R.C.Sprouls Teaching On Reformed Theology

Phat writes: TULIP hardly seems like sizzle to me.

It is sizzle when you are told (as you were told) that you are the Elect and Saved and Once Elected you can Never Lose That Election.

Phat writes: If anything, it describes a God who is uncaring. So what if He has the power to do whatever He deems right?

But that only becomes an issue if you actually examine the teachings. How many of the Elect actually look at and examine the teachings from outside the paradigm?

Phat writes: As believers, cant we at least start with the belief that GOD is?

As believers that is a good place to start; but then it seems folk want to paint that in a way that fits their desires. Then we get Gods and gods.

Phat writes: So we can agree that we are working out our ideas of a God we can agree on?

Why. Why not let each person imagine and worship the God they create?

It is sizzle when you are told (as you were told) that you are the Elect and Saved and Once Elected you can Never Lose That Election.

It gets worse when an Elect screws up in a way that an Elected wouldn't, and so then the conclusion becomes that, actually, you weren't really truly Elected in the first place. That's an obvious scam.

The real problem is in allowing people to think that they ARE Elect.

Even if they were right about the concept of Election that would still be wrong.

Another well known Bible teacher is John MacArthur. This is what he says regarding this issue of election:

quote:

---

Among the most hotly contested and persistent debates in the history of the confessing church, the doctrine of election is perhaps the greatest of all. The question goes like this: Does God choose sinners to be saved and then provide for their salvation? Or, Does God provide the way of salvation that sinners must choose for themselves?

Where's the evidence?

This question of choice is called "election" because of the Greek word for those who are chosen—the Bible calls them eklektos. There are many such uses in the Bible (cf. Colossians 3:12; 1 Timothy 5:21; Titus 1:1; 2 John 1), but one of my favorites is in Romans 8:33: "Who will bring a charge against God's elect?" The answer is, "no one," but why? Is it because I chose God, or is it because God chose me?

One passage that is critical to the discussion is in the opening chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians. Immediately after his customary greeting, Paul launches in Ephesians 1:3-14 with a great song of praise. It's only one sentence—but, with 200 words in the Greek, it may be the longest single sentence in religious literature.

Paul touches on all the great biblical themes in that hyper-complex sentence—sanctification, adoption, redemption, and glorification—and all of them rest on one foundational doctrine, the doctrine of election. The most superlative spiritual blessings stand on Ephesians 1:4—"He chose us [elected us] in Him before the foundation of the world."

So the doctrine of election is biblical, but what does that passage really teach? I want to help you get a better grasp of that by pointing out what Paul teaches about election. If you are a believer, you can equip yourself for your next conversation on this topic. But more important, as one of His elect you can rejoice in the astonishing kindness God showed you before the world began.

What does it mean?

Paul's song is essentially his reflection on the amazing truth that God "blessed us with every spiritual blessing . . . in Christ" (Ephesians 1:3). And how did He bless us? "He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians 1:4).

God didn't draw straws; He didn't look down the corridor of time to see who would choose Him before He decided. Rather, by His sovereign will He chose who would be in the Body of Christ. The construction of the Greek verb for "chose" indicates God chose us for Himself. That means God acted totally independent of any outside influence. He made His choice totally apart from human will and purely on the basis of His sovereignty.

Jesus said to His disciples, "You did not choose Me, but I chose you" (John 15:16). And in the same Gospel, John wrote, "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, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13, italics mine). And Paul said, "But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth" (2 Thessalonians 2:13).

Those statements defining God's sovereign choice of believers are not in the Bible to cause controversy as if God's election means sinners don't make decisions. Election does not exclude human responsibility or the necessity of each person to respond to the gospel by faith. Jesus said, "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out" (John 6:37).

Admittedly the two concepts don't seem to go together. However, both are true separately, and we must accept them both by faith. You may not understand it, but rest assured—it's fully reconciled in the mind of God.

You must understand that your faith and salvation rest entirely on God's election (cf. Acts 13:48). And yet the day you came to Jesus Christ, you did so because of an internal desire—you did nothing against your will. But even that desire is God-given—He supplies the necessary faith so we can believe (Eph. 2:8).

Think about it—if your salvation depends on you, then praise to God is ridiculous. But, in truth, your praise to God is completely appropriate, because in forming the Body before the world began, He chose you by His sovereign decree apart from any of your works.

---

Just as with RC Sproul, John MacArthur is the heart and soul of Biblical Christianity. His integrity has so far remained unscathed....but the question again is this: In jars words, are these men taking pieces parts out of context? What mistake did Calvin...and much later RC Sproul and John MacArthur...make regarding the use of scripture to defend their beliefs?

