God's Ability To Save

[stabalizer]

It only appears complicated when people work hard to avoid answering the question in the original post.

It is important, when viewing God's plan for, and execution of, His redemptive plan to keep clear within our thoughts IF there are any limitations (stated or intimated in Scripture, upon God's ability to bring any particular man to redemption.

You have not voiced a position on the question posed. Is God able to save whosoever He intends to save, or is there an aspect of the salvation process that is beyond His capability?

Well, I thought I answered the question.

I'm not as educated as others, but I do try to keep it simple.

God's ability to save; to the utmost.

An aspect of the salvation process beyond His capability?

That's an odd question to me seeing He's the author of the salvation process.

The process of salvation isn't about capability, it's about spiritual law.

Meet the King on the King's terms.

Rom. 10:10 is the salvation process. Not something repeated, but something You do.

imo God's love is unconditional, His promises are not.

I hope that helps. Thanks for your response.

I've been pondering your question and my response. When you speak of God's ability, are you questioning God's power or His authority, or possibly His sovereignty?

I can quote some scriptures to resolve these issues.

It leaves me with this question tho; Are you ultimately asking about a spirit of repentance? or Who's the author of conviction?

For me ultimately salvation is a choice and it's an independent/ personal decision. God ordained salvation thru the foolishness of preaching. That's mans' responsibility as an action of obedience to his new master isn't it?

I'm trying to understand you.

Hearing of the law/ conviction/ repentance/ salvation. I hope i'm not confusing you!

 

[depthdeception]

I think God's ability to save is reflected in the price He paid to absolve the debt of sin. He bought the whole field. He gave it all.

To whom was the "debt" owed? And to whom did God give it all?

 

[stabalizer]

To whom was the "debt" owed? And to whom did God give it all?

As I understand it;

The debt was a incurred thru Adam, Satan held the note.

Romans (w/o quoting exact scripture) The penalty of sin is death,

death fell upon all men thru Adam's fall.

Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. He said; All this is mine and to whomsoever I will, I give it. If you'll just bow down and worship me, I 'll give all to you. (paraphrased)

I don't see where Jesus disputed this statement.

Redemption= to buy again or repurchase

God gave it all for the note and took the responsibility of the fall upon himself, for whomsoever will receive the gift of salvation as an act of love and faith to His creation.

I hope this helps.

I could qualify it more accurately if you wish.

Thank you for your response. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

 

[depthdeception]

As I understand it;

The debt was a incurred thru Adam, Satan held the note.

Romans (w/o quoting exact scripture) The penalty of sin is death,

death fell upon all men thru Adam's fall.

Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. He said; All this is mine and to whomsoever I will, I give it. If you'll just bow down and worship me, I 'll give all to you. (paraphrased)

I don't see where Jesus disputed this statement.

Redemption= to buy again or repurchase

God gave it all for the note and took the responsibility of the fall upon himself, for whomsoever will receive the gift of salvation as an act of love and faith to His creation.

I hope this helps.

I could qualify it more accurately if you wish.

Thank you for your response. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.

So God paid the debt to Godself?

 

[msortwell]

The debt was a incurred thru Adam, Satan held the note.

The disobedience of man was an afront to God. The Old Testament sacrifices provided clear illustrations of what the death of the messiah would achieve. It was never so much as hinted that the fallen angel - formerly called Lucifer - was owed a debt because man had violated the covenant that God had made with man. The offended one is God. Atonement is made by payment to the one offended. Please consider . . .

Heb 9:11-14
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? KJV

The offering, the payment, was made to God, not to Satan. It was not necessary that the Creator of all things submit Himself to the one who rejected his authority.

You also cited the following.

Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. He said; All this is mine and to whomsoever I will, I give it. If you'll just bow down and worship me, I 'll give all to you. (paraphrased)

I don't see where Jesus disputed this statement.

However, your conclusion is one drawn from silence. The degree to which Satan was allowed to exercise power as "the god of this world" is not articulated. I believe, his being referred to as "the god of this world" relates to the willingness of those who are "of this world" to follow him, and not to any legtitimate authority that he might have. It should also be observed that at no point did Satan exercise any authority whatsoever over Christ or God the Father.

God gave it all for the note and took the responsibility of the fall upon himself, for whomsoever will receive the gift of salvation as an act of love and faith to His creation.

Here we are in partial agreement. However, as can be seen from the picture provided in the OT, and as articulated in Hebrews, God the Son paid the debt to God the Father, in place of men.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[stabalizer]

So God paid the debt to Godself?

I'd prefer to stay on track with the thread. your question can invoke a whole series of tangents.

I'll refer to 1st tim 3:16 to validate my reasoning.

I guess i have to say yes to your question. God Himself was the only perfect sacrifice to absolve the debt created due to man's fall. The sacrifice was His human body. The sin of the world got buried

How else could He have shed blood? I'll refer you to my understanding of the Godhead; 1 john 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, (Holy Ghost): and these three are one.

The Word became flesh in the womb, not Bethlehem. @Bethlehem the Word dwelt among us.

Scripture says God is spirit but considering the ressurected Jesus, in a body that saw no corruption or decay, What do you think is flowing in His veins even now.

Jesus said destroy this temple and I'll raise it up in three days. ( he spoke of the temple of His body)

The fulness of the godhead dwells in Him bodily.

I hope I've validated my yes answer. (at least as I comprehend the scriptures)

If the princes of this world had known, (demonic princes) they would not have crucified the Lord of glory iow/ Satan cut his own throat because every thing he did was illegal. (to Jesus)

I hope this helps. Isn't it odd that both sides are seeking a body to inhabit?

 

[stabalizer]

The disobedience of man was an afront to God. The Old Testament sacrifices provided clear illustrations of what the death of the messiah would achieve. It was never so much as hinted that the fallen angel - formerly called Lucifer - was owed a debt because man had violated the covenant that God had made with man. The offended one is God. Atonement is made by payment to the one offended. Please consider . . .

Heb 9:11-14
11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;
12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.
13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:
14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? KJV

The offering, the payment, was made to God, not to Satan. It was not necessary that the Creator of all things submit Himself to the one who rejected his authority.

You also cited the following.



However, your conclusion is one drawn from silence. The degree to which Satan was allowed to exercise power as "the god of this world" is not articulated. I believe, his being referred to as "the god of this world" relates to the willingness of those who are "of this world" to follow him, and not to any legtitimate authority that he might have. It should also be observed that at no point did Satan exercise any authority whatsoever over Christ or God the Father.



Here we are in partial agreement. However, as can be seen from the picture provided in the OT, and as articulated in Hebrews, God the Son paid the debt to God the Father, in place of men.

Blessings,

Mike

I really appreciate your blessing at the end of your response. I don't know how to isolate quotes specifically to better answer to your responses. i'll do my best;

scripture says the penalty of sin is death. Clearly Jesus paid that penalty and now holds the keys of hell and death.

If I get a traffic ticket I pay a fine or penalty to the person or system in authority at that time.

Atonement means to cover, it was a year to year covering under the law.

The blood didn't atone, it remitted sin. When something is remitted it doesn't exist anymore. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission. That's why its called a redemption. Jesus didn't do away with the law, He fulfilled it. I don't think that means it went away. (Without the law, how could we be convicted unto repentance?)

God so loved He gave, I don't think He was offended, (towards man). I'm sure He took to account Satan's deception , I'm sure. Redemption to my knowledge has never been offered to fallen angels has it?

I wish I knew more and could explain it better. My inferrance to Satan having any authority due to the silence of scripture doesn't mean it's in error. Was Satan's hold on the keys of hell and death taken away. Was it legitimate? (until the cross) Death reigned from Adam to Moses. (the giving of the law) Didn't Satan have to recognize what he did to Jesus was illegal and accept the Lord's sacrifice as legitmate? (I"m just asking here, please bear with me , I'm trying to learn more)

Much of this is a mystery. I appreciate any enlightenment you can throw my way.. thanks for responding.

 

[msortwell]

If I get a traffic ticket I pay a fine or penalty to the person or system in authority at that time.

The one that is currently in authority is the one who has always been in authority. That One is God the Father. Consider the words of the Psalmist.

Ps 29:10
10 The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth King for ever. KJV

Ps 10:16
16 The LORD is King for ever and ever: the heathen are perished out of his land. KJV

Ps 93:1-2
1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. KJV

And after the death, burial and resurrection, God remains in authority.

