Is Fairness an Attribute of God?

I still don't understand why people, right after using the Romans 9 "Potter and Clay"/"vessel of wrath fitted for destruction in regards to individuals going to Hell then turn around and deny belief in "double predestination". "Decreed to Hell" and "fitted for destruction" are mutual paraphrases IF the latter is referring to individuals going to Hell. If you reject double predestination, then let go of this interpretation of the passage and admit it is not talking about that.

 

Ken Hamilton,

A man spoke to Jesus once and said, 'Lord, are there few that be saved?' I guess the idea did not originate with me. [Luke 13:23]. Jesus did not answer his question directly, as I see it.

The verse that stands out in my mind is Matthew 7:14 where our Lord offered these words. ' . . . and few there be that find it.'

Only a tiny percentage in our world can in any way at all be called Christian. Don't hold me to percentages but I think I have heard 2 or 3 percent of the world population. What do you think?

I still believe that people have to come to God ONLY through Jesus in order to be saved. [I Timothy 2:5-6].

Ray Berrian, Th.D.

 

All get a chance or the same chance?

All those people who died in China the week Christ hung on the cross got a chance like the folks who showed up at Bellevue Baptist Church in Memphis, TN this past Sunday?

You're confusing me with your concept of fairness.

 

Arminianism is more unfair than Calvinism. They teach the theory of "unlimited atonement," that Christ died for everyone equally. Why, then, doesn't God give everyone an equal opportunity to hear the Gospel. Millions die every day without hearing the name of Jesus. Is that fair? Arminians further teach if preachers don't go, God can't save. God's hands are tied. Does this sound like a sovereign God?

 

Why do we use human logic to determine whether God is fair or not?... Instead of accepting election the way the scripture say it is we look at election the way we think by our human logic it should be. We put God on the same plane as us mortals which is not an attribute at all. God does all things according to his OWN WILL and PURPOSE and none can stay his hand or ask him what doest thou.

I'm a history nut and one of my favorite book is Foxes Book Of Martyrs and in that book many would rather be burned at the stake than deny God. God didn't come to their aid and rescue them... He could have... After all didn't they follow him?... Now according to human logic that was not fair... Did it carry out the purpose of God?... Did it ever because the written word of God the Bible that you have the freedom to read was bought with martyrs blood.

Job 23:13 But he is in one mind, and who can turn him? and what his soul desireth, even that he doeth.

14 For he performeth the thing that is appointed for me: and many such things are with him... Brother Glen

 

Hardsheller, I didn't understand the reference to Bellevue. What is it?

 

Nothing could be further from the truth. God doesn't save according to chance, but according to purpose.

"And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." (Rom. 8:28)

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," (II Tim. 1:9)

Ray brought something to my attention.

"When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."

Don't you see what Jesus was saying? Salvation is impossible with man!

 

Fairness is something children whine about. It is NOT an attribute of God. Everybody does not get the same thing.

 

Helen, had you quoted the similar passage from Ephesians, Ken would have had a harder time setting it aside...take a look:

Eph 6:5 Bondservants, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ; 6 not with eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as bondservants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 with goodwill doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good anyone does, he will receive the same from the Lord, whether [he] [is] a slave or free. 9 And you, masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.

Maybe you had this in mind when you quoted the other one

Another one:

Romans 2:9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism .

AITB

 

The "partiality" passages are a strong argument in favor of the Calvinistic view of soteriology. To leave salvation in the unaided purview of man would be to show partiality to those who were smarter, more able to recognize their need, lucky enough to be born in a Christian society, in a day of mass communications, etc. Only in a Calvinistic view can true impartiality be found. God does not save man based on what is in man, including his circumstances, faculties, etc. He saves man based on what is in God.

 

Pastor Larry,

I understand your point and yet I also find it hard to see what is impartial about God choosing only some for eternal salvation.

I think if I chose only one of my children for something then the other one would have a basis for saying it wasn't fair. Regardless of whether either of them deserved the something or not.

AITB

 

What basis would that be? If two people do not deserve a gift and one of them receives one based on the goodness of the giver alone, they both continue to be unworthy. By crying foul, the child who didn't receive the gift demonstrates why they justly did not deserve one in the first place. They would come closer to deserving one if they had genuine happiness for the other child without expectation for themselves.

By reacting with jealousy, the unchosen child is not demonstrating a basis for proving unfairness. They are simply showing their sin nature.

 

OK, I saw this explained with a quote from Gill on the "Handful" thread, but I pointed out over there that the rest of Romans 9 still suggests God ultimately made them that way (v17-21) and thus doesn't avoid double predestination, IF you take the passage to be referring to the eternal condemnation of individuals.

 

Originally posted by Scott J:

What basis would that be?

That would be the basis of having been created in God's image and therefore understanding justice and fairness, because he made him/her that way.

If two people do not deserve a gift and one of them receives one based on the goodness of the giver alone, they both continue to be unworthy. By crying foul, the child who didn't receive the gift demonstrates why they justly did not deserve one in the first place. They would come closer to deserving one if they had genuine happiness for the other child without expectation for themselves.

I say that's totally unrealistic, Scott. I can't imagine a child being happy for a sibling who got something and not even having a thought about him/herself not getting it also - unless that child has been conditioned by abuse not to dare think about why a sibling would get something they don't get.

By reacting with jealousy, the unchosen child is not demonstrating a basis for proving unfairness. They are simply showing their sin nature.

As I said, they are showing themselves made in God's image, who placed in them a desire to see fairness and justice in this world.

How very conveniently your explanation turns the child's own sense of justice and fairness against them with "Ah, see, because you complained, you just proved you didn't deserve anything!" Catch-22!

Anyway, I think the child would have this valid basis: "if you gave that to him/her because you love him/her, don't you love me as much, then?"

And what's the answer? In Calvinism it seems to be "Yep! You're right - I love him/her more and there's nothing you can do about it! But don't worry...it's not because of you..."

And that child is supposed to accept that as reasonable?

 

It's not me who's trying to "force" you into double predestination, or "turning the sword back on you". That's what this passage says if your interpretation of it is correct. The context shows that is not correct, and just as Calvinists are always trying to show non-Calvinists the "inconsistencies" of their position, this is what I am doing. (In trying to "hack" Arminianism with this passage, you've swung so hard that you've hacked your own position) There are some inconsistencies in some of the "free-will" arguments, but Calvinism does not have it all explained either.

 

God is no respecter of persons. He doesn't save people because they're rich, American, male, female, slave, master, etc. If His election had been based on such, He would be a respecter of person, but it wasn't. It was based on His sovereign choice.