I know from firsthand experience. Thankfully, I now know the truth that God wants us to live in relationship, not religion. Losing your religion may sound like a strange idea so here are 5 reasons that I hope will convince you that you should. For years, I lived a life believing that God loved me because of what I did for Him.
I looked at my church attendance, my Bible reading, my prayer time and my service as things that kept me on "God's good side" and what "saved" me. The problem with this kind of belief though is that it will enslave you to performing religious duties. The moment you begin to read the Bible less or pray less you will start to feel guilty. The truth is - you will never be able to pray enough, serve enough or read your Bible enough to earn anything from God.
God doesn't love you because of what you've done; God loves you because of what Jesus has done for you. He desires devotion that is inspired by a relationship, not an obligation. Romans 2. As I've mentioned, if you live a life of religious duty you will eventually condemn yourself because of your inability to be perfect. Along the way though religion will cause you play the comparison game with those around you.
You will look down at someone struggling with a drug addiction and at the same time you will look enviously at someone with a more powerful prayer life. When you start comparing your spiritual life to others if you don't feel like you are doing enough then you will condemn yourself, and if you feel like you are doing more then you will start to condemn others.
The only one who you should compare yourself to is Christ. And in that comparison, there is no comparison. Our only option is to accept His grace and allow Him to bridge the gap where we don't measure up. Romans If you buy into the idea that righteousness is something you can achieve then you will ultimately believe that God owes you.
Sure, you may not come right out and say it - but you will believe it. This mentality will cause you to question God - because why would God allow something bad to happen to someone who follows His rules? The Canons of Dort are one of the three defining doctrines of many Reformed churches around the world thanks Wikipedia! Specifically, the Canons of Dort are a response to the Arminian Remonstrance and, though it was not the original intention of the Canons, have been remembered and re-branded by the acronym TULIP.
It seems from the summary of the book, and the endorsements of it, that Dr. We seem to be on a firmer footing to respond to the article if it was pulled directly from the book and edited for a short article on Crossway. The entire purpose of a discussion is to reason through whether or not the argument is true or false, accurate or inaccurate.
Redefining arguments as false accusations poison the discussion before it happens. One side argues that any nation has the right to set the laws as to who enters their country and under what conditions. The other side argues that a country does not have the right to turn people away under a certain set of circumstances; specifically, we have a primary moral duty to help anyone who needs it.
See, the tactic is to change the language. Change the language, you change the narrative. By focusing on how Republicans pounce the narrative is turned away from what the Democrat said and toward the Republican reaction.
Similarly, when DeYoung redefines arguments as false accusations the narrative is pushed away from the merits of the arguments and toward the morality of the objector. What kind of person makes false accusations? A morally deficient one, of course. The denouncement of said objections by Reformed churches renders these objections false.
But, of course, this reveals a basic misunderstanding of these objections. So, even acknowledging that Reformed churches denounce these objections, which I do, does not refute the objection. At the end of the Canons of Dort —the document produced out of the Synod of Dort summarizing the key tenets of Reformed theology—there is a section dedicated to refuting common false accusations against Reformed theology.
Look at those two sentences in the quote above again. In other words, the two sentences are clearly meant to be expressing the same idea twice. Look at how they are structured: Summarizing and defending Reformed theology is the same as Christ protecting and setting apart His church for holiness. DeYoung represents, but he is the board chairman of The Gospel Coalition.
Make no mistake, Dr. DeYoung, and those who think like him, do not see the soteriological controversies as an ecumenical dispute or sibling squabble in the family of God. Instead, they are the defenders of the Church of Jesus Christ and those who object to Reformed theology are the attackers of the Church of Jesus Christ. Moreover, the Synod earnestly warns the false accusers themselves to consider how heavy a judgment of God awaits those who give false testimony against so many churches and their confessions, trouble the consciences of the weak, and seek to prejudice the minds of many against the fellowship of true believers.
I am not criticizing a historical document like the Canons of Dort for failing to align with our contemporary sensibilities of what makes for healthy dialogue. While I disagree with their theology, of course, my criticism is less aimed at the Canons the Synod produced and more at Dr. According to the Crossway article, it seems like his point is to give Reformed folks the impression their theology deserves a privileged place of reverence by Christians and protection by Jesus Christ Himself.
DeYoung seeks to transport a four-hundred-year-old confession into the contemporary soteriological controversies in order to give Reformed theology the privileged position of defining what The One True Church is today and to claim that today it is completely exempt from criticism upon pain of being under the judgment of God.
How is this helpful for dialogue? The Synod then goes on to call all people to evaluate Reformed theology in a fair and consistent way. Perhaps we could get Kevin DeYoung to bring the Synod into the present by evaluating objections to Reformed theology in a fair and consistent way as well. More effective, certainly, would be the wholesale rejection of this kind of ecumenical preening. No theology deserves the privileged place of being above reformation and correction. The great and tragic irony is that Dr.
The problem here is that opponents of Calvinism attribute to predestination conclusions that have nothing to do with predestination. Were opponents honest in this regard, the above complaints would be rendered:.
It is because those who oppose Calvinism basically agree with the Calvinists on Original Sin, Omnipotence, election, and omniscience but refuse to take these concepts to their logical conclusions. Because many people have false notions of what predestination entails and are easily misled as to what Calvinism actually says. Flowers has figured out that Total Depravity destroys free will, so he argues against Total Depravity. At least, one can see a difference between the two sides.
Brian Wagner has figured out how destructive Omniscience is to non-Calvinist arguments, so he has rejected omniscience. If Calvinist opponents would properly define Calvinist Theology to reveal the conclusions they do not like, then rational arguments would follow. However, that would require denying Total Depravity, Omnipotence, Election, and Omniscience and those are radical positions that would lead congregations to send the Pastor packing.
Why should I find that special pleading convincing? Not sure you read my comment. Trace through the significance of omnipotence and omniscience in soteriology and define the true positions and most people end up Calvinist or join one of the fringe groups.
This is not to say that the fringe groups are wrong Who knows? As for us, why we simply believe the orthodox, historical teachings of scripture. Just what a lot of folks, tired of the celebrity evangelical sideshow, are looking for. Freedom of conscience were fine words which the Magisterial Reformers never truly allowed. Calvin all over again. No, I am saying that those who disagree with Reformed Theology, agree on the basic tenants of Christian theism but then apply those tenants inconsistently in practice e,g, in their preaching.
It has nothing to do with special pleading. Rather the Calvinist objects to the inconsistent application of basic tenants by those who oppose Calvinism while claiming to agree on those basic tenants.
Is that right? If you can legitimately take such Scripture to say that God does not determine all things, do so. Sure, I can. The Calvinist doctrine of Omnipotence makes God the author of sin because my view of Omnipotence and election is much different than the Calvinists I agreed again! Just look at the articles on this website.
He argues against the Calvinist concept of total Inability which I, along with Leighton, consider to be scripturally unsupportable. I think you know this though and are just trying to mis-represent. Most of what I heard in the Calvinist church I attended for many years reflects the article above, that they and they alone were the unblemished purveyors of truth and what I heard of those who oppose Calvinism I found later, were almost entirely erroneous mis-representations.
So, there is nothing to disagree with. Whether you do this remains to be seen. As Andy suggests, it is not the terms themselves that people object to, but the definition assigned to them by Calvinists.
Most will even grant the existence of some form of predestination and election. Obviously, the fact that people have been debating these things for centuries tells us that there are various definitions for such terms. This is to ignore the real issues, and simply assert they do not exist.
It is all a lie. The concerns non-Calvinists have are based on ignorance, fear, malingering, etc. As those with even a cursory knowledge of logic understand, when a person has no real basis on which to defend their assertions they resort to logical fallacies in order to hide their lack of salient argument.
There is simply no logical escape from the points mentioned. A God who ordained every minute aspect of whatsoever will come to pass before the existence of the people who would eventually act out his plan, is indeed the author of sin along with whatsoever else comes to pass. It is absurd and unjust to blame those who simply do as has been irresistibly ordained by an omnipotent power.
While one might allow a little more leeway on the other two points, even Calvin and Luther acknowledged in their writings that their system led to complacency and concupiscence in many, although they insisted they did not understand why it should be so.
I have witnessed the latter in nearly every Calvinist I have known, and it had the same effect on my spiritual life. My dismay upon seeing this was one of my motivations for rejecting the system, as such complacency had never before defined my spiritual journey. My pastor was irate that his flock did not seem to have any interest in sanctification, particularly as many had come from holiness denominations.
On another blog a former Calvinist humorously suggested there was no such thing as Calvinism, as every representation of it was claimed to be false. It appears no genuine representation can be found. No, it not the definitions that are at issue but the implications of those definitions. For example, by omniscience, God knew who would be saved and who would not be saved before He created the universe. Consequently, God never intended for all — each and every individual — to be saved.
God did intend for some to be condemned from birth. In doing this, it is not Calvinism that is misrepresented but omniscience. Are not such actions duplicitous? In truth, that is a pretty huge assumption. And one can see in it why Calvinists believe in a disingenuous, duplicitous God, who treats people as if they can make choices that they genuinely cannot. Who know, perhaps Open Theism has the proper understanding, or perhaps none of us see through the glass clearly?
Their choice is real, undetermined and, even if known by God in some way beyond our comprehension, not settled until it is made. So, why take it out on Calvinists just because they tell the truth?
A believer is one who worships in spirit and truth! Praise God who alone gets the glory!!! I stand here begging you to logically consider what your saying! I desire for all true believers to be united in Spirit and grow in His love! But I reject calvinism because it presents a marred view of our Holy God and I will never stand for it unless He forcefully changes my will which I trust He will not!!! He is a much bigger Creator who needs not force, but rather reveal!
BTW, all comments are no longer showing up stacked in my notifications. Do you want award-winning journalism with a Christian worldview , delivered to your inbox? Are You Righteous? Medi-Share breaks down everything you need to know about health care sharing. Most Popular Biden State Dept. The Pope's economics would move the world back to medieval mass starvation. Christian music stars gather for Dove Awards: 'One big family reunion'.
0コメント