With this I agree. I feel the the world would be better off with less focus on denominational doctrine and more on the truth in His word. Why divide the body, when we were called to be one body united in Him.
But wouldn't that include people who twisted the word to lead the believers astray and secretly smuggle works to be part of salvation, which is not the true gospel?
As a former Catholic, I find the most repugnant example of Calvinist theology is the idea of “limited atonement.“ In other words, Jesus did not die for all human sin for all time. He died only for those people who God knew would embrace his son. This not only exposes Calvinist predestination as mechanistic. It turns God into a sadist.
Jesus had to die for all human sin for all time for several reasons
1. All of humanity needed the opportunity to embrace Jesus‘s atoning sacrifice as their own redemption. That doesn’t mean that everybody is saved. That does mean God offers those created in his *free* image the choice about what to do about the work his son performed on their behalf.
2. All of non-human creation needed to be redeemed, as well. Otherwise, why would we have a new heaven and a new earth in the future? As the agent through whom God the father created the universe, Jesus is the perfect party to redeem creation. That does not argue for a modernness, environmentalist reinterpretation of the gospel. Such reinterpretations involve questionable science and actually border on paganism.
“Limited atonement“ for the Calvinist serves the same purpose as the doctrine of purgatory for the Catholic. Both are determined to limit the comprehensive nature of Christ’s sacrifice in some way. Purgatory limits it in terms of sin. Limited atonement, restricts it in terms of people. Both not only deny the gospel, but both are blasphemous.
The problem is that people don’t necessarily react to an extreme with moderation. They react to an extreme with the equal and opposite extreme. That’s a problem you can find in religion, politics, economics, education, etc. I think that’s exactly what Calvin did.
Calvin’s concept of Limited Atonement was my biggest hang up with his theology. When I learned about this at a Presbyterian church I was attending at the time, all I could think of was all the poor people who would be born, live and die without ever having a hope to be saved. I went round and round with the pastor about it, and we had to agree to disagree.
I have not heard all these details about Calvin, as I have not directly studied him this closely. I have had my struggles with his TULIP and I believe the Holy Spirit has cleared them up for me. That being said, I struggle with some Christian men of our day that I have held Calvin high, and had some very helpful and informative things to say on other areas of Biblical teachings. Not that I’m looking for a reason to dislike another man (living or dead), I have found this notable to keep in mind and may find myself looking into Mr Calvin to have a better understanding of the wholeness of why I do not align with his beliefs. God bless.
We should also note that even before Paul made clear the delineation between the old and new covenants, the early Church resolved that Gentiles at least were not beholden to the entire corpus of Mosaic Law:
'Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab′bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, with the following letter: “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili′cia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”' -- Acts 15:22-29
This was the conclusion of the debate in Jerusalem over the spiritual obligations of converted Gentiles--they were relieved from the necessity of observing the whole corpus of Mosaic Law.
Calvin's conflation of the old and new covenants flies directly in the face of this early decision by the Church.
The idea of limited atonement is just simply mistaken. Today, anyone can receive Christ into their heart. I have asked Calvinists what they do with Acts 17:30 when Paul is at Athens " Therefore, having overlooked the time of ignorance, God now charges ALL men everywhere to repent." I have never received a satisfactory answer. Whosoever will may come to the fountain of living water'!!
I’m going to sound very untheological here. (I know that’s not a word.) Jesus emphasized keeping His word, doing what He said…. He NEVER commanded his followers to kill anyone, not even heretics. So, there’s absolutely no justification for Christians who kill in His name.
Calvin was no doubt a brilliant theologian — one who built a diabolically brilliant theological structure for a god that John Wesley defined as being worse than the devil himself!
I would like to add “We are IN Christ”. Religion is man made God hates religion!! Thank you for this thread it is awesome. Wish I could write like you! I have a lot to say.
Thank God, all doctrine will be gone soon. The Messiah King has no use for doctrines of man.
With this I agree. I feel the the world would be better off with less focus on denominational doctrine and more on the truth in His word. Why divide the body, when we were called to be one body united in Him.
Amen!
But wouldn't that include people who twisted the word to lead the believers astray and secretly smuggle works to be part of salvation, which is not the true gospel?
As a former Catholic, I find the most repugnant example of Calvinist theology is the idea of “limited atonement.“ In other words, Jesus did not die for all human sin for all time. He died only for those people who God knew would embrace his son. This not only exposes Calvinist predestination as mechanistic. It turns God into a sadist.
Jesus had to die for all human sin for all time for several reasons
1. All of humanity needed the opportunity to embrace Jesus‘s atoning sacrifice as their own redemption. That doesn’t mean that everybody is saved. That does mean God offers those created in his *free* image the choice about what to do about the work his son performed on their behalf.
2. All of non-human creation needed to be redeemed, as well. Otherwise, why would we have a new heaven and a new earth in the future? As the agent through whom God the father created the universe, Jesus is the perfect party to redeem creation. That does not argue for a modernness, environmentalist reinterpretation of the gospel. Such reinterpretations involve questionable science and actually border on paganism.
“Limited atonement“ for the Calvinist serves the same purpose as the doctrine of purgatory for the Catholic. Both are determined to limit the comprehensive nature of Christ’s sacrifice in some way. Purgatory limits it in terms of sin. Limited atonement, restricts it in terms of people. Both not only deny the gospel, but both are blasphemous.
Calvin was trying to reform what needed to be discarded
The problem is that people don’t necessarily react to an extreme with moderation. They react to an extreme with the equal and opposite extreme. That’s a problem you can find in religion, politics, economics, education, etc. I think that’s exactly what Calvin did.
I agree. He was reacting to Rome rather than responding to Christ.
Calvin’s concept of Limited Atonement was my biggest hang up with his theology. When I learned about this at a Presbyterian church I was attending at the time, all I could think of was all the poor people who would be born, live and die without ever having a hope to be saved. I went round and round with the pastor about it, and we had to agree to disagree.
I have not heard all these details about Calvin, as I have not directly studied him this closely. I have had my struggles with his TULIP and I believe the Holy Spirit has cleared them up for me. That being said, I struggle with some Christian men of our day that I have held Calvin high, and had some very helpful and informative things to say on other areas of Biblical teachings. Not that I’m looking for a reason to dislike another man (living or dead), I have found this notable to keep in mind and may find myself looking into Mr Calvin to have a better understanding of the wholeness of why I do not align with his beliefs. God bless.
We should also note that even before Paul made clear the delineation between the old and new covenants, the early Church resolved that Gentiles at least were not beholden to the entire corpus of Mosaic Law:
'Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsab′bas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren, with the following letter: “The brethren, both the apostles and the elders, to the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cili′cia, greeting. Since we have heard that some persons from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your minds, although we gave them no instructions, it has seemed good to us, having come to one accord, to choose men and send them to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”' -- Acts 15:22-29
This was the conclusion of the debate in Jerusalem over the spiritual obligations of converted Gentiles--they were relieved from the necessity of observing the whole corpus of Mosaic Law.
Calvin's conflation of the old and new covenants flies directly in the face of this early decision by the Church.
I learned a lot here. Thank you Robert
The idea of limited atonement is just simply mistaken. Today, anyone can receive Christ into their heart. I have asked Calvinists what they do with Acts 17:30 when Paul is at Athens " Therefore, having overlooked the time of ignorance, God now charges ALL men everywhere to repent." I have never received a satisfactory answer. Whosoever will may come to the fountain of living water'!!
THANK YOU for shedding a bold light on this divisive issue!
I’m going to sound very untheological here. (I know that’s not a word.) Jesus emphasized keeping His word, doing what He said…. He NEVER commanded his followers to kill anyone, not even heretics. So, there’s absolutely no justification for Christians who kill in His name.
Calvin was no doubt a brilliant theologian — one who built a diabolically brilliant theological structure for a god that John Wesley defined as being worse than the devil himself!
I would like to add “We are IN Christ”. Religion is man made God hates religion!! Thank you for this thread it is awesome. Wish I could write like you! I have a lot to say.
Wow- unbelievable how UNREAL this teaching is ‼️SO PROUD to be a student of CHRIST, spirit filled unashamed lover of GOD!!!🙏🦋❤️😺