Is it Wrong to Call Calvinism Unjust?

[BNR32FAN]

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...

Well my point brother Ben is that man is incapable of repentance without God’s grace. I absolutely agree that God will grant grace to all men although I believe it may not be at any certain time. I believe some may be called sooner than others but I do believe that all are called and granted grace enabling them to come to Christ.

 

[Ben johnson]

Sounds like you are contradicting yourself. "impossible to make the exact equality", to me, means "not the same".

I agree -- the sentence was a little long.

"It's impossible to make the exact-equality, inexact" -- more to the point, it is yet another verse whose Calvinistic consideration is equivalent to stamping it, "NOT REALLY".

SO THEN condemnation came to all men, EVEN SO justification came to all men.
In no way can we perceive, "Condemnation came to all, but justification came to few".

Justification came to the same "all men", as to whom came condemnation. Now, condemnation came conditionally; to be condemned, men must sin -- and verse 12 states every man meets the condition, "all are condemned (death spread to all men) because all sinned". Justification also came conditionally; and verse 17 expresses the condition --- "those who receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness shall reign with Christ" (shall be justified).

Yet another "THOSE-WHO" salvation verse...

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.

And that is the difference between your understanding, and mine. Calvinism/Sovereign-Predestined-Salvation/Reformed-Theology thinks regeneration PRECEDES belief and salvation. It's just the opposite, brother Mark. Verses thought to put "regeneration" before "belief", do not --- 1Cor2:14 must fit verse 12, we believe in Jesus and are saved and receive the Spirit and ONLY THEN we are (v13) taught the deeper spiritual things (one subject in verses 9-15, things, them, thoughts-of-God, things, things, things, things).

2Cor4:3-4 must fit verse 2:3:16, men turn to God and THEN the veil blinding their eyes is removed.

Ezk36:26-27 must fit 11:18-19, they turn to God and remove abominations BEFORE He gives them new hearts. And voluntary participation in getting new hearts is undeniable in Ezk18:30-31, "Make for YOURSELVES a new heart and new spirit"!

Jeremiah 17:9 is followed by verse 10, in spite of men's hearts being deceitful and desperately wicked, God responds TO men's hearts and minds and gives to each according to his ways! You see, we pursue either God and His righteousness (and receive salvation), or we pursue sin. Rom2:6-8 is clear (and 11 says "God is not partial"!); so is Jn3:18-21.

Calvinism usually embraces "TULIP" -- an acronym which starts with "total depravity" -- but it's not "total depravity", it actually is "total inability". That total-inability forces us to mark out passages like Acts17:26-31, which states God puts every man when and where each CAN seek Him and CAN FIND Him, God is not far from anyone! He commands all men everywhere to repent, He furnished proof to ALL MEN by raising Jesus from the dead. Think about that, Mark -- Jesus' resurrection is proof enough for salvation, to every man! That means every man is "able", we have to discard "total inability". Jesus helkuo-forcibly-draws ALL MEN to Himself, Jn12:32.

And it's not ability-from-our-innate-goodness" (Pelagianism), Deut30:11-20 with Rom10:6-10 teaches God PUTS the word-of-faith in EVERY heart and mouth! It's each person's choice to confess believe and be saved, or to prefer sin and perish. It's a choice, "from BEGINNING faith to ENDING faith" --- the righteous are to live BY faith! (Rom1:17!) How we begin is our choice, how we end is the same choice!

That's John 3:18-21 (see all the "HE WHO" clauses, and nothing of "God decides"?).

That's in Rom2, God's patience and kindness and forbearance LEADS to repentance (by Calvinism God GRANTS repentance TO those He leads, so they cannot resist!) --- but stubborn unrepentance stores up wrath for themselves (by Calvinism their unrepentance proves God did NOT REALLY lead them to repentance!). Romans 2:4-11 must be marked out or at least pretended it's not there!

Do you begin to see how many verses must get stamped "NOT REALLY" or just marked out to keep "Sovereign Predestined Salvation"? It's not worth the effort, is it?

 

[Ben johnson]

Well my point brother Ben is that man is incapable of repentance without God’s grace. I absolutely agree that God will grant grace to all men although I believe it may not be at any certain time. I believe some may be called sooner than others but I do believe that all are called and granted grace enabling them to come to Christ.

And to whom does God's grace come? Titus 2:11, "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to ALL MEN".

(Let's take a pause to allow our Calvinistic brothers time to run out and buy some more ink for their NOT REALLY stamps!)

God's grace came to all men, from the beginning; even though Jesus' gospel was "grace", He came not to abolish Law but to fulfill it. They were saved the same in OT times, as we are; by faith in the One Savior. Isaiah 43:11.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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

Look if you’d like to explain the scriptures I quoted that would be great but making false accusations against people without engaging in any kind of educated discussion is nothing but a waste of time. So far I haven’t seen you even attempt to explain a single verse that has been quoted by anyone in this thread. I’ll be more than happy to explain any verse you have. I’m confident that you can’t do the same.

 

[renniks]

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

You can't have one without the other.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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

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.

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???"

<:-/

Calvinism certainly does paint a very grim picture of our God.

 

[Ben johnson]

This refutes monergism not at all!

Deut30:12 fully destroys Monergism; the word-of-faith is IN every heart and mouth.

It only serves to further condemn those who claim God is unjust to condemn them!

In our jurisprudence we recognize "not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity" --- those who CANNOT choose between right and wrong, are insane.

What does God do with people who are insane? Condemn them? No, Scripture says the only thing that condemns us is REFUSING to believe -- 1Jn5:10, Jn3:20-21, and more.

God did not create them sinful.

Your colleague was arguing that "God sculpted them into vessels-of-wrath which God PREPARED for destruction." Doesn't matter whether we embrace "double-predestination" (God overtly writing sin into their hearts), or "single" (He neglects them to their inescapable corruption), both views fully associate GOD with their wickedness.

...and that does not please God...

They are cursed --all of us are, until regeneration--

I'm sorry, you're wrong; we are cursed until we BELIEVE and receive Jesus and the Spirit, it is the RECEIVED Spirit through Whom we are regenerated ("poured" in Titus3:5-6 is "received", see Acts10:45-47 with Acts11:15-17!)

You are arguing that "regeneration precedes belief", but Scripture plainly teaches "belief precedes regeneration".

but the curse is our sinfulness, our corrupt will. Certainly God is there; he is near to all;

No, not if they are unable to respond; it matters not whether God is in a different galaxy that they can't reach, or if He is standing immediately adjacent to them but on the other side of six inches of polycarbonate -- CAN they reach Him or NOT? Acts17 says "they can seek Him and CAN FIND Him, He is not far!"

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.

Please cite the verse (hint, Rom8:6-8); and cite the verse that shows WHO actually SETS our minds and hearts either on godly things or on sinful things (hint, Col3:2, actually all of chapter 3).

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.

Only if belief follows and is bound TO prior regeneration. Where is the verse (any verse!) that places "regeneration", before belief?

What letter, chapter, and verse?

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.

Semantics is what words mean; I think by now you see enough blatant-meanings in Scripture that you're going to have to leave behind "Sovereign Predestined Salvation".

Aren't you?

 

[Ben johnson]

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

Did I miss you interacting with cited verses? I'm sorry -- please direct me to where you answered my citations and others' citations?

 

[Albion]

Calvinism certainly does paint a very grim picture of our God.

That's an idea that's certainly open to question.

If freewill governs when it comes to choosing God, it makes human reasoning to be reliable. We know that it is not.

The idea also supposes that God is willing to let the person go and be lost at any time thereafter if he stumbles, yields to temptation, which we all do.

How is this picture any more flattering as a view of God than seeing him as being in charge and willing to elect to salvation some of us despite our weaknesses...considering also that ALL of us deserve to die in our sins if we are left to our own resources?

 

[BNR32FAN]

And to whom does God's grace come? Titus 2:11, "For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to ALL MEN".

(Let's take a pause to allow our Calvinistic brothers time to run out and buy some more ink for their NOT REALLY stamps!)

God's grace came to all men, from the beginning; even though Jesus' gospel was "grace", He came not to abolish Law but to fulfill it. They were saved the same in OT times, as we are; by faith in the One Savior. Isaiah 43:11.

Perhaps the authors of the scriptures were exaggerating when they said that Jesus died to save the world. They didn’t really mean all men even tho they specifically stated all men and the world several times throughout the scriptures. Oh that was sarcasm BTW.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Did I miss you interacting with cited verses? I'm sorry -- please direct me to where you answered my citations and others' citations?

Ive yet to see that myself, and not only in this thread but the other thread we were discussing in yesterday. I’m inclined to believe that he doesn’t because he can’t.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If freewill governs when it comes to choosing God, it makes human reasoning to be reliable. We know that it is not.

Not at all because many people do not remain in Christ. So free will does not make human reasoning reliable because some fall away and some never come to Christ to begin with. Free will makes the human response unpredictable.

 

[BNR32FAN]

The idea also supposes that God is willing to let the person go and be lost at any time thereafter if he stumbles, yields to temptation, which we all do.

Wrong again because the determining factor for salvation is repentance, not remaining sin free. If someone sins and repents then he is forgiven it’s those who sin without repentance who are not forgiven.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How is this picture any more flattering as a view of God than seeing him as being in charge and willing to elect to salvation some of us despite our weaknesses...considering also that ALL of us deserve to die in our sins if we are left to our own resources?

Oh the picture seems beautiful to those who are “elected”. But to those who are not elected the picture is horrific. And how can man deserve to die in sin if he is incapable of refraining from sin if he has not received God’s grace to enable him to do so? Furthermore Calvin’s doctrines teach that man is incapable of doing anything to influence God’s decision to grant him grace. So according to Calvin not only is man doomed because he is incapable of meeting God’s expectation of repentance but he can’t do anything to change that. He can’t even ask God for help or influence God in any way to become capable of meeting God’s expectations. Even tho Peter said in Acts 10:34-35


“Opening his mouth, Peter said: “ I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭10:34-35‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

 

[Brightfame52]

Look if you’d like to explain the scriptures I quoted that would be great but making false accusations against people without engaging in any kind of educated discussion is nothing but a waste of time. So far I haven’t seen you even attempt to explain a single verse that has been quoted by anyone in this thread. I’ll be more than happy to explain any verse you have. I’m confident that you can’t do the same.

You explain your own scriptures, dont put your work off on somebody else. If I quote scripture I am capable of explaining them myself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

SO THEN condemnation came to all men, EVEN SO justification came to all men.
In no way can we perceive, "Condemnation came to all, but justification came to few".

In no way? So sure are you? No wonder you get these things wrong!

To avoid calling your statement 'false' I will call it 'mistaken' or 'ignorant'. I can't tell you how often Arminians who claim Calvinism does it, do this --they take at 'first glance' face value what fits their thesis, and dive deep to explain away other passages. This doesn't need to be deep --it is simply a statement that in like manner as condemnation came through Adam, life and justification came through Christ. It also is a statement that nobody can escape the fact --i.e. that just as it was only in Adam that death came, it is only through Christ that life comes.

Reading the logical progression of Paul's rhetoric here, (even if only the immediate context, it can be seen what he is saying --in fact you have to ignore the immediate context to render your take on verse 18!) the verse preceeding it says, "17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive an abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"

Now if you can explain to me how those who receive an abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness who reign in life through Jesus are in fact absolutely EVERYONE who ever lived, and how Paul's emphasis in 17 and throughout the statement he is making here by the repeated use of the word 'one' is making a completely different point, i.e your claim, that the "all" in the first, indicating death was efficient in all men, implies logically that life is efficient in all men through the second iteration of the word 'all', then we can continue the discussion.

The rhetorical form of 18 "So then, just as one trespass brought condemnation for all men, so also one act of righteousness brought justification and life for all men." says that as through Adam all died; only though Christ are any made alive. 19 explains again: "For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.…" (aha, you hoped I wouldn't put 19 in there so you could pounce on me with it: "see, it uses 'the many' in the first case, and 'the many' in the second case, so both are the same, and mean the same!" Yes, they mean the same --that nobody bypasses the principle --that Adam brought death, and Christ brings life."

Paul's focus here and throughout Romans is not that everyone will come to Christ and be saved, but that only through Christ are any saved. You have to ignore huge swaths of Romans to conclude he is saying everyone will be saved.

Going to the other places this principle is spoken of in similar language only confirm what I am saying here. Don't bother.

 

[Albion]

Perhaps the authors of the scriptures were exaggerating when they said that Jesus died to save the world. They didn’t really mean all men even tho they specifically stated all men and the world several times throughout the scriptures. Oh that was sarcasm BTW.

If it was meant literally, which is what I think you are saying, you'd have to believe that every last human who ever lived is saved. Is that actually your belief??

 

[Albion]

Wrong again because the determining factor for salvation is repentance, not remaining sin free.

And the correct choice of god? And having such good timing that when you fall, you will have the chance to repent before dying?

 

[Albion]

Oh the picture seems beautiful to those who are “elected”. But to those who are not elected the picture is horrific.

No one knows which category he is in, so that observation doesn't mean anything.

And how can man deserve to die in sin if he is incapable of refraining from sin if he has not received God’s grace to enable him to do so?

Break one of God's laws ever and you'd deserve to be eternally lost, save only that we believe that a Savior came to remedy that situation.

Furthermore Calvin’s doctrines teach that man is incapable of doing anything to influence God’s decision to grant him grace.

I should think that we'd all understand that, whether we lean towards Election or Freewill. In our natural state, we are outcast from God and deserve nothing.

 

[Mark Quayle]

concerning Unconditional Election, which is a Reformed reference to God's mere action upon the Elect, and not a reference to anything else, and Rennik's term, "unconditional reprobation' --apparently as if the reprobate did not do this to themselves and whose wills have no part in their own rebellion and enmity with Christ:

You can't have one without the other.

Then you don't understand Grace. God's grace in election has no reference to consulting the Elect for their opinion nor obtaining their permission. Nor is it a function of the worth or merit of the Elect.

So this, the best I can follow, you seeing that the will of the Elect does not cause their Election, according to Calvinism/ Reformed Theology, should logically imply to the Calvinist that in like manner the disobedient are destined to reprobation through no fault of their own.

But if in fact they are destined to reprobation and it is their own fault, you reason, then, so it is to their own credit that the Elect are saved. Do I have your thinking accurately represented here?

You have the whole picture wrong. ALL have sinned and are under condemnation. We both agree (I think) that the condemnation is just, and that it is for their sin, which is only forgiven in the Elect upon regeneration, faith and repentance. But you keep leaving out the fact that the lost are incapable of submission to God's law and cannot please God. They WILL to do wrong. They are at enmity with God.

You see a level uncluttered surface with with the balance of logic in the middle and one statement on one side, with a necessarily equal opposite statement on the other side. It is not so. There is a huge negative and only through Grace are any made positive. Nor does logic demand the two are equivalent in absolute value.

I will happily agree that God has predestined some to reprobation, but to say that they therefore got there through no fault of their own, is ludicrous. God planned his son's execution --it did not happen by accident-- do you say then that the players were innocent of wrongdoing who brought it about?