What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[Jesus is YHWH]

Your point is how many times God must say it before it is true?

Once is enough for me. . .

So that is why you have trouble with the Scriptures?

.

I’m not having any trouble with scripture. What makes you think so ?

 

[philadelphos]

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
— Romans 9:22-24

I have come to realize (with some help) the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction is the fleshly Israel, Israel by descendance, Jews only.

What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
— Romans 9:22

But as for Israel He says, “All the day long I have stretched out My hands to a disobedient and obstinate people.”
— Romans 10:21


And the vessels of mercy is the spiritual Israel, not Jews only, but also Gentiles.

And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
— Romans 9:23

even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
— Romans 9:24

Excellent point.

It explains why Nicodemus was baffled when Christ told him "ye must be born again" since Jewish faith is heavily reliant on genetic lineage tracing back to Israel, where social status is ordered by proximity to the 12 tribes etc, proximity to synagogue and holy sites, especially Jerusalem. Even with Jews so inter-mixed nowadays there's an obsession with genetic "Jewishness" which is so superficial as it de-prioritises the "belief" and "faith" so heavily prized in Scripture, even knowledge of Scripture and Hebrew itself is often non-existent. In many ways, Jews nowadays are Gentiles in behaviour and everything all but birth.

But Christ re-ordered these traditions of men. For example, saying "But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be." (Mt 23:11) Akin to the reversals that took place between Jacob vs Esau, Joseph vs his brothers, Manasseh vs Ephraim, David vs Saul, Christ vs John the Baptist, and Christ vs Herod. Since "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." (Lk 16:15)-- So your passages above highlight a reversal that will take place from "flesh" to "spirit", for mankind to be born of spirit into the kingdom of heaven. Jew and Gentile, iow 'all of mankind' via Christ and under Christ.

The third party solution and the re-birth concept goes back to Seth, after the Cain and Abel issue, who's lineage saved the world via Noah, resulting in the birth of all mankind also Christ. Two parties failed, the 3rd party was the solution, in order for progress.

Understanding that would radically change any person's view about the most common things: identity, loneliness, ego, relationships, body issues, sex and gender, marriage and family, work and making a living, ceremonies and church/synagogue rituals, etc. If what Christ says will happen will happen all of that becomes utterly meaningless and pointless.--"Thy will be done, thy kingdom come" Amen

Blessings to all

 

[philadelphos]

Satan knew God, served Him, and then rebelled drawing many with him all without anyone lying and tempting Him to do so. So there is quite a difference between Satan's and Adam's rebellion. Per 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Satan is working actively to keep men from receiving the Gospel.

2 Corinthians 4:3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.​

Fair point.

References to "faith" and "great faith" being commended by Christ contradicts or surpasses what Lucifer experienced as the privileged cherubim who covered God's throne and yet rebelled (betrayed) God, even inciting a rebellion. This is perhaps why men were made, and even after Adam & Eve had sinned or fell to temptation were allowed to procreate. Even after Noah, and after Christ, and many other iterations, the world population continues to grow.

The purpose of man is hinted at here by Christ: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Mt 22:30) Where those who survive the great resurrection and judgement will apparently replace those from the angelic rebellion, after the "war in heaven" (Rev 12) and new kingdom coming to earth.

It explains why Satan would appear at Eden to cause problems, mankind being a threat to his campaign in the heavenly war. And why God said "Let my people go, that they may serve me." (Ex 9:1) Also why he appeared at the temptation of Christ.

Christ saying the same in Jn 12:26 "If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour."--A role vacancy and the service job of a lifetime.

Again in Luke, "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." (Lk 20:35-36)

Having the ability to "move mountains" and partake in 'creation' (modification) in the same way that Peter walked on water as God did in Genesis 1, having power over the laws of nature and physics.

