Calvinism and its Secret Universalism

[Hammster]

I said I never stated that until you explained your views more often. Its because you never answered my questions while i answered yours.

Okay.

 

[dóxatotheó]

What do you think that prices?

Exactly what it says God is love.

Because you keep tacking it on the end of posts without explaining how it’s relevant to the posts.

I don't have to explain anything to you.
A questions a question.

 

[Hammster]

Exactly what it says God is love.

Is He a good Father?

 

[dóxatotheó]

Is He a good Father?

Rethorical Question and im waiting for my question answered does God love every baby

 

[renniks]

Too reinstate what you mean is that God is always love and nothing else correct?

Yes, I mean it's what he is. It's not just an attribute. He can't turn it off for certain people.

 

[renniks]

And yet, there are people in hell.

By their own choice.

 

[Clare73]

P1) God Loves All and desires all to be saved
P2) God Isn't halfway
P3) Gods Love is Loving his creation like the others
P4) God can give unconditional grace to everyone because he loves everyone and desire them to be saved
P5) God choosing certain people isn't love and its him being partially.

A little bit out of joint there with Romans 9:10-18, for starters.

Conclusion: Calvinism is Universalism because God loves all creation and he isn't partially and he can give his unconditional grace to all creation because he loves all his creation equally.
So No nobody disagrees with the sovereignty of God, we disagree with John Calvin's core doctrine. Sorry to say but John Calvinism soft determinism fails according to my premises and conclusions, any rebuttals would be fallacious because P1 and P3 goes together do you agree?
I believe Calvinism fails because these prepositions came to light if any Calvinist has an explanation from my argument; I would love to see it and note: I agree with all scriptures that you believe proves it. I will address those verses after you address my argument against the belief.

 

[Clare73]

I agree with your general argument that, strictly speaking, Calvinism leads to Universalism. In fact, the most deplorable aspects of Calvinism (double-predestination) disappear once that conclusion is reached. I disagree that it should be rejected on that basis, but quite the opposite. At any rate, you make a good point.

When there are only two permanent options, heaven or hell, predestination is of necessity double, right?

 

[Mark Quayle]

I agree that God doesn’t love all.

His composition skills leave a bit to be desired. I think he meant that as a separate sentence --a challenge.

 

[Hammster]

Rethorical Question and im waiting for my question answered does God love every baby

Well, when I’m the OP, go ahead and ask. As I’m defending the Calvinist position, I have to show the weakness in your OP. And no, it’s not rhetorical. Is God a good Father.

 

[Hammster]

By their own choice.

Does God have a say in the matter?

 

[public hermit]

When there are only two permanent options, heaven or hell, predestination is of necessity double, right?

I don't see why. There is only one necessary, i.e. God. If God is sovereign, without qualification, then it is not impossible that all be predestined to one, heaven or hell. What is not possible, under those conditions, is that there be any factor in play except God's necessary freedom, i.e. that God can only do whatever God wants to do.

 

[dóxatotheó]

A little bit out of joint there with Romans 9:10-18, for starters.

What this verse proves? Does this prove that God created people for hell and make them liable for judgement for something he caused them for before eternity?

 

[dóxatotheó]

Well, when I’m the OP, go ahead and ask. As I’m defending the Calvinist position, I have to show the weakness in your OP. And no, it’s not rhetorical. Is God a good Father.

You don't want to answer the question because you know It can go both ways on your beliefs which is ok. and Yes God is a good Father doesn't mean he causes people actions and makes them liable for judgement for something he caused and also partial on love for creation which he already knew would pick that choice before eternity. Unless God isn't love at all

 

[renniks]

Does God have a say in the matter?

Of course. That doesn't mean he didn't love them. He gave them their way, after all.

 

[Mark Quayle]

P1) God Loves All and desires all to be saved
P2) God Isn't halfway
P3) Gods Love is Loving his creation like the others
P4) God can give unconditional grace to everyone because he loves everyone and desire them to be saved
P5) God choosing certain people isn't love and its him being partially.
Conclusion: Calvinism is Universalism because God loves all creation and he isn't partially and he can give his unconditional grace to all creation because he loves all his creation equally.
So No nobody disagrees with the sovereignty of God, we disagree with John Calvin's core doctrine. Sorry to say but John Calvinism soft determinism fails according to my premises and conclusions, any rebuttals would be fallacious because P1 and P3 goes together do you agree?
I believe Calvinism fails because these prepositions came to light if any Calvinist has an explanation from my argument; I would love to see it and note: I agree with all scriptures that you believe proves it. I will address those verses after you address my argument against the belief.

I have no desire to explain from your argument. (I can't help but think you must have been originally not an English-Speaker). I will answer your argument, however.

What are you referring to by 'John Calvinism soft determinism'. I know what determinism is --I don't need that explained-- but why 'soft'? Why not simply, 'determinism' --because you agree there seems to be some sort of determinism within predestination and sovereignty of the creator? You are right! There certainly is! And it is not soft. Whatever God sets out to do he will indeed accomplish.

P1. ("God Loves All and desires all to be saved") What does that mean?
Anyhow, read that verse again, in context.

P2. ("God Isn't halfway") What does that even mean?

P3. ("Gods Love is Loving his creation like the others") Huh?

P4. ("God can give unconditional grace to everyone because he loves everyone and desire them to be saved.) Are you saying he is able to give unconditional grace to everyone, or are you saying it is possible that he does give unconditional grace to everyone? Either way, what makes you think he would --your reasoning, or the Bible? I don't see that reasoning in any Calvinistic teaching.

P5. ("God choosing certain people isn't love and its him being partially.") Who do you think God loves --why do you think that-- and does his love for some equal his love for others? He is not partial in what way? He obviously didn't make all of us the same --is that not partiality according to your use of the term? Meanwhile, he obviously is not saving everyone, nor does Calvinism lead to that conclusion.

How can you pretend to decide what God does or does not do, according to your comprehension of the term, "love"? God is not tame. His love is fierce. We can say he loves Jacob but hates Esau, because the Bible says so. This does not mean he has no love for Esau --we don't know everything it means, because we don't know everything about God's love. But it appears, by your use of the word, 'partial', that he was partial to Jacob. Later we see he is particular --partial-- about the nation of Israel.

You have misused several passages of Scripture, and ignored many more, which Calvinism does not misuse nor ignore. So your conclusion is false.

You say nobody disagrees with the sovereignty of God. That too is false.
1. God is not sovereign if he lends a bit of sovereignty to someone else --i.e. "freewill" as some define it. It is self-contradictory for there to be more than one sovereign.
2. God is not sovereign if he 'learns' --if he is not actually omniscient
3. God is not sovereign if he is not actually omnipotent --omnipotence necessarily implies that he can NOT be governed by any exterior principle-- yet somehow we hear of him being under the authority of our definitions and our points of view (you give a clear example of that fallacy above). Further, we find him needing us to accomplish his will, according to many Arminian-leaning believers.
4. There's more, but that should do for now.

 

[Mark Quayle]

P5) God choosing certain people isn't love and its him being partially.

In fact, the most deplorable aspects of Calvinism (double-predestination)

When there are only two permanent options, heaven or hell, predestination is of necessity double, right?

I agree God has predestined some to perdition, and absolutely does have the right to do so. But generally, I try to show the fact that his creating was for the purpose of creating the people of God, the Church --not for the purpose of making people for the Lake of Fire. So I relent from equating the two things; yet they are unavoidably, logically true --he created with both ends in mind. But the one end is his purpose --the other is part of what it took to accomplish his purpose.

 

[public hermit]

P1. ("God Loves All and desires all to be saved") What does that mean?
Anyhow, read that verse again, in context.

P2. ("God Isn't halfway") What does that even mean?

P3. ("Gods Love is Loving his creation like the others") Huh?

P4. ("God can give unconditional grace to everyone because he loves everyone and desire them to be saved.) Are you saying he is able to give unconditional grace to everyone, or are you saying it is possible that he does give unconditional grace to everyone? Either way, what makes you think he would --your reasoning, or the Bible? I don't see that reasoning in any Calvinistic teaching.

I agree that the premises are hard to understand, but when I read them they made some sense. I'll give a possible interpretation for our young friend.

P1: This looks like 2 premises
A. God loves all
B. God desires that all would (come to repentance and) be saved.

P2: God doesn't go half way. This reads like a sovereignty condition, i.e. if God sets out to do something, it will obtain.

P3: God shows no partiality, i.e. God's judgments are not conditioned by any non-moral aspect of a person. So, God doesn't give grace just because one is Jewish or Gentile or tall or short, etc. God's judgments are fair, in terms of righteousness.

P4: God is radically free (God can give the grace of righteousness to whomever God pleases).

The conclusion is that the combination of God's love, desire, sovereignty, justice, and freedom leads to all being saved.

I like it as an argument. I really do. This youngster is going places.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If God isn't omnibenevolent im pretty sure it contradicts the bible. Because if God is not partial and is perfect and is Love how in anyway do we come to the conclusion that he doesn't love certain people in his creation that HE CREATED and KNEW WOULD MAKE THAT CHOICE before he was created.

You are stating that He’s omnibenevolent. Does that mean that God loves everyone equally?

So let me get this straight. You accuse Calvinism of logically leading to universalism, yet you picture God as omni-benevolent. That would make God a universalist.

Hammster, you are right. If the OP was logically consistent, God's impartiality (as dóx uses it to mean) combined with God's omnibenevolence necessarily implies universalism, quite apart from any interruptions by Calvinism.

But he and others will not be convinced it is so, since to them man's freewill trumps God's choice. To them, MAN has interrupted the chance (snerk) of universalism. To them, logically, then, God's original intention (or was this plan B --I lose track, let's see --Adam and Eve, plan A= innocence-- ok, got it, yeah plan B) was universalism, but he had to adjust. The OP must believe that Man is capable of undoing God's plan for the ages. So, plan C --Jesus' sacrifice, and freewill (which I am told is also God's loving gift) ruining that for most. But God is tired, so he won't do a plan D.

 

[Hammster]

You don't want to answer the question because you know It can go both ways on your beliefs which is ok. and Yes God is a good Father doesn't mean he causes people actions and makes them liable for judgement for something he caused and also partial on love for creation which he already knew would pick that choice before eternity. Unless God isn't love at all

I’m a father. There’s nothing my children could do that would make me disown them, not make them suffer for eternity.

Am I a better father than God? Why or why not?