A question about God's justice

[Frogman]

I said that was a good read

here is another quote from a different author and slightly different subject, but it makes a point succinctly, I think.

For those who will not see this from the following things, would not believe it if the Lord Himself stood bodily before them and told them. Blind prejudice is always most tenacious to maintain its own view.


God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Frogman]

Bro. Ray,
Did you know that after the publication of The Sovereignty of God, Pink received death threats because of his belief as entailed in the book?

Do you suppose this was Calvin, reincarnated and converted to Arminianism?


Bro. Dallas

(Hey, look, Plymouth Rock, the Year of the Pilgrim,)

 

[Aki]

Originally posted by Pastor J.R. Hampton:
One major question which I'm sure you probably have discussed at one point on this board but that has troubled me concerning the Calvinistic doctrine has to do with God's justice.

Would God be just in demanding something from his creation that he did not give the ability to accomplish and then judging his creation for not doing that which the creator did not create within them the ability to do?

Does this question make since? Can someone help me understand how this can be reconciled from scripture? Thank you all.

the justice of God, being perfect, assures that those who pass God's standard will be accepted (or saved) while those who do not will be rejected (or condemened).

upon consideration of God's standard, two things are needful: one, sin cannot go unpunished. two, each man should have God's own rigtheouseness before being accepted by God.

everyone does not meet God's standard thus everyone deserves the second death. if God does not save any, He will not be violating His justice. if God will save anyone upon accomplishing an impossible task, still God will not violate His justice, for in that case, He still gives the undeserving what they actually deserve. if God requires faith to give salvation to anybody, then that will still be fine.

either way, therefore, God will be both absolute righteousness and perfect justice.

though having the justice of God to be always unblemished, still one question is to be answered. is an indivual to be blamed for his own condemnation? is he to recieve the second death because of himself?

we all acquired Adam's sin at birth, and thus desrving of second death since birth. some say that we actually are guilty of doing it, that is why we are still to be blamed. but it is not taught by scriptures. what is taught is that our representative - Adam, failed, thus we fall with him.

therefore, is a born child guilty of the second death because he is guilty? or is he guilty because he is made guilty? is he to be blamed? or was he a victim? either way, God's justice remains perfect. but we should be clear that a person was simply imputed of Adam's sin and that is the reason he is dead at birth. upon spiritual death since birth, God's justice remains, but the individual should not be said to be guilty of doing something that deserves death. rather it should be said that the individual was imputed something that got him deserving of death.

herein then follows God's love. if one is to be a 5-pointer, God's love will be love to the elect but cruelty to the non-elect, since the non-elect was simply imputed the cause of his condemnation together with the inability to accept salvation.

to the non-Calvinists, God's love is to be a chance (as against certainty) for salvation to everyone, which will be accomplished through faith upon conviction.

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by Frogman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> A.W. Tozer 'A 20th century prophet' they called him even in his own lifetime. For 31 years he was pastor of Southside Alliance Church in Chicago. He died in 1963 and was an author of forty books.

Brother Ray,
I respect you, I really do. However, I must confess to you that I would reject Tozer solely on the 'prophet' thing, I believe all prophecy is written, completed by the Revelation of Jesus Christ to the Apostle John.

I therefore would reject Tozer on this basis even before I knew he was/is Arminian.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas </font>[/QUOTE]What a silly reason to reject. Tozer never made the claim of himself, and in fact summarily dismissed those who called him a modern prophet. He did not even think of himself as a man of God, but rather one who reluctantly seeks after God.

If you choose, I would suggest that you read Tozer's "Knowledge of the Holy" a mere 100 page book. It could change your life!

 

[Yelsew]

Originally posted by npetreley:
Dallas, I really liked this quote from one of the links you posted.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There can be no grace when there is no sovereignty. Deny God’s right to choose whom He will and you deny His right to save whom He will. Deny His right to save whom He will, and you deny that salvation is of grace.

Excellent point. </font>[/QUOTE]Then you miss the point of the Chaffing floor illustrations that Jesus gave us in the Gospels.

 

[Yelsew]

I heard Swindoll say once that if anyone desired to join his church they were free to do so, baptism was not necessary...now that's following the commission to a T, his T, designed to increase his following and secure his position. I don't agree with him either.

Having been a member of Swindoll's church in Fullerton, California for several years, I can tell you you are quoting him out of Context. He was saying that sure you can join the church (the physical church located in Fullerton California) and you need not be baptized to do that. He however preached that in order to be a member of the eternal church (the Bride of Christ), one must be first born again, and second baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

You also mischaracterize Bro. Stanley, and Bro. Graham. Here's how: A farmer going out to harvest his crop does not pick and choose from the crop, he harvests it all (big numbers) while it is ready for the harvesting. From that crop, God does the picking and choosing. God does the work on the chaffing floor, separating the wheat from the chaff. The wheat being those who believe in Jesus, the chaff being those who refused to believe.

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I heard Swindoll say once that if anyone desired to join his church they were free to do so, baptism was not necessary...now that's following the commission to a T, his T, designed to increase his following and secure his position. I don't agree with him either.

Having been a member of Swindoll's church in Fullerton, California for several years, I can tell you you are quoting him out of Context. He was saying that sure you can join the church (the physical church located in Fullerton California) and you need not be baptized to do that. He however preached that in order to be a member of the eternal church (the Bride of Christ), one must be first born again, and second baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

You also mischaracterize Bro. Stanley, and Bro. Graham. Here's how: A farmer going out to harvest his crop does not pick and choose from the crop, he harvests it all (big numbers) while it is ready for the harvesting. From that crop, God does the picking and choosing. God does the work on the chaffing floor, separating the wheat from the chaff. The wheat being those who believe in Jesus, the chaff being those who refused to believe. </font>[/QUOTE]I heard the statement from Mr. Swindoll on his radio program. Besides, he is wrong about anyone joining the church apart from baptism. This is not possible.

As far as the 'farmer' episode and God doing all the work, this seems to oppose your view of the free-will of the ears of corn to pick, place themselves in the wagon, carry themselves to the crib and even to shuck themselves not to mention the grinding into feed.

What is your belief Yelsew, does God do all the work, if so then all is completed at the Cross, does man have to validate God's completed work at the Cross before there is any reality or truth applied to it?

You know what I believe, I remain firm that God is Sovereign, God has elected who shall be called and who shall be quickened and enabled to believe. There is no other way apart from a 'super' scriptural way imagined in the minds of men.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Yelsew]

I heard the statement from Mr. Swindoll on his radio program. Besides, he is wrong about anyone joining the church apart from baptism. This is not possible.

Oh, but it is possible to join virtually any congregation without being baptized by that congregation. It is not possible to join the eternal church, the Bride of Christ without baptism however.

As far as the 'farmer' episode and God doing all the work, this seems to oppose your view of the free-will of the ears of corn to pick, place themselves in the wagon, carry themselves to the crib and even to shuck themselves not to mention the grinding into feed.

I have personally harvested corn by going into the field and walking among the stalks and choosing the ears that I wanted to pick. That is an example of "election", the corn that I picked did not have a choice because I ripped them from the stalks myself. Nor did any of the ears speak up and say "Pick me", "Pick me". I have also watched feed corn being harvested by machine, and all are treated equal, no preferential selection until the ears were husked, then those that were spoiled were "elected" to be thrown out.

What is your belief Yelsew, does God do all the work, if so then all is completed at the Cross, does man have to validate God's completed work at the Cross before there is any reality or truth applied to it?

The work of God has already been completed, Jesus said so on the cross. Therefore there is nothing left for man to do except, as Jesus said, believe on me and you shall have everlasting life. Jesus wasn't saying that to pre-identified individuals, but it was said to a leader of the Israel nation, an individual who should have known based upon the "existing" holy scriptures.

You know what I believe, I remain firm that God is Sovereign, God has elected who shall be called and who shall be quickened and enabled to believe. There is no other way apart from a 'super' scriptural way imagined in the minds of men.

If not for the many examples that Jesus himself gave us, of who can receive him and what it takes for one to have eternal life, I would believe as you do. I believe in a God whose desire is that NONE should perish, but that all should have eternal life. I cannot believe as you do, because Jesus made the offer of free salvation to any who believe on him.

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brother Dallas,

I studied Joseph Smith and his cult in seminary along with several other non-Christian groups. We had a representative visit our Systematic Theology class from the Mormon group.

Before we speak of a person being a man of God or using some other title we believe that that person has to believe in certain basic theology in order to be designated a representative of a Christian Church. Trinity, Divinity of Christ, the new birth, resurrection and ascension of Christ into Heaven to name a few.

 

[Frogman]

Divinity of Christ, the new birth, resurrection and ascension of Christ into Heaven to name a few.

Please, permit me the small satisfaction of changing the order of your list.

Your post seems to imply that I take Joseph Smith as being a 'prophet.' On the contrary, my position was that by searching for modern day prophets we see so many cults, heresies, etc. formed in our world today to the tune of approximately 5000 so called 'christian denominations.'

I have been and perhaps you have also, asked how we are suppose to know who is 'right and who is wrong?'

To answer this I always refer to Scripture where Christ said if anyone who would do the will of the father would know his doctrine. (of the true Christ--thus christian church, men of God, preachers, teachers, etc.) This is a built in protection against the easy entrance of these false teachings.

I would only say here that we should note Christ said that the will of the Father must be submitted to, he no where says nor implies the will of man can be entertained. Further we note in Scripture that even the only begotten Son of God submitted his own will to that of the Father, never doing, nor speaking anything but that which he received of the Father to do.

Just something to consider.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brother Dallas,

'Death threats!' Wow. There are a lot of crazies out there.

We just feel that his hybrid view of theology is extreme and that is saying it with Christian love.
Once you start down that road it is difficult to find your way back to sound doctrine.

Understand that God cannot do everything. If He did He would be stepping outside His Divine will, justice, holiness and probably some other things. For example God cannot sin. Does this make Him less than sovereign? No it does not detract from His sovereignty. He remains sovereign and the God of those who believe in Him.

Can God select some for Hell, at will, and remain just? No. God is good and God is fair/just and to act outside of His moral ways would be unthinkable and an impossibility. Does He remain sovereign? Yes!

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I heard the statement from Mr. Swindoll on his radio program. Besides, he is wrong about anyone joining the church apart from baptism. This is not possible.

Oh, but it is possible to join virtually any congregation without being baptized by that congregation. It is not possible to join the eternal church, the Bride of Christ without baptism however.

As far as the 'farmer' episode and God doing all the work, this seems to oppose your view of the free-will of the ears of corn to pick, place themselves in the wagon, carry themselves to the crib and even to shuck themselves not to mention the grinding into feed.

I have personally harvested corn by going into the field and walking among the stalks and choosing the ears that I wanted to pick. That is an example of "election", the corn that I picked did not have a choice because I ripped them from the stalks myself. Nor did any of the ears speak up and say "Pick me", "Pick me". I have also watched feed corn being harvested by machine, and all are treated equal, no preferential selection until the ears were husked, then those that were spoiled were "elected" to be thrown out.

What is your belief Yelsew, does God do all the work, if so then all is completed at the Cross, does man have to validate God's completed work at the Cross before there is any reality or truth applied to it?

The work of God has already been completed, Jesus said so on the cross. Therefore there is nothing left for man to do except, as Jesus said, believe on me and you shall have everlasting life. Jesus wasn't saying that to pre-identified individuals, but it was said to a leader of the Israel nation, an individual who should have known based upon the "existing" holy scriptures.

You know what I believe, I remain firm that God is Sovereign, God has elected who shall be called and who shall be quickened and enabled to believe. There is no other way apart from a 'super' scriptural way imagined in the minds of men.

If not for the many examples that Jesus himself gave us, of who can receive him and what it takes for one to have eternal life, I would believe as you do. I believe in a God whose desire is that NONE should perish, but that all should have eternal life. I cannot believe as you do, because Jesus made the offer of free salvation to any who believe on him. </font>[/QUOTE]

Oh, but it is possible to join virtually any congregation without being baptized by that congregation. It is not possible to join the eternal church, the Bride of Christ without baptism however.

This isn't the forum to get into this topic, but you are wrong, scripturally and historically concerning baptism & I add as far as your perception of the Bride of Christ. The 'eternal church' or to be biblical--the family of God--all gathered in heaven by the name of Christ (Eph. 3), is entered into at the moment of salvation. Baptism, always water and always by immersion is that visible act whereby a believer declares to the world the faith that is in them, thus they die (go down into the water) and rise (come up out of the water) with Christ. Without this, noone can truly be said to be a member of the church as you probably know the church is a called out assembly, thus they are visible, being visible, makes it impossible to be part of something invisible, doesn't it? Try to follow the Lord's instruction sometime on an unruly, invisible member, whose membership is in an universal, invisible body,--you will find this to be impossible, thus you, to hold this belief, make the command of Christ of no effect. By the way, have you ever seen a husband who had a universal, invisible wife? This does not work either, perhaps it is this low esteemed held of the true church that has fostered the rise of divorce among Christians?

have personally harvested corn by going into the field and walking among the stalks and choosing the ears that I wanted to pick.

I have also done this.

Nor did any of the ears speak up and say "Pick me", "Pick me".

This is significant, if one is following the analogy, don't you think so?

I have also watched feed corn being harvested by machine, and all are treated equal, no preferential selection until the ears were husked, then those that were spoiled were "elected" to be thrown out.

I have also done this task. I understand your definition of election to be something God has done because of something man has done. If this is so, then it makes your statement that you believe all the work of salvation to be completed at the Cross to be in contradiction to this.

The work of God has already been completed, Jesus said so on the cross. Therefore there is nothing left for man to do except, as Jesus said, believe on me and you shall have everlasting life. Jesus wasn't saying that to pre-identified individuals, but it was said to a leader of the Israel nation, an individual who should have known based upon the "existing" holy scriptures.

Then we agree, further we agree that man has not the ability apart from regeneration to 'believe' anything, as your example, drawn from scripture ably shows us that even the theologically learned who witnessed the Christ in the flesh could not understand the heavenly things. So much for the idea of partially dead man...huh?

If not for the many examples that Jesus himself gave us, of who can receive him and what it takes for one to have eternal life, I would believe as you do. I believe in a God whose desire is that NONE should perish, but that all should have eternal life. I cannot believe as you do, because Jesus made the offer of free salvation to any who believe on him.

I too believe in such a God, the difference is that the True God is able to perform His will and the Arminian or free-will God must rely on the creative work of His Hand to validate even His existence. There is a grave difference here.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[Ray Berrian]

Brother Dallas,

The only sentence that is within the bounds of Christian theology is this one. 'There can be no grace where there is no sovereignty.' I basically agree with this. God is sovereign in relation to all of His creatures and creation. No one questions if God is in control. No one questions the efficacy of His grace, either. The rest of the post and quote is in gross error and spiritual blindness, no matter who made the statements. It is Calvinistic dogma but I noticed it very seldom has any Scriptural proof.

Almighty God cannot pick and choose because this would more than seriously cloud His immaculate justice. It also would infringe on the viability of His atonement in that it would be only efficient in the lives of some sinners. Thirdly, if He selected some for Heaven and rejected the rest it would be an unjust demand on His infinite love toward those who He has given physical life.

Fourthly, to autocratically pick His elect would make the attribute of His mercy meaningless. His mercy would then be only toward the elect, while being prejudicial against all of the rest of the spiritually blind souls.

As you understand my position, you will notice that Calvinism does countless havoc to more than these four Divine attributes of Almighty God.

 

[Frogman]

don't take this personal, I just thought it would be good to say this, so I have received before I pass it along, isn't it funny that we attack others, who often are far more able at plainly giving the meaning of scripture than ourselves, because of the time spent in prayer and study, that we often in support of our own view fail to provide adequate scripture.

This, you can take as being directed to you:

Now, provide scripture that definitely, without shade, shows the doctrines of Grace to do hurt to any attribute of God.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Ray Berrian]

God is sovereign and even ' . . . delivered {the Son} by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God . . . ' [Acts 2:23] This is an example of His rule over human history including His death. God cannot be sovereign if He picks certain people for Heaven, because He would have violated His own moral, spiritual Personality.

God is just or is God of justice. God is spoken of as Heavenly Father and Judge. Can Jesus be our Judge and the Justice for sinners without out being just/fair? [John 5:22] The Father has committed all judgment/justice to the Son-meaning Jesus. If He autocratically elected men and women for Hell, He would again be violating his own moral, spiritual Personality.

God is love. [John 3:16] If He selected some for Heaven and Hell, again He would be in violation of His own moral universe. [I John 4:8b] 'God is {infinite} love.' He cannot divide His love by loving the elect and ignoring the rest of sinful people. If He did He would be in violation of His own moral conduct.

If He was not merciful toward all sinners [I Timothy 2:4 & 6] He could not tell us to be merciful to all people. [Matthew 5:7] Did Jesus tell us to be only merciful to some people and not other ones? I think you believe that we should be merciful even to our enemies. If God requires this of Christians, and He does, then we can say clearly that He would not enjoin less of Himself. How many sinners are the enemy of God? I think again we can agree that all sinners are the enemies of Almighty God. The Gospel depicts Christ as having mercy toward all lost people.

God has created each sinner by way of human birth. Another attribute of God is His faithfulness. God's faithfulness guarantees that He will never be or act inconsistent with Himself. We know that God is not partial in any of His administrations; so we can firmly know that it is beyond His nature to favor one sinner over another.

Other attributes of God are His wisdom, goodness, holiness, truth and so on.

God because He is holy {holiness} cannot be prejudicial toward some sinners and not others. If He did select some for Heaven and destruction He would violate His own moral code of Divine holiness. It cannot happen but this would make Him an unholy God.

I'll let you work on His goodness, wisdom and truth.

Brother Dallas, you asked for Scriptural documentation of Christ's Divine attributes in relation to alleged "Unconditional Election." This will get you started.

Calvinism wrongly clouds and frustrates the purity of God's attributes. Arthur W. Pink should have started with His attributes and then he would not have been able to justify Augustinian/Calvinism. A.W. Tozer gives clear teaching as to His attributes and Dr. Robert Shank and Dave Hunt in his book, "What Love Is This?" can help explain some of the texts that at first glance look like a more Calvinistic understanding of God's Word. I think Dr. Shank's text is ''Elect In The Son." Anyone who starts out with a clear understanding the Attributes of God could never, in this world or any other world, become a Calvinist.

 

[Frogman]

Now, provide scripture that definitely, without shade, shows the doctrines of Grace to do hurt to any attribute of God.

Bro. Dallas

This is what I asked for, I said nothing about Scripture ref. to the Divine attributes of Christ.

I even signed it so everyone would know it was me

You are trying to twist my words even as you et al, twist the word of God.

I have no problem with the knowledge that God can elect the lowest, most vile sinner into His family, I have a problem with casting my pearls before the swine, that is where my problem is. Where the Holy Spirit regenerates and a man is enabled to believe he has a hope in Christ to be Justified before God through His blood, I am satisfied, I am not satisfied with telling man he can do this of himself and thus when it occurs there is no power of the Spirit and this man becomes a worse sinner than he was at the first.

The truth is that God would have been Just were He to Send His only begotten Son into the World without enabling any man to believe.

I will not partake of this form of subversion of the Gospel of the Son of God.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Frogman:
The truth is that God would have been Just were He to Send His only begotten Son into the World without enabling any man to believe.

Failing to recognize this is where this version of the arminian argument falls apart.

If God did not provide a savior for anyone, or did not enable anyone to benefit from the savior, and therefore everyone went to hell, would God be just?

If an arminian is honest, I believe he or she would have to say yes. If not, I'd love to hear an explanation as to why that would be unjust.

Forgetting for a moment the issue of predestination/election and free will, one needs to answer the next question: If God saved one person and allowed the rest to go to hell, would God be unjust?

I predict arminians would be forced to drag free will into the discussion in order to answer it. I predict they would answer it this way:

Yes, God would be unjust unless He offered the possibility of salvation to all. But if, after offering it to all, everyone except this one person rejected it, then God would not be unjust.

There are so many things wrong with this answer it's hard to know where to start. But here are the two errors that jump out at me:

1. This answer removes grace from grace. It is a contradiction in terms to be obligated to offer everyone unmerited favor.

2. Grace is unmerited favor. If no one merits favor, then it is perfectly just to give it to no one, or to give it to any subset that God defines according to His good pleasure. One does not magically "merit" this "unmerited" favor simply because another person got it.

 

[Yelsew]

Nor did any of the ears speak up and say "Pick me", "Pick me". This is significant, if one is following the analogy, don't you think so?

No, Jesus did not offer salvation to ears of corn! And, when ears of corn are picked, they are not picked for eternal life, but for almost immediate consumption by ravenous humans.

With the exception of the original twelve, Jesus did not choose any others, He did not "elect" any others, but he did offer eternal life to whosoever believeth!

 

[Yelsew]

I too believe in such a God, the difference is that the True God is able to perform His will and the Arminian or free-will God must rely on the creative work of His Hand to validate even His existence. There is a grave difference here.

Yes, while you believe that no one can believe but that he first be regenerated (made new), Scriptures tell me it is by believing that we are regenerated..."made new". Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God...Whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Yelsew:
With the exception of the original twelve, Jesus did not choose any others

Not so, Yelsew.

2 Thessalonians 2:13(NASB)
13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.