The worst thing about Calvinism

Hammster said:

And there's the issue. God doesn't do things the way you'd do them, so you have to reinvent him to fit your moral code.

Click to expand...

It's not my moral code. It is basic morality that most all people would share. The example I gave you with the coast guard shows you this, but you are just not wanting to see it.


...

Jason0047 said:

This is just a statement of opinion with no real basis in fact in Scripture and or real world example that such a thing is so.


...

Click to expand...

That's just your uniformed opinion.

Wow, that was easy.

Jason0047 said:

It's not my moral code. It is basic morality that most all people would share. The example I gave you with the coast guard shows you this, but you are just not wanting to see it.


...

Click to expand...

Your coast guard example is seriously flawed. I think someone already explained that.

RisenInJesus said:

Well, you will have to take it up with God's Word because the scriptures plainly say that Christ is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world (1 John 2:2); The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!(John 1:29)...the Savior of the world (John 4:42); the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.(John 6:51); the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.(1 John 4:14); gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time (1 Tim. 2:6); who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, that He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone. (Hebrews 2:9).

It just as clearly says...

He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him. John 3:36

It is not a contradiction if you do not start with the false premise of thinking that atonement and application are the same thing.

The Bible clearly states that Christ is the Savior of the world, takes away the sin of the world, died for the sins of the world, gave His life for the world and a ransom for all, tasted death for everyone, and is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. Yet, if one does not believe in the Son the atonement is not applied to his life, he is not in Christ, and the wrath of God abides on him.

Believers apply/appropriate Christ’s salvation, unbelievers do not. Nevertheless, despite a man’s refusal to accept it, Jesus is the Savior of all. The Biblical language could not be more plain.

Click to expand...

You said a lot but never resolved anything. You posted verses where you assumed that world means everyone who ever lived. Then you accused me of muddying up the atonement and its application. But you still haven't explained how God can no longer be angry at sin (God's wrath satisfied) and yet someone can still be under that same wrath.

If you'd accept that world has varying definitions, you can avoid the contradiction.

Jason0047 said:

There has to be a reason why God just pardons some of them vs. not all of them.

Click to expand...

There is a reason. You just don't like the reason, because it means that He, not you, determines the outcome.

"For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans 9:15)

Mercy is NOT obligatory, otherwise it would not be mercy.

Hammster said:

And there's the issue. God doesn't do things the way you'd do them, so you have to reinvent him to fit your moral code.

Click to expand...

Bingo!

Jason0047 said:

If God can pardon some of them by His changing them, then why does He not pardon them all? It makes no sense.

Click to expand...

Let's try this again.

a) ALL people are deserving of God's wrath. This is the part you do not believe, so try to allow it to full sink in, because I am 100% certain that you don't believe it's true.

b) God, in His mercy, chooses some, as a gift to His Son, to show mercy to.

c) No one is treated unjustly in either case. You also can't seem to comprehend that, so mull it over for a day before you reply, to see if it will finally sink in.

The only person who was treated unjustly was Christ. He was crucified as a sinner, although He was sinless.

Jason0047 said:

For example: If a coast guard appeared who seemed like he was going to save you, your child, and five other people and yet he did not save you or your child (and yet he had the power to do so), and only saved the five other people, would you be like, "Oh, look son, this coast guard is surely a good man. For he reminds me a lot like God who does what he pleases in regards to saving people."

Click to expand...

This example, yet again, demonstrates that you do not understand the guilt of man, nor the holiness of God.

Your scenario does not even remotely reflect the situation. It's so far out there, that I'm loosing hope that I could never help you comprehend the Calvinist position. Not to accept it. Just to intellectually comprehend it.

Hammster said:

You've added faith. You are moving the goalposts, or adding something to the verse. Whatever you call it, you are reading into the verse something that's not there.

And once again, if God's wrath is satisfied for the whole world then you are flirting with universalism.

Click to expand...

Why did you say "flirting with universalism" instead of "affirming universalism" as the teaching of the Scriptures? Will anyone for whom Jesus is the propitiation & for whom God's wrath is satisfied not be saved?

https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf

Alithis said:

He's not here to discuss it.

Click to expand...

So following the logic you present, it is wrong to discuss the works of anyone who is dead or does not participate on these forums. Is that what you are saying?

Hammster said:

That's just your uniformed opinion.

Wow, that was easy.

Click to expand...

Again, prove your case with:

(a) Scripture (using the context).
(b) A real world example (Parable) showing us how the god of Calvinism is justified in saving some and damning others when He can save them all equally. If the moral situation does not apply to God like say "murder" then you need to explain why it does not apply and how it is good and loving of God to do such a thing.


...

jimmyjimmy said:

Bingo!

Click to expand...

Human one liners and or platitudes is not a proper defense of the truth. One needs lots of Scripture, context, cross references, and a real world example to show suclh a truth that God can force save some people and not save others (When He has the power to save them all).

Let me ask you a question: What motivation did God have for sending His Son on the cross?
John 3:16 says, God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son.
So it was love that God had sent His Son to save us and not as an after thought of Him being nice by random chance or by whatever mood swung His fancy that day.
God so loved the world.
This is the WORLD and not just the Elect.
God so loved the WORLD.
But the word "WORLD" does not mean that to you.
It does not align with John Calvin's views so you seek to change that word.
This is why I have a problem with what you believe.
It is not in the Bible.

Also, the Bible says God is love (1 John 4:8).
So if this is true, then God has to exhibit some of the attributes of love (charity) as described to us in 1 Corinthians 13.

4 "Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things." (1 Corinthians 13:4-7).

"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9).


...

Hammster said:

Your coast guard example is seriously flawed. I think someone already explained that.

Click to expand...

I do not believe so. Can you find the Post # where somebody refuted this real world example? Can you maybe just tell me right now how it is flawed?


...

Jason0047 said:

I do not believe so. Can you find the Post # where somebody refuted this real world example? Can you maybe just tell me right now how it is flawed?


...

Click to expand...

Real world example? How was the Coast Guard sinned against? It's your example, so start with that.

jimmyjimmy said:

There is a reason. You just don't like the reason, because it means that He, not you, determines the outcome.

Click to expand...

Not at all. There are many things (like the situation I am going through) that I realize is God's will and plan for a greater purpose for good. I realize like with the life of Job, that we as believers can suffer. I realize there are things in this world that are temporary. But these things are to draw us closer to God. However, when we are talking about things that are eternal and beyond this physical world, we should be able to see God's love and goodness even brighter and even more clearer. You cannot explain how the morality I gave in a simple parable does not apply to God.

You said:

"For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (Romans 9:15)

Click to expand...

God is not talking about being mercurial or fickle with His emotions here. God is love. God is longsuffering towards us and not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance; God does not change.

As for Romans 9:15:

Let's look at Romans 9 briefly to see what it is talking about.

When you read Romans 9:1-13, you have to read it in terms of how Paul is talking to the Jews (Romans 9:3-6) and not all individuals and how he is trying to tell them that the purpose of Election of the Promises is through the line of the Messiah with Jacob's line and not Esau's line. Romans 9:13 is not saying God literally loved Jacob and literally hated Esau as individuals (cf. Luke 14:26). Paul is using them as examples of how God was all powerful enough to know which family line to use so as to bring the Promised Messiah (i.e. Jesus). That is what "Election" here is talking about in Romans 9. It is not talking about individual "Election" but it is talking about the "Election of the Promise" or the genealogical line that Jesus would come through. The Jews were claiming that they were saved based on being of the seed of Abraham and in keeping God's Laws. But they rejected their Messiah. God does not have to conform to old Jewish ways of thinking just because they rejected their Messiah. He will have mercy on whom He will's in the manner He will's with the Messiah that He has chosen (Which was Jesus Christ).

