Five Misconceptions About Calvinism

[Foxfyre]

You must not agree with the doctrine of original sin, or that all have sinned?

Romans 5
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come.

Once you sin, you are then of Satan. Satan was the first sinner. Satan is the tempter, and tempted Eve, so Satan's sin must have come before. Satan is totally corrupt.
Jesus identifies people as having Satan or God as their father, or gardener... Regarding tares, Jesus says Satan plants the tares. And the Son of Man, Christ plants the wheat. Somehow you think this is dualism?.

John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it.

Then are you saying that Satan is co-equal with God? They have both existed for all time? Satan created those you presume are not among the elect? Remember that the Calvinist logic/doctrine is all this was decided even before Earth was created.

I suspect this will be futile as so far only Hammster is the only one of the Calvinists in this thread who has had the courage to answer a direct question from his own heart in his own words and I respect that a lot.

But let's review and then I will ask you to answer in your own words without reciting scripture as an answer.

The following scriptures are clear that God desires that ALL sinners be saved: Ezekiel 18:23, Matthew 23:37, Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9.

And these scriptures suggest the Christian responsibility to bring all people to Christ: Matthew 9:37-38; Matthew 28:18-20; John 10:16; Acts 1:8; Romans 10:11-15; Philemon 6

And some of the common scriptures Calvinists commonly use to support the concept of selective salvation: Matthew 22:14; John 6:37, 44, 65, 8:47; 10:26-29; Romans 8:29-30; 9:6-23; 11:5-10; I Corinthians 1:26-30; Ephesians 1:4-5; 1 Thessalonians 1:4 2 Thessalonians 2:13; James 2:5.

So here is the question/questions that I ask to be answered in your own words and not by quoting more scripture:

Can God will that ALL be saved and at the same time will that only some, the elect, will be saved?

Is it logical to say that God wills salvation for all and at the same time say that he only wills that some will be saved?

If the elect have already been preselected and none others have any chance to join that group, then aren't all the scripture passages about preaching the gospel and making disciples disingenuous or at the very least irrelevant?

 

[sdowney717]

Then are you saying that Satan is co-equal with God? They have both existed for all time? Satan created those you presume are not among the elect? Remember that the Calvinist logic/doctrine is all this was decided even before Earth was created.

I suspect this will be futile as so far only Hammster is the only one of the Calvinists in this thread who has had the courage to answer a direct question from his own heart in his own words and I respect that a lot.

But let's review and then I will ask you to answer in your own words without reciting scripture as an answer.

The following scriptures are clear that God desires that ALL sinners be saved: Ezekiel 18:23, Matthew 23:37, Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9.

And these scriptures suggest the Christian responsibility to bring all people to Christ: Matthew 9:37-38; Matthew 28:18-20; John 10:16; Acts 1:8; Romans 10:11-15; Philemon 6

And some of the common scriptures Calvinists commonly use to support the concept of selective salvation: Matthew 22:14; John 6:37, 44, 65, 8:47; 10:26-29; Romans 8:29-30; 9:6-23; 11:5-10; I Corinthians 1:26-30; Ephesians 1:4-5; 1 Thessalonians 1:4 2 Thessalonians 2:13; James 2:5.

So here is the question/questions that I ask to be answered in your own words and not by quoting more scripture:

Can God will that ALL be saved and at the same time will that only some, the elect, will be saved?

Is it logical to say that God wills salvation for all and at the same time say that he only wills that some will be saved?

If the elect have already been preselected and none others have any chance to join that group, then aren't all the scripture passages about preaching the gospel and making disciples disingenuous or at the very least irrelevant?

Not going to respond, the way your phrasing your words about dualism, and saying calvinism is dualism. You dont like what I said already, and you dont want to hear the scriptures, there is nothing more to discuss.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

Not going to respond, the way your phrasing your words about dualism, and saying calvinism is dualism. You dont like what I said already, and you dont want to hear the scriptures, there is nothing more to discuss.

You are wise.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not going to respond, the way your phrasing your words about dualism, and saying calvinism is dualism. You dont like what I said already, and you dont want to hear the scriptures, there is nothing more to discuss.

The only dualism I see is what you have been arguing. Logically if God created all and predestined those who would be saved before the world was made, then God also created those who would not be saved. Or somebody or something else did. There is no other explanation possible.

And that is what I have been experiencing with Calvinists. I do not question your piety or sincerity. I believe you are Christian.

But I have not found one Calvinist who can defend the doctrine in their own words. All they have is proof texting--cherry picked scriptures that they can claim support the doctrine--while ignoring entirely those scriptures that could call that into question.

And they will not answer perfectly legitimate questions that deserve an answer if the Calvinist doctrine is pure, but tend to dismiss and/or disrespect those who ask.

I think not a compelling argument.

 

[Hammster]

The only dualism I see is what you have been arguing. Logically if God created all and predestined those who would be saved before the world was made, then God also created those who would not be saved. Or somebody or something else did. There is no other explanation possible.

And that is what I have been experiencing with Calvinists. I do not question your piety or sincerity. I believe you are Christian.

But I have not found one Calvinist who can defend the doctrine in their own words. All they have is proof texting--cherry picked scriptures that they can claim support the doctrine--while ignoring entirely those scriptures that could call that into question.

And they will not answer perfectly legitimate questions that deserve an answer if the Calvinist doctrine is pure, but tend to dismiss and/or disrespect those who ask.

I think not a compelling argument.

What scriptures are we ignoring? Remember, you can't proof text.

 

[Foxfyre]

What scriptures are we ignoring? Remember, you can't proof text.

Any scripture I post that in any way counters the scriptures you guys have been posting is completely ignored.

I don't proof text as a rule. But reading the whole of the New Testament, as well as what I know of Him in my own life, and the leading of the Spirit, I can come to no logical conclusion other that the Lord loves us all and wants us all to come to him.

I cannot accept that the Lord I know is a cruel and unjust God who would create sentient beings who have no chance of being with Him.

And my best argument for rejecting the Calvinist doctrine is that none of you have any answer for the hard questions that can logically be asked. I still very much appreciate your honest and sincere response to my question about that, however, even though your answer is that you didn't have an answer for my question. With that you are unique among your brethren here.

I am only engaging in this thread to give a different perspective to any who are seeking who may be reading in.

 

[Hammster]

Any scripture I post that in any way counters the scriptures you guys have been posting is completely ignored.

I don't proof text as a rule. But reading the whole of the New Testament, as well as what I know of Him in my own life, and the leading of the Spirit, I can come to no logical conclusion other that the Lord loves us all and wants us all to come to him.

I cannot accept that the Lord I know is a cruel and unjust God who would create sentient beings who have no chance of being with Him.

And my best argument for rejecting the Calvinist doctrine is that none of you have any answer for the hard questions that can logically be asked. I still very much appreciate your honest and sincere response to my question about that, however, even though your answer is that you didn't have an answer for my question. With that you are unique among your brethren here.

I am only engaging in this thread to give a different perspective to any who are seeking who may be reading in.

The only scripture I recall you using is trying to match John 6 with the parable of the sower. But it was very ambiguous.

So if I use actual scripture, it's not proof texting unless you can show I'm using it incorrectly.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only scripture I recall you using is trying to match John 6 with the parable of the sower. But it was very ambiguous.

So if I use actual scripture, it's not proof texting unless you can show I'm using it incorrectly.

See Post #401. If you want to take a crack at my questions in that post it would be appreciated.

 

[Hammster]

See Post #401. If you want to take a crack at my questions in that post it would be appreciated.

Sorry, but I won't deal with carpet bombing. Pick a verse and explain why you think it proves your point.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, but I won't deal with carpet bombing. Pick a verse and explain why you think it proves your point.

No single verse proves anything which is why I don't proof text. I just posted a lot of examples of Scripture that would seem to support the God loves everybody group along with a lot of examples of Scripture used by the Calvinists as 'proof' for their point of view.

I followed that with three specific questions that I am pretty sure no Calvinist can or will answer from the heart in their own words. And because almost all refuse to or can't answer those questions with their own words and understanding only reinforces my belief that the God loves everybody camp has the much better argument.

 

[Meowzltov]

It does not matter if you read it or not, Others have.
I am not out to convince you of anything, but just to defend the faith, once for all time delivered to the saints'.

You don't have to quote my post in order to do that. When you quote my post, it infers that you are replying to what you have quoted. But you did not. Next time, consider simply replying without a quote.

 

[Meowzltov]

No scriptural support.

It was me putting it into MY OWN WORDS, and it was MY METAPHOR. If you can't put something into your own words, you don't have very good comprehension.

 

[Hammster]

No single verse proves anything which is why I don't proof text. I just posted a lot of examples of Scripture that would seem to support the God loves everybody group along with a lot of examples of Scripture used by the Calvinists as 'proof' for their point of view.

I followed that with three specific questions that I am pretty sure no Calvinist can or will answer from the heart in their own words. And because almost all refuse to or can't answer those questions with their own words and understanding only reinforces my belief that the God loves everybody camp has the much better argument.

I never said a single verse proved anything. But if you are only going to use a bunch of single verses, you are left with the same issue.

You have to start somewhere, though.

 

[Hammster]

It was me putting it into MY OWN WORDS, and it was MY METAPHOR. If you can't put something into your own words, you don't have very good comprehension.

If you have no basis for a metaphor, it means nothing.

 

[Foxfyre]

I never said a single verse proved anything. But if you are only going to use a bunch of single verses, you are left with the same issue.

You have to start somewhere, though.

Which I suppose to mean that you have no intention of answering the questions either and pretty much missed the point I was making. But oh well, I am pretty sure I see a pattern here and will withdraw from the thread at this time. I tried. And I will pray that the fatalistic Calvinism presented here will not hinder any on their spiritual journey. I wish you all well.

