Received said:
In reference to the underlined area: the subject at hand, and this idea of realizing goodness, is in reference to a theological statement made by calvinism that is quite plain: men are born sinners, God must judge sin, God chooses a certain number of elect to be saved on the basis of no conditions, and the remainder are left to eternal Hell.
This is a common, though completely inaccurate, misunderstanding of "unconditional election." The truth of the doctrine is that "men are born sinners, God must judge sin, God chooses a certain number of elect to be saved on the basis of no conditions
found in us and justice is served on those the Lord has not chosen to save."
There
are conditions for being one of the elect. One must be a being, obviously. One must be fallen, obviously. One must be chosen according to the good pleasure of God (Eph 1:5; Rom 9:11).
There is no need for having to know a motive; the plan is objectified. Even if the remaining state of those in eternal blessedness is found to be magnified by some unknown will of God for whatever reason, there still remains a group of people who are, according to Calvinism, blamed for existing.
Absolutely not. Those who are condemned are condemned because they sin. They receive justice. Those who receive mercy are the objects of God's non-justice. No one, I repeat no one, is the object of unjustness from God.
God forces people into existence, a great majority are left without a choice on their part for true survival, and they are ultimately punished for what God Himself brought about; namely, their existence (we agree that sinfulness is from Adam).
We cannot blame God for the sinful choices of fallen man. Regardless of fallen man's inherent disposition towards God he [fallen man] still makes those sinful choices freely [uncoerced]. God does not keep anyone from choosing righteously, not even the non-elect. The fact that they freely choose to make sinful choices instead of righteous ones does not cast a shadow of unrighteousness on God. He does not work fresh evil into their hearts. He does not need to. They are sufficiently evil, as are we all, that if God removes His restraining grace, which He benevolently gives to all mankind, they fall even deeper into the quagmire of their sinfulness, as was the case with Pharaoh. This idea of equal ultimacy is unbiblical at best. When one grasps the biblical understanding that fallen man
naturally considers God their enemy and flees from His righteousness in rebellion and the
only thing that changes that disposition is the regenerative work of God Himself, which He is in no way obligated to perform, then we will have an accurate understanding of man's responsibility to obey the Law of God and God's responsibility to be Holy and, thus, punish that unrighteousness.
And in reference to the remainder of the statement, the benevolence of an action must be judged by its ends;
Absolutely false Received. By your own admission we cannot know the motive for another's actions. That being so, the very best we can do is determine if that action
outwardly complies with the standard of good, God's Law. If someone helps an old lady get across the street safely
we may make the assumption that the deed is a good one. Unlike us, God sees not only the action but the motive. If the motive for the action was recognition then the action is not righteous. So, our ability to judge the righteousness of helping the lady across the street is limited insofar as our ability to judge the motive for said action is limited. God is not limited in this way.
Perhaps I used a faulty example. What if I told you that God was interested in sadism and gave merit to the bounties of those who enjoyed sexual perversions. Say you didn't know scripture at the time. You would think I was outlandish to even state such a claim. Why? Because sexual perversions and sadism are quite frankly wrong. It does not take scripture to reveal this to us; it takes the common law of human nature.
Ask a sadist if those actions are wrong. I'm sure you'd get a different opinion. Again, just because you can personally assign a level of moral depravity to an action isn't what makes something "frankly wrong." It is the standard of good that determines whether an action is right or wrong.
But if there was no objective goodness that our own subjective claims of goodness found parasite on, how would we ever become Christians in the first place? I do emphatically agree with you that what man calls 'good' may hardly be such. But if man had no sense of what goodness was, comprehending something, or someone, such as God would be absolutely impossible.
Let me clarify that each of us have some determining line of morality and can, according to our own conscience, determine whether something is bad or good. Let me also emphatically state that fallen man's ability to recognize their own fallen opinion of "good" is
NOT what inclines his heart to God. It is the regenerative work of God Himself that changes our will and inclines us toward Himself (Phil 2:13).
Faith does have its place, but the very root of faith is, and should be, reason -- at least when interpreting scripture. As Lewis once said, faith is the art of holding onto that which you reason has once accepted, in spite of your changing moods.
