What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

You are evasive.

Unless I am untruthful, it is irrelevant.

Precisely what am I evading?

I am familiar enough with Calvin, but he is not the only, nor the best Reformed theologian.

 

[RickReads]

Okay. . .but you are aware, right, that

the NT reveals there is only one gospel of Jesus Christ,
given personally by Jesus Christ to the apostle Paul (Galatians 1:11-12),
who was caught up to the third heaven (2 Corinthians 12:1-8),
any other gospels being a perversion (Galatians 1:7) and
anyone preaching another gospel being eternally condemned (Galatians 1:8-9).

The term Gospel of the Kingdom is used by Matthew, Mark, and Jesus. It's a Biblical term used to describe the message of Jesus to the Jews, essentially the Jesus story.

There is nothing sinister about it, it's perfectly fine when righty used as a descriptive for that portion of the gospel. I was just curious to see what you would say. You may not be as Pauline as you think you are.

The fast draw on the condemnation is a Calvinist trait.

 

[Clare73]

The term Gospel of the Kingdom is used by Matthew, Mark, and Jesus. It's a Biblical term used to describe the message of Jesus to the Jews, essentially the Jesus story.

Yes, there are about 14 NT appellations for the one NT gospel.

There is only one Gospel, and any assertion otherwise is contra-NT apostolic teaching (didactics).

There is nothing sinister about it,
it's perfectly fine when righty used as a descriptive for that portion of the gospel.

However, I am sure you are aware that the NT does not use it in reference to only a portion of the gospel, but to the whole one and only gospel.

I was just curious to see what you would say.
You may not be as Pauline as you think you are.

Not sure what you are implying. . .

Is it not Paul who makes that point most emphatically in Galatians 1:6-9?

The fast draw on the condemnation is a Calvinist trait.

Good for Calvin. . .because it is also a Pauline trait. . .and he was here long before Calvin.

Please don't tell me I am hearing an implication here that it is Calvin, rather than Paul, who condemns more than one gospel. . .please, no!

 

[RickReads]

It means that we are reckoned with Adam's guilt (not with the one sin itself), by imputation.

Yes, we inherited Adam's sinful nature.
But we did not inherit his guilt (sin and guilt are not inherited), rather his guilt was imputed/accounted to us by God himself.

Note that the two contrasting parallels of the text (Romans 5:18-19) state "condemnation for all mankind" because of one trespass."
It does not state condemnation because of a predisposition to sin by the nature of sinful flesh.

But note that the text states precisely that righteousness (justification) was credited/reckoned/accounted/imputed to Abraham by faith (Romans 4:2-3; Genesis 15:6),
just as by faith God credits/reckons/accounts/imputes Christ's righteousness (justification) to believers (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-24).

However, we do not receive Christ's righteous nature.
The nature of the believer is still fallen, however, sin no longer has dominion/power over him.

Correct. . .we did not commit Adam's sin, its guilt was imputed/accounted to us.
Nor do we have Christ's nature, his righteousness is imputed/accounted to us.

Inheritance and reckoning/imputation are two different things:
We inherit the nature of our ancestors--sinful.

We are reckoned/imputed with the guilt of Adam by birth, and
we are reckoned/imputed with the righteousness of Christ by rebirth/faith.

What was imputed is the disease of aging and the fallen nature of the flesh.

The judgment leads to condemnation. Judgment is about your sins, not Adams.

I said we do not receive credit for the works of Christ so feel free to stop twisting my words.

I`m out for tonight.

 

[Clare73]

What was imputed is the disease of aging and the fallen nature of the flesh.

No, we inherit what is natural, such as our fallen nature of the flesh, by the natural law of generating, like we inherit our eye color, etc.

We did not acquire Adam's guilt by a process of nature (inheriting),
we acquired it from imputation (reckoning) by God directly to us.

The judgment leads to condemnation. Judgment is about your sins, not Adams.

The judgment ("guilty") leads to condemnation.

In Romans 5:18, "condemnation" (katakrima) is the sentence against (kata) crime (krima), the sentence passed upon due to a crime; the sentence of death, both physical and spiritual.

I said we do not receive credit for the works of Christ so feel free to stop twisting my words.

