Classic smack by Clete!!!!
Justice requires more than simply "that sin be punished". It requires that it be punished RIGHTLY. And as I suspected, it is not the definition of justice that Calvinist get wrong, it's just that they ignore how it conflicts with there entire theological worldview. Allow me to explain....
Have you ever heard of a Stolen Concept fallacy? I was only introduced to the term a few months ago myself by another poster here on TOL. It's basically identical to the fallacy known as Begging the Question but it’s a more specific term. Begging the question happens when one presumes the point in question in order to make his argument. Like when you attempt to make a rational argument in order to establish the validity of logic. The Stolen Concept is, as I said, almost identical to this but it has to do with the nature of concepts and how they are built upon other more foundational concepts. An example of a Stolen Concept fallacy would be the statement "All private property is theft." (A statement some idiots actually believe, by the way). The concept of theft presupposes the concept of private property and derives its meaning from it. It is impossible to steal something that does not rightly belong to someone else. The concept of theft is 'genetically' dependent upon the concept of private property, if you'll allow the use of the term.
This Stolen Concept fallacy is what I had in mind when I said that ideas have consequences. If theology was the movie "Ocean's Twelve" and concepts were money, then Calvinists play the role of Ocean almost every time they open their mouths. It's a veritable crime wave of concept theft and what's worse is that they almost always get away with it.
So, how does all this apply to the concept of justice? Good question! Let's start by getting a firmer grip on what we mean when we use the term. There are many ways in which the term justice is used, but in this context I think the only acceptable meaning must conform to the following..
Justice is affording (giving) individuals or groups what they actually deserve or merit, or are, in some sense, entitled to. It is the rendering to every one his due or right; just treatment; requital of desert; merited reward or punishment; that which is due to one's conduct or motives.
Warning! The following paragraph WILL make your head explode! Please wrap your head in duct tape before reading further so as to facilitate the collection and reassembly of all the various pieces. (It helps keep pieces from falling down into your keyboard too!) Thank you!
Justice is universal and absolute and applies equally in all instances and it is not arbitrary but conforms to an objective standard. If no such objective standard exists in regards to any particular individual, including God Himself, then the term is meaningless when applied to that person.
(This is the part where you bring up Euthyphro's Dilemma or some variation of it, which I will respond to when the time comes.
)
The primary point being that the term justice carries with it the concept of an objective standard by which something is being compared. Saying someone is just is precisely the same thing as saying that they are righteous. If there is no standard the term is meaningless. The problem with Calvinism is that it uses the term and rejects the concepts which give the term its meaning. Justice flat out cannot be arbitrary any more than flat can be bumpy or spheres can be one dimentional. The Calvinist concept of justice contains an internal contradiction in that it holds that where God is concerned there is no objective standard and that He can therefore do anything at all and remain just. It is very simply irrational.
That's all I'll say on that for now as it is a separate topic.
Are you sure this is what you believe?
This isn't what Calvinism teaches. Calvinism teaches, as Elected4ever has clearly stated, that God can do anything at all and remain just. Do you reject this?
Further, you said, "according to his works". This is another point of contention between Calvinism and Open View theism because, if Calvinism is correct, the things we do are not really our works because those actions were decided by someone other than us long before we ever existed. This is another Stolen Concept fallacy committed by the Calvinists. They want to maintain man's responsibility for his own actions without affording him the ability to do other than what God had predestined for him to do before he ever existed. Responsibility (and thus justice) is predicated upon one's ability to do or do otherwise. Thus, when the Calvinist acknowledges man's responsibility, they "steal" the concept of man's freedom. Some Calvinists are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the contradiction but refuse to reject the doctrine and instead invent words like "antinomy" and appeal to things like orthodoxy to help make themselves feel better about it. Indeed, many hold the acceptance of antinomy as a point of piety and faith, which of course it is not. Irrational is what it is.
First of all let me make it very clear – I don’t give a rip about the church fathers and orthodoxy. All doctrine MUST be of Scripture and sound reason and nothing else – period. Let God be true and every man a liar.stevenw said:
Justice requires more than simply "that sin be punished". It requires that it be punished RIGHTLY. And as I suspected, it is not the definition of justice that Calvinist get wrong, it's just that they ignore how it conflicts with there entire theological worldview. Allow me to explain....
Have you ever heard of a Stolen Concept fallacy? I was only introduced to the term a few months ago myself by another poster here on TOL. It's basically identical to the fallacy known as Begging the Question but it’s a more specific term. Begging the question happens when one presumes the point in question in order to make his argument. Like when you attempt to make a rational argument in order to establish the validity of logic. The Stolen Concept is, as I said, almost identical to this but it has to do with the nature of concepts and how they are built upon other more foundational concepts. An example of a Stolen Concept fallacy would be the statement "All private property is theft." (A statement some idiots actually believe, by the way). The concept of theft presupposes the concept of private property and derives its meaning from it. It is impossible to steal something that does not rightly belong to someone else. The concept of theft is 'genetically' dependent upon the concept of private property, if you'll allow the use of the term.
This Stolen Concept fallacy is what I had in mind when I said that ideas have consequences. If theology was the movie "Ocean's Twelve" and concepts were money, then Calvinists play the role of Ocean almost every time they open their mouths. It's a veritable crime wave of concept theft and what's worse is that they almost always get away with it.
So, how does all this apply to the concept of justice? Good question! Let's start by getting a firmer grip on what we mean when we use the term. There are many ways in which the term justice is used, but in this context I think the only acceptable meaning must conform to the following..
Justice is affording (giving) individuals or groups what they actually deserve or merit, or are, in some sense, entitled to. It is the rendering to every one his due or right; just treatment; requital of desert; merited reward or punishment; that which is due to one's conduct or motives.
Warning! The following paragraph WILL make your head explode! Please wrap your head in duct tape before reading further so as to facilitate the collection and reassembly of all the various pieces. (It helps keep pieces from falling down into your keyboard too!) Thank you!
Justice is universal and absolute and applies equally in all instances and it is not arbitrary but conforms to an objective standard. If no such objective standard exists in regards to any particular individual, including God Himself, then the term is meaningless when applied to that person.
(This is the part where you bring up Euthyphro's Dilemma or some variation of it, which I will respond to when the time comes.
)The primary point being that the term justice carries with it the concept of an objective standard by which something is being compared. Saying someone is just is precisely the same thing as saying that they are righteous. If there is no standard the term is meaningless. The problem with Calvinism is that it uses the term and rejects the concepts which give the term its meaning. Justice flat out cannot be arbitrary any more than flat can be bumpy or spheres can be one dimentional. The Calvinist concept of justice contains an internal contradiction in that it holds that where God is concerned there is no objective standard and that He can therefore do anything at all and remain just. It is very simply irrational.
The recompense of obedience is a gift? I don't know where you got that idea but it wasn't from Romans chapter 6 (or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter).
Romans 4:4 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, 6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
It is the "recompense" of faith (not obedience) that is a gift according to Romans.That's all I'll say on that for now as it is a separate topic.
God must?
Are you sure this is what you believe?
This isn't what Calvinism teaches. Calvinism teaches, as Elected4ever has clearly stated, that God can do anything at all and remain just. Do you reject this?
Further, you said, "according to his works". This is another point of contention between Calvinism and Open View theism because, if Calvinism is correct, the things we do are not really our works because those actions were decided by someone other than us long before we ever existed. This is another Stolen Concept fallacy committed by the Calvinists. They want to maintain man's responsibility for his own actions without affording him the ability to do other than what God had predestined for him to do before he ever existed. Responsibility (and thus justice) is predicated upon one's ability to do or do otherwise. Thus, when the Calvinist acknowledges man's responsibility, they "steal" the concept of man's freedom. Some Calvinists are intellectually honest enough to acknowledge the contradiction but refuse to reject the doctrine and instead invent words like "antinomy" and appeal to things like orthodoxy to help make themselves feel better about it. Indeed, many hold the acceptance of antinomy as a point of piety and faith, which of course it is not. Irrational is what it is.
Agreed.
