If unconditional election is truly unconditional, how is it good for God to personally choose who goes to heaven or hell irrespective of any aspect of a person’s being, sinful behavior or spiritual belief?
Speaking of justice--only if God owed them such, owed anyone to be elected, which he does not, all he owes is justice--giving everyone his due, what he has earned, what he deserves.In order for both God to be good and unconditional election be true, God would have to elect to save all unconditionally.
Otherwise, God would be unjust and, therefore, not good.
Being “just” does not mean you cannot be merciful, gracious, generous and charitable. Being “just” has to do with consistently treating everyone equally, that are equal. If there are significant differences between individuals, than it is “just” to treat them differently in proportion to their differences.Speaking of justice--only if God owed them such, owed anyone to be elected, which he does not, all he owes is justice--giving everyone his due, what he has earned, what he deserves.
Choosing to elect only some is not unjust, because God owes no one election, he owes only giving them their due.
You touched on a point I’ve been thinking about a lot. You mentioned that God owes no one election but when I consider original sin, it seems literally everyone but Adam and Eve were born automatically destined for hell. This was God’s doing.Speaking of justice--only if God owed them such, owed anyone to be elected, which he does not, all he owes is justice--giving everyone his due, what he has earned, what he deserves.
Choosing to elect only some is not unjust, because God owes no one election, he owes only giving them their due.
If unconditional election is truly unconditional, how is it good for God to personally choose who goes to heaven or hell irrespective of any aspect of a person’s being, sinful behavior, or spiritual belief?
... [W]hen I consider original sin, it seems literally everyone but Adam and Eve were born automatically destined for hell.
Good question. . .You touched on a point I’ve been thinking about a lot. You mentioned that God owes no one election but when I consider original sin, it seems literally everyone but Adam and Eve were born automatically destined for hell. This was God’s doing.
At the moment I can’t see the goodness in God creating our reality where we cannot avoid sin and also where he personally chooses people to be saved from His allowing original sin to exist. It seems we’re entrapped by God plus He gets to decide if we are allowed to escape an eternal punishment that hangs over us simply because we were born.
"The rest of the story". . .God creates everything, including all people. Let's assume this line of reasoning is right, that God's justice, if it is given to everyone, means that no one is saved. If that is the case, then God's justice ensures that God fails to create a good creation, i.e., one in which God desires that none should perish but all come to repentance. Is that really justice, the failure of God to complete what God set out to do? If only God were merciful to all, God would succeed. Unfortunately, according to this line of reasoning, God's justice and mercy are two radically different things. If God's attributes are at such odds, it's no wonder God cannot succeed. God can try, but sin and evil win, according to this line of reasoning.
The majority of Reformed folk seem to be infralapsarian, as so many of our confessional standards appear to be (Canons of Dort, Westminster Confession of Faith, etc.). We would stand with you, curious to hear what the answer might be. We believe that God chose from fallen humanity a certain number to save as his peculiar people (election), leaving the rest (reprobation) in their natural state as condemned sinners. He didn't choose to save Billy because he was in any way better, nor did he pass over Tommy because he was somehow worse. Their merits or demerits played no part in God's choice.
"The rest of the story". . .
God's justice--what he owes everyone in justice, is not the whole story.
God owes no one mercy, no one has a right to it, and he is sovereignly free (as he is in Jn 3:7-8) to grant it as it pleases him.
And it seems that for his purposes, it pleases him to grant it only to some.
"Who are you, O man, to say to him, 'What doest thou?' "
See post #10.
Are you referring to double predestination?If unconditional election is truly unconditional, how is it good for God to personally choose who goes to heaven or hell irrespective of any aspect of a person’s being, sinful behavior or spiritual belief?
Are you in agreement with the rest of the definition:No one said it did.
You do great to point out how illogical the doctrine of “Original Sin” really is. To get into all the miss use and misinterpretation of scripture trying to support the “doctrine” of “Original Sin” takes a lot of study, but there is really no support for the doctrine.You touched on a point I’ve been thinking about a lot. You mentioned that God owes no one election but when I consider original sin, it seems literally everyone but Adam and Eve were born automatically destined for hell. This was God’s doing.
At the moment I can’t see the goodness in God creating our reality where we cannot avoid sin and also where he personally chooses people to be saved from His allowing original sin to exist. It seems we’re entrapped by God plus He gets to decide if we are allowed to escape an eternal punishment that hangs over us simply because we were born.
Unless there is a plan where everything is specific down to the last detail (as in sparrows falling to the ground only by the will of the Father and numbering the hairs on your head), to which you are not privy.I suppose it's possible that God grants unconditional election to some. But if that is the case, then divine creation, justice, and mercy are arbitrary not free. In other words, there is no more reason for creation, justice, or mercy than divine fiat.
That issue and our Bbilical response to it is addressed in post #9.This is the problem with the Augustinian/Calvinist emphasis on divine sovereignty. It is arbitrary because sovereignty looks to no other value except power. Goodness and mercy are not even necessary so long as nothing surpasses divine power. Whereas divine freedom, rightly understood, is directed towards the ultimate good, which is God. Divine justice is divine mercy; righteousness is in order to goodness, not in order to divine whim as an expression of unbridled power.
That issue and our Bbilical response to it is addressed in post #9.
Nope. . .it is simply giving everyone his due, what he is owed, what he has earned.Are you in agreement with the rest of the definition:
Being “just” has to do with consistently treating everyone equally,
In God's economy, all mankind are by nature, objects of wrath (Eph 2:3). We are born with our nature; i.e., fallen.that are equal. If there are significant differences between individuals, than it is “just” to treat them differently in proportion to their differences.
A rescuer who could just as easily and safely rescue everyone in a burning building, but only chose to save a few would be rightly harshly thought as being unjust, so that cannot be the way God is.
Do you see any significant differences between those saved and those not saved?
It's not about what we see, it's about what the NT teaches.The significant difference I see is: one group refuses to humbly accept God’s pure undeserved charity as charity and the other group was just willing to humbly accept God’s charity (in the form of forgiveness) as pure undeserved charity.
That issue and our Bbilical response to it is addressed in post #10.
This is the consequence of believing in Calvinist/Reformed theology, which is why Calvinism is a misunderstanding of the Scriptures, IMO. It represents a completely different view of God, the view you described above.At the moment I can’t see the goodness in God creating our reality where we cannot avoid sin and also where he personally chooses people to be saved from His allowing original sin to exist. It seems we’re entrapped by God plus He gets to decide if we are allowed to escape an eternal punishment that hangs over us simply because we were born.
An unconditional election is not truly unconditional.If unconditional election is truly unconditional, how is it good for God to personally choose who goes to heaven or hell irrespective of any aspect of a person’s being, sinful behavior or spiritual belief?
BUT! According to what you are saying some get their “due” and others do not get their “due”, so that describes an unjust judgement.Nope. . .it is simply giving everyone his due, what he is owed, what he has earned.
In Eph. 2:3, Paul is addressing the mature adult Christians in Ephesus who were very involved in lustful sinning, but this is not address what these Christians “did” to allow themselves to avoid God’s wrath, while others will still be victims of God’s wrath.In God's economy, all mankind are by nature, objects of wrath (Eph 2:3). We are born with our nature; i.e., fallen.
OK, What the New Testament teaches: : one group refuses to humbly accept God’s pure undeserved charity (forgiveness) as charity and the other group was just willing to humbly accept God’s charity (in the form of forgiveness) as pure undeserved charity.It's not about what we see, it's about what the NT teaches.