What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

All denominations take their doctrines from the Bible...

And good for them, too!

 

[zoidar]

And good for them, too!

Well, if only their doctrines were Biblical...

 

[John Mullally]

I've read Book III of Calvin.

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.

You have made a distinction between Calvin and Calvinism multiple times. I would hope they were largely compatible. I don't like the "Hide the ball" game.

Book III of the Institutes of the Christian Religion (AKA Book III of Calvin) http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-7/LIBRARY/CALVIN/CAL_BAT3.PDF is about 500 pdf pages long with 25 chapters and multiple sections per chapter.

Calvin wrote 3 other books. If you are making an argument from Calvin's Institute of the Christian Religion, it would be nice to provide detailed reference. Otherwise, it would be akin to making an argument saying your point is supported by combining different parts of the Old Testament.

 

[Clare73]

Well, if only their doctrines were Biblical...

Agreed. . .but as long as their soteriology is Biblical, they have the Biblical basics.

 

[Clare73]

You have made a distinction between Calvin and Calvinism multiple times. I would hope they were largely compatible. I don't like the "Hide the ball" game.
Book III of the Institutes of the Christian Religion (AKA Book III of Calvin) http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-7/LIBRARY/CALVIN/CAL_BAT3.PDF is about 500 pdf pages long with 25 chapters and multiple sections per chapter.

Calvin wrote 3 other books. If you are making an argument from Calvin's Institute of the Christian Religion, it would be nice to provide detailed reference. Otherwise, it would be akin to making an argument saying your point is supported by different parts of the Old Testament.

Demonstrate whatever you contend, and we'll go from there. . .

 

[John Mullally]

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.

Demonstrate whatever you contend, and we'll go from there. . .

One disturbing reference in Book 3:

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
​

From Book 3, Dreadful and without a remedy:

“Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 7)​

Where does Book III of Calvin’s Institute’s present God’s love as you contend?

 

[SkyWriting]

Who made that rule?

And I likewise can't find one example of "God is Trinity" in the NT.

Not on topic.
I couldn't find one example of "God is love" in any form.
-God is Love.
-Calvin does not claim that God is Love.
-Calvin fails to discuss the Truth so he just makes stuff up instead.

This is not unusual. Lots of people just make stuff up about God.
They don't do any research or reflection.

 

[SkyWriting]

Oops! . . .misrepresentation of Calvin demonstrated.

I provided the source by Calvin where he makes up a lot of stuff but never admits that God is Love.
So Calvin fails to address reality.
Institutes of the Christian Religion - Calvin discusses "Love"

 

[GenemZ]

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

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

What ever you say dear. For what you said means nothing unless you get specific.

 

[zoidar]

Agreed. . .but as long as their soteriology is Biblical, they have the Biblical basics.

What I wanted to say with my initial post was that it's easy to say it's not my interpretation of the Bible, it's what the Bible say. And to say our church doesn't just follow doctrines we believe are Biblical, we follow the teachings of the Bible. That's just rhetoric to sound convincing. Also it's saying that all other churches that hold different doctrines than you do, don't follow the Bible correctly. It's not saying you believe that's the case, but you are stating that it is the case. It's not the best way to enter a discussion, to say it mildly.

Btw you never replied to my post regarding John 3:16.

It seems like "the world" in John 3:17 includes those who never receives Christ, so I find it natural that those are also included in John 3:16.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:17

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
— John 12:47

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

One disturbing reference in Book 3:

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)
​

From Book 3, Dreadful and without a remedy:

“Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 7)​

Where does Book III of Calvin’s Institute’s present God’s love as you contend?

If that is love I would abhor their definition of hate because the above in anyone's world but the blind is describing HATE not love.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Not on topic.
I couldn't find one example of "God is love" in any form.
-God is Love.
-Calvin does not claim that God is Love.
-Calvin fails to discuss the Truth so he just makes stuff up instead.

This is not unusual. Lots of people just make stuff up about God.
They don't do any research or reflection.

