What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[zoidar]

No! God does not save everyone. Everyone is not saved.

• Sheep and goats
• Wheat and tares
• Wide road and narrow path.

One denies the truths of scripture at one’s own peril.

He didn't say everyone will be saved.

 

[zoidar]

Certainly but not will power

And that means?

 

[zoidar]

Only one answer. . .Eve was deceived, and Adam chose not to lose her.

That's the "God is sovereign" answer.

 

[atpollard]

Hm, why then did they transgress?

It does not specifically tell us why Adam transgressed (perhaps for the same reason as Eve, or perhaps for another - that is empty speculation), but God told us why Eve transgressed:

Genesis 3:6 [NASB95] 6

“When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make [one] wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.”​

 

[Clare73]

That's the "God is sovereign" answer.

Baloney. . .not until I state such.

I'll decide when to give the "God is sovereign" answer. . .and you'll know it is such when I state such, and not until.

 

[zoidar]

It does not specifically tell us why Adam transgressed (perhaps for the same reason as Eve, or perhaps for another - that is empty speculation), but God told us why Eve transgressed:

Genesis 3:6 [NASB95] 6

“When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make [one] wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.”​

Aha, we don't know how. And the Bible doesn't say how.

 

[zoidar]

Baloney. . .not until I state such.

I'll decide when to give the "God is sovereign" answer. . .and you'll know it is such when I state such, and not until.

Sorry that I was a bit provoking!

 

[Clare73]

Sorry that I was a bit provocing!

And that's spelled "provoking."

 

[atpollard]

He didn't say everyone will be saved.

He said I was wrong to claim that God did not love everyone enough to save everyone. If God did not save everyone, then it was either because God “could not” (which violates the definition of God - omnipotent) or because God willed/chose not to save everyone (supporting the Sovereignty of God).

So …

1. Did God try to save everyone and fail?
2. Did God try to save everyone and succeed?
3. Did God succeed in saving all that God tried to save?

You tell me.

 

[zoidar]

And that's spelled "provoking."

It's just that it's fine to be logical up to a point. And when you can't be logically consistent with your view, it's "the Bible says this", changing the terms of the argument.

 

[Clare73]

It's just that it's fine to be logical up to a point. And when you can't logically consistent with your view, it's "the Bible says this", changing the terms of the argument.

The Bible is my source, not human logic.
The Bible has always been my argument, not logic.

My faith is in the Bible, not logic.

Nor do I find the Bible illogical according to the mind of God.

What I do find is folks (who shall remain nameless) who judge God and call him to the bar of their reason to answer to their flawed human notions.

Gads!

 

[atpollard]

Aha, we don't know how. And the Bible doesn't say how.

As a married man, I would suggest that he did it for the same reason that most married men do most things … because your wife told you to.

• why did you empty the kitchen trash?
• Why did you mow the lawn?
• Why did you put away your stack of clean clothes on the table?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

No! God does not save everyone. Everyone is not saved.

• Sheep and goats
• Wheat and tares
• Wide road and narrow path.

One denies the truths of scripture at one’s own peril.

I never said He saved or saves everyone .

 

[zoidar]

I do Bible, not logic.

My faith is in the Bible, not logic.

Please then don't answer a post about logical arguments.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

He said I was wrong to claim that God did not love everyone enough to save everyone. If God did not save everyone, then it was either because God “could not” (which violates the definition of God - omnipotent) or because willed/chose not to save everyone (supporting the Sovereignty of God).

So …

1. Did God try to save everyone and fail?
2. Did God try to save everyone and succeed?
3. Did God succeed in saving all that God tried to save?

You tell me.

It’s the old loaded question fallacy

 

[Clare73]

Please then don't answer a post about logical arguments.

Good luck with that. . .

I will address what is contrary to the word of God, logical or not.

 

[zoidar]

Good luck with that. . .

I will address what is contrary to the word of God, logical or not.

If that floats your boat.

 

[atpollard]

It’s the old loaded question fallacy

Let’s find out …

The post that started it all:

God desires all to be saved. 1 Timothy 2:4.

My response:

… but not enough to actually save everyone.

• At this point, anyone that truly disagrees with me is free to show from scripture that I am wrong and “God desires all to be saved enough to actually save everyone.”
• BONUS POINTS if you can show how God saving everyone is not the heretical teaching called UNIVERSALISM.

You responded by rejecting my limitation (rejecting Universal Salvation) …

Sure He does since God is love and does not use coercion , manipulation, predetermining, forcing others to love Him but gives them the freedom to love Him in return . That is how love operates. A god who meticulously predetermined certain men to hell and others to heaven while giving them no choice to do otherwise is not a loving God.

hope this helps !!!

• How can anyone read the opening of “Sure He does” as anything but a disagreement with my rejection of Universalism (and, therefore, an embrace of universal salvation)?
• You made clear your disdain for the biblical Doctrines of Grace that celibate God’s Sovereign Love by presenting a strawman version to emphatically reject for your golden idol of all love and no justice or wrath.

I never said He saved or saves everyone .

• Your exact words in response to the claim that God does not save everyone were “Sure He does …”. That read as pretty clear to me.

 

[zoidar]

Not sure why you are considering that, but...

In God's order of things, there had to be a fall from innocence, and the way of it points at the origin of sin (per the devil), and the symbolism, (if not the reality), of the two trees and nakedness, and of several other things.

It had to happen the way it happened, for God to accomplish his purposes. But I expect you already know that. So I can only guess why you bring up the notion.

I don't remember right now. I think it had to do with the idea that Adam and Eve were evil before they fell in sin, a notion we both dismiss...

I don't see any relevance of the idea to imputation, except to force out the notion of imputation. I.e., if it was not Adam, and Adam was already sinful, God would still have had a point of imputation through someone else earlier, I should think. The argument becomes circular. The fact that it WAS Adam, was a purposeful act of God upon humankind.

The question I'm raising is why would it be necessary to impute Adam's sin at all to us if we already had a sinful nature? We would sin plenty on our own anyway.

Christ's righteousness given —referring to practical righteousness, and therefore judged pure? Do you suppose any of us to have practical righteousness meriting that judgement?

Yes and no! If we think of righteousness like living a perfect sinless life, then no! But if you think righteousness is living in a relationship with God through Jesus, then yes! We fall in sin, but then we turn to Jesus forgiveness. So a righteous Christian, a saint if you will, lives a righteous life, meaningly living for, with and following Jesus in all his own imperfection. When he fails he confesses, and starts over. What he doesn't do is allowing sin run his life, and if he does, he needs to repent.

 

[Clare73]

The question I'm raising is why would it be necessary to impute Adam's sin at all to us if we already had a sinful nature? We would sin plenty on our own anyway.

It was for a pattern (Romans 5:14) for the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (Romans 4:1-11).