What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[zoidar]

.

 

[RickReads]

Another interesting thing to ponder as I question everything these days from traditions and assumptions handed down in Christendom. Where does scripture say something changed in man’s nature after the fall and in the image of God . James 3:9 and other passages assume man is still in that same image of God . Food for thought .

That`s an interesting contention. I like it.

I`m not sure it can prove anything except that maybe Adam and Eve were sinners in their hearts from the beginning just as Satan was (according to Jesus). Could be the reason God had a rescue plan from the very beginning.

 

[zoidar]

How do you mean that life/awareness is uncaused? It's pretty obvious that God caused it.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Let me try this on. You admit that if we have a gift God gives us, he caused us to have the gift? But if he gave us the Holy Spirit, that gift is not caused, though it be caused that we have it. Thus, you reason, anything God gives us is the same as the Holy Spirit, and thus not caused? Is the life and breath we have not caused? Well, you said the Holy Spirit was a gift but is not caused. Then you say the other gifts God gives are not caused. How not? Are they divine persons or divine facts?

A person, caused to be eternal, cannot have uncaused free will as God does; one simple way is that if they do have it, God caused it. Therefore, caused. Self-contradictory.

If you think of God like a bucket of water. God is the bucket and the water is His attributes, like for instance free will (God is not His attributes, He has attributes). Then God creates a cup, a being and pours water into the cup. Then the cup is created but not the water. The being is caused but the free will within the being is uncaused. Sure the reason the being has free will is because it's given, but the free will itself is uncaused. I don't think I can explain it better than this. Sure it's speculations, but still possible.

 

[zoidar]

Your issue is with God's economy.

I wouldn't say. But I don't like God being misrepresented.

 

[Clare73]

Lots of conjecture do you have scripture to support the above assumptions?

If I told you that, I would have to shoot you. . .

And you have Scripture which denies it?

 

[Clare73]

For me the most crucial issue I have with ' What's wrong with Calvinism' is the extent of the atonement. Hopefully we all agree that salvation is provided for by virtue of Christ’s redemptive work on the Cross.
As seen in John 3:16

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
So the question, then, is: For whom did Christ die—for the elect only, or for all? The question is not quite that simple, but that is the issue.

So, are you saying that Christ paid for the sin of the unbeliever, who also pays for the same sin again when he is condemned?

Is that justice on God's parts, requiring payment twice for the same sin?

Then the “T” word
The phrase total depravity has long been employed by Reformed theologians and others to describe the fallen state of man. Although the language is adequate when properly defined, the phrases pervasive depravity and radical depravity may be more appropriate. To say that every man is totally depraved does not mean that he is as bad as he could be or that his every deed is entirely or perfectly evil. Rather it means that depravity, or moral corruption, has affected his entire being—body, intellect, and will.

In the following, we will consider what total depravity does mean and does not mean.

Finally, total depravity does not mean that men do not possess the necessary faculties to obey God. Man is not a victim who desires to obey but is unable to because of factors beyond his control.

Agreed. . .unregenerate man does not desire to obey (Romans 8:7-8; 1 Corinthians 2:14;
John 3:3-8).

God has endowed man with an intellect, a will, and a freedom to choose. Man is therefore responsible before God as a moral agent. Total depravity does mean that man cannot submit himself to God because he will not, and he will not because of his own hostility toward God. From The Gospel’s Power and Message-Paul Washer

Agreed (Romans 8:7-8).

 

[zoidar]

I like to share a video. I think it will give us all in this thread something to think about. Well needed in this time of turbulence. It's like I almost feel a bit ashamed about myself. And that is a good thing. God bless!

 

[mccafferty1]

Another interesting thing to ponder as I question everything these days from traditions and assumptions handed down in Christendom. Where does scripture say something changed in man’s nature after the fall and in the image of God . James 3:9 and other passages assume man is still in that same image of God . Food for thought .

Thats one of those questions that can be answered...Yes&No. Man still is the image bearer, which means that we can still see impressed on man’s being the imprint of God himself! It’s this divine imprint that makes us into who we are 'living people'. As we see in:

Genesis 2:7 “The Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.”

The Breath of Life is Himself our Triune God. Jesus said "I 'am The Way...The Truth... and The Life.

But the bad news is after the fall Adam lost the Breath of Life...God's indwelling Spirit and received a curse in its place.

So here is the Yes&No part:

The fall of man raises the question whether the image of God has been lost. The answer is both No and Yes. First, the Bible indicates that fallen man retains the image of God with respect to our value and dignity, which is God’s explanation for forbidding the wrongful taking of human life:

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Gen. 9:6).

This statement was made after the fall, grounding the sanctity of even sinful human lives. On the other hand, man has lost the vital core of the image of God in the form of righteousness and holiness in relating to him. The result of sin, therefore, has been not the complete loss of the divine image but rather its thorough corruption. Henri Blocher

The Good News is:

We all suffer the consequences of the fall of man. Our salvation is in calling upon the name of the Lord and trusting in Jesus’ perfect sacrifice for our sin (Romans 5:10–11; 2 Corinthians 5:18). The world groans under the curse, crying out for the relief that will come at the ultimate redemption of God’s people when Christ returns (Romans 8:22–23). When Jesus comes for all those who have trusted in Him, God will restore all things (Acts 3:21). He will create a new heaven and a new earth to replace that which sin destroyed (Isaiah 65:17; 2 Peter 3:12–13; Revelation 21:1). Mankind will no longer be “fallen” but restored and redeemed by the blood of the Lamb of God (Revelation 7:14). Got?

 

[mccafferty1]

So, are you saying that Christ paid for the sin of the unbeliever, who also pays for the same sin again when he is condemned?

Jesus paid for our sin once and for all.

‘By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (v. 10); then: ‘But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God’ (v. 12); and: ‘For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified’ (v. 14). (Notice the repetition of the word one.) Peter, too, says the same thing: ‘Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things … but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot’ (1 Pet. 1:18–19).[/QUOTE]

 

[Clare73]

I wouldn't say. But I don't like God being misrepresented.

Are you sure it is misrepresentation on their part, or not apprehending the whole counsel of God on other's part?

Perhaps you would like to exegete Romans 9:16-23, being true to its words, and its context. . .

 

[Clare73]

Another interesting thing to ponder as I question everything these days from traditions and assumptions handed down in Christendom. Where does scripture say something changed in man’s nature after the fall and in the image of God . James 3:9 and other passages assume man is still in that same image of God . Food for thought .

And addressed in the following. . .which evidently is just to blow in the wind:

Ask Paul. . .
"in the flesh (sinful nature), I am a slave to sin." (Romans 7:25)
Were we created as unfree slaves in the Garden?
We are "by nature, objects of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3)
Were our natures created as objects of wrath in the Garden?

All that God made at creation was "very good" (Genesis 1:31).
So when did it change?

With study, you'll find it explained in the NT.

 

[Clare73]

So, are you saying that Christ paid for the sin of the unbeliever, who also pays for the same sin again when he is condemned?

Is that justice on God's parts, requiring payment twice for the same sin?

Jesus paid for our sin once and for all.

‘By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all’ (v. 10); then: ‘But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God’ (v. 12); and: ‘For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified’ (v. 14). (Notice the repetition of the word one.) Peter, too, says the same thing: ‘Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things … but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot’ (1 Pet. 1:18–19).

You did not answer my question. . .did you not understand it?

 

[Der Alte]

Jeremiah 13:11
(11) For as the girdle cleaveth to the loins of a man, so have I caused to cleave unto me the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah, saith the LORD; that they might be unto me for a people, and for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory: but they would not hear.
Jeremiah 13:14
(14) And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.

Romans 1:24
(24) Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Romans 1:26
(26) For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Romans 1:28
(28) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

Matthew 7:21-23
(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.​

 

[zoidar]

Perhaps you would like to exegete Romans 9:16-23, being true to its words, an in its context. . .

Thank you, but no thank you! I think it's useful to read further on to get the whole context.

 

[Clare73]

Are you sure it is misrepresentation on their part, or not apprehending the whole counsel of God on other's part?

Perhaps you would like to exegete Romans 9:16-23, being true to its words, and its context. . .

Thank you, but no thank you! I think it's useful to read further on to get the whole context.

Feel free to do so in your exegesis, demonstrating the connection in consistency with the text.

Consistency is the key of context.

Perhaps we shouldn't claim misrepresentation if we are not willing to Biblically demonstrate it.

 

[Clare73]

God is the only one I review my doctrine with. Your accusation is probably a rule violation so
I will ask you to let this one drop since you can't take a hint.

You seem stressed. . .I will pray for you.

 

[mccafferty1]

You did not answer my question. . .did you not understand it?

No, I did not understand it. That was the best answer I could come up with at the time. Explain your question a bit more and I'll give it another try.

 

[GenemZ]

So, are you saying that Christ paid for the sin of the unbeliever, who also pays for the same sin again when he is condemned?

No unbeliever will be condemned on the basis of his personal sins.

Personal sins set up a barrier between all men and God. That is why Jesus paid for the sins of the whole world... not just for the believers. Without the Cross? God could approach no man to offer a relationship.

He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world." 1 Jn 2:2​

Jesus needed to pay for the sins of the unbeliever to leave the unbeliever to be without excuse when he is condemned. For without the Cross God could not offer salvation to any man, let alone an unbeliever.

What will condemn the unbeliever? He will not hear about his personal sins. That was paid for. The unbeliever will have a book opened as to evaluate his works while physically alive on earth.

And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." Rev 20:12​

Why according to their works? Not their sins? As shown, the penalty for their sins had been paid for.

Why works? Because one works will be searched for in order to clear their name. What work will be searched for?

Then they asked him, “What must we do to do the works God requires?”

Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.” Jn 6:28-29​

Note: the one work? (we are not saved by works -plural).

That one work that saves? Is to believe in Jesus Christ!

The sins of the unbeliever has been paid for on the Cross. Jesus bore the agony of being forsaken by God until the last sin was poured on his body! They needed their sins paid for. Why? God had to in order to approach the unbeliever to offer salvation! Without the Cross they would have been automatically forsaken and no salvation could have been offered. God is fair to his enemies.... He gave them a chance by Jesus bearing the penalty of sin. Jesus was forsaken.

grace and peace....

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Does God love everyone?


I grew up in a Christian tradition that was deeply steeped in Calvinist theology. Although once part of the Conservative Baptist Association, our little church in New England eventually broke away from that denomination and became an independent Bible church. Looking back, I would have called us four or four-and-a-half point Calvinists, the doctrine of limited atonement being the only questionable plank in the venerable TULIP acronym. Still, it was indubitably true that everything that occurred did so not only on account of God’s will, but explicitly by his creative decree; and that God had graciously out of his own love chosen the elect to save from this ruinous world, and that he drew them to faith in himself by his irresistible grace. If anything was true of the Christian faith, it was these things (along with total depravity and perseverance of the saints). When the traditional texts were presented as proof of these doctrinal dogmas, I could only nod in agreement, finding no fault in how Scripture was read and interpreted. It was upon this theological rock that I began to build my spiritual home, confident that I knew God’s Word and was acting in a wise and prudent manner.

Yet a funny thing happened during my late teens and into my early twenties. The more I sunk my Christian foundation into the bedrock of Calvinism, the more fragile and volatile my spiritual life and commitment to Christianity became. A number of unspeakable evils befell my family one after another; prayers went unanswered; God remained hidden despite earnest seeking; life floundered and became dark. I despaired. How could a God of love personally cause these horrendous evils and yet still be perfectly good? How could I trust God to be loving when he determined people to sin, and then held them accountable for what they could not have refrained from doing? I desperately sought to hold these disparate theological tenets in proper balance, but the tension tore me apart. Intuitively I knew that if God was the ultimate cause behind evil, then he was evil; slowly, and in a dangerously creeping way, I began to hate this God of Calvinism even while I outwardly mouthed all the right doctrines.

