God's Ability To Save

depthdeception · Jan 10, 2006

msortwell said:
It is not heresy to hold the position that God the Son, the eternally begotten son of God the Father died on the cross. When a sacrifice is put to death, that death is a physical death. There are no intimations in Scripture that would necessarily relate the death of a sacrifice to spiritual death. The physical death of a man is not the cessation of his being.

It's not? That's news to me. Apparently the resurrection is quite unnecessary, then.

He will continue his existance - either in glory or in eternal torment.

No, to die is to cease to exist. The only hope of existence beyond the death of the person (for the soul cannot be separated from the body--they are a person, after all) is resurrection. Paul makes this quite clear.

Therefore, to hold that Jesus is both God and man, and died, does not necessitate the conclusion that the eternal God came to an end.

Perhaps. However, to affirm the dual natures of Christ in one person--and this was my original point--is to admit that the work of Christ upon the cross was very much a "human" effort, something which Reformationist was completely unwilling to acknowledge, to the chagrin of orthodoxy.

I for one have expressed the difficulty I have repeatedly had in understanding some of your posts. But it must just be me . . . Oh, and Reformationist.

Then perhaps its just the Calvinists...

enegue · Jan 10, 2006

Mike,

It's not wild conjecture, but reasoned deduction. Why put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil within their reach in the first place if *choosing* was not the point of the exercise. He didn't give them freedom to exercise their faculties for the fun of it, but for a purpose.

How did God manifest himself to the pre-flood creation?

Cheers,
enegue

andy153 · Jan 11, 2006

Reformationist said:
Actually, the divinity of Christ as defined in the orthodox Christian sense refers to the fact that Christ shares of the same essence as the Father. Do you agree with that claim?

God bless

Yes

with love and respect, andy153

andy153 · Jan 11, 2006

msortwell said:
Heb 7:9-10
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. KJV

Who among the race of man was not in the loins of Adam at the time of his sin? Even as Levi, in Abraham, paid tithes to Melchisedec, so humanity incurred a sin debt and sin nature in Adam. This is what Romans 5:12-13 teaches.

Rom 5:12-14
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. KJV

Death reigned even though no transgression of the law could be attributed to the dying, since they received no law. The law given to Adam was not relevant for they had been banished from the presence of the tree of knowledge, and the law had not be given to Moses. Men of that period did not sin in the way that Adam sinned. They in themselves transgressed no law. They sinned in Adam and received for that participate the sentence of death, the result of their federal heads transgression.

As shown above, I believe you are seriously misinterpreting Romans 5:14. I have provided what I believe to the correct understanding of the verse. Who are you including as we in the statement above?

Although is a post subsequent to this one you offer that you believe in the deity of Christ, yet if I understand your description there of "deity," it is one that all men would meet. This would be essentially the sin described in Isaiah 14:12-14. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position.

Your logic is flawed. The receipt of the sin guilt and sin nature from Adam is from all who were in Adam when he sinned. As I previously demonstrated, this includes all men without exception. Unless one rejects the virgin birth of Jesus, it would exclude him.

Those who are imputed the righteousness of Christ must be in Christ. That does not happen except when one is baptized into Christ by the Holy Ghost. This does not occur unless one believed upon Christ for salvation.

If you are asking regarding justification, which I assume you are, the answer is, No.

To characterize Adams fall as some sort of noble act is a major misinterpretation of Scripture. Additionally, your logic is nonsensical. Through the virgin birth of Christ, God demonstrated that He did not need the seed of a man to bring forth a saviour.

As you have probably guessed I don't believe in the concept of original sin.
So your saying that God didn't need Mary and her ancestry to bring forth Christ ??
Do you believe that Adam should have abstained from eating the forbidden fruit once Eve had eaten ????

As you and a few others seem to be challenging my beliefs let me state clearly what I believe.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of the living God, that he lived a sinless life and died for the sins of the world that he himself created. He is my Lord and saviour.

with love and respect, andy153

JamieGraham · Jan 11, 2006

Just wondering - doesnt the person have the choice to be saved or not based on their devotion, love and belief in GOD, the Lord? Then based on that - their actions throughout their life determnes if they are or are not saved.?

msortwell · Jan 11, 2006

DD, you provided the following response to my position that death does not equate to ceasing to exist.

depthdeception said:
It's not? That's news to me. Apparently the resurrection is quite unnecessary, then.

The Scriptures teach that a person that dies continues to exist either in heaven, hell, or paradise (dependent upon their condition at the time of death, and the time of their death in redemptive history).

depthdeception said:
No, to die is to cease to exist. The only hope of existence beyond the death of the person (for the soul cannot be separated from the body--they are a person, after all) is resurrection. Paul makes this quite clear.

