ECT Which understanding lends itself to your theology?

[Cross Reference]

Yes, I think I do understand it. I also think there's an ontological theme to the atonement carried over from the OT that you are missing, one whereby Christ acts not as "type" but in a manner such that he actually procures atonement throughout the entire course of his life ministry, not just at the cross. But I digress. I'm glad you got a little something out of what I wrote.

If I have missed it, I have missed nothing ___ a relationship is like that.

FWIW, The atonement is part of the fulfillment of the promises to made to Him, you are not understanding..

 

[jsjohnnt]

Purport and not pretend? No wonder it didn't make sense. My bad. I have glycoma(sp?). I blame much of my mis-reading words on that. It is now quite frequent that I do..

However, if the Biblical account of creation and God can be doubted/is NOT fact as written for us to understand then we would have to say the accounts of Jesus Christ as written aren't trustworthy that His existence can be doubted as well, wouldn't you agree? Now where do you stand in the matter of Who He was? or maybe, if He was. Is it fact or conjecture or maybe pure speculation with you?

The point is not about my personal belief. I would have hoped that my faith in the incarnation (God, in our world, in the fleshly body of the Nazarene) was more than obvious. I have spoken of it, on this site. Trust me, it is a fact in my life . . . . . . . . . . . . but what is fact to me, is not necessarily a provable fact to others.

I say, "See the chair." Some might argue, "There is no chair." And I win the day, when I pick up the chair and hit him with it. Empirical and undeniable evidence. Not the case with my belief in the incarnate and resurrected Christ. We cheapen "faith" when we make it about apologetics and and the sheer weight of a prevailing polemic. Blessed are those who believe but have not seen. That is what I am talking about.

We pursue those who do not believe as we share in the ministry of reconciliation (II Co5). An effective minister needs to understand, in my opinion, that winning the argument with a "denier" more often than not, will fail to see that person converted to the person and presence (ontology) of the Christ of God. But, he might see our works, recognize them as evidences of the living God in Christ, and receive the epiphany that is the conversion experience.

I believe that God created man. I trust in the biblical message for my information on this. The denier has no such trust. So now what do I do? Throw my hands up in defeat? Easy to do with the man who is a stranger, but what if he is my son, or my older brother. or my gay-transgendered . . . whatever? What the denier needs to see is God at work, within us, both to will and do his good pleasure (Phil 2:13).

Too long of a comment on my part. Sorry, but let me end with this: we can't PROVE our faith in God, but that does not make it less a fact to us. And the denier is in the same boat. Ask him enough questions, and he will be forced to claim that matter and particulate motion are eternal !! Nothing in his world allows him that belief. Rather, he believes it for the same reason we Christians believe that God was always there . . . . because he has no choice.

And what wins the day, in the battle of words? Our actions, our love and commitment coupled with the "say it out-loud" belief that God is real. The denier just might come to realize that his answer to our claim of an eternal God is . . . . . . . ah . . . . . . . h is insistence for the reality, literally, of nothing (by his own declaration). Our faith gives us God. His faith gives him the profundity of nothing. Sounds a little silly, no? And that is why the atheist is a minority entity, throughout history. And none of it is provable, empirically or philosophically speaking, yet, the starkness of the contrast between what our faith provides and his, is very often overwhelming . . . . a winner for the Lord of our faith.

 

[Cross Reference]

I am not supra, but infralapsarian. If you want the supra view, speak with Nang. It is clear for me the "lump" was a fallen mass of humanity. Nothing in my replies would indicate the contrary, so you either misunderstand the distinctions or are not reading me carefully.

If you are want to impose obligation upon me then you will have to refrain from constructing straw men of the my views by claiming I operate from the same presuppositions you do and therefore believe about my beliefs what you believe about my beliefs thus leaving no hope for honest discussion.

Here is a starting primer that some within the Reformed camp may or may not agree with that nevertheless may help you with the issue.

AMR

Thank you AMR. I also have primer off of Wikipedia that I refer to well when question the issue.

Question: Given the fact God wants "many sons brought unto glory" (Heb 2:10), why would any "drecree-ist" want to believe God decreed Adam's transgression since God's original plan was for it to be by pro-creation that He would have them?

 

[Cross Reference]

The point is not about my personal belief. I would have hoped that my faith in the incarnation (God, in our world, in the fleshly body of the Nazarene) was more than obvious. I have spoken of it, on this site. Trust me, it is a fact in my life . . . . . . . . . . . . but what is fact to me, is not necessarily a provable fact to others.

Why must it be provable to others when proving it to God is all that is needed/required for success in him? Will he not perform if we abide in him that our life would literally express him in the “season” of his choosing? Is this not what it means when we speak of it being for “his good pleasure” or perhaps we mean something else? Is not the test of our allegiance to him purposed to reveal both to him and ourselves our faithfulness or lack of it? In this way is not our usefulness to him also revealed? Is not the richness of our relationship with him not also brought too light? I believe this kind of grace from God has a price, the price being the abandonment of our lives to him. As we are given to pursue this will the Holy Spirit reveal to us his life for which we have exchanged ours. I think the word for it might be communion, a spiritual partaking of his bread and wine in our disposition.

When Jesus was tempted it was before he was sent into the world to perform this task. As with Adam, He was totally alone during this period, the manifest presence of his father, the Holy Ghost, was absent. Question: what made him successful when his time of being proven came at him? Was it not the knowledge of the written word coupled with the "knowing" of the Holy Ghost, the life of his father, indwelling him that would be his strength? Was it not really His Love to HIM who Loved him that was the only necessary "tool" at His disposal? cf Luke 4:1-14 and Matt. 4:11.

". . . . For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.
For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world—our faith. . . ." 1 John 5:1-5 (NASB)


OMT, Abandonment of our lives to God by Christ Jesus means there can be no compromise with the world. As parents, we have been too long in the lives our children without making application for this to be understood both to ourselves and them. Now we see the price for their ‘conversion’ to be much higher than simply our 1 hour a week +/= performance, nominal demonstration, could ever accomplish __ and we scratch our heads in [learned] ignorance.

It is my hope that this will also address what thoughts and concerns you express in the rest of your very sincere post. I will re-read it to make any adjustments to my own reply.

Lov’in Jesus ___ Cross

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Given the fact God wants "many sons brought unto glory" (Heb 2:10), why would any "drecree-ist" want to believe God decreed Adam's transgression since God's original plan was for it to be by pro-creation that He would have them?

Not sure what "decree-ist" means as I doubt any believer denies God does decree His plan. After all, God is not winging it, trying to keep a few steps ahead of His creatures.

In my opinion, God is the creator and moment-by-moment sustainer of his creation (Gen. 1:1, Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:3); that of him and to him and through him are all things (Rom. 11:36); that he knows the end from the beginning ( Is. 46.10) and works everything after the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11); that nothing can impede his purposes; that seemingly chance occurrences are in his control (Prov. 16:33), as are the hearts of kings (Prov. 21:1); that he intends good by the same action as others intend evil by (Gen. 50:20); that Satan and human tyrants are his servants (1 Chr. 21:1 with 2 Sam. 24:1 and Ezra 1:1; Acts 4:27); and that divinely-inspired prophecies and dreams are fulfilled to the letter (Num. 23:19; Deut. 18:21-22; and, for example, Gen. 37:5-8 with Gen. 42:6-9). In particular, this providence extended to every detail of the earthly life and ministry of Jesus Christ (John 19:31-37; 1 Cor. 15:3-4).

Your "original plan" seems to assume God changed His plans along the way based upon human moral agent actions (Adam), versus the view of the fuller counsel of Scripture (see above) that God's omniscience necessarily means such a notion is out of accord with His nature.

Are you an open theist, denying God cannot know (not predict, not almost know), but infallibly know because God has decreed said future actions of his moral agents such that His foreknowledge is rooted in His decree of what actually was, is, and shall be?

 

[oatmeal]

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." John 3:5 (ESV)

One interpretation has it as first being by water, physical birth, from the womb, followed by the second birth from above by the choosing of Christ Jesus or the other that has it being by water baptism that implies simultaneous regeneration? Which understanding are you compelled to believe as scriptural. Can you give your reasons?

Water baptism was replace by that baptism in holy spirit which Jesus was foretold to bring in.

Both John the B and Jesus Christ foretold of that.

Jesus Christ being well aware of that, would not set a temporary ritual regardless of how meaningful for its intended use as a basis for being born again and thus entering the kingdom of God.

 

[Cross Reference]

Water baptism was replace by that baptism in holy spirit which Jesus was foretold to bring in.

Both John the B and Jesus Christ foretold of that.

Jesus Christ being well aware of that, would not set a temporary ritual regardless of how meaningful for its intended use as a basis for being born again and thus entering the kingdom of God.

<That mis-understanding is only part of your problem __ No, actually it is the result of your problem>

 

[oatmeal]

<That mis-understanding is only part of your problem __ No, actually it is the result of your problem>

So, you have anything specific to offer?

Or are you lost in your own uselessly vague generalities?

Water baptism went out with John. Acts 1:4-5 Those who are still looking forward to the first coming of Christ are those who are stuck in water baptism.

Had they payed attention to John the B and Jesus Christ they would know that water baptism was replaced by a far greater baptism, the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38

I am not as good a teacher as those that taught me, for that I apologize, but not for sharing the scriptures.

 

[Cross Reference]

So, you have anything specific to offer?

Or are you lost in your own uselessly vague generalities?

Water baptism went out with John. Acts 1:4-5 Those who are still looking forward to the first coming of Christ are those who are stuck in water baptism.

Had they payed attention to John the B and Jesus Christ they would know that water baptism was replaced by a far greater baptism, the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38

I am not as good a teacher as those that taught me, for that I apologize, but not for sharing the scriptures.

Whatever. You are what you are and at this point in time, your mind is snapped shut to any rectification.

 

[TFTn5280]

Water baptism was replace by that baptism in holy spirit which Jesus was foretold to bring in.

Both John the B and Jesus Christ foretold of that.

Jesus Christ being well aware of that, would not set a temporary ritual regardless of how meaningful for its intended use as a basis for being born again and thus entering the kingdom of God.

Good post. Do you see any application, meaning "need," for physical baptism in the post resurrection church? If not, how is the non-necessity for the act of physical baptism different from the act of partaking communion?

 

[TFTn5280]

Whatever. You are what you are and at this point in time, your mind is snapped shut to any rectification.

From yesterday:

"If I have missed it, I have missed nothing ___ a relationship is like that."

Yeah, I wonder if we're not all a little bit like that.

 

[Cross Reference]

Not sure what "decree-ist" means as I doubt any believer denies God does decree His plan. After all, God is not winging it, trying to keep a few steps ahead of His creatures.

Decree His plan? Absolutely. Winging it?? Not in the least.

In my opinion, God is the creator and moment-by-moment sustainer of his creation (Gen. 1:1, Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:3); that of him and to him and through him are all things (Rom. 11:36); that he knows the end from the beginning ( Is. 46.10) and works everything after the counsel of his will (Eph. 1:11); that nothing can impede his purposes; that seemingly chance occurrences are in his control (Prov. 16:33), as are the hearts of kings (Prov. 21:1); that he intends good by the same action as others intend evil by (Gen. 50:20); that Satan and human tyrants are his servants (1 Chr. 21:1 with 2 Sam. 24:1 and Ezra 1:1; Acts 4:27); and that divinely-inspired prophecies and dreams are fulfilled to the letter (Num. 23:19; Deut. 18:21-22; and, for example, Gen. 37:5-8 with Gen. 42:6-9). In particular, this providence extended to every detail of the earthly life and ministry of Jesus Christ (John 19:31-37; 1 Cor. 15:3-4).

