Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[Ask Mr. Religion]

The people of the earth had become so corrupt that it would have perverted the line from which Christ would have come. That was God's purpose in the flood.

So the people following the flood are now less corrupt than they were beforehand? Nonsense. And please do not rely upon the badly interpreted view that so-called demonic beings were copulating with humans beforehand as the Genesis passage in question actually refers to a human line of corrupt men intermixing with other human females.

Your view has God being impotent of bringing forth a Savior no matter what the state of human depravity might be. We all know that the genealogical line of Our Lord was made up of men who were depraved sinners before they were re-born anew.

AMR

 

[Clete]

arminianism is blasphemous. "WITHOUT CHRIST WE CAN DO NOTHING! That Nothing is not a little something."
—RC Sproul (Sovereignty of God on Salvation)

Arminianism is wrong but it can't touch Calvinism balsphemy!

A god who is all love, all grace, all mercy, no sovereignty, no justice, no holiness, and no wrath is an idol. —@RCSproul

My recommendation is that both you and Sproul stop worshiping such an idol!

The Holy Spirit has to change a person’s heart before he will ever say "yes" to Jesus.

Liar.

If left to ourselves, in our spiritual deadness, we would never incline ourselves to the things of God.

Stupidity.

Your entire doctrine is meaningless double talk.

 

[Clete]

So the people following the flood are now less corrupt than they were beforehand? Nonsense. And please do not rely upon the badly interpreted view that so-called demonic beings were copulating with humans beforehand as the Genesis passage in question actually refers to a human line of corrupt men intermixing with other human females.

Your view has God being impotent of bringing forth a Savior no matter what the state of human depravity might be. We all know that the genealogical line of Our Lord was made up of men who were depraved sinners before they were re-born anew.

AMR

AMR DOES NOT believe that a savior of any sort was a logical necessity. He DOES believe that if his god had decided to do so, he could have justly atoned for sin by wiggling his divine nose and bobing his head up and down. He believes that his god can accomplish anything at all by fiat. Concerns of justice do not apply because his god arbitrarly declares what is just (contradiction) and the limitations of reality are of no concern because his god isn't real.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[popsthebuilder]

"without a cause"

The without a cause clause isn't in reference to calling any fool.

Read it again.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

I'm not offended in the slightest, just emphatic.

If Jesus wasn't God the plan of salvation doesn't work in the first place. Secondly the same authors that teach that Jesus died for our sin are the same authors that teach that Jesus was the Creator of the Universe. You can't reject one without undermining the other.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Please, don't feel sorry for me. If you want to help then support your opinion with scripture. Please show me scripture that states that the Trinitarian view is needed for salvation.

Thank you

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Is it your intent to suggest that two contradictory truth claims can both be true?

Or is it that we are unable to tell whether two truth claims actually contradict each other?

Those two things are functionally the same thing, by the way. Whichever one you pick, at the end, you're left with having to disregard the law of contradiction. Is that what you intended to be saying?

Resting in Him,
Clete

Is it your intent to limit the capacities of GOD based on the limits of your own cognition?

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Clete]

The without a cause clause isn't in reference to calling any fool.

Of course, it is. The whole thing was said by one person at one time. Is that really the way you read things - where every sentence has to include every qualifying phrase? Of course, that isn't how you read anything, including the bible - unless you're desiring to make a convenient theological point.

It is not wrong to call foolish people fools. That's what the word means. There's a whole book of the bible, written by the wisest man to ever live on planet earth in which fools are spoken of repeatedly.
Notice in the last sentence how I left out the qualifier "aside from Jesus Christ" and you still knew, not only who I was referring to but which book! Amazing how language works, isn't it! All that is required is some effort to remain on the same page as the author and things stay pretty easy to understand.

 

[Clete]

Please, don't feel sorry for me. If you want to help then support your opinion with scripture. Please show me scripture that states that the Trinitarian view is needed for salvation.

Thank you

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Why would I fell sorry for you?

I said "emphatic" not "empathetic". Is that what confused you here?


Who ever claimed that believing in the doctrine of the Trinity was required in order to be saved?

I mean, you're being dumb if you reject such an obviously true doctrine that is clearly taught, practically from page one of the Bible and to do so, except in ignorance, undermines the foundation upon which the whole of Christian doctrine is derived but that doesn't mean that you can't be saved. Although I do have a difficult time seeing how someone could believe that God became a man without believing that there is some plurality in God. I mean, who spoke from Heaven when Jesus was here getting baptised and who was Jesus praying too when He was about to be arrested? Himself? The rejection of the Trinity doctrine just seems forced, almost a contrivance. There just is no good reason to reject it and those who do undermine the very gospel itself because I very much do believe that you must accept the divinity of Jesus in order to be saved. No mere man would have been qualified in the first place and certainly no mere man who claimed to be the Son of God and whom the Apostle John explcitly states was/is the Creator Himself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Is it your intent to limit the capacities of GOD based on the limits of your own cognition?

What?

No, I simply believe that is real, not some fairy tale.

It isn't my own cognition or the limits thereof that define the laws of reason. The laws of reason are simply a description of the limits of reality.

The Law of Identity: That which is - is. A is A
The Law of Excluded Middle: Any truth claim is either true or it is false.
The Law of Contradiction: Two truth claims which contradict each other cannot both be true at the same time and in the same respect.

All of what you know is known because of those three laws, whether you used them intentionally or not. To reject any one of them is reject reality and to accept fairy tales. To reject any of them is to reject the concept of truth itself and thus to reject any of them is a self-defeating proposition.

This is not rocket science either. Any child that can have any conversation at all where meaningful information is exchanged uses the laws of reason both to understand and to communicate that information. Even your dog, when he tells you he's hungry is using the laws of reason.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Matthew: 5. 22. But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Just saying.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

One MUST keep in mind WHO Jesus was speaking to. He was speaking to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, not to the Gentiles who would later be under Grace and not the Law.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

arminianism is blasphemous. "WITHOUT CHRIST WE CAN DO NOTHING! That Nothing is not a little something."
—RC Sproul (Sovereignty of God on Salvation)

A god who is all love, all grace, all mercy, no sovereignty, no justice, no holiness, and no wrath is an idol. —@RCSproul

The Holy Spirit has to change a person’s heart before he will ever say "yes" to Jesus.

If left to ourselves, in our spiritual deadness, we would never incline ourselves to the things of God.

You "Confused ones" believe that one must first be regenerated, then, receive saving faith. That's the old "putting the cart before the horse" idea. The Bible teaches that one must first, hear the Gospel, then, place their faith in Christ. Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

 

[popsthebuilder]

One MUST keep in mind WHO Jesus was speaking to. He was speaking to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, not to the Gentiles who would later be under Grace and not the Law.

Complete bull....

The house of Israel was spread throughout the world. There is no distinction from Jew and gentile any longer. The law stands and is written on the hearts of the elect.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Calvinism rejects the fact that humanity was created with "freewill choice." They take that out of the way and replace it with "God's Sovereignty to choose who He will save and who He will damn," approach. That's NOT what the Bible teaches. To look at the Bible and not see the freewill of humanity makes one blind, brainwashed or both.

 

[popsthebuilder]

You "Confused ones" believe that one must first be regenerated, then, receive saving faith. That's the old "putting the cart before the horse" idea. The Bible teaches that one must first, hear the Gospel, then, place their faith in Christ. Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

Surely faith does come by hearing.
Yet faith without a result in action isn't faith.

Peace

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[popsthebuilder]

Of course, it is. The whole thing was said by one person at one time. Is that really the way you read things - where every sentence has to include every qualifying phrase? Of course, that isn't how you read anything, including the bible - unless you're desiring to make a convenient theological point.

It is not wrong to call foolish people fools. That's what the word means. There's a whole book of the bible, written by the wisest man to ever live on planet earth in which fools are spoken of repeatedly.
Notice in the last sentence how I left out the qualifier "aside from Jesus Christ" and you still knew, not only who I was referring to but which book! Amazing how language works, isn't it! All that is required is some effort to remain on the same page as the author and things stay pretty easy to understand.

Whosoever means any... Not a certain one.



Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Complete bull....

The house of Israel was spread throughout the world. There is no distinction from Jew and gentile any longer. The law stands and is written on the hearts of the elect.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Grace had not yet come into the picture until Paul received it from the Ascended Lord Jesus Christ. The four Gospels were speaking ONLY to Jews and not to Gentiles. Your ignorance keeps you from seeing this truth.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Surely faith does come by hearing.
Yet faith without a result in action isn't faith.

Peace

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

Peter and the rest of the Apostles, as well as Christ, preached the "Kingdom Message." It was a combination of faith plus works, aimed only at the Jews alone.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

When the Apostle Paul came along, he preached the "Grace Message" to the Gentiles. He preached: faith without works.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Why would I fell sorry for you?

I said "emphatic" not "empathetic". Is that what confused you here?


Who ever claimed that believing in the doctrine of the Trinity was required in order to be saved?

I mean, you're being dumb if you reject such an obviously true doctrine that is clearly taught, practically from page one of the Bible and to do so, except in ignorance, undermines the foundation upon which the whole of Christian doctrine is derived but that doesn't mean that you can't be saved. Although I do have a difficult time seeing how someone could believe that God became a man without believing that there is some plurality in God. I mean, who spoke from Heaven when Jesus was here getting baptised and who was Jesus praying too when He was about to be arrested? Himself? The rejection of the Trinity doctrine just seems forced, almost a contrivance. There just is no good reason to reject it and those who do undermine the very gospel itself because I very much do believe that you must accept the divinity of Jesus in order to be saved. No mere man would have been qualified in the first place and certainly no mere man who claimed to be the Son of God and whom the Apostle John explcitly states was/is the Creator Himself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

I'm glad you realize that the Christ wasn't speaking to himself or referring to himself as the Father or GOD.

That is a start.

Now, can you show from scripture that one must believe the trinitarian view( Father/son/ Holy Ghost are fully and utterly consubstantial and always have been) in order for salvation?

And no, that isn't the basis of Christianity. The basis of it is that the Anointed of GOD is the way toward GOD and to follow such via His teachings, example, and self sacrifice with complete faith in Him.

It is the resurrection of the Christ which affects change in an individual, which symbolizes a rebirth and spiritually guided being, rather than one full of greed and desire.

Cut short, gotta work.

Peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Not knowing how to "Rightly Divide" the written word brings about confusion and apparent contradiction.