|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 28, 2010 13:56:28 GMT -5
"this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost ... spake before concerning Judas"
So did the Holy Spirit SPEAK it concerning Judas? Or does it need to be FULFILLED concerning Judas? Do I need to know ancient Greek grammar to be sure?
Should it read "fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spake before , (comma) concerning Judas" so that the Holy Ghost merely spake it before but not necessarily "concerning Judas"? Is this the right way to understand it? That it now had to be "fulfilled (the inspired psalm, that is) concerning Judas"?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 28, 2010 13:50:58 GMT -5
He called Pelagianism heresy but was offended by being called Augustinian?
Doesn't seem like there's much willingness to come to agreement...
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 28, 2010 13:45:14 GMT -5
John Brown Jr. was a spirited and headstrong boy, as Brown himself had been. The father took pride in his eldest son but also knew it was his duty to discipline him, both for John's own future welfare and as an example to his younger sons of the diligence and obedience that he expected of them all. Brown had assigned John Jr. shifts in the tannery's grinding mill. John's job was to shovel tanbark into the mill and to make sure that the old blind horse that was harnessed to the grinder kept circling the chute, thus turning the mechanism that reduce the bark to powder. It was tedious work, and John often shirked it, sneaking out to play with Jason and Owen or daydreaming at the tannery window. Several times Brown discovered John in his indolence. Finally he spoke with his son in his characteristic corrective mode that combined rebuke and Socratic dialogue. Did John understand why his father needed a good supply of ground bark? Did he believe that he was cultivating a habit of faithful industry by working in this manner? Had he not often heard and even recited the scripture from Ephesians about serving “not with eyeservice” but “from the heart”? When these admonitions failed to mend the boy's conduct, Brown devised an account book in which John's faults or debits—disobeying mother, telling a lie, unfaithfulness at work—were each assigned a number of lashes, which could be cancelled by credits earned by his acts of obedience and diligence. One Sunday after the morning service, Brown quietly informed John Jr. that his account was hopelessly overdrawn. The time had arrived for reckoning.
Father and son walked together from the house to the tannery and climbed the ladder to its second floor, where the tanned skins hung on hooks to dry. Brown carried the pocket-sized account book—coarse, grainy squares of paper stitched together along their left edge—in which John's liabilities had been tallied in pencil. John carried a long blue-beech switch, already peeled, that his father had handed him in silence. In the tannery's finishing room, they sat side by side on a bench-high stack of cured hides. Holding the book before them, Brown reviewed the entries in John's debit column one by one, reciting the circumstances of each offense in calm, methodical detail. After each recitation, he looked into his son's eyes and asked him whether the account was fair. Did John wish to offer any amendment? Any explanation? Any unrecorded worthy actions to help balance his ledger? The boy at first responded with half-hearted attempts to cast his conduct in a less unfavorable light, attempts that led to discussions in which his offered excuses and extenuations were agreed, in the end, to be poor ones. In the latter stages of the audit, John Jr. responded to his father's questions only with mournful shakes of his head and a steady flow of tears.
“Is a reckoning justified, then, John?” asked Brown at last.
“Yes, Father.”
John Jr. stood in front of the hides and bent over them. His forearms rested on the top of the pile, supporting his weight. He clenched his fists against the coming pain. His brain had not yet registered the high, thing whistle when he felt the first sting of the beech switch. He gritted his teeth as more strokes fell on his buttocks and thighs. Six. Seven. Eight. His thin trousers did little to cushion the blows, but he was thankful that Father had not asked him to remove them. He wondered if they would be torn and need mending. Then he realized that the strokes had stopped at eight. He had been due twenty-five. He turned, dry-eyed, and looked back over his shoulder. His father had put the switch down and was removing the worn, shiny high-collared coat in which he had preached the morning's sermon. Brown folded the jacket carefully and proceeded to unbutton and remove his white linen shirt, laying in on top of the coat. Picking up the switch, he told John to rise and handed it to him. Then he knelt and bent his bare back over the hides.
“Seventeen more lashes are due, John.” he said, “and I will take them myself. I am your father, and it is on me that blame must fall for failing to teach you your duties.”
Grief and guilt rose in John Jr., and he begged his father to let him bear the full amount himself, but Brown was resolute.
“When you know that I suffer in body as well as in mind for your faults, perhaps you will learn to be more careful,” he said. “Now, lay it on John.” The boy burst into choking sobs, but when the command was repeated, applied the switch reluctantly to his father's back. “Harder! harder! harder!” Brown instructed him. Beads of blood from the cutting tip of the switch trickled down his back when Brown raised himself from the floor once his son had delivered the final stroke. “After that,” John Jr. concluded his last retelling of the story sixty years later, “nothing could ever persuade me that my father could possibly do anything wrong.”
- from Patriotic Treason: John Brown and the Soul of America, by Evan Carton
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 22, 2010 12:39:45 GMT -5
Thanks for posting these Jesse.
It'd be nice to see a book that addresses all the major passages that get twisted. Unfortunately it might be hard not to make it an entire bible commentary... But it does seem like there are some passages that people have been twisting in the same ways for almost 2000 years.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 15, 2010 18:07:36 GMT -5
BenJoseph, what do you mean? I dont understand what you are saying, please explain. Thanks Sorry if it was unclear. I was commenting on the two biblical conclusions that Jesse had posted: "If Jesus could live without sin, but we cannot, then Jesus is not really our example and we cannot really follow Him."
"And if Jesus could live without sin, and we cannot, then He was not really 'made in all things liken unto His brethren' as the Bible says." I said "These two arguments are particularly strong for people who profess to believe the bible." I meant that if you believe the bible - if you believe the bible teaches us to follow Jesus' example - then Jesse made a very strong point. We couldn't follow Jesus' example if he was able to be perfect but we can't be perfect. How can we follow him if he can go places we cannot go? And if you believe the bible when it says he became just like us in all things, then you couldn't say he was able to obey God but we are not. That wouldn't be just like us in all things. I was commenting that those two points are very good points. Then I said "The questions of guilt and justice seem to inevitably lead back to the nature and source of moral law." In reasoning through our ability to obey God there are many different ways to show how we are perfectly able to obey God at all times. One approach is to point out that it would be unjust for God to call us guilty if we really couldn't help it. That's what I meant when I said "questions of guilt and justice". What I've found is that people try to defend their belief that they can't help sinning by saying "Well who are you to tell God what is just and unjust?" One person misrepresented my objection saying: "If I were God this is how I would do it..... If I were God this is what I think would be fair..... If I were God this would seem logical to me...." They seemed to be trying to suggest that it is wrong to question false doctrines that make God out to be unjust. The problem is that we know that God is loving and that love is not just something that God arbitrarily made up, but has a real definition. God couldn't be unloving and still be just. God couldn't be unjust and still be loving. Love is the moral law. God has committed himself to act according to the moral law. That's what the bible means when it says "God is love". Some people, as a last resort, suggest that God can do bad things and still be good because he is God. This then touches on the subject of where right and wrong (the moral law) comes from. They might say moral law is whatever God says, even if it was something evil. God can change the law of love if he wants to because it just comes from whatever he wills it to be. This is wrong and the bible affirms the obvious that God is always loving. If the definition of loving might change at any given moment then it is meaningless to say that God is loving. The way all these topics (where right and wrong come from, God's character, guilt and justice) are interconnected is why I said "The questions of guilt and justice seem to inevitably lead back to the nature and source of moral law." Now, these objections can be reasoned through as you can see, that's why I had said "That's fine." regarding these topics. My main point was "these two arguments [that Jesse shared] are totally lethal once the common ground of the bible has been established." In other words, they really take away any excuse for sin if you believe the bible says we should follow Jesus and that he became just like us in every way. It makes me think of this passage: "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds". The truth does not conquer through fame and popularity, deceiving and manipulative speeches, bearing false witness about those we disagree with, and things like that. That is all 'worldly wisdom' which is really foolishness. Instead the truth conquers by "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ". (2 Cor 10:4-5) I was impressed by how mighty the truth was that was contained in Jesse's two points about the Lord Jesus. I think they "cast down" the "imaginations" that we cannot obey God.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 14, 2010 22:32:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 13, 2010 23:21:50 GMT -5
Okay, I think I figured it out. Now, to understand this verse, we must remember what he said earlier in the chapter in verse 14: " ...but I am carnal, sold under sin." Now, to be carnal is to be selfish and satisfying the flesh, not walking after the spirit. Paul isn't necessarily lying to us or Himself in verse 18, but only not revealing the full truth of the matter as he already did in verse 14. So, Paul probably doesn't think he needs to explain that he can " perform that which is good" (v:18), so he is only telling us from what he already told us and is now speaking from the carnal side of the matter. I re-edited my commentary for Romans 7:18. Let me know what you think of this. I edited my commentary & added to the words in the verse for verse 18: ------- I know that nothing of virtue is in my flesh. However, I am willing to do good (willing to have the right affections) , but, I don't know how to [without depriving my flesh]. Remember that Paul is portraying a pre-salvation experience. Paul doesn't know how to do good because he doesn't see any alternate action in view without depriving his flesh. (or he doesn't know how to have the right affections that don't conflict with his current ones). Paul can just obey and suffer, depriving his flesh, but that is not any way to enjoy life. Paul can really obey without having the right affections, but without them, he would be depriving his flesh which he doesn't want to do. He does not have anything else to put his affection on in order for him to stop