Why Calvinism is a bad thing.

[The Rogue Tomato]

Atonement for all, means salvation is potentiality open for all to be found acceptable to God.
It does not mean all are automatically saved because of the atonement.

Correct, which is why your quote has nothing to do with Calvinism or free will.

Unbelievers? How can you punish someone if they had no choice in the matter?

As I said in the other thread, God is not obliged to even OFFER salvation to anyone. He would still be just and holy if He condemned all mankind without exception.

 

[GeneZ]

As I said in the other thread, God is not obliged to even OFFER salvation to anyone. He would still be just and holy if He condemned all mankind without exception.

"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.'​

Note: Loved is in the past tense.
It does not say God so loves the world in the present tense.

As God created the world to be?
He loved the world He created.

So much so?
He wants it back!

That's why He gave His Son on the Cross!

 

[JonC]

I am not all that familiar with the Puritans, other than they were strict.
Can you cite and example of what you refer to?

And, where did I say they were emotionally unstable?

post 550...the limits of human emotion???What do you mean they were strict? In what way?

 

[Dizerner]

post 550...the limits of human emotion???What do you mean they were strict? In what way?

You don't know about the Puritans?

https://www.huskyhistory.com/uploads/8/0/0/2/8002320/puritan_punishments.pdf

 

[GeneZ]

post 550...the limits of human emotion???What do you mean they were strict? In what way?

I am surprised you are asking.... You just starting to learn about them?

Here is a sampling to consider:

https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2007/10/puritan-laws-and-customs.html

 

[Dizerner]

I am surprised you are asking.... You just starting to learn about them?

Here is a sampling to consider:

https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2007/10/puritan-laws-and-customs.html

Yeah, they were really bad.

Calvin was quite bad as well.

 

[JonC]

Yeah, they were really bad.

Calvin was quite bad as well.

Were Calvins teachings really bad? Do you have some examples of the bad teaching?

 

[Dizerner]

Were Calvins teachings really bad? Do you have some examples of the bad teaching?

His teachings were bad, but that's not at all what I was talking about.

I was talking about his overbearing harshness in punishments.

It was the whole religious system he was a part of:

The official acts of the [Geneva City] Council from 1541 to 1559 exhibit a dark chapter of censures, fines, imprisonments, and executions. During the ravages of the pestilence in 1545 more than twenty men and women were burnt alive for witchcraft, and a wicked conspiracy to spread the horrible disease. From 1542 to 1546 fifty-eight judgments of death and seventy-six decrees of banishments were passed. During the years 1558 and 1559 the cases of various punishments for all sorts of offenses amounted to four hundred and fourteen—a very large proportion for a population of 20,000.

(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8: § 107. The Exercise of Discipline in Geneva)

 

[TibiasDad]

Simple answer, Only God can save.

Correct!

However, there is no effort or value in "asking" God to save you.

Sure there is, because God has offered us salvation.

There is no merit to be found in begging another to assist you. Beggars are not God. They are beggars.

Begging is a loaded word! But beggars don’t beg because they are worthy, but because they are destitute.

The "math" you're using is too simplistic to consider the obvious.

Truth is, at its root, very simplistic. You’re either wrong or right, dead or alive, and for the sake of stating the obvious, male or female.

Doug

 

[praise_yeshua]

Sure there is, because God has offered us salvation.

Which is the very serious problem with certain Arminianian positions. You see value in your own efforts.

I might have said this to you before but it is FOOL that rejects God. Accepting a message that didn't come from you, has no value in your choice. The desire to find your own meritorious value in another's work is ridiculous. It is not YOUR WORK.

Begging is a loaded word! But beggars don’t beg because they are worthy, but because they are destitute.

Begging is the perfect word. It doesn't matter of you value it or not. In fact, you confirmed the validity of the word choice by recognize the destitute nature of the beggar. Which is exactly why I use the word.

Truth is, at its root, very simplistic. You’re either wrong or right, dead or alive, and for the sake of stating the obvious, male or female.

Doug

Bad example. "Male of Female"? You're making the case for Calvinism with such a response.

While salvation appears simple, it the nature of man and his desire to see himself in everything that makes it very complicated. Sincerity is the line between success and failure. For sincerity to operate, a person must know themselves or abandon what they think they know of themselves. That is not a simple task. This goes to the very root of choice. Not only is it a choice. It is a meritless choice. You have it wrong. Your perspective is suspect here.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Correct, which is why your quote has nothing to do with Calvinism or free will.



As I said in the other thread, God is not obliged to even OFFER salvation to anyone. He would still be just and holy if He condemned all mankind without exception.

I agree. Which is why not everyone have even heard the Gospel. It is the duty of men to share the Gospel. Not the duty of God. That is why Paul mentions the righteousness of God revealed "from faith to faith". Calvinism doesn't accurate address this but it does many other things. It is never an either or to me. Each has its's own merits. Each are somewhat correct.

We also know that some preach another "christ". Such preaching creates deception. I presents salvation in an imaginary idol.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

I agree. Which is why not everyone have even heard the Gospel. It is the duty of men to share the Gospel. Not the duty of God. That is why Paul mentions the righteousness of God revealed "from faith to faith". Calvinism doesn't accurate address this but it does many other things. It is never an either or to me. Each has its's own merits. Each are somewhat correct.

We also know that some preach another "christ". Such preaching creates deception. I presents salvation in an imaginary idol.

I agree that it is our job to spread the Gospel. However, I also believe in election as described by Spurgeon. It is the ONLY way God can keep his promise that "All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me" because the Father may give to Jesus someone who is beyond our reach. That person WILL receive the Gospel the same way Paul was given the Gospel by special revelation. To say that God exclusively depends upon men to tell the Gospel is to cripple God's ability to save whom He will.

"But suppose it should be one of those who are living in the interior of Africa, and he does not hear the gospel; what then?" He shall hear the gospel; either he shall come to the gospel, or the gospel shall go to him. Even if no minister should go to such a chosen one, he would have the gospel specially revealed to him rather than that the promise of the Almighty God should be broken.

"But suppose there should be one of God's chosen who has become so bad that there is no hope for him? He never attends a place of worship; never listens to the gospel; the voice of the preacher never reaches him; he has grown hardened in his sin, like steel that has been seven times annealed in the fire; what then?" That man shall be arrested by God's grace, and that obdurate, hard-hearted one shall be made to see the mercy of God; the tears shall stream down his cheeks, and he shall be made willing to receive Jesus as Saviour. I think that, as God could bend my will, and bring me to Christ, He can bring anybody.

 

[GeneZ]

Which is the very serious problem with certain Arminianian positions. You see value in your own efforts.

Why is it always a choice between Arminianism, or Calvinism?

Calvinism almost always knee jerks when something refutes its stand and without thinking labels it Arminianism.
Then the Calvinist begins to attack Arminianism.... missing what the doctrinal content is saying, which is not Arminianism.

Both Arminianism and Calvinism have deficiencies.
No one can learn to rise above what they lack if one always assumes that its an either or situation.

 

[civic]

Why is it always a choice between Arminianism, or Calvinism?

Calvinism almost always knee jerks when something refutes its stand and without thinking labels it Arminianism.
Then the Calvinist begins to attack Arminianism.... missing what the doctrinal content is saying, which is not Arminianism.

Both Arminianism and Calvinism have deficiencies.
No one can learn to rise above what they lack if one always assumes that its an either or situation.

I’m neither

 

[TibiasDad]

Which is the very serious problem with certain Arminianian positions. You see value in your own efforts.

Where have I placed value in my own effort?

I might have said this to you before but it is FOOL that rejects God.

Obviously

Accepting a message that didn't come from you, has no value in your choice. The desire to find your own meritorious value in another's work is ridiculous. It is not YOUR WORK.

I didn’t say it did. You’re assuming something I haven’t said. That my part in the process is necessary, doesn’t mean I have gained any merit that obligates God. It is impossible to obligate God to do anything positive toward me.

