Results 1 - 8 of 8
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68480 | ||
"First you imply I was saying God acted Arbitrarily and I didn’t." I certainly did not mean to state that you yourself believe that God acts arbitrarily. What I was trying to point out was that it is very important to think carefully regarding God and His attributes. There is a big difference between saying that "God doing something turns it into a just act" and "What God will do is just because He is just." You wrote, regarding God pouring out his wrath on sinners in hell: "You know what you did here, you took an act outside our understanding and tired to use it as a defense for your position." How is it beyond our understanding. God has made it plain to us: his anger toward sinners is being stored up by their every act, and he will unrelentingly and angrily punish those who hate Him. "In our human reasoning we could say it is very much a loving act in that it is total and complete vindication for what many has endured. Example it is a loving act for the Jews to see Hitler thus condemned." But that wasn't what I was asking. Is it loving toward HITLER to see Hitler thus condemned? You wrote: "In my statement is there any mention that God would violate his nature or His established promises." You seemed to open the door for it when you referred to His infinite, eternal, and unchangeable being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth as "human-established absolutes." So is His unchanging truth a "human-established" aboslute or one that eternally exists and is APPREHENDED by humans? That is where this whole sideline discussion started. I had said that God cannot be just and not punish all sin to the satisfaction of His holiness. The wages of sin is death. That is in keeping with His unchanging justice and holiness. Therefore, any atonement model requires a death sufficient to compensate for all of God's justice and holy wrath. "Nonetheless Scripture very plainly says God does as He pleases. Psalm 115:3 But our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases." And what He pleases to do is in keeping with His unchanging nature. It pleases Him to be Himself, and the thrust of Psalm 115:3 is that nothing stands in God's way of accomplishing His purposes, of being Himself without any obstacles. I understand that you do not really consider God to be capricious or arbitrary, Ed. But when you argue against us understanding what God is like as far as He has revealed himself (not completely, as the finite cannot grasp the infinite, but as far as he has explained Himself to us), then that does open the door to a whole lot of problems. The church needs to come together, as it always has, to think carefully about God as He has shown Himself to be. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | EdB | 68491 | ||
Joe Again I think we are saying the same thing. The point I was trying to make was God is the definer of what becomes our standard. Therefore as the definer whatever He establishes is in fact the boundaries of the definition of that attribute. By saying this I’m in no way opening the door to suggest whimsical behavior, contradictory behavior, or behavior that violates an established absolute or a previously defined nature or attribute of God. Our God is a God that uses variety and accomplishes the same task in many different ways. Example nature and the pollination of a flower. Consider the ways this is accomplished each unique, each different, but each accomplishing God’s desire to pollinate the flower. The fact remains God may well be using a method to accomplished it that we have yet to discover. To try to limit how God is going to accomplish something or limit what God can and cannot do outside of what has already been established in nature or the word of God is foolishness on our part. Back to the track God could have established the parameters of our salvation in many ways. Your assertion that it had to be Jesus is incorrect. However after God had established more definitions your assertion is correct. Example before Gen 3:15 the object of our salvation could have been anything, after Gen 3:15 He had to be human. As God further defined what he was going to do the definition and how he was going to accomplish it began to narrowed down what was going to happen. However nothing in nature or creation forced God to supply those definitions other than His desire to accomplish what He wanted in the way He desired. EdB |
||||||
3 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68500 | ||
"Back to the track God could have established the parameters of our salvation in many ways. Your assertion that it had to be Jesus is incorrect. However after God had established more definitions your assertion is correct. Example before Gen 3:15 the object of our salvation could have been anything, after Gen 3:15 He had to be human." I disagree. It was humanity that sinned, and therefore a just satisfaction for sin must be made by humanity, before God spoke in Genesis 3:15: "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." --Hebrews 10:4 It didn't become true once God said it; it was true prior to God revealing it. "However nothing in nature or creation forced God to supply those definitions other than His desire to accomplish what He wanted in the way He desired." But God's immutable nature plays a part in determining the "HOW" of redemption, even if the "if" and "when" of redemption are unbounded. You seem to suggest that God could have merely said in Genesis 3:15 that the Mosaic sacrificial system (for example) would provide atonement in itself, and that by definition would have been just. You seem to say that it would have been just because God would have said it; I argue that God, in fact, did not say it precisely because it wouldn't have satisfied His justice. I encourage you to take some time to read the arguments of Anselm of Canterbury in his work _Cur Deus Homo?_, which serves as the classic theological treatment of the atonement. I believe his exposition regarding the doctrine of satisfaction fits best with the biblical account. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/anselm-curdeus.html --Joe! |
||||||
4 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | EdB | 68521 | ||
Joe You say, "I disagree. It was humanity that sinned, and therefore a just satisfaction for sin must be made by humanity, before God spoke in Genesis 3:15:" Joe that is existing human logic established by the fact that is how God worked it out. And how God has revealed his holiness and justice to us. “Your statement But God's immutable nature plays a part in determining the "HOW" of redemption, even if the "if" and "when" of redemption are unbounded. You seem to suggest that God could have merely said in Genesis 3:15 that the Mosaic sacrificial system (for example) would provide atonement in itself, and that by definition would have been just. You seem to say that it would have been just because God would have said it; I argue that God, in fact, did not say it precisely because it wouldn't have satisfied His justice.” I’m saying if in fact God had used the Mosaic sacrificial system to provide for our atonement before Hebrews or any other conflicting statements to that method was written and called it just, then to us it would have been just. The fact that God choose another way is merely saying God choose to reveal these traits of His attributes, nature, and logic. To even suggest that these are the total picture of God or that later unveilings of other attributes He now possesses could not possibly effect how we look at things today is limiting God. I believe when we come into full redemption and take our place at the feet of God the Father in The New Jerusalem that God will have revealed the attributes of love, justice, and holiness, that will allow us accept without regret the doom of possible loved ones to eternal damnation in the lake of fire. Which today is seemingly impossible. Are you sure your not a Lawyer? I haven't had to weigh every word so carefully since I last talked to one of those sharks. EdB |
||||||
5 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68534 | ||
You wrote: "I’m saying if in fact God had used the Mosaic sacrificial system to provide for our atonement before Hebrews or any other conflicting statements to that method was written and called it just, then to us it would have been just." And this is the heart of our disagreement. You say the just status of God's decrees is determined by him declaring them just. You separate the act from any innate attribute of God. According to you, God could have declared absolutely ANYTHING to be just satisfaction, whether that satisfaction actually cost anyone anything or not. I, however, contend that the justice of God's decrees originate in His very nature. The justice of God's acts does not originate with Him doing them. God's doing the acts that He does originates in His immutable justice, an aspect of His nature. In short, justice begins in God, not outside of Him. "Are you sure your not a Lawyer? I haven't had to weigh every word so carefully since I last talked to one of those sharks." Not a lawyer, just a shark who cares about God's character and the necessity of the Triune God's covenant of redemption decreed from eternity past. --Joe! |
||||||
6 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | EdB | 68582 | ||
Joe I'm sorry if what I said implied to you that God just came up with good ideas and then did them, thus establishing a new truth. What I meant to say and I think I did say that since God is just, and as he reveals His attributes of justice they become the definition of justice to us. Can we say with any certainty that, that unveiling is complete? No, unless we believe the finite can define the infinite. You said, “And this is the heart of our disagreement. You say the just status of God's decrees is determined by him declaring them just. You separate the act from any innate attribute of God. According to you, God could have declared absolutely ANYTHING to be just satisfaction, whether that satisfaction actually cost anyone anything or not.” First I did not separate them from the innate attributes of God. I on three different occasions have made that connection. What I’m saying is God in his holiness, justice, and love for us could have made anything the ransom for sin. Since we sin against Him and to Him the debt is owed, can He not set the price that must be paid? You implied satisfaction must cost somebody (last sentence in the above paragraph) Again you applying sound human logic based on what God has reveal of his nature of Justice. However suppose all God choose to reveal of His nature in satisfaction of justice was the need for repentance. Would that not have become the price for our sin? Yes of course it would and we would see it as justice. We owed a debt we could not pay, He paid a debt He did not owe. Tears at the very fabric of human logic yet we know now that is yet another attribute that God revealed of his nature. This revealing of God’s nature enabled the satisfaction for our sin to be paid by another upon the cross. I think you suppose too much and to my surprise seem to limit God far more than I would have ever imagined. But I believe the limit you impose on God are just boundaries that he established out of his nature. I just happen to believe those boundaries will expand rapidly when we come into perfection and can begin to truly comprehend the awesomeness of God. Be blessed my friend Ed |
||||||
7 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | Reformer Joe | 68596 | ||
You wrote: "What I?m saying is God in his holiness, justice, and love for us could have made anything the ransom for sin" Paul wrote: "I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly." --Galatians 2:21 Christ NEEDED to die. "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh" --Romans 8:3 "Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law." --Galatians 3:21 The bottom line of your position is that ultimately, Jesus Christ, the holy Son of God, did not have to die for our redemption. Out of a myriad of possibilities that God could have chosen (including painless ones), He sends one who shares His essence with Himself to die an undeserved death, when it all could have been avoided by God saying anything else (or nothing else, as indicated in your last concrete example) could serve as the ground of our justification? It just doesn't wash. And Martin Luther agreed: "Among the distinguished teachers there are some who say that forgiveness of sins and the justification by grace consists entirely of divine imputation, that is in God's accounting it sufficient that he whom he reckons or does not reckon sin is justified or not justified for his sins by this...If this were true, the whole New Testament would be nothing and in vain. And Christ would have labored foolishly and uselessly by suffering for sin." That's basically all I have to say on this matter. You are surprised that I am allegedly limiting God by saying His justice is not trumped by His freedom. I am shocked that you believe God chose what is undoubtedly the most horrific act in the history of the universe as the ground for reconciling us to Himself when He didn't have to. --Joe! |
||||||
8 | What is the Bible's take on sacriments? | Acts 13:38 | EdB | 68606 | ||
Joe Again you misunderstand, it is as if you try to find a point of disagreement rather than look at what I'm trying to express. I hope you know as well as I do none of what I said was an attempt to downplay or even minimize what Jesus did for us on the cross or the cost of that act in God’s eyes. I thought we were venturing into a philosophical discussion on the Sovereignty of God and the defining of our absolutes as God revealed his nature. However you make it appear that I’m attacking the work of the cross. Nothing could be further from the point I was making. I was using the act of salvation as an example of God’s gradual and loving unveiling of the nature of His attributes of justice, love, grace, and forgiveness. If it appeared to you as if I was downplaying the act salvation or the work of the cross I sincerely apologize. I’m sorry I failed to express myself with the clarity of thought that conveyed my real intention. I’m even a little hurt you would consider me capable of such a thing. If on the other hand you once again attempt to turn the table for the sake of debate then let us say I delight in the first sentence of your last paragraph. EdB |
||||||