So what are His purposes; His ultimate intention for having created man, and how does all of mankind fit in?

Your "original plan" seems to assume God changed His plans along the way based upon human moral agent actions (Adam), versus the view of the fuller counsel of Scripture (see above) that God's omniscience necessarily means such a notion is out of accord with His nature.

Not if you can see we use the same language when speaking of original sin vs daily sins.

Are you an open theist,

No.

'. . . .denying God cannot know (not predict, not almost know), but infallibly know because God has decreed said future actions of his moral agents such that His foreknowledge is rooted in His decree of what actually was, is, and shall be?

Can you be more clear so that I don't answer yes when I should be saying no?

OMT, You haven't given me an answer to my inquiry re Gen 4:26. You inferred I was obligating you to do so and I don't think that is any different than you asking me if I was an Open Theist. We should be able to answer to the best of our abilities and do it a clear way instantly, yes? . . .

 

[TFTn5280]

There is I believe some confusion on this thread as to whether Jesus when he walked the earth prior to going to the cross was actually actively “paying the price,” so to speak, in making atonement for us as our ontic representative, in a way similar to Adam, the representative of all humanity in the fall; or if he was but a symbolic “type” who led by example only until he “paid the price” later at the cross. It is my contention, for example, that he took humanity’s absolute existence into baptism with himself as representative man (And here I find it startling, to say the least, that he had the authority to sanctify the water at his baptism but not the authority to take us into that water with him, thus literally-substantively making his baptism our own).

Allow me to expound on this idea a bit as it relates to sanctification. Jesus said, “And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth” (Joh 17.19). What did he mean when he said these words? Was his sanctification by way of type only or was there more involved here than that?

Sanctification, if it is truly going to sanctify us, has to be internal to us and not external only. In other words, it is not enough to be "sanctified" if that only means you are going to remove yourself from exposure to sin and the evil elements of the world like a monk; and this is because the sin problem is internal to you and all of us, before it becomes externalized in our behavioral acts. If what Jesus meant when he said he sanctifies himself was only that he was being an example of what that looks like, that his disciples might see and emulate, then we -- his disciples -- are still in our sins and cannot help but fail to follow the example. But if when he said this, he was speaking to an internal sanctification on his part, then he meant that he was actually defeating the proclivities that produce evil from within humanity, in order that his disciples might then be able to be sanctified from within as well. I am arguing that that is exactly what he did mean and that he did this throughout his life, thus procuring an ontological atonement in his walk, and not just a declarative/substitutionary one in death at the cross -- which translates into a true sanctification of the human nature; in other words, there is genuine holiness in this.

Once the tyrants were defeated in the very person of Christ himself -- those being sin, death, the devil, the law, human nature itself -- and he was resurrected in new humanity, and he sent his Spirit to indwell us, well, that is Christ in us, the hope of Glory! That is when we, his disciples, truly can be sanctified by the Word of Truth. We are now internally equipped to follow his external example, because in him -- and for us, and thus in us as well -- the internal volitions were defeated and a new humanity resides in place of the old.

1 Cor 1.30 "...You are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God -- and righteousness and sanctification and redemption --

Hallelujah!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

You haven't given me an answer to my inquiry re Gen 4:26.

Given this why should I bother to answer as your response indicates you are beyond the boundaries of orthodoxy.

Moreover you are apparently unwilling to engage substantively except only when it suits you.

Gen. 4:26 is more literally translated:

And to Seth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. Then it began to be called by the name Yahweh.