"For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." (Mk 11:23)

Doubt vs belief

So yes, Satan actively resists God's will and his own inevitable judgement, whilst actively opposing mankind: "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" (1 Pet 5:8)

I agree that the conviction of the Holy Spirit (per John 16:8) is necessary to enlighten men. And I agree that men do have a choice to make - which then makes them accountable to accept or reject the Gospel. And if man's receiving the salvation provided by Christ's sacrifice is dependent on man's choice, then it is not purely "in the hands of God" and saying "The eternal destiny of mankind has always lain in the hands of God." is misleading.

Indeed. Genuine and significant life choices tend to be circumstantial, less arbitrary like 'calls to faith' at altar calls that are theatrical and disingenuous.

In the grand scheme I sense events to come will be of far greater significance than current day quibbles, akin to precedences in Scripture about 'rebellions'. e.g. Korah's rebellion was categorically 'saved', liberated, and redeemed, from slavery/bondage in Egypt along with the whole nation of Israel, and yet midway a large group managed to reject God's will by attempting a violent coup d'etat against Moses. Similar happened between Miriam and Aaron in Num 12. The former was allowed to manifest and the group was judged executed by God and the latter was quelled quickly and judgement was a minor penalty. In saying that, 'seeds of doubt' work in the same way that "faith as a grain of mustard seed" does, manifesting either into a garden of weeds or fruit. "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Mt 7:16)

The difficulty with arguments for Calvinism or Arminianism is that at some point it becomes arguments against Calvinism and Arminianism. That is, the debate turns into a battlefield. Same for Protestantism and (Roman) Catholicism, or Jew and Gentile, is that both sides perpetuate to polarise one another and driving each other further and further apart, discriminating and dehumanising the other side under a label.

Theory is one thing but it often manifests into adversarial behaviour, resentment and hatred for fellow man, neighbours, siblings, and mankind on the whole who are all made in the image of God. Something about 'divine matters and mysteries' is perhaps not meant for human minds to focus on, albeit fascinating, it is for God to know and for us to know what we need to know in order to trust and love God and our neighbour. Practical knowledge.

Having spent years in both camps, worshipping, socialising, and befriending both sides, what stands out are the behavioural differences less the theoretical differences. How do they treat me? Namely: aggression, hostility, belligerence, coercion, defamation, slander, and subsequent generations tend to be conceited and arrogantly 'puffed up' in claiming to be from a certain camp.

Both claim principles that are indeed true, somewhat. However its in practice/execution where they fall short, often very badly. Without blaming, both sides are hypocritical: "To be seen of men" (Mt 23:5)--A friendly reminder to be a 'good samaritan'.

Blessings to all

 

[philadelphos]

...I'm not sure I could immediately make out any real difference between the doctrinal opinions. Just attitudes and points of view. Arminian beliefs and attendance to the precepts given by Scripture are so close to Calvinistic, that sometimes I could swear they are Calvinists, at least many of them; for example I hear some of them praying and I realize they actually do believe God is altogether sovereign even over the choices people make. Their theory just hasn't caught up yet!

People often fail to mention that Christ met, read, and worshipped at the same synagogues as his persecutors and executors-to-be, with the Pharisees, Saduceess, priests, and scribes, as well as the 'meek and humble' or the ordinary illiterate/uneducated population.

Likewise, the ecclesia was an assembly that included the controversial 'circumcision group' with new Gentiles believers from numerous ethnic/geo backgrounds. United under the same Scripture, same law, same God.

But polarisation between groups is so sensationalised nowadays that commonalities between groups, which are many, are swept under the carpet as if its unspeakable to de-humanise the opposition. Although people's ideas are often imperfect and full of errors the current culture of thought censorship prohibits people from learning, about others, and learning from their mistakes/errors as well as their truths.

Dave Hunt raises many points per the OP highlighting deficiencies in Calvinism, that ime are valid and documented in history. I discovered these and others myself as a student of Calvinism.

What Love Is This?: Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God Paperback – April 17, 2018
https://www.amazon.com/What-Love-Th...928660746/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Dave Hunt - What Love is This? (Calvinism's misrepresentation of God) - Jul 31, 2019

One point relevant to this topic is that 'Calvinism' is not all the same. It was the majority group of 'Calvinists' who hijacked the Protestant Reformation in dubbing 'calvinist theology' as 'Reformed theology'. This says a lot about the political agenda of the Reformers or the nature of human depravity, total or otherwise. People are fallible to argumentum ad populum, forming majority groups and ideas that somehow go on to suppress other ideas and groups. This is the experience for most people who inherited Calvinism culturally. A hypocritical system that is ironically not much different to the Roman Catholicism it protested against.

