Free Will challenge

[Clare73]

You argued that since life was eternal, someone with eternal life cannot die.

No, I said one who is Eternal Life (John 14:6), not with eternal life, does not lose eternal life and die spiritually.
Jesus is the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16, 18) who is eternal life (God), and he does not lose himself on the cross. He does not cease to exist.

Eternal life is God's life, Jesus' own life as God, and he gives eternal life to those in him (John 10:28).
Just as (the first) Adam lost eternal life for all those born of Adam, so (the second Adam) Christ gives his eternal life to all those born of him, and the Holy Spirit who Jesus is (2 Corinthians 3:16-18) guarantees that we do not lose it (Ephesians 1:14).

Spiritual death is absence of eternal (God's) life.
Spiritual death is the state in which we are born, which is why we must be born again into eternal life.

this is an error because death is also eternal.

Actually, physical death is not eternal. All the dead will be brought back to life at the resurrection.
And eternal death is damnation, without God for eternity.

Someone with eternal death can change from one eternal reality to another

The NT makes a distinction between spiritual death (the state of our spirits at birth) and eternal death.
Spiritual death becomes eternal death when you die if you are not reborn into eternal life.
Eternal death is damnation, of both body and spirit at the end of time.

Spiritual death can be changed into spiritual life in rebirth.
If it is not, it becomes eternal death when one dies physically.
There is no change once one has entered eternal death (damnation at the end of physical life).

just as someone with eternal life can change (as Adam did). Adam was spiritually alive & would have remained so eternally had he not sinned. He moved from eternal life to eternal death… spiritual life to spiritual death.

Yes, and now we are all born in that spiritual death.
And since we are all born in spiritual death, we do not have access on our own to eternal life, to change into it.
That is a sovereign operation of the Holy Spirit by rebirth, with which we have nothing to do.
And unlike Adam, once the Holy Spirit has given us eternal life now, we cannot lose it.

God changes our heart, and the Holy Spirit guarantees that we stay there, and he will do what it takes to keep us there, including taking our lives if we are on an irreversible path to losing it.

So fallen man, born in spiritual death, can be changed from spiritual death to eternal life in the rebirth.
But once the Holy Spirit has made that change, it cannot be taken away like it could before, the Holy Spirit guarantees it now.

Genesis 3:22 (NASB20) Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out with his hand, and take fruit also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”--

John 4:14 (NASB20)
but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never be thirsty; but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up to eternal life.”

Revelation 22:1 (NASB20)
And he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb,

that fountain comes from the throne & was promised & then given to Christ after his death to effect his resurrection. God has also promised that Christ would never die again, after God abandoned & forsook him and subsequently gathered him back in.

You ignored that passage in Isaiah 54 which spoke of Christ, but it’s pretty clear.

why also was the fiery serpent the image of Christ on the cross?
Because he became sin spiritually (obviously Christ didn’t physically become a serpent.

No, just the opposite.

As the serpent was lifted up on the pole (tree) for healing from snake bite by looking to the snake (Numbers 21),
so Christ was lifted up on the pole (tree) for healing from sin by looking to our sin-bearer (1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 9:18), to his atonement on the cross.

Numbers 21:8 (NASB20)
Then the LORD said to Moses, “Make a fiery serpent, and put it on a flag pole; and it shall come about, that everyone who is bitten, and looks at it, will live.”

John 3:14 (NASB20)
“And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,

 

[Mark Quayle]

​

Don't be foolish. God the Father does not have physical form. God cannot abandon someone physically, He is Spirit, and can only abandon them Spiritually. Further, Jesus was alive when he said "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me" ... so it wasn't physical death he was talking about, but Spiritual death. Further still, He went to Hades for 3 days. Spiritually alive people don't go to Hades.

[Gal 3:14 NASB20] 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.​

[Act 2:33 NASB20] 33 "Therefore, since He has been exalted at the right hand of God, and has received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He has poured out this which you both see and hear.​

Why would God need to promise Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit if he never spiritually died or never was separated from the Holy Spirit?

​

And if you don't think that is personally (physically) experienced, then you don't understand what Jesus was talking about.

Previously addressed, any error of which has not been Biblically demonstrated.

Gup, true to form, you speak with self-assurance, assessing God's spiritual being, where angels don't even understand. Clare doesn't claim to understand it all, nor is she remiss in acknowledging that Christ became sin for us —sin which he INFINITELY paid. But she knows that the comparison of physical to spiritual is more like a comparison with, (to express it rather poorly in mathematical terms), a subset to a set, rather than two separate sets. The physical and the spiritual are not mutually exclusive principles. The physical can't even assess the spiritual, but the spiritual is above the physical. The physical is subject to the spiritual. And God INFINITELY owns (and controls) them both. It is more than I know to claim that Christ's human nature had a spiritual side like ours PLUS he had his divine nature, but the notion brings out a valid point, that just as Clare has been saying, God the Son never ceased to be living God, no matter what else can be said to have happened in his death.

Death is swallowed up. Clare has consistently been showing that Christ is GOD, who is victor over death. Christ had two different natures, he was not two different beings, one physical and one spiritual. He had two different natures: one human, and one divine. The divine nature is not subject to death —not even spiritual death.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith in Chapter 9 Paragraph 1 and 2 describes Adam and Eve as having free will (the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action) prior to the fall.

There appears to be no scriptural basis for believing this ability was lost at the fall without violating good Bible interpretation principles.

