Logic and Calvinism

[StephenV]

Often when I try to expound the Calvinist/Reformed/Presbyterian position I try to resort to a logical reasoning. Now, Christians from other denominations seem to think this is an affront to a genuine Christian thinking. Logic is a no-no. Am I wrong to try to emphasize the logical quality of the Christian teaching?

Of course, there are profound mysteries you simply don't encompass by logic, but there are also practical points of belief you can employ in your daily devotion.

 

[HereIStand]

It is natural to use logic in the way you've described. Remember that reason serves a ministerial role, rather than a magisterial one, as I've heard one writer describe it.

 

[Hieronymus]

Maybe you're wrong in your logic?
I would need an example.

 

[Greg Merrill]

I have been studying the Word for over 45 years and Romans 9 comes to mind. The Bible speaks of "election", "predestination", "ordained", and other words Calvinists are drawn to, but I have never understood these words or "total depravity" in the way that they do. Irresistible grace, unconditional election, limited atonement; they have just never made sense to me in the light of man's free will to chose God or not, and in God's great love for all mankind. Logic has it's place, but God's ways are greater than man's (Isaiah 55:8-9) and the natural man doesn't receive the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14).

 

[Call me Nic]

Calvinism is a tough pill for me to swallow. The applications of scripture that reformists use, especially in Ephesians 1 or Romans 9 as aforementioned, have always seemed to me misapplications, because there is clear scripture that points against TULIP.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Often when I try to expound the Calvinist/Reformed/Presbyterian position I try to resort to a logical reasoning. Now, Christians from other denominations seem to think this is an affront to a genuine Christian thinking. Logic is a no-no. Am I wrong to try to emphasize the logical quality of the Christian teaching?

Of course, there are profound mysteries you simply don't encompass by logic, but there are also practical points of belief you can employ in your daily devotion.

Here is the deal, everyone using words to convey meaning is engaging in practical logic, language itself presupposes logic. It is impossible to have meaningful discourse without engaging in informal logic. So try not to be discouraged by people who try to drag you down with nonsense. Recognize it for what it is, a subtle insult to God who instilled and created us for communication in order to understand Him, His word, and others.

 

[AMR]

Well, Our Lord was not afraid to use logic:

Matthew 12:24-30
a. Argument from analogy (vv. 25-26)
b. The law of logical or rational inference (v. 26)
c. Reductio ad absurdum (vv. 25-26)
d. Argument from analogy (v. 27)
e. The law of logical or rational inference (vv. 28, 29)
f. Argument from analogy (v. 29)
g. The law of contradiction (v. 30)
h. The law of excluded middle (v. 30)

Just sayin'.

 

[LovesOurLord]

I have never understood these words or "total depravity" in the way that they do.

How do you understand the Reformed teaching of total depravity to be? I think it's misnamed, perhaps someone just called it that to fit in with the TULIP catch phrase?

 

[Radagast]

I think it's misnamed, perhaps someone just called it that to fit in with the TULIP catch phrase?

Yes, and yes.

Some people suggest "radical corruption" as a better name.

 

[LovesOurLord]

Calvinism is a tough pill for me to swallow. The applications of scripture that reformists use, especially in Ephesians 1 or Romans 9 as aforementioned, have always seemed to me misapplications, because there is clear scripture that points against TULIP.

That's a common statement of KJV-only Baptists. I'm still studying the Reformed v Arminian debate myself (relatively new Christian here), but KJVers are missing out on a lot when Reformed apologists like James White cite a plethora of Greek texts which are outside the Textus Receptus, especially newer discoveries that can be pieced together for a more accurate picture. IMO the KJV-only position is untenable.

 

[LovesOurLord]

Yes, and yes.

Some people suggest "radical corruption" as a better name.

Well that's unfortunate because people come to a misunderstanding of it based on verbiage, such as I did. I only understood it after digging through Sproul's What is Reformed Theology? Understanding the Basics.