Edit: spelling and phrasing

Disclaimer: This counter-perspective is made to demonstrate flaws in Calvinism, not to invalidate it as a whole. People instantly assume identity politics and mud-slinging is at play that somehow merely referring to MAN as an example, somehow must mean that the poster is fully affirming the person and his position. This is not the case. Subsequent responses then attacking a person's character, argumentum ad hominem, in dismissing a person altogether without discussing the actual points laid out is thought censorship. It is a cheap and below the belt way to argue, and ignorant. It is an ironically un-reformed way to communicate. That anyone regardless of camp if handling Luther's thesis in the 1517 and onwards would have talked about it, regardless of semi-true or semi-heretical points. -- Deu 16:19 "Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous."

 

[All Glory To God]

The problem with people like Dave Hunt is he is a heretic. I say this because he literally has no people that come before him that had the same teachings. So he has essentially created his own teachings and own religion. Protestantism teaches their is the external Church and the internal Church. The external is the Pastoral and visable element. The internal is the ecclesia, the community of believers sharing in same Holy spirit. Where is Hunts community if it is not in Rome or a Protestant? He is a spiritual island cut off from the main body and a heretic and everything he says should be rejected.

 

[zoidar]

Fair point.

References to "faith" and "great faith" being commended by Christ contradicts or surpasses what Lucifer experienced as the privileged cherubim who covered God's throne and yet rebelled (betrayed) God, even inciting a rebellion. This is perhaps why men were made, and even after Adam & Eve had sinned or fell to temptation were allowed to procreate. Even after Noah, and after Christ, and many other iterations, the world population continues to grow.

The purpose of man is hinted at here by Christ: "For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven." (Mt 22:30) Where those who survive the great resurrection and judgement will apparently replace those from the angelic rebellion, after the "war in heaven" (Rev 12) and new kingdom coming to earth.

It explains why Satan would appear at Eden to cause problems, mankind being a threat to his campaign in the heavenly war. And why God said "Let my people go, that they may serve me." (Ex 9:1) Also why he appeared at the temptation of Christ.

Christ saying the same in Jn 12:26 "If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour."--A role vacancy and the service job of a lifetime.

Again in Luke, "But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." (Lk 20:35-36)

Having the ability to "move mountains" and partake in 'creation' (modification) in the same way that Peter walked on water as God did in Genesis 1, having power over the laws of nature and physics.

"For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." (Mk 11:23)

Doubt vs belief

So yes, Satan actively resists God's will and his own inevitable judgement, whilst actively opposing mankind: "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:" (1 Pet 5:8)



Indeed. Genuine and significant life choices tend to be circumstantial, less arbitrary like 'calls to faith' at altar calls that are theatrical and disingenuous.

In the grand scheme I sense events to come will be of far greater significance than current day quibbles, akin to precedences in Scripture about 'rebellions'. e.g. Korah's rebellion was categorically 'saved', liberated, and redeemed, from slavery/bondage in Egypt along with the whole nation of Israel, and yet midway a large group managed to reject God's will by attempting a violent coup d'etat against Moses. Similar happened between Miriam and Aaron in Num 12. The former was allowed to manifest and the group was judged executed by God and the latter was quelled quickly and judgement was a minor penalty. In saying that, 'seeds of doubt' work in the same way that "faith as a grain of mustard seed" does, manifesting either into a garden of weeds or fruit. "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Mt 7:16)

The difficulty with arguments for Calvinism or Arminianism is that at some point it becomes arguments against Calvinism and Arminianism. That is, the debate turns into a battlefield. Same for Protestantism and (Roman) Catholicism, or Jew and Gentile, is that both sides perpetuate to polarise one another and driving each other further and further apart, discriminating and dehumanising the other side under a label.

Theory is one thing but it often manifests into adversarial behaviour, resentment and hatred for fellow man, neighbours, siblings, and mankind on the whole who are all made in the image of God. Something about 'divine matters and mysteries' is perhaps not meant for human minds to focus on, albeit fascinating, it is for God to know and for us to know what we need to know in order to trust and love God and our neighbour. Practical knowledge.

Having spent years in both camps, worshipping, socialising, and befriending both sides, what stands out are the behavioural differences less the theoretical differences. How do they treat me? Namely: aggression, hostility, belligerence, coercion, defamation, slander, and subsequent generations tend to be conceited and arrogantly 'puffed up' in claiming to be from a certain camp.

Both claim principles that are indeed true, somewhat. However its in practice/execution where they fall short, often very badly. Without blaming, both sides are hypocritical: "To be seen of men" (Mt 23:5)--A friendly reminder to be a 'good samaritan'.

Blessings to all

I can't say I have thought that deeply about it, what it all means. Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[philadelphos]

The problem with people like Dave Hunt is he is a heretic. I say this because he literally has no people that come before him that had the same teachings. So he has essentially created his own teachings and own religion. Protestantism teaches their is the external Church and the internal Church. The external is the Pastoral and visable element. The internal is the ecclesia, the community of believers sharing in same Holy spirit. Where is Hunts community if it is not in Rome or a Protestant? He is a spiritual island cut off from the main body and a heretic and everything he says should be rejected.

That is what the chief priest and pharisees said about Christ to Nicodemus, even after Nicodemus was schooled by him the night before. "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" (see Jn 7) The point is, Lk 16:15, "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."

Was John the Baptist a heretic? Yet he was on a spiritual island in the wilderness, as were Moses and the Nation of Israel in the desert.

IOW, argument by numbers or argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Irrespective of internal or external, visible or invisible, pastoral or nautical, desert or coast. Scripture says: "the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands;" (Acts 7:48) "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith" (Eph 3:17) The heart representing the mind of a man.

Please stay on topic and give credit to where credit is due. Remembering also that Protestants are Catholics, and once were Roman Catholics too, until they changed their mind about Rome.
(See, WCF ch.25, Of the church, Of the Church - Westminster Confession of 1646 - Study Resources) But even that is fallacious and is not an excuse to trash or silence an author. So your reply fails to address the substance of the point/s, not even touching them, which is prejudice and bigotry.

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." (Col 2:8)

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Fair point.



In the grand scheme I sense events to come will be of far greater significance than current day quibbles, akin to precedences in Scripture about 'rebellions'. e.g. Korah's rebellion was categorically 'saved', liberated, and redeemed, from slavery/bondage in Egypt along with the whole nation of Israel, and yet midway a large group managed to reject God's will by attempting a violent coup d'etat against Moses. Similar happened between Miriam and Aaron in Num 12. The former was allowed to manifest and the group was judged executed by God and the latter was quelled quickly and judgement was a minor penalty. In saying that, 'seeds of doubt' work in the same way that "faith as a grain of mustard seed" does, manifesting either into a garden of weeds or fruit. "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (Mt 7:16)

The difficulty with arguments for Calvinism or Arminianism is that at some point it becomes arguments against Calvinism and Arminianism. That is, the debate turns into a battlefield. Same for Protestantism and (Roman) Catholicism, or Jew and Gentile, is that both sides perpetuate to polarise one another and driving each other further and further apart, discriminating and dehumanising the other side under a label.

Theory is one thing but it often manifests into adversarial behaviour, resentment and hatred for fellow man, neighbours, siblings, and mankind on the whole who are all made in the image of God. Something about 'divine matters and mysteries' is perhaps not meant for human minds to focus on, albeit fascinating, it is for God to know and for us to know what we need to know in order to trust and love God and our neighbour. Practical knowledge.

Having spent years in both camps, worshipping, socialising, and befriending both sides, what stands out are the behavioural differences less the theoretical differences. How do they treat me? Namely: aggression, hostility, belligerence, coercion, defamation, slander, and subsequent generations tend to be conceited and arrogantly 'puffed up' in claiming to be from a certain camp.

