God Needs Justified?

[preacher4truth]

Someone raised this point and objection:

So, you have God doing anything and everything through secondary means as if that somehow justifies it.

Well, I don't think He needs justified before the eyes and via reason of finite sinful man, but OK. Who are we to even place ourselves in such a stead as this and question what is "justifiable" and to judge His ways? As a matter of fact I know He doesn't need justified in any of these things.

Anyhow, here is the link. The context is even more startling:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1772107&highlight=secondary+means+justifies#post1772107

Scripture & Arguments

Here we have God doing something via secondary means:

And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel. For the LORD had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the LORD might bring evil upon Absalom. 2 Samuel 17:14.

God here used secondary means to accomplish His purpose. The objective is clear. Afterall, all things belong to Him in the first place as he is Creator. Thus, in my theological perspective, I understand this and totally accept this as how God does things, yet, He remains Just.

There are several other passages where God uses secondary means to accomplish His purposes, and a supreme example is that of Job, yet we do not find Job complaining against God for using secondary means. Instead, we have Job praising God, even stating that he, Job, had received evil at the hand of the Lord, all the while not counting the means via Satan as being "secondary." He attributed this to God, showing great trust in God through it all. In all of this Job did not sin with his lips in what he stated. See Job 2:10. To me that is awesome, humbling, and causes me to have trust in God in this world, and to believe further that He is in control, Sovereign &c.

Then we have a more solemn example of our Lord, and of those who crucified Him, and even choosing the one who would betray Him in Judas Iscariot.

The fact remains we still have the questioning of these things by the direct quote above as if God uses secondary means to appear justified.

Thoughts

• Cannot God do as He wills with what He has created?

• Is it a problem because God uses secondary means?

• Does He use secondary means so He "looks justified"?

• Do you believe God can do as He wills with all of His Creation?

• Do you believe it is just for God to use secondary means to inflict evil upon men, whether upon a person as Job, or upon a person such as Absalom?

• Is God "unfair" to in your mind because of the methods He uses?

• Isn't He the Potter, and all creation His clay?

- Peace

 

[Mark_13]

really good, thanks.

 

[preacher4truth]

really good, thanks.

Thanks bro. It's an interesting truth, and we either trust God in all His Sovereignty, or we simply do not. One can say they believe God to be Sovereign, yet, we must look at actual teachings and attitudes to get the real story.

- Peace

 

[DaChaser1]

Thanks bro. It's an interesting truth, and we either trust God in all His Sovereignty, or we simply do not. One can say they believe God to be Sovereign, yet, we must look at actual teachings and attitudes to get the real story.

- Peace

Wonder how those holding that God is allowing man to decide own destiny feel about verses such as An Evil spirit from the LORD came to bother King saul?

 

[glfredrick]

God is, well, GOD. We are not.

For me, that means "case closed."

As God is the necessary being that makes all else possible, the non-contingent being that creates contingent beings, and with that the laws and rules that govern the motion of the very sub-atomic particles (information-based) that make up all of creation, I would say that all is ultimately under His control in one sense or another, free moral agency included. Our choices are few indeed -- to sin or to bend our will to His willingly, and if not, by force eventually when "every knee bows and every tongue confesses..."

 

[DaChaser1]

God is, well, GOD. We are not.

For me, that means "case closed."

As God is the necessary being that makes all else possible, the non-contingent being that creates contingent beings, and with that the laws and rules that govern the motion of the very sub-atomic particles (information-based) that make up all of creation, I would say that all is ultimately under His control in one sense or another, free moral agency included. Our choices are few indeed -- to sin or to bend our will to His willingly, and if not, by force eventually when "every knee bows and every tongue confesses..."

Does mankind really have "free will" enough to make the arminian proposal of salvation model a reality?

 

[preacher4truth]

God is, well, GOD. We are not.

For me, that means "case closed."

As God is the necessary being that makes all else possible, the non-contingent being that creates contingent beings, and with that the laws and rules that govern the motion of the very sub-atomic particles (information-based) that make up all of creation, I would say that all is ultimately under His control in one sense or another, free moral agency included. Our choices are few indeed -- to sin or to bend our will to His willingly, and if not, by force eventually when "every knee bows and every tongue confesses..."

I agree. A basis of this whole entire premise that God uses secondary means to look "justified" boils down to ones belief in Sovereignty. Maybe it must mean that there is another reason God did these things, that it "Couldn't have been God that did that!?" Another issue is that others feel it unfair, "Where are mans rights in all of this?!" We have no rights, we are all at the mercy of God, yet He is a loving God, and One who metes out justice as well, and only as He wills to do so. Do we the clay know better than He?

So, either we trust Him fully, or we do not. I'm always reminded of Moses in Exodus 33 who saw the severity of God, and His mercy, and wanted to know Him more intimately. Oviously he "believed" in this God.

Man wishes for a God that fits into logic, reason, and fairness, but then there is the God of the Scriptures.

Arminian theology was a reaction against Sovereign choosing in essence, and sought to place man upon a pedestal within that framework. This is a major reason as to why it is errant, man became the forefront of the argument, not God. This is one reason why I lean toward a "Calvinistic" theology, because the opposite is true, God is at the forefront within its framework.

- Peace

 

[preacher4truth]

Does mankind really have "free will" enough to make the arminian proposal of salvation model a reality?

This really isn't about freewill though brother.

 

[DaChaser1]

God is, well, GOD. We are not.

For me, that means "case closed."

As God is the necessary being that makes all else possible, the non-contingent being that creates contingent beings, and with that the laws and rules that govern the motion of the very sub-atomic particles (information-based) that make up all of creation, I would say that all is ultimately under His control in one sense or another, free moral agency included. Our choices are few indeed -- to sin or to bend our will to His willingly, and if not, by force eventually when "every knee bows and every tongue confesses..."

my take on the OP was IF mankind does NOT even have the inherit means to produce saving faith within ourselves, how can we freely "act upon it?"

 

[glfredrick]

Does mankind really have "free will" enough to make the arminian proposal of salvation model a reality?

Only if -- as was done originally in the doctrine -- they give FIRST creedence to God's grace before they believe.

Without God going first, Arminianism is Pelagianism. With God first, it is Arminianism.

Article I — That God, by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ, his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ's sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his Son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John iii. 36: "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him," and according to other passages of Scripture also.

Article II — That, agreeably thereto, Jesus Christ, the Savior of the world, died for all men and for every man, so that he has obtained for them all, by his death on the cross, redemption, and the forgiveness of sins; yet that no one actually enjoys this forgiveness of sins, except the believer, according to the word of the Gospel of John iii. 16: "God so loved the world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life"; and in the First Epistle of John ii. 2: "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

Article III — That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do anything that is truly good (such as having faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the word of Christ, John xv. 5: [/COLOR=RED]"Without me ye can do nothing."[COLOR]

Article IV — That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of an good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without that prevenient or assisting, awakening, following, and co-operative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But, as respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible, inasmuch as it is written concerning many that they have resisted the Holy Ghost,—Acts vii, and elsewhere in many places.

Article V — That those who are incorporated into Christ by a true faith, and have thereby become partakers of his life-giving spirit, have thereby full power to strive against Satan, sin, the world, and their own flesh, and to win the victory, it being well understood that it is ever through the assisting grace of the Holy Ghost; and that Jesus Christ assists them through his Spirit in all temptations, extends to them his hand, and if only they are ready for the conflict, and desire his help, and are not inactive, keeps them from falling, so that they, by no craft or power of Satan, can be misled, nor plucked out of Christ's hands, according to the word of Christ, John x. 28: "Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." But whether they are capable, through negligence, of forsaking again the first beginnings of their life in Christ, of again returning to this present evil world, of turning away from the holy doctrine which was delivered them, of losing a good conscience, of becoming devoid of grace, that must be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scriptures before they can teach it with the full persuasion of their minds.

Of course, most disavow themselves of the "God must act first" clauses of Arminianism, and they prefer the semi-Pelagian choice model. More so, though they DEMAND choice, barely anyone actually carries that choice model through with the other choice -- that one can also walk away from God and loose their salvation.

So, most hold to a "cafeteria-line theology, pick a little of this, a little of that, but I'll have none of this other" sort of doctrine that is nether coherent nor scriptural.

 

[preacher4truth]

Only if -- as was done originally in the doctrine -- they give FIRST creedence to God's grace before they believe.

Without God going first, Arminianism is Pelagianism. With God first, it is Arminianism.



Of course, most disavow themselves of the "God must act first" clauses of Arminianism, and they prefer the semi-Pelagian choice model. More so, though they DEMAND choice, barely anyone actually carries that choice model through with the other choice -- that one can also walk away from God and loose their salvation.

So, most hold to a "cafeteria-line theology, pick a little of this, a little of that, but I'll have none of this other" sort of doctrine that is nether coherent nor scriptural.

One can make any statement they want about "what they believe." The problem is (which shouldn't be a problem) "what they believe" comes out in their teachings, not their statements, and generally contradict and deny their statements.

This in itself is a serious issue within Arminian doctrine. When one says it is only of God, then, it is within mans ability, then we have a contradiction, and the errant theology is exposed.

Freewill is an errant teaching. If man is free in his will, then there is no need for God to make the first move, man can do that all on his own, which act is what you really end up with in their teachings "it is within mans ability" &c. Looking at the theologies of those popular false teachers on TV and via other venues shows (to those who really want to look at it honestly) how freewill and a false view of faith have evolved into WOF doctrines, other heresies, and much worse.

The teachings of gift of faith within Arminian theology is yet another deficient and fallacious doctrine filled with contradictions.

 

[Van]

Thoughts

* Cannot God do as He wills with what He has created?

* Is it a problem because God uses secondary means?

* Does He use secondary means so He "looks justified"?

* Do you believe God can do as He wills with all of His Creation?

* Do you believe it is just for God to use secondary means to inflict evil upon men, whether upon a person as Job, or upon a person such as Absalom?

* Is God "unfair" to in your mind because of the methods He uses?

* Isn't He the Potter, and all creation His clay?

Not sure what the point of this post is but here are the answers to the questions:

Whatever God does and wills is perfect, just, and sovereign.

God uses and works through people all the time. However, if God predestined the thoughts, actions or words of the person, the direct cause remains God. In other words, not all things called secondary causes are actually secondary causes.

God does not use secondary causes to avoid responsibility. However when when God predestines something to happen such as this person does that, God is fully responsible for that predestined action. He is not deceptive.

Next we have a confused question, is it just for God to use secondary sources to inflict evil. Here we must pause and again explain that evil is in the eye of the beholder, something adverse to me is evil but something adverse to others, say the pain of discipline of a child, is not evil from the perspective of the one carrying out the discipline in love. Thus God brings clamity for His purpose which is not evil, but from the view of those harmed, they see it as evil. End of digression.

There is nothing wrong with God bringing clamity for His purpose whether or not He predestines people to bring it about. But God would not punish people for doing evil if that "evil" was predestined by God. He does not punish the son for the sins of the Father.

Claiming anything is unfair is the sin of covetness, but claiming something is unjust is the same as claiming it is ungodly, and therefore God is never unjust.

The first question was re-asked as the fourth question and as the last question, but the answer remains as answered for the first question

 

[preacher4truth]

Not sure what the point of this post is but here are the answers to the questions:

Go figure.

Yet you answer. Well, made an attempt anyhow.

The premise (from another) is that God uses secondary means to do things so He looks 'justified.' If you can't grasp the error in that thinking, well, sobeit. :love2:

That's the errant thinking I'm addressing here. God doesn't need justified, He does as He wills.

I think I'll file you away. It's time. :wavey: