CALVINISM: The height of Spiritual depravity
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
@Logikos
Yes because freewill is a lie, in fact God confirms people in their believing lies 2 Thess 2:11-12
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
But now if we are of Gods elect He will save us from lies
Yes because freewill is a lie, in fact God confirms people in their believing lies 2 Thess 2:11-12
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
But now if we are of Gods elect He will save us from lies
Even the angels in heaven have a free will. Are we not greater than angels?
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
So you beli9eve that babies and young children are saved and then lose their salvation and need to be born again-again???
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Ephesians 2:3
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
We sin, because we are sinners by nature.
Romans 3:10
King James Version
10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:But you seem to say except those who have not sinned yet.
Romans 7:17-18
King James Version
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
But you seem to say that in our flesh dwells good things until we sin.
Logikos
Active Member
He is perfectly able to believe it. More than that, he knows that he is able to believe it. Indeed, way down deep in the crevices of his heart, he probably does believe it. He doesn't accept it but his heart knows the truth. As the stomach knows good food, so the heart knows truth.
Indeed, that's why he won't debate it! He knows intuitively that there is something wrong with the concept of an arbitrary god that picks and chooses people for salvation or damnation for no reason at all. The arguments shoot through his mind in probably just a few quick moments and he realizes that he hasn't any means by which to counter such an argument because EVERYONE KNOWS what justice is! Everyone remembers that time as a kid when either they or someone they knew was punished for something that wasn't their fault. There are whole YouTube channels dedicated to showing 40 minute long compilations of "instant karma" videos where people instantly regret being foolish when their bad juju catches up with them and even the most hardened criminals have an innate understanding of justice (Luke 23:41).
Skipping all the proof-texting and going straight to theology proper and talking about God's character is, without a doubt, the most effective means to not only defeat a Calvinist in a debate but to reach their heart in the hope of their repentance. People, including Calvinists, know what justice is and they know that the Calvinist god ain't it.
Logikos
Active Member
If this weren't so morally disgusting, it would be laughable.
Babies and young children have no need of saving!
What is it that you think a baby needs to be saved from?
Logikos
Active Member
Stunning! Most Calvinists are not so willing to openly demonstrate their god's injustice!
Notice, those of you who might be reading this, that he makes no attempt to establish free will as a lie, he simply makes the naked claim.
Logikos
Active Member
May God, the real God, judge you by your own standard!
And, if your doctrine is true, your "prayer" is useless against the predestination of your god who decided arbitrarily an eternity before time began whether I'd utter falsehoods and blasphemies and whether he'd have mercy on me or not.
And, of course, they are neither falsehoods nor blasphemies as your immediately prior post proves and acknowledges! Your own post agrees that I believe what I believe because your god made me believe it and I have no means whatsoever to overcome its will in an attempt to overcome the "lies" he's predestined me to believe. I, according to your doctrine, will be punished for "blasphemies" that were no spoken because of my will but because your so called god forced me to utter.
“The devil, and the whole train of the ungodly, are in all directions, held in by the hand of God as with a bridle, so that they can neither conceive any mischief, nor plan what they have conceived, nor how muchsoever they may have planned, move a single finger to perpetrate, unless in so far as he permits, nay unless in so far as he commands, that they are not only bound by his fetters but are even
forced to do him service” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 11)
“God is moved to mercy for no other reason but that he wills to be merciful.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 8)
“… predestination to glory is the cause of predestination to grace, rather than the converse.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 9)
“Therefore, those whom God passes over, he condemns; and this he does for no other reason than that he wills to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his own children.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 1)
“We cannot assign any reason for his bestowing mercy on his people, but just as it so pleases him, neither can we have any reason for his reprobating others but his will.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 22, Paragraph 11)
I don't disagree. Hardline TULIP Calvinism is instinctively repulsive. Most non-Calvinists viscerally respond "God can't possibly be like that!!!" Even Calvinists are forced to chalk up to "mystery" how God could possibly be like that. And yet, Calvin was a theological giant and many other theological giants have been and are Calvinists. Granted, in most circles these days Calvinism is a watered-down TULIP, but the basics are still there.
Yet in my experience the visceral reaction of most ATHEISTS to much non-Calvinistic theology is exactly the same: "No God could possibly be like that!!!" Whether anyone has a realistic opportunity of ever turning to Christ in this world seems exceedingly arbitrary in its own right. For reasons of geography, culture and other factors, huge swaths of humanity have no realistic opportunity to hear the Gospel message in a meaningful way or of responding affirmatively if they do. Add into the equation the age-old Problem of Evil, and the entire picture can start to seem exceedingly problematical. Hence, non-Calvinists are forced to rely on their own "mysteries" to explain God's ways.
So I'm not sure there is really a dime's worth of difference between Calvinism and Arminianism or that either is really the solution. I no longer feel any compulsion to harangue Calvinists - it just has nothing to do with me, and I can't see that being a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist would have the slightest effect on my Christian life. I have to come to grips for myself with the apparent disconnect between "Christian theology" and "human reality."
I tried to get at this a bit in my thread about Christian exclusivity:
What is your notion of Christian exclusivity?
Christian exclusivity is the core doctrine that only Christians will be saved. "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'" John 14:6, NKJV. The common understanding is that non-Christians are destined for eternity in hell. Is this...
www.christianityboard.com
Logikos
Active Member
Romans doesn't end in chapter 3, Ronald! You are citing a problem that was fixed by Christ, the last Adam!
Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. 15 But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. 16 And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For the judgment which came from one offense resulted in condemnation, but the free gift which came from many offenses resulted in justification. 17 For if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
Logikos
Active Member
Arminianism is nothing more than a less logically consistent version of the same basic doctrinal system. It isn't Calvinism per se that's the real problem here, it's Augustinianism. Calvinism (and by extension Arminianism) is just a Reformed version of Augustinian doctrine. Marin Luther was an Augustinian Monk and all of Augustine's theology proper survived the Reformation fully intact. The only reason it's called Calvinism today is because Calvin wrote down his version of the doctrine early in the Reformation era.I don't disagree. Hardline TULIP Calvinism is instinctively repulsive. Most non-Calvinists viscerally respond "God can't possibly be like that!!!" Even Calvinists are forced to chalk up to "mystery" how God could possibly be like that. And yet, Calvin was a theological giant and many other theological giants have been and are Calvinists. Granted, in most circles these days Calvinism is a watered-down TULIP, but the basics are still there.
Yet in my experience the visceral reaction of most ATHEISTS to much non-Calvinistic theology is exactly the same: "No God could possibly be like that!!!" Whether anyone has a realistic opportunity of ever turning to Christ in this world seems exceedingly arbitrary in its own right. For reasons of geography, culture and other factors, huge swaths of humanity have no realistic opportunity to hear the Gospel message in a meaningful way or of responding affirmatively if they do. Add into the equation the age-old Problem of Evil, and the entire picture can start to seem exceedingly problematical. Hence, non-Calvinists are forced to rely on their own "mysteries" to explain God's ways.
So I'm not sure there is really a dime's worth of difference between Calvinism and Arminianism or that either is really the solution. I no longer feel any compulsion to harangue Calvinists - it just has nothing to do with me, and I can't see that being a Calvinist or a non-Calvinist would have the slightest effect on my Christian life. I have to come to grips for myself with the apparent disconnect between "Christian theology" and "human reality."
I tried to get at this a bit in my thread about Christian exclusivity:
What is your notion of Christian exclusivity?
Christian exclusivity is the core doctrine that only Christians will be saved. "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'" John 14:6, NKJV. The common understanding is that non-Christians are destined for eternity in hell. Is this...
So what is Augustinian theology proper? Well, it's the Classical (pagan Greek) philosophical ideas about God that Augustine imported into the church from Socrates, Aristotle and Plato. If you believe that God exists outside of time, that God predestined everything that happens, that He is in meticulous control of every event that occurs, that He cannot change in any way whatsoever, etc, then you have Augustine to thank for it because that's where it comes from and he got it from Aristotle, not from the bible. In fact, Augustine refused for years to become a Christian because the bible depicts a God that can change His mind. That was the specific reason that Augustine sites as being a childish fairy tale and the reason why he could not accept his mother's faith. It wasn't until his mother's bishop, Ambrose of Milan, showed him how to interpret the scriptures in light of the Classics (i.e. the writings of Socrates and Plato) that he agreed to become a Christian. And, when he did so, he began writing and formulating a whole system of doctrine based on the utterly immutable god of Aristotle.
The entire system rests on a single premise; that God is immutable. And by immutable, they do not mean that merely God's character doesn't change or that God's personality is always the same or that God is always righteous or any other similarly worded meaning. When they say that God is immutable, they mean that God cannot change in ANY WAY whatsoever. They mean that God cannot change His mind, that God cannot write a new song, that God doesn't move Himself nor can He be moved by anyone or anything, that God's cannot be angry now and pleased later. C.S. Lewis even said in one of his books ("Miracles" if I remember correctly) that "God cannot be moved by love."!
Here's the argument they use....
God is perfect in every aspect.
The perfect cannot improve.
Therefore, if something that is perfect changes then it must change for the worse.
God would not be willing to be worsened.
God could not be forced to be worsened.
Therefore, God doesn't not change in any aspect.
I've read that argument or heard it spoken by countless Calvinists over the years. It is alluded to on a very regular basis throughout their writings and from behind every pulpit.
Here's how Charles Spurgeon puts it...
I believe God to be a perfect being. Now, if he is a perfect being, he cannot change. Do you not see this? Suppose I am perfect today, if it were possible for me to change, should I be perfect tomorrow after the alteration? If I changed, I must either change from a good state to a better—and then if I could get better, I could not be perfect now—or else from a better state to a worse—and if I were worse, I should not be perfect then. If I am perfect, I cannot be altered without being imperfect. If I am perfect today, I must keep the same tomorrow if I am to be perfect then. So, if God is perfect, he must be the same; for change would imply imperfection now, or imperfection then.
Guess where that argumnent comes from!
It comes from Aristotle! It's practically a verbatim quote of Plato's writings and most Calvinists are completely unaware that the arguments they use to support their doctrine comes straight out of the mouths of pagan Greeks that would have dispised the God of scripture who changes all the time and in all sorts of ways. All sorts of ways but one, that is. The Person God is does not change. He is immutably personal, relational, rational, just, loving, kind, joyful, patient, long suffering and merciful - in short, God is righteous and immutably so.
But, it's not like you have to go to some obscure passage in the book of Nahum to find God changing in important and dramatic ways! He changes His mind repeatedly throughout the scripture, He changes His plans, He repented that He had made mankind for crying out loud and what bigger change could there ever be than when the Creator God changed Himself into a man and then willingly died and then rose from the dead by His own power. I don't know about you, but that sort of sounds like a change to me!
Yes, I'm very familiar with Augustine, the influences upon him and his influence on Christian thinking. I was speaking in terms of Calvinism and the conflicting notions that most anti-Calvinists hold. At bottom, it seems to me they are both equally problematical.
The assorted "omni" attributes of God flow mostly from the ontological "proof" of God's existence as the most perfect being that can be conceived. As you suggest with immutabilitty, I don't know that they accurately describe God or are essential to a Christian faith.
One interesting approach is that of process theology, which is probably outside the scope of this forum. The late David Ray Griffin - a wonderfully intelligent, highly regarded, heavyweight professor at Claremont, even if he did go completely off the deep end with 9/11 conspiracy theories - was the leading modern exponent. His book God Exists But Gawd Does Not argues for a theism that meshes better with the reality we inhabit. Most readers would call it "non-Christian" since Griffin's God is not omnipotent, omniscient or immutable, but it may be helpful in at least reconsidering our own notions. Our own notions. of course, can't stray far from God as revealed in Scripture - but we need to keep in mind that this is a description in human language of what an Eternal and Wholly Transcendent Other has revealed.
Logikos
Active Member
I agree!
Arminianism might be admired for its desire to preserve God's righteous character but it's so logically inconsistent with itself that it gives unbelievers at least as much reason to reject Christianity as Calvinism does.
They definitely don't accurately describe God nor are they essential to biblical Christianity
Bibiblically....
- God is the source of and has immediate access to all power but has delegated power, along with the real ability to exercise that power to others and there are some processes that God allows to run as He designed them to run but without His meticulous control, including most natural processes.
- God can do anything that is doable. God cannot do the undoable. That is, God cannot do the rationally absurd. (e.g. God cannot make a cube with no edges or corners.)
- God can be everywhere at once but is only actually where He wants to be. God cannot go to anyplace that does not exist (e.g. outside of time - see point 2).
- God knows everything that is knowable that He wants to know. He cannot know the unknowable (see point 2) and He is not required to be a first person witness to every event.
Process Theology, generally speaking (i.e. very often but not always), leans way too heavily into Pantheism but aside from that, your point is well taken! The God of scripture is the opposite of Augustine's (and Calvin's) god! He is an infinitely dynamic being that desires a creative and loving and ever growing and deepening relationship with the pinnacle of His creation. Indeed, such is the very purpose of our existence!
Last edited:
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
So you believe babies if they die go straight to heaven? HIndu babies? Muslim babies? babies of voodoo parents? Scripture please?
So I do not misunderstand you.
Are you saying all babies if they die before they commit a sin, go straight to heaven? And if they live past committing that fi4rst sin, they lose whatever salvation or whatever you wish to call it and have to regain eternal life? I used th eword saved fo0r all people know it as meaning one has eternal life.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
There was war in heaven. One third of the angels that were followers of Satan were expelled from heaven onto the earth. One of those demons has got a hold on your mind, Revelation 12:7.
But you failed to show why God will do that. It is not because He predestined it; but rather it is because of what they have done.
2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
2Th 2:11 Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false,
2Th 2:12 in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness
It will be God's reaction to who they are and what they will have done. I know that goes against your view of God's sovereignty, but you are wrong.
Similar threads
