Reformed theologians, please help me

[chessman]

So if God makes some for destruction then that also implies that God intended for all man to sin but would save a select few. Since God intended for man to sin then "who can resist His will?" (Romans 9:19, I think). Is it really Just for God to eternally punish the ones that He forced to sin? Notice I keep using words that imply God's complete responsibility (not only for our sinning, but everything) because I think it's undeniable given all the verses Calvinists use to back up their theology.

I followed your logic (and agree that's what RT concludes) all the way to the point where;

1. you say "predistined us to fall into destruction". First, the elect are not in destruction. We are in eternal life thru Christ. Second, predstined does not equal "forced" as in a puppet on a string. The term literally/simply means what it says. pre-destined. God's the one who knew our destination, prior to the creation, not us. God has never "forced" anyone into Hell or Heaven for that matter.
2. you say "He forced [all] to sin". Where do you get that from Scripture? He made freewill creatures, not puppets. Some are elect and some are not. Is that tough to handle and justify in our minds, yes, maybe. But God said it, not me.
The next deviation you are making from what RT teaches is to imply Calvinism equals Reformed Theology. These are not the same thing. John Calvin was a man, not a Theology (Study of God).
Which is why I tried to be very precise and logical in my post #28.

 

[chessman]

I would agree with you, but the bible doesn't only tell us He knew about our sins ahead of time. We can also gather this based on what we know from the bible: ...

Can you please (I know it takes a lot of time/effort) list or reference the Scriptures that led you to these conclusions you’ve listed and your original statement that "the bible does teach a contradictory doctrine"? I'm sure there are contradictions between Calvinism and Arminianism. After all they were both fallible humans. But I’m unaware of any bible contradictions internally. I took your original post/confusion as a honest Christian’s question, struggle and searching for truth. Which is why I’ve been spending time with the issue. I care nothing about arguing back/forth on this issue for the sack of arguing or taking “sides”.

 

[Butch5]

Unfortunately, the way I stated Romans 9 is not out of context. Now, it can be debated as to whether Romans 9 is in reference to either 1) God simply having the right to make some for destruction and some for mercy or 2) God actually making some for destruction and some for mercy. However, I think the obvious conclusion when using context is that Paul is answering the direct question of (paraphrasing) "How does God find injustice in us since He is the one that predestinated us to fall into destruction in the first place?". Which, in effect, implies that God does indeed make some for destruction and some for mercy (premise 2 from this paragraph). So if God makes some for destruction then that also implies that God intended for all man to sin but would save a select few. Since God intended for man to sin then "who can resist His will?" (Romans 9:19, I think). Is it really Just for God to eternally punish the ones that He forced to sin? Notice I keep using words that imply God's complete responsibility (not only for our sinning, but everything) because I think it's undeniable given all the verses Calvinists use to back up their theology.

Hi beartheweak,

the reason I suggested context is because the Calvinist interpretation of Romans 9 is not what Paul is discussing. His argument is based in a discussion with the Jewish believers. If you read the book of Romans you'll notice in chapter 2 verse 17 Paul turns his attention to the Jewish believers at Rome when he says, 'behold thou art called a Jew' and he begins a discourse with the Jewish believers which go on until chapter 11 verse 13 where he says, 'for I say to you Gentiles'. His argument in Romans 9 is in regard to whom God will use to fulfill the promises He made to Abraham. He says they are not all Israel which are of Israel, thus his argument is discussing the Jews, the offspring of Israel (Jacob). His argument can be seen here.

7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (Rom 9:7-8 KJV)

Paul is arguing that not "all" of the physical seed of Abraham are the children of the promises made to Abraham. The Jews believed that being the Physical seed of Abraham entitled them to the eternal land promise that was given to Abraham. Paul says, no, it's not the physical seed that are the children of God but rather the children of the promise. There's a lot more background detail than can be easily posted in this post. I'm including some commentary I wrote while responding to questions on this and other forums about Romans 9. These have not yet been proofed so the punctuation may not be correct. They haven't been organized yet either so you may see repeat information. However, I think if you read this you will see what I am talking about regarding Paul's argument.

Here are Romans A and Romans B , if you have questions please feel free to ask.

 

[Butch5]

Yes, I am seeing that. What alternative theology do you propose? This is what I am trying to figure out.

Both of the ism are incorrect. Let me suggest that in order to find the truth you must be able trace it all the away back to the apostles, would you agree? I a doctrine cannot be traced all the way to the apostles we can conclude it was added later, would you agree? Calvinism says that God choose who would be saved before the foundation of the world. I would suggest that that cannot be support by Scripture properly exegeted. Arminianism says God looked down through the corridors of time to see who would believe and chose them, I would suggest that too cannot be supported by properly exegeted Scripture. I believe both of these ideas come from a misunderstanding of the word "proginosko" foreknow. If neither of these ideas can be supported by Scripture then we must find one that can.

 

[beartheweak]

Both of the ism are incorrect. Let me suggest that in order to find the truth you must be able trace it all the away back to the apostles, would you agree? I a doctrine cannot be traced all the way to the apostles we can conclude it was added later, would you agree? Calvinism says that God choose who would be saved before the foundation of the world. I would suggest that that cannot be support by Scripture properly exegeted. Arminianism says God looked down through the corridors of time to see who would believe and chose them, I would suggest that too cannot be supported by properly exegeted Scripture. I believe both of these ideas come from a misunderstanding of the word "proginosko" foreknow. If neither of these ideas can be supported by Scripture then we must find one that can.

I agree to an extent. What do you propose can be supported with scripture?

 

[Butch5]

I agree to an extent. What do you propose can be supported with scripture?

Hi beartheweak,

I believe it is clearly stated in Scripture. I think it's easy to see when we are not trying to fit the Scriptures to preconceived idea. I know because I was at one time Reformed another Arminian. I too struggled to reconcile the Scriptures as you are doing. My search lead me back to the beginning of the Christian faith and what was first taught in the faith. I found out that it is very different than what is taught today. However, what was taught in the beginning easily reconciles with the Scriptures. I would suggest that Jesus' words give us the answer to the question,

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. (Joh 6:40 KJV)

Jesus spoke these words to the Jews, however, He told the disciples to go and make disciple of all nations, teaching them all I have commanded you. This is a simple statement, yet because many don't understand other passages they draw interpretations that conflict with this passage and as such create doctrines that are not Biblical.

 

[beartheweak]

Hi beartheweak,

I believe it is clearly stated in Scripture. I think it's easy to see when we are not trying to fit the Scriptures to preconceived idea. I know because I was at one time Reformed another Arminian. I too struggled to reconcile the Scriptures as you are doing. My search lead me back to the beginning of the Christian faith and what was first taught in the faith. I found out that it is very different than what is taught today. However, what was taught in the beginning easily reconciles with the Scriptures. I would suggest that Jesus' words give us the answer to the question,

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. (Joh 6:40 KJV)

Jesus spoke these words to the Jews, however, He told the disciples to go and make disciple of all nations, teaching them all I have commanded you. This is a simple statement, yet because many don't understand other passages they draw interpretations that conflict with this passage and as such create doctrines that are not Biblical.

I like how this sounds, but I don't understand it. It doesn't really fix any contradictions. It's almost as if you're saying not to figure out how the whole of scripture fits together. Is that what you mean?

 

[Butch5]

I like how this sounds, but I don't understand it. It doesn't really fix any contradictions. It's almost as if you're saying not to figure out how the whole of scripture fits together. Is that what you mean?

Not at all, what I'm saying is to lay everything you believe on the table whatever can be supported by Scripture keep and throw away the rest. However, don't base your decisions on commentaries and the like, base them on the Scriptures. As I said, I went back to what was taught in the beginning and began there. I looked at what they believed and then looked to see if it fit with the Scriptures, if it did I kept it, if it didn't, I rejected it. However, I fond that the vast majority did harmonize nicely with the Scriptures. The hard part is to forget the wrong things you've already learned and accept as Biblical.

 

[Messenger]

Isaiah 48:17 (YLT) Thus said Jehovah, thy redeemer, The Holy One of Israel, `I `am' Jehovah thy God, teaching thee to profit, Causing thee to tread in the way thou goest. (Ezekiel 36:27; Colossians 2:6-7; 2 Timothy 3:14: Psalm 37:23: Jeremiah 10:23)

Luke 24:45 Then opened He their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures (Proverbs 20:12; 2Timothy 2:7)

God teaches His own. (Psalm 25:14, 51:6; John 15:15; Romans 16:25-26; Colossians 3:3)

John 6:44-45 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. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard (John 10:27; Romans 11:5), and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

God does all the work in the heart of those He planned to save.
(Ephesians 4:21; Psalm 10:17; Ezekiel 36:26)

All praise and glory to our God and Saviour Jesus Christ!

 

[ezra]

I think that's another subject altogether. It's clear that in the church, people can't agree on what salvation is (or at least the means of salvation). I think it's at the core of determining which doctrine is true in order to figure out if you're saved or not. I agree with people when they say it's just a secondary thing (to determine God's ultimate plan for salvation), but if it's in the bible, I want to learn about it. I don't like sweeping unresolved issues under the rug.

well what exactly do you believe about salvation? here is the deal your either saved or your not saved.... no in between... i don,t care if one believes in divine election or free will -who so ever shall... when a person calls upon Jesus to be saved. its from the heart.. if you have to depend on Calvinist views AND Armenian views .. your in sad shape until a few years ago i had never even looked at either one... after studying both sides it simply made my head spin.. i have always believed in who so ever shall call up on the name of the Lord shall be saved. the night i got saved i call upon GOD to save me. i had no idea at the time about Calvinist views AND Armenian views . it is good for personal study but it will not save you.

 

[beartheweak]

well what exactly do you believe about salvation? here is the deal your either saved or your not saved.... no in between... i don,t care if one believes in divine election or free will -who so ever shall... when a person calls upon Jesus to be saved. its from the heart.. if you have to depend on Calvinist views AND Armenian views .. your in sad shape until a few years ago i had never even looked at either one... after studying both sides it simply made my head spin.. i have always believed in who so ever shall call up on the name of the Lord shall be saved. the night i got saved i call upon GOD to save me. i had no idea at the time about Calvinist views AND Armenian views . it is good for personal study but it will not save you.

If you would have asked me a few months ago, I would have told you what I believed about salvation. Hah. Nowadays, I just find scripture to be so confusing. Saying one thing here, saying a contrary thing there. I don't think this thread has helped me sort out my confusion very much. I still happen to see the bible teach Calvinism AND Arminianinsm AND Universalism (yeah, yeah, against ToS... nonetheless it's taught just as much as eternal torment... and taught just as much as annihilation so I won't slow to say what I see in the bible). I think I'm going to pull out of this thread as it raised more questions than answers. Thanks though for all of your attempts, perhaps it has helped you somehow grow closer to God in exploring your interpretations of the bible- I can only hope I didn't waste your time.

 

[Butch5]

If you would have asked me a few months ago, I would have told you what I believed about salvation. Hah. Nowadays, I just find scripture to be so confusing. Saying one thing here, saying a contrary thing there. I don't think this thread has helped me sort out my confusion very much. I still happen to see the bible teach Calvinism AND Arminianinsm AND Universalism (yeah, yeah, against ToS... nonetheless it's taught just as much as eternal torment... and taught just as much as annihilation so I won't slow to say what I see in the bible). I think I'm going to pull out of this thread as it raised more questions than answers. Thanks though for all of your attempts, perhaps it has helped you somehow grow closer to God in exploring your interpretations of the bible- I can only hope I didn't waste your time.

Hi beartheweak,

Much of that confusion comes from proof texting passages out of context. We need to read the Scriptures like any other book. if we follow the authors argument though the book it is much less confusing. It is this taking passages out of context to prove a point that causes so much confusion. You need to hang in there.

 

[Deborah13]

Hi beartheweak,

Here are Romans A and Romans B , if you have questions please feel free to ask.

Butch, I cannot load Roman A. No matter which one A or B I try, B loads? Tried using the link itself but still didn't work.
When you get a chance will you take a look and post to me. I'd really like to look at it. Thanks Deb

 

[Butch5]

Hi Deborah13,

Sorry, I had the same file label as both a and b. I have fixed it. Here is a Romans 9A. As I said they are not organized or proofed so there may be redundant statements and punctuation mistakes.

 

[Danus]

***** Direction and content notice *****

This should be a better thread than it's shaping up to be. I'm asking that it get better. Since this thread is in the Apologetics & Theology Section, and so that this thread is productive, please make sure you are responding with a theological statement rather than a theos-opinion, or idea.

There have been some decent post, but I've seen some post here just stating; "there are errors on both sides", or "you have to read the scripture in context".....ect., That's just not enough for this thread.

Please state clearly exactly what the theology being discussed, questioned, or argued is. When posting in here; State what and why. Give clear examples please. Use scripture when stating a point of contention or giving examples, then use your words to explain please.

[MENTION=94556]beartheweak[/MENTION], can you give a little clearer explanation regarding the doctrines of grace that you are having trouble with using scripture? You've given some scripture, and it's clear you're not standing on a firmed foundation with it, but do you have a more clear example of the theological differences you are struggling with in so much as scripture is concerned?

 

[Butch5]

***** Direction and content notice *****

This should be a better thread than it's shaping up to be. I'm asking that it get better. Since this thread is in the Apologetics & Theology Section, and so that this thread is productive, please make sure you are responding with a theological statement rather than a theos-opinion, or idea.

There have been some decent post, but I've seen some post here just stating; "there are errors on both sides", or "you have to read the scripture in context".....ect., That's just not enough for this thread.

Please state clearly exactly what the theology being discussed, questioned, or argued is. When posting in here; State what and why. Give clear examples please. Use scripture when stating a point of contention or giving examples, then use your words to explain please.

[MENTION=94556]beartheweak[/MENTION], can you give a little clearer explanation regarding the doctrines of grace that you are having trouble with using scripture? You've given some scripture, and it's clear you're not standing on a firmed foundation with it, but do you have a more clear example of the theological differences you are struggling with in so much as scripture is concerned?

I was trying to avoid the typical back and forth of the Arm/Cal debate that these threads usually end up in. That is why I was being more general than specific.

 

[ezra]

If you would have asked me a few months ago, I would have told you what I believed about salvation. Hah. Nowadays, I just find scripture to be so confusing. Saying one thing here, saying a contrary thing there. I don't think this thread has helped me sort out my confusion very much. I still happen to see the bible teach Calvinism AND Arminianinsm AND Universalism (yeah, yeah, against ToS... nonetheless it's taught just as much as eternal torment... and taught just as much as annihilation so I won't slow to say what I see in the bible). I think I'm going to pull out of this thread as it raised more questions than answers. Thanks though for all of your attempts, perhaps it has helped you somehow grow closer to God in exploring your interpretations of the bible- I can only hope I didn't waste your time.

bear to maybe help you out and maybe others can post to give you direction. LETS start off with what You consider truths about salvation.. i want you an others to understand i do not need Calvinism AND Arminianinsm ..to be saved and nor do you... what do you have to say about john chapter 3 and Romans chapter 10. for me that is just a few basic scriptures .. would you consider your self to be Born Again--saved blood bought child of the KING? there is a know so salvation

 

[Danus]

I was trying to avoid the typical back and forth of the Arm/Cal debate that these threads usually end up in. That is why I was being more general than specific.

I understand. I think we can have a civil discussion on the topic. I have very close friends who are staunch Armenians. I have a old friend who is a Catholic priest as well. we have theological discussions all the time.

I think the key is understanding that we don't have to force what we know or think we know on others. It's OK if others think a different way about something, and if they do and we listen, we may learn something. Could be just more about them, or it could be a new way of viewing what we know.

In this case, it's being asked of those who hold a traditional reformed view to help explain that view; although it's not clear what view is being misunderstood totally.

I used to love coming in here and just railing people up, particularly fundamentalist. Fact is, I still like doing it. I'll throw out a challenge now and then, just don't have the time I once did, and often I discover it's not fair, because maybe someone just said something to try it on in a forum. It might not be something they would state in real life. However, what we say here should be.

bear to maybe help you out and maybe others can post to give you direction. LETS start off with what You consider truths about salvation.. i want you an others to understand i do not need Calvinism AND Arminianinsm ..to be saved and nor do you... what do you have to say about john chapter 3 and Romans chapter 10. for me that is just a few basic scriptures .. would you consider your self to be Born Again--saved blood bought child of the KING? there is a know so salvation

Now this is called wiping the slate clean and starting from a blank page. I think that's best. Incidentally, by dropping the traditional theological labels, people still end up with one, the other or a little of both, but still a good approach.


On Thursdays (every other) I meet with a small group of people at a local restaurant to discuss the doctrines of grace. We pick a topic of scripture and we each get 5 or 10 minutes to state the position from any particular point of theological views. Sometimes we play a guess the view, or denominational view sometimes, and we have a lot of fun. The group is a mix of theologies. There is no reason why we can't have a discussion like that here. We just need to make sure we know the view we are bringing to the table, even if it's a little "mix". if it's based on scripture, use it and explain it.

 

[chessman]

Now this is called wiping the slate clean and starting from a blank page. I think that's best.

@beartheweak , can you give a little clearer explanation regarding the doctrines of grace that you are having trouble with using scripture? You've given some scripture, and it's clear you're not standing on a firmed foundation with it, but do you have a more clear example of the theological differences you are struggling with in so much as scripture is concerned?

I essentially asked beartheweak the same question at least five times but never did get a direct response. His Scriptural "issues" that is. So do you feel it's appropriate to just pick a potentially related Scripture and use this thread to discuss it? I've got one that might be appropriate here, for example. It's one Scripture that I'm not so much confused about or feel there's any contradiction with it elsewhere but it is one that I've never found any other discussion/commentary about, as it relates to this issue, if it does. I may be mis-applying it??? I feel it's potentially related, however. Most people (even my pastor) just shy away from it when I ask them what they think. But I feel it's related to the original OP, maybe, since I'm just guessing a little at beartheweak's specific concern.
Let me know if there’s any interest.

 

[Danus]

I essentially asked beartheweak the same question at least five times but never did get a direct response. His Scriptural "issues" that is. So do you feel it's appropriate to just pick a potentially related Scripture and use this thread to discuss it? I've got one that might be appropriate here, for example. It's one Scripture that I'm not so much confused about or feel there's any contradiction with it elsewhere but it is one that I've never found any other discussion/commentary about, as it relates to this issue, if it does. I may be mis-applying it??? I feel it's potentially related, however. Most people (even my pastor) just shy away from it when I ask them what they think. But I feel it's related to the original OP, maybe, since I'm just guessing a little at beartheweak's specific concern.

Sure fire away.

One thing I've picked up on the OP is the general topic of predestination, or God choosing the saved vs the unsaved. This interlocks with so many other issues. Once you get stated it's hard not to keep linking the "Golden Chain".

The doctrines of grace work like that. One truth leads to another and before you know it, your have a chain of truth. It's beautiful seeing it all linked, but one false move and it sort of stops or gets distorted and it can be frustrating. So what I have a hard time finding out when people ask questions is, do they just have a knot in the chain, or a loose link perhaps, or do they have a stating place? That have been asked several times of the OP, where is the starting place at all? That's not always an easy one for someone to answer. often they don't even know. I can dig that.

My approch to theology in my early walk was what I call a Forest Gump approach. No preconceived notions at all. LOL I grew not knowing I was learning anything, and when I compared it to other theologies, only them did I know I had learned anything. but, what I've learned and what I've held are also debatable. I hold what I believe based on scripture, but I also hold what I've learned in reserve.