Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[Crucible]

Many religious people think that God speaks to them in an audible voice.

Tell that to all those 'spiritual' *not religious* Charismatics :AMR:

No religion = Breeding ground for heresy ~Lack of religion caused the Jonestown massacre~

Religion is simply a collection of doctrine and practice which deters such. There's a reason why all those *non religious* Christians have a theological spectrum of nature's entire color palette.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Many religious people think that God speaks to them in an audible voice.

Religious isn't the only tag to be placed on those types.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Well, do you remember me saying I was an atheist for the majority of my life? Basically I went from adamant atheist to devout believer in a span of instantly. This wasn't my own doing but the grace and will of GOD.

I could go into detail, but I'm not certain this is the place. If I can locate a copy I sent to someone else then I can on it to you if you like.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Sure, why not.

 

[Robert Pate]

Religious isn't the only tag to be placed on those types.

How many times have we heard, "The devil told me to do it".

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

:doh:
I'm done here.

Bye.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

How many times have we heard, "The devil told me to do it".

Yeah, there are "people" who have stated that.

 

[Crucible]

It's hilarious how it was just stated, plain as day, that we 'are ALL predestined'- but Calvinism is wrong because *blank* :chuckle:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Thought you left us Cruc? What gives?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

It's hilarious how it was just stated, plain as day, that we 'are ALL predestined'- but Calvinism is wrong because *blank* :chuckle:

Wrong thread Cruc.

 

[Robert Pate]

It's hilarious how it was just stated, plain as day, that we 'are ALL predestined'- but Calvinism is wrong because *blank* :chuckle:

What about when Jesus said, "I came not to judge the world, BUT TO SAVE THE WORLD?" John 12:47.

Jesus victoriously reconciles the world to God, 2 Corinthians 5:19, "So that WHOSOEVER that shall call on the name of the Lord can be saved" Romans 10:13.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

What about when Jesus said, "I came not to judge the world, BUT TO SAVE THE WORLD?" John 12:47.

Jesus victoriously reconciles the world to God, 2 Corinthians 5:19, "So that WHOSOEVER that shall call on the name of the Lord can be saved" Romans 10:13.

Good post Pate.

 

[Angel4Truth]

This seems to be the crux of our discussion to me. Per your view, those so drawn may refuse this "drawing", yet Scripture's treatment of the word is more than mere wooing that may be ineffectual. If your view is correct, then God the Holy Spirit calls (your "prompts") yet His calling is not effectual in many cases because you aver that love cannot be compelled (to which I agree). This compelling I assume you assign to the Calvinist view, but this would be incorrect. The Calvinist view is the efficacious calling of God's children removes their hearts of stone and consequently they actually decide of their own regenerated free will to believe. No violence is done to their will, rather their marred, fallen, will is now restored to that which they possessed when man was first created before Adam's fall...a will inclined always for the good. The regenerated (born again) are not "forced" to believe, rather following re-birth they inevitably want and will believe, for this belief the first fruits of their regeneration. This is the Reformed/Calvinistic view.

AMR

Love cannot be compelled, or it isnt love. Love has nothing to do with seeking ones own, which is what it would be if it were compelled.

You contradict yourself also, by saying that the calvinist view is free but also compelled. If you cannot reject, you cannot be free to believe.

2 Thessalonians 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

Proverbs 1:29 Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD. 30 "They would not accept my counsel, They spurned all my reproof. 31" So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way And be satiated with their own devices.…

 

[Robert Pate]

2 Thessalonians 2:10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

Proverbs 1:29 Because they hated knowledge And did not choose the fear of the LORD. 30 "They would not accept my counsel, They spurned all my reproof. 31" So they shall eat of the fruit of their own way And be satiated with their own devices.…

Sounds like "FREE WILL" to me.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You contradict yourself also, by saying that the calvinist view is free but also compelled. If you cannot reject, you cannot be free to believe.

So one's will is bereft of motives or inclinations such that one always possesses the ability to do otherwise than what one actually does?

Your view implies the power of contrary choice means that it is always within the ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. Correct? If we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in this libertarian free will sense of yours) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? If I ask you whether you could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, you would hopefully answer ‘no’.

In other words, I assume you would affirm it is not within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sin’s bondage.

Accordingly, are you not forced to admit that the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man is hostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel. Then we all agree, that left to himself, man has no libertarian free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise. So it ends up that you must believe that, in his natural state, man’s will is only free in the compatibilist sense, since, apart from the Spirit, man can only choose according to the desires (love of darkness) of his fallen nature. This must be true, unless you can offer another explanation of why one can believe apart from the Holy Spirit.

Is there a single passage from Scripture, like that of Lydia in Acts 16:14 where it plainly says that God opened her heart to respond, not so that she would hopefully respond, when such language as God acting to change hearts is used when people actually refused (2 Chronicles 30:11-12; John 6:37; 65)?

Do we not instead find that when God calls a person or opens a heart to respond, the matter is always settled Biblically? Those so called will respond positively. Galatians 1:15 asserts that Paul was set apart and called by grace before birth. Can such a call be thwarted? Jesus call to Paul on the Damascus road was certain, not merely a possibility. When a person hears a preacher call for their repentance they can certainly resist that call because they have an uncircumcised heart. But if God gives an inner call no one resists (Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 1:23-24; Rom 8:30) but rather, gladly assents to the gospel. The Biblical evidence for certainty in calling, then, is clearly on the side of the compatibilist in all cases where the Bible reveals God’s intent. There is not a single Scripture that says anything about the freedom to choose either contrary or apart from our desires, e.g. John 3:19.

To be consistent with your view, you must assert that one rejected Christ, not necessarily because he hated him, or on the other hand did not choose Him because he had affection for Him, but rather only because he chose to, which is contrary to everything we know of Scripture. Surely we all know that the will ultimately chooses from the desires and affections of the person. There is simply nothing that resembles causeless choice. In fact, having no intents or motives behind one's actions usually underlies an insanity defense in the courtroom.

I think your idea that we cannot be compelled to love is out of accord with our own experience and the Bible. We fall in love. The word is apt from our own experience of not being in charge of the experience. We do not wake up one morning and decide to fall into love. Was Sampson's love of the Philistine woman not "from the Lord"? Was Moses incorrect in stating that the people's descendents would love the Lord your God (Deut. 30:6)? Was not the love of the Lord because the Lord caused them to do so? Does not the Lord make our love increase, per Paul in 1 Thess. 3:12? Are we really saying that we could love God without Him first causing us to love Him?

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Looks like you were just found guilty of giving an "Opinion" yourself.

On the contrary. I have not been posting in some dark corner. All is here for review and plainly attests to the fact that your claims of doing battle, fisticuffs, tooth and nail, are nothing more than dozens of posts of opinions versus what I have provided in response.

You apparently think hopping around and waving your arms about substitutes for actual direct engagement.

AMR

 

[patrick jane]

Can we really say that we are puppets?

 

[Angel4Truth]

So one's will is bereft of motives or inclinations such that one always possesses the ability to do otherwise than what one actually does?

Sorry, i dont understand your question.

Your view implies the power of contrary choice means that it is always within the ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. Correct?

False, not always. We have the ability once Gods Spirit has acted, not before. As ive stated numerous times, He must first draw us - in other words, convict us of sin and the need for a savior. Which we can then, receive or reject.

If we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely... snipped the rest of this false premise

I have stated no such thing at any time, this is a false premise, so the rest was snipped. I have maintained free will is limited - we must first be prompted/drawn by the Spirit ..

 

[patrick jane]

So one's will is bereft of motives or inclinations such that one always possesses the ability to do otherwise than what one actually does?

In most instances

Your view implies the power of contrary choice means that it is always within the ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. Correct? If we have the natural capacity to believe or reject the gospel freely (in this libertarian free will sense of yours) why is there the need for the Holy Spirit in salvation at all, especially when the gospel is preached? If I ask you whether you could come to faith in Christ apart from any work of the Spirit, like all Christians, you would hopefully answer ‘no’.

In your view, why is there a need for a saviour?

In other words, I assume you would affirm it is not within the [natural moral] ability of the human will to believe or reject the gospel. There is still the necessity of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is the sine qua non of the affections being set free from sin’s bondage.

Accordingly, are you not forced to admit that the possibility of the natural will exercising faith would be inconsistent with basic Christianity, since we all know that the natural man is hostile to God and will not willingly submit to the humbling terms of the gospel.

We all know? You underestimate the power of faith, imo.

Then we all agree,

We do?

that left to himself, man has no libertarian free will to choose any redemptive good, since his affections are entirely in bondage to sin (until Christ sets him free) and cannot choose otherwise. So it ends up that you must believe that, in his natural state, man’s will is only free in the compatibilist sense, since, apart from the Spirit, man can only choose according to the desires (love of darkness) of his fallen nature. This must be true, unless you can offer another explanation of why one can believe apart from the Holy Spirit.

It must be true?

Is there a single passage from Scripture, like that of Lydia in Acts 16:14 where it plainly says that God opened her heart to respond, not so that she would hopefully respond, when such language as God acting to change hearts is used when people actually refused (2 Chronicles 30:11-12; John 6:37; 65)?

Maybe not, but there is Romans 10:9-10 KJV - and Romans 10:17 KJV - and Romans 10:13 KJV -

Do we not instead find that when God calls a person or opens a heart to respond, the matter is always settled Biblically? Those so called will respond positively. Galatians 1:15 asserts that Paul was set apart and called by grace before birth. Can such a call be thwarted? Jesus call to Paul on the Damascus road was certain, not merely a possibility. When a person hears a preacher call for their repentance they can certainly resist that call because they have an uncircumcised heart.

Paul had faith and believed and trusted. Most people that go up for an alter call have things in their life that they want to change, many are depressed and dejected.

But if God gives an inner call no one resists (Acts 2:39; 1 Corinthians 1:23-24; Rom 8:30) but rather, gladly assents to the gospel. The Biblical evidence for certainty in calling, then, is clearly on the side of the compatibilist in all cases where the Bible reveals God’s intent. There is not a single Scripture that says anything about the freedom to choose either contrary or apart from our desires, e.g. John 3:19.

People make choices in everything they do everyday.

To be consistent with your view, you must assert that one rejected Christ, not necessarily because he hated him, or on the other hand did not choose Him because he had affection for Him, but rather only because he chose to.

People can choose.

which is contrary to everything we know of Scripture. Surely we all know that the will ultimately chooses from the desires and affections of the person. There is simply nothing that resembles causeless choice. In fact, having no intents or motives behind one's actions usually underlies an insanity defense in the courtroom.

I don't think anyone said otherwise.

I think your idea that we cannot be compelled to love is out of accord with our own experience and the Bible. We fall in love. The word is apt from our own experience of not being in charge of the experience. We do not wake up one morning and decide to fall into love. Was Sampson's love of the Philistine woman not "from the Lord"? Was Moses incorrect in stating that the people's descendents would love the Lord your God (Deut. 30:6)? Was not the love of the Lord because the Lord caused them to do so? Does not the Lord make our love increase, per Paul in 1 Thess. 3:12? Are we really saying that we could love God without Him first causing us to love Him?

AMR

I don't believe God forces us to do anything.

1 Timothy 2:4, 6 Titus 2:11 NIV - John 12:32 NIV -

 

[patrick jane]

According to Calvinism, NOBODY can hear the gospel for the very first time and believe it. God had to cause them to hear it and believe first.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Can we really say that we are puppets?

What? We aren't puppets at all. We have a choice, but it is much more involving than that.

As far as coming into faith or being given faith without hearing the gospel preached; I think one may need to be in a fallen, humbled, deprived, needy, state. In which case desperation can lead to genuine hope in GOD and admittance of powerlessness.

Conversely, I think a compassionate giving spirit can be a natural state, which, by the way is the GOD given state too.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk