What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[zoidar]

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Hm NASB says:

For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
— 1 John 5:7-8



Edit: The words: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." are not of the original manuscript of 1 John 5:7.

The Trinitarian Formula in 1 John 5:7–8 | billmounce.com

 

[Clare73]

He followed the language of the verse

Which verse?

You did not answer my question.

 

[Clare73]

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Hm NASB says:

For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
— 1 John 5:7-8

Not good enough. . .

Calvin is charged with not using "God is Love," so by the same standard,
where does the NT use "God is Trinity"?

.

 

[RickReads]

Not good enough. . .

.

In your case, I`m not sure it ever is.

The term Trinity wasn't invented till the third century so you are not making a valid comparison anyway. One could not reasonably expect to find a term in the Bible that didn't exist when the Bible was written.

 

[John Mullally]

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

As part of the Great Commission, Jesus commanded his followers to baptize new disciples in what Christendom considers the Trinity.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.​

 

[RickReads]

You did not answer my question.

I havent had time to take a hard look at the passage yet. I`m pretty interested in it though.

 

[Clare73]

And you ignored this ffom the OP
" In the monumental work of Calvin’s Institutes , it is interesting for a man with such an attention to detail when it comes to dogma and Scripture that he left out any mention of Gods primary attribute that God is love (1 John 4:8;16) and any biblical reference to those two verses in 1 John regarding God is love. His institutes contain thousands of bible references and over 1500 pages in his Institutes.

Another interesting fact is that in the Shorter Westminster Catechism of Faith, question 4 “What is God “? We read the following regarding Gods attributes and notice what is left out. "

“God is Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. “

Notice like in Calvin’s Institute’s, the WCF leaves out Gods primary attribute that He is love.

To state "God is love" is not nearly as effective in seeing and understanding it as is, say,
the presentation of his sacrifice to pay for my sin, because of his love, or
the operations of his power and grace wherein he transforms me into his own, because of his love, etc.

It is particularly disingenuous to present Calvin's writings, especially in Book III on the doctrines of grace, as not presenting God's love, simply because some 450 years ago it "failed" to use the currently popular (and less than Biblical) formulations of it today.

It reveals more about the breadth of his false accusers' scope than it does about Calvin.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Reality does not determine Scripture, rather Scripture determines reality.

And we put some to death in our penal system

And that is your defense

 

[Clare73]

In your case, I`m not sure it ever is.

Precisely. . .a testimony to so much loose-handling of Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

The term Trinity wasn't invented till the third century so you are not making a valid comparison anyway. One could not reasonably expect to find a term in the Bible that didn't exist when the Bible was written.

Non-responsive and irrelevant. . .the point being that it is absurd to require a Biblical truth be stated in a specific way to be considered as presented at all.

The love of God is everywhere shown in the NT where the words "God is love" are not used.

The charge against Calvin is a strawman, particularly in light of his Book III on the doctrines of grace.

 

[Clare73]

And that is your defense

And that is your non-response to the point presented.

The NT does not condemn capital punishment, rather it defends it.
The authorities that exist have been established by God, and do not bear the sword in vain, for they are God's servant, his agent of wrath to punish the wrongdoer (Romans 13:1-5).

 

[John Mullally]

Quite honestly, I haven't studied "Calvinism," I've studied Paul.

For someone who has not studied Calvinism, you post quite frequently and passionately on a "What is wrong with Calvinism" thread.

Well, if "Calvinism" doesn't purport to be what Calvin writes, why does anyone consider it?

Good point - feel free to point out the differences between modern-day Calvinism and Calvin's teachings, as none of us have studied Calvin to your level. Oh, that's right you have never studied Calvinism.

 

[zoidar]

For someone who has not studied Calvinism, you post quite frequently and passionately on a "What is wrong with Calvinism" thread.
Good point - feel free to point out the differences between modern-day Calvinism and Calvin's teachings, as none of us have studied Calvin to your level. Oh, that's right you have never studied Calvinism.

Some Christians use the kind of rhetoric: "It's not my denomination, I just go by the Bible."

 

[Clare73]

For someone who has not studied Calvinism,

I've read Book III of Calvin.

you post quite frequently and passionately on a "What is wrong with Calvinism" thread.
Good point - feel free to point out the differences between modern-day Calvinism and Calvin's teachings, as none of us have studied Calvin to your level. Oh, that's right you have never studied Calvinism.

You make a distinction between Calvin and Calvinism.

I have read Calvin, I know nothing of "Calvinism" but what is purported here.

I assume "Calvinism" is meant to reflect the teachings of Calvin.
In that regard, I am able to correctly comment on the "Calvinism" purported here.

 

[GenemZ]

That is contrary to authoritative NT apostolic teaching that there is only one olive tree of God's people, going all the way back to Abraham (Romans 11:15-18; Galatians 3:28-29).

That interpretation of prophetic riddles is contrary to NT apostolic teaching.
That interpretation is incorrect.

Thank you, dear. May I have that on paper in triplicate?

 

[Clare73]

Some Christians use the kind of rhetoric:
"It's not my denomination, I just go by the Bible."

"Calvinism" is a denomination?

And imagine such a preposterous notion as the above!

A Christian taking his doctrine from the Bible. . .what will they do next?

 

[Clare73]

Thank you, dear. May I have that on paper in triplicate?

I'll leave the complicated electronics to you. . .

Falls somewhat short of a Biblical refutation of NT apostolic teaching.

 

[GenemZ]

He just presented voluminous evidence to the contrary from Calvin, and you say Calvin ignored it????

...well.... Clare?

Which is it?

Faith comes by hearing the Word of Christ? (Romans 10:17)

Or..
Fate comes by hearing the Word of Christ?

 

[Clare73]

...well.... Clare?
Which is it?
Faith comes by hearing the Word of Christ? (Romans 10:17)
Or..
Fate comes by hearing the Word of Christ?

You mean faith?

.

 

[zoidar]

"Calvinism" is a denomination?

And imagine such a preposterous notion as the above!

A Christian taking his doctrine from the Bible. . .what will they do next?

You kind of just proved my point.

 

[Clare73]

You kind of just proved my point.

And I say, "Good for them!"

 

[zoidar]

And I say, "Good for them!"

All denominations take their doctrines from the Bible...