What is wrong with Calvinism ?

zoidar · Jul 28, 2022

Clare73 said:
Precisely what are you maintaining regarding John 3:16?

“For God so loved the world (this must include those who deny him, vers 17), that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever (must include those who deny him v. 17) 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 (those who believe in him) might be saved through Him.
— John 3:16-17

Clare73 · Jul 28, 2022

zoidar said:
“For God so loved the world (this must include those who deny him, vers 17), that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever (must include those who deny him v. 17) 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 (those who believe in him) might be saved through Him.
— John 3:16-17

Please tell me you aren't saying the condition of belief in Jesus is met by those who are denying Jesus.

If so, your problem is semantics.

zoidar · Jul 28, 2022

zoidar · Jul 28, 2022

Clare73 said:
Please tell me you aren't saying the condition of belief in Jesus is met by those who are denying Jesus.

If so, your problem is semantics.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying even those that eventually will deny him, could have received him, and if they did they too would have eternal life.

"Whoever" is general statement which means whoever in the whole world.

Don't you see the necessary consequence of that those who deny Jesus are included in the word "world" ? That means the atonement by necessity is unlimited.

For God so loved the world (this must include those who deny him, vers 17), that He gave His only begotten Son.

Whom did God love? Those who will deny him and those who will receive him. The proof is that God gave His only Son for both "groups" so they could potentially be saved.

You argued against that with logic and said: "God doesn't punish the same sins twice". If I use the same rhetoric you use, I will say: "Now you are putting man's logic ahead the clear meaning of the written Word of God." I don't like to say things like that, because I find it plainly stupid, but I did it now for you to see the problem with such statements, all they do is provoke.

misput · Jul 28, 2022

Mark Quayle said: ↑
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?

This is speaking of us, all the faithful collectively, not choosing individually.

misput · Jul 28, 2022

Clare73 said:
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.

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

A good case can be made on both sides of most biblical debates by picking and choosing the scripture used but the main point is usually missed or forgotten. We need to keep the main thing, the main thing. Have U noticed how few people are responding to this thread. Do U realize how few folks even know what the question is let alone the answer. Might ought to lighten up, or not : ) Good entertainment anyway.

misput · Jul 28, 2022

misput said:
This is speaking of us, all the faithful collectively, not choosing individually.

Although God does choose individuals for certain purposes which may or may not have anything to do with their salvation.

Mark Quayle · Jul 28, 2022

zoidar said:
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?

Just wanted to be sure you understood. You saw such a difference between 'Imputed Guilt' and 'Condemnation'.

Mark Quayle · Jul 29, 2022

zoidar said:
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.

I'm sorry, brother, and mean you no insult, when I say you seem to me to be looking at this from merely a human pov. God gives us a lot in scripture (not to mention, in reason) to see past the temporal. I try to point out what I've noticed. If God is God —and that means first cause, among other things— it doesn't add up that he would depend on mere chance to arrange things for him to react to. I say that, because that is what uncaused freewill adds up to.

Mark Quayle · Jul 29, 2022

zoidar said:
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.

I'm sorry, brother, and mean you no insult, when I say you seem to me to be looking at this from merely a human pov. God gives us a lot in scripture (not to mention, in reason) to see past the temporal. I try to point out what I've noticed. If God is God —and that means first cause, among other things— it doesn't add up that he would depend on mere chance to arrange things for him to react to. I say that, because that is what uncaused freewill adds up to. And saying that, I find nowhere in scripture that denies it.

zoidar · Jul 29, 2022

zoidar · Jul 29, 2022

Mark Quayle said:
I'm sorry, brother, and mean you no insult, when I say you seem to me to be looking at this from merely a human pov. God gives us a lot in scripture (not to mention, in reason) to see past the temporal. I try to point out what I've noticed. If God is God —and that means first cause, among other things— it doesn't add up that he would depend on mere chance to arrange things for him to react to. I say that, because that is what uncaused freewill adds up to. And saying that, I find nowhere in scripture that denies it.

Of course God doesn't depend on chance. I know you come back to that many times. I don't see the correlation you make between free will and chance. If God wants me to go to the store today and meet Mr. B, He can easily put a thought into my head He knows will make me choose by free will to go to the store. I think God is using our free will choices to accomplish His purposes.

Do you know of Molinism? I think that is interesting, and not too far from my view.

About 3 minutes.

zoidar · Jul 29, 2022

Clare73 said:
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.

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean. But sure some preconceived basic ideas are natural, like Jesus dying and being resurrected and that sin entered the world through the fall of Adam. Those are basic truths. When I read the Bible I try to read from the "basic truths", not from ideas like predestination, total depravity etc. So to me reading the Bible is trying to read it from a mind that is as much as possible blank from doctrines, to really read what is says and not says. Sure context is important, won't argue there. But it's important to not study the Bible with already formed doctrines in the head, as far as that is possible.

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

I don't think you will be convinced from reading the Bible alone, but from studying the Early Church Fathers. So it depends on how much you invest into that, and what importance you give the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

Clare73 · Jul 29, 2022

zoidar said:
I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean. But sure some preconceived basic ideas are natural, like Jesus dying and being resurrected and that sin entered the world through the fall of Adam. Those are basic truths. When I read the Bible I try to read from the "basic truths", not from ideas like predestination, total depravity etc. So to me reading the Bible is trying to read it from a mind that is as much as possible blank from doctrines, to really read what is says and not says. Sure context is important, won't argue there. But it's important to not study the Bible with already formed doctrines in the head, as far as that is possible.

You're preaching to the choir. . .and laboring the obvious.

I don't think you will be convinced from reading the Bible alone, but from studying the Early Church Fathers. So it depends on how much you invest into that, and what importance you give the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

Feel free to Biblically demonstrate what Luther and Calvin got wrong.

Otherwise, it is only your unproven assertion.

Mark Quayle · Jul 29, 2022

zoidar said:
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying even those that eventually will deny him, could have received him, and if they did they too would have eternal life.

"Whoever" is general statement which means whoever in the whole world.

Don't you see the necessary consequence of that those who deny Jesus are included in the word "world" ? That means the atonement by necessity is unlimited.

For God so loved the world (this must include those who deny him, vers 17), that He gave His only begotten Son.

Whom did God love? Those who will deny him and those who will receive him. The proof is that God gave His only Son for both "groups" so they could potentially be saved.

You argued against that with logic and said: "God doesn't punish the same sins twice". If I use the same rhetoric you use, I will say: "Now you are putting man's logic ahead the clear meaning of the written Word of God." I don't like to say things like that, because I find it plainly stupid, but I did it now for you to see the problem with such statements, all they do is provoke.

So, it's really up to chance, just who that will be...?

Mark Quayle · Jul 29, 2022

misput said:
This is speaking of us, all the faithful collectively, not choosing individually.

I'm having a bit of trouble getting that concept through my head. Are you saying God chose, from before anyone was born, some nebulous group that does not include individuals? What was he thinking!

Mark Quayle · Jul 29, 2022

misput said:
This is speaking of us, all the faithful collectively, not choosing individually.

I'm having a bit of trouble getting that concept through my head. Are you saying God chose, from before anyone was born, some nebulous group that does not include individuals? What was he thinking!

Alive2 · Jul 29, 2022

zoidar said:
I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean. But sure some preconceived basic ideas are natural, like Jesus dying and being resurrected and that sin entered the world through the fall of Adam. Those are basic truths. When I read the Bible I try to read from the "basic truths", not from ideas like predestination, total depravity etc. So to me reading the Bible is trying to read it from a mind that is as much as possible blank from doctrines, to really read what is says and not says. Sure context is important, won't argue there. But it's important to not study the Bible with already formed doctrines in the head, as far as that is possible.

I very much agree with this and it is a rare thing, in my experience.

I don't think you will be convinced from reading the Bible alone, but from studying the Early Church Fathers. So it depends on how much you invest into that, and what importance you give the teachings of the Early Church Fathers.

Although I believe it is profitable to read these guys and all the brethren that have come before us, it is not required as they had the same scriptures we do and arrived at their understanding via 'scripture alone'--one of the solas.
I have often pointed out that I arrived at much of what Calvin and the Dutch Reformed church came up with--not through them, but through studying scripture.

Clare73 · Jul 29, 2022

zoidar said:
Romans 5:18 just says that Adam's sin is to condemnation, and Christ's righteousness is to life. It doesn't say why and how.
To believe it's about imputed guilt of Adam, is something we can hold to be true, not what it literally says.

That is found in the context of Romans 5:12-21.

Mark Quayle · Jul 29, 2022

misput said:
Although God does choose individuals for certain purposes which may or may not have anything to do with their salvation.

God does nothing nebulously.

When a passage of Scripture doesn't make good sense to a person, it is not saying that Reason trumps Scripture, for that person to look about for another way to see that passage of Scripture.

The real problem with, "This is speaking of us, all the faithful collectively, not choosing individually.", is that it just doesn't make sense. It's pretty obvious that cause-and-effect is pervasive, and that chance cannot cause anything, and that God is first cause, which means that EVERYTHING that is not him is what it is by his plan and purpose. I don't mean that God does nothing collectively, but when he does, it is individuals to whom he does it.

Even in Heaven the Bride of Christ, a collective, is made of individuals.

What is wrong with Calvinism ?

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Blood-bought

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

JimD

JimD

JimD

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Blood-bought

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Active Member

Blood-bought

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency