What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[RickReads]

I hear ya..."Just the Facts Man". But biased Points of View are so much fun.

Facts are facts and they are even more fun, "like the Calvinist idea that people have no control whatsoever, or that God controls our sins but holds us accountable for them, or that He "wants" all people to be saved but still predestines most to hell.

God is biased and bias will include facts. It's necessary for us to have bias but we need to be biased to reflect God's point of view and His ways.

 

[misput]

Have you seen it to the end? I found the end heartfelt and humbling.

Great Video!

 

[misput]

World in John 1:29, John 3:16 and 1 John 2:2- is all inclusive of all men, all mankind, all the inhabitants of the earth/world.

Thayers

Cosmos: the inhabitants of the

5. world: θέατρον ἐγενήθημεν τῷ κόσμῳ καί ἀγγέλοις καί ἀνθρώποις, 1 Corinthians 4:9 (Winers Grammar, 127 (121)); particularly the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human race (first so in Sap. (e. g. )): Matthew 13:38; Matthew 18:7; Mark 14:9; John 1:10, 29 ( L in brackets); ; Romans 3:6, 19; 1 Corinthians 1:27f (cf. Winer's Grammar, 189 (178)); ; 2 Corinthians 5:19; James 2:5 (cf. Winer's Grammar, as above); 1 John 2:2 (cf. Winer's Grammar, 577 (536)); ἀρχαῖος κόσμος, of the antediluvians, 2 Peter 2:5; γέννασθαι εἰς τόν κόσμον, John 16:21; ἔρχεσθαι εἰς τόν κόσμον (John 9:39) and εἰς τόν κόσμον τοῦτον, to make its appearance or come into existence among men, spoken of the light which in Christ shone upon men, John 1:9; John 3:19, cf. 12:46; of the Messiah, John 6:14; John 11:27; of Jesus as the Messiah, John 9:39; John 16:28; John 18:37; 1 Timothy 1:15; also ἐισέρχεσθαι εἰς τόν κόσμον, Hebrews 10:5; of false teachers, 2 John 1:7 (yet here L T Tr WH ἐξέρχεσθαι εἰς τόν κόσμον; (so all texts in 1 John 4:1)); to invade, of evils coming into existence among men and beginning to exert their power: of sin and death, Romans 5:12 (of death, Wis. 2:24; Clement of Rome, 1 Cor. 3, 4 [ET]; of idolatry, Wis. 14:14). ἀποστέλλειν τινα εἰς τόν κόσμον, John 3:17; John 10:36; John 17:18; 1 John 4:9; φῶς τοῦ κόσμου, Matthew 5:14; John 8:12; John 9:5; σωτήρ τοῦ κόσμου, John 4:42; 1 John 4:14 (σωτηρία τοῦ κόσμου Wis. 6:26 (25); ἐλπίς τοῦ κόσμου, Wis. 14:6; πρωτόπλαστος πατήρ τοῦ κόσμου, of Adam, Wis. 10:1); στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου (see στοιχεῖον, 3 and 4); ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, among men, John 16:33; John 17:13; Ephesians 2:12; ἐν κόσμῳ (see Winer's Grammar, 123 (117)), 1 Timothy 3:16; εἶναι ἐν τῷ κόσμου, to dwell among men, John 1:10; John 9:5; John 17:11, 12 R G; 1 John 4:3; εἶναι ἐν κόσμῳ, to be present, Romans 5:13; ἐξελθεῖν, ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, to withdraw from human society and seek an abode outside of it, 1 Corinthians 5:10; ἀναστρέφεσθαι ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, to behave oneself, 2 Corinthians 1:12; likewise εἶναι ἐν τῷ κόσμου τούτῳ, 1 John 4:17.



6. "the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ" (cf. Winer's Grammar, 26): John 7:7; John 14:27 (); ; 1 Corinthians 1:21; 1 Corinthians 6:2; 1 Corinthians 11:32; 2 Corinthians 7:10; James 1:27; 1 Peter 5:9; 2 Peter 1:4; 2 Peter 2:20; 1 John 3:1, 13; 1 John 4:5; 1 John 5:19; of the aggregate of ungodly and wicked men in O. T. times, Hebrews 11:38; in Noah's time, ibid. 7; with οὗτος added, Ephesians 2:2 (on which see αἰών, 3); εἶναι ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου and ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τούτου (see εἰμί, V. 3rd.), John 8:23; John 15:19; John 17:14, 16; 1 John 4:5; λαλεῖν ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου, to speak in accordance with the world's character and mode of thinking, 1 John 4:5; ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου, i. e. the devil, John 12:31; John 14:30; John 16:11; ὁ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ he that is operative in the world (also of the devil), 1 John 4:4; τό πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου



b. of all mankind, but especially of believers, as the object of God’s love J 3:16, 17c; 6:33, 51; 12:47.

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature : A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 446.

Very informative. Thank you.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Very informative. Thank you.

You are welcome

 

[Mark Quayle]

I grew up in a Christian tradition that was deeply steeped in Calvinist theology. Although once part of the Conservative Baptist Association, our little church in New England eventually broke away from that denomination and became an independent Bible church. Looking back, I would have called us four or four-and-a-half point Calvinists, the doctrine of limited atonement being the only questionable plank in the venerable TULIP acronym. Still, it was indubitably true that everything that occurred did so not only on account of God’s will, but explicitly by his creative decree; and that God had graciously out of his own love chosen the elect to save from this ruinous world, and that he drew them to faith in himself by his irresistible grace. If anything was true of the Christian faith, it was these things (along with total depravity and perseverance of the saints). When the traditional texts were presented as proof of these doctrinal dogmas, I could only nod in agreement, finding no fault in how Scripture was read and interpreted. It was upon this theological rock that I began to build my spiritual home, confident that I knew God’s Word and was acting in a wise and prudent manner.

You consider yourself an authority on Calvinism, but by your own admission here, it is on "four or four-and-a-half point" Calvinists you were with. That doesn't sound to me like Calvinism. I mean you no antagonism here, but it seems to me that if you knew Calvinism as well as you claim, that you would see through the arguments you show below.

Yet a funny thing happened during my late teens and into my early twenties. The more I sunk my Christian foundation into the bedrock of Calvinism, the more fragile and volatile my spiritual life and commitment to Christianity became. A number of unspeakable evils befell my family one after another; prayers went unanswered; God remained hidden despite earnest seeking; life floundered and became dark. I despaired. How could a God of love personally cause these horrendous evils and yet still be perfectly good? How could I trust God to be loving when he determined people to sin, and then held them accountable for what they could not have refrained from doing? I desperately sought to hold these disparate theological tenets in proper balance, but the tension tore me apart. Intuitively I knew that if God was the ultimate cause behind evil, then he was evil; slowly, and in a dangerously creeping way, I began to hate this God of Calvinism even while I outwardly mouthed all the right doctrines.

You built your theology and then blame your lack of success in obedience and steadfastness on your theology, and not on yourself? That's not Calvinism. That's not even Arminianism.

I'm surprised that even your "four or four-and-a-half point Calvinism" didn't teach you that this life is not for this life. Are you honestly going to tell us that it never really dealt with the question of suffering?

What do you mean by "ultimate cause of evil"? If you only mean that God 'first cause', and in perfect control of all effects

What I sorely needed at this point was a viable, biblically sound, and alternative understanding of the basic Christian teachings about God’s sovereignty and love, human sin, election, salvation, Christ’s atonement, and faithful discipleship. Although I eventually came to reject Calvinism half-way through college (and later adopted thorough-going Arminianism in seminary), I could have been spared many years of frustration, confused thinking, and spiritual deadness had someone placed Jerry Walls’s most recent book in my hands.

God's word doesn't give you what you need for life and Godliness?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Walls’s book is short, and pulls no punches. The title gives away Walls’s main contention: despite the endless rounds of debates between Calvinists and Arminians regarding the nature and extent of God’s sovereignty, his omnipotence, and his purposes in salvation, the heart of what’s wrong with Calvinism is that, when consistently followed to its logical end, it teaches that God does not truly love everyone. This is deeply problematic from both a theological and biblical standpoint, as a perfect divine being must love everyone without fail (or by definition he would not be God) and as revealed Scripture avers that love is so integral to God’s character that it can be described as part of his essence (“God is love” in 1 John 4:8, 16).

In other words, Wall knows what God's love is, and therefore, the Bible must be interpreted accordingly?

Before he gets there, however, Walls covers some basic issues. In chapter 1 Walls notes that classic Calvinist texts have long overlooked the importance of God’s love. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), in answer to the question “What is God?” names essential attributes of God but notably leaves out love; and not once in the almost 2,000 pages of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion does he cite either 1 John 4:8 or 1 John 4:16. In chapter 2, Walls reviews some basic theological systems, contrasting Calvinism’s TULIP acronym with Arminianism’s FACTS or ROSES. Walls then summarizes the doctrines of unconditional election, eternal security, and the fate of the non-elect according to Calvinism, pointing out that the WCF goes so far as to assert that God was pleased to ordain some people to wrath for their sins so that God’s glory and justice might be made known. Walls lingers on this last consideration, noting that whatever reason God has for not electing the reprobate when he could of is inscrutable to us humans, a situation that often propels Calvinists to emphasize God’s sovereignty and control instead of actually offering a theodicy in light of eternal damnation. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of limited atonement according to Calvinism, historically understood as Christ dying only for the elect, notChrist’s death being applied only to the elect. In other words, Christ’s death did not atone for the sins of the non-elect or purchase their redemption in any way—despite what 1 John 2:2 says.

