Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Received]

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. You are asking great questions. These conversations need to be had, and I thank you for that. I will do my best to respond.

Thanks for your humility. And ditto.

This confession is thoroughly Calvinistic. This shows me one of two things (if not both!): 1) you misunderstand the statement of the confession (I will address below) and 2)quite possibly you have been misled, misinformed, or caused to believe a caricature of what Reformed theology teaches. That being said, let's look carefully at the statement in paragraph one:

"God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil."

This does not say that man is "free to sin or not to sin." You are too quickly jumping to conclusions upon a cursory reading of the statement. Look very carefully at each word, for they were crafted with the utmost care and intention. It does not say that man is free to choose, but only free to act upon choice. This is a subtle, yet massive, difference. Do you see it? Even further, this choice is not forced, for, again, force means against the will, but we in our fallen state sin willfully and joyfully. What's more is that it is not even "by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil." What does this mean? It means that man in his created nature (not his fallen, corrupted nature) is not of necessity determined to do good or evil, because he is not in bondage. However, we are fallen, dead in sins, and are held captive and in bondage by sin, and are thus only able to sin unless restored by regeneration and, eventually, glorification, in which case we will be, as the confession wonderfully states, "made perfectly and immutably free to good alone in the state of glory only." Notice the confession defines freedom (true freedom!) the ability "to do good alone."

You seem to say that man isn't free to choose but free to act upon his choice, and then say the choice isn't forced, indicating that he's free. Which is it? Also, saying a person is free to act but not free to choose makes no sense, given that free choice implies free acts: each choice is a choice as to an action.

And I don't think it's merely a matter of being free to sin or not sin. First of all, there's no middle ground between faith and sin; whatever is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23, and this verse is a general principle, even though it refers to eating), and even if this verse didn't exist, it's a little screwy to imagine that there are actions that aren't done in relation to God but also aren't sin. Second, the real crux is whether a person can accept or reject saving grace, not so much whether he has the freedom to sin or not (assuming even that there is such a vacuous middle ground between faith and sin). If man is born in sin and can't help being in sin because he can't accept faith on his own power (i.e., because irresistible grace makes salvation entirely a God-ordained thing), then he shouldn't be blamed for not being able to accept a salvation he isn't able to accept.

Every fallen human being every waking moment of their life before regeneration. For a good Scriptural example, read Romans chapter 1.

So Romans 1 paints a picture of people not resisting grace? If so, this makes this type of grace useless to our discussion, since we're talking about grace unto salvation.

He does not command A to do X and at the same time command him not to do X. Where did you see this in Scripture? The failure here is to see the difference between God's prescription (command) versus God's purpose. As Scripture says, "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law" (Deut. 29:29). What do we do with a passage like Acts chapter 4?

I'm not seeing it in scripture, but you're saying you do see it in scripture, such that God is overriding someone's will and then blaming them for doing so, which indicates a contradiction.

God commands all men everywhere not to kill, yet it is clear that Jesus' murder (the slaughtering of the only innocent man to ever live, no less) was purposed by God's very will. What do we say to this?

I don't have anything against God overriding a person's will for his purpose, so long as he takes responsibility for this action, and it seems like Acts 4 makes it clear that he was taking responsibility, given it indicated that it was God's will that predestined these things. Also, remember that Jesus said very clearly that nobody takes his life from him, but that he has the power to do so (John 10:18), which would seem to indicate that "predestination" in Acts 4 doesn't mean God is overriding wills, but perhaps using the wills that human beings already had and integrating them with his plan.

This is an assumption, and an imposed standard upon the interpretation of Scripture. How do you affirm original sin, then (I assume you do)? Romans chapter 5 says that we are guilty (i.e., responsible) for something we ourselves did not do (I sure didn't eat the fruit!). This is merely bringing human law in to bear upon spiritual matters, and that, I believe, is unwarranted. Sure, we men must not hold each other responsible for things over which we had no (even little) control. However, God many times holds grandchildren responsible for their grandfathers' sins (Ex. 20:5-6, 34:6-7; Num. 14:18) and, again, in Romans chapter 5 we are all held responsible for the sin of one ancient, long-dead man.

