What is so wrong with Calvinism ?

[BarneyFife]

Both

Not possible, but at least we know where you're coming from.

 

[reformed1689]

Not possible, but at least we know where you're coming from.

Of course it is possible for it to be both. We can not have the ability to do something, and also not want to do it in the first place. Why can both of those not be true?

 

[Behold]

Life without Calvin.....
Is the best thing for all Christians.

Follow Paul instead, regarding doctrine, theology, and for instruction in walking in the spirit unto perfection. (perfected discipleship).

 

[reformed1689]

Life without Calvin.....
Is the best thing for all Christians.

Follow Paul instead, regarding doctrine, theology, and for instruction in walking in the spirit unto perfection. (perfected discipleship).

What makes you think Calvinists do NOT follow Paul?

 

[ChristisGod]

Yeah and you tried to build a premise that Calvinism is wrong based on one work of one man that Calvinism isn't even truly based on. That's the point.

No the premise is right in Calvins most monumental/theological work the Institutes he conveniently and intentionally left out God is love and the 1 John references when in his appendix there are over 40 pages of scripture references and 1000's of bible references quoted in his work. That is the point and the same with question 4 in the Westminster shorter Catechism the Attribute that God is love was left out. It is a stumbling block on Calvinist theology. Double Predestination is an assault on Gods nature/character being Love. Since man has no choice in his salvation according to Calvinism and Gods grace is irresistible and those who will be saved wee elect before creation then God by default cannot be love or loving since He has created most of mankind for hell.

Love defined.

agapé: love, goodwill
Original Word: ἀγάπη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: agapé
Phonetic Spelling: (ag-ah'-pay)
Definition: love, goodwill
Usage: love, benevolence, good will, esteem;

Benevolence- doing good to others, goodwill, kind, helpful.

 

[reformed1689]

No the premise is right in Calvins most monumental/theological work the Institutes he conveniently and intentionally left out God is love and the 1 John references when in his appendix there are over 40 pages of scripture references and 1000's of bible references quoted in his work. That is the point and the same with question 4 in the Westminster shorter Catechism the Attribute that God is love was left out. It is a stumbling block on Calvinist theology. Double Predestination is an assault on Gods nature/character being Love. Since man has no choice in his salvation according to Calvinism and Gods grace is irresistible and those who will be saved wee elect before creation then God by default cannot be love or loving since He has created most of mankind for hell.

Love defined.

agapé: love, goodwill
Original Word: ἀγάπη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: agapé
Phonetic Spelling: (ag-ah'-pay)
Definition: love, goodwill
Usage: love, benevolence, good will, esteem;

Benevolence- doing good to others, goodwill, kind, helpful.

The idea that Reformed Theology leaves out God is love is simply absurd and you are cherry picking.

 

[ChristisGod]

The idea that Reformed Theology leaves out God is love is simply absurd and you are cherry picking.

I'm pointing out 2 glaring and on purpose writings of Calvinists that intentionally left out Gods primary attribute of love.

If you for just a moment would read this without bias as a calvinist you would agree its an issue.

Would you ever leave out Gods attribute of love in your definition of God ? yes or no

And who would you include it ?

 

[reformed1689]

I'm pointing out 2 glaring and on purpose writings of Calvinists that intentionally left out Gods primary attribute of love.

If you for just a moment would read this without bias as a calvinist you would agree its an issue.

Would you ever leave out Gods attribute of love in your definition of God ? yes or no

And who would you include it ?

Except that isn't true.

God is always both loving and just, though here in ways that escape our feeble understanding.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), lix.

Than confidently to look for all happy and prosperous things from Him whose unspeakable love toward us went so far that “he … did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all” [Rom. 8:32]?

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 13.

Because it is persuaded that he is good and merciful, it reposes in him with perfect trust, and doubts not that in his loving-kindness a remedy will be provided for all its ills.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 42.


But we ought in the very order of things diligently to contemplate God’s fatherly love toward mankind, in that he did not create Adam until he had lavished upon the universe all manner of good things.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 161–162.


And these are just a FEW examples from the Institutes. So you think by him not quoting one specific verse, which he does in his commentary on that book, means he doesn't talk about God being love? That's absurd.

 

[PinSeeker]

Double Predestination is an assault on Gods nature/character being Love.

This is nothing more than an opinion. I don't mean to downplay it or belittle it as such, but it is what it is. Double predestination is actually ~ and you can call this Calvin's and Calvinists' opinion; that's perfectly fine with me ~ a proclamation God's nature and character of love. We can say all we want about God's love, His goodwill, His benevolence, all of it, and it still wouldn't be enough, as it is infinite. But in so doing, we cannot soft-pedal in any way any of His other attributes, namely in this discussion His justness.

Since man has no choice in his salvation according to Calvinism...

But he does, so any point you make following an assertion like this is moot.

...and Gods grace is irresistible...

This does not mean man does not make a choice. This is a mischaracterization of the irresistible-ness of God's grace. A breath of air is irresistible to a drowning man. Does this mean he has no choice? A drink of water is irresistible the man wandering in the desert and dying of thirst. Does this mean he has no choice? A medium-rare ribeye steak is irresistible to the starving man. Does this mean he has no choice? You're missing the whole point of God's mercy and compassion, which has to do with man's heart and who he is. Man certainly changes or (does not change) his own mind by making a choice (or not making it, which is also a choice, or choosing the opposite). God changes hearts (of His elect) from stone to flesh. This is his mercy and compassion. The heart drives the will, drives our choices, which we freely make. So God's grace is irresistible not in the wooden sense that they are "puppets" or "robots" and can't or don't make conscious, free choices, but in that they cannot help but choose according to their heart, their inner being. For those that are not the recipients of God's mercy/compassion, their choices remain what they are because their hearts are not changed and remain stone rather than flesh. And God gives them up to their own passions and desires, and even endures them with great patience, which is actually grace and, yes, love.

