What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[ViaCrucis]

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

I had a much longer post, but I thought it could be easier to simply illustrate it visually.

Here is a common example one can find in various tracts, pamphlets, etc, such as the "Four Spiritual Laws".

Here Christ is depicted as the bridge by which man crosses over to God. Notice the emphasis is on man going over to God.

Now on the Four Spiritual Laws website, they have, what I'd argue, a better visual image; but it gets undermined immediately by the rest of the message of the tract.

That's not a bad image, that--on its own--indicates that it is God coming to man, not man coming to God; and that the way God comes to man is in Jesus Christ.

The problem is that the tract ruins whatever Gospel is to be found in an image like this, by saying the following:

"4. We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know God personally and experience His love."

The Four Spiritual Laws-English-knowing God Personally

So here's the big question:

Is Christ's sacrifice and work something that lets us, if we choose, cross over to God?
Or is Christ's sacrifice and work God coming down to us to save us once and for all?

What is the correct direction of movement in salvation?

God --> Man?
God <-- Man?
God <-> Man?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RickReads]

I had a much longer post, but I thought it could be easier to simply illustrate it visually.

Here is a common example one can find in various tracts, pamphlets, etc, such as the "Four Spiritual Laws".

Here Christ is depicted as the bridge by which man crosses over to God. Notice the emphasis is on man going over to God.

Now on the Four Spiritual Laws website, they have, what I'd argue, a better visual image; but it gets undermined immediately by the rest of the message of the tract.

That's not a bad image, that--on its own--indicates that it is God coming to man, not man coming to God; and that the way God comes to man is in Jesus Christ.

The problem is that the tract ruins whatever Gospel is to be found in an image like this, by saying the following:

"4. We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know God personally and experience His love."

The Four Spiritual Laws-English-knowing God Personally

So here's the big question:

Is Christ's sacrifice and work something that lets us, if we choose, cross over to God?
Or is Christ's sacrifice and work God coming down to us to save us once and for all?

What is the correct direction of movement in salvation?

God --> Man?
God <-- Man?
God <-> Man?

-CryptoLutheran

And how did you determine the author of your pamphlet speaks for Arminians?

And my big question is what dying for all in potential means?

 

[Cormack]

What’s wrong with Calvinism? We could simply write “Calvinism is unbiblical” and be done with that, but I’m going to assume that’s been shared already. So instead I’d write this…

Calvinism as a movement of people often turns cultic and its adherents require that we repeat incoherent absurdities wrongly labelled mysteries (e.g. God truly loves the people he’s created as “vessels of destruction,” men, women and children made for eternal conscious torment.)

Calvinism as a biblical philosophy is incoherent and its adherents are often militants who argue more against Christians than they do atheists, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and a whole host of other non church corporate entities.

Calvinism has the spirit of church schism deep within its bones. So what’s wrong with Calvinism? Its believers are at war with the wider Christian church. If they stopped attacking the body of Christ like a virus there’d be one less thing wrong with Calvinism.

 

[Clare73]

What’s wrong with Calvinism? We could simply write “Calvinism is unbiblical” and be done with that, but I’m going to assume that’s been shared already. So instead I’d write this…

Calvinism as a movement of people often turns cultic and its adherents require that we repeat incoherent absurdities wrongly labelled mysteries (e.g. God truly loves the people he’s created as “vessels of destruction,” men, women and children made for eternal conscious torment.)

Calvinism as a biblical philosophy is incoherent and its adherents are often militants who argue more against Christians than they do atheists, Mormons, Muslims, Hindus and a whole host of other non church corporate entities.

Calvinism has the spirit of church schism deep within its bones. So what’s wrong with Calvinism? Its believers are at war with the wider Christian church. If they stopped attacking the body of Christ like a virus there’d be one less thing wrong with Calvinism.

I'm more interested in being shown precisely how they are misinterpreting the texts.
That's the only thing that matters.

 

[RickReads]

I had a much longer post, but I thought it could be easier to simply illustrate it visually.

Here is a common example one can find in various tracts, pamphlets, etc, such as the "Four Spiritual Laws".

Here Christ is depicted as the bridge by which man crosses over to God. Notice the emphasis is on man going over to God.

Now on the Four Spiritual Laws website, they have, what I'd argue, a better visual image; but it gets undermined immediately by the rest of the message of the tract.

That's not a bad image, that--on its own--indicates that it is God coming to man, not man coming to God; and that the way God comes to man is in Jesus Christ.

The problem is that the tract ruins whatever Gospel is to be found in an image like this, by saying the following:

"4. We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know God personally and experience His love."

The Four Spiritual Laws-English-knowing God Personally

So here's the big question:

Is Christ's sacrifice and work something that lets us, if we choose, cross over to God?
Or is Christ's sacrifice and work God coming down to us to save us once and for all?

What is the correct direction of movement in salvation?

God --> Man?
God <-- Man?
God <-> Man?

-CryptoLutheran

Ok, this pamphlet is just a religious pamphlet. I think pamphlets are ok but they are not the gospel.

I prefer to talk common sense and the gospel. I`ll treat you like you've read the Bible but will help out with references if you need the milk. (heh...heh)

The only path to the Father is Jesus Christ and men only come to Jesus when the Father draws/calls them via the Holy Spirit. The draw which essentially means to drag by force is the first step initiated by God Himself. An Arminian who isn't confused understands this so I believe you made false accusation.

Arminians don't need to keep getting saved, that isn't what conditional security means, and it isn't what Arminians believe to my knowledge.

The condition for security is simply enduring to the end of life which we all must do.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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

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

Love defined.

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

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

Charles Finney had problems with the American version of Calvinism (different from the English), in that the New England Presbyterians did not evangelise but had the opinion that either God brought the unsaved into their churches to be converted to Christ, by some mysterious process. As a result, not many actually got converted in those churches. Finney was invited to join a Presbyterian church but told them that because God never answered their prayers why should he have confidence that God would answer his prayers or their prayers for him? Finney became an evangelist and worked to win many for Christ, while suffering opposition from the Presbyterians. But in the English Puritan era, there were some very effective Calvinist evangelists who were well known for winning souls for Christ. Incidentally George Whitefield was a Methodist Calvinist who had extensive mass evangelistic crusades and won tens of thousands to Christ.

So American Calvinists were a breed of their own, and had a much more strict and unloving form of Calvinism than anywhere else.

 

[Clare73]

Charles Finney had problems with the American version of Calvinism (different from the English), in that the New England Presbyterians did not evangelise but had the opinion that either God brought the unsaved into their churches to be converted to Christ, by some mysterious process. As a result, not many actually got converted in those churches. Finney was invited to join a Presbyterian church but told them that because God never answered their prayers why should he have confidence that God would answer his prayers or their prayers for him? Finney became an evangelist and worked to win many for Christ, while suffering opposition from the Presbyterians. But in the English Puritan era, there were some very effective Calvinist evangelists who were well known for winning souls for Christ. Incidentally George Whitefield was a Methodist Calvinist who had extensive mass evangelistic crusades and won tens of thousands to Christ.

So American Calvinists were a breed of their own, and had a much more strict and unloving form of Calvinism than anywhere else.

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

 

[NotreDame]

I had a much longer post, but I thought it could be easier to simply illustrate it visually.

Here is a common example one can find in various tracts, pamphlets, etc, such as the "Four Spiritual Laws".

Here Christ is depicted as the bridge by which man crosses over to God. Notice the emphasis is on man going over to God.

Now on the Four Spiritual Laws website, they have, what I'd argue, a better visual image; but it gets undermined immediately by the rest of the message of the tract.

That's not a bad image, that--on its own--indicates that it is God coming to man, not man coming to God; and that the way God comes to man is in Jesus Christ.

The problem is that the tract ruins whatever Gospel is to be found in an image like this, by saying the following:

"4. We must individually receive Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord; then we can know God personally and experience His love."

The Four Spiritual Laws-English-knowing God Personally

So here's the big question:

Is Christ's sacrifice and work something that lets us, if we choose, cross over to God?
Or is Christ's sacrifice and work God coming down to us to save us once and for all?

What is the correct direction of movement in salvation?

God --> Man?
God <-- Man?
God <-> Man?

-CryptoLutheran

“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;” Romans 10:9

This verse, and others, show there is an act committed by people to be saved. However, perhaps I cannot emphasize enough, without Christ’s actions, there’s no salvation to accept. None, zero, zilch, nada. The Romans verse saves no one where Christ didn’t complete that which was necessary for us to be saved. Which is to say, nothing we do or say saves us without the act of salvation completed by Christ.

 

[ViaCrucis]

“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;” Romans 10:9

This verse, and others, show there is an act committed by people to be saved. However, perhaps I cannot emphasize enough, without Christ’s actions, there’s no salvation to accept. None, zero, zilch, nada. The Romans verse saves no one where Christ didn’t complete that which was necessary for us to be saved. Which is to say, nothing we do or say saves us without the act of salvation completed by Christ.

Only if you take it out of context.

