What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[zoidar]

Sometimes I wonder if what a person begins to describe as their definition of a thing, changes, to some degree, as they describe it. Not sure that isn't happening here with you. But I get it that you mean to get a view across, rather than a definition.

(Side note: Unless your reader had seen where @Clare73 mentioned "operate from a vacuum", your quote (1st paragraph below) comes across the opposite of how Clare put it, when you quote her, in saying, "Not that bad how Clare put it, it does operate from a kind of vaccum." I know you did not mean she claims it operates from a vacuum, but to credit her with the reference to 'operat[ing] in a vacuum. Anyhow, you seem to affirm here that freewill must operate "kind of" without cause. (Clare didn't mention, "kind of", either. (Haha, just pickin')).)



The Bible makes a big distinction between the mind of the flesh, and the mind of the spirit. The unregenerate are not possessing of both. But whatever, neither one of them does operate in a vacuum. Whether, as you say, that we have free will, or that it is "within us", it doesn't come from nothing, and is not governed by nothing or uncaused (even before we govern it, though that too is relevant). The mind of the flesh is governed by the flesh, and is a slave to sin. The mind of the spirit is a slave to Christ. and is governed by the Spirit. One might say that our free will, then, is the decider between all these influences, and in the believer, between the drives of the flesh and the spirit, but that too, is THUS subject to influences, and always chooses according to its inclinations. It can operate in opposition to its usual inclinations, no doubt, but that too is because it is so inclined to do, at that point.



Again, are you here referring to UNCAUSED free will? Logically, and Biblically, I see no way there can be such a thing. If you can show me how it is logical (and I don't mean 'necessary that it be true, for responsibility' in your mind), I'll be glad to try to understand, but if not —I leave you to deal with the incongruity, 'er, "mystery", in your thinking.

Yeah, I thought about writing that, how Clare said how it is not with free will. Then I figured, you will get it anyway. I was not trying to misrepresent Clare.

How can I be responsible without free will?

Logic can only take us this far. If I were to go fully from logical reasoning and not by faith, I would possibly be a Buddhist. Why? Because there are things I have experienced in Buddhism to be true, that doesn't fit the existens of a personal God. But I have to let go of that and trust that my faith is right, not my logic from this specific experience. (And this is not something that I'm making up, but something that is a challenge for my faith. It's like two different "truths" are colliding. I can't get a hold of it, just believe.)

 

[misput]

What is "wooden" to one man, is objective truth and accuracy to another.

I don't see Nicodemus as an example of wooden understanding, when nowhere in Jewish teaching was found the rebirth.
I see Nicodemus as a teacher, who does his homework regarding the facts before he presents them, and not after he finds out they weren't really the facts.

No problem if they are in agreement with the whole counsel of God, against which they must be tested, as Paul was tested by the Bereans.

You are missing the point, sorry.

 

[zoidar]

I think our difference is in your "religious" background, where all meaning was wide open and had to be discovered.
That's not the way it is with the word of God in Scripture.
For lack of a better way to put it, Scripture has a concrete (non-esoterical) 3000+ year-old overall framework into which everything fits, it's meaning is not wide open.
All correct understanding fits into this framework and is in agreement with it.
Anything not fitting into the framework (whole counsel of God) is incorrect because it is inconsistent.
Familiarity with the framework is required in correctly understanding Scriptural text.

Yet, you are not sure about the branches. (Romans 11)

 

[Clare73]

How many times do you need? How many times is the word of God or words to that effect used.

In reference to Jesus, how many do you find?

Or is it simply John's declaration, in terms the Greeks would understand, that Jesus is that "Logos"
whom they regard as God, as well as being the "Son of God" whom the Jews would regard as God
(John 5:18).
The apostle killed two birds with one stone, putting it in a language that both Greeks (Gentiles) and Jews would understand.
The Holy Spirit is good about doing things like that.

 

[Clare73]

You are missing the point, sorry.

Am I the one missing the point?

 

[Clare73]

Yet, you are not sure about the branches. (Romans 11)

Not sure about what?

