What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

I am only going to comment on Romans 5:18. If you take the first half of Romans 5:18 as condemning all men, then you have to take the second half as justifying all men.

Okay, but if I take both halves in the context of the NT (which is the way the NT must be understood),
I have to take the second half on the terms given for it throughout the NT; i.e., for all who believe in and trust on the person and atoning sacrifice (blood, Roman 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," declared righteous (justification) with the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:17; Romans 3:21-24), as was Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
​

Many non-Calvinists, like myself, do not see the free gift as something automatically received, but being more like a check that you can only cash by faith. Hebrews 4:1-2 supports that assertion if you replace a promise remains of entering His rest in Hebrews 4:1 with the free gift came in Romans 5:18.

But "free gift" is not in the Greek text of Romans 5:18.
Which leaves us with nothing to replace with the "promise of entering his rest."

And then, Hebrews 4:1 is not referring to imputed righteousness (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-24) as is Romans 5:18, but to salvation rest in Jesus Christ, from our own works to save, and in his completed work which saves.

Hebrews 4:1 Therefore, since a promise remains of entering His rest, let us fear lest any of you seem to have come short of it. 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.​

Thanks for the prayers!

 

[Clare73]

That is what everyone thinks : )

Good for them!

I already did, Rom. 1 & 2.
Can you give me individual names of those in scripture you know for sure are in hell.

There is Judas, (John 17:12; Matthew 26:24), which should satisfy your purpose in asking.

How does this demonstrate your assertion that "there is much more in the gospel than we realize,"
the gospel being John 3:18?

PS: When I post, it would be a common courtesy if you
addressed each point and question, not just highlight and respond to one part.

Feel free to question me on any part I omitted.

 

[Clare73]

Do you really believe this!

I believe all go to hell for violating God's laws of Scripture and of conscience, except for those who
believe in and trust on the person and atoning sacrifice (blood, Romans 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of their sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty."

You don't believe this?

 

[Clare73]

First relax, spend some quiet time with the Lord - enter His Gates with thanksgiving and enter His Courts with praise (Psalm 100:4).

There is plenty of the NT (written to believers) to plumb other than Soteriology related texts.

Agreed. . .

You don't think on a thread about Calvinism where it is said I am a Calvinist, that I should determine the facts and truth of that matter?

 

[Clare73]

No
since James Arminius ( Arminianism) believed what you stated above. Tulip and Double Predestination have nothing to do with what you stated above.

hope this helps !!!

Thanks!

I've added Romans 8:29-30 to my statement (post #374).

Does that change your opinion regarding my being a Calvinist?

 

[ReverendRV]

Are there any Calvinists here?

 

[RickReads]

Are there any Calvinists here?

Do you mean other than Clare?

 

[ReverendRV]

Do you mean other than Clare?

I am new as of today. I started reading and it didn't seem as if there were Calvinists here; so thanks. I myself am a Calvinist, and was invited here...

 

[ReverendRV]

I'm still trying to figure out if I am a Calvinist. No one has commented what the following shows me to be:

I believe Romans 5:18--"the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men."
We are born condemned.
Like it or not, that is the word of God written and, therefore, I believe it.

I also believe John 6:65, John 6:37, John 6:39; i.e., shutting up faith to the power of God only, which basically means only God is the source of the new birth (John 3:8), which gift of new birth is the source of saving faith (Acts 13:48; Act 18:27; Philippians 1:29; 2 Peter 1:1; Romans 12:3).

I believe that salvation from the wrath of God on sin (John 3:36; Romans 5:9), which wrath by nature we are objects of (Ephesians 2:3), is by faith in and trust on the person and atoning sacrifice (blood, Romans 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty," by faith declared righteous (justified) with the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21-24), the same way Abraham was (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

EDIT: I believe from before the foundations of the world God foreknew (loved) those whom he then predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son that the Son might have many brothers, and whom he called, justified and glorified (Romans 8:29-30).

I believe that all men will be judged by the light they have, and whether that light be law or conscience, all will be found to be unrighteous according to it (Romans 2:12-16). Only those in Jesus Christ will be found righteous, with the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.

I believe God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all (Romans 11:32) according to the terms he has specified in his word written (Ephesians 2:8-9).

Anything outside those parameters is above my paygrade.
For where the word of God makes an end to teaching, I must make an end to learning.

So am I a Calvinist?

You are a Calvinist...

Original Sin results in what you could call 'Unconditional Condemnation' for All. Since every Evangelical believes in the Unconditional Consequence of the Curse of Original Sin, this acceptance of Unconditional Consequences should allow for them to also accept the Unconditional Consequences of Unconditional Election. I say an outright rejection of Unconditional Election without Introspection, could only be due to an unwarranted Bias against it...

I was invited here, partly because of my unique arguments FOR 5- Point Calvinism...

 

[rturner76]

What is wrong with Calvinism? The notion that we don't have free will

 

[ReverendRV]

What is wrong with Calvinism? The notion that we don't have free will

I received a notice that you replied to my Post, but I didn't notice at first because it didn't quote me, so I could have replied sooner...

