What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Jesus is YHWH]

all without distinction - Romans 10:12 (Gentile as well as Jew)
all without exception - Romans 3:23 (all mankind)

Its the same group the same all.

 

[Clare73]

The OT saints and the NT saints are one and the same people of God, all saved by Grace. I have no problem with that.

My problem is with the notion that angels are part of the body of Christ, the Bride, THE dwelling place of God. God did not make the angels in his image, as far as I know. What he put us through these several thousand years is what it took for him to make a people like himself. The angels are not the ones Christ died for.

Nor, did they need to be redeemed. . .they never disobeyed.

But I'm not wed to the idea. . .it just seems to be what Hebrews 12:22-23 may be presenting.
How do you see Hebrews 12:22 in the context of Hebrews 12:22-24?

 

[Mark Quayle]

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?

God is not like us. God is self-existent. He is not a sum of his parts, he is not defined by how he does things; God indeed has free will, but it is like saying that God is good, or just, or any of the many things that we call his attributes. They are not components. They are our descriptions of who his and what he is like. God does not "possess" free will. His choice is uncaused. So we say he has free will.

But it is simply self-contradictory to say he put uncaused will in man. If he put something in man, it is caused. And we are creatures, effects, not little first causes.

You might find this interesting; you don't have to watch the whole thing to begin to get his point: the aseity of god - Bing video

 

[zoidar]

If he put something in man, it is caused.

Is the Holy Spirit caused? No, yet God gives us the Holy Spirit.

 

[Clare73]

Therefore you can't be judged for it.

Romans 5:18 disagrees with you.

 

[Clare73]

Well, good then! Then I don't see the relevance for pointing out that Pelagius argued for free will.

Good for you!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nor, did they need to be redeemed. . .they never disobeyed.

But I'm not wed to the idea. . .it just seems to be what Hebrews 12:22-23 may be presenting.
How do you see Hebrews 12:22 in the context of Hebrews 12:22-24?

To me, the disobedience of Adam and our subsequent condemnation and disobedience is part of what it took for us to become one with God, and that is in a way that I don't see the Angels being included in. We will be above the angels, though for our time here, below them.

As for Hebrews 12:22-24, I see it as simply that the holy angels will be there. Not that they are part of the Bride. The "friends of the Bride" of the song of Solomon comes to mind, though I can't begin to claim they are what is referred to there. Also, when 1 Peter 1:12 says, "which thing (that we are given) the angels long to look into" (which I take to mean that they long to understand this grace of God, and why God is the way he is, concerning us.) I see a plain distinction implied, though I can't say just what the distinction is. That reference and context does give interesting thoughts about the role of the OT saints as opposed to the role of the NT saints, though! Hadn't really studied that much.

 

[Clare73]

I believe, per the Scriptures, that will be the outcome at the end of time.
I believe, per the Scriptures, that he chose some in Christ before the foundation of the world.

If he didn't choose all. . .you do the math.

That makes Jesus a liar

John 3:15-16
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.​

Ephesians 1:4: God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world.

My view of the word of God is somewhat higher.

 

[Clare73]

Do you affirm or deny mans free will ?

I affirm man's ability to voluntarily choose what he prefers, likes, which is shown throughout Scripture.
I deny the "free will" of philosophy whereby man can make all moral choices because
man cannot make the moral choice to be sinless in thought, word and deed.
I affirm the "free agent" of philosophy where man is able to make moral choices, but not all moral choices.

Those pesky distinctions again. . .

No one is arguing for the above.

You asked the question. . .

 

[Clare73]

To me, the disobedience of Adam and our subsequent condemnation and disobedience is part of what it took for us to become one with God, and that is in a way that I don't see the Angels being included in. We will be above the angels, though for our time here, below them.
As for Hebrews 12:22-24, I see it as simply that the holy angels will be there. Not that they are part of the Bride. The "friends of the Bride" of the song of Solomon comes to mind, though I can't begin to claim they are what is referred to there. Also, when 1 Peter 1:12 says, "which thing (that we are given) the angels long to look into" (which I take to mean that they long to understand this grace of God, and why God is the way he is, concerning us.) I see a plain distinction implied, though I can't say just what the distinction is. That reference and context does give interesting thoughts about the role of the OT saints as opposed to the role of the NT saints, though! Hadn't really studied that much.

Like it!

Are you thinkin' what I'm thinkin' about our destiny?

 

[Clare73]

Its the same group the same all.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no, if it is to be in agreement with the whole counsel of God.

 

[Der Alte]

Ephesians 1:4: God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world.
I have a higher view of the word of God than that.

Anybody can make the Bible appear to support almost anything by quoting selective scripture out-of-context. Current post not excepted.

Matthew 11:28
(28) Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
John 7:37
(37) In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.​

 

[Mark Quayle]

God is good. When I have been very afraid or stressed, I would repeat those words to myself. I know that whatever appears to be chaotic, traumatic or even life threatening God is in control. It is the basic assumption of faith, that God is with me. And He will guide me through the valley, all the days of my life.
I can trust in the goodness of God

Sometimes I think this culture worships love. Love, in the common usage is so overused as to be meaningless. I would not like to see love become god. "Get the big prize "love" if you come to Jesus. Step right up folks" Love becomes the entire message.

I know what you mean. But, (like in my arguing with other Reformed believers, I like to say, (and some vehemently disagree with me) that the Arminian-leaning do have a point —after all, if we believe (as in, salvific faith), we are saved. And one needn't intellectually know it is entirely by grace for it to still be true.) God's love is still a truth, and it is compelling, according to scripture. The statement, "God is love", while distorted and nearly meaningless as some use it, is still the word of God, and it will accomplish that for which it is sent out. In other words, they have a point, though I don't like the way they comb their hair around it.

 

[QvQ]

The objection I have is "God is LOVE, therefore LOVE is god." Love has enough worship by secular true believers.
The love that John speaks of in John 3:16 " for God so loved the world", is one of the most compelling verses in the Bible. It is about God in all His Glory.

 

[RickReads]

Does it say this was to seal their fate?

But do you now believe in fate, but not determinism? Predestination by God?

I don't pile up a bunch of biased questions for you to answer so not interested in the question game
which I consider to be a poor substitute for a real dialogue.

 

[zoidar]

God is not like us. God is self-existent. He is not a sum of his parts, he is not defined by how he does things; God indeed has free will, but it is like saying that God is good, or just, or any of the many things that we call his attributes. They are not components. They are our descriptions of who his and what he is like. God does not "possess" free will. What he chooses to do is uncaused. So we say he has free will. It is simply self-contradictory to say he put uncaused will in man. If he put something in man, it is caused. We are creatures, effects, not little first causes.

You might find this interesting; you don't have to watch the whole thing to begin to get his point: the aseity of god - Bing video

I saw the video. He was saying we are changing, but the soul is not changing. The soul is the same in me now as it was when I was a kid. How do I know? Because the "I" looking out my eyes now is the same "I" that was looking out my eyes as a boy. The character changes, not the "I". We know that by experience.

I kind of like Sproul, much more than Piper or White.

 

[QvQ]

is still the word of God, and it will accomplish that for which it is sent out. In other words, they have a point, though I don't like the way they comb their hair around it.

I am unsure how state this but it seems that the current test of a person's denomination is whether a person believes in John 3:16 or Romans 11:6.
To divide the Bible into Arminian and Reformed is odd to me.
I can reconcile a belief in John and Romans but suddenly, since I tend more to Calvin's interpretation, John 3:16 is "not mine"

I mean no offense to anyone, just an observation.

 

[Clare73]

Ephesians 1:4: God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world.

My view of the word of God is somewhat higher.

Anybody can make the Bible appear to support almost anything by quoting selective scripture out-of-context. Current post not excepted.

Matthew 11:28
(28) Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
John 7:37
(37) In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.​

Go figure. . .

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

I'm guessing he means something opposite to (A). Decree is used in the Reformed term "the two wills of God", one being God's command, and the other being God's decree. Also referred to as God's revealed will, and God's hidden will. I like to say, God's command, and God's plan. Whatever, God's decree is what he has spoken into being, though we do not see it complete as yet, or what God has predestined to come to pass, or what God has said will happen. (C) suggests that God would not think to predestine or cause such a thing to be done.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I am unsure how state this but it seems that the current test of a person's denomination is whether a person believes in John 3:16 or Romans 11:6.
To divide the Bible into Arminian and Reformed is odd to me.
I can reconcile a belief in John and Romans but suddenly, since I tend more to Calvin's interpretation, John 3:16 is "not mine"

I mean no offense to anyone, just an observation.

I'm guessing you mean, since you are for Calvinism, they think that therefore you don't claim John 3:16?