Re:A Ransom to Satisfy the Demands of Love... - 2004/10/21 18:37I think we are talking at cross purposes, and we're really debating each others opinions about what we think the author is trying to say. The article specifcally says that God omitted to protect us form sin. Therefore I was asking what he should have done to protect us. So unless we can talk with the author, we are going to waste valuable time.
For my part, the article contains statements that are snatched out of the air, with no expansion, or even foundation. For example, "Those who are happy with suffering the consequences of inherited sin... such people have no use for Christ to suffer for them" Please! Who are these people!
Also, after talking of God's failure to protect us it says, "In the heavens He arranged things so that one angel's sin did not automatically condemn another, let alone all of them." What is the point of this statement? Why even make the comparison?
The main problem I have with the reasoning is that it sounds exactly like the reasoning used by violent criminals to excuse what they do.
Using this reasoning, if I had children who murdered, or died from some hideous disease, it's my fault, and I can blame my father, he can blame his, ad infinitum right back to Adam, and ultimately Jehovah. In fact, if we have no free will as the writer says, then it's not possible to sin against the spirit. Also, who will Jehovah destroy at armageddon, since the nations will only be acting out of a sinful condition.
I don't understand where the idea of Jehovah's omission could possibly have originated. If He made this mistake, then He has sinned. The fact is he omitted nothing. Jehovah created intelligent life out of love and not any of his other three cardinal qualities. That's why the sub-heading in the article of "Gods love based on righteousness" doesn't make sense. God is love. Therefore love is expressed through his other qualities not vice versa.
Returning to creation. God did not create planets and stars out of love, because they are just rock and balls of fire. Even animals, although being souls as we are, they are not created out of love because they have no free will. That's the difference.
I know there have been plenty of shots fired at the goring bull principle, but I have to go there. Satan is the bull. Jehovah is the owner. The writer says that Jehovah should have know Satan's murderous intent, and tethered him. Well as soon as Jehovah did that, free will ceases to exsist and so does God's love. Ultimately Satan wants Jehovah to tether us, to take away our free will. That's why he accused Jehovah of putting a hedge around Job, protecting him from dangers. Satan contended that if Job suffered, he would exercise his free will (that is without protection) and curse God.
Yes, Satan wants Jehovah to become the ultimate Pharisee and regulate everything we do.
| | The topic has been locked.
GermanShepherd
Visitor
Re:A Ransom to Satisfy the Demands of Love... - 2004/10/22 01:02Hermenutic ministies.non-com
Michael wrote: "The article specifically says that God omitted to protect us form sin. Therefore I was asking what he should have done to protect us."
Answer: Your first sentence is a statement of fact. The second sentence gets answered in your next quote:
Michael wrote: (quotes essay) "In the heavens He arranged things so that one angel's sin did not automatically condemn another, let alone all of them. (unquote essay) What is the point of this statement? Why even make the comparison?
Answer: The point of this statement is to provide an example of what God could have done to protect us, in answer to your question above. With the exercise of free will comes accountability for the consequences. This principle applies with equal force to God. (This last sentence implies that it is understood that we humans have no problem with the concept of personal accountability for our actions.)For the sake of brevity I did not intend to spell this out in detail, but having now done so, we are lead to an interesting question: Is it ethical to accept accountability for the consequences of the exercise of somebody else's free will [excluding, of course, those who came into existence through the excercise of our own free will] ? No, this would be dishonest, a lie! But Satan is hell-bend to trick or force people into just such an acceptance, even as he tried with righteous Job, but which he so vehemently resisted.
If now you analyze what I have just said, you might be lead to ask why it is unethical for us to accept responsibility for the consequences of misuse of free will by others, but righteous for God to do so. The answer: He is God, the originator of all, and we are not! In certain aspects we are like him, in others we are totally dissimilar. To illustrate what I mean: even the Almighty cannot ask a creature whether it approves of coming into being before he creates it; this is the same limitation that we are labouring under. Jehovah wants us to understand him, suffer the same things he has to go through, to sympathize with the unique predicaments of his position as god. That is why he made us in his image.
Michael wrote: "The main problem I have with the reasoning is that it sounds exactly like the reasoning used by violent criminals to excuse what they do.
Answer: All violent crimes can be "excused," that is, repented off, forgiven, and ultimately undone by God. All such crimes can be a result of inherited sin. To reject Jesus' sacrifice, once the Holy Spirit testifies in a persons heart - and in time it will do so with everybody - is not an inheritable reaction, is not forgivable, cannot be repented of in all eternity! A careful analysis of the essays will show that they precisely make this point.
Michael wrote: "Using this reasoning, if I had children who murdered, or died from some hideous disease, it's my fault, and I can blame my father, he can blame his, ad infinitum right back to Adam, and ultimately Jehovah. In fact, if we have no free will as the writer says, then it's not possible to sin against the spirit. Also, who will Jehovah destroy at armageddon, since the nations will only be acting out of a sinful condition."
Answer: Your "fault" or "blame" is for the consequences of your, and by extension, your childrens actions in proportion to your ability to forsee and prevent them. If you were negligent in the upbringing of your children, you are morally responsible to that extent for crimes commited by them. Be glad that your power and forsight is but very small, and that of Jehovah is limitless. Do not strive to take on his responsibility because, 1 "Who can straighten out what he has made crooked?" and 2, the one who shoulders responsibility and cleans up this mess, ends up getting the glory. Be happy with your promised lot of paradise in perpetuity and leave the glory to Jehovah!
