Is it Wrong to Call Calvinism Unjust?

[BuildingApologetics]

If Arminians or Provisionalists call Calvinism unjust, are they trying to determine what God can and cannot do? I recently saw an individual argue that Dr. Leighton Flowers is judging God when he judges Calvinism, so I decided to make a video about the subject. Let me know what you guys think.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If Arminians or Provisionalists call Calvinism unjust, are they trying to determine what God can and cannot do? I recently saw an individual argue that Dr. Leighton Flowers is judging God when he judges Calvinism, so I decided to make a video about the subject. Let me know what you guys think.

Calvinism / Reformed Theology is not the point of Calvinism / Reformed Theology. The Bible, Christ, Faith, Grace, and God's glory are. If the Bible truly does not teach something, we don't want it.

In keeping with Scripture, we believe, and in keeping with the Glory of God, that God by his own counsel and Sovereignty belonging to him alone, has chosen some of us, for his particular grace. For this we are said to call God unjust by those who use their poor logic, based on false presuppositions concerning Scriptures and Calvinism, to claim Calvinism posits a false God. I myself have heard all sorts of things here that those opposing Calvinism claim it teaches --which it does not.

Simple as that. If you want to get into any one particular, have at it.

 

[Petros2015]

Well, I don't really know that much about Calvinism, but I will say this -
In a college class I encountered the idea of Predestination in Romans
I had never really understood this
I felt it was incredibly unfair
Walked away from Christianity
Later in life I pretty much realized that it was my only hope

 

[Mark Quayle]

If Arminians or Provisionalists call Calvinism unjust, are they trying to determine what God can and cannot do? I recently saw an individual argue that Dr. Leighton Flowers is judging God when he judges Calvinism, so I decided to make a video about the subject. Let me know what you guys think.

The video goes wrong right off the bat, saying that if a thing is good because God wills it, then 'good' seems rather arbitrary. There is nothing arbitrary about what God does.

ar·bi·trar·y

adjective
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"
Similar:
capricious, whimsical, random, chance, erratic, unprdictable, inconsistent, wild, hit-or-miss, haphazard, casual, unmotivated, motiveless, unreasoned, unreasonable, unsupporte, irrational, illogical, groundless, etc.

Granted, you were only setting up the subject of the video, but the listener is immediately thrown off the logical progression by your use of that word, I think.

If, on the other hand, all you meant, (and all the listener understood you to mean), by 'arbitrary' is something like, "by his own counsel" that is different. But you don't sound like it when you begin to speculate about what God might or might not arbitrarily choose to do. You also make the logical leap that if God decides something is good, that he means for his creatures to do it. We don't do what God does. We FIT into what God does --(perfectly, as a matter of fact, and we can't help but do so, because he plans all things --remember, Sovereignty.)

Since writing this, I have listened to the whole video and see what you are trying to get at here, and you have a good point. But I don't see how that defeats what I'm trying to show here. (Off topic though it may be, lol.)

 

[BuildingApologetics]

The video goes wrong right off the bat, saying that if a thing is good because God wills it, then 'good' seems rather arbitrary. There is nothing arbitrary about what God does.

ar·bi·trar·y

adjective
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
"his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"
Similar:
capricious, whimsical, random, chance, erratic, unprdictable, inconsistent, wild, hit-or-miss, haphazard, casual, unmotivated, motiveless, unreasoned, unreasonable, unsupporte, irrational, illogical, groundless, etc.

Granted, you were only setting up the subject of the video, but the listener is immediately thrown off the logical progression by your use of that word, I think.

If, on the other hand, all you meant, (and all the listener understood you to mean), by 'arbitrary' is something like, "by his own counsel" that is different. But you don't sound like it when you begin to speculate about what God might or might not arbitrarily choose to do. You also make the logical leap that if God decides something is good, that he means for his creatures to do it. We don't do what God does. We FIT into what God does --(perfectly, as a matter of fact, and we can't help but do so, because he plans all things --remember, Sovereignty.)

Since writing this, I have listened to the whole video and see what you are trying to get at here, and you have a good point. But I don't see how that defeats what I'm trying to show here. (Off topic though it may be, lol.)

