What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[iwbswiaihl]

Man, you're making me start to work. I hope you realize that.

As far as I know, before Acts 2, Pentecost, The Holy Spirit was only active in prophets, I say this per the Epistle of Peter.

After Pentecost, the Holy Spirit lives inside all of the saved. He is the soap that comes to clean you up.
And through Him, we are one with Christ and through Christ, we are one with the Father

I may be out of order on this post, but it does seem to me that Matthew being the first book of the N T that in accordance to his writing John the Baptist surely was filled with the Holy Spirit in his ministry. Plus, Mary for sure, seeing as how the Son of God was inside her, and that is no pun! I stopped here for a minute and background the birth of John the Baptist, as you stated above, to be sure of what I recalled for in a scripture, it has become more difficult as I approach 80. Nevertheless, thank the Lord, but to this scripture: Luke 1: 8 Now while he
(Zechariah)was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, 9
according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense. 11 And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12 And
Zechariah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. 13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

 

[John Mullally]

The Gospel has always been the same; even in the Old Testament salvation was never by works, but by faith, and that faith has never been the kind that is generated by man, but by the Spirit of God.

If God gave faith, outside of any action by man, why then did He criticize His disciples for not having faith? He would have been criticizing either Himself or the Father. Faith is the outgrowth of a disciplined response to God’s word.

Faith, the Bible says is grown. It is the seed of the word planted in one’s heart, cultivated by a walk of love and obedience, and once grown, it is released as the powerful spoken word. Farming takes knowledge, but it also takes a lot of consistent hard work.

 

[RickReads]

I may be out of order on this post, but it does seem to me that Matthew being the first book of the N T that in accordance to his writing John the Baptist surely was filled with the Holy Spirit in his ministry. Plus, Mary for sure, seeing as how the Son of God was inside her, and that is no pun! I stopped here for a minute and background the birth of John the Baptist, as you stated above, to be sure of what I recalled for in a scripture, it has become more difficult as I approach 80. Nevertheless, thank the Lord, but to this scripture: Luke 1: 8 Now while he
(Zechariah)was serving as priest before God when his division was on duty, 9
according to the custom of the priesthood, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10 And the whole multitude of the people were praying outside at the hour of incense. 11 And there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. 12 And
Zechariah was troubled when he saw him, and fear fell upon him. 13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your prayer has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. 14 And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, 15 for he will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.

John the Baptist was a prophet. I think Mary is in that category as well, just my opinion in Mary's case.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

John the Baptist was a prophet. I think Mary is in that category as well, just my opinion in Mary's case.

You are right, again, when I read prophets I thought Old Testament instantly, and forgot about Jesus saying that there was none greater than John. Thanks

 

[Mark Quayle]

If God gave faith, outside of any action by man, why then did He criticize His disciples for not having faith? He would have been criticizing either Himself or the Father. Faith is the outgrowth of a disciplined response to God’s word.

Faith, the Bible says is grown. It is the seed of the word planted in one’s heart, cultivated by a walk of love and obedience, and once grown, it is released as the powerful spoken word. Farming takes knowledge, but it also takes a lot of consistent hard work.

"Oh, ye of little faith" The nature of that faith is what makes it actual. It can be nurtured and increased. I have often mentioned that it can wear one out with effort. Everything God does toward our salvation and growth we also do as a result.

 

[RickReads]

If God gave faith, outside of any action by man, why then did He criticize His disciples for not having faith? He would have been criticizing either Himself or the Father. Faith is the outgrowth of a disciplined response to God’s word.

Faith, the Bible says is grown. It is the seed of the word planted in one’s heart, cultivated by a walk of love and obedience, and once grown, it is released as the powerful spoken word. Farming takes knowledge, but it also takes a lot of consistent hard work.

I have to disagree with you on this one. Faith is given as part of the prep work for the soil. Fertilizer for the seed, the knock at the door, the drawing of the Father. Yes, it can become stronger as it grows with our knowledge of God but it originates with the Farmer.

