ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[add yasaf]

its like a marathon

its like a marathon

Rolf ernst quote - add yasaf--you criticise my use of Mt. 13:10-13, saying I took it out of context. You can't say that unless you know two things: first, what point I was making by using that text, and second, what in that text shows that it does not make that point. Can you answer both of those points? Do you recall what point is being disputed between us?



Thank you for making my previous point for me! As I said before, unless you give an exegesis of th passage it means nothing, that is why it is not good to prooftext. At least Jesus quoted verses, and not simply where you could find such and such a scripture.


I was responding to this post a long time ago - http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=544182#post544182

to which I replied- http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=544206#post544206

to which you replied with this - To derive the proper benefit from the following verses, you must remember that ALL of scripture fits together without conflict, therefore each verse must be interpreted in a manner which does not leave it in conflict with other verses--

Mt.13:10-13; Phil.1:29; Eph. 1:19; 2:8; Phil. 1:29; Col.2:12; 1 Tim.1:14; Heb. 12:2; James 2:5; Acts 16:14; 2Thess 2:13; Jn.6:37; Amos 3:2; Josh. 11:18-20; Prov. 16:4; Rom. 9:17, 21-23; Ex.4:21; 14:17; Prov. 16:1; 21:1; Rom. 9:18; Jn.12:37-40; Rom.11:7; 1Thess. 5:9; 1Pet. 2:8; 2Pet; 2:12; Jude 4


To which I replied with the interpretation of Mt. 13:10-13, the first one on the list, also a common verse Calvinists use for their arguments.

And then I asked f you would like I would continue showing you why all the other verses you listed are taken out of context to support your ideas on this thread.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

add yasaf--Mt.13:10-13 demonstrates that God reveals himself to others and hides the knowledge of Himself from others. That is the point I was making. It addressed that point specifically, and was not taken out of context. I notice that when OVers or Arminians are confronted with a text which makes them uncomfortable, one of the ways they try to evade the point of scripture is to cry out, "context, context" even though the scripture was not used contrary to its surrounding context, nor was it wrongly used to address the topic.

My asking you to reiterate the topic we were discussing proves nothing concerning the bible. It in no way proved your point

 

[add yasaf]

hello mcfly

hello mcfly

Rolf Ernst quote - Mt.13:10-13 demonstrates that God reveals himself to others and hides the knowledge of Himself from others. That is the point I was making. It addressed that point specifically, and was not taken out of context. I notice that when OVers or Arminians are confronted with a text which makes them uncomfortable, one of the ways they try to evade the point of scripture is to cry out, "context, context" even though the scripture was not used contrary to its surrounding context, nor was it wrongly used to address the topic.





When did I ever say this verse made me uncomfortable?? I don't know what you mean when you said, "scripture was not used contrary to its surrounding context..." Wasn't that my point!?

Besides what I am posting below this, which is a reposting of what I already posted, there are immediate context reasons why the passage is not a Calvinist supporting passage. Now you said that the passage says that God reveals himself to others and hides knowledge of himself from others. This is true! Now this is all that it says though. Which is why I was wondering why you listed it as part of the verses to support your notion of God giving faith to people.


read verse 15 - for this people's heart has beecome calloused, they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. OTHERWISE they might see with their eyes hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn, and I WOULD HEAL THEM.

It is quite straightforward, they are the ones who close their eyes

FOr further reflection see this -



For Matthew 13:10-13 you need to read Blomberg's view of this in his book on parables. http://www.booksamillion.com/ncom/b...7&ad=YHSBKS

I like to call it the Emmaus Effect - Luke 24:15-16 - "Jesus ......walked along with them, but they were kept from recognizing him"

Then verse 28, 29 - "......Jesus acted if he was going further. But they urged him strongly, "stay with us..."

verse 30, 31 - "he took bread....and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him...."



Jesus, in his ministry, kept people at arms length so that they could make a decision. Whoever says that the parables are easy to understand are kidding themselves. They are designed so that people will follow that "burning within their heart", and ask further questions about the parables, like the disciples did.

In some cases the Pharisees knew that Jesus was talking about them in the parables, and so understood the referents, but still refused to believe. Luke 7:30 - "But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves...."

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

You can only support your position as long as it is based on Scripture, not 'sound reason'! Of course we should use 'sound reason' to interpret the Scriptures, but sometimes the Word of God reveals things to us that we just can't comprehend, and we are suppose to just trust God at His Word and accept them as the final authority on anything. If what is said in Scripture seems like a 'hard pill' to swallow, you don't reject it and say it doesn't match with 'sound reason', then try to interpret that passage to make it fit 'your view'. That's wrong, and that's how a person can make the Scriptures say what they want it to.

Well, I agree that this is a danger but so is the reverse, which is what I believe you are guilty of on this issue of God’s justice. As I’ve said before the insistence on sound reason does not preclude the possibility of mystery in the Christian faith. There are thing which we cannot fully comprehend but none of those things are illogical in the sense that they are self contradictory or that they present God in a way that is contrary to His character. There are far more things in the Bible that are plain and simple to understand, things that demonstrate to us in no uncertain terms that certain things are true and certain other things are not. Those plain and simple truths give us the map by which to understand to the best extent possible those things which are a mystery to us.
The doctrine of the Trinity is a good example. There are plenty of things in the Bible that teach us that there is a plurality in the SINGULAR God. This teaching cannot be said to be illogical though because it is clear that we have not been given sufficient information in order to make such a conclusion. And even if that we not so, we can still see that this is not illogical because there are plenty of things that we can say the same sorts of things about without contradicting ourselves. For example, the United States has one and only one government, yet that singular government has three branches that are independent and codependent, they are separate but sustained and checked by the other two, they are truly three but one all at the same time. It sounds contradictory until you understand how its complexities work. Complexity, however, does not imply contradiction or bad logic.
The important point to make here is that the doctrine of the Trinity does not in any way present to us anything that is in conflict with the rest of the Biblical record that is plain and simple to understand.

When the Scriptures tell us that God commanded David to take the census, and then punished him because of his sin in taking the census, there is only one conclusion a person can come to in that situation;

It's obvious that God ordains us to do things then, hold us accountable. And yet, in all of this, God is not unjust. For far be it that the Scriptures would teach such a thing! Thus, since they do tell us He ordains and holds accountable, and that they do not teach us that He is an 'unjust' God, we must conclude that God cannot be unjust for ordaining and holding accountable at the same time.

