What are the basics of Reformed Theology

[Cross Reference]

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

Because it reveals God's intention for salvation and the reason for having created man that Jesus was attempting to convey to his unregenerate disciples, not limited to understanding John 6..

 

[themuzicman]

Because it reveals God's intention for salvation and the reason for having created man that Jesus was attempting to convey to his unregenerate disciples, not limited to understanding John 6..

Why not look at Genesis 1, you know... the creation story... to figure out why God created man. He actually states it there.

 

[Lon]

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.

You kind of dragged it over here, but I was talking about that thread.

 

[Lon]

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

. As far as my reading of Augustine? Not true :nono: The Early Church Fathers fueled much of Calvin's writings. These are direct quotes and surely support Reformed Theology. Direct quotes like this are hard to dodge.

I've already shown this to be false.

:think: The Westminster Confession is full of scripture, The conference had many scholars instead of just you and I. Not only that, you can't show it false that there is anything before scriptures. Either way I take your meaning, you are incorrect. Really quickly: Can I think of a scripture that says man is totally depraved and none doeth good? Yep Romans 3:12; 23 Can I think of a verse that says we are saved not based on merits we have done? Yep Titus 3:5
Can I think of a verse or passage that talks about limited atonement? Yes Matthew 7:14; 21 Is there a verse that clearly talks about God's irresistible Grace? Yes Romans 9:19 Do I have a verse that talks about Saints persevering? Yes 1 John 2:19 There are many verses, but the point is, when asked if a verse comes readily to mind concerning a truth of God, the echo of the words in the verses themselves should readily come to mind. I couldn't be a Calvinist if this weren't so. Have you shown scriptures to not support these? Not that I've seen.

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.

I noticed you talking this over with AMR. There are times when Christians can be carnal, when they are babes and immature. While a Christian can mature, we are yet God's workmanship, so Paul said he couldn't address the Corinthians as carnal. While Christians may be carnal, the unbeliever is only carnal. Though the term is the same, the situation is still different. The unbeliever doesn't have the resources to understand God. The carnal Christian, though immature, is not stuck there. It is about what he/she is developmentally ready for. A child cannot eat honey until he is 2. In this kind of analogy, the unregenerate will never reach that stage. So 1) the carnal Christian is different than the carnal unbeliever and 2) the scripture passages about these cannot simply be interchanged.

 

[themuzicman]

. As far as my reading of Augustine? Not true :nono: The Early Church Fathers fueled much of Calvin's writings. These are direct quotes and surely support Reformed Theology. Direct quotes like this are hard to dodge.

They are quotes taken out of context to try to make Calvinism look historical. If you read the context in which they exist, you end up laughing at Calvinists.

:think: The Westminster Confession is full of scripture, The conference had many scholars instead of just you and I.

But their purpose was to defend Calvinism, not to exegete Scripture.

Not only that, you can't show it false that there is anything before scriptures.

AMR confirmed that it was false when he contradicted Scripture.

Either way I take your meaning, you are incorrect. Really quickly: Can I think of a scripture that says man is totally depraved and none doeth good? Yep Romans 3:12; 23

Do you think their lips literally have the poison of asps, or that their throats are literally waiting for a dead body?

Is Paul using Romans 3:12 to speak of all people or just the Jews (see v1-9, 20)

You see, just because you can read an individual verse that sounds like what you want to say doesn't mean that it actually says what you think it says.

Can I think of a verse that says we are saved not based on merits we have done? Yep Titus 3:5

That's not a particularly Calvinist idea.

Can I think of a verse or passage that talks about limited atonement? Yes Matthew 7:14; 21

Again, you have't done your exegesis.

Is there a verse that clearly talks about God's irresistible Grace? Yes Romans 9:19

Again, you haven't done your exegesis.

Do I have a verse that talks about Saints persevering? Yes 1 John 2:19

Again, you haven't done your exegesis, nor have you considered the whole counsel of scripture.

There are many verses, but the point is, when asked if a verse comes readily to mind concerning a truth of God, the echo of the words in the verses themselves should readily come to mind. I couldn't be a Calvinist if this weren't so. Have you shown scriptures to not support these? Not that I've seen.

