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

[SovereignGrace]

To me, that is exactly what Calvinism teaches; God chooses who will be saved. By defacto He is also choosing who will remain lost.

God chose to save some and left the others to themselves. Those He chose, He chose according to His good will and pleasure. He was not obligated to save any, yet in His mercy, He chose a #(don't know how you call this # few) that no man can #, gave them to His Son, to be their surety.

Now, if there was something in those He left in their fallen condition, then you'd have something to complain about. But those who He chose, they were just as deserving of His wrath, and consequent eternal expulsion from His presence, based upon His will and not ours. As Ephesians 2:3 says, we were children of wrath, even as others. So, we were no better than those He chose to leave in their fallen condition, hence unconditional election reigns supreme.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I am speaking of your view of His sovereignty.

Okay, look at how God dealt with Israel's enemies in the OT. How many times did God tell them, the Israelites, to tell their enemies to serve their God? None that I know of. Even when God sent Moses to tell Pharaoh "let My ppl go that they may serve Me", not once in all those warnings did God command Moses to tell Pharaoh and Egypt to worship and serve Him.

When God told Israel to destroy those squatters who were trespassing on the land He had promised His ppl, they were instructed to kill even their babies. They had to rid themselves of the Hittites, Jebusites, Hivvites, Assyrians, Philistines, Babylonians, et al.

God was sovereign over all of this.

 

[Reynolds]

No, you are not. Please stop making such untrue accusations about what others believe.

I am honestly speaking of the understanding I have of the views they write.

 

[TCassidy]

I am honestly speaking of the understanding I have of the views they write.

No, you are not. Nobody in this thread used the term "hyper-sovereign" or "hyper-sovereignty" except you. Here is YOUR statement. Not anyone else's.

hyper sovereign at some times and not others.

Honesty is important if we are going to discuss this issue as spiritually mature Christian gentlemen. To make up a meaningless term ("Sovereignty" is an absolute - it stands without a modifier - either God is Sovereign or He is not - there is no middle ground) then claim it is what somebody else said or what somebody else believes is simply untrue.

 

[MennoSota]

I have never heard the term "hypersovereign" nor can I find its definition anywhere. Used in the context Reynolds shared, it sounds negative...like God's sovereignty is too much and is therefore not wanted. The people I can think of who would coin such a term are the ones who are hiding in caves and wishing the rocks would fall on them as Jesus reigns as King on earth. They despise God's sovereignty and thus might consider it hyper.
I doubt Reynolds is in that camp. I consider him a brother who is struggling because it's hard to let go and trust the King in every area of our lives. Everyone of us struggle daily just as Paul did in Romans 7.

 

[InTheLight]

I have never heard the term "hypersovereign" nor can I find its definition anywhere. Used in the context Reynolds shared, it sounds negative...like God's sovereignty is too much and is therefore not wanted. The people I can think of who would coin such a term are the ones who are hiding in caves and wishing the rocks would fall on them as Jesus reigns as King on earth. They despise God's sovereignty and thus might consider it hyper.

Wikipedia:

"that school of supralapsarian Five Point Calvinism which so stresses the sovereignty of God by overemphasizing the secret [will of God] over the revealed will [of God] and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of Man, notably with respect to the denial of the word ‘offer’ in relation to the preaching of the Gospel of a finished and limited atonement, thus undermining the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly with assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them."

I doubt Reynolds is in that camp. I consider him a brother who is struggling because it's hard to let go and trust the King in every area of our lives.

Yeah, you can stop it with your 'holier than thou' attitude.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[Yeshua1]

True, as they are in a state of rebellion as being found in adam and with sin natures. My main point was that they are still liable and accountable for their choices and actions, as God did not force them to reject Jesus and send them to hell. My understanding is that predestination God election and salvation of the saved.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have never heard the term "hypersovereign" nor can I find its definition anywhere. Used in the context Reynolds shared, it sounds negative...like God's sovereignty is too much and is therefore not wanted. The people I can think of who would coin such a term are the ones who are hiding in caves and wishing the rocks would fall on them as Jesus reigns as King on earth. They despise God's sovereignty and thus might consider it hyper.
I doubt Reynolds is in that camp. I consider him a brother who is struggling because it's hard to let go and trust the King in every area of our lives. Everyone of us struggle daily just as Paul did in Romans 7.

Think he means hyper calvinism, which would hold with God saved his own period, so no need to evangelize/missionaries, and the gospel just taught to His elect, and almost seems to hold to an eternal justification state!

 

[MennoSota]

Wikipedia:

"that school of supralapsarian Five Point Calvinism which so stresses the sovereignty of God by overemphasizing the secret [will of God] over the revealed will [of God] and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of Man, notably with respect to the denial of the word ‘offer’ in relation to the preaching of the Gospel of a finished and limited atonement, thus undermining the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly with assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them."




Yeah, you can stop it with your 'holier than thou' attitude.



Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

Is that the definition of hyper Calvinism? My guess is you are attempting to fit that term into the coined term, hypersovereign, which I have never heard before.
As to your last comment, I spoke honestly. You spoke like a turd.

