What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[RickReads]

And remember, every Christian believes in the Unconditional Consequences of the Fall of Man. This is why you are correct about Romans 5...

The Calvinist misunderstands Romans 5. Bad doctrine interferes with Spiritual discernment.

Romans 5 is talking about physical death in the case of Adam and depravity.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

Yes, you have shown in context that Philippians 2:13 is written to believers. . .but I understand it also of unbelievers according to:

"No one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)
"All that the Father gives me will come to me." (John 6:37)
"I shall lose none of all that the Father has given me. (John 6:39)

I understand "given" as those whom God fore-knew (Romans 8:29-30), as in Matthew 7:23:
"I never knew you."

Those verses still do not make Phil 2:13 means what they say, a bird drinks water like an elephant but it surely doesn't drank as much as an elephant, evenly though they both drink water. So if I said elephants and birds drank a lot of water would not mean they drank just as much. Every tub sets on its own bottom.

 

[ReverendRV]

The Calvinist misunderstands Romans 5. Bad doctrine interferes with Spiritual discernment.

Romans 5 is talking about physical death in the case of Adam and depravity.

Doesn't this mean that Romans 5 is then talking about the Unconditional Consequences of the Fall of Man? I would say Yes...

I would say Romans 5 is also talking about gaining Spiritual Life in Christ, as opposed to gaining Physical life; wouldn't you agree? I think this means for us to believe that when Romans 5 teaches us about gaining Spiritual Life, it also is teaching us of Spiritual Death; correct?

 

[Clare73]

Always everywhere except you know where. Its refreshing to be able to state your beliefs without censorship and have freedom of speech and to explain what you believe and why without being restricted. A true breath of fresh air.

Enjoy it while you can. . .

The gospel of Christ is set to be censored because it is hate speech.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

Calvin taught man are in 2 camps. Those predetermined/predestined to salvation or destruction before creation. Man can only do what was predetermined by God. So God chose most humanity for hell/eternal torment and a few for salvation. They use Jesus words you did not choose Me but I chose you. No one has a free will to choose God. God must draw/drag you first to Him ( against your will ) and regenerate you prior to belief and repentance. This is Calvinism 101 and I taught this for over 4 decades and its wrong. If God is really Love then calvinism is wrong. They will also elevate Gods hate above His love. They focus on the negative aspects of God to defend their beliefs.

In fact in both the Institutes of Calvin and the WCF Gods is Love is missing from the list of Gods attributes. Its obvious why if God is truly Love then their doctrines in tulip and double predestination collapse. Those doctrines are the exact opposite of love.

hope this helps !!!

Sorry, I posted on the wrong reply that I intended to post to.

 

[Clare73]

He does work in all who are convicted they need a Savior, God seeks the sinner first, but the point I was making was CONTEXT which I stated. Verse 2:13 was not talking to the lost person was the point. Every tub sets on its own bottom concerning value of my reply. Have a great day.

We are agreed on that. . .I failed to distinguish that while it applies to all mankind, as I demonstrated, Philippians 2:13 is referring specifically to believers.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

What does IF mean? Here is what the Webster dictionary of 1828 says:
IF, verb transitive It is used as the sign of a condition, or it introduces a conditional sentence. It is a verb, without a specified nominative. In like manner we use grant, admit, suppose. Regularly, if should be followed, as it was formerly, by the substitute or pronoun that, referring to the succeeding sentence or proposition. if that John shall arrive in season, I will send him with a message. But that is now omitted, and the subsequent sentence, proposition or affirmation may be considered as the object of the verb. Give John shall arrive; grant, suppose, admit that he shall arrive, I will send him with a message. The sense of if or give, in this use, is grant, admit, cause to be, let the fact be, let the thing take place. if then is equivalent to grant, allow, admit. 'If thou wilt, thou canst make me whole, ' that is, thou canst make me whole, give the fact, that thou wilt.

IF thou art the son of God, command that these stones be made bread. Matthew 14:28.

1. Whether or not.

Uncertain if by augury or chance.

The only " if " in my post was regarding God is Love.

Do you want to address that and stay on topic regarding love and calvinism ?

 

[ReverendRV]

The only " if " in my post was regarding God is Love.

Do you want to address that and stay on topic regarding love and calvinism ?

God is Love...

 

[Clare73]

longevity or certain amount of posts I think

Did you ever donate funds to the Forum?

 

[iwbswiaihl]

The only " if " in my post was regarding God is Love.

Do you want to address that and stay on topic regarding love and calvinism ?

No, I tried to correct that before it got out, I noticed that I sent it to you but it was not who I meant to sent it to, forgive me for the error. IF only I had proof read it, I would not have had to say I'm sorry

 

[RickReads]

Doesn't this mean that Romans 5 is then talking about the Unconditional Consequences of the Fall of Man? I would say Yes...

I would say Romans 5 is also talking about gaining Spiritual Life in Christ, as opposed to gaining Physical life; wouldn't you agree? I think this means for us to believe that when Romans 5 teaches us about gaining Spiritual Life, it also is teaching us of Spiritual Death; correct?

Physical death and spiritual life are the topics in Romans 5, and in fact, there is evidence that Adam and Eve received mercy. I think you just showed me a hole in your armor. At most spiritual death is implied by Romans 5 but there are no details in the passage.

 

[Clare73]

The Calvinist misunderstands Romans 5. Bad doctrine interferes with Spiritual discernment.

Romans 5 is talking about physical death in the case of Adam and depravity.

You don't have to be a Calvinist to see the problem with that.

Biblical demonstration of your assertion, without which it does not have Biblical merit?

Keeping in mind the issues Paul's poses in his argument in Romans 5:12-14:
All death is caused by sin (Romans 6:23).
Where there is no covenantal law (prescribing death; e.g., Genesis 2:17, Mosaic law), there is no sin (against that law).
There was no law prescribing death between Adam and Moses, yet all died of sin.
The guilt of what sin caused their death?

 

[ReverendRV]

Physical death and spiritual life are the topics in Romans 5, and in fact, there is evidence that Adam and Eve received mercy. I think you just showed me a hole in your armor. At most spiritual death is implied by Romans 5 but there are no details in the passage.

This is where I will disagree with you buddy; on the day they ate the Fruit, they Died. They had two Deaths, so since you agree that Romans 5 teaches about Spiritual Life; Spiritual Death should be it's counterpart...

Doesn't this sound right? At least it should close that hole; correct? Are you glad I am here?

 

[ReverendRV]

Physical death and spiritual life are the topics in Romans 5, and in fact, there is evidence that Adam and Eve received mercy. I think you just showed me a hole in your armor. At most spiritual death is implied by Romans 5 but there are no details in the passage.

Why is your green light not on Rick?

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

God is Love...

And is it loving to not give a person a chance to love you in return , create you for eternal torment without having a choice to do otherwise ?

That is double predestination in a nutshell .

Everyone except the Calvinist sees this as a problem and admits it’s not loving . Only in Calvinism is that a loving God. It by definition is an oxymoron and a contradiction on the very definition of love .

 

[Clare73]

Those verses still do not make Phil 2:13 means what they say, a bird drinks water like an elephant but it surely doesn't drank as much as an elephant, evenly though they both drink water. So if I said elephants and birds drank a lot of water would not mean they drank just as much. Every tub sets on its own bottom.

Agreed again. . .

Philippians 2:13 speaks nothing of unregenerate man's inability to believe and obey.

It speaks only of God's power enabling the believer to will and to do.

And I understand that same power also enabling the unbeliever to believe, according to Jesus,
as demonstrated in my post #449.

 

[ReverendRV]

And is it loving to not give a person a chance to love you in return , create you for eternal torment without having a choice to do otherwise ?

That is double predestination in a nutshell .

Everyone except the Calvinist sees this as a problem and admits it’s not loving . Only in Calvinism is that a loving God. It by definition is an oxymoron and a contradiction on the very definition of love .

I would say that depends. When I Posted that in agreement, I was setting up a counterpoint; you know me...

If the Love of God were the lone or highest factor in consideration; I would say yes. This would lead me to like Universalism. But I think there are three (or more) equal Truths that factor in; IE God is Love, God is Life, and God is TRUTH. I cannot ignore that God is Truth, and his Word is Truth...

So I don't think God has to give a person in the Aztec Nation the chance to Love him. We can talk more about this, but I have an errand to run...

 

[Clare73]

I would say that depends. When I Posted that in agreement, I was setting up a counterpoint; you know me...
If the Love of God were the lone or highest factor in consideration; I would say yes. This would lead me to like Universalism. But I think there are three (or more) equal Truths that factor in; IE God is Love, God is Life, and God is TRUTH. I cannot ignore that God is Truth, and his Word is Truth...

So I don't think God has to give a person in the Aztec Nation the chance to Love him. We can talk more about this, but I have an errand to run...

And he is just. . .

I think I like where this is going.

 

[RickReads]

This is where I will disagree with you buddy; on the day they ate the Fruit, they Died. They had two Deaths, so since you agree that Romans 5 teaches about Spiritual Life; Spiritual Death should be it's counterpart...

Doesn't this sound right? At least it should close that hole; correct? Are you glad I am here?

Gen 3
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

20 And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Here we see that God cursed His creation for Adams's good. The first chastisement implies Adam is a son. Then in verse 21 it is implied that God made the first animal sacrifice on Adam and Eves's behalf.

In addition, we have the implication given by Abel who would have learned about the Lord from His parents.

Nowhere does the Bible say Adam died a permanent spiritual death. Neither does Jesus redeem our flesh. Jesus redeems our spirit. Our bodies are dying as Adams did.

Romans 5 is about physical death and the second birth.

 

[RickReads]

Why is your green light not on Rick?

Can you clarify? That's sort of like me disclosing that I`m a Messianiac. You won't get what I mean by that unless I tell you.