The 6 common misconceptions about what is called 'Calvinism'

[Revelation1316]

But how can this be? Why can’t I remember? The nature of a physical soul is such that if it’s physical thought-currents are properly scrambled, it loses recollection of events - if you don't believe me, try hitting someone over the head with a baseball bat as to cause various types of brain damage (without killing him) - or just picture Alzheimer's disease. That’s precisely how the omniscient Son of God became incarnate. All that knowledge which He had PRIOR to incarnation was lost (forgotten) upon descent into Mary’s womb. All that’s necessary to do this is scrambling, for reasons which I cannot discuss here.

Please - discuss this here.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[JAL]

JAL,

I see what you are saying about Federalism. If through Adam, sin entered the world and death with it, the logical counter to this is that through the Second Adam, grace entered the world and salvation with it.

The Second Adam, logically, should exactly undo the damage of the first at least.

Yes, here you touch on one of (many) objections that I posed to federalism, although I think I worded it with a bit more precision.

The thing both Calvinists & Arminians can agree on is that most people will be going to Hell - Jesus said salvation was the "narrow path", wheras Hell was the "wide path".

But then you have a logical problem regarding the Second Adam.

There are 8 Billion people on earth, only 3 Billion max would be Christian, which leaves the other 5 Billion hellbound.

I guess this is a reiteration of the first statement?

Now, Universalists will reason that because everyone is born with Original Sin because of Adam, everyone will be saved eventually through Christ.

This is somewhat logical, but the Universalists can only use their own Bible to support this view, which no other translation agrees with, and so, like JW's & The New World Transaltion - I don't believe they are being academically honest, nor do I believe in their interpretation as I think it's unscriptural and it cheapens Christ's atonement.

Agreed, I don't buy into Universalism.

So if we assume the traditional view, that all born are hellbound because of Orignal Sin, we have to ask the following question:

Q. If all born are headed for eternal death through Adam, why are not all born after the Second Adam headed for eternal life? (the logical opposite)

Calvinism says that some are chosen, most are not. Although I attend a Reformed Church, I am not a Calvinist, I have too many problems with it.

Now Calvinism aside, let's look at the Arminian view:

People can freely choose Christ, people can freely make the decision for themselves whether they'll be saved or damned.

Nice concept, but what is it's opposite?

It's opposite is choosing to be damned.

Now nobody chooses to be damned, they might reject Christ and we say they are choosing damnation, but in their minds if they reject Christ, they don't believe in hell so their not willfully choosing to be damned.

I am a bit uncertain as to these so-called "opposite" really being opposite, and I am having trouble seeing how this antithesis is really a core issue of the debate that I started on this thread. I'm a bit slow, though. You continue...

So let's go further back down the line - if the decision to be damned isn't made at the time one rejects Christ, when is it made?

Well, humans are born with Original Sin, so it's logical to look at Birth.

Now a baby can't choose to be born, but it's parents can choose for it.

But we still have a problem if we say Parents choose hell for their children by knowingly concieving them.

The problem is this:

It's not exactly the logical opposite to choosing salvation in Christ yourself.

Salvation: Your Choice.
Damnation: Your Parents' Choice.

But if your parents choose hell for you, this is still Federalism.

Indeed, I'm really losing you here. On this thread I define and defended God's justice. My concept of justice does not allow parents to decide the eternal fate of their children, that would be unfair to the children.

I personally believe Children and mentally handicapped persons are covered by a special grace.

The theory about "child grace" is present in Judaism, the theory is that at 12 for girls and 13 for boys, the soul "awakens" and then is responsible. (IIRC)

Now, this seems to correlate to what we see in the world, bar the odd exception of late bloomers, which one would assume God would extend the deadline.

Possibly.

Personally, I believe in the traditional view of Original Sin because I don't think we have any better.

Throughout this thread I argued that the traditional view of Adam is unjust.

I also - as an Arminian - believe that nobody goes to Hell without hearing the gospel once.

My problem lies in having to make that choice, and I don't believe parents should have kids, because that puts the burden of responsibility on the child to make a choice later on to accept Christ or reject him and "wait and see".

This is not a problem for my system. Unborn children are guilty given my post #59. So I don't see the need for me to accept your solution to this "problem" as follows:

Therefore, the only consolation between Original Sin & Christ's Atonement is this:

All people are covered by a special type of grace until they hear the gospel. Once they hear the gospel, that grace departs. If another grace hasn't replaced it (saving grace), that person will die "graceless" and without grace, nobody can enter Heaven - grace is the key that unlocks the door to heaven.

I think this fits in with Satan and his demons in that they have no grace, nor are they given the chance to "repent!" by Christ's atonement.

Therefore, the only people God has really damned to hell are Satan & his fallen angels, and even then you could say they chose that themselves because they all had first hand knowledge of God and his power yet chose to gamble on a coup d'etat.
God Bless,
Rev

There seems to be some good logic here but I can't analyzie it now. I have to go. I'm teaching my Mom to drive, don't have much time these days.

Maybe later tonight.

 

[Rhamiel]

The idea that humans can not understand what love is as stated in number one makes it so you can not apply reason to your faith

 

[Revelation1316]

I am a bit uncertain as to these so-called "opposite" really being opposite, and I am having trouble seeing how this antithesis is really a core issue of the debate that I started on this thread.

If all born are damned to hell because of the first Adam's act,
then when the second Adam came and did his act, logically all born thereafter should be saved.

If this isn't the case - and it's not - it means either two things:

1) The Second Adam's act was weaker than the first's.

2) The First Adam's act has been understood wrong.

3) The Second Adam's act leaves something out. (missing info)

Calvinists will opt for 1), saying "God chooses whom he'll save".

They'll deny that Jesus died only for the elect, but essentially if you buy into Calvinism/Jansenism, Jesus did die only for the elect.

You seem to favour 2), that Adam's act has to be reunderstood.

I understand where you are coming from but you'll need to cite scripture to support your view because Scripture seems to state pretty well that all are damned because of Adam.

I however favour option 3) because of the "kids/mental handicapped" issue.

That stuff is not in the Bible, but yet only a few can honestly say that a 2 year old that dies, goes to hell, the idea seems more reprehensible that the Calvinist's idea of God.

The choice we face then is this:

If we're going to accept extra-biblical things - such as grace for children/mentally handicapped, then that means our canon must be inferior.

Either our canon is too large, or too small - either way, things have been added that aren't from God, or things have been left out that were from God.

Now personally, I don't think God would allow his word to be left out, but at the same time I'm not sure God would allow non-inspired books to be trusted by followers. (which in turn raises the question of the Deutero-Canon)

Indeed, I'm really losing you here. On this thread I define and defended God's justice. My concept of justice does not allow parents to decide the eternal fate of their children, that would be unfair to the children.

Which is fairer:

1) All the unborn are innocent. All the born are innocent until they hear the gospel.

2) All the unborn are guilty. All the born are guilty until they accept the gospel.

In Option 1), God is good, and parents are to blame for decided to give their child "the awful responsibility" one day when they have to accept or reject Christ.

In Option 2) - as I see it (and correct me if I'm wrong) - God is bad, he is to blame for all unborn & all born.

I hope I haven't misunderstood your position here, if I have, please forgive me.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Rick Otto]

God gets to decide what happens in His creation, or His creation does?
Potter's dishes will soon here of this and we'll have vessels dictating their own purpose, plates demanding to be treated equaly with bowls, bedpans demanding the right to serve ministroni, WHERE WILL IT END!!!???
I see them railing against the Potter, asking, "Why hast thou made me thus?"

Anybody gettin' Deja Vu ? (Rom 9)

Classic example of confusing guilt & responsibility.
God is a responsible planner. When He creats evil(Isaih45:9) He does it out of holy, divine, good motive.
When man sins, he does so out of evil motive.
Justice isn't about fairness. It's about righteousness.
And we can Thank God that Righteousness is merciful.

 

[Revelation1316]

God gets to decide what happens in His creation, or His creation does?

... And we can Thank God that Righteousness is merciful.

God can't contradict himself right?

Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (The Golden Rule)

If you then say that God wills (decretively) that people go to Hell, God is contradicting himself, because he's not doing to others as he would want done to himself.

Remember, we aren't talking about Annihilationism here. (the destruction of the soul after death)

We're talking about never-ending pain and suffering like you cannot imagine.

That concept is hard to enough to understand even when people have a choice to refuse God, but if they never even have the choice, that's just sadistic.

Furthermore, I question how God will treat Calvinist's when they die.

If I were God and my believers were divided into two camps, one who believed God loves all and like a father to lost children wants his kids to come home ...

... and the other camp who believed I sentenced most of my children to burn forever in hell because it was justice for their disobedience in the garden ...

I would be severely angry and the latter group of believers for ascribing such a horrible personality to me.

Furthermore, I'd think it's deplorable that they were ok with this system because they believed they were on the winning side of it.

That's horribly biased to believe something is good just because it works out for you while it hurts the multitude.

If you don't agree with Dictatorships where the dictator and his friends eat lobster while the majority of people scrounge around for food, I don't see how you can agree with Calvinism.

God Bless
Rev

 

[JAL]

I understand where you are coming from but you'll need to cite scripture to support your view because Scripture seems to state pretty well that all are damned because of Adam.

We are not connecting here. Where have I denied Adam's significance? I agree with you that all are damned because of Adam. However, I think you would add the traditional addendum that all are damned because of Adam's REPRESENTATION. This is called federalism. As I argued on this thread, federalism is beset with logical contradictions. I argued, for example, that the very notion of representation contradicts the very concept of justice (fairness) and contradicts the concept of atonement. Consequently I redefined Adam such that all men are condemned in him in a a NON-representational sense. All men ARE Adam (each is literally a living subdivision of the original Adam who sinned hence all sinned)

You'll need to cite scripture to support your view

Sure. At Rom 6:23 Paul said that all have sinned. There were plenty of embryonic humans in Paul's day. Tell me, how does an embryo manage to sin? If he didn't sin in Adam, then when? How?

if all born are damned to hell because of the first Adam's act,
then when the second Adam came and did his act, logically all born thereafter should be saved.

Yes, if the first Adam was the federal head for the whole race, then the 2nd Adam would be the same, hence all men would be saved. But precisely my point, earlier in this thread, was that federal headship contradicts both the atonement and God's justice.

The choice we face then is this:

If we're going to accept extra-biblical things - such as grace for children/mentally handicapped, then that means our canon must be inferior.

Either our canon is too large, or too small - either way, things have been added that aren't from God, or things have been left out that were from God.

Now personally, I don't think God would allow his word to be left out, but at the same time I'm not sure God would allow non-inspired books to be trusted by followers. (which in turn raises the question of the Deutero-Canon)

I think these statements about the canon probably hinge on Sola Scriptura, which I categorically reject. I use the Bible in debates to expose logical inconsistencies in my opponents,as Paul did, but I do not, and neither did Paul, presume for a moment that the feeble mind of man can RELIABLY unravel the mysteries of God. We ae prone to error.

Which is fairer:

1) All the unborn are innocent. All the born are innocent until they hear the gospel.

2) All the unborn are guilty. All the born are guilty until they accept the gospel.

In Option 1), God is good, and parents are to blame for decided to give their child "the awful responsibility" one day when they have to accept or reject Christ.

In Option 2) - as I see it (and correct me if I'm wrong) - God is bad, he is to blame for all unborn & all born.

My view of Adam is the ONLY one that is fair/just, historically, to date. One implication of my view is that all the unborn are guilty - for sin which they themselves committed in Adam, and hence it is FAIR that these unborn are guilty. Option 2 is therefore the fair one, contrary to your conclusion. What now of option 1? Is this option also fair? Is it fair to say, "All the unborn are innocent?" On the surface this sounds fair, but actually isn't. Consider this, if the unborn are innocent, why does God allow many newborn to suffer - even starvation? Because of Adam? How is that fair, if Adam is defined as federal rep? That most certainly is NOT fair. It is unjust to let innocent children suffer - children who themselves never really sinned in Adam. Innocent suffering is quiet just when it is voluntary (viz. the atonement) but is quite unjust when involuntary unless that suffering is unavoidable (i.e. God Himself can't avoid it). All this I've already argued on this thread, earlier.

