What is wrong with Calvinism ?

Jesus is YHWH said:

@ReverendRV much more lively than the other place with this discussion .

Click to expand...

I'm out of the loop. What are we talking about?

John Mullally said:

Jesus describes a transition point from death (tare) into life (wheat). The parable was not about God assigning eternal destiny, it was about our difficulty discerning between the two, and about God delaying judgement for the sake of the wheat.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.​

Click to expand...

Nevertheless, in the story, the eternal destiny is assigned by what they are —wheat and tares. The one does not become the other, and I don't know why you claim Jesus describes a transition from tare into wheat. Can you show where Jesus does that?

The lost are found, there is a change from death to life, but tare is not wheat, nor does it become wheat.

Jesus is YHWH said:

Na he is on the other forum that banned me on Father’s Day for exposing the errors of their sacred father Calvin lol.
I’m so glad this forum allows freedom of speech and expressing one’s theology . It’s such a breath of fresh air. And I commend the moderators on this site . Touché

Click to expand...

Happy late Fathers Day!

zoidar said:

I don't think anyone here has questioned His authority to do what He wishes...

Click to expand...

The only authority to question is Calvins. In 95 pages of this thread, it's only been done once.

rockytopva said:

And... To point out that Calvin would have a man sent to his death and then go on to say...
"Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory." - John Calvin after toasting Michael Servetus

John Calvin then goes onto describe threatening an Anabaptist with the gallows!

On 21 January 1546, Calvin wrote to Farel in Neuchâtel that he had just met an Anabaptist Belot in Geneva. The letter also throws light on Calvin's attitude to the Anabaptists at that time. He says, "In these days an Anabaptist, when he was laying out foolish writings publicly for sale, was at my instigation arrested. You of course know the nature of these people from experience. But I have never been aware of such wild defiance before. Although I first addressed him politely, as is my custom, it did not suit him for a moment to talk otherwise with me than if he were dealing with a dog. When they led him to the city hall, he at once wanted to sit beside the first syndic; when he was turned away from there, he gave himself with raised head and rolling eyes the majestic aspect of a prophet and answered if it suited him with a few words the questions directed to him; frequently he was altogether silent. A dispute then arose between us on swearing. When I asked him if the law of the Lord did not give us directions for living, he uttered the horrible dogma of the Anabaptists: The Old Testament is done away! I quoted the words of Paul. All Scripture is profitable, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). I insisted that he answer; but not a word could I get out of him. Therefore I now explained this entire question, so that everyone might recognize the invincible ignorance of this man together with his equally great impudence. When he saw himself thus pushed, he uttered the usual frivolous phrase of the sectarians, that no man has a more comfortable life than the parsons. I answered with a few words, not so much to defend our class as to ward off the boldness of this beast. Then he called me covetous. This produced general laughter; for all knew that I had just this year refused a large personal salary and indeed so seriously that I assured them under oath that I would not preach another sermon if they did not leave off. They knew too that I had not only refused such extraordinary generosity, but had even returned some of my regular salary, not less than 20 crowns. And so he was attacked by all with abusive terms. I answered modestly, he would probably be rich in my position; it was no sign of avarice if I am poor with all the opportunity of becoming rich; but he could be accused by me on a matter of life and death, namely of theft; if he denied it I would offer my head for punishment for slander if it were not true. For it was certain that he was selling broadsheets for two and a half sous which had cost him four deniers. And it was not due to a fixed tax that he sold them so dearly. When he was silent as usual I began to talk about the sinlessness of the Anabaptists. When he had sufficiently shown his defiance, he was expelled from the city. Two days later, when he was again seized in the city, he was beaten, his books publicly burned, and he himself was told not to come again, on penalty of the gallows. This is a man or rather a beast of desperate wickedness." - John Calvin Calvin, John (1509-1564) - GAMEO

Click to expand...

Mark Quayle said:

Do John Piper and John MacArthur, (our purported esteemed leaders), qualify that statement? Or do they mean by it the same thing you do?

Click to expand...

I learned the following from MacArthur and Piper:

MacArthur: God genuinely desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Yet in “the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:11), He chose only the elect “out of the world” (John 17:6), and passed over the rest, leaving them to the damning consequences of their sin (cf.. Rom. 1:18–32).
If God Desires All Men to Be Saved, Why Aren't They?

Piper: My aim in this short book is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God’s will for all people to be saved and his will to choose some people for salvation unconditionally before creation1 is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion.
https://document.desiringgod.org/does-god-desire-all-to-be-saved-en.pdf?ts=1646158401

Clare73 said:

Thanks.

Men are possessed of a limited free will, in that they do not have the power to choose (execute) all moral choices; e.g., man cannot choose to be sinless, to never sin in thought, word or deed.

However, man has free will in the Biblical sense: the power to choose voluntarily, without external force or constraint.
But man's will does not operate in a vacuum. It is governed by his disposition; i.e., what he prefers, likes.

The issue here being unregenerate man (without the Holy Spirit) does not "prefer or like" the things of God (Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14) and, therefore, he does not and will not choose them.

Correct.

What is true is that all unregenerate men (no Holy Spirit) are by nature fallen, corrupt (Romans 8:7-8), condemned (Romans 5:18).

What is true is that those who receive, believe and obey the gospel are saved from the condemnation in which all mankind is born (Romans 5:18).

What is true is that "no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)

What is true is that "All that the Father gives me will come to me." (John 6:37)

What is true is that "I shall lose none of all that the Father has given me." (John 6:39)
The issue is not power, the issue is preference.
Fallen, corrupt, unregenerate man does not prefer nor like the things of God and will not freely choose what he does not prefer nor like.
Indeed!

God accomplishes his purposes, not by coercion, but by working in the disposition (heart) of unregenerate man, giving him to prefer the things of God, which man then freely and voluntarily without external force or constraint chooses of his own free will.

God does not violate the free will of unregenerate man, God uses the free will of unregenerate man to bring man to himself.

The issue is not "power" of choice, the issue is "preference" of choice, which preference determines the choice.
Unregenerate man's preference must be changed in order for him to freely choose the things of God.

That is the heart (disposition) of unregenerate man which has not been given to prefer the things of God.

All are made with an unregenerate fallen nature, none are by nature "good."

Remembering that the issue is not power, the issue is preference. Unregenerate man chooses what he prefers.

And again, remembering it is not about power, but preference.

1 Corinthians 2:14 - "The man without the Spirit (unregenerate man) does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for he does not understand them, and they are foolishness to him," of which foolishness he wants no part.

Romans 8:7-8 - "the sinful mind (unregenerate man) is hostile to God. It does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God."

It cannot do so because what it prefers is so much stronger than the contrary.

Click to expand...

Men are possessed of a limited free will, in that they do not have the power to choose (execute) all moral choices; e.g., man cannot choose to be sinless, to never sin in thought, word or deed.

However, man has free will in the Biblical sense: the power to choose voluntarily, without external force or constraint.
But man's will does not operate in a vacuum. It is governed by his disposition; i.e., what he prefers, likes.

Click to expand...

The Bible does not provide a detailed substantive meaning or detailed understanding of free will. There’s no single verse or amalgamation of verses providing to the reader a meaning or understanding of free will is X, Y, and Z, where the letters are elements of the meaning/understanding.

There isn’t a single verse or amalgamation of verses for the notion “Men are possessed of a limited free will, in that they do not have the power to choose (execute) all moral choices, e.g., man cannot choose to be sinless, to never sin in thought, word or deed.”

I agree with the overall sentiment, phrased differently though. People have the power, as power has the meaning of ability to decide to and/or do or able to decide to perfom all moral acts/all actions which aren’t sinful, and ability decide to refrain and able to decide to refrain from all immoral acts/all actions that are sinful and the ability to decide to and/or able to decide to perform all immoral acts/sinful acts, both individual decisions or some collection of decisions, conservatively, or intermittently. People, however, will at some point exercise their power, they will exercise their ability to decide and able to decide to perform some immoral act(s)/sinful act(s).

People aren’t sinless and aren’t devoid of immorality because they exercise their power to choose sin and to choose immorality, and will do so, as opposed to the notion “cannot choose to be sinless.”

The answer as to why they will sin, be immoral is, in part, 1.) the power, ability, able, aspect of humanity is predisposed to desiring some sinful conduct, wanting to perform some sinful conduct, as a result of humanity’s sinful nature and sinful flesh. 2.) our flesh will grow too weak at times to always abstain from sin such that we will decide to sin because it is easier at the moment to sin than resist C.) our perfect unity with God, which A and E initially possessed and experienced, isn’t perfect because of Adam’s sin as Adam’s sin resulted in spiritual alienation from God in a world of sin and sinners (Jesus in part restored this this unity with God but it isn’t what it was before A and E’s transgression in part because we are still transgressing and sin has entered the world itself) D.) with innate sinful desires, sinful apetites, and there existing, perhaps at times perceived at times real, a physical benefit and/or gratification, etcetera, people will by their own power, able to, ability, choose to sin. (Where “choose to sin” appears one could apply “immorality”

So, I agree with the overall sentiment, albeit phrased differently for me, that humans will not always choose to do what is morally correct, will not always choose to abstain from sin. Which is to also say humans will not always choose to abstain from sinful/immoral conduct.

Paragraph 1 and 2 result in a very interesting inference.

1they do not have the power to choose (execute) all moral choices, e.g., man cannot choose to be sinless, to never sin in thought, word or deed.”
2. “ man has free will…the power to choose voluntarily, without external force or constraint.”

The word “cannot” is not consistent with the word voluntary or “voluntarily.”

An inference to be drawn from one and two is the very first occasion to sin or not to sin, the person must sin because “man cannot choose to be sinless.” Which means the decision to sin for the first time isn’t “voluntary” or “voluntarily” done.

This is an inference and this inference is apparent because where the first decision to sin was voluntary and voluntarily done, but the second decision to sin was not, renders your first paragraph of “man cannot choose to be sinless” irrelevant, moot, pointless.

So, John is confronted for the first time with the decision to sin or not to sin. If John’s decision here to sin is voluntary and voluntarily done, then “do not have the power to choose (execute) all moral choices, e.g., man cannot choose to be sinless, to never sin in thought, word or deed,” is pointless. John chose on this occasion to sin voluntarily, and by doing so voluntarily chose to not be sinless.

If humanity can sin by a voluntary act and voluntarily act to sin when confronted for the first time to do so, then your point they “cannot choose to be sinless” is pointless.

For the notion “man cannot choose to be sinless” to have relevance must mean for this very first occasion to sin or not to sin, they must choose sin and it cannot be a voluntary act or voluntarily done.

Unless you have some way to resolve the paradox of “man cannot choose to be sinless” and the first occasion to sin or not to sin is voluntary and voluntarily done.

Michael Collum said:

Baptists mostly, so the experience would greatly vary.

In Canada, the methodist denomination merged with others in the past to become the United Church, which is fairly liberal in nature. So imagining a Wesleyan Calvinist isn't really in my frame of reference.

Glad I asked.

Click to expand...

Haha, I've never heard of a Wesleyan Calvinist. Sort of a contradiction in terms, no?

John Mullally said:

I learned the following from MacArthur and Piper:

God desires all to be saved, but He only decrees that the some will be.​

MacArthur: God genuinely desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Yet in “the eternal purpose which He carried out in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Eph. 3:11), He chose only the elect “out of the world” (John 17:6), and passed over the rest, leaving them to the damning consequences of their sin (cf.. Rom. 1:18–32).
If God Desires All Men to Be Saved, Why Aren't They?

Piper: My aim in this short book is to show from Scripture that the simultaneous existence of God’s will for all people to be saved and his will to choose some people for salvation unconditionally before creation1 is not a sign of divine schizophrenia or exegetical confusion.
https://document.desiringgod.org/does-god-desire-all-to-be-saved-en.pdf?ts=1646158401

Click to expand...

That's a little better! So how does the fact they say that change anything their purported followers believe?

Mark Quayle said:

Nevertheless, in the story, the eternal destiny is assigned by what they are —wheat and tares. The one does not become the other, and I don't know why you claim Jesus describes a transition from tare into wheat. Can you show where Jesus does that?

The lost are found, there is a change from death to life, but tare is not wheat, nor does it become wheat.

Click to expand...

I see it this way:


God sows the good seed of his word, it produces, good fruit.


The devil sows his counter to God's word it produces bad fruit.


The question is asked by the angel, shall we gather up the evil ones now, i.e. take them out


The answer by the LORD is no, in being too harsh you may damage the wheat, i.e if families lost loved ones they may be spiritually damaged. So they grow up together until the end day.

Man is the field, and the fruit (who man becomes) is the result of the sowing.

John Mullally said:

I already showed from Ezekiel 18:30-32 that receiving a new heart and spirit first requires repentance. You did not dispute that - maybe because you see that would be an uphill battle. Repentance involves collaboration. So receiving a new heart is a collaborative effort. Collaboration is the opposite of coercion.
There is nothing blocking the Holy Spirit from drawing a man to repentance in response to the preaching of the Gospel. The Holy Spirit can draw the spiritual dead (because that means separated from God). I can't find anything in scripture that says man needs to receive a new heart before repentance.

Click to expand...

What I say is that receiving a new heart and spirit causes repentance. It does not FIRST REQUIRE it, nor, as I have already mentioned, does your reference show that it does. (Your reference only shows that both happen.) Collaboration is a nice vague word, apparently implying, to you, just as Synergism claims, that the work of both produces a result better than God's work alone. So I don't use collaboration, no matter how "involved" the will is, because any good I do is by the work and grace of God in me.

"For to me to live is Christ" is more than a figure of speech.

Scripture does say that the sinful nature is UNABLE to please God, or to submit to God's law. Is repentance not submission to God's law, and does it not please him? Therefore, if one is to repent, one's sinful nature must be CHANGED. And if one is regenerated, they will indeed repent.

John Mullally said:

Jesus died for all men (1 John 2:2 and 1 Timothy 2:6) and God desires all to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9). Jesus's disciples labor to bring people to the Savior (1 Timothy 4:10). It is the god of this world (not the Lord) who works against that purpose. Unfortunately, some men reject per John 3:18-19 because they love darkness.

1 Timothy 4:10 For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe.

2 Corinthians 4:4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.

John 3:18 He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. 19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how that makes your point or denies mine.

John Mullally said:

The work of grace is first Christ paying the ransom for all men (1 John 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:6, even 2 Peter 2:1) and then the Holy Spirit working with the preaching of the Gospel. It is a shame that you derogatorily label cooperation with the Holy Spirit as a "work of man". Acts 7:51 says that men can resist the Holy Spirit - so cooperation is man's option. Sorry if you heard this from me many times: If it is just a work of God alone, then why does Peter promise remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit to those who repent in response to his Gospel message in Acts 2. Peter even invokes his audience to "save yourselves" - which I have been told is not a popular phrase among Calvinists.

Click to expand...

It is a shame you must see regeneration, or for that matter, any virtue, as the result of "cooperation" with the spirit of God, in place of it being the work of God in you. Again, ad nauseum with the repetition of it, I do not deny the effort and will of man being "involved" in the whole matter, except where by nature man is incapable, as per Romans 8, to submit or even to please God.

Unlike some Calvinists/Reformed, I will happily claim that regeneration may take years and it may be instantaneous. I believe that for some the rebirth is long and laborious process, perhaps, (from the POV of the recipient), even in fits and starts. And honestly, I don't care what you want to call it, as long as it is Scriptural, but to claim that anyone can induce it, before they have been changed, by some sort of repentance, is to me ludicrous. The question of how a dead man can do anything keeps showing up.

To put it maybe more plainly, how does repentance mean anything when it is merely the act of someone as silly, ignorant, stupid, presumptuous, foolish, fitful, emotionally driven, self-important and self-centered, selfish, inconsistent, easily distracted and fooled person, (ignoring for the moment that the lost are at enmity with God and are slaves to sin)? It is silly enough to claim that the regenerate are able to do so in and of themselves, but the Unregenerate???

John Mullally said:

I agree with this. The book of Acts and the NT epistles were written to NT believers - that is where we should concentrate. Unfortunately, some give the same importance to that which was written to pre-NT believers.

Click to expand...

So none pre-Christ were 'born again'?

John Mullally said:

The verse in Ezekiel references the need to repent and turn multiple times. At the tail end of a sentence after repentance is mentioned does he refer to getting a new heart and spirit. What is Ezekiel stressing: Is it repent now to get a new heart and spirit or is it wait to get spuriously zapped with a new heart and new spirit so you can repent. Try to read the passage objectively - if you can.

Click to expand...

Yes, I'm pretty sure all of us in this thread can show multitudes of passages showing the dire need for repentance. He does not say, "repent in order to get a new heart". In that passage the sound is as though repentance and regeneration are all of a lump. As I said, the one thing does not happen without the other.

zoidar said:

Why did God make "Jimmy for the exact purpose of Jimmy's position as that particular member of the Bride of Christ that he is /will be." ?

Why didn't he make Clark for that purpose and position instead?

Click to expand...

You beg the question. You may as well say, "Why is Jimmy not named 'Clark'?"

But if your question really is, "Why did he bother to make Clark, if he was not made for a position in the Bride?", then look to Romans 9. The reason was not perdition for its own sake, but to show his glory and justice to the objects of God's mercy.

RickReads said:

It`s a recognition of your scholastic achievements in Bible College. I am a mere hillbilly coveting your knowledge and insights.

Click to expand...

I think you called me schoolboy before I told you about Bible College. Maybe not. But for whatever it is worth, I didn't even complete one year there. The required first year classes were not what I was after, not to mention that they seemed to want me to join their society like a club or something, when I had been a believer longer even than several of their teaching staff. In other words, if you want to refer to me as a student, it really has nothing to do with going to Bible college, except for the few valuable lessons learned about how Christians operate.

John Mullally said:

The whole council of God - ha, ha, I am convinced if you knew that you would not be a Calvinist. Make an argument. I am not wasting my time giving commentary on a laundry list of scriptural passages - only to have portions of it picked apart by some hostile man pretending he speaks for the Sovereign God.

Click to expand...

Really?? You actually think @Clare73 claims to speak for sovereign God? In a manner of speaking, we all do that when we try to represent the truth, but that isn't what you are referring to, is it?

RickReads said:

Well, I intend to continue to ignore the baggage. Ephesians 2 will work just fine as a discussion point but I need you to tell me which of your points it ties into and why.

Click to expand...

