The logical (not biblical) basis for non-Calvinism

The point is that what you are saying about Arminianism is not really Arminianism. Go to the man himself and you will see. What you propose is nothing more than a logical fallacy, therefore, it is null and void.

 

Interesting etymological analysis. Let me build upon that logic.

Ham+burger=hamburger (obviously, a sandwich made of ham)

Butter+fly=butterfly (a fly made of butter, of course)

This could be a fun game. Anyone else want to play?</font>[/QUOTE]My hat's off to ya my man. An excellant response. Obviously my analogy does not fly as posted..


This one has me bustin up. Great response...

Oh!! wait a minute, how about this one.
Cheese + burger, a burger made of cheese..
How about yellow + fever, a fever madeof yellow. (lol) Man i really put my foot in it that time..

[ October 23, 2002, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

I signed up to debate calvinism, not to do your homework for you. Hush and read your bible.

What's your point, I've read these passages a hundred times, John calvin has referred me to them a thousand times. The scriptures are there. Now, make your point...

Open it up and extend me an invitation, with address of course.. I'll be there with bells on...

Oh, we are talking; loud and clear. That deafening sound that you hear is indiginous to calvinism. I don't think that they've heard anything since John went on to ??????

[ October 23, 2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: Chappie ]

 

Ha, Ha, funny So not all compound words are the sum of their parts. Some are.

In Brittanica, "-ible" is just a form of "-able", and this is defined as "capable of, susceptible to, fit for, tending to, given to; associated in meaning with the word "able..."

Yes, God commanded them to keep the Law, which they couldn't keep. But He also gave them a provision for their not keeping it being atoned. This is far different from people being given no provision at all, and it is amazing people don't see this.

OK, when will any of you take that first step and admit that Calvinism is based on more logic, and then yourselves think and debate consistently? (At least we're ahead! )

 

Logical? I don't think Calvinism is the least bit logical or intuitive. But given what I understand of it, I believe it is true.

Most of the arguments I've heard in opposition to Calvinism are based primarily on emotions and touchy-feely things about their idea of God, not logic. Whenever someone starts with the words, "God would never..." I cringe. Sometimes they're right, but I've never heard anti-Calvinism arguments following that phrase that were, IMO, Biblical statements.

One was used here, sort of: "God would never ask us to do something of which we were incapable." Quite the contrary, God asked us (mankind) to follow the law knowing full well we couldn't do it. It was a valuable lesson, I'd say, and I'm grateful for it.

 

As far as human "ability" goes in the OT, consider this:

Deuteronomy 29:4 - "Yet the LORD has not given you a heart to perceive and eyes to see and ears to hear, to this very day."

Yet they are still commanded, even in this very chapter, to keep the law.

Rev. G

npetreley:
Welcome to the Baptist Board! It's nice to have a North Carolinian with us. I trust that we will benefit from your input, and hope that you will benefit from us.


[ October 23, 2002, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: Rev. G ]

 

Providing for not keeping the law and having the ability to keep it are two different things. Clearly we do not have the ability to keep the written law of our own free will, let alone keep it at the level of righteousness God really requires (not even be angry with our brother, etc.). So God obviously does ask us to do things knowing that we are not capable.

The problem with the assertion given earlier is that it combined two issues into one. "Would God ask us to do something we couldn't do and then punish us for it?" The question "Would God ask us to do something we couldn't?" is one issue. "Would God punish us for it" is another.

But this really doesn't address the big question of free will, which is whether or not we choose salvation of our own free will. And I would say that I know of absolutely nothing in the Bible that even comes close to suggesting that it is a free will choice.

 

Thank you very much! It's a pleasure to be here. I'm already enjoying the opinions and insights of others here. I hope I can contribute.

 

I've been called a Calvinist by others. I haven't actually studied Calvin's views. I really enjoyed Luther's "Bondage of the Will" though, in part, I confess, because he is so hilariously sarcastic in his responses to Erasmus.

I agree mostly with what Luther says in that work, but I really got my views from the Bible. At first, I thought election/predestination was taught primarily in Romans, Ephesians and a few other places. But then I realized that the scriptural support for it is -- the whole Bible.

What really surprised me was that it's not just the New Testament that expresses it. Look at the whole book of Deuteronomy, for example. If I were going to sum it all up in as few words as possible, I'd put it this way. God is saying in Deuteronomy:

1. If you do X, I will bless you.
2. If you do Y, I will curse you.
3. What I'm asking you to do is quite easy to understand, so you have no excuse.
4. You're going to do Y, anyway, and I'll curse you.
5. Then I will regather you and write my law on your hearts.

If we stopped at step 3, it would make a good case for free will, but Deuteronomy does not stop there.

The key is in comparing these two verses, IMO:

Why they failed and did Y:

Why they will succeed in the future:

 

Still, my point was, and the whole central issue regarding "responsibility without ability" is that you all are taking instances where God commanded something to a group, (Israel or humanity on general,) who couldn't keep it and were punished on earth, and using this to support an argument that God must also leave individuals indebted with no chance to escape eternalpunishment (i.e. -limited atonement) by holding them "responsible" for something they couldn't possibly help. This is where it all started, so the two issues are indelibly bound together. Every time a non-calvinist argues that God doesn't do that, someone responds "but He commanded Israel to keep the Law knowing they couldn't". But those are two very different sets of circumstances. God's aim as He reveals it in scripture is not to trap people in sin and eternal death, no matter how much scripture you think 'appears' to lead to that. (And the Deut. passages cited explains Rom.9 which alludes to that toward the end, showing that this "hardening" was not for the purpose of eternal "reprobation" of individuals)

The dictionary entry is telling us where the suffix at the end of "responsible" comes from and what it means, proving that this is "one of those words". What other "evidence" are you looking for? Calvin or Augustine's definition?

 

You're still linking the ability with the punishment. Did all of the Jews of that time perish? Are they all destined for hell? If not, what saved those who escaped eternal punishment if they didn't obey all the commands?

Until you can answer those questions, you haven't established the link between the inability to obey the commands and punishment. Unless you can establish that link, your argument makes no sense.

I would add one last thought to this, but it probably deserves another thread. No man comes to the Father except through Jesus. But what does that really mean?

[ October 24, 2002, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

The ability or lack thereof is linked with the punishment, for as I've said, there was a provision so that all the Jews would not have to go to Hell, but when you take "the non-elect" as the new "hardened" or "blinded" group of Deut. and Romans, there is no provision for them, and the reason is simply they were unable to respond and left in that state.

[ October 24, 2002, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]