Hate Of Reformed Theology

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

One thing has always bothered me about Reformed theology.
If God predestined everyone, why did we need a Savior?

God predestined the Savior, too (Galatians 4:4 and 1 Peter 1:11).

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by Socialite

This is where my heart has been turned as of late as well.

I can't fully explain it, nor feel like I have to subscribe to an exhaustive, systematic Calvinism or every letter of the TULIP... but what I keep seeing in the Story is how God is working in this way. It's a comfort.

I think that it is a great comfort when we place ALL of these burdens upon Him.

[aegsm76]

So a reformed theology statement would be:
"Christ Jesus came into the world to save certain people who were predestined to be saved"?

[Socialite]

Blume, if we read that verse "he doesn't will that any should perish" just literally as we hear it, then none will perish. Period. End of story. If God wills it, that's all there is to it.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by aegsm76

So a reformed theology statement would be:
"Christ Jesus came into the world to save certain people who were predestined to be saved"?

I think that they would tend to be wordier than that, but yes, that may sum it up in very simplistic terms.

Being "predestined to be saved" doesn't mean that you are "saved already." You still need to actually "be saved." The "predestination" part of the equation simply speaks of the inevitability of that salvation. It takes nothing away from the sacrifice and the reception of salvation itself when it arrives.

[aegsm76]

I thought that the whole idea was that God gave us free will to choose?

[Socialite]

Few scattered quotes, and then I will comment. Bear with me:

Most people who learn of Calvinism learn first of predestination, the doctrine that God chose at creation who would be saved and who damned. This seems cruel and arbitrary. But for Calvin there is no other way to think of God if we want to take sovereignty seriously. And it is crucial to note where in his theological system Calvin chooses to explain this doctrine. It does not come in Book I of the Institutes of the Christian Religion, where Calvin discusses the nature of God. Rather, it comes in Book III where Calvin discusses the benefits of faith. In other words, it ought not to be the first thing one thinks of about God. It certainly ought not to be the object of curious speculation. But for those who have been saved it comes as added relief to know the extent of control held by the God who saved them

I am not a 5-pointer in the traditional sense, but I have many theological sympathies with Calvinists. I think most are turned off by Calvinists because 1) those who tout the Calvinist brand do so loudly and non-Cs find this offensive, and 2) we tend to prize our free will above anything. It’s offensive, then, to think that in matters salvific to think that it doesn’t all fall on my plate

.



There are three other reasons Arminians struggle with Reformed Theology:

1) The Armenian wants to protect libertarian free will. (Pat and others mentioned this) In their view, this allows God to hold men culpable for sin. It was their free will choice.

2) The Armenian wants to protect God. If God ordains all things, and the Arminian view of libertarian free will is not biblical (as Calvinists claim) then God is unjust (The whole Rom. 9:19 argument).

3) Regardless of what is claimed, ones view of God has IMMENSE implications, especially concerning his sovereignty in salvation and suffering. A.W. Tozer said it best, “The most important thing about a person is what they believe about God because they will spend the rest of their life responding to that perception.” (paraphrase) Calvinism and Arminianism post two very different views. For Calvinist, the Armenian view of God is of one who is powerless and little. And (as WoundedEgo has submitted) the Arminian views the God of Calvinism as cruel and arrogant. Both will claim that the other side just doesn’t understand.

Arminians do not try to defend a particular view of free-will that they perceive is implicit in their understanding of “Scriptures they are trying to protect”? (…”we are not trying to protect libertarian free will…”) If so, then you would be the first Arminian I’d met that was not. With most Arminians I’ve met and read, what is at stake in their view is the freedom of choice for man to be held culpable for his actions. Let me know if I’m incorrect, and this is not a major tenet in Arminian theology (Conditional Election).

[Socialite]

Blogger, Brian LePort says this:

I want to say “yes” we are pre-destined and “yes” we must accept or deny the gospel; “yes” God initiates salvation and salvation is a work of God alone and “yes” humans are not forced to worship God or love God but to freely reject God. I like both-and scenarios better than either-or when discussing this subject.

am tempted to say that if one asked the Apostle Paul “Did God elect his beloved before the beginning of time?” he would say “yes”. If this was followed with the question, “Did God make salvation available for all people everywhere through Christ and do people have the right to accept or deny the truth of the gospel according to their own free will?” I think would again say “yes”.


When I think about the saving work of God I think it goes something like this:

(A) God foreknows what all people, in all places, at all times would choose in all possible circumstances if faced with the truth of the gospel.

(B) God has provided salvation through the work of his Son by the power of the Spirit that was sufficient for all people, in all places, at all times.

