If Jesus was Foreknown and his death foreordained, at the hands of a betrayer and Herod and Pontius Pilate was Sin not necessary to make it so?
If Sin was necessary to make it so, does that not mean Sin was necessitated by the plan of the Creator, though not authored?
If Sin was necessitated by His plan, is there such a thing as free will?
- Bo
No, no, yes!
Any more questions?
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 1, 2008 @ 1:16 am |
The key is to define the terms silly — DUH!
come on, after all our discussions…
I’ll Help!
BO:
What does “Foreknown” mean?
What does “Foreordained” mean?
ALSO,
BO:
Why pick on Woody like this?
How can Satan be a necessitated creation, yet not authored?
AND,
BO:
Could it not stand that He (god) can necessitate that sin be, yet also necessitate that we have free will. Then He, armed with His infallible foresight (foreknowledge), saw what evil men would choose, and then fold those, freely made choices, into His plan?
Comment by Chris — July 3, 2008 @ 5:24 pm |
The truth is Bo (Curtis, for those who do not know the players), that you did not have a question to begin with at all. You were just picking a fight. I was told that this forum was not for picking fights. It was a place where real questions were asked. And real answers were appreciated. That was to include answers we did not agree with.
As with all your comments, here and in other places, you prove only that you believe that you have nothing at all to learn. You know it all. And what do we know of someone who is as sure of their own understanding as you? We know from the old saying that, “you can’t teach anyone who knows everything anything.”
In science there is a saying; “We stand on the shoulders of giants so that we may see farther.” In the field of theology the saying must be amended to say, “we stand on the shoulders of giants so that we may FALL farther.”
Bo, until you learn humility, critical thinking, and to stop standing on the shoulders of those you see as theological giants, you will be worthless to God, and have no impact on a lost and dying world. You will render yourself as “so heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good.” These tactics may help you feel good about yourself for a while, but the affect of pats on the back from yourself don’t last long.
You (and by “you” in this paragraph I mean each of us) do not KNOW anything that you have been taught. You only know that which you have discovered for yourself. There should be “giants” in your life. We all need mature men of faith to help us on our journey, but they are there for guidance as we find out what we ourselves believe, not for telling us what it is that we believe.
Ask yourself this question, “how would I have responded had those answers come from a man of which I had the utmost respect for theologically?” I bet your answer would have been more measured, and more reasoned. I bet your answer would have waited until you researched the answers of this trusted man more. I bet there would have been an atmosphere created where learning could take place. After all, I know that your desire is to “be right befor God rather than to appear right befor men.”
I hope the answer to this question will allow you to step into a greater world of understanding.
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 6, 2008 @ 3:02 am |
If Chandler came up to me tomorrow and said we had free will I would argue with him as vehemently.
And are you serious or is that the most sarcastic I’ve ever seen you? Now I’m really confused.
How can you learn from someone who you believe is wrong in the subject they wish you to learn about? I would not listen to a Liberal Christian about the innerancy of scripture. not that you’re a liberal.
I was not picking a fight, well mainly, but the question of “Could Christ Have Fallen” Necessitates this question. If the answer of Sin being meant for good is not dealt with then we have no reference point for dealing accurately with Christ’s ability or inability to Sin. Also we have no reference point to begin dealing with God’s Sovereignty.
Answers that we do not agree with should be responded to. and you didn’t give an answer any more than I asked a question “No, NO, Yes” is not an answer.
Again, not sure if you’re serious or sarcastic, if serious I apologize for the offense, but not for my arguements, they are sound.
If you are sarcastic the I will resume my attack upon you anon.
Comment by plankremover — July 6, 2008 @ 6:09 pm |
i think i have to agree with woody on this one.
this post does seem aimed at him since, of the five of us, he is the only free-willer.
it does seem that your first two questions were written only to get to the third so that you could pick a fight over free will.
not saying you did that intentionally, just saying it sure looks that way.
p.s. let us be uplifting to one another, helping each other press forward to the goal. sometimes that means, for all of us, holding back on the sarcasm and insults.
Comment by helpthereisaplankinmyeye — July 6, 2008 @ 7:34 pm |
bo, dude, that was needlessly harsh
rather than bash a brother for having differing opinions, we should embrace those things. He might just have an idea that will give you a better perspective.
while i disagree with woody on freeeewill/predestination, what if he is right?
what if he sees something that we have overlooked?
wouldnt you be greatful for his disagreements if he pushes us towards truth?
Comment by philmorebuts — July 6, 2008 @ 9:16 pm |
The monosylabic answers were to direct questions. You asked “yes or no” questions. Not to mention the flack I have had to endure over other posts and comments. You have conditioned me to your “style” long befor writing this post.
The only offense is the absolute closed-mindedness you constantly display. You act as if, “you knowed-it all up.” It is the answers in which we dissagree the most that push us all the harder. You see me as absolutely wrong on free will. You wrote;
It is for this reason that you can learn the most form someone who fits this discription. This challenges your belief moving it from simple belief to something nearer to proof,( nearer to proof in the personal sense, because this argument has gone on for over 500 years by great men of faith on both sides. We cannot possibily settle it between us. More on this in a minute.) or further away form our belief. Remember the scientific method. Do not try to prove your belief. Always try to disprove your belief. (again, this is with personal application). One of the reasons I hold so firmly to free will is because of Chris and our relationship, not inspite of it. I have a stronger hold on the security of the believer because of Jim Anderson (See Chris). My understanding on Drinking was solidified becuase of Allen Blair, and Mark Schuler. The list goes on. The things I am most sure of came from dissagreement fueling the fire of research, word study, historic study, translation comparison, etc. If I ever thought that the KJV might be closer to God, Michael Riggs cured that for me. It is critical thinking which strengthened my understanding. Even more examples exist of how my understanding was not strengthened but changed because of the arguments of those who I believed to be wrong. But again, like you, I desire to be right before God, rather than apear right befor men.
You are most certainly not reading sarcasm. You are reading my intent. And that intent is seasoned with care for you. Sometimes I think more care than you have for yourself.
You must also drop the idea that you are right about predestination and free will. I do not intend to say that you are wrong and I am right. Not at all. But you must allow that you may be wrong. You must admit that neither you nor I are the holder of all truth in this matter. Both hold up to scripture, if we remove the lense we each view scripture through. Do not believe me to be right and you to be wrong, just understand that Calvinists and Arminianists have used many of the same scriptures as proof of their point of view. How can this be? Because of the lense each uses for interpretation.
The truth is the fight over Calvinism and Arminianism is over 6 words in the whole of the bible. All the other proofs are dependent on those 6 words. The fight was not between John Calvin and Jacobus Arminius. It was not even between Dirck Koornhert and Francis Gomarus. Neither was it between Augustine and Pelagius. No, it goes much further back. This battle is between Paul and Peter. That’s right, Peter and Paul. Peter taught of free will and Paul taught of predestination. Or at least this is how the words are ascribed. The most interesting part of this debate is that Clement of Rome (the elder of the first Christian church in Rome, not Clement of Alexandria) wrote that he had been a student of both Peter and Paul, and he did not see any diversion in their teaching on this. Six words of disagreement should not cause any fracture. Cult are formed on much more than only 6 words misunderstood. This large battle over this small issue only serves Satan. That is not to say that there is not a right and a wrong, but the greater wrong is the 500 years marked with unmeasured amounts of blood over this issue. (For the record, history proves that it was the Calvinists who pursecuted the Arminianists first.)
And, Yes, you were picking a fight.
And, you have lost the right to ever call my logic into question. Ask any of the other members.
I will tell you as I told Kevin, curse me on nationstates, attack me on cybernation, but here it is sober reverrence for each other.
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 6, 2008 @ 9:31 pm |
I would like to here, in this post, apologize to the other authors. In the original version of this comment there were statements written very late at night in what I thought was a funny style. After rereading them, in light of your comments, and prayer, I have removed the over the top sarcasm and needless personal assaults on Woody. I believe the arguments listed below are valid and necessary to the discussion at hand.
This post was not an attack on woody, though it was an invitation to a lively debate. This question, as I stated in my reply to Woody’s reply, is a necessary offshoot of the previous post about Jesus’ ability or inability to sin. I should have approached it in, as Woody puts it, a more reverent manner.
Again I apologize and I hope the revised version of my arguments are more condusive to a respectful debate.
1–No Sin was not necessary for Jesus to die on the Cross: Therefore Christ could have died upon the cross without sin,I do not see how he could have died at the hands of sinners if sin was not necessary for him to die, so for Jesus to die on the Cross sin was necessary.
2–Sin was, as is proved in the above scholarly discussion(my last paragraph) necessary for Jesus to die on the cross, Woody argues that therefore Sin was necessitated by the Creator, though not authored. This means, logically, that either, God was not in control when Sin entered the world, Or God was not in control when Jesus was sent to the Cross, being unable to Save his son from sin that would kill him.
So, Either God doesn’t know the future or is impotent to save his son, because Sin is obviously not planned, if it was planned then perhaps God meant for sin to be dealt with on the cross, if not…
Foreknown– First we have to know what Known means, I think the best place to begin this discussion is Genesis “and Adam KNEW Eve” obviously, from the context, this meant he knew her as his wife, spiritually and sexually.
Therefore We, who are Foreknown are foreknown in the same way a lover is know, we are loved from eternity past, this does not imply foreknowledge of actions, and we see that Jacob/Israel was foreknown in a way that excludes his actions, if you have further questions refer to “The Justification of God” by John Piper, He deals with this argument by a thorough discussion of Romans 9 which, if I had room, I would copy and paste here. But Jacob was Foreknown and predestined according to Him who calls and nothing else.
Foreordained=Ordained before. The question is before what. the answer must be, since no other timeframe is given, before everything seems to be similar to the fact that (colossians 1) Christ is before all things, So Christ was foreordained in the same way He is before all things because He is Eternally Begotten of the father. Christ simply cannot be eternally known if he is not eternally know as Sacrifice, else God would’ve changed, which is heresy. Therefore Foreordained, as far as it refers to Christ MUST include his death at the hands of Sinners, which means that Sin must have been necessitated by the nature of Christ, because his nature was to die for SINFUL men, therefore, for his nature to be fulfilled SIN was NECESSARY.
To your last Question, I DON’T KNOW, but Who am I oh man to answer back to God, for Does not the potter have any right over the clay?
Comment by plankremover — July 7, 2008 @ 3:37 am |
sorry to do this Bo…
but…
I Agree with you (wow that was hard)
Chris, are you saying that before God created the world, he knew of the presence of sin and of Jesus’ role in redemption by his death?
Why yes I am.
Although I believe it is logically POSSIBLE (granted it would be traversing from presuppositions I disagree with) for sin to be necessitated along with the presence of “free-will,” its working out would require some serious Woody/Creamer brain ability.
Comment by Chris — July 7, 2008 @ 10:08 pm |
And BO,
apology accepted – thanks
This is for you
The Metts
Comment by Chris — July 7, 2008 @ 10:47 pm |
Question 1 was:
By definition, “sin” could not have been necessary to anything pre-creation. Sin is; being, or acting, outside the will of God. If God made Adam sin, for any reason, this puts who ever was made by God to do anything at all (including Judas) in the will of God and is not sinning.
I know that
SatanistsCalvinists have an explaination for this act, but it is too far afield.Woody
“The pope’s chastity is as sure as Calvinism.” 397
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 8, 2008 @ 12:09 am |
what the hell is chastidy? oh, you mean chastity, i see…
Comment by helpthereisaplankinmyeye — July 8, 2008 @ 2:22 am |
By definition, “sin” could not have been necessary to anything pre-creation. Sin is; being, or acting, outside the will of God. If God made Adam sin, for any reason, this puts who ever was made by God to do anything at all (including Judas) in the will of God and is not sinning
Sorry Woody, there is a good premise but a faulty conclusion. Sin was not present in anything precreation because God was the only thing precreation, God’s Plan, which preceded forth from the mind of God, eternally planned, included and necessitated Sin though it was not sin.
For Instance
Phillipians 2:8-9
8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
So, in order for Christ to have the Name above all Names bestowed upon Him he had to die on a cross. The only way for him to die on a cross was for sinners to kill him, unless he committed suicide, which would’ve been sin and nullified his sacrifice.
Instantly I notice an objection to this interpretation
“Are you suggesting that Christ was unworthy of the name above all names before Creation?” No, I am stating that His nature is such that his Mercy Had to be displayed in addition to His Justice. Therefore from eternity past the Godhead planned for Christ to die at the hands of sinners so it would be readily apparent to all that he was worthy of the name above all names, and more than that, that his worthiness would be displayed throughout creation.
In your view Woody Christ’s Death on the cross was a backup plan, and not something foreordained and foreplanned. This nullifies God’s omnipotence,
Job 23:13
But he is unchangeable,and who can turn him back?
What he desires, that he does.
. Because if it was not his desire that Christ die, then Killing Christ was something that did not please Him. If this is the case then Christ and the father are at odds in regards to the cross.
Hebrews 12:2
fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
Christ saw the cross as joy, but if the cross was not foreordained then it was not something that pleases the father because sin is not(from your view) planned by God. Therefore, something outside of the will of God the Father is pleasing to God the Son.
This dichotomy cannot stand, either Christ’s death at the hands of sinners was necessitated, and therefore Sin was necessitated or God is not omnipotent and omniscient.
I hope this is a new argument for you Woody, I thought it up on the spot, Feel free to critique it and argue against it you papal ass
Comment by plankremover — July 8, 2008 @ 6:24 am |
You wrote,
“Sorry Woody, there is a good premise but a faulty conclusion.”
Seriously, if you could just drop the editorial nonsense before you get to your point you would at least appear smarter.
This is too similar to how you always trying to denigrate my logic to the group while exposing in the same sentences the total lack of understanding of the logical process you have.
You wrote, “God was the only thing precreation,” Since this was clearly referring to the creation of the envelope of time and space in which the human experiement exists, the Bible dissagees on two levels, both metaphorically, and in an almost physical sense (“almost,” because it depends on your belief of what angelic beings are, and that is not the topic of discussion today).
You quoted;
Phillipians 2:8-9
8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
First question we must ask is; Obedient to what? (Don’t answer. Keep this in the back of your mind, it is for another day, but will prove to be quite Earth shaking. Ha Ha Ha!, For shadow!)
You used this scripture to say;
“The only way for him to die on a cross was for sinners to kill him, unless he committed suicide, which would’ve been sin and nullified his sacrifice.”
Chris already answered this on another post. This is hardly the only way. It is well within the realm of spiritual possibility that God was acting on what He knew mankind would do. He could have done this in his foreknowledge. You often seem to forget that although you do hold to predestination, the Bible is clear that God does also have foreknowledge.(Act 2:23, 1Peter 1:2) To believe what you said is to take foreknowledge away from God. And I know that you are not trying to do that.
You state;
If God exercized his foreknowledge that we all agree God has, than this statement is too narrow. And, although you have the right to believe it, it cannot be said to be absolute.
You then write;
In your view Woody Christ’s Death on the cross was a backup plan, and not something foreordained and foreplanned. This nullifies God’s omnipotence,
Bo, do not guess at what it is I hold to, ask and I will share it liberally.
You site Job 23:13
But he is unchangeable,and who can turn him back?
What he desires, that he does.
This is widely misunderstood. And you misapply it here. Just Ask Jonah, or Moses, to name a couple.
Your following conclusion is now flawed. It further illustrates your error which skewed the logic. You say:
This dichotomy cannot stand, either Christ’s death at the hands of sinners was necessitated, and therefore Sin was necessitated or God is not omnipotent and omniscient.
Not at all. This is only true for someone who does not believe in the foreknowledge of God. Hey, you and those of like mind can hold to predestination if you wish, but do not allow that to minimalize the ability of God to have and exercize foreknowledge.
The Pope Knew that you would say this. 397
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 8, 2008 @ 9:37 pm |
“I appeal to the group: Can anyone associated with the Synod justify this statement and show me how anything I have ever said would equal this statement?”
based upon my interaction with you, Woody, I can find nothing you’ve said that would equal this statement.
Comment by helpthereisaplankinmyeye — July 9, 2008 @ 7:23 am |
We must agree that the cross was not plan B
Revelation 13:8
It was the gravest act ever commited by sinners and was foreknown/foreplanned/ordained by God before creation.
Comment by Chris — July 22, 2008 @ 1:00 am |
Amen and Amen.
Comment by woodyhambrick — July 22, 2008 @ 4:00 am |