Does Calvinism ever really answer the major objection?

[marke]

Marke
I see that you are new to the BB....welcome. I will try to show you what I reacted to in your post......maybe you have been misinformed about some things...we can discuss in more detail in times to come....but lets see what we have here.
This limiting of what God can do is a complete falsehood...Anyone who is ever saved, is saved because God does save sinners.
Marke.....do you believe God can save a retarded person, or a baby who dies in the womb??? or do you say God cannot???? Do you see what i am getting at? Why would you say that God cannot?

I don't know if you are moving too fast for me or what, but I'm not totally following you. I believe a third of the angels in heaven willingly followed the devil in rebellion against God, knowing full well who God is. Likewise, retarded people, babies, or anyone else who might die before being enlightened by Jesus will still be enlightened by Jesus after death, because the Bible says Jesus is the Light that enlightens everyone ever born into the world.

God has purposed to save a multitude of sinners. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. he wept over Jerusalem.....nevertheless at the white throne they will be cast away.

Exactly, and they were clearly warned, according to Rom. 1, yet they still refused to repent and so they are without excuse. Jesus said "If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not had sin..." (John 15:22), but once the light is turned on they no longer have any excuse for rejecting God.

Calvinists understand that this verse is speaking of our great high priest who intercedes for the elect....not the world of the ungodly....

It is true that God intercedes for His elect, just as He chastens only His elect, but that in no way contradicts the scriptures which clearly show that God has no pleasure in people going to hell, but that they would turn from their sins and live.

This idea you express completely misses and denies the covenant working of God before time,and then in time....your idea puts man and mans volition in the place of God ..who in this scheme is only a spectator...hoping that somehow man will come through and choose God.

Of course I disagree with you about that, but I understand your position.

marke...what do you mean by this!
if it were just up to God who do you think it is up to....satan???man??
exposing himself to unneccesary grief???? He is not a victim...he is God of the whole universe.

Calvinists claim that salvation has nothing to do with the will of man, which means several things. One, condemnation also has nothing to do with man, since election (in calvinists' eyes) has nothing to do with works of any kind on either side) (Rom. 9). Secondly, God allowing sin to come into the world has nothing to do with salvation of man at all if God saves who he chooses to save apart from any outside issue. This portrays God as some kind of monster (bearing in mind that we mustn't call his monstrous works that we are accusing Him of of being monstrous). According to calvinists, if God chooses to bring sin into the world for His own unexplained pleasure, then who are we to question what we are accusing Him of? And who are we to try to figure out why he repented that He made man and how it could have grieved Him at His heart?

I have studied calvinism and remain anti-5 point calvinist, for what it is worth.

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't know if you are moving too fast for me or what, but I'm not totally following you. I believe a third of the angels in heaven willingly followed the devil in rebellion against God, knowing full well who God is. Likewise, retarded people, babies, or anyone else who might die before being enlightened by Jesus will still be enlightened by Jesus after death, because the Bible says Jesus is the Light that enlightens everyone ever born into the world.



Exactly, and they were clearly warned, according to Rom. 1, yet they still refused to repent and so they are without excuse. Jesus said "If I had not come and spoken unto them they had not had sin..." (John 15:22), but once the light is turned on they no longer have any excuse for rejecting God.



It is true that God intercedes for His elect, just as He chastens only His elect, but that in no way contradicts the scriptures which clearly show that God has no pleasure in people going to hell, but that they would turn from their sins and live.



Of course I disagree with you about that, but I understand your position.



Calvinists claim that salvation has nothing to do with the will of man, which means several things. One, condemnation also has nothing to do with man, since election (in calvinists' eyes) has nothing to do with works of any kind on either side) (Rom. 9). Secondly, God allowing sin to come into the world has nothing to do with salvation of man at all if God saves who he chooses to save apart from any outside issue. This portrays God as some kind of monster (bearing in mind that we mustn't call his monstrous works that we are accusing Him of of being monstrous). According to calvinists, if God chooses to bring sin into the world for His own unexplained pleasure, then who are we to question what we are accusing Him of? And who are we to try to figure out why he repented that He made man and how it could have grieved Him at His heart?

I have studied calvinism and remain anti-5 point calvinist, for what it is worth.

Well...thanks for your response. I understand a bit more now.We have some things to discuss in time......you say you have studied calvinism.....can I ask you what books have you read on this? I am not sure you have the correct idea.What calvinist writers have you looked at?

 

[marke]

Well...thanks for your response. I understand a bit more now.We have some things to discuss in time......you say you have studied calvinism.....can I ask you what books have you read on this? I am not sure you have the correct idea.What calvinist writers have you looked at?

I have learned most of what I believe about this issue from debating Calvinists for several years back in the 1970's. I had to do a lot of Bible study and prayed a lot for wisdom and I grew more knowledgeable in time.
I didn't read much from books that I remember, but I did read commentaries back then about all kinds of things, so I'm sure I learned from them as well.

 

[Rippon]

I have learned most of what I believe about this issue from debating Calvinists for several years back in the 1970's. I had to do a lot of Bible study and prayed a lot for wisdom and I grew more knowledgeable in time.
I didn't read much from books that I remember, but I did read commentaries back then about all kinds of things, so I'm sure I learned from them as well.

No names of any Calvinist authors stand out at all?

 

[Benjamin]

Thanks for that post Ben. It clearly shows that my premise is not at all 'faulty' or 'misrepresentative' of their views. When they claim that (1) God is absolutely sovereign (i.e. 'in complete control over all things...including men's choices') and (2) man is held responsible for those choices then the objection I've presented in the OP has been affirmed. Why does he deem my premise of his views faulty while defending it?

Well, to get back to the subject, as usual you laid out a good deductive argument which is valid and heck, I even went a step further and spelled it out with the cardinal rule of argument identification (meaning an argument must have two parts and one part is presented as a reason for believing the other part is true and this consists of two claims and a “therefore”) so the following should be elementary in regards to recognizing the Calvinist’ first claim as a clear and necessary truth:

(1) God is absolutely sovereign (i.e. 'in complete control over all things...including men's choices')

or

1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

(X) = men’s choices are fore determined by God

Then you raise the Calvinist’ second claim which again is clear and simple, (at least if the Calvinist is "interested" in avoiding theological fatalism which would assign evil to God): (2) man is held responsible for those choices = (Y)

If (X) is true and (Y) is true then the only conclusion they can come to is that man must be held responsible for the choices which were fore determined by God.

You (and I) object to the Calvinist position which claims that man can be held responsible for choices that were fore determined upon him.

Our position is that responsibility must include volition or the ability to make the choice, therefore the first cause for that choice is responsible for it. Yet, the Calvinists claim that God has sovereignly (fore determined) that choice (X) and by necessity they insists that (X) = true yet attempt to place responsibility for that choice upon man.

The Calvinist is forced into claiming that God is responsible for the choice yet man is responsible for that same choice as if both could be true.

I clarified our argument concerning volition and responsibility like this:

“Free will should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose; one can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition and thereby creaturely responsibility logically becomes void.”

There is not a bit of logic to their conclusion that man is responsible for his sins. So what will they argue: A. That man being responsible is a mystery. B. They will deny logic as a way to determine the truth. C. They will begin with Ad Hominem and try to change the subject. D. They may offer scripture which they interpret as supporting their view of Divine sovereignty while avoiding the second part of the argument asking how man is held responsible, or how God is just to reassign want He is responsible for onto His creatures. But they will not offer a valid argument because there is none to defend their position.

So as per your question, “Does the Calvinist ever really answer the major objection?” The answer is a resounding NO, Not in a logical (meaning being honestly concerned about the reasons presented for a claim, if those claims are true, would justify accepting the claim) manner they won’t… they can’t, because their conclusion can not, ever, be shown to be true.

 

[preacher4truth]

More skirting and avoiding, ducking and weaving concerning Sovereignty by the non-cals. I see a token respect shown for it, but then the limiting His Sovereignty in the areas they don't believe Him to be Sovereign in. In these areas it appears man to them is sovereign. Gods Sovereignty must fit into ones finite observations and reason, and all that falls outside of this is dismissed by said non-cals. I wonder what this "makes" man who is doing such things as these?

As has been noted prior this bad theology bleeds over into their other theologies, including the omnis of God, and yes, the state of fallen sinful man. All theology they hold is negatively affected by this erroneous fallacy they have concerning Sovereignty.

Marke, thanks for your responses, though we disagree. Please share your writings with us against Calvinist theologies, DoG, Reformed thought which you have read. I see you've been at this since the 70's. I'll look forward to this, and welcome to BB.

 

[quantumfaith]

That's okay, I don't give prayers in the hope someone will pay me back, they're given in spirit of grace. I know you struggle with the truth of that concept, but I prefer to resist the proud and submit myself to God rather than the distorted philosophies of men, see I think it wise to resist the doctrines of the world that are emnity with God and the devil will flee from me. You should try that sometime.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

Oh...another nail has been hit on the head.

 

[Cypress]

Benjamin, here is an quote excerpted from a larger manuscript addressing these issues. "While the doctrine of predestination is not a necessary outgrowth of the absolute foreknowledge of God, it must have it in place to work. That is, there cannot be eternal and absolute decrees of God unless he has absolute foreknowledge. So, the classical articulation of "foreknowledge," especially as it is related to the concepts of the decrees and predestination, interferes with and indeed precludes the concept of authentic human freedom. Unless, of course, we resort to paradox and try to maintain logically incompatible ideas by this method.
One irony here that is interesting. While these doctrines have their origin in logical formulation, today when there is a difficulty in getting the omni-doctrines to fit with modern ways of thinking or with Scripture, we usually resort to paradox to explain how they can work. That is, we say that we cannot really understand how God can know the future and human beings still have any genuine freedom. The doctrines that came into existence as logical descriptions of God are thereby touted as non-logical assertions, which is inherently illogical."(D.Bratcher)
Language and its meaning are logical constructs and require the use of sound logic for understanding. Demeaning the use of logic in understanding God as He is revealed in scripture is doomed to fail.

 

[Aaron]

Exactly right, Cypress. A noncalvinist's sense of justice demands a god who is not omniscient.

 

[glfredrick]

More skirting and avoiding, ducking and weaving concerning Sovereignty by the non-cals. I see a token respect shown for it, but then the limiting His Sovereignty in the areas they don't believe Him to be Sovereign in. In these areas it appears man to them is sovereign. Gods Sovereignty must fit into ones finite observations and reason, and all that falls outside of this is dismissed by said non-cals. I wonder what this "makes" man who is doing such things as these?

As has been noted prior this bad theology bleeds over into their other theologies, including the omnis of God, and yes, the state of fallen sinful man. All theology they hold is negatively affected by this erroneous fallacy they have concerning Sovereignty.

Marke, thanks for your responses, though we disagree. Please share your writings with us against Calvinist theologies, DoG, Reformed thought which you have read. I see you've been at this since the 70's. I'll look forward to this, and welcome to BB.

Actually, no Calvinist has skirted Skandelon's questions at all. The problem is bigger than that, as was expressed very early on in this thread. The QUESTION is both complex and begging around the term "absolute."

Skandelon's usage of the word "absolute" is different than the Calvinist usage, and so he begs the question of God's sovereignty based on his particular view of the subject and makes the question complex along the lines of "did you enjoy it when you beat your wife."

THAT is the issue here, not that Calvinists can or cannot respond.

So, "Did you enjoy it when you beat your wife?" A yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[preacher4truth]

Actually, no Calvinist has skirted Skandelon's questions at all. The problem is bigger than that, as was expressed very early on in this thread. The QUESTION is both complex and begging around the term "absolute."

Skandelon's usage of the word "absolute" is different than the Calvinist usage, and so he begs the question of God's sovereignty based on his particular view of the subject and makes the question complex along the lines of "did you enjoy it when you beat your wife."

