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.
Indeed it is. In fact, the very use of the English word "justice" or the Greek word dikaiosunh is misleading. Here's what an eminent Greek theologian, Alexander Kalomiros says about this:
"Does this conception of justice have anything to do with the justice that God revealed to us? Does the phrase justice of God have this meaning in the Old and New Testaments?
Perhaps the beginning of the mistaken interpretation of the word justice in the Holy Scriptures was its translation by the Greek word dikaiosunh. Not that it is a mistaken translation, but because this word, being a word of the pagan, humanistic, Greek civilization, was charged with human notions which could easily lead to misunderstandings.
First of all, the word dikaiosunh brings to mind an equal distribution. This is why it is represented by a balance. The good are rewarded and the bad are punished by human society in a fair way. This is human justice, the one which takes place in court.
Is this the meaning of God's justice, however?
The word dikaiosunh, justice, is a translation of the Hebraic word tsedaká. This word means the divine energy which accomplishes man's salvation. It is parallel and almost synonymous to the other Hebraic word, heséd which means mercy, compassion, love, and to the word, eméth which means fidelity, truth. This, as you see, gives a completely other dimension to what we usually conceive as justice. This is how the Church understood God's justice. This is what the Fathers of the Church taught of it. How can you call God just, writes Saint Isaac the Syrian, when you read the passage on the wage given to the workers? 'Friend, I do thee no wrong; I will give unto this last even as unto thee who worked for me from the first hour. Is thine eye evil, because I am good?' How can a man call God just, continues Saint Isaac, when he comes across the passage on the prodigal son, who wasted his wealth in riotous living, and yet only for the contrition which he showed, the father ran and fell upon his neck, and gave him authority over all his wealth? None other but His very Son said these things concerning Him lest we doubt it, and thus He bare witness concerning Him. Where, then, is God's justice, for whilst we were sinners, Christ died for us!
So we see that God is not just, with the human meaning of this word, but we see that His justice means His goodness and love, which are given in an unjust manner, that is, God always gives without taking anything in return, and He gives to persons like us who are not worthy of receiving. That is why Saint Isaac teaches us Do not call God just, for His justice is not manifest in the things concerning you. And if David calls Him just and upright, His Son revealed to us that He is good and kind. 'He is good', He says, 'to the evil and impious.'"