Question for meticulous sovereignty folks

[JAL]

God promises us His Children eternal life. You have set yourself up to be judge over God.
Billions before they had a chance to sin? Since Adam all men are born in sin.

I'm not judging God. I am just clarifying your view. If this is how you understand Adam's role, then God is a monster. As long as you are consistent, you are entitled to this conclusion. Again, I can't really disprove it. If your understanding of the verse "God is love" translates to, "God is the monster who condemns people before they've had a chance to exercise free will", this means you are treating all the verses consistently. Fair enough. I have no quarrel with you.

Whereas, in my view of Adam, everyone had a chance to exercise free will. If you don't see why, feel free to read my essay on Adam.

 

[nobdysfool]

Take a look at this post, and this one, to see some past interaction with JAL, and his avoidance of and resistance to being examined. I show that he has erected at least 8 straw men, and has denied some core Christian doctrine, and his repsonse is to dismiss me without ever answering my chages. Why? Because he cannot.

JAL is pushing strange doctrine, foreign to scripture. In the thread "Why Federalism is self-contradictory", he espouses what is basically "New Age" concepts.

The idea that we should measure God's Justice in the light of our own flawed and imperfect understanding is to reduc e God to just a bigger, more powerful version of ourselves, and denies the Transcendence of God. The idea of calling Justice "Fairness" is to allow the viewpoint of the guilty to define the viewpoint of the Judge. The reality is, God defines Justice, as it is an essential component of His very Nature. He reveals His Nature in scripture, such that we may gain at least some sense of Him as God, and Transcendent over Man. Our concepts of Justice are based on His. but, JAL wants to reverse the order and claim that God's concept of Justice is based on ours. This is a core charge against his doctrines that he so far has refused to answer other than to dismiss it as "rhetoric", while not actually attempting to show why it is rhetoric, and therefore dismissable.

Notice how he attacks me for daring to question his statements, and notice the lack of proof, other than the unproven statements he's already made. Read it for yourself.

 

[JAL]

Take a look at this post, and this one, to see some past interaction with JAL, and his avoidance of and resistance to being examined. I show that he has erected at least 8 straw men, and has denied some core Christian doctrine, and his repsonse is to dismiss me without ever answering my chages. Why? Because he cannot.

JAL is pushing strange doctrine, foreign to scripture. In the thread "Why Federalism is self-contradictory", he espouses what is basically "New Age" concepts.

Strange doctrine being pushed by Jal?

As I said, Millard J. Erickson's systematic theology is a standard systematic theology textbook, as far as I know, in seminaries accross the country. One thing is sure - he is arguably the most renowned evangelical theologian of our generation. And what does he conclude?

That (1) all men have physical souls and (2) that we were all physically present in Adam and thereby all sinned in his one act of rebellion.

The idea that we should measure God's Justice in the light of our own flawed and imperfect understanding is to reduc e God to just a bigger, more powerful version of ourselves, and denies the Transcendence of God. The idea of calling Justice "Fairness" is to allow the viewpoint of the guilty to define the viewpoint of the Judge. The reality is, God defines Justice, as it is an essential component of His very Nature. He reveals His Nature in scripture, such that we may gain at least some sense of Him as God, and Transcendent over Man. Our concepts of Justice are based on His. but, JAL wants to reverse the order and claim that God's concept of Justice is based on ours. This is a core charge against his doctrines that he so far has refused to answer other than to dismiss it as "rhetoric", while not actually attempting to show why it is rhetoric, and therefore dismissable.

And what would we call a human judge who, much like Hitler, condemns people to death without a justifiable basis? We'd call him a monster. As I said, that's fine with me. I'm not going to keep debating you on this, if you are consistent. If the verse, "God is love" means, in your view, "God is a monster" (which spells the end of Christian hope), and if you, being logically consistent, freely admit there is no Christian hope, fine with me. I probably cannot disprove your view.

I have no quarrel with people who are logically consistent. Far be it from me to presume myself intelligent enough to disprove their position. My apologies for thinking that you were inconsistent.

Notice how he attacks me for daring to question his statements, and notice the lack of proof, other than the unproven statements he's already made. Read it for yourself.

I respond in kind. Give me rhetoric? That's what you'll get - rhetoric. Give me a reasonable argument? That's what you'll get in return. It's all up to you.

