Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Good morning to you, as well
nothing wrong with graphic expressions. it expresses truths to very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very stubburn brothers and sisters. They has no clue how useless their theology are.
Calvinist seldom talk about "Faith" they don't talk about it, because they don't have it.
Faith is a product of the Holy Spirit. Those that have faith are those that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is only given to those that hear and believe the Gospel. No Gospel, no faith, no faith, no Holy Spirit, no Holy Spirit, no salvation, no salvation, eternal damnation.
Faith is a product of the Holy Spirit. Those that have faith are those that are indwelt with the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is only given to those that hear and believe the Gospel. No Gospel, no faith, no faith, no Holy Spirit, no Holy Spirit, no salvation, no salvation, eternal damnation.
The only ones that were regenerated in the Bible were those that heard and believed the Gospel.
Tell us when and how you received the Holy Spirit?
popsthebuilder
New member
That's simply not true. My initial faith was not from the preaching of the gospel by any man. It was a free gift that I only needed to hope for and realize my own weakness in order to be given, and really, I'm not certain that I had to do that. How does one limit the capacities of GOD, justifiably?
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Amen Pate.
popsthebuilder
New member
To call the faith of any or the derived theology of said faith a thing of no worth seems terribly wrong to me. To strengthen ones faith you don't break it. How does it go? A cracked vessel is still good to hold some substance, but a broken vessel is of no worth. You cannot re-kiln a pot, and doing so will only weaken it.nothing wrong with graphic expressions. it expresses truths to very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very stubburn brothers and sisters. They has no clue how useless their theology are.
Arminianism and Calvinism are so similar you can't really say one is wholly wrong without incriminating the other.
Regardless saying that one's theology or understanding is useless is not what we are instructed to do, and though Jesus openly rebuked the Pharisees, we aren't pure and without sin, and surely not the high priest or the righteous judge.
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
@popsthebuilder
Given 1 Cor. 11:19 and 2 Cor. 10:5, I generally do not shirk from discussing division in doctrine with the man sincerely willing to engage at a substantive level in hopes we both be edified, and God glorified (1 Cor. 10:31), from the discussion. Unfortunately, what passes for "discussion" in most cases with the anti-Calvinist is but sweeping characterizations and opinions.
Arminianism in general, along with its cousin open theism, have but one primary view: anything that opposes Calvinism. Calvinists write the big books, the systematics, the lengthy exegetical commentaries, and so on. The heavy lifting as it were. Our confused anti-Calvinist brethren stand atop the efforts of their opponents, emptily proclaiming, "I disagree!" "Moral Monster!" "Servetus!" "Robots!". Very rarely is an actual argument put forth that another can take under consideration and perhaps learn from. In fact, it is the Calvinist who will actually dig into another's attempts at providing a response and actually try to glean something from it or demonstrate why what has been profferred suffers from inadequacy.
The anti-Calvinist generally prefers to adopt the Three Blind Mice stance, refusing to read beyond the first appearance of the word "Calvinist" or "Reformed". Even when the anti-Calvinist weighs in with something worthwhile, they soon wilt away as their views are examined, their logical conclusions demonstrated, and errors revealed. Under such careful scrutiny using the full counsel of Scripture, the anti-Calvinist retreats behind "Too many words!" "I did not say that!" "You assume what I did not!" "You are a fool!" "I won't respond until you apologize!" or whatever rationalization that will help them retain some modicum of face among the watching mobs rather than driving the topic being discussed to ground.
If we know one thing from Scripture it is that ignorance is not bliss, but the very stuff that sends a man off to his just desserts. The sad view, Just Me and My Bible, is not found in Scripture. Rather what we find is the writers of Scripture, speaking under the superintendence of God the Holy Spirit, admonishing the believer to confess that which he believes using the sound patterns of Scripture (Rom. 6:17; Rom. 15:5-6; Phil. 1:27; Eph. 4:14; 2 Tim 2:13). A man that cannot articulate a summary of what he holds dear and why he does so is a man that is in rebellion against the very Scripture they cling to.
Unfortunately, deep theological discourse is regularly shunned by the anti-Calvinist. If and when the anti-Calvinist actually does weigh in with something the Calvinist can actually work with, one generally finds it laden with lachrymose appeals to humanistic notions that seek to elevate man beyond his actual station in life, mere quotations of Scripture with some boldface or underlining presumed to substitute for exegesis, and a bold declaration of victory.
If my many years of experience and those of others in my wheelhouse is any indication, I have found very few Arminians willingly open to have their assumptions about Calvinism examined, and potentially corrected, by the Calvinist or the Reformed believer. On the other hand, you would have to look very hard to find the Reformed or Calvinist believer reticent to discuss that which he holds dear, unwilling to read in detail all that is offered up by the anti-Calvinist, and not open to correction offered up in honest and sincere dialog. In fact this very post is ample evidence of what I am speaking about. Few are the persons who will avail themselves of its full content and take it all into consideration. Many just prefer a Dominoe's Pizza approach to weighty matters, "thirty minutes or its free", unwilling to dig deeper.
AMR
They both cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense. This is indisputable, for they are quite immiscible. Thanks be to God that from the division between the two views, the truth emerges (1 Cor. 11:19).
Given 1 Cor. 11:19 and 2 Cor. 10:5, I generally do not shirk from discussing division in doctrine with the man sincerely willing to engage at a substantive level in hopes we both be edified, and God glorified (1 Cor. 10:31), from the discussion. Unfortunately, what passes for "discussion" in most cases with the anti-Calvinist is but sweeping characterizations and opinions.
Arminianism in general, along with its cousin open theism, have but one primary view: anything that opposes Calvinism. Calvinists write the big books, the systematics, the lengthy exegetical commentaries, and so on. The heavy lifting as it were. Our confused anti-Calvinist brethren stand atop the efforts of their opponents, emptily proclaiming, "I disagree!" "Moral Monster!" "Servetus!" "Robots!". Very rarely is an actual argument put forth that another can take under consideration and perhaps learn from. In fact, it is the Calvinist who will actually dig into another's attempts at providing a response and actually try to glean something from it or demonstrate why what has been profferred suffers from inadequacy.
The anti-Calvinist generally prefers to adopt the Three Blind Mice stance, refusing to read beyond the first appearance of the word "Calvinist" or "Reformed". Even when the anti-Calvinist weighs in with something worthwhile, they soon wilt away as their views are examined, their logical conclusions demonstrated, and errors revealed. Under such careful scrutiny using the full counsel of Scripture, the anti-Calvinist retreats behind "Too many words!" "I did not say that!" "You assume what I did not!" "You are a fool!" "I won't respond until you apologize!" or whatever rationalization that will help them retain some modicum of face among the watching mobs rather than driving the topic being discussed to ground.
If we know one thing from Scripture it is that ignorance is not bliss, but the very stuff that sends a man off to his just desserts. The sad view, Just Me and My Bible, is not found in Scripture. Rather what we find is the writers of Scripture, speaking under the superintendence of God the Holy Spirit, admonishing the believer to confess that which he believes using the sound patterns of Scripture (Rom. 6:17; Rom. 15:5-6; Phil. 1:27; Eph. 4:14; 2 Tim 2:13). A man that cannot articulate a summary of what he holds dear and why he does so is a man that is in rebellion against the very Scripture they cling to.
Unfortunately, deep theological discourse is regularly shunned by the anti-Calvinist. If and when the anti-Calvinist actually does weigh in with something the Calvinist can actually work with, one generally finds it laden with lachrymose appeals to humanistic notions that seek to elevate man beyond his actual station in life, mere quotations of Scripture with some boldface or underlining presumed to substitute for exegesis, and a bold declaration of victory.
If my many years of experience and those of others in my wheelhouse is any indication, I have found very few Arminians willingly open to have their assumptions about Calvinism examined, and potentially corrected, by the Calvinist or the Reformed believer. On the other hand, you would have to look very hard to find the Reformed or Calvinist believer reticent to discuss that which he holds dear, unwilling to read in detail all that is offered up by the anti-Calvinist, and not open to correction offered up in honest and sincere dialog. In fact this very post is ample evidence of what I am speaking about. Few are the persons who will avail themselves of its full content and take it all into consideration. Many just prefer a Dominoe's Pizza approach to weighty matters, "thirty minutes or its free", unwilling to dig deeper.
