Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Hammster]

Man had submitted to God of their own free will which then lead to the Spirit regenerating them. So yes, man plays a part on whether or not the Spirit will regenerate a person.

BTW ~ The Spirit does all the regeneration. But it is the man who must first submit to God of his own free will before that can happen. That is not what the definition of Synergism is saying. It is not saying that man helps to regenerate himself. It is saying man cooperates with God in the fact that he submits first and then God regenerates them.


...

I understand that's what synergists believe. You called me a synergist, so I had to correct you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Not exactly. Christ was speaking to the people in that church. The assumption is they were still part of the church even though they were having lots of problems. They are not of the world or they would not be a church.

No. There are no divisions. Jesus said we are all members of the same body with Christ being the head of the church.


....

 

[Hammster]

Where do we find that we have to confess like David?
Where do we find that we have to believe like the jailer?
It is implied that we can also do the same as these other believers.
Why? Because we are believers, too.

....

So really, you don't have anything to support your claim.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I understand that's what synergists believe. You called me a synergist, so I had to correct you.

Okay, so you believe that man does not submit to God of his own free will first (Whereby it then leads to a regeneration that is completely of God)?


...

 

[Hammster]

Then why the letters to seven

Okay, so you believe that man does not submit to God of his own free will first (Whereby it then leads to a regeneration that is completely of God)?


...

First? No.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So really, you don't have anything to support your claim.

So Laodicia are a completely different set of believers than any other believer in human history? Sorry, we are all a part of the same body or church in Christ (With Christ being the head of that church). If God calls a specific group of believers to repent for specific wrong actions, it is logical to assume that the same applies to another group of believers who would do the same exact thing. God's standard on morality does not shift or change from one group of believers to another. True believers are all of one church or body.


....

 

[Marvin Knox]

But does God try and draw and call those He knows who will not repent? Does Jesus stand at the door of a person's heart and knock knowing that they will not accept Him or open the door? Or does God only knock upon the door of the hearts of individuals He knows of whom will accept Him?

We all understand that anything that God really "tried" His hardest to do would end up being done.

He does call everyone to repent and believe. But, although many are called, only a comparative few are chosen.

The knocking on the door analogy is of course given in another context altogether. But still I think that the concept is appropriate to the general call of God in the preaching of the gospel. How that works on an "interior" level - I wouldn't presume to know. We aren't told a lot about it. The conscience certainly comes into play when people hear repentance and the gospel preached. That much we can be certain of.

God takes no pleasure in either the death of the wicked or in their eternal punishment. His tears over them (as with the tears of Jesus over the unrepentant Jerusalem) are very real and heart felt.

For all I can see in scripture the Lord may well feel that sorrow for eternity. The Lamb of God may well suffer the fires of Hell for eternity along with those for whom He died and bore their sins. It is for that reason that I believe that so called limited atonement (as it is often preached) goes beyond what is written and brings all too human logic to play on the unknowable.

Ufortunately people tend to associate the bad with a particular belief name. For example: A person can start a church and call it a Catholic Church but they could in no way practice anything that the Catholic Church teaches. Now, why would they do that? Why associate with darkness? In other words, I would stop calling yourself a Calvinist because many believers could be misunderstood into thinking you believe you are against a person having a free will choice in choosing God. Just call yourself a Christian instead. It would be easier and would erase any confusion by others.

I am what is known as a "Reformed" christian in that I believe many of the same doctrines as Calvinists.

I just nuance them more than most 5-point Calvinists.

I believe in the absolute sovereignty of God. That includes a belief that everything that happens in God's creation has been predestined by God to happen. For that reason I would not fit well in with "Arminians" or "Free Grace".

My view of the "mechanics" of salvation are very much like those of the Calvinists.

I have been told by Calvinists that I cannot call myself a true Calvinist and I have been told by Reformed that I cannot call myself a true Reformed. I am not an Arminian and I certainly am not a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.

I simply try to give my views in various conversations without labels if at all possible.

The problem is that people tend to make assumptions none the less.

For instance - - - when I entered into this discussion about the supposed illogical nature of Calvinism I did so by simply critiquing the OP as it asked us to do. The author of the OP seemed to have made the assumption that I believed everything that the Calvinists believed simply because I found fault with his lack of proper logic in the OP.

That's not the same thing as supporting everything "Calvinist". But we could not move past it it seems. So we parted ways after a while as you may have noticed.

Look. I am not denying that God did not plan salvation since the foundation of the world for man. That is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is the "decision of belief" on behalf of the person. Was it God that ultimately made a person to believe or was it God that was doing something so as to make them believe while God chose others to not believe? ...

God predestined the belief of the one and the disbelief of the other. But He accomplished what He had predestined through the free choices of each. Rather than override their freedom with His predestination - He used their "free will" to establish His will.

But - in answer to your very straight forward question - God did do something so as to make some believe and passed others by.

I have mentioned before - the difference in God "making" someone do something and His changing their nature so that they want to do something. That pertinent distinction is something that Calvinists tend to make repeatedly.

Why people have any more problem with God making a new creation when they apparently have no problem with His making the old creation I'll never really understand.

If they have truly made a trip down to the river to identify with this sinful world - then they should have no problem with God's right to pour out His wrath on the old man.

They should positively love the idea that He created us new and that we came to Him in response and that this new man will be with Him forever without sin.

Is it that the old man is so important to people that they can't stand the idea of him being crucified with Christ?

Or is it this "free will" mantra run a muck?

Or is it a little bit of both?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Then why the letters to seven

These are letters to the seven groups of believers who are all apart of one body in Christ. The foot cannot say that it has no need of the hand, etc. God is not a respecter of persons. God's standard on morality is the same from one group of believers to another (Who are all a part of one body).

First? No.

Then you are a Synergist.


...

 

[Hammster]

So Laodicia are a completely different set of believers than any other believer in human history? Sorry, we are all a part of the same body or church in Christ (With Christ being the head of that church). If God calls a specific group of believers to repent for specific wrong actions, it is logical to assume that the same applies to another group of believers who would do the same exact thing. God's standard on morality does not shift or change from one group of believers to another. True believers are all of one church or body.


....

Yes, a different set of believers. They are all dead. So that congregation is gone.

A differs type of believer? No. Just ones with different issues. But if you think it applies to you, then you are neither hot nor cold.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yep...

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/...race_in_redemption/04_SLJ_method_of_grace.pdf

Nope. I don't consider 18 pages of a sermon to be citing Scripture. More like citing a commentary.

 

[FreeGrace2]

So at one point, everyone has faith, correct?

To have faith means that 'faith' is being used as a noun. Since the gospel is for everyone, in that sense, faith is available for everyone to believe.

 

[FreeGrace2]

How, then, does God determine who gets the faith?

Those who seek for it.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about Rom 3:11. But that passage isn't a bunch of blanket statements about the entire human race. Instead, there are 6 OT quotes to prove Paul's statement in Rom 3:9; that "all are under sin". He proved his point by citing 6 OT verses that show the various ways we are all under sin.

But we know from Acts 17:26 and Heb 11:6 that men do seek God. Those who do will get the faith, which they can then either believe or not.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The simpler the better. You must be regenerated first to see and enter the kingdom second. So regeneration comes before justification-salvation

But John 3:3 doesn't say that. Nor does any other verse.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

We But He accomplished what He had predestined through the free choices of each. Rather than override their freedom with His predestination - He used their "free will" to establish His will.

I am not in disagreement that God accomplishes His plan for good using free willed beings.

But - in answer to your very straight forward question - God did do something so as to make some believe and passed others by.

Well, I believe man cannot come to God without his drawing. But I believe God draws all men to repent. But regenerating is not the same as drawing, though. So are you saying that God knew who was going to believe of their own free will choice and that God gave them a little help by regenerating them so that they could choose God? I know what you said before, but I just want to be clear on what you believe.

I have mentioned before - the difference in God "making" someone do something and His changing their nature so that they want to do something. That pertinent distinction is something that Calvinists tend to make repeatedly.

I am not in disagreement with the regeneration and the new nature given to us by God AFTER we submit to him of our own free will (as a part of God drawing us). But this would not make me a Calvinist for believing such a thing, though.

Why people have any more problem with His making a new creation when they apparently have no problem with making the old creation I'll never really understand.

But the different natures does not have anything to do with Calvinism because we get to choose Christ of our own free will (Which then moves us from one nature to the other). In fact, even after believing, we can resist this new nature. That is why Scripture says we are to endure in the faith to the end.


...

 

[klutedavid]

Hello all.

Free will is a philosophical term, not a term found within the scripture and for a
very good reason.

Romans 11:32
For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.

All people are by nature disobedient, not only are we deeply disobedient, we are
also blind and stupid.

The great lesson that we should have all learned from the nation of Israel, is that
left to our own sense of right and wrong behavior. We will choose to be disobedient,
in fact, we cannot help ourselves, we are all given over to the darker side of our nature.
That is what the text above is telling us.

Isreal was destined to fail, there was never any other possibility available to that nation.
God told Moses that Israel would fail to obey the law.

Further, no person would ever choose the Christ through an act of their own free will. I have
no doubt whatsoever, that to consider that a person would choose the right path of their own
volition, is utter heresy.

Rather folks, we would in a sense happily crucify the Christ all over again.

The Law itself does not exist for good and wholesome free will agents. Law was instituted
by God to the nation of Israel, to prove this point to mankind, that mankind is selfish and
evil at all points on the line. We are not good by nature, we do not love God, we much
prefer the golden calf on any day of the week. Let's be honest with each other on this matter.

Please refrain from the usage of the philosophical term, free will, it is erroneous to even consider
this concept. The term free will is an idealistic concept, not a term that has any merit in the
world of Christianity. The concept of a free will by man, was introduced into Christianity, it does
not exist within the pages of the scripture.

Without the intrusion of God's Son into time and space, no one could ever be saved.

No one ever chose to follow the Christ by an act of free will, that is ridiculous.

God acts in the first instance at all levels of His creation, and through our regeneration,
this reconciliation is empowered by God alone at all times. If we were able to exercise
an act of free will regarding this acceptance of the Christ. Then the heavens would be
filled with our profound boasting.

Find another term to use, please do not use this artificial term anymore. How about
the much softer term 'choice', at least with this term we do not corrupt the revelation
of the Christ.

 

[Hammster]

To have faith means that 'faith' is being used as a noun. Since the gospel is for everyone, in that sense, faith is available for everyone to believe.

How does one come to believe it's available?

 

[Hammster]

Those who seek for it.

Yeah, yeah, I know all about Rom 3:11. But that passage isn't a bunch of blanket statements about the entire human race. Instead, there are 6 OT quotes to prove Paul's statement in Rom 3:9; that "all are under sin". He proved his point by citing 6 OT verses that show the various ways we are all under sin.

But we know from Acts 17:26 and Heb 11:6 that men do seek God. Those who do will get the faith, which they can then either believe or not.

Before someone seeks it, don't they have to believe it exists?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

For was Adam and Eve created with a fallen nature? Did they not have a choice? Would it not seem like God is a respecter of persons if they had a free will choice to do bad or good and yet we cannot?


....

 

[Albion]

To have faith means that 'faith' is being used as a noun. Since the gospel is for everyone, in that sense, faith is available for everyone to believe.

Actually, that's illogical. If Faith is an entity or commodity, that says nothing about who may obtain it, achieve it, or do anything else with it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, a different set of believers. They are all dead. So that congregation is gone.

A differs type of believer? No. Just ones with different issues. But if you think it applies to you, then you are neither hot nor cold.

Doesn't matter if they are dead or not. All believers in the New Testament are of the same body of Christ. It is one church and not many churches in Jesus. It would be silly to suggest that this chapter was not written for the believer today and that they could not apply it to their life, as well.


....