Calvinism Refuted

[Hammster]

But God created those people (those who would go to hell) with the intention of them going to hell because they'd be punished for "injust acts." Is that right?

Those who reject God reject Him freely. If God had made men reject Him, then it would be unfair.

 

[nobdysfool]

You say you had answered it? What was your answer, again? I must have missed it.

Yes, I did. Apples and oranges. You are trying to compare two unlike concepts, and declare them to be equal. I simply called you on it. You are trying to say that no one answered your question, when what you mean is, no one answered it the way you wanted.

It is orthodox Christian doctrine, it is Scriptural.

Thank you. That's all you needed to say.

However, orthodox Christian doctrine, Scripture also present another side of God which balances out the picture--which is, God's great love for everyone, and that Jesus died on the cross for everyone, and that the plan of salvation is offered to everyone. Bible doctrine teaches that God is characterized by justice, mercy and love as well as by omnipotent power.

There are several aspects you list here that could be open to discussion, because not all agree as to the extent, scope, intent and such of those items.

Thus, in some of the presentations made by self-described Calvinists on these threads, I have seen great emphasis on God's sovereign power and on the fact that no one deserves salvation--but that presentation has, too many times I believe, been divorced from the equally significant qualities of God's love for everyone, for the lost, for the abandoned sinner, for everyone. That theme is not emphasized much on these threads. And that is a real concern to me.

You do understand that when discussing one attribute or concept, it naturally will come to the fore, and the others will not be emphasized as much in that discussion? That is the nature of debate and discussion. However, it seems that your real complaint is with Calvinists in general, because they're Calvinists. I don't believe we overemphasize God's Sovereignty, I believe we emphasize it more than makes you feel comfortable. We Calvinists see an undue emphasis on the supposed power of the individual , and so-called "free will", which seems to be some sort of touchstone and test for orthodoxy among the non-Calvinists.

So while you believe you see an imbalance coming from the Calvinist side, you don't seem to be willing to see that the Calvinists are equally concerned over the imbalance we see from the your side.

Bottom line, you are seeking to impose your own view of emphasis and what you consider balance, and you're more than willing to throw the Calvinists under the bus to achieve it, if need be. We know you don't accept Calvinism. But you simply have not offered anything substantive as an alternative.

In the discussions here, you have regularly spoken against the Calvinist view of specific passages, but the alternative is always "something that will need study", or your reference materials are in a box in the garage, or you have to leave right now, or some other excuse, and you simply do not offer anything of substance in its place. You are sure that the Calvinist view is wrong, but you can't seem to offer us any alternative view that you can claim as right.

Quite frankly, we're growing weary of the lack of substance.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Those who reject God reject Him freely. If God had made men reject Him, then it would be unfair.

This seems to contradict

Two different questions. One, God chose whom He would save BEFORE He created us.

God choosing whom he saves before our creation implies that humans do not have the choice to reject or accept God--it is already decided for us. This does not fit in with your other statement above.

How is that not a contradiction?

 

[PETE_]

Having a choice and having the ability to execute the choice are two different things

 

[Zoness]

So basically it goes like this for example:

"Sure I will let you choose what team you are on, but I have already chosen for you and

...you made it on my team, congrats.
or
...you were sent to the other team, you will now be executed."

That doesn't make a lot of sense *facepalm*

 

[PETE_]

ALL men are given the choice and ALL men chose to reject God.

Rather than letting them ALL suffer the consequences of their choice, God choses some of them to save.

Men will not choose God, though they are free to do so, unless He chooses them first.

 

[Dark_Lite]

ALL men are given the choice and ALL men chose to reject God.

Rather than letting them ALL suffer the consequences of their choice, God choses some of them to save.

Men will not choose God, though they are free to do so, unless He chooses them first.

So in essence that boils down to God choosing who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. If all men choose to reject God no questions asked, then we shouldn't even consider the point as it's just extra, confusing verbage.

Men are free to choose God, but you definitively say they will not. Ever. Not without God choosing them first. This equates to God choosing for them (i.e. man does not have a free choice) unless I'm missing something.

 

[PETE_]

So in essence that boils down to God choosing who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. If all men choose to reject God no questions asked, then we shouldn't even consider the point as it's just extra, confusing verbage.

Men are free to choose God, but you definitively say they will not. Ever. Not without God choosing them first. This equates to God choosing for them (i.e. man does not have a free choice) unless I'm missing something.

It is not what I say, but that is what the Bible says. Only God truely has free will because He alone is not limited by lack of ability as we are

 

[Dark_Lite]

It is not what I say, but that is what the Bible says. Only God truely has free will because He alone is not limited by lack of ability as we are

So does that mean we should consider the whole "men have free choice" thing a moot point since according to the Bible that this freedom is only exercised when God makes it exercised?

 

[PETE_]

The Bible does mention free will but never in regards to salvation

 

[Dark_Lite]

So I'll assume that in regards to salvation we should disregard free will...

Which brings me back to my first question. How does Calvinism not make God into some sadistic guy who throws people into hell because he can?

 

[Hammster]

So I'll assume that in regards to salvation we should disregard free will...



Which brings me back to my first question. How does Calvinism not make God into some sadistic guy who throws people into hell because he can?

Using your standards, how does your view not make God a sadist?

 

[archierieus]

It isn't incorrect. Your whole argument has been that the called aren't a specific group; that everyone is called.

You are correct that everyone is called.

You say that there is no effectual call.

The verse you are relying on does not use the term, 'effectual, nor does it appear in the Greek. But as for 'call,' I decided to look at the other occurrences of this form in the NT. The word itself has a range of meanings. Here are the occurrences:

Mt. 1:28
Mt. 4:21
Mt. 25:14
Mk. 1:20
Lk. 14:16
Rom. 9:24
1 Thess. 4:7
2 Thess. 2:14

As you can see, 'called' has a range of meanings, including calling by a name, calling to service, calling to a feast, calling to purity, calling to salvation.

So Paul could just as easily said that those who are predestined are called along with everyone else, and those He called He didn't justify all of them.

He could have said that those He foreknew are called along with everyone else, but all those He foreknew are justified. KIM that the entire chapter focuses on the saved, on those who are followers of Jesus, and is a series of encouragements to those who are afflicted by trials. Paul does not in the chapter deal with the unsaved. He does speak of them elsewhere, notably in chs. 1 thru 4, and in his discourse to the Athenians.

So, if, as the passage supports, everyone is called, but those whom God foreknew He kept ever before Him, called them with a holy calling, justified and sanctified them, etc., where does that leave the Calvinist position?

That is, God calls everyone--and that is Scriptural, but knows who will respond, and those He so foreknows He keeps ever before Him as precious in His sight, calls them by His own name, calls them to holy living, acquits them on the basis of their acceptance of Jesus by faith, and glorifies them.

 

[archierieus]

The Bible does mention free will but never in regards to salvation

Certainly it does.

 

[Hammster]

Certainly it does.

Scripture, please.

 

[archierieus]

Using your standards, how does your view not make God a sadist?

Because the view of God which it sounds like Dark Lite and I share (if I may presume to speak for him) is that God is not only Sovereign, but just and very concerned about being perceived as just, as Someone who can be loved and trusted, treating all alike, just as God repeatedly charged the leaders of His people. He is just, but He is also merciful, delighting to show mercy at every opportunity, and He loves each and every person with a love deeper than human words can express. That kind of God is no sadist. But what WOULD be sadistic would be if God picked some at random to burn in hell, save this one, damn that one, just cuz that is what He wanted to do. If such were done by a human, on this earth, such a person would be considered a monster and subject to being executed.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Using your standards, how does your view not make God a sadist?

Please elaborate.

So far, what I have been able to determine is that in Calvinistic theology God creates us and then decides whether we're going to either heaven or hell without any of our input, despite any illusions of perceived freedom in regards to our salvation.

The so-called "freedom" we have is that we get to choose or reject God, but the catch is that everyone rejects God unless God has predestined us to accept him. That's not freedom.

So I think my original question still stands, unless there's something I'm missing here.

 

[archierieus]

Scripture, please.

Start with Gen. 2, then go to Gen. 3, then ch. 4, then ch. 6, go on through Genesis, Deuteronomy, especially ch. 4, 5, 6, and toward the end of the book, Joshua, you can start with those.

 

[Hammster]

Start with Gen. 2, then go to Gen. 3, then ch. 4, then ch. 6, go on through Genesis, Deuteronomy, especially ch. 4, 5, 6, and toward the end of the book, Joshua, you can start with those.

Typical. Hold others up to standards you yourself are unwilling to meet.

 

[archierieus]

Typical. Hold others up to standards you yourself are unwilling to meet.

Please clarify.