How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[BNR32FAN]

Says who?

Says the definition of the word just.

Just-fair, fair minded, equitable, even handed, impartial, unbiased, objective, neutral, disinterested, unprejudiced, open minded, nonpartisan, nondiscriminatory, anti discrimination, honorable, upright, upstanding, decent, honest, righteous.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It’s a lot better than God is just no matter what He chooses to do even if it contradicts the very definition of the word. Thats a lot worse than an assertion it’s a direct contradiction. At least my assertion is consistent with the scriptures, God’s character, and the definition of the word love.

What he does in no way contradicts the meaning of the word. He is justice. The definition is by HIM, not to him. We don't have the authority, in the end, to define it. He is the judge. We have only our limited (to put it nicely) view of the matter. We are pretty much clueless to claim he would be unjust if he did such and such. He does not ask nor need us to excuse him from claims of injustice by making up a theology he does not authorize nor ascribe to himself. He is JUST; we are ignorant and self-important.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Says the definition of the word just.

Just-fair, fair minded, equitable, even handed, impartial, unbiased, objective, neutral, disinterested, unprejudiced, open minded, nonpartisan, nondiscriminatory, anti discrimination, honorable, upright, upstanding, decent, honest, righteous.

That isn't the definition of Just. God is. (BTW, not even the dictionary says that is the definition of "just". Those are synonyms, and none of them precise to describe justice. If you want his justice to be fair, then we are all doomed.

 

[Clare73]

Your concept of what I'm trying to get across is still too weak to describe what God is doing. God doesn't corral them. He specifically CAUSES EVERYTHING that comes to pass, in every detail, down to the smallest existence and motion of the smallest particle and force in the universe, including within every cell of the bodies of the reprobate. Somehow, you want him deistically to have set things in motion, with only vague intentions, for the most part, but otherwise theistically to, by the seat of his pants, by his great wisdom correct the flow of events from time to time, to accomplish only his greater ends. If you think God isn't particular, read the Old Testament again, or consider whether he really cares what the Bride of Christ and His Dwelling Place are like. I say all that, even apart from the plain logic of the prevalence of causation.

God is not only far enough above us that his condemnation is just regardless if he made us for that end alone because we are his to do with as he pleases, (but he did not make us for that end alone. Not even those who are ultimately condemned are made for that end alone. So don't even go there.), but he is a completely different sort of being from what we are. He is self-existent, and he alone is uncontrolled by outside causes. He commands humans and angels —not himself. So don't make like God even CAN be unjust to bind people to their evil natures.

No. I'm not saying that. Once again, that is YOUR use of what I am saying.

Who wrote that "moral code"? Why is he "required" (your word) to do anything? Who is going to require anything of him? Justice is DEFINED by and comes from him, just as do love, purity and goodness. Our opinions are useless to contain him.

You are dead wrong to say that he must act "within a certain moral code [because] otherwise his justice is subjective." Do you not know that Christ, our Lord and God, IS God's Word? Don't you know that he is called "The Lord Our Righteousness"? This is not fact because he is extremely righteous —these are facts because he IS them. He acts only according to his nature, according to who/what he is. He is under no obligation. ALL things are made by HIM.

In him all things hold together. (Colossians 1:17)

 

[BNR32FAN]

Who wrote that "moral code"? Why is he "required" (your word) to do anything? Who is going to require anything of him? Justice is DEFINED by and comes from him, just as do love, purity and goodness. Our opinions are useless to contain him.

Over and over your just saying the same thing that God is above the definition of the word just and is not subject to act in accordance with the definition of the word which is saying that whatever He does even if it directly contradicts the very definition of the word He is still just which is a contradiction. Your entire argument is falling apart at the seams when we have to ignore the definition of the words written in the scriptures that describe God’s character. Your forced to result to this madness because your doctrines are constantly refuted by the scriptures at every turn. You can’t even be consistent with the scriptures regarding God’s very nature and character.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What he does in no way contradicts the meaning of the word. He is justice. The definition is by HIM, not to him. We don't have the authority, in the end, to define it. He is the judge. We have only our limited (to put it nicely) view of the matter. We are pretty much clueless to claim he would be unjust if he did such and such. He does not ask nor need us to excuse him from claims of injustice by making up a theology he does not authorize nor ascribe to himself. He is JUST; we are ignorant and self-important.

Again your just ignoring what the scriptures teach about God’s character. You are actually teaching that God is unjust and simply calling it just because your theology contradicts the very nature of God.

 

[Clare73]

Again your just ignoring what the scriptures teach about God’s character. You are actually teaching that God is unjust and simply calling it just because your theology contradicts the very nature of God.

Was God just in killing children (1 Samuel 15:3)?

.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok so the boy who killed 19 elementary students could’ve chosen not to do that?

How do you come up with that? In the end of causation in the matter, no. He chose, after his own inclinations, to do exactly as God has decreed (and caused) to happen.

Let me set before you a thought experiment:

After many years of occurrences —more than we can number— we have never known more than one "possibility" to come to fruition at any one juncture. What happens has always been what happens, and never anything else that we know of. Going by empirical evidence, then, nothing else but whatever actually happens can be expected likely to happen in the future. We can well depend on this trend to continue, no?

Can you prove, then, or even conclude, that anything else was, or will be, possible, besides whatever happens?

No, you can't, but we insist anyway, on uncaused free will, with no evidence to support it. And no, don't try to thunder at me from Scripture. I said we have choice —options— but only one thing will be chosen. And that, from the Beginning of causation. God himself. Just as Scripture teaches.

We have choice. But God knows (intimately) every detail that will happen. And he started the ball rolling anyway.

 

[BNR32FAN]

That isn't the definition of Just. God is. (BTW, not even the dictionary says that is the definition of "just". Those are synonyms, and none of them precise to describe justice. If you want his justice to be fair, then we are all doomed.

You've skipped a few questions I’ve asked. Like you said that the people mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-6 were not regenerate and I pointed out twice that verse 6 says that it’s impossible to renew them AGAIN to repentance”. The verse clearly indicated that were previously repentant before they fell away which means that they had to have been regenerate before they fell away. I mentioned this twice already in all bold capital letters and both times you declined to comment on it.

Well I’m not convinced that they weren’t regenerate since they were once enlightened and had tasted of the heavenly gift. Furthermore verse 6 says it’s impossible to renew them AGAIN to repentance, indicating that they were repentant previously. Then there’s the question who bestowed the Holy Spirit upon them?

I agree they are not presently regenerate they are apostates. Forgive me for saying this but it doesn’t seem like your completely thinking this thru. I even highlighted in all capital bold letters so that it would stand out and specifically mentioned that the passage says that “it is impossible to renew them AGAIN to repentance”. So evidently they were already repentant before they fell away. Since no one can repent unless they are regenerate that means that they were regenerate before they fell away.

On the subject of John 15:6 you said that this verse was a warning to the 11 faithful apostles and I asked if it was warning them of something they were capable of doing or was it a warning of something they were incapable of doing and you never answered that question.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Was God just in killing children (1 Samuel 15:3)?

.

What is death to God other than the relocation of a person from one place to the next? Without knowing what their fate was after their death we can’t accurately answer that question.

 

[BNR32FAN]

How do you come up with that? In the end of causation in the matter, no. He chose, after his own inclinations, to do exactly as God has decreed (and caused) to happen.

Ok so God made him kill 19 children and will punish him for it in the lake of fire for all eternity even tho the shooter could not choose not to kill them because God had decreed it and you call that just. No further questions, I rest my case.

 

[Clare73]

What is death to God other than the relocation of a person from one place to the next? Without knowing what their fate was after their death we can’t accurately answer that question.

Ahhhh. . .convenient turn of injustice to justice.

So is God just in killing children?

 

[Clare73]

Ok so God made him kill 19 children and will punish him for it in the lake of fire for all eternity even tho the shooter could not choose not to kill them because God had decreed it and you call that just. No further questions, I rest my case.

Because you lost your case regarding your notions of a just God with 1 Samuel 15:3, where God ordered the killing of children.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Over and over your just saying the same thing that God is above the definition of the word just and is not subject to act in accordance with the definition of the word which is saying that whatever He does even if it directly contradicts the very definition of the word He is still just which is a contradiction. Your entire argument is falling apart at the seams when we have to ignore the definition of the words written in the scriptures that describe God’s character. Your forced to result to this madness because your doctrines are constantly refuted by the scriptures at every turn. You can’t even be consistent with the scriptures regarding God’s very nature and character.

Once again, you try to subject God to your notions of justice, in the same way as some here have tried to do with their notion of love. THE definition is God, not an entry in the dictionary —even a Bible dictionary. No, I'm not saying those are useless, just weak. I'm trying to get across to you the fact that God is above all this.

So if you claim that some theology is true, even if the Bible contradicts it, just because God is subject to your notions, at best what you are really saying is that you can't see it.

You have not shown me how my "doctrines are constantly refuted by the Scriptures at every turn". Nor have you shown them to be "[in-]consistent with the scriptures regarding God's very nature and character". All you've done is show your judgement of what I have said —not of what scripture says. I freely and happily admit my words fall short of the facts. Worse, I know I am ignorant, foolish, self-important, short-sighted, petulant, flighty and many more such things. On top of that, I am proud and rebellious, disobedient and unfaithful, and attempt self-determination at every turn. But I will always (or so I hope) reject an inferential doctrine drawn from scriptures misinterpreted to support bad reasoning.

You say, God is this, this and this, and quite rightly so. Then you project, "therefore", without anything to support it but your notions of this, this and this. You judge what I (admittedly, poorly) try to get across, judging by your notions, for which I don't entirely blame you —(in spite of myself I do the same). But I keep hearing you justify your judgement by going into unsupported assertions: this is random, that is by my own choice alone, it is by self-determination (yes, my words applied to your statements— please notice I left off the quote marks). At every turn I hear you denying that God causes all things, all for the sake of mollifying your spiritual indigestion —not for the sake of defending Scripture, nor even for the sake of defending God, unless for sake of defending your notion of God. Your reasoning is dependent on your notions. And I hope, not drawn on your stubborness and pride, which, concerning myself, I admit I am subject to doing.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Can you prove, then, or even conclude, that anything else was, or will be, possible, besides whatever happens?

Yes absolutely, in order for God’s punishment to be just we must be capable of meeting His expectations. Your saying that we are incapable of meeting His commandments and on top of that your saying that we can’t meet them because He doesn’t allow us to. That is unjust, and I completely understand that you don’t believe that God has to be just because He can do whatever He wants and call it just but if that’s the case then He has just redefined the word and it doesn’t actually mean just at all. If your theology is correct then the word just simply means whatever someone wants to do.

So because we know what the word “just” actually means we can conclude that the shooter had to have had the ability to refrain from shooting anyone and thus was able to comply with God’s commandment thereby making God’s judgement upon him actually just according to the actual definition of the word.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again your just ignoring what the scriptures teach about God’s character. You are actually teaching that God is unjust and simply calling it just because your theology contradicts the very nature of God.

No, brother. You are interpreting what I say according to your notions of justice.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Once again, you try to subject God to your notions of justice, in the same way as some here have tried to do with their notion of love. THE definition is God, not an entry in the dictionary —even a Bible dictionary. No, I'm not saying those are useless, just weak. I'm trying to get across to you the fact that God is above all this.

Yes I understand this and that’s what I’ve been saying over and over. Your theology teaches that God is above justice, that He is not just because He is not confined to act within the set parameters of the definition of the word. We’re on the same page there. Where we differ is that the scriptures teach that God’s judgment and His character is just and you teach that He is not. Or perhaps our difference is primarily the definition of the word just whereas I actually accept the established definition of the word and you redefine it as whatever someone wants to do.

 

[BNR32FAN]

You have not shown me how my "doctrines are constantly refuted by the Scriptures at every turn". Nor have you shown them to be "[in-]consistent with the scriptures regarding God's very nature and character". All you've done is show your judgement of what I have said —not of what scripture says. I freely and happily admit my words fall short of the facts. Worse, I know I am ignorant, foolish, self-important, short-sighted, petulant, flighty and many more such things. On top of that, I am proud and rebellious, disobedient and unfaithful, and attempt self-determination at every turn. But I will always (or so I hope) reject an inferential doctrine drawn from scriptures misinterpreted to support bad reasoning.

Well I have proven that you reject the definition of the word just which is used in the scriptures to describe God’s judgement and character. Your definition is it means whatever God wants it to mean.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You've skipped a few questions I’ve asked. Like you said that the people mentioned in Hebrews 6:4-6 were not regenerate and I pointed out twice that verse 6 says that it’s impossible to renew them AGAIN to repentance”. The verse clearly indicated that were previously repentant before they fell away which means that they had to have been regenerate before they fell away. I mentioned this twice already in all bold capital letters and both times you declined to comment on it.

I did answer this, in my paragraph concerning the fact that I am more than capable of fooling myself into believing that what I experience is in fact the real thing. There is repentance with tears that is false, yet the 'repentant one' believes it to be genuine. If it is false, and such a person turns away from the course he thought to set for himself, he may not even be able to return to false repentance, nevermind true repentance.

On the subject of John 15:6 you said that this verse was a warning to the 11 faithful apostles and I asked if it was warning them of something they were capable of doing or was it a warning of something they were incapable of doing and you never answered that question.

I expect you mean that I agreed that it was addressing them. Sorry for not answering this. I thought I had. It is like all the warnings God gives us; if we do not continue in him we are not of him. So it behooves us to continue in him.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok so God made him kill 19 children and will punish him for it in the lake of fire for all eternity even tho the shooter could not choose not to kill them because God had decreed it and you call that just. No further questions, I rest my case.

Who will judge this case?