No, that's not an assumption, that's morphology -- that's understanding what a word means. Romans 5 doesn't say anything about responsibility, but only about condemnation from sin, which can easily be understood as the condemnation to death that sin intrinsically brings upon anyone who practices it, regardless of the question of freedom.

 

[TaylorSexton]

Now you're projecting....

I am scratching my head as to what this means.

But seriously, would you like to start a new thread?

If you truly wish to, although I really think it unnecessary. There is such an unbelievable wealth of material on the internet; I will be presenting absolutely nothing new. But, if you wish...

I just ask that you keep in mind that I am in school or working every day, so it will be hard to reply or contribute regularly, as it will probably require long, drawn-out posts.

 

[bleitzel]

I said:

I on the other hand did have an opportunity to get under Dr. Oakley's skin once hehe.

You said:

Of course he did. Non-exegesis presented as exegesis and straw men presented as fact are frustrating for any man to have to fight.

I said:

Now you're projecting....

You said:

I am scratching my head as to what this means.

I took your text above to mean that you thought I had been presenting straw men and non-exegesis to Dr. White, to which I replied you were projecting as surely you didn't have access to our conversation. But my comment was tongue in cheek.

If you truly wish to, although I really think it unnecessary. There is such an unbelievable wealth of material on the internet; I will be presenting absolutely nothing new. But, if you wish...

I just ask that you keep in mind that I am in school or working every day, so it will be hard to reply or contribute regularly, as it will probably require long, drawn-out posts.

I always truly wish to go over Romans 9 (and Ephesians 1) with anyone who is interested in it, but I will be presenting new material for you to consider (at least I believe it will be new to you). So I think I will start the thread.

 

[TaylorSexton]

My responses will be short because it is way past my bed time, and I have school tomorrow. But, I hope to continue this conversation in the coming days.

This verse is a general principle, even though it refers to eating.

I just want to say, as an aside, thank you for making this comment. You don't know how many times I have wished to use it in my discussions of this topic, yet have not because I fear that too much will be made of the immediate context. I fully agree!

It's a little screwy to imagine that there are actions that aren't done in relation to God but also aren't sin.

I could be wrong, but I feel like the underlying statement here is that if it is God's purpose that someone sins, and he does, he is only doing God's will and should not be punished for doing so.

Again, I say the distinction between God's prescription and God's eternal purpose and decree are important in this discussion. We are bound to obey only God's prescriptive will for two reason: 1) because he said so and 2) because there is no possible way, outside of special revelation, what God's secret will (to use Calvin's terminology) is.

He shouldn't be blamed for not being able to accept a salvation he isn't able to accept.

And yet, we are taught that man is unable to accept outside of divine enablement (John 6:44), yet held fully responsible if he does not.

So Romans 1 paints a picture of people not resisting grace? If so, this makes this type of grace useless to our discussion, since we're talking about grace unto salvation.

Sorry, I must have misread your question. I gave examples of people resisting general grace.

I'm not seeing it in scripture, but you're saying you do see it in scripture, such that God is overriding someone's will and then blaming them for doing so, which indicates a contradiction.

Isaiah 10, again, really does paint a clear picture of this. I don't understand how it is missed. Could you please explain why you don't think so? The Assyrians are described as being weapons in God's hand, and are punished both for their sin and for even thinking that they did something themselves!

It seems like Acts 4 makes it clear that he was taking responsibility, given it indicated that it was God's will that predestined these things.

I don't think so. Rather than one or the other being responsible, I believe this is a wonderful expression of compatibilism. That is, divine predestination and human responsibility are not incompatible. This has expressions in both secular philosophy and Christian theism. In this specific case, men are fully responsible for the acts God fully ordained them to do. So, would you that Pilate's and Herod's deeds were not wicked? I say they were.

Remember that Jesus said very clearly that nobody takes his life from him, but that he has the power to do so.

