God's Ability To Save

[enegue]

If by "process" you mean "eternal salvation" then the answer to this is that God did do it all for Adam and Eve.

So, when God put Adam and Eve out of the garden, that was part of the all he did for them. What part?

Cheers,
enegue

 

[depthdeception]

Perhaps. In that case, I'll take your thinly veiled derision for what it is and move on to more productive dicussion.

Nice, and thanks for asking the question which I raised in my last post. As typical, you casually avoid answering questions which do not fit your agenda.

 

[stabalizer]

Okay. That is certainly your perrogative.

i can give you the scripture if you prefer!



Man centered doctrine is not the revelation of God so this claim, though possibly true, is not applicable.

I think that was my point. God does give by revelation.



I am well aware of what saving faith is.

If you knew the objective of faith, you could answer that.



No clue what you mean here, nor does it sound like anything we were disagreeing about.

the objective of faith is to inherit the promises of God.

Faith must be applied according to knowledge.



Why assure me? Shall I make you stand or fall?

Is your cup full?



Never claimed that mental assent was salvation so, once again, I fail to see your point.

I can see that.



I'll do my best but, please understand that I am not going to just take what you say as the Gospel. You'll need to qualify it with biblical support.

God forbid, I don't expect you to and if you didn't I'd be wasting my time. I can give it. It's not about me I promise. YOU might want to verify before you post.





John Wayne, Will Rodgers...like westerns do you?

You might want to open your heart to gleaning from scripture and God's creation. Just because a man spoke it it doesn't make it evil nor incorrect.

Do you need to be synical to elevate your good standing in this forum?

Grow up, learn be merciful. clarify your disagreements a little better, in a polite way, I have time to clarify myself and edify you as well as others.

receive this in the kindness with which it is spoken.

 

[andy153]

Two things. First, "the Cross" was God's work, not man's. My statement regarding man's passivity in his eternal salvation dealt with his role in his eternal salvation. Secondly, I mentioned the work of God in the Atonement:

It was by the works of one man that sin and death entered the world and it is by the works of one man that we are saved (Jesus Christ)


Romans: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. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

If God alone is responsible for the salvation of man, then God alone must have been responsible for the events contributing to the fall of Adam.

with love and respect, Andy153

 

[enegue]

That's right, Andy.

God wouldn't have presented Adam and Eve with the freedom to choose if he hadn't been prepared for the possiblity that they would exercise it.

You can imagine how Satan would have been pleased with the fruit of his efforts to corrupt Adam and Eve. However, just as he played into God's hand at the cross, so also had he played into God's hand in Eden. By causing God to exclude man from paradise, Satan provided him with the opportunity to complete his perfect plan. While Adam and Eve remained in the garden they were there because God put them there, not because they had chosen to be. But, having been excluded, man could now *choose* to be included.

Cheers,
enegue

 

[msortwell]

It was by the works of one man that sin and death entered the world and it is by the works of one man that we are saved (Jesus Christ)


Romans: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. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

If God alone is responsible for the salvation of man, then God alone must have been responsible for the events contributing to the fall of Adam.

with love and respect, Andy153

In the fall, it was the transgression of one man that brought humanity into spiritual death.

Still, it was because of God that the sin of this one man was imputed to all men. The transgression of the one led directly to the spiritual death of his descendents. God had sovereignly established an order wherein the sin of a federal head is imputed to his prodgeny (Rom 5:18a).

In the means of redemption, it was the obedience and death of one man (one man-God) that afforded men spiritual life and redemption.

Apparently because of the same spiritual principle, that attributed the sin of Adam to all men born of men, God ordained that the righteousness (the life of Christ) of a federal head would be imputed to his prodgeny and the atonement made (the death of Christ) by that same federal head could be attributed to the account of his prodgeny. (Rom 5:18b).

The work on the cross was a synergistic work of God the Father and God the Son. For God's principle of imputation to be upheld the Son of God had to be also a man, a new federal head in order for men to receive his rightousness via imputation.

The work on the cross was the work of God and a God-man. I know I had no positive contribution to make.

"The work" of the fall, broadly speaking was also the work of God and man. God established His covenant and the consequences of it's violation. Man, in the form of Adam, free of any influence of a sin-nature, perceived that which he could obtain through disobedience and willingly opted for that which he could obtain, despite the admonition from his creator. God sovereignly created a man that would surely sin, and sin of his own unobstructed volition, and thus died the freest will of any man to walk the earth except for the God-man, Christ Jesus.

Blessings,

Mike

 

[andy153]

thanks for the reply and the blessings msortwell.

In the fall, it was the transgression of one man that brought humanity into spiritual death.

I disagree, scripture says that because of the sin of one man sin entered the world. It dosen't say because of the sin of one man sin entered every man.

Still, it was because of God that the sin of this one man was imputed to all men. The transgression of the one led directly to the spiritual death of his descendents. God had sovereignly established an order wherein the sin of a federal head is imputed to his prodgeny (Rom 5:18a).

I believe that we are accountable only for our own sin and not for Adam's transgression.
Romans 5:14 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.

In the means of redemption, it was the obedience and death of one man (one man-God) that afforded men spiritual life and redemption.

I don't believe that Jesus was a hybrid creature, I believe he was a man.

Apparently because of the same spiritual principle, that attributed the sin of Adam to all men born of men, God ordained that the righteousness (the life of Christ) of a federal head would be imputed to his prodgeny and the atonement made (the death of Christ) by that same federal head could be attributed to the account of his prodgeny. (Rom 5:18b).

If all are made sinners by Adams transgression then all must be made righteous by Christs sacrifice. Is this what you are meaning here ? If all are not made righteous by Christs atonement then all are not made sinners by Adam's transgression.

The work on the cross was a synergistic work of God the Father and God the Son. For God's principle of imputation to be upheld the Son of God had to be also a man, a new federal head in order for men to receive his rightousness via imputation.

The work on the cross was the work of God and a God-man. I know I had no positive contribution to make.

Did Noah make a positive contribution to his salvation ?

"The work" of the fall, broadly speaking was also the work of God and man. God established His covenant and the consequences of it's violation. Man, in the form of Adam, free of any influence of a sin-nature, perceived that which he could obtain through disobedience and willingly opted for that which he could obtain, despite the admonition from his creator. God sovereignly created a man that would surely sin, and sin of his own unobstructed volition, and thus died the freest will of any man to walk the earth except for the God-man, Christ Jesus.

I disagree with your diagnosis re Adam. Adam transgressed to save the bride (Eve) who would have been lost forever without the seed that only Adam could give her.

with love and respect, andy153

 

[Reformationist]

So, when God put Adam and Eve out of the garden, that was part of the all he did for them. What part?

Cheers,
enegue

Not sure what you're asking. Can you rephrase?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[Reformationist]

As typical, you casually avoid answering questions which do not fit your agenda.

Think what you will dd. I don't feel the need to defend myself to you any longer.

Have a good day.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

i can give you the scripture if you prefer!

I'm sure you can cite Scripture that you think supports your view.

If you knew the objective of faith, you could answer that.

You said, "I'm not sure you understand what faith is and isn't.[/quote]

As that is not a question, I am not clear on what it is that you think I couldn't "answer." As I said, I am well aware of what saving faith is.

the objective of faith is to inherit the promises of God.

While I certainly do pray that I will inherit the promises of God, that is not the objective of my faith. My objective is to glorify God in all my ways.

Faith must be applied according to knowledge.

Well, thanks for sharing that. Not sure why you did but I certainly agree.

Is your cup full?

Did the dog spin sideways on the top of the moon? See? I can ask questions that only serve to confuse also.

I can see that.

Oh good. Glad to know that you see something.

God forbid, I don't expect you to and if you didn't I'd be wasting my time. I can give it. It's not about me I promise. YOU might want to verify before you post.

Wow. You're just full of completely worthless things to share with me.

You might want to open your heart to gleaning from scripture and God's creation.

You know, up until you suggested that, I had never thought of doing that very thing. I am so lucky to have participated in this thread and gleaned that jewel of knowledge. Really, don't worry about me. My views are completely God centered and are in accordance with all of Scripture. Just because your views focus so much on man's ability doesn't mean that I'm not "gleaning from Scripture and God's creation."

