Is Calvinism Just?

[redleghunter]

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

Three verses chosen from three different books in the Bible. That's the definition of out of context.

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

Or pretext can be creating a narrative that does not exist previously. By selecting single verses from across the Bible to fit your proposition that is what is called eisegesis.

Exegesis and eisegesis are two conflicting approaches in Bible study. Exegesis is the exposition or explanation of a text based on a careful, objective analysis. The word exegesis literally means “to lead out of.” That means that the interpreter is led to his conclusions by following the text.

The opposite approach to Scripture is eisegesis, which is the interpretation of a passage based on a subjective, non-analytical reading. The word eisegesis literally means “to lead into,” which means the interpreter injects his own ideas into the text, making it mean whatever he wants.

Obviously, only exegesis does justice to the text. Eisegesis is a mishandling of the text and often leads to a misinterpretation. Exegesis is concerned with discovering the true meaning of the text, respecting its grammar, syntax, and setting. Eisegesis is concerned only with making a point, even at the expense of the meaning of words.

Second Timothy 2:15 commands us to use exegetical methods: “Present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.” An honest student of the Bible will be an exegete, allowing the text to speak for itself. Eisegesis easily lends itself to error, as the would-be interpreter attempts to align the text with his own preconceived notions. Exegesis allows us to agree with the Bible; eisegesis seeks to force the Bible to agree with us.

The process of exegesis involves 1) observation: what does the passage say? 2) interpretation: what does the passage mean? 3) correlation: how does the passage relate to the rest of the Bible? and 4) application: how should this passage affect my life?

Eisegesis, on the other hand, involves 1) imagination: what idea do I want to present? 2) exploration: what Scripture passage seems to fit with my idea? and 3) application: what does my idea mean? Notice that, in eisegesis, there is no examination of the words of the text or their relationship to each other, no cross-referencing with related passages, and no real desire to understand the actual meaning. Scripture serves only as a prop to the interpreter’s idea.

More: What is the difference between exegesis and eisegesis? | GotQuestions.org​

 

[Albion]

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.

But the question was not that.

It asked IF Calvinism is correct--get it?--then is it the case that God is unjust?

 

[Al Touthentop]

NO. I have not done that.

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

It must have been some other Albion that asked this question.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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

Either way, as I said, it's often left out of these conversations when making the works accusations, just as you did. Thanks for adding it this time, that is my only point.

I have no idea what you are getting at.

Did you not understand the question when I first asked, or did you miss it and are just now seeing it? Or did you reply to it and you think I missed the reply, if so, please show me where.

Wasn't sure what you meant by what I'm "getting at" so, tell you what, here it is again, and just tell me what you don't understand about the question, that is if that was the case, and I'll try to make it more clear. Here ya go:

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 (faith only is) 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.

 

[Albion]

It must have been some other Albion that asked this question.

Ley's go with that, then.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Three verses chosen from three different books in the Bible. That's the definition of out of context.

Context can span the entire bible and even include historical events. Your definition is flawed. In fact, all we have to do is go to Isaiah to learn that context does not limit itself to one verse, chapter or book.

"For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept,
Line upon line, line upon line,
Here a little, there a little.”


You spent a lot of words (copied from the internet) to avoid telling me what you believe was actually out of context or pretext in what I posted.

 

[redleghunter]

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

It must have been some other Albion that asked this question.

You have been willfully overlooking what @Albion has been posting.

1. The very definition of God choosing or electing is the definition of showing partiality.

2. You see the statement in the Bible "God does not show partiality" and try to use that half verse to refute the Biblical teaching of God Sovereignly choosing aka electing people before the foundation of the earth. But that half verse has a context, which you ignore and the context is not what you hope it to be.

 

[Al Touthentop]

But the question was not that.

It asked IF Calvinism is correct--get it?--then is it the case that God is unjust?

And my contentions and arguments have been that since God is just and shows no partiality, then Calvinism can't possibly be just because it asserts that God is partial. Get it?

 

[Albion]

Either way, as I said, it's often left out of these conversations when making the works accusations, just as you did. Thanks for adding it this time, that is my only point.

I guess some basic knowledge of Calvinism on the part of anyone who would jump into a discussion entitled "Is Calvinism Just?," was assumed by me, Calvin having been one of the most famous proponents of the power of Faith in Christian history.

Did you not understand the question when I first asked, or did you miss it and are just now seeing it? Or did you reply to it and you think I missed the reply, if so, please show me where.

Wasn't sure what you meant by what I'm "getting at" so, tell you what, here it is again, and just tell me what you don't understand about the question, that is if that was the case, and I'll try to make it more clear. Here ya go:

There have been so many misunderstandings along the way on this thread that it probably would be best if you restated your point.

 

[redleghunter]

Context can span the entire bible and even include historical events. Your definition is flawed. In fact, all we have to do is go to Isaiah to learn that context does not limit itself to one verse, chapter or book.

