Logical Problems with Calvinism

[True Science]

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling." Matthew 23:37

Notice that the scripture does not add "but he could not because they were not willing (as you do here).

Obviously He was dealing with these people according to their choices.

But you are going beyond what the scripture teaches.

It does not say that He could not do it another way if He wanted to. Nor does it say anything about His ability or willingness to "coerce" them if He chose to do so.

In fact one needs only look at His "coercion" of Israel in the great tribulation to see that He plans to do exactly that.

Space would fail us if we exhausted the entire Bible for examples. But look at Romans 11:11 to see a way that He coerces them by making them jealous.

"I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? May it never be! But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous."

Now if I'm getting this all wrong and you are only trying to refute regeneration before faith - you need to understand that God doesn't force anyone to believe. If He does indeed regenerate in order that men will have faith - it is by their own free will that these people come to Him for salvation with their new nature.

The "coercion" you speak of is gracious divine influence. I admitted in a comment that this is true. But God does not override man's free will. He cannot because he will not because it is against his character to do so, which is just and relational.

Matthew 23:37 implies what I said. God wanted to gather Israel but they were not willing so he didn't. Something he willed did not get fullfilled because of what man chose to be like.

Sir, everything you say is contradicted by what has been shown about what Romans 1 teaches about how things are with God, man, justice and judgment. You cannot get out of it. You have a massive contradiction on your hands. A massive problem. So all along when people have been arguing against Calvinism from their "feelings" (as Calvinists like to pick on) that their God is not just and what is required for God to be just they have been right this whole time because that is exactly what Romans 1 teaches. And I would venture to say most of you will just ignore this problem and not deal with it and some who will try will come up with ad hoc explanations to explain it away. Hopefully not but it seems doubtful. Hopefully this is resonating with some here and will for others to come.

 

[True Science]

"We do not choose God (Faith). We are not capable as sinners of comprehending, let alone accepting, saving Faith."

>>> Then according to Romans 1... [see previous posts about it, I'm getting tired of repeating]

"If we would put aside the well-worn misrepresentations of James and some of these other passages, I think we could find our way, together, to the answer, although I'm not holding my breath about that happening."

>>> If you were consistent you would surely reject James like Luther. I actually know a Calvinist who has. But then again if you were consistent you would become an open Gnostic and pick and choose what you can use in isolation to support your doctrines and then like the Gnostics cast aspersions on the rest. That would be the consistent position for you to take.

 

[True Science]

I am well aware, True Science, that the OT presents a drastic picture of God as unloving, unjust, unmerciful, sadistic, war-mongering, etc. I feel that occurred because the OT is not a whole or complete revelation of God, a point held by the Reformers. Remember, the OT, divinely inspired as it may have been is still the work of a semi-barbaric culture.
The situation with the passages you cite from Ephesians is a much different situation. Paul is talking about the fact that historically Judaism excluded the uncircumcised, the gentiles, from salvation. This was also a problem Paul faced with the "pillars" in Jerusalem, who were Judaizers in that they assumed you had to be Jewish, circumcised, and practice all the Jewish customs to be a saved Christian. Paul is fighting against that. Paul is trying to say that you as gentiles should no longer feel exempt from salvation, which was the distinct impression the Judaizers created.

Sir, I do not endorse this guy for his Calvinism, his Eschatology, particulars of his racism, his attitude sometimes, certain parts of his Clarkian Presuppositionalism and other things. But this guy would rock the liberal boat you are on right now man:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_yfZS1N2VSbRRKiDc_zEBw

He covers things that nobody else that I know of covers.

 

[True Science]

Well guys, I'm out because I'm worn out for the day. I hope my input edifies someone at least.

 

[Cush]

Well guys, I'm out because I'm worn out for the day. I hope my input edifies someone at least.

I was just thinking about the robot or puppet argument. Lets just say that Satan is up to his elbow so deep that when he moves his hand, mouths move. Lets pray for discernment.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, True Science, I checked out that site. All I found were nut cases arguing for a flat earth. Forget it. Also, I don't think it is really good form here for you and others to be posting material from other sites. I find that very distracting. I am here to talk to you, not look at some recommended site . If you feel you can "rock the liberal socks off me," let's hear your case.

 

[Hoghead1]

Cush, I don't follow your comment on James. Are you saying you agree with works righteousness that James seem to be preaching?

 

[Hoghead1]

Calvin, True Science, and other Reformers did say that a good tree brings forth good fruit. If you are saved, one of the elect, then your behavior should be on a higher standard than that of the reprobate. However, the Reformers still insisted that neither our works nor our faith merited our salvation.

 

[Hoghead1]

Cush, I want to be sure I understand the issues you are having about free will and God's sovereignty. Are you arguing that to be sovereign, God must have complete and total monopolistic control over everything, so that God predestined all our choices?

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't know what disagreement you are asking about, Cush. Many disagree with the TULIP approach on biblical grounds and also on logical ones as well.

 

[EmSw]

Cush, I see you either missed, skipped over, or ignored my questions to you. I will give them again in case you missed them.

God is sovereign in all things, and it does not depend upon any action by man. Just because man rejects God, it does not in any way, shape, or form diminish God's sovereignty one iota. If you say it does, then you give man power over God. So, does man have power over God? Apparently you think so.

To whom are you answerable?
Did you not have autonomous freedom to come onto this forum?
Do you not have autonomous freedom to choose which religious affiliation to adhere?
Do you not have autonomous freedom to believe as you wish?
Who is demanding you to be a Calvinist, or did you freely choose yourself?
Do you not have autonomous freedom to write about any belief you choose to hold in your heart?
Please tell us, who is threatening you if you don't do things his/her way.
Do you pray to God in every action you take to see if acceptable with Him?

Please answer these questions to see if you sovereign over God.

 

[Hoghead1]

The problem I have here, with this notion of original sin, is that if we are truly born evil though and through, why change? It's not right to go against your nature. So if we are by nature evil, then let's be evil and be happy, at one with ourselves and our nature. If we are born inclined by nature to follow Satan, then so bi it. Hell is our kind of people.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Sir, everything you say is contradicted by what has been shown about what Romans 1 teaches about how things are with God, man, justice and judgment. You cannot get out of it. You have a massive contradiction on your hands. A massive problem. So all along when people have been arguing against Calvinism from their "feelings" (as Calvinists like to pick on) that their God is not just and what is required for God to be just they have been right this whole time because that is exactly what Romans 1 teaches. And I would venture to say most of you will just ignore this problem and not deal with it and some who will try will come up with ad hoc explanations to explain it away. Hopefully not but it seems doubtful. Hopefully this is resonating with some here and will for others to come.

I guess I'm unsure about what you say that I have said that is contradicted by Romans 1. Please show what I said or believe that did that.

You said in a previous post that God does not "coerce" anyone because coercion goes against His nature.

I said that there was nothing in scripture that tells us that always being against coercion is part of God's nature. I said that, in fact, the Bible was full of examples of God coercing people.

One hardly knows what angle to approach this from since it is so obviously true that God coerces and that it is not against His nature to do so.


"‘Thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am against you, O Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal. I will turn you about and put hooks into your jaws, and I will bring you out, and all your army..........." Ezekiel 38:3

If that's not coercion I don't know what is.


"Now the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Tell the sons of Israel to turn back and camp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea; you shall camp in front of Baal-zephon, opposite it, by the sea. For Pharaoh will say of the sons of Israel, ‘They are wandering aimlessly in the land; the wilderness has shut them in.’ Thus I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will chase after them; and I will be honored through Pharaoh and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.” And they did so." Exodus 14:1-4

If that's not coercion I don't know what is.

You were obviously wrong to say that it goes against God's nature to coerce people. I simply pointed that out to you.

We can let that go now if you wish. It's so obviously inaccurate to say that coercion goes against God's nature.

Perhaps you are saying that regeneration is coercion. It is not. People make a choice for God of their own wills out of a new nature. Creating new creations definitely doesn't go against God's nature.

Maybe it was the idea of predestination in general that you feel is coercion. It is not. Predestination and free will are totally compatible.

Obviously though - free will is an extremely important issue to you.

But again I ask - what exactly is it that I said or teach that contradicts Romans 1? Since you say that "everything" I say is contradicted by Romans 1, it should be easy to show me an example.

I'm in the dark here as to what exactly you mean brother. I'm asking you what you mean by everything I say.

Thanks!

 

[Hoghead1]

All you've said is that you believe liberals are deceiving everyone and that you didn't agree with my understanding of Scripture OK, cheap shot and so you need to do more. Don't tell or accuse me me, show me. Go back, go through my points, and present me with some sort of rational rebuttal.

 

[Cush]

The problem I have here, with this notion of original sin, is that if we are truly born evil though and through, why change? It's not right to go against your nature. So if we are by nature evil, then let's be evil and be happy, at one with ourselves and our nature. If we are born inclined by nature to follow Satan, then so bi it. Hell is our kind of people.

And let your words be held accountable. You're Pelagian, a heretic.

 

[Hoghead1]

Look, Freegrace2, this is a situation between Marvin and myself. We are adults. We are perfectly capable of handling matters. We do not need you to butt in and try and do some rescue work. However, since you have jumped in, the ball is in your court. You apparently do not agree with my liberal approach. OK, fine, Let's hear your rational rebuttal. No character assassination, no labeling it all just garbage, anything like that. Just a solid, rational argument will do. So let's her it.

 

[Hoghead1]

Cush, one of the rules in a serious theological discussion is that you don't accuse others of being heretics, lacking the Spirit, anything like that. Instead of this kind of yellow-dog journalism, you offer a solid rational rebuttal. Anyhow, all labeling someone a "heretic' means is that they don't agree with the dogmas of some church; it says nothing about the validity of their view. Galileo was declared a heretic. Luther was declared a heretic, etc. It just wastes time to go that way. What you should get busy and do is show why you feel your opponent is wrong. Yes, I am in definite sympathy with Pelagius and I have given some reason why. If you object, then you should address the reasons I have given and show why you feel your view is superior.

 

[Cush]

Cush, one of the rules in a serious theological discussion is that you don't accuse others of being heretics, lacking the Spirit, anything like that. Instead of this kind of yellow-dog journalism, you offer a solid rational rebuttal. Anyhow, all labeling someone a "heretic' means is that they don't agree with the dogmas of some church; it says nothing about the validity of their view. Galileo was declared a heretic. Luther was declared a heretic, etc. It just wastes time to go that way. What you should get busy and do is show why you feel your opponent is wrong. Yes, I am in definite sympathy with Pelagius and I have given some reason why. If you object, then you should address the reasons I have given and show why you feel your view is superior.

Remove "Protestant" from your profile.

 

[Marvin Knox]

Hoghead,

From my standpoint - I'd just like to let it go. You and FreeGrace2 can work out your differences on your own.

I absolutely didn't bring your salvation into question. That's between you and God.

Obviously however, I have severe differences with you on liberal vs. conservative grounds.

Thankfully I have been well away from the PCUSA for some time now. I joined it originally because I was between churches and becoming more and more Reformed as I studied the scriptures. I had no idea at the time about the liberal vs. conservative fight going on in the PCUSA. The fight against the liberal wing of the church was very prolonged and sometimes painful for me.

Your statements about where you are coming from bring back bad memories. I was having flashbacks to a bad "church" time in my life - one I never will repeat.

Perhaps I should not have vented at you. Or, then again, perhaps it was proper that I did. God can be the judge of that.

But your salvation status is between you and God. I will not be the judge of such things.

Your doctrine is another matter altogether. We are told to reprove and rebuke some people because it is necessary to safeguard other newer and weaker brothers and sisters from error.

I will continue to do that here and everywhere.

P.S.
It isn't that I am above calling someone's salvation into question. I have done so in the past and likely will do so again.

There are some here who preach a completely different gospel than the one I received. They do not appear to have accepted Jesus Christ as their only hope for salvation. I question their salvation because of that and I say so.

Your "universalism" position does bring me some concern about your trust in the work of Jesus as your hope of salvation. I'd be lying if I said otherwise.

But let's just let that go for now.

 

[Hoghead1]

Now do you honestly think I'd do something that stupid? Geeze.