I am as sure as is the text. . .which is my boundary.
Who can be more sure than the text?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Aha, so when you did read Calvin and Calvinistic material, they just confirmed what you already knew? Nothing new was added to your theology?

Not that I can answer for @Clare73 but I should think even you don't have as much "new" things added to your theology as you do refinement and/or better ways of expressing what you believe. That is what it is for me. There are some thoughts I hadn't thought of in my theology, that I learned from others, but they still are all about the Grace of God toward "incompetent me", which is what I learned from life and Scripture.

 

[zoidar]

Not that I can answer for @Clare73 but I should think even you don't have as much "new" things added to your theology as you do refinement and/or better ways of expressing what you believe. That is what it is for me. There are some thoughts I hadn't thought of in my theology, that I learned from others, but they still are all about the Grace of God toward "incompetent me", which is what I learned from life and Scripture.

I have went from a more Arminian-like theology to a Lutheran perspective on things. I was greatly influenced by a Lutheran friend. Then I started to challenge that, and now I guess, I'm a mix of Catholic, Lutheran and Arminian.

 

[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.

Here is a response to Romans 9:22 you requested - although I don't claim understand the "whole counsel of God". In my opinion if you really want to understand Romans 9 you should follow https://soteriology101.com/2015/05/07/line-by-line-through-romans-9/

Background: Romans 9 is about Paul’s grief over his countrymen (Romans 9:1-4 and it ends talking about how the Jews did not pursue righteousness by faith. The topic does not change during the entire chapter - its still about Romans 9:1-4. And much of Paul's writing style is rhetorical because Paul is a lawyer – he takes up two sides of an argument to use reason to establish his points. Calvinists wrench passages from Romans 9 out of context to support something not intended by the author.

Ignoring the context of Romans 9, and just looking at Romans 9:22 in isolation - it still cannot be made to say that God predestines some to eternal death as Calvin asserts:

Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,​

The phrase “endured with much longsuffering" is not God waiting to pull the trigger to send a sinner to hell once the waiting time is over. 2 Peter 3:9 says that the purpose of God’s longsuffering is because he does not want anyone to perish – I know that shocks some who are unfamiliar with the Father’s heart (i.e. God is love). Also, the phrase "prepared for destruction" is something the vessel does to himself by rejecting God (i.e. the Holy Spirit).

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.​

As one who has witnessed the Dunning-Kruger effect, I would suspect anyone calling themselves a Paulist that is unable to parse the obvious meanings in 1 Timothy 2:4-6.

1 Timothy 2:1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time​

 

[John Mullally]

God loves you

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.​

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.
​

Try not to pretend to get upset for not addressing Calvinism.

 

[Mark Quayle]

One question: How can I be responsible without free will?

Logic can only take us this far. If I were to go fully from logical reasoning and not by faith, I would possibly be a Buddhist. Why? Because there are things I have experienced in Buddhism to be true, that doesn't fit the existens of a personal God. But I have to let go of that and trust that my faith is right, not my logic from this specific experience. (And this is not something that I'm making up, but something that is a challenge for my faith. It's like two different "truths" are colliding. I can't get a hold of it, just believe.)

I'm still not sure if you are discarding this: "How can one be responsible without actual willed choice?", for this: "How can one be responsible without uncaused free will?"

By the way, how did you take the notion on that video about Calvinism, of our lives being like that of characters in a book? I think there is something to that —not that this life and us and particularly our ability to think and decide and cause, is only that of something written by God, but that God is that far above us and this existence in which we are players.

Also, within the question of being "made in the image of God" I have to admit to something, (and I don't know what it is, though so far I have found it necessary to reject every suggestion I have yet heard), that makes us into what God himself, I think, finds enthralling and 'new' about us as the Bride; yet I am SURE it is something caused by dependence on him, and indeed by him being our very sustenance, if not even our essence. There, perhaps is found some relevance to the notion of responsible choice, but to do so requires a LOT of things we don't know, and even intuitions that don't quite make cohesive sense, plus, it requires getting around a LOT of Scripture that refers necessarily to sinful flesh, necessary Grace, necessary dependence on Christ (without me you can do nothing) and many other things. My guess would be that to do so would take something of the form of going more into it, to understand what at this point seems counter-intuitive (much the way that Calvinism says that in fact our choices are real BECAUSE God has determined them).

