Question for meticulous sovereignty folks

[JAL]

Because man has been given dominion in this world. Choice. Function. God would be violating His Own Word by interfering in this way.

I think the best theory is that God doesn't violate His own word. He has declared in creating man and giving him dominion that man would have a choice and say in how the future of that would would come about. For God to then override man's free choices would be a violation of His Word.

Totally misses the force of the argument. Does a babe have a choice to be born into a world of suffering and even starvation?

Sorry, you can't reconcile this with "God is love" without recourse to a corporate Adam.

Mankind is the cause of all suffering. And we (corporately) bear the consequence of that sin, even if it is visited very acutely and individually at times.

That's a miscarriage of justice according to Ezek 18, according to which babes shall not suffer for the sins of the parents. Logically, the only way it is justifiable to visit the sins of the parents upon the children is if the children are equally guilty (in corporate Adam).

By the way, just to clarify, do you hold a view similar to Federalism, that Adam was our representative? In other words,is your theology Adam-centric?

If so, you need to address the various charges of contradiction that I leveled against federalism on the other thread. If not, you should explain how you manage to interpret Romans 5 without Adam-centricity.

That's your basic answer: Infant suffering is our fault. It is caused by us (corporately.) And because God has given us freedom and dominion, the buck stops here.

Muz

Well duh. If justice is to be served, we should be suffering for that which is our fault, not for what someone else did. Yes, that's my basic answer (again, duh), and the difference between my answer and yours is that mine doesn't logically contradict justice.

 

[JAL]

There is no question about your press and desire upon Adam to blame his supposed freewill. I've put up many (not even close to all) reasonings WHY that is a false measure upon Adam but in the end it won't matter to those who want to blame and accuse Adam, even condemn Adam.

No, frankly you've haven embarked upon a serious exegesis of Romans 5 as yet. You haven't so much as even wet my appetite. I speak of the cross as the remedy for Adam and you respond:

Then 'why' do you insist on BLAMING ADAM? Sins are NOT COUNTED against mankind and ADAM is inclusive of that.

This is starting to look like dishonest debating. I have probably stated 25 times already why I place blame on Adam. Rom 5 says that Adam sinned. This puts some blame on Adam. Whereas you say that the devil made him do it. Again, if the devil made him do it, it would be unfair for God to call it sin. It is precisely because Adam has blame that Christ atoned for him. You now want to conclude from the atonement that all blame is now gone (meaning no more condemnation for mankind). Fine, that’s a separate issue which does, of course, merit some discussion (it gets into debates about limited atonement). This may be getting off topic, so I haven’t decided whether to address it. The point is that Adam sinned, which implies some degree of autonomy (free will), enough for God to call it “sin” instead of saying “the devil made him do it.” Your determinism doesn’t wash. Sorry.

Love keeps NO RECORD of wrongs.

If you take this verse at face value, then even the devil shouldn’t go to hell. You shouldn’t be adducing verses in a way that contradicts your own position.

God's BINDING remains a FACT. God's MERCY is a SUPERIOR COMPONENT OVER that fact. Your freewill will not revoke the absolution of the BINDING nor will your freewill bring to itself of itself the DISTRIBUTION of Superior Mercy of Him over that BINDING.

Yeah, right. You’re the final authority as to what “binding” means here. Whatever.

 

[JAL]

I'm not even getting into your fanciful tri-part dissection of mankind…

It’s not really aimed at you. Up to this point I can’t even discern an intelligible anthropology in your statements. It is more addressed to evangelicals whose traditional assumptions cannot explain the persistence of the sinful nature. If man is only singular rather than multiple, there is no way to explain the persistence of the sinful nature, and the ongoing war between the sinful nature (the evil heart) and the holy nature (the renewed heart now holy).

You might ask yourself WHAT IS YOUR COMPLAINT if God loves and saves ALL MANKIND and hates and condemns all DEMONIC kind, uses them and eventually ERADICATES them. Do you HAVE a complaint? No. If the end result RESULTS in His Perfect Salvation for ALL mankind, and ALL causes of offense are put away forever, WE ALL have been SERVED a perfect portion by God.

