Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[Nang]

Faith in Christ is needed for salvation; not faith in the trinity.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Sound Christology is necessary for salvation. Sinners are saved according to the propositions (Truth) they believe, and one cannot comprehend the Deity of Christ without an understanding of the Triune Godhead.

 

[nikolai_42]

I don't deny the trinity. I can't justifiably say it is absolutely needed for salvation is all.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Maybe not explicitly saying so, but there are some scriptures that are very strong in making the case :

Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
2 John 1:9-11

The first verse of that passage is pretty strong. And Jesus makes the claim in John's gospel :

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
John 14:9-10

So the unity of the Father and the Son should be pretty much established (he who rejects either one has neither). And if one rejects the Spirit of God, Jesus is clear such a person doesn't have forgiveness (Mark 3:29). And since no one can say Jesus is Lord except by that Spirit (I Cor 12:3), the unity of the Godhead as distinct yet inextricably intertwined should be no question.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I don't deny the trinity. I can't justifiably say it is absolutely needed for salvation is all.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Then, why start a controversy over it?

 

[Derf]

I have heard people deal with this parable as though it is unquestionably real in all aspects of it. They even say there is a place called Abraham's Bosom. I have a hard time with that last part because it seems to me to be a reference to benefitting from the faith of Abraham in a time before Christ was revealed - not a specific place. Sort of in the sense of Luke 16:9 (though the reference to mammon there doesn't necessarily apply).

As to the parable as a whole, I've never seen (what I think is) sufficient evidence to categorically say it's a true story. It's always sounded to me like Jesus was saying something to the effect of Once upon a time, there was a man named Lazarus... - but given that He wasn't there to simply tell nice stories, it would have to be clear that even if there was never a man named Lazarus and a rich man in this situation, the prospect of having this experience is very real. [AI]ny similarities to persons living or dead...is purely coincidental[/I] (again...in effect). I have wondered if He was speaking directly to some tradition or belief of the Pharisees that we don't have any record of - along the lines of the Good Samaritan - but that is just speculation.

Fortunately, it doesn't change the message.

Maybe this is going more off-topic, but I think the Lazarus "parable" (Luke 16:19, where "Lazarus" WAS NOT sent back from the grave) was intentionally associated with the Lazarus "event" (John 11:38, where "Lazarus" WAS sent back from the grave) by Jesus' use of the name, and the similarities were not coincidental at all. Jesus pointed out in the "parable" that it wouldn't do any good to the rich man's 5 brothers if one was raised from the dead. But it seems as if He relented (more merciful than Abraham, perhaps) and actually presented the leaders ("rich man's brothers", perhaps) of the Jews with a Lazarus who rose from the dead. Of course, their response was to see how they could kill him again :doh: (Jn 12:10).

Not only that, but He also presented them with Himself, alive from the dead, so He gave them twice what the rich man asked for.

Regarding the belief of the Pharisees, there's a very interesting description of the afterlife sometimes attributed to Josephus (though other times to a Greek Christian, Hippolytus). If it was from Josephus, a case could be made that it was the prevailing understanding of the afterlife in his time, thus what could have been the belief of the Pharisees.

The description is totally in tune with Christ's Rich man/Lazarus story, and indeed recognizes "God the Word" as our judge.

Even if it's not the belief of the Pharisees in Josephus's time, it tells us of the early Greek Christians' belief in the afterlife, including the doctrine of eternal torment. These beliefs are also evident in the writings of some of the church fathers.

And if these are the beliefs of the early church fathers, then it tells us that Jesus' story wasn't considered to be just a parable, but also a vivid description of what they thought happens after death, including the part about Abraham's Bosom.

 

[Brother Ducky]

So far as Universalism goes, Christ paid the price for ALL the sins of humanity, however, not ALL will enter eternal life.

I can only assume your answer to the question "Is hell populated with sinless people?" is yes, although I have trouble understanding why you have problems with giving a direct answer to the question.

If that be so, I also assume your answer to the question of how a sinless person get to hell would be "because of unbelief."

Since you also failed to give a direct answer to AB asking whether unbelief is a sin, let's think a bit.

If unbelief is a sin, then would not the sin of unbelief be covered in the act of Christ paid the price for ALL the sins of humanity?

