Calvinism's fatal flaw

[Frogman]

Simply, Brother, your theology has eliminated scriptural argument; I myself as one Calvinist cannot recognize the validity of any argument which desires to misapply the revealed Word of God, I view this as a tactic of the Adversary.

Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Simply, Brother, your theology has eliminated scriptural argument; I myself as one Calvinist cannot recognize the validity of any argument which desires to misapply the revealed Word of God, I view this as a tactic of the Adversary.

Bro. Dallas

Whow there big fella. We went from debating scriptural hermeneutics to calling my method a "tactic of the Adversary." Could I not say the same thing about your method of hermeneutics? After all, your method assumes that we have the same "rights" as the first disciples. Someone could say that's heresy.

It is you who are misappling the Word. You're appling texts that are speaking about the appointed apostles to yourself. You assume that God treats you in the same method he treated Peter, Paul or the other apostles. That's not supported in scripture and its not supported by our own personal experiences, unless you meet Jesus in person or were blinded on a road to Damascus recently?

Once again, you are labelling and dismissing instead of debating the issues. Tell me how I have "missapplied God's Word" and how my theology "has eliminated scriptural argument." I've used scripture to back up my claims, go back and read the posts again. You on the other hand haven't back up anything scripturally. Don't just make unfounded claims you need to support them.

Bro. Bill

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
I'm new to this board but I've been debating Calvinists for years and I see one basic fatal flaw within Calvinism's belief system.

Calvinists interpret texts that are in reference to the first apostles of Christ as being applicable to all believers....

Calvinists need to have a lesson in Hermanutics before they continue to falsely interpret the scriptures.

Bro. Bill

Romans 8:28And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Bill, The implication I see of your argument is this: You get to decide what scriptures apply to us and which only apply to the Apostles. The scripture I cite above is not ambiguous. Verse 29 establishes it as universal to the saved. Yet by your rule, you can come back and say that this only applies to this group or that.

I am sorry but the reason you don't see that your argument is being refuted is that you fail to see the fallacy of your premise. You have accepted as "fact" that certain parts of the NT are for the 1st century Christians only... without the text explicitly saying so. I don't think this positions you to lecture Calvinsts about their hermaneutics.

 

[sturgman]

Bro Bill you said-
Everyone claims that God's Sovereignty and man's free will is a paradox because both are taught in scripture.


Many of us would like to know where you get that free weill is taught in scripture. All we have ever seen when asking this to others is conjecture and opinion or some nonsence that you have to look at nature for truth (you will find that theology among those in the Yelsewian church) The only thing mentioned of free will in scripture is a free will offering, made by the people of God. We have wills, but they are slave to our nature. Only God's will is truly free.

Please explain if you have a second too.

Thanks,
sturgman

 

[C.R. Gordon]

Originally posted by Brother Bill:
I'm new to this board but I've been debating Calvinists for years and I see one basic fatal flaw within Calvinism's belief system.

Calvinists interpret texts that are in reference to the first apostles of Christ as being applicable to all believers....

Calvinists need to have a lesson in Hermanutics before they continue to falsely interpret the scriptures.

Bro. Bill

I respond:
You're sick! Sick I say!

"Calvinism did not spring from Calvin. We believe that it sprang from the great Founder of all truth...Calvinism is the Gospel."

 

[npetreley]

Scotty did an excellent job of refuting your premise entirely, but I'm also glad you mentioned James, whose epistle is often used to elevate the necessity of works out of its proper proportion.

Audience:

James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:

[...]

Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

Whose will it is we are who we are...

Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

And if you read the whole context (trials), one would be hard pressed to make the case that James took a brief detour to talk only about the apostles, after which he got back on track -- all without saying anything to let the reader know the text was a side-trip.

 

[Skandelon]



[ February 03, 2003, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Samuel ]

 

[Skandelon]

Bro. Bill,

What exactly do you call your viewpoint. I've tried to find it in my research and I'm not having much luck.

Sam

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brother Bill,

Do you use the title 'Brother Bill' because you are trying to influence us to believe that you too are saved? {although I am reasonably sure you are}

Does your medical doctor write Dr. Robert Smith,l when he signs his checks when he goes to the shopping center? If you did not have a bad case of 'sour grapes' you might value those who have gone through the 'theological mill.' Would you rather trust the souls of your family with someone who just walked into your church with a brand new Bible? Having a reasonable amount of respect for an elder may be the rule of the day. [I Timothy 5:17]

I am not looking for your affirmation because numbers of people believing in something or lack thereof is hardly proof of correct theology. As far as Spurgeon the documentation has been duly noted.

 

[Rev. G]

Some of you won't allow your pride to see that truth, because you want to believe that God "foreordained" and "Predestined" you in the same manner he has his first disciples.

Perhaps pride is the issue here, but not ours. After all, the doctrine of election serves to shatter the pride of man. See 1 Corinthians 1, for example (although it was written to the believers in Corinth, there is still application for the modern Church

).

 

[rufus]

WOW! The preceeding "posts" were interesting.

Logically, in order to show a "fatal flaw" in a person's noetic sturcture, you have to demonstrate a "contradiction" in that structure. I do not feel a "contradicition" was demonstrated. The disjunction originally set up in the first post does not exhaust the logical possibilities. Therefore, I see no "fatal flaw."

Pyschologically, ad hominen attacks do not win arguments. They may make someone feel better. Emoting can be cleansing but not so convincing.

Hermeneutically, I have observed the fallacies of (1) using Scripture as rhetoric to set a hook for a "foolish" argument; (2) ignoring the immediate contexts of passages to define the semantic range of particular words and phrases; (3) collapsing contexts in order to make points not found in the texts; (4) setting forth inadequate evidence to try to prove a theological point and (5) putting forth esoteric interpretations not based on text, context, and semantic range of meanings for textual constructions in the text.

Spiritually, I believe humility and a sense of lowliness of mind and of not thinking too highly of ourselves is always good. IMHO.

God is so good to us.

Rufus

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Scotty aka Scott J:

Romans 8:28And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. 29For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Bill, The implication I see of your argument is this: You get to decide what scriptures apply to us and which only apply to the Apostles. The scripture I cite above is not ambiguous. Verse 29 establishes it as universal to the saved. Yet by your rule, you can come back and say that this only applies to this group or that.

Ok, first let me apologize for not being able to answer everyone's posts, I'm much too busy to spend the time on this post that I would like--This stuff is addictive.

That said, let me address some of your arguements.

You make the arguement that I am the one who gets to decide what passages apply to us and what passages apply to the apostles. No, I don't make that decision, the proper hermeneutics applied to a passage will assist us in coming to that conclusion.

For example, look at Romans chapter 8 in its context. Before verse 29, Paul writes verse 23, "...we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit." Who is Paul speaking to? The first fruits, or the first disciples. Those who did not come to belief in Christ by faith, but by sight. They were appointed by Christ himself to be the ones who usher in the New Covenant. Like Moses, Jacob, Noah or Paul they were divinely chosen by a unique act of God's intervention.

You are the one who assumes that we must be included in Paul's intended audience here. You make an arguement from silence, saying that because he doesn't specifically say, "I'm not talking about every future believer here" that he must be referring to us all. That's not a fair arguement. When you write a letter to your family to you specify those to whom your not addressing in your letter. Of course not, you address the ones you're specifically speaking to, which is exactly what Paul does.

I am sorry but the reason you don't see that your argument is being refuted is that you fail to see the fallacy of your premise. You have accepted as "fact" that certain parts of the NT are for the 1st century Christians only... without the text explicitly saying so. I don't think this positions you to lecture Calvinsts about their hermaneutics.

I can make the same exact arguement about the "fallacy of your premise." You have been taught, like most other believers, that all of the NT was written with all future Christian's in mind. That is simply false. Many of the early disciples fully expected Christ to return before their death. Do you really think they were aware that when they sat down to write a letter to a church that it was going to be viewed as scripture and thus be scutinized and debated for centuries to come? Of course not. They were not aware that their letters were going to be the foundation for our systematic theologies for years to come. If they had there is no doubt they would have addressed them differently.

It sounds like to me that you all are the ones accepting something as "fact" without just cause. There is no reason to assume that the author is addressing anyone but his audience, who are a unique group of individuals. To deny that fact is to go against the most basic hermeneutical principles.

I could be wrong, but so could you. Reading the text with that in mind is essential to avoiding the false application of preconceived notions. I know that I have done that, because I've been on both sides of this debate, I'm only challenging you to look at it from both sides as well. You may be suprised by what you see.

With Respect,
Brother Bill

 

[Frogman]

o.k. I will concede the disciples did see Christ; yet the belief they possessed concerning His Sonship is/was no different than that necessary for any other; Matt. 16.17 tells us Peter's confession was Spiritually revealed to him from the Father.

Further, a belief, and/or a special position is validated only because Jesus died on the Cross and was resurrected. As is the case in all believers. This truth is what seperates between believers and non-believers.

I would agree the Apostolic Age has passed away and with it the particular gifts of those men in that position; but I would argue from the Scripture just as John did that it is the same anointing; I John 2.27. In the same way, this same anointing is the same Spirit which indwells each believer; though the gifts and calling, and therefore the purpose of each in his/her calling are different, God is not different.