How would you answer this with scripture and good hermeneutics?

I don't know whether this has already been addressed in this thread, but it should be noted that the "ability" in question refers to something that incompletely addresses the question of what was lost. I could have answered your challenge with Romans 8 and other scriptures showing fallen man's pervasive enmity with God, and total inability to do obedience. If one is to define a moral action, such as to decide to do something good, as therefore morally right, then fallen man still has that ability. But according to Scripture even in that doing the unregenerated remain at enmity with God in doing these things.

"If the Son...shall set you free, ye shall be free indeed." The Reformed/Calvinists are sometimes fond of the notion that the closest thing to free will is only after regeneration, where the saved are able to choose either obedience or disobedience, assessed as such, as opposed to the unregenerate who can never obey, whether what they choose to do is considered good or not. There is, after all, a difference between compliance and submission.

If the definition you gave for free will is, as you claim, "the ability to refrain or not refrain from a given moral action", then it needs defined just what is "moral action".

 

[Gup20]

Gup, true to form, you speak with self-assurance, assessing God's spiritual being, where angels don't even understand.

Welcome to the conversation. To what form are you referring?

Clare doesn't claim to understand it all, nor is she remiss in acknowledging that Christ became sin for us —sin which he INFINITELY paid. But she knows that the comparison of physical to spiritual is more like a comparison with, (to express it rather poorly in mathematical terms), a subset to a set, rather than two separate sets. The physical and the spiritual are not mutually exclusive principles. The physical can't even assess the spiritual, but the spiritual is above the physical. The physical is subject to the spiritual. And God INFINITELY owns (and controls) them both. It is more than I know to claim that Christ's human nature had a spiritual side like ours PLUS he had his divine nature, but the notion brings out a valid point, that just as Clare has been saying, God the Son never ceased to be living God, no matter what else can be said to have happened in his death.

Actually Clare’s position is to reject entirely the notion that Christ became sin for us. She posits that the term “to be sin” in 2Co 5:21 (Greek word hamartia) actually should be translated “sin offering”. However, that is not one of the possible definitions of hamartia, but rather it is how only 1 translation of scripture (NLT) translates it. The rest of the Bible translations all translate it “to be sin” but Clare rejects that.

Death is swallowed up. Clare has consistently been showing that Christ is GOD, who is victor over death. Christ had two different natures, he was not two different beings, one physical and one spiritual. He had two different natures: one human, and one divine. The divine nature is not subject to death —not even spiritual death.

Clare mistakenly defined death as annihilation. I told her death is separation from God (the Father). Jesus was separated from God for a brief time, which has much Biblical support.

 

[Clare73]

Welcome to the conversation. To what form are you referring?
Actually Clare’s position is to reject entirely the notion that Christ became sin for us. She posits that the term “to be sin” in 2Co 5:21 (Greek word hamartia) actually should be translated
“sin offering”. However, that is not one of the possible definitions of hamartia, but rather it is how only 1 translation of scripture (NLT) translates it. The rest of the Bible translations all translate it “to be sin” but Clare rejects that.

And Clare responds that harmatia in Romans 8:3 is translated as "sin offering/sacrifice/for sin" by multiple translators (KJV, NAS, NLT, NIV, RSV, Williams NT, Calvin's NT Commentaries, etc.)

Clare mistakenly defined death as annihilation.

You have misunderstood Clare. She defined spiritual death of Jesus as annihilation.

Neither physical death nor spiritual death is annihilation of the human spirit.
Spiritual death is the loss by Adam of eternal life in the human spirit, but the human spirit continues to exist without it, for all mankind is born with a human spirit, but it is devoid of eternal life.

I told her death is separation from God (the Father). Jesus was separated from God for a brief time, which has much Biblical support.

Spiritual death is absence of the eternal life of God in the human spirit--a life not our own--imparted to us,
which absence of eternal life is separation from God, in which separation most of mankind lives their entire life.
But that absence of eternal life is not annihilation of the human spirit, for the spirit continues to exist.

However, with Jesus, eternal life is not imparted to him, it is him (John 14:6).
Absence of eternal life (spiritual death) is absence of Jesus; i.e., annihilation.

Jesus was not annihilated on the cross, he was not subject to spiritual death, which is loss of eternal life, which is himself (John 14:6).

 

[Mark Quayle]

Welcome to the conversation. To what form are you referring?


Actually Clare’s position is to reject entirely the notion that Christ became sin for us. She posits that the term “to be sin” in 2Co 5:21 (Greek word hamartia) actually should be translated “sin offering”. However, that is not one of the possible definitions of hamartia, but rather it is how only 1 translation of scripture (NLT) translates it. The rest of the Bible translations all translate it “to be sin” but Clare rejects that.



Clare mistakenly defined death as annihilation. I told her death is separation from God (the Father). Jesus was separated from God for a brief time, which has much Biblical support.

Your 'form' I referred to is that of making final decisions, made of structure built on earlier decisions, made about things you have no way of knowing for sure. You talk with bluster, no doubt sure in your own mind of what you are saying: "Do I sound confused?", etc.

No, Clare does not reject any of Scripture's statements nor principles. Like any of us, including yourself, I expect, she may hyperbolize or make statements past what is precise in order to get a point across that her reader refuses to acknowledge or understand.

