What are the most common objections to Calvinism?

hottubreligion - to add to your John verses:

John 10
11 I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd lays down His life for the sheep.

14 I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, 15 even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

Jesus then says to some of the Jews asking Him if He was the Messiah:
25 I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me. 26 But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.

So those Jews were not His sheep...If He laid down his life for His sheep, did He lay his life down for them?

Only our Sovereign Lord can open the eyes of an argumenative Arminian.
If Christ shed his blood for every individual and every sinlge person does not trust Christ as Lord and Saviour,then he shed his blood in vain.He failed.
The gospel of John(not John Calvin)records these words:John.6:37..All that the Father giveth me(a definite number) shall come to me:and him that cometh to me(an unknown number)I will in no wise cast out.John.17:12b.Those that thou gavest me I have kept,and none of them is lost.

So, did you get any actual verses to with any of these? I'm doing a presentation to the men's group at my church in 3 weeks, and I'd like to look at common "problem passages."

God chose people according to foreknowledge alone, not foreordination. God (passively?) saw what people would do and elected (ratified, rubber-stamped) their decision via election (ties in with Total Depravity, as crewbear said above).

John Calvin murdered Servetus!!!

I think this is one: If believers can resist the Holy Spirit why can't an unbeliever resist the Holy Spirit's effectual call?

Reprobation is often the first objection free-willers put up. Yet total depravity is often the UNSPOKEN objection. Believing man to be essentially good, free-willers object to the idea that any might end up in hell, failing to see that, according to the Bible, it is only by grace that ANY are saved at all.
Hence the 'people are not damned for their sins but only for not believing in Jesus' statement. Which is silly, as it assumes unbelief is not a sin.

centie,

I was going to tell you that that is what Bilbo was doing and that he is a fellow #pros'er (not poser). :)

Mark

Markie:

I just realized something: Bilbo here was actually telling us what the common objections to Calvinism are -- because he named them all. I can't think of one he missed -- and the last thing here about Calvinists being mean was the cherry on my ice cream sundae.

Ah yes: "I follow the Bible".

Jim, er ah, Bilbo:

In John 1, it says this --

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

You'd agree that's what it says, right?

What does it mean when John here says that those who believed were "born of God" and not born of blood, nor born of the will of the flesh, nor born of the will of man?

I'm interested. Please let me know.

I follow the Bible, not a man-made theological system. I want to follow Jesus, not John Calvin. John Calvin was a mean man that brutally punished people. Calvinism is too divisive.

Although it will masked by other issues, I believe that all objections to the doctrines of grace are truly objections to Total Depravity. This view of the natural state of man is highly offensive to the pride of man. That man is helpless in sin is the offense of the Gospel.

Once you accept Total Depravity, all of the other four points naturally and irresistably follow. But Christians in general do not feel comfortable attacking Total Depravity. It sounds like boasting. Yet they also do not wish to follow the conclusions which proceed from it. So they attack those conclusions in order to indirectly remove the offending premise.

The Gospel is not so offensive if I get to make the ultimate decision. For then I am never faced with the awful conclusion that God could have passed over me - sweet wonderful me without whose presence heaven would be immeasurably reduced. I am never faced with the awful conclusion that God could have passed over me, and heard the angels praise His justice for doing so.

crew

God would never demand something of people if they cannot meet those demands. God would not offer the gospel to everyone knowing that only a few are capable of receiving it, because this would make God out to be a monster mocking mankind, dangling a carrot in front of it, knowing most could not take it.

If God has already chosen who will be saved, then we are robots, its not fair, and evangelism is pointless. Why witness? If I don't have free will, then I would have insincere love for God. The most loving thing you can do is give choice. Faith is not a gift.

romans 9 applies to nations. Only Jews were predestined. God draws all men to himself, then it is up to them to choose him or reject him. God doesn't send anyone to hell. Everyone has to be given the opportunity to hear about Christ or they can't be condemned.

God loves people so He gives us all the free choice. Its unfair for God to pick some but not others. God looked down through time and saw we would choose him, so thats how he chose us. People can resist God all the time, so irresistible grace is untrue. God won't force anyone to do anything. God cannot violate free will because He doesn't want robots. Christ died to make salvation possible, its still our choice. God desires the salvation of everyone. Jesus died for the whole world. God is not the author of sin. I could go on..