God Needs Justified?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by preacher4truth, Jan 31, 2012.

  1. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Someone raised this point and objection:

    Well, I don't think He needs justified before the eyes and via reason of finite sinful man, but OK. Who are we to even place ourselves in such a stead as this and question what is "justifiable" and to judge His ways? As a matter of fact I know He doesn't need justified in any of these things.

    Anyhow, here is the link. The context is even more startling:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1772107&highlight=secondary+means+justifies#post1772107

    Scripture & Arguments

    Here we have God doing something via secondary means:

    And Absalom and all the men of Israel said, The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel. For the LORD had appointed to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, to the intent that the LORD might bring evil upon Absalom. 2 Samuel 17:14.

    God here used secondary means to accomplish His purpose. The objective is clear. Afterall, all things belong to Him in the first place as he is Creator. Thus, in my theological perspective, I understand this and totally accept this as how God does things, yet, He remains Just.

    There are several other passages where God uses secondary means to accomplish His purposes, and a supreme example is that of Job, yet we do not find Job complaining against God for using secondary means. Instead, we have Job praising God, even stating that he, Job, had received evil at the hand of the Lord, all the while not counting the means via Satan as being "secondary." He attributed this to God, showing great trust in God through it all. In all of this Job did not sin with his lips in what he stated. See Job 2:10. To me that is awesome, humbling, and causes me to have trust in God in this world, and to believe further that He is in control, Sovereign &c.

    Then we have a more solemn example of our Lord, and of those who crucified Him, and even choosing the one who would betray Him in Judas Iscariot.

    The fact remains we still have the questioning of these things by the direct quote above as if God uses secondary means to appear justified.

    Thoughts

    • Cannot God do as He wills with what He has created?

    • Is it a problem because God uses secondary means?

    • Does He use secondary means so He "looks justified"?

    • Do you believe God can do as He wills with all of His Creation?

    • Do you believe it is just for God to use secondary means to inflict evil upon men, whether upon a person as Job, or upon a person such as Absalom?

    • Is God "unfair" to in your mind because of the methods He uses?

    • Isn't He the Potter, and all creation His clay?


    - Peace
     
    #1 preacher4truth, Jan 31, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 31, 2012
  2. Mark_13

    Mark_13
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2012
    Messages:
    271
    Likes Received:
    0
    really good, thanks.
     
  3. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks bro. It's an interesting truth, and we either trust God in all His Sovereignty, or we simply do not. One can say they believe God to be Sovereign, yet, we must look at actual teachings and attitudes to get the real story.

    - Peace
     
  4. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wonder how those holding that God is allowing man to decide own destiny feel about verses such as An Evil spirit from the LORD came to bother King saul?
     
  5. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    God is, well, GOD. We are not.

    For me, that means "case closed."

    As God is the necessary being that makes all else possible, the non-contingent being that creates contingent beings, and with that the laws and rules that govern the motion of the very sub-atomic particles (information-based) that make up all of creation, I would say that all is ultimately under His control in one sense or another, free moral agency included. Our choices are few indeed -- to sin or to bend our will to His willingly, and if not, by force eventually when "every knee bows and every tongue confesses..."
     
  6. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    Does mankind really have "free will" enough to make the arminian proposal of salvation model a reality?
     
  7. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    I agree. A basis of this whole entire premise that God uses secondary means to look "justified" boils down to ones belief in Sovereignty. Maybe it must mean that there is another reason God did these things, that it "Couldn't have been God that did that!?" Another issue is that others feel it unfair, "Where are mans rights in all of this?!" We have no rights, we are all at the mercy of God, yet He is a loving God, and One who metes out justice as well, and only as He wills to do so. Do we the clay know better than He?

    So, either we trust Him fully, or we do not. I'm always reminded of Moses in Exodus 33 who saw the severity of God, and His mercy, and wanted to know Him more intimately. Oviously he "believed" in this God.

    Man wishes for a God that fits into logic, reason, and fairness, but then there is the God of the Scriptures.

    Arminian theology was a reaction against Sovereign choosing in essence, and sought to place man upon a pedestal within that framework. This is a major reason as to why it is errant, man became the forefront of the argument, not God. This is one reason why I lean toward a "Calvinistic" theology, because the opposite is true, God is at the forefront within its framework.

    - Peace
     
  8. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    This really isn't about freewill though brother.
     
  9. DaChaser1

    DaChaser1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,324
    Likes Received:
    0
    my take on the OP was IF mankind does NOT even have the inherit means to produce saving faith within ourselves, how can we freely "act upon it?"
     
  10. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Only if -- as was done originally in the doctrine -- they give FIRST creedence to God's grace before they believe.

    Without God going first, Arminianism is Pelagianism. With God first, it is Arminianism.

    Of course, most disavow themselves of the "God must act first" clauses of Arminianism, and they prefer the semi-Pelagian choice model. More so, though they DEMAND choice, barely anyone actually carries that choice model through with the other choice -- that one can also walk away from God and loose their salvation.

    So, most hold to a "cafeteria-line theology, pick a little of this, a little of that, but I'll have none of this other" sort of doctrine that is nether coherent nor scriptural.
     
  11. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    One can make any statement they want about "what they believe." The problem is (which shouldn't be a problem) "what they believe" comes out in their teachings, not their statements, and generally contradict and deny their statements.

    This in itself is a serious issue within Arminian doctrine. When one says it is only of God, then, it is within mans ability, then we have a contradiction, and the errant theology is exposed.

    Freewill is an errant teaching. If man is free in his will, then there is no need for God to make the first move, man can do that all on his own, which act is what you really end up with in their teachings "it is within mans ability" &c. Looking at the theologies of those popular false teachers on TV and via other venues shows (to those who really want to look at it honestly) how freewill and a false view of faith have evolved into WOF doctrines, other heresies, and much worse.

    The teachings of gift of faith within Arminian theology is yet another deficient and fallacious doctrine filled with contradictions.
     
  12. Van

    Van
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2011
    Messages:
    9,516
    Likes Received:
    49
    Not sure what the point of this post is but here are the answers to the questions:

    Whatever God does and wills is perfect, just, and sovereign.

    God uses and works through people all the time. However, if God predestined the thoughts, actions or words of the person, the direct cause remains God. In other words, not all things called secondary causes are actually secondary causes.

    God does not use secondary causes to avoid responsibility. However when when God predestines something to happen such as this person does that, God is fully responsible for that predestined action. He is not deceptive.

    Next we have a confused question, is it just for God to use secondary sources to inflict evil. Here we must pause and again explain that evil is in the eye of the beholder, something adverse to me is evil but something adverse to others, say the pain of discipline of a child, is not evil from the perspective of the one carrying out the discipline in love. Thus God brings clamity for His purpose which is not evil, but from the view of those harmed, they see it as evil. End of digression.

    There is nothing wrong with God bringing clamity for His purpose whether or not He predestines people to bring it about. But God would not punish people for doing evil if that "evil" was predestined by God. He does not punish the son for the sins of the Father.

    Claiming anything is unfair is the sin of covetness, but claiming something is unjust is the same as claiming it is ungodly, and therefore God is never unjust.

    The first question was re-asked as the fourth question and as the last question, but the answer remains as answered for the first question
     
  13. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    0
    Go figure.

    Yet you answer. Well, made an attempt anyhow.

    The premise (from another) is that God uses secondary means to do things so He looks 'justified.' If you can't grasp the error in that thinking, well, sobeit. :love2:

    That's the errant thinking I'm addressing here. God doesn't need justified, He does as He wills.

    I think I'll file you away. It's time. :wavey:
     
    #13 preacher4truth, Feb 9, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 9, 2012

Share This Page

Loading...