I enjoyed your replies. Regarding your first comment, what in the Bible persuaded you that Calvinism is true?

Regarding the meaning of arbitrary. Let's take the definition "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Based on this definition, I think I was accurate to use this word to describe a view in which something is good merely because God wills it. Unless we posit a God who's unchanging nature is the grounding for good, then we have a version of God that does whatever he wants inconsistently. Goodness is merely a reflection of the whims of God on this view. Of course, this is not my view, and I'm assuming not yours either.

"You also make the logical leap that if God decides something is good, that he means for his creatures to do it."
To avoid talking past each other, let me ask you a question. What do you mean by "he means"? If you mean "he causes", then we would agree that God does not always cause people to do the moral thing. If you mean "he desires", then I would argue that He does desire that we always do the moral thing. Most Calvinists I have talked to believe this as well. It's simply that God has multiple competing desires. I believe God doesn't make everyone do the right thing because He desires that we have libertarian free will. Calvinists believe it is because He desires His own glory in the choosing of some for redemption and others for wrath.

"because he plans all things --remember, Sovereignty."
What do you mean by plans all things? Humans often plan things that don't come to pass. But are you arguing that God directly commands all things to come to pass that do come to pass? And is this how you define sovereignty?

 

[BuildingApologetics]

Well, I don't really know that much about Calvinism, but I will say this -
In a college class I encountered the idea of Predestination in Romans
I had never really understood this
I felt it was incredibly unfair
Walked away from Christianity
Later in life I pretty much realized that it was my only hope

I am glad that His grace drew you to Himself!

 

[Neostarwcc]

If Arminians or Provisionalists call Calvinism unjust, are they trying to determine what God can and cannot do? I recently saw an individual argue that Dr. Leighton Flowers is judging God when he judges Calvinism, so I decided to make a video about the subject. Let me know what you guys think.

Yes. That is what they're trying to say. They try to say that a God that has complete control over the actions of mankind is an unjust God and that it makes us out to be robots. Tell me, when Adam and Eve did the foreordained action of eating the apple did they act like robots? No. They acted out of their own free will but, it also was an act foreordained by God.

When Judas betrayed Jesus did he not act out of his own free will volition? Yet, Jesus said that he had to be betrayed by Judas because that very action brings about salvation for those foreordained by God for salvation. If Judas didn't betray Jesus NOBODY would have the chance at salvation. If Pilate didn't order the crucifixion of Jesus ..etc.

Which is the main problem with Arminianism. It brings power that is supposed to be in God's hands into the human hand. It denies the sovereignty of God which scripture says from Genesis to Revelation that its a true and natural thing. Scripture says all over the place says that not a single thing that exists or can exist or will exist, without the interference of God. So everything in your life comes from God and happens because God allows it to happen.

They post offensive images of Robots to entice us to make arguments with them when they don't even come close to understanding the truth of the matter. God's sovereignty over our lives has nothing to do with us being "robotic". God merely just planned each and every action of mankind. Doesn't make us Robots, doesn't make God unfair. Tell me, does a DNA molecule call God unfair for planning its every action? Is it robotic? No, DNA exists and it is alive because of God and because of God telling the DNA molecule how to function and without DNA life wouldn't exist. Same idea with humanity. But yet, when it comes to humanity all of a sudden natural actions translate to robotic actions. Just... no leg to stand on really.

Any "denomination" or "religion" should have its sole foundation on scripture and I'm sorry but Arminianism is not Biblical. It was declared unbiblical over 200 years ago by the synod of dort it should be unbiblical today.

I did watch your video btw, but I agreed with Mark Quale's statements on the video and didn't have much more to add. Just wanted to put my own two shoes into this subject that shouldn't even really still be debated anymore.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Regarding your first comment, what in the Bible persuaded you that Calvinism is true?

