1 Corinthians 10:13 John 3:16-18 Deuteronomy 30:19 If God is sovereign truly , then we would have no free choice . Yet the bible says we do have free choice , we are not mindless robots, we do in my opinion have the ability through faith and Gods grace to learn of salvation and many things and then choice or reject

According to Reformed Theology (the predominant view or an overview of slight variations within), how is the impeccability of Jesus reconciled with the idea that his temptations were authentic to the point he can sympathize with our own (sinful) human temptations? There would seem to be a contradiction that if he was unable to sin then how was he legitimately tempted to sin? And yet we are told he has in [Hebrews 4:15](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=hebrews+4%3A15&version=ESV) , > For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, **but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.** [ESV] And James could be understood as saying it is our fallen heart that allows us to be tempted: > But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. ([James 1:14](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+1%3A14&version=ESV)) **If Jesus is sinless and cannot sin then in what way is his temptation comparable to our own?** ----- *"This is not a duplicate" Disclaimer:* While a good answer may discuss the exact nature of Jesus' temptation and impeccability, the focus of the question is in the context of their interaction with Hebrews 4:15 and how the tension between the two is resolved. *Assumptions:* - Reformed Protestant perspective. - Jesus is and was impeccable. - Impeccability is the inability to sin. - Jesus experienced temptation in a way that is meaningful to us. ----- Related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14809/24841 https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/14116/24841

This question is following my question before. At my question there I have a quotation from Reformation Study Bible (2015) : > Divine illumination and persuasion is necessary for the heart blinded > by sin to respond to the **gospel**. From my question there, the conclusion : *"Lydia is not a believer in the sight of God when Paul walk to approach the women there"* because Lydia has not hear the Gospel yet (as Paul hasn't even sit there let alone talk to the women). > Genesis 6:9(NIV)
This is the account of Noah and his family. Noah > was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he > walked faithfully with God. > > Job 1:8 (NIV)
Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered my > servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and > upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil." 1. When God declare in the verse above, are they a non-believer in the sight of God ?
2. what is the Good News heard by Noah and Job when they are a non-believer in the sight of God ? This question appear because in a Christian Forum (in our mother language) I propose that Cornelius (before he met the angel, before he met Peter let alone heard the Gospel from Peter) is a believer in the sight of God, but the Calvinist in that forum say that *Cornelius is not a believer in the sight of God before those events, although he worship God*. The same with Lydia. Their reason : *because they (Cornelius/Lydia) haven't heard the Good News yet... so, God hasn't regenerate them. Besides there is no text read that God already opened Cornelius heart before those events*. When I ask the two questions above, I get the answer which consistent with their reason ---> *Noah/Job are a non-believer in the sight of God although they worship God because they haven't heard the Good News, so God hasn't regenerate them yet.* That's why I ask here to confirm.

From the [Cannons of Dort](https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/confessions/canons-dort) 2nd Point of Doctrine, Article III > This death of God’s Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. This is from a Calvinist perspective, but I assume that most Christians hold that Christ's atonement for man is infinite and unlimited in time and in power. My question is about where this belief was sourced from. Is it somewhere I don't know about in the Bible or from early Christian creeds/councils? So what do Calvinists point to as the origin of the belief of an infinite atonement?

Calvin, among his other points, includes the point that Atonement is Limited; i.e., that Christ's death was sufficient for all but only effective for the elect. What is the Biblical basis for this doctrine?

1 John 2:2 (ESV) > He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. Understanding the "ours" as referring to the universal church of believers, it would seem that John is saying that Christ "propitiated" for everyone's sins. Calvinism, through the doctrine of limited, or definite, or particular, atonement, says that Christ died only for the elect. How would a five-point Calvinist understand this passage?

The "L" in the TULIP acronym of Reformed Theology stands for Limited Atonement, which the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms defines as : > Sometimes called 'particular redemption,' the view that Jesus' death > secured salvation for only a limited number of persons (the elect), > in contrast to the idea that the work of the cross is intended for all > humankind (as in “unlimited atonement”). This view resulted from the > post-Reformation development of the doctrine of election in Calvinist > circles. Proponents claim that because not everyone is saved, God > could not have intended that Christ die for everyone. We already have a question asking for the Biblical basis **for** Limited Atonement , so my question is what is the Biblical argument **against** Limited Atonement?

Union with Christ is a central doctrine in Reformed Theology, and concerns the mystical union of the believer with Christ, by faith and by the Holy Spirit. In faith the Spirit unites us to Christ, and that union is the means by which Christ's saving work is applied to us, it is the power of regeneration, and the basis on which the earthly church can and should be united. While there may be a sense in which all of the elect are united to Christ even before they come to faith, this Union is normally spoken about in reference to our temporal experience of God's grace: the unbelieving elect person is not yet united to Christ, but instead we are united to Christ when we are given new life, the power to have faith, and freed from sin, or in other words, saved. (Though there is a logical order, the *ordo salutis*, from our perspective we experience these things concurrently.) So here we come to my question: Does Reformed Theology teach that the Old Testament saints were personally united to Christ in this same way? Reformed theologians have traditionally taught Covenant Theology, where the various Biblical covenants, including the Old (Mosaic) and the New, are seen as aspects of the one eternal Covenant of Grace. So the Westminster Confession says: > WCF 7.6: Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. **There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.** > > WCF 8.6: Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet **the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated into the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world**, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman, which should bruise the serpent's head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same and for ever. These paragraphs would seem to indicate that yes, the OT saints were united to Christ in the same way as NT Christians are. But it's not explicit, and there are some factors which would argue against it. First is that at Pentecost there seems to have been a fundamental change of state for the disciples whom the Holy Spirit came upon. Before that moment Jesus's disciples had faith, and the faith of the Christian is the same faith as that of Abraham (Romans 4:16). But the indwelling presence of the Spirit seems like something new; indeed Peter in Acts 2:16-21 says that the Spirit's coming upon them is the fulfilment of Joel 2:28-32, this "pouring out" of the Spirit being something new from the perspective of the OT prophets. When Paul describes the blessings of Israel in Romans 9:4-5 the Spirit is not one of them. A second factor is that the NT consistently describes the Spirit's indwelling as permanent. Several verses describe the Spirit as our guarantee of the rest of God's blessings (2 Cor 1:22, 2 Cor 5:5, Eph 1:13-14). In contrast the OT often speaks of the Spirit departing from someone or being taken from them (Judges 16:20, 1 Sam 16:14, Ps 51:11, Is 59:21), and many times when the Spirit comes to someone (Judges 3:10, 6:34, Ezek 2:2), it comes to someone we would most naturally describe as already having faith. Now there are many ways those verses are understood, but I've often heard it said (though not necessarily by Reformed teachers) that the indwelling of saints in the OT was only temporary, instead of the permanent indwelling Christians receive. So how does Reformed Theology understand the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Old Testament believer, and whether those believers should best be described as being personally united to Christ? ---------------- It is conceivable that Reformed Baptists may have a different answer to Reformed Paedobaptists as many of them reject Covenant Theology and would not say that there was only one covenant that applied equally to Old and New Testament saints. If this is the case, a good answer would explain the position of both Reformed Baptists and Paedobaptists.

I am attempting to explore the differences in theology between various western theological christian positions. And I would like to know according to the Catholic Church’s perspective, what teachings or beliefs of the Presbyterian Church are considered heretical and in what way. I would like to get a list of these in an easy to read list or table. An entry could be something like this example: - The denial of the Real Presence in the Eucharist (sacramental symbolism) is deemed heretical because it rejects the belief that the bread and wine become Christ’s actual Body and Blood during Mass. This matters because the Eucharist as a central sacrament for salvation and communion with Christ according to the Catholic Church.

I've heard that both Reformed and Roman Catholic eschatologies have Augustine as a major foundation. True?

I was reading this question, [What were the main doctrinal disagreements between Luther and Calvin?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/6050/21576) , and one of the differences between the two was Calvin believed in double predestination, while Luther believed in single predestination. So according to my understanding: * Double Predestination – God mandates who goes to Heaven AND Hell * Single Predestination – God mandates ONLY who goes to Heaven Could somebody give a Calvinist support for double predestination? Related Question: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/53984/

>For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God - Ephesians 2:8. >No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day - John 6:44. There are other passages that say that we are saved through faith and other passages that say that God calls us to salvation, but I've found no passage that mentions both. So is it reasonable that the way God calls/draws to salvation is by giving faith? I look for answers from the point of view of those who believe that both Bible verses are talking about salvation. I am very pleased that I have received answers from a number of different perspectives. If I have to choose one, I will choose the recommended *sola fide*, especially since I already have excellent answers for Reformed Theology. **Conclusion:** God's saving call is the Gospel message we'd probably already heard. The difference is that God opens our spiritual ears to accept that call. The Gospel message heard through spiritual ears produces Faith. This is the relationship between God's call and Faith, and this is the way that Faith is the gift of God. My thanks to you all for reopening this question.

From what I understand, Calvin not only taught, but effectively systematized the doctrine of "predestinarianism," which holds that: >God for His own glorification, and without any regard to original sin, >has created some as "vessels of mercy", others as "vessels of wrath". >Those created for hell He has also predestined for sin, and whatever faith >and righteousness they may exhibit are at most only apparent, since all >graces and means of salvation are efficacious only in those predestined for >heaven. (From the Catholic Encyclopedia article on predestinarianism .) 1. Is strict Calvinism so extreme that it says God created certain souls as "vessels of wrath" destined for destruction? 2. If so, then what criteria did Calvin say a person could use to determine whether they personally were created for salvation or destruction?

