What is wrong with Calvinism ?

zoidar said:

I responded to Mark about basically the same stuff. Here you can read my post:

#3746

But I will have to ask if the word "imputed" (concerning righteousness) is used in any of your quoted verses. Not that I'm saying you are wrong (or right) about that. I think it's just worth an observation.

Click to expand...

Fair question. . .

It is used in Romans 4:2-3 in relation to Abraham's faith in the promise
(seed, Jesus Christ, Genesis 15:5)
which faith God imputed/credited/reckoned to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6),
which Paul uses to demonstrate that God likewise imputes/credits/reckons our faith to us as righteousness
(Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Romans 3:24-25),
according to the pattern of Abraham (Romans 4:1-11).

zoidar said:

Not complicated, but an horrendous doctrine.

Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”
— Luke 10:30-37

Click to expand...

Horrendous not being the same as untrue.

And Luke 10:30-37 above being in complete agreement with John 3:18, John 3:36 and God's love for his enemies.

Clare73 said:

Horrendous not being the same as untrue.

And Luke 10:30-37 above being in complete agreement with John 3:18, John 3:36 and God's love for his enemies.

Click to expand...

Luke 10:30-37 talks about how to deal with our enemies now. John 3:18 and John 3:36 is about that unbelievers have a judgement hanging over them (unless they repent) that will fall on them on judgement day.

Clare73 said:

Sin is not inherited (Ezekiel 18:20).
Guilt is imputed by God to all those born of Adam, just as righteousness is imputed by God to all those born of Christ (Romans 5:18-19).

Click to expand...

Sin and guilt are imputed, right?
Isn't the penalty for this imputed sin and guilt, suffering and death?

misput said:

Sin and guilt are imputed, right?

Click to expand...

Adam's sin/guilt is imputed (Romans 5:18).
Our own sin and guilt are incurred.

Isn't the penalty for this imputed sin and guilt, suffering and death?

Click to expand...

The penalty for sin/guilt is physical death (Romans 6:23) and spiritual death, the two deaths go together, physical death being the proof of spiritual death.

Clare73 said:

Only Adam's guilt is imputed (Romans 5:18).
Our own sin and guilt are incurred.

Click to expand...

You are not giving me a complete answer: Is Adams sin and guilt imputed? Are we condemned to suffering and death because of imputed sin and guilt or because of our own sin and guilt? Please be specific, do not assume that I know anything.

Adam's guilt is imputed.
The penalty for sin and for guilt is physical death (Romans 6:23) and spiritual death, the two deaths go together, physical death being the proof of spiritual death.

Click to expand...

If we are in Christ, how can physical death be a proof of spiritual death? Please be specific, I am the type one almost has to draw a picture, also known as a concrete thinker, no not a concrete head : ) I heard what you were thinking.

misput said:

You are not giving me a complete answer: Is Adams sin and guilt imputed? Are we condemned to suffering and death because of imputed sin and guilt or because of our own sin and guilt? Please be specific, do not assume that I know anything.

If we are in Christ, how can physical death be a proof of spiritual death? Please be specific, I am the type one almost has to draw a picture, also known as a concrete thinker, no not a concrete head : ) I heard what you were thinking.

Click to expand...

From that view I think Adam's sinful nature is inherited and Adam's sin is imputed, making us guilty of Adam's sin.

zoidar said:

Luke 10:30-37 talks about how to deal with our enemies now. John 3:18 and John 3:36 is about that unbelievers have a judgement hanging over them (unless they repent)
that will fall on them on judgement day.

Click to expand...

Timing does not alter the fact of God's condemnation (love?) of unbelievers.

Clare73 said:

Timing does not alter the fact of God's condemnation (love?) of unbelievers.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse the love God has for unbelievers now through Christ and the condemnation of unbelievers at judgement.

Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.
— Ephesians 2:3

My point being even the elect were at one time children of wrath with judgement hanging over them.

