Calvinism Refuted with One Verse

[MrW]

In Genesis 6:3, the Bible reports God as saying, "My spirit shall not always strive with man..." (KJV). Now, if Calvinism is true, why does God need to strive with anyone? Could he not simply irresistibly move them? This appears to be one of those instances, according to Calvinism, in which God pretended to have an interest in drawing man, and then got disappointed because no one responded to his make-believe calling.

Many verses refute Calvin’s twist on theology.

 

[AustinC]

Many verses refute Calvin’s twist on theology.

I look forward to you showing each aspect of John Calvin's theology, on all subjects on which he wrote, and then share all the verses that refute what John Calvin wrote. When do you think you will publish your book @MrW?

 

[Van]

I look forward to you showing each aspect of John Calvin's theology, on all subjects on which he wrote, and then share all the verses that refute what John Calvin wrote. When do you think you will publish your book @MrW?

How many times do we see Calvinist posters asking for something which would prove "to them" that Calvinism is as bogus as a three dollar bill? The only inference to draw is that they cannot defend the indefensible, and so try to turn the tables, allowing them to post their favorite theological rebuttal - taint so!

 

[DaveXR650]

How many times do we see Calvinist posters asking for something which would prove "to them" that Calvinism is as bogus as a three dollar bill? The only inference to draw is that they cannot defend the indefensible, and so try to turn the tables, allowing them to post their favorite theological rebuttal - taint so!

I agree with you but don't see why that wouldn't work equally both ways. If you're honest there isn't a "gotcha" verse that exists either way. If you don't like some aspect of what is called Calvinism I would say just reject it but don't get so much against it that you give up all you can gain from writers who happened to be Calvinists.

The modern rejection of Calvinism seems to center on objections to it's intrusion on our "free will". In that area, rather than use specific verses, I would just say to look over the general presenting of the gospel message in Acts and in the Epistles. One thing you notice is a general lack of spending much effort trying to convince people that they ought to be saved. You are told who Christ is and what he has done but there isn't much effort in arguing someone into being saved. I would say if it all depended on someone's free will then you would have most of scripture devoted to that. I see warnings not to harden your heart but it doesn't seem to be a priority to convince someone of their need to be saved by using the same methods we use in our other interactions with people on a day to day basis where we assume free will is in full operation. Why is that?

 

[Van]

I agree with you but don't see why that wouldn't work equally both ways. If you're honest there isn't a "gotcha" verse that exists either way. If you don't like some aspect of what is called Calvinism I would say just reject it but don't get so much against it that you give up all you can gain from writers who happened to be Calvinists.

The modern rejection of Calvinism seems to center on objections to it's intrusion on our "free will". In that area, rather than use specific verses, I would just say to look over the general presenting of the gospel message in Acts and in the Epistles. One thing you notice is a general lack of spending much effort trying to convince people that they ought to be saved. You are told who Christ is and what he has done but there isn't much effort in arguing someone into being saved. I would say if it all depended on someone's free will then you would have most of scripture devoted to that. I see warnings not to harden your heart but it doesn't seem to be a priority to convince someone of their need to be saved by using the same methods we use in our other interactions with people on a day to day basis where we assume free will is in full operation. Why is that?

1) If you are honest...
2) There is not a "gotcha" verse that demonstrates Calvinism is bogus.
3) You can gain from Calvinist writers
4) You object to Calvinism because you believe in free will
5) In Acts and the Epistles, there is a lack of effort trying to convince people to be saved.
6) Why do "we" assume "free will" in in operation?

The above list identifies 6 points of falsehood used in the defense of Calvinism.

1) If you are honest questions the integrity of those who do not find Calvinism in the bible.
2) There are many verses that demonstrate Calvinism is false. For one example, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says people are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. Calvinism falsely claims people are chosen for salvation without regard for their faith.
3) Any writing supporting the T,U,L, or I of the TULIP should be rejected as unbiblical screed.
4) I do not believe in "free will" as our choices are limited by what God allows.
5) Acts presents the efforts of Peter and Paul to convince people to be saved, the opposite of the false claim.
6) Anyone with training in evangelism knows people have presuppositions, making them open or somewhat open to closed or somewhat closed to God's word. Here is a link:
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...ram2=84481&p=Evangelism+training&guccounter=1

 

[DaveXR650]

2) There are many verses that demonstrate Calvinism is false. For one example, 2 Thessalonians 2:13 says people are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. Calvinism falsely claims people are chosen for salvation without regard for their faith.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Read that verse. It says people are chosen for salvation and then explains how you are saved. It doesn't prove or deny election. It would be like if a military commander said "I am choosing this division to be the spearhead of the operation by attacking right up the main road in a frontal attack". They were chosen to be the spearhead of the operation; the meaning of being chosen was that they would be the ones who participated in the frontal attack. You are saying that they are the spearhead of the operation because they attacked up the main road. There is truth to that but it doesn't deny that they were chosen. That is not a "gotcha verse".

3) Any writing supporting the T,U,L, or I of the TULIP should be rejected as unbiblical screed.

Here you've just knocked out almost all Baptists who are in agreement with 4 of the letters or in partial agreement with several of the TULIP points. It's obvious that you have rejected everything other than Vanology as unbiblical screed but don't put that on everyone else.

5) Acts presents the efforts of Peter and Paul to convince people to be saved, the opposite of the false claim.

This is just something I have noticed. You see them convincing Jewish people or proselytes that the messiah was this Jesus. And you see them making sure that everyone knows that Jesus was really killed according to scripture and raised from the dead. And I see people who, once they realize the truth of the gospel, or realize that they are in danger cry out "What should we do?" or "What must I do to be saved?" What I don't see is a lot of effort spent on convincing people that they really need to decide for Christ and here is a winsome presentation of why you would be wise to do so. The closest would be "repent and believe" or "repent and be baptized". All I'm saying is that in all other areas of life where we all acknowledge the operation of our free will much effort is spent convincing each other that you should sovereignly choose this or that. Yet not in the Bible. It is fair to ask why this is. I read where an evangelist said one time that given a half hour with anyone he could convince them to be a Christian. I say you can't. I'm not denying free will in the sense that we aren't choosing what we most want to do. But I am saying that we lack the sovereign, autonomous vantage point to really choose to come to Christ. We naturally do not find Christ desirable and we don't see the reality of our standing before God. And we cannot be convinced of this in the same way our free will works in normal aspects of life. We lack the natural ability to do this, unlike the ability we have in most other areas. Thus, you don't see a lot of "convincing" going on in scripture. The truth of who Jesus is and what he did is told and the Holy Spirit either works or doesn't. How many preachers report preaching day in and day out and one day, as the result of a mediocre sermon the Spirit moves and people are changed. That is not your free will at work in my opinion. It doesn't prove anything. It's just what I've noticed. I just throw it out there because it's something I don't see in scripture.

5) Acts presents the efforts of Peter and Paul to convince people to be saved, the opposite of the false claim.

I guess it's technically correct to say that if you believe differently but your language is inflammatory and it indicates that you are just plain nasty. A false claim would be if you with full knowledge and understanding present something with the intention to deceive. I don't do that but I could indeed be completely wrong. You can escalate every disagreement into a personal confrontation if you want. You're not alone, but I can save you a lot of trouble if you would just realize that people might disagree with you on a forum.

 

[Van]

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Read that verse. It says people are chosen for salvation and then explains how you are saved. It doesn't prove or deny election. It would be like if a military commander said "I am choosing this division to be the spearhead of the operation by attacking right up the main road in a frontal attack". They were chosen to be the spearhead of the operation; the meaning of being chosen was that they would be the ones who participated in the frontal attack. You are saying that they are the spearhead of the operation because they attacked up the main road. There is truth to that but it doesn't deny that they were chosen. That is not a "gotcha verse". SNIP

1) No matter the verse, Calvinists deny the verse says what it says. It does not say how you are saved. In the phrase, for salvation" salvation is a noun, not a verb, but certain agenda driven translations turn the noun into a verb to allow the false claim you made.

2) Of course it proves "conditional election for salvation." Duh

3) The verse does not say nor suggest they were chosen for something other than for salvation. Full Stop

4) Again you repeat the fiction that someone is arguing against "election for salvation" based on crediting their faith as righteousness.

Summary, once again an obvious truth is denied using absurd and irrational argumentation. Go figure.

 

[DaveXR650]

@Van . I think Calvinism is weak on some of the determinism. Even if it's true, it's also true that we live in real time and if we believe we will be saved. The problem is that Calvinists teach that also. A lot of the animosity comes from us looking at someone's theology and then saying "aha, because of this point you must believe this, and that's absurd". I've looked into this fairly extensively and I think that Calvinism has some weaknesses. So does Arminianism. But there isn't going to be a verse that easily refutes Calvinism. Give people some credit. They may have thought things through just as much as you have. It should be obvious that when we as humans, try to put together a comprehensive theology we are at the edge of our ability to comprehend. At least I am.

 

[Van]

@Van . I think Calvinism is weak on some of the determinism. Even if it's true, it's also true that we live in real time and if we believe we will be saved. The problem is that Calvinists teach that also. A lot of the animosity comes from us looking at someone's theology and then saying "aha, because of this point you must believe this, and that's absurd". I've looked into this fairly extensively and I think that Calvinism has some weaknesses. So does Arminianism. But there isn't going to be a verse that easily refutes Calvinism. Give people some credit. They may have thought things through just as much as you have. It should be obvious that when we as humans, try to put together a comprehensive theology we are at the edge of our ability to comprehend. At least I am.

You can repeat your mantra till the cows come home, I already provided a verse that easily refutes Calvinism, and there are many many more. No one is claiming Arminianism is valid, so two wrongs do not make a right. Anyone arguing for the viabiliy of Calvinism has not thought it through, so you see folks referencing this or that verse as if it said something in support of Calvinism but when you actually study the verse, it provides no actual support.

And do not try to sell a pig in a poke, as if we cannot discern truth from falsehood by understanding God's word. Yes we can.

 

[DaveXR650]

You can repeat your mantra till the cows come home, I already provided a verse that easily refutes Calvinism, and there are many many more.

You better be careful. All the theologians and preachers who have written all those books, and preached all those sermons, and debated James White and R.C. on this and have made a pretty good living at it are going to come after you if they find out you demolished their livelihood with one verse.

 

[David Kent]

Did God choose the Jews because they were better than other nations? No! He chose them because of His sovereign will.

So if the Jews, why not His spiritual Israel.

EPHESIANS 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:

I see no difference.

 

[JD731]

In Genesis 6:3, the Bible reports God as saying, "My spirit shall not always strive with man..." (KJV). Now, if Calvinism is true, why does God need to strive with anyone? Could he not simply irresistibly move them? This appears to be one of those instances, according to Calvinism, in which God pretended to have an interest in drawing man, and then got disappointed because no one responded to his make-believe calling.

What about this one Guido?

Lk 19:10 For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.
11 And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear.
12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
13 And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come.
14 But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us.

Break

15 And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading.
16 Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds.
17 And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities.
18 And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds.
19 And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities.
20 And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:
21 For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow.
22 And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow:
23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury?
24 And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds.
25 (And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds)
26 For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him.
27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

SLAY THEM BECAUSE THEY WILLED NOT TO COME?

The problem with Calvinsts is that they do not know how to process the English language.

 

[Silverhair]

If free will is you being able to do pretty much what you are inclined to do then sure, you have free will. As a man, you do not have free will in the sense that you make decisions based on anything more than your inclinations. You are not an autonomous being. And in the end, after you have done all you can to the best of your ability to fulfill your own desires according to your own free will - you will do what was predestined.

So in other words those that are predestined to hell are so because God has predestined them there. Remember the Calvinist version of God determines all things not just some things so even the free will that you say sinners have is actually not free will is it? The double speak of Calvinists is well know and shows how vacant their theology really is.

 

[Silverhair]

No, all of mankind are stubborn, willing slaves to sin and darkened in our hearts and minds ( Romans 1, Romans 6, Ephesians 4 ).

Believers were also such, before the Lord opened our hearts.

But is it not the Calvinist God that makes all of mankind stubborn, willing slaves to sin and darkened in our hearts and minds? So we see the Calvinist God works against Himself.

 

[Silverhair]

Robots? No.

Enslaved to sin, yes. Which is what I said. Human will, enslaved to sin, with no desire for the things of the Spirit unless/until God changes our nature and frees our will from sin.

peace to you

Slaves to sin as determined by the Calvinist God. So yes under Calvinism man are no more than meat robots or puppets if you prefer, with God pulling the strings.

 

[Silverhair]

I agree with you but don't see why that wouldn't work equally both ways. If you're honest there isn't a "gotcha" verse that exists either way. If you don't like some aspect of what is called Calvinism I would say just reject it but don't get so much against it that you give up all you can gain from writers who happened to be Calvinists.

The modern rejection of Calvinism seems to center on objections to it's intrusion on our "free will". In that area, rather than use specific verses, I would just say to look over the general presenting of the gospel message in Acts and in the Epistles. One thing you notice is a general lack of spending much effort trying to convince people that they ought to be saved. You are told who Christ is and what he has done but there isn't much effort in arguing someone into being saved. I would say if it all depended on someone's free will then you would have most of scripture devoted to that. I see warnings not to harden your heart but it doesn't seem to be a priority to convince someone of their need to be saved by using the same methods we use in our other interactions with people on a day to day basis where we assume free will is in full operation. Why is that?

Dave you seem to think that all that Paul or Peter or James or John etc did was travel around on sight seeing tours. What do you think the presentation of the gospel message is, just a good story? From what you are saying it is a waste of time presenting the gospel as people will just wake up one day and will just believe because God just popped faith into their head. But here is the rub, according to the bible whoever is saved has to make a decision. Whether that decision is made when they hear the gospel message or latter it is still their decision.

Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Joh 3:15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
Joh 3:18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

What about the Philippian jailer? Did he use his free will to trust in Christ Jesus?
Act 16:25 But at midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns to God, and the prisoners were listening to them.

Act 16:30 And he brought them out and said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"
Act 16:31 So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household."

If we went by your logic the jailer would not have had the free will to ask such a question and Paul should not have told him to believe as that requires a free will decision.

I am not sure how you speak to people but I am not in the habit of telling people you have to use your free will to decide whether to believe the information I am presenting, it's expected.

 

[DaveXR650]

Dave you seem to think that all that Paul or Peter or James or John etc did was travel around on sight seeing tours. What do you think the presentation of the gospel message is, just a good story? From what you are saying it is a waste of time presenting the gospel as people will just wake up one day and will just believe because God just popped faith into their head. But here is the rub, according to the bible whoever is saved has to make a decision. Whether that decision is made when they hear the gospel message or latter it is still their decision.

The only point I was trying to make was that you don't seem to see the kind of persuasive arguing and convincing that we all use on each other as humans to convince each other of things where we know our free will is in operation. In the Bible the gospel is proclaimed and it seems like some believe and some don't, but it does not seem to be the result of the presentation or debating ability of the messenger. But you do have to hear the news and you do either accept or reject the news.

 

[David Kent]

Martin Luther said that man was gi before will, but Adam used that free will to sin. As Adam had sons in his fallen image, man's freewill can only sin.

 

[canadyjd]

Slaves to sin as determined by the Calvinist God. So yes under Calvinism man are no more than meat robots or puppets if you prefer, with God pulling the strings.

Actually, meat puppets with sin pulling the strings. BUT GOD has chosen His elect to free from sin.

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Slaves to sin as determined by the Calvinist God. So yes under Calvinism man are no more than meat robots or puppets if you prefer, with God pulling the strings.

Slaves to sin as expressly and specifically revealed in scripture.

peace to you