IS THE REFORMED FAITH BIBLICAL?
- Thread starter GodsGrace
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Lambano
Well-Known Member
The context of my question of "Who is the 'any' and the 'all'?" was based on a long but fruitless discussion with a brother (who needless to say was a Calvinist) about the identity of "the whole world" in 1 John 2:2.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
I seem to recall that up until about a year or so ago, you used to be a Calvinist. Was I mistaken?
I thought it remarkable at the time, because very few people escape that system.
Ritajanice
Born-Again
Leave it to God, Brother, all in his timing, I can get frustrated at times because quite a few don’t understand what I’m saying.
We’re all at different levels of understanding....that’s what I believe, just because we don’t understand what the other is saying, certainly doesn’t mean we aren’t Born Again does it.
When I first became Born Again I hadn’t a clue what the more mature Christians were talking about....all that I knew was, I was Born Again, that was all, ....I’ve had to wait on the Lords Spirit/ reading the word... to grow and mature......I don’t even try now to understand others, as I know if I’m meant to understand them, God will bring me to understanding them...hope that makes sense.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
I come from a tradition that encourages believers to give their best effort for God, and trust the results to God.
Ritajanice
Born-Again
I am led by the Spirit, my belief, what ever he wants me to speak out, it will be done, I’ve had time out from the forum, because God I believe led me to do so.....I’ve had to spend time alone with him, for him to work in my heart and mind..that’s my belief.
Over two years ago, @Lambano, and I must say, the system is indeed dangerous.
I still find it challenging to read my Bible, often thinking that the teachings were meant for Paul and Peter but not for me. This mindset has left deep, lasting scars. To make matters worse, I live with a brother who is a staunch Calvinist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had an exchange with a Calvinistic friend recently where he said, “Leighton, when will you accept the fact that we are born again by God’s will, not free will?!” Then he emphatically read John 1:13 to support his assertion:
“…he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
I took some time to explain to him that we, as Traditionalists/Provisionists, also believe that men a born again by the will of God. We just do not believe that decision of God is made for no apparent reason before the creation of the world (i.e. unconditionally). Instead, we argue that new life comes to those who believe upon Christ (John 20:31; John 5:40), and that anyone can come to Him in faith due to His gracious provisions (John 1:9).
JOHN 1:11-13:
This passage often comes up in the debate over Calvinistic doctrine. It typically begin with the non-Calvinist referencing John 1:12 to emphasize man’s responsibility to “receive Him” so as to be given the right to become a child of God.
John 1:12: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,”
For instance, one non-Calvinist wrote this argument to a Reformed Baptist minister, John Samson, of reformationtheology.com:
“It is clear that belief comes first, THEN they receive the right to become children of God. He gave the right to become children of God to those who believe. He did not make those who are already children of God believe. You have reversed the passage. But not only that! He only gave the right to become children of God to those that believe…”
Samson cordially defended his Reformed perspective, saying in part:
“…The very next verse (V.13) of John chapter one actually qualifies the statement about how be become adopted children of God in verse 12. It does this by asserting that this gift does not come about by the will of man but through the new birth or regeneration.
Let’s read the whole thing in context:
“He [Jesus] came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1: 11-13).
In other words, we all believe the gospel unto the adoption of God’s children because of the grace of God in regeneration, not because man exercised his unregenerate will. We were born of God, not by the will, but by the Spirit.” – John Samson (emphasis added by Samson) <link>
This response aptly represents most Calvinist’s interpretation of this passage including the Calvinistic brother in my recent exchange, but is this what the apostle John actually had in mind when it was written in the 1st century?
Born Again by God’s Will, not Free Will?
I had an exchange with a Calvinistic friend recently where he said, “Leighton, when will you accept the fact that we are born again by God’s will, not free will?!” Then he emphati…
soteriology101.com
I find Flowers and Utley liberating in unshackling the chains that held me in bondage brother.
There are ditches and landmines everywhere but praise God, we have been sealed with the Holy Spirit and have an unction.
J.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not here to discuss what Matt Slick believes.Many Calvinists insist that all the heinous evil in our world must have been meticulously “brought to pass” or “decreed” by God otherwise it would prove (1) God has no purpose for evil’s existence or (2) He is powerless to do anything about it.[1]
For instance, Calvinistic scholar, Matt Slick states,
“…if someone were robbed and beaten, and yet God had no say in the crime whatsoever (for it was a free, uninhibited action based upon the criminal’s free will), then the person robbed would not have only been unjustly treated, but the evil he endured would have had no point to it. It was just a spontaneous action from a criminal. God is sort of left helpless in the matter.” <link>
These Calvinists are committing the “false dilemma” fallacy by insisting that there are only two alternatives to the problem when other valid options are clearly available and not being offered for objective consideration.
Logical fallacies serve to confound an issue and make a false perspective appear to be valid. In this article we will debunk this fallacious argument and present a much more robust answer to the problem being presented.
First of all, let’s dispose of the second alternative presented by the Calvinist’s false dilemma, “God is powerless to do anything about moral evil.” We can all agree that God has the power to stop sin, just as He had the power to prevent it from ever entering into our world, so let’s just dismiss that as an option. We are not debating about what God COULD do, we are debating about what God is PLEASED to do. This is not about God’s abilities, its about His character.
We can affirm that “God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him,” (Ps. 115:3) while still holding on to the equally valid truth that, “the highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind” (Ps. 115:16). This means it pleases God to give man a certain level of “libertarian freedom” or “dominion.” This is a biblical view of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. As A.W. Tozer rightly explains:
“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” – A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God
One cannot presume that it did not please God to create libertarian free creatures, as do the Calvinists who present this false dilemma.
Now, let’s consider the Calvinist’s first alternative, which was, “God has no purpose for evil’s existence.” The shortsightedness of that statement is revealed by simply asking, “Did God have a good purpose in creating libertarian free creatures who have the ability to choose moral evil?”
Calvinists are failing to acknowledge the possibility that evil is a consequence of libertarian free will (the ability of morally accountable creatures to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action). The only way they can ignore this possibility is to deny God’s omnipotence by suggesting He is not powerful enough to have created libertarianly free creatures even if He was pleased to do so. Surely Calvinists do not want to suggest God is incapable of doing as He pleases.
Now, it must be noted that Non-Calvinists do believe that God does have a GOOD purpose in giving man the ability to make libertarianly free choices, even if those choices have an EVIL purpose. So, it is only in presuming that God did not purpose to create libertarianly free creatures that one is left with the dilemma of either (1) a Holy God purposing evil Himself or (2) purposeless evil.
A clear distinction must be made in the idea of God actively purposing evil and His actively using creaturely evil for His good purposes. The former impugns his Holiness while the latter highlights His redemptive sovereignty and ultimate glory as the Holy, perfect, sinless Creator.
Calvinism’s Greatest Fallacy
Many Calvinists insist that all the heinous evil in our world must have been meticulously “brought to pass” or “decreed” by God otherwise it would prove (1) God has n…
Maybe you want to check out this link-if not, leave it.
J.
I'm not sure what your position is and really, that's all I'm interested in.
Your belief
and scriptural support for your belief.
The problem of theodicy is a great one for Christianity, but that's not what this thread is about.
Also, I'm not sure what the link will show.
Why not just state what you believe and then back it up?
What the link (Leighton Flowers) is speaking to is whether God allows evil or decreed it.
I'm currently having this dicussion with @Bruce-Leiter
The distinction is very important to the understanding of God's nature.
John 1:12 is a very misunderstood verse and should not be used by Calvinists for support.Over two years ago, @Lambano, and I must say, the system is indeed dangerous.
I still find it challenging to read my Bible, often thinking that the teachings were meant for Paul and Peter but not for me. This mindset has left deep, lasting scars. To make matters worse, I live with a brother who is a staunch Calvinist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had an exchange with a Calvinistic friend recently where he said, “Leighton, when will you accept the fact that we are born again by God’s will, not free will?!” Then he emphatically read John 1:13 to support his assertion:
“…he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
I took some time to explain to him that we, as Traditionalists/Provisionists, also believe that men a born again by the will of God. We just do not believe that decision of God is made for no apparent reason before the creation of the world (i.e. unconditionally). Instead, we argue that new life comes to those who believe upon Christ (John 20:31; John 5:40), and that anyone can come to Him in faith due to His gracious provisions (John 1:9).
JOHN 1:11-13:
This passage often comes up in the debate over Calvinistic doctrine. It typically begin with the non-Calvinist referencing John 1:12 to emphasize man’s responsibility to “receive Him” so as to be given the right to become a child of God.
John 1:12: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,”
For instance, one non-Calvinist wrote this argument to a Reformed Baptist minister, John Samson, of reformationtheology.com:
“It is clear that belief comes first, THEN they receive the right to become children of God. He gave the right to become children of God to those who believe. He did not make those who are already children of God believe. You have reversed the passage. But not only that! He only gave the right to become children of God to those that believe…”
Samson cordially defended his Reformed perspective, saying in part:
“…The very next verse (V.13) of John chapter one actually qualifies the statement about how be become adopted children of God in verse 12. It does this by asserting that this gift does not come about by the will of man but through the new birth or regeneration.
Let’s read the whole thing in context:
“He [Jesus] came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1: 11-13).
In other words, we all believe the gospel unto the adoption of God’s children because of the grace of God in regeneration, not because man exercised his unregenerate will. We were born of God, not by the will, but by the Spirit.” – John Samson (emphasis added by Samson) <link>
This response aptly represents most Calvinist’s interpretation of this passage including the Calvinistic brother in my recent exchange, but is this what the apostle John actually had in mind when it was written in the 1st century?
Born Again by God’s Will, not Free Will?
I had an exchange with a Calvinistic friend recently where he said, “Leighton, when will you accept the fact that we are born again by God’s will, not free will?!” Then he emphati…
I find Flowers and Utley liberating in unshackling the chains that held me in bondage brother.
There are ditches and landmines everywhere but praise God, we have been sealed with the Holy Spirit and have an unction.
J.
It doesn't mean at all what they say it means.
This is true for all verses that they use for the simple reason that Calvinism cannot be supported scripturally.
Calvinists bring their doctrine to the scripture...eisegesis
instead of bringing their doctrine away from scripture...exegesis.
Also, Johan, if I may,,,you really need to separate what YOU post from yourself from what you post that others state or that you get from the internet. I find your posts to be a little confusing. Maybe you could highlight everything that is not from your own mind?
Just a thought.
What is your problem? I was addressing @Lambano and if you don't know my beliefs by now you are as blind as a bat.
What I post is very much ON topic.
J.
From the Internet?
What I mostly post is Scripture, so what do you find so confusing? Sacraments-Creeds? Reformed, Calvin, CC.?
What key points should I focus on when discussing this topic with other members?
Or should I just speak in tongues? Please don’t take offense, but at times, you come across as a bit overbearing and dominant, especially toward the men on this forum.
Don't become unhinged.
J.
Already replied to this and analogies, when it comes to God/spiritual, don't work very well.
Eventually, the father must let the kids go to do what they want to do.
No. We don't have to check all the 5 boxes.
Any one of those boxes is wrong.
Limited Atonement is so wrong that even some calvinist theologians don't agree with it.
Do you believe God chooses who will be saved based on nothing at all?
Do you believe man is born so depraved that he is UNABLE to seek or respond to God?
Do you believe God gave us no free will and we MUST respond yes to Him when He calls to us?
I'd say your answer to the above would be sufficient to label you a Calvinist.
Labels are good...the cut through the mud.
That's your opinion SS.
I explained why it isn't --- not much more I can do.
If you think God is so LITTLE that He couldn't give man free will because He was AFRAID of what mankind would choose,,,
that's your choice to believe.
I believe God is big enough to offer to His creation (us) free will to decide for ourselves whether or not we wish to serve Him.
John 3:16
Genesis 4:7
You're speaking as a reformed believer.
That makes you reformed.
The reformed think they're the only persons on earth that believe that God is sovereign...
they take the same stance you do:
If we have free will then God cannot be sovereign.
That makes for a very small God.
Here's how God rules:
He can intervene in nature IF He wants to.
But does He?
What is a miracle?
Isn't it when God intervenes in nature?
God set up a system...we're part of that system.
We function within it.
As for salvation....