 

[Radagast]

Well that's unfortunate because people come to a misunderstanding of it based on verbiage

Well, if somebody is evaluating the whole doctrine based on a flower and a ten-word summary, I think they've got problems.

 

[Call me Nic]

That's a common statement of KJV-only Baptists. I'm still studying the Reformed v Arminian debate myself (relatively new Christian here), but KJVers are missing out on a lot when Reformed apologists like James White cite a plethora of Greek texts which are outside the Textus Receptus, especially newer discoveries that can be pieced together for a more accurate picture. IMO the KJV-only position is untenable.

James White trusts more in his ability to discern Greek texts than he does in the Bible.

And the Alexandrian manuscripts are not as old as the Byzantine texts. The TR is the majority text which doesn't contain the corruptions of the alexandrian texts. I'll take the KJV over any other contemporary Bible version any day.

 

[Greg Merrill]

How do you understand the Reformed teaching of total depravity to be? I think it's misnamed, perhaps someone just called it that to fit in with the TULIP catch phrase?

I understand it to mean that an unsaved person is so bent against the idea that they are unacceptable to God in their present state of being a sinner that hasn't received Christ as their Savior that they are incapable of repenting and turning to God and in faith calling upon Jesus to save them, without God doing a miraculous work that goes beyond simply giving them a clear explanation of their position before God and the gospel that if they repent, trust and call on Jesus to save them that He will. I understand that they consider being spiritually dead as being spiritually unconscious of God convicting them rather than it meaning being spiritually separated from them, though still able to communicate if desired.

 

[hedrick]

I think one term that's been used is "total inability." That emphasizes that the real point of the inability to do anything on our own towards salvation. "Total depravity" makes many people think it makes that everyone is as bad as possible, which is certainly not what is intended.

 

[Greg Merrill]

I think one term that's been used is "total inability." That emphasizes that the real point of the inability to do anything on our own towards salvation. "Total depravity" makes many people think it makes that everyone is as bad as possible, which is certainly not what is intended.

Thing is we do not have total inability or God would not tell US to hear, to repent, to call, to trust, to believe, to receive. That is a lot of things we have the ability to do.

 

[Radagast]

And the Alexandrian manuscripts are not as old as the Byzantine texts.

A total and utter reversal of the truth.

The Alexandrian manuscripts are much, much older than the Byzantine texts. That's the point.

And the TR is different from the "majority text."

 

[Radagast]

Thing is we do not have total inability or God would not tell US to hear, to repent, to call, to trust, to believe, to receive. That is a lot of things we have the ability to do.

No, in our sins we have total inability to repent and believe, but God graciously works in us so that we do repent and believe.

And, btw, there seem to be a lot of non-Presbyterians in the Presbyterian forum. It's against the rules to post against Calvinism here.

 

[LovesOurLord]

James White trusts more in his ability to discern Greek texts than he does in the Bible.

And the Alexandrian manuscripts are not as old as the Byzantine texts. The TR is the majority text which doesn't contain the corruptions of the alexandrian texts. I'll take the KJV over any other contemporary Bible version any day.

White rightfully points out the problem with KJV only-ism is that many discoveries of older Greek texts have been made which together paint a far more accurate picture of scripture than the TR does.

There's an online discussion/debate with Steven Anderson about this:

KJV only is an error.

 

[Greg Merrill]

No, in our sins we have total inability to repent and believe, but God graciously works in us so that we do repent and believe.

And, btw, there seem to be a lot of non-Presbyterians in the Presbyterian forum. It's against the rules to post against Calvinism here.

I just saw a note in "Alerts" and responded without checking the post. Don't reply to this, because I don't plan on being in this forum any more. Arguing Calvinism has been going on for many years, and doesn't seem to get anywhere. So many just never seem to come to understanding or agreeing with the other person's point of view. I will be glad in glory that the debate comes to an end. Best wishes, and blessings.