No. See the above explanation.

depthdeception said:
Perhaps. However, to affirm the dual natures of Christ in one person--and this was my original point--is to admit that the work of Christ upon the cross was very much a "human" effort, something which Reformationist was completely unwilling to acknowledge, to the chagrin of orthodoxy.

I suspect that you both agree that the one who died upon the cross was God-man. And the reason this is an "issue" is that the two of you are simply accustomed to disagreeing.

And relative to my admission that I have a difficult time understanding your posts DD offered . . .

depthdeception said:
Then perhaps its just the Calvinists...

What do you mean?

msortwell · Jan 11, 2006

enegue said:
Mike,

It's not wild conjecture, but reasoned deduction. Why put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil within their reach in the first place if *choosing* was not the point of the exercise. He didn't give them freedom to exercise their faculties for the fun of it, but for a purpose.

How did God manifest himself to the pre-flood creation?

Cheers,
enegue

Unless you can affirm your hypothesis from the text of Scripture, it remains a hypothesis and nothing more.

Inductive reasoning has its place in the study of Scripture, but to use it to develop finalized "truth" is profoundly unsound.

Just because something sounds like a reasonable explanation for why something was done is a far cry from proof that it is indeed the reason that it was done.

First ponder, then prove. Derive your theology from the text, not from your own reasoning absent Scriptural affirmation of your conjecture.

Mike

msortwell · Jan 11, 2006

andy153 said:
As you have probably guessed I don't believe in the concept of original sin.

Which does not speak to whether the Scripture teach it or not. I hope my previous post gives you something to consider. The Scriptural teaching on original sin is foundational to understanding man's nature and God's redemptive plan - IMO.

andy153 said:
So your saying that God didn't need Mary and her ancestry to bring forth Christ ??

Absent God's plan to do so - No. There was nothing extraordinary about Mary that allowed her to be used as the vessel through which the Messiah would be brought. She gave birth to her own Saviour. Eve, if it had been God's plan, could have been used in the very same way.

andy153 said:
Do you believe that Adam should have abstained from eating the forbidden fruit once Eve had eaten ????

Allow me to rephrase the question. 'Do you believe that Adam should have obeyed God?' Absolutely! His taking the fruit was SIN. Because of that sin death reigned from Adam to Moses (and continues to have horrible effects upon innumerable men, women, and children). But you reject original sin so . . .

But that does not change the fact that SIN is the transgression of the law and Adam's taking of the fruit was a transgression of the law given to him by God. It is never good or justifiable to transgress God's law.

andy153 said:
As you and a few others seem to be challenging my beliefs let me state clearly what I believe.

I believe that Jesus Christ is the son of the living God, that he lived a sinless life and died for the sins of the world that he himself created. He is my Lord and saviour.

. . . and the your belief regarding the resurrection of Jesus?

Mike

andy153 · Jan 11, 2006

msortwell said:
Which does not speak to whether the Scripture teach it or not. I hope my previous post gives you something to consider. The Scriptural teaching on original sin is foundational to understanding man's nature and God's redemptive plan - IMO.

Scripture dosen't teach original sin, man does.

Absent God's plan to do so - No. There was nothing extraordinary about Mary that allowed her to be used as the vessel through which the Messiah would be brought. She gave birth to her own Saviour. Eve, if it had been God's plan, could have been used in the very same way.

She was !

Allow me to rephrase the question. 'Do you believe that Adam should have obeyed God?' Absolutely! His taking the fruit was SIN. Because of that sin death reigned from Adam to Moses (and continues to have horrible effects upon innumerable men, women, and children). But you reject original sin so . . .

But that does not change the fact that SIN is the transgression of the law and Adam's taking of the fruit was a transgression of the law given to him by God. It is never good or justifiable to transgress God's law.

So Eve alone should have been banished for her sin with no hope of redemption ??

. . . and the your belief regarding the resurrection of Jesus?

Jesus Christ is a glorified, resurrected, eternal being. He is my God

with love and respect, andy153

depthdeception · Jan 11, 2006

msortwell said:
D
The Scriptures teach that a person that dies continues to exist either in heaven, hell, or paradise (dependent upon their condition at the time of death, and the time of their death in redemptive history).

Yes, the continue to exist becuase of the resurrection, not because of the "immortality of the soul." Such (immortality of the soul) is not Scriptural.

I suspect that you both agree that the one who died upon the cross was God-man. And the reason this is an "issue" is that the two of you are simply accustomed to disagreeing.

