Where is Calvinism flawed?

[dog8food]

Juan,

Let me be even more broad in my admonition.

If you deny a Fall from innocence and Original Sin then you're denying Christianity. Full stop.

We are a catholic, evangelical, reformed board (in that order). You have no need of Christ if you deny the Fall.

Please read my post again. No where did I claim denial of the fall, it is only Adam's absolute moral perfection in question.

 

[rickclayfan]

How can our perfectly just God "command all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30), when the command is impossible to obey?

1. How can God command people to obey the law knowing it was impossible for them to do so? Rom. 3:20. A command does not necessarily imply ability. This is sufficiently clear in the case of the law.

2. Man willingly (though his will is in bondage to sin) refuses to obey God and chooses sin. He is not forced to sin, he sins willingly.

3. How else can man be responsible for not obeying God seeing that his nature is sinful? "He, that is, man, or the human race, as represented in Adam, had ability to will and to do what is good, and lost it by sin; and that, therefore, he is responsible for the want of it" (Cunningham, HT, v. 2, 611)

4. "Man was able to obey the law, to discharge this whole duty, in the condition in which he was created. If he is not in a different condition,—one in which he is no longer able to discharge this duty,—this does not remove or invalidate his obligation to perform it" (Cunningham, 592).


Does your denial of original righteousness spring from a lack of comprehension how God can command something seeing that it is impossible for man to do? You are adopting the Catholic scheme of explaining this.

 

[MW]

No where did I claim denial of the fall, it is only Adam's absolute moral perfection in question.

People have been removed from the board for less than you have done in both matter and manner, so I don't expect this discussion to continue long. Suffice to say, for your benefit, a "fall" from original righteousness and a "fall" from mere innocence are two different things. You are denying the fall in the biblical sense of the term if you deny original righteousness.

You are attempting to provide a philosophical basis for the way God addresses sinners and you are imposing this on the interpretation of Scripture. The matter of salvation is not grounded in reason but is dependent on special revelation because salvation is of the goodwill of God alone. Let Scripture speak for itself, and what does it teach? There is none good, no, not one. Your ethical philosophy sets limits and qualifications to that teaching. It does not allow the Scripture to speak in its own right.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Goodbye Juan.

Do you know what else is clear in the Scriptures?

Rev 21:8. Liars inherit the lake of fire.

We don't believe men need to subscribe to Reformed confessions in order to be saved but lying that you do in order to participate on the board under false pretenses is not something that Christians do.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Continuing on...

This idea of total inability points to another problem, namely, an unreasonable demand to comply with the command to believe in Christ. How can our perfectly just God "command all men everywhere to repent" (Acts 17:30), when the command is impossible to obey?

I know as reformists, we might assert that a command doesn't necessarily imply the ability to keep it. But this statement is certainly not self-evident. Basically, if God gives a command and threatens to punish those (as responsible agents) who don't comply, then it certainly does imply the ability to obey... does it not?

So the conundrum here is that man is so corrupt that he will not and cannot obey even the smallest spiritual command - nor can he understand nor appreciate it... yet God orders him to believe, punishing him for not believing. As the universal judge, does he not condemn the sinner for not doing what he from birth cannot do? This seems to contrast with God's revealed character.

Then there are Bible verses such as in the old Testament from Jushua, where Joshua urged the Israelites, "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord" (Josh. 24:15). I don't see anything that suggests the Israelites were all unable to choose the Lord unless they first experienced an inward miracle.

Joshua did say that the people were "not able to serve the Lord" in their present sinful state (v.19). Repentance was in order. They were called upon to make a choice of the heart and turn from their evil ways. Joshua said, "throw away your foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the Lord, the God of Israel" (v.23). Nowhere are we left with the impression that these people were all in a state of Total Inability from birth, innately incapable of yielding as Joshua commanded. It is an idea that must be read into the text.

In the New Testament, Peter preached before a crowd in Jerusalem "With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, 'Save yourselves from this corrupt generation'" (Acts 2:40). Was Peter "pleading" with these people to do something they were incapable of doing? I don't see it.

As for Jesus, in Mark 4:11,12 he spoke in parables as a judgment against the Jews. Wasn't the purpose of parables was to keep his message from entering their ears, "otherwise they might turn and be forgiven" (v.12)? Had those stubborn people been allowed to hear the truth straight out, they might have turned to receive it. But how? Calvin tells us that no one can turn and receive the forgiveness of sins because of Total Inability passed from Adam. There must first be an inward miracle of the heart, an "effectual call."

And then Jesus sometimes "marvelled" at the unbelief of his hearers (Mark 6:6). But if he subscribed to and taught Total Inability, it would have been no marvel at all that men would disbelieve God. Right?

Incidentally, my 11 year old daughter knows the answer to the question as to why God would command something we cannot do in our flesh. The answer to your question is Romans 8:1-17. Your question is of the flesh.

 

[timfost]

Juan,

It is not unreasonable to have questions. I've wrestled with the same questions to one extent or another. But the scriptures answer them:

You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (Rom. 9:19-21)

Also, God's response to Job is pertinent (Job 38-41).

If my salvation was dependant on my mostly depraved will, I would have no hope. My comfort is that I have no ability to come to Christ in myself, and in spite of this, God had brought me to Himself. What person has God ever prevented from coming to Him?

Juan, faith believes God at His Word regardless if it all makes sense to our tiny intellects. Trust Him!

Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. (Heb. 7:25)

 

[ZackF]

Dude, you asked for prayers a while back for other things. Those issues pale in comparison with getting these matters correct. Take what Rich, Bruce, Matthew and others have explained to you seriously. Eternity depends on it!

 

[Vox Oculi]

sniff sniff...

I smell an Arminian.

Juan, whether you can comment or not at this point, I wish for you to read this from Spurgeon.

You said:

Joshua did say that the people were "not able to serve the Lord" in their present sinful state (v.19). Repentance was in order. They were called upon to make a choice of the heart and turn from their evil ways. Joshua said, "throw away your foreign gods that are among you and yield your hearts to the Lord, the God of Israel" (v.23). Nowhere are we left with the impression that these people were all in a state of Total Inability from birth, innately incapable of yielding as Joshua commanded. It is an idea that must be read into the text.

Now please consider this:

"Men do not seek God first; God seeks them first; and if any of you are seeking him to-day it is because he has first sought you. If you are desiring him he desired you first, and your good desires and earnest seeking will not be the cause of your salvation, but the effects of previous grace given to you. "Well," says another, "I should have thought that although the Saviour might not require an earnest seeking and sighing and groaning, and a continuous searching, after him, yet certainly he would have desired and demanded that every man, before he had grace, should ask for it." That, indeed, beloved, seems natural, and God will give grace to them that ask for it; but mark, the text says that he was manifested "to them that asked not for him." That is to say, before we ask, God gives us grace. The only reason why any man ever begins to pray is because God has put previous grace in his heart which leads him to pray. I remember, when I was converted to God, I was an Arminian thoroughly. I thought I had begun the good work myself, and I used sometimes to sit down and think, "Well, I sought the Lord four years before I found him," and I think I began to compliment myself upon the fact that I had perseveringly entreated of him in the midst of much discouragement. But one day the thought struck me, "How was it you came to seek God?" and in an instant the answer came from my soul, "Why, because he led me to do it; he must first have shown me my need of him, or else I should never have sought him; he must have shown me his preciousness, or I never should have thought him worth seeking;" and at once I saw the doctrines of grace as clear as possible. God must begin. Nature can never rise above itself. You put water into a reservoir, and it will rise as high as that, but no higher if let alone. Now, it is not in human nature to seek the Lord. Human nature is depraved, and therefore, there must be the extraordinary pressure of the Holy Spirit put upon the heart to lead us first to ask for mercy. But mark, we do not know an thing about that, while the Spirit is operating; we find that out afterwards. We ask as much as if we were asking all of ourselves. Our business is to seek the Lord as if there were no Holy Spirit at all. But although we do not know it, there must always be a previous motion of the Spirit in our heart, before there will be a motion of our heart towards him."

Sovereign Grace and Man's Responsibility

 

[Vox Oculi]

Juan, you also said that you can't comprehend why God would give a command that can't be obeyed. For what reason but to show you your utter inability to save yourself and your total dependence on Jesus Christ for your salvation? Behold, the Word of God:

Romans 8
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus,[x] who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Juan's statements are not Arminian. They are Pelagian.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Vox Oculi]

Juan's statements are not Arminian. They are Pelagian.

Thanks for the correction. Arminianism is with respect to whether man has the freedom to will to believe 'unlocked' for him by God's common(?) grace, but tends to agree with Calvinists that man in his natural state does not and cannot "will" to be saved, and effect his own repentance. Is that right? So the reason Juan's statements are Pelagian is that he rejects that a prior working of God is needed at all to lead a man to salvation = man is able both to will and to work of his own inherent nature?

Is that a correct distinction/categorization of the views?

edit: or is it that Arminians believe the will is free to believe, but man cannot repent or be saved until he uses his will to seek forgiveness from God? And that Pelagians believe the flesh is wholly free?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thanks for the correction. Arminianism is with respect to whether man has the freedom to will to believe 'unlocked' for him by God's common(?) grace, but tends to agree with Calvinists that man in his natural state does not and cannot "will" to be saved, and effect his own repentance. Is that right? So the reason Juan's statements are Pelagian is that he rejects that a prior working of God is needed at all to lead a man to salvation = man is able both to will and to work of his own inherent nature?

Is that a correct distinction/categorization of the views?

Yes, that is correct. Arminianism is a form of semi-Pelagianism that recognizes the nature of the Fall and that man is incapable of obeying apart from grace. Where semi-Pelagian views err is not the denial of the necessity of grace but the sufficiency of grace.

It is increasingly common for men to be like Juan who, for the sake of "free will", are more Pelagian than semi-Pelagian. It was Pelagius who was incensed at the idea that God's grace was necessary for the things He commands. It is always remarkable (and sad) to see how mainstream Pelagian thinking has become. Many Evangelicals today who have a problem with Calvinism would actually think that Arminius was too "Calvinistic". Dave Hunt pretty much wrote the same thing (God would never command something we cannot do) in a book he wrote in debate with James White. The Biblical fact of the matter is that Romans 7-8 makes exactly the point that the law is powerless to produce in the flesh what it commands - hence, the necessity that Christ would come to defeat the enslaving power of sin.

André Gide is credited with the quote: "Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again."

 

[Vox Oculi]

I will be coping that quote