No, we are not required to conclude any such thing. There are several other possibilities, not the least of which is to assume that we are either misunderstanding the passage in question or that we are left with incomplete information or both.
What would be required of us if your conclusion is correct is that the word “justice� would have to be redefined to include cases where the judge both orders and punishes the same act. In effect, the word justice would have to be rendered meaningless.
You are going in the exact opposite theological direction that you should be. You are going from the specific to the general; you should be going from the general to the specific. In other words, in this case, we know what justice is, and we know that God is just because of the overall teaching of Scripture, the big picture sort of speak. Thus, any passage that seems to be saying otherwise must be treated as any other mystery in that we do not make sweeping general statements of theology based upon very specific things that are not clear especially when they are in contradiction with the things that are clear.

I would like to point out something that I think you guys (Z Man, Rolf, and anyone who is on there side of this issue) should spend a little time thinking about. Please notice that we are no longer debating any specific theological issue and haven’t been for some time (This is why I insisted before, that all the proof texts in the world won’t help you). We are simply debating what role logic and sound reason should play in the formation of a true theology. And it is you guys that are attempting to establish that sound reason should take a back seat to the Scripture and it is I who am saying that without sound reason nothing makes sense including the Scripture. The point I’m trying to make is that you guys are trying to make a logical argument for the removal (or at least subordination) of logic, which is not a position that I would want to be in if I were you, it seems to be an impossible position to defend.

No problem. :thumb:

Thanks! I can’t stand myself sometimes. My temper is easily my most prominent weakness! (Rom. 7:24)

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

There are thing which we cannot fully comprehend but none of those things are illogical in the sense that they are self contradictory or that they present God in a way that is contrary to His character. There are far more things in the Bible that are plain and simple to understand, things that demonstrate to us in no uncertain terms that certain things are true and certain other things are not. Those plain and simple truths give us the map by which to understand to the best extent possible those things which are a mystery to us.
The doctrine of the Trinity is a good example. There are plenty of things in the Bible that teach us that there is a plurality in the SINGULAR God. This teaching cannot be said to be illogical though because it is clear that we have not been given sufficient information in order to make such a conclusion. And even if that we not so, we can still see that this is not illogical because there are plenty of things that we can say the same sorts of things about without contradicting ourselves. For example, the United States has one and only one government, yet that singular government has three branches that are independent and codependent, they are separate but sustained and checked by the other two, they are truly three but one all at the same time. It sounds contradictory until you understand how its complexities work. Complexity, however, does not imply contradiction or bad logic.
The important point to make here is that the doctrine of the Trinity does not in any way present to us anything that is in conflict with the rest of the Biblical record that is plain and simple to understand.

I would agree.

However, I must ask you - because I think we differ on this issue - what do you think the 'character of God' entails? Or better yet, what makes up 'God's character'? What makes Him act the way He acts? What 'drives' Him to do the things that He does?

No, we are not required to conclude any such thing. There are several other possibilities, not the least of which is to assume that we are either misunderstanding the passage in question or that we are left with incomplete information or both.

Incomplete information? I do not believe the Bible is 'inadequate'. And I simply do not know how you misinterpret the passage when it clearly tells us that God commanded David to take that census, then punished him for doing so.

What would be required of us if your conclusion is correct is that the word “justice� would have to be redefined to include cases where the judge both orders and punishes the same act. In effect, the word justice would have to be rendered meaningless.

How we define justice among other humans is not the same Justice that God carries out among who He wishes. If God wanted to take your daughter away from you, He would be just in doing so, whether you like it or not.

You are going in the exact opposite theological direction that you should be. You are going from the specific to the general; you should be going from the general to the specific. In other words, in this case, we know what justice is, and we know that God is just because of the overall teaching of Scripture, the big picture sort of speak.

We must define justice the way the Bible defines justice; not how we 'interpret' it to be in our lives, or how we carry it out in our 'judicial systems' among other humans. God is just in whatever He does; He cannot be unjust. If He decides to kill thousands of people in His name, for His glory, He is just in doing so. If He commanded David to take that census, then punished him for his sin in doing so, then God is just for doing so.

You MUST NOT bring your definitions or 'pre-assumptions' about certain words and their definitions into your Bible study. You do not define God and interpret Scripture based upon how we live our lives and act towards other people. YOU CANNOT INTERPRET THE BIBLE DEDUCTIVELY! You must allow the Bible to 'blow your mind', and that can only be done when you allow it to redefine your whole way of thinking and doing things. It may be wrong for us to kill, or command people to do something, then punish them for it, but far be it from God to be 'wrong' or 'unjust' in anything that He sovereignly choses to do!

And it is you guys that are attempting to establish that sound reason should take a back seat to the Scripture and it is I who am saying that without sound reason nothing makes sense including the Scripture.

Our logic is not what allows the Scriptures to 'make sense' to us. It's God's Spirit that gives us understanding of His Holy Word.

The point I’m trying to make is that you guys are trying to make a logical argument for the removal (or at least subordination) of logic, which is not a position that I would want to be in if I were you, it seems to be an impossible position to defend.

I, personally, am not saying that 'logic' should be done away with. I am simply making the point that our logic is 'tainted' and using it to interpret Scripture is 'sketchy'. Instead, we must allow the Scriptures to interpret themselves. The Holy Spirit will give us the wisdom to understand it; we cannot use what we believe to be 'right' to claim 'truths' in the Bible. If that was the case, anyone could get the Bible to support whatever they may believe, whether it's fanatical or not.

The Bible MUST be interpreted 'inductively', not 'deductively'.


God bless.

:zman:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man

I would agree.

However, I must ask you - because I think we differ on this issue - what do you think the 'character of God' entails? Or better yet, what makes up 'God's character'? What makes Him act the way He acts? What 'drives' Him to do the things that He does?

Love.
Love is what the 'character of God' entails.
Love is what makes up 'God's character'.
Love is what makes Him act the way He acts.
Love is what 'drives' God to do the things that He does.

Love! That's all and that's it.

Incomplete information? I do not believe the Bible is 'inadequate'. And I simply do not know how you misinterpret the passage when it clearly tells us that God commanded David to take that census, then punished him for doing so.

As Lion pointed out in Post 823, the problem that the 2 Sam. passage seems to present is clarified for us in 1Chr.
1Chr. 21:1-2 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and to the leaders of the people, ?Go, number Israel from Beersheba to Dan, and bring the number of them to me that I may know it.?

Here's a quote from Lion's post...

Originally posted by Lion
I realize that from the Samuel verse you get the idea that it is God making David move Israel, but it is completely clarified that this is not the case in the Chronicles verses, where God clears it up for us. Note also that most translations of the Bible seem to recognize that the ?he? in the Samuel verse is not God, because they do not capitalize the ?h?. The New King James does, but that doesn?t make it right.

I also believe it likely that since God allowed Satan to tempt David, the author of Samuel attributed it to God Himself because God could have prevented it, but chose instead to allow it and then used the actions of David to highlight a coming event (namely the buying of the site of the future crucifixion of Christ).

Much as God used the abduction and selling of Joseph in a positive way. God did not want Joseph?s brothers to be jealous of him and hate him, but since they did God used it in a way that was good for Joseph and Israel. God did not command the brothers to hate him, but God can take the bad and make as much good come from it as possible.

Now I personally think that Lion has done a pretty good job of clearing up the issue but even if he hasn't, the point is that understanding a passage of Scripture isn't always as easy as simply reading it. Most of the time it is, but not always. One major way to know when we are misunderstanding something is when we are thinking that God is doing something in conflict with His character. Another is when what we think something is saying goes contrary with the rest of the Biblical record, which you have already agreed with and yet continue to do the opposite.

How we define justice among other humans is not the same Justice that God carries out among who He wishes. If God wanted to take your daughter away from you, He would be just in doing so, whether you like it or not.

Not if He didn't have any reason for it! What sort of God do you serve Z Man? By this reasoning God can just do what ever and it doesn't matter whether its right, wrong or indifferent! If Jesus had stolen out of the money bag instead of Judas would it have been wrong?
Right is right and wrong is wrong Z Man, something that is wrong does become right if God decides He wants to do it. Indeed, the whole reason something is wrong is precisely because it is in conflict with the character of God.
God's character is what defines for us what is right and what is not. It's not some arbitrary set of rules that God came up with that do not apply to Him. If God does come up with a set of rules, those rules may not apply to God depending upon the rule but that is not what defines right and wrong. There are fundamental aspects of morality that are as true for God as they are for us. we are bound by them because we are created by God in His image and are thus subordinate to Him and to His character. They are binding to God because of the reality of who God is. God cannot deny Himself. God is the way He is. He is righteous, just and good. He could no more do something evil than the sun could stop giving its light. IF the sun stopped shining it would not longer be the sun. Likewise, if God ever stopped being righteous he would stop being God, which, of course, is impossible.

We must define justice the way the Bible defines justice; not how we 'interpret' it to be in our lives, or how we carry it out in our 'judicial systems' among other humans.

If a justice system stops being just then it is no longer a justice system, it just a system! Justice is justice, period. I don't care what some stupid court says about it, I'm concerned about what it actually is!
Justice is, among other things, the appropriate punishment of wrong doings. It is not wrong to obey the command of God, period. And thus, being punished by God (or by anyone else for that matter) for having obeyed God's command is unjust, by definition. This point is utterly indisputable! The only way out is for you to redefine the word justice or to remove all meaning from the word all together!

just in whatever He does; He cannot be unjust. If He decides to kill thousands of people in His name, for His glory, He is just in doing so. If He commanded David to take that census, then punished him for his sin in doing so, then God is just for doing so.

Stop contradicting yourself!
Your thinking is backward. Something is not just BECAUSE God does it but the other way around. God does something BECAUSE it is just. Now this is a sort of prickly point to make because it would not be wrong to say in the normal course of discussion that something is just because God has done it. But when making this rather fine tipped point, it is an important distinction to make. God did not make up justice, it is not a created or invented concept. God is just but not because justice is defined by God but because the things He does are just. It's sort of a difficult point to put into words. I'll trust for now that you understand what I'm getting at and will go further into it if the need arises later.

You MUST NOT bring your definitions or 'pre-assumptions' about certain words and their definitions into your Bible study.

This is a silly thing to say.
Should I also abandon the meaning of the words "definitions" and "assumptions" as well? You see what I'm getting at? Which words am I allowed to understand in advance and which one's do I have to leave in limbo? If we cannot understand language we cannot read the Bible in the first place which would make it difficult to let it interpret itself or to have this conversation.

You do not define God and interpret Scripture based upon how we live our lives and act towards other people. YOU CANNOT INTERPRET THE BIBLE DEDUCTIVELY! You must allow the Bible to 'blow your mind', and that can only be done when you allow it to redefine your whole way of thinking and doing things.

Or put another way...
This can only be done when we abandon sound reason and let inconsistency and self contradiction bring a air of mystery and a feeling of depth that we couldn't get if we insisted that God make logical sense.

It may be wrong for us to kill, or command people to do something, then punish them for it, but far be it from God to be 'wrong' or 'unjust' in anything that He sovereignly chooses to do!

You're contradicting yourself again!
Morality is not arbitrary Z Man. If God does something it not right because He did it. He did it because it is right.

Our logic is not what allows the Scriptures to 'make sense' to us. It's God's Spirit that gives us understanding of His Holy Word.

What do you mean by "Our logic"?
I've already established that logic is logic, period. We do not make logic, we discover it. Would you like for me to repost what I said on this issue, or would you rather concede the point?
I agree that God Spirit gives us understanding but not at the expense of logic. Indeed, God's Spirit shows us the logic of it and thus we understand.

Personally, am not saying that 'logic' should be done away with. I am simply making the point that our logic is 'tainted' and using it to interpret Scripture is 'sketchy'. Instead, we must allow the Scriptures to interpret themselves.

But this self interpretation must be done in a logical manner, right? I have not problem with the idea that we can wrongly analyze something and not see the error in the logic we've used but all that means is that our conclusion is illogical not that there is anything wrong with logic itself. Men can make errors, there's no question about that, but only in spite of logic not because of it.

The Holy Spirit will give us the wisdom to understand it; we cannot use what we believe to be 'right' to claim 'truths' in the Bible. If that was the case, anyone could get the Bible to support whatever they may believe, whether it's fanatical or not.

I agree! What we "believe" to be right has no barring whatsoever on what is actually right! Objective truth can ONLY be logical. Indeed, what is truth in reality is what defines logic in the first place.

The Bible MUST be interpreted 'inductively', not 'deductively'.

This statement cannot itself be proven without deductive reasoning. It is therefore self defeating and meaningless.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. All in all, a very good post Z Man! I started to think you had disappeared on us! Glad to see you're still around! God Bless!

