What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[RickReads]

Yeah, God "chose to elect" those God foresaw would have faith. That's not predestination or election in any usual sense of the word. That's just God creating what God foresaw would be. You're basically saying God elected to create. Using the words "predestination" or "election" adds nothing new to the simple fact God chose to create this world and not some other. In other words, those two words are emptied of any meaning. Trust me, I'm not trying to defend Calvin, but your position has some issues.

That gospel is a lot like Ripleys believe it or not.

 

[RickReads]

@public hermit

It would be fun to watch you guys correct Paul's mistakes.

 

[public hermit]

@public hermit

It would be fun to watch you guys correct Paul's mistakes.

What mistakes would those be?

 

[Der Alte]

What mistakes would those be?

I'm sure the anti-Paulists have a lengthy laundry list.

 

[RickReads]

I'm sure the anti-Paulists have a lengthy laundry list.

Uh huh........and speaking of Predestination.

 

[NotreDame]

AGREED!

...but this does not reconcile with the enslavement of sinners to evil, their free will suppressed by sin, and that salvation is NOT by their will but by the grace of GOD, ie by HIS will.

When did they get to choose their fate by choosing Christ? If it was after they became sinners than why is that grace not given to all sinners since they are all equally sinful in HIS sight??? And if it was before they chose to be sinful, when was that? Before the foundation of the world obviously...in fact, not just in HIS imagination.

Who said anything about “imagination”?

 

[NotreDame]

Are you saying they predestined themselves?



They elected themselves?

It sounds like predestination and election mean neither predestined nor election. They simply mean we choose our own fate and that's the end of it. God isn't doing any predestining or electing; God is simply going along. I think that approach absolves God of most responsibility, sans creating everything, but it seems to empty those words of their meaning.

What specifically are you questioning?

I think that approach absolves God of most responsibility, sans creating everything, but it seems to empty those words of their meaning.

“My” approach does no such thing, achieves no such result, leads to no such deduction. You likely need to focus more carefully upon what I said and the logical implications of what I said.

In “my” approach, God is very involved and “responsible” for eternal life and salvation. How you deduced otherwise is inexplicable based on my wording.

 

[NotreDame]

Yeah, God "chose to elect" those God foresaw would have faith. That's not predestination or election in any usual sense of the word. That's just God creating what God foresaw would be. You're basically saying God elected to create. Using the words "predestination" or "election" adds nothing new to the simple fact God chose to create this world and not some other. In other words, those two words are emptied of any meaning. Trust me, I'm not trying to defend Calvin, but your position has some issues.

No, you’re saying “God elected to create.”

Myself and the other poster are taking the words of “election” and “predestined” and explain exactly how the operate where they appear in Scripture.

You are not following the logic of my position or that is the other poster.

 

[NotreDame]

An essay:
Romans 8:29 For whom HE did foreknow, HE also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son.
From this verse we can see that the predestination of the elect is based on the foreknowledge of GOD.

Now everyone admits that in this verse, the word “fore” means before life. Therefore, they think that it also means before creation as if our earthly life was the same as our created spirit life. I wonder if this is a valid and reasonable link to make?

GOD obviously does not before life know everybody since not everyone will become like Jesus, as Rom 8:29 just said predestination means and as per Matthew 7:21 – 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’ which tells us what knowing means, emphasising the idea that loving is knowing and knowing about has no love.

James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.
Jesus obviously knew about the demons and knew about the miracle workers but this knowing contained no love as it is plain, He never knew them.

This means that foreknow must carry the idea of approval. As one commentator stated it, “Whom HE foreknew” is virtually equivalent to “whom HE foreloved”.

Now this question comes to mind: if it is true that no one had been created at the time of this foreknowledge, on what basis does GOD "before life" love some and not the rest?

cntd

Hmmmm….the “foreknew” is referring to God’s omniscience, that he perfectly knew in advance who would choose Him and His son. The literal Greek is “to know before hand…” The Romans verse is speaking to God’s omniscience, his knowing, perfectly knowing, in advance, “before hand.”

Your verse of Jesus saying “I never ‘knew’ you” is an entirely different Greek word from foreknow, the two separate words having different meanings. You are commuting a false equivalence of the two words.

God’s omniscience is foreknowledge, to perfectly “foreknow” in advance, before hand. God foreknew Adam and Eve would sin. God foreknew Saul would persecute His followers. God foreknew Saul would freely choose to convert in response to God’s intervention. God’s omniscience means he foreknew ALL of it before it was ever created.

 

[NotreDame]

Did God create first and then foresee?

No. God is omniscient. His omniscience is present before creation.

Yet his omniscience and his perfect foreknowledge does not force or coerce people to act or decide in some specific manner. Rather, God has omniscience, perfect foreknowledge, of what people will freely choose to do and freely choose to behave.

 

[NotreDame]

Then HE also foresaw who would not have faith but created them anyway just to end in hell ??? when HE takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked and wants no one to die but all to repent???

Yeah. It is called free will.

God couldn’t create a state of affairs where all people freely chose not to sin where they are given the freedom, the free will, to decide whether to sin or not to sin. Hence, the moral responsibility is upon the free will actor choosing to habitually sin or choosing to be saved.

 

[NotreDame]

Then what I said holds. God simply created the world God chose. Election and predestination have no meaning except God created. It's not like God foresaw and then created, or God created and then foresaw. God just created what God wanted to create. If anything, those who come to faith elected and predestined themselves by choosing. If God foresaw that, it is only because God decided which world to create. But God is not doing anything but creating the world God chose to create. Your position empties those words of meaning, which is fine if that's what you believe.

Your conclusion of “Your position empties those words of meaning” is a nonsequitur, and doesn’t follow. In large part because of your Strawman argument of “But God is not doing anything but creating the world God chose to create.”

The other poster’s comments and my argument has God surely doing more than mere “creating.” You might want to reread what has been said.

 

[NotreDame]

I agree, I think the problem is intractable. There is a mystery side to all this that we can't know, i.e. God's side. But the idea that God elects and predestined what God foresaw as free choices is simply God choosing this world and not another. Or, if this world was the only possibility, then human free choice does all the electing and predestining, short of God not creating a world at all.

But the idea that God elects and predestined what God foresaw as free choices is simply God choosing this world and not another.

No, it took a lot of Godly intervention for the “election” to occur. The entire Bible is inundated with the intervention God undertook so that by His actions there can be an “election” to exist based on the certain free choices of the created, including the birth, brutal beating, death, and resurrection of His only Son, Jesus.

You have really just Strawman’d the point of view.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

No he means tulip is the gospel

Because you have repeated exactly what you have already said, it is obvious that you are not going to accept anything else, so no further response about that from me.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Does the presence of the smoke alarm mitigate the fact that the father has put us into a fire trap, not a paradise? Would the gospel be needed if He did not cause us to be born into Adam's sinfulness?

You know the answer to that already, so you don't need mine.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

HIS sovereignty does not mean that He does not need to answer to HIMself, HIS own moral nature.

HIS sovereignty serves HIS moral nature; it does not produce or cause it. HIS sovereignty does not allow HIM to do evil...

Too deep for me!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I believe he was an honest man honestly trying to resolve the unresolvable except by accepting the doublethink necessary to ignore that election to salvation in fact DOES mean the non-elect are passed over for election to salvation so are in essence elected to reprobation.

Accepting three scripturally defendable premises:
1. we existed before the foundation of the physical universe, world and
2. we made a free will decision to accept or reject GOD's claims to be our GOD and that salvation from all sin was only found in the Son and
3. our free will responses to GOD's call to have faith (an unproven hope) in HIM was the basis, the reason, by which HE chose who to elect to salvation (if they should ever sin) and who to pass over for salvation as eternally unable to ever be holy, ie, those who sinned the unforgivable sin of rebuking HIM as a liar and a false god driven by a psychotic megalomania.

solves the irreconcilable easily. Every person created in HIS image chose their own FATE by their own free will and then those who chose to be sinners, either by that original choice or by a later rebellion to HIS commands, were given predertmined LIVES, predetermined and predestined to be the best possible life each sinful elect could have to bring them to redemption and holy sanctification, heaven ready to be HIS Bride.

Charles Spurgeon saw his role as preaching Jesus in order to get souls saved and confirmed in their faith in Christ. He never purported to be a theologian. He left the deeper and more complicated components of theology to the doctors of theology.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Spurgeon defines the gospel as the "doctrines of grace " or TULIP. That is not the gospel.

Paul defines the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-8.

There is no unconditional election, limited atonement or irresistible grace in the passage. So Spurgeon is actually adding to the gospel which Paul condemns in Galatians 1

hope this helps !!!

This is the second time you have repeated yourself concerning Spurgeon believing in TULIP.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Is not the heavenly state the culmination of all life? Is not the heavenly state characterized as the marriage of Christ and HIS Church: Revelation 19:6-7 “Alleluia! For the Lord God Omnipotent reigns! Let us be glad and rejoice and give Him glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and His wife has made herself ready” Is not the sexual union of married people symbolic of the spiritual unity with GOD of those married to GOD?

I think you misunderstood my position brother. The context that I was replying to was that God had chosen to make this version of the world as opposed to a different version of this world and that’s what I was referring to. We can only speculate as to why God chose to make this particular version of this world. Personally I don’t think there were different versions of the world that were even considered because I can’t imagine God sitting there thinking to Himself “Hmmm….how should I make this world? Should I do this? No that’s not a good idea. Maybe I should do this. No, I think this will be a better idea.” I just don’t see God contemplating the best outcome, He would automatically know exactly how He wants to make it which in my opinion would’ve nullified the entire idea of different versions of the world if He only had one version in mind from the very beginning.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Because you have repeated exactly what you have already said, it is obvious that you are not going to accept anything else, so no further response about that from me.

I don't need to accept anything from you since I have taught calvinism for over 4 decades. I know the dogma very well oscar.