Reformed Theology

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by houston

Are there any members here that subscribe to Reformed Theology?

I lean heavily toward New Calvinism (Chandler, Piper, et al).

Calvinistic soteriology impugns God's good, just, loving character and makes him out to be as bad as Satan.


From Roger Olson's blog:
"
Second, I am not a Calvinist because (hold on!) IF I WERE A CALVINIST I would have trouble distinguishing between God and the devil. Some Calvinists have misinterpreted this saying. They think I’m accusing them of worshiping the devil. Nothing could be farther from the truth. All I am saying is, if I were a Calvinist, being of the bent of mind that I am (striving for logical consistency as much as possible), I would have trouble clearly distinguishing between God and the devil in my own mind.
To my Calvinist acquaintances who take umbrage at this, all I can say is–please just consider it my own intellectual failure if you wish. I am not aiming this saying at you. I am admitting my own failure (from your point of view, I’m sure). But it does hold me back from joining the ranks of the “young, restless, Reformed” (not all of who are young, by the way).
The point is–God’s character. IF God elects people to salvation unconditionally and IF God IS love (1 John) why doesn’t he save everybody? IF I could be a universalist, I could be a Calvinist. I don’t care about free will for its own sake or for any humanist reasons. Hell is the sticky issue. The Calvinist God could save everyone because his election to salvation is unconditional and his grace is irresistible. Apparently, he purposefully chooses to “pass over” some (which is in effect the same as foreordaining them to hell). Why? For his glory? Some Calvinists say hell is necessary for the full manifestation of God’s attribute of justice. I ask what that says about the cross-was it not a sufficient manifestation of God’s justice?
The devil wants everyone to go to hell. The God of Calvinism wants many to go to hell. Is that enough of a difference of character? Not to me. The God of Jesus Christ is absolutely, unconditionally good. The God of Calvinism, from my perspective, is not absolutely, uncondtionally good and, in fact, has a dark side that includes willing that people perish eternally (contrary to 2 Peter 3:9 and 1 Timothy 2:4).
Next year Zondervan will publish my book-length explanation of what I see wrong with Calvinism. This is just a hint at that. But let me say here and now that, in spite of my serious qualms about Calvinism, I do consider Calvinists my fellow evangelicals. I would never say or suggest that someone is defectively evangelical because he or she is a Calvinist. What I think is that Calvinists are confused insofar as they believe God is love (as Scripture clearly says) and yet hold onto their belief in unconditional election, limited atonement and irresistible grace."


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereo...-calvinism-is/

[mizpeh]

Or Greg Boyd's blog:

I am sometimes accused of caricaturing Calvinism when I make claims like:
Calvinism teaches that God SPECIFICALLY WILLS and TAKES DELIGHT IN every evil event in history as well as each person who will suffer eternally in hell.
Calvinism teaches that God ordains every single evil thing that people do IN SUCH A WAY that God is all-holy for ordaining these evil acts while the people who do the evil acts God ordained them to do are sinful for doing them.
Calvinism teaches that God has a “sovereign will” that ordains and delights in evil and a “moral will” that is revolted by the evil his “sovereign will” ordains. This is why I have claimed that God’s “moral will” must hate God’s “sovereign will” if Calvinism is in fact true.
I believe this brief article [YOU HAVE TO GO TO BOYDS BLOG and CLICK THE LINK to read the BRIEF ARTIcle] demonstrates that I’m caricaturing nothing. And let me just say, with all sincerity, that I deeply respect John Piper’s willingness to “say it straight” and to be logically consistent. Check it out if your interested.
(By the way, if you’re interested in an alternative interpretation of the verses Piper cites to support his determinism you can find them in the Q&A section of this website).
Peace,
- See more at: http://reknew.org/2012/08/yes-calvin....YdSf3eHM.dpuf

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by DaveC519

Aquila, thanks for this video. I personally agree with the author's position.

You might like this article also:

It’s important to remember that when ancient Jews spoke about God choosing people, they thought primarily of their nation, not individuals. God chose Israel as a nation to be his “chosen people.” Yet, individuals had a choice as to whether or not they wanted to be part of this corporate election, as Paul elsewhere explicitly teaches (Rom 11). So when Paul says that “God choose us” in Christ, he doesn’t mean “God choose us individuals to be in Christ, as opposed to other individuals he didn’t choose.” What he means is “God choose all of us who are now in Christ.”
What God decided for us ahead of time was not whether we’d be in Christ or not. What he decided ahead of time was what would happen to all who chose to be in Christ. God determined that whoever chooses to be in Christ would be adopted as children and would be “holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph 1:4-5). Now that we are in Christ, what was predestined for this group before the foundation of the world applies to us.
Imagine it like this. Suppose I’m teaching a college class in which I show a certain boring documentary. After the documentary, a student asks me; “Dr. Boyd, when did you decide we’d have to watch this boring documentary?” I reply, “I decided this class would watch this boring documentary six months ago when I put together the syllabus.” The student could then turn and announce to all who were present, “Professor Boyd decided six months ago that we’d have to sit through this boring documentary.”
But notice this: I didn’t decide six months earlier that any particular student would watch – or not watch – the documentary. What I predestined was that whoever chooses to be in my class would watch this documentary. My decision was about the class, not the future individuals who would end up comprising this class. It was up to each student to decide whether what was predestined for the class was also predestined for them. Now that all these particular students had chosen to belong to my class, they could all say; “Dr. Boyd decided six months ago that we would watch this documentary.”


- See more at: http://reknew.org/2014/07/predestina....s4ytrpJ1.dpuf

[DaveC519]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

You might like this article also:

It’s important to remember that when ancient Jews spoke about God choosing people, they thought primarily of their nation, not individuals. God chose Israel as a nation to be his “chosen people.” Yet, individuals had a choice as to whether or not they wanted to be part of this corporate election, as Paul elsewhere explicitly teaches (Rom 11). So when Paul says that “God choose us” in Christ, he doesn’t mean “God choose us individuals to be in Christ, as opposed to other individuals he didn’t choose.” What he means is “God choose all of us who are now in Christ.”
What God decided for us ahead of time was not whether we’d be in Christ or not. What he decided ahead of time was what would happen to all who chose to be in Christ. God determined that whoever chooses to be in Christ would be adopted as children and would be “holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph 1:4-5). Now that we are in Christ, what was predestined for this group before the foundation of the world applies to us.
Imagine it like this. Suppose I’m teaching a college class in which I show a certain boring documentary. After the documentary, a student asks me; “Dr. Boyd, when did you decide we’d have to watch this boring documentary?” I reply, “I decided this class would watch this boring documentary six months ago when I put together the syllabus.” The student could then turn and announce to all who were present, “Professor Boyd decided six months ago that we’d have to sit through this boring documentary.”
But notice this: I didn’t decide six months earlier that any particular student would watch – or not watch – the documentary. What I predestined was that whoever chooses to be in my class would watch this documentary. My decision was about the class, not the future individuals who would end up comprising this class. It was up to each student to decide whether what was predestined for the class was also predestined for them. Now that all these particular students had chosen to belong to my class, they could all say; “Dr. Boyd decided six months ago that we would watch this documentary.”


- See more at: http://reknew.org/2014/07/predestina....s4ytrpJ1.dpuf

Exactly!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

You might like this article also:

It’s important to remember that when ancient Jews spoke about God choosing people, they thought primarily of their nation, not individuals. God chose Israel as a nation to be his “chosen people.” Yet, individuals had a choice as to whether or not they wanted to be part of this corporate election, as Paul elsewhere explicitly teaches (Rom 11). So when Paul says that “God choose us” in Christ, he doesn’t mean “God choose us individuals to be in Christ, as opposed to other individuals he didn’t choose.” What he means is “God choose all of us who are now in Christ.”
What God decided for us ahead of time was not whether we’d be in Christ or not. What he decided ahead of time was what would happen to all who chose to be in Christ. God determined that whoever chooses to be in Christ would be adopted as children and would be “holy and blameless in his sight” (Eph 1:4-5). Now that we are in Christ, what was predestined for this group before the foundation of the world applies to us.
Imagine it like this. Suppose I’m teaching a college class in which I show a certain boring documentary. After the documentary, a student asks me; “Dr. Boyd, when did you decide we’d have to watch this boring documentary?” I reply, “I decided this class would watch this boring documentary six months ago when I put together the syllabus.” The student could then turn and announce to all who were present, “Professor Boyd decided six months ago that we’d have to sit through this boring documentary.”
But notice this: I didn’t decide six months earlier that any particular student would watch – or not watch – the documentary. What I predestined was that whoever chooses to be in my class would watch this documentary. My decision was about the class, not the future individuals who would end up comprising this class. It was up to each student to decide whether what was predestined for the class was also predestined for them. Now that all these particular students had chosen to belong to my class, they could all say; “Dr. Boyd decided six months ago that we would watch this documentary.”


- See more at: http://reknew.org/2014/07/predestina....s4ytrpJ1.dpuf

Great points.

[Aquila]

I've dabbled in Calvinism. Armenianism with it's predestination based upon foreknowledge wasn't bringing me much assurance. For a while... Calvinism brought assurance. However, after I began to contemplate my election as it relates to the election of others... I became a bit troubled. What if someone I love isn't one of God's elect? I then moved into the "just trust God's sovereign will" mode. But the issue still bothered me. Then I began to ask myself... What if I'm not a member of the elect? Pretty soon... I had as little assurance as I did in Armenianism.

Then on a thread about a week, maybe two weeks ago, a brother posted something that moved me to investigate the doctrine of Corporate Election. I'm still studying but it allows for one to be able to make their calling and election sure in Christ Jesus. I can see where they might bring a greater sense of assurance. I'm continuing in my studies. I do like the Corporate Election model so far.

[Carl]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I've dabbled in Calvinism. Armenianism with it's predestination based upon foreknowledge wasn't bringing me much assurance. For a while... Calvinism brought assurance. However, after I began to contemplate my election as it relates to the election of others... I became a bit troubled. What if someone I love isn't one of God's elect? I then moved into the "just trust God's sovereign will" mode. But the issue still bothered me. Then I began to ask myself... What if I'm not a member of the elect? Pretty soon... I had as little assurance as I did in Armenianism.

Then on a thread about a week, maybe two weeks ago, a brother posted something that moved me to investigate the doctrine of Corporate Election. I'm still studying but it allows for one to be able to make their calling and election sure in Christ Jesus. I can see where they might bring a greater sense of assurance. I'm continuing in my studies. I do like the Corporate Election model so far.

God bless you brother! Your coming around it sounds like! I'm very happy for you!

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Carl

God bless you brother! Your coming around it sounds like! I'm very happy for you!

One is never too old or too intelligent to learn something new.

[Abiding Now]

Cambellites.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Or Greg Boyd's blog:

I am sometimes accused of caricaturing Calvinism when I make claims like:
Calvinism teaches that God SPECIFICALLY WILLS and TAKES DELIGHT IN every evil event in history as well as each person who will suffer eternally in hell.
Calvinism teaches that God ordains every single evil thing that people do IN SUCH A WAY that God is all-holy for ordaining these evil acts while the people who do the evil acts God ordained them to do are sinful for doing them.
Calvinism teaches that God has a “sovereign will” that ordains and delights in evil and a “moral will” that is revolted by the evil his “sovereign will” ordains. This is why I have claimed that God’s “moral will” must hate God’s “sovereign will” if Calvinism is in fact true.
I believe this brief article [YOU HAVE TO GO TO BOYDS BLOG and CLICK THE LINK to read the BRIEF ARTIcle] demonstrates that I’m caricaturing nothing. And let me just say, with all sincerity, that I deeply respect John Piper’s willingness to “say it straight” and to be logically consistent. Check it out if your interested.
(By the way, if you’re interested in an alternative interpretation of the verses Piper cites to support his determinism you can find them in the Q&A section of this website).
Peace,
- See more at: http://reknew.org/2012/08/yes-calvin....YdSf3eHM.dpuf

Thanks for sharing these blogs.