Logical Problems with Calvinism

[Jack Terrence]

Titus 2:11 - For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men

The Bible says that God's grace has appeared…to all men.

How you could think that this supports FGT's view of grace is totally beyond me.

Grace here is more in line with Strong's definition of grace. He defines grace as "the divine INFLUENCE in the heart and its reflection in the life." Grace TEACHES us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. So, salvation in this context must be that SUBJECTIVE deliverance from sin and not that objective deliverance from sin's penalty.

"For the grace of God that brings deliverance [from the practice of sin] has appeared to all men. Teaching us [how to] deny ungodliness and worldly lusts...."

Not all men are being instructed by grace. Therefore, "all men" means "all nations" of men and not Jews only.

 

[sdowney717]

For believers, those whom He has chosen, God is at work within us, the kingdom of God is within us, Father and Son and Holy Spirit indwell us.
All of this is by His grace. There is grace that allows us to believe, and there is more grace available from God for those who are humble.
Grace is under God's control not ours. God dispenses His grace as He sees fit to do so.
God does show favoring grace one over another, according to His will, some get their rewards in this life and suffer loss in the next. God has made the poor richer in faith.
James 2:5
Listen, my beloved brethren: Has God not chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom which He promised to those who love Him?

 

[GillDouglas]

Yes, quite a few various wide ranging christian groups consider it very bad doctrine.
I have found many who are heavily indoctrinated into a doctrinal position to be very fanatic about that position. I used to have long discussions with a Church of Christ teacher at work and he was extremely sectarian, only his church had the truth type of things.. and other churches deceived and hell bound.

I'm not a fan of those types who would say that anyone who does not believe as they do are not Christians. There has to be a reason why God had the church split into multiple houses (denominations), and I am of the belief is a way in which He can reach more people. As long as an individual believes that Jesus, both God and man, died on the Cross for their sins and faith in Him alone is the only true path to God and the the Bible is the Word of God, then I consider them a Christian. If an individual doesn't subscribe to specific man made doctrine, or they've got some peculiar doctrine of their own I might still disagree and show them why I believe what I do, but I would do no good to judge them as hell bound.

There are some here though that we'd both agree are so far out that we'd be wary of them.

 

[sdowney717]

How you could think that this supports FGT's view of grace is totally beyond me.

Grace here is more in line with Strong's definition of grace. He defines grace as "the divine INFLUENCE in the heart and its reflection in the life." Grace TEACHES us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. So, salvation in this context must be that SUBJECTIVE deliverance from sin and not that objective deliverance from sin's penalty.

"For the grace of God that brings deliverance [from the practice of sin] has appeared to all men. Teaching us [how to] deny ungodliness and worldly lusts...."

I liken that Titus 2 verse to the one in Romans 10

16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our report?”
17 So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

18 But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:

“Their sound has gone out to all the earth,
And their words to the ends of the world.”

Truly the gospel has gone out to all the world, yet only those who believe the report have been regenerated beforehand by God's grace. That is the 'us' that Paul refers to, those who are born of God. The world certainly is not taught anything by God, they can not know spiritual truths.

 

[Jack Terrence]

If He required faith, please prove it from Scripture

Show us how you see that salvation is in view. Jesus healed some without requiring faith. Show us how that proves that one may be saved without faith. How is it that you equate healing from sicknesses with salvation?

 

[sdowney717]

I'm not a fan of those types who would say that anyone who does not believe as they do are not Christians. There has to be a reason why God had the church split into multiple houses (denominations), and I am of the belief is a way in which He can reach more people. As long as an individual believes that Jesus, both God and man, died on the Cross for their sins and faith in Him alone is the only true path to God and the the Bible is the Word of God, then I consider them a Christian. If an individual doesn't subscribe to specific man made doctrine, or they've got some peculiar doctrine of their own I might still disagree and show them why I believe what I do, but I would do no good to judge them as hell bound.

There are some here though that we'd both agree are so far out that we'd be wary of them.

