Isn't this a logical argument?

[INRI]

You see, more words in my mouth. Please show me where I said that forgiveness without justification was untrue.

Pardon me, RJ, but I haven't put any words in your mouth here. All I've done was make a statement of what I've perceived of your beliefs...namely, that belief is a choice, as is being born again. I fully acknowledge that this is only my perception of your beliefs, and that it may be incorrect. There is no reason for a martyr complex to kick into gear. I'm not out to get you; I'm just unclear.

Thank you also for completely ignoring my requests for clarification and not helping me get around the confusion you've helped create.

You believe what you wish but for me God gave Adam a choice and he gave Abraham choice and he gave me a choice.

I don't think Adam or Abraham were given the same choice as you seem to think you have been given. Adam and Abraham were never presented the option of becoming born again...so what are you getting at here? I still don't understand how being born is ever a choice we can make...the first time or the second time.

 

[INRI]

All arguments of salvation must begin with the understanding that God is holy and therefore unlike any other. "Transcendant" is a good way to describe His holiness. The only remedy for the abrogation of this holiness is the removal of sin by the death of the sinner. There is no other way.

I fully agree that if God exists, than He should most certainly be transcendent. But when you claim "The ONLY remedy...is the death of the sinner," here is where I run into confusion. There is more than one way to skin a cat, as they say. And as you state in your next few sentences, there was more than one way for absolution according to Jewish Law.

That puts man in a precarious situation; we in our sinfulness sinned against an infinite God thus the payment must needs have been infinite.

This actually says more about God than it does about man. For the most part, it turns God into an angry Being who can REALLY hold a grudge. If just one sin in an entire finite lifetime still holds infinite consequences, and we all sin, I'm not sure why we shouldn't just keep on sinning. You've created sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation...so why not just do?

When people made sacrifices in the OT, it only rolled the punishment back for a year, the lamb or goat had hands lain upon him to symbolically transfer the sins of the offerant to the sacrifice. Yet the sin remained. God supplied in his Son (the infinite God) the remedy, the propitation for our sins. He took upon Himself the punishment of sin and became our vicarious offering. His blood purchased our freedom. :wink:

Not only did they "roll the punishment back for a year," they also learned that shifting the blame or "scapegoating" were perfectly acceptable forms of absolution to their God...and went on believing this for thousands of years. Christians believe this even today. After all, Jesus is the Lamb of God, the Ultimate Scapegoat. However, I'm sure you fully understand that "symbolically" transferring sins is not the same thing as ACTUALLY transferring sins. This is because the actions that one being commits simply cannot be made to be the actions that another being has committed.

If I kill a man, I cannot possibly make it so that you have killed that man. Neither can I make it so that a goat or a lamb has killed that man. Your sins are yours alone. My sins are certainly my own. Shifting the blame to another being is both irresponsible, and historically, it opens the door for centuries of "justified/forgiven" atrocities. All the while those committing the evils believe themselves to be doing right...and if they're not, it's no big deal, because they are justified.



But this is all beside the point, because again, a blood sacrifice, even something as horrific as the Passion says more about God than it does about why it cost so much (us and our sins). What kind of a Being would require (or at least accept) the slaughter of innocents in order to atone for the wrong doings of the guilty? This is akin to tossing a virgin into the volcano to "appease" the volcano god and "roll back any punishment [an eruption in this case] for a year."

 

[rojoloco]

The frozen chosen? Lol. I hadn't heard that one. Lot's o' debate on this topic and I'm not certain that we can ever know (in this life, anyway) who is most right. The simple fact is that both sides have some very compelling angles. But there is something very niggling about the idea of universal atonement that doesn't sit well with me. It just seems that the work of Christ on the cross is rendered impotent if the original intent was to provide for the salvation of all people. Matthew 1:21 very succinctly scuttles that notion: "and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins" not everyone, his people.

All people are fallen from sin and are incapable of getting themselves free- no one will be saved apart from the grace of God. Further I think we can all agree that God is sovereign and that relatively few will be saved.

How do we reconcile these truths with the fact that it's not God's will that any perish? As it relates to man, the scriptures seem to indicate at least two delineations of God's will. Firstly what is called his decretive or decree- this is the word that cannot return unto him void- this is the election of those to salvation; God decreed your salvation and wrote your name in the Book of Life before the foundation of the world. You MUST then have been saved. Choice here is irrelevant. You "chose" because you were willed to choose. This doesnt violate the idea of freewill; your free will is what kept you away from God as long as it did.

Second, God's will as it relates to men is preceptive- this is violated ALL THE TIME. For example, Gods will for us is to be good stewards yet some still struggle with fiscal responsibility. God's will for Israel was that they be the head and not the tail; yet theirs was often a history of servitude and bondage- if not to sin then to other nations because of sin. It's not God's will (preceptive) that any should perish. Yet we know because the scriptures tell us that MANY go in the crooked and broad gate.

The sovereign choice of God about who can receive this grace is the foundation of election. God chose from amongst depraved men those whom he would save, provided the source of salvation in Christ and the means through his Holy Spirit. The idea of election is no different than the fact that God chose Israel out of all nations in the world to be his people. Deut 4:37, 7:6,7; 1 kings 3:8; Isaiah 44:1,2 etc.

So why Israel? Because they would eventually turn to him? That can hardly be the case- the Bible is filled with Israel's rejections of God's overtures. The world eklektos is used of both Christ and angels but mainly references believers (Mark 13:20,22,27; Romans 8:33; Colossians 3:12, 2 Timothy 2:10, 1 Peter 1:1; 2 JOhn 1:13 etc. Elektos is the adjective form and describes the chosen, ekloge is the noun and relates to that which is chosen.

At its most basic, God chose out (ek-from lego-to pick). G.C. Berkouwer has a wonderful work called "The Providence of God" that even further simplifies election into 5 areas. For the sake of brevity, I'll only cite them: Election of those that are saved, election of the means of their salvation, to elect the means in the redeeming activity of the Holy Spirit, to elect the results in the implantation of Christ's righteous nature to those that are saved and to elect the destiny of eternal fellowship with God.

Now taking all this into consideration, we cant confuse God's sovereign choice in election with his foreknowlege- what I stated earlier that God didnt choose because a man or woman would make a decision for him but instead that the only reason a person makes a decision is because he or she was chosen. To say that God choose those who of their own volition chose him ignores entirely God's sovereignty and is diametrically opposed to the definition of foreknowledge. Sure God knew forever ago who would be saved, but this knowledge wasnt the basis of his decision. I have to pause here and say that only He knows why He chose me, or you or the next person. Even in eternity, in His presence, we still may not know. Foreknowledge isnt knowledge only, it's the act of God's will to bring to pass what he knows. His knowledge cant be viewed separate from his will.

Why did God choose Abraham over any other idolater? Why did he love Israel and reject other nations? Why did he love Jacob and hate Esau? Why did he choose David over his brothers? Why did he love John but use Judas to betray him? Why Paul and not another? Why did Luke stay and Demas forsake him? Why you and me?

All throughout the Bible, we see God's sovereign choices. As to the comment of God's goodness in spite of his condemning someone...that's a straw man and built entirely on human logic. Election is more than accurate, it's everywhere. Our salvation will serve as indictment against the sin of those not called. Unfair? No, we all deserve death, no one deserved to be chosen over anyone else. Inexplicable? Yes. I think about it everyday- Why me, God? And you know, it's beautiful and very, very humbling.

AMEN!!! I agree with everything you just said.

 

[StopPolloition]

I fully agree that if God exists, than He should most certainly be transcendent. But when you claim "The ONLY remedy...is the death of the sinner," here is where I run into confusion. There is more than one way to skin a cat, as they say. And as you state in your next few sentences, there was more than one way for absolution according to Jewish Law.

Um, I've forgotten how to multi-quote, :embarasse suffice it to say, the paragraphs in my response correspond to the paragraphs in yours. The mere fact that the universe exists; that it is ordered and that the earth is populated with intelligent beings with the intellectual capacity to seek God and the moral capacity to receive God and with the consciousness to perceive and understand their own existence and get on TalkJesus and postulate about a God means He exists. The fact that we have a concept (incorrect or no) that we understand (or think we do) that there can be a God, logically obviates his existence. Think about it, if we simply just were and were simply just here, of what purpose would self awareness and wonder and the capacity to perceive incorporeal things be?

Cats and colloquialism aside, forgiveness of sins was only accomplished through the death of Christ. He Himself said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father but by me." (John 14:6) Those who'd made offerings in the OT and had their sins rolled back could still never enter the presence of God; they remained in Sheol as the story of the rich man and Lazarus illustrates in Luke 16. 1 Peter 3:19 says He went and preached to the spirits in prison, [here again I must pause and clarify that one's fate is determined before death and cannot be changed afterward.] Those interpretations of this scripture that don't take this fact into account must be held as false or incomplete. Christ wasn't giving the lost a chance to repent, He was telling the redeemed by what measure they were redeemed and could finally enter the presence of God {Abraham himself was in this state, for example.} By extension, naturally, those unredeemed would be apprised to what measure they were now damned.) Further, Ephesians 4:8 said He (Christ) took captivity captive. These were the first fruits from among the dead.

No, it still speaks of man and trenchantly about the nature of sin. This statement and logic is epistemologically no different than the pedophile who begs clemency on the basis of the notion that he was seduced by the child. It's heinous. God cannot be unjust and must not be confined to the dirty bounds of our understanding. We must use scripture. Again, God is infinite; He cannot, by His nature, lessen the penalty of sin because we think it's too harsh. And if one chooses to keep on sinning then one's fate is most certainly sealed.

Hebrews 10:4: "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins." vs 11: "And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins" vs 12: "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; " Nuff said

If you kill a man, you're a fool and deserve the electric chair. When God kills a man He is withdrawing what is His (His breath) from what is His (His man). Non Sequitur. COMPLETELY disanalogous. And who cares about atrocities committed by finite man against finite man (and by extension infinite God) it has nothing to do with this discussion.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor 1:18) To the redeemed, there is nothing more beautiful than the shed blood of Christ. This is more than intellectual assent. This is an understanding of the gravity of what we've been forgiven of and what it cost the Father to redeem the lost. And in fairness, I use a lot of types and metaphores and allegories and analogies but to be as intelligent as you obviously are, yours are lousy, lol. People threw virgins into volcanos to "appease" demons. Diametrically opposed to what we're talking about. There is nothing like God, He is transcendant. There is nothing like His sacrifice; it too, was transcendant.