What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

Do you ever get anything right?

Are you sure about that?

Romans 5
6 For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.
7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

First of all, that is written to Christians.
Therefore, "us" is Christians.

Secondly, none of the those state all mankind.

The justification took place nearly 2000 years ago.
This is why someone who rejects the gospel is condemned already.

Justification was paid for 2,000 years ago.
But it is not applied to one's sin until one's saving faith.

Just as Grandpa paid for the grandkids' college education before they were born.
But the payment stays in the bank and is not applied until the kids actually go to college.

John 3:18
He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

They are condemned and by nature under wrath (Ephesians 2:3) already, because they are born condemned by the imputed guilt of Adam (Romans 5:18), in which their unbelief causes them to then remain (John 3:38).

 

[Clare73]

Another what’s wrong with Calvinism moment is the haughty spirit that seems to arise in people when they come to believe in the Calvinist system of things. This isn’t simply my opinion but rather the view of leading Calvinists.

The gospel coalition (themselves Calvinists) wrote this as a possible theory for the lack of good spirit in many Calvinists:

The doctrines of grace serve for so many as a kind of “special knowledge” of the Scriptures that others don’t have—or at least, that the Calvinist didn’t have before he was a Calvinist. Now truth has been unlocked. He sees something others don’t. He’s been enlightened. He understands more deeply. And those who’ve come to Calvinism from ignorance of it or even opposition to it, begin to see how much sense it makes of so much Scripture. It’s like putting corrective lenses on for the first time.

Unfortunately, having this experience can be a huge temptation to pride, where the one now enlightened sees other Christians as un-enlightened. And that’s just a tiny half-step to seeing them as not as spiritual as we are or not as serious about their faith as we are. The “gnosis” of Calvinism leads to a behavioral heresy of arrogance and partiality. And in the end, those who’ve been “enlightened” start to see themselves as smarter than others or more diligent in the Bible than others, which means they inadvertently begin seeing the knowledge of grace as something they’ve earned or achieved, which is antithetical to grace itself.
​

So Calvinism is often viewed as a kind of special knowledge, and of course if God himself is “sovereign” in determining who receives this grand doctrine, then Calvinists are as a matter of fact more spiritually enlightened than the mass of Christians that have ever lived.

John Piper, a Calvinist who himself has raised a nice little atheist in the form of his son, Abraham Piper, shares these thoughts about Calvinisms illuminating power:

Do Calvinists want to make everybody else Calvinists? Absolutely we do! But it's not about elitism. It's about having been found by Christ and having the glory of God opened to us in the process of salvation.
​

Calvinists have “the glory of God opened” to them (by becoming determinists,) now giving every ounce of glory to God. Do Christians have the glory of God opened to them? Maybe, but not to so great a degree as the Calvinist.

It’s the fruitlessness of Calvinism that really stands out when you read into the doctrines and interact with the community. Fruitless, selfish Calvinism. The frozen chosen pounding on their favourite scriptures forever and ever.

Let's not throw out the baby with the dirty bathwater.

Let's not blame the doctrine for the behavior of the sinners who embrace it. . .guilt by association.

Rather, let's work on the behavior of the sinner.

And I suggest, such behavior is more likely among the not born-again, whose faith would be mostly intellectual.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

But Calvin wasn't from America and it sounds like America's wasn't Biblical.

I think it was an extreme form of Calvinism, and many of the atrocities that American Calvinists did (Witches of Salem, and evicting people out of communities to starve to death in the wilderness) were things that Calvin never would have approved of.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Here is an interesting question about predestination:
Is a person reprobate and lost because of a dark decree in heaven or because of the person's own fault through continuing in sin and rejecting Gospel?

I am asking this question, because in the many pages of Calvinist literature, including the Institutes, I see what they teach, but I won't give any spoiler alerts about it yet.

But if souls are lost through a decree in heaven that they have no control about, why is there a day of Judgment where souls are brought to account for their lives? In a court of law a defendant cannot be found guilty if what they did was under duress and had no control over their actions.

You can't have it both ways: either the soul is lost through an immovable decree from heaven, or lost because of their own sinfulness and rejection of the Gospel.

 

[Cormack]

Let's not blame the doctrine for the behavior of the sinners who embrace it. . .guilt by association.

Certain behaviours are the logical byproduct of believing in these Calvinistic doctrines. To believe that you’ve been deterministically chosen by God to know certain spiritual truths makes you ontologically better than the people who haven’t been graced in that way.

