Logical Problems with Calvinism

[FreeGrace2]

"So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep."
That is 100% true, Christ the door of the sheep. Since all the sheep are His, naturally they will be saved since they come to the Father by Him.
Proof is that Christ says 'the sheep' do not listen to the thief and robber, they do not listen to Satan but to God.

I have already demonstrated by personal pronouns that Jesus clearly noted there were HIS sheep, other sheep of HIS, and those sheep who were not of HIS. Yet He said that He would die for THE sheep.

'nuff said.

 

[Hammster]

FALSE PREMISES LEAD TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS. Since Calvinism is based on a fundamental false premise (that God decreed that some be saved and others be damned) everything else is false. Following Augustine blindly was a huge mistake:

Calvinism is based on the idea that men will not come to Christ in their natural state because of depravity.

 

[Job8]

Paul said it before Augustine - see Romans 9:21-23. Your beef is with him before Augustine.

Since Scripture does NOT contradict itself, let's see what Paul said: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Hath not the potter power over the clay; of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another to dishonour?--"The objection is founded on ignorance or misapprehension of the relation between God and His sinful creatures; supposing that He is under obligation to extend His grace to all, whereas He is under obligation to none. All are sinners, and have forfeited every claim to His mercy; it is therefore perfectly competent to God to spare one and not another, to make one vessel to honor and another to dishonor. But it is to be borne in mind that Paul does not here speak of God's right over His creatures as creatures, but as sinful creatures: as he himself clearly intimates in the next verses. It is the cavil of a sinful creature against his Creator that he is answering, and be does so by showing that God is under no obligation to give His grace to any, but is as sovereign as in fashioning the clay"... Be it observed, however, that if God, as the apostle teaches, expressly "designed to manifest His wrath, and to make His power (in the way of wrath) known," it could only be by punishing some, while He pardons others; and if the choice between the two classes was not to be founded, as our apostle also teaches, on their own doings but on God's good pleasure, the decision behooved ultimately to rest with God. Yet, even in the necessary punishment of the wicked, as HODGE observes, so far from proceeding with undue severity, the apostle would have it remarked that God "endures with much long-suffering" those objects of His righteous displeasure. (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown)

So the most that can be extracted from these verses is that (1) all are sinners, (2) God is under no obligation to extend His grace to anyone, (3) God is sovereign over how He deals with sinners, and (3) even with the wicked, God is longsuffering. This does not automatically translate into God choosing some for Heaven and others for Hell.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You are ignoring the proper context of the word "sheep" in the passage which has been pointed out to you by at least two other posters in this thread.



False accusation. The personal pronouns support my position when the word "sheep" is read in its proper context.

When Jesus commented on being the GATE for THE sheep, there is no mention of any other kind of animal. Only THE sheep, HIS sheep, others of HIS, and those sheep not of HIS.

I don't find this difficult at all. He would die for THE sheep, not HIS sheep, as Calvinism contends.

The sheep are His - context is king my friend.

Not all of them. There were those NOT of HIS. Let's do stay with context.

 

[Job8]

Calvinism is based on the idea that men will not come to Christ in their natural state because of depravity.

That too is an Augustinian concept, because the power of the Gospel and the power of the Holy Spirit while the Gospel is preached is simply ignored.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Calvinism is based on the idea that men will not come to Christ in their natural state because of depravity.

I think we all understand that. Yet, where is the Scripture that teaches that man is UNABLE to believe until they are regenerated??

 

[Hammster]

I have already demonstrated by personal pronouns that Jesus clearly noted there were HIS sheep, other sheep of HIS, and those sheep who were not of HIS. Yet He said that He would die for THE sheep.

'nuff said.

You aren't letting the natural reading prevail. If I said to someone that the kids went next door, and that I love my my kids, no body (except maybe you) would think I was referring to different groups, or that one group was a sub group of the other. That, plus the other reasons given, give conclusive evidence that the sheep are all His.

 

[Hammster]

I think we all understand that. Yet, where is the Scripture that teaches that man is UNABLE to believe until they are regenerated??

It's been given. You've rejected it. You think man is plenty good enough to believe. So you'll reject the truth of scripture.

 

[AndOne]

Since Scripture does NOT contradict itself, let's see what Paul said: Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?



