Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[musterion]

In fairness to Eggy, we really need to acknowledge all those horrible jailings, confiscations, persecutions, atrocities and murders that dispensationalists have committed in the name of dispensationalism. I'm so ashamed of the historical horrors of dispensationalism that I just can't bring myself to do it, so the reformed and other anti-disps are invited to compile that volume for us.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Can you guarantee that those people that committed such horrendous atrocities were members of the Body of Christ?

You seem to want to conflate all self proclaimed Christians with the body of Christ, and no, I cannot, nor would want to.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

Are you consistent, Nang? Will you agree with AMR and Calvin and openly admit that you believe that Jeffery Dahmer's homosexual cannibalism was your god's will, the proof of which is that it happened? Or do you lack the courage of your own convictions?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Kind of like asking if someone has stopped beating their wife. "Yes?" :doh: "No." :doh: In the end, both are EXACTLY what the asker wanted to hear and imho, it is nothing but vitriolic dishonesty to win a stupid contest. Okay, you can ask a question that I personally won't answer. Next? "Lon is dishonest." :nono: Again, you simply win a 'stupid' contest. It is a debate tactic with no winner, certainly not God. Make it your ambition, not to defeat Calvinism, but to Glorify God and uphold His truths. Acts 5:38,39

Was Gamaliel correct? We often go at each other on TOL as if Gamaliel was/is wrong :think:

2 playing field leveling questions (imho):
1) Is God in control of the world?
2) If yes, how much? (all things?)

Imho, our whole goal needs to be how to address these two questions both with believers, and nonbelievers alike. Further, I believe scripture makes it clear what the answers are, even if someone else disagrees on what I overtly assume those answers are.
In Him -Lon

 

[Tambora]

May all forgive you for posting this.

It is less than worthy of a true Christian to post, Tambora.

It does not honor God in any way.

It is vile.

Take it off, please.

This is not something I pulled out of a hat.
This video has been on TOL for years.
It was either posted in a one-on-one thread or a Battle Royale thread that AMR was in (which is where I got it).
And since the owner of this site re-posted it and agreed that it made a point, I doubt TOL is going to be as upset about it as you are.

And I agree with Knight, it does make a good point.
If mankind cannot avert GOD's will, then all the horrific events the video shows were indeed GOD's will that they happened.
If men can only do what GOD wills them to do, then all the horrific events the video shows were indeed GOD's will that they happened.
If those events in the video were evil, and they could not have done otherwise, then all the horrific events the video shows were indeed GOD's will that they happened.

 

[Nang]

Make it your ambition, not to defeat Calvinism, but to Glorify God and uphold His truths. Acts 5:38,39 In Him -Lon

Amen.

The anti-Calvinists have gone negative to a dangerous level. It will hurt them, more than those they rabidly tear at; bringing great shame to the Lord.

Our human Christian duty is to bring GLORY to His name.

Let's all center upon that truth for a change!!

 

[musterion]

Amen.

The anti-Calvinists have gone negative to a dangerous level. It will hurt them, more than those they rabidly tear at; bringing great shame to the Lord.

Our human Christian duty is to bring GLORY to His name.

Let's all center upon that truth for a change!!

You have no truth.

You glorify an idol and blaspheme the One True God. You do this by insisting that God has denied the blood of Christ to the presumable majority of mankind and insist it's to His glory that He does so. You insist the cross is unavailable to them. You insist they can neither truly hear nor believe the saving Gospel of grace.

There's no truth to be shared with you except our exhorting you to believe the Gospel of the grace of God, and be saved.

 

[Nang]

This is not something I pulled out of a hat.
This video has been on TOL for years.
It was either posted in a one-on-one thread or a Battle Royale thread that AMR was in (which is where I got it).
And since the owner of this site re-posted it and agreed that it made a point, I doubt TOL is going to be as upset about it as you are.

And I agree with Knight, it does make a good point.
If mankind cannot avert GOD's will, then all the horrific events the video shows were indeed GOD's will that they happened.
If men can only do what GOD wills them to do, then all the horrific events the video shows were indeed GOD's will that they happened.
If those events in the video were evil, and they could not have done otherwise, then all the horrific events the video shows were indeed GOD's will that they happened.

So by posting this filthy false witness, you have wickedly joined your "friends" in declaring God to be the author of sin?

You do not see the sin in taking a Christian's words out of context, let alone out of a complete sentence, to accuse him of advocating an evil God?

:angrymob:

May God save your soul, despite your open enmity against Him!

 

[patrick jane]

@popsthebuilder



When an Arminian, especially GW, posts a verse in supposed support of a particular view, it has often been met with proper interpretative analysis demonstrating the falsity of the claims made by the mere quotation of Scripture followed by nothing more than opinion. In response to said proper interpretative efforts, the Arminian of GW's kin more often than not resorts to cavils or woes that the response is too detailed or too complex to really understand. If Calvinists are misrepresenting Scripture, the burden is upon the one making the claim to demonstrate the claim with a similar substantive hermeneutical analysis. As is often the case, all that comes in response is what you are now reading in the quotes being actually answered. Just more of the same of opinions sans substantive support.

The plain facts borne out by history that the long-lived and most referenced and recommended commentaries available on Holy Writ are authored by men of the Calvinistic/Reformed tradition. While the Calvinistic/Reformed traditions have no claim to the present majority view, the actual holders of the majority view demonstrate their lack of deep study by the very dearth of published commentaries held in the same regard as are the Reformed commentaries when compared to those of the Calvinistic/Reformed view.


Scripture plainly teaches the character of God. From my personal statement of faith:

There is but one God (Deuteronomy 4:39), who is eternal (Isaiah 57:15; Psalms 90:2; Psalms 90:4; Revelation 1:8; Revelation 4:8; John 8:58; Exodus 3:14; Isaiah 45:21; Isaiah 46:9-10; Galatians 4:4-5; Acts 17:30-31), a spirit (John 4:24), sovereign (Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:17; Acts 17:28; Nehemiah 9:6; 2 Peter 3:7; Job 12:23; Job 34:14-15; Job 38:32; Matthew 5:45; Matthew 6:26; Numbers 23:19; 2 Samuel 7:28; Psalms 33:14-15; Psalms 104:14; Psalms 104:29; Psalms 135:6; Psalms 139:16; Psalms 141:6; Psalms 148:8; Proverbs 16:1; Proverbs 16:33; Proverbs 20:24; Proverbs 21:1; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; Ephesians 1:11; Galatians 1:15; 1 Timothy 6:15; Jeremiah 1:5; 1 Corinthians 4:7), good (Psalms 86:4; Psalms 107:1), loving (1 John 4:16), holy (Isaiah 6:3; Revelations 4:8 ), transcendent (Isaiah 40:25), omnipotent (2 Kings 19:25; Psalms 135:6; Jeremiah 32:17; Jeremiah 32:27; Genesis 8:14; Luke 1:37; Matthew 19:26; Psalms 115:3; Matthew 3:9), omniscient (Job 37:16; 1 John 3:20; 1 Cor. 2:10-11; Hebrews 4:13; 2 Chronicles 16:9; Job 28:24; Matthew 10:29-30; Isaiah 46:9-10; Isaiah 42:8-9; Matthew 6:8; Matthew 10:30; Psalms 139:1-2; Psalms 139:4; Psalms 139:16; Romans 11:33), unchangeable (Psalms 33:11; Psalms 102:25-27; Malachi 3:6; James 1:17; Isaiah 46:9-11; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Zechariah 8:17), yet not existing in an eternally frozen pose but possessing Godly passions and emotions (Isaiah 62:5; Psalms 78:40; Ephesians 4:30; Exodus 32:10; Psalms 103:13; Isaiah 54:8; Psalms 103:17), and perfectly righteous (Psalms 7:11).

