Logical Problems with Calvinism

[FreeGrace2]

Hi FG2, concerning what St. Paul says here:

"A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." 1 Cor 2:14​

................it seems to me that he is simply continuing the argument he began in the previous chapter.

"The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor 1:18

"Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ~1 Cor 1:22-24​

What, exactly, do you believe Paul was referring to in v14 that non-believers find foolish and cannot understand from God's perspective OTHER than the Gospel

Thanks!

Merry Christmas,
David

Thanks for the question, David.

Within the context of ch 2, I believe Paul is specifically referring to what I call "advanced doctrines", not the gospel. Note v.6 - Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away;

v.10 - For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.

Paul's message was "wisdom for the mature" and it included "the depths of God". I think these refer to advanced doctrines, which unbelievers have no ability to understand, since they don't have the Holy Spirit, as believers do.

Advanced doctrines are "spiritually appraised". They are for believers.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Posts 914, 949, 950, and 954 might put the pieces back together for you on that.

Oh, sure. So the references to "verses" goes back to 914?? Really?

My post on election is quite clear. I have provided verses to support each category. And none of the categories were chosen for salvation.

If my views are wrong, then someone needs to address each category and show from Scripture how they WERE chosen for salvation. But I just don't see how that will be possible. Jesus Christ? Angels? Judas? Entire nation of Israel throughout the OT?

 

[Albion]

Oh, sure. So the references to "verses" goes back to 914?? Really?

Well, you asked. And it's not my fault that I didn't get an answer while other posters were writing up their own contributions to this thread.

My post on election is quite clear. I have provided verses to support each category.

Yeh, that's swell, but I asked about that particular verse since it came up in the course of the discussion here. I'm still waiting for your answer.

 

[Jesus First]

But the scriptures are also very clear that many are called but few are chosen. The “inward” call listed in the so called “golden chain of salvation” in Romans 8 teaches, among other things, election unto salvation. We know that everyone does not receive this inward call because all who receive this “call” are in turn justified.

Brother Knox,

Not all who receive this call are justified.

You are stating an assumption as if an established fact. Romans 8 doesn't promise that all who are called will be glorified. Please provide exegetical proof for your assumption. We have been commissioned by God to "rightly divide the Word". There are rules of grammar that must be followed to arrive at a correct interpretation.

A chain is only strong when the links remained locked in place. The foundational chain link is found in verse 28, and it's conditional. That is, while it remains true, the chain links that follow are true. Here is verse 28: "28 And we know that for those who love God [a conditional statement] all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (ESV).

The word "love" (verse 28 above) comes from a Greek word that is a present tense participle. Here it described an ongoing activity. Here is the verse with further explanation in brackets: 28 And we know that for those who love God [who are actively loving God in the present is the idea] all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose"

Verses 29-30 are grammatically and contextually dependent on verse 28. So those who are justified and then glorified in verse 30 are those who in the present are actively in love with God.

Those individuals who were in the faith and left the faith are not found in verses 29-30. An elevated structure exists and has functional purpose while the pillars that support it remain in place.

In Jesus Christ!

 

[Marvin Knox]

Brother Knox,

Not all who receive this call are justified.

You are stating an assumption as if an established fact. Romans 8 doesn't promise that all who are called will be glorified. Please provide exegetical proof for your assumption. We have been commissioned by God to "rightly divide the Word". There are rules of grammar that must be followed to arrive at a correct interpretation.

A chain is only strong when the links remained locked in place. The foundational chain link is found in verse 28, and it's conditional. That is, while it remains true, the chain links that follow are true. Here is verse 28: "28 And we know that for those who love God [a conditional statement] all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose" (ESV).

The word "love" (verse 28 above) comes from a Greek word that is a present tense participle. Here it described an ongoing activity. Here is the verse with further explanation in brackets: 28 And we know that for those who love God [who are actively loving God in the present is the idea] all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose"

Verses 29-30 are grammatically and contextually dependent on verse 28. So those who are justified and then glorified in verse 30 are those who in the present are actively in love with God.

Those individuals who were in the faith and left the faith are not found in verses 29-30. An elevated structure exists and has functional purpose while the pillars that support it remain in place.

In Jesus Christ!

No doubt we are talking all the way through the chain passage only about those who love God and are called according to His purposes (as per vs. 28). This is exactly as you said.

Who said otherwise?

Of those folks who love God and are called according to His purposes a number of things are said. Among which is that they were called and then they were justified.

We are only talking about those mentioned in verse 28 and not others - just as you say.

All of these folks were justified. That's Paul's point in all this - to provide security that all things will work out to the good for them.

What's your point?

Are you really meaning to say that all those in verse 28 (those who love God and are called according to His purposes) are not all justified. Because that is what you seem to have said.

Your purpose seems to be to refute election at all costs. But there are better ways to do that than the way that you attempted.

The golden chain of salvation is iron clad (Or is it gold clad?). Many people have attempted to undermine it's very clear message and failed.

If that was your purpose - it fell rather flat IMO.

 

[nobdysfool]

It's not just "gold clad", it's solid gold! Too bad there are so many that cannot let God be God.

 

[Jesus First]

No doubt we are talking all the way through the chain passage only about those who love God and are called according to His purposes (as per vs. 28). This is exactly as you said.

Who said otherwise?

Of those folks who love God and are called according to His purposes a number of things are said. Among which is that they were called and then they were justified.

We are only talking about those mentioned in verse 28 and not others - just as you say.

All of these folks were justified. That's Paul's point in all this - to provide security that all things will work out to the good for them.

What's your point?

Are you really meaning to say that all those in verse 28 (those who love God and are called according to His purposes) are not all justified. Because that is what you seem to have said.

Your purpose seems to be to refute election at all costs. But there are better ways to do that than the way that you attempted.

The golden chain of salvation is iron clad (Or is it gold clad?). Many people have attempted to undermine it's very clear message and failed.

If that was your purpose - it fell rather flat IMO.

Brother Knox,

You stated, "because all who receive this “call” are in turn justified".

I respectfully offered a different interpretation of Romans 8. That is, unless my understanding of your statement is incorrect.

In Christ!

 

[Jesus First]

It's not just "gold clad", it's solid gold! Too bad there are so many that cannot let God be God.

Brother Nobdysfool,

If my interpretation was in error, please offer a correction based on established rules of interpretation. Please explain how God cannot be God.

In Christ!

 

[Marvin Knox]

Brother Knox,

You stated, "because all who receive this “call” are in turn justified".

I respectfully offered a different interpretation of Romans 8. That unless my understanding of your statement is incorrect.


Brother Knox,

Did you read my post? I made the exegetical argument that verses 29-30 are true while the condition in verse 28 is true.

In Christ

Of course I read your post. I commented on what you said as well.

Verses 29-30 are true while the condition in verse 28 is true.

What's your point?

Are you slanting things toward a refutation of OSAS or what?

Seriously - I'm asking what your point is exactly. I'm not just asking to be flippant in any way I assure you brother.

 

[St_Worm2]

Advanced doctrines are "spiritually appraised". They are for believers.

Hi FG, you could not be more correct. As St. Paul has already made clear, "the word of the Cross" (the Gospel message) is the thing that is "foolish" and unacceptable to non-Christians. It makes no sense to them because it is spiritually appraised.

"The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing..." 1 Corinthians 1:18

"We preach Christ crucified .. to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called .. the wisdom of God. ~1 Cor 1:22-24
​

St. Paul just finished telling us that the simple Gospel message is "foolishness to those who are perishing". Why would he then say that the highly "advanced doctrines" of the faith are foolishness to them as well? It's almost like Paul telling us that a particular group of young children aren't capable of doing algebra, trig, or calculus right after informing us that they aren't able to add or subtract yet. No one would say that.

Merry Christmas,
David

​

 

[Jesus First]

Of course I read your post. I commented on what you said as well.

Verses 29-30 are true while the condition in verse 28 is true.

What's your point?

Are you slanting thing toward a refutation of OSAS or what?

Seriously - I'm asking what your point is exactly. I'm not just asking to be flippant in any way I assure you brother.

