# How do you counter THIS one?



## turmeric (Jul 5, 2006)

How do I know that what I believe per the Reformed faith is true, rather than just being what I want to believe? For instance, in discussing Arminianism or Dispensationalism, if someone asks me what I believe, I don't know if I believe in the Reformed faith or if I just desperately want it to be true. "Maybe" the other person argues " you don't agree with me because you don't really want the truth..." etc.


----------



## Ivan (Jul 5, 2006)

"I am not a Calvinist by choice, but because I cannot help it." --- Charles Spurgeon

The Reformed faith is the Biblical faith. We believe what we do because the Word of God compels us to believe what we do.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 5, 2006)

As a brief but key note, this is where it is crucial to keep in mind that there is in fact no single answer to a question like this, but rather a question like that illustrates and points to the need for all of us to continually study the Word and systematic theology as a whole in a balanced, faithful way, so as to be able to meet such responses in any form.


----------



## MW (Jul 5, 2006)

Regrettably. today, discussion involves the personal element, and facts are seen as interpreted from the personal perspective. Well even within that framework the reformed faith has the ability to outshine all other systems.

Suppose you adopt the reformed faith because it is what you want to believe. Why do you want it? What is it about the reformed faith that makes it so appealing to you, as a human being made in the image of God yet fallen from His glory?

There are two *personal* aspects about the reformed faith which its proponents continually emphasise: (1.) It gives God all the glory for the salvation of men. (2.) It humbles man, and shows him that his everything rests in God, more particularly, God in Christ.

These two points are the ultimate in personal religion.

It would be better if the personal element were left out of debates between competing system of thoughts. But if the subjective must be brought into it, then the reformed faith holds its own even here.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 5, 2006)

If this {calvinism} is a delusion, it is better than any drug or dope ever devised by a man.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 5, 2006)

Meg,

This is no different fundamentally than an unbeliever, atheist, agnostic, etc"¦saying the same thing to defend their position. What is attempted is to dislodge you from your position based upon making it subjective. In the simplest response to "œcool the moment" you could throw it back upon them. E.g. "œYou want to believe in arminianism, dispensationalism, ____ism because YOU don´t want to know the truth. When the subjective is the measure of truth, then there can be no objective truth and all arguments are off. They can pretend to root theirs in the Bible by throwing yours out of the Bible. But all error really boils down to our love of some thing within man that is salvageable, even if it is post conversion. All errors boil down to some form of what we label arminian, pelagian or semi pelagian. In a word will worship. Luther knocked this one, more than ANYONE post Apostolic out of the park in his HD. 

Why do you believe the reformed faith, nickname for biblical faith? Is it because you want it to be true? No, it is because you know yourself to be so desparately in need of Christ crucified, even post conversion, that you cling to Him, the Objective. Why do you worship a God whose absolutely sovereign, because you want that? No, because you realize that within yourself there is absolutely no hope at all. You take Romans 9 to be Gospel not law when it says "œit does not depend upon the man who will or works but upon God who has mercy". The flesh is terrified of that statement for the flesh wishes to have some micron of salvation it pitched in, will works. Thus, the flesh hears LAW in this verse and is terrified so much that it must suppress it, it must reinterpret it, it must want it to mean something else so IT wishes something else to be true of this verse. But the new man within us hears that VERY same verse as pure Gospel. Why? For the new man DESIRES God´s utterly sovereign mercy and disdains the flesh´s will works. One thing I seem to recall Luther saying in his Heidelberg Disputation or alluding to it was similar to this; that the one "had" by the cross is repulsed by what he formerly was drawn to (his works, especially the good ones on the outside) and is now drawn to what he was formerly repulsed of (the Cross of Christ). It would seem to follow that one whose repulsion and drawing is so dramatically and diametrically reversed, would indeed eschew his good works not artificially as in false humility, but as one might repulse at the stench of dung found in one´s hands (this he formerly loved to hold and cuddle). And simultaneously Christ becomes greater than all gold so that he clings to Him above all else, this cross he formerly saw as utter foolishness and repulsion.

