Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[public hermit]

God revealed in the Incarnation that the Son has the power to step outside of omniscience to become the man Jesus. That is because He has two natures. Deity and Soul. Philpns 2:6-8

Who, while being in the form of God, did not regard the being equal with God a thing-to-be-grasped, but emptied Himself, having taken the form of a slave, having come in the likeness of humans. And having been found as a man in outward-appearance, He humbled Himself, having become obedient to the point of death— and a death of a cross!​

All men created were created by the Son. Col 1:16

When creating all men (like in the Incarnation) He was able to waive His omniscience while creating every soul. Creating every soul with only one thing in his desire. That every soul will choose to know and love the Father with a love that manifests beyond what we now can understand.

After all souls in the Lord's mind were created? Then He was restored to full Deity.

Then the plan for redemption was laid out. For its at that point, as God, He knew some would choose to arrogantly reject God.

That reveals and explains how God's omniscience did not deliberately create some to be condemned. ..

I see what you're saying. It's the idea of middle knowledge: God knows the choices free creatures will make and chooses a world that involves both human free will and the obtaining of the divine will. Therefore, some are saved.

I think that works about as good as any construct for this issue might, but it doesn't present a God who saves those in need. It presents a God who picks a world where some will and some won't be saved. It's a God who can't create a world where all are saved. And why can't God create such a world? Well, some just must be damned, so...

I see no reason God couldn't create a world where all freely choose union with the divine. God is infinite, and finite human wills are finite, happy with mud pies because they don't know what a holiday at sea is like (C.S. Lewis). God can surely woo us all. It might be painful falling in love during this eternity, but it is worth it.

 

[public hermit]

How are you ever going to understand anything I say if that is what you see?

God's Justice does what his Righteousness demands.

God can not accept someone lying to Him, or about Him. His Justice will deal with the liar.

Yes, which means God cannot accept any of us. Everyone exchanges the truth of God for a lie; it's called sin. So, what saves us?

 

[GenemZ]

I see what you're saying. It's the idea of middle knowledge: God knows the choices free creatures will make and chooses a world that involves both human free will and the obtaining of the divine will. Therefore, some are saved.

Again... you are too anxious to think it through. What I said is not what Luis de Molina came up with. What I am saying is different.

I am say that the Lord, since He has two natures, was able to waive His omniscience when deciding all God was to create.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Pump up the emotions? ... That's no substitute for the Holy Spirit leading. The grace-enabling that grants understanding.

It all comes down to the Word. Not how you feel about it. God's justice upsets those who fear righteous judgment.

In another forum I've been arguing against the notion that Sola Scriptura is 'bankrupt'. I'm not pumping up emotions. And yes, how I feel about it is irrelevant to the facts. But I certainly can enjoy truth told.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Until then. We are called to believe what God's Word actually tells us.

Of course! So what is your point?

 

[GenemZ]

Yes, which means God cannot accept any of us. Everyone exchanges the truth of God for a lie; it's called sin. So, what saves us?

Accepting a lie for truth is not sin. That is evil. Jesus died for all sins. He did not die for evil.

Someone will most likely sin in some way when accepting a lie instead of the truth. But, the actual preference for the lie constitutes evil. Satan was evil. The result of that evil led to what we call sinning.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Again... you are too anxious to think it through. What I said is not what Luis de Molina came up with. What I am saying is different.

I am say that the Lord, since He has two natures, was able to waive His omniscience when deciding all God was to create.

Can you reword that last sentence? Be more specific —for example are you saying that the Lord had two natures before he become man, i.e. as he was creating? If he waived his omniscience at that point, what are you implying?

 

[public hermit]

I am say that the Lord, since He has two natures, was able to waive His omniscience when deciding all God was to create

If you mean kenosis, the divine emptying indicated in Phil. 2, I'm with you. But you have taken this back to creation, which is interesting, but I need to hear more.

 

[public hermit]

Accepting a lie for truth is not sin. That is evil. Jesus died for all sins. He did not die for evil.

Someone will most likely sin in some way when accepting a lie instead of the truth. But, the actual preference for the lie constitutes evil. Satan was evil. The result of that evil led to what we call sinning.

Doesn't that reduce to God creating creatures that simply could not repent, I mean, since God knew what they would choose?

 

[Clare73]

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." Rom 5:12​

The Greek reader understood that when Adam sinned all sinned in a single point in time!

Thanks. . .I understand that to mean that Adam's sin involved us in condemnation (Romans 5:18-19)... by his guilt being imputed to us, just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to us (Romans 1:17, Romans 3:21) in justification by faith, and as righteousness was imputed to Abraham by faith (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

Meaning?
When Adam sinned we all sinned.
That is why some translators resort to saying " all have sinned."

However, since Romans 5:14 is clear that those between Adam and Moses did not sin,
because where there is no law, there is no sin,
nevertheless, they all died because the guilt of the first Adam was imputed to all those born of Adam,
just as the righteousness of the second Adam is imputed to all those born of Jesus Christ by faith,
and as righteousness was imputed to Abraham by faith (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:2-3).

 

[Mark Quayle]

What is mere justice? God brings all of this into being. God is absolutely sovereign. Mere justice is God succeeded in what God sets out to do. If God sets out to create creatures in God's own image and desires to bring them into union, God will do that. That's mere justice, i.e. whatever God wants.

What the ECT defender has to argue is that God desires to torture folks because that's what God wants (which is repulsive to the idea of a good God), or God can't help it (which is repulsive since God wants it but is too weak to obtain it because of the great value of human freedom). Or, God gets mere justice by getting the good creation God wanted. Which one makes good sense?

What the ECT defender has to argue is that God will indeed accomplish all he set out to do, and further, that all things are by God's say-so. The ECT defender need not dignify the simple un-contexted notion "that God desires to torture folks because that's what God wants". I believe in double predestination —in fact, I believe in the predestination of ALL fact. But I don't believe that God's primary reason for creating those who are ultimately lost and will be tormented forever in the Lake of Fire was for the purpose of them being tormented forever in the Lake of Fire, but rather his purpose was to demonstrate his power, purity and justice, and his mercy, to those whom he has chosen for his particular people.

 

[Clare73]

What is mere justice? God brings all of this into being. God is absolutely sovereign. Mere justice is God succeeded in what God sets out to do. If God sets out to create creatures in God's own image and desires to bring them into union, God will do that. That's mere justice, i.e. whatever God wants.

Actually, justice is giving everyone their due, what they have earned.

What the ECT defender has to argue is that God desires to torture folks because that's what God wants (which is repulsive to the idea of a good God), or God can't help it (which is repulsive since God wants it but is too weak to obtain it because of the great value of human freedom). Or, God gets mere justice by getting the good creation God wanted. Which one makes good sense?

 

[public hermit]

What the ECT defender has to argue is that God will indeed accomplish all he set out to do, and further, that all things are by God's say-so. The ECT defender need not dignify the simple un-contexted notion "that God desires to torture folks because that's what God wants". I believe in double predestination —in fact, I believe in the predestination of ALL fact. But I don't believe that God's primary reason for creating those who are ultimately lost and will be tormented forever in the Lake of Fire was for the purpose of them being tormented forever in the Lake of Fire, but rather his purpose was to demonstrate his power, purity and justice, and his mercy, to those whom he has chosen for his particular people.

Double-predestination? That's both logically satisfying and horrendous. You need better first principles.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Double-predestination? That's both logically satisfying and horrendous. You need better first principles.

Nothing wrong with it in its purest meaning. God intended everything for the one purpose, and predestining someone to be forever lost is part of accomplishing that one purpose.

 

[public hermit]

Actually, justice is giving everyone their due, what they have earned

Yeah, except God. God gets the short stick. God wanted a good creation, but alas, some (many?) must be tortured forever. <--- That's not a caricature; that's somebody's doctrine. God wanted, but didnt get what God deserved. Lord have mercy.

 

[Clare73]

Yeah, except God. God gets the short stick. God wanted a good creation,

And you know this, how?

What my God wants, he gets!

but alas, some (many?) must be tortured forever. <--- That's not a caricature; that's somebody's doctrine. God wanted, but didnt get what God deserved. Lord have mercy.

 

[public hermit]

Nothing wrong with it in its purest meaning. God intended everything for the one purpose, and predestining someone to be forever lost is part of accomplishing that one purpose.

That sounds like the divine will trumps goodness, justice, beauty, truth, etc. I would agree that the divine will is sovereign, but it is also good, beautiful, true, and just....and what God does proves the point. The product of God's will can't entail a result that is contrary to God's will. God desires that all repent and be saved. Done.

 

[Clare73]

Double-predestination? That's both logically satisfying and horrendous.
You need better first principles.

I was thinking that about your premise regarding what God wants.

 

[Clare73]

That sounds like the divine will trumps goodness, justice, beauty, truth, etc. I would agree that the divine will is sovereign, but it is also good, beautiful, true, and just....and what God does proves the point. The product of God's will can't entail a result that is contrary to God's will. God desires that all repent and be saved. Done.

Tell that to Pharaoh, whose heart he told Moses, before he ever left Midian to go to Egypt,
that he would harden (Exodus 4:21), for the purpose of displaying his power in him
and that his name might be proclaimed in all the earth (Romans 9:17).

Deuteronomy 29:29.

 

[public hermit]

my God wants, he gets

What God wants, God gets. What your God wants is a construct of your mind, unless your God is everyone else's.

God is sovereign, so either God chooses who is saved or God doesn't. If God doesn't, God is not sovereign.

We assume God is sovereign. If God is sovereign, then God chooses all or some.

You, Clare, say that God chooses some. On what basis does God choose some?