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

jar writes: Why not let each person imagine and worship the God they create?

Does this include you?

Not that I know the inner workings of your mind and soul, but in my mind, the God you have created is beyond your capacity to fully understand.

He is almost certainly unlike anything any humans have defined so far.

He does not favor any one group of people.

He can be described as a She or an It because He is not simply anthropomorphically human...thus beyond gender.

In addition, your position on Jesus is still unclear. While Jesus is not God (The Father) is He a human like all of us that was resurrected by GOD? If so,
did Jesus exist pre-incarnation or was he just like the rest of us humans?

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

Phat writes: jar writes: Why not let each person imagine and worship the God they create? Does this include you?

Sure. Of course it includes me.

Phat writes: Not that I know the inner workings of your mind and soul, but in my mind, the God you have created is beyond your capacity to fully understand. He is almost certainly unlike anything any humans have defined so far. He does not favor any one group of people. He can be described as a She or an It because He is not simply anthropomorphically human...thus beyond gender. In addition, your position on Jesus is still unclear. While Jesus is not God (The Father) is He a human like all of us that was resurrected by GOD? If so, did Jesus exist pre-incarnation or was he just like the rest of us humans?

Close. Yes, GOD if GOD exists is almost certainly none of the Gods or Gods we acknowledge. And yes, a GOD that is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen is far beyond my capacity to even begin saying I understand.

It's possible that GOD might look on some creation like a father of a precocious child. But a Good Parent does not exhibit favoritism even while recognizing innate exceptional potential but instead provides greater challenges for the precocious child.

Yes. Several reasons. All the evidence shows that there are far more than two sexes, that many critters change sex, that some are both male and female and either alternating the sex or both male and female at the same time and that even the terms we use to discuss sex are amorphous.

My position on Jesus is really pretty simple.

While Jesus was living here among humans (if Jesus actually existed) he was simply a human. Not God, not part God, but just plain human; born as a human, raised as a Jew. I can't speculate of whether or not Jesus existed before his birth or after his ascension. Both of those instances face the same hurdle as all the Gods we create.

The term incarnation means to fully take on the form of; to become.

Go back to the Nicene Creed.

quote:

---

Who, for us men for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man;

---

Even the format used by the Christian Reformed Church is similar.

quote:

---

For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.

---

Both say that Jesus, regardless of any prior or later nature, was made a man, a human, just like all of us.

(aside: The Nicene Creed is still under dispute between the Western and Eastern traditions over the inclusion of the term "and the Son" in the lines in the last stanza dealing with the concept of The Holy Spirit)

quote:

---

He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.

---

And that is an important point. Even within Christianity there is not unanimous acceptance of even something a basic to the faith as the Nicene Creed; differences that have not been resolved in over 1600 years.

Based on the available evidence the idea of coming up with some consensus God seems futile.

But what we can do is examine the God different peoples market.

I can look at the God Calvinists market and say "If that is God then I reject all that God stands for". I can look at Ganesha and say "Yes, an enabler, remover of obstacles God is one I could support." I can look at the the God Young Earth supporters market or Flood supporters market and say "Nope, can't worship or honor a God that is just a dishonest trickster."

Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

jar writes: Even within Christianity there is not unanimous acceptance of even something a basic to the faith as the Nicene Creed; differences that have not been resolved in over 1600 years. Based on the available evidence the idea of coming up with some consensus God seems futile. But what we can do is examine the God different peoples market.

So again I ask: Just as with RC Sproul, John MacArthur is the heart and soul of Biblical Christianity. His integrity has so far remained unscathed....but the question again is this: In jars words, are these men taking pieces parts out of context? What mistake did Calvin...and much later RC Sproul and John MacArthur...make regarding the use of scripture to defend their beliefs? Also...concerning the "God" of Calvinism...

jar writes: I can look at the God Calvinists market and say "If that is God then I reject all that God stands for".

Whereas I can accept some of what they teach and/or market while rejecting other points or beliefs. In my mind, the Calvinists have used scripture extensively to support their idea. To reject the God wholesale means basically having to imagine a totally different God than what scripture talks about.

Ah, covering up the contradiction by calling it a mystery.

First, he says that God’s choice is independent of our decisions.

God didn't draw straws; He didn't look down the corridor of time to see who would choose Him before He decided. Rather, by His sovereign will He chose who would be in the Body of Christ. The construction of the Greek verb for "chose" indicates God chose us for Himself. That means God acted totally independent of any outside influence. He made His choice totally apart from human will and purely on the basis of His sovereignty.

And

You must understand that your faith and salvation rest entirely on God's election (cf. Acts 13:48). And yet the day you came to Jesus Christ, you did so because of an internal desire—you did nothing against your will. But even that desire is God-given—He supplies the necessary faith so we can believe (Eph. 2:8).

