Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[Grosnick Marowbe]

People have stated such here, not word for word I guess, yet still...

Your posts have been quite explanatory.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Yeah, they explain that he/she doesn't know what they're talking about.

 

[beloved57]

How does one profess that Jesus is Lord and then deny that he is the savior of the world? 1 John 2:2.

How does one profess that Jesus is Lord and then deny that he has atoned for everyones sins? Hebrews 2:9.

If Jesus has not defeated sin, death and the devil, then Jesus is not Lord and should be removed from his position at the right hand of God, Hebrews 1:3.

If Jesus is Lord, then salvation can only be by grace through faith. Ephesians 2:8.

How does one confess Jesus is Lord when they teach folk He died for still wind up lost in hell for the very sins He died for ?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The Roman Catholic based Calvanist can not converse with anyone who uses plain scripture.

Rom 5:17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.
Rom 5:19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Rom 5:20 Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
Rom 5:21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

1Co 15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.




LA

To my knowledge, Catholics aren't usually known to be Calvinists.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Do you have a point to make or is it just some random verses you decided to post?

The point is that you said the soul can not be destroyed even in hell.

The Bible says you lied.(again)

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Notice the lack of scriptural support for anything just said there. Given that in scripture Trinity is neither mentioned by name, let alone defined, further let alone clearly taught, AMR would self-righteously declare Pops as damned for insisting on scripture. Whereas Jesus said "sell all that you have and follow me" to inherit eternal life, and Peter says "repent and believe the gospel and you shall be saved" AMR seems to think that he needs to add something more.

So much like the Pharisees, always trying to add on more than what God asked for. Now AMR could be honest, and say what he believes the Trinity to be, and ask for confirmation on specific points and reference them from scripture, but he wouldn't have any of that.

You seem to be something of a "Problem Child." Get my drift?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You're already a stack of questions behind that you didn't answer last night. You just continued with unsupported one-liners.

Most of your questions are child-like. How old are you anyway?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

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.

I can almost excuse you for the ignorance that you display. In fact, I think I will. After all, you're a Lutheran. Lutherans allow women Ministers to rule over their church. That's against Paul's admonition in the Bible.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The point is that you said the soul can not be destroyed even in hell.

The Bible says you lied.(again)

So, you believe that a soul can be utterly destroyed, huh? Back up your assertion with Scripture. Also, stay off of that LA Freeway, it's congested with false doctrine and confusion.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why not acquire some knowledge about what I actually believe? Per the WCF...

• . Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, (Luke 18:15-16, Acts 2:38-39, John 3:3, 5, 1 John 5:12, Rom. 8:9) who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth: (John 3:8) so also are all other elect persons who are uncapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word (1 John 5:12, Acts 4:12).

As one commentator on this section of the WCF writes:

We can assert that there are elect infants who die in infancy. We don't know how many or how few. We can also assert that believers have special warrant to hope that their infants who die in infancy are such (Luke 18:15,16, II Sam. 12:23, Acts 2:38,39, Ezek. 16:20,21). Beyond this we may not go. We may legitimately hope, but we may not demand.

I already have, you're not saying anything that's new or news to me at all here. Obviously per your belief system, anyone deemed elect from fetus to pensioner is 'saved'. It stands to reason that all of the children who die, from the aborted, misscarriages, through to conception, cot deaths, infancy are hardly likely to all be part of the elect. If that were the case it's better that nobody is actually born or reaches adulthood. Oh, and why the emphasis on the hope of believers' babies being more likely to inform such? Just bad luck on the ones who are born to atheists on a run down council estate?

lain:

Outside of Reformed circles, there are Calvinists, especially those using the Spurgeon revision to the LBCF, that will say that all infants that die are on their way to heaven.

There's plenty who don't so the WCF doesn't answer everything does it? What do you think AMR? What's your personal view on the matter? Is there a God up there who creates life, then by his own decree has it destroyed before birth and sent to 'hell'? Or are they the fortunate ones with a straight pass to Heaven?

As to labeling one "a heretic" that is a matter for the church to decide after a trial and a conviction. When the church or a church convocation has done so the definition of heresy is usually along the lines of gross and dangerous errors voluntarily held (Titus 3:11), and factiously maintained (<

—important!) by some person or persons within the visible church (acts 20:30), in opposition to some chief or substantial truths grounded upon and drawn from the Holy Scripture.

Heresy, as distinguished from mere heterodoxy, implies a palpable and decided difference in degree both with respect to the magnitude and prominence of the error, and the cogency of the evidence by which its erroneous character can be established.

This why the orthodox Christian believer may rightly declare open theism as heresy, for the church has so stated. It is but an included view of Socianism, declared heresy in in the 16th century. As I have often noted one wrong view leads to many others. Socinus also denied the triunity of God, the deity of Christ, and a substitutionary atonement, among other essentials of the faith. This theological tradition was later manifest as Unitarianism. On God’s omniscience Socinus reasoned, “Since, then, there is not reason, no passage of Scripture, from which it can be clearly gathered that God knew all things which happened before they happened, we must conclude that we are by no means to assent such a foreknowledge of God….” Open theists should be declaring Socinus the father of open theism! His view also substantiates my claim that there is nothing new under the sun, despite the open theist's frequent claim of a new view of God.

- Reference: Praelectionis Theologicae 11 (1627); 38, as quoted by Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology (reprint; Phillipsburg, NJ.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992)1:208 quoted by Richard L. Mayhue, “The Impossibility of God of the Possible.” The Master’s Seminary Journal 12, no. 2 (Fall, 2001). See also, Beyond the Bounds, Piper, et al. available as a free download here.
​

Sounds like a lot of pompous human rhetoric to be quite honest. The fact remains that heresy is spewed out as accusation by all sorts who hold allegiances to churches of varying denoms as evidenced on here.

They may be or the may not be reprobate. Who can know but God? Think God's thoughts after Him. This does not mean we are to assume our thoughts are univocally God's thoughts, going off and declaring we know all God's thoughts as God knows them. As I have advised you, share the Good News with them often, teach them, train them, and fervently pray for them that it be the will of God to bring them to the faith. If they have yet to profess the faith and are unregenerated elect, these analogical "coals of fire" of the Good News will shame and convict them, being but one of the many means by which God is glorified as they are brought into the Kingdom. If they are among the reprobate then these same "coals of fire" of the Good News will only serve to harden them further thereby giving manifest evidence of God's decision to leave them in their state of sin from birth, thereby glorifying God.

I get it, AB. Alas, you still do not. Sigh.

AMR

See, this is why I say you display no empathy or compassion on here. Just say there were a loving (non Calvinist) mother and father of four children who'd just read this paragraph of yours. What "good news" and advice have you just offered them AMR? To teach the bible to them and hope they're part of the 'elect', and if not then what, take solitude in the notion that their being 'vessels of wrath' or some such brings glory to God?! Does it even remotely compute for you that any loving parent would find your comments sickeningly abhorrent? A loving parent nurtures and cares for their child, they protect them from harm, discipline them for their own benefit and school them for the path of adulthood. They tend to them when sick and look out for their welfare and wellbeing.

They would find the idea of a supposedly loving God creating their loved ones just to lob in 'hell' for eternity completely...well actually, what do you suppose they'd think of it AMR? Ya think they'd warm to the notion that their kids coulda been destined to a fiery fate? Maybe you could *sigh* at them and tell them that they 'just don't get it' eh? Whatever you do don't offer 'counsel' to a grieving parent for Pete's sake...

You're a doctrinal robot AMR. You've made Calvinism and academics your 'god' and lost sight of basic human compassion in the process. You really are like one of those teachers of the law, a clanging cymbal.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

The souls of man will last through eternity. How else could someone inherit the Heavenly kingdom of God after they die? Also, those who die without Christ will spend eternity in the "Lake of Fire." (Hell) That's one of the fundamentals of the Christian faith, so how could it be a lie, LA?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

God created the Heavens and the earth. He also created "The Lake of Fire." There are people who have rejected the Grace of God, who will be cast into the Lake of Fire for eternity. There is no question of that. Souls do not die. When a Christian dies, they go to be with the Lord. When an unsaved person dies, there's no reason to believe they lose their Consciousness of being. Unless, you believe in "Soul Sleep." That is a belief that states an unsaved person goes to sleep until the judgment. It's not a Biblical belief although. So, since the unsaved have total consciousness, they must be somewhere? That's why the so-called parable of the rich man and Lazarus might not be a parable but an actual, interim place of confinement for the damned.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You called me a liar LA, however, you've yet to prove it with Scripture? Talk is cheap LA.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

LA stated this: "The point is that you said the soul can not be destroyed even in hell. The Bible says you lied. (again)"

Where does the Bible say that, LA?

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

I guess LA is good at calling names, however, not so good at providing proof.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Once more, you failed LA. Somehow, I'm not surprised.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Better luck next time LA.

 

[Arthur Brain]

When faced with a small animal in abject agony my heart leaps out to it and wants to help it out of its pain. Have you ever heard a dog scream that gets caught in barbed wire?

