What is wrong with Calvinism ?

[AVB 2]

Quote "Show me an example from scripture when God changes a persons heart without them saying yes to Him in some way first."

Since when does the sovereign God almighty ask a person's permission to change him or her? God does what He wants to do, to whomever He wants to do it to, and whenever He wants to do it. One of the perks of being Almighty God.

Psalm 135:6 “Whatever the Lord pleases, He does, in heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps.”

Isaiah 46:9-10 “For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things which have not been done, saying, ‘My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure.’”

Daniel 4:35 “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him “What have You done?’”

Job 42:2 “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.”

Prov. 16:9 “The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps”

Prov. 16:3. “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord."

Prov. 19:21 “Many plans are in a man’s heart, but the counsel of the Lord will stand.”

Jeremiah 10:23 “I know, O Lord, that a man’s way is not in himself, nor is it in a man who walks to direct his steps.”

Jeremiah 15:2 “…This is what the Lord says: “Those who are destined for death, to death; those who are destined for war, to war; those who are destined for famine, for famine; those who are destined for captivity, to captivity.”

 

[RickReads]

That reasoning is a cop-out, and somewhat arrogantly or disrespectfully done, I think. You know well the Calvinist points, referred to as TULIP, are not considered man's invention, thought the expression of them and the systematic inclusion of them into a group can be considered man's invention, and certainly the acrostic reference "TULIP" is man's invention. Besides that, YOU are the one who brought up TULIP. I hadn't mentioned it in my post quoting Ephesians 2.

But to your points:

1) "Ephesians 2 does not teach a regeneration occurring in advance of salvation"

After no mention of man's choice (except towards evil) verse 5 says that God "made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved". Do I need to say that that, (God making the dead alive), is regeneration?? Or is that not obvious? And do you claim that the dead in sin are already saved, while still dead in their sins? And since no passage is to be interpreted by itself only, do you understand what imputation is within the context of salvation?? "Saved" necessarily implies all these things, which you take to be acts of the human will, and God says are not. To be sure, God does not say that the human will does not decide, but that it is not the operative principle behind the success or actuality or reality of what has happened.

Also, I do not teach that Regeneration necessarily occurs in advance of Salvation as a time sequence, but that salvation, (and all other facts and virtues related to being born again), is a result of the "installation" (my word) by God of his Spirit into us, who were dead in sin. And that 'installation' is, or is the immediate cause of, regeneration. That indwelling, (not simply "possession of" as can be said of demons), that making his home in us, is permanent, and changes the nature of person indwelt. Unlike "free will" and its necessary "prevenient grace", this is not a mere theological construction we add to Scripture. It is what Ephesians 2 (and many other places) plainly teaches.

2) "Ephesians 2 does not... ...teach irresistible grace".

But in fact, it does. As I mentioned above, without any reference to man's choice, except towards evil, before God regenerates us, it shows God's grace being given us apart from any qualifying choice on our part. We do not even know he is changing us, until we see a difference. There is no mention of him asking our permission to regenerate us, any more than there is any mention of his asking our permission to give us life to begin with.

GRACE by definition means it is not by any action of ours, but all done by God, and that can't be made any more clear than Ephesians 2 makes it. "8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast."

Get real Mark. I dunno why but I`ll quote you.

"HOW does Ephesians 2 teach otherwise than TULIP, or in opposition to TULIP? "

Now that's a direct quote so own it. No need to falsely accuse me of being disrespectful or arrogant here. That charge is nothing but a form of Ad Hominum. And the only people who think TULIP is not
man's invention are the Calvinists. Sorry, but God did not write the epistle of TULIP. It`s a doctrine of
men.

Your verse 5 is a direct reference to salvation, You have to get seeded by the gospel in order for that to happen.No matter how much confused rhetoric you write to try and say otherwise it`s a principle that cannot be violated.

The "installation" (your word) by God of his Spirit into us is the action by God that saves us. By the Spirit of Christ, we are received into the Body of Christ. This cannot happen until after we are seeded by the gospel and repent.

Your doctrine of irresistible grace is a myth. It believes that God subverts man's will in order to force him to get saved. No matter what rationalization you come up with that is the truth.

Jesus said many are called, few are chosen. Going by the Calvin doctrine for regeneration it usually doesn't work. Calvin regeneration is a flop. Thank God it isn't true and the elect get saved.

