What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[zoidar]

Exactly. So who says God punished Christ for all mankind's sin? Universalists, for starters...

I don't think you follow my reasoning. The elect are held accountable for sin until they are saved, and still Christ was punished for them. Are you saying that is unjust?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why is God's primary attribute love? I don't think this has anything to do with Calvinism.

Nor against Calvinism.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Nothing wrong with changing horses.

I don't think she's saying she changed her mind, btw.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't think you follow my reasoning. The elect are held accountable for sin until they are saved, and still Christ was punished for them. Are you saying that is unjust?

Well, no. Though it is unjust towards sinless Christ, one might say. But justice has been served, and not twice towards those whose penalty THEY end up paying. And so, 'limited atonement'.

 

[zoidar]

Well, no. Though it is unjust towards sinless Christ, one might say. But justice has been served, and not twice towards those whose penalty THEY end up paying. And so, 'limited atonement'.

Hm, so it's not unjust by God to hold someone accountable for a sin that is already paid for? Then I don't think it's unjust of God to hold someone eternally accountable for a sin that has been paid for.

But I do have to say I don't think it works like that with the atonement. I don't think we are saved because Christ took our punishment, but because we receive forgiveness through the Holy Spirit, by the sacrifice of Christ.

I'm questioning the whole notion of penal substitution. One reason is how can Christ have been punished for sins not yet committed?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't think you follow my reasoning. The elect are held accountable for sin until they are saved, and still Christ was punished for them. Are you saying that is unjust?

Are you saying it is double payment? I still don't get your point. Are you saying that because Christ paid for their sins in the past that they shouldn't be held accountable in the present, being born after Christ paid for their sins? (God's timelessness should answer that question.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hm, so it's not unjust by God to hold someone accountable for a sin that is already paid for? Then I don't think it's unjust of God to hold someone eternally accountable for a sin that has been paid for.

Double payment is not a question of when the payment is made. God's justice is thorough, but precise. See my last two paragraphs below.

But I do have to say I don't think it works like that with the atonement. I don't think we are saved because Christ took our punishment, but because we receive forgiveness through the Holy Spirit, by the sacrifice of Christ.

How do we receive forgiveness through the Holy Spirit, by the sacrifice of Christ, if not by Christ taking our punishment? That IS the sacrifice of Christ.

I'm questioning the whole notion of penal substitution. One reason is how can Christ have borne sins not yet committed?

While we like to think time is king, it is not. God doesn't dwell in time the way we do. I have reason to believe that the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, and that we were chosen from the foundation of the world, and forgiven from the foundation of the world. In fact, there is more than enough reason to believe that the Bride of Christ was spoken, the finished product, into existence by the Word of God. The fact we see it taking so long is irrelevant.

The same is applicable to regeneration. It is a fact that the unsaved will not choose God, apart from their will being transformed. What WE see happening first is irrelevant.

 

[zoidar]

Are you saying it is double payment? I still don't get your point. Are you saying that because Christ paid for their sins in the past that they shouldn't be held accountable in the present, being born after Christ paid for their sins? (God's timelessness should answer that question.)

I'm saying if Christ paid for their sin they should never be held accountable for their sin, not even temporary for God to be just. Otherwise He is holding them accountable for something that isn't even there, "a pretended sin". But they were held accountable, since they were children of wrath. So my reasoning goes that if God can hold someone temporary accountable for a sin that is paid, He could as well hold a person eternally accountable.

But sure it's not exactly the same thing as a double payment, since God will eventually sort that out, but still I think it's unjust in the same way double payment is unjust, if you now think that is unjust.

Time for bed! I'll be back tomorrow. Good night!

 

[John Mullally]

What did Jesus say?

Matthew 7:21-23
(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

What did Paul say about "all" being saved?

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: [no wrongdoer] neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that [no wrongdoer] no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​

Twenty two categories of unrighteous people who have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.
1. adulterers, 2. covetous, 3. drunkenness, 4. effeminate, 5. emulations, 6. envious, 7. extortion 8. fornication, 9. hatred, 10. heresies, 11. homosexuals, 12. idolators, 13. lasciviousness, 14. murder, 15. reveling, 16. revilers 17. sedition, 18. strife, 19. thieves, 20. uncleanness 21. witchcraft. 22. Wrath
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 3:17

You continue to confuse me with being for Universal Reconciliation (UR) and attach a long canned anti-UR scree. I am not UR.

 

[John Mullally]

The text goes much further than "praying for all men to be saved" - it explicitly states that "God desires all men to be saved".

