God's Ability To Save

[Reformationist]

You have misunderstood. I didn't say that Adam's body was weak, but the essence of who he was (his spirit) that existed within his fleshly body/house/tabernacle/shell was weak to overcome it's passions/urges/drives/desires, which is precisely the condition we find ourselves in today.

Apparently I haven't misunderstood at all. To clarify, claiming that any part of Adam's being, whether you are referring to his physicality or his spirituality, is inherently inclined to rebellion is to defeat the logic in the biblical account of the Fall of mankind. You see, it is perfectly just for God to appoint unto mankind a representative and then hold those that he represents accountable by virtue of their affiliation with that representative. But, to claim that God created Adam with a nature that was inherently predisposed to engage in, or submit to, "passions/urges/drives/desires" that are contrary to God's law ultimately makes God, not man, responsible for Adam's actions and, thus, man's fall.

All you have done by drawing a spiritual parallel between pre-Fall man and post-Fall man is defeat the logical reason that Christ must come from the seed of a woman. Unlike pre-Fall Adam, the image of post-Fall man is no longer in harmony with the image of his Creator.

I don't mean to sound harsh, and I have tried really hard to be patient, but whenever I give you scripture, you give me Calvinistic gibberish. None of that gobbledygook remotely resembles scripture.

Why would I take such a statement to be anything but the paradigm of godliness? Such remarks are so clearly consistant with a desire for a mutual exchange of ideas punctuated by growth in our knowledge and appreciation for God.

After all, what you call "Calvinistic gibberish" is what I call a proper interpretation of Scripture. Such labels, which I'm sure you apply with the most righteous of intentions, are as productive as if I were to refer to your views as man-centered tripe, suitable only for the ears of heathens who despise the Lord and the majesty of His revelation. But of course, seeing as how you're such a gentle sort of person, I'm sure you'd know that were I to say such a thing in a non-hypothetical way, I'd mean it in just the same godly way you refer to my beliefs as "gobbledygook."

There was no sinful nature passed on to mankind by Adam's action in the garden. The nature he was given at the instant of his creation was the same nature that he had at the momemnt of disobedience, and the same nature he had outside Eden, which is the same nature that mankind shares to this day.

I'm sure it is of no consequence and purely irrelevent but even the heretic Pelagius did not deny that Adam's nature was corrupted by sin. He simply contended that the corruption did not extend past the perpetrator. But hey, you take a much bolder stand and deny any effect at all to the constituency of man's nature by sin.

Where is you support from scripture that Adam's nature changed?

I would be happy to offer it but, based on your godly reception of my position thus far I think it may be better to avoid foisting any more "gibberish" upon your sensitive soul.

It is clear that you see no difference between yielding to temptation and willful cosmic treason.

I fail to see the viability of denying the willfully rebellious nature of actions which violate the Law of God, especially when they are committed by one who is in such intimate harmony with the Lord Himself. I can see that you find it much less "harsh" to soften the charge by calling Adam's rebelliousness a simple "yielding to temptation." Unfortunately, such a liberal approach to the Fall does violence to the judgement of God and makes Him an evil dictator who judged mankind worthy of condemnation for a simple and perfectly excusable mistake.

No. You know this is not what I am saying.

Actually I didn't know that isn't what you were saying, which is precisely why I asked.

Man is all that matters to God as far as this creation is concerned, all else is only good in terms of how it enables God to bring the best of what was good, to perfection.

Really? And you glean this little tidbit of knowledge from which section of Scripture?

They didn't seek to usurp anything, they simply made an error in judgment because they were deceived in their thinking. It was an onslaught on their senses that they were obviously not prepared for (being innocent and naive). You continue to use words that are more applicatble to the serpent and his agenda than to anything Adam and Eve were thinking.

Well, seeing as how you deny man's guilty standing before the judgement seat of God, I imagine that referring to Adam and Eve's rebelliousness as a "simple error of judgement" is right in line with your theology, or should I say anthropological approach to Scripture. However, the obvious fault in such a theology is that post-Fall man starts his journey toward death from the minute of conception. To claim that death, which is part of God's judgement against iniquity, is something that man is subject to simply because he is "innocent and naive" is, once again, more in line with a desire to protect the intentions of the creation than the holiness of God. But hey, maybe that's what you're after.

If you can't say who they are, then your best assumption is to consider all men worthy of salvation.

The rest of your post, and probably the portion that I commented on already, would find a better home in the liberal theology forums so I'll simply leave your closing statement, quoted above, to serve as more of an indictment against your position than anything I could offer.

 

[enegue]

Hi Reformationist,

You have to come to the realisation that God didn't make man perfect, and it is foolish to imagine that he did. If man was perfect, why did he fall? If man was perfect then the cosmic rebellion you accuse him of was part of that perfection. What nonsense! It is far simpler to just go with what scripture has to say, "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

enegue: the essence of who he was (his spirit) that existed within his fleshly body/house/tabernacle/shell was weak to overcome it's passions/urges/drives/desires, which is precisely the condition we find ourselves in today.
Reformationist: to claim that God created Adam with a nature that was inherently predisposed to engage in, or submit to, "passions/urges/drives/desires" that are contrary to God's law ultimately makes God, not man, responsible for Adam's actions and, thus, man's fall.

Not at all.

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin.
-- Deuteronomy 24:16
​

This is the principle that God would have us live by, because it is the principle under which he operates. Read Ezekiel 18 for a complete understanding of this principle.

Now, passions/urges/drives/desires in and of themselves are very good, as was everything else God created. They are the means by which we survive as beings in this creation. They are the means by which we creatively use all that God had provided. Science, art, music, literature, etc are only possible because God included such things in his design. However, it is our weakness to bring them under our control, and overcome their power to fix our sight on the earthly and miss the heavenly, that is the problem.

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
-- Romans 8:12,13

​

enegue: Where is you support from scripture that Adam's nature changed?
Reformationist: I would be happy to offer it but, based on your godly reception of my position thus far I think it may be better to avoid foisting any more "gibberish" upon your sensitive soul.

Then don't give me gibberish, just point me to the scriptures.

enegue: It is clear that you see no difference between yielding to temptation and willful cosmic treason.
Reformationist: such a liberal approach to the Fall does violence to the judgement of God and makes Him an evil dictator who judged mankind worthy of condemnation for a simple and perfectly excusable mistake.

It does no such thing. The difference in my view of God and yours is very simple: I see God as a loving father who understands that his children will make errors, and perfection is the end product of a refining process for anyone who chooses to learn from those errors; you see God as a Sovereign Deity who is offended by the exercise of the very faculties he endowed, "How dare they exercise their freedom to choose! How dare they defy my regal command!". This attitude is more at home with Roman and Greek deities than is it with the being whom Jesus addressed as Father.

enegue: Man is all that matters to God as far as this creation is concerned, all else is only good in terms of how it enables God to bring the best of what was good, to perfection.
Reformationist: Really? And you glean this little tidbit of knowledge from which section of Scripture?

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.
-- 2 Peter 3:10-13

And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.
-- Revelation 20:11

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful. And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
-- Revelation 21:1-7

​

In terms of worthiness, the fact that God has opened our eyes to Jesus Christ his Son, to the cost of what he achieved at Calvary, indicates that he has considered us worthy otherwise he would not have done so. The problem is why did he consider us so? Our attitude towards all men should be the same as God's attitude towards us.

Cheers,
enegue

 

[depthdeception]

Normally your approach is sufficiently subtle to allow for claiming that you are merely opposing the interpretation of the text. In this case however (the declaration that it is rediculous to consider that God foreknows anything) flatly contradicts the text itself, not merely the interpretation of that text.

No, it doesn't contradict the text. Such is impossible, as there is no objective, transcendent interpretation of the text. You assume that such exists, but it does not. Interpretation, ultimately, is an act of the interpreter--texts do not and cannot interpret themselves.

The text clearly teaches that there is something that God foreknows. Either God does foreknow something or He does not foreknow anything. The inspired text asserts the former. You hold unwavering to the latter.

The word "clearly" implies that there is an objective, transcendent interpretation that can be accessed by the reader. As you well know, I disavow such a notion. Moreover, the "inspired texts" in question could merely be anthropomorphisms--it does not necessarily mean that God actually "foreknows" something or anything in God's eternal nature. While potentially helpful for describing things in human terms (and I would debate the actual helpfulness of such a teaching), it should not be taken as a pillar upon which to attempt to describe the actuality of God's eternal nature.

 

[msortwell]

No, it doesn't contradict the text. Such is impossible, as there is no objective, transcendent interpretation of the text. You assume that such exists, but it does not. Interpretation, ultimately, is an act of the interpreter--texts do not and cannot interpret themselves.



The word "clearly" implies that there is an objective, transcendent interpretation that can be accessed by the reader. As you well know, I disavow such a notion. Moreover, the "inspired texts" in question could merely be anthropomorphisms--it does not necessarily mean that God actually "foreknows" something or anything in God's eternal nature. While potentially helpful for describing things in human terms (and I would debate the actual helpfulness of such a teaching), it should not be taken as a pillar upon which to attempt to describe the actuality of God's eternal nature.

Thank you for making my point.

The Scriptures say . . .

Rom 11:2
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew . Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, KJV

The text says ". . . he foreknew. . . ." The context makes it inescapable that the "he" is God. Therefore, the inescapable declaration of the text is that 'God foreknew."

DD, you say it is rediculous to consider that God foreknows. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion of your position is that God did not foreknow anything.

Therefore, since the inspired text inescapably declares that 'God foreknew," and DD insists that 'God did not foreknow, then DD and the inspired text are in direct disagreement on this specific issue of the foreknowledge of God.

Sorry, but that's the best I can do with only words at my disposal.

Mike

 

[depthdeception]

Thank you for making my point.

The Scriptures say . . .

Rom 11:2
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew . Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, KJV

The text says ". . . he foreknew. . . ." The context makes it inescapable that the "he" is God. Therefore, the inescapable declaration of the text is that 'God foreknew."

Or that this is an anthropomorphism of how God "knows," which is the most likely of all interpretations, given the logical and philosophical absurdity of assigning "foreknowledge" to a being not limited to the linearality and causality of space/time existence.

DD, you say it is rediculous to consider that God foreknows. Therefore, the inescapable conclusion of your position is that God did not foreknow anything.

No, my position is that God does not (not did not, as in a past action) foreknow anything.

Therefore, since the inspired text inescapably declares that 'God foreknew,"

"Inescapably declares?" Come on! How about a little hermeneutical humility? Just because a word is used to describe God does not mean that the meaning of the word is meant to be a technical qualifier of God's actualy eternal nature. This is elementary stuff...

and DD insists that 'God did not foreknow, then DD and the inspired text are in direct disagreement on this specific issue of the foreknowledge of God.

No, once again the only thing that is in "direct disagreement" is my interpretation and yours.

Sorry, but that's the best I can do with only words at my disposal.

Well, then that's that, I guess.

 

[msortwell]

No, it doesn't contradict the text. Such is impossible, as there is no objective, transcendent interpretation of the text. You assume that such exists, but it does not. Interpretation, ultimately, is an act of the interpreter--texts do not and cannot interpret themselves.

No it doesn't contradict the text? And the basis for your response to my question is because there is no objective, transcendent interpretation of the text?

But how can you assess the text of my question as you did? My question must have no objective or transcendent meaning that you could assess to be inconsistent with truth. Of course this response of mine has no meaning since there is no objective, transcendent interpretation of our refutation . . .