What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Mark Quayle]

Calvinism has been accurately presented including a number of posts you failed to respond to.

Ugh. Ok. Please let me know which posts I failed to respond to. I will try to do so.

 

[RickReads]

Ugh. Ok. Please let me know which posts I failed to respond to. I will try to do so.

That`s ok. Most of them cited scriptures for the readers of this thread.

TULIP: 5-Point Calvinism Explained

 

[RickReads]

The strongest rebuttal of Calvinism I can present is the summary of Calvinism given by Learn Religions.
It is a neutral unbiased assessment of Calvinism by professionals.

It confirms that Calvinism is precisely what we have professed it to be. See my link in post #2762

 

[QvQ]

The strongest rebuttal of Calvinism I can present

Blessed are the Pure in Heart for they shall see God. Matthew 5:8
The question is not Does God Love Me? The question is Do I Love God?
Do I know, love, and seek God for no other reason than to know love and serve him?
These are the questions any Christian should ask themselves.
I tend to Calvinism because Calvin and I live in Biblical times here in East of Eden. Calvin's view of God and the hierarchy of heaven and hell matches my own view, particularly his clear gaze into the source and meaning of evil
For myself, wondering whether I am predestined or elected is a peculiar form of spiritual navel gazing. Yes, all of us fear we are unworthy of God but blaming Calvin for suggesting I may not be, is admitting that I either can't blame myself and I dare not blame God.
I realize I may not be elected but in the here and now, I love God. He is a friend of mine.
In the hereafter I feel God is perfectly free to choose His friends. He has my permission.

(should people who like Calvin be in this thread? Is there a thread for "What is right with Calvin"

 

[RickReads]

Blessed are the Pure in Heart for they shall see God. Matthew 5:8
The question is not Does God Love Me? The question is Do I Love God?
Do I know, love, and seek God for no other reason than to know love and serve him?
These are the questions any Christian should ask themselves.
I tend to Calvinism because Calvin and I live in Biblical times here in East of Eden. Calvin's view of God and the hierarchy of heaven and hell matches my own view, particularly his clear gaze into the source and meaning of evil
For myself, wondering whether I am predestined or elected is a peculiar form of spiritual navel gazing. Yes, all of us fear we are unworthy of God but blaming Calvin for suggesting I may not be, is admitting that I either can't blame myself and I dare not blame God.
I realize I may not be elected but in the here and now, I love God. He is a friend of mine.
In the hereafter I feel God is perfectly free to choose His friends. He has my permission.

(should people who like Calvin be in this thread? Is there a thread for "What is right with Calvin"

The problem with Calvinism is that it's not Biblically defensible so I dunno how you would do such a thread. I invited Mark to create a beat-up on the Arminian thread but he didn't do it.

 

[QvQ]

Tulip was first put into that form in 1905. The basic concepts have been around for several hundred years and if you count Augustine, several thousand.. Calvin had a massive influence on Christianity for 500 years so the claim that Calvin's work is not Biblically defensible is, at the least, weak. Surely at least a few Christians would have noticed that rather than incorporate Calvin's work into their cannons.

 

[RickReads]

Tulip was first put into that form in 1905. The basic concepts have been around for several hundred years and if you count Augustine, several thousand.. Calvin had a massive influence on Christianity for 500 years so the claim that Calvin's work is not Biblically defensible is, at the least, weak. Surely at least a few Christians would have noticed that rather than incorporate Calvin's work into their cannons.

You badly overestimate Calvin's influence. Worldwide there are an estimated 2.6 billion Christians and just 75 million are Calvinists it's estimated that only about half of those are 5-pointers.

America is a Calvinist stronghold but it is a declining theology. America props up Calvinism because it fits nicely with America's prideful idea of exceptionalism.

 

[misput]

[

That would be Scripture, not me:

Nope, not if you are wrong. Or are you never wrong about scripture?

 

[QvQ]

that only about half of those are 5-pointers

I would point to Rick Warren who is both a Baptist and a Calvinist.
If Calvinism is reduced to the TULIP, it reduces the entire works of Calvin to a few, very arguable and not very representative cliff notes not even written by Calvin but by a man in 1905.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

The problem with Calvinism is that it's not Biblically defensible so I dunno how you would do such a thread. I invited Mark to create a beat-up on the Arminian thread but he didn't do it.

It’s origins are from Augustine who was Manichaean and gnostic and brought those false beliefs about free will and inability into the church . Until that time the early church supported mans free will and ability to choose and denied origin sin . Original sin is Gnosticism- Manichaeanism.

 

[RickReads]

I would point to Rick Warren who is both a Baptist and a Calvinist.
If Calvinism is reduced to the TULIP, it reduces the entire works of Calvin to a few, very arguable and not very representative cliff notes not even written by Calvin but by a man in 1905.

Tossing out Rick Warren makes it hard for me not to heckle so please don't do that.

Did you notice that you implied that Calvin was more than a man?

 

[QvQ]

Original sin is Gnosticism- Manichaeanism.

Augustine, Luther and Calvin taught original sin.
Aquinas taught original sins as the lack of original justice, means the souls have been spiritually corrupted, and being impossible not to sin.
That is because we are heirs to Adam in East of Eden. It is impossible for us not to sin because, Aquinas first stated, God's grace was withdrawn. We could not be in accordance with God's will without His Grace.
I don't believe I am going to accuse all of those theologians of being gnostic heretics.

 

[QvQ]

Did you notice that you implied that Calvin was more than a man?

I would have written the man's name except I wasn't going to look it up. If I had capitalized Man, would that have been "equity?"

 

[RickReads]

I would have written the man's name except I wasn't going to look it up. If I had capitalized Man, would that have been "equity?"

I figured the implication was a mistake. Do you believe John spoke for God?

 

[QvQ]

The only Word of God is the Bible. I also listen to sermons. I see all the theological writings outside the Bible as sermons.

 

[RickReads]

The only Word of God is the Bible. I also listen to sermons. I see all the theological writings outside the Bible as sermons.

All righty then. You made a mistake, it happens.

Do you believe John Calvin could channel Augustine as he claimed he was able to do?

 

[trophy33]

But, do you deny what it says?

Nope.

And, by the way, they do not go to perdition because they cannot change their ways, but because they will not believe.

You wanted to say "because they cannot believe"?

 

[trophy33]

Where is this "balance" presented in Scripture that we must achieve?
And who/what is the measure of this balance?

Balance is not "presented", balance is an emergent quality from putting all important parts into their place and seeing the complete picture, instead of just some parts (Arminians vs Calvinists).

I personally found the balance regarding predetermination and free will and regarding the justice, love and wisdom of God in the works of G.W. Leibniz.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Just chiming in (I haven't read anything so far):

Question: After 2778 posts and 139 pages of intense debate, has a consensus or major conclusions been reached? Has a stalemate been reached?

Now I'm unfollowing the thread again (but feel free to quote this post so I receive the notification)

 

[zoidar]

He might have gotten the brand of Calvinism his church taught, but he didn't get the Doctrines of Grace, because he would not have abandoned them. He has not presented them accurately, which has me wondering where he learned them. He keeps saying he knows them, but he keeps misrepresenting them.

Hm, but many do get those doctrines yet aren't Calvinists... I don't think it's only about getting, but agreeing.

To me this is just crazy. It feels like putting doctrines over salvation. What use do we have of "the doctrines of grace" if we are still not saved? I hope you agree that we are not saved by doctrines but through receiving of the Holy Spirit.

To me the true "doctrine of grace" is: You repent and then you are saved by grace.