What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Jesus is YHWH]

This is the " GOSPEL " spelled out by Paul who directly received it from Jesus

1 Corinthians 15:1-5 - this gospel by which you are SAVED.

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Summary of the gospel

1-Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures
2- Christ was buried
3- Christ was raised on the 3rd day according to the scriptures
4- Christ was seen/appeared ( bodily in the flesh rest of the chapter)
5- Many witnesses at different times verified my testimony His bodily Resurrection from the dead
6- The last witness of His bodily Resurrection was the Apostle Paul.

hope this helps !!!

 

[RickReads]

This is the " GOSPEL " spelled out by Paul who directly received it from Jesus

1 Corinthians 15:1-5 - this gospel by which you are SAVED.

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Summary of the gospel

1-Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures
2- Christ was buried
3- Christ was raised on the 3rd day according to the scriptures
4- Christ was seen/appeared ( bodily in the flesh rest of the chapter)
5- Many witnesses at different times verified my testimony His bodily Resurrection from the dead
6- The last witness of His bodily Resurrection was the Apostle Paul.

hope this helps !!!

That's real nice but your point is? We are supposed to be tallying up all the imperfections of Calvins.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

That's real nice but your point is? We are supposed to be tallying up all the imperfections of Calvins.

There seemed to be some disagreement about the gospel so I posted what it was from Paul. Its intended for everyone.

 

[RickReads]

There seemed to be some disagreement about the gospel so I posted what it was from Paul. Its intended for everyone.

Yes and thank you for that. It`s more of a misunderstanding that I have set up intentionally then a disagreement.

I was not nor have I said there are two gospels in the sense that Clare means. The meaning of the Biblical terms I use are akin to part 1 and part 2 of the same book.

The opposition anyone using these terms faces is unfortunate but I use them anyway. I believe it is an important detail to understand if someone wants to understand why the New Testament unfolds the way that it does.

In the interest of disclosure, I have used the term two gospels before but it creates such misunderstanding because of the Dispensationalist error. It`s not accurate to say two gospels so I have worked to refine how I express this point.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

Adam and Eve knew God and they broke the first law. Different situation and your disagreement is with verse 13 not with me.

Adam and Eve knew God and they broke the first law. Different situation and your disagreement is with verse 13 not with me.

But the action still produced death in all their off spring it would seem that all still received the sinful nature as the context declares, 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

Cannot seem to delete this extra reply, sorry.

 

[RickReads]

But the action still produced death in all their off spring it would seem that all still received the sinful nature as the context declares, 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

If you had followed my posts you would know that I attribute the nature of the flesh and the disease of aging to Adams's curse. What I reject is the belief that people are born damned, charged with sins committed by Adam and Eve.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

I haven't went back and read all your posts and it would appear since all the people died and Romans does declare the wages of sin is death and seeing as how they did die, the obvious question would be, why did they die if they did not face the penalty of sin? God does declare in Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

 

[RickReads]

I haven't went back and read all your posts and it would appear since all the people died and Romans does declare the wages of sin is death and seeing as how they did die, the obvious question would be, why did they die if they did not face the penalty of sin? God does declare in Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

Again you make a false allegation, I never said no penalty for sin. I said they would not be damned for something that Adam and Eve did. I'm not sure why that is hard for you to understand. Are you a Muslim?

 

[Clare73]

In answer to Precisely what am I evading?:
In post 255 you said you did not study Calvin. I queried further on your understanding of Calvin and your understanding of Reformed theology in post 312 since you participate frequently on these kinds of discussions. You gave me a snarky response in post 318 that I termed evasive.

Now you admit "I am familiar enough with Calvin, but he is not the only, nor the best Reformed theologian.". Your evasion started in Post 255 when
you pretended to know little about John Calvin.

Thanks for the feedback.

I am likewise familiar enough with Augustine, Aquinas, Pelagius, etc., but I would be hard put to evaluate anything anyone presented as what they stated, as I can with Paul.

I'm suspecting the issue is you didn't get the answer you were looking for.

I don't take at face value what others report these theologians to say, because I see conflicting reports on that.

Unless I have a specific working knowledge of anything, I am only familiar with it.

Its helpfully to know what the other person believes in order to get to the heart of the discussions quickly and avoid mischaracterization. Merely saying you follow Paul on a Christian Theology forum does not add meaningful information since almost everyone on here believes they are doing that.

Okay. . .FYI, I have a specific working knowledge of the NT.

I have only familiarity with everything else. . .and I am precise.

That's a lot of ground to cover, so it helps if you tell me what specific information in relation to Paul you want me to give you.

Does that help?

 

[Clare73]

It's an important question. The answer to this determines the fate of the ignorant.

If you believe that the ignorant automatically burn and the question isn't important then you are a Calvinist.

I believe Romans 5:18--"the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men."
We are born condemned.
Like it or not, that is the word of God written and, therefore, I believe it.

I also believe John 6:65, John 6:37, John 6:39; i.e., shutting up faith to the power of God only, which basically means only God is the source of the new birth (John 3:8), which gift of new birth is the source of saving faith (Acts 13:48; Act 18:27; Philippians 1:29; 2 Peter 1:1; Romans 12:3).

I believe that salvation from the wrath of God on sin (John 3:36; Romans 5:9), which wrath by nature we are objects of (Ephesians 2:3), is by faith in and trust on the person and atoning sacrifice (blood, Romans 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," by faith declared righteous (justified) with the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-24), the same way Abraham was (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

I believe from before the foundations of the world God fore-knew (loved, Matthew 7:31) those whom he then predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son that the Son might have many brothers, and whom he called, justified and glorified (Romans 8:29-30).

I believe that all men will be judged by the light they have, and whether that light be law or conscience, all will be found to be unrighteous according to it (Romans 2:12-16). Only those in Jesus Christ will be found righteous, with the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.

I believe God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all (Romans 11:32) according to the terms he has specified in his word written (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Anything outside those parameters is above my paygrade.
For where the word of God makes an end to teaching, I must make an end to learning.

So am I a Calvinist?

 

[Clare73]

Romans 5:13-14 by implication confirms there is no inherited sin because it says that some committed sin like Adams sin indicating that some did not. Along with no mention of inherited sin Paul says that sin was not imputed before the law was given.

Agreed. . .as I've previously stated, we do not inherit sin or guilt by natural generation of human life.
It has been imputed to us by God himself (Romans 5:12-14).

 

[Clare73]

Paul would have understood what I said. Clearly, you didn't.

And you know this, how? . . .when he emphatically states to the contrary (Galatians 1:6-9).

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

That's gospel to the uncircumcision, and gospel to the circumcision.
That is not two gospels.

Rick, that is not orthodox Christianity.
The gospel to the Gentiles is the same gospel to the Jews.
There are not two NT gospels.

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

 

[misput]

Agreed. . .as I've previously stated, we do not inherit sin or guilt by natural generation of human life.
It has been imputed to us by God himself (Romans 5:12-14).

What would be the point of imputing/crediting man with sin when obviously all men sin?

 

[iwbswiaihl]

Again you make a false allegation, I never said no penalty for sin. I said they would not be damned for something that Adam and Eve did. I'm not sure why that is hard for you to understand. Are you a Muslim?

As you say, again you make a false allegation, I did not say they would be damned for Adams sin either, but because they inherited the sin nature from their parents and one must repent and belief on the Lord or else they would face judgment, would they not? Because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. And to be specify, No I am not a Muslim, why would you even think that? Because your statement was questioned?

 

[Clare73]

No, we inherit what is natural, such as our fallen nature of the flesh, by the natural law of generating, like we inherit our eye color, etc.
We did not acquire Adam's guilt by a process of nature (inheriting),
we acquired it from imputation (reckoning) by God directly to us.
The judgment ("guilty") leads to condemnation.

In Romans 5:18, "condemnation" (katakrima) is the sentence against (kata) crime (krima), the sentence passed due to a crime; the sentence of death, both physical and spiritual.(Genesis 2:17)

You said we receive Jesus' nature. Not quite. . .
There is "imputed" righteousness (justification), and there is "imparted" righteousness (sanctification), which is a process of actual transformation to righteousness, and which

"imputed" righteousness is not.
Imputed righteousness (justification) is simply a declaration, a verdict--declared righteous, because of faith, but it doesn't change us, transform us.
Imparted righteousness is transformation of us, through the obedience of sanctification in the Holy Spirit, leading to holiness (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19), which is actual righteousness.

When did/does God stop winking at ignorance?

So that was a real question? . . .Sorry I misunderstood that.

Here is the Biblical Demonstration.
Acts 17:29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at;

Thanks.

Okay, we have the same thing in Romans 2:14-15; i.e., all those up to the time of Jesus' resurrection will be judged at the final judgment (Romans 2:16) by the light they had, either law or conscience.

but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Here we see what the wink is. God will not hold the ignorant responsible for their fake gods.

The "wink" is judging them by the light of their conscience (Romans 2:14-15), rather than the light of the law: "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me."

Now idolatry is a very touchy subject where God is concerned.
This break given the ignorant speaks volumes.
This benefit expires when a man hears the command to repent and learns about Jesus.

However, "break" and "benefit" are your words.
The import of Acts 17:30 and Romans 2 is neither "break" nor "benefit."

Romans 2 is explaining the two principles by which all those up to the time of the resurrection will be judged; i.e., either by the light of the law, or by the light of their conscience, and by which all will be found guilty, being condemned by them for violating them (Romans 3:9-10, Romans 3:23).
The light of one's conscience is not presented as a benefit, it is presented as a principle of judgment by which all those under it will be found guilty on the day of judgment (Romans 5:16) for violation of it.

While the Bible does not clearly explain what the wink does,
I believe it implies mercy, not wrath.

The NT does not present the mercy of a "break" or "benefit" to those ignorant of the law who will, therefore, be judged by their conscience.

The NT presents all mankind, without exception, as unrighteous and hell-bound (Romans 3:12),
shut up in sin (Romans 11:32), and whose only way out is by the mercy of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

The "wink of God" at ignorance does not spare anyone from the condemnation of Romans 5:18, for even those ignorant of the law are guilty of unrighteousness (Romans 3:9-10, Romans 3:23) and shut up in sin (Romans 11:32).

 

[Clare73]

1 Timothy 2:6 and 1 John 2:2 say that Jesus gave himself a ransom for all. So why the apparent contradiction? I see 1 Timothy 4:10 providing a clue. Paul says "the living God is the Savior of all men", but then he adds "especially of those who believe". Why the distinction?
The ransom was paid for all men, but it is only benefits those who believe (i.e. those who mix the promise with faith per Hebrews 4:2).

What about the injustice of the same sin being paid for twice, once by Jesus on the cross, and
a second time by the sinner himself in eternal punishment?

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

Hebrews 4:2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.

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

To paraphrase: You say God "dragnets" some to Himself so that they prefer His will over their fallen sinful disposition. And it is only in that condition that a man can and ultimately must respond positively of his own free will to God, repent, and be saved.

That presents a problem with scripture that says God desires everyone to be saved per 1 Timothy 2:4 & 2 Peter 3:9. If God only gives a real opportunity to the few He "dragnets" to Himself, then God is demonstrating that He does not desire the others to be saved - which clearly contradicts 1 Timothy 2:4 & 2 Peter 3:9.

God's "desire" and God's "will" are not the same thing.
What he desires is revealed to us, but is not necessarily what he wills/decrees. (Deuteronomy 29:29)

What God "desired," he revealed to Pharaoh, "Let my people go," which was not what he willed/decreed for Pharaoh, and had explained to Moses before Moses even left Midian for Egypt, "I will harden his heart so that he will not let them go," (Exodus 4:21), but then later did reveal to Pharoah, "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (Exodus 9:16; Romans 9:7).

Although God is Love, you believe He creates people who are predestined before birth, without hope, to an eternity in the lake of fire. How does that fit the definition of Love in 1 Corinthians 13?

God is foremostly just. . .his mercy and love are according to his justice.

 

[Clare73]

Yes and thank you for that. It`s more of a misunderstanding that I have set up intentionally then a disagreement.

I was not nor have I said there are two gospels in the sense that Clare means. The meaning of the Biblical terms I use are akin to part 1 and part 2 of the same book.

Are you aware that is an extra-Biblical construct, not authorized by the NT (1 Corinthians 4:6), and which constructs of man invariably lead to error?

The opposition anyone using these terms faces is unfortunate but I use them anyway. I believe it is an important detail to understand if someone wants to understand
why the New Testament unfolds the way that it does.

Why the need to add to the Scriptures?
The opposition to these terms, Rick, is not unfortunate for the Scriptures, for any true "unfolding" of the NT is presented in NT apostolic teaching, where we find no such thing.
That is not a "NT detail" of the NT "unfolding the way that it does," that is a construct of man imposed on the NT without Biblical authority.
Any true "unfolding" of the NT is presented in NT teaching, which that is not.

In the interest of disclosure, I have used the term two gospels before but it creates such misunderstanding because of the Dispensationalist error. It`s not accurate to say two gospels so I have worked to refine how I express this point.

Thanks. . .but a rose by any other name still smells the same.

 

[Clare73]

Cannot seem to delete this extra reply, sorry.

They cannot be deleted once posted.

I more frequently than I can hardly bear hit the "reply" button instead of the "edit" button and then have to delete.
You'll find threads littered with blank posts from me.

 

[John Mullally]

What about the injustice of the same sin being paid for twice, once by Jesus on the cross, and
a second time by the sinner himself in eternal punishment?

Another way of looking at things per your Accountant POV is that if I write a check and the other person does not cash it, where is the double payment?

God's "desire" and God's "will" are not the same thing.
What he desires is revealed to us, but is not necessarily what he wills/decrees. (Deuteronomy 29:29)

What God "desired," he revealed to Pharaoh, "Let my people go," which was not what he willed/decreed for Pharaoh, and had explained to Moses before Moses even left Midian for Egypt, "I will harden his heart so that he will not let them go," (Exodus 4:21), but then later revealed to Pharoah, "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." (Exodus 9:16; Romans 9:7).

Calvinists and Charismatics like myself see two different wills. You term God's will being his desire and his decreed will. If God can decree a thing (because man's free will is not a factor), why would he make it different from his desire? Charismatics see God's Perfect Will and God's Permissive Will. Per Matthew 6:10, we see God's Perfect will as "God's will be done on earth as it is in heaven". I believe Calvinists see that as God's desire. The difference between us is we believe that cooperation with God (per prayer and obedience) leads to seeing more of God's Perfect Will. Permissive will is what he permits as a result of men reaping (in the negative sense) what they sow.

God is foremostly just. . .his mercy and love are according to his justice.

I don't see any problem with God's love, mercy, and justice. I have a problem with Calvinist's dark, unloving view of God - I don't believe God predestines anyone, before they are born, to the lake of fire for eternity in order to receive glory.