Just because a man spoke it it doesn't make it evil nor incorrect.

Again, I see no point in your admonishments to avoid doing or thinking something that I neither do nor think.

Do you need to be synical to elevate your good standing in this forum?

No. I'm cynical just for the fun of it. What's your excuse?

Grow up, learn be merciful. clarify your disagreements a little better, in a polite way, I have time to clarify myself and edify you as well as others.

Here's some advice for you, though you don't come across as the type to take to receiving instruction too well. Find a mirror. Repeat the above quoted statement.

receive this in the kindness with which it is spoken.

LOL! Well, the kindness was hidden so well behind the condescension that I'll have to dig for it but, hey, if I find it, I'll do my best to receive it.

 

[Reformationist]

Andy, do you believe in the divinity of Christ??

 

[enegue]

Reformationist,

Rephrase:
What part did the expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise have to play in God's plan of salvation? Why was it necessary?

Cheers,
enegue

 

[andy153]

Andy, do you believe in the divinity of Christ??

I believe that Jesus Christ is precisely who he claimed to be; the son of man.
As divine means..... Of, Form, Like God, or a God then yes I believe in Christs divinity.

with love and respect, andy153

 

[Reformationist]

First, thanks for rephrasing.

Now, on to your question:

Rephrase:
What part did the expulsion of Adam and Eve from paradise have to play in God's plan of salvation?

Well, it prevented them from partaking of the blessings of the Garden, increasing man's dependence upon God for sustenance. It translated into man having to toil to maintain his life. It was indicative of man's separation from God by sin. It exposed him to sin in a greater degree. Shall I continue or are those in line with what you're asking?

Why was it necessary?

Well, I certainly haven't studied this in as much depth as I'd like but here is a passage that speaks to God's reasoning on the issue:

Gen 3:22,23
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.

How's that?

 

[Reformationist]

I believe that Jesus Christ is precisely who he claimed to be; the son of man.
As divine means..... Of, Form, Like God, or a God then yes I believe in Christs divinity.

with love and respect, andy153

Actually, the divinity of Christ as defined in the orthodox Christian sense refers to the fact that Christ shares of the same essence as the Father. Do you agree with that claim?

God bless

 

[msortwell]

I disagree, scripture says that because of the sin of one man sin entered the world. It dosen't say because of the sin of one man sin entered every man.

Heb 7:9-10
9 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham.
10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him. KJV

Who among the race of man was not in the loins of Adam at the time of his sin? Even as Levi, in Abraham, paid tithes to Melchisedec, so humanity incurred a sin debt and sin nature in Adam. This is what Romans 5:12-13 teaches.

Rom 5:12-14
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. KJV

Death reigned even though no transgression of the law could be attributed to the dying, since they received no law. The law given to Adam was not relevant for they had been banished from the presence of the tree of knowledge, and the law had not be given to Moses. Men of that period did not sin in the way that Adam sinned. They in themselves transgressed no law. They sinned in Adam and received for that participate the sentence of death, the result of their federal head’s transgression.

I believe that we are accountable only for our own sin and not for Adam's transgression.

Romans 5:14 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.

As shown above, I believe you are seriously misinterpreting Romans 5:14. I have provided what I believe to the correct understanding of the verse. Who are you including as “we” in the statement above?

I don't believe that Jesus was a hybrid creature, I believe he was a man.

Although is a post subsequent to this one you offer that you believe in the deity of Christ, yet if I understand your description there of "deity," it is one that all men would meet. This would be essentially the sin described in Isaiah 14:12-14. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position.

If all are made sinners by Adams transgression then all must be made righteous by Christs sacrifice. Is this what you are meaning here ? If all are not made righteous by Christs atonement then all are not made sinners by Adam's transgression.

Your logic is flawed. The receipt of the sin guilt and sin nature from Adam is from all who were in Adam when he sinned. As I previously demonstrated, this includes all men without exception. Unless one rejects the virgin birth of Jesus, it would exclude him.

