Why the whole church is dead wrong about sanctification.

Wasn't it you who condemned people like me as claiming that God's ways were beyond our understanding, and called it dishonest? Now you're using the very same argument to bolster your view that your own conscience is the only guide you need.

I have never used that as a defense, because I believe that God has revealed to us in His Word all that we need to know for living life, and walking with Him while we are here. That which we do not know about Him is not an impediment to understanding what we do know, and walking in it and by it. Since it is axiomatic that God cannot contradict Himself, or be that which He is not, it stands to reason that any supposed contradictions we may think we see are flaws in our thinking, not in His character. He has provided resolution of those flaws within His revealed written Word.

It's sad that you seem to want to toss it aside as "unknowable", and then vilify those who disagree with the rebellious spirit you display.

JAL said:

The discrepancy here has to do with two different senses in which the phrase "beyond my understanding" can be used. Let's consisder a computer.


On the one hand, I understand a computer completely. How so? Because I understand that electrical impulses are used to signify zeroes and ones arrangeable in patterns that represent information. That's all there is to it.

On the other hand a computer is beyond my understanding. How so? Because a motherboard has thousands of circuits, and an operating system has millions of lines of code, that I will never fully memorize or understand in one lifetime.

The issue here is simply quantitative. I cannot store or process all that information.

Click to expand...

Seeing that I am a computer technician by trade, I can relate to that analogy more than not. However, no one technician can know everything there is to know, we all have our specialties. What we do know, we know very well, and even what we don't know in detail, we at least have a working idea of how, what, and why.

When it comes to God, there is a difference of an order, or several orders of magnitude, between what He has revealed to us in His word, and what He has not revealed. I postulate that a reason He has not revealed some things is simply that our finite minds, darkened as they are by sin and mortality, cannot process those things, and they would quite literally "blow our minds". We cannot, in this life, handle the revelation of them. I also postulate that such will not be the case once we are received into glory. Will we ever know all there is to know about God? Maybe not, because He is completely "other" that what we are, an Infinite, Self-Existent Being. But we will have an eternity to learn of Him.

JAL said:

The same paradox exists in relation to God's will. I have a clear understanding of it (love that does no harm to one's neighbor). It's just that the specifics of how to do this involves much more information that I can digest because the world is a very complicated place. Notice that "love" means the same thing to me as it does to God - the problem here is quantitative, not qualitative.

Click to expand...

I think I know where you are deriving this definition, but it does not follow that this is all there is to God's Will. I therefore think you're building your argument on a very small foundation.

JAL said:

Whereas federalism claims that God's "justice" is beyond human understanding. This is a qualitative distinction, it situates His justice in the realm of the humanly unintelligible, and hence my objections stated on that other thread.

Click to expand...

I don't think that Federalism rests its entire systematic understanding on such a claim. I don't entirely agree with Federalism myself, but not for these reasons.

JAL said:

Here you seem to be making another plug for federalism, the argument being that God's economy of redemption only SEEMS unjust due to our inability to understand it. I can agree with this statement only to an extent. Allow me to explain.

Click to expand...

I don't recall that I ever made that claim personally. God's Justice is not subject to human review, ultimately. Not because of any perceived injustice, but because God has not, and never would base His Justice on human perception. He is God, and we are not. What we can know is that God is Good, and in Him there is no Darkness. His Justice ultimately must be Good as well, even if from our flawed, and limited understanding, we don't see how, and when all the facts are in, His Justice would be vindicated every time. We can never play "gotcha" with God, and win.

Now, to your explanation....

JAL said:

Suppose I am an Israelite in the day of Moses who commands me to slaughter the seven nations including the children. I ask Moses why, and he replies, "God is sending even the children to hell." Assuming that I don't know Paul's doctrine of original sin, it will SEEM to me that God is being unjust. Here God justice is beyond my (present) understanding.

Click to expand...

Right off the bat, you have Moses saying something that I don't believe he ever would have said, or even thought. Also, the whole concept of "Paul's doctrine of original sin" is a non-sequitor, and an anachronism, when applied to this example.

JAL said:

Nonethless, as an Israelite, if I am to be logically consistent, I cannot hold that God is going to put innocent children in hell. At this point I might not have a solution, but it won't do to associate a holy God with that kind of behavior. The appropriate thing to do is to ADMIT that i don't have a solution.

Click to expand...

Where do you get support for the idea that an Israelite of that time would even think such a thought? In some ways, the Israelites had a more "organic" understanding of God as God than many do today.

JAL said:

My complaint with federalism is that it PRETENDS to have a solution, but the solution proposed associates God with injustice, which is no solution at all.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you have sufficiently established a basis from which to make such an assertion. You've made a lot of essentially unsupported statements as though they were gospel truth, and have bristled when they weren't immediately accepted as such. Any theological understanding of men is going to have some problems, some more than others, but advocating wholesale overthrow of them, as you seem to be doing, is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

JAL said:

Berkouwer admitted that federalism doesn't work. S. Lewis Johnson stated, “Berkouwer has shrewdly pointed out the weaknesses of both realism and federalism, but as John Murray has commented, ‘Berkouwer is not successful in providing a fruitful alternative.’” (S. Lewis Johnson, “G. C. Berkouwer and the Doctrine of Original Sin,” Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 132:528 (1975), pp. 316-26).

Click to expand...

Not having read the writings you cite, I cannot comment on them. So I won't, until I get a chance to read them.

JAL said:

If I said that this is all there is to God's will, I spoke too loosely (as happens to me often in the heat of a debate) because that is not my position. The main point I wanted to make is that His will won't contradict love, but yes, it can contain more than love, for instance God might ask us to do something (e.g. sing Him His favorite song) merely because it gives Him pleasure.

Click to expand...

Ok....

JAL said:

Yes, " when all the facts are in, His Justice would be vindicated every time." That is precisely why we cannot have the innocent penalized for the guilty. Again, God can make some decisions whose justice we question, but THE FINAL OUTCOME cannot be innocent incrimination. Federalism isn't merely making a statement about divine decisions made in the interim between earth and heaven. It makes a claim about the final outcome which explicitly puts innocent people in hell.

Click to expand...

"Innocent people in Hell"???Please supply some support for this ridiculous and false assertion. I think you're using "Federalism" as a substitute for something else, like Calvinism, maybe? In any case, you are not accurately describing either view. Before this goes any further, you need to provide some clear proof of your assertions. The charge you have just made is unbiblical, untrue, and very inaccurate. I hope that's just because your sources are faulty, and you don't know any better.

JAL said:

You say that God's justice is not subject to human review. Again if we cannot describe it in human language, or if we find our statements about it contradicting other statements, we shouldn't even be talking about it, except to admit that we don't have a theodicy at all.

Click to expand...

Try speaking to what I actually said, instead of trying to turn this into the straw man you have erected. God's Justice is not subject to human review, as in human oversight, censure, or influence. You seem to be trying to make a case that it is. You're wrong.

JAL said:

Please. Truth doesn't become true when Paul says it. It is true in every age. Ok, fine, I could have called it "Moses' doctrine of original sin." But as Paul doesn't contradict Moses, it seems to me that the same doctrine is involved.

Click to expand...

Any way you slice it, you're injecting many assumptions into your scenario that do not fit, and the only reason I can see for that is to try to spin it to your advantage.

JAL said:

I imagine that men in every generation question God and His ways.

Click to expand...

Hello, Captain Obvious!

JAL said:

If a series of claims seem to logically contradict one another, the burden of proof falls upon the proponents to reconcile them.

Click to expand...

Or prove that whoever made the observation that contradictions exist, did not properly show that there were any supposed contradictions. I would think that you should know that proving a negative is much harder, if not impossible, so you of course would want to shift the burden of proof off of yourself.

