Logical Inconsistency?

Could it be the Holy Spirit will only allow you to go so far?

 

It would be logically inconsistent for a Calvinist to withhold the Gospel.

Read Martin Luther's Bondage of the Will. It amounts to "This is what the Bible says, period. All your philosophical contortions won't make it say anything different." The Bible also says to spread the Gospel. If we believe election because the the Bible teaches election, then it would be logically inconsistent to respect the part of the Bible that teaches election but reject the part that says to evangelize.

Is there a logical inconsistency between election and evangelism? No, because God uses people according to His good pleasure to accomplish His will. But even if Calvinism was logically inconsistent with evangelism, Calvinists who believe what they believe because "the Bible says so" will also evangelize, because "the Bible says so".

 

I guess I don't understand your point.

I don't agree that the logical extreme of election is to fail to evangelize, although I recognize that some people think that way. But I would have to guess that they arrived at that logical extreme because they are only thinking about what election means, and not WHY they believe it. Maybe they believe it for the wrong reasons. I don't know.

I believe election because it is what the Bible teaches. To me, the logical extreme is to respect everything the Bible teaches, not only election.

 

I get you now. But I don't have much of a response. IMO that's a problem that extends way beyond the C/A/P (P=pelagian) debate. Anytime you take one Biblical principle and amplify it so much that you begin to contradict other teachings of scripture, you're bound to wander into heresy sooner or later. That's often how spinoff denominations turn into cults.

 

I vitriolically disagree with this statement.

One has to ignore plain commands in the Bible, or to conclude that God doesn't really mean for all men everywhere to repent, for hyper-C to be logical. If we take a set of propositions and draw unbiblical conclusions then we are being illogical, no matter how much our conclusions may "make sense" to us.

I'm also not sure that I would say that a synergist is not saved. Maybe you don't mean that but it's what "I believe that both extemes are examples of those who have not been saved" sounds like to me. Hopefully I've not misunderstood, but if I have I apologize in advance.

I think we are all logically inconsistent to some degree, but it is too the degree that our beliefs are formed by what we think makes sense as opposed to what Scripture teaches.

 

Its because the Arminians are up and about their Father's business. Amen,

 

I will get out of your way. Please forgive.

 

My theology would fall right between Penny and Sally.

On election I would say that Penny is wrong in saying that "God looked down the corridor of time and elected those whom He knew whould choose Him."

God does the dynamic choosing (Rom. 9:15) based on the hearer of the Gospel agreeing with God's Word (Isa. 66:2) that they are lost sinners (Rom. 3:10,23) in need of the only Savior that can save them (John 6:40,47; 14:6; Acts 4:10) based on the account from Scripture of His finished work on the cross. (1 Cor. 1,15; Rom. 10, etc.) He makes the real decision, but we must make a decision of our own to repent and believe. Repentance only being a sorrow for the sin that we can't actually turn from until we have been empowered by the Holy Spirit through regeneration (Rom. 6).

And I actually agree with everything that Sally believes except that she needs more information from Scripture to add to her theology. The elect are saved not because God just put together a list of believers willy-nilly or capriciously (if there is another reason that Calvinists defend, let me know), but because they chose to fear God and believe the Gospel ans Biblical accound of Christ. Which is a passive cry for grace and mercy from a comdemned sinner, or a forensic criminal if you will.

Of course the account given in John 3:18,36; 12:48 gives information about what happens when one refuses to do this, and believe. One is a present guilt, and the other is a warning against an ongoing rejection of Christ.

And I fully agree with you that the natural result of Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism. If God has already compiled His full list of believers, and it is not based on any decision or acts of man, then the natural conclusion is that to go out with the Gospel would save exactly no one extra. God will save then anyhow.

Those Calvinists that find this belief syatem repuslive, and they should, are in denial if they think otherwise. Another reason that I reject Calvinism.

 

doulous said:

The logical conclusion of Calvinism is hyper-Calvinism.

Not true.

It would be more accurate to say that "If not for the fact that Scripture teaches:

</font>

• "that God uses the works of men to accomplish his purposes in the world;</font>
• "that it is the responsibility of all men to repent of their sin and believe in Christ; and</font>
• "that it is the responsibility of all Christians to proclaim the Gospel to the world,</font>

"then the logical conclusion of Calvinism would be hyper-Calvinism. However, due to these mitigating factors, that is not the case."

 

These two sentences are contradictory.

First, Christ work didn't finish anything if it is dependent on the good will of man to be effective. It is ever short of its intent.

Second, whatever "dynamic choosing" happens to be the next statement is directly contradictory to scripture. Agreeing with God's Word based a purely human decision is indeed "good that we have done". You cannot characterize it any other way. You require that we did it... and it is certainly good. Further, you make God's respect for man's good will the deciding factor in salvation rather than His respect for Christ's atoning death.

In the second sentence you assert that we must make a decision "of our own". That directly makes salvation dependent on goodness that is wholly human and independent of God's goodness. Again, you have made salvation dependent on man's goodness and not God's grace.

Repentance is not complete without turning. It is never only "a sorrow".

Neither of those are reasons I have seen calvinists defend. Most just say it is according to God's pleasure... because that is EXACTLY what scripture says.

Again, man is saved by his own goodness.

A passive cry? A cry or calling out in anguish is NOT a passive act.

And your agreement has absolutely nothing to do with what is "true". Calvinism does not naturally result in hyper-calvinism.

Calvinism says that all are worthy of condemnation and God graciously saves some of those who are none the less STILL unworthy. He "passively" allows the rest to do exactly as they wish according to their own depraved wills. Hypercalvinism says that God actively chooses to condemn the lost in such a way that He bars them from repenting. Non-calvinism like what you have espoused here asserts that God saves the worthy... those who were somehow discerning enough to choose good.

Not the point of evangelism. Evangelism is the method God has chosen to His own glory to save every one of the elect... and we don't know who they are so in obedience to God we should share the gospel with all.

Calvinists don't assert that nor do their behaviors bear it out. Calvinists have been every bit as evangelical as non-calvinists... and probably more so with respect to the actual gospel of scripture.

Basing salvation on man's decision places the emphasis on one's ability to convince someone to decide favorably and away from the finished work of Jesus Christ.

No. It isn't denial because it isn't true. If you have been around here long and have made such assertions then you have no doubt been corrected with even more reason than I gave. You can reject anything you want. But the alternative you supplied above is nothing less than salvation based on human merit- a total contradiction to the word "grace" and the gospel as taught in the Bible.

 

Scott.
You wrote:

This all a total misrepresentation of my belief, or indeed the belief of Arminians. It is a classic Calvinist strawman argument.

Believing God that we all all condemned sinners on our way to Hell is not, as you put it "good that we have done." Nor is it our "good will."

If a human judge told you that you were guilty of murder and you were guilty. And then he said that one would take your place and you believed his unique offer and took him up on it. That would not make you a do-gooder, nor would it make your will good. It is merely a gracious gift received.

And according to Galatians no one that is saved accepts any other Gospel. So you are arguing that only Calvinists are saved.

And I argued that man's choice is passive in that only God can make the salvation decision and the regeneration.

You wrote:

Why exactly do we have to tell them anything before God saves them if, according to Calvinists, He already chose them, and according to Romans 8:30 it's a done deal? Exactly how can evangelism increase the number of saved? And if it doesn't, please go back to question one.

you wrote:

Then you don't believe your own doctrine on election or total depravity.

As I said, all Calvinism naturally leads to hyper-Calvinism in the area of evangelism by their definition of election. It's inescapable.

 

I disagree. The logical conclusion of Calvinism is only hyper-calvinism if you are in a liberal church which denies the inerrancy of scripture and the commands of Christ. Calvinists don't witness to the lost because they believe they are their savior or that God could not do it without them (which I certainly believe he could). Calvinists witness to the lost because their Lord has commanded them to do it. This is not logically at odds with Calvinism, and does not automatically logically lead to hyper calvinism. Since we have been reborn, and given a new mind in Christ, our desire is to please God, who is our master. We please God through obeying his Word.

Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Soli Deo Gloria,

Joseph Botwinick