[
Replying to post 210 by For_The_Kingdom]
You cannot have "free will" and not be without sin..because eventually, you will make a bad decision.
Correct. This is why it is impossible for salvation to be dependent upon one's free will. Free will has nothing to do with salvation. This is why Paul says, "not by will or effort" Rom.9:16.
Obviously, that is what separates us (angels included) from God.
The angelic host of heaven had a choice, and those who remained obedient to God will never sin. They effectively have no choice. It's what we call "a no brainer". They don't have to think about it.
We will eventually make bad decisions, while God will NEVER make a bad decision.
No, we will eventually never make bad decisions again, but only if God shows mercy upon us and chooses to regenerate our hearts.
Angels are not excluded from this.
Fallen angels have sinned, and continue to sin, but those who remain obedient will never sin.
Now, I am in no way saying that I know of any "atonement" arrangements that God has/had with the angels.
That's because there is no atonement for them. They await their judgement in chains.
But clearly, angels can sin...and there is nothing to lead me to believe that if angels have free will, that they are incapable of committing sin.
Only fallen angels can sin, and they are the only one's who are free to sin. The faithful angelic host of heaven cannot sin.
shnarkle wrote:
The "new creature in Christ" is also without sin, and neither of these are God.
Paul said we all sin and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom 3:23).
You're not rightly dividing the word. Pay attention to the context as well as the fact that while everyone is born in sin, those who are begotten in spirit cannot sin. This is why the curse of the law becomes redundant. There is no need to rely upon the sacrifice of Christ when one no longer sins anymore. Paul is clear: "Those who walk after the Spirit do NOT fulfill the lust of the flesh".
shnarkle wrote:
Quote:
a. 2 Corin 5:21 "For He made Him...
Who made who? God made him, and God is not a work of creation.
Matt 27:24-26 implies that Pilate "made" Jesus to be a victim of an unjustified execution. But "made" in this context has nothing to do with creation in either case.
A distinction with no effective difference. In both cases, it is clear who has the authority. Jesus even admits that Pilate's authority in condemning him is according to God's will.
shnarkle wrote:
Paul clarifies by pointing out that Christ is "the image of the invisible God". The word he uses for "image" in the Greek is "eikon" which should never be confused with "idol". An icon is a representation while an idol is worshipped as the god itself.
Christ is the visible image of the invisible God, which harmonizes with the Word becoming flesh (visible, physical) and making his dwelling among us...as John 1:14 clearly states.
And yet you aren't advancing your argument here. Nothing you just posted provides any evidence to refute the fact that an icon can never be what or who they represent. The word becomes flesh, not God.
shnarkle wrote:
The Father didn't take on human form. The "word" took human form, and the word is distinguished from God.
I said "if", didn't I?
So what? Your conditional statement has just been proven false.
It is certainly within the power of God to take the form of a human if he chooses to do so,
No, it isn't. God is the source of everything that exists, and the source cannot remain the source if it exists as anything in the created world.
and I am saying, along with Scripture, that if the Father chose to do so, he would be the PERSON of Jesus.
No, you are contradicting scripture. You are basing these assertions solely on your own baseless assumptions.
Which is why Jesus said "If you seen me, you seen the Father".
Just like looking into a mirror, but that doesn't make what is reflected a mirror, does it? The image is what is reflected, and the image can only be reflected by the mirror. Without the mirror, there is no reflection to begin with. See the problem with your assertions yet? This is why the authors use the word "image" or "eikon", rather than "idol".
shnarkle wrote:
Paul also does the same thing in 1.Corinthians 8:6 where he explicitly distinguishes the father as God from Christ. The father is the source of all that exists while Christ is the means by which everything exists.
But no one is saying that the Father/Son are the same person, so to attack a position not held is a straw man.
I'm not claiming that the father is the son. I'm pointing out that Paul explicitly states that the father is God. Nowhere does he ever claim that the Christ is God. What he does is to distinguish the two and only the Father is God.
shnarkle wrote:
Quote:
If the Father is God, and Jesus said to see him is to see the Father, then Jesus must also be God. This just follows logically.
No, it doesn't. Again, the image is not what it reflects. It is the reflection of what is reflected. Christ is the image of God, and while the image is all that exists, it is still the image.
Actually, it does. It was being suggested to Jesus that he SHOW them the Father..and Jesus said that if you see him, you see the Father.
You're ignoring what I posted. The father cannot be seen except through the son. This doesn't make the son God. That is a non sequitur. Again, using the descriptive terminology employed by the authors themselve, it should become evident that what is seen is the "image" rather than what the image represents. The image cannot represent anything because "all things are created". God is not a "what" or a "thing". God cannot be classified. You're assuming that God can be seen in the first place, and that is impossible. We even have a commandment forbidding you from imagining what God looks like.
In other words, why do you need to see the Father, who is God, when you have "God" right in in front of you.
Sorry, you're still resorting to the fallacy of the non sequitur. You're also begging the question. You're assuming that Christ is God as proof that Christ is God. Again, I've used scripture to refute these false assumptions. You're not advancing an argument.
considering the fact that the answer that Jesus gave Philip (who made the suggestion) would have been insufficient, based upon the obvious fact that Jesus isn't the Father and thus seeing him would not be "good enough", if Philip was asking for the Father and simply got a "image" of the Father instead of the Father himself.
This is incoherent, and wihtout anything to support it.
shnarkle wrote:
Because we're dealing with a "representation" rather than who is represented. If God shows up, then God needs no representative in the first place.
Um, we are all "supposed" to be presentations of God/Christ...but no one is going around saying that they are the "perfect" or "exact" representation of God/Christ...as what the Bible clearly stated that Jesus is.
We're all called to perfection. You're making my points for me. Adam was created in the image of God, and he wasn't God either. We're all created as icons of God, and we're not God either.
That may be what we strive to be, but that ain't who we are.
Those who strive will fail. To strive is to place oneself into the Old Covenant, and that makes you who you are, which is a failure. When you are redeemed and reborn, then your identity is lost in Christ. Perfection is attained in, with, and through Christ.
shnarkle wrote:
The righteousness of God is God's righteousness, but what is God's is not God himself. God's glory is not God himself, but God's glory. God's image is not God, it is God's image.
?
The Genitive of Possession cannot be the verb to be. You cannot be what you have. If you have a body, you cannot be a body. If you are a body, then you cannot have a body. If God has righteousness, then it is his righteousness. He is not righteousness. Christ is the righteouesness of the father. The rightousness may originate in the father, but that once again only spotlights where it originates. Christ manifests God's righteousness, but that doesn't negate the fact that it is God's, and what is God's cannot be God without redefining what can never be defined in the first place.
shnarkle wrote:
The introduction to John's gospel does not begin with "in the beginning was God" because the word "God" has no referent in the created world. The meaning of the word is synonymous with transcendence. The only other alternative is the ideas we come up with to associate with the word.
For anything to exist, requires existence. God is the origin of existence, therefore God cannot exist without ceasing to be the origin of existence. The problem is that the origin of existence or being cannot logically exist.
I see what you are trying to say...
No, you don't.
...but there is no "origin" of existence.
Yes, there is. Paul is quite clear in pointing out that God is the origin of everything that exists, and nothing can exist without existence or being.
Existence is absolutely positively necessary,
So true! And yet, you are still ignoring what Paul explicitly points out which is that Christ is eternal, and yet his origin is in the father.
and with that necessity is God.
No, that necessitates Christ, and God as the origin, which is exactly what Paul is pointing out in 1 Corinthians 8:6
