Calvinism and the Love of God

[DrJamesAch]

You're so awesome.



You're so 'loving'.



You're so hype.



You're such a legend.



You're such a winner



You're so totally lacking for any concern for first impression dentures



You're such a victor. So perceptive & cute, it's just awesoml.

Awe that's so touching. The cute part was a little creepy but you're making progress:thumbs:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

The non-cal claim that the cals always distort, twist, ignore, redefine, ...

It does seem that there is plenty of that claim to slather all over the toast of the non-cal argument.

God hardening isn't really God hardening.

God blinding isn't really God blinding.

God faith isn't really God faith.

and the list could go on.

Abraham wasn't chosen of God - Abraham chose God.

Joseph wasn't chosen of God - Joseph chose God.

Joshua wasn't chosen of God - Joshua chose God.

David wasn't chosen of God - David chose God.

And the list could go on.

David wasn't specifically made in his mother's womb - it was all chance and choice.

John the Baptizer didn't respond in the womb at the presence of Mary - it was all chance and choice.

Jesus didn't personally select the twelve - it must have been by chance and opportunity for two were to betray Him.

Saul wasn't personally struck down on the road to Damascus that only he understood what was spoken - it was all chance and choice.

John was the only one of them that died of old age - that was all chance and choice.

and the list could go on.

The point being, that all schemes have certain weakness and discomforting areas.


Not one scheme taught be either Joseph Arminian, John Calvin or any other scholar of the present or past has total claim on complete unbiased truth.

Even in the modern time you have personal history that sets the scene of the viewpoint.

The OP doesn't present anything that hasn't been refuted and soundly by folks with a different view.

That the author refuses to admit to that refutation is because it would mean being obliged to move to a different area to see the view differently.

Amen!!:thumbs:

 

[12strings]

No Calvinist can be honest to their theology, and tell any unconverted sinner that God loves them with a straight face, and that is THE biggest problem with Calvinism is their total distorted view of the nature of God. The Calvinist explains the universal love of God in terms of "the rain falls on the just and the unjust" as if MATERIAL BLESSINGS compared to ETERNAL DAMNATION proves the love of God.

"Hey sinner, God sends rain on your land and he says whosoever will may come even though you must be elect to be saved. If you want to come you can, but you won't want to come because you're not elect".

So if a calvinist sees a scripture that says God loves all people, and accepts that scritpure...and then sees another scripture that says God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, and actually thinks that it means God chose US...not just chose Christ...and he accepts both verses as true...what alternative does he have?

Instead of asking "How would a God of perfect love express His sovereignty?" the Calvinist asks, "How does a sovereign God love?"

Both of these are valid questions. One is not more valid than another, unless we somehow believe that Something fundamental in God's attributes changed when he created the world...That he was not sovereign...and then all the sudden he was.

The nature of a perfect loving God can not WANT and DESIRE the damnation of sinners for eternity (2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23). God must judge sin, but sin does not have to exist for God to prove He is God. God COULD HAVE made the "effectual" call to ALL, but according to Calvinism, He didn't WANT to, and God arbitrarily chose to WANT to save some, and DESIRE the damnation of the rest. The caricature that Calvinism has created of God is one that depends on evil to prove His sovereignty, and therefore evil is a necessary element in the demonstration of God's sovereignty.

Cal or non-cal, the simple fact is that if you agree with God's perfect knowledge of future events...then you must conclude that God created a whole bunch of people that HE KNEW would reject him and spend eternity separated from him...He knew it, and he created them anyway. Non-cal theology does not fix this problem.

Put in a more personal way, one poster on here says...

If Calvinism is true, and my son is not elect, but I desire him to be saved and would do anything to bring him to salvation, then I love my son more than God loves him...

But on the flip side, if Arminianism is true, and My son is stubbornly rebellious, and I knew if he didn't repent he would go to hell...I as a loving Father would do ANYTHING to change his mind...if I had the power to forcefully overcome his stubborn will for his own good, I would do it! If Arminianism is true, and God DOES have the power to overcome his will, but chooses not to out of respect for his free will, then I love my son more than God loves him.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have always been open to teaching. My recent endeavour has proven that. But, one can't discuss scriptures with those whose mind is closed/settled, and NOT willing to at least search the opposing view at least some.

I agree totally :thumbsup:

 

[kyredneck]

Awe that's so touching. The cute part was a little creepy but you're making progress:thumbs:

And, you're so 'Doctorly'.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I have the feeling I am wearing "milkbone underwear" and thronged by a bunch of rabid dogs....:smilewinkgrin:

Absolutely not....your in a good place where you can grow in the Lord....nothing wrong with that brother. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[12strings]

I have the feeling I am wearing "milkbone underwear" and thronged by a bunch of rabid dogs....:smilewinkgrin:

Even Though I grew up less than a mile from WV, I don't think I understand this analogy...anyway, I recommend Hanes, and not hanging out with rabid dogs.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Here is my question....If the Doc / Shadow Warrior (LOL) is so ready to make war on Calvinists, then why choose BB to vent his rants? I dont have to point out that there are other Internet forums that are far more hard core Calvinist than this one for throwing bombs, like The Calvinist Cafe & The Puritan Forum -- Hint, Hint, (Where there is a Marine Lieutenant Colonel ready to do battle ... Im sure he would be amused). :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Even Though I grew up less than a mile from WV, I don't think I understand this analogy...anyway, I recommend Hanes, and not hanging out with rabid dogs.

... cause you will get infected with some nasty crud:smilewinkgrin:

 

[kyredneck]

Here is my question....If the Doc / Shadow Warrior (LOL) is so ready to make war on Calvinists, then why choose BB to vent his rants? I dont have to point out that there are other Internet forums that are far more hard core Calvinist than this one for throwing bombs, like The Calvinist Cafe & The Puritan Forum -- Hint, Hint, (Where there is a Marine Lieutenant Colonel ready to do battle ... Im sure he would be amused). :smilewinkgrin:

Don't know about the Café, but I seriously doubt PB would tolerate this troublemaker, he would be short-lived there.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Don't know about the Café, but I seriously doubt PB would tolerate this troublemaker, he would be short-lived there.

I got a strong feeling that he has already traveled there & didnt make it through coffee.

 

[agedman]

Good luck with that Willis...we are all searching & you know what Fletcher, you are on the right path...instead of all this Calvinist / non Calvinist BS that is devisive, you are now thinking with an open mind & an open Bible. Praise God for that. :thumbs:

That is always the best.

After all the ultimate teacher is the Holy Spirit, and He will always use the Scriptures for truth and principles in practical living experiences.


For those who would like a Scripture passage for the above sentence of the wisdom the Holy Spirit imparts to the teachable believer:

Proverbs 3:

My son, do not forget my teaching,
But let your heart keep my commandments;
2 For length of days and years of life
And peace they will add to you.
3 Do not let kindness and truth leave you;
Bind them around your neck,
Write them on the tablet of your heart.
4 So you will find favor and good repute
In the sight of God and man.
5 Trust in the Lord with all your heart
And do not lean on your own understanding.
6 In all your ways acknowledge Him,
And He will make your paths straight.
7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
Fear the Lord and turn away from evil.
8 It will be healing to your body
And refreshment to your bones.
9 Honor the Lord from your wealth
And from the first of all your produce;
10 So your barns will be filled with plenty
And your vats will overflow with new wine.
11 My son, do not reject the discipline of the Lord
Or loathe His reproof,
12 For whom the Lord loves He reproves,
Even as a father corrects the son in whom he delights.

13 How blessed is the man who finds wisdom
And the man who gains understanding.
14 For her profit is better than the profit of silver
And her gain better than fine gold.
15 She is more precious than jewels;
And nothing you desire compares with her.
16 Long life is in her right hand;
In her left hand are riches and honor.
17 Her ways are pleasant ways
And all her paths are peace.
18 She is a tree of life to those who take hold of her,
And happy are all who hold her fast.
19 The Lord by wisdom founded the earth,
By understanding He established the heavens.
20 By His knowledge the deeps were broken up
And the skies drip with dew.
21 My son, let them not vanish from your sight;
Keep sound wisdom and discretion,
22 So they will be life to your soul
And adornment to your neck.
23Then you will walk in your way securely
And your foot will not stumble.
24 When you lie down, you will not be afraid;
When you lie down, your sleep will be sweet.
25Do not be afraid of sudden fear
Nor of the onslaught of the wicked when it comes;
26 For the Lord will be your confidence
And will keep your foot from being caught.

27 Do not withhold good from those to whom it is due,
When it is in your power to do it.
28 Do not say to your neighbor, “Go, and come back,
And tomorrow I will give it,”
When you have it with you.
29 Do not devise harm against your neighbor,
While he lives securely beside you.
30 Do not contend with a man without cause,
If he has done you no harm.
31 Do not envy a man of violence
And do not choose any of his ways.
32 For the devious are an abomination to the Lord;
But He is intimate with the upright.
33 The curse of the Lord is on the house of the wicked,
But He blesses the dwelling of the righteous.
34 Though He scoffs at the scoffers,
Yet He gives grace to the afflicted.
35 The wise will inherit honor,
But fools display dishonor.

​

 

[agedman]

Now let's see if you can actually show how the post does NOT show a contradiction as stated, instead of resorting to the typical Calvinist fallacy of "I'm right, you're wrong. I win. See I told you were refuted". :sleep::sleep::sleep:

OH, Please, Please.

Go back and reread, and post EXACTLY were I stated "I'm right, you're wrong. I win. See I told you were refuted."

You can't.


Sometimes folks seem to just explode without even looking for truth in what a person who has the audacity to oppose the thinking on some thread when reading a post on another thread.

Do not some assume that everything that doesn't agree with the view is heretical teaching?

Do not some contend because they just can't stand to conduct a discourse with someone - not thinking first of what was actually stated - because of some preconceived view based upon the experiences, education, nature and nurture of that person.


So, go back and post exactly were I stated those exact words.

Of course, I could use the typical non-cal deluge of inaccuracies that is spouted without merit - we all know the list: demean the poster, disparage other views, twist the Scriptures to mean what they don't by redefining terms, constructing strawman arguments, ...

All of these and more the non-cal group uses, too.

The non-cal's are just as guilty as the cal group they seek to demean.

Like I stated, "It does seem that there is plenty of that claim to slather all over the toast of the non-cal argument."

 

[agedman]

AH yes, the "it's refuted because I said so argument". You can't even get Mr. Arminian's first name right let alone have an accurate grasp on the differences between Arminians, Calvinists, and Non Calvinists.

You are right, I missed his first name.

It wouldn't be funny except that WE BOTH are wrong,

It was James (English version of Jacobus) Arminius.

In your haste to blanket out any truth, you yourself are found wanting.

Do you have the veracity to express your own error?

 

[agedman]

I have the feeling I am wearing "milkbone underwear" and thronged by a bunch of rabid dogs....:smilewinkgrin:

That is hilarious!:laugh::laugh:

Can I use it, too?

I wonder what my wife's reaction would be if I said that when she has her "time to straighten out hubby" days, weeks, months ----- eons. raying:

 

[Mexdeaf]

Here is my question....If the Doc / Shadow Warrior (LOL) is so ready to make war on Calvinists, then why choose BB to vent his rants? I dont have to point out that there are other Internet forums that are far more hard core Calvinist than this one for throwing bombs, like The Calvinist Cafe & The Puritan Forum -- Hint, Hint, (Where there is a Marine Lieutenant Colonel ready to do battle ... Im sure he would be amused). :smilewinkgrin:

Narcissistic personality, perhaps? He comes across like that. I'd love to see him over on the Cafe or PF.

 

[Yeshua1]

The question was asked elsewhere about whether or not the sky is really blue as related to a debate about the love of God. So I will restate my answer for a primary post.

Is the Sky blue or not?

This depends on how one understands perceptions, actual reality, and the laws of contradiction.

If I said that the sky is blue and then said that the sky is NEVER blue, that is an explicit contradiction.

If I said that the sky is blue, and then said sky is not blue, that is an apparent contradiction but it can be explained because of surrounding circumstances like the sky turns black at night time, or turns red during bad weather (Matt 16:2).

An exception to the first analogy is for a person that is color blind or has a vision problem that confuses colors. THAT person can honestly say, "the sky is not blue" because he truly can not see the correct color of the sky. But the argument does not alter the truth about the sky, the problem isn't the sky, it's the physical ailment the person suffers from.

What the Calvinist does it load statements among explicit contradictions. The Calvinist view of the love of God is a perfect example where the Calvinists claim that God makes a "Bona Fide Offer" of salvation to all sinners, and that God offers Himself in good faith.

CORE CALVINISM:

1. Only those elected can actually accept the offer of salvation
2. Not all are elect
3. Not all persons can actually accept the offer of salvation and be saved.

[Bona Fide Offer]

4. God makes a bona fide offer to all persons
5. A bona fide effort is an offer that can actually be accepted by the person to whom it is offered
6. All persons can actually accept the offer of salvation and be saved.

The bona fide offer MUST conclude that all persons can accept the offer, which leads to the conclusion that all persons can (not will) accept the offer and be saved. Number 6 is a blatant and explicit contradiction with Number 3.

This in turn forces Calvinists to explain terms ambigously by flip flopping between compatibalist and libertarian views of freedom.

John Calvin:

"There is the general call, by which God invites all equally to Himself through the outward preaching of the word-even to those to whom He holds it out as a savor of death and as the occasion of severer condemnation. The other kind of call is special which he designs for the most part to give to the believer alone..yet sometimes he also causes those whom he illumines only for a time to partake of it; and then he justly forsakes them on account of their ungratefulness and strikes them with even greater blindness" -Institutes 3.24.8

God COULD HAVE determined those under the general call to have responded, but yet does not so that He may punish them MORE SEVERELY. So the Calvinist here ascribes LIBERTARIAN FREEDOM to the reprobate sinner in his rejection of the gospel, and compatibalist freedom when attempting to demonstrate that those whom receive the special call can not resist the grace of God.

CALVINISM MAINTAINS CREDIBILITY BY BIFURCATING BETWEEN TERMS OF THE UNIVERSAL LOVE OF GOD THAT THEIR THEOLOGY DOES NOT SUPPORT.

As Calvinist DA Carson points out,

"When I have preached in Reformed circles, I have often been asked the question, 'do you feel free to tell unbelievers that God loves them?' ...OF COURSE I tell them that God loves them"

No Calvinist can be honest to their theology, and tell any unconverted sinner that God loves them with a straight face, and that is THE biggest problem with Calvinism is their total distorted view of the nature of God. The Calvinist explains the universal love of God in terms of "the rain falls on the just and the unjust" as if MATERIAL BLESSINGS compared to ETERNAL DAMNATION proves the love of God.

"Hey sinner, God sends rain on your land and he says whosoever will may come even though you must be elect to be saved. If you want to come you can, but you won't want to come because you're not elect".

As Walls points out in his analogy:

"A scientist holds an experiment for 30 years where he gives them money, the best food, the best living arrangements, and then at the end of those 30 years gives them a chemical that kills them. Did he REALLY love them merely because he provided good things for them for all those years?"

Calvinists deceitfully tell sinners God loves them in a manner that they will understand, that is compatible with their view of love , when the Calvinist does not truly believe that God loves them.

Calvinism vacillates between things that God COULD do, but does not define the character of God in terms of what God WOULD do. Instead of asking "How would a God of perfect love express His sovereignty?" the Calvinist asks, "How does a sovereign God love?"

Calvinism views God in primary terms of sovereignty. However, sovereignty implies Kingship, and God was not ruling over anyone before He created anything. But before God created anything and was therefore sovereign over creation, there was love among the 3 persons of the Trinity. The nature of a perfect loving God can not WANT and DESIRE the damnation of sinners for eternity (2 Peter 3:9, Ezekiel 18:23). God must judge sin, but sin does not have to exist for God to prove He is God. God COULD HAVE made the "effectual" call to ALL, but according to Calvinism, He didn't WANT to, and God arbitrarily chose to WANT to save some, and DESIRE the damnation of the rest. The caricature that Calvinism has created of God is one that depends on evil to prove His sovereignty, and therefore evil is a necessary element in the demonstration of God's sovereignty.

That is a fundamentally gross caricature of the very nature of God and the love that existed within the Trinity before God was sovereign over creation.

God's love is primarily towards those He is in a covenant relationship with!

must God love all people equally, or even at all?

 

[preacher4truth]

I've learned 2 things in this thread:

1) Convicted1 is coming along just fine.

2) Ach? Not so much. Ach continues to get pummeled with truth from the 'Calvinists'.

 

[saturneptune]

You're so wearisome.
You're so 'loving'.
You're so hypocritical.
You're such a legend in your own mind. The 'Calvinist slayer' of all 'Calvinist slayers'
You're such a whiner and a pot calling the kettle black.
You're so totally lacking for any concern for first impressions of visitors to this site.
You're such a victim. So persecuted, it's just awful.

This person should have been banned on day one. Not one edifying or meaningful post has come out of his keyboard.

 

[saturneptune]

First of all, the "Dr" calls anyone who believes in God's sovereignty and grace a "Calvinist," even when he knows many on that side despise the label. It is nothing but a tool to irritate. Secondly, for all the training in Scripture he claims to have acquired, he turns right around and denies the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the attributes They need to be God, as close as man can understand His nature.

The "Dr" relegates God to a status of being unable to control His Creation, basically leaderless. God is unable to exercise his sovereignty and grace, and needs the help of man to achieve His goals. Think about this poster singing "For the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods, in His hands are the depths of the earth and the heights of the mountains are His." He would sing "In His hands are small pot holes, and I will let man invent drilling machines to reach the depths of the earth, and the heights of the hills will turn into mountains when man heaps more dirt on them."

The same God that made the earth revolve around the sun at an exact distance for life, the complex closed systems to sustain life we have here on earth, the rest of the universe, all created by the Lord, and God needs man to carry out His plan.

So tell us, when Christ was on the cross, did He carry to whole burden, or was it too much for Him and the thieves on either side of Him took some of the load?

Have you really read the Bible? Was the Holy Spirit there with you when you did?

You can cite all the cut and paste articles you want, God is God, and not some lesser being. Every breath we take is a gift of God, and without Him, not another keystroke would come from your ingenious mind.

As I have said before, and stand four square behind it, you can make your posts as long as you want, they ring hollow.