arguments calvinists should not use

when one clings with the 5-points of Calvinism, he should not say the following arguments, for these statements come in contradictions with the five points.

note: i've seen these arguments said here

1. there are certain people in a certain area who did a very henious crime. this proves that man is totally depraved.

this really is not a correct approach for Calvinism. it leads to the point of concluding that as bad deeds prove man's spiritual death, good deeds lead to life. with the TULIP's total depravity, it means that man has no way of getting approved by God regardless of what he does. and that's it! but giving exceptional "big time" sins as examples and then concluding from there that man is totally depraved does not touch the meat of total depravity. it can be countered by giving "big time" good deeds of unbelievers to show man as not totally depraved. such approach takes the issue away from the real meaning of total depravity.

2. if God desires all men to be saved, then God failed since not all men are saved.

this is many times said to counter those against calvinism. but this approach is incorrect, for it combines contradicting premises from the Calvinist campt and the non-Calvinist camp, which definitely go to contradiction. this boils down to God's will. to Calvinists, it is the sovereign will of God that works in salvation, as it is required given their concept of total depravity. on the other hand, non-Calvinists cling to the permissive will, saying that God did not fail, it is just that he respected the will of man, with the premise of man's ability.

thus, rather that saying such an argument, a Calvinist should dwell on proving man's inability. otherwise, that argument will never work.

moreover, such approach can be countered with a couple of examples. one, when Adam sinned, God does not want him to. but he did sin. so that would mean God failed, according to the logic of Calvinism. but no, because Calvinism would dwell on permissive will here. the same also goes when a christian sins, knowing that God does not want him to. come salvation, the will becomes sovereign will, since permissive will would not work given man's inability. but to the non-calvinists it is still the permissive will. just as God did not fail when Adam sinned nor when christians sin though God does not want to, the same goes with unbelievers who reject God's offer.

3. Man is responsible for his own condemnation.

Calvinism teaches both the doctrine of original sin and imputed guilt. with the original sin, it says man will definitely sin and that man cannot accept God's offer of savlation with the general call (seems that God failed in this call huh?). the imputed guilt gets man his first sin upon birth wihtout any consideration of his volition. thus, man gets condemned at birth because of a sin imputed at him. worse, he gets the inability not to sin nor cling to God's general call due to the original sin. in here his volition was never again respected, but was a victim of seminal transmission from parent to child.

this is the source of man's condemnation! he is condemned at birth. but many times calvinists would dwell on man's personal sin and say he is condemned. this is a good approach for indeed it is man who chose to sin. but the real reason man is condemned is the imputed sin. even if one does not commit sin al his life, he is still condemned becuase of such imputation. thus, his volition did not play any role to his condemnation. therefore, with the TULIP, man is not responsible for his own condemnation, though Calvinists would say otherwise.

Calvinsits give an explanation that we are in Adam when he sinned. yet such is not enough. such answer never suffice. what calvinists should do is prove that each man chose to sin that is why he is imputed of the first sin. otherwise, Calvnists cannot prove that man is responsible for his own condemnation, and will be tempted simply to dwell on personal sins, which is a poor approach.

 

yup!

sure He does not. and when Christ dies for all, but certain people will not be saved, this does not mean that God failed, as certain Calvinists would say to disprove those who are against them. explanation on the first post.

once again, the shift in the issue from the initial source of condemnation towards personal sins.

this is a better statement: Man does things worthy of condemnation. yet before that he is already condemned. indeed, if he does not do any sin at all, he is still condemned. and that each man was simply transmitted of the sin nature that makes them sin. the sin nature made it impossible for men not to sin, and no one ever chose to have it, but was simply transmitted with it.

Rom. 5:15 ...For if through the offence of one many be dead...

 

isn't it that Calvinism (or some Calvinists) include the general call? with this, the non-elects win over God's sovereignty since their depravity won over God's call, right!

anyways, it is not God's will that Adam eat of the fruit. neither is it His will that a christian commit sins. yet Adam sinned and christians sin. but with these i am sure that you still consider God to be omnipotent. this therefore poses contradiction in your part, unless proper categories are presented regarding God's will. that is, whether it is sovereign or permissive.

it cannot just be plainly stated that when God's will is frustrated, then he is not omnipotent. it's not as absolute as that! otherwise, the Bible will be filled with contradictions!

regarding salvation, the point of debate is whether God applies His sovereign will or permissive will for a christian to accept His grace.

i'd say both. God used his sovereign will so that there is no stopping Him in sending His only begotten Son. on the other hand, God uses his permissive will for sinners to accept or reject His offer (of course with the given condition that everyone has the ability to accept or reject).

