Logical Problems with Calvinism

[FreeGrace2]

For the necessity of regeneration, read John 3. And Titus 2.

I see, you can't answer the question. Where specifically in John 3 and Titus 2 do we find what regeneration is necessary for?

Please quit being so vague in your responses.

 

[Hammster]

Define yourself please. Rom 10:10 is clear about where man believes from; his heart.

Seems you're quite fond of asking questions, but not so much about answering them.

From post, #243: you said:
"All believers produce fruit. Hence, the parable."
My response:
"Please support this assumption with clear Scripture."

So, yeah, I did.


Nice theory, but what Scripture supports this assumption?

I gave Gal 3:2 and 5 to prove that one receives the Holy Spirit by means of faith.

Your theory is contrary to what Scripture teaches.

That's what I replied to. Follow the quotes. You did not ask for scripture.

As to your other actually relevant point, we know that faith comes by hearing. We also know that not everyone who hears the gospel believes. Paul also says earlier that we cannot please God in the flesh. I would assume that we agree that hearing is pleasing to God. So if you look at scripture as a whole, and not just a bunch of verses thrown together, it's clear that our ability to believe comes from God.

 

[Hammster]

This seems to skirt the concept of what "saving faith" is. Please define what you think "saving faith" is.

It's faith that comes through regeneration. That's why Jesus talks of the new birth before He talks about belief.

 

[Hammster]

I see, you can't answer the question. Where specifically in John 3 and Titus 2 do we find what regeneration is necessary for?

Please quit being so vague in your responses.

I'm sorry. I thought you were familiar with those chapters. I think, though, if you read them, you will see.

 

[klutedavid]

Belief isn't enough. Even the demons believe. There was no root.

Hello Hammster.

I noticed a comment that you made in post # 236.

Belief isn't enough. Even the demons believe. There was no root.

Our belief in Jesus Christ is the sole cause of our justification before God. Abraham
believed and was therefore reckoned to be righteous in God's sight (Galatians 3:6).

Are you proposing a synergism between the believer and God Himself for salvation?

You also incorrectly stated that the 'demon's believe'? The scripture is silent in regard
to the demons believing in Jesus.

 

[Hammster]

Hello Hammster.

I noticed a comment that you made in post # 236.

Our belief in Jesus Christ is the sole cause of our justification before God. Abraham
believed and was therefore reckoned to be righteous in God's sight (Galatians 3:6).

Are you proposing a synergism between the believer and God Himself for salvation?

You also incorrectly stated that the 'demon's believe'? The scripture is silent in regard
to the demons believing in Jesus.

I'm proposing that belief apart from God working in us does not save. Some on here promote cheap grace. There's no change in a person, but heck, they believed for one second, so they are saved regardless. So yes, we are justified by faith. But without a new heart, we won't have saving faith. It will just be like the two middle soils.

 

[klutedavid]

Jesus is giving an illustration that anyone at the time would understand since it was an agricultural society. Everyone knew that only good soil produced good fruit. Yes, poor soil might look good at first. But it's an illusion.

So let's look at the parable.

19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path.
20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy,
21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.
22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful.
23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty."

Obviously, the first soil is unprepared. This is the one that flatly rejects the gospel. The second one is rocky. This is the one you mention. Yes, the word is received with joy. But you'll notice that there is no root. Compare that to the fourth soil. The fourth one obviously has good roots because there is fruit aplenty.

So the first three soils were not prepared. The fourth one was.

Hello Hammster.

We are slowly arriving at an understanding of this simple parable.

21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation
or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.

Just a little further to go Hammster and your interpretation will be sound.

Your interpretation below needs some adjustment.

This is the one you mention. Yes, the word is received with joy.
But you'll notice that there is no root. So the first three soils were not prepared.

May I ask why your interpretation fails to address the two key phrases in the statement
by Jesus. In the verse above (Matthew 13:21), there are two phrases that you need to
attend to.

1) 'endures for a while'

2) 'immediately he falls away'

Unless you address these two phrases your interpretation is barren, Hammster.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Your post on Romans 6 didn't address this. It's talking about believers and that we cannot continue to sin just because grace abounds even more. He was dealing with the argument that some were making that we should sun more to show God's grace.

Sloooowww down.

Romans 6 is to believers.

Romans 6:1 tells us not to take grace for granted BECAUSE
Romans 6:2 we are dead to sin
Romans 6:3 GOES BACK and tells us how we became 'dead to sin'

and this continues through to

Romans 6:12

So, when you say Romans 6 didn't address this, it did, but you were to busy reading that it was for believers, which is true. But it goes back in Romans 6:3-12 and describes what happens when we are born again.

So, these verses 6:2-12 are about what happened when we were IN THE PROCESS of being born again.

That is what I am trying to tell you.

 

[farout]

I put this into bullets so that it would be easier to critique individual premises. Logically, in order for an argument to be proven to be invalid, all you have to do is show how the premises don't follow to a conclusion, which can be done through showing how one of the premises are wrong.

1. According to Calvinism, man is unable to come to salvation by his own power, and can only come to salvation through irresistible grace.
2. If man is unable to come to salvation by his own power, then he can't help but sin (there is no middle ground between faith and sin).
3. Therefore, according to Calvinism, man can't help but sin.
4. Blame implies freedom, such that a person can only be blamed for what he's free to accept or reject. I.e., you can't blame a person for doing that which he can't help but do.
5. Calvinism holds that the individual isn't free to accept or reject God except through irresistible grace.
6. Therefore, Calvinism shouldn't place blame on sinners, given that blame implies a freedom to accept or reject God that isn't possible without irresistible grace.
7. However, Calvinism does place blame on sinners; therefore Calvinism is logically inconsistent.

The only way out of this inconsistency:

1. Hold that individuals are free to reject grace, which would allow them to be blameworthy, given that blame implies freedom to accept or reject -- but here you don't have Calvinism.
2. Hold that individuals are born in a state of innocence, not in sin, and that they're blameworthy in the sense of sinning first -- but here you have an unorthodox position that rejects original sin.
3. Hold that theology doesn't need to be logically consistent -- but here you can believe anything about God given the lack of logic with exegesis.

I might add that my present pastor( I am looking for a new Church) no longer has an alter call. He being a hyper Calvinists says God has chosen and they will come on their own.

Here is my rebuttal. When John the Baptist preached repentance and being baptized for your sins, he must of asked is anyone wanting to be baptized? That is a pure "call to come forth" That is what an alter call is.

Also I believe that people hear the Gospel and with the call to come forward in a Worship service it gives them a place to publically confess their wanting to be a Follower of Christ. Si I see it this way. If I want to be on a baseball team I go ask the captain of the team could I join your team. He says yes I choose you. We hearing the Gospel respond saying I am a sinner I want to make Jesus Christ my LORD. Jesus then CALLS US! Yes God knows what we will do, but we have the choice to accept the WORD (John 1:1-14) or reject the WORD.

Calvinism does not believe it that way. Now I have some leanings towards both sides as I am a mixture, how do you explain that?

 

[klutedavid]

I'm proposing that belief apart from God working in us does not save. Some on here promote cheap grace. There's no change in a person, but heck, they believed for one second, so they are saved regardless. So yes, we are justified by faith. But without a new heart, we won't have saving faith. It will just be like the two middle soils.

Hello Hammster.

I must commend you for the following comment.

So yes, we are justified by faith.

The act of believing (faith) in Jesus Christ is the Gospel.

Some on here promote cheap grace.

One must endure in their belief in Jesus Christ through thick and thin.
Any claim of 'Cheap Grace' would find no support in the scripture.

But without a new heart, we won't have saving faith. It will just
be like the two middle soils.

This statement of your seems confused, could you clarify this statement?

 

[ToBeLoved]

I'm proposing that belief apart from God working in us does not save. Some on here promote cheap grace. There's no change in a person, but heck, they believed for one second, so they are saved regardless. So yes, we are justified by faith. But without a new heart, we won't have saving faith. It will just be like the two middle soils.

That is an interesting sentence.

Because without belief we do not have faith. And without faith we do not come to Christ. So without belief, faith we do not have God working in us.

Practicly every Calvanist spouts the 'God working in me' every other sentence. It is like the cheap-seats of the doctrine. Not calling it what it is which is works, but by putting God at the front of your phrase, you misrepresent God and yourselves.

Saying it is God working in you, does not make it so. Because works-oriented people always have that excuse.

 

[ToBeLoved]

@Hammster I lost your post, but this reply is for you.

And this phrase "cheap grace" is demeaning to Jesus Christ who died to give us grace, and it wasn't cheap nor was it easy. I think that phrase is offensive and should not be used by any Christian.

 

[klutedavid]

That is an interesting sentence.

Because without belief we do not have faith. And without faith we do not come to Christ. So without belief, faith we do not have God working in us.

Practicly every Calvanist spouts the 'God working in me' every other sentence. It is like the cheap-seats of the doctrine. Not calling it what it is which is works, but by putting God at the front of your phrase, you misrepresent God and yourselves.

Saying it is God working in you, does not make it so. Because works-oriented people always have that excuse.

Hello ToBeLoved.

This is a very active topic.

I noticed you said the following, 'Because without belief we do not have faith'.

These two words 'belief' and 'faith' are from the one Koine Greek word 'pistis'.

Faith does not arise from a belief, faith is belief.

Our Bible translations are not accurate translations.

 

[Hammster]

Sloooowww down.

Romans 6 is to believers.

Romans 6:1 tells us not to take grace for granted BECAUSE
Romans 6:2 we are dead to sin
Romans 6:3 GOES BACK and tells us how we became 'dead to sin'

and this continues through to

Romans 6:12

So, when you say Romans 6 didn't address this, it did, but you were to busy reading that it was for believers, which is true. But it goes back in Romans 6:3-12 and describes what happens when we are born again.

So, these verses 6:2-12 are about what happened when we were IN THE PROCESS of being born again.

That is what I am trying to tell you.

There is no process of being born again. There's nothing in Romans 6 to suggest that. I explained what was being said. You've ignored it because of this nonsense. So be it.

If you want to continue in your belief that faith is something we do in the flesh, there's obviously nothing I can do to correct you.

 

[Hammster]

@Hammster I lost your post, but this reply is for you.

And this phrase "cheap grace" is demeaning to Jesus Christ who died to give us grace, and it wasn't cheap nor was it easy. I think that phrase is offensive and should not be used by any Christian.

I didn't say grace was cheap. You should find the post. You'll see what my point is.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That's what I replied to. Follow the quotes. You did not ask for scripture.

As to your other actually relevant point, we know that faith comes by hearing. We also know that not everyone who hears the gospel believes. Paul also says earlier that we cannot please God in the flesh. I would assume that we agree that hearing is pleasing to God. So if you look at scripture as a whole, and not just a bunch of verses thrown together, it's clear that our ability to believe comes from God.

I did ask for Scriptural support for your view. whatever.

And everyone has the ability to believe, which does come from God. That wasn't the issue at all. It was about regeneration being the cause of believing.

 

[Hammster]

That is an interesting sentence.

Because without belief we do not have faith. And without faith we do not come to Christ. So without belief, faith we do not have God working in us.

Practicly every Calvanist spouts the 'God working in me' every other sentence. It is like the cheap-seats of the doctrine. Not calling it what it is which is works, but by putting God at the front of your phrase, you misrepresent God and yourselves.

Saying it is God working in you, does not make it so. Because works-oriented people always have that excuse.

1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,
2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.
5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling,
13 for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

Long passage, I know. But it's important to see it all.

When Paul said we should work out our salvation with fear and trembling, he said its God who works in you. There is a "therefore" in there, though, that tends to get overlooked.

In the verses prior, Paul explains how Jesus didn't use His diety to get by. He said He didn't count equality with God something to be grasped (used). So what did He do? He relied on God's power. He humbled Himself. He became a servant. So the "therefore" is telling us that if Christ relied on God (the Spirit), then we should too. That's the fear and trembling and God working in us.

 

[Hammster]

Hello Hammster.

I must commend you for the following comment.

The act of believing (faith) in Jesus Christ is the Gospel.

One must endure in their belief in Jesus Christ through thick and thin.
Any claim of 'Cheap Grace' would find no support in the scripture.

This statement of your seems confused, could you clarify this statement?

Firs off, do you believe God takes our heart of stone and gives us a heart of flesh?

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's faith that comes through regeneration.

Please provide Scriptural support for this claim.

That's why Jesus talks of the new birth before He talks about belief.

So that's how one concludes which comes first?? Such a view is on mighty shakey ground. But at least you've given reasons for your theory.

The fact is that Scripture never states which comes first. The Greek grammar of 1 Jn 5:1 indicates that the present participle (believing ones) occurs AT THE SAME TIME AS THE ACTION OF THE MAIN VERB (has been born of God). They occur at the same time.

We also know from Eph 2:5 that being "made alive", which is regeneration or being born again, occurs with "have been saved". And v.8 gives the logical order: we are saved through faith.

So, as faith precedes salvation, faith also precedes being made alive.

Not only logical, but Biblical.

You're welcome.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"I see, you can't answer the question. Where specifically in John 3 and Titus 2 do we find what regeneration is necessary for?

Please quit being so vague in your responses."

I'm sorry. I thought you were familiar with those chapters. I think, though, if you read them, you will see.

Once again, a failure to actually answer the question. I'm VERY FAMILIAR with both chapters, which is WHY I asked for the specific verses that you think support your claim. As usual, just more vagueness.

It's actually ok to admit that you cannot point to any specific verses in either chapter that supports your claims. Really. Such confession does the soul good.