But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
— Romans 5:8

misput said:

You are not giving me a complete answer: Is Adams sin and guilt imputed?

Click to expand...

Adam's sin/guilt is imputed, it is not inherited.
It is imputed to all those born of Adam (Romans 5:18), it's the pattern (Romans 5:14) for Christ's obedience/righteousness (the cross) imputed to all those born of Christ (Romans 5:18-19, Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Romans 3:24-25).

Are we condemned to suffering and death because of imputed sin and guilt or because of our own sin and guilt? Please be specific, do not assume that I know anything.

Click to expand...

We are condemned for both Adam's sin/guilt with which we are born (Romans 5:18),
and our own sin/guilt which we incur (Romans 6:23).

If we are in Christ, how can physical death be a proof of spiritual death? Please be specific, I am the type one almost has to draw a picture, also known as a concrete thinker, no not a concrete head : ) I heard what you were thinking.

Click to expand...

Well, actually I wasn't. . .but now that you mention it. . .

I appreciate concrete thinking, I am likewise afflicted with it, so feel free to press it until you get it.

For those in Christ, physical death is not a proof of spiritual death.
However for Adam, physical death was proof of his spiritual death upon sinning. "Dying, you shall die." (Genesis 2:17).
And for all Adam's seed, physical death is proof of the spiritual death they inherit from Adam with birth.

But for those in Christ, eternal life does not free from the sentence of physical death, eternal life frees us only from the sentence of spiritual death.

zoidar said:

From that view I think Adam's sinful nature is inherited and Adam's sin is imputed, making us guilty of Adam's sin.

Click to expand...

Yes, Adam's sin/guilt is imputed.

zoidar said:

Here is about "original sin" from a site I found on Orthodox faith. I think it was interesting. I didn't know I shared this view with the Orthodox church on "ancestral sin".

"What is the difference in views between Orthodoxy and the western churches?

Original sin (προπατορική αμαρτία in Greek means ancestral sin) is a term used in western churches that is different from what the Church originally taught as ancestral sin. It is a doctrine that comes from the time of Saint Augustine. He was defending the Church against the teaching of Pelagius. Augustine taught that all humanity sinned with Adam. That is, his sin became our personal sin. The consequence is that guilt replaces death as the ancestral inheritance.

It is pointed out that Augustine used a poor translation of Romans 5:12. ἐφ᾿ ᾧ (ef Jw) which means "because of" was translated as "in whom." Sinned in Adam is quite different than sinned because of Adam. The correct interpretation teaches that Adam’s sin carried death to all creation, and that although our sin is evidence to this death, it is not Adam’s specific transgression that we have inherited.

In the Orthodox teaching we are subject to sinful tendencies, sickness, suffering and death as the result of our descendence from Adam. With Adam’s sin our nature was changed. Our goal now is to overcome these fallen tendencies with the help of the Holy Spirit and the way of Christ so we can gain union with God and live in harmony with him in Paradise.

In the Orthodox view, guilt can only result from an act which one has committed. We can’t sin for another person. We believe that we need a savior to overcome death and our separation from God, to be forgiven our own transgressions, but not to be forgiven for Adam’s transgression. For Adam, sin came first then death. We inherit death from Adam and our sin follows.

Death is a significant burden for us to carry. Our lives are dominated by the fear of death and our struggle to survive. In this struggle we tend to become self-centered. As a result we can be separated from God. Our salvation involves a transformation from this fearful autonomous state. For eternal life we must be in communion with God and one another.

Augustine in his debate with Pelagius developed the position that only grace is able to save. The Church had always taught that it was both a matter of grace and personal effort or synergia as it was termed. This position of the early Church was abandoned in the west. A concept of legalistic justice was then applied to western theology which led to further differences between east and west and the notion of a wrathful God in the west rather than the loving God of Orthodoxy."

What is "Original Sin?' | Saint George Greek Orthodox Cathedral

Click to expand...

I can't help wondering if this guy really represents the Greek Orthodox position on these matters. Seems like they could come up with something more cogent.

setst777 said:

Your reply gives thoughtful consideration to the context of Scripture to define for us what God means.

Let us review the question by atpollard again, and see if the answer is given in the context of John 3:16 itself.

atpollard said: ↑
Did Jesus die so that God could bring all men without exception, whom He loved without limit, eternal life? (Universal Salvation) … If not, then just what sort of Godly “love” does John 3:16 illustrate?... I think you are building a house of straw on a foundation of sand … to fit YOUR pre-chosen theology.

Does "John 3:16" itself answer the question raised? I believe the answer to the question is found within "John 3:16."

John 3:16 (WEB) 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

The Passage tells me that God's love is universal for all mankind, and so offers eternal life to all people.

However, God gives the free gift of eternal life only to those who believe in Lord Jesus.

• God's love is universal - the world.
• God desires all to be saved.
• God offers the free gift of salvation to all.

However, God's Sovereign choice is to give that free gift of eternal life only to those who believe in His Son. That is God's choice according to John 3:16.

Click to expand...

That seems a pretty accurate understanding of John 3:16, I see nothing in the immediate context to attempt to limit God's love or the offering of the Son. Though, of course, there is the question of how one comes to believe, whether it be a free will response of an individual to God's offer or a strict matter of God's action in causing the belief. With the latter, a divide is introduced in God in which He both desires(and so acts to cause) all be saved and does not desire all to be saved(and so only acts to make salvation effective for a few).

.

misput said:

Please be patient, I am learning. Are u?
When I looked at verse 19 it became clear, God imputes sin and righteousness and since the wages of sin are death, well you know the rest. When I look at verse 12 with that in mind it says because Adam sinned we all sin which from what verse 19 said I assume is the imputed sin. So where do you make the distinction between imputed and actual sin? Is the inherited death physical or Spiritual or both? How does Ezekiel 18 fit into all this?

Click to expand...

The distinction between imputed sin and actual sin is in the individual, and in God's treatment of that individual. The imputed sin is only the consideration that the individual has had the guilt of Adam's sin imputed on him by God. The actual sin is what a person does (Also what Adam did, which is imputed to us by God). Confused yet?

"Imputed", by definition does not mean actual, but assigned. We did not eat of the tree, but God has assigned to us the guilt of Adam's sin, as we are members of the human race (Adam's seed). If you don't think it is fair, it is irrelevant, because God has every right to condemn the human race for what our 'federal head' Adam has done; this whole creation is about God, and not about the creatures. Nevertheless, he is still justified in that because we have all rebelled against him, and are deserving of our imputed condemnation on that basis alone.

Spiritual death, by way of the imputed guilt, is already implied by the imputation. But also, it is the necessary wages of sin.

Physical death is the necessary 'infection', (for lack of a better term immediately available to my mind), resulting from the sinful nature we have inherited from Adam.

The sin nature we inherited from Adam, walks hand in hand with the wages of sin, (spiritual death), and with physical death.

The fact both are necessarily so (the Inherited Sinful Nature and the Imputed Guilt of Adam's sin) and the one is easily confused or combined with the other, is irrelevant to the fact of both separately. The one is a logical (i.e. an intellectually considered) effect caused directly by God, because of Adam's disobedience. The other is a natural effect of Adam's disobedience, passed down through the generations, because Adam's nature was corrupted. Both are inescapably real.

The one, (imputation), may be considered at arm's length, because the remedy for it is the imputation of Christ's righteousness, assigned to us by God, upon regeneration. The other (inherited sin nature) is of immediate effect upon us and while it is remedied by Grace through Faith, (not by the will of man) and forgiven by the same God upon our re-birth into Christ, it continues to plague us until, thank God, we die.