 

[Hilston]

This is a long-overdue response to Yorzhik's post #1037:

Yorzhik writes:
Instead of straining at gnats ...

This is the first of two occasions where you allude to Jesus' critique of Jewish hypocrisy in Mt. 23:24, seemingly to divert the discussion away from the details in favor of some larger picture. Insodoing, you miss the point of Jesus' rebuke in that figure. Given the track record or your handling of figures of speech thus far, I am concerned about your use and understanding of them.

The Jews were correct to strain out gnats. They were forbidden from eating them in Lev 11:41 (q.v.). They were also forbidden from eating camels (cf. Lev 11:4). The gnats represent the less weighty things of the law, such as spice tithes, but the camels represent the weightier things of the law, such as judgment, mercy and faith. It was hypocrisy to be concerned about one and not the other. They were to be duly concerned about both. (Mt 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.). You might want to reconsider using that allusion in such contexts. It doesn't apply at all.

Yorzhik writes:
Instead of straining at gnats on this miracle issue, let's try and crystallize.

I prefer to "strain out gnats," for it is proper and needful to do if we are to clarify the terms and conditions of the Open View. Neither will I "swallow a camel," but I hesitate at this point to comment on what the referrent to such an act would be.

Yorzhik writes:
The reason we are even talking about miracles that change situations to enhance the possibility that humans will love God is because Hilston has put forth the premise that the OV God would do it that way.

And the reason I propose that is because the OV claims that God is loving and merciful. I'm trying to find a way for God to work things together for those who love Him. I'm trying to find a way for God to behave consistent with the alleged desire to save all men without exception. I'm trying to find a loophole according to OV terms that will allow Him to do so. I would expect an OV proponent to be very helpful with this. What if this is that one thing I need to get around in order to embrace the OV system?

Yorzhik writes:
... Let's look at miracles, overt and covert, taken to Hilston's logical conclusion:

To make a better world, with more people that are apt to love God, God can do indirect miracles to create the best conditions. It wouldn't be hard. God can secretly, whenever someone has evil thoughts, let a few atoms loose in the nervous system somewhere that would cause intense pain. Quickly, humans will notice a pattern: think evil, experience intense pain? think good thoughts, avoid pain. And it wouldn't be blamed on God because He wouldn't be obligated to tell anyone what exactly He is doing. Would God be loved? I honestly don't know. What's your prediction?

We already covered this, Yorzhik. I already said, over and over again, that God would not choose or obligate Himself to intervening in every case, thus making reasonably certain no one could know for sure when He was intervening, if at all. But you seem to just ignore what I've said. Why are you doing this? You don't seem to be following the terms I've stipulated, despite my best efforts to find a loophole for the OV conception of God. So far, it's not faring very well. So of course, if God knows that miraculous intervention turns people away from Him, He is smart enough to make it seem random enough that no one would know. Why am I having to go over this again? Of course, He would limit His intervention to events in which such intervention would be statistically favorable to larger quantities of people having more opportunities to choose to love Him. But I already covered all this. And here I am doing it again.

Yorzhik writes:
On the other hand, then, let us say, that God appears personally at the formation of every evil thought, announces "I heard that" and inflicts intense pain on the offender. ...

Are you deliberately ignoring what we've already established? Why do you keep going back to your earlier misunderstandings of the scenario that I've since corrected? If you refuse to get this and to respect the discussion, I'll just have to place your name under the heading of Open Theists who refuse to answer questions along a simple line of reasoning.

Yorzhik wrote previously: Any situation can be improved.

Hilston replied: I want to make sure you really want to say this before I go after it. Do you stand by this claim, or do you want to revise it?

Yorzhik writes:
You are right. I need to add to it:

Any situation that God would be displeased with (i.e. the ones we are talking about) can be improved. Obviously, God will not change situations He is pleased with.

Two questions: (1) Was God pleased with the way His Son was beaten, whipped, tortured, mocked, spit upon, His bones dislocated, beard torn from His face, and murdered? And (2) Is God pleased with the number of people currently being saved?

Hilston wrote previously: That's the rub of this debate, isn't it? I focus on verses that seem to teach this. You focus on verses that seem to oppose this. Both kinds of verses are found in scripture. Do you agree with those statements?

Yorzhik writes:
For the most part I agree.

Progress! So would you then agree that it doesn't come down to "who has scripture that backs his view," but rather who is interpreting the scripture correctly?

Hilston previously wrote: It seems to me that your view of God presents Him as partly arbitrary (giving Himself rules) and also subordinate to a higher authority ("reality" as you call it). I wish I could impress upon you how absolutely denigrating these statements are to God's infinitude, authority, and holiness. On the other hand, I should not be surprised, coming from one who views God as a big super human (and somehow "much more").

Yorzhik writes:
Actually, the rules He gives Himself are at their foundation just more reality. For instance, He abides by the rule of Justice actively, because He is Just.

Is God "Just" because He keeps His self-imposed rule? Or was He already Just before the rule was stipulated?

Yorzhik writes:
... He has the power to violate that rule, but His character will not allow it.

Would you equate that power (to violate the "rule of justice") to the power to "create a rock too heavy to lift"?

Yorzhik writes:
Justice is just reality.

Does Justice ever change? For example, justice once called Sabbath-breaking a capital crime (i.e., the offender was executed). Justice no longer requires that. According to the OV, murder was not a capital crime (worthy of death) prior to the Flood, but it was afterward. So Justice was served differently. Please explain this on your view of Justice.

Yorzhik writes:
What I then mean by "reality" is that He doesn't actually have to actively avoid making square circles, but He must abide by that rule because it cannot be done.

If it cannot be done, then God is powerless to do it. So can God [i.e. does He have the power to] violate the rule of justice or not? Above you said He has the power to do it.

Yorzhik writes:
BTW, God will be thrilled to know that I know Him well enough to understand Him in the way He has presented himself.

I assure you that God is not thrilled with the contradiction you've just stated. Or perhaps you did not say what you actually meant to say. Going by your words, you're on the horns of a dilemma. I look forward to its resolution.

Hilston previously wrote: I'm coming to the conclusion that Open Theists do not understand God's holiness. Of course the innocent go straight to hell.

Yorzhik writes:
Hell is punishment for the guilty, and the innocent, by definition, are not guilty.

Did you even read my previous post on this? Didn't I say that "'innocent' does not mean pure as the driven snow"? Do you remember my saying that? If you're being forgetful, please work on that. If you're deliberately ignoring what I've previously written, we're done.

Yorzhik writes:
Perhaps we can get through this if you tell me why this subject is something you want to bring up.

I'm trying to understand the Open View. Your conception of God and His dealings with men is part of that view.

Hilston originally wrote: Amazing. Is that what all Open Theists believe? You're really not sure about this?

Yorzhik writes:
I think that's what they believe. If someone is not guilty (the definition of innocent), then God could not punish them and remain just, so what does He do with the innocent? I don't know.

What do you believe Ro 3:10 and 3:23 mean? Are there any who do not deserve hell? I certainly deserve hell. Don't we all?

Hilston previously wrote: By the Open View measure. Didn't you just agree that there are certain innocent people who do not deserve certain consequences?

Yorzhik writes:
Yes, certain consequences, but death in the twin towers isn't one of them (horrific or not).

So to clarify, are you saying the innocent people who died in the WTC deserved those consequences?

Yorzhik previously wrote: But they don't help us to relate and understand if they are figures.

Hilston replied: Then you don't know the importance or the power of figurative language, yet you use it all the time.

Yorzhik writes:
You took my reply out of context. I was replying to your explanation of the figurative speech you claim relating to anthropomorphic/anthropopathic figures. Not all figures.

But you certainly do seem to have a problem with more than just anthro-figures. You totally missed the gnat-camel figure in Mt 23:24.

Yorzhik writes:
My point was that if we use the *those* passages as figures, then they become largely devoid of coherent meaning.

How so? Please explain, because they are richly saturated with emphatic meaning on my view.

Hilston previously wrote: Yorzhik, I didn't say they "show God as transcendent." They communicate otherwise unfathomable traits and attributes. How can God or anyone communicate the infinite to finite creatures unless figurative language is used? Language itself is finite, Yorzhik. Surely you see this.

Yorzhik writes:
Okay, fine; Because they don't communicate otherwise unfathomable traits and attributes. They show God to be unable to communicate.

That's funny. Because on my view, it shows amazingly vivid and meaningful communication. On your view, they become literal and denigrate the knowledge and character of God.

Hilston previously asked: How is it a different context? [Comparing God's words to Abraham ("Now I know ...") and God's words to Adam ("Where are you?")

Yorzhik writes:
Because the context is not about "Does God have the attributes of the author of free will", the context is that authors, and their attributes exist, and that God can use those, too.

Hilston previously wrote: You're already supposed to know that going in. You're supposed to know that God is omniscient.

Yorzhik writes:
I belive God is omniscient going in. I don't believe God can know about something that doesn't exist. I only say that because God says so.

Would you quit playing that inane trump card? Didn't we agree that God's Word has verses that support both sides? I can end every one of my claims with "I only say that because God says so." It doesn't further the debate. It's childish.

Hilston previously wrote: While that is the meaning conveyed, the figure is unduly weakened by replacing it with my words.

Yorzhik writes:
I don't think so. But that's just my opinion.

Which again shows that you don't understand the importance of figurative language.

Hilston previously wrote: Again, you've utterly missed the point of figures. You're not supposed to replace them.

Yorzhik writes:
That's not my point, actually. My point is that you *can* replace them. Since your theology (and I mean the collective "your") has been so resistant to such a simple test, it makes us (collective OV'ers) think you want to be illogical.

That's your perception, Yorzhik. My view embraces the figure and the meaning it conveys. The resistance is in your understanding of figurative meaning. Tell me, Yorzhik, if you understand my "resistance to such a simple test," what is my view of Jonah 3:4?

Hilston previously wrote: Again, here is the crux of the debate. I view God as transcendent, far above human feelings.

Yorzhik writes:
And far above human logic as well. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, but would this be true in your view of God?

To you, this seems to be a forgone conclusion, but you can't prove it. You say God is the master chess player, yet He couldn't figure out that Abraham would obey Him. That's illogical.

Hilston previously wrote: That's because human nature does not deviate. If (hypothetically speaking) God were to communicate with dogs, He would not deviate from a consistent presentation of Himself in dog terms. Open Theist dogs would assume that God is a big super dog.

Yorzhik writes:... and much more.

Can I quote you?

Yorzhik previously wrote: Because each figure is taken in context. The context of the discourse with Adam is of one type, and the context of the discourse with Abraham another.

To explain, Yorzhik writes:
Because Adam's behavior is explained prior to God's take on the situation. Even you could have figured out what happened, so God already knew what happened. Since God could see that Adam was not out in the opened, He knew Adam was hiding. It wasn't a test.

Both were tests, Yorzhik. Adam failed. Abraham passed. Both figurative statements were made after the tests were complete. One conveyed reprobation, one conveyed righteousness.

Yorzhik writes:
The context of Abraham was that the behavior was the test, and until, like Adam, God saw the behavior, God said He didn't know. So one was in the context of known behavior, and one in the context of unknown behavior.

Where are you getting this stuff, Yorzhik? God statements in both cases occurred after He knew what the results of the tests were.

Yorzhik previously wrote: He will let me reject Him and leave heaven when I get there. At least that is what "until" seems to mean.

Hilston remarked: Wow.

Yorzhik writes:I'd rather not start anther topic, but I don't suppose you could make a short reply on why you are surprised.

Sure. One the planks of my critique of Open Theism is that there can only be lipservice paid to trusting God. Statements like that are the kind that my friends and I sit around and talk about in utter amazement. "No, really. I'm not making this up. They really do believe this." They say the same thing I do: "Wow."

Yorzhik previously wrote: What do you think "solved the game of chess" means?

Hilston replied: It means nothing if He can be surprised by something that never entered His mind.

Yorzhik writes:
Nope, that's not what it means. I'll think you're going to have to ask someone.

What would you say of a Master Chess Player who admitted that something could happen in a game that "never entered his mind"?

Hilston previously wrote: What was written was unreasonable in light of OV claims.

Yorzhik writes:
What OV claim precludes this analogy?

The OV claim that God could be surprised by something that "never entered His mind" precludes the Master Chess Player analogy.

 

[Big Finn]

Clete,

Your last post was a good one.

One thing I'd like to point out. God's love is principle based. In western society we think of love as an emotion rather than as the principle of love, but what Paul describes in 1Corinthians 13 is a principle, not an emotion. Love is the principle of putting others first. This is the character of God, and this is what zman and the others seem to miss out on completely in their theology. They claim we believe in a man-centered God. Hogwash. We believe in an others-centered God as described by the principle shown in 1 Corinthians 13, not a self-centered God as they do.

The Bible teaches that Christianity is to be others-centered, not self-centered, because its purpose is reflecting the character of God. Funny how the closed view preaches a self-centered God, not the others-centered God who says we are to reflect Him and His character.

 

[Hilston]

Yorzhik and Clete both write about justice and God. I want to better understand the OV conception of God as Just, and since this touches on Yorzhik's and my discussion, I have further questions about this concept.

Clete writes:Justice is justice, period. I don't care what some stupid court says about it, I'm concerned about what it actually is!

This appears to be question begging. How do we know what is justice? Is it self-evident?

Clete writes:Justice is, among other things, the appropriate punishment of wrong doings.

According to whom? Which is the greater sin: Picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Nu 15:32-36)? Or murder?

Clete writes:It is not wrong to obey the command of God, period.

But which command should we obey? The one that says to execute the Sabbath breaker? Or the one that says to not keep the Sabbath? Justice is justice, right? So what is "just" in this case? And what is the just penalty for the violation of it?

Clete writes:
... Your thinking is backward. Something is not just BECAUSE God does it but the other way around. God does something BECAUSE it is just. Now this is a sort of prickly point to make because it would not be wrong to say in the normal course of discussion that something is just because God has done it.

How does one ascertain that whether something God has done is just?

Clete writes:
... But when making this rather fine tipped point, it is an important distinction to make. God did not make up justice, it is not a created or invented concept.

Then how do we explain the change of what constitutes just recompense for different crimes?

Clete writes:
... God is just but not because justice is defined by God but because the things He does are just.

How do we know the things God does are just? Where do we get the standard of justice by which we judge God's behavior?

 

[Big Finn]

How do we know the things God does are just? Where do we get the standard of justice by which we judge God's behavior?

I'm not Clete, but I'll answer you anyway.

Knowledge of what is just, and what justice is, is almost as close to an innate knowledge as we as humans have. This is verified by the existence of our conscience. Even a baby or small child knows at some level when they have been treated unjustly. They may not recognize injustice in all of its forms because they haven't had the experience to recognize all forms of injustice and deception, but they instinctively recognize unjust behavior.

Thus I believe this ability is something that God either created within us, or the Holy Spirit teaches very early life. We all know what is just and and what isn't. People may try to confuse the issue for reasons of personal gain, but it is one that is black and white. Something is either just or it isn't. It matters not who initiated the action, the same principles apply. Principle doesn't change because of who acts, or doesn't act, for injustice can result from either.

 

[Hilston]

Big Finn writes:
I'm not Clete, but I'll answer you anyway.

That's OK. My questions aren't directed at Clete necessarily, but at anyone who espouses the Open View.

Big Finn writes:
Knowledge of what is just, and what justice is, is almost as close to an innate knowledge as we as humans have. This is verified by the existence of our conscience.

Doesn't the Bible warn against trusting our conscience?

Pr 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
Pr 16:2 All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.
Pr 21:2,25 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts. ... 25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Big Finn writes:
Even a baby or small child knows at some level when they have been treated unjustly. They may not recognize injustice in all of its forms because they haven't had the experience to recognize all forms of injustice and deception, but they instinctively recognize unjust behavior.

But is that how we evaluate how "just" God is? According to what we think He should or shouldn't do? Do you believe God was correct to put a death sentence on the act of picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

Big Finn writes:
Thus I believe this ability is something that God either created within us, or the Holy Spirit teaches very early life.

We are the imago Dei, meaning that we, among creation, have unique characteristics that reflect the attributes of God (rationality, personality, creativity, sentience, relationships, etc.). My unregenerated conscience condemned me because I suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. But it could do no more than that. It cannot steer a person onto a righteous path of its own design. Only regeneration, by the Holy Spirit, can redirect the conscience, and then only according to a righteous standard as revealed in the Word of God. The unregenerated conscience is corrupt and self-driven and completely disconnected from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit teaches nothing to the unregenerated spirit, which could not "hear" the Spirit apart from regeneration.

Big Finn writes:
We all know what is just and and what isn't.

Let's test your theory. Does everyone know whether or not it is just to execute a Sabbath-breaker?

Big Finn writes:
People may try to confuse the issue for reasons of personal gain, but it is one that is black and white.

Is it just to execute a murderer?

Big Finn writes:
Something is either just or it isn't.

So which is it?

Big Finn writes:
It matters not who initiated the action, the same principles apply. Principle doesn't change because of who acts, or doesn't act, for injustice can result from either.

Doesn't it first matter what the standard of righteousness is, and then we can ascertain guilt and just consequences?

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

Love.
Love is what the 'character of God' entails.
Love is what makes up 'God's character'.
Love is what makes Him act the way He acts.
Love is what 'drives' God to do the things that He does.

Love! That's all and that's it.

How can God 'give' us love? What is it that man desires most?

The answer to that question is the foundation of the character of God, and the reason He does everything that He does.

As Lion pointed out in Post 823, the problem that the 2 Sam. passage seems to present is clarified for us in 1Chr.
1Chr. 21:1-2 Now Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. 2 So David said to Joab and to the leaders of the people, ?Go, number Israel from Beersheba to Dan, and bring the number of them to me that I may know it.?

Here's a quote from Lion's post...

Originally posted by Lion

I realize that from the Samuel verse you get the idea that it is God making David move Israel, but it is completely clarified that this is not the case in the Chronicles verses, where God clears it up for us. Note also that most translations of the Bible seem to recognize that the ?he? in the Samuel verse is not God, because they do not capitalize the ?h?. The New King James does, but that doesn?t make it right.

I also believe it likely that since God allowed Satan to tempt David, the author of Samuel attributed it to God Himself because God could have prevented it, but chose instead to allow it and then used the actions of David to highlight a coming event (namely the buying of the site of the future crucifixion of Christ).

Much as God used the abduction and selling of Joseph in a positive way. God did not want Joseph?s brothers to be jealous of him and hate him, but since they did God used it in a way that was good for Joseph and Israel. God did not command the brothers to hate him, but God can take the bad and make as much good come from it as possible.

In Job, Satan is commanded, by God, to afflict Job and take away all that he had. And when Job was afflicted, he did not blame Satan, but rather, blamed God. And the Bible clearly tells us that in all that Job said, he never sinned with his lips.

