Friday, October 12, 2012

This Week in Calvinism - October 12, 2012

  • What Peter Lumpkins gleaned from the vice presidential debate:
    Let Joe Biden's nauseating performance illustrate how Calvinists many times come across to average Southern Baptists. While many criticisms have been levelled against Baptist Calvinists through the years (some true, some false), one charge, at least in some ways, outranks them all--Calvinists are arrogant, know-it-all, theological prigs who appear to think all others are intellectual buffoons.

  • Can Calvinism be proven by quoting a few partial, out-of-context verses? No, Calvinism can only be refuted by quoting a few partial, out-of-context verses.

  • Intuitive Calvinism:
    My eleven year old son intuits the idea that so many things in the past have led to the uniqueness of his birth. His mom and I had to meet, and that would not have happened if I didn't go get coffee one day, and if mom had married her high school sweetheart, etc. He then goes beyond that to say the same complicated line of events had to happen for my parents, my wife's parents, their parents, their parents, and so on and so on. So he and I eventually settle on this: EVERYTHING in history had to happen in order for him to be born.

  • What Jesus says to Rome.

  • Jacob Arminius was born this week (Oct. 10) in 1560.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

toryzish367Calvinisms Refuted
Genesis 4:3-8 (NKJV) 3 And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. 4 Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, 5 but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. 6 So the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." 8 Now Cain talked with Abel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.
If we look at the context of these verses we can learn much about God's relationship with man. Both Cain and Able brought offerings to God. However, only Abel’s was accepted by God. Why? Abel brought the firstborn of his flock, a requirement God later gave to the Israelites. We can reason then that Abel was obeying a law which God had expressed to Man at that time. Otherwise, God could not tell Cain “If you do well, will you not be accepted?” “If you do well” implies that Cain knew what to do. However, he wanted God to accept what he wanted to offer not what God required.

Let us apply the Calvinist Doctrine of Election to these scriptures. If God only calls those He has chosen/elected why does He offer Cain the opportunity to repent? Cain did not repent as is evident in that he murdered his brother. Therefore, Cain cannot be one of the Elect because Calvinism Doctrine says the Elect cannot refuse God's choice. If you say that God's offer of forgiveness is universal but only the Elect can respond because of the Total Depravity of man, then you are calling God a liar and deceiver. How could God offer Cain the opportunity to repent if Cain could not because of total depravity and he was not one of the elect? How could God offer Cain the opportunity to repent if God knew he could not do it of his own will? James 2:15-17 (NKJV) 15 If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit? How can our love be greater than God's? How can God make a false offer of forgiveness to Cain and not be in violation of His Word?

JakeHx said...

This is not concerning salvation, so your argument is invalid.

Anonymous said...

Seems you over look Ables sacrifice which is symbolic of Christ death on the cross. It is all about a proper relationship with God. So how can you say it is invalid. What was God's purpose in asking for a sacrifice in the first place.
Adopting your point of view would also deny that Abrahams near sacrifice of Issac had nothing to do with salvation.

Anonymous said...

Hebrews 11:4 (NKJV)
4 By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
He obtained righteousness always associated with salvation.

Anonymous said...

"How could God offer Cain the opportunity to repent if Cain could not because of total depravity and he was not one of the elect? How could God offer Cain the opportunity to repent if God knew he could not do it of his own will?How can God make a false offer of forgiveness to Cain and not be in violation of His Word?"

It's not a "false offer." but God certainly knew (100% guaranteed) that Cain would refuse. God invites all but only "compels" some. (Luke14)

Your entire line of thinking (AGAIN) is based on human reasoning: human philosophy teaches that you must have ability in order to be held responsible. If I don't have the ability to fly, then you would be wrong to try to hold me responsible for not flying.

You surely see this foundational (but unbiblical) principle implied by many noncalvinist teachers who point to God’s commands (e.g. “I set before you life and death…choose life…” or “Repent and believe!”) as evidence that we are “free to choose” and therefore must have the capacity to obey. Wouldn't God be evil according to this human philosophy if He demanded the impossible?

