Why Calvinism is a bad thing.

[Arial]

Actually its His love not His Sovereignty or justice.

That would mean that God is divided within Himself. That He has one supreme attribute, that being love according to you, that overrides all His other attributes.

Yes, that He is love moves Him to redeem any. It is love that Jesus died on the cross in the place of the believer. And it is not general love, but specific, personal love, for the person. But this must also include His other attributes in equal measure. As to this topic, His sovereignty and His justice.

The penalty for sin is death. That is God's just decree. That is justice. So for God to pardon the sinner simply because Jesus went to the cross and died in their place would not satisfy His justice. It would be unjust, both to all those who are not saved and unjust to Jesus. His dying had to actually do something that justifies forgiving mercy towards the sinner.

And that it did. Jesus, though without sin, took the punishment, the death sentence prescribed against sin, in the place of those who would believe. (That is one reason it must be definite, not piecemeal.) He took in His body the punishment for their sins. Their sins met God's justice as He declared they must. Having met justice, sin no longer has any power to condemn those in Christ. They have already met with justice. On the cross.

 

[Foghorn]

Calvinism has a lot of good emphases, the sinfulness of man, the greatness of God's holiness, and the need and power of Christ's atonement.

Where Calvinism makes a wrong turn, is deciding how God should run his world,

and that it is offensive for God to put his holiness and glory above the well-being of God's creation.

I would agree with you completely if man created God. If He was an imaginary creature as the atheists say.

Ironically, this is what the Calvinists generally accuse others of doing, of being "man-centered," and making doctrines around preferences.

But the truth is, Calvinism sacrifices the love of God and the holiness of God, to collapse all that God allows into God's primary desire, for the sole intent purpose of resolving offense and finding security in removing all free will.

But friend, if you actually knew and understood Calvinism you would know they do not teach there is no free will. Sadly, you misrepresent and hold up a scarecrow for the people.

The fact that God's holiness is more important than my own personal security, and whether God makes sure I'm not a lost person but guarantees everything I selfishly want in salvation, is something my sin nature will never like or agree to.

It is sinful to find our security in attempting to formulate a doctrine that disallows God to sacrifice our personal security for God's own holiness. We can rest in grace and find our security in God's promise, without needing the false security of God desiring and decreeing all evil things and lost souls.

For those Calvinists who defend with doublespeak, I urge them to just be logically consistent, and admit that God does not decree free will choices.

How can you urge anyone to be logically consistent when you are ignorant of the thing you want them to be logically consistent about? It's not to be logically consistent with what you truly want, is it? Your desire is they just agree with you.

 

[Dizerner]

I would agree with you completely if man created God. If He was an imaginary creature as the atheists say.

But friend, if you actually knew and understood Calvinism you would know they do not teach there is no free will. Sadly, you misrepresent and hold up a scarecrow for the people.

How can you urge anyone to be logically consistent when you are ignorant of the thing you want them to be logically consistent about? It's not to be logically consistent with what you truly want, is it? Your desire is they just agree with you.

"Not free" free will is just obfuscating doublespeak.

I may as well say I believe God decrees all things because God decrees some things are not decreed by him.

Doublespeak is not something you can reason with—when you say A, they say NOT A, when you say NOT A, they say A.

It would be more profitable to nail jello to a wall, my friend.

 

[Foghorn]

"Not free" free will is just obfuscating doublespeak.

As long as you desire to use your free will and be that way you will always be ignorant. And you may freely do so.

I may as well say I believe God decrees all things because God decrees some things are not decreed by him.

If you feel that way, you may.

Doublespeak is not something you can reason with—when you say A, they say NOT A, when you say NOT A, they say A.

Sounds like you have been very disappointed debating a Calvinist, or Calvinists. That should be a reason to consider, or, re-consider certain things. Not just give up.

It would be more profitable to nail jello to a wall, my friend.

If you cannot truly understand what you think is so simple, namely, Calvinism. Nailing Jellow to a wall is utterly impossible for you.

 

[GeneZ]

Very eloquently stated!!

thank you...... I appreciate that.
It came at a right moment for me.

 

[GeneZ]

But friend, if you actually knew and understood Calvinism you would know they do not teach there is no free will. Sadly, you misrepresent and hold up a scarecrow for the people.

Tell us what Calvinists teach then?... Instead of saying what they do not teach? Inform us.

I find when asked, Calvinists shy away from giving concrete answers as to what it is, but rather accuse of not being understood.

if you actually knew and understood Calvinism you would know they do not teach there is no free will.

Then teach us, please, what they teach about there being a free will.

I have yet to get a straight answer...

 

[Dizerner]

Welcome to the dark world of compatibilism, where reason and logic no longer apply....

 

[Foghorn]

Tell us what Calvinists teach then?... Instead of saying what they do not teach? Inform us.

As we go along brother, as we go along.

I and others have tried to do so for years on forums, to no success. I have come to realize the best way is to get involved in a discussion and throw a piece of meat in now and then. If too much is thrown in at one time, I see frustration. And respectfully, replies like yours.

I find when asked, Calvinists shy away from giving concrete answers as to what it is, but rather accuse of not being understood.

believe you there. But I am not so sure you know why

But this thread is not between or about you and me so, I won't hijack it.

Then teach us, please, what they teach about there being a free will.

If I am going to teach, i will either accept a student or disagree to teach. At this point, I do not have a desire to teach you.

But I really like you so perhaps another time.

I have yet to get a straight answer...

I am pretty sure you don't deal well with straight answers. Because I am quite sure you have gotten them.

So, for now, let's just disagree to agree. Or, agree to disagree, whichever you prefer.

Blessings

 

[civic]

That would mean that God is divided within Himself. That He has one supreme attribute, that being love according to you, that overrides all His other attributes.

Yes, that He is love moves Him to redeem any. It is love that Jesus died on the cross in the place of the believer. And it is not general love, but specific, personal love, for the person. But this must also include His other attributes in equal measure. As to this topic, His sovereignty and His justice.

The penalty for sin is death. That is God's just decree. That is justice. So for God to pardon the sinner simply because Jesus went to the cross and died in their place would not satisfy His justice. It would be unjust, both to all those who are not saved and unjust to Jesus. His dying had to actually do something that justifies forgiving mercy towards the sinner.

And that it did. Jesus, though without sin, took the punishment, the death sentence prescribed against sin, in the place of those who would believe. (That is one reason it must be definite, not piecemeal.) He took in His body the punishment for their sins. Their sins met God's justice as He declared they must. Having met justice, sin no longer has any power to condemn those in Christ. They have already met with justice. On the cross.

The difference between your theology and mine is yours is centered around man and the fall whereas mine is centered solely upon Gods nature and character within His Being apart from creation, His Innate attributes apart from Creation .

God was not Sovereign, merciful , wrath , grace, just before creation for there were no needs for them .

God is not sovereign within His Being as Triune, or merciful , or wrath. Those are creature attributes relating to creation and the fall .

Since God is Immutable then His love never changes its who He is apart from His creation. His love had no beginning as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

His Sovereignty began when there was something/someone to be Sovereign and rule over.

Theology begins with a proper understanding of Gods nature and character. My theology does not with fallen man, mine begins with God apart from His creation- His Eternal and Unchanging Attributes which are Innate.

hope this helps !!!

 

[Eleazar]

"Not free" free will is just obfuscating doublespeak.

I may as well say I believe God decrees all things because God decrees some things are not decreed by him.

Doublespeak is not something you can reason with—when you say A, they say NOT A, when you say NOT A, they say A.

It would be more profitable to nail jello to a wall, my friend.

That's what duct tape is for. But on second I thought, how's putting jello on the wall logically consistent. This conversation is way too far over my head. Doublespeak I can deal with but jello on the wall, who does that?

 

[civic]

As we go along brother, as we go along.

