Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Bible Highlighter]

That's exactly what those darn Calvinists believe. It's nice to see that you are in agreement the Calvinists on at least this one point.

I do not agree with Calvinism.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you think it's possible for God to so change a person (a heart of flesh instead of a heart of stone) that they would willingly repent and believe?

Not against their own will, no. They have to be willing to repent and change and be willing to turn to God. God does not zap people into his kingdom. Again, think about the purpose of WHY there is a Judgment. The Scriptures say,

"So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God" (Romans 14:12).

Now, the above verse does not make a lick of sense if God was the One who forces people to believer or not to believe. In other words, from your worldview you think man is like a wolf who is blood thirsty and has no other option but to attack out of hunger. Man is nothing more than a cornered animal who will just bite back. So how can God judge a dog or animal for what it was designed in doing? Doesn't make any sense. Giving an account of one's actions to God is saying that you had a choice in the fact that you could have done something different of your own free will choice. For if it was just about telling God about what you did, it doesn't make sense because God already knows everything you did already.

....

 

[Hammster]

Not against their own will, no.

Just so I'm clear with what you are saying, God is powerless to change a persons heart (a heart of flesh instead of a heart of stone) unless, with the heart of stone they repent and change?

 

[sdowney717]

Your ignoring the big problem, though. Do people sin because they can't help it and the only way is if they are lucky enough to be chosen so as to escape such a horrible fate? That is what it sounds like in what you are saying. If such is the case, then how do you not see God as being immoral by doing such a thing? What purpose does the Judgment serve if God is the one who makes people to believe or not believe?

...

All people do not believe, so don't think of it as God making them not believe. They just naturally do not believe.
What about God's justice against sinners? Is it not moral for God to condemn sinners? Otherwise God would not be just.
What if God wants to be merciful? Can we hold that against God either?

 

[klutedavid]

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, - Romans 3:9

Hello Hammster.

We both know that Paul was directly addressing the Jews, in the second chapter of
the letter to the Romans (2:17).

I asked you to identify in the letter to the Romans, where Paul stops addressing the
Jews?

You replied with the verse below.

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already
charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, - Romans 3:9

I must inform you Hammster that your reply was incorrect.

Paul stated in the verse you indicated, 'Are we Jews any better off', which
means that Paul is most certainly still addressing the Jews both here and
beyond this verse.

Later in chapter three, Paul mentions the verse below.

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Gentiles were never under this law of Moses, hence Hammster, Paul has no reason
to even mention the 'works of the law' to a Gentile audience. The Gentiles would
not understand what Paul was talking about. Even in this current age, Gentiles have
no real idea what the phrase, 'works of the law' even means.

To further drive home this point, that Paul is actually talking to the Jews in Rome.
We only need to turn the page and start reading the next chapter.

4 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh...

Please notice the phrase 'Abraham our forefather', Abraham is not the ancestor,
nor even the father of the Gentiles. The great claim of the Jews, is that they were the
children of Abraham, the Jews were the direct offspring of Abraham.

John 8:39
They (the Jews) answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Paul is still addressing the Jews Hammster and there is no doubt about this.

So once again Hammster, may I ask you to identify where in Romans, does Paul
stop addressing the Jews directly, in this letter to the Romans?

 

[Hammster]

Hello Hammster.

We both know that Paul was directly addressing the Jews, in the second chapter of
the letter to the Romans (2:17).

I asked you to identify in the letter to the Romans, where Paul stops addressing the
Jews?

You replied with the verse below.

I must inform you Hammster that your reply was incorrect.

Paul stated in the verse you indicated, 'Are we Jews any better off', which
means that Paul is most certainly still addressing the Jews both here and
beyond this verse.

Later in chapter three, Paul mentions the verse below.

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Gentiles were never under this law of Moses, hence Hammster, Paul has no reason
to even mention the 'works of the law' to a Gentile audience. The Gentiles would
not understand what Paul was talking about. Even in this current age, Gentiles have
no real idea what the phrase, 'works of the law' even means.

To further drive home this point, that Paul is actually talking to the Jews in Rome.
We only need to turn the page and start reading the next chapter.

4 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh...

Please notice the phrase 'Abraham our forefather', Abraham is not the ancestor,
nor even the father of the Gentiles. The great claim of the Jews, is that they were the
children of Abraham, the Jews were the direct offspring of Abraham.

John 8:39
They (the Jews) answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Paul is still addressing the Jews Hammster and there is no doubt about this.

So once again Hammster, may I ask you to identify where in Romans, does Paul
stop addressing the Jews directly, in this letter to the Romans?

I did.

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, - Romans 3:9

Then he goes on to say why both Jews and Greeks are under sin. I don't believe the following verses speak only to Jews.

Then he goes on to say

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-
22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: - Romans 3:21-22

Note the "all who believe" part. So what he's saying applies to all.

 

[Marvin Knox]

What I do does matter and I am not some puppet being moved around like some kind of rag doll.

I do not agree with Calvinism.

You do on this one point at least.

All Calvinists believe that what we do does matter.

No Calvinist believes that we are a puppets being moved around like some kind of rag doll.

Just because you charge them with believing that way does not make it so.

 

[sdowney717]

Not against their own will, no. They have to be willing to repent and change and be willing to turn to God. God does not zap people into his kingdom. Again, think about the purpose of WHY there is a Judgment. The Scriptures say,

"So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God" (Romans 14:12).

Now, the above verse does not make a lick of sense if God was the One who forces people to believer or not to believe. In other words, from your worldview you think man is like a wolf who is blood thirsty and has no other option but to attack out of hunger. Man is nothing more than a cornered animal who will just bite back. So how can God judge a dog or animal for what it was designed in doing? Doesn't make any sense. Giving an account of one's actions to God is saying that you had a choice in the fact that you could have done something different of your own free will choice. For if it was just about telling God about what you did, it doesn't make sense because God already knows everything you did already.

....

Well what about this then?
Ezekiel 11
17 Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “I will gather you from the peoples, assemble you from the countries where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.”’ 18 And they will go there, and they will take away all its detestable things and all its abominations from there.

19 Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh, 20 that they may walk in My statutes and keep My judgments and do them; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God.

21 But as for those whose hearts follow the desire for their detestable things and their abominations, I will recompense their deeds on their own heads,” says the Lord God.

Consider the difference between v19 and verse 21 regarding their heart and spirits.
v19, God gives them a new spirit, a new heart of flesh, so that they walk with God.
v21, But for those who still retain the old heart which is detestable, their deeds are recompensed.

The only difference you can read, God gave to the saved group the new heart, then they walk rightly.
The other group, God does nothing, they continue with the old heart, receive a recompense for the horrendous deeds..

 

[sdowney717]

Hello Hammster.

We both know that Paul was directly addressing the Jews, in the second chapter of
the letter to the Romans (2:17).

I asked you to identify in the letter to the Romans, where Paul stops addressing the
Jews?

You replied with the verse below.

I must inform you Hammster that your reply was incorrect.

Paul stated in the verse you indicated, 'Are we Jews any better off', which
means that Paul is most certainly still addressing the Jews both here and
beyond this verse.

Later in chapter three, Paul mentions the verse below.

28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Gentiles were never under this law of Moses, hence Hammster, Paul has no reason
to even mention the 'works of the law' to a Gentile audience. The Gentiles would
not understand what Paul was talking about. Even in this current age, Gentiles have
no real idea what the phrase, 'works of the law' even means.

To further drive home this point, that Paul is actually talking to the Jews in Rome.
We only need to turn the page and start reading the next chapter.

4 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh...

Please notice the phrase 'Abraham our forefather', Abraham is not the ancestor,
nor even the father of the Gentiles. The great claim of the Jews, is that they were the
children of Abraham, the Jews were the direct offspring of Abraham.

John 8:39
They (the Jews) answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Paul is still addressing the Jews Hammster and there is no doubt about this.

