What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

Like a dentist pulling teeth with no pain meds lol .

Seems to be some false assumptions floating around. . .

 

[Clare73]

All the while the Holy Spirit pulls no punches.

What got Jesus crucified was calling out the mega deniers of his day.

According to the NT record, what got Jesus crucified was his claim to be the Son of God (John 19:7).

He is the Word made flesh. Today, still some are driven to crucify the Word of God...

The "Word of God" is used of Jesus only once in the NT, in the opening of John's gospel.
It is neither a name he was called by, nor a name used of him in the NT.

 

[Clare73]

Better than being out of good comebacks.

I favor Biblical responses over "good comebacks."

 

[Clare73]

Phil Johnson, who has done extensive research on this subject very helpfully defines hyper-Calvinists using a five-fold definition. A hyper-Calvinist is one who

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any “offer” of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as “common grace,” OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

That does not describe my thinking.

Are you sure it describes anyone's thinking?

 

[misput]

I don't use the term "irresistible grace."
I don't use the term "predetermined."
You didn't get them from me.

It seems that Calvin understands Roman 9 the way I do, which I discovered years later.
I am not a "Calvinist."
I don't do "ism's."
I do Scripture. . .I am a Paulist.

You have opinions, some good some not, just like the rest of us. We all do scripture and believe.

 

[Clare73]

You have opinions, some good some not, just like the rest of us.
We all do scripture and believe.

General assertion is irrelevant.
Biblical demonstration is required to show which actually are not Biblical.

 

[misput]

Didn't Paul tell us not to call ourselves after any man or take on any man made titles?

 

[misput]

General assertion is irrelevant.
Biblical demonstration is required to show which actually are not Biblical.

That is your rule, not mine.

 

[mccafferty1]

You might find this thread interesting. In the video he, too, mentions the "what is, is" statement. Rather humorously, too, I thought.
Philosophy: First Cause is. Everything else is becoming. | Christian Forums

I watched it all. I love RC. Back in the '60s to say hello we would say "What it is...what it be like. I never understood the concept behind it till now.

 

[Clare73]

General assertion is irrelevant.
Biblical demonstration is required to show which actually are not Biblical.

That is your rule, not mine.

That explains a lot. . .

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Didn't Paul tell us not to call ourselves after any man or take on any man made titles?

Someone didn’t get the memo

 

[Mark Quayle]

26 minutes.

Watched it.

At about 9 minutes in: While I can agree with him that there is no reason for triumphalism, he seems to imply that is the only alternative to 'mystery' in compatibilism. I disagree. God has ordained all things, and we do what we do, not only as a result of God ordaining all things, but we do it according to our own wills and inclinations. I see no mystery there. If he only means that the mystery is the 9 billion links in the chain of causation, I can agree there, because none of us knows all the links, but I don't think that is what he was talking about.

But I think I get his reason for the video. Good job.

 

[Mark Quayle]

26 minutes.

Watched it.

At about 9 minutes in: While I can agree with him that there is no reason for triumphalism, he seems to imply that is the only alternative to 'mystery' in compatibilism. I disagree. God has ordained all things, and we do what we do, not only as a result of God ordaining all things, but we do it according to our own wills and inclinations. I see no mystery there. If he only means that the mystery is the 9 billion links in the chain of causation, I can agree there, because none of us knows all the links, but I don't think that is what he was talking about.

Is that like being saved before I knew I was saved lol

I thought of that as I wrote it! Well done!

But no, I still don't consider myself a Calvinist, though I suppose technically I believe what they do so I am one —I really don't know.

I came to believe what they do, or least, what the Reformed do, not because I read it or was taught it as such, but because I learned from Scripture and experience what they teach.

 

[misput]

According to the NT record, what got Jesus crucified was his claim to be the Son of God (John 19:7).

The "Word of God" is used of Jesus only once in the NT, in the opening of John's gospel.
It is neither a name he was called by, nor a name used of him in the NT.

It is The Word that encompasses the meaning of God/Christ/Holy Spirit and everything He stands for.

 

[misput]

That explains a lot. . .

I hope so. Most of us are rather weary of your dogmatic insistence on a wooden literal interpretation of scripture that leaves little or no room for Holy Spirit guidance. We are all reaching our opinions through Him. You would do well to respect that if you want to be respected. Maybe take your tag line into your own heart. humility, humility, humility

 

[RickReads]

Thanks for elaborating brother !

It`s always a pleasure to share a testimony. The mixture of denominational theologies I absorbed put me
in danger of believing in some kind of Frankengospel and I knew it wouldn't be right. This is what led me to go back to the basics and become a Pauline Berean. I used Pauls's gospel to weed out contradictions, inconsistencies and settle any issues that had risen from all the various ideas about the gospel I learned from the multiple denominations I had exposed myself to.

I sorted out what I knew and continued to grow in my knowledge of the gospel. At the present time, it all appears to have transformed me into a strict Aminian.

 

[zoidar]

I've read other material. . .the best book written outside the Bible being, Knowing God by J. I. Packer.
It's a classic.

You say you don't do "ism's" but your theology is influenced by the Calvinistic material you have read. Do you disagree?

 

[zoidar]

Can you show a difference between your notion of "free will" and "actual, responsible choice"?

I never answered this question.

At soul level we are all the same, like being the same essence. Free will is thereby within each person. Not that bad how Clare put it, it does operate from a kind of vaccum. The reason it makes us responsible is because we have not been predetermined what to choose, but the choice is decided from the place of soul/free will. So it's whether soul listens to the bad thoughts or good thoughts of your mind. Soul/free will watches your mind and decides which to listen to. That makes us responsible. You aren't your body/mind, you have a body/mind.

In a sense I don't believe we "have" free will. I believe free will is within us.

Ok, this doesn't fully explain it, but I believe it. I don't need to know exact how, like I don't need to know how God created material matter from nothing. But to me there can't be responsibility or sin without free will. That settles it for me.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You say you don't do "ism's" but your theology is influenced by the Calvinistic material you have read. Do you disagree?

I say I'm Reformed, but it really doesn't matter —I do so for expediency's sake— and I read John Owen, and love it and learned from it. John Owen didn't make me Reformed. In fact, you might be surprised at what it is that Owen says that means so much to me.

@Clare73 likes many things I say, but not because they are Reformed, and not because they aren't.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I hope so. Most of us are rather weary of your dogmatic insistence on a wooden literal interpretation of scripture that leaves little or no room for Holy Spirit guidance. We are all reaching our opinions through Him. You would do well to respect that if you want to be respected. Maybe take your tag line into your own heart. humility, humility, humility

Not that I have heard it much, by way of example, here on this site, but I have heard some say the Holy Spirit told them this or that, or confirmed it to them, or gave them this or that 'word' or song, which is full of horrible theology, contradicting Scripture. There is much I have heard that I would say is by the Holy Spirit that is more something he wants me to think about, than 'the truth', as such.