What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Mark Quayle]

Calvin sees God having the power to save all and choosing not to. Non-Calvinist Evangelicals see God requiring man to respond in faith and repentance to the Gospel, with many men choosing not to.

Is that your interpretation of what Calvin says, or does Calvin say it that way?

I can't speak for Calvin, but that is backwards. What is going on here is Christ building his church, the Bride. It's not that he chooses not to save some, but that he has from the foundation of the world chosen whom to save.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think of Christ's sacrifice as a payment for sin, a sacrifice that can pay off any sin. When you receive Christ your individual sins are put on Christ. IOW your personal sins are paid/forgiven through the sacrifice of Christ at the very moment you receive the Holy Spirit.

I will tell a story. There was this village of poor people in dept. They owed more money than they could earn by their low income jobs. So this friendly stranger comes by one day. He puts an unlimited amount of money on the villagers' "help the poor - fund". Now the villagers act differently. Some take money from the fund to cancel their dept, others think the unlimited deposit is a myth, for who would do such a thing, right? Therefore some villagers go free and others are held bound in dept. Still the fund with the unlimited deposit belongs to the whole village.

So the atoning sacrifice is unlimited (for all mankind), the effect of the atoning sacrifice (to the individual) is limited to those who believe.

As in all our choices, from our POV atonement may seem to be like your village scenario. But that isn't Biblical. We do have choice, no doubt, but God is specific about the members of the Bride.

 

[Receivedgrace]

Is that your interpretation of what Calvin says, or does Calvin say it that way?

I can't speak for Calvin, but that is backwards. What is going on here is Christ building his church, the Bride. It's not that he chooses not to save some, but that he has from the foundation of the world chosen whom to save.

Did God know that Adam would sin? Did God cause Adam to sin?
If Adam chose to sin, then why do we expect that there is no choice required to receive the blood of Christ as our atonement for sin? God knows all that can be known. God is sovereign and none can change His will. God is merciful and gives all an opportunity to be saved. God knows who will receive and who will reject Christ. Both glorify God who alone is worthy of glory and praise.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Did God know that Adam would sin? Did God cause Adam to sin?
If Adam chose to sin, then why do we expect that there is no choice required to receive the blood of Christ as our atonement for sin?

You make these three questions as though they (or at least the second) are mutually exclusive. They are not.

If Adam chose to sin, then why do we expect that there is no choice required to receive the blood of Christ as our atonement for sin?

I don't follow the logic there. Why would Adam choosing to sin mean we would expect there to be choice required to receive the blood of Christ as our atonement for sin? Because it feels balanced?

Did God know that Adam would sin? Did God cause Adam to sin?
If Adam chose to sin, then why do we expect that there is no choice required to receive the blood of Christ as our atonement for sin? God knows all that can be known. God is sovereign and none can change His will. God is merciful and gives all an opportunity to be saved. God knows who will receive and who will reject Christ. Both glorify God who alone is worthy of glory and praise.

I'm a bit puzzled as to your reason to post this, if in answer to what I said:
"Is that your interpretation of what Calvin says, or does Calvin say it that way?

"I can't speak for Calvin, but that is backwards. What is going on here is Christ building his church, the Bride. It's not that he chooses not to save some, but that he has from the foundation of the world chosen whom to save."

 

[Receivedgrace]

You make these three questions as though they (or at least the second) are mutually exclusive. They are not.



I don't follow the logic there. Why would Adam choosing to sin mean we would expect there to be choice required to receive the blood of Christ as our atonement for sin? Because it feels balanced?



I'm a bit puzzled as to your reason to post this, if in answer to what I said:
"Is that your interpretation of what Calvin says, or does Calvin say it that way?

"I can't speak for Calvin, but that is backwards. What is going on here is Christ building his church, the Bride. It's not that he chooses not to save some, but that he has from the foundation of the world chosen whom to save."

It does not matter what Calvin said or what men believe he said. It only matters what God has said.
God is sovereign and knows who will receive Christ and who will reject Christ. That does not mean that God has predetermined who will receive and who will reject.
The bible gives us many examples of man making choices. Some wise and some unwise but all choices allowed by God and used to glorify Him.

 

[Clare73]

Prayer, for me, has become a continual awareness of God. One prayer.
God is always on my mind.

Willie Nelson. . .

As I am "God-haunted."

The statement you posted doesn't make sense to me unless I am seeking power in the world through prayer, then, presumably, as a legal right, God would be mine to command. The choice would be power of God or power of Satan, almost asserting because Satan is ruler, that makes Satan equal to God.

This is a very foreign concept to me, if I understand you correctly.

God is the power and the glory forever.

 

[Clare73]

There is this repeating pattern I see when trying to engage Calvinists. Every scriptural argument is dismissed with Calvinistic clichés like God rules, all is pre-determined by God's decrees, Salvation is of the Lord, and God's will is always done (i.e. can only be ascertained by what happens).
So it doesn't matter that:
1) Paul says that God desires all to be saved per 1 Timothy 2:4. Because
that cannot be true or everyone would be saved per God's will is always done.

Time to give consideration in the following to the operation of Deuteronomy 29:29, regarding God's revealed will and God's secret will. . .where God's revealed will to man is not necessarily his secret will for man, as demonstrated in Pharaoh, where God's revealed will to Pharaoh was, "Let my people go," (Exodus 4:23) while his secret will for Pharaoh was, "I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." (Exodus 4:21)

God's will is always done, it's just not always what you think that will is.
And you know you are in that territory of secret/revealed when you think the Scriptures are contradictory.

2) Paul says that Jesus gave Himself a ransom for all men per 1 Timothy 2:6. Because that cannot be true or everyone would be saved per God's will is always done.

Actually, the Greek says "for all."
That would be all the elect.

While Jesus said he came to give his life "as a ransom for many." (Matthew 20:28).

3) Paul says he became weak to win the weak in 1 Corinthian 9:22. Because that is hyperbole - Salvation is of the Lord.
4) Paul statement on the importance of preaching of the Gospel by man in Romans 10:14-15. Because that too is hyperbole - Salvation is of the Lord.
5) Jesus's promise that we receive when we ask in faith per Mark 11:22-24. Because no man can qualify to say that prayer if they don't know God's will. And God's will cannot be known without knowing what actually happens in the future. Also that promise is academic because God's will is always done. And worse yet, it seems you are trying to rule over God.

1. A promise is given that we receive faith by hearing the word of God per Romans 10:17. Because attempting to receive by claiming a promise presumes on God's Sovereignty.
2. A promise of salvation (i.e. remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit) is given to those who repent in response to the Gospel per Acts 2:38-39. Because it is God who saves us (Salvation is of the Lord). We are told to re-read John 3:3-8 and 1 Corinthians 2:14 from the Calvinistic point of view.
3. That the "prayer of a righteous man avails much". That point is academic because its all been decreed.
4. That 1 John 1:9 instructs believers to confess sin. Because all future sin was wiped away when God saves us.

 

[Clare73]

The problem I see is that you interpret what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:14 to have to do with being born again and whether the natural man can repent or not. But that is not something I see in those verses. Paul is describing how it is for the natural man and how it is for the Spiritual man, not how the natural man can become a Spiritual man.
The thing we disagree on then is not if we can see the kingdom of God without being reborn, there we agree you can't, but whether we are reborn after och before repentance. I say rebirth after repentance, you say rebirth before repentance.

If you can't apprehend the kingdom (things) of God, why would you bother to "repent?"

What part of "both texts present the 'spiritual impotency' of man" do you not understand?

 

[Clare73]

"I think of Christ's sacrifice as a payment for sin, a sacrifice that can pay off any sin.
When you receive Christ your individual sins are put on Christ.

According to the NT, all sin was put on Christ at the time of his death, past (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 11:40) and future (Romans 3:26). His merit is then applied by faith, of the those in the past and in the future.

IOW your personal sins are paid/forgiven through the sacrifice of Christ at the very moment you receive the Holy Spirit.

I will tell a story. There was this village of poor people in dept. They owed more money than they could earn by their low income jobs. So this friendly stranger comes by one day. He puts an unlimited amount of money on the villagers' "help the poor - fund". Now the villagers act differently. Some take money from the fund to cancel their dept, others think the unlimited deposit is a myth, for who would do such a thing, right? Therefore some villagers go free and others are held bound in dept. Still the fund with the unlimited deposit belongs to the whole village.

So the atoning sacrifice is unlimited (for all mankind), the effect of the atoning sacrifice (to the individual) is limited to those who believe."

 

[Clare73]

For myself, (not @Clare73 ), I don't like the sound of even, 'sufficient', nevermind 'quantity'. I get what they are trying to say by that, I think, in that whoever believes, Christ paid their sin, but I'm strictly that Christ would have suffered more if he had paid sufficiently for absolutely everyone; and so therefore, if he paid sufficiently for everyone, he paid for everyone's sin. If some (most) people end up paying themselves, then it's pretty plain to me that we have double payment going on, which to me just doesn't add up. But by 'sufficient [quantity] the point is the power of God —the FACT of Christ's death and atonement. That much (the fact of Christ's death and atonement being infinite in quality) is not at all the same as saying that his atonement is sufficient for all (at least to my mind). But anyhow... I'm glad you don't believe in double payment.

What are your thoughts on Christ being divine, his payment would have infinite merit?
Why do you think that would not be true?

 

[QvQ]

Instead, Paul contradicts that notion by saying that God's grace can be frustrated (Galatians 2:21).

Galatians 2: 21 I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought.
That states "I do not make void the grace of God." How is that saying that man could by his will or action make void that grace of God? Paul in this statement is not denying the Grace of God. Paul is saying he could not void grace but that he must affirm grace.

And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him.

God in a Box! Man is the designer and master of god. Man permits god to do man's bidding and god can do only what and when man allows. If the god in the box isn't cute cuddly and obedient, just return as a dirty bad god. Man is also selling fiery demons who are not as sweet, caring and loving as god but are more powerful. Powered by Works, not included.

 

[John Mullally]

Is that your interpretation of what Calvin says, or does Calvin say it that way?

I can't speak for Calvin, but that is backwards. What is going on here is Christ building his church, the Bride. It's not that he chooses not to save some, but that he has from the foundation of the world chosen whom to save.

This is from Calvin:

By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God, by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.​

 

[John Mullally]

Unsurprisingly, there is no explicit mention of irresistible grace in scripture. Instead, Paul contradicts that notion by saying that God's grace can be frustrated (Galatians 2:21).

Galatians 2: 21 I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought.

That states "I do not make void the grace of God." How is that saying that man could by his will or action make void that grace of God? Paul in this statement is not denying the Grace of God. Paul is saying he could not void grace but that he must affirm grace.

Galatians 2:17-21 is a warning. Verse 21 indicates that the grace of God is made void by trying to attain righteousness through the law.

And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him.

God in a Box! Man is the designer and master of god. Man permits god to do man's bidding and god can do only what and when man allows. If the god in the box isn't cute cuddly and obedient, just return as a dirty bad god. Man is also selling fiery demons who are not as sweet, caring and loving as god but are more powerful. Powered by Works, not included.

That quote is from influential Christian apologist C.S. Lewis. C. S. Lewis - Wikipedia

 

[John Mullally]

Time to give consideration in the following to the operation of Deuteronomy 29:29, regarding God's revealed will and God's secret will. . .where God's revealed will to man is not necessarily his secret will for man, as demonstrated in Pharaoh, where God's revealed will to Pharaoh was, "Let my people go," (Exodus 4:23) while his secret will for Pharaoh was, "I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." (Exodus 4:21)

No God does not keep two sets of books on His will - one secret and one revealed. Deuteronomy 29:29 does not say that the secret things that belong to the Lord contradict what God reveals to man.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.​

Your assertion reminds me of what Hillary Clinton told the National Multi-Family Housing Council in private remarks in 2013:

“You need both a public and a private position,”​

God's will is always done, it's just not always what you think that will is.
And you know you are in that territory of secret/revealed when you think the Scriptures are contradictory

Jesus shows that God's will is not being done on earth at this time. Jesus would not command His disciples to pray "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" if that statement itself was not God's will. Note that be is in the present tense. Yet, God's will is not being done on earth as it is heaven as there is no sin, sickness, and death in heaven.

 

[Clare73]

No God does not keep two sets of books on His will - one secret and one revealed. Deuteronomy 29:29 means that somethings are secret from man.

Precisely. . .we are in agreement.

 

[John Mullally]

No God does not keep two sets of books on His will – one secret and one revealed. Deuteronomy 29:29 means that something are kept secret from man.

Precisely. . .we are in agreement.

No, I don’t see how you have connected the dots.

 

[Fervent]

No God does not keep two sets of books on His will - one secret and one revealed. Deuteronomy 29:29 does not say that the secret things that belong to the Lord contradict what God reveals to man.

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.​

Your assertion reminds me of what Hillary Clinton told the National Multi-Family Housing Council in private remarks in 2013:

“You need both a public and a private position,”​

You have to wonder how she finds God trustworthy since He supposedly keeps secrets that are contrary to what He's revealed...can only shake my head at that one.

 

[QvQ]

Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord Thy God is One:

Quote From C. S. Lewis "And an utterly unknown quality in God cannot give us moral grounds for loving or obeying Him."

Answer to C. S. Lewis from another influential Christian Source:

Psalms 50:21 “These things hast thou done, and I kept silence; thou thoughtest that I was altogether such an one as thyself: but I will reprove thee, and set them in order before thine eyes.”

Job 8:3 Doth God pervert judgment? or doth the Almighty pervert justice?
Job 40:1 Moreover the Lord answered Job, and said,
Job 40:2 Shall he that contends with the Almighty instruct Him? He that reproves God, let him answer it.
Job 40:8 Wilt thou also disannul My judgment? Wilt thou condemn Me, that thou mayest be righteous?

 

[QvQ]

Time to give consideration in the following to the operation of Deuteronomy 29:29, regarding God's revealed will and God's secret will. . .where God's revealed will to man is not necessarily his secret will for man, as demonstrated in Pharaoh, where God's revealed will to Pharaoh was, "Let my people go," (Exodus 4:23) while his secret will for Pharaoh was, "I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go." (Exodus 4:21)

There is a What, How, Why.
1) What: God's will; "Let my people go."
2) How: God's secret will, revealed to man or not; "I will harden his heart"
3) Why: IMHO God does not answer "why" questions. I don't believe man could understand the answer.
We can know What God did. We can sometimes know How. We cannot know Why.
The answer in Job and in Calvin is " Why? Just because...God so wills it"
These are the revealed will and secret will of God, IMHO

 

[John Mullally]

There is a What, How, Why.
1) What: God's will; "Let my people go."
2) How: God's secret will, revealed to man or not; "I will harden his heart"
3) Why: IMHO God does not answer "why" questions. I don't believe man could understand the answer.
We can know What God did. We can sometimes know How. We cannot know Why.
The answer in Job and in Calvin is " Why? Just because...God so wills it"
These are the revealed will and secret will of God, IMHO

How speaks of methodology, not will.

God's will included saving Nineveh from upcoming judgement and He commanded Jonah to go. Jonah resisted (because man has a will) and he was swallowed by a great fish for a time. Being swallowed by a great fish was not God's will (secret or revealed), but it was part of the method God used to attain Jonah's necessary compliance so he would go preach at Nineveh.