If you wish to argue that unbelief is the unpardonable sin, then 1] all the sins of humanity were not paid for, and 2] unbelief is not the unpardonable sin as defined by God.

If you wish to argue that unbelief is not a sin, then you think that God is just as arbitrary and capricious as you consider "the God of Calvinism." God could have as easily sent right-handed people to hell as those who do not believe.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Then, why start a controversy over it?

What?

I'm not starting a controversy.

Saying the trinity isn't needed for salvation is not starting a controversy.

I don't deny that the Christ spoke things of the Holy Spirit and not of himself. I deny neither the father nor the son.

What we can know of the Father is through the son and the spirit of GOD.

That agrees wholly with the scripture you posted, so where am I loosing you?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Bright Raven]

What?

I'm not starting a controversy.

Saying the trinity isn't needed for salvation is not starting a controversy.

I don't deny that the Christ spoke things of the Holy Spirit and not of himself. I deny neither the father nor the son.

What we can know of the Father is through the son and the spirit of GOD.

That agrees wholly with the scripture you posted, so where am I loosing you?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

How do you expect not to catch some flack If you talk negatively about the Trinity on a Trinitarian site?

 

[Rosenritter]

So, he not only doesn't believe in the Trinity nor can he comprehend eternal life and death. He seems really mixed-up.

I believe the poll that AMR is referring to asked two questions:

1. Is the Trinity Biblical?
2. Is the Trinity taught in the Bible?

If you can show where the Trinity is taught in the Bible, please demonstrate. For starters, you might want to show where the Trinity is defined in the Bible. The bible defines murder in the Bible, for example, as the unjust taking of another's life. Granted it doesn't teach murder, but it at least defines it, and murder is Biblical in that sense.

You'd be at a loss to define "the Trinity" from scripture without applying some sort of outside mechanism.

Given that Lon, after talking with me, says that I sound orthodox and am just as "Trinitarian" as he is, it seems that what you and AMR are doing is grasping at a red herring to escape when your doctrines of "Calvinism" and "Immortality Given to the Wicked" are threatened by scriptural challenges. If you were truly concerned you'd at least ask questions. Though I suspect your questions wouldn't be about what Jesus said or the rest of scripture said, but you wouldn't be just grasping at an escape.

On the other hand, maybe what you are looking for is whether someone will simply pronounce the shibboleth regardless of whether it's biblical or not.

Jdg 12:6 KJV
(6) Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him, and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand.

And if that is the case, your test is nothing more than if one will blindly recite what they've been taught to parrot. And that would make you GM pretty much the same as AMR. If you were born in a Calvinist family, GM, you'd be a Calvinist too, just like GM is, and you'd defend it the same way.

 

[Rosenritter]

I said, I believed the part where John sees the final judgment scene, in my OPINION, is in real time? (Speculation, theory, hypothesis.) Remember, with God, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as a day. (Paraphrased) We are enslaved by the clock, God isn't.

The final judgment scene occurs 1000 years after the resurrection of the dead, 1000 years after Christ's triumphant return upon earth where he destroys the armies of the Beast and the False Prophet. Sounds like you are suggesting time travel.

If you are suggesting time travel, that would imply that the future has already happened. If the future has already happened, how can we have free will? It's already happened. In that case you should agree with GMR, Calvinism can be true if we have no will, all events are already determined.

 

[Rosenritter]

The JUDGEMENT is taking place at the Throne of God, not somewhere on earth.

God's throne is wherever he decides to put his throne, isn't it? A throne is where God rules from. Revelation says that God rules from earth in those latter days. He descends to earth, the saints rule with Christ for 1000 years.

Mat 26:29 KJV
(29) But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.

Apparently the kingdom Jesus talked about has new wine, the drinkable type. Not just that, but Revelation says that the saints are on the earth too, the type of earth that can be encompassed with armies from the earth.

Rev 20:7-9 KJV
(7) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
(8) And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
(9) And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

So unless you are placing the camp of the saints in heaven.... and then you'd have to explain how the devil can get the nations of the earth to besiege heaven, that puts the saints on earth. And if the rest of Revelation is any measure, God is among them there. With the new wine he (JESUS) talked about.

Rev 21:3 KJV
(3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

All I'm doing is pointing you to the scripture here.

 

[Rosenritter]

Please tell me you have a point you're trying to make?

I'm asking why you would assume the devil would be immortal. The Old Testament describes the judgment and says that the devil shall be burned up by fire, the New Testament emphasizes that Christ only hath immortality. And when the Bible applies something "for ever" to a finite person, it doesn't mean the person never dies, and it doesn't mean that the state or action continues past their death.

Deu 15:17 KJV
(17) Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.


I think the point here is whether or not you will accept the scripture without placing your own interpretation on it that forces it to contradict other scripture.

Eze 28:13-19 KJV
(13) Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
(14) Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
(15) Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
(16) By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
(17) Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
(18) Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
(19) All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.



Grosnick, I've pulled that same scripture out of Baptist Statement of Faiths. It's agreed that God is addressing the devil. How many other created beings can be described as covering cherubs that were in the Garden of Eden that sinned and shall be cast down?

That same scripture says that the fire shall utterly destroy the devil, reducing him to ashes. Whether or not you can burn down devils or spirits now is not the question. If God can create, he can destroy, and he can make fire destroy man and devil alike. The question is whether he said he will do it or not. If God is omnipotent (and sovereign) this he can do.

Do you dispute this?

 

[Rosenritter]

Also; how is hell eternal is Satan himself is to be loosed?

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Where did you see someone say hell is eternal? Did you see someone here make that statement or are you thinking of a scripture?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Sound Christology is necessary for salvation. Sinners are saved according to the propositions (Truth) they believe, and one cannot comprehend the Deity of Christ without an understanding of the Triune Godhead.

I comprehend it just fine, I just don't see in scripture that considering Jesus the eternal fullness of the One Creator GOD is part of salvation, so much as understanding and/ or striving to follow the teachings, example, and self sacrifice of Jesus the Christ, the anointed of GOD, and the Way to GOD.

Technically I make no distinction between the Christ and GOD as they are one and the same known through the Holy Spirit of GOD.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

To deny the Trinity is to remain in ignorance. Do you really wish to remain in ignorance? Be honest now, if you do, just shout it out with booming pride!

Grosnick, please oblige. If the Trinity is biblical and/or taught in scripture, then please show me the passage (or passages) where it is 1) defined and 2) clearly taught. No outside sources please, no statement of faiths or confessions or formulations or clever one-liners or unsupported statements, because the question is whether it is:

1) biblical
2) taught in scripture

Thank you. If you know the answer please speak up, because I've asked others to and all that usually comes back is polytheistic heresy from James White.

 

[Rosenritter]

Just jumping in here...I've been following the back and forth between you and (mostly) GM and hoping he would post some other scriptures.

As to the idea of death being (in a spiritual sense) something that doesn't necessarily entail lack of consciousness, we have at least a couple of examples that come to my mind. The first one seems the most prominent one (and if I missed it, apologies for the repost) :

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
Luke 16:22-25

Jesus seems to be teaching here a very real place of torment that is almost unthinkable for its terror. But should we be surprised that the wrath of God is such an awful thing? It should, therefore, be no surprise that Jesus advised this :

Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
Matthew 18:8-9

Now, if dismemberment and what we would call torture are to be preferred to being cast into hell fire, then what does that say about the fire? Surely it denies annihilation. After all, if someone is hacked to bits here on earth, their extinction is a mercy in comparison to what they had to endure. More to the point, is the one who survives dismemberment in a better state than the one who doesn't? Certainly not categorically - but Jesus makes no bones about it.

And then we have this scripture in the OT that speaks to the spiritual nature of the fire :

The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
Isaiah 33:14

First of all, it should be noted that this is clearly a spiritual condition. A spiritual fire (though no less real). I would think that would be apparent on its face.

Now, if the fire were to simply be consuming in the way we want to think of it (immediately devouring and annihilating everything it touches) then why would this scripture speak of these hypocrites dwelling in everlasting burnings?

Finally, to underscore the fact that someone can be dead (yet alive), consider this :

Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.
These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
Jude 11-13

Ignoring for the moment the fact that they are not reserved to fire but dense darkness (eternally), note that they are twice dead - yet they live. And further, their fate is not annihilation but being swallowed up by darkness. They exist but they are put away somewhere devoid of any light.

Now, I suppose one could focus on the darkness vs. the fire, but note that in all the above instances, it is clear that while the fire rages and men are in it, the total destruction of awareness does not accompany said punishment.

It may not be nice, but it has to be reckoned with.

The parable of Lazarus and the rich man is a parable. While parable are allowed to contain true elements of reality, they are also permitted to contain fictional elements. The setting of the parable invokes the Greek Hades, which if it were to be interpreted at face value would contradict Christ in other places, not to mention many additional spots in the whole scripture. It's a useful story element for the purposes of the parable, but it isn't something that establishes reality.

Matthew 18 "If thy foot offend thee" doesn't establish "living while dead" - for it's considered much preferable to cut off one's foot or hand and live then to simply die. There's even a recent movie where a cyclist cuts through his own arm to escape alive.

Isaiah 33 speaks of "everlasting burnings" but that implies that the burnings last, which implies a permanent effect, not a never- completing process. If it said "everlasting burning" or "never-ending flame" that would imply something different. But look at that passage for a moment. It doesn't say that anyone dwells in everlasting burnings. It asks, "who can live with that?" It's a rhetorical question. The answer is pretty obvious. You don't. It destroys you. Forever dead. Why for ever? Because it lasts "for ever." It's not undone.

You mention Jude. One, saying someone is "twice dead" is just as well metaphor, like when you speak of a football team as being the "victor" before the game has concluded. If I were to say that "GMR is twice dead" I'd mean that he's going to die, and his stubborness is so fixed that God's going to kill him a second time in the judgment. It doesn't mean he is dead twice right now! Unless you mean he is a ghost or a zombie, and an unregenerate one at that?

There's no way to read that Jude passage without acknowledging the validity of metaphor.

But finally, read Jude again please. How do you figure that being swallowed by darkness is not an apt descriptive of total destruction? Have you ever heard the term "fade to black?" If so, did you have any doubt about what was meant? Have you ever fainted or passed out before? Was that akin to being swallowed by light or by darkness?

I noticed your signature with Tyndale. He had some interesting points to make on this subject. I believe he said that the teaching that men ascended to heaven when they died or that they were otherwise alive while dead was a pagan doctrine, a corruption of the pope based upon heathen philosophy, a denial of the resurrection of the dead, the true doctrine and hope of the Christian.

But you're one of the few that's attempted to answer those questions on scripture, thank you.

 

[Rosenritter]

Good post. I actually believe the Lazarus story is speaking of a REAL place that exists after the unsaved leave their physical body behind. Some may think it's a parable of sorts. I believe that Christ (after His death) went to Abrahams Bosom and brought those people up to Heaven with Him, leaving only that area where the unsaved are kept. That's my opinion. Those unsaved will be taken out of that area and brought to the judgment someday.

Do you believe in the resurrection of the dead? That Abraham will live?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Do you believe in the resurrection of the dead? That Abraham will live?

Abraham's soul will live forever. So will everybody else's soul live forever. In one of three places; Heaven, the new earth or the Lake of Fire.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You must remember Rose, the soul lives on forever, it cannot cease to exist. Even the fire of the Lake of Fire cannot destroy the Soul.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Hey, Rose, what church or denomination have you been affiliated with?

 

[Rosenritter]

I have heard people deal with this parable as though it is unquestionably real in all aspects of it. They even say there is a place called Abraham's Bosom. I have a hard time with that last part because it seems to me to be a reference to benefitting from the faith of Abraham in a time before Christ was revealed - not a specific place. Sort of in the sense of Luke 16:9 (though the reference to mammon there doesn't necessarily apply).

As to the parable as a whole, I've never seen (what I think is) sufficient evidence to categorically say it's a true story. It's always sounded to me like Jesus was saying something to the effect of Once upon a time, there was a man named Lazarus... - but given that He wasn't there to simply tell nice stories, it would have to be clear that even if there was never a man named Lazarus and a rich man in this situation, the prospect of having this experience is very real. [AI]ny similarities to persons living or dead...is purely coincidental[/I] (again...in effect). I have wondered if He was speaking directly to some tradition or belief of the Pharisees that we don't have any record of - along the lines of the Good Samaritan - but that is just speculation.

Fortunately, it doesn't change the message.

Nikolai, if the name of the beggar is Lazarus, does that name have any significance to you? Also, what is the name of the rich man?