Is Calvinism a False Doctrine?

HP: Would to God that we would start to be willing to think outside of our presuppositions instead of simply regurgitating the errors of the past. If there is no free will, love, morality, just blame and or praise can not exist. We indeed need to start thinking right about religion once again.

 

HP: Yes, all humans are a special creation of God gifted with abilities requisite of being the first cause of their intents.

Yes, God in fact does view those that choose to be obedient in a different light than those that refuse, granting to them favor and blessings not afforded to those that rebel and refuse to repent and believe. That is not boasting, but rather is simply stating the facts.

It is a truth that God enables us with the requisite abilities of choice, but it is not in accordance to truth to suggest that in matter of moral praise and blame that we are not the cause of such intents. God grants to man abilities, and influences us to proper behavior and choices, but does not coerce man in matters where blame and praise is attached. To think otherwise is to cavil at any semblance of reason and justice, and lays the demise of all true concepts of love, hate, morality and just blame or praise to mention just a few.

 

I have a question for the list concerning objective and subjective evidence that might shed light on this matter of free will. Is pain objective or subjective? Can it be one without the other?

 

ob·jec·tive
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased

dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings

of or pertaining to something that can be known
sub·jec·tive
existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought

placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions


When does pain start? After it goes past just hurting a little? How much pain makes you stop? How much pain makes me stop? How can we meaure it?

I think I am going to say that pain is subjective. Maybe that is why people think I am insensitive. :laugh:

 

HP: Can I then assume as billwald does concerning freewill that since there is no objective test for pain that in reality we simply just ‘think’ we have pain due to the way God wired us?

 

If we are honestly thinking about the issues at hand, one would have to conclude that we should use whatever means, subjective, objective, or both to arrive at the truth concerning a matter such as pain or freewill. We need to determine whether or not the issue is best determined by objective evidence or by simple intuitive analysis.

The truth of the matter is that some issues, in particular freewill, are best attested to and clearly recognized by subjective means and or intuitively. Subjective evidence in such cases, can be so clear and self-evident, that to deny the existence of it or to deny the object to which it testifies, would be paramount to the rejection of other clear notions such as our very existence in a physical world. Oh yes, there are some that would deny even that, but that does not change the clear subjective testimony that indeed we do exist physically in this present world in spite of the naysayers. The same can be said for those that attemt to deny freewill.

 

Indeed you will -- you are just doing what God has called you to do.

--

In Job there is a "debate in heaven" regarding the people of earth and specifically Job. God is challenged and then the PROOF occurs NOT by the calvinist method of "zapping brains" but by the Arminian free will method of "experiment and compelling data to motivate conclusions".

There is OBJECTIVE proof of free will my friends.

God does NOT say in Job "Satan Have you observed that I have ZAPPED Job's brain so hard that he does not listen to you?"

And Satan does NOT argue "I don't believe YOUR ZAP POWER is a strong as you say it is -- back off from him and let me see if I can UNDO THE ZAP you put on his brain with a counter-ZAP of my own. I have just developped this special ray and biochemical compound that completely undoes your ZAP... may the best ZAPPER win".


Instead the entire story confines itself to the Arminan priniciples of CHOICE and -- choice under pressure of circumstance NOT a question about "zapping power" and the ability to "sovereignly determine the future".



in Christ,

Bob

 

BR, why do you call it the "Arminan priniciples of CHOICE?"

 

If I miss the nail and hit my finger or thumb with the hammer, my pain is objective. Everyone knows what I am talking about and can feel that pain with me (empathize).

When someone describes a headache to me, I can't empathize with them, since I don't get headaches (never had one). Plus the fact that there is such a wide range of headaches, the pain must be very subjective. Besides that: it is all in your head anyway. Thus it is subjective.

 

HP: If we are to believe what Billwald implied, one would conclude that because it is subjective only, with no objective evidence, it somehow cannot be established as being real. Tell that to the person with a migraine headache!

In dealing with free will we have both subjective and objective evidence that establishes it. Who has not had the opportunity to raise children and witness the actions of children raised under the same influences yet choose such opposite paths? What about our own lives? As our inner choices and intents become a reality outwardly, we see first hand for ourselves everyday the objective evidence of a free will. One is certainly not properly exercising ones intellect in denying such an obvious characteristic of humanity. It takes a mighty strong presupposition and an intentional rejection of the mountain of evidence before our eyes every day to deny such a clear and obvious truth as free will.

 

I agree 100%. Judas had a choice in the face of Jesus. He certainly exercised that choice. If choices could not happen then there would be no need to have imperatives in scripture.

Years ago a friend of mine told me that he had never seen a practicing Christian ever stray far from the truth. Since thta point in time i began to notice the same thing.

Over and over I am reminded of James 1:22, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves."

Anyone who is not a doer of the word is deluded. I am also convinced that the proof of leadership in a church is that the person has made and is currently making disciples.

 

Because in a model that is based on the concept of "free will" the entire "solution" for salvation has to do with "Evaluation, proof, evidence, data, tests, experiment" etc to drive "conclusion" which in turn "ensures stability". A system of "arbitrary selection" and "arbitrary choice" only proves that the one in charge is "arbitrary" and not following any system of justice or mercy that can be observed/detected/witnessed by finite minds.

Otherwise - God simply "stops the bus" at the fall of Lucifer with the much more subjective - quick-solution - less-painful - announcement
"Game over -- Lucifer no longer exists - trust me he had some bad ideas in his head. Next!"

We see this business of the "claims of God" being challenged and then PROVEN objectively in the case of Job quite easily.

We see the "obective" and "corportate" model in Daniel 7 where the court is NOT comprised of "ONE who knows all and needs to books or review" but rather "Myriads and myriads" and the use of objective, external, referencable "data" called "books". "THE court sat AND the BOOKs were opened". Infinite all-knowing God does not need any of that - it is only there for the benefit of the created intelligences. The "myriads and myriads"

This is an arminian free will model where data is reviewed and conclusions reached - by finite intelligent beings who follow the acts of justice and mercy of God and "SEE" that it is right.

In Romans 3 Paul references God and speaks of the time "when thou art Judged".

in Christ,

Bob

 

O please ,not the Robot schematic again .No Calvinist thinks in those terms . Try a new form of attack .

And it has been addressed so many times about the nonsense of "being forced" , so why not drop that poor line of attack and think of something new ?

As for your own volition being the reason for your belief consider just two passages for starters .

So it is God who decides to show mercy . We can neither choose it nor work for it . ( Romans 9:16 NLTse )

He chose to give birth to us by giving us his true word . And we , out of all creation , became his prized possession . ( James 1:18 NLTse )

 

In reading this I see a great many attacks on Calvin and I'm not sure why, if we are to decide whether or not any particular doctrine is or is not heretical we need only consult the scriptures. Right? The way I understand the TULIP theory it all hinges on th Predestination to salvation. correct?

And guess what, I'm ok with that, if you can make some sense of some other verses. I don't believe that the Bible ever disagrees with its self and any verse taken out of context is a pretext.

Now, lets consider the facts. Every coin has two sides. Right? If God decided who would go to Heaven then he must also have decided who wouldn't go to heaven. Right?

There is only one option to Heaven and that is Hell. Right?

Therefore if God decided one man to go to Heaven then he must automaticly to have decided the other to go to Hell. It is the opposing side of the same coin. Is it not?

Here is what I need for you to do. IN CONTEXT.

I need an explination for the following pieces of scripture.
John 3:15-17, Romans 10:9-13, John 1:12, Luke 18:17, John 4:13&14, John 11:26, Acts 2:21, Acts 10:43, Rev. 22:17 And last but not least 2Peter 3:9

I firmly believe that we should not come to the Bible with our doctrine but rather come to the Bible empty handed and allow God to give us his doctrine from the Bible.

What say Ye?



Ok I'll be waiting on the stones:tonofbricks:

 

What? You don't think in those terms? I would have never known!! For you speak in those terms all the time. If man has no choice, no free will, then he is but a robot without the ability to resist God's grace. My son, a computer geek, can build one of those. If he is smart enough he might be able to program it to say over and over again: "I bow down and praise thee DHK; I bow down and praise thee DHK," etc. Is that what God did. According to Calvinistic theology one would think so. Why?
His grace is irresistable that he can't do anything else but.
He is so depraved that it is impossible for him to be saved unless he is one of the elect. God limited his atonement just for him and others like him.
At this point it becomes very confusing for he needs to realize that because he is saved he believes in Christ. Whoaa! That is not what the Bible teaches (Acts 16:31), but it is what Calvin teaches.

Thus he is saved first, and then he believes--totally contrary to the Scriptures which simply say: "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." How simple the gospel message really is.

But now our man must meet up with that grace which is impossible to resist, at which point he will be forced to praise God. He is nothing more than a robot in God's sight. Grace is irresistable--contrary to the teaching of God's Word.
Man is simply a robot in the hand of God without any will of his own. Why should you disagree? Isn't it the truth, according to Calvin?

Irresistable Please look it up in the dictionary.

From on-line Merriam-Webster:
Irresistable: unable to resist
Resist:1 : to exert oneself so as to counteract or defeat <he resisted temptation>
2 : to withstand the force or effect of

I believe I have the right definiton. Why do you question it?

God shows mercy on the just and the unjust alike.
He sends both the sunshine and the rain on the saved and the saved alike. That is his mercy. His mercy is directed upon all. His gospel is also directed toward all.

God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
God so loved the world (not the elect) that he gave his only begotten son..
--That well known verse is a convenient thorn in the side of the Calvinist.

God loved Israel for no other reason than he loved Israel.
You are no better than Israel, nor the Muslims, or the Hindus or any other group of people in the world. Arrogancy is just another sin. If you are saved, it is not because of God's election, it is because you chose to believe the gospel message that was presented you. You believed on the Lord Jesus Christ instead of rejecting him. Others have rejected him. Count your blessings. You are unworthy of the grace of God, and yet, out of his love for you and the rest of mankind he died for you and paid the penalty for your sins, and not for yours alone but for the sins of the whole world.
The difference between you and others is you choose to believe; others did not.

 

You do not listen very well DHK . Why do insist on repeating old worn-out lines against biblical truths ? You obviously do not attenpt to interact with what I have posted -- instead you just go on your pre-planned route .

Just drop the old cliches and deal fairly .

 

Why do you not address the real reason why Paul addressed election?

It has nothing to do with what so many Calvinists claim.

 

1) Did Calvin support "Augustinianism" with the exception of his Salvation through the Church and Amillennialism?
2) Calvin never wanted Corporal or Capital punishment upon heretics?

 

You did not address the facts listed in DHK post.

You also make a mistake in the "no calvinist" statement because I have quotes in my files from Calvinist ON THIS VERY BOARD that go to just such extremes including the claim that Satan HIMSELF is merely opperating at God's command.

The "Robot" conclusion is one easily seen in the way many calvinists define "sovereignty of God" when they argue that no being - not even Satan - has any choice over what God has determined that they do since God knows all and is all-sovereign.

"Pretending" that such "troubles" do not exist within the ranks of Calvinism is "disingenuous" to use the term reported here recently.

Further - in the "Irresistible Grace" model BOTH 4 and 5 Point Calvinists are stuck in the "robot argument" where the one being "zapped" has "no choice" but to respond in the affirmative.

So that is just TWO areas where the "robot" charge must be "resolved" by Calvinists rather than pretending that Arminians "should not notice a problem in Calvinism" If that problem has been plaguing Calvnism "for a long long time".

"it has been addressed" does not mean "the problem has been solved" it means "words have been posted here" in response to the "Robot problem" of 4 and 5 point Calvinism.

Given the ease with which "words can be posted on a thread" - That argument is - not very convincing to say the least.

Try again.


In your own post you compile FURTHER evidence that Calvinists are still stuck arguing in favor of the "robot theory"

this is a much better approach - instead of denying the robot problem for Calvinism - embrace it and see if you can get it "to work".

in Christ,

Bob

 

2serve:
"Therefore if God decided one man to go to Heaven then he must automaticly to have decided the other to go to Hell. It is the opposing side of the same coin. Is it not?"

GE

No sir!
If God decided all men should go to hell because all men sinned, He would be holily just, would he not? Since God is holily just He should 'automaticly' have decided everybody must go to hell, not so then? The 'opposing side of the same coin' is, that God in his Grace decided, some should not go to hell, but elected them unto salvation irretrievably! 'Automatically'? God forbid! Because it is the Mystery of Godliness that God does save "HIS OWN", through Christ. There is NOTHING 'automatic' about that! It is God willing, deciding, predestinating, choosing, electing, etcetera until finished in Grace, through Grace by Grace and for Grace only and exclusively.

I pray O merciful Father, make me your robot! For Jesus' sake and glory, form you this clay! I have no will in the matter; I leave it to you, my Maker and Saviour. How unfathomable is your love -- for me -- ME? I love you my Lord and my God.