How do you handle the question of efficiency?

I don't see why it is inscrutable for him to ordain some to perdition to demonstrate his justice and glory to the objects of his mercy. God owes nobody anything. But those to whom he chose to show mercy, and created for the purpose of building his Dwelling Place, the Bride of Christ, and Body of Christ, are the ones he particularly loves. It was for what he has particularly created, that he made the rest, as created for their purpose, for demonstrating his justice, power and glory. We cannot say that he does not love them. Our notion of love is by virtue of being ours, short of facts. As usual, the Arminian wants to take what God gives us generally and apply it specifically without his knowledge. Then when God is specific, they want to call it general. God DOES have specific love.

The doctrine of irresistible grace is the focus of chapter 3. Calvinism usually distinguishes between two kinds of gospel calls: the general call that goes out to everyone, and the effectual call which is meant only for God’s elect. Supposedly, such a distinction allows Calvinists to preach the gospel as a genuine offer, even if the unbelievers they preach to are not elect. What makes the effectual call irresistible is that it is God who opens the eyes of the lost, softens their hearts, restores their corrupted will, and gives them the faith to believe so that they might be saved. On this Arminians and Calvinists agree: that we are completely helpless to save ourselves apart from God’s gracious initiatory work to reveal his salvation and draw us to himself. Yet while Calvinists understand God’s salvific work as being his alone, Arminians believe that each person has a part to play that is up to them—namely, receiving and believing in the gospel of Christ. Given this, Calvinists face a problem: if salvation is accomplished by God alone and is in no way dependent upon humans, what prevents the general call and effectual call from being coterminous? If God is the one who alone makes the general call irresistible and thus effectual, what is preventing him from granting everyone irresistible grace and thereby saving all? Since Calvinists hold to compatibilistic forms of human freedom, which claim that theological determinism and human freedom are compatible, God could causally determine everyone to freely believe and be saved. This realization casts doubt upon the justice of God’s judgment: if the reprobate refused a call that they could not have accepted because God did not grant them the irresistible grace needed to believe, how can God hold them morally accountable and justly judge them? As Walls pithily sums it up, “For the elect, God makes them an offer they literally cannot refuse, but those who are not elect receive an offer they literally cannot accept” (27).

The Gospel is a command to repent, not quite the "offer" some want to make it sound like. In the Arminian construction, the gospel is only an offer, ("oh, sure repentance is required, too"), in which everything hinges on the choice of the person being offered the gospel to accept it or reject it. And this paragraph of yours demonstrates where the notion of "Offer" goes overboard, neglecting altogether that God is the active worker in the Grace that enables sinners to repent.

"God could causally determine everyone to freely believe and be saved"? Why do you suppose this? Did you not know that these who will finally be condemned are part of what it took to build God's Dwelling Place? NO! If God wanted to build his Dwelling Place perfectly, he could not have saved everyone.

If, in fact, they were not made for the purpose of demonstrating his glory, he would not have made them at all.

In chapters 4-5, Walls presents his strongest case against Calvinism with the following deductive argument (which itself is a shortened version of a longer and more complex argument of Walls’s in a 2011 article in Philosophia Christi, “Why No Classical Theist, Let Alone Orthodox Christian, Should Ever Be a Compatibilist”):

1. God truly loves all persons.
2. Not all persons will be saved.
3. Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.
4. The well-being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.
5. God could give all persons “irresistible grace” and thereby determine all persons to freely accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.
6. Therefore, all persons will be saved.

If that's his strongest case, then this is a cinch.
1. God truly loves all persons "the same" without distinction? No. Some he even says he hates.
2. Not all persons were made to be members of the perfect Bride of Christ, the specifically built Dwelling Place of God.
3. Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you "properly" can. Notice the word, "properly".
4. "The well-being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him". Well, no, since he did not create some for that purpose. They are, and will remain, miserable slaves to sin.
5. Therefore, he can draw no firm conclusion but by admitting that God has determined certain persons to one end, and others as demonstrations of his glory, justice and mercy, for the sake of his elect.

