What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Mark Quayle]

I don't know if this is the best thing to bring up again. But "willed choice" doesn't make you responsible. It has to be "free will choice", and by free will, I mean uncaused from prior event. You are not responsible just by being able to choose what you will, if what you will has been caused by God.

If you feel we are done discussing this, then no problem. Maybe I shouldn't have opened the lid again...

It's ok, bro. I can talk about this sort of thing all day (and not get done what I should be doing!) I've been hoping to get you (and many others on this site) to see that even without taking God into account as the beginning of the chain of events, our choices are still, necessarily, caused.

 

[Clare73]

Here is my view on the teaching of the spirit of antichrist and what that means. It has to do with the 2 natures in Christ, that He is fully God and remains fully man, in the flesh. I have quoted several renown Greek scholars that concur.
The number one test to distinguish truth for error and the Spirit of God from that of the spirit of antichrist is the confession of our divine Lord Jesus Christ. Every spirit that confesses Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God. There is one thing the spirit of antichrist will deny and that is they will deny the deity of Jesus Christ. They will deny God in human flesh. They will always deny the Incarnation which was permanent. When a person affirms that Jesus Christ is God in flesh that equates to divine truth. Every spirit that confesses meaning to continually confess or agrees with saying the same thing as John declares in his writings is from God. This is the person who is taught by the Spirit of God according to John. The first test that you want to have for any teacher is their Christology, check out what they say about Christ. This becomes a litmus test that is very easy to spot among the false teachers. If you have somebody who denies the deity of Christ you have a clear indication they are of the spirit of antichrist.

Agreed. . .

If we go back to the beginning of 1 John, we read that which we he beheld, and actually touched concerning the Word of life. That is a term expressing the very deity of Christ. Christ emanates from God as His living Word. He was with the Father in the beginning in 1:2. Jesus was One with the Father sharing the same essence with the Father in heaven with Him before the foundation of the world. John says He was manifested to us. John's language then starts out with the fact that Jesus Christ emanates from God as the very living Word of God.

I don't see emanation in the opening of John's gospel where
the Word was (past tense) in the beginning (when it all began),
was with God,
was God.
I see co-existence, not emanation.
Emanation (actually "proceeding") comes from other Scriptures, not from the opening of John's gospel.

Jesus is the living Word of God, the One John says that was from the beginning that we heard, we saw and we touched.

1 John 1:1-2 - "That (life) which was from the beginning (of the hearing of the gospel proclamation, 2:7, 24) which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched--this we proclaim concerning the word of Life. The Life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life (5:20), which was with the Father and has appeared to us. We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard. . ."

Actually, in "word of life" of 1 John 1:1-2, Christ whom they have seen, looked at and touched, is "life,"
"the word" there refers to the proclamation of the gospel.
In this epistle, John is not referring to Jesus as the "Word" which he presents in his gospel. Rather, by "word, John in his epistle is referring to the proclamation of the gospel.

Likewise, the "Word" (logos) in the opening of John's gospel does not refer to the divine utterance, it refers to the logos of the Greeks, to whom John's gospel is addressed, where logos actually meant God himself; i.e., the "First Cause," the "Great Intelligence and Reason" behind the Universe.
John declares that the 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.

Word = God himself, not his utterance, in Greek philosophy.
"Word of God" is not a name for Jesus, who is called "Word of God" nowhere else in Scripture.
Jesus is the logos, who is God.

Jesus the Word of life was the eternal One who was with the Father prior to His Incarnation and was then manifested to us in the flesh that we could see and hear and touch according to John. Therefore, we can clearly see Jesus is the very Word of God Incarnate.
He is the eternal life who became flesh.

Keeping in mind that logos in Greek is God himself, it does not mean God's utterance.
Jesus is The Life, God himself, who became flesh. . .that is what John is saying in his gospel when he uses logos. . .he is not referring to Jesus as the utterance of God, but as God himself.

He is the eternal life who became flesh. The Word who was with God, the Word who was God, was the One who John says was manifested to us. This is how we can tell the spirit of truth from the spirit of antichrist. Can you confess Jesus is God Incarnate?