However, what you quoted did not even entail the context of those one verses, the chapters they appear in or the book. Verses have context, chapters have context and books have context. Before we jump around the Bible we must establish the context of the actual text we are quoting.

You spent a lot of words (copied from the internet) to avoid telling me what you believe was actually out of context or pretext in what I posted.

I was just pointing out that we can make the Bible whatever we want it to say at the expense of the objective truth of the Scriptures.

 

[Al Touthentop]

You have been willfully overlooking what @Albion has been posting.

1. The very definition of God choosing or electing is the definition of showing partiality.

This is a false statement. Giving people the equal opportunity to make a choice is in fact the very definition of impartial. The person choosing is not given any preconditions upon his person which would preclude him from receiving any benefits which result from his choice. Partiality would exclude a person from even making the choice. God didn't even do that under the Old Law. Just read about the story of Naaman if you have any doubts about that.

2. You see the statement in the Bible "God does not show partiality" and try to use that half verse to refute the Biblical teaching of God Sovereignly choosing aka electing people before the foundation of the earth. But that half verse has a context, which you ignore and the context is not what you hope it to be.

Romans 2:11 is in fact its own verse though, partial or not, the statement is unequivocal and unconditional. No, I choose to harmonize the scriptures. I don't come up with some half-baked illogical theory to explain why the blanket statement "there is no partiality" can't mean what it means because it doesn't fit with my theory that election is proof of partiality. If God shows no partiality, then there is no logical theory that can be made which turns any part of God's word into proof that there really is partiality.

"There is no partiality with God" is a blanket statement, written so that we could understand God. It is not itself conditional. It's broad, firm and unassailable.

 

[Albion]

And my contentions and arguments have been that since God is just and shows no partiality, then Calvinism can't possibly be just because it asserts that God is partial. Get it?

That question wasn't whether Calvinism is just, period. It was whether God is just if Calvinism is correct.

See this from the OP:

"With that said, how can God’s judgement and punishment be just if this was of His doing and man never had any choice in the matter? If God’s judgment is unjust then we are forced to conclude that Calvin’s theology is incorrect because God is incapable of being unjust."

 

[Al Touthentop]

However, what you quoted did not even entail the context of those one verses, the chapters they appear in or the book.

Stop the hand waving. I assume you can read the context and see that I wasn't pulling it out of its context to make a point contrary to the context. If you have an actual objection as to context, make the case. You are merely talking about the possibility of taking things out of context without making a case for your specific claim that I took things out of context. Mere quoting of scripture is not proof that one has taken something out of context and you know that.

If you have any basis for your claim that I've taken something out of context, be clear. Merely because one CAN take something out of context, does not prove he DID.

 

[Al Touthentop]

The question wasn't whether Calvinism is just. It was whether God is just if Calvinism is correct.

This is the title of this thread. Care to correct yourself?

"Is Calvinism Just?"

 

[bling]

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.

You tried to make an analogy to fit my ideas and it did not fit, so did my analogy not fit your ideas and if not what is the difference?
Dead by Christ's definition of dead the rescuer will go. Christ could use any words He wanted to describe the prodigal son while in the foreign land but chose twice to use the word "dead", so by Christ's definition of "dead" you can still come to your senses and change direction.

 

[redleghunter]

"There is no partiality with God" is a blanket statement, written so that we could understand God. It is not itself conditional. It's broad, firm and unassailable.

No it is not a blanket statement. In both Romans chapter 2 and Acts 10 the partiality statement is modified by the contrast between Jew and Greek or Jew and Gentile. That is the "no partiality" that is mentioned. Meaning God will be Gracious to both Jew and Gentile and will Judge both Jew and Gentile. A shocking statement to the Jewish audiences as they relied on being sons of Abraham (partiality) to be saved, while they viewed Gentiles as unclean and unapproachable by God.

 

[bling]

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.

You would at least have a dead person doing stuff like sinning?

 

[redleghunter]

Stop the hand waving. I assume you can read the context and see that I wasn't pulling it out of its context to make a point contrary to the context. If you have an actual objection as to context, make the case. You are merely talking about the possibility of taking things out of context without making a case for your specific claim that I took things out of context. Mere quoting of scripture is not proof that one has taken something out of context and you know that.

If you have any basis for your claim that I've taken something out of context, be clear. Merely because one CAN take something out of context, does not prove he DID.

Ok, I will put it another way. What you have by presenting single verses without context is what is called an assertion. You come to the conclusion you wish using a statement without evidence. Now if context is provided you move from an assertion to what's called an argument.

 

[redleghunter]

You would at least have a dead person doing stuff like sinning?

 

[redleghunter]

You tried to make an analogy to fit my ideas and it did not fit, so did my analogy not fit your ideas and if not what is the difference?
Dead by Christ's definition of dead the rescuer will go. Christ could use any words He wanted to describe the prodigal son while in the foreign land but chose twice to use the word "dead", so by Christ's definition of "dead" you can still come to your senses and change direction.

I used your rescuer analogy.