I'll take your analogy. You're right, if I accepted this conditional offer, then I would have to trust you, since I have to perform first, and then hope you keep up your end. I have to believe both in your ability to pay and in your willingness to pay.
Transferring this over to the spiritual realm, how do the elect come to a decision about whether God is able or willing to let us into heaven? I would say that God graces His elect such that the decision becomes a no-brainer yet again. If a person does not believe that God is able or willing, then the person clearly does not know God or does not have enough information to make a judgment. 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.
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? The new element to this old argument is that people have to perform FIRST before God gives us anything, i.e., the keys to a mansion.
Saul certainly did not have to be converted from wickedness. He tells us that HE HIMSELF was "perfect in the Law".
Was Saul "perfect in the law" when he did this? :
Acts 7:59-8:3 : 59 While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." 60 Then he fell on his knees and cried out, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them." When he had said this, he fell asleep. [8] 1 And Saul was there, giving approval to his death. On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. 2 Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. 3 But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off men and women and put them in prison.
Were the Jews "perfect in the law" when they demanded the death of Christ?
[On whether satan twisted scripture or misquoted it:] Regarding Satan - he is still using the Scriptures against Jesus. One can take Scriptures and twist it, whether we twist the words or the meaning - it's the same thing...I fail to see your distinction.
To me, it is an extremely important distinction. You and I can have friendly disagreements about the interpretations of scripture, and, I would guess, maybe 90% of the time we would both agree with the text of the scripture, even if we are using different Bibles. Even if the words are arranged a little differently, we would still agree on the basic text. We would just disagree as to meaning.
However, if one of us used a "Bible" that was misquoted throughout as in the examples I gave of satan misquoting, then we would never even get to a debate, there would be no point of reference. If one of us believed in such a book, then that one could not possibly even be a Christian under any circumstances. In American law, intentional misquoting (lying, fraud) is much worse than misinterpretation (mistake, human error).
I went into detail about it in my last post because you challenged the correctness of my assertion. :) I wanted to make the point that what satan does to scripture is much much worse and much more dangerous than simply disagreeing with an interpretation. satan changes the point of reference so that no one can reach the truth. That is, without God doing something about it.
JK: "I wrote :God has a "duty" if He SAYS He desires ALL men to be saved, AND that Jesus died for the sin of ALL the world."
FK: "So finally, you do admit that you put a man-created duty on God for a non-decreed wish. This vindicates what I have been saying all along on this."
JK: "Hardly. Slow down a second. Is God righteous or not? IF He is, then HE binds Himself to promises made. IF He is righteous, He does not break promises. Thus, where is this "man-created" duty? GOD gave us His promise!"
God is righteous. God binds Himself to promises made. God does not break His promises. So far, so good. But WHAT IS THE PROMISE HERE? 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. You can't do that with God, right? :) 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?
[On FK's argument that man's justice and God's justice are completely different:] When we define God's attributes, we use words to define the meaning of "justice". There is an implied meaning to those letters put together to spell "justice"...There is a concept. And expecting someone to do something he cannot is NOT part of that concept! That is injustice in ANYONE'S definition. To you, then, God should be called "unjust", using human definition.
No, I would never apply a human standard to God's justice. His justice is perfect, man's is not. I've got witnesses. :) Consider:
Zep. 3:4-5 : 4 Her [Jerusalem] prophets are arrogant; they are treacherous men. Her priests profane the sanctuary and do violence to the law. 5 The LORD within her is righteous; he does no wrong. Morning by morning he dispenses his justice, and every new day he does not fail, yet the unrighteous know no shame.
The Lord dispenses His justice morning by morning and He never fails. The unrighteous know no shame, and so do not practice justice as God does. Now, what about the righteous? Well, they are with God, right? Therefore, they do not hold to a justice that is apart from God's, they accept God's. So, the righteous do not believe in man's sense of justice, they believe in 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.
God does not expect anyone to do what he cannot. He does not expect that everyone will be saved, either. This is just.
When we say that "God's ways are not our ways", it doesn't mean that God defines justice differently! It means His EXTENT of justice is different. He GOES BEYOND our definition - NOT FALL SHORT! He gives mercy to those who we do not believe deserve it. You think God is LESS than humanly just? That is exactly what you are saying. God does not even live up to human justice. Wow... Where do Protestants come up with this stuff?
With all due respect, I think it sure does mean that God defines justice differently. How could He not? 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? Therefore, a different sense of justice is perfectly appropriate. One is subject to only perfection, and the other to human failings. In our sense of justice we build in all sorts of things to compensate for these failings. God doesn't need any of that. The systems are different.
I have no idea where you get that I think that God is less than humanly just. But in a sense, I have to admit that's true. God falls short of mistake, sin and corruption. Man's justice is full of those things. So, you have a point. :)
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? By man's standards, didn't God really make a "rush to judgment" here? In fact, God is really guilty of genocide by man's standards, isn't He? This isn't God extending man's justice, this is breaking it wide open. God's justice is not man's justice.
I pinged everyone mainly to see if anyone wanted in on the God's justice vs. man's justice issue, as well as the other law-related issues. These really interest me. I'll cut this here and move to the other issues in the next post.
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