Justice: God's perspective vs. man's perspective

Why did Rahab get listed among the great cloud of witnesses in Heb 11? Wasn't it her faith that pleased God and by which she was declared righteous, even though she never heard the "gospel?" So, yes, even those who never hear the gospel are judged for their lack of belief of the "light God gives them." Unbelief is the ONLY thing that seperates those going to hell from those going to heaven. They are both rule breakers, they are both born with the effects of the fall, they are both born into a fallen world...the difference is FAITH.

Thank you for adding verse 19 because I think that strengthen my position all the more. Notice that the condemnation is NOT about what they had done prior to the light coming. In other words, the condemnation is NOT about Adam and Law. It is about the LIGHT, who is Christ, coming and men choosing to love darkness...choosing to not believe. While I don't dispute the fact that if Christ had not come that we would all still be under the condemnation of the law, my argument is that CHRIST did come and that changed everything!!! You must deal with what Christ accomplished for the world, rather than try to limit that effect to a small group of people.

I don't disagree with any of this??? You have just argued my point which is that they are condemned for rejecting the light they have received, rather than the idea of being condemned for Adam's sin. That is what I've been saying. Thank you for supporting it.

.Never said you did. I agree with you, they are condemned for rejecting the revelation/light given to them. In short, they are condemned for unbelief, period.

I'm glad we have come to common ground. :smilewinkgrin:

 

I don't disagree with this caveat, but I think you know that I meant that the difference between the choice of those two sinners is faith, not the list of their sins as you seem to suggest by your Rev. quote.

You have just revealed that you don't know what I hold to. Go back and re-read my posts and you will see that I believe in the "imputation" of righteousness through faith, just as you have explained it.

But that is exactly why Christians sin, their lack of faith. That is not saying they are not saved, but that their faith is weak in a particular area of life. Why else should we, as believers, pray, "Lord help my unbelief." Why else would Jesus rebuke his own believing disciples for their lack of faith? Without faith it is impossible to please God because anything NOT done is faith is SIN. That is scripture's words, not mine.

What does that mean? That means I can do something that would not normally be considered "sinful," such as go to a church and preach a message. But if I do that without faith, that act itself can be sin. Likewise, Abraham can tie up his son and with the intent to kill him raise his hand to strike him dead but that NOT be a sin because he is doing it in faith according to God's instructions. The act itself is not what is wrong, it's the unbelief or lack of faith in God.

When Adam ate the fruit he did so because he didn't believe what God had said. Do you really think the fruit was magic or special? Who cares about some fruit? It's all about believing God! It's all about faith expressing itself through love.

 

No, I understand that point quite well and even defended it for years. But, my point is that you rarely, if ever, hear a Calvinist today speak of trying to persuade men. In fact, you usually hear rebukes from Calvinists for those who are more "persuasive" as being manipulative and overbearing.

This is a generalization about Calvinists, I agree, but one that can be clearly seen and measured by a simple survey of popular Calvinistic books on the market today.

When did I say that? God owes us nothing. This IS NOT about what God could have done, it is about what scripture teaches us that HE IS DOING!!! And I pointed out that the very words "because they refused the truth and so be saved" prove that there IS something to be refused....which means that there has been something offered. As 2 Cor 5 says, there is an appeal being made to the world! Your dogma suggests that the appeal and offer is really only intended for a select few and thus all the rest have nothing to refuse...its not for them in the first place.

Righteous by which standard? The standard of the law (by which no one would be saved) or the standard of faith in the one who fulfilled the law?

He did. Remember all those verses I already presented that you dismissed as being "selective?"

You really don't believe that Christ fulfilled the law of sin and shame once and for all, do you? Paul did,

10 For in that He died, He died to sin once for all; but in that He lives, He lives to God.

Let me make sure I'm understanding you. Surely you aren't saying that believers become sinless are you? A believe my lie just like an unbeliever, but why would one of them be washed and un-condemned? FAITH!!!

Let's suppose you were the warden of a death row prison and you decide, for reasons only known to you, that you want to free all the english speaking prisoners. Now, suppose you purposefully send only english speaking messengers into the prison telling them to announce to all the prisoners that they can go free if they simply come to the warden and apologize for their crimes. You don't allow any interpretation of this message into any language except english, but you say repeatedly that the message is for all the prisoners and the appeal is to be made to everyone. When all the english speaking prisoner have been released and its time for the non-english speaking prisoner to be put to death and someone from the press hears about this and questions your justice, what will you say?

1. I made the offer to all the prisoners. It's their own fault for refusing.

2. He was going to die anyway for his crime, so what if I didn't offer him pardon in a language he could understand.

3. I'm the warden and I can do as I please and I'm pleased to pardon english speaking prisoner and not the rest. To bad. If you don't like it, go to hell...literally.

I think you can see by this analogy that I am not questioning the justice of God in condemning the guilty. Just as I would not have questioned the justice of a warden allowing all his inmates to be put to death for their crimes. I'm questioning the justice of a God appearing to offer and appeal for the salvation of all men while only providing the means for a few.

Imagine that warden writing books about himself where he was patient with these rebellious non-english speaking prisoners and longing for them to come to repentance....knowing full well that if he simply provided an interpreter they could also be pardon. That doesn't strike you the least been disingenuous or unjust? Be objective and honest just this one time and really deal with that question.

 

Of course "rejection of the light given to them" is unbelief. But as you admit by your last words

Rahab confessed that she had already heard about the great acts of God and becasue of what they heard the whole city was trembling in fear. God sent her two witnesses who stayed there and we have a recorded conversation between them with her. There is no such thing as "faith" in vacuum.

Look, it is obvious that this discussion is getting nowhere. I will just let you two beat your heads against each other.

 

I had a feeling you would nit-pick the analogy instead of allowing it to clarify the obvious point that it was intended to make.

Funny, so do Calvinists: Elect individuals and non-elect individuals.

Actually I specifically said, "for reasons only known to you," which is consistent with Calvinism's claims about God in regard to his choices. There is NO assumption mentioned or implied for why you would want to free them rather than others, which is the same as with God's choice of the elect.

Not relevant to the point of the analogy. All analogies fall short in that they don't fully represent every aspect. Even Christ's analogies don't meet the standard of being fully representative on every aspect. I was assuming the Warden's ability to set his prisoners free because that wasn't the issue being addressed. Nit-picking

Oh brother! You really think that the analogy was addressing languages? Come on, you are smarter than that. The language was representative of the ability for the hearers to understand the message. The elect can understand the gospel while the non-elect cannot understand it because it's not "spiritually discerned." The english language was merely an analogy representing that spiritual discernment giving to the elect. I think you know this and are just being difficult.

Again, what you don't seem to grasp is that I agree with the fact that God could have only saved one or even no one, but this is NOT about what he could have done. It is about what HE REVEALED IN SCRIPTURE. And its about how he presents himself as longing to gather sinners, seeking to save the lost, being patient and long-suffering toward rebellious men, holding out his hands to them all day long, frustrating and angry with them for continued rebellion, and appealing to them all to repent and be saved all the while only choosing to "teach a few of them english," "according to his own pleasure" (as your analogy puts it.)

Going back to your revised analogy as a Warden. Supposing this really happened, can you honestly tell me that the original offer made to all the inmates that you knew you would not choose to teach english too was a real offer? Really?

 

What? Are you denying that there are many Calvinists who criticize those who are more "persuasive" in their evangelistic methods than others? You have to admit, there really isn't much need for persuasiveness in a Calvinistic system. God does all the convincing so really I can just read the facts of the gospel and move on, right? If not, why not? What is inconsistent about that? Explain it. I'm willing to learn.

I was referring to the intent of God, not the preacher.

Never said, or even implied, that you did. You are the one who clearly doesn't know my position and that leads you to argue against your straw man rather than to try and understand someone else's view.

I'll take that as a compliment. :tongue3:

I'll bet you a $1000 (if I were a betting man) that I know and understand more about your view than you do about mine. I think that can be demonstrated in our first conversation very easily. Do we need to bring that back to the top of the page and pick up where you left off? I think we were waiting on your view regarding Romans 11 still...

Actually, to be more specific you believe that Christ fulfilled the law for the elect, paid for the elect's sin and imputes His righteousness onto the elect so as to effectually bring them to faith... That is unless you believe a man can be born again (regenerated) without first being declared righteous. So many different Calvinists have differing positions on this I'm not sure which one you are...

I tried that when I quoted, Mark 16:15 And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." But you dismissed that saying I was being too "selective" remember?

Before that I presents several texts which you briefly addressed but when I rebutted you dropped them. Heb 3 was pretty cut and dry and you dismissed it as "historical," right? Yet I showed how all the context surrounding it was related to those with faith in Christ today. You just ignored the texts about Israel being cut off for unbelief and possibly being grafted back in if they don't persist in unbelief...but that is Romans 11 so I know it may take some more time. :smilewinkgrin:

Can you blame me for moving on to pathetic analogies when you seem to have no regard for the mountains of scripture I threw at you?


:sleep:

 

Ok, good, so Dr. Walter and I agree on this point. Now, we just need to convince Archangel of his error.

Did I ever say there was? I merely pointed out one individual who responded in faith to the light given to her...there are hundreds more. I think we agreed on that point, remember?

Translation: my last post confirmed your point and I don't want to contradict my Calvinistic buddy so I'll pull out...
:applause:

 

My friend,

The reason I am "pulling out" is not because you have gained any ground in your arguments for you haven't. You are the one that has moved from your original argument not Archangel or me. Your original argument was your interpretation of John 3:18 that you insisted the only sin that condemns any human today is unbelief in Christ. Both Archangel and I have thoroughly debunked that argument. We have demonstrated what condemns a person to hell is ANY WILLFUL SIN or rejection of whatever light/knowledge of righteousness God gives them. It could be the light of conscience where they willfully violated what they knew was right. It could be the light of creation where they willfully rejected the evidence of God and His power. Both of these are described in Romans 1:18-20 as sufficient to condemn them under the wrath of God. It could be the light gained from reading the Word of God in willfully disregarding and violating the Word on any given point. This is Paul's point in Romans 2.

Sooo, condemnation for willfully rejecting the light of the gospel is but one kind of sin or violation of light that can justly condemn a man to hell. The only people that can be condemned for rejecting the gospel are those who are exposed to it and not all men are exposed to the gospel but all men sin against the light God does give them.

The truth is that WILLFUL SIN is what condemns men to hell and for WILLFUL sin to exist there must be light/knowledge of right and wrong. So any WILLFUL sin can justly condemn a person to hell.

This is Paul's argument in Romans 1:18-3:9. The light of conscience because the Law of God is written upon the conscience of every man. The light of revelation of God in nature because the heavens declare the existence, power and Godhead of God. The light of revelation in the written revelation of God and then the light of the Gospel. Willful sin against any kind of light God gives is sufficient to condemn a person to hell.

Sooo, your original position that the ONLY grounds for condemnation today is rejection of the gospel is false. Archangel's position that any WILLFUL sin is sufficient to condemn a person to hell is correct. However, at the bottom of every willful sin is hatred toward God and rejection of His authority which all are manifestations of an unbeleiving heart as well.

Now, my reason for pulling out is that it is clear to me you are not interesting in anything but winning an argument and my time is more valuable than just futile argumentation. Your mind is already made up and nothing but an act of God can change it. "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." I have placed evidence before you that there are two types of "eternal life" in Scripture - Spiritual life and Judicial life and that regeneration and justification are not one and the same. However, you have simply ignored that evidence and you will continue to do so. So I am not wasting any more of my time with you on this issue. I know where you are because I have been where you are and no one could convince me either. I frustrated my Professors and my Pastor and some friends. However, my wife and I had the custom of reading a chapter of scripture every night before going to bed. At that time we were reading through the gospel of John and purposely because I believed the gospel of John supported my Arminism more than any other book in the Bible and I wanted to confirm my position not only in my own mind but in the mind of my wife. However, the truths that I now hold began jumping off the pages of the gospel of John night after night. I could fight my professors, I could fight my Pastor and I could fight some of my friends but I could not fight God who was bombarding us every night from the very gospel that I had chosen to reinforce my resistance to the unconditional elective grace of God. No one could turn me and no one can turn you but God. So I will leave it to Him to do that in His time if He is pleased to.

 

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

There are two groups of people in this text:

1. "all flesh"
2. "as many as thou hast given him"

To which group "should he give eternal life to"?

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out - Jn. 6:37

In the two groups considered above in John 17:2 which group are those "the Father giveth me" in Jn. 6:37?

1. "all flesh"
2. "as many as thou hast given me"

Do any of those given to the Son in John 6:37 fail to come to Christ in faith according to John 6:37-40?

All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
39 And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day 40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day. .

In John 6:40 those defined as "every one" are of which group in John 17:2?

1. "all flesh"
2. "as many as the Father giveth me"

But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. -Jn. 6:64-65

In John 17:2 which group are the "some" in John 6:64 found ?

1. "all flesh"
2. "as many as thou hast given me"


Does not the words "EXCEPT it were given unto him of my Father" in John 6:65 provide the explanation why those defined as "some" in verse 64 did not come to Christ in saving faith but only in a false profession??? IF NOT THEN WHY WOULD JESUS REFER BACK TO THESE WORDS AT THIS POINT when the very next verse (v. 66) demonstrates they were not true believers:

From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

Which group in John 17:2 are those in John 6:66 who walked with him "no more"?

1. "All flesh"
2. "as many as thou hast given me"

Can any that the Father give Christ fail to come in saving faith according to John 6:37-40??? Can Christ "lose" any that the Father giveth him according to John 6:39?

Therefore, does not the words "given unto him" in John 6:65 refer to saving faith as the missing ingredient in those identified as "some" in verse 64 and demonstrated as missing in verse 66???

Does not the words "given unto him" in John 6:64 demonstrate that "draw" in John 6:44 is something the Father imparts so that they come to Christ which without no man can come??? - saving faith - or the removal of that specific "ignorance" in the lost man that "alienates them from the life of God"

Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart: - Eph. 4:18

Isn't this "the knowledge" that Jesus says IS ETRNAL LIFE in John 17:2-3?

As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Isn't this the knowledge that is imparted by direct fiat or CREATIVE WORD of God directly in the heart of the lost:

For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. -2 Cor. 4:6

Isn't this the same revelation that Paul says that is given when it pleases God to do so before it was your consent just as it was BEFORE your consent that you were born of your mother's womb - thus the new birth is like your first birth which occurs BEFORE you give consent:


But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, 16 To reveal his Son in me - Gal. 1:15-16a.

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. - Jn. 1:13

No man can come to the Son unless there is an inward change of mind and desire "given unto him" by the Father. This is the NEW HEART given by God IN ORDER TO "cause" them to obey Him:

A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.


This inward change is "given unto him" by a Creative command of God so that "ALL are taught of God" and "EVERY MAN" who has learned and heard this creative command of God cometh unto the Son. Who has learned and heard? "EVERY MAN". Who is "EVERY MAN"?

"They shall ALL be taught of God"

 

And I agree with that qualification regarding unbelief meaning, "rejection of whatever light/knowledge of righteousness God gives them," including but not limited to the gospel of Christ. As I said, we are on common ground here. It's okay not to be in lock step with your Calvinistic buddy... :thumbs:

Agreed. Well put.

Actually my argument was, and I quote, "The reason mankind is going to be condemned at judgement is because of unbelief (rejection of light/revelation), not because they broke the rules." While I may have mentioned the gospel as one aspect of revelation that mankind refuses, I never remember limiting the scope to the rejection of the gospel alone, do you?

Actually it was Winman and Webdog that were making this point while you both were arguing that Adam's sin was sufficient to condemn all mankind as you defended your view of federal headship, remember?

Why would you want Him to change my mind on this point when we agree? :laugh:

 

The representative headship of Adam condemned the whole race to spiritual death, separation from God, totally depraved nature and that is the argument Paul gives for "ONE MAN'S SIN" in Romans 5:12-21. That argument is fully supported by the fact that Jesus says that "NO MAN CAN COME" of his own free will apart from INTERVENTION by God (Jn. 6:44). If they still had the power of free choice for righteousness no intervention would be necessary and Jesus would not have to say "NO MAN CAN COME" and Paul would never have to say "NEITHER INDEED CAN BE" (Rom. 8:7).

The evidence for this natural inclination toward evil is that all men when they are faced with "light" of conscience or "light" of nature or "light" of the Word of God they always react the very same way as Jesus describes in John 3:19-20 and as Paul describes in Romans 3:9-20 and in Romans 7:6-11. Light aggrevates the depraved nature and stirs it up unto open rebellion. Always and every time so that any light that God the Holy Spirit presents to this depraved mind is always resisted (Acts 7:51) in every generation of man.

John 17:2 proves that God allows all the rest of mankind to continue in their free choice to resist, reject and hate God while giving eternal life only to "as many as were given" to Christ. The given, are quickened and come and none are lost.

 

What? You don't believe the "powerful" Holy Spirit wrought gospel being preached by Holy Spirit filled people who make up the bride of Christ, called the church, is a sufficient enough "intervention by God?"