Fallacy Vol 2

Why the bitter attack? Wouldnt it be far better to explain your side and let the chips fall where they may. AIC, this is not a gladiator battle ground we are in but rather a debate to better understand God & our salvation. If we are to be demeaned to that extent because our belief system doesnt line up with yours or Winmans or Vans..... Perhaps its time I leave the board.

 

Perhaps it would be good for all to read what Calvin actually wrote? His arguments are never as simple (or simple-minded) as the one-line rebuttals here on this board. :BangHead:

 

Your right on that one. One in particular is living up to the "Calvie" stereotype.

 

How to derail a thread in three easy posts... :tonofbricks:

 

double post

 

I would disagree with Calvin that a coerced will does not exist. If a robber pulls a gun on me and demands my wallet, I truly do not will to give it to him, but I would to preserve my life. One might argue that my will to preserve my life became my greatest desire or motive, and so I willingly obeyed my greatest desire. This is false, because this motive or desire was forced upon me against my free will which would have chosen that I might not be robbed at all, which is truly my greatest desire.

So, this proves a person does not always obey their greatest desire.

If Calvin is correct then no man could be justly convicted of armed robbery. His attorney could argue that the victim willingly gave his wallet to the robber. This is a fallacy, as it is recognized the robber coerced his victim's will by threat of injury or death.

So, this is pure nonsense by Calvin which no reasonable person would agree with.

So, if God regenerates an unregenerate person who has no will to obey God (according to Calvinism), it is no different from a robber pulling a gun on a person and forcing that person to give their wallet to the robber.

Calvin is simply trying to explain away what any discerning person sees as coercion, by denying a coerced will exists. Nonsense.

Further, if it were true there can be no such thing as a coerced will, then there could also be no such thing as a bound will.

 

John Calvin's fallacy exposed

"...the will is [either] free , bound , self-determined , or coerced . People generally understand a free will to be one which has in its power to choose good or evil…[But] There can be no such thing as a coerced will, since the two ideas are contradictory. But our responsibility as teachers is to say what it means, so that it may be understood what coercion is.

Therefore we describe [as coerced ] the will which does not incline this way or that of its own accord or by an internal movement of decision, but is forcibly driven by an external impulse. We say that it is self-determined when of itself it directs itself in the direction in which it is led, when it is not taken by force or dragged unwillingly.

A bound will , finally, is one which because of its corruptness is held captive under the authority of its evil desires, so that it can choose nothing but evil, even if it does so of its own accord and gladly, without being driven by any external impulse.

According to these definitions we allow that man has choice and that it is self-determined, so that if he does anything evil, it should be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choosing. We do away with coercion and force, because this contradicts the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it.

We deny that choice is free , because through man’s innate wickedness it is of necessity driven to what is evil and cannot seek anything but evil. And from this it is possible to deduce what a great difference there is between necessity and coercion . For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore of necessity will in an evil way. For where there is bondage, there is necessity. But it makes a great difference whether the bondage is voluntary or coerced.

We locate the necessity to sin precisely in corruption of the will, from which follows that it is self-determined. (John Calvin, BLW pp 69, 70)

1) First Calvin attempts to redefine the meaning of will such at a will arising from a "hardened heart" has not been coerced. Fiction.

2) Next, if God hardened the heart such that the person would never seek God, but only sinful activity, then God by logical necessity is the author of that behavior.

3) If a fallen person is predisposed to sin, but seeks not to sin, but still continues to sin, clearly the will is not "free" but the product of the attitudes and attributes of the wretched person seeking God. Paul in Romans 7 presents himself as such a fallen, unregenerate person.

4) Calvin does not do away with coercion and force, he just backs up and hardens the heart using the coercive force of the curse of the Fall, and then claims that such a coerced heart's will is not also coerced. Fiction on top of fiction.

Now lets present what scripture actually says: All mankind was made sinners as a consequence of Adam's sin, and our "heart" was corrupted such that we are predisposed to sin. We were conceived in iniquity, in a sinful separated from God, spiritually dead state. All that is true. But that fallen condition did not result in "total spiritual inability" of all mankind at all times. We all sin, but we also (some of us some of the time) seek God. Thus the will is not so corrupted as Calvin claimed.

 

I'm sure you meant something here, but not seeing it.

Paul addressed this criticism in Romans 9.14-18.

It makes more sense to understand Paul as describing his struggle with sin as a redeemed person in Romans 7 (v.6, 25, et. al).

Predisposed to sin, conceived in iniquity, separated from God and in a Spiritually dead state yet having some spiritual ability?

 

How is your last paragraph materially different from what Calvin wrote, save for the fact that your reading comprehension sucks? Also, seeing as how you are such a stickler for staying true to the text of Scripture, what about the verses used in both OT and NT that say that "no man seeks after God?" Seems you have a problem of your own making, for in trying to justify your own private theology (that shifts like the sands of time...) you box yourself in with an error of your own making.

Additionally, HOW DO YOU KNOW that "the will is not so corrupted as Calvin claimed...? Please share Scripture to prove that our will is not bent by our sin nature all the time (until we are set free from that slavery).

 

1st lets establish if God says anywhere that He is the Author of Sin..... Van, do you have scripture to post?

2nd, do you have a quotation from John Calvin saying so that you can post?

Thanks

 

Reply to Siberian,

1) Claiming you cannot understand plain statements does not diminish the stated truth. It is an old trick of deflection rather than offering rebuttal. But is an oft used tool by many Calvinists. A person's will that arises from their hardened heart is coerced by the force that hardened the heart.

2) Romans 9:14-18 does not address the issue at all. You have assumed God is saying He can cause you to sin and still hold you responsible, but that is not what is being said at all! Here is what is actually being said, according to the light God has given me:
a) God has mercy on some people and God hardens other people for His sovereign purposes.

b) This is not injustice because those hardened get justice and giving mercy is also not injustice.

c) If God hardens a person, why does He still find fault? This question Paul addresses indirectly, the person is "finding fault" with God saying God should not punish someone whose heart God hardened. But who is the man to judge God. So even if we do not fully understand why God does what God does, we should not suppose God's actions are not just and perfect and holy.
Now, Paul could have answered the question more directly but perhaps he thought the direct answer was obvious and was being ignored on purpose, therefore he answered it as he did. But when God hardens a person's heart to bring about His purpose, the person's opportunity to obtain mercy ends, just like when a person dies, their opportunity ends. They will be punished for the wrath they piled up before God hardened their hearts, at a minimum and so God's action is obviously not injustice.

d) Yes another oft cited claim is Paul is talking about his life after he was born again, rather than as an unregenerate. But this is pure fiction. Lets skim over the Romans chapter 7 passage. Verse 5, for while we were in the flesh... this refers to prior to being born again. If you doubt it do a search of all the times Paul uses this phrase. Verse 6, but now we have been released from the law... this refers to after being born again. Verse 7, Paul says he would not have come to know sin except through the Law... this refers to before being born again, before being released from the Law.

Now verse 9 is difficult and many misunderstand it, but what Paul is saying is he thought he was alive, not dead in his sin, when ignorant of the Law, i.e apart from the Law. But when he learned the Law, he became aware he was a covetous sinner, he knew that sin lived in him and he was therefore dead. All this revelation of his actual condition, dead in sin, occurred while he was dead in sin, i.e. prior to being born again and being made alive together with Christ.

Verse 14 again clearly indicates Paul is talking of when he was unregenerate, of the flesh, sold into bondage to sin. Thus the whole passage Romans 7:14-21 refers to Paul's wretched existence before being born again. Then in verse 24 we see how Paul was set free from this wretched condition of wishing to seek God in the inner man, but being governed by the sin in his flesh. Then in Chapter 8, verse 1, Paul says there is therefore NOW no condemnation, because he has now been born again.

Bottom line, Romans 7 refers to Paul as an unregenerate wretch man.

e) Exactly, Calvin simply added "total spiritual inability" into his man-made definition of being spiritually dead. Romans 7 totally refutes that fiction. You want another study, do a search on "the inner man" and see what characteristics it has according to Paul.

 

No man seeks God appears in scripture several times. But what does this mean. No man seeks God at any time or all the time? Calvinism reads into the text "at any time" but this is a mistaken view. Romans 9:30-33 tells us of unregenerate Jews seeking God through works. Calvinism has no answer to this. They say it does not mean what it says, there were not really seeking God or were not seeking God "effectively" and so they dance away from the truth, the unregenerate Jews were seeking God according to the inspired word of God.

Then we could look at Psalm 14 were none of the "wicked fools" who say there is no God, were seeking God. But if you continue to read the passage, in verse, in verse 2 you see that God looked down to see if any were seeking God. If no one seeks God at any time, God would not look down to see. Therefore verse 2 supports that some men at some times seek God in some way.

But what God saw in verse 3 was that all the wicked fools, who say there is no God, had turned aside. So a verse that applies to the atheists in applied willy nilly to all mankind by Calvinism. And then they question the reading comprehension of others.

Then in verse 4 David asks a rhetorical question, "Do all the workers of wickedness not know who eats up My people and do not call upon the Lord." So what this says is "are all the people atheists, are there not some who seek God for protection? Then in verse 5 we get the answer! There they are in great dread! So these are seeking God.

Bottom line, the very passage used by Calvinism shows that Calvinism is fiction.

 

There was nothing plain about your incoherent statement, and I wasn't trying to deflect. You wrote "First Calvin attempts to redefine the meaning of will such at a will arising from a "hardened heart" has not been coerced. Fiction." It is an amphiboly, a common trick used by folks more interested in argument than in truth.

Yes, it most certainly does, and I made no assumptions at all, despite your many words. Replace your agenda-driven bunk with a normal hermeneutic and you would see that Paul is addressing nearly exactly the criticism that you raised.

Honestly, the rest of what you wrote here is also pure dribble. Not worth engaging. Of course, I can already hear your forthcoming reply so you can save it. Here, I'll just get it out of the way, "Folks, notice the general disparagement devoid of content, and against the man. All Calvinists always do this. However, I have proven my case over and that is without dispute despite all the disputing."

 

I agree completely with Van's post #15. What does vs. 6 say?

Psa 14:6 Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.

What is a refuge? By definition a refuge is a shelter people run to or seek to be protected from danger.

There is a difference between a "wicked" person, or a "fool" from an average sinner. All persons are sinners, but not all are wicked. Read the Psalms and you will see this over and over again.

Psa 10:4 The wicked, through the pride of his countenence, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts.

Psa 10:14 Thou hast seen it; for thou beholdest mischief and spite, to requite it with thy hand: the poor committeth himself unto thee; thou art the helper of the fatherless.

Psa 10:17 LORD, thou hast heard the desire of the humble: thou wilt prepare their heart, thou wilt cause thine ear to hear:

The scriptures clearly distinguish between wicked men who are proud and never seek God, and the poor who are humble and seek God for help. Failing to see this distinction causes error.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh: your OK Ruskie Boy

 

Folks, see a pattern, claim you do not understand, then claim you have such a great undersstanding you can discern ambiguity where none exists. Any port in the storm, but no effort at an actual response.

And after I demonstrated that Romans 9:14-18 does not address the issue, the claim is repeated without an effort at an actual response. My understanding of scripture is not agenda driven, I studied the passages used by Calvinism to discern whether Calvinism was true and found it to be false. My conclusion is those who point to these passages which do not support the Calvinist position are using agenda driven exegisis.

And the rest of my post is dismissed by a general statement, drivel (dribble) not worth a response. You could dismiss the 10 commandments with such a rebuttal.