What I sorely needed at this point was a viable, biblically sound, and alternative understanding of the basic Christian teachings about God’s sovereignty and love, human sin, election, salvation, Christ’s atonement, and faithful discipleship. Although I eventually came to reject Calvinism half-way through college (and later adopted thorough-going Arminianism in seminary), I could have been spared many years of frustration, confused thinking, and spiritual deadness had someone placed Jerry Walls’s most recent book in my hands.

Walls’s book is short, and pulls no punches. The title gives away Walls’s main contention: despite the endless rounds of debates between Calvinists and Arminians regarding the nature and extent of God’s sovereignty, his omnipotence, and his purposes in salvation, the heart of what’s wrong with Calvinism is that, when consistently followed to its logical end, it teaches that God does not truly love everyone. This is deeply problematic from both a theological and biblical standpoint, as a perfect divine being must love everyone without fail (or by definition he would not be God) and as revealed Scripture avers that love is so integral to God’s character that it can be described as part of his essence (“God is love” in 1 John 4:8, 16).

Before he gets there, however, Walls covers some basic issues. In chapter 1 Walls notes that classic Calvinist texts have long overlooked the importance of God’s love. The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), in answer to the question “What is God?” names essential attributes of God but notably leaves out love; and not once in the almost 2,000 pages of John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion does he cite either 1 John 4:8 or 1 John 4:16. In chapter 2, Walls reviews some basic theological systems, contrasting Calvinism’s TULIP acronym with Arminianism’s FACTS or ROSES. Walls then summarizes the doctrines of unconditional election, eternal security, and the fate of the non-elect according to Calvinism, pointing out that the WCF goes so far as to assert that God was pleased to ordain some people to wrath for their sins so that God’s glory and justice might be made known. Walls lingers on this last consideration, noting that whatever reason God has for not electing the reprobate when he could of is inscrutable to us humans, a situation that often propels Calvinists to emphasize God’s sovereignty and control instead of actually offering a theodicy in light of eternal damnation. The chapter ends with a brief discussion of limited atonement according to Calvinism, historically understood as Christ dying only for the elect, notChrist’s death being applied only to the elect. In other words, Christ’s death did not atone for the sins of the non-elect or purchase their redemption in any way—despite what 1 John 2:2 says.

The doctrine of irresistible grace is the focus of chapter 3. Calvinism usually distinguishes between two kinds of gospel calls: the general call that goes out to everyone, and the effectual call which is meant only for God’s elect. Supposedly, such a distinction allows Calvinists to preach the gospel as a genuine offer, even if the unbelievers they preach to are not elect. What makes the effectual call irresistible is that it is God who opens the eyes of the lost, softens their hearts, restores their corrupted will, and gives them the faith to believe so that they might be saved. On this Arminians and Calvinists agree: that we are completely helpless to save ourselves apart from God’s gracious initiatory work to reveal his salvation and draw us to himself. Yet while Calvinists understand God’s salvific work as being his alone, Arminians believe that each person has a part to play that is up to them—namely, receiving and believing in the gospel of Christ. Given this, Calvinists face a problem: if salvation is accomplished by God alone and is in no way dependent upon humans, what prevents the general call and effectual call from being coterminous? If God is the one who alone makes the general call irresistible and thus effectual, what is preventing him from granting everyone irresistible grace and thereby saving all? Since Calvinists hold to compatibilistic forms of human freedom, which claim that theological determinism and human freedom are compatible, God could causally determine everyone to freely believe and be saved. This realization casts doubt upon the justice of God’s judgment: if the reprobate refused a call that they could not have accepted because God did not grant them the irresistible grace needed to believe, how can God hold them morally accountable and justly judge them? As Walls pithily sums it up, “For the elect, God makes them an offer they literally cannot refuse, but those who are not elect receive an offer they literally cannot accept” (27).

In chapters 4-5, Walls presents his strongest case against Calvinism with the following deductive argument (which itself is a shortened version of a longer and more complex argument of Walls’s in a 2011 article in Philosophia Christi, “Why No Classical Theist, Let Alone Orthodox Christian, Should Ever Be a Compatibilist”):

1. God truly loves all persons.
2. Not all persons will be saved.
3. Truly to love someone is to desire their well-being and to promote their true flourishing as much as you properly can.
4. The well-being and true flourishing of all persons is to be found in a right relationship with God, a saving relationship in which we love and obey him.
5. God could give all persons “irresistible grace” and thereby determine all persons to freely accept a right relationship with himself and be saved.
6. Therefore, all persons will be saved.
The Calvinist upholds premises 1-5, which if true, necessarily yield premise 6. Yet premise 2 and 6 are contradictions, showing that at least one of the other premises is false. The Arminian can resolve the tension by rejecting premise 5 (replacing irresistible grace with prevenient grace, which only makes it possible for all persons to be saved), but what is the Calvinist to do? Premises 1, 2, and 5 are strongly held by most Calvinists, so that leaves premise 3 or 4 open to question. Yet these two premises work in tandem to flesh out what it means to love someone (i.e., to will the good of another), and especially what it means for God to love humans—the pinnacle of his creation—whom God made specifically for fellowship with him. Given that the WCFfamously declares that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him forever, it is puzzling, if not outright incoherent, for Calvinists to claim that God can truly love someone but not bring about their salvation (especially since God can determine all people to freely believe by granting them irresistible grace). One cannot glorify God and enjoy him forever in Hell.

Thus the Calvinist finds himself in a pickle: affirm that God loves all people and you must consequently affirm salvific universalism; deny universalism and this requires denying that God truly loves all people. Walls demonstrates that the consistent Calvinist cannot both affirm God’s universal love and hold that only some will be saved, and thus, “A fully consistent Calvinist who truly understands unconditional election, limited atonement, and irresistible grace will deny that God loves all persons” (34). Since Scripture clearly teaches that God both loves everyone and that some will forever perish, Walls’s argument in conjunction with the biblical data provides a defeater to Calvinist theology.

Most Calvinists respond to the above argument by differentiating various kinds of divine love. How is it that God genuinely loves the non-elect when true love would compel him to bring about their salvation? By distinguishing between (1) God’s providential love for creation, (2) his salvific stance toward fallen humanity (God’s general call), and (3) his particular and effective love toward the elect (God’s effectual call), God can be said to truly love the non-elect because he loves them in the first two senses. The problem with this is that anything short of loving someone unto salvation—if one is able to do this—is not really love. “Loving” a person by sending the sun and rain, or holding out the offer of salvation knowing they cannot accept it, is a hollow and meaningless “love” that would only come from a capricious God. As Jesus says in Matthew 16:26, “For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and yet forfeits his soul?” Apart from coming to know God through Jesus Christ and glorifying and enjoying him forever, the benefits from God’s lesser loves are futile.

Despite the Calvinist’s protestation that God has other goals he desires to accomplish through the reprobate—the full manifestation of his glory, wrath, and justice—the idea that damnation makes possible other greater goods falls flat once we realize that the greatest good for humanity and the greatest glory for God is for us to know God and enjoy him forever, which is what Christ’s atonement is all about. It becomes clear in this light that consistent Calvinist theology not only denies that God loves everyone but also obscures the gospel message of Jesus Christ himself.

In the second half of the book (chapter 6), Walls writes beautifully about a theology of divine love. He lays out more thoroughly an Arminian/Wesleyan understanding of God’s universal love, the death Christ died for all because of that love, and the genuine opportunity for salvation that is consequently made available to all. This message of love, hope, and redemption is still needed in our broken world, and if Walls’s book can help clear away the philosophical and theological cobwebs to enable Christians to more clearly proclaim this gospel, then it is well worth reading.

Does God Love Everyone? The Heart of What is Wrong with Calvinism | Denver Seminary

 

[Clare73]

No, I did not understand it. That was the best answer I could come up with at the time. Explain your question a bit more and I'll give it another try.

That's okay. . .I don't think you were trying to explain it, you were simply stating it.

I was presenting the problem involved.

You didn't sign up for that.