Logical Problems with Calvinism

[St_Worm2]

Hello St Worm.

We are only ever chosen in Christ.

Hi KD, please elaborate a bit. Thanks!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

--David
p.s. - I love your avatar

 

[St_Worm2]

Also, people like to quote John Calvin. However, Calvin had Michael Servetus burned alive for a disagreement over their beliefs.

Michael's last words were, “O God, save my soul; O Jesus of the eternal God, have mercy on me.”


....

Wow, the ad hominem against Calvin certainly came out of the blue You're right though, I do like to study and quote Calvin as he is an excellent commentator (the best ever, in fact, according to some Dutch fellow named Jacobus Arminius ), but I don't remember quoting Calvin here. Marvin is correct, you should get your history straight where Calvin and Servetus are concerned (the anti-Reformed websites tend to shy away from the actual truth about that matter in particular).

Did someone else quote something of Calvin's that you disagree with? If so, please point it out so I can read it.

Thanks

Just in case you're interested, here's part of what Arminius has to say about Calvin and his commentaries:

"The rumour about my advising the students to read the works of the Jesuits and of Coornhert I can call by no other name than a lie, for never to any one, either by request or spontaneously, have I uttered a word on that subject. So far from this, after the reading of Scripture which I strenuously inculcate, and more than any other as the whole Academy, yea the conscience of my colleagues will testify, I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read, whom I extol in higher terms than Helmichius himself as he owned to me ever did. For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures, Calvin is incomparable, and that his Commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the Bibliotheca of the Fathers, so much so that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy interpretation, in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, yea above all" ~Arminius, Jacobus ​

 

[Hammster]

Actually, on the contrary,, Scripture testifies of man first taking action whereby God then dwells within them.

"Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him." (John 14:23).

Paul obeyed the vision from Jesus before the Holy Ghost had filled him.

In Acts 8, some had yet to receive the Spirit when they believed or accepted the gospel.

Granted, I believe God regenerates a person when they believe and Christ then comes to live within them. The believer then has to continue to abide in Christ and His righteous good ways.

But the point is that God does not have to fill an individual or regenerate him in order for them to have faith.

...

What cane first, redemption or law?

 

[Hammster]

http://www.examiningcalvinism.com/files/Gospels/John6_44.html


...

I don't read links. Otherwise I'd just post a bunch. Please be courteous enough to reply.

 

[Hammster]

Assuming that we take things with the only biblical evidence we can that there is no middle ground between faith and sin and therefore people who aren't saved by God's irresistible grace can't help but sin, yes. Getting angry at something that happens necessarily isn't reasonable emotion.

I see where the issue is now. So let me try this.

I would hope that you and I can agree that man is sinful and is deserving of God's wrath. God is not obligated to show grace to anyone, for that would nullify grace. So if God chooses to show grace to just one person, He is not being unfair. Everyone who sins still gets what he deserves. The only one treated unfairly (unjustly) is the Son who bore sins that aren't His. So whether it's one, a million or a billion, it doesn't change anything. Sinners still get what they deserve.

"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."

"You" implies responsibility; responsibility implies freedom; freedom means they have the choice not to do this, either directly in the moment with their choices or by being responsible for their characters. If God hasn't predestined people to be saved, it is his will that people aren't saved; you can't be angry at what follows your will (anger is precisely the emotion that results form one's desires and intentions being thwarted), here to not be saved.

So who can be saved? With man this is impossible. But with God, all things are possible.

 

[Hammster]

Paul and Silas never told the jailer to wait for regeneration so as to be saved. They simply said believe on Jesus and he would be saved. It would seem that if what you say is true, then we would clearly see at least one case of this happening. But we don't. Which means you are making it up or adding this type of belief to the Scriptures. Nowhere does the Bible say we are regenerated first before we have faith. Granted, regeneration follows faith. For one cannot enter the Kingdom of God without being born again. So I see it as a one time event. Having faith in Jesus for real in desire for Him to be your Savior also results in regeneration immediately after.


...

Where does it say that the jailer was regenerated?

 

[Received]

I see where the issue is now. So let me try this.

I would hope that you and I can agree that man is sinful and is deserving of God's wrath. God is not obligated to show grace to anyone, for that would nullify grace. So if God chooses to show grace to just one person, He is not being unfair. Everyone who sins still gets what he deserves. The only one treated unfairly (unjustly) is the Son who bore sins that aren't His. So whether it's one, a million or a billion, it doesn't change anything. Sinners still get what they deserve.


So who can be saved? With man this is impossible. But with God, all things are possible.

It isn't possible for God to be illogical by not predestining people to be saved and then blaming Pharisees for not saving them when it's solely up to his power to save. Being illogical isn't a qualification of omnipotence. I also just see no reconciliation between things like being angry and someone being unable to do otherwise with the target behavior in question.

 

[Hammster]

It isn't possible for God to be illogical by not predestining people to be saved and then blaming Pharisees for not saving them when it's solely up to his power to save. Being illogical isn't a qualification of omnipotence. I also just see no reconciliation between things like being angry and someone being unable to do otherwise with the target behavior in question.

He's not blaming the Pharisees for not saving them. The Pharisees have no power to save them.

 

[Received]

He's not blaming the Pharisees for not saving them. The Pharisees have no power to save them.

Note the "you" used multiple times, again. Someone who says "you do this" (referring to shutting the Kingdom to people) with anger by logical exclusion can't be the person who says "I do this" (shutting the Kingdom). It's you or I, and to claim the "you" is really a manipulation by the "I" (i.e., God using Pharisees to shut the Kingdom) simply wouldn't fit with anger in this passage. You don't get angry at the puppets whose strings you've pulled.

 

[Hammster]

Note the "you" used multiple times, again. Someone who says "you do this" (referring to shutting the Kingdom to people) with anger by logical exclusion can't be the person who says "I do this" (shutting the Kingdom). It's you or I, and to claim the "you" is really a manipulation by the "I" (i.e., God using Pharisees to shut the Kingdom) simply wouldn't fit with anger in this passage. You don't get angry at the puppets whose strings you've pulled.

Let's say you are correct. Do you honestly believe you can keep someone out of the kingdom? And on the flip side, can you put someone in the kingdom?

 

[klutedavid]

Well, the website address you posited above is not the correct answer. This is however

"As many as had been APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE believed"
​

Why did you feel you needed to turn to an anti-Calvinist website to answer that simple question Though I didn't disagree with everything it said, the "meat" of their answer amounted to little more than, "we can't really believe that's what St. Luke actually meant, can we?"

They go on to say: "Why not assume the more mundane statement that these Gentiles were really eager in their hearts to have a share in eternal life, in contrast to the Jews who chafed at the good news?"

That the Gentiles were "eager" is clear, but my question (in answer to their question) would be this, if the "mundane" understanding is all that St. Luke intended here, why did he write what he did, the way he did? Why would he choose to write something that forces his readers to "bypass" or "overlook" part of what he said to be able to get at his intended meaning

Anything is possible, I suppose, and I would discard it out-of-hand if it was the only place in the Bible that taught such things, but it's not (i.e. Ephesians 1:4-6).

One of my purposes in trying to get you to answer my fill in the blank question was to hopefully move us back towards Hammster's more important and so far unanswered question/point from the previous thread page .. and I see you already went there .. so, terrific

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

--David

Hello StWorm.

Could also be true that the apostles were convinced that everything was God's
will, which I think the Jews believed.

 

[klutedavid]

Hi KD, please elaborate a bit. Thanks!!

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

--David
p.s. - I love your avatar

Hello StWorm.

Christ first, in all theology would be a good start.

All things belong to the Christ, both the saved and unsaved.

We are His to do with as He wishes, He pulls all the strings.

So was anyone elected from all eternity?

Only in Christ was anyone ever elect, for Christ is the One that
was predestined from all eternity, to reconcile us to Him.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

People will say almost anything to undermine in any way they can the doctrines of grace as taught by Calvinists.

John Calvin was a man with flaws just like any man - even men of God.

But we should judge so called Calvinism on the scriptural basis or lack thereof concerning it's various doctrines.

Here is a link to a small article about Calvin's role in the matter of the death of the heretic Michael Servetus.

http://www.reformed-theology.org/html/issue02/c_vs_s.htm

No doubt you have a rosey colored version of history of what you think happened. Whether your version of events in history actually played out of not, there are other documents showing that Calvin was directly involved in his execution. This is not a Christian trait. To have another put to death is evil and wrong for a New Testament saint. That is not an imperfection. It is a showing of their true colors of whether they are of God or not. For we are to pray and to do good even upon our enemies. But believe what you will and associate with a man who has a very shady past.


...

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Hello Jason.

You may be to busy to reply properly.

Yes, I was busy. But you can explain what you meant.


...

 

[Hammster]

No doubt you have a rosey colored version of history of what you think happened. Whether your version of events in history actually played out of not, there are other documents showing that Calvin was directly involved in his execution. This is not a Christian trait. To have another put to death is evil and wrong for a New Testament saint. That is not an imperfection. It is a showing of their true colors of whether they are of God or not. For we are to pray and to do good even upon our enemies. But believe what you will and associate with a man who has a very shady past.


...

 

[FreeGrace2]

,
I didn't say that, but a stronger case can be made for it from Scripture than your theory.

See:
– Ps 65:4

– Prov 16:4

– Mt 24:31

– Luke 18:7

– Acts 15:17,18

– Romans 8:28-30

– Rom 8:33

– Romans 9:11

– Romans 9:15,16

– Romans 11:2

– Romans 11:5-7

- 1 Cor 2:7

– Ephesians 1:5,11

– 1 Thess 1:4

– 2 Thess 2:13

– Titus 1:1

– 1 Peter 1:2

– Rev 13:8

How about picking just one of these verses and provide the exegesis that actually that regeneration occurs before one believes. I certainly know that 2 Thess 2:13, Rom 9:11, Eph 1:5,11, Titus 1:1, 1 Pet 1:2 don't say that.

These verses do mention election. But I don't see anything about regeneration occurring before one believes.

Please advise. Using exegesis.

Thanks.

 

[Hammster]

 

[FreeGrace2]

Okay, your statement makes no sense. I can say that I believe the gospel. To say that I believe that I believe the gospel makes no sense.

OK, you're still quite confused. Believing is a verb, an action. Faith is a noun, a concept. The action of believing in a concept is the issue. Which you don't seem to believe.

What you believe in is your faith, the body of knowledge that is found in the Bible.

Why does it make no sense to say that you believe in your faith? If that isn't true, then WHAT in the world do you believe in?

Or, I'll say it this way: whatever you believe in IS your faith.

But, I rather suspect you're back at your games. just wanting to spar rather actually have a substantive discussion.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well, the website address you posited above is not the correct answer. This is however

"As many as had been APPOINTED TO ETERNAL LIFE believed"
​

Why did you feel you needed to turn to an anti-Calvinist website to answer that simple question Though I didn't disagree with everything it said, the "meat" of their answer amounted to little more than, "we can't really believe that's what St. Luke actually meant, can we?"

They go on to say: "Why not assume the more mundane statement that these Gentiles were really eager in their hearts to have a share in eternal life, in contrast to the Jews who chafed at the good news?"

That the Gentiles were "eager" is clear, but my question (in answer to their question) would be this, if the "mundane" understanding is all that St. Luke intended here, why did he write what he did, the way he did? Why would he choose to write something that forces his readers to "bypass" or "overlook" part of what he said to be able to get at his intended meaning

Anything is possible, I suppose, and I would discard it out-of-hand if it was the only place in the Bible that taught such things, but it's not (i.e. Ephesians 1:4-6).

One of my purposes in trying to get you to answer my fill in the blank question was to hopefully move us back towards Hammster's more important and so far unanswered question/point from the previous thread page .. and I see you already went there .. so, terrific

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

--David

I turned to the website because my time is limited. I turned to the website because the KJV does not always render words as we would understand them today. I turned to the website because Calvin killed a man (Which is not a Christian trait). I turned to the website because there is no indication whatsoever of man either (a) Being forced against His will to believe or (b) Being made so as to be a believe or (c) Being selected by God without consideration of man's free will choice.

Also, this is not my first rodeo or discussion on Calvinism, either. I have been discussing this topic for many years and still find it to be unbiblical. I have even believed certain points of Calvinism for a time (Because the Scriptures make it appear like it says that), but in recent study the more I search God's Word, the more I find Calvinism unbiblical.

In any event, I looked at the context just now myself in the KJV and it says this:

"And the next sabbath day came almost the whole city together to hear the word of God. But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." (Acts 13:44-48).​

Okay, so who was appointed unto eternal life in this verse according to the context if you were to read all the verses here? The Gentiles. For the topic of conversation was how the Jews rejected their Messiah and they were continuing to do so (even during Paul's preaching here). However, the Gentiles were now appointed unto eternal life. It now fell to them. So all those Gentiles (Who are now appointed unto eternal life) and were present during Paul's preaching at this one place had then believed.

"I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy." (Romans 11:11).

"Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it." (Acts 28:28).​

In fact, there is nothing in the context of being appointed from the beginning of the world here. That would be something you are adding to Scripture.

....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

View attachment 167517 View attachment 167518

Yes, Jesus said we will know false prophets by their fruits. For even if Calvin was framed and did not do any of those horrible things, the fact of the matter is that there is documentation that he did (Which means one should not take the chance in associating with man who did potentially have a hand in murdering another).


...