Quote:
Originally Posted by armourbearer  Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie 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. | God's counsel is simple. God decreed sin, He decreed death to be the punishment of sin, and He decreed Christ to die in the place of elect sinners to save them from sin. One cannot speculate what God might have done differently in one aspect without calling into question the whole series of things decreed. It is "absolutely" possible that God could have forgiven sin by a mere declaration, but then it raises a series of questions respecting what else might have been differently decreed. It is better simply to adhere to Scripture, to what is, rather than ascend the ethereal realms in order to hypothesise what might have been.
Concerning this statement respecting the god of Islam and Judaism, I cannot see what relevance this has on a system which acknowledges decretal necessity. But I do detect in the statement the idea that God must do certain things in order to be God, which is as unreformed as both Islam and Judaism. |
Matthew,
I need some clarification on the last two paragraphs you posted here.
When you say this;
Quote:
|
It is "absolutely" possible that God could have forgiven sin by a mere declaration, but then it raises a series of questions respecting what else might have been differently decreed. It is better simply to adhere to Scripture, to what is, rather than ascend the ethereal realms in order to hypothesise what might have been.
|
When I read a statement like this respecting God's decree, I do not think it is "absolutely" possible that God could have forgiven sin by a mere declaration in that I have been taught that God has always decreed whatever was most Holy and wise, in His Infinite Knowledge.
Would not the events of the cross be the most wise,Holy, and just solution possible. In that I could agree with the last part of your statement
Quote:
|
It is better simply to adhere to Scripture, to what is, rather than ascend the ethereal realms in order to hypothesise what might have been.
|
Then this part-
Quote:
|
But I do detect in the statement the idea that God must do certain things in order to be God, which is as unreformed as both Islam and Judaism.
|
[/quote].
God's " must" can only be spoken of in terms of what He Himself has sweared to do.
Quote:
13For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
|
Quote:
|
17Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:
|
Am I mis-reading the post? I am almost sure that i am missing something here.
I think the reference to God's immutability was not "in order to be God", but because He is God.