The Gospel Verses Calvinism

[depthdeception]

Quick question for the non-Calvinists. Do you know why we believe in election and predestination?

I have some ideas...but sharing them would just get this post deleted

 

[depthdeception]

If God in the person of Jesus Christ has not defeated sin, death and the devil he is not the savior of the world and we are all still in our sins and are without hope.

Tis true.

When Christ was accepted back into heaven our humanity was accepted in him. He is the new Adam and representative of the human race, Romans 5:19. God in the person of Jesus Christ has reconciled the world unto himself, 2 Corinthians 5:18.

I have to disagree here, at least in terms of the language you use. Humanity was never "unacceptable" to God. In fact, the very Incarnation of God in Christ reveals precisely that God accepts and forgives humanity completely--without condition.

Christ's coming, his life, and even his death, then, are the means by which our sinfulness is overcome; are freed from the dissolution that we had chosen for ourselves (not subjected to by the eternal will of God); and raised again to newness of life and ontology in Christ.

See my sig.

 

[Edial]

Actually, what makes God just is punishing those who sin against Him. This is justice. What makes Him merciful is sending His Son to die for the sins of those He chose to save.

I don't think I agree concerning a definition for justice.

Word "justice" includes a meaning of impartiality.

If ALL have sinned ALL need to have at least an opportunity to have their sins erased.

I understand what you believe and mean ... but one might want to use a different word for justice.

Does not sound just ... at least not according to a general understanding of the word.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[depthdeception]

If God in the person of Jesus Christ has not defeated sin, death and the devil he is not the savior of the world and we are all still in our sins and are without hope.

Moreover, it must be understood that in Reformed models of soteriology--specifically in regards to atonement--the only thing that Christ overcomes in death is divine violence and enmity against humanity, as well as the inability of God to otherwise reconcile that which God has made to Godself.

In other words, in these systems, the fundamental object of Christ's death is to convince--or otherwise free--God to do that which God would not--or could not--do otherwise.

Strange, is it not?

If God can prescriptively will all that occurs, it's a mind-bending wonder that God can't do something so simple as to make a decision outside the requirement of divine self-punishment. Such would be akin to us not being able to get out of bed without an eternity of self-flagellation...not a particularly productive way to spend an eternity.

And if it's a matter of God simply willing to not do the same (e.g., not forgive humanity until God punishes Godself in Christ...which is precisely what Reformed theology teaches), the neurosis is even more severe, and atonement--nay, the entire drama of salvation--is reduced to being understood simply as God finally reconciling an eternal contradiction within the divine self.

What a happy thought. Someone should write a song about it.

 

[depthdeception]

Actually, what makes God just is punishing those who sin against Him. This is justice. What makes Him merciful is sending His Son to die for the sins of those He chose to save.

Huh? That severely contradicts every conceivable theological formulation of justice, Reformed or otherwise.

God is not just because God behaves in "this" or "that" way. God is just in whatever God does, not because God does them, but because God is just.

Therefore, punishing humans capriciously, OR simply letting them off as if nothing happened are equally in keeping with divine justice. Given that there is no standard or rule outside of God to which God is obliged in defining the composition of God's justice, it is impossible that we can speak of God's justice in regards to any particular act, or the lack of the same.

The same principle is equally true of mercy. God is not merciful because God does "this" or "that," or because "this" or "that" is adjudicated by you as merciful. That which God does is merciful, even as that which God does is just.

So again, if God punishes capriciously, it is equally just and merciful. However, it must also be admitted that if God forgives and does not respond with that which God hates (read violence), God is equally just and merciful. God's mercy and justice are not diminished by bad theology and philosophy.

Now that that bit of philosophical misunderstanding is out of the way, you can proceed with your argument, sans the aforementioned poorly articulated definition of "justice" and "mercy."

Unless you disagree, of course, in which case I invite you to make an argument to defend your definition.

 

[Hammster]

I don't think I agree concerning a definition for justice.

Word "justice" includes a meaning of impartiality.

No, it just means that all should be judged according to what they have done.

If ALL have sinned ALL need to have at least an opportunity to have their sins erased.

Why? Who determined that?

I understand what you believe and mean ... but one might want to use a different word for justice.

Does not sound just ... at least not according to a general understanding of the word.

Thanks,
Ed

Okay, how about every person deserves God's wrath. That is what makes mercy relevant.

 

[Hammster]

Huh? That severely contradicts every conceivable theological formulation of justice, Reformed or otherwise.

God is not just because God behaves in "this" or "that" way. God is just in whatever God does, not because God does them, but because God is just.

Therefore, punishing humans capriciously, OR simply letting them off as if nothing happened are equally in keeping with divine justice. Given that there is no standard or rule outside of God to which God is obliged in defining the composition of God's justice, it is impossible that we can speak of God's justice in regards to any particular act, or the lack of the same.

The same principle is equally true of mercy. God is not merciful because God does "this" or "that," or because "this" or "that" is adjudicated by you as merciful. That which God does is merciful, even as that which God does is just.

