Logical Problems with Calvinism

[FreeGrace2]

Personally, I was arminian most my life. I hated Calvinism when I first heard about it about 3 years ago. I badly wanted to refute it. The more I studied it and learned what it actually teaches I came to the conclusion that Calvinism (I wish it had a different name) was the most biblical view.

Interesting. I was brought up believing that Christ died for everyone, everyone has free will to either accept or reject God's free gift of eternal life, and once saved always saved. When I met my first Calvinist (in my early 40's) I was shocked to know that Chrsitians actually believed that Christ didn't die for everyone.

My first thought was: have I been confused all my life, or have been given false doctrine? So I began to study the Word intently and intentionally. My studies have re-enforced my theology. While I believed what I had been taught, I couldn't defend it Biblically. Now I can. And do.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

Interesting. I was brought up believing that Christ died for everyone, everyone has free will to either accept or reject God's free gift of eternal life, and once saved always saved. When I met my first Calvinist (in my early 40's) I was shocked to know that Chrsitians actually believed that Christ didn't die for everyone.

My first thought was: have I been confused all my life, or have been given false doctrine? So I began to study the Word intently and intentionally. My studies have re-enforced my theology. While I believed what I had been taught, I couldn't defend it Biblically. Now I can. And do.

Yep, my view is it's a debatable issue. Both are considered orthodoxy. If your arminian or Calvinist it doesn't matter to me. As long as you trust in Christ and believe the essentials of the faith.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Yep, my view is it's a debatable issue. Both are considered orthodoxy. If your arminian or Calvinist it doesn't matter to me. As long as you trust in Christ and believe the essentials of the faith.

This is what I said I believed:
"I was brought up believing that Christ died for everyone, everyone has free will to either accept or reject God's free gift of eternal life, and once saved always saved. When I met my first Calvinist (in my early 40's) I was shocked to know that Chrsitians actually believed that Christ didn't die for everyone."

How are these debatable? They are the essentials. It doesn't get any more basic that this.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

"I was brought up believing that Christ died for everyone, everyone has free will to either accept or reject God's free gift of eternal life, and once saved always saved. When I met my first Calvinist (in my early 40's) I was shocked to know that Chrsitians actually believed that Christ didn't die for everyone."

How are these debatable? They are the essentials. It doesn't get any more basic that this.

They are debatable because they are debatable. I don't believe any one denomination has all the answers, but I do feel Calvinism has the most. Christian essentials are things such as Christ's deity, One God, Jesus death and resurrection, saved by grace not works, the trinity. If you deny one of these essentials your in a cult. (I don't mean 'you' as you)

And then there are non-essentials like OSAS, election, timing of the rapture (pre, mid, post).

I'd be more then happy to have a one on one dialog with you. Where we could maturely go through scriptures.

 

[FreeGrace2]

They are debatable because they are debatable.

Kinda like saying "I'm right because I'm right." Am I right?

I don't believe any one denomination has all the answers, but I do feel Calvinism has the most.

I don't subscribe to denominations, and neither Calvinism nor Arminian are denominations.

Christian essentials are things such as Christ's deity, One God, Jesus death and resurrection, saved by grace not works, the trinity. If you deny one of these essentials your in a cult. (I don't mean 'you' as you)

And then there are non-essentials like OSAS, election, timing of the rapture (pre, mid, post).

OK. When I said "essentials", I wasn't meaning for salvation. But they are essential for orthodoxy, imo.

I'd be more then happy to have a one on one dialog with you. Where we could maturely go through scriptures.

I'd be happy to.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Interesting. I was brought up believing that Christ died for everyone, everyone has free will to either accept or reject God's free gift of eternal life, and once saved always saved. When I met my first Calvinist (in my early 40's) I was shocked to know that Chrsitians actually believed that Christ didn't die for everyone.

My first thought was: have I been confused all my life, or have been given false doctrine? So I began to study the Word intently and intentionally. My studies have re-enforced my theology. While I believed what I had been taught, I couldn't defend it Biblically. Now I can. And do.

This sounds like me, but change the age to my early 30's.

 

[ToBeLoved]

As far as free will, and your claim that I have created a straw man, I respectfully disagree, because I have seen and heard exactly what I referred to. I don't deny that man has the ability to choose, that is self-evident. what concerns me is the attempts and tendency to imbue man's ability to choose with more power and reach than he actually has.

The modern-day emphasis on free will is necessarily vague, and hard to pin down, precisely because men are attempting to make it more than it is. In my estimation, when it is over-extended, i.e. claiming that man can choose God-pleasing actions while still dead in sins, is an echo of the original rebellion.

Not at all.

Because one could then say 'Why was the tree of Knowledge put tin the Garden in the first place if there was no free will'? Why did Eve have it in her capacity not to do only what God wanted?

The problem with Calvinism is that if God did not want us to have free-will, he would not have given us free-will. And with God being Omniscience, he knows the past, present and future with no time limitations like we have on earth. So God knows all, so of course He knows what each of us will choose to do of our own free-will.

God is holy. The bread cannot be buttered on both sides, so to speak.

Just because God knows, doesn't mean that He overrides our free-will in our lives.

Could God say that He does not know, if He knows. No.

So the Bible is written that way because God does know our eternal destiny, but He let's us live out our free-will.

 

[AndOne]

Not at all.

Because one could then say 'Why was the tree of Knowledge put tin the Garden in the first place if there was no free will'? Why did Eve have it in her capacity not to do only what God wanted?

The problem with Calvinism is that if God did not want us to have free-will, he would not have given us free-will. And with God being Omniscience, he knows the past, present and future with no time limitations like we have on earth. So God knows all, so of course He knows what each of us will choose to do of our own free-will.

God is holy. The bread cannot be buttered on both sides, so to speak.

Just because God knows, doesn't mean that He overrides our free-will in our lives.

Could God say that He does not know, if He knows. No.

So the Bible is written that way because God does know our eternal destiny, but He let's us live out our free-will.

I really don't think you understand Calvinism - which doesn't deny free will per se. The issue isn't free will so much as the desire of the heart. Man loves his sin more than God. His will is bound by his heart which is corrupted by sin as Romans 3 clearly teaches. I really do recommend you look at it a little closer before you criticize it. The Canons of Dort is a good start.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I really don't think you understand Calvinism - which doesn't deny free will per se. The issue isn't free will so much as the desire of the heart. Man loves his sin more than God. His will is bound by his heart which is corrupted by sin as Romans 3 clearly teaches. I really do recommend you look at it a little closer before you criticize it. The Canons of Dort is a good start.

Please see the conversation that led to my reply. It was on free will. If you would like to participate it is easier if you follow the thread and the questions and answers, rather than talk about a doctrine in totality when that is not the conversation. You are welcome to start a new thread to discuss it if you like.

 

[AndOne]

Please see the conversation that led to my reply. It was on free will. If you would like to participate it is easier if you follow the thread and the questions and answers, rather than talk about a doctrine in totality when that is not the conversation. You are welcome to start a new thread to discuss it if you like.

I have been following the thread and my reply is completely relevant - since you are misrepresenting what I believe I am pointing that out as it relates to Calvinism - since you mentioned it.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I have been following the thread and my reply is completely relevant - since you are misrepresenting what I believe I am pointing that out as it relates to Calvinism - since you mentioned it.

Ok. Well you do that. I'll continue with my conversation.

 

[AndOne]

Ok. Well you do that. I'll continue with my conversation.

Sounds good then - please don't misrepresent my beliefs then when you do so - now that you have been set straight on them. Thanks.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Sounds good then - please don't misrepresent my beliefs then when you do so - now that you have been set straight on them. Thanks.

Well I hope I will remember who you are then. lol.

 

[Job8]

The Canons of Dort is a good start.

The Canons of Dort simply perpetuate the errors of Calvinism.

Article 6: God’s Eternal Decree The fact that some receive from God the gift of faith within time, and that others do not, stems from his eternal decree. For “all his works are known to God from eternity” (Acts 15:18; Eph. 1:11).

The two Scriptures quoted DO NOT present an eternal decree to save some for Heaven and condemn others to Hell. Here is what we find in Eph 1:4-11:

CHOSEN FOR WHAT PURPOSE? TO BE HOLY AND BLAMELESS
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

PREDESTINED FOR WHAT PURPOSE? TO BE ADOPTED CHILDREN [Note: biblical adoption is not the same us human adoption]
5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

FIRST ULTIMATE PURPOSE? THE PRAISE OF THE GLORY OF GOD'S GRACE
6 To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved.

HOW IS SALVATION OBTAINED? BY GOD'S GRACE
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence;

HOW IS GRACE APPLIED? ACCORDING TO GOD'S WILL
9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:

SECOND ULITMATE PURPOSE? ALL THINGS GATHERED TOGETHER IN CHRIST
10 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

BIBLE MEANING OF ADOPTION? AN ETERNAL INHERITANCE
11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

So when we summarize this passage, believers are chosen and predestined for the following purposes: (1) to be holy and blameless, (2) to be adopted children who are heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, and (3) to receive an eternal inheritance in Heaven. All of this is for the praise of the glory of God's grace and that all things will be gathered together in one in Christ. This is also consistent with the fact that salvation is offered to all sinners freely (Rev 22:17). Therefore the "gift of faith" is not given to some and withheld from others.

 

[sdowney717]

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

Since no one seeks for God, Job8, your interpretations are illogical.
The reason they come, they thirst, they desire God is God has regenerated them so that they do come to Christ.

 

[ToBeLoved]

17 And the Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say, “Come!” And let him who thirsts come. Whoever desires, let him take the water of life freely.

Since no one seeks for God, Job8, your interpretations are illogical.
The reason they come, they thirst, they desire God is God has regenerated them so that they do come to Christ.

One comes to Christ in faith, than regeneration.

You have it the wrong way around.

 

[Hammster]

One comes to Christ in faith, than regeneration.

You have it the wrong way around.

If one has faith, why does one need to be born again? It's obvious they can already do good apart from God.

 

[EmSw]

If one has faith, why does one need to be born again? It's obvious they can already do good apart from God.

Can anyone cast away their iniquities without faith? Or, do you believe a new heart is not being born again?

 

[Hammster]

Can anyone cast away their iniquities without faith? Or, do you believe a new heart is not being born again?

Not an answer to my question.

 

[FreeGrace2]

If one has faith, why does one need to be born again? It's obvious they can already do good apart from God.

1 Jn 5:1 indicates from Greek grammar that they occur at the same time.