What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[John Mullally]

Nice. It is good to have a simple heart toward the Scriptures. But that doesn't mean that any of them should be abandoned or neglected.

Yes.

Does Acts 2:38-39 deny these can happen simultaneously?

That says salvation (i.e. remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit) occurs in response to repentance and baptism to the preaching of the Gospel. There is nothing in there talking about the Holy Spirit changing anyone's heart before repentance. Wow, that is your opening argument!

Nevertheless, the cause-effect relationship is clear according to multiple scriptures, such as Romans 8 and Eph 2, that the mind of the flesh cannot do what is spiritual, until it is made spiritual.

The cause-effect relationship I see is first qualify for the grace filled promise in Acts 2:38-39, and then receive the grace of Ephesians 2. I love Ephesians 2.

Man has spirit and flesh. A believers spirit, not his flesh, is born again - and he must stifle his flesh. No one is exempt as Paul shows in 1 Cor 9:27.

1 Corinthians 9:27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.​

The dead cannot do anything until they are made alive. And that happens by Grace, not of yourself.

It is a bad idea for men to place limits on the Holy Spirit by saying He cannot convict a spiritual dead person with the Gospel.

Not trying to be rude, but you are being —(what's the word?)— dismissive of what you don't see necessary for you to have the habit of being or doing. As if, since it doesn't matter to you, why should it matter to anyone else?

Yes, very much dismissive. I don't understand your fixation with speculation, what you cannot change, and what remains secret.

There are many gifts. If you don't see the need for accurate doctrine, it's either because "maybe that's just not [your] gift" (i.e. you're simply just not really that interested), or you don't understand the importance of Scripture, or because you are satisfied with 'freewill' as superior to God's sovereign choice.

I like clearly declared doctrine in scripture. But some are not content with that and resort to inductive reasoning and speculation to invent doctrine.

Free will: Galatians 6:7 says God rewards sowing to the spirit, so get in on the opportunity.

Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to the flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
​

God's Sovereign Choice: I can safely say the "faithful in Christ Jesus" are predestined to all spiritual blessings in heavenly places (Ephesians 1:1-6).

Calvinists are amazed and compelled by God's Grace. Why God would bother to exalt us, at such cost to himself, "while we were yet sinners...", is beyond our ability to praise adequately. We MUST look into it. "The lion has roared —who will not be afraid?" comes to mind.

I don't see Charismatics any less appreciative of God's grace. You mentioned praise: If you are measuring gratitude to God by the length of praise services and enthusiasm, we win (probably the only nice thing John MacArthur said about us).

 

[zoidar]

Even that necessarily (logically) implies causation to any result, such as the choice any soul makes. If God caused (made) the soul, everything that soul does is caused. And thus 'free will' must be defined. Nothing that God caused can be uncaused. (God cannot have even 'caused himself' as some claim. He is self-existent —not self-created.)

I'm just against the idea that the reason I make this choice, is because God created me with these characteristics, and God Himself is uncaused. This idea of chain of events I don't believe in.

I believe: The reason I make choice, is because God created me. Not that my choice was like this, because God created me this way. So me choosing was caused, but not my specific choice, more than caused by free will. And free will was caused by God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So in reference to the quote I tried to capture (I'm new here and trying to figure this out), if he foreknew who would follow Christ and who wouldn't, why does he call all to repentance? Who would try to talk someone into doing something he knew would never happen?

Would you assume that he would not would command something that he knew would never happen?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Would you say then, that God does not know what will happen? Is he omniscient, or not? Are you going to take the Open-Theism tack that he does know everything, but he can't know the future since it hasn't happened yet? (i.e. that the future is not yet a 'thing')

 

[zoidar]

Even that necessarily (logically) implies causation to any result, such as the choice any soul makes. If God caused (made) the soul, everything that soul does is caused. And thus 'free will' must be defined. Nothing that God caused can be uncaused. (God cannot have even 'caused himself' as some claim. He is self-existent —not self-created.)

Zoidar, you have my respect and admiration. I don't wish to belittle the thinking behind your references to 'soul'. But I don't see where they are derived from Scripture. They sound not only like guesswork, but also unlike Scripture. You may be right, that 'freewill is an attribute to soul', but what really does that mean, then, if you are right? What do you mean by, "I think the First cause is soul." I'm not asking this to be contentious, but I don't understand where that's going or where it is coming from. (lol, sounds almost like John 3!)