...those who will be saved were elect before creation...

Well, yes and no. God ordains for each of us all the days of our lives. But each actually becomes a member of the elect at their appointed time, when they receive God's mercy/compassion, which is at some point in their mortal life.

Not to insult your intelligence in any way, but give this some thought and prayer. This will probably make you a bit mad, but that is not the intention at all: I would submit to you that what you have is a very low view ~ or at least somewhat lower than it should be ~ of God's love.

Grace and peace to you, Christophany.

 

[BarneyFife]

We can not have the ability to do something, and also not want to do it in the first place. Why can both of those not be true?

A breath of air is irresistible to a drowning man. Does this mean he has no choice? A drink of water is irresistible the man wandering in the desert and dying of thirst. Does this mean he has no choice? A medium-rare ribeye steak is irresistible to the starving man. Does this mean he has no choice?

And herein lies the problem. You never know who you're talking to. There is no comprehensible treatment of Calvinism.

Either a man has a choice as to whether or not to be saved or he doesn't—you can't have it both ways.

And to be free to choose anything but whether to be saved don't mean diddly-boo.

It is a daughter of Babylon—that is why none of you can agree.

It's like being a Seventh-day Adventist and saying it doesn't matter which day of the week you rest and worship on... except that it does... kinda... maybe... we'll see.
(Doubtless, this will be ignored or nit-picked to portray it as an impotent illustration. Whatever...)

Complete Buffalo Bagels and Horse Hockey—the whole lot of it.

A God whose love cannot be basically understood is not a loving God at all.

And creating people for the intended purpose of harassing other people and then french-frying them forever is dastardly.

And all the smoke and mirrors in the world can't hide that fact.

Doesn't make a bit of difference what Calvin wrote or didn't; before or after whatever.

PPPPPfffffffffbbbbbbbbbtttttttt!!!!!!!!

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^makes more sense than TULIP.



Galatians 1
6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

 

[reformed1689]

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^makes more sense than TULIP.

This...is hogwash.

 

[Lambano]

PPPPPfffffffffbbbbbbbbbtttttttt!!!!!!!!

Where is @stunnedbygrace when we need her?

 

[reformed1689]

And herein lies the problem. You never know who you're talking to. There is no comprehensible treatment of Calvinism.

Either a man has a choice as to whether or not to be saved or he doesn't—you can't have it both ways.

You realize the two quotes you quoted do not contradict each other. And since when does anyone choose to be saved? That's not how saving works. If I'm out in the ocean because my ship sank, do I choose to be saved? No, someone has to choose to save me.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

You never know who you're talking to.

Well said, ange, er, Ernest T Bass, er, Barney, er, oh qoheleth, hee-hee

 

[PinSeeker]

reformed 1989: We can not have the ability to do something, and also not want to do it in the first place. Why can both of those not be true?

PinSeeker: A breath of air is irresistible to a drowning man. Does this mean he has no choice? A drink of water is irresistible the man wandering in the desert and dying of thirst. Does this mean he has no choice? A medium-rare ribeye steak is irresistible to the starving man. Does this mean he has no choice?

Herein lies the problem. There is no comprehensible treatment of Calvinism.

For something to be comprehensible, it depends on both the giver of that something and the hearer of said message. That you draw some kind of difference or distinction between what I said and what reformed1989 said is quite astounding, as there is none, really, aside from the words themselves. I agree; therein lies the problem. Absolutely.

Either a man has a choice as to whether or not to be saved or he doesn't—you can't have it both ways.

To be saved, Qoheleth, you must be born again of the Spirit, right? Given new birth. Temporally speaking, did you make a choice and somehow let your mother and father know that you wanted to be conceived and thus born? If so, how long before your conception and birth did you do this?

Doesn't make a bit of difference what Calvin wrote or didn't; before or after whatever.

Now this, I agree with; it was what it was before and after Calvin wrote what he wrote. And it still is what it is, and always will be.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[BarneyFife]

Well said, ange, er, Ernest T Bass, er, Barney, er, oh qoheleth, hee-hee

Go away, Carrier Of Tales.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Go away

As SOON as The LORD "Calls me Up Yonder!":

 

[BarneyFife]

To be saved, Qoheleth, you must be born again of the Spirit, right? Given new birth. Temporally speaking, did you make a choice and somehow let your mother and father know that you wanted to be conceived and thus born? If so, how long before your conception and birth did you do this?

The 'making too much of the metaphor' error.

I just believe the Holy Spirit's power and versatility is a little more sophisticated than an on/off light switch. I don't believe He's limited to regeneration-or-nothing.

The answer to the big question always asked of Calvinists is always:

"Well, it's just beyond our finite understanding..."

And, like I always say:

"It was dark outside when I was born, but it wasn't last night."

 

[BarneyFife]

As SOON as The LORD "Calls me Up Yonder!":

View attachment 22950

Have you repented of and confessed your cowardice and lies?

But the cowardly, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. (Revelation 21:8)

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Have you repented of and confessed your cowardice and lies?

Over 4 decades ago, but you're not interested in my testimony, or are you?

Bible Answer For Confusing church Bewilderment!

GRACE And Peace...