Oddly enough, biblical commands such as “Be perfect” and “Love God with ALL your heart…” are never chosen as examples…because they more clearly demonstrate our inability. If we fail to keep one part of the law, we are guilty of breaking it completely. (Jam2:10) What man born of a human father can claim that he is truly capable of meeting this standard?

(If you are witnessing to a nonbeliever and trying to explain to them that they need Jesus what would you tell them? That they are a sinner because they've broken God's law? Yet they could throw the principle above back at you and argue that a "good" God could never require the impossible and demand perfect obedience in the first place…)

Which is all to say that calvinists believe that we remain responsible for our choices even if we could never have chosen otherwise. When Jesus told Peter that he would deny Him 3 times, Jesus was certain. Peter was not "free" in any real sense to do otherwise. His denials in the future were as certain as anything he'd done in the past. Yet Peter was still responsible and was right to weep bitterly over his sin (Luke22:62).

You run into the same kind of issue when reading about Pharaoh. The first thing God tells Moses is that Pharaoh will not let the people go until God opens up a can. (exod3:19-20) The story becomes even more problematic because God isn't gentle and loving toward Pharaoh, but rather hardens him in his opposition…and claims to have raised him up in the first place because his opposition would allow God to display His power. Just kinda "lucky" that God was able to establish the passover/Lord's supper through Pharaoh's obstinance? Or if God intended Pharaoh's opposition all along, does that excuse Pharaoh - was God guilty of entrapment? Of course not.

Rom9:17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?...


God intended that His Son suffer as a result of perjury and be killed unjustly…so does that excuse those who participated in His murder or did they need to repent as many of them did when confronted with peter's preaching?

Acts2:23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.

Isa53:10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer...


Try to hold God responsible for breaking human rules if it suits you, but that's a dangerous place to be.

-Charles

Anonymous said...

"How can our love be greater than God's?"

This is a silly argument. By your logic, the bible can't be authoritative because the God who killed Job's family on a bet and ordered the genocide of Canaan doesn't strike a lot of people as "loving." One leading arminian (the pride of the SEA) denies the authority of scripture on exactly that basis.

Your argument presumes that we are equal to God and virtually identical to God in our omniscience and eternal nature, which is nothing but foolishness.

God is love - but in the sense revealed in scripture. You define "love" according to your understanding and demand that God fit into that box, which is crazy-talk.

-Charles

Anonymous said...

Heads up, there's a lovely refutation of Calvinism in Showbread's new(ish) album Cancer...the song is called Sex with Strangers.

Anonymous said...

Charles
Your entire line of thinking (AGAIN) is based on human reasoning: human philosophy teaches that you must have ability in order to be held responsible. If I don't have the ability to fly, then you would be wrong to try to hold me responsible for not flying.
That is 100% correct. However, if I offered you a choice and you had the free will to accept of reject my offer then I have made a real offer. But to say here chose for yourself when you can't choose then there is really no offer just a illusion. That is what you say God offered Cain? An empty bag.

God knows everything about everyone. So why wouldn't He use Pharaoh to show His power and encourage the Hebrews to believe and trust Him? John 20:30-31 (NASB)
30 Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31 but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name.


Try to hold God responsible for breaking human rules if it suits you, but that's a dangerous place to be.
Everything God does is to conform us to the likness of Jesus. So the characteristic of love James was speaking of originates in God character. Do you think He will act differently than His character?

I won't write anymore because no one really wants to discuss the scriptures for the purpose of learning the truth. I asked reasonable questions based on the scripture and all I get is abusive remarks. If you don't like someones post they are crazy, silly, putting God in a box.


Anonymous said...
Heads up, there's a lovely refutation of Calvinism in Showbread's new(ish) album Cancer...the song is called Sex with Strangers.

10/16/12 10:07 PM
NOT ME!!

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails