What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

Where Jesus comes from He is the following
1- the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world . John 1:29
2- Loves the whole world and gave His life for them. John 3:16
3- He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world not just the elect. 1 John 2:2
I rest my case .

And Romans 9:22-23 is just chopped liver?

Convenient. . .

 

[zoidar]

Please present it again. . .thanks.

It seems like "the world" in John 3:17 includes those who never receives Christ, so I find it natural that those are also included in John 3:16.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:17

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
— John 12:47

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

And Romans 9:22-23 is just chopped liver?

Convenient. . .

Where is Jesus sacrifice mentioned and him mentioned as Savior in that passage

Convenient is right . Ripping a verse from the biblical narrative .

next

 

[zoidar]

Who made that rule?

It is the right way to enter a discussion until it is Biblically shown to be incorrect.

For the same reason you don't say "I'm right, your're wrong" in a discussion. It's insulting.

 

[Clare73]

It seems like "the world" in John 3:17 includes those who never receives Christ, so I find it natural that those are also included in John 3:16.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:17

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
— John 12:47

There is no demonstration that the meaning of "world," in either verse, is "all without exception," particularly in light of the word "might" be saved, rather than "will" be saved, as well as the gospel condition which also must first be met.

 

[Clare73]

Where is Jesus sacrifice mentioned and him mentioned as Savior in that passage

Convenient is right . Ripping a verse from the biblical narrative .

next

Falls somewhat short of dealing with Romans 9:22-23.

Non-responsive. . .

Lotta' smoke. . .no fire.
Lotta' heat. . .no light.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Falls somewhat short of dealing with Romans 9:22-23.

Non-responsive. . .

Lotta' smoke. . .no fire.
Lotta' heat. . .no light.

Yes falls short of Jesus teaching proving your view is wrong. You have a contradiction that you cannot resolve.

 

[zoidar]

There is no demonstration that the meaning of "world," in either verse, is "all without exception," particularly in light of the word "might" be saved, rather than "will" be saved, as well as the gospel condition which also must first be met.

But if "the world" includes both those who don't keep Jesus' words and those that do, mustn't all be included without exception? If not, why not?

 

[Clare73]

For the same reason you don't say "I'm right, your're wrong" in a discussion. It's insulting.

It's juvenile, as well as failure to demonstrate, to focus on "right and wrong" rather than simply Biblically demonstrating one's point.

 

[Clare73]

Yes falls short of Jesus teaching proving your view is wrong.
You have a contradiction that you cannot resolve.

You have an assertion of contradiction that you cannot demonststate.

 

[zoidar]

It's juvenile, as well as failure to demonstrate, to focus on "right and wrong" rather than simply Biblically demonstrating one's point.

Ok, you are free to do as you like. But you'll get answers accordingly, you make people irritated (if that's not your goal I would have changed tactics), as we have seen here in the thread.

 

[Clare73]

But if "the world" includes both those who don't keep Jesus' words and those that do, mustn't all be included without exception? If not, why not?

Previously addressed. . .

That is the assumption we are contesting.

The world (both Gentile and Jew) does not mean all of each, only that each (not just the Jews) are included in the set.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You have made a distinction between Calvin and Calvinism multiple times. I would hope they were largely compatible. I don't like the "Hide the ball" game.

Book III of the Institutes of the Christian Religion (AKA Book III of Calvin) http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-7/LIBRARY/CALVIN/CAL_BAT3.PDF is about 500 pdf pages long with 25 chapters and multiple sections per chapter.

Calvin wrote 3 other books. If you are making an argument from Calvin's Institute of the Christian Religion, it would be nice to provide detailed reference. Otherwise, it would be akin to making an argument saying your point is supported by combining different parts of the Old Testament.

On this site there have been several times Arminianism is said to be one point departed from Calvinism. But I have seen a completely different mindset. If there's only one difference, then why the dispute on SO many passages of Scripture?

As many misrepresentations as I have heard ascribed to Calvinism and Reformed theology here, and as many ways as Arminianism has been defended, and claims of misrepresentation as are made again Calvinist's assessments of Arminianism I should think "hide the ball" serves against Arminianism at least as well. Goodness knows how many times I have to ask what someone means by FreeWill, and then have to press them on the matter, and try to find some consistent, non-self-contradictory, use of the term.

 

[Mark Quayle]

One disturbing reference in Book 3:

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
​

From Book 3, Dreadful and without a remedy:

“Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 7)​

Where does Book III of Calvin’s Institute’s present God’s love as you contend?

I expect you have heard of "holy dread"? Where is the real problem here? How can you show Calvin wrong here? And no, the fact it disturbs you is irrelevant.

 

[zoidar]

Previously addressed. . .

That is the assumption we are contesting.

The world (both Gentile and Jew) does not mean all of each, only that each (not just the Jews) are included in the set.

It was the "assumption' I have proved to be correct and you refuse to contest it.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world (anyone that hears his sayings and does not keep them), but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:17

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
— John 12:47

 

[Mark Quayle]

I provided the source by Calvin where he makes up a lot of stuff but never admits that God is Love.
So Calvin fails to address reality.
Institutes of the Christian Religion - Calvin discusses "Love"

Once again. The whole matter of Grace and the Gospel of Grace and the doctrines of Grace is about the Love of God. Why do you need to see the words, "God is love", in his writings?

Calvin was trying to show the error of one way of thinking, and to show a Biblical way of thinking. Calvinism has never been a comprehensive theology, and isn't meant to be. The argument that he doesn't write about the love of God is really weak.

 

[Clare73]

Ok, you are free to do as you like. But you'll get answers accordingly, you make people irritated (if that's not your goal I would have changed tactics), as we have seen here in the thread.

Thanks, it's not my goal. . .but do you really believe that "anti-Calvinists" will have warm regards for anyone who defends Calvin's writings? . . .NOT!. . .that comes with the territory.

Likewise, I don't understand why just simply Biblically demonstrating one's assertion, instead of tossing all one's personal objections out there, is an issue.

Don't understand the objection to being governed by the text rather than one's assumptions is an issue.

And the distinction between "Calvin" and "Calvinism" is a new one to me.
I know some Calvin, which evidently is not "Calvinism."
Nor do I do "ism's", I do Scripture.

Finally, I see the irritation to be the outcome of not being able to Biblically demonstrate those cherished incorrect understandings and false accusations. . .and just part of the price of doing this business.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Where Jesus comes from He is the following

1- the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world . John 1:29

2- Loves the whole world and gave His life for them. John 3:16

3- He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world not just the elect. 1 John 2:2

I rest my case .

hope this helps !!!

Where does 1 John 2:2 say "not just the elect"?

 

[Clare73]

It was the "assumption' I have proved to be correct and you refuse to contest it.

I don't see proof, I see preference of one of the options; i.e.,
1) all without distinction, or
2) all without exception.

And I see that preferred option as contradicting the whole counsel of God.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world

(anyone that hears his sayings and does not keep them), but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:17

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
— John 12:47

 

[John Mullally]

On this site there have been several times Arminianism is said to be one point departed from Calvinism. But I have seen a completely different mindset. If there's only one difference, then why the dispute on SO many passages of Scripture?

As many misrepresentations as I have heard ascribed to Calvinism and Reformed theology here, and as many ways as Arminianism has been defended, and claims of misrepresentation as are made again Calvinist's assessments of Arminianism I should think "hide the ball" serves against Arminianism at least as well. Goodness knows how many times I have to ask what someone means by FreeWill, and then have to press them on the matter, and try to find some consistent, non-self-contradictory, use of the term.

Well in this case, "Hide the ball" includes pretending to know little about a subject when it serves your best interest, and then pointing to a 500 page document for backup without providing details.