Yes, all sorts of oddball doctrines are out there. The letters to the churches all have rebukes and teachings to correct various church errors, but the apostles did not condemn the entire church, they did single out certain ones to be dealt with, who were false teachers. All the apostles taught us to be on our guard against false teachers, wolves in sheep's clothing. The will scatter the flock, tear up the sheep, condemn believers, lead people away from being a disciple in Christ's image to being one in their own image according to their doctrine (actually demonic doctrine) and can cause much pain in the life of the born of God believer laying on them heavy burdens contrary to the simplicity of Christ.

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.

Acts 20
28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

32 “So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

Clearly when Christ says He gives to them eternal life and they will NEVER PERISH, if anyone says something contrary to Christ, we know that they are deceived and everything they say may be a cunningly devised work of Satan to further his deceptions. We know that He has purchased the individual in the church with His own blood, which means we are His own special possession designated for noble purposes in the house of the LORD.

For example here again salvation is by faith, not works.
2 Tim 3
13 But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

 

[Jack Terrence]

I said this:
God's grace is extended to everyone. Regardless of faith. Did Jesus require any of those He healed to have faith?

So God saves apart from faith?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

A quick google for the heresy of sinless perfectionism as Jason teaches brought this one
http://fundamentalbaptistchristian.blogspot.com/2011/11/heresy-of-sinless-perfection.html
And this one discusses how sinful those who believe they are sinless are, they are an affront, an offense to Christ.
http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/perfectioncult.htm
This verse ought to be enough refutation, except of course it will be 'explained' by them.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

Actually, 1 John 1:8 is dealing with the gnostic believer who thought there was no such thing as sin. I grew up knowing someone who was a Christian Scientist. They believed sin did not exist. This is similar to the OSAS proponent and their belief today. They do not believe sin exists for them because they are forgiven of all sins past, present, and future. Sin does not exist for them on a spiritual level. Their belief is very similar to the gnostic belief. The way the OSAS proponent gets out of this is by saying they sin on a physical level but yet on a spiritual level they have no sin (Because Christ paid it all). But this denies the next verse. 1 John 1:9 follows 1 John 1:8. One is supposed to confess their sin in order to be forgiven of their sin. The OSAS proponent does not believe 1 John 1:9 is in relation to salvation but they think it has to do with merely a break in fellowship (While they are still saved). But the Scriptures say, he that has the Son has life and he that does not have the Son does not have life (1 John 5:12). For you have to realize John was writing to the brethren and warning them about false deceivers (1 John 2:26). 1 John 2:4 and 1 John 1:6 is the context of 1 John 1:8.

This understanding of 1 John 1:8 is evident if one were to read 1 John 2:3-4 (that follows it). For it says,

"And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:3-4).


....

 

[nobdysfool]

Not really. Most everyone here is against the words of Jesus that tell us to "sin no more unless a worse thing come upon you." They are saying he didn't really mean that. Most here are also against the words of Jesus that say, "be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect", too. The Father is perfect because He is holy and sinless. Yet, again, folks here would rather ignore that truth and define the word "perfect" some other way. For most I have talked with here do not believe in Sinless Perfectionism or that they can stop sinning. Some here have even said it was a heresy. But that is what it means to live holy. Living holy means one is not sinning but they are living holy or righteous.

One who does evil cannot claim they are living holy. It defies all logic. Think about it.
Also, folks here have been saying they can die in unrepentant sin and still make it into Heaven, too. Which again, goes against God's goodness or morality.

....

Who has said that? Names, dude. Names and posts. You are compounding the lies by making these baseless accusations. You make the accusations, it's up to you to prove them, or admit that you cannot, and therefore your accusations are false and you are in a heap of trouble with your Maker.

 

[nobdysfool]

The same reason one warns an alcoholic to stop drinking themselves into oblivion. That does not mean alcoholics cannot stop drinking themselves to death. In fact, the Bible tells the believer that they can stop sinning. If nobody could ever stop sinning: Then Jesus would have never said to: "sin no more." to the woman caught in the act of adultery; Nor would Jesus say, "sin no more, unless a worse thing come upon thee" to the man that He healed.

In fact, 1 Peter 4:1 says, they that have suffered in the flesh have ceased (stopped) from sin. Galatians 5:24 says, they that are Christ's have crucified the affections and lusts. David said he hid His Word (i.e. God's Word) in his heart so that he may not sin against the Lord (Psalm 119:11).



Actually, your belief defies all logic, dear sir. Not only do we NOT find anywhere in the Bible where Jesus and the apostles taught a sin and still be saved doctrine, but you will never be able to illustrate your belief by way of a real world example (i.e. parable). I say this because Jesus used real world examples (parables) to illustrate spiritual truth. For even the Canaanite woman had expounded upon one of Christ's sayings with a parable (0r real world example) of her own (And the Lord accepted it).

So far, over the years I have discussed with others who hold to your belief, they have never been able to make a real world example to defend the goodness behind it. Also, many (and not all) who also hold to your belief have been really nasty towards me with their words, too. This lets me know that they are not believing and acting in accordance with God's Word.



Actually, the Bible says he that sins is of the devil (1 John 3:8); And he that does righteousness is born of Him (1 John 2:29).



Do you believe confessing and forsaking sin is a requirement for receiving mercy?
Are you telling me you believe Proverbs 28:13 in what it says plainly at face value?

....

Soundbite theology. The belief that each verse contains a completely formed, theological truth. And then gloss over the contradictions that inevitably arise with yet more soundbites. This kid of theology is 5 miles wide, and a quarter of an inch deep. Even babes in Christ can have deeper theological understanding than one such as this.

Jason, your theology is more full of gaping holes than a block of Swiss cheese.You refuse to be corrected on any point, you just double down on your false theology, which does not stand up in the real world. You sin, every day, but you refuse to admit it. Do you think that when you sin, you have once again become lost? Do you believe in sinless perfection? Do you not see that you have disqualified yourself from sinless perfection by your sinful accusations against those who dare to withstand your false doctrines? You can't even keep your own theological tenets. Why should we listen to you? You're a hypocrite!

 

[Marvin Knox]

Grace NECESSARILY includes the response of the heart under its influence. Therefore, grace CANNOT be defined as something that is unmerited.

I disagree with you that grace necessarily requires a response of the heart. Grace can be present without any kind of heart response.

Sometimes the grace of God does expect and obtain a response from the one receiving it and sometimes not.

In the case of the grace of God which issues in salvation - obviously it does. (Obviously to me at least.)

In the case of other kinds of grace (common grace for example) - not so much.

Having said that - I would like to correct a mistake that I made before.

You were right to say that the word grace does not mean "unmerited favor". Much grace may indeed be unmerited (as with election for instance IMO). But in other cases it may be actually merited - grace in the scriptures that is based on humbleness or good stewardship for example.

But - even though grace MAY be unmerited in many cases - unmerited favor would not be a proper definition of grace just because of that.

In like manner - just because grace MAY be merited in many cases - merited favor would not be a proper definition of grace just because of that.

After some consideration of the matter - I stand corrected. I have often used "unmerited favor" as a universal definition of the word grace. I will be more careful in the future. It is not a good "definition".

I doubt that the widespread use of that definition for all grace as used in scripture is to be necessarily linked with Free Grace theology as you assert.

But I do not doubt that the widespread knowledge and use of the Ephesians passage (where grace that issues in salvation is to be seen as "unmerited") is the main reason that many people have wrongly used unmerited favor as a definition of grace. (Something along the lines of what you pointed out to me about widespread use wrongly becoming the norm for definitions over time.)

A more proper definition of the actual word used in scripture would be something like good will, loving-kindness or favor.

Again - the loving kindness and favor of God that issues in salvation is definitely to be considered as unmerited as I have said.

But I (no less than others it seems) need to be careful when using commonly accepted definitions as authoritative when dealing with the Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew words used in the scriptures.

In the recent past here in this thread - I took a person to task for blindly using the opinion of "Strong's" when defining regeneration. In that particular case Strong's was making some assumptions in it's choice of definitions. As a result, it was functioning more like a commentary than just a pure Greek authority.

It seems obvious now that I do the same kind of thing occasionally if I'm not careful. Many sources for definitions go a little far afield in choosing how to define certain Greek or Hebrew words.

