Gazza

Hi Cheryl

You have said repeatedly that Christ has bought justification for all and it has been paid for in full but that this payment is not applied universally. If I am understanding you correctly, then Jesus has paid the price for those who in remaining unrepentant will then be judged and called to pay the price again for themselves. How does this double payment reconcile with a Just God?

Hi Cheryl

I am not a Greek scholar by any means – I have no formal training in this area so as our interpretation of the Eph 2 has come down to how we understand the Greek I shall bow out. I did check on biblegateway .com and of the 21 English translations not a single version had translated the verses you quote in present tense. I would be interested if you could point me towards a translation that does?

Hi Cheryl

The Romans 6 passage dosn’t actually say anyone is dead now rather that the believers should “count themselves dead to sin” Paul then explains what being dead to sin would look like. The dead nature here is an illustration so very different to Eph.

As for the Eph 2 passage look at verse 1-4: 1As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, 2in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. 3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature[a] and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.

If being dead in transgressions is current then how does that fit with the description “as you used to be” and “lived among them at one time”? It is clearly referring to the state in which they were in before they had faith in Christ. Are the believers still objects of wrath?

Hi Cheryl
I would have thought the usage of the present text in Romans 6:11 is exactly in line with what I was saying about Eph 2:5. In the Romans passage Paul tells the believers to “count themselves dead to sin” what does this mean – they should not let sin reign in their body, they should not offer parts of their body to sin and sin should not be their master. Thus the believers in Romans are to be dead to sin in just the same way the Eph were dead to life in Christ through their transgressions before God made them alive.

So yes we are dead in transgressions when God made us alive in Christ. I do not have the benefit of a greek dictionary at hand but It would seem to me that the word translated as “even” divides this verse and that is what the translators of the NIV have been getting at with their usage of the Term “we were dead” . The present tense is referring to the current nature of being dead in transgressions when we were made alive in Christ by God in His mercy. This is also consistent with the juxtaposition of the life/death imagery. For if while alive in Christ we are still presently dead in our transgressions then it would be saying that Christs sacrifice in itself was not sufficient would it not?

TL
You said
“I cannot find any place in Scripture where God does not allow someone who desires to come to Him, to come to Him. “

I agree totally. However, scripture does say that without God opening our hearts first we will never desire to come to Him. Our sinful nature blinds us against even wanting to come to God in repentance.

Eph 2
4But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, 5made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

God MADE US alive even when we were dead and unable to act for ourselves. Our desire for God is a symptom of the new work He has begun within us. Without His work it is a desire we are unable to have as we are dead in our transgressions.

Hi Cheryl
In Post 259 you said “God is not confined to time so He lives with us in the past, present and future so there has never been a doubt about who or how many will be saved.”
Yet in Post 244 you expressed sadness that people believe “that God deliberately and unconditionally creates people to go to hell.”
I struggle to put these together. If God indeed had no doubt about who or how many will be saved then at the point he creates those who will rejet Him is He not knowingly creating someone who will go to hell?

In post 260 you said “At some point it had to be David’s own faith. He could not inherit his faith from God.” I agree fully. I would put along side that statement that everything about David was created by God. David didn’t create himself God created Him. So even though the faith is Davids own faith, it is also and expression of who God created David to be. This is different to the blessings of growing up in a Christian family etc – three are plenty of examples where brothers and sisters grow up in a Christian home some reject Christ while some accept. Their different responses are due to the fact that God created them as different people. Each makes up their own mind but it will always be a mind that God created for them.

You also said “The consistent message of Scripture is that we must trust in God and then He will do it.” I might surprise you at this point but again I fully agree with you. Indeed failing to trust in God is why people go to hell. Yet just because that is the right thing to do it does not mean that everyone will do it. What do you see is the difference between believers and non believers? To phrase it another way why do you believe some have faith while others do not?

I really appreciate the way in which you foster an environment in which people of different stances can open the bible together and endeavour to better understand scripture in love. This is the way it should but unfortunately so often is not.