The Calvinist upholds premises 1-5, which if true, necessarily yield premise 6. Yet premise 2 and 6 are contradictions, showing that at least one of the other premises is false. The Arminian can resolve the tension by rejecting premise 5 (replacing irresistible grace with prevenient grace, which only makes it possible for all persons to be saved), but what is the Calvinist to do? Premises 1, 2, and 5 are strongly held by most Calvinists, so that leaves premise 3 or 4 open to question. Yet these two premises work in tandem to flesh out what it means to love someone (i.e., to will the good of another), and especially what it means for God to love humans—the pinnacle of his creation—whom God made specifically for fellowship with him. Given that the WCFfamously declares that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, it is puzzling, if not outright incoherent, for Calvinists to claim that God can truly love someone but not bring about their salvation (especially since God can determine all people to freely believe by granting them irresistible grace). One cannot glorify God and enjoy him forever in Hell.

The Calvinist does not admit to 1-5 in the use you make of them. The Calvinist necessarily differentiates between the elect and the non-elect, and God's love for them. So 6 is plainly a false conclusion.

The Calvinist also has no problem with God loving someone and using them to show his glory, nor with him using any of us as he pleases.

Thus the Calvinist finds himself in a pickle: affirm that God loves all people and you must consequently affirm salvific universalism; deny universalism and this requires denying that God truly loves all people. Walls demonstrates that the consistent Calvinist cannot both affirm God’s universal love and hold that only some will be saved, and thus, “A fully consistent Calvinist who truly understands unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace will deny that God loves all persons” (34). Since Scripture clearly teaches that God both loves everyone and that some will forever perish, Walls’s argument in conjunction with the biblical data provides a defeater to Calvinist theology.

Again, God's supposedly universal love is specific to the individual, and specific as to his creation and use of each one. The definition of love that claims he only ever wanted their well-being, is patently false.

It should also be mentioned that, if you have accurately represented Wall's claims, it is more than obvious that Wall has drawn his data (his definitions, (particularly of love,)) from his own mind and not from scripture. He also says that Calvinists claim some general thing, while not getting specific on what THEY mean by it, but rather, only what he takes them to mean, for his own purposes.

Most Calvinists respond to the above argument by differentiating various kinds of divine love. How is it that God genuinely loves the non-elect when true love would compel him to bring about their salvation? By distinguishing between (1) God’s providential love for creation, (2) his salvific stance toward fallen humanity (God’s general call), and (3) his particular and effective love toward the elect (God’s effectual call), God can be said to truly love the non-elect because he loves them in the first two senses. The problem with this is that anything short of loving someone unto salvation—if one is able to do this—is not really love. “Loving” a person by sending the sun and rain, or holding out the offer of salvation knowing they cannot accept it, is a hollow and meaningless “love” that would only come from a capricious God. As Jesus says in Matthew 16:26, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and yet forfeits his soul?” Apart from coming to know God through Jesus Christ and glorifying and enjoying him forever, the benefits from God’s lesser loves are futile.

Then forget the whole narrative, that depends on man's notions of love. God does what he does, not out of capriciousness, but out of glorifying himself. LOVE for anyone, even anything, is not true love if it is apart from that.

Despite the Calvinist’s protestation that God has other goals he desires to accomplish through the reprobate—the full manifestation of his glory, wrath, and justice—the idea that damnation makes possible other greater goods falls flat once we realize that the greatest good for humanity and the greatest glory for God is for us to know God and enjoy him forever, which is what Christ’s atonement is all about. It becomes clear in this light that consistent Calvinist theology not only denies that God loves everyone but also obscures the gospel message of Jesus Christ himself.

You say, "the greatest glory for God is for us to know God and enjoy him forever" —"Us" WHO? What kind of self-exaltation is it for a mere human to claim to know better than God himself what will glorify God most?

In the second half of the book (chapter 6), Walls writes beautifully about a theology of divine love. He lays out more thoroughly an Arminian/Wesleyan understanding of God’s universal love, the death Christ died for all because of that love, and the genuine opportunity for salvation that is consequently made available to all. This message of love, hope, and redemption is still needed in our broken world, and if Walls’s book can help clear away the philosophical and theological cobwebs to enable Christians to more clearly proclaim this gospel, then it is well worth reading.

Thus, Arminianism continues to demonstrate that strange mindset, where this life is about us, and not about Christ, and that demands self-determination, where God's specific plans are only statements of general intent, but God's general commands, are specifically derived and defined appropriate for each individual application.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

You consider yourself an authority on Calvinism, but by your own admission here, it is on "four or four-and-a-half point" Calvinists you were with. That doesn't sound to me like Calvinism. I mean you no antagonism here, but it seems to me that if you knew Calvinism as well as you claim, that you would see through the arguments you show below.