THAT is the issue here, not that Calvinists can or cannot respond.

So, "Did you enjoy it when you beat your wife?" A yes or no answer will suffice.

Bro, I wasn't referring to Calvinists, but non-cals.

- Peace

 

[glfredrick]

Bro, I wasn't referring to Calvinists, but non-cals.

- Peace

My questions for the thread remain...

 

[Skandelon]

The compatibilist indeed defines free will as men doing what they desire. Yes, the compatibilist indeed defines desire as rooted in man's nature. But, you are seeing God as the determiner of men's nature, where the compatibilist does not.

So, a man creates his own nature? How does that work? How can a God who 'ordains whatsoever comes to pass' not be the one who likewise ordained a man's nature to be what it is?

Who, if not God, decided that everyman after Adam would be born 'totally depraved?' Who, if not God, determined to leave most of humanity in that natural depraved condition? Who, if not God, determined that some individuals natures would be changed so that they would certainly believe and repent?

How do you avoid the concept of God being in control over the choices of men in any meaningful way? The truth is that you can't, so you resort to nuanced complicated definitions and explanations which subtly attempt to somehow separate God from the acts that He is ultimately responsible for causing. Additionally, you accuse anyone who questions these subtle evasions as being unable to understand or being misrepresentative of your dogma.

Man's nature--as originally created by God--was determined by God. In His establishing that unfallen nature, God gave man the ability to choose to sin or the ability to choose not to sin.

So, you affirm contra-casual free will (as defined earlier) in Adam before the fall, or not? If not, what is the difference between Adam's nature and yours in regard to the choices you make?

That is true freedom--a nature that could have chosen contrary to Satan's temptation.

That is libertarian free will, btw. Most Cals don't affirm it, but you do?

You claim that God determined man's nature. Our current fallen state is not because of God's active determination. Rather, it is because of the natural consequences of Adam and Eve's sin and because we are their progeny.

Look at the words "natural consequences."

Who determines what is "Natural?" Is it Mother Nature? Who determines what the consequences will be?

GOD

You can't avoid your issue of divine culpability by blaming what God does on 'nature.' Even Calvinists (and others) argue that God controls the winds and waves (NATURE), but is this "natural consequence" somehow not under His control? You have avoided nothing with this explanation.

So, you are presupposing that the present fallen condition is a result of God's actively determining

What other kind of determining is there? Is there 'non-active determination?' Did God slip and fall and accidentally decide to make all fallen men to be born with a totally depraved nature? Seriously, I don't know how you mean this? Please explain.

 

[Skandelon]

Well, to get back to the subject, as usual you laid out a good deductive argument which is valid and heck, I even went a step further and spelled it out with the cardinal rule of argument identification (meaning an argument must have two parts and one part is presented as a reason for believing the other part is true and this consists of two claims and a “therefore”) so the following should be elementary in regards to recognizing the Calvinist’ first claim as a clear and necessary truth:

(1) God is absolutely sovereign (i.e. 'in complete control over all things...including men's choices')

or

1) Necessarily God has fore determined everything that will happen
2) God has determined X
3) Therefore it is necessary that X will happen

(X) = men’s choices are fore determined by God

Then you raise the Calvinist’ second claim which again is clear and simple, (at least if the Calvinist is "interested" in avoiding theological fatalism which would assign evil to God): (2) man is held responsible for those choices = (Y)

If (X) is true and (Y) is true then the only conclusion they can come to is that man must be held responsible for the choices which were fore determined by God.

You (and I) object to the Calvinist position which claims that man can be held responsible for choices that were fore determined upon him.

Our position is that responsibility must include volition or the ability to make the choice, therefore the first cause for that choice is responsible for it. Yet, the Calvinists claim that God has sovereignly (fore determined) that choice (X) and by necessity they insists that (X) = true yet attempt to place responsibility for that choice upon man.

The Calvinist is forced into claiming that God is responsible for the choice yet man is responsible for that same choice as if both could be true.

I clarified our argument concerning volition and responsibility like this:

“Free will should be defined as volition and this sustains the meaning that a creature has the ability to consciously choose; one can not do both, have this ability and not have this ability in any logical sense. If creaturely response is determined by causal means to have an irresistible effect on the creature then creaturely volition and thereby creaturely responsibility logically becomes void.”

There is not a bit of logic to their conclusion that man is responsible for his sins. So what will they argue: A. That man being responsible is a mystery. B. They will deny logic as a way to determine the truth. C. They will begin with Ad Hominem and try to change the subject. D. They may offer scripture which they interpret as supporting their view of Divine sovereignty while avoiding the second part of the argument asking how man is held responsible, or how God is just to reassign want He is responsible for onto His creatures. But they will not offer a valid argument because there is none to defend their position.

So as per your question, “Does the Calvinist ever really answer the major objection?” The answer is a resounding NO, Not in a logical (meaning being honestly concerned about the reasons presented for a claim, if those claims are true, would justify accepting the claim) manner they won’t… they can’t, because their conclusion can not, ever, be shown to be true.

:thumbsup: They do TRY to give an answer. They typically quote Romans 9, which was what I was attempting to address in starting this thread. That has been virtually ignored as ad hominem has become the norm...that or simply dismissing the clear problem all together as if it never existed.

 

[JesusFan]

:thumbsup: They do TRY to give an answer. They typically quote Romans 9, which was what I was attempting to address in starting this thread. That has been virtually ignored as ad hominem has become the norm...that or simply dismissing the clear problem all together as if it never existed.

non Cals have a less than view as reagrding the results of the fall of Adam, the Cross, and Gods Election...

they wish to have man still be in same state as Adam was when created, as having free will and ability to freely chose, fall killed that off for us

they wish to say that the atonement of the Christ on Christ can 'potentially" save us

they refuse to base Election upon the Will and purposes of God, but that god just that based upon us choosing Him, that we help in our own salvation

3 strikes, that theology is out!

 

[Skandelon]

You see? This is the pivotal question. Go ahead with your proofs, and then I will topple them with one little word.

It will be shown that one who sins is not free.

Just as Calvinists don't believe that 'total depraved' means that men are as bad as they could be, likewise Arminians don't believe that "free" means that men are as "free" as they could be. But I think you already knew that.

We are talking about men's 'response-ability' (ability to respond) to God's clear, sufficient, loving, gracious revelation...so as to be 'without excuse.' We are also talking about a nation which, for the most part, rejected God's revelation and grew hardened then subsequently were sealed in their rebellion so as to accomplish a redemptive purpose for the world, but who also have NOT stumbled beyond recovery, but may indeed be provoked to envy and saved.

 

[marke]

No names of any Calvinist authors stand out at all?

The only name that comes up off-hand is Arthur Pink. There actually were others but I have forgotten who they were since it was such a long time ago. I have to confess that I began to rely more on just studying the Bible in the last several years with some limited use of commentaries, but I am not opposed to studying commentaries at all. It's just that, after a while, commentators don't know more sometimes than any other moderately advanced Bible student. I had a good teaching preacher for years and I have attended many Bible conferences and heard many messages on tape or disc. God has blessed His church with teachers and preachers, but I am just a welder/metal worker who has done Bible study like a normal Christian.

 

[quantumfaith]

So, a man creates his own nature? How does that work? How can a God who 'ordains whatsoever comes to pass' not be the one who likewise ordained a man's nature to be what it is?

Who, if not God, decided that everyman after Adam would be born 'totally depraved?' Who, if not God, determined to leave most of humanity in that natural depraved condition? Who, if not God, determined that some individuals natures would be changed so that they would certainly believe and repent?

How do you avoid the concept of God being in control over the choices of men in any meaningful way? The truth is that you can't, so you resort to nuanced complicated definitions and explanations which subtly attempt to somehow separate God from the acts that He is ultimately responsible for causing. Additionally, you accuse anyone who questions these subtle evasions as being unable to understand or being misrepresentative of your dogma.

So, you affirm contra-casual free will (as defined earlier) in Adam before the fall, or not? If not, what is the difference between Adam's nature and yours in regard to the choices you make?

That is libertarian free will, btw. Most Cals don't affirm it, but you do?

Look at the words "natural consequences."

Who determines what is "Natural?" Is it Mother Nature? Who determines what the consequences will be?

GOD

You can't avoid your issue of divine culpability by blaming what God does on 'nature.' Even Calvinists (and others) argue that God controls the winds and waves (NATURE), but is this "natural consequence" somehow not under His control? You have avoided nothing with this explanation.

What other kind of determining is there? Is there 'non-active determination?' Did God slip and fall and accidentally decide to make all fallen men to be born with a totally depraved nature? Seriously, I don't know how you mean this? Please explain.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Iconoclast]

skan

Who, if not God, decided that everyman after Adam would be born 'totally depraved?' Who, if not God, determined to leave most of humanity in that natural depraved condition? Who, if not God, determined that some individuals natures would be changed so that they would certainly believe and repent?

Sorry you see God as the blame for all that is wrong in life. This perception is way off. AA ,p4t have been trying to tell you...but you view God in a less than desirable light.

You try and take a wrong premise, put it in your own terms, then philosophically drift off away from scripture into carnal reasoning.
This never ends well...here is an example;

That is the position you seem to be defending, called compatiblism. I believe in contra-casual freedom..."A choice to act is free if it is an expression of an agent's categorical ability of the will to refrain or not refrain from the action (i.e., contra-causal freedom)."

It is my understanding that compatiblists (Calvinists) attempt to maintain that men are free in the since that they are "doing what they desire." It is the indeterminists contention that this is an insufficient explaination to maintain true freedom considering that compatibilists believe that even the desires and thoughts of men are decreed by God.

This is an important circularity in the claim by Calvinists that humans can be considered genuinely free so long as their actions are in accordance with their desires. Given your belief that all events and actions are decreed by God, then human desire (the very thing that compatibilists claim allows human choices to be considered free) must itself also be decreed. But if so, then there is nothing outside of or beyond God's decree on which human freedom might be based. Put differently, there is no such thing as what the human really wants to do in a given situation, considered somehow apart from God's desire in the matter (i.e., God's desire as to what the human agent will desire). In the compatibilist scheme, human desire is wholly derived from and wholly bound to the divine desire. God's decree encompasses everything, even the desires that underlie human choices.

This is a critical point, because it undercuts the plausibility of the compatibilist's argument that desire can be considered the basis for human freedom. When the compatibilist defines freedom in terms of desire (i.e., doing what one wants to do), this formulation initially appears plausible only because it tends to (subtly) evoke a sense of independence or ownership on the part of the human agent for his choices. That is, even though the compatibilist insists that God decisively conditions an agent's environment so as to guarantee the outcome of the agent's choices, we can nonetheless envision God's action in doing so as being compatible with human freedom so long as the human agent in question has the opportunity to interact with his conditioned environment as an independent agent, possessing his own desires and thus owning his choices in relation to that environment. But once we recognize (as we must within the larger deterministic framework encompassing compatibilism) that those very desires of the agent are equally part of the environment that God causally determines, then the line between environment and agent becomes blurred if not completely lost. The human agent no longer can be seen as owning his own choices, for the desires determining those choices are in no significant sense independent of God's decree. For this reason, human desire within the compatibilist framework forms an insufficient basis on which to establish the integrity of human freedom (and from this the legitimacy of human culpability for sin).
__________________

This is carnal reasoning...philosophy,,,, you and several others do this all the time...
You try to control the discussion with semantics,and subjective ideas that are void of scriptural content. You and 4-5 others do this all the time.

 

[Skandelon]

Sorry you see God as the blame for all that is wrong in life. This perception is way off. AA ,p4t have been trying to tell you...but you view God in a less than desirable light.

Correction, I view YOUR interpretation of God as being 'less than desirable,' as DO many believers (even Calvinists when first coming to this doctrine). That is the point I'm attempting to address in the OP.

You try and take a wrong premise

The rest of your post is just one big fallacy called Question Begging...