Posted on 08/13/2003 6:04:31 PM PDT by OrthodoxPresbyterian
If being born again means that we are born from above or born of God, then the new creation occurs in eternity as that is where God dwells.
Isa 57:15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy...
Do you assume that God lives in a temporal universe? Do you assume that God is trapped in the same time dimension as man? Is God's existence linear or is it infinite? Is it temporal or is it eternal?
BTW you ignored the essence of my post and instead changed the subject to concentrate on that which is essentially irrelevant to the question posed.
Why was the cross necessary if God is able to regenerate man and give him his new birth in Christ before he repents and believes? Indeed, you Calvinists believe that Man must first be born again before he can repent and believe, hence repentance and belief are totally irrelevant to salvation. Repentance and belief then become the byproducts of Salvation rather then the other way around. No matter how you look at it there is a temporal order. The Arminians make the cross the focal point of salvation. The Calvinists make the cross redundant.
Partly correct.
The Calvinist holds to what is known as the "Substitutionary View" of Christ's atoning work on the cross.
The Substituionary View is that a perfectly "Just" God requires that the transgression of our sins needs to be paid for in full.
Now, either we pay for our sins by eternal condemnation (since we are unable to atone our own sins, that is the only possibility)
-OR-
Christ actually pays the price for our sins -each and every one- on the cross.
This is why Christ needed to be both God and man and why Christ needed to live an absolutely perfect life.
As the Arminian John Miley describes the Substitutionary View:
If other cardinal doctrines of Calvinism are true, its doctrine of atonement is true. It is an integral part of the system, and in full harmony with every other part of it. The doctrines of divine sovereignty and decrees, of unconditional election to salvation, of the effectual calling and final perseverance of the elect, and that their salvation is monergistically wrought as it is sovereignly decreed, require an atonement which in its very nature is and must be effectual in the salvation of all for whom it is made. Such an atonement the system has in the absolute substitution of Christ, both in precept and penalty, in behalf of the elect. He fulfills the righteousness which the law requires of them, and suffers the punishment which their sins deserve. By the nature of the substitution both must go to their account. Such a theory of atonement is in scientific accord with the whole system. And the truth of the system would carry with it the truth of the theory. It can admit no other theory. Nor can such an atonement be true if the system be false.
The Atonement in Christ, p. 22
On the other hand, the Arminian needs to deny the Substitutionary View because if Christ actually paid the price for the transgression of the sins of men ~AND~ if Christ, indeed, died "for everbody" on the cross, then ~everybody's~ sins would have been paid for and there would be no justification for anybody to be punished at all let alone for eternity.
Therefore, most consistent Arminians (they tend to be all over the place) believe in the "Governmental View" of Christ's atoning work on the cross.
As the Arminian Benjamin Field declared:
Christ did not pay the sinner's debt in the sense in which the objector understands that phrase. It is only in a loose sense that the death of Christ may be thus spoken of. He did a something in consideration of which it is now quite consistent with God's character as a moral Governor…"
The Student's Handbook of Christian Theology (New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1889) p. 180
So, according to Arminianism, Christ did a "something" on the cross.
Therefore, it is in the Arminian system that the Cross really is unnecessary. If Christ only did a "something" and didn't actually pay the price for the sins of the men he died for, then why was it ~necessary~ that he die on the cross to begin with?
In other words, if Christ on the cross only received a percentage (less than 100%) of God's anger and wrath on account of man's sins and then man can be saved, why was it necessary that he go to the cross at all?
On the other hand, Calvinism as John Miley acknowledges, is the only system where Christ's death actually paid the price for man's sins. Therefore, Christ's work on the cross is absolutely necessary for Salvation according to Calvinism.
That is not so with Arminianism.
Jean
My eyes were wide open, figuratively, and the last thing anyone would call me is irrational.
I'll confess to Jesus, the Mormon Jesus, but God will honor that confession because I can't comprehend the kingdom of God until after I'm born again. All that matters is that I have some kind of confession and some kind of belief. It doesn't even matter if I change the gospel or if I change any verse.
Just what else did you know about the Kingdom of God prior to accepting Christ as your personal Savior besides the fact that you are a sinner who cannot meet the standard of perfection, that God sent his Son so that whosoever believes on him shall have everlasting life? Why are you making any reference to Mormonism; the only God is the Triune God of The Holy bible? Besides, what difference does it make as long as one has accepted Jesus Christ as one's personal Savior?
It makes sense. I bet you think that the Bible isn't really translated correctly either. To which version are you referring? For the most part, all translations that rely upon the most ancient and complete works are cewrtrainly suitable for use and correctly translated. Are you so without sin in your life that you can afford to split hairs on minor and pretty much inconsequential issues?
Arminians believe that, but so do others besides Arminians.
Both would say that an item purchased is not necessarily an item accepted/applied.
However, as I've discussed with Woody, your logic is sound. If the price has been paid for everyone, then where is the necessity, what is the point, for punishing anyone?
That is why it's necessary to address the applying of the purchase.
This is different than the group that says "God CHOOSES not to look."
I am toying with the idea of "specified intervention" in which God HAS ALREADY PLANNED where to intervene. I don't know anyone else writing on that subject. Do you?
Really? I was always under the impression that Christ already PAID the price for my sins and that what I need to do is confess them and repent. Your comment seems to be at odds with the concept of absolute predestination and foreordination. If God foreordained every sin as some of you Calvinists proclaim, why couldn't Christ have paid for those sins in advance, and if Christ did, the sins of the elect would have already been attoned. On top of that, if God foreordained all sins, how can man be responsible for something he did not have a free will to choose or reject?
Just answer the main point. Why was the cross necessary if God is able to regenerate man and give him his new birth in Christ before he repents and believes?
Quit trying to avoid the question. After you answer the question then you can challenge my God dwelling in eternity theory.
Try again.
BTW if God inhabits eternity and God acts to regenerate man, then the act of God to regenerate man occurs in eternity. If that doesn't satisfy you then "I can't help you, Sundance."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.