Van said:
I am reminded of a line from a prison movie, "How could you be so obtuse, is it deliberate?
"Shawshank Redemption". Excellent movie but the prisoner was outside of his bounds by saying what he did. We are called to respect authority irrespective of whether that authority exercises their power for good or evil. Of course this raises a whole other issue of maintaining respect for authority while obeying God first under an evil regime. Another topic, another thread. Forgive my detour please.
I may well be out of my depth in this debate between you and Holdon for I find myself somewhere in the middle. At times agreeing with Holdon and at other times agreeing with you. I think it might be best if I explain my own position according to what I have been taught and drawing upon what has been said.
Firstly I find the statement of...
But what is being discussed is the idea of when did God know that the Anointed One, the Christ, the Messiah would need to redeem the lost.
It is nonsensical to my mind to ask of God "when" for He knows all eternally. There was never a time He did not know. However, I appreciate our limitations and sometimes things said don't always come out the way we mean them.
In regards to the redemption of Christ, it is true He had no sin and therefore did not need redeeming
except that He was made to be sin for our sakes and therefore took upon Himself the consequences of our sin, ie death. He had to be brought back from there or else "He is not raised and our faith is in vain".
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2Cor.5:21
Now I ask myself "what is this death?" The Church has taught me that sin leads to eternal separation from God. We would all agree on this, yes? Therefore I have to assume when the Lord said in the garden ....
but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Gen.2:17
... He wasn't yanking Adam's chain but was pronouncing eternal consequences. Yet, next day after the fall, the Lord is in the garden calling for Adam. What gives? The Lord had no right to be there because to do so put a lie in God's mouth, but God
never lies. So what's happening?
Essentially ...
because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! James 2:13
It is due to the mercy of our God that we can sit here and even speak of salvation.
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 1Pet.1:3
Holdon rejects the idea that God arranged the fall
And so do I for it would make God the author of sin. If one says He
planned for the Fall, I could agree but to say He planned the Fall? I cannot see this is scriptually viable.
We all agree Christ was chosen before creation. You have said so Van and Holdon has agreed. But it seems to me what gets confusing in debates on election and predestination is the fact that because these two things are usually stated in scripture along with God's foreknowledge, we mistakenly believe that God's foreknowledge is the reason He elects and predestines. However foreknowledge is what enables the Lord to make the
right choice and to make a plan that would work ahead of time. It is not the reason for His election or plan, mercy is. God can foreknow all (and He does) yet never make a single decision. It would not in any way detract from His Deity. He remains God with or without election and predestination. Knowledge, in and of itself, does not require decision. But when that knowledge is in the mind of One who is Love and loves mercy? Now that's a whole new ball game.
It is my understanding that Jesus Christ is the
only one chosen by God the Father to be saved because He alone is the only righteous man that ever walked this Earth. The Son was elected to be the Christ, the Saviour. That is what I see the scriptures saying regarding the Son's election.
As you come to him, the living Stonerejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him 1 Peter 2:4
In other words, God the Father chose God the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whether there is more to the Son's election? At this point I do not know but in regards to our sakes, it is suffice to understand this part of the Son's election for the moment.
Our election, on the other hand is not about being saved, (not directly) but about being placed in union with Christ.
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight Eph.1:4
The Father can make this election because of His foreknowledge regarding our own response to the question "What ye think of Christ?"
Our union with Christ is the basis of the "mystery" not revealed to the Old Testament saints and a union they never did enjoy. They knew what it was to be anointed by the Spirit (at least some did) but they never knew the union that we have with Christ. This is what makes our salvation assured. Christ in us is the hope (certainty) we have that we shall know glory. Their certainty was based on a contract written in stone whereas our contract is the living reality of God residing within us.
To them God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. Col.1:27
Being saved by grace indicates we need saving and only in a sinful state do we need saving.
Being saved, fullstop, indicates we need saving. The method God chooses to use is irrelevant to our need per se.
Holdon speaks correctly when he says..
But in ALL states, sinful or not, do we need God's grace on us, freely bestowed by Him.