JAL said:

You say I am not justified in my conclusion. In theology, all we've got to work with is our own understanding. Yes, I am justified, because after 2000 years of effort, federalists cannot reconcile their own claims. For example, explain to me how Ezekiel's claim that a father's sins do not incriminate his children can be reconciled with a federal Adam.

Click to expand...

Until you show some actual concrete proof of your allegations, the discussion cannot really proceed. You're trying to hide your cards, to hold back an ace in the hole. I'm calling now. Put your cards on the table. Until you do, my assertion stands, you have not proven your conclusion.

JAL said:

2000 years is enough. I have shown you a just system that took 5 minutes to read.

Click to expand...

You've shown nothing of substance, just some empty allegations.

"There is none righteous; not a one."

Comments?

JAL said:

I once again asserted that federalism places innocent peope in hell. You respond.

Click to expand...

NBF said:

"Innocent people in Hell"???Please supply some support for this ridiculous and false assertion. I think you're using "Federalism" as a substitute for something else, like Calvinism, maybe? In any case, you are not accurately describing either view. Before this goes any further, you need to provide some clear proof of your assertions. The charge you have just made is unbiblical, untrue, and very inaccurate. I hope that's just because your sources are faulty, and you don't know any better.

Click to expand...

What is inappropriate about asking for some proof of this assertion? It is a ridiculous assertion, and it requires proof. since you made it, it is incumbent on you to provide support and proof for it, other than "because I say so".

JAL said:

But it is precisely this kind of inappropriate response that makes me reluctant to debate with you. (Fortunately not al you responses are such). Vritually any pew member who heard a message about Adam and Eve in a Protestant church for the last 500 years knows full well that what I am saying is indeed the mainstream Protestant stance. That you should require me to offer "proof" that this is the Protestant view - and to call my summary of it baseless, groundless, and wholly erroneous, as you have - is about as preposterous a notion as one could expect to hear on these forums. Interesting to note that many others visited these threads and yet YOU are the only one making such statements.

Click to expand...

You are turning this into an ad hominem argument against me, rather than answer the question and provide the proof. You make ridiculous assertions about me, and unsubstantiated claims about protestantism in general, all the while avoiding the question.

JAL said:

I'm going to humor you for the moment.

Click to expand...

How condescending. "Humor me"? How about just telling me what your support for your ridiculous assertions are, without all the personal jabs?

JAL said:

Here are some statemements by Charles Hodge on federalism, vol II Systematic Theology and you can download it yourself off the web. In the following statement Hodge admits that federalism penalizes the innocent:

Click to expand...

JAL said:

"That which is adopted by Protestants generally, as well Lutherans as
Reformed, and also by the great body of the Latin Church is, that in virtue of the union, federal and natural, between Adam and his posterity, his sin, although not their act, is so imputed to them that it is the judicial ground of the penalty threatened against him coming also upon them. This is the doctrine of immediate imputation.... And when it is said that the sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity, IT IS NOT MEANT THAT THEY COMMITTED HIS SIN, or were the agents of his act, NOR IS IT MEANT THAT THEY ARE MORALLY CRIMINAL FOR HIS TRANSGRESSION; that it is for them the ground of remorse and self-reproach; but simply that in virtue of the union between him and his descendants, HIS SIN IS THE JUDICIAL GROUND OF THE CONDEMNATION OF HIS RACE"

Click to expand...

I see nothing in this which supports your assertions.



[FONT=&quot]

JAL said:

And in statements such as the following one Hodge denies any notion of a corporate Adam:

Click to expand...

[/FONT]

JAL said:

[FONT=&quot]"And there is no conceivable sense in which we and all mankind are identically the same substance with [/FONT]Adam[FONT=&quot]"[/FONT]

Click to expand...

[FONT=&quot]

Opinions vary on this. Since we are all genetically descended from Adam, it can be said that we were seminally "in" Adam when he sinned. Scripture supports this in the case of Levi paying tithes to Melchizadek In Abraham.
[/FONT]

JAL said:

Here Hodge makes a typical federalistic statement, by Hodge, implying that this kind of justice is humanly unintelligible:

Click to expand...

JAL said:

"We do not say that this solution of the problem of man’s sinfulness and misery, is without its difficulties; for the ways of God are past finding out."

Click to expand...

Lifted out of context, I will not comment on this, other than to say it looks as though you're "cherry-picking".

JAL said:

In the next statement Hodge flatly contradicts the justice spelled out at Ezekiel 18:

Click to expand...

JAL said:

"No fact in history is plainer than that children bear the iniquities of their fathers. They suffer for their sins. "

Click to expand...

Well, God did make a change in that in Ezekiel. Now, if you want to say that it was retroactive, you need to make a case for it. Before Ezekiel, if I understand correctly, the sins of the fathers WERE visited upon the children, to the third and fourth generation.

JAL said:

Notice how Hodge admits, in the following statement, that the repobrate of federalism are, in actuality, innocent:

Click to expand...

JAL said:

" If the fact be admitted that we bear the consequences of Adam’s sin, and
that children suffer for the iniquities of their fathers, it may be said
that this is not to be referred to the justice of God, but to the undesigned
working of a general law, which in despite of incidental evil, is on the
whole beneficent. The difficulty on that assumption instead of being
lessened, is only increased. On either theory the nature and the degree of suffering are the same. The innocence of the sufferers is the same. "

Click to expand...

Again, without a contextual frame of reference, you can make anyone say nearly anything.

JAL said:

In the next statement Hodge admits that this kind of "justice", when seen in a human judge, is unquestionably evil, but he then goes on to say that is okay for God to behave in this shocking manner, just because He is God:

Click to expand...

JAL said:

"That the execution of the children of a criminal by a human sovereign would be a cruel and unjust punishment, may be admitted, while it is, and must be denied, that it is unjust in God that he should visit the iniquities of the fathers upon their children...We cannot infer that because a course of action would be wrong in man, therefore it must be unjust in God."

Click to expand...

One thing you are overlooking is that the children are guilty of their own sins, and therefore subject to the Judgment of God.

JAL said:

This is moral relativism, a double-standard. Frankly it makes God a liar, because He calls the innocent "guilty." And if God be a liar, NONE of the biblical promises are worth a cent, because we cannot trust the promises of a liar.

Click to expand...

You have seized on the idea of innocence, and run with it. Are not all men guilty of sin? Are not all men born with a nature predisposed to sin? Scripture says all men are sinners, not because they sin, but they sin because they are sinners, conceived in iniquity, and speaking lies from the womb.

JAL said:

Wake up and smell the coffee, my friend. Theology and theodicy IS about human review. Who the heck else is reviewing it in theological debates, if not us? (I sure as heck don’t see God participating on this forum).

Click to expand...

But you are in effect trying to sit in Judgment of God, which no man has the right to do. Go back and read what I said yet again, and quit trying to read into it things I did not say.

JAL said:

Sorry, this looks like a cheap debating tactic to me. You ask me for proof when frankly it isn’t even necessary, and no matter how much I supply, you are still going to say, “Insufficient. Strawman. You haven’t proven your point.”

Click to expand...

It is not a "cheap debate tactic" to insist that you support your assertions with more than just your say-so. the very fact that you protest such a request tells me that you have no true interest in finding a resolution, or in learning whether or not your view is the truth or in fact error.

Your whole presentation is that of wanting to control the debate, and remain on the offensive, while keeping anyone who attempts to address the subject on the defensive. That is dishonest debate tactics, and I am not obligated to play this game by your rules.

JAL said:

Whatever. Federalism has so many holes in it that I hardly need to say anything at all. Here’s a contradiction that I haven’t even mentioned yet.

Click to expand...

Get this through your head: I told you that I do not completely subscribe to the Federalism paradigm. You apparently didn't catch that, because you aren't really reading what I'm writing. You're spending your time looking for 'gotcha" statements, trying to dominate the debate. In another thread, you dismiss the serious arguments I raised, as though they were beneath you. Truth is, you didn't want to have to undergo the scrutiny that would be brought to bear on some truly bizarre theories.

JAL said:

According to the mainstream doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, Christ’s earthly soul had to be fully human, a true descendant of Adam, and thus a created human soul just like one of us (to then be united with the divine nature).

Click to expand...

JAL said:

The problem with this view is that, according to federalism, every human is – MERELY IN VIRTUE OF BEING HUMAN – born guilty of sin (in need of a savior) and stained with sin. Christ should be no exception if federalism be true. Walvoord conceded that this apparent contradidction “cannot be finally solved.” (John F. Walvoord, "The Person of the Holy Spirit," Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol 98:389 (1941), p. 38).

Click to expand...

Completely untrue. While all men are born in sin, Christ's humanity was a product of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary, and the child thus conceived did not have the stain of sin.

JAL said:

Augustine went so far as to say (and Walvoord quoted him on this point) that Christ’s quite likely DID start out sinful in nature (due to original sin in Adam) and therefore God probably had to cleanse it of sin prior to completing the hypostatic union.

Click to expand...

And if God could do that for Christ, why not for the rest of us, without the Cross? Christ was born without sin, otherwise He could not have been the Spotless Lamb, and His death would have been for His own sins, not ours.

JAL said:

Frankly I’m sick and tired of you’re attempting to shift the burden of proof onto me when indeed the onus is yours given the morally shocking nature of federalism.

Click to expand...

Since you have not yet provided more than cherry-picked quotes, and biased views of what you think Federalism is and teaches, and since you obviously missed the fact that I do not completely accept Federalism, your taking umbrage at being asked to provide proof for your statements is misplaced, and disingenuous. You're engaging in ad hominem attacks on me as a person, rather than deal with the subject. You're engaging in avoidance tactics to try and keep me on the defensive. What you are ascribing to me is not accurate, therefore, I do not have to defend it.

When you can grow up enough to engage in real debate, instead of acting like a petulant child who isn't getting his way, we can continue. Until then, know that you have not established or even proven your stance, and you have avoided some serious question about your stated beliefs.

JAL said:

Very little of what you said merits any response. It's simply the cheap tactic I mentioned before
My guess is you're smart enough to figure out that the connotation was, "Humor these ridiculous demands."
Unless there is some kind of non-individuated corporate person, it doesn't help Federalism to say that we were seminally in Adam. In my metaphysics, it is no problem to believe that Levi was in Abraham in the sense of a kind of corporate Abraham - this is called Traducianism and my system allows for it. Traditional systems do not so allow, so your verse of Scripture does nothing for your case.
[/B] Completely misses the pont of Ezekiel's discussion - and I'm the one that takes things out of context? Ezekiel is discussing JUSTICE. He is not a moral relativist such that what is just changes from generation to generation. Your reply is so ridiculous that I don't even know why I dignfied it with a response.
And as Hodge asserts, the REASON they are born with a sinful nature is on account of Adam's sin, which is hardly just. The second contradidction in your statement (are you trying to set a record?) is to claim that all men are guilty of individual sin. Such a claim flatly contradict's federalism's assumption that sin is accounted representationally (Adam being the rep) rather than individualistically. Thirdly this contradicts Scripture where Jesus separate the sheep and goats, telling them, "You who did good deeds will remain with me, the rest of you will perish for your bad deeds." Throughout Scripture, the accounting is regularly individualistic. Jesus did not say, "You will perish because of Adam." No. You will perish for what YOU did.

Note you didn't seem to understand anything I said. Theodicy is a defense of God's justice. He must be shown within human concepts of justice. Basically every Christian wants to make the claim that God is just. But if this term has no meaning which we humans can understand, then the claim is not claiming anything at all. It's just gibberish. So we have to come up with possible definitions, discuss them, and see whether or not God's behavior fits in with this.

Oh no. I caught it, but I have only been critiquing standard federalism. YOU chose to respond. By doing so you imply that you are defending federalism against my charges (or you are just being deceptive). You have a better solution to Romans 5? Fine. I'm all ears. Let's see what you can do where 2000 years of theologians have failed.

Completely misses the force of the argument. One could by that same token argue that since most theologians are creationistic in regard to the soul (the Holy Spirit creates the soul at the time of conception) it should not have a sinful nature. Moot point, because it's not the argument here. The Federalistic claim is that Adam is the rep FOR ALL HUMANS. It's a syllogism.

Major Premise: Adam represented humanity in the Fall
Minor Premis: Christ was human
Conclusion: Adam represtned Christ in the Fall.
Corollary: Christ is guilty in Adam and therefore in need of a savior.

THAT'S the argument, and that's why even the Federalist Chafer admitted he had no way to resolve this apparent contradiction. You say I need proof? I need look no further than what federalists already concede.
[/B]

Click to expand...

It is quite obvious to me, and to others, that you have no idea of what you're talking about. Your screeds against "Federalists" are uninformed, half-baked, straw men that do not either properly present the view, or deal truthfully with it. I don't have to defend Federalism to observe that you don't know what it really is, or what it teaches. You try to dismiss what I say because I won't play your game and let you set the parameters of the debate. The burden of proof is squarely on you, and your attempts to shuffle it off on to me or anyone else is laughable.

Have fun playing with your straw men.

It is my hope and desire by submitting this paper that it will reconcile two opposing points of view, both holding to certain truths that can't be reconciled because they both start from a wrong starting point, i.e., time; creation. I purpose to show that the starting point for all our understanding must be from the true beginning;, from eternity past; before the foundation of the universe, "according to the eternal purpose in *Christ Jesus".


*Please Eph.3 and note how Paul makes the distinction he does when writing the name Jesus and Christ....note his insightful reasoning. It will help when reading my paper.
---------------------------------------------------


Concerning Adam and Jesus …


“God does not merely forgive our disobedience; he calls us to obedience, and to a life completely centered in Him.”……. a thesis of William Law

The question has been many times asked, “Why did God create Adam if He knew Adam would fail”, which begs another question: “Fail at what”? Answering the second question will help explain the reason for asking the first one.

Let’s look at this passage from Hebrews that pictures what Paul readily saw and understood and, as a result of that revelation understanding, wrote all his letters with it as central to his perspective:

“But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,” Hebrews 2:9-11 (KJV)

We can see that ‘many sons for Father’ is the reason for creation and procreation would be the only means they would ever come into existence. We know that because “procreation ‘r’ us”. God would not nor could not individually create us as did He the Angels who have no redeemer nor can ever have one. If in doubt about that ask the question: “How many redeemers would be needed for each of God’s fallen creatures, if He created them all individually? Moses was commanded to strike the ‘rock’ once. Never again is the ‘Rock’, Jesus Christ, to be smitten for mankind nor need He be because He died once, for all. We know that is true and we will one day see the single set of nail prints in His Hands as an eternal testimony of that fact. The Disciples saw them first on that day in the upper room. [John 20.27] Only one set could and will ever be in His Hands. “And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” Hebrews 6:5-6 (KJV)

Knowing that Adam would fail was certainly in the foreknowledge of the Father, however, Father still had to; was compelled to, follow through with His “soon to fail” creation while and at the same time, make provision for its redemption. Make no mistake about this: Adam was given humanity to its fullest degree/strength; a superhuman degree for a test Adam alone must pass in his own strength. No one could come to his aid in this. It should be understood and remembered that at this time Adam was not divine in anyway. Though he came from Hand of Divinity; Divinity formed him from dust to shine in innocence, there was not a speck of Divinity in him. He was all man could be, short of Divinity. Keep in mind he was NOT perfect. Only Divinity can ever be perfect. However, Adam was “perfectly innocent”. Innocence that needed to be groomed-tutored; to be filled with “Perfection”, the result of moral choices given him that would have accomplished the task, i.e., his transfiguration. The eating of the Tree of Life whereby he would have lived forever as God intended would have been his instead of the cruel tree needed for his redemption, suffered upon by the second/last Adam, Jesus…. Human Divinity demonstrating the Character of God would have been consummated. “It is Finished” would have been the words of Adam.

Saying this does not mean procreation would have ceased for realizing God’s ultimate intention because it was still to be the means for birthing sons and bringing them into Glory. Obviously the “new birth” or second birth would not have been needed had Adam succeeded in passing his test.

This is not about self-righteous flesh accomplishing anything for or in God but flesh totally submitting to the will of the Father as Jesus later demonstrated by His life… and for the same reasons.

“Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:” Hebrews 10:5 (KJV). This was spoken by Christ, the Word of God, not the Son of God. The Son of God was in “hypostatic” union with Jesus; begotten human flesh as “son of man” who later, by His obedience, became transfigured. The transfiguration of Jesus was His graduation day! It was the heavenly testimony of accomplished perfection in the life of a *born sinless man and because of His obedience He is now the new Christ of Glory …. Glorified Human Flesh and Bone in Union with the Throne of God, . …Consummated as the Ultimate Intention of the Father, from the beginning of the Himself. And yet not consummated as King of Kings and Lord of Lords until all His enemies are made His footstool. Until then He sits at the right hand of God pleading our case before the Throne of Grace.

Adam never enjoyed what we now can when we sin, i.e., an advocate with the Father. When they all died, the righteous of God could never enter into the presence of God because of the penalty of Adam’s transgression but were consigned to paradise; God’s holding tank, to await the Blood of the Lamb that would set them free.

Four thousand years mankind had to wait for such an advocate who, “in the fulness of time” another Adam, born not created and filled with God’s own Nature, that by His allegiance to the Nature His Father for success in the task given Him, not only redeemed mankind but demonstrated how we can do the same and must, that we overcome as He did. Jesus showed us the “way” of the cross before ever going to it to do the “work” of the cross which now, by His resurrection as proof, enables us who are faithful in Him, Christ Jesus. [Eph 1.1] (KJV only)
Jesus had to be born and NOT created. He could not have been created because creation was completed; finished after the six days of it. There is no new creation except by His Spirit.

It is my prayer that what I have written is a help to someone who may be struggling with his vision of the Father’s ultimate intention for His creation. This paper is incomplete at best. What I have posited I leave open for adjustment and correction from those with insight who may wish to do so for the edification of His Body, unto Joint-heir-ship......Ormly

JAL,

Your attitude is such that I will not waste my time further here. You are so insufferably smug in your self-assurance, and so condescending to the one person (me) that has bothered to spend any time trying to have a discussion with you, that it has become obvious that you can hear no voice but your own.

I pray that you come to the knowledge of the Truth. So far, you have posted enough to show me that you have much to learn.

Have a day.

JAL said:

The current thread was supposed to be a discussion of sanctification, but nobdysfool decided to digress to a debate begun on another thread. In that other thread I explained why the notion of Adam representing us is self-contradictory and unbiblical - just read the Opening Post:

http://foru.ms/t6252325&page=4

Click to expand...

I saw truth and error both of your arguments simply because I don't believe either of you were making good distinctions which will prevent anyone from arriving at their intended destination. Having said, what part of my paper do you believe to be unBiblical and lets discuss it. Perhaps we can straighten out a few crooked paths..... . I invite him to do so as well.

JAL said:

You seem to be an advocate of Federalism, the claim that the children of Adam are punishable for his sins. I challenged this claim in the OP on the other thread. Therefore I needn't say more until you address m y arguments raised in that Opening Post.


http://foru.ms/t6252325&page=4

Click to expand...

Where did the righteous in/of God, forgiven by Him for their sins, who lived in the OT times, go when they died? Your correct answer should rectify your notions concerning Adam's transgression; of the consequences placed upon all mankind.