CALVINISM’S GREATEST FALLACY

[annsni]

Matt Slick would be a better god then Calvinist version of God. In their attempt to force humility on sinners they inadvertently trashed the image of God and insult God by making him out to be a monster.


Calvinist say "its a absolute miracle that God was kind enough to save me, because I thought he was going to give everyone hell."

Shocked and Surprised that God isn't completely EVIL.

The whole thing is insult to God. You have got to be a well suffered soul to be a ex-Calvinist, Because where power and fear are the virtues , and you are told Love and Kindness is weakness. Thats a hard nut to crack.

So God is evil to send sinful people to hell?

 

[utilyan]

So God is evil to send sinful people to hell?

People put themselves in hell by sin.

If you decided to go to hell that would be a sin, That is eternal separation from God, and active sin.

They don't praise God in hell, they sin there.


Evil's worst nightmare is to be thrown in heaven, God would be its absolute horror.


The mistake being made here is applying justice from a worldy man's perspective, his currency is suffering.

He says I deserve in neglect of what God deserves.

You have a child who makes a mistake, Well he decides he doesn't deserve to live and suicides. How is that justice for you the father? No you deserve that he makes up for it in behaving the proper way.

When you sin its not a PERK that you pay for with suffering and punishment. The complete damage is done within the sin itself. A SAINT would rather burn then sin against God. The enemy here is sin and all of God's punishment is geared towards the correction of the sinner.

Just the opposite of the Saint, the Wicked would rather burn then do anything remotely good for God.

They hate God and everything about God including their own existence.


On paper when a child does wrong and he repents and wants to beat himself with a hammer for it, it sounds cute, but he is trying to employ his own sense of Justice based on suffering, not GOD's.

If you think anyone deserves to suffer for the wrongs they commit, Jesus Christ picked up that tab when he died on the cross, he's paying Your sense of justice to cover for everyone's suffering.

No one sticks their hand in a fire, burns themselves, and thinks wow that's great lets do it again. More then likely they repent on the spot and think to themselves wow that was stupid, they don't harp on it and figure well i deserve to burn my foot too.

We are going to come to a point of believing sin to be just as repulsive. It is dumber to sin then to burn your own hand on purpose. Sinning is stupid in every way.

 

[Yeshua1]

People put themselves in hell by sin.

If you decided to go to hell that would be a sin, That is eternal separation from God, and active sin.

They don't praise God in hell, they sin there.


Evil's worst nightmare is to be thrown in heaven, God would be its absolute horror.


The mistake being made here is applying justice from a worldy man's perspective, his currency is suffering.

He says I deserve in neglect of what God deserves.

You have a child who makes a mistake, Well he decides he doesn't deserve to live and suicides. How is that justice for you the father? No you deserve that he makes up for it in behaving the proper way.

When you sin its not a PERK that you pay for with suffering and punishment. The complete damage is done within the sin itself. A SAINT would rather burn then sin against God. The enemy here is sin and all of God's punishment is geared towards the correction of the sinner.

Just the opposite of the Saint, the Wicked would rather burn then do anything remotely good for God.

They hate God and everything about God including their own existence.


On paper when a child does wrong and he repents and wants to beat himself with a hammer for it, it sounds cute, but he is trying to employ his own sense of Justice based on suffering, not GOD's.

If you think anyone deserves to suffer for the wrongs they commit, Jesus Christ picked up that tab when he died on the cross, he's paying Your sense of justice to cover for everyone's suffering.

No one sticks their hand in a fire, burns themselves, and thinks wow that's great lets do it again. More then likely they repent on the spot and think to themselves wow that was stupid, they don't harp on it and figure well i deserve to burn my foot too.

We are going to come to a point of believing sin to be just as repulsive. It is dumber to sin then to burn your own hand on purpose. Sinning is stupid in every way.

Did God send the sinners in Sodam to hell, did he judge them for their sins?

 

[Revmitchell]

Did God send the sinners in Sodam to hell, did he judge them for their sins?

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

 

[Yeshua1]

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Born from above, as that rebirth is caused by the Holy Spirit Himself.

 

[Revmitchell]

Born from above, as that rebirth is caused by the Holy Spirit Himself.

You added to scripture there what is not in that passage.

 

[Yeshua1]

You added to scripture there what is not in that passage.

That which is born of the Spirit is spirit, that of the flesh is flesh ,aHd the Spirit blows as He so wills.

 

[Revmitchell]

That which is born of the Spirit is spirit, that of the flesh is flesh ,aHd the Spirit blows as He so wills.