 

[TCassidy]

"that school of supralapsarian Five Point Calvinism which so stresses the sovereignty of God by overemphasizing the secret [will of God] over the revealed will [of God] and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of Man, notably with respect to the denial of the word ‘offer’ in relation to the preaching of the Gospel of a finished and limited atonement, thus undermining the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly with assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them."

This is an out and out lie. This is not a definition of hyper-sovereignty. It is the definition of hyper-calvinism.

What Wikipedia really says:

Curt Daniel defines Hyper-Calvinism as "that school of supralapsarian Five Point Calvinism which so stresses the sovereignty of God by overemphasizing the secret [will of God] over the revealed will [of God] and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of Man, notably with respect to the denial of the word ‘offer’ in relation to the preaching of the Gospel of a finished and limited atonement, thus undermining the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly with assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them." Daniel goes on to suggest that the real difference between "High" and "Hyper-" Calvinism is the word "offer."

 

[Yeshua1]

This is an out and out lie. This is not a definition of hyper-sovereignty. It is the definition of hyper-calvinism.

What Wikipedia really says:

Curt Daniel defines Hyper-Calvinism as "that school of supralapsarian Five Point Calvinism which so stresses the sovereignty of God by overemphasizing the secret [will of God] over the revealed will [of God] and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of Man, notably with respect to the denial of the word ‘offer’ in relation to the preaching of the Gospel of a finished and limited atonement, thus undermining the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly with assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them." Daniel goes on to suggest that the real difference between "High" and "Hyper-" Calvinism is the word "offer."

Either God is fully in control, or He is not, so no need for Hyper!

 

[InTheLight]

This is an out and out lie. This is not a definition of hyper-sovereignty. It is the definition of hyper-calvinism.

What's the difference?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[InTheLight]

Is that the definition of hyper Calvinism? My guess is you are attempting to fit that term into the coined term, hypersovereign, which I have never heard before.

If the shoe fits...

As to your last comment, I spoke honestly. You spoke like a turd.

Oh, look what you said earlier:

Again, it is impossible to over emphasize God's Sovereignty.
You seem to be looking desperately for a way to rule. Why?

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[MennoSota]

Either God is fully in control, or He is not, so no need for Hyper!

The issue is really whether you are a monergist or a synergist regarding God’s work with man.
A synergist cannot claim that God is Sovereign in all areas. Sovereignty would be limited to some areas while dual rulership would apply to other areas.
I see no area where God passively looks on while we rule as decision makers.

 

[InTheLight]

I see no area where God passively looks on while we rule as decision makers.

Well, except for the garden of Eden and Adam's sin.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

[MennoSota]

If the shoe fits...



Oh, look what you said earlier:






Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

I know what I wrote.

What is the problem?

 

[MennoSota]

Well, except for the garden of Eden and Adam's sin.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

God was not passive. Before creation God had written down those who would be written in the Lambs book of life. This means that God ordained the fall of Satan, with no grace given, and the fall of Adam, with grace being given to those whom the Father choses. Adam was never free of the will of God.
Why God ordained the fall of Satan and man is a mystery that I will never understand. There are two possible responses:
1) Curse God and die.
2) Thank God for both the good and the bad that comes our way.
The attempt to fathom the depth of God's will is a foolish game that ends with God's rebuke and reminder that we know nothing about His ways. Why continue the attempt? Trust God. Accept His full sovereignty. Find peace in Christ. Be content.

 

[TCassidy]

What's the difference?

Hyper-sovereignty doesn't exist. It is a false pejorative invented on this thread by a person who is confused and less than completely honest in his dealings with those whose doctrine he does not understand.

Hyper-calvinism, on the other hand, is a well known and well established teaching which denies the universal Gospel call and the unlimited nature of the general sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

 

[Reynolds]

No, you are not. Nobody in this thread used the term "hyper-sovereign" or "hyper-sovereignty" except you. Here is YOUR statement. Not anyone else's.


Honesty is important if we are going to discuss this issue as spiritually mature Christian gentlemen. To make up a meaningless term ("Sovereignty" is an absolute - it stands without a modifier - either God is Sovereign or He is not - there is no middle ground) then claim it is what somebody else said or what somebody else believes is simply untrue.

I used the term hyper sovereignty to describe how I comprehend what they believe. There was no dishonesty. It is my belief that a couple on here have a hyper view of God's sovereignty. There is no dishonesty in that.

 

[Reynolds]

Hyper-sovereignty doesn't exist. It is a false pejorative invented on this thread by a person who is confused and less than completely honest in his dealings with those whose doctrine he does not understand.

Hyper-calvinism, on the other hand, is a well known and well established teaching which denies the universal Gospel call and the unlimited nature of the general sacrifice of Christ on the cross.

You can question my education, understanding, etc, all you like. You are wrong in questioning my honesty. You regularly accusing me of being dishonest is wrong and just hurtful. You don't know my heart. The term hyper sovereign might not exist in the Calvinist clique you run in, but it is a term used by noncals regularly. If you think I am again lying, Google is your friend.