Logical Problems with Calvinism

Marvin Knox · Dec 21, 2015

Received said:
Same difference. I wouldn't say that doing bad is an abuse of freedom; it's an expression of freedom.

No - it's not the same difference as can be seen by the definition of culpable. Culpability has to do with guilt or doing something wrong.

Simply having the right to make choices does not make a person culpable (by definition). It simply makes them a creature of God who has been given the freedom to make choices.

Received said:
But still: How can you say that abuse of freedom of choice doesn't make a person culpable while also saying that freedom of choice (with a wrong, i.e. abusive, choice) makes a person culpable? How do you separate the two?

I have never said that - nor would it make any sense if I did.

Sinning makes a person culpable.

Being created with the ability to make choices makes a person responsible, answerable, and accountable.

The first man, the first Adam, sinned. He was culpable. He was cursed for making a wrong choice.

The second man, the last Adam, did not sin. He was answerable for the choices He would make in His lifetime. Just as we are.

He was rewarded for making the right choices just as we will be.

ToBeLoved · Dec 21, 2015

Marvin Knox said:
No - it's not the same difference as can be seen by the definition of culpable. Culpability has to do with guilt or doing something wrong.

Simply having the right to make choices does not make a person culpable (by definition). It simply makes them a creature of God who has been given the freedom to make choices.

I have never said that - nor would it make any sense if I did.

Sinning makes a person culpable.

Being created with the ability to make choices makes a person responsible, answerable, and accountable.

The first man, the first Adam, sinned. He was culpable. He was cursed for making a wrong choice.

The second man, the last Adam, did not sin. He was answerable for the choices He would make in His lifetime. Just as we are.

He was rewarded for making the right choices just as we will be.

What? I'm not understanding this whole thing.

How is culpable attached to sin?

FreeGrace2 · Dec 21, 2015

Skala said:
But nobody can reject prevenient grace.

Prevenient grace is, after all, a form of grace. And men cannot reject it. It is forced upon them.

Please cite any verse that says so.

In the meantime, I'll provide a verse that indicates just the opposite:
Acts 7:51 - “You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did."

We know that God is grace. So, those who "are always resisting the Holy Spirit", who is God, are resisting grace itself.

Your view does not hold up to the light of Scripture.

FreeGrace2 · Dec 21, 2015

sdowney717 said:
Good point you have made. A prevenient grace is to an Arminian, forced upon all people against their consent.
Such a grace does not actually save anyone.

We know how one is saved: by grace THROUGH FAITH.

So, grace doesn't save. But grace through faith does save. Paul said so. Eph 2:8

AndOne · Dec 21, 2015

I thought the phrase "being changed into another man" had some meaning for those claiming to know the Bible. What ELSE do you think it meant? Saul was told by Samuel the PROPHET of GOD what to do and what he would find. So that meeting wasn't an accident or coincidence.

So, you tell me, what does "changed into another man" mean to you? It MEANS regeneration to me. I care not a bit that the words "new heart" aren't in that verse. What is important is what was SAID. So, the phrase has meaning, even if you'd rather ignore it.

I'll answer these questions so long as you agree to apply these same standards to the arguments we Calvinists make.

"may or may not", huh. OK. Then tell me what Samuel was referring to, if NOT regeneration.

I can show you a NT verse about those who believe are said to become "new creatures" or a "new creation". That surely describes what being "changed into another man" means, right?

Frankly, I think you're just balking at the verse. It is clear enough.

But regardless of such balking, what is crystal clear is that Samuel came back from the dead supernaturally and told Saul (and us) where Saul would spend eternity.

False accusation again - I am not balking. Clearly I have answered this question already. It was a singular event that has no bearing on a permanent change of the heart. This is not a verse about regeneration. It is about Saul doing an act - prophesying - and who was behind that act - God.

Samuel coming from the dead is a different issue than regeneration.

sdowney717 · Dec 21, 2015

NKJV Then the Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man.

Upon does not mean an inward regeneration change.
Upon means on the outside, not on the inside. The Holy Spirit never did indwell Saul.
Granted, Saul is transformed, but only on the outside.

FreeGrace2 · Dec 21, 2015

I said this:
"I thought the phrase "being changed into another man" had some meaning for those claiming to know the Bible. What ELSE do you think it meant? Saul was told by Samuel the PROPHET of GOD what to do and what he would find. So that meeting wasn't an accident or coincidence.

So, you tell me, what does "changed into another man" mean to you? It MEANS regeneration to me. I care not a bit that the words "new heart" aren't in that verse. What is important is what was SAID. So, the phrase has meaning, even if you'd rather ignore it."

AndOne said:
I'll answer these questions so long as you agree to apply these same standards to the arguments we Calvinists make.

Of course I have. Please respond to the verse that Saul, after meeting up with some prophets of God, was "changed into another man".

False accusation again - I am not balking. Clearly I have answered this question already. It was a singular event that has no bearing on a permanent change of the heart. This is not a verse about regeneration. It is about Saul doing an act - prophesying - and who was behind that act - God.

This is no answer or response. I asked what the phrase meant: "changed into another man". If that isn't regeneration, then what is it?

Until you provide what you think that means, you haven't answered my question. \

Now, please "apply these same standards" you want me to use.

Samuel coming from the dead is a different issue than regeneration.

I never said it was about regeneration. Please re-read my comment. 1 Sam 28:19 proves that Saul joined Samuel in Paradise when Saul died the next day.

FreeGrace2 · Dec 21, 2015

sdowney717 said:
NKJV Then the Spirit of the Lord will come upon you, and you will prophesy with them and be turned into another man.

Upon does not mean an inward regeneration change.
Upon means on the outside, not on the inside. The Holy Spirit never did indwell Saul.
Granted, Saul is transformed, but only on the outside.

How is one "transformed only on the outside"? Where else does the Bible speak of this? And what is the purpose for this?

To be "turned into another man" MEANS something. If not regeneration, then WHAT??!!

Job8 · Dec 21, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
How is culpable attached to sin?

Culpability relates to breaking laws. If you go over a speed limit, you are culpable of violating that limit, and there is a penalty attached.

sdowney717 · Dec 21, 2015

Saul got another heart, he did not get the new spirit or a new heart. When God regenerates with a new spirit - new heart, he then comes to live inside them. That is a major difference between old and new testament people. Which is why it says the Spirit came upon Saul, not inside Saul.
Jesus said new wine gets poured into new wineskins otherwise the old skins will burst.
Getting another heart is more of God changing Saul's mind. Saul still has the old heart. Look at what Saul does later on, Saul's deeds do not show that He has God living inside of him, just the opposite.

Ezekiel 11:19
Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh,

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?

Ezekiel 36:26
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

1 Samuel 10:9 So it was, when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, that God gave him another heart; and all those signs came to pass that day.

Balaam also prophesied with a prophecy from God, but was Balaam saved? Nope.

Job8 · Dec 21, 2015

Skala said:
Both Calvinism and Arminianism affirm that God chose certain sinners to be saved before the world was created. (Both must affirm this because it's what scripture says - Ephesians 1).

That is a GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING of Ephesians 1. We could do an exegesis, but it would be a waste of time.

Marvin Knox · Dec 21, 2015

ToBeLoved said:
What? I'm not understanding this whole thing.

How is culpable attached to sin?

Job8 said:
Culpability relates to breaking laws. If you go over a speed limit, you are culpable of violating that limit, and there is a penalty attached.

What Job8 said!

Actually "Received" used the word culpable in one of his posts to me.

Received said:
So freedom of choice determines culpability?

I told him,

Marvin Knox said:
Making wrong choices (i.e. sinning) makes a person culpable.

AND I also told him,

Marvin Knox said:
Simply having the right to make choices does not make a person culpable (by definition). It simply makes them a creature of God who has been given the freedom to make choices.

AND

Marvin Knox said:
Being created with the ability to make choices makes a person responsible, answerable, and accountable.

He seems to be having a problem with the definition of culpable. He seems to be thinking that it is a synonym for accountable. It is not.

Exactly where he was going with all this - I don't yet know. We haven't been able to get past his misuse of the word culpable.

Received · Dec 21, 2015

Skala said:
But nobody can reject prevenient grace.

Prevenient grace is, after all, a form of grace. And men cannot reject it. It is forced upon them.

Do you believe you can reject someone's secondhand smoke by not inhaling it?

Received · Dec 21, 2015

Skala said:
Received I fail to see how the same arguments are not equally applied to synergism/Arminianism.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism affirm that all men are fallen and cannot help but be sinners, due to being unregenerate and being part of Adam's posterity.

This is not unique to Calvinism.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism affirm that if men were left to themselves, all men would perish to hell. Thus both Calvinism and Arminianism affirm that God must give some kind of "enabling" grace to allow men to accept the gospel.

This is not unique to Calvinism.

The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is not that an "enabling" grace is given, but rather, the difference is merely what that grace actually accomplishes. In Arminianism it accomplishes salvation some of the time, in Calvinism it accomplishes salvation 100% of the time. (I fail to see how Arminianism's grace is better or more gracious, but I digress)

Both Calvinism and Arminianism affirm that God chose certain sinners to be saved before the world was created. (Both must affirm this because it's what scripture says - Ephesians 1).

God choosing certain sinners to be saved before they are ever born is not unique to Calvinism.

The difference between Calvininism and Arminianism at this point is not when God chose sinners to be said (as said above, both affirm it was before they were even born), but rather, the difference is merely why God chose some sinners and not others.

If you really want to "attack" Calvinism, you should attack it at these points of difference, and find out what the Bible says about those particular things. Instead, (as this thread shows in your opening argument), you are attacking Calvinism in a place where it is no different than Arminianism, thus, you are in essence unwittingly attacking Arminianism as well, which I presume is your own position since you are not a Calvinist.

ps. by the word Arminianism I am referring to all forms of synergism, save pelagianism

If you really want to have a discussion where people can learn from each other, why not think through your arguments a bit better? Let's talk about the differences between C and A, not their similarities.

Why is regeneration mandatory in Calvinism? Why does prevenient grace not work/ie is not sufficient in Calvinism? Does Calvinism have a certain view of fallen man's ability (or lack thereof) that requires it to hold to a more efficacious form of grace?

If we ask these kinds of questions, real discussion can take place and we can all learn something about what the Bible says about our sinful, helpless state and what exactly God has done to graciously save us.

I'm not an Arminian. Attack is your word; all my weapons are safely locked up.

The difference I'm seeing, and it's a very important one, is that Calvinism accomplishes stuff all the time whereas non-Calvinism does some of the time because of respecting human freedom. You can't say compulsion is "better" than a form of persuasion that isn't compulsive given that the former accomplishes so much more than the latter. Actually, precisely because it's compulsive it's a lesser form of persuasion. Same with Calvinism and irresistible grace.

Received · Dec 21, 2015

Marvin Knox said:
No - it's not the same difference as can be seen by the definition of culpable. Culpability has to do with guilt or doing something wrong.

Simply having the right to make choices does not make a person culpable (by definition). It simply makes them a creature of God who has been given the freedom to make choices.

I have never said that - nor would it make any sense if I did.

Sinning makes a person culpable.

Being created with the ability to make choices makes a person responsible, answerable, and accountable.

The first man, the first Adam, sinned. He was culpable. He was cursed for making a wrong choice.

The second man, the last Adam, did not sin. He was answerable for the choices He would make in His lifetime. Just as we are.

He was rewarded for making the right choices just as we will be.

Remember this is just a metaphor, but do you blame a rock if it dropped from a building and injured a person?

Marvin Knox · Dec 21, 2015

Received said:
Remember this is just a metaphor, but do you blame a rock if it dropped from a building and injured a person?

No.

ToBeLoved · Dec 21, 2015

Received said:
I'm not an Arminian. Attack is your word; all my weapons are safely locked up.

The difference I'm seeing, and it's a very important one, is that Calvinism accomplishes stuff all the time whereas non-Calvinism does some of the time because of respecting human freedom. You can't say compulsion is "better" than a form of persuasion that isn't compulsive given that the former accomplishes so much more than the latter. Actually, precisely because it's compulsive it's a lesser form of persuasion. Same with Calvinism and irresistible grace.

This Calvinism boat seems to float by using non biblical words and substitution. Calvinist think that there beliefs accomplish things, but what?

FreeGrace2 · Dec 21, 2015

sdowney717 said:
Saul got another heart, he did not get the new spirit or a new heart.

What in the world does that mean? What is "another heart" if not a new heart? Your answer fails to communicate anything.

When God regenerates with a new spirit - new heart, he then comes to live inside them. That is a major difference between old and new testament people. Which is why it says the Spirit came upon Saul, not inside Saul.

I know that the Holy Spirit indwell the vast majority of OT believers. And this is irrelevant. OT believers were STILL regenerated as Eze 36 clearly addresses. Again, your answer here fails to convince.

Getting another heart is more of God changing Saul's mind. Saul still has the old heart. Look at what Saul does later on, Saul's deeds do not show that He has God living inside of him, just the opposite.

This still doesn't address the FACT that Saul was changed into another man. So, WHAT KIND OF MAN? Please answer.

Ezekiel 11:19
Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh,

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?

Ezekiel 36:26
I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

1 Samuel 10:9 So it was, when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, that God gave him another heart; and all those signs came to pass that day.

How do these verses NOT relate to Saul?

So, again, what does "changed into another man" mean? You've not answered this question.

ToBeLoved · Dec 21, 2015

When someone uses the term regeneration they are a Cavinist. That term is not used in the Bible. It is born again or born of spirit.

That's a Cavinist word. Not God's word.

Marvin Knox · Dec 21, 2015

FreeGrace2 said,
"Of course that's true. And you missed my point. The Calvinistic doctrine of election simply and clearly gives those in hell the excuse that they were NOT CHOSEN FOR HEAVEN, as the "elect" were..........And you can't wriggle your way out of it. Even by making true statements that dodge the issue."

Men have no excuse for their sin in this life or in the life to come.

FreeGrac2 said,
"If Calvinism's doctrine of election were correct, then they WOULD HAVE AN EXCUSE: they simply were NOT CHOSEN for heaven. Please stop trying to wriggle out of this"

No need to wiggle at all. A simple "no they would not have an excuse" will suffice.

FreeGrace2 said,
"The truth is that God chooses to save those who believe, per 1 Cor 1:21."

No – God chooses chooses who will believe.

FreeGrace2 said,
"You have dodged the issue of the Calvinist view of election, which DOES give those in hell the excuse that they simply weren't chosen for heaven."

Did I mention that men have not excuse for their sins in this life or in the life to come?

FreeGrace2 said,
"However, I've had this discussion with other Calvinists, and all I've seen is a blindness to their own view. They simply will not see that their view creates an excuse for those in hell; that being they were never chosen for heaven."

Men will be in Hell because of their own sins.

Men will have no excuse for their sins in this life or in the life to come.

Logical Problems with Calvinism

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Deliver me oh Lord, from evil men

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Member

Newbie

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

True love waits in haunted attics

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Similar threads