What's Wrong with Calvinism?

[Helen]

It is imperative you allow Bible to explain Bible. Although none are lost due to sin, as your passage so rightly points out, there are many who are lost due to something else:

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. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.
Matthew 3:16-21

And don't forget that many miss the narrow way. Also that many are called, but few are chosen. Don't forget the sheep and the goats -- that there are those who go into eternal punishment.

All have been rescued from sin. But not all will be in heaven. It's what one does with Christ that makes all the difference.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Helen: It is imperative you allow Bible to explain Bible. Although none are lost due to sin, as your passage so rightly points out, there are many who are lost due to something else:

HP: None are lost due to sin?? From Genesis to revelation God’s contention with man, and the reason for the absence of fellowship, is none other than sin.

Isa 59:2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear. You need to rethink this issue carefully.

Helen: All have been rescued from sin. But not all will be in heaven. It's what one does with Christ that makes all the difference.

HP: Rescued from sin but not in heaven? Scripture teaches no such thing. Christ indeed made the way for any that would hear and obey the gospel to find their eternal home in heaven, but it is not true that all have been rescued from sin. Christ built the bridge, made the way possible, but that in and of itself secures no one in particular from sin. Only as we meet the conditions of repentance and faith will we enter into salvation and be rescued from sin and its corresponding just deserts.

The Calvinist has always felt that the rejection of Christ is the damning sin. In that they stand to be corrected. The rejection of Christ indeed seals the fate of the sinner, but it is not the cause of the malady. Sin separates us from God.

Illustration: If a man lies on a bed dying of cancer, and the doctor walks in and says, “If you follow my prescribed plan, you will not die but live” and the man rejects the counsel of the doctor, was the cause of his death the cancer, or the rejection of he cure? I say he died of the cancer, and rejecting the cure sealed his fate.

Sin is the transgression of a known commandment of God. God sentences man to hell for his sins. If man is fortunate enough to hear the gospel and still rejects it, that will indeed seal his fate, but the damning sin is the willful act of disobedience to God’s moral law that has not been repented for and forsaken

 

[jne1611]

It is imperative you allow Bible to explain Bible. Although none are lost due to sin, as your passage so rightly points out, there are many who are lost due to something else:

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. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.
Matthew 3:16-21

And don't forget that many miss the narrow way. Also that many are called, but few are chosen. Don't forget the sheep and the goats -- that there are those who go into eternal punishment.

All have been rescued from sin. But not all will be in heaven. It's what one does with Christ that makes all the difference.

Unbelief itself is a sin. Unbelief is caused by original sin & unless Spiritual operation takes place, no belief will be found except a superficial one. See John 3:19 - 21. If one comes to God it is because God had produced this!

 

[webdog]

Unbelief itself is a sin. Unbelief is caused by original sin & unless Spiritual operation takes place, no belief will be found except a superficial one. See John 3:19 - 21. If one comes to God it is because God had produced this!

If unbelief is caused by original sin, what was Eve's unbelief in God's words...and belief in the serpents that if she ate of the fruit she would die? Are you claiming she died prior to eating the fruit?

 

[Brother Bob]

The Bible is written to try to get people to "believe". You say sinners are dead and the dead can't do anything but yet the Bible says they can "resist". Well, if they can resist then they can "not resist" and follow the Spirit.

Act 7:51¶Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers [did], so [do] ye.

After you have heard the word of truth and then after you "have believed", then are ye sealed with the Holy Spirit of Promise.

 

[J. Jump]

Brother Bob I know we don't agree often, but we do agree when it comes to Calvinism, but I just wanted to point out Acts 7 is not a good passage to use as Acts 7 is not speaking to eternal salvation. Stephen is addressing saved individuals in his defense, but that's probably for another thread.

The resisting of the Holy Spirit in this passage is not a resisting of eternal salvation, but was a resisting as their fathers resisted, which was a resisting of the Holy Spirit following salvation.

But your principal is correct in that people can resist the Holy Spirit or they can obey and believe the Holy Spirit!

 

[jne1611]

If unbelief is caused by original sin, what was Eve's unbelief in God's words...and belief in the serpents that if she ate of the fruit she would die? Are you claiming she died prior to eating the fruit?

I am claiming that if she indeed had unbelief prior to eating the fruit, then she had sin conceived before she ate and so sin when it was finished brought death, but her unbelief was her sin. If she had not been taken in unbelief, she never would have eaten the fruit.

 

[jne1611]

Follow up

Also, so I don't appear to avoid your question. The context of which my statement was made involves sinners now. And original sin passed on all of us as a result of Adams sin. Hence our unbelief has to be a fruit of it. Adam was sinless & so his choice was made on totally different principals than ours. But it was still a sin to not believe God. Do you agree?

 

[webdog]

I am claiming that if she indeed had unbelief prior to eating the fruit, then she had sin conceived before she ate and so sin when it was finished brought death, but her unbelief was her sin. If she had not been taken in unbelief, she never would have eaten the fruit.

This doesn't coincide with what God said. He said that once the fruit was eaten, then they would die. You are stating that if she didn't believe God and what was said (she didn't), she had sin in her heart prior to eating the fruit. Scripture doesn't teach this. Unbelief can lead to sin, in the same sense temptation can, but in itself is not sin.

 

[jne1611]

This doesn't coincide with what God said. He said that once the fruit was eaten, then they would die. You are stating that if she didn't believe God and what was said (she didn't), she had sin in her heart prior to eating the fruit. Scripture doesn't teach this. Unbelief can lead to sin, in the same sense temptation can, but in itself is not sin.

The Scripture says "whatsoever is not of faith (belief) is sin!

 

[jne1611]

This doesn't coincide with what God said. He said that once the fruit was eaten, then they would die. You are stating that if she didn't believe God and what was said (she didn't), she had sin in her heart prior to eating the fruit. Scripture doesn't teach this. Unbelief can lead to sin, in the same sense temptation can, but in itself is not sin.

I also want to add that you have a very good point that I have never thought of & will look close at. I still regard unbelief in God a sin until you can show Scripture to prove otherwise, but don't think I am bull headed. This has encouraged a study on the subject for me.

 

[webdog]

The Scripture says "whatsoever is not of faith (belief) is sin!

I have heard this Scripture used to show unbelief as being sin. Let me ask you this...do you believe Eve acted out of faith when she ate of the fruit? I believe she had faith in what the serpent told her, hence the reason she ate the fruit. Was her act, then, not sin?

 

[jne1611]

I have heard this Scripture used to show unbelief as being sin. Let me ask you this...do you believe Eve acted out of faith when she ate of the fruit? I believe she had faith in what the serpent told her, hence the reason she ate the fruit. Was her act, then, not sin?

I cant see how you are defending the idea that mistrust of God is not sin. Sure trusting the devil was sin, because it was not trusting God. No way you could put faith in that context without it being sin! But the faith of the passage I quoted is a whole other kind of faith. Surely you can see that. When one trusts any other source than God, it is sin. We are commanded to trust God. Not doing so is disobedience to His command & sin!

 

[webdog]

I cant see how you are defending the idea that mistrust of God is not sin. Sure trusting the devil was sin, because it was not trusting God.

So Eve sinnned when she put her trust in the serpent...and not in God? I seem to recall that she "died" the moment she ate of the fruit, not when she believed the serpent.

Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,
Gen 3:3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"

 

[jne1611]

So Eve sinnned when she put her trust in the serpent...and not in God? I seem to recall that she "died" the moment she ate of the fruit, not when she believed the serpent.

Gen 3:2 And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden,
Gen 3:3 but God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"

I will have to study some more on this. But there is no way that you can say that trusting Satan is not sin. Maybe you can explain how you see that it is not & provide the Scripture that says it is not.

 

[BD17]

I will have to study some more on this. But there is no way that you can say that trusting Satan is not sin. Maybe you can explain how you see that it is not & provide the Scripture that says it is not.

Satan tempted Eve, it was not sin until she ate of the fruit, and gave in to that temptation. Hey Webdog, I think we found another thing we agree on!!

 

[jne1611]

Satan tempted Eve, it was not sin until she ate of the fruit, and gave in to that temptation. Hey Webdog, I think we found another thing we agree on!!

There seems to be a significant amount of truth in this. I am going to study for a while before going back to this subject.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Lets’ see if we can put this thread back on track. It would appear to me that one of the main issues that some Baptists would like to differ with the Calvinistic scheme is limited atonement. Would there be a Baptist on board that would share with us how he or she avoids this L in TULIP, or how it should be or could be changed to be closer in line with truth?

 

[BD17]

Lets’ see if we can put this thread back on track. It would appear to me that one of the main issues that some Baptists would like to differ with the Calvinistic scheme is limited atonement. Would there be a Baptist on board that would share with us how he or she avoids this L in TULIP, or how it should be or could be changed to be closer in line with truth?

It is already the truth there is no need to change it. I love what you say HP, "How do you avoid..." that seems to be the main way people on here and around the world handle situations that go against what THEY want to be true. They say, "I do not like the way that makes God sound so I am going to avoid it, maybe even change it to suit the way I view God. Keep up the good work!!

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BD17: "How do you avoid..." that seems to be the main way people on here and around the world handle situations that go against what THEY want to be true. They say, "I do not like the way that makes God sound so I am going to avoid it, maybe even change it to suit the way I view God.

HP: You must be one of those that do not mind the Calvinistic label. The problem is that many do not like it for they find ‘L’ to be contrary to the clear teachings of the Word of God. It is not that they just don’t like the way it sounds, it is that Scripture clearly refutes it.

While we are on the subject, how do you avoid making God a respecter of persons, limiting His salvation to only atone for a selected few? How is God Just, which by the way is not ‘my opinion’ or ‘the way I like it,’ but rather in direct accordance to the Word of God, if in fact some are condemned to damnation having never had even the least shred of hope for a cure of the state they were born into through no fault of their own and as such impossible for them to change?