[ May 20, 2003, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Aki ]

 

i'm a bit surprised by this reply. however, regardless of your stand with the two wills, i think may question will still apply.

you said:

my question then is: when Adam sinned, God does not will him to. when a chrisitian sins, God does not will him to. thus, God's will was frustrated in these instances. is He therefore not omnipotent?

also, Calvinism (or maybe only certain Calvinists - i'm not so sure) teaches the general call. does this mean that God wills that even the non-elect be saved? moreover, don't you think that God's call was frustrated with man's depravity? herein then is a point in Calvinism where God's will is frustrated.

 

then why say that man is responsible for his own condemnation? God has been sovereign all the way. he must have been sovereign too to get man condemned. He, then, must be the one also responsible for the event of condemnation. otherwise, His sovereignty was overpowered in this case. it's not my intention to come unkind, but more and more you tend to prove that double predestination is the best way to get calvinism out of self-contradiction! as the article used:

 

and that is correct! there is no explanation in the article to say otherwise.

the scriptures said that God is not the author of sin. the article, however, did not answer why God is not the author of sin with regards to its stand. instead, it diverted the issue from answering why God is not the author of sin towards saying that God would have failed if He did not plan sin to enter.

it presented its case, saying that God planned (which can be argued to be the same as authored) sin to enter. the other case, which it proves wrong is:

i'd say the article's stand is wrong. the other arguments, however, are also wrong. it used another wrong argument to prove its own correct.

it is simple. God gave volition and a rule(s). with volition God sovereignly chose to let man choose. with the rule, God gave a way for man to to show obedience or disobedience by using their free will. indeed, if there was no rule, volition would have been of no use.

the sin Adam nor Satan committed was not unforseen. God knew that they would do it, but God is sovereign enough to get history moving. God did not fail here. He gave Adam everything necessary to stay away from sin. also, God gave Adam the responsibility to sin or not to sin, by giving Him the volition and rule. with that, it would be Adam's call. it was also Satan's call when he sinned against God. God's sovereignty was not overpowered in this event.

 

i am not a double-predestinarian (neither a calvinist) but i certainly like your response

however, you must consider: double predestination may lead to conclude that it is God who is responsible for the condemnation of the non-elects as He is also the one who gives salvation to His elects. indeed, that is what is basically meant by double predestination. it is God who predestined men on hell and heaven.

until a calvinist is a double predestinarian, it will be very hard to prove that a non-elect is responsible for his own condemnation, given the imputed guilt and the transmitted sin nature. if, on the other hand, a calvinist goes to say that it is God who caused the condemnation, then that calvinist goes with a big step towards double predestination.

more so, if you become a double predestinarian, you will be forced to accept that God is equally gracious (to His elects) and cruel (to the non-elects). all this because of His sovereignty. in fact, if you take it philosopically, there really is no such thing as grace nor cruelty, but only sovereingty in double predestination.

why? because you call it grace when one deserves condemnation yet was given salvation. however, in D.P. none deserved condemnation, but was merely predestined by God for it due purely to His own sovereignty, pleasure and glorification, and none on one's volition. the same goes in salvation.

 

hi Felix

your argument is good, but it does not go unquestioned. you see, there are certain wills of God that are discouraged as exemplified in many portions of the scripture.

take Adam for example. it was not God's will for Adam to disobey, yet Adam still ate of the forbidden fruit.

this is due to the fact that though God wills Adam's obedience, God would rather respect Adam's volition. the same happens to each one come salvation.

this is why there are those (including me) who categorize God's will into: sovereign and permissive. what you are talking about when God's will would certainly happen falls into sovereign will. but God also in His sovereignty chooses to respect man's volition in order for His will to be realized. thus, though God wills for everyone to be saved, not all will be.