Anyone have good arguments against Calvinism.

zippy2006 · Sunday at 3:52 PM

Hentenza said:
Let me know when you learn how to debate. See ya!

Let me know when you summon up some intellectual honesty.

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 4:03 PM

Hentenza said:
Let me know when you learn how to debate. See ya!

@Hentenza and @zippy2006

And here's where I step in and assert that I've been moderately infected by my short sojourn long ago in the Campbellite movement. Because some of that minimally rubbed off on me, I take neither a Calvinistic nor an Arminian view of soteriology or of Romans chapter 9, if it is a part of the overall concerned. That, and the fact that I don't think the author of Exodus [Moses??] adroitly and specifically stated that Pharaoh hardened his own heart 5 or 6 times just so those of us in the 16th thru the 21st centuries could dismiss that fact and handwave it away as a merely literary and incidental set of statements.

Following that, I also was influenced by a wise man long ago ----- well, maybe not that long ago ------ who said the famous words:

"Can't we all just get along ... " :ahah:

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 4:05 PM

zippy2006 said:
Let me know when you summon up some intellectual honesty.

I've summoned some intellectual honesty, or at least what you might consider honesty, so I'm holding my copy of a particular book in my hands, if needed. Of course, there's also much, much more where that came from.

Hentenza · Sunday at 4:07 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
@Hentenza and @zippy2006

"Can't we all just get along ... "

I tried but I’m moving on. I even blessed him and he came back with insults. It’s not worth my time.

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 4:08 PM

Hentenza said:
I tried but I’m moving on. I even blessed him and he came back with insults. It’s not worth my time.

Oh, I know. He did something similar to me today. But by the grace of God, therefore I deductively go. :dontcare:

Hentenza · Sunday at 4:10 PM

zippy2006 said:
Let me know when you summon up some intellectual honesty.

Ok here we go. Go ahead and have the last word. ^_^

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 4:11 PM

Hentenza said:
I tried but I’m moving on. I even blessed him and he came back with insults. It’s not worth my time.

So what if Calvin or OSAS is wrong? My answer: as long as folks don't teach that we can coddle our sins without worry, let the Presbyterians, along with the Baptists, alone.

Hentenza · Sunday at 4:14 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
So what if Calvin or OSAS is wrong?

It wouldn’t bother me. The reason why I’m not a full blown calvinist in that I believe that we need additional information. God is bigger and His ways different than us little finite beings.

2PhiloVoid said:
My answer: as long as folks don't teach that we can coddle our sins without worry, let the Presbyterians, along with the Baptists, alone.

Yep. Agreed.

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 4:20 PM

Hentenza said:
It wouldn’t bother me. The reason why I’m not a full blown calvinist in that I believe that we need additional information. God is bigger and His ways different than us little finite beings.

Yep. Agreed.

I'm not a Calvinist at all, but that doesn't mean I don't like reading my copy of Millard J. Erickson's systematic treatment of Christian Theology (who is a moderate Calvinist). Following the Campbell's head nods, I try to be ecumenical and being thus, it allows me to read any Christian ......... and get away with it.

zippy2006 · Sunday at 5:14 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
And here's where I step in and assert that I've been moderately infected by my short sojourn long ago in the Campbellite movement. Because some of that minimally rubbed off on me, I take neither a Calvinistic nor an Arminian view of soteriology or of Romans chapter 9, if it is a part of the overall concerned. That, and the fact that I don't think the author of Exodus [Moses??] adroitly and specifically stated that Pharaoh hardened his own heart 5 or 6 times just so those of us in the 16th thru the 21st centuries could dismiss that fact and handwave it away as a merely literary and incidental set of statements.

I am interested for those who follow the Reformers to honestly answer the question I asked here. What is St. Paul's point supposed to be in all this? Apparently for @Hentenza the point is something like, "God's promise to Israel hasn't failed, because God can do whatever the heck he wants. He doesn't need to fulfill his promises. He is sovereign." That reading is obviously not very sensible.

