Logical Problems with Calvinism

[AndOne]

Hello AndOne.

If God has elected the chosen to salvation from all eternity, through the exertion
of His Sovereign Will. Why does Paul resort to using conditional statements
throughout his letters. For example in the following text.

"But to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also
will be cut off." (Romans 11:22)

Paul utters the conditional statement, "if you continue in His kindness".

So why does Paul offer conditional statements regarding belief, if the option
of not believing was never an option to the elect?

Well are you not reading all of chapter 11 or not? Why does Paul resort to unconditional statements regarding belief later in verses 26-32?

hint - look for the word "election."

 

[FreeGrace2]

yes gentiles, both believers and those who will become believers.
the Shepherd, Christ, knows His own sheep beforehand.

No one disputes that. Jesus' point was He would die for THE sheep. Not "MY sheep". His point was clear.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The context is the shepherd and the sheep - not the pen.

Uh, I believe His noting that He was the GATE to the pen is quite important.

Sorry - I completely disagree with your interpretation and think it's rediculous. Verse 4 in particular completely refutes everything you are saying.

This is all nice and all. But so far, it's just an opinion. Nothing at all to back any of it up. It's fine to disagree. No problem at all. But WHY do you? On what basis. And IF v.4 "completely refutes" everything I say, how about some exegesis to prove your claim?

 

[FreeGrace2]

The conclusions you draw point by point are illogical.

Point number 2 draws a conclusion that is unwarrented from point number 1.

As a result point number 3 arrives are a wrong conclusion from point number 2.

Being unable to come to salvation by his own power says nothing about the inability to sin in general.

A person needs salvation because he sins. He doesn't sin because he can't believe unto salvation.

If people went to Hell only for not believing unto salvation then your logic might be better founded. They do not, however, go to Hell only for the reason that they do not believe unto salvation. There's plenty of other sins involved to get them a one way ticket even without that factor.

You logic is flawed from the start with the first points. The other conclusions you reach in points number 4-7 are therefore flawed as well.

The only way out of the "inconsistency" of your OP is to start it over using a proper flow of logic.

Interesting analysis. I see 5 point Calvinism in the exact same way. The first point is flawed, and every point after it is flawed, for being based on the first point.

Man IS depraved. But that doesn't mean that man is unable to believe the gospel.
Unconditional election is untrue in the Calvinistic sense, because the Bible doesn't teach that God elects anyone to salvation. None of the 6 categories of Biblical election were chosen for salvation. Zero.
Limited atonement is directly contradicted from Scripture. (I know you believe that Christ died for all)
Grace is not irresistible. Men resist the Holy Spirit, and by extension, God's grace.
Believers are not guaranteed that they will persevere. Which is easily refuted from Scripture from the verses "encouraging believers to remain true to the faith, or to continue in the faith".

 

[AndOne]

Uh, I believe His noting that He was the GATE to the pen is quite important.

I did not say it wasn't. But you are ignoring the Shepard aspect of the passage.

This is all nice and all. But so far, it's just an opinion. Nothing at all to back any of it up. It's fine to disagree. No problem at all. But WHY do you? On what basis. And IF v.4 "completely refutes" everything I say, how about some exegesis to prove your claim?

False accusations get you nowhere. I've explained my position more than adequately with scripture.

 

[Hammster]

“All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep didn’t listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved and will come in and go out and find pasture. A thief comes only to steal and to kill and to destroy. I have come so that they may have life and have it in abundance.”
‭‭John‬ ‭10:8-10‬ ‭HCSB‬‬

If everyone was a sheep, this passage would not make sense since we know that many did follow thieves and robbers. The sheep didn't because God always promised to have a remnant.

 

[sdowney717]

“All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep didn’t listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved and will come in and go out and find pasture. A thief comes only to steal and to kill and to destroy. I have come so that they may have life and have it in abundance.”
‭‭John‬ ‭10:8-10‬ ‭HCSB‬‬

If everyone was a sheep, this passage would not make sense since we know that many did follow thieves and robbers. The sheep didn't because God always promised to have a remnant.

'but the sheep didn’t listen to them'
That should settle it, that the sheep listen to Christ alone.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Interesting analysis. I see 5 point Calvinism in the exact same way. The first point is flawed, and every point after it is flawed, for being based on the first point.

Man IS depraved. But that doesn't mean that man is unable to believe the gospel.
Unconditional election is untrue in the Calvinistic sense, because the Bible doesn't teach that God elects anyone to salvation. None of the 6 categories of Biblical election were chosen for salvation. Zero.
Limited atonement is directly contradicted from Scripture. (I know you believe that Christ died for all)
Grace is not irresistible. Men resist the Holy Spirit, and by extension, God's grace.
Believers are not guaranteed that they will persevere. Which is easily refuted from Scripture from the verses "encouraging believers to remain true to the faith, or to continue in the faith".

