What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[RickReads]

I, until now, did not realize there were any religious "denominations" that were not in the tradition of Aquinas, Augustine, Luther, Calvin, with the possible exception of Latter Day Saints.
Yet there is a group which seems to believe a certain set of core principles that are hostile to any theologian Augustine forward. And many are represented here.
May I ask what denomination is represented here? As I have been puzzled for while.
I don't recognize the particular theological tradition or the denomination of, for instance, jesusywhw.
It is personal question so feel free not to answer.

I represent the Northern Baptists.

 

[GenemZ]

Where is bondage of the will in the Bible ?

Do not confuse the state of a man's will when being administered God's grace, with a man left to his own devices without grace.

Its why we must be saved by grace. For without grace no man could believe.

For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit
what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other,
so that you are not to do whatever you want." Gal 5:17​

Gal 5:17 was written for the regenerate believer. The Spirit is always at work with the believer. But, not the unbeliever who will always choose contrary to God's will concerning God's will for man.

Its the unbeliever who walks outside of grace, who is bondage ... enslaved.... to his flesh.

The Calvinist assumes that God sovereignly makes us do what is right. Not understanding that God makes us enabled (by grace) to be able to choose what is right. That does not mean a believer will always want to choose for what is right.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I represent the Northern Baptists.

I’m just a Christian now and represent Christ with no attached isms lol . It irritates the heck out of Calvinists when I call them Calvinists say I’m a Christian. I can see the steam radiating from them through the computer screen lol .

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Do not confuse the state of a man's will when being administered God's grace, with a man left to his own devices without grace.

Its why we must be saved by grace. For without grace no man could believe.

For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit
what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other,
so that you are not to do whatever you want." Gal 5:17​

Gal 5:17 was written for the regenerate believer. The Spirit is always at work with the believer. But, not the unbeliever who will always choose contrary to God's will concerning God's will for man.

Its the unbeliever who walks outside of grace, who is bondage ... enslaved.... to his flesh.

The Calvinist assumes that God sovereignly makes us do what is right. Not understanding that God makes us enabled (by grace) to be able to choose what is right. That does not mean a believer will always want to choose for what is right.

You are on CARM right ?

 

[Clare73]

So much for the false doctrines on the human will choice of man .

oh ya and where is this assumed nature change after the fall, got scripture? Why did God not mention it , why was Cain able to talk with God ?

so much for the fallen nature idea eh that cannot communicate or respond to God.

You do a lotta' hit and run. . .and not much stay and be accountable.

where in Genesis after the fall did mans “ nature “ change ?

I suspect that is why they were driven out of the perfect Garden.

Got Scripture?

It’s just another Calvinist fallacy

Ask Paul. . .

"in the flesh (sinful nature), I am a slave to sin." (Romans 7:25)
Were we created as unfree slaves in the Garden?

We are "by nature, objects of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3)
Were our natures created as objects of wrath in the Garden?

All that God made at creation was "very good" (Genesis 1:31).

When did it change?

With study, you'll find it explained in the NT.

 

[RickReads]

I’m just a Christian now and represent Christ with no attached isms lol . It irritates the heck out of Calvinists when I call them Calvinists say I’m a Christian. I can see the steam radiating from them through the computer screen lol .

I`ll be steamin if you find a video of a Northern Baptist crawling around the church howling like a coyote.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I`ll be steamin if you find a video of a Northern Baptist crawling around the church howling like a coyote.

I doubt I will lol

 

[zoidar]

The meaning of the Bible depends on the meaning of the language.

Yes exactly! It's the meaning of the language not the literal words. So in the case of John 3:3 the thing that matter is what Jesus meant, not what the literal words mean. Let me give you an example:

Person A: "I went into my car."
Person B: "Aha, you opened the door and went into the cabin."
Person A: "No, no! I went into the engine of the car. I'm a mechanic."

That"s language for you.

 

[Clare73]

I will gladly answer . Right now I’m in a non denomination church .

But theology is Theo ( God ) and ology ( the study of ). The study of God . Theology must begin with a proper understanding of Gods nature , character , Being, attributes etc…..
From there we develop our belief system under this umbrella .

That explains a lot. . .

And not necessarily. . .the "umbrella" is correctly understood only in the light of all of it.

We don't know any of it correctly until it is understood in the light of all of it, not just in the light of one "umbrella" concept.

 

[Clare73]

Thank you.
I was raised atheist by Catholic married Lutheran. Personally,
I am a Catholic/Calvinist as close as I can determine.

I don't think Calvin was compatible with the Catholic church, at least regarding regeneration.

Do you submit to the authority of the Catholic church?

 

[Clare73]

Yes exactly! It's the meaning of the language not the literal words. So in the case of John 3:3 the thing that matter is what Jesus meant, not what the literal words mean.

This is preposterously absurd on its face. . .and you know how, what Jesus "meant," if not by the meaning of the language?

Let me give you an example:

Person A: "I went into my car."
Person B: "Aha, you opened the door and went into the cabin."
Person A: "No, no! I went into the engine of the car. I'm a mechanic."

That"s language for you.

No, that is Zoidar's language for you, who wants the freedom to make the Scriptures fit his theology, rather than submitting his theology to the Scriptures.

Nor is that the Greek language of the NT for you.

 

[QvQ]

Do you submit to the authority of the Catholic church?

No, I do not. I don't have a problem reconciling the doctrines
Augustine, who Calvin greatly admired and quoted, was Catholic.
Calvin was of the Catholic tradition, yet he was definitely Calvinist.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

That explains a lot. . .

And not necessarily. . .the "umbrella" is correctly understood only in the light of all of it.

We don't know any of it correctly until it is understood in the light of all of it, not just in the light of one "umbrella" concept.

God has declared plenty about His character, nature , attributes .

 

[RickReads]

The crowd stands in an eerie hushed silence

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I don't think Calvin was compatible with the Catholic church, at least regarding regeneration.

Do you submit to the authority of the Catholic church?

No I submit to Christs established authority .

 

[RickReads]

God has declared plenty about His character, nature , attributes .

I always thought Calvin's assertion that God puts people in hell because he has a higher love for them was pretty good. I could not say that and keep a serious expression on my face.

 

[zoidar]

This is preposterously absurd on its face. . .and you know how, what Jesus "meant," if not by the meaning of the language?

Yes by the meaning of the language, not the literal words. That's why context is so important, I think you believe that too, and studying how the language is used in Scripture. How does John use the Greek word for "world" for an example? It can mean many things. I have said many times there are a lot of tools we can use to understand the Bible. You don't seem to want to agree, even you use your own tools.

I doubt you would think it's preposterously absurd if you understand what I mean. One reason we have so many different Bible translations is because the "literal" language can mean different things. And it's the reason we have different denominations. At least one reason.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

No, that is Zoidar's language for you, who wants the freedom to make the Scriptures fit his theology, rather than submitting his theology to the Scriptures.

Nor is that the Greek language of the NT for you.

You just described Calvinism to a tee, conforming the Bible to the doctrines of man .

 

[Der Alte]

What would you say is the strongest, killer argument against Calvinism (in as few words as possible)? The "checkmate" argument?

It contradicts the words of Jesus.

Yes by the meaning of the language, not the literal words. That's why context is so important, I think you believe that too, and studying how the language is used in Scripture. How does John use the Greek word for "world" for an example? It can mean many things. I have said many times there are a lot of tools we can use to understand the Bible. You don't seem to want to agree, even you use your own tools.
I doubt you would think it's preposterously absurd if you understand what I mean. One reason we have so many different Bible translations is because the "literal" language can mean different things. And it's the reason we have different denominations. At least one reason.

The fallacy with this reasoning is, if the words used could not be understood in their literal sense but by "the meaning." Unlike all of us they didn't have multiple electronic devices with multiple Bibles on them. They couldn't instantly call up verses to help them understand other verses. Very, very few if any ordinary citizens could afford to buy available copies of the various writings. And virtually nobody had a complete copy of either the Old Testament or New Testament.
Finally Christians in e.g. Asia, modern day, Turkey, would not understand figures of speech used in Egypt and vice versa. Also Christians in Israel could not understand the figures of speech of Christians in Greece and vice versa. So the only logical way to understand the scriptures for them would be what was literally written.

 

[zoidar]

It contradicts the words of Jesus.


The fallacy with this reasoning is, if the words used could not be understood in their literal sense but by "the meaning." Unlike all of us they didn't have multiple electronic devices with multiple Bibles on them. They couldn't instantly call up verses to help them understand other verses. Very, very few if any ordinary citizens could afford to buy available copies of the various writings. And virtually nobody had a complete copy of either the Old Testament or New Testament.
Finally Christians in e.g. Asia, modern day, Turkey, would not understand figures of speech used in Egypt and vice versa. Also Christians in Israel could not understand the figures of speech of Christians in Greece and vice versa. So the only logical way to understand the scriptures for them would be what was literally written.

Normally the Bible isn't spread alone, but with tradition. Without tradition, if people were just given a Bible who knows what would come out of that? Probably thousand of different doctrines.