Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?

[TulipBee]

There are MANY Christians, mostly Arminians who believe that Christ died for EVERYONE including those that end up in hell, which is obviously a false doctrine based on assumption that Satan was not yet defeated and wasn't bound at the Cross.

The truth is Satan is a DEFEATED FOE as far as the elect are concerned, but not for the unsaved. Satan has never been defeated for them, and never will be.

John 17:9
"I pray for them: I PRAY NOT FOR THE WORLD, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."

Sooner or later, you guys are going to have to "actually" start listening to the words of Christ. Not my words, His! Christ conquered the power of Satan "over the elect" out of all the nations, by His cross. It is THESE ELECT THAT CHRIST DIED FOR, not for everyone in the whole world. But don't take my word for it.

Colossians 1:13
"Who hath delivered US FROM THE POWER OF DARKNESS, and hath translated US into the KINGDOM OF HIS DEAR SON:"

So then, have we really been delivered from the power of Satan, and has the Kingdom of Christ truly come for us, or is all of this a devilish lie perpetrated by the Apostle Paul to the Colossians? That's what we all have to finally come to grips with. Are the scriptures our "authority," at all times, or is man's teachings the authority when scripture contradicts our traditions?

Luke 10:18-19
"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Behold, I GIVE UNTO YOU POWER to tread on serpents and scorpions, and OVER ALL THE POWER OF THE ENEMY, and nothing shall by any means hurt you."

Christians have all power over the enemy Satan, and nothing he does can hurt us (spiritually). Wherein the "past" we walked according to the course of the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2), we are now delivered from that power over us. The question is, Why? And the answer is, because Christ has DEFEATED Satan for us. Christ beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

The scriptures that teach Satan is bound (which of course MANY chose to ridicule and ignore in favor of rhetoric) is God's Word, not mine. So if God says Satan was destroyed (Hebrews 2:14) by the death of Christ (which God does), then the scripture applies, and the just are justified in what they say. If anyone choose to deny it, then what can I say but what God has said.

Romans 3:4
"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a Liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

I don't know about those who believe in ridicule of the truth and rhetoric, but as for me and my house, we believe what God says rather than man. So when God says Satan was destroyed by Christ's death, that man might be made free from bondage, we believe it. We don't ridicule it by saying Satan is alive and well and not destroyed. "OBVIOUSLY," if we believe God's word, Satan was destroyed in some way. But not for the sake of those who are not elect. This is what Premillennialists cannot seem to comprehend. Revelation chapter 20 tells us Satan was bound and chained and cast into the pit for the SAKE OF THE SAINTS THROUGHOUT THE NEW TESTAMENT. For example, a chained dog is bound from attacking anyone outside his sphere, but though bound, he is also free to attack anyone who comes within his sphere. Spiritually speaking, Christians are sustained outside the range of Satan to devour, while unbelievers foolishly venture in.

As we know that John 3:16 is Arminians' favorite verse. Many show it on national TV during football games, or main event.

John 3:16
For God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Of course, the word, "world" means everyone to Arminians but what they fail is to read the very next verse which reads:

John 3:17
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the WORLD THROUGH HIM MIGHT BE SAVED.

We understand that no scripture stands alone, and that it must be understood in the light of other scriptures, agreed? Or to put it another way, SCRIPTURE INTERPRET SCRIPTURE. The question is, what world did Christ come to save? Was it all people in the world "without exception," or was it all people in the world "without distinction." All His people in every nation, or all people of all nations? Why not let scripture interpret scripture, by letting Christ answer that Himself.

John 17:9-10
"I pray for them: I PRAY NOT FOR THE WORLD, BUT FOR THEM WHICH THOU HAST GIVEN ME; for they are thine.
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them."

Now we have what Christ said in John chapter 3 QUALIFIED or ELABORATED on here in John chapter 17! All the world that Christ came to save are all the world THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN HIM. Not all people in the world without exception. He did not pray for the world, but only the elect given Him!

Or we can simply use logic, rational thinking and intelligence. namely, if God says that many will be cast into the lake of fire, condemned, punished,etc., then obviously all in the world are not going to be saved. There is no such thing as universal salvation, universal atonement, or even free will!

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

There are MANY Christians, mostly Arminians who believe that Christ died for EVERYONE including those that end up in hell, which is obviously a false doctrine based on assumption that Satan was not yet defeated and wasn't bound at the Cross.

The only thing you're capable of spreading is Calvinist propaganda. Christ died for the sins of ALL humanity. However, only those who hear the Gospel and place their faith in Christ as their Savior will reap the benefits of His death and resurrection. You'll notice in Revelation 20:12 it states: "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."


You'll notice it says the unsaved were judged by their WORKS and not their SINS, Why, because, Christ paid for ALL the sins of humanity at the cross 2000 years ago.

 

[Bright Raven]

There are MANY Christians, mostly Arminians who believe that Christ died for EVERYONE including those that end up in hell, which is obviously a false doctrine based on assumption that Satan was not yet defeated and wasn't bound at the Cross.

The truth is Satan is a DEFEATED FOE as far as the elect are concerned, but not for the unsaved. Satan has never been defeated for them, and never will be.

John 17:9
"I pray for them: I PRAY NOT FOR THE WORLD, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."

Sooner or later, you guys are going to have to "actually" start listening to the words of Christ. Not my words, His! Christ conquered the power of Satan "over the elect" out of all the nations, by His cross. It is THESE ELECT THAT CHRIST DIED FOR, not for everyone in the whole world. But don't take my word for it.

Colossians 1:13
"Who hath delivered US FROM THE POWER OF DARKNESS, and hath translated US into the KINGDOM OF HIS DEAR SON:"

So then, have we really been delivered from the power of Satan, and has the Kingdom of Christ truly come for us, or is all of this a devilish lie perpetrated by the Apostle Paul to the Colossians? That's what we all have to finally come to grips with. Are the scriptures our "authority," at all times, or is man's teachings the authority when scripture contradicts our traditions?

Luke 10:18-19
"And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Behold, I GIVE UNTO YOU POWER to tread on serpents and scorpions, and OVER ALL THE POWER OF THE ENEMY, and nothing shall by any means hurt you."

Christians have all power over the enemy Satan, and nothing he does can hurt us (spiritually). Wherein the "past" we walked according to the course of the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience (Ephesians 2:2), we are now delivered from that power over us. The question is, Why? And the answer is, because Christ has DEFEATED Satan for us. Christ beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.

The scriptures that teach Satan is bound (which of course MANY chose to ridicule and ignore in favor of rhetoric) is God's Word, not mine. So if God says Satan was destroyed (Hebrews 2:14) by the death of Christ (which God does), then the scripture applies, and the just are justified in what they say. If anyone choose to deny it, then what can I say but what God has said.

Romans 3:4
"God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a Liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged."

I don't know about those who believe in ridicule of the truth and rhetoric, but as for me and my house, we believe what God says rather than man. So when God says Satan was destroyed by Christ's death, that man might be made free from bondage, we believe it. We don't ridicule it by saying Satan is alive and well and not destroyed. "OBVIOUSLY," if we believe God's word, Satan was destroyed in some way. But not for the sake of those who are not elect. This is what Premillennialists cannot seem to comprehend. Revelation chapter 20 tells us Satan was bound and chained and cast into the pit for the SAKE OF THE SAINTS THROUGHOUT THE NEW TESTAMENT. For example, a chained dog is bound from attacking anyone outside his sphere, but though bound, he is also free to attack anyone who comes within his sphere. Spiritually speaking, Christians are sustained outside the range of Satan to devour, while unbelievers foolishly venture in.

As we know that John 3:16 is Arminians' favorite verse. Many show it on national TV during football games, or main event.

John 3:16
For God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Of course, the word, "world" means everyone to Arminians but what they fail is to read the very next verse which reads:

John 3:17
For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the WORLD THROUGH HIM MIGHT BE SAVED.

We understand that no scripture stands alone, and that it must be understood in the light of other scriptures, agreed? Or to put it another way, SCRIPTURE INTERPRET SCRIPTURE. The question is, what world did Christ come to save? Was it all people in the world "without exception," or was it all people in the world "without distinction." All His people in every nation, or all people of all nations? Why not let scripture interpret scripture, by letting Christ answer that Himself.

John 17:9-10
"I pray for them: I PRAY NOT FOR THE WORLD, BUT FOR THEM WHICH THOU HAST GIVEN ME; for they are thine.
And all mine are thine, and thine are mine; and I am glorified in them."

Now we have what Christ said in John chapter 3 QUALIFIED or ELABORATED on here in John chapter 17! All the world that Christ came to save are all the world THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN HIM. Not all people in the world without exception. He did not pray for the world, but only the elect given Him!

