Jump to content
Online Baptist

New Argument Against Calvinism


Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

ON second thought, nevermind:

 

"You are not very good at creating straw men, nor even at refuting your own wrong ideas about the belief of others"

 

I've grown weary of these pejorative ad homimen jabs. 

 

If anyone else wants an answer to something Covenanter says, you may repost it, because from here on out, I will not be viewing anything he has to say.

 

If you think I'm an idiot, then talk to yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

IN a nutshell, this is the basics of Calvinism: TULIP   Total Depravity: that man is so depraved and dead in sin  that he can not even hear the voice or respond to the gospel without God regeneratin

Let's try something different for a moment: Let's look at our agreements on the issue, and see where we go from there.   As I understand, we agree that:   1: Except a man be born again, he cannot

The Word is clear on predestination and God's elect. He knew us in the womb, He knew/knows all born of water and all born of the Spirit before He carved the universe.   We don't understand it fully

Posted Images

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Predestined according to foreknowledge.

Whosoever still means whosoever.......

 

The Word is clear on predestination and God's elect. He knew us in the womb, He knew/knows all born of water and all born of the Spirit before He carved the universe.

 

We don't understand it fully and we ain't supposed to understand it yet. But God does clearly refer to all born of the Spirit as His elect, period. Simply because He knew who would be and who would not. He is also clear that He WOULD THAT ALL WERE HIS ELECT.

 

So, whoever this Calvin and Hobbs fella is - he is wrong

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I understand the fall from grace doctrine.

 

I asked about the conditional election. That doesn't sound right.

 

I know I'm covering more than what you asked about, but one needs to study the whole thing out for him self, & if you have not done so I just hope this will help you with that. And I believe that if a person will they will find its whosoever will.

 

One thing to remember, whatever the issue be one needs to gather all verses that may contribute to that issue. Yet your should not let any obscure verse overrule a verse that is very plain, especially when you have many very plain verses that teaches an issue such as who can be saved. For instances, on who can be saved there’s many very plain verses that declares whosoever, all, God wishes that none should perish, that who ever calls on the name of the Lord can be saved. For instants these verses I have previously posted. However these are not the only verses, there’s more, some quite clear, the others not as clear that anyone can be saved.
 
Ac 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
 
Ac 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
Ac 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,
 
Ro 5:1 ¶ Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:
Ro 5:2 By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
 
Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Ro 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
 
Ro 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
 
Heb 7:25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
 
1Jo 5:1 ¶ Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him.
 
Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
 
Ac 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
 
1Ti 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
 
2Pe 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.
 
Yet on top of that there’s some more thoughts that proves Calvin's doctrine is not true. I want cover all of them, just a few of them.
 
God keeps us saved, we do not keep our self saved by persevering.
 
God gives each person free choice, He makes, forces, no one accept Jesus as Savior forces no one to end up in Hell.
 
The Bible states that who ever finds their self in Hell will not have an excuse. If Calvin's teachings were true, God picked some to be saved, picked other not to be saved, those who wind up in Hell could say, “Its God’s fault, He would not lets us believe on Jesus Christ, Jesus did not die for our sins, but only for those who enter Heaven.” And it would be God’s fault if Calvin was correct, yet we know Calvin is wrong, they who find their self in Hell will have no one to blame but self, & that is because they rejected Jesus.
 
The best way is to study in out for your self, take these points listed below & go to your Bible.  
 
Five Point TULIP doctrine
 
Total depravity (Original Sin)
Unconditional election (God's Election)
Limited atonement (Particular Redemption)
Irresistible grace (Effectual Calling)
Perseverance of the Saints
 
Why is it some hold to this teaching & some do not, I have no answer, yet its also true all of us decide if we accept God's truth or not.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It is conditional in the sense that faith is required for salvation. However, though God foresees the future, He does not necessarily ACT based on His foreknowledge. Some of these camps on both sides view election as a functional force in salvation, rather than what election really is which is a description of God's choosing a person ahead of time for a specific purpose once that person has come to Christ in faith.

 

Israel had a specific purpose which was to be a light to the world. They reject it. Then God offered salvation exclusively to the Gentiles (Romans 11) and the attention will go back the Jews during the tribulation. (Matthew 23:39, Romans 11:26, Hosea 3:5, Ezekiel 37)

 

Election is thus DEscriptive of the destiny God has planned for the believer, not PREscriptive where God determines a person to be saved simply because He knows ahead of time that they will choose Him.

 

Thanks for the response. I have a question though. God has a plan for each person once they believe and have faith in him, right? Not that he knows WHO will respond and become a believer? But God knows everything so I'm really confused? Wouldn't that belief mean that God knows which people will go to hell and still let them born knowing they will go to hell? That doesn't make sense either.

Or does it mean he knows the plan he has for them once they believe but they choose whether to believe or not and if they don't their life isn't in God's will by their own choosing and will go to hell because of their choice?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Covenanter,

 

And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth" Isaiah 49:6

 

I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; Isaiah 42:6

 

And I am not saying that a Jew can not be saved during this dispensation, but salvation is not OFFERED to the Jews by specific exclusion which is clearly taught in Romans 11, Acts 18:6, and Acts 28:28.

 

I will respond to the rest later.

The Isaiah quotes are referring to the LORD Jesus Christ - prophecy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

ON second thought, nevermind:

 

"You are not very good at creating straw men, nor even at refuting your own wrong ideas about the belief of others"

 

I've grown weary of these pejorative ad homimen jabs. 

 

If anyone else wants an answer to something Covenanter says, you may repost it, because from here on out, I will not be viewing anything he has to say.

 

If you think I'm an idiot, then talk to yourself.

James, the point I am making is that you started the thread with a novel argument against "calvinism."

 

People have been arguing against the Reformed doctrines of grace for over 400 years. Do you consider what will be the Scriptural refutation of your ideas? And before you refute aspects of the doctrine, have you considered whether the aspect you are refuting is what we teach, or is it your own deduction from a misunderstanding of what we teach?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Thanks for the response. I have a question though. God has a plan for each person once they believe and have faith in him, right? Not that he knows WHO will respond and become a believer? But God knows everything so I'm really confused? Wouldn't that belief mean that God knows which people will go to hell and still let them born knowing they will go to hell? That doesn't make sense either.

Or does it mean he knows the plan he has for them once they believe but they choose whether to believe or not and if they don't their life isn't in God's will by their own choosing and will go to hell because of their choice?

It's kind of like what people refer to as "self fulfilled prophecy". You have an idea of what you believe is going to happen in the future, and then you take your own steps to MAKE it happen.

 

This is what the Calvinist does with election and predestination. They have God FORCING events to happen because He knows them ahead of time, and it's not just forcing the foreknown events, in Calvinism He forces ALL of the events, including sin and heresy.

 

When a person is elected, he is elected to be saved by grace through faith, and then God gives certain gifts to some to edify the body of Christ. Election is like you plan ahead of time what your kids will get if they clean their room. Those who clean their room, get icecream, those who do not get grounded. God may have elected a certain person to become a minister after he gets saved, but if he never comes to Christ, he never receives everything that God had elected him for, including eternal life, and gets permanently grounded.

 

Yes God knows who will end up in hell, but His allowing those to be born is precisely why the Calvinist argument against free moral agency is invalid. God often permits things that He does not desire. As in 2 Peter 3:9, God is not WILLING that any should perish, but He does want all to come to repentance. That some choose not to and reject Him is not His desire, but because His nature demands justice for unpaid debts, the sinner who rejects Christ must pay his own penalty by suffering eternally.

 

The Calvinist system not only has God determining sinners to hell, but also DESIRING their damnation, and that is the core problem with Calvinism because before God was sovereign, He was/is loving. Now a Calvinist will argue that sovereignty is an eternal attribute of God, but the word sovereign means to rule over, God did not rule over anything until creation, and God was love before anything was created. Thus because Gods nature is love, to claim that God desires the damnation of sinners is to defy the nature of God.

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites

James, the point I am making is that you started the thread with a novel argument against "calvinism."

 

 

You say "novel", I say "blatantly dishonest". Like the Catholics who come to Christian websites to argue against Christianity, those here who are arguing  against Reformed theology must use straw men and outright false claims in order to paint in it the most unflattering and diabolical light possible, because they know that if they were honest about what Reformed theology is and is not, their Finney-ism wouldn't stand a chance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

You say "novel", I say "blatantly dishonest". Like the Catholics who come to Christian websites to argue against Christianity, those here who are arguing  against Reformed theology must use straw men and outright false claims in order to paint in it the most unflattering and diabolical light possible, because they know that if they were honest about what Reformed theology is and is not, their Finney-ism wouldn't stand a chance.

You can go back to the Baptist Board anytime now.

 

And I'm encouraging everyone else not to engage with these folks because it doesn't matter what the truth is, I'm a little tired of seeing other Christian brothers slandered personally as a premise for debate. The block function is an amazing feature.

Edited by Dr James Ach
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

You say "novel", I say "blatantly dishonest". Like the Catholics who come to Christian websites to argue against Christianity, those here who are arguing  against Reformed theology must use straw men and outright false claims in order to paint in it the most unflattering and diabolical light possible, because they know that if they were honest about what Reformed theology is and is not, their Finney-ism wouldn't stand a chance.

I repeat my former offer: please show in my posts, as well as James', where we were blatantly dishonest" in what we said. If I am in error, that's one thing, and if proven in error, I am happy to admit to it and publically so. Blatant dishonety is another thing entirely-where have we lied, willingly and knowingly? Give my examples of the straw men.

 

I ahve replayed all of your posts, showing your unwillingness to actually answer anything with biblical evidence. You compare us to your board of preachers and teachers who question you about what you have taught for the past couple weeks-but I don't see what we are doing here as any different: we lay out scripture showing our point of view, what we believe to be truth, and refuting a reformed position-that is what I refute, not Auburn88-I don't know you from Adam, so how can I direct ad hominem attacks toward you or your character when I don't know them? I refute what I perceive to be an error in doctrine-that's all. And that is all anyone here has asked of you-one can't come into a board like this and just say, essentially, "Nuh-uh, you're wrong, cuz I say so!", which is whay you are doing, my friend. It may not be what you are intending to do, but it is what is coming across to everyone else. So again, I encourage you to give a biblically-based foundation for your position, or relegate yourself to an inactive observer.

 

I have held off saying this until now, because I DON'T want to appear unkind, but there comes a time one must say, "Put up, or shut up."

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You say "novel", I say "blatantly dishonest". Like the Catholics who come to Christian websites to argue against Christianity, those here who are arguing  against Reformed theology must use straw men and outright false claims in order to paint in it the most unflattering and diabolical light possible, because they know that if they were honest about what Reformed theology is and is not, their Finney-ism wouldn't stand a chance.

 

Straw-man, no, yet of course the Calvinist believes the only way we can defend our position is by a straw-man statement, for they refuse the truths that comes forth from the Bible which has been shown under this topic several times

 

I feel free to use that word straw-man, & saying those who hold to Calvin's doctrine refuse Bible truths because I'm doing only that which you just did only using it in a different direction without being sassy or mocking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Straw-man, no, yet of course the Calvinist believes the only way we can defend our position is by a straw-man statement, for they refuse the truths that comes forth from the Bible which has been shown under this topic several times

 

I feel free to use that word straw-man, & saying those who hold to Calvin's doctrine refuse Bible truths because I'm doing only that which you just did only using it in a different direction without being sassy or mocking.

 

You see, that's exactly the sort of childishness I'm talking about.

 

We don't see you as "ignoring the truths that  come forth from the Bible". We assume that you're sincere, and that you merely came away from your study of the Bible with a different conclusion than we did and we'd like to discuss it with you.

 

You immediately assume the worst about us, that we know that Reformed theology is Unbiblical, but that we ignore the Bible's teaching so we can hang on to it in spite of what the Bible says.

 

What happened to charity? What happened to giving somebody the benefit of the doubt?

 

This is precisely why I'm so reluctant to talk to you. No matter what I say, you're going to assign some underhanded motive to it.

 

Why can't you give us the same benefit of the doubt we give you and that you would demand  for yourself?

 

Grow up.

Edited by Auburn88
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

It is conditional in the sense that faith is required for salvation. 

 

I mentioned in another thread that even our faith that we, of our own free will, place in Christ is a gift of God. Eph. 2:8

 

This is why it is called "the faith of Christ". Gal. 2:16; Phil 3:9  

 

To those willing God gives the faith to believe on his Son.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have done a huge amount of study on reformed theology and have discovered a few things:
Those who hold to calvanism are rarely swayed.
Despite what they say Calvins God is not the God described in the Bible.

keeping it simple, the Bible throughout describes men being offered genuine choices, and specifically the Bible is consistent that salvation is offered to all men.
redefine terms all you like but whosoever really does mean absolutely anyone. Election and predestination are clearly subject to God's foreknowledge, and foreknowledge simply means that God knew before.

and there are not only two sides to this argument - anyone who not a calvanist is NOT automatically an arminian.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

You see, that's exactly the sort of childishness I'm talking about.

We don't see you as "ignoring the truths that come forth from the Bible". We assume that you're sincere, and that you merely came away from your study of the Bible with a different conclusion than we did and we'd like to discuss it with you.

You immediately assume the worst about us, that we know that Reformed theology is Unbiblical, but that we ignore the Bible's teaching so we can hang on to it in spite of what the Bible says.

What happened to charity? What happened to giving somebody the benefit of the doubt?

This is precisely why I'm so reluctant to talk to you. No matter what I say, you're going to assign some underhanded motive to it.

Why can't you give us the same benefit of the doubt we give you and that you would demand for yourself?

Grow up.


forgive me if I'm wrong here but wasn't it you that used the phrase "blatantly dishonest"?
Link to post
Share on other sites

forgive me if I'm wrong here but wasn't it you that used the phrase "blatantly dishonest"?

 

 

Yes, I said he was being dishonest. The difference is, I can show where he has repeatedly said factually wrong things. You can't show me where we've ignored scripture or what we believe that's ever been declared heresy.

Edited by Auburn88
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have done a huge amount of study on reformed theology and have discovered a few things:
Those who hold to calvanism are rarely swayed.

 

Are Finnyites often swayed?

 

Does it? If I'm in a room full of people and I say, "OK, for whosoever goes out the door on the right, there will cookies." Does that include absolutely anyone?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In a previous post you used terms such as:
"What happened to charity? What happened to giving somebody the benefit of the doubt? This is precisely why I'm so reluctant to talk to you. No matter what I say, you're going to assign some underhanded motive to it. Why can't you give us the same benefit of the doubt we give you and that you would demand  for yourself? Grow up."

How about you extend to others what you demand for yourself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a previous post you used terms such as:
"What happened to charity? What happened to giving somebody the benefit of the doubt? This is precisely why I'm so reluctant to talk to you. No matter what I say, you're going to assign some underhanded motive to it. Why can't you give us the same benefit of the doubt we give you and that you would demand  for yourself? Grow up."

How about you extend to others what you demand for yourself?

 

Yes, I sure did. And I stand by it. I didn't come here to fight. I came here to talk. Imagine my surprise when I look in this thread before even posting one word here and seeing people call me a heretic and a liar. And then, for simply calling attention to the fact that serious and false accusations have been thrown at me, I'm the bad guy for that, too.

 

You guys just tell me what you want to do.

 

Do you want to discuss this together like men? Or do you just want to tell me what a heretic I am and how  I must be ignoring scripture because I disagree with you?

 

Your choice. If you want to discuss it, fine. If you just want to throw rocks, then let me know now before I waste any more time.  

Edited by Auburn88
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

In Your example the offer is made to everyone in the room.
who actually gets the offer?

Apparently not to everyone, since he's obviously ignoring me. He calls me "hostile, dishonest, and, frankly, obnoxious", in how I have dealt with him. I kindly referenced ALL of his posts to that point, showing his lack of any scriptural argument on his own behalf, and the fact that he could nothing but disagree, and invited him to repeat the posts where I have been obnoxious, dishonest or hostile to him. Since then, he has ingnored any post I have made, which, frankyl have been few.  So, apparently he really has no desire to actually "debate" anything at all, and, going from his history in the line so far, disrespect and impolite refers to 'disagree with me and expect a scriptural reply."

 

Seriously, someone, anyone, show us ANY of his postings that actually referred to the Bible. Please. I have given scripture, Covenanter has given scripture, Dr. James has given scripture. THIS is debate. What Mr Auburn88 is doing is not debate, and as such, I doubt his sincerity for such.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. So, Dave and Ukulelemike aren't willing to discuss it. Anybody else?

 

Come on! You mean not one of your wonderful, brilliant Finney-ites wants to put the big, bad, mean ol' Calvinist in his place?

 

If I'm really the moronic heretic you all claim I am, then this should be simple for you.

Edited by Auburn88
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Well, that's a "no" from Dave.

Anybody else?


you gave an example.
I asked you a question about your example.

can you point out to me how this is disrespectful?
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Frankly, I have not been a part of this discussion but did receive a private message from Auburn88 telling me that I was a bully.  When I have asked for an explanation of what I said that earned this response, I received nothing.  

 

I do not wish to discuss Calvinism, because I feel the same as Dave, the issue is settled in my mind and I have found that these discussions create nothing but strife.

Edited by The Ohio Patriot
Link to post
Share on other sites

OK. So, Dave and Ukulelemike aren't willing to discuss it. Anybody else?

 

Come on! You mean not one of your wonderful, brilliant Finney-ites wants to put the big, bad, mean ol' Calvinist in his place?

 

If I'm really the moronic heretic you all claim I am, then this should be simple for you.

 

you gave an example.
I asked you a question about your example.

can you point out to me how this is disrespectful?

 

I didn't say it was disrespectful. I just said that it constituted a "no".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, I have not been a part of this discussion but did receive a private message from Auburn88 telling me that I was a bully.  When I have asked for an explanation of what I said that earned this response, I received nothing.  

 

I do not wish to discuss Calvinism, because I feel the same as Dave, the issue is settled in my mind and I have found that these discussions create anything but strife.

So let me get this straight: you refuse to even discuss it because it's settled in your mind, but then you turn around and say that there's no point in talking to Calvinists because we're allegedly closed minded (thus begging the question, if we're so closed minded, then how did we get talked into Calvinism in the first place), not to mention the hypocrisy of refusing to give an example to back up your claims when I asked you,e b but then turning around and criticizing me because you say I didn't give you an example.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

In a debate, if one party uses an example to make a point, the other party has every right to use that same example.

the point is, if you stand in the middle of the room and say "Whosoever will go out that door on the right shall receive a cookie", the offer is made to all who hear it, but only those who choose to obey the call actually get the cookie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a debate, if one party uses an example to make a point, the other party has every right to use that same example.

the point is, if you stand in the middle of the room and say "Whosoever will go out that door on the right shall receive a cookie", the offer is made to all who hear it, but only those who choose to obey the call actually get the cookie.

 

...thus, those who did not obey are not included and "whosoever" doesn't mean everybody.

 

Now, do you want to debate me or not?

Edited by Auburn88
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Total Depravity:  Sinfulness or Inability to Believe?

The errors incumbent in the five points of Calvinism are easily identified when one contrasts the teachings of Calvinists to the teaching of scripture.  While some of the five points may appear to have scriptural foundation, it will be shown that all of the five points—as taught by leading Calvinists—lack scriptural merit.  We begin our “tiptoeing through the tulips” with the letter “T”—Total Depravity.

I.                   The biblical doctrine of the sinfulness of man.

A.    The Bible teaches that man has been a fallen creature since Adam’s transgression in the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:6-21).  The New Testament declares that Adam’s transgression passed upon all men, insuring that all are sinners by nature (Rom. 5:12) and are subsequently subject to death.

B.     Despite any apparent goodness in individuals, the Bible declares that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23) and there are, in reality, no naturally righteous individuals (Rom 3:10).   

 

II.                The nature of sin as defined by the Bible.

A.    Sin is the transgression of the law (I Jn. 3:4; James 2:9,10).

B.     Sin is falling short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23).

C.     Sin involves turning from God’s way to one’s own way (Isa. 53:6).

D.    Sin includes all unrighteousness (I Jn. 5:17).

E.     Sin involves a lack of faith (Rom. 14:23).

 

Summarized, man is sinful by nature as a result of Adam’s fall, and man is sinful by choice as a result of willfully sinning—whether sins of commission or sins of omission.

 

This biblical view of man’s sinfulness is only the beginning of Calvin’s teaching.  Indeed, Calvinism teaches not only man’s sinfulness but also man’s complete inability to do anything right—including to believe the gospel!

           

III.             Calvinism’s view of total depravity—TOTAL INABILITY TO BELIEVE.

A.                The Cannons of Dort—“Therefore all men…without the regenerating         grace of the Holy Spirit…are neither able nor willing to return to          God…nor to dispose themselves to reformation.”

1.      Note, it is unreasonable to state that a person is unwilling to do what he is not able to do.

2.      According to Hunt:  “Calvinism is guilty of both absurdity and injustice by declaring man to be incapable of repentance and faith, then condemning him for failing to repent and believe.”

B.     Calvinist Frank Beck states of man, “He is free to turn to Christ, but not able.

C.     Although the Bible never states that man is “unable” to believe the gospel, leading Calvinists Talbot and Crampton have written, “The Bible stresses the total inability of fallen man to respond to the things of God….”

D.    Because of man’s supposed inability to believe the gospel, Calvinism teaches that regeneration precedes salvation!

1.      Edwin Palmer asserts, “Once he [the sinner] is born again, he can for the first time turn to Jesus…asking Jesus to save him.”

2.      Famous Reformed Bible teacher R. C. Sproul says, “A cardinal point of Reformed theology is the maxim, ‘Regeneration precedes faith.’”

3.      Since Total Depravity requires regeneration before faith and salvation, some Calvinists assume it takes place in infancy!  The Bible says absolutely no such thing!

4.      R. C. Sproul writes, “The Reformed view of predestination teaches that before a person can choose Christ…he must be born again…one does not first believe, then become reborn….”

E.     According to Jesus, however, man’s refusal to turn to God is a result of man’s unwillingness, not inability (John 5:40).  Jesus said, “…ye will not come to me that ye might have life.”  Note, “ye will not,” NOTye can not!”

F.      If, as Calvinism teaches, one cannot believe apart from being regenerated and God regenerates certain individuals in order that they might believe, why doesn’t a loving and compassionate God regenerate ALL people that ALL might believe?

1.      R. C. Sproul makes a shocking admission:  “If some people are not elected unto salvation, then it would seem that God is not at all that loving toward them.  Further, it seems that it would have been more loving of God not to have allowed them to be born.  That may indeed be the case.”

2.      The gospel is, by definition, “good news.”  However, the “gospel” of Calvinism is only “good news” to the elect.  To all others it is a sentence of death and eternal condemnation in the fires of hell.

3.      According to John 12:32, where the gospel is preached all men are drawn to Christ.  Although some will resist, all who are drawn will have the opportunity and ability to believe!

Acts 17:24-28 plainly teaches that God desires all to be saved and that God has so ordered history that men might “seek the Lord.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

While some of the five points may appear to have scriptural foundation, it will be shown that all of the five points—as taught by leading Calvinists—lack scriptural merit.

 

Logical fallacy = poisoning the well.

 

1.      Note, it is unreasonable to state that a person is unwilling to do what he is not able to do.

 

Why is this unreasonable?

 

2.      According to Hunt:  “Calvinism is guilty of both absurdity and injustice by declaring man to be incapable of repentance and faith, then condemning him for failing to repent and believe.”

 

Why is this absurd or just? And to clarify, Calvinism doesn't condemn man for failing to repent and believe. Calvinism declares that God condemns the unregenerate for their sin. I hear your argument all the time from atheists. Congratulations. You now agree with atheists.

 

B.     Calvinist Frank Beck states of man, “He is free to turn to Christ, but not able.C.     Although the Bible never states that man is “unable” to believe the gospel

 

See Romans 5:6

 

3.      Since Total Depravity requires regeneration before faith and salvation, some Calvinists assume it takes place in infancy!

 

"Some Calvinists"? Who, specifically? And what is their source for this?

 

According to Jesus, however, man’s refusal to turn to God is a result of man’s unwillingness, not inability (John 5:40).  Jesus said, “…ye will not come to me that ye might have life.”  Note, “ye will not,” NOTye can not!”

 

Logical fallacy = post hoc ergo proptor hoc.

 

Jesus does not say why they will not come to Him, which leaves the possibility that they will not because the cannot. Given the analogy of scripture, I believe this to be an appropriate understanding of this verse.

 

F.      If, as Calvinism teaches, one cannot believe apart from being regevnerated and God regenerates certain individuals in order that they might believe, why doesn’t a loving and compassionate God regenerate ALL people that ALL might believe?

 

Because, while God is loving and compassionate, He is not loving and compassionate to the exclusion of all other qualities. While He is loving and compassionate, He is also Holy, Righteous, and Just, and His righteousness and justice demand that He punish sin.

 

 

Edited by Auburn88
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 35 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...