Romans 12:3
For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

 

[iwbswiaihl]

I would think that faith grows by obeying the word of God. The very beginning of salvation is produced by hearing the word of God. Once the unconverted person hears the word of God, it then starts the process of faith being imparted to the sinner, Rom 10:17 faith comes by hearing and hearing the word of God. And as the sinner when begins to be awakened to their need of the Savior, I would think the process is on its way WHEN the sinner comes to believe that they need to make a confession of faith in Jesus in a prayer or admitting to another saint that they prayed to receive Jesus as their Savior, once the new saint confess their faith, usually they make a profession of faith known by an altar call or tells their loved one(s) and then it should be made public and the beginning of their studies to advance their knowledge of the Christian walk. This to me is where many fail to learn one of the most important steps in the new converts life, you must start reading the bible to gain knowledge so that you can grow more obedient and learn that it is God working in them to will and to obey His word. Two of my most important verses once learned and applied taught me this valuable lesson. Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. When I came to see especially v10 that it is one of the most important principle for a Christian to learn and fulfill in their walk, we must read to learn and believe that the Holy Spirit will guide you into knowing the true applications of the word of God. Another powerful verse on the same principle and these two are worthy to begin our memorizing His word, Phil 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. Notice the wording, there are several lessons here, you are working out what He is working in you to learn and to do, get this in your understanding, the only reason you will ever learn the walk is when you come to see, it is one of the major reason you will desire to obey the word because that is fulfilling Eph 2:10 and Phil 2:13 reveals to you why, again, you want to, the Holy Spirit is working in you to fulfill 2:12, He brings it to your mind in your conscience to think about the process and gives you the will and power to do so, Phil 2:13. It is one of the best indications that you are a believer, to me, once you see this principle, if you are not desiring to do His will and say no to the flesh controlling your action and direction, and are not wanting to will and to do of His good pleasure you, everyone that says they are a believer, it should cause you to do as Paul said, examine yourself that you are in the faith! 2 Cor 13 5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Can’t you see for yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you—unless you actually fail the test? 6 And I hope you will realize that we have not failed the test. To me, what I have given has helped me to see that when I have a desire to do something which gives glory to the Lord, it is because those want too, and thoughts to obey His word, He is showing Me that He is working in me, to will, I want to do the good thoughts that I hear in my conscience and I want to show others by good works and help them see that I only do so because He is or has been working in me to see these truths, I would only ask whoever reads this, do you see Him working in you to want to do His will? And just to yourself, are you doing it as a practice in your daily walk and talk and thinking. Another verse which demonstrates what I said about the conscience, Proverbs 20:27 The spirit of man is the candle of the LORD, Searching all the innermost parts of his being.

 

[John Mullally]

"Oh, ye of little faith" The nature of that faith is what makes it actual. It can be nurtured and increased. I have often mentioned that it can wear one out with effort. Everything God does toward our salvation and growth we also do as a result.

The "Oh, ye of little faith" was a rebuke to His disciples - so there was some failure on the disciples part. I am not saying any of us would have done better - just don't give up.

 

[Cormack]

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

According to modern day Ministries that have dedicated their lives to promoting Calvinism (e.g. Desiring God,) they are arguing that a noteworthy section of the Calvinist community has an arrogance or a self righteousness problem. So, what you feel about the self reporting of puritans doesn’t change the game here.

Someone might feel that John Calvin is an amazing example of humility based upon his own self reporting, while others are going to look into the fact that he threatened people and had someone else burned alive. His prose might be exceptional, there’s just some minor burning at the stake to get through.

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.

Yes that’s an argument but it’s not a meaningful one. Someone can be both better than and better off than, they’re not mutually exclusive concepts.

Micheal Jordan is better than you at basketball, but financially he’s also better off than you due to his superior height, physicality and talent on the court. He’s both better than you in terms of his genetics, which has resulted in him being better off than you.

Your reply at that point was more pithy than anything else.

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

You’re not understanding the argument here friend. The difference between normal Christian’s and unbelievers is one of being better off, but not better than, because in real Christianity everyone has the capacity to believe in and accept God. Everyone can discern the things of scripture, and afterwards they are able to make a genuinely free choice to embrace Christ.

Unbelievers who decide later to believe in and receive Christ into their lives are better off than they were before, they are inheritors of Gods promises, accepted into the body and developing spiritual fruits.

They aren’t ontologically superior to anyone else though, rather everyone could partake in the promises if they so decided. That’s not correct under Calvinism though.

Under Calvinism everyone is born spiritually incapable of discerning the hidden things of God (including Calvinistic doctrine,) the entire world is incapable unless they are effectually and supernaturally illuminates so that they can understand.

According to Calvinists God has withheld that spiritual discernment from the lives of the majority of the church, instead choosing to illuminate the minds of a select few (the Calvinists.) The Calvinists don’t just get Calvinism by instant message directly to the brain, rather they come to understand and live this spiritually superior life because God has changed their inner working, they’ve been made ontologically superior.

Their nature is changed not just from the sinful ignorant but to the justified discerner. Discernment that God is denying normal Christians from possessing. In essence Calvinists should consider themselves an elite class of super thinkers, they are the peak of a Christian caste system of their own design.