 

[Hammster]

Which I suppose to mean that you have no intention of answering the questions either and pretty much missed the point I was making. But oh well, I am pretty sure I see a pattern here and will withdraw from the thread at this time. I tried. And I will pray that the fatalistic Calvinism presented here will not hinder any on their spiritual journey. I wish you all well.

The little dog aside, I'd love to discuss the scripture. But what if I just said that to counter your scriptures, see John 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12; Ephesians 1-2, Ezekiel 36, etc., and left it at that? What sort of discussion should that be? IY would be left up to you to look at the chapters (and at least I'd give chapters instead of individual verses), age try to determine the point I was making and then come up with a response, for every reference.

That's not fair to you to make you do all of the extra work.

 

[Si_monfaith]

Why do many (i.e. not all) Calvinists say, in their own words, that they don't believe in free will?

1 Corinthians 15:10

"...yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me."

Galatians 2:20

"I no longer live, but Christ lives in me".

The above are some examples for the truth that man is not free.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Can God will that ALL be saved and at the same time will that only some, the elect, will be saved?

Can God love the world, yet only reveal himself to the Israelites for a very long time? Can God knock the murderer of Christians off of his horse with a blinding light, compelling him to come to the faith, yet do so little to reach out to much of the world?

Is it logical to say that God wills salvation for all and at the same time say that he only wills that some will be saved?

Can God fail? Where he tries, does he not succeed? Does he love those upon whom he pours out his wrath? Does it even make sense to say that he feels wrath toward those whom he loves? Can he eternally condemn anyone to Hell whom he loves?

Did God lovingly send fire upon Sodom? Did God lovingly open up the earth to devour the family of Korah? Did God send missionaries into Jericho to preach repentance before he threw the walls down?

If the elect have already been preselected and none others have any chance to join that group, then aren't all the scripture passages about preaching the gospel and making disciples disingenuous or at the very least irrelevant?

Did Shakespeare kill Claudius? Was Hamlet even necessary? Was it even Hamlet's doing? Could Shakespeare have written nothing at all and simply declared Claudius dead? Should he have?

When Moses hit the rock with a stick and water gushed forth, did God do it, or did the stick? Did God do it, or did the rock do it? Did God do it, or did Moses do it? Were Moses, the rock, or the stick even necessary?

Is it logical? It depends on which paradox you choose to accept. If you ridicule my paradox, then shan't I ridicule yours? Christ came to earth as a man, as God, though the Father remained in Heaven as God, and Christ even prayed to him. Yet there is only one God. Does that sound logical? God has at least two perspectives, because he has filled at least two roles (Not even counting the Holy Spirit). He has been among us as one of us. He has always been above us and Lord of us. The two are contradictory. The two are true. The two give rise to two different ways that God has of looking at us. That is my answer. That is all.

 

[Foxfyre]

Can God love the world, yet only reveal himself to the Israelites for a very long time? Can God knock the murderer of Christians off of his horse with a blinding light, compelling him to come to the faith, yet do so little to reach out to much of the world?



Can God fail? Where he tries, does he not succeed? Does he love those upon whom he pours out his wrath? Does it even make sense to say that he feels wrath toward those whom he loves? Can he eternally condemn anyone to Hell whom he loves?

Did God lovingly send fire upon Sodom? Did God lovingly open up the earth to devour the family of Korah? Did God send missionaries into Jericho to preach repentance before he threw the walls down?



Did Shakespeare kill Claudius? Was Hamlet even necessary? Was it even Hamlet's doing? Could Shakespeare have written nothing at all and simply declared Claudius dead? Should he have?

When Moses hit the rock with a stick and water gushed forth, did God do it, or did the stick? Did God do it, or did the rock do it? Did God do it, or did Moses do it? Were Moses, the rock, or the stick even necessary?

Is it logical? It depends on which paradox you choose to accept. If you ridicule my paradox, then shan't I ridicule yours? Christ came to earth as a man, as God, though the Father remained in Heaven as God, and Christ even prayed to him. Yet there is only one God. Does that sound logical? God has at least two perspectives, because he has filled at least two roles (Not even counting the Holy Spirit). He has been among us as one of us. He has always been above us and Lord of us. The two are contradictory. The two are true. The two give rise to two different ways that God has of looking at us. That is my answer. That is all.

Thanks for the effort but I generally don't respond to posts that chop up the context of the argument/point being made. And in the process your argument, while valid in a different context, is non sequitur to the point I was making. In other words I think you missed my point altogether. But no worries. I had pretty well said my peace on this thread anyway and it is pretty clear that the good Calvinists arguing their case had declared me unworthy to argue a case at all. But I will wish you a wonderful night and week ahead.

 

[redleghunter]

In that context, the fact that it is called "Calvinism" can certainly be viewed as an indication of being man-made.

In the way you just ran that down, we would have to conclude the works of the apostle Paul too were "man-made" given NT scholars call his epistles "Pauline."