Calvinism Examined

Refutation

A ruler who can rule if and only if all his subjects cannot make any free choice, vs a ruler who can rule a group of people who can choose to oppose him - which is more powerful, wiser, more skillful, more intelligent, greater - more capable? The one who can rule people that have free will.

If the only way the king can rule to accomplish the goal is to completely control everyone - that indicates a ruler who is not very capable; this is the way Calvinism portrays God.

Refutation

One argument in favor of Calvinism is that it is internally consistent.

Listed below are some of the inconsistencies in Calvinism:

NOTE: many of the claims of Calvinism below may seem horrible; they are NOT being stated as true claims of truth or reality; rather, they are false claims of Calvinism!

1. Nature of Love
   1. God is love, and love seeks not its own; however, per Calvinism, God seeks His own (glory).
2. Nature of glory
   1. Everything that happens is to glorify God, who is sovereign (i.e., Calvinistically, controls everything). However, this is inconsistent with the meaning of glorify. If a man sets fire to his neighbor's house, so he can then get glory by phoning the fire department, this would not glorify that man. Quite the opposite; he likely could end up in jail, and despised by the neighbors. Yet this is precisely what God does to glorify himself; he ordains (all) men to sin, so he can get glory by rescuing (only some) men from the fate of sin.
3. Nature of guilt
   1. God ordains sin, but is not guilty. One response to this has been that God merely arranges the circumstances, especially the desires of the human heart, resulting in sin. This is not the biblical definition of guilt: David did not wield the sword, but still was guilty for arranging / "ordaining" the circumstances of a crime.
   2. Man (per Calvinism) cannot do other than sin (Total Depravity) but is still guilty and responsible for the sin.
4. more TBA (To Be Added) ...

Refutation

Calvinism claims that God seeks glory by sending most people to hell. Love does not do this; speaking of charity or love, 1 Cor 13:5 tells us that love

Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;

Calvinism says that God does what love does not do. This insults God, portraying God as not loving.

The Bible tells us that God is love. So this also blatantly contradicts scripture. Calvinism insults God while contradicting scripture.

Refutation

Paul wrote of having a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. This reminds one of Calvinism. The zeal for God seems misdirected in both cases. In Calvinism, micro-manipulative control is magnified beyond love, and also beyond scripture. However, the Bible tells us that God exalts His word higher than his name. This seems to imply that what God says should take precedence over how we feel regarding glorifying God's name. Also, the Bible says God is love - it does not say God is control. God is love, and has power.  Being something seems to take precedence in a real sense over having something.

Zeal for God did not make the resultant actions correct in the case Paul wrote about. It might have made those involved candidates for some mercy, but it did not make their actions correct.

We might therefore give individuals, who may have good intention while promoting false doctrine, some consideration if they have good intent, but the person and the ideology of the person need to be separated. The intent of the person, good or bad, does not change the truth, or lack thereof, of the doctrine they espouse.

Lesson to be learned

Zeal in and of itself does not suffice for determining correct behavior - nor for determining correct doctrine. Therefore, zeal - even zeal for God's glory - does not suffice to prove one's doctrine correct.

Application

Consider the following Calvinistic argument:

"If man can choose to reject God's salvation, that makes man stronger than God! My doctrine glorifies God by making God stronger than man!"

Here, above, we see an example of incorrect application of the use of zeal for God's glory as proof of (incorrect) doctrine. 

To see just how incorrect this approach is, consider the same approach used elsewhere, which will illustrate the invalidity of this approach.

"If man can kill Jesus, who is God, that makes man stronger than God! My doctrine (that Jesus shall NOT go to the cross and die) glorifies God by making God stronger than man!"

We see that when Peter used this approach, telling Jesus not to go to the cross, Jesus himself contradicted it. Apparently, this approach was not what God wanted; it was not the correct approach. Man did indeed kill Jesus, but ... that did not make man stronger than God.

Let's learn from Peter and not make the same mistake!

If letting man choose to accept or reject God's gift makes mans stronger than God, then certainly killing God makes man stronger than God, even more so!

So, if this reasoning were valid, then Jesus would have told Peter, "Thanks for trying to glorify God. You are correct! I will not go to the cross," and Jesus would not have gone to the cross. 

If this reasoning is not valid for the case of Peter arguing for Jesus not going to the cross, it is not valid either in the argument for Irresistible Grace. It is not valid for Peter's case, and is not valid for the Irresistible Grace case either. The two stand or fall together.

Arguing that they don't stand or fall together, is using a double standard. The above, coupled with a respect for God, ought to give us pause to reconsider before making such a claim. If Calvinists really want to glorify God, then they would do well to promote what He says, rather than contradicting and disagreeing with what He says.

If God is God, let Him be God; if God is sovereign, then let God decide how He wants to implement His plan of Salvation; let Him decide whether He wants to let men reject salvation. That is His prerogative; He is God, you know. He can still be sovereign when men choose freely. (He was still sovereign even when Jesus was crucified; how much more so when men just choose!)

Refutation

TBA (to be added)

Refutation

 

Refutation

Impassibility is a theological doctrine that God does not experience emotion due to the actions of people. 1 ^,2

Hos 11:8 does not support this view, as seen in context with verses 7 and 9, where God does experience emotion due to the actions of people:

  7 And my people are bent to backsliding from me: though they called them to the most High, none at all would exalt him.
  8 How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Admah? how shall I set thee as Zeboim? mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together.
  9 I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.

Below is the key section of Hosea 11:8 from multiple versions:

I have had a change of heart! All my tender compassions are aroused! - NETfree

my heart is turned within me, my repentance is stirred up. - DRC

mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. - KJV

My heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. - Darby

My heart has turned within Me; My compassions are kindled together. - LITV

My heart is turned within me, my compassion is aroused. - WEB

• 1Impassibility, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impassibility
• 2Renihan, James M. (2019) What is Impassibility? Credo Magazine, 9:1, https://credomag.com/article/what-is-impassibility/

They said, We're all gonna die! 1

Israel said that God brought them out of Egypt to die in the wilderness:

And all the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron: and the whole congregation said unto them, Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt! or would God we had died in this wilderness!

And wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey? were it not better for us to return into Egypt? - Num 14:2-3

And it happened!

This is precisely what actually happened:

I the Lord have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil congregation, that are gathered together against me: in this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die. - Num 14:35

Calvinism says ... 

Since this (Israel dying in the wilderness) happened, per Calvinism, this was God's plan all along; it was the ordained will of God. We shall refer to this as the Calvinistic truth.

So, those who said that God brought them out to kill them were - per Calvinism - correct! (NOTE: correct per Calvinism, not necessarily correct per God!) God's will was not what happened, nor was it what God planned.

The reward for proclaiming the "Calvinistic Truth" ...

Was God pleased with the Calvinistic truth being proclaimed?

And the Lord said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have shewed among them? - Num 14:11

Whoa! God seemed not too pleased with what they were saying - the Calvinistic truth.

Calvinism says, "But they were telling the truth! God even confirmed it by saying He would do what they said. Since this happened, it must have been God's plan. It happened! They just told the truth, that it was God's plan, since that was what happened, and everything that happens has to be God's plan!"

How did God reward those who spoke the Calvinistic truth of God's plan for Israel? 

Even those men that did bring up the evil report upon the land, died by the plague before the Lord. - Num 14:35

Obviously God was not pleased with what they said, even though it was true - per Calvinism - that God's plan or will was for them to die. It is equally obvious that it was NOT God's plan and will for them to die. God was upset that they believed the Calvinistic truth regarding His plan. (Apparently, God is not a Calvinist, and the Calvinistic truth is not true.)

Hebrews tells us their unbelief was what kept them out of the promised land, and was why they fell in the wilderness. They missed the promised land because of believing the Calvinistic truth instead of what God said. 2

• 1See also https://godisopen.com/2018/02/08/apologetics-thursday-bad-report/
• 2And it shall be when the Lord shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, which he sware unto thy fathers to give thee, a land flowing with milk and honey, that thou shalt keep this service in this month. - Ex 13:5

Col 2:12 says that being risen with Christ is through faith:

Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Does being risen with Christ come first, and then enable one to then have saving faith? 

Or does faith come first, then through that faith one becomes risen with Christ?

This verse looks like it is through faith that one is raised with Christ, that being raised with Christ (salvation) is through faith.

See also https://scottthong.wordpress.com/2020/10/13/joel-webbon-stumped-on-colossians-212-by-leighton-flowers/ and the embedded video below: