The Bible is a "Spiritual Book." We have and need the Holy Spirit to draw us all to the truths of Scripture and to give us all the wisdom and ability to understand its truths.
Does Calvinism Make God Unjust?
- Thread starter Robert Pate
- Start date
Calvinists do not believe that humanity has a "Free will Choice" to place our faith in Christ. That is a false doctrine contrived by man. The God of the Bible asks for our faith in Him, and His Son's sacrifice for our sins on the cross, as well as His resurrection. Without our faith, God will not apply Christ's shed blood so that we can have the sealing, indwelling and baptizing (not by water) into the Body of Christ, by the Holy Spirit. We're living in what Paul calls "The Dispensation of Grace." We're playing by God's rules and by God's Grace today. Both Jew and Gentile alike are saved under the "Grace Gospel." We receive all of the benefits of Christ's sacrifice through hearing the Gospel and placing our faith in Christ as our Savior. God desires all of humanities faith, He always has and always will. He doesn't force His will on us, however, He does demand it, if we wish to receive His Grace. Those who reject His offer, will be judged by their works (Revelation 20:12) and cast into "The Lake of Fire" to suffer eternal damnation. Those who suffer that horrendous consequence will be in bad company, because, Satan, the false prophet, the beast and most likely the fallen angels will suffer the same END.
Brother Ducky
New member
No explanation needed. Just a simple answer to the question.
Which I, more than gave you.
Rosenritter
New member
I am quite entrenched when it comes to matters of Christian orthodoxy if and until the case can be made that such matters are not warranted from Scripture.
Beware the minority opinion. It tickles the itching ears and appeals to one's pride thinking that one has discovered some new truths heretofore unexamined by the church militant. There really isn't something new under the sun, despite one's pride in thinking so.
So feel free to take my own advice and not engage me directly.
AMR
Beware the majority opinion, which has itching ears and praises the priests of Baal and the groves.
Rosenritter
New member
If you believe the prophets, hell seems to be populated by everyone. It even mentions the wicked specifically.
Job 3:11-22 KJV
(11) Why died I not from the womb? why did I not give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?
(12) Why did the knees prevent me? or why the breasts that I should suck?
(13) For now should I have lain still and been quiet, I should have slept: then had I been at rest,
(14) With kings and counsellors of the earth, which built desolate places for themselves;
(15) Or with princes that had gold, who filled their houses with silver:
(16) Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.
(17) There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.
(18) There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor.
(19) The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master.
(20) Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery, and life unto the bitter in soul;
(21) Which long for death, but it cometh not; and dig for it more than for hid treasures;
(22) Which rejoice exceedingly, and are glad, when they can find the grave?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Calvinists DO believe all men were created willful, but because of Adam's original sin, the will of man serves only sin, death, and the devil. His will is not "free." It is enslaved and held in bondage by Satan. Hebrews 2:15
Faith (belief) cannot issue forth from a wicked, hard-as-stone heart. (Jeremiah 17:9, 7:12
The wicked heart of any sinner, must first be changed and replaced with a new spiritual heart of flesh, that has the spiritual capacity to believe in the spiritual truths of God. God has promised He will do this for His people. Ezekiel 11:19, 18:31; Jeremiah 32:39
This new heart alone, resurrected from spiritual death and gifted by the power of the Holy Spirit to live anew, possesses the capacity to repent from sin and believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Faith (belief)and repentance comes only by the grace of God to sinners; never in the opposite or from their corrupted human hearts, wills, nor by nature. Impossible. For the corrupted heart, mind, will, and nature of man is cursed and at enmity against God. Fallen souls hate God and cannot, nor will not, believe in His Word.
So why do you keep posting otherwise?
There is absolutely no scripture you can provide to claim that any corrupted human being has the ability, capacity, "free" will, or virtue inherent to his being, to stop sinning and believe in God. None.
And you post and post and post your wrong views, ad nauseum . . .
In fact, your message is merely a regurgitation of the heresy of Pelagius, who also talked and talked and talked about men not evidencing corruption from original sin, but the inner virtues by which they might willfully choose to be saved or not.
Daily you represent heresy and Pelagianism. You have been repeatedly warned by Godly men that you have been taught wrongly. May God grant YOU a new heart to repent of this vile error and false teaching.
popsthebuilder
New member
Oh wow... You're really gonna use tradition of man as a reason not to engage in discussion? I thought we were using scripture? Now you say my opinions aren't orthodox, so you won't hear them!?!? If you and I were of the same opinion (strict orthodox apparently)then what profit would conversation have for either of us or the audience?
I really did expect quite a bit more from you.
Ask yourself; what are we permitted to fear as Christians?
So why be afraid to honestly inquire on the views of others? Surely you are well versed and as a Christian would you not want to help another Christian, faithful unto GOD if you indeed perceive them to be in error?
I'll leave it alone... I don't wish to bring strive or weaken anyone's Faith.
Thank you for your time.
One more thing;
If you use scripture for the evidence of your doctrines then fine... That's a good thing, but using tradition... The tradition of man at that....well, I just hope privately you can set aside your preconceptions, biases, and pride in order to honestly and selflessly seek that Holy Will that isn't of us, yet we find permeating truth throughout once seeking attainment is set aside.
There is a tradition that should be leaned upon along with scripture; it's Faith and the selfless conscience, that Holy Spirit.
I do look forward to speaking with you in the future and wish you the best.
I won't be pressing any issues here, at this time. But please; look up the word tradition in the new testament and read about it within context; then consider your orthodoxy tradition which you might at this time understand to be infallible perhaps.
Thanks again,
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Last edited:
popsthebuilder
New member
Beware the masses that go in through the front gate.I am quite entrenched when it comes to matters of Christian orthodoxy if and until the case can be made that such matters are not warranted from Scripture.
Beware the minority opinion. It tickles the itching ears and appeals to one's pride thinking that one has discovered some new truths heretofore unexamined by the church militant. There really isn't something new under the sun, despite one's pride in thinking so.
So feel free to take my own advice and not engage me directly.
AMR
What is it? Many will be called but few will hear...something like that.
Peace
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Rather than making your conscience your regula fidei it is better to know one's conscience in all its possibilities....
1) A good conscience - Acts 23:1, 1 Timothy 1:19 , 1 Timothy 3:8-9. This does not mean sinless, but when the conscience speaks responding promptly and properly.
2) An evil conscience - Hebrews 10:22, 9:14 . An evil conscience is one which bears the knowledge of sins-"dead works"- that have not been confessed and cleansed. - Hebrews 10:22. As a result of unconfessed sin, the person with an evil conscience becomes more susceptible to sin and less sensitive to what is good.
3) A seared conscience - 1 Timothy 4:1-2. Eph. 4:18-19 The conscience has been branded, numb and silent. It is possible for the conscience to be seared and unreliable in one area and reliable in another. A conscience seared in one area will eventually become weakened in all areas.
4) A weak conscience - the conscience can be weak in one of two ways: being either immature or oversensitive - 1 Corinthians 8:9-12.
5) A defiled conscience - Titus 1:15 , 1 Corinthians 8:7. Cannot discern right and wrong and may approve what is corrupt. “Admittedly, people often do not feel guilty before God, since we are indoctrinated with the belief that guilt is merely a subjective feeling, a neurosis to be cured, and that we really ought to feel good about ourselves.” (Colson and Pearcy, How Now Shall we Live?, Pg. 274)
Following one's conscience requires more, for...
1. The conscience can be insensitive or seared, and therefore incapable of giving direction.
2. It can be too tender or weak, and therefore unreliable.
3. It is not an absolute authority, since it is conditioned by background and teaching.
4. It is inadequate when used alone and must be supplemented with the influence of the Scripture, the Holy Spirit, and Godly counsel.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
In other words, your roundabout answer to a very simple question is "yes"...assuming you believe unbelief is a sin. :AMR:
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Of course we do. We just do not think "free will" means what you think it means. All men are free to choose according to their greatest inclinations when they so choose. The inclinations of the lost are wholly not inclined to the good (Jer. 17:9; Mark 7:21-23; Eph. 2:2; Eph. 2:4-5; Titus 3:5; John 3:19; Rom. 3:10-12; 5:6; 6:16-20; Eph. 2:1,3;1 Cor. 2:14), therefore the lost will never freely choose to seek after God's righteousness until and if God first changes these inclinations (Eze. 36:26).
AMR
Your answer above means that you believe that God predestinates people to hell before they are born.
How you can claim that you have faith in a God that would do such a thing is a mystery.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Such is the usual canard of those that refuse to stand atop the shoulders of those that have come before us and the visible vestige of Our Lord's Bride, as if Scripture is silent about confessing our faith (creating statements of what we believe and why we believe it). This is is usual charge of the "Just Me and My Bible" folk who refuse to submit to local church authorities and its faithful teachings of Scripture. Read the WCF. It is saturated with scriptural analysis and has withstood scrutiny for many hundreds of years. If you find reading it difficult, read its exposition.
