Reformed theologians, please help me

[chessman]

chessman, your interpretation of Luke 23 has absolutely nothing to do with the context. That context has nothing to do with infants, nor does it have to do with those who never hear the gospel.

I never said it did. Maybe you missed this:

Father forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).
I know it doesn't say "all infants go to heaven" and I'm honestly not trying to make it say that.

My point was that Jesus asked the Father for forgiveness of the soldiers FOR they know not what they do. Like infants don't know what they're doing.

 

[ezra]

where so many are extremely hostile and ignorant of reformed theology?

so what makes you think non reformed are so ignorant ?

 

[chessman]

. In the very same sentence, they are casting lots for Jesus outer garnment. He is asking the Father to forgive those Roman soldiers because they are completely unaware of who he is, and therefore are unaware of what they are doing. .

I agree with your exegete here and i already knew this but as my previous post pointed out, it doesn't matter the who He was speaking about but the principle He used to forgive sin. And to repeat, infant's do die (as we all do) because of sin.

 

[Danus]

He is certainly welcome to try, but why ask such a question in an environment where so many are extremely hostile and ignorant of reformed theology?

Well, each person is responsible for what they say, and held accountable; not just by the governance of this forum, but by God Himself. So, while we can't always control others, we can control how we respond. That we have complete control over and culpability for.

Danus, maybe I should just give up and go with the flow? These threads have always been a free for all with no structure where anyone can say anything, no matter how unrelated to the OP.

What we'd like to see on the A&T section is depth, meaning, direction and knowledge. this should be flavored with humility and sincerity. Your right. people get on here and do quite the opposite at times, but rather than give up, just don't be one of them.

 

[mondar]

so what makes you think non reformed are so ignorant ?

hello ezra, anecdotal experience. Often, when I get involved in discussions with non-reformed people, they misrepresent reformed theology. I constantly hear the "you do not believe we can make choices, or we have a will" comments. Other constant misrepresentations involved the limited atonement (which is not the best word to describe the doctrine). Non-Reformed people often represent Reformed theology as if it is saying Christ cannot save all whom he pleases. If Christ wants to save the whole human race a billion times over, he would not shed more blood, or suffer more. The issue there is who Christs wants to save with his death. If he was somehow trying to save the whole world, then he is a very poor and lousey savior, he failed. The misrepresentations go on an on. Way to many non-reformed people say they know all about Calvinism, but then have yet to read their first book written by a Calvinist on the subject. Non-reformed people read non-reformed authors who often misrepresent Calvinism.

The problem is not only the misrepresentations, its also the fact that too many non-reformed people don't care that they are misrepresenting reformed theology. Of course there are some of have observed that are honest, admit they do not know much about Reformed theology.

The thing that is often more troublesome in my mind, is when it is the leaders of non-reformed theology that perpetuate myths about reformed theology. I hear the term "hyper-Calvinist" thrown at Reformed people all the time. One non-reformed philosopher even publicly stated that "there is no difference between Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism."

 

[Butch5]

Hi Mondar,

I understand your concerns to a point. I was reformed at one time. The issue may not be completely on the non-reformed. I have spoken with many reformed believers and have seen many different belief on the same subject. I don't think there is a universal Reformed theology. Many Reformed writers aren't in agreement. Additionally, after having left the ranks of the Reformed and discussing the doctrines I've been accused of not knowing them simply because I pointed out the logical conclusions of them.

 

[mondar]

Hi Mondar,

I understand your concerns to a point. I was reformed at one time. The issue may not be completely on the non-reformed. I have spoken with many reformed believers and have seen many different belief on the same subject. I don't think there is a universal Reformed theology. Many Reformed writers aren't in agreement. Additionally, after having left the ranks of the Reformed and discussing the doctrines I've been accused of not knowing them simply because I pointed out the logical conclusions of them.

Butch5, I would say that to be reformed, one must agree with one of the major reformed creeds, such as the 1689, the Westminster, the Philadelphia confession. There might be some who fellowship among the reformed and say some things that are different from the main body, but every group has that. On the other hand, I find more similarities among the reformed then any other group. What group can you name that has less theological range?