Let's not get defensive, okay?

You said we receive his nature. Not quite. . .

There is "imputed" righteousness (justification), and there is "imparted" righteousness (sanctification), which is a process of actual transformation to righteousness, and which "imputed" righteousness is not.

Imputed righteousness (justification) is simply a declaration, a verdict--declared righteous, because of faith, but it doesn't change us, transform us.
Imparted righteousness is transformation of us, through the obedience of sanctification in the Holy Spirit, leading to holiness (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19), which is actual righteousness.

 

[Bob corrigan]

I believe in predestination, wherein God chooses whom He will save and destroy the rest on judgment day, as do a small number of others. The rest of you believe in "free will" salvation, otherwise known as Arminianism. People like to call predestination "Calvinism," but that is a misnomer, as John Calvin did not create, discover or originate the doctrine of predestination, he believed it and taught it to others. Predestination is in Scripture. Just as Calvin's name is not found in Scripture, neither is the name of Jacobus Arminius, from which the word "Arminianism" derives. John 1:12 is one of the favorite verses quoted to validate Arminianism. Yet, John 1:13, which is directly related to John 1:12, is rarely, if ever also quoted. Arminianism is completely built upon and depends totally upon the false concept that each individual has the ability, intellect and opportunity to "chose" to believe or not, that each person determines whether or not they "get saved." As I heard a pastor say, "Everybody chooses where they will spend their eternity." This ability to "chose" is directly related to man's "free will." The reason John 1:13 is ignored is that the verse totally destroys the concept that man has the "free will" to choose or reject the gospel and by his "free will" determines if he "gets saved" or rejects the truth.
John 1:13 Which were born(spiritual birth that comes from God, James 1:18), not of blood (being Jewish), nor of the will of the flesh,(that which man desires), NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN, but of God.
In order to teach "free will" salvation requires a pastor to either ignore verses that teach predestination or twist the predestination verses if they quote them. The main "proof text" used to teach that God "wants to save everybody" is, of course, 2Pet 3:9. However, this verse has not been translated properly, in that a couple of crucial words is left out. Peter wrote, "...but is longsuffering to us-ward..." Whenever the word "us" is used in the New Testament, it is only used to refer to the sheep, the believers, the predestinated. It is never used to mean "all people." So Peter wrote that "God is longsuffering to His sheep..." As a result of clarification, the verse should properly read,"... not willing that any of us (sheep) should perish, but that all of the sheep will come to repentance." In church buildings, pew warmers will often hear the phrase, "God wants to...", "God wants to bless you," "God wants to use you," "God wants to do a mighty work in your life,..." Yet, there is no verse that uses the words, "God wants to..." Rather than "God wants to...," Scripture teaches that God does whatever He wants to do, in the case of people, no person can prevent God from acting nor does God have to get permission from a person before God can act on a person, or that "God will never do something against a person's will."
Psalm 115:3, 135:6
Isa 46:10
Dan 4:35

Let's look at some predestination verses using logic rather than a skewed view.
Isa 55:11, a favorite verse in many church buildings.
So shall my word be that goes forth out of my voice: it will not return to me void, but it will accomplish that which I purpose, and it will prosper (succeed) in the situation/circumstance to which I send it.
This verse is easy to understand. By the meaning of the verse, if God sent His word to individuals with the purpose of those individuals "getting saved," then, these individuals would "get saved." God's word would prosper in the goal of which it was sent. So, if God "wants" all people to get saved, why doesn't He simply send His word to all individuals? Why doesn't He tell every individual exactly what each individual needs to hear to "persuade" or "convince" each individual to "Accept Christ?" ("Accept Christ" is not found in Scripture.) Your camp teaches that God pursues people, something not found in Scripture. Your camp teaches that God "woo's people." Again, another tradition of man not found in Scripture.

A person has to have their spiritual eyes and ears open to understand salvation, which is a spiritual thing, 1Cor 2:14 But the natural man (man in the flesh) recieveth not the things of the Spirit (spiritual things) of God: for they (spiritual things) are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerened. A person has to have their spiritual eyes and ears open to understand the spiritual truths in Scripture. A person has to have their spiritual eyes and ears opened in order to believe in Jesus. If so, what do you do with these verses?
Mat 11:25 At that time, Jesus, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou has hid these things from the wise and prudent and has revealed them to babes. Hmm, God "wants" everybody to "get saved?" But He hides knowledge and understanding from the wise of the world? If a person needs spiritual knowledge and understanding to obtain salvation, but God hides it from them, how can you say God wants everybody saved if He keeps the crucial and necessary information from them? And Jesus gave thanks for this action of God!

Read this carefully, Mat 11:27 All things are delivered to me from my Father: and no human knows the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any human the Father, except for the Son, and he TO WHOMSOEVER THE SON WILL REVEAL HIM.
Hmm, no person, of their own efforts and intellect, can ever come to know the Father. Jesus has to reveal the Father to people! According to this verse, Jesus chooses to whom He will reveal the Father. This also means that Jesus doesn't reveal the Father to all people.

Mat 13:10-11 And the disciples asked Jesus, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" Jesus replied, "Because it is granted to you to understand the mysteries of the kingdom of Heaven, but it (the ability to understand) is not granted to them." Hmm, the ability to understand the mysteries of the kingdom, spiritual eyes and ears opened, is only given to some and the rest are kept in spiritual darkness. Again, crucial information is given to some and kept unknown to others.

Lk 9: 43-45 "... Jesus said to his disciples, "Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man will be delivered into the hands of men." BUT THEY UNDERSTOOD NOT WHAT JESUS WAS SAYING, IT WAS HID FROM THEM...

Lk 19:42...but now they are hid from your (spiritual) eyes.

John 8:47 "He that is of God hears God's word. You do not hear God's word because you are not of God."

John 10:26-27 "But you don't believe me because you are not one of my sheep...My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me."

John 12: 37-40 "... THEREFORE THEY COULD NOT BELIEVE because Isaiah had said, " He (God) has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts so that they could not see (with spiritual eyes), nor understand with their heart (mind), and be converted, and I should heal them. God prevented them from believing. Why would God actively prevent people from believing if He wants everybody saved? How does salvation come? When a person believes, Acts 16: 28-31. If believing is the first part of salvation and is necessary for salvation, and God prevents people from believing, how does that fit in with "God wants everybody to get saved?"

2Cor 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost.

Eph 3:5 Which in other ages WAS NOT MADE KNOWN UNTO THE SONS OF MEN, AS IT IS NOW REVEALED UNTO HIS HOLY APOSTLES AND PROPHETS BY THE SPIRIT.

2Tim 2:7 Consider what I say; and the Lord GIVE YOU UNDERSTANDING IN ALL THINGS.

1John 4:6 We are of God: He that knoweth God hears us; he that is not of God does not hear us. "Hear" here does not mean simply audibly hearing words. For the sheep, it means to hear with spiritual ears having been opened to the truth. For the goats, it means that their ears are spiritually closed, made deaf.

These verses are in your bible. I can show many more which teach that God opens eyes and ears and God closes eyes and ears. But these verses are never taught or explained. Why? because they all contradict Arminianism. Notice, there is not one mention of God closing off spiritual understanding as a response or reaction to people "rejecting the truth." The "lost" in 2Cor 4:3 are lost because God purposed them to be lost before they were born. They are born lost, they live their lives as lost people and they will die lost. You may disagree, but this is what belief in predestination teaches.

 

[RickReads]

In Romans 5:18, "condemnation" (katakrima) is the judgment against (kata) crime (krima), the sentence passed upon due to a crime; the judgment of death, both physical and spiritual.
The judgment leads to condemnation. Judgment is about your sins, not Adams.
I said we do not receive credit for the works of Christ so feel free to stop twisting my words.

10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

 

[RickReads]

In Romans 5:18, "condemnation" (katakrima) is the judgment against (kata) crime (krima), the sentence passed upon due to a crime; the judgment of death, both physical and spiritual.

Let's not get defensive, okay?

You said we receive his nature. Not quite. . .

There is "imputed" righteousness (justification), and there is "imparted" righteousness (sanctification), which is a process of actual transformation to righteousness, and which "imputed" righteousness is not.

Imputed righteousness is simply a declaration, a verdict, because of faith, but it doesn't change us, transform us.
Imparted righteousness is transformation of us, through the obedience of sanctification in the Holy Spirit, leading to holiness (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19), which is actual righteousness.

When did/does God stop winking at ignorance?

 

[Clare73]

When did/does God stop winking at ignorance?

Ad hominem. . . in lieu of a Biblical demonstration?

 

[Clare73]

10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

We are to live out what we are by the new birth, but which will not be complete until glory in our sinless bodies of the resurrection.

Romans 5 is about both our death in Adam prior to our new birth, and our life in Christ after our new birth.

 

[NotreDame]

Snarky and wrong at the same time, kinda funny.

Romans 8:33 affirms that God justifies the elect. It does nothing to prove God predestines events.

Eloquently stated.

The verses of John 6:65, 6:37 and 6:39 are not inconsistent with or contradictory to free will. (literal Greek reads differently…NASB says “And He was saying, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father….” Another literal Greek says “no one is able to come to me unless it has been granted by the Father.”

The Greek of “granted” has been interpreted as “given” and can also mean “to grant, give to one asking, let have…”

*Free will meaning a person is free to perform an action and free to refrain from performing the action. It is within the person/peoples’ power to perform the action or not perform the action.*

God

1 “calls”
2. “Able” to come to Jesus where “granted” by the Father” (“enable” is shaky, the Greek word used means “able, to have power” and “enabled” isn’t the strongest interpretation).

But people have the free will to act upon or decline to act upon the “call.” People also have the free will essentially act in a manner to “come” to Jesus, although the completion of the act requires God to acquiesce.

However, God didn’t cause the people to act.

Saul to Paul is an illustration of God calling to Saul, and Saul choosing to act upon the calling, and Saul freely acting to “come” to Jesus and God grants what Saul is seeking.

God “weakly actualizes” events. Pharoah is a fine illustration. God did not cause Pharoah to act such that Pharoah had no free choice to act. Rather, God foreknew (I pause here to acknowledge that arguably “foreknew” might have a different meaning from all knowing/omniscient but the Biblical support is relatively week…regardless the label isn’t important but the substance) A.) What and how Pharoah would freely act in response to B.) what God and Moses do such that C) God intervened in a specific way that he knew would have Pharoah freely act in a specific manner as a response).

 

[John Mullally]

Jesus said he came "to give his life as a ransom for many "(Matthew 20:28).

1 Timothy 2:6 and 1 John 2:2 say that Jesus gave himself a ransom for all. So why the apparent contradiction? I see 1 Timothy 4:10 providing a clue. Paul says "the living God is the Savior of all men", but then he adds "especially of those who believe". Why the distinction? The ransom was paid for all men, but it is only benefits those who believe (i.e. those who mix the promise with faith per Hebrews 4:2).

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.

Hebrews 4:2 For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them; but the word which they heard did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in those who heard it.

Mark 16:16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.​

But when God draws ("dragnets") one to himself, he does so by operating in their fallen sinful disposition, giving them to prefer his will, which they then freely choose because they now prefer it.
They come of their own free will, choosing what they prefer, without any external force or constraint.

To paraphrase: You say God "dragnets" some to Himself so that they prefer His will over their fallen sinful disposition. And it is only in that condition that a man can and ultimately must respond positively of his own free will to God, repent, and be saved.

That presents a problem with scripture that says God desires everyone to be saved per 1 Timothy 2:4 & 2 Peter 3:9. If God only gives a real opportunity to the few He "dragnets" to Himself, then God is demonstrating that He does not desire the others to be saved - which clearly contradicts 1 Timothy 2:4 & 2 Peter 3:9.

Although God is Love, you believe He creates people who are predestined before birth, without hope, to an eternity in the lake of fire. How does that fit the definition of Love in 1 Corinthians 13?

 

[John Mullally]

I believe in predestination, wherein God chooses whom He will save and destroy the rest on judgment day, as do a small number of others. The rest of you believe in "free will" salvation, otherwise known as Arminianism. People like to call predestination "Calvinism," but that is a misnomer, as John Calvin did not create, discover or originate the doctrine of predestination, he believed it and taught it to others. Predestination is in Scripture. Just as Calvin's name is not found in Scripture, neither is the name of Jacobus Arminius, from which the word "Arminianism" derives.

Calvinist and Reformed are pretty much interchangeable. And most Reformed congregants understand something about John Calvin and his doctrine.

Calvinism is recognized by a decent percentage of by the non-Reformed congregations as the ones who espouse predestination. Very few in non-Reformed congregations know anything about what Jacob Arminius, Augustine, or Pelagius taught. Too bad there is not a better term for the non-Reformed Christians then Arminians.

 

[John Mullally]

Unless I am untruthful, it is irrelevant.

Precisely what am I evading?

I am familiar enough with Calvin, but he is not the only, nor the best Reformed theologian.

In answer to Precisely what am I evading?:

In post 255 you said you did not study Calvin. I queried further on your understanding of Calvin and your understanding of Reformed theology in post 312 since you participate frequently on these kinds of discussions. You gave me a snarky response in post 318 that I termed evasive. Now you admit "I am familiar enough with Calvin, but he is not the only, nor the best Reformed theologian.". Your evasion started in Post 255 when you pretended to know little about John Calvin.

Its helpfully to know what the other person believes in order to get to the heart of the discussions quickly and avoid mischaracterization. Merely saying you follow Paul on a Christian Theology forum does not add meaningful information since almost everyone on here believes they are doing that.

 

[RickReads]

Ad hominem. . . in lieu of a Biblical demonstration?

It's an important question. The answer to this determines the fate of the ignorant.

If you believe that the ignorant automatically burn and the question isn't important then you are a Calvinist.

 

[RickReads]

We are to live out what we are by the new birth, but which will not be complete until glory in our sinless bodies of the resurrection.

Romans 5 is about both our death in Adam prior to our new birth, and our life in Christ after our new birth.

Romans 5:13-14 by implication confirms there is no inherited sin because it says that some committed sin like Adams sin indicating that some did not. Along with no mention of inherited sin Paul says that sin was not imputed before the law was given.

 

[RickReads]

Yes, there are about 14 NT appellations for the one NT gospel.

There is only one Gospel, and any assertion otherwise is contra-NT apostolic teaching (didactics).

However, I am sure you are aware that the NT does not use it in reference to only a portion of the gospel, but to the whole one and only gospel.

Not sure what you are implying. . .

Is it not Paul who makes that point most emphatically in Galatians 1:6-9?

Good for Calvin. . .because it is also a Pauline trait. . .and he was here long before Calvin.

Please don't tell me I am hearing an implication here that it is Calvin, rather than Paul, who condemns more than one gospel. . .please, no!

Paul would have understood what I said. Clearly, you didn't.

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

 

[RickReads]

Ad hominem. . . in lieu of a Biblical demonstration?

Here is the Biblical Demonstration.

Acts 17
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:

31 Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Here we see what the wink is. God will not hold the ignorant responsible for their fake gods. Now idolatry is a very touchy subject where God is concerned. This break given the ignorant speaks volumes

This benefit expires when a man hears the command to repent and learns about Jesus.

While the Bible does not clearly explain what the wink does, I believe it implies mercy, not wrath.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

Romans 5:13-14 by implication confirms there is no inherited sin because it says that some committed sin like Adams sin indicating that some did not. Along with no mention of inherited sin Paul says that sin was not imputed before the law was given.

If sin is not imputed before the law was given why did Adam die? And why did Adam and Eve hide behind the rock when they heard the Lord walking in the garden? Because their conscience convicted them of their sin/transgression against the Lord because He had told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge, is this not true? And did they not die because of their transgression? Thus passed on the sinful nature to all that followed. As in Adam, all died.

 

[RickReads]

If sin is not imputed before the law was given why did Adam die? And why did Adam and Eve hide behind the rock when they heard the Lord walking in the garden? Because their conscience convicted them of their sin/transgression against the Lord because He had told them not to eat of the tree of knowledge, is this not true? And did they not die because of their transgression? Thus passed on the sinful nature to all that followed. As in Adam, all died.

Adam and Eve knew God and they broke the first law. Different situation and your disagreement is with verse 13 not with me.