-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What does it mean to say God is "Good"?
- Thread starter HeirofSalvation
- Start date
HoS said:
This is very well written and I agree with it. There are some here who believe God can do "whatever" and that would make it good. That is false and proven false by Jesus himself. Jesus said that if he were to deny his Father he would be a liar like those who heard him (Jhn 8:55). God cannot do "whatever" and be good, he must truly do what is good.
Good is not a quality greater than God, but it is a quality that cannot be separated from God, as God IS good, or rather HOLY.
Rev 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.
The very view being discussed here is where Calvinism in particular goes off the tracks.
Source- http://www.pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin09.html
This argument is critical to the Cal/Arm debate....
Calvinists must insist that ANYTHING they claim God "does" is good, simply because he does it...
But this is not so.
Calvinists insist that God creates beings who are inescapably pre-disposed towards evil, and are therefore condemned because they are guilty at conception and ALWAYS do that which is evil because it is in their nature to do so.
Calvinists tend to avoid explaining that is was (in fact) GOD HIMSELF who decreed that it would be their nature to always choose that which was evil.
Calvinism further asserts that men "choose" that which is evil (always) because God has DECREED that it was their nature to do so.
Calvinism further asserts...that mankind exists in that state because of Adam's fall (that's fine) except that, they cannot argue that Adam's wickedness is imparted to ALL of mankind by some necessity....they must admit that all mankind is tainted with the sin nature because God has decreed thus. It seems to me that the Calvinist likes to act as though that nature and pre-disposition towards sin exists inexplicably by some natural phenomena that God had no control over.
It is (vis-a-vis) Calvinism, God's Sovereign decree however, that Adam's sin (and subsequent guilt) is imparted to all of his progeny.
There is NO reason, that this must necessarily be the case... Why exactly, must ALL of Adam's progeny be thus tainted??? Why must they be inescapably tainted by default??
The Calvinist must admit that this is merely in accord with God's decree.
Calvinism futher asserts, that God has pre-selected a certain "elect" few whom God has chosen to release for his glory from that taint of guilt.
But, a Calvinist must also submit that God has Sovereignly decreed that any not "chosen" or "elected" must suffer the consequences of their sin (even though it was God's decree that they be inescapably pre-disposed towards such sin to begin with).
Therefore, the non-Calvinist has a legitimate argument when they assert that that is not in accordance with what is revealed to us as "justice" or "goodness".
There is a legitimate version of the "Calvinism makes God a moral monster" argument...most people simply rely too much upon emotion to assert it.
It's a valid argument....it just needs to be articulated correctly. That's the point of this thread.
God...as he has revealed himself to us in Scriputure, in Natural Theology, and in Intuition, is NOT such a being that he would simply and randomly "choose" to save some...and eternally punish others with no definable explanation.
That is not "Good" nor "Just". And God has told us that he is both.
Calvinists must insist that ANYTHING they claim God "does" is good, simply because he does it...
But this is not so.
Calvinists insist that God creates beings who are inescapably pre-disposed towards evil, and are therefore condemned because they are guilty at conception and ALWAYS do that which is evil because it is in their nature to do so.
Calvinists tend to avoid explaining that is was (in fact) GOD HIMSELF who decreed that it would be their nature to always choose that which was evil.
Calvinism further asserts that men "choose" that which is evil (always) because God has DECREED that it was their nature to do so.
Calvinism further asserts...that mankind exists in that state because of Adam's fall (that's fine) except that, they cannot argue that Adam's wickedness is imparted to ALL of mankind by some necessity....they must admit that all mankind is tainted with the sin nature because God has decreed thus. It seems to me that the Calvinist likes to act as though that nature and pre-disposition towards sin exists inexplicably by some natural phenomena that God had no control over.
It is (vis-a-vis) Calvinism, God's Sovereign decree however, that Adam's sin (and subsequent guilt) is imparted to all of his progeny.
There is NO reason, that this must necessarily be the case... Why exactly, must ALL of Adam's progeny be thus tainted??? Why must they be inescapably tainted by default??
The Calvinist must admit that this is merely in accord with God's decree.
Calvinism futher asserts, that God has pre-selected a certain "elect" few whom God has chosen to release for his glory from that taint of guilt.
But, a Calvinist must also submit that God has Sovereignly decreed that any not "chosen" or "elected" must suffer the consequences of their sin (even though it was God's decree that they be inescapably pre-disposed towards such sin to begin with).
Therefore, the non-Calvinist has a legitimate argument when they assert that that is not in accordance with what is revealed to us as "justice" or "goodness".
There is a legitimate version of the "Calvinism makes God a moral monster" argument...most people simply rely too much upon emotion to assert it.
It's a valid argument....it just needs to be articulated correctly. That's the point of this thread.
God...as he has revealed himself to us in Scriputure, in Natural Theology, and in Intuition, is NOT such a being that he would simply and randomly "choose" to save some...and eternally punish others with no definable explanation.
That is not "Good" nor "Just". And God has told us that he is both.
Yes it does, but you'll just respond by saying no it doesn't. So we're at an impass.
True.
Noncalvinists tend to think of God as a man. That there is a moral standard outside of man and independent of man to which He is bound and by which he is judged. And so the argument against Election is ever "Why doth He yet find fault."
But God is God. By what standard is God measured? If He does this or that, who can bring a charge against Him?
Not only is God God, but He is also the Creator. What He does with His creation is His business. Who will charge him with unfairness? Remember the parable of the workers.
They say they aren't judging God, and they mean it. They say they're rejecting a notion of God that appears to go against His nature. But not His nature as revealed, but the measure of morality to which He holds His creation.
I agree for the most part. God cannot act outside of his nature. If He does something, it's his nature. We say God is love. We see God's love and conclude that God's nature is love. As you said, and I agree, we only know goodness from God. So if God does something, it's good.
His actions will follow who he is as I gave above. As I asked someone else, on what basis do we call something good or evil. Man cannot say that God cannot be cruel because being cruel is evil. God is not cruel because it's not in his nature to be cruel. God is not cruel. Therefore, we conclude that being cruel is not good.
My example:
View 1: (incorrect view)
Truth is good
God is truth
God is good
View 2:
God is good
God is truth
Truth is good.
View 2(evil)
God is good
God is the opposite of cruel
Cruel is not good.
No one is arguing that God will act outside of his nature, at least I'm not. However, we learn the nature of God by his actions. So it is by what God does that we learn the nature of God and thus what good is. We don't dictate what God's nature is. We only can see what God does and therefore know his nature. This comes from the reading of his word. What we cannot do is say being cruel is evil and then see if God is cruel. And if God is not cruel, then call Him good. That's backwards. We say being cruel is evil and not good because God is not cruel and thus we conclude that God's nature is not cruel.
Last edited by a moderator:
Please explain then, how my own statements require that conclusion. If what you say is so, than my own statements will demonstrate it. I have chosen my words VERY carefully, so, If you cannot force that conclusion from my statements (you can't) than you are wrong. It really is that simple.
:thumbsup:
Yes....I agree with your assessment.
Yes....I agree with your assessment.
Last edited by a moderator:
We tend to think of him as God...actually, but do, please go on
There is a moral standard outside of man, and independent of man.....do you understand what's being said here??? It appears not....There is such a standard and it's God. What's your point?
God is only bound by his own nature....that is inarguable be you a Calvinist or not....Do you have any clue what you sound like?
Not really...I already know that that passage isn't even in reference to individual choice in salvation to begin with... Only Calvinists think that passage refers even to individual salvation, so, it isn't an argument I (or any informed non-Cal) bothers to make. Only you actually regularly make it. You conjure up this phrase about once every week to ten days...no one else does.
By his own standard...namely, himself...and that's the whole point. How do you not get this?
He can...and he has revealed who he is, and what his nature is to us, and he defies us to find him act outside of the parameters of his nature....He never does. You apparently think that he CAN. And that is absurd.
That's redundant...How could God be God and Not ALSO the creator???? "Theology Proper" isn't really your thing is it?
Duh.
No one will. I maintain that your theology paints him as "unjust" (not "unfair"); because we all know he isn't "fair", nor does he claim to be.... and it is therefore false.
An irrelevant parable.
I don't even know what you mean by this. I'm not sure you grasp this argument at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
Where I disagree with Calvinism is shown in this statement;
Here is where I would disagree with JBH. He would say that God ordains all that comes to pass, including evil. If so, then evil would be good.
Now, I don't know if that is what JBH believes, but I have seen more than a few Calvinists who hold to this view.
Most Calvinists will deny that God ordains or determines a person to go to hell, they will say he merely passes these persons by and allows them to perish in their own sin. But as HoS has correctly pointed out, it was God who determined they would be born sinners incapable of doing good. And if JBH is correct, all this is GOOD, simply because this is what God has done.
Here is where I would disagree with JBH. He would say that God ordains all that comes to pass, including evil. If so, then evil would be good.
Now, I don't know if that is what JBH believes, but I have seen more than a few Calvinists who hold to this view.
Most Calvinists will deny that God ordains or determines a person to go to hell, they will say he merely passes these persons by and allows them to perish in their own sin. But as HoS has correctly pointed out, it was God who determined they would be born sinners incapable of doing good. And if JBH is correct, all this is GOOD, simply because this is what God has done.
If God is His own standard by which He can judged, if He is the personification of goodness, etc., then whatever He does is good and godly, because He has done it.
To say no is to say that He is not His own standard. That a standard exists outside Him by which He can be judged, and you have set yourself up as His accuser.
It really is that simple. He is God or He isn't. If He is God, than whatever He does is good for no other reason than that He has done it.
You think of Him like you think of men, that there is a moral standard outside of Himself by which He can be judged.
See my post above.
The argument that Paul preempts belies your assertion.
"Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?" If God created the wicked for the Day of Judgment, who is going to correct Him, and by what standard?
I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep. Jn 10:11
convicted1
Guest
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
Last edited by a moderator:
convicted1
Guest
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
:sleep:
You are confusing God's right to do with his own creation as he wills with an understanding of his nature. They are different topics. No one questions God's right to do with his own as he wills. Truth is...God's right to do with his creation as he wills holds whether he be merely an Omnipotent Fiend or an Omnipotent Boy Scout. It's irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if God were perfectly vicious petty and cruel............He still has the right to do with his own creation as he sees fit. That isn't questioned. But, it isn't the topic at hand either. Your pre-occupation with Calvinist apologetic blurrs the distinction I think...I cite your tired and irrelevant reference to Romans 9:19 as evidence. You mistake God's right to do as he wills with the definition of goodness.
Himself...of course.....because, again, there is no standard outside of himself by which goodness is measured. As I have always and repeatedly stated. :thumbs: His NATURE though....not his ACTIONS. Your mind confuses the antecedent and the consequent....just switch them, and you'll find that we are actually on the same page. :1_grouphug:
Take your thinking about "goodness" and switch the antecedent and the consequent...and then we are all one happy family
convicted1
Guest
:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
By what standard?
Very good. Now if He is the Standard, then anything He does measures up to Himself.
Now you have to stop there, because there is nothing else but Himself. But you don't stop there. You go on to judge Him by another standard. That demands something other than God. It just does, like 2 + 2 = 4. You can argue against it all you want, but you must stop with God.
There is none greater by which to judge His actions as either fiendish or noble. Only those things lesser than He is can be thus judged.
Nobility is that which is godly, and ignobility is that which is ungodly. Who will say that anything God does is ungodly, whether or not it appears fiendish to a carnal mind?
Very good. Now if He is the Standard, then anything He does measures up to Himself.
Now you have to stop there, because there is nothing else but Himself. But you don't stop there. You go on to judge Him by another standard. That demands something other than God. It just does, like 2 + 2 = 4. You can argue against it all you want, but you must stop with God.
There is none greater by which to judge His actions as either fiendish or noble. Only those things lesser than He is can be thus judged.
Nobility is that which is godly, and ignobility is that which is ungodly. Who will say that anything God does is ungodly, whether or not it appears fiendish to a carnal mind?
This is a perfect illustration of that which I am saying.
You concede God has a right or power to do something, while at the same time you assert a separate standard by which to judge the thing that He does.