Cruel and unjust God?

[AustinC]

In what passage was it that God cursed mankind?
I remember the account in Genesis, God cursed the serpent, and he cursed the ground. I recall no curse upon mankind.

No. the Redeemer was incarnated because mankind had to pay the price for the sin of mankind. God, in his love, incarnated through the Second Person of the Trinity to pay that penalty in the stead of his creation. In this way, God would satisfy the demands of Divine Justice also permitting him to show mercy.

That is an assumption based upon a rather dated speculation that somehow the "sin-gene" is carried materially, physically and specifically by the seed of the human male, or alternatively is passed on through the act of procreation itself. (That is the original meaning of the term concupiscence.) It is hinted at no where in Scripture. It satisfies a somewhat Gnostic tendency of the early Church to look upon flesh as inherently evil instead of inherently weak as the Scriptures teach. It satisfied the thinking of the Manichean heretic Augustine for sure, and the highly Gnosticized and paganized early and Medieval Church.
The Bible, however, states that the purpose of the virgin birth was to serve as a sign. You will find no other Biblical reason for the Virgin birth anywhere in the text.

One Child did remain sinless. His name was Jesus. Denial of this is Docetism. Jesus was not God in a Halloween costume, he was truly a human.

No; be more precise. Theoretically, they wouldn't need a redeemer because they wouldn't have a sin-debt to pay actually. So what? Jesus had no Redeemer and it doesn't seem to have wrecked the system.
I know this:
I am not without sin. Adam wasn't without sin. I daresay, you wouldn't qualify as sinless either. Christ's redeeming sacrifice is hardly meaningless to me, or if I'm guessing correctly, it isn't meaningless to you either.
God loved all mankind. All mankind ultimately sins and will stand in need of a Saviour lest he suffer the Second Death.
There was, in fact, one human who lived a sinless life, according to the Scriptures.

No, it is against the
"All men are born with a guilt-curse which is passed on in human male deoxyribonucleic acid somehow" Theological System for sure. That doesn't bother me.

But, it is not against the "Jesus Christ came to save sinners like me who stand in need of a redeemer because I have sinned and come short of the glory of God" Theological system which is the one I prefer.

Christ's payment for my sin, at least, on the cross, is hardly meaningless to me.

Romans 5:12-21

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This passage answers and ends your argument. You are wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

Romans 5:12-21

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This passage answers and ends your argument. You are wrong.

Nice that the grace abounded towards the many, and not to the all!

 

[HeirofSalvation]

Romans 5:12-21

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

This passage answers and ends your argument. You are wrong.

I've read it many times, and I understand the passage just fine. It does no such thing. I am aware of why you think it does; after all, I used to hold to a Theology very much like yours. I even used to think that Adam's sin caused the weird change in man's constitution such that sin-guilt exists in male seed etc etc....even used to assume (as many do) that that was why the virgin birth was necessary. It was the strangest of ancient animistic perverse superstitions but, we are all humans after all and given to such things sometimes. But, although this passage is consistent with your Theology, it hardly proves it, and it does mine no damage, but is perfectly consistent with my view.

However, we seem to be side-tracking from your Original O.P.

It is neither cruel nor unjust for God to have saved absolutely no one.
I think few would disagree with that.

It would be unjust for God to condemn someone for the sins of another, however, which is why he does absolutely no such thing.
That is simple sanity.

 

[Aaron]

Romans 9:20 is not the cry of a "non-Calvinist"; it's the cry of a Jew (or any other religious do-gooder) over why God has hardened Israel (or any other religious do-gooder) despite the fact that they were following after the law of righteous works.
Any soul-winner would also understand that from this interactions with people on the street. Ex: "but I am a religious and a good person, I've never killed anyone, never robbed a bank, I've followed the golden rule. Why would God reject me? Meanwhile, that no-good guy over there doesn't live as holy as me, but just because he believes on Jesus, God picks him over me? He has let Satan blind my mind but not his? That's not fair".

That's a nice invention, but doesn't fit with

Gospel: "Whom He will, He hardeneth."

Carnal mind: "Then how can He find fault, His will was done?"

 

[AustinC]

I've read it many times, and I understand the passage just fine. It does no such thing. I am aware of why you think it does; after all, I used to hold to a Theology very much like yours. I even used to think that Adam's sin caused the weird change in man's constitution such that sin-guilt exists in male seed etc etc....even used to assume (as many do) that that was why the virgin birth was necessary. It was the strangest of ancient animistic perverse superstitions but, we are all humans after all and given to such things sometimes. But, although this passage is consistent with your Theology, it hardly proves it, and it does mine no damage, but is perfectly consistent with my view.

However, we seem to be side-tracking from your Original O.P.

It is neither cruel nor unjust for God to have saved absolutely no one.
I think few would disagree with that.

It would be unjust for God to condemn someone for the sins of another, however, which is why he does absolutely no such thing.
That is simple sanity.

We can agree, God condemns us individually because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Where we differ is you reject the truth that our corrupt nature is directly related to Adam's fall. We are born with corruption in our very nature.

 

[George Antonios]

That's a nice invention, but doesn't fit with

Gospel: "Whom He will, He hardeneth."

Carnal mind: "Then how can He find fault, His will was done?"

Right. And he told us, over and over, whom it is that he hardens: Israel.
And he told us, over and over, the cause: rejection of the Son of God.
And he told us, over and over, whey they reject him: because they follow the law of works, rather than faith in the Son.
Paul literally concludes Romans 9 with that - not with a mysterious apparently random eternal decree:

Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore?
- Oh I know! I know! Because of God's eternal decree!
- No.
Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

P.S.

That's a nice invention

I told you that's how people on street often react when we preach to them. That's not invention. I wonder why it sounded like an "invention" to you.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

We can agree, God condemns us individually because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Where we differ is you reject the truth that our corrupt nature is directly related to Adam's fall. We are born with corruption in our very nature.

Precisely where we differ.
I see nothing in Scripture which even implies that Adam passed on some inherently corrupted anything. I see no passage which teaches that humans were constitutionally altered in any way post the fall.
I used to believe that, and I understand why many/most still do believe that. I hardly begrudge them for thinking so.

But, referencing the thrust of your O.P. God would be cruel and unjust if:
1.) We inherit a nature which renders it impossible to avoid sinning i.e. non-posse non-peccarre
2.) God has no intention of providing a means of either mercy or salvation to all those inflicted with this genetic disease they never asked for, were unaware at birth they suffered from and can do nothing whatsoever about.....especially if that means being incapable of even responding to an appeal to grace if not preselected to be enabled.
3.) Under such circumstances, such a person should bewail that God ever created them inasmuch as his only purpose was to punish them for his own choice of creating them to be born in a state of utter helplessness they cannot escape from.

That is cruel and unjust.

It would be akin to punishing someone for being born with a genetic disorder. It is almost exactly the same. One is fundamentally moral, of course, but they are both purely genetic defects which the sufferer is not responsible for.

 

[HeirofSalvation]

That's a nice invention, but doesn't fit with

Gospel: "Whom He will, He hardeneth."

Carnal mind: "Then how can He find fault, His will was done?"

Antonios is clearly correct.
It is the thrust of the entire passage.
It is the cry of Jews who have rejected the gospel FIRST to God's graciously expanding the gospel to the gentiles. Frankly, Romans chapter 9 has little to nothing to do with Cal vs. Arm soteriology.
Taking that one verse and placing the verbiage of non-believing Jews into the mouths on gentile non-Calvinists is simply ridiculous. Paul was obviously talking about no such subject at all. Your sentence-fragment arguments ignore the context of Paul's intentions.
The entire argument chain Paul is engaged in covers from about chapters 5-11. Taking any one dependent clause out of one verse and creating an argument from it is irresponsible exegesis.

 

[AustinC]

Precisely where we differ.
I see nothing in Scripture which even implies that Adam passed on some inherently corrupted anything. I see no passage which teaches that humans were constitutionally altered in any way post the fall.
I used to believe that, and I understand why many/most still do believe that. I hardly begrudge them for thinking so.

But, referencing the thrust of your O.P. God would be cruel and unjust if:
1.) We inherit a nature which renders it impossible to avoid sinning i.e. non-posse non-peccarre
2.) God has no intention of providing a means of either mercy or salvation to all those inflicted with this genetic disease they never asked for, were unaware at birth they suffered from and can do nothing whatsoever about.....especially if that means being incapable of even responding to an appeal to grace if not preselected to be enabled.
3.) Under such circumstances, such a person should bewail that God ever created them inasmuch as his only purpose was to punish them for his own choice of creating them to be born in a state of utter helplessness they cannot escape from.

That is cruel and unjust.

It would be akin to punishing someone for being born with a genetic disorder. It is almost exactly the same. One is fundamentally moral, of course, but they are both purely genetic defects which the sufferer is not responsible for.

You openly ignore Romans 5. Thus, you cannot see.

Second, you ignore Romans 9 where Paul answers your complaint.
HoS, God has clearly answered your complaints against Him, yet you persist in blaming Him. At this point, the problem is you and your unrepentant heart toward God. May God have mercy upon you.

 

[canadyjd]

A poster wrote:
"A God who refuses to make salvation available to all is the cruel and unjust God."

Do you agree or disagree with that assertion?

God has indeed made salvation available to all.

Firstly, He revealed Himself in creation so that all know He exists.

Second, based on that reality, all you have to do is respond to God’s revelation by loving Him with all your heart, mind, spirit and strength.

However, people desired evil instead of His love and all rejected God.

That God intervenes in the lives of those He has chosen and brought them into a saving relationship with Himself, demonstrates His mercy.

To twist this demonstration of mercy from God into an act of cruelty or His being unjust in the salvation of His creation is a horrid attack of God’s sovereignty and demonstrates a mind clouded with a human understanding and reason.

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

However, people desired evil instead of His love and all rejected God.

Little sleight of hand there, most likely unintentional.

In Calvinism, that inability of even acknowledging one's sin, let alone calling on God for salvation, is the direct action of God. I.e. God so constituted the human race in Adam as to be unable to even acknowledge its state, let alone believe the gospel.
An illustration (and as all human illustrations, it won't be perfect, but it does the job) would be, due to the sin of an older brother, God injecting a younger brother with a drug which renders him unable to even understand his fallen condition, and unable to respond to God's call; then God calls that younger brother to see his condition and respond in faith to his call - and holds him responsible for not responding!

That doctrine is cruel and a slander of God of the worst kind. We don't deny that we inherited a fallen image prone to sin - but to say that the fall, nay, God himself, drugged us into inability to even believe, then holds us responsible for not believing - is Satanic.

So yeah, please represent the Calvinist position more accurately because "people desired evil instead of His love and all rejected God", as it stands, unqualified, sounds more like non-Calvinist free will, when in reality, the Calvinist position holds that God made men desire evil and only evil.

So this:

However, people desired evil instead of His love and all rejected God.

Is in fact this:

"However, God himself made people desire evil and God himself made people to reject him".

Now that, is indeed a twisted demonstration of mercy, as aptly described of Charles Wesley:
"O HORRIBLE DECREE
Worthy of whence it came!
Forgive their hellish blasphemy
Who charge it on the Lamb"

for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right - Job 42:7

 

[AustinC]

Little sleight of hand there, most likely unintentional.

In Calvinism, that inability of even acknowledging one's sin, let alone calling on God for salvation, is the direct action of God. I.e. God so constituted the human race in Adam as to be unable to even acknowledge its state, let alone believe the gospel.
An illustration (and as all human illustrations, it won't be perfect, but it does the job) would be, due to the sin of an older brother, God injecting a younger brother with a drug which renders him unable to even understand his fallen condition, and unable to respond to God's call; then God calls that younger brother to see his condition and respond in faith to his call - and holds him responsible for not responding!

That doctrine is cruel and a slander of God of the worst kind. We don't deny that we inherited a fallen image prone to sin - but to say that the fall, nay, God himself, drugged us into inability to even believe, then holds us responsible for not believing - is Satanic.

So yeah, please represent the Calvinist position more accurately because "people desired evil instead of His love and all rejected God", as it stands, unqualified, sounds more like non-Calvinist free will, when in reality, the Calvinist position holds that God made men desire evil and only evil.

So this:



Is in fact this:

"However, God himself made people desire evil and God himself made people to reject him".

Now that, is indeed a twisted demonstration of mercy, as aptly described of Charles Wesley:
"O HORRIBLE DECREE
Worthy of whence it came!
Forgive their hellish blasphemy
Who charge it on the Lamb"

for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right - Job 42:7

LOL, who says "God drugged us into inability?"
Honestly, George, you comment reveals you horrid assumptions. I doubt you ever followed Calvin at all. Maybe you attended a Reformed church or Christian Reformed church at some time in your life, but your complete incapacity to grasp the rudimentary theology paints you as ignorant of the theological position.

 

[canadyjd]

Little sleight of hand there, most likely unintentional.

In Calvinism, that inability of even acknowledging one's sin, let alone calling on God for salvation, is the direct action of God. I.e. God so constituted the human race in Adam as to be unable to even acknowledge its state, let alone believe the gospel.
An illustration (and as all human illustrations, it won't be perfect, but it does the job) would be, due to the sin of an older brother, God injecting a younger brother with a drug which renders him unable to even understand his fallen condition, and unable to respond to God's call; then God calls that younger brother to see his condition and respond in faith to his call - and holds him responsible for not responding!

That doctrine is cruel and a slander of God of the worst kind. We don't deny that we inherited a fallen image prone to sin - but to say that the fall, nay, God himself, drugged us into inability to even believe, then holds us responsible for not believing - is Satanic.
for ye have not spoken of me the thing that is right - Job 42:7

So yeah, please represent the Calvinist position more accurately because "people desired evil instead of His love and all rejected God", as it stands, unqualified, sounds more like non-Calvinist free will, when in reality, the Calvinist position holds that God made men desire evil and only evil.

So this:



Is in fact this:

"However, God himself made people desire evil and God himself made people to reject him".

You have not accurately stated the Calvinists position. God did not “make people desire evil and only evil”. I know of no one who holds that view.

If you cannot accurately state what someone else believes, meaningful discussion is impossible and not worth waisting time on.

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

LOL, who says "God drugged us into inability?"
Honestly, George, you comment reveals you horrid assumptions. I doubt you ever followed Calvin at all. Maybe you attended a Reformed church or Christian Reformed church at some time in your life, but your complete incapacity to grasp the rudimentary theology paints you as ignorant of the theological position.

And yet in the denial, the actual mechanism which led us to an inability to believe was not explained. How convenient.

You have not accurately stated the Calvinists position. God did not “make people desire evil and only evil”. I know of no one who holds that view.

If you cannot accurately state what someone else believes, meaningful discussion is impossible and not worth wasting time on.

And yet in the denial, the actual mechanism which led us to an inability to believe was not explained. How convenient.

 

[George Antonios]

LOL, who says "God drugged us into inability?"

I literally said it was an illustration, and possibly an imperfect one at that:

An illustration (and as all human illustrations, it won't be perfect, but it does the job)

If you want to discredit another's point, at least do it justly.

 

[canadyjd]

....
And yet in the denial, the actual mechanism which led us to an inability to believe was not explained. How convenient.

If I told you why people are unable to seek God would you be able to accurately repeat it? I’m not asking you to accept it or believe it, but just to accurately repeat what I believe?

I suspect, but don’t really know for sure, that you already know but just can’t bring yourself to accurately state the position. Wonder why?

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

If I told you why people are unable to seek God would you be able to accurately repeat it? I’m not asking you to accept it or believe it, but just to accurately repeat what I believe?

I suspect, but don’t really know for sure, that you already know but just can’t bring yourself to accurately state the position. Wonder why?

peace to you

...still no explanation. I've love to hear, from a Calvinist, the explanation that cancels out the sovereignty of God over our inability to even recognize our sinful condition and simply believe good news.

 

[canadyjd]

...still no explanation. I've love to hear, from a Calvinist, the explanation that cancels out the sovereignty of God over our inability to even recognize our sinful condition and simply believe good news.

I don’t consider myself a “Calvinist” because I don’t know a whole lot about the man.

I do agree with the doctrines of grace, one of which is the inability of a person to come to a saving relationship with God without God intervening in that person’s life.

That inability is caused by the corruption of human nature by the presence of sin, first in Adam and passed on to the entire human race: Not caused by God, but by Adam’s rebellion.

We can start there.

peace to you

 

[George Antonios]

That inability is caused by the corruption of human nature by the presence of sin, first in Adam and passed on to the entire human race: Not caused by God, but by Adam’s rebellion.

Who set the parameters of the effect of that corruption? Not God?

 

[canadyjd]

Who set the parameters of the effect of that corruption? Not God?

The very nature of God’s holiness requires His separation from sin.

God acts according to His nature, holy and pure, just like people act according to their natures, corrupt and evil.

peace to you