What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Fervent]

Sounds like you have a predetermined picture of what the whole counsel of God says before you read the Bible. I think that's the problem.

Truly a common problem, and ends up setting Scripture against itself which is why so often doctrinal systems end up weaseling through verses that demonstrate the error of the system.

Though given that the decision is prior to exploring the Biblical data, conversation seems unprofitable. Contrary evidence will simply be rationalized, no matter the hoops required to preserve the prior position.

 

[RickReads]

Truly a common problem, and ends up setting Scripture against itself which is why so often doctrinal systems end up weaseling through verses that demonstrate the error of the system.

Though given that the decision is prior to exploring the Biblical data, conversation seems unprofitable. Contrary evidence will simply be rationalized, no matter the hoops required to preserve the prior position.

All such becomes a blinding hindrance when a person decides that their personal dogma is perfect and beyond correction.

 

[Mark Quayle]

He is the propitiation not only for our sins ( believers ) but for the whole world ( all unbelievers).

So it doesn't say not for just the elect. The 'us' ('our'), in "not only for our sins" can be referring to Jews, and "the whole word" can be referring to Gentiles. Also, it can be a statement of the fact that if there is anyone at all for whom there is propitiation, it is He that is that propitiation. Your use of the verse is not the only possible one, not even the most likely, seeing as how it relegates his propitiation ineffective for some.

 

[Mark Quayle]

All such becomes a blinding hindrance when a person decides that their personal dogma is perfect and beyond correction.

Or even when they decide their point of view has to be accurate since it admits no concerns about the Bible's use of the notion of love.

 

[RickReads]

Or even when they decide their point of view has to be accurate since it admits no concerns about the Bible's use of the notion of love.

Not sure what you mean by that but it makes you sound like the bitter loser of a debate.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not sure what you mean by that but it makes you sound like the bitter loser of a debate.

No. You mean to prove a point, but all I have to do is show that there are other uses of the texts you use for proof. You won't admit to the inferiority of your reasoning, so, no matter, I go into idle, and poke holes in your bag of water.

 

[RickReads]

No. You mean to prove a point, but all I have to do is show that there are other uses of the texts you use for proof. You won't admit to the inferiority of your reasoning, so, no matter, I go into idle, and poke holes in your bag of water.

That's all goo goo muck.

 

[zoidar]

So it doesn't say not for just the elect. The 'us' ('our'), in "not only for our sins" can be referring to Jews, and "the whole word" can be referring to Gentiles. Also, it can be a statement of the fact that if there is anyone at all for whom there is propitiation, it is He that is that propitiation. Your use of the verse is not the only possible one, not even the most likely, seeing as how it relegates his propitiation ineffective for some.

I agree there are different possible understandings of 1 John 2:2. There is one more use of "the whole world" in 1 John. Is there a conclusion we can draw from that?

We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
— 1 John 5:18-19

 

[Der Alte]

* * *
We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
— 1 John 5:18-19

Was the "whole world" ever literally "in the power of the evil one?"

 

[zoidar]

Was the "whole world" ever literally "in the power of the evil one?"

I would say yes, from one perspective the whole world is in the power of the evil one until Jesus comes back.

From another perspective the power the evil one had over the whole world was broken by Jesus' death and resurrection.

 

[GenemZ]

He is the propitiation not only for our sins ( believers ) but for the whole world ( all unbelievers).

If the sin issue were not removed? It would diminish the glory and supreme being of Christ?

For, if Jesus did not remove the penalty for sin for all? The reason for going to hell would be their sins. Not for their rejection of the Son of God! That would terribly cheapen the importance and significance of how the Father loves the Son! It would wipe out the true issue of faith in God, vs rejection of God. It would become an issue like... "Did you get your sin vaccination?"

To make sin the reason for going to hell absolutely cheapens who and what the Son of God is.

Men go to hell for rejecting Christ. Not for their sins!

Unbelievers will not have their sins mentioned in their judgement! For their sins were already judged on the Cross on Christ!

And I saw the (spiritually) dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the (spiritually) dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books." Rev 20:12

Unbelievers will be judged according to their works, not their sins!
All their works will be on record. One work will not be found. Because it will not be found? Its absence for unbeliever will condemn them!

What work will be missing?



Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”

Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.” Jn 6:28-29

The one sole work of belief in Jesus will be missing, and is what will send them to the Lake of Fire! Unbelief! = choice!


grace and peace............

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree there are different possible understandings of 1 John 2:2. There is one more use of "the whole world" in 1 John. Is there a conclusion we can draw from that?

We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. We know that we are of God, and that the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
— 1 John 5:18-19

Like most of Scripture, bear in mind what God has said, if possible more even than what we think God meant, or, at least keep conclusions at arm's length. Become convinced, but keep an open mind.

 

[zoidar]

Thanks, it's not my goal. . .but do you really believe that "anti-Calvinists" will have warm regards for anyone who defends Calvin's writings? . . .NOT!. . .that comes with the territory.

Likewise, I don't understand why just simply Biblically demonstrating one's assertion, instead of tossing all one's personal objections out there, is an issue.

Don't understand the objection to being governed by the text rather than one's assumptions is an issue.

And the distinction between "Calvin" and "Calvinism" is a new one to me.
I know some Calvin, which evidently is not "Calvinism."
Nor do I do "ism's", I do Scripture.

Finally, I see the irritation to be the outcome of not being able to Biblically demonstrate those cherished incorrect understandings and false accusations. . .and just part of the price of doing this business.

It's not fun to have one's views on Scripture proven wrong. But that's not the problem. We all view Scripture through our lenses. Only God and the authors of the books of the Bible can be said to view Scripture without lenses. Then it gets irritating when you talk like you have no lenses, and like you can read the texts from the eyes of its authors. We all do our best to understand Scripture, is that hard to admit?

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's not fun to have one's views on Scripture proven wrong. But that's not the problem. We all view Scripture through our lenses. Only God and the authors of the books of the Bible can be said to view Scripture without lenses. Then it gets irritating when you talk like you have no lenses, and like you can read the texts from the eyes of its authors. We all do our best to understand Scripture, is that hard to admit?

I have seen people who are right, come across as irritatingly proud or condescending, when all they think they are is right. They don't think they are perfect, and being human they react to people who become antagonistic toward them. Some of them have gotten in the habit of being pre-emptively antagonistic. But I think you would agree, when you know something for sure, it gives a certain air of confidence. It can be taken as pride or arrogance. True faith in God doesn't have to be understood to give one confidence, but when what one believes seems to them to be backed up by scripture, and by reason, and experience, in many different ways/ references/ logical sequences/ events and assessments, yeah, it can make them very confident.

But I guess I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

 

[John Mullally]

How about Biblical demonstration of your assertion, without which it has no Biblical merit?

Feel free to exegete:
Romans 9:18-19,
Romans 9:20-21,
Romans 9:22-23,
being true to their words, their context and the whole counsel of God.

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.

In the first eight chapters or Romans, the apostle Paul makes man’s need and God’s gracious provision through Christ abundantly clear. Paul ends chapter 8 on a high note in reflection of the endless, inseparable love God has for those who are in an abiding, relationship with Him (Romans 8:9-28).

In chapters 9-11 of Romans, Paul shifts focus to his anguish over Israel.

I invite you now to the summary commentary of Romans 9 by Leighton Flowers - drum roll please
Line by Line through Romans 9

 

[SkyWriting]

Once again. The whole matter of Grace and the Gospel of Grace and the doctrines of Grace is about the Love of God. Why do you need to see the words, "God is love", in his writings?

Calvin was trying to show the error of one way of thinking, and to show a Biblical way of thinking. Calvinism has never been a comprehensive theology, and isn't meant to be. The argument that he doesn't write about the love of God is really weak.

But deadly accurate.
I see your unable to defend him.
He did a lot of writing. Seems he misplaced God altogether.

 

[SkyWriting]

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

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

I provided his writings. You can't get more accurate than that.

 

[SkyWriting]

Which then makes your point not on topic, because it's directly to your point of requiring specific NT phrases as proof of doctrine.Then you don't understand all God's loving actions presented in the NT as coming from his love.Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black.Assertion without demonstration is without merit.

I linked to Calvins writings on Love specifically. I demonstrated that Calvin did not know God.
Then I provide 700 pages text for demonstration.
Institutes of the Christian Religion - By Calvin

View attachment 318194

 

[John Mullally]

Here is a humble and wise young man who I agree with on this podcast - especially his view of predestination and simple free will (i.e. not a free will definition that requires advanced training to understand {which should itself be a red flag}). I find this podcast especially refreshing. It is on topic because he addresses problems in Calvinism, but does not condemn Calvinists. I find it constructive. For those throwing darts, think twice by keeping in mind that Jesus's warning in Matthew 7:2 applies to you!

Be blessed!

 

[zoidar]

I linked to Calvins writings on Love specifically. I demonstrated that Calvin did not know God.
Then I provide 700 pages text for demonstration.
Institutes of the Christian Religion - By Calvin

View attachment 318194

You attachment lead me to:

"Christian Forums - Error
You do not have permission to view this page or perform this action."