1 John 4:2
By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;

2 John 7
For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.


Erchomenon the present participle in 2 John 7



Alford- the present tense is timeless(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Brooke- the Incarnation is not only an event in history, it is an abiding truth(pg 274 RNTC on 2 John)

Stott- the two natures manhood and Godhood were united already at His birth, never to be divided. In 1 John 4:2 and here in 2 John 7 emphasizes this permanent union of the natures in the One Person ( TNTC pages 209-210) He who denies the Incarnation is not just a deceiver and an antichrist but “the deceiver and the antichrist”. There is in this heresy a double affront: it opposes Christ and deceives men.(stott TNCT page 210)

Marshall- the use of the present and perfect tenses becomes significant if the point is that Jesus Christ had come and still existed “in flesh”. For him(John) it was axiomatic that there had been a true Incarnation, that the word became flesh and remained flesh. It is a point that receives much stress in 1 John 2:18-28;4:1-6;5:5-8. (NICNT pages 70-71)

Smalley- the present tense emphasizes the permanent union of the human and Divine natures in Jesus. Gods self disclosure in Jesus took place at a particular moment in history , but it has continuing effects in the present and into the future(Word Biblical Commentary page 317)

Nicoll- the continuous manifestation of the Incarnate Christ(Expositors Greek Testament Volume 5 page 202)

Akin- Much has been made of the fact that John uses the present tense in this Christological confession. Literally the verse reads, “Jesus Christ coming in flesh.” “Coming” is a present active participle. This stands out in remarkable contrast to the affirmation of 1 John 4:2, where the text states that “Jesus Christ has [emphasis mine] come in the flesh.” There the perfect active participle is used. The key, it seems, is to discover what John is affirming. Here in 2 John the emphasis falls on the abiding reality of the incarnation. First John 4:2 teaches that the Christ, the Father’s Son (v. 3), has come in the flesh. Second John affirms that the wedding of deity and humanity has an abiding reality (cf. 1 Tim 2:5). The ontological and essential nature of the incarnation that would receive eloquent expression one thousand years later in the writing of St. Anselm (1033–1109) in his classic Cur Deus Homo is already present in seed form in the tiny and neglected letter of 2 John.

Lenski- In 1 John 4:2 we have ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα, the perfect participle, “as having come in flesh” (incarnate, John 1:14); here we have ἐρχόμενον ἐν σαρκί, “as coming in flesh,” although the participle is present in form it is really timeless.of Christ as "still being manifested." See the note at 1 John 3:5. In 1 John 4:2 we have the manifestation treated as a past fact by the perfect tense, ‎eleeluthota ‎"has come

Robertson- That Jesus Christ cometh in the flesh ‎Ieesoun ‎‎Christon ‎‎erchomenon ‎‎en ‎‎sarki‎. "Jesus Christ coming in the flesh." Present middle participle of ‎erchomai ‎treating the Incarnation as a continuing fact which the Docetic Gnostics flatly denied. In 1 John 4:2 we have ‎eleeluthota ‎(perfect active participle) in this same construction with ‎homologeoo‎, because there the reference is to the definite historical fact of the Incarnation.

Vincent- Is come ‎erchomenon‎. Wrong. The verb is in the present participle, "coming," which describes the manhood

hope this helps !!!

 

[zoidar]

It's ok, bro. I can talk about this sort of thing all day (and not get done what I should be doing!) I've been hoping to get you (and many others on this site) to see that even without taking God into account as the beginning of the chain of events, our choices are still, necessarily, caused.

Ok, if you are right, how then are we responsible for what we choose?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, if you are right, how then are we responsible for what we choose?

I suppose you mean even if we ignore, for the sake of argument that God is first cause, how would the notion of everything we do and choose, being caused as effects of prior causation, not relinquish us of responsibility for our sins?