 

[MamaZ]

Well one thing is for certain. God is not man and man is not God so in order for some to want to bring God down to their level instead of going up to God level it does become strange. For if God does not look like the worlds view of fair then one must understand that it is not God who rules the minds and thoughts of the people in this world but the enemy and the enemy is the complete opposite of God and this is why some people cannot understand fair. For they look at it in humanistic reasoning instead of by the Spirit.

 

[nobdysfool]

Strange doctrine being pushed by Jal?

Yup. For most of the readers, that would be a self-evident statement.

As I said, Millard J. Erickson's systematic theology is a standard systematic theology textbook, as far as I know, in seminaries accross the country. One thing is sure - he is arguably the most renowned evangelical theologian of our generation. And what does he conclude?

That (1) all men have physical souls and (2) that we were all physically present in Adam and thereby all sinned in his one act of rebellion.

He's half-right, at best. Men do not possess a soul, men are souls. God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, and breathed into him the breath of life (spirit) and man became a living soul. A living soul consists of body and spirit. The soul is not a separate part of man, it is the definition of man. Men are not tripartite beings. Men are souls in possession of a spirit and a body.

We were all seminally present in Adam when he sinned, in the same way that Levi was in Abraham when Abe paid tithes to Melchizadek, King of Salem. It is the way God views mankind, judicially. We did not exist as separate living souls when Adam sinned, but judicially, we are counted as having been there. You can call God unjust for seeing us that way if you want. but the Judge sets the rules, the prisoner doesn't.

I don't care how great a theologian you claim this guy is, but if he says we possess physical souls, and were physically present in Adam when Adam sinned, he has missed some things.

And what would we call a human judge who, much like Hitler, condemns people to death without a justifiable basis? We'd call him a monster. As I said, that's fine with me. I'm not going to keep debating you on this, if you are consistent. If the verse, "God is love" means, in your view, "God is a monster" (which spells the end of Christian hope), and if you, being logically consistent, freely admit there is no Christian hope, fine with me. I probably cannot disprove your view.

The problem is, you continually try to tell me what I believe, and tell others what I'm "really" saying, rather than deal with what I have actually said, without reinterpreting and redefining it. In essence, your answers, such as they are, are answering your own redefinitions, and not what I actually said. Notice how you redefine my words, and even what you imagine my words to be, in the terms of your won view. God is love = God is a monster. That's your view, not mine.

It's usually considered that the mention of Hitler in trying to answer an opposing viewpoint, indicates that one has run out of options, and shows the untenable nature of your argument, by appealing to an emotional construct, comparing the opposition's argument to Hitler, as though that was the be-all and end-all of the argument..

I have no quarrel with people who are logically consistent. Far be it from me to presume myself intelligent enough to disprove their position. My apologies for thinking that you were inconsistent.

But what have you tried to do? Convince people that you are logically consistent, and I have shown that you are not. Your response is to accuse me falsely, and to insult anyone who does not immediately accede to your view.

I respond in kind. Give me rhetoric? That's what you'll get - rhetoric. Give me a reasonable argument? That's what you'll get in return. It's all up to you.

I have tried to reasonably argue with you, but your response has been ad hominems and insults. Thus, you get what you give. I have shown that you cannot answer my challenges, so now you insult, and dismiss. You are free to do so, but you are not free to claim that it is I who cannot answer. I have. You have not. That's the way it is.

 

[squint]

All powers and authorities in the heavens and the earth of what ever kind are all the result of the creation of God [A] ....all of those powers and authorities in the heavens and the earth of what ever kind are inclusive in the creation

Hence the logical equation can only include God [A] ... and that which God has created

There is NO other logical construct.

When you have a full and complete understanding of everything that there is or ever will be, THEN you can tell me how swell your construct is. I pointed out that there are things that are COUNTER to creation. Your construct has no fit for that. Simple logic.

Anti-creation is anti-Christ...and is a constituent principle/part of the creation ...there is only one other catergory...God [A]

Says you. Powers or principles that are ANTI-creation do not categorize to be the SAME AS creation. "Created" yes. Creation...no. God 'created' ANTI-creation. Chew on it for a minute and it'll come to ya.

If you wanted to lump them both into one pile and call that pile ALL THINGS you'd at least be accurate as to the entirety of 'all things.'

The formula God is [A] and all that is created is is logical...and establishes the utter transcendence of A over B.

I accept this portion of your logic with the adjustment to 'all things' rather than 'creation.'

Hence the legal code applicable to B [imposed by A] is not applicable to A.

I think many of us already know that in the world of Calvinism God can do anything He wants, even with a most VILE outcome.

This is why God can not sin...or be charged [successfully] with unrighteousness.

Look, none of us should debate Divine Superiority. The conclusions of what Divine Superiority actually IS or results IN is where the wheels come off the cart.

This is the foundational principle inherent in the concept of God's Holiness...it is that He is separate from us.

Adam is described as God's son. (Luke 3:38)

How is it exactly that you propose to DIVIDE God's son from his Father again???

He is always the I AM ... we are always that which is other than "I am"
You did not address the issue of God's transcendence over the human paradigm of justice as seen in the example of Job

Transcendence is not the issue in these exchanges. It is in B defining what A is and does.

enjoy!

squint

 

[squint]

This post of yours, Squint (#168), is quite long. Let’s see what I can do here.

I apologize. Interesting subject matter.

By “age of accountability” I do not mean to imply that babes are innocent. All babes are guilty in Adam. To see what I mean by this, please check out the link that I just provided, to my critique of Federalism.

Since all babes are guilty in Adam, you cannot presume to save them by abortion. Sorry, but I am not necessarily convinced that “all babes go to heaven.”

OK. So God burns 'some' babies alive forever in fire but SOME He saves because they haven't reached the age of 'accountability.'

Originally I though by “luck” you were implying that behavior which is not predetermined is random behavior. Now I am gleaning that by luck you refer to whether we are fortunate enough to be born into circumstances favorable to the gospel.

Generally, yes.

I think you may be getting off-topic. The main issue I raised is that Adam is pronounced a transgressor. This makes no sense if Adam had no free will.

Adam's being delivered a potential death sentence, a LAW that contained a huge conundrum (eat freely BUT) and being SUBJECT TO DECEPTION by another entity had NOTHING to do with Adam's 'circumstances?'

Let’s deal with that issue first, and then let’s decide if we need to discuss whether the rest of us have free will.

As most of your post is dealing with “the rest of us” rather than with Adam, I am not terribly eager to address it at this point. Romans 5 centers divine judgment on Adam. It is therefore paramount that we deal with Adam appropriately, before dealing with “the rest of us.”

Again you cite this verse, to prove that God foreordained the atonement:

“And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8).

I already addressed this. Your reading is unclear and problematical. If Christ was slain before the foundation of the world, then the cross, and the supposed hypostatic union, all happened twice. This kind of reading borders on absurdity. I am not going to build a whole theology on an unclear verse.

Quite an aside really. My observation was that the PLAN was always in place in the mind of God, as Christ was/is IN GOD. There is no logical way to divide Christ away from God.

But this is hyperbolizing my position. No one thinks the atonement is random chance, or dreamt up at the last minute.

Good.

God prepared, before the foundation of the world, for the event of the fall, should it happen.

God in Christ a contingency plan then eh? lol God scratches Head and says, well I DUNNO...it COULD happen! Sorry. Chuckling a little over this one.

It did happen and so He reacted accordingly. This doesn’t prove that He foreknew it, much less foreordained it.

Even a 'contingency plan' is FOREordained based upon an IF it happened eh?

I’m not going to address every word of your post point by point because most of it isn’t focused on Adam. Maybe I’ll take another look at it to see if I missed any relevant points.

Sure.

A couple things to keep in mind with Adam. One, Adam was God's son. It becomes problematic then to SLUR Adam. God certain did make Adam both SUBJECT to DEATH and SUBJECT to 'disobedience' (as He did ALL MANKIND ala Romans 11:32) which then DID transpire. God would NOT have had to make that situation for Adam, but HE DID.

The other is that SIN ENTERED Adam, showing that SIN does not HAVE to be the produce of ADAM, but of that which ENTERED ADAM. Paul does a very nice job of detailing the FACT that the sin that INDWELT his own flesh was NOT HIM in Romans 7:17-21. We also know that 'he who commits sin is OF THE DEVIL, so it is the DEVIL who is fully implicated in ALL SIN. (1 John 3:8)

Sin does transpire in OUR bodies and minds, making SIN OURS as it pertains to its 'occupancy' with us, but that working in which ANOTHER ENTITY is clearly involved does not make SIN solely of MANKIND.

Paul again does an exceptionally fine job of delineating this principle in Romans 9:19-21 wherein he defined that in the SAME LUMP called "ME" there are in fact TWO SEPARATE VESSELS with TWO SEPARATE FATES/WORKINGS.

The difficulties with both freewillism and Calvin determinism is that they think themselves FREE of the workings of the VESSELS of DIShonor in themselves, which in itself is a PRODUCE of the VESSELS OF DIShonor.

enjoy!

squint

 

[JAL]

NobodysFool, there is a reason that I don’t respond to most of your challenges. I consider that reason obvious, but for the sake of those not privy to my former debates with you, I will clarify.

Most of your “challenges” and “responses” to me are an exercise in a logical fallacy called ignoratio elenchi (irrelevant argumentation) because they don’t respect the nature of my argument. Most of the time, your response is, “Jal, you have’t provided enough evidence for your position, for example you haven’t proven your position from Scripture.”

Totally misses the force of my arguments. I’ll start from the ground up, once again clarifying my approach (sigh).

With the approach I take, I generally don’t even needto support my position, or provide evidence for it. I try to provide some evidence, but it’s not strictly necessary.

Here’s why. I lean heavily on an axiom stated earler, namely that when a theologian is faced with two propositions, the one more intelligible than the other, he should opt for the more intelligible, for instance the one with less apparent contradictions.

If we conistently opt for the one more unintelligible, the one with more apparent contradictions, the obvious result is utterly incoherent theology. Sheer nonsense. Therefore we should always be striving to gravitate in the other direction (the direction of intelligibility).


The result is that, generally, I don’t need to make a positive argument, as I pointed out earlier. I generally don’t need to provide positive evidence for my position. I can simply rely on a negative argument – I simply need to point out contradictions on the other side of the debate.

Example. The “other side” proposes that Adam’s behavior was predetermined by God. This results in a humanly incoherent doctrine of divine justice. It won’t do to reply “but we are humans, so we don’t have to understand anything.” That kind of attitude results in incoherent theology. We might as well shut the down the seminaries, if we are always going to prefer the more-unintelligible theory over the more-intelligible theory.

The more intelligible theory is that Adam’s behavior was not predetermined. I call such behavior “exercising free will.”

Here’s an example of how NobodysFool completely ignores the nature of my argument. He writes:

Yup. For most of the readers, that would be a self-evident statement.

He's half-right, at best. Men do not possess a soul, men are souls. God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, and breathed into him the breath of life (spirit) and man became a living soul. A living soul consists of body and spirit. The soul is not a separate part of man, it is the definition of man. Men are not tripartite beings. Men are souls in possession of a spirit and a body.

We were all seminally present in Adam when he sinned, in the same way that Levi was in Abraham when Abe paid tithes to Melchizadek, King of Salem. It is the way God views mankind, judicially. We did not exist as separate living souls when Adam sinned, but judicially, we are counted as having been there. You can call God unjust for seeing us that way if you want. but the Judge sets the rules, the prisoner doesn't.

I don't care how great a theologian you claim this guy is, but if he says we possess physical souls, and were physically present in Adam when Adam sinned, he has missed some things.

Completely misses the force of my argument. He is trying to debate me on whether I can “prove” from Scripture that the soul is physical. Totally irrelevant. Here again, was my argument. I pointed out that some of the greatest Calvinistic theologians in church history (for instance G.C. Berkouwer) admit that Calvinism does not provide a humanly intelligible, humanly coherent concept of justice, meaning that it is an apparent contradiction with justice. So I provided a theory of Adam (as having a physical soul) which resolves the apparent contradiction. I am not trying to “prove” my theory true. That’s not the nature of the argument.

The argument, again, is that when we are faced with two possible propositions, the one full of apparent contractions, the other one far more intelligible (e.g. resolves those contradictions), the responsible theologian will choose the more intelligible one.

In fact, the idea of a physical soul resolves a number of longstanding contradictions which theologians have been unable to solve for 2000 years (I can name them if you like). How much longer are we going to wait on them? Another 2000 years? Please.

God is love = God is a monster. That's your view, not mine.

Nope. If you imply that God is a monster, than you imply it in all passages, even the ones where it says that He is love. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

So the real question is, does Calvinism villainize God? Again, don’t tell me, “God is just humanly incoherent. We have to accept humanly unintellible theology.” No, not if we have a more humanly intelligible theory. To always prefer the more-unintelligible theory leads to sheer gibberish.

So again, does Calvinism villainize God? I think, in these debates, we lose sight of the real picture. For some of you, I think you need to let reality set in. Light a match and hold your finger in the flame as long as possible. Better yet, put your kids’ fingers in the flame for a while. Now, did you enjoy watching your children burn in the fire? Did you take pleasure in it? I think not – because you are not a monster. Calvinism says that God, for His own glory – yes, His own pleasure – assignes people to eternal hellfire before they even had a chance to exercise free will.


Sorry, but that’s the definition of a monster, and if you deny this fact, then I will have to wonder whether you too, are a monster. The jury is still out on that one, it seems to me.

It's usually considered that the mention of Hitler in trying to answer an opposing viewpoint, indicates that one has run out of options, and shows the untenable nature of your argument, by appealing to an emotional construct, comparing the opposition's argument to Hitler, as though that was the be-all and end-all of the argument..

Fine. No need to appeal to Hitler. Consider the above discussion of hellfire.

But what have you tried to do? Convince people that you are logically consistent, and I have shown that you are not. Your response is to accuse me falsely, and to insult anyone who does not immediately accede to your view.

I have tried to reasonably argue with you, but your response has been ad hominems and insults. Thus, you get what you give. I have shown that you cannot answer my challenges, so now you insult, and dismiss. You are free to do so, but you are not free to claim that it is I who cannot answer. I have. You have not. That's the way it is.

Ok, we’ve both insulted each other. Fair enough. Let’s get back to the arguments.

I want to make one more comment on this statement of yours:

He's half-right, at best. Men do not possess a soul, men are souls. God formed Adam from the dust of the ground, and breathed into him the breath of life (spirit) and man became a living soul. A living soul consists of body and spirit. The soul is not a separate part of man, it is the definition of man. Men are not tripartite beings. Men are souls in possession of a spirit and a body.

One thing I don't like about this statement is that it quibbles over terminology. The term "soul" is often used in theological circles as a reference to the inner man (what you apparently call "the spirit"). Paul even spoke of "spirit, soul, and body".

Look, like Charles Hodge, I'm a dichotomist. Man is twofold (the inner man and the outer body) and I frankly couldn't care less whether you call the inner man spirit, soul, heart, inner man, mind, consciousness, or whatever you please.

If you want to debate whether this inner man is physical or nonphysical, fine, but I'm not going to do much with that on this thread. Please post it on a thread where I've already provided most of my biblical evidence for physical metaphysics. I don't want to repeat all that material here, as it would be getting off topic.

You say you want biblical evidence? Fine. Take a look at the biblical evidence I furnished on that thread.

 

[JAL]

Moreover, not only does Calvinism render God cruel, it also renders Him a liar.

It is a lie to pronounce someone guilty who has never exercised free will.

And yet that's exactly what Calvinism does. All men are born in guilty in Adam without having exercised free will, according to Calvinism.

If God be such a liar, His promises are worthless. This is the end of Christian hope.

A commentator made an interesting observation of the Greek text. Paul says that "all sinned" (Rom 6). There were plenty of babes in Paul's day. How had they sinned? How do they satisfy Rom 6? If they exercised free will in Adam, as in my view, the passage isn't a problem.

Rom 6 is talking about actual sin. All sinned. Every babe has sinned.

The parallel is that Paul uses the same Greek construct in Rom 5 where he says that "all sinned" in Adam. The most intelligible solution - the one most free of apparent contradictions - is that we exercised free will in Adam.

 

[JAL]

When you have a full and complete understanding of everything that there is or ever will be, THEN you can tell me how swell your construct is. I pointed out that there are things that are COUNTER to creation. Your construct has no fit for that. Simple logic.



Says you. Powers or principles that are ANTI-creation do not categorize to be the SAME AS creation. "Created" yes. Creation...no. God 'created' ANTI-creation. Chew on it for a minute and it'll come to ya.

If you wanted to lump them both into one pile and call that pile ALL THINGS you'd at least be accurate as to the entirety of 'all things.'



I accept this portion of your logic with the adjustment to 'all things' rather than 'creation.'



I think many of us already know that in the world of Calvinism God can do anything He wants, even with a most VILE outcome.



Look, none of us should debate Divine Superiority. The conclusions of what Divine Superiority actually IS or results IN is where the wheels come off the cart.



Adam is described as God's son. (Luke 3:38)

How is it exactly that you propose to DIVIDE God's son from his Father again???



Transcendence is not the issue in these exchanges. It is in B defining what A is and does.

enjoy!

squint

See my last response to NobodysFool. I think you're making the same mistake. I think you're missing the force of my argument.

I have tried to produce a theological system free of contradictions. If your theology still has the contradictions that my system resolves, then mine should be preferred it seems to me.

If you disagree, then you need to resolve the apparent contradictions that I allege. If you don't resolve them, you are not really responding to my arguments.

 

[squint]

See my last response to NobodysFool. I think you're making the same mistake. I think you're missing the force of my argument.

The 'force' of your arguments are no different than that of the Calvinists. You dangle your fellow man over the SAME MATCH threatening their eternal torture in fire for NON-performance of their 'free'will.

That is not 'free'will, it is baldfaced coercion by threat. No different than a criminal holding a gun to your head and forcing you to hand over your wallet to spare your OWN HIDE.

I have tried to produce a theological system free of contradictions. If your theology still has the contradictions that my system resolves, then mine should be preferred it seems to me.

You can have whatever you want. I like my conversation to reside in particulars and reasonings with Word and legitimate engagements in dialog/sharing.

If you disagree, then you need to resolve the apparent contradictions that I allege. If you don't resolve them, you are not really responding to my arguments.

I responded point by point and countered with my own observations for whatever 'testing' they are worth. That is how we 'both' gain my friend and there is NO GAIN in cloaking ourselves in OFFENCE or dodging observations.

enjoy!

squint

 

[themuzicman]

Just a short butt-in...

IN free will, people aren't sent to hell for not believing. They're sent to hell because they've sinned against God.

Muz

 

[JAL]

Just a short butt-in...

IN free will, people aren't sent to hell for not believing. They're sent to hell because they've sinned against God.

Muz

What do you think Paul meant by "all have sinned?"

I mean, there were babes around, even fetal humans, when Paul wrote, "all have sinned."

How do you explain that? Does every fetus sin in the womb, by free will?

 

[JAL]

The 'force' of your arguments are no different than that of the Calvinists. You dangle your fellow man over the SAME MATCH threatening their eternal torture in fire for NON-performance of their 'free'will.

No, it’s not the same thing. To punish a man for freely, volitionally transgressing the law is not the same thing as punishing a man who had no choice as to his behavior. The one is just, the other unjust. Secondly, I don’t believe that hell is eternal. I think it’s very longlasting though, maybe a million years. Just my opinion. (I doubt that a finite crime merits an infinite, eternal penalty). I will soon quit responding to you if you keep insisting that my position is the same as Calvinism. Please respect the differences.

That is not 'free'will, it is baldfaced coercion by threat. No different than a criminal holding a gun to your head and forcing you to hand over your wallet to spare your OWN HIDE.

No, the difference there is that your conscience carried no prior sense of moral obligation to give your wallet to this stranger. You are being coerced to act contrary to what your conscience is actually inclined to do. I agree with you that, in such a scenario, morality tends to recede to the background. However, the testimony of Scripture seems to be that all men, including Adam, have a conscience inclined to obey God. Here again, I don’t need much Scripture to support my conclusion. To maintain that God was coercing Adam to contradict his conscience would render Him a monster. Regardless of whether there was a penalty, Adam was obligated to heed his conscience.

 

[JAL]

We were all seminally present in Adam when he sinned, in the same way that Levi was in Abraham when Abe paid tithes to Melchizadek, King of Salem. It is the way God views mankind, judicially. We did not exist as separate living souls when Adam sinned, but judicially, we are counted as having been there. You can call God unjust for seeing us that way if you want. but the Judge sets the rules, the prisoner doesn't.

I took another look at this statement of yours. You seem to be drawing an unclear conclusion from an unclear passage in Hebrews. Your reading of it is that Levi was seminally present in Abraham?
I’m not even sure what that would mean. Abraham was not the father of Levi, as I recall. Are you saying that Abraham’s sperm was somehow preserved before he died, and later gave birth to Levi?

The passage in Hebrews is probably more harmonious with the church father Tertuallian (200 A.D.), who was a staunch materialist like I am. Tertullian held that God causes fathers to pass on portions of their physical soul to their own sons and even to later generations. This was how he explained the origin of our sinful nature.

On the other hand, I’m not even sure that the writer of Hebrews was speaking literally when he made that statement.

And you want to take this idea even further. It’s hard enough to believe that Abraham’s sperm was born as Levi – now you want to go back as far as Adam? You say that we were “seminally” present in Adam. What’s that supposed to mean, anyway? His sperm became me? Or just that we share a likeness with his DNA? I would have to assume the latter.

