What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Mark Quayle]

Scripting is intelligent control or causation. That can occur by controlling circumstances per First Cause, as you put it. If every man’s action, good and bad, being as decreed by God, it is not a happy coincidence - man’s actions are being scripted by God.

script1
/skript/
verb
gerund or present participle: scripting
write a script for (a play, movie, or broadcast).
"it was perfectly scripted and beautifully acted"

Decree is not script. God doesn't write down the details for us to follow, as if programming a machine. We do have real choice, not automated. We have a will. A machine does not.

"Script" as you use it implies also something along the lines that God wrote the script, then walked away, instead of constantly being in causation mode. That ignores the attributes of God. You propose mere Deism.

 

[zoidar]

Imputed guilt is not a feeling. It's a judgement. Condemnation.

I know what imputed guilt is, I just don't think it's correct. A feeling? Why do you think I believe it to be a feeling?

 

[zoidar]

Which glosses over the imputation of Christ's righteousness in justification (Romans 4:1-11), as by faith righteousness was imputed to Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3), you failing to deal with what the Scriptures present.

We keep covering the same Biblical teaching over and over. . .none of which you Biblically demonstrate is incorrect.
The Biblical teaching is presented, you object and move on to something else, without ever dealing Biblically with that to which you object, as though your objection alone were sufficient to discredit it.
That's not how it works in honest understanding of Scripture.

Where does the Bible say Christ's righteousness was imputed to Abraham?

What I see is that Abraham through faith is credited as righteous. He believed God could fulfill His promise that Abraham's decendants would be a big people. So Abraham was justified by faith, not by works of the Law. That's Pauls point, that righteousness is by faith.

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
— Romans 4:13

It is the same for us, our faith is credited us as righteous.

But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
— Romans 4:5

How am I supposed to demonstrate your view is incorrect, other than showing what the Bible says and what it doesn't say. To me it looks like you have a number of passages that you mean support each other. A means this because B means this, and B means this because C means this, and C means this because A means this. If you saw one passage in a new light the whole circle would change. If wish you instead of comparing passages with each other would go deep down into each passage without any preconceived ideas and see what it really says and what it doesn't say.

I dealt Biblically with John 3:16-17, but you ignored it and just moved on.

 

[zoidar]

Which glosses over the imputation of Christ's righteousness in justification (Romans 4:1-11), as by faith righteousness was imputed to Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3), you failing to deal with what the Scriptures present.

We keep covering the same Biblical teaching over and over. . .none of which you Biblically demonstrate is incorrect.
The Biblical teaching is presented, you object and move on to something else, without ever dealing Biblically with that to which you object, as though your objection alone were sufficient to discredit it.
That's not how it works in honest understanding of Scripture.

Where does the Bible say Christ's righteousness was imputed to Abraham?

The Bible says that Abraham through faith is credited as righteous. He believed God could fulfill His promise that Abraham's decendants would be a great people. So Abraham was justified by faith, not by works of the Law. That's Paul's point, that righteousness is by faith, not that Christ's righteousness is imputed by faith. It doesn't say anything close to that.

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
— Romans 4:13

It is the same for us, our faith is credited us as righteousness.

But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
— Romans 4:5

How am I supposed to demonstrate your view is incorrect, other than showing what the Bible says and what it doesn't say. But honestly I'm more interested in showing there are different ways to understand passages, than proving you wrong. Hopefully we learn something through discussion. I know I do.

To me it looks like you have a number of passages that you mean support each other. A means this because B means this, and B means this because C means this, and C means this because A means this. If you saw one passage in a new light the whole circle would change. I wish you instead of all the time comparing passages with each other would go deep down into each passage without any preconceived ideas and see what it really says and what it doesn't say.

Every time I show you what the Scriptures say and don't say you jump to new passages. I dealt Biblically with John 3:16-17, but you ignored it and just moved on.

 

[zoidar]

Until you deal with Romans 5:12-17 where it is presented, addressing in context all the issues involved there, your objection to imputation of Adam's sin/guilt to all men (Romans 5:18) is without merit.

We have already discussed Romans 5:12-17. But you said we had no ground for discussion since I say people sinned before Moses gave the Law. And I also showed you where the Bible says so. I can show more places if you like, but I don't know why it would be necessary since it's everywhere in the OT, yes before the Law was given to Moses.

 

[Clare73]

Where does the Bible say Christ's righteousness was imputed to Abraham?

God's righteousness (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Romans 3:24-25) was imputed/reckoned/credited to Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 3:2-4).

What I see is that Abraham through faith is credited as righteous. He believed God could fulfill His promise that Abraham's decendants would be a big people. So Abraham was justified by faith, not by works of the Law. That's Pauls point, that righteousness is by faith.

And?

Righteousness is imputed/reckoned/credited/accounted by faith (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:1-11).

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.
— Romans 4:13
It is the same for us, our faith is credited us as righteous.

"Credited" is imputed/reckoned, accounted (Romans 4:2-3; Genesis 15:6),
and Abraham's righteousness was from God (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21, Romans 3:24-25;
Romans 4:2-3), as our justification/righteousness is from Christ (Romans 5:18b, Romans 5:19b).
Would there be a difference?

But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, — Romans 4:5
How am I supposed to demonstrate your view is incorrect, other than showing what the Bible says and what it doesn't say. To me it looks like you have a number of passages that you mean support each other. A means this because B means this, and B means this because C means this, and C means this because A means this.
If you saw one passage in a new light the whole circle would change.

Hypothetical air. . .concrete Biblical demonstration of any error, please.

If wish you instead of comparing passages with each other would go deep down into each passage without any preconceived ideas and see what it really says and what it doesn't say.

There is no "deep down" apart from the context of all Scripture. . .that is your main error and stumbling block.
Scripture is not esoteric Eastern spirituality, it is exoteric revelation from God.

Every time I show you what the Scriptures say and don't say you jump to new passages.

It's called "context."

I dealt Biblically with John 3:16-17, but you ignored it and just moved on.

In which post was that?

 

[Clare73]

We have already discussed Romans 5:12-17. But you said we had no ground for discussion since I say people sinned before Moses gave the Law. And I also showed you where the Bible says so.

That statement is part of Paul's argument in Romans 5:12-14, which argument you neither understand nor believe.

I can show more places if you like, but I don't know why it would be necessary since
it's everywhere in the OT, yes before the Law was given to Moses.

We've covered this ground in the light of Romans 5:12-14, to no avail.
You are not accounting for "where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin)."
Nevertheless, if we do not agree on the meaning of Romans 5:14, we have no basis for discussion on the topic of imputation of Adams' sin/guilt to all men (Romans 5:18-19).

 

[zoidar]

In which post was that?

I have brought it up a few times, but so far you have ignored it.

It seems like "the world" in John 3:17 includes those who never receives Christ, so I find it natural that those are also included in John 3:16.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:17

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
— John 12:47

#3222​

 

[zoidar]

You are not accounting for "where there is no law, there is no transgression (sin)."

Why do then Genesis and Exodus say people sinned before the Law was given?

There is no transgression of the Law of Moses without the Law of Moses obviously. But there were still sin before Moses. Why? Because the Law is written in our hearts.

For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.
— Romans 2:14-16

 

[zoidar]

"Credited" is imputed/reckoned, accounted

I can say: "My own faith is credited me as righteousness."

Can you really say: "My own faith is imputed me as righteousness?"

To say: "Righteousness is imputed me by my own faith" is not the same thing. Here it can be someone elses righteousness that is imputed.

 

[Der Alte]

Why do then Genesis and Exodus say people sinned before the Law was given?

What happened to them, if anything?

 

[zoidar]

What happened to them, if anything?

All I'm saying is that they sinned.

Hm, Sodom and Gomorrah got burnt to ashes.

And the Lord said, “The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, and their sin is exceedingly grave.
— Genesis 18:20

 

[Der Alte]

Why do then Genesis and Exodus say people sinned before the Law was given?

What happened to them, if anything?

 

[zoidar]

Who is it talking about in Eph 1:4? "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight." Is it not the elect? Where else does the Bible speak of the elect being anything but those to whom he gives special mercy, love and grace, and for the purpose of becoming his Dwelling Place, the Bride of Christ, to his own glory?

You believe God elected, chose certain individuals before time for salvation. I believe we are elect when we come to faith. So Eph 1:4 I would read something like:

God chose before the foundation of the world us in him (whoever believes in him) for the purpose to be Holy and blameless before Him.

 

[Clare73]

I wish you instead of comparing passages with each other would go deep down into each passage without any preconceived ideas and see what it really says and what it doesn't say.

Here's my current take on what is going on here.

This thing called creation is not a wide open reality.
God has revealed in Scripture that this reality has a context and a method, a plan, a purpose and a goal in which its truth is based.
And that context, method, plan, purpose and goal are the "preconceived" ideas revealed in Scripture, apart from which there is no correct understanding of the Scriptures regarding God's Incarnate Son of this reality.
We are not free to understand/interpret the revelation of God regarding this reality apart from these "preconceived" ideas.
We are not free of these "preconceived" Scriptural ideas in considering what Scripture "really says when one goes deep down into each passage."
Nor is it about "comparing" passages with each other, it's about passages being related in the meaning of
one another, it's about not understanding correctly apart from those connections.

It seems you want to be free to break the bounds of this reality and its truth. It seems you do not want to be limited to its confines, that you fear there may be other and better "possibilities" that we are at present not considering, that we must explore all "possibilities" to find more and better ones.
This is totally foreign to the reality which God has been teaching his people in his word for over 3,500 years now regarding this creation. This creation is not an open reality.

Exploring "all possibilities" for a text outside the confines of the context, method, plan, purpose and goal of God's reality does not lead to understanding, but rather to confusion and misunderstanding. It's a spinning of one's wheels.

That is my experience of your approach to Scripture.

 

[Clare73]

I have brought it up a few times, but so far you have ignored it.

It seems like "the world" in John 3:17 includes those who never receives Christ, so I find it natural that those are also included in John 3:16.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
— John 3:17

If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
— John 12:47

#3222​

Precisely what are you maintaining regarding John 3:16?

 

[zoidar]

Here's my current take on what is going on here.

This thing called creation is not a wide open reality.
God has revealed in Scripture that this reality has a context and a method, a plan, a purpose and a goal in which its truth is based.
And that context, method, plan, purpose and goal are the "preconceived" ideas revealed in Scripture, apart from which there is no correct understanding of the Scriptures regarding God's Incarnate Son of this reality.
We are not free to understand/interpret the revelation of God regarding this reality apart from these "preconceived" ideas.
We are not free of these "preconceived" Scriptural ideas in considering what Scripture "really says when one goes deep down into each passage."
Nor is it about "comparing" passages with each other, it's about passages being related in the meaning of
one another, it's about not understanding correctly apart from those connections.

It seems you want to be free to break the bounds of this reality and its truth. It seems you do not want to be limited to its confines, that you fear there may be other and better "possibilities" that we are at present not considering, that we must explore all "possibilities" to find more and better ones.
This is totally foreign to the reality which God has been teaching his people in his word for over 3,500 years now regarding this creation. This creation is not an open reality.

Exploring "all possibilities" for a text outside the confines of the context, method, plan, purpose and goal of God's reality does not lead to understanding, but rather to confusion and misunderstanding. It's a spinning of one's wheels.

That is my experience of your approach to Scripture.

Thanks for your thoughts, but what on Earth are "'preconceived' Scriptural ideas"?

The thing is many of the ideas of the Reformers, Luther and Calvin are new ideas that don't represent Scripture. Sure we can make them fit, read them into Scripture, but those ideas were very foreign to the Early Church Fathers. That should ring a bell. Not saying Luther and Calvin had it all wrong, but many of their ideas are not biblical, I'm sorry to say.

 

[zoidar]

Here's my current take on what is going on here.

This thing called creation is not a wide open reality.
God has revealed in Scripture that this reality has a context and a method, a plan, a purpose and a goal in which its truth is based.
And that context, method, plan, purpose and goal are the "preconceived" ideas revealed in Scripture, apart from which there is no correct understanding of the Scriptures regarding God's Incarnate Son of this reality.
We are not free to understand/interpret the revelation of God regarding this reality apart from these "preconceived" ideas.
We are not free of these "preconceived" Scriptural ideas in considering what Scripture "really says when one goes deep down into each passage."
Nor is it about "comparing" passages with each other, it's about passages being related in the meaning of
one another, it's about not understanding correctly apart from those connections.

It seems you want to be free to break the bounds of this reality and its truth. It seems you do not want to be limited to its confines, that you fear there may be other and better "possibilities" that we are at present not considering, that we must explore all "possibilities" to find more and better ones.
This is totally foreign to the reality which God has been teaching his people in his word for over 3,500 years now regarding this creation. This creation is not an open reality.

Exploring "all possibilities" for a text outside the confines of the context, method, plan, purpose and goal of God's reality does not lead to understanding, but rather to confusion and misunderstanding. It's a spinning of one's wheels.

That is my experience of your approach to Scripture.

Thanks for your thoughts, but what on Earth are "'preconceived' Scriptural ideas"?

The thing is many of the ideas of the Reformers, Luther and Calvin are new ideas that don't represent Scripture. Sure we can make them fit, read them into Scripture, but those ideas were very foreign to the Early Church Fathers. That should ring a bell. Not saying Luther and Calvin had it all wrong, but many of their ideas are not biblical, I'm sorry to say.

Exploring "all possibilities" for a text outside the confines of the context, method, plan, purpose and goal of God's reality does not lead to understanding,

Who wouldn't agree with that? We want truth right, not just a theology that works.

 

[Clare73]

Thanks for your thoughts, but what on Earth are "'preconceived' Scriptural ideas"?

That God's reality is not wide open,
that it has a context and a method, a plan, a purpose and a goal,
which do not allow for all concepts and possibilities in the meaning of his word written, and
these facts are the parameters ("preconceived ideas") within which we understand his revelation.

The thing is many of the ideas of the Reformers, Luther and Calvin are new ideas that don't represent Scripture. Sure we can make them fit, read them into Scripture, but those ideas were very foreign to the Early Church Fathers. That should ring a bell. Not saying Luther and Calvin had it all wrong, but many of their ideas are not biblical, I'm sorry to say.

That requires Biblical demonstration to be accepted. . .feel free to do so.

 

[zoidar]

Precisely what are you maintaining regarding John 3:16?

“For God so loved the world (this must include those who deny him from vers 17), that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world (those who deny him, John 12:47), but that the world (whoever believes in him) might be saved through Him.
— John 3:16-17