Yeah, that's fine my friend.
Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Yeah, that's fine my friend.
This is VERY true!
They believe that immutability, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc. are not merely attributes of God but that they are qualifications for being God. If any one of them are missing in a being then that being is not qualified to be God at all.
It's similar to the modern Jewish understand of the title 'Messiah'. They think that being the political King over both Israel and the world is a requisit qualification of the title and reject Jesus on that basis alone.
your conversations about them are real to you. all I have to do is say one word and we all watch you ramble nonstop for 4 pages.
If you don't want to discuss anything with me, don't!
If you don't want me to respond to what you say, don't say it.
Lon
Well-known member
Incorrect of the whole. I appreciate, however, there are different Open Theists as there are Calvinists.
Disagree. I OFTEN think you simply shallow and noncontemplative. Love you? Yes, certainly. I simply believe I am 'more' rational than you are, Clete. Sorry.
Incorrect. Listen, the 'saving' feature of Open Theism is that it is primarily concerned with man, his salvation, and his freewill. The 'primary' concern with Calvinism is God's sovereignty as God. It has always been true that for Arminians, including open theists, the concern is the lostness of man and man's freewill. It has always been true that Calvinists never cared about that as much as protecting revealed scriptures and God's perspective fairly regardless of what damage it does to man's thinking and perspective, without apology (hence threads like this, by natural outcome of that commitment btw). There is no arguing that point. The thrust of Open Theism is a 'relational' God. There is no getting around that.
Well, it is Arminian thought carried to a logical conclusion BUT it is as much or more carried by philosophy than scripture as far as I'm concerned. It really is a human-interested perspective. Don't say no, because the second premise of Open Theism, after a 'relational' God is man's 'freewill' and autonomy. That's a VERY human interested theological perspective.
Er, you need to pay attention. Most believe God was 'surprised by bad grapes.' I was NOT the one who came up with this scenario. It was an Open Theist. You may not be as 'open' of a theist as you imagine. Afterall, Boyd and Sanders do get to define their own named theology. That you don't believe as they do is a good thing. I love seeing redactions.
Are you kidding me? Denver Bible is on record with having one of the Columbine kids being killed because
'God didn't know it was going to happen." I'm beginning to doubt if you are open theology at all, just a confused Arminian.
:sigh: I do. Every time I talk with you.
Sad. Read Open Theism 1,2, and 3. Literally things like "God didn't know what was in Abraham's heart" and "God didn't know where Adam was when He asked 'Where art thou?'"
"I" already said so. "Allow" is problematic for the Calvinist. I don't have as much problem with it, but I realize that plays into an Arminian definition. Again, the Calvinist is saying that God has purposes in the unfolding of His-story and that this is the only thing that counts thus 'allowing' anything outside of accomplishing what He purposes is a nono :nono: Why? Again, because it describes a haphazard God going through motions and not altogether involved with His creation. I, as a Calvinist, realize that there is a bit of me praying and moving the hand of God in the Divine plan from creation. You'd say I probably wasn't Calvinist because of that, but I'm saying God has perfect prescience, thus it was ordained. Did I then, really move the hand of God? Again, for me, that isn't as important. I'm trying to be less self-interested, so I'm more concerned how that brought glory to God and met a need. God is relational BUT I'm not certain that I understand the gravity of words like these and what they mean to God. I'm trying to be a humble servant (even here) and walk with my/our God.
You are fairly egocentric, Clete. It is a Choleric trait. You say what you like without a lot of concern for others. There is a strength for that at times BUT we have a need to be a little less of our self-indulgent tendencies. I try to make peace where possible, but I'm a bit stubborn and non-caring at times as well. I'm not buying your 'pathetic' reason for what it is: Egocentric authoritarian assertion just because you say so. :nono: You should ask a bit more than you tell, but such over and unfounded confidence is part of your nature. You don't ask questions so you 'assert' often enough from simply being wrong, and probably blindly so. This is 'dogmatic' rather than logical.
See? You are NOT logical with this statement. Ask, listen, but don't tell. You are incorrect. Now ask why. Or don't.... (hint, the doctor 'planned' my cancer). Words do mean something but your definitions are too rigid. You can't just take the first definition given in a dictionary and ignore all the others. This is what you are doing here. God absolutely planned, in reality, my wife's cancer. If He didn't, prayer would never have worked. I suppose you like it said He 'planned her recovery' instead, but what if she'd died? Did God not hear my prayer? Of course He did.
No, this assumes 'you' have a house. You are NOT your own. You were bought with a price. Your every language suggest egocentrism. Even yet, I've little idea what taking up my cross daily means, and I'm still grasping at losing my life for His sake. So, I admit it for myself, and I'll admit it for you too, whether you see it in yourself or not. It's His house. It pretty much ends the arson complaint imho. It is simply a self-centered, self-interested revelation (I hope) for yourself to take a second look at what interests you and I: Your freewill or God'swill? :think: Which really is of the most import? I ask myself that question a lot. You?
Agree. Whether I am cured or not is "God's plan." Get it?
Incorrect. Are you sure you are an Open Theist? "We affirm God is sometimes mistaken..." John Sanders
Of course you've made a few other outlandish and false statements about what other Open Theists have said here as well. That isn't logical as far as I understand logic. :think:
Very simple: Because if the outcome is not exactly as you intended, then you weren't in control. Worse, you settled on something and in that sense you were certainly not in control. Reminds me of the guy who was in heaven standing in a line that said "Husbands/Fathers who were in control." Peter, interested in seeing only one man there, a scrawny little guy and the rest of men in the world standing in the other line asked him: "You? Out of all these men, you were in complete control of your life?" "No." The man said. "Then why?" Peter asked, "are you standing in this line?" "My wife made me."
A whole nation prepared for that purpose? It makes you a bit more of a Calvinist than you'd imagine at that point. Moving the goal doesn't help.
"Rationalizing" is often another word for that. "Humanizing" is another. How 'egocentric' are we at that point? Once I start rationalizing, I'm making God in my own image rather than me being conformed. It really was when I began worrying more about Him, and trying to take up my cross daily, that Calvinism started making the better sense.
Correct. The problem with 'preferring' an attribute has to do with 'our' desired relationship to Him. More important, therefore, than your and my conversation for TOL posterity is the reading and grasping of God's revelation and faithfulness to reading it and meditating over it.
there you go!
Well Lon, if nothing else you've proven to be as impossible to communicate with as any other Calvinist. Double talk upon double talk and the redefinition of common words. Pathetically, typical Calvinist drivel.
I have no time to respond to this whole post this evening and I'm not at all sure I'm interested in responding to it at all but I'm sure I will anyway. But not today.
Rosenritter
New member
If a Calvinist holds a doctrine that God is sovereign, and that sovereignty means that all events were foreseen and preordained to pass, then how can that Calvinist complain about a video being posted that mocks Calvinism? It would be disobeying God to do any thing different that what he foresaw and ordained, it would be impossible to do anything different.
Rosenritter
New member
Aside from the irony of a Calvinist complaining about any event (weren't they all preordained?) there is something to be said for non-Calvinistic Christian sensibility if something that they do offends someone else. The non-Calvinist believes that they do have a choice in what they do, and that they would be willing to give up eating flesh and only eat plants if the alternative might cause their brother or sister to stumble.It would be a wonderful opportunity to demonstrate the real gospel of love.
popsthebuilder
New member
It proves that man has a will other than that will of GOD.
But that is no where near disproving the exponential amount of scriptural support for Calvinism.
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
The same could be said for your doctrine could it not.
According to you Paul is the only one out of the whole bible that promoted it, but really Paul was saying the same thing that all the rest of the bible says.
So... Yeah, what did you say to do about man-made doctrine?
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
Adam and Eve were human, and the fallen angels fell due to pride.
The angels with GOD have no free will.
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
Or hastily attacking all who you think might not agree with you.
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
I've gone over it a couple of times yet none will engage with me about it.
Basically why would GOD send GOD to earth for a sacrifice to appease GOD? And how does continuing in sin have anything to do with it?
Why would the Christ have sacrificed himself just so people could go about in knowing sin?
And how is that not evil, or making the work of the Christ in vein?
To me, any Christian would gravitate towards the teachings and example of the Christ and emulate those things, however, somehow, most get hung up on the deity of the Christ and then manage to be fooled into thinking that their own direction or sin is irrelevant.
Did not the Christ say that those would call on Him saying they believed on His name, but he won't even see them to judge them?
Peace
I hope that is a more thorough explanation to my initial question.
Please explain how it isn't evil to go about in knowing sin all while openly claiming ones own salvation.
Thank you.
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
The reality is that the word hell was mistranslated and has been misused for a long time.
Research it's origins and then ask yourself the same question you asked me.
Lake of fire... Second death/ cease to exist, not be tortured for eternity for finite sin.
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Try and be logical Pops? Emphasis on TRY. If the angels had NO free will of their own, then, why were they able to choose to rebel? On the same token, if Adam and Eve had NO free will how were they able to choose to rebel? Savvy Pops?
The wording of your question is awkward. It feels like English is a second language for you. I don't say that to be insulting at all, I'm just saying that I'm still not entirely sure I understand what you are asking so forgive me if I answer a question that you haven't asked.
Because the alternative is to end the whole mess, send everyone to Hell and be done with it.
The wages of sin is death. If you rebel against the God of Life the result is the only logical alternative - death. God loves His creation and does not want them all to die and so a sacrifice is needed. The problem is that, in all of God's creation, there where none found that were worthy to pay the needed price - none found but One. He made the decision that it was worth the cost of Him suffering death in order to save those who put their trust is Him.
I mean, it really is just that simple. God died so that you wouldn't have to. He loves us that much.
This question seems disconnected from the previous one.
What do you mean how does continuing in sin have anything to do with it?
It doesn't have anything to do with it, except the fact that your sin is what God paid for at the cross.
Your view is too near sited. God didn't sacrifice His Son so that people could live this sinful life. It's the life that comes after that ought to be in view here.
Are you suggesting here that you are able to out sin the value of God's own blood sacrifice?
Again, your focus is to near-sited. What we do in this life matters and will impact eternity to be sure but the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared to that which is to come.
No one I know thinks that it's irrelevant! But don't fool yourself into thinking that you can live in this flesh and not sin. The bible is very clear. Our flesh has not yet been redeemed and until it is, we are saddled with its effects.
No, He didn't say that. He said something similar but not to or about you. Context is everything and it is vital to bear in mind who is being spoken to and/or about when reading passages of scripture. You will not be participating the in 'the sheep and the goats' judgment where the statement I'm sure you're referring to is said. That's for an altogether separate group of people.
All sin is evil but if you are in Christ, your sin has been imputed to God the Son, Jesus Christ and it would, therefore, be unjust for God to impute that sin to you as well.
You need to read the book of Romans. In fact, if the book of Romans was the one book of the bible you ever read from this day forward, it would improve your doctrine and your understanding. I'm not actually advising you to never read anything other than Romans here, I'm just saying that IF you were to do so, a lot of your confusion on this point (and several others) would be remedied. The following two passages, in particular, speak directly to your question...
Romans 7:13 Has then what is good become death to me? Certainly not! But sin, that it might appear sin, was producing death in me through what is good, so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. 14 For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand. For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do. 16 If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good. 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. 19 For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice. 20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
21 I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. 22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
Romans 8:18 For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. 19 For the earnest expectation of the creation eagerly waits for the revealing of the sons of God. 20 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it in hope; 21 because the creation itself also will be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. 22 For we know that the whole creation groans and labors with birth pangs together until now. 23 Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. 24 For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we eagerly wait for it with perseverance.
Resting in Him,
Clete
In order to make chooses we have to have the free will to do so. Otherwise, we must be motivated to make chooses from an outside source. The Calvinist would say that "outside source" would be God." So, if God is making our chooses for us, then, we no longer have a free will of our own. You can't have it both ways.