If by this you mean to say that that which we seek in faith must have first taken hold of the core of our being, our seat of reason, our heart (not the muscle), then I would wholeheartedly agree. If, however, you are implying that faith is the result of reasoning through Scripture then I would wholeheartedly disagree. The things of the Spirit are foolishness to the fallen man. You cannot reason your way into accepting the Truth of God. If that were possible then successful evangelists would be nothing more than masters of persuasion. Reasonable understanding and, thus, believing in the Gospel is the product of being born again through the work of the God, not the successful interpretation of Scripture.
And the law of God is different than the will of God, correct?
I don't follow. In what way? I concede that there are differences. In fact, the Bible speaks of the different Wills of God, i.e., the sovereignly decreed Will (that by which all things that come to pass actually come to pass), the permissive Will of God (His Law), and His benevolent Will. I'm not sure exactly what you're alluding to so I can't really say yes or no.
a child (mankind) is born amongst other children with a severe case of cancer (sin) that constrains his life from fulfillment; while the other children are in anguish just as much as this particular child, a day comes when cures (redemption) are offered at the place of his residence, and upon hearing this he runs with a sense of euphoria to accept this free offer (reconciliation). Weeks after his rehabilitation to life, he comes to realize that his many acquiantances who were just as sick as he once was were not given the cure he was freely offered. No reason was given except for the fact that the cure did not have to be offered to anyone, and the very fact that a select few are saved rather than none.
Neat little scenario. I certainly hope this was not supposed to parallel the process of salvation. If so, you start off with a premise that contradicts your own theology. Your words, "I certainly agree that
man's will is depraved so as to,
left to itself, have no desire whatsoever to please, or seek, God." Yet here you start off with a completely different inherent disposition: "a day comes when cures (redemption) are offered at the place of his residence, and
upon hearing this he runs with a sense of euphoria to accept this free offer (reconciliation)."
What does this reveal about the very one who offers this cure?
No where in the Word is obedience
requested. No where in the Word is salvation
offered. Obedience is demanded. Salvation is given.
Either that he is not of sufficient supplies to cure the children (no omnipotence), he is not of knowledge that there are children in suffering (no omniscience), or he does not desire to save the remaining children (lack of omnibenevolence).
Where??!!! Please!!! I'd love to hear the verses that say God treats all people the same or that God loves all people (omnibenevolence). It's absolutely unfounded and, on top of that, I can point out numerous examples in which God reveals Himself differently to different people: Jacob and Esau, Moses and Pharaoh, Paul and Pilate, etc. You start out with a theological strawman. God is omnibenevolent in the sense that He endures "with much longsuffering" the sinfulness of man, but He is not omnibenevolent in the sense that all of His actions are purposed to reveal His love to the object of His actions. God is omnibenevolent in the sense that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked but that doesn't mean that God doesn't see the necessity in the righteous passing of His judgment upon the sinfulness of the wicked.
My honest inquiry is how it can be rendered justice if indeed such a scenario is indeed claimed to eventually actualize?
The only way this line of reasoning you seem to be entertaining can work is to create a theology based on the belief that we are not held accountable for the sinfulness of Adam. We are. The Bible is explicit about that. All, in Adam, fell from grace. Adam was God's righteous, perfect choice to represent all of created mankind.
God does not inflict our sinfulness on the basis of what we would have done in a situation that we never saw. We do not know if anyone would have chosen differently; and this is not the heart of the argument. We fell from grace with Adam; but Adam was the one who took the lunge off the clift. He was held morally responsible; we are not. How could we be? We had no choice in the situation.
Well, that answers my question. I guess you just don't hold the view that Adam was picked by God as a moral representative for all created mankind. Either that or you flat out can't acknowledge that it was righteous for God to appoint our representative. You say, "We do not know if anyone would have chosen differently." Well Received, I'd have to say that I disagree. If there is even the remotest possibility that someone, anyone, would have chosen differently then we are calling the holiness of God into question. I'd rather just know that I'd have chosen exactly as Adam chose and thank God for the provision of salvation that He wasn't obligated to give. And, as I said, when you start questioning the justness of the imputation of Adam's disobedience then you are forced into a position where you must also say that it is unjust for Christ to die for your sins when He was not guilty. I do not personally feel the need to question the justness of my Creator for the imputation of Adam's sinfulness or the imputation of Christ's righteousness. I'll just thank Him for His holy and righteous providence, in both matters.
God bless
