In Calvinism where is the love

Theophilus said:
I started the thread so you are off topic . The fact is Calvin left it out of the institutes.
Click to expand...
Not mentioning something is not "leaving it out," and measuring Calvin and Calvinism buy the absence of a statement is a fallacious argument called "poisoning the well." In other words, the entire op is built on a fallacy. It's not the only fallacy upon which this op is built, but it's a particularly damning one (pun intended ;)). The other logical fallacies include the straw man of claiming there is no love when Calvin did - and was shown to have done so - in fact write plentifully, often, and diversely of God's love, including God's love for mankind and the human race, and the availability of the gospel to all. The op is wrong. It set up a false representation of Calvin and then argues against that misrepresentation. Straw man. Then there's the matter of denigrating Calvin and his views and then using someone who departed from Calvin to support the straw man. This commits two logical fallacies: the fallacy of the false equivalence, and a construction error(from part to whole) because Gill is not representative of all of Calvinism. We can debate Gill's particular views but they should not be conflated with Calvin's just because they share a common belief in God's sovereignty and God as the sole causal agent in God's salvation.
Theophilus said:
I’m not concerned with his other writings . Try and stay on topic with the institutes . And you made the conversation personal .
Click to expand...
Yes, we all know that. It's become quite apparent. It is deplorable. Why? because the absence of three words in one book intended for a given purpose is not representative of the man's entire works or all that he held true. It's a decidedly unloving way to treat someone.

It is ironic given the subject of this op.


Thank you for your time. I'll be moving on now.
 
Josheb said:
Not mentioning something is not "leaving it out," and measuring Calvin and Calvinism buy the absence of a statement is a fallacious argument called "poisoning the well." In other words, the entire op is built on a fallacy. It's not the only fallacy upon which this op is built, but it's a particularly damning one (pun intended ;)). The other logical fallacies include the straw man of claiming there is no love when Calvin did - and was shown to have done so - in fact write plentifully, often, and diversely of God's love, including God's love for mankind and the human race, and the availability of the gospel to all. The op is wrong. It set up a false representation of Calvin and then argues against that misrepresentation. Straw man. Then there's the matter of denigrating Calvin and his views and then using someone who departed from Calvin to support the straw man. This commits two logical fallacies: the fallacy of the false equivalence, and a construction error(from part to whole) because Gill is not representative of all of Calvinism. We can debate Gill's particular views but they should not be conflated with Calvin's just because they share a common belief in God's sovereignty and God as the sole causal agent in God's salvation.

Yes, we all know that. It's become quite apparent. It is deplorable. Why? because the absence of three words in one book intended for a given purpose is not representative of the man's entire works or all that he held true. It's a decidedly unloving way to treat someone.

It is ironic given the subject of this op.


Thank you for your time. I'll be moving on now.
Click to expand...
Calvin taught double predestination which he called a dreadful and horrible doctrine . Any reasonable person would call such a doctrine unloving not loving. You may have the last word .
 
Theophilus said:
Calvin taught double predestination which he called a dreadful and horrible doctrine . Any reasonable person would call such a doctrine unloving not loving. You may have the last word .
Click to expand...
As any person would call unloving declaring war on your fellow brothers and sisters in Christ.

Where is the love?
 
Theophilus said:
Calvin taught double predestination which he called a dreadful and horrible doctrine . Any reasonable person would call such a doctrine unloving not loving. You may have the last word .
Click to expand...
God had no intention of saving Esau. He had no intention of saving Judas. He had no intention of saving Pharoah.

He only intends on saving whom He willed to save in Christ before the foundation of the world; Ephesians 1:4.

Only God is responsible for salvation, man is not responsible for his salvation.
 
Theophilus said:
Calvin taught double predestination which he called a dreadful and horrible doctrine . Any reasonable person would call such a doctrine unloving not loving. You may have the last word .
Click to expand...
He already gave the last word to you.

Where is love for God in all His glory and others in anti-Calvinism? All I'm seeing is loathing of both.
 
preacher4truth said:
God had no intention of saving Esau. He had no intention of saving Judas. He had no intention of saving Pharoah.

He only intends on saving whom He willed to save in Christ before the foundation of the world; Ephesians 1:4.

Only God is responsible for salvation, man is not responsible for his salvation.
Click to expand...
@ReverendRV since you liked his reply then you agree that the gospel is limited like the atonement for the elect sheep only not the reprobate . I will give the preacher credit here since he is consistent with Calvin and you are inconsistent and compromise . Preacher would never tell a lost person ( Esau or judas ) Jesus loved them and died for their sins .
 
Theophilus said:
@ReverendRV since you liked his reply then you agree that the gospel is limited like the atonement for the elect sheep only not the reprobate . I will give the preacher credit here since he is consistent with Calvin and you are inconsistent and compromise .
Click to expand...
I'll leave this attempt to sow discord (which this one does perpetually) between the sower and @ReverendRV. I'm not into those who look to cause division, it isn't a fruit of the Spirit, nor does it reflect evidence of conversion but works of the flesh. It is a sad witness that is being conveyed on this site, and I wish it would end.
Theophilus said:
Preacher would never tell a lost person Jesus loved them and died for their sins .
Click to expand...
Then of course on top of sowing discord, looking for strife, and causing division we have to also falsely accuse.

For the record I'm a firm believer in 2 Timothy 2:8-10.

Everyone take a closer look at what is going on here.
 
Theophilus said:
@ReverendRV since you liked his reply then you agree that the gospel is limited like the atonement for the elect sheep only not the reprobate . I will give the preacher credit here since he is consistent with Calvin and you are inconsistent and compromise . Preacher would never tell a lost person Jesus loved them and died for their sins .
Click to expand...
Nah, the Gospel and it's Promises are for everyone; Jesus teaches this. If Satan didn't carry away the Gospel from the Hard heart, if the person Believed, Jesus would have to Save them. The Power of God unto Salvation is in the Gospel, not in the heart. Provisionism would be right, all you need is the Gospel; if not for Satan, right?

You need more than that, you need the Sovereign God of Salvation, the Holy Spirit. You need the Providence of God. satan is God's devil...
 
preacher4truth said:
I'll leave this attempt to sow discord (which this one does perpetually) between the sower and @ReverendRV. I'm not into those who look to cause division, it isn't a fruit of the Spirit, nor does it reflect evidence of conversion but works of the flesh. It is a sad witness that is being conveyed on this site, and I wish it would end.

Then of course on top of sowing discord, looking for strife, and causing division we have to also falsely accuse.

For the record I'm a firm believer in 2 Timothy 2:8-10.

Everyone take a closer look at what is going on here.
Click to expand...
I see you are unwilling to correct Calvinists and only non Calvinists .
 
Theophilus said:
@ReverendRV since you liked his reply then you agree that the gospel is limited like the atonement for the elect sheep only not the reprobate .
Click to expand...

Posters can "like" posts for any number of reasons. It doesn't necessarily imply agreement with everything or even anything in the post.

Theophilus said:
I will give the preacher credit here since he is consistent with Calvin
Click to expand...

Calvinism is NOT defined by "Calvin".
You really need to lose your obsession with the man, especially considering you're 100% ignorant of anything about him. Weren't you the one who errantly thought he lived in the 1800's?

Theophilus said:
and you are inconsistent and compromise .
Click to expand...

I'm sure nobody cares about your opinions.
Perhaps ReverendRV's view is more nuanced than you give credit for.
That's a laugh, you giving anyone any credit for anything?

Theophilus said:
Preacher would never tell a lost person ( Esau or judas ) Jesus loved them and died for their sins .
Click to expand...

That's because Jesus and the Apostles never did that, nor did they teach us to do that.
 
Theophilus said:
I see you are unwilling to correct Calvinists and only non Calvinists .
Click to expand...
More sowing of discord, it is perpetual with you.

I'm not here to shear the sheep, I'm here to expose the wolves, those who look to cause strife, division, and sow discord.

There is no love in anti-Calvinism.
 
Theo1689 said:
Posters can "like" posts for any number of reasons. It doesn't necessarily imply agreement with everything or even anything in the post.



Calvinism is NOT defined by "Calvin".
You really need to lose your obsession with the man, especially considering you're 100% ignorant of anything about him. Weren't you the one who errantly thought he lived in the 1800's?



I'm sure nobody cares about your opinions.
Perhaps ReverendRV's view is more nuanced than you give credit for.
That's a laugh, you giving anyone any credit for anything?



That's because Jesus and the Apostles never did that, nor did they teach us to do that.
Click to expand...
Um, you mean Calvin wasn't contemporaneous with Spurgeon and Abe Lincoln?
 
Josheb said:
I'll be moving on now.
Click to expand...
If there is a poster who would like to take up the matter of Calvin's view of "God is love," and God's love for all and the matter of how monergists (I do not speak strictly as a Calvinist) view God's love I'm amenable to having that conversation with anyone who has not already shown an inability to stay topical, a willingness to befriend fallacy, or an inability to acknowledge error. I don't find the monergist position on God being love or His love for humans particularly complicated, though. God loves everyone but He doesn't love everyone the same way. Gill got it wrong when he argued God does not and cannot love satan. I was surprised when I first read that in Gill many years ago because even in my fledgling days as a monergist I possessed a certain sensitivity to any occasion when someone claims God CANNOT do something. God can do whatever He wants! The essence of Gill's argument is, of course, that God does not and cannot act against His own character, but Gill still erred because he did not consider the act of delayed judgment and act of love.

Gill is not Calvin.

Calvin has been demonstrated to have believed and taught a different position than Gill's. I tried to track it down in Calvin's commentaries and have yet to find it, but I'm fairly certain Calvin can be found he rejected the argument God loved only the elect. That was, apparently, a position that existed in his day, in the early days of the Reformation. I'll post that quote and link to the source for everyone's verification if and when I track it down but the quotes already provided in Posts #584 and 585 prove Calvin did in fact teach God's love for all.

Happy to take that up with others.
 
Isaiah 53:11 NIV; After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.

After he saw the Light of Life, he Justified Many because he Bore their Sin...
 
preacher4truth said:
God had no intention of saving Esau. He had no intention of saving Judas. He had no intention of saving Pharoah.

He only intends on saving whom He willed to save in Christ before the foundation of the world; Ephesians 1:4.

Only God is responsible for salvation, man is not responsible for his salvation.
Click to expand...
Eph 1:4 does not support you

it concerns the faithful in Christ

Ephesians 1:1–3 (ESV) — 1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and are faithful in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,

there is nothing there about unconditionally sellected men
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top