Wrong - the only thing that is needed to show Calvinism describes God as "unjust" is to show that the Bible has God claiming that "HE is not willing for ANY to perish but for ALL to come to repentance" and then to observe that Calvinism claims that in fact "God does nothing" to back that all inclusive claim up.
So, Bob, if that is true and people don't get a chance to believe then God is being unjust, because God wants this but if they don't hear there's no opportunity for them to be saved. If things are as you say then salvation is a matter of justice and not mercy. However, what makes mercy mercy is the fact that we don't deserve it. There's also another alternative. If what you say above is true, then God is unjust if He doesn't save everybody, since He desires all be saved.
Calvinism DESCRIBES Him as unjust. (At least 4 and 5 pt Calvinism does).
The Calvinist future scenario posted here exposes the unjust view of God painted by 4 and 5 point Calvinists.
The Arminian future scenario subjects the doctrines of grace in the Arminian model to that SAME test and SHOWS how it described God as loving and Merciful.
This is obvious.
And the question about God "being able" to reach the lost who have not had access to scripture - was answered in the previous post.
This is only so if the Arminian view is true. It is NOT obvious and its circular, because you must assume your view is true in order for your argument to be true.
You're entire reasoning process is just one huge non-sequitar. It turns on libertine free will, which is speculation and assumes that natural ability assumes moral ability. This is not taught in Scripture and must be brought to the text in order to justify the position. It assumes that words like any, all, and world are always universal terms. That is exegetically false. No satisfactory exegesis is ever offered. It requires you to end up believing in either dualism in the new birth or in a logically self-defeating self-causation, which is also false.
Calvinism does not describe God as unjust at all. All deserve condemnation and are in fact condemned. Some are redeemed others are not. Justice is satisfied at the cross. Redemption of the elect is an act of mercy. The rest get what they deserve, condemnation, and are allowed to continue to that end. This is passive, no corresponding postive act of reprobation is done by God, except in the hyperCalvinist model. Nothing is unjust, because justice is satisfied.
The Arminian view is VERY unjust. By grounding election in man and not Himself, God is playing favorites, because it makes faith a meritorious thing. It is also unjust because if it is something in us, you must answer the question of why someone believes and others do not. This gets you back to something about themselves or the quality of their intellect or faith. Since people all have different backgrounds and reasons for believing, that is injustice. Your view moves salvation from a matter of mercy to a matter of justice. By providing atonement for all and not offering it to all, that is unjust if God desires all men to be saved and does nothing about. Scripture also says that Jesus did what He did at exactly the right time. Well, if what you say is true, then you have made God into a liar, because there was no way of reaching people in Asia and the Americas after Jesus died and rose from the dead, after all, if all means all, then why not wait until a greater number of people could be reached with the gospel more quickly? It would make more sense to place the atonement in a much later century.
