I never said anything about it being fair or not. I said my own sins were more than enough to convict me.
Jesus is God. Jesus came and took ALL our sins to the cross. I don't think its possible for Him to do anything less.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I never said anything about it being fair or not. I said my own sins were more than enough to convict me.I don't think Paul would agree with you:
And, anyway...if you don't think it's fair that we are held responsible and accountable for Adam's sin, then how could it be possible for Jesus to have died (or paid the price; been held accountable) for our sin?
You're still letting your ingrained twentieth-century philosophies get the better of you when they clearly contradict what the Scripture says. You should see my copy of Chosen By God. All kinds of highlights and margin notes where I knew Sproul was wrong...only to be crossed out and corrected two years later when I finally realized that..doggone it!...he was right!!
I know this is hard to figure out. So is the Trinity.
No. There were over 400 years between the last profit of the OT and Christ. The Jews refer to this as the silent time as God had no more communication with Israel during this time. Sounds a little like God may have been relaxing and waiting while He waited to start the next part of His plan to close the Old Covenent and start the New Covenent.Box, still sounds like you still want to have a god that sets things in motion then lets the "Clay" choose how the rest of things may go, then alters and changes the way things go to make them work "for the good" as you say.
That sounds like a very busy and frustrated god don't you think?
GodsElect said:I am not saying that God couldn't have created things that way if He wanted to, but it's not taught that way in the light of scripture.
And further, we're talking about a God, who before time began, was OUTSIDE OF TIME, heck, even created time itself!
Do you think that, being outside of time, in ALL ETERNITY PAST didn't plan for the way that HIS CREATION, sun, moon, stars, orbits of planets, earth, animals, humans, and everything eles I didn't mention, couldn't plan and predestine and ordain and create everything that is and shall come to pass?
Is not God the alpha and omega, the begining and the end of all things, the great archectect?
I do and I don't think God is frustrated in the least. He knows what He will do when to complete is will for His creation. Revelations is a proficy about what will happen. In a way it is predestined. God has said what He will do. God will do what He has said when He determines the time is right completely independant of what men are doing at the time.GodsElect said:It is my God who had from all eternity past plenty of time to pre-plan, plan, ordain, predestine, create, and finish His work before the FIRST SECOND OF TIME CLICKED to begin a measly 6000 or whatever years on earth compaired to an ETERNITY to create creation! That's the God ALMIGHTY we proclaim! Do you think that God would do such a thing as let His creation take any path than that which He had already planned from begining to END?
If you do then that is surely a VERY FRUSTRATED god indeed! That the course of man's actions cannot go according to his original plan.
GodsElect said:His ORIGINAL PLAN is perfect! and will BE COMPLETED however He has planned it from the beginning! We do not have a God who lets His "Clay" dictate His actions! His Sovereign WILL dictates OUR actions.
Yes, His plan will be completed. His plan and the steps He will take He has already determined. Those steps do not include micro managing our every though/deed and action. God wants us to respond to Him. He does not want the love of puppets.GodsElect said:For His own Glory and sovereign purposes and perfect will from the BEGINNING TO THE END!!! PERIOD!!! GET OVER IT!!!And I think this is a God that you dont want!!! It is very clear now!
You and I are loved by the same God. You see God as having to have to predestine everything to make it work. I see God as being smart enough to make His plans workout regardless of what else happens. But we love and serve the same God.GodsElect said:My God is much more greater than a finite human mind that cannot phathom a God that is smarter than to create something and be therefore at the whims of His creation. At the whims of "whosoever will"
Yet there're plenty of people who Scripture says are "deceiving themselves". If Scripture's right and they really are deceived by their own arguments, are they really culpable for their neglect?I never said anything about it being fair or not. I said my own sins were more than enough to convict me.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'd say Christ Jesus certainly had the free will to do anything He wished. The only "impossibility" involved in the Cross was the impossible love that Jesus had for a people who clearly didn't deserve His love. So the impossibility came from Jesus' freedom to love the undeserved.Jesus is God. Jesus came and took ALL our sins to the cross. I don't think its possible for Him to do anything less.
Box, that sounds dangerously close to modalism. If you're not aware of that anti-trinitarian theology, you might want to study it some.I thought about this a little more and it really helped explain the trinitarian nature of God to me. God the father exists in all dimensions. God the Son is the projection of God into at least the dimensions we exist in so that He could teach us directly. The Holy Spirit is the projection of God into the dimensions within which He operates. But they are all part of the multi-dimensional God the Father. Just my speculation and it is ultimatly meaningless but it helps me understand the trinity. (Its the engineer mentality)
Yet there're plenty of people who Scripture says are "deceiving themselves". If Scripture's right and they really are deceived by their own arguments, are they really culpable for their neglect?
