Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Merits/Demerits of Reformed Theology VS. Jehovas Wittnesses.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by tabibito View Post
    It does come down to interpretation. Perhaps provision of a few compelling verses would help. All that I have seen so far are questionable (to put it politely) interpretations of verses that sometimes aren't even on topic.
    Need more specifics to process and apply your response Tabibito...
    What interpretations are you talking about?
    Last edited by dacristoy; 09-05-2014, 11:31 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      what can we do to generate some interest in this forum?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
        what can we do to generate some interest in this forum?
        The extended down time from the old server's crash hit our membership rolls hard. It will take a while to rebuild it. Patience....
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        - Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
          I disagree. I think it relies too much on specific verses, but, again, this would be best corrected from within the body of Christ. It's never been declared heretical by an ecumenical council.
          Well - reformed theology (with regards to Calvinism) is a fairly new belief system -- so I don't think it is too surprising, given the history of it, that it has never been declared heretical by an ecumenical council.

          That being said:

          1. I wouldn't go so far as to call it heretical in the damnable sense (although I would affirm it goes against historical orthodoxy), but I would probably consider it an aberration.

          2. The Early Church Fathers were fairly unanimous in calling the deterministic / fatalistic view of the world which denied libertarian free will as heretical. Coincidentally, it seems to be one of the few things that the early church fathers were actually unanimous about.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by tabibito View Post
            I don't think that denying "Christ came that all men might be saved" is mere adiaphora. Of course, I could be wrong about that, but it seems to me that the teaching critically undermines the message of the gospel.
            Yep, I'd tend to agree. I also thing that it tends to undermine God's character.

            IMO, a big issue with much of modern day calvinism is it's worldy paradigm for understanding sovereignty. In other words, it views sovereignty the way the world views sovereignty -- through meticulous control and lording over (to put it bluntly). Of course, God's view of sovereignty doesn't come through control or lording over, but through humility and servitude (the opposite of the world).


            Mark 10
            You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant

            In essence, I see the problem as viewing God's 'sovereignty' through a perspective of power, dominance and self-exaltation rather than through the lens of Christ which means understanding God's 'sovereignty' through a perspective of love and humility.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by hedrick View Post
              Historically it's a combination of date setting, rejection of the Trinity, legalism, and cultish behavior such as demanding that members cut off contact with relatives who offend the JWs.

              You can find each of these things elsewhere, but the combination is troubling. Reformed, Arminian, Pentecostals, Catholics differ in significant ways, but none of them has the kind of attitudes and behavior that would cause me to classify them as cults (though some come close).
              There are branches of the reformed who also believe that those that are not (their branch of)reformed are not saved. Those that go that far also tend to believe in shunning those that are not their branch of reformed. That's troubling IMO...
              "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

              "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Littlejoe View Post
                There are branches of the reformed who also believe that those that are not (their branch of)reformed are not saved. Those that go that far also tend to believe in shunning those that are not their branch of reformed. That's troubling IMO...
                That reminds me of RC Sproul who contends that "Arminians are Christians -- BARELY"

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                  Well - reformed theology (with regards to Calvinism) is a fairly new belief system -- so I don't think it is too surprising, given the history of it, that it has never been declared heretical by an ecumenical council.

                  That being said:

                  1. I wouldn't go so far as to call it heretical in the damnable sense (although I would affirm it goes against historical orthodoxy), but I would probably consider it an aberration.

                  2. The Early Church Fathers were fairly unanimous in calling the deterministic / fatalistic view of the world which denied libertarian free will as heretical. Coincidentally, it seems to be one of the few things that the early church fathers were actually unanimous about.
                  So, are you saying emphatically that this view so dearly held by Reformed Theology is heretical?
                  Who is most offended by this position, God or Men?
                  Same question regarding JW"s position on the deity of Christ... Essentially I'm asking if denial of the trinity is the JW's equivalent of a sin that consequences in damnation? If they die in this denial are they lost, or are there circumstances under which they are saved?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    IOW, how damaging are these errors in the sight of God?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                      Well - reformed theology (with regards to Calvinism) is a fairly new belief system -- so I don't think it is too surprising, given the history of it, that it has never been declared heretical by an ecumenical council.
                      We have the usual question of what Reformed theology actually is. In most discussion forums it's taken to be equivalent to the doctrine of TULIP. Of course Calvin and the Reformed tradition in general actually taught on all aspects of theology, and Calvin himself almost certainly did not hold limited atonement. Indeed the majority of Reformed Christians in the US today are in mainline denominations, which don't hold even Calvin's form of election.

                      But even if you think Reformed theology is equivalent to Calvin's doctrine of election, it is not fatalistic. Despite claims you'll sometimes hear, election is not based on God's sovereignty, but rather on our need for God's grace before we can do anything towards salvation. Calvin thought his treatment here was based on Augustine, which is hardly new. There were similar theologies through much of Church history, although it wasn't normally the majority opinion. As to determinism, I would argue that determinism isn't a consequence just of Calvinism, but of any view of God that includes complete foreknowledge.

                      Alister McGrath, whose book on the history of justification is accepted by pretty much everyone, believes that Trent rejected a caricature of Calvinism, not the real thing.

                      I think aspects of Reformed theology need to be reconsidered as a consequence of today's understanding of Jesus' teaching and Paul. Hence mainline Reformed theology isn't identical to Calvin's. But this is true of all historical theology.
                      Last edited by hedrick; 09-13-2014, 12:16 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                        We have the usual question of what Reformed theology actually is. In most discussion forums it's taken to be equivalent to the doctrine of TULIP. Of course Calvin and the Reformed tradition in general actually taught on all aspects of theology, and Calvin himself almost certainly did not hold limited atonement. Indeed the majority of Reformed Christians in the US today are in mainline denominations, which don't hold even Calvin's form of election.

                        Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                        But even if you think Reformed theology is equivalent to Calvin's doctrine of election, it is not fatalistic. Despite claims you'll sometimes hear, election is not based on God's sovereignty, but rather on our need for God's grace before we can do anything towards salvation. Calvin thought his treatment here was based on Augustine, which is hardly new. There were similar theologies through much of Church history, although it wasn't normally the majority opinion. As to determinism, I would argue that determinism isn't a consequence just of Calvinism, but of any view of God that includes complete foreknowledge.
                        The early church had no problem affirming both free will and complete foreknowledge. Determinism at its root isn't about knowledge but about determination. Who is the cause and determinant of the action? Both Determinism and Fatalism affirm that the cause it outside of the agent. In reality, it seems that determinism is just another name for fatalism -- with 'fate' being replaced with 'God'. Historical orthodoxy affirms that the cause of choice is the person himself.

                        "I have proved in what has been said that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault. Rather, each man is what he will appear to be through his own fault."
                        (Justin Martyr)

                        "But man, being endowed with reason, and in this similar respect similar to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff."
                        (Irenaeus)

                        Originally posted by hedrick View Post
                        I think aspects of Reformed theology need to be reconsidered as a consequence of today's understanding of Jesus' teaching and Paul. Hence mainline Reformed theology isn't identical to Calvin's. But this is true of all historical theology.
                        Eh..I am more inclined to consider most Reformed theology in light of the cultural setting in which it was originally formed (under a corrupt and troubled Catholic church).

                        To be clear, there has been shifts and changes since the reformation - and I do understand that reformation theology is more expansive than Calvinism. That being said, most modern listeners equate reformed theology with Calvinism.
                        Last edited by phat8594; 09-19-2014, 01:20 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by phat8594 View Post
                          The early church had no problem affirming both free will and complete foreknowledge. Determinism at its root isn't about knowledge but about determination. Who is the cause and determinant of the action? Both Determinism and Fatalism affirm that the cause it outside of the agent. In reality, it seems that determinism is just another name for fatalism -- with 'fate' being replaced with 'God'. Historical orthodoxy affirms that the cause of choice is the person himself.

                          "I have proved in what has been said that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault. Rather, each man is what he will appear to be through his own fault."
                          (Justin Martyr)

                          "But man, being endowed with reason, and in this similar respect similar to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff."
                          (Irenaeus)



                          Eh..I am more inclined to consider most Reformed theology in light of the cultural setting in which it was originally formed (under a corrupt and troubled Catholic church).

                          To be clear, there has been shifts and changes since the reformation - and I do understand that reformation theology is more expansive than Calvinism. That being said, most modern listeners equate reformed theology with Calvinism.
                          Perhaps someone would take the time to give me a couple instances where Reformed Theology has essentially or even substantially moved away from John Calvin. Also where does Calvin or Reformed Theology differ from the T. U. L. I. P?

                          Neither can I reconcile foreknowledge with salvific election in any respect except to say that God of his own volition Chose {Elected} faith as the only salvific tool available to men. Individual election is not, IMHO, a biblical doctrine that is ever taught in the bible.
                          Last edited by dacristoy; 09-19-2014, 05:41 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
                            Perhaps someone would take the time to give me a couple instances where Reformed Theology has essentially or even substantially moved away from John Calvin. Also where does Calvin or Reformed Theology differ from the T. U. L. I. P?

                            Neither can I reconcile foreknowledge with salvific election in any respect except to say that God of his own volition Chose {Elected} faith as the only salvific tool available to men. Individual election is not, IMHO, a biblical doctrine that is ever taught in the bible.
                            I can’t speak for the third world, but Reformed theology in the first world has taken seriously the “always reforming” part of the Reformation slogan. So we have been involved in developments in Biblical scholarship and theology in the last 500 years. As a result, most Reformed theologians accept current views of Paul, which don’t really see him as teaching TULIP. For example, many of our commentators would see his citations of the Jacob and Esau story as about God's choice of Israel, not individual predestination. We would affirm that at times God calls people and groups for specific responsibilities, but not that God chooses people to be damned.

                            Particularly in the US, there’s a movement of “neo-Calvinists” among a group of conservative Christians. But they aren't mostly part of the historic Reformed churches, although some are part of smaller conservative offshoots.

                            Reformed Christianity retains a commitment to unmerited grace. But here’s a typical statement, from a PCUSA confessional document, http://www.creeds.net/reformed/PCUSA1985/1985-int.htm

                            23 (3) The Spirit enables people to become believers.
                            24 The Spirit enabled people of all races, classes, and nations
                            25 to accept the good news of what God had done in Christ,
                            26 repent of their sins,
                            27 and enter the community of faith.
                            28 We testify that today this same Holy Spirit
                            29 makes us able to respond in faith to the gospel
                            30 and leads us into the Christian community.
                            31 The Spirit brings us out of death into life,
                            32 our of separation into fellowship.
                            33 The Spirit makes us aware of our sinfulness and need,
                            34 moves us to abandon our old way of life,
                            35 persuades us to trust in Christ and adopt his way.
                            36 In all these things we are responsible for our decisions.
                            37 But after we have trusted and repented
                            38 we recognize that the Spirit enable us to hear and act.
                            39 It is not our faith but God's grace in Jesus Christ
                            40 that justifies us and reconciles us to God.
                            41 Yet it is only by faith that we accept God's grace
                            42 and live by it.

                            Even 100 years ago, the predecessor denomination modified the Westminster confession to be clear that Christ died for everyone, and that God wants everyone to be saved.

                            Here’s an interesting statement from the PCUSA web site: http://www.presbyterianmission.org/m...destination-2/. The author notes that there are 4 things we might reasonably want to say based on Scripture, but that they are hard to keep together, and most positions on this issue tend to reject one of them. I think most PCUSA writers today would try to affirm all of them, even if that makes it hard to come up with a complete explanation for how God works.

                            Are we still Calvinists? Not in the sense that we're committed to agreeing with him on all points. But he's still influential in the current Reformed churches. I cite him regularly in discussions.

                            As to Calvin himself, he seems to have agreed with most of TULIP, but probably not limited atonement. Of course predestination didn't play such a central role in his theology as it did for more traditional Reformed theology. I would argue that for Calvin the central emphasis was our mystical union with Christ. I'm reasonably sure that Calvin would not be happy for Calvinism to be seen as synonymous with TULIP.
                            Last edited by hedrick; 09-19-2014, 06:12 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by dacristoy View Post
                              I believe that denying a literal interpretation of the phrase "all men" attacks the veracity of many other passages of scripture.
                              Hi...

                              In biblical exegesis, you must follow the context and train of thought to really nail down the intent of the author.
                              “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                ..a denial of the Churches historical view of the nature of God and Christ.

                                ....a works-based soteriology.
                                “Every promise of Scripture is a writing of God, which may be pleaded before Him with this reasonable request, ‘Do as Thou hast said.’ The Heavenly Father will not break His Word to His own child.”― Charles H. Spurgeon

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X