The whole thing, point after point, fits Reformed Theology to a T. It begins with Total Depravity (aka Total Inability) and slavery to Satan and sin. It teaches specifically the operation of, or ways of, the sinful nature, and that by nature we justly deserve God's wrath. Then it shows how God regenerated us while we were still dead in our sin, and explains specifically that it was a work entirely of Grace, and that salvation itself is included in that rebirth. And it shows God's sovereignty over, or distance from, time, in that it describes us as already raised up in Christ and seated with him, in Christ. It also thus demonstrates the concept of being "in Christ", as the operative norm, (instead of mentioning 'cooperation', where we do our part and God does his). And it says why God has done that, repeating what Romans 9 also teaches, that God does this, for his own sake, to show us the incomparable riches of his Grace, shown in his kindness (towards the undeserving). Then of course, the Reformed favorite, that it is by Grace alone that we are saved, through faith, both of which are the gift of God, and not by works, but that we are in fact God's handiwork, created in Christ, to do the things that God has predestined for us to do.

iwbswiaihl said:

I deleted all but this, which I will comment on: And you did say perhaps not entirely accurate, because the main difference is really that mindset behind that false Gospel. I doubt seriously if you know the mind set of many others, although that may just be observation.

But when it comes to grace, as I say below, by grace through faith, is true.
Speaking only from my own post, go back and show where I ever posted any of what you say: One can easily find that whenever I mention salvation, if I took it from the beginning I would say that faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. I have also stated that it is the word of God that deals with the heart of man by the work of the Holy Spirit through His word in the heart that brings conviction that I needed Jesus Christ as my Savior. I have shown that faith comes by hearing the word of God. Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. Even showed Isa 55: 6 Seek the LORD while He may be found; call on Him while He is near.7Let the wicked man forsake his own way and the unrighteous man his own thoughts; let him return to the LORD, that He may have compassion, and to our God, for He will freely pardon.8“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,” declares the LORD.9“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so My ways are higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.10For just as rain and snow fall from heaven and do not return without watering the earth, making it bud and sprout, and providing seed to sow and food to eat, 11 so My word that proceeds from My mouth will not return to Me empty, but it will accomplish what I please, and it will prosper where I send it.

I could add more but this is sufficient to show the means of conviction is from the Lord by the working of the Holy Spirit through the word which produces the faith which is offered by His grace as I stated above. Plus, I do not think you singled me out nor even mention by name, but felt included, not being of reformed mind set, but to jab a little, but a mind set of rightly dividing the word.
OR OH ME?

Click to expand...

Brother I was agreeing with you! Even if you believe in prevenient grace resulting in faith, as opposed to regeneration resulting in faith, the differences by your descriptions are hardly distinguishable, that grace accomplishing the necessary change of will and heart that produces actual repentance. I meant no jab at all.

And forgive me, but the mindset is rather obvious, that demands that man intrinsically is ABLE to repent. And no, I did not hear you claim man is intrinsically able to repent. You seemed to think quite the opposite.

Mark Quayle said:

I think you called me schoolboy before I told you about Bible College. Maybe not. But for whatever it is worth, I didn't even complete one year there. The required first year classes were not what I was after, not to mention that they seemed to want me to join their society like a club or something, when I had been a believer longer even than several of their teaching staff. In other words, if you want to refer to me as a student, it really has nothing to do with going to Bible college, except for the few valuable lessons learned about how Christians operate.

Click to expand...

I C. Indeed, it has been apparent that I overestimated you. Better if I had said, your powers are weak old man.

Mark Quayle said:

You beg the question. You may as well say, "Why is Jimmy not named 'Clark'?"

But if your question really is, "Why did he bother to make Clark, if he was not made for a position in the Bride?", then look to Romans 9. The reason was not perdition for its own sake, but to show his glory and justice to the objects of God's mercy.

Click to expand...

Ok, I'll try to ask better questions.

You say: "—he MADE Jimmy for the exact purpose of Jimmy's position as that particular member of the Bride of Christ that he is /will be."

What is the reason God has a fixed position in the Bride that he made Jimmy fit for, instead of having a another fixed position in the Bride He made Clark fit for?

God made Jimmy for the purpose for fit of the Bride and God didn't make Clark for the fit of the Bride. Why did God have this purpose for Jimmy instead of Clark? Couldn't God shape the Bride the way He wanted her? Did the Bride need to be in one certain way? In that case, why?