I realize this takes the argument in a new direction. But it seems to me the libertarian presuppositions about responsibility really leave large gaps of "nobody's responsible." God wouldn't be in control and people wouldn't be intentional. There's no responsibility for some sins. Yet God says He'll fix it. Why would He fix something that He's not offended by? And what claim would He have for the offense of some of these sins? Why would He have the authority to sit in judgment over things He has zero responsibility over?
To me that was a critical point in the argument. God isn't responsible like the accused. God is responsible like the judge. There's no reason to assume that because God created me that He's responsible the same way I am. He can make things lesser than Himself. So can I. I am not responsible for a brick wall in the same way a brick is responsible.
So God is still completely aware of everything that He designed. And unlike human judges, who simply represent a legal system they're avowed to, God is a Spiritual Judge, who Is the righteous Standard.
I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'd say Christ Jesus certainly had the free will to do anything He wished. The only "impossibility" involved in the Cross was the impossible love that Jesus had for a people who clearly didn't deserve His love. So the impossibility came from Jesus' freedom to love the undeserved.
And if that freedom compels the term "impossible", I think you must realize, that same freedom compels predestination. It was eminently possible that Jesus' freedom to choose could lead Him to choose another direction. Yet He was predestined to take this path because of His free will. That was all that "compelled" Him to love us in actual fact. He had the choices available to love us or not. His will made it impossible.
And no one denies it. His will was free.
That same model is applied to each one of us in predestination.
Box, that sounds dangerously close to modalism. If you're not aware of that anti-trinitarian theology, you might want to study it some.
Brad
Do you mean to imply these bits of matter acted of their own volition to build these more complex bits of matter? I'm sure you don't, and I agree wholeheartedly that creation, even under scientific examination, shows forth the amazing "attention to detail" God exhibits in creating and maintaining the universe. On another thread I discussed the idea that all matter and energy is made up of unimaginally complex and numerous waves, all hanging in perfect balance, and another pointed out that everything is just "twists" propagated by huge forces. Even Hawking said that everything is predestined, just that humans are incapable of the math it would take to extrapolate where all those waves will go. But God is able. And doesn't just "see" where they will go, but has determined their every move. That would be a pretty strong indication to me that He doesn't let some things float free outside of His control, or bother to ordain everything that happens. If keeping a single grain of salt intact is as difficult as it appears, for Him to ordain all things is a breeze for Him.The molecules built nucleic acids with their rules and those nucleic acids built DNA.
Do you mean to imply these bits of matter acted of their own volition to build these more complex bits of matter? I'm sure you don't, and I agree wholeheartedly that creation, even under scientific examination, shows forth the amazing "attention to detail" God exhibits in creating and maintaining the universe. On another thread I discussed the idea that all matter and energy is made up of unimaginally complex and numerous waves, all hanging in perfect balance, and another pointed out that everything is just "twists" propagated by huge forces. Even Hawking said that everything is predestined, just that humans are incapable of the math it would take to extrapolate where all those waves will go. But God is able. And doesn't just "see" where they will go, but has determined their every move. That would be a pretty strong indication to me that He doesn't let some things float free outside of His control, or bother to ordain everything that happens. If keeping a single grain of salt intact is as difficult as it appears, for Him to ordain all things is a breeze for Him.
Modalism, having nothing to do with an ability to appreciate God's creation through science, is a dangerous redefinition of the Trinity that is heretical. Your illustration is pretty close to it; that the three manifestations of the Godhead are just 3 "modes" of His existence. You should look into it to see if your idea is errant. No offense intended, Box, just wanted to caution you.
SDG,
Brad
In Christianity, Sabellianism (also known as modalism or modal monarchism) is the belief that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God (for us only), rather than three distinct persons (in Himself). God was said to have three "faces" or "masks" (Grk. prosopa
Keep in mind, this could be alleged of just about anyone who has described his view in less than 5000 words. It really takes some digging to determine whether a view is modalism, monophysitism, nestorianism, or Trinitarianism. In the 200's a number of councils rejected monophysitism, denying the terminology of monophysites. In the 300's they attacked nestorianism adopting some of the same terminology they rejected in monophysitism.I don't know if that's what I've understood modalism to be. Here's a wiki def.:
The full page is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modalism
Iagree that it's a complicated matter, my concern was due to the fact that I myself long ago had a modalistic view of the Trinity that I had developed on my own in my ignorance. There is some importance attached to discerning that there are three separate Persons in the godhead, and I missed that for a while. Wouldn't want Boxmaker to be caught in the same error. Mine was probably closer to the "oneness pentecostalism" variety.Keep in mind, this could be alleged of just about anyone who has described his view in less than 5000 words. It really takes some digging to determine whether a view is modalism, monophysitism, nestorianism, or Trinitarianism. In the 200's a number of councils rejected monophysitism, denying the terminology of monophysites. In the 300's they attacked nestorianism adopting some of the same terminology they rejected in monophysitism.
So it's really what you mean by it that's critical.
If you get into physics and dimensional work you'll find it addresses substance and essence fairly well, but not so much persons. I would say, Boxmaker, that your view makes a great point on the substance side of Trinitarian doctine.
The way God has created for us to exist as persons and spirits as well as physical beings, tend to trace back to three separate Persons in the Godhead. I think that's what bradfordl is getting at? Again, somewhat speculative philosophically, but I think that's where the question is focused.
This is way into the details, too. I think unconsidered thoughts as to God's nature don't deprive us of a right relationship with God. I think it's when I reject God as He is that the troubles come; not when I don't know and accept Him, despite my own shallow understandings.
Iagree that it's a complicated matter, my concern was due to the fact that I myself long ago had a modalistic view of the Trinity that I had developed on my own in my ignorance. There is some importance attached to discerning that there are three separate Persons in the godhead, and I missed that for a while. Wouldn't want Boxmaker to be caught in the same error. Mine was probably closer to the "oneness pentecostalism" variety.
I can't fully wrap my mind around the Trinity, either, but to the extent that I can, I want it to be accurate.
Blessings,
Brad
Please define "we". Are you a member of the United Pentecostal denomination?We preceive God as three persons as humnas preceive persons. Each is distinct from the other and they all exist at all times. But thet are one God in that they are linked in dimensions we cannot understand.
And through you I can also see the Spirit urging me to be more careful in what I'm permitting and qualifying, too. I need to find redemptive ways of expressing the truth that don't come across as cross-examinations or judgments when it comes to this, but as opportunities and invitations to look closely at what God's saying.Iagree that it's a complicated matter, my concern was due to the fact that I myself long ago had a modalistic view of the Trinity that I had developed on my own in my ignorance. There is some importance attached to discerning that there are three separate Persons in the godhead, and I missed that for a while. Wouldn't want Boxmaker to be caught in the same error. Mine was probably closer to the "oneness pentecostalism" variety.
I can't fully wrap my mind around the Trinity, either, but to the extent that I can, I want it to be accurate.
Please define "we". Are you a member of the United Pentecostal denomination?
Does the many that were made sinners mean that not all men were made sinners? It would have to be so that only the many could be elected and saved by Jesus. Sproul has already addressed this and the Bible confirms that through Adam, all were made sinners. So the many referred to in this verse must be all men. Therefore, the many that Christ died for must be the same all men that became sinners in Adam.NIV said:Romans 5: 18-19
18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
He resisted the grace of God and went away sad. This is a matter if interpretation. The Calvinist will say that God did not exercise irresistible or effectual grace for the rich man. Indeed, the next several verses make the case that God might not care for rich men very much at all. Open theists will see it as God exercising his grace but allowing mans free will to resist.NIV said:Matthew 19
18"Which ones?" the man inquired.
Jesus replied, " 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,'[d] and 'love your neighbor as yourself.'[e]"
20"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"
21Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
22When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
I did as you asked. I never saw Calvinism the way the Presbyterian did. I see Calvinism as saying you go to heaven based on whether God likes you are not. Calvinism denies the Biblical truth the Jesus died for all men and states quite clearly that Jesus died for the elect. Calvinism takes the imperative out of the Great Commission since it changes the nature of the Gospel. Paul said that we should always be ready to give an answer for the hope that lies within. The only hope that a Calvinist has within is that God liked them enough to elect them. Calvinism takes the message of salvation, of good news, of the Gospel away from all men and gives it only to the elect. I am still unable to reconcile that with the nature of God as revealed in the Bible as a whole.GrinningDwarf said:Do one thing for me...go to page 122 and read the story of the Presbyterian seminary president who was not a Calvinist. Underline or highlight that story and Sproul's response, and keep it in mind during your researching of Reformed theology, and simply believe that Sproul really means what he says here. I did that, I dunno, about five years ago or so. For the next year and a half or so, I would run into my stumbling block of John 3:16 and be tempted to chuck the whole thing as being totally unreasonable and contrary to the character of God. Then I would remember what Sproul said, and have to admit, "OK...I guess I still don't really understand what they're saying." Then I would make another stab at it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?