What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[QvQ]

I agree there are contradictions with Calvinism and scripture

Calvin was a man and the same as any man, his interpretation is just that, his own view. However, if this thread is any indication, Calvin does stir the pot. There are so many points where a person has to study and think about what Calvin wrote and what a person actually believes and why.
Nothing like lawyer writing about scripture to get us all reading the fine print!

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Calvin was a man and the same as any man, his interpretation is just that, his own view. However, if this thread is any indication, Calvin does stir the pot. There are so many points where a person has to study and think about what Calvin wrote and what a person actually believes and why.
Nothing like lawyer writing about scripture to get us all reading the fine print!

Ditto

 

[Der Alte]

Calvin was a man and the same as any man, his interpretation is just that, his own view. However, if this thread is any indication, Calvin does stir the pot. There are so many points where a person has to study and think about what Calvin wrote and what a person actually believes and why.
Nothing like lawyer writing about scripture to get us all reading the fine print!

The problem I have with Calvinism is, if I understand it correctly, it contradicts the words of Jesus.

John 3:14-16
(14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.​

The vss. read "whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life" They do not say "whosoever of the elect who believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

The problem I have with Calvinism is, if I understand it correctly, it contradicts the words of Jesus.

John 3:14-16
(14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.​

The vss. read "whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life" They do not say "whosoever of the elect who believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life."

I concur

 

[All Glory To God]

Well here again you are on sinking sand. The thread is not about the reformation but Calvinism.
You did not read what I wrote but make a false accusation as a pretense to dishonor me. Scholarly works are useful in understanding difficult concepts. The bible never condemns those who study to be better able to declare the word of God and increase understanding among the people.

I have not dishonoured you, you did it to yourself. A person who is impertinent with facts and has no humility is not deserving of honour. This applies to you.

I am ending this dialogue on my part.

 

[zoidar]

He would be in sin, as the saved (by faith--not by works, Ephesians 2:8-9) can be by disobedience.

I know it's impossible to know, but would he still be chosen for the promise?

 

[Clare73]

I know it's impossible to know, but would he still be chosen for the promise?

He was already irrevocably chosen and had received the promise.

See the case of David.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

He was already irrevocably chosen and had received the promise.

See the case of David.

In general or are you referring to a specific passage ?

 

[zoidar]

He was already irrevocably chosen and had received the promise.

See the case of David.

If Abraham had refused to offer his son, would then the promise remain intact? You say it was irrevocable, but it doesn't sound like that.

Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, “By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.
— Genesis 22:15-17

How do you compare this with David?

 

[QvQ]

(14) And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:16 is the very heart of the Reformation.

The words "believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life" states that if a person believes in Christ that person will have everlasting life.

We all agree to that, yes? Plain and simple!

John 3:16 does not say anything else is required.

That is Puritan.

That is the P in Tulip. So now I have a TIP, only need a U and an L.

 

[Guojing]

John 3:16 is the very heart of the Reformation.

The words "believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life" states that if a person believes in Christ that person will have everlasting life.

We all agree to that, yes? Plain and simple!

John 3:16 does not say anything else is required.

That is Puritan.

That is the P in Tulip. So now I have a TIP, only need a U and an L.

Actually John 3:16 is more of a commentary from the author of John, than the words of Jesus himself.

So it will be wrong to conclude that "John 3:16 does not say anything else is required".

The author of John added his own personal commentaries throughout the book, example John 2:22

 

[Receivedgrace]

I have not dishonoured you, you did it to yourself. A person who is impertinent with facts and has no humility is not deserving of honour. This applies to you.

I am ending this dialogue on my part.

I haven't seen any dialog from you.
Lurk and learn.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Actually John 3:16 is more of a commentary from the author of John, than the words of Jesus himself.

So it will be wrong to conclude that "John 3:16 does not say anything else is required".

The author of John added his own personal commentaries throughout the book, example John 2:22

Do you believe the gospel is for all mankind to be received and believed or just for the elect ?

In other words does God just love the elect or all the world including the non elect ?

 

[P1LGR1M]

Actually John 3:16 is more of a commentary from the author of John, than the words of Jesus himself.

It is a quote of Jesus Christ.

Not John's commentary.

So it will be wrong to conclude that "John 3:16 does not say anything else is required".

No, actually it is quite safe to say that Jesus Christ said it, and He only required that men believe in Him.

While we understand there is more to it, such as His being lifted up (dying on the Cross), for example, doesn't change what the Lord states.

To call it "commentary of John" and then try to draw conclusions is pretty amazing.

The author of John added his own personal commentaries throughout the book, example John 2:22

Go back to John 3. Read.


God bless.

 

[Der Alte]

Actually John 3:16 is more of a commentary from the author of John, than the words of Jesus himself.
So it will be wrong to conclude that "John 3:16 does not say anything else is required".
The author of John added his own personal commentaries throughout the book, example John 2:22

Hey, don't stop there make the entire book of John commentary and throw it out.

 

[P1LGR1M]

If Abraham had refused to offer his son, would then the promise remain intact? You say it was irrevocable, but it doesn't sound like that.

Then the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, and said, “By Myself I have sworn, declares the Lord, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.
— Genesis 22:15-17

How do you compare this with David?

Probably better to compare the promises as they are given in both passages:


Genesis 12
King James Version

12 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


The Lord is presenting the Gospel, and the blessing for all families of the Earth is a reference to Christ.


Genesis 15
King James Version

1 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

2 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

4 And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.


Here is another aspect of the promise that speaks of literal descendants and their number.

If Abraham had refused to sacrifice Isaac it would have shown he did not believe God's promise, hence it would not have been given as an example of faith/belief. So it isn't a relevant "hypothetical" question.

So I would say that Abraham's faith didn't change the promise God made. Abraham was just part of that promise, and understood it in physical terms (that he would receive a son from a wife beyond bearing).

The promise is irrevocable because of God, not Abraham:


Hebrews 6:17-19
King James Version

17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;


God bless.

 

[Der Alte]

John 3:16 is the very heart of the Reformation.
The words "believeth in Him should not perish but have eternal life" states that if a person believes in Christ that person will have everlasting life.
We all agree to that, yes? Plain and simple!
John 3:16 does not say anything else is required.
That is Puritan.
That is the P in Tulip. So now I have a TIP, only need a U and an L.

I don't care for Tulips, I prefer roses. John 3:16 is one of a pair of adjacent vss. which conclusively show that the Greek word "Aionios" means "eternal, for ever, everlasting" etc.

John 3:15-16
(15) That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal [aionios] life.
(16) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting [aionios] life.​

Jesus has paralleled "shall not perish" with "aionios life,' twice. "Aionios" by definition means "eternal."
How do I explain the instances where "aionios" refers to something that is not eternal? E.g. "world," Rom 16:25, it is used figuratively. There were actual foxes at the time of Jesus but Herod was not actually a fox when Jesus called him one. A figure of speech. There were actual stones at the time of Jesus but Simon was not literally a stone when Jesus named him "Petros." A figure of speech. There was actual thunder at the time of Jesus but James and John were not literally sons of thunder when Jesus named them that. A figure of speech.

 

[zoidar]

Probably better to compare the promises as they are given in both passages:


Genesis 12
King James Version

12 Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.


The Lord is presenting the Gospel, and the blessing for all families of the Earth is a reference to Christ.


Genesis 15
King James Version

1 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

2 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?

3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

4 And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.

5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.

6 And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.


Here is another aspect of the promise that speaks of literal descendants and their number.

If Abraham had refused to sacrifice Isaac it would have shown he did not believe God's promise, hence it would not have been given as an example of faith/belief. So it isn't a relevant "hypothetical" question.

So I would say that Abraham's faith didn't change the promise God made. Abraham was just part of that promise, and understood it in physical terms (that he would receive a son from a wife beyond bearing).

The promise is irrevocable because of God, not Abraham:


Hebrews 6:17-19
King James Version

17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;


God bless.

If I believe that God promises something doesn't make it certain I will go through with such a hard test as sacrificing my son. Just saying believing a fact is one thing, acting on that fact is another thing.

 

[zoidar]

It is a quote of Jesus Christ.

Not John's commentary.




No, actually it is quite safe to say that Jesus Christ said it, and He only required that men believe in Him.

While we understand there is more to it, such as His being lifted up (dying on the Cross), for example, doesn't change what the Lord states.

To call it "commentary of John" and then try to draw conclusions is pretty amazing.




Go back to John 3. Read.


God bless.

Actually many scholars believe it's a comment of John (John 3:16-21 I believe).

 

[Der Alte]

Actually many scholars believe it's a comment of John.

Believing something and being able to conclusively show it may not be the same thing.