Is it Wrong to Call Calvinism Unjust?

[Fish55]

God is just; it is just our perspective of God that perceives His sovereign will.
Maybe our lens need adjustment.
This is my limited understanding : Man is given free will; God sees our hearts and foresees the future. So God can save whoever He chooses because He already sees our hearts. So there is a God part and Man's part in salvation.

 

[wandering misfit]

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.

I noticed you'd not use Scripture to support your OP. God can turn bad clay into..... God can turn a whole group (see Israel) into His chosen people, God can turn away from the physical Israel into the "other sheep". Jeremiah 18 or another.

 

[Ben johnson]

If Arminians or Provisionalists call Calvinism unjust, are they trying to determine what God can and cannot do?

God is limited -- He is constrained by His character and nature. He cannot be unjust, cannot play favorites, cannot have a house divided. (See Rom3:26, Rom2:11, 1Cor10:34-35, Col3:25).

That said, "Calvinism" is not Scriptural. And it does no good to discuss one or two or thirty or fifty verses with a Calvinist/Reformed-Theologian -- because his arms hold at least SIXTY ONE verses thought to support. Four "Primaries" (foundational passages, Eph1:4-5, Eph1:11, Rom8:29-25, Rom9:11-20), and at least fifty seven "Secondaries". Every last Secondary can be shown solidly to not promote "Sovereign-Predestined-Salvation", and then these become the basis (with many other passages, especially the "fall-from-salvation" ones) with which to discuss the Primaries.

Only when an RT's arms are empty, might he even think of reconsidering the doctrine. As long as there are verses left in his arms, he will "shake the dust from his feet" and walk away from a OSAS/OSNAS discussion, confident his doctrine is Scriptural.

(Note RT's don't like to be classed as "OSAS", they prefer "once truly saved God WILL preserve His own".)

Tulip -- Total Depravity (actually it's not, it's "total inability", the opposite is not Pelagianism, but rather "His effective call to every person empowers us to choose belief or sin"). Unconditional Election (of the few, "Favorites"). Limited Atonement (Jesus didn't die for everyone, but only for a few; violates verses like Rom5:17-18, Acts17:26-31, and many others.) Irresistible Grace (we absolutely can resist, Acts7:51), and "perseverance/preservation of the saints".

It's a question of sequence -- which comes first, belief to salvation or heart-change (regeneration)? Can an unregenerated person believe?

Can a Calvinist answer Matt9:12-13 -- who did Jesus come for? (No.) Under Calvinism the unregenerated CANNOT receive Him, therefore He did not come for unregenerated/sinners. But those who are monergistically sovereignly regenerated are righteous already and do not NEED a Physician Savior, so He couldn't have come for them either! There must be some connection between Jesus coming for the sick/sinners, and regeneration -- what is it?

It really seems that the sick/sinners must be able to believe, receive Jesus and the Spirit and THEN become regenerated/righteous. Is anything else possible?

 

[TedT]

How does the fact that God does not ask some permission to give them new life, imply the fact that he does not ask others permission to give them what they deserve?

Sorry I'm late...

I see that you are speaking of the salvation of some people and not others whereas I am speaking of the election of some but not others....before the foundation of the world!

My premise is that sin can only accrue to someone who chose by their free will to rebel against GOD or HIS commandments. Since I accept our sinfulness at conception I also accept that we must have had an existence before our conception in which we chose by a free will decision to be sinful in HIS sight, knowing what HE thought of that and what HE claimed would be the consequences, both natural and legal, for choosing to rebel against HIS Divinity or against HIS commandments.

This free will decision to put our faith in HIM as our GOD and in the Son as our saviour, the gospel we heard before the foundation of the world as mentioned in Col 1:23, is the basis for the election of the faithful to heaven as HIS bride and the passing over of the reprobate for election for their choice to reject HM as liar and a false god thereby making themselves eternally evil in HIS sight, unfit be HIS Bride.

This decision GOD made before the foundation of the world to marry some and to have them in HIS heaven married to HIM but not others who were set aside as worthy of condemnation MUST have been a response to a free will choice by HIS creation because:
1. No true marriage can be forced upon anyone without their free will acceptance of the proposal.
2. True love, the essence of a true marriage, cannot be forced upon anyone. For love and marriage to be real they must both be chosen by a free will decision to accept the proposal and the love offered by GOD.

3. Humans have no free will because we are enslaved to sin and this sinfulness imbues our every decision and choice making our righteous decisions to be as filthy rags. Our enslavement to sin is not caused by our becoming human, rather, we were sown into mankind because we previously chose to become addicted to sin and those who were elect needed to be redeemed, otherwise election and no election is arbitrary and unjust.
4. For a judgement to be just and righteous, it must be based upon a real crime chosen by a free will decision to do the crime or there can be no crime due to the lack of mens rea, the culpable intent to do a known crime.

As to Unconditional Reprobation --no. He even goes to the trouble to offer them life, but they will not choose it. They are consigned to reprobation for their sin, not for being born once, not for being human, not for being created. They do this to themselves!

I agree with this wholeheartedly but do not accept that it can refer to humans who have no real free will, only the ability to choose while under the influence of sin (a false sense of free will) at least until they have been reborn back into faith by GOD's grace and the work of the Son.

The doctrine of unconditional election must have the corollary of an unconditional reprobation which then both are each applied to those already sinners. This is unacceptable on the level of a heinous blasphemy against HIS loving righteousness and just nature...marriage and condemnation can only be righteous and just if applied to the free will decisions of each person.

 

[TedT]

So God can save whoever He chooses because He already sees our hearts.

Well Sir, this does not tell us why HE would NOT choose everyone as per 2 Pet 3:9 ...Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. because He takes no pleasure in the death of anyone,
Ezekiel 18:32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. with the corollary that HE does NOT do that which does NOT please HIM...Ps 135:6 Whatever the Lord pleases he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.
and
Psalm 115:3 says the same thing: Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases. There is no room in these verses for HIM to do anything that does not please him so let's read Ezekiel 18:32 again: For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. so HE would never have created them knowing that HE would be condemning them in the near future nor would HE not choose everyone unless HE was forced to not choose some for salvation by a reason HE could not overcome such as because of their free will rejection of HIM as a lying false god, the unforgivable sin.

 

[Mark Quayle]

My premise is that sin can only accrue to someone who chose by their free will to rebel against GOD or HIS commandments. Since I accept our sinfulness at conception I also accept that we must have had an existence before our conception in which we chose by a free will decision to be sinful in HIS sight, knowing what HE thought of that and what HE claimed would be the consequences, both natural and legal, for choosing to rebel against HIS Divinity or against HIS commandments.

Do you not see how your reasoning extrapolated takes you beyond Scripture? God doesn't tell us we had an existence before conception.

Second, you have considered 'free will' necessary, like many others, but not like Scripture. Choice yes --real and effective choice, but free? --hardly! Willed choice --yes. Oh my goodness are we ever willful!!

This free will decision to put our faith in HIM as our GOD and in the Son as our saviour, the gospel we heard before the foundation of the world as mentioned in Col 1:23, is the basis for the election of the faithful to heaven as HIS bride and the passing over of the reprobate for election for their choice to reject HM as liar and a false god thereby making themselves eternally evil in HIS sight, unfit be HIS Bride.

Quote your version of Col. 1:23. Mine says nothing about hearing the Gospel before the foundation of the world. Also you seem to have some notion of a haphazard assembly of parts garnered from 'The Claw' arcade machine instead of specific members, created for the purpose of becoming the Bride.

Furthermore, the free will you posit here has not basis for its integrity, other than the difference between people. If one chose, and one didn't, and God had nothing to do with it, then either one person was better than another, or chance causes. We reject the notion that one person is better than another because if so, one is not after all saved by grace, but by works, and science and good sense rejects the notion of chance causing anything --it is self-contradictory.

This decision GOD made before the foundation of the world to marry some and to have them in HIS heaven married to HIM but not others who were set aside as worthy of condemnation MUST have been a response to a free will choice by HIS creation because:
1. No true marriage can be forced upon anyone without their free will acceptance of the proposal.
2. True love, the essence of a true marriage, cannot be forced upon anyone. For love and marriage to be real they must both be chosen by a free will decision to accept the proposal and the love offered by GOD.

3. Humans have no free will because we are enslaved to sin and this sinfulness imbues our every decision and choice making our righteous decisions to be as filthy rags. Our enslavement to sin is not caused by our becoming human, rather, we were sown into mankind because we previously chose to become addicted to sin and those who were elect needed to be redeemed, otherwise election and no election is arbitrary and unjust.
4. For a judgement to be just and righteous, it must be based upon a real crime chosen by a free will decision to do the crime or there can be no crime due to the lack of mens rea, the culpable intent to do a known crime.

You seem to have a narrow idea of the will, knowledge and power of God, and an inflated view of the ability and station of man.

But there are many many "forced" marriages that are truly loving. But the notion that God choosing someone apart from their permission is FORCING them is as outrageous as to say he was not right to even create them. Were they consulted for that?? So why the complaint about being given new life?

I agree with this wholeheartedly but do not accept that it can refer to humans who have no real free will, only the ability to choose while under the influence of sin (a false sense of free will) at least until they have been reborn back into faith by GOD's grace and the work of the Son.

The doctrine of unconditional election must have the corollary of an unconditional reprobation which then both are each applied to those already sinners. This is unacceptable on the level of a heinous blasphemy against HIS loving righteousness and just nature...marriage and condemnation can only be righteous and just if applied to the free will decisions of each person.

Tell me if it is not rather human reasoning that says the command implies the ability to obey. Does not the Creator have absolute right over his own creation??? And who but the self-exalting can claim he is unjust to do what he clearly does, and says he does? There is no need to make up a doctrine of man that includes anything the Bible does not teach.

 

[wandering misfit]

All sides cherry pick their "pet" verses in Scripture. Adam and Eve knew free will that Arminians claim they have. Adam and Eve lost that "will" in the fall. Each generation that followed has been born into sin, without Arminian free will and committed sin against God at their first opportunity that suited their own purpose. Call it unjust in your own terms, I'll use what God calls just, those elected, elected by God, those predestined, predestined by God without condition..... One of the hardest things is to acknowledge and own our own sin; our pride and hubrous.

 

[Ben johnson]

All sides cherry pick their "pet" verses in Scripture.

Hi, WM -- I don't think that's true. Yes all "sides" have verses they think support their view(s) (Calvinism begins with the foundation-passages, Eph1:4-5, Eph1:11, Rom8:29-35, and Rom9:11-21). But if two people can just "agree to disagree" and both walk away with disparate views that each is convinced are "Scripturally correct", then let's just throw the Bible away, it's worthless to establish sound doctrine (Titus1:9).

Adam and Eve knew free will that Arminians claim they have. Adam and Eve lost that "will" in the fall.

Did Eve have a choice? Yes. But here's a problem -- here today, we now experience the SAME risk of falling that Eve did!

"I worry, that as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should also be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." 2Cor11:3​

Who made the decision, WM? The KING? No! Each made his own choice. Which OSAS view does that fit? None of them...

Each generation that followed has been born into sin, without Arminian free will and committed sin against God at their first opportunity that suited their own purpose. Call it unjust in your own terms, I'll use what God calls just, those elected, elected by God,

Wait, stop -- where in Scripture (any place!) does it say God elects CERTAIN ONES (favorites!) to eternal life, and He creates the rest to BE sinful and to be furnace-fuel? I read Matt22:2-14 -- which ones in the story were called? EVERYONE! "As many as you see!" Who got "elected"? Those who decided to come and to accept the King's clean clothes. "For many are called (everyone!) but few are chosen/elected (only those who came and changed clothes!)."

those predestined, predestined by God without condition.....

Let's discuss Acts17:26-31 -- may we?

"He made from man every nation of mankind to live on the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us. ...God is now declaring to to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has ...furnished proof to all men by raising (Jesus) from the dead."​

All men everywhere -- any way to make that "not REALLY all but only a FEW"? No. "He is not far from each of us" -- not far from who? Not far from the few FAVORITES? (God does not play favorites, Rom2:4-11, Acts10:34-35, Col3:25!) He's not far from anyone. Is there any way to "cherry-pick" anything from that passage, or rather to deny what it plainly says? Is there a second possible meaning?

All men, WM. And there are other "all-men" passages that are just as hard to deny; Rom5:17-19 for instance, justification came to the SAME "all men", as to whom came condemnation, didn't it? SO THEN all, EVEN SO --- few? No! It's an exact equality, they both are the same. Condemnation came conditionally -- to be condemned we must sin; and verse 12 shows we all meet that condition. Justification also came conditionally -- and verse 17 expresses the condition, one must receive the abundance of grace and the gift of righteousness. Who makes the choice -- God, or us?

Now please consider Rom10:6-10, which connects directly to Deut30:11-20; Rm10:6 cites Deut30:12, and Rm10:8 cites Deut30:14. And Deut30:12 is a foundational refutation of Monergism, the basis for all views of "Sovereign Election" -- it is not in Heaven that one must go get it and give it to us to make us hear it that we may observe it, the word-of-faith (which Paul says in Rom10 is the SAME word of faith of Jesus, that the Apostles were preaching!) -- that word of faith is IN their hearts and mouths! Both in those who "confess believe and are saved" (Rm10:9-10), and it is in those who "turn away disobey and perish" (Deut30:17-18); all because it is fully a choice, we choose life by loving God, by obeying Him and by holding fast to Him (Deut30:19-20).

Let's hear any possible second understanding -- can any of this be "cherry picked"? How?

One of the hardest things is to acknowledge and own our own sin; our pride and hubris.

The thing is, when we correctly "divide the Word" (exegete rather than eisegete), pride and personal opinion have nothing to do with what the Apostles wrote.

Look at what was cited in this post -- and watch what RT's do.

1. Deny the verses and try to stamp over them, "NOT REALLY"
2. Ignore them and pretend no solid Scriptural dictate was shown
3. Admit these verses simply do not fit "sovereign predestined salvation".

Which do you think Reformed Theology people will do, Wandering Misfit?

How about you?

 

[Ben johnson]

Well Sir, this does not tell us why HE would NOT choose everyone as per 2 Pet 3:9 ...Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance. because He takes no pleasure in the death of anyone,
Ezekiel 18:32 For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. with the corollary that HE does NOT do that which does NOT please HIM...Ps 135:6 Whatever the Lord pleases he does, in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all deeps.
and
Psalm 115:3 says the same thing: Our God is in the heavens; he does whatever he pleases. There is no room in these verses for HIM to do anything that does not please him so let's read Ezekiel 18:32 again: For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. so HE would never have created them knowing that HE would be condemning them in the near future nor would HE not choose everyone unless HE was forced to not choose some for salvation by a reason HE could not overcome such as because of their free will rejection of HIM as a lying false god, the unforgivable sin.

Excellent post. The essence of God, is that He is LOVE (1Jn4:16); and 1Cor13:5 states "love cannot demand its own way". Which God would be doing if He ordained a few favorites to love Him back, and destined to hopelessly helplessly perish. (And He would then be a fraud, hypocrite and false-judge, condemning people for what God ultimately caused...)

Indeed, the "Greatest Commandment" is to love God (Matt22:37); how daft would it be to command men to do something that God really does TO a FEW if they are really really lucky? That is no commandment.

Acts17:26-31 should settle things forever, everyone is truly offered salvation. No we're not "inherently capable of turning to God", but Jesus' drawing of all men overcomes depravity sufficient for each to answer.

Light cannot create darkness.
A good tree cannot put forth rotten fruit.
A stream of life giving water cannot put forth salt or brackish water.
GOODNESS cannot bring forth evil.
Inherited sin or sin by the will of GOD is anathema.

Profoundly true. Now -- connect that with Matt12:25-26 -- God's house cannot be divided, which it would be if He had complicity in sin. "In Him there is no sin" (1Jn3:5), ever. He does not get "Teflon gloves" (Compatibilism!) so that He can sculpt sin into the unelect and keep His hands from getting dirty.

This issue is important, rather critical -- how do we strengthen ourselves against a danger we do not believe exists? "Abide in salvation, guard against deceivers" is the constant theme of Scripture. See Col2:6-8, 1Jn2:26-28, 1Tim4:1, and so many others. Deceivers are not wasting their time trying to get the Elect to enjoy a few less heavenly crowns --- it is the crown of life itself they're after, Rev3:11!

 

[Ben johnson]

Wait, stop -- where in Scripture (any place!) does it say God elects CERTAIN ONES (favorites!) to eternal life, and He creates the rest to BE sinful and to be furnace-fuel? I read Matt22:2-14 -- which ones in the story were called? EVERYONE! "As many as you see!" Who got "elected"? Those who decided to come and to accept the King's clean clothes. "For many are called (everyone!) but few are chosen/elected (only those who came and changed clothes!)."

Who made the decision, WM? The KING? No! Each made his own choice. Which OSAS view does that fit? None of them...

That's weird -- the second paragraph got misplaced, it should have appeared as in this quote. What happened to CF's "edit button"? It would make me look less incompetent.

 

[wandering misfit]

Large full purging exhale.... I'm looking at your signature Ben, any pride there?

 

[Bobber]

Did Eve have a choice? Yes. But here's a problem -- here today, we now experience the SAME risk of falling that Eve did!

"I worry, that as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds should also be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ." 2Cor11:3​

Who made the decision, WM? The KING? No! Each made his own choice. Which OSAS view does that fit? None of them...

The verse above makes me wonder too. If Calvinistic thinking were true then doesn't Paul deserve somewhat of a rebuke? I mean why in the world are you worried Paul? If God does ALL the choosing then who are you upset about God's will being done?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Excellent post. The essence of God, is that He is LOVE (1Jn4:16); and 1Cor13:5 states "love cannot demand its own way". Which God would be doing if He ordained a few favorites to love Him back, and destined to hopelessly helplessly perish. (And He would then be a fraud, hypocrite and false-judge, condemning people for what God ultimately caused...)

Indeed, the "Greatest Commandment" is to love God (Matt22:37); how daft would it be to command men to do something that God really does TO a FEW if they are really really lucky? That is no commandment.

Acts17:26-31 should settle things forever, everyone is truly offered salvation. No we're not "inherently capable of turning to God", but Jesus' drawing of all men overcomes depravity sufficient for each to answer.

Profoundly true. Now -- connect that with Matt12:25-26 -- God's house cannot be divided, which it would be if He had complicity in sin. "In Him there is no sin" (1Jn3:5), ever. He does not get "Teflon gloves" (Compatibilism!) so that He can sculpt sin into the unelect and keep His hands from getting dirty.

This issue is important, rather critical -- how do we strengthen ourselves against a danger we do not believe exists? "Abide in salvation, guard against deceivers" is the constant theme of Scripture. See Col2:6-8, 1Jn2:26-28, 1Tim4:1, and so many others. Deceivers are not wasting their time trying to get the Elect to enjoy a few less heavenly crowns --- it is the crown of life itself they're after, Rev3:11!

You would probably do well to follow all of Scripture than philosophy that likes only certain places of Scripture. You want the authority to take certain large themes of Scripture --"God is love"-- and from there the concept is wide open to your phiosophy!

If God says he does something, and he says he is love, then you can believe both, even if you internally agonize over it or find something abhorrent in one of them. You can be sure that the truth does not resolve at the loss of one or the other things God says, but at the loss of your preferred notions.

 

[Ben johnson]

The verse above makes me wonder too. If Calvinistic thinking were true then doesn't Paul deserve somewhat of a rebuke? I mean why in the world are you worried Paul? If God does ALL the choosing then who are you upset about God's will being done?

Right. Calvinism raises many obvious questions, but declines to answer them. Like -- Mark16:15 "preach the Gospel to all creation". Why bother? Isn't God going to save all His favorites anyway (and why does Perfectly-Righteous-God want many of His chosen-sheep languishing in sin much of their lives--why aren't they saved from infancy?)? And those He created to be sinful and to perish, why, there's nothing that can thwart His sovereign will, so let's just throw the kids in the camper and go check out Yellowstone or Royal Gorge?

Not that there's anything wrong with parks, but why waste time preaching the Gospel? But Calvinistic preachers make some excellent sermons as if we can lead others to Christ. It's as if at some level they do know we can "save others who really are in DANGER of the fire" (Jude23, Calvinism must stamp that "NOT REALLY in danger"). Matt23:13-15 "those who ARE ENTERING you STOP -- you shut off the kingdom of God from men!" Not-really, not really! And they consciously refuse verses like Rom14:15 and 1Cor8:11 ("do not destroy your brother for whom Christ died") stamping those "not-really-destroy" or something. Better have extra bottles of ink for that "NOT REALLY" stamp...

"Effective means"? God needs effective means to accomplish His sovereign prehistoric election? What's wrong with God's sovereignty?

And verses that simply prohibit Calvinism; Matt9:12-13 for instance -- per their doctrine the unregenerated CANNOT believe so Jesus could not really have come for sinners, but neither could He have come for the sovereignly/monegistically regenerated who are righteous already and do not need a physician. What's the connection between Jesus' coming for the sick/sinners, and people believing and becoming regenerated? It only works if the sick/sinners CAN believe and then through that belief become regenerated! What other way works?

And how can any Calvinist know he's "truly-elected" (and will persevere, like those in Luke8:15) -- how does he know he's not just "falsely-believing cruelly-rejected" like those in Luke8:13 who WANT to be saved and are even joyful thinking they ARE saved (which the doctrine says they can't want in the first place!) but prove by falling away that they were never TRULY saved in the FIRST place (their joy was false, God was laughing behind their backs because He never wanted them and only made them to be furnace-fuel!)? By definition (despite their protests), no Calvinist can know he or she is actually saved (let's mark out 1Jn5:11-13) until his very last breath alive proving it by perseverance-until-DEATH! There's simply no way to know if we are Fifteeners (truly-elected) or Thirteeners (cruelly-rejected)!

There are so many more questions like these. Meaning no offense -- what is so enticing about "Sovereign Predestined Salvation", that motivates adherents to keep stamping "NOT REALLY NOT REALLY" over some verses, mark out or ignore other verses, and just decline to answer Scriptural problems?

 

[Mark Quayle]

The verse above makes me wonder too. If Calvinistic thinking were true then doesn't Paul deserve somewhat of a rebuke? I mean why in the world are you worried Paul? If God does ALL the choosing then who are you upset about God's will being done?

Right. Calvinism raises many obvious questions, but declines to answer them. Like -- Mark16:15 "preach the Gospel to all creation". Why bother? Isn't God going to save all His favorites anyway (and why does Perfectly-Righteous-God want many of His chosen-sheep languishing in sin much of their lives--why aren't they saved from infancy?)? And those He created to be sinful and to perish, why, there's nothing that can thwart His sovereign will, so let's just throw the kids in the camper and go check out Yellowstone or Royal Gorge?

Not that there's anything wrong with parks, but why waste time preaching the Gospel? But Calvinistic preachers make some excellent sermons as if we can lead others to Christ. It's as if at some level they do know we can "save others who really are in DANGER of the fire" (Jude23, Calvinism must stamp that "NOT REALLY in danger"). Matt23:13-15 "those who ARE ENTERING you STOP -- you shut off the kingdom of God from men!" Not-really, not really! And they consciously refuse verses like Rom14:15 and 1Cor8:11 ("do not destroy your brother for whom Christ died") stamping those "not-really-destroy" or something. Better have extra bottles of ink for that "NOT REALLY" stamp...

"Effective means"? God needs effective means to accomplish His sovereign prehistoric election? What's wrong with God's sovereignty?

And verses that simply prohibit Calvinism; Matt9:12-13 for instance -- per their doctrine the unregenerated CANNOT believe so Jesus could not really have come for sinners, but neither could He have come for the sovereignly/monegistically regenerated who are righteous already and do not need a physician. What's the connection between Jesus' coming for the sick/sinners, and people believing and becoming regenerated? It only works if the sick/sinners CAN believe and then through that belief become regenerated! What other way works?

And how can any Calvinist know he's "truly-elected" (and will persevere, like those in Luke8:15) -- how does he know he's not just "falsely-believing cruelly-rejected" like those in Luke8:13 who WANT to be saved and are even joyful thinking they ARE saved (which the doctrine says they can't want in the first place!) but prove by falling away that they were never TRULY saved in the FIRST place (their joy was false, God was laughing behind their backs because He never wanted them and only made them to be furnace-fuel!)? By definition (despite their protests), no Calvinist can know he or she is actually saved (let's mark out 1Jn5:11-13) until his very last breath alive proving it by perseverance-until-DEATH! There's simply no way to know if we are Fifteeners (truly-elected) or Thirteeners (cruelly-rejected)!

There are so many more questions like these. Meaning no offense -- what is so enticing about "Sovereign Predestined Salvation", that motivates adherents to keep stamping "NOT REALLY NOT REALLY" over some verses, mark out or ignore other verses, and just decline to answer Scriptural problems?

The caricature is amazing. Calvinism doesn't "raise [those] questions it doesn't answer" --you raised them, as if you understood Calvinism. You do not.

You want Calvinism to say it is all 'automatic'. The fact that God predestines all things, even causes all things, does not mean we do not also cause those things related to ourselves! Why can it not be both?

Do you, as even some Atheists do, admit that we are subject to natural causes? That is to say, no matter our austerity and willpower, we always do what we want to do, and THAT is caused by many things from outside ourselves. Or are you going to tell me that somehow you are the exception that doesn't always do what you want, if even for that very instant of choosing?

If you admit that things from outside yourself cause you to in the end choose as you do, then what difference does it make to place God as logical first in the line of causation?

 

[Bobber]

If God says he does something, and he says he is love, then you can believe both, even if you internally agonize over it or find something abhorrent in one of them. You can be sure that the truth does not resolve at the loss of one or the other things God says, but at the loss of your preferred notions.

I think you need to consider though that even Jesus let people know not to think that God is so far different then how humans normally think about LOVE. He appealed to their thinking that if you then being evil know how to give or do good things for your children how much more (who is more loving than any human can be) will how much more will the Father who is from Heaven give the Holy Spirit to those asking Him" Luke 11:13 (and I think it's clear you could say other good things as well)

We also actually see Abraham in talking to the Lord said, "Be it far from you. Will not the judge of all the Earth do right?" Gen 18:25 Sure he will but my point is God didn't say to him you could never have a clue in your spirit about how love and justice should be. In other words if something doesn't seem any way fair from the way men of the Earth understand justice you stand a good chance God might agree with them too.

 

[Ben johnson]

The caricature is amazing. Calvinism doesn't "raise [those] questions it doesn't answer" --you raised them, as if you understood Calvinism. You do not.

Meaning no offense (and recognizing the loaded opening that presents), I understand Calvinism a lot better than Calvinists do.

You want Calvinism to say it is all 'automatic'. The fact that God predestines all things, even causes all things,

Wait -- does God cause SIN? Absolutely not! Remember, Jesus got rip-roaring-furious at essentially that accusation, Matt12:25-30. God can have no complicity in sin, else His house is divided --- it's not divided, Mark.

...does not mean we do not also cause those things related to ourselves! Why can it not be both?

What's your take on Acts4:27-28? Did God actually write sin into their hearts?

Do you, as even some Atheists do,

There is no such thing as an Atheist. Do you know any? It's terribly fun asking them the "five questions that TV preacher Adrian Rogers asked". All they can do is frown and say, "...uhmmmm..."

admit that we are subject to natural causes? That is to say, no matter our austerity and willpower, we always do what we want to do, and THAT is caused by many things from outside ourselves.

There is a sub-doctrine, "Compatibilism", that seeks to disassociate God from the sin He ultimately causes; to essentially provide Him with Teflon gloves (to keep His hands clean)...

Compatibilism says essentially that men have free will, but ONLY will to follow sin if left unregenerated (which violates Lk8:13); and if sovereignly monergistically regenerated they ONLY will to believe and follow Jesus. (Monergism, the foundation of all Calvinism views, is foundationally refuted in Deut30:12, note the connection between Deut30:11-20 and Rom10:6-10...)

Or are you going to tell me that somehow you are the exception that doesn't always do what you want, if even for that very instant of choosing?

Tell me if you will, the Greatest Commandment is "to love God" (Matt22:37); can an unregenerated person love God?

If you admit that things from outside yourself cause you to in the end choose as you do, then what difference does it make to place God as logical first in the line of causation?

The issue is, "are we free moral agents?". What does 1Cor13:5 mean to you? God is love (1Jn4:16), and love cannot zeteo-demand its own way (1Cor13:5). If God is "causal" in deciding who loves Him back or not, how is that not "demanding-His-own-way"?

(And I really look forward to your thoughts on Deut30 with Rom10 --- the "word-of-faith", which Paul says is the SAME word-of-faith with Jesus, is IN the hearts and mouths of those who can confess believe and be saved (Rom10:9-10), and it is in the hearts and mouths of those who can turn away disobey and perish (Deut30:17-18). What does Deut30:19-20 say about God's approach?)

 

[Bobber]

You want Calvinism to say it is all 'automatic'. The fact that God predestines all things, even causes all things, does not mean we do not also cause those things related to ourselves! Why can it not be both?

You say that Mark but let's be sincere. There's nothing in the general consciousness of MAN which could EVER side in with that sense of justice calling such fair or even reasonable. It'd be like a hypnotists putting someone under hypnosis prescribing and directing their actions by force and then you lay it upon the one doing the actions that they're responsible. God and Jesus are LOVING. Such would be an unlovely act and Jesus said when you've seen me you've seen the Father. John 14:9 And Jesus wept over those who would not repent. Must mean he wanted them to. Luke 19: 41

 

[renniks]

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.

Says the Bible nowhere.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think you need to consider though that even Jesus let people know not to think that God is so far different then how humans normally think about LOVE. He appealed to their thinking that if you then being evil know how to give or do good things for your children how much more (who is more loving than any human can be) will how much more will the Father who is from Heaven give the Holy Spirit to those asking Him" Luke 11:13 (and I think it's clear you could say other good things as well)

We also actually see Abraham in talking to the Lord said, "Be it far from you. Will not the judge of all the Earth do right?" Gen 18:25 Sure he will but my point is God didn't say to him you could never have a clue in your spirit about how love and justice should be. In other words if something doesn't seem any way fair from the way men of the Earth understand justice you stand a good chance God might agree with them too.

Of course.