Non-Calvinists: Best argument?

[Isaiah40:28]

What do you perceive to be the one '"best" argument against 5-point Calvinism(aka the doctrines of grace, TULIP, et al.)?
If you quote a passage, try to provide your own thoughts on why this passage is helpful to your argument.

(Calvinists: See other thread with similar title)

 

[cowboymatt]

There are two "arguments" that have prevented me from being a Calvinist.

1) It requires reading the Bible through a theological matrix instead of with my own eyes. Calvin and his followers have had many interesting things to say, but I want to hear what the Bible has to say when I read it, not what Calvin, Edwards, Piper, and Packer say.

2) I don't like it that by taking Calvinist thinking to its logical end, the origin of sin and evil is God. This is unacceptable because a God who willing causes humans to sin and who willing causes evil in the world is not a God that I want to worship. If this were the only choice in the matter, I would be an atheist.

 

[Isaiah40:28]

There are two "arguments" that have prevented me from being a Calvinist.

1) It requires reading the Bible through a theological matrix instead of with my own eyes. Calvin and his followers have had many interesting things to say, but I want to hear what the Bible has to say when I read it, not what Calvin, Edwards, Piper, and Packer say.

2) I don't like it that by taking Calvinist thinking to its logical end, the origin of sin and evil is God. This is unacceptable because a God who willing causes humans to sin and who willing causes evil in the world is not a God that I want to worship. If this were the only choice in the matter, I would be an atheist.

Thanks for posting, Matt.
While I disagree, it is helpful to see where the divergence occurs with each other.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

2) I don't like it that by taking Calvinist thinking to its logical end, the origin of sin and evil is God. This is unacceptable because a God who willing causes humans to sin and who willing causes evil in the world is not a God that I want to worship. If this were the only choice in the matter, I would be an atheist.

Matt, I have wrestled with this very thought many times over the last 10 years, and I cannot seem to get a good grasp on it. I am not a 5 point Calvinist, but my theology would be somewhat Calvinistic.

My problem comes into reconciling the fact that God does not create evil with passages such as Is. 45:7; Amos 3:6; and Lam 3:38. And then even passages such as 1 Kings 22 where God uses a lying spirit. Can I get your thoughts on these issues?

It seems to be a rather important one and I cannot seem to wrap my mind around it.

 

[cowboymatt]

The lying spirit in 1 Kgs 22 and the evil spirit in Jud 9 are attempts by the authors of those documents to communicate that God had a role in the denigration of the relationship between the parties involved. In other words, I don't think that God actually sent a spirit (read: a demon or the like); instead I think that the authors simply used the best their language had to offer. To put it simply, in both passages God is viewed as actively souring the relationship between two parties; the authors of each passage were simply using a turn of phrase that was likely common to their time to communicate this divine reality.

 

[Jkdbuck76]

Surprised that nobody has said "because Calvin was French." :laugh:

But seriously folks, I am not a Calvinist because of a few reasons:
1) God predestines some for Hell.....why would God make someone for the sole purpose of their going to Hell? "For His glory, Bro. Jkdbuck76" one might say. But to form and fashion a person in His own likeness just to send them to Hell to make Himself look better...... I have a hard time with that.

2) We are predestinated according to His foreknowledge....not his predetermination.


McGee once said "those who are saved wannabe saved and those who are lost wannabe lost." and I agree with this.
So, if I'm wrong, then please pray that He will open His eyes.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

The lying spirit in 1 Kgs 22 and the evil spirit in Jud 9 are attempts by the authors of those documents to communicate that God had a role in the denigration of the relationship between the parties involved. In other words, I don't think that God actually sent a spirit (read: a demon or the like); instead I think that the authors simply used the best their language had to offer. To put it simply, in both passages God is viewed as actively souring the relationship between two parties; the authors of each passage were simply using a turn of phrase that was likely common to their time to communicate this divine reality.

ok, but what about the other passages I listed?

 

[J.D.]

Surprised that nobody has said "because Calvin was French." :laugh:

But seriously folks, I am not a Calvinist because of a few reasons:
1) God predestines some for Hell.....why would God make someone for the sole purpose of their going to Hell? "For His glory, Bro. Jkdbuck76" one might say. But to form and fashion a person in His own likeness just to send them to Hell to make Himself look better...... I have a hard time with that.

2) We are predestinated according to His foreknowledge....not his predetermination.


McGee once said "those who are saved wannabe saved and those who are lost wannabe lost." and I agree with this.
So, if I'm wrong, then please pray that He will open His eyes.

1. Why do you have a Calvinist as an avatar?

2. Most Calvinists do not believe that "God make someone for the sole purpose of their going to Hell". But if He did, who are you to question it?

3. How does God foreknow? Does He learn? Or does He decree?

4. Calvinists believe that "those who are saved wannabe saved and those who are lost wannabe lost." But I would add that the lost want to live in sin and go to heaven when they die anyway, but they don't actually want to be "saved" in the Biblical sense.

 

[cowboymatt]

ok, but what about the other passages I listed?

Sorry. I must have misread what you wrote. I'll have to come back to this later today or tomorrow. Too much to do at this very moment!

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Sorry. I must have misread what you wrote. I'll have to come back to this later today or tomorrow. Too much to do at this very moment!

No problem, take your time.

 

[The Archangel]

Surprised that nobody has said "because Calvin was French." :laugh:

But seriously folks, I am not a Calvinist because of a few reasons:
1) God predestines some for Hell.....why would God make someone for the sole purpose of their going to Hell? "For His glory, Bro. Jkdbuck76" one might say. But to form and fashion a person in His own likeness just to send them to Hell to make Himself look better...... I have a hard time with that.

2) We are predestinated according to His foreknowledge....not his predetermination.


McGee once said "those who are saved wannabe saved and those who are lost wannabe lost." and I agree with this.
So, if I'm wrong, then please pray that He will open His eyes.

jkdbuck,

In your first point, you seem to be outlining a position that is referred to as "Double Predestinarian." Please allow me to show why this concept is not the best way to view the Calvinist position.

1. In general, those who dislike predestination of any type seem to think it unfair and that idea, that it is unfair, betrays this thinking: All of us are born neutral, that is we are born neither good or bad.
2. The Double Predestinarian position basically claims God creates some to be bad (thus the song "Born to be Bad!) and He creates some to be good--to, someday, be regenerated and subsequently respond to God in repentance and faith.
3. The single predestinarian position essentially rejects these two ideas.

The Single Predestinarian position can be described this way:

1. God created Adam in His image and likeness. The image is functional in that man shows God to be the ruler of the earth as we rule earth in His stead as His representative and likeness is intrinsic in that we resemble Him in His characteristics. (Genesis 1:26)
2. Man fell and damages the image and likeness. I have argued the functional aspect remained (we still rule as God's representative) but the likeness is hopelessly marred.
3. Every human being after the fall was pro-created in the image and likeness of Adam (Genesis 5)
4. The curse of the fall has now passed to us all and Adam's broken image (his sin, his rebellion, etc.) has now become the inheritance of us all so that we are all born bad--enemies of God (Because, among other things, we do not properly reflect His character, as seen in our sinfulness)
5. Since we are all born with a default evil or bad position, God chooses to redeem some of us by regenerating us (giving a new heart that can seek after Him (John 3; Ezekiel 36)
6. Those who have been regenerated seek Him and find Him and respond to Him in repentance and faith and become justified.

Here is an analogy I've used before:

The Arminian system of salvation sees salvation as God protecting those who have been saved from running out into oncoming traffic and being hit by a car and killed. The Calvinist system sees mankind as already dead--having been thrust into the traffic, hit, and killed by Adam's sin. So, in salvation, God walks among the corpses and touches some of them (chosen by His own good pleasure) and brings them back to life (through regeneration) and saves them through their repentance and faith.
​

I hope that helps you to understand the position, even if you don't agree.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[webdog]

To me, limited atonement is the one that cannot be supported by Scripture. Second would be irresistable grace. Grace is not forced, and is quite resistable.

 

[Amy.G]

But seriously folks, I am not a Calvinist because of a few reasons:
1) God predestines some for Hell.....why would God make someone for the sole purpose of their going to Hell? "For His glory, Bro. Jkdbuck76" one might say. But to form and fashion a person in His own likeness just to send them to Hell to make Himself look better...... I have a hard time with that.

This is a hard thing whether you are Cal or non-Cal. Some people will go to hell and God know this, yet He creates them anyway. If you believe in the non-Cal view, the person that rejects Christ will go to hell. God knows this and creates him anyway. The Cal view is that God will save some and the rest will go to hell. Either view has people going to hell and God permitting it.

 

[Rippon]

To me, limited atonement is the one that cannot be supported by Scripture. Second would be irresistable grace. Grace is not forced, and is quite resistable.

Calvinists on this forum alone have demonstrated the biblical validity of so-called "limited atonement" ( particular redemption ) umpteen times .There are no philosophical speculations on that doctrinal plank at all by Calvinists . You can say that you disagree with the Calvinistic position -- but do not have the audacity to claim that we don't use Scripture to support our assertions .

You'd think there would be a non-Cal somewhere who would get the Calvinistic understanding of so-called "irresistable grace" right ! Grace is not forced on anyone . I challenge you to find just one Calvinistic poster who has said it is . I know you wish to characterize it as such -- but it has been deonstrated countless times since you have been on this forum . You have no excuse for distorting what you know the facts really are . Grace is effectual to the ones of His choosing . Hearts of His elect ones will no longer be hard -- they will be made responsive to the claims of the law and gospel .

 

[The Archangel]

To me, limited atonement is the one that cannot be supported by Scripture. Second would be irresistible grace. Grace is not forced, and is quite resistible.

I struggled, mightily at times, with Limited Atonement. But, after understanding the cross itself, I became convinced that the other points of Calvinism flow from the linchpin of Limited Atonement.

So, in short, I am a Calvinist because of Limited Atonement, not in spite of it.

Interestingly enough, in history, 4-pointers (who rejected the Limited Atonement point) were referred to as "Arminian."

If you'd like, I'd be happy to explain the Limited Atonement thing, at least as I read it in scripture.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Rippon]

But seriously folks, I am not a Calvinist because of a few reasons:
1) God predestines some for Hell.....why would God make someone for the sole purpose of their going to Hell? "For His glory, Bro. Jkdbuck76" one might say. But to form and fashion a person in His own likeness just to send them to Hell to make Himself look better...... I have a hard time with that.

The Lord made Judas and yet said "It were better if that man had never been born..." That kind of cuts your protest down to size .

 

[Rippon]

A Question For Non-Cals

How is predestination even marginally different from predetermination ?

 

[webdog]

You can say that you disagree with the Calvinistic position -- but do not have the audacity to claim that we don't use Scripture to support our assertions .

I don't recall saying that at all. I've read the numerous "proof texts" that support the "L" (what you call particular redemption). The argument in stronger for the non cal position, IMO.

 

[webdog]

How is predestination even marginally different from predetermination ?

Are you being serious?

 

[JustChristian]

jkdbuck,

In your first point, you seem to be outlining a position that is referred to as "Double Predestinarian." Please allow me to show why this concept is not the best way to view the Calvinist position.

1. In general, those who dislike predestination of any type seem to think it unfair and that idea, that it is unfair, betrays this thinking: All of us are born neutral, that is we are born neither good or bad.
2. The Double Predestinarian position basically claims God creates some to be bad (thus the song "Born to be Bad!) and He creates some to be good--to, someday, be regenerated and subsequently respond to God in repentance and faith.
3. The single predestinarian position essentially rejects these two ideas.

The Single Predestinarian position can be described this way:

1. God created Adam in His image and likeness. The image is functional in that man shows God to be the ruler of the earth as we rule earth in His stead as His representative and likeness is intrinsic in that we resemble Him in His characteristics. (Genesis 1:26)
2. Man fell and damages the image and likeness. I have argued the functional aspect remained (we still rule as God's representative) but the likeness is hopelessly marred.
3. Every human being after the fall was pro-created in the image and likeness of Adam (Genesis 5)
4. The curse of the fall has now passed to us all and Adam's broken image (his sin, his rebellion, etc.) has now become the inheritance of us all so that we are all born bad--enemies of God (Because, among other things, we do not properly reflect His character, as seen in our sinfulness)
5. Since we are all born with a default evil or bad position, God chooses to redeem some of us by regenerating us (giving a new heart that can seek after Him (John 3; Ezekiel 36)
6. Those who have been regenerated seek Him and find Him and respond to Him in repentance and faith and become justified.

Here is an analogy I've used before:

The Arminian system of salvation sees salvation as God protecting those who have been saved from running out into oncoming traffic and being hit by a car and killed. The Calvinist system sees mankind as already dead--having been thrust into the traffic, hit, and killed by Adam's sin. So, in salvation, God walks among the corpses and touches some of them (chosen by His own good pleasure) and brings them back to life (through regeneration) and saves them through their repentance and faith.
​

I hope that helps you to understand the position, even if you don't agree.

Blessings,

The Archangel

This double Predestinarian argument just doesn't hold water. If there were 3 or more alternatives for man's eternal destiny, maybe. But there are only two. To not choose someone as one of the elect has exactly the same result as to choose them as one of the damned. Maybe you can assume that you know God's mind and His ways and say that His motive is different. I don't believe that's possible.