Satan may have moved David to take that census, but only by the commandment of God did he do so. Satan is on a leash...

Originally posted by Z Man

If God wanted to take your daughter away from you, He would be just in doing so, whether you like it or not.

Not if He didn't have any reason for it!

God has a reason for everything He does. What I want you to understand is what that reason is. Understanding God's character would explain to us what God's reasons are for doing whatever He sovereignly chooses to do...

What sort of God do you serve Z Man?

Must you ask?

By this reasoning God can just do what ever and it doesn't matter whether its right, wrong or indifferent!

God can do whatever and it is always right, and never wrong or indifferent! He does whatever He pleases, on earth and in heaven! And no man can stay His hand or say to Him 'What are you doing?'

Justice is, among other things, the appropriate punishment of wrong doings. It is not wrong to obey the command of God, period.

Satan obeyed God when he afflicted Job and did not kill him. Does that mean that Satan is righteous and does no wrong?

And thus, being punished by God (or by anyone else for that matter) for having obeyed God's command is unjust, by definition.

Again, Satan will be utterly cast into the lake of fire forever, yet he obeys God...

Don't get me wrong; I'm not proclaiming that Satan is a 'just' and righteous creature because he obeys the commands of God. I just want you to simply understand the error in stating that simply obeying God means that we, or anything else for that matter, are exempt from His judgements and 'punishments'.

This point is utterly indisputable! The only way out is for you to redefine the word justice or to remove all meaning from the word all together!

For some unknown reason, you believe humans have some sort of 'right' to be treated 'justly' by God - that He can do nothing to us UNLESS we've done some sort of wrong...


About the rest of your post, I think Hilston has done a good job of replying to.

P.S. All in all, a very good post Z Man! I started to think you had disappeared on us! Glad to see you're still around! God Bless!

Thank you. I am currently in Romania on a mission trip, and have limited access to the internet. Please keep me and my team in your prayers, along with the Romanian students we will be ministering to.

God bless.

:zman:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Big Finn

I'm not Clete, but I'll answer you anyway.

Knowledge of what is just, and what justice is, is almost as close to an innate knowledge as we as humans have. This is verified by the existence of our conscience. Even a baby or small child knows at some level when they have been treated unjustly. They may not recognize injustice in all of its forms because they haven't had the experience to recognize all forms of injustice and deception, but they instinctively recognize unjust behavior.

Thus I believe this ability is something that God either created within us, or the Holy Spirit teaches very early life. We all know what is just and and what isn't. People may try to confuse the issue for reasons of personal gain, but it is one that is black and white. Something is either just or it isn't. It matters not who initiated the action, the same principles apply. Principle doesn't change because of who acts, or doesn't act, for injustice can result from either.

Excellent post Big Finn!

This is exactly what I was trying to get across in my last post to Z Man but I could find the words.

Brilliant! And my choice for POTD

 

[Sozo]

Originally posted by Hilston

My unregenerated conscience condemned me because I suppressed the truth in unrighteousness. But it could do no more than that. It cannot steer a person onto a righteous path of its own design. Only regeneration, by the Holy Spirit, can redirect the conscience, and then only according to a righteous standard as revealed in the Word of God. The unregenerated conscience is corrupt and self-driven and completely disconnected from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit teaches nothing to the unregenerated spirit, which could not "hear" the Spirit apart from regeneration.

Paul does not tell us that it is regeneration that is the power of God unto salvation, but rather...

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith."

In the gospel the power of God rests for salvation. God chose to bring us to Him through the message preached. It may not make sense to you, but the gospel has the power to save.

 

[Clete]

Jim,

Good to see you're back again! :up:

I've been thinking about your questions about whom or what the standard of justice is and it seems a more difficult thing to get a hold of than one would expect.

God is, of course, THE standard by which all things are judged. But at the same time the principles that define right and wrong must be said to apply to God as well or else how can one rightly say that God is just if the principle of justice does not apply to Him? At the same time, however, it is not incorrect to assert that these principles emanate or are derived from God's own character and that it is this association with the character of God which makes these principles right. So when thinking these things through, it’s not long before you realize that you’re in sort of a logical feedback loop, sort of speak.

I think the resolution comes when we ask the question this way...
( Please forgive the graphic nature of the following question. I'm simply taking this to the furthest logical extreme that I can think of in order to test the idea. The results of such an exercise is not always pretty.)

If God took human form so that He could beat some young girl to death after having raped her repeatedly and then sodomized her dead body, would that be wrong?

I know, I know, you think that was over the line. I disagree.
I chose to pick the most sadistic, fowl, perverted sinful crime that I could come up with because I did not want there to be any wiggle room as to whether or not this act was, in fact, very, very evil.

I think it goes without saying that God would never do such a thing or even contemplate such an act (and yet Calvinists say that this sort of act was predestined by God before the world began, go figure!). But IF He did, then it would still be wrong! The occasion of God having performed the indecent act would not suddenly cause it to be a right thing to do! What would happen is that there would suddenly no longer be a righteous judge who could rightly punish such an act, which further illustrates my point. God can righteously judge and punish us, not just because He is our creator and bigger than we are, but because it would not be a hypocritical thing for him to do! Hypocrisy is fundamentally unjust even if the punishment happens to fit the crime!
And as Big Finn said, we can intuitively see that for God to do evil would be wrong of Him to do just as it is us. And it is equally intuitive that for Him to judge and punish any similar act would be hypocritical and unjust.
This is, by the way, one important way in which we can know God does not do evil things. If He did, justice would become impossible. God's continued, eternal righteousness is the foundation of all aspect of right and wrong. This proves that God Himself MUST be subject to the principle of justice and other principles of righteousness, because if He is not, then those principles become instantly meaningless or else God becomes a hypocrite.

Take your pick!

I am, however, acutely aware that this leaves our original question less than fully answered. How, exactly, do we figure out what this “principle of justice� is precisely, and where does this principle come from?
I think that I am less than qualified to answer such questions, but I would venture to say that justice and other aspects of right and wrong are concepts that are similar to concepts like logic, and truth. They, I think, are born out of reality. I don’t mean creation, I mean reality. In the same way that something self contradictory wouldn’t suddenly become logical just because God did it, wrong would not become right because God did it either. This is because right is right just as truth is logical. It’s just the way things are in reality! I’m not sure if there is any more mystery to it than that.
One might ask, “Who made reality?� The answer to that one is easy. No one did. God Himself is the ultimate reality. He is the uncaused cause. God is God and He is the way He is, no one made Him or caused Him to be. All that is began with Him. And thus we have come full circle in our little loop of logic. The circular reasoning seems to be inescapable, :dizzy: which I freely admit probably means I’ve made a mistake in someway with this line of thought.
Oh well! Someone else’s turn!

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

 

[Big Finn]

Hilston,

If anyone sees a large adult walk up to a small child and without reason just reach out and smack that child down we all know it is wrong. No has to teach this, it understood by all that the adult is a bully and the child is a victim, and that the adult is in the wrong.

No one has to go to school to be taught this standard. We recognize it very early. It is an innate standard. We all know bullying is wrong. Even the bully knows it is wrong. His conscience tells him so, but he revels in the exercise of his power anyway. Thus it is that what a man's heart will lead him to do can't be trusted. It will lead him to violate his own conscience.

I have step-daughter who married a very mean man. His son had learned to hate his father by the time he could talk. Why? Because he saw the injustice in the way his father treated him, his sisters, and his mother. It was a gut reaction to what he saw. No one had to tell him what his father does is wrong. He just knew it and his hate for his father was the result of that. This tells you just how deeply this is ingrained into a human being. It overcomes even the natural instinct to love our parents when it is violated.

You can argue definitions and the like all you want, but you can't get around every human's instinctive knowledge of wrong behavior. We all know what is just and what isn't. Only a principle can be that universal.

 

[Hilston]

Hi Big Finn,

Thanks for your reply. I have a few questions that will help me to understand your view [any Open Theist is welcome to answer]:

Doesn't the Bible warn against trusting our conscience?

Pr 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
Pr 16:2 All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.
Pr 21:2,25 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts. ... 25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Do you believe God was correct to put a death sentence on the act of picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

Is it just to execute a murderer?

Would you agree that we must first ascertain what the standard of righteousness is, and then we can ascertain guilt and just consequences?

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston
Doesn't the Bible warn against trusting our conscience?

Pr 12:15 The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.
Pr 16:2 All the ways of a man are clean in his own eyes; but the LORD weigheth the spirits.
Pr 21:2,25 Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts. ... 25 There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?
I beleive that we should not "follow our hearts" but instead, it is our responsibility to find out what is right and do that, whatever it might be.
The context of the discussion to this point might require a distinction to be made between the heart and the conscience but in escence I would say that the answer to your question is yes.

Do you believe God was correct to put a death sentence on the act of picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

I do not know why God commanded such a thing but I trust His justice more than enough to say yes to this question as well.

Is it just to execute a murderer?

Certainly, yes. The punishment fits the crime.

Would you agree that we must first ascertain what the standard of righteousness is, and then we can ascertain guilt and just consequences?

I think all that is required to ascertain guilt and just consequences is to trust God. And perhaps trust is even too strong a word. All that is really required is an understanding of who has the authority to make the rules.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Hi Clete,

I have a few questions that will help me to understand your view of justice.

You previously wrote: Justice is justice, period. I don't care what some stupid court says about it, I'm concerned about what it actually is!

This appears to be question begging. How do we know what is and is not justice? Is it self-evident?

Clete previously wrote: Justice is, among other things, the appropriate punishment of wrong doings.

According to whom? Which is the greater sin: Picking up sticks on the Sabbath (Nu 15:32-36)? Or murder?

Clete previously wrote: It is not wrong to obey the command of God, period.

But which command should we obey? The one that says to execute the Sabbath breaker? Or the one that says to not keep the Sabbath? Justice is justice, right? So what is "just" in this case? And what is the just penalty for the violation of it?

Clete previously wrote to ZMan: ... Your thinking is backward. Something is not just BECAUSE God does it but the other way around. God does something BECAUSE it is just. Now this is a sort of prickly point to make because it would not be wrong to say in the normal course of discussion that something is just because God has done it.

How does one ascertain that whether something God has done is just?

Clete previously wrote: ... But when making this rather fine tipped point, it is an important distinction to make. God did not make up justice, it is not a created or invented concept.

Then how do we explain the change of what constitutes just recompense for different crimes?

Clete previously wrote: ... God is just but not because justice is defined by God but because the things He does are just.

How do we know the things God does are just? Where do we get the standard of justice by which we judge God's behavior?

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
I beleive that we should not "follow our hearts" but instead, it is our responsibility to find out what is right and do that, whatever it might be.

But according to you and Big Finn, shouldn't we already innately know what is right?

Clete writes:The context of the discussion to this point might require a distinction to be made between the heart and the conscience but in escence I would say that the answer to your question is yes.

Now you've contradicted yourself. Either you can trust your heart/conscience to reflect an innate sense of justice or not. Which is it?

Hilston asked: Do you believe God was correct to put a death sentence on the act of picking up sticks on the Sabbath?

Clete writes:
I do not know why God commanded such a thing but I trust His justice more than enough to say yes to this question as well.

You've contradicted yourself and undermined your whole thesis all in one felled swoop. First, according to you and Big Finn, you both should innately know that it is "just" to execute a Sabbath-breaker. You should just know it. It's the way it is. Period. Second, here you blindly "trust" the God you worship is "just" in commanding the execution of the Sabbath-breaker, but above you do not trust the God you worship in the commission of a "very very evil" act. Maybe executing a Sabbath-breaker is "very very evil," too. What does your innate sense of justice tell you?

Hilston asked: Is it just to execute a murderer?

Clete writes:
Certainly, yes. The punishment fits the crime.

But according to Bob Enyart, execution of the murderer was disallowed (therefore, not just) prior to the Flood. Do you agree with Mr. Enyart?

Hilston asked: Would you agree that we must first ascertain what the standard of righteousness is, and then we can ascertain guilt and just consequences?

Clete writes:
I think all that is required to ascertain guilt and just consequences is to trust God.

Where did the innate sense of justice go? Why the need to trust God all of sudden? Whatever happened to being able to innately ascertain that God would be unjust if He committed a "very very evil" act?

Clete writes:
And perhaps trust is even too strong a word. All that is really required is an understanding of who has the authority to make the rules.

What? Didn't you claim that God has to abide by certain rules? First, who had the authority over God to make those rules? God cannot impose His own authority on Himself. It's logically untenable. Therefore, there must be a greater authority imposing those rules upon Him. Second, aren't we supposed to already innately know them? What need is there to have "an understanding of who has the authority to make the rules," given our innate sense of justice?