Logical Problems with Calvinism

[AndOne]

I wonder how many people do not know that the Greek word "katartizo" is in a tense form that is the same for both middle and passive voice. If Paul meant the middle voice, then those "fitted to descruction" did it to themselves.

If, otoh, Paul meant the passive voice, then it's clear that God had to do something to them before they were headed to destruction. When used of the disciples working on their nets, the word is translated "mended". iow, they were fixing their nets. When used of leading a straying believer back on track (Gal 6:1) it is translated "restore".

So, whether Paul meant middle or passive voice, either way doesn't fit Calvinistic talking points.

Man you just do or say anything to not appear in the wrong even it means coming to the defense of someone who does not hold to eternal security.

 

[Hammster]

I only represent myself; makes it much easier.


BTW, when did you quit following Calvinism?

Huh?

 

[Hammster]

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

T

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.

Your reply had nothing to do with what I said. In other words, you read something into it that I didn't say.

Now that I'm credible...

 

[Marvin Knox]

“Dude” – Repeating myself was the easiest way for all to see that your objection to my post was unfounded. It was not likely that others would go all the way back to see either your OP or my rebuttal of it.

You are right in saying that repeating myself was only making my point "louder". I was surprised that you posted the first time to me to object to what was an obviously correct analysis of your OP. After seeing how silly your entire thread premise was – I would have thought that you would just slink away in shame.

Now you have triple downed on your mistakes.

OK – here goes for all to see again in still more detail (which should not be necessary).

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.

Thank you for putting them into bullets for us. This is exactly what made the errors you committed so obvious to me.

You are right that “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."

So - here goes.

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.

Point number 1 is correct.

Then in point number 2 you said, “if” it is correct (which it is) “then” the man referred to in point number 1 "cannot help but sin". That is incorrect logic.

As I explained before (twice now) the idea that a person can't “come to salvation by his own power” does not mean that he can’t help but sin. The person sinned all his life. Salvation being offered or not would have no bearing on that fact. If he could come to salvation by his own power or whether he needed something special to help him come to salvation does not change in any way the fact that he was a sinner from before salvation was offered nor that he would sin afterward and be responsible for that sin.

The two things are unrelated as to cause and effect. You say in point number 2 that they are. You are wrong in that.

Had you only referred to the one sin of not believing you may well have been able to make a valid point or two. You did not limit your conclusion in number 2 to that one sin of unbelief however.

*** Realize, however, that one's not being able to come to God for forgiveness would be tied to the fact that he is a sinner and rightfully under judgment even in this life . Part of that judgment in this life is "abandonment" as is shown to us in the first part of the Book of Romans. This would have gone to your broader point even if you had limited the sin in question to not believing and not made the mistakes in logic that you did.

Point number 3 has a “therefore” clause. You have been saying that Calvinism comes to the conclusion that man can’t help but sin because of the truth of number 1 and number 2. You even repeated yourself in your reply to me that 3 was based on the truth of 1 and 2 together.

But 1 and 2 together are incorrect (as has been shown twice now). Therefore number 3 is incorrect.

Point number 4 (like point number 1) could have some merit from a strictly human standpoint. But I wouldn’t even try to speak for God on the matter since His thoughts and ways are much higher than human thoughts and ways.

Number 5 is absolutely true. That is what Calvinism teaches (5 point Calvinism that is).

Point number 6 has another “therefore” clause just like number 3 did. At that point you could have gone on to make some true assumptions. But you tied your conclusion to points 1 thru 3’s being true (which they are not as has been shown). Being able to come to God for forgiveness by your power or needing help has nothing to do with your being held responsible for your sins in your life in general (as has been shown).

Point number 7 is correct in the first part of the sentence. Calvinism does place blame on sinners.

However, point number 7 is incorrect in the second part of the sentence. Calvinism isn’t logically inconsistent (at least not in the way you are trying to paint it ).

You, however, have been "logically inconsistent" from the first (as has been shown twice now).

The only way out of this inconsistency:.............

The only way out of this inconsistency is for you to admit your mistakes. If you do we can go from there to discuss whether Calvinism’s premises are correct or incorrect (as your have been twice show to be).

You obviously thought that you had developed a logical argument to refute Calvinism. But you had not.

There may well be points to be corrected in the Calvinist theology as I have done myself. But your lack of logic in your OP doesn't further that cause at all.

 

[Job8]

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

Something you might want to learn is that there is both explicit and implicit teaching in Scripture. You did not find an explicit text which says that Pharaoh could have repented, but it is implicit throughout the narrative. On the other hand Acts 17:30 explicitly says that God commands all men everywhere to repent, which implies that Pharaoh (being a man) could have repented.

But I will quote Matthew Henry (a Calvinist) to show that Pharaoh could have repented.
Exodus 8:9,10 says: And Moses said unto Pharaoh, Glory over me: when shall I intreat for thee, and for thy servants, and for thy people, to destroy the frogs from thee and thy houses, that they may remain in the river only? And he said, To morrow. And he said, Be it according to thy word: that thou mayest know that there is none like unto the LORD our God.

Here's what Henry says:

v. 9. Have thou this honour over me, tell me against when I shall entreat for thee. This was designed for Pharaoh’s conviction, that, if his eyes were not opened by the plague, they might by the removal of it. So various are the methods God takes to bring men to repentance.

