Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Chatmaggot created it a long time ago.
I copied it from this thread:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?41922-Discussion-Enyart-vs-Ask-Mr-Religion-(One-on-One)

The post where the video first appears is #349.
Knight reposted it with comment, and then PKevman posted it again with comment.

CM lifted the quote from this discussion and forward:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...(One-on-One)&p=1563370&viewfull=1#post1563370

The discussion thread above is well worth the time to review in its entirety to understand context and opposing views.

See also: http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/ discussing the matter of a morally sufficient reason for evil from God's perpective.

AMR

 

[TulipBee]

Pate is open to any theology that tickles his itching ears. If it contradicts itself and doesn't make any sense, all the better for him.

why isnt he open to the truth?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

why isnt he open to the truth?

Robert struggles with several things borne of an improper foundation on the inerrancy of Scripture, attending church, and more:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...edestination&p=4402162&viewfull=1#post4402162

Putting it all together, there should be little wonder why he is very confused.

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

There is a wee bit more to the open theism view than what you are implying:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...o-you-think-of-it/page4&p=3415136#post3415136

:AMR:

AMR

Only what you add to it.

Religion is very complicated, that is why you like it. You can take 10 religious people and get 10 different answers.

Paul said, "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ" 2 Corinthians 11:3.

I have found that the more complicated religion is, the more anti-Christ that it is.

 

[TulipBee]

Robert struggles with several things borne of an improper foundation on the inerrancy of Scripture, attending church, and more:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...edestination&p=4402162&viewfull=1#post4402162

Putting it all together, there should be little wonder why he is very confused.

AMR

frozen confused

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Only what you add to it.

You made a comment implying there is nothing to quibble about related to open theism. I pointed you to content that disagrees. That is the end of the matter and it is left to you to dig deeper to come to a more fuller understanding of the topic in question. Inform yourself if you will or don't.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have found that the more complicated religion is, the more anti-Christ that it is.

Then why the need for your hundreds of started and redundant threads on the same basic "uncomplicated" topics? If things are so simple, one or two threads should suffice, no? God apparently needed over 700,000 English words to deliver His special revelation to man. Perhaps God should have consulted you for the Cliff's Note's version. :AMR:

Your double-mindedness never fails to bewilder the reader, Robert.

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

You made a comment implying there is nothing to quibble about related to open theism. I pointed you to content that disagrees. That is the end of the matter and it is left to you to dig deeper to come to a more fuller understanding of the topic in question. Inform yourself if you will or don't.

AMR

I have a Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary, it says that Theism is "The belief in, or in the existence of God".

That is to simple for you, so you add "Open" and in your mind that some how changes everything.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I have a Funk & Wagnalls Dictionary, it says that Theism is "The belief in, or in the existence of God".

That is to simple for you, so you add "Open" and in your mind that some how changes everything.

Do you even understand the issue? Open theism is a particular theological perspective, just as is Catholicism, Arminianism, Calvinism, etc. I have not added anything. Google open theism and get better acquainted with the words being used and the topic behind the words. Who knows, maybe you will be starting more threads about how open theism leads one to hell, or is the greatest thing since sliced bread, or something or another.

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

Then why the need for your hundreds of started and redundant threads on the same basic "uncomplicated" topics? If things are so simple, one or two threads should suffice, no? God apparently needed over 700,000 English words to deliver His special revelation to man. Perhaps God should have consulted you for the Cliff's Note's version. :AMR:

Your double-mindedness never fails to bewilder the reader, Robert.

AMR

You like religion, even name yourself "Mr religion".

Who are all of those guys on the bottom of your page? Are they more religious guys like yourself?

There is no religion in the Gospel. In the Gospel Jesus provides salvation for the whole world, 1 John 2:2.

And then all that God asks of you is to believe it.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You like religion, even name yourself "Mr religion".

Who are all of those guys on the bottom of your page? Are they more religious guys like yourself?

There is no religion in the Gospel. In the Gospel Jesus provides salvation for the whole world, 1 John 2:2.

And then all that God asks of you is to believe it.

Good post.

 

[musterion]

Religion is very complicated, that is why you like it. You can take 10 religious people and get 10 different answers.

That's the "rich, intricate tapestry" a lot of people are so in awe of.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You like religion, even name yourself "Mr religion".

Never mind, Robert. You just are posting random nonsense and not actually responding to my direct posts. Carry on.

AMR

 

[Tambora]

CM lifted the quote from this discussion and forward:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...(One-on-One)&p=1563370&viewfull=1#post1563370

I know.

The discussion thread above is well worth the time to review in its entirety to understand context and opposing views.

I agree.

 

[Tambora]

It is NOT God's decretive will that cancer exists. It is His prescriptive will that cancer exists.

How many kinds of will does GOD have?
Are those the only two, or are there more?

 

[Lon]

How many kinds of will does GOD have?
Are those the only two, or are there more?

Decretive: What He decides, regardless of anything else.
Prescriptive: What He decides, considering other things.

What would a third option look like? Something totally out of His control or plan? *(not facetious, just trying to figure out what a third option would look like and coming up empty).

 

[Tambora]

(((The blue shading in your quote was done by me to make a point that I think needs more details.)))

Decretive: What He decides, regardless of anything else.

OK. That would be similar to an unconditional covenant. An oath of GOD that is guaranteed to happen despite what any creature does.
No "if" included.

Prescriptive: What He decides, considering other things.

And this would be similar to a conditional covenant. GOD will do, or not do, such-and such because a creature did, or did not do, such-and such.
"If" is included.


Are we still on the same page about this understanding of your view of GOD's wills?
Close?

What would a third option look like? Something totally out of His control or plan?

Beats me. That's why I asked you.
I have no idea how many different ways GOD can decide what to do.

 

[Rosenritter]

The reality is that the word hell was mistranslated and has been misused for a long time.

Research it's origins and then ask yourself the same question you asked me.

Lake of fire... Second death/ cease to exist, not be tortured for eternity for finite sin.

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

I haven't seen the word hell mistranslated in scripture. I have seen some people mistranslate the word hell that they read in scripture.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Clete,

I know that I word things strangly at times. I understand that it can cause confusion, and in no way hold it against you for bringing it up it the context that you have. Being considerate is appreciated.

I'd like to state that I am on a cell phone using an app that I have by no means mastered. I can quote your whole post, but can't figure out how to cut and paste individual parts. Also if I was to quote you, I wouldn't be able to go back and review your post in order to give more specific answers or rebuttals. That is why this specific reply is in this particular format.

Anyway... Let's get right to it.

I asked why GOD would have to send GOD as a sacrifice to GOD in order to appease GOD?

You answered that the alternative would be to end the whole mess; via eternal damnation for all of GOD's creation, or really all of man.

Now let's stop there. The alternative to GOD killing GOD to appease GOD so that we can continue in sin is GOD torturing all men who ever lived or ever will live for all eternity?

Could you explain that for me please?

I have what I believe and it, to me is logically sound. But before interjecting it, I would really like to hear your explanation.

Moving on.

Wages of sin= death.... Agreed

GOD loves HIS creation and doesn't want them to die, so a sacrifice is needed....what?!?!

Again please logically explain how one follows the other.

Thank you.

Surely the Christ was perfect and selfless, but why did GOD, the merciful benevolent GOD need a blood sacrifice? And more so, why did that sacrifice have to be GOD? Further; How would GOD kill GOD? And how does that make it OK to sin, or not OK to sin, or fit us in at all, if GOD appeased HIS own want for a human sacrifice that is actually GOD that can't die then how does that pay for our sins... Confused yet? I am.

I'm sorry; but nothing is simple about in eternal existence dying so that I don't have to...just so I can actually die anyway. Say it's a spiritual death and nothing to do with the physical death. How does GOD killing himself pay fo4 my sins so that I can continue in them and yet be saved and return to GOD upon judgement?


So it's the after life one should be concerned with... I can get on board with that. So tell me how continuing in sin against the two commands of the Christ will guide me to heaven for all eternity due to GOD killing himself to appease himself with a blood sacrifice, please.

I wasn't saying I could out sin anything... What a strange concept. What I was trying to say is that to me; anyone continuing in known sin while claiming their own safety is contrary to the teachings of the Christ in many levels, not that I could sin more than the blood of the Christ paid for.

Surely, we as Christians are to suffer, and thankfully so. That being compared to the afterlife is neither here nor there in this particular conversation though.


I don't think I can be without sin. But I have faith, and strive to be patient and persevering in that faith. And that means not continuing in known sin.

You say that the Christ spoke of to a different people, yet I am familiar with more than one passage that plainly states that there is no difference between the Jew and gentile. Others, stating that Israel was spread across the globe. Countless more hinting at equality and all creation, but I am to believe that when Christ mentioned the narrow path and the few, or the wide bath and the many, that he spoke of some other time or people only? Wouldn't that make the bible of little worth if it was just some inaccurate history lesson? I'm sorry but the words of the Christ and those of the apostles and even the Old Testament was meant for times past and too for today.

I've read Roman's throughout, multiple times. Great, uplifting, and profound. But not an invitation to knowingly go against the will of GOD, even if it was written for someone and some time, long past.

Peace, I enjoyed your post; it isn't too often that I must wait until I can somewhat focus on a reply.

I look forward to your next response.

Lastly, please try not to take my post as a personal attack on your faith or belief. That is not my intention. I wish you the best and hope we can continue in profitable conversation.

Humbly,

Jerry



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Rosenritter]

Revelation 20:10 "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."


Revelation 20:15 "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire."

You'll notice that both verses state, the Devil, the beast, the false prophet and those whose names are not written in the Book of Life, were cast into the Lake of Fire to be tormented day and night forever and ever. It doesn't distinguish the devil, the false prophet, and the beast from those humans who are cast into the Lake of Fire. It doesn't say that either group is merely "ANNIHILATED." It's literal. I went through this years ago agonizing over the fact of an ETERNAL, Lake of Fire. I even rationalized that, the unsaved were just annihilated and that was the end of it. However, through seeking the truth, I came to the final conclusion that, The Lake of Fire is a real place and it is an ETERNAL place of damnation.

Grosnick, was the book of Revelation meant to contradict other parts of the Bible, or to expand upon it? When you read Revelation 20:10 weren't you doing so with an assumption that the devil is immortal?