The non-Calvinist seeks to dilute the sovereignty of God in favor of giving man unfettered autonomy. Such a man is even able to choose wisely or even choose differently from what their own motives and nature admit. God is just ratifying these choices that He presumably saw happening from eternity before creation. Or, if one is an open theist, God really does not know objectively what man will do until he does it, hence God is always learning new things.

On the contrary to the claim, it is the Calvinist that gives God all His glory and recognizes that we are just not as free as we like to think we are.


There is a great deal of truth to this. Few are the non-Calvinists that actually understand Calvinism. This is readily apparent by those that claim to know all about Reformed doctrines that then post or make statements that are in clear opposition to the Reformed corpus of beliefs. No Reformed person will claim that their doctrinal position is easy to understand. This is because we are all born will Arminian tendencies from the fall of Adam, thinking we are captains of our own souls. Such a mindset it terribly difficult to overcome and requires the person embracing the doctrines of grace to take every word captive in diligent study.

These very points to which I and others have (or will) responded demonstrate the superficiality of not a few non-Reformed believers. I have spent a great deal of time describing the proper teachings of the Reformed faith in these forums. These are all available to anyone taking the time to do so. My TOL blog captures many of these teachings in one place for convenient review, too. How wonderful would it be for the glory of God and the edification of all that persons caviling about Calvinism to actually study what a bona fide Calvinist believes and then interact with these beliefs versus posts like the one to which I am responding. Sadly, yet not unexpectedly from men like GW constructing straw men of the Calvinist's views by claiming we operate from the same presuppositions they do and therefore believe about our beliefs what they believe about our beliefs leave no hope for honest discussion.


Indeed this is the case for the Calvinist. Regeneration means being born anew. One must be so borne before one has ears to hear the Good News. The state of the unregenerate is quite plain from Scripture: Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14. The non-Calvinist rejects these plain teachings in favor of a Romanist idea that man is not so fallen as to have no moral ability to choose wisely. These non-Calvinists believe God leaves some remnant of grace within those in Adam, a minute seed of righteousness, enabling them to choose wisely. All such a view does is give man reason to boast and makes God a debtor to the choices of man. Scripture says nothing of the sort and to embrace such a pernicious view is to rob God of His sovereignty and get in bed with the Romanist.


Again, there is nothing to disagree with in the statement, for it is the very teaching of Holy Writ. For example, see: Deuteronomy 7:6-7, Isaiah 55:11, John 6:44, John 15:16, Acts 13:48, Romans 8:28-30, Romans 9:11-13, 1 Corinthians 1:26-29, Ephesians 1:3-5, Ephesians 2:4-7, 2 Timothy 1:9. To deny these teachings one is left believing God does not objectively know the future (open theism), or God does not make any decision about the fate of man until man chooses, which is the same thing as open theism per se. Alternatively, one believes God peeks into the future before creating to see who will choose wisely and then declares these persons so choosing as among the elect. There are no other alternatives for the denier of eternal election even if one want to winsomely assume election is national, corporate, as if nations are not composed of actual individuals.


As noted above, the statement being made by persons claiming to understand Calvinism is ignorant of what the Calvinist/Reformed actually believe. Man's free will to choose according to his greatest inclinations at the moment he so chooses is in fact established by God (Acts 2:23, Matt. 17:12, Acts 4:27-28, John 19:11, Prov. 16:33).

The non-Calvinist notion of free will entails a view that man possesses the ability to do otherwise than what he did under the exact same conditions. This so-called libertarian free will implies our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature. Libertarian freedom is, in fact, the freedom to act contrary to our nature, wants and greatest desires. Libertarians, therefore, when asked what caused the person to choose one action over another, will answer that a free act is when no causal, antecedent, laws of nature, desires or other factors are sufficient to incline the will decisively to chose one option or another. Such a view is easily seen to be logically inconsistent.

If we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in the libertarian sense) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? If you ask a libertarian whether he could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, they must answer ‘no’. In other words, even to a libertarian, it is not within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sin’s bondage. Therefore, these libertarians are forced to admit that the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man is hostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. To overcome this inconsistency, the libertarian is also forced to believe in prevenient grace, which I spoke to above regarding Romanism. Sigh.

The Reformed reject these illogical notions in favor of Scripture's teachings that we choose according to our natures, which are only two, evil or good. The unregenerate nature is evil, able only to sin more or sin less. The regenerate nature is able to sin or not to sin. The unregenerate are we are slaves of sin until the Son sets them free (John 8; Rom 6)

In John 3:19 it says that those who reject the gospel do so because the love darkness and hate the light. A libertarian, on the other hand, to be consistent, must assert that one rejected Christ, not necessarily because he hated Him, or on the other hand did not chose Him because he had affection for Him, but rather only because he chose to, which is contrary to everything we know of Scripture. And so on with the nonsense of libertarian free will. Sigh.


The Calvinist holds a number of men of old in high regard, Calvin among them. We should stand on the shoulders of those that have come before us and not assume from misguided notions of chronological snobbery that we moderns know more than others.

The "Calvin is a murderer!" meme is hardly worth a response as it has been shown to be far from the historical truths of the matter. The persons making these claims only show their desperation in their failings to actually engage Scripture about Calvinistic views and thus resort to these genetic fallacies and the like. It plays well to the mob, but the discerning see it for what it really is.


Scripture teaches us clearly about the state of the non-believer: The unbeliever will never seek God's righteousness for the unbeliever

- is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9);
- is full of evil (Mark 7:21-23);
- is not able to come to Jesus unless given to by God (Eph. 2:2);
- must be quickened by God (Eph. 2:4-5);
- cannot choose righteousness until regenerated (Titus 3:5);
- 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).

Until the non-Calvinist can mount a proper hermeneutical defense to the contrary, which is not possible, the Calvinist view stands unchallenged unless one want to swim the Tibor to Rome.


God's predestination of the elect was not a random choice. The very word in theological discourse implies a setting of a preference upon another (love before time) by God for reasons known only unto Him. The foreknowledge of God in this case (Romans 8:29-30) is akin to the Scripture's use of "knew" as in "Adam knew Eve". It is an intimate relationship, far from this egregious claim of randomness made by the uninformed. We see this intimacy in Our Lord's High Priestly Prayer in Gethsemane. Anyone assuming Our Lord is speking about arms-length, randomly chosen souls, is being foolish and should avail themselves of a more thorough treatment here.

I will close by noting that I make no claims to have it all figured out with respect to that which I hold dear. Nevertheless, I will claim that I take no shortcuts in forming and defending my views. I will dig deeper into an opposing view, leverage original sources and scholarly treatments, preferring not hide behind self-righteous claims of "Just Me and My Bible" in order to fully understand another's view and offer up a proper defense for my views. In all my years' experience, you will look far and wide to find an intellectually lazy Calvinist. Would that the same could be said for the average non-Calvinist. :AMR:

AMR

Ephesians 1:3-5 means God chose us ALL before the foundation of the world. That's just one of the scriptures calvinists point to to feel special.

 

[Nang]

You have no truth.

Bah . . .

 

[Tambora]

Kind of like asking if someone has stopped beating their wife. "Yes?" :doh: "No." :doh:

It's not that tough.
If you have never beaten your wife, the correct answer can only be "no".
(You can't stop doing what you never started doing.)

The "yes" answer would mean that at some point, you did indeed beat your wife (otherwise you couldn't have stopped, because, again, you can't stop doing something you never started doing.


If the person that hears your answer misconstrues it, you have still answered correctly.

So what's the correct answer, Lon?

 

[musterion]

So by posting this filthy false witness, you have wickedly joined your "friends" in declaring God to be the author of sin?

What part of it is false witness?

The only thing it could possibly be is the quote.

AMR would never have tolerated having a false quote attributed to him and put into a video, nor would Knight.

So haven't you just borne false witness against Tambora?

May God save your soul, despite your open enmity against Him!

Didn't you just say you wanted to unite with Tambora in the truth?

 

[TulipBee]

If you believe in this god then you believe in a god that is unjust, by definition. You're arguing with someone who believes what you say your god caused him to believe and I suppose you must believe that your god is causing you to argue with a person about things that they have no power to change. Your every thought is a contradiction to what you claim to believe.

