Passages challenging Calvinism

[Kilk1]

Hello, all! For many months, maybe a year, I've been studying debates for and against Calvinism. While passages such as Romans 9 are claimed by Calvinists to support their position, I'd like to hear your view on at least one of the passages challenging Calvinism. (Quotations are from the New King James Version.)

Luke 8:4-15
This is the parable of the sower. Calvinism holds that everyone is born totally, inherently depraved. In this state, they cannot receive the word of God. The only way out of this, in their system, is if the Holy Spirit performs a direct operation on sinners, switching their hearts from being completely sinful to permanently faithful. However, Jesus' parable comparing the word of God's effect on different hearts to seed's effect on different types of soil suggests that human nature is more complicated than this.

The first type of soil, the wayside (vv. 5, 12), is the closest to sounding totally depraved in the sense that it doesn't receive the word. Furthermore, the good ground (vv. 8, 15) is similar in effect to the Calvinistic view of a regenerated heart in that it remains faithful. However, there are four, not just two, hearts. The rocky ground (vv. 6, 13) is the most powerful heart of the four to contradict Calvinism. Those with this heart aren't totally, inherently depraved because they receive the word--"receive the word with joy" (emphasis mine), in fact. But they aren't permanently converted either, as Calvinists say the regenerate are, since they only "believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (v. 13).

Does this suggest that not everyone is totally depraved and that once you're saved, you're not necessarily always saved?

Jeremiah 18:1-10
Here, God discusses how a potter begins "making something at the wheel" (v. 3). However, the vessel "was marred in the hand of the potter; so he made it again into another vessel, as it seemed good to the potter to make" (v. 4). Notice that while the potter was going to make one thing, the marring of the vessel led him to remake it "into another vessel." In the same way, God says that if He decrees to destroy a nation (i.e., make them into a vessel of dishonor) but they repent, then He'll change His plans for them (vv. 5-8). The same works in reverse as well (vv. 9-10).

Does this mean God can decree something without it coming to pass if freewill decisions on the part of man cause Him to change His mind?

Romans 11:16-24
While Romans 9 talks about election, Calvinists and non-Calvinists commonly argue about whether it's an election of specific individuals (what Calvinists believe) or an election of a corporate entity (Israel or the church). Chapter 11 compares God's people to a cultivated olive tree (vv. 16-24). Many (but not all) Israelites (i.e., the branches) were cut off from the tree. Instead, new branches from a wild, non-cultivated olive tree (representing Gentiles, the class who weren't God's people) were grafted into the cultivated one.

The individual Gentiles (i.e., the branches that were grafted into the cultivated tree) could become thrilled that they're in (v. 19). However, Paul explains: "Because of unbelief they were broken off, and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty, but fear" (v. 20, emphasis mine). The new standard of becoming God's chosen people would be determined by faith vs. unbelief, instead of being a Jew vs. Gentile.

Paul clearly intends this to warn those grafted in. "For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare you either" (v. 21). Again, they were grafted in "by faith" (v. 20), and yet there's a possibility that they wouldn't be spared (v. 21). God will only bring "goodness, if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off" (v. 22). And those who were cut off could become believers and be grafted in again (vv. 23-24).

Does this suggest 1) that God elected the body, the cultivated tree, and 2) that it's possible for individuals (branches) who stand "by faith" (v. 20) to lose their faith (and thus, salvation), not being spared (v. 21)? Again, you don't have to respond to all of these, but if you post, please give your thoughts on at least one of the three above passages. Thanks!

 

[joshua 1 9]

While passages such as Romans 9 are claimed by Calvinists to support their position, I'd like to hear your view on at least one of the passages challenging Calvinism.

This is NOT how Bible interpretation works. You have to start at the beginning, with what we received from Moses. In this case the discussion has to do with Adam and Eve, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the serpent. The three main players in the discussion are Calvin, Wesley & Smith. Calvin and Smith would suggest that Adam and Eve had no choice but to eat from the tree. This does not follow what Moses tells us that this was a choice that they made. To be sure Genesis chapter three is a difficult chapter to understand. That is why we have the rest of the Bible to help us to understand what God was showing Moses.

Today we have neurosurgeons that operate on tumors in different parts of the brain. So they know exactly what part of the brain is involved in choice and abstract thinking. We understand how the brain works better now then we did before.

Election is based on who so ever and we know that God's desire is for all to be saved. 2 Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." All is a powerful word.

Under Calvin why would people need to repent if they had no choice in their depravity?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Calvinism holds that everyone is born totally, inherently depraved

When I mention this, some Calvinist usually replies by saying that when Calvinists mention "total depravity", they don't actually mean "total" and they don't actually mean "depravity".

Rather, they say that "totally depravity" means some vague, fuzzy, ill-defined and completely off-topic thing, different from whatever I posted about.

I try not to notice when they define "total depravity" to mean still something else when they converse with other CF members besides me.

Funny bunch, the Calvinists...

 

[Hazelelponi]

Any particular reason you didn't put this in the debate a Calvinist forum?

 

[Anto9us]

Funny indeed, colors...

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

This is the parable of the sower. Calvinism holds that everyone is born totally, inherently depraved.

Which of the soils already had the seed, prior to being given the seed by the sower? None did.

But they aren't permanently converted either, as Calvinists say the regenerate are, since they only "believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away" (v. 13). Does this suggest that not everyone is totally depraved and that once you're saved, you're not necessarily always saved?

No one ever claimed that everyone who ever had faith never lost it. However, I would ask, which of the seed on good soil was ever transplanted to bad soil, or which on bad soil was ever moved to the good soil. None were. Predestination is a hindsight determination. It's not about the journey, but the destination. Only one of the four was on good soil, and that never changed or failed.

Notice that while the potter was going to make one thing, the marring of the vessel led him to remake it "into another vessel."

Notice how, in either case, it was the potter doing the making. The pot never took control and started forming itself. That God responds to circumstances during the making is no surprise. Did the author of Goldilocks and the Three Bears really need to respond to the fact of the bears returning home, or could Goldilocks have been made to jump directly out the window, bypassing the stealing of food and breaking of chair? Yet, the author did not have her wander in and jump straight out of the window, and she was very much predestined.

Does this mean God can decree something without it coming to pass if freewill decisions on the part of man cause Him to change His mind?

God's decree was made known to humanity for the purpose of either changing humanity or to justify judgment. The decree, itself, acted as yet another factor influencing destiny. Was God surprised by their reaction? Did he need to wait and see what they would do?

...Calvinists and non-Calvinists commonly argue about whether it's an election of specific individuals (what Calvinists believe) or an election of a corporate entity (Israel or the church).

It would have been an easier argument to make regarding a political entity, such as Israel, where one could be in the country without being of the country. In the case of the church, a person cannot be part of it without belonging to it. If God predestines the entire nation, and one member happens not to follow the God, then he is still part of the nation, and he is moved as long as he stays in it, even in spite of himself. However, if someone is in the church and does not follow God, then he is not really in the church at all. The body of people cannot include him unless he is individually part of that destiny. Corporate destiny in the church, then, is necessarily the same as individual destiny for its members.

 

[Hammster]

Does this suggest that not everyone is totally depraved and that once you're saved, you're not necessarily always saved?

No. I think it suggests that it’s easy to look at Christianity as a religion just like Islam or Buddhism or whatever. It can be seen as giving direction to life if you follow certain rules and guidelines. But eventually, one will end up walking away.

Btw, thanks for not creating a straw man.

 

[sdowney717]

Some received the word with joy, but walked away when hardships came. shows they were not trusting in the living God, they were living on emotions, not on an internal transformation of their hearts into the good soil. The good soil was of the heart prepared beforehand for the word to grow in them and bear much fruit, and they were the only ones saved as they were the only ones to bear good fruit. That good soil was of their nature, so then was God given to them

The leopard can not change his spots, but with God, all things are possible. Nothing is too hard for Him.

 

[Radagast]

When I mention this, some Calvinist usually replies by saying that when Calvinists mention "total depravity", they don't actually mean "total" and they don't actually mean "depravity".

What Calvinists mean, of course, is exactly what's spelled out in considerable detail in the Canons of Dordt.

"Total depravity" is probably not the best term for the concept. It was chosen to make the acronym "TULIP" work. "Radical corruption" might be a better term.

 

[Radagast]

I'd like to hear your view on at least one of the passages challenging Calvinism

Nothing here "challenges Calvinism."

 

[thecolorsblend]

What Calvinists mean, of course, is exactly what's spelled out in considerable detail in the Canons of Dordt.

"Total depravity" is probably not the best term for the concept. It was chosen to make the acronym "TULIP" work. "Radical corruption" might be a better term.

Sounds like the Calvinists should probably think up a better acronym then, yes?

 

[Kilk1]

Any particular reason you didn't put this in the debate a Calvinist forum?

I guess because this is my first day on CF, lol! I guess I should've put it there. My bad.

 

[Radagast]

Sounds like the Calvinists should probably think up a better acronym then, yes?

It's been tried. ROSES =

• Radical corruption
• Overcoming grace
• Sovereign election
• Eternal life
• Singular redemption

For a variety of reasons that never caught on (and I prefer TULIP, myself). But anyway, we know what TULIP means. Here is a (Catholic) explanation you might understand: A Tiptoe Through TULIP

 

[thecolorsblend]

It's been tried. ROSES =

• Radical corruption
• Overcoming grace
• Sovereign election
• Eternal life
• Singular redemption

For a variety of reasons that never caught on (and I prefer TULIP, myself). But anyway, we know what TULIP means. Here is a (Catholic) explanation you might understand: A Tiptoe Through TULIP

That is a good source. I have admired Akin's apologetics for a long time and articles like that are why.

Still, the fact remains that a glance around CF shows Calvinists adhering to a rather all-encompassing understanding of TD. To be fair, there are instances when other Calvinists step in to correct them. But self-professed Calvinists do teach incorrectly at least on that letter.

Anyway. I have no real ending for this post so I'll wrap things up by saying "big cheeseburger".

 

[Kilk1]

Thanks for the reply! You're the main one who's dealt specifically with what I've said on these passages, and I want to thank you for that.

Which of the soils already had the seed, prior to being given the seed by the sower? None did.

"The seed is the word of God" (Luke 8:11, NKJV). Since no one has known the word of God the moment their life began, I agree that no soil starts out with seed. Someone has to share the gospel with them first.

No one ever claimed that everyone who ever had faith never lost it. However, I would ask, which of the seed on good soil was ever transplanted to bad soil, or which on bad soil was ever moved to the good soil. None were. Predestination is a hindsight determination. It's not about the journey, but the destination. Only one of the four was on good soil, and that never changed or failed.

Since the seed is the word of God, transplanting seed wouldn't make sense with the parable. How would you transplant the word of God? As a farmer spreads the same type of seed to multiple types of soils, so a preacher spreads the same word to multiple types of hearts. It's the difference in soils/hearts that determines the response.

If everyone starts out totally depraved and the only exceptions are those the Holy Spirit has permanently changed, wouldn't it follow that you have either a wayside heart (unable to receive the word) or a good heart (persevering to the end)? Is someone who's totally, inherently depraved able to "receive the word with joy" (Luke 8:13)?

Notice how, in either case, it was the potter doing the making. The pot never took control and started forming itself. That God responds to circumstances during the making is no surprise. Did the author of Goldilocks and the Three Bears really need to respond to the fact of the bears returning home, or could Goldilocks have been made to jump directly out the window, bypassing the stealing of food and breaking of chair? Yet, the author did not have her wander in and jump straight out of the window, and she was very much predestined.

I might be confused with what you mean by saying God responds to circumstances. It first sounded like you were endorsing the view, but then you mention how the author of Goldilocks and the Three Bears did not have to respond.

Does man have free will to choose right or wrong, and God will respond to the choice you make? Or is it that everything which happens in the world is scripted by God in the same sense that the author of Goldilocks scripted the plot of his book? Or is neither accurate?

God's decree was made known to humanity for the purpose of either changing humanity or to justify judgment. The decree, itself, acted as yet another factor influencing destiny. Was God surprised by their reaction? Did he need to wait and see what they would do?

I feel I agree with some of what you're saying here. A lot of times, I feel that Calvinists equate predestination with a decree of everything that has gone/will go about in the Universe's history. However, are you distinguishing this alleged decree with the decrees in Jeremiah, saying they're a part of this larger decree?--unless you don't call the larger one a "decree"; I don't want to misrepresent you.

It would have been an easier argument to make regarding a political entity, such as Israel, where one could be in the country without being of the country. In the case of the church, a person cannot be part of it without belonging to it. If God predestines the entire nation, and one member happens not to follow the God, then he is still part of the nation, and he is moved as long as he stays in it, even in spite of himself. However, if someone is in the church and does not follow God, then he is not really in the church at all. The body of people cannot include him unless he is individually part of that destiny. Corporate destiny in the church, then, is necessarily the same as individual destiny for its members.

But doesn't this passage teach that those grafted in can be cut off and that non-members can be grafted in, all based on whether they obtain or lose faith? In other words, doesn't it sound like the corporate destiny (the tree itself) isn't necessarily the same as what happens to the individuals (the branches)? Thanks!

 

[Kilk1]

No. I think it suggests that it’s easy to look at Christianity as a religion just like Islam or Buddhism or whatever. It can be seen as giving direction to life if you follow certain rules and guidelines. But eventually, one will end up walking away.

Btw, thanks for not creating a straw man.

I'm glad I didn't create a straw man; I genuinely want to understand the other side, not misrepresent it. If total depravity means that your sin nature is incompatible with the word of God (the seed), wouldn't this make a totally depraved heart equivalent to the wayside ground? And in Calvinism, is the only alternative being regenerated by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, in which you case you'll persevere to the end? If so, isn't this the same as the good soil?

In a nutshell, since hearts are either totally depraved (wayside ground) or permanently converted (good soil) in Calvinism, wouldn't this contradict Jesus' teaching in four types of ground? Thanks!

 

[Hammster]

I'm glad I didn't create a straw man; I genuinely want to understand the other side, not misrepresent it. If total depravity means that your sin nature is incompatible with the word of God (the seed), wouldn't this make a totally depraved heart equivalent to the wayside ground? And in Calvinism, is the only alternative being regenerated by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, in which you case you'll persevere to the end? If so, isn't this the same as the good soil?

In a nutshell, since hearts are either totally depraved (wayside ground) or permanently converted (good soil) in Calvinism, wouldn't this contradict Jesus' teaching in four types of ground? Thanks!

No.

If I said to some folks that they could live forever if they just followed the teachings of a man, do you suppose that I could get some folks to join my group?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'm glad I didn't create a straw man; I genuinely want to understand the other side, not misrepresent it. If total depravity means that your sin nature is incompatible with the word of God (the seed), wouldn't this make a totally depraved heart equivalent to the wayside ground? And in Calvinism, is the only alternative being regenerated by a direct operation of the Holy Spirit, in which you case you'll persevere to the end? If so, isn't this the same as the good soil?

In a nutshell, since hearts are either totally depraved (wayside ground) or permanently converted (good soil) in Calvinism, wouldn't this contradict Jesus' teaching in four types of ground? Thanks!

I think wayside ground is shown to have more than one distance to Christian community in the Bible.

As we see in Mark 9: 38-40:

"John said to him, 'Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will not be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us.'"

It was clear the man had enough exposure to the teachings to know there was power in the name of Christ - and how to use that power - but never cared to be a follower of Jesus and the disciples.

This man was a different kind of soil than an enemy of God, but still not a follower of Jesus.

Many have exposure to Christians and Christianity and find some safety there but are not with us.

There is a butterfly on my front door atm, weathering out the terrible storm raging outside. He has found a place of relative safety, with his little butterfly wings wrapped around his tiny butterfly body making it through the deluge.

He is finding some benefit to a human being, without being "with me" to say he's not in the house, as a beloved and cared for pet, hes outside, hanging on to the door, under the overhang part of the roof where he has some safety.

It might look like he's with me, he's even benefiting from a close proximity to me, but that doesn't mean he's actually with me.. he's still a wild thing who will fly off as soon as the rain stops falling.

The Bible speaks of people who are in some way in a close proximity to us many times, and who appear like they are one of us, but they aren't.. they are still wild things who will fly off, because their hearts were never with us.

By their fruit you will know them..

And with the butterfly you wouldn't determine that I'm in the wrong for not opening the door and allowing the butterfly in, firstly, because he's not knocking and secondly, he wasn't created to be a pet, he was created a wild thing..

So in the same way we don't say to the Potter why or that He was wrong, but that doesn't mean there aren't people who are hanging onto the door instead of knocking for entrance. They are happy where they are even though there are far greater things inside.

 

[Halbhh]

I think wayside ground is shown to have more than one distance to Christian community in the Bible.

As we see in Mark 9: 38-40:

"John said to him, 'Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will not be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us.'"

It was clear the man had enough exposure to the teachings to know there was power in the name of Christ - and how to use that power - but never cared to be a follower of Jesus and the disciples.

This man was a different kind of soil than an enemy of God, but still not a follower of Jesus.

Many have exposure to Christians and Christianity and find some safety there but are not with us.

There is a butterfly on my front door atm, weathering out the terrible storm raging outside. He has found a place of relative safety, with his little butterfly wings wrapped around his tiny butterfly body making it through the deluge.

He is finding some benefit to a human being, without being "with me" to say he's not in the house, as a beloved and cared for pet, hes outside, hanging on to the door, under the overhang part of the roof where he has some safety.

It might look like he's with me, he's even benefiting from a close proximity to me, but that doesn't mean he's actually with me.. he's still a wild thing who will fly off as soon as the rain stops falling.

The Bible speaks of people who are in some way in a close proximity to us many times, and who appear like they are one of us, but they aren't.. they are still wild things who will fly off, because their hearts were never with us.

By their fruit you will know them..

And with the butterfly you wouldn't determine that I'm in the wrong for not opening the door and allowing the butterfly in, firstly, because he's not knocking and secondly, he wasn't created to be a pet, he was created a wild thing..

So in the same way we don't say to the Potter why or that He was wrong, but that doesn't mean there aren't people who are hanging onto the door instead of knocking for entrance. They are happy where they are even though there are far greater things inside.

This metaphor reminded me of an article I saw this morning, in which the paragraph:

Justina Walford, for her part, has been without a community since the New York Sunday Assembly closed down. After a relocation to Dallas, she tried out a Southern Baptist Church near her home—and she loved it. She loved the services, the singing, the people. But the more enmeshed she became, the guiltier she felt about the secret she was carrying: She didn’t believe in God. So she stopped showing up. Sometimes she thinks about starting a Sunday Assembly chapter in Dallas, but the idea is daunting. She knows now how much work it is, and how much it hurts when things fall apart.
They Tried to Start a Church Without God. For a While, It Worked.

She seems like she could be a soil that something could sprout in, right? What would happen if she heard the complete key message of the gospel more fully, which isn't the normal message in a church service. Most often in a normal church service, the message is not to the lost, and isn't the that saving seed of the word of Christ, the Good News, of course, but instead is usually focused on an aspect of living as a believer, already saved.
One thing that some pastors try to do at times is occasionally preach that saving Good News, even though 99% or 100% in a service may have already heard it, because there might be someone that has not.

 

[Hammster]

This metaphor reminded me of an article I saw this morning, in which the paragraph:

Justina Walford, for her part, has been without a community since the New York Sunday Assembly closed down. After a relocation to Dallas, she tried out a Southern Baptist Church near her home—and she loved it. She loved the services, the singing, the people. But the more enmeshed she became, the guiltier she felt about the secret she was carrying: She didn’t believe in God. So she stopped showing up. Sometimes she thinks about starting a Sunday Assembly chapter in Dallas, but the idea is daunting. She knows now how much work it is, and how much it hurts when things fall apart.
They Tried to Start a Church Without God. For a While, It Worked.

She seems like she could be a soil that something could sprout in, right? What would happen if she heard the complete key message of the gospel more fully, which isn't the normal message in a church service. Most often in a normal church service, the message is not to the lost, and isn't the that saving seed of the word of Christ, the Good News, of course, but instead is usually focused on an aspect of living as a believer, already saved.
One thing that some pastors try to do at times is occasionally preach that saving Good News, even though 99% or 100% in a service may have already heard it, because there might be someone that has not.

The gospel should be preached every service, and for believers.