Is it Wrong to Call Calvinism Unjust?

[Mark Quayle]

UNconditional election which forces us to accept UNconditional non-election or reprobation would prove HIS injustice so UNconditional election is a blasphemy.

Put some commas or quotes or parenthesis in there so I can follow. Try again, please. I don't know what you are saying here. I don't want to guess.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The word just does not only mean what is good or morally correct but also means to be fair or impartial. The author of the video fails to address these aspects of the definition of the word just. So according to Calvin’s doctrines do they portray God as being fair and impartial? No they do not.

God is not us. He need not be impartial to accurately judge.

Furthermore, in the end, all wrongdoing is against HIM. It is against the Creator of the very creation that is rebelling against its creator. The notion seem ludicrous, yet, there we go. What is unfair about him sending every last one of us to damnation after a life of misery and pain? Yet he created us, obviously not for that purpose, but for the purpose of showing his glorious mercy to some.

 

[TedT]

Put some commas or quotes or parenthesis in there so I can follow. Try again, please. I don't know what you are saying here. I don't want to guess.

It means I believe that the doctrine of UNconditional election is a blasphemy because it can't stand without a belief in an UNconditional reprobation which I cannot countenance.

 

[Bobber]

Yes. That is what they're trying to say. They try to say that a God that has complete control over the actions of mankind is an unjust God and that it makes us out to be robots. Tell me, when Adam and Eve did the foreordained action of eating the apple did they act like robots? No. They acted out of their own free will but, it also was an act foreordained by God.

Don't agree. God foreknew they would such doesn't mean they were directed to do so by any force of compulsion.

Which is the main problem with Arminianism. It brings power that is supposed to be in God's hands into the human hand.

Aren't you making the assumption that God wants the type of power you're referring to to be in his hands? Is all type of power good? Is having the capacity for such a desirable thing? Is it a just thing? I think we can all agree certain type of evil men can assert powers which are activated by their unjust characters. Surely we can agree God wouldn't want any of such.

So everything in your life comes from God and happens because God allows it to happen.

Well couldn't I if I were a rich influential man not allow any negative thing to come into my adult offspring's lives? Of course. But some times you've got to let them stand or fall on their own decisions. I don't think one could rightly say the pain or the difficulty they're now in came from their Father. So why do we do this with God?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yet he created us, obviously not for that purpose, but for the purpose of showing his glorious mercy to some.

Hence the partiality in Calvinism which contradicts the very definition of the word just.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It means I believe that the doctrine of UNconditional election is a blasphemy because it can't stand without a belief in an UNconditional reprobation which I cannot countenance.

What is unconditional reprobation?
And what do you mean by Unconditional Election, if it must depend on Unconditional Reprobation?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Hence the partiality in Calvinism which contradicts the very definition of the word just.

You seem to think 'just' is the same as 'fair'.

If that is the case, then how is it fair that some are able to accept Christ and some are not? Is free will more willing to be good, in some people than in others? What makes the difference?

 

[BuildingApologetics]

You seem to think 'just' is the same as 'fair'.

If that is the case, then how is it fair that some are able to accept Christ and some are not? Is free will more willing to be good, in some people than in others? What makes the difference?

You are assuming a Calvinist view when you say "how is it fair that some are able to accept Christ and some are not?". Those who believe in libertarian free will believe all truly are able to accept Christ, even if they never do.
"Is free will more willing to be good, in some people than in others?"
Libertarian free will posits that individual's choices are self-caused, not caused by an outside circumstance (ie determinism). An individual does not accept Christ based on how good they are, but simply because they chose to do so.
"What makes the difference?"
This assumes that there is something that determined one to accept and another reject. Again, you are assuming a Calvinist view of freedom to question an Arminian view. The thing that makes the difference is that one chose, and the other did not. End of story.

I do realize this view of freedom is a bit difficult to wrap one's mine around. But hopefully this helps clarify that libertarians believe all people really can accept Christ.

"You seem to think 'just' is the same as 'fair'."
Yes. Scriptures repeatedly tell us to be impartial because that is the just thing to do. Of course one may say that impartiality only applies to us and not to God by virtue of His position of authority. But this is also not true. We are to be impartial (fair) because God is impartial (fair). (Romans 2:11). Of course one may argue that God is partial in some areas and impartial in others (which would seemingly contradict the idea that there is no partiality in God at all), but the only reason someone would do this is to uphold their traditions.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You are assuming a Calvinist view when you say "how is it fair that some are able to accept Christ and some are not?". Those who believe in libertarian free will believe all truly are able to accept Christ, even if they never do.
"Is free will more willing to be good, in some people than in others?"