So the most that can be extracted from these verses is that (1) all are sinners, (2) God is under no obligation to extend His grace to anyone, (3) God is sovereign over how He deals with sinners, and (3) even with the wicked, God is longsuffering. This does not automatically translate into God choosing some for Heaven and others for Hell.

Given the four points you yourself listed it is certainly a logical conclusion to make. But regardless "a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction" can only mean one thing. They didn't get that way by accident.

 

[Hammster]

“For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man."”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭7:21-23‬ ‭NASB‬‬
http://bible.com/100/mrk.7.21-23.nasb

Yeah, man is really good enough to believe.

 

[sdowney717]

The verse 'Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?'
Qualifies the entire preceding paragraph. Only those HE has called, are going to be receiving mercy from God and be the saved.

The rest are not called to be the saved. They die in their sins and receive the wrath of God.

So many say God calls all to be 'the saved ones', but this scripture proves them wrong.

 

[AndOne]

When Jesus commented on being the GATE for THE sheep, there is no mention of any other kind of animal. Only THE sheep, HIS sheep, others of HIS, and those sheep not of HIS.

I don't find this difficult at all. He would die for THE sheep, not HIS sheep, as Calvinism contends.


Not all of them. There were those NOT of HIS. Let's do stay with context.

False accusation - I am staying in context.

 

[klutedavid]

I actually agree with your interpretation of the text to a degree - but fail to see how it disproves Calvinism. If God is talking about the nation of Isreal he is not talking about an individual's salvation there. In fact most of chapters 10 and 11 seem to me to be supporting the statements made in Romans 9:24-32 which is showing that the nation of Isreal also includes elected Gentiles saved by faith in Jesus. A full reading of the entire book indicates God deals with individuals based on faith in Jesus - branches can be broken off because God doesnt deal with nations in the same way he deals with individuals.

Hello AndOne.

A pleasure to converse with someone with an open mind.

I actually agree with your interpretation of the text to a degree - but fail
to see how it disproves Calvinism. If God is talking about the nation of Isreal
he is not talking about an individual's salvation there.

Thank you AndOne, you obviously can see the alternate interpretation to some extent.

In fact most of chapters 10 and 11 seem to me to be supporting the statements
made in Romans 9:24-32 which is showing that the nation of Isreal also includes
elected Gentiles saved by faith in Jesus.

Are you sure about this statement of yours?

Let's examine your reference to the verses in the text (Romans 9:24-32).

For your sake AndOne, I will reluctantly use the KJV text.

25 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people;
and her beloved, which was not beloved.

The phrase 'my people' means the chosen or elect people, i.e., the nation of Israel.

The phrase 'not my people' means those not chosen or non elect, i.e., the Gentiles.

The phrase 'her beloved' is defintitely those he foreknew, i.e., the Israelites.

The phrase 'not beloved' can be no other that the non elect, i.e., the Gentiles.

We must remember what Paul is always describing, the astounding revelation that was
made to him, below.

Ephesians 3
5...as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit;
6 to be specific, that the Gentiles are fellow heirs and fellow members of the body,
and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel.

Paul is always talking about the election of the Gentiles in this letter to the Romans.

Paul is always referring to the circumcised (Israel) and the uncircumcised (Gentiles).

Paul is relentless in describing those under the law (Israel) and those not under the
law (Gentiles).

A full reading of the entire book indicates God deals with individuals
based on faith in Jesus - branches can be broken off because God doesnt deal with
nations in the same way he deals with individuals.

Your basing this idea of an individual election on the first of these methods of
interpretation. Paul is actually talking about the two types of olive branches in
all the text of Romans. The wild olive branch represents the Gentiles as a whole,
whereas the natural branches are always referring to the nation of Israel.

Paul is actually explaining to the non elect, the Gentile audience, why Israel, the
chosen nation, chosen people, were grafted out of the rich root of the olive tree (Christ).

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained
righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith; 31 but Israel, pursuing a law
of righteousness, did not arrive at that law.

 

[sdowney717]

KluteDavid said "The wild olive branch represents the Gentiles as a whole, "

Paul is describing individuals in Romans when referring to gentiles as wild branches.
I and You are singular persons, not all gentiles.
It sounds to me like your teaching only the nation Israel was elect.

17 And if some of the branches were broken off, and you, being a wild olive tree, were grafted in among them, and with them became a partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree,
18 do not boast against the branches. But if you do boast, remember that you do not support the root, but the root supports you.
19 You will say then, “Branches were broken off that I might be grafted in.”
20 Well said.Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear.
21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either.

Does God treat all gentiles as one being? No. Do all gentiles get grafted into the true vine, No.
See for you to teach this means you're teaching a universal salvation, that all gentiles are grafted as a group onto the True Vine.
And your teaching if one falls they all fall, if one is saved, all are saved.

 

[Marvin Knox]

FALSE PREMISES LEAD TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS. Since Calvinism is based on a fundamental false premise (that God decreed that some be saved and others be damned) everything else is false. Following Augustine blindly was a huge mistake:

That's ridiculous.

What on earth are you talking about?

You say that "Calvinism is based on a fundamental false premise that God decreed that some be saved and others be damned". Every Christian sect except universalism is based on that very same premise.

If the idea that God decreed that some be saved and others be damned is a false premise than everyone in the Christian religion is teaching false doctrine except the universalists.

You people think that refuting a few doctrines taught by the Calvinists get your view of God off the hook. But the truth is that your version of God is just about the same as the the Calvinists. It's just that the Calvinist's overall theology is more full-orbed than yours.

God set this whole thing up. He is the one who decided that men would be allowed to sin and become guilty before Him. He is the one who decreed that only a few would be saved.

Mumble as many platitudes about "free will" as you want to. You are still faced with that simple fact.

Talk about whistling through a graveyard!

 

[Job8]

KluteDavid said "The wild olive branch represents the Gentiles as a whole,

That is clearly incorrect. The wild olive tree (or branch) represents saved Gentiles only, while the good olive tree means saved Jews. The whole point of this section is to remind saved Gentiles to not be high-minded but always keep in mind that salvation came to Israel first, and that the Church began with saved Jews (see Acts 2), and only after than were Gentiles "grafted" in.

 

[Job8]

Yeah, man is really good enough to believe.

You've missed the point. All men are indeed sinners by birth and by choice. It is the power of the Gospel that penetrates their hearts and minds, while it is the power of the Holy Spirit which convicts sinners that they are indeed on their way to Hell, while convincing them that Christ is the only Way to Heaven. Calvinists ignore the supernatural power of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit in bringing sinners to the Saviour.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. (Rom 1:16)

For the word of God is quick [living], and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him [the Holy Spirit] with whom we have to do. (Heb 4:12,13)

 

[FreeGrace2]

You aren't letting the natural reading prevail.

This is just an opinion. And not a correct one.

If I said to someone that the kids went next door, and that I love my my kids, no body (except maybe you) would think I was referring to different groups, or that one group was a sub group of the other. That, plus the other reasons given, give conclusive evidence that the sheep are all His.

Even though He very clearly referred to some as "not of MY sheep". They weren't all His. He very plainly said so.

ONLY IF Jesus had said that He would die for HIS sheep would Calvinism have a point. But He didn't, and Calvinism doesn't have a point.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It's been given. You've rejected it. You think man is plenty good enough to believe. So you'll reject the truth of scripture.

Where does one come up with the notion that believing requires one to be "good enough"?? I've never said that. So where does that erroneous view come from?

I don't think man is "good enough" to believe, because I don't think believing in Christ requires goodness on man's part.

Believing in Christ requires conviction of one's sinfulness and helplessness in meeting God's standard of perfection.

Arrogant moralists think they are good enough to meet God's standards. Like the Pharisees.

otoh, the tax collector realized his sinfulness and asked for mercy. Do you think that required "goodness"?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Given the four points you yourself listed it is certainly a logical conclusion to make. But regardless "a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction" can only mean one thing. They didn't get that way by accident.

I wonder how many people do not know that the Greek word "katartizo" is in a tense form that is the same for both middle and passive voice. If Paul meant the middle voice, then those "fitted to descruction" did it to themselves.

If, otoh, Paul meant the passive voice, then it's clear that God had to do something to them before they were headed to destruction. When used of the disciples working on their nets, the word is translated "mended". iow, they were fixing their nets. When used of leading a straying believer back on track (Gal 6:1) it is translated "restore".

So, whether Paul meant middle or passive voice, either way doesn't fit Calvinistic talking points.