Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie I don't think that those of us in favour of the the absolute necessity of the atonement would say God is enslaved to "nature", but that He saves sinners in a manner consistent with His attributes. Rutherford's view means that God would have to be somebody else; as He could have saved sinners while His justice remained unsatisfied. Hence, He would not be a "just God and Saviour". | "Absolute necessity" means God could not have done it any other way. That makes Him bound to one course of action in order to produce a specified outcome. This is not in accord with the fundamental concept of reformed thought -- the freedom of God. "Decretal necessity" as espoused by earlier reformed thought means that God decreed what served most for His glory. Given that fact, it can hardly be claimed that Rutherford's view makes God somebody else. It lets God be God -- acting how He chooses, not bound by a second God called "nature." | So how else could God have saved sinners in a manner consistent with His justice? God is bound by His own nature, therefore, Paul says that He "cannot lie." God cannot save sinners by setting aside the demands of His justice; that is what the "god" of Islam and Judaism does.
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
|