ARGH!!! Calvinism makes me furious!!!

[Clete]

Originally posted by 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?

Well I think that it is self evident in most instances. An eye for an eye, is a pretty obvious concept. There are situations that are more complex but I think that it basically based on the idea of paying an incurred debt. If you cost me $100, then it would be just for you to not only restore my $100 but also pay me another $100. That way it is done to you as you sought to have done unto me.
Justice is the golden rule compulsorily applied to the criminal.

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?

According to God.
Murder, by far. One is a symbolic law the other is a moral law. Symbolic laws, whether they carry the death penalty or not, are always subordinate to moral laws.
Further we aren't discussion "law" so much as we are "right and wrong". For example, it was wrong to murder before the laws against it were on the books. And prior to the flood, God prohibited the death penalty for murder; I think in order to teach us what happens when fallen man does not have the law to constrain his evil desires. At any rate, the law itself might change for a number of reasons but the principles of justice, of right and wrong do not.

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?

The symbol has been replaced with the substance which is Christ. Thus the Sabbath law has been rescinded.
Further, the Sabbath law applied to the nation of Israel within a covenant relationship that they had (past tense) with God. That covenant is no longer in effect and so even if you were a Jew by birth, the Sabbath would no longer apply (as far as God is concerned) because the whole context in which the law made any sense is gone. There is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile, thus the symbolic laws that applied to the Jew only in order to keep them separated from gentiles, no longer have any purpose.
I'm not sure I get the purpose of this question so I hope this answers it for you.

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?

Well this is where my circular reasoning starts up again!
Suffice it for now to say, I don't know.

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?

The laws that can change in the way you are saying are symbolic laws, which God makes for various reasons that He has the authority to make. There has not been any change in what justice is though, just the law.
Again, authority is a key issue here. Prior to the flood, men could not execute murderers justly. But this is not because the murderer did not deserve death but because men had not been given the authority to execute criminals by God. God saw fit to withhold that authority until after the flood, at which time He gave authority to the government to execute murderers.

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?

Well, as I said a moment ago, I don't exactly know. But the principles that I've mentioned early in this post about repaying incurred debts and the golden rule I think are pretty good places to start. The idea of justice seems pretty self evident to me.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston
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?

I’m singling out this last statement of yours because it seems to encapsulate your whole point and we seem to have two parallel discussions going at once, and I want to try to get things as focused as possible.

First of all God is subject to the limitations of reality. It is not necessary to assume some higher authority than God is imposing some set of rules upon God. The fact is that God is just. If the principle of justice is not independent of God or in some way does not apply to God then to say that God is just is a meaningless thing to say.
It's sort of like the concept of logic. If logic is not something that is independent of God then to say that God is a logical person is a meaningless thing to say. In other words, the fact that logic is real isn't because God decided to cause logic to be what it is, logic just is. It's an aspect of reality; anything that is real (including God) is subject to it.
I believe that the concepts of right and wrong are nothing more than an aspect of logic. It is a natural conclusion of logic that one who murders aught to be killed, thus executing a murderer is just. Justice is logic applied to the criminal. The principle of justice is simply an aspect of reality not an invention of God's.

Secondly, I think you are reading too much into what Big Finn and I are saying about justice being intuitive. The fact of the intuitive nature of right and wrong is indisputable. But that fact doesn't have anything to do with who or what the standard of justice is. The fact that it is easy to figure out what a just punishment should doesn't speak at all about WHY that punishment is just.
Further, our wicked heart can and does very easily sear our conscience.
Perhaps it would clear things up to put it this way...
We should not decide what is right and wrong based upon how we feel (in our heart), in spite of the intuitive nature of right and wrong, because our hearts are wicked. We should instead go objectively by the standard which God has given us in His word, which is God Himself.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Hi Clete,

Clete writes:
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.

I don't think it's difficult at all. Neither does my wife, who answered my questions without hesitation whilst standing in the kitchen preparing dinner.

Clete writes:
God is, of course, THE standard by which all things are judged.

Do you have a verse to back this claim?

Clete writes:
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?

This is false. No law legislates over God. God is above all law and above responsibility. He is transcendent.

Job 36:23 Who hath enjoined him his way? or who can say, Thou hast wrought iniquity?
Isa 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?

These questions are rhetorical in nature. The implied answer is "no one."

Clete writes:
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.

It's not that complicated. Nor is it circular. Justice is determined by God's Word. Precisely which law and precisely what sort of justice applies are determined by God's Word, which indicates with specificity the laws/justice prescribed for a particular dispensation (household law).

Clete writes:
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.

[irony]Well done.[/irony] :vomit:

Clete writes: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!

I agree, and I can say this with full assurance. But how do you know this to be true?

Clete writes:
The occasion of God having performed the indecent act would not suddenly cause it to be a right thing to do!

Exactly what, on your view, makes it the wrong thing to do?

Clete writes:
What would happen is that there would suddenly no longer be a righteous judge who could rightly punish such an act, ...

Didn't you agree with Big Finn's claim of innate justice? And doesn't God give authority to sinful and fallible men to carry out justice (such as David and Solomon)? If both are true, then there would be adequate judges all over the place who could rightly punish such an act. The Bible doesn't require sinlessness as a prerequisite to be able to rightly judge.

Clete writes:
... 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!

Actually, you're wrong here. God can righteously judge and punish us, precisely because He is our creator and bigger than we are. Why should we fear God? Because He is not a hypocrite? Jesus gives the answer here: Mt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Clete writes:
Hypocrisy is fundamentally unjust even if the punishment happens to fit the crime!

No wonder this is difficult for you. You're mixing apples and oranges. David, an adulterer, was still King over Israel and was obligated by God's law to enforce the law against adultery. David's guilt did not abrogate or excuse him from having to administer God's law. Why is this so? Because the law is the standard of righteousness, on God's authority, not on God's behavior. It is based upon God's revealed standard of justice, not David's behavior. The law (not David's behavior, not God's behavior) is the standard to which David and Israel were held and by which they were judged.

Clete writes:
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.

"We can intuitively see ..."? Who is "we"? The majority? Is that how justice is established? Majority rule?

Clete writes: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.

Didn't you claim that you would just "trust God" whenever you did not understand the justice He meted out for certain offenses? Why wouldn't you just "trust God" here and assume that the "very very evil" act was somehow justified?

Clete writes:
This proves that God Himself MUST be subject to the principle of justice and other principles of righteousness ...

Do these "principles" of justice and righteousness have authority over God?

Clete writes:
... because if He is not, then those principles become instantly meaningless or else God becomes a hypocrite.

How can you be sure? Aren't you supposed to "trust God" whenever you don't understand what He does or commands?

Clete writes:
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?

Didn't you agree with Big Finn that it is innately known?

Clete writes:
I think that I am less than qualified to answer such questions, ...

There you have it. The Open View leads to these kinds of confusions and misunderstandings. My wife, without any advanced study in philosophy or theology, and without hesistation, was able to answer this question: "Would you say that God is 'just' because He does 'just' things, or is God 'just' because ..." And before I could finish the sentence, she blurted out, "... because He says so." That's the biblical answer, Clete. My wife is a presuppositionalist without even trying. You and Big Finn are evidentialists, and your reasoning is fraught with question-begging assumptions. It is internally incoherent and does not comport with sound logic or the consistent exegesis of scripture.

Clete writes:
... 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.

Bad guess. Justice, right and wrong are not absolute. They are determined according to God's laws. Sabbath breaking was a capital crime for Israel. It is not so today. Violations of food laws were justly punished in Israel. The food laws are completely abrogated today. Punishment for violating them would be unjust. Truth, however, is absolute, as is logic. What is true and what is logical comprise universal and invariant laws of the universe that reflect -- but do not define -- and they describe -- but do not limit -- the very nature, essence and existence of God.

Clete writes:
They, I think, are born out of reality. I don’t mean creation, I mean reality.

Creation is not reality? Do you believe that God is transcendent in any way?

Clete writes:
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.

Is it right to impose symbolic food restrictions on others or not? In Acts 15:28,29, the apostles in Jerusalem, and the Holy Spirit, imposed symbolic food restrictions on the Gentile believers. Paul says these restrictions are abrogated in Col 2:16.

Clete writes:
It’s just the way things are in reality! I’m not sure if there is any more mystery to it than that.

Justice, right and wrong all imply a standard of righteousness. Sin is "missing the mark," falling short of a standard. Justice and righteousness share the same root, and in some cases are the same Greek word. Justice, right and wrong are not a "principles" of existence as in the case of truth and logic. Neither are they universal invariant absolutes as in the case of logic and truth. They are determined according to God's declared law, which changes according to the respective household administration (dispensation) in question.