Fervent said:

With the latter, a divide is introduced in God in which He both desires(and so acts to cause) all be saved and does not desire all to be saved(and so only acts to make salvation effective for a few).

Click to expand...

While, as you know, I can't go with the notion of uncaused freedom of the will, there is more to consider here, as God goes to great lengths to describe to us the specific reason for his particular creation. He does not choose the Gentiles, in the Old Testament —the Jews are his chosen people, and he has been a husband to them, though they have done nothing to deserve his particular love. Then we find out that he has chosen certain ones (of both Jew and Gentile) which he calls the Elect, which have done nothing to deserve his particular love, which he will take with him to live forever with him. They are specific ones, created as the "vessels fit for special purpose", saved from their sin, and are the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ ('flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone'), The Dwelling Place of God.

The human race is generic in that nobody deserves salvation, and nobody can do anything to gain or cause it, but it is entirely by the Grace of God ("not of works"). The human race is generic in that nobody is any better than anyone else, by which to be "better fitted" by their own doing. In fact, the 'build' of any of us, to become specific members of the perfect 'Bride of Christ' is a complete mystery to us, though he has made it plain in Scripture what we are to do, and even tells us why, we are at a loss to explain it. Our obedience, our righteousness, our good deeds —these are, to our credit mere filthy rags, compared to the transformation he is effecting in the Elect.

He gains glory through his Grace, his justice, his purity, his power and his love.

I do not find in this, including in his love, a lack of particular choices of persons for his purposes, nor a generic love lacking particularity toward some. We are NOT chosen from a pool of generic possibles, and God is not flying by the seat of his pants to react to mistakes and miscalculations. The Dwelling Place of God is not built by ordering a truckful of building materials from Lowe's, and making a pretty place out of them.

So no. While there can be a wish that none would be ultimately condemned, they are necessary to the transformation he effects upon his Elect. They are not even simply collateral damage. They are part and parcel of what he is doing in shaping the building products he is growing for his use.

Mark Quayle said:

While, as you know, I can't go with the notion of uncaused freedom of the will, there is more to consider here, as God goes to great lengths to describe to us the specific reason for his particular creation. He does not choose the Gentiles, in the Old Testament —the Jews are his chosen people, and he has been a husband to them, though they have done nothing to deserve his particular love. Then we find out that he has chosen certain ones (of both Jew and Gentile) which he calls the Elect, which have done nothing to deserve his particular love, which he will take with him to live forever with him. They are specific ones, created as the "vessels fit for special purpose", saved from their sin, and are the Body of Christ and the Bride of Christ ('flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone'), The Dwelling Place of God.

Click to expand...

Stopped reading after this paragraph, the number of leaps within the paragraph make it so anything that follows is not worth bothering with.

While God certainly chose Israel, His choice of Israel was not a salvific choice but a choice of them for the purpose of Christ being born to them, chosen to a task. The notion that God chose a particular group for salvation is essentially exactly what is being disputed here, so simply declaring that to be the case does nothing for the discussion. The notion that God chose an elect requires denying the passages that speak to God's desire to save all, because of the law of non-contradiction if God is the sole deciding factor in salvation then God cannot desire all to be saved unless all are saved. So Calvinists tie themselves in pretzels to preserve a philosophical view of God's sovereignty that denies what the Bible plainly says about God's desire to save all despite some being condemned. After all, what would prevent God from saving all if it is entirely within His prerogative and He desires all be saved?

It's a system that is morally deplorable, illogical, and unscriptural and so it should be rejected on all three grounds.

Fervent said:

Stopped reading after this paragraph, the number of leaps within the paragraph make it so anything that follows is not worth bothering with.

While God certainly chose Israel, His choice of Israel was not a salvific choice but a choice of them for the purpose of Christ being born to them, chosen to a task. The notion that God chose a particular group for salvation is essentially exactly what is being disputed here, so simply declaring that to be the case does nothing for the discussion. The notion that God chose an elect requires denying the passages that speak to God's desire to save all, because of the law of non-contradiction if God is the sole deciding factor in salvation then God cannot desire all to be saved unless all are saved. So Calvinists tie themselves in pretzels to preserve a philosophical view of God's sovereignty that denies what the Bible plainly says about God's desire to save all despite some being condemned. After all, what would prevent God from saving all if it is entirely within His prerogative and He desires all be saved?

It's a system that is morally deplorable, illogical, and unscriptural and so it should be rejected on all three grounds.

Click to expand...

True. Mark Q does a good job of explaining his doctrine, but such doctrine is actually in opposition the Scriptures, the Gospel (John 3:14-18) and to the very Glory of God's being - which is founded in Love and Righteousness.

God shows no favoritism, for God teaches us that to show favoritism is not only unrighteous, but wicked.

Acts 10:34-35 (WEB) 34 Peter opened his mouth and said, “Truly I perceive that God doesn’t show favoritism; 35 but in every nation he who fears him and works righteousness is acceptable to him.

The will of the Father is to give to the Son all those who believe in the Son. The ones who believe receives eternal life. That is the Gospel.

John 6:39-40 (WEB)
39 This is the will of my Father who sent me, that of all he has given to me I should lose nothing, but should raise him up at the last day. 40 This is the will of the one who sent me; that everyone who sees the Son, and believes in him, should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

Who are the ones whom the Father wills to give to the Son, guaranteed, in context?

What does the Scripture say?

God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:3-6; Isaiah 45:21-22),

God’s gracious intention is to have mercy on all (Romans 11:32).

God invites all to be saved, because God desires all to be saved, but the will of God is to save all who believe

God invites all so that whosoever believes may be saved (Matthew 22:8-9; John 3:16).

God’s will and good pleasure is to save anyone who believes (John 6:40; 1 Corinthians 1:21).

God calls and draws and invites all people without favoritism (Isaiah 45:21-22; Acts 10:34-35; Acts 13:47; Matthew 28:19-20; John 12:32; John 12:47; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Titus 2:11).

God shows no favoritism (Acts 10:34-35) or partiality (Romans 2:10-11).

God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked or anyone; yet, by their own choice, many will refuse God and will be lost (Matthew 22:3; John 3:18; John 5:39-40; Acts 14:2; Acts 19:9; Acts 50-51; Romans 10:21; 2 Thessalonians 2:10; Hebrews 12:25; Revelation 16:9; Revelation 16:11).

Ezekiel 18:23 (WEB) 23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked?” says the Lord Yahweh; “and not rather that he should return from his way, and live?

Ezekiel 33:11 (WEB) 11 Tell them, ‘“As I live,” says the Lord Yahweh, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why will you die, house of Israel?”’

Although God desires all to be saved, the Father’s will is to give to the Son only those who believe in His Son after learning the Gospel (John 6:40; 1 Corinthians 1:21). To these who believe, the Father grants to come to the Son (John 6:36-37). Lord Jesus will raise up on the last day those who believe in Him and continue to stand firm in the faith to the end. That is the will of the Father (Romans 11:19-22).

the Father’s will is to give to the Son only those who believe in His Son after learning the Gospel (John 6:40; 1 Corinthians 1:21). To these who believe, the Father grants to come to the Son (John 6:36-37). Lord Jesus will raise up on the last day those who believe in Him and continue to stand firm in the faith to the end. That is the will of the Father

There are people who read, are taught and are preached the Bible and they don't believe. Both my parents attended religious schools and they were stone cold atheist.
I see God's will here. I see God granting to believers, I see the Will of the Father.
I don't see anything about the believers choosing willing or working with God
My parents truly believe religion is a superstitious fairy tale. They cannot by an act of will change that view except they tell a lie. I believe it is the truth and I cannot by an act of will change that except I become a liar. Neither of us chose that view. Belief is not an act of volition or will. It is an act of God.