What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

Ok, let us just focus on one verse, v. 12. Can you give me a good explanation why Paul says all sinned? So far you have just avoided to comment on it.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned⁠—
— Romans 5:12

Because all died, and all physical death is the result of sin.

Keeping in mind that Paul is dealing with a "conundrum;" i.e., no one sinned, yet all died because of sin.

 

[zoidar]

Irrelevant to the point of loving one's enemies because they may not be your enemies, they may be your brother or sister.

What you are claiming is not love. Love doesn't help someone because he/she might be a brother or sister. Love helps for the sake of goodness.

 

[QvQ]

Not saying at all that I agree with Misput, but how do you know there wasn't?

God made the law plain to Cain that Cain would be acceptable if Cain followed the law. Cain broke the law when he murdered Adam. God pronounced Cain unacceptable after that act.

A man could keep the law and be accepted. A man's works did not save his soul or forgive his sins. It is the same today. A person who obeys the civil law can be accepted, be protected under that law and go about his lawful business.
However a person who breaks the law becomes outlaw. An outlaw cannot go home or to work. God cursed Cain as outlaw. God made one concession, no one could kill Cain but everyman's hand was against him. Cain lost the protection of the law.
Now the question is can Cain be forgiven or redeemed? Of course God could do so. But if the argument is that God would relent if Cain subsequently obeyed God and didn't cause any more trouble, then there is a suspicion, in my mind, that Cain could by his works gain salvation and forgiveness.
There was a civil society at that time under the law of God and Cain was exceedingly uncivil but I don't see that God, after Cain murdered Abel, offered to or did accept Cain, forgive his sins or redeem his soul based on Cain's subsequent obedience to the law and good works.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

What you are claiming is not love. Love doesn't help someone because he/she might be a brother or sister. Love helps for the sake of goodness.

And we know from the historical records and his teaching that Calvin was unloving

 

[zoidar]

And we know from the historical records and his teaching that Calvin was unloving

Not to defend Calvin, I hardly know anything about him, but even Luther said som terrible things. There might come some good out of it anyway ... well, even I don't agree with Calvinism.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Not to defend Calvin, I hardly know anything about him, but even Luther said som terrible things. There might come some good out of it anyway ... well, even I don't agree with Calvinism.

Yes two peas in a pod

 

[Clare73]

What you are claiming is not love. Love doesn't help someone because he/she might be a brother or sister. Love helps for the sake of goodness.

Irrelevant to the point of God/Jesus punishing his enemies.

 

[zoidar]

Lol, if God does it, how is it a fault? The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. Are you going to say he doesn't?

But God has the just right to do whatever he will with his creation. If he wants to wipe out several whole generations (see The Flood) he is not unjust to do so. Fault? Theirs. But he is the one who did it.

This life is not for this life, but for the next, not for us, but for God. Do you have anything to comment about corporate humanity vs individuals? Why would God be unjust to cause the individuals of a corrupt society to die, including the children?

From your posts it sounds like God is good, righteous, whatever He does, whoever He is. I find that upside down thinking. Because God is loving, merciful, just etc. it makes Him good. I don't follow Jesus because he is God. I follow Jesus because he is a good God, who is merciful, loving, tender hearted, beautiful, righteous, caring, patient, slow to anger and most of all because he was willing to die for us.

Of course God could wipe out a whole generation of sinners and still be just. But would it make Him merciful and patient?

I don't know what to say about corporate vs individuals. Adam lead the whole world (corporate) into sin. Christ leads everyone (individuals) who believes to life.

I don't know how historical the story of the flood is. Even so everyone was evil. Only Noah and his family was good. So it was both a corporate and individual punishment, since there was none righteous. Compare it with the story of Sodom.

Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still standing before the Lord. Abraham came near and said, “Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it? Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” So the Lord said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account.” And Abraham replied, “Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes. Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the whole city because of five?” And He said, “I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.” He spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose forty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it on account of the forty.” Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?” And He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.” And he said, “Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the twenty.” Then he said, “Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?” And He said, “I will not destroy it on account of the ten.” As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the Lord departed, and Abraham returned to his place.
— Genesis 18:22-33

 

[zoidar]

Irrelevant to the point of God/Jesus punishing his enemies.

Who said that God can't punish His enemies? I didn't! He can even punish His children. (And you will say: "No He doesn't punish His children, He chastise")...

