What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

Why do you pretend to not understand what I write?

Would it be for the same reason you pretend not to understand John 3:3-8?

 

[misput]

Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of your point. . .

Yes, that was my point : )

 

[Clare73]

Yes, that was my point : )

So. . .Biblically demonstrate your point.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Heaven is also refered to as the kingdom of God in the Bible, but I think you know that.

If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell,
— Mark 9:47

Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.”
— Mark 14:25

In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but yourselves being thrown out.
— Luke 13:28

Another possibility is that "see the kingdom" and "enter the kingdom" refers to the same thing. You can't see the kingdom unless you have entered it.

Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
— John 3:3

Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
— John 3:5

And He was saying to them, “To you has been given the mystery of the kingdom of God, but those who are outside get everything in parables, so that while seeing, they may see and not perceive, and while hearing, they may hear and not understand, otherwise they might return and be forgiven.”
— Mark 4:11-12

I think she was referring to that very thing, no?

 

[zoidar]

I think she was referring to that very thing, no?

She said that the Bible refers to one and the same thing with "kingdom of God". And I told her there are at least two different ways how the Bible uses "kingdom of God". Of course there is only ONE kingdom of God (which is totally irrelevant to our discussion), but there are different reference points, the same way as there is the police as the police station, and the police as the officers. There is the use as kingdom of God being here now and also as where a believer goes when he/she dies. She left out the latter.

 

[zoidar]

But you seemed unable to grasp "spiritual death" when we were discussing what Jesus said John 3:3-8,
that the unregenerate man is spiritually dead, completely unable to respond in a saving spiritual manner... and now you assert it.

That's not how I use or understand "spiritually dead". My view is a convicted spiritual dead person can repent. And no, being convicted doesn't mean you are spiritually alive.

Btw, isn't this what is called a "red herring"?

 

[Clare73]

She said that the Bible refers to one and the same thing with "kingdom of God". And I told her there are at least two different ways how the Bible uses "kingdom of God". Of course
there is only ONE kingdom of God (which is totally irrelevant to our discussion),

That must be where we are getting mixed up.
It is not totally irrelevant, it is the whole point.
The kingdom of God is the divine spiritual realm, of both heaven and earth, where God's rule is acknowledged.
Being spiritual, it cannot be seen by the spiritually dead who can neither hear, see nor do anything spiritual, such as repent.
Jesus presents the new birth as preceding everything spiritual (John 3:3-8), all of which begins with first "seeing" them.

but there are different reference points, the same way as there is the police as the police station, and the police as the officers. There is the use as kingdom of God being here now and also as where a believer goes when he/she dies. She left out the latter.

It's the same one kingdom of God, both here (invisible, within, Luke 17:20-21) and
heavenly (Ephesians 1:20-23, Ephesians 2:6) at the same time, now,
it never ends, and we participate in both . . .now.
Once in it at regeneration (John 3:7), you are never outside it again.

That is what cannot be seen, understood nor received until one is born again (John 3:3-8).

 

[QvQ]

That's not how I use or understand "spiritually dead".

We are IN East of Eden. The heirs of Adam are spiritually dead
Consider, Choices are Doors. Adam chose a door in Eden, and the door closed behind him. He was on his own hook, banished by God. The room Adam was now in is East of Eden. Different neighborhood, definitely.
And Adam was alone. Adam has free will but with a different motive; survival, self interest, avoiding or alleviating the harsh realities. His intellect is colored by his environment and if he survives in East of Eden, he is puffed up and proud, deeming himself righteous and right because all he knows is himself, alone. If he fails, he curses the circumstances of his birth, the lack of possibilities and the failure of his will power. Selfish and self centered as self is his hope, his only aid and comfort in the wilderness. (unregenerate, spiritually dead)
We are the heirs of Adam. We are born East of Eden. And it is a tough neighborhood.
Adam's heirs are little more than beast. Adam's heirs have free will but the choices are a selection of possibilities within the limits of East of Eden. Adam could select diamonds, Adam's heir can only choose coal. All that is possible to Adam's heirs is East of Eden.
All doors within East of Eden, acts of will possible to Adam's heirs are within East of Eden. The possibilities, the actualization of will, is within East of Eden. A person can sit in all the chairs, even the throne in East of Eden and that is still East of Eden.
Christ is Redemption

(This is how I see it. All I do is read books. I agree with Calvin. I am not a theologian.)

 

[zoidar]

That must be where we are getting mixed up.
It is not totally irrelevant, it is the whole point.
The kingdom of God is the divine spiritual realm, of both heaven and earth, where God's rule is acknowledged.
Being spiritual, it cannot be seen by the spiritually dead who can neither hear, see nor do anything spiritual, such as repent.
Jesus presents the new birth as preceding everything spiritual (John 3:3-8), all of which begins with first "seeing" them.

It's the same one kingdom of God, both here (invisible, within, Luke 17:20-21) and
heavenly (Ephesians 1:20-23, Ephesians 2:6) at the same time, now,
it never ends, and we participate in both . . .now.
Once in it at regeneration (John 3:7), you are never outside it again.

That is what cannot be seen, understood nor received until one is born again (John 3:3-8).

You don't think there are different locations in God's kingdom? Is Moses sitting next to me when I eat breakfast?

Where is heaven? What is the location of heaven? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Jeff Saunders]

It's two verses after: "God does not have a nose."

Pure human fancy. . .with no Biblical basis.

And eternal hell is love?
Human "wisdom" at its finest--NOT!
And. . .does he have mercy on them all?. . .Oops! . . .looks like he "missed" on that one.

Absurd on its face. . .hell is not love.

Your reply shows you don’t have a true understanding of who God is or his nature. All scripture must be understood through Jesus and what he showed us while being on earth. You are correct that hell is not love if it is eternal but if it’s a place of refinement then it is a very loving act.

 

[Clare73]

You don't think there are different locations in God's kingdom? Is Moses sitting next to me when I eat breakfast?

Locations?. . .and?

They are spirits there, they aren't "located" like material bodies.

 

[zoidar]

Locations?. . .and?

They are spirits there, they aren't "located" like material bodies.

Is it then impossible that Jesus refers to this "location" were Moses and Abraham etc. are, when he says:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
— John 3:5

 

[QvQ]

Hell is contingent on God's Will, therefore while God may decree Hell as eternal, in the sense that Hell may or may not be eternal, then by definition, Hell either is or is not eternal.
It is within the Will of God

 

[Clare73]

That's not how I use or understand "spiritually dead". My view is a convicted spiritual dead person can repent.

That's a contradiction of terms. . .dead men can't do or respond to anything--be convicted or repent--both physically dead and spiritually dead men are dead--no life.

And no, being convicted doesn't mean you are spiritually alive.

Being anything animate means you are not dead.

Btw, isn't this what is called a "red herring"?

Well, that explains a lot.
"Red herring" is an irrelevant issue.
You see as irrelevant what I see as the whole point--the one kingdom of God is both earthly and heavenly, the divine spiritual realm where God's rule is acknowledged.

 

[Clare73]

Is it then impossible that Jesus refers to this "location" were Moses and Abraham etc. are, when he says:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
— John 3:5

He refers to the one and only kingdom of God, of both earth and heaven, the body of Christ, made up of the physically alive and physically deceased, as well as the angels (Hebrews 12:22-23); i.e., the church, where God reigns and rules.

 

[Clare73]

Your reply shows you don’t have a true understanding of who God is or his nature. All scripture must be understood through Jesus and what he showed us while being on earth. You are correct that hell is not love if it is eternal but if it’s a place of refinement then it is a very loving act.

Your reply shows that you sit quite loose to the authoritative word of God, feeling free to ignore, alter or deny it at will and, that likewise, you interpret Scritpure in the light of your human notions rather than the whole counsel of God.

Jesus presents hell as eternal punishment (Matthew 25:46), which is anything but refinement.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I had this idea as a Buddhist, "the chain argument" and that there was no free will. I held it is an argument against Christianity, that there couldn't be a judgement and there couldn't be sin because of that. As I became a Christian I dropped that idea, because that was necessary for the truth of the Christian faith, from my view. And here we are that you and other Christians hold the very idea I had to drop coming to Christ. I didn't know at that time there were Christians not believing in free will. Not that this proves anything, but it means something to me.

But "the chain argument", aka the cosmological argument, demonstrates simple fact, it doesn't argue for or against free will. I.e. while it shows necessary causation, it does not deny free will. Free will is both our construction and our inference, not an implication. However, there is a very simple synthesis of the two notions, which, to my mind, should be obvious.

I think this is rather an argument for free will than against. Since atheists are spiritually dead. Why would they be right in this matter?

They are only right as far as they allow the logic of causation to take them. They deny first cause, or at least, that it must be sentient. But following that, their logic is great. They too, do not claim that free will must be causeless.

 

[Mark Quayle]

He refers to the one and only kingdom of God, of both earth and heaven, the body of Christ, made up of the physically alive and physically deceased, as well as the angels (Hebrews 12:22-23); i.e., the church, where God reigns and rules.

Just as an aside, where do you consider the angels as being, or what function do they occupy, in the kingdom of God? But why do you place them as being part of the makeup, of the body of Christ? They are below us, are they not, in the end?

 

[Clare73]

Just as an aside, where do you consider the angels as being, or what function do they occupy, in the kingdom of God?

Off the top of my head. . .they are ministering spirits, sent to serve all those who inherit salvation (Hebrews 1:14). . .God's soldiers (Genesis 32:2), regiments (Matthew 26:53), messengers (Luke 1:26).

But why do you place them as being part of the makeup, of the body of Christ? They are below us, are they not, in the end?

I place them in the church because Hebrews 12:22-23 places them in church of the firstborn, along with the spirits of the OT saints.

 

[zoidar]

He refers to the one and only kingdom of God, of both earth and heaven, the body of Christ, made up of the physically alive and physically deceased, as well as the angels (Hebrews 12:22-23); i.e., the church, where God reigns and rules.

My point was just that Jesus could be talking about "location" when he says "enter". Not saying I hold that view, just saying it's possible.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea.
— Revelation 21:1

And he was saying, “Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!” And He said to him, “Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise.”
— Luke 23:42-43