Logical Problems with Calvinism

[EmSw]

Then your view is nonsense. You are saying faith comes by faith. That makes absolutely zero sense.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Is this speaking of literal hearing? Or, spiritual hearing?

In Matthew 11:15, Jesus said, 'He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.' Of course, all those around Jesus heard Him speak, but that surely did not bring forth faith. The Pharisees are a good example.

One of the definitions of 'hear', according to Strong's, is to understand. It is understanding what is said that brings forth faith. So then faith comes by understanding, and understanding by the word of God.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"The Bible is very clear about the concept of "election". I think the error is in how Calvinism views it. Their claim is that God chooses who to save, and that this choice is NOT conditional, thereby meaning that God ultimately chooses who will believe, by way of regeneration."

Wouldn't the verse we were talking about tend to verify that, then? If not, why not?

I'm not sure what your comment is in reference to. I gave 6 categories of "election", with supporting verses. I'm not sure what verse "we were talking about". Sorry.

 

[Hammster]

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Is this speaking of literal hearing? Or, spiritual hearing?

In Matthew 11:15, Jesus said, 'He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.' Of course, all those around Jesus heard Him speak, but that surely did not bring forth faith. The Pharisees are a good example.

One of the definitions of 'hear', according to Strong's, is to understand. It is understanding what is said that brings forth faith. So then faith comes by understanding, and understanding by the word of God.

That at least makes more sense. The issue is that I've known a lot of people who understand the gospel, but they have no faith.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Before I present I case to you.A question for you.Can a sinner apart God's Grace choose contrary to their sinful nature? And if so,please provide scripture. Because where we differ,is in Free-will,and Bondage of the Will.If sinners are captives to their sins,then why does Christ say,He freed them from their bondage? Why does Paul warn the Galatians about being put back into bondage under the Law?

I'd like to jump in here. The question is based on a sinful nature being the same as instinct. Animals were created by God with instinct in order to survive. The animal "food chain" was desinged by God. They do what they do because of instinct.

Humans, otoh, have a conscience, with which to know right from wrong. And good from evil. And are free to make choices either way.

In fact, that was Paul's point in Rom 7. He struggled between his 2 natures.

Even believers can be "captive to their sins". It all depends upon whether they are being filled/walking by means of the Holy Spirit, or are grieving/quenching the Holy Spirit.

Or, whether their minds are on things above, or on things below.

 

[FreeGrace2]

That at least makes more sense. The issue is that I've known a lot of people who understand the gospel, but they have no faith.

Exactly!! Demonstating that the natural man CAN understand the gospel yet still not believe it. And proving that 1 Cor 2:14 isn't about the gospel that the natural man cannot understand.

 

[Hammster]

Exactly!! Demonstating that the natural man CAN understand the gospel yet still not believe it. And proving that 1 Cor 2:14 isn't about the gospel that the natural man cannot understand.

The understanding spoken of in scripture is more than just reciting facts. There's a spiritual aspect to it that is beyond our control. It's not a natural understanding.

 

[Received]

I don't think it's shifting the goalposts. If He's not working faith in everyone, it's either because of something we are or are not doing, or because of some choice of His. So I think it's a legitimate question

No, I mean you're shifting the argumentative goalposts by continually asking for more and more despite a question being answered. And why couldn't it be a little bit of both? Consider this passage: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in." Note how God is getting angry at Pharisees, meaning he's angry at them for shutting the Kingdom of God to people, which makes absolutely no sense if it's solely up to God to determine who gets in and who doesn't. God would then be getting angry at himself given.

 

[FreeGrace2]

The understanding spoken of in scripture is more than just reciting facts.

I've never argued for "just reciting facts". I can "recite" a lot of foreign words that I have no understanding of. You have just added a smokescreen into the discussion.

The issue is understanding. Not reciting.

There's a spiritual aspect to it that is beyond our control. It's not a natural understanding.

Why not? Please explain your comment.