Now make some arguments using these two items that demonstrate in detail your disagreements. When you do so, you will immediately contradict your own statement, for you, a man, will be providing statements just as the WCF provides. In fact, each and every time you post "I believe this or that" you are violating your own charge against me. This is nonsensical talk. Be better.
The logical conclusion of your view is that we should read nothing else in this life concerning anything but the Bible, for the Bible is our only guide for all that we think, do, or say. Right? Going further with your view, one should never read a basic English textbook, for after all, it is a tradition of men and the Bible is our only guide for all matters of thought, word, or deed. Well that very Scripture teaches us to examine the words of others. How does one do that but by, well, reading what they have to say and learn from them, learning what is correct and what is error.
Your frequent claims of checking Scripture and reading Scripture as if you have nothing to learn from others is an unsweet smell to the Lord's nostrils. It is self-righteousness wrapped in the guise of piety.
Please review my posts at this site. Do you honestly think I am hesitant to inquire of the views of others? Do I shy away from sincere questions? Really? For that matter, I read all that I point others to. I read the nonsensical open theist published works, the anti-Calvinist screeds, and more. I have no fear of reading these things for they serve to sharpen my own knowledge and strengthen my own faith.
I would not be a good steward of the time God grants me for these activities if I engaged all manner of heresy and heterodoxy, especially when it is clear that the proponents of odd views are immovable and only seek a platform to proselytize their nonsense. I will not afford these persons such a platform. I point them to the reasoned efforts of others, as I have done in your case, and leave them to their own thoughts and due consideration. If you are sincerely open to correction, take up and read the many sources I have provided you and formulate your own reasoned arguments against what they have offered up.
You view tradition as something erroneous, even with your feet firmly planted in our Protestant tradition. :AMR:
Tradition, even when it is the best, has no intrinsic authority. Tradition is always subject to the scrutiny and test of Scripture. Its rightness or value is always determined by its conformity to Scripture. Tradition when true and right and good always flows from the Scripture and is simply God's will as revealed in Scripture coming to expression in thought and life. Tradition, when right, is always derived; it is never original or primary. And this is invariably true from whatever aspect tradition is viewed.
A man comes along and questions the doctrine of the Trinity, must I re-create the many works of Godly men to explain it versus simply pointing them to these works? Why must I in every case explain things explanatory of things explained? In your view the very creeds and confessions of our Protestant tradition are not worthy of careful scrutiny and consideration, for you have nothing to learn from them.
What a Difference a Vowel Makes. Sigh.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, it is something like this...
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?113575-OSAS&p=4485652&viewfull=1#post4485652
:AMR:
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Your own words betray the statement above:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...ally-Refuted&p=4813454&viewfull=1#post4813454
AMR
popsthebuilder
New member
Ask Mr. Religion,
Those that came before me are the ones instead.
Confessing faith isn't exactly synonyms with creating statements of what we believe and why. It's progressing Faith in GOD and Christ. There is much tradition I hold dear, and surely you too, but that doesn't change the fact that you used it as a cop out to back away from honest discussion that might refute your stance. I don't know what the wcf is but if it is a confession of faith then why would I need to study it... I have faith and confess it quite often. If it does or doesn't align with what you consider faith then okay, but making that grounds for elimination from conversation only after previously saying that honest scriptural conversations are to be found with Calvinists is sorta dishonest.
Why would I use the wcf for my argument? We already determined the grounds; it was scripture.
I claimed no charge against you except for clinging on to the cord of man made doctrine and circular reasoning. Me saying I believe this or that isn't hypocrisy in any form. I said not to lean on the traditions of man, not to not proclaim your faith.
What? The logic conclusion to my view is that we should read nothing but the bible?! Really? Please show me how you concluded such from my previous statements logically. I will wait.
Never, not once have I personally said that one should refer to the bible alone for direction. I've clearly stated quite the opposite actually and you are quite aware of that I am certain. It must be further attempt to discredit my opinion or views because I'm not orthodox.
I can learn from others and do daily. Today I learned that though you are generally well spoken and honest seeming, that when something you hold dear comes into question, you don't honestly consider it as you insinuated, but rather wall yourself behind a defence mechanism that basically says anyone who disagrees must be wrong and as such isn't worthy of intellectual discussion. Your entire argument is moot. Firstly; I never said only the Bible. Secondly, you simplify your own assumption to make one look ridiculous to no avail.
Self righteous; you don't seem to pay too much attention at times... Me neither, no biggie, but no I'm not self righteous at all... Quite humble generally actually... And regard myself as of no worth what so ever.
