Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
The context of the obligation is love, as I pointed out in my intial post. What God had begun, he was "obliged" to see through to completion. If you really believe that "God is love", then every work of his hands must be considered within this context.msortwell said:But we cannot cast off the context of this "obligation." The context was one of the redemption needed by man.
Without research, no. From memory, I would say that they lacked nothing, except an assurance that their condition would be sustained. They were in fellowship with God their creator.enegue said:The context of the obligation is love, as I pointed out in my intial post. What God had begun, he was "obliged" to see through to completion. If you really believe that "God is love", then every work of his hands must be considered within this context.
Can you tell me the only thing that Adam and Eve lacked in the garden?
Cheers,
enegue
Relative to your cited "context," I would offer that the first context that is considered while exegeting a text is the verbal context of the text under consideration. That context given adequate consideration, we then step back to view broader, and yet broader contexts. Yes, eventually we give the necessary consideration of the text in light of what the Scriptures teach regarding the character of God (e.g., God's love). Still we must also consider His holiness, His justice, and other attributes. None of the attributes of His nature can be sacrificed at the expense of another. God's love is no more an aspect of God's nature than is His justice, His holiness, etc. To leap immediately to judging a text in light of God's love, possibly giving inadequate attention to the verbal context, or to the other attributes of God's nature, could lead us to an inappropriate conclusion. God being "obligated," in any way, toward His creation, is one such conclusion. Certainly His Love constrains and compels Him toward a certain posture relative to His creation, yet that compulsion will not negate His justice or holiness, or any other aspect of His nature. They must be in a harmony consistent with the full nature of the God described in Scripture.enegue said:The context of the obligation is love, as I pointed out in my intial post. What God had begun, he was "obliged" to see through to completion. If you really believe that "God is love", then every work of his hands must be considered within this context.
Can you tell me the only thing that Adam and Eve lacked in the garden?
Cheers,
enegue
depthdeception said: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.
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.
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 said: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:
you've misunderstood me;
the invitation to accept the gift is w/o qualifiers
God's love is unconditional
God's promises are not unconditional. Man's free will to receive the gift is a choice. iow If you end up in hell, you put yourself there, not God.
It's a matter of rightly dividing the truth of scripture;
With God ALL things are possible.
For it is impossible for God to lie.
Well, which is it? It's both!
The responsibilty of salvation (to the lost) lies with the believer while you're here.
God can't do anymore than He's already done because He can't violate His own word or protocol to make an exception for the person who chose not to receive His offer.
Meet the king on the king's terms. That doesn't make the offer any less important or less all encompassing.
Free will. God won't violate yours nor surrender His will to any form of idolatry.
From where does faith come and who are these "whosoever" who will? Are they simply the ones that made the right decision?
God bless
depthdeception said:This is fine, but atonement isn't technically the "unmerited dispensation of eternal life." Atonement has to do with creating the possibility of reconciliation.
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.
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.
stabalizer said:Repentance itself is a gift,. but you choose it. and so is faith. Some men choose to reject His word. again, free will. If your thirsty, come, drink.
It's like the old saying, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.
Reformationist said:So why do some choose to repent while others prefer to remain in their iniquity? Are the repentant ones just smarter, or more holy?
God bless
stabalizer said:Why do some people buy M&M's plain and some buy the one's with peanuts.? Or why do some like to eat the green one's and some choose blue? or red?
Free will!
it's just that simple. nothing more, nothing less
(It's a choice)! That God honors;
Please read Rev 22:11 & 12
Yes.msortwell said:Assuming for now that everything that you said is correct, I would point out that God, as you have described Him, is capable of saving everyone, but He does not.
Yes.msortwell said:Although you indicate that He may "initiate salvation" to all, He does not do everything that He COULD do to bring them to salvation. He allows them to go to hell.
Yes.msortwell said:The God that you describe chooses to allow many people to go to hell despite His love for the whole world, and His ability to prevent their torment.
Yes. Reasonable. (Am I burying myself here?msortwell said:Is that a reasonable summary of your understanding of the situation?
Mike
OK.Reformationist said:Okay. So, we all appear to agree (except maybe dd, not quite sure) that God has the "ability" to save whomsoever He chooses.
In what manner?Reformationist said:And in what manner does God "initiate salvation to all?"
Not really. A man must receive him.Reformationist said:Can I then conclude that you also espouse the opposite of this, i.e., when man does not resist God opts to save them?
God bless
This was your question -Reformationist said:Forgive me. I've been out of the discussion for a few days. I don't quite understand either of these statements/questions. Can you clarify?
Thanks,
God bless
Interesting reply.stabalizer said: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!
stabalizer said:I don't recall saying the debt was owed to God. It's the opposite, God paid the debt. Before the incarnation God didn't have a flesh and blood body.
The physical body was required for the sacrifice.
If before (as a believer) you were translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of his dear son; Who owned you before your salvation came?
You were Satan's property, (being dead while you were yet living) from God's perspective until you accepted the Lord's substitutionary death.
If Satan's claim wasn't legitimate, then the Lord wouldn't have had to go to the cross. (Redemptive sacrifice)
Was Adam on the earth before Satan was cast out of heaven?
Did Adam have the opportunity to take dominion and didn't?
the 1st Adam could have put Satan in the pit maybe?
I hope this helps clarify some things. I appreciate your input.
Good question.BBAS 64 said:.....
By what means does one leave the sin they love a cling to a God they hate???
Peace to u,
Bill
Reformationist said:Maybe in your theology. In the teachings of the Bible, the atonement of the Lord Jesus Christ creates the "possibility" of nothing but, rather, the surety of salvation for all who believe.
I don't deny that it is man that is reconciled to God so I fail to see what it is that you think you're correcting me on.
However, the mercy of Christ in the atonement is such that it is fitting for God to forgive those to whom He imputes the righteousness of Christ and grant them eternal life.
As hell will not be empty it is clear that we must either conclude that Christ purposed His death to reconcile all without exception to the Father but failed, or, that He was completely successful in reconciling all for whom He died to the Father. I am fully confident in which of those I acknowledge to be the "Good News."
You act as if it is illogical that God's righteousness demanded atonement for transgression.
This is the problem with the church. Everyone is so afraid to tell man that he is guilty before God that they water down the gravity of what God did for them on the Cross. God's justice demanded recompense.
As the sacrifice of Christ was the full embodiment of God's purpose to save His people from their sins,
I see. Well, you go ahead and rely on your "metaphors." I'll rely on the efficacy of the work of the Godhead to save all whom God purposed to save.
depthdeception said:I agree that the Atonement creates surety for those who believe. However, unlike you, I do not believe that the atonement necessarily compels those who are elected to believe, to believe. Therefore, while it is a surety for those who believe, the atonement creates the possibility that belief is salvific.
DD said:If Christ endures the "punishment" for human sin from God, humanity is not being reconciled to God. Rather, Christ--by being punished--is changing God's mind concerning God's designs to "punish" humanity. In this sense, then, God is the one being reconciled, not humanity.
DD said:Forgiveness requires no conditions upon which it becoes "fitting." Rather, the very nature of forgiveness is that it is given without condition. A forgiveness "earned" or "merited" is not forgiveness.
DD said:What, the "good news" that Christ did not desire to reconcile some to God? How is that "good news?" No, Christ purposed to reconcile all of creation to God. However, as reconciliation is ultimate a relational reality that requires reciprocity, it is perfectly obvious that not all will be reconciled, even though all are forgiven (the foundation for reconciliation). The kind of "reconciliation" which Calvinism espouses is not reconciliation at all, as it is compelled on the basis of the gift of forgiveness, and not a response to it.
DD said:"Demanded?" No, the nature of God's righteousness and love is that God became human in order to reconcile humanity to Godself, doing for humanity--on behalf of humanity--that which humanity could not do for itself. However, this "righteousness" is not satisfied in the supposed "punishment" of Christ, but rather in the relational fidelity which Christ exhibited to the Father in confronting the sinfulness of humanity and violent forces of evil in the world. God's response to "transgression" is always that of love, of an attempt to reconcile the offending party, not punishment. Punishment is the consequences which sinful humanity naturally experiences when they refuse the loving overtures of God in history through Christ.
DD said:No, justice does not demand recompense. This is the problem with the Church. There is no punishment that God could expend upon humanity that would be equal to the offense. Therefore, to punish humanity simply to satisfy "justice" would be irrelevant, as God would gain nothing by punishing, nor lose anything by not punishing. The hope of salvation is that God is merciful and has sacrificed all in order to reconcile humanity to Godself.
DD said:But in penal substitutionary theory, the "punishment" of Christ is not the full embodiment of God's purpose to save humanity as God's desire is to actually destroy humanity in order to satisfy "divine justice" (which God supposedly is more concerned about than anything else). Rather, Christ is presented as doing that which God was not willing to do, i.e., forgive humanity of its sins. Therefore, one can only conclude that in his death and supposed "punishment" by God, Christ is changing God's attitude toward humanity (which, as penal substitutionary atonement presumes, was to destroy humanity), not representing God's desire for humanity.
You say tomAYto, I say tomAHto. With every oath, promise or convenant comes an obligation to ensure that it's kept.Certainly His Love constrains and compels Him toward a certain posture relative to His creation, yet that compulsion will not negate His justice or holiness, or any other aspect of His nature.
nobdysfool said:Calvinists do not say that the Atonement compels the Elect to believe. Show me a Calvinist who said that. Your information is faulty.
The Atonment was and is that satisfaction of the Wrath of God against sin and the practice of it. As such biblically it is a penal, substitutionary atonement, the perfect for the imperfect, in order that the imperfect may be made perfect. I know you reject the idea, but you do so to your own peril.
Oh, man, are you off base! Christ IS God. What you're saying is that Christ has to change the mind of the Father, as though there were a division and discord in the Trinity! What utter foolishness!
And where in the bible do you find this definition for forgiveness? I agree that we do not earn or merit God's forgiveness, but that doesn't mean that forgiveness is without condition. The condition is the Atonement.
God cannot just forgive sin without reason, without violating His own Holiness.
To do so would mean that he no longer cares about sin, that sin would no longer prevent man from approaching God, which is preposterous, because God does not change.
Once again, arguing that man has a part to to play in his salvation, something to contribute, because of faulty definition of love, and the belief that relationship is what God is after.
Whether or not you admit to it, your theology is at its core Arminian, which is a form of semi-Pelagianism.
You overlay it with philosophy and physchology, but it's root is to deny the scriptures regarding man's true condition, God's purpose, and to set man up as the ultimate determiner of his own salvation.
[/quote
No, I have never once said that man is the "ultimate determiner of salvation." Moreover, philosophy and psychology are entirely necessary for comprehending these issues, as they are the lenses through which one interprets the Scriptures.
Justice is a recognition of transgression, and the reality that it must be redressed. The books must balance, so to speak.
What books? And why must they "balance?" I do not understand why this is a philosophically, theologically, or even Scripturally necessary conclusion...
You're just playing word games. Christ satisfied the Justice of God against sin, by paying the penalty due, i.e. that of death. Those who are in Christ are counted as having died, and therefore having paid the penalty, with the important difference that they, in Christ, survive their death, as did Christ, by virtue of His diety and perfection. Every man outside of Christ will pay for his own sins, but he will not survive the payment.
Rubbish. Christ was killed by sinful humanity and the forces of evil in the world, not by God. Christ's agony on the cross was because the forces of sin and evil assailed him and completely exhausted themselves in his person, not because the "wrath" of God was punishing Christ in someone else's place. If God punished Christ on the cross, then God has answered the problem of sin on its own terms--with violence. If this is true, then God has ultimately shown that the tactics of sin and evil are actually correct, only that God is more powerful and violent than sin and evil. Therefore, PSA ultimately shows that humans--in the cross of Christ--have actually come under the dominion of a being more powerful, yet more violent and destructive, than sin and evil themselves. Yes, that is certainly good news...
There again, you postulate a division in the Trinity, a disagreement between the Father and the Son. That is not possible. The Father and Son covenanted together before Creation to redeem those chosen by the Father and given to the Son, whom the Son would redeem to be God's own people and possession, and the Bride of Christ. There was no disagreement. Christ is not "changing God's Attitude" toward humanity, such an idea is preposterous.
So the Father and Son covenented together that God would punish the Son? Before Creation, Father and Son agreed that the Father would kill the Son for a humanity that had not yet fallen? On one level this is child abuse of the most universal scope, and on the other it is the supreme form of masochism.
Therefore, PSA leaves you with two options: 1.) A break in the Trinitarian relationship, which you say is impossible. 2.) An eternally sadistic, self-abnegating Creator. This too is equally impossible.
Thus, one should have quite good reasons to utterly reject any countenance of penal substitutionary atonement theology.
You show that you have no understanding of Reformed Theology, or of the constituent doctrines basic to orthodox, biblical Christianity.
No, I understand Reformed theology better than I actually want to, which is why I speak so strongly against it. Moreover, there is nothing which I have said that is contrary to "orthodox, biblical Christianity." After all, PSA--the upstart atonement theology that it is--has not been officially codified as "THE" atonement theology of the Church. Moreover, most of Christian history has no conception of this theology.
stabalizer said:Why do some people buy M&M's plain and some buy the one's with peanuts.? Or why do some like to eat the green one's and some choose blue? or red?
Free will!
it's just that simple. nothing more, nothing less
(It's a choice)! That God honors;
Please read Rev 22:11 & 12
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?