Flaws of Calvinism

[Van]

No, wasn't referring to "burn the barn down" as ignoring God's Word, was referring to our normal arguments when we get together. We've had some barn burners haven't we?

Anyway, I totally disagree, and I'm sure you already knew that.

Allow me to ask this question, and thank you, Van, for explaining your position.

In Heb. 6:4-6, How is it possible that a person who was "made partaker of the Holy Spirit" if he should fall away (stop believing) that's it's impossible for him to be renewed unto repentance, if as you say man cannot lose his salvation?

I present my understanding of scripture as clearly as I can. Usually the response is taint so, with no actual rebuttal as to why it taint so.

I have posted that no scripture supports Calvinism, except scripture does support once saved always saved. Here is what the OP said:

​

Preservation of the Saved - Once a person has been transferred into Christ, they undergo spiritual rebirth, with their faith protected by the power of God, and then sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit forever, thus salvation cannot be lost. ​

Now, rather than address the scriptures that clearly prove once saved always saved, you have brought up vague verses where others have read into the verse loss of salvation. All those views are precluded by the passages I have referenced. You cannot cause yourself to be no longer indwelt forever. You cannot cause yourself to not be born anew as a spiritual child of God. You cannot transfer yourself out of being "in Christ." Yet rather than accept the evidence presented, you seem to ignore it, and bring up the well know and often rebutted vague verses.

Obviously I can rebut them all, as I have studied the topic.

I presented my interpretation of Hebrews 3:14-15 and your rebuttal was "I disagree."

Now you want me to explain how Hebrews 6:4-6 does not in any way support your biblically impossible doctrine. And when I do, will you simply say you disagree and bring up yet another vague verse?

Recently a good man was shot and killed by those unwilling to engage in debate with truth and integrity. We must be better than that.

Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance ]since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

First, this passage is referring to people who have heard and understood the gospel, but either have rejected it or did not fully embrace it such that God did not credit their faith as righteousness. Hebrews 6:9 makes clear, this passage is NOT referring to those actually saved, enjoying things (like eternal security) that accompany salvation.

Second, hearing, and understanding the gospel is what is meant by being made (because of the revelation of the gospel) partakers of the Holy Spirit. The inspired word is the work product of the Holy Spirit. What does "tasted" the powers of the age to come. Those would be the three Persons of the trinity, plus the witness of the children of God in my opinion.
Why can those who have rejected, partially or fully, the gospel be restored? Because there is no other gospel, no other path, they must "come to their senses" and stop rejecting Christ crucified.

 

[Van]

I see where someone has claimed "Didomi" (G1325) is not translated as "allow" according to his source. Yes, some translation versions do not translate the Greek word ever as allow. But other do. Thus the implication I made the claim up, was posted, based on little or no study.

No one, not any of our posters, pointed out this claim is blatantly false. We cannot edify if we do not post with truth and integrity.

Does the NASB translate Didomi" as allow? See Acts 2:27.

Does the NKJV translate Didomi as allow? See Acts 13:35

Does the CSB translate Didomi as allow? See Mark 10:37

Does anyone want to say "I was wrong" with truth and integrity?

 

[Zaatar71]

I see where someone has claimed "Didomi" (G1325) is not translated as "allow" according to his source. Yes, some translation versions do not translate the Greek word ever as allow. But other do. Thus the implication I made the claim up, was posted, based on little or no study.

No one, not any of our posters, pointed out this claim is blatantly false. We cannot edify if we do not post with truth and integrity.

Does the NASB translate Didomi" as allow? See Acts 2:27.

I see where someone has claimed "Didomi" (G1325) is not translated as "allow" according to his source. Yes, some translation versions do not translate the Greek word ever as allow. But other do. Thus the implication I made the claim up, was posted, based on little or no study.

No one, not any of our posters, pointed out this claim is blatantly false. We cannot edify if we do not post with truth and integrity.

Does the NASB translate Didomi" as allow? See Acts 2:27.

Does the NKJV translate Didomi as allow? See Acts 13:35

Does the CSB translate Didomi as allow? See Mark 10:37

Does anyone want to say "I was wrong" with truth and integrity?

Does the NKJV translate Didomi as allow? See Acts 13:35

Does the CSB translate Didomi as allow? See Mark 10:37

Does anyone want to say "I was wrong" with truth and integrity?

17 if then the equal gift God did give to them as also to us, having believed upon the Lord Jesus Christ, I -- how was I able to withstand God?'

18 And they, having heard these things, were silent, and were glorifying God, saying, `Then, indeed, also to the nations did God give the reformation to life.'

The repentance that leads to life - Repentance is not a pre-condition as if a man must first by his will determine to repent before he can believe. This passage makes it clear that repentance is not self energized but Spirit energized (God has granted). Men cannot repent relying on their own natural state, for our natural state is adamantly, inveterately opposed to God.


God
theos

has

granted
didōmi

·
ho

repentance
metanoia

that leads

to
eis

life
zōē
.”

 

[Dave G]

Here the defense of Calvinism is based on what someone sees in unreferenced scripture.

I don't think it would do any good to reference the Scriptures that I see stating the things I referenced, Van, as this has already been done in past threads.
Your response to them would probably be the same now as it was then, I'm sorry to say.

The issue is not what a person claims to believe, but on what God's message actually is!

I agree.
So what does this say?

" And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region."

Do we believe what is written, or not?
Further, is there more than one understanding of what is written?
Yes, there is, or we would all be in total agreement with what is written, wouldn't we?

For me, it means that the only reason anyone in the crowd believed Paul's words, was because they were already ordained to eternal life.
That's what I read and understand out of the passage.

 

[Silverhair]

All of us were born on the Highway to hell, and God predestinated Hs own unto salvation, placing them upon highway to heaven

I am curious as to how anyone that God has, according to calvinism, been predestined to be on the highway to heaven can at any time realistically have been on the highway to hell?

 

[Dave G]

When God says "I have many people" He may be referring to believers who would not harm Paul, or He may be referring to people open to God's word, i.e. the fields white for harvest, that need to hear the gospel. But what the phrase does not mean is I have many people I have already chosen for salvation in the city. That view is simply read into the text. There is no actual support for Calvinism anywhere in scripture.

Please help me to understand what you've stated above.
What I'm seeing you say, in essence, is that you can tell people what it doesn't mean, but you cannot tell anyone what it does mean.
I'm confused.

Respectfully,
If you don't know what it does mean, then how is it that you can definitively tell anyone what it doesn't mean?

 

[Dave G]

Calvin's roasting of Servetus....Italian poet Camillo Renato protested: "Neither God nor his spirit have counselled such an action. Christ did not treat those who negated him that way."

I agree.

Neither did the Lord treat anyone the way that the supporters of the Roman Catholic Church did on Saint Bartholomew's Day in 1572...when upwards of an estimated 70,000 French Huguenots ( French Calvinists ) were suddenly killed all across France for no other reason than that they were heretics in the eyes of Rome.

And French humanist Sébastien Chateillon wrote: "To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine, but it is to kill a man." Servetus himself had said: "I consider it a serious matter to kill men because they are in error on some question of scriptural interpretation, when we know that even the elect ones may be led astray into error."

Again, I agree.

That said, in your opinion and since both sides have historically been guilty of bad behaviour ( the Roman Inquisitions many more times as severe and lengthy as what happened at Geneva ), what is the reason for laying the blame for reprehensible treatment squarely at the feet of anyone who seems to believe the Scriptures similarly to what John Calvin did?

The Roman Catholic Church, which has for over 1,500 years taught what closely resembles modern day "Arminianism" with its doctrine of salvation codified by de Molina, burned thousands at the stake and tortured, maimed and killed many thousands more.


I see history relating bad behavior on both sides, and that ought not be so for either side.

 

[Charlie24]

I present my understanding of scripture as clearly as I can. Usually the response is taint so, with no actual rebuttal as to why it taint so.

I have posted that no scripture supports Calvinism, except scripture does support once saved always saved. Here is what the OP said:

​

Preservation of the Saved - Once a person has been transferred into Christ, they undergo spiritual rebirth, with their faith protected by the power of God, and then sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit forever, thus salvation cannot be lost. ​

Now, rather than address the scriptures that clearly prove once saved always saved, you have brought up vague verses where others have read into the verse loss of salvation. All those views are precluded by the passages I have referenced. You cannot cause yourself to be no longer indwelt forever. You cannot cause yourself to not be born anew as a spiritual child of God. You cannot transfer yourself out of being "in Christ." Yet rather than accept the evidence presented, you seem to ignore it, and bring up the well know and often rebutted vague verses.

Obviously I can rebut them all, as I have studied the topic.

I presented my interpretation of Hebrews 3:14-15 and your rebuttal was "I disagree."

Now you want me to explain how Hebrews 6:4-6 does not in any way support your biblically impossible doctrine. And when I do, will you simply say you disagree and bring up yet another vague verse?

Recently a good man was shot and killed by those unwilling to engage in debate with truth and integrity. We must be better than that.

Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance ]since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

First, this passage is referring to people who have heard and understood the gospel, but either have rejected it or did not fully embrace it such that God did not credit their faith as righteousness. Hebrews 6:9 makes clear, this passage is NOT referring to those actually saved, enjoying things (like eternal security) that accompany salvation.

Second, hearing, and understanding the gospel is what is meant by being made (because of the revelation of the gospel) partakers of the Holy Spirit. The inspired word is the work product of the Holy Spirit. What does "tasted" the powers of the age to come. Those would be the three Persons of the trinity, plus the witness of the children of God in my opinion.
Why can those who have rejected, partially or fully, the gospel be restored? Because there is no other gospel, no other path, they must "come to their senses" and stop rejecting Christ crucified.

We have had such heated arguments, Van, the reason I didn't throw in my 2 cents worth. I was curious as to how you viewed those verses because I do agree with you quite often, I guess you didn't know that.

We surly disagree here.

When Hebrews was written there were many Jewish men turning back on Christ, and going back to temple worship. Hebrews was written to these Jews, making a case for Christ, that He is the mediator of a New Covenant. I believe the author was Paul, but regardless, the author was warning them in several places in the Book that there is no other way to God but through Christ.

They are being warned that in abandoning Christ they cannot come back to repentance, they have insulted and rejected the indwelling Holy Spirit, they have committed the unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirt.

There are several verses in Scripture that teach man can lose his salvation, but I knew this would be another barn burner so I just decided to lay back and let it go.

 

[Van]

SNIP
.”

I did not see an "Oops" but rather a change of subject. God allows repentance by not hardening the heart. That is the issue. I supported the view by explaining allow is the meaning in the context of repentance. I supported it by showing how God disallows repentance in those whose heart He hardens. such a Judas. Your response was the claim repentance is "Spirit energized" but no verse was cited. The gift was given "after believing" so the gift was"repentance into life" or more explicitly, the gift was transferring the person spiritually into Christ where they were made alive together with Christ.

There is no actual support anywhere in scripture for the false doctrines of Calvinism.

 

[Van]

I don't think it would do any good to reference the Scriptures that I see stating the things I referenced, Van, as this has already been done in past threads.
Your response to them would probably be the same now as it was then, I'm sorry to say.

I agree.
So what does this say?

" And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.
49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region."

Do we believe what is written, or not?
Further, is there more than one understanding of what is written?
Yes, there is, or we would all be in total agreement with what is written, wouldn't we?

For me, it means that the only reason anyone in the crowd believed Paul's words, was because they were already ordained to eternal life.
That's what I read and understand out of the passage.

Again, you seem to accept one translation as indicting exactly what God's word says. But that is absurd. The word translated in your version as "ordained" refers to a mutually agreed upon arrangement. You simply deny this truth, but offer no evidence. As many as took Paul's direction to eternal life believed. They agreed with the requirements of the gospel of Christ, such as everyone believing into Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Next you fall back on the false doctrine of being predestined to salvation, when nothing in scripture supports that view. Only three things of salvation are predestined according to scripture, once a person is transferred into Christ. (1) to be conformed to the image of Christ. (2) To be bodily redeemed at Christ's second coming. And (3) to receive our inheritance of eternal life. That is it.

 

[Van]

Please help me to understand what you've stated above.
What I'm seeing you say, in essence, is that you can tell people what it doesn't mean, but you cannot tell anyone what it does mean.
I'm confused.

Respectfully,
If you don't know what it does mean, then how is it that you can definitively tell anyone what it doesn't mean?

Once again addressing me and claiming personal incredulity. Just because I could not rule out one of the two possible meanings, does not mean I did not conclude it means one of them. The issue is your view cannot be found in scripture, but must be read into scripture. Please support your view rather than change the subject to your claims concerning my behavior.

 

[Van]

We have had such heated arguments, Van, the reason I didn't throw in my 2 cents worth. I was curious as to how you viewed those verses because I do agree with you quite often, I guess you didn't know that.

We surly disagree here.

When Hebrews was written there were many Jewish men turning back on Christ, and going back to temple worship. Hebrews was written to these Jews, making a case for Christ, that He is the mediator of a New Covenant. I believe the author was Paul, but regardless, the author was warning them in several places in the Book that there is no other way to God but through Christ.

They are being warned that in abandoning Christ they cannot come back to repentance, they have insulted and rejected the indwelling Holy Spirit, they have committed the unforgivable sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirt.

There are several verses in Scripture that teach man can lose his salvation, but I knew this would be another barn burner so I just decided to lay back and let it go.

There are no verses in Scripture that teach man can lose his salvation, none, zip, nada. All the usual verses address loss of the rewards of salvation.