Isn't it true that you believe the same about your sin as you do about your salvation? You don't believe that you CHOSE to sin any more than you chose to believe because "man does not have free will". Isn't it true that you actually believe that the same god that rescued you is the one who set your house on fire to begin with?

Resting in Him,
Clete

theres only one God

 

[Lon]

It's not that tough.
If you have never beaten your wife, the correct answer can only be "no".
(You can't stop doing what you never started doing.)

The "yes" answer would mean that at some point, you did indeed beat your wife (otherwise you couldn't have stopped, because, again, you can't stop doing something you never started doing.


If the person that hears your answer misconstrues it, you have still answered correctly.

So what's the correct answer, Lon?

"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife???" :think:

"Yes, there is nothing that happens without Christ sustaining that power." Such a view would have God apart, aloof, and distant from His creation. Colossians 1:17 John 15:5 Is such a thing possible?

It is also true, biblically, imho, that God works all things to good for those who love Him. It isn't good that atrocity happens. Logically, however, God making something good happen atf, because, during, through, is true. Cancer, bad. How God teaches me THROUGH cancer - Good. I think we have a lot of agreement, certainly disagreement, because this is why one would be Open Theist, and the other Calvinist on the end of this. It amounts, imho, how much God is and MUST be in control for this world to exist as well as what sin really does. It necessarily has to go to where blame is to be cast. I think all concerned agree that man is to blame. It then falls to how we make sense of that under a condition whereby we can't do a thing, not figuratively, but literally, without The Lord Jesus Christ's sustaining power. At least, that's where my theology understanding takes me. -Lon

 

[Nang]

What part of it is false witness?

The only thing it could possibly be is the quote.

AMR would never have tolerated having a false quote attributed to him and put into a video, nor would Knight.



Didn't you just say you wanted to unite with Tambora in the truth?

An incomplete quote, out of context, is as bad as a false, invented quote.

AMR should scream bloody murder about this post; especially if it is approved by the owner of the site, and allowed to be repeatedly posted.

BAD STUFF . . .:devil:

 

[TulipBee]

Bah . . .

cyberbullies !

 

[musterion]

An incomplete quote, out of context, is as bad as a false, invented quote.

It's still here. Knight would have pulled it long ago if he knew it was out of context. He can disagree with AMR all the live long day but he will not tolerate deliberate misrepresentation.

You bear false witness against both Tam and Knight.

 

[Tambora]

So by posting this filthy false witness, you have wickedly joined your "friends" in declaring God to be the author of sin?

I'm not the one claiming that men cannot do anything other then what GOD wills them to do.

You do not see the sin in taking a Christian's words out of context, let alone out of a complete sentence, to accuse him of advocating an evil God?

I can go find the link of the thread of where I got it and they can read the whole thing.

May God save your soul,

Done deal.

despite your open enmity against Him!

I like AMR just fine.
But I don't have to like everything he says to like him.

 

[musterion]

I like AMR just fine.
But I don't have to like everything he says to like him.

Note Nang's caps. She said you're in enmity against God, even while she bears false witness against you.

Amazing.

 

[Tambora]

It's still here. Knight would have pulled it long ago if he knew it was out of context. He can disagree with AMR all the live long day but he will not tolerate deliberate misrepresentation.

You bear false witness against both Tam and Knight.

It's been here for years.
I just pulled it from another thread I was looking at today.

 

[Nang]

I like AMR just fine.
But I don't have to like everything he says to like him.

You have to like everything God says to faithfully like and adore Him. That was my point. You think you resist men, but you are resisting the true propositions of God, by wickedly misrepresenting the true propositions of God.

God is NOT the author of the sins of His creatures. Sin was brought into the world by Adam, not God. Romans 5:12

God has brought good out of this factual history, but those at enmity with God, look at the ugly, blame it on God, and never give Him glory for providing the remedy and victory over the bad (at His great cost & sacrifice!).