If we accept a Calvinistic interpretation of scripture, then we accept an internally inconsistent interpretation of scripture. And an internally inconsistent interpretation of scripture is not the meaning of the Word of God; therefore it is a perversion of the Word of God.
I now challenge Calvinists to demonstrate that their interpretation is internally consistent, and ask non-Calvinists to show that the Calvinistic interpretation is internally inconsistent. If Calvinists cannot demonstrate that their interpretation is free from contradictions, then cannot demonstrate that what they are deriving from the Word of God is the meaning of the Word of God.
First, Calvinists say that God hardens people's hearts. Why does He harden their hearts if they have no capacity to believe in him of their own free will? For what purpose is this hardening of the heart? Is it to condemn them? With whom is he bearing patiently? Are these vessels fitted to destruction those whom he hardened? Then how is he bearing with them patiently?
Did God not reject from before the foundation of the world those whom he did not foreknow, according to Calvinists, if, as they say, the cause for their sin is his withdrawl of his presence from them? Is not God the first to act, rejecting them? They did not reject God; he rejected them. At least non-Calvinists believe that God wants peace with those from whom he withdrew his presence, who were his enemies because of their own free will.
Desires and free will are two different things. First, acting according to your desires is a decision. If, I desire to eat a cheeseburger, I can eat pizza instead. Why, because I have multiple desires, or reasons, between which I can choose. Ultimately, it's my own choice, not the power of my desires. No one has any excuse for acting in accordance with their desires, because they can in fact, choose to respond in faith to Christ, since he draws all men to himself. How can God draw all men to himself, and yet draw only the "elect"?
Sorry for my poor prose style and lack of systematic setting forth of argument and information. I will be working on that.
I now challenge Calvinists to demonstrate that their interpretation is internally consistent, and ask non-Calvinists to show that the Calvinistic interpretation is internally inconsistent. If Calvinists cannot demonstrate that their interpretation is free from contradictions, then cannot demonstrate that what they are deriving from the Word of God is the meaning of the Word of God.
First, Calvinists say that God hardens people's hearts. Why does He harden their hearts if they have no capacity to believe in him of their own free will? For what purpose is this hardening of the heart? Is it to condemn them? With whom is he bearing patiently? Are these vessels fitted to destruction those whom he hardened? Then how is he bearing with them patiently?
Did God not reject from before the foundation of the world those whom he did not foreknow, according to Calvinists, if, as they say, the cause for their sin is his withdrawl of his presence from them? Is not God the first to act, rejecting them? They did not reject God; he rejected them. At least non-Calvinists believe that God wants peace with those from whom he withdrew his presence, who were his enemies because of their own free will.
Desires and free will are two different things. First, acting according to your desires is a decision. If, I desire to eat a cheeseburger, I can eat pizza instead. Why, because I have multiple desires, or reasons, between which I can choose. Ultimately, it's my own choice, not the power of my desires. No one has any excuse for acting in accordance with their desires, because they can in fact, choose to respond in faith to Christ, since he draws all men to himself. How can God draw all men to himself, and yet draw only the "elect"?
Sorry for my poor prose style and lack of systematic setting forth of argument and information. I will be working on that.
