If God Decided To Save No One Would He Be Unjust?

[TCassidy]

So best thing to do is just quit.

I agree. As you are incapable of discussing the subject it is best for you to just butt out. Your childish one-liners contribute nothing to the discussion.

Reynolds admits he finds the discussion confusing, but is still willing to honestly participate, unlike you. So, yeah. Time for you to leave.

 

[TCassidy]

Yes, anyone who reads their Bible knows and understands the answer to this question. Are you ready?



Scripture says "John 3:20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed."

There are those who love their wickedness more than they love the Savior. I did not say it. It is not my Omniscient wisdom but God's who has revealed it in His word.

Complete and total non-sequitur. How does your no-answer "answer" address ITL's post in any way?

Please. Try to pay attention.

 

[TCassidy]

They are all convicted lawbreakers. I would be choosing which ones I offer pardon and which ones I pass by.

As would I. But how does your position differ from mine?

You choose believers and pass over non-believers.

I choose the elect and pass over the non-elect.

The end result is exactly the same. Some go to heaven and the rest go to hell.

 

[TCassidy]

Gibberish is right. I have no idea what he meant by that. Yet another example of why Calvinism is difficult to harmonize. The leading scholar who support it do not agree on it. Many Baptist Calvinists closely associated with Sproul.

Many Baptist Arminians associate with Benny Hinn. Does that make you wrong?

 

[Revmitchell]

Complete and total non-sequitur. How does your no-answer "answer" address ITL's post in any way?

Please. Try to pay attention.

I do not know what he says. I answered your post not his.

You asked how does anyone know why someone believes or not. I provided scripture that describes why people believe or do not believe. I have no idea how you concluded that was a non sequitur.

 

[TCassidy]

So, you didn't understand the question so you posted a silly non-sequitur then answered a question I did not ask you, but rather asked him in the context of his earlier post.

Again, please pay attention.

Oh, and to quote you, "Context is King."

 

[Reynolds]

But people go to hell. And God has the ability to prevent it. So, according to your theory, he must be either unloving or less loving than you are. Right?

No. He is loving because He sent His son to die for all who will accept. I believe God had some reason to create man to be different. Some reason to give that man a special ability to choose to love or not love his Maker. God creating man to merely answer an irresistible call makes no sense to me. Especially when you throw in the fact that relatively few will actually receive that "irresistible" call.

 

[InTheLight]

So you admit your total ignorance on the subject and that you just play childish games from the sidelines?

Their other technique is ask silly hypothetical questions...

 

[InTheLight]

God does not have to choose anyone to damnation as that is our choice already as we come into this world "condemned already" due to our choice "in Adam" as the totality of human nature acted in one man by one deed - Rom. 5:12-19. Notice that the text does not say "by many men's offences" or "by the deeds of many" but repeatedly states "by one man's offence MANY be dead....many were made sinners."

Uh-huh. And who caused Adam to sin?

 

[InTheLight]

Some reason to give that man a special ability to choose to love or not love his Maker. God creating man to merely answer an irresistible call makes no sense to me. Especially when you throw in the fact that relatively few will actually receive that "irresistible" call.

Also factor in the Calvinist conundrum of why God would command all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) yet gives them no absolutely no ability to do so.

 

[InTheLight]

I agree. As you are incapable of discussing the subject it is best for you to just butt out. Your childish one-liners contribute nothing to the discussion.

Childish one liners seem to get you riled up pretty quick. I wonder why that is?

 

[Reynolds]

Also factor in the Calvinist conundrum of why God would command all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) yet gives them no absolutely no ability to do so.

What is very confusing to me is why Adam sinned. What is most confusing is why God told him not to sin yet "willed" him to sin.Adam had no sin nature. He was righteous. He had no corrupt nature "driving him to make the only choices a fallen human can make." He still sinned.

 

[Revmitchell]

What is very confusing to me is why Adam sinned. What is most confusing is why God told him not to sin yet "willed" him to sin.Adam had no sin nature. He was righteous. He had no corrupt nature "driving him to make the only choices a fallen human can make." He still sinned.

There is no scripture that says God willed him to sin. In fact it does say that God would never will someone to sin:

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.

Why did Adam sin?

James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.

 

[Reynolds]

There is no scripture that says God willed him to sin. In fact it does say that God would never will someone to sin:

James 1:13 Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.

Why did Adam sin?

James 1:14 But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.

I agree, but to remain consistent with logic in the Calvinist position, it had to be the will of God for Adam to sin.

 

[The Biblicist]

Uh-huh. And who caused Adam to sin?

Adam caused Adam to sin. You seem not to understand that creation of free will is divine permission for contrary choice with all of its responsibilities and consequences. Adam had free will, whereas, fallen sons of Adam have "free agency" and there is a difference.

 

[The Biblicist]

Also factor in the Calvinist conundrum of why God would command all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30) yet gives them no absolutely no ablity to do so.

The only "conudrum" is between your two ears (and I say that respectfully). There is no conundrum as God is not responsible for man's lose of his own ability to respond and God is perfectly righteous in demanding repentance since it is a righteous thing thing to hold men "accountable" for their sin, and the lose of their ability is their sin.

I think the primary problem is failure to understand what role you and I played in Adam's free choice to become subserviant to Satan's will. The whole of human nature existed and acted in one man - Adam. Again, notice Paul never says "by MANY MEN'S ACTS OF DISOBEDIENCE many be dead.....many be condemned......many be made sinners. That is precisely upon which your rationalizations originate. Instead, he repeatedly states "by THE OFFENCE OF ONE MAN" many be condemned,....be dead.....be made sinners. Here is the root of your conundrum issue.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree, but to remain consistent with logic in the Calvinist position, it had to be the will of God for Adam to sin.

That is simply not true. When God created free will He created the potential for contrary choice, but he also created it in connection with full disclosure of the consequences and man being fully accountable for contrary choice. So indirectly, God is the author of sin, in the sense that God created the mechanism necessary for sin to exist (free will) but God did so without accountability for contrary choice as he made those with free choice accountable for their actions.

Sin originated from "good." No, you did not misread what I said. Sin originated from "good." When God finished creating he pronounced all things not just "good" but "very good." He could never have said that if evil had existed prior to the seventh day of creation. Hence, nothing but "good" and "very good" existed in creation.

A rationalization for how sin is derived from good may go like this; God created man to love Eve and to be sexually attracted and bonded to Eve so that he would forfeit his own life to preserve hers. Eve came directly from the hand of God and so had to be the most beautiful woman that has ever existed. In turn, Adam came directly from God and had to be the most attractive man that has ever existed. the natural magnatism between the two must have been enormous. God made them that way and that is "good." However, when Eve sinned Adam was forced to make a choice between love for God and love for Eve. He chose willfully to rather die with Eve than live without her. The sin was not love for Eve but loving Eve more than God.

Satan was made to glorfiy God as that is what angels are made to do. It was not sin to be like God. Indeed, we are commanded to be imitators of God (Eph. 5:1). To excel to be "like" God is "good." However, it became evil when he chose to excel not only to be "like" God but to the point of replacing God and thus becoming the object of glorification instead of God. The bible says that sin was "found" in Lucifer, rather than originating with God. Sin was derived from what is essentially "good" but distorted to an extreme that is not good. Now, I merely provided a rationalization.

 

[TCassidy]

I agree, but to remain consistent with logic in the Calvinist position, it had to be the will of God for Adam to sin.

That is not true. It is dishonest to mischaracterize what others believe.

 

[TCassidy]

What is very confusing to me is why Adam sinned.

Because he chose his wife over his God.

What is most confusing is why God told him not to sin yet "willed" him to sin.

God did not will Adam to sin. That is an untruth.

Adam had no sin nature.

Not yet.

He was righteous.

No. He was innocent.

He had no corrupt nature "driving him to make the only choices a fallen human can make."

His nature was not yet fallen. But his "free will" got him in trouble because he chose to disobey God.

He still sinned.

Yes, he did. "Free will" will do that to you.

 

[TCassidy]

Their other technique is ask silly hypothetical questions...

So, once again you are unable to address the issue so you engage in a childish post which are the equivalent of "so's your mother!"