I am also curious, so you left what group, and went to. Were you a teacher? Pastor?

 

[ezra]

hello ezra, anecdotal experience. Often, when I get involved in discussions with non-reformed people, they misrepresent reformed theology. I constantly hear the "you do not believe we can make choices, or we have a will" comments. Other constant misrepresentations involved the limited atonement (which is not the best word to describe the doctrine). Non-Reformed people often represent Reformed theology as if it is saying Christ cannot save all whom he pleases. If Christ wants to save the whole human race a billion times over, he would not shed more blood, or suffer more. The issue there is who Christs wants to save with his death. If he was somehow trying to save the whole world, then he is a very poor and lousey savior, he failed. The misrepresentations go on an on. Way to many non-reformed people say they know all about Calvinism, but then have yet to read their first book written by a Calvinist on the subject. Non-reformed people read non-reformed authors who often misrepresent Calvinism.

The problem is not only the misrepresentations, its also the fact that too many non-reformed people don't care that they are misrepresenting reformed theology. Of course there are some of have observed that are honest, admit they do not know much about Reformed theology.

The thing that is often more troublesome in my mind, is when it is the leaders of non-reformed theology that perpetuate myths about reformed theology. I hear the term "hyper-Calvinist" thrown at Reformed people all the time. One non-reformed philosopher even publicly stated that "there is no difference between Hyper-Calvinism and Calvinism."

let me share my experience debating {discussing } the doctrine differences with calvinist.. i joined a forum started discussing the scriptures note this was a -Calvinist" forum. after a few post of disagreeing shareing scriptures with how i seen it. i was soon told i was going to hell a false prophet ..do i fully %100 understand -Calvinist" ?> ----NO ..do i have a pretty good understanding of -Calvinist" ? > yes. i do not agree with the teaching . i always try to find a happy medium and not get entangled with doctrine fussing... my personal belief is i dont need to understand -Calvinist" or Arminians to be saved. i just need to be saved a know so salvation and go to church/pray /study the word.. while i do stand on free will. i do see some good points in calvinism .. Dont no body call me a false prophet when i am not. especially simply because i do not believe how they do. that's been my experience

 

[mondar]

let me share my experience debating {discussing } the doctrine differences with calvinist.. i joined a forum started discussing the scriptures note this was a -Calvinist" forum. after a few post of disagreeing shareing scriptures with how i seen it. i was soon told i was going to hell a false prophet ..do i fully %100 understand -Calvinist" ?> ----NO ..do i have a pretty good understanding of -Calvinist" ? > yes. i do not agree with the teaching . i always try to find a happy medium and not get entangled with doctrine fussing... my personal belief is i dont need to understand -Calvinist" or Arminians to be saved. i just need to be saved a know so salvation and go to church/pray /study the word.. while i do stand on free will. i do see some good points in calvinism .. Dont no body call me a false prophet when i am not. especially simply because i do not believe how they do. that's been my experience

And where is this Calvinist forum, let me know so I can read the posts. Or maybe you would prefer I just take your word for it?

 

[mondar]

I am extremely confused. Calvinists and Arminians both have valid points, so that leads me to side with Reformists. I believe the bible does teach a contradictory doctrine of God's sovereign will AND man being responsible for the will in which God imposes on a man. I can get over the aspect that this seems unjust because Paul beautifully reminds us in Romans 8:19-21, "19You will say to me then, 'Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?' 20On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, 'Why did you make me like this,' will it?21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?"

I am capable of leaving man's "free will" and God's sovereignty in tension because I'm sure he's capable of resolving this. However, what is harder for me to reconcile is the fact that James 1:13, and similar verses, tell us "When tempted, no one should say, 'God is tempting me.' For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone"... What has me so confused is how in the world could God say that he's not ultimately the cause of making me sin when it's very apparent that the bible has no shortage of verses telling us that he is the cause (his sovereign will).

This seems like a grave contradiction. Help me resolve this, please (and thank you)!

Note: I will not elaborate on why I believe the bible speaks of both Calvinist views AND Armenian views because that's a different subject. This is also why I asked specifically for Reformed theologians.

beartheweak, the issues you are speaking of in your OP concern the issues of double predestination. Some dude on Youtube put a video that adequately addresses double predestination here... <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_Sawg2PX2aI?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I hope that link works.

One thing that is an error in your understanding of double predestination is that you seem to think it speaks of active predestination of the non-elect to hell. That is not reformed. Reformed people generally believe in what is called passive double predestination. God is active in salvation, but passive in his hardening of the heart. RC Sproul illustrated it like this.... He said that its like there is a conveyor belt and at the end of the belt is hell. God picks some off the belt, and the rest are carried along to the end of the belt.

The hardening of the heart can be seen in Romans 9:17
"For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth.
Rom 9:18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth. "
The question might be asked of the text, how did God harden Pharaoh's heart? That question is answered right in the text. God hardened his heart by "did I raise thee up." God could have suppressed Pharaoh's evil nature by having him born a slave. God raise him to power and this gave no restraint to how Pharaoh could develop his evil nature. It would be the same as in Romans 1:26 "For this cause God gave them up..." God does not have to magically make men more evil, no, they are already evil enough, but he stops restraining some men's evil natures, and gives them over to their own lusts. To make men evil, God does not have to wave a magic wand and make men evil. No, they are evil already. What God does to harden the heart, is ...... nothing. The text does say he gave Pharaoh power, and we can admit he gave Hitler, Stalin, and other evil rules power, but God did not make them rule in an evil way. He just does not restrain their evil. Does God want Pharaoh to do what is evil? Well, yes, and no. It is not that God loves evil, but he wants it to happen for the motive the text tells us.... "that I might show in thee my power, and that my name might be published abroad in all the earth." God wants it to happen so that he can show his hatred of evil and his judgment of evil. So then it is not that God loves the evil, but he is glorified in showing his righteous anger at evil. For him to show his righteous anger, evil must exist. How could he ever show his righteous anger of he made a creation were evil never exists? But for his grace, it could have, and should have been us.

God is in now way directly responsible for the evil of man or angels. You could say he is indirectly responsible because he created man in untested innocence, and they chose rebellion; and God wanted evil to actually exist so that he could manifest his righteous anger. Men then bear full responsibility for their own evil, and God is the righteous judge.

beartheweak, to make the reformed doctrine of double predestination to be something where God waves a magic wand and helps men do evil is neither scriptural, nor reformed doctrine. You confuse God creating something with the potential for evil, and the potential for righteousness VS God creating something that is already evil in actuality.

One thing that is refreshing, is that while you do not correctly understand the reformed reading of Romans 9, or the Reformed doctrine of passive double predestination, your close. You recognize that Romans 9 is about the election of individuals. The passage starts with Rom 9:3 "For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren's sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:" Paul wishes to take being separated from Christ and going to hell for the sake of unsaved Jewish people. Some are going to say that this is only about Jews, but that is of course error. The text itself directly states that the principles of Romans 9 are also for Gentiles... Rom 9:24 "even us, whom he also called, not from the Jews only, but also from the Gentiles?"

In the scriptures, nowhere does God make us evil, we do that for ourselves. However, at times God withdraws his restraining hand and does not restrain our evil natures. But he is under no obligation to stop us from sin and rebellion against him.

 

[mondar]

beartheweak, by the way, your use of the term "free will" needs much definition. By the term "free will" are you denying that men have an evil nature? Would you take a pelagian view of the gospel?

 

[Butch5]

Butch5, I would say that to be reformed, one must agree with one of the major reformed creeds, such as the 1689, the Westminster, the Philadelphia confession. There might be some who fellowship among the reformed and say some things that are different from the main body, but every group has that. On the other hand, I find more similarities among the reformed then any other group. What group can you name that has less theological range?

I am also curious, so you left what group, and went to. Were you a teacher? Pastor?

I wasn't a pastor or teacher, I was a laymen. I was Presbyterian. I attended the conference (can't recall the name) at Tenth Presbyterian in Philadelphia several times. I've seen and heard, Sproul, Dever. Ryken and some others. At that time I was agreeing with them, however, as I began to seriously study the Scriptures I quickly began to disagree.

 

[mondar]

I wasn't a pastor or teacher, I was a laymen. I was Presbyterian. I attended the conference (can't recall the name) at Tenth Presbyterian in Philadelphia several times. I've seen and heard, Sproul, Dever. Ryken and some others. At that time I was agreeing with them, however, as I began to seriously study the Scriptures I quickly began to disagree.

I attend a small group meeting where one of the ladies has a brother. This person defected to the Roman Catholic Church and wants to be a priest. He too says it is because of his studies of the scriptures. He attended OPC churches his whole life. There is of course also Jerry Matatics; a graduate of Westminster. He is so Catholic that even the Pope is not Catholic enough to be Catholic in his opinion.

I was not always reformed. I of course became reformed because it is the only possible scriptural view.

 

[Danus]

Reformed, is a funny term in theology. People have different definitions. John Wesley was part of the reformed tradition in his day. He was a heck of a preacher. Founded the Methodist church. Knew the bible well, but did he really understand salvation? Wesley founded the "holly club" at Oxford. He was all about keeping the moral law and sacrificial living. His goal was a righteous life by his effort and will. (With the help of God of cores)

I have great respect for John Wesley, and I view him as an important figure in church history, but I see his "method", as in error to the Gospel, in terms of salvation. I see him as one who has more faith in his own ability then in Christ, but was he altogether wrong? NO. Not at all.

As reformist; If we are confident in what we think we know, in our relationship with Christ, and the Christian life, and how we are to relate to others, then we've no reason to also think that we are 100% correct because we should know that we are at the very core no better than anyone; that it is Grace and Grace alone that saves us. Not what we know. Because, if salvation is based on what we know then we end up placing our faith in that.

Bottom Line, God is Love. Anyone with the Love of God in them, despite what they know, or have done, is in a state of Grace, and I firmly believe that constitutes more people than any of us know. Knowledge will not save, deeds will not save. Only Love will save.

 

[ezra]

And where is this Calvinist forum, let me know so I can read the posts. Or maybe you would prefer I just take your word for it?

that has been a while back i got booted out. i can get you to a forum that i belong to that has Calvinist section..if you want take my word thats fine if you don,t thats fine..i have no reason to lie.. in fact for several weeks in a row. i done a email correspondence with a man from the forum. we debated exchanged scriptures--word definitions . not sure as if he gave up on trying to change me or he had to stop. he had Parkinson disease also done jail ministry. when the wrod of God says not willing ANY perish... then i take it at face value............. i have not been in here in a long time but here is one forum... http://www.studylightforums.org/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=331&sid=03a1ebcfeec4e30db220077660351ae1

 

[Butch5]

I attend a small group meeting where one of the ladies has a brother. This person defected to the Roman Catholic Church and wants to be a priest. He too says it is because of his studies of the scriptures. He attended OPC churches his whole life. There is of course also Jerry Matatics; a graduate of Westminster. He is so Catholic that even the Pope is not Catholic enough to be Catholic in his opinion.

I was not always reformed. I of course became reformed because it is the only possible scriptural view.

That's interesting because I left because it was not possible that it could be the Biblical view. When I began to seriously study those passages that are used to support the Reformed doctrines, I saw that the context did not support what my Reformed pastors were telling me they meant. There were also many questions which they simply could not answer. One can only hear, "it's a mystery" and "some things are hard to understand" so long.

 

[chessman]

Butch5, I would say that to be reformed, one must agree with one of the major reformed creeds, such as the 1689, the Westminster, … every group has that.

Since the Westminster Confession was authored in 1689 then by the requirement quoted above, John Calvin was not “reformed†since he died in 1564. It would seem that within a Christian Apologetic and Theology forum, better, more precise, definition of terms should be used and we all should stick to their acceptable meanings:

1. Christian Reformation
2. Reformed Theology
3. Lutheranism
4. Calvinism
5. Arminianism
6. reformed (adjective)-relating or belonging to a Protestant Church, especially one based on the teachings of John Calvin rather than those of Martin Luther.
7. Protestantism
8. catholic
9. Roman Catholic
10. Predestination
11. Elect
12. Providence

All of these terms can be looked up in any dictionary, so I will not list all of their meanings. I suspect even some members posting or reading might even disagree with the definitions, if I were to offer them (as some have done already) just as I am doing here with Mondar’s definition of “reformedâ€. However, the difference is I am offering some evidence that the meaning for “reformed†quoted above cannot be the best one since it doesn’t even include Calvin.

beartheweak, … One thing that is an error in your understanding of double predestination is that you seem to think it speaks of active predestination of the non-elect to hell. That is not reformed.

Passive predestination seems contrary to the Westminster Confession whereas active predestination seems like exactly what was meant. Don’t take my word for it of course (nor Mondar’s) but read the applicable section within that actual Westminster Confession yourself. I’ve posted it below.

The Westminster Confession of Faith​

The Westminster Divines​

​

Chapter 5
Of Providence
I. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct dispose[verb, make somebody willing], and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
II. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
III. God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.
IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that
not by a bare permission,

So God’s Providence (according to the Westminster Confession, not me) “directly disposes†and does “extendeth itself even to the first Fall [sin], and all other sins of angels and menâ€. And even to clarify further their beliefs concerning God’s Providence they go on to say “not by a bare permissionâ€, either. Which of course is contrary to the “definition†of “reformed†given above;

“active predestination of the non-elect to hell. That is not reformed.â€

However, I (as someone who believes in a Reformed Theology and biblical inerrancy) do agree with Mondar’s exegetical clarification given below of Romans 9 and it does in fact clear up any apparent Scriptural contradictions/confusions of the OP. and is true Reformed Theology. It’s just not compatible with the Westminster Confession, however.

"God does not have to magically make men more evil, no, they are already evil enough, but he stops restraining some men's evil natures, and gives them over to their own lusts. To make men evil, God does not have to wave a magic wand and make men evil. No, they are evil already. What God does to harden the heart, is ...... nothing.

Note that I’ve used Encarta Dictionary meanings above and below and quoted the Westminster Confession directly to try my best to avoid any reasonable accusation of my post being “unfounded or presumptiveâ€. Incorrect, maybe. Unfounded or presumptive, no.

The post I made was not unfounded, or presumptive in any way. You are indeed not reformed.

Encarta Dictionary: Unfounded - not supported by evidence or facts
Encarta Dictionary: Presumptive - based on what is thought most likely or reasonable.

… its also the fact that too many non-reformed people don't care that they are misrepresenting reformed theology

chessman, it is quite easy to tell you are not reformed, but want to speak for we who are reformed.

There is no evidence that has been referenced or pointed out within my posts that I do not believe in Reformed Theology,

 

[mondar]

Since the Westminster Confession was authored in 1689 then by the requirement quoted above, John Calvin was not “reformed” since he died in 1564. It would seem that within a Christian Apologetic and Theology forum, better, more precise, definition of terms should be used and we all should stick to their acceptable meanings:

1. Christian Reformation
2. Reformed Theology
3. Lutheranism
4. Calvinism
5. Arminianism
6. reformed (adjective)-relating or belonging to a Protestant Church, especially one based on the teachings of John Calvin rather than those of Martin Luther.
7. Protestantism
8. catholic
9. Roman Catholic
10. Predestination
11. Elect
12. Providence

All of these terms can be looked up in any dictionary, so I will not list all of their meanings. I suspect even some members posting or reading might even disagree with the definitions, if I were to offer them (as some have done already) just as I am doing here with Mondar’s definition of “reformed”. However, the difference is I am offering some evidence that the meaning for “reformed” quoted above cannot be the best one since it doesn’t even include Calvin.

The Westminster was in 1648, not 1689.
Nevertheless, the date of a doctrinal statement has nothing to do with the beginnings of the Reformation. In your line of logic, Luther was not Lutheran until the Formula of Concord. Indeed, Paul was not Pauline until Romans? There can be no trinitarians until Nicea, and on and on. Of course your above post is illogical, inaccurate, and full of holes.

Passive predestination seems contrary to the Westminster Confession whereas active predestination seems like exactly what was meant. Don’t take my word for it of course (nor Mondar’s) but read the applicable section within that actual Westminster Confession yourself. I’ve posted it below.

The Westminster Confession of Faith​

The Westminster Divines​

​

Chapter 5
Of Providence
I. God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct dispose[verb, make somebody willing], and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence, according to his infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of his own will, to the praise of the glory of his wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.
II. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.
III. God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure.
IV. The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins of angels and men, and that
not by a bare permission,

So God’s Providence (according to the Westminster Confession, not me) “directly disposes” and does “extendeth itself even to the first Fall [sin], and all other sins of angels and men”. And even to clarify further their beliefs concerning God’s Providence they go on to say “not by a bare permission”, either. Which of course is contrary to the “definition” of “reformed” given above;

“active predestination of the non-elect to hell. That is not reformed.”

However, I (as someone who believes in a Reformed Theology and biblical inerrancy) do agree with Mondar’s exegetical clarification given below of Romans 9 and it does in fact clear up any apparent Scriptural contradictions/confusions of the OP. and is true Reformed Theology. It’s just not compatible with the Westminster Confession, however.


Note that I’ve used Encarta Dictionary meanings above and below and quoted the Westminster Confession directly to try my best to avoid any reasonable accusation of my post being “unfounded or presumptive”. Incorrect, maybe. Unfounded or presumptive, no.


Encarta Dictionary: Unfounded - not supported by evidence or facts
Encarta Dictionary: Presumptive - based on what is thought most likely or reasonable.


There is no evidence that has been referenced or pointed out within my posts that I do not believe in Reformed Theology,

In this post, I must say there is a way I am pleased. You went to original sources. My hate is off to you for that. I rarely see those who hate reformed theology bother to read original sources. This of course shows some respect and is appreciated.

On the negative side, when the Westminster says "II. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently."
The part of the Westminster that says "he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes," is talking about the same things as my term "passive double predestination." In other words, God does not take part in the evil, but is a 2nd cause behind that evil through his decree. I will have to admit that more reformed people use the terminology of "2nd cause" then use the terminology of "passive double predestination." However, I have heard at least one Reformed writer and speak use both terms together. That would be James R White of Alpha Omega ministries. I wish I could find where he did that, I would post the link.

Nevertheless, if you read the Westminster or the 2nd London Baptist Confession as God participating in evil, that would be to sadly and dangerously misrepresent Reformed people. That is the exact complaint I have been making against non-reformed people. You are demonstrating the very complaint I have made in your post.

 

[Butch5]

Here's a part that I most troubling.

CHAPTER III. — Of God’s Eternal Decree.

I. God from all eternity did by the most and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin; nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.
II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future, as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions.
III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.
IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite that it can not be either increased or diminished.
V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.
VI. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.


Westminster Confession of Faith (1646).

I don't believe any of this can be supported by Scripture properly exegeted. I believe the passages used to support these claims are taken out of context and some I think are simply presumptions.

 

[chessman]

The Westminster was in 1648, not 1689.

I just used your date from your post since it’s irrelevant to my point (Westminster does not define what it means to be “reformedâ€).

Butch5, I would say that to be reformed, one must agree with one of the major reformed creeds, such as the 1689, the Westminster

I've also seen it dated 1646, which of course does have logical implications for the beginnings of Reformed Theology but only if you define Reformed Theology based on Westminster, as you did, does it become illogical. Reformed Theology began well before Westminster or even Calvin. That’s my point and it’s not illogical.

Nevertheless, the date of a doctrinal statement has nothing to do with the beginnings of the Reformation.

Logically speaking: the statement “the date of X has nothing to do with the date of Y†is only true if X and Y are two completely different events or (things) that in fact have no relationship to each other. You’re the one that used the logic X = Y, not me. Good logic matters because it shows just how bad, bad logic can be like the following erroneous assertion you attribute to me.

In your line of logic, Luther was not Lutheran until the Formula of Concord. Indeed, Paul was not Pauline until Romans? There can be no trinitarians until Nicea, and on and on. Of course your above post is illogical, inaccurate, and full of holes.

Saying Luther was not Lutheran, etc. is bad logic if not just plain stupid. And of course I never said this, though you imply I did.
I’ve also never said I hate Reformed Theology (because I don’t) or that I’m “non-reformed†(because I do believe in Reformed Theology). It’s you that keeps saying I’m not reformed (now six times) without any evidence to backup your presumptions and assertions. If you beleive this, it could be you are: 1) misunderstanding something I’ve said or 2) just as wrong about these assertions toward me as you were about the date of the Westminster Confession. But saying it over and over again doesn't make it true and it certainly doesn't provide any evidence that it's true. But frankly it doesn’t matter (except to the Lord) what you think about me or what I think about you. What matters is how prepared we are to give a reasonable answer to those that ask us why we believe what we do (about Scripture, not each other). And if the Confession of an “-ism†are confusing or worse, contradict Scripture, we should study and know that as well.

I rarely see those who hate reformed theology bother to read original sources. This of course shows some respect and is appreciated.

Could it be because I, in fact, do not hate â€reformed theology†as I've told you multiple times. That would be like saying I hate “the authority of Scripture to settle matters of the study of Godâ€. How stupid would that be?

You are demonstrating the very complaint I have made in your post.

Like precisely where? It could be that; 1) I made a typo, 2) you misunderstood what I was trying to say, or 3) I’m wrong. But what’s not possible is me saying something like: “God [is] participating in evil". As you say that would be to "sadly and dangerously misrepresent†what I've said.
Misrepresent what? Scripture or a Confession/Creed (I’ve not read the London Baptist, by the way). Scripture, certainly I've never intentionally misrepresented it. I never said Scripture said God participated in evil. What I did was post the words of the Westminster and then discribe my confusion with how it (Westminster) as it relates to the OP.

“So God’s Providence (according to the Westminster Confession, not me) “directly disposes†and does “extendeth itself even to the first Fall [sin], and all other sins of angels and menâ€. using their words, not mine.
​

Exactly how does article V, II clarify this, in your mind? That’s an honest question by the way. I may be missing something.

“II. Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.â€
​

Seems like they are basically admitting it’s (Providnece) is “either necessarily, freely or contingentlyâ€. Seems to me these authors are using “weasel words†and saying basically they just don’t know what Providence is. Which is of course fine. But why try to hide the fact that they didn’t know? Because they use the words: Relation, foreknowledge, decree, first cause, all things, immutable, infallibly, providence, ordereth, fall-out, second cause, necessarily, freely, contingently all in the same sentence! Wow, that’s a mouthful. All these words are “trying†to talk about the singular subject of the Article (Providence). It’s no wonder people are confused. How in the world could this be a clarifying statement or Confession or Creed, I have no idea. Maybe you can explain it to me?

Regardless, how do you reconcile Article I when it says God’s Providence “directly disposes†and does “extendeth itself even to the first Fall, and all other sins?
However, if either of the Confessions you mention, did in fact say God participates in Evil, it actually wouldn’t surprise me that much as they are neither Scripture. I’d have to go look at the Scriptural support for their assertions. If I never found any or found they were mis-representing Scripture, I’d look for a new “confession†or church. Which is exactly what Reformed Theology is all about!
What I do is go to the Scriptures, define my terms a little better and read every Scripture in context of the passage as well as the Whole Bible, to build my Theology. Not rely on any confession (or Pope). Certainly not one written in 1646 or 1648.