That's because the Calvinist tends to engage in the "Scripture Spam", where (as you have done here) he posts a whole bunch of verses that sound like what the Calvinist wants to say, but the Calvinist hasn't actually done the critical exegetical work. And to paraphrase Andre the Giant: "I don't think that verse means what you think it means."

I noticed you talking this over with AMR. There are times when Christians can be carnal, when they are babes and immature. While a Christian can mature, we are yet God's workmanship, so Paul said he couldn't address the Corinthians as carnal. While Christians may be carnal, the unbeliever is only carnal. Though the term is the same, the situation is still different. The unbeliever doesn't have the resources to understand God. The carnal Christian, though immature, is not stuck there. It is about what he/she is developmentally ready for. A child cannot eat honey until he is 2. In this kind of analogy, the unregenerate will never reach that stage. So 1) the carnal Christian is different than the carnal unbeliever and 2) the scripture passages about these cannot simply be interchanged.

And that's fine, but 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 ties directly back to 1 Corinthians 2:14-15, and we have to conclude that either the saved Corinthians weren't ready to receive the gospel (a contradiction), or that 1 Corinthians 2:14 isn't speaking of the gospel, in which case its use in the article cited is invalid.

 

[Cross Reference]

Why not look at Genesis 1, you know... the creation story... to figure out why God created man. He actually states it there.

That is where you have your problem that has led to your presuming on me. Read John 17:3 again, for the first time, to see your error. . . maybe.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

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.

Er, no.

http://www.puritanpublications.com/store/products/augustines-calvinism-the-doctrines-of-grace-in-augustines-writings-by-c-matthew-mcmahon/

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

But their purpose was to defend Calvinism, not to exegete Scripture.

No.

See:
http://www.amazon.com/Minutes-Papers-Westminster-Assembly-1643-1653/dp/019920683X

The scriptural proofs for the Confession have an interesting story behind it. During the Assembly´s proceedings, the Assembly settled upon various articles of the Confession through the process of discussion and debate. One of the rules in these proceedings was that speakers should make their statements good from Scripture. No doubt, many many quotations from the Scriptures were brought out in their meetings. Nevertheless, the Assembly voted to adopt the precise wording of the Confession without incorporating the numerous biblical references raised during the discussion of each article.

When the document was completed in December 1646, it was simply the text of the Confession alone that was presented to Parliament. The House of Commons was not satisfied and they gave orders to the Assembly requiring them to add scriptural proofs to it. This action was probably a stall tactic, because the House of Commons were Erastians and they opposed the Confession´s teaching on Church government and the relationship between the Church and the state. But while the motives of the Parliament were suspect, their action greatly enhanced the usefulness of the Confession. Robert Baillie, one of the six Scottish commissioners, wrote, "This innovation of our opposites (the Erastians) may well cost the Assembly some time" but it will be for the advantage and strength of the work."

In replying the Parliament, the Assembly agreed to add the scriptural texts, but also gave a brief explanation why they had not done so in the first place. Firstly, the 39 Articles of the Church of England (the revision of those articles had been the Assembly´s first task) did not have proof texts. Secondly, the confession was already a rather large document and to add the Scriptures would make it a very large volume. Thirdly and in their words, "There was seldom any debate about the truth or falsehood of any article or clause, but rather the manner of expression or the fitness to have it put into the Confession. Whereupon when there were any texts debated in the Assembly, they were never put to vote."

A careful study of the proof texts would no doubt help in understanding and discovering how the Divines developed a particular doctrine from various passages of Scripture and how one verse is linked to others under the same doctrine.

The entire Standards contain over 4,900 references, revealing the breadth of biblical knowledge which each member of the Assembly had. References are made to every book of the Bible except the two short books of Obadiah and Philemon. Interestingly, considering the uninformed's "Calvinism dilutes evangelism" canard, the most frequently cited passage is Matthew 28:18, the Great Commission.

The above is available at most university libraries for your personal research and correction of your assumptions.

For a shorter work by the same author who often comments about the texts used in the WCF from the perspective of the authors of the WCF, see:

http://www.amazon.com/Confessing-Faith-Readers-Westminster-Confession/dp/1848714041

People complaining about prooftexting are attributing their pitiful experience with opponents who drop verses without meaningful context or explanation (like John 3:16--"hey! it proves that people have free-will!") as if just referencing the text was the silver bullet. Real prooftexting is contextual, exegetical, and applicational.

Sorry, but the folks who think the Westminster Standards were "to defend Calvinism, not to exegete Scripture," obviously haven't studied either the Standards or the Scriptures adduced in them. That's just the truth. These are intellectually lazy people.

And I'm sorry they are both factually and feelingly in error, or that this assesment may seem insulting to them. It's not meant to be. But this is exactly why the church is today in such a state. Folks (who otherwise claim a fierce dedication to the Bible) are bringing a whole lot to the Bible, instead of truly coming to the Bible to be taught. Challenge most of them, and they will say they have no time, or they are satisfied that the understanding they have received (from men they trusted!) is the truth. They want to be "Bereans" but they are locked in to a grid of pre-understanding that is quite powerful. For that matter, the New Testament employs proof-texting effectively, especially the books initially intended for Jewish audience. One thinks of Matthew's "fulfilment" motif, or Hebrews "Holy Ghost" statements. It is a type of ad verecundiam (argument from authority), where not only the text is appealed to, but its plain meaning is undisputed within a tradition. It is a valid form of argument in proper intramural discussions.

One should consult Muller, wherein he explains what we call proof-texting in the historical context of 17th century Reformed Scholasticism. It is not what we are often led to believe. They held to a historical-grammatical and biblico-theological hermeneutic. Their confessional/theological formulations were based on exegesis and theological synthesis (agree or disagree as we may). In other words, dogmatics was based on exegesis and biblical theology. Seventeenth century Reformed dogmatic/symbolic theology received some bad press in the 19th and 20th century wherein Muller offers up historical correctives.

See also:
http://www.amazon.com/EVERYDAY-WESTMINSTER-ASSEMBLY-Edited-Duncan/dp/B000TO8O3M

AMR

 

[Lon]

They are quotes taken out of context to try to make Calvinism look historical. If you read the context in which they exist, you end up laughing at Calvinists.

Again, I have actually read Augustine, you?

But their purpose was to defend Calvinism, not to exegete Scripture.

We all need to watch out for this, Open Theism more than others so I'd think you'd empathize and realize here.

AMR confirmed that it was false when he contradicted Scripture.

I still don't think you are understanding the correction. I can let AMR speak for himself, but I will show what I mean below*

Do you think their lips literally have the poison of asps, or that their throats are literally waiting for a dead body?

Er, Paul doesn't mention that. You are scripture hopping. We can certainly discuss Paul using exegesis, but you are still left with only his point here. IOW, Paul wasn't scripture hopping, you are. It is not always bad, but you more than others should appreciate it should be seldom and not, more often than done.

Is Paul using Romans 3:12 to speak of all people or just the Jews (see v1-9, 20)

:doh: Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.

You see, just because you can read an individual verse that sounds like what you want to say doesn't mean that it actually says what you think it says.

I think you actually value exegesis, but your mavericking messes you over when applying it. You just did exactly what you accused another of two lines ago :doh:

That's not a particularly Calvinist idea.

Did you not realize I was briefly going through TULIP?

Again, you have't done your exegesis.

Let's see, you've been carelessly wrong so far...
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man[singular], to answer back to God? Will what is [singular]molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
:think:

Again, you haven't done your exegesis.

At this point 1) you aren't even heralding exegesis, just attacking Calvinism from odd agenda (Calvinism is not your enemy, I'm not trying to make you a Calvinist, couldn't if I tried) 2) merely asserting: Show, don't tell, especially when I think I've shown you wrong.

Again, you haven't done your exegesis, nor have you considered the whole counsel of scripture.

