Calvinism is a Cult

[farouk]

John 3:16 is not a contradiction of Psalms 5:5 even though it might appear to be one at first glance. In the original language, the word used for "world" in John 3:16 is from the Greek cosmos. We normally think of the "world" as our planet, earth. Not so, in the word-choice of cosmos. The surface meaning is "universe," but the underlying meaning is one of "order". God loves the order He established in the universe He created. At the same time, He hates chaos which also has more meaning, in the original Greek, than our superficial understanding. All evildoers are agents of chaos, as is their master, Satan--the ultimate agent of chaos. God hates chaos and all who desire to cause it. He sent His Son to reconcile those who believe, to the proper order of the universe in Him. He will send His Son a second time to temporarily renew much of the order in the physical realm during the Millennial Reign (in the words of Isaiah 65:20, only sinners will die as young as 100 years old). During that period, the chaos-maker, Satan, will be bound. At the end of the 1,000 years, he will be loosed to deceive the nations once again. But the life-giving Son of God will destroy Satan and all of his works at the very End. And Heaven will come to earth--never to leave.

On the other hand, when God moves to judge the "world" as in Revelation 3:10, a different Greek word is used--oikoumenes. In this instance, "world" refers to the Beast-following inhabitants of the earth.

I don't know why ppl keep looking at the Bible for supposed contradictions; what various perspectives do, in fact, is present the glorious body of Divine truth from various angles.

 

[CoreIssue]

John 3:16 is not a contradiction of Psalms 5:5 even though it might appear to be one at first glance. In the original language, the word used for "world" in John 3:16 is from the Greek cosmos. We normally think of the "world" as our planet, earth. Not so, in the word-choice of cosmos. The surface meaning is "universe," but the underlying meaning is one of "order". God loves the order He established in the universe He created. At the same time, He hates chaos which also has more meaning, in the original Greek, than our superficial understanding. All evildoers are agents of chaos, as is their master, Satan--the ultimate agent of chaos. God hates chaos and all who desire to cause it. He sent His Son to reconcile those who believe, to the proper order of the universe in Him. He will send His Son a second time to temporarily renew much of the order in the physical realm during the Millennial Reign (in the words of Isaiah 65:20, only sinners will die as young as 100 years old). During that period, the chaos-maker, Satan, will be bound. At the end of the 1,000 years, he will be loosed to deceive the nations once again. But the life-giving Son of God will destroy Satan and all of his works at the very End. And Heaven will come to earth--never to leave.

On the other hand, when God moves to judge the "world" as in Revelation 3:10, a different Greek word is used--oikoumenes. In this instance, "world" refers to the Beast-following inhabitants of the earth.

John 3:16
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

It does not say he was sent only to those who believe already. It says he was sent to any who would believe.

Psalm 5:5
5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence. You hate all who do wrong;

The arrogant do not believe. So there is no conflict with John.

Isaiah 65:20
20 “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.

Original Word Word Origin
llq a primitive root
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Qalal TWOT - 2028
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
kaw-lal' Verb
Definition

1. to be slight, be swift, be trifling, be of little account, be light
   1. (Qal)
      1. to be slight, be abated (of water)
      2. to be swift
      3. to be trifling, be of little account
   2. (Niphal)
      1. to be swift, show oneself swift
      2. to appear trifling, be too trifling, be insignificant
      3. to be lightly esteemed
   3. (Piel)
      1. to make despicable
      2. to curse
   4. (Pual) to be cursed
   5. (Hiphil)
      1. to make light, lighten
      2. to treat with contempt, bring contempt or dishonour
   6. (Pilpel)
      1. to shake
      2. to whet
   7. (Hithpalpel) to shake oneself, be moved to and fro

Cursed in the context of making light and showing contempt for God.

I believe comparable to committing blasphemy of the Holy Spirit today.

And remember the millennial kingdom will not be church, but back under law and the direct rule of Jesus Christ.

Not sure the exact context of your conversation, just tossing this in if it helps.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Look up Andrew Sluder. He’s a rabid KJVO in the IFB movement. He said once that if a church preaches from the Greek and not the KJV, run from that church.

Peter Ruckman foolishly claimed the KJV corrected the Greek. @justbyfaith holds these stances it seems. Notice, I said seems. I gave him the Greek meaning for draw and he accepts the KJV over it. Sad. Really, really, REALLY sad.

Yep. Those independent Baptists I was affiliated with held to the same ignorance. Some said if a preacher would say anything about the Greek they would get up and walk out on him.

Here we are...

 

[Preacher4Truth]

It's always good to stick with the statements of Scripture, rather than concentrate from a logical perspective on any supposed anomalies that men may read into Scripture.

Would like to see you qualify the above, otherwise it's arguing a hypothesis.

While I think that some insights of Reformed theology are interesting and maybe even valid sometimes, what disturbs me is that often appeal is not to Scripture but to schemes of logic.

Validate the above with a real-life example.

 

[justbyfaith]

”For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”[John 3:16]

The boastful shall not stand before Your eyes; You hate all who do iniquity.[Psalms 5:5]

Now, if world means everybody whoever lived, explain this apparent contradiction, as one verse says He loves everybody w/o exception and the other says He hates those do iniquity.

But you haven’t addressed my post. Explain how God can love everybody w/o exception and hate the wicked. Address this please. Thank you my friend.

All I am asking is for you to reconcile those two verses.

Again, please reconcile God loving everybody w/o exception and hating the wicked, please.

A better scripture to use to proclaim the love of the Lord for sinners is:

Rom 5:8, But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

In this, it says that God loves the sinner; and therefore if there is another verse that says that He hates the sinner, I would conclude that God has a love/hate relationship with sinners.
.
.
.

People resent that it makes so much sense,but gives all the glory to God and does away with our self righteousness.

The anti-Calvinist view is not one of self-righteousness. It simply states that God will not impose it on you to receive and live according to His love against your will. He invites every man to receive Him, and thus His love into their hearts.

The righteousness that results is not of the man who receives it by any means: it is the love of the Lord shed abroad in the heart (Romans 5:5).

Because living according to love requires self-sacrifice, God will not impose His love on anyone. You must consider it to be noble and thus desire it for yourself regardless of the cost.

Jesus also, in a specific parable, exhorts his hearers to count the cost of following Him. Can you defeat a king who is coming against you with 20,000 troops when you yourself have only 10,000 troops at your own disposal? Is it wise to begin laying the foundation for a house if you do not have enough material to even build the whole house. People will ridicule you, saying, "this man began to build and was not able to finish." The reality is that we, in and of ourselves, do not have enough resources to be able to defeat the invading king or to build an adequate house. But if we receive the Lord, we can avail ourselves of His resources that will begin to be at our disposal the moment we receive Him.

The fact that we are born of God (John 1:13) in no way contradicts the fact that we must receive Him to be born again. You are pitting John 1:13 against John 1:12 when you should be seeking to harmonize these verses. It seems that you think that John 1:13 completely nullifies the reality of John 1:12. And this is not sound hermeneutics.

 

[Lady Crosstalk]

It does not say he was sent only to those who believe already. It says he was sent to any who would believe.

Yes. The entire thrust of the Bible--both the OT and the NT exhorts the inhabitants of the earth to have faith in God. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire that if it was impossible for some and already a "done deal" for others? Calvinism makes no sense at a very basic level.

Psalm 5:5

5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence. You hate all who do wrong;

The arrogant do not believe. So there is no conflict with John.

Yes.

And remember the millennial kingdom will not be church, but back under law and the direct rule of Jesus Christ.

Yes, we are told that He will rule with a "rod of iron". The absolute rule of law.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Yes. The entire thrust of the Bible

That's a huge exaggeration and isn't remotely true.

-both the OT and the NT exhorts the inhabitants of the earth to have faith in God.

Provide some biblical examples to examine to see if your assessment is actually true. We can examine the context of each. My bet is you're incorrect in light of the context of Scripture.

Why would the Holy Spirit inspire that if it was impossible for some and already a "done deal" for others?

You're assuming you've made a correct assessment yet you've provided zero examples or evidence, you've only made a subjective statement and then concluded you're correct.

Calvinism makes no sense at a very basic level.

You're begging the question here, and assuming a victory yet it's completely unsubstantiated.

 

[farouk]

Yes. The entire thrust of the Bible--both the OT and the NT exhorts the inhabitants of the earth to have faith in God. Why would the Holy Spirit inspire that if it was impossible for some and already a "done deal" for others? Calvinism makes no sense at a very basic level.



Yes.



Yes, we are told that He will rule with a "rod of iron". The absolute rule of law.

I agree about the call to faith, yes. The term Calvinism can actually be defined in many - even contradictory -ways. Many Calvinists down the centuries have actually believed in the free offer of the Gospel.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

I agree about the call to faith, yes. The term Calvinism can actually be defined in many - even contradictory -ways. Many Calvinists down the centuries have actually believed in the free offer of the Gospel.

All Calvinist's believe in the "free offer of the Gospel" being fully aware of 2 Timothy 2:8-10. We're also aware that only his elect will be saved. That still fits into the aforementioned text I offered, and in the balance of Scripture. All of it harmonizes with this fact.

 

[farouk]

All Calvinist's believe in the "free offer of the Gospel" being fully aware of 2 Timothy 2:8-10. We're also aware that only his elect will be saved. That still fits into the aforementioned text I offered, and in the balance of Scripture. All of it harmonizes with this fact.

Some Hyper-Calvinists don't believe in the free offer of the Gospel.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Some Hyper-Calvinists don't believe in the free offer of the Gospel.

They're not Calvinist's so don't lump us all in together with your over generalizing and broad brushing. I'm fully aware of their teachings, even their gospel is an aberration.

Did you bother to read the scripture given to see how it corrects your assertion? You tend to avoid the answers given you and then carry on as if you can't see it. Is that Christian and/or proper courtesy and dialog?

 

[farouk]

They're not Calvinist's so don't lump us all in together with your over generalizing and broad brushing. I'm fully aware of their teachings, even their gospel is an aberration.

I'm talking about usage, not my opinion.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

I'm talking about usage, not my opinion.

No, that was your opinion and over generalizing.

One more time:

They're not Calvinist's so don't lump us all in together with your over generalizing and broad brushing. I'm fully aware of their teachings, even their gospel is an aberration.

Did you bother to read the scripture given to see how it corrects your assertion? You tend to avoid the answers given you and then carry on as if you can't see it. Is that Christian and/or proper courtesy and dialog?

Be courteous and answer. You make lots of unsubstantiated statements.

 

[Anthony D'Arienzo]

Some Hyper-Calvinists don't believe in the free offer of the Gospel.

Biblical calvinists reject hyper Calvinism as it is a bad distortion of the grace of God. If a hyper posts on here he will face opposition trying to pull him back onto the reservation.

 

[farouk]

Biblical calvinists reject hyper Calvinism as it is a bad distortion of the grace of God. If a hyper posts on here he will face opposition trying to pull him back onto the reservation.

I agree with what you say about hyper Calvinists.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

I am a sinner, that's for certain, yet I hope I never go around making unsubstantiated accusations on other believers. It appears many do this and don't bat an eye. Then these avoid others who ask them to prove their claims.

Unfortunately @farouk has joined them. I've made several requests for substantiation and he's played it off. Then keeps making them over and again.

 

[farouk]

No, that was your opinion and over generalizing.

One more time:



Be courteous and answer. You make lots of unsubstantiated statements.

I would probably call myself some sort of Calvinist; and I don't favour hyper-Calvinism. The reference was about some of the variety of ways in which I have heard the term Calvinist used over more than 30 years. A dislike has also taken hold of me over many years about engaging in endless arguments in trying to promote various versions of what is called Calvinism.

 

[farouk]

I am a sinner, that's for certain, yet I hope I never go around making unsubstantiated accusations on other believers. It appears many do this and don't bat an eye. Then these avoid others who ask them to prove their claims.

Unfortunately @farouk has joined them. I've made several requests for substantiation and he's played it off. Then keeps making them over and again.

Post #1117.

 

[Preacher4Truth]

Post #1117.

I saw it, it's a non answer.

 

[farouk]

I saw it, it's a non answer.

I try, Sir, to be an encourager and a challenger from Scripture. I try not to be an arguer; respectfully I decline to argue at length with you, Sir.