Predestination

[RapeOfAngels]

That would mean, my new buddy, that we earned our salvation because God looks down the tube of time and sees we make a correct choice, he then rewards that choice. If he is rewarding our correct choice it is not a salvation of Grace and Mercy but one of wages due, God owed it to us because we chose correctly.

This argument looks very suspect to me.

It wouldn't necessarily be a matter of "rewarding" people, and it wouldn't necessarily be something "owed" to us. God offers salvation to everyone. Some people accept the offer. How exactly have they earned it?

If you agree to accept something, does it automatically mean that it was owed to you?

 

[Reformationist]

The reason why you are having trouble grasping what I've said is because you have a false understanding of the love of God.

Well, I am fallible so I won't rule out the possibility but you'd have to be more specific for me to judge whether you're right.

And by the way, for what purpose did Jesus go to the cross?

To save His people from their sins. What would you say His purpose was?

 

[CCWoody]

Are you sure that this is the only reason Jesus went to the cross?

"he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." Rom. 3:26

You see, Jesus didn't just go to the cross to justify sinners, but to show that God is just!

So my point is correct in that even if God foreknew that no one would accept His plan of salvation, or gift of eternal life, Jesus still would have gone to the cross.

The question that ought to be answered now is why would Jesus have to go the cross to die, to show that God is just?

Clue: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Eph. 6:12

What you are espousing is very much like the Finney/ Grotius "Moral Government" theory. If you are willing to also accept the Penal Substitutionary view, then we may still find common ground, but if you wish to deny the latter, then I can safely say that you are not following any kind of Orthodox view of the Atonement.

 

[Reformationist]

Are you sure that this is the only reason Jesus went to the cross?

"he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." Rom. 3:26

You see, Jesus didn't just go to the cross to justify sinners, but to show that God is just!

I don't see where anyone said anything contrary to that. Either way, acknowledging that Christ's purpose on the Cross was both the justification of believers and the demonstration of the justice of God changes nothing. The point is, His purpose in going to the Cross was more than simply to die.

So my point is correct in that even if God foreknew that no one would accept His plan of salvation, or gift of eternal life, Jesus still would have gone to the cross.

You've just negated the entire substitutionary nature of the atonement. Nice going.

The question that ought to be answered now is why would Jesus have to go the cross to die, to show that God is just?

The eternal plan of God in the atonement was just that, to atone. Divorcing the vicarious nature of Christ's obedience from the imputation of its merits does nothing but show your ignorance of the biblical teaching on the atonement.

 

[RapeOfAngels]

The permission of evil in the world is not a "logical" problem at all. You may not like it and you may think it an outrageous thing for God to knowingly permit, but it is not a logic problem. It would be a moral one, but not a logical one.

The logical problem is not ours. Either you must deny God his Omniscience or you must deny God his Omnipotence. Else, you are left with a logical contradiction in your theology.

Logic is on our side....

1. ) Grant God’s Omniscience -- that is, not only His perfect Foreknowledge of all that Is and Will Be within the context of Creation, but also, Alone in Eternity, having not yet spoken Light into existence, His perfect Foreknowledge of All Potentialities -- i.e., Alone in Eternity, God’s perfect Foreknowledge of an infinite number of possible Creations, His perfect foreknowledge of the operations of Free Will in each and every possible Creation, from Beginning to End.

That isn't "foreknowledge". What you are talking about is "middle knowledge". Personally, I think it would be logically impossible for God to have that kind of knowledge. You can deny that God would have that kind of knowledge without any real problem to God's omniscience. (Just as most Christians would admit that there are some things that an omnipotent God couldn't do, without it being a denial of God's omnipotence.)

There may be a verse or two in scripture which could be read as suggesting "middle knowledge", which would have to be alternatively explained, but as far as I can see, Christians can deny that God has middle knowledge without denying God's omniscience.

 

[Reformationist]

God offers salvation to everyone. Some people accept the offer.

Let's start here. If God "offers salvation to everyone" then, unless you are contending for a universal salvation, you must acknowledge that the offer, in and of itself, saves no one. What, in your opinion, actualizes the offer such that it manifests itself as true salvation?

If you agree to accept something, does it automatically mean that it was owed to you?

No. Of course not. One itsy, bitsy little problem with this analogy, however, is that no one is saved because of accepting some mythical offer of salvation. The salvation of man is the product of a covenant between the members of the Godhead wherein Jesus was sent forth to atone for the sins of God's elect, thereby reconciling them with their Creator and restoring them to a position of harmony with Him. Just as their sin is imputed upon the Savior, the merit for His righteousness is imputed unto them, that they be granted eternal life.

Bottom line, we are saved by works, just not our works.

God bless

 

[Reformationist]

That isn't "foreknowledge". What you are talking about is "middle knowledge". Personally, I think it would be logically impossible for God to have that kind of knowledge. You can deny that God would have that kind of knowledge without any real problem to God's omniscience. (Just as most Christians would admit that there are some things that an omnipotent God couldn't do, without it being a denial of God's omnipotence.)

There may be a verse or two in scripture which could be read as suggesting "middle knowledge", which would have to be alternatively explained, but as far as I can see, Christians can deny that God has middle knowledge without denying God's omnipotence.

Umm...you completely lost me. Can you explain your point here?

Thanks,
God bless

 

[CCWoody]

The eternal plan of God in the atonement was just that, to atone. Divorcing the vicarious nature of Christ's obedience from the imputation of its merits does nothing but show your ignorance of the biblical teaching on the atonement.

Noticed that too, huh! The thing is that Finney was not wrong with the Governmental view of the Atonement; he was wrong in the denial of the Penal Substitutionary nature of it, your "imputation of its merits" to men.

 

[Reformationist]

Noticed that too, huh!

LOL! Yes I did. And, if I may, I am always encouraged when I am fortunate enough to explain a biblical concept in a way that is in line with your views. It let's me know I'm on the right track.

The thing is that Finney was not wrong with the Governmental view of the Atonement; he was wrong in the denial of the Penal Substitutionary nature of it, your "imputation of its merits" to men.

Your's sounds so much more professorish.

God bless

 

[frumanchu]

Are you sure that this is the only reason Jesus went to the cross?

That is the primary reason. His death was a sacrificial atonement for sin. He died that whosoever believes in Him would not perish.

"he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus." Rom. 3:26

You see, Jesus didn't just go to the cross to justify sinners, but to show that God is just!

He went to the Cross to satisfy the requirements of God's justice in place of those who would elsewise be the recipients of that justice, and in so doing saved His people from the just penalty for their sin.

[quote\So my point is correct in that even if God foreknew that no one would accept His plan of salvation, or gift of eternal life, Jesus still would have gone to the cross.[/quote]

I disagree. His death would have been wholly in vain. His purpose was to save His people from their sins.

The question that ought to be answered now is why would Jesus have to go the cross to die, to show that God is just?

Because the wages of sin is death and blood is required for the remission of sins. God's justice demands payment for sin, so in order to save us from condemnation while at the same time upholding His righteous justice, Christ bore the penalty of sin in the place of His people.

 

[CCWoody]

That isn't "foreknowledge". What you are talking about is "middle knowledge". Personally, I think it would be logically impossible for God to have that kind of knowledge. You can deny that God would have that kind of knowledge without any real problem to God's omniscience. (Just as most Christians would admit that there are some things that an omnipotent God couldn't do, without it being a denial of God's omnipotence.)

There may be a verse or two in scripture which could be read as suggesting "middle knowledge", which would have to be alternatively explained, but as far as I can see, Christians can deny that God has middle knowledge without denying God's omnipotence.

Yes, there is a middle knowledge component to the foreknowledge of God. However, once the Lord actually acted toward creation and determined to bring forth one type if creation, with all its Divine interventions, middle knowledge gave way to a certain foreknowledge of what was to come. This was the point, not that I make everyone in the world happy with a precise and narrow definition of terms.

BTW, you are wrong in that the Lord still doesn't have a kind of middle knowledge of his creation. See Matthew 11:20-27

 

[RapeOfAngels]

No. Of course not. One itsy, bitsy little problem with this analogy, however, is that no one is saved because of accepting some mythical offer of salvation. The salvation of man is the product of a covenant between the members of the Godhead wherein Jesus was sent forth to atone for the sins of God's elect, thereby reconciling them with their Creator and restoring them to a position of harmony with Him. Just as their sin is imputed upon the Savior, the merit for His righteousness is imputed unto them, that they be granted eternal life.

Bottom line, we are saved by works, just not our works.

God bless

One itsy bitsy little problem with this, is that all you are doing is begging the question.

 

[RapeOfAngels]

BTW, you are wrong in that the Lord still doesn't have a kind of middle knowledge of his creation. See Matthew 11:20-27

I can't see that those verses indicate middle knowledge.

 

[CCWoody]

One itsy bitsy little problem with this, is that all you are doing is begging the question.

The question being: Are we saved?????

 

[Reformationist]

One itsy bitsy little problem with this, is that all you are doing is begging the question.

Um...maybe I'm just not picking up what you're laying down but, what question am I begging?

 

[CCWoody]

I can't see that those verses indicate middle knowledge.

What is middle knowledge to you?

 

[RapeOfAngels]

This was the point, not that I make everyone in the world happy with a precise and narrow definition of terms.

I wasn't trying to be pedantic about definition. I was pointing out that there is a distinction. You can deny middle knowledge, without denying God's foreknowledge, and without doing any harm to God's omniscience.

 

[BarbB]

Your's sounds so much more professorish.

Well, I tried to look up professorish, but couldn't find it!

 

[CCWoody]

Your's sounds so much more professorish.

God bless

professorish does rhyme with borish, you know. I don't know whether to feel good about this or not. Must be my obsession with reading.

 

[BarbB]

professorish does rhyme with borish, you know. I don't know whether to feel good about this or not. Must be my obsession with reading.

I don't find your posts borish or boring! I learn from them so I'm going to grant that Don invented a new word that I want to use! Continue!