What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[RickReads]

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.

There isn't a problem with the way Bible explains love including God's love. I don't know what there is to speculate about although I get why it`s an issue for you as a Calvinist. For me, it was a primary cause of my questioning of my beliefs when I came to the realization that my point of view was essentially Calvinist. To create a creature with the sole intention of forever punishing it is not love, which is why I stopped believing God will do that before I could prove it Biblically.

 

[zoidar]

But if 'free will' means uncaused choice, those choices are random.

How do you figure?

 

[Mark Quayle]

There isn't a problem with the way Bible explains love including God's love. I don't know what there is to speculate about although I get why it`s an issue for you as a Calvinist. For me, it was a primary cause of my questioning of my beliefs when I came to the realization that my point of view was essentially Calvinist. To create a creature with the sole intention of forever punishing it is not love, which is why I stopped believing God will do that before I could prove it Biblically.

Once again. He did not create anyone with the SOLE intent of forever punishing it. His reason for creating the forever lost were to show his power, glory, justice, and other things, to the elect. And to that end, he created specific persons. He didn't just choose random elect, but created each one for their place in Heaven. He didn't just choose random souls to be forever condemned, he MADE them, for the purpose of demonstrating his glory to the elect.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How do you figure?

How do uncaused facts and events happen (other than first cause)? The only answer is "Chance". Thus, in the supposed "Uncaused" free will scenario what happens is random. And to this, many freewill'ers hold. But the notion of "Chance determining" anything, is self-contradictory.

 

[RickReads]

Once again. He did not create anyone with the SOLE intent of forever punishing it. His reason for creating the forever lost were to show his power, glory, justice, and other things, to the elect. And to that end, he created specific persons. He didn't just choose random elect, but created each one for their place in Heaven. He didn't just choose random souls to be forever condemned, he MADE them, for the purpose of demonstrating his glory to the elect.

Maybe you are ok with that rationalization but I believe you are taking your verses out of context i.e. Pharoah who hardened his heart on his own several times before God began directing his motives.
I believe we've already discussed this.

 

[trophy33]

His reason for creating the forever lost were to show his power, glory, justice, and other things, to the elect. ...He didn't just choose random souls to be forever condemned, he MADE them, for the purpose of demonstrating his glory to the elect.

If you also believe in hell, then after putting 1 + 1 together, you are saying that God wanted to demonstrate how just He is by creating beings He will torture for ever.

This is the area where the theology of calvinism (or perhaps just common calvinists) fails miserably to give good answers.

 

[RickReads]

Once again. He did not create anyone with the SOLE intent of forever punishing it. His reason for creating the forever lost were to show his power, glory, justice, and other things, to the elect. And to that end, he created specific persons. He didn't just choose random elect, but created each one for their place in Heaven. He didn't just choose random souls to be forever condemned, he MADE them, for the purpose of demonstrating his glory to the elect.

Here's another example of what I'm talking about,

Genesis 15:16
But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not
yet full.

The Amorites had to reach a certain level of wickedness and seal their fate before God would intervene and have them destroyed. And this is just a kingdom of heathens and not particularly nice ones.

This is a good example of how God works.

 

[zoidar]

How do uncaused facts and events happen (other than first cause)? The only answer is "Chance". Thus, in the supposed "Uncaused" free will scenario what happens is random. And to this, many freewill'ers hold. But the notion of "Chance determining" anything, is self-contradictory.

How do you explain God has free will if it's not caused? If you can't explain it, why can't you hold the belief in free will of man to be true even you can't explain how? We are created in God's image right?

God has free will that is uncaused. What if God put that uncaused free will in man?

 

[RickReads]

How do you explain God has free will if it's not caused? If you can't explain it, why can't you hold the belief in free will of man to be true even you can't explain how?

As a Calvinist, he must argue that everything is caused. Makes it a contradiction when they try to whitewash their opinion that God creates creatures solely for purposes of punishment.

If everything is caused then of course He does.

 

[zoidar]

.

 

[roman2819]

Or C. that God wouldn't ever think to decree such a thing?

Above (C) that God wouldn't ever think to decree such a thing is same as (A) God would never even think of asking people to sacrifice their children

 

[Clare73]

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.

Pelagius introduced it into to the church around 400 A.D.

However, the only thing that matters is what the Scriptures present, and you will find no "free will" in the Scriptures, nor the concept that man is able to make all moral choices.

 

[Clare73]

The kingdom of God is the divine spiritual realm, of both heaven and earth, where God's rule is acknowledged and received.
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 it then impossible that Jesus refers to this "location" were Moses and Abraham etc. are

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.

See the kingdom - after repentance and being saved
Enter the kingdom - after we die

No, it's not "possible". . .if you know the Scriptures:

Jesus said his kingdom is here and now (Luke 11:20), that it is not of this world, not an earthly kingdom (John 18:36), that it is of the spiritual world (Matthew 3:2), hidden (Luke 17:20) and within (Luke 17:21). . .that we see it and enter it after we are born again (John 3:3-8).

One does not enter it as a "location."

 

[RickReads]

Pelagius introduced it into to the church around 400 A.D.

However, the only thing that matters is what the Scriptures present, and you will find no "free will" in the Scriptures, nor the concept that man is able to make all moral choices.

Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

 

[zoidar]

Pelagius introduced it into to the church around 400 A.D.

You give no credit to David Bercot who has spent half his life studying the Early Church Fathers and claims they held the belief of free will?

 

[Clare73]

Joshua 24:15
And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

And where are the words "free will"?

I do see the presentation of voluntary choice, which is not the same as "free will" in the philosophical sense
(power to make all moral choices--can you choose to be sinless in thought, word and deed?),
which is the only sense we have of "free will," for it is not in Scripture.

 

[RickReads]

And where are the words "free will"?

I do see the presentation of voluntary choice, which is not the same as "free will" in the philosophical sense
(power to make all moral choices--can you choose to be sinless in thought, word and deed?),
which is the only sense we have of "free will," for it is not in Scripture.

Once we find out that Jesus lives we then have the free will to choose between life and death.
Calvinism denies this truth.

 

[trophy33]

Preceding causes do not make our choosing not being free.

 

[Clare73]

I did say exceptions.

For instance he had no time to get baptized.

Where?

Those pesky exceptions. . .showing one's claim to be erroneous.

 

[Clare73]

Hmmm. I'll have to study that.

Have never really considered it quite that they are part of it, but that they were simply there, like as ministering spirits. Perhaps analogous to the "friends of the bride" in Song of Solomon.

Is Hebrews 12:22-24 not describing the church, the one people of God, including the spirits of the OT saints?