Rev. Timothy G. Muse

There's a difference between "responding" in faith (non-meritorious)(or simply believing) and doing something to merit God's grace.

In other words, having believed, ...I now repent and turn from my ways.

This is as opposed to "turning from my ways" in order that God would owe me something.

Mageth

So no one born and dead before Christ could receive God's grace?

It's terrible just to be born human in a universe ruled by such a God.

This is just a soft, namby-pamby form of Calvinism/predestination. Pure Calvinism is difficult to harmonize with the concept of a just God, so many, like you, have put this seemingly kindler, gentler spin on it.

But underlying it is the same injustice.

And note that one could deduce from the above that some who "receive" God's grace in good faith may very well end up in Hell.

Mageth

Right - you are taking action (believing, repenting, and turning from your ways) to merit God's grace. Don't, or don't do it properly, and you wont merit God's grace.

Right - do it right, and for the right reasons, and you will merit God's grace. Otherwise, you will not merit God's grace.

God's grace is conditional.

jbernier

You still have not convinced me that Paul teaches "Federal Headship." If Paul does not teach this then, no, Mageth does not err in regard to "Federal Headship" as no such teaching would exist in Paul. In short:

Adam's Federal Headship=All humanity
Christ's Federal Headship=All redeemed humanity
All humanity>All redeemed humanity
Therefore, Adam's Federal Headship>Christ's Federal Headship

However, he has a very valid point. According to your argument Adam's "Federal Headship" extends to and condemns all human beings whereas Christ's only extends to a limited number of human beings. This begs a question: How can Paul then say that the grace found in Christ's "Federal Headship" is more abundant than the condemnation found in Adam's? I think any exegesis of this passage has got to be able to take this into account.

The way out of this is to understand Paul's talk about abundance as a discussion of the qualitative difference between the unredeemed and redeemed live. Let us create imaginary numbers. Imagine that the unredeemed life has a value of -1; if that is the case, according to Paul, it is not simply that the redeemed life is +1, switching the negative to a positive. Rather the redeemed life is more like +10 - much more full of joy and fulfillment than the unredeemed life was ever full of suffering and emptiness. Or, to put it otherwise, God doesn't just turn lives around - God gives abundance of new life.

This, of course, does not negate the possibility of a "Federal Headship." However one is still left, in that model, having to deal with why Christ's "Federal Headship" is limited in extent relevant to Adam's. My model - which focusses upon the existential condition of every human being - has the advantage of making the extent the same: The extent is located within the person and refers to the extent which that person is either in Adam or in Christ. The question becomes not the extent of a putative "Federal Headship" among the entire human population but the extent to which Christ has permeated the life of the person.

Mageth

I'm a bit amazed that (some) Christians expect us to believe the stuff they're selling, or at least that we are to be held responsible for not believing it, when even they can't agree on some of the major details, as has been demonstrated on this thread (and many times elsewhere).

If Christianity is true and so eternally important, why doesn't God do a better job of communicating it? Even those that believe it can't agree on it.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

As adults, we all know that 5 X 7 = 35. Just because my son does not always get this right (or agree with me) in learning his multiplication tables ... doesn't mean that the true answer is not right, or that others should not consider it just because there is disagreement.

Mageth

The problem is, religion is not math. How the hell is anyone supposed to tell what the true answer is?

Perhaps a more apt analogy with math would be that, in religion (specifically, Christianity), you have one group saying that A+B=X, another group saying that A+B+C=X, and yet another group saying that A+D+E=X, with each being mutually exclusive (at least to some; the A+B group may accept the A+B+C group but reject the A+D+E group).

Rev. Timothy G. Muse

Isa 53:4-6 "Surely he took up our infirmities and carried OUR sorrows, ... But HE was pierced for OUR transgressions, he was crushed for OUR iniquities; the punishment that brought US peace was UPON HIM."

Col 1:18 "And HE IS THE HEAD OF THE BODY, THE CHURCH; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. "

2 Cor 5:21 "God made HIM who knew no sin TO BE SIN FOR US so that IN HIM we might become the righteousness of God."

Eph 1:3ff "Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. For he chose us IN HIM before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight... IN HIM we have redemption through his blood, ... And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed IN CHRIST, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment - to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under ONE HEAD, even Christ."

Mageth

Ezekiel 4:12 And thou shalt eat it [as] barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. 13 And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them.

Malachi 2:3 Behold, I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, [even] the dung of your solemn feasts; and [one] shall take you away with it.

Irrelevant, I know, but as long as we're posting scriptures, I thought I'd throw these gems into the pile.

Magus55

Ok, then we agree.


I don't think there is much difference between not believing its true, and not accepting that those beliefs are true. Either way, you still don't accept God.


Well, a baby is still under the penalty of sin, but I believe in an age of accountability, so I still think babies go to Heaven.


True

Well, God may not see it that way. That will be between you and Him.