God makes Himself known to us.
Romans 1:20
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
God asks us to be united with Him
John 15:4
4“Abide in Me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself unless it abides in the vine, so neither can you unless you abide in Me.
He asks us to obey
John 3:36
36"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."
That's it.
Simple.
Well then you don't understand calvinism.
I'm not redefining anything.
Maybe you could find out what the reformed faith teaches before accusing me of reinventing it?
You don't understand what irresistible grace is.
I'm not giving you the definition...
find out for yourself.
Unbelievable statements.
If something is biblical, you MUST agree with it....
not the many small nuances we're presented with....
BUT DO YOU THINK CALVINISM IS A NUANCE??!!
Are JWs right?
Are Mormons right?
Do you agree with them too?
You agree with everything?
HE WHO BELIEVES IN EVERYTHING
BELIEVES IN NOTHING
(can't remember who said it)
Saved and born again is the same thing Ritajanice.
There's no difference between the two terms.
Your last paragraph is most interesting since, at the start of the thread, you stated that if I wanted to argue re calvinism, I would stand alone.Over two years ago, @Lambano, and I must say, the system is indeed dangerous.
I still find it challenging to read my Bible, often thinking that the teachings were meant for Paul and Peter but not for me. This mindset has left deep, lasting scars. To make matters worse, I live with a brother who is a staunch Calvinist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I had an exchange with a Calvinistic friend recently where he said, “Leighton, when will you accept the fact that we are born again by God’s will, not free will?!” Then he emphatically read John 1:13 to support his assertion:
“…he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.”
I took some time to explain to him that we, as Traditionalists/Provisionists, also believe that men a born again by the will of God. We just do not believe that decision of God is made for no apparent reason before the creation of the world (i.e. unconditionally). Instead, we argue that new life comes to those who believe upon Christ (John 20:31; John 5:40), and that anyone can come to Him in faith due to His gracious provisions (John 1:9).
JOHN 1:11-13:
This passage often comes up in the debate over Calvinistic doctrine. It typically begin with the non-Calvinist referencing John 1:12 to emphasize man’s responsibility to “receive Him” so as to be given the right to become a child of God.
John 1:12: “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,”
For instance, one non-Calvinist wrote this argument to a Reformed Baptist minister, John Samson, of reformationtheology.com:
“It is clear that belief comes first, THEN they receive the right to become children of God. He gave the right to become children of God to those who believe. He did not make those who are already children of God believe. You have reversed the passage. But not only that! He only gave the right to become children of God to those that believe…”
Samson cordially defended his Reformed perspective, saying in part:
“…The very next verse (V.13) of John chapter one actually qualifies the statement about how be become adopted children of God in verse 12. It does this by asserting that this gift does not come about by the will of man but through the new birth or regeneration.
Let’s read the whole thing in context:
“He [Jesus] came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1: 11-13).
In other words, we all believe the gospel unto the adoption of God’s children because of the grace of God in regeneration, not because man exercised his unregenerate will. We were born of God, not by the will, but by the Spirit.” – John Samson (emphasis added by Samson) <link>
This response aptly represents most Calvinist’s interpretation of this passage including the Calvinistic brother in my recent exchange, but is this what the apostle John actually had in mind when it was written in the 1st century?
Born Again by God’s Will, not Free Will?
I had an exchange with a Calvinistic friend recently where he said, “Leighton, when will you accept the fact that we are born again by God’s will, not free will?!” Then he emphati…
I find Flowers and Utley liberating in unshackling the chains that held me in bondage brother.
There are ditches and landmines everywhere but praise God, we have been sealed with the Holy Spirit and have an unction.
J.
Aren't you at all interested in liberating others that are caught up in chains and bondage?
There are landmines and ditches everywhere but you're not willing to warn persons of them?
We're having a discussion on the reformed faith here.
If you think I'm overpowering because of my posts, you're free not to reply to them.
I'd speak to women exactly the same way I'm speaking to the men here.
Why bring up my sex?
Does my being a woman preclude me from knowing any theology?
Am I not allowed to have a serious discussion on a matter that interests me because I'm female?
And, I happen to like men....I don't know how the world would get along without them.
Now...
Similar threads