(C) God determines to place those people who will accept the gospel (or prior to Calvary the “gospel” of Israel) in a time and place where they will have the opportunity to hear and accept the gospel.

(D) Since humans are corrupted by sin the Spirit works in the lives of those who will hear the gospel prior to the event in preparation for the event in order to move them toward faith (some see this as God’s work of predestination; some speak of this as prevenient grace).

(E) That being said, the Spirit works on those who will accept the gospel based on foreknowledge. While God is sovereign God is not arbitrary. This is why I can’t accept “strong” Calvinism. I don’t think God plays “duck, duck, goose” with the eternal destiny of humans.

(F) Some of those who God knew would deny the gospel are put in times and places where the gospel would not reach them. Why is this? In part God does not force himself on those who do not want him. In part it may be that their judgment is “less” because they didn’t deny the gospel (I know this brings up another long list of questions). We may even speculate that God will save some based on their willingness to accept the truth they knew and for whatever reasoned deemed it unnecessary for the gospel to reach them (though I don’t think this is plausible).

(G) Some who will not hear the gospel are blessed/cursed with the “opportunity” to hear and reject the gospel. It may be that God let’s them hear the gospel in order to provide a greater indictment upon those whom God knew deserved such an indictment for reasons beyond our knowledge or because God knew that these people would do things like blaspheme the gospel, or preach a corrupted gospel, or mock the gospel in such a way that the true gospel still spreads via their disobedience in order to reach those God knew would accept it if they heard it.

This is how I have rationalized it. It seems to me that this model would preserve both the sovereign, electing, predestinating work of God while not deny the will and choice of humans. Both seem evidence in Scripture to me and I don’t want to move too far in favor of either view. I don’t know if this makes me some form of Calvinist, some form of Arminian, or some form of adherent to “Middle Knowledge”.

I am a Calvinist. I agree that humanity is totally deprived. I think Pelagius was a heretic. I echo Martin Luther when I say that we have a free will that is in bondage to our human nature and therefore we always freely choose to do those things that are displeasing to God. I do not see salvation as being a project where God and humans synthesize. It is God from start to finish and God is not surprised by who is saved. God predestines the elect to salvation.

I am an Arminian. I do not think that God predestines arbitrarily. I do not think that God saves people who would hate being in holy presence for all of eternity. I affirm that there is some aspect of humanity–maybe the cracked imago dei–that desires to do good. I think John Calvin was wise to avoid going as far as double predestination.

It may be that I find the position of people like Alvin Plantinga, Craig Blomberg, and William Lane Craig to be my own. That would be “middle knowledge”. Blomberg defines it as this:

…middle knowledge claims that God’s perfect, infinite knowledge must be able to know not only what sentient creatures will freely choose in all situations in their lives but what everyone would do in every possible situation that they could confront. Even more magnificently, divine and unlimited knowledge must be able to discern what all possibly created beings would do in all possible situations (or, as philosophers like to say, all possible worlds).

Good post on this -- at least thought-provoking.

[Socialite]

I find that if I take away the philosophical bias about modern-day free will, I can accept the idea of predestination much better. It's usually an emotional obstacle more than a scriptural one for me.

I agree with others, that it can seem cruel (I've said so previously) while also insisting that it's possible that a) I don't have the right perspective of it b) God's ways are higher than mine, and my judgement concerning what is just in God's actions are slightly ironic and inappropriate even and c) I may be wrong.

I've considered what it means to the biblical text if it's true or false. I've done a lot of viewing the Bible in a story form lately, and it's extremely difficult to shake the idea of God's electing. It's throughout the Story. And after several classes in Humanities and History, it's obvious that modern-day perspectives on free will are dramatically different than the ancients in other generations. In fact, the view of the last couple centuries is unique in the entire scheme of history. That must be taken into consideration as well! The way first century ancients understood free will and the sovereignty of God should matter greatly to us that are concerned with authorial intent.

[Socialite]

In the end, I'm not interested in calling myself a Calvinist or Arminianist. I can care less about signing on to theological platforms and defending them until the death. I care more about understanding God's character, receiving His grace that has found me when I was lost and abandoned.

It's interesting many get so upset with Reformed teaching, concerned about licentiousness and passivity. In me, this Story does the exact opposite. I am stirred, humbled, and want to live my life with the same grace I received. I am more spurned on to follow the ways of Jesus. True believing, reception of grace and heart regeneration should produce this IMO.



(P.S. Mizpeh, I'll try to find my notes, but I've seen strong evidence that the insistence on foreknowledge over individual election to be a contradiction of scripture, and in some cases, not even fitting the context -- I'll see if I can't find my old notes.)