What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[zoidar]

According to the NT, all sin was put on Christ at the time of his death, past (Romans 3:25; Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 11:40) and future (Romans 3:26). His merit is then applied by faith, of the past and the future.

I think of Hebrews 9 and the day of atonement in Leviticus 16 where the goat like a pattern of Christ bears away the confessed sins of the people, like Christ bears away the sins of those who confess and believe.

“When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.
— Leviticus 16:20-21

so Christ also, having been offered once to bear (away) the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
— Hebrews 9:28

 

[Clare73]

It's not that I disagree. It's that implications can be too easily drawn from words that are too vague.
True, the reason his death can be a substitute for even one person's deserved death, is because of (among other things) his divinity. (It is this principle that rules out the notion that Christ is/was only an angel.) And if his divinity can save one, it has that ability for any or all. It is only in that regard that I can agree that "quantity is not the point of Limited Atonement, but extent".

The question is not whether Christ would have had to die again if there had been more to be saved, but, rather, the question is whom did Christ die to save.

Is there a reason not to think of it as infinite merit which is applied to the elect, or that he died so that its merit could be applied to those to whom it had been applied in anticipation (Romans 3:25) and would be applied?
Why does it need to be framed in terms of boundaries/limits if it applies only to the elect in the first place?

 

[Clare73]

I think of Hebrews 9 and the day of atonement in Leviticus 16 where the goat like a pattern of Christ bears away the confessed sins of the people, like Christ bears away the sins of those who confess and believe.

“When he finishes atoning for the holy place and the tent of meeting and the altar, he shall offer the live goat. Then Aaron shall lay both of his hands on the head of the live goat, and confess over it all the iniquities of the sons of Israel and all their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and he shall lay them on the head of the goat and send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a man who stands in readiness.
— Leviticus 16:20-21

so Christ also, having been offered once to bear (away) the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.
— Hebrews 9:28

Keeping in mind there were two goats, one was slain and like a pattern of Christ, its blood used to cleanse the tabernacle and bronze altar of its defilement caused by the priests and the people (Leviticus 16:15-19).

 

[Clare73]

Because you are convicted by the Holy Spirit. By being convicted the natural man knows about the kingdom of God and understands the need of forgiveness. So
he repents and then he sees, gets aquainted with, experiences the kingdom of God.

I think Paul is an example of this. As he met Jesus, fell off the horse, he got convicted.

And who did the convicting, who worked conviction in him?

But I don't believe he was yet born again.

His conviction proves that he was.
I've covered this enough times.

There is no conviction apart from the Holy Spirit.
And there is no Holy Spirit apart from the rebirth (1 Corinthians 2:14; John 3:3-8).

He prayed and fasted for three days, yes it was heavy repentance. Then Ananias lay his hands on Paul and he received the Holy Spirit, got regenerated and his eyes opened. He could physically see again, but not only that, now he could SEE the kingdom of God. He was born again.

No, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17) for special enabling, filling and regeneration are not necessarily at the same time, as they were not for the apostles.
The apostles received the Holy Spirit (rebirth) in John 20:22, then they were filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost for special enabling of starting the church.

Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, “Ananias.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.” And the Lord said to him, “Get up and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight.”
— Acts 9:8-12

for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.” So Ananias departed and entered the house, and after laying his hands on him said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus, who appeared to you on the road by which you were coming, has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;
— Acts 9:16-18

You are not dealing with 1 Corinthians 2:14.

The Holy Spirit does not act savingly for anyone outside the rebirth by the Holy Spirit, for you must have the Holy Spirit to accept anything from him, you do not accept anything from the Holy Spirit if you are without him, and you have him only by the rebirth (1 Corinthians 2:14).

 

[Clare73]

This is the longest I have had a cat. 10 yrs. I have an old dog, 14 yrs, might have to put down, few weeks, a month...but that's life.

Yeah. . .and that hurts!

Fourteen is about it for dogs.

 

[John Mullally]

I don't see that saying that God has chosen not to save some. I'm guessing the question never came up. He made the Elect for his particular creation. He made the rest for another purpose. Because of sin, both the Elect and the rest of humanity deserve death and Hell. But God, according to his purposes, saves those he chose to save. The rest are still going to Hell.

The end of your paragraph contradicts the opening sentence.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Is there a reason not to think of it as infinite merit which is applied to the elect, or that he died so that its merit could be applied to those to whom it had been applied in anticipation (Romans 3:25) and would be applied?
Why does it need to be framed in terms of boundaries/limits if it applies only to the elect in the first place?

Well put. I just 'feel the need' (I hate the phrase, 'feel the need') to shy away from the notion, or being understood to say that "He died for everyone" or, "He died to save everyone".

 

[Mark Quayle]

Sorry about your dog! We get very emotionally attached to our pets. I have an aquarium, not the same bond there to the fishes as to a cat or dog, still you care for the little guys.

Getting off topic here, I suppose, but when I lived in the tropics as a kid, I had a little parrot that loved me like a dog —sweetest little thing. It developed some kind of intestinal problems, internal bleeding, etc, and got so weak it couldn't even stand on its perch or keep its balance on the floor. I tried everything, and was surprised to find myself getting almost uncontrollably angry with it, frustrated beyond tears. "C'mon! Do what birds are supposed to do!!!" Tore me up.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The end of your paragraph contradicts the opening sentence.

Not at all. Only in the logical POV that desires the conclusion of the matter. When God made some for members of the Bride of Christ, and others for the purpose of producing/building that Bride, yes, inevitably, the sinner will get what they deserve. But that end is not in itself THE reason he created them. There is no pool of generic possibles for God to pick from; rather he created each of us for his specific use.

 

[zoidar]

Keeping in mind there were two goats, one was slain and like a pattern of Christ, its blood used to cleanse the tabernacle and bronze altar of its defilement caused by the priests and the people (Leviticus 16:15-19).

Yes, but when were the sins of the people put on the goat? Not before confession, but as the confession was made.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Calvinism is evil, and should be barred from teaching to any body of believers.

Most of the confessing church has believed it, why do you say such things, be specific,

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

The idea of our inherited sinfulness is then like unto a man who forces his children to be born into and to live in a burning house, and, as proof of his love for them, telling them that he has provided a window for them to jump out of...

Sinfulness by being forced into another's sinfulness by our creation as human and not by a true free will decision to rebel against HIM is anathema, a blasphemy against HIS being love and HIS righteous justness.

The idea of original sin is biblical, romans 3:23 romans 5:12-21

 

[Der Alte]

I don't see that saying that God has chosen not to save some. I'm guessing the question never came up. He made the Elect for his particular creation. He made the rest for another purpose. Because of sin, both the Elect and the rest of humanity deserve death and Hell. But God, according to his purposes, saves those he chose to save. The rest are still going to Hell.

The end of your paragraph contradicts the opening sentence.

PMFBI but here is one way to understand Jesus' offer of salvation.
A man wanted to go on an ocean cruise. So he saved his money until he had enough for the cheapest fare. When he boarded the ship he carried as much food as he could. He ate sparingly to make his food last as long as possible. Unfortunately it was not long until he ran out of food. He held on as long as he could but finally went to the galley and asked the head chef if he could work for food. The chef asked to see his ticket. He showed it to the chef. The chef said this ticket entitles you to eat at every meal.
Salvation is available to all but all will not take advantage of it.
Several years ago I was watching a Christmas time program on TV. Some American tourists were in Jerusalem at Christmas time visiting all the important locations. They were filmed trying to enter the tomb of Jesus. I think. A Muslim blocked their way. The woman said "We just want to worship our God." The Muslim said "G*d D*mn your God to H*ll." I'm quite sure that guy does not get a free pass after death.

 

[QvQ]

deleted,

 

[Clare73]

Yes, but when were the sins of the people put on the goat? Not before confession, but as the confession was made.

