Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Marvin Knox]

There's a difference between predestination and foreordination. And I really wish people would refer to "free will" as autonomous or libertarian will. Calvinist are not arguing "choice". Having a choice is not free will or autonomy, where one is 1) able to rule over one's self, as god apart from God, and 2) exists as many gods and be sovereign. This extends back to the age old hiss from the garden of Eden, Genesis 3:5.

I like to try to keep things pretty simple. There have, of course, been entire books that talk about the freedom or the bondage of the will. People can go read those if they want to.

But most people here are just questioning whether people make choices out of their own will or if they are just robots or puppets as many refer to what we must be if the predestination of all things is the truth.

You gave a link in a previous post to show what you consider the proper definitions of various terms.

What does "Rebirth", "Born Again", "Born from Above" or "Regeneration" Mean?

You make it a point here in this post to tell us that there is a significant difference between predestination and foreordination. But you gave no link for us.

Could you supply a similar link to what you did before?

Or perhaps you could just tell us the difference yourself in your personal opinion.

I say "personal" because many good sources treat the two theological terms as virtually synonymous.

Mormons tend to use the term foreordination much more. But I know you are not Mormon so you probably aren't making a distinction because you believe in the preexistence of souls and God's foreordination of where they are to serve on the earth as they do in LDS theology.

By all means help people out here. What's the difference?

 

[Marvin Knox]

Yup. And each one is used differently and intermixed. It's confusing. Everything is regeneration. I think that the 'default' word for any doctrine.

Now I'm confused.

I thought non-Calvinists believed that the Calvinist "default" word was election or predestination or depravity or grace or perseverance.

Actually theologians have a whole bunch of special words it seems. That's what happens when you write about theology I guess.

We tend to use various terms that are not necessarily in the Bible in and of themselves to describe concepts that would require pages of cross referenced scriptures to explain every time they were discussed.

That's the way doctors and lawyers talk to each other as well - in code.

What we see in the using of strange words to sum doctrines up is just the nature of the theology "beast" I suppose.

 

[Hoghead1]

Some defenders of Calvin have tried to argue that he merely argued for "foreordination," meaning God just knew ahead of time what was going to happen. God, being atemporal, and then outside of time, simply knew the future ahead of time. However, Calvin is quite clear that nothing, absolutely nothing, can happen unless God wills it to be so. Predestination and foreordination are one and the same in Calvin.

 

[Cush]

Some defenders of Calvin have tried to argue that he merely argued for "foreordination," meaning God just knew ahead of time what was going to happen. God, being atemporal, and then outside of time, simply knew the future ahead of time. However, Calvin is quite clear that nothing, absolutely nothing, can happen unless God wills it to be so. Predestination and foreordination are one and the same in Calvin.

I'll agree with you on the definition of foreordination, "God just knew ahead of time what was going to happen". And I reject the notion that God "decreed anything BECAUSE he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions" - WCF. God foresaw, that our first parents would yield to the temptation presented by Satan; but he did not purpose to permit the temptation and the fall, because he foresaw it as that which would come to pass. He might have foreseen, that if the temptation were presented, Eve would yield; and he might have purposed to prevent the temptation. But for wise reasons he chose to permit both the temptation and the fall, designing to overrule both to his own holy ends. Further example, God did not decree the crucifixion of His Son, BECAUSE God saw that wicked men would do so, but He decreed it because it was necessary for Salvation.

I should have clarified further, and addressed those adherents of double predestination that make inference from predestination of the elect to the reprobate while drawing symmetry between them. Since, they argue, predestination is true, God must be responsible (the irony of the arguments in this thread) for the beginning of damnation in the reprobate, he monergistically produces sins in the hearts of the reprobate which will ultimately end in eternal judgment. This is a distortion. God does monergistically bring the Elect by producing faith in them to salvation, but He does not monergistically produce sin to condemnation. This would make God the author of sin, but He does harden the hearts of sinful men for his own righteous purposes of judgment Romans 9:17-18. Also see 1 Peter 2:6-8.

The Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 3:

VI. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto.[12] Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ,[13] are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified,[14] and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation.[15] Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.[16]

[12] 1PE 1:2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. EPH 1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. 2TH 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

[13] 1TH 5:9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. TIT 2:14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.

[14] ROM 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. EPH 1:5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will. 2TH 2:13 But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.

[15] 1PE 1:5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

[16] JOH 17:9 I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine. ROM 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. JOH 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. 65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you. 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God. 1JO 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

God bless,
Cush

By the way, @Marvin Knox and @Hoghead1 do you frequent other forums? Any recommendations?

 

[Cush]

But most people here are just questioning whether people make choices out of their own will or if they are just robots or puppets as many refer to what we must be if the predestination of all things is the truth.

Yes, I am familiar with these arguments, praise God's sovereignty and people will remind us that God does not make robots. Hope you do not mind me quoting John Frame:

Scripture is concerned, above all, to glorify God. Sometimes glorifying God humbles man, and those who believe Scripture must be willing to accept that consequence. We covet for ourselves ever more dignity, honor, and status, and we resist accepting a lower place. But Scripture assaults our pride and honors the humble. Scripture compares us, after all, not to sophisticated robots, but to simple potter’s clay.

What if it turns out that we are robots, after all—clay fashioned into marvelous robots, rather than being left as mere clay? Should we complain to God about that? Or should we rather feel honored that our bodies and minds are fashioned so completely to fulfill our assigned roles in God’s great drama? Some creatures are born as rabbits, some as cockroaches, and some as bacteria. By comparison, would it not be a privilege to be born as an intelligent robot?

Indeed, what remarkable robots we would be—capable of love and intimacy with God, and assigned to rule over all the creatures. Is it not a wonderful blessing of grace that, when we sinned in Adam, God did not simply discard us, as a potter might very well do with his clay, and as a robot operator might well do with his malfunctioning machine, but sent his only Son to die for us? Risen with him to new life, believers enjoy unimaginably wonderful fellowship with him forever.

As we meditate upon these dignities and blessings, the image of the robot becomes less and less appropriate, not because God’s control over us appears less complete, but because one doesn’t treat robots with such love and honor.

God bless,
Cush

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't at all agree, Cush. Calving is quite specific that absolutely nothing happens unless God decides it and wills it to happen. God is not just sitting back passively and letting things happen. Things happen the way they do because God decided them to happen that way.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Okay. Can God be Sovereign and still make free willed beings?

I believe the answer to that question is a resounding.... "yes."
Can God accomplish His will and plan despite those who reject Him?
And can God accomplish His will and plan with those who accepted Him?
Is not creating man with a free will being in line with God creating him in His image?
Again, I would say, "yes" to all these questions; And they are not in conflict with God's Sovereignty or His rule over mankind.

Does God also need to regenerate us before we are able to place faith in Him in order to be Sovereign?

I believe the answer to that question is a... "no."

Again, God's Sovereignty is not challenged if we choose to place our faith in Him.
For God is the One who still is our Savior.
Man cannot take credit for salvation because the Lord was the One who provided the free gift of salvation to all men freely with His death, burial, and resurrection in the first place.
Man cannot take the credit when the Spirit regenerates him after they place their faith within Jesus, either.
Man cannot also take the credit for the good work God does within the believer's life or during the saint's Sanctification process, as well.

Actually God desires us to have faith in Him.
For without faith, it is impossible to please Him.
However, in certain circles within Calvinism : Such words would be useless non-sense because believers were just all regenerated so as to have faith. So there would be no need to have any kind of Bible telling us to have faith within Him (or to tell us without faith it is impossible to please Him). For we would just automatically have faith in Him as a part of some kind of supposed pre-faith regeneration.

Also, did not God create man with the capacity to have faith since His creation?
How is that different than a regeneration that takes place before faith?
Is not God still the creator of man's capacity to have faith even without some kind of Calvinistic regeneration that proceeds faith?

If God does choose totally depraved individuals for salvation, what is the basis for how He chooses them?

If God foreordains or decrees evil to take place as it being a part of His good will, how is that actually a good thing?
Is a king good if he decrees evil to take place upon his own kingdom that He desires to love and take care of?
Wouldn't it make more sense that the evil that takes place is something that man does and God simply allows evil to happen temporarily so as to bring more sons into glory (i.e. to give more space or time for sinners to repent of their wicked ways so as to build up God's Kingdom)?

However, if God does it all, then this life does not really serve a purpose.
For did not God intend man to have rule over the animals and to subdue the Earth?



...

 

[Cush]

I don't at all agree, Cush. Calving is quite specific that absolutely nothing happens unless God decides it and wills it to happen. God is not just sitting back passively and letting things happen. Things happen the way they do because God decided them to happen that way.

Do you hold to a Supralapsaria or Infralapsarian view of God's decree? God does actively choose whom to condemn, but because God knows people have a sin nature, he simply lets them be (foreordains). Foreordination to wrath is therefore passive. In the predestination of the Elect, God needs intervene, overcoming the sinful nature of his people, therefore, predestination is active.

Agree or disagree, if not please elaborate.

God bless,
Cush

 

[Cush]

Can God accomplish His will and plan despite those who reject Him?

Quick question, if God is Sovereign and decrees man to salvation and man rejects God... who is sovereign?

Please consider Sproul’s definition of autonomy: “To be autonomous means to be a law unto oneself. An autonomous creature would be answerable to no one. He would have no governor, least of all a sovereign governor. It is logically impossible to have a sovereign God existing at the same time as an autonomous creature. The two concepts are utterly incompatible. To think of their coexistence would be like imagining the meeting of an immovable object and an irresistible force. What would happen? If the object moved, then it could no longer be considered immovable. If it failed to move, then the irresistible force would no longer be irresistible.”

God bless,
Cush

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Quick question, if God is Sovereign and decrees man to salvation and man rejects God... who is sovereign?

Please consider Sproul’s definition of autonomy: “To be autonomous means to be a law unto oneself. An autonomous creature would be answerable to no one. He would have no governor, least of all a sovereign governor. It is logically impossible to have a sovereign God existing at the same time as an autonomous creature. The two concepts are utterly incompatible. To think of their coexistence would be like imagining the meeting of an immovable object and an irresistible force. What would happen? If the object moved, then it could no longer be considered immovable. If it failed to move, then the irresistible force would no longer be irresistible.”

God bless,
Cush

Nowhere did I say God made man so as not to be answerable to nobody. Man's free will is in line with being accountable to a creator God. For if Calvinism were true, and God planned man to accomplish His will in everything that we see today, then why didn't God succeed in making man to have rule over the Earth at the beginning of Creation? It's because God gave man the choice for man to either accept Him and His good ways or to choose himself and sin as the alternative. So man chose himself and sin. Not because God wanted man to choose sin and evil. That would not make any sense because if God desired or willed Adam and Eve to choose evil, then that would make God unjust in doing so (if such were the case). So the only alternative is God created us with a free will.


....

 

[Cush]

Nowhere did I say God made man so as not to be answerable to nobody. Man's free will is in line with being accountable to a creator God. For if Calvinism were true, and God planned man to accomplish His will in everything that we see today, then why didn't God succeed in making man to have rule over the Earth at the beginning of Creation? It's because God gave man the choice for man to either accept Him and His good ways or to choose himself and sin as the alternative. So man chose himself and sin. Not because God wanted man to choose sin and evil. That would not make any sense because if God desired or willed Adam and Eve to choose evil, then that would make God unjust in doing so (if such were the case). So the only alternative is God created us with a free will.


....

Please answer my question.

 

[Hoghead1]

Much of this issue depends on what you men by God's sovereignty. If by sovereignty, you mean that God is truly omnipotent , a cosmic dictator who predetermined everything that we do, then we are but puppets who have no real freedom. If we have freedom, then we have to choose of ourselves; God cannot make our decisions for us. This does not mean that God just holds back at times to let us have our way, because somehow that glorifies him. I rule that out, as it means God is not doing all that he can. I think that God always does all that he or she can, but that there is no way god can force us or coerce us. I believe God sis a cosmic artist. Hence, I have a very different approach to God than did Calvin. God's goal is to promote beauty. Now, beauty means complexity, a synthesis of uniformity and diversity. Complexity means increased freedom, increased possibilities for things to go wrong. If you had a piano with just one note on it, you could never hit a wrong note. With 88 keys, you can hit wrong notes, just bang and make racket, etc. Put another way, chances for good always overlap with chances for evil. Hence, evil or bad decision-making is always a possibility. The only way God could have created an evil-proof world would have been for God to make a totally and completely simple one; but that would have had no aesthetic advantages.

 

[Cush]

If by sovereignty, you mean that God is truly omnipotent , a cosmic dictator who predetermined everything that we do, then we are but puppets who have no real freedom.

If you are answering my question to Jason, (Quick question, if God is Sovereign and decrees man to salvation and man rejects God... who is sovereign?) are you not now rejecting Ephesians 1:5-6, “… he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasures and will, to the praise of his glorious grace.” I think this makes free willers uncomfortable to know that this is God's goal in everything He does.

 

[Hoghead1]

I also disagree with those who say our freedom is incompatible with God's sovereignty. Persons who argue the latter have forgetting that power over powers, participating in the free self-decisions of others takes far more talent than being a dictator. In short, God is more like the president of the universe than a monarch, and this takes far more strength and talent.

 

[Cush]

I also disagree with those who say our freedom is incompatible with God's sovereignty. Persons who argue the latter have forgetting that power over powers, participating in the free self-decisions of others takes far more talent than being a dictator. In short, God is more like the president of the universe than a monarch, and this takes far more strength and talent.

Lets forget Scripture altogether. My question to you, what does Protestant mean?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Please answer my question.

As I said before, God is still Sovereign even if man rejects God.


....

 

[Cush]

As I said before, God is still Sovereign even if man rejects God.


....

So if God decrees a man to salvation, and that man rejects - will that man be saved? If so, how?

 

[Hoghead1]

I'm not forgetting about Scripture for one minute and don't you think I am. Why are you asking me what Protestantism means? Don't you know? It originally meant a Protest.

 

[Cush]

I'm not forgetting about Scripture for one minute and don't you think I am. Why are you asking me what Protestantism means? Don't you know? It originally meant a Protest.

noun
noun: Protestant; plural noun: Protestants

1. 1.
   a member or follower of any of the Western Christian churches that are separate from the Roman Catholic Church and follow the principles of the Reformation, including the Baptist, Presbyterian, and Lutheran churches.

I will go further. Protestant means catholic, evangelical, and reformed. The reason I am asking is because you have "Protestant" in your profile, yet there's no evidence of that by your posts. The name Protestant was simply throwing me for a loop, so I was curious as to your own definition of Protestant. If you simply mean, to protest, I now know what it means to you. I thought I would ask rather than assume any further.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

In short, God is more like the president of the universe than a monarch, and this takes far more strength and talent.

So I guess that the, "King of Kings" title needs to be changed to something a little more democratic. . .