The Righteousness Of God

[journeyman]

To me, the righteousness of God is how he lovingly endures the wrong committed against himself, willing to forgive sinners, yet after great longsuffering, must condemn the unrepentant.

Does anyone agree?

[RabbiKnife]

Not I.

The righteousness of God is a divine attribute, an expression of His nature and essence, not the result of something He does or does not do.  It is who and what He is, not works that He does.

Righteousness is the aspect of God whereby everything else in the universe is measured by God.  God's righteousness is the standard for all other essences or expressions of divinity.

Because of this truth, man cannot be righteous in and of himself, as man lacks the inherent quality of righteousness.  Man can only be righteous when the righteousness of God is imputed to man.

That may seem like it's being picky, but righteousness is about essence, not actions.  Righteousness is the catalyst and basis for actions, but is not limited to actions.

[RandyPNW]

Like RK I have to agree that God's righteousness is an attribute rather than a work. Certainly I would not deny that an *example* of God's righteousness is in enduring sin and then forgiving it.

Whatever God chooses to do is defined as His righteousness. His works are, by definition, righteousness. He does whatever He wants to do, whether forgive us or not, and it is still righteousness. I'm certainly glad God chose to forgive us, as sinners. This then became His righteousness, so that we could enter into His righteousness for ourselves, even after having sinned.

[Slug1]

To me, the righteousness of God is how he lovingly endures the wrong committed against himself, willing to forgive sinners, yet after great longsuffering, must condemn the unrepentant.

Does anyone agree?

Nope. You are pushing a "works" based theology. God "is" Righteous and because "of" His righteousness, He's given provision for mankind to reestablish a relationship with Him. He patiently waits for mankind to respond to His provision. Those who choose to respond, He reestablishes commune with the believer because THEIR punishment was inflicted upon (taken by) Jesus Christ, they are reconciled with God (Christ was their propitiation). Those who choose to not respond, He never reestablishes commune with the unbeliever and due to His righteousness, since their is NO propitiation for them by Christ's punishment, they will suffer the consequences eternally.

[RabbiKnife]

Like RK I have to agree that God's righteousness is an attribute rather than a work. Certainly I would not deny that an *example* of God's righteousness is in enduring sin and then forgiving it.

Whatever God chooses to do is defined as His righteousness. His works are, by definition, righteousness. He does whatever He wants to do, whether forgive us or not, and it is still righteousness. I'm certainly glad God chose to forgive us, as sinners. This then became His righteousness, so that we could enter into His righteousness for ourselves, even after having sinned.

Yes, but as has been stated ad nauseum in another thread, God's forgiveness is not unilateral; that is, it isn't arbitrary and capricious.  God's acts of forgiveness are based on Jesus having already satisfied God's holy wrath in imputed propitiation for my sin, so that God's forgiveness is forgoing a penalty that has been fully satisfied, thus when the payment for my sin is measured against God's righteousness, then God is just in imputing Christ's righteousness to me.

[Athanasius]

To me, the righteousness of God is how he lovingly endures the wrong committed against himself, willing to forgive sinners, yet after great longsuffering, must condemn the unrepentant.

Does anyone agree?

I'll have to agree with everyone else: God is righteousness, and He does not merely possess righteousness. The same would be said of God's other attributes. Of course, because God is righteousness itself - or since righteousness flows from God - God acts in righteous ways, as you suggest with your post.

[RandyPNW]

Like RK I have to agree that God's righteousness is an attribute rather than a work. Certainly I would not deny that an *example* of God's righteousness is in enduring sin and then forgiving it.

Whatever God chooses to do is defined as His righteousness. His works are, by definition, righteousness. He does whatever He wants to do, whether forgive us or not, and it is still righteousness. I'm certainly glad God chose to forgive us, as sinners. This then became His righteousness, so that we could enter into His righteousness for ourselves, even after having sinned.

Yes, but as has been stated ad nauseum in another thread, God's forgiveness is not unilateral; that is, it isn't arbitrary and capricious.  God's acts of forgiveness are based on Jesus having already satisfied God's holy wrath in imputed propitiation for my sin, so that God's forgiveness is forgoing a penalty that has been fully satisfied, thus when the payment for my sin is measured against God's righteousness, then God is just in imputing Christ's righteousness to me.

I have not been following the thread much, so nothing is "ad nauseum" to me on this. I find this to be an interesting aspect of recognizing who God is.

I fully appreciate your concern about any sense of God's "capriciousness" or "arbitrariness." But it is what it is. God doesn't have to meet any standard to be called "God." As such, He, as God, determines who others perceive Him to be.

That being said, I agree that God is consistently who He is. But I believe He could've chosen to forgive sinners or not. There was no "bar" for God to reach to determine if He was being "kind" or not.

Thank God He chose to be kind. He would've been "kind" whether He forgave us or not. But God's plan encompassed this understanding when He made man, determining to be consistent and not fail to accomplish what He set out to do. If He chose to make Man in His image, which He did, then He chose, in advance, to redeem Man from any collective failure of Man by selecting out those who will repent.

[Slug1]

to redeem Man from any collective failure of Man by selecting out those who will repent.

Hey brother, I can only interpret your conclusion here as follows:

1) God provided a means of reconciliation with Himself, for only some but not others.
2) God's provision for reconciliation can only be effectual, in some and not in others.

Which is in understanding your conclusion or if neither is, what do you mean?

[Athanasius]

God doesn't have to meet any standard to be called "God." As such, He, as God, determines who others perceive Him to be.

Arguably, He does. Or, if God's attributes were different we would consider such a being a different kind of 'G'od. Say, a being who is the creator but malicious. Or, a being who is the creator but disinterested. We might then have beings who are God by definition but not worthy of praise. However, I think we'd use a different word than 'God' for such beings that were malicious, capricious, evil. We'd use a different word if it turned out that 'God' was a supra-dimensional alien race of 'Q' like beings.

And John de Lancie, for all we know... Well, for all we know there exists such a race. Who knows what else God created.

But I believe He could've chosen to forgive sinners or not. There was no "bar" for God to reach to determine if He was being "kind" or not.

The 'bar' is God's character and attributes. As RK is suggesting in some capacity, God cannot act arbitrarily because God must act in accordance with his character and attributes. God cannot act in ways inconsistent with His being.

Thank God He chose to be kind.

Well, I don't think it's quite like this, but I understand what you're saying.

[RandyPNW]

to redeem Man from any collective failure of Man by selecting out those who will repent.

Hey brother, I can only interpret your conclusion here as follows:

1) God provided a means of reconciliation with Himself, for only some but not others.
2) God's provision for reconciliation can only be effectual, in some and not in others.

Which is in understanding your conclusion or if neither is, what do you mean?

Yes, I think I understand your concern. The thought is not that God only wanted to save some--clearly, He provided atonement for *all* sinners. But the reality is, only *some* will be saved.

So I'm not saying God determined that some should be lost--clearly, He wanted them to be saved. But in knowing that some would reject Him, He could not disallow Himself from having what He originally wanted, which is a representation of what He originally planned for.

The "some" who will get saved will match God's original wish for a world of people made in His image. Those who fail will not prevent God from reaching His goal. God's will cannot be thwarted, notwithstanding the choice of many not to cooperate.

[RandyPNW]

God doesn't have to meet any standard to be called "God." As such, He, as God, determines who others perceive Him to be.

Arguably, He does. Or, if God's attributes were different we would consider such a being a different kind of 'G'od. Say, a being who is the creator but malicious. Or, a being who is the creator but disinterested. We might then have beings who are God by definition but not worthy of praise. However, I think we'd use a different word than 'God' for such beings that were malicious, capricious, evil. We'd use a different word if it turned out that 'God' was a supra-dimensional alien race of 'Q' like beings.

And John de Lancie, for all we know... Well, for all we know there exists such a race. Who knows what else God created.

But I believe He could've chosen to forgive sinners or not. There was no "bar" for God to reach to determine if He was being "kind" or not.

The 'bar' is God's character and attributes. As RK is suggesting in some capacity, God cannot act arbitrarily because God must act in accordance with his character and attributes. God cannot act in ways inconsistent with His being.

Thank God He chose to be kind.

Well, I don't think it's quite like this, but I understand what you're saying.

I like what you say. However, I'm simply stating that God is, by nature, what we identify as "kind." He defines, by what He does, as "kind." He does not try to meet some imaginary bar for becoming "kind." Whatever He does is, by definition, "kind."

Whatever we see God do is consistent with what we perceive to be "kindness." But it is not always the human definition of "kindness," which sometimes is a matter of what suits us.

What suits us is not always divine kindness. God defines kindness by what He does, and it always comes across to us as "kindness," if we are honest.

[Slug1]

Yes, I think I understand your concern. The thought is not that God only wanted to save some--clearly, He provided atonement for *all* sinners. But the reality is, only *some* will be saved.

So I'm not saying God determined that some should be lost--clearly, He wanted them to be saved. But in knowing that some would reject Him, He could not disallow Himself from having what He originally wanted, which is a representation of what He originally planned for.

The "some" who will get saved will match God's original wish for a world of people made in His image. Those who fail will not prevent God from reaching His goal. God's will cannot be thwarted, notwithstanding the choice of many not to cooperate.

In all honestly, to me and maybe only to me, it seems you are tripping all over your own words. Why do I say this... because while your first two paragraphs begin to be understandable (to me), you suddenly begin to focus on a LIMIT to whom God wants and you call these people, the "some."  Seems (to me) that you inverted the points and they oppose. It just seems that you tripped and when you stood back up and continued on... pointed out the exact opposite.

Based on your conclusion (final part of para 2 and all of para3), let me raise that God's Word reveals He desires that NONE perish. So, based on your final conclusion, can I say the following and be in full understanding of your final conclusion??

1) Once God's goal for "some" is achieved... the desire that none perish, ends?

[RandyPNW]

Yes, I think I understand your concern. The thought is not that God only wanted to save some--clearly, He provided atonement for *all* sinners. But the reality is, only *some* will be saved.

So I'm not saying God determined that some should be lost--clearly, He wanted them to be saved. But in knowing that some would reject Him, He could not disallow Himself from having what He originally wanted, which is a representation of what He originally planned for.

The "some" who will get saved will match God's original wish for a world of people made in His image. Those who fail will not prevent God from reaching His goal. God's will cannot be thwarted, notwithstanding the choice of many not to cooperate.

In all honestly, to me and maybe only to me, it seems you are tripping all over your own words. Why do I say this... because while your first two paragraphs begin to be understandable (to me), you suddenly begin to focus on a LIMIT to whom God wants and you call these people, the "some."  Seems (to me) that you inverted the points and they oppose. It just seems that you tripped and when you stood back up and continued on... pointed out the exact opposite.

Based on your conclusion (final part of para 2 and all of para3), let me raise that God's Word reveals He desires that NONE perish. So, based on your final conclusion, can I say the following and be in full understanding of your final conclusion??

1) Once God's goal for "some" is achieved... the desire that none perish, ends?

I couldn't agree with that only because it is so generic that it could be misconstrued the way I see it. The reason you feel I'm "tripping" is not because I'm actually "tripping" at all--rather, it's because I don't feel your belief covers the doctrine of Predestination. (I don't agree with Arminianism.)

God actually plans only for some people to be saved, even though He wants all people to be saved. This may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. It just isn't explaining all of the finer issues.

God wants only some people to be saved because of their choices. He doesn't want people to be saved who choose against His salvation.

And yet, He wants all people to make the right choice. He wants all people to make the right choice and be saved, even though He knows that not all will make the right choice.

Can you agree with that?

[Slug1]

I couldn't agree with that only because it is so generic that it could be misconstrued the way I see it. The reason you feel I'm "tripping" is not because I'm actually "tripping" at all--rather, it's because I don't feel your belief covers the doctrine of Predestination. (I don't agree with Arminianism.)

God actually plans only for some people to be saved, even though He wants all people to be saved. This may sound like a contradiction, but it is not. It just isn't explaining all of the finer issues.

The only way that I can reconcile with what scriptures reveals, in the most concise way I can express.

God "knows" (foreknowledge) who will and who will not believe in Him, faithfully. For those who will choose Him faithfully, He's predestined for works of righteousness. For those who will not choose Him faithfully, He's predestined for works of unrighteousness.

God wants only some people to be saved because of their choices. He doesn't want people to be saved who choose against His salvation.

The only way for this to be reconciled with scripture is to find where God does NOT desire, that none perish.

And yet, He wants all people to make the right choice.

Which is supported in scripture in that Christ's sacrifice is for ALL mankind, not some.

He wants all people to make the right choice and be saved, even though He knows that not all will make the right choice.

Which again, is supported by the fact that God desires that NONE, perish.
So, we have another example of confliction in your post where you ID and single out a "group" of people that you refer to as, "some people." Yet, in His desire to NOT have ANY of mankind perish, you conflict yourself in saying the following:

He doesn't want people to be saved who choose against His salvation.

So which is it? God desires NONE perish, per scripture, or is it He doesn't want (thus desires they perish), some people to be saved, per your comment that conflicts both yourself and scripture??
Could it be that God's provision aligns with His desire that NONE perish but knows, not all will chose the provision? Meaning, your statement that He "doesn't want people to be saved because they won't choose Him, is not aligned with what is revealed 

I can actually testify that your statement, "He doesn't want people to be saved who choose against His salvation," is false. Here is how... I CHOSE AGAINST His provision for salvation for 26 years of my life. Your statement, if followed through to it's logical conclusion, means I would never be able to chose God because He never wanted to save me, due to my rejection of His Son.

Brother, God desires that NONE perish. This means to say He doesn't want people to be saved, is false. Sure, many will reject Him and they will REAP the consequence of that choice UPON their physical death. But this NEVER means they are in some group He DOES not provide for. It literally means, they did not choose Him... but they WERE provided for, for salvation. I'm proof, you are too I'm sure. The MOST hardened heart CAN relent and repent.

[RandyPNW]

The only way for this to be reconciled with scripture is to find where God does NOT desire, that none perish.
...Which is supported in scripture in that Christ's sacrifice is for ALL mankind, not some.
...So, we have another example of confliction in your post where you ID and single out a "group" of people that you refer to as, "some people." Yet, in His desire to NOT have ANY of mankind perish, you conflict yourself in saying the following:

He doesn't want people to be saved who choose against His salvation.

So which is it? God desires NONE perish, per scripture, or is it He doesn't want (thus desires they perish), some people to be saved, per your comment that conflicts both yourself and scripture??
...I can actually testify that your statement, "He doesn't want people to be saved who choose against His salvation," is false. Here is how... I CHOSE AGAINST His provision for salvation for 26 years of my life. Your statement, if followed through to it's logical conclusion, means I would never be able to chose God because He never wanted to save me, due to my rejection of His Son.
....Brother, God desires that NONE perish. This means to say He doesn't want people to be saved, is false. Sure, many will reject Him and they will REAP the consequence of that choice UPON their physical death. But this NEVER means they are in some group He DOES not provide for. It literally means, they did not choose Him... but they WERE provided for, for salvation. I'm proof, you are too I'm sure. The MOST hardened heart CAN relent and repent.

I already said that God wishes that none perish. And I already said that this does not conflict with the idea that God wishes that some perish, after they have made a final choice against Salvation. Why can't you follow that line of reasoning?

You say that this is not found in Scriptures, and yet it is obviously found in Scripture that God's will is that men should be thrown into the eternal Lake of Fire. Don't say that isn't the will of God--it's there in Scriptures!

When you suggest that you and I resisted Salvation, it's obvious that that choice, on our part, to resist Salvation, was not final. So when I speak of God's choice to damn some of mankind, it is only designed to inflict eternal punishment upon those whose choice against Salvation is final.