Correct because it opposes his false teachings on Sovereignty, determinism, double predestination, election etc.....

 

[John Mullally]

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

By here you must also be referring to your frequent activity on a large number of other Calvinism-related threads on this forum.

 

[Clare73]

By here you must also be referring to your frequent activity on a large number of other Calvinism-related threads on this forum.

Must I? . . .who made that rule?

 

[Clare73]

One disturbing reference in Book 3:

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)​

Found in Romans 9:22-23.

From Book 3, Dreadful and without a remedy:

“Again I ask: whence does it happen that Adam’s fall irremediably involved so many peoples, together with their infant offspring, in eternal death unless because it so pleased God? The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 7)​

Are you saying his statement above is contrary to Romans 9:23?

Please exegete Romans 9:22-23, being true to its words and context.

Where does Book III of Calvin’s Institute’s present God’s love as you contend?

The same place God's love is presented in: "All you call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
(Acts 2:21)

Where I come from, the grace and benefits of Christ presented in Book III; i.e., justification (righteousness) by faith (Chps 11-15), the promises of the gospel (Chp 17), benefits from God through prayer (Chp 20), election to salvation (Chps 21-24) all come from the love of God.

Where I come from, God is also just, which is why his own Son had to go to the cross in order for any to have their sin forgiven.
Where I come from, God owes his enemies (Romans 5:19) nothing but what justice requires, to give them their due, what they have earned. . .they have no just claim against him, he owes them nothing more.

 

[Clare73]

Not on topic.

Which then makes your point not on topic, because it's directly to your point of requiring specific NT phrases as proof of doctrine.

I couldn't find one example of "God is love" in any form.

Then you don't understand all God's loving actions presented in the NT as coming from his love.

-God is Love.
-Calvin does not claim that God is Love.
-Calvin fails to discuss the Truth so he just makes stuff up instead.

This is not unusual. Lots of people just make stuff up about God.
They don't do any research or reflection.

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.

Assertion without demonstration is without merit.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Found in Romans 9:22-23.
Are you saying his statement above is contrary to Romans 9:23?

Please exegete Romans 9:22-23, being true to its words and context.

The same place God's love is presented in: "All you call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
(Acts 2:21)

Where I come from, the grace and benefits of Christ presented in Book III; i.e., justification (righteousness) by faith (Chps 11-15), the promises of the gospel (Chp 17), benefits from God through prayer (Chp 20), election to salvation (Chps 21-24) all come from the love of God.

Where I come from, God is also just, which is why his own Son had to go to the cross in order for any to have their sin forgiven.
Where I come from, God owes his enemies (Romans 5:19) nothing but what justice requires, to give them their due, what they have earned. . .they have no just claim against him, he owes them nothing more.

Where Jesus comes from He is the following

1- the lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world . John 1:29

2- Loves the whole world and gave His life for them. John 3:16

3- He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world not just the elect. 1 John 2:2

I rest my case .

hope this helps !!!

 

[Clare73]

I provided the source by
Calvin where he makes up a lot of stuff but never admits that God is Love.

Calvin showing God's love is presented in post #3215. . .nor is he required to do it according to your personal formulary.

So Calvin fails to address reality.

And you fail to represent Calvin accurately, presenting a red herring instead.

 

[Clare73]

What ever you say dear. For what you said means nothing unless you get specific.

Likewise with your response. . .

 

[Clare73]

What I wanted to say with my initial post was that it's easy to say it's not my interpretation of the Bible, it's what the Bible say. And to say our church doesn't just follow doctrines we believe are Biblical, we follow the teachings of the Bible. That's just rhetoric to sound convincing. Also it's saying that all other churches that hold different doctrines than you do, don't follow the Bible correctly. It's not saying you believe that's the case, but you are stating that it is the case. It's not the best way to enter a discussion, to say it mildly.

Who made that rule?

It is the right way to enter a discussion until it is Biblically shown to be incorrect.

Btw you never replied to my post regarding John 3:16.

Please present it again. . .thanks.