How freewillism makes God Unjust !
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
blackbirdking
New member
He is the Savior of all men. 1 Timothy 4:10 Read the whole Bible.
beloved57
Well-known member
beloved57
Well-known member
BTW, you misquoted that verse, because it clarified and particularized who the all men are, them that believe!
Sent from my 5054N using TheologyOnline mobile app
You say: “We must remember that God is a Just God, and He will by no means clear the guilty Ex 34:7
The Bible gives us lots of examples of just and unjust and we also have Christ being exactly like God if God was on earth so:
1. Would it be just/fair for God to punish the innocent and allow the guilty to go free?
2. Would it show poor parenting if your Father did not see to your disciplining (not just forgiving) of your rebellious disobedience even if you did repent and ask for forgiveness?
3. You in the past sinned so how have you been disciplined (often translated punished) by your heavenly Father for those sins?
4. Paul was the chief of sinners so how was Paul disciplined (punished) for his big time past sins?
God does not have a “problem” forgiving us, but we need to be punished somehow in order to obtain the benefits from being disciplined. So God somehow need to see to our discipline for our transgressions without killing us and yet be fair, just and show us His concern/Love.
What are the “benefits” to being fairly punished (disciplined) for our transgressions:
Deterrent
It places the value on the transgression (the greater the punishment the bigger the transgression)
It shows fairness and justice
It is a way to put the transgression behind us, since we have done the time for the crime
We know wonderful parent see to the discipline of the children they Love, so if our parents do not discipline us, we should rightfully question their love/concern for us.
If you want to study atonement together we can start with this:
During the time of Christ, the Jewish people in and around Jerusalem would have had a much better understanding of atonement since atonement sacrifices were going on every hour at the temple, maybe thousands each day. All mature adults would have most likely participated in the individual process of atonement, but this was only for unintentional sins (really minor sins) since intentional sins had no Old Testament system for atonement.
Those only able to afford a bag of flour (Lev. 5) certainly would not have considered that bag of flour to be a “substitute” for them. There is nothing to suggest the Jewish people ever thought of any sacrifices to be substitutes for them. So what did they experience in this atonement process for unintentional sins?
If we could relate to their atonement experience for “minor” sins we might be able to extrapolate to what the atonement process would be like for intentional sins? (Read Lev. 5)
Forgiveness for unintentional sins came after the completion of the atonement process (Lev. 5), but did God need a bag of flour to forgive the person’s sins?
Would God need anything to forgive a person’s sins or is it the person needing something to accept that forgiveness as pure charity?
Is Christ Crucified described by Paul, Peter, Jesus, John and the Hebrew writer as a ransom payment (it is not even said to be like a ransom payment, but it was a ransom payment)?
I find the ransom description more than just an analogy to be an excellent fit and I am not talking about the “Ransom Theory of Atonement”
(The “Ransom Theory of Atonement” has God paying satan the cruel torture, humiliation and murder of Christ but: Does God owe Satan anything? Is there some cosmic “law” saying you have to pay the kidnapper? Would it not be wrong for God to pay satan, if God could just as easily and safely take back His children without paying satan?)
Would a ransom as those in the first century might understand it (it was well known Caesura at 21 had been kidnapped and a ransom paid for him) included the following elements:
1. Someone other than the captive paying the ransom.
2. The payment is a huge sacrificial payment for the payer, who would personally prefer not to pay.
3. Since those that come to God must come as children, it is the children of God that go to the Father.
4. The payer cannot safely or for some other reason get his children any other way than making the payment.
5. The kidnapper is totally undeserving.
6. The kidnapper can accept or reject the payment.
Go to Luke 15: 11-32 the prodigal son story to illustrate:
Who in the middle of the night snuck in and dragged off the young son, force the son to do evil stuff and finally chained him to a pigsty starving to death? (this is not the way it happened, but the child of the father was kidnapped.)
Who returned to the father, was it the son that rebelliously wished his father’s death so he could get his inheritance or was it the child of the father?
We can only come to our Father as children, so who is keeping the nonbeliever in the unbelieving state (who is this kidnapper)?
There is the one ransom, but could there be many kidnappers and many children?
Who are the kidnappers?
Looking at verses in particular:
(NIV) Ro. 3:25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—
“God presented” this might be better expressed as “God is offering” since it will later be received, received or rejected on the contingency of some kind of “faith”. Instead of received it might better be translated as accepted (with the option of being rejected or not accepted).
“Sacrifice of atonement” is described by Jesus, Paul, Peter, John and the Hebrew writer as the “ransom payment” or just “ransom”. So God is offering a ransom payment to be accepted by those with faith or rejected by those refusing or just not accepted by those lacking faith.
A huge part of that ransom payment that especially applies to those that are already Christians is the life giving cleansing blood of Christ. Christ and God would have personally preferred that blood remained in Christ’s veins, but I needed it given up by Christ to flow over both my outside and my heart to know, experience, “trust” and feel I am cleansed and made alive. So Christ willingly gave up His blood for me and because of me. This is an overwhelming tragedy I insisted on to believe: I was made holy, righteous and stand justified. Without knowing and feeling this blood flowing over my heart, I might question my cleansing?
“Demonstrate his righteousness” God did not become righteous, but just showed the righteousness He has always had. (God’s justice/ holiness/being right) comes with the atoning sacrifice that includes the life giving cleansing blood showing God’s righteousness/justice in a very particular way; by resolving the huge problem that existed under the Old Covenant. That huge problem in the Old Covenant was with the handling of intentional sins that where committed, repented of, and which the individual sought forgiveness from God for doing (and God forgave without justly disciplining the sinner [thus not showing His righteousness through His disciplining]). These sins could be forgiven by God, but there was no way to fairly/justly discipline (punish) the sinner and still have the sinner live in the Promised Land. God did have fair/just punishments (discipline) for these sins, but the Jews could not follow through with them, since all Jews deserved to be treated similarly (there would be no one left in the Promised Land).
“in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished” Instead of “unpunished” I would translate that Greek word to be “undisciplined”.
“because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished”, shows the contrast between before and after the cross. This is not saying: “before the cross sins are now being punished by Christ going to the cross”, but is saying they were left unpunished prior to the cross. If they are being handled the “same way” as sins after the cross there would be no contrast? (And there are lots of other problems with this reasoning.) There is no “punishment” (disciplining for intentional sins) before the cross yet there is “punishment” (disciplining of God’s children) with the cross.
Any good parent realizes the need for not just forgiving their rebellious disobedient child, but to also see to the child’s fair/just/loving discipline if at all possible, but under the Old Covenant there was no “fair/just/loving discipline” so God could not show His justice/righteousness except to point out in the Law what really should happen, but that is not “good” disciplining, the child can almost feel they got away with something.
By my coming to the realization of my forcing Christ to be tortured, humiliated and murdered, because of my personal sins I experience a death blow to my heart (Acts 2: 37) the worst possible experience I can have and still live (That is also the most sever disciplining I can experience and still live). Thus I know God is my loving concerned Parent (since He at great cost has seen to my disciplining). I know how significant my sins really are; I can put those sins behind me after being disciplined. Since God and Jesus shared in my disciplining “I am crucified with Christ” (a teaching moment) our relationship is even greater than before my transgressing.
What is the benefit/value for us that we would want to accept the ransom payment of Christ’s torture, humiliation and murder?
What value benefit did it have for those 3000 on the day of Pentecost?
Would those 3000 have become baptized believers on the day of Pentecost if Peter had not been able to say: Acts 2:36 “…this Jesus whom you crucified”?
So for those 3000, their crucifying Christ (ransom payment/atoning sacrifice) resulted in them becoming baptized believers on the day of Pentecost! Did it have value for them?
This will get us started if you really want to know.
beloved57
Well-known member
blackbirdking
New member
Wrong again;
"For therefore we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those that believe".
beloved57
Well-known member
You lied again, you did misquote the verse the first time.
blackbirdking
New member
Wrong again. I didn't misquote anything.
He is not only the Savior of "specially of those that believe."
He is also the Savior of "all men."
"For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."
Study your dictionary and grammar as much as you study your own ideas, take off your colored glasses, then, read it again.
You have chosen to be blinded by closing your mind to truth. But then again, if I used your glasses I'd probly b the same way.
beloved57
Well-known member
ttruscott
Well-known member
Pre-Conception Existence free will is considered this way: All sinners became sinners by their free will decison to disobey YHWH. Being a sinner enslaves men's will to evil. All sinners can only be saved from that enslavement to evil by GOD's grace through faith, not by any act of free will which is destroyed by their enslavement to sin.
blackbirdking
New member
Do you believe that or are you trying to parrot Luther? Luther didn't stop there and neither should you; Luther also taught resistible grace. If you believe in irresistible grace, then you don't believe that Christ is the Savior of all men.
How is the ability to resist grace not equivalent to exercising one's will? If it can be resisted, it can also be accepted; therefore one must exercise his will in order for grace to be effective.
How can the ability to choose be denied if you believe Christ is the Savior of all men? Unless of course, that you believe all men are saved!
Are you a hybrid Lutheran/Calvinist?
blackbirdking
New member
Wrong again; and you realize it. You can't quite handle one simple little verse.
1 Timothy 4:10
To this end we labor and strive, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, and especially of those who believe.
One simple little verse refutes your whole thread!
Last edited:
beloved57
Well-known member
Epoisses
New member
Choice is an act of the will/intellect. Faith is a quality that springs from the heart. Now one could debate where is the heart surely not the physical heart most likely the forehead region of the brain because it is mentioned so much in scripture. The point being I can choose my favorite radio station and I can choose my favorite ice cream flavor but I can't choose God until I realize that God first chose me.
blackbirdking
New member
Make excuses all you want; it doesn't hide your failure to acknowledge truth.
1 Timothy 4:10
Way down in the bottom of your heart you know what this verse means; and that scares you because you're wrong about God. You don't want any one to know that you realize that a god who created evil might be deceiving you, and so, you're not sure about your election.
If you will take off your dirty glasses and read the Bible, you'll be fine, just fine. Then you will be able to love Him, freely.
blackbirdking
New member
1.
2.
Faith is a substance. Many people believe in 'Creation'; are they saved? Hebrews 1:1-3
3.
4.
Did Baal choose the people before they chose him? Joshua 24:15
Why do you believe men cannot choose which is their God/god, but they can choose a favorite ice cream or radio station?
Agree
2.
Disagree
Faith is a substance. Many people believe in 'Creation'; are they saved? Hebrews 1:1-3
3.
Agree
4.
Disagree
Did Baal choose the people before they chose him? Joshua 24:15
Why do you believe men cannot choose which is their God/god, but they can choose a favorite ice cream or radio station?
Epoisses
New member
My understanding of election is based primarily on 3 bible commentaries I use for my bible study (Luther's commentary, Matthew Henry's commentary and Jamieson,Fausset,Brown commentary). Luther was of course Lutheran, Henry was Presbyterian and Jamieson,Fausset,Brown was a mixture of Presbyterian and Anglican authors. I lean more towards Luther's understanding of election.
beloved57
Well-known member
You misquoted it, then you continue to lie about it !