sinning, except for the ones he has already grown accustom to (the sinful ones). He doesn't have any alternative pleasure other than that which he has been taking pleasure in for him to stop. The law telling him that he must stop is not enough; so he willfully continues to follow after the flesh's affections, which he knows is unlawful, being condemned. The law is not enough for one to stop sinning; it only tells you that you should stop and not how you should. ------ If you can't tell the difference, all I did was alter this sentence (adding the underlined part): Paul doesn't know how to do good because he doesn't see any alternate action in view without depriving his flesh. (or he doesn't know how to have the right affections that don't conflict with his current ones). Paul can just obey and suffer, depriving his flesh, but that is not any way to enjoy life. I added this: Paul can really obey without having the right affections, but without them, he would be depriving his flesh which he doesn't want to do. That's good. I agree with that. I was also giving some thought to the personification of sin in the passage. I believe Paul uses this personification of sin in order to show how the sinner is the victim of his SIN and not the law - as was asked - did the good law cause my death? It's almost like he's saying NO the only law that killed you is the "law" of your foolish selfishness. The "law" of sin and death which you find yourself a slave to even when you try to be a good religious hypocrite. The carnal man cannot figure out how to carnally obey. Another thing that I wondered about is the similarity in personified sin and the sinner in this passage and in Genesis when God warns Cain. God warned that sin "sin lieth at the door" but in this Rom 7 description, sin no longer "lieth at the door" but now it "dwelleth in me".."in my members". Sin does not simply have "his desire" toward me but now is actively "warring against the law of my mind". God had told me "thou shalt rule over HIM" but now sin is "bringing ME into captivity". The fact that Paul personifies the sinner's sin as if it is an active character in this illustration make me wonder if the sinner himself is not more of a representation of human nature or something along the lines of the natural law theme started in chapter one. I think Jed Smock's commentary focused on that idea. I'll have to review yours and his commentary some more and spend some time working through the whole section. I'd really like to be able to show people that there is no "shadow of turning" in Paul's writings. Thanks for your explanation. If you learn more about any of this please let me know.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 11, 2010 13:32:09 GMT -5
In other words, he isn't being honest with himself. Yes. That's a much easier way to say it. A carnal/selfish person who is convicted by the law. Being honest with themselves will be painful. Like circumcision of the heart. I'm "trying" to be good. I just "can't" obey God's laws. *weep* *whine* *pout* Meanwhile, Hell's just getting hotter and hotter. It's not like "OH, I didn't know if I just stopped being carnal then it would all fall into place! Why didn't anyone just tell me?" The person is "sold under sin" not "sold under ignorance or immaturity". They knew they deserved death without even reading their bible. They are without excuse.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 11, 2010 11:14:59 GMT -5
How else would this be said? to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. I think it's a picture of selfish attempts to obey the law outwardly in order to have the pleasure of being obedient. Obeying for the wrong reasons. Which is not obedience at all. Only hypocrisy. The picture of selfish hypocritical struggling is painted on a contrasting background of natural law or the conscience. The person who is saying "to will is present with me" is "carnal, sold under sin". Therefore it is not as if they are truly willing/choosing to love God and neighbor properly. If they truly willed/chose that, they would no longer be "carnal, sold under sin". If they truly don't know how or cannot choose to love then they are not accountable for not loving. But I think the person must only be trying to outwardly do good in order to satisfy their carnality which they haven't given up yet. This of course is a downward spiral of defeat and condemnation, or at "best", hypocritical self-delusion. The carnal mind is not capable of obedience to God's law because it is fundamentally opposed to the greatest requirements of the law. A carnal man is a slave to his selfishness (by choice). So if he tries to ACT unselfish in order to feel like a good person then he will find himself to be a prisoner to the law of sin and death that dwells in him. What he should have done and always could do was not even try to fight off conviction by hypocritical attempts to outwardly obey, but should instead submit his whole heart to God out of love for God. It's like the person was already violating his conscience or the natural law and then a preacher hits him with the ten commandments so the person's conscience rises up in agreement with the preacher condemning the sinners. Now that this moral influence has further stirred up the sinner's conscience against him he has to find a way to feel good again. Either that or humble himself and repent. If the person wants to keep being selfish but drown out the rebuke of their conscience, they may try to obey certain outward commands that they are convicted about. This of course will never work because, as long as they are committed to selfishness, they will only outwardly obey when it conforms to their selfishness. They may obey for a time here and there, but as soon as obedience is not the most pleasurable decision at any given moment, they will be face to face with the fact of their slavery to selfishness. It's not that they can't change this, but that they only want to change outwardly, which doesn't work forever. to will [to be good, to do good] is present with me [is built into my nature]; but how to perform that which is good I find not [because I do not will to do good for the right reasons, only in service to my carnal mind] What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 10, 2010 19:12:36 GMT -5
Thanks!