You built your theology and then blame your lack of success in obedience and steadfastness on your theology, and not on yourself? That's not Calvinism. That's not even Arminianism.

I'm surprised that even your "four or four-and-a-half point Calvinism" didn't teach you that this life is not for this life. Are you honestly going to tell us that it never really dealt with the question of suffering?

What do you mean by "ultimate cause of evil"? If you only mean that God 'first cause', and in perfect control of all effects



God's word doesn't give you what you need for life and Godliness?

That is not me I linked and quoted the source, sorry for any confusion. I was a hard line 5 pointer and supported double predestination.

 

[mccafferty1]

God is biased and bias will include facts. It's necessary for us to have bias but we need to be biased to reflect God's point of view and His ways.

I see the point you are making, and I'm good with it. But I'm not so sure that God is bias as far as a definition goes. For me it's more...God is not biased or shows no partiality. Rom.2:11

To see if a certain view is bias you have to ask yourself is it feasible, straightforward, and logical? Does it exhaust all the evidence you have assembled, and it is superior to the alternative explanation? Is it, once again, the most reasonable explanation?

I think it is something we just have to deal with as this shows:

Theological Biases of Bible Translations

As hard as a translator may try, it is impossible to exclude theological bias from a translation. At times a choice of renderings will boil down to a doctrinal preference. That is the nature of changing a message from one language to another. Of course, sometimes translators may insert doctrinal preferences intentionally as in the case of study Bibles. A Bible user needs to be aware, at least in a general way, of what theological bias or biases occur in a version before settling upon one as his constant resource. Otherwise, he may unknowingly buy into a teaching that does not agree with his own convictions.
How to Choose a Bible Version-Robert Thomas

What Does the Bible Say About God Does Not Show Partiality? (openbible.info)

 

[Clare73]

Tulip is not in the Bible .

Agreed. . .at least I've never seen those words in the Bible.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Agreed. . .at least I've never seen those words in the Bible.

Correct these are not biblical

Total depravity
Unconditional ejection
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints

 

[Clare73]

Correct these are not biblical

Total depravity
Unconditional ejection
Limited atonement
Irresistible grace
Perseverance of the saints

That list is not in the Bible.

 

[Clare73]

Does God love everyone?


I grew up in a Christian tradition that was deeply steeped in Calvinist theology. Although once part of the Conservative Baptist Association, our little church in New England eventually broke away from that denomination and became an independent Bible church. Looking back, I would have called us four or four-and-a-half point Calvinists, the doctrine of limited atonement being the only questionable plank in the venerable TULIP acronym. Still, it was indubitably true that everything that occurred did so not only on account of God’s will, but explicitly by his creative decree; and that God had graciously out of his own love chosen the elect to save from this ruinous world, and that he drew them to faith in himself by his irresistible grace. If anything was true of the Christian faith, it was these things (along with total depravity and perseverance of the saints). When the traditional texts were presented as proof of these doctrinal dogmas, I could only nod in agreement, finding no fault in how Scripture was read and interpreted. It was upon this theological rock that I began to build my spiritual home, confident that I knew God’s Word and was acting in a wise and prudent manner.

Yet a funny thing happened during my late teens and into my early twenties. The more I sunk my Christian foundation into the bedrock of Calvinism, the more fragile and volatile my spiritual life and commitment to Christianity became. A number of unspeakable evils befell my family one after another; prayers went unanswered; God remained hidden despite earnest seeking; life floundered and became dark. I despaired. How could a God of love personally cause these horrendous evils and yet still be perfectly good? How could I trust God to be loving when he determined people to sin, and then held them accountable for what they could not have refrained from doing? I desperately sought to hold these disparate theological tenets in proper balance, but the tension tore me apart. Intuitively I knew that if God was the ultimate cause behind evil, then he was evil; slowly, and in a dangerously creeping way, I began to hate this God of Calvinism even while I outwardly mouthed all the right doctrines.

What I sorely needed at this point was a viable, biblically sound, and alternative understanding of the basic Christian teachings about God’s sovereignty and love, human sin, election, salvation, Christ’s atonement, and faithful discipleship. Although I eventually came to reject Calvinism half-way through college (and later adopted thorough-going Arminianism in seminary), I could have been spared many years of frustration, confused thinking, and spiritual deadness had someone placed Jerry Walls’s most recent book in my hands.