Both claim principles that are indeed true, somewhat. However its in practice/execution where they fall short, often very badly. Without blaming, both sides are hypocritical: "To be seen of men" (Mt 23:5)--A friendly reminder to be a 'good samaritan'.

Blessings to all

Good points in the section I quoted. You will know them by their fruits.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

Matthew 7:16-20
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

And Jesus is the way, the TRUTH and the life- He is the living WORD- Thy Word is truth, He is the Word of God as per Johns teaching in his epistle !

Amen !

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

See 1 Corinthians 13 and Galatians 5:19-23

The fruit of the Spirit is Obvious to see as Jesus taught in Matthew 7:16-20

Otherwise Jesus and Paul would be liars.

Matthew 12:33
Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad; for a tree is known by its fruit.

Luke 6:43
No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.

Luke 6:44
For each tree is known by its own fruit. Indeed, figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor grapes from brambles.

Galatians 5:22
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness,

James 3:12
Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh.

hope this helps !!!

 

[All Glory To God]

That is what the chief priest and pharisees said about Christ to Nicodemus, even after Nicodemus was schooled by him the night before. "Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" (see Jn 7) The point is, Lk 16:15, "Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God."

I notice that you immediately refer to scripture to make a point. The problem for you is you have separated yourself from the church who put the Bible together. So what makes you think you have a right to even use these verses?

Was John the Baptist a heretic?

No. Because Christ acknowledged John the Baptists ministry as a Godly ministry. Who acknowledges your ministry or the ministry you follow as Godly?

Irrespective of internal or external, visible or invisible . . .

See this is the problem about following your own religion, which you are doing. You don't know where your heritage flows from so you just make things up that feel good.

Rome denies the internal church and insists the idea of a Church that has never truly degraded into spiritual ruin. Protestants will have it that there is indeed a body of believers that is internal. Like the seven thousand that would not bow the knee to Baal in Elijah's time. But on the surface were not visible. Of course you do not care about these distinctions because you have your own religion. And I have no problem with that and do not desire to oppress you. But you should not call yourself a Christian if you do not belong in the community that Christ called his body.

Please stay on topic

You are the one that introduced Hunt to the thread. So if this is off topic you are responsible for this. I just responded.

Remembering also that Protestants are Catholics, and once were Roman Catholics too, until they changed their mind about Rome.

Not are, they were in a sense. Until Rome became so corrupted by sin that moved the Reformers to call the Roman Church to repentance out of her sin and when she refused to accept this rebuke, she was treated like a tax collector and heathen. A formal separation was initiated. You have to be part of the Church to change the Church and this is exactly the point-identity. Before we even try to tease out correct doctrines, we would do well to trace back our spiritual origins to examine if we even exist in the Church. A dispute about doctrines and church governance happens inside the church, not outside. Like the dispute between Rome and the Reformers and their descendants. So when a person like Hunt comes along and denies a place in Rome or Reformers, he firmly placed himself outside the church. So what right does this heretic have to be an authority over anyone in Christendom?

But even that is fallacious and is not an excuse to trash or silence an author. So your reply fails to address the substance of the point/s, . . .

Oh please! Someone complaining that Dave Hunt is being ''trash talked'' is a laugh. This person dedicated his life to tearing down both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Any bad feelings towards him are well deserved for his lifetime of attacking others.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I was a Dave Hunt fan in my early christian walk with his book the cult explosion ( don’t have his other books) but now I take issue with many things he taught. Ge got some things right and some things wrong.

 

[John Mullally]

I used to be very intimidated by the idea of Calvinism because underneath I didn't feel 100% sure it couldn't possibly be true. This made me in practice scared of God—scared of who he might be and whether I was made for his wrath. Over years of prayer and study I have grown in my confidence that I am no longer intimidated by this idea, because it does not accurately reflect election.

1. It makes God less loving than he is.

Just as God is completely holy, completely just and completely powerful, so God is completely loving. The argument comes that God allowing a person to be lost that he could have theoretically saved, makes God less loving than he could be. But this is a wrong definition of love. Love does not mean that God does not have any other reasons or motives for doing something that might be stronger or more important to him than the love he holds for the lost. So whatever mysterious reasons God had for allowing people to be lost, does not override the truth that God genuinely loved those lost people. God cannot plan and desire the destruction of his creation, while maximally loving it.

2. It makes God more evil than he is.

These points overlap. Underneath all the secondary decrees and compatibilistic philoso-doublespeak Calvinism employs, is the unalterable logic God decrees all things. This means that however many "degrees of separation" you want to create in between the ultimate decree of God that something would be, and the enactment through external means to get to that decree, there is still underneath a chain from the decree of God to the fulfillment of God's decree that cannot logically be broken. This does indeed make God his own enemy and the author of all evil. A "freedom" with no freedom in it, cannot get God off the hook of direct intention.

3. It takes away all sense of true responsibility.

If everything I do is decreed by God before I am born, then my will cannot be the deciding or effectual agent of my sin. This is not to argue or imply that all sin is done through the will of a human; but it is also to support that there is indeed some sin that is done through the will of a human, the sin that rejects the grace of God that is freely offered and well meant. We are still born dead in sin, but grace is offered to all. We could redefine "responsibility" as not "the ability to respond," but the mere bare culpability for what is decreed through secondary means, but again this is just philoso-doublespeak obscuring that it is in the end decreed by God, not just original sin.

All the babble of rejections like "free will isn't in the Bible" and "you didn't use enough Scripture verses" are just pious rhetoric assuming what the objector sets out to prove by preloading the terms free will and exegesis to be deterministic friendly; that is unless you say the Bible verses mean a certain thing you are "eisegeting" and "rationalizing" because you don't agree with deterministic presuppositions brought to the Scripture. But logic and meaning cannot be derived directly from the words of Scripture, everyone has to bring presuppositions, there is no direct and simple meaning that eliminates the possibility of all others. So we must hear from God.

And what I've heard is, that Calvinism appeals to sinful desires we have for a false selfish reasons for security and an evil resolution to the problem of evil. We would rather God deliberately plan and enact evil, than that he passively allowed it to happen creating real victims, because the alternative offends us and makes us feel insecure, but if we can find more comfort in God being evil, then our sin nature will embrace it. The other sinful alternative error for dealing with this problem of delegation, is to put self-righteous goodness inside of man and insist that delegation created no real victims. This is erring on the ditch on the other side of the road, which most Calvinists call "Pelagian," but would be better described as denying the effects of original sin and promoting inherent goodness.

And for the reasons above I do consider Calvinism to be a great perversion of God's character, although by the mercies of God their doctrinal sin can be forgiven.

Those are excellent reasons for questioning Calvinism - which is on topic per the OP.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

But those passages don't say anything about the fruit being "obvious."

You are completely bringing the idea of "obvious" into the passage all by yourself from outside the text.

Remember, the servant of Yahweh is not to judge by appearances, indeed, appearances can deceive. Even the Antichrist is said to be going to utilize great deception and look like he just wants to help.

His delight is in the fear of the LORD, And He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes, Nor decide by the hearing of His ears; (Isa. 11:3 NKJ)


What false beliefs do you all feel Dave Hunt espoused? I have read and listened to him a bit and didn't really hear anything terrible.

If Jesus says you can know them by their fruits I believe Him otherwise He is lying .

hope this helps !!!

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I have seen jerks on both sides, just a caution to strive to be as fair as we can about it.

A sad thing for me is atheists have treated me better than Christians—so fruit is not an indicator of truth.

and neither does subjective experience determine biblical and objective truth.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

And I'm thinkin' Romans 8:28-30; Romans 11:7; 2 Timothy 2:10; Titus 1:1 are anything but wrong, and so-o-o supremely right.

You are thinking correctly.it is not given to everyone to welcome it.

 

[Clare73]

You are thinking correctly.it is not given to everyone to welcome it.

It seems to be that way. . .

 

[Mark Quayle]

People often fail to mention that Christ met, read, and worshipped at the same synagogues as his persecutors and executors-to-be, with the Pharisees, Saduceess, priests, and scribes, as well as the 'meek and humble' or the ordinary illiterate/uneducated population.

Likewise, the ecclesia was an assembly that included the controversial 'circumcision group' with new Gentiles believers from numerous ethnic/geo backgrounds. United under the same Scripture, same law, same God.

But polarisation between groups is so sensationalised nowadays that commonalities between groups, which are many, are swept under the carpet as if its unspeakable to de-humanise the opposition. Although people's ideas are often imperfect and full of errors the current culture of thought censorship prohibits people from learning, about others, and learning from their mistakes/errors as well as their truths.

Dave Hunt raises many points per the OP highlighting deficiencies in Calvinism, that ime are valid and documented in history. I discovered these and others myself as a student of Calvinism.

What Love Is This?: Calvinism's Misrepresentation of God Paperback – April 17, 2018
https://www.amazon.com/What-Love-Th...928660746/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Dave Hunt - What Love is This? (Calvinism's misrepresentation of God) - Jul 31, 2019

One point relevant to this topic is that 'Calvinism' is not all the same. It was the majority group of 'Calvinists' who hijacked the Protestant Reformation in dubbing 'calvinist theology' as 'Reformed theology'. This says a lot about the political agenda of the Reformers or the nature of human depravity, total or otherwise. People are fallible to argumentum ad populum, forming majority groups and ideas that somehow go on to suppress other ideas and groups. This is the experience for most people who inherited Calvinism culturally. A hypocritical system that is ironically not much different to the Roman Catholicism it protested against.

Edit: spelling and phrasing

Some good points there. I'm not going to take the time to argue with the rest, except concerning Dave Hunt, perhaps, and

I have found there are more than just me on this site that identify with Calvinism/Reformed Theology not having learned it as such to begin with, but finding the truths for ourselves, by different experiences, prayer and study. I read a few writers, such as John Owen and Spurgeon, and came to realize I was not wrong —at least, not as wrong as what I had believed previously Reading Owen over and over is still to me like chewing good food.

Anyhow, it took a while before I even knew the Reformed pretty much agree with me. In some ways, I think myself more reformed than most of them —for example, they are, I think monergists, as am I, but only, (or so it seems to me, anyway), concerning salvation, and not concerning the rest of the Christian walk and sanctification. To me, the Gospel is the whole deal. And it is God's doing. It is almost like I'm being given to privilege of riding along, and being involved. I could go on and on.

Dave Hunt has a few good things to say, but he's wrong. Sometimes, it would fit him to say, "No, he's not right. He's not even wrong!", because he wanders so far from any real argument to the point. He teaches from his own authority. Makes doctrine from his own assumptions. You might like to look up his debate with James White. Or start here: Dr. James White: Response to Dave Hunt on Reformed Theology, Part 1 of 3 - YouTube

 

[QvQ]

To me, the Gospel is the whole deal. And it is God's doing. It is almost like I'm being given to privilege of riding along, and being involved.

The Greatest Gift! That is how I think about "elect," being given the privilege of riding along and being involved.

 

[Receivedgrace]

Election is greatly misunderstood by many who claim to be Christian. Israel is elect among the nations yet not all of Israel is saved. God chose Israel by His sovereign will to be a peculiar nation among mankind. Those who receive Christ as their Savior are elect among mankind again by the determinate sovereign will of God. Those who reject Christ are lost.
Calvinism is the result of a theological argument not a divine doctrine cause by God. Not a single person becomes saved by following Calvinism or any other religious teaching i.e. Catholicism, Baptist or such.
You do not need a degree in theology to come to Christ. You need only to hear the word of God, the bible, the Holy Spirit will bring conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment. You will know and understand that the word of God is true and short of repentance and belief in Christ you will perish for eternity.
After conversion if one is not discipled in the word of God they are likely to be tossed about with every wind of doctrine that is not biblically sound.