I and others have tried to do so for years on forums, to no success. I have come to realize the best way is to get involved in a discussion and throw a piece of meat in now and then. If too much is thrown in at one time, I see frustration. And respectfully, replies like yours.

believe you there. But I am not so sure you know why

But this thread is not between or about you and me so, I won't hijack it.




If I am going to teach, i will either accept a student or disagree to teach. At this point, I do not have a desire to teach you.

But I really like you so perhaps another time.

I am pretty sure you don't deal well with straight answers. Because I am quite sure you have gotten them.

So, for now, let's just disagree to agree. Or, agree to disagree, whichever you prefer.

Blessings

Does you signature ( Luther ) work for potheads too since it works quicker than beer and is less filling rofl........

 

[Rockson]

God's righteousness demands justice.
Therefore God is not going to love the arrogant believer.

Sorry but I think your way of thinking about LOVE is fairly shallow. I see no reason why God wouldn't still love what you call arrogant believers. He most certainly would not be very pleased with them at all but such doesn't have to mean he doesn't love them. Natural parents still love their offspring even when they give them heartbreak. Are we saying that we have a higher capacity than God himself? We do know the scripture which says, "If you being evil KNOW HOW .......and HOW MUCH MORE does God?" Lk 11:13

God can not sovereignly love the arrogant.
Nor, will His justice allow it.

It seems you have a focus that God's love is conditional with everything. Even with the willfully ungodly the Bible says he's longsuffering. How could he be that if what you said was true....God didn't love them?

 

[Dizerner]

It seems you have a focus that God's love is conditional with everything. Even with the willfully ungodly the Bible says he's longsuffering. How could he be that if what you said was true....God didn't love them?

Do you believe in hell?!

 

[Foghorn]

Does you signature ( Luther ) work for potheads too since it works quicker than beer and is less filling rofl........

I think if pot heads read it they would take another hit, laugh like beaves, and butt head and say, here....

 

[Eleazar]

I think if pot heads read it they would take another hit, laugh like beaves, and butt head and say, here....

Not drink beer...Oh my... Next thing you know will be watching television and dancing. Definitely can't do weed that's Pharmakeia. Witchcraft I tell you... sorcery it's of the devil.

 

[Dizerner]

Not drink beer...Oh my... Next thing you know will be watching television and dancing. Definitely can't do weed that's Pharmakeia. Witchcraft I tell you... sorcery it's of the devil.

Television can definitely be a drug friend.

And God did not make every green herb for you, I'm sorry.

 

[civic]

Television can definitely be a drug friend.

And God did not make every green herb for you, I'm sorry.

Who did He make them for ?

Everything he made was good correct ?

 

[Eleazar]

Television can definitely be a drug friend.

And God did not make every green herb for you, I'm sorry.

I actually never watch television. Now in the 50s With the Lone Ranger, And The Cisco Kid I was all about TV. I can't even remember the last time I smoked weed had to have been in the '70s. No God didn't make the Herbs for me to abuse them. I wonder if there's any cults that mix up Christianity and drug abuse. Well I'm sure there's a few.

 

[civic]

I actually never watch television. Now in the 50s With the Lone Ranger, And The Cisco Kid I was all about TV. I can't even remember the last time I smoked weed had to have been in the '70s. No God didn't make the Herbs for me to abuse them. I wonder if there's any cults that mix up Christianity and drug abuse. Well I'm sure there's a few.

THC is very effective with Alzheimer’s patients and those with cancer. So it can be used medicinally which is probably better than most other heavy prescription drugs with terrible side effects .

 

[Eleazar]

False characterization on your part.
It is my experience that there are far more hyperCalvinists now dictating the modern direction of Calvinism than ever before.

I just watched White talking about how is glad that he doesn't have to worry about making mistakes preaching the Gospel because of the hyperCalvinist view of Election. We can debate the differences. I usually avoid these types of"contests" because they generally go nowhere.

You are a wise man. And nobody wants to be a "Nowhere Man" Because a nowhere man don't know what he's missing.