Who is going to adjudge that God is unjust?

[moonbeam]

Who is going to adjudge that God is unjust?

The matter of concern is more than a common feature of soteriological debate… and can be summarised as follows.

“That would make God unjust…” - is a typical concise example of how many theological discussions concerning a vast array of subject matter inevitably conclude…and upon that statement..that adjudgment…many weighty matters are determined...incorrectly in my estimation.

Those who make such statements, and they are many, find it so incredibly easy to arrive at that place…it seems as such a natural flow of deductive thought that it is inescapable and so rightly determinative in regards reaching a final and decisive conclusion.

Does it ever cross their minds, even for a brief moment, that in doing so, they have merely transposed themselves into the exact same position, theologically, and personally, of the man adjudged by God to be the most righteous man alive Job?

And what was the result for Job?

That will inevitably be the same result for you... head down with mind and body in subordinate acceptance...of what is inevitably, your unjust adjudgment of God.

Does that thought ever cross your mind when you say - That would make God unjust?

 

[bling]

When people say: "that would make God unjust", they are just pointing out an illogical doctrinal conclusion.
If someone says to you: "Your God is unjust", they are just saying your doctrine is wrong.

 

[moonbeam]

When people say: "that would make God unjust", they are just pointing out an illogical doctrinal conclusion.
If someone says to you: "Your God is unjust", they are just saying your doctrine is wrong.

Would that be because they adjudge that that doctrine would, in fact, make God unjust?

 

[bling]

Would that be because they adjudge that that doctrine would, in fact, make God unjust?

That is usually just one, of many problems.

 

[moonbeam]

That is usually just one, of many problems.

Would you agree that that problem - "that would make God unjust' - is of necessity, the primary problem?
.

 

[bling]

Would you agree that that problem - "that would make God unjust' - is of necessity, the primary problem?
.

The "problem" should never get to the point of even suggesting God might be unjust. The road to that fork has many forks before it.

 

[moonbeam]

The "problem" should never get to the point of even suggesting God might be unjust. The road to that fork has many forks before it.

Well I guess we might all like to think so...

But the common refrain from those who endorse libertarian free will (Arminian) to those who endorse determinism (Calvinist) has been this for at least 400 years... that is... That determinism (TULIP) would make God unjust.

Would you agree that that, in fact, is the case, when you get down to that very last fork in the discussion?
.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Who is going to adjudge that God is unjust?

The matter of concern is more than a common feature of soteriological debate… and can be summarised as follows.

“That would make God unjust…” - is a typical concise example of how many theological discussions concerning a vast array of subject matter inevitably conclude…and upon that statement..that adjudgment…many weighty matters are determined...incorrectly in my estimation.

Those who make such statements, and they are many, find it so incredibly easy to arrive at that place…it seems as such a natural flow of deductive thought that it is inescapable and so rightly determinative in regards reaching a final and decisive conclusion.

Does it ever cross their minds, even for a brief moment, that in doing so, they have merely transposed themselves into the exact same position, theologically, and personally, of the man adjudged by God to be the most righteous man alive Job?

And what was the result for Job?

That will inevitably be the same result for you... head down with mind and body in subordinate acceptance...of what is inevitably, your unjust adjudgment of God.

Does that thought ever cross your mind when you say - That would make God unjust?

No not at all. Job was suffering temporal suffering not eternal. I’m guessing that this is a Calvinistic response to the refutation of their doctrines and how they mandate God’s unjust judgement upon the unelected. The problem isn’t that we are deserving of punishment, the problem is that the doctrine of total depravity says that we are incapable of repentance, and that is the root of the problem. If we are incapable of meeting God’s expectations then His punishment cannot be just. His expectation is not perfection, His expectation is repentance. He knew that everyone would fail perfection which is why He made a way for us to be perfected by Christ which requires repentance. The doctrine of total depravity is based on proverbial passages that aren’t intended to be taken literally, namely Romans 3:10-12. If these verses were intended to be taken literally they would apply to Christians as well because they provide no exceptions. Furthermore they contradict passages that specifically state that some people were righteous, some did seek God, and some do good. They are proverbial quotes from Psalms 14:1-3 and Psalms 53:1-3 which means they have an element of truth to them but it’s an exaggerated element of truth. Like if I were to say no one writes letters anymore or no one reads the newspaper anymore. They have an element of truth to them in that very few people write letters nowadays or read the newspaper but people do still do these things. Hence the exaggeration.

 

[moonbeam]

I’m guessing that this is a Calvinistic response to the refutation of their doctrines and how they mandate God’s unjust judgement upon the unelected.

If we are incapable of meeting God’s expectations then His punishment cannot be just

In your statements above you adjudge that God would be unjust… if He acted in accordance with the determinist doctrine (TULIP)

What gives you, a creature, the right to adjudge your Creator?

What gives you, a creature, the competence to adjudge your Creator?
.

 

[BNR32FAN]

In your statements above you adjudge that God would be unjust… if He acted in accordance with the determinist doctrine (TULIP)

What gives you, a creature, the right to adjudge your Creator?

What gives you, a creature, the competence to adjudge your Creator?
.

I explained why in my post. In order for us to be JUSTLY judged according to the definition of the word JUSTLY we have to be CAPABLE of meeting God’s expectations. Here’s an example, If God said if you don’t eat your entire head I’m throwing you into the lake of fire to suffer for all eternity. You can’t eat your own head, it’s impossible. Would God’s punishment upon you be JUSTIFIED? Just because God is who He is doesn’t alter the definition of the word JUST. The word JUST means fair and impartial. There’s nothing fair about knowingly creating expectations that are impossible to meet then punishing someone for all eternity for failing to meet said expectations.

 

[moonbeam]

I explained why in my post. In order for us to be JUSTLY judged according to the definition of the word JUSTLY we have to be CAPABLE of meeting God’s expectations. Here’s an example, If God said if you don’t eat your entire head I’m throwing you into the lake of fire to suffer for all eternity. You can’t eat your own head, it’s impossible. Would God’s punishment upon you be JUSTIFIED? Just because God is who He is doesn’t alter the definition of the word JUST. The word JUST means fair and impartial. There’s nothing fair about knowingly creating expectations that are impossible to meet then punishing someone for all eternity for failing to meet said expectations.

I accept that you disagree with the determinist Calvinist doctrine... my question wasn't addressing that particular point of contention.

I was making an enquiry regards your basis for competency to judge your Creator... on any grounds.

What gives you, a creature, the right to adjudge your Creator?

What gives you, a creature, the competence to adjudge your Creator?
.

 

[bling]

Well I guess we might all like to think so...

But the common refrain from those who endorse libertarian free will (Arminian) to those who endorse determinism (Calvinist) has been this for at least 400 years... that is... That determinism (TULIP) would make God unjust.

Would you agree that that, in fact, is the case, when you get down to that very last fork in the discussion?
.

The "problem" goes back to man's objective. Man's earthly objective requires man to have limited free will. Some confuse just having very limited free will with having unlimited free will.
Also, once an individual reaches the point (which only God can know) of never being willing to fulfill his/her earthly objective, then that person can have their free will removed by God and just be around to help others in their trying to fulfill their earthly objective.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Who is going to adjudge that God is unjust?

The matter of concern is more than a common feature of soteriological debate… and can be summarised as follows.

“That would make God unjust…” - is a typical concise example of how many theological discussions concerning a vast array of subject matter inevitably conclude…and upon that statement..that adjudgment…many weighty matters are determined...incorrectly in my estimation.

Those who make such statements, and they are many, find it so incredibly easy to arrive at that place…it seems as such a natural flow of deductive thought that it is inescapable and so rightly determinative in regards reaching a final and decisive conclusion.

Does it ever cross their minds, even for a brief moment, that in doing so, they have merely transposed themselves into the exact same position, theologically, and personally, of the man adjudged by God to be the most righteous man alive Job?

And what was the result for Job?

That will inevitably be the same result for you... head down with mind and body in subordinate acceptance...of what is inevitably, your unjust adjudgment of God.

Does that thought ever cross your mind when you say - That would make God unjust?

Have I ever thought God was unjust? ... Admittedly, I'd have to say "Yes" as so many people throughout history have already done. There have been several times in my life when I've felt the sting of indignation toward God for seemingly allowing something 'bad' to happen.

But then, despite the pain of life, I remind myself that no one out there can actually tell me what "Perfect Justice" is. Sure, I hear a lot of opinions and theories about what Justice should be ideally, but those opinions, no matter how loud they are, or even how far up they may be institutionally sanctioned within the legal structures of the world, don't by any necessity actually answer the question with any finality.

So, who has the ethical and moral brilliance to adjudge God? Most certainly not me. And I await to be corrected by the person who thinks he or she can successfully place God on trial and come to an absolute verdict.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I accept that you disagree with the determinist Calvinist doctrine... my question wasn't addressing that particular point of contention.

I was making an enquiry regards your basis for competency to judge your Creator... on any grounds.

What gives you, a creature, the right to adjudge your Creator?

What gives you, a creature, the competence to adjudge your Creator?
.

The definition of the word “just” remains the same regardless of who it is in reference to. Does the definition of the word change depending on who it’s being used in reference to?

 

[moonbeam]

The "problem" goes back to man's objective. Man's earthly objective requires man to have limited free will. Some confuse just having very limited free will with having unlimited free will.
Also, once an individual reaches the point (which only God can know) of never being willing to fulfill his/her earthly objective, then that person can have their free will removed by God and just be around to help others in their trying to fulfill their earthly objective.

I am not exactly sure what you are meaning regards the portion of your comments I have bolded above... can you elaborate.
.

 

[moonbeam]

Have I ever thought God was unjust? ... Admittedly, I'd have to say "Yes" as so many people throughout history have already done. There have been several times in my life when I've felt the sting of indignation toward God for seemingly allowing something 'bad' to happen.

But then, despite the pain of life, I remind myself that no one out there can actually tell me what "Perfect Justice" is. Sure, I hear a lot of opinions and theories about what Justice should be ideally, but those opinions, no matter how loud they are, or even how far up they may be institutionally sanctioned within the legal structures of the world, don't by any necessity actually answer the question with any finality.

So, who has the ethical and moral brilliance to adjudge God? Most certainly not me. And I await to be corrected by the person who thinks he or she can successfully place God on trial and come to an absolute verdict.

I agree with your sentiments above… being a proponent of exhaustive determinism (Calvinistic) there have been times in the past, and there will be times in the future, where I have experienced combinations of varying degrees of bewilderment and deep sadness as I contemplate the final estate of the reprobate in general and in particular those who are known to me on a personal level, and most especially those whom are loved ones… those moments can be quite profoundly dark and disturbing to my soul… to be candid.


However during those moments (and they are quite brief and very uncommon) when my mind, in it’s bewilderment and deep sadness, has that impulsive thought flashing through my synapses... asking the question… asking the justifiability of such determinations… I remind myself that I know the LORD… I know Him… having experienced His Amazing Grace personally… and THAT is enough to assuage, dissipate, and silence my concerns, acknowledging to myself and the LORD just like Job found himself acknowledging… it is inevitable.

Then Job answered the Lord, and said,

I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee.

Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not.

Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me.

I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee.

Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.
.

 

[moonbeam]

The definition of the word “just” remains the same regardless of who it is in reference to. Does the definition of the word change depending on who it’s being used in reference to?

I would like a response to the questions I proposed previously, and to which, so it seems to me, you have avoided with a deft sidestep.... impressive footwork... I will respond to your above enquiry following the reorientation of our discussion.

To repeat...

I was making an enquiry regards your basis for competency to judge your Creator... on any grounds.

What gives you, a creature, the right to adjudge your Creator?

What gives you, a creature, the competence to adjudge your Creator?
.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I would like a response to the questions I proposed previously, and to which, so it seems to me, you have avoided with a deft sidestep.... impressive footwork... I will respond to your above enquiry following the reorientation of our discussion.

To repeat...

I was making an enquiry regards your basis for competency to judge your Creator... on any grounds.

What gives you, a creature, the right to adjudge your Creator?

What gives you, a creature, the competence to adjudge your Creator?
.

I’ve answered your question twice already. I’m not sidestepping anything. What gives me the competence to judge God? The definition of the word JUST. I said that twice already. God can ONLY be JUST if He is acting WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD. He doesn’t just get to do whatever He wants and call it just if His actions are contradictory to the definition of the word.

Now answer my question, does the definition of the word JUST change depending on who it is in reference to?

 

[bling]

I am not exactly sure what you are meaning regards the portion of your comments I have bolded above... can you elaborate.
.

Adam and Eve were made “very good” by God’s standard of “very good”, which I would say: “The best two made beings could be made.” Christ is perfect, but Christ is not a made being but deity, so God cannot make clones of a perfect Christ.

Adam and Eve lacked one very important attribute which could keep them from sinning, but that attribute is something even God cannot gift them, because it has to be humbly accepted of their own free will, let me explain:

Unfortunately, sin has purpose and appears to be needed for all mature adults (which Adam and Eve showed themselves and us) to help those who are willing to fulfill their earthly objective. The objective drives everything.

Starting with God is Love (the epitome of Love), which means God is totally unselfish and is not doing stuff for His own sake, but is doing everything for the sake of man, which is also God’s desire and might be referred to as, His sake.

God would be doing or allowing everything to help humans who are just willing to accept His help to fulfill their earthly objective.

So, God allows evil to happen, to help humans, but God also allowed Christ to go to the cross to help humans.

There is really nothing you (a created being) can “do” to help the Creator, but you can allow, of your own free will, God to help you, which is God’s desire, since God is a huge giver of gifts.

You can take any command given in scripture and have Biblical support for calling it “Man’s objective” since God said this is what man is to do, but there is one (more like two) commands all other commands are under.

Man’s objective is found in the God given Mission statement of: Loving God (and secondly Loving others) with all your heart, soul, mind and energy. In order to fulfill that mission man must first obtain Godly type Love which will make man like God Himself in that man will Love like God Loves. Would becoming like God Himself not be the greatest gift we could receive?

The objective is not to never ever sin, but to obtain this Godly type Love is the first of man’s objectives.

The Adam and Eve story helps us understand. Most people go through a time in which they ask: “How could a Loving God allow such a thing”, which means “why does God not start us all out in a Garden type situation without, needy people, limited resources, death, and questions about His existence?”

What we can do is thank Adam and Eve for showing us and them that what we might consider the ideal situation is a lousy situation for man to fulfill his earthly objective. Adam and Eve as our very best all human representatives did not fulfill the objective while sinless in the Garden and really could not. The situation after sinning outside the Garden did provide a way to fulfill the objective.

There are just somethings even an all-powerful Creator cannot do (there are things impossible to do), like God cannot make another Christ since Christ is not a created being. The big inability for us is to be created with instinctive (programmed) Godly type Love, since Godly type Love is not instinctive. Godly type love has to be the result of a free will decision by the being, to make it the person’s Love apart from God. In other words: If the Love was in a human from the human’s creation it would be a robotic type love and not a Godly type Love. Also, if God “forces” this Love on a person (Kind a like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun) it would not be “loving” on God’s part and the love forced on the person would not be Godly type love. This Love has to be the result of a free will moral choice with real likely alternatives (for humans on earth those alternatives include the perceived pleasures of sin for a season.)

This Love is way beyond anything humans could develop, obtain, learn, earn, pay back or ever deserve, so it must be the result of a gift that is accepted or rejected (a free will choice).

This “Love” is much more than just an emotional feeling; it is God Himself (God is Love). If you see this Love you see God.

All mature adults do stuff that hurts others (this is called sin) these transgressions weigh on them, burdens them to the point the individual seeks relief (at least early on before they allow their hearts to be hardened). Lots of “alternatives” can be tried for relief, but the only true relief comes from God with forgiveness (this forgiveness is pure charity [grace/mercy/Love]). The correct humble acceptance of this Forgiveness (Charity) automatically will result in Love (we are taught by Jesus (Luke 7: 36-50) and our own experience “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…”). Sin is thus made hugely significant (this includes hell), so there will be an unbelievable huge debt to be forgiven of and thus result in an unbelievable huge “Love” (Godly type Love).

This messed up world is actually the very best place for willing mature adult individuals to see, receive, give, experience, accept and grow Godly type Love. All these tragedies provide opportunities for Love, but that does not mean we go around causing opportunities, since we are to be ceasing these opportunities (there are plenty of opportunities) to show/experience Love.

I and other have to have opportunities at our doorstep to respond with Love, if I would just cease the opportunities at some distance there might be fewer opportunities (tragedies) needed for me, so if you want to blame someone for all these tragedies blame me for not ceasing more earlier.

Hell does nothing for the people going to hell, but that was their choice since they kept refusing to accept God’s help (forgiveness, Love, grace, mercy, charity) to the point they will never humbly accept. Hell does help some willing individuals to not put off their acceptance of God’s help.

We are not making some honorable choice to accept God’s forgiveness, since sin burdens us and we just want undeserved relief from our pain and burden.

In order to be forgiven of sin you must first sin, so sin is necessary, but not desired

 

[moonbeam]

Now answer my question, does the definition of the word JUST change depending on who it is in reference to?

The definition doesn't change due to who its referenced to... what but it's impact does.

Do you understand what I'm getting at?