I was responding to the OP as we all should.

I haven't read all of the posts on every tangential subject line.

But the premise of this particular thread is flawed from the jump.

The fact that so many could engage in the conversation here for so long and with so many opinions without even noticing the flawed nature of the premise of the OP speaks volumes to me about whether some should even be posting on the subject of systematic theology in particular concerning soteriology.

If a person can't even evaluate the OP properly - how can we expect that he or she can evaluate Calvinism properly or even the scriptures for that matter.

IMO the one making the original post has disqualified himself just from the fact that he would start such an ill conceived post without thinking it through.

But then that's just the way I see things.

There are many ways to debate for and against Calvinism. This just isn't one of them. Any argument for or against Calvinism should be based on scripture and or good logic. Any based purely on emotion as is often the case are just silly given our depravity (whatever that may mean to any particular person in the debate).

 

[sdowney717]

In my experience, most people seem to have already made up their minds about their views of theology, sort of like written in stone, they are hardened into their philosophies, especially of course those who would post on a forum their opinions, most seem very bold and some are arrogantly ignorant. It does take a miracle from God to change our view to become aligned with the Truth, and so many people are caught stunningly with a mix of good and bad theology. If someone is actually teaching others a false theology, then they are an opponent of God's truths and must be granted to come to their senses and repent. Let not many among you be teachers, for they will receive a stricter judgment is sound advice. All scripture is breathed of God, so this is no frivolous matter, their exists an eternal significance to what we say about these things.

For my own self, I was for a long time sat in a middle ground between 'Calvinism and Arminianism', I could argue in myself from both viewpoints. Eventually, many years ago, my view has aligned with what God has actually said about these things, and that is TULIP most closely holds to the heart of the scriptures, and it just plain makes the most sense. You know to be deceived about something, means you actually believe a lie to be truth, and that is really difficult to escape about natural matters, how much harder regarding spiritual matters where Satan gets involved, challenging what God has said in our minds!

I never expect what I write will actually change any ones mind, only God can do that.
Satan can not read your mind, only God can, but Satan is a very good observer roaming over the entire earth seeking whom he can devour..

 

[FreeGrace2]

I did not say it wasn't. But you are ignoring the Shepard aspect of the passage.

How so? I have acknowledged that the Shepherd will lay down His life for THE sheep. And IN context, the Shepherd acknowledges sheep that are HIS, and other sheep of HIS and those (sheep) that are not HIS.

One has to ignore all the personal pronouns to NOT GET the message that Jesus would die for everyone.

False accusations get you nowhere. I've explained my position more than adequately with scripture.

Your position cannot be supported with Scripture. The personal pronouns refute your position.

ONLY IF Jesus had said that He would die for HIS sheep would Calvinism be correct in limited atonement. But He didn't say anything that supports Calvinism's limited atonement.

 

[FreeGrace2]

“All who came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep didn’t listen to them. I am the door. If anyone enters by Me, he will be saved and will come in and go out and find pasture. A thief comes only to steal and to kill and to destroy. I have come so that they may have life and have it in abundance.”
‭‭John‬ ‭10:8-10‬ ‭HCSB‬‬

If everyone was a sheep, this passage would not make sense since we know that many did follow thieves and robbers. The sheep didn't because God always promised to have a remnant.

So typical. Leaving out v.7 which is CONTEXT for what follows isn't very honest, imho.
"So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep."

So, Jesus is the door of THE sheep. After stating this and that He would die for THE sheep, Jesus continues by noting those sheep that are HIS:
v.14 - “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me

After saying this, He very clearly states His mission:
v.15 - "even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep."

This verse was the PERFECT time to clarify that He would die ONLY for HIS own sheep. But He didn't.

Then He says this, in v.16 - “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd."

Then, later on He says this to those Jews who hadn't believed in Him: v.26 - “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."

Note that He didn't call them goats, or "non-sheep". He noted that weren't of HIS sheep.

So, in summary, He noted there were those sheep that were HIS own. And other sheep of HIS, and those sheep that were NOT of HIS sheep.

All of this is about sheep. He noted that some sheep were His and some weren't of His. Very clear and simple.

And…He died for THE sheep. Not HIS sheep, as Calvinism will erroneously claim.

 

[Job8]

I see 5 point Calvinism in the exact same way. The first point is flawed, and every point after it is flawed, for being based on the first point.

FALSE PREMISES LEAD TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS. Since Calvinism is based on a fundamental false premise (that God decreed that some be saved and others be damned) everything else is false. Following Augustine blindly was a huge mistake:

THERE IS NO QUESTION

that Calvin imposed upon the Bible certain erroneous interpretations from his Roman Catholic background. Many leading Calvinists agree that the writings of Augustine were the actual source of most of what is known as Calvinism today. Calvinists David Steele and Curtis Thomas point out that “The basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.... B. B. Warfield declared, “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.”

 

[sdowney717]

So typical. Leaving out v.7 which is CONTEXT for what follows isn't very honest, imho.
"So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep."

So, Jesus is the door of THE sheep. After stating this and that He would die for THE sheep, Jesus continues by noting those sheep that are HIS:
v.14 - “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me

After saying this, He very clearly states His mission:
v.15 - "even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep."

This verse was the PERFECT time to clarify that He would die ONLY for HIS own sheep. But He didn't.

Then He says this, in v.16 - “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd."

Then, later on He says this to those Jews who hadn't believed in Him: v.26 - “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."

Note that He didn't call them goats, or "non-sheep". He noted that weren't of HIS sheep.

So, in summary, He noted there were those sheep that were HIS own. And other sheep of HIS, and those sheep that were NOT of HIS sheep.

All of this is about sheep. He noted that some sheep were His and some weren't of His. Very clear and simple.

And…He died for THE sheep. Not HIS sheep, as Calvinism will erroneously claim.

"So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep."
That is 100% true, Christ the door of the sheep. Since all the sheep are His, naturally they will be saved since they come to the Father by Him.
Proof is that Christ says 'the sheep' do not listen to the thief and robber, they do not listen to Satan but to God.

 

[AndOne]

How so? I have acknowledged that the Shepherd will lay down His life for THE sheep. And IN context, the Shepherd acknowledges sheep that are HIS, and other sheep of HIS and those (sheep) that are not HIS.

One has to ignore all the personal pronouns to NOT GET the message that Jesus would die for everyone.

You are ignoring the proper context of the word "sheep" in the passage which has been pointed out to you by at least two other posters in this thread.

Your position cannot be supported with Scripture. The personal pronouns refute your position.

False accusation. The personal pronouns support my position when the word "sheep" is read in its proper context.

ONLY IF Jesus had said that He would die for HIS sheep would Calvinism be correct in limited atonement. But He didn't say anything that supports Calvinism's limited atonement.

The sheep are His - context is king my friend.

 

[AndOne]

FALSE PREMISES LEAD TO FALSE CONCLUSIONS. Since Calvinism is based on a fundamental false premise (that God decreed that some be saved and others be damned) everything else is false. Following Augustine blindly was a huge mistake:

Paul said it before Augustine - see Romans 9:21-23. Your beef is with him before Augustine.

 

[sdowney717]

7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8 All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.

To say that ALL persons are the sheep is illogical in the extreme. Because if ALL persons are 'the sheep' then not a single person would embrace Islam, Buddhism, or any other Satanically inspired faith contrary to Christ.

To say that some of 'the sheep' hear other faiths and respond to the voice of the 'false shepherds', is to call Christ a liar.
See this is really the heart of what Christ is saying, that 'the sheep' do not listen to the voice of, follow or come to the 'false shepherds' but only the 'true Shepherd' His own Self.

Most assuredly, I say to you, anyone preaching another message CONTRARY to what CHRIST teaches, well, you're in a heap of trouble. Anyone preaching another gospel, is double accursed.

God has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

 

[klutedavid]

Well are you not reading all of chapter 11 or not? Why does Paul resort to unconditional statements regarding belief later in verses 26-32?

hint - look for the word "election."

Hello AndOne.

Thanks for your reply AndOne.

There are in fact, two different interpretations available to us AndOne, in regards
to the text (Romans 11).

The first of these two methods of interpretation, will view 'election' as being
specifically applied to individuals for salvation (Calvinism). Whereas the second
method of interpretation, will see the word 'election' as describing specific groups
of people, i.e., the nation of Israel or the Gentiles.

For example AndOne, when Paul uses a phrase such as 'natural branches' in the text.
Is Paul referring to individual Israelites, or is Paul identifying the nation of Israel as the
'elect'?

So when we read the verses you mentioned, in particular say verse twenty eight from
chapter eleven below.

Romans 11 (KJV)
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching
the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

The word 'election' Paul uses is definitely being applied to the nation of Israel.
Paul is never really talking about an individuals 'election' to salvation. Which
explains why Paul uses conditional statements in his letters.

This is not a personal attack on Calvinism or even your method of interpretation!

All I seek AndOne, is that you recognise that there are two methods of interpretation,
that may be utilized by the reader to understand the scripture.

