Logical Problems with Calvinism

[FreeGrace2]

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.

I explained the phrase "in the flesh". Please at least read it before responding.

 

[Hammster]

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.

I'm looking for the verse that says he wasn't regenerate. Where is it?

 

[Hammster]

I explained the phrase "in the flesh". Please at least read it before responding.

That doesn't deal with the verse that says we cannot please God in the flesh. I'm still waiting for you to deal with that. Your post was just a distraction.

 

[klutedavid]

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

Hello Hammster.

Paul uses that same word 'foreknew' in both verses.

Romans 8
29 For those whom He foreknew

Romans 11
2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew

In each verse Paul is referring to the Israelites.

Paul is not saying any individual was previously known, Paul uses the word
'those', this is not the first person singular, i.e., you.

Paul is saying that the Jews (those) he previously knew have 'also' been
predestined in Christ.

 

[Hammster]

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."

Children of God don't have hearts of stone. I never said children of God don't sin.

 

[Hammster]

Hello Hammster.

Paul uses that same word 'foreknew' in both verses.

Romans 8
29 For those whom He foreknew

Romans 11
2 God has not rejected His people whom He foreknew

In each verse Paul is referring to the Israelites.

Paul is not saying any individual was previously known, Paul uses the word
'those', this is not the first person singular, i.e., you.

Paul is saying that the Jews (those) he previously knew have 'also' been
predestined in Christ.

There's nothing in chapter 8 that even implies Jews exclusively. Just because he uses it later, doesn't make it so.

Look at it this way. If you were the first hearer of the letter, when he got to the point in chapter 8, what would lead you to believe he was talking about Jews exclusively?

 

[klutedavid]

There's nothing in chapter 8 that even implies Jews exclusively. Just because he uses it later, doesn't make it so.

Look at it this way. If you were the first hearer of the letter, when he got to the point in chapter 8, what would lead you to believe he was talking about Jews exclusively?

Hello Hamster.

Chapters 9, 10, 11.

Paul has been talking about the Jewish paradox since chapter two.

 

[Hammster]

Hello Hamster.

Chapters 9, 10, 11.

Paul has been talking about the Jewish paradox since chapter two.

One, that doesn't answer my question. Two, we are talking about chapter 8. Three, if this was the Jews exclusively in chapter 8 he wouldn't have made a point in chapter 9 that he was shifting his focus to the Jews.

Paul does talk about the Jews in chapter 2, but in three he shifts his focus back to the entire church in Rome.

 

[klutedavid]

One, that doesn't answer my question. Two, we are talking about chapter 8. Three, if this was the Jews exclusively in chapter 8 he wouldn't have made a point in chapter 9 that he was shifting his focus to the Jews.

Paul does talk about the Jews in chapter 2, but in three he shifts his focus back to the entire church in Rome.

Hello Hammster.

You agree that Paul is directly addressing the Jews in Rome in chapter 2.

Here is the first line in the next chapter 3.

3 Then what advantage has the Jew?

Paul is still discussing the Jews in chapters two and three.

 

[Hammster]

I said in chapter three, not at the beginning of three.

 

[klutedavid]

I said in chapter three, not at the beginning of three.

This is the introduction to chapter 3.

3 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles
of God.

So what is Paul going to talk about in this chapter 3?

 

[Hammster]

This is the introduction to chapter 3.

3 Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles
of God.

So what is Paul going to talk about in this chapter 3?

Do you realize there were no chapter headings in the original?

 

[klutedavid]

Do you realize there were no chapter headings in the original?

Hello Hammster.

Therefore, Paul is still discussing the Jews of course.

 

[Received]

“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'm sorry for whatever interactions you had earlier in your life that precipitated such an authoritarian personality. Seriously.

ETA: the above isn't true if you're still in your early 20s or younger. BTW: the whole problem with claiming that the opposite party is "illogical" is you assume the response you've put down is true before the person can respond to it and therefore open the possibility that it isn't. You know, humility. Surely Calvinism believes in that?

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.

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.

You are responsible (the language of the OP: blameworthy) for something only through your ability to not do the thing you're doing; otherwise you're necessarily responsible for things you have no control over, which is like blaming a rock for falling. Do you blame rocks for falling? Secondly, do you think there is some ground between faith and sin, such that a person can act while doing neither? Because I'm sure you don't argue that, taking Romans 14:23 seriously, a sinner without grace can achieve faith on his own by not sinning.

 

[Hammster]

Hello Hammster.

Therefore, Paul is still discussing the Jews of course.

Therefore, no. Not all the way through the rest of the book.

 

[EmSw]

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...

Yes sir, you are credible.

 

[Marvin Knox]

I'm sorry for whatever interactions you had earlier in your life that precipitated such an authoritarian personality. Seriously.

Telling you that your post was illogical isn’t authoritarian in any way. I’m sorry if you have trouble with being corrected.

I went through your OP point by point even though my original post said it all very simply. You are the one who insisted that I address it point by point to show you what I was saying. This in spite of the fact that several others had no problem seeing that my critique was correct in all points.

Again – you could have just let it alone or perhaps acknowledged your mistakes in a quick post. Then we could have discussed any points of Calvinism on their own merit without the illogical path that you took in the OP.

You seem not to be able to simply let it go though. That’s on you at this point. Seriously.

I'm sorry for whatever interactions you had earlier in your life that precipitated such an authoritarian personality. Seriously.

ETA: the above isn't true if you're still in your early 20s or younger.

I’m 70. I have been teaching and discussing theology for more than 50 years. Logic was a minor for me in college. Your post was simply illogical and I called you on it. Apparently your attitude will not let you acknowledge your mistakes.

You are the one who chose logic as the subject of your OP - not me. Your entire OP was a presentation of your supposed logic and a statement about how that logic proved that Calvinism was illogical. Your presentation was not logical nor did it prove Calvinism illogical.

Others either didn't notice your mistakes or chose not to say anything. I called you on it. You can't handle it. It's as simple as that.

BTW: the whole problem with claiming that the opposite party is "illogical" is you assume the response you've put down is true before the person can respond to it and therefore open the possibility that it isn't. You know, humility.

If your post was illogical and it is obvious there is no reason not to say it outright. It is obvious to anyone reading along here that it was. Humility has nothing to do with a simple statement of fact concerning the illogical OP that you wrote.

I Surely Calvinism believes in that?

I couldn’t speak for Calvinists as to that point since I’m not myself a Calvinist. My post was not meant to defend Calvinism. Your post would have appeared illogical to me even if I was of exactly the same “denomination” as you are –whatever that may be.

You are responsible (the language of the OP: blameworthy) for something only through your ability to not do the thing you're doing; otherwise you're necessarily responsible for things you have no control over, which is like blaming a rock for falling. Do you blame rocks for falling? Secondly, do you think there is some ground between faith and sin, such that a person can act while doing neither? Because I'm sure you don't argue that, taking Romans 14:23 seriously, a sinner without grace can achieve faith on his own by not sinning.

Read my critique again and you will see where you went wrong in your OP.

The inability to believe and be saved through the gospel isn’t related in any way to the fact that you are a sinner and responsible for your sins. It’s as simple as that. Linking the two factors is where you went wrong and you will not admit it.

However – even if we were talking about people being held responsible for not believing the gospel while they were not able to ----- my point about that was well laid out for you. Did you even read my post or did you just react viscerally?

Men are under judgment for their sinfulness even in this life. The Book of Romans makes it clear that God’s abandoning sinful men is part of the judgment they receive on earth. God does not owe anyone a special act of grace to enable them to understand what they cannot. They are under such judgment rightly even now.

Here is my comment from before which you apperently skipped over.

*** 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.

Your entire point would be wrong because of this even if the rest of your point had been logical in it's presentation.

God owes man nothing. He doesn't owe sinners any special grace to help them understand. They stand justly condemned for all of their sins (even the sin of disbelief since that condition is itself a righteous judgment of God against them).

 

[Received]

Telling you that your post was illogical isn’t authoritarian in any way. I’m sorry if you have trouble with being corrected.

Ibid authoritarianism. If you think it's just a manner of content (with authoritarianism), you're missing the point completely.

I went through your OP point by point even though my original post said it all very simply. You are the one who insisted that I address it point by point to show you what I was saying. This in spite of the fact that several others had no problem seeing that my critique was correct in all points.

Ibid point on humility.

Again – you could have just let it alone or perhaps acknowledged your mistakes in a quick post. Then we could have discussed any points of Calvinism on their own merit without the illogical path that you took in the OP.

Ibid authoritarianism.

You seem not to be able to simply let it go though. That’s on you at this point. Seriously.

Ibid authoritarianism. And a good amount of projection.

Where is the substance of your argument so far? All I'm seeing is ad hominems.

I’m 70. I have been teaching and discussing theology for more than 50 years. Logic was a minor for me in college. Your post was simply illogical and I called you on it. Apparently your attitude will not let you acknowledge your mistakes.

Ibid. You apparently haven't been trained in begging the question, which is implicit each time you claim someone else is wrong (given that that's the thing to be proven).

If your post was illogical and it is obvious there is no reason not to say it outright. It is obvious to anyone reading along here that it was. Humility has nothing to do with a simple statement of fact concerning the illogical OP that you wrote.

Humility has everything to do with shaving off superfluity. And if there's no point in pointing out illogicality by naming it as such, why did you do it? You're providing a lesson for yourself in the same paragraph which you're oblivious to.

