Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Hammster]

When Paul talks about working out our salvation he is not talking about the believers. They have already received salvation.

Your second paragraph.

Of course we need to rely on God. How is that working out our salvation? Only those who have Jesus can be spiritual, so then how would we be working out our salvation in being like Christ is to the Father? That does not make sense.

Are you aware that Paul wrote Philippians to believers?

 

[Hammster]

There is a process to being born again, you do not see it because it is Christ that is doing it. Just like us receiving the Holy Spirit, we cannot tell the moment, but we know that we have received it.

You say there is nothing in Romans 6 that describes what happens when we are born again spiritually in Christ.

How do you interpret Romans 6:3-12? I'd like to hear the detailed version if there is one

1 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?
2 By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.
6 We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.
7 For one who has died has been set free from sin.
8 Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.
10 For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions.
13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness.
14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.


I don't think a detailed explanation is necessary. Paul is saying that we shouldn't sin even though where sin increases, grace abounds even more. He lets us know we've died to sin. We've been crucified with Christ. So don't sin just because you've been justified.

 

[Hammster]

Well why don't you share the scripture that supports that. We can see what verses you think say that.

7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot.
8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. - Romans 8:7-9

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Believing is a Choice! Not Believing is a Choice!

When one looks at beliefs one finds that they tend to enter into rational relations with one another rather than causal ones. In fact, it seems to be a malfunction of "belief" for it to enter into causal relation. One doesn't believe that father is OK after being sent to war because one wants to, if one desires to believe it and therefore believes it it's something of a malfunction of the way belief works.

Rational relations are different, one can say that a thing entails another thing or that it follows another thing in quite a different sense than when one uses "causal" language. When people choose to believe things they are using their rational relations differently to how they actually function, and in a manner which doesn't make sense of rational relations.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Those with understanding have no problem with the two passages. They fit very nicely together.

And I don't have any problem with them either.

Which is?

Rom 10:10 is quite clear; from the heart.

Rid yourself of the evils within. Cast them away and make ourselves a new heart and a new spirit.

This doesn't really answer the question. How do you "rid yourself of the evils within"? Or "cast them away"? The Bible says the heart of man is evil continually. So how do you rid yourself the evil that is in your heart?

And you didn't answer how to "make a new heart/spirit" either.

It's not that difficult FG2; Ridding ourselves of sin is a theme throughout the Bible.

But you didn't really answer the question of HOW one does that. Just saying it doesn't really answer the HOW.

I don't think I've seen you at a loss for words.

My statement was clear. I am waiting for your answer before I answer. That's not a loss for words. I'm waiting for clarification.

If Jesus said to 'DO THIS and you will live', is this not the Bible's way?

In context.

Is it also the Bible's way to cleanse ourselves, cast away iniquity, flee sin, and overcome evil.

But HOW does one do that? I'm still waiting.

A figure of speech? Really? I guess I'll ask what strive means to you.

Here is your statement: "Do you believe one should STRIVE to enter the narrow gate which leads to eternal life?" When one considers the whole council of God, it has nothing to do with earning by effort, but to ENSURE that one understands what God requires for eternal life.

If you inherit a million dollars, do you receive it immediately?

Too vague a question. Need much more detail before an answer is even possible. And your question doesn't really answer my question: "I need to know what you think "inheriting eternal life" means to you before I can answer this question."

So, I still don't know what you think it means to "inherit eternal life".

Trying to shame me will not work.

Which is why I never try to do that to anyone. This is what I said: "Seems your view is salvation is faith plus works. Correct?" How is trying to shame you? It was a legitimate question. Seems you'd rather dodge the question than answer it.

Anyway, from all your posts, it does SEEM to me that your view is salvation is from faith plus works.

If not, please clarify how one is saved.

Remember, 'DO THIS' and you will inherit eternal life. Also remember, 'DO THIS' is keeping the commandments.

Does this refer to getting saved? Or something else?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I see where your problem lies.

lol

You've confused regeneration and justification. They are not the sane.

There is nothing in what I posted to lead anyone to that conclusion. Of course they aren't the same. They certainly occur together.

Can one be regenerated and be unsaved? Or can one be saved and not be regenerated? Please answer.

That's why in Ephesians 2, we are made alive (regeneration) and then justified (saved by grace through faith). Again, the order is clear...regeneration then justification.

Except Eph 2:5 doesn't show order. That's just an opinion. The parentheses aren't for order, but for explanation of status. So, when one has been "made alive", they HAVE BEEN saved.

They go together. Yet they are not the same. Very simple.

 

[Hammster]

lol


There is nothing in what I posted to lead anyone to that conclusion. Of course they aren't the same. They certainly occur together.

Can one be regenerated and be unsaved? Or can one be saved and not be regenerated? Please answer.


Except Eph 2:5 doesn't show order. That's just an opinion. The parentheses aren't for order, but for explanation of status. So, when one has been "made alive", they HAVE BEEN saved.

They go together. Yet they are not the same. Very simple.

I said Ephesians 2 shows order. I did not say Ephesians 2:5 shows order.

 

[FreeGrace2]

This is where I have to doubt your sincerity. If you are as familiar with Calvinism as you claim to be, you should be able to explain it and how Calvinists come to there conclusions.

Just another dodge of my question. This is what I said: "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."

As usual, there was no specific verses noted in either chapter, demonstrating that there aren't any in either chapter. Or they would have been cited or quoted.

btw, I am familiar enough with Calvinism to KNOW that much of what is claimed CANNOT be supported by Scripture. My request of supporting verses is only to demonstrate that FACT.

So my referencing these two chapters should come as no surprise.

Such vague "referencing" only demonstrates the failure to actually HAVE any verses that support your claims.

But if you really want everyone to believe that you don't know why they are being referenced, then everyone must also believe that you cannot be sure that Calvinism is false because you are not familiar with the arguments.

This is nonsense, obviously. Your vague and generalized "referencing" is only a smokescreen. When asked specifically for verses, none were given by you. Demonstrating that there aren't any that support your claims.

So you can either admit that you really don't know much about Calvinism even though it's been explained to you over and over again these past years, or you can stop playing games.

lol Playing games is when someone makes a claim, and when challenged to provide verses that support said claims, goes through this typical response here in trying to defend why specific verses weren't provided. It's also called "dodge ball", which is a game.

I certainly know enough about Calvinism and your posting style to know that there aren't verses that support the claims.

 

[Hammster]

Just another dodge of my question. This is what I said: "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."

As usual, there was no specific verses noted in either chapter, demonstrating that there aren't any in either chapter. Or they would have been cited or quoted.

btw, I am familiar enough with Calvinism to KNOW that much of what is claimed CANNOT be supported by Scripture. My request of supporting verses is only to demonstrate that FACT.


Such vague "referencing" only demonstrates the failure to actually HAVE any verses that support your claims.


This is nonsense, obviously. Your vague and generalized "referencing" is only a smokescreen. When asked specifically for verses, none were given by you. Demonstrating that there aren't any that support your claims.


lol Playing games is when someone makes a claim, and when challenged to provide verses that support said claims, goes through this typical response here in trying to defend why specific verses weren't provided. It's also called "dodge ball", which is a game.

I certainly know enough about Calvinism and your posting style to know that there aren't verses that support the claims.

Then obviously my statement stands. I would understand if you said that you disagree with how Calvinists use scripture to support their views. But to say there is either ignorant or disingenuous.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"There are NO verses anywhere in the Bible that teach this theory. If I'm wrong, then prove it by citing them."

It's not that simple.

Actually, it is very simple.

It's like the doctrine of the Trinity. There are no verses that spell it out. But we can come to the truth by examining scripture.

Actually, yes, there are specific verses that very clearly indicate the Trinity. Maybe you're just not aware of them.

For example, the Father, the Son and the Spirit are ALL referred to as God throughout Scripture. And 2 Cor 13:14 puts all of them in 1 verse. But Calvinism cannot do that with much of what is claimed.

I've not seen any willingness from you to do that, so I won't waste my time. I will take the time, however, with someone who sincerely wants to understand.

Quite the disingenuous statement! I've ALWAYS provided verses that support my claims and beliefs.

Again, your reponse is only another dodge from having to provide any verses that support your claims.

ps: instead of citing just 2 chapters, why not claim Gen 1 - Rev 22? Wouldn't that be more "thorough"?

 

[FreeGrace2]

So are you saying that you, by your will, can choose to believe whatever you want to believe?

Why would anyone think that one believes by their will? Where does that come from?

The clear point is that everyone chooses to believe what they want. It's not a matter of the will. It's a matter of the "want".

 

[FreeGrace2]

2.

Exxcellent!!

 

[Hammster]

I said this:
"There are NO verses anywhere in the Bible that teach this theory. If I'm wrong, then prove it by citing them."

Actually, it is very simple.


Actually, yes, there are specific verses that very clearly indicate the Trinity. Maybe you're just not aware of them.

For example, the Father, the Son and the Spirit are ALL referred to as God throughout Scripture. And 2 Cor 13:14 puts all of them in 1 verse. But Calvinism cannot do that with much of what is claimed.


Quite the disingenuous statement! I've ALWAYS provided verses that support my claims and beliefs.

Again, your reponse is only another dodge from having to provide any verses that support your claims.

ps: instead of citing just 2 chapters, why not claim Gen 1 - Rev 22? Wouldn't that be more "thorough"?

You've helped make my point.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. - 2 Corinthians 13:14

Nowhere in that verse does it say that Jesus is God, or the Holy Spirit is God, or that the three are one. We believe its Trinitarian because we have an informed Presupposition. But the verse on its own doesn't say what you claim. You need to look at a bigger picture. That's how most dictrine is.

 

[Hammster]

Why would anyone think that one believes by their will? Where does that come from?

The clear point is that everyone chooses to believe what they want. It's not a matter of the will. It's a matter of the "want".

So you don't believe in free will, but you believe in free want?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'm not insulting anyone.

Then simply KNOW that the term "cheap grace" IS an insult towards those who recognize that God's grace is free, not earned, or deserved. And in insult to God Himself.

I'm mocking the idea that one can be saved but never sanctified.

Your previous answer to my question about Gal 2:12 shows your understanding of progressive sanctification. There is another sense of sanctification, which is our position in Christ. All believers are "set apart" for service to Christ. And will be ultimately sanctified in eternity. But there are many believers who never make progress in progressive sanctification.

The Bible includes many examples of those who didn't. Ananias and Sapphira. They died for their sin. No progress in that. And please don't try the lame excuse that they weren't "true believers". There is no reason to assume that. And Simon the former sorcerer is another example. And the Bible clearly states that he believed and was baptized. So believe it.

I'm mocking the idea that their can be birth without growth, adoption without obedience, or never following the Shepherd.

Such a view lines up with "Lordship salvation" which is unbiblical. Peter commanded believers to "sanctify Christ AS Lord" in 1 Pet 3:15. And the crowd in Matt 7:21-23 addressed Jesus as Lord, though never believed in Him for salvation. They were trying to earn a place in heaven, by their own testimony.

If a baby is never fed, will he/she grow up? No. The SAME is true in the spiritual sense. And we see this principle in Heb 5:12. By the time the writer wrote to them, they should have grown up in their spiritual lives. Yet he calls them "babies". Paul did the same thing in 1 Cor 3.

The error of Lordship salvation and Calvinism is to believe that all true believers will grow up spiritually to maturity. Many do not. The Bible gives us examples of those who did not.

Which is why the Bible gives us all the warnings. They are to motivate us to grow up in our faith.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said Ephesians 2 shows order. I did not say Ephesians 2:5 shows order.

If true, what specific verses do that? Please don't give me the typical vague response and dodge the question.

If there is a clear order, it will be clear. Where is it?

The only clear order I see is in v.8, in which salvation is preceded by faith. And since salvation and regeneration occur at the same time, per v.5 (and they AREN'T the same ), faith precedes regeneration.

So please enlighten me as to where in Eph 2 we find the order that regeneration precedes faith?

Especially so since I just showed the opposite.

 

[FreeGrace2]

This is what I said:
""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."

As usual, there was no specific verses noted in either chapter, demonstrating that there aren't any in either chapter. Or they would have been cited or quoted."

Then obviously my statement stands.

What is so "obvious" here that allows your unsubstantiated statement to stand??

I would understand if you said that you disagree with how Calvinists use scripture to support their views.

That is obviously what I meant.

But to say there is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Please re-read this sentence and fix it. I don't know what it refers to.

 

[Hammster]

Then simply KNOW that the term "cheap grace" IS an insult towards those who recognize that God's grace is free, not earned, or deserved. And in insult to God Himself.


Your previous answer to my question about Gal 2:12 shows your understanding of progressive sanctification. There is another sense of sanctification, which is our position in Christ. All believers are "set apart" for service to Christ. And will be ultimately sanctified in eternity. But there are many believers who never make progress in progressive sanctification.

The Bible includes many examples of those who didn't. Ananias and Sapphira. They died for their sin. No progress in that. And please don't try the lame excuse that they weren't "true believers". There is no reason to assume that. And Simon the former sorcerer is another example. And the Bible clearly states that he believed and was baptized. So believe it.


Such a view lines up with "Lordship salvation" which is unbiblical. Peter commanded believers to "sanctify Christ AS Lord" in 1 Pet 3:15. And the crowd in Matt 7:21-23 addressed Jesus as Lord, though never believed in Him for salvation. They were trying to earn a place in heaven, by their own testimony.

If a baby is never fed, will he/she grow up? No. The SAME is true in the spiritual sense. And we see this principle in Heb 5:12. By the time the writer wrote to them, they should have grown up in their spiritual lives. Yet he calls them "babies". Paul did the same thing in 1 Cor 3.

The error of Lordship salvation and Calvinism is to believe that all true believers will grow up spiritually to maturity. Many do not. The Bible gives us examples of those who did not.

Which is why the Bible gives us all the warnings. They are to motivate us to grow up in our faith.

Thanks. You gave excellent examples of why your view of grace is cheap. There's no power to change anyone.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You've helped make my point.

Nope.

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. - 2 Corinthians 13:14

Nowhere in that verse does it say that Jesus is God, or the Holy Spirit is God, or that the three are one. We believe its Trinitarian because we have an informed Presupposition.

Nope. And it's obvious that my post wasn't carefully read. I STATED that the Father, Son and Spirit are referred to as God in many Scriptures.

But the verse on its own doesn't say what you claim. You need to look at a bigger picture. That's how most dictrine is.

That's exactly what I did, and you either missed or just ignored.

There is nothing in my post to lead anyone to the conclusion that I based the Trinity on just one verse. Your charge is fallacious.

 

[Hammster]

This is what I said:
""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."

As usual, there was no specific verses noted in either chapter, demonstrating that there aren't any in either chapter. Or they would have been cited or quoted."

What is so "obvious" here that allows your unsubstantiated statement to stand??


That is obviously what I meant.


Please re-read this sentence and fix it. I don't know what it refers to.

If you say there is no scripture to support Calvinimsm, you are either ignorant or disingenuous.

If you just disagree with how Calvinism uses scripture, that's a whole other thing.