That does sound kinda ironic considering your own stance.
So I'm haughty because I freely read core scriptures without preconceptions and bias, and have found them to have very closely related themes, or am I haughty because I dare to speak against the tradition of man?
The guise of piety... Really... You claim I am disingenuous? Under what grounds? What motive would I have to be here other than genuine Faith? Please explain it to me. It surely isn't heedless contention. You should have noticed that all ready.
You don't know where my faith stemmed from but I'll let you know; it wasn't tradition. Scrutinize and consider is much of what I do. You aren't making any sense. Why would I simply disregard things without first testing them? Why would anyone.
So what good tradition flows from scripture that also pertains to orthodox Christianity as opposed to Christianity.
I can see I was fooled into thinking I was dealing with an honest intellectual. Intelligent; yes, honest; outwardly so yet self deceiving and prideful causing exceeding bias when ones own views are brought into actual question.
Duly noted.
Peace
Sincerely
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Those that came before me are the ones instead.
Confessing faith isn't exactly synonyms with creating statements of what we believe and why. It's progressing Faith in GOD and Christ. There is much tradition I hold dear, and surely you too, but that doesn't change the fact that you used it as a cop out to back away from honest discussion that might refute your stance. I don't know what the wcf is but if it is a confession of faith then why would I need to study it... I have faith and confess it quite often. If it does or doesn't align with what you consider faith then okay, but making that grounds for elimination from conversation only after previously saying that honest scriptural conversations are to be found with Calvinists is sorta dishonest.
Why would I use the wcf for my argument? We already determined the grounds; it was scripture.
I claimed no charge against you except for clinging on to the cord of man made doctrine and circular reasoning. Me saying I believe this or that isn't hypocrisy in any form. I said not to lean on the traditions of man, not to not proclaim your faith.
What? The logic conclusion to my view is that we should read nothing but the bible?! Really? Please show me how you concluded such from my previous statements logically. I will wait.
Never, not once have I personally said that one should refer to the bible alone for direction. I've clearly stated quite the opposite actually and you are quite aware of that I am certain. It must be further attempt to discredit my opinion or views because I'm not orthodox.
I can learn from others and do daily. Today I learned that though you are generally well spoken and honest seeming, that when something you hold dear comes into question, you don't honestly consider it as you insinuated, but rather wall yourself behind a defence mechanism that basically says anyone who disagrees must be wrong and as such isn't worthy of intellectual discussion. Your entire argument is moot. Firstly; I never said only the Bible. Secondly, you simplify your own assumption to make one look ridiculous to no avail.
Self righteous; you don't seem to pay too much attention at times... Me neither, no biggie, but no I'm not self righteous at all... Quite humble generally actually... And regard myself as of no worth what so ever.
That does sound kinda ironic considering your own stance.
So I'm haughty because I freely read core scriptures without preconceptions and bias, and have found them to have very closely related themes, or am I haughty because I dare to speak against the tradition of man?
The guise of piety... Really... You claim I am disingenuous? Under what grounds? What motive would I have to be here other than genuine Faith? Please explain it to me. It surely isn't heedless contention. You should have noticed that all ready.
You don't know where my faith stemmed from but I'll let you know; it wasn't tradition. Scrutinize and consider is much of what I do. You aren't making any sense. Why would I simply disregard things without first testing them? Why would anyone.
So what good tradition flows from scripture that also pertains to orthodox Christianity as opposed to Christianity.
I can see I was fooled into thinking I was dealing with an honest intellectual. Intelligent; yes, honest; outwardly so yet self deceiving and prideful causing exceeding bias when ones own views are brought into actual question.
Duly noted.
Peace
Sincerely
Sent from my Z988 using Tapatalk
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Why am I not surprised that you respond like this? I think it was fairly evident what I meant although perhaps to clarify I should have said I couldn't in 'good conscience' blindly accept the then church's teachings as to do so would have been searing it. It would have meant sacrificing compassion, ethics where it comes to cruelty and ultimately would have been done out of sheer selfishness for my own hide.
I don't need someone to tell me that torturing an animal is evil, my sense of right, wrong and empathy already does that, and I saw precious little in the way of empathy in my former church thanks as I see precious little among many of the zealous religious persuasion here, be they Calvinist or else.
You're a very erudite man AMR with an obviously keen intellect and propensity for academia. But I don't see any empathy from you, or compassion. Refer to your comments about how witnessing would lead to heaping burning coals on top of the heads of the 'reprobate' as exhibit one.
Last edited: