| Poster | Thread | ChrisJD
Member
Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA
| | Re: | | Hi Dorcas,
I mentioned what the Lord Jesus said about Himself and us in regards to what you said here
"I would disagree that God has asked things of man which man is unable to render."
I think His life demonstrates what God required.
Also, about this
"...had you embedded the assumption that before the fall Adam and Eve would have been able to render to God that that you implied they could not render afterrwards?"
No, not at all. It's just the opposite. It seems that nearly all of the requirements for man came [b]after[/b]. Which is what I think this change in us left us exposed to.
Does this all make sense?
Thanks :-)
_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow
|
|  2007/12/30 17:21 | Profile |
| | Re: New Calvinistic song | |
Hi ChrisJD
Quote:
I think His life demonstrates what God required.
No contest. But the requirements which He fulfilled, in a measurable sense, had changed tremendously since Adam had to till the ground to get food for his family. That's why I commented upon your introduction of Jesus to the discussion... because it wouldn't have mattered when Jesus came, He would always have been able to do what His Father required of Him, because they had an agreement about that.
Quote:
No, not at all. It's just the opposite.
Does this mean you believe Adam and Eve didn't please God before the fall either?
Quote:
It seems that nearly all of the requirements for man came after. Which is what I think this change in us left us exposed to.
The thing you are trying to say here is that man could not keep the law, (I think), but that is what I'm disputing. The Man (Jews) who did have the law [i]did[/i] keep it perfectly and God imputed that to them for righteousness.
It is completely different to say that Jesus kept the law, because He fulfilled it without breaking it.
That's the amazing thing I'd not realised till recently, is that [i][b]even if a person broke the law[/i][/b] in itself it was the way to keep fellowship with God.
My turn: does this all make sense?
:-)
|
| | 2007/12/30 17:41 | | ChrisJD
Member
Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA
| | Re: | | Hi Dorcas,
What law are we talking about here?
"That's the amazing thing I'd not realised till recently, is that even if a person broke the law in itself it was the way to keep fellowship with God."
Any of the laws that required the death penalty?
Ezekiel said the soul that sins would die.
What do you mean?
_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow
|
| | 2007/12/30 17:51 | Profile | ChrisJD
Member
Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA
| | Re: | | Dorcas, I think we need to draw a distinction here between provisons God made for man to continue with Him, and what was required for life.
See Leviticus 18:5 and Galatians 3:10.
_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow
|
| | 2007/12/30 17:56 | Profile | ChrisJD
Member
Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA
| | Re: | | Sorry for the multiple posts, but my thoughts are trailing along....
What I'm looking for is what would gain man the right to the tree of life again.
_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow
|
| | 2007/12/30 18:01 | Profile |
| | Re: | | Quote:
ChrisJD wrote:
Hi Dorcas,
What law are we talking about here?
"That's the amazing thing I'd not realised till recently, is that even if a person broke the law in itself it was the way to keep fellowship with God."
Any of the laws that required the death penalty?
Ezekiel said the soul that sins would die.
What do you mean?
Hi Chris,
You are right. What I mean is not that people never broke the law - and I'd forgotten about the death penalty - but that the law was capable of keeping them from sin - for instance, the deterrent of the death penalty - or, buying them forgiveness.
Don't worry about the multible posts... That was a fair question. I am so used to thinking of the law in terms of the time of Jesus, I'd forgotten how much it had been diluted by both the Romans and the rabbis in recent decades.
Galatians 3:10
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed [i]is[/i] everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."
I didn't mean that the law dealt with the fall, but that it kept communication open with God.
Leviticus 18:5
'You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, which if a man does, he shall live by them: I [i]am[/i] the LORD.
You said
Quote:
I think we need to draw a distinction here between provisons God made for man to continue with Him, and what was required for life.
Do you mean you don't think the law provided for life? (Sorry if I'm driving you mad with these questions. I'm asking because of this that you said, which I realise the law could not give them.)
Quote:
What I'm looking for is what would gain man the right to the tree of life again.
So, another question: do you mean the tree of life in the midst of Eden or, Christ, or, a tree like that on the banks of the river in Ezekiel 47, or, the one in Revelation 22 (which may be the same tree). I'm asking how literally to take the phrase 'tree of life'. Also, you might mean the cross...
|
| | 2007/12/30 18:32 | |
| | Re: | | Love in Christ
Katy- Quote:
Which by they way, what does this have to do with total depravity?
Hi Chris,
You do know one of the premises of Calvinism is based on total depravity, that after the fall, man became so evil in fact that God had to Regenerate man first ( Born Again) in order to have an implanted spirit that could have faith to believe in Jesus to begin with.
When you do something wrong, does your conscience bother you? Is that only true for Born Again Christians?
To say that lost man has no conscience at all is to say all men are Psychopaths...raping killing/murder etc, without any conscience of knowing it was wrong.
Now occasionally we will see someone on the news who display these characteristics...those Jeffery Dommer types...you know, and guess what...society All of society is appalled.
One has to be aware of good and evil before one has a conscience to distinguish between the two.
When man fell, he knew both good and evil.....activating his conscience.
When Adam and Eve fell, they hid themselves in the Garden, not wanting God to see them....because their CONCSIENCE was bothering them......they were at that time in sin, and painfully aware they had disobeyed God and were in sin at the same time.
Gnostics are who taught total depravity
this is Gnosticism, and this teaching came from Augustine who was a Gnostic, and influenced Calvin in this Gnostic thinking.
For their own good and for all of mankind they were banished from the Garden, not to eat of the Tree of Life. Had they done so, no need for a redeemer....if they had become immortal sinners, they would be just like the fallen angels in the sense of eternal, and fallen. There is no redemption for those angels. Many now are reserved in chains waiting for judgment ( Jude) and the rest are awaiting judgment period.
Love in Christ
Katy-Did ;-) |
| | 2007/12/30 18:36 | | ChrisJD
Member
Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA
| | Re: | | Dorcas,
"Do you mean you don't think the law provided for life?"
Well, consider Galatians 3:21 for instance.
By life here I'm thinking of everlasting life. Which it seems to me we lost access to from the garden.
Thanks for sharing thus far Dorcas,
Chris
_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow
|
| | 2007/12/30 18:49 | Profile | ChrisJD
Member
Joined: 2006/2/11
Posts: 2895
Philadelphia PA
| | Re: | | Hi Katy-Did,
I'm not sure about all of those things, but thank you still.
_________________
Christopher Joel Dandrow
|
| | 2007/12/30 18:52 | Profile |
| | Re: New Calvinistic song | |
Hi Katy,
That was interesting. I appreciate how you think things through more than the average bear...
;-)
ChrisJD... hello and thank you also for engaging. It does seem rather a pedestrian pace but we can be sure of no misunderstandings so far. Thank you for all the Bible verses.
You had said something about 'what was required for life' and it wasn't immediately obvious to me you were meaning 'everlasting life'.
Galatians 3:21
[i]Is[/i] the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
You raise an interesting point about everlasting life being lost in the Garden, because ... I put it to you ... that is not really true, if Jesus could refer to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as 'living'.
The question is, was that Jesus speaking prophetically, or, were they actually alive in heaven already, because of their faith?
Another question might be, were they in as good a postion as Adam had been before the fall, or, were they in a better position because they had been obedient?
Lastly, are you thinking of Adam as 'the son of God' (Luke 3:38)?
What I'm trying to establish is also whether you think of Adam and Jesus as being the same (which they were not) and if not, how in your mind do you define the differences?
|
| | 2007/12/30 19:07 | |
|