You still did not address the verses where God changes us spiritually which cannot be undone by human effort.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Calvin's roasting of Servetus....Italian poet Camillo Renato protested: "Neither God nor his spirit have counselled such an action. Christ did not treat those who negated him that way." And French humanist Sébastien Chateillon wrote: "To kill a man is not to protect a doctrine, but it is to kill a man." Servetus himself had said: "I consider it a serious matter to kill men because they are in error on some question of scriptural interpretation, when we know that even the elect ones may be led astray into error."

I'm fairly certain that Calvin didn't kill Servetus, he agreed with the decision, but rejected the method, ultimately it was the authorities in Geneva that killed Servetus. It's not justifiable either way, but we are not Old Testament Israel, and Theonomy does not work for any nation (much as I'd like it to).

 

[Silverhair]

I present my understanding of scripture as clearly as I can. Usually the response is taint so, with no actual rebuttal as to why it taint so.

I have posted that no scripture supports Calvinism, except scripture does support once saved always saved. Here is what the OP said:

​

Preservation of the Saved - Once a person has been transferred into Christ, they undergo spiritual rebirth, with their faith protected by the power of God, and then sealed in Christ with the Holy Spirit forever, thus salvation cannot be lost. ​

Now, rather than address the scriptures that clearly prove once saved always saved, you have brought up vague verses where others have read into the verse loss of salvation. All those views are precluded by the passages I have referenced. You cannot cause yourself to be no longer indwelt forever. You cannot cause yourself to not be born anew as a spiritual child of God. You cannot transfer yourself out of being "in Christ." Yet rather than accept the evidence presented, you seem to ignore it, and bring up the well know and often rebutted vague verses.

Obviously I can rebut them all, as I have studied the topic.

I presented my interpretation of Hebrews 3:14-15 and your rebuttal was "I disagree."

Now you want me to explain how Hebrews 6:4-6 does not in any way support your biblically impossible doctrine. And when I do, will you simply say you disagree and bring up yet another vague verse?

Recently a good man was shot and killed by those unwilling to engage in debate with truth and integrity. We must be better than that.

Hebrews 6:4-6 NASB
For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance ]since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

First, this passage is referring to people who have heard and understood the gospel, but either have rejected it or did not fully embrace it such that God did not credit their faith as righteousness. Hebrews 6:9 makes clear, this passage is NOT referring to those actually saved, enjoying things (like eternal security) that accompany salvation.

Second, hearing, and understanding the gospel is what is meant by being made (because of the revelation of the gospel) partakers of the Holy Spirit. The inspired word is the work product of the Holy Spirit. What does "tasted" the powers of the age to come. Those would be the three Persons of the trinity, plus the witness of the children of God in my opinion.
Why can those who have rejected, partially or fully, the gospel be restored? Because there is no other gospel, no other path, they must "come to their senses" and stop rejecting Christ crucified.

Heb_6:4-6
For it is impossible in the case of those
who have once been enlightened,G5461 (G5685) {cf Heb_10:32; Eph_1:18; 2Ti_1:10 } [to enlighten, spiritually, imbue with saving knowledge]
{and who} have tasted G1089 (G5666) the heavenly gift, {cf Heb_2:9; 1Pe_2:3; Mat_16:28; Joh_8:52} [Metaphorically, to experience, prove, partake of ]
{and who} have become G1096 (G5679) partakers G3353 of the Holy Spirit, {cf Heb_3:1; Heb_3:14; Eph_3:6 G4830 from G4862 and G3353} [begin to be][sharing in]
{and who} have tasted G1089 (G5666) the good word of God and the miracles of the coming age,
and then have committed apostasy,G3895 {2Th_2:3; Act_21:21} [to fall away (from the true faith): from worship of Jehovah]
to renew G340 them again to repentance, G3341 [a change of mind]
since
they are crucifying the Son of God for themselves G1438 all over again
and holding him up to contempt.

A glorious truth ~ yet a sobering one as well, for Scripture indicates it is possible to wander away once too often. In every way the language used in Heb_6:4-6 fits true Christians with remarkable ease. The effort to see here mere professors of the faith as over against true converts is somewhat forced. There can come a day when a person can wander away to the point where his heart becomes hardened.

 

[Silverhair]

I'm fairly certain that Calvin didn't kill Servetus, he agreed with the decision, but rejected the method, ultimately it was the authorities in Geneva that killed Servetus. It's not justifiable either way, but we are not Old Testament Israel, and Theonomy does not work for any nation (much as I'd like it to).

Eight years later, Calvin was still defending himself against criticism and still advocating the burning of heretics. In a 1561 letter to the Marquis de Poet, high chamberlain to the King of Navarre, Calvin advises sternly:

Do not fail to rid the country of those zealous scoundrels who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard. {John Calvin to the Marquis de Poet, in The Works of Voltaire (Chicago: E. R. Dumont,1901), 4:89; quoted in Vance, Other Side, 95, who gives two other sources for this quote.}


A year later (just two years before his own death), Calvin again justifies
Servetus’s death, while at the same time acknowledging that he was responsible: “And what crime was it of mine if our Council at my exhortation...took vengeance upon his execrable blasphemies (emphasis added)? {Schaff, History, 8:690–91}

You can try to excuse Calvin but history proves you wrong. He was not a Christian man in any since of the word.

 

[Van]

Heb_6:4-6
For it is impossible in the case of those
who have once been enlightened,G5461 (G5685) {cf Heb_10:32; Eph_1:18; 2Ti_1:10 } [to enlighten, spiritually, imbue with saving knowledge]
{and who} have tasted G1089 (G5666) the heavenly gift, {cf Heb_2:9; 1Pe_2:3; Mat_16:28; Joh_8:52} [Metaphorically, to experience, prove, partake of ]
{and who} have become G1096 (G5679) partakers G3353 of the Holy Spirit, {cf Heb_3:1; Heb_3:14; Eph_3:6 G4830 from G4862 and G3353} [begin to be][sharing in]
{and who} have tasted G1089 (G5666) the good word of God and the miracles of the coming age,
and then have committed apostasy,G3895 {2Th_2:3; Act_21:21} [to fall away (from the true faith): from worship of Jehovah]
to renew G340 them again to repentance, G3341 [a change of mind]
since
they are crucifying the Son of God for themselves G1438 all over again
and holding him up to contempt.

A glorious truth ~ yet a sobering one as well, for Scripture indicates it is possible to wander away once too often. In every way the language used in Heb_6:4-6 fits true Christians with remarkable ease. The effort to see here mere professors of the faith as over against true converts is somewhat forced. There can come a day when a person can wander away to the point where his heart becomes hardened.

1) Enlighten means to imbue with saving knowledge? False. They were not saved and therefore did not have the things that accompany salvation.

2) Yes "taste" refers to experiencing something in the now, but does not have lasting effect. Jesus tasted death, but arose!

3) Partakers of the Holy Spirit are those who have heard and heeded to a degree the message of grace provided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

4) Once in Christ, a divine action of transfer, no one can re-transfer back out.

5) Yes, those who have rejected the gospel must change their minds.

 

[Silverhair]

1) Enlighten means to imbue with saving knowledge? False. They were not saved and therefore did not have the things that accompany salvation.

2) Yes "taste" refers to experiencing something in the now, but does not have lasting effect. Jesus tasted death, but arose!

3) Partakers of the Holy Spirit are those who have heard and heeded to a degree the message of grace provided by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

4) Once in Christ, a divine action of transfer, no one can re-transfer back out.

5) Yes, those who have rejected the gospel must change their minds.

That is your opinion Van but the text IMHO does not support your view. So we disagree.

So it would seem that you hold to the calvinist view that those that turn away were never really saved in the first place. Again a view not supported by scripture.

Apostasy is a sin which can be committed only by believers, not by those who are deceived but by those who knowingly, willfully, and maliciously turn against the Lord.

Apostasy is after all by definition falling away or rebellion against something one has had a part in and partaken of ~ namely the faith. One can’t fall away from something one never stood for.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

You can try to excuse Calvin but history proves you wrong. He was not a Christian man in any since of the word.

I didn't "excuse" Calvin. You need to read my whole statement and not just frame it in a way that best suits you. As to whether Calvin was saved or not doesn't actually deal with the theological beliefs that predated him, nor the scripture cited for said beliefs.

 

[Brightfame52]

@Silverhair

Apostasy is a sin which can be committed only by believers, not by those who are deceived but by those who knowingly, willfully, and maliciously turn against the Lord.

Correction, they professed to be believers, they identified with believers, but werent true believers by the Holy Spirit. They were what Jesus called stony ground believers but had no root in Grace and sooner or later they fall away Matt 13 20-21

20 But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

Lk 8 13

13 They on the rock are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

 

[Dave G]

Again, you seem to accept one translation as indicting exactly what God's word says.

Yes, I do.
I see no reason to abandon what has been God's word in English for over 400 years now, and has served my brothers and sisters in the faith for all of that time.

The word translated in your version as "ordained" refers to a mutually agreed upon arrangement.

Respectfully, I disagree.
My Bible says, "ordained", which also means, "appointed", "commissioned", "set forth", "determined".

There may be others who define it as you do, but you're the only one that I've ever seen who defines it that way, Van.