# What is so bad about Calvinism



## SolaSaint (Apr 22, 2012)

I belong to a SBC church and as most of them they hold to an Arminian view of Soteriology, with the altar call and asking for decisions to be made. This probably comes to no surprise to anyone. However I have heard two very respected ordained men in my church refer to Calvinism as being repulsive or bad Theology. In our Sunday School class this morning we were talking about what gives the SBC a bad rap and our teacher used Al Mohler as a bad example for a Baptist since he was a Calvinist. Another man in our congregation was told I liked John MacArthur and responded with a statement that Mohler was a Calvinist as if that was not a good thing.

I myself don't claim to be a Calvinist. I do agree with the five solas and lean more to a Calivinistic view of Soteriology. I cannot agree to fatalism. I see many scriptural passages that proclaim God's sovereignty and many that proclaim man's responsibilty to come to Jesus. I feel there is a mystery in scripture where we just have to place our trust in God and not get all bent out of shape over what we cannot explain. 

Now I have explained where I stand and what I've experienced in my church. My question is, "why is there this disdain for Calvinism?"


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 22, 2012)

It mostly comes from a misunderstanding of Calvinism. Most Baptists believe that Calvinists don't believe in evangelism, think that Jesus doesn't love everyone, and believe that God sends babies to hell. The truth is that most people, including many pastors, are sadly illiterate when it comes to the Bible. If people would just take the time to read the Bible, they would see that alot of the things they have been taught are simply not true.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 22, 2012)

Many operate, as Bill noted, with a caricature of Calvinism, so they don't like it. And, truth be told, some who claim to be Calvinists give some credence to the caricature, particularly hyper-Calvinists. 

On the other hand, sinful flesh does not like it because real Calvinism exalts God in His sovereignty and abases man in his rebellion. Unless our sinful hearts are subdued, to paraphrase Calvin, we will not have this Man to rule over us. As Lewis said, man wants to put God in the dock (the place of judgment). But man is in the dock and God is on the bench. God does not stand before us to be judged by us. We stand before God to be judged by Him. Calvinism makes this very clear and man in his sin hates it.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Apr 22, 2012)

Hello Rick,

I think two main reasons for the dislike of "Calvinism" are 1) the perception that we are denying man has a responsibility to repent of sin, but that we are instead (supposedly) saying God elects and saves apart from any action of the will of man, and 2) the feeling among many Arminians that God does not have the right to have compassion and mercy on whom He will, and to pass over others whom He has not chosen for salvation.

With #1 they say this makes man but a puppet and God a puppeteer, but this is a misperception (or caricature) of Calvinistic thought. Now it is true that God elects His people before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), yet in time He calls them and wins their hearts by His majesty and love, so that those once enemies now willingly bow the knee to Him in humble, adoring, submission. The children of God do indeed use their wills to cleave to and follow their Savior, He enabling them to so do by His indwelling Spirit.

With #2 the Arminians say that Calvinists make God out to be arbitrary and actually evil when they assert God does not will the salvation of every individual instead of leaving it "fairly and justly" (so Arminians say) to each individual to chose to accept or reject Christ. The Calvinists respond that it is written, "there is none that seeketh after God . . . there is none that doeth good, no, not one" (Rom 3:11-12), meaning that man has neither the heart nor the ability to come to God on His own, even upon hearing the Gospel preached. The Calvinists also say that it is written, "when we were dead in sins [God] has quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved)" (Eph 2:5), showing that while being unable to seek after God in our spiritually dead state, and unable to do any good whatsoever as far as pleasing God, _*He*_ came and regenerated us, gave us faith and a repentant heart, so that we now from the heart desired and willed to please Him - which we could never have done on our own.

The Reformed (or Calvinist) exposition of Scripture showing that man does not have a will to choose to come to Christ except God first regenerate him and give him a new heart is an offense to some, who say that the freedom and power of the human will is a divine and irrevocable gift and God - being a gentleman, as they say - will not violate this gift. But the truth is that while man does indeed have a free will, it is limited to the natural realm (what car shall he buy, what clothes shall he wear, what he shall eat for breakfast, etc) and has no efficacy or even desire to draw near to the true God. If God did not elect and draw men to Him, no man would ever come.

Arminians say that our teaching this is "despicable", denigrating man and God both. But we know it to be true, by the word of God.