**Question:** Does God, according to Calvinism, command people *He has specifically given neither the ability nor choice to do so* to repent and believe in Christ *or be damned?*1, 2 And if so, why? --- Scriptures such as as 1 Corinthians 10:13 come to mind: >(NASB) No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, so that you will be able to endure it. The inverse of which means God would be *unjust* to tempt (or let suffer temptation rather: James 1:13) and *not* give any means of escape. Thanks in advance. --- 1 By 'choice' I don't mean a 'creaturely will' as James White puts it, but a will that can choose salvation or damnation with the help of God post Fall (in the sense of refusing salvation in the case of damnation; and in the sense of accepting Christ and all that means in the case of salvation). I specify this as a 'creaturely will' which God *invented to specifically not choose* salvation does not meet the definition of 'was given the choice to be saved,' since such a choice was never even theoretically possible. Choice is here assumed to mean there is more than one *really possible* outcome (else choice is defined as 'you are free to do exactly what I tell you and nothing else.' 2 By 'ability' I mean the real and not merely theoretical capacity and power to do or perform some thing.

>Although in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first cause, all things come to pass immutably and infallibly, yet by the same providence he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently. - Westminster Confession of Faith 5.2 Please give an example of a secondary cause that is contingent and tell on what it is contingent.

>God, in his ordinary providence, maketh use of means, yet is free to work without, above, and against them, at his pleasure. - Westminster Confession of Faith 5.3. I have three related questions - 1. What does it mean that "God...maketh use of means"? 2. What is meant by "without, above, and against them"? 3. What does it mean for God to "work...above" means? **Conclusions** A sick person prays and then goes to the doctor. If the doctor provides the correct treatment and the patient recovers, the doctor is the "means". If the doctor is clueless, but the patient recovers anyway, this is "without means". If the doctor applies an incorrect treatment that should make the condition worse, but the patient recovers anyway, this is "against the means". If the doctor applies a treatment that should not cure the condition but only alleviate the symptoms, but the patient recovers anyway, this is "above the means".

What is the Biblical justification that God controls every detail of the future (as accepted by Reformed Theology)? I'm sure that this has been asked, but I can't find it. Tim Keller cites two verses from Proverbs 16. >The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord. - Proverbs 16:1 >The heart of man plans his way, but the Lord establishes his steps. - Proverbs 16:9. I think I have found both a better exposition of my question and the answer here - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/4098/102058 My thanks to Mike Borden for giving me the word, "sovereignty", which led me to this question and answers.

> And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness. - Genesis 15:4-6 > What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. - Romans 4:1-5 > This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh? Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain. He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. - Galatians 3:2-6 Does Reformed Theology (RT) assert that God made/caused/enabled Abraham to believe the promise God made in a primary fashion? What I mean is, one might say that the giving of a promise creates an opportunity for the choice to believe without directly causing that belief to occur in the same way that the prohibition in the Garden of Eden created an opportunity for Adam to choose but God didn't make Adam disobey. I think that RT affirms the latter (please correct me if I'm wrong). Does RT reject the former and assert that Abraham in no way would or could have believed unless God enabled/gave that ability to him? If yes (which I am sort of expecting) then a good answer will explain why real choice occurred in Genesis 3 but not in Genesis 15 and also whether God activated something latent in Abraham or gave him something brand new. In other words, did Adam's ability to make an actual choice disappear from humanity, go dormant, or something else? Bonus points for explaining (if yes) why Abraham's first act with his God-given faith was to ask for proof of God's re-iteration of his promise from Genesis 12:7. If God gave Abraham faith to believe (which Abraham played no part in), why was it a faith that doubted? > And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it. And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? - Genesis 15:7-8

In providing a Reformed Theology answer to a question on God's sovereignty, [@Sampson writes](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/4102/10672) : >Further, God's decree does not strive against man's will, in that man is forced into doing all that God decrees man will do, but instead man's will is determined by the decree. We willingly do that which God has decreed we will do (yet not necessarily that which God has prescribed). From a Reformed Theology point of view, what is the difference between "decreed" and "prescribed"? **Answer** I have extracted the following from Anne's answer - "Decreed" is God's unavoidable will. "Prescribed" is the rules God gives to men to follow. So, it goes like this - God gives mankind a rule to follow. God decrees that "John" will violate that rule. God arranges that John's free will cause him to violate the rule (sin). John's free will causes him to sin. God punishes John for this sin. God is not the author of sin.

In Reformed teaching, how can we discern when a doctrine is genuinely grounded in Scripture versus when we’ve gone beyond what the text actually says (1 Cor 4:6)? As a lay student seeking to handle God’s Word reverently, how can I develop the habit of distinguishing between what Scripture explicitly states and what comes from common assumptions or inherited interpretations—so that I do not “go beyond what is written,” especially on topics that the Bible addresses only briefly or selectively, particularly from a Reformed view?