 

[JAL]

God gets to decide what happens in His creation, or His creation does?
Potter's dishes will soon here of this and we'll have vessels dictating their own purpose, plates demanding to be treated equaly with bowls, bedpans demanding the right to serve ministroni, WHERE WILL IT END!!!???
I see them railing against the Potter, asking, "Why hast thou made me thus?"

Anybody gettin' Deja Vu ? (Rom 9)

Classic example of confusing guilt & responsibility.
God is a responsible planner. When He creats evil(Isaih45:9) He does it out of holy, divine, good motive.
When man sins, he does so out of evil motive.
Justice isn't about fairness. It's about righteousness.
And we can Thank God that Righteousness is merciful.

You lost me on that one. Justice isn't about fairness?

Could you explain to me how that reconciles with the atonement? Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the logic of the atonement went something like this:

God is just. As part of His justice, it would be unfair to give sinners the same heavenly reward as the obedient. Fairness requires that sinners pay for their sins. But this debt is difficult or impossible for them to pay. So God sent His Son to pay the debt, so that justice (fairness) could be satisified.

If God need not be fair, why bother with the atonement? Your view of God makes the atonement optional for the task of redemption. God then becomes the cruel being who sends His Son to die for no reason at all.

 

[Revelation1316]

We are not connecting here. Where have I denied Adam's significance? I agree with you that all are damned because of Adam. However, I think you would add the traditional addendum that all are damned because of Adam's REPRESENTATION. This is called federalism. As I argued on this thread, federalism is beset with logical contradictions. I argued, for example, that the very notion of representation contradicts the very concept of justice (fairness) and contradicts the concept of atonement.

You can say Federalism is logically inconsistent but your redefinition of a 'tainted soul reservoir' is no different to Federalism in terms of unfairness.

If a person breeds, whether that soul is represented by Adam, or is Adam, that person didn't bodily themselves sin, yet they are guilty of it.

So while your view may have come further than the traditional in making the second Adam's atonement more logical in relation to the first, in terms of unfairness it's done nothing.

Sure. At Rom 6:23 Paul said that all have sinned. There were plenty of embryonic humans in Paul's day. Tell me, how does an embryo manage to sin? If he didn't sin in Adam, then when? How?

I buy original sin.

I think these statements about the canon probably hinge on Sola Scriptura, which I categorically reject. I use the Bible in debates to expose logical inconsistencies in my opponents,as Paul did, but I do not, and neither did Paul, presume for a moment that the feeble mind of man can RELIABLY unravel the mysteries of God. We ae prone to error.

If you don't buy Sola Scriptura, are there any other pseudephigraphical or apocryphal books you draw from?

My view of Adam is the ONLY one that is fair/just, historically, to date. One implication of my view is that all the unborn are guilty - for sin which they themselves committed in Adam, and hence it is FAIR that these unborn are guilty.

How is it fair?

At the end of the world there still should be guilty souls in that 'soul reservoir' of yours and they can't go to heaven, ergo, God will throw the pile of souls that never lived, into Hell, where I'm assuming they will suffer forever.

Consider this, if the unborn are innocent, why does God allow many newborn to suffer - even starvation?

I believe God created the world with his hands.

I believe this world was perfect and didn't have an bugs in it.

I believe when Adam sinned, God withdrew his hands from sustaining the world personally.

Enter Evolution.

Evolution is the planet's way to self-sustain itself and respond to sin.

Bugs are necessary to keep the soil, change must occur due to volatile conditions etc.

In light of that, God does not have a direct involvement with the world like he used to.

He can intervene in special moments - usually for miracles and prophecy, and he can respond to prayers if he wishes, but his role as 'guardian of all things' is not in effect.

Man reaps what he sows, and God lets him.

If some guy impregnates a girl and there's no food, the onus is on them as the decision makers ('behold, man has become like God, with knowledge of good and evil') to bring life into the world or not.

If this world were perfect, why bother with religion?

God's clearly stated he'll make a new heaven and new earth.

Pain here is temporary, it is of little importance in the grand scheme of things.

To us, it's very important, but even the worst pain here is nothing but a mosquito bite compared to hell.

I like your theory about the soul reservoir but it poses the following problem:

God blew life into Man, and this 'blown life' is said to be the Holy Spirit's doing.

In your soul reservoir theory, you're saying that a place exists where a large portion of this 'soul wind' is kept, and is sinful.

Can you please elaborate on this?

And relax dude, breathe.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[JAL]

You can say Federalism is logically inconsistent but your redefinition of a 'tainted soul reservoir' is no different to Federalism in terms of unfairness.

If a person breeds, whether that soul is represented by Adam, or is Adam, that person didn't bodily themselves sin, yet they are guilty of it.

So while your view may have come further than the traditional in making the second Adam's atonement more logical in relation to the first, in terms of unfairness it's done nothing.

Not following you here. Suppose you sin. Then someone manages to pull out your soul and put it another encasing (for example a new body). You are still guilty, aren't you?

If you say, "No", you have an odd concept of justice. In fact, the atonement becomes unnecessary, for if we can become innocent by means of a new body, all God had to do was make us new bodies, no need for the cross.

 

[JAL]

How is it fair?

At the end of the world there still should be guilty souls in that 'soul reservoir' of yours and they can't go to heaven, ergo, God will throw the pile of souls that never lived, into Hell, where I'm assuming they will suffer forever.

But then you misunderstand me. They DID live. Adam lived. He sinned. Where do you read me as having said this "pile of souls" never lived and never sinned. They are guilty, I said, precisely BECAUSE they did live and did sin. It is federalism, as I have charged, that makes men guilty who have not yet lived and not yet sinned. That is PRECISELY what my view repudiates. Since you are now lumping me with precisely the opposite of my position, I have to suspect that you are no longer debating fairly - and I see this all too often.

 

[JAL]

In your soul reservoir theory, you're saying that a place exists where a large portion of this 'soul wind' is kept, and is sinful.

Can you please elaborate on this?

I can't see the relevance of making that attempt. I deal with the major issues, not with the technical details. Take for example the virgin birth. Cinch to explain. God simply takes a sperm and mates it to an embryo, puts it in Mary's womb, and voila!! (What I am saying is that it is easy to explain why Mary did not have to lay with Joseph). Scientists are doing similar things today with sperm and eggs. Now, I don't know the technical details of how scientists do it, or how God did it, and frankly I don't care. Thus, I feel justified in stating that I have "explained" the virgin birth even though I have not elaborated on the technicalities. I have no interest in them. If you are interested in them - well, hey, knock yourself out, get busy researching. I have neither the time nor the motivation to bother.

 

[Revelation1316]

Not following you here. Suppose you sin. Then someone manages to pull out your soul and put it another encasing (for example a new body). You are still guilty, aren't you?

Yes, but that new casing isn't.

Because I - as a soul, mind, & body sinned.

Only my soul is transplanted/cloned into the new casing, not my mind.

This presents a unique problem:

If the new casing with my guilty soul, has a mind that wouldn't have sinned had I did, then that is unjust because concievably if I had had their mind in the Garden of Eden, I wouldn't have sinned.

But, if the mind is linked to the soul, and this new casing would've done the exact same thing as me in the Garden of Eden, then you're forced to say that we are "flawed by design" and God is to blame for our fall. (Supralapsarianism)

In this effect, it makes God unjust - just like the Calvinistic God because he either:

a) created humans knowing they were going to fall, and the ramnifcations that would ensue.

b) created humans not knowing they were going to fall, but bound to make them adhere to the ramnifications.

If you choose a), our God is unjust.

If you choose b), our God is not omnipotent nor omniscient and quite possibly not God at all.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[JAL]

[/color][/color][/size][/b]

Yes, but that new casing isn't.

Because I - as a soul, mind, & body sinned.

Only my soul is transplanted/cloned into the new casing, not my mind.

This presents a unique problem:

If the new casing with my guilty soul, has a mind that wouldn't have sinned had I did, then that is unjust because concievably if I had had their mind in the Garden of Eden, I wouldn't have sinned.

But, if the mind is linked to the soul, and this new casing would've done the exact same thing as me in the Garden of Eden, then you're forced to say that we are "flawed by design" and God is to blame for our fall. (Supralapsarianism)

In this effect, it makes God unjust - just like the Calvinistic God because he either:

a) created humans knowing they were going to fall, and the ramnifcations that would ensue.

b) created humans not knowing they were going to fall, but bound to make them adhere to the ramnifications.

If you choose a), our God is unjust.

If you choose b), our God is not omnipotent nor omniscient and quite possibly not God at all.

God Bless,
Rev

I didn't even bother to read the above carefully because I suspect it is predicated on trichotomy. I am a dichotomist. Mind and soul are the same thing in my view. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think your argument does not apply to a dichotomist like I myself.

 

[Revelation1316]

But then you misunderstand me. They DID live. Adam lived. He sinned. Where do you read me as having said this "pile of souls" never lived and never sinned. They are guilty, I said, precisely BECAUSE they did live and did sin.

Yes I see now.

They did live and committed one sin.

It is federalism, as I have charged, that makes men guilty who have not yet lived and not yet sinned. That is PRECISELY what my view repudiates.

Your view is worse IMO.

Your view (as I understand it) says that all souls are Adam, but only born sould have the opportunity for salvation - provided they make it to an age to accept Christ.

In the Federalist view, all souls are like Adam, in that Adam was the creme de la creme of humans and if he stuffed it up we can do no better, therefore every seed of Adam is guilty.

But the Federalist view at least implies that children are covered by a state of grace, your view doesn't.

Your view says that if people don't breed enough, these trapped souls have no chance at all for redemption which effectively puts them on the same level as Satan and his fallen angels - totally deprived of a second chance.

Since you are now lumping me with precisely the opposite of my position, I have to suspect that you are no longer debating fairly - and I see this all too often.

Dude relax, stop seeing monsters under the bed.

Give me a fair chance and show some Christian charity.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Revelation1316]

I didn't even bother to read the above carefully because I suspect it is predicated on trichotomy. I am a dichotomist. Mind and soul are the same thing in my view. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think your argument does not apply to a dichotomist like I myself.

You should read my post, it's courtesy and applicable.

I read your posts you could at least read mine.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[JAL]

Your view is worse IMO.

Look, federalism is saddled with contradictions. It doesn't and can't GET any worse than that. Hence the rest of your words as follows don't mean all that much.

Your view (as I understand it) says that all souls are Adam, but only born sould have the opportunity for salvation - provided they make it to an age to accept Christ.

In the Federalist view, all souls are like Adam, in that Adam was the creme de la creme of humans and if he stuffed it up we can do no better, therefore every seed of Adam is guilty.

But the Federalist view at least implies that children are covered by a state of grace, your view doesn't.

Your view says that if people don't breed enough, these trapped souls have no chance at all for redemption which effectively puts them on the same level as Satan and his fallen angels - totally deprived of a second chance.

Actually I have vacillated on the state of grace question. My position is that we shouldn't presume it. But as far as "the need to breed" you are oversimplifying my position, because God controls the measure of tainted soul deposited into each embryo.

 

[JAL]

You should read my post, it's courtesy and applicable.

I read your posts you could at least read mine.

God Bless,
Rev

I was trying to cut to the chase, not offend you. If I spend too much time reading material that doesn't pertain to my position, this dialogue would wax too slow for us to make headway. Again, was I wrong in my assessment? If so, I apologize.

 

[Revelation1316]

But as far as "the need to breed" you are oversimplifying my position, because God controls the measure of tainted soul deposited into each embryo.

So some embryo's get more "tainted soul" than others?

God Bless,
Rev

 

[Revelation1316]

I was trying to cut to the chase, not offend you. If I spend too much time reading material that doesn't pertain to my position, this dialogue would wax too slow for us to make headway. Again, was I wrong in my assessment? If so, I apologize.

Read that post and see.

God Bless,
Rev