine did not embraced salvation by faith alone or by grace alone.

You can't get any further back than scripture.

I've already shown this to be false.

I realize you'd say the same thing about Open Theism, but I'm not debating that. The only reason, again, I bring up Open Theism is to help explain Calvinism to you from 'your' reference point. It was a favor. I'm not as easily off topic as you think, however, I am a global thinker and more often than not, that accusation sticks, just not this particular time.

I never engaged in anything related to Open Theism when addressing 1 Cor 2:14. Open Theism doesn't have anything to say about that passage.