Begging is the perfect word. It doesn't matter of you value it or not. In fact, you confirmed the validity of the word choice by recognize the destitute nature of the beggar. Which is exactly why I use the word.

Bad example. "Male of Female"? You're making the case for Calvinism with such a response.

Did God create another gender?

While salvation appears simple, it the nature of man and his desire to see himself in everything that makes it very complicated.

The complications are added by man, not God. Salvation is simple: We’re sinners; God offers us salvation from sin; we accept or reject his offer.

Sincerity is the line between success and failure. For sincerity to operate, a person must know themselves or abandon what they think they know of themselves. That is not a simple task. This goes to the very root of choice. Not only is it a choice. It is a meritless choice. You have it wrong. Your perspective is suspect here.

Again, where have I asserted merit! I haven’t, and can’t! If God cannot be obligated by man’s actions, then all human effort is meaningless in and of itself. That God requires it does not make it meritorious.

Doug

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Normally I'd insist on someone making claims like this to provide Scripture. But you can't. And you haven't. So I won't since all the "proof" you've provided is opinion.

Now "Calvinists" through the ages have been very particular about how they present their soteriology. You can either choose ( laugh ) to address that here or not. But I'll raise your "'cuz" with a "nuh uh" and this half of a millennium debate will continue on in another forum as stupidly and fruitlessly as in all the others.

BINGO!! The simple fact, though is that other than providing a subject to argue about "Calvinism" (or any other "ism) is totally WORTHLESS when the focus is on getting lost people Born again, and becoming Christians. Being "Saved" is a personal one-on-one exchange between the person, and God. NO "Theology" required. COnviction od SIN is the beginning of FAITH, since it's GOD'S WORD to you (Rom 10:17)

Paul didn't bother with it, concentrating on JESUS, and HIM CRUCIFIED, which is all it takes. Then AFTER one is Born again, there's plenty of time to "Take HIS YOKE upon you, and "Learn of HIM".

He's clear, though that "HIS YOKE IS EASY, AND HIS BURDEN IS LIGHT". "Denominational Theology", tends to attach DIfficult, confusing, and HEAVY BURDENS on its victims. SO if YOUR "Yoke" is not easy, and YOUR Burden is crushing, then it's not Jesus' yoke you're trying to bear, but satan's.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

I’m neither

Bingo!! As a Non-Systematic, Non-denominational, Theological eclectic, I'm neither myself. That one or more of my beliefs may happen to match something in this or that "Systematic", is purely coincidental. "Systematics" aren't ALL WRONG, or all right. HEY!!!! they're nothing but "Theology" after all.

 

[civic]

Bingo!! As a Non-Systematic, Non-denominational, Theological eclectic, I'm neither myself. That one or more of my beliefs may happen to match something in this or that "Systematic", is purely coincidental. "Systematics" aren't ALL WRONG, or all right. HEY!!!! they're nothing but "Theology" after all.

Yep

 

[Dizerner]

Why is it always a choice between Arminianism, or Calvinism?

There's always been a third logical alternative.

Historically it has been called "Pelagianism."

But logically people fit into one of the three slots, whether they hate labels or not.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I agree that it is our job to spread the Gospel. However, I also believe in election as described by Spurgeon. It is the ONLY way God can keep his promise that "All that the Father giveth Me shall come to Me" because the Father may give to Jesus someone who is beyond our reach. That person WILL receive the Gospel the same way Paul was given the Gospel by special revelation. To say that God exclusively depends upon men to tell the Gospel is to cripple God's ability to save whom He will.

It is the reach of the Gospel. The Gospel came not by the will of man....It was gifted to man to share with humanity. Not sharing that information is sinful and will require the judgement for those that refuse to do so.

Eze 3:17 Son of man, I have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel: therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me.
Eze 3:18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

I don't believe you are taking this in consideration in your comments above.

Yes. God gave Paul the Gospel by revelation. However, that does create a requirement that all men have the same experience. Not all are apostles. Not all are teachers. Appealing to the uniqueness of Paul's as the standard for everyone is not accurate.

Also, we have the words of Paul. He still preaches "with great plainness of speech".

2Co 3:12 Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: