Thanks Steve,
I am glad we agree that God would not be unjust to leave all men in their state of sin and misery, and condemned to eternal death. So now I wonder, would it be unjust if God choose to save some out of that sin and misery, and yet leave others to die an eternal death?
Greetings,
Jude
Still a Just God?
Still a Just God?
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Romans 8:29 (ESV)
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Hi Jude,
Most of us non-Calvinists believe in the "sovereignty" of God, in the ordinary sense, as that word would be understood in normal English usage—i.e., a "sovereign" person or State is free to do what he/it chooses without being answerable to any superiors, nor (especially!) to subordinates.
Thus, if God were to choose to damn all men for their crimes, and save none, He would be well within His rights. As the landowner in the parable said: "Is it not lawful for me to do as I wish with my own things?" (Matthew 20:15). He would be equally within His rights (and therefore "just") if He were to show exceptional mercy to a few and then would withold the same mercy from others for no discernible reason. We all agree that God could do such, if He wished, and none could say, "Why have you made me thus?" There is no controversy between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, therefore, as to God's "rights" or His "justice."
We DO believe, though, that in deciding theological questions, it is more helpful to find out, not what God is entitled to do, but what He actually DOES do, according to His self-revelation in scripture. God would be fully entitled to be more like the devil than like Jesus, if it pleased Him, but from what He has revealed in Christ and in scripture, we can rest assured that He is not at all like the devil, and quite like Jesus. Likewise, God would be entitled, in the presence of desperate human need, if He wished, to be more like the priest or the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan. But my impression is that Jesus would have us liken Him more to the Good Samaritan, who did not "pass by on the other side."
If God chose to save a few people who were drowning, but to pass by others whom He could as easily have saved, He might still be regarded as a "just" God (in that He had violated no one's "rights," and hence, committed no injustice), but He would not be very much like the God revealed in scripture, who desires that all men would be saved, and who is, in fact, the Savior of all men, especially those who believe (1 Tim.2:4; 4:10).
There is also another dimension to this question as well. I have only been talking about the case of God finding men in a desperate state and then passing by and giving them no assistance. If we would accurately reflect the Calvinist paradigm, we must suggest that these men fell into their desperate condition solely because God has sovereignly decreed, before any of them were born, that this is the condition that He has chosen for them "in His good pleasure," and that He not only leaves them unassisted, but also condemns them to eternal torment for being in this desperate state, which He has irresistibly ordained.
That I might not be accused of misrepresenting the Calvinist position, let me quote the man himself:
“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death” -John Calvin, "Institutes," 3:21:5
“We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction” -John Calvin, "Institutes," 3:21:7
“If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God, though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction...The eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam he decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined...God chose out of the condemned race of Adam those whom he pleased and reprobated whom he willed.” -John Calvin "The Eternal Predestination of God," 8:5
Far from presenting a caricature of Calvinism, one might say that I have presented his views more mildly than did he!
The verses that Calvinists use to promote this idea are, in every case, susceptible to more charitable interpretations than those which Calvinism places upon them, and in most cases, a mere taking of the "proof texts" in their context will demonstrate that the Calvinist interpretation of them is exegetically weaker than is a non-Calvinistic interpretation.
Given the opportunity to understand these "proof texts" either in a manner that is consistent with God's revealed love for all sinners, or in a manner that transmogrifies God into a concept alien from scripture, and that resembles more the capricious gods of the Greeks, why would a Christian choose to take the latter option?
In fact, the fathers before Augustine all chose the first option. Augustine, by incorporating Greek philosophy with Christianity, introduced (and Calvinists choose) the second. Why would anyone prefer the god of the philosophers over the God of the martyrs?
This is the question that puzzles the non-Calvinist about Calvinists. Of course, it needn't puzzle the Calvinist. He can simply argue that he was predestined to choose that option. ;-)
Blessings, my Brother!
Most of us non-Calvinists believe in the "sovereignty" of God, in the ordinary sense, as that word would be understood in normal English usage—i.e., a "sovereign" person or State is free to do what he/it chooses without being answerable to any superiors, nor (especially!) to subordinates.
Thus, if God were to choose to damn all men for their crimes, and save none, He would be well within His rights. As the landowner in the parable said: "Is it not lawful for me to do as I wish with my own things?" (Matthew 20:15). He would be equally within His rights (and therefore "just") if He were to show exceptional mercy to a few and then would withold the same mercy from others for no discernible reason. We all agree that God could do such, if He wished, and none could say, "Why have you made me thus?" There is no controversy between Calvinism and non-Calvinism, therefore, as to God's "rights" or His "justice."
We DO believe, though, that in deciding theological questions, it is more helpful to find out, not what God is entitled to do, but what He actually DOES do, according to His self-revelation in scripture. God would be fully entitled to be more like the devil than like Jesus, if it pleased Him, but from what He has revealed in Christ and in scripture, we can rest assured that He is not at all like the devil, and quite like Jesus. Likewise, God would be entitled, in the presence of desperate human need, if He wished, to be more like the priest or the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan. But my impression is that Jesus would have us liken Him more to the Good Samaritan, who did not "pass by on the other side."
If God chose to save a few people who were drowning, but to pass by others whom He could as easily have saved, He might still be regarded as a "just" God (in that He had violated no one's "rights," and hence, committed no injustice), but He would not be very much like the God revealed in scripture, who desires that all men would be saved, and who is, in fact, the Savior of all men, especially those who believe (1 Tim.2:4; 4:10).
There is also another dimension to this question as well. I have only been talking about the case of God finding men in a desperate state and then passing by and giving them no assistance. If we would accurately reflect the Calvinist paradigm, we must suggest that these men fell into their desperate condition solely because God has sovereignly decreed, before any of them were born, that this is the condition that He has chosen for them "in His good pleasure," and that He not only leaves them unassisted, but also condemns them to eternal torment for being in this desperate state, which He has irresistibly ordained.
That I might not be accused of misrepresenting the Calvinist position, let me quote the man himself:
“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death” -John Calvin, "Institutes," 3:21:5
“We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction” -John Calvin, "Institutes," 3:21:7
“If what I teach is true, that those who perish are destined to death by the eternal good pleasure of God, though the reason does not appear, then they are not found but made worthy of destruction...The eternal predestination of God, by which before the fall of Adam he decreed what should take place concerning the whole human race and every individual, was fixed and determined...God chose out of the condemned race of Adam those whom he pleased and reprobated whom he willed.” -John Calvin "The Eternal Predestination of God," 8:5
Far from presenting a caricature of Calvinism, one might say that I have presented his views more mildly than did he!
The verses that Calvinists use to promote this idea are, in every case, susceptible to more charitable interpretations than those which Calvinism places upon them, and in most cases, a mere taking of the "proof texts" in their context will demonstrate that the Calvinist interpretation of them is exegetically weaker than is a non-Calvinistic interpretation.
Given the opportunity to understand these "proof texts" either in a manner that is consistent with God's revealed love for all sinners, or in a manner that transmogrifies God into a concept alien from scripture, and that resembles more the capricious gods of the Greeks, why would a Christian choose to take the latter option?
In fact, the fathers before Augustine all chose the first option. Augustine, by incorporating Greek philosophy with Christianity, introduced (and Calvinists choose) the second. Why would anyone prefer the god of the philosophers over the God of the martyrs?
This is the question that puzzles the non-Calvinist about Calvinists. Of course, it needn't puzzle the Calvinist. He can simply argue that he was predestined to choose that option. ;-)
Blessings, my Brother!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
In Jesus,
Steve
Steve