The Theology in Calvinism

[civic]

It referred to the above statement.

I other words God is love in His own being before there was a creation . God was not wrath before creation . There was no anger in the Godhead. That’s an oxymoron. Wrath , anger is relational to the fall, sin.

 

[civic]

You're asking a logically invalid question, like "When did you stop beating your wife?"

You can't answer logically invalid questions, because they contradict themselves in the premises.

God having an attribute of wrath does not logically entail that God is necessarily wrathful at all moments at all things.

That's a violation of the definition of attribute.


Think about it this way: God is merciful.

That's an attribute of God.

Is God merciful to himself?

That's preposterous, mercy entails something is morally failing.

Yet for all eternity before he created God was a merciful God.

The attribute does not "pop into existence" upon God creating something.

another fallacy , God is not merciful in His being . There is nothing the Holy Spirit needed to be merciful to the Father before creation .

Just more nonsense . Mercy relates to sin and the fall.

Are you implying God is sinful snd needs mercy in the Trinity to function ?

 

[civic]

Address what I said----please.

I did we are discussing Gods innate attributes. Do you know what that means ?

 

[Arial]

Yes God cannot act immoral , unjust , unloving etc .

Double Predestination , determinism , tulip is unloving , not loving.

Just think as a parent having the ability to save all your 8 children yet only save 2 from the fire and jet the rest burn because you determined never to save them because you did not love them , only tge two you saved and hated the other 6 children . You gave them what they deserved. The 2 you saved were lucky you decided to save them in the first place anyways .

That’s the God in Calvinism .

That is your opinion with which you give no support with any consistent logical theology (study of God---the whole God and altogether). You have to divide the attributes and character of God into primary and secondary to support you opinion and there is not one word in the Bible that supports that.

And analogies of God, especially of His character, will each and every time ultimately fall apart if pushed to their conclusions. That one falls apart even while it is being stated. The children did nothing deserving of being burned by the fire. If you determined never to save them is it then you who started the fire, otherwise how could you determine that you would not save them. It is no way depicts the God of Calvinism. It depicts your description and opinion of the God of Calvinism. They are not the same thing.

 

[civic]

That is your opinion with which you give no support with any consistent logical theology (study of God---the whole God and altogether). You have to divide the attributes and character of God into primary and secondary to support you opinion and there is not one word in the Bible that supports that.

And analogies of God, especially of His character, will each and every time ultimately fall apart if pushed to their conclusions. That one falls apart even while it is being stated. The children did nothing deserving of being burned by the fire. If you determined never to save them is it then you who started the fire, otherwise how could you determine that you would not save them. It is no way depicts the God of Calvinism. It depicts your description and opinion of the God of Calvinism. They are not the same thing.

Yes God in Calvinism started the fire , put them in the fire then saved the ones He loved and burned the ones He didn’t love and choose to save. That’s Calvinism 101 with sovereignty, determinism and tulip. He saved the elect created in His image and not the non elect created in His image .

 

[Rockson]

It makes God evil. It is horrific. It violates God's character.

It does and I think you need to come to terms with this.

God is love so He would never choose some for salvation and not all as that is unfair and unjust.

Correct Arial. I it would be for it places God in the place of showing unjust favoritism. If all are under sins then all are under sin period. Why should anyone get special treatment over another . Rom 2:11 says God shows no favoritism.

It has even been said that God is love and love is a primary attribute and the others such as justice and sovereignty play second fiddle as secondary attributes to love.

Well we do know Ps 145:8 states, "The Lord is gracious and merciful...slow to anger." If is capacity to show wrath and anger was at the same level in which he shows love and mercy then I think you'd have to explain why he'd be slow to anger.

Now secondly God's sovereignty is not a character trait as you might think it is. It's an ability or the state of being King over all. The subjects of a Kingdom might agree the King can do anything but they also know he most likely will not. A good king will allow his subjects to have some personal freedoms because of his character of love and goodness. .

So if you're going to force and interpretation that sovereignty has to mean the one having such has people strapped down and having absolute control you should know no kings actually seeks to do that. Why? For reasons of being kind and good to others. So sovereignty in the way you demand it must be....well sure the King (and we're also talking about God) does let such a sovereignty play as you put it second fiddle to his love and character.

In Calvinism all its doctrines arrive out of the use of the whole counsel of God, starting with "In the beginning God---" It considers everything that God has said about Himself in both the OT and the NT.

That's quite an assertion you're making about Calvinism. Does it truly do this though? I respectfully suggest not.

 

[civic]

The love God possesses cannot be defined by our limited definitions given it. His love is completely outside what we ever experience of this earth in our relationships and therefore we have nothing in our experience to define it beyond the words we have and what we know.

Its defined in many places and I started a thread on how that is affirmed and defined in Scripture. Lets see if you can stay on topic about love. Since its the main attribute of God by osmosis it is the main characteristic of the Christian required by God, for God is love..

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/what-does-gods-love-look-like.131/

 

[Rockson]

Are you suggesting political correctness at the expense of the facts?

No I'm saying DON'T paint everybody with the same brush. Or do you actually bellieve every non Calvinists is an aggressive unkind person? If you do I'd have to say you'd be horribly deluded.

Let people be who they are and express themselves as they do.

By all means don't let me cramp your style. But I think it's good for readers to take note that not every non Calvinist is accusing in some type of malicious way or HURLING things around. You might however be challenged in good spirited debate in the things you want to put forth.

And there was no peace to begin with if Calvinism is even mentioned (maybe we should find a substitute word for that one) and there never will be.

Then sorry I'd have to say you haven't experienced very much. I've had Calvinists through the years and we've been great friends walking home after night shifts together and have been at their homes for dinner so don't say there never will be. There HAS been and will in the future as well.

The minute Calvinism and theology were mentioned in conjunction with each other, people were frothing at the bit poised, to dive in with peace being the last thing on their mind.

I don't deny that's been your own personal experience. It's a tragedy you feel this way. Others whether you want to accept it or not have put a focus on wanting to follow peace with all man and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. Heb 12:14 I guess the question to you is are you such a one who wants to seek peace? I trust you are.

 

[civic]

No I'm saying DON'T paint everybody with the same brush. Or do you actually bellieve every non Calvinists is an aggressive unkind person? If you do I'd have to say you'd be horribly deluded.

By all means don't let me cramp your style. But I think it's good for readers to take note that not every non Calvinist is accusing in some type of malicious way or HURLING things around. You might however be challenged in good spirited debate in the things you want to put forth.

Then sorry I'd have to say you haven't experienced very much. I've had Calvinists through the years and we've been great friends walking home after night shifts together and have been at their homes for dinner so don't say there never will be. There HAS been and will in the future as well.

I don't deny that's been your own personal experience. It's a tragedy you feel this way. Others whether you want to accept it or not have put a focus on wanting to follow peace with all man and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. Heb 12:14 I guess the question to you is are you such a one who wants to seek peace? I trust you are.

Yes my son in law is a pastor at my church married to my calvinist daughter. He is in my saturday morning mens discipleship group I lead with another young married man, new father who is going to seminary and he is also a calvinist. We talk about our differences all of the time and when I talk about Gods innate attributes with them it stops them in their tracks about God being love. They know my story and I mentored them as a calvinist and I'm no longer one. I only discuss it with them is they bring it up or I need to give the other side of the argument in our discussions. There is another guy in our 4 person group who is an elder but is neither a calvinist or arminian. I love those guys and they love me. We are all also in a larger mens group that meets on Thursday mornings with about 25 guys and one of our co-leaders is a calvinist and has preached in our senior pastors absence ( he is not a calvinist ). I challenge him all of the time and we met one day for a couple hours and discussed calvinism, he had never heard the counter arguments I gave him that morning and was throwing every question/objection in the book to which I quoted scripture and defended my position well. He wants to meet one on one for further discussion. He had never been challenged before with his beliefs and I threw the book at him and he had no defense. I told him do your research and study and we can talk about it some more in the future. I'm leaving that to him when he wants to continue that discussion. But when he says things that lean reformed in the group I will give the other side of the coin and our senior pastor who also attends the mens group affirms my points. But we discuss these things in love and no one takes offense when the other side is presented.

 

[Arial]

No I'm saying DON'T paint everybody with the same brush. Or do you actually bellieve every non Calvinists is an aggressive unkind person? If you do I'd have to say you'd be horribly deluded.

By all means don't let me cramp your style. But I think it's good for readers to take note that not every non Calvinist is accusing in some type of malicious way or HURLING things around. You might however be challenged in good spirited debate in the things you want to put forth.

Then sorry I'd have to say you haven't experienced very much. I've had Calvinists through the years and we've been great friends walking home after night shifts together and have been at their homes for dinner so don't say there never will be. There HAS been and will in the future as well.

I don't deny that's been your own personal experience. It's a tragedy you feel this way. Others whether you want to accept it or not have put a focus on wanting to follow peace with all man and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord. Heb 12:14 I guess the question to you is are you such a one who wants to seek peace? I trust you are.

All I was ever saying that it is non-Calvinists who are alway whining about how mean and uncivil Calvinists are and never consider their own approaches as anything but civil and justified. And in this post as in the other I never laid the claim of all to anything.

When nonCalvinist (note I do not say ALL) hurl the accusations that I stated they do have malicious intent.

The following words in this very post of yours carry with them a charged negative expression as you say "hurl" does.

WHat would be really nice and would show a sincerity in seeking peace would be if posters could stick to the subject of the debate instead of resorting to this type of making it personally about me and my character.

you'd be horribly deluded.

don't let me cramp your style.

Others whether you want to accept it or not have put a focus on wanting to follow peace with all man and holiness without which no man shall see the Lord

 

[Arial]

It does and I think you need to come to terms with this.

Now I see why you got so upset when I made the comment that in any discussion there is always someone who hurls this type of accusation at Calvinism and therefore those who believe much of it. And it is just an opinion given support by nothing.

Correct Arial. I it would be for it places God in the place of showing unjust favoritism. If all are under sins then all are under sin period. Why should anyone get special treatment over another . Rom 2:11 says God shows no favoritism.

The problem with using isolated quotes as proof of something is that they are most often removed from the context that interprets them. That passage is in no way connected to the doctrine of the elect and predestination. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Gentile, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. It is talking about God not favoring one nation, nationality, ethnic group, language, social status, rich or poor etc. over any other, in bringing salvation. So find another one that shows God is unfair and unjust if He is the One who shows He is the one who chooses everything else in the Bible. Persons, groups of people, times, places, events etc.. And show me where He changes this when it comes to the manner of who and how people are saved by suddenly refusing to violate man's freewill, leaving it up to him. I'll be waiting.

Well we do know Ps 145:8 states, "The Lord is gracious and merciful...slow to anger." If is capacity to show wrath and anger was at the same level in which he shows love and mercy then I think you'd have to explain why he'd be slow to anger.

But He does have anger doesn't He. When it says He is slow to anger if means that He is patient with our sins, not giving us what we deserve right when we deserve it. And that is because He has His plan and His purpose in Christ. What it does not say is that He will never vent that anger and that wrath upon the wicked. The day of His justice will come.

Now secondly God's sovereignty is not a character trait as you might think it is. It's an ability or the state of being King over all. The subjects of a Kingdom might agree the King can do anything but they also know he most likely will not. A good king will allow his subjects to have some personal freedoms because of his character of love and goodness. .

Sovereign is who He is. Not an ability. Frankly I am astonished to find just how far so many are from actually seeing God as God. SOmetimes it is like they don't know Him at all, He is just something to discuss. People having personal freedoms has nothing to do with God's sovereignty one way or the other. Even the analogies coming out are weak as twigs. I am waiting for something of substance in this discussion.

So if you're going to force and interpretation that sovereignty has to mean the one having such has people strapped down and having absolute control you should know no kings actually seeks to do that. Why? For reasons of being kind and good to others. So sovereignty in the way you demand it must be....well sure the King (and we're also talking about God) does let such a sovereignty play as you put it second fiddle to his love and character.

When did I ever say sovereignty has to mean the one having it has people strapped down and has absolute control of them? That is the other thing that would take a heck of a lot of the angst out of these "debates". If the opposition to Calvinism would stop stating the beliefs of the other person wrongly and in the worst possible light and with the worst most negative and hostile words possible. This sentence "So sovereignty in the way you demand it must be---well sure the king does let such a sovereignty play as you put it second fiddle to his love and character." makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

That's quite an assertion you're making about Calvinism. Does it truly do this though? I respectfully suggest not.

It isn't an assertion it is a fact, so yes it truly does. You are welcome to prove me wrong since you suggest that it does not. If it were a real debate, debate platforms would demand that you do so.

How does the doctrine of free will arrive at its conclusion? Does it involve theology---a thorough study of God? Or does it reach its conclusions by opinions of God? So far all I have heard is opinions of God.

 

[Arial]

Its defined in many places and I started a thread on how that is affirmed and defined in Scripture. Lets see if you can stay on topic about love. Since its the main attribute of God by osmosis it is the main characteristic of the Christian required by God, for God is love..

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/what-does-gods-love-look-like.131/

That isn't the topic of my OP so don't dictate the terms. Do you even understand what I said about defining love as it exists in God and how such a thing is impossible? Do you understand how humans go about defining or describing things? How do we describe what a rose smells like or looks like to one who has never seen a rose? A table? A color? We define things by other things that we know and have experienced. We are told of God's love, we see the effects of God's love, we are told the ingredients in love, but we cannot begin to imagine what love is like within the Godhead for we have never been there. We can only say it is perfect and it does not wax and wane but always remains the same---perfect because He tells us that. But we are not omniscient so we can not sit here and tell God what the whole picture is and hold Him to the picture we have. And if we are told that God is love, and that He is just, then all His actions whether we like them or not, agree with them or not, are both love and justice, when He destroys nations, raises kings up and brings them down,causes disaster, brings war and brings peace (all of which we see Him doing in the Bible) it has something to do with the big picture that we cannot see and violates none of who He is, or divides Him into parts that serve or rule over other parts.

 

[Arial]

Yes God in Calvinism started the fire , put them in the fire then saved the ones He loved and burned the ones He didn’t love and choose to save. That’s Calvinism 101 with sovereignty, determinism and tulip. He saved the elect created in His image and not the non elect created in His image .

Sheesh. God didn't start the fire, Adam did. God always does as He pleases. Why o men do you talk back to God. Do you not fear Him? Do you not tremble in His presence to say such to Him? He is the Potter, we are the clay.

 

[Arial]

I did we are discussing Gods innate attributes. Do you know what that means ?

That is not what we were discussing it is what you have now decided to discuss rather than what I was discussing. Which was:

No even though I did not quote any of Jesus' sayings that does not mean I left Him out. This is what I mean by arriving at conclusions by separating certain sayings and scriptures from the rest of what the Bible teaches or from the rest of the Bible.

You acknowledge that Jesus is God and yet you present Him here as a different God from the self revealed one in the OT----where He first began revealing Himself. As though Jesus came to show us the real God or a changed God even though Jesus says He is the fulfillment of the law and prophets. (The OT.)

What Jesus is saying and demonstrating is that if we truly reflect the image of God and are obedient to His moral character, then we will follow what He says is our obligation as having been created by God. We are to be merciful because we have been shown mercy. We are to love because He first loved us (and His covenant love is personal whereas His general mercy and love is not.) His general love and mercy is shown by not destroying everyone and in "It rains on the just and the unjust alike." His personal love was seen for Israel within the covenant promises, and is seen in the new covenant through union with Christ. But none of this removes or reduces any of His other attributes or actions.

To which you replied:

God is immutable and Christ is God His words and deeds are the words and deeds of God the Father as He taught which were revealed in the gospels .

That does not address what I said.

 

[civic]

That isn't the topic of my OP so don't dictate the terms. Do you even understand what I said about defining love as it exists in God and how such a thing is impossible? Do you understand how humans go about defining or describing things? How do we describe what a rose smells like or looks like to one who has never seen a rose? A table? A color? We define things by other things that we know and have experienced. We are told of God's love, we see the effects of God's love, we are told the ingredients in love, but we cannot begin to imagine what love is like within the Godhead for we have never been there. We can only say it is perfect and it does not wax and wane but always remains the same---perfect because He tells us that. But we are not omniscient so we can not sit here and tell God what the whole picture is and hold Him to the picture we have. And if we are told that God is love, and that He is just, then all His actions whether we like them or not, agree with them or not, are both love and justice, when He destroys nations, raises kings up and brings them down,causes disaster, brings war and brings peace (all of which we see Him doing in the Bible) it has something to do with the big picture that we cannot see and violates none of who He is, or divides Him into parts that serve or rule over other parts.

God has made Himself known and revealed Who He is in 66 books.

 

[civic]

That is not what we were discussing it is what you have now decided to discuss rather than what I was discussing. Which was:

To which you replied:

That does not address what I said.

Sure it does we are discussing Theology - the study of God and God is love proves Calvinism is wrong which is why John Calvin left God is love out of his institutes . It’s proves the entire system is false and built upon a false concept of the nature of God. It’s why Calvinists run away from the topic and have no biblical answer , just their systematic . Tulip is unloving by definition. It’s the reason I and 100’s of others have abandon Calvinism.

 

[civic]

It’s why the question is asked on several forums .

https://berean-apologetics.community.forum/threads/where-is-the-love-in-calvinism.32/

 

[civic]

@Theophilus said the following.

Unfortunately, Calvinists sometimes seem to have a blind spot for the love of God. Consider this question from The Shorter Catechism, which is an abbreviated version of The Westminster Confession of Faith, a classic Calvinist statement of faith. The Catechism asks this most fundamental theological question: “What is God?”

Here is the answer that is given: “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.”

Do you notice anything missing from this definition? Where is the love? The definition mentions God’s power, his wisdom, and his justice, along with other attributes, but amazingly enough it leaves out perhaps the most beautiful definition of God in the entire Bible: “God is love”. 1 John 4:8,16


Calvinist theologian Arthur W. Pink: “When we say that God is sovereign in the exercise of His love, we mean that He loves whom he chooses. God does not love everybody . . . .”

How does that work? The bad news is not really well. Is it not the very heart of the gospel that God loves everyone? Is that not the good news that we joyfully share with all persons? “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life”. John 3:16


In the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin there is not one time in this book does Calvin ever quote “God is love.” Hard to believe that in is massive book that is 1,521 pages long and that discusses thousands of biblical texts and discusses God’s nature extensively, Calvin never one time cited 1 John 4:8 or 1 John 4:16. Not even once! This is a stunning omission.

I'm still looking for the love in Calvinism.

 

[Arial]

I other words God is love in His own being before there was a creation . God was not wrath before creation . There was no anger in the Godhead. That’s an oxymoron. Wrath , anger is relational to the fall, sin.

Because God is not expressing something against something that does not yet exist does not mean it is not a part of Him. Wrath comes against unholiness. But did you not read the scriptures I posted that shows what you say; that sin did not exist before creation and that God never expressed wrath except in the creation is not true? Yes or no.

It is very difficult to carry on a consistent and flowing debate when one party leaves out entire pieces of what the other says and only addresses one small portion of it. It would never be accepted in either a debate or a legitimate conversation.

 

[civic]

Because God is not expressing something against something that does not yet exist does not mean it is not a part of Him. Wrath comes against unholiness. But did you not read the scriptures I posted that shows what you say; that sin did not exist before creation and that God never expressed wrath except in the creation is not true? Yes or no.

It is very difficult to carry on a consistent and flowing debate when one party leaves out entire pieces of what the other says and only addresses one small portion of it. It would never be accepted in either a debate or a legitimate conversation.

You never answered mu question on Gods innate attributes. We are discussing Gods nature/character within His own Being. You keep bringing up sin, man which is "off topic" with Gods attributes. Its side stepping the conversation.

wrath is not an innate attribute, love is and that is the difference.