If we follow where he is going, Paul is saying that Pharaoh's heart was hardened in accord with God's plan to deliver the Hebrews and thereby reveal himself to the nations. And the purpose of Paul's Pharaoh/Esau/Northern Kingdom Type is that the "stumbling" of the Jews is also part of God's plan. On the Calvinistic reading, the point is that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, Pharaoh has no free will, God sent Pharaoh to Hell, and God is sovereign—which is the result of this isolated-verse eisegesis. So for the Calvinist, in paralleling Pharaoh to the Jews who rejected Jesus, Paul must also be saying all of this about the Jews. Except that is emphatically not Paul's point. According to Paul, God's plan for which the Jews stumbled eventually results in the salvation of the Jews (Romans 11:25). If we woodenly applied this back to Pharaoh—who is one of the typological parallels to the Jews in Paul's argument—then we would have to say, "God's plan for which Pharaoh was hardened eventually results in the salvation of Pharaoh." Paul's logic runs directly counter to the Calvinist logic. Of course, Paul is not saying that Pharaoh is saved. In fact his argument is unrelated to the question of Pharaoh's salvation. What Pharaoh meant for ill, God meant for good (cf. Gen 50:20). But to say that God arbitrarily hardened and damned Pharaoh is directly contrary to Paul's argument, for Paul is in no way saying that God arbitrarily hardened and damned the unbelieving Jews.

This is but one example of the way that the early Reformers misread the scriptures, and badly.

Hentenza · Sunday at 5:19 PM

zippy2006 said:
I am interested for those who follow the Reformers to honestly answer the question I asked here. What is St. Paul's point supposed to be in all this? Apparently for @Hentenza the point is something like, "God's promise to Israel hasn't failed, because God can do whatever the heck he wants. He doesn't need to fulfill his promises. He is sovereign." That reading is obviously not very sensible.

Please post my post number where I mentioned Israel or made that argument.

2PhiloVoid · Sunday at 6:02 PM

zippy2006 said:
I am interested for those who follow the Reformers to honestly answer the question I asked here. What is St. Paul's point supposed to be in all this? Apparently for @Hentenza the point is something like, "God's promise to Israel hasn't failed, because God can do whatever the heck he wants. He doesn't need to fulfill his promises. He is sovereign." That reading is obviously not very sensible.

If we follow where he is going, Paul is saying that Pharaoh's heart was hardened in accord with God's plan to deliver the Hebrews and thereby reveal himself to the nations. And the purpose of Paul's Pharaoh/Esau/Northern Kingdom Type is that the "stumbling" of the Jews is also part of God's plan. On the Calvinistic reading, the point is that God hardened Pharaoh's heart, Pharaoh has no free will, God sent Pharaoh to Hell, and God is sovereign—which is the result of this isolated-verse eisegesis. So for the Calvinist, in paralleling Pharaoh to the Jews who rejected Jesus, Paul must also be saying all of this about the Jews. Except that is emphatically not Paul's point. According to Paul, God's plan for which the Jews stumbled eventually results in the salvation of the Jews (Romans 11:25). If we woodenly applied this back to Pharaoh—who is one of the typological parallels to the Jews in Paul's argument—then we would have to say, "God's plan for which Pharaoh was hardened eventually results in the salvation of Pharaoh." Paul's logic runs directly counter to the Calvinist logic. Of course, Paul is not saying that Pharaoh is saved. In fact his argument is unrelated to the question of Pharaoh's salvation. What Pharaoh meant for ill, God meant for good (cf. Gen 50:20). But to say that God arbitrarily hardened and damned Pharaoh is directly contrary to Paul's argument, for Paul is in no way saying that God arbitrarily hardened and damned the unbelieving Jews.

This is but one example of the way that the early Reformers misread the scriptures, and badly.

And without at present knowing the finer nuances of the specific Catholic reading(s) of Pharaoh's level of culpability, I more or less agree with the Catholic exegesis that you just now nicely propounded.

Just so you know.

bbbbbbb · Sunday at 7:39 PM

2PhiloVoid said:
I'm not a Calvinist at all, but that doesn't mean I don't like reading my copy of Millard J. Erickson's systematic treatment of Christian Theology (who is a moderate Calvinist). Following the Campbell's head nods, I try to be ecumenical and being thus, it allows me to read any Christian ......... and get away with it.

I have absolutely no problem with your position and frequently find myself in agreement on other areas of doctrine with fellow Christians.

zippy2006 · Monday at 12:40 AM

zoidar said:
The Calvinistic ideas seem to first appear with Augustine.

Yes, and Calvin nevertheless thinks Augustine falls short, particularly after his retractions concerning parts of his anti-Pelagian writings. Luther, Calvin, and the various scholars in that tradition are well aware that their theology is absent from the early Church. During the Reformation the earliest extant commentary on Romans was from Origen, and therefore the Reformers held that Origen was the source of errors in interpreting Paul. Now we know that Origen was just following the tradition, including earlier figures from the second century. Indeed, in Calvin's commentary on Romans he notes that Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome all disagree with him regarding the meaning of "works of the law," and he offers zero patristic authorities who agree with him.

zoidar · Monday at 6:50 AM

Hentenza said:
Thanks.

The below is from Calvin’s commentary on John 3:16.

“Let us remember, on the other hand, that while life is promised universally to all who believe in Christ, still faith is not common to all. For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith. Here, too, is displayed a wonderful effect of faith; for by it we receive Christ such as he is given to us by the Father — that is, as having freed us from the condemnation of eternal death, and made us heirs of eternal life, because, by the sacrifice of his death, he has atoned for our sins, that nothing may prevent God from acknowledging us as his sons. Since, therefore, faith embraces Christ, with the
efficacy of his death and the fruit of his resurrection, we need not wonder if by it we obtain likewise the life of Christ.”

https://www.biblestudyguide.org/ebooks/comment/calcom34.pdf pg. 71.

The boldened portion above is what I paraphrased in my post.

I think Calvin is saying that faith is not being common to all, not Christ's death not being for all. I would say Calvin is discussing faith, not the extent of Christ's atonement.

Neogaia777 · Monday at 6:58 AM

God the Spirit's wrath needed to be done/completed/finished/put away, which is one of the things Jesus did/put away/accomplished, and now the judgement at the end is/will no longer be based on that, which is one of the things Jesus accomplished, etc, but this doesn't mean some other people at the end still won't be excluded for some other reasons, etc.

God Bless.

zoidar · Monday at 7:58 AM

Hentenza said:
But how does the natural man repent and to whom? If they do not have faith first(regenerate) then how do they know who God is and that He can forgive their sins? There has to be trust.

You can have theoretic knowledge that the gospel is true without having saving faith. Saving faith comes as we turn to Christ for forgiveness. You can have theoretic knowledge without having been regenerated.

Hentenza said:
How does God call?

In many ways, through people's testimonies, and the testimony of the gospel in the Bible, through signs and wonders. Other ways are through the creation itself, it shows His majesty.

Hentenza said:
Which agrees with the verse itself because if man can’t seek God on his own then they won’t hear His call. Jesus states that His sheep listen to His voice which the reverse is also true, the sheep that are not His do not listen to His voice.

I think the sheep are those who have listened to Moses, those who are faithful Jews, waiting to recognize their Messiah.

For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
— John 5:46-47

Hentenza said:
The Spirit is God. The action is monergistic not synergistic. Salvation, by necessity, has to begin with God not with man.

We need conviction and that is a work of God. I think it's hard to tell if the process is monergistic or synergistic.

Hentenza said:
Regeneration is the means of knowing God. The unregenerated man does not know God.

No, he doesn't, not in an intimate way.

Hentenza said:
I’m going to disagree with you. I am blessed to have experienced God calling after being away from the faith for about 20 years. There is no way that I could have resisted it and not for lack of trying. I was happy having my sundays off and reading my techno thriller novels but God wanted me to read and learn theology and become involved in the church. I fought and lost.

