What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Jesus is YHWH]

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.

That sounds similar to molinism philosophy

 

[public hermit]

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

Paul didn't make a mistake. If mistakes are made, it's in how we interpret it. There seems to be a few options on the table.

Predestination can mean God foresees and creates what God foresees. That doesn't tell us much. That's just God being God, knowing all. In short, that just means God created.

Predestined can mean God chooses those who are saved. That's the usual sense of "predestined." It is destined by God. That's pretty cut and dry but easy enough.

If we say predestined means God foresaw human choices and who would choose faith, i.e., those who choose come to faith, then we have problems. What is God predestining? God is not predestining choices, that would bring us back to the usual meaning, i.e., God chooses who chooses. It seems what is being predestined is a particular world, i.e., a world in which those who choose come to faith.

If that's the case, then the question becomes: Does God have many worlds to choose from or just one? If God has many possible worlds to choose from, then God still chooses those who will choose because God could have chosen a world where those who come to faith in this world do not choose faith in that one. If God has only one world to choose from, then God doesn't predestined or elect at all. God simply creates the only possible world, and humans predestined and elect themselves, which God obviously foresaw. In other words, those words, predestined and election, are emptied of meaning. They simply say that God foresaw and created, which means God created.

Edit: I think one could argue that if God has only one world to choose from, then God ultimately predestined who is saved, assuming that God could have not created, which would be an orthodox position for God to be free not to create. But that abrogates human freedom since there is only one way our lives could go. Human freedom needs the possibility of many worlds, as many as there are choices. But then, in that case, God still chooses who chooses.

I think the conclusion is the freewill/God foresaw doctrine of predestination is incoherent if it's goal is to secure human freedom and still believe in predestination and election in any meaningful sense.

 

[AVB 2]

There is nothing "wrong" with Calvinism. As Charles Spurgeon said "Calvinism is just biblical Christianity." Calvinists say that God is sovereign. The Easton's Bible Dictionary defines God's sovereignty as "His absolute right to do all things according to his own good pleasure." Non-Calvinists say that God is sovereign over everything except man's free will. Spurgeon says “Free will makes God’s will a waiting servant to the will of man.” The non-Calvinist says "We have good hearts and we can use that goodness in our hearts to seek for God and find salvation. Really? Let’s see what Jesus said about the human heart and what comes out of it.

Mark 7:21-23 (Jesus is speaking) “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.” The Apostle Paul added to the above list in Galatians 5:19-21 “Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like…” I'm still looking for scripture that claims our hearts are good.

Man is evil (Mark 7:21-23), he loves darkness (John 3:19), is unable to understand spiritual things (1 Cor 2:14) is a slave to sin (Rom 6:14-20), has a heart that is desperately wicked (Jeremiah 17:9) and is completely dead in transgressions and sin (Ephesians 2:1.)

But we have the free will to seek for God, millions of sinners seek God every week! Romans 3:11 “No one is truly wise; no one is seeking God.” See also Psalm 14:1-3 and Psalm 53:1-3. No one is seeking for God! So how do we get saved aif we don't seek for God? Jesus seeks for us! Luke 19:10 “For the Son of Man came to seek and save those who are lost.” God seeks for us, we don’t seek for Him.

 

[RickReads]

Paul didn't make a mistake. If mistakes are made, it's in how we interpret it. There seems to be a few options on the table.

Predestination can mean God foresees and creates what God foresees. That doesn't tell us much. That's just God being God, knowing all. In short, that just means God created.

Predestined can mean God chooses those who are saved. That's the usual sense of "predestined." It is destined by God. That's pretty cut and dry but easy enough.

If we say predestined means God foresaw human choices and who would choose faith, i.e., those who choose come to faith, then we have problems. What is God predestining? God is not predestining choices, that would bring us back to the usual meaning, i.e., God chooses who chooses. It seems what is being predestined is a particular world, i.e., a world in which those who choose come to faith.

If that's the case, then the question becomes: Does God have many worlds to choose from or just one? If God has many possible worlds to choose from, then God still chooses those who will choose because God could have chosen a world where those who come to faith in this world do not choose faith in that one. If God has only one world to choose from, then God doesn't predestined or elect at all. God simply creates the only possible world, and humans predestined and elect themselves, which God obviously foresaw. In other words, those words, predestined and election, are emptied of meaning. They simply say that God foresaw and created, which means God created.

Edit: I think one could argue that if God has only one world to choose from, then God ultimately predestined who is saved, assuming that God could have not created, which would be an orthodox position for God to be free not to create. But that abrogates human freedom since there is only one way our lives could go. Human freedom needs the possibility of many worlds, as many as there are choices. But then, in that case, God still chooses who chooses.

I think the conclusion is the freewill/God foresaw doctrine of predestination is incoherent if it's goal is to secure human freedom and still believe in predestination and election in any meaningful sense.

I said you correct not I correct. My comment about Paul's gospel was satirical.

 

[public hermit]

I said you correct not I correct. My comment about Paul's gospel was satirical.

Mea culpa. I miss proper cues all the time.

 

[RickReads]

Mea culpa. I miss proper cues all the time.

The information given for predestination is incomplete but we are expected to trust that God is holy and just.

 

[TedT]

God’s omniscience is foreknowledge, to perfectly “foreknow” in advance, before hand.

This definition implies that 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.

The old pagan definition of omniscience that we inherited from the pagan Greeks (by idolatry of all thing Greek) that GOD must know all that can be known from eternity past to eternity future, while it seems so perfectly glorious, it contradicts HIS stated view about people in hell* which should have forced a re-evaluation long before now. IF HE knew before their creation who would end in hell all HE had to do to remedy this contravention of HIS desires would have been to not create them in the first place!
*Ezekiel 33:11 Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked... and
1 Timothy 2:4...who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

May I suggest that a prayerful study of
Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. might prove useful as a starting point for this necessary re-evaluation? This verse limits HIS omniscience to 'all HIS works' and it started at 'the beginning of the world.'[/B] All HIS works describes HIS creative decrees.

Therefore if HE did not decree into creation something, HE did not know it...and I suggest HE did not decree the results of our true free will decisions so HE did not know what those results would be until we decided them for ourselves. When HE created us with a free will, HE did NOT create the results of our free will decisions but let us create them and bring them into reality and into HIS consciousness.

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.

Sorry if I misled...I was not saying that the words meant the same thing but that His knowing certain people and not others defined more tightly what He knew by His omniscience, in some but not all cases.

 

[TedT]

Yeah. It is called free will.

A red herring: free will is not impinged by HIS will about the lack of creation of others.

Our free will is not damaged by HIS not creating those HE foreknew would end in hell, a simple and elegant solution to fulfill HIS desire for an empty hell. It is the definition of omniscience that impedes the understanding of the fulfillment of HIS desire, not that our free will is the cause of sin and hell...

 

[TedT]

Spurgeon says “Free will makes God’s will a waiting servant to the will of man.”

If GOD created us with a free will and desired us to make free will choices and decisions, even if against HIS will, then how can this derogatory statement be true?

It implies that our free will is contrary to HIS will so it is outside of HIS sovereign will but this is not true if by HIS sovereign will HE created us to make free will decisions not controlled, coerced or forced by HIM at all. Does the doctrine of sovereignty make it impossible for HIM to choose to do this? I don't think so...

 

[TedT]

The information given for predestination is incomplete but we are expected to trust that God is holy and just.

IF GOD predestined our fates IN ACCORD with our free will decisions about our own fates, then predestination is not causative of our fate (because our own choice was the only cause) but predictive of our self chosen fate. You will be in heaven as My bride is not caused by our being predestined to this event since it is caused only by our free will decision to put our faith in HIM as GOD and a good husband for us.

Election, ie, being chosen, refers to HIS promise to any who put their faith in HIM they would end in heaven as HIS bride. Predestination refers to the certainty of the fulfillment of HIS promise of election, not the cause.

To elect / choose someone to whatever is to predestine them to that whatever...

 

[RickReads]

IF GOD predestined our fates IN ACCORD with our free will decisions about our own fates, then predestination is not causative of our fate (because our own choice was the only cause) but predictive of our self chosen fate. You will be in heaven as My bride is not caused by our being predestined to this event since it is caused only by our free will decision to put our faith in HIM as GOD and a good husband for us.

Election, ie, being chosen, refers to HIS promise to any who put their faith in HIM they would end in heaven as HIS bride. Predestination refers to the certainty of the fulfillment of HIS promise of election, not the cause.

To elect / choose someone to whatever is to predestine them to that whatever...

I disagree.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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.

I don't care really. I just read the Bible and believe what it says.

 

[Clare73]

Love is one of the primary and essential attributes which reflect the nature and character of God. The word Theology refers to the study of God, and God is Triune, a Trinity- Tri-Unity. All doctrine begins with God at its starting point. God’s innate attributes are Aseity (God is self-sufficient), Infinite (without limit), Eternal (God has no beginning or end, he is timeless), Immutable (God is unchanging), Love (God is love), Holy (God is set-apart), Perichoresis (the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Divine Simplicity states God is Love and because He is Love, not because He possesses that quality. God's love is the center of all the Divine Attributes. They point to His Being. God is not distinct from His nature.

God is Love. In love, the Father sent the Son on our behalf to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. We Love because He first loved us and sent His Son as 1 John 4 tells us.

We must understand how God's attributes all work in harmony together, not in opposition to each other. God's attributes and character flow from His love—for God is love.

God being love has nothing to do with His creation. That is secondary. God is love, and that love is perfect, lacking nothing within His Triune nature as God. Love, by definition, has to be expressed with another, which is why a unitarian god cannot be love. Love requires another to share and express that love, and it is what we see with the Triune God. God is love before anyone/anything existed.

In the monumental work of Calvin’s Institutes , it is interesting for a man with such an attention to detail when it comes to dogma and Scripture that he left out any mention of Gods primary attribute that God is love (1 John 4:8;16) and any biblical reference to those two verses in 1 John regarding God is love. His institutes contain thousands of bible references and over 1500 pages in his Institutes.

Have you read the Institutes? Until you do, how are you in a position to comment on or critique them?

Red herring. . .

Were his Institutes a Bible Commentary?
Is that the only thing in the Bible he left out of the Institutes?
Did he leave out 1 John 4:8, 16 in his Commentary on the Bible?

Another interesting fact is that in the Shorter Westminster Catechism of Faith, question 4 “What is God “? We read the following regarding Gods attributes and notice what is left out.

“God is Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. “

So goodness excludes love?

Notice like in Calvin’s Institute’s, the WCF leaves out Gods primary attribute that He is love.

Before creation, there was no sin. There was no judgment, wrath, mercy, grace, and justice. There was no Sovereignty for there was no creation to be Sovereign over. Why do you ask about those attributes and that they were not necessary? Because
those are God's secondary attributes concerning the creation and the fall.

Who made that rule? . . .man or God?
God does not have parts, primary and secondary.

God's love is a primary attribute, like Holy is a primary one. Everything about God flows from His being Love which includes His secondary attributes, which were not in use until the creation and the fall.

The true nature of Gods love is at the heart of the gospel message: God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in His shall not perish but have everlasting life, John 3:16.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3:17

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'd argue the central error of Calvinism is that it asserts human reason over the word of God by forcing Scripture to conform to itself, rather than conform itself to Scripture.

TULIP is a very reasonable set of propositions that very neatly and logically fall in place. The problem is that much of TULIP is just unbiblical--as is also the case of the Five Articles of Remonstrance, which TULIP sought to rebuke.

Scripture absolutely teaches the predestination of the elect (not merely the foreknowledge of the elect; but it does not teach that God has decided that some will be saved and others will be not be saved. Rather Scripture is explicitly clear that God desire and will the salvation of all, and that Christ died for all. Not merely dying for all in potential as the Arminians falsely teach, nor only for the elect as the Calvinists falsely teach, but for everyone. EVERYONE. Yes, Jesus died even for those who will, in the end, choose the darkest corner of hell rather than be healed and find joyous life in the light of God. The worst, the most despicable, the most atrocious and blasphemous person that could be conceived: That one also was with Christ on Calvary, for Christ died the death of ALL MEN.

So the problem with TULIP is that, just like the Articles of Remonstrance the Gospel takes a back seat to human reason.

The Gospel isn't reasonable, it is absolutely absurd. God, who cannot die, died. God, who cannot suffer, suffered. God became man. He who knows all things also grew in wisdom before men and God. He who decorated the trees with leaves and flowers hung upon the tree. Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, buried, descended into hell, and on the third day rose again. Our faith is ridiculous. Glory be to God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NotreDame]

Paul didn't make a mistake. If mistakes are made, it's in how we interpret it. There seems to be a few options on the table.

Predestination can mean God foresees and creates what God foresees. That doesn't tell us much. That's just God being God, knowing all. In short, that just means God created.

Predestined can mean God chooses those who are saved. That's the usual sense of "predestined." It is destined by God. That's pretty cut and dry but easy enough.

If we say predestined means God foresaw human choices and who would choose faith, i.e., those who choose come to faith, then we have problems. What is God predestining? God is not predestining choices, that would bring us back to the usual meaning, i.e., God chooses who chooses. It seems what is being predestined is a particular world, i.e., a world in which those who choose come to faith.

If that's the case, then the question becomes: Does God have many worlds to choose from or just one? If God has many possible worlds to choose from, then God still chooses those who will choose because God could have chosen a world where those who come to faith in this world do not choose faith in that one. If God has only one world to choose from, then God doesn't predestined or elect at all. God simply creates the only possible world, and humans predestined and elect themselves, which God obviously foresaw. In other words, those words, predestined and election, are emptied of meaning. They simply say that God foresaw and created, which means God created.

I think the conclusion is the freewill/God foresaw doctrine of predestination is incoherent if it's goal is to secure human freedom and still believe in predestination and election in any meaningful sense.

It is not sufficient to believe it and then write it. You’ve made no factual demonstration of why exactly free will, foreknowledge, elect and predestination as represented Biblically, are incompatible and/or cannot coexist. Neither have you presented a reasoned argument for such a view, or any combination of a reasoned argument with facts for your claim.

First, the word “elect” in the OT and NT means “to choose: chosen; selected.”

How exactly this meaning is incompatible with free will is a mystery, a mystery you’ve not bothered to unravel.

God perfectly foreknew A.) the decisions and behaviors people, by exercising free will, would make in this creation B.) the decisions and responses people would freely make in relation to His involvement and intervention into human affairs C) foreknowledge of who would freely choose to believe Jesus is the Son of God who C1) freely choose to believe Jesus died for sins while He never sinned C2)
freely choose to believe Jesus was resurrected F) of the sea of humanity there are a group of people who so believe C1-C2, believers, and they are G) chosen, elected by God, to justified by their belief in Jesus and have everlasting life and H) this plan of salvation and eternal life is for the group of people who freely chose to so believe and was the plan from the beginning, where he “predestined” a group of people, those who freely chose to believe, for salvation and eternal life.

Now, why exactly the above is incompatible with free will, where free will is a person is free to perform an action, free to not perform an action, there doesn’t exist any causal laws, any external causes, no antecedent conditions that make the person act or make the person not to act, isn’t obvious.

To the contrary, the above shows free will, foreknowledge, and predestination are compatible.

What is important is God chose to intervene in human affairs and intervene in such a way that permitted a specific kind of elected people, a specific kind of “chosen” people. It was God’s specific acts of intervening in human affairs that permitted an “elected” people.

The fact people freely choose to be receptive to God’s acts of intervention, and he perfectly foreknew they/who would freely choose to believe, doesn’t diminish the fundamental necessity it is and was God’s intervention they are freely choosing to respond to, and absent that intervention by God, then there isn’t an “elected” people by these means, despite the people having free will. God chose His means of intervening in human affairs and rendered His intervening acts as resulting in an “elected” people based on their faith in Him and what He did. This plan of salvation and eternal life for those who believe (his elect, his chosen, are those who have faith and believe) existed from the beginning and before the beginning, this is the “predestined” aspect. From the beginning, before perhaps the beginning of earth, this plan of salvation and eternal life for believers means God chose, decided, from the beginning that those who have faith and believe in what He did shall be saved, justified, and receive eternal life.

There isn’t any incoherence between perfect foreknowledge, free will, the elect, and predestined.

Edit: I think one could argue that if God has only one world to choose from, then God ultimately predestined who is saved, assuming that God could have not created, which would be an orthodox position for God to be free not to create. But that abrogates human freedom since there is only one way our lives could go. Human freedom needs the possibility of many worlds, as many as there are choices. But then, in that case, God still chooses who chooses.

No, there isn’t any Biblical verse that supports your claim “God still chooses who chooses” where this phrase means the person is choosing because God caused them to choose. There’s no verse demonstrating God caused, coerced, forced, or strongly actualized any person to choose or do anything.

And human freedom does not depend on “the possibility of many worlds.” Human freedom, in the context of making choices/behaviors, is the person has the power to choose/act, the power not to choose/not to act, and there isn’t any antecedent conditions that cause a decision/action or lack of either. (See earlier meaning above.)

Predestination can mean God foresees and creates what God foresees.

It can? And your source for this meaning of predestination is what? Because, an exhaustive search of the meaning of “predestination” doesn’t lend any support to what you’ve said above.

It seems what is being predestined is a particular world, i.e., a world in which those who choose come to faith.

At best all you’ve established is God “predestined” a “world in which those who choose come to faith” by their own free will. The fact God “predestined” this particular world, i.e. He had a plan and purpose in creating this world and a plan and purpose for humanity, isn’t and doesn’t prohibit free will of the people, especially since the plan and purpose can include free will.

 

[RickReads]

I'd argue the central error of Calvinism is that it asserts human reason over the word of God by forcing Scripture to conform to itself, rather than conform itself to Scripture.

TULIP is a very reasonable set of propositions that very neatly and logically fall in place. The problem is that much of TULIP is just unbiblical--as is also the case of the Five Articles of Remonstrance, which TULIP sought to rebuke.

Scripture absolutely teaches the predestination of the elect (not merely the foreknowledge of the elect; but it does not teach that God has decided that some will be saved and others will be not be saved. Rather Scripture is explicitly clear that God desire and will the salvation of all, and that Christ died for all. Not merely dying for all in potential as the Arminians falsely teach, nor only for the elect as the Calvinists falsely teach, but for everyone. EVERYONE. Yes, Jesus died even for those who will, in the end, choose the darkest corner of hell rather than be healed and find joyous life in the light of God. The worst, the most despicable, the most atrocious and blasphemous person that could be conceived: That one also was with Christ on Calvary, for Christ died the death of ALL MEN.

So the problem with TULIP is that, just like the Articles of Remonstrance the Gospel takes a back seat to human reason.

The Gospel isn't reasonable, it is absolutely absurd. God, who cannot die, died. God, who cannot suffer, suffered. God became man. He who knows all things also grew in wisdom before men and God. He who decorated the trees with leaves and flowers hung upon the tree. Jesus Christ suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, buried, descended into hell, and on the third day rose again. Our faith is ridiculous. Glory be to God.

-CryptoLutheran

Can you explain what dying for all in potential means? I'm an Arminian and I have never heard of this.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I don't care really. I just read the Bible and believe what it says.

The OP is pretty clear that love is an oxymoron in calvins threology.

In Calvins most monumental/theological work the Institutes he conveniently and intentionally left out God is love and the 1 John references when in his appendix there are over 40 pages of scripture references and 1000's of bible references quoted in his work. That is the point and the same with question 4 in the Westminster shorter Catechism the Attribute that God is love was left out. It is a stumbling block on Calvinist theology. Double Predestination is an assault on Gods nature/character being Love. Since man has no choice in his salvation according to Calvinism and Gods grace is irresistible and those who will be saved were elect before creation then God by default cannot be love or loving since He has created most of mankind for hell. That is not a benevolent or kind and loving action.

Love defined.

agapé: love, goodwill
Original Word: ἀγάπη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: agapé
Phonetic Spelling: (ag-ah'-pay)
Definition: love, goodwill
Usage: love, benevolence, good will, esteem;

Benevolence- doing good to others, goodwill, kind, helpful.

 

[Clare73]

The OP is pretty clear that love is an oxymoron in calvins threology.

As God's love was an oxymoron in the case of Esau in Romans 9:11-13:

"Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand. . .by him who calls. . .as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

So God's love was an oxymoron to Esau?

So Calvin is in good company?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

As God's love was an oxymoron in the case of Esau in Romans 9:11-13:

"Before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand. . .by him who calls. . .as it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

So God's love was an oxymoron to Esau?

So Calvin is in good company?

Why would you emphasize Gods hate over love ?

I know why, because you are a calvinist. That is the only group in Christendom who deemphasizes Gods love and emphasizes God hate.

You are just proving my point so thanks for that.

 

[Clare73]

Why would you emphasize Gods hate over love ?

Non-responsive to the word of God presented in Romans 9:11-13.

The born-again are not free to ignore any Scripture.