My story doesn't really fit that question. I grew up in what I think of now as semi-Arminian circumstances, a missionary kid, Mostly I think my mother's side of the family were the Arminian leaning, and my Father's side the other way, but I didn't know he was Reformed or Calvinistic. He never said. He always just insisted on God's sovereignty, and never even carried on about the logical implications of that. One time, when I was a teen, I recall one of my brothers asking my dad, if God was actually in control of absolutely everything, to which I said, it seems to me that if he is not, then he is not God. My father agreed with me. A few years later he gave me a book, Spurgeon's Lectures to His Students and wrote inside the cover that his Grandfather had been "one of Spurgeon's "preacher boys".) I still didn't get the hint, haha.

Anyhow, through long hard years of agonizing over my continual disobedience and what seemed to me to be a descent into everything but what I thought a Christian should be, it slowly began to dawn on me that even my life was not mine to control, and that God can do whatever he wants to do and owes me nothing. Very long story short, I was Reformed without even knowing it. I had gotten a pretty good idea of what God HAD to be like, to be God, Having worked off Omnipotence and Sovereignty, which all around me agreed to, to the point I realized we humans are not capable of understanding God's love. I found myself, as a friend of mine says enjoying reading "old dead guys who agree with me." Among them, Spurgeon, and particularly John Owen, who at the time I still did not know they were Calvinistic. All I knew about that word, was the caricature of it, that they deny choice. When a friend with whom I had discussed several things, finally showed me the simple logic that the lost are incapable of making any good decision on their own --therefore, regeneration is necessary to even WILL to accept, believe, love, obey ('submit', not 'comply') etc etc and explained it was the Reformed point of view, I knew I was on board already.

I still don't like to think of myself as one of them, but I have to admit I am. I try to think of them as the Theology that agrees with what I believe, haha. Their writers are certainly better at arguing or even just representing the tenets, than I am. The reason I call myself Reformed is so that others know where I'm coming from, and for quicker identification of like-minded believers.

Edit: I see I neglected one very important point --my agonizing was also full of prayer and Bible study and long long Bible reading; reading whole books at a sitting was very instrumental in seeing the heart and nature of God and his purposes for humanity and the Elect in particular. At this point I find my satisfaction not in security nor in promised rewards, but in the raw knowledge that God did all this for himself, and is (infinitely) satisfied with what he has done. My joy is at the thought of seeing him as he is. Knowing him as I am known.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Regarding the meaning of arbitrary. Let's take the definition "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Based on this definition, I think I was accurate to use this word to describe a view in which something is good merely because God wills it. Unless we posit a God who's unchanging nature is the grounding for good, then we have a version of God that does whatever he wants inconsistently. Goodness is merely a reflection of the whims of God on this view. Of course, this is not my view, and I'm assuming not yours either.

God is not whimsical, not because of his unchanging nature. He is not whimsical, because he is God. Certainly you have to have some common agreement on whatever you mean by God, with those with whom you argue. So why start there, with a God who is creator only? Too many things are implied even in that, to begin talking about the nature of good, without establishing the Sovereignty of the Creator. No, let me take that back --talking about the nature of good as related to who God is, might be a good way to enter a discussion about the sovereignty of God. And maybe this is a way to establish the common ground for consideration of who God is. It just went right past me to think of God as anything contrary to purposeful, First Cause With Intent.

Haha, no, certainly not mine view of God, either. To me that is the bare bones construction of an Atheist, who prefers to think he assumes nothing if possible.

"You also make the logical leap that if God decides something is good, that he means for his creatures to do it."
To avoid talking past each other, let me ask you a question. What do you mean by "he means"? If you mean "he causes", then we would agree that God does not always cause people to do the moral thing. If you mean "he desires", then I would argue that He does desire that we always do the moral thing. Most Calvinists I have talked to believe this as well. It's simply that God has multiple competing desires. I believe God doesn't make everyone do the right thing because He desires that we have libertarian free will. Calvinists believe it is because He desires His own glory in the choosing of some for redemption and others for wrath.

I took you here to mean that God's good [things he does], are things he wants his people to see and do likewise. This would be a mixture of the Reformed "God's Decree" as far as what he is doing, and suddenly such things are "His Command" for his people to perform. This is one of the favorites for his mockers I see on other sites --for example, that if God to kills millions in the Old Testament, why don't we? What God does is necessarily moral for him to do, but we don't have his authority for such things as he does.

"because he plans all things --remember, Sovereignty."
What do you mean by plans all things? Humans often plan things that don't come to pass. But are you arguing that God directly commands all things to come to pass that do come to pass? And is this how you define sovereignty?

That doesn't define Sovereignty, though it may describe it, and no, I would not use the term, "commands", there, because it implies things that are simjply not so. 'Decrees' is not 'Commands'. God might decree the death of humanity through the fall of Lucifer and the sin of Adam, but he did not command Lucifer to rebel, nor Adam to sin, nor did he command anyone else to sin.

Hahaha, there's a picture! : "Disobey me!" "Gladly!... er, no sir!....uh..."

 

[com7fy8]

Does Calvinism make God unjust?

In your video, you bring in the mug. And I think of Romans 9:21 > God is our Potter who makes vessels . . . mugs and other containers . . . for different uses. There is no issue about justice, for using clay to make different vessels for different good uses. Drinking mugs are needed, and so are sewer pots.

It is not unjust to have sewer vessels for carrying the filth of sin to hell.

And it is not unjust to have vessels conforming to the image of Jesus > Romans 8:29.

You said, "God wills something because He is good." It is simple as this.

People say it is unjust for God to make all the choices . . . to be sovereign and in control. Satan is the one who has a problem with God having all the real control. Control, for worldly people, is an ego issue.

Jesus says God alone is good. So, the only One who can do what is really good is God Himself. So, it is good, how God has all the real control. And it is good how God shares with us so we choose the good things He desires to do with us >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

But Satan is the one who has "puppets" > Ephesians 2:2 > because his children are not alive in God's love. And Satan is mainly about controlling and using and wasting people, not lovingly sharing as family with his children!! He controls by means of lusts, unforgiveness, stress, abusive and self-entitling anger, and the abuse and torment and pathological lying of worry.

But in God's love with His personal leading we are alive in real love, and our Father is personally guiding us in sharing with Him . . . tenderly and personally sharing with Him and one another. So, if God has chosen us for this, this is good.

And we might evaluate what predestination is really about > Romans 8:29 < so Biblical predestination is not primarily about who controls choices.

 

[Butterball1]

If Arminians or Provisionalists call Calvinism unjust, are they trying to determine what God can and cannot do? I recently saw an individual argue that Dr. Leighton Flowers is judging God when he judges Calvinism, so I decided to make a video about the subject. Let me know what you guys think.

Butterball1: Calvinism makes God unjust and unloving.

Video at beginning at 1:20: Butterball1, you are trying to determine what God can and cannot do. You are being presumptuous in thinking you have the right to judge God and tell God, 'no You cannot do this or that'. You are forcing God to conform to your will rather than the reverse.

Butterball1: No, I'm pointing out presumptions of Calvinism in Calvinisms attempt to conform God to fit Calvinistic presuppositions.....presuppositions Calvinism has not, cannot prove from the Bible.

(The video assumes Calvinism is Biblically correct. I did not get past the two minute mark of the video for what is really going on in the video is the person in the video is "ASSUMING" Calvinism is right and no one has the right to question Calvinism. The person in the video claims I am questioning God when in reality I am questioning Calvinism and the assumed, presumptuous claims Calvinism makes about God.)

 

[Butterball1]

When Judas betrayed Jesus did he not act out of his own free will volition? Yet, Jesus said that he had to be betrayed by Judas because that very action brings about salvation for those foreordained by God for salvation. If Judas didn't betray Jesus NOBODY would have the chance at salvation. If Pilate didn't order the crucifixion of Jesus ..etc.

How about this:
God has foreknowledge and God foreknew that by sending Christ to earth at the time He did, God foreknew (not preordained) that those Romans, Jews and Judas would reject Christ and crucifiy Him. Hence God used the free will choices He foreknew men would make and used those free will choices to carry out His own will in Christ dying for mankind. The Jews were carrying out their own will in crucifying Christ but were also unknowingly carrying out God's will. Those Jews, Romans and Judas are culpable, accountable and will answer on judgment day for their own free will choices. Therefore God cannot be 'unjustly' culable for causing men to do wrong against their own will by use of preodination then punish those men for the wrong God made them do.

You posted "They post offensive images of Robots to entice us to make arguments with them when they don't even come close to understanding the truth of the matter. God's sovereignty over our lives has nothing to do with us being "robotic". God merely just planned each and every action of mankind. Doesn't make us Robots, doesn't make God unfair."

God plans, programs, preordains each and every action a man does but that does not make man a robot???

You post "They try to say that a God that has complete control over the actions of mankind is an unjust God and that it makes us out to be robots..."

I do not deny God has complete sovereignty. The issue is how does God have complete sovereignty....by causation in preordaining all that comes to pass (making God culpbale for evil) or by control through use of His will.


The Will of God
From above link: "Some (Calvinists, for instance) have thought that the key to sovereignty is causation. This is wrong! The key to sovereignty is ultimate control. Through His absolute foreknowledge of every plan of man’s heart, and through His absolute ability (omnipotence) to either permit or prevent any particular plan man may have, God maintains complete control (sovereignty) over His creation. The power to prevent means that God ultimately has the final word in everything that happens. To deny this is to deny the sovereignty of God!"

 

[Petros2015]

It boils down a little in some cases to 'what do you call Free Will'? I suppose.
We tend to think of it as 'the ability to make a choice'.
A drowning man might choose to be rescued, if a rescue was available, but if no rescue is available, he can choose to be rescued all he wants but he will still drown.
But what about a suicidal man who has cast himself into the waters?
He's not even choosing to be rescued; he's choosing self-destruction
(maybe he falsely believes everyone on the boat were secretly lizard people and that's why he threw himself off, who knows?)
If God puts the thought into the head of that man
"Maybe there has been a misunderstanding"
"Maybe I want to live"
"Maybe the problem is me"
"Maybe you want to help me"
"Maybe I need help"
when that thought was not occurring, when every thought was contrary to it
Is that a violation of the man's free will?
I don't think so; but it is an intervention into it
That would not otherwise have occurred, I think
I'm not sure that everyone gets one
(and maybe not everyone needs one)
But I know that I did
And I know that people like Saul did
Without which; they would follow their 'free will'
All the way down to the bottom

 

[BuildingApologetics]

Yes. That is what they're trying to say. They try to say that a God that has complete control over the actions of mankind is an unjust God and that it makes us out to be robots. Tell me, when Adam and Eve did the foreordained action of eating the apple did they act like robots? No. They acted out of their own free will but, it also was an act foreordained by God.

When Judas betrayed Jesus did he not act out of his own free will volition? Yet, Jesus said that he had to be betrayed by Judas because that very action brings about salvation for those foreordained by God for salvation. If Judas didn't betray Jesus NOBODY would have the chance at salvation. If Pilate didn't order the crucifixion of Jesus ..etc.

Which is the main problem with Arminianism. It brings power that is supposed to be in God's hands into the human hand. It denies the sovereignty of God which scripture says from Genesis to Revelation that its a true and natural thing. Scripture says all over the place says that not a single thing that exists or can exist or will exist, without the interference of God. So everything in your life comes from God and happens because God allows it to happen.

They post offensive images of Robots to entice us to make arguments with them when they don't even come close to understanding the truth of the matter. God's sovereignty over our lives has nothing to do with us being "robotic". God merely just planned each and every action of mankind. Doesn't make us Robots, doesn't make God unfair. Tell me, does a DNA molecule call God unfair for planning its every action? Is it robotic? No, DNA exists and it is alive because of God and because of God telling the DNA molecule how to function and without DNA life wouldn't exist. Same idea with humanity. But yet, when it comes to humanity all of a sudden natural actions translate to robotic actions. Just... no leg to stand on really.

Any "denomination" or "religion" should have its sole foundation on scripture and I'm sorry but Arminianism is not Biblical. It was declared unbiblical over 200 years ago by the synod of dort it should be unbiblical today.

I did watch your video btw, but I agreed with Mark Quale's statements on the video and didn't have much more to add. Just wanted to put my own two shoes into this subject that shouldn't even really still be debated anymore.

I have a few questions for you. The first is about your problem with the robot analogy. I personally prefer the puppet analogy since it is a bit more precise. I know Calvinists don't like the robot analogy, but I have never heard a sound objection as to why it does not apply. So what specifically is your problem with this analogy? You say "Tell me, when Adam and Eve did the foreordained action of eating the apple did they act like robots?," but here you are begging the question. That act was not foreordained, it was allowed and foreknown. If it were foreordained, then yes, they would be robots acting out their programming.
"No. They acted out of their own free will but, it also was an act foreordained by God."
You are assuming your own definition of free will, which is not really free at all; it is just "will". If it was foreordained by God, then it is very similar to a robot eating an apple because it was programmed to do so.

"When Judas betrayed Jesus did he not act out of his own free will volition?"
If libertarian free will is true then he did. If compatibilism is true, then it is not his own volition. It is the volition implanted into him by God.
"Yet, Jesus said that he had to be betrayed by Judas because that very action brings about salvation for those foreordained by God for salvation."
This is true, but God only chose Judas because He knew Judas would betray Jesus freely. There is nowhere in scripture that it says God caused Judas to betray Jesus.
"If Pilate didn't order the crucifixion of Jesus ..etc."
Then God wouldn't have picked Pilate to be in charge. God is powerful enough to achieve what He wants with libertarian free will.

"Which is the main problem with Arminianism."
I would argue one of the main problems of Calvinism is that it suggests God is so weak that He can only accomplish what He wants if He controls everyone. I would argue that God is so powerful that He can plan out events even with human freedom.
"It brings power that is supposed to be in God's hands into the human hand."
This is a misrepresentation. No power is being moved. God is fully capable of stamping out all of human freedom without breaking a sweat. The fact that He chooses not to do this does not make Him weaker.
"It denies the sovereignty of God which scripture says from Genesis to Revelation that its a true and natural thing."
This is also not true. No Arminian denies the sovereignty of God. We just correctly note that sovereignty does not equal determinism. Please don't accuse us of believing things we do not.
"Scripture says all over the place says that not a single thing that exists or can exist or will exist, without the interference of God."
Scripture clearly says God created all things, but it nowhere says that He directly causes all events. You are reading that into the text.
"So everything in your life comes from God and happens because God allows it to happen."
I agree with this, but I don't see how you can. If determinism is true, then God doesn't allow anything; He directly ordains everything. It makes no sense to say God "allows" his own determinations. What is God allowing if not Himself and His own decisions? Whenever you say "allows" you are borrowing from my worldview.

"They post offensive images of Robots to entice us to make arguments with them when they don't even come close to understanding the truth of the matter."
How are these images offensive? What about them is incorrect? If I am not even coming close to understand, please help me understand.
"God's sovereignty over our lives has nothing to do with us being "robotic". God merely just planned each and every action of mankind."
That sounds like a robot. Your two statements don't work together. That's like saying God's sovereignty over out lives has nothing to do with us being "puppets". He merely controls every single action we ever do. That is basically the definition of a puppet or robot. Your statement makes as much sense as someone saying "abortion has nothing to do with murder; it is just about killing and innocent human person." Your second statement is a direct contradiction of your first.
"Doesn't make us Robots, doesn't make God unfair."
You can make this assertion, but it remains an unsupported assertion.
"Tell me, does a DNA molecule call God unfair for planning its every action? Is it robotic?"
Actually DNA is not a person. And DNA isn't judged by God for being the way it is. This is a false equivalency. DNA is also not alive. DNA is an impersonal object like a rock.
"Same idea with humanity. But yet, when it comes to humanity all of a sudden natural actions translate to robotic actions. Just... no leg to stand on really."
If it's the same idea with humanity, then you have just proved that humanity is just robotic. If we are the same as DNA, then we are impersonal objects without mind, emotion, will, personality, or ability to be judged.

"Any "denomination" or "religion" should have its sole foundation on scripture and I'm sorry but Arminianism is not Biblical. It was declared unbiblical over 200 years ago by the synod of dort it should be unbiblical today."
I would argue the exact opposite. Of course, we have not touched on scripture at all during this little discussion, so I don't think either of us has the right to preemptively declare the other side biblical. Appealing to a consensus by a biased synod of dort, arrived at thousands of years after the writing of scripture, is not exactly exegesis. Is there any Biblical argument for why Calvinism is true?

 

[BuildingApologetics]

Does Calvinism make God unjust?

In your video, you bring in the mug. And I think of Romans 9:21 > God is our Potter who makes vessels . . . mugs and other containers . . . for different uses. There is no issue about justice, for using clay to make different vessels for different good uses. Drinking mugs are needed, and so are sewer pots.

It is not unjust to have sewer vessels for carrying the filth of sin to hell.

And it is not unjust to have vessels conforming to the image of Jesus > Romans 8:29.

You said, "God wills something because He is good." It is simple as this.

People say it is unjust for God to make all the choices . . . to be sovereign and in control. Satan is the one who has a problem with God having all the real control. Control, for worldly people, is an ego issue.

Jesus says God alone is good. So, the only One who can do what is really good is God Himself. So, it is good, how God has all the real control. And it is good how God shares with us so we choose the good things He desires to do with us >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

But Satan is the one who has "puppets" > Ephesians 2:2 > because his children are not alive in God's love. And Satan is mainly about controlling and using and wasting people, not lovingly sharing as family with his children!! He controls by means of lusts, unforgiveness, stress, abusive and self-entitling anger, and the abuse and torment and pathological lying of worry.

But in God's love with His personal leading we are alive in real love, and our Father is personally guiding us in sharing with Him . . . tenderly and personally sharing with Him and one another. So, if God has chosen us for this, this is good.

And we might evaluate what predestination is really about > Romans 8:29 < so Biblical predestination is not primarily about who controls choices.

"And I think of Romans 9:21 > God is our Potter who makes vessels . . . mugs and other containers . . . for different uses. There is no issue about justice, for using clay to make different vessels for different good uses. Drinking mugs are needed, and so are sewer pots."
That is a good point, although I would argue there is no issue of justice because individuals get to choose what they would like to be; an honorable vessel or a dishonorable vessel. It is actually explicitly stated by Paul that they choice it up to you:
1 Timothy 2:20-21: "Now in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver but also of wood and clay, some for honorable use, some for dishonorable. 21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work."

"It is not unjust to have sewer vessels for carrying the filth of sin to hell."
This is true. Any vessel that has not decided to "cleanse himself from what is dishonorable", can be hustly sent to hell.

"People say it is unjust for God to make all the choices . . . to be sovereign and in control."
Those are not the same thing. Sovereign = "in control", but does not equal making all the choices. A powerful God could presumable remain in control even without controlling everything.
"Satan is the one who has a problem with God having all the real control. Control, for worldly people, is an ego issue."
Some Arminians certainly are so because they love their free will. But for most, the reason we value free will is because that is how we know God is all loving, good, and just.

"But Satan is the one who has "puppets" > Ephesians 2:2 > because his children are not alive in God's love. And Satan is mainly about controlling and using and wasting people, not lovingly sharing as family with his children!! He controls by means of lusts, unforgiveness, stress, abusive and self-entitling anger, and the abuse and torment and pathological lying of worry."
Isn't Satan redundant on Calvinism? God doesn't need Satan to enslave people in sin, God Himself is the one enslaving them to sin. In fact, He controls Satan, so Satan is just a puppet for controlling other puppets.

 

[BuildingApologetics]

Butterball1: Calvinism makes God unjust and unloving.

Video at beginning at 1:20: Butterball1, you are trying to determine what God can and cannot do. You are being presumptuous in thinking you have the right to judge God and tell God, 'no You cannot do this or that'. You are forcing God to conform to your will rather than the reverse.

Butterball1: No, I'm pointing out presumptions of Calvinism in Calvinisms attempt to conform God to fit Calvinistic presuppositions.....presuppositions Calvinism has not, cannot prove from the Bible.

