Refuting Calvinism

[christundivided]

I've got the time and desire.

Well, bless your heart.

Common words of a coward. You've never been able to adequately defend your choice in Calvinism.

 

[subllibrm]

I've got the time and desire.

Well, bless your heart.

Common words of a coward. You've never been able to adequately defend your choice in Calvinism.

Yep, he's got nuthin'  :

******************************

Romans is Paul's great treatise on justification by faith: that is, how is it that men have a right standing with God?

First, Paul deals with the sin problem.  He notes that the pagans, though they know from nature that there is a God who is to be worshiped and obeyed, suppress that knowledge and give themselves over to idolatry and perversion (chapter 1).  Then he turns his attention to the religious moralists, arguing that they are guilty of the very same things they are critical of in their society (2:1-16).  Next, he addresses the Jews, who, despite being the recipients of the Law of God, are nonetheless lawbreakers (2:17-29).

This, then, is the universal condition.  All men are enslaved to sin; none do good; none seek out God; all are devoted to a life of wickedness (3:1-20).  That's the bad news.

But the good news is this: God's righteous has been made manifest in Jesus Christ, whose substitutionary atonement on the cross provides an objective moral basis upon which divine justice can be satisfied. Christ's death puts all men who place their faith in him in a right standing with God (3:21-31). We know that justification comes through faith rather than doing the works of the Law, because Abraham believed God and his faith was credited to him as righteousness, and thus we can know that our faith will be imputed to us as righteousness as well (4:1-5:11).

Jesus Christ is the second Adam.  Adam was the head of the human race and when he sinned, his guilt was passed on to all his descendants.  Thus all those who are in Adam stand condemned.  But all those who are in the second Adam are raised again to life (5:12-21).

As a result, Paul says, we are dead to sin, in effect having died with Christ and been raised again to new life. We are free to no longer practice sin, but to practice righteousness (6).  This is because we are in Christ and no longer under the jurisdiction of the Law, which could not work righteousness in us.  Its purpose was to show men what sin was and how sinful they were; in fact, it cultivated unrighteousness (7:1-13).  Now that we are in Christ, we recognize the Law for the good it is; however, our new spiritual nature is still at war with our old fleshly nature. Though we desire to do good we are still inclined to do evil.  Only Christ can deliver us from the power of sin (7:14-25).

Therefore, in Christ we are no longer under condemnation, because Christ has fulfilled the righteousness of the Law on our behalf.  In Christ we are led by the Holy Spirit, who confirms to us that we are indeed children of God and helps us to live righteously; indeed, without the Spirit we would fail.  It is through the Spirit that we can have hope of eternal life because we know that God works all things for good for his children and that therefore no one can condemn us or accuse us.  There is nothing that can separate us from God any longer because the highest court has pronounced us guiltless and the penalty has been paid for us (8:1-39).  Thanks be to God!

But now, Paul answers a significant objection that can be raised against his doctrine.  If all this is true, the critic may ask, then what does Paul say to the fact that his own people, the Israelites, are in a state of rebellion?  What about all those promises God made to them?  Has God broken his word?  It is to answering that question that Paul now turns his attention.

Chapter 9

Quote
I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who are Israelites; to whom [pertaineth] the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service [of God], and the promises; whose [are] the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ [came], who is over all, God blessed for ever. (Rom. 9:1-5)

The Jews had all these privileges. They were the chosen ones of God.  They had the Law. They had the divine covenants and promises. They were the race that brought the Messiah into the world. Yet they were not all saved as Paul was - indeed, the vast majority were not. Why not? Did God's word fail?</p>

Quote
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they [are] not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed. (6-8)

In other words, no, it isn't that God has failed, but the physical nation of Israel and the chosen people of God are not co-extensive. Not all of Abraham's seed is Israel, only those born of Isaac; not all of Jacob's (Israel's) seed is true Israel.

This passage also refutes the notion that the doctrine of election expressed in Rom. 9 refers only to nations, and not to individuals. Paul has already divided Israel into two camps of individuals - the "children of the flesh" who are "not the children of God," and "the children of the promise," who are "counted" amongst the children of God.

He expands upon the analogy:

Quote
For this [is] the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son. And not only [this]; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac; (9-10)

Of course, Isaac's descendents are not exclusively the descendents of Abraham. There was also Ishmael. But only Isaac was chosen as the ancestor of God's chosen people. But as if this wasn't clear
enough:

Quote
(For [the children] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (11-13)

Now Paul drives the point home. God chose Jacob, not Esau, to beget his chosen people before he and his twin brother were born, before either of them had any opportunity to do anything good or bad. God's election of Jacob over Esau was based exclusively on "the purpose of God according to election." God, being God, has every right to act according to his own agenda and
is under no obligation to do otherwise under any circumstances.

Out of Abraham's descendents, only the children of Isaac were chosen.

Out of Isaac's descendents, only the children of Jacob were chosen.

Out of Jacob's descendents, only the "children of the promise" were chosen.

Again - although the passages in Genesis and Malachi that Paul cites are referring to the nations of Israel and Edom, that's not Paul's application, which is to explain why only some of the nation of Israel was saved - individuals. As it was with Jacob, so it is with the "children of the promise." Of course, as Paul says elsewhere (e.g. Rom. 11:17, Gal. 3:29), some (not all) Gentiles are added into the promise. This fact further militates against the "nations" interpretation of this chapter; salvation is irrefutably without respect to race or ancestry.

At this point, Paul's imaginary opponent comes back with the standard whine: "That's not fair!" Paul has anticipated this objection and answers:

Quote
What shall we say then? [Is there]  unrighteousness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. (14-15)

Why is it that only some of Paul's race is saved? Because God dispenses compassion and mercy to whomever he wills, and for no other reason than that he wills to do so. Paul has already argued in Rom 1-3 that all men, Jew and Gentile alike, willingly reject God; "there is none that understandeth; none that seeketh after God" (3:11). He has argued in chapter 5 that all men are under the sentence of death that we inherited from Adam. Unless God shows mercy, all men without exception are <em>already</em> under condemnation. But God's mercy is given as God sees fit; it is <em>not</em> contingent upon the desire or work of men, as the next verse makes evident:

Quote
So then [it is] not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. (16)

Election is conditioned upon neither human will ("him that willeth") nor human work ("him that runneth"), but all of grace.

Of course, there's a flip side:

Quote
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth. (17-18)

Compassion depends only upon the will of God, but so does "hardening." God chose to harden the heart of Pharaoh because, in so doing, he exalted his own name throughout all peoples.

Why were only some Jews saved?  Because God had chosen, sovereignly, to harden their hearts. As Paul later says, "Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (According to as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear unto this day" (Rom. 11:7-8).

But here comes Paul's opponent again:

Quote
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? (19)

"Oh, woe is me," whines our critic. "I have no choice. Those people we lock up have every right to be the way they are, for they have no choice either. Woe, woe, woe."

By Paul's answer, you would think he had heard these objections as many times as I have. Truly, nothing is new under the sun. So he answers:

Quote
Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed [it], Why hast thou made me thus? (20)

In other words: "Remember your place - you man. Just who do you think you are? What right do you have to talk back to God? Do you honestly think the Creator is answerable to his creation for what he chooses to do with it?"

Quote
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? [What] if God, willing to shew [his] wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (21-24)

Suppose I was into pottery-making and molded myself a coffee cup. You can imagine my shock if one day I open up my cupboard to find it ranting at length against me because I made it too round or too small or the wrong colour. The clay has no claims against the potter. If I took a lump of clay and made it into a coffee cup or an ashtray, that is my business.  If I drink coffee out of the cup or store pencils in it, or toss it off the roof onto the sidewalk because I want to see crockery fly, that is my prerogative.[/quote]

Similarly, if God wants to have mercy upon some men, and not have mercy upon other men, that is his prerogative. God is God. He is not under any obligation to treat his creation in any way other than what he does. If he chooses not to elect some Jews, that is his sovereign right. If he chooses to elect some Gentiles, that too is his sovereign right. (Note again that Paul says God has called not the nation of the Jews, nor a nation of Gentiles, but some "of the Jews" and some "of the Gentiles," again putting the kibosh on any pretenses that Paul is talking about election of nations or to national privilege here.)

Paul is beginning to wind down this part of his argument, and so he cites further proofs from the Prophets of God's freedom to choose whom he wills. First, of the inclusion of the Gentiles:

Quote
As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where t was said unto them, Ye [are] not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. (25-26)

And then, concerning the remnant of Israel that would be saved:

Quote
Esaias also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved: For he will finish the work, and cut [it] short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth. And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha. (27-29)

Finally, Paul concludes, pointing out that even though the Gentiles had not originally been chosen by God, now they were reckoned righteousness through faith:[/quote]

Quote
What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. (30)

But what of Israel? Well, contrasted with the Gentiles, they had the Law, but they didn't pursue righteousness by faith, but by works, stumbling over Christ, whom the Scriptures say God had laid in Zion <em>as a stumblingblock</em>:

Quote
But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because [they sought it] not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone; As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. (31-33)

Summing Up

Why did the majority of Paul's fellow Jews not have salvation?

Because not all of them are true Jews.
Because God has not granted compassion to all of them.
Because God has, in fact, blinded some of them to the truth.
Because God, in his sovereignty, has chosen to save only a remnant of Abraham's descendents.
Because God has caused them to stumble over the offense of the cross.

And that is what Romans 9 is all about.

 

[christundivided]

I've got the time and desire.

Well, bless your heart.

Common words of a coward. You've never been able to adequately defend your choice in Calvinism.

Yep, he's got nuthin'  :

So you expect me to answer something he wrote to someone else..... while "blowing off my challenge"????

Please.....

I've challenged him more than once. A few times that I remember. The fact is.... Calvinism is horribly shallow. Its nothing more than a 3rd graders attempt at explaining the infinite "mind of God" in Creation. Calvin should have waited till he was much older to weigh in on Eternal things. Calvin was at best..... a novice. Its one of the reasons he reacted so horribly to squash any opposition to his way of thinking.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=christundivided]Calvin was at best..... a novice. Its one of the reasons he reacted so horribly to squash any opposition to his way of thinking.[/quote]

Interesting observation...

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=christundivided]Calvin was at best..... a novice. Its one of the reasons he reacted so horribly to squash any opposition to his way of thinking.

Interesting observation...
[/quote]

I assume you have something more to say? Please elaborate......

 

[rsc2a]

Nah.

 

[Ransom]

Common words of a coward. You've never been able to adequately defend your choice in Calvinism.

Feel free to believe that if it makes you happy.

 

[BandGuy]

Huh. Spurgeon thought so.

Which you proved by linking to a booklet by R. L. Dabney. Wrong author, wrong denomination, and wrong continent. That's some rigorous research you did, there.

Here's what Charles Spurgeon really believed:

Child of God, will you, for a moment, reflect upon the overruling power of God even in the case of the most mighty and wicked of men? They sin grossly, and what they do is done of their own free will, and the responsibility for it lies at their own door. That we never can forget, for the free agency of man is a self-evident truth; but, at the same time, God is omnipotent, and he is still working out his wise designs, as he did of old, in the whirlwind of human wrath, in the tempest of human sin, and even in the dark mines of human ambition and tyranny, all the while displaying his sovereign will among men even as the potter forms the vessels on the wheel according to his will.

- Charles Spurgeon, An Instructive Truth

Charles Spurgeon most definitely believed in free agency: that the choices men made are uncoerced and in accordance with their desires. But he distinguished this from free will, the false idea that the will is autonomous, rather than being driven by a man's own desires, inclinations, and sinful nature.

This is what Calvinism really is.  This is also what I believe as well.  Thanks.

 

[Bob H]

"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

 

[christundivided]

Common words of a coward. You've never been able to adequately defend your choice in Calvinism.

Feel free to believe that if it makes you happy.

I know you don't really wish me any happiness......

 

[christundivided]

"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.

 

[Bob H]

"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.

I wouldn't go that far. He's still one of my favorite preachers. Some of my favorite commentaries are written by cals.

 

[subllibrm]

Calvin was at best..... a novice. Its one of the reasons he reacted so horribly to squash any opposition to his way of thinking.

I love the irony!

 

[christundivided]

Calvin was at best..... a novice. Its one of the reasons he reacted so horribly to squash any opposition to his way of thinking.

I love the irony!

I know you and rsca love to call me on my "attitude"..... Yet, I never come close to wanting anyone dead because of some perceived heresy. Never. I maybe be sarcastic and even bombastic at times..... Yet, I do not wish Eternal "ill will" toward anyone. If I had to power to shut every mouth that speaks false doctrine..... I wouldn't.

 

[subllibrm]

Open question to anyone/everyone: prior to your salvation, what exactly was your will free to do? And what limitations, if any, were there on your will?

 

[christundivided]

Open question to anyone/everyone: prior to your salvation, what exactly was your will free to do? And what limitations, if any, were there on your will?

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.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Calvinism takes this a step further. Calvinism states that mans depravity extends so far that he is unable, he has an inability of the will to even respond to God. As a result, God must save him without his will, as he has no will to respond. The doctrine of Total Depravity becomes practically the doctrine of Total Inability

Total disinclination, not total inability. 

 

[Biblebeliever]

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.???

 

[BandGuy]

Calvinism takes this a step further. Calvinism states that mans depravity extends so far that he is unable, he has an inability of the will to even respond to God. As a result, God must save him without his will, as he has no will to respond. The doctrine of Total Depravity becomes practically the doctrine of Total Inability

Total disinclination, not total inability.

^ This

 

[Biblebeliever]

Idiot alert!.  And I am not even a Calvinist

BLOCK HEAD ALERT!!!!


And I am not even surprised.