 

[FreeGrace2]

"A" verse...as though that is how theology is imparted in Scripture, by nice, neat little sound-bite single verses. Much theology is understood through the study of verses, passages, and even chapters (all of which are man-made divisions not present in the original), and some theological concepts have no "one verse" that states the point. Only a lazy person would insist on "a" verse that says a theological point, and even then it will be disputed, as we have seen multiple times in these forums.

And there is an element of pride involved, since the person demanding this single verse takes great umbrage at anyone who disagrees with him. That's pride, pure and simple. and such an attitude actually undercuts and negates much of what they think to impose on others here. And yes, impose is the right word, because of the perceived need to shoot down any opposing view, rather than just accept that some will disagree and be OK with that. A mature Believer isn't threatened by opposing viewpoints.

Nice try.

However, making claims that can't be supported by ANY Scripture demonstrates being out of line with Scripture.

Where is the teaching that Christ died ONLY for the elect? What verse, verses, or passage teaches this?

Where is the teaching that man cannot believe until he has been regenerated? What verse, verses, or passage teaches this?

Where is the teaching that God chooses who will believe? What verse, verses, or passage teaches this?

Here's the rub: I have provided "single verses" that refute these Calvinistic claims. Or state the opposite.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Do you need to see the verses that say you can't please God in the flesh?

I've not only seen them, I understand them properly. The phrase "in the flesh" has several contexts.

One of them refers to our physical lives. 2 Cor 10:3 - For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh,

Another one refers specifically to the expression of our sinful nature. Eph 2:3 - Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

We know that unsaved people can and do worship God. The Bible gives examples: Cornelius and Lydia.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Are there verses that say a heart of stone can please God? Just one will suffice.

I'll do better than that. Cornelius wasn't saved until he believed the gospel that Peter preached in his home: Acts 11:14. Yet, Cornelius was a worshiper of God, and God heard his prayers and sent an angel with a message. Prove that he wan't regenerated before Peter came and preached.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Hmmm, try Ezekiel 18:31 -
Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit:

And please don't twist this to make it say what you want.

I see 2 commands: one is to cast away your sins. The other is to make a new heart.

btw, have you cast away ALL your own transgressions? If so, how did you do it? And wouldn't that be the same as sinless perfection?

Second, how do you make a new heart?

Oh, and how do you make a new spirit? And what does that mean?

Since you've quoted this verse, I am interested in my answers so I will understand your mindset. Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Try this, and please don't twist it.

Matthew 7:18
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Can a corrupt tree bring forth anything but corruption? Can a corrupt tree bring forth anything but evil?

OK, I won't twist it. Because I don't twist any of God's Word.

But, I'll ask you a question about the verse. What is the context for that verse?

 

[Hammster]

I've not only seen them, I understand them properly. The phrase "in the flesh" has several contexts.

One of them refers to our physical lives. 2 Cor 10:3 - For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh,

Another one refers specifically to the expression of our sinful nature. Eph 2:3 - Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest.

We know that unsaved people can and do worship God. The Bible gives examples: Cornelius and Lydia.

I asked if you need to see the verses that say you cannot please God in the flesh. You say you know them and offer up examples that say nothing about it. So here you go.

“and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭8:8‬ ‭NASB‬‬
http://bible.com/100/rom.8.8.nasb

That's pretty unambiguous. You, however, not only don't believe it, you've tried to say scripture says it's not true.

 

[Hammster]

I'll do better than that. Cornelius wasn't saved until he believed the gospel that Peter preached in his home: Acts 11:14. Yet, Cornelius was a worshiper of God, and God heard his prayers and sent an angel with a message. Prove that he wan't regenerated before Peter came and preached.

Please show where he had a heart of stone. I'm not seeing those words.

 

[klutedavid]

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

Hello AndOne.

No mistake, just a question for anyone that follows the teaching of Calvin.

 

[FreeGrace2]

T

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

Where does the Bible teach that "Children of God don't want to live with a heart of stone"?? King Saul was a believer, and was told by Samuel that he would join Sam the next day. He sure wasn't faithful or obedient, kinda like those with a heart of stone, huh.

Again, examples that refute your claims.

 

[klutedavid]

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.

Hello Hammster.

In your mind is there a possibility that Paul is referring to the Jews here?

After all God did have a previous relationship with the Jews, i.e., he knew before.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

No, the mistake was to reply to his post. This is what he said:
"Hello those that follow Calvin."

 

[Hammster]

Where does the Bible teach that "Children of God don't want to live with a heart of stone"?? King Saul was a believer, and was told by Samuel that he would join Sam the next day. He sure wasn't faithful or obedient, kinda like those with a heart of stone, huh.

Again, examples that refute your claims.

Well, for starters, children of God don't have hearts of stone. I figured we could agree on that. I guess I'm wrong.

 

[Hammster]

Hello Hammster.

In your mind is there a possibility that Paul is referring to the Jews here?

After all God did have a previous relationship with the Jews, i.e., he knew before.

Jews exclusively? No. There's nothing in the text to indicate that.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Please show where he had a heart of stone. I'm not seeing those words.

We all know he wasn't saved until Peter preached the gospel and he believed. So, before he was saved, prove that he didn't have a heart of stone and had another kind of heart.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Well, for starters, children of God don't have hearts of stone. I figured we could agree on that. I guess I'm wrong.

How does this response relate in any way to what I posted, which is this:
"Where does the Bible teach that "Children of God don't want to live with a heart of stone"?? King Saul was a believer, and was told by Samuel that he would join Sam the next day. He sure wasn't faithful or obedient, kinda like those with a heart of stone, huh.

Again, examples that refute your claims."