God commanded all men to hear the gospel.

Agree.

No man saves himself. It is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Now if you believe it is cooperation or totally the work of the Spirit, the fact remains the Holy Spirit does not regenerate all men.

As a non-Calvinist Evangelical, I see salvation and regeneration lumped together and involving man's co-operation.

Saying God desired but couldn't save all is practically blasphemy.

Calvin and all the good people on this thread have noted this "God desires" but fact is, not all are.

Although I believe that God desires all to be saved, it does not happen per John 3:18.

Calvin and all the good people on this thread have noted this "God desires" but fact is, not all are.

Perhaps God, at this point in time, does not want all men saved. That is according to His plan or as Calvin stated, "His secret councils."

I think this raises some difficult points for Calvinists.

However, we must act as commanded; pray and spread the Gospel.

Amen

 

[zoidar]

I don't think she's saying she changed her mind, btw.

I'm not sure exactly where she changed her view, just affirming it is sometimes good to look over what we hold to be true, and change whatever needs to be changed.

 

[zoidar]

How do we receive forgiveness through the Holy Spirit, by the sacrifice of Christ, if not by Christ taking our punishment? That IS the sacrifice of Christ.

The Bible says because Jesus bore our sins. It does not specifically say he was punished, but we do know he dealt with the problem of sin, exactly how is up for debate. What releases us from sin is forgiveness, and that is given us through Christ as we repent. Christ is mighty to bestow it, since he has dealt with sin on the cross once and for all.

She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”
— Matthew 1:21

Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.”
— Acts 10:43

and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
— 1 Peter 2:24

While we like to think time is king, it is not. God doesn't dwell in time the way we do. I have reason to believe that the lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, and that we were chosen from the foundation of the world, and forgiven from the foundation of the world. In fact, there is more than enough reason to believe that the Bride of Christ was spoken, the finished product, into existence by the Word of God. The fact we see it taking so long is irrelevant.

The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world is found in the poetic book of Revelation. Exacly what is meant by that is a good question. I think it has to do with Christ being chosen before time for the purpose to be the redeemer of the world. I don't think it means he was slain in some metaphysical sense in the beginning of time.

A child of wrath, separated from Christ, forgiven from the foundation of the world? How does that work? Where do you find in the Bible that we were forgiven before we have faith?

 

[PuerAzaelis]

What is wrong with Calvinism?

Not a lot.

A tiptoe through TULIP | EWTN

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not sure exactly where she changed her view, just affirming it is sometimes good to look over what we hold to be true, and change whatever needs to be changed.

I'm thinking she wasn't changing her view, just her reference or direction of argument, though I'm not sure what she meant, either.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm not sure exactly where she changed her view, just affirming it is sometimes good to look over what we hold to be true, and change whatever needs to be changed.

Maybe she just meant she was changing her way of expressing her thesis.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think you can say God limits the application of the atonement, the way God has decided to only apply the effect of the atonement to a person when he receives Christ. What do you think? But I see that Clare meant something else.

I think of it like we are united to Christ through the Holy Spirit, like we hung on that cross.

I'm undecided on penal substitution.

My point is only that Christ did not pay for what any sinner ends up paying for himself.

 

[Clare73]

No God doesn’t limit it at all , man rejects Gods provision which is available to all without exception. 1 John 2:2,
John 3:16-18.

hope this helps !!!

And the other half of the story.

Yes, all men reject it (1 Corinthians 2:14). . .save for those whom God enables to accept it (John 6:65).

 

[Der Alte]

You continue to confuse me with being for Universal Reconciliation (UR) and attach a long canned anti-UR scree. I am not UR.

If I erred in that I apologize the passage you quoted is a common proof text for the UR group.
As for "long canned anti-UR scree" 3 decades ago when I joined this forum I soon realized that the same out-of-context verses and arguments are endlessly repeated so I decided that I didn't have to reinvent the wheel on every post so I started saving my responses. So same arguments, same post get same response.

 

[Clare73]

I'm thinking she wasn't changing her view, just her reference or direction of argument, though I'm not sure what she meant, either.

A different tack.

Limited atonement is not based on the "quantity" of the atonement, but on no double payment for the same sin.

 

[zoidar]

My point is only that Christ did not pay for what any sinner ends up paying for himself.

My post you quoted was for Jesus is JHWH, but maybe you know that?

I don't believe either that Christ paid for something the sinner also ends up paying for, still I believe in unlimited atonement.