The Bible, however, does speak to two classes of people, they are believers and non-believers.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
Scotty did an excellent job of refuting your premise entirely, but I'm also glad you mentioned James, whose epistle is often used to elevate the necessity of works out of its proper proportion.

Scotty did not refute my premise, he simply said that it was false because I believe it to be a fact. He did this by referring to a text in which Paul addressed "the first fruits," thus supporting the very premise that you say he refuted in it's entirty. You have a strange way of defining "refute" if you think Scotty's post did it "entirely".

Audience:

James, a bondservant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad:

Who were these people? The first to follow Christ. Many of whom walked with him and heard him speak and saw his miraclous signs. Others who saw the signs of the apostles themselves. They were apart of those God had chosen to usher in his New Covenant of grace. But, even if you wanted to apply some of these truths to us today, that is still acceptable, because some of the teachings are obviously applicable to all believers.

Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren. Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. Whose will it is we are who we are...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures.

And if you read the whole context (trials), one would be hard pressed to make the case that James took a brief detour to talk only about the apostles, after which he got back on track -- all without saying anything to let the reader know the text was a side-trip. </font>[/QUOTE]It even says, "we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures" thus supporting my premise that the writers are addressing a particular group of people; the firstfruits.

But even if you don't accept this interpretation, that's ok, I don't disagree that God brought us forth by the word of truth by his own will. It is God's will the the word of truth brings people to faith and repentance. Just as it is God's will that none perish. Like you Calvinist's say, this word "will" in 1 Tim. 2:4 or 1 Peter 3:9 is not an expression of God's Sovereign Decree, but merely an expression of God's desire or delight. This verse is merely saying that God delights in the fact that people are brought forth by the word of truth just as he does not delight in the perishing of the wicked. There is no contradictions with my premise either way you interpret this text; therefore, their in no refutation.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[William C]

Originally posted by Frogman:
o.k. I will concede the disciples did see Christ; yet the belief they possessed concerning His Sonship is/was no different than that necessary for any other; Matt. 16.17 tells us Peter's confession was Spiritually revealed to him from the Father.[/qb

I hope you will concede that the disciples saw Christ, otherwise that would be really weird

I agree, no one can believe without the Spirit moving in the life. Arminians and Calvinists alike agree with that truth, unless I've been misinformed? It's the question of how far does the Spirit go in assuring one's salvation that there is disagreement.

Calvinist's believe there is an effectual calling, which is clearly taught in scripture in regard to the calling of his first disciples. Arminians argue in vain or mere ignorance in their attempt to refute these obvious teachings. I've been reading and studing the koine greek language for well over 15 years and I can't see how any serious theologian worth their salt can understand Christ's teachings (especially in the gospel of John) any differently than in support of effectual calling.

Which, by the way, is why I have much more respect for Calvinistic theologians than I do for Arminian theologians. Arminian's contradict themselves by trying to force the scripture to fully apply to us today and maintain the intergity of the scriptures teaching on man's responsibility in salvation. It's a futile task!

Calvinisms flaw is similiar but not as deliberately erroneous. Calvinism assumes that all of the NT writers must have had believers past the apostolic age in mind when they were writing their letters. That, to me, is not supported by the text. Therefore, to assume that God's dealing with Paul should be the same as his dealing with me is a false presumption on the text.

[qb]
I would agree the Apostolic Age has passed away and with it the particular gifts of those men in that position; but I would argue from the Scripture just as John did that it is the same anointing; I John 2.27. In the same way, this same anointing is the same Spirit which indwells each believer; though the gifts and calling, and therefore the purpose of each in his/her calling are different, God is not different.

The Bible, however, does speak to two classes of people, they are believers and non-believers.

Once again Dallas, I don't disagree with the fact that there is an anointing from the same Holy Spirit for the purpose of teaching us, but this verse doesn't address the issue of justification by grace through faith, why should we apply it to our disagreement on Soteriology?

You contradict yourself in this arguement. You begin by admitting there was an "aposoltic age" in which different gifts were given and then later you assert that there are only two "classes" of people, believers and unbelievers. Which is it? There were apostles with special gifts, there are believers today w/o those same gifts, and there are unbelievers. That sounds like three different groups to me? Please explain.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[Frogman]

Forgive me for not being so straightforward in my last post.

The gifts of the Apostles were given as they were to them in order to show them to be preaching under the authority of the Power of God in the Name of Jesus. These were given for the establishment of the church, now we have not the need of these types of gifts (tongues, healing, raising of the dead) etc, yet being one and the same, the Power of God works in the hearts of men.

Before, though it may appear as three classes to a biased mind, in truth the apostles are grouped with the believers, and within that group they are called out from among the group to preach the Gospel.

The principle operates similarly among missionaries today. Having felt the leadership of the Spirit to enter upon their work, they establish a church. They continue in this place until the Spirit calls one from among the congregation to pastor; then the missionary will move to another place of work and so on.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Frogman:
Before, though it may appear as three classes to a biased mind, in truth the apostles are grouped with the believers, and within that group they are called out from among the group to preach the Gospel.

That is the point, IMO. Neither Jesus nor the apostles gave any indication that there would be two different kinds of births for believers. If one imposes that interpretation on verses like "Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures." to mean that it only refers to the firstfruits and no one else, then one has to wonder why these writers, inspired by the Spirit, spent so much time and effort on details of election and the will of God vs. the will of man? After all, this information could essentially be tossed in the garbage can after a hundred years or so. Yet these same writers managed to forget to mention that these issues would no longer apply after some time to be specified by the inventor of this strange theology. The absence of this tidbit of information is not just a tiny hole in the revealed truth of scriptures, it is a grand canyon with a bottomless pit from which I suspect this bizarre invention emerged.

 

[William C]

Originally posted by rufus:
WOW! The preceeding "posts" were interesting.

Logically, in order to show a "fatal flaw" in a person's noetic sturcture, you have to demonstrate a "contradiction" in that structure. I do not feel a "contradicition" was demonstrated. The disjunction originally set up in the first post does not exhaust the logical possibilities. Therefore, I see no "fatal flaw."

Pyschologically, ad hominen attacks do not win arguments. They may make someone feel better. Emoting can be cleansing but not so convincing.

Point taken. But I believe I did point out a direct contradiction when I referred to John 17 and Eph. 1 for example.

Let's look again at John 17: Jesus prays, "I have revealed you to those whom you gave me out of the world. They were yours; you gave them to me and they have obeyed your word...I pray for them. I am not praying for the world, but for those you have given me, for they are yours."

Is Christ praying for us in this passage? Some Calvinist would say, "Yes, just like he is speaking about us in John 6:37 when he says, "All that the father gives me will come to me..." But that is not the case! How am I so sure? LOOK AT JOHN 17:20: "My prayer is not for them alone. I also pray for those who will believe in me through their message..."

There is a difference in Christ's prayer for his disciples and his prayer for us who believe because of their message. We believe because of the disciples message, but the disciples believe because they were "given to [Christ] by the Father."

God has continually intervened throughout the course of human history to accomplish his ultimate plan. He selects certain individuals to carry out those plans by his own Sovereign decree. This DOES NOT mean that he must Sovereignly decree everyone's salvation, that is an assumption that you bring to the text.

Because God saved Paul by a Sovereign act must He save everyone by a Sovereign act? The scripture doesn't support that!

Calvinist sometimes say that we are all born Arminians but we must be taught Calvinism through an indepth study of the scripture. Have you ever wondered why people assume that we have a choice in our salvation even after reading the Bible? Because that is the way the gospel is presented. It is presented as something that we must decide to accept or reject. Calvinists even teach and believe that the call of the gospel is a geniune universal call to all men. Thus, explaining verses such as "Many are called, but few are chosen."

How does that logically make since if not everyone has been "enabled" to respond? Why would someone geniunly call out to someone who cannot hear, especially when they are fully aware of their inability to hear their call? Not only that, but why would that someone, if they were all powerful, not give that person the ability to hear if indeed they were genuinly calling out to them? It is an illogical and unbiblical premise that affords all the objections you set forth in your post.

When pressed on this issue, the Calvinist claims that scripture's teachings of God's geniune calling are clear and so are the teachings of man's inability to respond. Therefore, this is a paradox in which the scripture does not give us clear understanding. "We must accept," the Calvinist contends, "that His ways are higher than ours."

Calvinist handle the issues of God's Sovereignity versus Man's Responsiblity in the same way. They say, "Scripture clearly teaches that God is Sovereign in salvation and it also teaches that man is held responsible for their sinful choices eventhough they have no real choice in the matter due to their fall in Adam."

When asked, "How can God hold man responsible if it is His choice that ultimately determines their fate?" Calvinists respond saying, it is a paradox or they quote Romans 9 out of context and say, "Who are you to question God, cannot the potter make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?" These responses don't answer the objection, they only divert it. The objection is, "How can God justly hold man responsible for something they have absolutely no control over?" He can't, or I should say he won't.

