Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Job8]

You, too, are missing the point. That's a verse that supports the doctrine. But it does not say any of those members are God, or that they are one.

That is falsifying the Word of God. Just because a verse does not use specific words like "THIS IS GOD" does not nullify the truth that is being present. We are meant to learn from all Scripture that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. This verse simply presents that truth without extraneous comment. And John Calvin had the good sense and insight to speak to this very verse in his Institutes:

Nor is it to be doubted that Christ, when He commanded to baptize in the Name of of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, designed to show by this solemn form of words, that the light of faith had at length been perfectly made manifest. His words mean that baptism is to be administered IN THE NAME OF THE ONE TRUE GOD who had revealed Himself with perfect clearness as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Hence it is absolutely clear that there are three Persons in the Divine essence, and that in these three, one God is revealed.

 

[Hammster]

That is falsifying the Word of God. Just because a verse does not use specific words like "THIS IS GOD" does not nullify the truth that is being present. We are meant to learn from all Scripture that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. This verse simply presents that truth without extraneous comment. And John Calvin had the good sense and insight to speak to this very verse in his Institutes:

I've tried. I think you guys are so afraid to agree with a Calvinist on anything that you won't even clearly read what is being posted. smh

 

[Hammster]

I am a glutton for punishment.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, - Matthew 28:19

Where in this verse does it say that any member mentioned is God? Or that they are one?

I'll wait.

 

[Hammster]

So this brings me to another point, which is that faith comes by hearing the Word of God, which is Biblical as my friend above has written.

How do Calvinist believe that one comes to faith by hearing the gospel and the Word of God, yet they say faith comes after justification?

Find me one Calvinist that says faith comes after justification.

I'll wait.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Find me one Calvinist that says faith comes after justification.

I'll wait.

I'll do that. It will take a while because I have to go to work and will need to be on my break. I have just the thread to give you many examples.

I'll be back later, so do not wait on me for at least 4 hours.

 

[Hammster]

I'll do that. It will take a while because I have to go to work and will need to be on my break. I have just the thread to give you many examples.

I'll be back later, so do not wait on me for at least 4 hours.

Make sure you read carefully what is said.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The "claim" I made, if you trace back the conversation, is that you cannot prove the Trinity with a verse.

So perhaps it's not my communication that's the problem.

And I wasn't referring to that claim. Which is just a red herring anyway.

 

[FreeGrace2]

No, it won't.

And the same is true in the spiritual realm.

But I'm completely trusting in the Father and the Shepherd to take care of their own. You, obviously, think the child is responsible. I suppose that's more man-centered thinkin.

If the child is not responsible for obeying God's commands, then apparently you believe that God regenerates in order to create little robots or puppets who will do just what He wants, huh?

Nope. God's children are commanded to stop grieving and quenching the Spirit, and to be filled with and walk by means of the Holy Spirit.

It is these commands that determine whether a child of God will grow up or not.

There are no verses that teach that growing to maturity is guaranteed. And I've already given Scripture that proves the opposite. Believers who didn't. Oh yeah. I keep forgetting; the Calvinist talking points just says they were never "really" saved in the first place. Ah, the convenience of it. Just explain away what one can't explain.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You, too, are missing the point. That's a verse that supports the doctrine. But it does not say any of those members are God, or that they are one.

But now you get my point. FG constantly asks for verses to support.

And I've NEVER limited anyone to just one verse, which is your example of the Trinity. But when verses are compared together, it is crystal clear that God is One. And that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are God.

There are no single verses that support Calvinism.

And none that when combined together teach that Christ died ONLY for some. Or that God chooses who will believe.

There are scriptures to support Calvinism (even if you disagree).

I disagree because there aren't any that support many of the claims of Calvinism.

It's not a simplistic dictrine. Just like the Trinity.

Poor excuse for not having any verses that say what Calvinism claims.

So FG claims victory often because he thinks he has verses, his doctrine is correct. He doesn't look at context, which has been shown through the years.

Why wouldn't one be satisfied with having verses that actually DO say what I claim? I don't call it victory. I call it truth.

But that's not my problem.

I would say not having truth is a big problem.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I've tried. I think you guys are so afraid to agree with a Calvinist on anything that you won't even clearly read what is being posted. smh

I've never been afraid t agree with you on eternal security.

 

[Hammster]

And I wasn't referring to that claim. Which is just a red herring anyway.

Then I cannot help that you aren't following the conversation. Just don't accuse me of something I didn't do.

 

[Hammster]

And I've NEVER limited anyone to just one verse, which is your example of the Trinity. But when verses are compared together, it is crystal clear that God is One. And that the Father, the Son and the Spirit are God.


And none that when combined together teach that Christ died ONLY for some. Or that God chooses who will believe.


I disagree because there aren't any that support many of the claims of Calvinism.


Poor excuse for not having any verses that say what Calvinism claims.


Why wouldn't one be satisfied with having verses that actually DO say what I claim? I don't call it victory. I call it truth.


I would say not having truth is a big problem.

I know you are satisfied with having verses. I know you are not concerned with context. Mormons do the same thing. They are plenty satisfied.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

And none that when combined together teach that Christ died ONLY for some. Or that God chooses who will believe.

Limited Atonement:
Their are many verses for this position drawn from such scriptures as (Matt. 26:28) where Jesus died for ‘many'; (John 10:11, 15) which says that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, Matt 25:32-33); (John 17:9) where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; (Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27) which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and (Isa 53:12) which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of 'many' (not all).

 

[EmSw]

Limited Atonement:
Their are many verses for this position drawn from such scriptures as (Matt. 26:28) where Jesus died for ‘many'; (John 10:11, 15) which says that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, Matt 25:32-33); (John 17:9) where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; (Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27) which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and (Isa 53:12) which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of 'many' (not all).

Isaiah55, were you ever a goat? If so, then Jesus didn't die for you?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Then I cannot help that you aren't following the conversation. Just don't accuse me of something I didn't do.

I never have. And I was following the conversation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I know you are satisfied with having verses.

Verses that actually affirm what I claim. Unlike Calvinism.

I know you are not concerned with context.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Mormons do the same thing. They are plenty satisfied.

Pathetic.

 

[sdowney717]

Limited Atonement:
Their are many verses for this position drawn from such scriptures as (Matt. 26:28) where Jesus died for ‘many'; (John 10:11, 15) which says that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, Matt 25:32-33); (John 17:9) where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; (Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27) which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and (Isa 53:12) which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of 'many' (not all).

And Hebrews 9

26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,
28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

I really think the 'many' refers to the idea of a multitude, not the idea of a percentage of the total number of people who ever lived on earth.
If the Holy Spirit had said 'all', then all would be saved. But not all have the blood atonement of sprinkling, some significant numbers of people do die in their sins, without Christ BEARING their sins, yet some Christians claim Christ bears the sins of all people, they just have to believe.
I don't know about you, but I have never been able to convince people to just believe in Christ.
However what scripture says is that only those that are called inherit God's promises, and it is for them that Christ shed His blood, atoning for their sins.

Hebrews 9
14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?
15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Limited Atonement:
Their are many verses for this position drawn from such scriptures as (Matt. 26:28) where Jesus died for ‘many'; (John 10:11, 15) which says that Jesus died for the sheep (not the goats, Matt 25:32-33); (John 17:9) where Jesus in prayer interceded for the ones given Him, not those of the entire world; (Acts 20:28 and Eph. 5:25-27) which state that the Church was purchased by Christ, not all people; and (Isa 53:12) which is a prophecy of Jesus’ crucifixion where he would bore the sins of 'many' (not all).

First of all, the phrase "the many" means "the masses".

Second, Jesus said He would lay down His life for THE sheep in John 10, all the while noting there were His sheep, other sheep of His, and those not of His sheep.

If He wasn't going to die for everyone in humanity, then He would have said He would lay down His life for HIS sheep. But He didn't. He said THE sheep, as opposed to His sheep.

Third, there are 3 verses that directly say that He died for all. Heb 2:9, 2 Cor 5:14, 15. And there is no context to claim that the word 'all' only means "all of some kind", or any other way the Calvinists like to twist it.

 

[sdowney717]

First of all, the phrase "the many" means "the masses".

Second, Jesus said He would lay down His life for THE sheep in John 10, all the while noting there were His sheep, other sheep of His, and those not of His sheep.

If He wasn't going to die for everyone in humanity, then He would have said He would lay down His life for HIS sheep. But He didn't. He said THE sheep, as opposed to His sheep.

Third, there are 3 verses that directly say that He died for all. Heb 2:9, 2 Cor 5:14, 15. And there is no context to claim that the word 'all' only means "all of some kind", or any other way the Calvinists like to twist it.

All sheep are His sheep, there are no sheep that do not belong to Christ, since He is that great Shepherd of the Sheep.

Christ does not shepherd goats, wolves, serpents, scorpions, and likely not too many scribes and pharisees either, woe to them.

 

[FreeGrace2]

All sheep are His sheep

John 10 says otherwise. They are listed clearly:

THE sheep
MY sheep
other sheep of MINE
not of MY sheep

there are no sheep that do not belong to Christ, since He is that great Shepherd of the Sheep.

I highly recommend reading John 10.

Christ does not shepherd goats, wolves, serpents, scorpions, and likely not too many scribes and pharisees either, woe to them.

In John 10, the issue is about sheep that are His. And the fact that He would die for THE sheep. Not just HIS.