Walls’s book is short, and pulls no punches. The title gives away Walls’s main contention: despite the endless rounds of debates between Calvinists and Arminians regarding the nature and extent of God’s sovereignty, his omnipotence, and his purposes in salvation, the heart of what’s wrong with Calvinism is that, when consistently followed to its logical end, it teaches that God does not truly love everyone. This is deeply problematic from both a theological and biblical standpoint, as a perfect divine being must love everyone without fail (or by definition he would not be God) and as revealed Scripture avers that love is so integral to God’s character that it can be described as part of his essence (“God is love” in 1 John 4:8, 16).

Before he gets there, however, Walls covers some basic issues. In chapter 1 Walls notes that classic Calvinist texts have long overlooked the importance of God’s love. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), in answer to the question “What is God?” names essential attributes of God but notably leaves out love; and not once in the almost 2,000 pages of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion does he cite either 1 John 4:8 or 1 John 4:16. In chapter 2, Walls reviews some basic theological systems, contrasting Calvinism’s TULIP acronym with Arminianism’s FACTS or ROSES. Walls then summarizes the doctrines of unconditional election, eternal security, and the fate of the non-elect according to Calvinism, pointing out that the WCF goes so far as to assert that God was pleased to ordain some people to wrath for their sins so that God’s glory and justice might be made known. Walls lingers on this last consideration, noting that whatever reason God has for not electing the reprobate when he could of is inscrutable to us humans, a situation that often propels Calvinists to emphasize God’s sovereignty and control instead of actually offering a theodicy in light of eternal damnation. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of limited atonement according to Calvinism, historically understood as Christ dying only for the elect, notChrist’s death being applied only to the elect. In other words, Christ’s death did not atone for the sins of the non-elect or purchase their redemption in any way—despite what 1 John 2:2 says.

The doctrine of irresistible grace is the focus of chapter 3. Calvinism usually distinguishes between two kinds of gospel calls: the general call that goes out to everyone, and the effectual call which is meant only for God’s elect. Supposedly, such a distinction allows Calvinists to preach the gospel as a genuine offer, even if the unbelievers they preach to are not elect. What makes the effectual call irresistible is that it is God who opens the eyes of the lost, softens their hearts, restores their corrupted will, and gives them the faith to believe so that they might be saved. On this Arminians and Calvinists agree: that we are completely helpless to save ourselves apart from God’s gracious initiatory work to reveal his salvation and draw us to himself. Yet while Calvinists understand God’s salvific work as being his alone, Arminians believe that each person has a part to play that is up to them—namely, receiving and believing in the gospel of Christ. Given this, Calvinists face a problem: if salvation is accomplished by God alone and is in no way dependent upon humans, what prevents the general call and effectual call from being coterminous? If God is the one who alone makes the general call irresistible and thus effectual, what is preventing him from granting everyone irresistible grace and thereby saving all? Since Calvinists hold to compatibilistic forms of human freedom, which claim that theological determinism and human freedom are compatible, God could causally determine everyone to freely believe and be saved. This realization casts doubt upon the justice of God’s judgment: if the reprobate refused a call that they could not have accepted because God did not grant them the irresistible grace needed to believe, how can God hold them morally accountable and justly judge them? As Walls pithily sums it up, “For the elect, God makes them an offer they literally cannot refuse, but those who are not elect receive an offer they literally cannot accept” (27).

In chapters 4-5, Walls presents his strongest case against Calvinism with the following deductive argument (which itself is a shortened version of a longer and more complex argument of Walls’s in a 2011 article in Philosophia Christi, “Why No Classical Theist, Let Alone Orthodox Christian, Should Ever Be a Compatibilist”):

1. God truly loves all persons.
2. Not all persons will be saved.
3. Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.
4. The well-being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.
5. God could give all persons “irresistible grace” and thereby determine all persons to freely accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.
6. Therefore, all persons will be saved.
The Calvinist upholds premises 1-5, which if true, necessarily yield premise 6. Yet premise 2 and 6 are contradictions, showing that at least one of the other premises is false. The Arminian can resolve the tension by rejecting premise 5 (replacing irresistible grace with prevenient grace, which only makes it possible for all persons to be saved), but what is the Calvinist to do? Premises 1, 2, and 5 are strongly held by most Calvinists, so that leaves premise 3 or 4 open to question. Yet these two premises work in tandem to flesh out what it means to love someone (i.e., to will the good of another), and especially what it means for God to love humans—the pinnacle of his creation—whom God made specifically for fellowship with him. Given that the WCFfamously declares that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, it is puzzling, if not outright incoherent, for Calvinists to claim that God can truly love someone but not bring about their salvation (especially since God can determine all people to freely believe by granting them irresistible grace). One cannot glorify God and enjoy him forever in Hell.

Thus the Calvinist finds himself in a pickle: affirm that God loves all people and you must consequently affirm salvific universalism; deny universalism and this requires denying that God truly loves all people. Walls demonstrates that the consistent Calvinist cannot both affirm God’s universal love and hold that only some will be saved, and thus, “A fully consistent Calvinist who truly understands unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace will deny that God loves all persons” (34). Since Scripture clearly teaches that God both loves everyone and that some will forever perish, Walls’s argument in conjunction with the biblical data provides a defeater to Calvinist theology.

Most Calvinists respond to the above argument by differentiating various kinds of divine love. How is it that God genuinely loves the non-elect when true love would compel him to bring about their salvation? By distinguishing between (1) God’s providential love for creation, (2) his salvific stance toward fallen humanity (God’s general call), and (3) his particular and effective love toward the elect (God’s effectual call), God can be said to truly love the non-elect because he loves them in the first two senses. The problem with this is that anything short of loving someone unto salvation—if one is able to do this—is not really love. “Loving” a person by sending the sun and rain, or holding out the offer of salvation knowing they cannot accept it, is a hollow and meaningless “love” that would only come from a capricious God. As Jesus says in Matthew 16:26, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and yet forfeits his soul?” Apart from coming to know God through Jesus Christ and glorifying and enjoying him forever, the benefits from God’s lesser loves are futile.

Despite the Calvinist’s protestation that God has other goals he desires to accomplish through the reprobate—the full manifestation of his glory, wrath, and justice—the idea that damnation makes possible other greater goods falls flat once we realize that the greatest good for humanity and the greatest glory for God is for us to know God and enjoy him forever, which is what Christ’s atonement is all about. It becomes clear in this light that consistent Calvinist theology not only denies that God loves everyone but also obscures the gospel message of Jesus Christ himself.

Not according to what I find in the whole counsel of God, where he has ordained that his glory shall be through the glory of his Son who shall with his own life purchase from condemnation a remnant to be the Father's own personal inheritance and treasure.

In the second half of the book (chapter 6), Walls writes beautifully about a theology of divine love. He lays out more thoroughly an Arminian/Wesleyan understanding of God’s universal love, the death Christ died for all because of that love, and the genuine opportunity for salvation that is consequently made available to all. This message of love, hope, and redemption is still needed in our broken world, and if Walls’s book can help clear away the philosophical and theological cobwebs to enable Christians to more clearly proclaim this gospel, then it is well worth reading.

Does God Love Everyone? The Heart of What is Wrong with Calvinism | Denver Seminary

 

[zoidar]

But you don't seem to realize, (and I don't mean to be critical when I say that you do this, because we all do —it is part of our limited frame of reference and language/concepts), that you see an anthropomorphic God. I can answer your question "yes and no". But if I do, my answer will still not describe God in his perfection of what we call his attributes. Yes, he has attributes that he can give man. No, he does not have attributes that he can give man in their perfection. But those are only tools, or hints, at the facts. They are not the true statement as he knows it. He can give us will, but it is not free in the sense that he is free to do as he pleases, without being caused to do so.

Still, your idea that God has a personality is necessarily anthropomorphic. But don't worry —you are in good company. Some of the best theologians and philosophers would use the term, "personality". Some of them, I think, do realize that that falls short of the way God thinks of it. He is what he is, and what we call his personality is not something he is not. He even says, poetically, that his anger, I think the term is, in one version, "carried him along" or "consumed" him. I don't remember the place in Scripture. But that doesn't mean he is fitful or psychotic or bipolar or capricious or in any way has one "attribute" or personality point that overrides the others. He is not like us. I could say he is in perfect control of himself, but that is a stupid way to put it, suggesting that he has to control himself. He does not. He is what he is.

I realize that, but I believe that is because God is anthropomorphic. God is three persons, not an ungraspable mysterious source, He is the person Father, the person Son and the person the Holy Spirit. Through Christ we get to know God personally. That is the difference from other monothestic religions.

No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
— John 1:18

Watched it, and it is good and worth seeing, but it seems very man-centered, as though this life is about man. He did say, Christ is the hub of his drawing of the wheel, but he also, first said, and repeated later, that 'forgiveness of sins' is the hub, specifically saying that the center was not God. He is wrong there, as Christ is not just the forgiveness of sins, but Christ is God himself.

This life is about man ...

