You may correct meif we're on the same page
Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
popsthebuilder
New member
Nang
TOL Subscriber
God tempts no men to sin. (James 1:13)
God is not the author or cause of sin. All blame for sin, wickedness, and resultant evils are place solely and squarely on Adam. (Romans 5:12)
Spiritually dead is dead as it can be. Somethings you say shows your misunderstanding but I don't know you well nor read new members posts. Most here think they are born with a little goodness left and enough free will to tell God what to do like he doesn't know what to do with your future like you're hidding something from him.
popsthebuilder
New member
I wouldn't dare to think to tell GOD what to do, or what needs to be done.
As far as your previous post directed towards me; I fact check myself very often, and more often than not can catch self deception. I agree that knowing and doing are two different things though. I have faith, but find myself feeling a very real need to change. I try to practice patience and perseverance, but it is flawed as to persevere in sin is indeed to not repent. I find that repentance from known sin is key to salvation, and too recognize baptism as a sign of sorts of a new spiritual life that doesn't desire the wants of the flesh. I have yet to have been baptized. I am of a circumcised spirit (knowing of my sins) yet haven't turned from all these things in reality. I try to be humble and helpful in any way I can, and have faith that GOD will continue to guide me along the path that HE would have me take, and will cause change in my life by HIS will.
So in short; I actively and consciously use retrospect and introspection and the selfless conscience to test my own motives at nearly all intervals, attempting to always keep the teachings and example of the Christ too, in mind, and as such, reflected in action. Yet, admittedly, I am flawed and not fully matured in my faith. I am thankful to the Christ and GOD for all I can perceive regardless of if I consider it good or bad in my finite comprehension, and understand justification to be a process, not by the will of man or the wants of man or the eyes of man, but for the sake of man and life, and creation as a whole, by the will of GOD alone.
Anyway, I didn't really mean to go into that much detail about myself. Not that it isn't probably still vague.
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Rosenritter
New member
1. Calvinism is not the gospel.
2. Calvin is not God.
If you disagree, say which of those points you disagree with.
Rosenritter
New member
Are you a materialist type that denies that there is such a thing as a spirit in man, or other living things? Spirit is not made of molecules, is it?
beloved57
Well-known member
Originally Posted by Rosenritter
1. Calvinism is not the gospel.
2. Calvin is not God.
If you disagree, say which of those points you disagree with.
More rabbit trail comments, not interested.
Calvinism makes God unjust. Its not possible to have saving faith in an unjust God.
beloved57
Well-known member
Pateism makes God unjust. It has God cursing and condemning the righteous ! See every sinner Christ died for shall be made righteous Rom 5:19!
Lots of new denominations spring up here with new theology. Older theologies had time to fact check themselves and triple fact themselves. I see a mix in yours so I don't need to struggle with new ideas since they were debunked decades ago. I'll let you miggle with others with thier new ideas that never worked. Carry on.
Sure it is. You'll need to get closer to the present which you're billions of miles from it. Trace the source of your thought and you'll find the creator of it. You will be too busyminded to ever get there so you'll always argue here, creating new rabbit trails.
popsthebuilder
New member
Yeah, that made tons of sense.
You are a joke, an arrogant, self centered, nonsensical joke.
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Hi TT,
This kinda falls along the logic line of ......
You have a child.
That child smashes a neighbor's window.
Who is to blame for the broken window?
The child, or you (for creating the child in the first place --- ie. if you had not had the child, then the window would not be broken)??????
BTW, I'm no Calvinist and am against their doctrine.
Just wanted to show that the logic of who is to blame for evil can work different ways depending on which perspective you are asking the question from.
That's an easy one. The child that broke the neighbors window is the guilty one. We are all personally responsible for our own actions. Not our parents, Not because the neighbors window was there and the child decided to break it. Some will say, "The neighbor tempted the child to break it because it was there" I say, hog wash. We are not responsible for the actions of our children. However, some are trying to make parents responsible for their juvenile delinquents. I don't think that its fair.
Yeppers.
I had thought of your bolded part too and almost posted it in the who's to blame part, because, yeah, someone could say that if the neighbor hadn't created/built the window in the first place then it would not have gotten broken.
And then you could also blame the factory worker that formed the glass and wood into the window. (If he hadn't done that, then the window would not have gotten broken.)
And then you could also blame the axeman for cutting down the tree that made the frame for the window,
Only with this type of mentality can one say that GOD is to blame because if He had not created man, trees, etc, then the window would not have gotten broken.
It's a silly mentality.
One can spin that blame game a lot of different ways.
Ezekiel 18:20
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
That settles it, doesn't it? Good post.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I am not quite sure you grasp what is exactly meant by "the son" here.
In Ezekiel 18:20 he still pursues the earlier mentioned sentiment that God is a just judge and treats every one according to his conduct. As Paul says, As each has lived in the flesh, so God lays up a reward for him. (Romans 8:13.) But Paul more clearly refuted the proverb (Ezekiel 18:2), that the sons should suffer for their fathers' sins. Paul says, then, that each when he comes before God's tribunal should be judged by his works.
As far then as the general sentiment is concerned, it is in accordance with common sense that God should exact punishment of the wicked, and that they should receive the just reward of their works. But in the next clause, the question arises how the Spirit here pronounces that the son should not pay the penalty due to the father, when God so often declares that He visits the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20:5).
That sentiment often occurs, but there are two passages peculiarly remarkable, where it is annexed to the second precept of the law (Deuteronomy 5:9), and then in the vision which occurred to Moses, God pronounces the same thing as before, namely, that the iniquity of the fathers should fall upon the sons (Exodus 34:7).
These passages seem opposed to each other, but it will be easy to remove the apparent contradiction by beginning with the fall of Adam, since if we do not consider the whole race fallen in Adam, we can scarcely extricate ourselves from that difficulty which we often feel as causing foul doubts. But the principle of one universal fall in Adam removes all doubts. For when we consider the perishing of the whole human race, it is said with truth that we perish through another's fault, but it is added at the same time, that everyone perishes through his own iniquity.
If then we inquire into the cause of the curse which presses upon all Adam’s progeny, it may be said to be partly another's and partly our own: another's, through Adam's decline from God, in whose person the whole human race was spoiled of righteousness and intelligence, and all parts of the soul utterly corrupted.
So that everyone is lost in himself, and if he wishes to contend with God, he must always acknowledge that the fountain of the curse flows from himself. For before the child was born into the world, the child was corrupt, since its menial intelligence was buried in darkness, and its will was perverse and rebellious against God. As soon as infants are conceived then born they contract pollution from their father Adam: their reason is blinded, their appetites perverted, and their senses entirely vitiated.
This rebellion does not immediately show itself in the young child, but before our omniscient God, who discerns things more perfectly than we do, the corruption of our whole nature is rightly treated as sin. There is no one who, during the course of his life does not perceive himself liable to punishment through his own works, yet original sin is sufficient for the condemnation of all men.
When men grow up they acquire for themselves the new curse of what is called actual sin, so that he who is pure with reference to ordinary observation, is guilty before God. Hence Scripture pronounces us all naturally children of wrath: these are Paul's words in the second chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians (Eph 2:3). If then we are children of wrath, it follows that we are polluted from our birth. This provokes God's anger and renders Him hostile to us, in this sense David confesses himself conceived in sin (Psalm 51:5).
David does not here accuse either his father or his mother so as to extenuate his own wickedness, but, when David abhors the greatness of his sin in provoking the wrath of God, he is brought back to his infancy, and acknowledges that he was even then guilty before God. We see then that David, being reminded of a single sin, acknowledges himself a sinner before he was born; and since we are all under the curse, it follows that we are all worthy of death. Thus, the son, David, properly speaking shall not die through the iniquity of his father, but is considered guilty before God through his own fault.
When God pronounces that the iniquity of the father returns into the bosom of the son, we must remember that when God involves the son in the same death with the father, God does so principally because the son of the impious is destitute of the Holy Spirit, from which it happens that the son remains in the death in which he was born.
For if we do not consider any other punishments than those which are openly inflicted, a new doubt will again arise from which we cannot free ourselves, since this inquiry will always recur, how can the son perish by his own fault, if he can produce good fruit and so reconcile himself to God?
Two kinds of punishment…
Spoiler
Now if anyone asks by what right they perished, we should answer: first, they were sons of Adam and so were accursed, and then God wished to punish the Sodomites through their offspring, and He could do so deservedly. Concerning the young who thus perished with their fathers, it is said, happy is he who dashes thy young ones against the stones or the pavement (Psalm 137:9). Indeed, at first sight, that atrocity seems intolerable that a child whose age and judgment is so tender should be so cruelly slain: but as has already said, all are naturally children of wrath (Ephesians 2:2).
It is no wonder that God withdraws His favor from the offspring of the reprobate, even if he executes these outward judgments. But how will this question now be suitable: shall not the son bear the iniquity of the father?
Ezekiel here in Eze. 18:20 speaks of adults, for he means that the son shall not bear his father's iniquity, since the son shall receive the reward due to himself and sustain his own, the son's, burden. Should any one wish to strive with God, he can be refuted in a single word, for who can boast himself to be innocent? Since therefore all are guilty through their own fault, it follows that the son does not bear his father's iniquity, since the son must bear his own iniquity at the same time.
Now that question is solved.
AMR
How can you be peaceful of your own rudeness? Your foul mouth may end up in my ignore list