Who is going to adjudge that God is unjust?

[Cygnus]

Who is going to adjudge that God is unjust?

It never ceases to amaze me that proponents of libertarian free will within the broad christian community, commonly identified by the theological category of Arminianism, of which Open Theism is considered a natural derivative...In fact the Open Theist proponent would correct me, in that, they, rightly, in their estimation, would say Arminianism is but a derivative of Open Theism in the sense of being in the subordinate relationship, because it is the libertarian free will mind of God that permeates the created order, inclusive of the mind of the Open Theist and Arminian proponent…and they would be right to affirm that.

And to be fair to my opponents in this debate…there are many proponents of the determinist perspective, the theological category of Calvinism, who hold a similar position on this particular matter I raise here.

The matter of concern is as follows…

“That would make God unjust…” - Is a typical concise example of how many theological discussions concerning a vast array of subject matter inevitably conclude…and upon that utterance..that adjudgment…many weighty matters are determined...incorrectly in my estimation.

Those who make such statements, and they are many, find it so incredibly easy to arrive at that place…it seems as such a natural flow of deductive thought that it is inescapable…and so rightly determinative in regards reaching a final and decisive conclusion.

Does it ever cross their minds , even for a brief moment, that they have merely transposed themselves as a replacement, a clone, an identical copy, theologically and personally, of the man adjudged by God to be the most righteous man alive, Job?

And what was the result for Job?
That will be the same result for you... head down with mind and body in subordinate acceptance...of your unjust adjudgment of God.

Does that thought ever cross your mind when you say - “That would make God unjust?

 

[JudgeRightly]

It never ceases to amaze me that proponents of libertarian free will

Let's just start by pointing out that "libertarian free will" is a doubly redundant term.

If it's not free, it's not a will, by definition.

within the broad christian community, commonly identified by the theological category of Arminianism,

You won't find many Arminians here.

of which Open Theism is considered a natural derivative...

On the contrary, Open Theism is just the belief that God is free, therefore the future is open.

In fact the Open Theist proponent would correct me, in that, they, rightly, in their estimation, would say Arminianism is but a derivative of Open Theism in the sense of being in the subordinate relationship, because it is the libertarian free will mind of God that permeates the created order, inclusive of the mind of the Open Theist and Arminian proponent…and they would be right to affirm that.

If you're saying that Arminianism is just trying to make Calvinism look more like the real world, while still trying to hold onto some Calvinist, or rather, Augustinian, beliefs, then yes, I would agree.

And to be fair to my opponents in this debate…there are many proponents of the determinist perspective, the theological category of Calvinism, who hold a similar position on this particular matter I raise here.

The matter of concern is as follows…

“That would make God unjust…” - Is a typical concise example of how many theological discussions concerning a vast array of subject matter inevitably conclude…and upon that utterance..that adjudgment…many weighty matters are determined...incorrectly in my estimation.

Those who make such statements, and they are many, find it so incredibly easy to arrive at that place…it seems as such a natural flow of deductive thought that it is inescapable…and so rightly determinative in regards reaching a final and decisive conclusion.

Does it ever cross their minds , even for a brief moment, that they have merely transposed themselves as a replacement, a clone, an identical copy, theologically and personally, of the man adjudged by God to be the most righteous man alive, Job?

And what was the result for Job?
That will be the same result for you... head down with mind and body in subordinate acceptance...of your unjust adjudgment of God.

Does that thought ever cross your mind when you say - “That would make God unjust?

If something is inherently unjust, such as killing a child for the sin of his father, then who are you to say that God can do so and remain just?

I recommend reading the following article:

A Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma | KGOV.com

kgov.com

 

[Cygnus]

.
Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.
.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Libertarian free will means that our choices are free from the determination or constraints of human nature and free from any predetermination by God. All "free will theists" hold that libertarian freedom is essential for moral responsibility, for if our choice is determined or caused by anything, including our own desires, they reason, it cannot properly be called a free choice. Libertarian freedom is, therefore, the freedom to act contrary to one's nature, predisposition and greatest desires. Responsibility, in this view, always means that one could have done otherwise.

Again, if it's not free, it's not a will, by definition.

Adding "libertarian" and "free" is redundant.

And in the context of this discussion, insisting on using "libertarian free will" is just a way for you to try to escape the consequences of your position, in that anything other than "libertarian free will" is not really free at all. In other words, it allows you have the appearance of agreeing with the Bible, while simultaneously rejecting (perhaps unwittingly) the very thing that the Bible is stating.

Question:

Does God have a will?

 

[Clete]

Who is going to adjudge that God is unjust?

He is, for One (Three, actually).

This is the central point of the Christian answer (which is the ONLY answer) to Euthephro's dilemma.

You won't know what that is. You can look it up yourself or what I would recommend is that you read Bob Enyart's response to Zakath's presentation of Euthyphro's dilemma in Battle Royale VII. (See link below)

Post 39: Battle Royale II: Does God Exist?


Further, King David judges God to be just....

Psalm 89:14 Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Your throne; Mercy and truth go before Your face.​

​

Psalm 97:2 Clouds and darkness surround Him; Righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne.​

Think that metaphor through just a moment. It isn't saying that righteousness and justice are the flooring underneath the chair that God sits on. It saying the God's sovereign authority is predicated upon righteousness and justice, which is just the exact opposite of what your doctrine teaches which is that it is God's sovereign fiat command that establishes what righteousness and justice look like.

It never ceases to amaze me that proponents of libertarian free will within the broad christian community, commonly identified by the theological category of Arminianism, of which Open Theism is considered a natural derivative...

Okay, first of all, please start using proper punctuation. Periods and commas are not a new idea and it's not that difficult to figure out when to use them. Please do so.

Open theism IS NOT a derivative of Arminainism! That's is comically false and demonstrates your ignorance of the topic and any of its foundational ideas or supporting arguments. IF (and I do say IF) you are familiar with anything about the doctrine at all, it is with the mischaracterizations presented to you by some teacher or pastor or seminary professor or some idiotic book or magazine article but not from interactions with actual Open Theists.

If anything, it is Arminianism that is a derivative (perhaps the term "counter derivative" would be more accurate) of Calvinism! The two certainly have much more in common with each other than either has with Open Theism. Open Theists and Arminians share several beliefs in common but usually for different reasons. It is just as true that Calvinists and Arminians share several beliefs in common but in those cases they hold those similar beliefs for almost identical reasons. What's worse is that many of the doctrines that Calvinists and Arminians both hold to, are doctrines which are the logical basis for the rest of Calvin's doctrine! In short, Arminians are just logically inconsistent Calvinists who allowed their God given understanding of justice to persuade them away from some of Calvin's errors, but not all of them. The result is a grotesque chimeric doctrine that suffers easy defeat in debates against Calvinists, to the detriment of both parties.

In short, both Calvinists and Arminians are, first and foremost, Augustinian in their theology proper. The later being less consistently so.

In fact the Open Theist proponent would correct me, in that, they, rightly, in their estimation, would say Arminianism is but a derivative of Open Theism in the sense of being in the subordinate relationship, because it is the libertarian free will mind of God that permeates the created order, inclusive of the mind of the Open Theist and Arminian proponent…and they would be right to affirm that.

I would never affirm anything that you attempt to put into my mouth.

Calvinists routinely redefine common words so as to make them conform to their doctrine. They are not to ever be trusted with such authority.


More directly to the point. Arminianism is by no means or in any sense a derivative of Open Theism. That's literal stupidity - which is likely the reason you sought to put it in my mouth to begin with.

And to be fair to my opponents in this debate…there are many proponents of the determinist perspective, the theological category of Calvinism, who hold a similar position on this particular matter I raise here.

No one cares.

The matter of concern is as follows…

“That would make God unjust…”

God would, in fact and by definition, be unjust if He acted in an unjust manner, like punishing someone for the sins of their ancestor, just to give one example.

- Is a typical concise example of how many theological discussions concerning a vast array of subject matter inevitably conclude…and upon that utterance..that adjudgment…many weighty matters are determined...incorrectly in my estimation.

Gibberish. Please try to write in a manner that makes actual sense in English, please.

Those who make such statements, and they are many, find it so incredibly easy to arrive at that place…it seems as such a natural flow of deductive thought that it is inescapable…and so rightly determinative in regards reaching a final and decisive conclusion.

What are you talking about?

Does it ever cross their minds , even for a brief moment, that they have merely transposed themselves as a replacement, a clone, an identical copy, theologically and personally, of the man adjudged by God to be the most righteous man alive, Job?

In this instance, it is you who has "transposed themselves as a replacement, a clone, an identical copy, theologically and personally, of..." Job's "friends"!

OH! The wisdom of God for putting the book of Job in the Bible! Fools misunderstand that book from beginning to end and condemn themselves with practically every word they utter about it.

Here's a hint....

JOB WAS THE GOOD GUY!!!

And what was the result for Job?
That will be the same result for you... head down with mind and body in subordinate acceptance...of your unjust adjudgment of God.

So, I know you don't get this and that you won't accept it but the reason the book of Job makes sense is precisely because Job did not deserve what Satan did to him. In other words, if the concept of justice didn't apply to God, the book would have ended very differently and the whole story wouldn't make any sense. It is precisely that fact that Job was a good man that makes the story work.

Does that thought ever cross your mind when you say - “That would make God unjust?

No!

The reason it doesn't is PRECISELY because I do NOT get to decide what justice is! No one asked me, no one included me in any discussion or conference about what justice is. It isn't my opinion and neither is it yours! A judge's judgements are either just or they are not. A person's actions are either righteous or they are not. God's actions are either righteous or they are not. God is righteous or He is not. God is either just or He is not. The deciding factor is His actions, not our personal opinions. Those actions, are either consistent with righteousness and justice or they are not.

The god of Calvin is arbitrary, the very opposite of what it means to be just, BY DEFINITION!


On that specific point....

What does a Calvinist say the word "justice" means?

(I'll be surprised if that question is answered. Let's wait and see.)


Lastly, in another thread, I directly asked Cygnus whether he understood what it meant to have integrity and whether he believed God had integrity. He lied and claimed that he answered that question in this post and so I ask it again.....

What does it mean to have integrity, Cygnus?

Does the god you worship have integrity?

 

[Clete]

Let's just start by pointing out that "libertarian free will" is a doubly redundant term.

If it's not free, it's not a will, by definition.



You won't find many Arminians here.



On the contrary, Open Theism is just the belief that God is free, therefore the future is open.



If you're saying that Arminianism is just trying to make Calvinism look more like the real world, while still trying to hold onto some Calvinist, or rather, Augustinian, beliefs, then yes, I would agree.



If something is inherently unjust, such as killing a child for the sin of his father, then who are you to say that God can do so and remain just?

I recommend reading the following article:

A Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma | KGOV.com

kgov.com

I had not read this prior to writing my own response to the OP! I love it when we practically write stuff as though we share a brain.
Did we have a great teacher or what?!

 

[Cygnus]

Again, ............

This is a debate forum, a colosseum, so to speak, and we are both skilled at what we do…well practiced…and refined in our technique, and in my estimation I consider both yourself and Clete to be powerful debaters for the aforesaid reasons, and prominent long standing members in the defence of TOL against the deterministic faction, Calvinist…to which I belong.

There is no need to bypass a direct question I ask you to respond to…and attempt to answer it through my response to another username… so as to falsely achieve some kind of ascendancy, at least, in the estimation of those who are not aware of that proxy method of avoiding a set of probing enquires (sticky situation) which have exposed a serious flaw in your thinking processes…as you have done on my other thread…and until you relocate those responses to the appropriate location…back to the sticky situation I put you in on that thread of mine…there will be no more direct exchanges between us on that thread…and if you conduct yourself in a similar fashion on this thread the same will apply.

Your response on that thread - “And so with that, I win!” - only highlights the fact that you have Judged Unrightly - and any person with a plural number of brain cells can deduce that by reading our exchange…and that was after a gracious gesture on my part in welcoming you onto the thread in an appropriate manner…especially after a public discussion regarding suspected inappropriate moderation on this forum.

In regards your boast - “And with that, I win!”

It is obvious I have defeated you with a single enquiry…it was that easy.

Your scalp hangs in the tepee of CalvinistGoblin
.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There is no need to bypass a direct question I ask you to respond to…and attempt to answer it through my response to another username… so as to falsely achieve some kind of ascendancy, at least, in the estimation of those who are not aware of that proxy method of avoiding a set of probing enquires (sticky situation) which have exposed a serious flaw in your thinking processes…as you have done on my other thread…and until you relocate those responses to the appropriate location…back to the sticky situation I put you in on that thread of mine…there will be no more direct exchanges between us on that thread…and if you conduct yourself in a similar fashion on this thread the same will apply.

Your response on that thread - “And so with that, I win!” - only highlights the fact that you have Judged Unrightly - and any person with a plural number of brain cells can deduce that by reading our exchange…and that was after a gracious gesture on my part in welcoming you onto the thread in an appropriate manner…especially after a public discussion regarding suspected inappropriate moderation on this forum.

In regards your boast - “And with that, I win!”

It is obvious I have defeated you with a single enquiry…it was that easy.

Your scalp hangs in the tepee of CalvinistGoblin
.

Buh-bye!

Pretty sure at this point this is a sock account for a recently banned member.

The "."s above below the text pretty much confirms it. That and the obsession (yes, obsession) with attacking open theism.

Please don't return, Cygnus.