I plan to be a lot more careful in the future.

See - you can teach an old dog new tricks.

 

[sdowney717]

I disagree with you that grace necessarily requires a response of the heart. Grace can be present without any kind of heart response.

Sometimes the grace of God does expect and obtain a response from the one receiving it and sometimes not.

In the case of the grace of God which issues in salvation - obviously it does. (Obviously to me at least.)

In the case of other kinds of grace (common grace for example) - not so much.

Having said that - I would like to correct a mistake that I made before.

You were right to say that the word grace does not mean "unmerited favor". Much grace may indeed be unmerited (as with election for instance IMO). But in other cases it may be actually merited - grace in the scriptures that is based on humbleness or good stewardship for example.

But - even though grace MAY be unmerited in many cases - unmerited favor would not be a proper definition of grace just because of that.

In like manner - just because grace MAY be merited in many cases - merited favor would not be a proper definition of grace just because of that.

After some consideration of the matter - I stand corrected. I have often used "unmerited favor" as a universal definition of the word grace. I will be more careful in the future. It is not a good "definition".

I doubt that the widespread use of that definition for all grace as used in scripture is to be necessarily linked with Free Grace theology as you assert.

But I do not doubt that the widespread knowledge and use of the Ephesians passage (where grace that issues in salvation is to be seen as "unmerited") is the main reason that many people have wrongly used unmerited favor as a definition of grace. (Something along the lines of what you pointed out to me about widespread use wrongly becoming the norm for definitions over time.)

A more proper definition of the actual word used in scripture would be something like good will, loving-kindness or favor.

Again - the loving kindness and favor of God that issues in salvation is definitely to be considered as unmerited as I have said.

But I (no less than others it seems) need to be careful when using commonly accepted definitions as authoritative when dealing with the Greek, Aramaic or Hebrew words used in the scriptures.

In the recent past here in this thread - I took a person to task for blindly using the opinion of "Strong's" when defining regeneration. In that particular case Strong's was making some assumptions in it's choice of definitions. As a result, it was functioning more like a commentary than just a pure Greek authority.

It seems obvious now that I do the same kind of thing occasionally if I'm not careful. Many sources for definitions go a little far afield in choosing how to define certain Greek or Hebrew words.

I plan to be a lot more careful in the future.

See - you can teach an old dog new tricks.

There you go Marvin, willing to yield is a work of the Holy Spirit in our life. We yield to His correction, and that is a precious gift many do not show. Rather they display hardness of heart and persist in their errors.

James 3:17
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy.

 

[sdowney717]

Proverbs 29 New King James Version (NKJV)
He who is often rebuked, and hardens his neck,
Will suddenly be destroyed, and that without remedy.

Proverbs 9:8
Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you; Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.

Proverbs 17:10
Rebuke is more effective for a wise man Than a hundred blows on a fool.

Ecclesiastes 7:5
It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise Than for a man to hear the song of fools.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"Titus 2:11 - For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men

The Bible says that God's grace has appeared…to all men."

How you could think that this supports FGT's view of grace is totally beyond me.

Context is the key to understand everything. And the context was about grace being for everyone. Which I showed from Scripture.

Grace here is more in line with Strong's definition of grace. He defines grace as "the divine INFLUENCE in the heart and its reflection in the life." Grace TEACHES us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts. So, salvation in this context must be that SUBJECTIVE deliverance from sin and not that objective deliverance from sin's penalty.

"For the grace of God that brings deliverance [from the practice of sin] has appeared to all men. Teaching us [how to] deny ungodliness and worldly lusts...."

Not all men are being instructed by grace. Therefore, "all men" means "all nations" of men and not Jews only.

Why would anyone think that Strong's definition (I'm sure there were more entries than just the one you cherry-picked) fits Titus 2:11, when the verse is clearly about salvation and grace. Not teaching.

The teaching noted in v.12 is towards "us", not towards all men. So, who would the first person pronoun "us" refer to in v.12? Believers only.

So your comment about the one liner from Strong's was irrelevant to v.11.