Anyhow, God bless you brother, in your continuing journey, and I have enjoyed this conversation with you. I love your honesty, and your lack of depending on spite to assist your narrative. With you, it is about the subject matter, and not about winning, nor even about self-defense.

 

[Clare73]

I have went from a more Arminian-like theology to a Lutheran perspective on things. I was greatly influenced by a Lutheran friend. Then I started to challenge that, and now I guess,
I'm a mix of Catholic, Lutheran and Arminian.

There are definitely worse things. . .the Catholics don't have it all wrong, just some of it.

 

[Clare73]

Here is a response to Romans 9:22 you requested - although I don't claim understand the "whole counsel of God". In my opinion if you really want to understand Romans 9 you should follow Line by Line through Romans 9

Background: Romans 9 is about Paul’s grief over his countrymen (Romans 9:1-4 and it ends talking about how the Jews did not pursue righteousness by faith. The topic does not change during the entire chapter - its still about Romans 9:1-4. And much of Paul's writing style is rhetorical because Paul is a lawyer – he takes up two sides of an argument to use reason to establish his points. Calvinists wrench passages from Romans 9 out of context to support something not intended by the author.

Ignoring the context of Romans 9, and just looking at Romans 9:22 in isolation - it still cannot be made to say that God predestines some to eternal death as Calvin asserts:

Romans 9:22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,​

The phrase “endured with much longsuffering" is not God waiting to pull the trigger to send a sinner to hell once the waiting time is over. 2 Peter 3:9 says that the purpose of God’s longsuffering is because he does not want anyone to perish – I know that shocks some who are unfamiliar with the Father’s heart (i.e. God is love). Also, the phrase "prepared for destruction" is something the vessel does to himself by rejecting God (i.e. the Holy Spirit).

2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
​

As one who has witnessed the Dunning-Kruger effect, I would suspect anyone calling themselves a Paulist that is unable to parse the obvious meanings in 1 Timothy 2:4-6.

1 Timothy 2:1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time

Thanks for your thoughtful response to how God is being misrepresented by Calvin. . .but here's the thing.

That pesky little word "all,". . .does it mean "all without exception" (every man), or
does it mean "all without distinction" (Gentile as well as Jew)?

The answer to that lies in what Jesus said:

No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him. (John 6:65)
All that the Father gives me will come to me. (John 6:37)
I shall lose none of all that the Father has given me. (John 6:39)

Since "all without exception" do not come to Jesus,
I know that "all without exception" have not been enabled by the Father and, therefore,
"all" in 1 Timothy 2:1 , as well as wherever else salvation is stated in terms of "all,"
means "all without distinction" (Gentile as well as Jew), rather than "all without exception (every man).

 

[Mark Quayle]

God loves you

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.​

Jeremiah 29:11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.
​

Try not to pretend to get upset for not addressing Calvinism.

This is in answer to what post, or to whom? Not sure what you are trying to get at.

 

[John Mullally]

Thanks for your thoughtful response to how God is being misrepresented by Calvin. . .but here's the thing.

That pesky little word "all,". . .does it mean "all without exception" (every man), or
does it mean "all without distinction" (Gentile as well as Jew)?

The answer to that lies in what Jesus said:

No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him. (John 6:65)
All that the Father gives me will come to me. (John 6:37)
I shall lose none of all that the Father has given me. (John 6:39)

Since "all without exception" do not come to Jesus, I know that "all without exception" have not been enabled by the Father and, therefore, "all" in 1 Timothy 2:1 , as well as wherever else salvation is stated in terms of "all," means "all without distinction" (Gentile as well as Jew).

John 6 also includes "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." because Jesus was trying to drive away the freeloaders who were trying to make him King so they would never have to work again per John 6:1-14 and John 6:30. We do not know who the elect is - per the parable of the Tares that you frequently reference. And your verses do not mean that the Holy Spirit is not trying to draw those who continue to resist Him.

