The No-Straw-Man Calvinism challenge.

[ByTheSpirit]

I suppose we will remain at an impasse then. To me, if God acts towards some while not towards others is the same as creating them just to destroy them. Which to me seems incompatible with scripture and the very nature of God himself.

 

[Hammster]

God chose all for salvation. Those who cooperate with his grace will be saved.

Titus 2:11
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

John 12:32
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.

1 Timothy 2:4
who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

That could be a record. Four verses out of context that mean something other than what you assume when taken in context.

 

[Hammster]

I suppose we will remain at an impasse then. To me, if God acts towards some while not towards others is the same as creating them just to destroy them. Which to me seems incompatible with scripture and the very nature of God himself.

I understand. It's a difficult concept until you realize that scripture has many references to where God took out the wicked without giving them a chance to repent.

 

[zippy2006]

and are usually emotionally driven straw man arguments.

A strawman is a false representation. What common strawmen are presented against Calvinism?

 

[Hammster]

A strawman is a false representation. What common strawmen are presented against Calvinism?

That's not the topic.

 

[zippy2006]

I suppose we will remain at an impasse then. To me, if God acts towards some while not towards others is the same as creating them just to destroy them. Which to me seems incompatible with scripture and the very nature of God himself.

I agree that the claim that election and reprobation are not symmetrical does not answer the objection. But on Calvinism it's not altogether clear that they aren't symmetrical.

Calvinists have been known to use the analogy of drowning. "All of mankind is drowning in the sea and God throws some of them life preservers. He just lets the others drown, he doesn't forcibly push them underwater."

Now again, this doesn't adequately answer the charge of injustice, but does it represent asymmetricity? Not necessarily, for God created the water, caused the conditions that led to all humankind being in a position to drown, and did not endow them with sufficient strength to swim to shore. God arguably causes damnation in a somewhat more indirect way, but he causes it all the same.

 

[Hammster]

I agree that the claim that election and reprobation are not symmetrical does not answer the objection. But on Calvinism it's not altogether clear that they aren't symmetrical.

Calvinists have been known to use the analogy of drowning. "All of mankind is drowning in the sea and God throws some of them life preservers. He just lets the others drown, he doesn't forcibly push them underwater."

Now again, this doesn't adequately answer the charge of injustice, but does it represent asymmetricity? Not necessarily, for God created the water, caused the conditions that led to all humankind being in a position to drown, and did not endow them sufficient strength to swim to shore. God arguably causes damnation in a somewhat more indirect way, but he causes it all the same.

I've not heard that analogy. If only there was somewhere to look that explains what we believe.

Hmmm.

 

[zippy2006]

That's not the topic.

It may be inconvenient to you, but that doesn't mean it's off-topic.

Your implicit claim in the OP is that criticisms of Calvinism are based on strawmen and therefore cannot be supported by genuine Reformed teaching. I think that's plainly false. Most criticisms of Calvinism are based on an accurate appraisal of the theology. Once superficial responses are surpassed, the Calvinist is much more likely to say, "It's in the Bible!," than, "You're misrepresenting Calvinism."

 

[rockytopva]

It may be inconvenient to you, but that doesn't mean it's off-topic.

Your implicit claim in the OP is that criticisms of Calvinism are based on strawmen and therefore cannot be supported by genuine Reformed teaching. I think that's plainly false. Most criticisms of Calvinism are based on an accurate appraisal of the theology. Once superficial responses are surpassed, the Calvinist is much more likely to say, "It's in the Bible!," than, "You're misrepresenting Calvinism."

 

[Hammster]

It may be inconvenient to you, but that doesn't mean it's off-topic.

Your implicit claim in the OP is that criticisms of Calvinism are based on strawmen and therefore cannot be supported by genuine Reformed teaching. I think that's plainly false. Most criticisms of Calvinism are based on an accurate appraisal of the theology. Once superficial responses are surpassed, the Calvinist is much more likely to say, "It's in the Bible!," than, "You're misrepresenting Calvinism."

Regardless of any perceived inconvenience, it's not the topic.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

Apparently when someone from the CF staff starts a thread they get to just censor whatever is inconvenient or "off-topic." Maybe I will apply to be part of the staff. Playing by the same rules as everyone else is such a bore!

It could just be that there's an OP, and only one member had actually addressed it.

When you can't answer the Op.you just say anything and make things up

 

[Thursday]

Regardless of any perceived inconvenience, it's not the topic.

I addressed the topic directly and proved Calvinism is contrary to scripture. Your response was a childish evasion and then you ignored the scripture.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

So having read the Canon of Dort more completely I better understand Calvinism if indeed that purports to be such.

I am on my phone and so copy and paste is a bit of a hassle, so I cannot in detail no copy it verbatim. But it basically states that:

man was originally created in God's image, with knowledge of God and love towards God but through free will chose to deviate from Him. Thus bringing wrath and condemnation upon himself. Then upon conceiving children, passed that corruption onto each generation, along with the condemnation it came with. And although some light remained in man, man was completely unable to return to the prefall state without direct intervention from the Holy Spirit. It then states that even when God brings "the elect" into a saving knowledge of Jesus, I.e. Conferring faith upon those he chose, they can still decide to fully reject such things or not completely follow, example given is the Parable of the Sower.

This brings a few issues to mind:

It still decrees that God does not reach out to each person, but only to those he decides to. Thus most people are condemned to an eternity in hell before they are even conceived.

If God interjects faith into those he chooses, why only partially (parable of the Sower)? If man is incapable of good, how can God then expect us to develop ourselves to a point of "better" faith?

You know to be honest, my biggest hang up with Calvinism and really predestination in general is the idea that God only grants salvation to some and will never allow it from all others.

We know God is just. We know he will punish all sin. Indeed he already has in Jesus. We also know people are now condemned because "they do not believe in the Son of God" John 3:18

But being just also means being fair. That God is "no respector of persons", and will treat each and everyone will the same amount of grace and judgement. How can he then do so if he himself shows favor to only a select few and not to others? He cannot be just if he only allows certain people to be saved and never grants even a whiff of salvation to others.

 

[AKAP]

As what usually happens in these threads, once Calvinism is mentioned, or someone who is Reformed posts something that seems Reformed, the arguments against Reformed Theology come out, and are usually emotionally driven straw man arguments.

This gets us nowhere because the Calvinists aren't really given the opportunity to defend what we believe, but have to spend time correcting the incorrect argument.

So here's the challenge. Below you will find links to some various documents that those who hold to Reformed Theology will agree on, at least soteriologically. The challenge to to quote from one of them, and then state why you believe it is incorrect. This will hopefully lead to a reasoned discussion. Any argument that does not start this way will be considered off topic. You are, however, free to start your own thread on that matter.

Here are your links.

The 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (I would have used the Westminster Confession, but I'm Baptist )

Canons of Dordt

Heidelberg Catechism

Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, Christian Classics Books, Bible Study

This is an extensive topic that you have presented here. It would take many days and more to discuss it with some justice.
So here is one of your links and an area within it I believe confidently is incorrect. I will only give a BRIEF reason why it is incorrect because the full answer would be too extensive. This area spills over into what 95% of so-called Christians believe in..... ..it may derail your topic of discussion quite quickly with my chosen area of discussion.

From the Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org you listed.

I disagree with question 25 part (b)..that there are three distinct persons that are the eternal God.

Brief answer: There is one God Almighty and eternal, one son of God born of God via his spirit. There is only God with his many roles including being a Father, his son, 100% human being on earth. The spirit is God, an extension and power into our world that communicated to his creation. The spirit is therefore not another personality of God, it is actually what he is composed of... if you let scripture be your guide.

I noticed an extensive scripture support the author of this Heidelberg Catechism gave for his answer. They are all incorrectly interpreted in the main. I can go through every one of them and provide you with where the author misinterpreted the scripture. I believe that would be an over-kill here.

Let me pick out a couple though:
The easy one is 1 John 5:7 -8 actually: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (KJV)
This version of 1 John 5:7-8 was not found in any Greek manuscript until the 11th century AD, although considered as the original version. Many scholars including Catholic, admit that verse 7 was a deliberate insertion t o support Trinitarianism. I also agree.
The original version was:
“For there are three that bear record/witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
This scripture had everything to do with Christ's baptism and death until it was twisted in to a nonsense satement without any useful purpose. It seems the added words were trying to legitimize Jesus as the logos because there was insufficient support in scripture at that time?? Well frankly John 1:1-2 and 14 is not really any proof, right, without inserting some text in other areas to reinforce the incorrect interpretation of the 'word'? I would say yes. (For another discussion)

Oh yes Matthew 28:19 is also an easy pick:
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (NIV)
These words of the Trinity formula (Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) were added in the first translation of the Bible from Greek into Latin in the 4th Century AD as a political decision in Rome.
St. Jerome or Eusebium considered the ‘Father of Church History’ wrote about this passage of scripture before it was formally first translated and handwritten into Latin. He did not have the Trinity formula in it.
He wrote “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.” (Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2 and also in Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8).
Now when we read of either the water or spirit baptism performed in other parts of scripture, we find that it reads like Eusebium’s version. How could the apostles and disciples get it so wrong that they always baptized in Jesus’ name only (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). And why wouldn’t they just baptize just in Jesus’ name? Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and savior for mankind. It even makes logical sense. And why would the impersonal roles of God as the Father and Jesus as the son and God’s spirit be relevant in mimicking and having faith in what Jesus did at baptism and on the cross with his death. God did not die on the cross, the human called Jesus did. God’s spirit did not die on the cross either. Even if this portion of scripture of the Trinity formula was true which it is not, it still does not say these titles or roles formed one God. - meaning no support for a Triune God here.
You can see how Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7-8 had added text to support the Trinity formual and concept.
There much more I can add with scripture support..

 

[Hammster]

So having read the Canon of Dort more completely I better understand Calvinism if indeed that purports to be such.

I am on my phone and so copy and paste is a bit of a hassle, so I cannot in detail no copy it verbatim. But it basically states that:

man was originally created in God's image, with knowledge of God and love towards God but through free will chose to deviate from Him. Thus bringing wrath and condemnation upon himself. Then upon conceiving children, passed that corruption onto each generation, along with the condemnation it came with. And although some light remained in man, man was completely unable to return to the prefall state without direct intervention from the Holy Spirit. It then states that even when God brings "the elect" into a saving knowledge of Jesus, I.e. Conferring faith upon those he chose, they can still decide to fully reject such things or not completely follow, example given is the Parable of the Sower.

This brings a few issues to mind:

It still decrees that God does not reach out to each person, but only to those he decides to. Thus most people are condemned to an eternity in hell before they are even conceived.

If God interjects faith into those he chooses, why only partially (parable of the Sower)? If man is incapable of good, how can God then expect us to develop ourselves to a point of "better" faith?

You know to be honest, my biggest hang up with Calvinism and really predestination in general is the idea that God only grants salvation to some and will never allow it from all others.

We know God is just. We know he will punish all sin. Indeed he already has in Jesus. We also know people are now condemned because "they do not believe in the Son of God" John 3:18

But being just also means being fair. That God is "no respector of persons", and will treat each and everyone will the same amount of grace and judgement. How can he then do so if he himself shows favor to only a select few and not to others? He cannot be just if he only allows certain people to be saved and never grants even a whiff of salvation to others.

Which article is that? I'll paste it in my response.

And thanks for keeping this in line with the OP.

 

[Firearms]

How can we reconcile God's love for those whom he decrees from before their birth to be condemned in hell?

"I love you so let me cast you into hell for eternity, without ever even granting you the chance for repentance so you can avoid this terrible fate."

That just boggles my mind.

I'm only going to say what I believe to be true. I look at these same things and I see in scripture that each and all are considered specifically and explained entirely. I won't pretend to be persuasive.

In the quote above, the focus or subject matter are the reprobates. I will turn it around as I focus on the redeemed. What I see in scripture is that God looks out over the wide expanse of humanity and declares our depravity...

Gen 8:21 'every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood.'
John 3:19 "This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil."

As you said, ALL of mankind is filthy, evil, corrupt, and deserving of hell. What can we say about God's love for His enemies? Common grace; Matt 5:45 For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. At the same time that He loves His entire creation, He has not shed His grace upon all. He adopted, chose, and called to Himself those whom He calls His own. The focus being on the redeemed.

Here's another Piper podcast on this: Does God Love His Enemies? | Desiring God

"I love you so let me cast you into hell for eternity, without ever even granting you the chance for repentance so you can avoid this terrible fate."

You would have to agree that they are, we all are completely deserving of such eternal punishment. The statement quoted does not demonstrate any unfairness on God's part.

John 3:19
This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.
Romans 1:20
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Mankind is altogether evil. Given their own autonomous chance, 'granting them the chance' as you said, Light has come into the world, yet they loved darkness rather than the Light. Every decision will be made in life, one way or another. But He chose to draw His own out from eternal punishment. The focus is on His undeserved mercy and the redeemed. It does boggle the mind... that He would love or save any of us.

Romans 9:22
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath--prepared for destruction?

He bears great patience for those that are not His own. He shines the sun and lets the rain fall on them the same, even though He would want to show His wrath and make His power known to them who were made for that end.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Which article is that? I'll paste it in my response.

And thanks for keeping this in line with the OP.

It was a combination of the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th headers. I already have a response on the 1st. There is a lot of text there, which is why I didn't try to copy and paste on my phone.

 

[Hammster]

This is an extensive topic that you have presented here. It would take many days and more to discuss it with some justice.
So here is one of your links and an area within it I believe confidently is incorrect. I will only give a BRIEF reason why it is incorrect because the full answer would be too extensive. This area spills over into what 95% of so-called Christians believe in..... ..it may derail your topic of discussion quite quickly with my chosen area of discussion.