 

[sdowney717]

Hello AndOne.

Thanks for your reply AndOne.

There are in fact, two different interpretations available to us AndOne, in regards
to the text (Romans 11).

The first of these two methods of interpretation, will view 'election' as being
specifically applied to individuals for salvation (Calvinism). Whereas the second
method of interpretation, will see the word 'election' as describing specific groups
of people, i.e., the nation of Israel or the Gentiles.

For example AndOne, when Paul uses a phrase such as 'natural branches' in the text.
Is Paul referring to individual Israelites, or is Paul identifying the nation of Israel as the
'elect'?

So when we read the verses you mentioned, in particular say verse twenty eight from
chapter eleven below.

Romans 11 (KJV)
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching
the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

The word 'election' Paul uses is definitely being applied to the nation of Israel.
Paul is never really talking about an individuals 'election' to salvation. Which
explains why Paul uses conditional statements in his letters.

This is not a personal attack on Calvinism or even your method of interpretation!

All I seek AndOne, is that you recognise that there are two methods of interpretation,
that may be utilized by the reader to understand the scripture.

Paul labors in the gospel only for the elect who will obtain salvation.
So you can not say only nations are elect and not individuals

2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Why would Paul say this, if no one was elect?
And where is Paul's ministry? Mostly to the gentiles, and more specifically to the 'elect' of the gentiles.

 

[AndOne]

7 Then Jesus said to them again, “Most assuredly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.
8 All who ever came before Me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not hear them.

To say that ALL persons are the sheep is illogical in the extreme. Because if ALL persons are 'the sheep' then not a single person would embrace Islam, Buddhism, or any other Satanically inspired faith contrary to Christ.

To say that some of 'the sheep' hear other faiths and respond to the voice of the 'false shepherds', is to call Christ a liar.
See this is really the heart of what Christ is saying, that 'the sheep' do not listen to the voice of, follow or come to the 'false shepherds' but only the 'true Shepherd' His own Self.

Most assuredly, I say to you, anyone preaching another message CONTRARY to what CHRIST teaches, let him be DOUBLY ACCURSED.

God has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

Hello AndOne.

Thanks for your reply AndOne.

There are in fact, two different interpretations available to us AndOne, in regards
to the text (Romans 11).

The first of these two methods of interpretation, will view 'election' as being
specifically applied to individuals for salvation (Calvinism). Whereas the second
method of interpretation, will see the word 'election' as describing specific groups
of people, i.e., the nation of Israel or the Gentiles.

For example AndOne, when Paul uses a phrase such as 'natural branches' in the text.
Is Paul referring to individual Israelites, or is Paul identifying the nation of Israel as the
'elect'?

So when we read the verses you mentioned, in particular say verse twenty eight from
chapter eleven below.

Romans 11 (KJV)
28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching
the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

The word 'election' Paul uses is definitely being applied to the nation of Israel.
Paul is never really talking about an individuals 'election' to salvation. Which
explains why Paul uses conditional statements in his letters.

This is not a personal attack on Calvinism or even your method of interpretation!

All I seek AndOne, is that you recognise that there are two methods of interpretation,
that may be utilized by the reader to understand the scripture.

I actually agree with your interpretation of the text to a degree - but fail to see how it disproves Calvinism. If God is talking about the nation of Isreal he is not talking about an individual's salvation there. In fact most of chapters 10 and 11 seem to me to be supporting the statements made in Romans 9:24-32 which is showing that the nation of Isreal also includes elected Gentiles saved by faith in Jesus. A full reading of the entire book indicates God deals with individuals based on faith in Jesus - branches can be broken off because God doesnt deal with nations in the same way he deals with individuals.

 

[Hammster]

So typical. Leaving out v.7 which is CONTEXT for what follows isn't very honest, imho.
"So Jesus said to them again, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep."

So, Jesus is the door of THE sheep. After stating this and that He would die for THE sheep, Jesus continues by noting those sheep that are HIS:
v.14 - “I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me

After saying this, He very clearly states His mission:
v.15 - "even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep."

This verse was the PERFECT time to clarify that He would die ONLY for HIS own sheep. But He didn't.

Then He says this, in v.16 - “I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd."

Then, later on He says this to those Jews who hadn't believed in Him: v.26 - “But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep."

Note that He didn't call them goats, or "non-sheep". He noted that weren't of HIS sheep.

So, in summary, He noted there were those sheep that were HIS own. And other sheep of HIS, and those sheep that were NOT of HIS sheep.

All of this is about sheep. He noted that some sheep were His and some weren't of His. Very clear and simple.

And…He died for THE sheep. Not HIS sheep, as Calvinism will erroneously claim.

That didn't address my point.