So I will repeat: God's grace has appeared...to all men. And it (grace) brings salvation.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
"If He required faith, please prove it from Scripture"

Show us how you see that salvation is in view.

Why is it that when one cannot provide proof or evidence, they just don't admit it, but go off on some tangent and fire off an off the wall question? It's ok to admit when one doesn't have proof or evidence.

Again, my point was that Jesus didn't require faith before He healed people. I WASN'T speaking about salvation, so your comment is not relevant to anything I posted.

Jesus healed some without requiring faith.

Well, there you go. Thanks for affirming my point.

Show us how that proves that one may be saved without faith.

This is just a very squirrelly question. There are NO verses that indicate that one may be saved without faith. In fact, it's just ludicrous. And why would anyone think that was my view? Are you actually reading anything I've posted????

NO ONE is saved apart from faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Now, is that clear enough?

How is it that you equate healing from sicknesses with salvation?

I don't. I never did.

So, how is it that you think I have done that????

I'd guess by not actually reading anything I posted.

 

[FreeGrace2]

I said this:
God's grace is extended to everyone. Regardless of faith. Did Jesus require any of those He healed to have faith?

So God saves apart from faith?

Wow. you're really not following anything I've posted, huh.

The answer is a resounding NO to your question.

My question was straight forward. And in your previous post, you finally affirmed my point; that He didn't require faith from those He healed.

Please explain how you've come to the silly conclusions you've come to. Because they aren't even close to my views.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Who has said that? Names, dude. Names and posts. You are compounding the lies by making these baseless accusations. You make the accusations, it's up to you to prove them, or admit that you cannot, and therefore your accusations are false and you are in a heap of trouble with your Maker.

Do you believe in Sinless Perfectionism?
Do you believe that a believer can stop sinning (Which is Sinless Perfectionism)?
So far, I have not met an OSAS proponent who believes in Sinless Perfectionism.

Also, people have made the claim that they can die in unrepentant sin and still be saved here.
Do you believe that you can die in unrepentant sin and still be saved?
Do you believe 1 John 1:8 is saying you will always have some kind of sin in your life?
If so, then we must conclude you are saved despite having this sin.
Unless of course you believe confession of sin is necessary for salvation.


....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Soundbite theology. The belief that each verse contains a completely formed, theological truth. And then gloss over the contradictions that inevitably arise with yet more soundbites. This kid of theology is 5 miles wide, and a quarter of an inch deep. Even babes in Christ can have deeper theological understanding than one such as this.

Jason, your theology is more full of gaping holes than a block of Swiss cheese.You refuse to be corrected on any point, you just double down on your false theology, which does not stand up in the real world. You sin, every day, but you refuse to admit it. Do you think that when you sin, you have once again become lost? Do you believe in sinless perfection? Do you not see that you have disqualified yourself from sinless perfection by your sinful accusations against those who dare to withstand your false doctrines? You can't even keep your own theological tenets. Why should we listen to you? You're a hypocrite!

No. Folks here have things backwards. To claim that one believes in the Bible whereby it states that we are commanded to live holy by the Lord our God and then suggest to others not to live in such a holy way (by denying sinless perfectionism or that we cannot stop sinning) would be hypocritical.

For you cannot live holy and also sin at the same time. One is either living sinfully or they are living holy or righteously.


....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

This is one of my favorites in refuting OSAS or in the thinking that one can sin and still be saved.

"1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was." (2 Timothy 3:1-9).


....

 

[Marvin Knox]

This is one of my favorites in refuting OSAS or in the thinking that one can sin and still be saved.

"1 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God,5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was." (2 Timothy 3:1-9). ....

Since this is one of your favorite passages "in refuting OSAS or in the thinking that one can sin and still be saved" --- please show us where it refutes OSAS or even the thinking that one can sin and still be saved.

Since this particular passage is one of your all time favorites, explaining or attempting to explain it will go a long way toward showing everyone your biggest and best proof or your biggest and best lack of logic.

Surely your own favorite passage should really make or break your case for us.

I wait with bated breath for you to give it your best shot.

I'm pretty sure I wont be alone.