"For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." - Romans 10:5-17

It is the word that gives faith, not the sinful will of man. For this faith is a gift from God,

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

In contrast, the human heart is perverse and sick with sin,

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" - Jeremiah 17:9

Without regeneration and conversion, there can be no heart of flesh,

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh." - Ezekiel 11:19

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

And how did you determine the author of your pamphlet speaks for Arminians?

And my big question is what dying for all in potential means?

Well, as a general principle American Neo-Evangelicalism is a hodgepodge of Calvinist and Arminian ideas. Though I suppose, to be fair to the historic Arminians, much of American Evangelicalism looks more like Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism than Arminianism, strictly speaking.

But I still don't know how Arminians could accept conditional election and also accept objective justification a la Romans 5:18.

I must admit my bias is largely based on a broadly self-identifying-as Arminian upbringing in my Pentecostal church. Where the non-denominational church I attended was slightly more Calvinist, both place the emphasis of salvation on the human will, rather than the objective word of God. In both circles. Neither was entirely Calvinist or entirely Arminian, but followed the more general hodgepodge of both to varying degrees.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RickReads]

Well, as a general principle American Neo-Evangelicalism is a hodgepodge of Calvinist and Arminian ideas. Though I suppose, to be fair to the historic Arminians, much of American Evangelicalism looks more like Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism than Arminianism, strictly speaking.

But I still don't know how Arminians could accept conditional election and also accept objective justification a la Romans 5:18.

I must admit my bias is largely based on a broadly self-identifying-as Arminian upbringing in my Pentecostal church. Where the non-denominational church I attended was slightly more Calvinist, both place the emphasis of salvation on the human will, rather than the objective word of God. In both circles. Neither was entirely Calvinist or entirely Arminian, but followed the more general hodgepodge of both to varying degrees.

-CryptoLutheran

I see a pile of terms that aren't in my gospel. That's the difference between me and you. In 1987 I decided to devote my time to studying Paul's gospel and working to understand that. Since that time I haven't cared about doctrines that were developed after the book of Revelation was written.

I will disclose that I did spend a few months reviewing the earliest Catholic writings because I was debating Catholics who were clamoring to use them in our spirited discussions.

Your terms are only useful to me as recreational discussion. Conditional election for instance. There is no such thing so far as the gospel is concerned. Neither is justification objective. Everyone was justified when Jesus died.

Everything I believe is based solely on the views of Paul. I allow for the use of the term Arminian as an extra-Biblical term for myself because it is the one that is the best fit.

 

[NotreDame]

Only if you take it out of context.

"For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." - Romans 10:5-17



In contrast, the human heart is perverse and sick with sin,

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" - Jeremiah 17:9

Without regeneration and conversion, there can be no heart of flesh,

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh." - Ezekiel 11:19

-CryptoLutheran

Take what out of context? I’ve said nothing incorrect and there’s no context demonstrating what I said is incorrect.

You asked, “Is Christ's sacrifice and work something that lets us, if we choose, cross over to God?”

I gave the answer. “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus asLord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;” Romans 10:9

This verse unequivocally states thee is an act on behalf of people to receive salvation. You have said and provided no evidence I’m wrong. The verses you quote to do not demonstrate I’m wrong.

It is the word that gives faith, not the sinful will of man. For this faith is a gift from God,

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

And you delude yourself if think you’ve provided correction because the above is precisely what I said with my comments of, “However, perhaps I cannot emphasize enough, without Christ’s actions, there’s no salvation to accept. None, zero, zilch, nada. The Romans verse saves no one where Christ didn’t complete that which was necessary for us to be saved. Which is to say, nothing we do or say saves us without the act of salvation completed by Christ.”

You’ve written nothing refuting my post. Nothing. Interestingly, you quote to verses that support precisely what I did say. Gracias.

The fact is there is salvation made possibly only by God, as I previously stated. There is also an act on behalf of people to receive and accept the salvation made possible only by God, thst they “confess with their tongue” Jesus is Lord and “believe in their heart” Jesus is Lord. Those are acts on behalf of the people to accept and receive the salvation made possible by God and offered by God.

 

[Clare73]

I see a pile of terms that aren't in my gospel. That's the difference between me and you. In 1987 I decided to devote my time to studying Paul's gospel and working to understand that. Since that time I haven't cared about doctrines that were developed after the book of Revelation was written.

Good for you!

I will disclose that I did spend a few months reviewing the earliest Catholic writings because I was debating Catholics who were clamoring to use them in our spirited discussions.

Your terms are only useful to me as recreational discussion. Conditional election for instance. There is no such thing so far as the gospel is concerned. Neither is justification objective. Everyone was justified when Jesus died.

However, justification (declared righteous by imputed righteousness of God/Jesus Christ) is only by faith (Genesis 15:6; Romans 3:28; Romans 4:2-3).
No unbeliever is justified.

Everything I believe is based solely on the views of Paul. I allow for the use of the term Arminian as an extra-Biblical term for myself because it is the one that is the best fit.

 

[Clare73]

Only if you take it out of context.

"For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on the law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them. But the righteousness based on faith says, “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) “or ‘Who will descend into the abyss?’” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead). But what does it say? “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved. For the Scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.” For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching? And how are they to preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." - Romans 10:5-17

It is the word that gives faith, not the sinful will of man. For this faith is a gift from God,

"For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast." - Ephesians 2:8-9

In contrast, the human heart is perverse and sick with sin,

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it?" - Jeremiah 17:9

Without regeneration and conversion, there can be no heart of flesh,

"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh." - Ezekiel 11:19

-CryptoLutheran

Their mistake is in thinking that confession is a work of the law.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Take what out of context? I’ve said nothing incorrect and there’s no context demonstrating what I said is incorrect.

You asked, “Is Christ's sacrifice and work something that lets us, if we choose, cross over to God?”

I gave the answer. “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus asLord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;” Romans 10:9

This verse unequivocally states thee is an act on behalf of people to receive salvation. You have said and provided no evidence I’m wrong. The verses you quote to do not demonstrate I’m wrong.



And you delude yourself if think you’ve provided correction because the above is precisely what I said with my comments of, “However, perhaps I cannot emphasize enough, without Christ’s actions, there’s no salvation to accept. None, zero, zilch, nada. The Romans verse saves no one where Christ didn’t complete that which was necessary for us to be saved. Which is to say, nothing we do or say saves us without the act of salvation completed by Christ.”

You’ve written nothing refuting my post. Nothing. Interestingly, you quote to verses that support precisely what I did say. Gracias.

The fact is there is salvation made possibly only by God, as I previously stated. There is also an act on behalf of people to receive and accept the salvation made possible only by God, thst they “confess with their tongue” Jesus is Lord and “believe in their heart” Jesus is Lord. Those are acts on behalf of the people to accept and receive the salvation made possible by God and offered by God.

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: 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?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

I see a pile of terms that aren't in my gospel. That's the difference between me and you. In 1987 I decided to devote my time to studying Paul's gospel and working to understand that. Since that time I haven't cared about doctrines that were developed after the book of Revelation was written.

I will disclose that I did spend a few months reviewing the earliest Catholic writings because I was debating Catholics who were clamoring to use them in our spirited discussions.

Your terms are only useful to me as recreational discussion. Conditional election for instance. There is no such thing so far as the gospel is concerned. Neither is justification objective. Everyone was justified when Jesus died.

Everything I believe is based solely on the views of Paul. I allow for the use of the term Arminian as an extra-Biblical term for myself because it is the one that is the best fit.

"Neither is justification objective. Everyone was justified when Jesus died."

You just described what objective justification is. It's that by Christ's death all are justified. That's Romans 5:18.

We call it objective justification in contrast to subjective justification, because Scripture regularly speaks of subjective justification. Subjective justification is the justification that is ours by faith.

Objective justification is called objective because it is what Christ has objectively done and accomplished.
Subjective justification is called subjective because it refers to the individual receiving what Christ has done and accomplished.

Why are these terms important? For the purpose of clarity. Paul says all were justified in Romans 5:18, but elsewhere speaks of justification by faith. So is everyone justified without faith, or is the one who has faith justified? The answer is the latter, and yet the work of Christ is perfect, done, accomplished, for all.

And such faith is to be confessed not as a power or work or ability of man and his fallen sinful will (which despises God and which seeks only after its own way); but as the gift of God.

So even when we say "Justified by faith" we mean "justified by God who gives us faith". And thus we must always look outside of ourselves to the external word of God.

The external word of God--preached, proclaimed, and in the Sacraments.

I did not come to believe on my own, and then get saved by believing and confessing theological propositions.

I was given faith by God by His saving word, and out from this faith comes belief, confession, etc.

I believe with my heart and confess with my mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God raised Him up from the dead because the word which was preached to me made me a believer--it worked and made faith in my heart. God did that.

So if you ask me "When did you get saved?" I will never answer "When I did this" because I can't. That would be boasting in my works. So when was I saved? I was saved two thousand years ago on a hill outside of Jerusalem called Golgotha. I was saved when my parents told me the Gospel in simplest terms while I was still wearing diapers. I was saved when I was washed in the holy waters of Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. I am saved when Christ gives away to me His very bodily flesh and blood in the Lord's Supper.