The indefinite subject begs the reader to ask, to whom does "it" refer? It is mere assumption that "it" means "people" or "mankind" when "it" may in fact refer to the "seed" of the preceding verse. Note also the passive verb, "began", indicating the receiving end of action and not the doing. In keeping with the grand purpose of Genesis--a holy godly line known by Yahweh's name--Genesis 4:26 is more that likely teaching that the seed of the woman is now being called by the name Yahweh. Which is to say, the godly line are the sons of God.

AMR

 

[TFTn5280]

Given this why should I bother to answer as your response indicates you are beyond the boundaries of orthodoxy.

Moreover you are apparently unwilling to engage substantively except only when it suits you.

Gen. 4:26 is more literally translated:

And to Seth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. Then it began to be called by the name Yahweh.

The indefinite subject begs the reader to ask, to whom does "it" refer? It is mere assumption that "it" means "people" or "mankind" when "it" may in fact refer to the "seed" of the preceding verse. Note also the passive verb, "began", indicating the receiving end of action and not the doing. In keeping with the grand purpose of Genesis--a holy godly line known by Yahweh's name--Genesis 4:26 is more that likely teaching that the seed of the woman is now being called by the name Yahweh. Which is to say, the godly line are the sons of God.

AMR

Wow, this is absolutely an awesome post. Hats off to you, brother!

 

[TFTn5280]

So, you have anything specific to offer?

Or are you lost in your own uselessly vague generalities?

Water baptism went out with John. Acts 1:4-5 Those who are still looking forward to the first coming of Christ are those who are stuck in water baptism.

Had they payed attention to John the B and Jesus Christ they would know that water baptism was replaced by a far greater baptism, the baptism in the name of Jesus Christ. Acts 2:38

I am not as good a teacher as those that taught me, for that I apologize, but not for sharing the scriptures.

For my interpretation of the utter profundity of Peter's sermon in Acts chapter 2 and his grace-filled imperative of verse 38 see the TOL thread entitled Hypostatic Union. There's a lot going on there!

 

[Cross Reference]

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4199090#post4199090

Given this, why should I bother to answer as your response indicates you are beyond the boundaries of orthodoxy.

That is no answer __ and what "response" would that be you now choose to use against me?

Since orthodoxy has never been the plumbline for discussion on this form, in any thread, why, at my question, do you "obligate" me to conform to orthodoxy now simply because you can't reconcile the verse with your, what can be considered, by orthodoxy a pseudo-orthodoxy? You cannot possibly believe your perspective is the perspective man must live by, do you? That really would be conceited, wouldn't it?

Moreover you are apparently unwilling to engage substantively except only when it suits you.

Not in the least. What I look for in any discussion is one who does not, sees no reason to, equivocate.

Gen. 4:26 is more literally translated:

And to Seth also was born a son, and he called his name Enosh. Then it began to be called by the name Yahweh.

The indefinite subject begs the reader to ask, to whom does "it" refer?

Only if "it" is an accurate rendering.

It is mere assumption that "it" means "people" or "mankind" when "it" may in fact refer to the "seed" of the preceding verse.

But you have "assumed" it does. Why?

Note also the passive verb, "began", indicating the receiving end of action and not the doing. In keeping with the grand purpose of Genesis--a holy godly line known by Yahweh's name--Genesis 4:26 is more that likely teaching that the seed of the woman is now being called by the name Yahweh. Which is to say, the godly line are the sons of God. . . . AMR

Given most in the above, how can you possibly believe fallen man was "dumped down" into reprobation, a decree of God before anyone can ever be?

Not one translation worth its salt and even some that aren't that folk are given in which to have confidence, has it your way. So what translation are you using that you haven't cited? I use the Bible Hub.com to cite most of them:

◄ Genesis 4:26 ►

Parallel Verses

New International Version
Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to call on the name of the LORD.

New Living Translation
When Seth grew up, he had a son and named him Enosh. At that time people first began to worship the LORD by name.

English Standard Version
To Seth also a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. At that time people began to call upon the name of the LORD.

New American Standard Bible
To Seth, to him also a son was born; and he called his name Enosh. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD.

