Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[patrick jane]

If you believe another gospel is being touted then the burden is upon you to demonstrate so from careful Scriptural analysis. Just stating your opinion is not going to move a discussion forward. Make an actual argument, not from mere Scripture quotation, but bolstered by proper interpretative methods that perhaps can support your opinion. An example: here :AMR:

AMR

Titus 2:11 NIV - All people. Every person is elect and predestined. We either believe or we don't

John 3:16, 18, 36

Everybody is saved if they believe

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Well, I'm still that old lovable GM I always was. Take it or leave it. I have enough information about Calvinism to know it's a false belief system. I have nothing to prove to anybody but myself and I've already done that. Therefore, I explain Calvinism to my fellow posters and warn them against it. I also speak to them the truth of the Grace Gospel. (Paul's Gospel) My job isn't to talk you out of believing in Calvinism. If you're looking for someone to accomplish that, look elsewhere.

So your "throw down" here is empty boasting then, no? Your definition of "explain" seems only to mean "this is my opinion, but do not ask me to actually explain why I hold this opinion". You only want to stir the pot and then let others who understand their burden from Scripture to at least offer up argumentation such that you can then come along and "Amen!" or "Good Post!". Essentially you are a cheerleader on the sidelines where the real clashes for God's glory are taking place. Why be a barnacle attached to the ship instead of one of the workers actually seeing to it the ship moves effectively?

AMR

 

[patrick jane]

So your "throw down" here is empty boasting then, no? Your definition of "explain" seems only to mean "this is my opinion, but do not ask me to actually explain why I hold this opinion". You only want to stir the pot and then let others who understand their burden from Scripture to at least offer up argumentation such that you can then come along and "Amen!" or "Good Post!". Essentially you are a cheerleader on the sidelines where the real clashes for God's glory are taking place. Why be a barnacle attached to the ship instead of one of the workers actually seeing to it the ship moves effectively?

AMR

I believe that every scripture Calvinists use to show election, predestination and chosen before the foundation can be interpreted to include all people. The difference comes in hearing and believing. Even the scripture about God drawing us to Him does not mean one must be moved by God before they can hear and believe. John 6:44 KJV - or Psalm 145:18 KJV -

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It doesn't take a membership in Mensa to warn people against something that is inherently false.

No, but it does take a workman (2 Tim 2:15), someone who actually works at it versus just opining about it, too fearful to expose oneself to consideration of unexamined assumptions that may prove to be embarrassing. GM, all you appear to have to offer is seeking talking points to hold me to ridicule and dripping sarcasm thinking you can poison the well and escape cross-examination.

AMR

 

[Eagles Wings]

So your "throw down" here is empty boasting then, no? Your definition of "explain" seems only to mean "this is my opinion, but do not ask me to actually explain why I hold this opinion". You only want to stir the pot and then let others who understand their burden from Scripture to at least offer up argumentation such that you can then come along and "Amen!" or "Good Post!". Essentially you are a cheerleader on the sidelines where the real clashes for God's glory are taking place. Why be a barnacle attached to the ship instead of one of the workers actually seeing to it the ship moves effectively?

AMR

This is an admonition for many of us. Well said, and I take it as encouragement and pastoral concern.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It appears to me that you like Calvinism because it is complicated and confusing, which brings about controversy which you enjoy. Human intellect has nothing to do with faith.

You could not be more wrong, as you often are, Robert. Faith is more than mere leaps into the unknown. True faith requires knowledge, assent, and trust. Do you think the hard sayings of Paul should have been discounted by Peter since they were hard to understand? Do you think Peter needed no intellect to come to a fuller grasp of Paul's hard sayings? What do you think the admonishment to take every word captive means? Just swallow every word without examination? Think twice before making these nonsensical posts wrapped in assumed self-righteousness.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

To AMR I would add one more thought. I don't have to know everything about Catholicism to know it's not the Gospel. I don't have to know everything about Jehovahs Witness or the Mormons to know they don't preach the true Gospel. I could go on, however, I think you get the gist. I know enough about these, Calvinism and other Cults, in order to know I'm not hearing the TRUE Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

No I do not get the "gist", GM. To claim "I know" in public requires more than the mere assertion. You must demonstrate why you think you know what you know. We all claim to "know" this or that until what we claim to know is subjected to examination wherein our assumptions are brought into the light for review and consideration. Only then what we "know" can then be established or corrected. The rest is but subjectivity and opinion.

Knowing JWs or Mormons are not preaching the Gospel is easy pickings. They deny the Triune God, so they are condemned from the beginning. Knowing Romanists are not preaching the Gospel is similarly so, for they denu justification by faith alone, by Christ alone. After the easy pickings, things are no so easily dismissed by mere opinion as you would like.

You claim the opinion that Calvinism is not the Gospel. Prove it. Start by defining what you think in detail "the Gospel" means to see how such an explanation is received by the audience to which you claim "I know". From there, demonstrate that Calvinism is out of accord with "the Gospel". And so on.

It takes effort. Such is the demand upon the workman.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Where is one who comes to conclude all faith and belief is good, but all thought and rationale is bad?

Just asking

I hope nowhere is the answer. It is mine. Such a person has arrived at a place where faith, belief, thought, or rationale are heterogeneous.

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

You could not be more wrong, as you often are, Robert. Faith is more than mere leaps into the unknown. True faith requires knowledge, assent, and trust. Do you think the hard sayings of Paul should have been discounted by Peter since they were hard to understand? Do you think Peter needed no intellect to come to a fuller grasp of Paul's hard sayings? What do you think the admonishment to take every word captive means? Just swallow every word without examination? Think twice before making these nonsensical posts wrapped in assumed self-righteousness.

AMR

Simple child like faith in Jesus Christ is all that one needs to be saved. This is to simple for you to understand because you are religious. Religious people like yourself cloud the Gospel with their sophisticated doctrines.

 

[Lon]

(((The blue shading in your quote was done by me to make a point that I think needs more details.))

OK. That would be similar to an unconditional covenant. An oath of GOD that is guaranteed to happen despite what any creature does.
No "if" included.

Probably pretty rough, but the difference between the two is that in one, God sees all outcomes and 'reacts' or intervenes. In Calvinism, God rather 'prescribes' or does what is appropriate according to His unchanging perfect nature. I'm not sure how well that can be explained. Theology always takes a bit of in depth delving but I think I can safely agree that there is similarity in the concern, but there is difference. The amount of control God has over the universe is significantly more (fully/completely) in a Calvinist's understanding. Because of that, some of the accusation is a logical conclusion by someone looking in on Calvinism from a different perspective. Crudely, I think it like a child getting a burn. A parent might allow a burnt finger to avoid a burnt body down the road. Though that may seem mean, I know for a fact that some kids are very strong-willed and a desperate parent might do exactly that with that stubborn child that insists on trying, where all the other children stop. Without all the facts, that parent will look evil for what they did. Again, it is a crude analogy only meant to go as far as understanding how something bad can be allowed by someone who loves.

And this would be similar to a conditional covenant. GOD will do, or not do, such-and such because a creature did, or did not do, such-and such.
"If" is included.


Are we still on the same page about this understanding of your view of GOD's wills?
Close?

Beats me. That's why I asked you.
I have no idea how many different ways GOD can decide what to do.

I don't know either. It was a good question. Maybe someone else will give it a shot.

 

[Lon]

What would you call it when God wants something but doesn't want to (or cannot) force it? For example,God wants man to know true love for both his creator and his fellow man. Love, by definition, must be freely given, and cannot be forced by another.

I'm yet uncertain that such is a must. Adam and Eve didn't have a desire or imho, ability to do otherwise than follow God's design until the serpent in the Garden. I am convinced that 'no-choice' does not equate 'no-true-love.'

 

[Lon]

A continuation of my post #1081 for more details.


The first would be a case of no "ifs, ands, or buts".

The second does.

The second requires a waiting period to see whether the other party lives up to the agreement or not.

Did GOD have to wait to see whether the other party would live up to agreement, or did GOD already know in advance what each individual would choose to do?

Yes, I believe this is a good indication of the difference between Definite Foreknowledge in a Calvinist understanding (already know in advance) vs. Arminian thought. Another good question, and I think meaningful for the OP.

 

[TulipBee]

Any church that does not ask a person seeking to covenant with that church would be in violation of Scripture. For example, consider the fencing of the table for the Supper that the church should enforce so that no one partake of the Supper in error. Giving a testimony for one's faith before the local session or body is to be expected of all who seek to join the local assembly.

Now if you have done so, and continue to be asked these sort of questions, I recommend you take that up with an elder or the Pastor to understand what is going on.

AMR

I'm familiar with the local elder, paster, flock communications. I was comparing your "No one knows who the elect are but God" and "assurance". the question is suitable for you. if a person doesn't know about their election except God then how can that person has assurance.

 

[patrick jane]

You know you're elect if you believe Calvin's teachings, not if you believe in Jesus Christ and the Cross -

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Simple child like faith in Jesus Christ is all that one needs to be saved. This is to simple for you to understand because you are religious. Religious people like yourself cloud the Gospel with their sophisticated doctrines.

Very good point.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

No I do not get the "gist", GM. To claim "I know" in public requires more than the mere assertion. You must demonstrate why you think you know what you know. We all claim to "know" this or that until what we claim to know is subjected to examination wherein our assumptions are brought into the light for review and consideration. Only then what we "know" can then be established or corrected. The rest is but subjectivity and opinion.

Knowing JWs or Mormons are not preaching the Gospel is easy pickings. They deny the Triune God, so they are condemned from the beginning. Knowing Romanists are not preaching the Gospel is similarly so, for they denu justification by faith alone, by Christ alone. After the easy pickings, things are no so easily dismissed by mere opinion as you would like.

You claim the opinion that Calvinism is not the Gospel. Prove it. Start by defining what you think in detail "the Gospel" means to see how such an explanation is received by the audience to which you claim "I know". From there, demonstrate that Calvinism is out of accord with "the Gospel". And so on.

It takes effort. Such is the demand upon the workman.

AMR

Perhaps not you, but, several posters on TOL have seen my posts on what I believe and why I believe it. I need not PROVE anything to you. You demand way too much "Scholarly" language. We all know you deem yourself quite the "Wordsmith" and a genius at choosing just the right words and phrases to fit your declarations. Pate was right when he said, you make things WAY to difficult and not simple as it was meant to be. Calvinists are known for this kind of approach. The kind of people that are drawn to Calvinism are usually, very bright, well educated, very egocentric types. They desire difficult and look down on simple. They're usually extremely arrogant and "Know-it-all" types. They love to debate and push their adversaries into a corner. That way they have the upper hand at all times. Any of this sound familiar?

 

[Tambora]

Probably pretty rough, but the difference between the two is that

"Rough" is OK with me as long as it makes it a little clearer to all us common folks as to what differences we are talking about.

in one, God sees all outcomes and 'reacts' or intervenes.

You don't believe that?

In Calvinism, God rather 'prescribes' or does what is appropriate according to His unchanging perfect nature.

I would say that "what is appropriate" should also be added to the end of the above quote before this one.

God sees all outcomes and 'reacts' or intervenes​

When GOD intervenes, He does what is appropriate.

I'm not sure how well that can be explained.

Me either, but hopefully we can get closer to explaining the real differences.

A parent might allow a burnt finger to avoid a burnt body down the road. Though that may seem mean, I know for a fact that some kids are very strong-willed and a desperate parent might do exactly that with that stubborn child that insists on trying, where all the other children stop. Without all the facts, that parent will look evil for what they did. Again, it is a crude analogy only meant to go as far as understanding how something bad can be allowed by someone who loves.

Hmmm.
I'm just gonna say that every single time I knew a child of mine was about to place their hand on a lit burner, I screamed and lunged at them to stop it from happening.

But I do get your drift.

We can go way back to Adam's time and see that GOD did not scream and lunge at him to stop him from eating the fruit.
Nor did GOD scream and lunge at Cain to stop him from killing his brother.
Nor did GOD stop David from adultery.
And we don't call GOD a bad father for not stopping them.


Sometimes GOD intervenes, and sometimes GOD does not intervene.
So with all the above, so far, I don't see a significant difference in what you believe and what Open Theism believes.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I attended a church many years ago, they kept changing Pastors over the years like a lot of churches. At one time we had a Pastor who was very intelligent, arrogant, uppity, and pretentious. All similar words, of course. Anyway, many years later a friend of mine in the Church told me, that Pastor was a Calvinist. Mind you, the church I was attending was a Mid-Acts Dispensational, Non-Denominational, Bible believing and Christ-centered Church. I doubt many people knew about this Pastors actually beliefs. He didn't preach Calvinism, he didn't teach it, and he never mentioned it. Why I, don't know? The church I was attending was a Grace Gospel Church.

 

[Lon]

No, it is not incorrect of the whole and my Open Theism is not appreciably different than any other Open Theists. You just like to cling to anything that you THINK makes Open Theism look bad.

Not true, but you can empathize with Calvinists on this particular, so it is a good observation, though not true. As I said, I can provide the quotes as we go. Again, one at a time (this one where God has to literally come down to see what is happening in Sodom and Gomorrah and not knowing without actual physical eyes and presence).

This exchange with you is frankly exhausting. It reminds of the exchanges I used to have with James Hilston where the use of the normal meaning of words was abandoned and no effort was made to respond to the point being made rather than picking at the words used to make it.

Hilston is a smart man, but the point again is that words more often than not must be accompanied by context. Look for example at the word 'context.' The first definition means 'determines' whereas the second allows for a nebulous surrounding of words or things that may not help define.
In this case, when I say "God planned my wife's cancer," your understanding or misunderstanding is crucial to communication. I admit, however, that we Calvinists do a lousy job at times of really helping another grasp what we are saying. We are great about saying "God is NOT evil for planning my wife's cancer," but not so great at explaining 'why.' I do agree with that BUT there is also an equal problem of running off and making videos based on a misunderstanding by the one who hears, but doesn't understand, what is being said. God was GOOD for/when planning my wife's cancer. Her doctors were good for planning my wife's cancer. It is to be understood afterwards, that by doctors planning, we are talking about treatment. Chemo and radiation were NOT nice YET the doctors were VERY good for planning that, etc. "How could they be good for doing that!!!!" It is very similar here, this thread. Very.

Let me leave this bit here for now. I'll respond to just a little bit more of your post in an ensuing post, but I'm trying to help with some of your frustration and perhaps help address the thread concern meaningfully as well. In Him -Lon

 

[Clete]

Not true, but you can empathize with Calvinists on this particular, so it is a good observation, though not true. As I said, I can provide the quotes as we go. Again, one at a time (this one where God has to literally come down to see what is happening in Sodom and Gomorrah and not knowing without actual physical eyes and presence).
Hilston is a smart man, but the point again is that words more often than not must be accompanied by context. Look for example at the word 'context.' The first definition means 'determines' whereas the second allows for a nebulous surrounding of words or things that may not help define.
In this case, when I say "God planned my wife's cancer," your understanding or misunderstanding is crucial to communication. I admit, however, that we Calvinists do a lousy job at times of really helping another grasp what we are saying. We are great about saying "God is NOT evil for planning my wife's cancer," but not so great at explaining 'why.' I do agree with that BUT there is also an equal problem of running off and making videos based on a misunderstanding by the one who hears, but doesn't understand, what is being said. God was GOOD for/when planning my wife's cancer. Her doctors were good for planning my wife's cancer. It is to be understood afterwards, that by doctors planning, we are talking about treatment. Chemo and radiation were NOT nice YET the doctors were VERY good for planning that, etc. "How could they be good for doing that!!!!" It is very similar here, this thread. Very.

Let me leave this bit here for now. I'll respond to just a little bit more of your post in an ensuing post, but I'm trying to help with some of your frustration and perhaps help address the thread concern meaningfully as well. In Him -Lon

Well, I do appreciate that! Honestly, I do.

Pay all means, feel free to pick and choose as few points as you like to respond to. There is no need to respond point for point. I, in fact, had no intention of doing so myself but it turned into that because I happen to have the time to spare.