Now, when you read Romans 9:14-16: Well, you have to realize that it is talking about God's plan of salvation with Jesus Christ being their Messiah of whom the Jews rejected. God is saying He will have mercy in the WAY God wants to do things and not according to Jewish thoughts or beliefs (Which one of their ways they considered a person to be right with God was through circumcision - See Romans 3:1). Paul is talking about the salvation of the Jews here (see Romans 9:3-4). So Romans 9:15 has to be read from the perspective of this understanding.

Then, when you read Romans 9:17-18: Well, you have to realize it is making a parallel. For there is a parallel being made of how God is Sovereign and just in setting up the Promised Line of the Messiah (i.e. by having mercy on whom He wills) versus raising up Pharaoh into power to show God's power. How was God's power shown in the life of the Pharoah? By God making the Pharoah wealthy? Not exactly. God allowed Pharoah to be raised up so that God's power was shown in the life of God's miracles being displayed such as the Ten plagues and the parting of the Red Sea. This is why Paraoah was raised up. It was so that God's power (or miracles) could be displayed (and proclaimed to all the Earth) to get people to be in fear of God (like Rahab). Just as God had chosen the line of the Messiah so as to display His power (and proclaim such a thing to all the Earth). So this was not some kind of point to prove individual election but to prove the Election of the Promised Line of the Messiah (Who is Jesus Christ). For Jesus is the greatest miracle (of the best form of Election) that there is.

Anyways, when you read on down to verse 24 (Romans 9:24), the point is clear what Paul is really talking about.

You said:

Mercy is NOT obligatory, otherwise it would not be mercy.

Click to expand...

This makes no sense in light of Christ's teaching of saying that we are to forgive 70 x 7 (Matthew 18:21-22). Jesus says, "For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you." (Matthew 6:14). Jesus did not say, if you forgive men their trespasses, your Heavenly Father may not forgive you because His under no obligation to do so that day.

22 "It is of the LORD'S mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
23 They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.." (Lamentations 3:22-23).

"But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering, and plenteous in mercy and truth." (Psalms 86:15).

"For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." (Malachi 3:6).


...

Hammster said:

Real world example? How was the Coast Guard sinned against? It's your example, so start with that.

Click to expand...

Jesus used real world examples (parables) all the time to illustrate spiritual truth. Jesus relates Himself to being like a shepherd but does that mean God is a shepherd of real sheep today? No. It is speaking in spiritual terms. God says we can trust under His wings (Psalms 91:4). Does that mean God has literal wings? More than likely this would be a... "no." For Moses had seen God's back parts and it mentioned nothing about how Moses had seen God's wings.

Anyways, Jesus made an analogy of Him being the good shepherd who leaves the 99 to save just 1 lost sheep. This does not sound like the god of Calvinism because the god of Calvinism does not sound like He goes out of His way for anyone. Why is Jesus striving to save one sheep? It makes no sense in Calvinism. Also, why is there rejoicing in Heaven when one sinner repents? Are we to assume that angels are to celebrate in Heaven every time God just randomly chooses someone to be saved? Or do you think it makes more sense that somebody actually realized their sinful condition before a Holy God and they asked for God's forgiveness? In your Calvinistic universe, things like this just do not make any sense. It is like some kind of Bizarro world where certain ethics or goodness does not exist.


...

jimmyjimmy said:

Let's try this again.

a) ALL people are deserving of God's wrath. This is the part you do not believe, so try to allow it to full sink in, because I am 100% certain that you don't believe it's true.

Click to expand...

But Jesus died for us while we were yet sinners. Jesus is the propitiation not only for our sins but the sins of the whole world. The Ninevites were deserving of Judgment and Wrath, but it was averted by them repenting of their sins. When they forsaked their evil ways, God then did not bring wrath or judgment upon them. It was something THEY did. Just read Jonah 3. It talks about how when God had seen how the Ninevites had forsaked their evil ways, THAT IS WHEN God decided to not bring wrath or judgment. Yes, people are deserving of God's wrath or judgment, but this is only if they do not repent and do not bring forth any of the fruits of repenance (Which is a natural part of repenting or asking for God's forgiveness).

You said:

b) God, in His mercy, chooses some, as a gift to His Son, to show mercy to.

Click to expand...

This is a huge error in your thinking here. In 1 John 2:2, Jesus is not only the propitation for OUR sins, but for the sins of the WHOLE world, too. WHOLE world. WHOLE world. Not only OUR sins but for the sins of the WHOLE world. WHOLE world. You cannot really change that verse. It is plain in what it says.

You said:

c) No one is treated unjustly in either case. You also can't seem to comprehend that, so mull it over for a day before you reply, to see if it will finally sink in.

Click to expand...

When one has the power to save all people before them and one only saves some (and the power of salvation is exclusively in their hands alone), it is not considered a loving and good thing for them to be selective in saving just a few. It does not matter WHO it is. Somehow you are simply unable to see it. I would suggest asking God to show you what I am talking about (Jeremiah 33:3) because this is a basic and moral thing that most humans are generally are aware of.

You said:

The only person who was treated unjustly was Christ. He was crucified as a sinner, although He was sinless.

Click to expand...

But the injustice was only from men and not God. God the Father was not unjust for sending His Son to suffer on our behalf so as to save us.

You said:

This example, yet again, demonstrates that you do not understand the guilt of man, nor the holiness of God.

Click to expand...

Then you would be perfectly happy if a coast guard leaves you and your son in the water at sea (for no real good reason) while he saves five other people?

You said:

Your scenario does not even remotely reflect the situation. It's so far out there, that I'm loosing hope that I could never help you comprehend the Calvinist position. Not to accept it. Just to intellectually comprehend it.

Click to expand...

The Calvinistic position does not exist in the Scriptures. I understand what you are saying, and I reject it because it would be immoral for me to believe in it because it breaks basic morality 101. Hence, why I am encouraging you to pray to the Lord for understanding on this (Just on that off chance that you may be wrong).


...

Jason0047 said:

Jesus used real world examples (parables) all the time to illustrate spiritual truth. Jesus relates Himself to being like a shepherd but does that mean God is a shepherd of real sheep today? No. It is speaking in spiritual terms. God says we can trust under His wings (Psalms 91:4). Does that mean God has literal wings? More than likely this would be a... "no." For Moses had seen God's back parts and it mentioned nothing about how Moses had seen God's wings.

Anyways, Jesus made an analogy of Him being the good shepherd who leaves the 99 to save just 1 lost sheep. This does not sound like the god of Calvinism because the god of Calvinism does not sound like He goes out of His way for anyone. Why is Jesus striving to save one sheep? It makes no sense in Calvinism. Also, why is there rejoicing in Heaven when one sinner repents? Are we to assume that angels are to celebrate in Heaven every time God just randomly chooses someone to be saved? Or do you think it makes more sense that somebody actually realized their sinful condition before a Holy God and they asked for God's forgiveness? In your Calvinistic universe, things like this just do not make any sense. It is like some kind of Bizarro world where certain ethics or goodness does not exist.


...

Click to expand...

Okay, so anyway, how was the Coast Guard sinned against? You'll have to answer that in order for me to address your "real world" example.

Hammster said:

Okay, so anyway, how was the Coast Guard sinned against? You'll have to answer that in order for me to address your "real world" example.

Click to expand...

How was the analogy of the good shepherd Jesus mentioned sinned against? Jesus mentioned nothing of how the good shepherd in his parable was sinned against by the sheep. He merely said one sheep was lost and he left the 99 to go after this one lost sheep.


...

Jason0047 said:

How was the analogy of the good shepherd Jesus mentioned sinned against? Jesus mentioned nothing of how the good shepherd in his parable was sinned against by the sheep. He merely said one sheep was lost and he left the 99 to go after this one lost sheep.


...

Click to expand...

You wanted me to respond to your example. Your example made the Coast Guard a representation of God. So let's not get away from that.

How was the Coast Guard sinned against in your example?