In Calvinism where is the love

American Gothic said:
God loved them enough to redeem them - to become sin for them, to die for them, to forgive them
They still don't love Him tho
Click to expand...
Calvinism teaches it’s impossible for a non elect to be saved since God determined before creation to damn them eternally without ever having a choice or a chance to be saved . It’s unloving which is why the question is asked . In Calvinism where is the love? And your post is true that God really does love them and died for them . So Gods love has nothing to do with election. Man having the freedom to love God is why they end up in hell if they reject His sacrifice for their sins not because they were not elect . Election in Calvinism is false teaching like it is with double predestination, sovereignty and tulip.
 
Theophilus said:
Calvinism teaches it’s impossible for a non elect to be saved since God determined before creation to damn them eternally without ever having a choice or a chance to be saved . It’s unloving which is why the question is asked . In Calvinism where is the love? And your post is true that God really does love them and died for them . So Gods love has nothing to do with election. Man having the freedom to love God is why they end up in hell if they reject His sacrifice for their sins not because they were not elect . Election in Calvinism is false teaching like it is with double predestination, sovereignty and tulip.
Click to expand...
it is impossible for all to Believe - because of our nature
no one would seek God, not even one
that is why, for His glory, God Elected/chose some for a Believer's relationship

Salvation isn't fair, it's gracious
 
Last edited:
Theophilus said:
Calvinism teaches it’s impossible for a non elect to be saved since God determined before creation to damn them eternally without ever having a choice or a chance to be saved . It’s unloving which is why the question is asked . In Calvinism where is the love? And your post is true that God really does love them and died for them . So Gods love has nothing to do with election. Man having the freedom to love God is why they end up in hell if they reject His sacrifice for their sins not because they were not elect . Election in Calvinism is false teaching like it is with double predestination, sovereignty and tulip.
Click to expand...
Calvinism teaches it because the Bible avers it.
 
Theophilus said:
If God loves all and only saves the predestined elect then he really did not love the non elect since he did not save them . Monergism is all God saving apart from man which includes the faith that is also a gift he does not give to the non elect .
Click to expand...
Not doing that.

This op specifically and explicitly made claims about Calvin that are not true. Until those errors are corrected you don't get to change the subject with me. Other posters may collaborate with that subterfuge, but not me. Just ignore my posts if that's how you're going to not act. I'll understand the silence. Otherwise address the fact this op claims, "Unfortunately, Calvinists sometimes seem to have a blind spot for the love of God," when that's not true. Nearly every Calvinist here has spoken of God's love. We do not have a blind spot and you should acknowledge that statement is wrong. This op claims "In the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin there is not one time in this book does Calvin ever quote 'God is love,'" which is logically a completely fallacious argument from silence. The only correct response is, "My bad, I do know argumentum ex silentio is lame." Evidence was provided to show Calvin's Institutes and his commentaries do explicitly, repeatedly, and often speak about God's love AND about His love for all humanity. The statements, "Calvin never one time cited 1 John 4:18 or 1 John 4:16. Not even once! This is a stunning omission. I'm still looking for the love in Calvinism," prove baseless in light of the fact Calvin covers the contents of 1 John in more than FIFTY places in his Institutes and specifically cites 1 John 4:18 at least three times. You said, "Not even once!" It is not true. It is a complete fabrication. The only correct response is to acknowledge the error, not change the subject. Changing the subject is the wrong thing to do. Two wrongs do not make anything right. The appeal to Pink to justify the claim Calvin doesn't teach God's love was wrong, too. Calvin's own words were posted. Those words disagreed with Pink. More than thirty pages of posts in this thread. How many chose to align with Pink over Calvin? Most Calvinists don't think as you think they think. This op asks, "Is it not the very heart of the gospel that God loves everyone? Is that not the good news that we joyfully share with all persons?" and I posted Calvin's words answering those two questions in the affirmative. According to Calvin, God does love everyone, and God does make the gospel available to all because he loves all.

First address the errors in the post correctly. Then we'll discuss God's love.
 
