Calvinist limited love for mankind

fhansen said:

Culpability for sin is always associated with the knowledge that a person has and the deliberateness of consent. If a person cannot do otherwise but sin, with no way to opt out of that situation, then how could they be responsible for that sin, let alone deserve eternal torment for it? God would be the only one to blame in that case, not them.

Click to expand...

Culpability for sin is judged as to degree by God himself, who looks on the heart. Your appeal to deliberateness of ("or"?) consent, while it may seem noble, rules out nobody with original sin. The fallen cannot please God, because they are at enmity with God --willfully so, whether they recognize the fact or not.

fhansen said:

Yes, the worthiness comes only as we accept and embrace rather than reject that love-and so choose to love in return. And that's not a one-time event but rather an ongoing process of growth. Our justice or righteousness-and so our worthiness- increases as that love increases-because we can always turn against and walk away from it. All a work of God's that we have no means to accomplish ourselves but a work that we must nonetheless cooperate with. Man's obligation to be righteous does not go away with the new Covenant. Rather the correct means of achieving it is finally realized with Jesus' advent.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point. We, the saved, are by no means divine, and only divinity (and finally the glorified) can have the knowledge, the understanding of the nature of God's gift, and the depth of horror that sin is, to make a decision concerning the matter "REAL" or worthy. Nor do we have the integrity to keep it. But who God has chosen he will indeed save --not by our will, but by HIS.

Michael Collum said:

However, it seems that someone needs to bring the truth back from gnosis oriented salvation now.

So it's a vicious cycle.

Since it did not exist until the reformation as a teaching or refuted heresy, it's an invention.

There are many inventions, by their fruit you will know them.

Click to expand...

"All is vanity". Yet there is joy in the truth.

I don't know what you are referring to as modern gnosis-oriented salvation. But yes, the cycle of the truth being held, then being degraded and perverted as man teaches himself self-worthiness, then truth rallying back --yes, that happens.

You say it did not exist until the reformation --that is where you are wrong. It existed from the beginning, the teaching of redemption of unworthy sinners incapable of saving themselves has always been the Gospel. It is only since the Reformation been called that.

fhansen said:

Along with the myriad of other such verses that exhort, encourage, warn, and admonish believers to remain in Christ, refrain from sin, invest their talents, be holy, be perfect, wash their robes, be pure of heart, feed the hungry and clothe the naked, do good, obey the commandments, love, strive, be vigilant, persevere, with loss of eternal life generally at stake. These are all appeals to one's will.

Click to expand...

So as these are appeals to the will, and (I happily admit) to choice, how is man capable of doing these things, when his righteousness is filthy rags? And are you going to say that God's choice is based only on preknowledge of what man would do (whether by determination of mere chance, or by one being in and of himself a better person than another who does not choose what is right)? And do you say that man is capable of keeping himself faithful to God, by mere force of will and value of integrity?

Mark Quayle said:

So as these are appeals to the will, and (I happily admit) to choice, how is man capable of doing these things, when his righteousness is filthy rags? And are you going to say that God's choice is based only on preknowledge of what man would do (whether by determination of mere chance, or by one being in and of himself a better person than another who does not choose what is right)? And do you say that man is capable of keeping himself faithful to God, by mere force of will and value of integrity?

Click to expand...

No, the classical understanding is that the Holy Spirit stirs and moves man towards the cooperation that he could not possibly muster on his own, but that man can still nonetheless refuse the gift, rejecting God's overtures. Not by force of will does man remain faithful but by a cooperative effort, with man increasingly owning the choice as he grows in conviction and the virtues of faith, hope, and love with the help of grace, God acting as a good parent in helping his child stand on his own. The will is involved in that man can still stay say no at any time, even as God continues to draw man and appeal with grace. The Cross, itself, is an an act and appeal of grace to begin with. It demonstrates God's love on a scale we can only barely begin to grasp and yet is totally a matter of His turning the other cheek in the face of the worst evil possible-that of man hating God without reason and seeking to eradicate Him once he appeared physically here on the scene. But Jesus loved and forgave all the way through His passion and death. The cross doesn't force us to bow before it, only calls us to recognize its supreme value and turn to it, as we're willing and able, if we're willing. If not for the aspect of appealing, none of this drama is even necessary.

Mark Quayle said:

True, you don't understand. We don't say people don't choose. We happily claim, even demand, that they do choose. But their choice does not produce salvation.

You are also wrong about the family at church --even the more Arminian leaning churches teach that attendance, or believing in a theology, does not save, and that one is not one of the Elect by being born in a Christian family.

Your particular kind of antagonism has me wondering if you are not a poser; not many Christians go the route of saying that God changing the heart of a person is "forcing".

Click to expand...

I appreciate your explanation.

Mark Quayle said:

"All is vanity". Yet there is joy in the truth.

I don't know what you are referring to as modern gnosis-oriented salvation. But yes, the cycle of the truth being held, then being degraded and perverted as man teaches himself self-worthiness, then truth rallying back --yes, that happens.