You must mean by "all" Bible translations, all those into the English language that you are familiar with. Perhaps I am presuming to say so, since I don't know you well, but you seem to me to be presuming a lot in making such claims. Meanwhile, contextually, the force of the use of "to be sin" is as she said —even immediately upon those words the text says, "for us". Do you think it is referring to something different —he became literal sin and part of God died? God is not made of parts. Are you now going to say that in keeping with him becoming actual sin we become literal righteousness? Only God himself can rightly be called, "Righteousness". I should hope you understand language better than that. I myself am curious about implications from what it sounds like it says, if extracted from the context, but I can't begin to say she is wrong.

By the way, καταλυθῇ means to completely disassemble, to destroy. Do you think she means that the body will cease to exist? I like to think I know her pretty well. I've been involved in a couple of debates in which she proffered and vigorously defended the notion that we will have physical bodies in heaven, and that these bodies we have will be utterly changed. Are you sure you understood what she meant by 'annihilate'? Or are you just picking at whatever you can?

 

[Clare73]

Your 'form' I referred to is that of making final decisions, made of structure built on earlier decisions, made about things you have no way of knowing for sure. You talk with bluster, no doubt sure in your own mind of what you are saying: "Do I sound confused?", etc.
No, Clare does not reject any of Scripture's statements nor principles. Like any of us, including yourself, I expect, she may hyperbolize or make statements past what is precise in order to get a point across that her reader refuses to acknowledge or understand.

To insert:

It is more than I know to claim that Christ's human nature had a spiritual side like ours PLUS he had his divine nature, but the notion brings out a valid point, that just as Clare has been saying, God the Son never ceased to be living God, no matter what else can be said to have happened in his death.

To be precise:

Jesus of Nazareth is the God man; i.e., ONE person. . .with two natures, fully/perfectly God (John 1:1) and fully/perfectly man (John 1:14), which must necessarily include a natural human spirit with eternal life, as we see in the fully perfect Adam. . .and which the fully perfect Adam lost in his fall into spiritual death, proven by his physical death, which is the meaning of
"Dying (spiritually), you shall die (physically)," that being the meaning of the Hebrew in Genesis 2:16.

The God man does not become corrupt on the cross, for corruption cannot co-exist in God, whom the ONE person Jesus is.
The penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:3).
Atonement requires a fully perfect human to give his life as the penalty for sin, not give his righteousness.
Jesus did not lose his righteousness and "become sin" on the cross, he became a sin offering (harmatia, Romans 8:3), a sin-bearer (1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 9:8), he did not become unrighteous.

To continue:

You must mean by "all" Bible translations, all those into the English language that you are familiar with. Perhaps I am presuming to say so, since I don't know you well, but you seem to me to be presuming a lot in making such claims. Meanwhile, contextually, the force of the use of "to be sin" is as she said —even immediately upon those words the text says, "for us". Do you think it is referring to something different —he became literal sin and part of God died? God is not made of parts. Are you now going to say that in keeping with him becoming actual sin we become literal righteousness? Only God himself can rightly be called, "Righteousness". I should hope you understand language better than that. I myself am curious about implications from what it sounds like it says, if extracted from the context, but I can't begin to say she is wrong.

By the way, καταλυθῇ means to completely disassemble, to destroy. Do you think she means that the body will cease to exist? I like to think I know her pretty well. I've been involved in a couple of debates in which she proffered and vigorously defended the notion that we will have physical bodies in heaven, and that these bodies we have will be utterly changed.
Are you sure you understood what she meant by 'annihilate'? Or are you just picking at whatever you can?

Annihilate is his word, not mine, but it is what spiritual death would mean for Christ.

And thanks much for helping me clear up the above (are you sure I can't talk you into being my editor).

 

[Clare73]

.

 

[Gup20]

Gup, true to form, you speak with self-assurance, assessing God's spiritual being, where angels don't even understand.

Specifically which of your posts have I done this with?

Clare doesn't claim to understand it all, nor is she remiss in acknowledging that Christ became sin for us —sin which he INFINITELY paid

And Clare responds that harmatia in Romans 8:3 is translated as "sin offering/sacrifice/for sin" by multiple translators (NAS, NLT, NIV, RSV, Williams NT, Calvin's NT Commentaries, etc.)

She just re-affirmed that she rejects the Bible's clear statement in 2Co 5:21 that Christ became sin.

But she knows that the comparison of physical to spiritual is more like a comparison with, (to express it rather poorly in mathematical terms), a subset to a set, rather than two separate sets. The physical and the spiritual are not mutually exclusive principles. The physical can't even assess the spiritual, but the spiritual is above the physical. The physical is subject to the spiritual. And God INFINITELY owns (and controls) them both. It is more than I know to claim that Christ's human nature had a spiritual side like ours PLUS he had his divine nature, but the notion brings out a valid point, that just as Clare has been saying, God the Son never ceased to be living God, no matter what else can be said to have happened in his death.

Death is swallowed up. Clare has consistently been showing that Christ is GOD, who is victor over death. Christ had two different natures, he was not two different beings, one physical and one spiritual. He had two different natures: one human, and one divine. The divine nature is not subject to death —not even spiritual death.

Life flows from the throne of the Father. When Christ became sin, He was separated from God (from the source of Life). This is evidenced by Christ saying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Further, in Isaiah 54 when he prophesies of Christ he says:

[Isa 54:6-8 NASB20] 6 "For the LORD has called you, Like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, Even like a wife of [one's] youth when she is rejected," Says your God. 7 "For a brief moment I abandoned you, But with great compassion I will gather you. 8 "In an outburst of anger I hid My face from you for a moment, But with everlasting favor I will have compassion on you," Says the LORD your Redeemer.​

Additionally, we see that Christ was promised to be given the Holy Spirit. Why would this be necessary when the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, unless Christ was separated for a time? Why does Christ need to be redeemed by the Father?

[Gal 3:14 NASB20] 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.​

[Act 2:33 NASB20] 33 "Therefore, since He has been exalted at the right hand of God, and has received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He has poured out this which you both see and hear.

[Gen 15:5-6 NASB20] 5 And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your seed be." 6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He credited it to him as righteousness.

[Gen 17:7 NASB20] 7 "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your seed after you.

[Gal 3:16 NASB20] 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [one would in referring] to many, but [rather] as [in referring] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.​

There would be no reason to promise the Spirit through faith to Christ if He were never separated from Him. Additionally, there would be no sense in Christ receiving the promised Spirit if he had never been separated from Him.

Additionally, there would be no reason to raise Christ from the dead if He'd never died. He would simply raise Himself from the dead. But scripture is quite clear that The Father raised Christ from the dead, and He used the Abrahamic covenant of righteousness through faith to do it.

[Heb 13:20 NASB20] 20 Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, [that is,] Jesus our Lord,​

Why would Christ need to be resurrected by a covenant... why not just do it "because He is God." Or better still, if He were still alive, why would He need resurrection at all? Why would God need to make that covenant in the first place to resurrect Christ through Grace? The notion that Christ didn't get separated from God strains all credulity.

 

[Clare73]

She just re-affirmed that she rejects the Bible's clear statement in
2Co 5:21 that Christ became sin.

Jesus is ONE person, the God man, with two natures, fully human and fully divine.

The Bible's "clear statement" depends on which meaning of harmatia one uses.
Clare uses the definition in agreement with Jesus as sin offering (Romans 8:3), as sin-bearer (1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 9:8), not the one which causes the ONE person, God, whom Jesus is, to become corrupt and unrighteous, which is blasphemy.
If corruption and unrighteousness can atone for sin, why did we need God himself to do it for us (Romans 3:25)?

Life flows from the throne of the Father. When Christ became sin, He was separated from God (from the source of Life). This is evidenced by Christ saying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Further, in Isaiah 54 when he prophesies of Christ he says:

[Isa 54:6-8 NASB20] 6 "For the LORD has called you, Like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, Even like a wife of [one's] youth when she is rejected," Says your God. 7 "For a brief moment I abandoned you, But with great compassion I will gather you. 8 "In an outburst of anger I hid My face from you for a moment, But with everlasting favor I will have compassion on you," Says the LORD your Redeemer.​

Additionally, we see that Christ was promised to be given the Holy Spirit. Why would this be necessary when the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, unless Christ was separated for a time? Why does Christ need to be redeemed by the Father?

[Gal 3:14 NASB20] 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.​

[Act 2:33 NASB20] 33 "Therefore, since He has been exalted at the right hand of God, and has received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He has poured out this which you both see and hear.

[Gen 15:5-6 NASB20] 5 And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your seed be." 6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He credited it to him as righteousness.

[Gen 17:7 NASB20] 7 "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your seed after you.

[Gal 3:16 NASB20] 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [one would in referring] to many, but [rather] as [in referring] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.​

There would be no reason to promise the Spirit through faith to Christ if He were never separated from Him. Additionally, there would be no sense in Christ receiving the promised Spirit if he had never been separated from Him.

Additionally, there would be no reason to raise Christ from the dead if He'd never died. He would simply raise Himself from the dead. But scripture is quite clear that The Father raised Christ from the dead, and He used the Abrahamic covenant of righteousness through faith to do it.

[Heb 13:20 NASB20] 20 Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, [that is,] Jesus our Lord,​

Why would Christ need to be resurrected by a covenant... why not just do it "because He is God." Or better still, if He were still alive, why would He need resurrection at all? Why would God need to make that covenant in the first place to resurrect Christ through Grace? The notion that Christ didn't get separated from God strains all credulity.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Specifically which of your posts have I done this with?





She just re-affirmed that she rejects the Bible's clear statement in 2Co 5:21 that Christ became sin.



Life flows from the throne of the Father. When Christ became sin, He was separated from God (from the source of Life). This is evidenced by Christ saying "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me." Further, in Isaiah 54 when he prophesies of Christ he says:

[Isa 54:6-8 NASB20] 6 "For the LORD has called you, Like a wife forsaken and grieved in spirit, Even like a wife of [one's] youth when she is rejected," Says your God. 7 "For a brief moment I abandoned you, But with great compassion I will gather you. 8 "In an outburst of anger I hid My face from you for a moment, But with everlasting favor I will have compassion on you," Says the LORD your Redeemer.​

Additionally, we see that Christ was promised to be given the Holy Spirit. Why would this be necessary when the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, unless Christ was separated for a time? Why does Christ need to be redeemed by the Father?

[Gal 3:14 NASB20] 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.​

[Act 2:33 NASB20] 33 "Therefore, since He has been exalted at the right hand of God, and has received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father, He has poured out this which you both see and hear.

[Gen 15:5-6 NASB20] 5 And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your seed be." 6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He credited it to him as righteousness.

[Gen 17:7 NASB20] 7 "I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your seed after you throughout their generations as an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your seed after you.

[Gal 3:16 NASB20] 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [one would in referring] to many, but [rather] as [in referring] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.​

There would be no reason to promise the Spirit through faith to Christ if He were never separated from Him. Additionally, there would be no sense in Christ receiving the promised Spirit if he had never been separated from Him.

Additionally, there would be no reason to raise Christ from the dead if He'd never died. He would simply raise Himself from the dead. But scripture is quite clear that The Father raised Christ from the dead, and He used the Abrahamic covenant of righteousness through faith to do it.

[Heb 13:20 NASB20] 20 Now may the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the eternal covenant, [that is,] Jesus our Lord,​

Why would Christ need to be resurrected by a covenant... why not just do it "because He is God." Or better still, if He were still alive, why would He need resurrection at all? Why would God need to make that covenant in the first place to resurrect Christ through Grace? The notion that Christ didn't get separated from God strains all credulity.

You are beating, weakly, but with great advertisement, another strawman. @clare's insistence all along is that Christ did not lose his divinity —his Godhood.

I wasn't referring to your posts to me. I was talking about your posts I have read, maybe all of them to @Clare73. I was talking about a habit you have, even as you demonstrated here in this post to me. Ignoring, for now, your way of tying one verse out of context to another, you speak carelessly here of the Spirit as if it was a physical substance, when you don't know enough (have no authority) to do so. Where and when Christ sounds that way ("...if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you"), he knows what he is talking about, and does not imply that his apparent method applies across-the-board. We simply do not know everything involved in what looks to us like a displacement, as though they could or could not occupy the same physical locality. You see an apparent principle in your mind and grab it if it fits your worldview; you think you are following it, but you are pushing it.

 

[Gup20]

Jesus is ONE person, the God man, with two natures, fully human and fully divine.

The Bible's "clear statement" depends on which meaning of harmatia one uses.
Clare uses the definition in agreement with Jesus as sin offering (Romans 8:3), as sin-bearer (1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 9:8), not the one which causes the ONE person, God, whom Jesus is, to become corrupt and unrighteous, which is blasphemy.
If corruption and unrighteousness can atone for sin, why did we need God himself to do it for us (Romans 3:25)?

The meaning of words always depends on context. You can't use the context of Romans 8:3 to interpret the meaning of 2Co 5:21.

[2Co 5:21 NASB20] 21 He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin (harmatia) in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.​

[Rom 8:3 NASB20] 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God [did:] sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and [as an offering] (peri) for sin (harmatia), He condemned sin in the flesh,​

The word peri means:

1. about, concerning, on account of, because of, around, near

So the term "as an offering for" sin is a pretty fast and loose translation. In fact, most Bible translations don't render it that way in Romans 8:3. It would be more accurate to read "... God did... sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh."

Contrary to your continual statement that harmatia "could" mean "an offering for sin," and that because it 'could' mean this it 'should' mean this in 2co 5:21, this notion is totally, demonstrably false because 1) you can't use the context of Romans 8:3 to define words in context of 2Co 5:21, and 2) 2Co doesn't have the word peri which is mistranslated in Rom 8:3 to mean offering, and peri doesn't actually mean offering, and 3) the word harmatia never means "offering" in any context, but rather just means "sin."

In fact, a more accurate reading of 2Co 5:21 might be "He made Him who knew no sin, sin (noun, not verb) on our behalf." The "to be" is added to make it more English friendly (which is why the translators put it in brackets which denote phraseology not in the Greek itself) to demonstrate "sin" is a noun and not a verb. Notice the translators also put "as an offering" from Rom 8:3 in the same brackets because those words are not actually in the Greek text.

The New Testament Greek word for "offering" is prosphora which is not used in any of these verses.

 

[Gup20]

You are beating, weakly, but with great advertisement, another strawman. @clare's insistence all along is that Christ did not lose his divinity —his Godhood.

I wasn't referring to your posts to me. I was talking about your posts I have read, maybe all of them to @Clare73. I was talking about a habit you have, even as you demonstrated here in this post to me. Ignoring, for now, your way of tying one verse out of context to another, you speak carelessly here of the Spirit as if it was a physical substance, when you don't know enough (have no authority) to do so. Where and when Christ sounds that way ("...if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you"), he knows what he is talking about, and does not imply that his apparent method applies across-the-board. We simply do not know everything involved in what looks to us like a displacement, as though they could or could not occupy the same physical locality. You see an apparent principle in your mind and grab it if it fits your worldview; you think you are following it, but you are pushing it.

If I've offended you, then accept my apologies. If I sound authoritative it is because I am quoting the scripture and using the Bible's own phrases and concepts to interpret it and form my arguments. I don't care to use man-made terms when the Bible has its own words and phrases which should be used. Paul does it continually throughout all his epistles.

For example, when Galatians 3:16 says

[Gal 3:16 NASB20] 16 Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, "And to seeds," as [one would in referring] to many, but [rather] as [in referring] to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.​

Then I read in Genesis the passages Paul is talking about and it says:

[Gen 15:5-6 NASB20] 5 And He took him outside and said, "Now look toward the heavens and count the stars, if you are able to count them." And He said to him, "So shall your seed be." 6 Then he believed in the LORD; and He credited it to him as righteousness.​

I take Paul at his word and say (authoritatively) that when God said "Now look toward the heavens and count the stars... so shall your seed be..." that God was talking about Jesus when He said "seed." Therefore God must have been telling Abraham about Jesus Christ, and when Abraham believed what God preached to him about Christ, God credited it to him as righteousness.

[Gal 3:6-9 NASB20] 6 Just as Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS. 7 Therefore, recognize that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. 8 The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, [saying,] "ALL THE NATIONS WILL BE BLESSED IN YOU." 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer.​

So in Gal 3:6-9 we see the context quoted is the very passage in question (Genesis 15:5-6) and of it Paul says "God preached the gospel to Abraham." He also quotes Genesis 12:3 as being a simple sentence which contains "the gospel." So Abraham believes the gospel and is counted righteous, according to Paul. When we believe the gospel, we are considered descendants of Abraham and heirs according to God's promises to Abraham.

Of course, the Holy Spirit had not been given yet (He wouldn't come to indwell man until after Jesus' ascension), so the faith of Abraham was an unregenerate faith.

[Gal 3:14 NASB20] 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.​

So the "blessing of Abraham" is the promise of the Spirit through faith. If God is promising Abraham (and Christ) the Holy Spirit, that means Abraham did not have Him when he had faith. Therefore the faith of Abraham is an unregenerate faith. Furthermore, we know from other passages that circumcision (instituted with the Abrahamic covenant) is a type and shadow of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (the outside flesh being cut away and dies while the inner man lives on).

[Rom 2:28-29 NASB20] 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.

[Eze 36:26 NASB20] 26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.

[Jer 31:33 NASB20] 33 "For this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD: "I will put My law within them and write it on their heart; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.​

So then we read about Abraham's unregenerate faith causing righteousness, and Paul goes out of his way multiple times to make the point that this happened WHILE UNCIRCUMCISED... or before he was indwelled or regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Paul again quotes the Abrahamic covenant of Genesis 15-17:

[Rom 4:11-14, 16-17 NASB20] 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14 For if those who are of the Law are heirs, then faith is made void and the promise is nullified; ... 16 For this reason [it is] by faith, in order that [it may be] in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, 17 (as it is written: "I HAVE MADE YOU A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS") in the presence of Him whom he believed, [that is,] God, who gives life to the dead and calls into being things that do not exist.​

We find, then, that the "seal" which was physical circumcision as a type and shadow of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit finds fulfillment after the Holy Spirit is given on the day of Pentecost.

[Eph 1:13-14 NASB20] 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of the promise, 14 who is a first installment of our inheritance, in regard to the redemption of [God's own] possession, to the praise of His glory.​

[Act 11:16-17 NASB20] 16 "And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, 'John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.' 17 "Therefore, if God gave them the same gift as [He] also [gave] to us after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God's way?"​

None of this is out of context or irrelevant. They are all talking about the same thing in the same way. I use the terms Paul uses right across these scriptures to convey the same message he conveyed and in the same way he conveyed them.

So we come to the topic of this thread - the Free Will Challenge - and I relate this information to demonstrate that it was Abraham's unregenerate, free will to believe the gospel. Further, I posted much from the Bible's most salient passage on free will (Deuteronomy 30), and Clare rejected that as not concerning salvation when Paul himself quotes the very passages I cited (Romans 10) saying it is regarding "the righteousness based on faith" and the "word of faith we are preaching" but Clare rejected those passages as Old Testament and having nothing to do with salvation. So while you may lay the charge at my feet of speaking out of context or being careless, I think I've abundantly demonstrated that charge to be false.

 

[Mark Quayle]

To insert:

To be precise:

Jesus of Nazareth is the God man; i.e., ONE person. . .with two natures, fully/perfectly God (John 1:1) and fully/perfectly man (John 1:14), which must necessarily include a natural human spirit with eternal life, as we see in the fully perfect Adam. . .and which the fully perfect Adam lost in his fall into spiritual death, proven by his physical death, which is the meaning of
"Dying (spiritually), you shall die (physically)," that being the meaning of the Hebrew in Genesis 2:16.

The God man does not become corrupt on the cross, for corruption cannot co-exist in God, whom the ONE person Jesus is.
The penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:3).
Atonement requires a fully perfect human to give his life as the penalty for sin, not give his righteousness.
Jesus did not lose his righteousness and "become sin" on the cross, he became a sin offering (harmatia, Romans 8:3), a sin-bearer (1 Peter 2:24; Hebrews 9:8), he did not become unrighteous.

To continue:

Annihilate is his word, not mine, but it is what spiritual death would mean for Christ.

And thanks much for helping me clear up the above (are you sure I can't talk you into being my editor).

It is good to know that it was his word, not yours. I'm glad I didn't take the time to re-read enough to find out it was not your word.

What he is saying seems to me a category error —the very word, "God", implies source of life, unending. It is irrational to make claims implying the opposite. The same applies not just to life but to all that "God" is, including righteousness. It is only poetic to say "we lost our sin, and he lost his righteousness". It is not accurate. He "bore" our sin. He carried it and paid it.

 

[Gup20]

It is good to know that it was his word, not yours. I'm glad I didn't take the time to re-read enough to find out it was not your word.

What he is saying seems to me a category error —the very word, "God", implies source of life, unending. It is irrational to make claims implying the opposite. The same applies not just to life but to all that "God" is, including righteousness. It is only poetic to say "we lost our sin, and he lost his righteousness". It is not accurate. He "bore" our sin. He carried it and paid it.

Clare has lied. If you look at post #114, you will see I quote Clare's post from post #113. She went back later and edited her post and removed it, but the quote still remains in my quote of her original post.

Clare said:

Physical death and spiritual death are not of the same order.
Spiritual death is no eternal life.
Jesus is eternal life (John 14:6; John 1:28).
God did not annihilate Jesus on the cross causing him to die spiritually--to lose eternal life,
nor did Jesus annihilate himself on the cross.

The following from the NT teaching on the consequential difference between physical death and spiritual death is going to take some serious thinking through:

I. Physical death is to be without natural life, spiritual death is to be without eternal life.
We are born in spiritual death--without eternal life.
We are spiritually reborn into eternal life by the sovereign operation of the Holy Spirit (John 3:7-8).

She clearly was using annihilation as a definition for spiritual death. I don't use that term because it's unbiblical and I rarely encounter people who believe it, so using the term is not ever part of my arguments.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If I sound authoritative it is because I am quoting the scripture and using the Bible's own phrases and concepts to interpret it and form my arguments.

High and noble as that may sound, you fail to recognize that none of us is able to fully describe or use spiritual concepts. None. You are using concepts you make of Scripture —not Scripture's concepts. You make authoritative forays. I don't mean you are authoritative, except in presentation. You stand with great gusto upon YOUR interpretations and uses and structures. Yet you fail to recognize that your conclusions are contra-biblical, no matter how you get there, as @Clare73 has patiently been pointing out. Just as a for-instance, "free will" is not taught nor mentioned as what humans commonly use it to mean, in Scripture. (You infer it, but it is not implied in Scripture. Both Clare and I use it —she in the context of the fact that we always choose according to our inclinations, and I to mean that we do indeed choose, and our choices are real, with even eternal consequences. But the usual notion of free will, which I suppose you in some sense agree with, judging by your statement I quote here, is that our choosing is uncaused and unfettered, which is contra-biblical, not to mention, illogical.) The structure you have built brings you to the conclusion of, (concerning Abraham, at least) "unregenerate, free will to believe the gospel". Yet you have Romans 8 and Ephesians 2 and many others to defeat before making that claim. Was Abraham fallen? What is the cure for his fallen heart of flesh?

 

[Gup20]

High and noble as that may sound, you fail to recognize that none of us is able to fully describe or use spiritual concepts. None. You are using concepts you make of Scripture —not Scripture's concepts. You make authoritative forays. I don't mean you are authoritative, except in presentation. You stand with great gusto upon YOUR interpretations and uses and structures. Yet you fail to recognize that your conclusions are contra-biblical, no matter how you get there, as @Clare73 has patiently been pointing out. Just as a for-instance, "free will" is not taught nor mentioned as what humans commonly use it to mean, in Scripture. (You infer it, but it is not implied in Scripture. Both Clare and I use it —she in the context of the fact that we always choose according to our inclinations, and I to mean that we do indeed choose, and our choices are real, with even eternal consequences. But the usual notion of free will, which I suppose you in some sense agree with, judging by your statement I quote here, is that our choosing is uncaused and unfettered, which is contra-biblical, not to mention, illogical.) The structure you have built brings you to the conclusion of, (concerning Abraham, at least) "unregenerate, free will to believe the gospel". Yet you have Romans 8 and Ephesians 2 and many others to defeat before making that claim. Was Abraham fallen? What is the cure for his fallen heart of flesh?

On the contrary, this was my first post on this thread:

I don't think we have "free will." We cannot choose, for example, to reject God and be saved. I do think God gives man a distinct binary choice:

[Deu 30:19 NASB20] 19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,​

This is far from support of unfettered free will. It is monumentally fettered to 2 possible, distinct choices.

I think when it comes to Salvation, God has given man a distinct, binary choice. Believe the gospel or not... Life or death... Blessing or cursing. So I think it is more accurate to say God has given man the choice whether or not to believe. The term "free will" is wildly inaccurate.

What I like to call the Bible's chapter on "free will" & Calvinism is Deuteronomy 30.

[Deu 30:1, 6, 11-15, 19 NASB20] 1 "So it will be when all of these things have come upon you, the blessing and the curse which I have placed before you, and you call [them] to mind in all the nations where the LORD your God has scattered you, ... 6 "Moreover, the LORD your God will circumcise your heart and the hearts of your descendants (zera, seed, singular), to love the LORD your God with all your heart and all your soul, so that you may live. ... 11 "For this commandment which I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it far away. 12 "It is not in heaven, that you could say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us and get it for us, and proclaim it to us, so that we may follow it?' 13 "Nor is it beyond the sea, that you could say, 'Who will cross the sea for us and get it for us and proclaim it to us, so that we may follow it?' 14 "On the contrary, the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may follow it. 15 "See, I have placed before you today life and happiness, and death and adversity, ... 19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants (seed, singular, zera),​

3 times in this chapter it says that the choice for salvation (life & death) is a choice that God sets before man. It says the choice is not made in heaven, and is not too difficult for you to make on your own. It says you do not need heaven to come down and make you hear (the gospel) so that you can believe it and follow it.

Literally, the only defense to this I've ever been able to get from Calvinists (in years of making this argument) is that this is the Old Testament and only applies to the Jews. To curtail that line of reasoning, let me bring in the Apostle Paul's take on Deuteronomy 30 (nevermind the context is "circumcision of the heart").

[Rom 10:5-13 NASB20] 5 For Moses writes of the righteousness that is based on the Law, that the person who performs them will live by them. 6 But the righteousness based on faith speaks as follows: "DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, 'WHO WILL GO UP INTO HEAVEN?' (that is, to bring Christ down), 7 or 'Who will descend into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." 8 But what does it say? "THE WORD IS NEAR YOU, IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART"--that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus [as] Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved; 10 for with the heart [a person] believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 11 For the Scripture says, "WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE PUT TO SHAME." 12 For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same [Lord] is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him; 13 for "EVERYONE WHO CALLS ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."​

So Paul says the choice discussed in Deuteronomy 30 is regarding the righteousness based on faith, and that it is the word of faith that they are preaching. Paul says "do not say" that you need the Holy Spirit to indwell you to help you hear the gospel and believe. You can make this choice ... it is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach.

While I wouldn't call it free will... I would say that God has given man a distinct, binary choice between life and death and commanded him to choose. Just in case he is daft, God gives man a hint; choose life.

I like to give an example of this; lets say I tell my child she can have oatmeal or pancakes for breakfast... but FYI, the pancakes are way better. Am I still completely sovereign over my child's breakfast? Yes, because she cannot freely choose, for example, steak and eggs. But does my child have a choice and a say in it? Certainly she does! Does it diminish my authority over breakfast? Not in the least. Does her having a choice change that I am the one providing breakfast? Not in the slightest because I gave her that choice.

Now here is something interesting. I saw an debate once with Dr James White (Calvinist) who argued about the 'monergistic' vs 'synergistic' nature of salvation. He said there wasn't a single verse in the Bible that indicated a synergistic model of salvation. But that seemed off to me... especially given what we know of the binary choice God gives man regarding the righteousness which comes through faith.

[Deu 30:19 NASB20] 19 "I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have placed before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,​

[Rom 8:15-17 NASB20] 15 For you have not received a spirit of slavery leading to fear again, but you have received a spirit of adoption as sons [and daughters] by which we cry out, "Abba! Father!" 16 The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, heirs also, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with [Him] so that we may also be glorified with [Him.]​

 

[Mark Quayle]

Clare has lied. If you look at post #114, you will see I quote Clare's post from post #113. She went back later and edited her post and removed it, but the quote still remains in my quote of her original post.

Clare said:


She clearly was using annihilation as a definition for spiritual death. I don't use that term because it's unbiblical and I rarely encounter people who believe it, so using the term is not ever part of my arguments.

She said as much herself, to your accusation, concerning her use of the word, annihilation —(no, not that she lied, but) that (post #130) "You have misunderstood Clare. She defined spiritual death of Jesus as annihilation." (My emphasis). You are making a category error in the notion that God (in the man, Jesus Christ) can spiritually die.

I have not reread everything to see who said it first, but at this point I take her to mean by "it is his word" not that you said it first, but that it is what your words imply happened to Christ.

 

[Gup20]

The structure you have built brings you to the conclusion of, (concerning Abraham, at least) "unregenerate, free will to believe the gospel". Yet you have Romans 8 and Ephesians 2 and many others to defeat before making that claim. Was Abraham fallen? What is the cure for his fallen heart of flesh?

These are easily dealt with within the structure or framework I am suggesting.

For example, I assume you are referring to Romans 8:7:

[Rom 8:7 NASB20] 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able [to do so,]
​

But let me remind you of what Paul just said:

[Rom 7:25 NASB20] 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.​

This 'choice' of the believer is because of the two natures within him. This choice exists because man knows both good and evil. Genesis 3 confirms when God Himself says man has "become like us to know good and evil." You make an illogical assumption that a man with one dominant nature cannot violate that nature. This is not logical because Adam, who was created Very Good by God violated his perfect, divinely given nature which only knew good and had no consciousness of evil to perform the first sin. So the interpretation that Romans 8:7 is saying it is impossible for an unsaved person to subject himself to the law of God means he can't make the choice to believe is an unwarranted interpretation.

The second passage of Ephesians 2 I assume is Eph 2:8

[Eph 2:8 NASB20] 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this [is] not of yourselves, [it is] the gift of God;​

In this sentence, YOU is the subject and HAVE BEEN SAVED is the predicate. BY GRACE and THROUGH FAITH are supporting clauses which are prepositional. It would be a logical and grammatical fallacy to extend the meaning of the pronoun IT in IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD to a preposition rather than the subject without some compelling grammatical reason (which is not present). Further, as you may be aware, Greek words have masculine and feminine forms. The Greek builds in a way to follow the logic of sentence structure to understand whom certain words are relating to. If the preposition BY FAITH is feminine, then IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD must also be feminine to assign correlation. However, it is not. The IT pronoun is neuter. So it does not follow that IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD relates specifically to BY GRACE or THROUGH FAITH as both prepositional phrases are feminine. Interestingly, the subject/predicate YOU HAVE BEEN SAVED is masculine. Since the form changes, we know that the IT referred to in IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD is not specifically limited to either, but instead applies to both subject and prepositions! You have been saved by grace through faith ... this is the gospel of salvation. So the IT in IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD means this whole process of salvation, not specifically any one component.

 

[Gup20]

She said as much herself, to your accusation, concerning her use of the word, annihilation —(no, not that she lied, but) that (post #130) "You have misunderstood Clare. She defined spiritual death of Jesus as annihilation." (My emphasis). You are making a category error in the notion that God (in the man, Jesus Christ) can spiritually die.

I have not reread everything to see who said it first, but at this point I take her to mean by "it is his word" not that you said it first, but that it is what your words imply happened to Christ.

Its not my word vs hers when I quoted it in post #114. You can see it for yourself without taking my word for it. That is a snapshot of what she said. In other words, I have the receipts.