God's Ability To Save

[depthdeception]

Do you hold to an annihilationist view then? Or am I misunderstanding?

Without Christ, all would be annihilated, for we are truly dust. However, one of the benefits of the Christ's resurrection for all of humanity is that we too will be resurrected. Some will be resurrected to life (communion with God) and others to death (separation from the presence of God).

Actually, within the context of the discussion, "What do you mean?" was intended to be amusing.

Ah!

If you mean the disconnect created between what is apparently your world view and mine. I will have to agree. We seem to be operating from a significantly different set of presuppositions. I believe that God can be known, to the extent that we are intended to know Him, from His written word. It seems that you are intent upon forming your view of God from some other source.

Yes, I believe that God can be known and that we are intended to know God. However, the revelatoin of God is not the Scriptures, for a text can hardly constitute the fulness of the self-revelation of God. No, I believe that GOd has been made known through the revelation of God in Christ--the only true Word of God.

 

[msortwell]

Without Christ, all would be annihilated, for we are truly dust.

Does this come from Scripture or an alternate source? If you references the Scriptures to derive this position, please share the verses.

However, one of the benefits of the Christ's resurrection for all of humanity is that we too will be resurrected. Some will be resurrected to life (communion with God) and others to death (separation from the presence of God).

And is this separation from God your understanding of the full extent of damnation? You would consider the references to fire etc. to be metaphorical?

Yes, I believe that God can be known and that we are intended to know God. However, the revelatoin of God is not the Scriptures, for a text can hardly constitute the fulness of the self-revelation of God. No, I believe that GOd has been made known through the revelation of God in Christ--the only true Word of God.

And apparently you have identified a way to know Christ by a means other than by the Scriptures (which you consider to be inadequate for that purpose). And that method would be what?

Mike

 

[depthdeception]

Does this come from Scripture or an alternate source? If you references the Scriptures to derive this position, please share the verses.

I would think this is self-evident, being as the creation narrative describe us as being formed from the dust.

And is this separation from God your understanding of the full extent of damnation?

Yes. What could be worse than separation from the life of God and the experience of God's presence? Nothing.

You would consider the references to fire etc. to be metaphorical?

Most definitely.

And apparently you have identified a way to know Christ by a means other than by the Scriptures (which you consider to be inadequate for that purpose). And that method would be what?

Well, to begin with there is the testimony of the historic Church, which gave us the Scriptures. However, the way in which we know Christ is through the manner in which Christ's Incarnation has infused all of creation with the knowledge of God--so much so that those who seek God will find God, regardless of whether or not they ever open a bible.

BTW--I never said the Scriptures were inadequate.

 

[enegue]

Would you consider it a fair statement to acknowledge that man chooses according to his greatest desire at the moment of choice?

This question stikes at the very heart of the notion of altruism. Is it possible to be completely selfless?

And Isaac spoke unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
-- Genesis 22:7-10
​

What was going on inside the heart and mind of Abraham at this moment? One can only guess. Was he thinking, "God is only testing me. He will stay my hand." or "God gave me a son in my old age. He will give me another." or "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."

The short answer to your question: yes. The conflict between flesh and spirit at the moment of choice also being important. Without the conflict there would be no evidence of love.

enegue: That's right. So that man has the opportunity to recognise God as Jehovah-jireh, and *choose* obedience as a response.
Reformationist: And why would anyone choose to obey God?

This is a very good question because the answer will entirely depend on how we see God. My answer is: because I love him. Why? Because I recognise that he loves me. However, I am not always successful in obeying as fully as my heart desires because of the power of the governing principle of the flesh.

How did Adam and Eve respond to their expulsion from paradise? I can see two things in Genesis 4:1-4 that give some indication that they were repentant.

enegue: Surely the purpose of letting man experience both situations was so that he would conclude, "God's way is better!"
Reformationist:Actually, the primary purpose of all that comes to pass, including man's fall into misery and ruin, is to bring glory to God.

Well, I think that's what I said. If we conclude God's way is better, aren't we saying his way is more splendid, more honourable, more glorious.

Reformationist: You seem to want to make man's enlightenment God's primary motivation in all that He does.

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained; What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honor. Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet: All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field; The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas. O LORD our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth!
-- Psalms 8:4-9
​

The writer to the Hebrews informs us that these words are prophetic and refer to Jesus, but when David uttered them he was expressing his amazement at the esteem which God had bestowed upon man. So, yes. Man IS special, and God spared nothing to redeem him.

Cheers,
enegue

 

[msortwell]

This question stikes at the very heart of the notion of altruism. Is it possible to be completely selfless?
And Isaac spoke unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
-- Genesis 22:7-10

What was going on inside the heart and mind of Abraham at this moment? One can only guess. Was he thinking, "God is only testing me. He will stay my hand." or "God gave me a son in my old age. He will give me another." or "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt."

Short answer . . .

Heb 11:17-19 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son], Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called: Accounting that God [was] able to raise [him] up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.

I suspect that there were many other things that were running through his mind, but we are told that expected that Isaac would be raised from the dead.

Additionally, we need to be careful to not ponder a text to the point where we seek another meaning than was intended to be taught in the text.

I believe that the main point of the Abraham / Isaac story, regarding the offering of Isaac was to bring the sacrifice offered by God the Father at Calvary into bold relief. Every time I read Gen 22:7 . . .

And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here [am] I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where [is] the lamb for a burnt offering?

my heart breaks. I have sons and I cannot fathom the heartache that must have been experienced when Abraham looked into the eyes of his son who asked, "where is the lamb . . .?" And from that gut-wreching thought my mind immediately leaps to the Father of our Christ who looked down upon Calvary, upon a Son who cried, "My God, my God, why has thou foresaken me" and did nothing to save him . . . so that he, could save me.

God's son too, would be raised. But first he had to die alone.

. . . Awsome what our God did for us . . . awesome.

 

[Reformationist]

This question stikes at the very heart of the notion of altruism. Is it possible to be completely selfless?

Not in our unglorified state it's not. Though we are new creatures, our decisions, even the obedient ones, are tainted to some degree by the stain of sin.

The short answer to your question: yes. The conflict between flesh and spirit at the moment of choice also being important. Without the conflict there would be no evidence of love.

Not exactly sure what you mean by "conflict" but, shall we experience this "conflict" when we are in Heaven?

This is a very good question because the answer will entirely depend on how we see God. My answer is: because I love him. Why? Because I recognise that he loves me.

And do you believe that God loves all without exception? I ask because you ultimately credit as your reason for choosing to obey God your "recognition of His love for you." So, if your recognition of His love for you is the cause of you loving Him, and if you believe that God loves all people without exception, then the difference between you and those that don't love God is that they don't recognize that God loves them. So, if that is an accurate reflection of what you're saying, why is it that you recognize God's love for you when they do not?

However, I am not always successful in obeying as fully as my heart desires because of the power of the governing principle of the flesh.

I agree that as a child of God there is often a disparity between what I desire in my spirit and what I desire in my flesh but, truth be told, it is still my desires that determine what I choose.

How did Adam and Eve respond to their expulsion from paradise?

In general it appears that they recognized their error and strove to live in obedience, clearly raising their children so as to have a relationship with the Lord. This is shown by their behavior in bringing offerings to the Lord.

I can see two things in Genesis 4:1-4 that give some indication that they were repentant.

Okay.

Well, I think that's what I said. If we conclude God's way is better, aren't we saying his way is more splendid, more honourable, more glorious.

While I agree that it is an obedient response for man to recognize this, whether he does or not is not God's primary motivation what He brings to pass.

The writer to the Hebrews informs us that these words are prophetic and refer to Jesus, but when David uttered them he was expressing his amazement at the esteem which God had bestowed upon man. So, yes. Man IS special, and God spared nothing to redeem him.

Enegue, I don't deny that God has a special design for His most glorious creation, nor do I deny that God's love toward His people is at the root of what He does. What I deny is that enlightening this creation that is so "fearfully and wondefully made" is the primary cause of what God purposes.

God bless

 

[enegue]

Hi Reformationist,

enegue: Is it possible to be completely selfless?
Reformationist: Not in our unglorified state it's not. Though we are new creatures, our decisions, even the obedient ones, are tainted to some degree by the stain of sin.

We are both in agreement here. However, I see man's condition as directly related to his fleshly connection to this creation, which was how God designed him. I see man's fall as a matter of weakness and naivety, not depravity. Depravity is the result of separtation, separation is not the result of depravity.

enegue: The conflict between flesh and spirit at the moment of choice also being important. Without the conflict there would be no evidence of love.
Reformationist: Not exactly sure what you mean by "conflict" but, shall we experience this "conflict" when we are in Heaven?



I illustrated this point with a quote from Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, which by implication I was suggesting was the same internal conflict that took place within Abraham. No, this won't occur in heaven because we will not be flesh and blood.

Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
-- 1 Corinthians 15:50-57

​

Reformationist: And do you believe that God loves all without exception?

Yes.

Reformationist: So, if that is an accurate reflection of what you're saying, why is it that you recognize God's love for you when they do not?



I recognised God's love for me because someone reponded to God's love for them by accepting Jesus' commission to preach the Gospel. My salvation was dependant on a man (or woman) who chose to respond in love to the love that was shown him (or her), who reponded in love to the love that was shown to them, who responded ......., all the way back to:

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
-- John 17:20,21

​

Unless we love the lost as God loves the lost, they will stay lost.

Enegue, I don't deny that God has a special design for His most glorious creation, nor do I deny that God's love toward His people is at the root of what He does. What I deny is that enlightening this creation that is so "fearfully and wondefully made" is the primary cause of what God purposes.

There is nothing in this creation that is more important than man. All of it is destined for destruction when it's purpose is fulfilled, apart from that which will be redeemed. The phrase, "fearfully and wonderfully made" was used by David in reference to himself not to creation in general.

Cheers,
enegue

 

[msortwell]

I would think this is self-evident, being as the creation narrative describe us as being formed from the dust..

"Self evident" is little more than a figure of speech for, "It just seems right to me but I can't explain it."

Yes. What could be worse than separation from the life of God and the experience of God's presence? Nothing..

Nothing, except perhaps to experience that separation while understanding that escape from your condition was as simple as trusting Christ . . . and having this experience in the midst of a never ending, non-consuming lake of fire.

Well, to begin with there is the testimony of the historic Church, which gave us the Scriptures. However, the way in which we know Christ is through the manner in which Christ's Incarnation has infused all of creation with the knowledge of God--so much so that those who seek God will find God, regardless of whether or not they ever open a bible. .

Well, you start with the testimony of the historic church but then cast it aside by positing that Christ can be fully known by the general revelation of creation. When did the "historic church" teach that saving knowledge of Christ could be obtained by observing the creation?

Is that what creation told you? Perhaps you should direct your attention to the creator's word instead of the creation.

Rom 1:22-25
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature [a.k.a., the things created] more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. KJV

BTW--I never said the Scriptures were inadequate.

No. But you regularly demonstrate that you have little use for what they actually say.

 

[depthdeception]

"Self evident" is little more than a figure of speech for, "It just seems right to me but I can't explain it."

I do not understand what it is you wish for me to explain.

and having this experience in the midst of a never ending, non-consuming lake of fire.

No, to be separated from the life of God is the irreducible terror that will be hell. "Non-consuming fire" (whatever that is supposed to be) would neither add nor detract from that experience.

Well, you start with the testimony of the historic church but then cast it aside by positing that Christ can be fully known by the general revelation of creation. When did the "historic church" teach that saving knowledge of Christ could be obtained by observing the creation?

I do not cast aside what the historic Church has said, nor what the Scriptures say. My point was that God's self-revelation is Christ, not the Scriptures. Therefore, as Christ's Incarnation is a cosmos-transforming reality, then it must necessarily follow that the self-revelation of God in Christ has been infused into this transformation. I am not talking strictly about "observing creation." Rather, I was talking about the cosmos-infusing nature of the self-revelation of God through the true Word, Christ.

Is that what creation told you? Perhaps you should direct your attention to the creator's word instead of the creation.

Rom 1:22-25
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature [a.k.a., the things created] more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. KJV

Actually, these are Paul's words, and I fully affirm what Paul is saying here.

No. But you regularly demonstrate that you have little use for what they actually say.

What they "actually say" is probably quite different from your perspective than it is from mine...

 

[msortwell]

I do not understand what it is you wish for me to explain.



No, to be separated from the life of God is the irreducible terror that will be hell. "Non-consuming fire" (whatever that is supposed to be) would neither add nor detract from that experience.



I do not cast aside what the historic Church has said, nor what the Scriptures say. My point was that God's self-revelation is Christ, not the Scriptures. Therefore, as Christ's Incarnation is a cosmos-transforming reality, then it must necessarily follow that the self-revelation of God in Christ has been infused into this transformation. I am not talking strictly about "observing creation." Rather, I was talking about the cosmos-infusing nature of the self-revelation of God through the true Word, Christ.



Actually, these are Paul's words, and I fully affirm what Paul is saying here.



What they "actually say" is probably quite different from your perspective than it is from mine...

DD,

I have written several responses to your post. Unfortunately none of them were sufficiently gracious to post. There must be a way to graciously say what I want to express, but I cannot find the words. Perhaps later.

Mike

 

[depthdeception]

DD,

I have written several responses to your post. Unfortunately none of them were sufficiently gracious to post. There must be a way to graciously say what I want to express, but I cannot find the words. Perhaps later.

Mike

I look forward to your post.

 

[Reformationist]

We are both in agreement here. However, I see man's condition as directly related to his fleshly connection to this creation, which was how God designed him. I see man's fall as a matter of weakness and naivety, not depravity.

To attribute the Fall of man to "weakness" means that we must acknowledge that God created a person without the stain of sin that already had a proclivity to rebel. If Adam was without sin, from where did this "weakness" stem?

Also, to say that it is the product of "naivety" makes the dispensation of God's holy judgement against them seem rather unbalanced. It would be akin to chopping off your child's hand because he touched the hot stove after you had told him not to.

The Fall was the result of the deliberate act of rebellion by Adam and Eve.

Depravity is the result of separtation, separation is not the result of depravity.

Well, I would say it's more that man's nature was corrupted by the introduction of sin and the more time that went by showed an increasing proclivity to rebel. Make no mistake. It didn't take long. Cain killed Abel a relatively short time after man fell from grace.

I illustrated this point with a quote from Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, which by implication I was suggesting was the same internal conflict that took place within Abraham.

Must have missed that reference. Must still be missing that reference.

No, this won't occur in heaven because we will not be flesh and blood.

Umm...so that which is necessary to show the "evidence of love," i.e., conflict, will not be present in Heaven. Shall there be no evidence of love in Heaven?

Yes.

I recognised God's love for me because someone reponded to God's love for them by accepting Jesus' commission to preach the Gospel. My salvation was dependant on a man (or woman) who chose to respond in love to the love that was shown him (or her), who reponded in love to the love that was shown to them, who responded ......., all the way back to:

Okay. Now, the way you explain this is, in my opinion, the area where your whole view falls apart. You say that you obey God BECAUSE "you love Him." So, the inverse of this must be true, i.e., if you did not love God you would not obey Him. Moving on. You say you love Him BECAUSE "you recognise that He loves you." Likewise, the inverse of this must be true, i.e., if you did not recognize that He loved you, you would not love Him and, thus, would not obey Him. Moving on. You say you recognize His love for you BECAUSE "someone reponded to God's love for them by accepting Jesus' commission to preach the Gospel." Once again, if someone had not responded in love, you would not recognize His love for you, therefore you wouldn't love Him, therefore you wouldn't obey Him. In short, were created man to choose to not respond to God's love, you would, according to you, "remain lost." The obvious flaw in this logic is that God's will to redeem you becomes contingent upon whether or not someone else responds to His commission, an event that you seem to imply is completely and exclusively the product of man's choice to do so. I do not see the view that man's choices can regulate the efficacy of God's will expressed anywhere in the Bible. If you do, please share with me the text that purports such a thing. This assessment of your views is shown to be accurate by your claim that your salvation "was dependant on a man (or woman) who chose to respond in love." The truth is that your salvation was dependant upon, and effected by, the Father's eternal decree to save you, Christ's vicarious sacrifice, and the Spirit's imputation and application of the saving merit of the atonement.

Unless we love the lost as God loves the lost, they will stay lost.

Tell me, does God purpose to save those who ultimately remain lost?

There is nothing in this creation that is more important than man.

And man was created to the glory of God, not the glory of man. As I said, you seem to want to make the focus of God's revelation man's importance and glory rather than God's glory.

The phrase, "fearfully and wonderfully made" was used by David in reference to himself not to creation in general.

Um...enegue, this is just silly. David's acknowledgement that he was "fearfully and wonderfully made" refers to God's creativity and graciousness. It wasn't an exclusive reference to David.

God bless

 

[enegue]

Lo Reformationist,

enegue: I see man's fall as a matter of weakness and naivety, not depravity.
Reformationist: To attribute the Fall of man to "weakness" means that we must acknowledge that God created a person without the stain of sin that already had a proclivity to rebel. If Adam was without sin, from where did this "weakness" stem?



The weakness stems from the body in which we have been housed, our "fleshly connection to this creation". We don't sin because Adam sinned, we sin because we are of the same consistency as Adam.

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: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 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.
-- Romans 5:12-14

​

Sin entered the world by Adam because he was the first to do so, but it was death, not sin, that was passed to all men because of his sin. All of Adam's decendants were subject to separation and hence death and decay because of his weakness and naivety.

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
-- 1 Corinthians 13:12

​

It may even be concluded that God's purpose in this creation is to bring to perfection that which he created good.

Reformationist: The Fall was the result of the deliberate act of rebellion by Adam and Eve.

So, it is your assertion that Adam and Eve were of the same mind and heart as the serpent, that their action was a premeditated offence aimed at slighting God. You can take this view if you like, but it hardly reflects the innocence that most readers of scripture ascribe to the condition of Adam and Eve in the garden.

enegue: I illustrated this point with a quote from Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane, which by implication I was suggesting was the same internal conflict that took place within Abraham.
Reformationist: Must have missed that reference. Must still be missing that reference.



Page 21, message #204.

O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
-- Matthew 26:39

​

enegue: No, this won't occur in heaven because we will not be flesh and blood.

Reformationist: Umm...so that which is necessary to show the "evidence of love," i.e., conflict, will not be present in Heaven. Shall there be no evidence of love in Heaven?

Yes, this creation is the fire that is to try our faith and prove our love, and gold that is pure needs no further refining. In heaven our love will be known just as we are now known - perfectly.

Reformationist: The truth is that your salvation was dependant upon, and effected by, the Father's eternal decree to save you, Christ's vicarious sacrifice, and the Spirit's imputation and application of the saving merit of the atonement.

Yes, this is the provision, but we have to "fight the good fight" and "lay hold on eternal life". This requires action on our part. When God provided manna in the wilderness for Israel, he didn't make it appear inside their tents, they had to get up and go out and gather it. The truth is, I would not know the Lord's provision apart from those who had fought the good fight, and had laid hold of eternal life.

enegue: Unless we love the lost as God loves the lost, they will stay lost.
Reformationist: Tell me, does God purpose to save those who ultimately remain lost?

Who are these?

Cheers,
enegue

 

[Reformationist]

The weakness stems from the body in which we have been housed, our "fleshly connection to this creation".

This is inaccurate, both biblically and logically. What you've just claimed is that weakness is a constituent element of creation. It's not. Prior to the Fall, the body in which Adam was housed was not weak so your above claim isn't applicable to the pre-Fall human nature. Therefore, it cannot be attributed as the reason man fell.

We don't sin because Adam sinned, we sin because we are of the same consistency as Adam.

We sin because, after the Fall, sin was a constituent element of our being. This may be what you say above but, as Adam was one of only two people that was, at different points, both fallen and unfallen, it is confusing to say, "we are of the same consistancy as Adam." We have never been "unfallen."

Sin entered the world by Adam because he was the first to do so

No. Sin entered into the nature of mankind because of his progenital relationship to Adam and God's decree that the corruptive effects of sin would pass though the natural course of the perpetuation of humanity.

but it was death, not sin, that was passed to all men because of his sin. All of Adam's decendants were subject to separation and hence death and decay because of his weakness and naivety.

I sincerely hope it is not your intention to deny that a sinful nature of rebellion was passed on to the progeny of Adam. Death is not the only byproduct of the sin of Adam, nor is it all that is passed on. It would be incongruous and unorthodox to claim that as soon as man is born he is on the path to death but deny that the reason that is so is because, by nature, he stands before God as a guilty sinner.

It may even be concluded that God's purpose in this creation is to bring to perfection that which he created good.

And what did He create "good?" So far as I understand it, God saw all of His creation as "very good." This is as much a reflection of their moral compass as it is that they fulfill the purpose for which God created them. Do you mean to contend that God purposed to perfect all of that which He created good, which would be all of everything and everyone?

So, it is your assertion that Adam and Eve were of the same mind and heart as the serpent, that their action was a premeditated offence aimed at slighting God.

I stated no such thing. What I said was, their act of disobedience was willful. They sought to usurp God's rightful place as the One who ruled their lives by seeking to decide for themselves whether doing that which God had fabade them to do was acceptable.

You can take this view if you like, but it hardly reflects the innocence that most readers of scripture ascribe to the condition of Adam and Eve in the garden.

I daresay it is rather unfounded to claim that "most readers of Scripture" ascribe to the idea that Adam and Eve, and all of humanity with them, suffer a fall in the misery of sinfulness because of innnocent ignorance. You see, by claiming that Adam and Eve were merely innocent, you impugn the nature of God. You protect the intentions and reputation of man at the cost of maligning the righteousness of God's judgement against their iniquity and, thus, God Himself. The judgement He passed against their transgression wasn't the judgement passed against innocent neglect or ignorance. It was one passed against their willful, cosmic treason. Adam and Eve both knew what God had told them to do. They both knew they should obey God. They both loved God. Now, I have yet to hear a viable reason for why Adam and Eve, despite lacking a sinful nature, chose to do something they knew was wrong but, nonetheless, they weren't "innocent."

Page 21, message #204.

O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

-- Matthew 26:39​

​

I see. Thank you. There was no conflict in Jesus, at least not in the manner you seem to be implying. Jesus' will was to come to earth for the very thing from which He desires, in His human nature, to be released. The point of that verse is to show the union of the purpose of the Godhead, not the conflict. Jesus is showing willing submission to the will of the Father, not grudging appeasement.

Yes, this creation is the fire that is to try our faith and prove our love, and gold that is pure needs no further refining. In heaven our love will be known just as we are now known - perfectly.

You said that conflict was necessary to show love. Here you state that our love will be perfectly known without the conflict. All I'm saying is that those are contradictory statements. My love for God is justified whether I am conflicted and obey or not conflicted and obey.

Yes, this is the provision, but we have to "fight the good fight" and "lay hold on eternal life". This requires action on our part.

Salvation is of God enegue. You don't inherit eternal life because you "lay hold of eternal life." You don't inherit eternal life because you "fight the good fight." You're putting the cart before the horse. You fight the good fight and lay hold of that which is your's because you are a child of God.

When God provided manna in the wilderness for Israel, he didn't make it appear inside their tents, they had to get up and go out and gather it.

By that line of reasoning, our act of putting food in our mouth at McDonald's is just as effective in saving us as is Christ's work on the Cross. There is not a single person that has ever been redeemed because of anything they did. None of the Israelites inherited eternal life because of their daily efforts to obtain physical sustenance.

Who are these?

Who are these who remain lost? I could not say. Do you mean to imply that you do not believe anyone goes to hell?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[enegue]

Reformationist,

enegue: The weakness stems from the body in which we have been housed, our "fleshly connection to this creation".
Reformationist: Prior to the Fall, the body in which Adam was housed was not weak so your above claim isn't applicable to the pre-Fall human nature.

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.

enegue: We don't sin because Adam sinned, we sin because we are of the same consistency as Adam.
Reformationist: it is confusing to say, "we are of the same consistancy as Adam." We have never been "unfallen."

I was talking about how he/we are made as I explained above, and you interpretted that as his/our position. You don't appear to see a difference.

Adam's position in Eden was that of a foetus within the womb. He was intimately connected to his creator, safe and warm and protected and aware of nothing of the environment outside. Adam's sin was the trigger that set in train the labour pains that would deliver him from the peace and safety of the womb into the turmoil and violence of the world in which he would live his days. (BTW, this is an analogy )

enegue: Sin entered the world by Adam because he was the first to do so
Reformationist: No. Sin entered into the nature of mankind because of his progenital relationship to Adam and God's decree that the corruptive effects of sin would pass though the natural course of the perpetuation of humanity.

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.

enegue: but it was death, not sin, that was passed to all men because of his sin. All of Adam's decendants were subject to separation and hence death and decay because of his weakness and naivety.
Reformationist: I sincerely hope it is not your intention to deny that a sinful nature of rebellion was passed on to the progeny of Adam.

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. Where is you support from scripture that Adam's nature changed? It was his position that changed.

Reformationist: The judgement He passed against their transgression wasn't the judgement passed against innocent neglect or ignorance. It was one passed against their willful, cosmic treason.

It is clear that you see no difference between yielding to temptation and willful cosmic treason. You attribute the motive that was clearly evident in the behaviour of the serpent to Adam and Eve. This may be what you want to believe, but it is certainly not supported by scripture.

enegue: It may even be concluded that God's purpose in this creation is to bring to perfection that which he created good.
Reformationist: Do you mean to contend that God purposed to perfect all of that which He created good, which would be all of everything and everyone?

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

enegue: So, it is your assertion that Adam and Eve were of the same mind and heart as the serpent, that their action was a premeditated offence aimed at slighting God.
Reformationist: They sought to usurp God's rightful place as the One who ruled their lives by seeking to decide for themselves whether doing that which God had fabade them to do was acceptable.

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.

enegue: quoted Matthew 26:39 to illustrate the conflict between Jesus' flesh and spirit in terms of what he was about to undertake.




Reformationist: There was no conflict in Jesus, at least not in the manner you seem to be implying ... Jesus is showing willing submission to the will of the Father, not grudging appeasement.

And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
-- Luke 22:44
​

You really have to start *reading* the bible. Everything that you have produced in your dialog with me so far indicates that your personal experience with scripture is very shallow. For all I know you are simply quoting excerpts from a Calvin study of scripture.

enegue: Yes, this creation is the fire that is to try our faith and prove our love, and gold that is pure needs no further refining. In heaven our love will be known just as we are now known - perfectly.
Reformationist: You said that conflict was necessary to show love. Here you state that our love will be perfectly known without the conflict. All I'm saying is that those are contradictory statements.

I guess you missed the context, but I'll try again.
this creation is the fire that is to try our faith and prove our love, and gold that is pure needs no further refining. In heaven our love will be known just as we are now known - perfectly.

BTW, did you know that 6 x 2 = 15?

enegue: Yes, this is the provision, but we have to "fight the good fight" and "lay hold on eternal life". This requires action on our part.
Reformationist: Salvation is of God enegue. You don't inherit eternal life because you "lay hold of eternal life." You don't inherit eternal life because you "fight the good fight."

The only conclusion I can come to here is that it must be your deliberate intent to misunderstand. How did God save Noah?

Did God build the ark? No. God *provided* all that was necessary to save his life and the lives of his family, but Noah had to take hold of that provision. He had to slave for about 70 years to put together what God had given him only in blueprint. Besides the physical effort required, he would have had to endure the ridicule of his neighbours during the whole of that time as well.

enegue: When God provided manna in the wilderness for Israel, he didn't make it appear inside their tents, they had to get up and go out and gather it
Reformationist: By that line of reasoning, our act of putting food in our mouth at McDonald's is just as effective in saving us as is Christ's work on the Cross.

You are deliberately being provocative, but I will continue anyway.

Reformationist: There is not a single person that has ever been redeemed because of anything they did.

You don't know of a single person, because you knowledge of scripture is so shallow. Get away from the pre-prepared exercises in doctrine, and go and read the bible for yourself.

Reformationist: Who are these who remain lost? I could not say. Do you mean to imply that you do not believe anyone goes to hell?

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

Cheers,
enegue

 

[msortwell]

I look forward to your post.

Here is the post that you were looking forward to. While viewing other threads in other forums, I stumbled upon this proclamation that you made in the General Theology Forum.

"Foreknowledge" is a ridiculous concept when applied to the eternal God. God does not "foreknow" anything--God is actively present in all moments [emphasis mine].

I am confident that you are aware of the following Scripture . . .

Rom 8:29
29 For whom he did foreknow , he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.KJV

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

1 Peter 1:1-2
1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. KJV

You could not have more blatantly rejected the truth of Scripture. Generally your spurning of God's Word is more subtle and likely misleads many into believing that you actually give appropriate consideration to what the Bible says. But it appears that there is no text which you will weigh as heavily than your own exalted philosophy - a philosophy that worships the mind of man as its own self-made god.

The only blessing that I can wish for you is that of repentance.

Mike

 

[depthdeception]

I am confident that you are aware of the following Scripture . . .

Rom 8:29
29 For whom he did foreknow , he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.KJV

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

1 Peter 1:1-2
1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. KJV

You could not have more blatantly rejected the truth of Scripture. Generally your spurning of God's Word is more subtle and likely misleads many into believing that you actually give appropriate consideration to what the Bible says.

Not true. In many other threads, I have--at length--described what I believe the Scriptures use of "predestined", "foreknew" and "elect" actually means. All of these terms describe the purpose of GOd in Christ--the elect of God--to bring salvation to all of God's creatoin.

But it appears that there is no text which you will weigh as heavily than your own exalted philosophy - a philosophy that worships the mind of man as its own self-made god.

Oh yes, that it is indeed.

The only blessing that I can wish for you is that of repentance.

Mike

I didn't know the Holy Spirit's name was "Mike." Good to know!

 

[msortwell]

Not true. In many other threads, I have--at length--described what I believe the Scriptures use of "predestined", "foreknew" and "elect" actually means. All of these terms describe the purpose of GOd in Christ--the elect of God--to bring salvation to all of God's creatoin.

The fact is that you flatly stated that the notion of God foreknowing anything is "ridiculous." Unlike your more common approach, retooling the meaning of words to conform them to your own notions, you took the more straight forward approach opposing the text directly.

I didn't know the Holy Spirit's name was "Mike." Good to know!

Nice comeback.

 

[depthdeception]

The fact is that you flatly stated that the notion of God foreknowing anything is "ridiculous."

And I stand by that contention.

Unlike your more common approach, retooling the meaning of words to conform them to your own notions,

Oh, come on. THere is no such thing as an objective word definition. Everyone brings definitions to texts when they read and--therefore--interpret them. Do not criticize me for something which you must necessarily do also.

you took the more straight forward approach opposing the text directly.

No, again I only oppose your interpretations of the text.

Nice comeback.

Well, thank you. You were gracious enough to set it up for me...

 

[msortwell]

And I stand by that contention.

No, again I only oppose your interpretations of the text.

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.

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.

Mike