When it boils down to it the flesh, cannot desire the reformed faith but is repulsed by it because the flesh likes the dung of will works in it´s hands. But the new man glories in Christ alone, in every literal sense of that Gospel. It is the flesh that wants a doctrine to be true for its self, not the new man. The new man sees God in all things sovereign, but not nakedly for nakedly just like the Romans 9 passage it is the old man viewing it and it is terrorizing Law to him, it literally is the stench of death to the will working doer, the old man. No the new man sees the sovereignty of God through the lens of the Cross and THEN and only THEN is God´s sovereignty a comfort to him/her. God´s sovereignty apart from the cross is terrorizing Law to us sinners for God is holy and His sovereignty means I´m in infinite trouble. But God´s sovereignty revealed through the Cross of Christ FOR ME, is a fortress.

I hope that may be of some help,

Larry


----------



## Ivan (Jul 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> If this {calvinism} is a delusion, it is better than any drug or dope ever devised by a man.



I have to say  to that! 

The more I read of Calvin, the Puritans, Spurgeon, Lloyd-Jones and others AND the Word of God, the more at peace, the happier I am. I know that God in Christ is the Lord and King of the Universe and He is my Father. My peace is in Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 5, 2006)

PS: Dispensationalism suffers mainly because it fails to see the great faith in the OT rather than some form of Law. Hence it views the constitution of the NT church different. But the entire reality that the OT saints and church looked forward to the Christ to come yet not realized, His first advent, is ENTIRELY built upon faith alone in Christ alone. Now we too are in a tension of now and not yet between His first advent and second to come. We have the most light, Christ has come and completed the work, but the "not yet", consummation and final glory is still, not yet. Thus, we too rest in the tension of faith, even with more light, the first advent awaiting the second advent.

Just a quick blurb about faith.

Ldh


----------



## Ivan (Jul 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Meg,
> 
> This is no different fundamentally than an unbeliever, atheist, agnostic, etc"¦saying the same thing to defend their position. What is attempted is to dislodge you from your position based upon making it subjective. In the simplest response to "œcool the moment" you could throw it back upon them. E.g. "œYou want to believe in arminianism, dispensationalism, ____ism because YOU don´t want to know the truth. When the subjective is the measure of truth, then there can be no objective truth and all arguments are off. They can pretend to root theirs in the Bible by throwing yours out of the Bible. But all error really boils down to our love of some thing within man that is salvageable, even if it is post conversion. All errors boil down to some form of what we label arminian, pelagian or semi pelagian. In a word will worship. Luther knocked this one, more than ANYONE post Apostolic out of the park in his HD.
> ...



Larry....that was an awesome post!


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 5, 2006)

Ivan,

Coming from one as learned as you are and whose insights I greatly appreciate, though I fail to say so too often, I appreciate that very much.

Larry


----------



## MW (Jul 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> God´s sovereignty apart from the cross is terrorizing Law to us sinners for God is holy and His sovereignty means I´m in infinite trouble. But God´s sovereignty revealed through the Cross of Christ FOR ME, is a fortress.



You have hit the nail on the head there.


----------



## Ivan (Jul 5, 2006)

You know...except for a little water I could be a Presbyterian!


----------



## MW (Jul 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> You know...except for a little water I could be a Presbyterian!



John 13:10, "Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit."


----------



## JohnV (Jul 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> How do I know that what I believe per the Reformed faith is true, rather than just being what I want to believe? For instance, in discussing Arminianism or Dispensationalism, if someone asks me what I believe, I don't know if I believe in the Reformed faith or if I just desperately want it to be true. "Maybe" the other person argues " you don't agree with me because you don't really want the truth..." etc.



Meg:

I've got to respond to this one. 

This marks the difference between Christianity and every other religion, even between Christianity and all the less-than-true forms it takes. The Word of God offers certainty; others, even those who use the Word of God, offer their own interpretations. 

We have the witness of the churches throughout the ages. That's what the confessions represent. They don't even come close to representing man-made doctrines, or regional or time-founded interpretations. They are the witness of the living Spirit in the churches as each era, each church, struggles with the philosophies and "new truths" of their age. That is why you find the same truths said in so many different ways, but yet all bearing witness to the willing submission of those who have embraced Christ. 

