Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Thursday]

The key words in my statement are "from birth". What I mean is that one "natural" man has exactly the same chance and opportunity as another.

Calvinists believe and teach that the offer of salvation is presented by God through us exactly the same to the elect and the non-elect as well.

Calvinists believe and teach that any man and every man who responds in faith to the offer of the gospel can and will be saved - bar none.

Of course they also believe and teach what the scriptures tell us about whether any natural man will respond.

They also believe and teach - as the scriptures tell us - that only those who are acted upon by God in a way of special grace will come to the Son.

They also believe and teach - as the scriptures tell us - that no man will be so acted on by the Spirit of God in an effectual way unless they are to be given to the Son by the Father.

Those who the Father gives to the Son will come to Him. God guarantees it in His Word.

The scriptures say little about the way that God may draw all men to Himself by His Spirit - except to say that He does.

It would be here where I would nuance the doctrine of irresistible grace a little more than many of my Calvinist brethren.

I believe that the Spirit can be resisted by both the elect and the non-elect alike to some extent. But the Spirit will succeed in opening the eyes of the elect to the gospel offer where He will not strive forever with the non-elect.

That may well be a subtle difference in the doctrine of irresistible grace. But it is a pertinent and vital one IMO.

As with all of the 5-points - it is better for Calvinists to nuance in all of the scriptures which the other side uses --- just as they would hope they would do for them. If both sides included all of the scripture in their systematic theologies the middle ground (the high ground IMO) could easily be seen.

Instead both sides seem to pretty much ignore the other sides scriptures, or at best twist them, and gather into their own camps. (I am of Paul. I am of Apollos. etc. comes to mind. We ought not to do that - no matter who we are.)

I think that the teaching that God predestines some men to Hell is an evil teaching and that it is inconsistent with God's justice and mercy.

 

[tulipbee]

So you believe that a person can be saved without faith?

No one can be saved without God

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's very simple. Paul tells us that sin can shipwreck, or destroy, our faith.

Please prove your theory that if one loses their faith, they have lost their salvation.

Your logic is flawed by lack of Scriptural support.

So, I ask you again, can a person be saved without faith?

I've already answered your question.

But why do you persist in ignoring the verses about the free gift of eternal life being irrevocable? And that those who have believed have been sealed with the Holy Spirit FOR the day of redemption?

Why don't you believe those verses?

If not, then you will have to admit that this passage is indeed about losing salvation.

It's not, because of the guarantees in Scripture about the day of redemption.

I believe the promise of God.

And I've yet to read any verse that tells me that I can lose the free gift of eternal life. Because it's simply NOT THERE.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The prodigal son is about our relationship to God.

No, it is not.

The son was ALWAYS the son, and the father was ALWAYS the father. What was broken or lost was fellowship between them.

Can you break relationship with your birth parents? No, that is impossible. The only thing that you can break with them is fellowship. They will ALWAYS be your birth parents.

What so many Christians fail to understand is the difference between relationship, which is PERMANENT, and fellowship, which is FRAGILE.

Fellowship refers to the status of the relationship.

You clearly can't answer for the verses I provided.

I clearly did.

Try these as well:

2 Peter 2:21
20For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them.

Why should anyone ASSUME that the "last state" refers to eternity? Peter is describing life on earth after one gets entangled again. Why? Because of God's discipline for getting entangled.

Heb 6:5
4For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 5and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come,6and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God and put Him to open shame.

The fact that it's impossible for these to repent has nothing to do with loss of salvation. Do you know what repentance is?

James 5
19My brothers and sisters, if one of you should wander from the truth and someone should bring that person back, 20remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

The Bible teaches about God's discipline that includes physical death; removal from earth for consistent persistent sinning.

John specifically mentions it in 1 Jn 5:16, and Paul directly gives examples of it in 1 Cor 5:5 and 11:30. And we read about it in Acts 5.

It seems to me that there's a lot of Scripture that you simply don't understand.

Once again I will point out that I've provided solid explanation for ALL the verses you've posted, to show that they aren't about loss of salvation, and you haven't yet provided ANY explanation for the verses I've posted that support my view.

Hm.

 

[Tree of Life]

I put this into bullets so that it would be easier to critique individual premises. Logically, in order for an argument to be proven to be invalid, all you have to do is show how the premises don't follow to a conclusion, which can be done through showing how one of the premises are wrong.

This may not make an invalid argument. Incorrect premises can still lead to a logically valid conclusion. However, if a premise is wrong that would make the argument unsound. Either way, death sentence for the argument.

According to Calvinism, man is unable to come to salvation by his own power, and can only come to salvation through irresistible grace.

Agreed.

If man is unable to come to salvation by his own power, then he can't help but sin (there is no middle ground between faith and sin).

Sure.

Therefore, according to Calvinism, man can't help but sin.

Yup.

Blame implies freedom, such that a person can only be blamed for what he's free to accept or reject. I.e., you can't blame a person for doing that which he can't help but do.

I disagree. That man is free only means that his decisions are volitional. He sins because he wants to sin. He was not coerced or forced to sin against his will. His will is sinful.

Calvinism holds that the individual isn't free to accept or reject God except through irresistible grace.

No. God makes a sinner want to submit to him. The sinner then submits to God freely.

Therefore, Calvinism shouldn't place blame on sinners, given that blame implies a freedom to accept or reject God that isn't possible without irresistible grace.

No. The Bible places blame on sinners because sinners want to sin.

The solution to your problem is to reject the logically incoherent notion of libertarian freedom and accept the more biblical notion of compatablist freedom.

 

[Marvin Knox]

This may not make an invalid argument. Incorrect premises can still lead to a logically valid conclusion. However, if a premise is wrong that would make the argument unsound. Either way, death sentence for the argument.
Agreed.
Sure.
Yup.
I disagree. That man is free only means that his decisions are volitional. He sins because he wants to sin. He was not coerced or forced to sin against his will. His will is sinful.

No. God makes a sinner want to submit to him. The sinner then submits to God freely.

No. The Bible places blame on sinners because sinners want to sin.

The solution to your problem is to reject the logically incoherent notion of libertarian freedom and accept the more biblical notion of compatablist freedom.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I think that the teaching that God predestines some men to Hell is an evil teaching and that it is inconsistent with God's justice and mercy.

Many people (even most) feel the same as you do about it.

But what it really comes down to is whether or not the idea that God does indeed predestine everything that happens in His creation is the only conclusion to the matter considering what God has revealed to us.

Any systematic theology worth it's salt comes to the same conclusion. That is any that is based only on the scriptures and not on pronouncements that come from the Vatican Papacy, Salt Lake City, or any such thing. Every really thorough and systematic theology since the Reformation comes to the same conclusions.

Ones where the emotions of men come into play - not so much.

One can come to no other truly logical conclusion than that God predestined everything that happens in His creation. That is if he takes into account all of the revealed attributes of God, His omnipresent and providential control of His creation, and all other pronouncements from God that we have in the scriptures.

Whether or not it offends your sensibilities or whether you can understand how such things can be from our limited viewpoint is really beside the point - now isn't it?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I think that the teaching that God predestines some men to Hell is an evil teaching and that it is inconsistent with God's justice and mercy.

This is one of the doctrines that I find very disturbing myself. It's hard to explain to people that Jesus loves them after a Calvinist has told them maybe they were never elect to be saved at all. When the person has heard that God may have designed them to go to hell, that is hard to get that person even talking about God after that.

Even though many are silent about that, I've heard that presented to many here. Or the 'maybe they aren't saved and were never chosen by God to be one of His. Maybe they thought they were saved, but never were saved'.

It's pretty ugly to read that stuff.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Many people (even most) feel the same as you do about it.

But what it really comes down to is whether or not the idea that God does indeed predestine everything that happens in His creation is the only conclusion to the matter considering what God has revealed to us.

Any systematic theology worth it's salt comes to the same conclusion. That is any that is based only on the scriptures and not on pronouncements that come from the Vatican Papacy, Salt Lake City, or any such thing. Every really thorough and systematic theology since the Reformation comes to the same conclusions.

Ones where the emotions of men come into play - not so much.

One can come to no other truly logical conclusion than that God predestined everything that happens in His creation. That is if he takes into account all of the revealed attributes of God, His omnipresent and providential control of His creation, and all other pronouncements from God that we have in the scriptures.

Whether or not it offends your sensibilities or whether you can understand how such things can be from our limited viewpoint is really beside the point - now isn't it?

So, let's think about this for a minute. Think about it.

So, if God predestines everything in our lives, than what is the point of Judgement Day at all?

Why would God even judge a creation that has no choice or free will at all. That is a deep, deep rabbit hole.

Further, why would God create mankind with different personalities. Why not have a cut-out that remains the same for each person. We all like Cheerios, football and do not like wine and murder. If each of us were exactly the same it would remove a lot of the things we doubt becauase each of us would think like the other and desire the same things.

God could choose the believers and then there would be two groups of people on earth, exactly alike in every way except that some were chosen and some were not. We on earth would all eat Cheerios for breakfast and watch football always. No one would murder and there would be no alchoholics.

Sounds good, right?

 

[GillDouglas]

God is powerful enough to choose to grant us free will.

We are made in his image.

Man's free will is more powerful than God's?

 

[GillDouglas]

what is the point of...

God's glory

 

[GillDouglas]

This is one of the doctrines that I find very disturbing myself. It's hard to explain to people that Jesus loves them after a Calvinist has told them maybe they were never elect to be saved at all. When the person has heard that God may have designed them to go to hell, that is hard to get that person even talking about God after that.

Even though many are silent about that, I've heard that presented to many here. Or the 'maybe they aren't saved and were never chosen by God to be one of His. Maybe they thought they were saved, but never were saved'.

It's pretty ugly to read that stuff.

God preordained all things. You don't have to like it, but you don't get a say in it and better to just accept it.

 

[Albion]

Someone set me straight on this. Does predestination mean that God predetermined who would be have Faith and so be saved...or does it also meant that he determined, in advance, every last thing that each of us would think, say, and do?

 

[GillDouglas]

Someone set me straight on this. Does predestination mean that God predetermined who would be have Faith and so be saved...or does it also meant that he determined, in advance, every last thing that each of us would think, say, and do?

The doctrine of Predestination represents all things being the purpose of God as absolute and unconditional, independent of all of the finite creation, and as originating solely in the eternal counsel of His will. His decrees are eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise and sovereign. Everything is included in the all-embracing decrees since all other beings owe their existence and continuance in existence to His creative and sustaining power. It embraces the whole scope of a creatures existence, through time and eternity, comprehending at once all things that ever were or will be in their causes, conditions, successions and relations.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Man's free will is more powerful than God's?

Why is that a question?

I'm sure God did not create us to be more powerful than He is. Satan is more powerful than us. So, I really do not think so. #common sense

Are we thinking things through or just posting quick sentences?

I hope people provide enough thoughtful input that keeps this thread going.

 

[GillDouglas]

Why is that a question?

I'm sure God did not create us to be more powerful than He is. Satan is more powerful than us. So, I really do not think so. #common sense

Are we thinnking things through or just posting quick sentences?

Sure, if you say so. It's simple and it ends in a question mark. Does that qualify? Is a man's will so great that he can thwart God's Will? Our Catholic friend insists that God gave us free will so that we can do whatever we want, even if God doesn't want it done. I disagree.

 

[sdowney717]

Someone set me straight on this. Does predestination mean that God predetermined who would be have Faith and so be saved...or does it also meant that he determined, in advance, every last thing that each of us would think, say, and do?

Good question there.
Read this, good scriptural references and come to your own conclusions.
We still are not robot puppets, but yes all things are determined when God has His hands in the outcome. Otherwise there would be an unscripted element of chance. God by His own nature is all powerfully omniscient else God would not be Lord of all creation, so this is no problem for God to have foreknown all things that occur, and all things do exist for His own pleasure.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/SpiritOfTheWord/004AllThingsAreOfGod.htm

 

[ToBeLoved]

Sure, if you say so. It's simple and it ends in a question mark. Does that qualify? Is a man's will so great that he can thwart God's Will? Our Catholic friend insists that God gave us free will so that we can do whatever we want, even if God doesn't want it done. I disagree.

That is not what you said.

What you said was

"Man's free will is more powerful than God's?" Post #3210

Now you ask "Is a man's will so great that he can twart God's will?

Sounds like you are changing the question as you go. So what are you really trying to say? Please be concise so we do not get confused.

 

[Albion]

Good question there.
Read this, good scriptural references and come to your own conclusions.
We still are not robot puppets, but yes all things are determined when God has His hands in the outcome. Otherwise there would be an unscripted element of chance. God by His own nature is all powerfully omniscient else God would not be Lord of all creation, so this is no problem for God to have foreknown all things that occur, and all things do exist for His own pleasure.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/SpiritOfTheWord/004AllThingsAreOfGod.htm

Not what he knows in advance but what he scripts. That was my question (or that part of it, anyway), and with reference to what Calvinists would say. And nothing about a divine plan or God knowing the course of events, but determining each and every last thing that will happen.

 

[GillDouglas]

That is not what you said.

What you said was

"Man's free will is more powerful than God's?" Post #3210

Now you ask "Is a man's will so great that he can twart God's will?

Sounds like you are changing the question as you go. So what are you really trying to say? Please be concise so we do not get confused.

Are you seriously seeing a difference here or are you just screwing with me?