Our own Lord needed grace to fulfill His ministry on this Earth. Indeed, He had so much grace that John would say..
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. Jn.1:14
The grace of God is the power we need to overcome, not only our sin, but the temptations and evil that we must face in this world. Christ had no need of grace to overcome his own sin for He had none but He did need it to overcome our sin and He needed it to overcome temptation and evil. He laid the path that would become The Way for us to follow in.
We are not "full of grace" as our Lord but are apportioned accordingly.
But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. Eph.4:7
This being for the works of service each of us are called to do so that we might all grow up to the fullness of Christ.
It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ. Eph.4:11-13
In this way the measure of grace we receive continues to be poured out in proportion to the measure of Christlikeness we attain.
Sadly, not all believers receive this grace. They remain with the grace in which they were saved yet do not press on to win the crown, but that is another thread again.
Because Christ died for all mankind, all of us were bought so to speak, Christ ransomed all mankind. This is the general redemption or reconciliation of mankind. But this saved nobody, only by receiving this reconciliation by grace through faith, are we saved.
Actually it saved all men ... from the penalty of sin and the consequence of having to be forsaken by God. The unbeliever, who remains so all their life, has this as their "consolation". They shall never be punished for their sin. NEVER! But the reason I put consolation in quotes is because it is no consolation in truth, for they will know a far greater punishment, one not originally designed for man but for fallen angels. They shall know the second Death. The first death would have been a walk in the park in comparison. The first death meant abandonment, the second is to be tormented.
Christ is the only man to be forsaken.
About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Matt.27:46
We have never been forsaken by God. We might
think that we have been, in great tragedy or despair, but not in reality. From the beginning God has overlooked our sin and never delivered upon His promise until "at the right time" Christ came and suffered for our sakes.
Christ's scream from the Cross of being forsaken was the reality of what He was enduring. It was not a cry of doubt but of faith. Even in death, He never wavered. I cannot even begin to imagine what that experience was like and thanks be to the mercy of God, I will never have to.
No, because your inference drawn on 1 Pt 1:19,20 was that and I quote you: "God knew before the foundation of the world, hence before creation, that Christ would shed His blood as a Lamb".
But that is not what the text says at all. Vs 19 speaks of the blood of the unblemished Lamb and ends with that that Lamb was Christ. Vs 20 then says that Christ (NOT the blood of the Lamb) was foreknown before the foundation of the world.
This is important to distinguish, because "blood" was need to expiate sin, and if "blood" was foreknown then sin would have to be necessarily be in the plans of God. Which is rather blasphemous to suppose that God could have planned sin. The thing He abhors the most.
For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 1 Pet.18-20
Considering Peter is referring to redemption it seems a little silly to me he is not equating knowledge of Christ with His purpose of salvation. After all, isn't that the purpose of the Christ in coming (at least in part) to save? And isn't this why the Son rightly deserves the title of Christ because He is indeed the Saviour? I fail to see why you should consider God's foreknowledge of sin is suppose to make Him also responsible for it. How can a man be judged solely upon his own works if the Lord gives to Him the opportunity to blame another? If knowledge alone is sufficient to condemn a man then all must be condemned eternally for did not Adam's original sin open his eyes to the
knowledge of good
and evil? For those who do end up in the lake of fire would they not be able to say therefore "it is his fault, he knew about evil? Yet each man must answer for his own works, his own knowledge and practice has to be accounted for. I do not see how it can be any other way, but.... (shrug) .... maybe I am not seeing straight. God can never say "I did not know". He wouldn't be God if He could. A man, on the other hand, can say "I did not know" and can be speaking the truth but the question needs to be asked as to
why he did not know. Ultimately he will have no excuse because the Lord in His perfect knowledge has made
every provision for a man to know the Truth. I see no reason for God's knowledge of what men will or will not do as a basis for laying blame.
Yet in spite of Adam's failing and our own, The Lord has taken responsibilty for it and made provision through the Lamb that was slain from the foundation of the world.
Now if that's not mercy triumphing over judgement? Then I don't know what is.
peace
