arguments calvinists should not use

Discussion in '2003 Archive' started by Aki, May 19, 2003.

  1. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    when one clings with the 5-points of Calvinism, he should not say the following arguments, for these statements come in contradictions with the five points.

    note: i've seen these arguments said here

    1. there are certain people in a certain area who did a very henious crime. this proves that man is totally depraved.

    this really is not a correct approach for Calvinism. it leads to the point of concluding that as bad deeds prove man's spiritual death, good deeds lead to life. with the TULIP's total depravity, it means that man has no way of getting approved by God regardless of what he does. and that's it! but giving exceptional "big time" sins as examples and then concluding from there that man is totally depraved does not touch the meat of total depravity. it can be countered by giving "big time" good deeds of unbelievers to show man as not totally depraved. such approach takes the issue away from the real meaning of total depravity.

    2. if God desires all men to be saved, then God failed since not all men are saved.

    this is many times said to counter those against calvinism. but this approach is incorrect, for it combines contradicting premises from the Calvinist campt and the non-Calvinist camp, which definitely go to contradiction. this boils down to God's will. to Calvinists, it is the sovereign will of God that works in salvation, as it is required given their concept of total depravity. on the other hand, non-Calvinists cling to the permissive will, saying that God did not fail, it is just that he respected the will of man, with the premise of man's ability.

    thus, rather that saying such an argument, a Calvinist should dwell on proving man's inability. otherwise, that argument will never work.

    moreover, such approach can be countered with a couple of examples. one, when Adam sinned, God does not want him to. but he did sin. so that would mean God failed, according to the logic of Calvinism. but no, because Calvinism would dwell on permissive will here. the same also goes when a christian sins, knowing that God does not want him to. come salvation, the will becomes sovereign will, since permissive will would not work given man's inability. but to the non-calvinists it is still the permissive will. just as God did not fail when Adam sinned nor when christians sin though God does not want to, the same goes with unbelievers who reject God's offer.

    3. Man is responsible for his own condemnation.

    Calvinism teaches both the doctrine of original sin and imputed guilt. with the original sin, it says man will definitely sin and that man cannot accept God's offer of savlation with the general call (seems that God failed in this call huh?). the imputed guilt gets man his first sin upon birth wihtout any consideration of his volition. thus, man gets condemned at birth because of a sin imputed at him. worse, he gets the inability not to sin nor cling to God's general call due to the original sin. in here his volition was never again respected, but was a victim of seminal transmission from parent to child.

    this is the source of man's condemnation! he is condemned at birth. but many times calvinists would dwell on man's personal sin and say he is condemned. this is a good approach for indeed it is man who chose to sin. but the real reason man is condemned is the imputed sin. even if one does not commit sin al his life, he is still condemned becuase of such imputation. thus, his volition did not play any role to his condemnation. therefore, with the TULIP, man is not responsible for his own condemnation, though Calvinists would say otherwise.

    Calvinsits give an explanation that we are in Adam when he sinned. yet such is not enough. such answer never suffice. what calvinists should do is prove that each man chose to sin that is why he is imputed of the first sin. otherwise, Calvnists cannot prove that man is responsible for his own condemnation, and will be tempted simply to dwell on personal sins, which is a poor approach.
     
  2. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. "Small" sins are every bit as bad as "heinous" sins.

    2. God never fails. The Bible states that He "works all things after the counsel of His will". (Ephesians 1:11)

    3. Man is self-condemned.

    Matthew 12:37(NASB)
    37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
     
  3. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    yup!

    sure He does not. and when Christ dies for all, but certain people will not be saved, this does not mean that God failed, as certain Calvinists would say to disprove those who are against them. explanation on the first post.

    once again, the shift in the issue from the initial source of condemnation towards personal sins.

    this is a better statement: Man does things worthy of condemnation. yet before that he is already condemned. indeed, if he does not do any sin at all, he is still condemned. and that each man was simply transmitted of the sin nature that makes them sin. the sin nature made it impossible for men not to sin, and no one ever chose to have it, but was simply transmitted with it.

    Rom. 5:15 ...For if through the offence of one many be dead...
     
  4. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    1. I agree, so the well respected Pastor who tells a little white lie is judged equally with Al Capone. Seems to me that is what God would do since He is no respecter of man and sin is sin.

    2. It is God's stated will that none should perish, yet many perish!

    3. John 3:18, It is the unbeliever who is self condemned. The believer is not judged!
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    God's will cannot be frustrated. If it could be frustrated, then God is not omnipotent. If God is not omnipotent, then all of mankind is in one big heap of trouble.
     
  6. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    It is my will that my son attend college.
    It is my son's will that he not attend college.

    Guess who's will is satisfied?

    It is God's will that none should perish.
    It is man's will, for the most part, that God not interfere.

    Guess who's will is satisfied?

    Those who hear the word and believe exchange their will for God's will. Those who hear the word but don't believe continue on in their ignorance.

    God will is satisfied in those who's will is changed to His.

    God's Justice is satisfied by those who don't change their will.
     
  7. Frogman

    Frogman
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.churches.net/churches/fubc/Fr
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2001
    Messages:
    5,492
    Likes Received:
    0
    God's Justice is satisfied by the obedience of Christ Jesus the eternal Son of God.

    Salvation is by Grace.

    Bro.Dallas Eaton
     
  8. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    Salvation is an act of God for those who believe in Him and His Son!

    Believing occurs while God's grace prevails!
     
  9. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    isn't it that Calvinism (or some Calvinists) include the general call? with this, the non-elects win over God's sovereignty since their depravity won over God's call, right!

    anyways, it is not God's will that Adam eat of the fruit. neither is it His will that a christian commit sins. yet Adam sinned and christians sin. but with these i am sure that you still consider God to be omnipotent. this therefore poses contradiction in your part, unless proper categories are presented regarding God's will. that is, whether it is sovereign or permissive.

    it cannot just be plainly stated that when God's will is frustrated, then he is not omnipotent. it's not as absolute as that! otherwise, the Bible will be filled with contradictions!

    regarding salvation, the point of debate is whether God applies His sovereign will or permissive will for a christian to accept His grace.

    i'd say both. God used his sovereign will so that there is no stopping Him in sending His only begotten Son. on the other hand, God uses his permissive will for sinners to accept or reject His offer (of course with the given condition that everyone has the ability to accept or reject).

    [ May 20, 2003, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: Aki ]
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have yet to buy into the two wills of God argument. I am not saying it is a wrong idea but I have not been convinced that is correct, either.
     
  11. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'm a bit surprised by this reply. however, regardless of your stand with the two wills, i think may question will still apply.

    you said:

    my question then is: when Adam sinned, God does not will him to. when a chrisitian sins, God does not will him to. thus, God's will was frustrated in these instances. is He therefore not omnipotent?

    also, Calvinism (or maybe only certain Calvinists - i'm not so sure) teaches the general call. does this mean that God wills that even the non-elect be saved? moreover, don't you think that God's call was frustrated with man's depravity? herein then is a point in Calvinism where God's will is frustrated.
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Something to consider about sin - Is sin something that happened that God could not or would not prevent(knowing the suffering sin would cause), or was it part of His plan?

    Origin of Sin

    Since all things are of God, yet He cannot sin, how did sin originate? All so-called "solutions" which trace sin up a blind alley and stop short of God are neither scriptural nor satisfactory. We know that sin came into the world through one human being, yet who would stop there? Sin did not originate in Adam.

    The serpent was in the garden before Adam sinned. Neither is it enough to go beyond Adam and quote "sin is of the devil," or Slanderer, for the Slanderer, just as much as Adam, is a creature, and, as such, originated nothing. There must be an adequate cause for every effect. We only condemn ourselves as theological evolutionists when we trace sin back to a creature and refuse to acknowledge the Creator.

    We have, then, a creature, called a Slanderer (Satan), and to him the Scriptures trace back all sin. Our inquiry is now narrowed down to the question whether this one is really a creature, or self-created. If he is not self-existent we are shut up to his creation by the hand of God. If we allow that God created Satan (as such), the crucial question arises, Did God sin in creating the Slanderer? The answer will depend entirely upon the object He had in view. Was it God's will that sin should invade the universe or was it due to an error on His part? Remembering our definition of sin, we must be prepared to say that God has sinned, if the entrance of sin was a mistake.

    If God created Satan perfect and his defection was a surprise and a disappointment to God, then there is no use in hiding behind mere words. He failed. He started out to make a flawless creature who turned out bad. There is no one else to charge with this failure but God. But this is all wrong, for God never fails, or sins.

    Is there a Purpose for Sin?

    Sin has an essential, though transient, part in God's purpose. God made due preparation for it before it came. The Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world. Creation may reveal some aspects of God's power and wisdom, but His love can be displayed only where sin has sown the seeds of hate. There can be no Savior apart from sin. There can be no reconciliation apart from enmity. God locks up all in stubbornness in order that He may be merciful to all.

    Shall God's affections remain forever pent up in His own bosom? Shall He never taste the sweet response of love? Then all He needs is a perfect universe, where His creatures have no need of Him and His gracious ministrations. But if He wants the deep satisfaction of requited love, and desires to impart to His creatures the delicious sense of His fatherly affection, then there must be distance, distress and condemnation, to form the field for the exercise of His favor.

    Since sin must enter this scene and play its part, since it is essential to God's purpose, and absolutely under His control; since it will eventually change the universe from cold, independent creatures into a loving family circle, and God from a distant Creator into an affectionate Father, it was by no means a mistake (or sin) on God's part when he created a creature who should not only sin but should scatter it in all creation.

    God is the Source of Sin

    We have now arrived at the heart of the problem. It was no mistake for God to create Satan, for the adversary did exactly what God had planned he should do. And the astonishing conclusion forces itself upon us that, the moment we try to shift the ultimate origin of sin to Satan, then we are making God a sinner! For, if God did not intend Satan to sin, but he did it on his own initiative, then God missed the mark!

    We have been accused of making God "the author of sin," whatever that may mean. We say with all kindness that those who introduce sin into the universe as an unforeseen calamity, an irremediable blot, they are charging God with failure, which is sin. Or if they introduce it surreptitiously, without God's act, making Satan sovereign in sin, then God's failure has been the greatest of all sins.

    Jehovah says boldly in Isaiah 54:16 (A.V.) "I created the waster to destroy." To waste, or corrupt, is not simply evil. It is sin. Jehovah does not claim to do it, but to create the one who does. If the corrupter were created by another, or self-existent, then he would be out of hand, and Jehovah could not guarantee immunity to His people, or control the evil and harness it to His purpose. Is 45:7 says, “I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I, the Lord, do all these things.”


    - www.savior-of-all.com/chap12.html
     
  13. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    then why say that man is responsible for his own condemnation? God has been sovereign all the way. he must have been sovereign too to get man condemned. He, then, must be the one also responsible for the event of condemnation. otherwise, His sovereignty was overpowered in this case. it's not my intention to come unkind, but more and more you tend to prove that double predestination is the best way to get calvinism out of self-contradiction! as the article used:

     
  14. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    and that is correct! there is no explanation in the article to say otherwise.

    the scriptures said that God is not the author of sin. the article, however, did not answer why God is not the author of sin with regards to its stand. instead, it diverted the issue from answering why God is not the author of sin towards saying that God would have failed if He did not plan sin to enter.

    it presented its case, saying that God planned (which can be argued to be the same as authored) sin to enter. the other case, which it proves wrong is:

    i'd say the article's stand is wrong. the other arguments, however, are also wrong. it used another wrong argument to prove its own correct.

    it is simple. God gave volition and a rule(s). with volition God sovereignly chose to let man choose. with the rule, God gave a way for man to to show obedience or disobedience by using their free will. indeed, if there was no rule, volition would have been of no use.

    the sin Adam nor Satan committed was not unforseen. God knew that they would do it, but God is sovereign enough to get history moving. God did not fail here. He gave Adam everything necessary to stay away from sin. also, God gave Adam the responsibility to sin or not to sin, by giving Him the volition and rule. with that, it would be Adam's call. it was also Satan's call when he sinned against God. God's sovereignty was not overpowered in this event.
     
  15. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    That could be because the more I study it, I am agreeing more and more with the double predestination position. [​IMG]
     
  16. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    i am not a double-predestinarian (neither a calvinist) but i certainly like your response [​IMG]

    however, you must consider: double predestination may lead to conclude that it is God who is responsible for the condemnation of the non-elects as He is also the one who gives salvation to His elects. indeed, that is what is basically meant by double predestination. it is God who predestined men on hell and heaven.

    until a calvinist is a double predestinarian, it will be very hard to prove that a non-elect is responsible for his own condemnation, given the imputed guilt and the transmitted sin nature. if, on the other hand, a calvinist goes to say that it is God who caused the condemnation, then that calvinist goes with a big step towards double predestination.

    more so, if you become a double predestinarian, you will be forced to accept that God is equally gracious (to His elects) and cruel (to the non-elects). all this because of His sovereignty. in fact, if you take it philosopically, there really is no such thing as grace nor cruelty, but only sovereingty in double predestination.

    why? because you call it grace when one deserves condemnation yet was given salvation. however, in D.P. none deserved condemnation, but was merely predestined by God for it due purely to His own sovereignty, pleasure and glorification, and none on one's volition. the same goes in salvation.
     
  17. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Aki,

    Please see the thread I have started on the murder of Zechariah. I am interested in your thoughts.

    Ken
     
  18. Felix

    Felix
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2002
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually a similar argument may be used by calvinists: If God knew right before the foundation of this world that not ALL man WILL be saved, why does He still WILL ALL men to be saved, since He knows that this will never happen?
    Will He stop 'willing' after the last day? What God wills, He wills forever and He makes sure that ALL of His will is accomplished! But willing something that He already knows will never come to pass would create an inconsistency in His holy and perfect nature.

    Yours in Christ

    Pardi
     
  19. Aki

    Aki
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    0
    hi Felix [​IMG]

    your argument is good, but it does not go unquestioned. you see, there are certain wills of God that are discouraged as exemplified in many portions of the scripture.

    take Adam for example. it was not God's will for Adam to disobey, yet Adam still ate of the forbidden fruit.

    this is due to the fact that though God wills Adam's obedience, God would rather respect Adam's volition. the same happens to each one come salvation.

    this is why there are those (including me) who categorize God's will into: sovereign and permissive. what you are talking about when God's will would certainly happen falls into sovereign will. but God also in His sovereignty chooses to respect man's volition in order for His will to be realized. thus, though God wills for everyone to be saved, not all will be.
     
  20. Felix

    Felix
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2002
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Aki,

    Let's start with a question: Does God's foreknowledge determine what He decrees or does God's decree determine what He foreknows?

    There are many who are quick to say, "Oh yes, I believe in the sovereignty of God." Yet, when pressed to believe consistently that God truly can do as He pleases without getting permission from anyone, including man, we discover that many who in fact confess such a belief in practice deny it.
    The renewed heart rejoices in knowing that God is our Father, our Creator, the Potter who has formed us by His own hand. But such a thought is utter terror to the unregenerate person, and completely anathema to the religions of men who seek to control God and His power through the exercise of man's will.

    The Church prays to the the Sovereign of the universe, the one who rules and reign over all authorities, including those who were persecuting the Church. Just as Herod, and Pontius Pilate, the Gentiles and even the people of Israel had gathered against Christ, so too the early Church faced the wrath of the governing authorities. Yet, these Christians knew something that many today have forgotten: what took place at Calvary had been predestined by the sovereign decree of God. No human being had the power to raise a hand against the Savior unless God so determined. But again, is it not true that what Herod and Pilate and the Jews and the Romans did was evil? Most assuredly. Man had never shown himself more evil than on Mount Calvary. Yet, what they did was predestined by God, and that to His glory. No event in history will bring more glory, honor and praise to God than the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ in the place of His people. Yet again we find one single act, freely engaged in by evil men for evil motives, yet, at the same time, eternally predestined for good by God. The Potter is indeed free. He can, and does, decree wahtsover comes to pass, for His own glory (Eph 1:1). And yet the Potter is the righteous judge of all the earth who always does right.

    We have an awesome God Aki, [​IMG]

    With love in Christ

    Pardi
     

Share This Page

Loading...