I don't think there is such a thing as a "no-brainer" in the spiritual world. Having faith and trust in an unseen person presents a life-long battle in building a relationship. God graces us, but we must continue to persevere - this is NOT a "no-brainer".
The ultimate decision: believe = eternal life vs. don't believe = eternal damnation, is still a no-brainer to anyone with the facts. These facts can only come from God through grace.
But they do not come to us intuitively, but through our senses. This information comes through other people - we ultimately trust the message that we have received from others is truly from God. We trust that God is somehow related in our personal lives. If God came to us in the form of a personal revelation, sure, we'd have a no-brainer. But for most of us, we base our relationship on faith - on the belief that what we have been told is true.
In addition, if we are framing this as a conditional promise, with the human having to perform first in order to receive the reward, how is this not earning our salvation?
That's the way the analogy goes, but that part fails to fully sum up what happens between us and God. From our point of view, it might appear we are earning salvation - but we realize God is giving us the ability to obey Him. Thus, when we obey Him, it seems as if we are earning something or meriting something - although it is God who gives us every good gift. Also, we are speaking about God who foresees what we will do.
Was Saul "perfect in the law" when he did this? :
I am only relating what Paul says of himself, sorry if you disapprove:
"If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." Phil 3:5-6
The OT is full of stories of men who killed in the name of God and were considered righteous.
In American law, intentional misquoting (lying, fraud) is much worse than misinterpretation (mistake, human error).
Intentionally twisiting the meaning or the words yields the same results, does it not?
The man-created duty I am talking about is your invention of a promise. God never says "I promise to save all men". He makes a non-decreed wish, not a promise. You are extracting a promise from a wish.
That is true - and something I never said! I didn't say that God promised that He will save all men! I agree that Hell exists and is currently occupied - so how could I believe that God will save all men? The Scriptures tell us that God DESIRES all men to be saved - thus, He has promised that He has made an effort to do that. But salvation is conditional. Not only is it dependent on God's graces, but it also depends on man's cooperation and response to these graces. God does His part - He DESIRES that we be saved - but He does not override our will. If we choose not to obey God, we suffer the consequences. God does not make empty efforts and desires known to us. He died for the sin of ALL men, something you CHOOSE to overlook.
Also, think of God's foreknowledge. He already knows all will not be saved, yet He says He wishes all to be saved. Doesn't that relieve Him of the promise you have put on Him? He already knows, so why would He promise to make a vain effort?
You are not familiar with the concept of love, apparently. God has gone to incredible depths to show us His love for us, even when we were in opposition to Him. God deeply desires us to turn to Him. God is just, however, and His nature demands that those who turn away from Him are punished. We don't see "God desires all men to be saved" as a phony desire of God's.
Therefore, if anything can be called "man's justice" then it is the imperfect justice of the unrighteous. The two are very different.
You are not getting my point. God's degree of justice differs, but the definition is the same. God's justice EXCEEDS our justice! When man believes that someone should be punished, God's justice differs. For example, consider the parable of the workers in the field all day. Throughout the day, the manager brought in new labourers. When it came time to pay, each received the same amount - even the ones who were there for one hour. Man's justice would say that there would be a sliding wage, or that each man should receive proportionate wages. God's justice says He will reward everyone how HE sees fit - AND IT EXCEEDS OUR IDEA OF JUSTICE! NEVER can you say that God's justice does not even meet man's justice! This is ridiculous. And that is what you are saying. Which human would call a person just for condemning someone for not being able to do something that they have NO ability to accomplish? Which person would consider another just for condemning a cripple because he couldn't run a marathon??? God does not condemn people for not being able to do good if He doensn't grace them. Thus, God gives ALL men grace to obey Him, God has died for all men, AND God is just that His justice EXCEEDS man's idea of justice.
God does not expect anyone to do what he cannot. He does not expect that everyone will be saved, either. This is just.
You give with one hand and take away with the other! Your version of Protestantism says one thing and believes the opposite. HOW can God expect a man to obey His commandments if God only gives graces to the elect??? You have a twisted idea of justice!
Think of the different vantage points of authority. How would you compare the authority God has over man to the authority a jury and judge have over a defendant? There is no comparison, right?
Why would you say that? What leads you to believe that? In both cases, the judge has authority over the judged. Of course, in God's case, He has ULTIMATE authority, but the concept is similar.
Therefore, a different sense of justice is perfectly appropriate
Why? One of the fundamental axioms of theology is that the supernatural parallels the natural. We don't expect a different "definition" of "Goodness" in the natural world than the supernatural! Good is Good! It is a manner of degrees. Thus, murder is not "good" in heaven. Sickness is not "good" in heaven. Nor is DEMANDING the impossible "just" in heaven... This discussion is taking a turn towards the ridiculous. I do not see how a Calvinist can call God "just" when this "God" refuses to give men the ability to obey His commandments, while calling Himself "just". This is, quite frankly, BS. You can't have it both ways. Either God transcends our definition of justice - which means he exceeds our degrees of justice, or God is NOT just, and we should call Him something else. Definitions spell out the attributes of God. When we call Him "just", we have an idea in mind, not its opposite! If you believe that God acts the way you describe, let's call God something else, so we can readily identify what you mean.
You spoke of God extending our sense of justice but not falling short of it. How is your human sense of justice satisfied with the Great Flood? Did anyone get a trial? What law was given to the people that they should not break?
The Law written in their hearts - the natural law. Men KNOW what they do not want done to them. This serves as a universal law for all people. What we don't want done to us, we don't do to others. We don't know why God did what He did in all matters. But we trust that His judgment was fair. We don't believe God wiped out the world for no reason. And by the way, which one of us receives a trial from God before our death?
Regards
I'm glad you included the second possibility, that of the experiential, the mystics, the contemplatives. The equation is quite different. I think everyone strives to be a mystic in their own fashion - to experience and know God directly, personally, as a real presence, connected to our being, something more than an intellectual or reasoning faith in a separate, distant, though deep, concept.
I appreciate your posts.
Where is the grace in what you are saying? It sounds like you believe that when you witness to a seeker that you make a free will decision to obey/persevere and the seeker makes a free will decision on whether to believe what you are telling him. Under this view, I would agree that the seeker's decision would NOT be a no brainer.
But I don't see it this way. I would characterize your witness as God using you in order to grace the seeker. That grace, most likely combined with the witness of others, will lead to an easy decision for the seeker, if he is of the elect. God not only uses other people as a method of grace, but He also personally touches the hearts of seekers of the elect. We experience this as "faith", but it really comes from God. If God simply elects those He foreknows will choose Him, as I think you have said, then God only gets an "A+" because He peeked at the answer sheet. I would say that God earns an "A+" because He made the answers be true.
I am only relating what Paul says of himself, sorry if you disapprove:
"If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless." Phil 3:5-6
Paul is talking about self-righteousness, a confidence in the flesh. He confirms this and calls it all rubbish in verses 8-9. Paul is criticizing himself for what he once did and thought. I agree with him. :)
[continuing] The OT is full of stories of men who killed in the name of God and were considered righteous.
But Paul is not talking about this kind of righteousness. When Joshua went out and killed, that really was righteousness and I'm sure Paul would agree. Paul does not think what he did in killing Christians was righteous in the same way at all.
Intentionally twisting the meaning or the words yields the same results, does it not?
If I twist the meaning of words, then you will not be fooled if you have discernment. You will know that it doesn't match Catholic teaching. But, if I twist the words themselves, and add a Catholic interpretation, then you are much more likely to be fooled. For example, if I tell you that the correct interpretation of the crucifixion scene was that He was never crucified really, but feigned death only to "rise" later, then you would know immediately what to do with that. But, if I tell you that "Christ was indeed crucified and died at Golgotha, in Bethlehem (the place where he grew up)", then you have to be much more on your toes to see what I am trying to do. "You" will still get it because you are you, but think about the average Christian.
For example, consider the parable of the workers in the field all day. ... Man's justice would say that there would be a sliding wage, or that each man should receive proportionate wages. God's justice says He will reward everyone how HE sees fit - AND IT EXCEEDS OUR IDEA OF JUSTICE! NEVER can you say that God's justice does not even meet man's justice!
You are right, I am not getting your point. :) This example seems to perfectly illustrate how God's justice "falls short" of man's justice in the way I understand you to be using the concept. Here, under man's justice, doesn't the man who started in the morning get ripped off? For that man, he thinks he got less than he should have, based on the work done by all. From his POV, God's justice fell short. You will say that the man simply got what he bargained for, and the others just got more. The first man will never buy that argument, though, based on his sense of man's justice.
Which human would call a person just for condemning someone for not being able to do something that they have NO ability to accomplish?
Well, I can just say that God was EXCEEDING man's justice here too. Under man's justice, all men are guilty and deserve to go to hell. Perfectly just. God exceeds that justice and saves some anyway.
Which person would consider another just for condemning a cripple because he couldn't run a marathon???
Didn't many men do just that back in the day? IIRC, many saw physical infirmities, including leprosy, as a sign of sin for which God was punishing them. Many were "condemned" based on this belief. -- But I don't think your example is on point. God never says that all disabled people are condemned because they can't run marathons. God does say that all sinners are condemned.
Your version of Protestantism says one thing and believes the opposite. HOW can God expect a man to obey His commandments if God only gives graces to the elect???
As I said in the other post (on a different line), I don't think God expects everyone to obey. He expects the elect to obey, and He expects (predicts) the non-elect to sin.
FK: "Think of the different vantage points of authority. How would you compare the authority God has over man to the authority a jury and judge have over a defendant? There is no comparison, right?"
Why would you say that? What leads you to believe that? In both cases, the judge has authority over the judged. Of course, in God's case, He has ULTIMATE authority, but the concept is similar.
How important is the issue of eternal destiny? In that judgment, God has 100% authority, and a human judge has 0% authority. Man's system of justice is flawed because judges and juries are flawed. God's is perfect, and thus very different.
And by the way, which one of us receives a trial from God before our death?
Yes, that is my point. We don't get a trial in the human sense. This "appears" to fall short of our justice system. God's sense of justice is different than man's.