"Fatal Flaw" in predestinary theory

[MamaZ]

Christ has Imputed His righteousness to His believers..

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

Loss of existance is not scriptural , neither is eternal life granted to all men , LIFE is a positive attribute , it is to do with God's grace in saving individuals , merely existance in the corridors of hell is a traversty of the word and meaning of Life as found in scripture , it is more death than life , it is eternal torment and sin is certainly dealt with in hell , the Christian never shall see death , the Apostles deliberately called the Christian's death ; SLEEP , for in truth he who believes on Christ shall never see death , whereas as those who do not believe shall abide in death ........ confusing the state of the Christian with the world is not harmless , it is error.

A nice philosophical thought and concept but it is not scripture. To have such a low value of man, in fact, there have been some who have made man nothing more than animals. It may also be the reason why abortion is so prevelent with those who call themselves Christian. If God can permit the condemnation of death to so many, life does not really have much value. I think it is quite evident that the protestant western world has a low value of life and they wonder why all the death, and violence that occurs.

Scripture uses the word death even over those who perish and are never saved but "exist" forever , Christ came to bring everlasting life , whosoever shall believe shall never perish , if everyone NEVER perishes then all restrictions , "whosoever believes" is meaningless.

You have such a distorted view that you will never make sense out of what Scripture is actually saying. Your statement above has no scriptural meaning whatsoever. Christ saved all of mankind, the world from death and destruction. He saved it from the power of the devil who ruled this earth through death. Christ gave life to the world. He saved His created order from destruction, including man which is confirmed in Col 1:15-20. Find a text that overturns that Christ reconciled the world to Himself. However, those that do not believe will perish, but perish does not mean destroyed but separation from God spiritually. No human being was lost, John 6:39. He raised all human beings, their natures to life. That verse has no personal pronoun in it. Take off you presuppositions and read with an open mind. You cannot have a believer of verse 40 unless man has life, an eternal existance first.
You constantly fail to make the transition between the physical and the spiritual. The physical is first, then the spiritual. I Cor 15:45. Man must have life, an eternal existance, the reason God created man, all men, not just some men. That He can actually say that then He desires all to come to know Him spiritually, to be in union and communion with Him. If man does not, then hell is the option, but as a human being, not some mythical concept you seem to support.

 

[Rightglory]

cygnus,

"And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2:1).
Limited to those and only those in Christ , all others are not quickened but abide in death not life.

Paul is writing to believers, but there is nothing in the context that limits it to believers. It is simply addressing believers. It actually addresses both the salvation from the fall and the beginning of the salvation of the soul in that through baptism we sit with Him in the heavenlies.
If Christ is in fact the Savior of these believers, then of necessity all mankind would have been given life, in order to even have believers. It is the reason Christ came in the first place because man cannot give himself life.
You have yet to show any support to the op that a human being, any human being is predestined to believe.

 

[Rightglory]

Mamaz,

"And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins." (Eph. 2:1).
Limited to those and only those in Christ , all others are not quickened but abide in death not life.
I agree completely. Only those in Christ are set free from Sin..

But your statement does not even address the quote or text. Being free from sin is given through repentance, not being made alive or quickened.
In order for the "whosoever" to be able to believe, that person must have life. Must have an eternal existance otherwise a spiritual union is meaningless. A dead man cannot believe. If Christ did in fact quicken these beleivers, then He of necessity quicked every other human being as well, so they can believe. It is the Incarnation again. Christ cannot have assumed our natures, raised our natures to life and limited that raising. He raised all, thus all can be called, all shall be raised at the judgement and all shall stand in judgment and all shall have life eternal, some with Christ, some apart from Him.

 

[cygnusx1]

The sin of Christians doesn't just disappear it has been placed upon the Only Son Of God , Christ took upon himself the sin of "the world" , sin was charged to His account : He is the Scapegoat as well as the Lamb of God , all our sin was imputed to Him who was and is without sin , He became sin for us , and the Law of God charges "the Soul that sins shall surely die" .. Christ under these terms , agreed , in eternity between the Blessed Trinity he took upon himself frail flesh and permitted Himself to die the death of a sinner in accordance with God's will , through His incarnation and death mankind is saved , Christ's mission is accomplished , he came to save sinners , he died for our sins , and he was raised up from the dead for our justification and sanctification...... it is through the "remnant" saved that the "world" is saved , the world ;
Revelation 5:9 -

"Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, 10and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth."