Yes, Free Will is an issue in Calvinism. I am new here, so I don't know if this place is a free-for-all where the Topic changes on a Thread this quickly or not. I like to stay on-task and not deviate from topic-to-topic. I spoke about Unconditional Condemnation because Clare spoke about Original Sin and Romans 5. So please be patient with me while I get used to y'all...

 

[iwbswiaihl]

You are a Calvinist...

Original Sin results in what you could call 'Unconditional Condemnation' for All. Since every Evangelical believes in the Unconditional Consequence of the Curse of Original Sin, this acceptance of Unconditional Consequences should allow for them to also accept the Unconditional Consequences of Unconditional Election. I say an outright rejection of Unconditional Election without Introspection, could only be due to an unwarranted Bias against it...

I was invited here, partly because of my unique arguments FOR 5- Point Calvinism...

And what is your Unconditional Consequences of Unconditional Election that would be more valid than those who simply believe the Calvin was right in his belief of election as he saw it?

 

[ReverendRV]

And what is your Unconditional Consequences of Unconditional Election that would be more valid than those who simply believe the Calvin was right in his belief of election as he saw it?

Thanks for asking. I need to say ahead of time, I should be very popular here and everyone will want a piece of my time; like the Belle of the Ball. So please be patient with me. I don't like to talk to many people at once, and like to focus on one conversation at a time. But since this is my first day, I can try to talk to everyone...

I am a Calvinist who really doesn't know much about John Calvin; I just know what I believe. In the past, I liked to jokingly call myself a Spurgeonist; because I knew more about him...

Let me ask you this; is Pain in Childbirth an Unconditional Consequence of Original Sin?

 

[rturner76]

I received a notice that you replied to my Post, but I didn't notice at first because it didn't quote me, so I could have replied sooner...

Yes, Free Will is an issue in Calvinism. I am new here, so I don't know if this place is a free-for-all where the Topic changes on a Thread this quickly or not. I like to stay on-task and not deviate from topic-to-topic. I spoke about Unconditional Condemnation because Clare spoke about Original Sin. So please be patient with me while I get used to y'all...

I didn't read the whole thread so I don't know what is currently being discussed, I just jumped in with my comment so I'll try to get caught up

 

[iwbswiaihl]

Thanks for asking. I need to say ahead of time, I should be very popular here and everyone will want a piece of my time; like the Belle of the Ball. So please be patient with me. I don't like to talk to many people at once, and like to focus on one conversation at a time. But since this is my first day, I can try to talk to everyone...

I am a Calvinist who really doesn't know much about John Calvin; I just know what I believe. In the past, I liked to jokingly call myself a Spurgeonist; because I knew more about him...

Let me ask you this; is Pain in Childbirth an Unconditional Consequence of Original Sin?

Being male and that use to be enough to mean I have never had a baby, I simply said that because in our nation some in congress and those who believe a man can become a mother is what they espouse as truth. But to your question, my wife always had pain.

 

[ReverendRV]

Being male and that use to be enough to mean I have never had a baby, I simply said that because in our nation some in congress and those who believe a man can become a mother is what they espouse as truth. But to your question, my wife always had pain.

That's right; we believe that is an Unconditional Consequence of the Fall, just as the Animal Kingdom has the Fear of Man because of Adam...

You are the kind of Poster I can go far with. I describe my method as Trench Warfare; taking a little ground at a time. After let's say 5 little agreements you may see why I am a Calvinist; but after 10, who knows what you might believe...

So would you say that the Principle of Unconditional Consequences is an established Biblical Doctrine?

 

[iwbswiaihl]

That's right; we believe that is an Unconditional Consequence of the Fall, just as the Animal Kingdom has the Fear of Man...

You are the kind of Poster I can go far with. I describe my method as Trench Warfare; taking a little ground at a time. After let's say 5 little agreements you may see why I am a Calvinist; but after 10, who knows what you might believe...

So would you say that the Principle of Unconditional Consequences is an established Biblical Doctrine?

true

 

[ReverendRV]

true

So I would ask you, because of this precedent, is it 'possible' that the Calvinist's definition of 'Unconditional' Election could also be one of these Unconditional Consequences? I'm not asking you to jump in the frying pan with me; I'm only asking you if the precedent allows room for this possibility; what happens if a good argument could be made for Unconditional Election?

 

[iwbswiaihl]

So I would ask you, because of this precedent, is it 'possible' that the Calvinist's definition of 'Unconditional' Election could also be one of these Unconditional Consequences? I'm not asking you to jump in the frying pan with me; I'm only asking if the precedent allows room for this possibility, if an argument could be made for Unconditional Election?

yes, because the bible does teach there is at least one condition for sure to prove that election is a truth, one must repent and believe that Jesus is Lord. If I used the word election in its proper place. After reading your statement again, it would seem I answered the wrong question that came to my mind, now I would say from what I know about his election I would say No, it is not taught in the bible as I understand it.

 

[ReverendRV]

yes, because the bible does teach there is at least one condition for sure to prove that election is a truth, one must repent and believe that Jesus is Lord. If I used the word election in its proper place.

Do you Mind if I disagree, and tell you why this isn't a Condition for Election?