Featured What does it mean to say God is "Good"?

This is very well written and I agree with it. There are some here who believe God can do "whatever" and that would make it good. That is false and proven false by Jesus himself. Jesus said that if he were to deny his Father he would be a liar like those who heard him (Jhn 8:55). God cannot do "whatever" and be good, he must truly do what is good.

Good is not a quality greater than God, but it is a quality that cannot be separated from God, as God IS good, or rather HOLY.

Rev 4:8 And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him; and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.

The very view being discussed here is where Calvinism in particular goes off the tracks.

Source- http://www.pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin09.html

 

Yes it does, but you'll just respond by saying no it doesn't. So we're at an impass.

 

True.

Noncalvinists tend to think of God as a man. That there is a moral standard outside of man and independent of man to which He is bound and by which he is judged. And so the argument against Election is ever "Why doth He yet find fault."

But God is God. By what standard is God measured? If He does this or that, who can bring a charge against Him?

Not only is God God, but He is also the Creator. What He does with His creation is His business. Who will charge him with unfairness? Remember the parable of the workers.

They say they aren't judging God, and they mean it. They say they're rejecting a notion of God that appears to go against His nature. But not His nature as revealed, but the measure of morality to which He holds His creation.

 

I agree for the most part. God cannot act outside of his nature. If He does something, it's his nature. We say God is love. We see God's love and conclude that God's nature is love. As you said, and I agree, we only know goodness from God. So if God does something, it's good.

His actions will follow who he is as I gave above. As I asked someone else, on what basis do we call something good or evil. Man cannot say that God cannot be cruel because being cruel is evil. God is not cruel because it's not in his nature to be cruel. God is not cruel. Therefore, we conclude that being cruel is not good.

My example:
View 1: (incorrect view)
Truth is good
God is truth
God is good

View 2:
God is good
God is truth
Truth is good.

View 2(evil)
God is good
God is the opposite of cruel
Cruel is not good.

No one is arguing that God will act outside of his nature, at least I'm not. However, we learn the nature of God by his actions. So it is by what God does that we learn the nature of God and thus what good is. We don't dictate what God's nature is. We only can see what God does and therefore know his nature. This comes from the reading of his word. What we cannot do is say being cruel is evil and then see if God is cruel. And if God is not cruel, then call Him good. That's backwards. We say being cruel is evil and not good because God is not cruel and thus we conclude that God's nature is not cruel.

 

Where I disagree with Calvinism is shown in this statement;

Here is where I would disagree with JBH. He would say that God ordains all that comes to pass, including evil. If so, then evil would be good.

Now, I don't know if that is what JBH believes, but I have seen more than a few Calvinists who hold to this view.

Most Calvinists will deny that God ordains or determines a person to go to hell, they will say he merely passes these persons by and allows them to perish in their own sin. But as HoS has correctly pointed out, it was God who determined they would be born sinners incapable of doing good. And if JBH is correct, all this is GOOD, simply because this is what God has done.

 

If God is His own standard by which He can judged, if He is the personification of goodness, etc., then whatever He does is good and godly, because He has done it.

To say no is to say that He is not His own standard. That a standard exists outside Him by which He can be judged, and you have set yourself up as His accuser.

It really is that simple. He is God or He isn't. If He is God, than whatever He does is good for no other reason than that He has done it.

 

You think of Him like you think of men, that there is a moral standard outside of Himself by which He can be judged.

See my post above.

The argument that Paul preempts belies your assertion.

"Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own?" If God created the wicked for the Day of Judgment, who is going to correct Him, and by what standard?

 

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd layeth down his life for the sheep. Jn 10:11

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

By what standard?

Very good. Now if He is the Standard, then anything He does measures up to Himself.

Now you have to stop there, because there is nothing else but Himself. But you don't stop there. You go on to judge Him by another standard. That demands something other than God. It just does, like 2 + 2 = 4. You can argue against it all you want, but you must stop with God.

There is none greater by which to judge His actions as either fiendish or noble. Only those things lesser than He is can be thus judged.

Nobility is that which is godly, and ignobility is that which is ungodly. Who will say that anything God does is ungodly, whether or not it appears fiendish to a carnal mind?

 

This is a perfect illustration of that which I am saying.

You concede God has a right or power to do something, while at the same time you assert a separate standard by which to judge the thing that He does.