What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[John Mullally]

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.

Paul mentioned the "whole council of God", but you are not Paul. Paul was speaking as transparently as you can get as He was writing to beloved Timothy in 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy. If Paul meant "all without distinction", he would have written the passage completely different as to make that apparent. I agree that there is a vacuum going on.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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?

I have not looked into it yet, but there is a current thought, that we are more likely living in a simulation than in real life. Apparently, or according to some, it has been proven more likely. There is one guy who I really look up to in most regards, who says he thinks it is so. I tell him I think it is only "like" a simulation.

He seems to think, for example, that we do make real decisions, but only as they relate to this venue, this world. He thinks that other world, in which this is only a simulation, is inhabited by God alone. (At least that is how I take him to mean, at this point.) I don't think that is quite the way it is, but that there is something to it, in that God is every bit that much NOT like us, and that when this whole business is "rolled up like a scroll", and this life is swallowed up by that one, it will not seem so real as we take it now.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Paul mentioned the "whole council of God", but you are not Paul. Paul was speaking as transparently as you can get as He was writing to beloved Timothy in 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy. If Paul meant "all without distinction", he would have written the passage completely different as to make that apparent. I agree that there is a vacuum going on.

You have been unable to show that anything is not caused, but first cause. Where is the vacuum, then, from which your freewill descends? You support it because you can't get your head around the notion of God causing decisions for which the decider is responsible. I think that is really your big problem with God causing all things —not Scripture's claims.

 

[Clare73]

Paul mentioned the "whole council of God", but you are not Paul. Paul was speaking as transparently as you can get as He was writing to beloved Timothy in 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy. If Paul meant "all without distinction", he would have written the passage completely different as to make that apparent.

Let's just say those familiar with Paul do not give him an A+ for "transparency" in his writings (2 Peter 3:16).

 

[John Mullally]

Let's just say those familiar with Paul do not give him an A+ for "transparency" in his writings (2 Peter 3:16).

Don't confuse Paul's lawyerly rhetorical writing style in Romans 9, his speaking style in Acts (where he deals with heathens like Agrippa, Festus, and the dudes on Mars Hill), his writing style dealing harshly with carnal Corinthians and legalist Galatians, and his style denouncing Judaizers, verses his style in communicating to those he was mentoring (Timothy and Titus). Of course he was transparent with Timothy and Titus.

In practical terms, we should be more transparent when speaking with ones we trust, and careful to avoid casting pearls before swine.

 

[zoidar]

I have not looked into it yet, but there is a current thought, that we are more likely living in a simulation than in real life. Apparently, or according to some, it has been proven more likely. There is one guy who I really look up to in most regards, who says he thinks it is so. I tell him I think it is only "like" a simulation.

He seems to think, for example, that we do make real decisions, but only as they relate to this venue, this world. He thinks that other world, in which this is only a simulation, is inhabited by God alone. (At least that is how I take him to mean, at this point.) I don't think that is quite the way it is, but that there is something to it, in that God is every bit that much NOT like us, and that when this whole business is "rolled up like a scroll", and this life is swallowed up by that one, it will not seem so real as we take it now.

Living in a simulation? That sounds like the Hindu concept of Maya, where this world is an illusion. I think, not only think, I'm sure this world is very real.

How do you view the coming kingdom? Revelation describes heaven coming down to Earth. Heaven, the New Earth, could it be this Earth transformed? I think N.T. Wright describes it that way.

 

[Clare73]

Don't confuse Paul's lawyerly rhetorical writing style in Romans 9, his speaking style in Acts (where he deals with heathens like Agrippa, Festus, and the dudes on Mars Hill), his writing style dealing harshly with carnal Corinthians and legalist Galatians, and his style denouncing Judaizers, verses his style in communicating to those he was mentoring (Timothy and Titus). Of course he was transparent with Timothy and Titus.
In practical terms, we should be more transparent when speaking with ones we trust, and careful to avoid casting pearls before swine.

Lotta' irrelevant conjecture.

If 2,000 years ago, in the context of the reference points of Judaism--the origin of the church, "all" meant Gentile as well as Jew, Paul was being totally and completely transparent in his use of "all" in that manner, for it was the understood meaning.

Can you tell I have been hanging out with Cormack?

I'll take your word for it.

 

[John Mullally]

Lotta' irrelevant conjecture.

If 2,000 years ago, in the context of the reference points of Judaism--the origin of the church, "all" meant Gentile as well as Jew, Paul was being totally and completely transparent in his use of "all" in that manner, for it was the understood meaning.

The acceptance of Gentile Christians was settled in Acts 15 which occurred 15 years before 1 Timothy was written. Timothy was well aware of that settled debate having a Jewish mom & Gentile father and being circumsized in Acts 16:3 also roughly 15 years earlier. There was no need for Paul to bring up a issue settled with Timothy 15 years before, which you assert. THAT WAS NOT THE TOPIC. All the conjecture is on your end. You have been caught.

 

[John Mullally]

You have been unable to show that anything is not caused, but first cause. Where is the vacuum, then, from which your freewill descends? You support it because you can't get your head around the notion of God causing decisions for which the decider is responsible. I think that is really your big problem with God causing all things —not Scripture's claims.

I don't go for the "first cause" BS.

God can be sovereign without being totally deterministic. Jesus shows us who is predestined to eternal life in Mark 16:16. Which is all any of us need to know for ourselves on that topic. The scriptures are full of directives - why would that be if there is no free will? Next you will argue with me over the definition of "free will" - because it is all overly complicated with Calvinism. Reminds me of the Clinton interview on what the definition of "is" is.