But he also says

Those statements defining God's sovereign choice of believers are not in the Bible to cause controversy as if God's election means sinners don't make decisions. Election does not exclude human responsibility or the necessity of each person to respond to the gospel by faith

If that faith has to be God-given it is not our fault if we lack it. If God chooses to withhold it, that is his responsibility, not ours. And if the response came from us apart from God’s gift it would get us nothing, which makes the talk of responsibility a red herring.

It’s the usual story. Give God all the credit for the good things, blame humans for the bad things. But it can’t work taken to the absolute of Calvinism - either we have a real choice independent of God’s will (even if it’s only meeting a condition God chose to set up) or we’re just puppets being blamed for the puppeteer’s decisions.

Phat writes: In jars words, are these men taking pieces parts out of context? What mistake did Calvin...and much later RC Sproul and John MacArthur...make regarding the use of scripture to defend their beliefs? Also...concerning the "God" of Calvinism...

Yes, they most certainly are taking pieces parts out of context. It's not a mistake but rather an intentional tactic to market the God they created.

Any religion that markets using proof texts or short pieces taken out of context is creating the God they want.

Phat writes: Whereas I can accept some of what they teach and/or market while rejecting other points or beliefs. In my mind, the Calvinists have used scripture extensively to support their idea. To reject the God wholesale means basically having to imagine a totally different God than what scripture talks about.

But the reality is that there is no such thing as "the God that scripture talks about". What they are marketing is the God that fits their sales plan.

The truth is that the Bible stories are filled with a vast collection of descriptions and characterizations of God and many if not most are contradictory.

There is no universal God to be found in the Bible.

What gets marketed is some extra Biblical God where each salesman picks the pieces parts out that fit his marketing plan.

It works.

And it also explains why there are so many Christian Denominations and many times more Non-Denominational Churches.

Any religion that markets using proof texts or short pieces taken out of context is creating the God they want.

If you're talking about the pieces that are TULIP, that was in fact the work of Calvin's Arminian opponents, and Calvinists object to reducing Calvin to a few tenets like that.

Your idea that anyone has some desire to "market" a religion, let alone the upstanding leaders of Christianity, is perniciously ridiculous. All the Reformers base their doctrines on the Bible and with small exceptions they agree with each other.

And of course the Bible is all about one universal God, who inspired it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: And of course the Bible is all about one universal God, who inspired it.

So you claim but of course that is simply not true or factual.

The God character in the Bible is yet another example of contradictions and evolution found throughout the Bible.

The newer God found in Genesis 1 is characterized entirely differently than the much older God found in Genesis 2&3.

In the older stories the Hebrew God is but one of many Gods and in fact tied to a particular piece of real estate. That is why Namaan asked for two donkey loads of dirt from Israel.

In the New Testament God becomes an off stage voice, a classic Greek Chorus or Mira.

Each Bible story writer created the God that was appropriate to the story being told and the era and milieu they lived within.

I guess we can endlessly trade perspectives, your recently invented attempt to kill the Bible and my traditional knowledge that the Bible is God's word. Kind of a waste of space though.

Faith writes: I guess we can endlessly trade perspectives, your recently invented attempt to kill the Bible and my traditional knowledge that the Bible is God's word.

Again with the misrepresentation Faith. You need to try to learn to not constant misrepresent stuff.

I do not attempt to kill the Bible and in fact try very hard to actually report what is honestly written in the Bible and to highlight when people misuse and pervert the Bible.

Yes, I understand that you actually believe such craziness while you slash and burn the entire history of traditional Christianity and call its true followers by the names you deserve.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

jar writes: The God character in the Bible is yet another example of contradictions and evolution found throughout the Bible. The newer God found in Genesis 1 is characterized entirely differently than the much older God found in Genesis 2&3. In the older stories the Hebrew God is but one of many Gods and in fact tied to a particular piece of real estate. That is why Namaan asked for two donkey loads of dirt from Israel. In the New Testament God becomes an off stage voice, a classic Greek Chorus or Mira. Each Bible story writer created the God that was appropriate to the story being told and the era and milieu they lived within.

So are you basically saying that in all instances, humans created God? I simply cant accept this. And if we were to honestly confront the storytellers of each era (through our magic time machine) and ask them to honestly admit that they were creating God, they would likely deny such an assertion...much as Faith denies that she does it. I can admit that humans likely make god out to be what they want Him to be and see Him as....but what bothers me about what you say is the total lack of belief that God actually exists and interacts with us. You may claim...honestly...that you have no idea...but to project this belief onto the rest of us is a bit of a stretch.