ItinerantPreacher said:
Being just means "equitable in the distribution of justice".
I dispute your definition (that isn't the
only definition of the word "just," and you haven't explained why it's the
right one, nor do I know which dictionary you got it from). However, let's assume it for the sake of argument.
All the points of TULIP theology including the I (which is on topic) make God unjust, or in other words, He does not distribute to all men equitably. He chooses to distribute to some men in one fashion, and to others in another fashion, and that arbitrarily.
Who said it was arbitrarily? I reject that assertion, and will eliminate it: God "chooses to distribute to some men in one fashion, and to others in another fashion." That, at least, is true.
if God's justice must be equitable, then your definition of justice leaves you with a dilemma. You are stating that God may not extend condemnation to some men, and clemency to others. On the one hand, if God must be equitably just, he must condemn all, and we are left without hope. On the other hand, if God must be equitably merciful, then he must save all, and justice is perverted.
You deny God the sovereign freedom that is his by virtue of his lordship over creation. He has declared, "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy" (Exod. 33:19). Effectively you are saying, "No, God, that's not true, you have to treat everyone equally." You've tied his hands.
It is oversimplistic to say the He does so because He can, and who is mortal man to question sovereign God?
Then Paul was oversimplistic, because that was exactly his God-breathed answer (Rom. 9:19-20).
The verse quoted (Acts 7:51) can be looked at as "unregenerate men, of course they resisted", but that interpretation then begs the question, why did Stephen reprove them for it, they were incapable of doing anything else, in fact, a Calvinistic view of this would presuppose that Stephen was wrong for arguing with dead unregenerate men, as though he were preaching to corpses in a morgue.
No, in a Calvinistic view - since we want to be discussing the truth here, rather than fiction - Stephen can reprove them because they are moral human beings who were responsible for their sins.
What point would there have been in that?
The question is moot since it isn't based on reality.
How foolish of Stephen to get upset at dead men for being dead.
Death is but
one metaphor the Scripture uses to show the relationship between unregenerate men and God. No one is claiming that spiritual death renders a person incapable of moral responsibility for his actions. Other metaphors include blindness, imprisonment, slavery, and so forth, where that objection simply wouldn't apply. You end up with straw men like yours when you selectively ignore what your opponents are actually saying.
The same thought for Luke 13:34. Why was the Lord lamenting the fact that Jerusalem allow Himto gather them together.
He wasn't. You misquoted the verse: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that
kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and
you were not willing!"
In other words, his anger is directed at those in power who have killed God's messengers, oppressing the people by preventing them from hearing the word of God.
To the Calvinist, the answer to WHY He could not gather them together is apparent.
To
this Calvinist, your answer is again moot since it assumes false premises.
