Logical Problems with Calvinism

[EmSw]

Peter teaches we are regenerated - born again only due to his mercy.
1 Peter 1
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead

It does not mention anything about our first being sorrowful. If the sorrow we feel comes from us, then we like Esau cannot obtain repentance though sought with tears.

But a godly sorrow brings forth repentance. The sorrow of the world produces death.
2 Corinthians 7:10
For godly sorrow produces repentance leading to salvation, not to be regretted; but the sorrow of the world produces death.
Godly sorrow means a godly induced sorrow.

Here is worldly sorrow.
Hebrews 12
16 lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright.
17 For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears.

Someone who has worldly sorrow, even seeking a place of repentance, to them it is not granted.
But those who have godly sorrow, to them it has been granted that they repent.

I did say a Godly sorrow.

 

[EmSw]

I never said it wasn't good.

If the Word is good, why wouldn't Ezekiel 18:31 produce that which is good?

 

[Hammster]

T

Perhaps for the same reason a child of God wants to live with a heart of stone.

heres that "perhaps" again. Children of God cannot live with a heart of stone. Nor do they want to.

 

[EmSw]

Theres that "perhaps" again. Children of God cannot live with a heart of stone. Nor do they want to.

Are you telling me Children of God do not want to indulge in sin, the old man, their former behavior? PERHAPS, in some remote cave in central Australia this is true, but in the real world, your logic doesn't hold water. If that were true, we would have sinless saints all over the place.

 

[Hammster]

Are you telling me Children of God do not want to indulge in sin, the old man, their former behavior?

No, I'm not telling you this.

 

[EmSw]

No, I'm not telling you this.

So you didn't mean what you said.

 

[Hammster]

So you didn't mean what you said.

I meant what I said. I didn't mean what you heard.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I see no justification for your points, or whatever justification is present doesn't touch on what my argument presents. Please be more specific with the points you claim are incorrect. BTW, point 2 isn't a conclusion from point 1; point 3 is a conclusion to the first two points.

My points are very straight forward. I'll make them again for all to see here without having to go back to my original post.

BTW, you are wrong. Point 2 IS a conclusion drawn from point 1 as all can see here from your "IF" and "THEN" that I highlighted here for us. You are right though in pointing out that point 3 is a conclusion to the first two points. It is for that very reason that it is logically incorrect.

You said, "

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."

I said, "
The conclusions you draw point by point are illogical.

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

As a result point number 3 arrives at 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.

Your 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."

Everything I said is very straight forward and absolutely logically correct for anyone to see. The entire premise of your thread is incorrect as it is based on faulty logic.

I'll also say again here what I have said about this thread in the past in a post to FreeGrace2.

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.

 

[EmSw]

I meant what I said. I didn't mean what you heard.

I sure wish you would say what you mean.

 

[nobdysfool]

I sure wish you would say what you mean.

We all sure wish you would quit twisting what others say, as well.

 

[Received]

My points are very straight forward. I'll make them again for all to see here without having to go back to my original post.

BTW, you are wrong. Point 2 IS a conclusion drawn from point 1 as all can see here from your "IF" and "THEN" that I highlighted here for us. You are right though in pointing out that point 3 is a conclusion to the first two points. It is for that very reason that it is logically incorrect.

You said, "

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."

I said, "
The conclusions you draw point by point are illogical.

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

As a result point number 3 arrives at 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.

Your 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."

Everything I said is very straight forward and absolutely logically correct for anyone to see. The entire premise of your thread is incorrect as it is based on faulty logic.

I'll also say again here what I have said about this thread in the past in a post to FreeGrace2.

Dude, you are just repeating yourself, like a person who repeats the exact same phrase at a louder volume.

And no, an if/then qualification doesn't make a conclusion in the same premise. If/then must be followed by another premise to reach a conclusion in the third, e.g., (1) If X, then Y; (2) X; (3) Therefore Y. My argument contains an implicit point between 2 and 3 that wasn't needed to articulate.

Explain your points, please. Saying "you're wrong" just indicates an inferiority complex or just bad manners.

 

[Hammster]

I sure wish you would say what you mean.

I did. I sure wish you wouldn't try to read something into it that's not there.

 

[klutedavid]

Hello those that follow Calvin.

A very difficult verse follows.

Romans 8
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed
to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

Two questions for anyone that may find this interesting.

Question 1

The first phrase in the verse above, 'For those whom He foreknew'.

Who is the group identified by 'those' in the verse above?
1) Jews?
2) Gentiles?
3) Jew and Gentile?

Question 2

The next phrase, 'whom He foreknew', what is the meaning of 'foreknew'?

 

[AndOne]

Let's take the example of Pharaoh as a "vessel of wrath". This man was evil to begin with, he enslaved the Hebrews, and had them mistreated daily. Then he was given multiple opportunities to repent as the plagues progressed. But he continued to harden his heart, until God hardened his heart. So his destruction was not accidental by any means, but by the same token he could have repented had he decided to do so. That was the whole point of bringing down those plagues progressively. Every sinner has multiple opportunities to repent and believe the Gospel. But when a person rejects Christ again and again, there is no more grace and only wrath.

Can you show me in the text where it says Pharaoh could have repented? Which verse please - because I missed it. Thanks.

 

[AndOne]

Hello those that follow Calvin.

A very difficult verse follows.

Romans 8
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed
to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

Two questions for anyone that may find this interesting.

Question 1

The first phrase in the verse above, 'For those whom He foreknew'.

Who is the group identified by 'those' in the verse above?
1) Jews?
2) Gentiles?
3) Jew and Gentile?

Question 2

The next phrase, 'whom He foreknew', what is the meaning of 'foreknew'?

I don't follow Calvin - that is mistake number 1...

 

[Hammster]

Hello those that follow Calvin.

A very difficult verse follows.

Romans 8
29 For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed
to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren.

Two questions for anyone that may find this interesting.

Question 1

The first phrase in the verse above, 'For those whom He foreknew'.

Who is the group identified by 'those' in the verse above?
1) Jews?
2) Gentiles?
3) Jew and Gentile?

Question 2

The next phrase, 'whom He foreknew', what is the meaning of 'foreknew'?

I don't follow Calvin, but I'll take a stab at it.

“And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:28-30‬ ‭NASB‬‬
http://bible.com/100/rom.8.28-30.nasb

Those He foreknew are those who are called according to His purpose.

And to foreknow is to know beforehand. In this case, God knows those who are His intimately even before we were created. I don't know how. I just know it's true.

 

[EmSw]

We all sure wish you would quit twisting what others say, as well.

Show others where I twisted words, and I will give you credibility.

 

[Hammster]

Show others where I twisted words, and I will give you credibility.

Twisted may be too strong. But you definitely misrepresented what I said.

 

[EmSw]

I did. I sure wish you wouldn't try to read something into it that's not there.

As I told NF, show us where I twisted your words, and I will give you credibility.

 

[EmSw]

Twisted may be too strong. But you definitely misrepresented what I said.

I only represent myself; makes it much easier.


BTW, when did you quit following Calvinism?