Logical Problems with Calvinism

FreeGrace2 · Dec 19, 2015

I said this:
"Do you really believe that an attraction can only be "mild"?"

Albion said:
Let's just cut to the chase and have you tell us your own theory about the effect of Christ drawing all men to him. Do they wind up being disciples as a result or not?

Yes, let's do 'cut to the chase'. Please answer my question.

FreeGrace2 · Dec 19, 2015

sdowney717 said:
Men will not repent unless God regenerates their hearts.

Except there is no verse or passage in the Bible that teaches this.

Bible Highlighter · Dec 19, 2015

St_Worm2 said:
Just some thoughts:

"All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and of all that He has given Me I lose nothing .. for this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.” (John 6:37-40)

"No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him ........" John 6:44

The words "should" appear twice in verse 39. Meaning, Jesus says He should lose nothing (Which suggests a possiblity that he can lose some). For if I said, I should be at your house on Tuesday night is not me saying I am going to be there with 100% certainty.

...

sdowney717 · Dec 19, 2015

Jason0047 said:
Yes, THEY do not hear Moses and the prophets. It is not.... God caused them to not hear Moses and the prophets.

...

Which is why they need to be regenerated, be enabled to hear, else no one will be saved.

Hammster · Dec 19, 2015

Jason0047 said:
The words "should" appear twice in verse 39. Meaning, Jesus says He should lose nothing (Which suggests a possiblity that he can lose some). For if I said, I should be at your house on Tuesday night is not me saying I am going to be there with 100% certainty.

...

So He should save them, but He might not.

Really? So it's the Father's will that Jesus should lose none that the Father gives Him, but Jesus might fail. Oops.

Hammster · Dec 19, 2015

This is where we start to see synergists divide the Trinity.

sdowney717 · Dec 19, 2015

Jason0047 said:
The words "should" appear twice in verse 39. Meaning, Jesus says He should lose nothing (Which suggests a possiblity that he can lose some). For if I said, I should be at your house on Tuesday night is not me saying I am going to be there with 100% certainty.

...

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G622&t=NKJV

should lose nothing, in the greek is only one word. apollymi
So dont think 'should' here means what your suggesting.

to destroy
1. to put out of the way entirely, abolish, put an end to ruin
2. render useless
3. to kill
4. to declare that one must be put to death
5. metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
6. to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
to destroy
1. to lose

sdowney717 · Dec 19, 2015

Since it is one greek word, 'to lose' read it this way
John 6:39
This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I to lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.

sdowney717 · Dec 19, 2015

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G450&t=NKJV
should raise is also one word in the greek, anistēmi
Simply and clearly it is this
John 6:39
This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up at the last day.
or
This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up from the dead at the last day.

to cause to rise up, raise up

raise up from laying down

to raise up from the dead

to raise up, cause to be born, to cause to appear, bring forward

Marvin Knox · Dec 19, 2015

Jason0047 said:
The words "should" appear twice in verse 39. Meaning, Jesus says He should lose nothing (Which suggests a possiblity that he can lose some). For if I said, I should be at your house on Tuesday night is not me saying I am going to be there with 100% certainty. ...

That's just about the most bogus twisting I've seen in quite some time.

You can't be serious. That was just a joke right?

Bible Highlighter · Dec 19, 2015

Hammster said:
So He should save them, but He might not.

Really? So it's the Father's will that Jesus should lose none that the Father gives Him, but Jesus might fail. Oops.

It's not a matter of failing. A person's free will is also involved. God does not force a person to stay saved against their will if they do not want God and His salvation anymore.

...

Bible Highlighter · Dec 19, 2015

Marvin Knox said:
That's just about the most bogus twisting I've seen in quite some time.

You can't be serious. That was just a joke right?

So understanding basic English is twisting? Really? Look up verse 39 for yourself. The word "should" appears twice. He says I SHOULD lose nothing.

Okay. So I tell you that I SHOULD stop eating chocolate, but I really like it. What does that mean to you? Does should sound like a 100% certainty? No. Of course not.

...

Bible Highlighter · Dec 19, 2015

Okay. So lets take a look at that John 6:39 with the surrounding verses and see what it says.

John 6:37-40

37 "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

First, what does Jesus mean by,

“All that the Father giveth me come to me?”

Well, we have to understand that the Father elects those based on His future foreknowledge of our free will choice concerning Him (1 Peter 1:2) (Deuteronomy 30:19). Also, we also have to understand that not everyone is going to be saved; However, it is God's will that all people should be saved, though (1 Timothy 2:4) (2 Peter 3:9) (Revelation 22:17). This is why we read in Scripture about how many are called, but few are chosen (Matthew 20:16).

Same meanings since all are given the chance to have life through Jesus. But those who are His have come so willingly in faith, repenting and turning with a sincere heart; forever to the submission of God’s commandments and desires.

Verse 39 implies that it is possible for Jesus to lose some of the flock. If it were not so, He would have said so. But if what you say is true, then Jesus would have said,

"I WILL lose nothing."

However, that is not what Jesus said. Jesus says,

"I SHOULD lose nothing."

John 6:39

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me Ishould lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day."

You can double check it for yourself here,

John 6 KJV

Second, eternal life here is not a guarantee. Jesus says in verse 40

"MAY have everlasting life".

John 6:40

"And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him,may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."

In other words, Jesus should lose none and all who are His should be raised, because they should all continue in the righteousness God gave them through the sacrifice of Jesus. It’s not that Jesus isn’t capable of keeping up with His sheep; it’s that He never keeps His sheep against their wills. How so?

Well, we see in Scripture that the Father gave all of the disciples to Jesus; However, Jesus kept them all except Judas, though.

John 17:12

"While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

Now, allow me to rephrase this in modern-terminology:
While I was with the marbles in the world, I kept them. Those marbles that you gave me I kept, and none are lost, but the green marble.

And OSAS terminology:
While I was with the marbles in the world, I kept them. Those marbles that you gave me I kept, and none are lost, except for the green marble that you never gave me.

Do you see now how OSAS doesn't make any sense?

...

Albion · Dec 19, 2015

Jason0047 said:
It's not a matter of failing. A person's free will is also involved. God does not force a person to stay saved against their will if they do not want God and His salvation anymore.

...

That's a rationalization. Unfortunately for it, we have Scripture saying the opposite (as Hammster pointed out). When Jesus says that none that have been given to him by the Father can be taken from his hand (Jn 10.29), we have pretty good evidence that none will be.

Marvin Knox · Dec 19, 2015

Jason0047 said:
So understanding basic English is twisting? Really? Look up verse 39 for yourself. The word "should" appears twice. He says I SHOULD lose nothing.

Okay. So I tell you that I SHOULD stop eating chocolate, but I really like it. What does that mean to you? Does should sound like a 100% certainty? No. Of course not. ...

You really were serious.

I honestly thought that you might have been joking.

Bible Highlighter · Dec 19, 2015

Hammster said:
This is where we start to see synergists divide the Trinity.

I am aware that some believers think that God the Father and Christ were shortly separated at the cross, but no such thing happened, though. There is no dividing of the Trinity otherwise you will have more than one God (Which is not possible).

....

Bible Highlighter · Dec 19, 2015

Marvin Knox said:
You really were serious.

I honestly thought that you might have been joking.

Why on Earth would I be joking about the faith? That would seriously be wrong on so many levels. I take God's Word very seriously. In fact, I have re-evaluated my beliefs many times based on what God's Word actually says (Even when it is uncomfortable).

I mean seriously. Stop and think for a moment. Don't read your Bible with a biased Calvinistic view. What does God's Word say word for word? For what do you do with words like "should"? Do you just act like it is not there? See, I can't do that. It is in God's Word for a reason; And yet, for some odd reason, you think I am joking that the word should not be understood as it normally should be.

...

nobdysfool · Dec 20, 2015

Jason0047 said:
So understanding basic English is twisting? Really? Look up verse 39 for yourself. The word "should" appears twice. He says I SHOULD lose nothing.

Okay. So I tell you that I SHOULD stop eating chocolate, but I really like it. What does that mean to you? Does should sound like a 100% certainty? No. Of course not.

...

No, the error here is applying 21st century understanding to an older form of the English language where word meanings are different. If you actually studied English, including the archaic forms, you would not make such a stupid statement. The KJV is translated into an older form of English. Case in point: the word 'should" in older English meant "will", as in "I will do this or that". Another case in point: might. In Scripture, it does not imply an uncertainty, as in "I might, or I might not".

Word meanings change over time, and sometime have even taken on the opposite meaning of its original meaning. But the superficial, uneducated reader doesn't know that, and draws erroneous conclusions from scripture. The sad part is when they think to be an authority, while using and teaching improper and inaccurate meanings for words.

What i see going on in this thread is a full-court press by some to discredit Calvinism by any means necessary. I see desperation on the part of some, because they're not getting any traction in their efforts to discredit Calvinism. I have purposely stepped back and watched from afar. It's healthy to gain some perspective, and to disengage from contentious people. I will guarantee you, God is not the author of this contentiousness, nor is He encouraging it. It is carnal activity, sourced in pride.

Bible Highlighter · Dec 20, 2015

Albion said:
That's a rationalization. Unfortunately for it, we have Scripture saying the opposite (as Hammster pointed out). When Jesus says that none that have been given to him by the Father can be taken from his hand (Jn 10.29), we have pretty good evidence that none will be.

John 10:29 is an easy one. Who are the type of sheep that cannot be plucked out the Father's hand? Is it the type of sheep being dragged by their necks against their own wills on leashes? No. Most certainly not. It is the type of sheep that FOLLOW Him.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:" (John 10:27).

...

Bible Highlighter · Dec 20, 2015

nobdysfool said:
No, the error here is applying 21st century understanding to an older form of the English language where word meanings are different. If you actually studied English, including the archaic forms, you would not make such a stupid statement. The KJV is translated into an older form of English. Case in point: the word 'should" in older English meant "will", as in "I will do this or that". Another case in point: might. In Scripture, it does not imply an uncertainty, as in "I might, or I might not".

Word meanings change over time, and sometime have even taken on the opposite meaning of its original meaning. But the superficial, uneducated reader doesn't know that, and draws erroneous conclusions from scripture. The sad part is when they think to be an authority, while using and teaching improper and inaccurate meanings for words.

What i see going on in this thread is a full-court press by some to discredit Calvinism by any means necessary. I see desperation on the part of some, because they're not getting any traction in their efforts to discredit Calvinism. I have purposely stepped back and watched from afar. It's healthy to gain some perspective, and to disengage from contentious people. I will guarantee you, God is not the author of this contentiousness, nor is He encouraging it. It is carnal activity, sourced in pride.

I do not need a lecture on how words can change in meaning between Early Modern English (1600's English) and Late Modern English (Today's English). I have studied the differences for quite some time now. But even if folks here were to twist the word "should" to not mean what it says, I have provided John 17 as a cross reference that shows that folk's interpretation on John 6 is not correct in the slightest. The question is: Will you be able to see what I pointed out?

...

Logical Problems with Calvinism

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Newbie

Carpe Chaos

Carpe Chaos

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Facilitator

Senior Veteran

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

The original! Accept no substitutes!

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency