Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Received]

BTW, I added a pretty big ETA that you can ignore through even more ad hominemns.

 

[klutedavid]

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

Hello Hammster.

So where does Paul stop addressing the Jews?

 

[Marvin Knox]

BTW, I added a pretty big ETA that you can ignore through even more ad hominemns.

I take it that you want me to address your big ETA - therefore I will. I didn't address it before because it didn't make any sense considering what I said about God abandoning men to sin and unbelief as per The Book of Romans.

(Also I did not respond further because you would not acknowledge where your OP was obviously illogical. There comes a point where it is became obvious that you will not acknowledge your mistaken logic even when it has been pointed out to you several times.)

I have been talking about GOD'S abandonment of sinners to sin and unbelief. I am not talking about sinners abandonment of God.

Romans 1:24-32 would be a good place for you to start in so far as it addresses God abandoning men to further sin as His just wrath against their existing sin.

Also the concept of God taking away what little truth men have from them as a judgment for the fact that they will not believe further truth as it is revealed to them is address directly by the Lord in several places. It, like sowing and reaping materially, is a basic principle of life in the Kingdom of God.

God's refusal to give further light to sinners because they did not respond to the light they had is not to be held against Him --- simply because such "wrath of abandonment" is His altogether just wrath against those who deserve nothing better than wrath.

Grace is, by definition, undeserved.

 

[Received]

I take it that you want me to address your big ETA - therefore I will. I didn't address it before because it didn't make any sense considering what I said about God abandoning men to sin and unbelief as per The Book of Romans.

(Also I did not respond further because you would not acknowledge where your OP was obviously illogical. There comes a point where it is became obvious that you will not acknowledge your mistaken logic even when it has been pointed out to you several times.)

I just don't get why you have to acknowledge something that's totally pointless to the debate, and how to "acknowledge" doesn't beg the question by assuming my argument is illogical without proving definitively that it is given that my response clarifies my original contention you've named as illogical.

I have been talking about GOD'S abandonment of sinners to sin and unbelief. I am not talking about sinners abandonment of God.

Romans 1:24-32 would be a good place for you to start in so far as it addresses God abandoning men to further sin as His just wrath against their existing sin.

On the condition that men abandon God because they're capable of abandoning Him (as opposed to acting out of sinful necessity according to Calvinism, like a rock falling), I have absolutely no problem with this passage. Heck, I have no problem with the idea of God abandoning anyone. What I have a problem with is blaming someone for doing something they can't help but do.

Also the concept of God taking away what little truth men have from them as a judgment for the fact that they will not believe further truth as it is revealed to them is address directly by the Lord in several places. It, like sowing and reaping materially, is a basic principle of life in the Kingdom of God.

God's refusal to give further light to sinners because they did not respond to the light they had is not to be held against Him --- simply because such "wrath of abandonment" is His altogether just wrath against those who deserve nothing better than wrath.

Grace is, by definition, undeserved.

No, grace is by definition the provision of help for what you can't do on your own. The whole bit of merit and desert is all a Reformed creation, and a redundant one at that, given that the very definition of love (of which grace is a major example) is giving something freely and liberally beyond any sense of recompense or reward.

Why do they deserve nothing better than wrath? Again, deserving something implies that they've earned it, and earning implies choice, and choice implies the ability to freely choose one option over another. Choice without this freedom is determinism with a misnomer. You can say they've received wrath, or that God is the sort of deity who likes to be wrathful by nature (not a position I like, you know), but the moment you say "deserve" you've opened up the very problem of blame and responsibility that I'm asking you to respond to:

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)?

 

[Hammster]

Hello Hammster.

So where does Paul stop addressing the Jews?

What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, - Romans 3:9

 

[Hammster]

No, grace is by definition the provision of help for what you can't do on your own

This is your response to Marvin when he said grace is undeserved. Judging by this response, it appears that you think it is deserved. That is not the definition of grace.

 

[Received]

This is your response to Marvin when he said grace is undeserved. Judging by this response, it appears that you think it is deserved. That is not the definition of grace.

It's your hangup (for lack of a better word, forgive me it's very late) with desert that bothers me the most. It's a word you see everywhere, and it is in fact implied everywhere because nothing is deserved, but putting the extra emphasis like that just has to be related to something deeper.

Still, grace is dependence -- what God gives that you can't do on your own. How is a gift that's given deserved? That's not the meaning of a gift. The gift is God's help.

 

[Hammster]

It's your hangup (for lack of a better word, forgive me it's very late) with desert that bothers me the most. It's a word you see everywhere, and it is in fact implied everywhere because nothing is deserved, but putting the extra emphasis like that just has to be related to something deeper.

Still, grace is dependence -- what God gives that you can't do on your own. How is a gift that's given deserved? That's not the meaning of a gift. The gift is God's help.

If you agree that it's undeserved, why did you disagree with Marvin when he said it?

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

Prove that he was, before Peter preached. That's the issue. I know that regeneration and salvation occur together. Can't have one without the other. And I know from Scripture that he wasn't saved until Peter preached, per Acts 11:14.

So the onus is on you to prove from Scripture that he was regenerate before Peter showed up.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"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.

I guess you just didn't want to read my explanation. Very well.

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

OK. What do children of God have for hearts then? And why do they sin if they dont have hearts of stone?

Isn't the Calvinist view that the unregenerate cannot do anything but sin and cannot believe? If that were true, how come believers, who have a changed heart, still sin??

 

[FreeGrace2]

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

Huge deflection!!

 

[Hammster]

Prove that he was, before Peter preached. That's the issue. I know that regeneration and salvation occur together. Can't have one without the other. And I know from Scripture that he wasn't saved until Peter preached, per Acts 11:14.

So the onus is on you to prove from Scripture that he was regenerate before Peter showed up.

You are the one that is using it to prove a point. So why is the burden on me to prove the opposite when you've not even given any evidence for your position? That's akin to me saying leprechauns exist and telling you to prove that they don't.

And regeneration and justification are not the same thing. You can't even show that they happen at the same time.

 

[Hammster]

Huge deflection!!

How so?

 

[Hammster]

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

I guess you just didn't want to read my explanation. Very well.

I read it. Now, please explain how someone can please God in the flesh.

 

[Hammster]

OK. What do children of God have for hearts then? And why do they sin if they dont have hearts of stone?

Isn't the Calvinist view that the unregenerate cannot do anything but sin and cannot believe? If that were true, how come believers, who have a changed heart, still sin??

Really? If you know so much about Calvinism, why this straw man?

Anyway, Paul writes about the struggle between the spirit and flesh. If you'd like an explanation, I'll provide one. But my guess is you are knowledgeable about it and are just arguing for argument's sake.

 

[sdowney717]

Prove that he was, before Peter preached. That's the issue. I know that regeneration and salvation occur together. Can't have one without the other. And I know from Scripture that he wasn't saved until Peter preached, per Acts 11:14.

So the onus is on you to prove from Scripture that he was regenerate before Peter showed up.

The people that God sent Peter to preach and be saved, justified, baptized by Christ in the Holy Spirit, God tells Peter they have been cleansed, meaning regenerated.
Acts 11
8 But I said, ‘Not so, Lord! For nothing common or unclean has at any time entered my mouth.’
9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, ‘What God has cleansed you must not call common.’10 Now this was done three times, and all were drawn up again into heaven.

So not common, they have the new hearts, as the Psalm says.
Psalm 51:10
Create in me a clean heart, O God, And renew a steadfast spirit within me.

When God declared them clean, this is as when Christ tells the disciples,
John 15:3
You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.

And that would be Christ's words to them, not Peters words. Spoken to them by His Spirit.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"Prove that he was, before Peter preached. That's the issue. I know that regeneration and salvation occur together. Can't have one without the other. And I know from Scripture that he wasn't saved until Peter preached, per Acts 11:14."

You are the one that is using it to prove a point. So why is the burden on me to prove the opposite when you've not even given any evidence for your position?

I'm sorry if Biblical evidence doesn't hold sway with you. But Acts 11:14 is clear enough for those who are interested in what the Bible says. Cornelius was told by the angel that he would be saved by the message Peter would speak to him. And he was saved by believing that message.

So, again, the onus is on Calvinism to prove that Cornelius was regenerated before Peter came. And I see that you'd rather deflect from that onus. OK.

That's akin to me saying leprechauns exist and telling you to prove that they don't.

If there is a Bible verse that backs up your claim, you'd be right. So, if Cornelius was regenerated before Peter preached the gospel, where is the evidence?

And regeneration and justification are not the same thing. You can't even show that they happen at the same time.

Never said they were the same thing. I said they occur at the same time. We know that regeneration is based on faith in Christ and justification is based on faith.

Eph 2:5 uses a parenthesis to show that being "made alive" and having "been saved" occur together. iow, being regenerated and being saved do not occur at different time frames.

Actually, the onus is on Calvinism to show from Scripture that one can be regenerated before they believe, if they do not occur at the same time.

I'm unaware of any verse(s) that teach such a thing. So, if true, then there is evidence from Scripture to that effect.

So, where is it?

 

[FreeGrace2]

I read it. Now, please explain how someone can please God in the flesh.

Hebrews 11 is clear: by faith. Apart from faith, there is no pleasing God.

And the first issue of faith is to believe that God exists (Heb 11:6). And Rom 1:20 says that no one has any excuse for not being thankful or glorifying Him.

Now, how would one suppose that God is glorified, if not by recognizing His existence? That's were the issue of faith begins.

There can be no faith in Christ until there is faith that God exists. Believing the evidence from creation that He is Creator God.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"OK. What do children of God have for hearts then? And why do they sin if they dont have hearts of stone?

Isn't the Calvinist view that the unregenerate cannot do anything but sin and cannot believe? If that were true, how come believers, who have a changed heart, still sin??"

Really? If you know so much about Calvinism, why this straw man?

There is no straw man. Just a straight forward question, which I see, you cannot answer, and instead, try to deflect from it. OK.

Anyway, Paul writes about the struggle between the spirit and flesh. If you'd like an explanation, I'll provide one. But my guess is you are knowledgeable about it and are just arguing for argument's sake.

The challenge is obvious. Calvinism claims that those with a heart of stone cannot believe the gospel, until God gives them a heart of flesh.

So, how come those with a changed heart CAN still sin? Why doesn't it go both ways, in Calvinist thinking?

If those with a heart of stone cannot believe, then those with a changed heart should not be able to sin.

But I do see the quandry this question creates for Calvinism. Even though believers have the indwelling Holy Spirit, we are able to sin. There is NO REASON for any unbeliever to be unable to believe.