Refuting Calvinism

[Biblebeliever]

Bibleburner does nothing but hitch his anti-Calvinist wagon to a false definition of "whosoever" - a word which simply means, "those who."

"Whosoever" sounds more impressive, and because it's a "Bible word" (instead of an ordinary, modern-English word), the intellectually dishonest can sneak in all sorts of connotations about human autonomy and free will.

On the other hand, "Those who believe shall have eternal life" clearly says nothing, one way or the other, about any given person's ability or inclination to believe. (Which is why as Calvinists we believe the rest of the Bible, and don't allow the "whosoevers" to trump it.

Scott, man does have a free will. And so do the angels. That is why in the near future, a third of the angels will CHOOSE to follow Satan in his rebellion.


One other thing, the very fact that Lucifer was perfect when God created him (see Eze. 28:15). And the fact that Lucifer as a perfect being who was perfect in all his ways chose to sin against God, this  very Scriptural fact also refutes Calvinism.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Please define Calvinism.

I do not mean telling me the words attached to tulip.

Gave an explanation, please.

Did I not define it already in the O.P.???

No you did not.

How can you refute what you have not defined and understood?


Ransom had a good start at defining it.

Spurgeon quotes are good too, and he's a Baptist.

 

[Ransom]

Scott, man does have a free will. And so do the angels. That is why in the near future, a third of the angels will CHOOSE to follow Satan in his rebellion.

Aaaaand Bibleburner's back to using "Is too!" as proof of all his opinions.

 

[bruinboy]

"I have my own opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else"




Charles Spurgeon

Enough of reason to discount just about anything he ever endeavored to teach.

You should quit when you are so far behind, after all, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Whosoever is 5' 6" tall or taller can ride this ride. 

Obviously, your height is a choice.

Your comparing apples to oranges.

Off-topic - does this cliche bother anyone else?
Apples and Oranges are two of the easiest things to compare!! A better cliche would be "comparing yellow and 4" or "elephants and badly" - now those are hard to compare!

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Bibleburner does nothing but hitch his anti-Calvinist wagon to a false definition of "whosoever" - a word which simply means, "those who."

"Whosoever" sounds more impressive, and because it's a "Bible word" (instead of an ordinary, modern-English word), the intellectually dishonest can sneak in all sorts of connotations about human autonomy and free will.

On the other hand, "Those who believe shall have eternal life" clearly says nothing, one way or the other, about any given person's ability or inclination to believe. (Which is why as Calvinists we believe the rest of the Bible, and don't allow the "whosoevers" to trump it.

This doesn't change the argument Ransom.

I'm not Calvinist or the other one (Arminian?) but if I believe in free will then I interpret the verses "Whosoever (those who) believe shall have eternal life" to mean "Those who believe shall have eternal life even if they were not 'elect'." or "Any of those who . . . . "

In other words, saying "those who" does not preclude anyone just as "whosoever" includes everyone.
Saying "whosoever" means "those who" does not change Biblebeliever's argument.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

*snip (Ransom exegetes Romans 9)

Excellent! Best exegesis of Romans 9 I remember ever reading. Thank you.

 

[Recovering IFB]

I had the free will to seek the Lord or not to seek Him.

Act 17:27  That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:

There are many limitation to free will. Free will can not empower a person to save himself. Freewill can not empower a person to save others.

But even in that, God initiated that with man (ECC 3:11) Man didn't do it on his own

 

[Ransom]

I'm not Calvinist or the other one (Arminian?) but if I believe in free will then I interpret the verses "Whosoever (those who) believe shall have eternal life" to mean "Those who believe shall have eternal life even if they were not 'elect'." or "Any of those who . . . . "

"The elect" is simply one biblical way of saying "Christians," that happens to be descriptive of how Christians become Christians: "it depends not on human will or exertion,[a] but on God, who has mercy" (Rom. 9:16).

Which means that "Those who believe shall have eternal life even if they were not 'elect'" is the equivalent of, "There are Christians who are not Christians." Which, obviously, is an absurdity.

 

[Recovering IFB]

 

[Recovering IFB]

 

[Recovering IFB]

pictures from Lloyd Legalist

 

[bruinboy]

How can a man, who is spiritually dead (ie. Lazarus, all human beings) decide on his/her own, to become a believer?  About as possible as Lazarus raising himself from the dead. Bottom line, it can't happen without the intervention of God's Sovereign Grace. Do you really think Lazarus had the free will to save himself? 

 

[Darkwing Duck]

How can a man, who is spiritually dead (ie. Lazarus, all human beings) decide on his/her own, to become a believer?  About as possible as Lazarus raising himself from the dead. Bottom line, it can't happen without the intervention of God's Sovereign Grace. Do you really think Lazarus had the free will to save himself?

Aw man. The Calvinists were winning up to now. You ruined it.
Read Luke 15. The prodigal son's father says "this my son was dead" thusproving that  metaphorically dead people can make choices.
(ok the Calvinists are probably still winning but stay away from the easily refuted stuff)

 

[bruinboy]

How can a man, who is spiritually dead (ie. Lazarus, all human beings) decide on his/her own, to become a believer?  About as possible as Lazarus raising himself from the dead. Bottom line, it can't happen without the intervention of God's Sovereign Grace. Do you really think Lazarus had the free will to save himself?

Aw man. The Calvinists were winning up to now. You ruined it.
Read Luke 15. The prodigal son's father says "this my son was dead" thusproving that  metaphorically dead people can make choices.
(ok the Calvinists are probably still winning but stay away from the easily refuted stuff)

OK, Lazarus was just metaphorically dead.  Got ya.  I hope your argument wasn't an attempt at being serious. 
 

 

[Ransom]

Read Luke 15. The prodigal son's father says "this my son was dead" thusproving that  metaphorically dead people can make choices.

Thus proving nothing, because the prodigal son never existed. He was a plot point in a parable.

Besides, the point of the parable is to answer the Pharisees' grumbling about Jesus eating with sinners. The "obedient" brother mirrors the Pharisees when he grumbles about the prodigal having a party thrown in his honour. The moral of the story is, don't imitate the behaviour of the Pharisees by judging repentant sinners. It's got nothing to do with synergism or monergism.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Read Luke 15. The prodigal son's father says "this my son was dead" thusproving that  metaphorically dead people can make choices.

Thus proving nothing, because the prodigal son never existed. He was a plot point in a parable.

Besides, the point of the parable is to answer the Pharisees' grumbling about Jesus eating with sinners. The "obedient" brother mirrors the Pharisees when he grumbles about the prodigal having a party thrown in his honour. The moral of the story is, don't imitate the behaviour of the Pharisees by judging repentant sinners. It's got nothing to do with synergism or monergism.

So what?

Calvinist argument: dead people can't make choices therefore spiritually dead people can't make choices.
I have proved from the Bible that not physically dead people can make choices. End of argument.
All allegories break down at some point so using an allegory to prove a point is silly.

To make it simple
1. The prodigal son was considered "dead" by his father yet he made the choice to go back to his father.
2. People that aren't actually physically dead can make choices even if someone calls them "dead" but is using the word "dead" to mean something other than physical death.
3. Just like people that are physically dead will decompose but people who are dead in other ways (spiritually dead, etc.) will not decompose. You can't base a theology on a metaphor.

There are so many verses in the Bible that give credence to Calvinism that it becomes foolish to try to prove it with a metaphor/allegory.

To answer bruinboy: Of course physically dead people can't make choices (like Lazarus to raise himself) but to say that spiritually dead people can't make choices just because physically dead can't make choices is a stretch. Physically dead people can't walk down the street but I've seen plenty of spiritually dead people walk down the street.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Darkwing Duck]Calvinist argument: dead people can't make choices therefore spiritually dead people can't make choices.
I have proved from the Bible that not physically dead people can make choices. End of argument.[/quote]

Depends on how you define "choice".

(But that might be a better topic for a thread devoted specifically to determinism and/or fatalism.)

 

[Ransom]

So what?

If you insist on misinterpreting the parable of the prodigal son, I couldn't care less what you think of it or any supposed argument for/against Calvinism that comes from it. That's so what.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

So what?

If you insist on misinterpreting the parable of the prodigal son, I couldn't care less what you think of it or any supposed argument for/against Calvinism that comes from it. That's so what.

I agree with your interpretation. It doesn't change my argument. Hence "so what". If you notice, my argument does not require the prodigal son to be about anything.

My argument was that spiritually dead is a metaphor and thus will break down at some point. Not every single application of physically dead will apply to spiritually dead.