Logical Problems with Calvinism

[ToBeLoved]

The second man, the last Adam, did not sin. He was answerable for the choices He would make in His lifetime. Just as we are.

He was rewarded for making the right choices just as we will be.

Could Jesus being fully God have made any other choice?

The entire holiness of the Trinity you are throwing up in the air.

Your entire culpability argument is wonky. Culpability is not even Biblical.

 

[ToBeLoved]

FreeGrace2 said,
"Of course that's true. And you missed my point. The Calvinistic doctrine of election simply and clearly gives those in hell the excuse that they were NOT CHOSEN FOR HEAVEN, as the "elect" were..........And you can't wriggle your way out of it. Even by making true statements that dodge the issue."

Men have no excuse for their sin in this life or in the life to come.

FreeGrac2 said,
"If Calvinism's doctrine of election were correct, then they WOULD HAVE AN EXCUSE: they simply were NOT CHOSEN for heaven. Please stop trying to wriggle out of this"

No need to wiggle at all. A simple "no they would not have an excuse" will suffice.

FreeGrace2 said,
"The truth is that God chooses to save those who believe, per 1 Cor 1:21."

No – God chooses chooses who will believe.

FreeGrace2 said,
"You have dodged the issue of the Calvinist view of election, which DOES give those in hell the excuse that they simply weren't chosen for heaven."

Did I mention that men have not excuse for their sins in this life or in the life to come?

FreeGrace2 said,
"However, I've had this discussion with other Calvinists, and all I've seen is a blindness to their own view. They simply will not see that their view creates an excuse for those in hell; that being they were never chosen for heaven."

Men will be in Hell because of their own sins.


Men will have no excuse for their sins in this life or in the life to come.

Who said what? Is this all someone else's writing or what?

 

[Marvin Knox]

When someone uses the term regeneration they are a Cavinist. That term is not used in the Bible. It is born again or born of spirit.

That's a Cavinist word. Not God's word.

"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit," Titus 3:5

 

[Marvin Knox]

Who said what? Is this all someone else's writing or what?

The quote feature was acting up for me. So I put FreeGrace2's quotes in red to separate them from my reply which are in black.

I'm quite sure that the one to whom it was addressed will be able to figure it all out and respond if he wants to.

 

[HebrewVaquero]

Here is a logical problem with the Calvinist view of a Sovereign God:

".......How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.
(Matt23:37 NASB)

 

[Marvin Knox]

Could Jesus being fully God have made any other choice?

The entire holiness of the Trinity you are throwing up in the air.

Your entire culpability argument is wonky. Culpability is not even Biblical.

The question of the impeccability of Christ is a subject for another thread. Perhaps you could start one yourself since you have the doctrine all figured out.

I have no idea what you mean by "the entire holiness of the Trinity you are throwing up in the air".

You're quite frequently cutting into conversations between two people when you don't understand what they have been talking about.

Your entire post is "wonky" because of it.

"Culpability" is not my argument. It is another person's word and argument as I have taken the time to explain to you in the past when you asked.

 

[Received]

This Calvinism boat seems to float by using non biblical words and substitution. Calvinist think that there beliefs accomplish things, but what?

To be fair, that's a theology thing and not specifically a Calvinism thing. Trinity also isn't found in scripture, for example.

 

[sdowney717]

The Holy Spirit indwells a believer only in the New Covenant. In the OC, the Holy Spirit would dwell among them but not indwell them.

Jesus Promises Another Helper
15 “If you love Me, keep My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.

Infact, here we see His very own disciples, Jesus is telling them, the Holy Spirit will be in you (future). But that has not yet happened.
For the moment 'He dwells with you' but not yet in you.
So consider, if the Holy Spirit is not yet indwelling them, certainly the Holy Spirit would not have indwelt anyone before this time either.
The Spirit was not yet GIVEN to indwell men.

John 7:39
But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given,because Jesus was not yet glorified.

 

[EmSw]

The Holy Spirit indwells a believer only in the New Covenant. In the OC, the Holy Spirit would dwell among them but not indwell them.

Psalm 51:10
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

 

[ToBeLoved]

To be fair, that's a theology thing and not specifically a Calvinism thing. Trinity also isn't found in scripture, for example.

The Trinity is the standard way of describing three persons in one God. That is a standard Nicene Creed understanding, Calvinism is not

 

[sdowney717]

Psalm 51:10
Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.

That is their spirit being renewed, but not being indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

 

[sdowney717]

John 14
Indwelling of the Father and the Son
19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?”

23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

Indwelling is for those only in the New Covenant built on much better promises.

Hebrews 8
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

 

[ToBeLoved]

"He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit," Titus 3:5

Well, regeneration is washing, but the Holy Spirit renews. Seems like you guys are way off base with your reclassification of regeneration as being born again.

 

[ToBeLoved]

John 14
Indwelling of the Father and the Son
19 “A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. 21 He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.”

22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?”

23 Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.

Indwelling is for those only in the New Covenant built on much better promises.

Hebrews 8
6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.

Weren't you part of the 'regeneration' crowd? This does not speak to regeneration as meaning the same as being born again.

Is that what you have in doctrine?

 

[sdowney717]

Weren't you part of the 'regeneration' crowd? This does not speak to regeneration as meaning the same as being born again.

Is that what you have in doctrine?

You say I am confusing, but to me you are confusing. Further explanations won't make any difference.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You say I am confusing, but to me you are confusing. Further explanations won't make any difference.

Although you say regeneration is the same as being born again, clearly it is not.

Let's just agree on that.

Being born again is spoken of many, many times in scripture. Not regeneration. So if Calvinists want to paint a picture by claiming regeneration is the same as being born again, they are not being scriptural. Period.

 

[FreeGrace2]

When someone uses the term regeneration they are a Cavinist. That term is not used in the Bible. It is born again or born of spirit.

That's a Cavinist word. Not God's word.

I'm neither Calvinist nor Arminian and I am quite comfortable with the word. To be "born again" means to be re-generated.

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said,
"Of course that's true. And you missed my point. The Calvinistic doctrine of election simply and clearly gives those in hell the excuse that they were NOT CHOSEN FOR HEAVEN, as the "elect" were..........And you can't wriggle your way out of it. Even by making true statements that dodge the issue."

Men have no excuse for their sin in this life or in the life to come.

FreeGrac2 said,
"If Calvinism's doctrine of election were correct, then they WOULD HAVE AN EXCUSE: they simply were NOT CHOSEN for heaven. Please stop trying to wriggle out of this"

No need to wiggle at all. A simple "no they would not have an excuse" will suffice.

FreeGrace2 said,
"The truth is that God chooses to save those who believe, per 1 Cor 1:21."

No – God chooses chooses who will believe.

FreeGrace2 said,
"You have dodged the issue of the Calvinist view of election, which DOES give those in hell the excuse that they simply weren't chosen for heaven."

Did I mention that men have not excuse for their sins in this life or in the life to come?

FreeGrace2 said,
"However, I've had this discussion with other Calvinists, and all I've seen is a blindness to their own view. They simply will not see that their view creates an excuse for those in hell; that being they were never chosen for heaven."

Men will be in Hell because of their own sins.


Men will have no excuse for their sins in this life or in the life to come.

Then I'll ask you a very straightforward and simple question.

All those going to heaven are also sinners. How come they are going to heaven then?

 

[FreeGrace2]

FreeGrace2 said,
"The truth is that God chooses to save those who believe, per 1 Cor 1:21."

Marvin said,
"No – God chooses chooses who will believe."

This is a very clear demonstration of how Calvinists mis-read Scripture. 1 Cor 1:21 says that God is pleased to save those who believe. Unless one wants to argue that even though God is pleased to save those who believe, that really isn't His choice, will have a very difficult time trying to convince anyone of that silliness.

My statement is backed up by 1 Cor 1:21. Directly.

Where is the Scriptural support for Marvin's claim that "God chooses who will believe"?? He cannot support his claim from Scripture. Because it simply isn't true.

 

[FreeGrace2]

Although you say regeneration is the same as being born again, clearly it is not.

Let's just agree on that.

Since the prefix "re" and the word "again" sure seem to mean the same thing. Kinda like "repeat" means to do something AGAIN.

So, please explain the difference.

Being born again is spoken of many, many times in scripture. Not regeneration. So if Calvinists want to paint a picture by claiming regeneration is the same as being born again, they are not being scriptural. Period.

How are they different, if that is so?