What's Wrong with Calvinism?

[Jarthur001]

Hello Bob,

Matt 6
24No man can serve two masters........

When 2 things conflict, one will always rule over the other. The scenario was set-forth in the story of Cain showing Gods will toward man that His is NOT WILLING FOR ANY TO PERISH, and Gods giving to man FREEWILL to choose.

The outcome in this case from Bobs standpoint is mans freewill. According to Bobs view, though Gods will is that all man be save, God will not over step/over power the will of man to make sure His will come about. God places more value on mans freewill then He does on His own will.

So...Mans will wins out in this scenario as we see from Bobs words below…

Bob makes clear his view..

More precisely - if we use "actual quotes" then

#1. God is "NOT WILLING THAT ANY should perish but that ALL should come to repentance".

#2. That INCLUDES Judas and Cain and King Saul and ...

#3. I never stated that ANYONE is in hell today.

#4. God was NOT WILLING that Lucifer or any of the Angels should fall or that Adam should fall. But He WAS WILLING - in fact INSISTENT on FREE WILL.

As shown above....God is NOT WILLING.....for (bad things)..

BUT...

GOD IS MORE WILLING in fact INSISTENT to give up His will..(what He really wants) in order to follow/act out mans freewill.

In the end mans will controls/rules over Gods will. You think this is to wrongly stated…hang in there, we shall see more.

Bob goes on and says...

SOME then freely CHOSE to fall -- HENCE the outcome is NOT what God wanted - willed to happen - it is the outcome that He foreknew as He sovereignly CHOSE Free WILL.

As shown above....God is NOT WILLING.....for (bad things)..

but...

Under freewill...SOME freely CHOSE...HENCE GOD gives up HIS will and follows what man has choosen....
Bob goes on to say...God chose what man has chose for God knew before hand what man would choose and because God gave up His will (what He really wants) so that He can act out what man has choosen. In other words. We could see this in a few areas, but only looking at one...God elects to salvation, for He must act out what He know man will do. Tis mans freewill that controls God in this great model.

thus we have this statement....

Has has been stated repeatedly it is the FREE WILL model that fully demonstrates an outcome that is NOT what God WANTED though He fully foreknew it -- because He SOVEREIGNLY CHOSE - free will as the baseline rule for His Creation.

and there we have it friends…….

Thus in this model as stated above MANs will RULES over GODS will.

Bob adds...

As has been pointed out - each time the Free Will element is brought up Calvinists pretend they don't understand it - when in fact what they really don't understand is "how to BE God"

No..I understand your view fully.

Bob ends with...

Thank you for demonstrating that point again. (To be fair I really should be paying you to do it.)

NO NO..thank you for showing the POWER of God in your model.




In Christ...James

 

[jne1611]

HP:I sure like the spirit you show. I took no offense. I indeed do learn everyday, and have to rework the way I present things on a regular basis. I believe with all my heart that even in our disagreements, God will receive the glory in due season if we will remain humble before Him…………………. and our brothers ands sisters in the Lord as much as lieth within us. :thumbs:

Amen to that!

 

[jne1611]

Quote:
God did not "want" Lucifer to fall
God did not "want to lose sinless angels"
God did not "Want to lose all of mankind"

God did not "Want to be tortured on the cross"


I doubt that ANY 3 point Calvinists would claim as you do that God WANTED Lucifer, the Angels and Adam to fail.

But I suppose there is a subset of 4 and 5 point calvinists (hyper CAlvinists I suppose we would call them) that would take your extreme position on this one.

I pause to note this - because in that extremem position at least you are being consistent with the extreme position that many of them would STILL WANT to make with Cain - as you are doing.

So at least you are being consistent in your extreme view here.

IN Christ,

Bob

How could you not see that God did will it. If He did not, then the fall never could have taken place.

 

[webdog]

How could you not see that God did will it. If He did not, then the fall never could have taken place.

That's hyper-calvinism...making God the author of sin. This is heresy.

 

[BobRyan]

How could you not see that God did will it. If He did not, then the fall never could have taken place.

I see - So God "WILLED" Lucifer to fall, and willed the angels to be condemned to hell and WILLED Adam to fall and WILLED himself to be tortured on the cross.

What about - a little blame going to those that make wrong choices instead of blaming everything on God?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since this was already posted - but was too good to just have posted "once" as it shows the perfectly logical conclusion of Calvinism.

Hello. The fact is that, to say that God loved every person that He ever created knowing that some of them would choose to reject Him & on top of that created hell (eternal fire) for them does not make sense to me. I have heard preachers say that God loves us so much that if we want to go to hell, he will let us! This is inconsistent considering Prov. 16: 4 says: The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil. And the psalmist said in Ps. 73: 18 - 19 Surely thou didst set them in slippery places: thou castedst them down into destruction. 19 How are they brought into desolation, as in a moment! they are utterly consumed with terrors.

God casts them into hell & into the lake of fire. So He knowing that those who He loves would rebel, created hell for them to suffer in forever. Does that make sense to you? It does not to me.
Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. So God had to know the end result. Hell is not a demonstration of God's love but God's hatred.

 

[BobRyan]

The Classic Calvinist Future Scenario​

The inner quotes contain “The scenario”. Everything else is my commentary. (Of course the entire thing is my own test scenario for Calvinism)

5 and 4 pt Calvinist Future Scenario:

“Showing” the requirement of 4 and 5 point Calvinism to have the “luxury” of a cold disregard for the non-elect “When the non-Elect are finally Known”. (In the perfect Calvinist Utopian future). This scenario simply removes that “luxury” (for a moment) in order to emphasize the point 4-5 Pt Calvinism makes about God Himself – vs the view that “God so Loved the World that He Gave…Really” (something that both Arminians and 3-pt Calvinists seem to Agree on).

When the 4 OR 5-point-Calvinist finds himself in heaven enjoying the perfect love, unity and selfless concern for others that is not possible here on this sinful earth - and then peeking over the ramparts of heaven - observes his OWN precious sweet daughter who passed the age of accountability as the MANY of Matt 7 -- now writhing in the agony of eternal roasting in hell - he may well run to his sovereign lord with the cry

"Oh My Lord, my great God and Savior! Couldn't you have done Something for my precious child??"

And of course the answer will come back that Calvinism so loves to hear – "Why of course I COULD - IF I had Cared to"!

"Hallelujah!" cries out the Calvinist - that IS the Gospel I was proclaiming!! Ahh that blissful eternity with calvinism's God that unfairly saved you but not your precious daughter - and you will be praising through all eternity that YOU were spared though she was not. (For it IS all about the saved/electin the end)

We see Calvinists blessing the fact that He chose You – AND that it was "unfair" as you say - but it was graciously unfair IN YOUR favor - just not your precious daughter's.

So just enjoy! Enjoy! Unjust Mercy - oh the Calvinist bliss.

<You see the problem when the Calvinist model is not “allowed the luxury" of disregarding the fate of the lost - as in the case above?>

Here we see Calvinism’s view of God who (arbitrarily from the POV of human eyes) selects out the FEW of Matt 7 and loves THEM alone - and then represents that to Calvinists as "So Loving the World". Oh the pure joy that thought must cause the Calvinist mind.

Calvinist future scenario complete!


Notice the “focus” in that perfect Calvinist utopian future - is always on “you” the one that is arbitrarily selected and then justifying the callous disregard of your precious child under the guise of “Well God does not HAVE to care about ANYONE just be glad YOU made it”.
Fascinating!

JohnP
I see no reason to rejoice over the death of anyone but I glory to God it wasn't me.
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/35/1576/15.html#000217

All well and good for the Cavlinist position - but what about the Arminian view?

And for us Arminians (and our 3-Pt Calvinist Bretheren) - well we will just have to be content with the fact that God really DOES "So Love the World" not merely the "Few " of Matt 7 - and He is the "Atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT our sins only - but for those of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2::2.

We will have to be content in all eternity with the God that DOES Love ALL and died for ALL and "IS not WILLING for any to perish but for ALL to come to Repentance".

Somehow that will have to help us enjoy eternity too instead of viewing God as the source of partial and arbitrary decisions they Calvinism does it. . I wonder how we will fair by comparison.

 

[Jarthur001]

That's hyper-calvinism...making God the author of sin. This is heresy.

Not really. You fail to understand the relationship between God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility.

1) God made man. God know man in all ways, yet God still made the tree. Making the tree did not make man sin, but it was part of Gods plan.
2) God knew man would sin yet knowing this God placed the tree in the garden for this was part of Gods plan and will. This did not make Man sin.
3) God told man "do not eat of the tree. When God said this he knew full well man would sin, but said it anyway for it was part of Gods plan and will. This did not make man sin.
4) God knew Satan would temp man and still let Satan into the Garden as part of Gods plan. Satan did not over power God and sneak in the back door. God know Satan was there, for God allowed it. This did not make man sin.
5) God was not surprised when Satan tempted Eve. God Know that Satan would tempt Eve. This did not make man sin.
6) God knew Eve would run to Adam. God knew Adam would eat. None of this made man sin.

But understand this. All of above was part of Gods plan. Remove man..we have no fall into sin. Remove the tree, we have no fall into sin. Remove Satan, and we have no fall into sin. God wanted all subjects in place to carry out his plan. BUT..........

Man lusted to be as God. Man wanted his will over Gods will. This was mans sin. And God KNEW it would happen when He placed all the subjects in place.

Satan told Eve....

."For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil"

Notice just as soon as Satan says this...the very next verse Eve eats.

This was what man wanted. He wanted HIS will over Gods will. This is always sin. MANS WILL >>>>VS <<<< GODS WILL. We still see it today..people wanting to keep control and not let God have control....thus sin


Still man’s responsibility not to eat is intact. God said do not eat, and if man eats it is sin. Not forced to sin but part of the Gods plan for He allowed it to happen. But way beyond this...God made all the subjects in the theater and placed them there, knowing the outcome.


What a great God we have...

BTW...this is post # 2000 for me.
:smilewinkgrin:
​

In Christ..James

 

[jne1611]

Since this was already posted - but was too good to just have posted "once" as it shows the perfectly logical conclusion of Calvinism.

Thanks for the re post. How about giving the reason this is wrong.

 

[jne1611]

That's hyper-calvinism...making God the author of sin. This is heresy.

OK. So God did not have any intention on the fall of Lucifer, man, sin entering the world or anything of that nature? What is the difference in saying God permitted it or willed it? If He permitted it He had to of willed it or He went against His own will to let sin come into the world. Call it heresy Hyper - Calvinism etc. How about shedding some light on why this makes God the author of sin. Do you believe sin came in by God's permission or that sin defeated God to get into the world?

 

[jne1611]

The Classic Calvinist Future Scenario​

The inner quotes contain “The scenario”. Everything else is my commentary. (Of course the entire thing is my own test scenario for Calvinism)





Calvinist future scenario complete!


Notice the “focus” in that perfect Calvinist utopian future - is always on “you” the one that is arbitrarily selected and then justifying the callous disregard of your precious child under the guise of “Well God does not HAVE to care about ANYONE just be glad YOU made it”.
Fascinating!




All well and good for the Cavlinist position - but what about the Arminian view?

And for us Arminians (and our 3-Pt Calvinist Bretheren) - well we will just have to be content with the fact that God really DOES "So Love the World" not merely the "Few " of Matt 7 - and He is the "Atoning sacrifice for OUR sins and NOT our sins only - but for those of the WHOLE WORLD" 1John 2::2.

We will have to be content in all eternity with the God that DOES Love ALL and died for ALL and "IS not WILLING for any to perish but for ALL to come to Repentance".

Somehow that will have to help us enjoy eternity too instead of viewing God as the source of partial and arbitrary decisions they Calvinism does it. . I wonder how we will fair by comparison.

This is nothing but a bunch of nonsense.

 

[jne1611]

I have never read one Calvinist that does not give all Glory to God in the end. The greatness is not in the saved, it is in the Savior!

 

[Jarthur001]

This is nothing but a bunch of nonsense.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way. I have no idea the point of Bobs last post. Just a bunch of rumble jumble to me. Maybe part 2 is coming with highlights at 11.

We shall see.

 

[jne1611]

I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels this way. I have no idea the point of Bobs last post. Just a bunch of rumble jumble to me. Maybe part 2 is coming with highlights at 11.

We shall see.

Its hiding behind this mass of human reasoning mixed with a few Scriptures that's the reason you cant get anyone to see the truth. The average hearer probably thought he was quoting from the Bible the whole time.

 

[hawg_427]

God knows everything! So why would he not know who is going to be saved and going to heaven? Not siding one way or another just something to ponder.

 

[Blammo]

The average hearer probably thought he was quoting from the Bible the whole time.

Hu hu hu, you maketh me to laugh. Ya mean he weren't quotin da Bible? Der, let me check it fer meself. Duh, too many words, can't tell, must be I is below the averages.

:tongue3:

 

[Jarthur001]

Hu hu hu, you maketh me to laugh. Ya mean he weren't quotin da Bible? Der, let me check it fer meself. Duh, too many words, can't tell, must be I is below the averages.

:tongue3:

Bro. Blammo,

Did you just cut and paste a quote from one of my post? It sounds like my wording.

 

[Jarthur001]

God knows everything! So why would he not know who is going to be saved and going to heaven? Not siding one way or another just something to ponder.

Hi ya hawg....tis good to meet you. Welcome to BB.

Indeed God does know everything.

God knows who will go to heaven for He decreed it.

 

[gekko]

HP: Pardon me Geeko? Why don’t you tell that to the ‘Hilltop Baptist Church’ you say you attend? Something tells me that name is a code word for a Calvinistic fellowship of sorts. :smilewinkgrin:

first of all... its 'gekko'
second of all... its 'hillcrest'
thirdly... the pastor has told everyone that he has nothing to do with calvinism or armineism
fourthly - its a 50yr old name for a church. (idk if thats got anythin to do with it? lol)
fifth note... please get your spelling right next time.

have a wonderful day!
God bless!

 

[jne1611]

Hu hu hu, you maketh me to laugh. Ya mean he weren't quotin da Bible? Der, let me check it fer meself. Duh, too many words, can't tell, must be I is below the averages.

:tongue3:

:smilewinkgrin: I know your joking as was I, but you might be shocked at the people who would use that kind of jumble as doctrine.