What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Der Alte]

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?

Really doesn't address my post does it? When and how was tradition shared between people of Egypt, Asia, Corinth, Rome etc, if it ain't in the scripture.

 

[zoidar]

Really doesn't address my post does it? When and how was tradition shared between people of Egypt, Asia, Corinth, Rome etc, if it ain't in the scripture.

I'm not sure what you want me to answer. If I start a church in China I bring with me my "Christian traditions" how to understand the Bible.

 

[Clare73]

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

Agreed. . .not only from the mouth of God, but so has the rest of Scripture.

 

[Clare73]

The crowd stands in an eerie hushed silence

Yes by the meaning of the language, not the literal words.

Do you seriously think that referred to a Scriptural statement?

That may be the answer to Rick's observation.

 

[Clare73]

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

Demonstration of Calvin's writings as such?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Agreed. . .not only from the mouth of God, but so has the rest of Scripture.

Yes and God being love is in direct opposition to divine determinism , Calvinisms double predestination , irresistible grace just to name a few .

hope this helps !!!

 

[Clare73]

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.

The way it is now?

 

[Clare73]

Yes and God being love is in direct opposition to divine determinism , Calvinisms double predestination , irresistible grace just to name a few .

Now if Calvin has only written such. . .

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Now if Calvin has only written such. . .

Are you really denying double predestination and the “ I “ in tulip ?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Now if Calvin has only written such. . .

Now what are you going to say , still deny it ?

[W]e say that God once established by His eternal and unchangeable plan those whom He long before determined once and for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, He would devote to destruction. We assert that, with respect to the elect, this plan was founded upon His freely given mercy, without regard to human worth; but by His just and irreprehensible but incomprehensible judgment He has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation. Now among the elect we regard the call as a testimony of election. Then we hold justification another sign of its manifestation, until they come into the glory in which the fulfilment of that election lies. But as the Lord seals His elect by call and justification, so, by shutting of the reprobate from knowledge of His name or from the sanctification of His spirit, He, as it were, reveals by these marks what sort of judgment awaits them (Institutes of Christian Religion (1559), book III, ch. xxi).

 

[RickReads]

Do you seriously think that referred to a Scriptural statement?

That may be the answer to Rick's observation.

Nope. You can have 2 more guesses.

 

[Clare73]

Are you really denying double predestination and the “ I “ in tulip ?

I'm denying the wording of it as the wording of Calvin's detractors rather than his own wording.

And the wrong wording is a flag for wrong perception of it.

 

[Clare73]

Now what are you going to say , still deny it ?

[W]e say that God once established by His eternal and unchangeable plan those whom He long before determined once and for all to receive into salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, He would devote to destruction. We assert that, with respect to the elect, this plan was founded upon His freely given mercy, without regard to human worth; but by His just and irreprehensible but incomprehensible judgment He has barred the door of life to those whom he has given over to damnation. Now among the elect we regard the call as a testimony of election. Then we hold justification another sign of its manifestation, until they come into the glory in which the fulfilment of that election lies. But as the Lord seals His elect by call and justification, so, by shutting of the reprobate from knowledge of His name or from the sanctification of His spirit, He, as it were, reveals by these marks what sort of judgment awaits them (Institutes of Christian Religion (1559), book III, ch. xxi).

I'm going to say. . .don't see him using "double predestination."

As I said previously, you can't have one without the other, therefore, "double predestination" is redundant.

If you predestine some to glory, have you not thereby automatically destined the rest to non-glory?

 

[Clare73]

Nope. You can have 2 more guesses.

I give up!

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I'm going to say. . .don't see him using "double predestination."

As I said previously, you can't have one without the other, therefore, "double predestination" is redundant.

If you predestine some to glory, have you not thereby automatically destined the rest to non-glory?

Do you understand for God to create people for the sole purpose of going to hell with no opportunity to repent of their sin and suffer eternal torment is unloving ?

Are you claiming it is loving ? Yes or no

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Maybe I should be asking @Clare73 to define love. Maybe you have love confused with hate .

 

[Clare73]

Do you understand for God to create people for the sole purpose of going to hell with no opportunity to repent of their sin and suffer eternal torment is unloving ?

Do you understand that to destroy the nest of rattlesnakes in my backyard is loving?

Depends on your reference point. . .it's not loving from the snakes' point of view, but it is loving from my children's point of view.

You think there could be a point of view with the sovereign and infinite God that you do not know or see?

Are you claiming it is loving ? Yes or no

Have you stopped beating animals? Yes or no.

I'm going to say that what Scripture presents is true, whether or not I can reconcile it to my finite understanding or personal human notions of what it means.
I will not alter what Scripture presents to fit my human fancies.

 

[RickReads]

Maybe I should be asking @Clare73 to define love. Maybe you have love confused with hate .

I`ve always been fearful of questioning God and to this very moment just want to conform my will in line with His but this issue was always in the back of my mind as an unspoken concern.

 

[Clare73]

Maybe I should be asking @Clare73 to define love. Maybe you have love confused with hate .

I can't define the parameters of the meaning of the infinite God's love.
For all I have is my finite experience and knowledge.

It's not my job to trim him down to fit my finite reality and logic.

At least I've read Isaiah 55:8-9.

 

[Clare73]

I`ve always been fearful of questioning God and to this very moment just want to conform my will in line with His but this issue was always in the back of my mind as an unspoken concern.

Shows you understand Romans 9:20. . .the number who do seems to be growing smaller and smaller.