Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | God sought Moses to kill him | Ex 4:24 | DocTrinsograce | 198370 | ||
Digging around in my notes, I find the following quote from arguably one the greatest Christian theologians. He tends to support your assertion. "It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the shining forth of God's glory should be complete; that is, that all parts of His glory should shine forth, that every beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at all... "Thus it is necessary, that God's awful majesty, His authority and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God's glory would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine glory would not shine forth as the others do, and also the glory of His goodness, love, and holiness would be faint without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at all. "So evil is necessary, in order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the completeness of that communication of God, for which He made the world; because the creature's happiness consists in the knowledge of God, and the sense of His love. And if the knowledge of Him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be proportionably imperfect." --Jonathan Edwards |
||||||
2 | God sought Moses to kill him | Ex 4:24 | azurelaw | 198374 | ||
Dear Doc, I have also heard of similar assertion before concerning the good and evil. With the explanation of Jonathan Edwards which you have put as arguably, I would like to ask for further comments (if possible). How should we understand the situation base on JE's notion in the Eden before the fall of Adam and Eve as per the below : 1/ If Eden was in perfect condition and absent from evil, then the knowledge of God and their happiness would be imperfect. 2/ Could the complete knowledge (the forbidden tree of knowledge) of God be restricted for the perfect hapiness of human (not only to test their obedience)? Did I make my questions clear? Hope to learn more. Thanks. Shalom Azure |
||||||
3 | God sought Moses to kill him | Ex 4:24 | DocTrinsograce | 198377 | ||
Dear Sister Azure, Regarding the first question, we have only a little to go on. Paul gives us a window into the events of Genesis 3 in his statement in 1 Timothy 2:14. But we have the same kind of problem with the fall of Lucifer. How could "all" that was created and declared "very good" (Genesis 1:31), have a defect such that it was able to sin at all, or even have the idea of sin enter into the consciousness? All that I can do is accept that this was the case at face value, as I do not find a clear explanation in Scripture. I doubt it is understandable outside of divine revelation. Therefore, if we have no divine revelation on the topic, then all we can do is accept it without explanation. Regarding the second question, I am confident that had Adam and Eve waited obediently on the Lord, that completeness would have come at the right moment. But let's be very careful here! Speculating about what might have happened leaves the impression that the Fall was all just some sort of tragic accident or unexpected deficiency. For the plan of redemption was not a response to an inadequacy in creation. In other words, it wasn't God's Plan B when Plan A just didn't work out. Somehow -- and I don't believe any human or angel comprehends this -- the whole span of history, from the beginning of time through all eternity, is part of God's eternal purpose. Jonathan Edwards is possibly among one of the greatest minds of Christendom, among such men as Paul, Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. His studies go well beyond my ability to rightly comprehend them. Consequently, I am certainly an inadequate advocate for or against anything the man said. Nevertheless, I've heard people respectfully suggest that he might have exceeded our rightful grasp. I simply am too ignorant of a man to be able to judge, let alone advise others on that point. However, I believe that John Calvin's example is particularly pertinent. Let me quote Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield (1851-1921) on this point, for your careful consideration: "It is not to be denied, of course, that Calvin was a speculative genius of the first order, and in the cogency of his logical analysis he possessed a weapon which made him terrible to his adversaries. But it was not on these gifts that he depended in forming and developing his theological ideas. His theological method was persistently, rigorously, some may even say exaggeratedly, a posteriori [knowing something because we are taught from outside of us]. All a priori [knowing something that arises strictly from within us] reasoning here he not only eschewed but vigorously repelled. His instrument of research was not logical amplification, but exegetical investigation. In one word, he was distinctly a Biblical theologian, or, let us say it frankly, by way of eminence 'the Biblical theologian of his age.' Whither the Bible took him, thither he went: where scriptural declarations failed him, there he stopped short. It is this which imparts to Calvin's theological teaching the quality which is its prime characteristic and its real offense in the eyes of his critics -- I mean its positiveness. There is no mistaking the note of confidence in his teaching, and it is perhaps not surprising that this note of confidence irritates his critics. They resent the air of finality he gives to his declarations, not staying to consider that he gives them this air of finality because he presents them, not as his teachings, but as the teachings of the Holy Spirit in His inspired Word. Calvin's positiveness of tone is thus the mark not of extravagance but of sobriety and restraint. He even speaks with impatience of speculative, and what we may call inferential theology, and he is accordingly himself spoken of with impatience by modern historians of thought as a 'merely Biblical theologian,' who is, therefore, without any real doctrine of God, such as Zwingli has. The reproach, if it be a reproach, is just. Calvin refused to go beyond 'what is written' -- written plainly in the book of nature or in the book of revelation. He insisted that we can know nothing of God, for example, except what He has chosen to make known to us in His works and Word; all beyond this is but empty fancy, which merely 'flutters' in the brain. And it was just because he refused to go one step beyond what is written that he felt so sure of his steps. He could not present the dictates of the Holy Ghost as a series of debatable propositions." (from John Calvin the Theologian, published 1909) Sorry for letting you down, sister, but I'm afraid I've already gone well beyond what I can say with confidence from the Word itself. In Him, Doc |
||||||