You say it did not exist until the reformation --that is where you are wrong. It existed from the beginning, the teaching of redemption of unworthy sinners incapable of saving themselves has always been the Gospel. It is only since the Reformation been called that.

Click to expand...

I agree with the first half.

Historic revisionism is a modern and post modern delusion.

I'm not sure if it's man made or if it's one of those scriptural ones where God sends the delusion so people will believe a lie.

Bible Highlighter said:

Indeed. It's why Eternal Security exists (and that to me is also a much hated belief), as well.

Click to expand...

Dare I ask why?

fhansen said:

No, the classical understanding is that the Holy Spirit stirs and moves man towards the cooperation that he could not possibly muster on his own, but that man can still nonetheless refuse the gift, rejecting God's overtures. Not by force of will does man remain faithful but by a cooperative effort, with man increasingly owning the choice as he grows in conviction and the virtues of faith, hope, and love with the help of grace, God acting as a good parent in helping his child stand on his own. The will is involved in that man can still stay say no at any time, even as God continues to draw man and appeal with grace. The Cross, itself, is an an act and appeal of grace to begin with. It demonstrates God's love on a scale we can only barely begin to grasp and yet is totally a matter of His turning the other cheek in the face of the worst evil possible-that of man hating God without reason and seeking to eradicate Him once he appeared physically here on the scene. But Jesus loved and forgave all the way through His passion and death. The cross doesn't force us to bow before it, only calls us to recognize its supreme value and turn to it, as we're willing and able, if we're willing. If not for the aspect of appealing, none of this drama is even necessary.

Click to expand...

Concerning the cross, then, you are of the opinion that the symbolism ("the cross was an appeal", "a demonstration" ) was enough to save us --no, even I don't believe you mean that, yet that's where you went first. Do you believe that Christ died and truly redeemed all of mankind, yet some will somehow be lost anyway? Is some sin paid for twice?

OF COURSE man can still say no --who said otherwise? How does that imply that cooperation of will --i.e. with man doing his part and God only doing his own part-- is implied by the fact that man can still say no? But as to that, if man says no, does that imply that God's predestination of every detail can be defeated?

Michael Collum said:

Historic revisionism is a modern and post modern delusion.

I'm not sure if it's man made or if it's one of those scriptural ones where God sends the delusion so people will believe a lie.

Click to expand...

Haha, it's both. Yep, apparently you've read that part of scripture too. Man does cooperate, fully and willfully, in his own delusion.

No, I'm not talking about rewriting history. I'm talking about the fact that the "church" is constantly going bad and being corrected and going bad again, and no, I'm not naive enough to think it is ever all right. But it is exactly where God planned for it to be at this point.

Mark Quayle said:

The verse could also be translated, "For God thus loved the world, that the ones believing in him would not perish, but have eternal life." The versions that use "so much" are not translating, but adding what they think is the meaning.

Click to expand...

True. It doesn't say that he loved the whole world and saved it. It says that he loved the world enough to give his son and save those who believe, which are not the whole world. It wouldn't make much sense to say that he loved the whole world so much that he decided to save some of it.

I think the significance of the statement was that God's love was so strong that he gave his Son. The significance was how much he loved, not how many.

Cormack said:

Unfortunately many of the Calvinists I know both in person and online are prickly about discussing these issues, @Jesusthekingofking.



The Calvinist could say “Jesus loves you,” but only by using 2 different meanings for love.

Christians are given the salvation love because Christ died for them, electing love, everyone else isn’t loved in that way.

Other people who Christ didn’t die to save receive the temporal blessings, where God let’s them have rain for their gardens and food for their bellies, then he damns them forever without hope or mercy.

To the Calvinist both of these things are love, but he won’t always explain that. He may look the unbeliever sweetly in the eye and say “of course Jesus loves you...” But that’s as far as the explanation goes.

If the unbeliever responds positively, then they might be a recipient of that electing love, we will know if she perseveres until the end.

If they respond negatively, God still gives them rain and food, and then later hell, because she has no sacrifice or mediator to save her, she never did.

“what does it profit a man if he gains the entire world, but loses his soul?”

Click to expand...

The most hateful “believers” I’ve ever met are Calvinists.

They get that from their Romans 9 interpretation, that they say shows that God hates the unelect, because He hated Esau - and they end up concluding from that, that since God hates the unelect, they hate them too.

And of course if you don’t hold to their 5 point TULIP doctrine, you prove yourself to be one of the unelect, therefore they hate you, just like their version of God, does.

No, I didn’t say ALL Calvinists are that type of hater - I said that the meanest and nastiest believers I’ve ever met, are hard core five pointer Calvinists.

Jesusthekingofking said:

calvinist would argue

https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Love-Everyone-Calvinism/dp/1620325500

Click to expand...

The hard core five pointer Calvinist will tell you that God hates the unelect, just like He hated Esau.

RickReads said:

Dare I ask why?

Click to expand...

While John Calvin played his part in the existence of Eternal Security, it's origins can be traced back even farther to St. Augustine.

To learn more, check out this article here:

A HISTORICAL EXAMINATION

Mark Quayle said:

But he does give us faith. You would have the integrity of man be sufficient for maintaining faith, when the integrity of man is not even sufficient to understand what God has done. Salvation and sanctification are both wholly the work of God, no matter how intensely our will is involved.

Curious why you think that God "installing" the Holy Spirit within us, giving us new birth, would be "forcing". He is, after all, the source of salvific faith, and the reality of it. So also, for the rest of our lives. We by no means deny the effort of will of the redeemed --of course we work-- but we deny the source of faith is the responsibility of man.

Click to expand...

In the world of Calvinism: If you cannot resist God's grace and you believe in Unconditional Election, then of course it is forced. In Calvinism: Even the reprobate are forced to go to hell as a part of God's sovereign decree. They did not place themselves in hell by anything they did. It's not because they are sinners that they are going to hell. It's because God did not snap His fingers and elect them to salvation like a few of the others who were sinners. They are going to hell for all eternity because they are chosen by God to burn for all eternity. They never had a chance to repent. Their sole existence for coming into this creation is to suffer by the hands of God. They had no other potential destiny, but to suffer eternally by God. This is the heart of what I believe is Calvinism. It's monstrous. It's wrong. But if you like this kind of belief, then by all means, knock yourself out. It's neither biblical and or moral.

Also, how do you reconcile God getting mad at sinners?
In Calvinism: Does not God elect sinners to salvation?
Do they not change as a result of this election?
If so, then why would God ever need to be upset about sin in the Bible?
That is what makes Calvinism so silly and or highly illogical.
God could simply elect everyone and not be mad at anyone.
But God is mad at sinners and yet it was His own choice for them to remain as sinners. It doesn't make any sense. Calvinism is clearly not true by any sense of the word, just as Flat Earth is clearly not true. It's just common sense.

Cormack said:

That’s your reply to question 1, right? Christ died for absolutely everyone. Do you consider yourself a Calvinist (also known as reformed theology, the doctrines of grace.)?

Click to expand...

I’m not understanding of the labels you use. However what I try to always stress is that you must be born again. When that happens, your understanding of everything will change.

chad kincham said:

The most hateful “believers” I’ve ever met are Calvinists.

Click to expand...

That’s my experience too, unfortunately. Most Calvinists won’t agree or can’t understand that side of things because they never dissent from the doctrine, it’s only when they do dissent that they’re on the receiving end of the “cage stage” Calvinism.

I’ll write 1 example of where Calvinists are going wrong here in the topic, not @ing anyone because I think people who are truly interested will read this message in it’s entirety (and as a result be more invested to face the reply on the reply’s own terms.)

Whenever the topic of human choice and salvation comes up there’s always a reply that says the non Calvinist is robbing God of His choice to save.

“You believe you can save yourself, that’s nonsense” etc.

If Calvinists can receive this next point it’ll end a lot of unneeded quarrelling and advance the conversation.

We non-Calvinists don’t confuse mans choice to repent and believe with Gods choice to save and redeem. They are distinct and separate choices made by God and man alike. Mankind repenting and believing (thanks to God who seeks them first) doesn’t merit or force God to forgive, save and redeem, rather God graciously forgives, saves and redeems when man acquiesces to Gods will. On this view God saves man, man does not save himself.

In most cases those are the non-Calvinists terms. Calvinists may disagree that this is an opinion formed upon a firm scriptural foundation, that’s another story and one we can explore, but if Calvinists refuse to either understand or accept the terms as they’ve already been described, but rather trollishly insist upon their “u sav urself u sav urself!” rhetoric, they’re an incredible waste of time.

I kind of understand why Calvinist are hesitant to spar. They know that there will be resistance to their beliefs and probably arguments. They believe what they believe and why should they care if you don't and why should they have to defend their beliefs to the likes of the unchosen, lol.

Bible Highlighter said:

While John Calvin played his part in the existence of Eternal Security, it's origins can be traced back even farther to St. Augustine.

To learn more, check out this article here:

A HISTORICAL EXAMINATION

Click to expand...

I need to copy and paste some of your posts to my files. It would be fun to see what some of the Calvinists I`ve met online would think of them.

Jesusthekingofking said:

Calvinist emphasis on God's predestination that sometime make me feel that these Christian defined love in their own way. Can they go around and say to people "Jesus love you"? I'm not a calvinist, I won't say the Father damned those who God didn't predetermined to be saved, I affirm Jesus died for all and desire all to be saved, those who rejected the gospel go to hell. So by my conscience I can Jesus love the sinners. But for Calvinist they would say God hate sin and the sinners. So what is love to calvinist? Does God love only the elect? So God's love is limited in that sense?

Click to expand...

Have you prayed for the Calvinist that you talk about? If you pray for them, then you have not hated them — that is good ; that is a way that you can show love, too.

God has poured his love to your heart; but have you told God that you love Him everyday? If not, then how do you know God’s love is limited ?

RickReads said:

I need to copy and paste some of your posts to my files. It would be fun to see what some of the Calvinists I`ve met online would think of them.

Click to expand...

May the Lord get all the glory.