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
​

Thanks for stretching me on this topic. Blessings to you.

 

[John Mullally]

Testimony Time:
When I was a teenager in the 70's, a young Catholic nun took me to a tent service in the Costa Mesa. CA Calvary Chapel with Chuck Smith - which is during the Jesus movement. Those tent services are famous at this point as they are the start of the '70s Jesus movement. I was a bit of a neurotic mess and the nun was trying to help. Unfortunately she got booted out of the Catholic Church for that. I remember being with the nun for the spirit-filled afterglow service and one of the guys said to her while she was in her nun garb: How are you doing sister. My heart melted. Since them I have always favored the "after glow".

 

[Mark Quayle]

Living in a simulation? That sounds like the Hindu concept of Maya, where this world is an illusion. I think, not only think, I'm sure this world is very real.

How do you view the coming kingdom? Revelation describes heaven coming down to Earth. Heaven, the New Earth, could it be this Earth transformed? I think N.T. Wright describes it that way.

Agreed. God does not say it is not real; and the "simulation" notion, if there is anything to it, is not like we might think of a video game or a play or a book, but where, as the Bible say, this life is but a vapor or mist, compared to what is to come. The transformation is into a whole different sort of thing from this 'reality', I tend to think.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Living in a simulation? That sounds like the Hindu concept of Maya, where this world is an illusion. I think, not only think, I'm sure this world is very real.

How do you view the coming kingdom? Revelation describes heaven coming down to Earth. Heaven, the New Earth, could it be this Earth transformed? I think N.T. Wright describes it that way.

You may not be able to accept one notion of mine, that the New Jerusalem, in Rev 21 and 22 may well BE the very Bride of Christ, God's Dwelling Place, the place that Christ is even now, in Heaven constructing for us. It may be he is 'constructing' ("preparing") us.

I do believe that what God has in mind for us is that different of a reality.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't go for the "first cause" BS.

God can be sovereign without being totally deterministic. Jesus shows us who is predestined to eternal life in Mark 16:16. Which is all any of us need to know for ourselves on that topic. The scriptures are full of directives - why would that be if there is no free will? Next you will argue with me over the definition of "free will" - because it is all overly complicated with Calvinism. Reminds me of the Clinton interview on what the definition of "is" is.

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.
​

Thanks for stretching me on this topic. Blessings to you.

Then you don't believe in the simple logic of cause and effect, and its pervasiveness. Thanks for your kind words. Blessings to you too.

 

[John Mullally]

Then you don't believe in the simple logic of cause and effect, and its pervasiveness. Thanks for your kind words. Blessings to you too.

I appreciate your humility when we disagree. I don't believe God sets some up for success and some up for failure by circumstances. There were tender moments between Elisha and Ahab with the striking of the arrows to the ground - that goodness of God was an opportunity for Ahab to confess and repent - but in the end Ahab remained God's enemy.

Although few get knocked off their horse and struck blind like Paul, most of us still go through the school of hard knocks and decide our course of action.

 

[SkyWriting]

Your summary of accusation seems to lack a body of evidence.

I said the body provided no evidence that Calvin was aware that God is Love.

This was the closest anyone found in 700 pages:
The same place God's love is presented in: "All you call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
(Acts 2:21) ... 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.

None of those describe God as Love or loving.
These do:
1 John 4:16
1 John 4:8
1 John 4:7
Psalm 86:15
2 Corinthians 13:11
Psalm 86:5
Ephesians 2:4
Romans 5:8

 

[misput]

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.

"With or without The Holy Spirit" Now I understand.

 

[zoidar]

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

When I told you in the past how important Lutheran faith was for me, and that I sometimes thought of becoming a Lutheran again you encouraged me in that decision. I think that was really nice of you, since you are not of Lutheran faith yourself.

 

[John Mullally]

I said the body provided no evidence that Calvin was aware that God is Love.

I remember clashing with you maybe a half-year ago and I sense something has changed in you (as you are no longer a Calvinist). If I am not mistaken, please, go tell.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I said the body provided no evidence that Calvin was aware that God is Love.

This was the closest anyone found in 700 pages:
The same place God's love is presented in: "All you call on the name of the Lord will be saved."
(Acts 2:21) ... 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.

None of those describe God as Love or loving.
These do:
1 John 4:16
1 John 4:8
1 John 4:7
Psalm 86:15
2 Corinthians 13:11
Psalm 86:5
Ephesians 2:4
Romans 5:8

As has been said before, the doctrines concerning the Gospel, which is itself about the love of God, to include the Doctrines of Grace and God's whole character, including justice, are ALL about the love of God, and you want to make the fact he doesn't use the words "love of God" to mean that Calvinism doesn't deal in the goods.

This, from someone who claims the Bible teaches free will, yet there is only one mention of free will in Scripture, and it is about voluntary offering?

 

[Mark Quayle]

"With or without The Holy Spirit" Now I understand.

I think you know better than to imply that @Clare73 does not have, or does not hear from the Spirit in her reasoning and use of Scripture.

The reasoning is simple. The fact is that the 'whole counsel of God' includes all of Scripture, and that the Holy Spirit does not deny or contradict any of it. Whether one has the testimony of the Spirit (or the directives of the Spirit) or not, anything one teaches or believes that contradicts anything else within that 'whole counsel of God', is false.