Acts 17:24
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; KJV

Atonement means to cover, it was a year to year covering under the law.

You are correct when the atonement achieved by the Old Testament sacrifices is being considered. This is what is explained in the Letter to the Hebrews. But it is also made clear in that same Letter that Jesus was a better sacrifice – a sacrifice needed only once, for all.

The blood didn't atone, it remitted sin. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission. That's why its called a redemption. Jesus didn't do away with the law, He fulfilled it. I don't think that means it went away. (Without the law, how could we be convicted unto repentance?)

The blood of rams and goats did not work a completed atonement. But we need to accept the account in Hebrews for the excellence of Jesus’ sacrifice. Because Jesus did fully obey the law, he was able, as a human, to pay the price for the sins of men – to become the second Adam that the Scripture identify.

Relative to the meaning of remission: The definition of “remission,” obtained from Webster’s “American Dictionary of the English Language,” 1828 includes: “Forgiveness; pardon; that is, the giving up of the punishment due to a crime; as the remission of sins.” It had a very different meaning in the days that the KJV was translated than is in common usage today. Today we often think of cancer when we hear the term remission. We understand that when the term is used in the context of cancer, that the illness is in a state of stasis of some type, but not cured. It's just not progressing. Remission, as it is used in Hebrews 9:22, is forgiveness – and it is not temporary, and it is not partial.

Heb 9:13-15
13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. NKJV

As shown in Heb 9:15, Jesus, by his death, provided redemption (forgiveness)for those who transgressed under the "first covenant" (the law). This provision by Christ’s death is called the "new covenant," also stated in Heb 9:15.

God so loved He gave, I don't think He was offended, (towards man). I'm sure He took to account Satan's deception

Irrespective of His love for his creation, the Scriptures teach that Holy and Righteous God was offended by our sin – first in Adam, an offense in which we share.

According to vs. 10 below, it was by the death of Christ that we were reconciled to the God with whom we were enemies. The later verses seem to make it clear that this enmity was related to (and I understand it to be the direct result of) the offense committed by Adam. God was offended.

He did take into account Satan’s deception, but only in as much as he place woman under man in authority (in church governance, 1Tim 2:14), identifying that Adam had not been deceived. It also seems to be related to the male's headship within the family.

Rom 5:10-18
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence , so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. KJV

Redemption to my knowledge has never been offered to fallen angels has it?

You are correct, there is no hint in the Scriptures that the Angels that fell have any hope of redemption.

Was Satan's hold on the keys of hell and death taken away. Was it legitimate? (until the cross) Death reigned from Adam to Moses. (the giving of the law) Didn't Satan have to recognize what he did to Jesus was illegal and accept the sacrifice as legitmate? (I"m just asking here, please bear with me , I'm trying to learn more)

Yes the hold that Satan had upon the "keys of hell and death" were taken away by Christ. My understanding of the “hold” that Satan had on the keys of hell and death comes from the following text.

Heb 2:14-15
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. KJV

The “power” wielded by Satan (the keys that held), in the current dispensation, is limited to the fear that he can instill in the hearts of men – the fear of death and hell. And by that fear he has great influence today, but not genuine power. And those who trust Christ have no reason to fear death and no worries of hell.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[enegue]

God so loved He gave, I don't think He was offended

I agree. If we step back a little, away from the Calvinist notion of "total depravity", and take a look at the everyday occurrence of childbirth, a completely different view opens up.

When my wife and I decided to have children, it was a decision about something that *we* wanted, and we didn't give the slightest thought to whether it was something that they wanted (not that we could consult them anyway ). So, from the moment they entered the world we were under an obligation - the obligation of love.

We were obliged to attend to their needs and demands, and be there to answer their calls when they were infants. We were obliged to put in place a consistent set of rules with corresponding punishments and rewards to lead them in the way they should go when they were children. And we were obliged to eventually let them go their own way at a time when discipline was no longer appropriate, as they set out on the road to maturity.

Now, I'm sure as you were reading that last paragraph you would have recognised some obvious parallels with the development of man as recorded in scripture:

• Eden - within the womb.
  Intimately connected to the creator
• Expulsion from Eden - childbirth
  Painful entry into the world and the severing of intimate connection with the creator
• Expulsion to Moses - infancy
  God made himself available to those who called upon his name. This would have ended in self-annihilation had God not intervened with the flood and rescued the only man who still called on his name.
• Moses to Christ - childhood
  God implements the Law with attendant blessings and curses to direct man in the way he should go.
• Christ onwards - on the road to maturity
  God removes the requirement of obedience "or else", and leaves it to his children to recognise the love and sacrifice that was necessary to fulfill his obligation of love.

It was always and only about love.


Cheers,
enegue

 

[stabalizer]

The one that is currently in authority is the one who has always been in authority. That One is God the Father. Consider the words of the Psalmist.

Ps 29:10
10 The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth King for ever. KJV

Ps 10:16
16 The LORD is King for ever and ever: the heathen are perished out of his land. KJV

Ps 93:1-2
1 The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved.
2 Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting. KJV

And after the death, burial and resurrection, God remains in authority.

Acts 17:24
24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; KJV



You are correct when the atonement achieved by the Old Testament sacrifices is being considered. This is what is explained in the Letter to the Hebrews. But it is also made clear in that same Letter that Jesus was a better sacrifice – a sacrifice needed only once, for all.



The blood of rams and goats did not work a completed atonement. But we need to accept the account in Hebrews for the excellence of Jesus’ sacrifice. Because Jesus did fully obey the law, he was able, as a human, to pay the price for the sins of men – to become the second Adam that the Scripture identify.

Relative to the meaning of remission: The definition of “remission,” obtained from Webster’s “American Dictionary of the English Language,” 1828 includes: “Forgiveness; pardon; that is, the giving up of the punishment due to a crime; as the remission of sins.” It had a very different meaning in the days that the KJV was translated than is in common usage today. Today we often think of cancer when we hear the term remission. We understand that when the term is used in the context of cancer, that the illness is in a state of stasis of some type, but not cured. It's just not progressing. Remission, as it is used in Hebrews 9:22, is forgiveness – and it is not temporary, and it is not partial.

Heb 9:13-15
13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. NKJV

As shown in Heb 9:15, Jesus, by his death, provided redemption (forgiveness)for those who transgressed under the "first covenant" (the law). This provision by Christ’s death is called the "new covenant," also stated in Heb 9:15.



Irrespective of His love for his creation, the Scriptures teach that Holy and Righteous God was offended by our sin – first in Adam, an offense in which we share.

According to vs. 10 below, it was by the death of Christ that we were reconciled to the God with whom we were enemies. The later verses seem to make it clear that this enmity was related to (and I understand it to be the direct result of) the offense committed by Adam. God was offended.

He did take into account Satan’s deception, but only in as much as he place woman under man in authority (in church governance, 1Tim 2:14), identifying that Adam had not been deceived. It also seems to be related to the male's headship within the family.

Rom 5:10-18
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence , so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. KJV



You are correct, there is no hint in the Scriptures that the Angels that fell have any hope of redemption.



Yes the hold that Satan had upon the "keys of hell and death" were taken away by Christ. My understanding of the “hold” that Satan had on the keys of hell and death comes from the following text.

Heb 2:14-15
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. KJV

The “power” wielded by Satan (the keys that held), in the current dispensation, is limited to the fear that he can instill in the hearts of men – the fear of death and hell. And by that fear he has great influence today, but not genuine power. And those who trust Christ have no reason to fear death and no worries of hell.

Blessings,

Mike

There's a scripture in Genesis where it says He,(god) named them Adam. I think it's around chpt 5. It's plural..

When Adam fell, was it a deliberate fall? Individually? I don't know

2nd thought;

Scripture speaks of being translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of His dear son.

Doesn't that imply Satan has legal claim somewhere? Before salvation comes aren't we Satan's property?

we were enemies because we had his nature spiritually.

Also this in Colossians it speaks of Jesus spoiling principalities and powers. He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

My point being the difference between a victory and a triumph is ; a victory being a winner in a battle and a triumph inferring victory AND spoiling the enemy. Which to me means you take back what the enemy stole and his possesions. iow God gets it all back, plus. (punitive damages) ?

How could Jesus be limited in ability to save in any way? I don't think it's possible. Doesn't all power mean all?

The gift of salvation is perfect and available to whomsoever will. But as scripture says; some men don't have faith. (at all) imo

 

[Reformationist]

When my wife and I decided to have children, it was a decision about something that *we* wanted, and we didn't give the slightest thought to whether it was something that they wanted (not that we could consult them anyway ). So, from the moment they entered the world we were under an obligation - the obligation of love.

We were obliged to attend to their needs and demands, and be there to answer their calls when they were infants. We were obliged to put in place a consistent set of rules with corresponding punishments and rewards to lead them in the way they should go when they were children. And we were obliged to eventually let them go their own way at a time when discipline was no longer appropriate, as they set out on the road to maturity.

While the role of parenthood is clearly one of the most important responsibilities the Lord has graced us with, it is a poor parallel to the creative work of God. You did not create your child. You procreated and God established you as parents through the natural means that He ordained for the perpetuation of your bloodline. Your "obligation to love and care for your children" is established by God Himself when He blessed you with those children, not to mention that the law of man binds you under certain parental requirements. The love of God toward man was freely given and cast aside in the rebellious act of the first Adam. It is biblically inaccurate to claim that God is "obligated" to love someone simply because they are the creation of His hands.

As is usually the case, and the case we face with your analogy, comparing fallen man's relationship to his children to the Creator's relationship to His creation has obvious pitfalls that will make an analogy pointless if they are not avoided.

It was always and only about love.

Cheers,
enegue

As Scripture explicitly states, it is always and only about love for those who love God and are called according to His purpose.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

How could Jesus be limited in ability to save in any way? I don't think it's possible. Doesn't all power mean all?

You seem to deny the possibility of any limitation upon the Lord to save His peolpe, a position I am in full agreement with, only to follow such a faithful statement with the citing of a limition you had just denied existed:

The gift of salvation is perfect and available to whomsoever will. But as scripture says; some men don't have faith. (at all) imo

From where does faith come and who are these "whosoever" who will? Are they simply the ones that made the right decision?

God bless

 

[enegue]

Hi stabalizer,



Here is Jesus' commission to Paul in regard to the Gentiles:

To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

-- Acts 26:18

​

Three things Paul was asked to do for them:

1. to open their eyes
2. to turn them from darkness to light
3. to turn them from the power of Satan unto God

These things had been promised in the book of Isaiah:

I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles; To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.
-- Isaiah 42:6,7
​

Paul was Jesus' chosen instrument to bring about the fulfillment of this promise. The passage adds a little more substance to the commission, which is now:

1. to open their blind eyes.
2. to turn them from the darkness of their prison house to Jesus (the 'thee' in the Isaiah passage), the light of the Gentiles.
3. to turn them from the power of Satan unto God

So we have some questions to answer:

1. Q: What are the Gentiles blind to? What can't they see?
   A: Jesus
   And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
   -- John 6:40
   But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
   -- 2 Corinthians 4:3,4
2. Q: What is their 'prison house'?
   A: Their own flesh - the laws of nature that bind them to this world: seek pleasure and avoid pain.
   I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
   -- Romans 7:21-24
3. Q: What is the 'power of Satan'?
   A: Death - this is what he wants to keep uppermost in the mind of man. There is nothing that follows this life, so whatever you want to do you had better do it now. There is no consequence for a misspent life, and there are no rewards for denying yourself it's pleasures.
   Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;-
   -- Hebrews 2:14

Cheers,
enegue

 

[depthdeception]

I'd prefer to stay on track with the thread. your question can invoke a whole series of tangents.

I'll refer to 1st tim 3:16 to validate my reasoning.

I guess i have to say yes to your question. God Himself was the only perfect sacrifice to absolve the debt created due to man's fall. The sacrifice was His human body. The sin of the world got buried

But if the "debt" was owed to God, what creates the necessity for God to pay a debt to Godself? And moreover, it is actually impossible for one to pay oneself for a debt that is owed to one by another. THerefore, either Christ's act on the cross has to be seen as something other than the act of God (in order for Christ to be the "other") or one must refrain from using debt language. And if one insists on using debt language, the only comprehensible way in which such language can be used is if one speaks of GOd cancelling the debt. Yet if this point is conceeded, there is no basis upon which to say that Christ's death was the necessary condition for this, for God gains nothing and loses nothing by the debt being cancelled, not cancelled, paid or unpaid.

How else could He have shed blood? I'll refer you to my understanding of the Godhead; 1 john 5:7, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, (Holy Ghost): and these three are one.

I don't exactly understand what the point of this quotation is. However, I would refrain from using spurious passages of Scripture as proof texts for whatever point you are trying to make.

The Word became flesh in the womb, not Bethlehem. @Bethlehem the Word dwelt among us.

Scripture says God is spirit but considering the ressurected Jesus, in a body that saw no corruption or decay, What do you think is flowing in His veins even now.

Jesus said destroy this temple and I'll raise it up in three days. ( he spoke of the temple of His body)

The fulness of the godhead dwells in Him bodily.

I hope I've validated my yes answer. (at least as I comprehend the scriptures)

If the princes of this world had known, (demonic princes) they would not have crucified the Lord of glory iow/ Satan cut his own throat because every thing he did was illegal. (to Jesus)

Yes, they powers of the world knew exactly who Jesus was, and this was precisely the reason they assasinated him. Moreover, it is only because the violence of the world (and not the punishment of God) was directed against Christ that the atonement is of any salvific quality for us.

 

[Reformationist]

But if the "debt" was owed to God, what creates the necessity for God to pay a debt to Godself?

The holiness of God creates the necessity. God established that the wages of sin is death. Were He to just arbitrarily disregard His own statute, His law would be meaningless. His righteousness demanded a sacrifice for sin. He established that the sacrifice would be death. However, even the death of a sinner is insufficient to appease the wrath of God against his iniquity for it is the death of a sinner and, thus, imperfect. Therefore, He provided what He demanded, a perfect sacrifice, capable of appeasing the wrath of God against the iniquity of all to whom the merit for the sacrifice is imputed.

And if one insists on using debt language, the only comprehensible way in which such language can be used is if one speaks of GOd cancelling the debt. Yet if this point is conceeded, there is no basis upon which to say that Christ's death was the necessary condition for this, for God gains nothing and loses nothing by the debt being cancelled, not cancelled, paid or unpaid.

To simply "cancel" the debt makes the statute of God that the wages of sin is death meaningless and makes God a liar.

God bless

 

[depthdeception]

The holiness of God creates the necessity. God established that the wages of sin is death. Were He to just arbitrarily disregard His own statute, His law would be meaningless. His righteousness demanded a sacrifice for sin. He established that the sacrifice would be death. However, even the death of a sinner is insufficient to appease the wrath of God against his iniquity for it is the death of a sinner and, thus, imperfect. Therefore, He provided what He demanded, a perfect sacrifice, capable of appeasing the wrath of God against the iniquity of all to whom the merit for the sacrifice is imputed.

I do not understand how God can appease Godself. Nor do I understand why or how God doing "something" to appease God would be actually different than God doing "nothing" to appease God. Moreover, God doing "x" to appease God amounts to God convincing Godself to change God's mind and attitude towards humanity--again, there is no philosophically compelling reason that can establish why, first of all, God's mind towards humanity needs to be changed (after all, the problem of sin is that of humanity, not God--humanity needs to be changed, not God's intentions towards humanity) nor why this "change" needs to be based upon Christ's death. In other words, if God's mind and intentions toward humanity needs to be changed, why cannot this occur psychologically, without the necessity of God being compelled by Christ to do that which God is--as penal substitutionary theory suggests--not inclined Godself to do.

To simply "cancel" the debt makes the statute of God that the wages of sin is death meaningless and makes God a liar.

This is only necessary if one construes the problem of sin as "debt." Get rid of that fallacy, however, and the problem is resolved.

 

[Reformationist]

I do not understand how God can appease Godself.

Okay. And your inability to understand it means...?

Nor do I understand why or how God doing "something" to appease God would be actually different than God doing "nothing" to appease God.

God didn't say the wages of sin are "nothing." I'm referring to the unmerited dispensation of eternal life to those who, through their own works, have merited nothing but death and condemnation. I'm referring to the gracious imputation of the righteousness of Christ, by which all who are justified before God are justified.

Moreover, God doing "x" to appease God amounts to God convincing Godself to change God's mind and attitude towards humanity--again, there is no philosophically compelling reason that can establish why, first of all, God's mind towards humanity needs to be changed (after all, the problem of sin is that of humanity, not God--humanity needs to be changed, not God's intentions towards humanity) nor why this "change" needs to be based upon Christ's death. In other words, if God's mind and intentions toward humanity needs to be changed, why cannot this occur psychologically, without the necessity of God being compelled by Christ to do that which God is--as penal substitutionary theory suggests--not inclined Godself to do.

Because man's status before God is not the product of a "psychological" barrier. It is an issue of transgression. As God is a just and holy God, atonement needs to be made.

This is only necessary if one construes the problem of sin as "debt." Get rid of that fallacy, however, and the problem is resolved.

Well, I imagine a lot of problems are solved for those with unbiblical theological foundations if they simply "get rid of" the truth expressed in the Bible.

 

[enegue]

It is biblically inaccurate to claim that God is "obligated" to love someone simply because they are the creation of His hands.

No. It is perfectly accurate:

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
-- Hebrews 2:16,17
​

The word rendered as "behooved" is the Greek word "opheilō" (Strong's 3784) which means: to owe, to be under obligation, to be bound.
So, Jesus was under obligation to fulfill his role as high priest.



Why?

For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us: Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the veil; Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made a high priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.
-- Hebrews 6:16-20​

Because God was obliged to keep his promises.



Why?

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
-- 1 John 4:7-10
​

Because: "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins."
Cheers,
enegue

 

[depthdeception]

God didn't say the wages of sin are "nothing." I'm referring to the unmerited dispensation of eternal life to those who, through their own works, have merited nothing but death and condemnation. I'm referring to the gracious imputation of the righteousness of Christ, by which all who are justified before God are justified.

This is fine, but atonement isn't technically the "unmerited dispensation of eternal life." Atonement has to do with creating the possibility of reconciliation.

Because man's status before God is not the product of a "psychological" barrier. It is an issue of transgression. As God is a just and holy God, atonement needs to be made.

No, atonement in necessary because humanity, per its sinfulness, is separated from God. God does not have to appeased; humanity has to be changed. This is what atonement is all about--recreating humanity so that they can once again be properly related to God. Atonement is not something that Christ does to change God's mind about humanity, or to create the possibility for God to "accept" humanity. Rather, in the Atonement, God through Christ reveals the extent of love by going to the utmost to recreate humanity in such a way that they--not God--can once again enter in proper relationship.

If Atonement is to make any sense at all, it must be understood in a way that Christ's act on the cross is completely the work of God, not something that Christ is doing in order to allow/compel God to do something else. Thus would be an incredible breach in the Trinitarian relationship and would render the discussion of atonment entirely nonsensical.

Well, I imagine a lot of problems are solved for those with unbiblical theological foundations if they simply "get rid of" the truth expressed in the Bible.

It has nothing to do with getting "rid of" anything, just properly interpreting the Atonement metaphors which are mentioned in the Scriptures and giving proper weight and creedance to the meanings which these metaphors engender.

 

[msortwell]

No. It is perfectly accurate:

For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
-- Hebrews 2:16,17
​

The word rendered as "behooved" is the Greek word "opheilō" (Strong's 3784) which means: to owe, to be under obligation, to be bound.
So, Jesus was under obligation to fulfill his role as high priest.

But we cannot cast off the context of this "obligation." The context was one of the redemption needed by man. It does not say that God was obligated to offer redemption. All that is offered is that for one to be the needed merciful and faithful high priest, the one necessary to redeem fallen man, that he had to be a human himself. This is what necessitated the incarnation of Christ. It was not because he (God the Son, or God the Father) was obligated to save men.

I understand that you are not trying to forward a doctrine of salvation by works - the context within which the following Scripture is generally offered - but I believe this text can still shed some light upon the issue.

Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

This verse seems to make it clear that the offer of salvation is either because of grace or because of debt (obligation). I believe the Scriptures teach clearly that it is by grace.

Blessings,

Mike