Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

New Argument Against Calvinism

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
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 comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

If you go where you are going then only those who actually heard the words spoken are eligible which means noone who wasn't alive at that time.

Link to comment
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 comment
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 comment
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.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 17 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...