How to become a Calvinist in 5 easy steps

[Clare73]

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.

Pretty much like you did in your own redefinition of justice (quoted in post #552),

which doesn't prove that God is just in wholesale slaughtering of babies (1 Samuel 15:3). . .

which is still on the table.

 

[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.

By the way, be careful the judge doesn't do something about the false charges.

Your characterization of what happened there not only ignores many facts, but you also try to skinny it down to an appearance of no willful act on the part of the sinner. And as usual, you lower God down to our level.

YOU need God to back off from causation for your own comfort of reasoning. Not because of Scripture.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

I take exception to the notion that I think of God as just "someone" who does whatever he wants. Actually, no, I don't think you meant to accuse me of that.

But, ok, let's play. What are THE set parameters of THE definition of the word. And what is THE DEFINITION of the word? Certainly not the thesaurus you attempted at first.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

No. The definition of JUST is God himself. What he does is therefore just —not because he lives up to (in any instance (nor in all instances)) a set of parameters delineated within an objective definition. You have not shown how God is "required" (your word) to live up to the parameters of an objective definition.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Ahhhh. . .convenient turn of injustice to justice.

So is God just in killing children?

yes

 

[BNR32FAN]

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

Not even close. What exactly did you disagree with in my answer to your question? If your going to say I lost that argument it should be followed by “because…”

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

But the author of Hebrews didn’t say they thought they had repented, he said “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance”. The author is indirectly stating that they were repentant before they fell away.

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.

Yes but we’re they capable of falling away or not?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Who will judge this case?

God will, and how does God judge people according to the scriptures? Does He judge them justly or unjustly?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I take exception to the notion that I think of God as just "someone" who does whatever he wants. Actually, no, I don't think you meant to accuse me of that.

But, ok, let's play. What are THE set parameters of THE definition of the word. And what is THE DEFINITION of the word? Certainly not the thesaurus you attempted at first.

That was copied from the iPhone dictionary not a thesaurus.

 

[BNR32FAN]

No. The definition of JUST is God himself. What he does is therefore just —not because he lives up to (in any instance (nor in all instances)) a set of parameters delineated within an objective definition. You have not shown how God is "required" (your word) to live up to the parameters of an objective definition.

Where are you getting this definition because I can’t find it anywhere?

 

[BNR32FAN]

No. The definition of JUST is God himself. What he does is therefore just —not because he lives up to (in any instance (nor in all instances)) a set of parameters delineated within an objective definition. You have not shown how God is "required" (your word) to live up to the parameters of an objective definition.

If God is not required to operate according to what the scriptures state then they are false.

 

[Clare73]

yes

And I respond. . .wholesale slaughtering of infants is not according to the meaning of justice as I and mankind view it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Pretty much like you did in your own redefinition of justice (quoted in post #552),

which doesn't prove that God is just in wholesale slaughtering of babies (1 Samuel 15:3). . .

which is still on the table.

Your missing the entire point here. It’s the punishment that makes your theology unjust. I’ve stated that several times throughout this discussion. We can’t say that God killing children was unjust without knowing what happened to them after their death. We can say that the punishment of the Uvalde shooter being thrown into the lake of fire for all eternity is unjust if God made him shoot those children and he was not capable of refraining from shooting them because God had decreed that he would do it. So those are two completely different situations.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And I respond. . .wholesale slaughtering of infants is not according to the meaning of justice as I and mankind view it.

Even if they were immediately taken to paradise for all eternity?

 

[Mark Quayle]

But the author of Hebrews didn’t say they thought they had repented, he said “it is impossible to renew them again to repentance”. The author is indirectly stating that they were repentant before they fell away.



Yes but we’re they capable of falling away or not?

It was only one of many different ways this does not have to mean that the elect can ultimately lose his salvation. If one is not regenerated, he can take to heart the warning, and hopefully continue to pursue his course. If one is regenerated, he can take to heart the warning, remembering that to continue in disobedience is to show oneself that he was not regenerated. As I have said, I am capable of fooling myself. Thus the warning is valid.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And I respond. . .wholesale slaughtering of infants is not according to the meaning of justice as I and mankind view it.

Just like God killing Uzzah for trying to prevent the Ark from falling, was that unjust? No because we don’t know what his fate was.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It was only one of many different ways this does not have to mean that the elect can ultimately lose his salvation. If one is not regenerated, he can take to heart the warning, and hopefully continue to pursue his course. If one is regenerated, he can take to heart the warning, remembering that to continue in disobedience is to show oneself that he was not regenerated. As I have said, I am capable of fooling myself. Thus the warning is valid.

Your still clinging to the notion that the author is referring to someone who thought he was repentant instead of someone who was actually repentant. The author gives no indication whatsoever that the person was not repent, he actually wrote the exact opposite of what your saying.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It was only one of many different ways this does not have to mean that the elect can ultimately lose his salvation. If one is not regenerated, he can take to heart the warning, and hopefully continue to pursue his course. If one is regenerated, he can take to heart the warning, remembering that to continue in disobedience is to show oneself that he was not regenerated. As I have said, I am capable of fooling myself. Thus the warning is valid.

Again you declined to answer the question were the 11 faithful apostles capable of falling away or not?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Your missing the entire point here. It’s the punishment that makes your theology unjust. I’ve stated that several times throughout this discussion. We can’t say that God killing children was unjust without knowing what happened to them after their death. We can say that the punishment of the Uvalde shooter being thrown into the lake of fire for all eternity is unjust if God made him shoot those children and he was not capable of refraining from shooting them because God had decreed that he would do it. So those are two completely different situations.

Two things wrong here. 1) You suppose, again, that the command implies the ability to obey. If God predestined —in fact, caused— the Uvaldi shooter to do what he did, it by no means changes the fact that the shooter willingly and willfully CHOSE to do so. Whether or not he 'could have' chosen otherwise is irrelevant to the fact of his rebellion against God. 2) You don't know what God will do with the Uvaldi shooter after death either. God is not unjust, as you know. From nobody in the lake of fire will be exacted the same punishment as from anybody else. God is precise and thorough in his dispensing of justice, just as he is in his predestination of all things that come to pass. Are you going to say that God is unjust in killing thousands of children if we do know they too are in the lake of fire? You really don't know much in either case. But God is not unjust.

Here you display the same mindset that claims motivation independent of God's causation. You are trying to put yourself on God's level, or to bring him down to ours.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again you declined to answer the question were the 11 faithful apostles capable of falling away or not?

I did, and consistently have, categorically if not particularly, even before you asked. NO, the elect are not capable of ultimately falling away.