Featured Cruel and unjust God?

Yes, He did...

By standing back and giving us over to that which we had come to love,
Instead of forcing us to stop sinning and to stop from turning our backs and hearts away from Him.

See Romans 1:18-32.

To me, you're acting as if our own free will was not honored by allowing us to have the consequences of our sin...
It was.

He did not create robots;
He created men and women with the capability to make decisions that would affect their lives, and ultimately, their relationship with their Creator.
Those decisions did and do affect that relationship to this day.

Yet, in spite of all of our failings as a race,
The Bible in Romans 2:1-11 tells us that His goodness leads us to repentance.

Still, we love sin ( Romans 1:32 ) and will not come to the light, lest our deeds should be reproved ( reprimanded ), John 3:19-20.
If that isn't stubborn refusal, I don't know what it is.

But the fact that He had a purpose in allowing us to dig our own hole, and then choosing to save a great multitude that no man can number ( Revelation 17:8 ) out of every tongue, tribe and nation ( Revelation 5:9, Revelation 7:9 ), should tell you that He is gracious and merciful.


He's simply not gracious and merciful to all men, but to whomsoever He wishes to be ( Exodus 33:19, Romans 9:14-24 ).

 

George,

He didn't force us to be unwilling to believe or to be unable to...
He simply gave us over to our heart's desire, and then allowed us to harden our own hearts even further against Him.

What does this say?
" And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." ( John 5:40 ).

There is it, man's will in all its "glory".

We are the ones who darkened our own minds, who turned our backs upon Him and walked away, as a race ( Romans 1:18-32 ).
We did it all voluntarily of our own will.
We do it every day we are alive, unless the Lord, in His grace, does something to convince us of the foolhardiness of it

That He chooses to remove the effects of our own hardheartedness and corruption for anyone,
is testament to His grace and mercy.
That He takes away the "will not" ( which He tells us is a "cannot", John 6:44, John 6:65 ) and restores the heart that we had before the Fall, is an amazing thing in itself.

Us as men even suggesting that He is cruel or unjust for choosing to give some men and women an eternal relationship with Him and His Son ( and not others ), insults His right to be merciful and compassionate to whom He wills, and to reserve for everlasting punishment those who justly deserve it.

Which is all of us.

Some of the comments that I've seen in this thread, I find amazing in the light of who we are and what we've done to ourselves;
Even more so, in the light of what He's done and who He is, to those who have believed on His Son.

 

Does God not create all things for His own purpose?

" For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:" ( Colossians 1:16 ).

Shall He not do with His own as He sees fit?
Shall not the Lord of the earth do rightly and justly in all things?

That God creates vessels of wrath, fitted to destruction and vessels of mercy, prepared for glory ( Romans 9:14-24 )...
Is His right and privilege.

As I've told George...

That he has allowed us to dig a hole, and then turns around and extends His grace and mercy to any of us, is amazing in itself.
But it seems that what you would have your Creator to do,
is to simply not create anything, especially if it results in someone being justly punished for their willful rebellion against Him.


In other words, what I see you objecting to, is His words...
Not just the "ideas" behind them.

 

It depends on what you mean by this. If this is understood as the purposeful creation of some for destruction, and others for bliss, then yes. You can agree.

Well, if they mean that God is simply obliged to blindly introduce everyone into His Kingdom and not look at what and how people lived, then I naturally cannot agree with this.

I hope the translator correctly conveyed my idea.

 

I also believe Jesus never sinned. However. PS 51:5 Lo, in iniquity I have been brought forth, And in sin doth my mother conceive me. ----- Did that apply to the birth of Jesus? Let's look at the birth of Jesus and ask.

Matthew 1:18 And of Jesus Christ, the birth was thus: For his mother Mary having been betrothed to Joseph, before their coming together she was found to have conceived from the Holy Spirit, and Joseph her husband being righteous, and not willing to make her an example, did wish privately to send her away. And on his thinking of these things, lo, a messenger of the Lord in a dream appeared to him, saying, 'Joseph, son of David, thou mayest not fear to receive Mary thy wife, for that which in her was begotten is of the Holy Spirit, she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus, for he shall save his people from their sins.'

The angel explains the why of that. The virgin shall conceive and (the virgin, she) shall bring forth, very different from Ps 51:5, yet I believe there is more. Two things one might say, as if by law. Gal 4:4 Born of woman, born under law, the virgin, shall conceive and shall bring forth. Was that the law Jesus was born under?

V 22,23 All this hath come to pass, that it may be fulfilled that was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, 'Lo, the virgin shall conceive, and she shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel,' which is, being interpreted 'With us he is God.'

What did Joseph do? he received the conceived virgin as his wife and he knew her not, until she brought forth her first born son.

My question is; What if he had disregarded the second part of the virgin bringing forth and received her and went ahead and knew her? Would that conceived in her out of spirit which was, of holy (see the Greek of Verse 20) have been brought forth holy?

Or would, he, even though not conceived in sin, have been brought forth in iniquity as in Ps 51:5 Would that little baby have been known as Emmanuel?

 

My question?

Would a God who saved all sinners be an unjust God?

 

It is said that MERCY is above Judgment. So I think His justice is a secondary matter here. In justice, He is bound to destroy us all, but in His Mercy, He allowed His Son to save us through the atonement on the Cross by His Sacrifice.

 

Prov 16:4 YLT All things hath Jehovah wrought for Himself, And also the wicked for a day of evil.

 

One of my favorites

or the shewing forth of his righteousness in the present time, so that he should be just, and justify him that is of the faith of Jesus.

 

That's still kicking the can down the road. Was it not God that set up the kind of corruption we would inherit?

 

Not just the "ideas" behind them.

Hi Dave, thanks for your response.
Sure he does, that is never at issue. What is at issue is whether his plans were cruel or unjust.

Of course. But, if he were vicious capricious and cruel and his intentions were also then that is something worth noticing.
According to Islam, Allah has quite the right to do with the Universe as he sees fit. So what? Allah is capricious and nasty and not the God of the Bible.

Of course he does....But, what we can conclude is that we can expect God, then, to act a certain way.
What it doesn't mean, is that anything whatsoever a human could devise and claim God does is "just" or "right" simply because they assert God is doing it.
It doesn't mean that you can assert that he could do just anything whatsoever, and it would remain meaningful to say he is "right" and "just".
An Omnipotent fiend could not be called "Just".
If, for instance, God created baby seals for the sole purpose of having drunken clubbing orgies with his homies, it would be meaningless to say that God was "good" or "just".

By this, you mean, that God creates persons with the sole purpose of damning them. I disagree with that interpretations of that passage. It would be neither "good" nor "just" to do so.
All that is, is rendering the words meaningless.

That God extends mercy and grace to those who have rebelled against him is amazing sure.
Also, that is agreed upon by every branch of Christian Theology

No. That is not the case.

No, I object to any Theology which ascribes cruel, unjust actions to God and then claims that anything they can dream up in their own minds must therefore be called good or just.
I object to your interpretation of those words.....I object to your Theological system which is disproven simply by the fact that God's word clearly says that he is "good" and "just".
That fact alone disproves Calvinistic Theology which is inherently cruel and unjust.

 

Well said.

 

[QUOTE = "Джордж Антониос, сообщение: 2683067, участник: 15115"] Это все еще не решает проблему. Разве не Бог устроил порчу, которую мы унаследуем? [/ QUOTE]

Sorry. I may have misunderstood something in your words, but you want to say that God Himself is to blame for our depravity and in fact we all sin according to His will? Do I understand you correctly?"

 

Where in the Bible is that taught????
Nowhere:
The Bible is clear, the serpent was cursed
The ground was cursed.
Adam was never cursed.
Also, Adam made no Covenant with God, but that really isn't important.
God gave Adam a rule and Adam broke it.

That is precisely what Jesus experienced.
Adam was told that the price for sin was death.
Jesus DIED for sins.
The wages of sin is DEATH.

On the contrary, if he did not suffer Adam's fate, he would be unable to redeem sinners.
He took upon himself the fate meted out because of the fall........death.
This "curse" you keep hearkening to is found absolutely nowhere in Scripture.

Yes, that is Christianity 101.

I affirm the deity of Jesus Christ.
He is the second member of the Trinity and a member of the Godhead.
However, I believe he incarnated as a man.
He absolutely WAS LIKE ADAM.
He was as absolutely human as anyone. He was in fact, the "second Adam". Docetism is also heresy. He was human in every sense that Adam was human, and in every sense that you and I are human.

Again, that is Christianity 101.

So has yours.
Gnostic Neo-Platonism is pagan and also historically condemned.
Docetism is also historically condemned.

I don't care about your boogey-man word "Pelagian".
It means nothing coming from the mouth of those who know nothing about Pelagius.
I consider your Theology Gnostic heresy.
I consider your Theology Docetic.
But, the labels don't help Austin.
What matters is the content of what one believes and whether it aligns with God's word.
What we should be debating is what is taught in the text, and what that means.
Calling people names and affixing labels is not helpful.

I affirm the deity of Jesus Christ.

I affirm Penal Substitution.
The wages of sin was death.
Jesus died for sins.

Much to your dismay, I am very in the thick of Baptist Church life.
I could link you to numerous of my sermons on Youtube.
They are perfectly Orthodox, and driven entirely by the text itself.
I was going to say, "I hate to dissapoint"....but, that would be untrue.

 

Thanks

 

Precisely!!!!
That is the Achilles heel of Calvinism.
If humans, (babies specifically) are born with a curse upon them which they inherited from their parentage which renders them guilty of Adam's sin, or, incapable of doing that which is right, and it was God's choice to curse them in that manner........
Then it is inherently unjust by any definition of that word.

It is irrelevant that they "choose" to sin later on....
They were incapable of making any contrary choice because of God's choice to render them incapable of choosing otherwise....

Of course, the Compatibilist version says they "want" to, and they do what they want:
But, as you said, that's simply kicking the can one more step...

Why do they want to???
Because (according to that Theology) God caused them to be cursed to:
1.) Only be capable of responding to their greatest desire
2.) Most greatly desire only to do wrong.

It's cruel, and unjust by any measure.

 

I'd just like a straight answer to my question please. Thanks.

 

Total depravity, in the sense that the will of man is so corrupt that it cannot even recognize its own corruption even when presented with the gospel of Jesus Christ, is an unscriptural heresy clothed in humility.

That being said, that we inherit a sinful nature is scriptural.
The answer to the then evident question: "it wasn't my fault that Adam sinned and that I inherited a sinful nature which renders me unable to live a sinless life" is found in Romans 5 which can be summarized as follows:
"Just as it wasn't your 'fault' that Adam sinned and earned you death, likewise it isn't your 'fault' that Christ did not sin and earned you eternal life."
I.e. God settles the score, by saving man vicariously just as man had fallen vicariously.
For a man to reject Christ's vicarious death of his own free will choice, now indeed becomes his "fault".

There is no need to deny inherited depravity to counter Calvinism.
The error of Calvinism is not in teaching inherited depravity, but the extent to which it reaches (extends) that depravity.

 

I appreciate your reply...
I respect it, even though, I do not quite agree.
I see nothing in Scripture that says we inherit any predisposition towards any "nature".

Now, it is obvious (simply by observation) that mankind seems to be inclined towards evil.
This is accepted by the Atheist (and genius) Theodore Dalrymple.
I don't disagree that mankind does seem inclined towards wrongdoing.

We all do, in fact, sin.
But, what I don't see in Scripture is the idea of an "inherited nature". Or that the Bible uses anything like a "nature" to explain mankind's actions at all.

I do realize that what I am suggesting is far from a traditional explanation, and that it may seem quite radical, even to someone such as yourself.
I think speaking of "inherited natures" is simply not a Biblical way of speaking at all. Perhaps I am missing something. I don't dismiss the possibility of some correction.
I am quite sure that non-posse non-peccarre is heresy.
If that is so, then speaking of "natures" is unimportant and unnecessary. We need never to speak of causation with man's sins.
It is sufficient for me to say that all men DO sin...........I need no explanation for a "why" which compels them to do so.

I know that I sin.
I know that I could always avoid sinning when I do.
I never think it has anything to do with a "nature" I have when I do it.

Adam had no inherited "nature". He sinned.
Jesus also had no inherited "nature". He did not sin.

That works for me, and I see insufficient explanation in the Biblical text to complicate it beyond that. God is not required to explain all mysteries of the Universe to us. And none of us assumes he does. I am willing to accept that I sin.....because.......I sin.
Again, I appreciate your response, and would appreciate some reasoned correction....................But, I know that no Calvinist is capable of it, because they think that "sin" is a gene that resides in male spermatazoa....It's absurd.

 

Well it would certainly be an interesting discussion, probably for another thread.
I would just point out something here in what you said, which rather answers it:

So let's forget the "inherited" part, since you don't believe it anyway.
Let's look at Christ as he is called the last Adam.

Then we get:

"Adam sinned
The last Adam did not sin".

So what was the difference between both if not nature?

Especially when we compare the birth of any Adam as: I was shapen in iniquity (Ps.51:5) VS the birth of Christ as The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee (Lk.1:35).

Thus man's sinfulness is apparently attributed to an unclean birth/nature (Job 14:1-4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one) whereas Christ's sinless is apparently attributed to a clean and supernatural birth/nature.

I won't belabour it anymore here, but someday in a thread maybe