What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The anointing that teaches all things is of the apostles who were to be the foundation of the church and the penmen of the word of God.

And Who were they filled with at the Day of Pentecost to enable them to receive the teaching that enabled them to be the foundation of the church and the penmen of the Word of God. This shows that the anointing wasn't some New Age infusion of extra personal spirituality, or that they became little 'gods' as the Word-faith false teachers want us to believe, but as Peter says in 2 Peter (I think), that prophecy is not for private interpretation, but men spoke as they were moved along by the Holy Spirit. The word "anointed" means to be commissioned, given authority to perform a role. It does not mean a special reception of some kind of "glow in the dark" spirituality.

 

[Clare73]

And Who were they filled with at the Day of Pentecost to enable them to receive the teaching that enabled them to be the foundation of the church and the penmen of the Word of God. This shows that the anointing wasn't some New Age infusion of extra personal spirituality, or that they became little 'gods' as the Word-faith false teachers want us to believe, but as Peter says in 2 Peter (I think), that prophecy is not for private interpretation, but men spoke as they were moved along by the Holy Spirit.

The word "anointed" means to be commissioned, given authority to perform a role. It
does not mean a special reception of some kind of "glow in the dark" spirituality.

How does this relate to my statement?

 

[FutureAndAHope]

First of all, how many times must God say it in his word before it is true?

How many times must God say he wants all men to be saved (given the chance/choice of salvation).

To what Scripture are you referring, and about what?

What verse does the horrible doctrine of "no free will", rest on if not Romans 9? How many verses do you really have up your sleeve? That the Church Fathers have not already discredited? Or I have offered a counterargument?

These Church Fathers, that you seem to not even look at. Were still seeing the wonderful workings of the Holy Spirit. As We see from their discourse. And no more than 1 generation separated from the Apostles.

Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God​

Romans 9 is not about the salvation of Ishmael, Esau, Isaac or Jacob.
It's about God's purpose in electing Isaac and Jacob to be the seed of Abraham which inherited the promise.

That is what I said in my text. It is a picture of the promise and has nothing to do with man's individual salvation.

And THEN. . .it is about the salvation of Israel, who did not attain righteousness (salvation), and why the Gentiles did,
because Israel pursued it by works of the law and stumbled over the stumbling stone, Jesus Christ, while the Gentiles pursued it by faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 9:30-33).

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

How does this relate to my statement?

What you seemed to be implying that the Apostles had some level of spirituality in themselves that made them who they were. There is a lot of teaching in churches, especially Pentecostal and Charismatic, about personal spirituality, that misunderstands the indwelling Holy Spirit. We do the will of God as we are moved by the indwelling Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not make us extra special spiritual beings in ourselves. Effective ministry for the Lord does not depend on us at all, and it does not involve self improvement. It involves growth in grace and faith as we learn more of God's ways from the Holy Spirit within us as we read and study the Scriptures. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, "There is no such person as a good Christian. We are all vile people saved by the grace of God. So if we do anything good for the Lord, it is not us, but the Holy Spirit working through us.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

How many times must God say he wants all men to be saved (given the chance/choice of salvation).
There is a difference between our perspective and God's. From our perspective we received Christ through our own free personal choice, as according to the Scriptures. When Jesus gave the invitation to His disciples to "follow me", they chose to follow Him. They did not go under duress. And yet, after the Day of Pentecost when they were filled with the Spirit, they learned that in reality Jesus had chosen them. So it seems that from our perspective, we choose to receive and follow Christ, but from God's perspective, He chose us from the foundation of the world. How He can choose us, and yet we received Christ because we chose to, is the mystery.

What we find difficult to understand is that the invitation to believe on Christ is given to all without exception, and some choose to receive Christ and others reject Him. Then as we are enlightened by the Holy Spirit, we learn that those who chose to receive Christ were chosen by God before the foundation of the world and written into the Book of Life, long before Jesus died on the cross for their sin. And we learn that those who rejected Christ through their own personal choice, were predestined before the foundation of the world to be reprobate to spend eternity in hell. This has been the confusion among theologians since the Day of Pentecost. Calvin came up with his theology, then Arminius penned his works saying that Calvin was wrong, and theologians on either side have argued the point ever since.

Multitudes received Christ under Puritan Calvinism, and when John Wesley came along with his Arminian teaching about free will and entire sanctification by faith, multitudes also received Christ. It seemed that God wasn't too concerned about working with either Calvinism or Arminianism. The New England Calvinist Presbyterians refused to do evangelism because they believed that God had to bring people to Christ Himself, yet Jonathan Edwards won thousands to Christ through his pastoral preaching, while Charles Finney departed from the Calvinist non-evangelism by openly inviting people to receive Christ, and he won similarly thousands to Christ.

I don't think that the Holy Spirit is limited to one particular theology in order to bring people to Christ either through direct conviction or as the result of a person's free will choice. This is how Jonathan Edwards just doing pastoral preaching on Sundays brought many to Christ, and George Whitefield, encouraging people to make their personal choice to receive Christ also won many to Christ. Incidentally, Billy Graham used George Whitefield's method of mass evangelism to present the Gospel, and Whitefield was a Calvinist Methodist. Go figure.


What verse does the horrible doctrine of "no free will", rest on if not Romans 9? How many verses do you really have up your sleeve? That the Church Fathers have not already discredited? Or I have offered a counterargument?

These Church Fathers, that you seem to not even look at. Were still seeing the wonderful workings of the Holy Spirit. As We see from their discourse. And no more than 1 generation separated from the Apostles.

Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God​

That is what I said in my text. It is a picture of the promise and has nothing to do with man's individual salvation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The God of the Bible moves from one event to another. It is a loony tunes god who lives in the ever-present like someone in a static photograph.

You pretend only two kinds of god, neither one of which is God, who made everything including time. God is not subject to any external principle. The Bible demonstrates our viewpoint, for our sakes, so that we know a little about the immanence of God.

God can do that, you know, talk down to us because of our ignorance.

 

[Mark Quayle]

We accept God choosing us and we freely choosing God by faith and not trying to work it out with our finite minds.

True enough. Yet there need be no point of tension in the consideration of both. Our abilities are always subservient to his. "Apart from me, you can do nothing."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You pretend only two kinds of god, neither one of which is God, who made everything including time. God is not subject to any external principle. The Bible demonstrates our viewpoint, for our sakes, so that we know a little about the immanence of God.

God can do that, you know, talk down to us because of our ignorance.

Every being, including God, has to have a past, present and future to enable existence. Our past is God's past, except that ours goes back to when we were born, and human history goes back to when Adam was created, and God's past has no beginning. Eternity is a beginningless and endless series of events. We don't know what God was doing before He created the universe, and when we get to glory, we will have the joy of sharing the rest of eternity with Him. We can have fellowship with an active God who is sharing our lives by the indwelling Spirit. This is how the Bible describes the nature and character of God. He speaks in the present, and plans for the future, and then works to bring those plans to fruition. The second coming of Christ is in God's future as well as ours. If God was an ever-present God, the second coming of Christ would have already happened with Him, but Jesus is quite clear that no one knows when He will return except the Father. We also have to remember that God is three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus is not ever-present, because He doesn't know when He is coming again. If He was, He would know. The Holy Spirit is omnipresent, which is not an ever-present existent timewise, but He is locationally present in all of us. He is moving from one event to another along with all of us. This is how we can have fellowship with Him. So, if Jesus and the Holy Spirit have a past, present and future, then so does the Father.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

True enough. Yet there need be no point of tension in the consideration of both. Our abilities are always subservient to his. "Apart from me, you can do nothing."

For a person who is trusting the truth of God's Word by faith, there is no tension. We accept it although we don't fully understand it. In fact we are not supposed to try and understand it. The purpose of Scripture as John said, is "These things are written that we might believe in Jesus and receive salvation in His name" (my paraphrase). We don't have to try and work out God's decrees in heaven. Those are God's business and not ours. We should not be peering into stuff that should not concern us.

There is the story of the young curate who asked his mature vicar, "What was God doing before He created the universe?" The older man answered, "Preparing hell for the over-curious".

 

[RickReads]

I suspect he subscribes to the Arian Heresy, in which Jesus was seen as just an ordinary man and not God. He accuses us Calvinists as being Gnostics without really understand what the Gnostic heresy actually is. It is saying that Jesus didn't have an actual human body at all - that He was more of a spirit than actually human. It comes from a Platonic influence where the physical is unimportant, while the spiritual is pre-eminent. From memory, the healing ministry in the church died out after the First Century because of the influence of Plato's philosophy that the spirit was more important than the physical, so spiritual healing was more important than physical healing. This is probably why these days the reference in Isaiah 53 where it says that "He carried out griefs and sorrows", interpreted by Jesus in Matthew as, "He carried our sicknesses and infirmities" in support of His healing of the sick, has departed from Jesus' interpretation, to a more Platonic view that what Isaiah really meant was spiritual not physical healing. Those who reject Plato, interpret the Matthew reference as we can know that Jesus heals the sick today as part of the Atonement, while those influenced by Plato put total healing of diseases and infirmities off until after the Church Age is over and we are transformed to our perfect bodies in glory. So those who are influenced by Plato, the pagan philosopher, where they emphasise the spirit and devalue the physical, and apply it to Jesus, are closer to the Gnostic heresy than those who read the Bible and see that Plato was wrong.

That`s the first time I`ve seen you call yourself a Calvinist. I appreciate it because now I think I know what your problem really is and I don't think it's because I see the Triune God to be the same doctrine as the One God.

 

[TruthSeek3r]

Relevant debates:

William Lane Craig vs James White - Calvinism vs Molinism on the Problem of Evil

Trent Horn vs. Dr. James R. White - Can a Christian Lose Their Salvation? (Full Debate)

The Predestination Debate - White vs Brown

Relevant discussion

Why I Think Calvinism Is Unbiblical

 

[Mark Quayle]

Every being, including God, has to have a past, present and future to enable existence. Our past is God's past, except that ours goes back to when we were born, and human history goes back to when Adam was created, and God's past has no beginning. Eternity is a beginningless and endless series of events. We don't know what God was doing before He created the universe, and when we get to glory, we will have the joy of sharing the rest of eternity with Him.

We can have fellowship with an active God who is sharing our lives by the indwelling Spirit. This is how the Bible describes the nature and character of God. He speaks in the present, and plans for the future, and then works to bring those plans to fruition. The second coming of Christ is in God's future as well as ours. If God was an ever-present God, the second coming of Christ would have already happened with Him, but Jesus is quite clear that no one knows when He will return except the Father. We also have to remember that God is three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus is not ever-present, because He doesn't know when He is coming again. If He was, He would know. The Holy Spirit is omnipresent, which is not an ever-present existent timewise, but He is locationally present in all of us. He is moving from one event to another along with all of us. This is how we can have fellowship with Him. So, if Jesus and the Holy Spirit have a past, present and future, then so does the Father.

You keep arguing against the notion of an ever-present God, and I keep telling you that is not how to describe his existence, but you keep on anyway.

I will accept no God who is not First Cause, who 'invented' all reality, including logic and existence itself. It is not because he is subject to existence that he exists, but existence is what it is, because he exists.

First Cause is logically not subject to any principle from outside himself —so with time. He can work within time —after all, he invented it— but God's way of things is not ours.

 

[Mark Quayle]

For a person who is trusting the truth of God's Word by faith, there is no tension. We accept it although we don't fully understand it. In fact we are not supposed to try and understand it. The purpose of Scripture as John said, is "These things are written that we might believe in Jesus and receive salvation in His name" (my paraphrase). We don't have to try and work out God's decrees in heaven. Those are God's business and not ours. We should not be peering into stuff that should not concern us.

There is the story of the young curate who asked his mature vicar, "What was God doing before He created the universe?" The older man answer, "Preparing hell for the over-curious".

I agree we will never fully understand it, but I can hardly describe to you the joy of knowing a little about the God who put things together the way he did —who is in complete control of every detail, who is not just brilliant in working things out for good, but who caused all things to work out for good.

This is hardly what I would call "knowing his decrees". It is just knowing that the will of mere creatures cannot change his decrees, but instead that he uses their will to accomplish his decrees.

But there is much more to this: It deals with the very nature of the Gospel, and with absolute Grace.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You keep arguing against the notion of an ever-present God, and I keep telling you that is not how to describe his existence, but you keep on anyway.

I will accept no God who is not First Cause, who 'invented' all reality, including logic and existence itself. It is not because he is subject to existence that he exists, but existence is what it is, because he exists.

First Cause is logically not subject to any principle from outside himself —so with time. He can work within time —after all, he invented it— but God's way of things is not ours.

That's a bit philosophical for me. I just read the Bible about God and believe it without going beyond it to theoretical guesswork about what God might be like in ways He hasn't described about Himself in the Bible itself. A ex-Biblical God is a god of the imagination, and believing in a god like that breaches the First Commandment.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I agree we will never fully understand it, but I can hardly describe to you the joy of knowing a little about the God who put things together the way he did —who is in complete control of every detail, who is not just brilliant in working things out for good, but who caused all things to work out for good.

This is hardly what I would call "knowing his decrees". It is just knowing that the will of mere creatures cannot change his decrees, but instead that he uses their will to accomplish his decrees.

But there is much more to this: It deals with the very nature of the Gospel, and with absolute Grace.

Absolutely. When we discover Jesus all through the Old and New Testaments, our response is, what a wonderful Saviour we have!

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's a bit philosophical for me. I just read the Bible about God and believe it without going beyond it to theoretical guesswork about what God might be like in ways He hasn't described about Himself in the Bible itself. A ex-Biblical God is a god of the imagination, and believing in a god like that breaches the First Commandment.

Where is this "ex-Biblical God", in my descriptions? Every part of what I have described is from the Bible, AND from good sense.

 

[Clare73]

How many times must God say he wants all men to be saved (given the chance/choice of salvation).

Once is enough for me. . .and how many times must it be pointed out that the text does not state
"all men," it states "all," and it is written to Christians about Christians, which in context were questioning why it was taking so long for Jesus' return, to which the answer given is: God is waiting for all believers to come in, he does not want to draw down the curtain of time until all believers have entered, for he desires all (believers) to be saved.

What verse does the horrible doctrine of "no free will", rest on if not Romans 9?

So the word of God in Romans 9 is horrible and untrue?
What verse in Romans 9 presents "no free will."

We are on different pages, you and I, regarding the holy word of God written.
Every word of Romans 9 is God's truth, and none of it denies free will: "the ability to choose (execute) voluntarily, without external force or constraint, what one prefers, likes."

How many verses do you really have up your sleeve? That the
Church Fathers have not already discredited? Or I have offered a counterargument?

There is no discredited or counterargument to the word of God written.
There is only finite man's incomplete understanding of it in the light of the whole counsel of God and, therefore, his objection to it.

These Church Fathers, that you seem to not even look at. Were still seeing the wonderful workings of the Holy Spirit. As We see from their discourse. And no more than 1 generation separated from the Apostles.

The only measure of God's truth revealed in Jesus Christ and the apostles is the word of God written.
And the same Holy Spirit enlightens today as he did then.
All other measures of God's word written are constructions of man.
Jesus didn't drop off the gospel with the apostles and head out of town in the ascension, leaveing the rest of the church to sort it out for themselves. The operation and enlightenment of his Holy Spirit is a continual work in the church, past, present and future, until glory.

Others have foreknowledge of things to come: they see visions, and utter prophetic expressions. Others still, heal the sick by laying their hands upon them, and they are made whole. Yea, moreover, as I have said, the dead even have been raised up, and remained among us for many years. And what shall I more say? It is not possible to name the number of the gifts which the Church, [scattered] throughout the whole world, has received from God[/quote

That is what I said in my text. It is a picture of the promise and
has nothing to do with man's individual salvation.

The text is also about the salvation of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews and, to the extent that it deals with salvation by faith and not by works, which it does, it is about man's individual salvation.

 

[Clare73]

What you seemed to be implying that the Apostles had some level of spirituality in themselves that made them who they were.

I am not implying, I am specifically stating: it's not about "spirituality," it's about enablement to fulfill the special role Jesus assigned to them as the foundation of the church and the penmen of Scripture.
I am specifically stating that the apostles were empowered to speak for Jesus, as well as for God (Luke 10:16; John 13:20)
and to recall and understand all things correctly (John 14:26; John 16:13-15; Luke 24:44-45).
I am specifically stating: that's not about their "spirituality," that's about their enablement for the role God assigned to them.

There is a lot of teaching in churches, especially Pentecostal and Charismatic, about personal spirituality, that misunderstands the indwelling Holy Spirit.

I am not of that persuasion, do not maintain those views and have presented nothing to indicate such.
You're preaching to the choir.

We do the will of God as we are moved by the indwelling Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not make us extra special spiritual beings in ourselves. Effective ministry for the Lord does not depend on us at all, and it does not involve self improvement. It involves growth in grace and faith as we learn more of God's ways from the Holy Spirit within us as we read and study the Scriptures. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones said, "There is no such person as a good Christian. We are all vile people saved by the grace of God. So if we do anything good for the Lord, it is not us, but the Holy Spirit working through us.

 

[Hillsage]

"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" (Genesis 1:31).

Above is how I correctly quoted the bible....with only one "it was very good". You quoted "very very good" without quoting a ch/vs in your post. This senior didn't remember ever reading a "very very good" verse. So I searched 6 translations and I still couldn't find your quote. So I thought maybe you had some translation that disagreed with most, or maybe even...you just had a 'senior memory moment'. Go back to my last 1343 post and read your quote. I quoted your incorrect quote correctly and even bolded what you said in your quote in that post. And now you ignore my observation totally????? What can I say? If you can't even admit making a little mistake, better WATCH the WATCHMAN.

You are comparing apples with oranges. It is a twist of Scripture to say that part of God's creation wasn't good. All God was doing was commenting on Adam not having a suitable companion in life. Nothing to do with the creation in general.

Scripture says "creation in general" was "good", "very good" and "not good". So take your 'little apple' 'big apple' and 'orange' opinion of my scripture observation if you must, but at least wipe the egg off your face first. I quoted scripture and you want to tell me I'm wrong and you have done nothing to refute what that scripture says. It plainly disagrees with you. Refute the scripture I shared or eat your apples and oranges, cause I don't want them. I tried to play nice WATCHMAN1, and you want to act like this??? WATCH where you're throwing rocks MAN.

My verse stands,
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is NOT GOOD that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Where is this "ex-Biblical God", in my descriptions? Every part of what I have described is from the Bible, AND from good sense.

Every description of God that I have seen in the Bible is a Person who has a past, present and future. Jesus has mentioned past events, and the Holy Spirit brings into remembrance what Jesus as previously taught us. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit have talked about the future. And the Holy Spirit has said, "Today, if you hear His voice, don't harden your heart." Seeing that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God then neither of them are existing in a type of an ever-present state.

The Bible certainly said that God knows the end from the beginning, but certainly does not say that the end and the beginning are the same to Him. We don't know about the Father, because He is always represented by the Son and the Holy Spirit to us. We have heard the Father's voice twice in Scripture - at Jesus' baptism, and on the Transfiguration Mount. The Yahweh of the Old Testament was the pre-incarnate Jesus, because the Scripture says that no one has seen the Father at any time, so He could not have been the God of the Old Testament, and the only other God of the Old Testament was the Son of God who spoke and appeared.

So, from what I read from the Bible, there is no mention of God being ever-present. If you can find references to support it, let's be having them and we can discuss them further, respectfully of course!