| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 04/19/2004 7:52:52 PM PDT by Admin Moderator, reason:
This thread has 183 abuse reports. It’s now locked. Maybe you can all get along better on the next thread. |
Posted on 03/10/2004 9:37:27 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
Do you assume "our nature" to be one of total depravity which is capable of no good?
Warning: What follows is largely, if not completely, the thinking of Millard Erickson in his turgid tome "Christian Theology," verbiage and all.
Paul draws the parallel between Adam and Christ quite eloquently. He elucidates that because of Adam's sin, all persons receive a corrupted nature and are guilty in God's sight. So it was not just Adam who sinned. We were involved, even if not personally, and we all bear responsibility for the sin. In some parallel way Christ's act of righteousness leads to life just as Adam's sin lead to death.
If the condemnation of Adam is imputed to us without there being any sort of conscious choice, the same would necessarily hold true of the imputation of Christ's righteousness and redeeming work.
Now the heresy hunters come running. "Aha!" they cry. But does Christ's death justify us simply by virtue of his identification with humanity through the incarnation and independently of whether we make a conscious and personal acceptance of his work? And do all men have the grace of Christ imputed to them, just as all men have Adam's sin imputed to them? Of course not. There is too much evidence of the "sheeps" and "goats." Only the person who receives Christ's gift has the effective workings of grace in his/her life.
But if this is the case, wouldn't the imputation of guilt based upon the action of Adam, albeit Adam as including us, require some sort of volitional choice as well? If there is no "unconscious faith" can there be "unconscious sin"?
Erickson's quite lucid explanation is as follows: We all were involved in Adam's sin, and thus receive both the corrupted nature that was his after the fall, and the guilt and condemnation that attach to his sin. With this matter of guilt, however, just as with the imputation of Christ's righteousness, there must be some participation on our part. Until this is the case, there is only a conditional imputation of guilt. Thus, there is no condemnation until one reaches an "age of responsibility."
So what is the nature of the voluntary decision which ends our childish innocence and constitutes a ratification of the first sin, the fall? A view which preserves the parallelism of Adam and Christ and which retains the individual responsibility in the participation in the first sin is that we become responsible and guilty when we accept or approve of our corrupt nature. There is a time in life of each of us when we become aware of our own tendency toward sin. At that point we may abhor the sinful nature that has been there all along. We would in that case repent of it and might eve, if there is an awareness of the Gospel, ask God for forgiveness and cleansing. At the very least there would be a rejection of our sinful makeup. But if we acquiesce in that sinful nature, we are in effect saying that it is good. In placing our tacit approval upon the corruption, we are also approving or concurring in the action in the Garden of Eden so long ago. We become guilty of that sin without having to commit a sin of our own.
Ok, that ends his thought, but you'll be able to tell that simply by reading. I thought it was a good read. It also points to Wesley's idea of prevenient grace which God has given to all, Aristotle's "spark of the divine" or what Genesis might call "the image of God."
Can God act contrary to His nature?
This question places an anthropomorphic conception of God upon Him and manages to point to our own ability to act contrary to our nature. The very fact that we can conceive this question shows that we can act contrary to our nature. Otherwise we would have no category for this idea. God does not have a nature with which each of His actions must be compared to see how perfectly they conform. Just as simply as God KNOWS over and above the idea that He foreknows, God IS over and above the idea that He is a) just, b) loving.....etc.
I understand that a person starved for attention would find this sort of attention flattering and I'm glad it has brought some sort of pleasure to your life. And just the other day, it was MY posts which were littered with sarcasm. Welcome, my sister. Feels good, don't it?
PROBABLY?????
What do yall have to do to be sure? Amazing! I would not have included the works with salvation and added accept but other than that no argument. If you have accepted Christ as your savior then you KNOW you are one of the "Elect". There is no probably to it.
You forgot some people. I pinged them for you.
And the same to you.
OF COURSE IT'S NOT "JUST"!!!!
That is why it is called ~GRACE~!!!!! -UNMERITED favor!!!!!!
It seems to me that insisting that God be just in dealing with those who are saved and those who are damned ~REQUIRES~ that those who are saved must somehow be ~DESERVING~ of God's favor.
Either it is by Grace Alone and All of God -or it is not.
There can be no other way.
Jean
And we're the ones who are unsure of our salvation. Odd, isn't it.
1 John 5:12ff He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.
Cindy applying that meaning to that scripture is very out of context
.Mat 19:25 When his disciples heard [it], they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?
Mat 19:26 But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
This was said to men about God working in their lives, what we can not do ourselves He can do . This is not a proof text for God turing foreknowledge on and off.
A "sister" verse would be other verses like this
Jer 32:27 Behold, I [am] the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me? or Luk 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
God can not violate His own nature or He ceases to be God. It implies that God is not all knowing (omnipotent )
: "I am God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure," Is. 46:10.
"Thou understandest my thoughts afar off," Psalm 139:2.
He "knoweth the heart," Acts 15:8.
"There is no creature that is not manifest in His sight; but all things are naked and laid open before the eyes of Him with whom we have to do," Heb. 4:13.
She is doing well. She is finishing her MDiv as we speak and will begin her ThM in the fall (good Lord willin and the crick don't rise). If I had half of her persistence and brains, I'd be doing alright.
BigMack
Why would God surrender His sovereignty or authority to men ? Why would the creator give His creature power over Him?
Job 40:2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct [him]? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.
Rom 11:34 For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?
Either He is God or He is not . The lie of Eden was that they would be as gods.The lie lives
How can one with such a simple mind like your self be so RIGHT? :)
You will have to forgive ksen hes new at this tulip stuff, his brainwas..er...umm...training yeah thats it, is not complete.
BigMack
So I apologize for dropping the "B" from your name.
It's Good Friday, and I'm not like you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.