That is my story but the reality is that when God wants something He is going to get it. God can’t fail. Man can’t cause God to fail.

Great, you were drawn back to faith! It makes me very happy to hear. I didn't want to become a Christian myself, I even threw a Bible in the trash. I often say: "If I can become a believer, anyone can." Testimonies are different though. Some Christians have been brought up in Church, been "believers" for a years, but coming to saving faith much later.

Hentenza said:
No grace no faith. No faith no atonement or everlasting life. It has a lot to do with the extend of the atonement.

We both believe salvation starts with God's grace, I think most Christians would agree. It seems your position is if God, from the beginning of time, has elected who will receive grace, then it follows the atonement is limited to those individuals, but that is not the case. God can still make atonement through Christ for everyone, while chosing from the beginning who will receive it.

Hentenza said:
I responded above.

“But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭2‬:‭4‬-‭5‬ ‭NASB2020‬‬

Ephesians 2:4-5 (NASB2020) - But God, being rich in mercy, becau - Bible App

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),

bible.com

Notice that God made us alive together with Christ. This action is monergistic. By grace you have been saved and we know from verse 8 that grace is a gift of God not of ourselves. This is another monergistic action. This is the grace described in scripture which is needed for faith. No grace, no faith.

Even Paul isn't mentioning faith in Eph 2:4-5, I think Paul is assuming we understand that we are made alive by grace through faith, as he has already mentioned in Eph 2:8.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
— Ephesians 2:8

I don't think the "gift" refers to "grace", but to "salvation". Salvation is the gift of God. In Greek it does not fit with "grace" being the gift. It has something to do with "this" being neuter pronoun and "grace" being feminine.

Hentenza · Monday at 8:28 AM

zoidar said:
I think Calvin is saying that faith is not being common to all, not Christ's death not being for all. I would say Calvin is discussing faith, not the extent of Christ's atonement.

Please explain how you get that interpretation from “For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.”

In Calvin’s view God only opens the eyes of the elect so they can seek and have faith. Those that are not elect will not have their eyes open and will not seek faith. No faith no atonement. This is the concept of limited atonement.

bbbbbbb · Monday at 8:35 AM

Hentenza said:
Please explain how you get that interpretation from “For Christ is made known and held out to the view of all, but the elect alone are they whose eyes God opens, that they may seek him by faith.”

In Calvin’s view God only opens the eyes of the elect so they can seek and have faith. Those that are not elect will not have their eyes open and will not seek faith. No faith no atonement. This is the concept of limited atonement.

Indeed, without faith, the atonement is meaningless, having no effect.

zoidar · Monday at 8:43 AM

Mark Quayle said:
Paul's calling was particularly to the Gentiles. The word in 1 Tim 2:3-4 is not 'everyone'—it is "all men". The typical Calvinist/Reformed response to this is (I think), particularly in respect to "all kinds of people". I'm not going to push how "all people" is equated to "those in authority" in verses 1 and 2.

I have heard that position...

Mark Quayle said:
My view of 1 Tim 2:3,4 concerns common use of language: It can refer to a particular use of the word, in, "God...wants", which is not very closely related to how people 'want', since God lacks nothing and is not encroached upon by his passions. It can be a general statement concerning the range of people in a group, or even within humanity in general, without reference to anyone in particular. The verses' particular focus seems to be "the knowledge of the truth" and not about the individuals within any group. And while I'm not committed to interpreting according to outcome or implications of any one take, here, it is notable that not all will be saved, nor even that all will come to knowledge of the truth. And I'll not push how "all people" is related to Paul's calling to the Gentiles in verses 6 and 7.

Ok, I see!

Mark Quayle said:
You have only made the assertion that 1 Tim 2:3-4 —in which, apparently, you assume universal intent, as opposed to a general reference to intent—is definitive of John 3:16's "all those believing" as related to the "so that" of God's intent. You have not here shown how it is related, but only said that it is.

The context of John 3:16 does indeed involve the immediate mention of purpose. But 3:16 does not mention universal outcome of that purpose; it shows kindly intent toward his creation (which is a logical 'given' from simple reason—why would he bother to even create anything; he needed nothing—) But neither does it demonstrate particular intent toward any one person in the term, "world", except as qualified by "those believing", nowhere there qualified by use of "each member of the group, 'world'.".

So God shows His kindly purpose to creation by sending His Son, so all who believe will be saved? I think it follows that the way God loved the world, was so everyone who believes can be saved.

Mark Quayle said:
If I remember correctly, you have used the term, "whosoever", to imply an unknowable willed entity, acting upon their own volition. But the verse does not say that. This assumption reflects back onto your use of "world" as you read the verse. But that is not what it says, but rather only, "all those believing", without any assumption of the force of will in the believer.

I don't really hold to Calvinism/Reformed theology as such. Those proponents do influence my thinking, but they don't represent me. My theology is only "calvinistic" or "Reformed-like". So, no, my theology is not derived of them. I didn't come to it by that route.

I see, interesting! You still have other options to keep the Tulip intact and still refer to the "world" as "everyone". At least many leading Calvinists believe so.

Mark Quayle said:
You do, I hope, admit that what you believe influences your Biblical understanding, yes? It is really unavoidable. It is good to recognize it and try to limit its influence, but it is unavoidable, all the same.

Yes, agree, it's unavoidable.

Mark Quayle said:
My philosophy on the will is drawn on hard experience and my need for scripture's statements, particularly concerning my inability to of myself do what is good and right and obedient to Christ. Have you attained a satisfactory level of obedience to the two commandments—to love the Lord your God with all your being, and to love your neighbor as yourself? Of course not. Look at the standard! That understanding of the will is drawn on Scripture. I do not deny that it is a lens, but I have more than enough scriptural edict, directive and definition to show that it is a good lens. Much MUCH better than the lens drawn from a POV of self-actualization.

Again, 1 Tim 2:3-4 doesn't say what you are thinking it does, nor does it specifically relate to John 3:16 how you want it to.

I didn't say it was about God's restoration of the world. I'm saying that when God speaks of loving the world, it may well be referring to that which he created, which is not, (in his view and intent), bound by any temporal frame, even though we can't help thinking that way. He spoke the final product (Heaven and His People) into fact—time does not govern that, though it was used to bring it about. You seem to think, "world", is only about what we think of—people in general and—in modern day mentality/philosophy—each individual.

How do you think the original readers would have understood the word "world" when they got the letter?

Mark Quayle said:
The whole of the 66 books of the canon is philosophy. Do you mean to say that only immediate context should be used? Ok, look at his discourse with Nicodemus. And look at his use of light and darkness in the rest of chapter 3. Look at his narrative of the acts and sayings of Jesus throughout the book of John's gospel. Look at the beginning, in Chapter 1, and its bare statements concerning God and his acts and the will of man. Where do you, without assuming 'free will' as opposed to 'real' will, find anything about God's gracious mercy and man's eternal salvation, being hinged on 'just whosoever's' fickle will? It is not there.

It does not, as I have shown, refer to "each and every individual—who knows?" within that envelope.

You also keep raising the question of free will, but I don't think that determines the meaning of John 3:16-17 and the word "world." The meaning of the "world", has to be established by the immediate context IMO.

Anyone have good arguments against Calvinism.

Dragonsworn

What goes around comes around!

What goes around comes around!

I will fear no evil for You are with me

What goes around comes around!

I will fear no evil for You are with me

What goes around comes around!

I will fear no evil for You are with me

What goes around comes around!

Dragonsworn

I will fear no evil for You are with me

What goes around comes around!

Well-Known Member

Dragonsworn

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Old Soul

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Well-Known Member

loves Jesus the Christ! ✝️

Similar threads