My next door neighbour and very good friend passed away recently and I adopted her cat (that she'd actually adopted herself) which unfortunately has a bit of a habit of catching birds on occasion. A few weeks ago I heard some squawking and he'd dragged a starling into the house. It was bedraggled but at first I thought it would be okay until I saw one of it's legs and the damage to one of its wings. I had to kill it else leave it helpless and at the 'mercy' of any other predator outside. The act of killing a creature is something I'm loathe to do at the best of times but this time it didn't go as smoothly as I'd hoped and its death throes will live with me for a long time. I felt bloody awful afterwards...

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I already have, you're not saying anything that's new or news to me at all here. Obviously per your belief system, anyone deemed elect from fetus to pensioner is 'saved'. It stands to reason that all of the children who die, from the aborted, misscarriages, through to conception, cot deaths, infancy are hardly likely to form part of the elect. If that were the case it's better that nobody is actually born or reaches adulthood.

...There's plenty who don't so the WCF doesn't answer everything does it? What do you think AMR? What's your personal view on the matter?

...Sounds like a lot of pompous human rhetoric to be quite honest.

Read my response again: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=4815036#post4815036

It maintains quite clearly that only elect infants dying in infancy are saved. It does not maintain that all infants that die are elect. Further offered is that we may hope, but never demand, that the children of believers who die are among the elect. Beyond that we should no go. That is clearly my position. Going beyond that is to open the door to all manner of flights of fanciful thinking, including arguing for wholesale abortion to guarantee passage to glory, or denying God's His providential control of His creation.

You may take the teachings of Scripture summarized in the WCF as pompous rhetoric, but until you mount an argument similar to that provided in the exposition of these summaries from the WCF, there really is nothing to move the discussion forward. Your disdain for one of the greatest summaries of the Christian faith is duly noted.

See, this is why I say you display no empathy or compassion on here. Just say there were a loving (non Calvinist) mother and father of four children who'd just read this paragraph of yours. What "good news" and advice have you just offered them AMR?

Have I not provided the hope for children of believers to believe that their dead children are among the elect? I assume you mean the non-Calvinist parents are believers. Whether Calvinist or not, the hope remains a warrant from Scripture for Christian parents. I have counseled believers on more occasions than I preferred on this very matter. I cannot say much to the non-believing parent, other than to say if their children are among the elect, they will not perish everlastingly. For that matter, one wonders why non-believers would be seeking my counsel in the first place about their children's eternal destiny, for that is now sealed in their death, and in God's hands alone. We know God will do right. By His right. Not by what we think His right ought to be.

They would find the idea of a supposedly loving God creating their loved ones just to lob in 'hell' for eternity completely...well actually, what do you suppose they'd think of it AMR? Ya think they'd warm to the notion that their kids coulda been destined to a fiery fate? Maybe you could *sigh* at them and tell them that they 'just don't get it' eh?

I am not going to sink into a discussion in some puerile vernacular dripping with sarcasm about sacred matters. You can leave the lob, coulda, etc. for a discussion with the less mature and infelicitous.

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

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?

I pretty much dispute anything you have to say. Most of the time you don't even make sense. The rest of the time you're in error.

 

[Bright Raven]

Read my response again: http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?p=4815036#post4815036

It maintains quite clearly that only elect infants dying in infancy are saved. It does not that all infants that die are elect. Further offered is that we may hope, but never demand, that the children of believers who die are among the elect. Beyond that we should no go. That is clearly my position. Going beyond that is to open the door to all manner of flights of fanciful thinking, including arguing for wholesale abortion to guarantee passage to glory, or denying God's His providential control of His creation.

You may take the teachings of Scripture summarized in the WCF as pompous rhetoric, but until you mount an argument similar to that provided in the exposition of these summaries from the WCF, there really is nothing to move the discussion forward. Your disdain for one of the greatest summaries of the Christian faith is duly noted.


Have I not provided the hope for children of believers to believe that their dead children are among the elect? I assume you mean the non-Calvinist parents are believers. Whether Calvinist or not, the hope remains a warrant from Scripture for Christian parents. I have counseled believers on more occasions than I preferred on this very matter. I cannot say much to the non-believing parent, other than to say if their children are among the elect, they will not perish everlastingly. For that matter, one wonders why non-believers would be seeking my counsel in the first place about their children's eternal destiny, for that is now sealed in their death, and in God's hands alone. We know God will do right. By His right. Not by what we think His right ought to be.


I am not going to sink into a discussion in some puerile vernacular dripping with sarcasm about sacred matters. You can leave the lob, coulda, etc. for a discussion with the less mature and infelicitous.

AMR

Do you believe that infants that have not reached an age of accountability are lost