From the Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org you listed.

I disagree with question 25 part (b)..that there are three distinct persons that are the eternal God.

Brief answer: There is one God Almighty and eternal, one son of God born of God via his spirit. There is only God with his many roles including being a Father, his son, 100% human being on earth. The spirit is God, an extension and power into our world that communicated to his creation. The spirit is therefore not another personality of God, it is actually what he is composed of... if you let scripture be your guide.

I noticed an extensive scripture support the author of this Heidelberg Catechism gave for his answer. They are all incorrectly interpreted in the main. I can go through every one of them and provide you with where the author misinterpreted the scripture. I believe that would be an over-kill here.

Let me pick out a couple though:
The easy one is 1 John 5:7 -8 actually: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (KJV)
This version of 1 John 5:7-8 was not found in any Greek manuscript until the 11th century AD, although considered as the original version. Many scholars including Catholic, admit that verse 7 was a deliberate insertion t o support Trinitarianism. I also agree.
The original version was:
“For there are three that bear record/witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”
This scripture had everything to do with Christ's baptism and death until it was twisted in to a nonsense satement without any useful purpose. It seems the added words were trying to legitimize Jesus as the logos because there was insufficient support in scripture at that time?? Well frankly John 1:1-2 and 14 is not really any proof, right, without inserting some text in other areas to reinforce the incorrect interpretation of the 'word'? I would say yes. (For another discussion)

Oh yes Matthew 28:19 is also an easy pick:
“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” (NIV)
These words of the Trinity formula (Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) were added in the first translation of the Bible from Greek into Latin in the 4th Century AD as a political decision in Rome.
St. Jerome or Eusebium considered the ‘Father of Church History’ wrote about this passage of scripture before it was formally first translated and handwritten into Latin. He did not have the Trinity formula in it.
He wrote “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name.” (Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2 and also in Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8).
Now when we read of either the water or spirit baptism performed in other parts of scripture, we find that it reads like Eusebium’s version. How could the apostles and disciples get it so wrong that they always baptized in Jesus’ name only (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5). And why wouldn’t they just baptize just in Jesus’ name? Jesus was the perfect sacrifice and savior for mankind. It even makes logical sense. And why would the impersonal roles of God as the Father and Jesus as the son and God’s spirit be relevant in mimicking and having faith in what Jesus did at baptism and on the cross with his death. God did not die on the cross, the human called Jesus did. God’s spirit did not die on the cross either. Even if this portion of scripture of the Trinity formula was true which it is not, it still does not say these titles or roles formed one God. - meaning no support for a Triune God here.
You can see how Matthew 28:19 and 1 John 5:7-8 had added text to support the Trinity formual and concept.
There much more I can add with scripture support..

This isn't a Calvinistic concept. So while appreciate your thoroughness, it's outside the scope of this thread.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I'm only going to say what I believe to be true. I look at these same things and I see in scripture that each and all are considered specifically and explained entirely. I won't pretend to be persuasive.

In the quote above, the focus or subject matter are the reprobates. I will turn it around as I focus on the redeemed. What I see in scripture is that God looks out over the wide expanse of humanity and declares our depravity...

As you said, ALL of mankind is filthy, evil, corrupt, and deserving of hell. What can we say about God's love for His enemies? Common grace; Matt 5:45 For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. At the same time that He loves His entire creation, He has not shed His grace upon all. He adopted, chose, and called to Himself those whom He calls His own. The focus being on the redeemed.

Here's another Piper podcast on this: Does God Love His Enemies? | Desiring God


You would have to agree that they are, we all are completely deserving of such eternal punishment. The statement quoted does not demonstrate any unfairness on God's part.

Mankind is altogether evil. Given their own autonomous chance, 'granting them the chance' as you said, Light has come into the world, yet they loved darkness rather than the Light. Every decision will be made in life, one way or another. But He chose to draw His own out from eternal punishment. The focus is on His undeserved mercy and the redeemed. It does boggle the mind... that He would love or save any of us.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree then

 

[ToBeLoved]

I read the source you cited. It doesn't mention that God does things without human interaction or intervention. So I don't see how this relates.

I don't see how the other two questions relate, either.

I think that it pertained to is prayer even effective at all or does God even listen to our prayers because as a Calvinist you do not belive that God listens or cares about prayer, although Jesus Christ clearly prayed and told us to pray and how to pray.

So then did Jesus mess up telling us to pray and that God hears our prayers when the Calvinist belief is God doesnt care.

Seems to me that stands at the helm of if God is perfect and leads us in Truth or if He just sits back and laughs at us for doing what His perfect Son instructed us to do.

So who's right?