Besides, you made this comment:
"The issue is that I've known a lot of people who understand the gospel, but they have no faith."

You've just admitted in that comment that the natural man CAN understand the gospel.

The gospel is very simple. God promises eternal life to those who believe in His Son for it.

 

[Hammster]

No, I mean you're shifting the argumentative goalposts by continually asking for more and more despite a question being answered. And why couldn't it be a little bit of both? Consider this passage: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in." Note how God is getting angry at Pharisees, meaning he's angry at them for shutting the Kingdom of God to people, which makes absolutely no sense if it's solely up to God to determine who gets in and who doesn't. God would then be getting angry at himself given.

I don't think it's unreasonable for God to get angry at anyone who opposes Him.

And I don't see any problem with asking questions about one's theology. In another thread I have Mormons asking questions. I think it's better than assuming I understand what someone is saying and trying to rebut it without completely understanding.

 

[St_Worm2]

Exactly!! Demonstrating that the natural man CAN understand the gospel yet still not believe it. And proving that 1 Cor 2:14 isn't about the gospel that the natural man cannot understand.

Hi FG2, concerning what St. Paul says here:

"A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." 1 Cor 2:14​

................it seems to me that he is simply continuing the argument he began in the previous chapter.

"The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor 1:18

"Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ~1 Cor 1:22-24​

What, exactly, do you believe Paul was referring to in v14 that non-believers find foolish and cannot understand from God's perspective OTHER than the Gospel

Thanks!

Merry Christmas,
David

 

[klutedavid]

If a person is forever saved no matter what then everyone could then believe in Jesus and immediately turn back to their old life as if nothing ever happened.

Hello Jason.

Regarding your reply in post #932.

You probably misunderstood what I said.

I said, not initially saved Jason, absolutely saved period.

John 3
36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life.

Then you replied with the following.

If a person is forever saved no matter what then everyone could then believe
in Jesus and immediately turn back to their old life as if nothing ever happened.

Please note Jason, I said a person that believes in Jesus is absolutely saved.

Of course it then follows, if a person moves from belief in Jesus, to a position of unbelief
in Jesus, then that person is not saved.

I am not promoting the idea of OSAS.

There is no concept of as you call it, an initial salvation in the scripture either. If you believe
in Jesus you are fully saved, the Holy Spirit you receive is the legal guarantee, the seal,
the confirmation.

The only way to terminate this contract, is by failing to believe in Jesus Christ.

 

[sdowney717]

No, I mean you're shifting the argumentative goalposts by continually asking for more and more despite a question being answered. And why couldn't it be a little bit of both? Consider this passage: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in." Note how God is getting angry at Pharisees, meaning he's angry at them for shutting the Kingdom of God to people, which makes absolutely no sense if it's solely up to God to determine who gets in and who doesn't. God would then be getting angry at himself given.

Your thinking though of this as having an absolute finality with no further possibility of entering. As if man can thwart ultimately God's purpose.
Only for a time are wicked men allowed by God to run their course filling up the measures of their sins. What they mean for evil God uses for His good purposes. Through many trials and tribulations we enter into the Kingdom of God.

Matthew Henry says this
1. They would not go in themselves; Have any of the rulers, or of the Pharisees, believed on him? John 7:48. No; they were to proud to stoop to his meanness, too formal to be reconciled to his plainness; they did not like a religion which insisted so much on humility, self-denial, contempt of the world, and spiritual worship. Repentance was the door of admission into this kingdom, and nothing could be more disagreeable to the Pharisees, who justified and admired themselves, than to repent, that is, to accuse and abase and abhor themselves; therefore they went not in themselves; but that was not all.

