Is Calvinism Just?

[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 did not quote that parable but gave you the example of teachings in Ephesians 2.

 

[Al Touthentop]

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.

Well, it is a blanket statement, made to help people understand that God gives every man the same opportunity. That is the very definition of permanently, totally impartial.

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.

Which means that God is equally favorable to everyone. And it confirms the ubiquitessness of "there is no partiality," it does not limit it.

In attempting to logically limit the broadness of God's impartiality, you have confirmed it instead.

 

[redleghunter]

Well, it is a blanket statement, made to help people understand that God gives every man the same opportunity. That is the very definition of permanently, totally impartial.

No really it is not.

Which means that God is equally favorable to everyone.

It means Peter and the Jewish Christians learned that God has spread His net over all peoples, nations and tongues. It means God elects from all peoples not just Hebrews.

 

[bling]

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?

No not human fairness. From a human perspective Lazarus was in a much worse situation than the rich man, but by God's standard and we all can see also, God is doing all he can to help both of them.
God gave the Canaanites and Israel 440 years to get their act together

 

[bling]

I used your rescuer analogy.

two totally different concepts, it works for only one.

 

[bling]

I did not quote that parable but gave you the example of teachings in Ephesians 2.

The prodigal son did not make himself alive, which man cannot do, but man while dead can humbly surrender (wimp out and give up) to God like the prodigal son did.

 

[Al Touthentop]

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.

Make your specific case.

 

[Al Touthentop]

No really it is not.


It means Peter and the Jewish Christians learned that God has spread His net over all peoples, nations and tongues. It means God elects from all peoples not just Hebrews.

Which means that it is ubiquitous, total and blanket. Any person can come to God. There is no partiality. Not even after he's become one of the elect. Election is not partiality, it is the result of impartiality.

 

[redleghunter]

Which means that it is ubiquitous, total and blanket. Any person can come to God. There is no partiality. Not even after he's become one of the elect. Election is not partiality, it is the result of impartiality.

Election means God makes a choice.

 

[GingerBeer]

Is Calvinism Just?
no.

 

[redleghunter]

Well now you are all in trouble.

Santa Claus Converts To Calvinism, Moves Everybody To Naughty List

NORTH POLE—After a transformative moment reading R.C. Sproul’s What Is Reformed Theology? for the first time earlier this week, legendary Christmas icon Santa Claus reportedly converted to a full-on, five-point Calvinist, and almost immediately moved every single person on the planet to the naughty list, sources confirmed Friday.


“How can I put anyone on the nice list, when every human being is totally depraved from birth?” St. Nick was overheard saying to Mrs. Claus in his office. “No matter what filthy rags of righteousness they bring before the Lord, they are condemned already based on their sin nature.”

The jolly gift-giving man tasked his elves with purging the entire “nice” list and moving all the names over to the naughty list all afternoon, as he lectured them about their need for a Savior who could save them completely.

“He’s actually getting kind of annoying at this point,” head Elf Jing Ullbells said. “I wish we could just lock him in a cage for a few months to let him cool off before letting him interact with regular people again, but we’ve got the busy season going on right now. Ugh.”

Claus reportedly further repented of his merits-based system of giving out gifts, and will now instead select people to receive presents based on nothing good or bad within themselves, but solely on his mercy.

Santa Claus Converts To Calvinism, Moves Everybody To Naughty List

 

[Al Touthentop]

Election means God makes a choice.

An impartial choice.

 

[renniks]

I'm thinking this sticking point for you is related to the term Unconditional Election, which does not mean that God chooses his Elect randomly. It means that his choice is not based upon seeing their future good deeds and choosing on that basis. It means that in the decrees of election God did not choose according to anything meritorious found in man.

Or for any reason we can understand.

 

[renniks]

So you believe everyone will have it granted? The text does not address this. Frankly you are making another proposition and not addressing the text.

You were saying that they, the Jews at that time were unable to get what Jesus told them. In general, that's true, although some did that we have record of. But that's not the end of the story. They did not fall away so that they could not be redeemed. Romans explains why they couldn't get his teachings at this time. They were trying to obtain salvation by works. They were not permanently cut off, so Jesus teaching was not in vain. He was planting seeds that could grow later, perhaps at Pentecost.

 

[renniks]

Could you point out some of its errors concerning sin and grace? Or predestination?

Sure, grace is offered to all, not a select few.
"For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men," Titus 2:11
The ones that are destined to be changed are those who are found to be in Christ. Election is corporate, not individual.

 

[rnmomof7]

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



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.


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.

Romans 9:
God’s Sovereign Choice


6It is not as though God’s word has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7Nor because they are Abraham’s descendants are they all his children. On the contrary, “Through Isaac your offspring will be reckoned.”a 8So it is not the children of the flesh who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as offspring. 9For this is what the promise stated: “At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”b10Not only that, but Rebecca’s children were conceived by one man, our father Isaac. 11Yet before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad, in order that God’s plan of election might stand,12not by works but by Him who calls, she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13So it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Certainly not! 15For He says to Moses:

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,

and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”e16So then, it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display My power in you, and that My name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”18Therefore God has mercy on whom He wants to have mercy, and He hardens whom He wants to harden.19One of you will say to me, “Then why does God still find fault? For who can resist His will?” 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to Him who formed it, “Why did You make me like this?” 21Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special occasions and another for common use?22What if God, intending to show His wrath and make His power known, bore with great patience the vessels of His wrath, prepared for destruction? 23What if He did this to make the riches of His glory known to the vessels of His mercy, whom He prepared in advance for glory— 24including us, whom He has called not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles?
‘You are not My people,’

 

[rnmomof7]

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.

Who is the we? ...this is addresses to the church...the saved

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.

That is not what the scripture says.. that is not what Christ taught ... what work did the "good thief" do that saved him?

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.”

James is not a letter on HOW TO BE SAVED... It is written to the saved...to the church
Read it carefully Start at the beginning of the chapter to understand the context

James2"1My brothers, as you hold out your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, do not show favoritism.

This was a problem in the church of Jerusalem
Then to the saved (the church )he says


14What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?


Note it is addressing people that say they are saved ...not ones seeking salvation

Now the problem James is addressing

15 If a brother or sister is poorly clothed and lacking in daily food,

16and one of you (the church) says to them, Go in peace, be warmed and filled, without giving them the things needed for the body, what good is that

17So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.

18But someone will say, You have faith and I have deeds. Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds.

Here he is pointing to the fact that caring for your poor brother or sister is a fruit of your salvation
Please note here that James is addressing the saved calling those in need YOUR BROTHER AND SISTERS (others in the church)


The words of Christ on this ... "By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."


8But someone will say, You have faith and I have works. Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works.


Our works flow from our salvation , not the cause of it It is how our faith is justified to the world it justifies your faith to the unsaved

 

[Al Touthentop]

Romans 9:

What Paul is saying is that God made the rules. This is NOT saying that God arbitrarily creates people for good or evil. The vessels are made without partiality and it is THEIR choice whether or not they do good or evil.

If it is saying that God creates a baby only so it might burn in hell, because he has that sort of "sovereignty," then he is showing partiality. That particular baby has been pre-selected to be excluded from the plan of salvation, something Jesus said was not the case. ("I will draw ALL men to myself") And Paul already has told is 7 chapters prior to this one that God shows no partiality. To read this and then conclude that Paul is teaching us that God is arbitrary is to separate it from the context of his previous writing where he set the parameters by which we should interpret his message.

It is also slander against God. God is just, beyond the justness of men. An arbitrary, partial God is not just.

 

[Al Touthentop]

Who is the we? ...this is addresses to the church...the saved

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.

That is not what the scripture says.. that is not what Christ taught ... what work did the "good thief" do that saved him?

What part of the scripture doesn't say what it says?

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.”

This wasn't James, it was Jesus himself. Belief itself is a work, and it's required.

James is not a letter on HOW TO BE SAVED... It is written to the saved...to the church
Read it carefully Start at the beginning of the chapter to understand the context

And yet, James makes it clear that a faith that doesn't include works cannot save anyone despite the fact that the entire context of the letter wasn't about how one is saved.

14What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?

Weird to say something like this to saved people eh? Maybe, there's more to being saved than sitting around believing things. Perhaps believing the commands that were given and acting on those commands is required.

You spend many words avoiding the point James is making.

Our works flow from our salvation

James quite succinctly disputes that. The people he was addressing were put into Christ by their baptism, a "work" that flowed from their belief.

When Jesus said, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved," he did not say, "He that is saved, will believe and be baptized." It was the belief that came first and then the obedience. And he told the people who asked him point blank, "what must we do to do the works of God," answered that the work of God was to believe in him.

 

[Kenny'sID]

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.

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

Not sure what that had to do with my comment, but I have a basic knowledge of Calvinism, so you assumed correctly. Unless you want to be specific on what you think I don't have knowledge of?

What do you mean "restate my point"? The point, at this point is to simply get an answer to the question. It's actually quit simple a question, so simple, I can't do a whole lot more to make it understandable, but again, I'll still be happy to help you with whatever you don't understand, if you'll tell me what part of it you need help with. I would rewrite it if that's what you are after, but it's about as basic as it can be already, the reason I'll need specifics on what you may not understand.

The question follows so you don't have to look for it, and I left out part of it so as not to complicate things.

You are familiar with the "Faith without works is dead" comment in the bible. What exactly do you think they are conveying there? Is it that works are not a necessary part of salvation (faith only is) or that works is a part of salvation?

Another way of putting it:

Considering the scriptural "Faith without works is dead" comment, do you feel the point is that works is not a necessary part of salvation (as you seem to), but instead, salvation can be obtained with nothing but dead faith? I call it Dead Faith because that's in line with what the scripture there calls it when it is not accompanied by works.