My questions as I study Reformed Theology

GL I think this is essentially what I have attempted to say before in saying that man is free to choose within the parameters that God has set within his creation. Full libertarian free will, I think, does seem to imply that God can make decisions and choices that only God has the authority to make.

 

Yes, I posted a picture of Jesus knocking on the door of every sinner's heart.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

This is another verse that clearly shows Jesus is offering salvation to "any man". All any person has to do is open the door of their heart to Jesus and he will come in and save them.

What does that have to do with me?

 

That verse doesn't have a thing to do with salvation. It is about Christ and the Church.

You are forever abusing Scripture winman. And then you think, by molesting the Bible, you make some solid point that PROVES you are right.

Arminians, non-reformed and Calvinists alike will tell you you do this if you ask them and they are willing to be honest with you.

 

You are correct. Way out of context here.

It's not nearly as simple as some say.

I want to see his teachable humble side, since he's blasted so many for being arrogant, proud, haughty and unteachable.

:love2: :laugh:

 

An excerpt from a book I am currently reading:

In regards to creation, God enjoys aseity and freedom. One cannot properly conceive of these divine attributes without using the concept of contingency. God's asiety is His complete independence and sufficiency within Himself. God did not create the universe because He was lonely or because He needed the world. He did not create the universe to meet any need or fulfill any lack. If the Lord had never created it would not have detracted from the glory of any of his perfections. His creation was completely gratuitous. God enjoys sovereign aseity over the world. God is the necessary being, Creation is contingent.

God's freedom is His sovereign independence from any obligation to the world. His aseity means He did not create out of need and His freedom means He did not create out of obligation.

 

I disagree that "full libertarian" free will is restrained. The concept there is that we are indeed free, even of God's power to cause us to move or change. Limited free will would be a better choice of terms, though I can see why some would argue that limited free will is not free will at all.

We always end up in the final dilemma -- God's sovereignty -- for if God is truly in control of all things, then He is also in control of us, we being part of the set "all things."

What seems to be the breaking point for many who do not wish to give over to God this sort of utter control is simply that there comes with that a feeling of utter helplessness as we can do NOTHING to escape our sure and certain doom. It is ALL on God's mercy and grace, and if He does not act on our behalf there is no hope.

This is exactly in accord with the scriptural picture that God has revealed concerning our state before Him, and praise Him, He HAS a plan. That plan is for Christ to save. Who? God knows. How? By the substitutionary atonement and by imputed righteousness. When? In God's timing. Where? Wherever God wills, in one's bed, while in prayer, while on a walk, while crying and renting one's clothes, while in a service of worship, while hearing the Word... God knows.

At odds with the more human-involved activity is this sense that no matter if we come to God and do all sorts of religious exercises, follow all sort of religious rules, and claim all sort of religious promises; we are still doomed if God has not saved us in the way that only He can.

 

I am not afraid of any of these men whatsoever. I don't care if some preacher was famous, or if they had the alphabet soup after their name. I compare what they say with what the scriptures say.

All of these men taught some truth, but all of them taught much error as well.

It was Nicholas25 who said he was "almost scared to fully embrace Reformed Theology". He is not certain if it is correct or not. That is not my position whatsoever, I find Calvinism and Reformed Theology to contain great error.

 

If you read the verses following Rev 3:20 you will see Jesus is speaking to anyone who has an ear.

Rev 3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
22 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.

Do you have an ear? Then Jesus was speaking to you as well.

If Jesus wanted us to understand that salvation was only offered to a few persons, he could have easily said so. You Calvinists make God to appear to be a real dummy, someone who cannot accurately express himself.

No, when Jesus said "any man" that is exactly what he meant to say. It is you Calvinists that have to write a mini novel and twist scripture to misinterpret what even a child could understand. Shameful.

 

Does your theology contain any error, or just the theology of those who don't agree with you?

Looking at your usage of verses to prove points is questionable in it's interpretations, i.e. that you refuse to see Grace was extended to Abram before he responded in faith (you say faith comes first, to which I say faith in what and whom?) and your usage of "Behold I stand at the door and knock...". Way out of context.

We are saved "by grace" (came first) "through faith" (came second). See how simple it is? You have it backwards. :thumbs: Grace first, faith, second. Very simple to see this.

Anyhow, both of your usages of the above are in great error. Grace is more important than faith, the NT and entire Scripture prove this. You hold "faith" as most important, or mans reaction basically, over God extending grace to us, in which if He never extended it we would be damned forever.