AMR
Last edited:
Once false doctrine has been uncovered why beat a dead horse? Calvinism is filled to the brim with false doctrine. It teaches/preaches "Another gospel." It worships a god that was created by people like John Calvin and his ilk. I believe it best to focus on the true Gospel and the true God of the Bible. However, we must also call attention to false religions, philosophies, and cults.
popsthebuilder
New member
Presumably good response. I will look into the scripture and compare it to your words and contexts when I have more time.
Peace
Just curious; do you hold universal reconciliation dear, and if not, is it not proclaimed in scripture ultimately?
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
Ask Mr. Religion,
I don't generally take scripture out of context and also usually have at least a decent grasp of the message at hand but cannot understand why you referenced
1 Corinthians: 11. 9. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Though the scripture you listed does explain the nature of the true believer to some extent, surely all arminianists aren't wholly bereft of knowledge and understanding of their own doctrine. And though I see your point about leading those in error to things pleasing to GOD, I can't agree that arminianism is utter error based on your statements. Can't some be elect and others be followers of the elect? To me elect is synonymous with shepard and the masses are the sheep.
What am I missing exactly that make the two not work together in theory? Does arminianism sent that there are any elect whatsoever?
I agree with what you said about honest inquiry about ones own stance and it's relation to others; if one is haphazard about understanding and explaining and justifying their faith to others then they most likely don't take it too seriously. In other words; they don't actually believe, but are going through the motions.
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
I don't generally take scripture out of context and also usually have at least a decent grasp of the message at hand but cannot understand why you referenced
1 Corinthians: 11. 9. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Though the scripture you listed does explain the nature of the true believer to some extent, surely all arminianists aren't wholly bereft of knowledge and understanding of their own doctrine. And though I see your point about leading those in error to things pleasing to GOD, I can't agree that arminianism is utter error based on your statements. Can't some be elect and others be followers of the elect? To me elect is synonymous with shepard and the masses are the sheep.
What am I missing exactly that make the two not work together in theory? Does arminianism sent that there are any elect whatsoever?
I agree with what you said about honest inquiry about ones own stance and it's relation to others; if one is haphazard about understanding and explaining and justifying their faith to others then they most likely don't take it too seriously. In other words; they don't actually believe, but are going through the motions.
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Not quite sure of the context you are employing. Reconciliation between two parties in the context of forgiveness?
Forgiveness focuses on the offense, whereas reconciliation focuses on the relationship. Forgiveness requires no relationship. However, reconciliation requires a relationship in which two people, in agreement, are walking together toward the same goal. "Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so?" (Amos 3:3)
* Forgiveness can take place with only one person. —Reconciliation requires at least two persons.
* Forgiveness is directed one-way. —Reconciliation is reciprocal... occurring two-ways.
* Forgiveness is a decision to release the offender. —Reconciliation is the effort to rejoin the offender.
* Forgiveness involves a change in thinking about the offender. —Reconciliation involves a change in behavior by the offender.
* Forgiveness is a free gift to the one who has broken trust. —Reconciliation is a restored relationship based on restored trust.
* Forgiveness is extended even if it is never, ever earned. —Reconciliation is offered to the offender because it has been earned.
* Forgiveness is unconditional, regardless of a lack of repentance. —Reconciliation is conditional based on repentance.
Reconciliation is not always mandated.
* God's desire for His chosen ones is reconciliation. Second Corinthians 5:18 says, "God... reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation." Calling sinners to repentance, not condemnation, is the sine qua non of the ministry of reconciliation...the proclamation of the work of Our Lord that reconciles sinners to God.
* Sometimes encouraging the restoration of a relationship between two persons is not at all wise, as with a partner in adultery or with a rapist. First Corinthians 15:33 says, "Do not be misled: 'Bad company corrupts good character.' " For instance, if a husband's anger is out of control and he refuses to get help for his violent temper, the wife needs to take this Scripture to heart and move out of harm's way until counseling and lasting changes are a part of his lifestyle.
"Do not make friends with a hot-tempered man, do not associate with one easily angered." (Proverbs 22:24)
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You were too quick to reply.
I was just adding a post to note that citation should be 1 Cor. 11:19. I have corrected my original post. My apologies.Nothing I have written implies "all" with respect to the anti-Calvinist. I took great pains to make sure I qualified my statements along those lines. Similarly, I also did not write anything that accords with your "utter error" summary. I maintained in my post that the two systems in question cannot be homogenized due to their differences. They both cannot be correct views at the same time and in the same situation. I am on record in numerous posts as considering Arminians brothers in the Lord until it can be demonstrated otherwise. Nevertheless, I consider them confused brothers, but brothers nonetheless. At the same time we ought to make the distinction between different kinds of errorists, as made in Jude 22-23. Some require compassion, and some require fear. Sadly, most of those in the anti-Calvinist category posting herein do not extend me the same consideration.
I do not know what you mean by stating some can be elect and others followers of the elect. Among the lost there are only two categories: the unregenerated elect and the reprobate. You will need to expand your statement before I can respond with anything more reasonable.
I think they may indeed believe. Unfortunately they just do not believe what they think they believe. One need only examine one's private prayer life to see how their prayers actually reveal what they truly believe versus what they say they believe. Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
The intellectually lazy man with unexamined assumptions is afloat at sea, borne about by every wind of doctrine that comes their way.
AMR
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
I think Arminianism is death to Christianity. RC Sproul
Don’t misunderstand, the Calvinist doctrine is not that God drags us kicking and screaming into His Kingdom. We don’t want to be there, but He’s going to drag us anyway. Rather, the doctrine is that God changes us so that we do want, we will necessarily want. The scary part is that God teaches that God doesn’t bless everyone in the same way. He gives new life to whom He will. He tells us “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” Our calling is to recognize, by His grace, our need for His grace. In other words, at the end of the day, it’s not that Jesus changes some things, and I have to help, but rather, Jesus changes everything. found at http://rcsprouljr.com/blog/general/arminianism/
Show me where it says that God denies mercy to anyone who demonstrates repentance and forgiveness and who changes his ways. His "will have mercy on whom he wills" is used to justify extension of mercy. Even those that he "hardeneth" it does not imply that he "hardeneth" those who were repentant, and even you must admit that if God can "harden" someone then he can also "unharden" at the appropriate time. Show me where it says that God will "harden" someone for eternity.
Ezekiel 33:11-13 KJV
(11) Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?
(12) Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.
(13) When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.
God is not a Calvinist.
Break upon that dusty section of your Bible called the Old Testament and read the heart of our God. How can the Calvinist God tell the righteous "thou shalt live" and then that righteous person prove God wrong? That entire chapter of Ezekiel 33 is saying how God will judge us by our actions, and how that if we choose to turn one way or the other what matters is the ending thereof, not be beginning.
And certainly "decided before the beginning of the world" never even enters the equation.
Ezekiel 33:14-16 KJV
(14) Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;
(15) If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.
(16) None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.
GOD IS NOT A CALVINIST.
Last edited:
Rosenritter
New member
All mankind was predestined for eternal life. Calvinism creates its own perverted meaning of "predestined" and then applies that standard as a lens across the whole scripture with a classic cult-like quality. Sort of similar to how a Unitarian takes the words that Jesus was a man and applies their own definition of that phrase across the whole scripture with a cult-like quality.
Never mind the hundreds of passages that deny both Calvinism and Unitarianism. The process is much the same.
Rosenritter
New member
That's a classic example of circular reasoning.
IS IT NOT WRITTEN, that God will have mercy upon whom he wills to have mercy, and that's none of your business if he chooses to give the same reward to all, even those that come in the last hour? Want chapter and verses?
Textbook posts are difficult to digest. It's far better to stick to a liquid diet containing all the nutrients, yet, less of the solid masses of uncertainty and inconsistency.
Rosenritter
New member
Mark 10:21-24 KJV
(21) Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
(22) And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
(23) And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!
(24) And the disciples were astonished at his words. But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God!
AMR, please clarify:
1) Jesus and the Holy Spirit wanted different things, or
2) Jesus and the Holy Spirit were not "drawing" this person when he was told to sell what he had and follow Christ.
3) Jesus didn't really want this person to follow him anyway, it was a mere show of trickery like the rest of the Bible that tells us that man has choices and that God wants people to love him but they will not