Saturday, July 29, 2006

Goodness of God

Christians say 'God is good all the time'. Amen.

But in reality, God is good only to those whom He choose to reveal His goodness. God is not objectively conceivably good. He is not good to the reprobate. He is only good to Himself and to those who are chosen to receive His goodness.

On the left, we have people spent their whole life reading, researching, finding into materials to reach the Truth.

On the right, we have people who spent almost much lesser amount of time to find out about the Truth. They just knew they are in the right.

So, can there be any reconciliation here? If there is, such statement wouldn't had been recorded:

"What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory..." (Romans 9:22-23)

The world is not fair, not because God is not fair, but because it is just the way things are. Why some are saved without much effort to seek God, while others who spent whole life seeking for something they thought to be true but end up in the wrong? Is this injustice? Perhaps, non-trinitarian humanist has drafted their own map of fairness and justice within their own observation, and tried to judge real geography by that map. Where as the right map is the geography itself.

1 comment:

alwyn said...

If I could put forth an alternative view on Rom 9:22, notice that if God is said to bear with great patience the objects of His wrath, this could mean that:

a) God was HOPING/WAITING (patiently!) that the person/nation in question would repent in order that people might see the glory of a patient God

b) God's wrath came at the END of His patience (just like most of us, I guess, *smile*), so the "objects of wrath" here do not denote objects "predestined" to wrath but objects EVENTUALLY given up to wrath.

I guess I'm saying we don't need to accept any 'mystery' of divine unfairness and no reconciliation is necessary ( bracketing for now the whole idea of 'fairness', which is in principle rather dubious).

What do you think?
Alwyn