Three ways, off the top of my head —maybe even more. 1) One is that God holds us responsible, and we know he is just, so whether we can see how or not, we can know it is so; and our conscience agrees with this. 2) Another is that we are willed, and willful. As I have said before, can anyone say they are not in willful agreement with their sin? As willfully in opposition to God we fully deserve our condemnation. 3) And from the negative, the notion that we are to be credited with worthiness for our good choices, but that God is not to be credited for it, is clearly against Scripture.

 

[Fervent]

I suppose you mean even if we ignore, for the sake of argument that God is first cause, how would the notion of everything we do and choose, being caused as effects of prior causation, not relinquish us of responsibility for our sins?

Three ways, off the top of my head —maybe even more. 1) One is that God holds us responsible, and we know he is just, so whether we can see how or not, we can know it is so; and our conscience agrees with this. 2) Another is that we are willed, and willful. As I have said before, can anyone say they are not in willful agreement with their sin? As willfully in opposition to God we fully deserve our condemnation. 3) And from the negative, the notion that we are to be credited with worthiness for our good choices, but that God is not to be credited for it, is clearly against Scripture.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If our wills are externally caused, then we don't will anything. Your first point is nothing more than you assuming you're right, therefore God. It gives no real ground for explaining moral accountability, and violates the law of non-contradiction. We cannot at once be caused to do something and have chosen to do so, the experience of choice in that instance would be an illusion. And we are only morally responsible for the things that we choose to do(or not do), not the things we have no control over. So unless our wills are to some extent free we bear no responsibility for what they contain. We do not will if our wills are entirely determined, just as computer programs do not will when they carry out their programming and are therefor not morally culpable.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Love is one of the primary and essential attributes which reflect the nature and character of God. The word Theology refers to the study of God, and God is Triune, a Trinity- Tri-Unity. All doctrine begins with God at its starting point. God’s innate attributes are Aseity (God is self-sufficient), Infinite (without limit), Eternal (God has no beginning or end, he is timeless), Immutable (God is unchanging), Love (God is love), Holy (God is set-apart), Perichoresis (the indwelling of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit). Divine Simplicity states God is Love and because He is Love, not because He possesses that quality. God's love is the center of all the Divine Attributes. They point to His Being. God is not distinct from His nature.

God is Love. In love, the Father sent the Son on our behalf to be the perfect sacrifice for sin. We Love because He first loved us and sent His Son as 1 John 4 tells us.

We must understand how God's attributes all work in harmony together, not in opposition to each other. God's attributes and character flow from His love—for God is love.

God being love has nothing to do with His creation. That is secondary. God is love, and that love is perfect, lacking nothing within His Triune nature as God. Love, by definition, has to be expressed with another, which is why a unitarian god cannot be love. Love requires another to share and express that love, and it is what we see with the Triune God. God is love before anyone/anything existed.

In the monumental work of Calvin’s Institutes , it is interesting for a man with such an attention to detail when it comes to dogma and Scripture that he left out any mention of Gods primary attribute that God is love (1 John 4:8;16) and any biblical reference to those two verses in 1 John regarding God is love. His institutes contain thousands of bible references and over 1500 pages in his Institutes.

Another interesting fact is that in the Shorter Westminster Catechism of Faith, question 4 “What is God “? We read the following regarding Gods attributes and notice what is left out.

“God is Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. “

Notice like in Calvin’s Institute’s, the WCF leaves out Gods primary attribute that He is love.

Before creation, there was no sin. There was no judgment, wrath, mercy, grace, and justice. There was no Sovereignty for there was no creation to be Sovereign over. Why do you ask about those attributes and that they were not necessary? Because those are God's secondary attributes concerning the creation and the fall. God's love is a primary attribute, like Holy is a primary one. Everything about God flows from His being Love which includes His secondary attributes, which were not in use until the creation and the fall.

The true nature of Gods love is at the heart of the gospel message: God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in His shall not perish but have everlasting life, John 3:16.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. John 3:17

Does God love all the souls He cast into Hell?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, if you are right, how then are we responsible for what we choose?

I suppose you mean even if we ignore, for the sake of argument that God is first cause, how would the notion of everything we do and choose, being caused as effects of prior causation, not relinquish us of responsibility for our sins?

Three ways, off the top of my head —probably more. 1) One is that God holds us responsible, and we know he is just, so whether we can see how or not, we can know it is so; and our conscience agrees with this. 2) Another is that we are willed, and willful. As I have said before, can anyone say they are not in willful agreement with their sin? As willfully in opposition to God we fully deserve our condemnation. 3) And from the negative, the notion that we are to be credited with worthiness for our good choices, but that God is not to be credited for it, is clearly against Scripture.

It occurs to me to mention a fourth way, or at least a way apart from even our choices: 4) We know that through Adam's guilt imputed to us, we are already worthy of death, (not at all saying that we don't by fallen nature fully live up to that judgement, but since this whole discussion seems to want to find guilt apart from our sinfulness, since you can't accept that the fallen nature doing what it does, just as God planned, isn't guilt enough), and so, being worthy of death merely through that imputation alone, how is the notion of choices made under causation any further unjust to condemn?

 

[Fervent]

It occurs to me to mention a fourth way, or at least a way apart from even our choices: 4) We know that through Adam's guilt imputed to us, we are already worthy of death, (not at all saying that we don't by fallen nature fully live up to that judgement, but since this whole discussion seems to want to find guilt apart from our sinfulness, since you can't accept that the fallen nature doing what it does, just as God planned, isn't guilt enough), and so, being worthy of death merely through that imputation alone, how is the notion of choices made under causation any further unjust to condemn?

Doubling down with another repugnant doctrrine from Augustine.

 

[QvQ]

We cannot at once be caused to do something and have chosen to do so, the experience of choice in that instance would be an illusion.

I was training a dog once, and I found this interesting quote in a trainer's manual.

"Dogs are superstitious animals. Dogs believe that one thing predicts another."

The dog may choose to sit for a treat but it is the treat that caused the sitting.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If our wills are externally caused, then we don't will anything.

So not only do you deny the principle of reasoning we know of as 'cause and effect', but the many dimensions that we experience every day of influences upon our decisions. Yes, I know you will admit to influences, but you will not admit they are causes. Yet, they are, conflicting or agreeing, they do cause. No, not good enough for you. You want little first causes trotting about the planet.

It gives no real ground for explaining moral accountability, and violates the law of non-contradiction. We cannot at once be caused to do something and have chosen to do so, the experience of choice in that instance would be an illusion.

The law of non-contradiction does not impede this in the least. Why can we not choose between what we don't know is illusion, if one of them is the one that was predestined for us to choose? The fact the others are illusion is irrelevant. Likewise for moral accountability —you have not demonstrated your claim at all.

And we are only morally responsible for the things that we choose to do(or not do), not the things we have no control over. So unless our wills are to some extent free we bear no responsibility for what they contain. We do not will if our wills are entirely determined, just as computer programs do not will when they carry out their programming and are therefor not morally culpable.

That we WILFULLY choose, we are responsible for. Yes we are free to choose between options, real or illusion, still options from which to choose.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Doubling down with another repugnant doctrrine from Augustine.

In other words, you disrespect it, and so you don't care to address it.

 

[Fervent]

So not only do you deny the principle of reasoning we know of as 'cause and effect', but the many dimensions that we experience every day of influences upon our decisions. Yes, I know you will admit to influences, but you will not admit they are causes. Yet, they are, conflicting or agreeing, they do cause. No, not good enough for you. You want little first causes trotting about the planet.

Yes, I don't believe in causal closure. While there may be some intuitive appeal to a simple and direct cause and effect model, my experience and reason both tell me that it cannot be the case. And the fact that you're arguing as if I have the power to be persuaded defeats your attempt to argue for strict causal relationships. If my choices are already determined, there is no persuading me.

The law of non-contradiction does not impede this in the least. Why can we not choose between what we don't know is illusion, if one of them is the one that was predestined for us to choose? The fact the others are illusion is irrelevant. Likewise for moral accountability —you have not demonstrated your claim at all.

Things cannot be chosen by an external force, and of our will at the same time. If they are chosen for us, they are not willed by us as our "will" is an illusion. A vapor that has no influence on the outcome, but is a result.

That we WILFULLY choose, we are responsible for. Yes we are free to choose between options, real or illusion, still options from which to choose.

According to you, we don't willfully choose. Things are chosen for us by forces entirely out of our control. That you claim it is God doing the choosing doesn't change that fact. Willfully doing things requires a will that isn't pre-determined, otherwise wind-up toys and machines would be morally culpable.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, I don't believe in causal closure. While there may be some intuitive appeal to a simple and direct cause and effect model, my experience and reason both tell me that it cannot be the case. And the fact that you're arguing as if I have the power to be persuaded defeats your attempt to argue for strict causal relationships. If my choices are already determined, there is no persuading me.

If not cause-and-effect, then what? Chance? Not only does chance have no way to come into being, but it is even self-contradictory to say it can cause anything.

Things cannot be chosen by an external force, and of our will at the same time. If they are chosen for us, they are not willed by us as our "will" is an illusion. A vapor that has no influence on the outcome, but is a result.

So we choose between what is predetermined by earlier causes, and whatever else may appear to be options. How is that not choice?

According to you, we don't willfully choose. Things are chosen for us by forces entirely out of our control. That you claim it is God doing the choosing doesn't change that fact. Willfully doing things requires a will that isn't pre-determined, otherwise wind-up toys and machines would be morally culpable.

No! I do claim we willfully choose! Things are caused to us (not "for" us, lest you accuse me of some contradiction) by prior causes, yes, (some of which are also ours, btw), but how does that imply at all that we don't choose? It's ludicrous to elevate ourselves to God's level, as if we know all fact ahead, as to what is real and what is wish-think or ignorance or illusion or whatever else you want to call what has not been determined.

But as far as I know, your only other alternative in the end, is chance, including the notion that there can be little first causes trotting about the planet.

 

[zoidar]

I suppose you mean even if we ignore, for the sake of argument that God is first cause, how would the notion of everything we do and choose, being caused as effects of prior causation, not relinquish us of responsibility for our sins?

Three ways, off the top of my head —maybe even more. 1) One is that God holds us responsible, and we know he is just, so whether we can see how or not, we can know it is so; and our conscience agrees with this. 2) Another is that we are willed, and willful. As I have said before, can anyone say they are not in willful agreement with their sin? As willfully in opposition to God we fully deserve our condemnation. 3) And from the negative, the notion that we are to be credited with worthiness for our good choices, but that God is not to be credited for it, is clearly against Scripture.

It occurs to me to mention a fourth way, or at least a way apart from even our choices: 4) We know that through Adam's guilt imputed to us, we are already worthy of death, (not at all saying that we don't by fallen nature fully live up to that judgement, but since this whole discussion seems to want to find guilt apart from our sinfulness, since you can't accept that the fallen nature doing what it does, just as God planned, isn't guilt enough), and so, being worthy of death merely through that imputation alone, how is the notion of choices made under causation any further unjust to condemn?

1. Our conscience tells us we are responsible, but is that explaining how we can be responsible without "uncaused" free will? Not really, is it? It is just saying we are responsible, but it gives no explanation how it is possible without "uncaused" free will.

It seems to me you focus more on if God can hold us responsible, rather than if we logically are responsible. God could hold me responsible for robbing a bank even I never commited that crime. But is that logical or just? The question is not if God can hold us responsible, but whether we are logically responsible for the choices we make.

2. We don't always choose sin. Sometimes we do, sometimes not. But if the reason I rob the bank is because God has created me a certain way and given me the will to do it, how am I responsible when God is the cause for my will to do it? In the same way, how can I be responsible for other sins?

Are we responsible for being in opposition to God? Well, yes and no! We are not responsible for being born with a sinful nature, but we are responsible for how we live with that sinful nature. How is it possible to be responsible for how I live, if God is the one causing my will to choose this way?

3. I'm not sure where you are going here. How does that explain how we are responsible without "uncaused" free will?

4. I don't think the discussion is about guilt, but whether we logically are responsible for what we do.

Ok, Adam's sin. Are we logically responsible for Adam's sin? How could we? We were not even there. Again God could hold us responsible for Adam's sin, but would it be just? It's like I'm responsible for being born an homosexual. Isn't God rather holding us responsible for the things we are logically responsible for? Like living an homosexual lifestyle, or robbing a bank.

Even if you are right that God imputed Adam's sin on us, it doesn't mean we are logically responsible. It's more the answer: "God is God and He can do things in any way He wants." But that's not an argument for us logically being responsible.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And the fact that you're arguing as if I have the power to be persuaded defeats your attempt to argue for strict causal relationships. If my choices are already determined, there is no persuading me.

Pardon me, but isn't that a little silly? If I don't know whether you will be persuaded or not, (which is, I hope, one of the causes of your upcoming choices), why should I not continue to try to persuade you? After all, I don't know what your choice is predetermined to be. I'm not God, who uses means to accomplish his ends —means, such as my arguing and yours, to bring about his sure purposes.

 

[QvQ]

And the fact that you're arguing as if I have the power to be persuaded defeats your attempt to argue for strict causal relationships. If my choices are already determined, there is no persuading me.

Yes, however to a Calvinist, any discussion of faith is not meant to persuade but is an expression of Faith, however the discussion may be phrased, such as a question, an argument, an understanding.

 

[Fervent]

Pardon me, but isn't that a little silly? If I don't know whether you will be persuaded or not, (which is, I hope, one of the causes of your upcoming choices), why should I not continue to try to persuade you? After all, I don't know what your choice is predetermined to be. I'm not God, who uses means to accomplish his ends —means, such as my arguing and yours, to bring about his sure purposes.

It ultimately comes down to the fact that your position requires a re-definition of "choice" that renders it something altogether different from the ordinary use of the word. By your definition, water droplets could be said to "choose" what direction they flow in whenever there isn't a clear direction beforehand. The issue with your position is that whether I am persuaded or not has no basis in our conversation, as the cause is external to either one of us. The intermediaries that are involved have no bearing on the outcome, only the external cause so to argue as if your argument can be effective is to deny the premise that the choices are determined externally, instead implying that there is an authentic freedom to choose between the alernatives rather than the choice being the product of a mechanical process previously initiated.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, however to a Calvinist, any discussion of faith is not meant to persuade but is an expression of Faith, however the discussion may be phrased, such as a question, an argument, an understanding.

That's a level of cognitive dissonance far beyond my ability to engage in.

 

[Fervent]

In other words, you disrespect it, and so you don't care to address it.

My disrespect for it, and my way of addressing of it are related. It's the product of a mind seeking to vindicate himself for his past misconduct so instead of owning responsiblity creates a theological doctrine that absolves him of guilt by blaming Adam. It's repugnant on multiple levels, and its originator based his belief on a mistranslation combined with a faulty assumption about a practice in the church in his day.

 

[QvQ]

Adam's sin. Are we logically responsible for Adam's sin? How could we? We were not even there. Again God could hold us responsible for Adam's sin, but would it be just?

A son can inherit his father's house, and in his father's house his character is formed.
As Sons of Adam:
Adam was banished from Eden, into East of Eden, the current neighborhood. Adam was alone. He had to survive in a hostile land. That shaped Adam's character.
We inherited East of Eden from Adam and that formed our character.
Now I may be wrong, not a bible scholar but:
The sentence on Adam was death and all his descendants inherited death. That is true throughout the entire Old Testament.
That sentence was not earned by the Sons of Adam. That death was inherited, not merited and not annulled or abrogated by acts of will.
A dog dies. The dog inherited that death as he inherited East of Eden and a mortal body. The dog did not merit the death and cannot change it by an act of will. Or do you believe all good dogs go to heaven? Then substitute any flora or fauna for dog to arrive at the correct answer. The dog is not responsible for his acts of will. In fact, a dog doesn't have a will. Dogs are just doing what dogs do.
Is it Just? Presume to judge God? I hesitate....