The sin is removed but he still needs to be cleansed.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Is there a reason not to think of it as infinite merit which is applied to the elect, or that he died so that its merit could be applied to those to whom it had been applied in anticipation (Romans 3:25) and would be applied?
Why does it need to be framed in terms of boundaries/limits if it applies only to the elect in the first place?

HELLO CLAIRE

No one knows who the elect are so we inform people that God has a multitude of people the Father has given to the Son. In time each and every one shall come.

 

[zoidar]

And who did the convicting, who worked conviction in him?

God did! We agree on that. What we don't agree on is that you believe a person receives the Holy Spirit when he is convicted, where I say the person being convicted has not yet received the Holy Spirit. Conviction is a work of the Spirit, but not from within the person, but from the "outside".

There is no conviction apart from the Holy Spirit.

Agree!

And there is no Holy Spirit apart from the rebirth (1 Corinthians 2:14; John 3:3-8).

There is no receiving of the Holy Spirit apart from rebirth.

You are not dealing with 1 Corinthians 2:14.

I have earlier in this thread.

I keep saying the same thing. It does not say how the natural man becomes a spiritual man. You have to go elsewhere for finding that. You assume it says if the natural man is convicted he becomes a spiritual man, but it does not say that. Paul is describing two archetypes. It doesn't say anything about the by the Holy Spirit "convicted natural man", what he understands or not about the things of the Spirit.

If you go further into 1 corinthians 3 you see Paul is saying that the Christians he is writing to are not able to receive Paul's message (his spiritual message) because they are fleshly. Are they then "natural men" or "spiritual men"? Paul says it, spiritual men. So how does that add upp to 1 corinthians 2:14-15? Because Paul made a point in 1 cor 2, that flesh is against Spirit and the Spirit against the flesh, which we also see in his writings elsewhere.

But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
— 1 Corinthians 2:15

And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to men of flesh, as to infants in Christ. I gave you milk to drink, not solid food; for you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now you are not yet able, for you are still fleshly. For since there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not fleshly, and are you not walking like mere men?
— 1 Corinthians 3:1-3

Didn't Paul just say the spiritual man appraises all things of the Spirit? Apparently he doesn't, if the spiritual man is influenced by the flesh. Then is it to go to far to say that the natural man can be influenced by the Spirit to understand the things pertaining to the Spirit concerning the work of Christ to repent? I don't think so.

Even if you have a case with 1 corinthians 2:14, we see from other passages that repentance comes before regeneration.

Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
— Acts 2:38

 

[QvQ]

What we don't agree on is that you believe a person receives the Holy Spirit when he is convicted, where I say the person being convicted has not yet received the Holy Spirit.

What puzzles me is that I thought a man had to have Faith First to be born again And First, to have Faith a man must be born again.
On the list being discussed here, a person is "convicted repents baptized." Faith has been completely removed from that list.

 

[zoidar]

What puzzles me is that I thought a man had to have Faith First to be born again And First, to have Faith a man must be born again.
On the list being discussed here, a person is "convicted repents baptized." Faith has been completely removed from that list.

It's a bit more tricky to use the word faith when discussing the aspects of salvation. People mean different things by the word "faith". Even a person who isn't saved can have some kind of "faith". I usually make a difference between the word believing and faith. We can believe it is true about Jesus going to the cross and all, yet not having faith. Faith is more active, something that changes you life, believing is passive, believing a fact which doesn't have much to do with a changed life. That's my thinking about that.

 

[Receivedgrace]

Why do you tell me the Bible gives us many examples of man making choices? Of course man makes choices! Who says otherwise?

Since you haven't been in on the more than 4500 posts on this thread, I'll tell you what I've already said many times: If God (first cause) has not determined everything after first cause, then it is determined by chance, which is a self-contradictory notion. Pretty simple.

If man has no choice then he is nothing more than an automaton. No glory for God in that creation. No God made man in His own image and gave free will to make choices to glorify God Who created him.
God knows everything but man does not. Predestination is not predetermination.
4500 posts in this thread are like the untold thousands of posts in many other threads where no opinions are ever changed. God's word is inerrant and man's word is not. When there are contradictions it is in the understand of man's interpretation not God's word.