What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

"as in Adam all die," means in the same way, by sinning.

All die because they are descendants of Adam, which is why new-born babies die without "sinning."

 

[misput]

However, in Paul's usage it refers to the unregenerate (fallen) nature.

No, Adam is not "every" man. Adam is the "first" MAN (Adam). (1 Corinthians 15:21-23; 1 Corinthians 15:45-49; Romans 5:14)

Everyone else is a descendant of Adam.

So you are saying Paul is saying every man except Adam is a sinner before they are drawn away by their own lust?

 

[roman2819]

(From formerly known as Oscarr): If God had made Judas betray Jesus, he would plead duress at the judgment and he would have had to be acquitted. No. Judas chose of his own free will to betray Jesus, and he will be judged on that choice. Because he had a track record of making sinful choices, he allowed Satan to enter his heart which led to the tragic outcome.

Let's see the Judas issue from another perspective: If Jesus did not choose Judas to be disciple, does it mean Judas would not betray the Lord? Does not being one of twelve means Judas would not betray?

I am certain He would still gave Jesus up to the romans , whether out of greed or to force Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans (Judas was a zealot). But never because God caused him to do so. It really wasn't difficult to betray Jesus, anyone could have spied on His' location and told the romans. -- no need to be a disciple to do this.

So why did Jesus choose Judas? One reason is unconditional love -- Jesus would reach out to his betrayer to try to change his mind, even if He knew ahead it would not work. Another reason is to manage the timing of the betrayal (the day of the last supper).

 

[roman2819]

All die because they are descendants of Adam, which is why new-born babies die without "sinning."

New-born babies die because of Adam? Crazy.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

Let's see the Judas issue from another perspective: If Jesus did not choose Judas to be disciple, does it mean Judas would not betray the Lord? Does not being one of twelve means Judas would not betray?

I am certain He would still gave Jesus up to the romans , whether out of greed or to force Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans (Judas was a zealot). But never because God caused him to do so. It really wasn't difficult to betray Jesus, anyone could have spied on His' location and told the romans. -- no need to be a disciple to do this.

So why did Jesus choose Judas? One reason is unconditional love -- Jesus would reach out to his betrayer to try to change his mind, even if He knew ahead it would not work. Another reason is to manage the timing of the betrayal (the day of the last supper).

It had to be one of His disciples(Apostles)
Mark 14:18-20
As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me—one who is eating with Me.” They began to be grieved and to say to Him one by one, “Surely not I?” And He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl.

Matthew 20:17-19
As Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and on the way He said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and will hand Him over to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised up.”

Mark 10:33-34
saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.”

Luke 22:21

But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table.

 

[misput]

Did James not get the memo that all men are lost before they are drawn away by their own lust?
Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

Let's see the Judas issue from another perspective: If Jesus did not choose Judas to be disciple, does it mean Judas would not betray the Lord? Does not being one of twelve means Judas would not betray?

I am certain He would still gave Jesus up to the romans , whether out of greed or to force Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans (Judas was a zealot). But never because God caused him to do so. It really wasn't difficult to betray Jesus, anyone could have spied on His' location and told the romans. -- no need to be a disciple to do this.

So why did Jesus choose Judas? One reason is unconditional love -- Jesus would reach out to his betrayer to try to change his mind, even if He knew ahead it would not work. Another reason is to manage the timing of the betrayal (the day of the last supper).

It had to be one of His disciples:

Mark 14:18-20 As they were reclining at the table and eating, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you that one of you will betray Me—one who is eating with Me.” They began to be grieved and to say to Him one by one, “Surely not I?” And He said to them, “It is one of the twelve, one who dips with Me in the bowl.

Matthew 20:17-19 As Jesus was about to go up to Jerusalem, He took the twelve disciples aside by themselves, and on the way He said to them, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death, and will hand Him over to the Gentiles to mock and scourge and crucify Him, and on the third day He will be raised up.”

Mark 10:33-34 saying, “Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.”

Luke 22:21 But behold, the hand of the one betraying Me is with Mine on the table.

 

[Clare73]

So you are saying Paul is saying every man except Adam is a sinner

Was Adam a sinner before he disobeyed God?
Every other man is a sinner before he disobeys God.

Man is not a sinner because he disobeys God.
Man disobeys God because he is a (born) sinner.

before they are drawn away by their own lust?

Paul is addressing the church, not Adam, and is talking about the descendants of Adam, not the man God created as an adult, without a fallen nature, and who did not inherit his fallen nature as everyone else in the human race does, from him.

 

[Clare73]

Let's see the Judas issue from another perspective: If Jesus did not choose Judas to be disciple, does it mean Judas would not betray the Lord? Does not being one of twelve means Judas would not betray?
I am certain He would still gave Jesus up to the romans , whether out of greed or to force Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans (Judas was a zealot).
But never because God caused him to do so.

God didn't have to cause Judas to do so, all God had to do was lift his restraining hand on Satan and Satan would do the rest.

It really wasn't difficult to betray Jesus, anyone could have spied on His' location and told the romans. -- no need to be a disciple to do this.

So why did Jesus choose Judas? One reason is unconditional love --
Jesus would reach out to his betrayer to try to change his mind,

However, that is speculation. . .nowhere found in the text.

Jesus said, "The Son of Man came. . .to give his life as a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28). . .
Would he have tried to frustrate that plan by getting Judas to change his mind?
According to the text, betrayal never came up among them until the Supper, and which text does not report an attempt to change Judas' mind, but just the opposite, "What you are about to do, do quickly." (John 13:26-28)

even if He knew ahead it would not work. Another reason is
to manage the timing of the betrayal (the day of the last supper).

Jesus had been in Jerusalem since Sunday teaching in the temple courts every day.
Only when Satan entered Judas during that time did Judas go to the chief priests and the officers of the temple guard to offer to betray Jesus (Luke 22:1-6).
From that point forward, Satan drove the plan.
And from first to last, it was all by God's design (Genesis 3:15; Acts 4:28, Acts 2:23).

Agreed?

 

[Clare73]

New-born babies die because of Adam? Crazy.

What does the NT teach is the reason all mankind dies?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Let's see the Judas issue from another perspective: If Jesus did not choose Judas to be disciple, does it mean Judas would not betray the Lord? Does not being one of twelve means Judas would not betray?

I am certain He would still gave Jesus up to the romans , whether out of greed or to force Jesus to lead a revolt against the Romans (Judas was a zealot). But never because God caused him to do so. It really wasn't difficult to betray Jesus, anyone could have spied on His' location and told the romans. -- no need to be a disciple to do this.

So why did Jesus choose Judas? One reason is unconditional love -- Jesus would reach out to his betrayer to try to change his mind, even if He knew ahead it would not work. Another reason is to manage the timing of the betrayal (the day of the last supper).

It shows the mystery of personal choice vs the plan of God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually the doctrine of predestination as taught by Calvin has nothing whatsoever to do with mans choice, decision or will but Gods alone.

Does he not deal with the fallen nature, sinful flesh? There you have it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Oh I agree , Calvin disagreed .

I would like to see where Calvin disagreed. But Calvin is not Calvinism, anyway.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Actually the doctrine of predestination as taught by Calvin has nothing whatsoever to do with mans choice, decision or will but Gods alone.

In the NT, all have a choice to believe or not to believe.
No one is forced to believe against his will.

Reminds me of John MacArthur referring to the attitude of some Anti-Calvinists regarding the sovereign right of the individual, in the question of God changing the will apart from the individual's prior consent to that regeneration: "He (God) can't do that! (pause for effect) We are Americans!"

 

[Fervent]

The biggest issue I see with Calvinism is that it is decidedly gnostic and ultimately leads to a form of docetism in declaring that men are born sinners and Jesus did not fully take on what men are born as since he was not born a sinner. Calvinistic doctrine is either completely inconsistent or outright heretical, depending on how the individual understands it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The flim flam of exegesis is that for anyone to get the meaning of a verse from the verse without any input from their own mindset and unfiltered by existing ideas is on the order of Paul's conversion as a bright light and hearing GOD's voice.
Every interpretation of a verse is eisegesis, the fitting of the verse into previously accepted definitions.

Granted. Not just admitted, as in fact I have always said things to that effect. HOWEVER, there is much to be learned by the attempt to go farther into the text than a first read. Some have even by exegesis been convinced of a contrary viewpoint they had previously disdained.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

Back in the historical mists of this thread, I posted my explanation of what Olson taught. He believed that the future is unknowable because it doesn't exist yet, therefore God knows everything knowable, except the future. He also taught that God does not exist with a simultaneous past present and future, because eternity is an endless series of events, one following another, therefore if God did not go from one event to another, He wouldn't be able to exist. Some people believe that the only reality is "now", but if I take a photo of "now", by the time I take the photo and look at it, the photo is no longer "now" but "then" and therefore past history because I have moved on from it to a further series of events. In actual fact, life is an endless series of choices until we reach the end of our lives. Time for us is the measurement of it based on the rotation of the earth and the orbit of the earth around the sun. Eternity is the endless series of events that are not measured, because there is no basis for measurement. In fact we won't have to measure it because there will be no limits. We measure time here because it has a beginning, a middle, and an end, and so we don't want to waste what time we have in our lives. We measure our experience by how many years we have done something. We know time is running out as we get to old age and know that we don't have many years left. But in eternity measurement is not an issue, and so our time in heaven will be one joyful event after another for ever. This is one of the foundations of Open Theist teaching. In fact, there are many Bible references that support it, and that is why it is a very convincing theological opinion.

After seeing the beginning of this post it told me there was no use reading the whole post because if this is the mindset of anyone that agrees with Olson they must first repent and believe the gospel because the bible would call his comments heresy, and I must agree with the word of God. I also did read the rest, and I would include those who believe in the Open Theist teaching, which I have never heard of before reading this post, and see why after reading this clip from an internet search if it is true and it seems to state what Olson taught, of whom I also never heard of and see why: Open theism: is the thesis that, because God loves us and desires that we freely choose to reciprocate His love, He has made His knowledge of, and plans for, the future conditional upon our actions. Though omniscient, God does not know what we will freely do in the future. Though omnipotent, He has chosen to invite us to freely collaborate with Him in governing and developing His creation, thereby also allowing us the freedom to thwart His hopes for us. God desires that each of us freely enter into a loving and dynamic personal relationship with Him, and He has therefore left it open to us to choose for or against His will.

While Open Theists affirm that God knows all the truths that can be known, they claim that there simply are not yet truths about what will occur in the “open,” undetermined future. Alternatively, there are such contingent truths, but these truths cannot be known by anyone, including God. Not that it means anything to anyone other than myself, I would also call this heresy and would not include it in the arena of being called a Christian assembly. But, every tub sets on its own bottom.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

The idea that HIS omniscience is from eternity to eternity is a pagan Greek philosophical idea that crept into the Church and supported the blasphemy that GOD knew who would go to perdition before HE created them but created them anyway.

Much better is the Biblical definition:
Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
This limits HIS omniscience to 'all HIS works' and it started at 'the beginning of the world.' All HIS works describe HIS creative decrees. Every reference to HIS full knowledge uses only the physical universe to define the lack of limits...

Therefore if HE did not decree into creation something, HE did not know it...and I contend it is most probable that 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.

But that admits to the heresy, that God is not omniscient, and not omnipotent, and to the philosophical claim that he is not First Cause.

Sorry, but if he is not all those things, he is not God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The biggest issue I see with Calvinism is that it is decidedly gnostic and ultimately leads to a form of docetism in declaring that men are born sinners and Jesus did not fully take on what men are born as since he was not born a sinner. Calvinistic doctrine is either completely inconsistent or outright heretical, depending on how the individual understands it.

HOW in the world do you get that? It is not gnostic, and it does not logically, nor practically, lead to docetism; nor does Calvinistic doctrine, (or any doctrine), inconsistent or heretical depending on how the individual understands it. It either is, or is not, inconsistent or heretical, regardless of how it is understood. A thing is true, or is false, without reference to anyone's opinion.

 

[Fervent]

HOW in the world do you get that? It is not gnostic, and it does not logically, nor practically, lead to docetism; nor does Calvinistic doctrine, (or any doctrine), inconsistent or heretical depending on how the individual understands it. It either is, or is not, inconsistent or heretical, regardless of how it is understood. A thing is true, or is false, without reference to anyone's opinion.

It's gnostic because of the "T" in Tulip that teaches of a fallen nature, and it leads to docetism for the same reason. It leads to a claim that the nature that common men are born with is not the nature that Jesus was born with, but that Jesus was born with a pre-fall humanity that is decidedly different. Calvinistic doctrine requires either inconsistency in how it is applied, or it leads to heretical statements surrounding Christology and God's authorship of sin. Which of those two options the individual Calvinist goes with varies, but it cannot be consistently held and remain within the scope of orthodox Christianity.