I attach a brief paper in PDF I wrote on this:


----------



## Jack K (Apr 22, 2012)

I run into many believers who are quick to claim that God is sovereign in salvation. They believe in election, total depravity, perseverance and so on. And they tell me Calvinists are of the devil.

They have no idea what a Calvinist is. They've just heard that Calvinists love for people to go to hell, believe we're all robots, are against evangelism and opposed to repentance and faith, and are generally—well, just bad.

I explain what a Calvinist actually is and they realize they are one. Provided I'm not pulling their leg.

They've had a bad caricature of Calvinism preached at them for years, with much bile, and they react more strongly against the word than they actually do against the teachings.


----------



## NB3K (Apr 22, 2012)

It's not because it's "Calvinism"' but because it's the Gospel! The unregenerate man hates the Gospel. Only those who are born-again will love it.


----------



## SolaSaint (Apr 22, 2012)

Thanks for the replies, very helpful. Now as far as Jason's reply, I must tell you, these men I spoke of are born again. They are not offended by the gospel but I feel they misunderstand Calvinism as has been explained by others here.

---------- Post added at 10:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:23 PM ----------

Trying to keep to the topic and not start another thread, I was asked this question, "If God, before creation, decided who would be saved and who would not and nothing can change this, why did Jesus have to die?" I didn't have a good answer.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 22, 2012)

Rick:

Do these men think that "Jesus had to die? If so, why?

We believe that He had to die to uphold God's offended justice, so that God might be just and the justifier of His people. In our place (by His active and passive obedience), He stood, and He was condemned specifically because He bore our sin and took God's wrath for sin for us.

Only in this way could justice smile and ask no more and grace and mercy be poured out on hell-deserving sinners.

Peace,
Alan


----------



## SolaSaint (Apr 23, 2012)

Thanks Alan, I guess I was asking why did God have to use Jesus' death instead of just declaring those righteous whoever He wanted to. I guess we sometimes try to get into God's mind and try to understand His ways. I guess Isaiah 55:8-9 will do!


----------



## bookslover (Apr 23, 2012)

You don't have to agree to fatalism because, praise God, Calvinism doesn't hold to fatalism, either.


----------



## NB3K (Apr 23, 2012)

SolaSaint said:


> why did God have to use Jesus' death instead of just declaring those righteous whoever He wanted to



Because everyone is wicked. We have all broken God's law. We are corrupted in sin by having transfered to us in the flesh, Adam's image as a fallen sinner condemned by God and awaiting justice to be served for offending God's holiness. Unless the demand's of GOd's justice are met, there can be no mercy!

Jesus had to be our substitute, or we would be like sodom. Unless Jesus Christ and his righteousness be imputed upon our behalf, we would all receive according to our sins.

The Son of God submitted himself to be the savior of His Father's Chosen One's!


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 23, 2012)

You've been given a lot of good input here. I just wanted to offer the following comment: 



SolaSaint said:


> I belong to a SBC church and as most of them they hold to an Arminian view of Soteriology, with the altar call and asking for decisions to be made.



There's certainly nothing wrong with asking for decisions to be made regarding Christ. We see it all over Scripture. (I think we would all agree that it's a necessity!) The problem is that they often think that it cannot properly be done without employing their "altar call" method.

---------- Post added at 02:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:01 AM ----------

Additionally, if they are like many SBC churches, many of the folks there are probably more Semi-Pelagian than they are Arminian. For many, embracing Arminianism would be a step in the right direction! Some Southern Baptists, especially older ones (perhaps those especially 50+) will come right out and tell you that they reject original sin, for example. 

With regard to the disdain for Calvinism in your church, why don't you ask them about their issues with it if the opportunity presents itself? I'm not advising looking for trouble, but when you hear a man make such statements, why not ask him to provide some more details about what troubles him about Mohler or whatever. "Tell me more about that" etc.


----------



## Reformed Irish Man (Apr 23, 2012)

SolaSaint said:


> Thanks for the replies, very helpful. Now as far as Jason's reply, I must tell you, these men I spoke of are born again. They are not offended by the gospel but I feel they misunderstand Calvinism as has been explained by others here.



Spurgeon said that Calvinism *is* the gospel. 

"I have my own private 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". - A Defence of Calvinism


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Apr 23, 2012)

Pilgrim said:


> You've been given a lot of good input here. I just wanted to offer the following comment:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Tim (Apr 23, 2012)

Pilgrim said:


> Additionally, if they are like many SBC churches, many of the folks there are probably more Semi-Pelagian than they are Arminian.



I thought the term _semi-Pelagian_ referred to the same stance as the term _Arminian_.


----------



## SolaSaint (Apr 23, 2012)

Thanks everyone for the GREAT replies. I never knew there was a disdain for Calvinism in my church until recently and I do lean closer to Calvin than I do towards Arminius. I do struggle with understanding it all as I'm sure many in here do also. I will ask these men why their disdain for Calvinism if the opportunity presents itself, for I too believe they are just ignorant of what Calvinism is. I agree as Spurgeon has stated in his Defense of Calvinism, that it is the Gospel.


----------



## arapahoepark (Apr 23, 2012)

I think that somehow at least in this country (USA) we starting reading the declaration and constitution into the Bible. God gave us this, that and the other thing like liberty, therefore we have the ability to choose according to this eisegesis. Man wants to feel that they are in control of their destiny and want something to brag about.
So it's probably quite a mixture of things.


----------



## Tim (Apr 23, 2012)

arap said:


> I think that somehow at least in this country (USA) we starting reading the declaration and constitution into the Bible. God gave us this, that and the other thing like liberty, therefore we have the ability to choose according to this eisegesis. Man wants to feel that they are in control of their destiny and want something to brag about.
> So it's probably quite a mixture of things.



Perhaps, but I think this is more a sin thing than an American thing. But I would agree that certain aspects of traditional American thinking are contrary to the Bible.


----------



## Frosty (Apr 23, 2012)

Rick- I saw similar thinking in my former church. Operative word: former. Most attendees there (did not practice formal membership) would not have had any clue about what Calvinists believe, Arminians believe, etc. They just were "Bible-believing" Christians with a decidedly Arminian view. The two elders/pastors have strong views against Calvinism; ones that I would consider semi-hostile.

With those two men, as with most others who do not like Calvinism, it usually boils down to:

1) Do not understand it. Think it paints God as an arbitrary god. It's fatalistic. It's cold and heartless. It's not fair!

2) Do not understand it. It follows the teaching of a man over the Bible. It doesn't fit with the way the Bible has been taught to them traditionally. It doesn't follow from a "literal" interpretation.

3-and the biggest reason in my opinion) It robs man of any ultimate say in his fate.

I know others have hit on a couple of these already. Just thought I'd share my experience with you.


----------



## NB3K (Apr 23, 2012)

I heard on on the Factor on fox news that some one believed that the constitution was divinely inspired. I was atonished to hear such strange talk!


----------



## Frosty (Apr 23, 2012)

NB3K said:


> I heard on on the Factor on fox news that some one believed that the constitution was divinely inspired. I was atonished to hear such strange talk!



I heard Glenn Beck say exactly that once on Fox News. Glenn Beck.......Fox News.......what else do I have to say?!


----------



## J. Dean (Apr 23, 2012)

I've run into this on the Lutheran side of things lately. Lutherans claim that Calvinism is too "Enlightenment" influenced, because Calvin (according to them) is letting Aristotelian philosophy guide his thinking regarding the sacraments (i.e.-calvinists and evangelicals in general are not taking the words of Christ literally, when the text according to them nowhere states that it's to be taken symbolically). 

While they agree to a point on predestination and election, they also reject limited atonement (which I really don't get) and state that we try to "fit our theology into a box" rather than allowing for the mystery of Scripture on some points to be taken as just that. On this point they use the Trinity for their defense-it's an apparent paradox, yet we believe it, and they maintain that we don't allow for this (regarding other doctrinal points).

They also claim we do not divide between law and gospel, claiming that Calvinist place an over-emphasis on works as a sign of salvation, and in the end Calvinists are self-defeating because they lay so much stress on obedience that invariably a person trusts in their own righteousness while giving the gospel only lip service (In fairness, I have seen this happen, even among Reformed folk, so while I wouldn't say that this label is _carte blanche_ true, it is a real danger to watch out for).

Other than that, they like us!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Apr 23, 2012)

SolaSaint said:


> Now I have explained where I stand and what I've experienced in my church. My question is, "why is there this disdain for Calvinism?"


Quite simply, the lost...

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- loves darkness rather than light (John 3:19);
- is unrighteous, does not understand, does not seek for God (Rom. 3:10-12);
- is helpless and ungodly (Rom. 5:6);
- is dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph. 2:1);
- is by nature a child of wrath (Eph. 2:3);
- cannot understand spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:14); and
- is a slave of sin (Rom. 6:16-20).

When the truth is preached there will always be gnashing of teeth by those that reject the truth. Total inability is what is taught in these passages. Period. Men simply refuse to let God sit on his throne and dispense of his creation as he so pleases.

Sproul's _Holiness of God_ is a book I regularly give away to folks who are struggling with coming to grips with the holiness of God and the stench of sinful man in his nostrils. Every single person claiming the doctrines of grace and the sovereignty of God should read this book, and re-read it at least twice a year. It will drive you to your knees every time.

AMR


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 23, 2012)

Tim said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > Additionally, if they are like many SBC churches, many of the folks there are probably more Semi-Pelagian than they are Arminian.
> ...



In a formal sense, there are some differences. It is true that many within formally Arminian churches would actually be more Semi Pelagian. However, Classic as well as Wesleyan Arminianism maintains a belief in original sin (imputation of Adam's sin) and total depravity. In their scheme this is overcome by prevenient grace, which makes it possible for all men to believe. This grace of course is resistible. Nevertheless, they do think that grace must precede conversion, etc. At least some semi pelagians would deny this and would say that man already has the innate ability within him to exercise saving faith apart from divine grace. Of course this is a generalization, and few would accept the semi-Pelagian label to begin with. (Often you'll just get "I'm a Biblicist" or "I'm a non-Calvinist.)

Some who hold to essentially Semi Pelagian views will contradict themselves depending on what questions you ask. Not infrequently statements will be made that appear to deny any need for a prior work of grace (even of the prevenient sort) prior to exercising saving faith. I've even seen a few suggest that we're not in too much of a different state than Adam was before the fall! But then when called upon it, many will concede that a work of the Holy Spirit is needed. Often there simply isn't much theological reflection on these matters at all.


----------



## SolaSaint (Apr 23, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> SolaSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Now I have explained where I stand and what I've experienced in my church. My question is, "why is there this disdain for Calvinism?"
> ...



That is probably the best book I've ever read. I need to read it again to gain a fresh perspective on God. I still believe the men I've referred to are saved though. I have had times and still do where it is hard to believe some scripture passages and I know I'm saved. I'm sure you have struggled with the truths of scripture at times and I would not say that meant you were lost. I think this might be where these men find the disdain for Calvininists. We don't need to throw out the Heretic card everytime we find someone who is struggling with God's word.


----------



## NB3K (Apr 23, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> SolaSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Now I have explained where I stand and what I've experienced in my church. My question is, "why is there this disdain for Calvinism?"
> ...



I say the same thing and elders at my church think im arrogant.
They want to believe that man just doesn't know these doctrines and that is why they don't like them rather it being their hatred for god from their unregenerated hearts of stone.


----------



## MississippiBaptist (Apr 26, 2012)

Timely thread for me. We moved to Mississippi just a couple of years ago and are members of a SBC church. Last night makes three times I have heard derogatory remarks about Calvinism since moving here. Twice from our former church. Yes, we changed churches because I told the pastor that I understand the differing views on the subject and can respect opposing views; however, the monergestic view of soteriology is not silly and stupid. I've taught monergism in Baptist churches for 15 years and can do so without maligning fellow believers.

Calvinism according to last night's message, "God did not capriciously choose who would go to heaven and who would go to hell before the foundation of the world." I was in the crowd so I didn't say anything but later he said, "I'm probably over simplifying this subject". At which point I did shout out a hardy, "amen". :->

Should we respond vocally in a service when we hear a pastor malign the fellow Christians, regardless of the subject matter?


----------



## crimsonleaf (Apr 26, 2012)

SolaSaint said:


> I belong to a SBC church and as most of them they hold to an Arminian view of Soteriology, with the altar call and asking for decisions to be made. This probably comes to no surprise to anyone. However I have heard two very respected ordained men in my church refer to Calvinism as being repulsive or bad Theology. In our Sunday School class this morning we were talking about what gives the SBC a bad rap and our teacher used Al Mohler as a bad example for a Baptist since he was a Calvinist. Another man in our congregation was told I liked John MacArthur and responded with a statement that Mohler was a Calvinist as if that was not a good thing.
> 
> I myself don't claim to be a Calvinist. I do agree with the five solas and lean more to a Calivinistic view of Soteriology. I cannot agree to fatalism. I see many scriptural passages that proclaim God's sovereignty and many that proclaim man's responsibilty to come to Jesus. I feel there is a mystery in scripture where we just have to place our trust in God and not get all bent out of shape over what we cannot explain.
> 
> Now I have explained where I stand and what I've experienced in my church. My question is, "why is there this disdain for Calvinism?"



I recently wrote a very short comparison of the two major belief systems in 6 parts. They take 10 - 15 minutes to read in total but might help with the basic differences. All parts can be found here: Christian Musings « left-handed scribblings. I'll expand on them and deal with more nuances as time allows. It's a sort of Calvinism 101 so the question of free will needs dealing with in a separate article.


----------



## Apologist4Him (Apr 29, 2012)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Many operate, as Bill noted, with a caricature of Calvinism, so they don't like it. And, truth be told, some who claim to be Calvinists give some credence to the caricature, particularly hyper-Calvinists.
> 
> On the other hand, sinful flesh does not like it because real Calvinism exalts God in His sovereignty and abases man in his rebellion. Unless our sinful hearts are subdued, to paraphrase Calvin, we will not have this Man to rule over us. As Lewis said, man wants to put God in the dock (the place of judgment). But man is in the dock and God is on the bench. God does not stand before us to be judged by us. We stand before God to be judged by Him. Calvinism makes this very clear and man in his sin hates it.
> 
> ...



Exactly! Well said brother Alan!


----------



## NB3K (Apr 29, 2012)

What is "hyper-calvinism", and what is an example of a "hyper-calvinist"?


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 29, 2012)

SolaSaint said:


> with the altar call and asking for decisions to be made.



Decisions made by who?


SolaSaint said:


> In our Sunday School class this morning we were talking about what gives the SBC a bad rap


A "bad rap" to who? Unbelievers?


SolaSaint said:


> I cannot agree to fatalism.


Neither does Scripture.


SolaSaint said:


> I see many scriptural passages that proclaim God's sovereignty and many that proclaim man's responsibilty to come to Jesus.


I was the same way, initially, probably viewing this as something like a continuum of a 60/40 division of Scripture,
It seemed the majority of Scripture seems to lean toward the sovereignty of God (in salvation), but 40% seem to lean toward man's responsibility. So, it was more reasonable to lean "Calvinist."

Understand the unbiblical and illogical presuppositions implicit even in this... it sets the Word of God against each other (but Scripture is clear as one whole message and intended to be so by its author), AND
it defines "sovereign" as if it were relative, 60% sovereign. Not logical- like being 60% pregnant.

Then, as I studied the immediate context of the 40% Scriptures, it resolved some more of the "leaning man" Scriptures toward "leaning God" in two ways:

1) their immediate context
2) the context of the whole of Scripture
The systematic theology of the Westminster Confession (the London Baptist Confession is very similar in this regard) is very helpful in this regard.

But while 85% was still clearly "Calvinist" (sovereignty of God), it still left about 15% of Scriptures unclear or seeming to lean the other way.
E.g. John 3:16 
Then a light bulb went on. First, how can God be "sovereign" if his creature can change his own nature (by regeneration) and choose and abide in Him?

Second,
"The world" was to the believer of the first century, representative of the (gentile) "world" often outside of Israel. Jesus died for (all sorts) of people in the (whole) world, Jew and Gentile. 
John 3:3-15 before this talks about how being "born again" is impossible with men. Man cannot re-enter the womb, as Nicodemus reasoned. Like the wind, which cannot be controlled, it goes wherever it pleases v. 8. 

So it is with salvation.

Man cannot control it, it does not even make sense to him, it is impossible to man.

Now, John chapter 3 is one of the _best_ passages to explain "the doctrines of grace" (Calvinism) because, by God's grace, I understand it in context.

Dr RC Sproul, "What is Reformed Theology" has an on-line teaching series that may help (12 lessons):
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/what_is_reformed_theology/


----------



## Apologist4Him (Apr 29, 2012)

NB3K said:


> What is "hyper-calvinism", and what is an example of a "hyper-calvinist"?



Brother Jason, I would provide a clear answer, but I am not sure there is a precise one, it is a subject of much debate among Calvinists/Reformed Christians. To get an idea about the history of the debate I recommend the following article:

A Primer on Hyper-Calvinism

Here is a list of linked articles:

Monergism :: Hyper-Calvinism

John Hendryx sums up the points nicely the most serious differences in my mind include:

"- that God is the author of sin and of evil 
- that men have no will of their own, and secondary causes are of no effect 
- that it is wrong to evangelize 
- that men who have once sincerely professed belief are saved regardless of what they later do 
- that God does not command everyone to repent 
- that the grace of God does not work for the betterment of all men 
- that saving faith is equivalent to belief in the doctrine of predestination 
- that only Calvinists are Christians (Neo-gnostic Calvinism"​
A book on this subject by Ian Murray titled "SPURGEON V. HYPER-CALVINISM: THE BATTLE FOR GOSPEL PREACHING":

Spurgeon v. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching :: Historical Theology :: Church History :: Monergism Books :: Reformed Books - Discount Prices - Free Shipping


----------



## Scott1 (Apr 29, 2012)

Don't get distracted by what is sometimes called "hyper" Calvinism. Usually that term is used in a pejorative way by people who simply misunderstand "Calvinism." They are illogically, unbiblically trying to place an absolute, (sovereignty) on a continuum. 

Sometimes the term is used to mean the church is not to evangelize, which is a misunderstanding of the God who ordains the ends (salvation), also ordains the means (ordinarily, through the preaching of the gospel).

In either case, "hyper" is not Calvinism,

just as the "new morality," is not new (or moral).


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 30, 2012)

Non-Calvinist generally have never understood man's depravity. I think that's why Luther's _Bondage of the Will_ was so powerful in pushing me into Calvinism. (Though a non-believer, growing up in the deep south I absorbed "free-will" theology by osmosis it seems.) Also, I have met Baptists who primarily have difficulty with particular redemption.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (Apr 30, 2012)

Responsibility does not necessitate capability.


----------



## anotherpilgrim (Apr 30, 2012)

Constantlyreforming said:


> Responsibility does not necessitate capability.


Can you explain that a little more? I think you're absolutely right on it and all the biblical evidence says that as man we are responsible for things we are inherently capable of and must absolutely rely on God for. However, I have to admit having trouble with 'feeling' settled about it. I don't understand why it feels unfair for us to hold people responsible for things they are incapable of, but it does feel unfair. Anyone else ever try to break this 'feeling' down or struggle with it?


----------



## SolaSaint (Apr 30, 2012)

Thanks Scott, great post.


----------



## Supersillymanable (May 7, 2012)

anotherpilgrim said:


> Constantlyreforming said:
> 
> 
> > Responsibility does not necessitate capability.
> ...



I've had this feeling before. It can often almost feel unfair that someone who is incapable of something is required to do it anyway. Something that I keep in mind (an if this is wrong, forgive me, I'm new here), is a comment I once read on the passage in Romans on the sovereign choice of God. And it went along the lines of, if someone is so bad (or depraved), they are incapable of doing good (spiritually), does that exempt them any more from the fact that they don't do good? Many would probably say that it condemn's them all the more so. If someone is so spiritually depraved that they cannot accept God by themselves, does it make it unfair for God to require it of them? In the same way, we would answer that with a "no".

---------- Post added at 03:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:46 PM ----------




anotherpilgrim said:


> Constantlyreforming said:
> 
> 
> > Responsibility does not necessitate capability.
> ...



I've had this feeling before. It can often almost feel unfair that someone who is incapable of something is required to do it anyway. Something that I keep in mind (an if this is wrong, forgive me, I'm new here), is a comment I once read on the passage in Romans on the sovereign choice of God. And it went along the lines of, if someone is so bad (or depraved), they are incapable of doing good (spiritually), does that exempt them any more from the fact that they don't do good? Many would probably say that it condemn's them all the more so. If someone is so spiritually depraved that they cannot accept God by themselves, does it make it unfair for God to require it of them? In the same way, we would answer that with a "no".

---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------

Sorry about the lack of signature. Changed. Also, sorry about the double post...


----------



## glazer1972 (May 22, 2012)

In my experiences most folks don't like to admit that they really were that bad. They like to believe that there was some good in themselves.

When I speak of the way I was before I was saved I use the word "worm" but I still think I am giving myself too much credit. Worms were a lot more worthy than I was.

Praise God for His Grace.


----------



## Constantlyreforming (May 22, 2012)

I see it like this....you rack up a debt that is far too greater than you can pay in your lifetime through "ordinary means", but you are still responsible for its payment.

You are responsible for it, yet being responsible does not necessitate that you are capable of taking care of the debt. The debt is the initial separation from God passed down by Adam's federal sin....any debt is separation. It isn't that we are so bad that we are incapable of doing any good. It is that any good we do is not what God has required for the remission of sins.


----------