Clete writes:
One might ask, “Who made reality?� The answer to that one is easy. No one did.

Your simplistic view flirts with pantheism, Clete. The reality of creation is not God Himself. That which is real, reality, according to God's decreed design of human experience, was created and is sustained by God Himself (Col 1:16,17). Creation is other than God. God is infinite, and therefore all that is finite (all of creation) is contained within Him, yet it is separate from Him. That which is real (reality) exists because God has caused it to exist and sustains its existence. This does not apply to Himself. He transcends His creation. He did not cause Himself to exist. He could not cause Himself to unexist.

Clete writes:
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.

I agree, but what does that say of truth and logic as compared to justice, right and wrong? Truth and logic exist as involuntary attributes of the Creator. Justice, right and wrong are not in the same category. What is right and what is wrong will vary according to God's commands to His creation, i.e. the standard of righteousness in place at a given point in biblical history. Before creation, God imposed no standard or law, and therefore "justice" and "right and wrong" were inapplicable concepts.

Clete writes:
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, ...

Only if you're an evidentialist. From a presuppositional standpoint, God's Word provides the standard of righteousness for each dispensation. Righteousness and justice are determined on that basis. It begins with God's Word and ends with the adminstration of justice in accordance with His Word. All men of this dispensation will be judged according to Paul's gospel (Ro 2:16). They will not be judged according to Peter's gospel (a different standard of righteousness/justice). This is not circular at all. It is quite linear, logical, coherent and consistent with the determinist view of scripture.

Clete writes:
... which I freely admit probably means I’ve made a mistake in someway with this line of thought.

While your concession and candor are commendable, you might want to reconsider accusing ZMan of having "backward" thinking until you get your own circularity resolved.

 

[Hilston]

Big Finn writes:
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.

There are those who disagree with you. How do you resolve the disagreement? Do you appeal to some innate knowledge? Their innate knowledge tells them that it's perfectly fine. They received the same treatment as a child and they, on their own assessment, turned out fine. So the same treatment is applied to their own child. Who are you to say they're wrong, based on some "innate" knowledge of justice? What makes your innate sense of justice superior to theirs?

Big Finn writes:
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.

How do you know?

Big Finn writes:
Even the bully knows it is wrong. His conscience tells him so, ...

How do you know this?

Big Finn writes:
... 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.

He can't trust what his heart leads him to do? Why would anyone put their trust in what they are led to do? It doesn't make sense. "My heart leads me to buy a new DVD player. I will put my trust in buying a new DVD player." ???

Big Finn writes:
It will lead him to violate his own conscience.

How can he tell the difference?

Big Finn writes:
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.

I know children that grew to hate their parents for applying biblical standards of discipline. Your appeal to anecdotal evidence is inadequate to prove your case.

Let's say an indigenous tribe of people in the Congo observe the natural behavior of lions in the wild. They see the behavior of the new alpha male who "dethroned" the old alpha male. The new alpha male kills the cubs of his predecessor, ripping them to shreds. He then proceeds to impregnate the willing and obliging female. Nature instructs the men of this tribe on how new leaders are supposed to behave. The new leader who usurps the old leader proceeds to slaughter the children of his predecessor, and then takes the wife of the old leader as his own. Are they violating an innate sense of justice by this behavior? Doesn't nature itself suggest to them that this is right and proper behavior? How will you instruct them otherwise?

The Marquis De Sade innately believed that it was OK and enjoyable to torture women. Who are you to say that he was wrong? By majority rule? Who says the majority knows what is best? Didn't Jesus Himself say that the road is broad that leads to destruction (i.e. the majority is wrong and going to hell)?

Big Finn writes:
You can argue definitions and the like all you want, but you can't get around every human's instinctive knowledge of wrong behavior.

I just did. There are plenty of people in the world who have a different sense of right and wrong than you do. Your claim is based on a logical error called the ad populum fallacy. Just because most or even all people believe something to be true doesn't make it true.

Big Finn writes:
We all know what is just and what isn't. Only a principle can be that universal.

It is not universal. Is it just to execute a Sabbath breaker or not? Is it just to impose food restrictions on others or not? Line up a thousand people, preferably those unfamiliar with biblical teaching, and ask them these questions. How universal will be their "innate" response?

 

[Big Finn]

Hilston,

Sometimes I just have to laugh at you. You're the very first person I've ever met who will argue against the fact that everyone is born with a conscience that recognizes the difference between good and evil. I didn't think I'd ever meet a person who would deny its existence, but I guess all things are possible. Anything to try to win a debate....


Paul shows exactly what I've said in Romans 1. Men hold truth in unrighteousness all the time. That is what Paul was talking about when he said there would be people in the last days whose conscience would as if seared with a hot iron. That means it exists, and at one time it told them truth, but they have so long ignored what it told them that it's as if they just burnt it out of existence. None of us are born with a dead conscience, but some of us kill it with our repeated actions. Thus we innately at an early age what is wrong and what is right, but we have the ability to ignore it and do what our evil hearts tells us will give us gain.

You know good and well that my point has been here that we are born or know very young what is right and wrong. I've demonstrated that through the life of my grandson. I've also experienced it in my own life. I knew very early in life what was right and what was wrong. Did I always listen? Nope. That doesn't mean I didn't know. So, your arguments are meaningless. Just because someone ignores truth(their conscience) doesn't mean it isn't there. People do it every day. I dare say you've done it too. But, just because you ignored it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Hilston

Hi Clete,

I don't think it's difficult at all. Neither does my wife, who answered my questions without hesitation whilst standing in the kitchen preparing dinner.

Is this supposes to be some sort of veiled insult?

Do you have a verse to back this claim?

Do I need one? Who wrote the verses of the Bible, Jim?
Why do ask such waste of time questions?

This is false. No law legislates over God. God is above all law and above responsibility. He is transcendent.

I didn't say there was a law I said that there is a principle. Laws can be just or unjust, thus justice and law are not the same thing.

Job 36:23 Who hath enjoined him his way? or who can say, Thou hast wrought iniquity?
Isa 40:13 Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? 14 With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of understanding?
These questions are rhetorical in nature. The implied answer is "no one."

I agree that God has never done anything wrong, of course. But that doesn't mean that someone cuoldn't make an accusation. If someone did make an accusation, then God would have a propper defense, not that He would be obligated to give that defense, but the point is, He could give one if He decided He wanted to. God would be able to say that "I did such and such for this or that specific reason and therefore My actions were right and good." Just saying, "My action was just because I say so" is hardly a propper defense especially if that's ALL the defense one was able to give.

It's not that complicated. Nor is it circular. Justice is determined by God's Word. Precisely which law and precisely what sort of justice applies are determined by God's Word, which indicates with specificity the laws/justice prescribed for a particular dispensation (household law).

I agree that this is so for us human beings, who are under the Bibles authority but that is not the question we are discussing.

Was God Himself just before the Bible was written and if so why?

That is the question?

I agree, and I can say this with full assurance. But how do you know this to be true?

I personally know this to be true because I know God. I know God through His Word. But again, this is not the question at hand. No one disputes that God is just and that the Bible is the primary,(some might say the only) way that the concepts of justice are comminucated to us. But the question isn't, "How do we learn about justice?", but rather, "What is justice?".
Your presupposition that justice is whatever God says it is renders the statement, "God is just." meaningless. In you presuppositional world, it would make more sense to say, "God is arbitrary." Or would you agree that for God the words "justice" and "arbitrary" are synonimous with each other?

Exactly what, on your view, makes it the wrong thing to do?

What makes rape, murder wrong?
Well the injustice of the acts for one thing. One who commits such acts is steeling from their victims. They are taking by force that which they do not have the authority to take.
The important point to make here though, is that these things would be wrong, whether God said so or not. In fact they were wrong before God said so. Murder was wrong long before the Bible was written, that's for sure! And it will continue to be wrong from now on. There will never, ever be a time when rape and murder will be good because they are wrong by definition in that that they intale actions which the purpotrator does not have the authority to commit.

Didn't you agree with Big Finn's claim of innate justice? And doesn't God give authority to sinful and fallible men to carry out justice (such as David and Solomon)? If both are true, then there would be adequate judges all over the place who could rightly punish such an act. The Bible doesn't require sinlessness as a prerequisite to be able to rightly judge.

First of all, I agree with what Bigg Finn said, not how you are twisting it. Justice is intuitive, at least to a large degree. Just as the belly knows good food, the heart knows truth. We are not saying that the intuitive nature of justice is the basis upon which we should judge. We are simply pointing out the fact that God has wired us up in such a way as to make it easy for us to recognize justice or injustice when we see it.

Actually, you're wrong here. God can righteously judge and punish us, precisely because He is our creator and bigger than we are.

So power is what makes things just? Is that what you are saying? God can squash us like a bug, so if He does so it is just by virtue of the fact that God is able to do it?
You simply cannot believe that. Even you have that little voice of intuition inside telling you that this would be the equivalent of being a bully and that God is not a bully.

Why should we fear God? Because He is not a hypocrite? Jesus gives the answer here: Mt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

God is not a hypocrite He’s just bigger than we are. A non-hypocritical bully is still a bully.
I agree, of course, that we should fear God. But God is not good because He’s powerful.

No wonder this is difficult for you. You're mixing apples and oranges. David, an adulterer, was still King over Israel and was obligated by God's law to enforce the law against adultery. David's guilt did not abrogate or excuse him from having to administer God's law. Why is this so? Because the law is the standard of righteousness, on God's authority, not on God's behavior. It is based upon God's revealed standard of justice, not David's behavior. The law (not David's behavior, not God's behavior) is the standard to which David and Israel were held and by which they were judged.

Once again, we are not discussing law.
Of course David was subject to the law of God, but what made those laws just laws? Right and wrong are not defined by the law; quite the reverse. Just laws are just because they are good. Right and wrong existed before the law and they will exist long after the law is gone.

"We can intuitively see ..."? Who is "we"? The majority? Is that how justice is established? Majority rule?

Why do you say such things? You know I don’t believe this! Why even waste your time writing such nonsense? Just because something is intuitive doesn’t mean that it is fundamentally based upon that intuition. You are definitely taking my point about the intuitive nature of truth and justice too far. I am not saying what you apparently think I’m saying.

Didn't you claim that you would just "trust God" whenever you did not understand the justice He meted out for certain offenses? Why wouldn't you just "trust God" here and assume that the "very, very evil" act was somehow justified?

Because this particular act CANNOT be justified, even by God Himself. This is precisely the reason I chose such a grotesquely sinful crime. Which, by the way, seemed to conjure up in you an intuitive desire to vomit, just as it should have.

Do these "principles" of justice and righteousness have authority over God?

Does truth and logic have “authority� over God?
God is subject to the limitations of reality.

How can you be sure? Aren't you supposed to "trust God" whenever you don't understand what He does or commands?

The question is what is that trust based upon? What makes trusting God a right thing to do? If God is not good then trusting Him isn’t either. Thus the principles of right and wrong must apply to God or else it wouldn’t mean anything to say that God is good.

Didn't you agree with Big Finn that it is innately known?

Innately known? Yes, at least to a large degree, but this is not the foundation of justice. We are intuitively aware of justice because God has made us that way. This, however, does not speak to what justice is or where it comes from.

There you have it. The Open View leads to these kinds of confusions and misunderstandings. My wife, without any advanced study in philosophy or theology, and without hesitation, was able to answer this question: "Would you say that God is 'just' because He does 'just' things, or is God 'just' because ..." And before I could finish the sentence, she blurted out, "... because He says so." That's the biblical answer, Clete. My wife is a presuppositionalist without even trying. You and Big Finn are evidentialists, and your reasoning is fraught with question-begging assumptions. It is internally incoherent and does not comport with sound logic or the consistent exegesis of scripture.

WHAT!!!!????
Are you suggesting that we should base what we believe on our own presuppositions rather than on objective evidence?

Bad guess. Justice, right and wrong are not absolute. They are determined according to God's laws. Sabbath breaking was a capital crime for Israel. It is not so today. Violations of food laws were justly punished in Israel. The food laws are completely abrogated today. Punishment for violating them would be unjust. Truth, however, is absolute, as is logic. What is true and what is logical comprise universal and invariant laws of the universe that reflect -- but do not define -- and they describe -- but do not limit -- the very nature, essence and existence of God.

Jim! Forgive me, but this is simply the silliest thing you have ever posted on this site (at least that I have read).
I can’t even believe that you could say such a thing as “…right and wrong are not absolute.�
You’ve just given a way the whole store to the enemies of Christianity. The whole basis of Christianity is the absoluteness of right and wrong. If right and wrong are not absolute then Christ died for nothing! All that would really have been required is for God to have simply declared evil things good and been done with it.
Indeed, perhaps the clearest proof that the principles of justice and of right and wrong do apply to God is that God was able to simply wink at sin and declare by the power of His might that those things which were evil are now good. If God wanted to save any of His creation, the death of His own Son was THE ONLY WAY HE COULD HAVE ACCOMPLISHED IT JUSTLY!

Creation is not reality? Do you believe that God is transcendent in any way?

Creation is only part of reality, not reality itself? There was a time before creation. Do you suppose that reality didn’t exist then? If God wiped out His creation from existence would reality go with it, or would the nonexistence of God’s creation be a reality?
God is not transcendent of reality. If He somehow managed to transcend what is current reality, then reality would move with Him. Reality is what ever is real. God is real and thus is within reality.

Is it right to impose symbolic food restrictions on others or not? In Acts 15:28,29, the apostles in Jerusalem, and the Holy Spirit, imposed symbolic food restrictions on the Gentile believers. Paul says these restrictions are abrogated in Col 2:16.

It is if the one imposing those restrictions has the authority to place those restriction and has a non-arbitrary, just reason for doing so.

Justice, right and wrong all imply a standard of righteousness. Sin is "missing the mark," falling short of a standard. Justice and righteousness share the same root, and in some cases are the same Greek word. Justice, right and wrong are not a "principles" of existence as in the case of truth and logic. Neither are they universal invariant absolutes as in the case of logic and truth. They are determined according to God's declared law, which changes according to the respective household administration (dispensation) in question.

What about before the law Jim? Would it have been wrong for Adam to rape and murder Eve in the Garden of Eden?

Your simplistic view flirts with pantheism, Clete. The reality of creation is not God Himself. That which is real, reality, according to God's decreed design of human experience, was created and is sustained by God Himself (Col 1:16,17). Creation is other than God. God is infinite, and therefore all that is finite (all of creation) is contained within Him, yet it is separate from Him. That which is real (reality) exists because God has caused it to exist and sustains its existence. This does not apply to Himself. He transcends His creation. He did not cause Himself to exist. He could not cause Himself to unexist.

Why do you argue against points I never made and with which you know I do not agree?

I agree, but what does that say of truth and logic as compared to justice, right and wrong? Truth and logic exist as involuntary attributes of the Creator. Justice, right and wrong are not in the same category. What is right and what is wrong will vary according to God's commands to His creation, i.e. the standard of righteousness in place at a given point in biblical history. Before creation, God imposed no standard or law, and therefore "justice" and "right and wrong" were inapplicable concepts.

So you would agree then, based on this logic, that to say, “God is good� would have been a meaningless thing to say prior to God make up the rules.
I disagree with you completely. God is, has been, and forever will be good, just and loving. Not because He says so but because He is, period.
Further, on what basis do you make the claim that justice, right and wrong are not in the same category as truth and logic. That category being, as you put it, “involuntary attributes of the Creator�?
Personally, I would put it slightly differently. I would say that truth, logic, justice, right and wrong are all involuntary attributes of reality. Anything that is real is subject to them.

Only if you're an evidentialist. From a presuppositional standpoint, God's Word provides the standard of righteousness for each dispensation. Righteousness and justice are determined on that basis. It begins with God's Word and ends with the administration of justice in accordance with His Word. All men of this dispensation will be judged according to Paul's gospel (Ro 2:16). They will not be judged according to Peter's gospel (a different standard of righteousness/justice). This is not circular at all. It is quite linear, logical, coherent and consistent with the determinist view of scripture.

Again, was there right and wrong before the Bible? If so, what was it based upon?

While your concession and candor are commendable, you might want to reconsider accusing ZMan of having "backward" thinking until you get your own circularity resolved.

Z Man knows as well as anyone on this board that if I can be shown to be wrong then I am wrong and am willing to admit it. I’ve done it before, and I’m sure I’ll do it again in the future. My circularity probably has more to do with the way I’m analyzing the problem more than it has to do with whether or not I’m right or wrong about this particular issue. Time will tell.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by Clete Pfeiffer

God is not good because He’s powerful.

And neither is God 'good' because He is 'good' to you. God was good when He tormented Job. God was good when He ordained the murder of His own Son. God was good when He killed thousands of people by destroying Sodom. God was good when He killed millions of people in the flood. God was good in killing David's firstborn, and Pharaoh's. God was good in having a bear slaughter many children as they made fun of 'the bald prophet', Elisha. God would be good in taking your daughter away from you whenever He sovereignly decides to do so. His goodness is not conditional upon how He treats humans. God is always just and good.

Also, I think you may have missed my last post, #1072. And, lastly, this may be last post for the next two weeks. I may be able to check my e-mail tomorrow, but I'm not certain.

God bless.

:zman:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man
Also, I think you may have missed my last post, #1072. And, lastly, this may be last post for the next two weeks. I may be able to check my e-mail tomorrow, but I'm not certain.

God bless.

:zman:

:doh: :doh: :doh:

Why do I keep doing that to you!!!????

I truly do not mean to over look your posts! Truth be told, I did see it. But I just forgot all about it after getting into this discussion with Jim. I am so sorry! I will repond in short order! Probably later tonight!

Resting in Him,
:Clete:

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by 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.

Big Finn,

It seems that Z Man is not the only one who's posts I over look! I totally missed this one all together!

You make a superb point. Of course God is not a selfish, self aggrandizing, know it all like the Calvinists teach. It's just so plainly obvious, I truly don't understand why it is such a beloved theology.
He is the living and true God who risks hate so that love can be real.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Z Man, I know your out of pocket for the time being so I trust you won't mind if I get to responding to your post tomorrow!

God bless you guys!
:Clete:

 

[Hilston]

Reply to Clete's Post #1081

Clete 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!

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

Clete writes:
Well I think that it is self evident in most instances. An eye for an eye, is a pretty obvious concept.

So in "most instances" you can put God in the dock and sit in judgment of whether or not God is just. But if you cannot judge this in every case, logically speaking, you can't know for sure if God is just. There could be that one instance of injustice that you could not ascertain because your "innate" understanding was insufficient. God told Moses to execute a man for picking up sticks on the Sabbath. You admitted you did not understand that punishment with respect to the crime. Maybe God was unjust in that case. How do you know if your innate sense of justice doesn't give you the answer?

Clete writes:
That way it is done to you as you sought to have done unto me. Justice is the golden rule compulsorily applied to the criminal.

So how does this work in the case of adultery or rape? What does your innate sense of justice tell you?

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

Hilston replied: According to whom?

Clete writes:
According to God.

Do you have a chapter and verse we can discuss? Or it your innate sense that tells you this?

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

Clete writes:
Murder, by far.

Please prove this assertion.

Clete writes:
One is a symbolic law the other is a moral law.

This is an artificial distinction that is not supported by Scripture. It is immoral to violate any of God's laws, whether they are symbolic, ceremonial, ritualistic or not.

Clete writes:
Symbolic laws, whether they carry the death penalty or not, are always subordinate to moral laws.

Please prove this assertion.

Clete writes:
Further we aren't discussion "law" so much as we are "right and wrong".

How can we, without law, determine what is right or wrong?

Clete writes:
For example, it was wrong to murder before the laws against it were on the books.

Please prove this assertion.

Clete writes:
And prior to the flood, God prohibited the death penalty for murder; I think in order to teach us what happens when fallen man does not have the law to constrain his evil desires.

You just made a self-refuting statement. Wasn't God's antediluvian prohibition against slaying Cain a law? Wasn't that law intended to constrain the evil desire of men to slay Cain?

Clete writes:
At any rate, the law itself might change for a number of reasons but the principles of justice, of right and wrong do not.

What do you mean by "the principles"? Is it right or wrong to pick up sticks on the Sabbath? Didn't this law change? If the law changed, so then did the principle of right and wrong regarding Sabbath-breaking. And if the principle of right and wrong regarding Sabbath-breaking changed, so did the principle of justice regarding the punishment for Sabbath-breaking. Haven't these all changed?

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

Hilston replied: 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:
The symbol has been replaced with the substance which is Christ. Thus the Sabbath law has been rescinded.

You've made my point for me. The point is that the standard of law, right & wrong, and justice changed ("the Sabbath law has been rescinded"). It used to be a capital crime. It is no longer. It used to be wrong to work on the Sabbath. It is no longer. It used to be right to execute a Sabbath-breaker. It is no longer. My point is proven by your admission.

Clete writes:
Further, the Sabbath law applied to the nation of Israel within a covenant relationship that they had (past tense) with God. That covenant is no longer in effect and so even if you were a Jew by birth, the Sabbath would no longer apply (as far as God is concerned) because the whole context in which the law made any sense is gone.

You further make the case for my argument. The standard of law, right/wrong and justice has changed, right?

Clete writes:
There is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile, thus the symbolic laws that applied to the Jew only in order to keep them separated from gentiles, no longer have any purpose.

Thanks again for making my point. Now that you're arguing for my side on the changing of law, right/wrong and justice, how do you resolve your problem of "innate justice"? Are going to claim that God caused people to be born with a different intuition after the rescission of Sabbath law?

Clete writes:
I'm not sure I get the purpose of this question so I hope this answers it for you.

Everything you said about this matter further emphasizes my point. Where is the invariant principle of right and wrong and justice in the case of Sabbath law?

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.

Hilston previously asked: How does one ascertain that whether something God has done is just?

Clete writes:
Well this is where my circular reasoning starts up again! Suffice it for now to say, I don't know.

This suffices to show that you should not make such dogmatic claims about some "innate" sense of justice, let alone calling any of my statements "silly." You need to re-think your understanding of right and wrong and see that there must be a standard of righteousness for the concept of sin ("missing the mark" "falling short") to make any sense. Paul said that all men of this dispensation will be judged according to his gospel (Ro 2:16), even those who never even heard his gospel. The law stands whether or not one has heard or understood it. Paul prohibits water baptism for all men of this dispensation, not just those who have read and understood his prohibitions. There is no "innate" sense of justice that can be relied upon at all. The hearts of men are corrupt and deceitful. The ways of men seem right to him, but always lead to death. There is no reliable "innate" understanding of justice. The idea is unscriptural.

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.

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

Clete writes:
The laws that can change in the way you are saying are symbolic laws, which God makes for various reasons that He has the authority to make. There has not been any change in what justice is though, just the law.

You need to re-think this. Justice is determined by a standard of righteousness (biblically, they are the same word). When the standard changes (as you've admitted above), justice changes. Right and wrong changes. This is biblical. Why are you so resistant to it?

Clete writes:
Again, authority is a key issue here. Prior to the flood, men could not execute murderers justly. But this is not because the murderer did not deserve death but because men had not been given the authority to execute criminals by God. God saw fit to withhold that authority until after the flood, at which time He gave authority to the government to execute murderers.

So was it right or wrong to execute antediluvian murderers? Was it just or unjust to slay Cain?

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

Hilston replied: 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?

Clete writes:
Well, as I said a moment ago, I don't exactly know.

Before, you claimed that you innately know. Now you don't know. I urge you to avoid making dogmatic statements and to abstain from debate until you know what your position is. It's frustrating for others who put time and thought into our replies, thinking that we might learn something from your position, only to find out that you don't have one.

Clete writes:
But the principles that I've mentioned early in this post about repaying incurred debts and the golden rule I think are pretty good places to start. The idea of justice seems pretty self evident to me.

You "think"? "Seems pretty self-evident" to you? Clete, these are not side issues. These are not little philosophical boredom-fillers or mere imaginative musings. This is the very foundation of understanding the gospel of Christ: Men are sinners. They have missed the mark. What is the mark, Clete? It is the standard of righteousness (law, justice) that corresponds to the present dispensation. Those violations of law (justice, righteousness) are what Christ died for. Not for some "innate" sense of right and wrong that you (kinda) and Big Finn espouse.

 

[Big Finn]

Hilston,

There is a major differnce between what you and I believe. You beleive that man is so totally depraved that without rebirth he can't even recognize the difference between good and evil. i.e., the total depravity of man. I reject that doctrine as unbiblical.

I believe we do know the difference between right and wrong, and Paul's references to conscience I believe bear this out. He talks about several stages of the conscience, from that of a pure conscience, to a couple of stages of a defiled conscience to a dead conscience.

I believe the Holy Spirit's work in the world is to convict everyone of sin. This of necessity includes the knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil, for we cannot understand the need of a Savior unless we understand the difference between right and wrong, and good and evil. Justice is very much a part of these things. Thus everyone knows these things as if "innately" because the Holy Spirit shows each of us these things. It is a universally known concept because the Holy Spirit teaches everyone.

Whether we live our lives by this knowledge is another matter altogether. Paul says men hold the truth about God, and of God in unrighteousness, or indeed rebellion, against God and the principles He stands for, so then God gives them over to a reprobate heart--He quits working with them because they willfully choose to reject the pleadings of the Holy Spirit until their conscience--the voice of the Holy Spirit-- is seared away from their consciousness.

I know you'll probably bring up the objection that the Holy Spirit only convicts men of sin because they don't believe on Christ so I'll deal with that right here.

pisteuō
Thayer Definition:
1) to think to be true, to be persuaded of, to credit, place confidence in
1a) of the thing believed
1a1) to credit, have confidence
1b) in a moral or religious reference
1b1) used in the NT of the conviction and trust to which a man is impelled by a certain inner and higher prerogative and law of soul
1b2) to trust in Jesus or God as able to aid either in obtaining or in doing something: saving faith
2) to entrust a thing to one, i.e. his fidelity
2a) to be intrusted with a thing
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4102
Citing in TDNT: 6:174, 849

According to Thayer's Definitions one of the definitions of believe is to trust in Jesus as being able to aid in doing something. Thus, rebellion against the knowledge of good and evil, i.e. choosing to ignore what is good and to do evil instead is not believing in Christ, for we can't accept Him as long as we reject the very standard that says we need Him. So, deciding to act contrary to what we know is right is just the same as rejecting Christ, for we can only accept Christ if we acknowledge that what we are doing in our life is evil.

And lastly, I differ with Clete and you in your assumptions that any part of the moral law has been done away with.

 

[Hilston]

Reply to Clete's Post #1082

Originally posted by Hilston:
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?

Clete writes:
I’m singling out this last statement of yours because ...

That's fine, but believe it or not, your responses to my other questions are equally relevant to my understanding of your thought process.

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

Can you trust your heart/conscience to properly reflect an innate sense of justice or not?

Clete previously wrote: 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.

Do you recognize that 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?

Clete previously wrote: 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?

Now, back to the part you responded to:

Clete writes:
First of all God is subject to the limitations of reality.

On your view, is God voluntarily or involuntarily subject to the limitations of reality?

Clete writes:
It is not necessary to assume some higher authority than God is imposing some set of rules upon God.

Are the limitations of reality self-imposed by God, or can He override those limits if He so chose?

Clete writes:
The fact is that God is just. If the principle of justice is not independent of God or in some way does not apply to God then to say that God is just is a meaningless thing to say.

Not at all. The fact is, all descriptions of God are inadequate. The finite can only approximate the Infinite. Finite terms and descriptions can never sufficiently represent the Infinite. So when we are told that God is just, or that God is loving, or that God is wrathful, we really have no idea of the breadth, depth and height of its reality. We can only approximate it. From the side of the Infinite, none of these statements are meaningful because of their extreme inadequacy. From our standpoint, however, we do the best we can, in finite terms, to understand the Infinite, so we say and are told things like, "God is just" and "God is loving." But these statements do not impose a higher law of justice or love above God, but rather they describe aspects of the Infinite in finite terms that we can comprehend and apply. That is why you can't say, "I know God is loving because I've seen Him do loving things and my innate sense of love affirms it." You don't know what love is apart from what He has told you about the subject and about Himself. Is God loving because He commanded the slaughter of whole cities in the Old Testament? No. How do we know? Innately? No, but because God never told us to regard this as an act of love. Is God loving because He laid down His life for His friends? Yes. How do we know? Innately? No, but rather because He told us to regard this as an act of love. God's righteousness (justice) is no different in terms of how we understand that attribute of His character.

Clete writes:
It's sort of like the concept of logic. If logic is not something that is independent of God then to say that God is a logical person is a meaningless thing to say.

Not at all. Logic exists because God is logical and the universe He created functions according to those laws. The laws of logic reflect, but do not limit, exhaust or encompass the nature of God. The laws of logic describe, but do not limit, exhaust, or encompass the nature of God. I'm sure there are other attributes, for too transcendent for our finite minds to comprehend, that describe and reflect the nature of God. Perhaps we may only begin to grasp these in heaven and spend sempiternity worshipping.

Clete writes:
In other words, the fact that logic is real isn't because God decided to cause logic to be what it is, logic just is. It's an aspect of reality; anything that is real (including God) is subject to it.

It's illogical, Clete. The Infinite God cannot be subject to anything. It's not that "logic just is," but rather "God just is." Therefore, His logical nature is seen in the ordering of the universe He created. That is the point of Ro 1:18ff.

Clete writes:
I believe that the concepts of right and wrong are nothing more than an aspect of logic. It is a natural conclusion of logic that one who murders aught to be killed, thus executing a murderer is just. Justice is logic applied to the criminal. The principle of justice is simply an aspect of reality not an invention of God's.

You continue to contradict yourself. Logic is universal and invariant. Laws are not. Right and wrong is not. You've all but affirmed this in your agreement that capital crime standards have changed. Every time you use the word "just", trying replacing it with "right" (they are biblically the same word). Do you agree that it was formerly right/just to execute Sabbath-breakers, but it is now wrong to do so?

Clete writes:
Secondly, I think you are read[ing] too much into what Big Finn and I are saying about justice being intuitive. The fact of the intuitive nature of right and wrong is indisputable.

I dispute it, rather successfully, I might add. The Bible disputes it in the verses I've cited, which you have not yet explained in light of your claims. There are plenty of examples in history and scripture that show how men do not have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. They have an intuitive sense of God's existence, nature, and wrath against unrighteousness, but not of the standards of right and wrong. The innate understanding of wrath suffices to drive certain men toward God's law, but it cannot instruct them (innately) of God's law.

Clete writes:
But that fact ["The fact of the intuitive nature of right and wrong is indisputable"] doesn't have anything to do with who or what the standard of justice is.

So your claim is the so-called "fact of the intuitive nature of right and wrong" has nothing to do with the standard of right and wrong? Is has everything to do with it. Either it is intuitively known (in which case, what is it?) or it's not (in which case, where is it?).

Clete writes:
The fact that it is easy to figure out what a just punishment should [be] doesn't speak at all about WHY that punishment is just.

This is question-begging. You have yet to prove that it is "easy to figure out what a just punishment should be." According to your logic, you should be able to say the following: "It was easy for my innate sense of justice to determine that the Sabbath-breaker should be executed, even though I do not necessarily know WHY that punishment was just." Will you agree to that statement?

Clete writes:
Further, our wicked heart can and does very easily sear our conscience.

The cauterizing of the conscience (defined as our understanding of right and wrong) is not done by the wicked heart. It is the natural proclivity of the human condition.

Clete writes:
Perhaps it would clear things up to put it this way ... We should not decide what is right and wrong based upon how we feel (in our heart), in spite of the intuitive nature of right and wrong, because our hearts are wicked.

Clete, you're mistaken. The heart is not separate from the conscience.

Mt 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? (cf. 2Sa 13:33 Pr 23:7 Isa 10:7)

Clete writes:
We should instead go objectively by the standard which God has given us in His word, which is God Himself.

Do you have a reference to support the idea that we ought to be looking to God Himself, as opposed to His laws, as the standard for our own behavior?

 

[Clete]

Jim,

Why do you have to be such a jerk?

I have tried to be as transparent with you and Z Man on this issue as I know how to be and have freely stated numerous times that there are aspects of this issue that I do not have a firm grip on at this time.
Instead of picking apart every single sentence I write and asking questions over and over again that I have already answered, how about you just give us specifically what your position is and make an effort to establish it either Biblically or logically or both, and if it is sound, perhaps you might actually persuade someone that you're right?

I do not pretend to know everything and I am willing to learn from anyone who is willing to show me the truth. I think this is what this web site is supposed to be about, isn't it? Personally I think you have a lot of nerve giving me a hard time about making dogmatic assertions, especially when I am the one who has pointed out my own circular reasoning over and over again and you are trying to convince us that we should base our theology on presuppositional thinking! You'll have to forgive me Jim, but that's a crock and half!

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Big Finn writes:
There is a major differnce between what you and I believe. You beleive that man is so totally depraved that without rebirth he can't even recognize the difference between good and evil. i.e., the total depravity of man. I reject that doctrine as unbiblical.

That's not total depravity. You would do well to understand such a historically well developed concept of theology before attempting to criticize it. No one I know and nothing I've read on total depravity would agree with your characterization of it. Total depravity does not teach that man is unable to recognize the difference between good and evil without rebirth.

Big Finn writes:
I believe we do know the difference between right and wrong, ...

So do I, but no "innately," as you assert.

Big Finn writes:
... and Paul's references to conscience I believe bear this out. He talks about several stages of the conscience, from that of a pure conscience, to a couple of stages of a defiled conscience to a dead conscience.

Where? He speaks of the conscience of the regenerated, and he speaks of the conscience of the unregenerated/reprobate. The former is characterized by such words as "pure" and "good," the latter is characterized by such terms as "defiled" and "cauterized." These are not "stages" or "degrees" of conscience, but rather two types, distinguished by whether or not a person has been regenerated or not.

Big Finn writes:
I believe the Holy Spirit's work in the world is to convict everyone of sin. This of necessity includes the knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil, for we cannot understand the need of a Savior unless we understand the difference between right and wrong, and good and evil.

Have I ever claimed that people do not know right from wrong, good from evil, or their need of a Savior? I say they do know; they just do not know innately, as you seem to be claiming.

Big Finn writes:
Justice is very much a part of these things. Thus everyone knows these things as if "innately" because the Holy Spirit shows each of us these things. It is a universally known concept because the Holy Spirit teaches everyone.

What? Are you suggesting that the Holy Spirit is supernaturally instructing people about right and wrong? If so, He's not doing a very good job. I'm amazed. I'm learning so much here about how far men will go to support their distorted notions of God. At every turn, you Open Theists seem to find new ways to make God look ridiculous.

Big Finn writes:
Whether we live our lives by this knowledge is another matter altogether. Paul says men hold the truth about God, ...

Men hold (suppress) the truth about His existence, about His nature, and about His wrath. Not about His laws. That knowledge comes from what has been specially revealed. The standard of righteousness cannot be understood apart from God's special revelation.

Big Finn writes:
I know you'll probably bring up the objection that the Holy Spirit only convicts men of sin because they don't believe on Christ so I'll deal with that right here. [skipping Thayer citation] ... According to Thayer's Definitions one of the definitions of believe is to trust in Jesus as being able to aid in doing something. Thus, rebellion against the knowledge of good and evil, i.e. choosing to ignore what is good and to do evil instead is not believing in Christ, for we can't accept Him as long as we reject the very standard that says we need Him. So, deciding to act contrary to what we know is right is just the same as rejecting Christ, for we can only accept Christ if we acknowledge that what we are doing in our life is evil.

Why would you think that I would object to that?

Big Finn writes:
And lastly, I differ with Clete and you in your assumptions that any part of the moral law has been done away with.

You should read more carefully what I write. Didn't I say that I reject the notion of distinguishing "moral law" from any other law? Didn't I say that the distinction between "symbolic" and "moral" are biblically untenable? So don't lump my view together with Clete's on the basis of a false distinction. All laws are moral matters. I challenge you to prove otherwise.

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:
Why do you have to be such a jerk?

So now I'm a jerk for attempting to expose false beliefs? I thought the Bible instructed us to do that. You may not agree with my position, and you may not agree with my assessment of other viewpoints, but you cannot rationally criticize the fact that I wish to oppose and expose false doctrine. What's wrong with asking questions? Jesus did it. Paul did it. What's wrong with pointing out logical inconsistencies and false assumptions? Jesus did it. Paul did it. But I suppose they were called "jerks" as well.

Clete, you seem to have a real problem seeing your own insults, and then you go ape over direct questions and criticisms. I've mentioned this to you before. You admit to a lack of understanding about a fundamental doctrine of scripture, yet you have the confidence to call my view "the silliest thing you've ever read." Instead of thinking, "Maybe I don't fully understand what Hilston is saying," or "Maybe my reaction to Hilston's statement is due to my lack of understanding in this area," you instead let loose with the invectives. If I'm a jerk for pointing out your inconsistencies, then fine. I'd rather be a jerk for that reason than to walk around making dogmatic statements about things I don't understand.

Clete writes:
I have tried to be as transparent with you and Z Man on this issue as I know how to be and have freely stated numerous times that there are aspects of this issue that I do not have a firm grip on at this time.

First of all, except for a couple that jumped off the screen at me, I generally do not read your discussions with Z Man. As to your trying to be transparent: Great. Shouldn't we all? If we are confident about our beliefs, should we have anything to hide? If you want to be completely forthright in this discussion, then answer the questions. Ask questions. Let's have a conversation. If I've re-asked a question that you already answered, do a cut-paste of your answer and chide me for not paying attention. I can take it. I will then publicly apologize and ask your forgiveness.

Clete writes:
Instead of picking apart every single sentence I write and asking questions over and over again that I have already answered, how about you just give us specifically what your position is and make an effort to establish it either Biblically or logically or both, and if it is sound, perhaps you might actually persuade someone that you're right?

If you would re-read my posts with that in mind, you'll see that I've done that. I'll ask my friends if they think I've given my position, established my case and supported it biblically. Ask your friends. If there are any holes or lack of clarity, I'll be happy to oblige with further detail.

Clete writes:
I do not pretend to know everything and I am willing to learn from anyone who is willing to show me the truth.

You've said this before. But despite my showing you illogical incongruities in your view, and scripture that contradicts your claims, you dig in your heels and call me a jerk. Rather than saying, "Hmm. I hadn't considered that before. Please elaborate on that point," you just pound your pulpit harder and try to come up with other arguments that end up being equally untenable.

Clete writes:
I think this is what this web site is supposed to be about, isn't it?

Sure. But it's also about holding each others feet to the fire, iron sharpening iron, not tolerating logical fallacies and the misinterpretation/misapplication of God's Word. That's how we learn. Don't you agree? What is a "Truthsmacker", Clete?

Clete writes:
Personally I think you have a lot of nerve giving me a hard time about making dogmatic assertions, especially when I am the one who has pointed out my own circular reasoning over and over again and you are trying to convince us that we should base our theology on presuppositional thinking!

You've got a lot of nerve yourself, calling my view "silly", when you admittedly don't have a firm grasp of the concept yourself. If anything, I would think your cognizance of your own circularity would be an impetus to consider whether or not the alleged linearity of the presuppositional view might be superior and biblical (the latter, of course, being paramount).

Clete writes:
You'll have to forgive me Jim, but that's a crock and half!

Being the jerk that I am, you'll have to forgive me if I'm not convinced that you understand the terms of the debate well enough to make that assessment. Gird up your loins, dude. I'm no Hume, or Descartes, or Boyd, or Sanders, or Enyart, but I'd like to be able to go toe-to-toe with those guys someday. Shouldn't we all aspire to someday run with the big dogs?

 

[Clete]

Jim,

All right, perhaps I read more hostility into your post than was there, forgive me.

Would you mind stating a simply as possible exactly what your position is exactly. I have an idea of what your position is but I don't like it when I feel like I have to read between the lines in order to figure out precisely what it is that someone believes. All I really know for sure about your position is that you disagree with me. I do not know why exactly because all you do is ask me to answer a question that is somehow supposed to lead me down the path to figuring out how I'm wrong. Just tell me plainly. What is wrong with what I believe and why and then tell me what you think is right and why, that's how conversations are supposed to go, right? I don't wish to debate you so much as I wish to explore this issue with someone who is on at least an equal footing with me mentally. I thought I had already made that clear, but perhaps I need to be a little more direct with you as well.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Hilston]

Big Finn writes:
Sometimes I just have to laugh at you. You're the very first person I've ever met who will argue against the fact that everyone is born with a conscience that recognizes the difference between good and evil. I didn't think I'd ever meet a person who would deny its existence, but I guess all things are possible. Anything to try to win a debate ...

Yeah, it couldn't possibly have anything to do with what I actually believe. I make this stuff up as I go along just to annoy you people.

Big Finn writes:
Paul shows exactly what I've said in Romans 1. Men hold truth in unrighteousness all the time.

When Paul talks about innate truth in Romans 1, exactly what is understood by men apart from special revelation? God's existence. God's wrath against them. God's nature. That's it. Nothing about precisely what is right and wrong -- because no standard of righteousness is to be found anywhere innately or in nature. It's biblical, Big Finn. It's logical, too. That's why we're given His Word. That's why He gave us laws.

Big Finn writes:
That is what Paul was talking about when he said there would be people in the last days whose conscience would as if seared with a hot iron. That means it exists, and at one time it told them truth, but they have so long ignored what it told them that it's as if they just burnt it out of existence.

Paul is not talking about innate knowledge of right and wrong in that passage. The conscience (the ability to discern right from wrong) reacts to laws, not to some innate sense of right and wrong.

Big Finn writes:
None of us are born with a dead conscience, but some of us kill it with our repeated actions.

I agree. The question is not the function of the conscience, but its knowledge. Does the infant know that it's wrong to think only of himself? Yet that is precisely what infants do.

Big Finn writes:
Thus we innately at an early age what is wrong and what is right, but we have the ability to ignore it and do what our evil hearts tells us will give us gain.

The word "thus" implies "because of this." But your claim does not follow the premise. Just because there is a functioning conscience at birth does not mean it has the data or the understanding to duly carry out that function. The fingers also function on an infant, but he is not able to type (not even on a miniature keyboard).

Big Finn writes:
You know good and well that my point has been here that we are born or know very young what is right and wrong.

We can learn it very early, but we do not know right and wrong innately. In utero, we know the difference between pain and comfort. In utero, we don't know anything about laws of right or wrong. We are conceived in rebellion, and our natural proclivity is not to worship our Creator and to be self-centered and selfishly driven. That suffices to make us guilty and without excuse before God. We don't need to do anything more than that to deserve hell.

Big Finn writes:
I've demonstrated that through the life of my grandson. I've also experienced it in my own life.

You don't know what is in an infant's mind, or even what was in your own mind in utero prior to learning right and wrong later, outside the womb.

Big Finn writes:
I knew very early in life what was right and what was wrong.

That's only because someone or something told you.

Big Finn writes:
Did I always listen? Nope. That doesn't mean I didn't know. So, your arguments are meaningless.

Saying so doesn't make it so. Prove my arguments are meaningless.

Big Finn writes:
Just because someone ignores truth(their conscience) doesn't mean it isn't there. People do it every day. I dare say you've done it too. But, just because you ignored it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I fully agree. The question is not whether or not people have a conscience. The question is not whether or not children can learn right from wrong. The question is whether or not the knowledge of right and wrong is innately present. Your anecdotal claims are inane. They only show that the young child is capable of learning right from wrong. It doesn't prove that the knowledge was there innately.

 

[Clete]

Jim,

Before I respond to your last post (#1095) I want to point out that after having reread this post I think that my earlier frustration was born out of the fact that you are arguing against a position that I do not hold. I do not believe that you understand what my "thesis" is.

Originally posted by Hilston
What? Didn't you claim that God has to abide by certain rules? First, who had the authority over God to make those rules?

No one, that's not what I'm saying at all. The rules have to do with the way things are, with the nature of reality. Not some arbitrarily made up set of 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.

No! God is real, therefore reality applies to God. God is good in the same way that He is powerful. God didn't make Himself powerful. He's not powerful because He says so. He simply is powerful because that the way He is, that's the reality of the way God is.
In the same way, God is good or just to keep the context of the discussion in tact. God is not good because He said so or because He became good over time, He is good, period. That's reality.

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?

Again, for about the millionth time, just because we as human being have a sense of justice doesn't mean that justice is based upon that sense. We also have a sense of space. We can just sort of tell intuitively where we are in relation to things around us, that's why people can drive cars with some sense of reasonable safety. But that doesn't mean that we can't misjudge the distance between us and the car in front of us.
If, however, someone got into a car and randomly drove in whatever direction he felt like and ended up bashing in someone else's drivers side door while they were on their way to their daughter's first softball game, I can guarantee you that they would no be happy about it! I don't care who they were or where they are from, people from every nation and every culture know when they've been wronged. And they do not have to be taught this, they know it intuitively. It's not perfect, and it's not the standard by which justice is to be determined but it nevertheless true that people know what justice is intuitively, at least in a general sense.

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

Not necessarily, you keep asking this same question over and over. How many times would you like for me to answer it before you get it?

Can you trust your heart/conscience to properly reflect an innate sense of justice or not?

Asked and answered about a hundred times.

Clete previously wrote: 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.

Do you recognize that you've contradicted yourself and undermined your whole thesis all in one felled swoop?

I have only contradicted what you are insisting that I am saying, which is not what I am saying at all, which you must know already because I keep answering the same question over and over and over!

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.

I nor Big Finn have never said any such thing! In fact I have said the opposite! You just keep bringing this same point up over and over again and I keep explaining to you how it is that I do not hold this position.

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?

As I've said numerous times now in a number of different ways, it doesn't tell me much!
God is just. I know this because I know God and because the Bible tells me so, number one. Number two, I trust that executing someone for violating the Sabbath had some reasoning behind it that makes sense and that the action was justified in God's own mind by something more than simply "because I (God) said so!" That may be all the reason we need to obey because God is not obligated to explain Himself to us any more than I am obligated to explain myself to my daughter. But the fact that God is not obligated to explain Himself doesn't mean that He is unable to do so, if He wanted to. This is at least the second time that I have made this point, should I repeat myself now or shall I wait until you ask this question again.

Clete previously wrote: 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?

Once again, arguing against a position I do not hold and which I have explained at least a half dozen times.

On your view, is God voluntarily or involuntarily subject to the limitations of reality?

Either way the subjection or lack thereof would be real and therefore part of reality, right? Your question makes no sense.

Are the limitations of reality self-imposed by God, or can He override those limits if He so chose?

Another repeated, meaningless question.
If God was able to override reality, would the act of overriding it be a real act?

Not at all. The fact is, all descriptions of God are inadequate. The finite can only approximate the Infinite. Finite terms and descriptions can never sufficiently represent the Infinite. So when we are told that God is just, or that God is loving, or that God is wrathful, we really have no idea of the breadth, depth and height of its reality. We can only approximate it. From the side of the Infinite, none of these statements are meaningful because of their extreme inadequacy. From our standpoint, however, we do the best we can, in finite terms, to understand the Infinite, so we say and are told things like, "God is just" and "God is loving." But these statements do not impose a higher law of justice or love above God, but rather they describe aspects of the Infinite in finite terms that we can comprehend and apply. That is why you can't say, "I know God is loving because I've seen Him do loving things and my innate sense of love affirms it." You don't know what love is apart from what He has told you about the subject and about Himself. Is God loving because He commanded the slaughter of whole cities in the Old Testament? No. How do we know? Innately? No, but because God never told us to regard this as an act of love. Is God loving because He laid down His life for His friends? Yes. How do we know? Innately? No, but rather because He told us to regard this as an act of love. God's righteousness (justice) is no different in terms of how we understand that attribute of His character.

All this boils down to the following statement.
We cannot know any absolute about God except that which He has told us explicitly.
Is this what you are attempting to say?

Not at all. Logic exists because God is logical and the universe He created functions according to those laws. The laws of logic reflect, but do not limit, exhaust or encompass the nature of God. The laws of logic describe, but do not limit, exhaust, or encompass the nature of God. I'm sure there are other attributes, for too transcendent for our finite minds to comprehend, that describe and reflect the nature of God. Perhaps we may only begin to grasp these in heaven and spend sempiternity worshipping.

God may be capable of being illogical if He chose to be but He is NOT capable of making the illogical logical. God cannot do the logically absurd because it cannot be done, period, by God or anyone else. This not because of the way God made things but because of the way things are. It's called reality. Again, God is not logical because He made logic or because He became logical over time, He just simply is logical, always has been, always will be. It's just the way it is.

It's illogical, Clete. The Infinite God cannot be subject to anything. It's not that "logic just is," but rather "God just is." Therefore, His logical nature is seen in the ordering of the universe He created. That is the point of Ro 1:18ff.

Is God's infinity real? If so who made it real? God? No that can't be. God would have had to already been real to do anything, right? No one made God real, God is just real, no one made God logical God is just logical. God is real and therefore part of reality. At one point He was all of reality because nothing else existed besides God and God was still real.

You continue to contradict yourself. Logic is universal and invariant. Laws are not. Right and wrong is not. You've all but affirmed this in your agreement that capital crime standards have changed. Every time you use the word "just", trying replacing it with "right" (they are biblically the same word). Do you agree that it was formerly right/just to execute Sabbath-breakers, but it is now wrong to do so?

Not because right and wrong have changed but because the law has changed and our authority has changed. We are given the authority to execute criminal under circumstance that are determined by Him who is in authority over us, namely God. That authority is given and modified for reasons which we are not always privy to but that are nonetheless right and good and just.

I dispute it, rather successfully, I might add. The Bible disputes it in the verses I've cited, which you have not yet explained in light of your claims. There are plenty of examples in history and scripture that show how men do not have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. They have an intuitive sense of God's existence, nature, and wrath against unrighteousness, but not of the standards of right and wrong. The innate understanding of wrath suffices to drive certain men toward God's law, but it cannot instruct them (innately) of God's law.

The only thing you've successfully disputed is a point that isn't even being espoused by either Big Finn or myself. Indeed, you have only just restated what Big Finn and I have been saying with regards to the intuitive nature of justice in the portion which I have highlighted. I am not saying anything more than what you have said in that one sentence. Which, by the way, I have tried numerous times already to explain to you. Which I know for a fact that you are aware of because of the next quotation...

So your claim is the so-called "fact of the intuitive nature of right and wrong" has nothing to do with the standard of right and wrong?

You go on to say...

Is has everything to do with it. Either it is intuitively known (in which case, what is it?) or it's not (in which case, where is it?).

But you just got through saying yourself that people "...have an intuitive sense of God's existence, nature, and wrath against unrighteousness"! Isn't God's "wrath against unrighteousness", justice?

You have yet to prove that it is "easy to figure out what a just punishment should be." According to your logic, you should be able to say the following: "It was easy for my innate sense of justice to determine that the Sabbath-breaker should be executed, even though I do not necessarily know WHY that punishment was just." Will you agree to that statement?

Nope!

The cauterizing of the conscience (defined as our understanding of right and wrong) is not done by the wicked heart. It is the natural proclivity of the human condition.

Okay, fine. Either way, for it to have been cauterized it would have to have existed in the first place, right?

Clete, you're mistaken. The heart is not separate from the conscience.

Mt 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? (cf. 2Sa 13:33 Pr 23:7 Isa 10:7)

Perhaps not completely separate but still different.

Do you have a reference to support the idea that we ought to be looking to God Himself, as opposed to His laws, as the standard for our own behavior?

Who made the laws, Jim? If God made the laws and the laws are just then God must be just, right? Can a unjust God make just laws? No! Of course not!

Also, in a previous post (I thought it was this one but I guess I'm further behind than I thought), you asked me to prove that moral laws and symbolic laws are different and that moral laws supercede symbolic ones. I will do so, even though it seems to be somewhat of a side issue.

The primary proof is that symbolic laws can conflict with one another, and moral laws cannot.
For example, take the circumcision laws and the Sabbath laws...
One was to be circumcised on the eighth day. Circumcision was a cutting away of the flesh and was therefore considered to be a work of the flesh.
No work of the flesh was to be done on the Sabbath.
So what happens if the eighth day falls on the Sabbath?
See what I mean by conflicting with each other? This particular conflict would result in the circumcision being done because the circumcision law took precedence because it came first. However, no such conflict can happen with regard to criminal law. No one will ever have to murder someone in order to keep from raping them, for example. Murder is wrong, period. It doesn't even matter if there is even a law against it, its wrong regardless. Abortion is murder and it is therefore wrong. The fact that it is legal doesn't have anything to do with whether it's right or wrong, it's wrong regardless. This is not true of symbolic laws. Thus criminal laws are superior to symbolic laws because they have to do with basic right and wrong, with morals rather than legalities.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Please forgive any grammar errors, I have no time to edit this one!

 

[Hilston]

Clete writes:Would you mind stating a simply as possible exactly what your position is exactly. I have an idea of what your position is but I don't like it when I feel like I have to read between the lines in order to figure out precisely what it is that someone believes. All I really know for sure about your position is that you disagree with me. I do not know why exactly because all you do is ask me to answer a question that is somehow supposed to lead me down the path to figuring out how I'm wrong. Just tell me plainly. What is wrong with what I believe and why and then tell me what you think is right and why, that's how conversations are supposed to go, right? I don't wish to debate you so much as I wish to explore this issue with someone who is on at least an equal footing with me mentally. I thought I had already made that clear, but perhaps I need to be a little more direct with you as well.

Here is a summary of my understanding of this debate thus far: This is all about the Open Theistic assumption that God is somehow subject to laws of justice and that He can be put in the dock for evaluation by finite humans. It appears that the motive behind this assumption is twofold: (1) To further "humanize" God, and (2) to resolve the internal theodicy generated by the tenets of the Open View. If God can be shown to be subject to a higher standard than Himself, and if scriptures that place Him above all laws and accountability can be explained away, then these goals would be accomplished. One of the theodicy-riddled tenets is that God can never decree evil or desire for evil to happen. The Open Theist is then hard-pressed to explain the passages that indicate God's foreordination and desire for the evil that was done to His Son.

My initial protest arose upon the claim that "God is just because He does just things," that man somehow judges God's actions and determines that God is just by way of some innate sense of what justice entails. It is apparently assumed that there is "principle of justice" that applies to God, which gets Him off the hook for the murder of His Son. The logical conclusion to that claim is the idea that God is somehow subject to some transcendent law of justice. Nevermind the fact that laws must be enforced in order to have meaning and relevance, which require a superior authority to enforce culpability. Despite this logical error, support for such a claim is offered by proposing that justice is somehow absolute, and therefore humans can apply that absolute standard to God Himself and decide whether or not God is just. They conclude that God is just because He does just things, and therefore He cannot have desired and decreed the murder of His Son. God, rather than transcending the laws He declares to man, is subject to them, and therefore cannot have desired and decreed the murder of His Son.

I've argued that the idea of "absolute right/justice" and "absolute wrong/evil" are misguided, misleading and anti-biblical. Nowhere does scripture teach this idea. Sin is defined as "missing the mark". The definition requires that a "mark" be already established. That mark is more than the mere application of logic. That mark is a declared standard of righteousness/justice. "This is what to do. That is what not to do." Sin/evil is the violation of that standard of righteousness/justice. What is right/just for one dispensation is sometimes wrong/evil for another. That means right and wrong cannot be absolute. And if they're not absolute, they cannot transcend God Himself, who is infinite. I submit that God is not subject to any laws whatever, and when the Bible tells us that God is just, or God is love, or God is wrathful, or God is holy, it is a description of His nature, not a limit or constraint upon His infinitude. Furthermore, God desired and decreed and purposed (did not merely predict) all the evil that was done to His Son. But He is not responsible or culpable for that murder, even though He decreed it, because He is above accountability and answers to no one.

Currently, that is my view. I welcome any and all attempts to persuade me to modify or jettison it.

 

[Clete]

Originally posted by Z Man
How can God 'give' us love?

John 15:11-13 "These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full. This is My commandment, that you love one another as I (God) have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.

What is it that man desires most?

To be loved.

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

In that case I got the answer right! :thumb:

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.

First of all, God did not command Satan to do anything. He gave Satan permission, but that is not the same thing. And even if that is splitting hairs, it doesn't really matter. Job was not being punished for a crime or a sin, he was being tested, there is a difference. There can be no charge against God of injustice in the case of Job. Job passed his test and was restored double! (Job 42:10).
One of, if not the major theme of the book of Job is that no matter how righteous we think we are, we aren't! Our righteousness is as filthy rags and it is God's wrath that would be justice for us. We have no standing before God whatsoever; Thus the need for a mediator. (Job 9:32-35)
So you are barking up the wrong tree with this Job argument. The book of Job is all about justice, that’s what the whole book is about! And none of it makes God even seem to be unjust except to those who haven't read all the way to the end of the book.

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...

This is disgusting blasphemy Z Man! You should certainly repent! God DOES NOT command Satan to do evil! In fact, if your leash analogy is true at all it is only in the sense that God limits the amount of damage that Satan is permitted to do. But He certainly does not command evil!

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...

Then you agree that actions cannot be arbitrary and just, right? If God has a reason for what He does, I'm sure you would agree that it is a good reason since it is one that God thinks justifies His actions. So you still have not presented anything that suggests that I am wrong with respect to God not being able to be arbitrary with respect to even His own actions. God is just because the actions He takes and the decisions He makes are just, rght and good not just because He says so.

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?'

I am not suggesting and have clearly stated to the contrary that God has to answer to us. I do so that God COULD give a defense of His actions IF He decided that He wanted to. I am simply stating that God really does have just cause for the actions that He takes and it's not a situation where God is good just because He says He's good and there's nobody around bigger than He is so He gets to have His way. God's goodness is an objective reality not a arbitrary declaration of His own.

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

Satan was not commanded to afflict Job.

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

Again, Satan was not commanded by God to do evil.

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 judgments and 'punishments'.

Okay, why?
Since you are so fond of the book of Job; Why did Job repent at the end of the book? Job proclaimed his own righteousness before God through the whole book until at the end he says "I despise myself!" Why?
The answer is because he was not righteous. As I said at the beginning of this post, we, Job included, are not righteous! God's wrath upon us is just! Wrath, indeed, is God's ONLY recourse with regard to us! Thus the NEED of a savior! Jesus took the wrath of God willingly upon Himself that was justly required of us. And we can, therefore, justly stand before the thrown of Glory innocent, in Him.

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...

We have done some sort of wrong, that's the whole point Z Man! God does nothing to us that is not done justly! IF we were somehow innocent then we would indeed have a right to be treated as such. Indeed, the entire gospel message is predicated on this single point! We only have standing before God BECAUSE we have been dealt with justly IN CHRIST! That is the gospel! That is THE WHOLE GOSPEL! Without justice the gospel is meaningless!
If God was not subject to the principles of justice and decided by fiat what was right and wrong. Then there was no need for Christ to die. God could simply have declared us righteous and been done with it.
But, on the contrary, God CANNOT wink at sin! God CANNOT ignore justice! God MUST deal with sin judicially. This would not be so if God could just arbitrarily decided what right and wrong was.

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:

I will promise to do just that! May the grace of OUR Lord and God, Jesus Christ keep you in His grace!

Resting in Him,
Clete