 

[Der Alte]

To Whom It May Concern:
Anybody can make the Bible say almost anything by quoting selective verses out-of-context.
Twenty two categories of unrighteous people who have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.1. adulterers, 2. covetous, 3. drunkenness, 4. effeminate, 5. emulations, 6. envious, 7. extortion 8. fornication, 9. hatred, 10. heresies, 11. homosexuals, 12. idolators, 13. lasciviousness, 14. murder, 15. reveling, 16. revilers 17. sedition, 18. strife, 19. thieves, 20. uncleanness 21. witchcraft. 22. Wrath
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 3:17

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: [no wrongdoer] neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Ephesians 5:5 For this ye know, that [no wrongdoer] no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
Psalms 95:10-11
(10) Forty years long was I grieved with this generation, and said, It is a people that do err in their heart, and they have not known my ways:
(11) Unto whom I sware in my wrath that they should not enter into my rest.
Hebrews 3:11-14
(11) So I sware in my wrath, They shall not enter into my rest.)[Ps 95:11]
(12) Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
(13) But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
(14) For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end;
Matthew 7:21-23
(21) Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
(22) Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
(23) And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Twenty two categories of unrighteous people who have no inheritance in the kingdom of God.1. adulterers, 2. covetous, 3. drunkenness, 4. effeminate, 5. emulations, 6. envious, 7. extortion 8. fornication, 9. hatred, 10. heresies, 11. homosexuals, 12. idolators, 13. lasciviousness, 14. murder, 15. reveling, 16. revilers 17. sedition, 18. strife, 19. thieves, 20. uncleanness 21. witchcraft. 22. Wrath
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Galatians 5:19-21, Ephesians 5:5, 1 Corinthians 3:17
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: [no wrongdoer] neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.​

 

[Mark Quayle]

That is not what I'm asking. My question is why God created Jimmy for the purpose of member of the Bride, but not Clark.

I see you give two answers to this:

1. God could only create the universe this way to be worthy of being one with God. In other words God could only create Jimmy for heaven and Clark for judgement for the creation to be worthy of being one with God.

It could be so, but I see no reason for why that would be the case.

2. God created Jimmy for heaven for His purpose and Clark for judgement for His purpose. Why we don't know (more than it was for His pleassure) unless 1. is correct.

I did not say God created the universe to be worthy of being one with God. If I did, it was definitely a typo. He created what he did for his own purposes, and that purpose required precisely what he did, which is, frankly, redundant to even say.

If he created Jimmy to become one of the members of the Bride, but not Clark, it is because he created Clark to be one of those whom he used to show his power and glory, and because the Bride does not include Clark as a member. Are you asking why the Bride is composed of people of Jimmy's particular personality and character vs that of Clark? Why not ask why God made the Bride as he did, according to his particular preferences. She is his dwelling place, his construction, his people. The hand is not the knee, and the skin is not the bone. Only what makes her perfect is used. There are no generic cells, no T-cells, there is no injury healing, no replacement of dying cells, no moving of less-celebrated body parts to make up for missing necessary parts.

But maybe you are asking something I can't understand.

 

[RickReads]

God is absolutely sovereign. Always has been and always will be. The term "sovereign" (when applied to God or the Lord) is found 294 times in the scriptures so to say He is not sovereign is ludicrous. Plus can you imagine what a mess this world would be if satan were sovereign!

According to John 6:44 it is God the Father that draws the sinner and not the Holy Spirit. “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day." I cannot find any scripture that says the Holy Spirit draws anyone to Christ.

There is something interesting in the Greek word translated “draw.” It is helkuo, which means “to drag” (literally or figuratively). Clearly, this drawing is a one-sided affair. God does the drawing to salvation; we who are drawn have a passive role in the process. There is no doubt that we respond to His drawing us, but the drawing itself is all on His part. Imagine for a moment a man flying a kite. The man runs into the wind and the wind picks the kite up into the air. The man controlling the kite pays out some of the string and the kite goes higher and higher. Eventually the man tires of flying the kite so he draws the kite back to himself. The kite has no choice but to be drawn. The kite may fight against being drawn and the wind may make the drawing difficult but the kite nevertheless will be drawn back home.

Thanks for the approval of the song. Arminians would sing it, but not Calvinists!

Arminians believe in the draw as well as the knock at the door. But Jesus does not kick the door open and the draw, knock is not regeneration.

 

[RickReads]

In order for anyone to be born again (and therefore be fit for eternal life in heaven) EVERYONE must believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

That is the Arminian view and it conflicts with the Calvinist view you profess to believe in.

 

[Clare73]

God's two wills. Acts 2:23 “Jesus, was delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, whom you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”

On the cross, the Revealed Will and the Secret Will of God collided. According to God's revealed will He allowed his secret will to be violated in order that the greater purpose of his glory, in the saving of his people, might be accomplished. So we learn this principle, sometimes God does that which he hates (in the case of Jesus’ murder) in order to accomplish his greater good plan. On one hand, morally, God never wills that any should perish (1 Tim 2:4) yet, in the greater scheme of things, his goodness and justice is seen more brightly and rightly if some do in fact perish. So He sovereignty wills their perishing. In having holy justice occur upon the perishing the true heinousness of sin is shown.

In saving some from perishing, the true and deep nature of his mercy and love is shown. Thus once again, as with Jesus on the cross, we have God doing that which on one hand he hates, in order to on the other hand accomplish the greater good of his glory.

We know that it was not the 'will of God' that Judas and Pilate and Herod and the Gentile soldiers and the Jewish crowds disobey the revealed law of God by sinning in delivering Jesus up to be crucified. But we also know that it was the will of God that this come to pass. Therefore we know that God in some sense wills what he does not will in another sense.

Or that God's revealed will is not necessarily his secret will (Deuteronomy 29:29).

Gen 50:20 Here God's revealed will to Joseph's brothers was that they should love him and not steal from him or sell him into slavery or make plans to murder him, nor lie to their father about what happened to him. But God's secret will was that in the disobedience of Joseph's brothers a greater good would be done when Joseph, having been sold into slavery into Egypt, gained authority over the land and was able to save his entire family.

Same problem with Pharaoh in secret will (Exodus 4:21) and revealed will (Exodus 4:22) of God.

Non-Calvinists claim that the reason why all are not saved is that God wills to preserve the free will of man more than he wills to save everyone. But is this not also making a distinction in two aspects of the will of God? On the one hand God wills that all be saved (1 Tim. 2:5-6; 2 Peter 3:9), but on the other hand he wills to preserve man's absolutely free choice. In fact, he wills the second thing more than the
first. But this means that non-Calvinists also must say that 1 Timothy 2:5-6 and 2 Peter 3:9 do not say that God wills the salvation of everyone in an absolute or unqualified way, they too must say that the verses only refer to one kind or one aspect of God's will.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Concerning Arminianism it's the question Mark Quayle posted. Something like why A is "choosing" Christ but not B. What is it with A that makes him do the better choice, is A better than B? Is it chance? The answer is, I have no idea why, other than I believe free will is involved. So I see that as a similar dilemma as we have in Calvinism where we don't know why God creates A for heaven but not B.

I may be wrong, but I think Mark was trying to get you to see the only answer is the one Scripture gives: the sovereign choice of God for his purpose and pleasure.

For me it's not a dilemma, it is simply God's sovereign will.

In the end, yes, that is what I was hoping to get to. But meanwhile, the notion that freewill can explain the phenomena we see is at best begging the question. It is only saying we choose because, uh, well, uhm, we choose... It doesn't explain how the will is free, nor even quite what one means by free; it doesn't admit to logical implications it doesn't like, but only because it doesn't like them. As Zoidar said, "I have no idea". And I have heard nobody else give any idea either, other than some who have to gall to claim that humans are possessing of some absolute spontaneity (which also means nothing, or it is self-contradictory, if not heretical, attributing some uncaused ability to mere creatures.).

I should have thought the question of why A and not B is plain on its face, though. Just as Clare said, God did it.

 

[Clare73]

Arminians believe in the draw as well as the knock at the door. But
Jesus does not kick the door open and the draw, knock is not regeneration.

It's not about kicking open anything.
It's about capacity to respond (John 3:3-8).

As the mother gives birth to the baby before it can respond to her,
so the Holy Spirit gives birth to our spirit before it can respond to God.

 

[RickReads]

If you don't want this to continue, than don't answer this:

Show me an example from scripture when God changes a persons heart without them saying yes to Him in some way first. John 3:8 is the closest I can find, but technically it does not say that.​

The John verse says you cannot tell where the wind comes from or where it goes. It does not address the timing and so it is not close at all.

 

[zoidar]

I did not say God created the universe to be worthy of being one with God. If I did, it was definitely a typo. He created what he did for his own purposes, and that purpose required precisely what he did, which is, frankly, redundant to even say.

If he created Jimmy to become one of the members of the Bride, but not Clark, it is because he created Clark to be one of those whom he used to show his power and glory, and because the Bride does not include Clark as a member. Are you asking why the Bride is composed of people of Jimmy's particular personality and character vs that of Clark? Why not ask why God made the Bride as he did, according to his particular preferences. She is his dwelling place, his construction, his people. The hand is not the knee, and the skin is not the bone. Only what makes her perfect is used. There are no generic cells, no T-cells, there is no injury healing, no replacement of dying cells, no moving of less-celebrated body parts to make up for missing necessary parts.

But maybe you are asking something I can't understand.

"Are you asking why the Bride is composed of people of Jimmy's particular personality and character vs that of Clark?"

Yes!

"Why not ask why God made the Bride as he did, according to his particular preferences."

Yes, why not? I believe God only has one preference for the Bride, that you believe.