Cheryl In 245
You say “The only way that He can give free choice is to accept our choice otherwise it really isn’t a choice but an ultimate decision made by Him.”
David speaks of God knitting him together in his mothers womb (Psalm 139), God made David exactly who he was.He made David trust God right from the time he left the womb (Psalm 22). As our creator He makes us exactly who we are. I did not choose to love peaches and hate apricots – its simply who I am, my brother loves them both – that is who he is, it is how God has made us. In the same way was not the love of God part of who David was? Sure it was a choice he made – I am not disputing that David chose to stick by God in tough times when he could have turned his back. But why did he choose to trust God? Where did he choose to have such fortitude? Was it not part of who God made him to be- part of his character knitted by God Himself? This also fits with Romans 9 v20 “Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’ We are who God made us to be, our choices are our own, they are the choices we want to make, when and how we want to make them. Yet God made us who we are, He chose what we would like and dislike, He chose what we would choose to do and not do. WE DO CHOOSE our actions but they are only ever an expression of the nature God gave us. Thus we are accountable if we reject Christ – it is our free choice, but it is not a surprise to the God who defined our being as He created each of us our mothers wombs.

Hi Cheryl
I have a few questions mostly arising from 243:
1. In your understanding of the sacrifice requiring acceptance was it possible that as He died Jesus could not be certain even a single person would accept His death?
2. If you have purchased the certificate and not cashed it, it is worthless, despite the price having been paid. But if it requires me to cash it to have any value then surely that is works – I can now boast that I saw the value in the certificate while the non-believer did not cash theirs, can I not?

Thanks for your response to my last post #146. Unfortunatly I was not clear enough – ever a danger with analogies. The roast dinner/ carcus was not meant to represent any individual sin but rather choosing between everlasting life (the roast) or death (the carcus). It was meant simply to highlight the fact that even our choice to follow Christ in faith is one that we are unable to make until He opens our eyes through changing our nature. Once He has done this there is no other choice for us to make, we still have free will to reject Christ and choose the carcus but we no longer desire to do so…

In Post 185 you say
No they are not. They are condemned because God chose them for destruction without any conditions. ‘Apparently He made them to go to hell so it isn’t their rejection of the gospel that sends them there.

This is exactly the thinking I was trying to anticipate with my analogy. The choice of life is there right beside the choice of death but they reject it because of their sin nature. When someone tells them the baked dinner is better they regect them because of their sin nature(in our sin nature we do believe the carcus to be better). But they are still making the choice to reject Christ and they are liable for this choice. Certainly God did not open their eyes to show them the folly of their choice but this is at Gods discretion(indeed it is the corrupt nature of sin that they would not want God to do any such thing) – it is still a choice they have made and are accountable for it.

I have been following the thread with great interest but due to Mark and Cheryls frequent and lengthy posts it has been all I am able to do just to keep up my reading. I would like to propose an analogy to help convey what I believe is the biblical teaching here. I have probably borrowed bits and pieces from others along the way. It is only an analogy, I use it because I feel it can convey a complex concept more accurately than a longer post and is more easily understood. Please see past obvious faults with the analogy but test the understanding it conveys against scripture.

In my analogy lets put a rotten carcus and a roast dinner side by side. In our sin nature we are like a vulture – we will choose to eat the rotten carcus. Our choice is made not because we don’t have access to a roast dinner – it is right beside the carcus but because we actually prefer the carcus – in our sin nature the carcus honestly seems like the right choice, the best choice. It is the choice we will always make as it is our nature to actually prefer the carcus over the roast just as the vulture does. Once God opens our eyes (Mark refers to this as being born again from my understanding) we see the carcus and the roast for what they are. We now can choose what is truly good – the roast dinner and we will choose it every time because in Christ it is now our nature to want the roast dinner. In both cases a free choice was made. In both cases the party chose what they perceived to be best. But while ever we are bound by our sin nature we are not able to choose the roast – we simply don’t want it. Once our eyes are opened we are unable to choose the rotting carcus – its very nature is revolting to us. I believe that this analogy helps as it shows that it is both our free choice to follow Christ and that we would never have been able to make that choice if God hadn’t of first altered our nature and shown us what we were really choosing. Once we understand the choice we choose heaven over hell but we needed to get past our sin nature before this was possible.

I know that this is not biblical quotation but I feel that it is a picture that is helpful to convey my understanding. This stance can be defended from and its conception was based in scripture, indeed it is a balance of biblical truths of free will and divine grace but I am travelling this weekend so will be unable to elaborate further until next week.

Hi Cheryl

Thanks for your patience I have finally joined all the dots and can see what you are saying. It leaves me with a further question – if knowledge of good and evil is entirely part of being made in the image of God then would Eve not be culpable for allowing herself to be deceived. If she already knew about evil and that it was wrong then surely choosing to believe the lies of the serpent is a willful act of rebellion?

Eph 5:6 “Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient.”

If what you are saying is true then Eve like the Ephesians knew what was right from wrong before she was deceived by the “empty words” of the Serpent and was “disobedient”, leaving her under Gods wrath. Or am I missing something else?

Hi Cheryl

If the knowledge of good and evil in chapter 3 is knowledge about good and evil then doesn’t verse 22 “become like us knowing good from evil” suggest that Adam has become more like God in his knowledge about sin in eating of the fruit? Could his understanding of good and evil not been somewhat limited while still being created in the image of God (an image is only ever a lesser resemblance) and this understanding increased with the eating of the fruit?

to put it another way:

How can God refer to an intimate knowledge of sin (experience) in the name of the tree in chapter 2, then in chapter 3 when considering Adam after eating that same fruit say Adam has “become like us knowing good from evil” (knowledge about sin) ? Though the phrases don’t use exactly the same word they refer to the effect of the same tree.

Hi Cheryl

In verse 22 God also describes man as having “become like us knowing good from evil”. As God cannot sin against Himself how do you reconcile that Adam has become like God if it is referring to him experiencing sin?

Hi Cheryl

I have a question following on from way back at post #178.

You say that the knowledge of good and evil is part of being created in the image of God and was not a result of eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. In Gen 2 v17 God Himself refers to the forbidden tree as “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil”. Does this name not indicate the nature of the fruit of the tree in the same way the name of the tree of life describes a tree which if eaten from Adam would live forever (Gen 3:22)?

I know I am jumping back a long way but it seems to me the crux of whether Eve was banished from the garden along with Adam rests on whether eating the fruit in and of itself changed her independent of motivation. If the fruit did endow them with a new knowledge then the natural meaning of Gen 3:22 would be that it is this new knowledge which is described in the text (rather than a sin nature with is a concept external to the text) that resulted in Adam being kicked out of the garden.

Hi Cheryl

A couple more questions:

Firstly in 1 Timothy 1 v14-17 Paul goes on from saying he was deceived to describing himself as the worst of sinners. He also uses this to emphasize Christ. His deception dosn’t seem to exonerate him from his sins. How does this fit with Eve who was without Christ and also deceived. Is she not left as a sinner as much of a threat as Adam?

Secondly you have said several times that Satan can only speak lies. This understanding seems to require Jesus words that came thousands of years later. If this is fundamental to the passage as you suggest how were the Israelites to understand the passage in the interim?. To put it another way is there anything in this passage (or elsewhere in genesis) that demonstrates the serpent is completely lying to Eve?

Thanks

Hi Cheryl

In vs 22 the problem with man – be it adam or mankind – is not said to be his sin nature but that he now knows good from evil – it would seem that this is a result of eating the fruit. Does Eve not also know good from evil?

It is also interesting that while God physically prevents a return to the tree of life a prohibition from eating of this fruit is never made.

Hi Cheryl
Thankyou for being willing to open the bible and explain your viewpoint from the text, I am still digesting your last answers but one follow –up question if I may:
Dosn’t living in the garden go hand in hand with eating from the tree of life and not dying (Gen 3:22)? If Eve is to die as a consequence of her sin then can she still have access to the tree?

Hi Cheryl
Thanks for posting this topic it has helped me to understand where you are coming from more fully. I was only away for a couple of days but there has certainly been a lot of talk on this topic in between!

I still have a couple of questions though:

Firstly I understand what you say about the first useage of pain in verse 16 being toil and the logic that this is to do with a shorter lifespan and more babies. The second useage you still seem to interpret as physical pain – “she will still desire her husband in spite of the pain that having his children will cause her” My question is how can a just God inflict this pain on Eve if she is indeed innocent. If she is not innocent as your statements in an answers to Mark might suggest #57 “I agree that Eve fell into sin through deception.” Then how is this pain not a punishment for her sin? – presuming that if she had not have sinned it would have been impossible for a just God to inflict pain on her.

You also make much about God judging between one sin and another – I agree with you that scripture clearly teaches that there is a disparity between sins. However, it is also clear that the consequence of any sin is severe – Leviticus 4 goes on to state that a life must be sacrificed for even an unintentional sin. How can Eve stay in the perfect garden when she no longer meets Gods standards? Surely this must be considered independently of whether Adams sin was worse than Eves – I believe that it was.

Finally I have a question of the nature of Eves deception. When Paul in Romans speaks of being deceived He was deceived as to the right way to act to please God. His persecution of Christians was an ill-informed zeal. Eve here is not deceived in how to please God – she clearly knows she is not to eat the fruit – Eve is deceived into thinking there will be no negative consequences if she does eat the fruit and that it was desirable for gaining wisdom. It would seem to me that this deception occurs despite her previously knowing what was right – if you are correct then God Himself had already told her that she would die if she merely touched it. Eve is deceived into trusting a serpent more than God. I can not see any evidence in the text that her motivation was to please God (unlike Paul) rather it is a selfish ambition to be “like God, knowing good and evil.” Is it really fair to say that Eves sin was so much less than Adams because she was deceived that she was still entitled to stay in the garden? Surely what she was deceived to believe and do was still an affront to God?

Hi Cheryl

If you are going to post in more depth on this in future I won’t press you too hard now but it has always seemed to me that “”I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children.” was a punishment. If not how is it fair that someone innocent suffers directly from the hand of God? This is not the just God that I am familiar with, what am I missing here?

Hi All

I am not clear on why Eve being deceived into sinning makes such a big difference. While Paul writes about being forgiven because he was deceived Eve here is still punished for her sin – pain in childbirth etc – Why would she be punished if she was forgiven?

Pinklight

Thanks for the clarification.

The proof of this point is quite simple. Naming in Hebrew culture was a mark of authority so the text is saying to the people it was written for that Adam is claiming authority over the animals and over the woman. The author doesn’t have to spell this out directly as it is simply understood to be the meaning of the actions just as each word we use has a meaning that has to be mutually understood by both the author and the reader. Just as if you said that someone looked you in the eye and made a promise it would be understood to be out of respect and trust in a western culture, but in many asian cultures looking someone in the eye is the height of insolence and disrespect so this same description of the same action would have an entirely different meaning.

Could you explain what significance you would place on the Hebrew context of the writing of Genesis? I get the feeling that out disparity on the importance of context is really the difference between what we both feel the passage is plainly saying. Do you understand how I can consider this a proof from the text? Is there something that I am overlooking?

If the naming is as I understand a sign of authority as it was occurring pre-fall it is reasonable to say that this authority is inline with Gods intention. Whether or not God had previously named her woman is a bit of a side point. If God had not given this authority to the man, then he would be claiming what was rightfully Gods and it would be this claim of authority, rather than eating the fruit, that would have been the first sin.

Gen 2 19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them;

Pinklight
The animals are defined as beasts of the field and birds of the air before Adam names them. This is the same amount of identification as that given to woman except there are many different types of each category as opposed to just one woman.

As for using a different word when naming the animals the text here gives extra emphasis to the reasoning and intimacy behind Adam calling her woman. I would not for a second say that Adam had authority over the animals in the same way he had authority over Eve – so there is no surprise that there is a difference here.

But none the less naming in Hebrew society does carry an authority. What happened at creation is not bound by Hebrew society. But as Genesis was written by a Hebrew for Hebrews, Hebrew society is significant. It is the context in which the original and true meaning of Gods inspired word was written into. Just as we need to translate the Hebrew words into our language we need to consider what those words meant in their Hebrew context to correctly translate the meaning conveyed to our Western mindset.

Hi Pinklight

What do you think of the narrator specifically not saying God named Eve woman but leaving that for Adam? Again the beasts of the field and the birds of the air does reveal as much as can be said about their natures in a plural form whereas Eve is the only woman. I am yet to be convinced that the narrator really distinguishes different levels of designation here.
As to Hebrew culture I would think that context for which Genesis was initially written was entirely Hebrew and thus the connotations of naming should be taken as the original intended audience would understand them – whether or not Adam and Eve spoke Hebrew themselves.

could this not be that the animals are plural – many different types where as Eve was a singular entity. Adam no more made the animals or their nature than he did Eve.

Sorry I don’t really follow the significance of Pinklights observations. I don’t see how God in making Eve a woman detracts from the significance of Adam naming her. Surely the fact that in the text it is Adam and not God who actually names Eve that Mark is saying is significant. No one would argue that Adam in anyway created Eve or her nature but rather that in naming Eve Adam is asserting his understanding that he is in a position of leadership over her (according to our understanding of the signficance of naming in Hebrew culture). Gods silence in not naming the woman could be seen as an assertion of this role. This would be true despite Pinklights observations that God made Eve according to Gods own design for woman would it not?

Hi Cheryl
Thanks again I think I am beginning to put the pieces together – #51 and #52 were particularly helpful.
I can see that God didn’t tell them how to rule the animals, nor did God say anything that that would limit the womans rule. I also agree that for the man to put anything in place that God did not would be grave indeed. However, I still see a parallel in that God also did not define here how they were to multiply. He did not restrict a man here that he could not carry a child or breastfeed – we know that from elsewhere. It seems that based just on these verses you are saying that there is no room for men and women to have different parts to play in the rule – is this a fair understanding? Or are you saying “I am saying that God does not place restrictions on the rule that would stop a woman from exercising her God-given ability.” –in this verse? (not to necessarily say that God does in any other verse) I am just trying to more fully understand your position. But I have much food for thought.
I appreciate the time you have taken to be clear in your understanding of scripture Thanks

Hi Pinklight
Firstly regarding #41 I was actually refereeing to verse 28 not 29 – got my referencing mixed up.
Re# 42 I fully agree that they both have equal rulership – just as they have equal parts to play in multiplying – but we know for sure that in multiplying each has a different role to play so how is it different when it comes to rulership
Re #44 You say that God gave the command to multiply or “be fruitful and increase in number” but not parenthood. I fear that we are merely dealing with semantics; I used the term parenthood, although it was not in the text to sum up the process God was anticipating in the command being fruitful and increasing.
Either way God commanded them to multiply and God clearly created male and female thus creating the requirement for each to fulfil a different role to multiply. Though it cannot be done by either alone each has to do their bit or it won’t happen. It is exactly because multiplying can not be done that each has to fulfil their role to obey the command.
Re #43
You ask “What exactly has been said that is beyond what is conveyed in the text?” I feel that Cheryls statement “ Where is the difference in design here? There is no difference at all. There is only equality.” Goes beyond the text as I have explained previously I feel that the text open to the possibility of roles within the equality – I still don’t feel that anyone has pointed out why this is can not be so.

Hi Pinklight
I would feel that there are a great many ways in which a task may be shared by two people (or genders) without each exactly mimicking the other. I don’t think that verse 29 really speaks to the idea that the roles are identical. Am I wrong here? I am not yet certain of what I believe the roles may or may not be – just that I feel that some of the assertions that have been made towards uniformity are going beyond what is actually conveyed in the referenced text. Looking only at Gen 1 I don’t think that I could limit what distinctions were possible. Am I missing something here?

Dear Cheryl
Thanks again for your prompt reply – sorry for the delay in my response – I am writing from Australia so I think I am reading your posts while you sleep.

In #19 you said “in the area of work and effect of rulership that God gave by design to both, there is no difference at all.” and
In #20 you said “They are dealt with together because they have a design that makes them recipients of the same design for ruler of this world. Does this make sense?”

I still fail to see how the text defines this interpretation. In post #19 you said
“What I am getting at is that everything that is given to the man and the woman is given to them both without division.” I agree fully

but your next sentence “In contrast the very nature of “roles” brings division.”

Is where I am having trouble keeping up. I know we have mentioned it twice already but parenthood was a task given equally to both but with distinct roles within it. Neither the father or mother is any less of a parent but the father will never carry the child and give birth – that is simply the mothers role. I do not think the fact that they are physical distinctions means they are any less intended by God and so I don’t think that they can be so simply dismissed. The main issue to me is if there are distinct roles in this part of the promise that are not precisely defined in the text (and it would seem that we agree that there are) how can you state so strongly that there are not similar distinctions in rule? Ie Is it not possible that both the man and the women are equally rulers of creation just as they are equally parents with different roles that are not defined in this verse?

It is the absolute certainty with which you interpret 1:28 that leaves me feeling like I am missing something important.

Hi Cheryl
Re #10 Thanks for your reply. I don’t think that this particular section says anything about a distinction in roles. I guess my question is how can you say
“Where is the difference in design here? There is no difference at all. There is only equality.”
When with exactly the same promise the division of mother and father is there. I am not suggesting that this section of text defines roles at all but can not see how it precludes them. Is there something that I am not seeing in the text that deals with these two parts independently?