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.
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.
