Your first paragraph I disagree with because I feel that God has ultimate freedom and would be just in not saving anyone on earth from eternal Hell. I don’t believe that will happen. In fact, I think the fact that God is love and wrath is a ‘strange’ characteristic of God is the most compelling argument for UR. However, I would never say that God is obliged to do anything (yes, meaning ‘forced’). God has absolute freedom. And our ways of thinking are not his ways.
Your second paragraph I agree with almost 100%, although I would add that ignorance of where the church has gone since then (and what some segments of the church always believed) is not particularly useful.
I don’t know that the gospel is always an offense. Some come to accept it quite easily, taking in the word of God like clear refreshing water. Especially to the poor and downtroden who really need hope or the sinner who God has allowed to want to change and is desperately seeking a way out of his/her filth, the gospel often comes as a true comfort. That said. The reason I’m not ‘[throwing] down the gullet’ with* you* is because we are both Christians so we should both be trying to figure this out together rather than making aggressive gestures. I said that it isn’t a ‘throw down moment’ so you would not interpret any of my posts as containing aggression.
Yeah. That’s why I tried to keep it in air quotes (Well, real quotes since this is written). Although I was also convinced that ‘throw down the gullet’ was a common expression, but just from a different part of the country from the part I lived in (the American South). It might be!
God has already done his part to save the world. He sent Jesus 2000 yrs ago to pay the penalty of sin when he died in mankind’s place and rose again to defeat sin and death. Jesus has reconciled man back to God. Sin has been judged in Jesus.
Man has to do his part and believe and receive this free gift of salvation. They must take action and believe what Jesus did for them to make Jesus their personal Sin-Substitute. Man has a choice. Jesus’ work is finished. The question is will you make Jesus your Sin-substitute?
This isn’t really on topic. And, you already know that I have made Jesus my Sin-substitute (although that kind of penal substitution thinking wasn’t really fully developed until the middle ages, BA). I believe Jesus Christ came into this world and died to conquer the sins of the world. I have accepted his gift.
Well, I simply meant that God sent his son out of his own freedom. He didn’t have to save us, and he doesn’t have to save those who have died not believing him (as some people on the board feels he is obliged to). I believe he will, but ultimately I believe in the freedom of God.
you said: He didn’t have to save us, and he doesn’t have to save those who have died not believing him (as some people on the board feels he is obliged to).
Aaron: Amen, brother. I believe God did his part 2000 yrs ago, and if you die in your sins…you will pay the penalty of them separated from God for eternity.
I do believe that God has “free-will” of the sort that we as finite beings do not possess. However, I don’t think this means that God can’t limit Himself however He chooses, nor do I think it means that He can literally do anything. He could not, for example, do anything that would violate His essential nature and thereby cause Himself not to be God.
The fact is, however, that God has made certain declarations (promises) in scripture that He cannot go back on without violating His own essential nature.
you said: I do believe that God has “free-will” of the sort that we as finite beings do not possess
Aaron: What? God is spirit, Man is spirit. God is eternal, Man is eternal. God has free-will, Man has free-will. Understand? God made man in His image and likeness. We are wired just liked Him, without the Deity.
Right. God can do anything God wants, but what he wants is determined by his own nature (of which his promises are an expression). I realize it may sound borderline irreverent to some to speak of God being “obliged” to do anything, but by this I don’t mean God ought to do something because of some law external to himself, but because he is constrained by his own nature. It is God’s nature, and nothing else, that makes him unable to lie (Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18) or to be tempted to sin (James 1:13). It may sound pious to say that God is free to do absolutely anything at all, but that’s simply not true. God cannot act toward his creatures in an unloving way, because “God is love.” And if God is love, then his justice cannot be unloving.
you said: God cannot act toward his creatures in an unloving way, because “God is love.” And if God is love, then his justice cannot be unloving.
Aaron37: God acted toward his creatures in a very Loving way by sending His Son to pay the penalty of sin for humanity. Man must act on this loving act and believe what Jesus did or reject what Jesus did and pay the penalty for their sins themselves and be separated from God for eternity. Where is the injustice ?
The mere possession of “ultimate” freedom as you put it does not guarantee that any action by such an entity would be necessarily considered ‘just’ for that reason alone. That philosophy is the logical equivalent of “might makes right”. Aside from that issue, God does not save us from ‘eternal hell’ (ECT), but from sin and death. The scriptural witness is quite clear on this.
Actually, your not really misreading me. God’s ‘might’ (in this case the ultimate power to define what is good) is what makes ‘right’ (meaning, any sort of non-relative moral code at all). God is what makes justice exist. He defines justice by his being. Saying that justice is a pre-existing thing that God is then bound to is a fallacy. That said: I don’t think we really disagree, I just think I’m using more precise language than you. On the second part: yes, you are correct, God saves us from sin and death.
you said: Aside from that issue, God does not save us from ‘eternal hell’ (ECT), but from sin and death. The scriptural witness is quite clear on this.
Born Again: Yes, but sin and death( your spiritually dead spirit) will send you to hell if you reject Jesus. Scriptures are quite clear on this.
Perhaps I took a slightly off-angle approach to that. I’m going to try and rephrase it to see if I can communicate the idea I was trying to get across more lucidly. Simply because someone has the ability to do something does not make it ‘just’ for them to do it. Because I have the power to strangle a cat does not mean that it is just for me to do that. One thing I see all the time that I believe leads to the error of thinking about God in this way is that people assume that attributes of God are core characteristics. God’s justice is an outflow of who He is, but not actually what makes up his core being. John informs us what the core characteristics are, the “stuff” of who God is if you will. God is Love, God is Light, and God is Spirit. He acts justly, etc. from those core qualities.
So, I would disagree that He defines justice by His mere being, but rather by how those core characteristics work out into justice, mercy and so on. Justice is still defined by God, yes, but I don’t believe it is in the way you claim; and as subtle a distinction as that is, I think it’s an important one.
If God defines what is good by an act of will alone, then it seems to me that it’s completely arbitrary. That is, it’s pure whimsy. And if that’s the case, then we have no reason to think (or hope) that God wills anything in our best interest. When you say that God defines what is just “by his being,” you seem to be implying that we might not intuitively (i.e., by our own reason) know what God’s concept of justice is - that is, our own intuitive understanding of justice might not really be God’s intuitive understanding of justice. But from where did you get this idea? From Genesis we’re taught that mankind was created in God’s image. At the very least, this must mean that what is most intuitive (i.e., most reasonable) to us must surely be what most corresponds to God’s own nature. So do you think God defines what is good arbitrarily (i.e., randomly), or according to his own unchanging reason? Or do you believe he defines what is good according to some other way that is perhaps impossible for us to fully undertstand or grasp?