My salvation is, past, present, future, outside of me and in Christ, and in the works of Christ, and in the word of Christ. All of which is mine as pure grace, given to me by the external word. I am saved because God comes to me--He comes to me in Word and Sacrament.

If I judge my salvation by any standard other than the word itself, that is, the holy Gospel then I judge my salvation on the basis of the Law--in which there is only condemnation and death.

It is only the Gospel which proclaims to me, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." In myself, in my works, in my abilities, in my thoughts, in all my ways there is only dead bones and dead skin slowly decaying, slowly succumbing to the existential dread of my own mortality, and all my wretched and disordered passions rage. The life, therefore, which I have received from God--that life which shall truly last, because it is in Jesus Christ who conquered death and sin--is mine as pure gift.

I am dirty.
I am impure.
I am a sinner.

I am dirty for I have many sins.
I am impure for I am filthy with sin.
I am a sinner, for I am dirty and impure, a transgressor of God's commandment.

And yet, I belong to Jesus Christ. Because He says so.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Bruce Leiter]

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

On what biblical basis do you categorize God's attributes as primary and secondary? In the OT prophets and Romans 1-3, God's justice is definitely a primary one. His justice demands human perfection, but we can't be perfect. As a result, God's love sent Jesus to take his just verdict on himself; this is how God's love and justice work perfectly together.

 

[RickReads]

However, justification (declared righteous by imputed righteousness of God/Jesus Christ) is only by faith (Genesis 15:6; Romans 3:28; Romans 4:2-3).
No unbeliever is justified.

Do you ever get anything right?

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.

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

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.

 

[RickReads]

"Neither is justification objective. Everyone was justified when Jesus died."

You just described what objective justification is. It's that by Christ's death all are justified. That's Romans 5:18.

We call it objective justification in contrast to subjective justification, because Scripture regularly speaks of subjective justification. Subjective justification is the justification that is ours by faith.

Objective justification is called objective because it is what Christ has objectively done and accomplished.
Subjective justification is called subjective because it refers to the individual receiving what Christ has done and accomplished.

Why are these terms important? For the purpose of clarity. Paul says all were justified in Romans 5:18, but elsewhere speaks of justification by faith. So is everyone justified without faith, or is the one who has faith justified? The answer is the latter, and yet the work of Christ is perfect, done, accomplished, for all.

And such faith is to be confessed not as a power or work or ability of man and his fallen sinful will (which despises God and which seeks only after its own way); but as the gift of God.

So even when we say "Justified by faith" we mean "justified by God who gives us faith". And thus we must always look outside of ourselves to the external word of God.

The external word of God--preached, proclaimed, and in the Sacraments.

I did not come to believe on my own, and then get saved by believing and confessing theological propositions.

I was given faith by God by His saving word, and out from this faith comes belief, confession, etc.

I believe with my heart and confess with my mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and that God raised Him up from the dead because the word which was preached to me made me a believer--it worked and made faith in my heart. God did that.

So if you ask me "When did you get saved?" I will never answer "When I did this" because I can't. That would be boasting in my works. So when was I saved? I was saved two thousand years ago on a hill outside of Jerusalem called Golgotha. I was saved when my parents told me the Gospel in simplest terms while I was still wearing diapers. I was saved when I was washed in the holy waters of Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. I am saved when Christ gives away to me His very bodily flesh and blood in the Lord's Supper.

My salvation is, past, present, future, outside of me and in Christ, and in the works of Christ, and in the word of Christ. All of which is mine as pure grace, given to me by the external word. I am saved because God comes to me--He comes to me in Word and Sacrament.

If I judge my salvation by any standard other than the word itself, that is, the holy Gospel then I judge my salvation on the basis of the Law--in which there is only condemnation and death.

It is only the Gospel which proclaims to me, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." In myself, in my works, in my abilities, in my thoughts, in all my ways there is only dead bones and dead skin slowly decaying, slowly succumbing to the existential dread of my own mortality, and all my wretched and disordered passions rage. The life, therefore, which I have received from God--that life which shall truly last, because it is in Jesus Christ who conquered death and sin--is mine as pure gift.

I am dirty.
I am impure.
I am a sinner.

I am dirty for I have many sins.
I am impure for I am filthy with sin.
I am a sinner, for I am dirty and impure, a transgressor of God's commandment.

And yet, I belong to Jesus Christ. Because He says so.

-CryptoLutheran

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

 

[Cormack]

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.