Josheb said:
Not doing that.

This op specifically and explicitly made claims about Calvin that are not true. Until those errors are corrected you don't get to change the subject with me. Other posters may collaborate with that subterfuge, but not me. Just ignore my posts if that's how you're going to not act. I'll understand the silence. Otherwise address the fact this op claims, "Unfortunately, Calvinists sometimes seem to have a blind spot for the love of God," when that's not true. Nearly every Calvinist here has spoken of God's love. We do not have a blind spot and you should acknowledge that statement is wrong. This op claims "In the Institutes of the Christian Religion by John Calvin there is not one time in this book does Calvin ever quote 'God is love,'" which is logically a completely fallacious argument from silence. The only correct response is, "My bad, I do know argumentum ex silentio is lame." Evidence was provided to show Calvin's Institutes and his commentaries do explicitly, repeatedly, and often speak about God's love AND about His love for all humanity. The statements, "Calvin never one time cited 1 John 4:18 or 1 John 4:16. Not even once! This is a stunning omission. I'm still looking for the love in Calvinism," prove baseless in light of the fact Calvin covers the contents of 1 John in more than FIFTY places in his Institutes and specifically cites 1 John 4:18 at least three times. You said, "Not even once!" It is not true. It is a complete fabrication. The only correct response is to acknowledge the error, not change the subject. Changing the subject is the wrong thing to do. Two wrongs do not make anything right. The appeal to Pink to justify the claim Calvin doesn't teach God's love was wrong, too. Calvin's own words were posted. Those words disagreed with Pink. More than thirty pages of posts in this thread. How many chose to align with Pink over Calvin? Most Calvinists don't think as you think they think. This op asks, "Is it not the very heart of the gospel that God loves everyone? Is that not the good news that we joyfully share with all persons?" and I posted Calvin's words answering those two questions in the affirmative. According to Calvin, God does love everyone, and God does make the gospel available to all because he loves all.

First address the errors in the post correctly. Then we'll discuss God's love.
Click to expand...
Cite your source and quote the institutes with a link where Calvin quotes 1 John 4:8 or 4:16 saying God is love.

Until you provide the evidence we will not move past this point or you concede it’s not in the institutes . If you concede we can move onto another point.
 
It's duly noted that the author of the erroneous OP (which is laden with out of context and undocumentable "quotes") has STILL not answered my initial post refuting and exposing the errors and misrepresentations.
 
SovereignGrace said:
We have ppl claiming Christ lusted (see sinned) after a woman/women, God's word has been corrupted by Satan. What's the next goofball belief that gets stated on here? ?
Click to expand...
They don't read their Bibles for insight and understanding, and fail the test of 2 Timothy 2:15. They see a verse, think they know its meaning, and pit it against other clear texts.
 
Why does the Holy Spirit, through Scripture, repeatedly give the impression that God desires all men to repent and commands them and pleads with them to do so, while at the same time He withholds from all but a select group the essential means of repenting? Why would God weep over and plead with those for whom He couldn’t possibly have either love or genuine concern, having already predestined them to eternal damnation? Calvinism declares, “Man is free to turn to Christ but not able.” That is like saying that man is free to go to Mars any time he pleases. The Calvinists here seem unaware of the contradiction in what they are saying.
 
Theophilus said:
Why does the Holy Spirit, through Scripture, repeatedly give the impression that God desires all men to repent and commands them and pleads with them to do so, while at the same time He withholds from all but a select group the essential means of repenting?
Click to expand...
Are you affirming God's election of some to salvation?

Theophilus said:
Why would God weep over and plead with those for whom He couldn’t possibly have either love or genuine concern, having already predestined them to eternal damnation?
Click to expand...
Are you affirming that God does not save all men?

Theophilus said:
Calvinism declares, “Man is free to turn to Christ but not able.” That is like saying that man is free to go to Mars any time he pleases. The Calvinists here seem unaware of the contradiction in what they are saying.
Click to expand...
Are you affirming Pelagianism?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top