Any honest person coming without preconceptions reading 1 Timothy 2 is going to come away viewing that the "all" is "all without exception". God has not changed places with the devil - He does not predestine anyone to eternal death.

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.​

 

[misput]

Am I the one missing the point?

Yes, I am not trying to do a history lesson on Nicodemus or put him down, just using it as a glaring example how a person can approach The Word without The Holy Spirit. The Apostles did this many times before they received The Spirit.

 

[Clare73]

John 6 also includes "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him." because Jesus was trying to drive away the freeloaders who were trying to make him King so they would never have to work again per John 6:1-14 and John 6:30. We do not know who the elect is - per the parable of the Tares that you frequently reference. And your verses do not mean that the Holy Spirit is not trying to draw those who continue to resist Him.
Any honest person coming without preconceptions reading 1 Timothy 2 is going to come away viewing that the "all" is "all without distinction".

Which is not how we correctly understand Scripture.
Those statements are not made in a vacuum.

They are made in the light of the whole counsel of God, and we must understand them
in that light, or we put God in contradiction to himself.

 

[RevealedTruths]

In regards to calvinism and the whole "free will VS predestination" debate, the answer is this: God created us as beings with free will. We (and angels) thus have the freedom of choice to either accept or reject Him. However, since God also created Time and is not in any ways limited by Time, He already knows how will each of us end up, who will choose Him and who won't.

It's really that simple and literally pointless to argue over such a simple thing as this.

 

[zoidar]

I'm still not sure if you are discarding this: "How can one be responsible without actual willed choice?", for this: "How can one be responsible without uncaused free will?"

By the way, how did you take the notion on that video about Calvinism, of our lives being like that of characters in a book? I think there is something to that —not that this life and us and particularly our ability to think and decide and cause, is only that of something written by God, but that God is that far above us and this existence in which we are players.

Also, within the question of being "made in the image of God" I have to admit to something, (and I don't know what it is, though so far I have found it necessary to reject every suggestion I have yet heard), that makes us into what God himself, I think, finds enthralling and 'new' about us as the Bride; yet I am SURE it is something caused by dependence on him, and indeed by him being our very sustenance, if not even our essence. There, perhaps is found some relevance to the notion of responsible choice, but to do so requires a LOT of things we don't know, and even intuitions that don't quite make cohesive sense, plus, it requires getting around a LOT of Scripture that refers necessarily to sinful flesh, necessary Grace, necessary dependence on Christ (without me you can do nothing) and many other things. My guess would be that to do so would take something of the form of going more into it, to understand what at this point seems counter-intuitive (much the way that Calvinism says that in fact our choices are real BECAUSE God has determined them).

Anyhow, God bless you brother, in your continuing journey, and I have enjoyed this conversation with you. I love your honesty, and your lack of depending on spite to assist your narrative. With you, it is about the subject matter, and not about winning, nor even about self-defense.

I don't really like the idea that we are like characters in a book, even it may be true to some extent. God has created us after His image and we are His children, and that is like giving us eternal value. God is not very far and He loves us very much. How much does the author of a book care about his characters?

Thanks alot Mark! I'm taking that to my heart. I too enjoyed our conversation, it was hard at times, made me think a bunch, and was challenging. I think we kept a good level on things and it was constructive.

I hope I haven't sown any bad ideas in your mind. I know some of my thoughts are bit influenced by Eastern philosophy and in no way do I want you drawn towards Buddhism etc. I can tell you Eastern religion is a mess. I left Buddhism for a good reason, and I don't plan going back. Jesus is our hope and salvation! God bless you brother! ✝️♥️

 

[Clare73]

Yes, I am not trying to do a history lesson on Nicodemus or put him down, just using it as
a glaring example how a person can approach The Word without The Holy Spirit. The Apostles did this many times before they received The Spirit.

With or without the Holy Spirit, the measure of the truth of one's understanding
is the whole counsel of God.
God did not leave us without an objective measure (outside ourself) of his truth.