The Theology in Calvinism

[civic]

The way I would phrase it, is some attributes are not manifested until there is a creation.

Attributes by definition do not have to be manifested; for example, having the ability to fly is not equal to flying.

No God is not wrath within His being . That’s an oxymoron. That is dis unity not Tri- Unity.

 

[Diserner]

No God is not wrath within His being . That’s an oxymoron. That is dis unity not Tri- Unity.

You're wrong.

 

[civic]

You're wrong.

No I’m 100% absolutely correct

Was the Father angry, vengeful , retributive ( wrath’s definition) with/ towards the Son and Holy Spirit before creation ?

Give an honest answer and don’t dodge the question. Thanks

 

[civic]

I have yet to meet a single person who opposes me answer the questions I’m about to ask because it will expose the false view of God every single time without exception. They ran from it at CARM too.

 

[Rockson]

I'm fine with hurled, I don't think it's a big deal.

Well for me having accusations and hurled joined together seems pretty aggressive. implying others are so unkind and some might be I don't deny that. A great many though are merely wanting to kindly and with much diplomacy are wanting to challenge another's position and all need to keep that in mind.

 

[Arial]

Then you define love much differently than God word , the lexicons and dictionary’s.

The love God possesses cannot be defined by our limited definitions given it. His love is completely outside what we ever experience of this earth in our relationships and therefore we have nothing in our experience to define it beyond the words we have and what we know.

 

[civic]

The love God possesses cannot be defined by our limited definitions given it. His love is completely outside what we ever experience of this earth in our relationships and therefore we have nothing in our experience to define it beyond the words we have and what we know.

No Jesus tells us exactly what Gods love is and looks like and so does Paul snd John in their epistles. Any more fallacies?

 

[civic]

The fact is Jesus and the Apostle’s teaching on love is in direct opposition to Calvinism .

 

[Aeliana]

The love God possesses cannot be defined by our limited definitions given it. His love is completely outside what we ever experience of this earth in our relationships and therefore we have nothing in our experience to define it beyond the words we have and what we know.

As finite and sinful human beings, trying to understand the perfect, unconditional, generous, and gracious love of our infinite God is very difficult. In fact, we can never fully understand it because, unlike ourselves, God is love. In the essence of His being He is perfect love. We, of course, are not but God has given us all we need to come to a sufficient understanding of His love. When we see him face to face as he really is we may have a complete understanding of his love.

 

[Arial]

The fact that God can do something is not a justification for Him doing it. The fact that God can damn everyone without a reason is not an argument for justifying teaching that he does as in the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination. All that He can do is restricted by the standard that God values most which is His love. If it will violate love, God will not and cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God. And if it will violate love then it is not right. God cannot make it right by doing it just because He is sovereign. If God does it just because He is sovereign then He would not be God but something else.

First a bit more on your assertion that God's holiness and His love are primary attributes to which others, such as justice for example as you claim in your penal substitution arguments, is secondary. Justice is contained in holiness as is love. Absolute justice is part and parcel of being holy. His holiness cannot allow unholiness in His presence. That is why the high priest had to first offer sacrifices before entering the Holy of Holies. And why one he could enter and only once a year. And why Jesus had to pay with His life as the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, thereby allowing those who are in Him through faith to come before His very throne.


And here, as I said before in the thread you closed, is the inaccurate depiction of Calvinism as your premise for refuting it. Calvinism does not say that God's justice has anything to do with doing something because He can. That is simply how you choose to portray it and maybe even believe, but it does not. It is also your premise for arriving at a different doctrine of God. So neither one hold any water at all. It doesn't say God can damn everyone without a reason so that is a logical fallacy used as an valid argument also. It is merely how you choose to portray it, and if you actually believe that, you have been shown where you are mistaken. I won't take up the space here to repeat myself in vain.

When you say that God cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God then I challenge you to explain how following fit your definition of love.
God striking dead on the spot men who touched what was holy.
Sending men into other nations to kill the people and take their wealth.
Sending the king of Assyria to execute His judgment of Israel, removing them from the promised land and scattering them into other lands.
Sending Babylong to execute judgement on Judah, destroy the temple, giving its gold and silver to His enemies, and walls and gates and scattering the inhabitants abroad away from the promised land.
Sending His own Son to the cross.
Destroying all the wicked in the land.

God does nothing just because He is sovereign and Calvinism teaches no such thing.

 

[Hosanna]

As finite and sinful human beings, trying to understand the perfect, unconditional, generous, and gracious love of our infinite God is very difficult. In fact, we can never fully understand it because, unlike ourselves, God is love. In the essence of His being He is perfect love. We, of course, are not but God has given us all we need to come to a sufficient understanding of His love. When we see him face to face as he really is we may have a complete understanding of his love.

I agree.

God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.
—1 JOHN 4:16

In 1 John 4:16 we read that “God is love.” It doesn’t say that He loves, although we know that God does love us with unconditional love. This verse says that God is love. This is His nature, who He is. He will never be anything other than love because to be so would be contrary to His own nature.

 

[civic]

First a bit more on your assertion that God's holiness and His love are primary attributes to which others, such as justice for example as you claim in your penal substitution arguments, is secondary. Justice is contained in holiness as is love. Absolute justice is part and parcel of being holy. His holiness cannot allow unholiness in His presence. That is why the high priest had to first offer sacrifices before entering the Holy of Holies. And why one he could enter and only once a year. And why Jesus had to pay with His life as the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, thereby allowing those who are in Him through faith to come before His very throne.


And here, as I said before in the thread you closed, is the inaccurate depiction of Calvinism as your premise for refuting it. Calvinism does not say that God's justice has anything to do with doing something because He can. That is simply how you choose to portray it and maybe even believe, but it does not. It is also your premise for arriving at a different doctrine of God. So neither one hold any water at all. It doesn't say God can damn everyone without a reason so that is a logical fallacy used as an valid argument also. It is merely how you choose to portray it, and if you actually believe that, you have been shown where you are mistaken. I won't take up the space here to repeat myself in vain.

When you say that God cannot do it for that would be contrary to His nature and character as a loving God then I challenge you to explain the fol in the following how your definition of love fits into:
God striking dead on the spot men who touched what was holy.
Sending men into other nations to kill the people and take their wealth.
Sending the king of Assyria to execute His judgment of Israel, removing them from the promised land and scattering them into other lands.
Sending Babylong to execute judgement on Judah, destroy the temple, giving its gold and silver to His enemies, and walls and gates and scattering the inhabitants abroad away from the promised land.
Sending His own Son to the cross.
Destroying all the wicked in the land.

God does nothing just because He is sovereign and Calvinism teaches no such thing.

What Justice was there when only God existed ?

What Justice was there with the Holy Spirit and the Father?

How was Justice being served between the Godhead ?

Now try answering the questions and not avoid them . Thanks !

 

[Arial]

What makes God, God is so intricately bound to his intent for doing things that if He were to do a thing just by virtue of the fact that He is sovereign and can do it rather than by virtue of the fact that it is loving? He would not be God as we know Him but something else. If sovereignty is what defines what makes up love in such a way that God doing anything is what defines love, then love has no meaning and can be anything and everything it is and opposes any time, which is ridiculous.

The premise that Calvinism teaches that God does things simply because He is sovereign is a completely made up premise. As is that He sovereignly does things that violate any other part of Him including love and justice. So your conclusion is just as invalid as your premise. You are defining the very complete otherness of God by your singular, finite, personal, emotional idea of love. God can't be what you are not. Man up to God instead of God down to man.

Sovereignty, Righteousness, Justice, Mercy and all the other attributes of God fall under the umbrella of His love

No, they all fall under the umbrella of who He is. He is holy, holy, holy.

The question we need to be asking ourselves is this, how does our Sovereign God display His love in conjunction with His rule over mankind

What is your answer to that.

So far you have taken a thread that is about theology and how the doctrine of God is found and applied in Calvinism---the process----and based your rebuttal on a logical fallacy about Calvinism, which becomes a strawman, as I have shown you. How about we continue without doing that again.

 

[Diserner]

No I’m 100% absolutely correct

Was the Father angry, vengeful , retributive ( wrath’s definition) with/ towards the Son and Holy Spirit before creation ?

Give an honest answer and don’t dodge the question. Thanks

Huh?

You are making a logical fallacy—that something is not an attribute if it is not fully manifested towards all possible things.

The attribute is this: God is wrathful towards sin.

(There's no sin pre-creation.)

That's the full definition.


Now you will not find anywhere in Scripture that God acquires a new attribute when he creates.

 

[Arial]

First of all there are two ways we can choose to express ourselves. Believing the best of people in how we talk or the worse. I see you've gravitated towards a charged negative way of expressing yourself. You say accusations are hurled! Perhaps you can dial it back if for no other reason then to create peace and give people the benefit of the doubt and accept a great many are merely wanting to challenge your position. Such doesn't mean they're some kind of unkind individual . I think all could agree that the word hurled isn't perhaps a good word which leads to peace. How about we keep thing in a positive groove. I think people's time here would be a lot more enjoyable. PEACE.

Are you suggesting political correctness at the expense of the facts? Are you school marming me? Let people be who they are and express themselves as they do. Or else say the same thing to everyone who does the same thing. And there was no peace to begin with if Calvinism is even mentioned (maybe we should find a substitute word for that one) and there never will be. The minute Calvinism and theology were mentioned in conjunction with each other, people were frothing at the bit poised, to dive in with peace being the last thing on their mind.

 

[civic]

Huh?

You are making a logical fallacy—that something is not an attribute if it is not fully manifested towards all possible things.

The attribute is this: God is wrathful towards sin.

(There's no sin pre-creation.)

That's the full definition.


Now you will not find anywhere in Scripture that God acquires a new attribute when he creates.

You dodged the question . Was there wrath between Godhead pre creation ? Simple yes or no answer .

 

[Diserner]

I have yet to meet a single person who opposes me answer the questions I’m about to ask because it will expose the false view of God every single time without exception. They ran from it at CARM too.

Name one time I've "ran."

That's right, you can't.

 

[Arial]

You misquoted me. His love is primary not secondary. His love is changeless before and after creation . That’s my thesis and it’s irrefutable. God is immutable and God is love within His own Triune Being. That never changed before or after creation .

God being love has nothing to do with His creation. That is secondary.

It referred to the above statement.

 

[Arial]

God is immutable and Christ is God His words and deeds are the words and deeds of God the Father as He taught which were revealed in the gospels .

Address what I said----please.

 

[Diserner]

You dodged the question . Was there wrath between Godhead pre creation ? Simple yes or no answer .

You're asking a logically invalid question, like "When did you stop beating your wife?"

You can't answer logically invalid questions, because they contradict themselves in the premises.

God having an attribute of wrath does not logically entail that God is necessarily wrathful at all moments at all things.

That's a violation of the definition of attribute.


Think about it this way: God is merciful.

That's an attribute of God.

Is God merciful to himself?

That's preposterous, mercy entails something is morally failing.

Yet for all eternity before he created God was a merciful God.

The attribute does not "pop into existence" upon God creating something.