Logical Problems with Calvinism

[nobdysfool]

"A" verse...as though that is how theology is imparted in Scripture, by nice, neat little sound-bite single verses. Much theology is understood through the study of verses, passages, and even chapters (all of which are man-made divisions not present in the original), and some theological concepts have no "one verse" that states the point. Only a lazy person would insist on "a" verse that says a theological point, and even then it will be disputed, as we have seen multiple times in these forums.

And there is an element of pride involved, since the person demanding this single verse takes great umbrage at anyone who disagrees with him. That's pride, pure and simple. and such an attitude actually undercuts and negates much of what they think to impose on others here. And yes, impose is the right word, because of the perceived need to shoot down any opposing view, rather than just accept that some will disagree and be OK with that. A mature Believer isn't threatened by opposing viewpoints.

 

[Hammster]

Please PROVE from Scripture that one must have a new heart in order to believe. Unless there is a verse teaching that, your point is false.

Do you need to see the verses that say you can't please God in the flesh?

 

[Hammster]

Which is to say, "based on the truth of Scripture, there are no verses that say heart of stone can believe".

Thank you for agreeing with me on this.

I've asked repeatedly for verses that teach that one needs a new heart in order to believe. And this is the only kind of response there is.

Because there simply AREN'T any verses that support the Calvinistic claim that one needs a new heart in order to believe.

Are there verses that say a heart of stone can please God? Just one will suffice.

 

[Hammster]

"A" verse...as though that is how theology is imparted in Scripture, by nice, neat little sound-bite single verses. Much theology is understood through the study of verses, passages, and even chapters (all of which are man-made divisions not present in the original), and some theological concepts have no "one verse" that states the point. Only a lazy person would insist on "a" verse that says a theological point, and even then it will be disputed, as we have seen multiple times in these forums.

And there is an element of pride involved, since the person demanding this single verse takes great umbrage at anyone who disagrees with him. That's pride, pure and simple. and such an attitude actually undercuts and negates much of what they think to impose on others here. And yes, impose is the right word, because of the perceived need to shoot down any opposing view, rather than just accept that some will disagree and be OK with that. A mature Believer isn't threatened by opposing viewpoints.

I've stated this many times. Based on the single verse mindset, there's no way to prove the Trinity. There is not a single verse that says that all three members are God and that they are all one. I could give the same level of evidence to support any aspect of Calvinism, but it would be rejected because the level of accepted evidence changed.

 

[sdowney717]

Based on your level of what's considered evidence, there's no verses that say a heart of stone can believe.

A heart of stone is a dead heart, hardened. Stones are dead hard objects that can not feel. Someone who is hardened by the deceitfulness of sin has a dead stony heart hardened against Christ, they are antichrists. They have been burnt ahead of hell, seared in their conscience, so they are unfeeling, not sensitive, not a spiritual man on the inside. Hardened seared hearts like a stone, speak from the heart lies. If they do not abide in the Truth, then they are as Satan, Christ testifying, that everything Satan speaks is a lie and he the father of it and can not abide in the Truth.

1 Timothy 4New King James Version (NKJV)
The Great Apostasy
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,

A heart of flesh is a living heart, softened. Someone who has been softened in their stance against Christ is one who learns, harkens, is taught from the Holy Spirit. Such persons God leads to Christ and they believe. That is what being regenerated is, to get the soft heart of flesh that can feel, sense and understand what God is teaching so that they respond by coming to Christ.
John 6
43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves.
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.
46 Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father.
47 Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life.

All who God draws comes to Christ. Those drawn are all taught by God. All who hear God and learn from God about Christ all then come to Christ without exception.
Being able to hear is a prerequisite to being able to learn, and that requires being regenerated, otherwise we won't have the spiritual ears to hear. Hear means also to be able to harken to, respond to Christ in a positive direction, one that leads to salvation.

 

[EmSw]

Where does the Bible teach that man receives a new heart by "casting away all his iniquity"?

Hmmm, try Ezekiel 18:31 -
Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit:

And please don't twist this to make it say what you want.

 

[EmSw]

Prove your opinion with Scripture that teaches that one must be good in order to believe. Or more precisely, that one needs to be regenerated (have a new heart) in order to believe.

I'm patient. I'll wait for anyone to look up the verses.

Try this, and please don't twist it.

Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Can a corrupt tree bring forth anything but corruption? Can a corrupt tree bring forth anything but evil?

 

[Hammster]

Hmmm, try Ezekiel 18:31 -
Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit:

And please don't twist this to make it say what you want.

Here's the problem with using this verse out of context with the whole book. It's obvious that the people would not do this. There was nothing in them that really wanted to. That's why God had to take their hearts of stone and give them hearts of flesh. If they'd been able to do that on their own, at least some world have and God would not have needed to give anyone new hearts.

 

[Hammster]

Try this, and please don't twist it.

Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Can a corrupt tree bring forth anything but corruption? Can a corrupt tree bring forth anything but evil?

You seem to think so. You think a corrupt tree can bring forth good fruit (a new heart).

 

[sdowney717]

Ezekiel 18:31
Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?

God is telling them what they must do to live and lamenting to them that they can not do this without His help.

They will get themselves a clean heart when God creates one for them to get.
As happens here.
Psalm 51:10
Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

 

[Received]

The conclusions you draw point by point are illogical.

Point number 2 draws a conclusion that is unwarrented from point number 1.

As a result point number 3 arrives at a wrong conclusion from point number 2.

Being unable to come to salvation by his own power says nothing about the inability to sin in general.

A person needs salvation because he sins. He doesn't sin because he can't believe unto salvation.

If people went to Hell only for not believing unto salvation then your logic might be better founded. They do not, however, go to Hell only for the reason that they do not believe unto salvation. There's plenty of other sins involved to get them a one way ticket even without that factor.

Your logic is flawed from the start with the first points. The other conclusions you reach in points number 4-7 are therefore flawed as well.

The only way out of the "inconsistency" of your OP is to start it over using a proper flow of logic.

I see no justification for your points, or whatever justification is present doesn't touch on what my argument presents. Please be more specific with the points you claim are incorrect. BTW, point 2 isn't a conclusion from point 1; point 3 is a conclusion to the first two points.

 

[Received]

I might add that my present pastor( I am looking for a new Church) no longer has an alter call. He being a hyper Calvinists says God has chosen and they will come on their own.

Here is my rebuttal. When John the Baptist preached repentance and being baptized for your sins, he must of asked is anyone wanting to be baptized? That is a pure "call to come forth" That is what an alter call is.

Also I believe that people hear the Gospel and with the call to come forward in a Worship service it gives them a place to publically confess their wanting to be a Follower of Christ. Si I see it this way. If I want to be on a baseball team I go ask the captain of the team could I join your team. He says yes I choose you. We hearing the Gospel respond saying I am a sinner I want to make Jesus Christ my LORD. Jesus then CALLS US! Yes God knows what we will do, but we have the choice to accept the WORD (John 1:1-14) or reject the WORD.

Calvinism does not believe it that way. Now I have some leanings towards both sides as I am a mixture, how do you explain that?

You're talking about corporate election, which is typically used as a rebuttal to Calvinism along non-Calvinist lines. I'm totally down with that. After all, it's completely arbitrary for election to refer to a whole nation (Israel) in the Old Testament, and then suddenly and without justification begin referring to particular individuals. I put it that there's a salvation bus that goes where God wills, and we all have the choice in responding to grace (which must be present beforehand but which isn't irresistible and therefore sufficient until salvation, but is rather necessary) by getting on the bus or not.

And to me it's much simpler than even the OP presents. There are countless instances of those who are (or would eventually be revealed to be) unsaved who are being reproached for their unbelief. Reproach implies responsibility, capability, specifically that a person should (through God's necessary but not sufficient) grace repent and believe. Calvinism states that man isn't responsible for his salvation. Therefore, either Calvinism contradicts the implied responsibility listed over and over again in scripture, Calvinism isn't true, or (God help us) God is pretty twisted in that he demands illogical things of people and then blames him for not being able to do the things they're unable to do. The fact that God blames people for not repenting means, ultimately, Calvinism isn't true.

 

[EmSw]

Here's the problem with using this verse out of context with the whole book. It's obvious that the people would not do this. There was nothing in them that really wanted to. That's why God had to take their hearts of stone and give them hearts of flesh. If they'd been able to do that on their own, at least some world have and God would not have needed to give anyone new hearts.

I see. This passage is a waste of time for God. Surely He didn't mean to give it to us. He must have had a memory lapse when He gave it to Ezekiel; why didn't He know man was not able to do this? Wow, why didn't I think of this?

Or perhaps, it's both man casting away his transgression and God cooperating together to make a man a new heart. I sure wouldn't want to stand before God and tell Him He was incompetent in writing this passage.

 

[EmSw]

Ezekiel 18:31
Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed, and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel?

God is telling them what they must do to live and lamenting to them that they can not do this without His help.

No one said man does this alone. Where did you get that notion? It does say, and read carefully, 'cast away all your transgressions'. 'You' is the understood subject.

And where in the world did you get God is 'lamenting to them'? Why do you make this story up?

They will get themselves a clean heart when God creates one for them to get.
As happens here.
Psalm 51:10
Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

And God will create one for them when they cast away their transgressions. Isn't it wonderful when man cooperates with God? Although some would rather read only half the truth. Only when the heart is cleansed of evil can it be replaced with a new, clean heart.

 

[EmSw]

You seem to think so. You think a corrupt tree can bring forth good fruit (a new heart).

No, a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit! That's why you 'either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt:' (Matthew 12:33).

 

[Hammster]

I see. This passage is a waste of time for God. Surely He didn't mean to give it to us. He must have had a memory lapse when He gave it to Ezekiel; why didn't He know man was not able to do this? Wow, why didn't I think of this?

Or perhaps, it's both man casting away his transgression and God cooperating together to make a man a new heart. I sure wouldn't want to stand before God and tell Him He was incompetent in writing this passage.

Perhaps? You've spent over a year telling us this is something man can do, and now it's perhaps something else?

 

[Hammster]

No, a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit! That's why you 'either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt:' (Matthew 12:33).

How does a corrupt tree make itself better?

 

[Hammster]

No one said man does this alone. Where did you get that notion? It does say, and read carefully, 'cast away all your transgressions'. 'You' is the understood subject.

And where in the world did you get God is 'lamenting to them'? Why do you make this story up?



And God will create one for them when they cast away their transgressions. Isn't it wonderful when man cooperates with God? Although some would rather read only half the truth. Only when the heart is cleansed of evil can it be replaced with a new, clean heart.

If it's cleansed of evil, doesn't that make it good? Why the need to replace it?

 

[EmSw]

Perhaps? You've spent over a year telling us this is something man can do, and now it's perhaps something else?

No, I've what I've said, I've said all along. It is man cooperating with God to make himself a new heart.

 

[EmSw]

How does a corrupt tree make itself better?

By the truth from God's word, the whole truth. Try Ezekiel 18:31.