What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[jamiec]

Here is an interesting question about predestination:
Is a person reprobate and lost because of a dark decree in heaven or because of the person's own fault through continuing in sin and rejecting Gospel?

I am asking this question, because in the many pages of Calvinist literature, including the Institutes, I see what they teach, but I won't give any spoiler alerts about it yet.

But if souls are lost through a decree in heaven that they have no control about, why is there a day of Judgment where souls are brought to account for their lives? In a court of law a defendant cannot be found guilty if what they did was under duress and had no control over their actions.

You can't have it both ways: either the soul is lost through an immovable decree from heaven, or lost because of their own sinfulness and rejection of the Gospel.

The heavenly decree, from before the creation of the *kosmos*, governs what they will be, and are, all instants of their existence, and how they die; but does not necessitate or coerce any of that. Their final destruction is their own fault. This decree cannot be frustrated, because God cannot be.

Nonetheless, the offer of salvation is well-meant, IOW, is sincere; and can be embraced sincerely by the reprobate - but their living by it will ultimately be fruitless and end in their destruction, which, though from themselves is, like all things other than God, governed by God’s Providence.

They are not reprobate as though God “had it in for them”. They are not being “singled out” by God, as though God were a Transcendent Bully, forcing them against their wills to reject God. No. God loves the reprobate, & blesses them abundantly; but they refuse to be saved (whether they appreciate that they are (so to speak) “working out their own destruction”, or not.

I think (as St Matthew can be read as implying) that the reprobate will not know they are reprobate until they are judged. I think damnation is (like salvation) a state one “grows into” in this life, and that the result may be very surprising, pleasantly or not.

I suspect that the difficulty of the question arises from the genres of the Biblical texts, which in the 16th century were not adequately distinguished.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

None of those are a problem for me, correct.
Neither is Jesus' atonement for the whole world (Romans 5:18, 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9) a problem for me.
or God's unconditional love for everyone (John 3:16, Romans 11:32)
or that God is the Savior of all men (1 Timothy 4:10)
or that God wills that none should perish and to save all (2 Peter 3:9)

Is any of this a problem for you?

-CryptoLutheran

Amen

 

[jamiec]

Certain behaviours are the logical byproduct of believing in these Calvinistic doctrines. To believe that you’ve been deterministically chosen by God to know certain spiritual truths makes you ontologically better than the people who haven’t been graced in that way.

It’s not simply dirty bath water but rather a dirty baby who thinks ugly self righteous things about himself. His elitist behaviours are intimately related to his elitist views.

The article insists that the smug enlightened Calvinist is somehow guilty of believing in his own merited knowledge (or some other non starter.)

they inadvertently begin seeing the knowledge of grace as something they’ve earned or achieved,
​

See this is the joke response that makes honest people tune out, since the secret knowledge of Calvinism is something that the Calvinist has “achieved.”

It’s not merited or worked for in the same way that athletes have trained or that scholars have studied, rather the Calvinist just “gets it.” They’re allowed by the good pleasure of God to spiritually discern these grand truths and to unlock the glory of God in salvation.

They have achieved enlightenment, how they have attained this spiritual knowledge and discerned these truths is no defeater to the fact that they have achieved this state.

Pride is in the undeniable fact that they’re better, not how they are better.

They are simply better than other believing people who aren’t Calvinists. Now if a Calvinist doesn’t become prideful or see himself as ontologically better than others, than that’s simply an absence of logical rigour on their part.

They are as a matter of fact (according to their own doctrines) better than non Calvinists, so to not think that way is an example of these guys refusing to connect the dots.

What strikes me about reading the Puritans, most of them Calvinists, is their freedom from this repulsive and self-righteous nastiness.

There is a vast difference between being better off than unbelievers (& to be Christian is to be better off than those who are not, in some way, surely ?) - and, being better than unbelievers.

To say one is the former of these does not imply boasting or self-righteousness, any more than being healed from a deadly disease, unlike others who are not, is boasting, nor is it crowing over others who are not. It implies gratitude to God, not arrogance to other men.

To say one is better than others, is a vastly different thing. To say that one is better than others, implies arrogance to other men, self-righteousness towards God, and a sense of conscious merit in oneself. That these three attitudes are totally unChristian is surely self-evident. That they have no place in a healthy Calvinism, is surely no less clear.

If anything, ISTM that some Calvinists at prayer could reasonably be criticised for a tendency to concentrate so much upon their own corruption and sinfulness, as to risk leaving out of sight the excellence and glory and splendour of God Whom they are worshipping.

However, even if this criticism is in some degree justified, it is not a fault peculiar to Calvinists alone; if indeed it be a fault. Christians truly holy and devoted to God may seem extravagantly self-blaming, simply because they have the Mind of Christ - Who, being God, is “of purer eyes than to behold evil” - and therefore, have a holy and loving hatred for whatever in them is not pleasing to God Whom they love, and Whom they desire to love far better.

 

[Clare73]

Certain behaviours are the logical byproduct of believing in these Calvinistic doctrines. To believe that you’ve been deterministically chosen by God to know certain spiritual truths makes you ontologically better than the people who haven’t been graced in that way.

What strikes me about reading the Puritans, most of them Calvinists, is their freedom from this repulsive and self-righteous nastiness.
There is a vast difference between being better off than unbelievers (& to be Christian is to be better off than those who are not, in some way, surely ?) - and, being better than unbelievers.

Eminent Calvinists, the Puritans.

What strikes me about the post to which you are responding is the failure to see this distinction, and the self-righteous moral superiority in accusing "Calvinists" of spiritual superiority. . .and is addressed in my post #145.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

No it’s posters on the forum I deal with on a daily basis who claim the sin by the minute, hour , day, week , month , year habitually and it never stops when scripture says the opposite that those who practice sin , make it a habit will not enter the kingdom of God . That’s the issue

I am not a Calvinist and do not believe that John MacArthur would ever say that what you stated when you said he is taken to that believers are free to sin all they want too or such, it would have been better had you stated or showed the proof instead "he is taken to say those words you imply". Some call that slander. Nevertheless, I have heard many who believe in eternal security of the believer and I am one of those, and have heard them, in jesting, say that Christians can sin all they want to, because the Lord has changed their want to, and that is a Christian fact, we don't want to sin and one of the best scripture to demonstrates this is Phil 2:13 "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure". He may have in jest stated something like that but not without the scripture reference. 1John2:3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. We see what the Lord inspired in these verses, some people speak out against the wording in the 2nd part of v3 which says if we keep His commandment and say no one keep them perfectly, which is right, but when we read on into the 3rd chapter we see that there its states "practice keeping" is the implied meaning also in chapter 2,
3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I am not a Calvinist and do not believe that John MacArthur would ever say that what you stated when you said he is taken to that believers are free to sin all they want too or such, it would have been better had you stated or showed the proof instead "he is taken to say those words you imply". Some call that slander. Nevertheless, I have heard many who believe in eternal security of the believer and I am one of those, and have heard them, in jesting, say that Christians can sin all they want to, because the Lord has changed their want to, and that is a Christian fact, we don't want to sin and one of the best scripture to demonstrates this is Phil 2:13 "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure". He may have in jest stated something like that but not without the scripture reference. 1John2:3 Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him. 5But whoever keeps His word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in Him. 6He who says he abides in Him ought himself also to walk just as He walked. We see what the Lord inspired in these verses, some people speak out against the wording in the 2nd part of v3 which says if we keep His commandment and say no one keep them perfectly, which is right, but when we read on into the 3rd chapter we see that there its states "practice keeping" is the implied meaning also in chapter 2,
3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that He might destroy the works of the devil. 9 Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God. 10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother. 11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous.

I said the opposite MacArthur does not believe that . I’ve read most all his books over the years and my library if full of them and his commentaries .

 

[iwbswiaihl]

I said the opposite MacArthur does not believe that . I’ve read most all his books over the years and my library if full of them and his commentaries .

Sorry about that; you did good. **

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Sorry about that; you did good. **

No worries!!!

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The heavenly decree, from before the creation of the *kosmos*, governs what they will be, and are, all instants of their existence, and how they die; but does not necessitate or coerce any of that. Their final destruction is their own fault. This decree cannot be frustrated, because God cannot be.

Nonetheless, the offer of salvation is well-meant, IOW, is sincere; and can be embraced sincerely by the reprobate - but their living by it will ultimately be fruitless and end in their destruction, which, though from themselves is, like all things other than God, governed by God’s Providence.

They are not reprobate as though God “had it in for them”. They are not being “singled out” by God, as though God were a Transcendent Bully, forcing them against their wills to reject God. No. God loves the reprobate, & blesses them abundantly; but they refuse to be saved (whether they appreciate that they are (so to speak) “working out their own destruction”, or not.

I think (as St Matthew can be read as implying) that the reprobate will not know they are reprobate until they are judged. I think damnation is (like salvation) a state one “grows into” in this life, and that the result may be very surprising, pleasantly or not.

I suspect that the difficulty of the question arises from the genres of the Biblical texts, which in the 16th century were not adequately distinguished.

Does this mean that you don't know whether you are elect or reprobate? So you can't trust the promises, "For those who receive Christ, they have the right to be called the children God", and, "He who comes to Me [Christ] I will in no way cast out"?

 

[Clare73]

I said the opposite MacArthur does not believe that . I’ve read most all his books over the years and my library if full of them and his commentaries .

Good for you!

 

[FutureAndAHope]

So your God is not omniscient? That He has only partial knowledge that doesn't include the future?

God can partially control the actions of man, putting constraints on their actions, these constraints allow him to control certain events in the future. I discuss this possibility here Is Predestination real? | Everybody Matters Ministry and I say it is a possibility only because we can take the word of God too far one way or the other.

But I bring to your remembrance:

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Does God really know everything before it happens? If he knew how man would turn out he would not have created man.

However, there is the argument that God can not know the future until He initiates a creation, if He indeed is outside of time. Yet this seems to defeat the purpose of foreknowledge, for he is still out of control. This comes back to the constraints argument He would still need constraints on creation.

 

[misput]

You quoted Ephesians 3:5 but ignore 70 verses of Ephesians chapter 1,2,3. same for other verses you quote, you ignore context. So in Ephesian, what did God reveal now that was not known before? God just revealed his plan to offer redemption to the Gentiles. Ephesians chptr 1 and 2 explained that He had planned this from the beginning, it was not revealed before, but after Jesus's atonement it is now made known to the apostles who were instructed to reach out to the Gentiles.

People zoomed in on the words "predestined" to mean God chose to save individuals. But Ephesians showed that God preplanned or predestined the plan, but not the person individually.

Ephesians 1 :1 To God’s holy people in Ephesus, .... (v4) For He chose us in him before the creation of the world ... In love (v5) He predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ,... (v11) In Him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him .... (v12)in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ...
Meaning = "We" and "us" refer to the Jewish Christians . Jews who confessed their sins were first to be saved in Jesus

13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth... ch 2:11 Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called “uncircumcised”... 12 you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise...
= Clearly, "you who are Gentiles" clearly means Paul was referring to Gentile Christians. "You" does NOT mean individuals. Paul explained that formerly, Gentiles were excluded from God

Ephesians 2 13 But now in Christ Jesus you... have been brought near by the blood of Christ...:14 For He ...has made the two groups one... 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations = but now Gentiles can be saved if they confessed their sins because Jesus' atonement has abolished the need to fulfill the Law (such as circumcision and OT laws)

15: His purpose was to create... one new humanity out of the two... and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross... 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit... .. Chapter 3:16 This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus...”
= Both Jews and Gentiles have same access to God -- anyone who confessed their sins to Jesus can be saved. The mystery (Eph 3:16) is that when God reached out to Jews first, He had (unknown to anyone) planned ahead to offer salvation to the Gentiles too.

So what is predestination? It is just a word that refers to how God planned it all ahead to offer salvation to the Jews and then to Gentiles. In context, predestination does NOT mean God choose to save individuals. There is no discussion of individual predestination in Ephesians or Scripture. But unfortunately, some people focus on 3 words "He predestine us" and believe the idea of individual predestination.

In Book of People , Acts and others, there are verses that say "God choose us". During biblical times, people don't say they chose to believe in God. Instead they said God chose them -- this is out of humility. In ancient times, people on earth -- Jews, Persians, Babylonians, Chinese -- were more humble towards God and heaven. So to say they are chosen by God is a figure of speech. Such linguistic elements have been lost over time. When interpreting Bible, we have to appreciate how words were used in different times, culture and context.

This is my view also. Folks do no differentiate between collective and individual and I don't understand why, because it is so plain to see.

 

[FutureAndAHope]

Thanks.

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

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

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

Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I said in the other thread:

You have put a lot of work into trying to discredit a bishop who was closer to the apostles than you or me. He is revered by the church for his work against heresy, and he starts his discourse with:

This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat_23:37)
​

A key scripture used by all who stand for genuine free will regarding man's salvation.

You stated:

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

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

What is true is that "I shall lose none of all that the Father has given me." (John 6:39)

True, but who does God enable:

John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

The free will choice is a choice to receive the light that God gives, or hide it away in sins.

Joh 3:19-21 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

But who does God give light to?

Joh 1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

 

[jamiec]

Author: Clare74

According to your misunderstanding of "Calvinism". . .

God most certainly does give everyone his just due, what he is justly owed, what he has justly earned.
And God most certainly does not owe mercy to anyone.

All sin is subject to penalty, which justice requires must be paid--eternal death.
That penalty is paid for all those who believe in and trust on the person and atoning sacrifice (blood, Romans 3:25) of Jesus Christ to paytheir penalty for them.
Those who do not believe in Jesus Christ must may pay their just penalty for themselves--eternal death.
That is impartial justice--required and owed by a just God to all men.

Mercy, however, is not owed to anyone, it is nota matter of justice, it is free and God is sovereignly free to dispense it as he pleases, for mercy is not required of him by justice.
Nor does free (gift, not owed) mercy require the impartiality of owed (not free) justice, which justice is due to all men.
That God does not give mercy to all is not injustice, for he owes mercy to no one.
Therefore, there is nothing man can do that merits God's mercy because mercy is free, it is not earned and, therefore, not deserved.

That God dispenses mercy to some and not all is not injustice, for free mercy is not owed to anyone
and, therefore, does not require impartiality.

This sounds more like the devil than God. The compassion and mercy of God are repeatedly emphasised in both Testaments. If mere human beings are exhorted in Scripture: “Be merciful as your Father in Heaven is Merciful”, how can God not “practice what He preaches” ? How would that merciless God not be the Chief of sinners, and the very worst of hypocrites ?

God may in some sense be accurately called “sovereignly free” - but these qualities are never subordinated to God’s ethical character. Even by entering into a covenant, God in some manner limits His freedom. The wilful, capricious deity who owes no mercy to any, sounds more like an Eldritch Abomination than the Holy, Merciful, Faithful, Just, & Righteous God of the Bible.

A righteous ruler with absolute authority must be merciful, or be a tyrant. Far more is that true of God, precisely because His Power and Dominion are irresistible.

 

[jamiec]

All men go to hell no matter what (Romans 5:18), except for the mercy of God to some.

What a loathsome notion of God.

Thanks, I was hoping for some specific statements of his that were contra-Biblical.

Or is it just his conclusions to which others object?

I just want to see what all the fuss is about.

As I understand it, Calvin's account of election and predestination is not original with him, but is found also in Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther and others.

So why is everyone on his case?

St Thomas’ account of predestination is not quite the same as that of Calvin. So I question whether that of St Anselm is.

 

[RickReads]

What a loathsome notion of God.

My sentiment exactly.

 

[Clare73]

As I said in the other thread:
You have put a lot of work into trying to discredit a bishop who was closer to the apostles than you or me. He is revered by the church for his work against heresy, and he starts his discourse with:

This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” (Mat_23:37A key scripture used by all who stand for genuine free will regarding man's salvation.​

You stated:
What is true is that "no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." (John 6:65)
What is true is that "All that the Father gives me will come to me." (John 6:37)
What is true is that "I shall lose none of all that the Father has given me." (John 6:39)
True, but who does God enable:
John 14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

John 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
The free will choice is a choice to receive the light that God gives, or hide it away in sins.
Joh 3:19-21 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God."

But who does God give light to?

Joh 1:9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

I am in complete agreement that all who perish, as well as all those who are saved, are so by their own choice.

 

[Clare73]

Author: Clare74

This sounds more like the devil than God.

I understand what you think.

But you must Biblically demonstrate what you think if it is to be more than just what you think.

The compassion and mercy of God are repeatedly emphasised in both Testaments. If mere human beings are exhorted in Scripture: “Be merciful as your Father in Heaven is Merciful”, how can God not “practice what He preaches” ? How would that merciless God not be the Chief of sinners, and the very worst of hypocrites ?

God may in some sense be accurately called “sovereignly free” - but these qualities are never subordinated to God’s ethical character. Even by entering into a covenant, God in some manner limits His freedom. The wilful, capricious deity who owes no mercy to any, sounds more like an Eldritch Abomination than the Holy, Merciful, Faithful, Just, & Righteous God of the Bible.

A righteous ruler with absolute authority must be merciful, or be a tyrant. Far more is that true of God, precisely because His Power and Dominion are irresistible.

 

[Clare73]

Author: Clare74

This sounds more like the devil than God. The compassion and mercy of God are repeatedly emphasised in both Testaments. If mere human beings are exhorted in Scripture: “Be merciful as your Father in Heaven is Merciful”, how can God not “practice what He preaches”?
How would that merciless God not be the Chief of sinners,
and the very worst of hypocrites ?.

God may in some sense be accurately called “sovereignly free” - but these qualities are never subordinated to God’s ethical character. Even by entering into a covenant, God in some manner limits His freedom. The wilful, capricious deity who owes no mercy to any, sounds more like an Eldritch Abomination than the Holy, Merciful, Faithful, Just, & Righteous God of the Bible.

A righteous ruler with absolute authority must be merciful, or be a tyrant. Far more is that true of God, precisely because His Power and Dominion are irresistible.

Heaven will be filled with those who have received the mercy of God.

 

[Clare73]

All men go to hell no matter what (Romans 5:18), except for the mercy of God to some.

What a loathsome notion of God.

Your Biblical assertion (of my error above) must have a Biblical demonstration to have Biblical merit.