So again, if God punishes capriciously, it is equally just and merciful. However, it must also be admitted that if God forgives and does not respond with that which God hates (read violence), God is equally just and merciful. God's mercy and justice are not diminished by bad theology and philosophy.

Now that that bit of philosophical misunderstanding is out of the way, you can proceed with your argument, sans the aforementioned poorly articulated definition of "justice" and "mercy."

Unless you disagree, of course, in which case I invite you to make an argument to defend your definition.

No. You can play in the sandbox all by yourself.

 

[depthdeception]

No, it just means that all should be judged according to what they have done.

Why does "justice" mean this? As I eruditely pointed out, justice is "that which God does." Therefore, there is nothing intrinsic to either punishment or pardon of sin that determines the justice of God.

Why? Who determined that?

Probably someone similar to the one who determined that justice = being judged for what one has done. Or someone different. The end result is the same: a human-oriented conception of justice inappropriately applied to God.

Okay, how about every person deserves God's wrath. That is what makes mercy relevant.

Upon what principle of justice is this assertion made?

 

[depthdeception]

No. You can play in the sandbox all by yourself.

Because you don't have an answer to it? If you did, you should answer...the relevance of your thought depends on being able to defend the words you say...and type.

 

[Edial]

...

Okay, how about every person deserves God's wrath. That is what makes mercy relevant.

Oh yeah ... each one definitely deserves hell as a natural after-life habitat, since all sin and all generate sin by nature and deserve the environment (the bad neighborhood) that fits one's deeds.

No arguments there.

 

[Hammster]

Because you don't have an answer to it? If you did, you should answer...the relevance of your thought depends on being able to defend the words you say...and type.

Okay.

 

[Hammster]

Oh yeah ... each one definitely deserves hell as a natural after-life habitat, since all sin and all generate sin by nature and deserve the environment (the bad neighborhood) that fits one's deeds.

No arguments there.

Okay, then what characteristic of God determines that everyone deserves wrath?

 

[Edial]

Okay, then what characteristic of God determines that everyone deserves wrath?

Definitely justice ... since all sinned.

But there is also a flip side of this.

 

[Hammster]

Definitely justice ... since all sinned.

But there is also a flip side of this.

Yeah. Mercy.

 

[Edial]

Huh? That severely contradicts every conceivable theological formulation of justice, Reformed or otherwise.

God is not just because God behaves in "this" or "that" way. God is just in whatever God does, not because God does them, but because God is just.

Therefore, punishing humans capriciously, OR simply letting them off as if nothing happened are equally in keeping with divine justice. Given that there is no standard or rule outside of God to which God is obliged in defining the composition of God's justice, it is impossible that we can speak of God's justice in regards to any particular act, or the lack of the same.

The same principle is equally true of mercy. God is not merciful because God does "this" or "that," or because "this" or "that" is adjudicated by you as merciful. That which God does is merciful, even as that which God does is just.

So again, if God punishes capriciously, it is equally just and merciful. However, it must also be admitted that if God forgives and does not respond with that which God hates (read violence), God is equally just and merciful. God's mercy and justice are not diminished by bad theology and philosophy.

Now that that bit of philosophical misunderstanding is out of the way, you can proceed with your argument, sans the aforementioned poorly articulated definition of "justice" and "mercy."

Unless you disagree, of course, in which case I invite you to make an argument to defend your definition.

Well ... I am a bit lost here myself in this theological/philosophical maze. ... would not be the first time.

What is the difference if God does this or that which define His justice from being Just and doing this and that?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Edial]

Yeah. Mercy.

Not necessarily, since Mercy is only applied to some and it is the end result.

Since ALL became sinners by nature (not due to the fault of their own ... born that way), then ALL should have the opportunity to come out of this state.

And the Bible does present plainly that some folks rejected God while hearing the Gospel and understanding it.

Mercy ... that comes later. To some.

To have justice there needs to be that Global approach in addressing the dilemma of Global infestation of everyone's nature by sin.
There simply MUST be that provision.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Hammster]

Not necessarily, since Mercy is only applied to some and it is the end result.

Since ALL became sinners by nature (not due to the fault of their own ... born that way), then ALL should have the opportunity to come out of this state.

Now hold on here. Which is it. Earlier you stated that everyone deserved hell. Now you are saying that everyone deserves an opportunity. So if everyone deserves Hell, then on what basis should ANYONE get an opportunity?

And the Bible does present plainly that some folks rejected God while hearing the Gospel and understanding it.

Understanding and believing are two different things.

Mercy ... that comes later. To some.

No. Mercy came at the cross.

To have justice there needs to be that Global approach in addressing the dilemma of Global infestation of everyone's nature by sin.
There simply MUST be that provision.

You aren't looking for justice. You are looking for fairness. And I don't think fairness plays into it at all. Fairness would be everyone getting justice.

 

[chestertonrules]

Not necessarily, since Mercy is only applied to some and it is the end result.

Since ALL became sinners by nature (not due to the fault of their own ... born that way), then ALL should have the opportunity to come out of this state.

And the Bible does present plainly that some folks rejected God while hearing the Gospel and understanding it.

Mercy ... that comes later. To some.

To have justice there needs to be that Global approach in addressing the dilemma of Global infestation of everyone's nature by sin.
There simply MUST be that provision.

Thanks,
Ed

I agree completely.


Jesus demonstrates that God's mercy, justice and love are even greater than ours here:

Matt 7
9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!

 

[depthdeception]

Well ... I am a bit lost here myself in this theological/philosophical maze. ... would not be the first time.

What is the difference if God does this or that which define His justice from being Just and doing this and that?

Thanks,
Ed

I'm not sure I understand the question, but perhaps me reiterating a few things will help clear up any confusion that my prior post caused.

My primary point is that the concept of "justice" is very tricky to apply in a rigorous, philosophically consistent way to God. After all, by definition, God is just. However, God's "just-ness" is not based on God doing or otherwise being in alignment with some external criteria whereby God might be adjudicated as "just" or "not just." Justice is essential to the character of God; therefore, God is justice, so naturally whatever God does is just.

The profound theological implication of this point, however, is that there is then no obligation within or upon God to do "this" or "that." Just as God's justice is not defined by the propriety of God's actions, neither is God constrained to act in any prescribed way. This is important, for much of Reformed theology revolves precisely around such a necessity.

Consider the doctrine of atonement, for example. A key tenant of Reformed atonement theology is the principle that insofar as human sinfulness incurs the wrath of God, God--in order to be just--must punish sin. It is this conditionality to the attribution of divine justice that requires, within this system of theology, that someone--anyone--be punished for sin in order that divine justice might not be violated.

Now, of course, it's quite easy to propagate this theology. Under the right rhetorical circumstances, the tenants of this atonement theology can gain a hearing. However, in light of the previous conclusions that I have outlined about the necessary view of God's justice, we see that the Reformed doctrine of atonement is thoroughly obtuse, for it makes a particular course of action a requisite whereby humans might speak of God as "just."

The Reformed, in response, might counter that God is NOT, in fact, constrained to behave in this way, but that this action belongs more appropriately to the divine, foreordaining will of God. While this certainly brings the theology back into the smallest similitude of some manner of philosophical coherence, this theological band-aid only gives rise to a much bigger problem.

Consider this: if God is not constrained to act in "this" or "that" way, one must conclude that whatever it is that God does belongs to the eternal desire and good pleasure of God (which, in fact, is the proper way to think of it). Since the punishment of Christ for the sins of humanity cannot be explained in terms of any obligation on God's part to unleash such violence against Godself in Christ, the ONLY conclusion one can reach is that divine self-chastisement is, in fact, to be properly considered as part of the DESIRE and GOOD PLEASURE of God.

Let me state this another way. We've already thoroughly established that whatever God does is just, not because of the nature of the action but because of the character of God. Furthermore, we have properly outlined the thesis that in addition to the justice of God being manifest in all that God does, there is additionally no external constraint against or obligation upon God whereby God's actions must proceed in a certain way in order to be considered "just."

Therefore, we know that in the consideration of human sinfulness, God is not obligated to punish, pardon, or otherwise. Further, we know that if God punishes, pardons, or otherwise, God is just because of the nature of God, not the characteristic of the action. Therefore, as God is not constrained to punish human sinfulness because of any external obligation, the punishment of human sinfulness (whether directed at the actual perpetrators or Christ) can only be rightly adjudicated as belonging to the eternal desire of God to execute violence against that which God has made. In the final analysis, we would have to say that God is fully just in doing so. However, we must also question whether or not a God who wields such violence is one with which we would desire to have relationship.

 

[Edial]

Now hold on here. Which is it. Earlier you stated that everyone deserved hell. Now you are saying that everyone deserves an opportunity. So if everyone deserves Hell, then on what basis should ANYONE get an opportunity?

Understanding and believing are two different things.
No. Mercy came at the cross.

You aren't looking for justice. You are looking for fairness. And I don't think fairness plays into it at all. Fairness would be everyone getting justice.

HA! Excellent! I was defining fairness.
How did I slide into that?

However, justice does also have a meaning of fairness. In a different context.

OK. Let me backtrack a bit.

Everyone deserves hell, since hell is place that deserves one's spiritual condition. And the spiritual condition is basically a nature that constantly generates sin ... like a well or a faucet.

All people are born that way due to no fault of their own.
Born sinful.
OK.

Now, salvation appears, that is for all men.
However, men in their natural selves cannot comprehend spiritual mysteries. OK.

But salvation does appear to all men.
The Gospel is commanded to be preached to all men. OK.

The flip side of justice is mercy ... you were correct, since in a context of a court justice (looking at it from punitive perspective), it simply penalizes for transgressions.

However, justice also has a meaning of impartiality and fairness ... like the underlined words "just", "justice" ... same Greek ... have different aspects.
One is punitive, legal, another is fairness.

RO 3:25 ... He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- 26 he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

So, justice (from non-legal perspective) does include fairness and impartiality. God is just.

So, from this perspective ... whew ... let's go back to a salvation provision that God offers to all since all sinned not due to fault of their own.

or, ... ... do we have anough strenght to continue?