It’s not simply dirty bath water but rather a dirty baby who thinks ugly self righteous things about himself. His elitist behaviours are intimately related to his elitist views.

The article insists that the smug enlightened Calvinist is somehow guilty of believing in his own merited knowledge (or some other non starter.)

they inadvertently begin seeing the knowledge of grace as something they’ve earned or achieved,
​

See this is the joke response that makes honest people tune out, since the secret knowledge of Calvinism is something that the Calvinist has “achieved.”

It’s not merited or worked for in the same way that athletes have trained or that scholars have studied, rather the Calvinist just “gets it.” They’re allowed by the good pleasure of God to spiritually discern these grand truths and to unlock the glory of God in salvation.

They have achieved enlightenment, how they have attained this spiritual knowledge and discerned these truths is no defeater to the fact that they have achieved this state.

Pride is in the undeniable fact that they’re better, not how they are better.

They are simply better than other believing people who aren’t Calvinists. Now if a Calvinist doesn’t become prideful or see himself as ontologically better than others, than that’s simply an absence of logical rigour on their part.

They are as a matter of fact (according to their own doctrines) better than non Calvinists, so to not think that way is an example of these guys refusing to connect the dots.

 

[RickReads]

Certain behaviours are the logical byproduct of believing in these Calvinistic doctrines. To believe that you’ve been deterministically chosen by God to know certain spiritual truths makes you ontologically better than the people who haven’t been graced in that way.

It’s not simply dirty bath water but rather a dirty baby who thinks ugly self righteous things about himself. His elitist behaviours are intimately related to his elitist views.

The article insists that the smug enlightened Calvinist is somehow guilty of believing in his own merited knowledge (or some other non starter.)

they inadvertently begin seeing the knowledge of grace as something they’ve earned or achieved,
​

See this is the joke response that makes honest people tune out, since the secret knowledge of Calvinism is something that the Calvinist has “achieved.”

It’s not merited or worked for in the same way that athletes have trained or that scholars have studied, rather the Calvinist just “gets it.” They’re allowed by the good pleasure of God to spiritually discern these grand truths and to unlock the glory of God in salvation.

They have achieved enlightenment, how they have attained this spiritual knowledge and discerned these truths is no defeater to the fact that they have achieved this state.

Pride is in the undeniable fact that they’re better, not how they are better.

They are simply better than other believing people who aren’t Calvinists. Now if a Calvinist doesn’t become prideful or see himself as ontologically better than others, than that’s simply an absence of logical rigour on their part.

They are as a matter of fact (according to their own doctrines) better than non Calvinists, so to not think that way is an example of these guys refusing to connect the dots.

When you were a kid did the Calvins at your school beat you up, kick sand on you and steal your lunch money?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Certain behaviours are the logical byproduct of believing in these Calvinistic doctrines. To believe that you’ve been deterministically chosen by God to know certain spiritual truths makes you ontologically better than the people who haven’t been graced in that way.

It’s not simply dirty bath water but rather a dirty baby who thinks ugly self righteous things about himself. His elitist behaviours are intimately related to his elitist views.

The article insists that the smug enlightened Calvinist is somehow guilty of believing in his own merited knowledge (or some other non starter.)

they inadvertently begin seeing the knowledge of grace as something they’ve earned or achieved,
​

See this is the joke response that makes honest people tune out, since the secret knowledge of Calvinism is something that the Calvinist has “achieved.”

It’s not merited or worked for in the same way that athletes have trained or that scholars have studied, rather the Calvinist just “gets it.” They’re allowed by the good pleasure of God to spiritually discern these grand truths and to unlock the glory of God in salvation.

They have achieved enlightenment, how they have attained this spiritual knowledge and discerned these truths is no defeater to the fact that they have achieved this state.

Pride is in the undeniable fact that they’re better, not how they are better.

They are simply better than other believing people who aren’t Calvinists. Now if a Calvinist doesn’t become prideful or see himself as ontologically better than others, than that’s simply an absence of logical rigour on their part.

They are as a matter of fact (according to their own doctrines) better than non Calvinists, so to not think that way is an example of these guys refusing to connect the dots.

What I have read in the many pages of Puritan Calvinist literature is that true Calvinists have been anything but arrogant in their approach to the Gospel. They believe in man's depravity, and therefore have a very low opinion of themselves and a very high view of Christ and Him crucified.

I think that if a professing Christian, whether they are Calvinist or not, has an arrogant opinion of others, they are hypocrites and not true believers. "Holier than thou" people are still in bondage to the sin of pride, and while they have that sin dominant in them, that sin will drag them right down into hell.

From what I read of true Calvinists (not the extreme ones), the basic attitude is: "I'm just a poor sinner and nothing at all, but Jesus Christ is my All in All". D Martyn Lloyd-Jones, a Calvinist, wrote: "There is no such person as a good Christian, but we are all vile people who have been saved by the grace of God."

 

[ViaCrucis]

Much talking all to proclaim that you believe you find your life in the scriptures. I find my life in the Holy Spirit.

My life is in Jesus Christ.

When I say "word" I am usually referring to the Gospel; but Scripture is divinely inspired and God's word--containing both Law and the Gospel (i.e. commandments and promises). But the word which creates faith is the Gospel (the word of the Law can do no such thing). This is also what I mean when speak of God's word in the Sacraments.

While, you're not wrong in saying that I believe I have life in the Scriptures; because these are, as Christ our God has said, what bear witness to Him. Scripture as mere text doesn't have life, but Scripture as the Christ-bearing text does: And the Bible contains Jesus, Christ is there in the ordinary written word of ordinary men. It contains Jesus Christ Himself. And my life is found in Jesus Christ.

I also find my life in my baptism. And in the Lord's Supper. For the exact same reasons.

The Holy Spirit does all of this by His own grace and power, and therefore I am in Christ by the power of the Spirit.

This is true of all the Faithful. Yourself included.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Clare73]

Here is an interesting question about predestination:
Is a person reprobate and lost because of a dark decree in heaven or because of the person's own fault through continuing in sin and rejecting Gospel?

I am asking this question, because in the many pages of Calvinist literature, including the Institutes, I see what they teach, but I won't give any spoiler alerts about it yet.

But if souls are lost through a decree in heaven that they have no control about, why is there a day of Judgment where souls are brought to account for their lives? In a court of law a defendant cannot be found guilty if what they did was under duress and had no control over their actions.

Well, Jesus did. . .in Luke 11:48-51., but it's not about duress and no control over one's actions.

Jesus holds the present generation of Jewish doctors (scholars) responsible for all the blood of the prophets shed by their forefathers from the beginning of the world!
So how does that work?

Well, that works just like our family business law works in the Anthropos family business across town. As long as the Anthropos sons of future generations, who successively inherit their fathers' business, keep up the family business, they are personally responsible for the debts of that business, even though they did not incur them personally, but inherited them.
The principle there is that personal responsibility for debt does not require that the debt be personally incurred.

The same is true here. Because man is the son of Adam, keeping up the family business of Adam (sin), he is responsible for the debt of Adam, even though he did not personally incur that debt. That is why Jesus holds the present generation of Jewish doctors responsible for all the blood of the prophets shed by their forefathers from the beginning of the world, because in seeking to kill him (John 8:44), the Prophet who was to come (Deuteronomy 18:18; John 1:21, 6:14, 12:49; Acts 3:22-23), they were keeping up their forefathers' business of killing God's prophets and were, therefore, liable for all the debts of their forefathers' business of murdering God's prophets (Luke 11:51).

So in the same way, man is responsible for the sin of Adam even though man did not personally incur that sin (he approved of it, Romans 1:32), and he keeps up the family business of Adam (sin). Man's responsibility for Adam's sin is why Adam's sin is credited/ imputed to all the sons of Adam--all mankind (Romans 5:18)

You can't have it both ways: either the soul is lost through an immovable decree from heaven, or lost because of their own sinfulness and rejection of the Gospel.

How about: the soul is lost because God did not ordain to them the unmerited grace that saves.

All are condemned by Adam's sin (Romans 5:18), which they approve (Romans 1:32) in their continuing of it, and in justice God owes them nothing, they have no just claim on God because no one has earned anything and, therefore, no one deserves anything as his due.

Likewise, God has the sovereign right to do as he pleases with what is his own by creating it.
Therefore, he is free to grant or not grant mercy to whom he chooses, and for no other reason than he chooses (for the sake of his purpose).

That God grants mercy to some and not to all is not injustice, because justice is giving everyone his due, what he has earned, and none have earned anything, so he owes no one anything which would make him unjust by withholding it.

That God has mercy on anyone by granting them unmerited saving grace makes God merciful, not unjust.
That God does not grant mercy to all (even though they do not deserve it) is for his own purpose (Romans 9:23).

 

[Clare73]

Certain behaviours are the logical byproduct of believing in these Calvinistic doctrines. To believe that you’ve been deterministically chosen by God to know certain spiritual truths makes you ontologically better than the people who haven’t been graced in that way.

Not to those who know the gospel.

It’s not simply dirty bath water but rather a dirty baby who thinks ugly self righteous things about himself. His elitist behaviours are intimately related to his elitist views.

The article insists that the smug enlightened Calvinist is somehow guilty of believing in his own merited knowledge (or some other non starter.) they inadvertently begin seeing the knowledge of grace as something they’ve earned or achieved,

It's not Calvinism causing them to do that. That's a false rap.
No one, in whose heart is the gospel, thinks they've achieved or earned anything from God.

See this is the joke response that makes honest people tune out, since the secret knowledge of Calvinism is something that the Calvinist has “achieved.”

It’s not merited or worked for in the same way that athletes have trained or that scholars have studied, rather the Calvinist just “gets it.” They’re allowed by the good pleasure of God to spiritually discern these grand truths and to unlock the glory of God in salvation.

They have achieved enlightenment, how they have attained this spiritual knowledge and discerned these truths is no defeater to the fact that they have achieved this state.

Pride is in the undeniable fact that they’re better, not how they are better.

They are simply better than other believing people who aren’t Calvinists. Now if a Calvinist doesn’t become prideful or see himself as ontologically better than others, than that’s simply an absence of logical rigour on their part.

Pardon me for saying so, but that's a charge against "non-Calvinists," meaning they have no knowledge of the gospel nor of the depravity of man and salvation by grace alone--nothing being merited.
I say the article reflects ignorance about something of which they have no experience.

They are as a matter of fact (according to their own doctrines) better than non Calvinists,

Precisely what I thought is confirmed. . .the author has no clue about the doctrine of Romans 9.

so to not think that way is an example of these guys refusing to connect the dots.

Or "those guys" just taking Scripture at it's word in Romans 9.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Well, Jesus did. . .in Luke 11:48-51., but it's not about duress and no control over one's actions.

Jesus holds the present generation of Jewish doctors (scholars) responsible for all the blood of the prophets shed by their forefathers from the beginning of the world!
So how does that work?

Well, that works just like our family business law works in the Anthropos family business across town. As long as the Anthropos sons of future generations, who successively inherit their fathers' business, keep up the family business, they are personally responsible for the debts of that business, even though they did not incur them personally, but inherited them.
The principle there is that personal responsibility for debt does not require that the debt be personally incurred.

The same is true here. Because man is the son of Adam, keeping up the family business of Adam (sin), he is responsible for the debt of Adam, even though he did not personally incur that debt. That is why Jesus holds the present generation of Jewish doctors responsible for all the blood of the prophets shed by their forefathers from the beginning of the world, because in seeking to kill him (John 8:44), the Prophet who was to come (Deuteronomy 18:18; John 1:21, 6:14, 12:49; Acts 3:22-23), they were keeping up their forefathers' business of killing God's prophets and were, therefore, liable for all the debts of their forefathers' business of murder (Luke 11:51).

So in the same way, man is responsible for the sin of Adam even though man did not personally incur that sin (he approved of it, Romans 1:32), and he keeps up the family business of Adam (sin). Man's responsibility for Adam's sin is why Adam's sin is credited/ imputed to all the sons of Adam--all mankind (Romans 5:18)

How about: the soul is lost because God did not ordain to them the unmerited grace that saves.

All are condemned by Adam's sin (Romans 5:18), which they approve (Romans 1:32) in their continuing of it, and in justice God owes them nothing, because no one has earned anything and, therefore, no one deserves anything as his due.

Likewise, God has the sovereign right to do as he pleases with what is his own by creating it.
Therefore, he is free to grant or not grant mercy to whom he chooses, and for no other reason than he chooses (for the sake of his purpose).

That God grants mercy to some and not to all is not injustice, because justice is giving everyone his due, what he has earned, and none have earned anything, so he owes no one anything which would make him unjust by withholding it.

That God has mercy on anyone by granting them unmerited saving grace makes God merciful, not unjust.
That God does not grant mercy to all (even though they do not deserve it) is for his own purpose (Romans 9:23).

The simple answer is that the reprobate are lost because of their own sinfulness and refusal to believe the Gospel. The reason why God does not enlighten them to give them saving faith is because their sinfulness is so ingrained they have put themselves beyond redemption. This happened to the people before the Flood, and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. It also happened to those of the children of Israel who would not come over to the Lord's side when invited by Moses. The Lord knew from the foundation of the world those who through their own extreme sinfulness would become reprobate. But if there is a spark of faith, because Jesus will not quench a smoking flax, He will fan that little spark into a flame and draw that person to Himself through the Gospel.

 

[Clare73]

The simple answer is that the reprobate are lost because of their own sinfulness and refusal to believe the Gospel. The reason why God does not enlighten them to give them saving faith is because their sinfulness is so ingrained they have put themselves beyond redemption. This happened to the people before the Flood, and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. It also happened to those of the children of Israel who would not come over to the Lord's side when invited by Moses. The Lord knew from the foundation of the world those who through their own extreme sinfulness would become reprobate.

So you say we find this in the Institutes?
Where abouts do we find this?

But if there is a spark of faith, because Jesus will not quench a smoking flax, He will fan that little spark into a flame and draw that person to Himself through the Gospel.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So you say we find this in the Institutes?
Where abouts do we find this?

The Institutes is a very big book. If you want to answer that question, you can trawl through the pages yourself. I got my information from a study by Charles Spurgeon where he compared Calvinism to Arminianism.

 

[NotreDame]

Then I don't think you paid attention to my post or to the parts of the Scripture which I emphasized.

But let's be very simple about this:

-CryptoLutheran

No, I did, my comments took the entirety of your post into consideration. None of your post refuted what I said.

Of course, the lack of any substantive analysis from you didn’t help the matter. Ostensibly, you thought it obvious what you highlighted was a clear and unequivocal rebuttal to what I wrote, requiring no effort from you but the act of bolding.

Yet, one can examine what you emphasized in relation to what I wrote and realize there’s nothing textually there refuting what I wrote.

Perhaps more compelling is your proclivity to ignore the plain text.

Paul is A) Expressing a conditional statement B.) conditional statment of if x, then Y. X. Therefore Y. C) The conditional statement expressed a sufficient condition to be saved D) the conditional is what WE can do to receive and accept salvation made possible by Christ and offered by Christ.

“that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;” (if x, then Y. X=“if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead,” Y=“you will be saved;” X. Therefore Y.

Paul is expressing a conditional statment and a sufficient condition, of what a person does that results in the person being saved.

Where Mikey or any person “confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead” then Mikey and any such person “will be saved.”

That is the plain text. The plain text has Paul writing of what people can do to result in being saved.

What people can do, what action they can perform, according to Paul, is A) Confess with their mouth Jesus is Lord, and people B.) Believe in their heart God raised Jesus from the dead.

Paul clearly states those are acts to be taken by people and they result in being “saved.”

Simultaneously, Paul in the plain text has people confessing and believing in Jesus as Lord and acts performed by the Lord that brought forth salvation, caused salvation to manifest, (aptly described as acts of salvation by God and Jesus) so people may then be saved when they confess and believe in those acts of salvation undertaken by the Lord and God, i.e. the Lord died and God raised the Lord from the dead.

Which means Paul, in his prose, has people acknowledging by therir act of believing and confessing, in a salvation and being saved that was and is from God and Jesus and their actions of death and resurrection.

Which means, and I repeat, what Paul has people “believing” and “confessing” in and to is empty without the redemptive and saving actions of God and Jesus.

Which also means Paul has preserved in this verses that “no man can boast” because their (people) believing and confessing isn’t to anything they did but a believing and confessing to what God and Jesus did that results in their salvation and righteousness by their confessing and believing in those redemptive and saving acts of God and Jesus.

That is the plain text. That plain text answers your question. Nothing you’ve said demonstrates I’m wrong. Nada.

How can an unbelieving person believe in their heart and confess with their mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and God has raised Him from the dead? Without faith, how can a person believe and confess?

Those are tantalizing questions that simply do not alter what the plain text says. Paul has written what people can do to result in being saved, confessing and believing, and the substance of what is confessed to and the substance of what they believe in, are those acts undertaken by Jesus and God that resulted in salvation such that salvation comes from God and Jesus and what they did.

Otherwise, your queries are more of the same, a continued direction of ignoring the plain text or distracting from it with queries or seeking to change what Paul said in the plain text.

The issue is you cannot accept what the plain text verse says.

And verse 9 and 10 are related. “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.”

Verse 10 has the person, like verse 9, doing something, which is the “person believes” and the person “confesses,” and “resulting in righteousness” and “resulting in salvation.”

And again, the substance of what they the “person believes” and the substance of what the person “confesses” is of the acts of salvation undertaken by God and Jesus, such that the salvation is from God and Jesus.

So, again, I answered your question. “Is Christ's sacrifice and work something that lets us, if we choose, cross over to God?”

I answered your question with verses from the Bible. The verses of the Bible very clearly say yes.

Unless, of course, Romans 10:9-10 Paul isn’t writing of what actions people can “choose” to do, but rather Paul is writing of actions people are forced, coerced, made to do. But compulsion isn’t suggested in the verses of 9 or 10, which show what people can “choose” to do to result in salvation and righteousness, “believe” and “confess.”

And the substance of their “beleif” and “confession” is of what God and Jesus did to result in righteousness and result in salvation.

 

[Clare73]

The Institutes is a very big book. If you want to answer that question, you can trawl through the pages yourself. I got my information from a study by Charles Spurgeon where he compared Calvinism to Arminianism.

There is no way anyone is beyond redemption by the power of Almighty God!
God's arm is not too short! (Numbers 11:23)
That is man's reasoning, it is not God's wisdom.

So did Spurgeon attribute yours following to Calvinism or Arminianism?

"The simple answer is that the reprobate are lost because of their own sinfulness and refusal to believe the Gospel. The reason why God does not enlighten them to give them saving faith is because their sinfulness is so ingrained they have put themselves beyond redemption. This happened to the people before the Flood, and the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah. It also happened to those of the children of Israel who would not come over to the Lord's side when invited by Moses. The Lord knew from the foundation of the world those who through their own extreme sinfulness would become reprobate."

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

There is no way anyone is beyond redemption by the power of Almighty God!
God's arm is not too short!

So did Spurgeon attribute your following to Calvinism or Arminianism?

You are saying that God can force people into the kingdom when they are adamant in their rejection of the Gospel. Correct?

Spurgeon said that it is because of sin that souls perish and not because of some dark decree in heaven. He didn't specify either Calvinism or Arminianism.

 

[Clare73]

You are saying that God can force people into the kingdom when they are adamant in their rejection of the Gospel. Correct?

Spurgeon said that it is because of sin that souls perish and not because of some dark decree in heaven. He didn't specify either Calvinism or Arminianism.

And Spurgeon is correct.

The dark decree from heaven is that unbelievers shall perish.

It's everywhere in the gospel (John 3:18, John 3:36).

They don't perish because of a decree, they perish because of their sin.

That's "Calvinism."

 

[RickReads]

My life is in Jesus Christ.

When I say "word" I am usually referring to the Gospel; but Scripture is divinely inspired and God's word--containing both Law and the Gospel (i.e. commandments and promises). But the word which creates faith is the Gospel (the word of the Law can do no such thing). This is also what I mean when speak of God's word in the Sacraments.

While, you're not wrong in saying that I believe I have life in the Scriptures; because these are, as Christ our God has said, what bear witness to Him. Scripture as mere text doesn't have life, but Scripture as the Christ-bearing text does: And the Bible contains Jesus, Christ is there in the ordinary written word of ordinary men. It contains Jesus Christ Himself. And my life is found in Jesus Christ.

I also find my life in my baptism. And in the Lord's Supper. For the exact same reasons.

The Holy Spirit does all of this by His own grace and power, and therefore I am in Christ by the power of the Spirit.

This is true of all the Faithful. Yourself included.

-CryptoLutheran

I believe the death of Jesus redeems the entire creation which suffers alongside man himself. In the case of men it is the provision that makes redemption possible. But it is a provision that must be given and received in order to be applied.

That is the difference between saved and lost.

For me the Holy Spirit is an unseen guide through life and He transforms my heart in ways that enable me to strive for righteousness. His witness to me is the goodness that comes from my heart. He is the source as I do not possess it on my own.

We are called upon as new creatures to walk in the likeness of His Ressurection. To do that we must be led by His Spirit. And the Holy Spirit can be an unseen power in our life that is so strong the Bible tells us that we have the mind of Christ. That is what I want and I will find it in the prayer closet rather than in the pew of the building.

 

[sparow]

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.

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. “

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. 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

There is always hazard following men instead of Jesus; a better definition of God is the OT, the covenant, Jesus as God in the flesh, and the great and terrible day of the lord.

God is breath, breeze or wind, according to Hebrew; These are metaphors that do not break the second commandment; that God is spirit maybe a false statement.

Calvin made a number of prophesies; one I recall is, "In the last days men, out of fear will legislate them selves in to slavery." Which reminds me of the false doctrine of climate change, which has the potential of destroying the world.

 

[Cormack]

When you were a kid did the Calvins at your school beat you up, kick sand on you and steal your lunch money?

I’m going to answer no, although I’m responding to your point not because I believe that’s a sincere question, like in the case of Clare (who believes that your comment was funny) I’m sure your point was meant as a mocking jokey sort of comment. I’m replying because I think this is a teachable moment. Please read the next portion carefully.

My points are about logical rigour and intellectual honesty, however. Maybe you’d be tempted to undermine books explaining the criminal psychology of rapists because the author herself was the victim of rape.

Perhaps in your opinion victims of racism don’t have valid, logically meaningful points to make against racism because they have been victimised by racists.

Maybe even the New Testament itself is simply an opportunity for users to mock the pain and suffering that was inflicted on the Lord. To Christs salient observations about justice, sin and redemption you could respond “did the Romans steal your coat and beat you up or something?”

Needless to say your reply was very bad, and taking part in agreeing or humouring your reply was also unfortunate on the part of Oscar and Clare.

@Oscarr “Calvinist or not, has an arrogant opinion of others, they are hypocrites and not true believers.”​

“From what I read of true Calvinists (not the extreme ones),”​

What you describe as extreme is what I’d describe as logical consistency. How extreme was Jesus or mother Teresa about their loving ethics, very extreme. Those extremists aren’t bad though, because they have valuable doctrines, not dirty babies steeped in determinism.

Extreme love is only good, extreme Calvinism only bad. Love thy neighbour taken to an extreme is only dangerous to the person who’s doing the loving. Calvinism taken to an “extreme” endangers everyone but the self righteous Calvinist.

The problem with the corrective lenses of Calvinism is that you can’t remove them, not ever. Not within the Bible, nor without. Your messages @Oscarr & @Clare73 are simply presupposing that Calvinism is right and insisting so from that point onwards. Like @RickReads you’re not interacting with the substance of my message.

Now because of the online Calvinists need to be right people in the pews who believe in John Calvins work, the 5 points, effective irresistible grace and many other reformed doctrines aren’t “real” Calvinists, because they act in a way that’s as elite as the things they believe about themselves.

Only by adopting an intellectual disconnect between what they believe and how they respond to those beliefs can the man in the pews not become an arrogant believer. Divorcing our thought life and theology from our living behaviour is as disastrous as it sounds though.

@Clare73 “It's not Calvinism causing them to do that. That's a false rap. No one, in whose heart is the gospel, thinks they've achieved or earned anything from God.”​

The how vs that problem remains. Redirecting to how Calvinists are spiritually superior to non Calvinists (e.g. via Gods grace) does nothing to subdue the pride that arises in that Calvinists are spiritually superior.

I’ll explain this one more time by way of an analogy.

Imagine an awful lifelong illness that is taking hold of the worlds population, not fatal, but seriously lowering the quality of life for everyone. Now imagine an array of doctors and medical researchers have managed to engineer an effective cure, but it’ll only be administered to a select few.

They’re now cured, even going through an enhanced, improved quality of life. Wouldn’t it be rather silly for the healthy population to go about saying “All glory to my doctors, I’m not healthier than anyone else. My health isn’t better than anybody else’s health, thank you doctors! You’re wonderful! Don’t fall into the sin of pride by believing you’re healthier than anybody else.”

This is very much like the Calvinism of Charles Haddon Spurgeon, it’s known as inconsistent Calvinism.

Brute reality is that people who believe in Calvinism have a humility problem due to the beliefs they hold. No amount of presupposing the truth of Calvinism undoes that point, although to routinely presuppose the truth of Calvinism does leave you incapable of responding to the substance of my post.