Brother Knox,

I've stated twice what my point is.

In Christ!

 

[Marvin Knox]

Brother Knox,

I've stated twice what my point is.

In Christ!

OK!

I reread all of your posts a couple of times through.

The main point of your posts seems to be where you said the following:

Those individuals who were in the faith and left the faith are not found in verses 29-30. An elevated structure exists and has functional purpose while the pillars that support it remain in place.

I can agree with all that. The ones found in verse 29-30 are the ones he was talking to all along (in vs. 28) and not some other Anti-Christ's or whatever.

That doesn't change what I said about all those who are called being justified.

We are talking in both of those instances (those called and those justified) of the same group to whom Paul is offering assurance of salvation.

I have no problem agreeing with the premise you set forth that it is only those who love God and who are called according to His purposes who are being talked about all through the passage.

How do you get the fact that all those called are not necessarily justified when they are the same people found in vs. 28 ---- namely those who love God and are called according to His purposes?

That makes no sense at all. I simply asked for clarification. Perhaps I have missed your entire point.

You seem to want to refute OSAS and as I said before there are other ways to do that. This one you put forth doesn't make any sense at all.

I wanted to enter into an open debate about what you said. You seem to want to shut it down.

You started it and you can end it - that's only fair.

That's OK with me.

 

[Received]

I don't think it's unreasonable for God to get angry at anyone who opposes Him.

And I don't see any problem with asking questions about one's theology. In another thread I have Mormons asking questions. I think it's better than assuming I understand what someone is saying and trying to rebut it without completely understanding.

I think it pretty clearly is unreasonable for God to get angry at people who can't help but otherwise be in a state of sin. That's like blaming a rock for falling. And again, it's not just a matter of being angry, but of God getting angry at people who prevent others from entering the Kingdom of God. If God were simply to have not predestined people to get into the Kingdom and used the Pharisees for this purpose (the only possibility according to Calvinism if God is omnipotent), he wouldn't be angry at the Pharisees who prevented the unpredestined from being saved.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Then your view is nonsense. You are saying faith comes by faith. That makes absolutely zero sense.

Read Hebrews 11. It defines faith for you and will confirm what I have said. To believe and take action is faith. So it makes logical sense that to believe in Jesus and the gospel is obviously to have faith. For God is love; And God demonstrated that He is love by the fact that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hello Jason.

This is a reply to your post # 974.

You said the following.

The first issue I have with your statement is the usage of the phrase 'moral law', what do
you define as moral law? Your reply must be a precise definition of this moral law.
I searched for the mention of the term 'moral law' and the search returned void.

I also need you to specify whether or not, you are legally under this moral law.

Paul announces many times through two letters in particular (Romans and Galatians),
that we are not under the law. So I am unsure what you mean by 'moral law'.

Then you stated this.

You may need to specify the commands that you are referring to. I follow none of the
beliefs that you mentioned above.

Further on you then said.

Correct Jason.

Jason you mentioned the following.

Jason you are committing heresy at this point in your reply, and you do not realize it.

You said 'faith without works is dead' and your quoting from James. If you carefully
check this letter from James, you will find that James is under the whole law.

James 2
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

Now may I ask whether or not Jason, whether you are under the whole law or not?

I need a definitive answer on this point Jason.

Again Jason here is another example from James being under the law.

James 2
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your
neighbor as yourself"

Gentiles were never under this law Jason.

Have you not read Romans and Galatians, that Paul repeats the following doctrine countless
times, Jason.

Galatians 2
16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but
through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we
may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the
works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Paul is clearly teaching, a justification only through the belief in Jesus Christ.

Paul refers to the belief of Jesus plus the law, as the alternate Gospel in Galatians.

We continue with your post.

A Jewish audience, what an easy question that one was Jason.

This reply is far too large now so I will end here.

Paul is talking about the works of the Law of Moses in Romans and Galatians and not all law whatsoever. How so?
Just do a keyword search for the words "circumcise", "circumcision", etc. at blueletterbible.org.

Besides, how in the world can you tell the good guys from the bad guys when you watch the news or a movie?

I mean, do you not know that a person who has no sense or understanding of morality is a sociopath?

Also, Morality is what all humans have written in their heart of what they know to be right. They know murder, stealing, etc. is wrong. Granted, people's moral compasses can be darkened because of the pleasure of this world and or sin. But they will be held accountable to God (Whether they are a believer or not).


...

 

[klutedavid]

Paul is talking about the works of the Law of Moses in Romans and Galatians and not all law whatsoever. How so?
Just do a keyword search for the words "circumcise", "circumcision", etc. at blueletterbible.org.

Hello Jason.

The law has declared that all are sociopaths (sinners).

What I need you to explain Jason, is how you interpret the term 'the law'.

How do you interpret the phrase 'works of the law'.

I have no idea what you are talking about, 'and not all law whatsoever. How so?'

 

[Jesus First]

OK!

I reread all of your poss a couple of times.

The main point of your posts seems to be where you said the following:


I can agree with all that. The ones found in verse 29-30 are the ones he was talking to all along (in vs. 28) and not some other Anti-Christ's or whatever.

That doesn't change what I said about all those who are called being justified.

We are talking in both of those instances (those called and those justified) of the same group to whom Paul is offering assurance of salvation.

I have no problem agreeing with the premise you set forth that it is only those who love God and who are called according to His purposes who are being talked about all through the passage.

How do you get the fact that all those called are not necessarily justified when they are the same people found in vs. 28 ---- namely those who love God and are called according to His purposes?

That makes no sense at all. I simply asked for clarification. Perhaps I have missed your entire point.

You seem to want to refute OSAS and as I said before there are other ways to do that. This one you put forth doesn't make any sense at all.

I wanted to enter into an open debate about what you said. You seem to want to shut it down.

You started it and you can end it - that's only fair.

That's OK with me.

Brother Knox,

I worked late into the night. I'll try to respond tomorrow.

In Christ!

 

[sdowney717]

I think it pretty clearly is unreasonable for God to get angry at people who can't help but otherwise be in a state of sin. That's like blaming a rock for falling. And again, it's not just a matter of being angry, but of God getting angry at people who prevent others from entering the Kingdom of God. If God were simply to have not predestined people to get into the Kingdom and used the Pharisees for this purpose (the only possibility according to Calvinism if God is omnipotent), he wouldn't be angry at the Pharisees who prevented the unpredestined from being saved.

Of course God gets angry with wicked people who sin. He is angry with the wicked every day. Truth is God is desiring to show His wrath, but he refrains for the sake of those He loves which are the children of God. In the parable of wheat and tares, the angels recognize those who are God's since they are marked by Him with His seal, and those who belong to Satan. But Christ restrains the angels from immediately destroying the children of the devil, plucking them out by the root, those tares, lest the children of God get damaged.

 

[Hammster]

I think it pretty clearly is unreasonable for God to get angry at people who can't help but otherwise be in a state of sin. That's like blaming a rock for falling.

This is confusing. Are you saying that people cannot help but sin, so God should not be angry?

And again, it's not just a matter of being angry, but of God getting angry at people who prevent others from entering the Kingdom of God.

That's not what He was saying. He didn't say that they could prevent people from entering the Kingdom. His point was that their example of self-righteousness could never lead anyone into the kingdom. If you read the prior verses, this becomes clear.

If God were simply to have not predestined people to get into the Kingdom and used the Pharisees for this purpose (the only possibility according to Calvinism if God is omnipotent), he wouldn't be angry at the Pharisees who prevented the unpredestined from being saved.

Again, He is angry at their self-righteousness. They thought they were leading people into the Kingdom, but they were doing just the opposite.

 

[Hammster]

Read Hebrews 11. It defines faith for you and will confirm what I have said. To believe and take action is faith. So it makes logical sense that to believe in Jesus and the gospel is obviously to have faith. For God is love; And God demonstrated that He is love by the fact that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son.


...

You are ignoring the language. If hearing means believing, then faith comes by faith. So I'm not arguing what faith is or isn't. I'm telling you that your understanding of hearing cannot mean believing because belief and faith are the same thing.