That they have no place in a healthy Calvinism, is surely no less clear.

What you’ve labelled “healthy” is in point of fact logically inconsistent Calvinism, logical inconsistency is more often associated with unhealthy minds, not healthy ones.

Describing this mental disconnect between where Calvinism logically leads and the opposite (e.g. humility that Calvinists are self reporting) only helps show that “Calvinism” as you describe it is simple confusion, it’s to embrace the illogical and say “here I stand, I can do no other.” We can do other however, people are capable of believing in sound doctrine, not incapable as Calvinists argue. Everyone has the choice to walk away from self avowed contradiction.

More interesting was another point you made, @jamiec. Since you pointed out something to the effect of the “well-meant offer of salvation is essential to Calvinism, for it makes evangelism a duty, in agreement with the Great Commission.”

O me oh my, the well meant offer, if there’s anything wrong with Calvinism it is the clear lack of a well meant offer. I’m not meaning to write that some Calvinists haven’t tried to argue in favour of the well meant offer under Calvinism, they however are illogical Calvinists, maybe what you’d describe as practising healthy Calvinism. You then make mention to the two wills of God as an idea “which risks undermining the sincerity of God.” I should say so.

I’ll briefly outline the well meant offer for everyone reading.

The Calvinist Acrostic Tulip uses L for limited atonement, meaning Jesus didn’t die for the whole world, rather he died for only the elect.

So imagine as a Calvinist God was telling you that you have to offer the blood bought gift of salvation to an unbeliever who’s not blood bought, is that strange offer to accept and receive the gift of eternal life sincere?

Is offering you an orange behind my back that is neither behind my back nor an orange sincere?

Let’s say I’m holding an eternity of hell behind my back but also pretending that you can accept an orange from behind my back instead. Is that offer sincere? You’re not capable of accepting the orange (that doesn’t exist) by my own divine decree, but I’m insisting you answer the “offer” anyway. Are you scared of Calvins God yet?

What’s wrong with Calvinism? Arrogance, self righteousness and the lack of a well meant offer of the gospel. To these points you might read users explain that I’m a meanie mean meanerson who is just so super bad and not nice, but to that I’m only going to write my arguments speak for themselves.

this repulsive and self-righteous nastiness.

the self-righteous moral superiority in accusing "Calvinists" of spiritual superiority. . .

I think reading these complaints in light of the post that @jamiec originally quoted, or even in light of this message, my messages go to show there’s no accurate critique being shared by the two users above. Strong, logically consistent arguments are difficult for users to read because they strike to the heart of their God given conscience.

Calvinism is both against man’s heart in that it’s morally repulsive, and then his mind, because it’s logically inconsistent. To answer this Calvinists attack the heart and mind of man, sharing “it’s desperately sick, who can understand it?”

How do you feel about the human heart? If you believe it’s black from the get go then you might see a doctrine that’s antithetical to the heart as being very attractive.

How do you feel about the human mind? If it’s perverted, confused and beset by every wind of doctrine, then for both yourself and the Calvinist it might be better to fall upon the sword of illogicality.

Trust no thought, slay one doctrine by another, hold onto every point of view at the same time, just like they insist God does. Like how they insist the Lord both wills that men sacrifice children (while saying it never entered his mind that they sacrifice children.)

 

[RickReads]

Meanie Mean Meanerson, I just absolutely love that nickname.

Super Bad and on the naughty list

 

[Mark Quayle]

The temptation almost took me, to answer your whole post with one comment: "So you don't believe the Scriptures?" I am, at this point, wondering if you do, or are they only, in your mind, subject to philosophical preference?

Someone might feel that John Calvin is an amazing example of humility based upon his own self reporting, while others are going to look into the fact that he threatened people and had someone else burned alive. His prose might be exceptional, there’s just some minor burning at the stake to get through.

He is not the one who burned nor ordered anyone burned at the stake. In fact, he tried to keep it from happening. But I'm pretty sure you won't believe that because you hear so many say otherwise, in keeping with your worldview.

You’re not understanding the argument here friend. The difference between normal Christian’s and unbelievers is one of being better off, but not better than, because in real Christianity everyone has the capacity to believe in and accept God. Everyone can discern the things of scripture, and afterwards they are able to make a genuinely free choice to embrace Christ.

"Real Christianity" is built on Scripture, in its entirety, which includes:

1 Corinthians 2: "14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."; and

Romans 8: "7 The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. 8 Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God."; and

Hebrews 11: "6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him."

According to Calvinists God has withheld that spiritual discernment from the lives of the majority of the church, instead choosing to illuminate the minds of a select few (the Calvinists.)

Can you find me even one quote where this is Calvinistic (or even Reformed) doctrine? The doctrine is that all the Elect will be regenerated, changed at the heart, and not because they believe Calvinism.

The Calvinists don’t just get Calvinism by instant message directly to the brain, rather they come to understand and live this spiritually superior life because God has changed their inner working, they’ve been made ontologically superior.

No. I don't see anyone saying Calvinists are ontologically superior. If there is anything good about me, it is Christ in me. Apparently you need to start over again with the verses I quoted above, and understand what the changed nature is, and how it happens. The whole matter at issue with Calvinism vs Arminianism is GRACE, both in regeneration and in continued growth. So much so that people keep claiming Calvinists believe (which is a false claim) that the Elect need not obey or work or do what is good and right.

Their nature is changed not just from the sinful ignorant but to the justified discerner. Discernment that God is denying normal Christians from possessing. In essence Calvinists should consider themselves an elite class of super thinkers, they are the peak of a Christian caste system of their own design.

See the verses quoted above, and indeed, the whole of Scripture.

But as I just said, if there is anything good about anyone, it is Christ, and not that person. Apparently, it is you who thinks in terms of a Christian caste system.

What you’ve labelled “healthy” is in point of fact logically inconsistent Calvinism, logical inconsistency is more often associated with unhealthy minds, not healthy ones.

Describing this mental disconnect between where Calvinism logically leads and the opposite (e.g. humility that Calvinists are self reporting) only helps show that “Calvinism” as you describe it is simple confusion, it’s to embrace the illogical and say “here I stand, I can do no other.” We can do other however, people are capable of believing in sound doctrine, not incapable as Calvinists argue. Everyone has the choice to walk away from self avowed contradiction.

More interesting was another point you made, @jamiec. Since you pointed out something to the effect of the “well-meant offer of salvation is essential to Calvinism, for it makes evangelism a duty, in agreement with the Great Commission.”

O me oh my, the well meant offer, if there’s anything wrong with Calvinism it is the clear lack of a well meant offer. I’m not meaning to write that some Calvinists haven’t tried to argue in favour of the well meant offer under Calvinism, they however are illogical Calvinists, maybe what you’d describe as practising healthy Calvinism. You then make mention to the two wills of God as an idea “which risks undermining the sincerity of God.” I should say so.

I’ll briefly outline the well meant offer for everyone reading.

The Calvinist Acrostic Tulip uses L for limited atonement, meaning Jesus didn’t die for the whole world, rather he died for only the elect.

So imagine as a Calvinist God was telling you that you have to offer the blood bought gift of salvation to an unbeliever who’s not blood bought, is that strange offer to accept and receive the gift of eternal life sincere?

Is offering you an orange behind my back that is neither behind my back nor an orange sincere?

Let’s say I’m holding an eternity of hell behind my back but also pretending that you can accept an orange from behind my back instead. Is that offer sincere? You’re not capable of accepting the orange (that doesn’t exist) by my own divine decree, but I’m insisting you answer the “offer” anyway. Are you scared of Calvins God yet?

What’s wrong with Calvinism? Arrogance, self righteousness and the lack of a well meant offer of the gospel. To these points you might read users explain that I’m a meanie mean meanerson who is just so super bad and not nice, but to that I’m only going to write my arguments speak for themselves.

I think reading these complaints in light of the post that @jamiec originally quoted, or even in light of this message, my messages go to show there’s no accurate critique being shared by the two users above. Strong, logically consistent arguments are difficult for users to read because they strike to the heart of their God given conscience.

Calvinism is both against man’s heart in that it’s morally repulsive, and then his mind, because it’s logically inconsistent. To answer this Calvinists attack the heart and mind of man, sharing “it’s desperately sick, who can understand it?”

How do you feel about the human heart? If you believe it’s black from the get go then you might see a doctrine that’s antithetical to the heart as being very attractive.

How do you feel about the human mind? If it’s perverted, confused and beset by every wind of doctrine, then for both yourself and the Calvinist it might be better to fall upon the sword of illogicality.

Trust no thought, slay one doctrine by another, hold onto every point of view at the same time, just like they insist God does. Like how they insist the Lord both wills that men sacrifice children (while saying it never entered his mind that they sacrifice children.)

Limited atonement refers to payment, that Christ paid only for the sins of those who will be forever with him in Heaven —the Elect. To say that Christ died only for the Elect is a little more than Calvinism claims (though I admit many do put it that way). There are many ways in which Christ's death accomplished things for more than just the Elect, but sins paid for is not one of them.

But perhaps you would have him pay for sins they later themselves have to pay for all over again? You make his actual payment ineffectual for some? It is you who limit his atonement!

Your wordview, your mindset, is faulty, supposing mankind to grasp the depth of God's wisdom, and to operate on God's level. Simple experience should show you that it is irrelevant to actual choice whether one or more options are not actually available, as long as they seem available. Actual choosing is done, when one chooses, even though one chooses what they were predestined to choose at that one juncture. But, if it makes you "feel" stronger and more independent, satisfy yourself that whatever you choose, you are the one who decided what was going to happen, by your choice. Either way, as far as anyone can tell, only what is going to happen is going to happen. You cannot prove differently, but I can prove that nothing is determined by mere chance. Your supposed ally, Logic, seems to have abandoned you!

What one "feels" about the heart and mind is irrelevant to the facts. But if Scripture is not authoritative for you, then go your own way. But for your sake, I hope that your eternal destiny does not hinge on the integrity of your choice.

By the way, the immediate context of, "it never entered my mind", shows the meaning, that it never entered entered his mind to command it. "5 They have built high places to Baal on which to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal— something I never commanded or mentioned, nor did it even enter My mind." A quick scan of other versions shows the NLT saying: "I have never commanded such a horrible deed; it never even crossed my mind to command such a thing!" It is not a matter of knowledge (or do you claim God is not, after all, omniscient?), but a matter of his revealed will —his command. Your mocking returns on you.

As for the issue of whether or not God's plan includes every sadness and suffering, we have his promise that in the end, Heaven will more than make up for it. The fact one can't "feel" that to be true is irrelevant to the truth of it.

 

[Cormack]

The temptation almost took me, to answer your whole post with one comment: "So you don't believe the Scriptures?"

Having read that the temptation to ignore your reply would have bested me, so I’m glad you’ve made more of an effort than that. Writing to assume your own reading of scripture then asking “don’t you believe that?” (as though I’m your escaped lab clone,) that’s beyond solipsism.

I am, at this point, wondering if you do, or are they only, in your mind, subject to philosophical preference?

Are the scriptures subject only to philosophical preferences? No, they’re not only subject to philosophy. They’re subject to grammar, context (both historical and immediate,) even to the Spirit. You might dislike how often I’m likely to respond with philosophically charged language, although the whole point of my messages being geared towards the philosophical should tip you off to the fact that I’m debating against philosophy, namely Calvinism.

“How dare you use philosophy to discredit the Bible!” No, that’s not what’s happening, rather I’m writing in coherent philosophical categories for the sake of exposing an incoherent philosophical systemic (AKA Calvinism.)

“Boo hoo you broke my Calvinism” only means that it wasn’t Bible born to begin with, because the Bible is intellectually coherent, morally sound and satisfying in every regard. Whereas Calvinism is morally and intellectually gaunt, Calvin and Augustine have had their day, but now it’s time for reason to reign again.

Apparently you need to start over again with the verses I quoted above,

I’ve already shared in the thread how I’m not going to get into how wrong Calvinism is biblically, not only are there many users who you could have that conversation with, but also it’s usually unfruitful discourse. You couldn’t have known that unless you’ve read through the whole topic though and it’s not fair to expect users to do that.

He is not the one who burned nor ordered anyone burned at the stake. In fact, he tried to keep it from happening. But I'm pretty sure you won't believe that because you hear so many say otherwise, in keeping with your worldview.

Rather than get into the history of John Calvin, my point was to do with @jamiec observation, one that argued my “nastiness” and my “self righteousness” was absent when he read from long dead puritans. So my point is a conceptual one. You might read lots of people and think they’re really cool beans, but that doesn’t mean they are.

Maybe you’d like to argue that John Calvin was in fact the model of Christian humility, friend to dissenters and overall fine chap, best of luck to you. You’re not providing any receipts though, which is good, because they’d be red herrings that distract from my original point.

There are many ways in which Christ's death accomplished things for more than just the Elect, but sins paid for is not one of them.

“but sins paid for is not one of them.” That’s conceding the whole argument. The shed blood of Christ is either for Mr. Raymond Brown or it’s not for Mr. Raymond Brown.

So in order to evangelise Mr. Brown the Calvinist has to say something to him, what’s that something? Because for the vast majority of Calvinists that I’ve seen, heard and gone out evangelising with, they play their cards no different than Real Christians.

“Jesus died for your sins. God loves you. Believe Christ for the salvation of your soul, because he died for the sins of the world.”

Calvinists don’t know any of that to be right, not in the case of an avowed atheist they’re attempting to convert into the church, so why make the insincere offer? Well, because God told them to make the offer.

“Jesus died for your sins. God loves you. Believe Christ for the salvation of your soul, because he died for the sins of the world.”​

How can the Calvinist be consistent with his theology and preach something similar to that?

“Maybe Jesus died for your sins. God definitely loves you with his common love, but we don’t know about his deepest form of love, that’s reserved only for the elect. You might be one, if you persevere until the end. Believe in Christ because it may mean the salvation of your soul, because he died for the sins of the elect world.”
​

That don’t preach so good, and apparently Calvinists are aware because they spend more time obfuscation their beliefs than anybody else.

The well meant offer of the gospel doesn’t exist under Calvinism because the good news of Christs death isn’t for the reprobate, so to offer him a chance to partake in that good news is cruel and dishonest. It’s not well meant, it’s insincere.

It is you who limit his atonement!

If that were the case I’d have an item of belief in my theology called “limited atonement,” I don’t have that, but you do.

If you feel there’s anything really meaningful or important to you that I’ve neglected to respond to, please leave a short quotation and I’d be happy to exchange on that thought.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Having read that the temptation to ignore your reply would have bested me, so I’m glad you’ve made more of an effort than that. Writing to assume your own reading of scripture then asking “don’t you believe that?” (as though I’m your escaped lab clone,) that’s beyond solipsism.

AAHAhaha! Cleverly assembled retort!

Are the scriptures subject only to philosophical preferences? No, they’re not only subject to philosophy. They’re subject to grammar, context (both historical and immediate,) even to the Spirit. You might dislike how often I’m likely to respond with philosophically charged language, although the whole point of my messages being geared towards the philosophical should tip you off to the fact that I’m debating against philosophy, namely Calvinism.

Nicely sidestepped! My hat's off to you!

“How dare you use philosophy to discredit the Bible!” No, that’s not what’s happening, rather I’m writing in coherent philosophical categories for the sake of exposing an incoherent philosophical systemic (AKA Calvinism.)

“Boo hoo you broke my Calvinism” only means that it wasn’t Bible born to begin with, because the Bible is intellectually coherent, morally sound and satisfying in every regard. Whereas Calvinism is morally and intellectually gaunt, Calvin and Augustine have had their day, but now it’s time for reason to reign again.

Where do you get these accusations you appear to be quoting, as if they were mine? But you are, as I said, putting yourself up to God's level, as if to know what he knows what is actually possible before deciding.

No, you did not break my Calvinism. You only continue to misrepresent it, and to misrepresent the inability of man. You illogically take what Calvinism teaches, to extrapolate into your claims against Calvinism, believing your claims to be, in essence, Bible: "intellectually coherent, morally sound and satisfying in every regard." That's not even an argument —what you extrapolate Calvinism to teach is indeed unbiblical, but Calvinism does not teach that. There is no point in extravagant prose, no matter how noble or forceful it may sound.

But I expect you will continue to ignore the point, that has repeatedly been made here, that we cannot know which options are possible, until after we have chosen, so that the choice is indeed real.

I’ve already shared in the thread how I’m not going to get into how wrong Calvinism is biblically, not only are there many users who you could have that conversation with, but also it’s usually unfruitful discourse. You couldn’t have known that unless you’ve read through the whole topic though and it’s not fair to expect users to do that.

You have no argument. (Ha! don't put this off on them!)

Rather than get into the history of John Calvin, my point was to do with @jamiec observation, one that argued my “nastiness” and my “self righteousness” was absent when he read from long dead puritans. So my point is a conceptual one. You might read lots of people and think they’re really cool beans, but that doesn’t mean they are.

Maybe you’d like to argue that John Calvin was in fact the model of Christian humility, friend to dissenters and overall fine chap, best of luck to you. You’re not providing any receipts though, which is good, because they’d be red herrings that distract from my original point.

You apparently, then, feel free to criticize and misrepresent, then when called on it, to say, "heheh, that wasn't really my point anyhow." And that, as if Calvin was the epitome and representative of modern Calvinism.

“but sins paid for is not one of them.” That’s conceding the whole argument. The shed blood of Christ is either for Mr. Raymond Brown or it’s not for Mr. Raymond Brown.

Sins paid for is not one of the things common to all men, in the results of Christ's death; I've conceded no argument. And, exactly my point: Either Mr Brown's sin is paid for, or it is not. None of this, "Christ paid it, but in the end Mr Brown does too!", disqualifying Christ's payment.

So in order to evangelise Mr. Brown the Calvinist has to say something to him, what’s that something? Because for the vast majority of Calvinists that I’ve seen, heard and gone out evangelising with, they play their cards no different than Real Christians.

“Jesus died for your sins. God loves you. Believe Christ for the salvation of your soul, because he died for the sins of the world.”

Calvinists don’t know any of that to be right, not in the case of an avowed atheist they’re attempting to convert into the church, so why make the insincere offer? Well, because God told them to make the offer.

“Jesus died for your sins. God loves you. Believe Christ for the salvation of your soul, because he died for the sins of the world.”
How can the Calvinist be consistent with his theology and preach something similar to that?

“Maybe Jesus died for your sins. God definitely loves you with his common love, but we don’t know about his deepest form of love, that’s reserved only for the elect. You might be one, if you persevere until the end. Believe in Christ because it may mean the salvation of your soul, because he died for the sins of the elect world.”
That don’t preach so good, and apparently Calvinists are aware because they spend more time obfuscation their beliefs than anybody else.

The well meant offer of the gospel doesn’t exist under Calvinism because the good news of Christs death isn’t for the reprobate, so to offer him a chance to partake in that good news is cruel and dishonest. It’s not well meant, it’s insincere.

Not only does your logic fail, in that we have no knowledge as to who among the lost is and is not Elect, but it ignores the fact that God's Word will not return to him void, but will accomplish all that for which he sent it. It is used both to soften and to harden hearts.

The offer is sincere, just as was God's warning to Ninevah: If the one who hears the Gospel believes, he is saved, but if he rejects it, he will continue to have condemned himself, because he does not believe. You again demand to be lifted to God's level, as though endowed with God's knowledge and authority, to say it is illogical to offer someone something they cannot accept. You know no such thing.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
It is you who limit his atonement!

If that were the case I’d have an item of belief in my theology called “limited atonement,” I don’t have that, but you do.

If you feel there’s anything really meaningful or important to you that I’ve neglected to respond to, please leave a short quotation and I’d be happy to exchange on that thought.

So you claim atonement for all, yet somehow ineffectual for some? Or are you a Universalist? But perhaps you would accept the nomenclature, "Particular Redemption"?

No doubt your integrity is greater than mine, but do you suppose your decisions are firm enough to satisfy God, and your knowledge of God and the hidden things of God suffice, upon which to hinge your eternal destiny? I applaud your faithfulness, but "the bed is too short, the blanket too narrow."

 

[Cormack]

Nicely sidestepped! My hat's off to you!

So far as I’m aware I’ve answered your question directly. You asked if the Bible was only a matter of philosophical preference to me, and I’ve replied no it’s not.

Where do you get these accusations you appear to be quoting, as if they were mine?

To be fair to you, and as a disclaimer to everyone reading, @Mark Quayle did not write “Boo hoo you broke my Calvinism.” I thought this was so heavily satirical as to be obvious, although maybe to some it’s not.

There is no point in extravagant prose, no matter how noble or forceful it may sound.

Thank you, that’s an awesome compliment.

what you extrapolate Calvinism to teach is indeed unbiblical, but Calvinism does not teach that.

Here’s the distinction I’ve made from message one. There’s consistent Calvinism, logically consistent Calvinism, and there you’re going to find what users sometimes label hyper Calvinism or high Calvinism, and then there’s illogical, inconsistent common Calvinism. That’s probably your Calvinism.

Logically inconsistent Calvinism teaches logically incoherent things like “God loves you, God hates you. He’s created you for destruction, but turn to him and he will heal you, this makes total sense.” (Disclaimer warning not hashtag the real @Mark Quayle in the above quotations.)

Common illogical Calvinists sometimes hope that the church will simply make peace with the absurd sounding beliefs, but she won’t.

Important note here. I’m not arguing that the illogical Calvinists are themselves arguing for an insincere offer of the gospel, Calvinist caste system or institution wide arrogance, they’re not arguing for that because they have grown accustom to ignoring the logical consequences of their own belief system.

Just because they won’t look at the pink elephant however doesn’t mean it’s not in their house, other Calvinists are more than happy to bring these people into the “deeper things of God” as they like to teach. Facing the logical consequences of Calvinism is what you might stop short of doing, not these guys however, as I’ve already shared via Desiring God and other Calvinistic outlets.

But I expect you will continue to ignore the point, that has repeatedly been made here, that we cannot know which options are possible, until after we have chosen, so that the choice is indeed real.

That’s nonsensical to me, you could explain again in more plain language. God knows which options are possible and so can we, for example, let’s say you have the choice between drinking a can of beer or a bottle of water. They’re both right in front of you. Would you argue that the mere possibility of having one or the other is unknown to you? You just inform yourself based upon weather, time of day, tastes, brand, and then you choose.

God knows who’s going to be saved, so to enlist you in order to make false offers of salvation to doomed reprobates created for destruction is peak insincerity.

We don’t have to know who the elect are, God knows and has decided to commission Christians to share the gospel with the whole world. Under Calvinism Jesus didn’t die for the whole world, but God has told Christians to make an offer to the whole world. That sir is an insincere, false invitation for redemption.

You have no argument. (Ha! don't put this off on them!)

Oh no, he’s on to me.

You apparently, then, feel free to criticize and misrepresent, then when called on it, to say, "heheh, that wasn't really my point anyhow."

It’s in print, I’m not able to hide my original point, so it’s not on me that you have misunderstood the argument or been attracted to the bright flame of yet another debate on the morality of John Calvin. It’s just facts in action here.

You again demand to be lifted to God's level, as though endowed with God's knowledge and authority, to say it is illogical to offer someone something they cannot accept. You know no such thing.

My position is that everyone is endowed by God with “knowledge,” every healthy person has been endowed with moral experiences and knowledge of God as seen through creation or the immediate experience of His handiwork.

Calvinism on the other hand would remove humankind’s capacity to repent and believe in the right things, so it’s you who has been given special knowledge by God in the form of your Calvinism.

to say it is illogical to offer someone something they cannot accept. You know no such thing.

So you believe it’s logical to offer someone a gift you don’t have for them, and again you believe it’s logical to then punish that person for refusing the gift that you don’t have for them?

It’s logical to cause mankind to be incapable of repenting, and then to punish them for not repenting and rejecting a gift not purchased on their behalf?

See I thought that was illogical. I’d love to hear the logic of that explained, without having to retreat into mystery. Remember to retreat into mystery makes you into another illogical inconsistent Calvinist.

But perhaps you would accept the nomenclature, "Particular Redemption"?

No because that’s lipstick on a pig. You’re just rebranding limited atonement there, that’s another reason why people find Calvinism so odious, it’s the word games.

but "the bed is too short, the blanket too narrow."

And this porridge is too cold, but this porridge is too hot.

 

[Hmm]

Under Calvinism Jesus didn’t die for the whole world, but God has told Christians to make an offer to the whole world.

This is why I'm always surprised that Calvinism is regarded as a Christian denomination. The Nicene Creed says:

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.

Not:

For the sake of some of us he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.

So how does Calvinism qualify? All I can think of is it must be because of historical politics that is allowed to perpetuate.

that’s another reason why people find Calvinism so odious, it’s the word games

Word games are a Calvinist speciality. Politics again.

 

[Clare73]

This is why I'm always surprised that Calvinism is regarded as a Christian denomination. The Nicene Creed says:

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.

Do unbelievers cite the Creed as a statement of their faith?

Who are the "our" reciting the Creed?

Not:

For the sake of some of us he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.

So how does Calvinism qualify? All I can think of is it must be because of historical politics that is allowed to perpetuate.



Word games are a Calvinist speciality. Politics again.

 

[Hmm]

Do unbelievers cite the Creed as a statement of their faith?

Who are the "our" reciting the Creed?

The "our" are all those who recite the creed. But Calvinism does not teach this. It says that Christ only died for the sins of the Elect and no-one knows who these are until the final judgement is revealed. So how can they say "For our sake" Jesus died when they don't know whether He did or not?

 

[Cormack]

It says that Christ only died for the sins of the Elect and no-one knows who these are until the final judgement is revealed. So how can they say "For our sake" Jesus died when they don't know whether He did or not?

Bravo sir, bravo.

 

[Clare73]

The "our" are all those who recite the creed. But Calvinism does not teach this. It says that Christ only died for the sins of the Elect and no-one knows who these are until the final judgement is revealed. So how can they say "For our sake" Jesus died when they don't know whether He did or not?

That would be your representation of what Calvin "teaches."

How much of Calvin's writing have you read?

Presupposes one thinks one is not saved when one recites the Creed.
Absurd parlor game. . .

Why state the Creed if you don't think you are saved?

 

[Hmm]

Absurd. . .presupposes one thinks one is not saved.

Why state the Creed if you don't think you are saved?

Do the Calvinist Elect know who they are, or not?