That doesn't mean what you say it means but the power to get saved comes from the gospel Romans 1:16

 

[Yeshua1]

That doesn't mean what you say it means but the power to get saved comes from the gospel Romans 1:16

John states that those saved are due to the will of God, correct?

 

[Revmitchell]

John states that those saved are due to the will of God, correct?

What does that have to do with where the power in salvation comes from. See I believe the Bible when it says that the power for salvation is the gospel. You deny that. I believe the Bible when it says that the gospel alone provides the power for salvation. You deny that. The will of God is that all men everywhere would get saved.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

People put themselves in hell by sin.

If you decided to go to hell that would be a sin, That is eternal separation from God, and active sin.

They don't praise God in hell, they sin there.


Evil's worst nightmare is to be thrown in heaven, God would be its absolute horror.


The mistake being made here is applying justice from a worldy man's perspective, his currency is suffering.

He says I deserve in neglect of what God deserves.

You have a child who makes a mistake, Well he decides he doesn't deserve to live and suicides. How is that justice for you the father? No you deserve that he makes up for it in behaving the proper way.

When you sin its not a PERK that you pay for with suffering and punishment. The complete damage is done within the sin itself. A SAINT would rather burn then sin against God. The enemy here is sin and all of God's punishment is geared towards the correction of the sinner.

Just the opposite of the Saint, the Wicked would rather burn then do anything remotely good for God.

They hate God and everything about God including their own existence.


On paper when a child does wrong and he repents and wants to beat himself with a hammer for it, it sounds cute, but he is trying to employ his own sense of Justice based on suffering, not GOD's.

If you think anyone deserves to suffer for the wrongs they commit, Jesus Christ picked up that tab when he died on the cross, he's paying Your sense of justice to cover for everyone's suffering.

No one sticks their hand in a fire, burns themselves, and thinks wow that's great lets do it again. More then likely they repent on the spot and think to themselves wow that was stupid, they don't harp on it and figure well i deserve to burn my foot too.

We are going to come to a point of believing sin to be just as repulsive. It is dumber to sin then to burn your own hand on purpose. Sinning is stupid in every way.

Ann, were you taught that in Catholic school? I never heard if it.

 

[annsni]

Ann, were you taught that in Catholic school? I never heard if it.

No - That wasn't me who wrote that.

 

[annsni]

People put themselves in hell by sin.

What if someone chooses to not sin?

 

[agedman]

People put themselves in hell by sin.

Not true.

People spend eternity in the Lake of Fire by not having their names written in the Book of Life.

 

[utilyan]

Not true.

People spend eternity in the Lake of Fire by not having their names written in the Book of Life.

Seriously?....... you sure its not by being thrown into a lake?

Okay guys, heres the mission....lets write everyone's name in that book.

I'll steal the book and you steal the pen.

 

[utilyan]

What if someone chooses to not sin?

People put themselves in hell to get the others out.

 

[Rippon]

Yea this is one of the bigger errors of cals. It usually comes from 1 Corinthians 2:14:

1Co 2:14 But the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God. For it is foolishness to him: and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined.

The mistake made by cals is to believe this is a comparison between the regenerate and the unregenerate. Its not by any means. It is simply a comparison between worldly wisdom and Godly wisdom.

Some snippets from various commentators who had the scriptural view of 1 Cor. 2:14:

Matthew Henry : Thus the natural man, destitute of the Spirit of God.

Adam Clarke : The man who is in a state of nature, without the regenerating grace of God.

Barnes Notes : It refers to unregenerate people.

Robertson's Word Pictures : A natural man, an unregenerate man.

Wesley's Explanatory Notes : But the natural man, --that is, every man who hath not the Spirit.

Michael Barrett : The unconverted man dead in sins and trespasses.

Peter Pett's Commentary on the Bible : The man without the Spirit, man as he is without God.

Thomas DD Constable's Expository Notes of the Bible : The natural man is any person who does not possess the Holy Spirit, namely, unbelievers.

John Piper : The unspiritual man is the natural man, the man who is merely human, who is not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Aaron]

Many Calvinists insist that all the heinous evil in our world must have been meticulously “brought to pass” or “decreed” by God otherwise it would prove (1) God has no purpose for evil’s existence or (2) He is powerless to do anything about it.[1]

For instance, Calvinistic scholar, Matt Slick states,

“…if someone were robbed and beaten, and yet God had no say in the crime whatsoever (for it was a free, uninhibited action based upon the criminal’s free will), then the person robbed would not have only been unjustly treated, but the evil he endured would have had no point to it. It was just a spontaneous action from a criminal. God is sort of left helpless in the matter.” <link>

These Calvinists are committing the “false dilemma” fallacy by insisting that there are only two alternatives to the problem when other valid options are clearly available and not being offered for objective consideration.

Logical fallacies serve to confound an issue and make a false perspective appear to be valid. In this article we will debunk this fallacious argument and present a much more robust answer to the problem being presented.

First of all, let’s dispose of the second alternative presented by the Calvinist’s false dilemma, “God is powerless to do anything about moral evil.” We can all agree that God has the power to stop sin, just as He had the power to prevent it from ever entering into our world, so let’s just dismiss that as an option. We are not debating about what God COULD do, we are debating about what God is PLEASED to do. This is not about God’s abilities, its about His character.

We can affirm that “God is in heaven; he does whatever pleases him,” (Ps. 115:3) while still holding on to the equally valid truth that, “the highest heavens belong to the LORD, but the earth he has given to mankind” (Ps. 115:16). This means it pleases God to give man a certain level of “libertarian freedom” or “dominion.” This is a biblical view of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. As A.W. Tozer rightly explains:

“God sovereignly decreed that man should be free to exercise moral choice, and man from the beginning has fulfilled that decree by making his choice between good and evil. When he chooses to do evil, he does not thereby countervail the sovereign will of God but fulfills it, inasmuch as the eternal decree decided not which choice the man should make but that he should be free to make it. If in His absolute freedom God has willed to give man limited freedom, who is there to stay His hand or say, ‘What doest thou?’ Man’s will is free because God is sovereign. A God less than sovereign could not bestow moral freedom upon His creatures. He would be afraid to do so.” – A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy: The Attributes of God

One cannot presume that it did not please God to create libertarian free creatures, as do the Calvinists who present this false dilemma.

Now, let’s consider the Calvinist’s first alternative, which was, “God has no purpose for evil’s existence.” The shortsightedness of that statement is revealed by simply asking, “Did God have a good purpose in creating libertarian free creatures who have the ability to choose moral evil?”

Calvinists are failing to acknowledge the possibility that evil is a consequence of libertarian free will (the ability of morally accountable creatures to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action). The only way they can ignore this possibility is to deny God’s omnipotence by suggesting He is not powerful enough to have created libertarianly free creatures even if He was pleased to do so. Surely Calvinists do not want to suggest God is incapable of doing as He pleases.

Now, it must be noted that Non-Calvinists do believe that God does have a GOOD purpose in giving man the ability to make libertarianly free choices, even if those choices have an EVIL purpose. So, it is only in presuming that God did not purpose to create libertarianly free creatures that one is left with the dilemma of either (1) a Holy God purposing evil Himself or (2) purposeless evil.

A clear distinction must be made in the idea of God actively purposing evil and His actively using creaturely evil for His good purposes. The former impugns his Holiness while the latter highlights His redemptive sovereignty and ultimate glory as the Holy, perfect, sinless Creator.

Soteriology101

God's will prevails no matter what. There was no prophet sent to preach to Sodom or Gomorrah.

So, according to your premise, it pleased God not to offer them repentance. It was His will they die in their sins.

It pleased God not to intervene to prevent the Fall. The Fall was part of His will for the world.

Where do you escape any difficulties with "free will" that you think plague Calvinism?

 

[Aaron]

Matt Slick would be a better god then Calvinist version of God. In their attempt to force humility on sinners they inadvertently trashed the image of God and insult God by making him out to be a monster.


Calvinist say "its a absolute miracle that God was kind enough to save me, because I thought he was going to give everyone hell."

Shocked and Surprised that God isn't completely EVIL.

The whole thing is insult to God. You have got to be a well suffered soul to be a ex-Calvinist, Because where power and fear are the virtues , and you are told Love and Kindness is weakness. Thats a hard nut to crack.

What cult do you attend?

 

[Revmitchell]

God's will prevails no matter what.

OK. I agree

There was no prophet sent to preach to Sodom or Gomorrah.

First, you nor I know that is true. Second, Romans 1:19 was just as true then as it is now.

So, according to your premise, it pleased God not to offer them repentance. It was His will they die in their sins.

No that is not my premise and I have no idea how you came to that conclusion that it is.

It pleased God not to intervene to prevent the Fall.

Scripture please

The Fall was part of His will for the world.

Ok. Not sure this means or implies what you think it does.

Where do you escape any difficulties with "free will" that you think plague Calvinism?

I don't understand this maybe you can reword it.