Fair enough. Romans 8 says that the 'mind of the flesh' (or variously, the 'natural mind', 'those dominated by the sinful nature', 'those who live according to the flesh', 'they that are after the flesh', 'those being according to the flesh', 'those who walk in the flesh', 'those who are in the flesh', 'carnally minded', 'controlled by their earthly natures', 'sensually affected', 'those who live by the corrupt nature', 'those who are in the realm of the flesh' etc. — (I think there can be little doubt who this is referring to: those who have inherited Adam's sin nature, and are not yet spiritually alive, according to verse 5 and 6)) in verse 5 is said to be set on what the flesh desires, and NOT THE SPIRIT. Verse 6 says "the mind governed by the flesh is death". Verse 7 says, "the mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so" (Literal Standard and KJV "at enmity with God"). Verse 8 says, "those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God." It is not a logical leap to say that those who "accept Christ" are pleasing him. Therefore, one must have the natural mind, or mind after the flesh, and dead, made alive, into the mind after the Spirit, in order to be able to submit to God's law, and to please God, and to no longer be at enmity with God.

Both Arminian and Calvinist agree that this transformation is what is called regeneration and that it is impossible apart from God's work. What they don't agree on is how it does happen, or more specifically, WHEN, in the logical sequence of soteriology. But Romans 8 is plain that nothing spiritual can happen until the dead mind of flesh is made alive.

I agree that the conviction (and several other things) are necessary before one will choose God. The question is not whether we choose God after conviction, but whether regeneration is necessary in order for one to choose God. Romans 8 says that the dead will not choose God.

Ok, I will start from Romans 7. Paul describes how it was for him before he was saved as a convicted man of sin. He was like he says in verse 14 "sold into the bondage of sin" and verse 24 says "he had a body of death". In other words Romans 7 describes a person dead in sin.

I have to add here that I wish Romans 7 was describing the life of the believer, but I just don't think it is. I can't see Paul describing his present life as a saint of God as being "sold into bondage of sin" and "being a prisoner of the law of sin".

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
— Romans 8:5

That is how it is. Those of the flesh live a fleshly life. And those who have received the Spirit live Spiritual lives.

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
— Romans 8:6

If we live in from the flesh we will die, if we live from the Spirit we will live.

because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God (doesn't obey the law of God), for it is not even able to do so (obey the law of God), and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
— Romans 8:7-8

Here we have what Paul is talking about in Romans 7. Those of flesh can't obey the law of God no matter how much they want to. They need the Holy Spirit. The difference with Romans 7 and 8 I think is that Romans 7 talks about convicted man, and Romans 8 of unconvicted man, yet both dead in sin.

For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man (he is convicted), but I see a different law in the members of my body (he has not yet received the Spirit), waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
— Romans 7:22-23

This is at how I see it, taking into account the possibilty of being wrong. Some part of me wish I am.

I believe like Arminians, that the order is repentance then regeneration.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm just against the idea that the reason I make this choice, is because God created me with these characteristics, and God Himself is uncaused. This idea of chain of events I don't believe in.

I believe: The reason I make choice, is because God created me. Not that my choice was like this, because God created me this way. So me choosing was caused, but not my specific choice, more than caused by free will. And free will was caused by God.

The notion that God caused absolutely all things may be unpalatable, but to me it appears an inescapable logic. I do understand that it is not instinctive, and perhaps, with a counter-intuitive feel to experience. But, I think, to deny it is to claim not only that science and intuition has always been wrong about cause-and-effect (that it is pervasive), but it also implies that mere chance can determine things (which is logically self-contradictory).

 

[Mark Quayle]

That says salvation (i.e. remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit) occurs in response to repentance and baptism to the preaching of the Gospel. There is nothing in there talking about the Holy Spirit changing anyone's heart before repentance. Wow, that is your opening argument!

Well, no, it doesn't say it; it doesn't imply it either, but you infer it.

It is a bad idea for men to place limits on the Holy Spirit by saying He cannot convict a spiritual dead person with the Gospel.

I didn't say he cannot convict a spiritual dead person. I said a spiritually dead person cannot do a spiritually alive thing, such as repent. After all, I do claim that even the spiritually dead have a conscience.

Yes, very much dismissive. I don't understand your fixation with speculation, what you cannot change, and what remains secret.

Yet you constantly defend "free will".

I like clearly declared doctrine in scripture. But some are not content with that and resort to inductive reasoning and speculation to invent doctrine.

Free will: Galatians 6:7 says God rewards sowing to the spirit, so get in on the opportunity.
Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap. For he who sows to the flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.
God's Sovereign Choice: I can safely say the "faithful in Christ Jesus" are predestined to all spiritual blessings in heavenly places (Ephesians 1:1-6).

The fact you use this verse this way implies that you think that I think we don't choose. I insist that we DO choose. I can safely say the "faithful in Christ Jesus" are the ones who (inhabited by the Spirit of God) are able to choose God, and whom (sealed by the Spirit) God keeps.

I don't see Charismatics any less appreciative of God's grace. You mentioned praise: If you are measuring gratitude to God by the length of praise services and enthusiasm, we win (probably the only nice thing John MacArthur said about us).

Haha! Why would I measure gratitude to God by the length of praise services and enthusiasm? By the way, there are Reformed Charismatics... just saying...

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'm just against the idea that the reason I make this choice, is because God created me with these characteristics, and God Himself is uncaused. This idea of chain of events I don't believe in.

I believe: The reason I make choice, is because God created me. Not that my choice was like this, because God created me this way. So me choosing was caused, but not my specific choice, more than caused by free will. And free will was caused by God.

Not that this is doctrine, nor can I say that I see it correctly, but I think there is something to it: It is possible that even the smallest motion or force of matter/energy is a very physical substance, that we call, "the love of God." (And no, haha, that isn't a Calvinist teaching). Such a thing would imply an awful lot, and explain an awful lot of things, that we have been discussing on this thread.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, I will start from Romans 7. Paul describes how it was for him before he was saved as a convicted man of sin. He was like he says in verse 14 "sold into the bondage of sin" and verse 24 says "he had a body of death". In other words Romans 7 describes a person dead in sin.

I have to add here that I wish Romans 7 was describing the life of the believer, but I just don't think it is. I can't see Paul describing his present life as a saint of God as being "sold into bondage of sin" and "being a prisoner of the law of sin".

There is a whole lot more to Romans 7 than that, though yes, I agree, from vs 7 up to vs 25, that is what Paul describes rhetorically there. But in verse 25 we see that what came before it also applies to the sin nature, which in other places scripture says the sinful nature must constantly be put to death in the believer, which is possible because his body of death is not the same thing as his spirit —so he is no longer a slave.

For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
— Romans 8:5

That is how it is. Those of the flesh live a fleshly life. And those who have received the Spirit live Spiritual lives.

For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
— Romans 8:6

"Received" is used different ways in the NT, some of them not at all implying choice or willed acceptance, nor necessarily implying permanence. (There is a difference, for example, between "being filled with the Spirit of God" and "the Spirit of God taking up residence within me". They may happen simultaneously, and they can happen separately. "Being filled" is not necessarily permanent. But being his residence is permanent. In fact, there are places where it appears that the Spirit of God caused even unbelievers to, for example, prophesy.)

If we live in from the flesh we will die, if we live from the Spirit we will live.

because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God (doesn't obey the law of God), for it is not even able to do so (obey the law of God), and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
— Romans 8:7-8

Here we have what Paul is talking about in Romans 7. Those of flesh can't obey the law of God no matter how much they want to. They need the Holy Spirit. The difference with Romans 7 and 8 I think is that Romans 7 talks about convicted man, and Romans 8 of unconvicted man, yet both dead in sin.

For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man (he is convicted), but I see a different law in the members of my body (he has not yet received the Spirit), waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
— Romans 7:22-23

This is at how I see it, taking into account the possibilty of being wrong. Some part of me wish I am.

I believe like Arminians, that the order is repentance then regeneration.

"Yet both dead in sin", and therefore unable to repent. If one dead in sin is convicted, he may know that he should repent and believe, but the 'how' escapes him. He may intellectually know how, but he remains unable to do so. He may even convince himself that he has done so, but has not. Even the Arminian claims that he is unable to do so apart from the work of the Spirit. But I say that repentance is nothing, apart from the Spirit of God working in me. If I am indwelt by the Spirit I will and I must repent. If I am not indwelt by the Spirit I should, but I cannot repent.

The part where this difference between Arminian and Calvinist is most stark, is more than simply a "Regeneration vs Prevenient Grace" argument; it is the rare fact of monergism vs synergism. Does man's "cooperation" mean what Arminians, when pressed as to just what they mean, must admit —that in fact the effort of man adds to the effort of God to effect a greater result than the work of God alone; it is a claim that man is able to improve on God's work, when Scripture attributes the whole business to God (this is the very definition of 'Grace'). The core behind even that, is the notion that fallen man is of himself able of himself to actually choose what God has not predestined to happen, and like it, that God must depend on, even wait for, the will of man to accomplish what God decides to do. As my wife insisted, "God cannot use me unless I obey him." But Scripture shows God accomplishing whatever he wants, whenever he wants, however he wants it to be done.

On this site, in other threads, I have had "freewillers" claiming Arminianism, tell me that choice is necessarily uncaused (or it is not real choice) and that all options from which a choice is made are necessarily equally (or at least, actually) possible to happen, (as opposed to just one being possible, and the others being presented to the mind as "possible"). But, if causation is pervasive, as logic insists, and since there can be only one first cause, both of those claims are illogical, bogus, false. And, I add, they are unscriptural.

 

[Clare73]

All I can say is that if you believe God throws aborted babies into the fire then
you don't know Him. If you believe the ignorant have the same accountability as the knowledgeable then you don't know Him.

Or is it that you know the God of human wisdom (Isaiah 55:8-9) rather than the God of the Scriptures (Romans 9:18-20; Joshua 11:20; 2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 5:26; Ezekiel 14:9; Revelation 17:17)?

 

[Clare73]

#1727 (was either missed or ignored for some reason)

"But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
— 1 Corinthians 2:14
That is true about the common man.​

There is no "common man" in the NT.
There are the unregenerate, who do not have the Holy Spirit, and the regenerate, who do.

He doesn't understand or accept the things of the Spirit until he repents and receive the Spirit. Then he can accept and understand.
You can be unsaved and be a natural man and still believe in Christ death and resurrection. So that can't be what Paul talks about in 1 Cor 2. The natural man has to get the Spirit to know God, and be saved. I think that is Paul's point."

1 Cor 2 explains the difference between the natural man and the Spiritual man. But it doesn't explain how a natural man becomes a Spiritual man.

Paul says they are Spiritual because they have received the Spirit of God. Does it say how they received the Spirit of God? Does it say they were first regenerated, before repentance? I don't see that in the text..
Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
— 1 Corinthians 2:12

That is all covered in John 3:3-8: "No one can see the kingdom of God until he is born from above.

Edit: See (eidon) means "to know, to be acquainted with."

You cannot respond to information regarding the kingdom of God because it is foolishness to you, you cannot understand it (1 Corinthians 2:14) until you have the Holy Spirit, which is regeneration.

 

[Clare73]

"God’s omniscience permitted Him to perfectly foreknow, before any creation, A.) who would accept and follow Jesus"

However, divine foreknowledge is not about God knowing in advance what man is going to do.
It is about God knowing in advance what is going to happen because he has decreed from before the foundation of the world that it shall happen.

Does God call all to repentance?

God commands all to repent.

 

[Clare73]

Not that this is doctrine, nor can I say that I see it correctly, but I think there is something to it: It is possible that even the smallest motion or force of matter/energy is a very physical substance, that we call, "the love of God." (And no, haha, that isn't a Calvinist teaching). Such a thing would imply an awful lot, and explain an awful lot of things, that we have been discussing on this thread.

Energy and matter are two forms of the same thing, like water and steam.
Matter can be completely changed into energy, which likewise means the reverse, which man has yet to do.

 

[Greg Cheney]

Would you say then, that God does not know what will happen? Is he omniscient, or not? Are you going to take the Open-Theism tack that he does know everything, but he can't know the future since it hasn't happened yet? (i.e. that the future is not yet a 'thing')

Why are you answering a question with a question? Is that how you always conversate? Assuming you hold to Calvinistic teachings, you no doubt will claim that God knows because God ordains all that occurs. Which then means you would resort to the tired argument that when God says he commands "all men everywhere" to repent, he really means "all kinds of men." If my assumption is wrong I will gladly acknowledge it.

 

[RickReads]

Or is it that you know the God of human wisdom (Isaiah 55:8-9) rather than the God of the Scriptures (Romans 9:18-20)?

Nice display of militant Calvinism. Well done.

 

[Clare73]

God channels man's supposed free will wherever He desires.

In agreement with Scripture:
Genesis 20:6; Exodus 3:21, 14:17, 23:27; Deuteronomy 2:25, Deuteronomy 2:30; Joshua 11:20; 1 Samuel 10:9; 2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Kings 22:23; 1 Chronicles 5:26; Ezra 1:1, Ezra 1:5; Nehemiah 2:12, 7:5; Proverbs 21:1; Ezekiel 14:9; Daniel 1:9, 11:36; John 6:37; Acts 2:23, 4:28, 13:48; 2 Corinthians 8:16; Revelation 17:17.

For the answer to man's objection to this, see Romans 9:19-21.

Beware the laundry list. Its use as a rhetorical device invariably conceals its failure of support. If there was direct logical support for the proposition for which it’s being offered, the advocate wouldn’t need to throw everything against the wall, but would focus on the specific argument that conclusively demonstrates the propriety of the position.

Clare it would help your argumentation a lot if you explain the verses you quote. A verse can say ten different thing depending who is reading it. Of course it only has one meaning, but I think it's where you have to take the discussion if you want to convince anyone.

Okay. . .taking your advice again. . .still not too sure why these need to be explained.
Is it not evident they present God sovereignly working within man to accomplish his purposes?

Genesis 20:6 - God worked in the disposition of Abimelech to keep him from sinning against God.
Exodus 3:21 - God favorably disposed the Egyptians toward Israel.
Exodus 14:17 - God hardened the hearts of the Egyptians.
Exodus 23:27 - God threw into confusion every nation Israel encountered.
Deuteronomy 2:25 - God put terror and fear of Israel on all the nations under heaven.
Deuteronomy 2:30 - God had made the spirit of Sidon king of Heshbon stubborn and his heart obstinate.
Joshua 11:20 - God himself hardened the hearts of the northern kings to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy.
1 Samuel 10:9 - God changed Saul's heart.
2 Samuel 24:1 - God incited David against Israel.
1 Kings 22:23 - God put a lying spirit in the mouths of the prophets.
1 Chronicles 5:26 - God stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, who took the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh into exile.
Ezra 1:1 - God moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm.
Ezra 1:5 - God moved the hearts who prepared to go up and build the house.
Nehemiah 2:12 - . . .God had put it in Nehemiah's heart what to do for Jerusalem.
Nehemiah 7:5 - God put it in Nehemiah's heart to assemble the nobles. . .
Proverbs 21:1 - The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord; he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.
Ezekiel 14:9 - God entices the prophet, stretches out his hand against him and destroys him.
Daniel 1:9 - God has caused the official to show sympathy and favor to Daniel.
Daniel 11:36 - The king will do as he pleases. . .He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place.
John 6:37 - All that the Father gives Jesus will come to him.
Acts 2:23 - Jesus was handed over to his executioners by God's set purpose and foreknowledge (decree).
Acts 4:28 - Jesus' executioners did what God's power and will had decided beforehand (foreknowledge) should happen.
Acts 13:48 - . . .all who were appointed for eternal life believed.
2 Corinthians 8:16 - God. . .put it into the heart of Titus. . .
Revelation 17:17 - God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to give the beast their power to rule, until God's words are fulfilled.

Ergo: "God channels man's supposed free will wherever He desires."

And so much for the "rhetorical device (list of Scriptures) invariably concealing its failure of support."
That is so trite.

Brings an old Arab proverb back to mind (post #1870) .

 

[Clare73]

Or is it that you know the God of human wisdom (Isaiah 55:8-9) rather than the God of the Scriptures (Romans 9:18-20; Joshua 11:20; 2 Samuel 24:1; 1 Chronicles 5:26; Ezekiel 14:9; Revelation 17:17)?

Nice display of militant Calvinism. Well done.

Heat. . .but no light.

Falls somewhat short of a Biblical demonstration of error.

.

 

[TedT]

I think that the better analogy would be that the house is equipped with smoke alarms and a fire escape and that those who take action when they hear the smoke alarm go off and use the fire escape to get out of the house are those who escape the fire.

Yes, you are right...but even Satan got created into a perfect creation with a perfect ability to be faithful to GOD but not us!!!

There is NO reason, let alone even a bad one, for GOD to create HIS bride and church inheriting the sins or the effects of sinfulness of another's choice to sin. The mind boggles...

 

[Clare73]

Yes, you are right...but even Satan got created into a perfect creation with a perfect ability to be faithful to GOD but not us!!!

There is NO reason, let alone even a bad one, for GOD to create HIS bride and church inheriting the sins or the effects of sinfulness of another's choice to sin. The mind boggles...

And yet I can think of a good one. . .

It is likewise the testimony of Scripture that it is so (Romans 5:18).

We get to choose between human wisdom and divine wisdom.

 

[TedT]

I think that the better analogy would be that the house is equipped with smoke alarms and a fire escape and that those who take action when they hear the smoke alarm go off and use the fire escape to get out of the house are those who escape the fire.

This is a better analogy than mine but don't forget, the people in the house by the circumstances of their conception / birth (ie their creation) CANNOT hear the smoke alarm and CANNOT see the fire escape nor come to realize its usefulness UNLESS the Father opens their minds to HIM and their situation! If HE was going to do that for them anyway, why make them live in a burning house when even HIS greatest enemy got to burn his own hose down by his own free will choice??? !!