2. They would not suffer them that were entering to go in. It is bad to keep away from Christ ourselves, but it is worse to keep others from him; yet that is commonly the way of hypocrites; they do not love that any should go beyond them in religion, or be better than they. Their not going in themselves was a hindrance to many; for, they having so great an interest in the people, multitudes rejected the gospel only because their leaders did; but, besides that, they opposed both Christ’s entertaining of sinners (Luke 7:39), and sinners’ entertaining of Christ; they perverted his doctrine, confronted his miracles, quarrelled with his disciples, and represented him, and his institutes and economy, to the people in the most disingenuous, disadvantageous manner imaginable; they thundered out their excommunications against those that confessed him, and used all their wit and power to serve their malice against him; and thus they shut up the kingdom of heaven, so that they who would enter into it must suffer violence (Matt. 11:12), and press into it (Luke 16:16), through a crowd of scribes and Pharisees, and all the obstructions and difficulties they could contrive to lay in their way. How well is it for us that our salvation is not entrusted in the hands of any man or company of men in the world! If it were, we should be undone. They that shut out of the church would shut out of heaven if they could; but the malice of men cannot make the promise of God to his chosen of no effect; blessed be God, it cannot.

 

[sdowney717]

Hello Jason.

Regarding your reply in post #932.

You probably misunderstood what I said.

I said, not initially saved Jason, absolutely saved period.

John 3
36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life.

Then you replied with the following.

Please note Jason, I said a person that believes in Jesus is absolutely saved.

Of course it then follows, if a person moves from belief in Jesus, to a position of unbelief
in Jesus, then that person is not saved.

I am not promoting the idea of OSAS.

There is no concept of as you call it, an initial salvation in the scripture either. If you believe
in Jesus you are fully saved, the Holy Spirit you receive is the legal guarantee, the seal,
the confirmation.

The only way to terminate this contract, is by failing to believe in Jesus Christ.

Yes we are sealed in the Holy Spirit when we believe, we are the purchased possession by His shed blood.
The Holy Spirit is the guarantor of our inheritance in the LORD.

Ephesians 1
11 In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will, 12 so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory.
13 In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is the guarantee[d] of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it,[e] to the praise of his glory.

In HIM we have an inheritance and all those also after hearing the word of truth are also included as we also are, they too have an inheritance, having trusted in Christ, in the same way we have also trusted in Christ. God has sealed them unto the DAY of redemption for salvation and glorification when He comes on that DAY to be glorified and marveled at by His saints because they believed in Him.
2 Thessalonians 1
9 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, 10 when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hello Jason.

Regarding your reply in post #932.

You probably misunderstood what I said.

I said, not initially saved Jason, absolutely saved period.

John 3
36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life.

Then you replied with the following.

Please note Jason, I said a person that believes in Jesus is absolutely saved.

Of course it then follows, if a person moves from belief in Jesus, to a position of unbelief
in Jesus, then that person is not saved.

I am not promoting the idea of OSAS.

There is no concept of as you call it, an initial salvation in the scripture either. If you believe
in Jesus you are fully saved, the Holy Spirit you receive is the legal guarantee, the seal,
the confirmation.

The only way to terminate this contract, is by failing to believe in Jesus Christ.

Interesting. It's like you believe in a form of OSAS, but not exactly. I have encountered your belief once before and it is very strange. Usually, I run into folks who are on one wrong extreme end of salvation or the other. Meaning, folks think faith is just believing in Jesus their whole life and they can ignore God's moral laws on some level (i.e. Antinomianism or Lawlessness) and the others think they need to do a giant set of works right now or they are not saved (i.e. Man directed Works Salvationism). Usually this group believes in baptismal salvation or speaking in tongues so as to be saved, or in following the Old Law of Moses, (And not the Commands exclusively in the New Testament), etc..

Okay, so a believer is only saved if they endure in their belief in Jesus Christ. This means they have to endure. Meaning, if they can fall away by unbelief, then they were initially saved at one time if they were to have fallen away. Initially saved is merely saying the point in time when a person receives Christ. In either case, your view is not Biblical because James makes it very clear that faith without works is a dead kind of faith. For even the demons believe and tremble. James is obviously talking about God directed works done thru you (After you submit to Him) and not man directed works.

Again, who was Jesus talking to in Matthew 6:15?
Was Jesus talking to the believer or the unbeliever?
Please keep in mind that it would do no good for an unbeliever to not forgive others so as to be forgiven. For an unbeliever needs to first accept Jesus and the gospel in order to be saved.

Also, Jesus's words have not changed on this matter, either. Paul says in 1 Timothy 6:3-4 that if any man speaks contrary to the words of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Godliness, he is proud and he knows nothing.


...

 

[sdowney717]

Hi FG2, concerning what St. Paul says here:

"A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." 1 Cor 2:14​

................it seems to me that he is simply continuing the argument he began in the previous chapter.

"The word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Cor 1:18

"Jews ask for signs and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ~1 Cor 1:22-24​

What, exactly, do you believe Paul was referring to in v14 that non-believers find foolish and cannot understand from God's perspective OTHER than the Gospel

Thanks!

Merry Christmas,
David

I recently looked into the original greek for 'natural' in that verse since some were claiming these natural men were simply immature believers who could not receive wisdom meant for the mature christian.
A natural man is not a believer since all believers can and do receive the things of the Spirit seeing they are born of God, so then spiritual men.
Natural here means of a sensual or brutish nature displaying the principles of an animal nature driven by passion, or say instinct
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5591&t=NKJV
of or belonging to breath
having the nature and characteristics of the breath
the principal of animal life, which men have in common with the brutes
governed by breath
the sensuous nature with its subjection to appetite and passion

The verse is more of this in understanding.

"The natural brutish man having animalistic appetites of a sensuous nature does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." 1 Cor 2:14

 

[St_Worm2]

I recently looked into the original greek for 'natural' in that verse since some were claiming these natural men were simply immature believers who could not receive wisdom meant for the mature christian.
A natural man is not a believer since all believers can and do receive the things of the Spirit seeing they are born of God, so then spiritual men.
Natural here means of a sensual or brutish nature displaying the principles of an animal nature driven by passion, or say instinct
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5591&t=NKJV
of or belonging to breath
having the nature and characteristics of the breath
the principal of animal life, which men have in common with the brutes
governed by breath
the sensuous nature with its subjection to appetite and passion

The verse is more of this in understanding.

"The natural brutish man having animalistic appetites of a sensuous nature does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised." 1 Cor 2:14

Thanks! And you are, of course, correct "Immature" believers are discussed in the opening verses of chapter 3. St. Paul refers to them as "infants" or "babes" who were "in Christ", but who could only handle the "milk" of the word of God (though they should have been able to handle much more apparently .. 1 Corinthians 3:1-4). The Apostle's additional complaint is that they were also ACTING like "mere" or "natural" men, but believers they were

1 Corinthians 2:14, as you just pointed out, is in reference to "non-believers" only, and is used in a comparative manner to contrast the things that are said to be true of "believers" in the rest of this short passage .. 1 Corinthians 2:12-16 (all of which is similar to St. Paul's previous arguments and comparisons that he made in Chapter 1 (for reference, see my last post above).

Merry Christmas,
David

 

[sdowney717]

Thanks! And you are, of course, correct "Immature" believers are discussed in the opening verses of chapter 3. St. Paul refers to them as "infants" or "babes" who were "in Christ", but who could only handle the "milk" of the word of God (though they should have been able to handle much more apparently .. 1 Corinthians 3:1-5). The Apostle's additional complaint is that they were also ACTING like "mere" or "natural" men, but believers they were. 1 Corinthians 2:14, as you just pointed out, is in reference to non-believers only.

Merry Christmas,
David

Here are some more 'natural men' described as brute beasts
2 Peter 2:12
[ Depravity of False Teachers ] But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand, and will utterly perish in their own corruption,

Jude 1:10
But these speak evil of whatever they do not know; and whatever they know naturally, like brute beasts, in these things they corrupt themselves.

The end of such persons is a total destruction in the lake of fire. How about Peter telling us that
"But these, like natural brute beasts made to be caught and destroyed, speak evil of the things they do not understand,"

Peter compares false teachers to brute beasts 'made to be caught and destroyed', does not sound like they are ever destined for a salvation experience these natural men.
I suppose some can argue they were made or fashioned to be caught in their own corruption and destroyed, which has similar implications of destiny as those of Romans 9
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,

 

[Albion]

I'm not sure what your comment is in reference to. I gave 6 categories of "election", with supporting verses. I'm not sure what verse "we were talking about". Sorry.

Posts 914, 949, 950, and 954 might put the pieces back together for you on that.

 

[klutedavid]

I

Hello Jason.

This is a reply to your post # 974.

You said the following.

Meaning, folks think faith is just believing in Jesus their whole life and they
can ignore God's moral laws on some level (i.e. Antinomianism or Lawlessness).

The first issue I have with your statement is the usage of the phrase 'moral law', what do
you define as moral law? Your reply must be a precise definition of this moral law.
I searched for the mention of the term 'moral law' and the search returned void.

I also need you to specify whether or not, you are legally under this moral law.

Paul announces many times through two letters in particular (Romans and Galatians),
that we are not under the law. So I am unsure what you mean by 'moral law'.

Then you stated this.

others think they need to do a giant set of works right now or they are not saved
(i.e. Man directed Works Salvationism). Usually this group believes in baptismal salvation
or speaking in tongues so as to be saved, or in following the Old Law of Moses, (And not the
Commands exclusively in the New Testament), etc..

You may need to specify the commands that you are referring to. I follow none of the
beliefs that you mentioned above.

Further on you then said.

Okay, so a believer is only saved if they endure in their belief in Jesus Christ.

Correct Jason.

Jason you mentioned the following.

This means they have to endure. Meaning, if they can fall away by unbelief, then
they were initially saved at one time if they were to have fallen away. Initially saved is merely
saying the point in time when a person receives Christ. In either case, your view is not Biblical
because James makes it very clear that faith without works is a dead kind of faith. For even the
demons believe and tremble. James is obviously talking about God directed works done thru you
(After you submit to Him) and not man directed works.

Jason you are committing heresy at this point in your reply, and you do not realize it.

You said 'faith without works is dead' and your quoting from James. If you carefully
check this letter from James, you will find that James is under the whole law.

James 2
10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.

Now may I ask whether or not Jason, whether you are under the whole law or not?

I need a definitive answer on this point Jason.

Again Jason here is another example from James being under the law.

James 2
8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your
neighbor as yourself"

Gentiles were never under this law Jason.

Have you not read Romans and Galatians, that Paul repeats the following doctrine countless
times, Jason.

Galatians 2
16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but
through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we
may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the
works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

Paul is clearly teaching, a justification only through the belief in Jesus Christ.

Paul refers to the belief of Jesus plus the law, as the alternate Gospel in Galatians.

We continue with your post.

Again, who was Jesus talking to in Matthew 6:15?

A Jewish audience, what an easy question that one was Jason.

This reply is far too large now so I will end here.

 

[Marvin Knox]

It appears you are saying that salvation is available freely to every single human being who has ever lived (i.e. Whoever has the mental capacity to receive such a gift, i.e. they are not a baby, young child, or mentally handicapped, etc.). Granted, I believe babies, young children (who are unaware of right and wrong), and the mentally handicapped are automatically saved by Christ's death and resurrection. If this is what you are saying, then I agree. That is what the Scriptures say; And such a teaching leans in favor of salvation is the result of man choosing to believe the gospel of his own free will by the drawing of God and by God's ability or power to grant them repentance. ....

I agree.

I have never taught otherwise in these forums. People tend to assume a great deal about people on the other side when they divide into camps (as they are told not to do.)

A drawing and a repentance that is freely given to all men by God....

“A” drawing and “a” repentance is made available to every man who ever lives. That’s why they are without excuse either for their sins or for their rejection of Christ.

Much of their ability to “repent” comes through the God given conscience that is possessed by everyman.

The “drawing” comes through various means and is illustrated by the preaching of Noah to the antediluvians, Jonah to the people of Nineveh, and of Moses to Pharaoh - just for a few instances.

The most prominent form of call for repentance given to every man is the preaching of the gospel in this age by the Church to the world in general. We are told to reach out with this “outward” call to every person in every nation on earth.

But the scriptures are also very clear that many are called but few are chosen. The “inward” call listed in the so called “golden chain of salvation” in Romans 8 teaches, among other things, election unto salvation. We know that everyone does not receive this inward call because all who receive this “call” are in turn justified. Not everyone who hears the outward call is justified as we all know - hopefully all agree. No universalists here I would hope.

The ones who are chosen to receive the inward call that is clearly taught in scripture are the ones who were loved before the foundation of the world by God – those who were predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son

Lydia’s heart being opened by God to believe is a particularly clear example of the inward call. Peter’s having his confession of Christ revealed to him by the Father Himself is another example.

Christ Himself told us clearly that no one who receives the inward call will fail to eventually respond. "All that the Father gives to me will come to me." That's "irresistible grace" in a nutshell.

Those who are justified by a personal reception of this inward call are in turn glorified of course according to the passage. That is the plan held by God all along for His elect. The eternal security of true believers in never in doubt in God’s mind and He says as much in the scriptures.

For the Hyper Calvinist (Which you appear to disagree with on some points) has to ask themselves that if Noah was a preacher of righteousness, why exactly would he be sent to preach to a world of people who would just reject his message if they did not have the capacity to accept such a message?....

Of course.

The often taught Calvinist doctrine concerning the total inability of men to hear God at all or to repent in any way is ridiculous on the face of it IMO.

Paul and Jesus both taught that natural men had a certain "inability" that was their lot in life. But to hear many Calvinists tell it - natural fallen men have absolutely no ability at all. That's nonsense.

As with the teaching by many about Calvin’s assumed belief in so called limited atonement – I wish people from both sides would study and show themselves to be of a “Berean” attitude rather than just spouting the party line of their particular “Apollos” or “Cephas”.

Unfortunately, this is where I disagree. Granted, I strive not to put stock or trust in man made documents or history because man is not always truthful in what he says, but never the less, there is documentation that John Calvin had help to orchestrate the murder or public execution of Michael Servetus for his beliefs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus

Whether it is true or not (Only God knows), but I would not follow an entire religion based on a man's name that is in great suspect of doing a really great evil. Christians are not even to retaliate back if they are smitten on the cheek. Christians are to pray and do good unto their enemies. So I would encourage you not to follow an entire religion based on just one guy (Especially if that religion is named after him). Simply call yourself a Christian and seek the Scriptures and pray to God.
....

The incident of the death of Michael Servetus is the low point of the life of John Calvin. He regretted after his not having stood more strongly against it.

But really now – Calvin changing his mind about whether or not he should have stood against the practice of the secular authorities of carrying out the persecution of heretics to ingratiate themselves to church governments (and Servetus surely was a heretic) didn’t and couldn’t change the fact that Servetus was dead one bit.

His changing his mind on doctrine when he discovered that he was wrong was however definitely able to bring about change in both his preaching and his writings. Likewise the practice of many of us changing our minds can make a difference either in our preaching or in our writing (including on these forums).

I find a willingness to admit that you may have had something wrong and saying so and correcting your mistake in doctrine where you can to be an admirable trait. Would that some people in this forum displayed more of that trait. There’s no shame in saying that you had it wrong or perhaps only saying that one has been given some food for thought by the “opposition”. In fact, if more would simply say that up front, there could be more of a productive conversation following.

Granted – not many people would change their stance completely because of this. But “nuancing” ones position can be a good thing for both Calvinist and non-Calvinist alike. I’ve done it quite a few times over the years. Instead people so often dig in and the conversation goes to Hell in a hand basket. You may well have noticed that very thing in one of my conversations recently on this thread.