Keeping Our Christian Doctrines Consistent with the Doctrine of God

[Arial]

Within Christianity, and among those who claim Christianity but deny the Trinity, there exists conflicting doctrines. Not the least among them is the Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, and Arminianism that came against the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) of Calvinism/Reformed theology. Even though the first three were condemned as heresy, the debate rages on. There are many scriptures that support the C/R renderings of doctrine and none when used in context, surrounding and full counsel of God, will support those other views. In this OP I will lay out the attributes of God, both natural and moral. This is the first place imo that we can go to see if what we claim the Bible is saying, in anyway violates who God declares himself to be.



The Natural Attributes

• Eternal (Ps 90:2; Rev 1:8)
• Self-Existent (Ex 3:14; John 5:26)
• Immutable (Mal 3:6; Heb 13:8)
• Omnipotent (Gen18:14; Matt19:26)
• Omniscient (Ps 147:5; Heb 3:13)
• Omnipresent (Ps 139:7-10; Jer 23:23-24)
• Sovereign (Ps115:3; Dan4:35)
• Infinite (1 Kings8:27; Job11:7-9)
• Unity (Oneness) (Deut 6:4; Is 45:5)
• Triune (one God in essence, triune in persons) (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14)

Moral Attributes of God

• Holy (Is 6:3; 1 Pet 1:16)
• Righteous and Just (Ps 11:7; Deut 42:4)
• Love (1 John 4:8; John 3:16)
• Merciful and Gracious (Ex 34:6; Ps 103:8; Ps 145:8)
• Faithful and True (Deut 7:9; Lam3:22-23)
• Good (Ps 100:5; Nahum 1:7)
• Compassionate (Ex 34:6; Ps 103:8)
• Jealous (for His Glory and honor) (Ex 34:14; Nahum 1:2)
• Longsuffering (patient) (2 Peter 3:9; Ex 34:6)

In addition to these attributes, it cannot be forgotten that the Bible, through and through, shows God to be wrathful against evil and evil doers.

An example of applying this principle would be 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

This passage is often isolated from all context as proof of two things.

1. God is love
2. It is God's will that all be saved.

It is used in this way in both cases, to deny that God does elect and predestine some to salvation and leaves the rest in their natural condition as sinners. The reasoning is that that would not be love and that it would not be fair. Since it would not be fair, to do so would make God partial when Scripture says he is not (another scripture that is isolated from context) and therefore it would be evil for God to do so.

Does this assessment violate any of the other attributes of God? I say it does. I would go farther and demonstrate this, and I will if no one participates, but first I would like to hear from those who say it does and why, and those who say it doesn't and why.

 

[Eleanor]

Within Christianity, and among those who claim Christianity but deny the Trinity, there exists conflicting doctrines. Not the least among them is the Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, and Arminianism that came against the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) of Calvinism/Reformed theology. Even though the first three were condemned as heresy, the debate rages on. There are many scriptures that support the C/R renderings of doctrine and none when used in context, surrounding and full counsel of God, will support those other views. In this OP I will lay out the attributes of God, both natural and moral. This is the first place imo that we can go to see if what we claim the Bible is saying, in anyway violates who God declares himself to be.
The Natural Attributes

• Eternal (Ps 90:2; Rev 1:8)
• Self-Existent (Ex 3:14; John 5:26)
• Immutable (Mal 3:6; Heb 13:8)
• Omnipotent (Gen18:14; Matt19:26)
• Omniscient (Ps 147:5; Heb 3:13)
• Omnipresent (Ps 139:7-10; Jer 23:23-24)
• Sovereign (Ps115:3; Dan4:35)
• Infinite (1 Kings8:27; Job11:7-9)
• Unity (Oneness) (Deut 6:4; Is 45:5)
• Triune (one God in essence, triune in persons) (Matt 28:19; 2 Cor 13:14)

Moral Attributes of God

• Holy (Is 6:3; 1 Pet 1:16)
• Righteous and Just (Ps 11:7; Deut 42:4)
• Love (1 John 4:8; John 3:16)
• Merciful and Gracious (Ex 34:6; Ps 103:8; Ps 145:8)
• Faithful and True (Deut 7:9; Lam3:22-23)
• Good (Ps 100:5; Nahum 1:7)
• Compassionate (Ex 34:6; Ps 103:8)
• Jealous (for His Glory and honor) (Ex 34:14; Nahum 1:2)
• Longsuffering (patient) (2 Peter 3:9; Ex 34:6)

In addition to these attributes, it cannot be forgotten that the Bible, through and through, shows God to be wrathful against evil and evil doers.

An example of applying this principle would be 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

This passage is often isolated from all context as proof of two things.

1. God is love
2. It is God's will that all be saved.

It is used in this way in both cases, to deny that God does elect and predestine some to salvation and leaves the rest in their natural condition as sinners. The reasoning is that that would not be love and that it would not be fair. Since it would not be fair, to do so would make God partial when Scripture says he is not (another scripture that is isolated from context) and therefore it would be evil for God to do so.

I would go farther and demonstrate this, and I will if no one participates, but first I would like to hear from those who say it does and why, and those who say it doesn't and why.

God's attribute of justice governs all other attributes, including his love; i.e., all God's attributes are subject to his attribute of justice,
which is giving everyone one what he is owed, what he is due. All mankind is owed, is due God's condemnation/punishment for sin.

 

[Josheb]

Does this assessment violate any of the other attributes of God? I say it does. I would go farther and demonstrate this, and I will if no one participates, but first I would like to hear from those who say it does and why, and those who say it doesn't and why.

Could you clarify the matter of "this assessment"?

Upon first read I had three immediate thoughts:

Keeping doctrines consistent with the doctrine of God (or what I would have worded as capital "T," formal Theology) is a good and wise standard.
Having a sound Theology therefore determines all other doctrines and their veracity.
I can (fore)see how many ontological aspect of God can (and are) abused to form misguided doctrine. For example, those who emphasize (ontological) love at the expense of other attributes, or in inconsistent application, often screw up (to put it bluntly. Just this morning I awoke to an old (Christian) friends comments about asking God to guide her in her thinking about ICE behavior in Portland (or was it Chicago? ) and she said God guided her to the passage in Leviticus directing the Hebrews to love the stranger residing in their land. Hmmm... The love of one's neighbor cannot occur at the expense of loving one's neighbors who reside legally in the land, nor those who are not "strangers." That would pit love against love. Similarly, the love of the residing stranger cannot pit love against justice because Leviticus also requires the stranger to abide all the Law, and all its laws to be obeyed by all the people when any residing stranger breaks a law . Love cannot be pitted against justice. The two are supposed to work together, not in opposition to one another. Love of the residing stranger cannot occur at the expense of the higher law, the greater requirement to love God. This example is not about immigration or ICE. It's about the failure to integrate the divine nature of God into our other doctrines and form those doctrines with consistency thereof.

The example given in the op is definitely an abuse of the 2 Peter 3:9 text. That particular verse is abused quite often in multiple ways in my experience. The so-called "love" interpretation is curiously ironic because all Peter is saying is that God has not been slothful; His promises are going to be kept, the implication being they're going to be fulfilled in the lives of his readers. The irony is that many of those promises were about destroying the unfaithful and the wicked, not saving them. God demonstrates His divine ontological justness when he metes out the just recompense for sin and He demonstrates His ontologically divine grace when He saves some from among the otherwise damned. In both ways He is glorified and neither glorifies at the expense of the other.



If I've misunderstood the question at the bottom of the op, then please clarify it for me.










Btw, I'm not sure how many people know Arminianism was deemed heresy. The Wiki article on Dordt makes no mention of that fact and GotQuestions plainly states it is not heresy. I wonder how many believers would choose Arminianism if they knew that fact of history. Just saying.
.

 

[Arial]

God's attribute of justice governs all other attributes, including his love; i.e., all God's attributes are subject to his attribute of justice,
which is giving everyone one what he is owed, what he is due. All mankind is owed, is due God's condemnation/punishment for sin.

I agree that love does not override justice. On the other hand, I say that all his attributes, natural and moral, are equally "active" all of the time. That no attribute is subjected to any other attribute in the sense of some attributes not being equal to other attributes. Situational iow.

Justice and love are harmonious and work together as equals. Justice in regard to love, is God's justice in giving people what they deserve as rebellious sinners is also love. Perfect love cannot allow a just God to violate his own promise and decree that lawlessness meets destruction. Comes under his wrath. And, because he is also immutable, sovereign, righteous, holy, faithful, good etc.

 

[Arial]

Could you clarify the matter of "this assessment"?

Certainly.
The assessment that the 2 Peter passage proves that God does not/would not elect and predestine some to salvation and leave others in the condemnation in which all stand. That to do so would violate his love and, that the passage declares that God's desire is that all be saved.

 

[CrowCross]

An example of applying this principle would be 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

This passage is often isolated from all context as proof of two things.

1. God is love
2. It is God's will that all be saved.

I was looking at the word "will". I understand the word will...or Gods will...has several nuances.

R.C. Sproul summed it up here.
1. The three meanings of the will of God:

(a) Sovereign decretive will, the will by which God brings to pass
whatsoever He decrees. This is hidden to us until it happens.

(b) Preceptive will is God's revealed law or commandments, which we have the
power but not the right to break.

(c) Will of disposition describes God's attitude or disposition. It reveals
what is pleasing to Him.

In the article he went into more detail explaining the 3 wills.

It seems as if (C) fits 2 Peter 3:9 when from the article RC Sproul said"
"The third way the Bible speaks of the will of God is with respect to God's will of disposition. This will describes God's attitude. It defines what is pleasing to Him. For example, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, yet He most surely wills or decrees the death of the wicked. God's ultimate delight is in His own holiness and righteousness. When He judges the world, He delights in the vindication of His own righteousness and justice, yet He is not gleeful in a vindictive sense toward those who receive His judgment. God is pleased when we find our pleasure in obedience. He is sorely displeased when we are disobedient."

 

[Arial]

I was looking at the word "will". I understand the word will...or Gods will...has several nuances.

R.C. Sproul summed it up here.
1. The three meanings of the will of God:

(a) Sovereign decretive will, the will by which God brings to pass
whatsoever He decrees. This is hidden to us until it happens.

(b) Preceptive will is God's revealed law or commandments, which we have the
power but not the right to break.

(c) Will of disposition describes God's attitude or disposition. It reveals
what is pleasing to Him.

In the article he went into more detail explaining the 3 wills.

It seems as if (C) fits 2 Peter 3:9 when from the article RC Sproul said"
"The third way the Bible speaks of the will of God is with respect to God's will of disposition. This will describes God's attitude. It defines what is pleasing to Him. For example, God takes no delight in the death of the wicked, yet He most surely wills or decrees the death of the wicked. God's ultimate delight is in His own holiness and righteousness. When He judges the world, He delights in the vindication of His own righteousness and justice, yet He is not gleeful in a vindictive sense toward those who receive His judgment. God is pleased when we find our pleasure in obedience. He is sorely displeased when we are disobedient."

I agree with all that is said here. I don't know if the quote from Sproul was in direct connection with 2Peter 3:9 or not. I believe it would certainly be a viable way to interpret that passage. However, in my personal opinion, I think there is more to the passage than that, given the context.

1 Peter 1:1 tells us who Peter is writing to. Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ. To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

The recipients are believers. The context indicates that false teachers were coming in and using the Christian liberty as an excuse to sin. In verse 9 Peter is reminding them that since Christ could return at any moment, like a thief in the night, "what sort of people ought they to be in lives of holiness and godliness (v.11). Some had evidently taken on the attitude, that it had been a "long time" since Jesus left and nothing had changed, he hadn't returned as promised and had become slack in standing their ground.

Verse 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Since the recipients are already believers: the "you" becomes believers, the "any" becomes any of the elect (as they are the only ones who will come to repentance), and the "all" becomes al of the elect.

Unfortunately, there is no way someone who does not accept the DoG as defined by C/R (not as the one who opposes it defines it) can ever understand that passage correctly and will always use it as though it is a universal statement of God's will (desire). But if it is, then their interpretation nullifies God's sovereignty. Other attributes as well, but all it takes for an interpretation to be incorrect is for it to violate any of his attributes. If one says if it were not universal, then it would not be love and God is love, it violates sovereignty, and also justice, holy, righteous, etc.

What say you?

 

[Josheb]

Certainly.
The assessment that the 2 Peter passage proves that God does not/would not elect and predestine some to salvation and leave others in the condemnation in which all stand. That to do so would violate his love and, that the passage declares that God's desire is that all be saved.

That's just nonsense.

I wonder how those folks would reconcile that interpretation with what Peter stated leading up to verse 3:9.

2 Peter 2:1-3
1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. 4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; 7and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men 8(for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), 9then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.

That must be a loving form of destruction .


Prompts recall of something else. Are you familiar with apokatastasism? It's a form of universalism that holds God will restore ALL things to their original reconciled state. It differs from universalism in that universalism holds God will save all regardless of whether they accept restoration/reconciliation or not. There used to be an apokatastasist in CARM (can't remember his handle ) that always managed to avoid the prohibition against universalism.

At any rate, God wants all to repent and God is going to destroy the ungodly. He knows how to rescue the godly and destroy the ungodly. He's not conflicted about it at all. Not even a little .

 

[CrowCross]

I agree with all that is said here. I don't know if the quote from Sproul was in direct connection with 2Peter 3:9 or not. I believe it would certainly be a viable way to interpret that passage. However, in my personal opinion, I think there is more to the passage than that, given the context.

1 Peter 1:1 tells us who Peter is writing to. Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ. To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

The recipients are believers. The context indicates that false teachers were coming in and using the Christian liberty as an excuse to sin. In verse 9 Peter is reminding them that since Christ could return at any moment, like a thief in the night, "what sort of people ought they to be in lives of holiness and godliness (v.11). Some had evidently taken on the attitude, that it had been a "long time" since Jesus left and nothing had changed, he hadn't returned as promised and had become slack in standing their ground.

Verse 9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

Since the recipients are already believers: the "you" becomes believers, the "any" becomes any of the elect (as they are the only ones who will come to repentance), and the "all" becomes al of the elect.

Unfortunately, there is no way someone who does not accept the DoG as defined by C/R (not as the one who opposes it defines it) can ever understand that passage correctly and will always use it as though it is a universal statement of God's will (desire). But if it is, then their interpretation nullifies God's sovereignty. Other attributes as well, but all it takes for an interpretation to be incorrect is for it to violate any of his attributes. If one says if it were not universal, then it would not be love and God is love, it violates sovereignty, and also justice, holy, righteous, etc.

What say you?

I see "will" in this as meaning God doesn't decree that all people are to be saved. I see will here as God "not wanting" all people to perish.

 

[Eleanor]

I agree that love does not override justice. On the other hand, I say that all his attributes, natural and moral, are equally "active" all of the time. That no attribute is subjected to any other attribute in the sense of some attributes not being equal to other attributes. Situational iow.

One is "subject" to another in the sense that all must be in accordance with justice; e.g., sin cannot be overlooked in the name of love, for love must satisfy justice.

Justice and love are harmonious and work together as equals. Justice in regard to love, is God's justice in giving people what they deserve as rebellious sinners is also love. Perfect love cannot allow a just God to violate his own promise and decree that lawlessness meets destruction. Comes under his wrath. And, because he is also immutable, sovereign, righteous, holy, faithful, good etc.

 

[Eleanor]

. . .

 

[fastfredy0]

This passage is often isolated from all context as proof of two things.

1. God is love
2. It is God's will that all be saved.

1) God is love ...
One must define "God's Love".
Love is a volition to favor.
All God's moral attributes are subject to God's attribute of being Holy. God’s love is a passionless, immutable, holy disposition to favor.
God's love is according to the ethical loveliness and divine likeness of the object which is a “bond of unity” per Colossians 3:14 for everything is bound together in agreement when each one seeks the best for others); God himself and those “in Christ” being bonded in agreement.

Premise 1: Habakkuk 1:13b You cannot look on wickedness with favor
Premise 2: The definition of God's love is a volition to favor
Premise 3: Many people are wicked
Conclusion: God does not love everyone ... therefore, 2 Peter 3:9 cannot apply to everyone without exception. Thus, one my seek a definition of "ANY" in the context of 2 Peter 3:9 which verse states God does not wish "ANY" to perish. Since love is a bond of unity and the bible describes those "in Christ" to be in a bond of unity, it would seem "ANY" refers to the elect or a sub-set of the elect.

2) It is God's will that all be saved.
"ALL" is an ambiguous word. One must define the object of the word "ALL". The object of ALL in 2 Peter 3:9 is not directly stated. It could be: all Jews, all men, all kings, all people without exception, yada, yada. It is best to use the hermeneutic rule of interpreting implicit verses by explicit verses to verify assumption.
As verse say God hates the wicked, it would be a contradiction to favor (love) them such that God would wish everyone without exception be saved.

 

[Arial]

One is "subject" to another in the sense that all must be in accordance with justice; e.g., sin cannot be overlooked in the name of love, for love must satisfy justice.

All must be in accordance with who God is. And he is all of his attributes all of the time, in every way, everywhere. But yes, love does not overlook his justice against sin. The fact that he doesn't overlook it but brings its just punishment is love. Jesus made a way by his substitutionary atonement for some to receive mercy.

 

[Arial]

I see "will" in this as meaning God doesn't decree that all people are to be saved. I see will here as God "not wanting" all people to perish.

Does he do what he does not want to do? Or not do what he wants to do? I think he wants the wicked to perish. But that does not mean that it gives him pleasure.

 

[fastfredy0]

The fact that he doesn't overlook it [sin] but brings its just punishment is love.

I think that is wrath, not love.
Love = favor
Wrath = disfavor

 

[CrowCross]

Does he do what he does not want to do?

There's many levels to that question.

Or not do what he wants to do? I think he wants the wicked to perish. But that does not mean that it gives him pleasure.

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?

 

[Arial]

That's just nonsense.

I wonder how those folks would reconcile that interpretation with what Peter stated leading up to verse 3:9.

2 Peter 2:1-3
1But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep. 4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; 6and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter; 7and if He rescued righteous Lot, oppressed by the sensual conduct of unprincipled men 8(for by what he saw and heard that righteous man, while living among them, felt his righteous soul tormented day after day by their lawless deeds), 9then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10and especially those who indulge the flesh in its corrupt desires and despise authority.

That must be a loving form of destruction .

Context, context, and context! See post #7 where I bring that up.

Prompts recall of something else. Are you familiar with apokatastasism? It's a form of universalism that holds God will restore ALL things to their original reconciled state. It differs from universalism in that universalism holds God will save all regardless of whether they accept restoration/reconciliation or not. There used to be an apokatastasist in CARM (can't remember his handle ) that always managed to avoid the prohibition against universalism.

I had not heard of that. In any case it is more evidence that man in his natural state with try any old run around to keep from submitting to Christ and still blindly believe they will be ok.

At any rate, God wants all to repent and God is going to destroy the ungodly. He knows how to rescue the godly and destroy the ungodly. He's not conflicted about it at all. Not even a little .

I would use a bit stronger wording and say God demands all to repent. It is not an option. You do or your face his wrath. And since no one can, it requires his grace to give them to Jesus through regeneration and faith. And since we know he can save to the utmost anyone and even everyone, and we also know that he doesn't----it can only be that he wills who to save. What glory that is to him!

 

[Arial]

There's many levels to that question.

What are those levels? I don't see any.

Eze 18:23 Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, declares the Lord GOD, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live?

I did say that his wanting the wicked to perish does not mean he takes pleasure in it.

Put that passage within its context and what is it saying, to who and why? Also, you have the different usages of will concerning God, Which do you think would apply to that passage,

 

[Arial]

I think that is wrath, not love.
Love = favor
Wrath = disfavor

Would it be love towards his covenant people if he didn't destroy the wicked like he promises he will?

 

[CrowCross]

What are those levels? I don't see any.

Allowance could be a level.

Did God want makind to fall in the garden or did He allow it?