What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Mark Quayle]

Sometimes I wonder if what a person begins to describe as their definition of a thing, changes, to some degree, as they describe it. Not sure that isn't happening here with you. But I get it that you mean to get a view across, rather than a definition.

(Side note: Unless your reader had seen where @Clare73 mentioned "operate from a vacuum", your quote (1st paragraph below) comes across the opposite of how Clare put it, when you quote her, in saying, "Not that bad how Clare put it, it does operate from a kind of vaccum." I know you did not mean she claims it operates from a vacuum, but to credit her with the reference to 'operat[ing] in a vacuum. Anyhow, you seem to affirm here that freewill must operate "kind of" without cause. (Clare didn't mention, "kind of", either. (Haha, just pickin')).)

At soul level we are all the same, like being the same essence. Free will is thereby within each person. Not that bad how Clare put it, it does operate from a kind of vaccum. The reason it makes us responsible is because we have not been predetermined what to choose, but the choice is decided from the place of soul/free will. So it's whether soul listens to the bad thoughts or good thoughts of your mind. Soul/free will watches your mind and decides which to listen to. That makes us responsible. You aren't your body/mind, you have a body/mind.

In a sense I don't believe we "have" free will. I believe free will is within us.

The Bible makes a big distinction between the mind of the flesh, and the mind of the spirit. The unregenerate are not possessing of both. But whatever, neither one of them does operate in a vacuum. Whether, as you say, that we have free will, or that it is "within us", it doesn't come from nothing, and is not governed by nothing or uncaused (even before we govern it, though that too is relevant). The mind of the flesh is governed by the flesh, and is a slave to sin. The mind of the spirit is a slave to Christ. and is governed by the Spirit. One might say that our free will, then, is the decider between all these influences, and in the believer, between the drives of the flesh and the spirit, but that too, is THUS subject to influences, and always chooses according to its inclinations. It can operate in opposition to its usual inclinations, no doubt, but that too is because it is so inclined to do, at that point.

Ok, this doesn't fully explain it, but I believe it. I don't need to know exact how, like I don't need to know how God created material matter from nothing. But to me there can't be responsibility or sin without free will. That settles it for me.

Again, are you here referring to UNCAUSED free will? Logically, and Biblically, I see no way there can be such a thing. If you can show me how it is logical (and I don't mean 'necessary that it be true, for responsibility' in your mind), I'll be glad to try to understand, but if not —I leave you to deal with the incongruity, 'er, "mystery", in your thinking.

 

[Clare73]

It is The Word that encompasses the meaning of God/Christ/Holy Spirit and everything He stands for.

Is Jesus called that anywhere in the NT apart from the opening of John's gospel?

Keeping in mind that John was writing for Greeks, where Logos in Greek philosophy was the First Cause, the Great Intelligence and Reason behind the Universe. John declares that the recently despised and crucified man, Jesus of Nazareth, is the eternal Logos, source of all wisdom and power, who became flesh in order to reveal God to us.

 

[Clare73]

I hope so. Most of us are rather weary of your dogmatic insistence on a wooden literal interpretation of scripture that leaves little or no room for Holy Spirit guidance. We are all reaching our opinions through Him. You would do well to respect that if you want to be respected. Maybe take your tag line into your own heart. humility, humility, humility

The Holy Spirit does not guide us differently from the word of God written.
And so, it's not that I am in disagreement with the word of God written, it's just that I am wooden. . . Interesting. . .and where is this standard in Scripture?.

Sorry you feel that it is "wooden" to take Scripture at its word in the context of the whole counsel of God,
but rather that one's own personal insights should govern. . .and the measure of the truth of those insights being?

 

[Clare73]

You say you don't do "ism's" but
your theology is influenced by the Calvinistic material you have read. Do you disagree?

I disagree. . .my theology was formed long before I knew anything about Calvin.
My theology is "influenced by" and based in Paul.
Seems Calvin agrees with him.

Sorry that is so disturbing to you, et al.

 

[zoidar]

I disagree. . .my theology was formed long before I knew anything about Calvin.
My theology is "influenced by" and based in Paul.
Seems Calvin agrees with him.

Sorry that is so disturbing to you, et al.

Aha, so when you did read Calvin and Calvinistic material, they just confirmed what you already knew? Nothing new was added to your theology?

 

[Clare73]

Aha, so when you read Calvin and Calvinistic material,
they just confirmed what you already knew?

They agreed with my understanding of Paul, as did the Reformers, in light of the whole counsel of God.

 

[zoidar]

They agreed with my understanding of Paul, as did the Reformers, in light of the whole counsel of God.

That's not answering my question. A yes or no would be fine.

 

[Der Alte]

@misput @Clare73
What many people either don’t know or seem to forget is, neither, John, Jesus nor any of the other key Christian figures in the N.T. were Greeks and Greek was not their first language. They were all Jews and their mother tongues were Hebrew and Aramaic and their faith history was Jewish.
So we must ask ourselves what was the Hebrew, Jewish, Old Testament view? Here from the Jewish Encyclopedia, part of the article on “Memra,” the Aramaic word for “word.” The Targums were Aramaic translations of the O.T., began during the Babylonian captivity about 700 BC.
Here in this citation there are at least eighty examples where the name of YHWH was replaced, in the Targums, with “memra.” When the Jew John said to his Jewish audience, “In the beginning was the Word.” he was not saying anything new.

Jewish Encyclopedia Memra-In the Targum:
In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divine power, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.
Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord יהוה" is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God,"[ יהוה] but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). "Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra[/] (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).
MEMRA - JewishEncyclopedia.com​

 

[Clare73]

That's not answering my question.

The difference being. . .

 

[Clare73]

@misput @Clare73
What many people either don’t know or seem to forget is, neither, John, Jesus nor any of the other key Christian figures in the N.T. were Greeks and Greek was not their first language. They were all Jews and their mother tongues were Hebrew and Aramaic and their faith history was Jewish.

Greek was the language of the realm.

The word of God comes from the Holy Spirit, who is sufficient in the Greek to state what he means.
It means what it means in that language (John 14:26, John 16:13-15; Luke 24:44-45).
It is presumption to second guess the Holy Spirit.

 

[Clare73]

The difference being. . .

That's not answering my question.

Nor is yours answering my question.

A yes or no would be fine.

Have you stopped beating animals? A yes or no would be fine.

 

[zoidar]

The difference being. . .

Ok, so you found out the TULIP from the Bible alone? I find it unlikely. Ok, but if you did you did...

 

[Clare73]

The difference being. . .

Ok, so you found out the TULIP from the Bible alone? I find it unlikely. Ok, but if you did you did...

I don't even agree with the wording of TULIP.

Are you keeping up?

Yes, the concepts of TULIP I learned from the Bible, though I did not not articulate it as well as the Reformers, whose articulation I prefer, and which is not TULIP.

Why is that so hard for you to grasp?
Do you think the Holy Spirit was asleep on the job?

 

[GenemZ]

I favor Biblical responses over "good comebacks."

The Bible is a good comeback.......

Come back to sanity. (if its being understood)

Otherwise? It exposes our insanity with the the false dogmas of distortion of the Bible that some will wish to accept and live by.

 

[Der Alte]

Greek was the language of the realm.
The word of God comes from the Holy Spirit, who is sufficient in the Greek to state what he means.
It means what it means in that language (John 14:26, John 16:13-15; Luke 24:44-45).
It is presumption to second guess the Holy Spirit.

In this presumptive attempt to put me in my place you missed my point entirely. When Hebrew NT writers in Israel wrote to e.g. Romans, whose native language was Latin, did they have the same understanding of the Greek Logos that Jews understood of Memra as indicated in my quotes above? See e.g. "The Memra," instead of "the Lord יהוה" is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27).

 

[misput]

The Holy Spirit does not guide us differently from the word of God written.
And so, it's not that I am in disagreement with the word of God written, it's just that I am wooden. . . Interesting. . .and where is this standard in Scripture?.

Sorry you feel that it is "wooden" to take Scripture at its word in the context of the whole counsel of God,
but rather that one's own personal insights should govern. . .and the measure of the truth of those insights being?

A good example of wooden non Spiritual understanding is:
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"

I don't thing personal insights is a correct definition for insights brought on by The Holy Spirit. Spiritual insights are insights we receive which we know we could never understand on our own.

 

[zoidar]

Yes, the concepts of TULIP I learned from the Bible, though I did not not articulate it as well as the Reformers, whose articulation I prefer, and which is not TULIP.

That's what I wanted know. Thanks!

 

[Clare73]

A good example of wooden non Spiritual understanding is:
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus *said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?"

What is "wooden" to one man, is objective truth and accuracy to another.

I don't see Nicodemus as an example of wooden understanding, when nowhere in Jewish teaching was found the rebirth.
I see Nicodemus as a teacher, who does his homework regarding the facts before he presents them, and not after he finds out they weren't really the facts.

I don't thing personal insights is a correct definition for insights brought on by The Holy Spirit. Spiritual insights are insights we receive which we know we could never understand on our own.

No problem if they are in agreement with the whole counsel of God, against which they must be tested, as Paul was tested by the Bereans.

 

[Clare73]

That's what I wanted know. Thanks!

I think our difference is in your "religious" background, where all meaning was wide open and had to be discovered.
That's not the way it is with the word of God in Scripture.
For lack of a better way to put it, Scripture has a concrete (non-esoterical) 3000+ year-old overall framework into which everything fits, it's meaning is not wide open.
All correct understanding fits into this framework and is in agreement with it.
Anything not fitting into the framework (whole counsel of God) is incorrect because it is inconsistent.
Familiarity with the framework is required in correctly understanding Scriptural text.

 

[misput]

Is Jesus called that anywhere in the NT apart from the opening of John's gospel?

Keeping in mind that John was writing for Greeks, where Logos in Greek philosophy was the First Cause, the Great Intelligence and Reason behind the Universe. John declares that the recently despised and crucified man, Jesus of Nazareth, is the eternal Logos, source of all wisdom and power, who became flesh in order to reveal God to us.

How many times do you need? How many times is the word of God or words to that effect used.