Remember, I'm responding to the superfluous (from your own statement: "there is no reason to say it outright") statements about being wrong, etc.

Read my critique again and you will see where you went wrong in your OP.

You're arguing in a circle. I make a claim A --> you respond with B --> I respond with C --> you respond by appealing to B, without substantiating how I'm not getting B.

The inability to believe and be saved through the gospel isn’t related in any way to the fact that you are a sinner and responsible for your sins. It’s as simple as that. Linking the two factors is where you went wrong and you will not admit it.

However – even if we were talking about people being held responsible for not believing the gospel while they were not able to ----- my point about that was well laid out for you. Did you even read my post or did you just react viscerally?

Men are under judgment for their sinfulness even in this life. The Book of Romans makes it clear that God’s abandoning sinful men is part of the judgment they receive on earth. God does not owe anyone a special act of grace to enable them to understand what they cannot. They are under such judgment rightly even now.

Here is my comment from before which you apperently skipped over.



You entire point would be wrong because of this even if the rest of your point had been logical in it's presentation.

God owes man nothing. He doesn't owe sinners any special grace to help them understand. They stand justly condemned for all of their sins (even the sin of disbelief since that condition is itself a righteous judgment of God against them).

I'm positive you're the one reacting viscerally. I want you to be able to relate to me in a way you'd like others to relate to you if you had a position that another person thought was illogical (i.e., by as you say not naming the position as illogical but letting the other person reveal this through his reasoning). At the same time, I really don't mind if you continue responding superfluously, because I'm getting a lot out of noting how your psyche functions. Seriously. You know, I'm a shrink, so this is edifying for me.

Now: 1) Do you believe that human beings can't help but sin given their condition? If so, what do you posit are the options: sin and faith, or something else and if so what (i.e., some middle ground where a person can act neither in faith nor sin)?

ETA: your point on abandonment presupposes a will that makes abandonment possible. Again, imagine if a rock were a metaphor for abandonment; just like the rock falling, the abandonment without the freedom to do so would indicate that the rock isn't responsible for this abandonment because it isn't capable of choosing abandonment and is rather enslaved to a mode of acting that involves abandonment as an involuntary effect. Likewise with blaming people for things they can't help doing, such as sinning if the only way out of sin is through irresistible grace offered solely by God without man's voluntary entering into this grace and salvation. The scripture speaks very clearly about the slavery of sin, being dead to sin, etc., and so fits with this philosophical point.

In sum: you can't blame someone for doing something they can't help doing; people can't help but sin (given that the solution is offered through irresistible grace that only God can give and man can't choose); therefore, you can't blame people for sinning according to Calvinist (primarily through irresistible grace and total depravity) reasoning.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Ibid authoritarianism. If you think it's just a manner of content (with authoritarianism), you're missing the point completely.

Ibid point on humility.

Ibid authoritarianism.

Ibid authoritarianism. And a good amount of projection.

Where is the substance of your argument so far? All I'm seeing is ad hominems.

Ibid. You apparently haven't been trained in begging the question, which is implicit each time you claim someone else is wrong (given that that's the thing to be proven).

Humility has everything to do with shaving off superfluity. And if there's no point in pointing out illogicality by naming it as such, why did you do it? You're providing a lesson for yourself in the same paragraph which you're oblivious to.

Remember, I'm responding to the superfluous (from your own statement: "there is no reason to say it outright") statements about being wrong, etc.

You're arguing in a circle. I make a claim A --> you respond with B --> I respond with C --> you respond by appealing to B, without substantiating how I'm not getting B.

I'm positive you're the one reacting viscerally. I want you to be able to relate to me in a way you'd like others to relate to you if you had a position that another person thought was illogical (i.e., by as you say not naming the position as illogical but letting the other person reveal this through his reasoning). At the same time, I really don't mind if you continue responding superfluously, because I'm getting a lot out of noting how your psyche functions. Seriously. You know, I'm a shrink, so this is edifying for me.

Now: 1) Do you believe that human beings can't help but sin given their condition? If so, what do you posit are the options: sin and faith, or something else and if so what (i.e., some middle ground where a person can act neither in faith nor sin)?

You are the one who chose logic as the subject of your OP - not me. Your entire OP was a presentation of your supposed logic and a statement about how that logic proved that Calvinism was illogical. Your presentation was not logical nor did it prove Calvinism illogical.

Others either didn't notice your mistakes or chose not to say anything. I called you on it. You can't handle it. It's as simple as that.

 

[Received]

You are the one who chose logic as the subject of your OP - not me. Your entire OP was a presentation of your supposed logic and a statement about how that logic proved that Calvinism was illogical. Your presentation was not logical nor did it prove Calvinism illogical.

Others either didn't notice your mistakes or chose not to say anything. I called you on it. You can't handle it. It's as simple as that.

Ibid authoritarianism.