|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Nov 3, 2008 9:42:49 GMT -5
It is impossible for sinners to be justified by the law. The law can only justify those who have never ever sinned. The law cannot justify the guilty. The law can only pronounce the innocent as innocent, but the law must pronounce the guilty as guilty. It is impossible for the law to justify sinners. The law can only condemn sinners.
Justification by the law, for sinners, is impossible. That is why we cannot have legal justification, we can only have gospel justification. God can pardon and forgive (justify) those who turn from their sin and trust in Christ. The righteousness of God (God's way of justification) is by His grace and mercy. His forgiveness is offered to all men upon condition of repentance, faith, and the blood atonement. God's forgiveness is by His grace, but God's forgiveness is still conditional. But obeying the law cannot justify anyone, because present obedience cannot atone for past disobedience, only blood shed can atone for sins. But now that a substitute (blood shed) for the penalty of the law (eternal hell) has been provided, God can remit the penalty of the law by His grace when sinners repent and believe.
But until a sinner is converted, they are under God's wrath, because God only turns from His wrath when sinners repent and believe. The atonement did not satisfy the wrath of God, but the atonement allows God to turn from His wrath when sinners repent, without dishonoring His own law, without weakening the authority of His law throughout His Kingdom. Because of the atonement, God can safely turn away from His wrath when sinners are converted without destroying His own government. The authority of the law throughout His kingdom remains, because a substitute for the penalty of the law has been provided in Jesus Christ.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 4:07:23 GMT -5
Here are a couple problems from another forum that I don't know the answer to yet.
1) But how do you know that I have [sinned]? 2) If I were able to [live a life without sin], I wouldn't need Jesus' death.
Should someone assume that any given adult has sinned? If someone did not ever sin, which free-will makes possible, what would the significance of Christ crucified be in their life if it was not an atonement for their sin? What is the significance of "the cross" for a baby who dies before birth?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 1, 2008 14:01:45 GMT -5
Here are a couple problems from another forum that I don't know the answer to yet. 1) But how do you know that I have [sinned]? 2) If I were able to [live a life without sin], I wouldn't need Jesus' death. Should someone assume that any given adult has sinned? If someone did not ever sin, which free-will makes possible, what would the significance of Christ crucified be in their life if it was not an atonement for their sin? It wouldn't be the fact that Christ was crucified, buit that He is the would one to keep them from sin. There would be no significance, the baby would not need the atonement.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 14:18:08 GMT -5
"It wouldn't be the fact that Christ was crucified [that would have significance for the sinless man], but that He is the one to keep them from sin."
You mean by example?
"There would be no significance [of the cross], the baby [who died] would not need the atonement."
Is the atonement the only significance of Jesus' death? And what about his resurrection too? Since He is the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. Doesn't that mean that God intended Jesus' death to have universal significance beyond the atonement? Did God always intend for Jesus to be the firstborn from the dead regardless of whether men sinned or not? So he would be the first of many brethren? Is that what you were saying about Christ keeping them from sin?
I keep thinking of this butterfly thing and I think there's more going on here. If so, wouldn't it apply significantly to babies who die as well as a hypothetically sinless individual?
I can understand why someone who believes in original sin would be skeptical without understanding the answers here.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 1, 2008 18:43:07 GMT -5
"It wouldn't be the fact that Christ was crucified [that would have significance for the sinless man], but that He is the one to keep them from sin."You mean by example? By example, encouragment, persuation, motivation, teaching how, keeping affections away from sin, guiding, directing...ect... I think so, unless some one could bring to mind something I'm missing. His resurrection is proofe of the Father's acceptance of Jesus' sacrifice. Significant that God always new that man would sin. Psalm 110:4, Hebrews 5:6 The LORD has sworn, and will not relent, You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.God would have had to say this before creation. He would not have had to come as a man if no one ever sinned, for what would be the reason? He was, however, walking in the cool of the day with Adam, but that would be in His glorified state. I think so, if I understand your question. Yes. We & babies who die as well as hypothetically sinless individuals do need a glorified body, this flesh was never meant to be eternal. The way I see it, by the fact that there is sin, God could not have created a world with out sin. If God could have created a world with out sin was possible, then God apparently wanted a world with sin, this would be ridiculous. So, in creating a world with free will, sin was inevitable even though avoiding sin personally is possible.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 1, 2008 19:10:12 GMT -5
"So, in creating a world with free will, sin was inevitable even though avoiding sin personally is possible."
"Free Will" and "Inevitable Choice" can't go together.
I think the open future thing addresses some of this by saying "what hasn't happened yet, doesn't exist."
I thought there WAS more to Jesus' death and resurrection than the atonement. I don't totally understand what. Jesus only became like us because we sinned?
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 2, 2008 15:11:04 GMT -5
"So, in creating a world with free will, sin was inevitable even though avoiding sin personally is possible." "Free Will" and "Inevitable Choice" can't go together. Could God have made a world with no sin? If so, then God wanted sin since He chose to create a world with sin over the one without sin. Therefore, since God wanted sin, then sin is His will. Now that sin is His will, it is no longer damnable to do because only doing that which is against His will is damnable. Alternately: God doesn’t want a creation with sin, but since we have one, it proves that God couldn't have made a world without sin. Since He couldn't, sin must be inevitable. However, no one has to by obligation to commit it. Which one sounds more absurd. Am I missing a scenario? Could you suggest an alternate from these two? That which doesn't exist can be known. Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:Phil 2:7 but He emptied Himself, having taken the nature of a slave, having come to be in the likeness of people, 8 and having been found in appearance as a person, He humbled Himself, having become obedient to the point of death-even of death of a cross.Hebrews 1:17 Therefore in all things he had to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Dec 2, 2008 18:30:36 GMT -5
God created a world that is capable of not sinning.
God gave us a free will. That means we are capable of sinning and we are capable of not sinning.
Because of free will, sin is avoidable.
God did not know we were going to use our free will to sin. That is why God repented of making man when He saw how we were using our will - Genesis 6:5-6
When God finished creation, the future had two alternatives:
Possibility one: we would use our free will to obey God Possibility two: we would use our free will to disobey God
The future had two alternative possibilities. God was expecting that men would obey Him. And He was disappointed and grieved when He saw that men were not obeying Him.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 2, 2008 18:44:58 GMT -5
God doesn’t want a creation with sin, but since we have one, it proves that God couldn't have made a world without sin. Since He couldn't, sin must be inevitable.
Ok, I think I get it. God does not want a creation with sin. = True We have a creation with sin = True Therefore God could not have made the world without sin = Trick Question
That's a false dilemma because whether or not "moral agents" sin is not dependent upon how God made the world or his ability.
I'll try to insert the false premise: God does not want a creation with sin. = True We have a creation with sin = True The existence of sin (in a world with free will) depends on God = False Therefore we can draw conclusions about God's ability = False
So God created a world where sin is possible, not inevitable. By definition, sin cannot be inevitable because it requires free choice.
That which doesn't exist can be known. Can you give me an example in the bible that involves free will?
What do you think of this question? 1) But how do you know that I have [sinned]? That's what I got stumped by. Do I know? Does the bible say I can know? I thought it did. That's the hardest question I've come across in all this original sin, free will, open future, etc.
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 2, 2008 19:44:59 GMT -5
God doesn’t want a creation with sin, but since we have one, it proves that God couldn't have made a world without sin. Since He couldn't, sin must be inevitable.Ok, I think I get it. God does not want a creation with sin. = True We have a creation with sin = True Therefore God could not have made the world without sin = Trick Question That's a false dilemma because whether or not "moral agents" sin is not dependent upon how God made the world or his ability. I'll try to insert the false premise: God does not want a creation with sin. = True We have a creation with sin = True The existence of sin (in a world with free will) depends on God = False Therefore we can draw conclusions about God's ability = False So God created a world where sin is possible, not inevitable. By definition, sin cannot be inevitable because it requires free choice. Thanx, I didn't know I was making a false dilemma. It was my Molinism thinking. It did sorta bogle my mind saying that the choice of sin being inevitable. God said not to Eat of that tree. Adam ate. God knew that sin would come about even before there was a world, therfore He had the Lamb slain from the foundation (conception) of the world. We don't actualy know that anybaody has [sinned] it is only taken for granted. We may know by Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of GodI know that thais is speaking only up to when it was writed, but how did Paul know? Since Paul could say it, we may. About that false dilemma thing: Since a world without sin is not inevitable, the question comes as: Why is it that every singal man & woman chooses to sin and that Pauls could actualy have said that "all have sinned" with out empirical knowledg? Why is it that 100% of mankind will always CHOOSE to sin without fail? this is why The question spawns the false doctrins of original sin, Total Depravity, sin nature are so prevalent. People will not accept the answer of FREE WILL, because if the WLL is truly FREE, there would by definition be some men who have never sinned.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 2, 2008 20:08:31 GMT -5
We don't actually know that anybody has [sinned] it is only taken for granted. We may know by Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God I know that this is speaking only up to when it was written, but how did Paul know? Since Paul could say it, we may. I think Paul was also specifically using that to break down the barrier between Jew and Gentile. Chapter 3 is all about that.
About that false dilemma thing: Since a world without sin is not inevitable, the question comes as: Why is it that every single man & woman chooses to sin and that Paul's could actually have said that "all have sinned" with out empirical knowledge? Why is it that 100% of mankind will always CHOOSE to sin without fail? Does the bible say they WILL always choose sin? According to free will it is possible for someone not to sin.
this is why The question spawns the false doctrines of original sin, Total Depravity, sin nature are so prevalent. People will not accept the answer of FREE WILL, because if the WILL is truly FREE, there would by definition be some men who have never sinned. By definition it would be possible, not inevitable.
I don't understand it yet. John says if we say we have not sinned we're lying. How does he know? If he knows, and it applies to people today also, then the open future thing falls apart, doesn't it? Seems like the free will thing would fall apart too. But free will goes hand-in-hand with accountability as far as I can tell. Accountability cannot be denied, so freedom of choice cannot be denied, so how can John know that everyone would make wrong choices?
(I know what 'false dilemma' means cause I've pulled out a Logic textbook I had since we started talking, your name reminded me I had it.)
|
|
|
Post by logic on Dec 2, 2008 21:07:38 GMT -5
We don't actually know that anybody has [sinned] it is only taken for granted. We may know by Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God I know that this is speaking only up to when it was written, but how did Paul know? Since Paul could say it, we may.I think Paul was also specifically using that to break down the barrier between Jew and Gentile. Chapter 3 is all about that. Yeah, but he said the word, "ALL" with authority. "all have sinned" Well, there is many verses that say with certainty "All" sin and it only "SEEMS" inevitable. I guess that is why I say that word. However, it is possible, because if it is not, it would be unjust for God to condemn. Are we talking odds here? Maybe, because all men back then weren't brought up in a Christian family wouldn't know Christ in order to stay sinless. I say that they weren't brought up in a Christian family, because it is reasonable to date the letter somewhere between a.d. 85 and 95. Jesus crucifixion was no earlier than that of the spring of A.D. 30 based on the Passover of that time. Therefore, the odds of any one being brought up in a Christian family with-in 50 years of John's 1st letter and the "Upper Room experience. This is most likely how Paul could have said, "all have sinned". I would say that now it is more likely for one to be sinless, because of being brought up knowing Jesus; having really good parents. Good to know those things.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Dec 2, 2008 23:05:06 GMT -5
if the WILL is truly FREE, there would by definition be some men who have never sinned. By definition it would be possible, not inevitable. Are we talking odds here? Not sure what you mean. I don't believe in "odds" because it's statistical guesswork. I just meant that the same way free will doesn't mean anyone HAS to sin, it also doesn't mean anyone HAS to NOT sin. But both would be possible. But neither would be inevitable. Odds are just a guess based on past experience. The "odds" are that after I exhale I will inhale afterward. But it's not guaranteed just because I think it is "likely". That's just subjective. Inductive Logic according to my textbook. You probably knew that.
I don't understand it yet. John says if we say we have not sinned we're lying. How does he know? Maybe, because all men back then weren't brought up in a Christian family wouldn't know Christ in order to stay sinless. I say that they weren't brought up in a Christian family, because it is reasonable to date the letter somewhere between a.d. 85 and 95. Jesus crucifixion was no earlier than that of the spring of A.D. 30 based on the Passover of that time. Therefore, the odds of any one being brought up in a Christian family with-in 50 years of John's 1st letter and the "Upper Room experience. This is most likely how Paul could have said, "all have sinned". I would say that now it is more likely for one to be sinless, because of being brought up knowing Jesus; having really good parents. I've never heard an opinion like that before. I think I've come close to considering it but it never "solidified" in my mind. I'm not sure what I think of it. Is it scriptural? I imagine God must certainly WANT it to be the case.
|
|