King James Bible
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
A son was born to Seth also, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to call on the name of Yahweh.

International Standard Version
Seth also fathered a son, whom he named Enosh. At that time, profaning the name of the LORD began.

NET Bible
And a son was also born to Seth, whom he named Enosh. At that time people began to worship the LORD.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
A son was also born to Seth, and he named him Enosh. At that time people began to worship the LORD.

Jubilee Bible 2000
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos. Then men began to call upon the name of the LORD.

King James 2000 Bible
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

American King James Version
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call on the name of the LORD.

American Standard Version
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then began men to call upon the name of Jehovah.

Douay-Rheims Bible
But to Seth also was born a son, whom he called Enos; this man began to call upon the name of the Lord.

Darby Bible Translation
And to Seth, to him also was born a son; and he called his name Enosh. Then people began to call on the name of Jehovah.

English Revised Version
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enosh: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

Webster's Bible Translation
And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD.

World English Bible
There was also born a son to Seth, and he named him Enosh. Then men began to call on Yahweh's name.

Young's Literal Translation
And to Seth, to him also a son hath been born, and he calleth his name Enos; then a beginning was made of preaching in the name of Jehovah.

Not one!

Obviously, you have quoted or it is your own, from one that can't be considered a valid translation.

MHenry, Gill, Faust browne, etal have it this way as well: "then began men to call upon the name of the Lord; not but that Adam and Abel, and all good men, had called upon the name of the Lord, and prayed to him, or worshipped him before this time personally, and in their families; but now the families of good men being larger, and more numerous, __began to all upon the Name of the Lord.

Are you sure you wouldn't like to revise your thinking?

 

[Cross Reference]

There is I believe some confusion on this thread as to whether Jesus when he walked the earth prior to going to the cross was actually actively “paying the price,” so to speak, in making atonement for us as our ontic representative, in a way similar to Adam, the representative of all humanity in the fall; or if he was but a symbolic “type” who led by example only until he “paid the price” later at the cross. It is my contention, for example, that he took humanity’s absolute existence into baptism with himself as representative man (And here I find it startling, to say the least, that he had the authority to sanctify the water at his baptism but not the authority to take us into that water with him, thus literally-substantively making his baptism our own).

Until He paid the price on the cross, none of what Jesus did [performed] prior to the cross, could be validated. Therefore, it could only be that all the righteous had their tickets in hand waiting for them to be punched. cf Rom.5:1 again. That is my real short version of what "setting the captives free", means.

OMT :

“And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth” (Joh 17.19). What did he mean when he said these words? Was his sanctification by way of type only or was there more involved here than that?

Words mean something: See the word "may"? What is the definition of that word?

 

[Cross Reference]

Given this why should I bother to answer as your response indicates you are beyond the boundaries of orthodoxy.

Because I gave you an honest answer.

Moreover you are apparently unwilling to engage substantively except only when it suits you.

Again, I gave you an honest answer. By your own admission, you are verbose __ and to a fault I see that can be.. When doing so affords you many opportunities to equivocate and it go unnoticed to be accepted by the unlearned. I will not engage that sort of thing except to point it out. I am looking for you to be objective and hope you will engage me on that level.

 

[TFTn5280]

Until He paid the price on the cross, none of what Jesus did [performed] prior to the cross, could be validated. Therefore, it could only be that all the righteous had their tickets in hand waiting for them to be punched. cf Rom.5:1 again. That is my real short version of what "setting the captives free", means.

Hebrews 2.14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham. 17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted.





I would rather suggest that death was but the last of the tyrants to fall.



Please tell me what you think "may" means. It is my opinion that the full realization of atonement comes in Christ's ascension and the sending of the Holy Spirit into believers, as stated at the bottom of my post. May I suggest that you are so wont to prove me wrong that you are not reading my posts with a view to understanding? Until there is some give and take here, this will be my last word on the subject. Good morning, T