I don't understand this part. If a man does not know how to stop sinning then he can't really be guilty for it because it is an inevitable result of his lack of knowledge. If sin is your only option then it is not even a real option.
If my behavior is caused by my affections and I don't know how to control my affections then I am not responsible for my behavior.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 10, 2010 17:10:13 GMT -5
I'm trying to paraphrase Romans 7:14-25 in such a way that shows it doesn't support the original sin stuff. But I also want to make it simple and natural sounding without adding in my own lengthy explanations. For example, I found Jed Smock's commentary on it to be very good but it was more verbose than what I'd like to write. I'd appreciate any critique I could get on the first draft. If anything sounds wrong please let me know. I already think it could be better.
I've heard testimonies from people whose lives were deeply affected by getting a correct understanding of this passage.
Rom 7:14-25 Everyone knows we should always have a spirit of love, but I am selfish. I traded my heart, soul, mind and strength for selfish pleasure. I know that my behavior is wrong. I wish I did good things but I don't. Instead, I just do things that are loathsome. Obviously I know better than to be selfish because I disapprove of my own behavior. So it's not like there's anything about me personally that makes me do bad things. It's just my selfish attitude. It's like I'm possessed by my own selfishness. My attitude is completely wrong. I wish I did good things but I don't get it. I don't do the good things I wish I did. Instead I do the things I'm trying to avoid. Since I really don't want to be this way, it must not be anything about me personally that makes me this way. It's only my selfish attitude. So selfishness is like the law of my life. Even though I wish I did good things, I haven't stopped being selfish. Even though I really like the idea of being loving, I haven't given up my selfish attitude. It's like the two ideas are fighting over me in my mind and I always give in to the selfishness. I'm such a wretched man! It's like I'm trapped with my own rotting corpse. Who will save me? (I'm grateful God sent the Lord Jesus Christ to save me.) So in my mind I know that God's law is best, but I follow the law I've chosen for my life: selfishness.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 10, 2010 15:55:01 GMT -5
It seems like in Hebrews it's focusing on Jesus being eternal into the future in order to make intercession for us. Like Heb 8:24-25. I couldn't really tell if it was explaining his worth as our atoning sacrifice. What are the sources of Jesus' dignity that made him a worthy sacrifice for our sins? Heb 4:15 For we have not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our weaknesses; but was in all points tempted like we are, yet without sin.Heb 7:26 For such a high priest was befitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;There may be more... But, unless you are taking about His rank as Son of God as His dignity. I'd have to look those up. It seems like these two verses are about the value of the Lord's unending priesthood. I realize that can't be totally separated from his worthiness to atone for sin, but I'm not sure it's really the same exact thing. It seems that Jesus had to be both human and victorious over sin in order to fulfill the role of priest. Also because he lives forever. But I'm not sure that being a perfect man whom God will cause to live forever are the main things that made him a perfect atoning sacrifice. Though I think his being perfect was necessary. However, being perfect is always necessary. It may be his rank as our creator and the son of God. Also the deep personal relationship between Jesus and his Father seems like it must matter a lot. "God SO loved the world". Offering your own son as a sacrifice definitely gives the impression that you are not likely to be partial in your judgment of anyone. It also seems to tell us that punishment for sin is not an empty threat on the part of God. However much God values his own son, that's how serious he is about punishing sin. And he is also that serious about forgiving sin. Just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 10, 2010 12:49:27 GMT -5
It seems like in Hebrews it's focusing on Jesus being eternal into the future in order to make intercession for us. Like Heb 8:24-25. I couldn't really tell if it was explaining his worth as our atoning sacrifice.
What are the sources of Jesus' dignity that made him a worthy sacrifice for our sins?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 9, 2010 22:55:52 GMT -5
On another Forum, someone made this comment:Is this actually true? Seems like maybe men had even more power and responsibility after the flood. God gave us the animals to eat and instituted the death penalty for murder. What did Adam have authority over? His wife, plants, animals, dirt, rocks, etc. When did that ever change? But I'm just thinking out loud. Maybe the devil does or did have some kind of authority. Why is he a central figure in the trials of Job and the temptation of Peter? Also he must have some amount of authority over something or he could never interfere with God's plans at all. What I don't understand is why God allows him to continue in his sin.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 9, 2010 11:42:25 GMT -5
If Jesus could live without sin, but we cannot, then Jesus is not really our example and we cannot really follow Him. And if Jesus could live without sin, and we cannot, then He was not really "made in all things liken unto His brethren" as the Bible says. These two arguments are particularly strong for people who profess to believe the bible. The questions of guilt and justice seem to inevitably lead back to the nature and source of moral law. That's fine. But these two arguments are totally lethal once the common ground of the bible has been established.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 9, 2010 11:34:18 GMT -5
Paul Washer seems to think it would be ridiculous to say the physical sufferings and death of Jesus allow God to be just in forgiving repentant sinners.
Another article someone's been posting on Sermon Index claims that it is because of the Lord's trinitarian "infinite"ness that he is a proper sacrifice for the infinite guilt of sin.
What exactly is it about Jesus that makes him such a worthy sacrifice? Is it because of his nature? his identity? his relationship to us and/or to God? his character only?
Of course his character mattered. I also guessed that it is because he is our creator. I think that would fall under "his relationship to us".
I don't think I really understand this though.
What exactly does God intend for us to be impressed by? Are we to be impressed at how angry God was (Washer's apparent view), or by how "infinite" our Lord was, or is it something more simple?
Does any of the suffering of the atonement belong to the Father?
Did Jesus satisfy public justice simply because he is God's son?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 8, 2010 21:44:06 GMT -5
...the moral government of God is massive. Awesome.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 8, 2010 21:36:40 GMT -5
It is interesting how the nature of our atonement in the Lord Jesus is connected to the purpose/origin of the law.
If moral law came from God's arbitrary will then the atonement would not be necessary but something God arbitrarily wanted to do. If God makes up what right and wrong are (for no other reason than his wants) then God must have dreamed up letting his son be murdered for no reason also.
If "justice" is whatever-God-wills then God would not have to do anything "that he might be just". So justice is not founded in God's will.
This means that we can relate to God much more when it comes to having righteous intentions. We could never relate to a being who arbitrarily decided what was right and wrong. At least, we would never want to relate to one like that. Being able to relate to God's voluntary righteousness enables us to greatly appreciate his perfect heart in all that he does.
Understanding that God holds himself accountable to do what is right must be the among the highest sources of moral influence available to us.
I particularly desire to know God's humility.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Feb 8, 2010 17:17:19 GMT -5
The apostle Paul seems to have believed that God was obligated to fulfill some kind of moral law.
In Romans 3 Paul writes that God gave us his son in order to declare his righteousness for forgiving sins that deserved to be punished. "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus." (Rom 3:26)
It seems that Paul believed our forgiving God needed to DO something in order to be justified in forgiving us as he is so apt to do.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 27, 2010 19:40:15 GMT -5
Jesse,
I really like that analogy of a man who get's fired from his job. It made me wonder though - Why couldn't Adam's sons have been allowed the tree of life? Why didn't God only keep Adam from the tree?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 22, 2010 23:43:14 GMT -5
Ben, So God is good because he submits to a standard of goodness external to himself? The standard is not external to himself. I was only showing that the standard is not a product of God's will. That doesn't mean that the knowledge of good originates completely outside of God altogether. God is more than his will. God has knowledge also. Since God is intelligent, he understands what good is. Do you see how the knowledge of good originates in God's mind without being something he simply made up? It originates in God's understanding, knowledge, wisdom, observation, etc. not in his will. God governs his will, not blindly, but according to his great wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. The example he sets for us is one that we can follow. That's how we can learn "his ways". If God defined right and wrong arbitrarily (what he wills) rather than intelligently (what he knows) then it would be disastrous for us to follow his example. But because God is loving (righteous, upright, holy, just, good) we can follow his perfect example. We can be perfect as he is perfect, holy as he is holy, pure as he is pure, and righteous as he is righteous. "Christ pleased not himself" (Rom 15:3) "He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." (1Jn 2:6) Now if God perfectly fulfills the law of love, what excuse does that leave the sinner? None. Christ "condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom 8:3) It is not a sin to trust in God's justice and reason through the scriptures accordingly. To remember "the weighty matters of the law" such as justice and to question false bible interpretations that contradict God's justice is a good thing. Righteous Abraham even questioned the Lord's judgment. (Gen 18) Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? ... That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? As James said, "the wisdom that is from above is ... easy to be intreated ... without partiality, and without hypocrisy." Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness. Be like Abraham and say "That be far from God to do after this manner" when men accuse him of causing sin and seeking the damnation of many. Shall not the judge of the earth do right?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 18, 2010 22:02:10 GMT -5