Michael wrote: "I don't understand where the idea of Jehovah's omission could possibly have originated. If He made this mistake, then He has sinned."
Answer: Jehovah's omission to protect Adams progeny from inherited sin is a fact. See Ro.5:12, 8:20 etc. "The fathers were the ones that ate the unripe grape, but it was the teeth of the sons that got set on edge!" Jer.31:29,30 This was no mistake but deliberate action on the part of God, hence the accountability, hence the ransom sacrifice!
Michael wrote: "Jehovah created intelligent life out of love and not any of his other three cardinal qualities. That's why the sub-heading in the article of "Gods love based on righteousness" doesn't make sense.
Answer: The essay (the first one on the ransom) clearly states that God is not obliged to bring creatures into existence. The only motive for doing so is love. But once created, God owes his creatures a responsibility of care. Please think while you read.
As to the objection that Jesus' human life could not serve to appease or propitiate humans to turn to God in faith because he is less than Jehovah himself, well, it certainly was enough to reconcile me to the Father. As to the technicality of his spiritual life versus his human life, the fact is, that the whole exact representation of the very being of Jehovah went into total oblivion in the person of Jesus. That's all the Father has got to offer you. If that ain't enough for some people, I would suggest that they have got a problem. The goring bull is an illustration provided by Jehovah to give a lesson in accountability for those who are prepared to receive it. Love Hermenutic ministies.non-com
Post edited by: germanshepherd, at: 2004/10/22 10:57
| | The topic has been locked.
Michael
User Junior Boarder
Posts: 8
Re:A Ransom to Satisfy the Demands of Love... - 2004/10/22 17:45So your answer to the whole problem is - Jehovah should have created us as adults without the power to procreate.
Although, I still don't see how Jehovah's sin was paid for.
| | The topic has been locked.
servent1
Visitor
Re:A Ransom to Satisfy the Demands of Love... - 2004/10/25 23:13Hows it
Just a few questions what are we looking for herr? Is it who is at fault
If so why? of what benefit is it. I find some statements abit harsh but hey this is real study Jehovah cannot be held responsible for the actions of Adam full stop. Free will was given out of Jehovahs love, so what has happened is because of the action Adam took no one else. Jehovah is still waiting for Adams actions to play out but he has setup what is needed in order for his purpose to be fullfilled that being Jesus sacrifice ( This being the consequences of Jehovah chooseing to give us free will. This dose not mean he is responsible for the actions of Adam in anyway. Why do I say this well jehovahs action was to give life out of love to better his life. That is why we are responsible for our actions no one else not even Jehovah.
If he is responsible for Adams actions then he is responsible for every mistake we make. No Way and may that never be so
Jehovah actions are still yet to see the consequence his responsibility is providing for those who want to obey and live in harmony with his will this being his purpose.
Heaps of love Servent1
| | The topic has been locked.
Phi
Admin Admin
Posts: 278
Re:A Ransom to Satisfy the Demands of Love... - 2004/10/26 06:22Hi again Servent. Some very interesting comments bro. I hope you don't mind if I reply to your comments in the 'Scary' thread here as they are regarding the same subject. As well as being an emotionally sensitive issue it is also a rather complex one.
Adam was responsible for his choice. I agree. But Jehovah is responsible for the consequences of Adams choice for all humankind - namely suffering and death. Why? Because Jehovah, and only He, decided what the consequences of the sins of just one man would be, namely, the suffering and death of all men. Jehovah knowingly created that system. He set the consequence for Adams actions.
In short, Adam decided to rebel, but Jehovah decided beforehand that we would be punished for Adam's sin. There is no escaping that fact.
Yet Jehovah himself is shown to recognise the injustice of such an arrangement:
"The soul that is sinning - it itself shall die. A son himself will bear nothing because of the error of the father...upon his own self the very righteousness of the righteous one will come to be, and upon his own self the very wickedness of a wicked one will come to be." Ezekiel 18:20
Not so in Eden. Not so with Adam's sons and daughters. We were condemned for our 'father's' sins before we were born.
Yes, Jehovah did right in giving Adam free will, but by His own laws Jehovah did not 'do right' in creating a situation in which the free will of one man could cause the suffering and death of millions. For that, Jehovah is 'responsible'. And as I said in the 'scary' thread, how we reconcile this with the idea of a loving God is dependent on our faith.
We need to distinguish between Adam's choice to rebel, and Jehovah's choice to allow all mankind to suffer for Adam's rebellion.
We also need to recognise that free will is simply not inherantly bound up with a system of procreation in which the offspring are condemned through the actions of the parents. That is just not true. It did not have to be that way for free will to exist. If this were so, then no creatures but humans would have free will.
You posed a very interesting question Servent: "How much free will do we really have If we dont choose to obey we die?" But I'm not even gonna go there yet.
Forum 
I hope you don't mind if I reply to your comments in the 'Scary' thread here as they are regarding the same subject. As well as being an emotionally sensitive issue it is also a rather complex one.