When the Word becomes subjective interpretation, then there is no longer any certainty. For people turn from their dependence upon God to dependence upon themselves. They trust their own intellect rather than making themselves, even their intellect, captive to grace. Be very careful of those who say that everything depends upon interpretation, upon a predisposition, and then ground it in their own philosophies. They may claim to have the foundation of _sola scriptura_, but if that were truly the case then they would respect that Word as the authority even for themselves. And they would surely treat that Word in such a manner as to clearly demonstrate that respect for it, and for those who are under the banner of Christ. Instead, it is their aim to capture you under their own banner, which they have named after Christ, but is in fact dependent, in part if not wholly, upon their interpretations.

That is the position of Dispensationalism. It has marked out eras in the history of redemption that are not explicit in Scripture. You, as Reformed, have no such encumbrances in your theology. (If you do, hold them in abeyance, in obedience to the sure and certain doctrines which are amply spelled out by the churches' witness in their confessional standards. You need no personal interpretation to have before it; only obedience which is willing.) There is always something that is proposed prior to Scripture, and that is a give-away. We do not hold the Confessions in that manner at all. Every doctrine has been scrupulously proven from the Word of God; and whatever is grounded, or dependent, even in part, upon man's intellect is not doctrine. That is the position you own when you hold to the Reformed faith. 

The question, then, is turned around upon them, but they revel in what has deceived them, or upon their dishonesty. 

You may have noticed that no Reformed church worth its standard officially lays claim to Calvinism as its system of soteriology. That is because it isn't Calvinism; if the church confesses it then it is Biblical soteriology. If it were Calvinism, then that would reduce to an admission that this church is dependent upon a man's theology, even if it were only in part. 

That does not mean that we show any disrespect to Calvin as a servant of God. Not at all. In fact, we hold him higher than being a man upon whom we depend for doctrine: we hold him as a faithful minister of God's Word. And so we listen to what God has said to us through the Word through his preaching and writing. He was a witness to the same things we believe. So we are not dependent upon Calvin, but thank God for sending to us a faithful servant to lead His people back into true worship. 

Do you see how we are not at all dependent even upon our own perspectives or presuppositions, but repudiate such dependence in our faith? We have no man-made predispositions which we place before theology, but depend wholly upon the Word. Yes, the Confessions bear witness to this same dependence for themselves. 

I just had to say something, Meg. I read some of the PB every day. I don't want to post anymore, at least for a while. But I still remember my friends.


----------



## turmeric (Jul 5, 2006)

Thanks, John. Hope to see you be able to post here more someday.

I guess my problem is that I'm looking at all these different interpretations of Scripture and I'm not much of a debater. I'm not very good at "pulling down strongholds" that way. I'm impressed by the Scripture proofs in the Westminster Confession, it's overwhelming. I'm struggling with a relative who is a convinced Dispensationalist who regularly insists that she's just studying Scripture without all the "teachings of men". She thinks we just don't _want_ there to be a temple in Jerusalem with efficacious sacrifices in the "millennium". I certainly don't want such a thing to be true, it has nothing to do with the Jews, it has to do with the fact that this would mean that God is not Who I think He is. But how do I know this isn't just hatred of God on my part and deciding, as Sproul says, "_My_ God would never..."


----------



## JohnV (Jul 5, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Thanks, John. Hope to see you be able to post here more someday.
> 
> I guess my problem is that I'm looking at all these different interpretations of Scripture and I'm not much of a debater. I'm not very good at "pulling down strongholds" that way. I'm impressed by the Scripture proofs in the Westminster Confession, it's overwhelming. I'm struggling with a relative who is a convinced Dispensationalist who regularly insists that she's just studying Scripture without all the "teachings of men". She thinks we just don't _want_ there to be a temple in Jerusalem with efficacious sacrifices in the "millennium". I certainly don't want such a thing to be true, it has nothing to do with the Jews, it has to do with the fact that this would mean that God is not Who I think He is. But how do I know this isn't just hatred of God on my part and deciding, as Sproul says, "_My_ God would never..."



Then don't argue. You don't need her "teaching of men" either. If you can't argue it with her, then don't. Let it alone. Your responsibility, then, is first not to taken captive by it yourself. Then, if you have a mind to, study for to make a response to her. But don't respond to her views with your own. That justifies her concept of dependence. At worst you should be saying, "Uh-huh. That's interesting. Its not for me, though." But at best, your answer should be in respect to her person, to the fact that she is no less a child of God if she is sincere in searching the Scriptures. We have all been deceived by something or other; we are no better than she because we are Reformed. We are Reformed by the grace of God, not by our own doing. And if she is one of Christ's then she too will come to know this joy we have. 

Be patient for the Spirit. Let her claim stand. And then expect it of her to be sincere in it. 

You will find that you hardly need to argue against Dispensationalism. All you really need to do is stand firm in the faith that our fathers have handed down to us. It is not your truth to defend; it is God's truth, and therefore you stand in it and defend it, as you are enabled.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Jul 5, 2006)

Meg,

John had some great points. I understand, specific doctrine aside, what you say when you speak of "œjust studying Scripture without all the teachings of men", that´s usually a door way for fresh revelation. But that really is a modern American arrogance. That simply means I´ll obey my consciences grasp of Scripture and by the way "œI´m a man". See how that puts it back into the subjective. What do you do when two folks disagree but both claim to just be studying Scripture without all the "teachings of men"? Quite frankly, I´m a man, a sinful man, and I´m very grateful for the Luther´s, Calvin´s and Spurgeons of the world. Not because they are great men in and of themselves. But that God took these sinful instruments and condescended to even MY stupidity so that I might know Christ. I´ve always found an irony especially in those seminary students who claim to just be studying Scripture without all the "teachings of men" for themselves, but when it comes to the laity its more like "œlisten to me". Well, you know, they study the saints too, why not me together with them?

I once had a dear brother tell me "œdon´t listen to the teachings of men". Then when I had an honest different understanding of a passage of Scripture with him, he corrected me. I checked my understanding with other sound time tested commentaries and the weight of it was with what I thought I understood. Therein lies the confusion of "œdon´t listen to the teachings of men".

Look at it this way: If I "œdidn´t listen to the teachings of men" and studied medicine on my own, would you let me, a geologist, operate on your heart when you needed it?

There is also a bit of a derived cultural difference here as well. Ironically from the field of science. Historically European scientist always spoke in terms of absolute fact, "œthis is the way it is"¦", while English derived scientist tended to speak in terms of, "œin my opinion"¦". That is a subtle but crucial difference in language. America for the most part speaks in terms of "œin my opinion"¦" deriving more from their English heritage which sets up a whole "œrelative truth" structure without content category in the language before it even gets out the door. This is why some of Luther and Calvin´s writings seem harsh to us, they don´t put a "œin my opinion" in front of their writings. This is to, I think, why subjectivism is stronger in English derived theology over the more objective European history.

Ldh


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 8, 2006)

Meg,

I'm sorry I did not say this in my earlier post: One thing I would absolutely advise you to do is to go to one or more of your elders and seek their counsel and instruction, both regarding this overall issue of biblical certainty of your beliefs, and regarding your specific situation with your relative. It's clear that it matters a great deal to you to be able to communicate truth to that person, as well as truly understand it yourself so as to always rest in Christ for Who He is; and it is for those types of issues that God has assigned the responsibility to our elders of counseling and teaching people on an individual as well as familial level.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 9, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> If this {calvinism} is a delusion, it is better than any drug or dope ever devised by a man.



Totally dude!


----------



## Blueridge Believer (Sep 25, 2006)

Dispensationalism rests on one leg, the who is Israel question. If you prove to them that old and new testament saints are in the same body then the entire superstructure falls flat on its face. Likewise, Calvinism rests on its first point. If you can prove to me that man is not totally depraved and any part of his being is not affected by sin then I will renounce it. If man is totally depraved, then the other four points have to be true. Has on who came out of dispensationalism, these are the first two things that I deal with when trying to reason with someone about these doctrines.


----------



## caddy (Nov 9, 2006)

While on the Topic of _How you would Counter this one,_ help me with how you would counter this reply that I have seen before concerning Dr. Laura:


Dear Dr. Laura, 

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. 

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them. 

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? 

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense. 

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians? 

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself? 

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an Abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? 

g) Lev 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here? 

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev 19:27. How should they die? 

i) I know from Lev 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev 24:10-16) Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) 

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. 

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging. 

Your devoted disciple and adoring fan.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 9, 2006)

Contra_Mundum said:


> If this {calvinism} is a delusion, it is better than any drug or dope ever devised by a man.


----------