God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
— Genesis 1:27-28

Pastor Lassman is not here to defend himself, but when he said that Christ goes in the center, not God he might have meant "the teaching about God", or "The Father" or "The trinity". I fully agree with Lassman's statement. Without the "forgiveness through Christ" the Bible has not much to offer. So Christ goes in the center.

The Bible is about the glory of God, and specifically, about the Gospel of grace.

I would disagree. The Bible is about God sending His Son to redeem mankind, the forgiveness through Christ.

Gospel of grace? I don't know what that means. Are you refering to doctrines like "unconditional election"?

I know the gospel, that God sent His Son to die for our sins on the cross and was resurrected for our salvation, that whoever believes in him will be saved. That's the gospel to me.

 

[zoidar]

Perhaps you would like to exegete Romans 9:16-23, being true to its words, and its context. . .

The main reason I didn't want to go through Romans 9 with you is because I have not studied it enough. When I have, I'll be willing to go it through with you.

 

[RickReads]

I see the point you are making, and I'm good with it. But I'm not so sure that God is bias as far as a definition goes. For me it's more...God is not biased or shows no partiality. Rom.2:11

To see if a certain view is bias you have to ask yourself is it feasible, straightforward, and logical? Does it exhaust all the evidence you have assembled, and it is superior to the alternative explanation? Is it, once again, the most reasonable explanation?

I think it is something we just have to deal with as this shows:

Theological Biases of Bible Translations

As hard as a translator may try, it is impossible to exclude theological bias from a translation. At times a choice of renderings will boil down to a doctrinal preference. That is the nature of changing a message from one language to another. Of course, sometimes translators may insert doctrinal preferences intentionally as in the case of study Bibles. A Bible user needs to be aware, at least in a general way, of what theological bias or biases occur in a version before settling upon one as his constant resource. Otherwise, he may unknowingly buy into a teaching that does not agree with his own convictions.
How to Choose a Bible Version-Robert Thomas

What Does the Bible Say About God Does Not Show Partiality? (openbible.info)

Well, don't read more into my comment than I intended. God has likes and dislikes and that is what I mean by bias. Speaking for myself I want to like what He likes and hate what he hates. That to me would be ideal.

 

[GenemZ]

Context. . .they're not the same.

Paul was not at the Tower of Babel... OK.

How long do you want to drag this sort of thing on?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Here is another passage that refutes calvinism and shows tulip to be false.

Amazing how the unregenerate in the OT were given the choice by their free will to either obey God or not obey Him. And the misnomer that the unregenerate cannot hear from God or that God cannot talk to them without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is yet another misnomer.

Just look at Cain and his interaction with God- post fall. So much for TD and mans inability and IR. Also where is this change in "mans nature" that he cannot communicate of hear from God because of his sin nature ?

Genesis 4
Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. 3 In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. 4 And Abel also brought an offering—fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, 5 but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast.


6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? 7 If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.”


8 Now Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.” While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.


9 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”

“I don’t know,” he replied. “Am I my brother’s keeper?”


10 The Lord said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground. 11 Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. 12 When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.”


13 Cain said to the Lord, “My punishment is more than I can bear. 14 Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.”


15 But the Lord said to him, “Not so; anyone who kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. 16 So Cain went out from the Lord’s presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

1 John 3:12
Do not be like Cain, who belonged to the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own actions were evil and his brother’s were righteous.

Jude 1:11
Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

Luke 11:51
From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Hebrews 11:4
By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

hope this helps !!!

Wow! Yeah, you've torn that strawman to shreds...

What strawman? The one where Calvinism claims we don't have choice. The one where Calvinism claims God can't talk to whomever he chooses to talk to.

 

[mccafferty1]

Well, don't read more into my comment than I intended. God has likes and dislikes and that is what I mean by bias. Speaking for myself I want to like what He likes and hate what he hates. That to me would be ideal.

Ok, thanks for giving me a better understanding of your definition. But I still like my daffynition.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Except one cannot disprove God is love is an innate / essential core attribute of the Tri-Unity of God. It’s who God is within His own Being as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It’s an irrefutable fact

But you don't know what love is. All you have is your notion of it. You can't make a good use of Scripture concerning Predestination and God's use of secondary causes based on your notion of love.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I stopped by my son in laws house this morning who is a pastor and a Calvinist who is now questioning his beliefs as I share my studies with him all the time . He is in the process of deconstructing as well but not as far along in the process as I am. My daughter who is also a Calvinist was listening to the conversation and was affirming some points I brought up that she had not thought of before regarding Gods nature and some church history pre Augustine and the gnostic , plato and pagan influences that effected his beliefs about God.

Sounds pretty obvious that your idea of Calvinism, combined with your reasoning, have trumped plain Scripture.