Does God's absolute predestination make God unfair?

[shnarkle]

The claim is that God cannot be righteous and sovereign. He must be one or the other. He cannot predestine people to destruction and be just at the same time.

If God fits vessels for destruction, isn't it clear that he has a purpose for them? If not, then does God make vessels for no purpose, or perhaps simply random purpose?

When Paul says, "Who are you to reply against God?" he is effectively pointing out that some questions shouldn't be asked in the first place.

How do you reconcile the truth of the bible to your own logic? How do you reconcile man's moral responsibility to God's predestination of all events? If God is omnipotent, how can he be fair for judging men for their sins?

[ttruscott]

Choosing not to know what his creatures will do in advance is not a sign of indifference, it's a sign of love, it means he accords them dignity and the opportunity to have a real relationship with him.

It also means that HE chose to not save from hell the billions HE might have saved if HE allowed HIMself to know then just did not create those who chose the unforgivable sin... That so many are hell bound by HIS limiting of HIMself is a hard position to hold.

[ttruscott]

A lot of folks here ignoring God's Word, I see.

Maybe some are just ignoring your interpretation of the Word...

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 39 by John Bauer]

An important distinction between punishment and positive discipline:

Punishment is the tool of desperate dictators and barbaric authoritarians. Positive discipline is the tool of wise intellectuals and compassionate leaders. To punish rather than discipline is to respond with ignorance and fear instead of care and wisdom.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed." - Albert Einstein

Retributive judgment as justice has NO rehabilitative effect, just a legal necessity. Painful Discipline as expressed about HIS sinful elect (called legitimate sons) in Heb 12:5-11 is completely and perfectly an expression of the rehabilitative intent and effect.

To claim all crime might be dealt with by the rehabilitative measures of discipline is to be short sighted about the nature of Biblical reality. Those who cannot be rehabilitated (the illegitimate) and only those, will be banished to the outer darkness.

[PinSeeker]

A lot of folks here ignoring God's Word, I see.

Maybe some are just ignoring your interpretation of the Word...

Or just choosing not to believe it. That's too bad, but understandable.

[John Bauer]

God does not just wait to start punishing sinners. He disciplines with love. He always hopes that a person who is practicing sin will stop and put forth effort to follow the path to life.

That view requires a certain take on the atonement (i.e., what the life, death, and resurrection of Christ accomplished) that I find inconsistent with Scripture and, therefore, I wouldn't be able to accept it. Consider this: If Christ bore in his body at Calvary the punishment due for all the sin of those who believe, then God does not—indeed cannot—punish any of his sheep. As Loraine Boettner explained, "God will not punish twice for one thing. If God punished Christ for your sins, he will not punish you. 'Payment God's justice cannot twice demand, first at the bleeding Savior's hand and then again at mine.' How can God be just if he punished Christ, the substitute, and then man himself afterwards?"

He disciplines as a loving Father the one who believes, yes, but there is no further punishment for sin. God's wrath against their sin was completely poured out upon the cross (propitiation). "It is finished!" But his wrath does remain upon all those who do not believe in the Son, who are condemned already (John 3:18, 36). This is why it's important to maintain the distinction between punishment and discipline.

Would it surprise you to know that there is no actual hell-fire where people are roasted forever?

No, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. I came to understand long ago that the "eternal conscious torment" view of hell is not biblical.

Unrepentant wicked people will suffer the final destruction. They will simply go to "sleep" and never wake up.

I disagree with this, too. I find in Scripture that "sleep" is the term used for deceased believers, whereas "perish" is used of deceased non-believers (because they must face "the second death," that is, annihilation in the lake of fire).

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 53 by ttruscott]

The preferred purpose of both punishment and discipline is rehabilitation. Where the purpose for the threat of punishment is to discourage undesirable behaviors, the consequential punishments are supposed to function in a rehabilitative capacity and not as a form of retribution in a civil and ethical society. Where punishment fails to function in a rehabilitative capacity, positive discipline almost always succeeds as an alternative option. On the few occasions where positive discipline fails to function in a rehabilitative capacity, the offenders are permanently isolated from the social group but not in an abusive fashion. Offenders who are incapable of being rehabilitated because they are mentally ill are supposed to receive proper treatment at secure mental health facilities during their isolation. Offenders who demonstrate no mental illness but are nonetheless unresponsive to rehabilitative methods are supposed to be secured in prisons where they are to receive proper nutrition and medical care.

Prisoners are not to be mistreated, abused, or tortured in any way in a civil and ethical society. To do otherwise would not only be unethical but illogical because it is already known that the reason these prisoners have to be isolated from the rest of society is because punishment was not an effective deterrent for these people. Inflicting harsh physical punishment on these prisoners after they have already been permanently isolated away from the rest of society would be an exercise in futility at best and gratuitous retribution at worst. When it is discovered that prisoners are being mistreated, civil society has a responsibility to ensure the mistreatment discontinue.

So, given this understanding, the concept of an infinite punishment for finite crimes is unethical. There is never a justification for retributive punishment, even in a legal sense. If a hell does exist where painful punishments are being eternally inflicted upon "the illegitimate," an omnibenevolent God would have the ethical duty to ensure such abuses are discontinued. Otherwise, God will be complicit with such unethical practices.

It is also unethical and DISGUSTING to dehumanize an entire demographic of people by labeling them as "the illegitimate" just because they aren't convinced by your unverifiable religious claims and have the intellectual honesty to admit it! We are all LEGITIMATE human beings with the capacity to feel and express love and compassion with no less intensity than any "legitimate" Christian, and WE DEMAND TO BE TREATED WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT! Thank you very much.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 53 by ttruscott]

The preferred purpose of both punishment and discipline is rehabilitation.

Punishment as HIS wrath, is clearly instituted ONLY for those HE can't rehabilitate. You want to try to prove HIS wrathful punishment is rehabilitative, go for it...find one person who has received and been rehabilitated by HIS wrath. Arguments from sinful human society to set HIS limits and HIS definitions are meaningless.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 53 by ttruscott]

The preferred purpose of both punishment and discipline is rehabilitation.

Punishment as HIS wrath, is clearly instituted ONLY for those HE can't rehabilitate. You want to try to prove HIS wrathful punishment is rehabilitative, go for it...find one person who has received and been rehabilitated by HIS wrath. Arguments from sinful human society to set HIS limits and HIS definitions are meaningless.

You misread my post. I never suggested his wrathful punishments were intended to be rehabilitative. The point being made was that wrathful punishments inflicted on people who have already been isolated from the rest of society on account of their inability to rehabilitated are unnecessary, illogical, and unethical.

[onewithhim]

God does not just wait to start punishing sinners. He disciplines with love. He always hopes that a person who is practicing sin will stop and put forth effort to follow the path to life.

That view requires a certain take on the atonement (i.e., what the life, death, and resurrection of Christ accomplished) that I find inconsistent with Scripture and, therefore, I wouldn't be able to accept it. Consider this: If Christ bore in his body at Calvary the punishment due for all the sin of those who believe, then God does not—indeed cannot—punish any of his sheep. As Loraine Boettner explained, "God will not punish twice for one thing. If God punished Christ for your sins, he will not punish you. 'Payment God's justice cannot twice demand, first at the bleeding Savior's hand and then again at mine.' How can God be just if he punished Christ, the substitute, and then man himself afterwards?"

He disciplines as a loving Father the one who believes, yes, but there is no further punishment for sin. God's wrath against their sin was completely poured out upon the cross (propitiation). "It is finished!" But his wrath does remain upon all those who do not believe in the Son, who are condemned already (John 3:18, 36). This is why it's important to maintain the distinction between punishment and discipline.

Would it surprise you to know that there is no actual hell-fire where people are roasted forever?

No, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. I came to understand long ago that the "eternal conscious torment" view of hell is not biblical.

Unrepentant wicked people will suffer the final destruction. They will simply go to "sleep" and never wake up.

I disagree with this, too. I find in Scripture that "sleep" is the term used for deceased believers, whereas "perish" is used of deceased non-believers (because they must face "the second death," that is, annihilation in the lake of fire).

I don't quite understand how you differ in understanding with me. I know that God will not punish a person who has accepted Christ's covering sacrifice and follows his example to his best ability. So I also think that what Loraine Bottner said is true, if I understood her correctly.

OK, maybe I shouldn't have used that word for the annihilation of the wicked, that is, "sleep." It was my own way to explain annihilation. For me, to "perish" is tantamount to being in a state of non-existence, which I might compare to being asleep (because the person is not aware of what is going on around him), but you are correct. A person who is asleep will one day wake up. The wicked will not. I appreciate you bringing that to my attention.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 53 by ttruscott]

The preferred purpose of both punishment and discipline is rehabilitation.

Punishment as HIS wrath, is clearly instituted ONLY for those HE can't rehabilitate. You want to try to prove HIS wrathful punishment is rehabilitative, go for it...find one person who has received and been rehabilitated by HIS wrath. Arguments from sinful human society to set HIS limits and HIS definitions are meaningless.

You misread my post. I never suggested his wrathful punishments were intended to be rehabilitative. The point being made was that wrathful punishments inflicted on people who have already been isolated from the rest of society on account of their inability to rehabilitated are unnecessary, illogical, and unethical.

Thank you...

once banished to the outer darkness, that is the fulfillment of all legal recourse and nothing else is added. All depictions of suffering are metaphors for the state of banishment.