Logical Problems with Calvinism

[FreeGrace2]

Then you would agree that faith is a gift by the grace of God? Then you would agree that God saves by grace alone, and not by your faith (or lack thereof)?

We are saved by grace through faith. Apart from faith in Christ, there is no salvation. Do you disagree with that?

 

[FreeGrace2]

Then why doesn't everyone who hears the Gospel have faith and be saved?

For the same reason there are so many religions in the world and liberals, conservatives, independents and idiots.

Unless one wants to argue that God created each human with an intellect that is drawn to any particular point of view, humans use their intellect to determine what they like.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Those who disagree with the Calvinist view see it as that. That's all. And those who disagree with the Calvinist view understand that the Calvinist doesn't see it that way. But that's why it is used because that's the way it appears to those who don't agree.

Then they should make it a point of presenting it that way. They should not make pronouncements that say that Calvinist's views would make men robots.

Odd conclusion from what I posted.

You said that God's opening of Lydia's heart was not an example of regeneration.

My point was that you seem to have a special knowledge of how the human spirit and the Spirit of God work in conjunction with each other in a case like this that my Bible doesn't talk about.

I said before that many Calvinists would see Lydia's case as an example of regeneration.

You say it can't be regeneration and I say, "quite possibly". I believe what you say is wrong and what I say is correct.

 

[ToBeLoved]

But you said "faith comes from hearing and hearing by the word of Christ." So faith is a gift from God, not something we do. Heb 12:2 says "...Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith". And Rom 12:3 says " ... God has allotted to each a measure of faith.” These other two verses, including the one you supplied, clearly tell us that faith is not something that we do or a presence of mind that we develop, but that faith is a gift from God. Faith is the enabling power of God, given to us by His grace and mercy.

What are the ways one would hear the gospel and the Word of God? Examples please

 

[Marvin Knox]

................ the Bible gives clear examples of people who were seeking God. Cornelius was NOT saved until he heard the gospel from Peter, per Acts 11:14. And Lydia wasn't saved until she believed. And the Bible describes both of them as worshipers of God (they were seeking Him).

You are right that they were not saved until they believed. That's what I believe also (just like those pesky Calvinists believe).

But how do you know those seekers were not regenerated?

Again, it seems that you have some special insight into how the spirit and Spirit work than I have not been given.

It seems that the Calvinist view would go a long way toward getting rid of the "paradox" (no contradictions in God's Word) of natural men not seeking God and yet these two seeking God.

But you'll reject that outright, I suppose, because it smacks of election.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Then they should make it a point of presenting it that way. They should not make pronouncements that say that Calvinist's views would make men robots.

You said that God's opening of Lydia's heart was not an example of regeneration.

My point was that you seem to have a special knowledge of how the human spirit and the Spirit of God work in conjunction with each other in a case like this that my Bible doesn't talk about.

I said before that many Calvinists would see Lydia's case as an example of regeneration.

You say it can't be regeneration and I say, "quite possibly". I believe what you say is wrong and what I say is correct.

That is a great point. The Bible does not talk about this topic of regeneration at all. It is s big leap and assumption on their part.

 

[ToBeLoved]

You are right that they were not saved until they believed. That's what I believe also (just like those pesky Calvinists believe).

But how do you know those seekers were not regenerated?

Again, it seems that you have some special insight into how the spirit and Spirit work than I have not been given.

It seems that the Calvinist view would go a long way toward getting rid of the "paradox" (no contradictions in God's Word) of natural men not seeking God and yet these two seeking God.

But you'll reject that outright, I suppose, because it smacks of election.

What evidence do you have that there is a regeneration before belief. Concrete verses. Not double talk or special interpretation.

Why would you ask us for evidence in a belief we do not feel is Biblical?

The proof should come from them. It is their belief.

 

[GillDouglas]

What are the ways one would hear the gospel and the Word of God? Examples please

You'll have to define 'hear' first.

 

[GillDouglas]

For the same reason there are so many religions in the world and liberals, conservatives, independents and idiots.

Unless one wants to argue that God created each human with an intellect that is drawn to any particular point of view, humans use their intellect to determine what they like.

This is where we define our differences, brother. Arminianism states that man is able, by his own free will, to choose or reject God and that Jesus died for everyone who ever lived. Calvinism states that it is God alone who chooses who is saved, not man, and that Jesus died only for the Christians

 

[Bible Highlighter]

God does what he wants to go. He doesn't need you telling him what to do

And I do not think the Calvinism doctrine is speaking on behalf of God. So I disagree with you.


....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Onc again, there was no parable in the conversation between the woman and Jesus. He used a metaphor, not a parable.

Again, I honestly do not care what you call it. Just make one already and show us that your belief is indeed true.


....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Seems you just keep demonstrating over and over how little you understand the difference between a metaphor and a parable.

Well, the dictionary disagrees with you and so does the definition for the origin of the word, too. But if you think you are more of a word expert over the dictionary, then I will have you contact them so as to give them a piece of your mind.


...

 

[jimmyjimmy]

This is where we define our differences, brother. Arminianism states that man is able, by his own free will, to choose or reject God and that Jesus died for everyone who ever lived.

I'm a Calvinist, so I'm completly with you; however, to be fair to Arminians, the above might not be the best way to describe the Arminian view. Arminians believe that prevenient grace is necessary for man to choose God. The prevenient grace supposedly restores man's free will and neutralizes the noetic effects of the Fall.

Having said that, I think that what you described is what many Christians believe, but it's more a Pelagian view. From my experience, the average churchgoer is Pelagian or semi-Pelagian in practice. There are few true Arminians out there, from what I have seen.

Sorry for butting in. I just want this to be a fair "fight", so no one can cry, "straw man".

 

[ToBeLoved]

You'll have to define 'hear' first.

Input into their knowledge.

 

[ToBeLoved]

This is where we define our differences, brother. Arminianism states that man is able, by his own free will, to choose or reject God and that Jesus died for everyone who ever lived. Calvinism states that it is God alone who chooses who is saved, not man, and that Jesus died only for the Christians

Well let know one say
After this that we don't understand what the Calvinist believes.

 

[Marvin Knox]

That is a great point. The Bible does not talk about this topic of regeneration at all. It is s big leap and assumption on their part.

You can't say not at all. That simply isn't true.

Our English translations use the word "regeneration" only once that I remember and the context really doesn't give us any hint of what event or events are referred to.

Genesis or generate means the beginning, in a generally accepted definition. Regeneration would mean "beginning again".

Some use the word to be a virtual synonym for the term "born again". Others use it to refer to the very beginnings of the salvation process.

It is this later use that is common for Calvinists. They are talking about that special act that brings to life the dead spirit of fallen men and allows them to commune with the Holy Spirit. It is seen that way because spiritual death is usually defined as man's spirit being disconnected with the Holy Spirit - unlike the way it was in the beginning when men communed with God.

It's really not a big leap to say that there had to be a beginning point of our spirit being reconnected with God's. The problem seems to be how to determine when that takes place. That's where the assumptions come in - for both sides.

Calvinists see it happening before the gospel is heard - which allows us to understand and respond to the gospel in a saving way. The opposite side of the issue seems to see that reconnect as a kind of "reward" for our coming to God and believing the gospel of our own free will even as spiritually dead and fallen men.

Somewhere in the middle is what I would call the scripturally bankrupt view that God regenerates every man somewhere along the line so that they can hear from the Holy Spirit. Granted - that's a rather rough description of so call "prevenient" grace. But I think it's a fair one. Most of those folks wouldn't put it the way I did. But then most of those folks understandably are really vague about exactly what they see happening with prevenient grace. It seems to me to be a way to have their cake and eat it too.

Although I am not as dogmatic about exactly how this takes place as most Calvinist types - I find their view more scripturally accurate than the ones of the opposite sides.

What evidence do you have that there is a regeneration before belief. Concrete verses. Not double talk or special interpretation.

Because the word is only used once and then in a rather vague way, it is not possible to show an exact verse that teaches that it happens either the Calvinist way or the other ways. This is especially true since there seem to be two views about what the word means.

It isn't just the Calvinists who would be hard pressed to prove their case with concrete verses.

I don't want to muddy the waters too much. But I actually hold a third view that sees regeneration as more of a process than a particular spectacular event. Of course this denies some of the teachings of Calvinists on total depravity and irresistible grace. And, of course it smacks of special grace just as does the Calvinist's view. So it would be rejected by non-Calvinists out of hand. So I won't go into it more here except to say that it also agrees that there had to be some point of beginning for spiritual life. I just wouldn't venture to say when that might be for any given person. I will say though that it seems to me that it has to happen before the exercise of saving faith.

As with doctrines like the Trinity and a few others - the doctrine of regeneration is more of a systematic arrival at truth than an outright single statement of doctrine directly quoted from scripture.

Before you say that it can't be a valid doctrine under those circumstances - realize that you would then have to throw out a great many teachings that we all subscribe to. Much Christian truth has been arrived at through a systematic combining of scripture with scripture - which is IMO the way God intended it to be.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well in that case why don't we take the example of a heart transplant. Once a heart is transplanted into a person, that becomes a permanent fixture. Now if this individual smokes heavily, drinks heavily, eats all the wrong foods, and disregards cholesterol build up, it will never change the fact that he was given a NEW HEART. But he will certainly pay for his transgressions.

Thus it is with a believer who receives the gift of eternal life. He does receive a new heart and a new spirit, but if he feeds his carnality and starves his spirituality, he will be taken to task. Please refer to 1 Cor 11:27-34.

Well, having a new heart (from a heart transplant) does not mean you are immune to destroying your life that would be any different than when you had your old heart. See, the problem in your parable is that you are minimizing sin. But let's look at one of them. Drinking heavily. Well, the Bible would call this drunkenness; And the Bible says drunkards shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Also, the Bible says that if you defile the temple, God will destroy you. Also, your parable speaks nothing of the other horrible sins that a person can do whereby they would need to face some kind of proper justice. For I doubt a new heart transplant would make it okay with God if they decided to go out and kill a bunch of people or rape people. Surely these kinds of sins would not be covered by God.


....

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well, one thing is clear with this parable. Your view is that man actually does save himself.

But the Bible clearly refutes such an idea. We are saved by God. And there is no God in your parable. So try again. This time with an actual real world example. Yours fell flat.

Your parable was only a self help program. And while many unbelievers have done that, it didn't save them. Even if you thought it did.

The program that the alcoholic enters himself into would be paralled to a believer engaging with God so as to overcome his sin. So no. I am not suggesting a Man directed works salvation program. I am suggesting that a believer submits to God whereby they then let God work and move within their life.


....

 

[FreeGrace2]

Then they should make it a point of presenting it that way. They should not make pronouncements that say that Calvinist's views would make men robots.

But again, that's how they see it.

You said that God's opening of Lydia's heart was not an example of regeneration.

My point was that you seem to have a special knowledge of how the human spirit and the Spirit of God work in conjunction with each other in a case like this that my Bible doesn't talk about.

No, no special knowledge. But I do understand the difference in word meanings. To open the heart suggests providing understanding. Which is the ministry of the Holy Spirit in conviction. But opening a heart for understanding doesn't always result in a proper response.

Example: in spite of the obvious miracles, which was to prove that Jesus was God, (providing understanding about Him) the Pharisees just dug their heels in deeper and wanted to kill Him.

I said before that many Calvinists would see Lydia's case as an example of regeneration.

Oh, yes. I agree with that. And disagree with those many Calvinists.

You say it can't be regeneration and I say, "quite possibly". I believe what you say is wrong and what I say is correct.

I think that's how these forums generally work.

 

[FreeGrace2]

You are right that they were not saved until they believed. That's what I believe also (just like those pesky Calvinists believe).

But how do you know those seekers were not regenerated?

I must cite Eph 2:5 which indicates to me that "being made alive" and "having been saved" occur at the same time. This is also the indication from Greek grammar of 1 Jn 5:1 - Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and whoever loves the Father loves the child born of Him.

The words "whoever believes" is a present participle - "the believing ones". Present participles occur at the same time as the action of the main verb, which is "born of God". So believing and being born of God happen at the same time.

Now, Eph 2:8 gives us the order of believing and being saved: we are saved through faith. No faith, no salvation. Since regeneration (made alive) and salvation occur at the same time, and faith precedes salvation, we know that regeneration cannot precede salvation or faith.

Again, it seems that you have some special insight into how the spirit and Spirit work than I have not been given.

Just what I have read from Scripture.

It seems that the Calvinist view would go a long way toward getting rid of the "paradox" (no contradictions in God's Word) of natural men not seeking God and yet these two seeking God.

I see the Free Grace view totally compatible with all of Scripture. God created mankind with the freedom to choose for or against Him. Some seek, many do not.

But you'll reject that outright, I suppose, because it smacks of election.

My understanding of election is rather clear from Epoh 1:4 about who it is that God has elected. "us". And, who are the "us"? Paul defines that for us in 1:19 - "those who believe".

So Eph 1:4 says that God has chosen believers to be holy and blameless.

There are a number of verses that also say that we (believers) have been called (invited - kletos) to be holy and blameless.

The phrase "holy and blameless" indicates service to God. Those who aren't holy and blameless cannot serve God.

And the ISBE makes a good case for defining election as "being chosen for special privilege and service".

In fact, in all 6 categories of what the Bible describes as being "elect", none are for salvation and all are for special privilege and service.