What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Mark Quayle]

I basically agree, but believe God is letting go of His control, not losing control. I know you said "lack of".

I just don't see any need for him to "let go" of anything. He operates through means, including our decisions. If our decisions are, without his control, still the result of causes, then why should him being at the head of all those causes, imply that he must "let go", for our decisions to be real?

 

[zoidar]

I just don't see any need for him to "let go" of anything. He operates through means, including our decisions. If our decisions are, without his control, still the result of causes, then why should him being at the head of all those causes, imply that he must "let go", for our decisions to be real?

I don't know. I hardly know what to write or what I meant by that right now, dead tired and terrible sunburn.

 

[QvQ]

Like here, God compartmentalizes His mind and heart. If the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost are one, why this division between His mind and heart?

Glad you asked the Question
The Answer (Aquinas, Augustine, Luther and Calvin)
The being of God is identical to the attributes of God. Characteristics such as omnipresence, goodness, truth, eternity, etc., are identical to God's being, not qualities that make up that being, nor abstract entities inhering in God as in a substance; in other words, God both essence and existence are one and the same.
However, just as we talk about God, Christ and the Holy Spirit, we recognize One God. To talk about the Essence and Existence of God, we use many words although God's essence and existence are identical. The mind of God, the heart of God are two sides of the same coin, just different ways we perceive God. God and Jesus are the same but we perceive them differently.
The Doctrine is Divine Simplicity.

 

[lsume]

Love is one of the primary and essential attributes which reflect the nature and character of God. The word Theology refers to the study of God, and God is Triune, a Trinity- Tri-Unity. All doctrine begins with God at its starting point. God’s innate attributes are Aseity (God is self-sufficient), Infinite (without limit), Eternal (God has no beginning or end, he is timeless), Immutable (God is unchanging), Love (God is love), Holy (God is set-apart), Perichoresis (the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Divine Simplicity states God is Love and because He is Love, not because He possesses that quality. God's love is the center of all the Divine Attributes. They point to His Being. God is not distinct from His nature.

God is Love. In love, the Father sent the Son on our behalf to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. We Love because He first loved us and sent His Son as 1 John 4 tells us.

We must understand how God's attributes all work in harmony together, not in opposition to each other. God's attributes and character flow from His love—for God is love.

God being love has nothing to do with His creation. That is secondary. God is love, and that love is perfect, lacking nothing within His Triune nature as God. Love, by definition, has to be expressed with another, which is why a unitarian god cannot be love. Love requires another to share and express that love, and it is what we see with the Triune God. God is love before anyone/anything existed.

In the monumental work of Calvin’s Institutes , it is interesting for a man with such an attention to detail when it comes to dogma and Scripture that he left out any mention of Gods primary attribute that God is love (1 John 4:8;16) and any biblical reference to those two verses in 1 John regarding God is love. His institutes contain thousands of bible references and over 1500 pages in his Institutes.

Another interesting fact is that in the Shorter Westminster Catechism of Faith, question 4 “What is God “? We read the following regarding Gods attributes and notice what is left out.

“God is Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. “

Notice like in Calvin’s Institute’s, the WCF leaves out Gods primary attribute that He is love.

Before creation, there was no sin. There was no judgment, wrath, mercy, grace, and justice. There was no Sovereignty for there was no creation to be Sovereign over. Why do you ask about those attributes and that they were not necessary? Because those are God's secondary attributes concerning the creation and the fall. God's love is a primary attribute, like Holy is a primary one. Everything about God flows from His being Love which includes His secondary attributes, which were not in use until the creation and the fall.

The true nature of Gods love is at the heart of the gospel message: God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in His shall not perish but have everlasting life, John 3:16.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3:17

Thank God for The Word.

1. 1. [11] Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.
   2. Acts.14
      1. [22] Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.
         
      2. Rom.11
         1. [22] Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

 

[QvQ]

God’s innate attributes are Aseity (God is self-sufficient), Infinite (without limit), Eternal (God has no beginning or end, he is timeless), Immutable (God is unchanging), Love (God is love), Holy (God is set-apart), Perichoresis (the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit).

I would remove "love" from that list.

The Reasons Why I Would Remove "Love":
1) God is self sufficient
2) God is the first cause,
3) God is sovereign
4) Anything that has a beginning and an end is contingent (possibility)
5) Anything that is caused by something else is contingent. (possibility)
6) The attributes (essence) of God are necessary to the being (existence) of God.

