Objections to Calvinism

[Iconoclast]

Icon, what is your testimony? Did you come to Calvinism "kicking and screaming" like most of the testimonies I've heard?

I think folks dig right past the simple truth laid out for the simple reader which God meant to be so easily understood - believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved. The very command demands a decision.

I was the last person who would have believed in God. I started reading the Bible to ridicule it.
When God saved me I believed Eph 1 immeadiatley.I did not know any theology of any terms at all.
what I did know was I was so wicked that God would have to be in complete. Control

The predestination interested me right from the start.When I started to learn it never bothered me at all...I found it exciting to know that it was not just religion....but God doing what he wants with his own......when I reread Jn 6 over and over...there was no doubt to me....many questions...but no doubt

 

[Iconoclast]

PT.......
Before we continue...it is one thing to have sincere questions
it is another to turn a good discussion into a profane caricature.

let me say it this way briefly.....I will get more specific when I get on the computer
later on.....

From what I see....you have heard or personally come up with some wrong ideas on these topics
if I can I will help with this.....but you do not want to speak of God himself as if He were such profane examples as petulant....or a monster........The God of Jn 3:16....killed millions with a flood....are you ok with that?......if not where can any discussion go?

God has indeed elected a multitude in His Son.....He did not elect everyone.is that okay?

When God told Adam......dying thou shall surely die......He was not joking.

millions are in helll tonight waiting for millions to follow who trusted in a false hope

 

[PreachTony]

PT.......
Before we continue...it is one thing to have sincere questions
it is another to turn a good discussion into a profane caricature.

let me say it this way briefly.....I will get more specific when I get on the computer
later on.....

From what I see....you have heard or personally come up with some wrong ideas on these topics
if I can I will help with this.....but you do not want to speak of God himself as if He were such profane examples as petulant....or a monster........

Icon, I never intended for my comment to be taken as a "profane caricature." You'll note that I said "God is presented as..." When I say that the God of Calvinism is presented as a petulant child, I'm talking about the representation of the Lord by many of those that follow the theology of Calvin. I admit, it's a fine line. But we are talking about the unseen here, so we often have to deal in terms of how others present the Lord.

I stand by my examples. The way in which Calvinism presents God is, at least in my experience with Calvinists, fairly close to the example I gave of the child. He's presented as a God that wants everyone to repent, but by His own power He has precluded certain people from being able to repent, yet He still holds them accountable for their sins. I agree that man is responsible for his sin, but, looking in the scripture, I don't see a God who refuses to let men repent. Hence my objection to Calvinism.

Will there come a time when men cannot repent? Yes. I believe each person is, somehow, given a space to repent of their sins. Otherwise, as steaver noted, we serve a God who, in the form of Christ our Lord, spoke in a lot of half-truths. I do not believe that to be the case, as I'm fully persuaded that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

I'm more than happy to discuss. I'm sorry you took offense to my comment. Please know that it was never intended as such. I would never knowingly profane the Lord in such a way. I will, however, say what I think about the manner in which others attempt to present the Lord.

The God of Jn 3:16....killed millions with a flood....are you ok with that?......if not where can any discussion go?

God has indeed elected a multitude in His Son.....He did not elect everyone.is that okay?

When God told Adam......dying thou shall surely die......He was not joking.

millions are in helll tonight waiting for millions to follow who trusted in a false hope

Yes, God did kill millions with the Flood. That was a part of His wrath and judgment.

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

Many times throughout the Bible we see where God allowed the deaths of many to influence events. Personally, I believe He deals justly with each person. However, I simply cannot square the notion that God would not allow someone the opportunity to repent, but instead seemingly played favorites at the foundation of the world, selecting who would be redeemed and who wouldn't. The thing is, I fully believe God knows who will and who won't accept Him. But, because He loves us so, He still presents us an opportunity. He knew that Jezebel would not repent, yet she was given a space for repentance.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No offense meant here, EWF, and it's probably a case of me having a rough day at the office, not feeling well, and probably having read far too much as of late, but is the bolded part above meant as a good thing or a bad thing?

I consider myself fairly "old school" but that might be more a by-product of not supporting liberalism within the church. A good friend of mine calls me a "hardshell" Baptist.

[\quote]

Tony.....why would I be offended? What I am referring to is the Primitive Baptists & the Old Regular Baptists....like, http://www.oldschoolbaptist.org/

I have to say, while we do our best to maintain a semblance of civility, I really enjoy these discussions.

They should be edifying

 

[steaver]

Steaver

Spiritual death has separated us from God. our thoughts are twisted by self will and sin.
We are not just like the untested Adam.

Nobody argues otherwise, don't know why you guys keep repeating the obvious,

Free will is a false philosophical idea invented by fallen carnal men
who want to act independently of God's will.

It appears this statement is a "false philosophical idea invented by fallen carnal men
who want to act independently of God's will". Since you have zero evidence freewill was lost at the fall and you agree it was there with Adam.

Jesus always did the Father's will.
We are being conformed to the image of the last Adam....not the first

Again with more of the obvious...............

 

[Iconoclast]

PreachTony

Hello PT.

Icon, I never intended for my comment to be taken as a "profane caricature."

While I am sure you did not intend that...I believe it is a better idea to error on the side of caution.PT- if God is as the cals teach...would you still use those descriptions to speak of Him. I do not see that in isa6

You'll note that I said "God is presented as..."

I did see that...but I have not seen what you describe. Do you have a specific example of that, instead of a general statement.?

When I say that the God of Calvinism is presented as a petulant child, I'm talking about the representation of the Lord by many of those that follow the theology of Calvin.

Again...I am not certain I understand how you have heard this.I see those who oppose these truths say such things.

I admit, it's a fine line. But we are talking about the unseen here, so we often have to deal in terms of how others present the Lord.

I read a lot and have opportunity to listen to many sermons....I have never heard this anywhere...again an example...

I stand by my examples.

ok..lets get to it then-

The way in which Calvinism presents God is, at least in my experience with Calvinists, fairly close to the example I gave of the child.

I and others will attempt to give you a different view of what you have now.

He's presented as a God that wants everyone to repent,

I do not want to jump on your wording however to focus a bit we must be careful here. I know of NO cal who believes....God wants everyone to do anything. God has indeed commanded All men everywhere to repent.
The biblical picture we start with is post fall man...dead in sin and needing to repent and believe the gospel. he is perishing as we speak apart from saving faith.

if all men wanted to repent and believe.....God would not stop them saying...Oh NO....I did not elect you...therefore you cannot repent.

men cannot repent and savingly believe. They do not want to on God's terms.

but by His own power He has precluded certain people from being able to repent,

Could you show me an example of this in scripture??? by this;
pre·clude
verb: preclude; 3rd person present: precludes; past tense: precluded; past participle: precluded; gerund or present participle: precluding

prevent from happening;
make impossible.
"the secret nature of his work precluded official recognition"

synonyms: prevent, make it impossible for, rule out, stop, prohibit, debar, bar, hinder, impede, inhibit, exclude
(of a situation or condition) prevent someone from doing something.

Show me a sinner who wanted to trust the Lord and was "precluded":thumbsup:
No such sinner exists...no one seeks God ..no not one;
14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

2 The Lord looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

yet He still holds them accountable for their sins. I agree that man is responsible for his sin, but, looking in the scripture, I don't see a God who refuses to let men repent. .

I do not see that either...that is why I asked you to provide examples of this

here is a fine quote Rippon provided in the other thread;
Originally Posted by Rippon View Post
I will quote from By His Grace And For His Glory by Thomas J. Nettles.

"Man's inability does not exempt him from any duty, though the grace of God alone can cure man of his impenitence and unbelief. The lack of grace causes neither...When we see that God is pleased to withhold his grace from some men, he does not condemn them for a lack of grace, but he condemns them for their impenitence and unbelief. Even though they cannot repent and believe without efficacious grace, God is under no obligation to bestow it. To conclude otherwise would lead to an absurdity, i.e. , because man is so corrupt he cannot be subject to the law without the aid of omnipotent power, it can be no sin in him to remain unsubjected to it." (p.96)

Hence my objection to Calvinism

What your stated objection is does not exist....I think we need to dig deeper to find the root cause,.

Will there come a time when men cannot repent? Yes. I believe each person is, somehow, given a space to repent of their sins

.

This is a large topic all by itself....in another post I asked a question...when jesus said it is finished on the cross....how did people in southamerica have a chance to repent? how about china? explain how that works if you can...anytime I ask this I get a vague mystical response...explain in detail.

Otherwise, as steaver noted, we serve a God who, in the form of Christ our Lord, spoke in a lot of half-truths.

As this idea is not possible it is more likely that steaver and you do not understand those verses correctly.

I do not believe that to be the case, as I'm fully persuaded that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Agreed...so we need to continue to explore these ideas and find the error.

I'm more than happy to discuss. I'm sorry you took offense to my comment. Please know that it was never intended as such.

No need to apologize to me PT...but think of what it would sound like to God to see someone associate His name with sinful ideas.

I would never knowingly profane the Lord in such a way.

I do not think that was your intention...I just raise a caution

I will, however, say what I think about the manner in which others attempt to present the Lord.

That's fine...you can come at me as much as you want and offer scriptural correction....the recent name calling by the hypercals can be left off however:laugh:

Yes, God did kill millions with the Flood. That was a part of His wrath and judgment.

Agreed

Many times throughout the Bible we see where God allowed the deaths of many to influence events. Personally, I believe He deals justly with each person.

God sent the flood...not just "allowed" it.

However, I simply cannot square the notion that God would not allow someone the opportunity to repent

,

there are several ways in which God has punished mankind for their sin and rebellion....for example...the tower of Babel. Did that help mankind repent or make obstacles?

but instead seemingly played favorites at the foundation of the world,

You are ascribing an evil motive to God. I would not do that. God only acts in holy wisdom and always does what is most wise..I trust Him in this ...do you?
If God did not elect a multitude in his Son...no one would be saved.

selecting who would be redeemed and who wouldn't.

I trust God By God given faith and biblical revelation that his ways are always righteous and Holy....That God chooses any of us is a great mercy.

Sure He does...because he first loved us...he chose us.

The thing is, I fully believe God knows who will and who won't accept Him

.

yes psalm 14 explains and Paul quotes it in Romans 3...no one seeks God ..no not one, they have all gone aside..

God does not wait to learn what we do...he knows we will not, so he saves a multitude by grace...not debt.

But, because He loves us so, He still presents us an opportunity.

the apostles did not say the gospel was "an opportunity"..they said it was a command...not a multiple choice
the Love of God is only found in Christ...not apart from Him.

 

[Iconoclast]

steaver;

Nobody argues otherwise, don't know why you guys keep repeating the obvious,

you argue the point everyday

It appears this statement is a "false philosophical idea invented by fallen carnal men
who want to act independently of God's will". Since you have zero evidence freewill was lost at the fall and you agree it was there with Adam.

I do not agree....free will does not exist...so how could it be lost if it does not exist to begin with?

Again with more of the obvious..

it is not obvious to you...you do not believe it.

 

[steaver]

I do not agree....free will does not exist...so how could it be lost if it does not exist to begin with?

I guess this is where you and the other Calvinist argue amongst yourselves. So you believe Adam had no freewill choice between believing God or believing Satan? Adam then, since we know choose to sin, had no freewill choice in the matter but had to sin.

 

[Iconoclast]

I guess this is where you and the other Calvinist argue amongst yourselve So you believe Adam had no freewill choice between believing God or believing Satan? Adam then, since we know choose to sin, had no freewill choice in the matter but had to sin.

there is no need to add to what I said I said adam had original righteousness .he then sinned.adam has been untested when the test came he sinned.

some Calvinists will use the term free will even though Free Will doesn't exist the term does so they will use it to discuss the issue of choice I don't because it does not exist so I'll just stick with what I see in Scripture

 

[PreachTony]

I do not agree....free will does not exist...so how could it be lost if it does not exist to begin with?

Icon, in your doctrine, how can free will not exist yet man still be responsible for his sin? steaver brings up a fairly good analogy. If there is no such thing as free will, then Adam had no choice in the matter whatsoever.

here is a fine quote Rippon provided in the other thread;
Originally Posted by Rippon View Post
I will quote from By His Grace And For His Glory by Thomas J. Nettles.

"Man's inability does not exempt him from any duty, though the grace of God alone can cure man of his impenitence and unbelief. The lack of grace causes neither...When we see that God is pleased to withhold his grace from some men, he does not condemn them for a lack of grace, but he condemns them for their impenitence and unbelief. Even though they cannot repent and believe without efficacious grace, God is under no obligation to bestow it. To conclude otherwise would lead to an absurdity, i.e. , because man is so corrupt he cannot be subject to the law without the aid of omnipotent power, it can be no sin in him to remain unsubjected to it." (p.96)

This is what I cannot grasp. Let me go point by point:

Man's inability does not exempt him from any duty,

In any other instance of interaction, the inability to perform a task would obviously exempt someone from performing that task. If I asked you, Icon, to fly and hover five feet off the ground, I couldn't hold you accountable if you don't do it, seeing as I'm pretty sure you cannot fly. For me to hold you accountable for something you do not even possess the ability or opportunity to do would be silly of me.

though the grace of God alone can cure man of his impenitence and unbelief. The lack of grace causes neither...When we see that God is pleased to withhold his grace from some men, he does not condemn them for a lack of grace, but he condemns them for their impenitence and unbelief.

So only God's grace can cure a man of unbelief, yet God is refusing to grant man grace because of his unbelief?

Even though they cannot repent and believe without efficacious grace, God is under no obligation to bestow it.

See, as I read this, I'm struck by how different this entire philosophy seems when compared to scriptures like "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." And before you say it, I've heard the argument that that verse is not intended for everyone, but only for the Elect. To that I ask, many books of the Bible are addressed only to a certain person or group. If we're to apply all scripture within that book only to the person or group, then what good does the scripture do us, as we were not the author's intended target audience?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

there is no need to add to what I said I said adam had original righteousness .he then sinned.adam has been untested when the test came he sinned.

some Calvinists will use the term free will even though Free Will doesn't exist the term does so they will use it to discuss the issue of choice I don't because it does not exist so I'll just stick with what I see in Scripture

So if Adam did not have free-will and he sinned, Who's fault is it? certainly not Adam, You have just made God the author of sin, If Adam's free choice is not responsible for sin, then it is in fact God's fault for creating him with the desire and processes to sin. You sir have just brought dishonor to the Holiness of God, if you cannot put the blame of Adam's sin on Adam's free will, than there is no one other to blame than God. Own up to the truth of what you actually believe. Blaming God for sin lies at the core of your belief.You believe that man is totally depraved not because of his own free will, but because of a sin nature that was passed down from Adam's sin, which did not come from a free will choice by Adam, You make God the author of sin nature, you make God responsible for the corruption of mankind. In your system, God is responsible for that which he is punishing.

God is not the author of sin, but clearly that is what you believe, whether you want to admit it or not. Word games and redefining words and playing semantics does not change the fact that this is exactly what you believe.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So......does anyone care to explain this scripture?


Isaiah 26:12King James Version (KJV)

12 Lord, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us.

 

[pinoybaptist]

So if Adam did not have free-will and he sinned, Who's fault is it? certainly not Adam, You have just made God the author of sin, If Adam's free choice is not responsible for sin, then it is in fact God's fault for creating him with the desire and processes to sin. You sir have just brought dishonor to the Holiness of God, if you cannot put the blame of Adam's sin on Adam's free will, than there is no one other to blame than God. Own up to the truth of what you actually believe. Blaming God for sin lies at the core of your belief.You believe that man is totally depraved not because of his own free will, but because of a sin nature that was passed down from Adam's sin, which did not come from a free will choice by Adam, You make God the author of sin nature, you make God responsible for the corruption of mankind. In your system, God is responsible for that which he is punishing.

God is not the author of sin, but clearly that is what you believe, whether you want to admit it or not. Word games and redefining words and playing semantics does not change the fact that this is exactly what you believe.

In a sense, you are correct. Adam alone of all humanity has the free will to obey or to disobey God. He was duly warned of the consequences of disobedience, yet he chose disobedience, that despite direct fellowship with his Creator.

 

[Iconoclast]

Jordan Kurecki

So if Adam did not have free-will

men have self will

and he sinned,

He did

Who's fault is it?

Adam's

certainly not Adam,

certainly you are mistaken.. scripture says;
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned

You have just made God the author of sin,

I did no such thing, and would never do so. :thumbs:
Your ignorance of the theology of the fall and of doctrine in general, along with your anti cal agenda
...leads you to falsely accuse me of something no Cal would do...ascribe evil to God as you suggest.

If Adam's free choice is not responsible for sin,

men make choices...that does not address the question.

then it is in fact God's fault

Your ignorance leads you to blaspheme God. The God of the bible is Holy...to blame God for mans sin is wicked and has no place on a Christian forum.

for creating him with the desire and processes to sin.

God made everything ...good....Your wicked statement needs to be repented of.

You sir have just brought dishonor to the Holiness of God,

You multiply your sin by bearing false witness against me in a public forum.Your ignorance does not mean I have done what you say...quite falsely.

if you cannot put the blame of Adam's sin on Adam's free will,

The bible does not speak of free will. Carnal human philosophy does...the bible does not.

than there is no one other to blame than God.

If you were at all spiritually minded you would not post such idiocy.
How could you even think such a thing"blame God"

Own up to the truth of what you actually believe.

I post the truth of what I believe everyday. If I ever come to the place where I need you or steaver to be my spokesperson and imagine what you think I would say...I will instruct my police officer son to shoot me.

Blaming God for sin lies at the core of your belief.

Whatever twisted issues are going on in your warped mind...do not project them on me. I do not even begin to entertain such evil thoughts.
Your post is vile.

You believe that man is totally depraved not because of his own free will, but because of a sin nature that was passed down from Adam's sin, which did not come from a free will choice by Adam, You make God the author of sin nature, you make God responsible for the corruption of mankind. In your system, God is responsible for that which he is punishing.

There is abundant teaching available on this topic for you to avoid such stupid , moronic posting....this is inexcusable.

God is not the author of sin, but clearly that is what you believe, whether you want to admit it or not. Word games and redefining words and playing semantics does not change the fact that this is exactly what you believe.

I will say what I believe...no need for your ungodly speculation.
Because you choose to remain in ignorance is a product of your sinful selfwill, and not a reflection of what I believe.

 

[salzer mtn]

Jer 13:23 Can a Ethiopian change his skin, or a leopard his spots ? then may you do good who are accustomed to do evil. It is not possible, as it is not possible for a natural man to have power within himself to change what he is by nature. But when the day comes when the Leopard and the Ethiopian can change themselves then that day is when the evil man can change himself by his own free will into something good. Lets just say a natural man has a free will, does this free will have such an effect on him he wants to be saved, ? NO. Actually he uses this for an excuse to put off the day of salvation until a more convenient time. The truth is, this man is held captive by his nature. His heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. He is like a cow that eats grass because this is according to it's nature, even though you put a nice steak in the manger every day. Or a lion that would choose the steak and turn down the grass because of it's nature. A sovereign grace preacher once told me when I was struggling with sovereign grace and free will. To believe in sovereign grace you must believe that man is as wicked and rebellious as the scripture say's he is, but if you don't think man is all that bad then you will never understand that salvation is all by the sovereign grace of God.

 

[Jerome]

That's one long Bible verse!

 

[The Archangel]

To believe in sovereign grace you must believe that man is as wicked and rebellious as the scripture say's he is, but if you don't think man is all that bad then you will never understand that salvation is all by the sovereign grace of God.

Excellent statement.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[PreachTony]

Icon, I'd like to address a couple of points you made in response to Jordan.

men have self will

If you don't mind, I'd like to know your definition of "free will vs self will." To me, this seems very much a semantics game. Now, I don't believe, like certain posters on the BB, that a man who argues semantics has no other point to argue. Instead, I recognize the power semantics have in any argument, as allowing either side to dictate the terms in which a discussion/debate is held allows that side an immediate advantage.

So man does not have free will (I disagree with you, as I believe our differing views on theology obviously shows), but man has self will?

The bible does not speak of free will. Carnal human philosophy does...the bible does not.

Jesus was presented a woman taken in adultery (you gotta love the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, who only brought the woman committing adultery and not the man). He delivered an eye-opening sermon to the Pharisees by simply writing in the sand and saying "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." (John, chapter 8)

The Pharisees, we are told, dropped their stones and, starting at the oldest to the youngest, began to depart. (The Lord blessed me with a sermon about this moment once, and how the oldest departed first because they recognized the wisdom of the statement, but the youngest were the last to go because they were impulsive and reckless.) Jesus then turned to the woman and said:

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

If mankind is so depraved that we cannot help but sin, then why would Jesus tell this woman to "sin no more"? That, to me, says that human beings can avoid sin. We are able to turn from doing a sinful act. If the Calvinist definition of 'total depravity' is accurate and true, then Jesus told this woman to do something that she was physically and mentally incapable of doing. That just does not fit the nature of Jesus, from what I've learned in prayer and study.

I post the truth of what I believe everyday.

Nor do I believe anyone here expects any less of you. I will likewise post the truth of what I believe. The issue is, the way I believe is obviously different from the way you believe.

 

[steaver]

I'll just stick with what I see in Scripture

As will I.........

 

[steaver]

In any other instance of interaction, the inability to perform a task would obviously exempt someone from performing that task. If I asked you, Icon, to fly and hover five feet off the ground, I couldn't hold you accountable if you don't do it, seeing as I'm pretty sure you cannot fly. For me to hold you accountable for something you do not even possess the ability or opportunity to do would be silly of me.


So only God's grace can cure a man of unbelief, yet God is refusing to grant man grace because of his unbelief?


See, as I read this, I'm struck by how different this entire philosophy seems when compared to scriptures like "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." And before you say it, I've heard the argument that that verse is not intended for everyone, but only for the Elect. To that I ask, many books of the Bible are addressed only to a certain person or group. If we're to apply all scripture within that book only to the person or group, then what good does the scripture do us, as we were not the author's intended target audience?

Dead on :thumbs: Careful with the God given common sense there. :godisgood: