05-19-2008, 05:59 PM
|
 | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 4,465
Thanks: 763
Thanked 637 Times in 410 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by victorbravo  Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius This question is not one of mere speculation, though, and in the section to which I am referring Calvin makes statements about forms of mediation that would and would not have been possible. It's not a "foolish question" to ask whether bulls and goats could have atoned for us if God had decreed such. Hebrews seems to make it clear that these types were merely symbols, not efficacious. The mediator could not have been merely God, because of X reason. He could not have been merely man, for Y reason. It could not have been an angel or animal for Y reason. Calvin readily admits these things in II.21.1. As soon as we admit this, aren't we implying some sort of necessity? It was not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to make atonement for our sins, hence it seems to me, again, as though the decree of God here is particularly concerned with whether the God-man will be sent, and that some kind of necessity does play into the uniqueness of the God-man's ability to atone for us. Or would you say that God could have decreed that we be saved by the blood of bulls and goats? My argument above was that to say so does not "limit" God anymore than the question about the rock.
What do you think about the appearance of Christ in the OT? Are there other threads about this? | Just to be clear, I don't think your questions are foolish ones. 
What I was trying to say is that whenever Calvin states a position, he draws it from scripture and doesn't want to go farther. Bulls and goats aren't enough, because it says so in scripture. If it didn't say so in scripture, the door would be open to the question. And so forth.
I did a search on "theophany" for past posts on the board, I didn't find very much. But I found this nugget from Bruce that touches on the issue of necessity: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/why-...33/#post144150 | The passage by Bruce is great. It's that sort of thing that I'm talking about. God is "constrained" to be just because of his nature. He "can't" forgive sin without some kind of atonement. It is "necessary" that satisfaction be made. From this it does not seem to me a big leap to apply the same principle to the nature of the Mediator. God doesn't have to forgive sinners, but if he chooses to, Christ must necessarily be the Mediator.  |