I don't think it's irrelevant why we are to love our enemies. Jesus is our example. If He didn't, neither do we need to.

 

[Fervent]

Who said that God can't punish His enemies? I didn't! He can even punish His children. (And you will say: "No He doesn't punish His children, He chastise")...

I don't think it's irrelevant why we are to love our enemies.

Makes me think of Matthew 5:46.

Calvinism makes void so much Scripture it amazes me that I once was under the impression its adherents knew the Bible best. The power of memorized proof texts.

 

[zoidar]

Makes me think of Matthew 5:46.

Great verse! Thanks!

 

[QvQ]

I don't think it's irrelevant why we are to love our enemies.

To love an enemy is not what it does to the enemy. It is what it does to us. God prepares a table before us in the presence of our enemies. The enemy can only kill the body. We are told not to fear that enemy.
So we are secure.
To hate the enemy or anyone is a sin. It is a corrosion of our soul and an absence of faith. To hold hate in your heart is detrimental to you and, most likely,does not affect the enemy at all.
We can faithfully hold a steady heart of love in the presence of any enemy.

 

[zoidar]

.

 

[zoidar]

Because all died, and all physical death is the result of sin.

Keeping in mind that Paul is dealing with a "conundrum;" i.e., no one sinned, yet all died because of sin.

It could mean that, but it's not literally what it says. You are usually very literal, but not in this case ...

I can't buy your explanation, but I will look more into the text. We'll see what that leads to.

 

[QvQ]

Yes two peas in a pod

All theologians are merely writing sermons.
From what I can gather "Jesus is YHWH" prefers Origen and Pelagius
Others prefer Aquinas and Augustine.
Then there are those who more closely aligned with Luther, Calvin or Arminius.
Some read them all but still have favorites.
So which two peas in a pod are you referring to ?

 

[Mark Quayle]

That was not my point. Change it to "a follower of Christ" then.

Either way, it doesn't matter whether they are called that or not, prior to conversion or regeneration. To me, anyway, it's a moot point. And, to be fair, to ask for something saying that they are not brothers before conversion is also moot, (though it would definitely prove @Clare73 wrong if you could find that!) To me, the argument is silly. The point is, they are, from God's point of view, at enmity with him until they are regenerated, but they are, if elect at all, elect from the foundation of the earth. We cannot know if they are not elect, so we feel (or at least I do) a certain affinity, and hope that they can come to know Christ.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, let us just focus on one verse, v. 12. Can you give me a good explanation why Paul says all sinned? So far you have just avoided to comment on it.

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned⁠—
— Romans 5:12

Bear in mind, (not that you don't know this, but to set the record straight), you can't thoroughly deal with one verse at a time. Particularly when that verse is set into a rhetorical argument that involves whole chapters.

 

[zoidar]

Either way, it doesn't matter whether they are called that or not, prior to conversion or regeneration. To me, anyway, it's a moot point. And, to be fair, to ask for something saying that they are not brothers before conversion is also moot, (though it would definitely prove @Clare73 wrong if you could find that!) To me, the argument is silly. The point is, they are, from God's point of view, at enmity with him until they are regenerated, but they are, if elect at all, elect from the foundation of the earth. We cannot know if they are not elect, so we feel (or at least I do) a certain affinity, and hope that they can come to know Christ.

Maybe it's silly, but seeing that we are not brothers and sisters before regeneration, may lead to other more important conclusions. But I will drop it.

 

[QvQ]

Maybe it's silly, but seeing that we are not brothers and sisters before regeneration, may lead to other more important conclusions.

I always understood, in this verse, "brother" meant "any person." Nothing about being blood relatives or checking their regeneration credentials before reconciling but then again...
Matthew 5:23-24
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remember that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.

 

[zoidar]

Bear in mind, (not that you don't know this, but to set the record straight), you can't thoroughly deal with one verse at a time. Particularly when that verse is set into a rhetorical argument that involves whole chapters.

My point all along was we need to read what it means, not what it literally says. In this case Clare does just that, reads the meaning instead of the literal text on that verse. I like us Christians too see this, so we can be more humble when we discuss the Bible. I mean there is nothing wrong with it, we all do it.

Of course we can't do much if we only have one verse. But if we start with one verse and add another verse, then another, we build something. If I see things that don't fit in a passage I try to understand why it doesn't fit. Maybe I have got it all wrong, maybe there is a better understanding. I take no easy answer. That's how I work and study the Bible.