God shows no partiality Romans 2:11; Acts 10:34; Deut 10:17; 2Chr 19:7; Job 34:19; Gal 2:6; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25; 1Pet 1:17 -- Also, God is not a LIAR. Numbers 23:19 God is not human, that he should lie. " == That means we should assume all his words astrue and take them on face value, meaning whenever he commands/instructs/plead us of obeying his words, doing good, repenting, turning away from sin etc they are true. And that man is fully able 1 John 3:3-10; Eze 18:29-32 God is good and just, he is not partial unjust who treat people with different standards. God hates injustice and unequal measures. 2Chr 19:7 Now then, let the fear of the LORD be upon you. Be careful what you do, for there is no injustice with the LORD our God, or partiality or taking bribes.” ESV Job 8:3 Does God pervert justice? Or does the Almighty pervert the right? -- Now if you have been totally blinded by Satan, then you will scoff and say "Good luck with living a life!"So rather than actually deal with the biblical presentation for the individual points as we previously witness. The objector erects another false argument to try and refute the the biblical truth of God Sovereign Grace in salvation of sinners. He runs away from it and presents the most basic and most easily contextually refuted arguments. Let us consider these things more closely:
God shows no partiality Romans 2:11; Acts 10:34; Deut 10:17; 2Chr 19:7; Job 34:19; Gal 2:6; Eph 6:9; Col 3:25; 1Pet 1:17Following the logic of this reason, then God cannot actually save anyone truly because He is not 'respecter of persons' as it is assumed that this is to do with salvation (which the context does not support as we shall see); then either he saves all people indiscriminately or he save none because he has no power to choose. Now let us consider these passages to see what they teach.
The first one comes from Romans 2:11 which says:
There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honour and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God. For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. (Romans 2: 9-13)
See the problem in this. There is nothing in this that even speak to the topic of God grace in whom he will save. It is speaking of judgement and the fact that it will come, and when it does it will take place and everyone will be included in despite of who they are (Jew and Gentile) what they have done (good and bad) and even apart from human privileges. It is to say that it has no preference, it has no discriminative point of reference. It will come and it will take place.
Noting the fact that salvation is not even spoken of is a vital point. Now we come to the second verse (Acts 10:34):
Now let us prove this from the context. And it is easy to do such a thing. Here is the key words with some of its surrounding context 'I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.' Note that the 'impartiality' point is explained by this 'but in every nation the man who fears Him.' In other words, God show no impartiality when it comes to salvation; for he has people in all walks of life and all nationality. But even more so, he does not choose people based on who they are, what they have achieved, and where they have come from.
So the bottom line in this is the fact that God choice of whom he saves is not based on the person in question; but solely based on his own kind intention and good pleasure and sovereign purpose. He Choses people because he loves them. Now we come the the three Old Testament passage:
Now, it is important to note exactly what the last verse say and how the objection falls apart on that basis. God shows no partiality to 'princes' and to 'rich above poor' so if this were about salvation (once again, it is not contextually provable); but lets say it is. Then logically following God's choice in whom he saves, does not rest on human position but somewhere other than that; somewhere outside the human realm. Now we come to the final texts:
There we see that Paul had to oppose Peter for his conduct; for the manner in which his conduct was not aligning up with the doctrine. And the 'impartiality' being shown in this was that he favoured one kind of Christian over the other (the Jews); when he should have shown none. This of course, was the issue that Paul was saying that should not exist in Christ's body whom are made up of both Jews and Gentile (Ephesians 2: 11-16). There is to a unity that transcend all humanistic barriers. Whether legal, national, ethnic, societal or any other in Christ such barrier are demolished.
Now let us ask if such a non reformed position can make sense of the following words from Deuteronomy 7:
Now we come to the second objection offered against the Reformed truth that are biblically faithful. We read:
Let us for a moment follow the argument through to where it gets us, shall we? If as it is posited that man has 'ability' to comply and do as God instructs; then logically speaking, would not man need a saviour. For if say Israel could actually keep the law 'thou shall not lie, steal, murder, commit adultery,' then they would presumably be their own saviours and Christ would not need to come. See how this argument is actually own worst enemy and impugns the nature of the salvation that is ours in Christ. And really destroys the gospel from within.
The issue with this 'on face value' is that it is 100% unbiblical. Look Satan got Eve to just take 'God word at face value and trust it. And where did that lead too. The fall. Let consider just one passage mentioned:
Now we do come to a passage which contextually has something to do with Salvation; no one can deny that. But note that the interpretation given (which is common) is not actually supported by the context. Let us see the verse in question 'God is not one to show partiality,' question to consider. Who is speaking? It is Peter. Another question: what does he mean by this and what is the specific link? It has to do with. Firstly, the fact that He is a jew and his up bringing had been that the non Jew (gentile) had nothing whatsoever to do with the Covenant in which he was formerly under. And that prejudice and hostility was an evident reality even in the gospels and something Paul had to deal with in Ephesians 2 and Colossians 2 as well as Philippians 3. Secondly, that he had just previously been instructed by a vision and in direct manner to take the Gospel to non Jews (Acts 10); and even then, he still objected against it because he viewed not Jews as unclean. This then is the issue behind this comment and statement.Opening his mouth, Peter said: “I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him. The word which He sent to the sons of Israel, preaching peace through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all)— you yourselves know the thing which took place throughout all Judea, starting from Galilee, after the baptism which John proclaimed. You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him. We are witnesses of all the things He did both in the land of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They also put Him to death by hanging Him on a cross. God raised Him up on the third day and granted that He become visible, not to all the people, but to witnesses who were chosen beforehand by God, that is, to us who ate and drank with Him after He arose from the dead. And He ordered us to preach to the people, and solemnly to testify that this is the One who has been appointed by God as Judge of the living and the dead. Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins.” (Acts 10:34-43)
Now let us prove this from the context. And it is easy to do such a thing. Here is the key words with some of its surrounding context 'I most certainly understand now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears Him and does what is right is welcome to Him.' Note that the 'impartiality' point is explained by this 'but in every nation the man who fears Him.' In other words, God show no impartiality when it comes to salvation; for he has people in all walks of life and all nationality. But even more so, he does not choose people based on who they are, what they have achieved, and where they have come from.
So the bottom line in this is the fact that God choice of whom he saves is not based on the person in question; but solely based on his own kind intention and good pleasure and sovereign purpose. He Choses people because he loves them. Now we come the the three Old Testament passage:
For the Lord your God is the God of gods and the Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God who does not show partiality nor take a bribe.(Deuteronomy 10:17)All great passages I am sure. But the reasoning like that of the previous 2 examples is somewhat hard to accept, simply because it is not biblically founded. First, what do these passages have to do with God sovereign grace in salvation? There is no direct link given at all. It is just assumed. Secondly, it appears that in putting forth such verses against election i assume, which in reality if they were about salvation (which is not proven contextually); they all actually are wonderful supports for that truth as it is the teaching that God chooses based on his own kindness. And nothing in man. Therefore, it only show that the non reformed stand is being refuted by thee verses. Third, what is the alternative in all this, that God does show partiality in whom he saves, that all humanistic stand points do matter. I am not sure where this thinking would lead. This objector may not think that he is saying this and may vehemently object. But nonetheless, it is exactly what this objection leads too.
Now then let the fear of the Lord be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the Lord our God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality or the taking of a bribe.” (2 Chronicles 19:7)
Who shows no partiality to princes Nor regards the rich above the poor, For they all are the work of His hands? (Job 34:19)
Now, it is important to note exactly what the last verse say and how the objection falls apart on that basis. God shows no partiality to 'princes' and to 'rich above poor' so if this were about salvation (once again, it is not contextually provable); but lets say it is. Then logically following God's choice in whom he saves, does not rest on human position but somewhere other than that; somewhere outside the human realm. Now we come to the final texts:
But from those who were of high reputation (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) (Galatians 2:6)
And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)
For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality. (Colossians 3:25)
If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; (1 Peter 1:17)So the only way to disprove what the bible clearly teaches in regards to how one is saved; by God sovereign grace- Ephesians 1: 3-14, 2: 1-10, and many other great passages teach this self same truth is to go to the practical instructions of each book of the bible as far as the first 3 are concerned. The first half of the same epistles of Paul are largely; if not, fully doctrinal (they give the means of God saving us). And the second half is the practical application of the first truth (what God expects us to do). Let us for a moment take Galatians 2 as an example.
There we see that Paul had to oppose Peter for his conduct; for the manner in which his conduct was not aligning up with the doctrine. And the 'impartiality' being shown in this was that he favoured one kind of Christian over the other (the Jews); when he should have shown none. This of course, was the issue that Paul was saying that should not exist in Christ's body whom are made up of both Jews and Gentile (Ephesians 2: 11-16). There is to a unity that transcend all humanistic barriers. Whether legal, national, ethnic, societal or any other in Christ such barrier are demolished.
Now let us ask if such a non reformed position can make sense of the following words from Deuteronomy 7:
The Lord did not set His love on you nor choose you because you were more in number than any of the peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples, but because the Lord loved you and kept the oath which He swore to your forefathers, the Lord brought you out by a mighty hand and redeemed you from the house of slavery, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt. Know therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, who keeps His covenant and His lovingkindness to a thousandth generation with those who love Him and keep His commandments;Why was it that God chose Israel? It was not because they were (1) large in number. (2) strong. (3) because they were beautiful or intelligent. No, the reason that God, to use the contextual term 'set his love on them' was in fact because he 'loved them' and that is the very key distinction in all of this. He chose is real because he loved them and had promised to do such a thing as redeem them. And it is the same with all believers in Christ, he chooses a people because he loves them. And that is the simply truth in all of this. No impartiality is seen in this as it is not what a person is or has. But because of God, and he alone.
Now we come to the second objection offered against the Reformed truth that are biblically faithful. We read:
Also, God is not a LIAR. Numbers 23:19 God is not human, that he should lie. " == That means we should assume all his words as true and take them on face value, meaning whenever he commands/instructs/plead us of obeying his words, doing good, repenting, turning away from sin etc they are true. And that man is fully able 1 John 3:3-10; Eze 18:29-32Once again, we met the problem of not using logic in our objections. No Calvinist or Reformed person would ever call God a liar. And this is what is posited in our regard with out a shred of evidence to substantiate it. Let us now consider this objection with some clear thought. It is said that God gives man a command to follow; therefore, it is only fair that man should be able to follow such a command. And on the surface, such would be seen as a fair assumption. But really it shows a lack of understanding what is at stake when dealing with this matter. And we are dealing a false synergistic ideal that has no basis in the scripture.
Let us for a moment follow the argument through to where it gets us, shall we? If as it is posited that man has 'ability' to comply and do as God instructs; then logically speaking, would not man need a saviour. For if say Israel could actually keep the law 'thou shall not lie, steal, murder, commit adultery,' then they would presumably be their own saviours and Christ would not need to come. See how this argument is actually own worst enemy and impugns the nature of the salvation that is ours in Christ. And really destroys the gospel from within.
The issue with this 'on face value' is that it is 100% unbiblical. Look Satan got Eve to just take 'God word at face value and trust it. And where did that lead too. The fall. Let consider just one passage mentioned:
And everyone who has this hope fixed on Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness. You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:3-10)
I am trying to find the relevance of this section of scripture to the current issue at hand. The 'inabilities of man' and at that the natural unregenerate man. This would be the clearest misuse and abuse of a text of scripture; the passage and in fact, the whole letter is addressed to whom? Believers. Those whom have been given spiritual life and therefore are 'children of God' as verse 9-10 demonstrate. There is a real problem in the non-reformed camps when it comes to a simply reading of scripture in its entirety; and it is alarming.
It is clear in that it has gone from the cultic mentality of quote verse with a false assumption behind it to quoting entire sections and ignoring the very passage that refutes the intended purpose in quoting it. This is about Believers only. Now lets consider just one passage of many that speak to the natural man inability, shall we? In Romans 8 we are told the following words:
For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8: 5-8)In this passage, we should note the following: verse 5 gives the basic description, the contrasting lives being lived (a) 'Those who live according to the flesh' that is the worldly unregenerate person, the unbeliever. It is not speaking to sin as such; though that is there in some manner. (b) 'those who live in accordance with the Spirit' that is the spiritually renewed person, the believer. There then is the categories and the manners of existence of two kind of people: the unbeliever and the believer. And that is the only way to understand this. One is in Adam: the unbeliever. And one is in Christ: the believer. So we have the starting point.
Now let us note what the 7th and 8th verse say of the unbeliever 'The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those who are in the realm of the flesh cannot please God.' This is the issue at hand. The unbeliever has not the ability (the more literal translation of 'cannot' from the Greek. Says James R White in his book 'The Potter's Freedom'); now let us not what the natural man, the unbeliever cannot do 'submit to God's law, and even please God.' Question: Does this even sound as though the bible teaches that natural man can do spiritual good things such as repent and believe apart from God actually changing the person to do so? Just as Jesus tells 'no one can come to me unless the Father draws him' and it is then and only then that man can truly seek God.
It is as Paul says in Ephesian 2 of 'the rebellious man' of verses 1-3 that the believer was once apart of that crowd; and would have had no choice about it. It was his destiny all of his own. Until a certain point and what was that point: 'But God' God is the one that calls people to himself and gives them new life and a new start in Christ, the sovereign Saviour by given them the Spirit who changes their very live's direction and path. They were of darkness but now in Christ's marvellous light. It is all the triune God's activity in saving sinners.
And now come to the third and final part of this argument which states the following:
As we saw in part one and the previous section in this part that the arguments put forth could not be exegetically proven to be valid. And the exegetical strength of the Reformed position stand clear as day. Note the two scriptures that called upon has nothing to do with salvation at all.
The first being 2 Chronicles 19 7; let us consider the full context though:
Now what is the issue here? Well, we will allow verse 3 to tell us 'But there is some good in you, for you have removed the Asheroth from the land and you have set your heart to seek God.' There is the issue that we have to recognise. The previous verses reveal that this man had done some wrong and was confronted by Jehu about his treacherous activity. But we see that there is still some hope for him. And what follows verse 3 that is verse 4 speaks of a first sign of revival. The obedience of one man and the return of the people to God and their place of honour.
And all that is to follow is a reform to the ways that God has intended for his people to live under his rule and command. And His people are to have a singular mindset: His ways and not their own. His to be the one that they live for and even if necessary die for. And the manner that conduct themselves is to be like their mighty God; they are live and abide with the same outlook that God does. They are to judge fairly according to a particular standard and not according to double standards and favouritism. It is to be impartial and balanced, that is the point.
Let us consider the second scripture mentioned in this statement:
Now with this brief point made. Our immediate attention should be one what verse. Not verse 3 but verse 1. Why? Well, for this simple reason. Bildad is one of Job's so called friends; he is actually one of three antagonists. His role was to support and comfort; but he turned on Job as quick as darkness fell. While such questions are in and of themselves right and correct; it however, in this case, has no baring and it turns out that such questioning is a guise into a deeper issue of discontent and vitriol against Job and God as well.
Remember the issue is not about God justice. But in this matter God's sovereign control and human comfort in that fact. And once again, this whole subject has no connection contextually to Salvation where God is in full control. Man has no say in either matter. God's justice is to do with his judgement and wrath; God's mercy has to do with he choosing a person not based on the persons own merit or worth. But solely because God first loved us and that love drove hime to chose us and then redeem us in his beloved son, by his precious blood.
And now come to the third and final part of this argument which states the following:
God hates injustice and unequal measures. 2Chr 19:7 Now then, let the fear of the LORD be upon you. Be careful what you do, for there is no injustice with the LORD our God, or partiality or taking bribes.” ESV Job 8:3 Does God pervert justice? Or does the Almighty pervert the right? -- Now if you have been totally blinded by Satan, then you will scoff and say "Good luck with living a life!"So here we have the final thing said against the Reformed position; and we see it is nothing but empty rhetoric and a lousy argument. It is not worth even the time of day in either putting it together nor responding to it. But that is not the fair thing to do; therefore, we shall proceed with dealing it to make it clear that the biblical testimony to God sovereign grace is a clear biblical teaching. And those who have a heart to allow the bible to speak will see the beauty in God's work. Yes, it is God work and he alone accomplishes it; we have nothing to do with it.
As we saw in part one and the previous section in this part that the arguments put forth could not be exegetically proven to be valid. And the exegetical strength of the Reformed position stand clear as day. Note the two scriptures that called upon has nothing to do with salvation at all.
The first being 2 Chronicles 19 7; let us consider the full context though:
He appointed judges in the land in all the fortified cities of Judah, city by city. He said to the judges, “Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the Lord who is with you when you render judgment. Now then let the fear of the Lord be upon you; be very careful what you do, for the Lord our God will have no part in unrighteousness or partiality or the taking of a bribe.” In Jerusalem also Jehoshaphat appointed some of the Levites and priests, and some of the heads of the fathers’ households of Israel, for the judgment of the Lord and to judge disputes among the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Then he charged them saying, “Thus you shall do in the fear of the Lord, faithfully and wholeheartedly. Whenever any dispute comes to you from your brethren who live in their cities, between blood and blood, between law and commandment, statutes and ordinances, you shall warn them so that they may not be guilty before the Lord, and wrath may not come on you and your brethren. Thus you shall do and you will not be guilty. Behold, Amariah the chief priest will be over you in all that pertains to the Lord, and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the ruler of the house of Judah, in all that pertains to the king. Also the Levites shall be officers before you. Act resolutely, and the Lord be with the upright.”What has this got to do with God eternal plan of redemption? Nothing. While it is a great and mighty move of God in His people lives, all such revivals and reforms are. That however, does not prove the contention; it only proves one thing, this man has deliberately ignored the context for his own gain. And that is an unforgivable thing for a christian to do in any form.
Now what is the issue here? Well, we will allow verse 3 to tell us 'But there is some good in you, for you have removed the Asheroth from the land and you have set your heart to seek God.' There is the issue that we have to recognise. The previous verses reveal that this man had done some wrong and was confronted by Jehu about his treacherous activity. But we see that there is still some hope for him. And what follows verse 3 that is verse 4 speaks of a first sign of revival. The obedience of one man and the return of the people to God and their place of honour.
And all that is to follow is a reform to the ways that God has intended for his people to live under his rule and command. And His people are to have a singular mindset: His ways and not their own. His to be the one that they live for and even if necessary die for. And the manner that conduct themselves is to be like their mighty God; they are live and abide with the same outlook that God does. They are to judge fairly according to a particular standard and not according to double standards and favouritism. It is to be impartial and balanced, that is the point.
Let us consider the second scripture mentioned in this statement:
Then Bildad the Shuhite answered, “How long will you say these things, And the words of your mouth be a mighty wind? “Does God pervert justice? Or does the Almighty pervert what is right? “If your sons sinned against Him, Then He delivered them into the power of their transgression. “If you would seek God. And implore the compassion of the Almighty, If you are pure and upright, Surely now He would rouse Himself for you and restore your righteous estate. “Though your beginning was insignificant, Yet your end will increase greatly. (Job 8:1-7)Here then is the final passage mentioned in this long list of verses and so on. And like the rest there is lack of context; and even more striking, a lack of understanding. The first thing to note in this is that the Book of Job even though it is God word, it has a singular purpose and it is not the same as the rest of the bible even though it has a number common themes in it to the rest. There is a clear distinction and that is it sole theme if you will is the vindication of God as creator and sovereign ruler. That is its primary focus. Let us not forget this.
Now with this brief point made. Our immediate attention should be one what verse. Not verse 3 but verse 1. Why? Well, for this simple reason. Bildad is one of Job's so called friends; he is actually one of three antagonists. His role was to support and comfort; but he turned on Job as quick as darkness fell. While such questions are in and of themselves right and correct; it however, in this case, has no baring and it turns out that such questioning is a guise into a deeper issue of discontent and vitriol against Job and God as well.
Remember the issue is not about God justice. But in this matter God's sovereign control and human comfort in that fact. And once again, this whole subject has no connection contextually to Salvation where God is in full control. Man has no say in either matter. God's justice is to do with his judgement and wrath; God's mercy has to do with he choosing a person not based on the persons own merit or worth. But solely because God first loved us and that love drove hime to chose us and then redeem us in his beloved son, by his precious blood.
