Consistent Hermeneutics: Calvinism vs Arminianism

[Arial]

The word consistent in the title is very important.

Hermeneutics is a method or principle of interpretation. So it must have an axiom, a starting point that does not waver in all that follows but remains consistent throughout the entire Bible. What does that need to be? Who is God, and as Jesus is God, who is Jesus. We can only obtain this information from God Himself. So we must establish from His word who He Himself says He is, who the Son is both pre-incarnate and as incarnate. Then we must establish all other interpretation and doctrine in a way that is consistent with this.

Does Calvinism do this? Does Arminianism do this? I will base my arguments on what is generally called Arminianism today, for it has morphed over the centuries,becoming ever more liberal, but still has its roots in the thinking of Arminius whose starting premise was not God at all, but man. That being the assertion that human dignity requires an unimpaired freedom of the will.

In Calvinism we find that even though, greater understanding of the doctrines has occurred over time, and more precise and adapted to today's vocabulary and syntax usage is stated, the doctrines have remained steadfast. Which suggests that it is actually grounded in an accurate premise of who God is and who Jesus is. It can be supported with the Bible without ever compromising a single thing of God's self revelation, through exegesis of context, and comparing scripture with scripture, on any passage that is used to counter the doctrines of predestination and election. Arminianists cannot do this and quite often they fail to even try.

We see this in the way they debate, though it could not in all truthfulness be called debating at all. Their debate always begins with accusations against Calvinism that are not true of Calvinism. Such as, it is the doctrine of men, it presents a god who is worse than the devil, it is false, unbiblical, makes God a tyrant, is evil, is arrived at by eisegesis, and the doctrines of predestination are misstated as their support, and stuck to like glue no matter what is said, and no exegesis of anything is given.

Isolated scriptures are used as support and when these are run through careful exegesis for them with all consistent hermeneutics, they simply do not respond at all to what is given, but instead repeat their single scripture. They all use the same ones and the same arguments, and the same tactics. They ignore questions that they cannot answer because doing so would point out their fallacies. They follow exactly the pattern of Norman Geisler in "Chosen But Free." And any who read that book should also read James White's "The Freedom of the Potter" which counters Geisler's book point by point with exegesis and consistent hermeneutics. There is no exegesis in Geisler's book at all.

So why the difference in the methods in the Calvin vs Arminius dabate? The first is grounded in who God is and who Jesus is and develops from that, keeping all scripture consistent with that. And the Bible will be consistent with that with never a shifting off of it. And that is not where Arminianism starts. It starts with the idea that God must grant us free will to choose Him and never violate it. Otherwise He is not fair. It builds an image of God that is like them, and from that derives its doctrine.

IOW it cannot defend itself with the scriptures because it is not rooted in or based on truth. It only uses scriptures in isolated form, presupposing words or concepts in them that are not there, and uses the Bible against itself.

 

[His clay]

The word consistent in the title is very important.

Hermeneutics is a method or principle of interpretation. So it must have an axiom, a starting point that does not waver in all that follows but remains consistent throughout the entire Bible. What does that need to be? Who is God, and as Jesus is God, who is Jesus. We can only obtain this information from God Himself. So we must establish from His word who He Himself says He is, who the Son is both pre-incarnate and as incarnate. Then we must establish all other interpretation and doctrine in a way that is consistent with this.

Does Calvinism do this? Does Arminianism do this? I will base my arguments on what is generally called Arminianism today, for it has morphed over the centuries,becoming ever more liberal, but still has its roots in the thinking of Arminius whose starting premise was not God at all, but man. That being the assertion that human dignity requires an unimpaired freedom of the will.

In Calvinism we find that even though, greater understanding of the doctrines has occurred over time, and more precise and adapted to today's vocabulary and syntax usage is stated, the doctrines have remained steadfast. Which suggests that it is actually grounded in an accurate premise of who God is and who Jesus is. It can be supported with the Bible without ever compromising a single thing of God's self revelation, through exegesis of context, and comparing scripture with scripture, on any passage that is used to counter the doctrines of predestination and election. Arminianists cannot do this and quite often they fail to even try.

We see this in the way they debate, though it could not in all truthfulness be called debating at all. Their debate always begins with accusations against Calvinism that are not true of Calvinism. Such as, it is the doctrine of men, it presents a god who is worse than the devil, it is false, unbiblical, makes God a tyrant, is evil, is arrived at by eisegesis, and the doctrines of predestination are misstated as their support, and stuck to like glue no matter what is said, and no exegesis of anything is given.

Isolated scriptures are used as support and when these are run through careful exegesis for them with all consistent hermeneutics, they simply do not respond at all to what is given, but instead repeat their single scripture. They all use the same ones and the same arguments, and the same tactics. They ignore questions that they cannot answer because doing so would point out their fallacies. They follow exactly the pattern of Norman Geisler in "Chosen But Free." And any who read that book should also read James White's "The Freedom of the Potter" which counters Geisler's book point by point with exegesis and consistent hermeneutics. There is no exegesis in Geisler's book at all.

So why the difference in the methods in the Calvin vs Arminius dabate? The first is grounded in who God is and who Jesus is and develops from that, keeping all scripture consistent with that. And the Bible will be consistent with that with never a shifting off of it. And that is not where Arminianism starts. It starts with the idea that God must grant us free will to choose Him and never violate it. Otherwise He is not fair. It builds an image of God that is like them, and from that derives its doctrine.

IOW it cannot defend itself with the scriptures because it is not rooted in or based on truth. It only uses scriptures in isolated form, presupposing words or concepts in them that are not there, and uses the Bible against itself.

One of the philosophical narratives given by the libertarian freedom crowd is that God desired to have a loving relationship with moral agents, and this relationship necessitated the ability to do otherwise (libertarian freedom) and the possibility of rebellion.

First, this is not a narrative supported by scripture. We never see God presuppose this narrative in scripture. Second, this narrative gives the appearance of being God-centered, but in reality it manufactures beings that are ultimate other than God. From that point forward, then everything revolves around human ultimacy of choice. Once humanity has been granted autonomy from God, then much devolves around a man-centered focus. The earlier God-centered narrative becomes hopelessly embroiled in man-centered posturing. Third, the type of freedom advocated, when examined, is not the type of freedom God or man posses. Non-C posters, every day, confirm this point to be true by the fact that they absolutely cannot choose to believe otherwise than what their non-C position dictates. Advocating the ability to do otherwise, when practically demonstrating the opposite produces a practical incoherence. God is holy and cannot lie. God's inability to sin is a huge bedrock upon which faith can foster, but if God can do otherwise than His holy nature, then the Christian faith is completely undermined by libertarian freedom. Fourth, Scripture explicitly advocates human dependence upon God's providential sustaining hand. The passages of scripture have been stated so often and repetitiously that I'll abbreviate the point. In God's universe, human autonomy does not exist. Fifth, the future possibility of sin presupposes that God is bound by time and does not know the future, but the Bible presents God as self-sufficiently knowing all things, including the future. Open Theism or Process Theology is not an option for the evangelical Christian. Thus, God's creation involved a certain (unalterable) knowledge of what the act necessarily procures.

More could be said, but these were the first things to come to mind.

 

[CrowCross]

Fifth, the future possibility of sin presupposes that God is bound by time and does not know the future, but the Bible presents God as self-sufficiently knowing all things, including the future. Open Theism or Process Theology is not an option for the evangelical Christian. Thus, God's creation involved a certain (unalterable) knowledge of what the act necessarily procures.

Some forget God created time.

 

[Arial]

One of the philosophical narratives given by the libertarian freedom crowd is that God desired to have a loving relationship with moral agents, and this relationship necessitated the ability to do otherwise (libertarian freedom) and the possibility of rebellion.

First, this is not a narrative supported by scripture. We never see God presuppose this narrative in scripture. Second, this narrative gives the appearance of being God-centered, but in reality it manufactures beings that are ultimate other than God.

Yes, I have come across that countless times and it keeps being repeated as though if they say it enough it will make it true, or as though calling upon love as the soles support is all that is needed. But never ever is it defended with scripture other than a misuse of a quote of a portion of a sentence, completely isolated from all surrounding context and alienated entirely from the whole counsel of God. From 1 John 4:8 ----"God is love." And certainly scripture will not support their position because it isn't in there.

I have even pointed them back to the scriptures in the OT of God telling His people to destroy all the inhabitants of the nations around them, of Himself striking dead on the spot a person for so much as touching what was holy.. Asking according to their definition of love, how does that fit their view of God. I have done so a number of times with many different people and so far the question has been completely ignored as though it were never asked. I have asked them where the Bible ever shows God desiring something that He could not have or being so needy of voluntary love that He set the entire plan of redemption on the pillars of people freely choosing Him because they love Him, and then He loves them? I have asked them when in scripture do they see anything other than God choosing? Nations, individuals, places, times, actions and outcomes. No answers. What does God say? "I AM that I Am." Job 38-41. Psalm 50.

From that point forward, then everything revolves around human ultimacy of choice. Once humanity has been granted autonomy from God, then much devolves around a man-centered focus. The earlier God-centered narrative becomes hopelessly embroiled in man-centered posturing.

It can't do anything else but that, and when they are told they simply deny it.

Third, the type of freedom advocated, when examined, is not the type of freedom God or man posses. Non-C posters, every day, confirm this point to be true by the fact that they absolutely cannot choose to believe otherwise than what their non-C position dictates. Advocating the ability to do otherwise, when practically demonstrating the opposite produces a practical incoherence. God is holy and cannot lie. God's inability to sin is a huge bedrock upon which faith can foster, but if God can do otherwise than His holy nature, then the Christian faith is completely undermined by libertarian freedom.

I never looked at it quite that way though in debating with them I had that recognition that it was similar to brainwashing in dealing with. They can't hear reason, cannot understand what is being said, can't move off the sand they stand on or even know it is sand. Simply cannot do it, and they cannot choose to, because they do not want to. I believe that is because that is what they are really trusting in instead of trusting in God. Their faith is not in Christ, but in themselves, their choice. The church has been taught that for decades.

Fourth, Scripture explicitly advocates human dependence upon God's providential sustaining hand. The passages of scripture have been stated so often and repetitiously that I'll abbreviate the point. In God's universe, human autonomy does not exist

Absolutely. The very first transgress was not trusting God. And that is the very thing that is restored in Christ, and thank God we wear His robes of righteousness, He who never wavered in His trust of the Father. It is enough that we trust Christ, His person and His work. For it is not an easy thing to do always, to trust God and not other things. This He works in us in our sanctification.

Fifth, the future possibility of sin presupposes that God is bound by time and does not know the future, but the Bible presents God as self-sufficiently knowing all things, including the future. Open Theism or Process Theology is not an option for the evangelical Christian. Thus, God's creation involved a certain (unalterable) knowledge of what the act necessarily procures.

Well said and I agree.

 

[GeneZ]

How well can you defend your doctrinal position?

It does not matter who is really correct.
What makes it correct amounts to how well one can defend what they choose to shield themselves with.
It then becomes an intellectualized sport and mental competition.

Man then says.... May the best and most skilled rationalizer win!

​

“Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. ​

Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, ​

and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this ​

day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region ​

beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. ​

But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:14-15​

If man can not have the freedom to choose?
Why did God even bother?


Without free will being granted to men by grace? God would amount to being like a little girl
playing house with her dolls. Dolls who act upon how she imagines and wants them to be.

Arminius lacked in his scriptural backing up to a point. He did. What he conceived was
done in haste in defense. Arminianism was a reaction to what he knew was making God into a monster.
A monster like the little girl stomping on her dolls after she imagined them to disobey her...

One can say? "After all? Its her dolls. She can sovereignly do as she pleases with them."

Intellectual dishonesty left unchecked, ends up being is its only defense.
A defense that only ends up with what amounts to being chain dishonesty.

Being able to admit one was very wrong? = true repentance.

Problems can happen when certain believers instinctively resent other believers of a certain kind as found
within the realm of Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.

It seems Calvinists need to prove they are superior intellectually, and are justified in their resentment of those who disagree with them.
Proving they are justified by constructing rationales that are designed to out smart those whom they wish to distance themselves from.

Calvinism initially worked effectively, like skunk spray, aimed at keeping at bay the tyrannical Roman Catholic church.
For Catholicism at that time had become inept and degenerate biblically, unable to think with the needed spiritual skill
to counter the errors of TULIP. So, it was seen as many who felt oppressed as a welcomed and good thing.

God allowed for such dogmatic opposition to be made manifested as a means to break away from the Satanic tyranny that the Vatican had become.

Once broken away? A new freedom frontier was established, enabling one to seek for truth needed to understand what it was that
TULIP acted like a 'stop-gap' solution for. Which was to buy needed time to think and learn what had been denied them.

If what Calvinism (TULIP) believes is not truth? It inevitably can only last for a season.

What initially worked to break away from the RCC (a good thing) eventually will weaken as knowledge of Scripture grows.
Knowledge that allows for a closer examination to find the true meaning behind what they got wrong.

So? How could an omniscient God create each and every soul of men without knowing how they would choose to believe?

That seems impossible to man that God would not know.

“What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

Luke 18:27b


grace and peace​

 

[Arial]

How well can you defend your doctrinal position?

It does not matter who is really correct.
What makes it correct amounts to how well one can defend what they choose to shield themselves with.
It then becomes an intellectualized sport and mental competition.

Man then says.... May the best and most skilled rationalizer win!

​

“Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. ​

Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, ​

and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this ​

day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region ​

beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. ​

But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:14-15​

If man can not have the freedom to choose?
Why did God even bother?


Without free will being granted to men by grace? God would amount to being like a little girl
playing house with her dolls. Dolls who act upon how she imagines and wants them to be.

Arminius lacked in his scriptural backing up to a point. He did. What he conceived was
done in haste in defense. Arminianism was a reaction to what he knew was making God into a monster.
A monster like the little girl stomping on her dolls after she imagined them to disobey her...

One can say? "After all? Its her dolls. She can sovereignly do as she pleases with them."

Intellectual dishonesty left unchecked, ends up being is its only defense.
A defense that only ends up with what amounts to being chain dishonesty.

Being able to admit one was very wrong? = true repentance.

Problems can happen when certain believers instinctively resent other believers of a certain kind as found
within the realm of Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.

It seems Calvinists need to prove they are superior intellectually, and are justified in their resentment of those who disagree with them.
Proving they are justified by constructing rationales that are designed to out smart those whom they wish to distance themselves from.

Calvinism initially worked effectively, like skunk spray, aimed at keeping at bay the tyrannical Roman Catholic church.
For Catholicism at that time had become inept and degenerate biblically, unable to think with the needed spiritual skill
to counter the errors of TULIP. So, it was seen as many who felt oppressed as a welcomed and good thing.

God allowed for such dogmatic opposition to be made manifested as a means to break away from the Satanic tyranny that the Vatican had become.

Once broken away? A new freedom frontier was established, enabling one to seek for truth needed to understand what it was that
TULIP acted like a 'stop-gap' solution for. Which was to buy needed time to think and learn what had been denied them.

If what Calvinism (TULIP) believes is not truth? It inevitably can only last for a season.

What initially worked to break away from the RCC (a good thing) eventually will weaken as knowledge of Scripture grows.
Knowledge that allows for a closer examination to find the true meaning behind what they got wrong.

So? How could an omniscient God create each and every soul of men without knowing how they would choose to believe?

That seems impossible to man that God would not know.

“What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

Luke 18:27b


grace and peace​

You made a lot of assertions, and accusations against Calvinism. couching them all in inflammatory language. i.e.

It seems Calvinists need to prove they are superior intellectually, and are justified in their resentment of those who disagree with them.
Proving they are justified by constructing rationales that are designed to out smart those whom they wish to distance themselves from.

On what do you base this? Have you the ability to probe all the minds (or any of them) of Reformed to know that this is a true statement? Where is your evidence of any constructing rationales that are designed to outsmart those whom they wish to distance themselves from. Where are the illustrations of this?

Arminianism was a reaction to what he knew was making God into a monster.
A monster like the little girl stomping on her dolls after she imagined them to disobey her...

One can say? "After all? Its her dolls. She can sovereignly do as she pleases with them.

Was it? How do you know? How does it make God a monster? Illustrations? Scriptural evidence? No? Why do you have the need to express Calvinism in a way that only expresses your opinion of God being other than what your concept of Him is. You do realize I would hope that though God in Reformed theology is not the childish and vicious God you portray HIm, that you are in effect saying that you will not worship God if He is not to your making? That you want Him to be God, create, give, bless, provide, love, forgive, but you do not want Him on the throne doing as HE pleases. You want Him to serve you, not you serve Him.

Without free will being granted to men by grace? God would amount to being like a little girl
playing house with her dolls. Dolls who act upon how she imagines and wants them to be.

See above. God can be God but not unless He fits your idea of God. You go quite far to make that plain.


As was stated in the OP, you supported nothing you said, never showed where the scriptures prove your position, did not even attempt to address the assertions in the OP but simply stated your opinion. Your entire hermeneutics and exegesis and doctrinal basis is summed up in your first statement :

If man can not have the freedom to choose?
Why did God even bother?

So good job proving my point.

 

[His clay]

How well can you defend your doctrinal position?

It does not matter who is really correct.
What makes it correct amounts to how well one can defend what they choose to shield themselves with.
It then becomes an intellectualized sport and mental competition.

Man then says.... May the best and most skilled rationalizer win!

​

“Now therefore fear the Lord and serve him in sincerity and in faithfulness. ​

Put away the gods that your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, ​

and serve the Lord. And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the Lord, choose this ​

day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region ​

beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. ​

But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Joshua 24:14-15​

If man can not have the freedom to choose?
Why did God even bother?


Without free will being granted to men by grace? God would amount to being like a little girl
playing house with her dolls. Dolls who act upon how she imagines and wants them to be.

Arminius lacked in his scriptural backing up to a point. He did. What he conceived was
done in haste in defense. Arminianism was a reaction to what he knew was making God into a monster.
A monster like the little girl stomping on her dolls after she imagined them to disobey her...

One can say? "After all? Its her dolls. She can sovereignly do as she pleases with them."

Intellectual dishonesty left unchecked, ends up being is its only defense.
A defense that only ends up with what amounts to being chain dishonesty.

Being able to admit one was very wrong? = true repentance.

Problems can happen when certain believers instinctively resent other believers of a certain kind as found
within the realm of Calvinism-vs-Arminianism.

It seems Calvinists need to prove they are superior intellectually, and are justified in their resentment of those who disagree with them.
Proving they are justified by constructing rationales that are designed to out smart those whom they wish to distance themselves from.

Calvinism initially worked effectively, like skunk spray, aimed at keeping at bay the tyrannical Roman Catholic church.
For Catholicism at that time had become inept and degenerate biblically, unable to think with the needed spiritual skill
to counter the errors of TULIP. So, it was seen as many who felt oppressed as a welcomed and good thing.

God allowed for such dogmatic opposition to be made manifested as a means to break away from the Satanic tyranny that the Vatican had become.

Once broken away? A new freedom frontier was established, enabling one to seek for truth needed to understand what it was that
TULIP acted like a 'stop-gap' solution for. Which was to buy needed time to think and learn what had been denied them.

If what Calvinism (TULIP) believes is not truth? It inevitably can only last for a season.

What initially worked to break away from the RCC (a good thing) eventually will weaken as knowledge of Scripture grows.
Knowledge that allows for a closer examination to find the true meaning behind what they got wrong.

So? How could an omniscient God create each and every soul of men without knowing how they would choose to believe?

That seems impossible to man that God would not know.

“What is impossible with man is possible with God.”

Luke 18:27b


grace and peace​

"If man can not have the freedom to choose?" The choice or no choice dilemma is a false one. The actual issue is what kind of choice. Everyone holds that choices are made; the issue is why. Further, the dilemma isn't free or not free. Rather, the issue is about what kind of freedom one advocates.

"Why did God even bother?" Non-issue, since the prior question was falsely framed.

"Without free will being granted to men by grace?" Since, the whole line of questions got off on the wrong foot, this question is also misguided. Again, the choice or no choice dilemma is false. The free or not free dilemma is false. What kind of choice and what kind of freedom is the actual issue. In the following thread, post #27, I laid out the TWO positions.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/what-s-free-will.1082/page-2

At minimum, there are at least two different versions of freedom and choice-making on the table. Writing a post only assuming one, and that painfully undefined, only serves to beg the question. You now need to argue why yours is the only viable version of choice and freedom. I also gave libertarian freedom a critique (this thread); in post #2 it is practical nonsense to utilize libertarian freedom and then act in a way that invalidates the principle advocated.

"God would amount to being like a little girl
playing house with her dolls. Dolls who act upon how she imagines and wants them to be." I've never considered blasphemy to be a good argument. Why did you choose such a path to tread?

If the poster can actually get on the right track and ask legitimate questions, then I would be happy to continue with the other issues posted. However, having begun on the wrong foot, fallaciously assuming a falsity, and building the foundation of the discussion upon a straw man, the entire house of cards collapses. The waves from the ocean come and wash away the poorly founded sandcastle.

Suggestion: Deal with real positions, not straw men, erected upon false dilemmas and falsely framed questions.

 

[David1701]

"If man can not have the freedom to choose?" The choice or no choice dilemma is a false one. The actual issue is what kind of choice. Everyone holds that choices are made; the issue is why. Further, the dilemma isn't free or not free. Rather, the issue is about what kind of freedom one advocates.

"Why did God even bother?" Non-issue, since the prior question was falsely framed.

"Without free will being granted to men by grace?" Since, the whole line of questions got off on the wrong foot, this question is also misguided. Again, the choice or no choice dilemma is false. The free or not free dilemma is false. What kind of choice and what kind of freedom is the actual issue. In the following thread, post #27, I laid out the TWO positions.

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/what-s-free-will.1082/page-2

At minimum, there are at least two different versions of freedom and choice-making on the table. Writing a post only assuming one, and that painfully undefined, only serves to beg the question. You now need to argue why yours is the only viable version of choice and freedom. I also gave libertarian freedom a critique (this thread); in post #2 it is practical nonsense to utilize libertarian freedom and then act in a way that invalidates the principle advocated.

"God would amount to being like a little girl
playing house with her dolls. Dolls who act upon how she imagines and wants them to be." I've never considered blasphemy to be a good argument. Why did you choose such a path to tread?

If the poster can actually get on the right track and ask legitimate questions, then I would be happy to continue with the other issues posted. However, having begun on the wrong foot, fallaciously assuming a falsity, and building the foundation of the discussion upon a straw man, the entire house of cards collapses. The waves from the ocean come and wash away the poorly founded sandcastle.

Suggestion: Deal with real positions, not straw men, erected upon false dilemmas and falsely framed questions.

He lacks the ability, which brings up another issue: those who support LFW often "think" with their feelings. It's very hard to reason with someone whose foundation is what he feels (proof-texts are merely deputised as slogans with which to beat the infidels). Discussing doctrine with LFW supporters often seems like trying to have a conversation with the sheep in Animal Farm, which kept chanting, "Four legs good, two legs bad.". It's fruitless and frustrating.

 

[His clay]

He lacks the ability, which brings up another issue: those who support LFW often "think" with their feelings. It's very hard to reason with someone whose foundation is what he feels (proof-texts are merely deputised as slogans with which to beat the infidels). Discussing doctrine with LFW supporters often seems like trying to have a conversation with the sheep in Animal Farm, which kept chanting, "Four legs good, two legs bad.". It's fruitless and frustrating.

Yep, I've been trying to give the benefit of the doubt. No doubt though, what you say is true; and often discussion seems fruitless. I'm about to post a quote of mine from another thread. I think that this will add an interesting layer to the discussion. Perhaps I'm wrong, but we will see.

 

[His clay]

The following quote comes from a thread I started called, "The "Arbitrary" Objection to Unconditional Election." (post #160) Because the post is extremely relevant to the issue of choice, I'll quote it here.

(Opening Post 4 of 4)

In post #1, the fourth main point was stated in the following way. “Fourth, we will look into the assumptions of the objector. (1) One assumption is that people do not have a choice when unconditionality is present in election. (2) The other assumption is that if the person is removed from a criteria for election, then God doesn't have a reason for His choice.” These assumptions can be observed by the following quotations.

“Since those who go to hell, in Calvinism, don't have a choice in the matter, how is God's decision to cast them into hell not arbitrary.” (original quote in post #1)

“As for the arbitrary objection, I find that God's decision to save or condemn is arbitrary if it is not based specifically on the faith of the individual (or lack thereof).” (taken from post #128)

The Interpretive Grid of False Assumptions

Introduction: When one learns from books dealing with interpretation, he finds a crucial concept. It is called distanciation. The concept is not difficult to comprehend; the main problem is actually practicing it. The concept refers to a modern reader’s ideas and assumptions, which are often read into various passages of scripture. The main idea is for the modern reader to “distance” himself from those assumptions in the interpretation of scripture. However, the most dangerous assumptions are those assumptions the interpreter does not realize he brings to the text.

A critical element of interpretation concerns “authorial intent.” This means that the original author intended a meaning during his time, culture, and audience. This means that the authorial intent of a biblical text (written before AD 100 and earlier) does not possess the assumptions that often modern interpreters impose upon it.

This small introduction of hermeneutics leads to a simple application of the same principle to discussions between Calvinists and those who employ the “arbitrary” objection. Those who utilize the objection often give away key assumptions that are being used to argue. Arguments are built upon certain foundations; but if those foundations are faulty, then it follows that the argument collapses with the faulty foundation.

As stated previously, the two key assumptions involve (1) the nature of choice-making, and (2) being overly focused upon human element in salvation.

Assumptions Regarding the Nature of Choice-making: I’ll be very candid and straightforward. I reject libertarian freedom and thusly the conception of choice-making that goes along with it. Often, this is informally called “free will.” Such a statement (free will) suffers from an extreme oversimplification of the real issue. Two critical elements will be addressed in light of their biblical contradiction. One assumption is that human choice-making is autonomous from God. The other is that human choice-making involves the ability to do otherwise.

The assumption that human choice-making is autonomous from God comes from the idea that if God causes a choice to be a certain way, then it isn’t really a choice. This is evidence by the fact that the objection says, “Since those who go to hell, in Calvinism, don't have a choice in the matter”. The only way this statement could be true or make sense, is if one assumes that libertarian choice is the only possible way of viewing choice. In particular, if God makes a person’s destiny certain, then the person had no choice.

Let’s explore the issue a bit more. In Calvinism, the person who goes to hell makes accountable decisions based upon an enslaved, corrupt will. The nature of choice-making is such that a person always chooses in accord with their highest motive or preference. This doesn’t mean that choices are simple, since there are often various motives in competition within the individual. It just means that at the end of the day, regardless of the competition of various motivations, the person ultimately chooses based upon whatever option is most preferred. As Jonathan Edwards stated, “to choose is to prefer.” One option seems best to the individual. That is why it was chosen. What this means is that choices aren’t made in a causal vacuum. Choices have causal reasons.

“A person chooses because . . .” is a reality that describes everyday life and the reality present in the heart of sinful men in Scripture. Jesus tells people who cannot bear to hear Him, “But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.” (John 8:45 ESV) Earlier Jesus tells them, “Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.” (John 8:43 ESV) Here Jesus, the God-man, tells his opponents why they are having problems with His words. They cannot understand Him because they cannot bear to hear His word. The next verse points out their negative moral character, from a morally corrupt lineage (your will is to do your father's desires), which brings about their opposition toward the truth Jesus is presenting before them. Hence, precisely because Jesus tells them the truth, they do not believe. Note that their choice to reject is given a causal reason, their motivation and character is opposed to the truth.

Earlier in the book of John we see that another causal reason is given by Jesus for people’s choices. “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” (John 3:19-20 ESV) Once again, one can see that people love darkness rather than light; and people hate the light because it exposes their evil deeds (evil choices).

We can ask the obvious now. Why would a person choose to follow Jesus if he hates the exposure of the light, and he hates the truth while preferring a lie? The obvious answer is that a person will not choose to believe what they believe to be a lie and hate.

We see the causal impact of preferences upon choice-making evidenced practically every single day by those who oppose Calvinism. They absolutely cannot choose otherwise than what they believe to be true. Their persistence against Calvinism demonstrates the fact that the libertarian view of human choice-making is false.

But there is yet another reason in Scripture that argues against the idea of autonomy from God. By “autonomy from God” is meant that people view their choices as uncaused with reference to God. They are their own ultimate cause of the choice that they make. Scripture simply demonstrates that this assumption is catastrophically mistaken.[1] We are told that God “upholds all things by the word of His power” (Heb. 1:3). We are told that “God gives to all men, life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:24-25). We are told that “in Him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). We are told “from him and through him and to him are all things.” (Rom. 11:36 ESV) We are told something rather similar in 1 Corinthians 8. “yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (1Cor. 8:6 ESV) The idea of human ultimacy, with reference to God, is simply mistaken. Autonomy from God does not exist in God’s universe. Consequently, the idea that choices can be ultimate or autonomous from God is simply mistaken. Hence, it is proven that the view of choice-making, where the choice could be otherwise and/or ultimate is simply mistaken.

In conclusion, choices do not take place in a causal vacuum. They are caused by a person’s highest preference. For sinful human beings, this means that their moral corruption precludes their choice to believe in Christ. They prefer their sin, unless God acts graciously upon them to given them a preference for Christ and His work on the cross. Those whom God has not chosen to save do make choices. They are responsible for their choices, and their choices are sinfully precluded from choosing Christ because of their corrupt nature and corrupt preferences. Therefore, we must conclude that the statement, “Since those who go to hell, in Calvinism, don't have a choice in the matter,” is simply false and mistaken. The statement only evidences false assumptions about choice-making and thusly misreads Calvinism.

(cont in next post)

 

[GeneZ]

You made a lot of assertions, and accusations against Calvinism. couching them all in inflammatory language. i.e.

I was presenting a challenge.....



I am free to challenge and question and to make assertions when I think I see inconsistencies.
If you found them inflammatory.
I thought I was being up front and logical.

I even gave a logical reason why God used Calvinism to have men break away from the RCC tyranny.


To prove me wrong. Please take the time to correct me.
I am asking for correction. Point by point, please.

Whoever heeds discipline shows the way to life,
but whoever ignores correction leads others astray." Proverbs 10:17​

​

Show me the way to life in Christ... (correct me)​

 

[GeneZ]

"Why did God even bother?" Non-issue, since the prior question was falsely framed.

And, you chose not to lift a finger to show how....

(that was easy)...

.....and provided me with no correction.

.......

 

[His clay]

And, you chose not to lift a finger to show how....

(that was easy)...

.....and provided me with no correction.

.......

Selective evidence fallacy: you have omitted the content of my post that demonstrates the very point you say is unfounded. Was it your intention to be deceptive? Any reader can go back and see that you have omitted a significant amount of content from my post.

We can also note that the poster didn't delete enough, since I stated that the past question was falsely framed. Hence, that is what is called a reason. What is clear is that the poster ignored correction.

 

[GeneZ]

He lacks the ability, which brings up another issue: those who support LFW often "think" with their feelings. It's very hard to reason with someone whose foundation is what he feels (proof-texts are merely deputised as slogans with which to beat the infidels). Discussing doctrine with LFW supporters often seems like trying to have a conversation with the sheep in Animal Farm, which kept chanting, "Four legs good, two legs bad.". It's fruitless and frustrating.

You do not know that I am not a follower of Arminianism . Do you?

You assume too much with your presumption concerning proof texting.
I never claimed that mans free will is innate. So, please do not take that tact.

So far. No Calvinist here has given me anything to think correctively with.

Why set up a forum that is TULIP based, if you can not teach what is needed to save me from error?
Just to set up a cyber fort begging for attack? Then censoring those whom you can not refute in the event it happens?

All I am seeing is a group thinking with the same bias, encouraging one another for defending their conclusions
Yet, without anyone showing me what would allow me to conclude the same thing.

In that manner there is no room for spiritual growth. Only bias defending and patting each other on the back.

Please instruct me ...
Why are you withholding truth from me that you claim to believe?
Just presenting conclusions dogmatically is not a teaching tool.

Once again..

Please instruct me as to gain life in Christ.

grace and peace .................

 

[ReverendRV]

How well can you defend your doctrinal position?

It does not matter who is really correct.
What makes it correct amounts to how well one can defend what they choose to shield themselves with.
It then becomes an intellectualized sport and mental competition.

Man then says.... May the best and most skilled rationalizer win!

That's a good Point. I'm a Fundamentalist, and we are good at rationalization. Between Christians, Fundamentals cannot lose. Fundamentals are Correct...

 

[GeneZ]

That's a good Point. I'm a Fundamentalist, and we are good at rationalization. Between Christians, Fundamentals cannot lose. Fundamentals are Correct...

The fundamentals of doctrine are correct when Scripture is correctly understood.

But, as far as those who call themselves fundamentalists go?

 

[ReverendRV]

The fundamentals of doctrine are correct when Scripture is correctly understood.

But, as far as those who call themselves fundamentalists go?

Right; I'm not a Fundamentalist as most think of them. I Conflate Orthodoxy with Fundamentalism; not Legalism with Fundamentalism. I don't think there are any Calvinists we can call Legalists...

I speak of Orthodox Fundamentals like the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union, etc. We can agree John 3:16 is a Fundamental of the Faith, right?

 

[GeneZ]

Right; I'm not a Fundamentalist as most think of them. I Conflate Orthodoxy with Fundamentalism; not Legalism with Fundamentalism. I don't think there are any Calvinists we can call Legalists...

I mean Orthodox Fundamentals like the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union, etc. We can agree John 3:16 is a Fundamental of the Faith, right?

Some see it as being humble staying on that level. But, we are neglecting a vast wealth of doctrine which the Lord wants us to discover.
We are supposed to find ourselves at some point working out our salvation in fear and trembling , because the more truth you know? The more we become seen as personal threats to God's enemies, human and invisible.

But My righteous one will live by faith; and if he draws back, I have no pleasure in him." Hebrews 10:38​

It requires a vast amount of doctrine to be learned that you did not previously know existed to become an overcomer. Only love perfected cast out all fear. Laying low by keeping it simple is avoiding the good fight. Its shrinking back. Never growing as we should.


But we are not those who draw back and are destroyed, but those who have doctrinal possession and obtain life." Hebrews 10:39

There has to be a burning desire for truth......

 

[ReverendRV]

It requires a vast amount of doctrine to be learned that you did not previously know existed to become an overcomer. Only love perfected cast out all fear. Laying low by keeping it simple is avoiding the good fight. Its shrinking back. Never growing as we should.

Let's agree it takes a vast amount of Fundamentals, okay?

How about starting with John 3:16; this is a Fundamental of the Faith, right?

 

[GeneZ]

Let's agree it takes a vast amount of Fundamentals, okay?

How about starting with John 3:16; this is a Fundamental of the Faith, right?

John 3:16 is basic doctrine that we all should learn.

It does not take a vast amount of fundamentals. How can we?
The fundamentals are basic foundational teachings.

Meat is advanced doctrinal teaching.


In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you
the elementary truths (fundamentals) of God’s word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!


Hebrews 5:12