Misconceptions of Calvinism

[Spokenpassage]

It's not God's Word that I'm calling quirky it's the Calvinists caricature of God and failure to explain simple questions as I posed above and on my first post of this thread.
I know all the silly arguments and 'proof texts' Calvinists use and how they deflect the tough questions by parroting their standard verses. It's hard for them to say 'we don't know', but instead they use human logic to fill in the areas that are not revealed.

"Then God mercifully saves one of the guilty men from his earned and just condemnation,
while leaving the other in his just condemnation."

Then how does God escape the charge of being partial (on the basis of your explanation) ?

Crossnote, the question wasn't difficult at all, I think you wanted our response to be what you imagined. I recommend this strife to stop between all of us, but let me reply to you.

Only human logic would try to redefine what the bible plainly states.

Irresistible grace is entirely linked to unconditional election, which actually makes God not a respecter of persons. Ironically, conditional election teaches God is partial in saying that God chooses whom He wills based on their wisdom, prudence, sound judgement, or a good sense to believe, how do you explain that? Conditional would make God partial by looking at the character or merit of a person and choosing them because of it. People who believe in synergism, say God's love for a person must meet certain conditions (i.e whether someone has faith or not), making faith a merit. But we see in scripture that it's entirely by grace alone that we believe, and that we love God because He loved us first. We also see in scripture that salvation belongs to the Lord, how can we take credit? Surely faith itself is a given gift, not a natural ability in a man or else all men would believe (since faith is activated at hearing of the Word - Romans 10:17).

Thus the bible maintains that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. To say God chooses because we chose Him first wouldn't even be called election let alone be considered predestination...

Before anyone can make a reputation, action, anything God made the first move, that my friend is far from partiality.

 

[crossnote]

Crossnote, the question wasn't difficult at all, I think you wanted our response to be what you imagined. I recommend this strife to stop between all of us, but let me reply to you.

Only human logic would try to redefine what the bible plainly states.

Irresistible grace is entirely linked to unconditional election, which actually makes God not a respecter of persons. Ironically, conditional election teaches God is partial in saying that God chooses whom He wills based on their wisdom, prudence, sound judgement, or a good sense to believe, how do you explain that? Conditional would make God partial by looking at the character or merit of a person and choosing them because of it. People who believe in synergism, say God's love for a person must meet certain conditions (i.e whether someone has faith or not), making faith a merit. But we see in scripture that it's entirely by grace alone that we believe, and that we love God because He loved us first. We also see in scripture that salvation belongs to the Lord, how can we take credit? Surely faith itself is a given gift, not a natural ability in a man or else all men would believe (since faith is activated at hearing of the Word - Romans 10:17).

Thus the bible maintains that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone. To say God chooses because we chose Him first wouldn't even be called election let alone be considered predestination...

Before anyone can make a reputation, action, anything God made the first move, that my friend is far from partiality.

This will be my last on this thread. I don't explain it. Neither does Scripture.
Even Spurgeon unlike most Calvinists said it best.

"That God predestines, and that man is responsible, are two things that few can see. They are believed to be inconsistent and contradictory; but they are not. It is just the fault of our weak judgment. Two truths cannot be contradictory to each other. If, then, I find taught in one place that everything is fore-ordained, that is true; and if I find in another place that man is responsible for all his actions, that is true; and it is my folly that leads me to imagine that two truths can ever contradict each other. These two truths, I do not believe, can ever be welded into one upon any human anvil, but one day they shall be in eternity: they are two lines that are so nearly parallel, that the mind that shall pursue them farthest, will never discover that they converge; but they do converge, and they will meet somewhere in eternity, close to the throne of God, whence all truth doth spring." (Sermon 207)

 

[Spokenpassage]

Crossnote, Spurgeon was speaking on relationship between God's Sovereignty and Man's Responsibility. I myself already know that we cannot comprehend how that works. Like how did Joseph's brother's sold him to Egypt for evil, while God meant it for good. I find that it is best explained through compatablity, even which I do not understand.

What does that have to do with my post by the way?

 

[Spokenpassage]

*Into Egypt* is more proper to say

 

[Elin]

That is the answer. We don't know why. There was nothing in us for Him to choose us. If we don't know why He chose us we don't know why He chose anyone.

Not only do we not know why we don't know who either. So preaching the gospel still goes to all, hoping that some (all) will respond.

I would say Calvinism is not a system. Just an attempt at a description of what we mostly don't understand.

You can say that the description is incomplete. I have no problem with that. But to reject the description in its entirety is to reject what the bible plainly states.

Scripture sheds some light on that issue:

"Brothers, think of what you were when you were called.
Not many of you were wise by human standards;
not many were influential;
not many were of noble birth.
But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise;
God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--
and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are,
so that no one may boast before him.
It is because of him (pure grace) that you are in Christ Jesus
who has become for us the wisdom of God--that is,
our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Therefore, as it is written: 'Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.' (Jer 9:24)"
--1Co 1:26-31

 

[Elin]

"Fair" is nebulous.
"Justice" is not.
Justice = to give one his due, what he is owed, has a right to.

God owes, is obligated to give, and mankind has a right to, nothing but justice.
And in justice, God owes condemnation on all sin,
as did the Mosiac law (Dt 27:26), which was its purpose to show (Gal 3:10).

Therefore, those who receive condemnation have not been treated unjustly.
God has given them what he owes them.
They have no claim against God that he owes them anything more (Ro 11:35).

So two men are going over a waterfall due to their own fault. God saves one and not the other, then judges guilty the one He did not save?
Sounds a little quirky to me.

I'm sorry you find God's word quirky.

You darken God's counsel with words without knowledge.

So you are saying that God's answer to your question:

--"Who are you, O man, to talk back to God?" (Ro 9:20)
Does not the potter have the right to form the clay as he chooses? (Ro 9:21)
(Isa 45:11-12; Job 40:2)--

is inadequate and quirky (Job 38:3--41:34).

a) Therefore, you call God to the bar of your reason to give an account of his justice. . .
to justify it to you. . .or he can be God no longer.

That's called turning things upside down as if the potter were thought to be the clay.

b) And you require others to justify God to you.

It is no one's job to justify God to anyone.
It is your job to receive his answer to your question.
And when he then makes an end to teaching,
it is your job to make an end to learning.

It is your job to agree with God,
It is not God's job to make himself agreeable to you.

Nor is it anyone's job to overcome your objection to God's sovereignty.

c) And then you present an analogy which misrepresents God's justice and mercy.

Two men are going to hell because they are guilty of, and justly condemned for, law breaking.
not because they become guilty after their just condemnation.
God justly judged both men guilty of law breaking.

Then God mercifully saves one of the guilty men from his earned and just condemnation,
while leaving the other in his just condemnation.

God has not denied the unsaved what he owes them and what they have a right to.
They have been given what they are due (Mt 20:13), and have no grounds for
complaint (Mt 20:14), for they cannot claim title to anything more.

God has the right to do as he pleases, as long as no one is denied the justice
to which he is entitled.
That he chooses to give some more than he owes them is his prerogative as God,
for he defines himself in Scripture thusly:
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion (Ex 33:19)."
--Ro 9:15

Therefore, it does not depend on anything but the sovereignty of God (Ro 9:16; 1Co 1:30).

He's God. . .and you're not.

It's not God's Word that I'm calling quirky it's the Calvinists caricature of God and failure to explain simple questions as I posed above and on my first post of this thread.

Ro 9:14-26 addresses your question.
Perhaps you could address it that I might understand how you understand it.

"Then God mercifully saves one of the guilty men from his earned and just condemnation,
while leaving the other in his just condemnation."

Then how does God escape the charge of being partial (on the basis of your explanation) ?

That question is answered in Ro 9:19-26.
Do you understand it?

 

[Elin]

To edit previous post.

 

[SeaBass]

There are quite a few of people here who intentionally bash the doctrines of grace using misconceptions, whether taught by unlearned men, or by their own folly come to such conclusions, or just not aware of what it is. I will help to show some misconceptions that many Christians have assumed about Calvinism. Let us examine and fix the faulty thinking in this blessed doctrine of grace.

T – Total Depravity

Misconception: People don’t have “free will” and are basically robots without any ability to choose on their own.

Fact: Calvinism acknowledges that all human beings make various choices in life. However, when it comes to making a decision for God, reformed theology affirms that no one seeks God or receives Christ on their own without being spiritually awakened by God and enabled to do so.

It is no understatement to say that once a person fully understands the doctrine of total depravity, all other points in Calvinism are easy to accept. Get this teaching wrong, and you have a theological mess on your hands.

Do people make choices? Of course, each and every day, and on many different levels. But when it comes to salvation in Christ, the Bible is clear that each person is born in sin (Ps. 51:5), spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1), and morally incapable of coming to Christ by themselves (1 Cor. 2:14, Rom. 8:6-7).

Jesus made the explicit statement, “No one can come to Me unless it has been granted him from the Father” (John 6:65), which clearly showcases an inability in everyone to freely choose Christ unless granted by the Father (see also John 6:44). Once an unbeliever is spiritually called by God out of their darkness (2 Tim. 1:8-9) and their eyes are opened (John 9:39), they then willingly receive Jesus as Savior.

James White sums up the correct position well when he says: “Reformed Christians believe that men believe and choose. It is the order of events that is in dispute. Every Christian has chosen Christ, believed in Christ, embraced Christ, and even more, continues to do so. The question is not ‘must a person believe,’ but can a person believe while a slave to sin? Further, whose decision comes first: the decision of God to free the enslaved, dead sinner and give him the ability to believe, or the free-choice decision of the sinner that then makes him or her one of the elect?”

Not all Calvinists take this position for many Calvinists say you have no free will choices but you can only do what God has already chosen for you to do.

You posted "Calvinism acknowledges that all human beings make various choices in life. However, when it comes to making a decision for God, reformed theology affirms that no one seeks God or receives Christ on their own without being spiritually awakened by God and enabled to do so."

You want man to be able to make various choices in life, but conveniently do not want man to be able to make a choice for God. IF man can make various choices about morals in life then there is no reason he cannot choose to follow God, as God shows that ability in Gen 4:7.

Men of his own will can choose to seek and find God, Deut 4:29; 1 Chron 16:10; 1 Chron 22:19; 1 Chron 28:9; 2 Chron 7:14; 2 Chron 11:16; 2 Chron 14:4; 2 Chron 15:2,12,13; 2 Chron 19:3; 2 Chron 20:3,4; 2 Chron 30:19;; Ezra 7:10 and I am just scratching the surface on verses showing men of their own will seeking the Lord. Isa 55:6 men are even commanded to seek the Lord with the imperative implying man has both the ability and responsibility to seek the Lord.


Jn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Verse 45 explains how God draws men to Christ. Men are taught, hear and learn then "cometh to Me".

God draws, men come....and men come of their own free will choices upon learning, hearing and taught


You say James White say "Further, whose decision comes first: the decision of God to free the enslaved, dead sinner and give him the ability to believe, or the free-choice decision of the sinner that then makes him or her one of the elect?”

This is James White putting fault and blame upon God. For those that remain "enslaved" and a "dead sinner" do so as a result of God's failure to free them. When White starts with a false premise (total depravity) he ends up blaming and putting fault upon God. The bible teaches men are not totally depraved but can seek God if they so choose and are accountable and responsible for themselves if they do not seek God.

Eze 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

It is not God's desire nor in His nature to cause men to be lost against his own will but God desires the wicked to repent and live therefore God has not fault or blame in those that are lost.

 

[SeaBass]

U – Unconditional Election

Misconception: The doctrine that says God chooses who will be saved is incredibly unfair.

Fact: Reformed theology upholds that no one deserves salvation and that God displays incredible mercy in saving those He chooses.

Arthur Pink began one message in Australia many years ago by saying, “I am going to speak tonight on one of the most hated doctrines of the Bible, namely, that of God’s sovereign election.”

By far, the most uttered complaint against election is that it’s not fair. And yet, every Christian acknowledges they don’t deserve God’s mercy and His salvation – that it’s “fair” if God chose to judge all sinners as being unworthy of spending eternal life with Him.

That being the case why is it considered repugnant if God chooses to show mercy to some and allows His justice to fall on others who willingly continue in their sin? Would a governor be considered an ogre and unfair simply because he/she decided to grant amnesty to one criminal while others are left to carry out their proper sentence?

Those who reject election believe in choice, but they don’t want God to choose; they want humanity to choose instead. This seems more fair and just to them.

However, Paul anticipated this response from the audience that received his letter to the Romans. In chapter 9, after carefully laying out the doctrine of election, Paul specifically and proactively answers the charge of unfairness with God and clearly spells out that salvation has nothing to do with our choice but is rather His alone:

“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Rom. 9:14–16).

Such a statement from Paul makes absolutely no sense if the Apostle believed that we are the ultimate decision maker where salvation is concerned vs. God. From a human standpoint, what would be unfair about that?

God did not have to provide salvation for any man, but because of His grace He did make salvation possible for man through Jesus Christ. And in the process of making savlation available to all men, God, who cannot lie, made a few promises.

Promise #1 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Heb 5:9
Promise #2 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 2 Thes 1:8

S God saving men is not based upon some unconditional, random decision God supposedly made before the world began but is based upon PROMISES God made to all men. Those men that obey Christ have the promise of salvation. Those that do not obey Christ have the promise of God's vengeance. So ANY person that obeys the gospel of Christ can be saved for these two promises are not limited to only certain people.

Rom 5:19 "For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

--In this verse, "many" both times refer to the same people.

--Paul's point in this verse is that as "many" as have been affected by sin since it entered the world through one man (Adam), then there is a cure for that same "many" made available by one man's (Christ) obedience.

It was not just the made up "Calvinistic elect" that have been affect by sin that only has access to the cure, but ANYONE and EVERYONE who had been affected by sin has access to the cure.


Rom 9 has nothing to do with Calvinistic election but Paul is proving to the Jews God was just and righteous in cutting them off from being His elect and grafting in the Gentiles. God was justified in making Christians (which both Jew and Gentile can become) His chosen people.

 

[SeaBass]

I – Irresistible Grace

Misconception: God drags people kicking and screaming against their will into His kingdom.

Fact: Reform theology teaches that God lovingly overcomes the natural rebellion in the sinner’s heart so that they may accept His gift of salvation.

J. I. Packer sums up this doctrine in a very succinct manner when he says, “Grace proves irresistible just because it destroys the disposition to resist.”

A passage in Acts showcases this efficacious call of God in action: “And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. ” (Acts 16:13–14).

Another point worth making is that this call is not given to everyone. This fact is evident in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians: “But we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:23-24).

Notice the same two groups are preached to (Jews and Gentiles) and yet only those called by God (also Jews and Gentiles) are saved by His grace. These are the ones who receive God’s efficacious call (i.e. His irresistible grace).

No verse says man has a natural tendency in his heart to be able to only resist God.

God calls all men through His gospel word, 2 Thess 2:14 and men upon learning, hearing and being taught that word then of his own will "come to Christ" Jn 6:45.

This is what happened with Lydia:

Acts 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Acts 16:15 "And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

In verse 13 Paul "spoke" and verse 14 Lydia "heard". Paul spoke the word of God, Lydia was taught, heard and learned and came to Christ of her own will just as Jn 6:45 says the drawing is done.

Furthermore, Lydia was already a worshipper of God v14 BEFORE Paul ever showed up. So she was lost BEFORE Paul came to Macedonia to preach the gospel to her, yet if she was totally depraved how could she be lost and a worshipper of God? HOw could Cornelius be "A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway". Acts 10:2 if he were totally depraved and lost?

 

[SeaBass]

P – Perseverance of the Saints

Misconception: A person remains saved no matter how they live their life.

Fact: Calvinism teaches that a professing Christian with no change in behavior and no movement toward sanctification proves that they were never saved to begin with.

Reformed scholar and pastor John Piper tells the story of a woman who heard a message he delivered on the perseverance of the saints (which says a born again Christian can never lose their salvation, but will persevere to the end). She came to him and stated that she was in an adulterous affair, but because she was saved, she intended to continue in her affair without any worry about losing her salvation.

Piper’s reply to her was direct and rare in our current sugar-coated, seeker-friendly church environment: “God will damn you to Hell if you continue in your sin.”

In making that statement, Piper was simply affirming the Bible’s teaching that the fruit of the tree identifies the type of tree (Matt. 12:33). In no way does Calvinism teach that a person born again may continue in their rebellion, sin against God, and see eternal life with the Creator.

Instead, reformed theology upholds just the opposite: that a true Christian will manifest holy affections that prove their salvation, although they will always struggle with the sin nature that they have (see Romans 7). For an excellent treatment of this subject, see Jonathan Edward’s magisterial work, “A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections”.

You post "Calvinism teaches that a professing Christian with no change in behavior and no movement toward sanctification proves that they were never saved to begin with."

But this does not prove ES. What about those that were "fallen from grace" or "fell by transgression"? One always fallen cannot fall. One must first be in a saved position to fall from in order for him to fall.

You post " In no way does Calvinism teach that a person born again may continue in their rebellion, sin against God, and see eternal life with the Creator."

Then there is no such thing as ES or Preserverence of the Saints if one can fall away and be lost.

 

[crossnote]

No verse says man has a natural tendency in his heart to be able to only resist God.

God calls all men through His gospel word, 2 Thess 2:14 and men upon learning, hearing and being taught that word then of his own will "come to Christ" Jn 6:45.

This is what happened with Lydia:

Acts 16:13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side, where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither.

Acts 16:14 And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

Acts 16:15 "And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

In verse 13 Paul "spoke" and verse 14 Lydia "heard". Paul spoke the word of God, Lydia was taught, heard and learned and came to Christ of her own will just as Jn 6:45 says the drawing is done.

Furthermore, Lydia was already a worshipper of God v14 BEFORE Paul ever showed up. So she was lost BEFORE Paul came to Macedonia to preach the gospel to her, yet if she was totally depraved how could she be lost and a worshipper of God? HOw could Cornelius be "A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway". Acts 10:2 if he were totally depraved and lost?

you missed one 'minor' detail....

''whose heart the Lord opened, '' v.14

 

[SeaBass]

you missed one 'minor' detail....

''whose heart the Lord opened, '' v.14

Lydia's heart.

HOW did the Lord open her heart? By having Paul speak to her v13 and her hearing the gospel v14.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Jn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Lydia gained faith by hearing Paul speak to her. She was drawn by God by being taught, hearing and learning from Paul speaking then she, of her own will, "came to Christ".

 

[cxjonz]

you missed one 'minor' detail....

''whose heart the Lord opened, '' v.14

1. What Lydia heard Paul say is not what you've heard. 2.The primary factor of the message of salvation all of the apostles taught is GUILT relative to the sin of murdering Jesus Christ. And it is only that intrinsic emotion which opens, i.e. cuts, a naturally born's heart. Acts 2:36&37, Jn. 16:8

 

[crossnote]

1. What Lydia heard Paul say is not what you've heard. 2.The primary factor of the message of salvation all of the apostles taught is GUILT relative to the sin of murdering Jesus Christ. And it is only that intrinsic emotion which opens, i.e. cuts, a naturally born's heart. Acts 2:36&37, Jn. 16:8

What did Lydia hear ? What did I hear? Are you a mind reader or something?

 

[crossnote]

Lydia's heart.

HOW did the Lord open her heart? By having Paul speak to her v13 and her hearing the gospel v14.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Jn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

Lydia gained faith by hearing Paul speak to her. She was drawn by God by being taught, hearing and learning from Paul speaking then she, of her own will, "came to Christ".

So the Lord 'tries' to open every heart that hears the Gospel but Lydia 'helped' Him by not resisting?

 

[Grandpa]

You post "Calvinism teaches that a professing Christian with no change in behavior and no movement toward sanctification proves that they were never saved to begin with."

But this does not prove ES. What about those that were "fallen from grace" or "fell by transgression"? One always fallen cannot fall. One must first be in a saved position to fall from in order for him to fall..

Its not meant to prove Eternal Salvation. By their fruits you shall know them. If you say "I'm a fruit tree" it doesn't make you a fruit tree. You would have to start growing fruit in order for what you say to have any validity. If you don't grow any fruit then you were never a fruit tree to begin with. You just said you were.

You are trying to interject your disbelief into something that is only for believers. It won't work that way. You can't understand.

A person who has fallen from grace has not yet been given eternal salvation. They were on the path of Grace but stopped and went back to their own works for their justification and perfection. If you can produce some passages that say people fall from salvation then you can interject your belief, which is disbelief.

In no way does Calvinism teach that a person born again may continue in their rebellion, sin against God, and see eternal life with the Creator."

Then there is no such thing as ES or Preserverence of the Saints if one can fall away and be lost.

Calvinism doesn't teach a licentious gospel. The fruit of a saved person is not rebellion against God. If a person is saved they won't continue in any transgression that they may be temporarily transgressing.

Salvation is the Work of God. Because of this fact, it is Eternal. God doesn't take back His Gifts. Some people preach that we are mightier than God and can undo His Work, but they are mistaken, grossly.

 

[cxjonz]

What did Lydia hear ? What did I hear? Are you a mind reader or something?

You've only heard and believed "God loves you so much that he sent Jesus to die in your place." Close enough?

 

[crossnote]

You've only heard and believed "God loves you so much that he sent Jesus to die in your place." Close enough?

I guess you're not a mind reader after all, otherwise you wouldn't ask. And neither do I believe you know what Lydia heard.

 

[cxjonz]

I guess you're not a mind reader after all, otherwise you wouldn't ask. And neither do I believe you know what Lydia heard.

Perhaps. But whatever she heard it was not outside of the box of Jn. 16:8, and relative only to the Acts 2 statement. Comprenda?