Yes, I realized that even as I wrote it but decided to leave it anyway, since causation rules whether one accepts free will or not, lol. To put it another way, only one thing ever happens --which is, whatever does happen-- so therefore only one thing CAN ever happen. If they did not, the could not, regardless of cause --free will or otherwise. (Yes, it is a riddle, I suppose, but I was too lazy to go back and try to represent autonomous free will correctly, since it doesn't make any sense to me.

"What makes the difference?"
This assumes that there is something that determined one to accept and another reject. Again, you are assuming a Calvinist view of freedom to question an Arminian view. The thing that makes the difference is that one chose, and the other did not. End of story.

Ok, I'll give you that. So, according to 'libertarian free will', or autonomous free will' what IS the difference --just that one did and one did not. Accident? not Will? WHY did one choose and one did not?

You see, in the end, even the free-willer admits to cause, most obviously, perhaps those who claim God caused them to have autonomous free will.

To my mind, Autonomous Free Will, or Libertarian Free Will, (though that may not be exactly the same), is not a cogent framework for thought. It only allows one to go so far, before realizing like Wile E Coyote, they have stepped off the edge in that cloud of dust.

"You seem to think 'just' is the same as 'fair'."
Yes. Scriptures repeatedly tell us to be impartial because that is the just thing to do. Of course one may say that impartiality only applies to us and not to God by virtue of His position of authority. But this is also not true. We are to be impartial (fair) because God is impartial (fair). (Romans 2:11). Of course one may argue that God is partial in some areas and impartial in others (which would seemingly contradict the idea that there is no partiality in God at all), but the only reason someone would do this is to uphold their traditions.

You equate 'upholding their traditions' with 'defending their honest beliefs'. I personally do not come from a Calvinist tradition, but I defend whatever in it agrees with what I believe. Also, one may have a love for truth, or a merely intellectual wish to contend what doesn't make sense to them, to point out that 'partiality' as it is used in Scripture may not quite resemble how we use it in life. In fact --to me it is obvious that even those most strident in assuming absolute impartiality in all matters salvific easily admit that God is not merciful to everyone the same way. .

As far as I know, every mention of God's impartiality is in reference to a particular context. But I think most of what I would say about that, most are already aware of. It is a 'yes and no' matter, depending on what you mean by 'impartiality' --what you are talking about when you say it. He obviously chooses some and not others; he obviously delights in some more than others; he 'loved' Jacob, he 'hated' Esau (regardless of how you parse that, it is different. He treats nobody precisely the same as anyone else. I could go on and on and on. Israel was his favored people, to whom he lent certain advantages --and that, not because they deserved it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You seem to think 'just' is the same as 'fair'.

If that is the case, then how is it fair that some are able to accept Christ and some are not? Is free will more willing to be good, in some people than in others? What makes the difference?

That’s my point, if some are not allowed to accept Christ then it’s not fair and God’s judgement is by definition unjust because He is showing partiality. The scriptures do not say that some are not allowed to come to Christ. They do say that no one can come to Christ unless The Father draws him but who’s to say that The Father doesn’t draw everyone at some point in their life? The scriptures don’t deny this possibility.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You seem to think 'just' is the same as fair.

The words fair and impartial are part of the definition of the word just.

 

[fhansen]

Tell me, when Adam and Eve did the foreordained action of eating the apple did they act like robots? No. They acted out of their own free will but, it also was an act foreordained by God.

To say that a human act of sin was foreknown, allowed, and used by God in some manner is different from saying that God foreordained it. When God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit did He want, and even cause, him to eat of it? Are we expected to stretch and read between the lines to such an extent as that? Do we even need to? Or are we not better off simply understanding God's will in the sense that the overall preponderance of Scriptural verses from Genesis thru Revelation state it, IMO, which is that humans are simply obligated turn to God in faith and trust and love and remain in a relationship based on those things and then strive and persevere and endure and overcome, etc, while recognizing that grace is absolutely essential in moving us towards Him to begin with and helping us remain there. Anything else is really more than we can-and need to-know.

As I see it, Gods sovereignty is not compromised by the fact that moral evil (sin), resulting from the abuse of free will by created beings, is allowed for a time only, and utilized for His purposes. And that concept isolates Him from being the direct cause, by directly willing, every one of the most horrific evils that humans have experienced as a result of deliberate and malicious acts by other humans, not to mention all the lesser such evils we experience daily.

In that case man is truly blameworthy for sin; he's a morally accountable being (as we all know is true intuitively). And God can then, in line with His truth and justice, rightfully hold man accountable.

And this explains why God has been working with humanity down thru centuries of life in a world effectively exiled from Him but where, little by little, with the addition of revelation and grace, He's paved the way for the full light to be shown in the person of His Son because by then we might be ready, just ready, to begin to embrace that light. It's always been about the human will, imperfect, weak, limited, and compromised as it may be, about God patiently drawing that will into alignment with His own perfect will so that justice finally prevails in His creation, in beings who've learned the hard way of their need for that, for Him, if they will. Adam had thought otherwise-and has presumably learned his lesson by now. And this explains why this world is even necessary: it's a school, a training ground, for the human will. Otherwisese it doesn't really have much purpose; God may as well have just stocked heaven with the elect and hell with the reprobate to begin with if that's His ultimate will anyway.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Don't agree. God foreknew they would such doesn't mean they were directed to do so by any force of compulsion.

Have you ever seen anyone do something they didn't, at least for that instant, want to do as the best choice (for whatever reason)? They are compelled!

 

[Mark Quayle]

It means I believe that the doctrine of UNconditional election is a blasphemy because it can't stand without a belief in an UNconditional reprobation which I cannot countenance.

Not that I disagree with Unconditional Reprobation, (though I do), but I don't follow your logic. How does the fact that God does not ask some permission to give them new life, imply the fact that he does not ask others permission to give them what they deserve?

As to Unconditional Reprobation --no. He even goes to the trouble to offer them life, but they will not choose it. They are consigned to reprobation for their sin, not for being born once, not for being human, not for being created. They do this to themselves!

 

[Mark Quayle]

To say that a human act of sin was foreknown, allowed, and used by God in some manner is different from saying that God foreordained it.

How is God's foreknowing any different from his forecausing? Not only does Bible (Hebrew and Greek) language, by the term, 'foreknowledge' imply something more intimate than merely objective sight of the future, but logically, what difference does it make, when speaking about what God does? As the one and only Omnipotent, First Cause, he causes all things, whether directly or through means. And if he is not Omnipotent First Cause, he is not God. This is not complicated.

 

[fhansen]

How is God's foreknowing any different from his forecausing? Not only does Bible (Hebrew and Greek) language, by the term, 'foreknowledge' imply something more intimate than merely objective sight of the future, but logically, what difference does it make, when speaking about what God does? As the one and only Omnipotent, First Cause, he causes all things, whether directly or through means. And if he is not Omnipotent First Cause, he is not God. This is not complicated.

Yes, ultimately God is the cause of all things. But God wills only good. It's simply not impossible for Him to give created beings free will, which means allowing them, even, to abuse that freedom to the point of opposing His will. So it's one thing for God to actively will the rape and torture of a five year old child vs allowing the world the of humans the freedom to do it. If He actively wills it, along with every lie that ever occurred in this world, then there's no difference, no separation, between good and evil at the end of the day, and there'd be no more reason to trust Him and His word than the devil- less reason, in fact.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, ultimately God is the cause of all things. But God wills only good. It's simply not impossible for Him to give created beings free will, which means allowing them, even, to abuse that freedom to the point of opposing His will. So it's one thing for God to actively will the rape and torture of a five year old child vs allowing the world the of humans the freedom to do it. If He actively wills it, along with every lie that ever occurred in this world, then there's no difference, no separation, between good and evil at the end of the day, and there'd be no more reason to trust Him and His word than the devil- less reason, in fact.

Teresa is a bit vague here, in your signature quote. It has a lovely poetic feel to it though. "It is love alone that gives worth to all things." Teresa of Avila. It is GOD's love that gives worth.

What is the difference to God, between willing only good, and willing only good through use of all the temporal bad and all the temporal good? God's overall will is not the same thing as his revealed will. He commands righteousness of the spiritually dead, and hardens hearts, does he not?

But maybe you mean that he doesn't will bad for it's own sake, and you would, of course be right about that.

What do you mean by 'free will', here? Will? Choice? Or, rather, autonomy? For God to give real autonomy is self-contradictory. Can anything ever be uncaused besides God himself?

Your logic seems to assume that a mixture of Good and Evil upon the earth by God's will, somehow means there is no separation or difference. God's enemy sowed tares among the wheat, but God did not create the one who made himself God's enemy, without knowing --and planning, intending-- that he would do so. That is not evil on God's part. That is our way of things --not his. We do not operate on his level.

 

[fhansen]

Teresa is a bit vague here, in your signature quote. It has a lovely poetic feel to it though. "It is love alone that gives worth to all things." Teresa of Avila. It is GOD's love that gives worth.

Study Teresa sometime. To the extent that you understand her you'll better understand how far a person can progress in drawing near to God. Then the quote will no longer seem vague but, instead, a concisely worded profound truth. God wants us to love as He does and that love, from wherever it hails, understanding that all love originates from Him just as our very existence does to begin with, gives worth to all things. Without it life is meaningless, dull, sinful, chaotic. The more we love, in this world, the more we heal, and the more we exalt the human sprit to higher aspirations, to God, finally.

What do you mean by 'free will', here? Will? Choice? Or, rather, autonomy? For God to give real autonomy is self-contradictory. Can anything ever be uncaused besides God himself?

Yes, God can give free will to a created being. Otherwise humans are simply not morally accountable beings even though we intuitively know that this is false; we hold each other morally accountable because we possess a God given conscience, a sense of justice that can motivate moral outrage or righteousness indignation when appropriate. A good God would not allow sin forever, however, but only for a time, for His purposes.

We do not operate on his level.

Anyone can default to the 'God's ways are not our ways position' when faced with uncomfortable truths-or truths that conflict with their beliefs.

BTW, the more you understand that love is both a gift and a human choice, necessarily a choice or else it cannot truly be love, then the more you'll understand Teresa-and the Christian faith. Another Christian truth to chew on, from a different believer this time:
"At the evening of life we shall be judged on our love."

 

[Mark Quayle]

Study Teresa sometime. To the extent that you understand her you'll understand something of how far a person can progress in drawing near to God. Then the quote will no longer seem vague but, instead, a concisely worded profound truth. God wants us to love as He does and that love, from wherever it hails, understanding that all love originates from Him just as our very existence does to begin with, gives worth to all things. Without it life is meaningless, dull, sinful, chaotic. The more we love, in this world, the more we heal, and the more we exalt the human sprit to higher aspirations, to God, finally.

Agreed that all true love begins (and is sustained) by God. That is why it never fails.

Yes, God can give free will to a created being. Otherwise humans are simply not morally accountable beings even though we intuitively know that this is false; we hold each other morally accountable because we possess a God given conscience, a sense of justice that can motivate moral outrage or righteousness indignation when appropriate. A good God would not allow sin forever, however, but only for a time, for His purposes.

You didn't answer my question --do you imply autonomy? I agree humans have conscience, will, choice. Agreed also, that God will not allow sin forever, and that sin is allowed for his purposes.

Disagreed that "Otherwise humans are simply not morally accountable beings". That is an assertion by human reasoning, intuitively, even, but not by Scripture, nor by reasoning by the Doctrine of God and the Doctrine of Sin. Nor is the reasoning according to the logical implications of the statement. I will comment on the latter.

If humans are autonomously free willing, how do some choose one way, and some choose another? What makes the difference? Any answer you give besides "God" is still causation, even if you appeal to mere chance. So the term, 'autonomous free will', is self-contradictory

 

[TedT]

What is unconditional reprobation?
And what do you mean by Unconditional Election, if it must depend on Unconditional Reprobation?

"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."

"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."

Since election is NOT based upon anything found in or coming from the person but only GOD's will, then to be passed over for election cannot be based upon anything from the person either.

Unconditional means that no quality found in any person caused HIM to elect someone or pass over them for election. This is the same as saying HE had no reason to elect some and not others...no reason to view them as reprobate at all.

If there was a reason for some to be seen as reprobate then there is a reason for the election of those who do not have the quality that caused their reprobation and election is not unconditional at all.