I've been looking at reformed theology and calvinism for quite a long while now, I don't see this great error. Why? It's just not there, friend.

 

You see that "unto the churches" clause in there?

It's really very simple.

:wavey:

 

No reputable theologian on either side of the aisle sees it that way.

He is SPEAKING TO A PARTICULAR CHURCH.

hopeless...

 

That is not my issue with true free will. If man does not have true free will, then God is a liar. God says he does not tempt any man with evil. If God causes a man to reject him, then God is a liar, he is truly causing a man to do evil.

If man does not have true free will, then God is unjust, he is punishing man for being evil, when God caused man to be evil. That must be so if God controls every single event. If God caused Adam and Eve to sin, then God is responsible for them becoming sinners. How then can it be just for God to punish a man for eternity for something he himself caused?

If a person cannot see a great difficulty here, I do not know what to say.

 

Well, there's the problem right there, you are listening to men. But Jesus said that "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches". So he is speaking to everyone.

And you call me hopeless? A child could understand he was speaking to everyone.

 

You love to accuse Calvinists of being heretics when you will not think it through as far as they have and so you don't know WHY they believe what they believe.

For example, you will not answer the question- does a choice have a cause.

Until you can answer that, your opinion doesn't matter.

It's like a person who has not and will not learn the times table calling Charles Babbage an imbecile.

 

No Winman a child can understand that he is NOT speaking to everyone.

If I say to my church, "He that has an ear take heed. We have a fellowship supper Wednesday night," my 6 year old understands that I am not talking to the Prime Minister of Great Britain.

That is what is simple enough for a child to understand.

ASK ANYONE Winman- they will tell you- it is your HABIT to force passages of Scripture to say what they do not say.

Is your pastor an educated man? If he is, ask him- he will tell you.

 

You cant see the clause "unto the churches..." ?

Why? It's plain as day and simple.

"What the Spirit" what?..."saith unto the churches!!!!"

See it right there? Simple.


:wavey:

 

You missed the entire point with this statement:

God does not cause a man to reject Him. We are rejected at birth.

If you build your theology around the concept that we are essentially okay until we either do something sinful, or until God rejects us, then you have missed the entire message of the Bible, and it is no wonder that you fail to understand the Reformed position.

And again, Adam, as a free man without sin, actually had the capacity to choose. The rest of us, born in sin, do not. We cannot equate our stance before and after the fall. According to the Scriptures, we were cursed, as was Adam at the fall.

 

I did not call anyone a heretic.

Of course a choice has a cause, and the scriptures tell us what that cause is.

James 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

We sin when we are enticed or seduced by our "own" lusts.

Adam and Eve were created sinless, but they were flesh and had desires. Look what the scriptures say when Eve looked on the forbidden fruit.

Gen 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

At this point Eve was still sinless. Nevertheless she had desires, it is plainly shown. The tree looked good for food, that is the appetite. It was pleasant to look upon, that is the attraction of beauty. It was "desired" to make one wise, that appeals to vanity and pride.

Our desires are natural, we are born with them. It is not wrong to have an appetite, we need to eat to be healthy. But we have to control our urges and desires, eat too much and you will become obese and suffer health problems.

It is not wrong to look on your wife and enjoy her beauty. But it is wrong to allow this desire to get out of hand and look on other women.

It is not wrong to desire to be intelligent, we should study to become wise. But if your goal is simply to exalt yourself over others, to look on others with disdain and convince yourself you are superior to others, then you have let this natural desire get out of hand and become sinful.

Adam and Eve had natural desires, it cannot be denied, Gen 3:6 says this unknown fruit was "to be desired", so how could she not have had desire?

Desire in itself is not sinful in itself. It is when we allow our natural desires to entice us and seduce us to the point we disobey God that they become sinful.

 

You took Revelation scripture out of context.

You take the order of grace then faith out of proper order.

Which Bible Versions do you use?

Do you use commentaries (since you miss completely the Rev. 3:20-22 is plainly saying the statement is unto the churches)?

I am certain since you view others as haughty, unteachable, proud, and arrogant, you will humbly answer, and teachable as you are, accept you have misinterpreted Revelation and the grace/faith order of things so clearly taught in Scriptures.

BTW, saying calvinists are in "great error" biblically is synonymous (same) with saying they are heretical.