The Righteousness Of God

[Slug1]

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?

Brother, I pointed out that my choice to reject Christ, was final... until I relented. Sure, that means it was NOT final but for me, it was. But again, due to God's foreknowledge, He knew I had not made a final choice and my predestined works of righteousness were still prepared for me before creation.

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!

God has prepared a place for the angels that rebelled, if this place was specifically prepared for mankind who would reject Him, that God "intended" for mankind to" also" be placed at that location. Meaning, God designated (chose) some for heaven and some for hell... can ya post the verses for me?

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.

Wording matter's brother, "meaning" or context always matters to reach the truth in understanding of God's Word. Sure, I can agree with your correction or reiteration of word use because now what you are meaning, your "reasoning," is easier to understand.
Just imagine if a lost person was reading your words from the previous 2-3 posts concerning what you and I expressed. Due to your words, the only logical conclusion is that God would/will NEVER save them. But NOW, due to your correction in meaning (use of words in a more clear manner), they cannot come to that logical conclusion.
As was said several times in the NT when the Gospel was spoken or teaching of Jesus was provided, the request to NOT harden their (those listening) own hearts was expressed because ANY of the listeners could "relent" to the truth of Christ and chose to believe. None of them (listeners who were lost/rejected the Messiah), were "predestined" for hell meaning, God did not choose to NOT save them.

[Athanasius]

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?

As formulated these two statements are indeed in tension with each other. If God 'wishes' (desire is a better word) that 'none perish', then He wishes that 'none perish'. If He wishes that 'some perish', then He can't also wish that 'none perish'. The language isn't right. God might allow some to perish after they reject Him, but that's not the same as God 'wishing' they perish as a result of that rejection.

Even on a Molinist understanding of soteriology, we need to be careful in how God's predestining is presented. If we talk as if the future is foreknown, and it happens exactly as God knows it will happen, then welcome to fatalism (and thus we aren't talking about middle knowledge at all). Like Doctor Who, God's mere knowing fixes events in place. If God knows about all possible outcomes, on the other hand, then the future is open. But then we can't so easily talk about those who God knows will reject him, because that could change with the passage of time. God then knows what will happen should this or that event occur, but His knowledge isn't so concrete so as to fix events in place, historically speaking. Riker knew something about this, but not Amanda Rogers until she tried to make it happen.

It seems to me that this is how things are.

[RandyPNW]

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?

As formulated these two statements are indeed in tension with each other. If God 'wishes' (desire is a better word) that 'none perish', then He wishes that 'none perish'. If He wishes that 'some perish', then He can't also wish that 'none perish'. The language isn't right. God might allow some to perish after they reject Him, but that's not the same as God 'wishing' they perish as a result of that rejection.

Two apparently contradictory statements can be made without using "bad language." If I'm doing so, and I am, to show the apparent contradiction, in order to point out how they require *more explanation,* then the language is good.

Again, this is not purely a philosophical argument--it is, as I propose, a *biblical argument.* Both statements are true. God wants all to be saved. And God wants only some to be saved. This requires further explanation, as your point suggests.

Even on a Molinist understanding of soteriology, we need to be careful in how God's predestining is presented. If we talk as if the future is foreknown, and it happens exactly as God knows it will happen, then welcome to fatalism (and thus we aren't talking about middle knowledge at all).

I'm not a fatalist. I don't believe in absolute determinism. I believe in free choice. But in setting up human choices God determined the circumstances.

God, from the beginning, set up free agents to make free choices. His intention was that all free choices be done in accordance with His word. But true freedom also required the possibility of choosing *not* do live in accordance with His word.

And so, though God wanted all to be "saved," as such, He proposed free choice enabling a circumstance in which His choice for human Salvation was contingent upon Man choosing to live in His word. If not, then His choice is determined by circumstance to reject those who do not live in His word.

[RabbiKnife]

Funny.

Arminius believed in predestination.

Funny how so many people that claim not to agree with Arminianism seem to have no idea what Arminius believed.

Here’s Jacobus himself on predestination...

“ “Predestination therefore, as it regards the thing itself, is the Decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ, by which He resolved within Himself from all eternity, to justify, adopt, and endow with everlasting life, to the praise of His own glorious grace, believers on whom He had decreed to bestow faith.”

[RandyPNW]

Funny.

Arminius believed in predestination.

Funny how so many people that claim not to agree with Arminianism seem to have no idea what Arminius believed.

Here’s Jacobus himself on predestination...

“ “Predestination therefore, as it regards the thing itself, is the Decree of the good pleasure of God in Christ, by which He resolved within Himself from all eternity, to justify, adopt, and endow with everlasting life, to the praise of His own glorious grace, believers on whom He had decreed to bestow faith.”

No, everybody agrees with biblical predestination. When I use the term "Predestination," I'm technically referring to more of the Calvinist version of it.

Give me credit. It's a little more complicated than that. I don't agree with either Luther or Calvin in a kind of "double-predestination." But I do agree that God determines that some will be damned--not because it was His wish, but only because of their choice.

And God knew, in advance, the choices men would take, if they were the spawn of  people whose choices against God result in children  whose nature it is to oppose God's word. Sinners may indeed give birth to sinners who repent. But sinners also give birth to those who by nature refuse to repent.

God knows the circumstances that dictate one or the other. But one thing in my mind is certain, that when men chose to sin they would reproduce something unlike what God planned to originally produce. That results in children who repent and children who refuse to repent. It results in children drawn to fulfilling God's original will, as well as to children who do not wish to be part of what God originally intended.

[journeyman]

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.

I didn't say his righteousness was limited or not an attribute.

[journeyman]

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.

Sounds like you're saying the same thing as me, without agreeing with me.

[journeyman]

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.

Being sorry to repentance for the sins committed against Jesus, who chose not to enforce the law against sinners, isn't "pushing a works based theology".

 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Rom.3:21

Propitiation is Jesus turning his wrath away from sinners.

[Slug1]

Propitiation is Jesus turning his wrath away from sinners.

Propitiation is all about someone receiving "my" punishment and since the punishment I deserved was taken by another (Christ paid for my punishment), the One giving the punishment is appeased = I don't receive the due punishment because it's already been executed and paid out.

[journeyman]

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.

Again, I never implied righteousness isn't of God's nature, but to clearly show
how he is righteous, things must occur to show why.

[journeyman]

Propitiation is all about someone receiving "my" punishment.....

No. Propitiation is all about someone being wrongfully treated and not enforcing the law against the law breakers. That's the Son, who is as his Father is,

But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath. Psa.78:38

And this is what he did on earth.....in person.

[RabbiKnife]

From whence cometh thy definition of "propitiation?"

Propitiation, at least in scripture, is ALWAYS about payment, not about excusing.  Both OT and NT.  Just no getting around it.

Otherwise the entire system of animal sacrifice in the OT under the Law was just a joke, as was the death of Jesus.

You cannot forgive without having God's wrath satisfied.

[RandyPNW]

From whence cometh thy definition of "propitiation?"

Propitiation, at least in scripture, is ALWAYS about payment, not about excusing.  Both OT and NT.  Just no getting around it.

Otherwise the entire system of animal sacrifice in the OT under the Law was just a joke, as was the death of Jesus.

You cannot forgive without having God's wrath satisfied.

I find this difficult to explain in much detail because it can easily be misconstrued. Yes, there is a payment and a satisfaction required. Redemption and Propitiation suggest that.

Christ made a payment to God that lasts. All payments made to God under the Law were temporal.

What God requires of us today, therefore, is conformity to Christ. But that would not be possible unless Christ first made the eternal payment that God required.

Christ had to offer himself to God on our behalf, because no matter how much righteousness we do, it falls short of eternity. In coming to Christ we both return to conformity to God's  word and embrace his forgiveness for all failures to do so. Christ paid the price of giving us this eternal righteousness. We could not pay this price, due to our human flaws.

[Slug1]

No. Propitiation is all about someone being wrongfully treated and not enforcing the law against the law breakers. That's the Son, who is as his Father is,

But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, and destroyed them not: yea, many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath. Psa.78:38

And this is what he did on earth.....in person.

Brother, while Rabbiknife has already gone into context where the understanding of propitiation can "only" go in accordance with scripture.

If you are willing to "learn" the truth about propitiation, I am sure either of us are willing to help you. Until then, we can only relay what propitiation is, while you continue to speak what propitiation is not.


Just remember, God's righteousness demands/requires that sin be punished (an execution of justice/judgment) both OT and NT Covenants. Your position is missing the satisfaction that God's righteousness, requires. Also remember, OT justice was temporal and NT, the justice is final. You are saying there is no need for "justice" against sin or better put, forgiveness without ANY form of appeasement (appeasement is the product of FINAL justice/judgement against sin).

[journeyman]

From whence cometh thy definition of "propitiation?"

From seeing our Lord Jesus, our Creator,  turn his wrath away from people who sinned against him.

Propitiation, at least in scripture, is ALWAYS about payment, not about excusing.  Both OT and NT.  Just no getting around it.

No. Propitiation is about mercy,

Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Mic.6:7-8

Otherwise the entire system of animal sacrifice in the OT under the Law was just a joke, as was the death of Jesus.

No. The system of animal sacrifice shadowing our Saviors sacrifice is to lead sinners to repentance,

For I desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Hos.6:6

You cannot forgive without having God's wrath satisfied.

Jesus did,

And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. Lk.7:48

He's still doing it.