Or we can simply use logic, rational thinking and intelligence. namely, if God says that many will be cast into the lake of fire, condemned, punished,etc., then obviously all in the world are not going to be saved. There is no such thing as universal salvation, universal atonement, or even free will!

:yawn:

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

TB and his ilk are spreading false doctrine and a false gospel. It's Called Calvinism or Reformed Theology whichever you prefer.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thanks for clarifying.

I have two questions;

1)Are the elect supposed to guide others towards GOD?

If by this you mean the elect may serve as a witness to other unregenerated elect, I see no reason to doubt otherwise. In fact, the witness of the believer also serves as a means to heap coals upon the heads of the reprobate, too.

2)based on scripture do you see the evidence for universal reconciliation, not now per say, but upon the end of times or the judgement?

If you are implying here something like universalism, then no, a thousand times no. I have seem some of your posts that hint at annihilationism. Am I correct? I hope not. This is error.

AMR

 

[popsthebuilder]

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

The context being ultimately do you believe all will abide by the Will of GOD; be it through destruction or end of all that isn't of GOD, or literal reconciliation, as in new life/ holy direction and singular accord, a combination of the two, or by other means GOD might employ? As far as time frame; any time between now and when GOD rolls up heaven and earth as if scrolls (ending them) and all that remains is wholly of GOD.


I guess it's sorta rhetorical given the timeline. Still curious of your opinion though.

Thanks, peace

Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

If by this you mean the elect may serve as a witness to other unregenerated elect, I see no reason to doubt otherwise. In fact, the witness of the believer also serves as a means to heap coals upon the heads of the reprobate, too.



If you are implying here something like universalism, then no, a thousand times no. I have seem some of your posts that hint at annihilationism. Am I correct? I hope not. This is error.

AMR

How would you as a SUPPOSED Elect KNOW who was an unregenerated Elect and who was not? Also, do you get a kick out of the idea of testifying to the supposed non-Elect so it will help to heap coals on their head? Sounds a bit "sadistic" if you don't mind me saying so?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Rosen...

GM, a man who denies the Trinity has already demonstrated inability to properly interpret Scripture, as is the case for all said non-believers.

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

GM, a man who denies the Trinity has already demonstrated inability to properly interpret Scripture, as is the case for all said non-believers.

AMR

You didn't answer my questions? Avoidance perhaps?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

How would you as a SUPPOSED Elect KNOW who was an unregenerated Elect and who was not? Also, do you get a kick out of the idea of testifying to the supposed non-Elect so it will help to heap coals on their head? Sounds a bit "sadistic" if you don't mind me saying so?

I have not implied that I do know, have I? Are you reading things carefully? No one knows but God and He has not revealed anything about the exact identities of His children (Deut. 29:29).

Importing the secret will of God into matters of salvation is unwarranted. You have no basis to presume to know who is or who is not elect. Hence, the command from God to promiscuously share the Gospel. Are we not to marvel at the mercy of God? How exactly do we do so if there are no objects of mercy (Psalm 86:15; Romans 3:23; 9:15)? Is God obliged to withhold the full display of all His attributes because some of them are just to "uncomfortable" for us to consider?

Your humanism is showing, GM.

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

Since I'm unable to read your mind AMR, I'll assume you didn't wish to answer my questions (for whatever reason) and move along.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You didn't answer my questions? Avoidance perhaps?

As usual, ready, fire, aim to grab attention.

Slow down. You may just learn something.

AMR

 

[Arthur Brain]

I have not implied that I do know, have I? Are you reading things carefully? No one knows but God and He has not revealed anything about the exact identities of His children (Deut. 29:29).

Importing the secret will of God into matters of salvation is unwarranted. You have no basis to presume to know who is or who is not elect. Hence, the command from God to promiscuously share the Gospel. Are we not to marvel at the mercy of God? How exactly do we do so if there are no objects of mercy (ps. 86:15; Romans 3:23; 9:15)? Is God obliged to withhold the full display of all His attributes because some of them are just to "uncomfortable" for us to consider?

Your humanism is showing, GM.

AMR

So, when Nang talks about witnessing to people like my nieces, who, if 'reprobate' then I would be effectively bringing burning coals down on their head by doing so would I?

Your doctrine is sick, your 'intellectualism' seems to blind you to it.

Oh, don't get me wrong, the whole concept of eternal torment is sick so it's not just your Calvinism at fault for that, but boy, it's often the most jaw dropping callous remarks that seem to emanate from the 'reformed', how some would rejoice at their own loved ones, kids being fried for eternity if they weren't part of the 'elect' etc...

