Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
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 | 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! |
||||||
2 | 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 |
||||||
3 | 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! |
||||||
4 | 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 |
||||||