(The video assumes Calvinism is Biblically correct. I did not get past the two minute mark of the video for what is really going on in the video is the person in the video is "ASSUMING" Calvinism is right and no one has the right to question Calvinism. The person in the video claims I am questioning God when in reality I am questioning Calvinism and the assumed, presumptuous claims Calvinism makes about God.)

You should have watched the rest of the video. After I assume "for the sake of argument" that Calvinism is true, I then do the reverse and "assume for the sake of argument" that Calvinism is false. In fact, I refuted the hypothetical objection at the beginning that "you are judging what God can and cannot do"

In fact, if you had listened to the video, you would know that I made pretty much every point you made and in greater detail.

 

[BuildingApologetics]

It boils down a little in some cases to 'what do you call Free Will'? I suppose.
We tend to think of it as 'the ability to make a choice'.
A drowning man might choose to be rescued, if a rescue was available, but if no rescue is available, he can choose to be rescued all he wants but he will still drown.
But what about a suicidal man who has cast himself into the waters?
He's not even choosing to be rescued; he's choosing self-destruction
(maybe he falsely believes everyone on the boat were secretly lizard people and that's why he threw himself off, who knows?)
If God puts the thought into the head of that man
"Maybe there has been a misunderstanding"
"Maybe I want to live"
"Maybe the problem is me"
"Maybe you want to help me"
"Maybe I need help"
when that thought was not occurring, when every thought was contrary to it
Is that a violation of the man's free will?
I don't think so; but it is an intervention into it
That would not otherwise have occurred, I think
I'm not sure that everyone gets one
(and maybe not everyone needs one)
But I know that I did
And I know that people like Saul did
Without which; they would follow their 'free will'
All the way down to the bottom

But what if God is also the one who made the suicidal man suicidal and also made him jump into the water?

If I were to give a married woman a drug that makes her willing to sleep with me, is she morally guilty of adultery? Should her husband divorce her for being unfaithful?
If not, then what if instead, some third party gave her the drug and she had sex with me? Does that make her any more guilty?
If not, then what if that third party happens to be God? Everything is the same on her end, so she is still not morally guilty.
What if God doesn't use a drug, but directly controls her mind? Does the absence of a physical drug have any bearing on whether or not she is guilty?
No. Her husband still could not find fault in her, and would be wrong to blame her for essentially being raped. For anyone to blame her, would be punishing her for something that she is not morally blameworthy for. That is practically the definition of injustice.

 

[Mark Quayle]

when that thought was not occurring, when every thought was contrary to it
Is that a violation of the man's free will?
I don't think so; but it is an intervention into it
That would not otherwise have occurred, I think

Then logically, since God is first cause, having caused absolutely everything, whether by original cause through the chain of causality, or through direct insertion into current events, (I'm guessing they are both the same, to God, but I digress...), he still caused it.

We are no authorities on what 'would have'. Only God is, and that never depends on chance, but on him.

 

[BNR32FAN]

If Arminians or Provisionalists call Calvinism unjust, are they trying to determine what God can and cannot do? I recently saw an individual argue that Dr. Leighton Flowers is judging God when he judges Calvinism, so I decided to make a video about the subject. Let me know what you guys think.

The word just does not only mean what is good or morally correct but also means to be fair or impartial. The author of the video fails to address these aspects of the definition of the word just. So according to Calvin’s doctrines do they portray God as being fair and impartial? No they do not.

 

[TedT]

Simple as that. If you want to get into any one particular, have at it.

UNconditional election which forces us to accept UNconditional non-election or reprobation would prove HIS injustice so UNconditional election is a blasphemy.

IF there is a hidden or untaught condition causing reprobation then there is also a condition for election which is not having the condition causing non-election.

To chose some to eternal life and others to eternal destruction for no reason is not only unjust but against scripture which claims HE takes no pleasure in the death, destruction, of anyone so HE didn't choose them for destruction for HIS pleasure without any reason. Period. Ezekiel 33:11 "Say to them, 'As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live.

Ezekiel 18:32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!