 

[Rosenritter]

Rosen, if you're NOT a Calvinist, I would suggest, not giving a Calvinist the answer to the question you're asking them. Such as you did in number two of your post. Most likely they will say God hadn't chosen that rich man, so, you're making it easy for them to rationalize their answer. Also, your PM is filled. you need to empty it in order for posters to get in touch with you.

I purged several messages and will clean up more later. Is Theology Online so low on disk space that we are limited to 50 private messages at once?

 

[Rosenritter]

Rosen, if you're NOT a Calvinist, I would suggest, not giving a Calvinist the answer to the question you're asking them. Such as you did in number two of your post. Most likely they will say God hadn't chosen that rich man, so, you're making it easy for them to rationalize their answer. Also, your PM is filled. you need to empty it in order for posters to get in touch with you.

If I am able to correctly guess AMR's answer, it still leaves him with a conundrum even if he picked number 2. The bible said that Jesus loved the man, but if God hadn't chosen the one whom he loved, then we've still disproven a Calvinist underpinning just the same. When dealing with a system like that, you have to dismantle it small bits at a time. Too much at once and the emotional defenses pop up and *nothing* will get through from then on.

If AMR picks choice two I need to hear it from him.

 

[Rosenritter]

God created calvinism but the goats don't get it

Right, don't pay any attention to the scripture in black and white, don't answer the problem put to you with the utter contradiction in your doctrine and what God hath Saith, just post another stupid meme.

 

[Rosenritter]

GM, a man who denies the Trinity has already demonstrated inability to properly interpret Scripture, as is the case for all said non-believers.

AMR

Lon said that I sounded fairly orthodox. He's one of the more level-headed Calvinists on this forum.

... Rather, a well-fleshed-out traditional view of the Early Church Fathers also reveals a Trinitarian belief, like yours, that is less polytheistic and steers clear of it as heresy. I guess I'm writing to tell you that I think you seem to be a 'classic/traditional' Trinitarian,...

If the Bible defined a Trinity, then it would be possible to affirm or deny its definition. I have no idea what your version of "Trinity" is, and I don't plan on blindly ascribing to any shibboleths just to try to fit in. I'll stick to what the Bible says clearly, and if it's not stated clearly, then Jesus apparently didn't think it was as important as what he did say clearly.

If you have a legitimate issue that you think bears discussion, bring it forward. Otherwise that seems like a cheap distraction method you're employing.

 

[Rosenritter]

God created calvinism but the goats don't get it

You're one sick person Tulip.

OK, let's pretend this meme of yours exists. Let's place you, TulipBee, on that stand, in front of all these "goats" that have left what they are doing and congregated to hear what you have to say in the name of the LORD. They are here to listen to you. Say something to them. Tell us what you would say if that were YOUR word bubble instead of that glasses-guy on the podium.

 

[TulipBee]

You're one sick person Tulip.

OK, let's pretend this meme of yours exists. Let's place you, TulipBee, on that stand, in front of all these "goats" that have left what they are doing and congregated to hear what you have to say in the name of the LORD. They are here to listen to you. Say something to them. Tell us what you would say if that were YOUR word bubble instead of that glasses-guy on the podium.

dont like goats that lie on tol

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So, when Nang talks about witnessing to people like my nieces, who, if 'reprobate' then I would be effectively bringing burning coals down on their head by doing so would I?

Your doctrine is sick, your 'intellectualism' seems to blind you to it.

Oh, don't get me wrong, the whole concept of eternal torment is sick so it's not just your Calvinism at fault for that, but boy, it's often the most jaw dropping callous remarks that seem to emanate from the 'reformed', how some would rejoice at their own loved ones, kids being fried for eternity if they weren't part of the 'elect' etc...

Ignoring your ongoing denial of the doctrine of everlasting punishment, you are speaking nonsense. No one but God knows who is elect or who is not. Do your Scriptural duty and teach your children the things of God, leaving the matter of their eternal destiny in His hands rather than trying to peer behind the curtain and ascertain what is forbidden (Deut. 29:29).

The promiscuous spreading of the Good News is the ordinary means by which the children of God are brought into the Kingdom. God commands we preach the Gospel to all persons. We obey. Those efficaciously called by God the Holy Spirit are born anew (Eze. 36:26). They are now able to hear the Good News with ears to hear. They do hear. They indeed will believe. They are then justified and in union with Our Lord. God decreed these means and our obedience to do them is how these means are used for His ends.

AMR