Is Calvinism Just?

[Bible Highlighter]

Is Calvinism Just?

No. Calvinism is not just or fair in any way. Some Calvinists will even admit that Calvinism is not fair or just. So it is not a rational or logical belief system based upon the goodness of our Lord as shown in Scripture.

Calvinism does not make sense out of justice because GOD is going to judge men for something that is beyond their control to change. It's like kicking a dog who has an uncontrollable pooping problem. The poor animal cannot help but to release brown gushing piles of steamy brownies on white carpets because it is sick. But the master does not care. He simply kicks the poor animal (like a football) in punishment anyways.

 

[ICONO'CLAST]

I’m going to try to keep the OP short and to the point and we can expound upon this in the thread. The point I want to make is how can God’s judgement be just if Calvin’s theology is true? According to Calvin’s doctrine of total depravity man is incapable of repenting and believing in God unless God elects them to salvation. Below I have provided a brief description of total depravity from Wikipedia. Now I know that this description may not fit everyone’s view of the doctrine since many people view it in different ways but these can be discussed in the thread.


Total depravity is the fallen state of human beings as a result of original sin. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are, as a result of the fall, not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and reject his rule. Even religion and philanthropy are wicked to God because they originate from a selfish human desire and are not done to the glory of God. Therefore, in reformed theology. if God is to save anyone, he must predestine, call, or elect individuals to salvation since fallen man does not want to, and is indeed incapable of, choosing him.


The major complication to Calvin’s theology is the doctrine of unconditional election, which I believe fails to take Acts 10:34-35 into consideration.


n Calvinist (Reformed) theology, unconditional election is considered to be one aspect of predestination in which God chooses certain individuals to be saved. Those elected receive mercy, while those not elected, the reprobates, receive justice without condition. This unconditional election is essentially related to the rest of the TULIP doctrinal outline and hinges upon the supreme belief in the absolute sovereignty of God over the affairs of man. God unconditionally elects certain people even though they are sinful as an act of his saving grace apart from the shortcomings or will of man. Those chosen have done nothing to deserve this grace.

In Calvinist and some other churches (Waldensians, Katharoi, Anabaptists, Particular Baptists, etc.) this election has been called "unconditional" because his choice to save the elect does not depend on anything inherent in any person chosen, on any act that a person performs or on any belief that a person exercises. Indeed, according to the doctrine of total depravity (the first of the five points of Calvinism, the influence of sin has so inhibited the individual's volition that no one is willing or able to come to or follow God apart from God first regenerating the person's soul to give them the ability to love him and take part in the salvation process. Hence, God’s choice in election is and can only be based solely on God's own independent and sovereign will and [not] upon the foreseen actions of man


So according to Calvin’s theology not only is man incapable of repentance or even believing in God, he is also incapable of doing anything to attain God’s election. This presents us with a huge problem because now God’s election is completely outside of man’s capability of attaining. According to John 3:18 man is judged according to wether or not he believes in Christ, but according to Calvin’s theology man is completely incapable of believing on his own accord in any way and is also incapable of attaining God’s grace that would enable him to believe. So ultimately those who will burn in the lake of fire never had any chance for salvation. God being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent not only foreseen this, has the ability to prevent this, but has decreed that the majority of man will be created in this fallen state and punished for all eternity of no fault of their own. Ultimately Calvin’s theology makes God responsible not only for those who will burn in the lake of fire but also responsible for them not coming to repentance since He has intentionally made them in this fallen and incapable state. With that said, how can God’s judgement and punishment be just if this was of His doing and man never had any choice in the matter?

Man chooses to sin.
Do not blame God for mans sin.

 

[redleghunter]

It is Calvin's doctrine and not God's. We can rest in that.
Be blessed

It’s actually the Doctrines of Grace which Calvin would most likely support. The Doctrines of Grace are spelled out in the canons of Dort which was after Calvin died.

Considering the canons of Dort were originally written in Latin, folks getting hung up on the terms which make up the acronym TULIP need to realize they won’t find that in Dort either. Someone actually claimed TULIP came from the actual flower. That Dort was in the Netherlands and they had tulips there.

TULIP was first used in 1905 by Rev. Cleland Boyd.

So folks don’t get hung up on one word like total depravity and actually do some research on the source documents.

Oh and the Doctrines of Grace are based on Biblical exegesis.

Here are the canons of Dort:


Canons of Dort

 

[redleghunter]

Simply a misreading of who the post was intended for. Which I did try to rectify.

Thank you I edited my response to you.

 

[Tolworth John]

The point I want to make is how can God’s judgement be just if Calvin’s theology is true?

What you forget is that Gods actions are not determined by mans theology.
Theology is like science an attempt to fit known facts into a coherent account, it is not a means of controlling God.

 

[The Liturgist]

I posted that verse for a reason. You can’t do theology by plucking out verses.
It just creates contradictions which really don’t exist.

What you will find is when in context we find the answer. “Good” in the Mosaic covenant was a person who kept the Law. And that means one who also made the required sacrifices at the sanctuary. Righteousness was based on the full keeping of the Law. We know from the fate of Israel that none were made righteous by law keeping. If anyone achieved this then Christ did not need to be crucified for our sins.

On these two points, the dangers of eisegesis and the nature of the Law, I believe we are in complete agreement. I don’t think the Law was intended as a divine trap, either; it is the depravity of humans since the fall that results in our inability to keep it (those who appeared to do so superficially were themselves hypocrites, as Christ pointed out, or were reliant on strange interpretations of it, like the Pharisees; the Sadducees for the most part seem to have stopped caring by the time of Christ and, not believing in the Resurrection, were at best at a level of faith akin to low superstition. The one exception to this is St. Symeon, who we encounter in the Gospel of Luke, who feels he can depart in peace having beheld redemption in the form of our Savior).

 

[zoidar]

I’m going to try to keep the OP short and to the point and we can expound upon this in the thread. The point I want to make is how can God’s judgement be just if Calvin’s theology is true? According to Calvin’s doctrine of total depravity man is incapable of repenting and believing in God unless God elects them to salvation. Below I have provided a brief description of total depravity from Wikipedia. Now I know that this description may not fit everyone’s view of the doctrine since many people view it in different ways but these can be discussed in the thread.


Total depravity is the fallen state of human beings as a result of original sin. The doctrine of total depravity asserts that people are, as a result of the fall, not inclined or even able to love God wholly with heart, mind, and strength, but rather are inclined by nature to serve their own will and desires and reject his rule. Even religion and philanthropy are wicked to God because they originate from a selfish human desire and are not done to the glory of God. Therefore, in reformed theology. if God is to save anyone, he must predestine, call, or elect individuals to salvation since fallen man does not want to, and is indeed incapable of, choosing him.


The major complication to Calvin’s theology is the doctrine of unconditional election, which I believe fails to take Acts 10:34-35 into consideration.


n Calvinist (Reformed) theology, unconditional election is considered to be one aspect of predestination in which God chooses certain individuals to be saved. Those elected receive mercy, while those not elected, the reprobates, receive justice without condition. This unconditional election is essentially related to the rest of the TULIP doctrinal outline and hinges upon the supreme belief in the absolute sovereignty of God over the affairs of man. God unconditionally elects certain people even though they are sinful as an act of his saving grace apart from the shortcomings or will of man. Those chosen have done nothing to deserve this grace.

In Calvinist and some other churches (Waldensians, Katharoi, Anabaptists, Particular Baptists, etc.) this election has been called "unconditional" because his choice to save the elect does not depend on anything inherent in any person chosen, on any act that a person performs or on any belief that a person exercises. Indeed, according to the doctrine of total depravity (the first of the five points of Calvinism, the influence of sin has so inhibited the individual's volition that no one is willing or able to come to or follow God apart from God first regenerating the person's soul to give them the ability to love him and take part in the salvation process. Hence, God’s choice in election is and can only be based solely on God's own independent and sovereign will and [not] upon the foreseen actions of man


So according to Calvin’s theology not only is man incapable of repentance or even believing in God, he is also incapable of doing anything to attain God’s election. This presents us with a huge problem because now God’s election is completely outside of man’s capability of attaining. According to John 3:18 man is judged according to wether or not he believes in Christ, but according to Calvin’s theology man is completely incapable of believing on his own accord in any way and is also incapable of attaining God’s grace that would enable him to believe. So ultimately those who will burn in the lake of fire never had any chance for salvation. God being omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent not only foreseen this, has the ability to prevent this, but has decreed that the majority of man will be created in this fallen state and punished for all eternity of no fault of their own. Ultimately Calvin’s theology makes God responsible not only for those who will burn in the lake of fire but also responsible for them not coming to repentance since He has intentionally made them in this fallen and incapable state. With that said, how can God’s judgement and punishment be just if this was of His doing and man never had any choice in the matter?

Is God just? Yes, certainly! Calvinism I think speaks for itself.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Chosen by Whom?

Chosen to do what?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Is God just? Yes, certainly! Calvinism I think speaks for itself.

The god described by Calvinism is the most unjust being in the world .

 

[Dave L]

So God created Adam in a way that he would have no other choice but to sin? And then condemned him for doing what he was programmed to do?

Adam wanted to sin = genuine guilt.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I will trust the context.

You actually add to the context what is clearly not there.

Keep in mind. If you see this as a loss of salvation situation, then by the very context of Hebrews it is an unforgivable sin no one can every come back from.

Hebrews doesn’t say that! You’re adding to the context again.

These verses in Hebrews do not support the Arminian “backsliding” and repent and come back.

Jesus talking about those who fall away from the faith and betray many does and in clear terms. He gives the reasons they fall away too. Tells us some will come to
him assured of their salvation whom he’ll send away.

Those who walk away he doesn’t force back.

 

[Dave L]

Here is why you are so afflicted Dave, the truth about Calvinism in his own words...

“We call predestination God’s eternal decree, by which he compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is fore-ordained for some, eternal damnation for others.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5)

“…individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 23, Paragraph 6)

“…salvation is freely offered to some while others are barred from access to it.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 5)

“The very inequality of his grace proves that it is free.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Paragraph 6)

“thieves and murderers, and other evildoers, are instruments of divine providence, being employed by the Lord himself to execute judgments which he has resolved to inflict.” (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 1, Chapter 17, Paragraph 5)

Why do you suppose this is?

 

[Dave L]

Manners? Calling God a hateful God who who created people to burn with no choice is good manners? Just because a Doctrine of demons is excepted by a large number doesn't make it any less a doctrine of demons.

Do you hate God if Calvin was right about him?

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Why do you suppose this is?

Calvinists want to assure themselves that they are predestined for heaven and cannot miss no matter how they behave or what kind of person they make of themselves.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Do you hate God if Calvin was right about him?

Non sequitar. Calvin is wrong. He himself didn’t know if he was among the elect. He did not know Him and was a lawyer, not a theologian. This is why the theology is legalistic not relational.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Calvin was a man. He did not seem to point people to Jesus. So that was wrong, and still is.
Some things , maybe, he said, were true.
Accept after testing, those things that were and are truth.
Don't accept after testing, nor before testing, anything else.
Don't follow a man.
Follow Jesus.
Jesus is Truth.
Jesus is always right.
Jesus is always good.
He is better to follow than following any man.
Jesus is the right way.
Following man is not the right way, unless as Written "imitate me as I imitate Christ".....
Calvin definitely did not imitate Jesus! (is this not obvious?)
So? Follow Jesus, not follow Calvin....
simply stay in truth, in Jesus,
and don't continually stay in the error of following a man (any man) in the flesh.

 

[The Liturgist]

Calvin was a man. He did not seem to point people to Jesus. So that was wrong, and still is.
Some things , maybe, he said, were true.
Accept after testing, those things that were and are truth.
Don't accept after testing, nor before testing, anything else.
Don't follow a man.
Follow Jesus.
Jesus is Truth.
Jesus is always right.
Jesus is always good.
He is better to follow than following any man.
Jesus is the right way.
Following man is not the right way, unless as Written "imitate me as I imitate Christ".....
Calvin definitely did not imitate Jesus! (is this not obvious?)
So? Follow Jesus, not follow Calvin....
simply stay in truth, in Jesus,
and don't continually stay in the error of following a man (any man) in the flesh.

But this is clearly a mistake, because Jesus became incarnate in the flesh and therefore made it holy, and the Apostles, and their successors who lived up to the high standard set by the likes of Saints Peter, Paul, John, Thomas, James the Great, Stephen the First Martyr, and others, like Ignatius of Antioch, Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Ephrem the Syrian, Maximus the Confessor, Isaac the Syrian, Ambrose of Milan, Vincent of Lerins, Anthony the Great, John of Damascus; and in the past millenium, people like Gregory Palamas, Dominic Guzman, Jan Hus, Seraphim of Sarov, Dionysius bar Salibi, and Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow, who died of mistreatment in a Soviet prison in the 1920s, and all of the martyrs of Communism, Islamism, Fascism, and other forces of persecution, those people have followed in the example of Christ, and point us to Christ.

It is only where someone points away from Christ, and usually to themselves, like Mani, or Mohammed, or Emanuel Swedenborg, or Joseph Smith, or modern day false prophets who need not be named, that we should avoid them; they are preaching another Gospel and are anathema according to St. Paul’s epistle to the Galatians.

 

[zoidar]

Do you hate God if Calvin was right about him?

Do you hate God if Calvin was wrong about him, if let's say Arminius was right?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not exactly correct, sir.
Calvinism teaches you cannot earn saving grace, and we are saved by grace, not by our choice (free will).

Good works earn you the "grace" of rewards in heaven, but you can't earn your way in. Only Jesus could.

You need to read the implications of unconditional grace again brother.

In Calvinist (Reformed) theology, unconditional election is considered to be one aspect of predestination in which God chooses certain individuals to be saved. Those elected receive mercy, while those not elected, the reprobates, receive justice without condition. This unconditional election is essentially related to the rest of the TULIP doctrinal outline and hinges upon the supreme belief in the absolute sovereignty of God over the affairs of man. God unconditionally elects certain people even though they are sinful as an act of his saving grace apart from the shortcomings or will of man. Those chosen have done nothing to deserve this grace.

In Calvinist and some other churches (Waldensians, Katharoi, Anabaptists, Particular Baptists, etc.) this election has been called "unconditional" because his choice to save the elect does not depend on anything inherent in any person chosen, on any act that a person performs or on any belief that a person exercises. Indeed, according to the doctrine of total depravity (the first of the five points of Calvinism, the influence of sin has so inhibited the individual's volition that no one is willing or able to come to or follow God apart from God first regenerating the person's soul to give them the ability to love him and take part in the salvation process. Hence, God’s choice in election is and can only be based solely on God's own independent and sovereign will and [not] upon the foreseen actions of man

Therefore it is impossible for us to do anything to gain favor with God in order to receive His election which makes God’s judgement unjust. Calvin’s theology makes believing, obedience, attaining favor with God, attaining election, and attaining salvation all absolutely impossible. So God never gave those who burn in the lake of fire never had any chance for salvation and would be punishing them for all eternity because they were not able to accomplish His impossible expectations.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

What you forget is that Gods actions are not determined by mans theology.
Theology is like science an attempt to fit known facts into a coherent account, it is not a means of controlling God.

If one makes up what theology one’s likes, this is true. If one walks with God and learns from Him, this is not true of them. The former is cheap and the latter is expensive.