Is Calvinism Just?

[Rick Otto]

Your skirting around the issue. Why? Because you don’t want to admit that Calvin’s theology makes God’s judgement unjust. Otherwise you would’ve just given a straight answer.

You're calling a straight answer skirting because your want merit for grace.
Otherwise your humility would render you content with God's sovereignity over your fate.
You faith lacks the discipline of Meshack et al: 'Though He slay us, yet will we trust Him'
I've had a 'personal relationship' with Him since I was 3& 1/2 years old, so I've been given some time to get to know this. I'm different, but not more special.

 

[Albion]

If you agree that there is partiality, then you disagree when the authors of the New Testament wrote that there is no partiality with God.

Actually, I didn't take a stand there at all. I merely noted that the statement is correct as it was written.

IF unconditional election is true, then God would be showing partiality towards the Elect. Well, duh. That's what to be Elected means.

 

[Albion]

I don't know of anyone who believes the quality and quantity of how we live is the issue, but only that we are sincere.

I'm sorry, but no. That is indeed the POV of all the Catholic churches and a few even of the Protestant ones--that we are saved by a combination of Faith and (Good) Works.

As for the quality and quantity and timing, that normally remains unspecified, but if you shape up near to your death, you are presumably saved whereas if you live a worthy live for decades but weaken and commit a sin a moment before suffering your fatal heart attack, it is said that you will be lost. So timing matters, just as we presume that this system called works righteousness values giving of all your wealth to the poor more than a one-time helping of an old lady across the street, even if that is a "good" thing in itself. See?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Works don't save us. But by "works" is meant actions that supposedly earn merit in God's eyes, not something like making your bed.

Works save us as is testified by every author of the new testament.

The only works that earn merit in God's eyes are the works he created for us to walk in as Paul writes in Ephesians. His point was not to say that ANY works don't save you, but that only what God has commanded saves you. In fact, in verse 2:5 he tells them that their baptism saved them.

Ephesians 2:
"But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus"

All one has to do is to go to Romans 6 in order to decipher that he's telling them that the grace that saved them was as a result of their baptism. He actually says that it saved them. So it wasn't their own works that saved them but their obedience to the commands they were given. We know that they also had to repent and believe that their baptism was made effective through Christ's resurrection and sacrifice. So he's not limiting salvation to mere dunking in water, their belief and confession was also part of this. But he is reminding them that it was their obedience to the commands preached to them that saved them.

So he's certainly then not going to exclude their obedience in verse 8 and 9 from the works that save them. He's pointing out that the works they did were "not of yourselves." So boasting is completely off limits.

 

[Rick Otto]

I don't know of anyone who believes the quality and quantity of how we live is the issue, but only that we are sincere. For only one reason, some cannot give as much as others. Could you show me one person that has made that claim? Thinking that is the case is one thing, but wouldn't it be better if we knew for certain?

See, that's much like the claim we believe in "works righteous" to get to heaven while, as is almost always done by OSAS, completely leaving out the faith part, a huge, and absolutely part of of out beliefs.

I'll await your proof of the first claim but on the works thing, something I see as a part of sincerely trying... hopefully now you can see why I feel there are so many deceptions passed around purposely, as means to make the non osas end of this look bad with non factual claims. IOW, I see neither of your claims as factual, one is a clear half truth (the convenient half) and the other, I've never even heard of.

I personally feel we are saved by faith alone, however we can show a complete lack of faith by our actions/works, or lack thereof, disobedience to God and such...something far from what the deceivers are claiming we think.

Important questions:

I asked this earlier but let me ask you. You are familiar with the "Faith without works is dead" comment in the bible. What exactly do you think they are conveying there?

Pretty straightforward a question, is it that works are not a necessary part of salvation or that it is? And if not, how can you possibly draw that conclusion when to do so would be to say Dead Faith is all we need for salvation? I'm very interested in knowing the "how" there.

Allow me to did-abuse you of this faulty notion " ...to get to heaven while, as is almost always done by OSAS, completely leaving out the faith part"

the OS (one saved) is the faith part of OSAS. "S" (saved) means you've been gifted faith through saving grace. The idea is that once you're in, your job is to not embarrass heaven & begin to earn rewards in heaven, not a ticket in. That's not for sale.

So I agree with your initial assertion that quality (sincerity) trumps quantity.

 

[redleghunter]

Ezekiel 18:3-9
“As I live,” says the Lord God, “you shall no longer use this proverb in Israel.

4 “Behold, all souls are Mine;
The soul of the father
As well as the soul of the son is Mine;
The soul who sins shall die.
5 But if a man is just
And does what is lawful and right;
6 If he has not eaten [a]on the mountains,
Nor lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel,
Nor defiled his neighbor’s wife,
Nor approached a woman during her impurity;
7 If he has not oppressed anyone,
But has restored to the debtor his pledge;
Has robbed no one by violence,
But has given his bread to the hungry
And covered the naked with clothing;
8 If he has not exacted usury
Nor taken any increase,
But has withdrawn his hand from iniquity
And executed true judgment between man and man;
9 If he has walked in My statutes
And kept My judgments faithfully—
He is just;
He shall surely live!”
Says the Lord God."

Verse 9 above. How did that work out in the Old Covenant? If it was so successful why did we need a New Covenant in the Blood of Christ?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Actually, I didn't take a stand there at all. I merely noted that the statement is correct as it was written.

IF unconditional election is true, then God would be showing partiality towards the Elect. Well, duh. That's what to be Elected means.

No, it isn't. That's the point. And you can go to Romans 10 to see that a person "grafted in" can just as easily be grafted out. The elect are just as liable to the law of Christ as are those who still haven't obeyed. Election is not partiality. It is merely inclusion into a group that ANYONE can join. There cannot be any partiality and the words written 'for there is no partiality with God' also be true.

There IS no partiality. That means that not even is there partiality between elect and non elect.

"And if I am lifted up, I will draw all people to myself."

Everyone has the opportunity to obey the gospel. If this wasn't true, then there would be no command to preach it. Such a command would be superfluous and unnecessary.

 

[redleghunter]

God is fair and just by any standard.

Define 'fair?'

 

[redleghunter]

Paul and Peter preached that there was no partiality.

Partiality in what exactly?

 

[Albion]

Works save us as is testified by every author of the new testament.

I don't know where you got that idea, but it's not correct. And I don't care to get off-topic any more than the thread may be right now.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Allow me to did-abuse you of this faulty notion " ...to get to heaven while, as is almost always done by OSAS, completely leaving out the faith part"

the OS (one saved) is the faith part of OSAS. "S" (saved) means you've been gifted faith through saving grace. The idea is that once you're in, your job is to not embarrass heaven & begin to earn rewards in heaven, not a ticket in. That's not for sale.

So I agree with your initial assertion that quality (sincerity) trumps quantity.

We are saved from our past sins. That is no guarantee that we will remain in that condition. No body else can snatch us from God's hand, but we certainly can jump out of it.

Why did Paul write in Philippians that he didn't consider himself to "have obtained?" Because he hadn't yet finished the race. He had confidence that he would, but he still wrote that to finish the race one must do so by following the rules of the race.

 

[bling]

Does not make your case any clearer. You still have the issue of why some are inclined to choose and others who are inclined to reject.

Like with the prodigal son it was not some noble choice he made to, join God’s army, but he wimped out, gave up on self and surrendered to his enemy while God is still his enemy. The sinner just willing to accept God’s pure charity is not macho enough to hang in there, take the punishment he fully deserves, pay the piper, not bother his father more with his presence and requests and is not willing to fuel his brother’s hatred. That is the autonomous free will choice god provides us with so we can become like God himself in that we have Godly type Love.

What does that say about a rescuer who comes back and only saves the ones who are willing to hold on to the rope?

That is an extremely poor analogy for what is happen with salvation, but the analogy of the rescuer intentional choosing not to save most, fits what you were describing.

God is not just throwing a rope out and see who grabs on to it, that would also suggest: you are saving yourself. God is doing or allowing everything that happens to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective with that everything including: Christ going to the cross, satan roaming the earth, tragedies of all kinds, death, hell and even sin to occur. You do not take hold of something, but you let go (give up, wimp out and surrender. The sinner is holding on to a false pride, trusting in himself, and is putting his “faith” in nothing. If the sinner just directs the little “faith” all mature adults have been given by God, toward God to the point of being willing to accept God’s charity, God will shower him with gifts.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Partiality in what exactly?

Anything. It's a blanket statement. There is no partiality with God. He set the righteous requirements and rules and whoever obeys them is counted as righteous.

 

[Albion]

No, it isn't. That's the point. And you can go to Romans 10 to see that a person "grafted in" can just as easily be grafted out.

A person who is part of the Elect obviously has been the beneficiary of God's partiality, all the rest of what you are thinking about aside. There are people who are NOT among the Elect, so how could there not be partiality, IF Unconditional Election were true? There could not be.

 

[bling]

He was trying to show us how to think of this word. He was dead to his father. He had no relationship with him. When we sin, we are "dead" to our father in heaven. He has provided us a way to come home and have a relationship with him. We chose to accept this or we don't. God doesn't make anyone believe or chose.

Right, but also as Jesus uses the word "dead", does not mean you can do nothing like a physically dead person, so you can change direction while dead.

 

[bling]

Define 'fair?'

Treating others equally in the things that really matter.

 

[redleghunter]

There IS no partiality. That means that not even is there partiality between elect and non elect.

Can you provide Scriptures which support the above assertion.

 

[redleghunter]

That is an extremely poor analogy for what is happen with salvation, but the analogy of the rescuer intentional choosing not to save most, fits what you were describing.

It was your analogy so if it is poor it is on you. The problem with the analogy is that it does not line up with death. Would a rescuer go in the chop of the sea risk His own life and pull out a dead body? That is what is presented in Ephesians 2.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I'm sorry, but no. That is indeed the POV of all the Catholic churches and some even of the Protestant ones--that we are saved by a combination of Faith and (Good) Works.

Unlike before you are now adding the faith part as something we believe...good, and I appreciate that.

And more importantly yet, the "faith without works" question I asked. It's imperative you answer that for a few reasons, one being, a simple truthful answer would reveal the truth of this whole argument.

 

[redleghunter]

Anything. It's a blanket statement.

No it is not. Everything has a context. Provide the context.

There is no partiality with God.

Exegete. Show me.

He set the righteous requirements and rules and whoever obeys them is counted as righteous.

Considering only the obedience of Christ is worthy of salvation. Only places I see where "counted as righteous" used in the Bible it refers to faith. And it is not any righteousness we can muster which saves us. It is the Righteousness of God through Jesus Christ which makes us children of God.

 

[rnmomof7]

Not at all. Is believing a work? What sinner has any choice whether or not they sin? Only the elect right? So is it the unelected’s fault that they cannot repent or is it God’s fault according to Calvin’s theology?

Anything done apart from Faith is sin to God

 

[Albion]

There IS no partiality. That means that not even is there partiality between elect and non elect.

Let's be sure we understand your contention. So if God gives eternal life to Mr. X, strictly on account of what God chooses to do and it has nothing to do with any inherent goodness in Mr. X or, for that matter, any meritorious acts Mr. X may accomplish in life....

God has not given anything to him that's better in any way than what Mr. Y got from the Creator--which was none of this.

Do you seriously want to continue saying that this shows God as not showing any partiality?