You seem to be arguing that, because your eschatology bids well to all men, I shouldn’t be complaining. Well, that’s a sound piece of reasoning if I ever saw one !!! Accept any doctrine if it bids well to men! Your view could be detrimental to evangelism. Why bother with evangelism, if all men come out on top no matter what?

But the real problem with it is that it seems to contradict biblical hamartiology at every turn - indeed any reasonable hamartiology cannot be deterministic.

 

[squint]

It’s not really aimed at you. Up to this point I can’t even discern an intelligible anthropology in your statements. It is more addressed to evangelicals whose traditional assumptions cannot explain the persistence of the sinful nature. If man is only singular rather than multiple, there is no way to explain the persistence of the sinful nature, and the ongoing war between the sinful nature (the evil heart) and the holy nature (the renewed heart now holy). [/color]

You can continue to distribute blame and accusations upon your fellow man whom 'we' are commanded to LOVE any way you are 'led.' Not my issue.

You seem to be arguing that, because your eschatology bids well to all men, I shouldn’t be complaining. Well, that’s a sound piece of reasoning if I ever saw one !!! Accept any doctrine if it bids well to men! Your view could be detrimental to evangelism. Why bother with evangelism, if all men come out on top no matter what?

The Gospel is A TWO EDGED SWORD.

It is GOOD NEWS to ALL MANKIND.

It is BAD NEWS to all DEVILKIND.

But the real problem with it is that it seems to contradict biblical hamartiology at every turn - indeed any reasonable hamartiology cannot be deterministic.

Spin it however you see it.

The simplicity of the Gospel and God's Words working in this present environment will not sway or change.

God is FOR ALL the vessels of HONOR, all mankind.

God is AGAINST ALL the vessels of DIShonor, all DEVILKIND.

He raises either as He sees fit. One for mercy. One for wrath. One for LOVE. One for condemnation and eradication. BOTH of these vessels are in EVERY LUMP/CLAY of 'me.'

One will be TAKEN. The other will be LEFT.

You or I will not be changing that working of Him.

enjoy!

squint

 

[themuzicman]

Earth is Gods dominion.
The earth is the LORD'S, and all it contains, The world, and those who dwell in it.

His possession, our dominion, given to us by God.

Muz

 

[themuzicman]

Totally misses the force of the argument. Does a babe have a choice to be born into a world of suffering and even starvation?

Of course not. That's the choice of the parents.

Sorry, you can't reconcile this with "God is love" without recourse to a corporate Adam.

Did I say "God is love?" You might want to read what I say before responding

That's a miscarriage of justice according to Ezek 18, according to which babes shall not suffer for the sins of the parents. Logically, the only way it is justifiable to visit the sins of the parents upon the children is if the children are equally guilty (in corporate Adam).

That's just silly. You've completely missed the point of Ezekiel 18. Ezekiel 18 is dealing with the guilt of the fathers being placed upon the sons. It says nothing about the consequence of a father's actions impacting the sons. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be any child abuse, either.

Unless you think the child is at fault when the father beats him;/her.

By the way, just to clarify, do you hold a view similar to Federalism, that Adam was our representative? In other words,is your theology Adam-centric?

No, I don't hold to federalism in that all are guilty because of Adam's sin. Adam's actions introduced a condition in this world where all sin because of knowledge of the law.

If so, you need to address the various charges of contradiction that I leveled against federalism on the other thread. If not, you should explain how you manage to interpret Romans 5 without Adam-centricity.

Romans 5 is speaking of the condition all men find themselves in light of Adam's actions. Because the the knowledge of good and evil, all sin, and thus, all die.

Well duh. If justice is to be served, we should be suffering for that which is our fault, not for what someone else did. Yes, that's my basic answer (again, duh), and the difference between my answer and yours is that mine doesn't logically contradict justice.

The problem is that, given foreknowledge or predestination, fault for this suffering cannot be transferred to man.

Muz

 

[beloved57]

Does a babe have a choice to be born into a world of suffering and even starvation?Of course not. That's the choice of the parents.

Wrong, it was Gods choice, whoever is born into this world, is because it was decreed by Gods eternal purpose..ecc 3:


1To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: 2A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

 

[JAL]

Of course not. That's the choice of the parents.

Did I say "God is love?" You might want to read what I say before responding.

If I missed something, I apologize. I'd be curious about your translation of 1John 4:8. I translate it as "God is love." How about you?

Mainstream theology is out of balance, and you're just another example. In essence, it construes a typical man such as myself, or you, as kinder than God. To expose this problem, I asked you a question which you neglected to answer. (Gee was I ever surprised that you didn't respond to it).

I'll paint that scenario again, and reask you the question. Jesus said, "If you human fathers, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more, shall your heavenly Father, give good gifts to those who ask Him."

Note the implication – it implies that the divine Father is kinder than a human father. With this sort of thinking in mind, as the background, I asked you, "Would you, as a human father - if you could help it – allow your own babes to starve to death?”

And of course, you remained silent, for obvious reasons. Fine, don't answer. I already know what you do don't want to admit. Fact is, you wouldn't do that to your own babes, you simply wouldn't let them starve to death, you'd fine some way to feed them, if you could, or, if they were sick, you'd heal them of disease.

The upshot is that, in your theology, YOU are a kinder father than God. Well, now I guess I understand how you'd interpret that verse. Instead of reading it as "God is love", you'd read it as, "I am love, but God is not. I wouldn't let innocent babes starve to death, but God most certainly would. No doubts about it."

Well, at least your consistent.

Did I say "God is love?" You might want to read what I say before responding.

Ok, sorry I misunderstood you. I now see that, in your view, God is not love. You know what? Fine. I have little quarrel with you. I've been addressing those who believe in a loving Father.

And yet somehow, I think the reality is that you want to have it both ways. In other words, you do want to assert the love of God, but at the same time want to cling to a theology to the contrary.

That's just silly. You've completely missed the point of Ezekiel 18.

Actually it really doesn’t matter whether I missed the point of Ezekiel 18. It is fundamentally unjust to penalize one person for the crimes of another (unless he volunteers to atone). What would we think of a judge who, when asked, “Did you punish the perpetrator”, he responds, “No, but justice was served. We found an innocent person to punish instead. He didn’t volunteer to pay the penalty, so we forced him to do it.”

Ezekiel 18 is dealing with the guilt of the fathers being placed upon the sons. It says nothing about the consequence of a father's actions impacting the sons. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be any child abuse, either. Unless you think the child is at fault when the father beats him;/her.

Is this supposed to be an objection to my view? Yes, the child is at fault. He is guilty in Adam. Otherwise God wouldn’t allow it. (Woops, I forgot. Your God has no zeal to protect innocent children). This is not to license the abusive father. God has said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.”

Your distinction between “suffering judgment” and “suffering consequences” is too artificial and superficial to be accepted. It is a lame attempt to sidestep the implications of Romans 5. First of all, if Adam hadn’t sinned, there should be no negative “consequences” if God is just. The “consequences” follow sin and are therefore penal. This is judgment. In reality, then, my reading of Ezekiel 18 is correct. You say it’s about “suffering consequences” and I say it’s about “suffering judgment” and the fact remains that you can’t provide any relevant distinctions between the two. Now, admittedly, the fullness of judgment is not yet in effect. But it’s still judgment.

You are claiming that God would allow innocent babes to starve to death for the sins of the parents because it’s just fine and dandy for babes to “suffer consequences” since this isn’t the same as “suffering judgment.” You wouldn’t treat your own babes that way, if you could help it. That’s not what is kind, loving, and just. (Oh, I forgot, you don’t believe that God is loving, kind, and just).

No, I don't hold to federalism in that all are guilty because of Adam's sin. Adam's actions introduced a condition in this world where all sin because of knowledge of the law. Romans 5 is speaking of the condition all men find themselves in light of Adam's actions. Because the knowledge of good and evil, all sin, and thus, all die.

So Adam’s actions precipitated the condemnation of the world, and this condemnation is essentially inexorable. You’d have one heck of a time making a good case that this is substantially different from federalism. Almost certainly it is close enough to federalism for purposes of general discussion. (But if I’ve missed something here, feel free to clarify).

The problem is that, given foreknowledge or predestination, fault for this suffering cannot be transferred to man.

Huh? Come again? I’m not following you. Ok, I’ll admit I need to find some more of your posts and read them.

Nonetheless I published this post because I’m guessing my critique isn’t too far off the mark. My apologies in advance if I misunderstood you.

 

[JAL]

No, I don't hold to federalism in that all are guilty because of Adam's sin. Adam's actions introduced a condition in this world where all sin because of knowledge of the law. Romans 5 is speaking of the condition all men find themselves in light of Adam's actions. Because the knowledge of good and evil, all sin, and thus, all die.

This view seems susceptible to some strong hamartiological objections, concerning whether such a "condition" can be defined in a logically coherent sense. Care to clarify it? Or do you have any links where such a condition is defined?

Because no such "condition" should be logically possible. No "condition" imposed upon you should cause you to "sin" in a culpable sense. Saying "the condition made me do it" is just like saying "the devil made me do it" and is thus deterministic. To equate deterministic behavior with "sin" is a logical contradiction. Such behavior should not evoke penalties, judgments, consequences, or sentences.

 

[JAL]

themuzicman,

I went back and tried to find your posts. I entered this discussion somewhere around post #90, but in checking out posts 1 to 90, I didn't find any posts of yours that would alter my critique of your stance. Let me know if I missed something.

 

[JAL]

A common practice in charismatic churches seems symptomatic of this tendency in mainstream theology to construe men as more gentle and kind than God.

I'm referring to the following practice quite common in charismatic churches. When the preacher does an altar call, asking repentants to come down for prayer and the laying-on of hands, he delegates ministers to stand behind them as to catch them if they fall (due to being "slain" in the Spirit).

Get the picture? God is this mean guy who, when people finally come to Him with a broken, repentant heart, tends to knock them to the floor, causing serious injury. But the ministers standing behind them are much more kind than God, and their job is to protect us from this mean Guy.

Now, I don't know much history, but I know enough to be aware of the historic problem of most men being inhumane - outright cruel - to other men. I'm much more worried about the evil ministers standing behind me - they might very well stab me in the back, if they can profit from it - than I am about God doing me any real harm.


And I would hope that all of you agree.

 

[MamaZ]

His possession, our dominion, given to us by God.

Muz

Dominion was given to Adam. Adam fell. Dominion is now in the hands of either the ruler of this world Or in Gods dominion over His own people. We no longer have dominion. For now one has to work for his lively hood. Woman now have pain in childbirth. Fear has entered into what was a peaceful habitat for Adam. Guilt and shame have also. So therefore man is not the dominion but sin is until one is born again.

 

[beloved57]

The Gospel is A TWO EDGED SWORD.

It is GOOD NEWS to ALL MANKIND.

It is BAD NEWS to all DEVILKIND.

This is true, just that, some of mankind belongs to devil kind, these are the seed of the serpent..satan is their spiritual father, jesus talks to some here jn 8:

44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

[squint]

This is true, just that, some of mankind belongs to devil kind, these are the seed of the serpent..satan is their spiritual father, jesus talks to some here jn 8:

44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

You may never get the picture that Satan and mankind are separate entities.

Mankind are slaves of sin/Satan in the flesh. The difference with 'believers' is that we supposedly understand the difference while those who are blinded captives do not understand.

This does not mean our own flesh/heart/mind is 'free' from that working of sin/Satan, which is represented in the flesh by NOT LOVING all of our fellow man, our neighbors.

Jesus came to give LIGHT AND LIFE to the captives, CONDEMN sin in sinful flesh and destroy the works of THE DEVIL.

The differences from there depend on how successful each one views God in Christ in these matters. Obviously both freewillers and Calvin style determinists suppose that God in Christ is an utter failure in these matters except for 'themselves.'

enjoy!

squint

 

[squint]

Now, I don't know much history, but I know enough to be aware of the historic problem of most men being inhumane - outright cruel - to other men. I'm much more worried about the evil ministers standing behind me - they might very well stab me in the back, if they can profit from it - than I am about God doing me any real harm.


And I would hope that all of you agree.

Having spent a considerable amount of time in 'charismatic' churches I would heartily agree. But then that working of evil openly transpires in 'all' the churches, not just the charismatic ones.

Jesus and all the Apostles warned us clearly about this working and it is NOT of mankind, but arrives promptly IN mankind by SATAN wherever the Word is sown.

Most believers say 'oh, but NOT in me.' But yes, that working of Satan transpires in ALL where the Word is sown and denials are irrelevant when it's a fact.

I also agree with you about God doing no harm, at least on a permanent basis. Chastisement is also a deliberate working of God, and one that I am intimately familiar with as well.

enjoy!

squint

 

[Philothei]

A common practice in charismatic churches seems symptomatic of this tendency in mainstream theology to construe men as more gentle and kind than God.

I'm referring to the following practice quite common in charismatic churches. When the preacher does an altar call, asking repentants to come down for prayer and the laying-on of hands, he delegates ministers to stand behind them as to catch them if they fall (due to being "slain" in the Spirit).

Get the picture? God is this mean guy who, when people finally come to Him with a broken, repentant heart, tends to knock them to the floor, causing serious injury. But the ministers standing behind them are much more kind than God, and their job is to protect us from this mean Guy.
And I would hope that all of you agree.

This is a starnge pactice that we do not see it either in the history of the early Christians nor in the Bible. God cannot and wll not harm anyone. Why knock people to the ground? Why there is such a practice and how it originated... in the charismatic movement is something I would like to know. But I agree it is a violent practice that it can cause true injury...

 

[Philothei]

This is true, just that, some of mankind belongs to devil kind, these are the seed of the serpent..satan is their spiritual father, jesus talks to some here jn 8:

44Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

If we admit that the devil has "full dominion" over us then we are dummed and there is no salvation in Christ. Thus the incarnation did not happen or even if it did it did not make a difference since those predestined are for ever doomed. Christ's sacrificed himself for nothing.

Also God is powerless and the devil is equally strong and CAN be as powerful as God.

Thus dulism is at play the fight between God and the devil...

God has predestined all evil to death and to hell and thus there is no hope for those predestined to go to hell...again Christ's coming was in vain since he cannot saved the "lost sheep" since they are already lost....for ever...

Nice doom theology..y'all...

 

[beloved57]

If we admit that the devil has "full dominion" over us then we are dummed and there is no salvation in Christ. Thus the incarnation did not happen or even if it did it did not make a difference since those predestined are for ever doomed. Christ's sacrificed himself for nothing.

Also God is powerless and the devil is equally strong and CAN be as powerful as God.

Thus dulism is at play the fight between God and the devil...

God has predestined all evil to death and to hell and thus there is no hope for those predestined to go to hell...again Christ's coming was in vain since he cannot saved the "lost sheep" since they are already lost....for ever...

Nice doom theology..y'all...

God is the one who makes one the seed of the devil, God is Sovereign..

 

[Philothei]

Thus creating evil... and that is a total antitheis to God's nature....Which is wrong

 

[squint]

Thus creating evil... and that is a total antitheis to God's nature....Which is wrong

There are vast amounts of scripture that say otherwise in the O.T.

Here's a few for 'sampling.' Doesn't matter if you get it or not. The scriptures are clear about God's Involvement and USE of EVIL, particularly of the 'retributive' kind:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=47906882&postcount=84

enjoy!

squint