Why am I NOT a Calvinist? REASON #8

Posted by Библията Тв in Facebook's Pentecostal Theology Group View the Original Post

Why am I NOT a Calvinist? REASON #8

God’s choice not to act graciously toward others when God could, denies the goodness of God or at least impugns the reputation of God as a God of love and grace and goodness.

How can God call us to love our enemies and God not do the same? How can God be capable of saving all and not save all if it is God’s choice and not ours?

WHY AM I NOT A CALVINIST? #ourCOG REASON #1 Free… | Pentecostal Theology [08/04/2015 3:10 PM]
[…] REASON #8 God’s choice not to act graciously toward others […]

36 Comments

  • Reply July 30, 2016

    Jon Ray

    God’s choice not to act graciously toward others when God could, denies the goodness of God or at least impugns the reputation of God as a God of love and grace and goodness Charles Page

  • Reply July 30, 2016

    Charles Page

    God has never chosen not to act graciously! Still there are people who will insist he does choose ‘not to act graciously’

    He acts graciously toward those who blatantly resist Him. His grace is irresistible.

  • Reply July 30, 2016

    Jon Ray

    Exactly! Thus free will which Calvinism denies is God acting graciously toward human kind. Grace is Resistible and many have fallen from grace – hence we have sanctification Charles seems to agree with that too http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/why-am-i-not-a-calvinist-reason-6/

  • Reply July 30, 2016

    Charles Page

    God acts graciously toward his election (not universalism) Grace is irresistible by the elect. many of God’s elect are never sanctified and some of the sanctified will loose their sanctification (all God’s elect are justified, regenerated and glorified)

  • Reply July 30, 2016

    Jon Ray

    Ancient MSS declare that the popularized difficult reading/singing of first line in the second verse “’Twas grace that taught my heart to fear” was originally recorded as: “Twice taught this grace my heart to fear.” It is quite apparent from this ancient sola-red-back-hymnala that the idea of once-saved-always-saved was foreign to the author. Quite the contrary, he introduces the idea of two-grace-touched, clearly a poetical reference to first and second works of grace. Rick Wadholm Jr

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Josh Golden

    The issue is God could destroy every human being on this planet and still be good he did that once ya know oh except for 8 people. People just don’t like being clay.

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Jon Ray

    Do you feel that all but 8 were created for destruction?

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Josh Golden

    Would they have been destroyed otherwise, how sovereign is God?

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Jon Ray

    So do you feel that all but 8 were created for destruction?

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Josh Golden

    They were destroyed so obviously that was the plan.

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Jon Ray

    And this is where Pentecostal soteriology departs from baptistic Calvinsm

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Josh Golden

    So it wasnt the plan? God killed all those people by accident?

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Varnel Watson

    He killed them because they chose to sin. Not because they were preordained to be killed. There!

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Josh Golden

    So when he talks about his decree that he declared things from the beginning did he not declare the judgment of those wicked people or did his entire decree, fall apart when Adam fell and everything after that is him fumbling about trying to pick up the pieces.

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Charles Page

    That’s it – a God who “fumbling about trying to pick up the pieces”

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Charles Page

    most theology is that the Church will put it all back together for God and then he’ll return to rule.

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Josh Golden

    So God needs us to fix the world for him, I dont see that in scripture would love to see where they get that.

    • Reply July 31, 2016

      Charles Page

      when we finish preaching the gospel then He’ll return. I heard that all my life and it will be preached for maybe 10 more years then theology will change for the good.

    • Reply July 31, 2016

      Josh Golden

      I mean no disrespect but are you saying Christ will return in 10 years?

    • Reply July 31, 2016

      Charles Page

      Josh Golden That is when the church runs out of finances and will necessitate a theology shift.

    • Reply July 31, 2016

      Josh Golden

      Ya i’m not really sure what you’re getting at lol

    • Reply July 31, 2016

      Charles Page

      Just running my mouth.
      I believe there is coming a major theological shift

    • Reply July 31, 2016

      Josh Golden

      I would say so too but i’m not sure if we agree on the shift lol

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Jon Ray

    Josh Golden it seem your questions drive the discussion to (a relative) open theism Ricky Grimsley

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Josh Golden

    Open theism is a more consistent view but its completely unbiblical. All the arguments against calvinism are never scriptural it seems they come from emotional or philosophical perspectives.

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Jon Ray

    “All the arguments against calvinism are never scriptural it seems” – It just seems that way http://cupandcross.com/recommending-dr-george-voorhis-new-book/

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Ricky Grimsley

    Open-theism is only unbiblical if you try to change the plain reading of the texts. Either the bible is true or it isnt. The bible says God learns, god changes his mind, and he has emotions. Calvinism isnt biblical and Arminianism isn’t consistent.

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Jon Ray

    It could be an interesting discussion if we begin departing from elementary TULIP and discuss the praxis of Calvinistic theology both in his days and today. There is a reason Arminius and Wesley came about as corner stones in Holiness theology. There was a reason why Wesleyan holiness renewal is the foundation of Pentecostal thought. And that reason simply is that Calvinism extreemed into the domain of unbiblical. However, if we are to indeed begin an in depth theological discussion on Calvin we should perhaps start with Augustine and his own catholic estrangement from theology proper CrossTheology For starters how could Calivin / Augustine type of eschatology be in any way Pentecostal? http://www.pentecostaltheology.com/can-one-be-a-pentecostal-calvinist/

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    CrossTheology

    Josh Golden Open Theism can be backed up by Scripture. The other views have to twist Scripture. crosstheology.wordpress.com/an-apology

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Jon Ray

    The OP “Why am I NOT a Calvinist? REASON #8
    God’s choice not to act graciously toward others when God could, denies the goodness of God or at least impugns the reputation of God as a God of love and grace and goodness.” has little if any at all to do with open theism

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Jon Ray

    I find Chadwick to be a poor rendering of Augustine’s Confession

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    CrossTheology

    Yes there are more modern and better versions but it’s what the author of that article used and it’s good enough to make his point. 🙂

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    Jon Ray

    “The goal of purification is to become like God in order to see God.” I think here you mean deification from Eastern Orthodoxy theosis but for that a much broader observation is needed than just Western theological application. What’s this source you cite “John Piper, the Profane”?

  • Reply July 31, 2016

    CrossTheology

    It’s an excerpt I took from a website article

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.