Anyone have good arguments against Calvinism.

Mark Quayle said:

Would you like to do that with me? Don't forget vs 18, and the rest of John 3, and the rest of John's gospel, and the rest of his writings, and the rest of scripture.

What most Christians arrive at is biased by how they think—their worldview—their 'lens'—just as mine was, until after many years of agony, prayer, study and logic that I couldn't deny, I gave up on my insistence on self-determinism, aka self-actualization, and chose the only thing that finally made sense.

Click to expand...

zoidar said:

Come on! You yourself just quoted three verses from the Bible to show the Reformed position. Are you now saying we can't look into indvidual verses without studying the whole book or the whole Bible?

I don't mean to diminish your effort of coming to the true teaching of the Bible. I just find it strange you can't affirm or deny what I say about John 3:16-17. If you affirm as I say that the world refers to both the elect and the rebrobate, then in what way did God love the reprobate to send His Son without atoning for their sins? On the other hand, if you don't believe the world includes the reprobate I like to know how you come to that conclusion.

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

Hi Zoidar. Why does the “world” in v. 16 have to include the reprobate when only those who believe in the Son will be saved and have eternal life?

Click to expand...

zoidar said:

Because of John 3:17 and John 12:37

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

Unless you mean John is using different meanings of the word "world" in v.16 and 17.

Click to expand...

zoidar said:

Come on! You yourself just quoted three verses from the Bible to show the Reformed position. Are you now saying we can't look into indvidual verses without studying the whole book or the whole Bible?

I don't mean to diminish your effort of coming to the true teaching of the Bible. I just find it strange you can't affirm or deny what I say about John 3:16-17. If you affirm as I say that the world refers to both the elect and the rebrobate, then in what way did God love the reprobate to send His Son without atoning for their sins? On the other hand, if you don't believe the world includes the reprobate I like to know how you come to that conclusion.

Click to expand...

zoidar said:

Because of John 3:17 and John 12:37

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

Unless you mean John is using different meanings of the word "world" in v.16 and 17.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Whatever alterations people make to tradition, is not tradition, but merely changes. One can create beliefs and practices of one's own and hope that succeeding generations will follow them and thus invent new traditions for those generations, but one cannot modify earlier tradition in any form and still assert that it is the same tradition that was passed along.

Click to expand...

PloverWing said:

I am Episcopalian, so my understanding of tradition may differ from that of my Catholic and Orthodox brethren. One difference is that I do not find infallibility in any of it: not in ecumenical councils, not in the clergy or teaching office of the church, and not in any writings. And I do not see tradition as handing on the apostles' teachings unchanged, as some others have described here.

Nevertheless, I value tradition highly. It's part of our famous three-legged stool, Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The formulation of the Trinity doctrine as 3 persons with 1 essence is part of church tradition, as is the formulation of the Incarnation as 2 natures in 1 person. The canon of Scripture is part of our tradition. The calendar of the church year, the liturgies of our churches, the writings of the great theologians, the Christian life as lived by many ordinary people through the centuries -- I see all of this together as our church's tradition. I want to be rooted in this, not going off in my own direction making up my own thing, but strongly connected to what has gone before.

I picture it something like a tree, like the maple tree in my back yard. I'm a little twig on that tree, growing a leaf. But I wouldn't be growing anything if I wasn't connected to the branches and trunk and roots. The branches and trunk are the centuries of Christians who have gone before me and passed their tradition on to me. I see this as solid and stable, but also living and growing.

Click to expand...

PloverWing said:

I am Episcopalian, so my understanding of tradition may differ from that of my Catholic and Orthodox brethren. One difference is that I do not find infallibility in any of it: not in ecumenical councils, not in the clergy or teaching office of the church, and not in any writings. And I do not see tradition as handing on the apostles' teachings unchanged, as some others have described here.

Nevertheless, I value tradition highly. It's part of our famous three-legged stool, Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The formulation of the Trinity doctrine as 3 persons with 1 essence is part of church tradition, as is the formulation of the Incarnation as 2 natures in 1 person. The canon of Scripture is part of our tradition. The calendar of the church year, the liturgies of our churches, the writings of the great theologians, the Christian life as lived by many ordinary people through the centuries -- I see all of this together as our church's tradition. I want to be rooted in this, not going off in my own direction making up my own thing, but strongly connected to what has gone before.

I picture it something like a tree, like the maple tree in my back yard. I'm a little twig on that tree, growing a leaf. But I wouldn't be growing anything if I wasn't connected to the branches and trunk and roots. The branches and trunk are the centuries of Christians who have gone before me and passed their tradition on to me. I see this as solid and stable, but also living and growing.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Here is the Lutheran view in a quick cut and paste -

lutheran doctrine of election - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

Here is a similar quick cut and paste concerning Augustine -

augustine's doctrine of limited atonement - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

Likewise, adherents of universal salvation have always formed a small group within Christianity. The theological conundrum is that if Christ's atonement is universal for all of mankind, why are only a very, very few saved and the vast, vast majority lost?

Click to expand...

zoidar said:

Your links don't give me much unless you are more specific.

Yes, confessional Lutherans believe in election from all eternity, but I don't see what that has to do with the atonement. Lutherans still hold to universal, unlimited atonement.

So if Christ atonened for everyone, why is not everyone saved? Because they don't receive the atonement. One reason might be because God wants to show His love for everyone through the cross and wants the rejection of Christ to be on man's part and not on Himself. And to judge man fairly there must be a real effective atonement for man to deny. God also wanted to conquer the devil and sin totally, and the only way to that was to take ALL sin on Himself.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Do you believe that damnation comes upon only those individuals who consciously deny the atonement or is the state of being of all humanity from birth until the very fortunate few embrace it?

Click to expand...

zoidar said:

I believe man comes under judgement/damnation when he commits his very first sin. I don't think we are under judgement because of our sinful nature, but because of our actual sins.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Do you believe that there are individuals who die without ever committing sin, but who never embrace the atonement of Jesus Christ?

Click to expand...

zoidar said:

Yes, babies and young children. Adults, nope!

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

What do you say concerning adults with severe intelligence or psychological issues?

Click to expand...

zoidar said:

Don't know! At least I don't think God holds adults responsible if they are intellectually like small children. Not sure where you are going with these questions.

Click to expand...

bbbbbbb said:

Actually, I am trying to find out the parameters you use to determine your soteriology. For example, you reject original sin, which has been a foundation for most orthodox Christians, although many Eastern Orthodox Christians agree with you.

There are various aspects which are used by many synergists to determine whether or not an individual qualifies for salvation. Inevitably, if one is not a universalist, then one believes in particular salvation and the question becomes one of who and how salvation is attained. By believing in the salvation of "innocent" individuals, one must believe that the atonement only applies to certain individuals and not everyone.

Click to expand...

PloverWing said:

I am Episcopalian, so my understanding of tradition may differ from that of my Catholic and Orthodox brethren. One difference is that I do not find infallibility in any of it: not in ecumenical councils, not in the clergy or teaching office of the church, and not in any writings. And I do not see tradition as handing on the apostles' teachings unchanged, as some others have described here.

Nevertheless, I value tradition highly. It's part of our famous three-legged stool, Scripture, Tradition, and Reason. The formulation of the Trinity doctrine as 3 persons with 1 essence is part of church tradition, as is the formulation of the Incarnation as 2 natures in 1 person. The canon of Scripture is part of our tradition. The calendar of the church year, the liturgies of our churches, the writings of the great theologians, the Christian life as lived by many ordinary people through the centuries -- I see all of this together as our church's tradition. I want to be rooted in this, not going off in my own direction making up my own thing, but strongly connected to what has gone before.

I picture it something like a tree, like the maple tree in my back yard. I'm a little twig on that tree, growing a leaf. But I wouldn't be growing anything if I wasn't connected to the branches and trunk and roots. The branches and trunk are the centuries of Christians who have gone before me and passed their tradition on to me. I see this as solid and stable, but also living and growing.

Click to expand...