Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Marvin Knox]

Do you blame rocks for falling?

No.

Rocks are not created in the image of God.

Rocks do not have the freedom of choice.

Rocks cannot fall short of the glory of God.

Rocks cannot sin.

"........ to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin." James 4:17

Rocks know nothing.

Rocks do not have brains.

Rocks do not have spirits for that matter.

What kind of question is that?

 

[Received]

No.

Rocks are not created in the image of God with the freedom of choice.

So freedom of choice determines culpability?

 

[Marvin Knox]

So freedom of choice determines culpability?

No.

"............ to the one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin."

Making the wrong choice with that freedom of choice makes a person culpable.

Culpability 101.

 

[Received]

No.

"............ to the one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin."

Making the wrong choice with that freedom of choice makes a person culpable.

Culpability 101.

How can you say that freedom of choice doesn't make a person culpable while also saying that freedom of choice (with a wrong choice) makes a person culpable? How do you separate the two?

 

[sdowney717]

The whole world stands guilty before God. All are destined for hell unless He shows mercy.
And He does not show mercy to all. He chooses to have compassion on some and whom He wills He hardens.
It seems to me that many argue God shows mercy to all without exception and that is contrary to what God's own breathed words say.
That goes all the way back to Moses. The opposite of mercy is to be hardened. And this passage points to a future condemnation of hell for those who are hardened, and for those to whom He showed mercy, glorification.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”
16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

 

[Received]

The whole world stands guilty before God. All are destined for hell unless He shows mercy.
And He does not show mercy to all. He chooses to have compassion on some and whom He wills He hardens.
It seems to me that many argue God shows mercy to all without exception and that is contrary to what God's own breathed words say.
That goes all the way back to Moses. The opposite of mercy is to be hardened. And this passage points to a future condemnation of hell for those who are hardened, and for those to whom He showed mercy, glorification.

14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not!
15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.”
16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy.
17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.”
18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?”
20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?”

Jeremiah eighteen

(teen

teen

teen)

 

[Received]

@Marvin Knox, no gotcha intentions here. I'm really curious how you reconcile the points. You seem to disagree with me and then agree by restating my point.

 

[Marvin Knox]

How can you say that freedom of choice doesn't make a person culpable while also saying that freedom of choice (with a wrong choice) makes a person culpable? How do you separate the two?

The God given gift of the freedom of choice doesn't make a person culpable. Abuse of that gift makes a person culpable.

Webster dictionary says, (I know you'll throw out a red herring and tell me that Webster is a secular source and doesn't count or some such thing. But we are talking English are we not?)

culpable cul·pa·ble \ˈkəl-pə-bəl\

Simple Definition of culpable

• : deserving blame : guilty of doing something wrong

Full Definition of culpable

1. 1 archaic : guilty, criminal
   
   
2. 2 : meriting condemnation or blame especially as wrong or harmful <culpable negligence>

One does not deserve blame, merit condemnation, or stand guilty before God for doing wrong simply for being the recipient of the right to make free choices.

Making wrong choices (i.e. sinning) makes a person culpable.

 

[Marvin Knox]

@Marvin Knox, no gotcha intentions here. I'm really curious how you reconcile the points. You seem to disagree with me and then agree by restating my point.

I appreciate that.

We've had out disagreements in the past.

But perhaps we can start over again from scratch with a civil discussion about these things.

 

[Received]

I appreciate that.

We've had out disagreements in the past.

But perhaps we can start over again from scratch with a civil discussion about these things.

You bet.

 

[Received]

The God given gift of the freedom of choice doesn't make a person culpable. Abuse of that gift makes a person culpable.

Same difference. I wouldn't say that doing bad is an abuse of freedom; it's an expression of freedom. But still: How can you say that abuse of freedom of choice doesn't make a person culpable while also saying that freedom of choice (with a wrong, i.e. abusive, choice) makes a person culpable? How do you separate the two?

 

[sdowney717]

Jeremiah eighteen

(teen

teen

teen)

The New Covenant is the covenant today between men and God, not the old.
And Israel was in a covenant relationship with God already when Jeremiah was alive.
And Jer 18 is written to His people, not those of the world.
You can not force the new to be subservient to the old one, the lesser, since it says the old one is obsolete.
So many people seem to think Romans 9, 10, 11 is only for the jew and not the gentile.
They say that because to admit otherwise they would have to admit God is sovereign.

 

[sdowney717]

This is a message from God to Israel. A people in a covenant relationship with God.
God mentions about Gentile nations their certain destruction if they do not repent to teach Israel that if they do not repent, He will also destroy them.
Israel would have known and understood and seen with their eyes what happened to the ungodly gentile nations. God is telling Israel neither will they escape disaster unless they repent. They will have the same fate. God the potter does with them what He wishes, they are in His hands for judgement. Their sins are their undoing, not God. Same today. People die in their sins, because they are sinners. God can do whatever He wants with them, so they are the clay and He the potter.


Jeremiah 18New King James Version (NKJV)
The Potter and the Clay
18 The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!

7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

11 “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”’”

 

[EmSw]

This is a message from God to Israel. A people in a covenant relationship with God.
God mentions about Gentile nations their certain destruction if they do not repent to teach Israel that if they do not repent, He will also destroy them.
Israel would have known and understood and seen with their eyes what happened to the ungodly gentile nations. God is telling Israel neither will they escape disaster unless they repent. They will have the same fate. God the potter does with them what He wishes, they are in His hands for judgement. Their sins are their undoing, not God. Same today. People die in their sins, because they are sinners. God can do whatever He wants with them, so they are the clay and He the potter.


Jeremiah 18New King James Version (NKJV)
The Potter and the Clay
18 The word which came to Jeremiah from the Lord, saying: 2 “Arise and go down to the potter’s house, and there I will cause you to hear My words.” 3 Then I went down to the potter’s house, and there he was, making something at the wheel. 4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make.

5 Then the word of the Lord came to me, saying: 6 “O house of Israel, can I not do with you as this potter?” says the Lord. “Look, as the clay is in the potter’s hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel!

7 The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, 8 if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. 9 And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it,10 if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it.

11 “Now therefore, speak to the men of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord: “Behold, I am fashioning a disaster and devising a plan against you. Return now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.”’”

This fits in perfectly with Zechariah 1:6
...“So they returned and said: ‘Just as the Lord of hosts determined to do to us, according to our ways and according to our deeds, so He has dealt with us.

Why did you not bold verses 7-10? Why cherry pick verses 5 and 11? Yes, God does as He wishes with the clay, depending upon the clay's ways and deeds. Verses 7-10 totally unravel Reformed predestination. However, it makes one with Zechariah 1:6, that is, God determines how He deals with man according to man's ways and deeds, and not before creation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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.

No, I said that the "dead" refers to those BEFORE regeneration. And the word "will live" refers to regeneration.

The point is the order of hearing and THEN living. They hear before they are regenerated.

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.

None of this addresses the order in John 5:25.

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.

No games. Calvinists continue to ignore the ORDER found in John 5:25 because it doesn't fit their narrative. That is playing games.

Kinda like hide and seek. But Calvinists simply hide from the truth and don't seek to understand it.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

Of course that's true. And you missed my point. The Calvinistic doctrine of election simply and clearly gives those in hell the excuse that they were NOT CHOSEN FOR HEAVEN, as the "elect" were.

And you can't wriggle your way out of it. Even by making true statements that dodge the issue.

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

No relevance to the excuse created by Calvinism's doctrine of election.

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.

If Calvinism's doctrine of election were correct, then they WOULD HAVE AN EXCUSE: they simply were NOT CHOSEN for heaven.

Please stop trying to wriggle out of this.

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.

The problem remains; the non biblical doctrine of election; that God chooses who to save unconditionally.

The truth is that God chooses to save those who believe, per 1 Cor 1:21.

You have dodged the issue of the Calvinist view of election, which DOES give those in hell the excuse that they simply weren't chosen for heaven.

They REAL reason they have no excuse is because they either never sought God's gift or they rejected it outright.

However, I've had this discussion with other Calvinists, and all I've seen is a blindness to their own view. They simply will not see that their view creates an excuse for those in hell; that being they were never chosen for heaven.

But that's not the reason. They rejected the gift of eternal life.

 

[sdowney717]

This fits in perfectly with Zechariah 1:6
...“So they returned and said: ‘Just as the Lord of hosts determined to do to us, according to our ways and according to our deeds, so He has dealt with us.

Why did you not bold verses 7-10? Why cherry pick verses 5 and 11? Yes, God does as He wishes with the clay, depending upon the clay's ways and deeds. Verses 7-10 totally unravel Reformed predestination. However, it makes one with Zechariah 1:6, that is, God determines how He deals with man according to man's ways and deeds, and not before creation.

I am pointing out this is a message to Israel.
Definitely since all men are sinful, disobedient, wretched, God has the right to determine their fate. So He is the potter and all men the clay.
Before the fall in Eden, man was free, and not under God's judgement.
If man had not fallen, they would have been like the angels in heaven, abiding in God and truth. I often wonder what I would have done if in their place. But I am of course heavenly minded and can now say I would not, but before being born of God I can not really say I would not have also done the same thing.

 

[Skala]

Actually, it's precisely the freedom to reject grace that makes up non-Calvinist theology. So I diagree: irresistible grace is one thing, and prevenient grace is another, namely resistible grace.

But nobody can reject prevenient grace.

Prevenient grace is, after all, a form of grace. And men cannot reject it. It is forced upon them.

 

[Skala]

Received I fail to see how the same arguments are not equally applied to synergism/Arminianism.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism affirm that all men are fallen and cannot help but be sinners, due to being unregenerate and being part of Adam's posterity.

This is not unique to Calvinism.

Both Calvinism and Arminianism affirm that if men were left to themselves, all men would perish to hell. Thus both Calvinism and Arminianism affirm that God must give some kind of "enabling" grace to allow men to accept the gospel.

This is not unique to Calvinism.

The difference between Calvinism and Arminianism is not that an "enabling" grace is given, but rather, the difference is merely what that grace actually accomplishes. In Arminianism it accomplishes salvation some of the time, in Calvinism it accomplishes salvation 100% of the time. (I fail to see how Arminianism's grace is better or more gracious, but I digress)

Both Calvinism and Arminianism affirm that God chose certain sinners to be saved before the world was created. (Both must affirm this because it's what scripture says - Ephesians 1).

God choosing certain sinners to be saved before they are ever born is not unique to Calvinism.

The difference between Calvininism and Arminianism at this point is not when God chose sinners to be said (as said above, both affirm it was before they were even born), but rather, the difference is merely why God chose some sinners and not others.

If you really want to "attack" Calvinism, you should attack it at these points of difference, and find out what the Bible says about those particular things. Instead, (as this thread shows in your opening argument), you are attacking Calvinism in a place where it is no different than Arminianism, thus, you are in essence unwittingly attacking Arminianism as well, which I presume is your own position since you are not a Calvinist.

ps. by the word Arminianism I am referring to all forms of synergism, save pelagianism

If you really want to have a discussion where people can learn from each other, why not think through your arguments a bit better? Let's talk about the differences between C and A, not their similarities.

Why is regeneration mandatory in Calvinism? Why does prevenient grace not work/ie is not sufficient in Calvinism? Does Calvinism have a certain view of fallen man's ability (or lack thereof) that requires it to hold to a more efficacious form of grace?

If we ask these kinds of questions, real discussion can take place and we can all learn something about what the Bible says about our sinful, helpless state and what exactly God has done to graciously save us.

 

[sdowney717]

But nobody can reject prevenient grace.

Prevenient grace is, after all, a form of grace. And men cannot reject it. It is forced upon them.

Good point you have made. A prevenient grace is to an Arminian, forced upon all people against their consent.
Such a grace does not actually save anyone.

Such prevenent grace is more easily understood in the things God has made as testimony to the glory of God as described in Romans 1.

And that does not save anyone either.
Romans 1, there is no salvation in such a 'grace' but only wrath. That is because even though God has shown His power to them in the things He has made, they reject God since they are really just plain evil in their imaginations.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.