Is Calvinism Just?

[rnmomof7]

Fair question. It is that it attributes to God the unjust predestining of millions for Heaven or Hell for no reason. Totally arbitrary. Some he hates for no reason and some he loves for no reason. Does this appeal to you, if I may ask?

All men deserve hell the miracle is that God chooses to save any ... and He does that to display His glory ... not mans

 

[Al Touthentop]

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.

If it's not correct, then the authors of the New Testament were not correct.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

James 2:14
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

Faith with works save us. Obviously, faith comes first but works are required. In fact, Jesus calls belief a work. So if you say that works can't save you, then belief is not necessary either.

John 6:28
Then they inquired, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” 29 Jesus replied, “The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent.”

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Dead is dead and that is why Paul uses that word in Ephesians 2. He specifically says "dead in trespasses and sin." Dead is dead and in this case dead is spiritually dead. The dead whether physically or spiritually cannot do anything. Because they are dead.

 

[Al Touthentop]

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.

You are rejecting the Holy Spirit inspired words that God shows no partiality. I'm certainly not going to argue with you about it. If you don't believe what God said, then further discussion is pointless.

 

[redleghunter]

Treating others equally in the things that really matter.

So human fairness? How much do you want me to post on how God has been 'unfair' according to human fallen standards? Was it 'fair' the Canaanites lost their land to the Israelites? Yes or no?

 

[Al Touthentop]

Dead is dead and that is why Paul uses that word in Ephesians 2. He specifically says "dead in trespasses and sin." Dead is dead and in this case dead is spiritually dead. The dead whether physically or spiritually cannot do anything. Because they are dead.

The son wasn't literally dead. Had he been, he couldn't have stood up and walked home. So he was not physically dead. Paul was writing to living, breathing people who were capable of reading his words. Their deadness was spiritual before they were made alive in Christ.

 

[rnmomof7]

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?

The quote on " partiality" is what happens when people take scripture out of context ....This was was Peter speaking when he realized that Christ was the Savior for the gentiles as well s the Jews (that always thought they had a "special" position

Acts 10:24
34Then Peter began to speak: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism, 35but welcomes those from every nation who fear Him and do what is right. 36He has sent this message to the people of Israel, proclaiming the gospel of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

 

[Albion]

You are rejecting the Holy Spirit inspired words that God shows no partiality. I'm certainly not going to argue with you about it.

You certainly fooled me about that.

 

[Al Touthentop]

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....

It has to do with the person obeying what God commanded. And anyone can do that so there is no partiality.

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.

Both the saved and the unsaved had the same opportunity. You seem to be thinking that election is a pre-ordained condition. God elects those who obey. That is not partiality.

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

I didn't say it, God did. So I just merely conform my mind to the words, even if it they are hard to understand. You haven't conformed your mind to the words "for there is no partiality with God" and continue to see partiality where none can exist.

 

[redleghunter]

If it's not correct, then the authors of the New Testament were not correct.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

James 2:14
What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?

Faith with works save us. Obviously, faith comes first but works are required. In fact, Jesus calls belief a work. So if you say that works can't save you, then belief is not necessary either.

John 6:28
Then they inquired, “What must we do to perform the works of God?” 29 Jesus replied, “The work of God is this: to believe in the One He has sent.”

Faith in what exactly and works according to what? You gave a few verses out of their context which partially support your proposition. In doing so, you created a pretext. That pretext can be refuted easily with 'competing' verses out of context thus creating another pretext. What you have as a result are self-made contradictions and we know God's Truth is not contradictory.

You did say something about harmonizing. But you did not do so.

 

[Albion]

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

??? I've never denied the role of faith.

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.

I have no idea what you are getting at. There are a bunch of posters throwing questions at once here, so relying on memory isn't going to work well.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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?

I missed that part of your post and will try to get back to it shortly.

 

[redleghunter]

The son wasn't literally dead. Had he been, he couldn't have stood up and walked home. So he was not physically dead. Paul was writing to living, breathing people who were capable of reading his words. Their deadness was spiritual before they were made alive in Christ.

This has nothing to do with the parable of the Gracious Father. I am speaking of this:

Ephesians 2: NASB

1And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

 

[redleghunter]

The quote on " partiality" is what happens when people take scripture out of context ....This was was Peter speaking when he realized that Christ was the Savior for the gentiles as well s the Jews (that always thought they had a "special" position

Acts 10:24
34Then Peter began to speak: “I now truly understand that God does not show favoritism, 35but welcomes those from every nation who fear Him and do what is right. 36He has sent this message to the people of Israel, proclaiming the gospel of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.

And of course this was explained ad nauseum on this thread and a few others this week by you, me and a few others.

 

[Albion]

You are rejecting the Holy Spirit inspired words that God shows no partiality.

Hey, you aren't listening to me. It's not about which Bible verses are best. No, it isn't. It wasn't.

And so I would appreciate if my religious beliefs were not being defined for me without consulting me. LOL

 

[Al Touthentop]

Faith in what exactly and works according to what?

Faith that Jesus is able to keep his promises because he is the son of God for one.

You gave a few verses out of their context which partially support your proposition.

Interesting that you are not addressing the specifics. Why are they out of context?

In doing so, you created a pretext.

Pretext is putting something in the text that doesn't exist previously. I haven't done that.

That pretext can be refuted easily with 'competing' verses out of context thus creating another pretext. What you have as a result are self-made contradictions and we know God's Truth is not contradictory.

The scriptures never compete with themselves.

You did say something about harmonizing. But you did not do so.

Please be specific about why you think I wasn't doing that. I think I was.

 

[Albion]

It has to do with the person obeying what God commanded. And anyone can do that so there is no partiality.

...which means that you are not speaking to the point under discussion but are instead talking about something else that you prefer to talk about. The confusion here could be unraveled if you were to go back and pick up the gist of the discussion from, oh, forty or so posts back; but if that isn't done, there doesn't seem to be any way of going forward.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Hey, you aren't even "listening" to what I have explained to you. And it isn't even that I reject the Bible verses that you like. No, it isn't. It wasn't. And so I would appreciate if my religious beliefs were not being defined for me without consulting me. LOL

You define them yourself. You keep arguing that election is partiality in spite of the plain words that there is no partiality with God. If there's no partiality, then election cannot be itself partiality. When you accept that there is no partiality, it becomes easier to understand election. Instead, what you're doing is engaging in a logical fallacy called circular reasoning.

Because you believe election is evidence of partiality, the words "there is no partiality with God" must mean something other than their plain meaning.

If election is partiality, then God was not telling the truth when his Holy Spirit directed Peter to preach and Paul to write that God shows no partiality.

 

[Al Touthentop]

...which means that you are not speaking to the point under discussion but are instead talking about something else that you prefer to talk about. The confusion here could be unraveled if you were to go back and pick up the gist of the discussion from, oh, forty or so posts back; but if that isn't done, there doesn't seem to be any way of going forward.

A baseless charge. The question was can Calvinism be just. It can't if it asserts that God is unfair in the way he determines who is and isn't saved.

 

[Albion]

You define them yourself. You keep arguing that election is partiality in spite of the plain words that there is no partiality with God.

NO. I have not done that.