Those who are imputed the righteousness of Christ must be in Christ. That does not happen except when one is baptized into Christ by the Holy Ghost. This does not occur unless one believed upon Christ for salvation.

Did Noah make a positive contribution to his salvation ?

If you are asking regarding justification, which I assume you are, the answer is, No.

I disagree with your diagnosis re Adam. Adam transgressed to save the bride (Eve) who would have been lost forever without the seed that only Adam could give her.

To characterize Adam’s fall as some sort of noble act is a major misinterpretation of Scripture. Additionally, your ‘logic’ is nonsensical. Through the virgin birth of Christ, God demonstrated that He did not need the seed of a man to bring forth a saviour.

 

[enegue]

Hi Reformationist,

Well, it's fine as far as it goes, but you aren't addressing the why. Why was it necessary to make man aware of his dependance upon God? Why was it necessary to make man toil outside the garden when God had already determined that this should be his occupation within the garden?

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
-- Genesis 2:15
​

Isn't is obvious that these things were allowed to occur because they would provide a means of allowing Adam and Eve to compare their experience inside the garden, with their experience outside the garden. They would then be able to *choose* one of two responses, "We have sinned against the Lord God, and our current situation is the consequence of our disobedience. Forgive us for what we have done." or "Why have you punished us so harshly for such a minor infraction? After all, we were deceived by the serpent. Why didn't you just deal with him? We only exercised the faculties you gave us. If you didn't want us to use them, why did you give them to us in the first place?"

God was not going to make the choices for his children. They, and all men to this day have to *choose* - do I want to dwell with God?

Why did God wait 1500 years or so before he brought the flood?

Cheers,
enegue

 

[msortwell]

Hi Reformationist,

Well, it's fine as far as it goes, but you aren't addressing the why. Why was it necessary to make man aware of his dependance upon God? Why was it necessary to make man toil outside the garden when God had already determined that this should be his occupation within the garden?

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.
-- Genesis 2:15
​

Isn't is obvious that these things were allowed to occur because they would provide a means of allowing Adam and Eve to compare their experience inside the garden, with their experience outside the garden. They would then be able to *choose* one of two responses, "We have sinned against the Lord God, and our current situation is the consequence of our disobedience. Forgive us for what we have done." or "Why have you punished us so harshly for such a minor infraction? After all, we were deceived by the serpent. Why didn't you just deal with him? We only exercised the faculties you gave us. If you didn't want us to use them, why did you give them to us in the first place?"

God was not going to make the choices for his children. They, and all men to this day have to *choose* - do I want to dwell with God?

Why did God wait 1500 years or so before he brought the flood?

Cheers,
enegue

Your answer to your own question is simply wild conjecture. Conjecture is not in-and-of-itself is not a problem, if it can be validated with the text of Holy Writ. However, your answer stands unsubstantiated. God, in His Word provided, as Reformationist pointed out, an explicit answer to the question posed. The fully adequate answer provided by the Creator was so that man, [in his fallen condition], did not live forever.

I suspect that your answer to your next question is of a similar construction. I would not hazard to guess what you might concoct in that regard.

 

[depthdeception]

Think what you will dd. I don't feel the need to defend myself to you any longer.

Interesting how you always say this right when I pose a question that you are unable to answer. Hmmm...I detect a trend...

 

[msortwell]

Well, unless you wish to say that the eternal God died, then yes I am being serious. Of course, if you do wish to say that the eternal God died on the cross, you would be speaking heresy.

Are you denying that Christ was human?

It is not heresy to hold the position that God the Son, the eternally begotten son of God the Father died on the cross. When a sacrifice is put to death, that death is a physical death. There are no intimations in Scripture that would necessarily relate the death of a sacrifice to spiritual death. The physical death of a man is not the cessation of his being. He will continue his existance - either in glory or in eternal torment. Therefore, to hold that Jesus is both God and man, and died, does not necessitate the conclusion that the eternal God came to an end.

Interesting. Few others on the myriad threads in which I participate have this difficulty. Perhaps the crux of the issue lies somewhere else...

I for one have expressed the difficulty I have repeatedly had in understanding some of your posts. But it must just be me . . . Oh, and Reformationist.

Mike