Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Marvin Knox]

No, grace is by definition the provision of help for what you can't do on your own. The whole bit of merit and desert is all a Reformed creation, and a redundant one at that, given that the very definition of love (of which grace is a major example) is giving something freely and liberally beyond any sense of recompense or reward.

The Webster dictionary defines “grace” as: “unmerited (undeserved) divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification.”

Theological dictionaries use very similar wording.

Notice what I underlined and highlighted above in your quote. “You can’t do on your own” are your words and not mine.

With regard to our not being able to come to Christ for salvation through the reception and application of the gospel message without added grace, – that is exactly what Calvinists believe. You are in good company with your apparent belief about us not being able to do it on our own. “By grace you have been saved through faith.”

With regards to them being incapable of not sinning -- see below.

On the condition that men abandon God because they're capable of abandoning Him (as opposed to acting out of sinful necessity according to Calvinism, like a rock falling), I have absolutely no problem with this passage. Heck, I have no problem with the idea of God abandoning anyone. What I have a problem with is blaming someone for doing something they can't help but do.

Your problem seems to be with the doctrine of original sin. That doctrine is hardly limited to Calvinist circles.

Just taking the simple Webster dictionary’s definition of original sin it is, “the state of sin that according to Christian theology characterizes all human beings as a result of Adam's fall”.

Sin is a state of being as much as it is also related to actual sins committed by men. Because of original sin – we will all sin in due course and be held responsible for those sins. Obviously we “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”.

Any statement from a Calvinist about man being unable to not sin is related to the concept of original sin.

You should really take the issue up with virtually all evangelical Christians and all Catholics alike rather than limit your anger to the doctrine of the Calvinists.

Why do they deserve nothing better than wrath? Again, deserving something implies that they've earned it, and earning implies choice, and choice implies the ability to freely choose one option over another. Choice without this freedom is determinism with a misnomer. You can say they've received wrath, or that God is the sort of deity who likes to be wrathful by nature (not a position I like, you know), but the moment you say "deserve" you've opened up the very problem of blame and responsibility that I'm asking you to respond to:

All Calvinists believe that men deserve wrath. You are correct in that.

No Calvinist believes that men are incapable of refraining from sins. Where did you get such an idea?

Do you believe that human beings can't help but sin given their condition? If so, what do you posit are the options: sin and faith, or something else and if so what (i.e., some middle ground where a person can act neither in faith nor sin)?

I do not - nor does anyone in the Calvinist camp that I know of - believe that a person is incapable of refraining from any particular sin. In fact God restrains men from doing certain sins according to the Word of God and to Calvinist doctrine as well.

In addition - all natural men retain a conscience which tells them when they sin. They can and do often obey that conscience and refrain from sinning. Even Hitler refrained from murdering his own mother (so far as I am aware). There are many “good” men in that respect. There are, however, no good men in the ultimate sense of the word.

Every Calvinist believes as I have stated in so far as I know.

What Calvinists believe is that everything we do in the natural is tainted to the core by the sin that is within us (even those acts we would consider unsinful acts).

There is a progression of abandonment by God that leads to inability spelled out in Romans for us. It starts with the first sin and because we did that sin we are given over to sin more. As we sin our conscience becomes seared and we sin more easily than before. This hardening varies according to the heart of the individual sinner.

Likewise our ability to believe truth is cursed by God according to how we react to truth when we receive it. There apparently (according to scripture) comes a point when all men are unable to properly evaluate spiritual truth when they receive it. That includes the gospel message.

This “giving over” by God to sin and to disbelief is part of the wrath of God that is being revealed against sin in men even as they live out their lives. Wrath is not just a future thing for sinners. It is happening now.

Most will not have God reveal the truth about Christ to them as He did to Peter. Most will not have their hearts opened by God to respond to the gospel as was Lydia.

God owes no special grace to any man or any woman. He owes only His wrath. Any grace that God gives to sinners is simply related to His mercy.

The question is not - why doesn’t He give the same grace to all men? The question is - why does He give some grace to all men?. That includes the grace to live out a wonderful life in this world even as one who is under the curse of God.

That also goes for the grace that He gives to some to believe. He does this in order to display His grace and mercy through their salvation in the ages to come.

His withholding of His grace from undeserving sinners is His prerogative. If He chooses to pass some by and let them perish as they deserve in order to display His righteous wrath in the ages to come – that is His prerogative.

God judges all men righteously. To the extent that He judges men who have been rendered "incapable" - He does so to men who stood guilty before Him from their conception according to original sin and from the first sin that all men commit as well.

Calvinism isn't "illogical" in all this. Calvinism is simply codifying what the scriptures clearly teach about these matters.

 

[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.

It may apply to all Hammster, but how do you know that Paul is now addressing this
to the 'all' in Rome?

Paul is still addressing the Jews at the start of chapter four.

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

Have a look at the phrases above.

Abraham our forefather according to the flesh?

Abraham according to the flesh means what it says.

Your claiming that Paul is alternating his address from the Jews, to both a Jew and Gentile
audience, when the verse you cited does not state that.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law

Paul is obviously talking to the Jews here, Gentiles were not under the law.

 

[sdowney717]

Hello Hammster.

It may apply to all Hammster, but how do you know that Paul is now addressing this
to the 'all' in Rome?

Paul is still addressing the Jews at the start of chapter four.

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

Have a look at the phrases above.

Abraham our forefather according to the flesh?

Abraham according to the flesh means what it says.

Your claiming that Paul is alternating his address from the Jews, to both a Jew and Gentile
audience, when the verse you cited does not state that.

21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law

Paul is obviously talking to the Jews here, Gentiles were not under the law.

Romans 3
9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
Romans 3
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

v19 all the world includes all gentiles and jew and the law of God here applies to all peoples.

 

[Received]

Again – you are the one who challenged everyone to find fault with your logic and prove that your logic did not show that Calvinism is illogical. You even purposefully laid it out in bullet points so that we could go through your logic point by point and told us why you were doing it.

I simply took you up on what you asked us to do.

It was very easy to do. I did it by simply addressing your first 3 bullet points.

You don’t have to acknowledge your mistakes if you don’t want to – of course. You can analyze yourself to find out why your ego is too fragile to do that.

I’ll simply ignore the mistakes you made in the OP and address the general problems you mention - if you want it that way. I’m good with that.

You're still ad homonemly begging the question while ignoring my points and questions.

 

[Received]

The Webster dictionary defines “grace” as: “unmerited (undeserved) divine assistance given humans for their regeneration or sanctification.”

Theological dictionaries use very similar wording.

So? Webster's uses definition that reflect popular use. Are you saying that popular use is therefore correct by definition?

Notice what I underlined and highlighted above in your quote. “You can’t do on your own” are your words and not mine.

Your problem seems to be with the doctrine of original sin. That doctrine is hardly limited to Calvinist circles.

Just taking the simple Webster dictionary’s definition of original sin it is, “the state of sin that according to Christian theology characterizes all human beings as a result of Adam's fall”.

Sin is a state of being as much as it is also related to actual sins committed by men. Because of original sin – we will all sin in due course and be held responsible for those sins. Obviously we “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”.

Any statement from a Calvinist about man being unable to not sin is related to the concept of original sin.

Ok, and I think this point about original sin is included in the OP near the end.

You should really take the issue up with virtually all evangelical Christians and all Catholics alike rather than limit your anger to the doctrine of the Calvinists.

What evidence do you have that I'm angry, again? Your completely unwarranted conclusion of this emotion, presumably with the belief that anyone who critiques a belief you value is therefore angry, just screams of projection and your previous experiences. At least this type of superfluous rhetoric is interesting because it says so much about you.

I do not - nor does anyone in the Calvinist camp that I know of - believe that a person is incapable of refraining from any particular sin. In fact God restrains men from doing certain sins according to the Word of God and to Calvinist doctrine as well.

In addition - all natural men retain a conscience which tells them when they sin. They can and do often obey that conscience and refrain from sinning. Even Hitler refrained from murdering his own mother (so far as I am aware). There are many “good” men in that respect. There are, however, no good men in the ultimate sense of the word.

Every Calvinist believes as I have stated in so far as I know.

What Calvinists believe is that everything we do in the natural is tainted to the core by the sin that is within us (even those acts we would consider unsinful acts).

There is a progression of abandonment by God that leads to inability spelled out in Romans for us. It starts with the first sin and because we did that sin we are given over to sin more. As we sin our conscience becomes seared and we sin more easily than before. This hardening varies according to the heart of the individual sinner.

Likewise our ability to believe truth is cursed by God according to how we react to truth when we receive it. There apparently (according to scripture) comes a point when all men are unable to properly evaluate spiritual truth when they receive it. That includes the gospel message.

This “giving over” by God to sin and to disbelief is part of the wrath of God that is being revealed against sin in men even as they live out their lives. Wrath is not just a future thing for sinners. It is happening now.

Most will not have God reveal the truth about Christ to them as He did to Peter. Most will not have their hearts opened by God to respond to the gospel as was Lydia.

God owes no special grace to any man or any woman. He owes only His wrath. Any grace that God gives to sinners is simply related to His mercy.

The question is not - why doesn’t He give the same grace to all men? The question is - why does He give some grace to all men?. That includes the grace to live out a wonderful life in this world even as one who is under the curse of God.

That also goes for the grace that He gives to some to believe. He does this in order to display His grace and mercy through their salvation in the ages to come.

His withholding of His grace from undeserving sinners is His prerogative. If He chooses to pass some by and let them perish as they deserve in order to display His righteous wrath in the ages to come – that is His prerogative.

God judges all men righteously. To the extent that He judges men who have been rendered "incapable" - He does so to men who stood guilty before Him from their conception according to original sin and from the first sin that all men commit as well.

Calvinism isn't "illogical" in all this. Calvinism is simply codifying what the scriptures clearly teach about these matters.

Thanks for the exhaustive answer. What do you posit are the options if they can in fact not sin: between sin and faith, or something else and if so what (i.e., some middle ground where a person can act neither in faith nor sin)?

 

[FreeGrace2]

You still are not showing that faith came before regeneration in Acts 11. If you'll admit that you cannot because it's not in the narrative, we can move on.

I never said it was in Acts 11. I showed that Cornelius wasn't saved until Peter preached. And from other Scripture I have shown that being saved and being made alive occur at the same time.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well, they will not understand unless God can teach them!
And he cant teach them if they hate Christ and are slaves of sin and Satan.

No. That is not what Matthew 13:14-15 says. It says THEY have closed their eyes. UNLESS. What happens? UNLESS they should:

(a) See with their eyes.
(b) Hear with their ears.
(c) Understand with their Heart (So as to):

Be converted.

That is what Matthew 13:14-15 essentially says when you break it down. Read it again very slowly and pray over it.

For a Calvinist does not believe the believer has closed their eyes. Yet that is what Matthew 13 says.
The Calvinist does not believe that the believer has the alternative to see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts so as to be converted. They believe contrary to that.

....

 

[FreeGrace2]

There you go again. I'm asking how one pleases God in the flesh, and this is your reply.

And there you go again; dodging questions that Calvinism cannot answer.

Does this mean you agree with Paul that we cannot please God in the flesh?

Believers who are not living in the power of the Holy Spirit cannot please God. That's what Paul was referring to. He wasn't speaking about unbelievers.

Even Cornelius' prayers were heard by God. As an unbeliever.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If He took away the sins of the world, that means they are gone, right?

Correct. No one goes to hell for their sins!! They go for not having eternal life.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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?

I'm still waiting for any verse or verses that teach this idea.

 

[Received]

Again you are using the phrase "helping us". So concerning faith, how does God help us? What does He do? It has to be something besides revealing Himself since Romans 1 says He's evident to everyone.

A Calvinist is asking me how God helps us?

 

[FreeGrace2]

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?

Why the scenario of God being "powerless"? Why not that God's plan is simply to regenerate those who believe? What's so difficult about that plan?

I don't believe anyone on this thread would ever agree that God is "powerless". You're simply adding distracting and erroneous stuff.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Actually, you are not answering me. You are just repeating your mantra. I'd like to see if you'll admit that someone with a heart of stone will be willing to change.

This is a false set up. Believe who place their trust in Christ aren't thinking about changing. They are thinking about being saved from the lake of fire.

If your view is that one must be "willing to change" in order to be saved, that's a big problem. To be saved, one must be willing to trust completely in Christ.

The gospel message isn't about being willing to change. It's about being willing to trust in Christ.

That may be where your problems lie.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You were asked this:
"Tell it to me straight. Does God ultimately choose man to believe or does man ultimately choose God by faith?"

Yes to both.

This is a clear case of internal contradiction.

Problem is, one cannot have it both ways. It's either/or, not both.

And I'm still waiting for the verses that teach that God chooses who will believe. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Jason0047 said: ↑
Why does God tell the Israelites to circumcise their own hearts in Scripture?

You are avoiding.

And you, sir, are dodging questions. Again.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I'm asking what you believe. Do you believe that a heart of stone wants to do good?

fThere are many unbelievers who want to do good. Ever heard of religious liberals who spout the "social gospel"?

 

[FreeGrace2]

God has set His love on some. Because of that, He gives some a new heart (which has been explained to you). With the new heart, a man freely believes. He must give a new heart because with the heart of stone, he will stay in his wicked ways.

Where, specifically, is this taught in Scripture?

 

[FreeGrace2]

With the new heart, a man freely believes. He must give a new heart because with the heart of stone, he will stay in his wicked ways.

How come there are believers, with a new heart, who stay in their wicked ways? 2 Cor 12:20 is an example. So was King Saul.

 

[Marvin Knox]

So? Webster's uses definition that reflect popular use. Are you saying that popular use is therefore correct by definition?

I said earlier, "Theological dictionaries use very similar wording."

You couldn't possibly have missed what I said about theological dictionaries.

Here are a few examples of what they define it as.

"Biblically, grace is unmerited favor."

"Grace (from the Greek New Testament word charis) is God's unmerited favor. It is kindness from God that we don't deserve. There is nothing we have done, nor can ever do to earn this favor. It is a gift from God. Grace is divine assistance given to humans for their regeneration (rebirth) or sanctification; a virtue coming from God; a state of sanctification enjoyed through divine favor."

"In the New Testament grace means God’s love in action towards men who merited the opposite of love."

Is there a problem here or are you just being obstinate? This is exactly the kind of argumentative post which causes me to say that you as angry about Calvinism and not just entering into discussions about it for good purposes.

Ok, and I think this point about original sin is included in the OP near the end.

Original sin is the reason that all men sin. They are guilty because they sin. Whether or not they can help it doesn't change the fact that they stand guilty because of their sin. The fact that some Calvinists say (according to you) that they must sin is beside the point.

If you believe in original sin and it's consequences - Calvinism would not be illogical on this point even if they did say that men must sin.

What evidence do you have that I'm angry, again?

See my comments above about you flippant observation concerning my use of the Webster definition of grace.

It also doesn't take a degree in psychiatry to notice that you are so bent out of shape about not being able to show Calvinism to be illogical that you won't even acknowledge the simple fact that your first 3 points in the OP were illogical and therefore did not prove your point.

You must have a real axe to grind to not acknowledge what everyone else here can see.

Your completely unwarranted conclusion of this emotion, presumably with the belief that anyone who critiques a belief you value is therefore angry, just screams of projection and your previous experiences. At least this type of superfluous rhetoric is interesting because it says so much about you.

No - it screams of the ability to see right through you personal angst about Calvinists.

Thank you. I am a very observant person.

Thanks for the exhaustive answer.

You are welcome for the exhaustive answers. That is what you insisted on my doing. So that is what I have been doing.

What do you posit are the options if they can in fact not sin: between sin and faith, or something else and if so what (i.e., some middle ground where a person can act neither in faith nor sin)?

I'm not sure what all that means. Please explain it better and I will address it.

 

[Hammster]

Somebody's obsessed.