Logical Problems with Calvinism

[AndOne]

I knew you'd use a verse like this.

Fruits of the spirit, sdowney. I don't seem to remember that these fruits only apply to people whose theology you agree with.

 

[Received]

From your own words you will be judged.
I will stick with the Truth of His words.

You should try reading about the fruits of the spirit for starters.

And totally non-snazzily, but I see this as a warning of most theology today (including Calvinism but also much of non-Calvinism):

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. -- John 5:39-41, ESV
​

So we (note the "we" here) should make sure we don't unintentionally worship the written word when there's a transcendent Word (who expresses himself partly but not exclusively through the written word) who beckons us further. You know, no bibliolatry.

 

[Received]

View attachment 167588

How do you define anger?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Actually, the dead hearing His voice, is they are dead and He makes them alive who are dead, so He regenerates the dead.

This is just twisted words of what Jesus plainly said: "the DEAD WILL HEAR". It says the dead will THEN LIVE. The order is clear. The dead (spiritually) will hear BEFORE they will live.

Those who hear Him speak, live.

It isn't the living who hear and live. It's the DEAD who hear and then live. Your view has it backwards.

The only way a dead man can hear is a supernatural miracle, an act of God.

That is NOT what Jesus very plainly said. Again, He said "the DEAD WILL HEAR, and will live".

It is AFTER hearing the gospel that they will live. Not before, so that they can hear the gospel.

That they hear, means this a directed word, a targeted word of God to a particular person. Since obviously not all are made alive, of necessity then, not all hear Him speak to them.

This is not relevant to what Jesus said. The DEAD WILL HEAR and THEN WILL LIVE.

 

[FreeGrace2]

How did Lazarus hear being dead?

This has nothing to do with what Jesus said in John 5:25. He wasn't referring to physically dead people, but spiritually dead people, who NEEDED to live.

Yet Lazarus comes forth alive from the tomb.
Is that any different really, than God raising the dead by speaking to them as Christ says?
If you can believe the one, why not the other?

They are not related at all. Lazarus was a physical resurrection. What Jesus was speaking about in John 5:25 is spiritual life, not physical life.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"Except this view is refuted by Jesus Himself who said this:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." John 5:25

Note that it does NOT SAY "the regenerated will hear". It SAYS "the dead will hear".

How can the "dead" hear anything, according to Calvinistic thinking? They can't. They can't even believe, yet Jesus Himself said that the dead with hear and "will live". Oh, THEN regeneration. How about that!!"

You don’t think that the Holy Spirit testifying to our spirit (which is regeneration in Calvin speak) is the voice of the Son of God?

I don't subscribe to "Calvin speak". Rom 8:17 is a statement about affirmation that we (believers in Christ) are sons of God. It isn't about regeneration.

"seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow." 1 Peter 1:11

I have no idea what this verse relates to regarding our discussion. It sure doesn't relate to Rom 8:17.

 

[sdowney717]

You should try reading about the fruits of the spirit for starters.

And totally non-snazzily, but I see this as a warning of most theology today (including Calvinism but also much of non-Calvinism):

You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. -- John 5:39-41, ESV
​

So we (note the "we" here) should make sure we don't unintentionally worship the written word when there's a transcendent Word (who expresses himself partly but not exclusively through the written word) who beckons us further. You know, no bibliolatry.

From your own words you will be judged.
So you promote experience over scripture?
And your interpretations being of alignment with what scripture actually says quite clearly is ok apparently.
Such a standard is corrupt since it is subjective while scripture is objective truth.

 

[Received]

From your own words you will be judged.
So you promote experience over scripture?
And your interpretations being of alignment with what scripture actually says quite clearly is ok apparently.
Such a standard is objectionable since it is subjective while scripture is objective.

Do you believe the Holy Spirit tells people if they should, e.g., take this job or that job, pray for this person or that person, etc.?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Dead men do not hear in the natural God regarding being made alive for salvation purposes, unless God regenerates them. He does this by speaking to them to come alive.

