Two Objections towards the Doctrines of Grace

Not open for further replies.


Puritan Board Freshman
As I was explaining Calvinism to my dad he rose two objectioins.

1. How can a loving God allow people to be born if they were just going to eternally burn in hell.

2. And Calvin wasn't loving at all because of the way he handled oposing doctrine.

An excerpt from something he read in the Encylopedia Britannica.

" These tensions, as well as the persecution of Calvin's followers in France, help to explain the trial and burning of Michael Servetus, a Spanish theologian preaching and publishing unorthodox beliefs. When Servetus unexpectedly arrived in Geneva in 1553, both sides felt the need to demonstrate their zeal for orthodoxy. Calvin was responsible for Servetus' arrest and conviction, though he had preferred a less brutal form of execution. "

How would you respond to these objections? They are very complex...

[Edited on 23-12-2004 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]
Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
As I was explaining Calvinism to my dad he rose two objectioins.

1. How can a loving God allow people to be born if they were just going to eternally burn in hell.

[Edited on 23-12-2004 by ABondSlaveofChristJesus]


First, I would highly recommend reading Van Til's chapter on "The Christian Philosophy of Knowledge" in Defending the Faith. This, I believe, will shake the foundation of every Arminian conception of God and time. This is part of the problem. The Arminian won't like, but I am left like Paul at the end of Romans 11. Hopefully the discussion will lead to doxology.

Second, you have to deal with the fact of sin, especially original sin and the destruction of man. I would lay out the first 6 chapters of Genesis for your father, and show him that "God repented that he made man", so he judged him. It is the love of God that compells him to judge rebels. The real question is how God can redeem sinners, especially if he is love. In most of these instances the problem will usually lie in an individuals anthropology, i.e. people aren't that bad. Again, I highly recommend reading Van Til's work, b/c I believe my dependency, finiteness (is that a word?), and my depravity have become much more clear.

Finally, lay out for your father that the individual wills not to come. They are willfully blind, making their condemnation greater.

Recap: the issues are God and Time, total depravity, and willfull blindness.

At the end, I marval at God's wisdom, which surpasses finding out, and say, "Will not the judge of all the earth due right?" Let your father know, even if he doesn't really grasp the issues (and I'm not sure how much I do) that God is just. He will do right!

Keith explained it better than I could, but I will add my :2cents:
Ask him politely that he cannot judge God by man's arbitrary standards, especially if those standards are based upon French Revolutionary egalitarianism. James White on Dan Barker

Classical Christian: Suppose for a moment that you had developed a cure for cancer. You took it into a cancer ward and gave it away to half of the patients. What do you suppose would happen to the patients who did not receive it?

Objector: I suppose they would die. Is that your answer?

Classical Christian: Yes, and what would they die of?

Objector: They would die of cancer.

Classical Christian: That is also correct. And then we have to ask, "Is the benefactor unjust for not giving to some patients what he gave to others? Did he have to give what gives life from the outset? But this begs a further question: why are people today sick? Let's stretch the analogy a bit further: They would not die of "not taking the medicine." Their refusal to take the medicine might affect their dying but it is not the cause of their death. It is the disease which kill and in the case of the human race the disease is sin.

I took this from Persuasions by Doug Wilson. I did tinker with the scenario a bit to make it relevant.

[Edited on 12--23-04 by Draught Horse]
Originally posted by Paul manata
2. What the _____ does this have to do with whether the Bible teaches it or not? This is a fallacious appeal to emotion.

:lol::lol::lol: I don't know why but I thought that was funny!:lol:
Originally posted by ABondSlaveofChristJesus
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Regarding #2, I would refer you to the points made in a couple of earlier threads about the justice of Servetus' execution and Calvin's involvment therein:

[Edited on 23-12-2004 by VirginiaHuguenot]

But those biased sources arn't as "independent" as the Encylopedia ;)

Whats your view with the first objection?

The points made in the threads cited are valid despite the Puritannical bias of the source. You can make reference to the historical arguments which vindicate Calvin from false charges without crediting PB members who made the arguments! :D

As for the first objection, as Paul noted, Jesus (who preached about love, as most people inside or outside the Church today will acknowledge) preached more about hell than anyone else in Scripture. I would refer your father to Romans 9. Basically, we cannot judge the morality of God without setting ourselves up to higher than God. The doctrines of reprobation and election ought to instill in us a sober sense of humility. "There but for the grace of God go I."
Not open for further replies.