OSAS supports Perseverance. The difference is surely there, but this verse says whoever leaves Christianity was never a part in the first place, in clarity. This assures that saints persevere. I don't know what you got, but you are exegetically lazy at this point. After casting the gauntlet, you cannot afford to be. It is time for heavy lifting.

That's because the Calvinist tends to engage in the "Scripture Spam", where (as you have done here) he posts a whole bunch of verses that sound like what the Calvinist wants to say, but the Calvinist hasn't actually done the critical exegetical work. And to paraphrase Andre the Giant: "I don't think that verse means what you think it means."

I've shown otherwise. Again, show, don't tell (assertion verses substantiating claims, there is no need to even claim if you adequately show because such then is a drawn conclusion).

And that's fine, but 1 Corinthians 3:1-3 ties directly back to 1 Corinthians 2:14-15, and we have to conclude that either the saved Corinthians weren't ready to receive the gospel (a contradiction), or that 1 Corinthians 2:14 isn't speaking of the gospel, in which case its use in the article cited is invalid.

*Again, as I said, you 'can' see natural as always applying to a nonChristian, thus truths given, even to the carnal Corinthian, can also be a term applied to the unbeliever. In this case, a Calvinist is right to say that the natural man cannot accept the things of God. In this sense, the Corinthian may be in the same boat by context, but only in the sense of their New Creation development and not their total inability.

 

[Cross Reference]

. As far as my reading of Augustine? Not true :nono: The Early Church Fathers fueled much of Calvin's writings. These are direct quotes and surely support Reformed Theology. Direct quotes like this are hard to dodge.



:think: The Westminster Confession is full of scripture, The conference had many scholars instead of just you and I. Not only that, you can't show it false that there is anything before scriptures. Either way I take your meaning, you are incorrect. Really quickly: Can I think of a scripture that says man is totally depraved and none doeth good? Yep Romans 3:12; 23 Can I think of a verse that says we are saved not based on merits we have done? Yep Titus 3:5
Can I think of a verse or passage that talks about limited atonement? Yes Matthew 7:14; 21 Is there a verse that clearly talks about God's irresistible Grace? Yes Romans 9:19 Do I have a verse that talks about Saints persevering? Yes 1 John 2:19 There are many verses, but the point is, when asked if a verse comes readily to mind concerning a truth of God, the echo of the words in the verses themselves should readily come to mind. I couldn't be a Calvinist if this weren't so. Have you shown scriptures to not support these? Not that I've seen.




I noticed you talking this over with AMR. There are times when Christians can be carnal, when they are babes and immature. While a Christian can mature, we are yet God's workmanship, so Paul said he couldn't address the Corinthians as carnal. While Christians may be carnal, the unbeliever is only carnal. Though the term is the same, the situation is still different. The unbeliever doesn't have the resources to understand God. The carnal Christian, though immature, is not stuck there. It is about what he/she is developmentally ready for. A child cannot eat honey until he is 2. In this kind of analogy, the unregenerate will never reach that stage. So 1) the carnal Christian is different than the carnal unbeliever and 2) the scripture passages about these cannot simply be interchanged.

Carnality has everything to do with not abiding. Can you explain why a Christian would cease abiding in Christ? Kindly give the reasons why there are more carnal Christians than those who continually seek after Christ to be conformed to His image? Please explain why there are more presumptuous Christians in their dirty white robes presuming on Christ than those sold out to Him? Perhaps a little review of what the "Rature"of the saints is all about?:

"And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.". . . . . "And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb."Rev (KJV) Rev. 6:10-11;7:13-14 (KJV)

 

[themuzicman]

Again, I have actually read Augustine, you?

Yes. I've also read the attempts by Calvinists to read Calvinism into Augustine.

I still don't think you are understanding the correction. I can let AMR speak for himself, but I will show what I mean below*

Able != unable.

Er, Paul doesn't mention that.

Romans 3: 10 as it is written:

“None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
13 “Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive.”
“The venom of asps is under their lips.”
14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.”
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known.”
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Um.. it's right there in the verses you quoted.

You are scripture hopping.

An entire verse!

:doh: Rom 3:9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.
I think you actually value exegesis, but your mavericking messes you over when applying it. You just did exactly what you accused another of two lines ago :doh:

I'm not the one who cannot be bothered to read my own proof texts' context.

Did you not realize I was briefly going through TULIP?

Yes. But just posting a bunch of proof texts doesn't make exegesis.

Let's see, you've been carelessly wrong so far...

You mean quoting from your own scripture cite? LOL

Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
Rom 9:19 You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Rom 9:20 But who are you, O man[singular], to answer back to God? Will what is [singular]molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?"
:think:

Notice that you've done zero exegesis here, but rather just quoted a verse, hoping people will jump to your conclusion.

However, Romans 9:19-20 is speaking of the hypothetical Jew who has been hardened, like Pharaoh. We can see this from the chapter, where Paul is speaking of God's word with respect to the Jews.

So, your attempt to prove Calvinism from this verse fails exegesis.

At this point 1) you aren't even heralding exegesis, just attacking Calvinism from odd agenda (Calvinism is not your enemy, I'm not trying to make you a Calvinist, couldn't if I tried) 2) merely asserting: Show, don't tell, especially when I think I've shown you wrong.

Seeing as you've done none, it appears you are calling the pot black.

OSAS supports Perseverance. The difference is surely there, but this verse says whoever leaves Christianity was never a part in the first place, in clarity. This assures that saints persevere. I don't know what you got, but you are exegetically lazy at this point. After casting the gauntlet, you cannot afford to be. It is time for heavy lifting.

It's actually entertaining watching you accuse me of something, when you haven't even risen to that level, yet.

I've shown otherwise. Again, show, don't tell (assertion verses substantiating claims, there is no need to even claim if you adequately show because such then is a drawn conclusion).

No, you've quoted a verse without exegesis, and expected us to follow your assumptions.

*Again, as I said, you 'can' see natural as always applying to a nonChristian, thus truths given, even to the carnal Corinthian, can also be a term applied to the unbeliever. In this case, a Calvinist is right to say that the natural man cannot accept the things of God. In this sense, the Corinthian may be in the same boat by context, but only in the sense of their New Creation development and not their total inability.

The problem isn't whether the natural man can or cannot accept the things of God, but rather what the "things of the Spirit of God" include.

You don't even understand my argument. How could you possibly address it?

 

[themuzicman]

And I see AMR is unwilling to address his direct contradiction of Scripture.

 

[Epoisses]

AMR is a proof-speck spam bot. Proof-specking is an abomination. I could proof-speck Jesus into adultery if I wanted to.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst... Jesus said Go, and do thou likewise. John 8:3; Luke 10:37

 

[patrick jane]

AMR is a proof-speck spam bot. Proof-specking is an abomination. I could proof-speck Jesus into adultery if I wanted to.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst... Jesus said Go, and do thou likewise. John 8:3; Luke 10:37

View attachment 23866

 

[Epoisses]

View attachment 23866

I know I tend to go overboard but I can't help it.

 

[Lon]

Um.. it's right there in the verses you quoted.
An entire verse!

I'm not the one who cannot be bothered to read my own proof texts' context.

You mean quoting from your own scripture cite? LOL

I was just saying I don't think Paul was mentioning asps other than quoting.
I will take the correction, he does quote it. He doesn't go into detail about alliterations. Let me change the previous from 'mention' to 'expiated' for the correction and move on. "Alliteration" is the answer to what is clearly so, not was is isn't. Much ado about little, I think.

Yes. But just posting a bunch of proof texts doesn't make exegesis.

Agreed. It isn't exegesis. I think I even appreciate where you'd place it. I may even be in your corner as far as giving them in forum threads. They are support and further reading. Some verses, I'd think you'd agree, can stand alone, but you are correct, we have to look up context for each.

Notice that you've done zero exegesis here, but rather just quoted a verse, hoping people will jump to your conclusion.

Incorrect. Little? Sure.

However, Romans 9:19-20 is speaking of the hypothetical Jew who has been hardened, like Pharaoh. We can see this from the chapter, where Paul is speaking of God's word with respect to the Jews.

:nono: Much of it is direct quote from what God said to Israel, such that I don't believe 'hypothetical' exegetically sound. The quotes are actuals. We are discussing our exegesis, whether we are showing it or not. I have no doubt you've exegeted this passage.

So, your attempt to prove Calvinism from this verse fails exegesis.

We either discuss or engage adversarial. I think the later merely posturing. I generally find you above such things as we've discussed things in the past. If it comes to assertions, both of us are just posturing. While that may serve a purpose, it is not preferred by me.
What you and I do best, is discuss exegetical scriptures. Pick one.

Seeing as you've done none, it appears you are calling the pot black.

Sure. Agree. It isn't a question of whether you are I are capable of it, but rather if we actually do it or not. I always think the bumping heads and assertions is just preliminary where you and I are concerned. You do have exegetical prowess, though we disagree upon conclusions.

It's actually entertaining watching you accuse me of something, when you haven't even risen to that level, yet.

Why? Neither of us have at this point. You have to realize you are the one posturing at this point and, I suppose asking for it. That's fine, one verse at a time. I realize too, you were talking specifically about one verse with AMR. If that's it, we could go back to exactly that verse and discuss exegesis. It would serve the thread.

No, you've quoted a verse without exegesis, and expected us to follow your assumptions.

Exegesis, in its full, doesn't happen much on TOL. Again, I think when you and I actually begin doing it, it does serve TOL. We've had a lot of those in Open Theism 1,2,3. I realize the focus is turned here, and we are talking about my belief. Ask a question. What verse do I need to exegete for you?

The problem isn't whether the natural man can or cannot accept the things of God, but rather what the "things of the Spirit of God" include.

You don't even understand my argument. How could you possibly address it?

I realize that, at this point. Again, I think a lot of our conversations start this way.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

And I see AMR is unwilling to address his direct contradiction of Scripture.

At one point a few years ago you were going to create an unsettled theist (open theism) systematic theology book or something. I have been awaiting its arrival and reception. How goes the effort?

I ask because I am convinced that the serious student of systematics would soon discover, if they are honest with themselves, that what they are trying to systematize from the full counsel of Scripture is impossible. This is why all of the current books touting unsettled theism are but a hodgepodge of scriptural cherry-picking about a few narrow points such that they can wave off (ignore) the full teachings of Scripture concerning theology proper. These writings make for nice polemics, but the more studied and discerning see them for what they are—a humanistic view of God derived from Greek philosophical concepts (<--see spoiler and link following therein). No the resulting cognitive dissonance of such a fellow trying to systematize unsettled theism in the crafting of an open theism systematic quickly discovers that he cannot even live by the pastoral implications of such a position. In fact, ignoring such a grand goal, even the everyday open theist proponent needs only careful and honest examination of their prayer life to see it exposes their impossibility to walk the openist's talk, for they are continually borrowing the theological capital of the Reformed—lex orandi, lex credenda—in their most private times with the Lord.

This failure to have internalized a full systematic theology lies at the root of the disconnect between the rabid anti-Calvinist—the open theist—in all theological discussions. The open view is but a recent weak attempt to overcome the failure of Arminianism to silence the orthodoxy of the Reformation's call to return to the fundamentals corrupted by the church at the time, hoping to acquit God of some humanistic notions of guilt that man would like to lay at His feet. Fortunately, the coherence of Reformed theology has withstood the test of time from many far more accomplished than you or I. This leaves the hapless unsettled theist with a few badly chosen locus classicus passages to appeal to that quickly crumble upon closer scrutiny when the full weight of all of Scripture is brought to bear against the weaker appeals made by the openist.

Thus, when the Reformed observe, even granting an openist's position on a particular localized pericope, their subsequent and proper reductio ad absurdum argument leveraging all of Scripture necessitates the cornered unsettled theist to resort baiting tactics and otherwise toadying to the crowd, hoping their intellectual bankruptcy will go unnoticed.

Until the open theist can bring together a full systematic view of what they hold dear that can withstand onslaught, they will remain left with nothing but such as these sort of pitiful attempts at public shaming. So thank you for the bait, but I won't bite. You have been answered. You just do not like the answer. Rather, at this juncture I prefer to leverage you as a protagonist's foil calling attention to the muzegesis label that you and all unsettled theists wear so well.

AMR

 

[themuzicman]

At one point a few years ago you were going to create an unsettled theist (open theism) systematic theology book or something. I have been awaiting its arrival and reception. How goes the effort?

I ask because I am convinced that the serious student of systematics would soon discover, if they are honest with themselves, that what they are trying to systematize from the full counsel of Scripture is impossible. This is why all of the current books touting unsettled theism are but a hodgepodge of scriptural cherry-picking about a few narrow points such that they can wave off (ignore) the full teachings of Scripture concerning theology proper. These writings make for nice polemics, but the more studied and discerning see them for what they are—a humanistic view of God derived from Greek philosophical concepts (<--see spoiler and link following therein). No the resulting cognitive dissonance of such a fellow trying to systematize unsettled theism in the crafting of an open theism systematic quickly discovers that he cannot even live by such a position. In fact, ignoring such a grand goal, even the everyday open theist proponent needs only careful and honest examination of their prayer life to see it exposes their impossibility to walk the openist's talk, for they are continually borrowing the theological capital of the Reformed—lex orandi, lex credenda—in their most private times with the Lord.

This failure to have internalized a full systematic theology lies at the root of the disconnect between the rabid anti-Calvinist—the open theist—in all theological discussions. The open view is but a recent weak attempt to overcome the failure of Arminianism to silence the orthodoxy of the Reformation's call to return to the fundamentals corrupted by the church at the time, hoping to acquit God of some humanistic notions of guilt that man would like to lay at His feet. Fortunately, the coherence of Reformed theology has withstood the test of time from many far more accomplished than you or I. This leaves the hapless unsettled theist with a few badly chosen locus classicus passages to appeal to that quickly crumble upon closer scrutiny when the full weight of all of Scripture is brought to bear against the weaker appeals made by the openist.

Thus, when the Reformed observe, even granting an openist's position on a particular localized pericope, their subsequent and proper reductio ad absurdum argument leveraging all of Scripture necessitates the cornered unsettled theist to resort baiting tactics and otherwise toadying to the crowd, hoping their intellectual bankruptcy will go unnoticed.

Until the open theist can bring together a full systematic view of what they hold dear that can withstand onslaught, they will remain left with nothing but such as these sort of pitiful attempts at public shaming. So thank you for the bait, but I won't bite. You have been answered. You just do not like the answer. Rather, at this juncture I prefer to leverage you as a protagonist's foil calling attention to the muzegesis label that you and all unsettled theists wear so well.

AMR

Translation: AMR cannot explain his contradiction to scripture, as it lampoons his interpretation of the passage, so he decides an ad hominem attack is the better route.

And, as we all know, the ad hominem is the most begrudging (and satisfying) admission of defeat.

 

[fishrovmen]

Jesus' true followers have nothing to do with violent.

Meshak,
Were Peter, James and John "true followers" of Jesus? Luke 9:54, Luke 22:49,50

 

[Lon]

Translation: AMR cannot explain his contradiction to scripture, as it lampoons his interpretation of the passage, so he decides an ad hominem attack is the better route.

And, as we all know, the ad hominem is the most begrudging (and satisfying) admission of defeat.

:nono: patently false from page 7:

You are going to continue to assert this despite the full counsel of Scripture that I have provided. This does not change the plain reading of the passage in its proper context.

Once you come to grips with the above, the remainder of your misunderstandings behind your objections evaporate.

AMR

Both this post and the preceding substantially explained his exegesis in detail. "Nuh Uh" was not even close for a substantial, let alone exegetical rebuttal (though you did some commentary here with a few OV assumptions driving those comments -

And I see AMR is unwilling to address his direct contradiction of Scripture.

-it is clear from the text in my estimation, that they surely are unregenerate Paul is talking about). Such is simply assertion if questions aren't asked about one or another's understandings from the text. There are number of indicators that these were unregenerate spoken of in this context of 1 Corinthians 2:14