it is a grave sin to tell God that he is not allowed to be free to have mercy on some and not have mercy on, but harden others. I lovingly advise you to repent of this sin you asked the question and then denied your initial interpretation because of your feelings/thoughts of what God should be like) Maybe this reply would be more suitable for the " Accusing the Brethren" forum. Wrong. If we don't have any category for right and wrong then saying that "God is right" would not mean anything to us. God is Good1. God makes choices. 2. God makes the right choices. 3. God doesn't just make up what right is. 4. There is good reason to obey God. 1. God makes choices.Benevolence is volitional. God is benevolent. Therefore God is volitional. In other words, Love is a choice. God is loving. So God makes choices. 2. God makes the right choices.Perfect benevolence fulfills moral obligation. God is perfectly benevolent. Therefore God fulfills moral obligation. In other words, Being loving fulfills the law. God is loving. So God fulfills the law. 3. God doesn't just make up what right is.The fundamental reason benevolence is obligatory is the intrinsic value of the benefit willed. God's volitions are distinct from the intrinsic value of benefit. Therefore God's volitions are not the fundamental reason benevolence is obligatory. In other words, The main reason we should will good is because good is good. God's will and the obvious fact that good is good are two different things. So God's will is not the main reason why we should will good. 4. There is a good reason to obey God.God legislates and exemplifies benevolence. Benevolence is obligatory. Therefore we are obligated to follow God's instruction. In other words, God teaches us to will good. Willing good is good. So it is good to obey what God teaches us.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 18, 2010 17:06:12 GMT -5
I'm sure Jesse could explain this much better than me.
I think Paul was defending God's justice. He was saying that Israel was under condemnation for rejecting God and the Lord Jesus but now the gentiles can be accepted through God's mercy even though they were formerly sinners. Paul brought up the potter's vessel story from Jeremiah. The point of the story is that God is fair so he will change your destiny if you change your behavior. The thing made out of clay is your future and God can reshape it good or bad depending on your behavior. It DOESN'T mean that God shapes good or bad PEOPLE and so they act however God made them. That would be an attack on God's justice not a defense of it like Paul is making.
Rom9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid. Rom9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. The bible says God's mercy is for those who fear him. God is not bound to show mercy and compassion toward those who stubbornly abuse his kindness.
Rom9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. Just wanting to be accepted by God is natural. It doesn't make God accept us simply because we want him to. Otherwise people could live in sin and still be accepted. But God's acceptance of sinners is HIS choice. The condition of course is that they repent and serve him.
Rom9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. I don't know if I understand this verse yet. Was Pharaoh bad before God allowed him to have control over Egypt? Did God decide to raise him up to a position of authority for that reason? Or was God willing to show his power through Pharaoh in a good way if he was not bad or if he repented? Isn't God more glorified by obedience than by disobedience? Anyway, I'm not sure exactly how to take this verse.
Rom9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. God hardened Pharaoh after giving him chances.
Rom9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? That would be stupid to complain after rejecting God's reaching out to you.
Rom9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Rom9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? God has as much right to judge people for rejecting him as a potter has a right to do what he wants with his work.
Rom9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: Rom9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Rom9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Not only does God have the right to destroy those who reject him, he even patiently endures their hatred so that he can show mercy on those who repent. They are not fitted to destruction as if they had no choice about their outcome. If they repent God is able to refit them for honor.
Peter said that God is so patient "there shall come in the last days scoffers ... saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." (2Pet3:3-4) "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." (2Pet3:8-9) "...the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." (2Pet3:15-16)
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 17, 2010 23:16:14 GMT -5
I wonder if Adam and Eve had to experience some kind of maturing process unique to them. Neither of them had a childhood. Could that have something to do with the tree of knowledge? God knows good and evil and there's nothing wrong with that. Maybe God gave them the command because they weren't ready for that increased knowledge yet. They had enough knowledge to be guilty for sinning of course. Maybe they were knowledgeable enough to be accountable but not knowledgeable enough to understand nakedness.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 13, 2010 2:02:38 GMT -5
I would love to believe that there was a man besides Jesus who has never sinned. I like to think that Enoch or even Job never sinned. However, is there any way you can prove this? I don't know yet. " For there is not a just man upon earth, that does good, and sins not." (Ecc 7:20) " there is no man that sins not" (1Kings 8:46) 1.1 Kings 8:46, 2 Chronicles 6:36 “...there is no man which sinneth not...”
Here's an adaptation from Finney's Systematic Theology - 1851 - Lecture 71
CLARKE "'If they sin against thee, for there is no man that sinneth not.' The second clause, as it is here translated, renders the supposition in the first clause, entirely nugatory; for, if there be no man that sinneth not, it is useless to say, if they sin; but this contradiction is taken away, by reference to the original ki yechetau lak, which should be translated, if they shall sin against thee; or should they sin against thee, ki ein adam asher lo yecheta; 'for there is no man that may not sin;' that is, there is no man impeccable, none infallible; none that is not liable to transgress. This is the true meaning of the phrase in various parts of the Bible, and so our translators have understood the original, for even in the thirty-first verse of this chapter, they have translated yecheta, if a man trespass; which certainly implies he might or might not do it; and in this way they have translated the same word, if a soul sin, in Lev. v. 1, and vi. 2; 1 Sam. ii. 25; 2 Chron. iv. 22; and in several other places. The truth is, the Hebrew has no mood to express words in the permissive or optative way, but to express this sense it uses the future tense of the conjugation kal.
... it only speaks of the possibility of every man's sinning ... There are too many who are seeking to excuse their crimes ... by stating that their sins are unavoidable."
BARCLAY "....Another objection is from two passages of scripture, much of one signification. The one is 1 Kings viii. 46: 'For there is no man that sinneth not.' The other is Eccl. vii. 20: 'For there is not a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not.'....I answer....this whole objection hangs upon a false interpretation; for the original Hebrew word may be read in the potential mood, thus,--There is no man who may not sin, as well as in the indicative; so both the old Latin, Junius, and Tremellius, and Vatablus have it, and the same word is so used, Ps. cxix. 11: 'Thy word have I hid in my heart, that I might not sin against thee'--in the potential mood, and not in the indicative; which being more answerable to the universal scope of the scriptures, the testimony of the truth, and the sense of almost all interpreters, doubtless ought to be so understood, and the other interpretation rejected as spurious." I wish I had shared that bit from Finney with you sooner. I was rejoicing in the Lord when I first read it. " Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin?" (Prov 20:9) How then does James say "purify your hearts"?
Everybody knows they are able to make their heart clean from actual sin in the sense that they can remove sin from their heart by repenting. However, no man can remove the guilt of his sin by merely repenting. No man can make his heart clean (of guilt) once it has been defiled by sin. Only the blood of the Lord Jesus can do that! This shows that we need an atonement if we sin. The verse only applies to someone whose heart has already been defiled by their own sin. A silly analogy is if I asked "Who can wash automotive grease out of their jeans once they have been stained?" Not me, I need a saviour to buy me a whole new pair. But of course I could have avoided getting the stains. It wouldn't make the proverb any less valid or meaningful.
This proverb makes me think of the verse "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." It's like the mystery of Christ's atonement was hidden in this proverb.
This also shows the amazing faith that the saints had before Christ came. They were somewhat in the dark as to the answer to this question. We have the answer that they longed to know. Does our response compliment their patience and hope? And lets not forget 1John 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.I'm sure someone will inevitably remind us. The standard interpretation of this makes it absolutely necessary that the very first moral choice a child makes is sinful. If they make their first choice lovingly they better not tell anyone 'cuz then they'll be a sinner for making God a liar. I've had the hardest time with this verse. More than any other. It's mainly because I'm not sure what the alternative (real) interpretation is. How exactly did John intend it? If I were to rephrase it to allow for other righteous people, how exactly would it read? I've got a few other notes on this verse that were encouraging to me: This passage shows that it is possible to obey God. (by definition of sin and need for forgiveness) It assumes and emphasizes the justice of God's requirements. (because sin needs forgiveness and we are instructed not to sin) It serves as a warning or judgment to people who have sinned.
If we say that our nature made us sin, we are saying that we have not sinned. (by definition of sin) If we say that our nature made us sin, we make God unjust. If we say that sinning was unavoidable or inevitable, we make him a liar. If we make excuses for our sin, his word is not in us. The intention of the text is to prevent sin “My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not.” (1Jn2:1) This verse does not teach that sin is unavoidable. John implied the possibility of not sinning “And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:” (1Jn2:1) This passage does not say that everyone will sin in the future. (It does not say - if 'anyone ever' says they have not sinned)
I wish I had a better view of the 1 John passage. I think it's the only one I've got in the back of my mind now as far as inevitable sin goes. I have to say though, the idea that a child ALWAYS chooses evil before good really does seem stupid to me. What if their first moral action was to share something? Or to be careful not to hurt themselves? Or console a friend? or anything good basically? What would we tell them? "Now don't you dare tell anyone from our church that you just did a good job sharing your toy with your brother! I don't want little heretics for children!"yuck...right?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 12, 2010 20:33:00 GMT -5
Jesse, I thought I remember you saying once that you thought God might have allowed Adam to eat of the knowledge tree eventually. Am I remembering right? Could you share your thoughts on that?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 12, 2010 19:36:14 GMT -5
Is it ok for me to say this? "It is ridiculous to say that every human has sinned, there are probably many young people or children who have become morally accountable and have not done anything wrong. It is not inevitable that they WILL either. Hopefully they won't." To be consistent, I would have to allow for righteous old men and such as well.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 11, 2010 22:32:24 GMT -5
That's encouraging Micah. It must be quite a blessing to encounter another preacher like that.
It's good what you were preaching about swing dancing or whatever. People lose their sensitivity to things like that just because everyone does it huh.
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 8, 2010 23:04:35 GMT -5
I do believe that it does. I do not believe that it should. In the case you are describing though (well, you really haven't described it in detail, but let me know if I am reading between the lines incorrectly) it would also be immoral to kill a person performing an abortion. While it is that person performing the procedure, the real killer is the mother who has made the decision to have the abortion. My belief is that abortion should be banned, except in the case that it is neccessary to save the Mother's life, and anyone performing an illegal abortion should be held accountable by the authorities. I also believe that the Mother should have to stand trial for murder. It's not that I'm asking anyone to "read between the lines" and realize my questions are substantially relevant to the morality of killing baby-killers to save babies. My point is not to disguise the topic. The topic of my questions is not whether it is right or wrong to kill baby-killers, but whether we should be consistent in our decisions to defend born vs unborn children. For instance, if you are a pacifist then you could easily say yes "whatever force is legitimate etc..." because you believe no force is legitimate for both born and unborn children. But if you are not a pacifist and you believe it is your duty to defend innocent children then what? If you believe that legislators can pass a law that overrides your duty to defend the helpless then would you apply that principle to born and unborn children equally? That is, if the murder of born children was called "legal" by the government, would that override your duty or right to defend them with force? If not then why does it in the case of unborn children. But if yes, then why? And how do we know when civil law can truly change our God-given rights and duties? Isn't that contrary not only to the bible but the U.S. constitution and common sense as well?
|
|
|
Post by benjoseph on Jan 8, 2010 18:17:52 GMT -5
Ben, 1 Co 8 does not teach that the Father is God in a way the Jesus Christ is not. As I laid out in my previous response it actually includes Jesus in the identity of the one God. It does on the other hand distinguish between the roles and relationships of the Father and the Son. The Father is supreme in the Godhead. There is an authority and submission structure within the Godhead. These things distinguish the Father from the Son but do not mean that the Father is God in a sense that the Son is not God. Steve Of course God is God in a sense that Jesus Christ is not. Almost every time the bible mentions them together it shows this. Over and over again. Every time the Father is called God and Christ is NOT, we see the word "God" used in a sense that is not applicable to the Lord Jesus. To illustrate what I mean, I can refer to God (the Father) and Jesus Christ, that is, I can refer to God and Christ. Notice only one of them is called God. You automatically know that I mean the Father when I say God. This sense of the word God shows that the Father is the God OF Christ. Christ is NOT however, the God of his father. I don't say 'the Father and God'. I say 'God and his son'. The same sense of the word God does not apply to Christ. The Father never calls his son HIS God. As far as I can remember Jesus is never called God (in connection with his father) while his Father is not called God. Even now in heaven the Lord Jesus has a God. The Father does not have a God. He is "the only true God" who has a son who calls him "my God" four times in Rev 3:12. So God is the God of Christ. God is God over all without exception. Christ is NOT God over all without exception as his Father is. His Father is over him. God is the head of Christ. The Lord Jesus is over all with the exception of his Father. There is no exception however for the God and Father of the Lord Jesus. He is simply over all. It seems that in every epistle that Paul wrote, he referred to God in a sense that we do not use for Jesus. The sense being that he can be "exclusively" called God when referring to him AND Jesus whereas Jesus is NOT exclusively called God when referring to him and his Father. See the greeting in every epistle Paul wrote for reference. All I was suggesting about the OT monotheism proof texts is that they may simply refer to the one who can be exclusively called God. The one who is God over all WITHOUT an exception. The one who has NO God over him. The Father. That's what I meant when I said: there is not "technically more than one God" in the sense that the Father is so often called God. The Father is often called God in a way that contrasts him with Jesus Christ. That's the sense I was asking about.
If you allow for progressive revelation then why not allow that there is another called God but not in the same exact sense that his Father is the only true God (John 17:3)?
|
|