He did not kill himself, though, did he? Absolutely, he gave his life up. If a mother gives up her life to save her child from a murderer, does this then absolve the wicked man of murdering the woman? Surely not. In the same way, yes, Jesus willingly gave up his life, but it would be absurd to say that those who murdered him are thus guiltless.

Romans 5 doesn't say anything about responsibility, but only about condemnation from sin, which can easily be understood as the condemnation to death that sin intrinsically brings upon anyone who practices it, regardless of the question of freedom.

You seem to affirm that Romans chapter 5 affirms condemnation, but not responsibility. This se

 

[TaylorSexton]

I will be presenting new material for you to consider.

I am glad you know what I, a faceless man behind a screen with whom you've interacted for a couple of hours, have heard and have not heard.

If I sound sarcastic, it is only because I find that statement to be overconfident at best and slightly arrogant at worst. I mean no offense; I only wish to be sincere in my interactions.

 

[Job8]

For Calvinism to be false, it must be demonstrated that man can please God in the flesh. We know that belief is pleasing to God. So it would have to shown how a man in his natural state can do something pleasing to God.

If we go from "pleasing God" to "doing right", it can indeed be shown. We should talk about the freedom of the natural man to do things which are consistent with the Ten Commandments, and the Bible is very clear that the natural man can indeed be guided by his conscience to do right (not become righteous in God's sight but simply do right). And because all men, women, and children have a conscience, they can be held accountable for doing right or doing wrong. Please note what God the Holy Spirit reveals to us (Rom 2:10-16):

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another,

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

This passage in itself is sufficient to refute the Calvinistic notion of every man being continually evil and sinful. Human beings are indeed sinners by birth, but they can also do right even before they are regenerated.

 

[Hammster]

If we go from "pleasing God" to "doing right", it can indeed be shown. We should talk about the freedom of the natural man to do things which are consistent with the Ten Commandments, and the Bible is very clear that the natural man can indeed be guided by his conscience to do right (not become righteous in God's sight but simply do right). And because all men, women, and children have a conscience, they can be held accountable for doing right or doing wrong. Please note what God the Holy Spirit reveals to us (Rom 2:10-16):

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11For there is no respect of persons with God.

12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another,

16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

This passage in itself is sufficient to refute the Calvinistic notion of every man being continually evil and sinful. Human beings are indeed sinners by birth, but they can also do right even before they are regenerated.

The problem with this argument is that unless something is done in faith for God's glory, regardless of how "good" it is, it's sinful.

 

[fhansen]

"Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power rover the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory?

—Romans 9:19-23

Ok, so man is completely morally irresponsible-no more capable than an animal on that point. God simply decided who's in and who's out.

The church has a better, more balanced view of "predestination", where man's will, weak and compromised as it is, is never left completely out of the picture. God seeks to reverse in us what Adam willed: disobedience-without overwhelming or completely altering our own wills. That's how His grace works; drawing, not simply electing as if heaven is to be stocked with a certain number, regardless of their take on the matter, and hell stocked with the remainder, as if their wills really played no part. God didn't make junk, even if we act like it at times. He knows the potential in man, and loves him boundlessly, unconditionally-that's one of the most critical things Jesus revealed. He wants to sharpen His image in us, again, to draw us into justice/perfection. Because our justice lies in great part on our very willingness to embrace it, to embrace Him, IOW.

So let me ask, is grace at all resistible after this: "When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good"?

 

[Hammster]

Ok, so man is completely morally irresponsible-no more capable than an animal on that point. God simply decided who's in and who's out.

The church has a better, more balanced view of "predestination", where man's will, weak and compromised as it is, is never left completely out of the picture. God seeks to reverse in us what Adam willed: disobedience-without overwhelming or completely altering our own wills. That's how His grace works; drawing, not simply electing as if heaven is to be stocked with a certain number, regardless of their take on the matter, and hell stocked with the remainder, as if their wills really played no part. God didn't make junk, even if we act like it at times. He knows the potential in man, and loves him boundlessly, unconditionally-that's one of the most critical things Jesus revealed. He wants to sharpen His image in us, again, to draw us into justice/perfection. Because our justice lies in great part on our very willingness to embrace it, to embrace Him, IOW.

So let me ask, is grace at all resistible after this: "When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He frees him from his natural bondage under sin, and by His grace alone enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good"?

So he quotes scripture, and you act as if it's his opinion? Then you say the "church" has a better view?

That isn't good.

 

[expos4ever]

Notice, in the first paragraph the confession states, "God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty and power of acting upon choice, that it is neither forced, nor by any necessity of nature determined to do good or evil." This is tremendous, as it, I believe, dissolves the issue completely. The words I highlighted are important, because what it is saying it that man certainly has the power to choose, and that it is indeed not forced.

But it appears to me you have overlooked that point 1 describes the pre-fall condition of man by the very terms of the remaining points. I am not sure you really mean to say what you appear to be saying here because you do indeed go on to a treatment of man in his fallen state, which, of course, is where we are in terms of the unfolding story.

However, you seem to assume that because we "can not help but sin," that we are thus forced to sin. That is simply not true. Force connotes that the one being forced wills the opposite. In our fallen, corrupted state, we sin willingly and joyfully. Nobody forces me to eat, but I simply must because my nature demands it. Nobody forces us to sin, but we must because our corrupted nature demands it—that is, until by regeneration our wills are made willing to do good.

You seem to be simply "shifting the force back one level". Here is my counterargument: even if we enjoy sinning, we can still reasonably say we are forced to sin if we have no degree of freedom to overcome that desire to sin. It almost seems like you are arguing that since we enjoy sinning and eagerly do sin, there is no "force". Well, hold on. If I am born with a nature that takes pleasure in sinning, and that nature that cannot be overcome to the extent that I cannot choose to do good, I am surely "forced" to sin in any reasonable interpretation what it means to be forced.

The important point is not whether we joyfully and eagerly embrace sinning; the point is do we have a degree of freedom to act in a non-sinful manner. If we are born without such freedom, how can we be free in the sense that is most important here. It seems to me that Calvinists sometimes try to "swap" this relevant form of freedom (i.e. to choose good) out and insert in its place "the freedom to choose which nasty sinful thing you are going to do" and then pass off this latter, highly adulterated form of freedom as "true" freedom and thereby get out of the very difficult corner of having to explain how we can be blamed if we are not free.

 

[fhansen]

So he quotes scripture, and you act as if it's his opinion? Then you say the "church" has a better view?

That isn't good.

Lots of people quote Scripture; JWs quote Scripture, Mormons quote Scripture. And people often just plain misunderstand Scripture. Or don't understand it in consideration of it's full context. Scripture was never intended to be a catechism, which is why churches/denominations often come up with catechisms as well as creeds, confessions, etc. In any case Rom 9 needs to be understood in light of the church's historical understanding of it-and a passage or two here and there can't suffice to build a whole theology either way. Otherwise we might be left with novel ideas such as Arianism or various erroneous views regarding the role of man's will, to name two. It's the purpose of the church, not private interpretation of Scripture, to discern, safeguard, and pronounce on the gospel-on the nature and will of God regarding man according to the revelation He gave her.

 

[Job8]

The problem with this argument is that unless something is done in faith for God's glory, regardless of how "good" it is, it's sinful.

Doing right can NEVER be sinful, and natural men often do right.

You saw the Scriptures, and that is NOT what is stated. Here is what is noted above: "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another,"

Since Paul is writing by Divine inspiration, this is not Paul's "opinion" but God the Holy Spirit's assessment of those who are guided by their conscience to DO RIGHT outside of Christ. It is also Christ who gives all people the "light" of their conscience (Jn 1:9). At the same time all must be born again in order to see and enter into the Kingdom of God (Jn 3:3-8).

 

[ISTANDBYJESUS]

I put this into bullets so that it would be easier to critique individual premises. Logically, in order for an argument to be proven to be invalid, all you have to do is show how the premises don't follow to a conclusion, which can be done through showing how one of the premises are wrong.

1. According to Calvinism, man is unable to come to salvation by his own power, and can only come to salvation through irresistible grace.
2. If man is unable to come to salvation by his own power, then he can't help but sin (there is no middle ground between faith and sin).
3. Therefore, according to Calvinism, man can't help but sin.
4. Blame implies freedom, such that a person can only be blamed for what he's free to accept or reject. I.e., you can't blame a person for doing that which he can't help but do.
5. Calvinism holds that the individual isn't free to accept or reject God except through irresistible grace.
6. Therefore, Calvinism shouldn't place blame on sinners, given that blame implies a freedom to accept or reject God that isn't possible without irresistible grace.
7. However, Calvinism does place blame on sinners; therefore Calvinism is logically inconsistent.

The only way out of this inconsistency:

1. Hold that individuals are free to reject grace, which would allow them to be blameworthy, given that blame implies freedom to accept or reject -- but here you don't have Calvinism.
2. Hold that individuals are born in a state of innocence, not in sin, and that they're blameworthy in the sense of sinning first -- but here you have an unorthodox position that rejects original sin.
3. Hold that theology doesn't need to be logically consistent -- but here you can believe anything about God given the lack of logic with exegesis.

There is only two kinds of people in the world, those that can hear the word of God by the gospel and those who don't believe: and all those who have heard, come to the Son and fulfill John 6:40, and are true witnesses of Christ.

 

[Hammster]

Doing right can NEVER be sinful, and natural men often do right.

You saw the Scriptures, and that is NOT what is stated. Here is what is noted above: "Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another,"

Since Paul is writing by Divine inspiration, this is not Paul's "opinion" but God the Holy Spirit's assessment of those who are guided by their conscience to DO RIGHT outside of Christ. It is also Christ who gives all people the "light" of their conscience (Jn 1:9). At the same time all must be born again in order to see and enter into the Kingdom of God (Jn 3:3-8).

But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. - Romans 14:23

Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:8

 

[FreeGrace2]

But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. - Romans 14:23

Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:8

To prove your claim, there should be Scripture that tells us that unbeliever are incapable of trusting God's promises.

Or, there should be Scripture that tells us that trusting God's promises are only possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So, are there verses that teach these things?

 

[Hammster]

To prove your claim, there should be Scripture that tells us that unbeliever are incapable of trusting God's promises.

Or, there should be Scripture that tells us that trusting God's promises are only possible by the power of the Holy Spirit.

So, are there verses that teach these things?

I think the scriptures I posted proved my claim. If you disagree, please explain why.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I think the scriptures I posted proved my claim. If you disagree, please explain why.

I'd be happy to. But I need a post # for reference.

But to be clear, do your verses say that an unbeliever is incapable of believing or trusting God's promises, or do they tell us that God's promises are only possible by the power of the Holy Spirit?

The 2 verses provided in your post #34 don't answer either of these questions.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

The problem with free will arguments is that whether God made man with free will or not, He still made man to grow corrupt. Free will wouldn't have saved man from perdition, it would have done exactly as predestination. Therefore, the notion that God does not predestine is also a notion that God isn't very good at creating.

 

[Hammster]

I'd be happy to. But I need a post # for reference.

But to be clear, do your verses say that an unbeliever is incapable of believing or trusting God's promises, or do they tell us that God's promises are only possible by the power of the Holy Spirit?

The 2 verses provided in your post #34 don't answer either of these questions.

Where have I said that was the question I answered?

 

[Job8]

But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. - Romans 14:23

This Scripture has NO BEARING on the subject. This is written to Christians and is a teaching for Christians (the justified ones) since THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH. We are talking about the natural man, not the weak Christian.

Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. - Romans 8:8

Another Scripture which has NO BEARING on the subject. The issue is not whether the right actions according to conscience please God or displease God. That is an entirely separate matter related walking in the Spirit, and that is the context. The issue is whether the natural man can do right, and that doing right is never sinful.

Christians are not to pull verses out of context to prove a point. Neither of those verses are relevant to whether the natural man can be held accountable by God strictly on the basis of his God-given conscience. We are not discussing salvation, neither are we discussing people who have been born again.