This keeps missing completely Jesus' point. He said the DEAD WILL HEAR. He did NOT say "the ones made alive will hear", which is what Calvinists keep claiming. Jesus directly refutes that.

Maybe he says to them 'live'.

What does the TEXT say that He says to them?

God speaks everything into existence, so why not dead men also?

How does this relate to what Jesus actually said? "The dead will hear."

Matthew 4:4New American Standard Bible (NASB)

4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’”

Another verse that is not related to the discussion of what Jesus said in John 5:25.

God has spoken to spiritually dead men, like Balaam. And they are staying dead.

What is your point regarding what Jesus actually said in John 5:25?

 

[sdowney717]

Do you believe the Holy Spirit tells people if they should, e.g., take this job or that job, pray for this person or that person, etc.?

We are discussing soteriology did you forget?

 

[Received]

We are discussing soteriology did you forget?

Actually we're supposed to be discussing the logical problems of Calvinism, so if we're down with straying you should be too.

Free country.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Hamster probably didn't see it since you didn't use the quote function - convenient….

I'm not trying to sneak anything in. I had to dig back to find his quote and didn't know how to capture his quote other than what I did.

The verse doesn't mention the heart - still waiting on that from you.

"the verse" OK, which one. You must know that by now, the original posts are far removed from here. I don't have a photographic memory.

Apply the same standards to yourself that you do to us please and find a verse that actually says Saul was given a new heart. Thanks.

I thought the phrase "being changed into another man" had some meaning for those claiming to know the Bible. What ELSE do you think it meant? Saul was told by Samuel the PROPHET of GOD what to do and what he would find. So that meeting wasn't an accident or coincidence.

So, you tell me, what does "changed into another man" mean to you? It MEANS regeneration to me. I care not a bit that the words "new heart" aren't in that verse. What is important is what was SAID. So, the phrase has meaning, even if you'd rather ignore it.

Regardless the context of the verse is speaking of a singular event which may or may not include regeneration.

"may or may not", huh. OK. Then tell me what Samuel was referring to, if NOT regeneration.

I can show you a NT verse about those who believe are said to become "new creatures" or a "new creation". That surely describes what being "changed into another man" means, right?

Frankly, I think you're just balking at the verse. It is clear enough.

But regardless of such balking, what is crystal clear is that Samuel came back from the dead supernaturally and told Saul (and us) where Saul would spend eternity.

 

[sdowney717]

The only basis we have for a discussion of truth is scripture.
We have warnings about those who do not hold to the sound words of Christ, who promote spiritual experiences. How far off the path one can go is clear once you depart from revealed truth. You start sinning presumptuously.

Col 2
18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The idea is that you can't help but sin given that the opposite of sin is faith, which is provided only through irresistible grace. Therefore, since sin is necessary, it's like a rock that necessarily falls. It makes no sense to blame people for what they can't help do, and this includes God.

To continue the "logic" that the rock is blamed for falling, Calvinist theology provides those in hell with a logical excuse: they weren't chosen for heaven. While other equally bad sinners WERE chosen for heaven.

If Calvinist theology were correct, then those in hell DO have an excuse because they weren't chosen.

Now, watch the reformed camp try to worm their way out of this.

 

[Received]

To continue the "logic" that the rock is blamed for falling, Calvinist theology provides those in hell with a logical excuse: they weren't chosen for heaven. While other equally bad sinners WERE chosen for heaven.

If Calvinist theology were correct, then those in hell DO have an excuse because they weren't chosen.

Now, watch the reformed camp try to worm their way out of this.

Yes, this is the logical conclusion of Calvinism, but I still say even if double predestination (i.e., predestination) is true, you still have God acting totally illogically by blaming people for things they can't help but do, therefore it isn't of God.

 

[FreeGrace2]

It seems to go something like this:

• Believe something that makes theological sense but doesn't make philosophical or logical sense (e.g., a theology that involves reproaching nonbelievers for not believing, which is possible only through an irresistible grace that God alone gives).
• Believe that because (you think) God does it, it's therefore good.
• Illogical stuff is bad, and God only does good stuff.
• Therefore, God isn't illogical because he's good.

There is a very good book that is freely accessible on the net about Calvinism's "doublethink".

www.xcalvinist.com

Esp ch 1, 3, 4.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I said this:
"Except this view is refuted by Jesus Himself who said this:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." John 5:25

Note that it does NOT SAY "the regenerated will hear". It SAYS "the dead will hear".

How can the "dead" hear anything, according to Calvinistic thinking? They can't. They can't even believe, yet Jesus Himself said that the dead with hear and "will live". Oh, THEN regeneration. How about that!!"
I don't subscribe to "Calvin speak". Rom 8:17 is a statement about affirmation that we (believers in Christ) are sons of God. It isn't about regeneration.

I have no idea what this verse relates to regarding our discussion. It sure doesn't relate to Rom 8:17.

Of course you know how it relates.

You said that the dead would hear the voice of the Son of God and live and that that had nothing to do with regeneration.

I said that the voice of the Son of God was the voice of the Holy Spirit which is the vehicle for regeneration.

Regeneration by the voice of the Holy Spirit sent from the Father is how the Father draws men to Jesus Christ. It is how He opens the hearts of men so that they can believe.

I suspect that you really do understand how I and the Calvinists believe that this all fits together. I believe that you understood what I meant in my post also. You are just playing one of your games and we'll stop it right now before it can continue.

 

[Marvin Knox]

To continue the "logic" that the rock is blamed for falling, Calvinist theology provides those in hell with a logical excuse: they weren't chosen for heaven. While other equally bad sinners WERE chosen for heaven.

If Calvinist theology were correct, then those in hell DO have an excuse because they weren't chosen.

Now, watch the reformed camp try to worm their way out of this.

Men have no excuse for their sin. They stand guilty now and they will stand guilty in Hell.

Whether the Lord even died for anyone at all doesn't change that one bit.

Whether salvation was even offered to them or wasn't doesn't change their guilt one bit either.

Whether it was only offered to others but was withheld from them doesn't change their guilt one bit either.

Any complaint that they voice concerning the unfairness of it all is just one more sin on their account - the sin of jealousy and covetousness.

Some people here need to take a little trip down to the river for John's baptism and identify their sins with the sins of all the rest of mankind.

This is all rather basic salvation by grace stuff.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Yes, this is the logical conclusion of Calvinism, but I still say even if double predestination (i.e., predestination) is true, you still have God acting totally illogically by blaming people for things they can't help but do, therefore it isn't of God.

If they can't help but commit sin it's because they are sinners.

They're being blamed for their sins because they are sinners.

How else would God treat them?

If they can't come to the Lord to be saved it's because they are sinners.

Sinning mankind is under the wrath of God now in this life. Anything that God deems appropriate for punishment - they deserve.

If He deems it appropriate to withhold salvation from anyone it is their just punishment that He do so.

If He deems it appropriate for His glory to give salvation to someone else it is only grace that they do not deserve from the righteous God.

Whether or not God predestined something to happen does not negate the fact that that thing could be brought to past through the sinful free choices of His creatures.

Predestination and free choice are completely compatible.

 

[Received]

If they can't help but commit sin it's because they are sinners.

They're being blamed for their sins because they are sinners.

How else would God treat them?

If they can't come to the Lord to be saved it's because they are sinners.

Sinning mankind is under the wrath of God now in this life. Anything that God deems appropriate for punishment - they deserve.

If He deems it appropriate to withhold salvation from anyone it is their just punishment that He do so.

If He deems it appropriate for His glory to give salvation to someone else it is only grace that they do not deserve from the righteous God.

Whether or not God predestined something to happen does not negate the fact that that thing could be brought to past through the sinful free choices of His creatures.

Predestination and free choice are completely compatible.

Do you blame rocks for falling?