No, earlier Reformationist implied that there was nothing "human" about what was accomplished on the cross and would not answer my questions regarding the death of God or the humanity of Christ. There is no way that one could show that we agree, as Reformationist consistently refuses to answer my questions when they go beyond what he is comfortable in answering.

What do you mean?

You and Reformationist have both suggested that you have difficulty understanding what I am saying. Therefore, perhaps the communication problem is because of your [plural] allegiances to Calvinistic philosophy and the necessary world-view disconnect that this creates with those (who are most) who do understand what I am saying.

Edial · Jan 11, 2006

JamieGraham said:
Just wondering - doesnt the person have the choice to be saved or not based on their devotion, love and belief in GOD, the Lord? Then based on that - their actions throughout their life determnes if they are or are not saved.?

In my view, a person does have "a choice" to be saved.
It cannot be on devotion (since by nature we are devoted to other things).
It cannot be on love (since agape love is what is needed, and it is found only in Christ).
But it can be on belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ that was translated to us into a language that we should understand.

And by this gospel we are saved (1Cor.15:2), since in itself it has a power for salvation (Rom.1:16).

And out the true gospel (1Cor.15:3-8), which in itself is a simple story and not a complex set of theological layers of deductions, theories, conclusions and consequesnt divisions, flows a "sap" that has a power of transformation for those who believe.

A true gospel transforms. A fruit will be seen.
And when we go to heaven, no one will ask us what we believe, but will see what we became.

They'll probably see a bunch of bananas,

... "holy bananas", that is.

Thanks,
Ed

enegue · Jan 11, 2006

msortwell said:
Inductive reasoning has its place in the study of Scripture, but to use it to develop finalized "truth" is profoundly unsound.

I'm not attempting to develop a doctrine, I'm challenging a doctrine. I find it ridiculous to suggest that man has no active part to play in his salvation. If that were the case then what has been the point of everything that has happened from the beginning of creation.

Why did God allow man to *choose* to obey his commands?
Scripture tells us that man was expelled from the garden so that he couldn't eat from the Tree of Life. I have no argument with this, it's straight forward. But, if God does it all, and man has no part to play in his salvation, why didn't he just save Adam and Eve from the consequence of their offence right then and there in the garden?

We know God is sovereign, and what he chooses to do he will do, but he is not a fool, and he IS LOVE. Why did the sovereign Lord God allow Satan to corrupt his creation?

Do you have an answer for these things?

Cheers,
enegue

Reformationist · Jan 11, 2006

enegue said:
Well, it's fine as far as it goes, but you aren't addressing the why. Why was it necessary to make man aware of his dependance upon God?

I don't know that that is answerable. First off, man already recognized his dependence upon God prior to falling into a miserable state. As sin corrupted his nature, his dependence heightened, whether his knowledge of it did or not. As to why it is "necessary," I can only offer that man is necessarily made aware his impotency that he may look to God for sustenance.

Why was it necessary to make man toil outside the garden when God had already determined that this should be his occupation within the garden?

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.

-- Genesis 2:15

Man was not put in the Garden to toil in labor but, rather, to have dominion over it. Adam and Eve did not labor to cultivate the land. It was bountiful as a blessing to God's creation.

Isn't is obvious that these things were allowed to occur because they would provide a means of allowing Adam and Eve to compare their experience inside the garden, with their experience outside the garden. They would then be able to *choose* one of two responses, "We have sinned against the Lord God, and our current situation is the consequence of our disobedience. Forgive us for what we have done."

Well, I agree that such a conclusion might come to mind, though I do not contend that that was God's primary goal in man's expulsion. God's graciousness in rendering kindness to man even after his transgression shows His benevolency. However, He still expelled Adam and Eve. The problem is that you seem to be disregarding the pervading influence of sin in the members of man. I don't deny that man makes choices. In fact, as man is a volitional creature, he must make choices. The question then is one of determining what it is that causes man to choose as he does, else his choices are random and hold no moral significance.

Care to offer an opinion regarding man's motivation for choosing as he does?

After all, we were deceived by the serpent. Why didn't you just deal with him? We only exercised the faculties you gave us. If you didn't want us to use them, why did you give them to us in the first place?"

And this very line of reasoning, which was employed by both Adam and Eve, shows their, almost immediate, degredation due to sin. Instead of being humbled and begging for forgiveness they sought to cast blame, Adam upon Eve, Eve upon the serpent. Then, when neither of those worked, Adam went so far as to blame God by submitting that he sinned because he was tempted by the woman God gave him.

God was not going to make the choices for his children. They, and all men to this day have to *choose* - do I want to dwell with God?

Actually, the choice man makes is, do I want to serve God. "Dwelling with God" is not our right so it is not something we choose to do or not.

Why did God wait 1500 years or so before he brought the flood?

Cheers,
enegue

Don't know off hand. Can you point me to Scripture that reveals His reason for that?

Thanks,
God bless

Reformationist · Jan 11, 2006

JamieGraham said:
Just wondering - doesnt the person have the choice to be saved or not based on their devotion, love and belief in GOD, the Lord?

No. Being saved is not the product of a choice we make. Salvation is the product of God imputing the merits for Christ's vicarious atonement. We are saved by works. It's just that it is not our works which justify us before God. It is the work of Christ.

Then based on that - their actions throughout their life determnes if they are or are not saved.?

Our works may reveal, to some degree, whether we are a child of God but they are insufficient for determining someone's salvitic state as it is the motivation for our works that plays just as big a part in determining whether the action is righteous.

God bless

Reformationist · Jan 11, 2006

enegue said:
I'm not attempting to develop a doctrine, I'm challenging a doctrine. I find it ridiculous to suggest that man has no active part to play in his salvation. If that were the case then what has been the point of everything that has happened from the beginning of creation.

To glorify God. That is the primary purpose for all that God sovereignly brings to pass.

Why did God allow man to *choose* to obey his commands?

He permits man to choose but not with impugnity. Man is bound by the commandments of God regardless of whether he submits to God's authority. The issue to address here isn't whether man makes choices, for none of us is debating that. What we should be addressing is why man chooses as he does. Care to offer an answer?

Scripture tells us that man was expelled from the garden so that he couldn't eat from the Tree of Life. I have no argument with this, it's straight forward. But, if God does it all, and man has no part to play in his salvation, why didn't he just save Adam and Eve from the consequence of their offence right then and there in the garden?

I don't know when, or if, God chose to save Adam, though I believe He probably did. You don't know either, for God did not reveal that information to us. Regardless, God's timeline is according to His purpose. He chooses to manifest His divine will in regenerating His elect unto life in accordance with that purpose. Just because God didn't immediately do something that He may have chosen to do later doesn't mean that man plays a part in his salvation.

Why did the sovereign Lord God allow Satan to corrupt his creation?

God is sovereign. Satan is a created being. Though he is a higher power than fallen man, satan is not capable of forcing man to act against his desires. If you're asking why God allows satan to tempt and incite man to sin against God, I will merely say that it in accord with God's eternal purpose to leave satan to act in accordance with his own wicked nature and, in doing so, lead man astray. What I do know is that the Bible explicitly states that all things work to the good of those who love God and are called according to His purpose. Therefore, if God has providentially allowed one of His children to be led astray then it is because He has ordained that they will be sanctified and restored.

Do you have an answer for these things?

Cheers,
enegue

How are those answers?

God bless

enegue · Jan 11, 2006

Care to offer an opinion regarding man's motivation for choosing as he does?

Sure.

Man is a creature ("nephesh") and is ruled by the same governing principle as are all creatures: seek pleasure and avoid pain. Man is the only creature that has true freedom to operate outside this principle. God wants from this creation those who choose as their motivation for acting outside this principle, love for him.

Cheers,
enegue

Reformationist · Jan 11, 2006

enegue said:
Sure.

Man is a creature ("nephesh") and is ruled by the same governing principle as are all creatures: seek pleasure and avoid pain. Man is the only creature that has true freedom to operate outside this principle. God wants from this creation those who choose as their motivation for acting outside this principle, love for him.

Cheers,
enegue

I do not think that your assessment is entirely accurate, being that on many occasions the pleasure that a person seeks is based on their love for God.

Would you consider it a fair statement to acknowledge that man chooses according to his greatest desire at the moment of choice?

God bless

msortwell · Jan 11, 2006

depthdeception said:
Yes, the continue to exist becuase of the resurrection, not because of the "immortality of the soul." Such (immortality of the soul) is not Scriptural.

Do you hold to an annihilationist view then? Or am I misunderstanding?

depthdeception said:
You and Reformationist have both suggested that you have difficulty understanding what I am saying. Therefore, perhaps the communication problem is because of your [plural] allegiances to Calvinistic philosophy and the necessary world-view disconnect that this creates with those (who are most) who do understand what I am saying.

Actually, within the context of the discussion, "What do you mean?" was intended to be amusing.

If you mean the disconnect created between what is apparently your world view and mine. I will have to agree. We seem to be operating from a significantly different set of presuppositions. I believe that God can be known, to the extent that we are intended to know Him, from His written word. It seems that you are intent upon forming your view of God from some other source.

enegue · Jan 11, 2006

Hi Reformationist,

enegue: Why was it necessary to make man aware of his dependance upon God?
Reformationist: As to why it is "necessary," I can only offer that man is necessarily made aware his impotency that he may look to God for sustenance.

That's right. So that man has the opportunity to recognise God as Jehovah-jireh, and *choose* obedience as a response.

enegue: Why was it necessary to make man toil outside the garden when God had already determined that this should be his occupation within the garden?
Reformationist: Man was not put in the Garden to toil in labor but, rather, to have dominion over it. Adam and Eve did not labor to cultivate the land. It was bountiful as a blessing to God's creation.

But they had to dress it and keep it. Adam's occupation as a dresser and keeper in the garden stood in stark contrast to his battle against the thorns and thistles outside the garden. Surely the purpose of letting man experience both situations was so that he would conclude, "God's way is better!"

enegue: God was not going to make the choices for his children. They, and all men to this day have to *choose* - do I want to dwell with God?
Reformationist: Actually, the choice man makes is, do I want to serve God.

I agree. I like you question better that mine.

enegue: ... what has been the point of everything that has happened from the beginning of creation?
Reformationist: To glorify God.

Again I agree. However, I am saying that it pleases him greatly that we choose to do this, and my proof is that he allowed the possibility for us to choose not to.

enegue: Why did God allow man to *choose* to obey his commands?
Reformationist: Man is bound by the commandments of God regardless of whether he submits to God's authority.

Man is not bound by the commandments in that he can't *choose* to act outside them, just as speed signs can't make us drive at the suggested speed limit. Because God is sovereign however, he could have done this if he wanted to. But he didn't want to. He wanted us to participate. He wanted us to *choose* obedience out of love for him.

enegue: Why did the sovereign Lord God allow Satan to corrupt his creation?
Reformationist: I will merely say that it in accord with God's eternal purpose to leave satan to act in accordance with his own wicked nature and, in doing so, lead man astray.

This is correct. God has allowed Satan to act according to his nature, and he sets the limits in which he can operate (we know this from the encounter between God and Satan recorded in the book of Job). However, he didn't program Satan so that he had no choice about how he behaved.

Cheers,
enegue

Reformationist · Jan 11, 2006

enegue said:
That's right. So that man has the opportunity to recognise God as Jehovah-jireh, and *choose* obedience as a response.

And why would anyone choose to obey God?

Surely the purpose of letting man experience both situations was so that he would conclude, "God's way is better!"

Actually, the primary purpose of all that comes to pass, including man's fall into misery and ruin, is to bring glory to God. You seem to want to make man's enlightenment God's primary motivation in all that He does. The truth is, the believer has been given a great gift thanks to Adam's disobedience. Whereas before the Fall man only knew God as Lord, we, to whom the Lord has been so gracious in redeeming, now know Him as both Lord and Savior.

Again I agree. However, I am saying that it pleases him greatly that we choose to do this, and my proof is that he allowed the possibility for us to choose not to.

Of course it pleases God when His creation obeys Him. As to the rest of your statement, the "possibility" of rebellion is the product of man being created as a volitional creature. If there is a choice to obey then, by default, there must be a choice to not obey. It is not the availability of the choice that creates potential but, rather, the proclivity to seek that which God has forbidden. For instance, when we are glorified in Heaven with our Father in Heaven the choice to rebel will be present though the potential for rebellion will not.

Man is not bound by the commandments in that he can't *choose* to act outside them, just as speed signs can't make us drive at the suggested speed limit. Because God is sovereign however, he could have done this if he wanted to. But he didn't want to. He wanted us to participate. He wanted us to *choose* obedience out of love for him.

By "bound" I simply meant that man will answer to God for his actions because God has authority over all, regardless of whether all recognize and submit to His authority. I am not contending that man is incapable of disobedience. Such a claim is clearly inaccurate. What I am claiming, however, is that man is subject to the demands of God's Law.

This is correct. God has allowed Satan to act according to his nature, and he sets the limits in which he can operate (we know this from the encounter between God and Satan recorded in the book of Job). However, he didn't program Satan so that he had no choice about how he behaved.

I have not contended that God did program satan, or anyone, as to whether they had a choice to obey. What I will acknowledge is that sin has so pervaded the nature of fallen man that, in his unregenerate state, he is incapable of obeying God for righteous reasons because he never desires to obey God fore righteous reasons.

Can you address my question in post 197?

Thanks,
God bless

God's Ability To Save

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Active Member

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Senior Member

Active Member

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Similar threads