What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Fervent]

I am considering this light / dark analogy
Evil does not require intent. A person can be actively involved in evil without intending or recognizing the evil. Very few people set out to do evil and even then, with intent, they feel justified. (white lies for instance)
Also the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Your example fails, because one cannot lie without intending to lie. Evil requires not only aa malicious action, but also a guilty mind. Evil is not passive as darkness is, it is not a void but rebellion.

The analogy is "absence of Light" as describing the absence of a relationship with God. Cain experienced the absence of Light /God so it is not fiction. Yet it was God's decree that Cain continued to live, even in the absence of Light /God. Cain was outside the law, outlawed, which is a state of existence where Cain was unacceptable to God.
So yes, if God is analogous to Light then what Cain experienced was absence of God. Cain lived in spiritual darkness. It was by God's decree and it was passive, in the sense, if Cain had to steal or beg to live, then he was subject to passive forces (circumstance) influencing his choice
I am still thinking about this, but these are my thoughts so far.

Under the "evil is the absense of God" paradigm the fact that God decrees something makes that thing by nature not evil. This renders any claim of evil a fiction, because it is ultimately God's decree and therefore there is no absence of God in the action. There can be no absence of God if all is decreed by God, it's an impossibility.

 

[Fervent]

I would never claim that evil was “absent the will of God”. Evil is most definitely not an “accident” that just happened or a “mistake” that God never wanted to happen. [Genesis 50:20]

So then you admit your analogy is not true to type, because darkness is nothing but the absence of light. If evil is not simply an absence, then comparing it to light/darkness doesn't work.

 

[Clare73]

Trespass/fruit means work are you saying Adam's work of sin was imputed? We know it cannot be inherited, Ezekiel 18.

The NT teaches that Adam's sin/guilt is imputed (Romans 5:12-18) to all those (born) of Adam, and is
the pattern (Romans 5:14) for Christ's righteousness being imputed (Romans 4:1-11) to all those (born) of Christ (Romans 5:18-19),
just as by faith God's righteousness (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Romans 3:24-25) was imputed to Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

if yes, does that mean the unborn, children, mentally handicapped etc., are condemned to hell if they die before being reborn?

According to the word of God, all are born condemned by the sin/guilt of Adam (Romans 5:18),
which condemnation remains on them unless they believe in the Son (John 3:18).

 

[atpollard]

I don't follow how darkness is evil. Do you mean like before God created the universe only evil/darkness existed? But then it could be said that from the beginning God and evil coexisted. I don't see that make sense.

It is a logical argument. In SAT terms …

Darkness is to Light, as Evil is to Good.

• Darkness is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good.
• Light and Good both exist as a reality
• Darkness and Evil do not have an innate existence … they are only measured by the lack of their opposite.
  
• Darkness is defined by how close to ZERO (0) light something/place is. Evil can be defined by how close to ZERO (0) good (God) something/one is.

 

[atpollard]

So then you admit your analogy is not true to type, because darkness is nothing but the absence of light. If evil is not simply an absence, then comparing it to light/darkness doesn't work.

I admit … I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. See if post #3864 is any clearer.

 

[zoidar]

"Imputed" and "reckoned" are the same Greek word.

Yes...? I don't follow.

Have you seen it in apostolic writings?

You asked me why. I told you why.

"Seen it?" I have not seen it clearly been stated by Scripture. Especially not if I look at the NT as a whole.

I note you mention nothing of the NT revelation given to Paul by Jesus himself (Galatians 1:11-12).

You asked why I doubt it, not what ground there might be for believing it. Sure, some of Paul's writings can be understood that way. But everything has to fit. We can't (we can, but I won't) read Paul by himself, without taking notice of the things of other books, like Sermon on the mount.

Why did Jesus speak in parables?

I don't know all the reasons. One was for people to get a better picture of what he was talking about.

Gads!

Who made the rule that what was written 2,000 years ago must be in the formulation which suits you?

I guess it was a quite lame point I made, but the Bible seems awfully complicated to describe such a simple doctrine as "being saved by imputation of Christ's righteousness through faith".

You place a (blinding) bar in your own door. . .and our ground for discussion is fast becoming less and less. . .

...

Making it necessary to deny them.

Are you saying I deny Scripture?

 

[QvQ]

Your example fails, because one cannot lie without intending to lie. Evil requires not only aa malicious action, but also a guilty mind.

People lie to themselves all the time without recognizing the sin, without malice and without feeling guilty. If they are drugged or drunk enough, they may not have intended the act at all.
Fornication is a good example. The lie, if one is even required is "it was love"
A quote: "He's tasted good and evil in your bedrooms and your bars"
That is the darkness of East of Eden. "Feels good" is as good as it gets.
Anyway this is off topic so I will mention Calvin. I wonder where he learned so much about unregenerate? Probably the same place the rest of us did, aye?

 

[Fervent]

I admit … I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you. See if post #3864 is any clearer.

I understand your position, but the analogy is false because evil is not passive. The state of the universe where there is no light is simply darkness, but the same cannot be said for evil. Evil requires action and intention, so it cannot simply be said to be an absence. So the issue is not that I do not understand what you are claiming, but that what you are claiming is a false analogy.

 

[Fervent]

People lie to themselves all the time without recognizing the sin, without malice and without feeling guilty. If they are drugged or drunk enough, they may not have intended the act at all.
Fornication is a good example. The lie, if one is even required is "it was love"
A quote: "He's tasted good and evil in your bedrooms and your bars"
That is the darkness of East of Eden. "Not bad" is as good as it gets.
Anyway this is off topic so I will mention Calvin. I wonder where he learned so much about unregenerate. Probably the same place the rest of us did, aye?

Being mistaken about the truth is not a lie, it takes knowing the truth and seeking to subvert it to make the action a lie.

And again your mentioning of fornication is not a passive issue. It takes engaging in fornication to fornicate, which is active. The central thesis that evil is absence requires that it be the unexcited state, a default that requires no movement. That isn't the case, evil in every case requires movement.

 

[Clare73]

You asked me why. I told you why.

And I am indicating you are using an inadequate measure.

"Seen it?" I have not seen it clearly been stated by Scripture. Especially not if look at the NT as a whole.
You asked why I doubt it, not why what ground there might be for believing it. Sure, some of Paul's writings can be understood that way. But everything has to fit. We can't (we can, but I won't) read Paul by himself, without taking notice of the things of other books, like Sermon on the mount.

It takes a broader acquaintance with the whole counsel of God to get that.

I don't know all the reasons. One was for people to get a better picture of what he was talking about.
I guess it was a quite lame point I made, but the Bible seems awefully complicated to describe such a simple doctrine as being saved by "imputation of Christ's righteousness through faith".

And from where I sit, it looks like a vested interest in the Bible being too complicated to understand.

Like I said, a broader acquaintance is needed. . .

Are you saying I deny Scripture?

I'm saying you need a broader acquaintance with Scripture.

 

[zoidar]

And I am indicating you are using an inadequate measure.

It takes a broader acquaintance with the whole counsel of God to get that.
And from where I sit, it looks like a vested interest in the Bible being too complicated to understand.

Like I said, a broader acquaintance is needed. . .

I'm saying you need a broader acquaintance with Scripture.

I have vested a lot of interest in the Bible, to actually see what it says, not buying into preformulated doctrines by Lutherans, Calvinists, Catholics, Orthodox etc. without questioning their Bible accuracy. I am a person that likes to get to the bottom of things.

 

[Mark Quayle]

They were the worst and most ill-humored of all the peoples.

And they didn't enjoy hearing from their ill-humored prophets!

 

[QvQ]

I have vested a lot of interest in the Bible, to actually see what it says, not buying into preformulated doctrines by Lutherans, Calvinists, Catholics, Orthodox etc.

Me too. I kept it to myself until one day I wondered if my conclusions were mainstream or not. So I took a quizz for denomination. The result was Puritan. And Puritans were Calvinist so I wandered over here to see if I could find out a bit more about Puritans and Calvinist.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is a logical argument. In SAT terms …

Darkness is to Light, as Evil is to Good.

• Darkness is the absence of light, so evil is the absence of good.
• Light and Good both exist as a reality
• Darkness and Evil do not have an innate existence … they are only measured by the lack of their opposite.
  
• Darkness is defined by how close to ZERO (0) light something/place is. Evil can be defined by how close to ZERO (0) good (God) something/one is.

What is, "SAT" terms?

 

[zoidar]

What saved you is not what you are necessarily immediately aware of. You cannot repent nor have faith, apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. God saved you, by grace, through faith, and that not of yourself.

I could say I agree, but I know we don't mean the same things. I don't think we even agree of the application of the word "grace", but no problem.

 

[Clare73]

Me too. I kept it to myself until one day I wondered if my conclusions were mainstream or not. So I took a quizz for denomination. The result were Puritan. And Puritans were Calvinist so I wandered over here to see if I could find out a bit more about Puritans and Calvinist.

Been there, done that. . .

You evidence Reformation, as did I.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't follow how darkness is evil. Do you mean like before God created the universe only evil/darkness existed? But then it could be said that from the beginning God and evil coexisted. I don't see that make sense.

I don't get from what he said that darkness is evil. What did I miss?

 

[Clare73]

What is, "SAT" terms?

SAT usually means Scholastic Aptitude Test.

 

[Der Alte]

What is, "SAT" terms?

SAT = Scholastic Aptitude Test required for entry in to college etc.

 

[zoidar]

I don't get from what he said that darkness is evil. What did I miss?

You have to go back a few posts.

It's an interesting idea that evil existed from the beginning, but I don't see the Bible affirm that.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
— John 1:1