Everyone does have control over their decisions and they can choose to listen and obey; therefore, they are held responsible for their decisions to refuse the geniune call of the gospel. That truth is seen throughout the scriptures.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[William C]

Originally posted by npetreley:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Frogman:
Before, though it may appear as three classes to a biased mind, in truth the apostles are grouped with the believers, and within that group they are called out from among the group to preach the Gospel.

That is the point, IMO. Neither Jesus nor the apostles gave any indication that there would be two different kinds of births for believers. If one imposes that interpretation on verses like "Of His own will He brought us forth by the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of His creatures." to mean that it only refers to the firstfruits and no one else, then one has to wonder why these writers, inspired by the Spirit, spent so much time and effort on details of election and the will of God vs. the will of man? After all, this information could essentially be tossed in the garbage can after a hundred years or so. Yet these same writers managed to forget to mention that these issues would no longer apply after some time to be specified by the inventor of this strange theology. The absence of this tidbit of information is not just a tiny hole in the revealed truth of scriptures, it is a grand canyon with a bottomless pit from which I suspect this bizarre invention emerged. </font>[/QUOTE]First, let me address Dallas. Yes, generally speaking their are two groups of people, the believers and the unbelievers. But, as you point out there is something different about some of those believers, namely the apostles. They were given a special calling and gifting setting them apart from all other believers. This calling and gifting was a Sovereign act in order to validate their authority much like the virgin birth was a Sovereign act which helps validate Christ's authority. We don't assume that we are virgin born as was Christ just because we believe in Him, nor should we assume that we were Sovereignly called as were the apostles just because we believe in their message. The scripture does not make that link and neither should you. As a matter of fact, I would even say that scripture clearly reveals these differences by specifically referring to the firstfruits or the apostles when the subject of "Predestination" or "effectual calling" is in focus.

Now, npetreley let me address your question, "one has to wonder why these writers, inspired by the Spirit, spent so much time and effort on details of election and the will of God vs. the will of man?"

They were men inspired by the Spirit, but you must understand that people during that time did not know that to be the case. How would they know these men were writing down the truths of God? They wouldn't know that. Therefore, they had to spend some time convincing their audiences of their crediablity by informing them of the unique and divine way in which God had appointed them.

Look at Galatians chapter 1 for example. Paul begins in verse one by pointing out that he is "an apostle--sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father..." in verse 11 he goes on to prove his crediability by writing, "[the gospel I preached] I did not receive from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ...[I was a Jew set on persecuting the church]...but when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach..."

Did God do this for me too? No, I did receive my teachings from man, Paul did not. And faith is required of me to receive the benefits of salvation. Was the same faith required of Paul, what about ol' doubting Thomas? No, they saw the the revelation of Christ in person.

Was I also "set aside from birth" as was Paul? If so, then I must have the same credentials that the apostle Paul had! If my testimony is no different than Pauls, and Paul uses his testimony to validate his apostolic authority, then it only makes logical sense that I too would have apostolic authority as well. Why would Paul set himself apart by referring to his unique salvation experience as being a Sovereign act if everyone's salvation experience is a Sovereign act of God? What would set him apart as being authoratative?

If Calvinism is true then anyone from the church of Galatia could say, "God divinely appointed me too Paul and I disagree with your teachings, you are no different than the rest of us believers for we all were set apart from birth and Sovereignly called by the Father. What makes you any more authorative than us?"

It is a contradiction to believe in Apostolic Authority and to also teach that all other believers are Sovereignly appointed in the same way the apostles were. It removes the uniquness of their calling thus undermining their crediablity, much like teaching that we are all born of a virgin would undermine Christ's crediablity as being the Son of God. Does the comparison make sense? I hope I'm stating this clearly. It's one thing to disagree with me, its another thing if you just don't understand my arguement, so please tell me if I'm not being clear about what I believe.

With Respect,
Bro. Bill

 

[qwerty]

I will insert this into this thread. Hopefully, it applies.

I have another reason for a "fatal flaw".

Calvinism is an attempt to understand God, and His thinking, and His motives, and His methods.
Calvinism is an attempt to explain how people are "saved", or become elect.

God tells us straight forward a lot about this.
LOVE - God loved the world. Key motivation.
JESUS - Jesus was the Divine Method.

When I read most of the posts by those who support Calvinism, they are usually devoid of LOVE and JESUS. There are lots of words about lots of things, but very little about the LOVE OF GOD and the PERSON OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

It would be nice to see a thread by those who support Calvinism, in which they focused on the LOVE OF GOD and the PERSON OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.

I might, after reading a thread like this, think that Calvinism had something going for it.