So once again Hammster, may I ask you to identify where in Romans, does Paul
stop addressing the Jews directly, in this letter to the Romans?

Using John 8:39, does not help your argument. Those jews Christ talked to, claimed Abraham as their father.
Which was a false claim, Christ said I know your are Abraham's descendents, However Christ says if they were children of Abraham, they would love Christ. But they hate Christ and in reality are not children of Abraham, Christ says they are in actuality children of Satan.
So they were descendents of Abraham according o the flesh, but spiritually children of Satan. and that is the only thing they matters to Christ and God, the reality of who is their spiritual father.

 

[klutedavid]

I did.

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, - Romans 3:9

Then he goes on to say why both Jews and Greeks are under sin. I don't believe the following verses speak only to Jews.

Then he goes on to say

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it-
22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: - Romans 3:21-22

Note the "all who believe" part. So what he's saying applies to all.

Hello Hammster.

What about the rest of the post, your reply was only to the first few paragraphs.

We only need to turn the page and start reading the next chapter.

4 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh...

Please notice the phrase 'Abraham our forefather', Abraham is not the ancestor,
nor even the father of the Gentiles. The great claim of the Jews, is that they were the
children of Abraham, the Jews were the direct offspring of Abraham.

John 8:39
They (the Jews) answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Paul is still addressing the Jews Hammster and there is no doubt about this.

So once again Hammster, may I ask you to identify where in Romans, does Paul
stop addressing the Jews directly, in this letter to the Romans?

 

[AndOne]

View attachment 167365

No, the mistake was to reply to his post. This is what he said:
"Hello those that follow Calvin."

 

[Job8]

Just because you charge them with believing that way does not make it so.

One does not have to falsify Calvinism. It is all out out there in the open.

 

[Hammster]

Hello Hammster.

What about the rest of the post, your reply was only to the first few paragraphs.

We only need to turn the page and start reading the next chapter.

4 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh...

Please notice the phrase 'Abraham our forefather', Abraham is not the ancestor,
nor even the father of the Gentiles. The great claim of the Jews, is that they were the
children of Abraham, the Jews were the direct offspring of Abraham.

John 8:39
They (the Jews) answered and said to Him, “Abraham is our father.”

Paul is still addressing the Jews Hammster and there is no doubt about this.

So once again Hammster, may I ask you to identify where in Romans, does Paul
stop addressing the Jews directly, in this letter to the Romans?

Since you won't address my last post, I see no need to continue.

 

[AndOne]

One does not have to falsify Calvinism. It is all out out there in the open.

 

[klutedavid]

Since you won't address my last post, I see no need to continue.

Negative Hammster.

There is a linear order in the posts.

You actually failed to properly answer the contents of my previous post.

I cannot answer your post until you correctly treat the previous post.

If this topic is uncomfortable for you, then you can discontinue of course.

 

[Job8]

It always helps to bring a little levity into the discussion. Here's Calvinism at its finest.

 

[AndOne]

Hello AndOne.

No mistake, just a question for anyone that follows the teaching of Calvin.

I don't follow Calvin. I celebrate Christmas - he believed we shouldn't. I don't believe in baptizing infants - he did. I believe in using instruments in church - he didn't. There are many things I disagree with Calvin on. Your assumption that anyone who believes the doctrines of grace follow Calvin's teaching is telling of your ignorance regarding Calvinism.

 

[AndOne]

It always helps to bring a little levity into the discussion. Here's Calvinism at its finest.

View attachment 167368​

It doesn't even make sense.l.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You do on this one point at least.

All Calvinists believe that what we do does matter.

No Calvinist believes that we are a puppets being moved around like some kind of rag doll.

Just because you charge them with believing that way does not make it so.

Then you are being inconsistent in your belief. If God chooses some to believe and others to not believe then why stop there? Why would God allow man to do his own thing against His own will?

...

 

[AndOne]

Then you are being inconsistent in your belief. If God chooses some to believe and others to not believe then why stop there? Why would God allow man to do his own thing against His own will?

...

He doesn't - see my signature.