Aquinas defined "contingent" synonymous with Possible. The actualization of a possibility or contingency exists according to God's Will.

I also Don't Believe this:
(a) God is love
attributes an essential property to the individual who is God, the Father, and hence that (a) entails
(b) God wills or desires that “every person be saved.”

Yikes, I may not be a Calvinist. I might be a heretic. Actually, I believe what I believe. Not certain what a "Calvinist' is exactly.

 

[Der Alte]

God’s innate attributes are Aseity (God is self-sufficient), Infinite (without limit), Eternal (God has no beginning or end, he is timeless), Immutable (God is unchanging), Love (God is love), Holy (God is set-apart), Perichoresis (the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit).

I would remove "love" from that list.

The Reasons Why I Would Remove "Love":
1) God is self sufficient
2) God is the first cause,
3) God is sovereign
4) Anything that has a beginning and an end is contingent (possibility)
5) Anything that is caused by something else is contingent. (possibility)
6) The attributes (essence) of God are necessary to the being (existence) of God.

Aquinas defined "contingent" synonymous with Possible. The actualization of a possibility or contingency exists according to God's Will.

I also Don't Believe this:
(a) God is love
attributes an essential property to the individual who is God, the Father, and hence that (a) entails
(b) God wills or desires that “every person be saved.”

Yikes, I may not be a Calvinist. I might be a heretic. Actually, I believe what I believe. Not certain what a "Calvinist' is exactly.

I don't think removing "God is love" is a good idea.

1 John 4:8
(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.​

 

[Mark Quayle]

I basically agree, but believe God is letting go of His control, not losing control. I know you said "lack of".

Your statement there necessarily implies randomness, or chance, as the form of motion of fact. That is logically self-contradictory. Chance cannot determine anything.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God’s innate attributes are Aseity (God is self-sufficient), Infinite (without limit), Eternal (God has no beginning or end, he is timeless), Immutable (God is unchanging), Love (God is love), Holy (God is set-apart), Perichoresis (the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit).

I would remove "love" from that list.

The Reasons Why I Would Remove "Love":
1) God is self sufficient
2) God is the first cause,
3) God is sovereign
4) Anything that has a beginning and an end is contingent (possibility)
5) Anything that is caused by something else is contingent. (possibility)
6) The attributes (essence) of God are necessary to the being (existence) of God.

Aquinas defined "contingent" synonymous with Possible. The actualization of a possibility or contingency exists according to God's Will.

I also Don't Believe this:
(a) God is love
attributes an essential property to the individual who is God, the Father, and hence that (a) entails
(b) God wills or desires that “every person be saved.”

Yikes, I may not be a Calvinist. I might be a heretic. Actually, I believe what I believe. Not certain what a "Calvinist' is exactly.

Welcome to the club. You might enjoy this other thread at its present last two or so pages. Theoretical and philosophical discussion concerning First Cause and Self-existence. (not very much related to the OP, but fun nevertheless) Abortion & Slavery | Page 17 | Christian Forums

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't know. I hardly know what to write or what I meant by that right now, dead tired and terrible sunburn.

I know the feeling. God be with you brother.

 

[QvQ]

1 John 4:8
(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love

I can love God, I can have faith and hope. God can love me but whether love is an essential attribute of God is why I would remove it from the list of God's attributes.
Love does not match the requirement for attribute.

In the post by "Jesus is YhWh,' I understood the poster to state that love is the essence of God. All other attributes are secondary.

The attributes (essence) are necessary to God's existence. That is why Aquinas said that Divine Attributes are what make God, God. It is the definition of God. All attributes are necessary to the definition of God. There are rules, such as while love and hate exist, they are also opposite and contradictory. Everything else, anything that is caused or finite is contingent (possible) and subject to God's Will. I suppose "jesus is yhwh" is saying secondary attributes where I am saying contingent or possibility subject to the Will of God. However, possibility exists by the Will of God whereas the "secondary attributes" "jesus is yhwh" is claiming are subordinate are the attributes 'omnipresent," "omniscient" which do not owe existence to God's love.

Love is or is not subject to God's Will? Or is it a product of God's desire?

I also disagree that "love" is the essence of God. If love is the essence of God and it was love that prompted God to desire man's salvation, the love is sovereign, causing God. Perhaps. "love" may be the motivating force of the Will. Then the Will would consist of desire (love) prompting action Love and Will would be almost synonymous but then "will" is the attribute, not love.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't think removing "God is love" is a good idea.

1 John 4:8
(8) He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.​

If our current notion of love is what we understand God to be, then it might be worth removing and replacing with the rest of the Bible, to help us understand what God's love is.

It is worth noting, that what we call God's attributes, are not only our ideas, or our understanding, but the very word 'attribute' means only something attributed, in this case, to God. It doesn't say anything about what is actually "God is", and what is actually "this is essential to God's being", and what is actually "God does", and what is actually "we say this about him". I think there is a beautiful riddle or play on words, implied in the phrase, "God is love". It is there for us to learn by, not for us to define God by, since our frame of reference to "love", "is", and God, is necessarily stunted.

 

[John Mullally]

Mind is predestination. God knew in His mind, but "it did not enter my heart" (KJV)
It is the Heart of God that is troubled and this act of child sacrifice done through the will of man using possibilities God has created and granted is the Cause of His anger, wrath.
There is limited free will given to man to choose and arrange possibilities.

Let me try again: God is not a trickster. If burning your sons and daughters in the fire is something so repulsive that it never entered God's heart (per Jeremiah 7:31, Jeremiah 19:5, Jeremiah 32:35), then His mind is not decreeing it. God's heart and mind are one, just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one! This contradicts Calvin, which is relevant to point out on the "What is wrong with Calvinism?" thread.

“All events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God. ”John Calvin (1509-1564) Declares God's Absolute Control of Everything.​

 

[QvQ]

All events whatsoever are governed by the secret counsel of God. ”John Calvin (1509-1564) Declares God's Absolute Control of Everything.

God is good. I know that with absolute certainty. It is manifest in all of creation. So I would agree with the Westminster Confessional that goodness is an attribute of God. It is sufficient unto itself.

John, What Adam did was not in God's command nor was it in God's mind or heart. However, God consented to it. God created the opportunity. And God knew what was going to happen, either way. God knew it was within Adam's power to eat of the fruit because God granted Adam that power.
We know that. God had absolute control.
Even random, the coin toss He granted to Adam was in the mind of God when He created the opportunity and He decreed the choice. It was not in His heart perhaps, but it was, in effect, God's choice.
It does not make God a trickster. All events are governed by the secret counsel of God. God does have absolute control of everything from the foundation of the world.

Also, I don't belong to any church. I have never had any formal religious instruction. I have read the books, Bible, Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin. I am just responding out of my own personal beliefs. I am not even certain what Calvinism is. I am mostly just seeing what everyone else. believes is wrong with Calvinism.

 

[John Mullally]

God is good. I know that with absolute certainty. It is manifest in all of creation. So I would agree with the Westminster Confessional that goodness is an attribute of God. It is sufficient unto itself.

Westminster Confession of Faith - Wikipedia says it "is a systematic exposition of Calvinist theology."

It was not in His heart perhaps, but it was, in effect, God's choice. It does not make God a trickster. All events are governed by the secret counsel of God. God does have absolute control of everything from the foundation of the world.

If God says that something is so repulsive that the thought of it would never enter his heart or mind, then He is not decreeing it (as that would never enter his mind). Its cut and dry.

 

[QvQ]

Then how do you explain evil? Is it the Will of God? Did God create evil? Did God just turn man loose with all the tools and capability to do evil, and it never crossed His mind that man would do such a thing? Or is Satan a power equal to God but dark? Is Satan a demigod who intrudes upon God's domain willing evil Satan created.

This is coming very close to gnostic, with love, the pure light and the ultimate goal. There is God and the Devil who are fighting it out in creation for ultimate control. Man is given free will to make any choice as a pawn in the game. Every time man does good, God rejoices. Every time man sins, Satan laughs.

I believe that all events are governed by the secret counsel of God. God is a rational and coherent being. The mind of God, His counsels are secrets (mysteries) to me. God is good, rational, coherent and He is in control. If Satan or man is in control of any aspect of creation then God help us all.

 

[zoidar]

Your statement there necessarily implies randomness, or chance, as the form of motion of fact. That is logically self-contradictory. Chance cannot determine anything.

Not if there is free will. Then it's not random. Is it spiritually self-contradictory? And like I said, I believe soul has free will.

Your question is a bit like questions around awareness. What is the chain cause of awareness? There is none, other than God. Awareness is not caused by the body, awareness is, just like free will is.

