What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Clare73]

Its the same word as used in Romans 11:2:

Romans 11:2 God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying,​

And the meaning in Romans 11:2 is the same meaning as is used throughout the NT, God's decree that Israel would be his people, just as he decreed that his people would come through Jacob only (Romans 9:11).

 

[iwbswiaihl]

It is the Holy Spirit that brings the convicting power when the word of God is heard.
The power in the word of God is the Holy Spirit. . .at work.

The word of God is the means of convicting by the Holy Spirit.

God "learns" nothing. . .he has decreed the end from the beginning (Isaiah 48:3).
Those decrees, which determine outcomes, are his foreknowledge. . .of what he has decreed shall happen, not of anything that happens apart from him, for nothing happens apart from his decrees and their outcomes.

Keeping in mind, the meaning of foreknowledge as used in the NT is what Scripture shows it to be; i.e., Isaiah 48:3.

That is right, some of what you are saying, it's your application you are assuming that is misplaced, like the scripture says, whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, He knew who they all would be and so can anyone who reads the words, whosoever calls will be saved, your view is that you read into it your view of limited atonement only to those with your view of scripture which does not include whosoever meaning whosoever. Its only those who He predestined, not that He predestined whomsoever will! He did predestine John 1:12 to as many as receive Him to them gave He the power to become the children of God. And of course, He also knew who would. But you believe like this, so to speak, John P Q will receive Him and be saved, not who so ever believes will be saved. But the verse says faith has to be applied, you say those that will be saved have been preprogrammed to believe so that they can fulfill the place of the whosoever. Your view makes it like a movie script where all born, play their parts because that is the way it was foreknown and predestined to happen. You can probably tell, I don't believe that is the way it was intended. No sense going round about on this topic again, have a great day.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Clare is resisting my destruction of Calvinist doctrine by my proof that salvation is universally available. She is intelligent and understands the ramifications for Calvins.

Just a small point, but, how does salvation being 'universally available' destroy Calvinism? Does availability (a human concept) mean actual? I mean, certainly you don't claim that Jesus actually paid for the sins that some of the sinners ended up paying for themselves! Right?

See, here is the thing: We humans have this self-centered view, where salvation is a commodity that we can take or leave as we wish. We want to think God is kind enough to offer it to whomever, but what God sees is those at enmity with him, to whom he commands repentance, but who are not going to repent. It is not about us, but about God.

There are many Calvinists who claim 'sufficiency' of Christ's sacrifice, but not 'efficiency'. Can you live with that? Or is it more than that, since you want Calvinism destroyed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is right, some of what you are saying, it's your application you are assuming that is misplaced, like the scripture says, whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, He knew who they all would be and so can anyone who reads the words, whosoever calls will be saved, your view is that you read into it your view of limited atonement only to those with your view of scripture which does not include whosoever meaning whosoever. Its only those who He predestined, not that He predestined whomsoever will! He did predestine John 1:12 to as many as receive Him to them gave He the power to become the children of God. And of course, He also knew who would. But you believe like this, so to speak, John P Q will receive Him and be saved, not who so ever believes will be saved. But the verse says faith has to be applied, you say those that will be saved have been preprogrammed to believe so that they can fulfill the place of the whosoever. Your view makes it like a movie script where all born, play their parts because that is the way it was foreknown and predestined to happen. You can probably tell, I don't believe that is the way it was intended. No sense going round about on this topic again, have a great day.

"Whosoever" is a favorite Arminian-leaner's word, which they use to infer randomness. It means no such thing! ALL it means is 'whoever', or more starkly, "those who" call on the name of the Lord. In John 3:16 it is the same: Those who believe in him shall not perish.

What is humorous to me is that the go-round between you and, I think, @John Mullally (?) I took you to be agreeing with him, in that your verses and his agreed, because all the verses he used for that time were (to my thinking) entirely Calvinistic, though he took them otherwise! I think I even rated one of your posts "winner", in part because I thought you were defending the Calvinist position and you were dead on right! But now I'm thinking you actually think those passages support Arminianism?!!! The irony is sizzling!

 

[Clare73]

That is right, some of what you are saying, it's your application you are assuming that is misplaced, like the scripture says, whosoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved, He knew who they all would be and so can anyone who reads the words, whosoever calls will be saved, your view is that you read into it your view of limited atonement only to those with your view of scripture which does not include whosoever meaning whosoever.

Could we do specifics, rather than generalizations?

State specifically what the Biblical matter/question is, and I will address it.

 

[John Mullally]

What is humorous to me is that the go-round between you and, I think, @John Mullally (?) I took you to be agreeing with him, in that your verses and his agreed, because all the verses he used for that time were (to my thinking) entirely Calvinistic, though he took them otherwise! I think I even rated one of your posts "winner", in part because I thought you were defending the Calvinist position and you were dead on right! But now I'm thinking you actually think those passages support Arminianism?!!! The irony is sizzling!

I remember going over John 3:16 with you over a year ago and I remember you talking about "whosoever" as you are doing now. I don't think I said it then, but I have always thought that "whosoever" was just an old English way of saying "whoever". "Whosoever" just sounds more poetic especially when Billy Graham proclaimed it in a packed stadium.

 

[RickReads]

Just a small point, but, how does salvation being 'universally available' destroy Calvinism? Does availability (a human concept) mean actual? I mean, certainly you don't claim that Jesus actually paid for the sins that some of the sinners ended up paying for themselves! Right?

See, here is the thing: We humans have this self-centered view, where salvation is a commodity that we can take or leave as we wish. We want to think God is kind enough to offer it to whomever, but what God sees is those at enmity with him, to whom he commands repentance, but who are not going to repent. It is not about us, but about God.

There are many Calvinists who claim 'sufficiency' of Christ's sacrifice, but not 'efficiency'. Can you live with that? Or is it more than that, since you want Calvinism destroyed.

Just a figure of speech. A Calvinist cannot believe Jesus died for the world, not just the elect. And no I don't expect Calvinism to die out until the tribulation sweeps it away.

 

[RickReads]

"Whosoever" is a favorite Arminian-leaner's word, which they use to infer randomness. It means no such thing! ALL it means is 'whoever', or more starkly, "those who" call on the name of the Lord. In John 3:16 it is the same: Those who believe in him shall not perish.

What is humorous to me is that the go-round between you and, I think, @John Mullally (?) I took you to be agreeing with him, in that your verses and his agreed, because all the verses he used for that time were (to my thinking) entirely Calvinistic, though he took them otherwise! I think I even rated one of your posts "winner", in part because I thought you were defending the Calvinist position and you were dead on right! But now I'm thinking you actually think those passages support Arminianism?!!! The irony is sizzling!

All passages support Arminianism.

 

[zoidar]

And spiritually dead--complete inability to do anything spiritually, is what Jesus and Paul are presenting in John 3:3-8; Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14.

The dead don't reach out and grab the life preserver of the gospel.

That is NT teaching.

"Spiritually dead" really just means your standing with God is wrong and you will die in your sins. Simply it means you are lost and not saved. The progidal son was "spiritually dead" before he turned to his father. It has nothing to do with your ability to respond. But the expression is not used in the Bible. There is "dead in your sins" in Ephesians 2:1.

*Edited

 

[Mark Quayle]

All passages support Arminianism.

Assertion wins! Well done! I wish I had thought of making an assertion!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Just a figure of speech. A Calvinist cannot believe Jesus died for the world, not just the elect. And no I don't expect Calvinism to die out until the tribulation sweeps it away.

WHAT is just a figure of speech? "Destroy"? Or "die for the world"? Calvinism at least allows the proposition we use as intent, as provision, as all sorts of things —'for'— even in English doesn't always mean the same thing.

Christ's death accomplished quite a lot of things, not the least of which is relief from sin's 'authority', or the horror of its corrupting effect over this universe. It restored all things to God. Colossians 1:20; Romans 8:21 and others

 

[RickReads]

Assertion wins! Well done! I wish I had thought of making an assertion!

Call it what you will. I knew the doctrines of Paul long before I ever heard of the term Arminian.

 

[Mark Quayle]

@RickReads @zoidar @John Mullally @iwbswiaihl @misput @Der Alte @Jesus is YHWH @Clare73 @Cormack @Hmm @d taylor @ByTheSpirit @Michael Collum @2PhiloVoid @TedT @Watchman1 @com7fy8 @NotreDame @public hermit

For the accusation that Reformed Theology is, at the least, impractical, here is a relevant thread. You will probably find well-meaning Christians trying to reassure this poor fellow, who, had he been taught the Gospel that is entirely of Grace, would understand that his eternal destiny does not hinge on the integrity of his decision, but entirely on God's decision.
Am I still blind? | Christian Forums

 

[RickReads]

WHAT is just a figure of speech? "Destroy"? Or "die for the world"? Calvinism at least allows the proposition we use as intent, as provision, as all sorts of things —'for'— even in English doesn't always mean the same thing.

Christ's death accomplished quite a lot of things, not the least of which is relief from sin's 'authority', or the horror of its corrupting effect over this universe. It restored all things to God. Colossians 1:20; Romans 8:21 and others

Seems strange to me brother. If you believe Christ restored all the Creation to God as I do then what`s the beef with the understanding that the Propitiation is a provision offered to all people?

It's your indoctrination that blinds you.

 

[RickReads]

@RickReads @zoidar @John Mullally @iwbswiaihl @misput @Der Alte @Jesus is YHWH @Clare73 @Cormack @Hmm @d taylor @ByTheSpirit @Michael Collum @2PhiloVoid @TedT @Watchman1 @com7fy8 @NotreDame @public hermit

For the accusation that Reformed Theology is, at the least, impractical, here is a relevant thread. You will probably find well-meaning Christians trying to reassure this poor fellow, who, had he been taught the Gospel that is entirely of Grace, would understand that his eternal destiny does not hinge on the integrity of his decision, but entirely on God's decision.
Am I still blind? | Christian Forums

Kinda like trying to beat the entire varsity football team by yourself isn't it? I want to try out for a tackle position. I think I can get Hmm benched.

 

[zoidar]

@RickReads @zoidar @John Mullally @iwbswiaihl @misput @Der Alte @Jesus is YHWH @Clare73 @Cormack @Hmm @d taylor @ByTheSpirit @Michael Collum @2PhiloVoid @TedT @Watchman1 @com7fy8 @NotreDame @public hermit

For the accusation that Reformed Theology is, at the least, impractical, here is a relevant thread. You will probably find well-meaning Christians trying to reassure this poor fellow, who, had he been taught the Gospel that is entirely of Grace, would understand that his eternal destiny does not hinge on the integrity of his decision, but entirely on God's decision.
Am I still blind? | Christian Forums

There are both good and bad spiritual guides among all denominations. It's not just the theology.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

@RickReads @zoidar @John Mullally @iwbswiaihl @misput @Der Alte @Jesus is YHWH @Clare73 @Cormack @Hmm @d taylor @ByTheSpirit @Michael Collum @2PhiloVoid @TedT @Watchman1 @com7fy8 @NotreDame @public hermit

For the accusation that Reformed Theology is, at the least, impractical, here is a relevant thread. You will probably find well-meaning Christians trying to reassure this poor fellow, who, had he been taught the Gospel that is entirely of Grace, would understand that his eternal destiny does not hinge on the integrity of his decision, but entirely on God's decision.
Am I still blind? | Christian Forums

SALVATION is surely of, by and through the Lord. But there is human responsibility to seek and serve Him with all of our heart, mind and soul. If that desire is not there I would not try assuring anyone they are saved. No fruit, not root.

 

[Mark Quayle]

"Spiritually dead" really just means you will die in your sins. It has nothing to do with your ability to respond. But it's not an expression of the Bible. There is "dead in your sins" in Ephesians 2:1.

Is this (that I've bolded above) an educated guess, or a preference, or do you have some hermeneutical or otherwise doctrinal basis for saying so, or what?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

@RickReads @zoidar @John Mullally @iwbswiaihl @misput @Der Alte @Jesus is YHWH @Clare73 @Cormack @Hmm @d taylor @ByTheSpirit @Michael Collum @2PhiloVoid @TedT @Watchman1 @com7fy8 @NotreDame @public hermit

For the accusation that Reformed Theology is, at the least, impractical, here is a relevant thread. You will probably find well-meaning Christians trying to reassure this poor fellow, who, had he been taught the Gospel that is entirely of Grace, would understand that his eternal destiny does not hinge on the integrity of his decision, but entirely on God's decision.
Am I still blind? | Christian Forums

People need to be taught the truth, not lies. If our eternity depended upon God’s decision, then all would be saved for God desires that all come to repentance.

 

[zoidar]

Is this (that I've bolded above) an educated guess, or a preference, or do you have some hermeneutical or otherwise doctrinal basis for saying so, or what?

"Spiritual dead" is not an expression of the Bible, but concerning "dead in your sins" Eph 2:1 which I think Clare was refering to we have:

Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
— John 8:24

Again, when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I place an obstacle before him, he will die; since you have not warned him, he shall die in his sin, and his righteous deeds which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand.
— Ezekiel 3:20

But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.’”
— Luke 15:32

They are "dead in sins" since they have the wrong standing with God and will die in their sins. I don't know why/how to get to the conclusion that they are unable to respond...