So, because we share a physical resemblance to Adam, this warrants God in punishing us for his sin? (Imagine the judge who says, “I realize full well you aren’t the perpetrator, but you certainly look a bit like him. Therefore I give you the maximum sentence.”) The absurdities of federalism seem endless.

Look, I hardly need Scripture to demonstrate that federalism is unjust. Fortunately, however, there is Scripture on my side. According to Ezekiel 18, a child shall not pay for the sins of his parents. Therefore we cannot be punished for father Adam (unless of course we are the Adam who sinned).

I realize full well that at least one passage in Scripture speaks of the sins of the parents falling on the children. That's not a problem, however, given my view of Adam. If the children are already guilty in Adam (already exercised free will in the garden), and if the parents are impious enough to currently exhaust God's patience, it is no crime for Him, when punishing the parents, to let the children suffer the consequences as well.

. You can call God unjust for seeing us that way if you want. but the Judge sets the rules, the prisoner doesn't.

But you haven’t proven that this is how God sees us. (Nothing can be proven from Scripture irrefutably, for reasons stated earlier). Sure, you can cite a few Scriptures that seem to support your view, but nothing conclusive. So why should I accept the absurdities of federalism, given the lack of conclusive evidence? Why not accept a view that is plainly free of injustice? Why prefer the unintelligible over the intelligible, given that Scripture will never be 100% transparent to exegesis?

 

[JAL]

The idea that we should measure God's Justice in the light of our own flawed and imperfect understanding is to reduc e God to just a bigger, more powerful version of ourselves, and denies the Transcendence of God. The idea of calling Justice "Fairness" is to allow the viewpoint of the guilty to define the viewpoint of the Judge. The reality is, God defines Justice, as it is an essential component of His very Nature. He reveals His Nature in scripture, such that we may gain at least some sense of Him as God, and Transcendent over Man. Our concepts of Justice are based on His. but, JAL wants to reverse the order and claim that God's concept of Justice is based on ours. This is a core charge against his doctrines that he so far has refused to answer other than to dismiss it as "rhetoric", while not actually attempting to show why it is rhetoric, and therefore dismissable.

You say I haven't addressed this issue. (Sigh). I've probably addressed it 25 times on this thread alone, and several times on the other thread as well.

Your clam is that the theologian shouldn't measure God's justice. This claim is so problematical I hardly know where to begin.

I'll begin as follows. Paul urged us to be “imitators of God” (Eph 5:1). That’s the literal rendering of the Greek, according to Roberterson’s Word Pictures. 1John takes up the same theme:

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
[6] If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
[7] But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
[8] If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.


He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him.
[11] But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.

Peter takes up a similar theme, originating in OT teaching, “Be ye holy, even as I am holy.”

In a nutshell, on issues of morality we are to act like God acts. Scripture is then fairly specific as to what this entails. It entails abstaining from unfairness, cruelty, and caprice. It entails walking in love, mercy, and kindess. Admittedly there is justice as well, “Spare the rod and spoil the child.” But even in this justice we are to be fair, that is, we don’t apply the rod to children who haven’t transgressed.

In other words, Scripture seems to rather plainly define how God acts. In the prophets, for instance, we see a sharp contrast between how the evil nations act, on the one hand, versus how God acts, on the other. The nations are wicked and capricious, God is merciful, just, and righteous. (Please don't give me a theology where God acts like the nations!)


Why then would be inclined to associate Him with the ultimate act of caprice and cruelty – assigning billions to hell before they had a chance to exercise free will? How is this portrait of God consistent with Scripture as a whole?

Everyone’s been saying. But that’s what Scripture is plainly teaching. No, that is what theologians have inferred from Romans 5. It’s a possible interpretation, not a necessary conclusion. It is simply too much in contradiction with the rest of Scripture to be endorsed. To begin with, it repudiates Christian hope. In essence, it redefines God as the lawless one, as the one who has no regard for absolute values, as one who refuses to subject Himself unequivocally to virtuous rules of conduct. He simply does whatever He wants, whenever He wants, to whomsoever He wants, if it happens to give Him pleasure. Sorry, I think it’s time for Calvinists to rethink Romans 5.

And you know what’s especially weird about this portrait of God? In the Calvinist view, God is omnipotently self-sufficient in the infinite sense. He has no emotional needs (in contrast to my view). Therefore He doesn’t eveb need us as a source of pleasure. He can concoct His own pleasure ex nihilo. Thus, as for this pleasure that He supposedly takes in predesting men to hell for His own glory – He doesn’t even need it! Oh Monster of monsters!


If that isn’t bad enough, it obviates the atonement. If God isn’t obligated to fairness, why bother put His Son through all that suffering? Why not simply put the elect in heaven, burn the rest of men in hell, and be done with the matter? I’ve asked this question about the atonement several times, has anyone bothered to answer it?

Again I ask, why bother with the atonement, if God has not bound Himself unto fairness?

 

[beloved57]

Moreover, not only does Calvinism render God cruel, it also renders Him a liar.

It is a lie to pronounce someone guilty who has never exercised free will.

Who are you to stand in Judgment of God ? God can do what he pleases..

 

[JAL]

I said that Calvinism renders God a liar. You respond.

Who are you to stand in Judgment of God ? God can do what he pleases..

A very relevant post! I think you're gonna love the upcoming sermon. (I'll post it in a moment).

 

[JAL]

Those of you who are pastors – good news! Mr. NBF has provided you an outline for your next sermon!

The idea that we should measure God's Justice in the light of our own flawed and imperfect understanding is to reduce God to just a bigger, more powerful version of ourselves, and denies the Transcendence of God. The idea of calling Justice "Fairness" is to allow the viewpoint of the guilty to define the viewpoint of the Judge. The reality is, God defines Justice, as it is an essential component of His very Nature. He reveals His Nature in scripture, such that we may gain at least some sense of Him as God, and Transcendent over Man. Our concepts of Justice are based on His. but, JAL wants to reverse the order and claim that God's concept of Justice is based on ours.

Here’s a sample sermon based on this outline.

ON THE GOODNESS OF GOD​

“The Scriptures plainly teach us that the Lord, who is good, will indeed be good to us for all eternity. And we’d like to think this means kindness, gentleness, tenderness, affection, and mercy. Unfortunately we can’t presume to fully understand what the Lord means by “good.” You see, God is the Transcendent One. His definition of “good” might well be somewhat different than ours. In fact, we find many biblical passages recording divine acts of goodness which we, as mere humans, would regard as wanton cruelty. For example He sentences billions of men to eternal hellfire long before any opportunity to volitionally sin. The Scriptures are crystal clear on this matter. They plainly teach that God engages in this sort of behavior, and that it is, in large part, what He considers good. And we have the following hope. He will pour out all of His goodness upon you for all eternity, but as He is Transcendent, we, in our limited human understanding, cannot fully predict what this means.

But doesn’t He promise us happiness and joy? Promises relate to the integrity of the promiser. Remember that God is the Transcendent One. What He means by “integrity” might be somewhat different than your definition. You have no right to measure the Transcendent One in human terms. He sets the rules and thus He can, for Himself, define “integrity” any way that He wants. Who are you to question God? In fact don’t even presume to know what He means by “joy and happiness.” He sets the rules, He establishes the definitions – not you.

Originally Adam was your federal representative. Hence He pronounced you guilty. Then He made Christ your federal representative, and pronounced you innocent. Hallelujah! As long you are innocent, all the promises are for you. But remember, He makes the rules. He may decide to appoint Satan as your third and final federal representative. In this case, you must suffer in hell for all the sins of Satan.

The biblical promises are for those who are in Christ. This is just like being in Adam. As long as you are in Adam, you have the promise of condemnation. As long as you are in Christ, you have the promise of heaven. Likewise, as long as you are in Satan, you have the promise of condemnation. You can only hope that He doesn’t appoint Satan as your third and final rep. However, don’t presume to know what He will do next. You cannot predict the Transcendent One. Instead, work out your salvation with fear and trembling because, as the Scriptures say, His ways are high above our ways, and His paths beyond tracing out. Who can predict the mind of the Lord? And who has been His counselor?

Amen.”


Thanks a bunch, Mr. NBF – you saved me one heck of a lot of time writing this week’s sermon!

 

[nobdysfool]

JAL,

I have read through all of your replies to me since my post this morning, and all I can do is shake my head. For all of your accusations that I don't "get" the view you are trying to espouse, it is quite evident that you haven't truly understood a single thing I've said, based on what you interpret me to have said. And, you have built entire refutations of my words on completely false and untrue interpretations of what I said. Truly unbelievable.

I will attempt to address at least some of them as I can, but I do have time constraints, as I am literally criss-crossing the country this week.