No mere potential sacrifice , or potential atonement or potential Redemption , but a FULL Salvation unhindered and designed to accomplish what God who can never fail has accomplished , the salvation of the world , represented by salvation being secured for some out of every tribe and nation . Amen !!
​

 

[Ben johnson]

Quoted by Cygnus:
The sin of Christians doesn't just disappear it has been placed upon the Only Son Of God , Christ took upon himself the sin of "the world" , sin was charged to His account : He is the Scapegoat as well as the Lamb of God , all our sin was imputed to Him who was and is without sin , He became sin for us , and the Law of God charges "the Soul that sins shall surely die" .. Christ under these terms , agreed , in eternity between the Blessed Trinity he took upon himself frail flesh and permitted Himself to die the death of a sinner in accordance with God's will , through His incarnation and death mankind is saved , Christ's mission is accomplished , he came to save sinners , he died for our sins , and he was raised up from the dead for our justification and sanctification...... it is through the "remnant" saved that the "world" is saved , the world ;​

Cygnus, which comes first --- "repentance", or "imputed righteousness"?

And do you perceive that all sins are forgiven upon salvation, all past and all future? If so --- do you regard "repentance" as something God does TO us, rather than something God receives FROM us?

(I'll connect this to the "op", based on your responses; thanx in advance...)

 

[expos4ever]

In my view, God is the ONLY Being with a truly unlimited, autonomous free will. The idea of a god who cannot act freely is, in my mind, ludicrous, as it would rob God of that which He is. God is the ONLY self-existent, self-determining Being that exists. The reasons for His actions, and the cause of His actions reside totally within Himself. No other being can make that claim. It is summed up in His very Name: "I am that I am" - YHWH That is one of many names He has identified Himself as, each one revealing apsects of His Being and Character.

I agree with what you say here. But this does no damage to the position that men have limited free will.

That's not what you said before. I also agree that men have limited free will. Where we differ, I'm sure is the scope and reach of that free will, and why.

I believe you are mistaken- I never said anything that is at odds with the first of your statements above.

 

[drstevej]

Cygnus, which comes first --- "repentance", or "imputed righteousness"?

Simultaneous. Meditate on that word.

simultaneous Synonyms
coincident, at the same time, concurrent, contemporaneous, synchronous, in concert, in unison, in the same breath, in chorus, at the same instant, coinstantaneous, in time, in sync*

 

[expos4ever]

It also is equally true that what is true of God may not necessarily be true of man in any sense. In any case, "autonomous free will" must be defined. In what sense is it autonomous?

I have already addressed this is my definition of free will. That definition, I believe, quite clear in respect to what I mean by "free will".

I have seen free will arguments that basically dismiss any affect of a man's nature on his ability to choose, such that the Grace of God is really not needed, because it is argued that a man, by the power of his own will, can at any time choose to submit to God, and repent of his sins and receive Christ, completely apart from and with no action on the part of God, no Grace, no enlightenment by means of Grace, no action of Grace whatsoever. I find that to be unscriptural in the extreme. Yet this is usually where free will advocates want to go with such reasoning.

I think that I fall into the camp that you describe here. I see no evidence in the scriptures that speaks against the position that God "calls" men (at least those who hear the gospel) who can then freely come to the conclusion that they need grace and then freely accept such grace. Man's rescue is still a gift, but it is indeed freely accepted.

My view is this: men have the ability to choose freely from the real options open to them. Their ability to choose is affected and controlled by their desires, good or bad. since men are born as sinners, their desires are controlled and spring from their sinful natures, such that while they can choose among sins, they will not choose to not sin. At most they can choose to not commit a given sin. But the sinful nature runs deeper, to the motivations for their choices. Scripture defines sin as the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the boastful pride of life. Sinful men may choose to do seemingly morally good acts for selfish motives, which makes even those actions sinful. In short, men in their natural state are incapable of not sinning, for even the good they may do is marred by selfish motives.

Thus, men in their natural state do not care to turn to God, to know Him, or to obey Him. It is not that they lack the ability to choose Him, what they lack is the moral ability to choose to obey God. That is what Paul meant when he said that God had shut up all men under sin, that all have sinned, that there is none who seek after God. not even one.

I do not share your position. I think that the scriptural descriptions of the fallen state of man do not rule out the capacity of man to recognize his fallen state, in response to God's "call" and then to freely accept the remedy. I guess we would need to get into the relevant texts. My view works with the Romans 3 stuff about men not seeking - I believe that God "beckons" or "calls" men (at least the ones who hear the gospel). And in response, men can "freely" turn toward God.

 

[expos4ever]

Mankind in general (apart from those who are in Christ) are still very much in bondage to sin. It is ludicrous to think otherwise. The evidence is all around. Christ overcame death for those who are and will be in Him. He died for His People, His sheep.

Hardly, they have chosen to be in bondage to sin just as a believer has chosen to be in bondage to Christ. We can either be a slave to sin or to Christ, That is what the judgement is all about. We are no longer under Adam already condemned in spite of ourselves. Christ freed mankind and put all the responsibility upon every single individual to chose who they will serve. There is NOTHING in scripture that refutes that understanding. It is the whole purpose of man being created, and being created free to exercise a will freely to dwell with God as intended or to reject Him.

For those who have reading my post, you may be surprised that I will agree, with a qualification, with nobdysfool here - at least in respect to the matter of men being in bondage to sin. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what RG is saying here.

Man is indeed hopelessly in bondage to sin in his unregenerate state - his nature makes it simply impossible to not sin. However, I believe that, like the man hopelessly addicated to heroin, man retains the cognitive ability to recognize his plight. He may not be able to "not sin", but he is able to understand that he is in this state where sin is certain, and to accept help from God to "fix" the problem.

 

[expos4ever]

Expose4ever,

I post this for you to consider from the book of Job,

Job 34:12Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment.
Job 34:13Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?
Job 34:14If he set his heart upon man, [if] he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
Job 34:15All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust.Job 34:16If now [thou hast] understanding, hear this: hearken to the voice of my words.

My question to you is what is there in our being that doesn't fit into the word, ALL.

I really do not understand your point. The only occurrence of "all" appears to be in verse 15. And the writer is making the self-evident claim that all men die. I fail to see how this connects to the matter of the nature and extent to which God "pre-destines" things. Sure all men die. And I would concede that God pre-destines this. But it certainly does not follow that God pre-destines all things.

It is in fact, His creation and He will accomplish all that He has set His will to do in the creation.

I have never denied this or written anything inconsistent with this.

Our choices are made from things that HE gives us to choose from, yet whatever choice we make will ultimately manifest His will in the earth.

I do not believe that you have indicated whether you believe that God has a specific will in respect to everything. I believe that He does not - He leaves some choices up to us, yet He retains enough control to ensure that whatever things He wants to accomplish are indeed accomplished.

If it weren't so, then as the scripture says, if He were to gather unto Himself His breath which is our spirit, we would cease to be and return to the earth from which He formed us. Meditate hard on this word and seek the Holy Spirit for the truth.

I do not follow you here at all. Sure God gathers our spirit. But how that relate to the matter at issue?

 

[expos4ever]

Christ has Imputed His righteousness to His believers..

I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that we are imputed the righteousness of Christ. Would you please provide texts that you believe endorse such a position?

 

[Rightglory]

Cygnus,

The sin of Christians doesn't just disappear it has been placed upon the Only Son Of God , Christ took upon himself the sin of "the world" , sin was charged to His account : He is the Scapegoat as well as the Lamb of God , all our sin was imputed to Him who was and is without sin , He became sin for us , and the Law of God charges "the Soul that sins shall surely die" .. Christ under these terms , agreed , in eternity between the Blessed Trinity he took upon himself frail flesh and permitted Himself to die the death of a sinner in accordance with God's will , through His incarnation and death mankind is saved , Christ's mission is accomplished , he came to save sinners , he died for our sins , and he was raised up from the dead for our justification and sanctification...... it is through the "remnant" saved that the "world" is saved , the world ;

The propitiation or atonement of the sin of the world is one of the two Works of Christ for us. He propitiated the sins of the world so that those that believed and desired to be in union with Him could have their sins forgiven. Sin was atoned. It matters not whose sin, or what sin, how many sins, it is sin that is propitiated. This would be null and void if Christ did not also raise man to life. There would be no purpose to have a brief sojourn in this life and then man dies and returns to the dust, the condemnation of Adam upon all mankind. God wants an eternal union, a communion that last beyond this life, thus the most important aspect of his work is the Resurrection of our natures, Life, Immortality.
The death of the sinner is the condemnation of Adam. He overcame death, physical death, gave life to the world. Since God desires union with all men, the sin factor must of necessity be dealt with which was through His sacrifice. It permits Christ as High Priest over His own sacrifice to forgive sins for those who desire to be in union with Him.
Heaven and hell is a choice for man.Christ overcame all the effects of the fall, so that every human being could have the free choice of chosing whom they would serve. Just as man was created to be and do with God. He was raised for the justification of all men, Rom 5:18-19, also I Cor 15:22 and Rom 11:32, John 6:39 just a few.
There is nothing in scripture that can change the fact that Christ died for sinners which is all men. He gave life to the world, He gave Light to all men that cometh into the world. There is never a restriction or limitation upon the work of Christ in overcoming the fall.

 

[nobdysfool]

Quoted by Cygnus:
The sin of Christians doesn't just disappear it has been placed upon the Only Son Of God , Christ took upon himself the sin of "the world" , sin was charged to His account : He is the Scapegoat as well as the Lamb of God , all our sin was imputed to Him who was and is without sin , He became sin for us , and the Law of God charges "the Soul that sins shall surely die" .. Christ under these terms , agreed , in eternity between the Blessed Trinity he took upon himself frail flesh and permitted Himself to die the death of a sinner in accordance with God's will , through His incarnation and death mankind is saved , Christ's mission is accomplished , he came to save sinners , he died for our sins , and he was raised up from the dead for our justification and sanctification...... it is through the "remnant" saved that the "world" is saved , the world ;​

Cygnus, which comes first --- "repentance", or "imputed righteousness"?

Repentance is followed immediately by the imputation of righteousness. So repentance precedes imputation.

And do you perceive that all sins are forgiven upon salvation, all past and all future?

How many sins of your sins did Jesus die for? When you receive Christ, you receive what He did. That includes forgiveness for all of your sins.

If so --- do you regard "repentance" as something God does TO us, rather than something God receives FROM us?

This does not follow from the first half of your question. God grants repentance, and responds to our repentance, so the answer is "both". And there is scripture to back that up.

 

[MamaZ]

I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that we are imputed the righteousness of Christ. Would you please provide texts that you believe endorse such a position?

Rom 4:18 In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, "SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE."
Rom 4:19 Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb;
Rom 4:20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God,
Rom 4:21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.
Rom 4:22 Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Rom 4:23 Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him,
Rom 4:24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
Rom 4:25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.


Here is the NKJ version.


Rom 4:24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,
Rom 4:25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

 

[MamaZ]

"This is his name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.—Jeremiah 23:6.​

 

[nobdysfool]

I believe you are mistaken- I never said anything that is at odds with the first of your statements above.

I have looked over the back-and-forth between us, and I stand by my statement, that you at first did not say that you believed in a limited free will for man. You simply stated that you believed that men have free will, and I started to press for a more exact definition of what you meant. Some of Your subsequent statements were either subtly different, or additional; to what you initially said. Please understand that when I read what others write, I take a very literal view of their words, rather than assume things that they may or may not have meant. If you don't say "limited free will", I am not going to assume that you meant that, so when you later say that you meant that, I will say, as I have, that that is not what you said before. Say what you mean, and don't leave it ambiguous.

That's the way I write, and I choose my words carefully, to be sure I am not misunderstood, so understand that when I speak plainly, and my words are taken to mean something other than what they obviously mean, I get rightfully concerned and maybe a little testy. It annoys me when ulterior motives are ascribed to what I say, because I am not that way at all.

 

[expos4ever]

Rom 4:18 In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, "SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE."
Rom 4:19 Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb;
Rom 4:20 yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God,
Rom 4:21 and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.
Rom 4:22 Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Rom 4:23 Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him,
Rom 4:24 but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
Rom 4:25 He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.


Here is the NKJ version.


Rom 4:24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead,
Rom 4:25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

These texts do not support the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (or of God) to the believer.

This material from Romans 4 does not say that the righteousness of God is being credited to Abraham, it says that God is ascribing a status of righteousness to Abraham. You give the reader no reason to believe that it is specifically God's righteousness that is being ascribed.

There appears to be an implicit assumption in the thinking of many that one cannot attain a state of "righteousness" unless somebody's else's righteousness is imputed to them. This is obviously not true. Every day, hundreds of people are acquitted in the lawcourts of the land - deemed to be "righteous" (in the right) in respect to the charge brought against them. And yet none of these people are getting "somebody else's" righteousness.

They are simply being declared to be in the right.

Paul is drawing on the model of the Hebrew lawcourt. In that lawcourt, there is a plaintiff, a defendent, and a judge. The judge finds in favour of one of the two parties. In so doing, the judge declares that person to be "in the right". But there is no sense in which the judge is saying to that person "You are getting my righteousness" or "you are getting John Doe's righteousness".

 

[expos4ever]

I have looked over the back-and-forth between us, and I stand by my statement, that you at first did not say that you believed in a limited free will for man.

Well your statement was incorrect whether you stand by it or not. The fact that, at a certain point in the argument, I had not yet stated that I believed in limited free will does not justify your conclusion that I believed that free will was not limited.

I have said nothing contradictory.

You simply stated that you believed that men have free will, and I started to press for a more exact definition of what you meant.

Again, any statement of mine about man having free will should not be taken as implying that he is free in respect to everything he does.

Some of Your subsequent statements were either subtly different, or additional; to what you initially said.

None of my statements were different, they were all "additional" - qualifying what I had said earlier.

Please understand that when I read what others write, I take a very literal view of their words, rather than assume things that they may or may not have meant.

If you were really reading me literally, you would not claim that I have, in any sense, contradicted myself. I have done no such thing.

If you don't say "limited free will", I am not going to assume that you meant that, so when you later say that you meant that, I will say, as I have, that that is not what you said before. Say what you mean, and don't leave it ambiguous.

This is an entirely unfair criticism. I am neither obligated, nor do I have the time to give a completely fleshed out statement of my position in one post. Besides, no one would read such a post, it would be too long.

When I initially said men had free will, the reader should have made no assumption as to what I believed in respect to the degree to which men possess such free will.

In any event, I hope that we are all now clear about my view - men have a limited degree of free will.

That's the way I write, and I choose my words carefully, to be sure I am not misunderstood, so understand that when I speak plainly, and my words are taken to mean something other than what they obviously mean, I get rightfully concerned and maybe a little testy. It annoys me when ulterior motives are ascribed to what I say, because I am not that way at all.

I have been clear from the beginning and have not said anything contradictory. I, too, choose my words carefully. And with all respect, you have been less than careful in some of your statements - such as the one where you erroneously said that I had not considered your request to not derail a certain thread. You had indeed made such a request, but in respect to another thread. I, too, probably have slipped up at times. But I am pretty confident I have not done so in respect to this particular issue about free will.

 

[nobdysfool]

If you want to play word games with me, and play the offended party every time I try to examine your pronouncements, we're done. I simply won't waste my time playing that game. You have derailed this thread for long enough. Start your own thread to pursue this.

Quite frankly, you have tried to promote a view which is not orthodox, and doesn't add up. You apparently have an inability to clearly state what you believe, and get defensive when what you have said is examined. You keep moving the target. That is not conducive to clear discussion.