 

[zoidar]

"Free will" (power to make all moral choices) is not a Biblical notion, it is a philosophical notion (Aristotle, Cicero) introduced by Pelagius (British monk around 400 AD) on the assumption that it is required for the moral responsibility of man. Biblically, this is not so.

I don't know enough historically to say too much, but I think free will was something the Early Church Fathers held. At least FutureAndAHope in this other thread claimed the Early Church believed in free will.

And the Early Church Fathers, note this is only a few quotes, the early Church Fathers are full of like references.

Irenaeus in his Against Heresies - Book 4 Ch 35-38

Chap. XXXVII. — Men Are Possessed of Free Will, and Endowed with the Faculty of Making a Choice. It Is Not True, Therefore, That Some Are by Nature Good, and Others Bad.

1. This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat 23:37) set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all….

…. And not merely in works, but also in faith, has God preserved the will of man free and under his own control, saying, “According to thy faith be it unto thee;” (Mat 9:29) thus showing that there is a faith specially belonging to man, since he has an opinion specially his own. And again, “All things are possible to him that believeth;” (Mat 9:23) and, “Go thy way; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.” (Mat 8:13) Now all such expressions demonstrate that man is in his own power with respect to faith. And for this reason, “he that believeth in Him has eternal life while he who believeth not the Son hath not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon him.” (Joh 3:36) In the same manner therefore the Lord, both showing His own goodness, and indicating that man is in his own free will and his own power, said to Jerusalem, “How often have I wished to gather thy children together, as a hen [gathereth] her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate.” (Mat 23:37, Mat 23:38)​

And so Does David Bercot, who has studied the Early Church for half his life.

"The early Christians were strong believers in free will. For example, Justin Martyr made this argument to the Romans: “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it is predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions—whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for.”

Clement echoed the same belief: “Neither praise nor condemnation, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of choice and avoidance, if evil is involuntary.”

Archelaus, writing a few decades later, repeated the same understanding: “All the creatures that God made, He made very good. And He gave to every individual the sense of free will, by which standard He also instituted the law of judgment.... And certainly whoever will, may keep the commandments. Whoever despises them and turns aside to what is contrary to them, shall yet without doubt have to face this law of judgment.... There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he pleases.”

Methodius, a Christian martyr who lived near the end of the third century, wrote similarly, “Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.”

The early Christians weren't simply speculating about this matter, but rather they based their beliefs on the following Scriptures, among others:

• “For God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

• “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance” (2 Pet. 3:9).

• “The Spirit and the bride say, ‘Come!' And let him who hears say, ‘Come!' And let him who thirsts come. And whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely” (Rev. 22:17).

• “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live” (Deut. 30:19).

So originally, it was the pagan world, not the Christians, who believed in predestination."

From Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up

by David Bercot

 

[RickReads]

If our current notion of love is what we understand God to be, then it might be worth removing and replacing with the rest of the Bible, to help us understand what God's love is.

It is worth noting, that what we call God's attributes, are not only our ideas, or our understanding, but the very word 'attribute' means only something attributed, in this case, to God. It doesn't say anything about what is actually "God is", and what is actually "this is essential to God's being", and what is actually "God does", and what is actually "we say this about him". I think there is a beautiful riddle or play on words, implied in the phrase, "God is love". It is there for us to learn by, not for us to define God by, since our frame of reference to "love", "is", and God, is necessarily stunted.

Redefine what love means because you don't think God fits the accepted definition of love. Sounds dark from my perspective.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not if there is free will. Then it's not random. Is it spiritually self-contradictory? And like I said, I believe soul has free will.

Your question is a bit like questions around awareness. What is the chain cause of awareness? There is none, other than God. Awareness is not caused by the body, awareness is, just like free will is.

Agreed, "There is none, other than God." But the question is not how free will exists. Most believers agree that if there is indeed free will, whatever it is, God gave it to us (or words to that effect). But if 'free will' means uncaused choice, those choices are random. And random causation is self-contradictory.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Redefine what love means because you don't think God fits the accepted definition of love. Sounds dark from my perspective.

Haven't I been saying all along I can't define love? At least, I can't define it as fits God. I can say some of what love is, and some of what God does, but when I say that God cannot do this or that because that would be unloving, my notion of 'loving' is mine and not God's. If scriptures say God is love, and say that God does a thing, then who am I to say that would not be loving for God to do?

It is one thing to speculate, this way, but it is foolish and risky to produce doctrine this way.