Is it Wrong to Call Calvinism Unjust?

[Mark Quayle]

He created the vessels of Wrath to punish them eternally for their sins. That will demonstrate His Glory in regards to them.

From my many arguments with freewillers and even semi-Reformed, it seems their use of the word "predetermined" gets their dander up. They don't so much mind God predetermining the salvation of the elect, as they do him predetermining the damnation of everyone else. While it doesn't bother me in the least to say he predermined absolutely all things, and logically it makes no sense to say anything but God himself is uncaused, they still can't abide the notion that God would make someone for the mere purpose of destroying that person --and I agree: That is not his primary reason for making them. And as far as I can tell, Calvinism / Reformed theology are very clear that the reason he made them follows Romans 9 --that it is for the reason of displaying his glory --his power and justice-- and his utter mercy to the objects of his mercy.

 

[Ben johnson]

I find it curious you would build doctrine on numbers of verses saying this and not saying that in a Bible's footnotes or lists in appendices.

The appendix of "THOSE WHO", is what I included in the book I wrote. Whatever doctrines I perceive, are what Scripture teaches -- for instance, Rom10:6-10 connects directly to Deut30:11-20; and Deut30:12 is a foundational refutation of Monergism, the basis of "Sovereign Predestined Salvation".

You ask, "Does that make sense to you?" YOU don't make sense to me.

Thankfully, we are not debating whether you or I "make sense" -- but Scripture makes sense, otherwise the opposite is "nonsense"... And when multiple verses from different letters say the same thing, that establishes "sound doctrine" (Titus1:9).

Here and throughout your post you display the same tendencies as those promoting freewill. You read with presuppositions --you cannot help it. So do they, and admittedly, so do I. But you have no more reason to believe yours is the "plain meaning", or that others "do violence to the text to take it to mean something it does not" etc etc. I don't have the time or energy nor inclination to go through each of your attempts to demonstrate your thesis, to show their error, but this blanket fact seems obvious to me. I don't know how to show it to you though, except by parallel. The Freewillers, read every occasion in scripture demonstrating choice or will as demonstrating freewill. It is in their mindset. They can't seem to see that fact.

I will try to explain. You have spent hours on this post, it seems to me, but you do the same thing. You see that people MUST do this or that or they are not saved, even lose 'what they had'. But one thing you fail to take into account is the method of speech I will try to show thus: I can say, "The Emperor struts about showing off his new suit. He is careful not to scuff it, not to dirty it. But the Emperor has no clothes on at all." Have I contradicted myself here? --after all, I said all these things concerning his clothes, thus (or so it appears) affirming that he was dressed in real clothes, then I turn around and say he was not dressed at all!

So with Scripture. 1.When the way a writer talks supposes a person is saved that can lose his salvation by this or that fact, it can be a mere rhetorical method, attributing substance to the assumption the believer may have concerning his faith. It doesn't mean there is substance.

There are also many other valid ways to look at these: 2. If the person does continue in the faith, he will indeed be saved. And in fact -will have been saved. So he must continue in the faith. 3. Sometimes a corporate use is made, where the person is 'in the faith' because he is a member among other members of the church. This does not, of course, guarantee his salvation, and if he departs from the faith he has lost the status he had been given. 4. There is the raw fact that attendance unto the means of grace naturally produces results. Study and self-discipline are good for everyone, and good deeds produce temporal and even spiritual rewards. 5. To go along with (4) the Holy Spirit does whatever it pleases, for whatever reasons it has, to anyone it has designated for that purpose. It is natural to all of us to read self-determination into whatever we consider, as though the Spirit must follow certain laws, principles and promises. We don't really understand such things well. The Spirit of God can 'enter' whoever it chooses to enter, and to accomplish through that person whatever it pleases. We even see in the Bible an account of a pagan prophesying truly, by the Spirit of God. I think we have all seen the Spirit truly move in a congregation led by a false teacher. So with falling away --the Spirit can work in the 'believer', even convincing the unfaithful that they are 'in Christ', and then leave at its convenience. 6. Like (4) and (5), the lost can walk, talk the talk, and have feelings for Christ and goodness and desire purity for its own sake, that remain at enmity with God, still in subjugation to their depravity. Christian, in Pilgrim's Progress, is accompanied on the road by several different ones for a time. 7. I am minded many times of the fact that thoughts concerning the grandeur and immensity of God, and all the deeper subjects of study concerning him, can exalt the spirit of man, causing wonderful things, even a form of worship and praise, that nevertheless still lack substance. In philosophy, finding the logically necessary attributes of God, can ring true to anyone who finds them, and the intellectual apprehension of them can both humble and exalt the spirit, but the heart remain contrary to Christ, though the emotions drove a temporary accord with truth.

I acknowledge the effort you made to write this -- I'm just disappointed that you didn't interact with any verses.

Hebrews3 for instance -- verse 8, "do not harden your hearts" (reflecting Israel in the wilderness, see 3:18-19). Verse 12-13, "take care BRETHREN" -- could he be talking to unsaved brethren? No. "Take care, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God." Brethren? Capable of a hard heart that falls away from God? How could the clear meaning not be the writer's intent? What's the second possible meaning?

"But encourage one another, while it is still called 'today', lest any of you be hardened by deceitful sin; for we are partners in Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end."

Okay, what's your interaction with those words? How is it not admonishing "don't get deceived by sin to falling away from God, you remain saved if you hold fast to Him"?

And how is Deut30:12 not refuting Monergism?

I'm not sure why you want to preach to me the very thing I myself brought up. There are many reasons here and in Revelation this is put this way --that a name can be blotted out of the book of life. If "book of life" is the correct translation (and I don't say it is) it can still be seen according to those numbered uses I showed above. Meanwhile there are plenty of verses like this one in 1 John 5: “Everyone who is born of God overcomes the world.” This must be used to temper or qualify the claim that a person's name can be blotted out of the Book of Life.

Please give your opinion as to why 1Jn5:1 uses "present-active-participle"? It's the same in John3:16 -- "whoever IS BELIEVING, is born of God"; and that leads to verse 4, "whatever is born of God overcomes the world" --- if "IS-BELIEVING" is the key, what if a person ceases to believe?

Verse 5, "he that overcomes the world, is he that IS BELIEVING that Jesus is the Son"! Do you think present-active-participle is an accident?

Again, "Perseverance of the Saints" is not a claim that a person cannot stray, nor even that nobody who attends to the way of faith will be lost, but that the Elect will not finally be lost.

Based on what verse? Are there sins that God overlooks? Or does God guarantee repentance and restoration? What about Romans 11 -- "Do not be conceited, but fear; if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you. Behold then the kindness and severity of God -- to those who fell, severity; to you kindness, if you continue in His kindness, otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in again."

There is no implication that those considering themselves elect need not work nor exert personal effort,

What's the point? God will PRESERVE us, why not sit back and take it easy?

nor that their obedience is automatic or unnecessary, any more than their repentance was unnecessary.

It's all a question of "cause-and-effect"; is obedience irresistible from God's sovereign choice, or can we mark out passages like Heb3:12-14 and 4:11? Or is there some way to explain them?

You are right it was loooong, i have taken hours already in responding and am not even halfway through. Please just take this generalization, that I hope covers your questions --Calvinism does not claim we have no choice or will.

Publicly, it does not. But "behind the scenes", a will that cannot choose except consequentially to God's sovereign heart-changing (or equally ordaining them to BE wicked even if by volitional neglect), has no choice.

And there is no verse that places "heart-change", before belief. Cite any if you disagree.

It does not even say we need not work. It sequences cause and effect to credit God for all good. It does not say that a believer (depending on the definition of 'believer') cannot be lost, but that those whom God has chosen in and for his particular grace will not ultimately be lost. It does not say that anything is automatic, but that what God has ordained is sure.

Back to the most foundational question -- WHERE does it say God ORDAINS any for salvation?

Acts13:48? A.T.Robertson strongly disagrees; so does the context -- Acts13:43 and 50 use the same word as with Lydia in Acts16:14-15, "sebo" --- worshiper of God. That is a BELIEVER; Lydia embodied Jesus' words of John8:42, "If God was your Father then you would love Me".

Acts13:50 proves godly women and prominent men can be misled into persecuting Paul and Barnabas.

Acts13:46 says that the Jews, UNELECTED THEMSELVES ("considered themselves unworthy for eternal life").

Acts13:48 uses "tasso", specifically past pluperfect passive (Robertson fully asserts middle passive, "Luke does not say why the Gentiles RANGED THEMSELVES on God's side"). Correctly translated, "as many as were inclined to eternal life, believed".

Where is the verse that says God ordains a few favorites (violating Rom2:11, Acts10:34-35, and Col3:25) --- and ordains most to be sinful/wicked/perishing, (violating Jesus' words in Matt12, God's house cannot be divided)?

 

[Ben johnson]

When one calls Calvinism unjust, its a sly way of calling God unjust,

It's not sly at all -- it's boldly telling it like it is!

because He chooses to save only some of mankind, and the rest He chooses to condemn for their sins.

In Romans1, "they are without excuse"; but what if God condemns men for sins they could never, in all of time, avoid? That is the very definition of "unjust"! And it's the best excuse ever!

Have you ever interacted with Acts17:26-31? How about Matt22:2-14? Who is offered eternal life, BF? And those who get excluded --- who makes the choice?

Where is the verse that casts God as deciding who pursues righteousness, and who pursues sin? Paul in Rom2 says, "Those WHO by perseverance in doing good seek glory honor and immortality, receive eternal life; but those WHO are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, receive wrath and indignation. ...for there is no partiality with God!"

Which part of that should we mark out, Brightfame?

 

[Ben johnson]

You never addressed my post brother. The definition of the word “just” does not only mean moral and fair but it also means impartial. Calvin’s doctrine of election is not impartial so it contradicts the very definition of the word just.

Very well said. God is NOT PARTIAL -- Rom2:11, 1Cor10:34-35, Col3:25. Zero of "Pelagianism" (or Semi-Pelagianism), God's true sincere call of everyone (Matt22:14, Jn12:32) empowers all to believe (Acts17:26-31, Rm5:17-19 justification came to the SAME "all men" as to whom condemnation came! -- 1Tim2:4, on and on!)

Calvinism demands "heart-change-before-belief" -- where is that? It's not in Acts13:48. It's not in 1Cor2:14 or 2Cor4:3-4. It's not in Jer36:26-27 --- it's not anywhere! Rom10:6-10 links to Deut30:11-20, and Deut30:12 foundationally destroys Monergism, the basis for Calvinism! The word-of-faith (which is the same of Jesus, Rm10), is NOT in Heaven that one must go get it and give it to us to make us hear it that we may observe it, it is IN our hearts and mouths! Both in those who confess believe and are saved (Rm10:9-10), and in those who disobey and perish (Deut30:17-18); it's a CHOICE, Deut30:19-20! Which part of those verses is unclear?

 

[Ben johnson]

I think you are engaging in a category error. God is just throughout. He is impartial as to justice, but not as to mercy. Just is, all have sinned and the penalty will be paid. Fair is, he shows no mercy and we all pay our own penalty. Mercy is, Christ pays the penalty of some. Justice throughout.

God has mercy on all, Rom11:32.

It is no justice to condemn someone for what was completely inescapable, beyond his power to avoid. That would be the greatest excuse of all time. Rom1:20.

But no Calvinist will be convinced by discussing ten, twenty, or even fifty verses; there are more than sixty-one thought to promote the doctrine -- four Primaries (foundational passages -- Eph1:4-5, Eph1:11, Rom8:29-35, Rom9:11-21), and at least fifty seven Secondaries. It is a superior elevated view; proponents often say things like, "I used to believe as you, but then I ______" (matured, learned, was led by the Spirit, and so on). One by one ALL the verses must be proven "non-predestined-salvation"; unless and until then, he will "shake the dust from his feet and decline discussions". Only when his arms are empty, might he start to reconsider.

No offense meant, brother Mark.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God has mercy on all, Rom11:32.

Yes, and grace. But not all mercy is the same and not all grace is the same. Not all love is the same either. Equality of outcome is not God's way.

It is no justice to condemn someone for what was completely inescapable, beyond his power to avoid. That would be the greatest excuse of all time. Rom1:20.

Unless they willed it to be that way. They do have will, and it is corrupt.

Apparently you want me to write a book tonight, to counter your book. Not happening. You make it that those many verses teach your thesis, when they merely teach the necessity for obedience, repentance, etc. But you use them against Calvinism as if Calvinism teaches there is no need for these things. You never even deal with the fact that Calvinisms teachings, to be specific, are about the surety that what God has begun he will complete --not that we need not work. We are SURE that the Elect will see God. If you want to argue specifics of whether one 'has the Spirit at one time and not another later on", or other such things, those are different matters.

Every one of your verses shows one way or another of making God respond to us, as though he owes us something. He does what he does for his own sake. He owes us nothing. WE DO what we do because HE DOES WHAT HE DOES, and we are 'IN CHRIST' in a way that the non-elect cannot be.

I honestly don't see how you can believe in a God who flies by the seat of his pants to accomplish only his larger purposes, and even in those he is not very specific. That doesn't sound to me like the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, nor the God who resides with his people. Do you think the Bride of Christ is some haphazard assembly of random parts?

 

[Ben johnson]

God made/created them vessels of wrath and fits them for destruction.

This is the same thing that made Jesus white-hot furious in Matt12:25-32—accusing God of complicity in evil! He cannot conspire with wickeness, cannot cause it, cannot participate, His house is not divided.

Romans9:21-22 has THREE vessels in view --- “time” (tee-may) honor, “atimia” common (NASB), and “wrath fitted THEMSELVES for destruction”. To think GOD sculpted them into wickedness and fitted them for wrath”, demands marking out Matt12:25-32, Rom2:5 (by stubborn unrepentance they store up wrath for themselves) and others.

When someone accuses God of causality in wickedness, makes me not want to stand next to them in a lightning storm…

That's why I said it's a bit of a misrepresentation. I didn't say it to be kind, but accurate --it's only a bit of a misrepresentation. His purpose in creating them is for his primary purpose, to put it as plainly as I know how.

When I think of God creating, the two things (mercy and condemnation), while mutually necessary, are not equal in purpose. Omnipotence would have no purpose in making something just to destroy it. It is to demonstrate his glory --his power, holiness and justice-- that they are created. (Romans 9)..

God—perfect, perfectly righteous, perfectly just, in whom there IS no sin (1Jn3:5), takes GLORY in the molding of blank innocent “not-yet-done-anything-good-or-bad-clay” so that they helplessly hopelessly (dripping with wickedness) perish and there’s nothing they can do about it, but He GLORIES in that? That sounds pretty twisted.

That’s why we should really engage all verses. No Calvinist will reconsider his position as long as ANY of the 61+ verses remain in his arms! Calvinism is a superior elevated view; it’s common to hear, “I used to believe as you, but then I _____” (learned, matured, was-led-by-the-Spirit, or similar). It does no good to expose twenty or thirty or fifty Secondaries (and then use them to help expose the four Primaries); every last one must be shown to clearly NOT promote Predestined Election—only when his arms are empty might he even think of reconsidering the doctrine.

Begin with 1Cor2:14, spiritual “things” like the Gospel are incomprehensible until one’s heart is regenerated and he GETS the things (“things” must come before salvation)—so mark out verse 12, we are saved and receive the Spirit and THEN get the “things” of verse 14 (salvation comes before being taught the deeper spiritual “things”!).

Then 2Cor4:3-4, the veil must be removed BEFORE he can see hear understand and be saved. So mark out 2Cor3:16, a man turns to God and THEN the veil over his eyes is removed.

Refuse Greek commentary on Acts13:48, that “tasso” (specifically tetagmenoi) is middle passive (they range THEMSELVES on God’s side, Robertson’s Word Pictures), and mark out verses 13:43, 13:50 (and 16:14-15) where “sebo” means GOD-WORSHIPING women and prominent men are PERSUADED to turn against Paul and Barnabas (and mark out 13:46 the Jews unelected themselves, “considered themselves unworthy for eternal life”!).

Insist Jer13:23 means an unregenerated man can no more change himself than can a leopard change spots or an Ethiopian change skin, mark out the last verse 27 (“how long will you remain unclean?”) and mark out 2Tim2:21 “if a man CLEANSES HIMSELF from these things”. Mark out Ezk18:30-31 while we’re at it, “Cast away from yourself your sins …and make for yourselves a new heart and spirit, why will you die? I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies, so REPENT AND LIVE!”.

On and on, every last one of the 61+ verses. And some will never worry about the merit of holding a doctrine that marks out so many other Scriptures…

All we an do is keep holding up verses in spite of “marking-them-out” (no one actually inks out verses, they just pretend they’re not there…) It’s not our job to change hearts; in all we say and do, we only lead people to He who can change hearts, always being open ourselves to His leading…

 

[Ben johnson]

Yes, and grace. But not all mercy is the same and not all grace is the same.

Yes it is. In Rom5:17-19 justification came to the SAME "all men", as to whom came condemnation -- it is impossible to make the exact equality "SO THEN all (condemnation), EVEN SO all (justification) -- into "not-really-exact". Yes, it is.

Not all love is the same either. Equality of outcome is not God's way.

God is love --- but not to the sovereignly-predestined-to-perish. Please accept that God is near to ALL MEN! Acts17:26-31, Rom10:6-10 with Deut30:11-20 (a profound refutation of Monergism, the basis for "Sovereign Predestined Salvation"!).

How near is God to those He created to be sinful and to perish? He couldn't be farther, could He? (How did those in Luke 8:13 pray? "Our Farther in Heaven...")

Unless they willed it to be that way. They do have will, and it is corrupt.

No, a will that an ONLY disbelieve and perish, is no will at all. Do you or do you not accept that "the word of faith was PUT in their hearts and mouths by God, and each CHOOSES to confess believe and be saved or to disobey and perish"? Deut30:11-20, with Rom10:6-10! Will you accept what was written?

Apparently you want me to write a book tonight, to counter your book. Not happening. You make it that those many verses teach your thesis, when they merely teach the necessity for obedience, repentance, etc.

Meaning no offense, Calvinists will not engage many cited verses; because they cannot accommodate Calvinism.

But you use them against Calvinism as if Calvinism teaches there is no need for these things. You never even deal with the fact that Calvinisms teachings, to be specific, are about the surety that what God has begun he will complete --not that we need not work. We are SURE that the Elect will see God. If you want to argue specifics of whether one 'has the Spirit at one time and not another later on", or other such things, those are different matters.

I've posted some simple and short verses; like Acts17:26-31, Rom5:17-19, the connected passages Deut30:11-20 and Rom10:6-10. These say some very clear things, which cannot permit "Sovereign Predestined Salvation". Watch the responses -- those who hold to Reformed Theology, will not interact with the verses. No offense meant, there's just no way to fit "SO THEN all (condemnation), EVEN SO all (justification)" --- or, "God commands ALL MEN EVERYWHERE to repent, they CAN seek Him and they can FIND Him He's not far from anyone, the Resurrection is sufficient proof to ALL MEN". No way to fit "It's not in Heaven that one must go GET it and GIVE it to us to make us hear it that we may observe it", when Reformed Theolgy 100% requires God to sovereignly monergistically GIVE it to us to MAKE us observe it!

"I have set before you life and death, prosperity and adversity, the blessing and the curse; so CHOOSE LIFE, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice and walking in His statutes and by holding fast to Him."

"Cast away from you all your sins you have committed, and make for yourselves a new heart and spirit! Why will you die, Oh Israel? I take no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies --- so repent and live!"

"If a man CLEANSES HIMSELF from these things he will be a vessel of honor useful for every good purpose in his Master's house!"

"THOSE WHO by perseverance in doing good seek glory honor and immortality, receive eternal life; but THOSE WHO are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, receive wrath and indignation; ...for THERE IS NO PARTIALITY WITH GOD!"

On and on -- think anyone will interact with these? No -- and I would love to be wrong about that!

Every one of your verses shows one way or another of making God respond to us, as though he owes us something. He does what he does for his own sake. He owes us nothing. WE DO what we do because HE DOES WHAT HE DOES, and we are 'IN CHRIST' in a way that the non-elect cannot be.

They're not my verses; I didn't write them. I'm old, but not that old...

I honestly don't see how you can believe in a God who flies by the seat of his pants to accomplish only his larger purposes, and even in those he is not very specific. That doesn't sound to me like the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, nor the God who resides with his people. Do you think the Bride of Christ is some haphazard assembly of random parts?

The verses say what they say; the Apostles wanted to teach us specific things. But are our ears open to listen? (Luke8:18!)

 

[Brightfame52]

It's not sly at all -- it's boldly telling it like it is! In Romans1, "they are without excuse"; but what if God condemns men for sins they could never, in all of time, avoid? That is the very definition of "unjust"! And it's the best excuse ever!

Have you ever interacted with Acts17:26-31? How about Matt22:2-14? Who is offered eternal life, BF? And those who get excluded --- who makes the choice?

Where is the verse that casts God as deciding who pursues righteousness, and who pursues sin? Paul in Rom2 says, "Those WHO by perseverance in doing good seek glory honor and immortality, receive eternal life; but those WHO are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth but obey unrighteousness, receive wrath and indignation. ...for there is no partiality with God!"

Which part of that should we mark out, Brightfame?

Again When one calls Calvinism unjust, its a sly way of calling God unjust !

 

[BNR32FAN]

Very well said. God is NOT PARTIAL -- Rom2:11, 1Cor10:34-35, Col3:25. Zero of "Pelagianism" (or Semi-Pelagianism), God's true sincere call of everyone (Matt22:14, Jn12:32) empowers all to believe (Acts17:26-31, Rm5:17-19 justification came to the SAME "all men" as to whom condemnation came! -- 1Tim2:4, on and on!)

Calvinism demands "heart-change-before-belief" -- where is that? It's not in Acts13:48. It's not in 1Cor2:14 or 2Cor4:3-4. It's not in Jer36:26-27 --- it's not anywhere! Rom10:6-10 links to Deut30:11-20, and Deut30:12 foundationally destroys Monergism, the basis for Calvinism! The word-of-faith (which is the same of Jesus, Rm10), is NOT in Heaven that one must go get it and give it to us to make us hear it that we may observe it, it is IN our hearts and mouths! Both in those who confess believe and are saved (Rm10:9-10), and in those who disobey and perish (Deut30:17-18); it's a CHOICE, Deut30:19-20! Which part of those verses is unclear?

Amen, in order for God’s judgement upon man to be just man must be capable of meeting God’s expectations. Calvin says man is not which is true but one of his major flaws was claiming that God only grants grace to some and not all. This would mean that God is punishing the unelected for failing to repent and believe while they are incapable of doing so which would ultimately make God responsible for their refusal to repent and make His judgement unjust for punishing them for all eternity for failing to meet impossible expectations. In order to justly punish someone for failing to meet expectations the person must be capable of meeting those expectations otherwise the judgement and punishment is unjust. Calvin made many errors but this was probably his biggest one.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Again When one calls Calvinism unjust, its a sly way of calling God unjust !

Not in the least. People call Calvinism unjust because it is. Calvin’s doctrines are false and therefore calling Calvinism unjust in no way implies that God is unjust because Calvin’s understanding of God is incorrect. Calvin’s doctrines imply that God is showing partiality towards some and not towards all which defies the very definition of the word “just” which means moral, fair, and impartial. This is how we can know that Calvin’s doctrines are false because we know that God is just and Calvin’s doctrines are teaching that God is not just.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes it is. In Rom5:17-19 justification came to the SAME "all men", as to whom came condemnation -- it is impossible to make the exact equality "SO THEN all (condemnation), EVEN SO all (justification) -- into "not-really-exact". Yes, it is.

Sounds like you are contradicting yourself. "impossible to make the exact equality", to me, means "not the same". Anyhow, this is semantics. I'm not saying that God doesn't present the same thing for our consideration to both the Elect and the rest of us --for eg, the Gospel is presented and available to all-- but that his enabling (i.e. regeneration) of them is not done to all, so not all are saved. Not all are made alive.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God is love --- but not to the sovereignly-predestined-to-perish. Please accept that God is near to ALL MEN! Acts17:26-31, Rom10:6-10 with Deut30:11-20 (a profound refutation of Monergism, the basis for "Sovereign Predestined Salvation"!).

How near is God to those He created to be sinful and to perish? He couldn't be farther, could He? (How did those in Luke 8:13 pray? "Our Farther in Heaven...")

This refutes monergism not at all! It only serves to further condemn those who claim God is unjust to condemn them! God did not create them sinful. They are cursed --all of us are, until regeneration-- but the curse is our sinfulness, our corrupt will. Certainly God is there; he is near to all; Romans 1 even says they KNEW HIM! It is rather obviously referring to two different things, to say he is near to us, yet the distance is infinite. The heart ruled by the flesh, according the Scripture, is UNABLE to submit to God's law, nor can it please God. As Romans 1 and Romans 9 both agree, we who reject God are without excuse --not because we are able to accept his offer, but because we WILL NOT. As with all other subjects Reformed, IF we had done, we would have been. Some did not, so we know they were not. You are playing with semantics.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, a will that an ONLY disbelieve and perish, is no will at all.

That is drawn on your personal philosophy. It is only an assertion, lacking support.. I can point to fact after fact as stated in Scripture and you will say they are not correct use of Scripture --your only reason to say so being that you don't think 'will is will if it is not freewill' and the like. No doubt, for example, you would claim it is nonsense to say that the command does not imply the ability to obey. Yet all Scripture and experience is against you in that. It is mere assertion.

Our differences are categorical. Your 'proofs', every one, are drawn on completely different presuppositions, based on your philosophy.

I'm sorry, and I do think of you as my brother in Christ, but you are serving a dangerous, humanistic philosophy, trying to make God fair, when he does not claim to be fair nor to ask for you to justify him. You are like Job's friends, claiming that we only receive according to what we deserve, when it is rather obvious that God does what he does by his own counsel, and cannot be judged for doing so. He is just, quite apart from our understanding. We don't need to move it around until it fits our sensibilities.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That is drawn on your personal philosophy. It is only an assertion, lacking support.. I can point to fact after fact as stated in Scripture and you will say they are not correct use of Scripture --your only reason to say so being that you don't think 'will is will if it is not freewill' and the like. No doubt, for example, you would claim it is nonsense to say that the command does not imply the ability to obey. Yet all Scripture and experience is against you in that. It is mere assertion.

Our differences are categorical. Your 'proofs', every one, are drawn on completely different presuppositions, based on your philosophy.

I'm sorry, and I do think of you as my brother in Christ, but you are serving a dangerous, humanistic philosophy, trying to make God fair, when he does not claim to be fair nor to ask for you to justify him. You are like Job's friends, claiming that we only receive according to what we deserve, when it is rather obvious that God does what he does by his own counsel, and cannot be judged for doing so. He is just, quite apart from our understanding. We don't need to move it around until it fits our sensibilities.

Here’s three examples of free will in the scriptures.


“But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality.”
‭‭Revelation‬ ‭2:20-21‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Jesus giving Jezebel time to repent indicates His expectation for her to comply. It would be completely ignorant to expect Jezebel to repent if she were not capable of doing so.


“Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭2:4-11‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

I must’ve shown you this at least 10 times before. God has granted these people grace enabling them to repent and because of their stubbornness they are storing up for themselves the wrath of God on judgement day. Their stubbornness despite God granting them grace proves their free will to resist God’s grace.


“And He began telling this parable: “A man had a fig tree which had been planted in his vineyard; and he came looking for fruit on it and did not find any. And he said to the vineyard-keeper, ‘Behold, for three years I have come looking for fruit on this fig tree without finding any. Cut it down! Why does it even use up the ground?’ And he answered and said to him, ‘Let it alone, sir, for this year too, until I dig around it and put in fertilizer; and if it bears fruit next year, fine; but if not, cut it down.’ ””
‭‭Luke‬ ‭13:6-9‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Notice that despite Jesus giving special attention to the tree (His grace) it is uncertain whether or not the tree will bear fruit or ve chopped down. Again this is because even after receiving grace people still have free will which is why a person can fail to remain in Christ and why they can be cast away by The Father.

 

[Ben johnson]

Again When one calls Calvinism unjust, its a sly way of calling God unjust !

Calvinism by its own tenets casts God as unjust -- and a false judge, hypocrite (judging and condemning men for what He Himself chose!), collaborator-with-evil, on and on. Once a Calvinist understands the insult to God, perhaps he/she will reconsider...

 

[Ben johnson]

Amen, in order for God’s judgement upon man to be just man must be capable of meeting God’s expectations.

Yes -- and more than that, the "Greatest Commandment" is to love God (Matt22:37). What is a command that the commander knows the subject cannot obey (and what is a commander who issues such an order?) It's no command, and the commander is insincere or mentally handicapped.

Calvin says man is not which is true

I disagree. And that statement makes Calvinists claim "inherent capability is PELAGIANISM" -- but no one is saying "inherent", God's sincere call overcomes depravity sufficient for salvation. Remember, in Jn12:32 Jesus draws all men, the Greek is "helkuo" draw/drag-forcibly...

but one of his major flaws was claiming that God only grants grace to some and not all.

Yes. But the biggest error has to be charging God with causality in man's wickedness; no way that pleases God.

This would mean that God is punishing the unelected for failing to repent and believe while they are incapable of doing so which would ultimately make God responsible for their refusal to repent and make His judgement unjust for punishing them for all eternity for failing to meet impossible expectations.

Yes -- unjust, fraudulent-judge, hypocrite, and many other things that would anger anyone. Is God immune to anger at being impugned? No, He's not.

In order to justly punish someone for failing to meet expectations the person must be capable of meeting those expectations otherwise the judgement and punishment is unjust. Calvin made many errors but this was probably his biggest one.

You're right. And --- "God ordains sinfulness and perishing", and "God only effectively calls His favorites" (He is not a God of love for most), "God calls all men but only SINCERELY calls a few" (He's insincere for most!), on and on.

Is there any doubt God is truly looking at Calvinism, and saying -- "Excuse Me???"

<:-/

 

[Ben johnson]

Again When one calls Calvinism unjust, its a sly way of calling God unjust !

Calvinism by its tenets accuses God of being unjust. And it declines to admit contradictions; like "Compatibilism" -- proponents recognize that God cannot be complicit in sin without getting His hands dirty, so Compatibilism strives to apply "Teflon gloves" to insulate God from the sin He ultimately causes.

The preponderance of Scriptures which oppose "Sovereign Predestined Salvation" makes one bewildered at what motivates adherents; but in fact, all views of OSAS, are really repeating the First Lie, told to Eve -- "Don't worry, you won't really die." And Calvinists decline to admit 2Cor11:3 warns us we have the same risk of deception-away-from-Jesus, as Eve experienced...

 

[Brightfame52]

Not in the least. People call Calvinism unjust because it is. Calvin’s doctrines are false and therefore calling Calvinism unjust in no way implies that God is unjust because Calvin’s understanding of God is incorrect. Calvin’s doctrines imply that God is showing partiality towards some and not towards all which defies the very definition of the word “just” which means moral, fair, and impartial. This is how we can know that Calvin’s doctrines are false because we know that God is just and Calvin’s doctrines are teaching that God is not just.

Yes, its True, to call calvinism unjust is replying against God !

 

[Brightfame52]

Calvinism by its own tenets casts God as unjust -- and a false judge, hypocrite (judging and condemning men for what He Himself chose!), collaborator-with-evil, on and on. Once a Calvinist understands the insult to God, perhaps he/she will reconsider...

Again, when one calls calvinism unjust, its just their enmity against God !