But it's not only that. If God created Clark with another personalty it would still be "Clark". It's the same soul, the same "I" with another personality. But maybe you don't think that way? I had an aquaintance who had a deep psychosis. After this event her personality changed, she became a "different person", but it was still "her". Like she said: "I'm different, but it is still me.

 

[John Mullally]

Quote "Show me an example from scripture when God changes a persons heart without them saying yes to Him in some way first."

Since when does the sovereign God almighty ask a person's permission to change him or her? God does what He wants to do, to whomever He wants to do it to, and whenever He wants to do it. One of the perks of being Almighty God.

This was addressed to Mark. Calvinists say that God must change a persons nature (i.e. be regenerated or born-again) before the person can respond to the Gospel. This is required in Calvinist thought because men are Totally Depraved - not just fallen and corrupted. This is the 'T' in the Calvinist TULIP. If that is an important truth it will be supported by scripture.

You went off on a scree concerning God can do whatever He likes - but that does not answer this question.

 

[Clare73]

The John verse says you cannot tell where the wind comes from or where it goes. It does not address the timing and so it is not close at all.

That translates to "sovereign"--without cause for its choices.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The term "born again" (or "born from above" which I prefer) is used for the very first time in scripture in John 3:3. The response of Nicodemus is indicative of his surprise at Christ's statement. He had never heard the phrase prior to that night.

I'm not sure if the OT saints were "born from above" in the New Testament sense or way, but I do believe they were chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world as stated in Ephesians 1:4.

You have a point, yet the operative principle in regeneration, the indwelling Spirit of God, is show several times in the OT Saints, to include the change to their natures, sometimes graphically shown in such ways as the change to their names. And like in the NT, it is done by God quite apart from their input, for example by one-sided covenant.

 

[John Mullally]

The John verse says you cannot tell where the wind comes from or where it goes. It does not address the timing and so it is not close at all.

Good point. I should have said John 3:3-8. That talks about being born-again by the Holy Spirit and compares it to the wind. Some latch on to the lack of details there and presumptively say that is "Irresistible Grace".

Its like when some people point to 1 Corinthians 15:29, to say its OK to baptize dead people - so they trace their ancestors. Single verse theology.

1 Corinthians 15:29 Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?”​

 

[zoidar]

In the end, yes, that is what I was hoping to get to. But meanwhile, the notion that freewill can explain the phenomena we see is at best begging the question. It is only saying we choose because, uh, well, uhm, we choose... It doesn't explain how the will is free, nor even quite what one means by free; it doesn't admit to logical implications it doesn't like, but only because it doesn't like them. As Zoidar said, "I have no idea". And I have heard nobody else give any idea either, other than some who have to gall to claim that humans are possessing of some absolute spontaneity (which also means nothing, or it is self-contradictory, if not heretical, attributing some uncaused ability to mere creatures.).

I should have thought the question of why A and not B is plain on its face, though. Just as Clare said, God did it.

You are happy with the idea that God does what He does, for His purposes and pleassure and you don't feel the need to ask "why" He does what He does. But you don't like the idea of us having a free will without asking "why" we do what we do.

Maybe none of those questions need to be answered.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This was addressed to Mark. Calvinists say that God must change a persons nature (i.e. be regenerated or born-again) before the person can respond to the Gospel. This is required in Calvinist thought because men are Totally Depraved - not just fallen and corrupted. This is the 'T' in the Calvinist TULIP. If that is an important truth it will be supported by scripture.

You went off on a scree concerning God can do whatever He likes - but that does not answer this question.

I suppose you mean, before someone can respond POSITIVELY to the Gospel. (The Gospel always provokes a response.)

And not that you don't know this, but Total Depravity does not mean that the unregenerate/spiritually dead man has become as depraved as he possibly can, but that he is unable to submit to or please God, just as Romans 8 claims.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You can call it humancentric. I call in conscience. Our court's are not set up to convict someone who is judged unable to do the right thing.

This point is a strong one for rejecting Calvinism.

Our court is set up to convict someone for choosing to do something wrong that he wanted to do.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think they were regenerate with a righteousness from God (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21) by faith in the Promise (Jesus Christ, Genesis 15:5; Galatians 3:16), as was Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

Yes.

The Gospel is the same, throughout. Man is deserving of death, unable to repent in his natural (unregenerate) state, and without faith. Only by the Grace of God is his situation remedied, and not by anything man did.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you don't want this to continue, than don't answer this:

Show me an example from scripture when God changes a persons heart without them saying yes to Him in some way first. John 3:8 is the closest I can find, but technically it does not say that.​

Unless I misunderstand your request, EVERY example has that. But, for an example, look to his calling of the disciples. John 3:8 perhaps provides the doctrinal principle, but it is not an example of it happening. Maybe you didn't mean it that way.

Probably the plainest thing you can see would be the fact that in every case, the whole of the matter is initiated by God.