Does Free Will Require a Redeemer?

[4study]

Yelsew,

Well then let's take the "If Adam didn't sin" scenario to its logical conclusion. We would not be having this conversation! He did sin, so we are!

I assure you this isn't a waste of time. What one believes about God, Adam, and Eden is foundational.

Besides, it is the premise for the argument of this thread. If we take the premise for granted, we assume every other argument we make is valid. But if the premise is messed up, we "got off on the wrong foot".

This is what Ken H. said before saying "if Adam had not sinned".

Apparently, there are at least some advocates of free will that believe that we all have the same free will that Adam did.

If this is true, then wouldn't that mean that it would be possible for a person to live his life without committing a sin and, therefore, have no need of a Redeemer?

 

[4study]

russell55,

Of course, if "redeemer" is part of God's essense, does that mean God needed for people to need something to be redeemed from, so he needed for them to sin?

It all depends on what you think "redemption" is all about.

 

[4study]

russell55,

Let's put this another way. A redeemer is someone who buys someone back from something--who frees someone from something. God redeemed Israel from slavery in Egypt, and Christ redeems us from slavery to sin. If Adam hadn't sinned would we have needed someone to redeem us--to act as a redeemer on our behalf?

Again, this all depends upon your concept of "redemption".

Here are some things to think about...(not necessarily meant to be responded to).

Does redemption only come when it is needed?
Does redemption only apply to individuals?
How is redemption accomplished?
What does Eph. 1:14 mean ("the redemption of the purchased possession)?
Did God lose something?
Why is God "buying back" what is proprietarily His?

 

[romanbear]

Larry ;
I was not proven wrong the information that Npertreley gave was not evidence of anything. I wrote the people at the site he suggested and they refused to give me a source, because the statement stated there, belong to the man who owns the site .I gave Npretley my reference's why should I apologize for something when there was nothing for me to apologizes for. He later came back and confirmed at least part of what I had originally said and he didn't apologizes to me. I think the reason he left was because he embarrassed him self. You see Larry you should read about what you claim. You should be better informed.

While we are on the subject of trying to destroy one another, lets not bring Ray in it. Although you question his credentials all the time. I question yours and you do not make your life an open book do you. I don't believe you are qualified as a preacher or that you are even really a pastor. I think that the only reason you are here everyday is because some how you've gotten the idea that it's your calling. Is it also your calling to judge all who come here.

I know one thing for sure the Church that I go to the pastor is kept so busy he doesn't have the time to get on the internet and argue with people. We only have 125 members.

If in fact if you are a pastor tell us a little about where you went to school and what you read tell us about what life is like being a pastor. Where is your credentials. By the way Larry I've decided that answering your post is a useless task and accomplishes little or nothing.From now on I won't post or answer anything from you like this. Say what you want to Larry. I will only continue to contradict what you say about topics.

I no longer want to play your games of belittling one another.
Romanbear

 

[Yelsew]

Apparently, there are at least some advocates of free will that believe that we all have the same free will that Adam did.

If this is true, then wouldn't that mean that it would be possible for a person to live his life without committing a sin and, therefore, have no need of a Redeemer?

If this were true, the First man in the Perfect garden could have done it. But God made man with the ability to sin! The first man exercised that ability, and so do all who come after the first. Our sins are not Adams sin, they are ours, and it matters not that Adam just happened to be the first to sin.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by romanbear:
I was not proven wrong the information that Npertreley gave was not evidence of anything.

You had Arminius's wife being killed some 15 years before they were married (if I remember correctly). That seems wrong by any standard I know. But whatever ... that's fine.

While we are on the subject of trying to destroy one another, lets not bring Ray in it. Although you question his credentials all the time. I question yours and you do not make your life an open book do you.

I will answer any question you ask (within reason). I bring Ray into because Ray and I have had that conversation and my point was that people can claim anything. It is the truth that matters.

I think that the only reason you are here everyday is because some how you've gotten the idea that it's your calling. Is it also your calling to judge all who come here.

I don't judge anyone really. I compare what is said against what I know from Scripture and see if there are contradictions and then try to determine what is right.

If in fact if you are a pastor tell us a little about where you went to school and what you read tell us about what life is like being a pastor. Where is your credentials.

Gladly I will mention it again. I am not sure it is wise to do it here though. What I will do is send you a private message with that information. That way there will be no suspicion that I am lording my education over others here.

By the way Larry I've decided that answering your post is a useless task and accomplishes little or nothing.From now on I won't post or answer anything from you like this.

That will be fine with me. It will keep me from having to respond as well.

I will only continue to contradict what you say about topics.

do you think it might be wise first to consider whether what I say is right?? I mean starting off with the intention of contradicting what I say might not be a wise starting place. I would suggest that you may first consider what I have to say to see if it is true and then respond accordingly. You might not have to contradict it.

I no longer want to play your games of belittling one another.

That was never a game I was involved in. I made a simple suggestion that would have been very helpful. After our conversation about somethings, I went and did some reading and research to learn more. That is all I am asking from you.

 

[russell55]

Oops--double post...

[ March 04, 2003, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[russell55]

Again, this all depends upon your concept of "redemption".

Well, can you find anywhere in scripture where "redemption" is used for anything other than

1. Freeing Israel from physical bondage?

2. Freeing people or creation from the results
of sin--breaking the bonds of slavery to sin, freeing people from the dominion Satan, freeing creation from the corruption that entered because of sin?

Whatever your concept is, it ought to match up with the way scripture uses the word.

 

[4study]

russell55,

I didn't intend to get into a discussion about "redemption" (tt is a very broad, deep topic). So I'll try to keep this short.

You had said,

A redeemer is someone who buys someone back from something--who frees someone from something.

To me, redemption covers many other areas other than "liberty". There are many other areas in scritpure regarding redemption other than numbers "1" and "2" that you mentioned.

 

[russell55]

There are many other areas in scritpure regarding redemption other than numbers "1" and "2" that you mentioned.

But they all have to do with being redeemed from the problems caused by sin, do they not?

 

[4study]

russell55,

But they all have to do with being redeemed from the problems caused by sin, do they not?

Not in my estimation. For example, was Israel's bondage to Egypt a result of sin?

 

[4study]

Pastor Larry,

Any further remarks? I'd be interested in your responses to my last post to you. Thanks.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Very quickly for sake of time ...

Originally posted by 4study:
Can we dissect Jesus into parts? Is He Redeemer only part of the time? If so, then what about His other "parts". Is He Creator/Sustainer only part of the time? I'm sure would say "of course not". Then why not say the same of Him as Redeemer? Is Redeemer who Christ is or not? If not, then who is Christ? For whoever Christ is, is God.

I don't think anyone is dissecting him into parts. That is not the issue. IMO, your thinking is too compartmentalized by saying that because Adam did not need Christ as a redeemer that he did not need him at all. Christ is more than a redeemer. And before there was sin to be redeemed from, Christ was still there.

So "Adam knew God apart from Christ"? How can this be? Are there two ways to know God?

Because Christ had not yet been revealed. Adam knew God personally and through revelation. In the OT, people knew God through his revelation, not through Christ. They also knew God through creation. So, yes, there is more than one way to know God. Now don't misunderstand. Today, God cannot be fully known and savingly known apart from Christ.

If Christ is "the propitiation" and "the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world", when is God not "a redeemer"? Is there any time in God's existence that "redemption" is not there?

God was not a redeemer when there was no sin. God is not a redeemer for those who do not come to him. God is a judge for them. I simply think you are making a mountain out of a molehill on this point.

I think your attempt to say that because Adam didn't need a redeemer, he didn't need God is totally without base in Scripture.

 

[Ray Berrian]

"Does Freewill Require a Redeemer?"

No, all people are in need of the only Redeemer who we call Christ. He died for all people. [I John 2:2]

 

[4study]

Pastor Larry,

Again, thanks for your response.

I don't think anyone is dissecting him into parts. That is not the issue. IMO, your thinking is too compartmentalized by saying that because Adam did not need Christ as a redeemer that he did not need him at all. Christ is more than a redeemer. And before there was sin to be redeemed from, Christ was still there.

IMO, Christ cannot be separated from the concept of redemption. Or any other attribute like “creator” and/or “sustainer”.

To reiterate, my comments concerning Adam’s need for Christ is based upon Ken H’s statement, “if Adam had not sinned, there would be no need for a redeemer”. I’m suggesting this is a false theory.

Because Christ had not yet been revealed. Adam knew God personally and through revelation. In the OT, people knew God through his revelation, not through Christ. They also knew God through creation. So, yes, there is more than one way to know God. Now don't misunderstand. Today, God cannot be fully known and savingly known apart from Christ.

I sincerely find this point of view interesting and so have the following comments.

According to scripture, “there is one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus”. Did Adam not need a mediator (before the transgression)?

According to scripture, Christ is “the image of the invisible God”. Can God be known without “the image”? If so, how is it possible? What scripture supports the idea that Adam knew God any other way than through Christ?

How did Adam know (or have a relationship with) God without Christ? If there is such a possibility, then yes, there are two ways to know God. One for Adam and one for the rest of mankind. Do the scriptures support such a “special case” for Adam?

God was not a redeemer when there was no sin. God is not a redeemer for those who do not come to him. God is a judge for them. I simply think you are making a mountain out of a molehill on this point.

When was there “no sin”? What about Lucifer?

Again, you’re separating God from the concept of “redemption”. You’re implying “redemption” is only an action. I believe it is part of revelation and thus “who God is”.

To you, I may be blowing this out of proportion, however, these things are important because it regards what one believes about God. What one believes about God has everything to do with one’s relationship with him.

 

[Sularis]

Sin requires a redeemer

Does Free Will preclude sin

Theres your answer

and npet if yer still on board Ive finished the draft and rough outlines - and am working on the rough draft atm

 

[russell55]

Oops, another DP.

 

[russell55]

IMO, Christ cannot be separated from the concept of redemption. Or any other attribute like “creator” and/or “sustainer”.

I don't think creator and sustainer are attributes, either. They, like redeemer, are functions of God--things God does, and things that only God could do, things that arise out of His attributes, but not attributes.

Attributes are things that are essential to God being God--without those things He would not be God. Wouldn't God be God even if he had never created? Wasn't God sufficient in Himself so that he didn't need something to redeem, or create, or sustain in order to be God?

(This doesn't mean that God isn't the only one who could be the redeemer, creator, sustainer. Obviously, only God could do those things, and without a God who does those things, we are in deep trouble. It just means that these are not part of His essential being.)

[ March 06, 2003, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: russell55 ]

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by 4study:
According to scripture, “there is one mediator between God and men, the man, Christ Jesus”. Did Adam not need a mediator (before the transgression)?

I would say no because there was no sin to be mediated. A mediator works between two disjunct parties. Before the fall, Adam and Eve walked with God in the cool of the afternoon.

According to scripture, Christ is “the image of the invisible God”. Can God be known without “the image”? If so, how is it possible? What scripture supports the idea that Adam knew God any other way than through Christ?

Yes. In the OT, God was known even though Christ had not yet come. He is know by his revelation. This is supported in Scripture by the total lack of reference to Christ in the relationship between God and Adam. God is known through creation (rom 1).

How did Adam know (or have a relationship with) God without Christ? If there is such a possibility, then yes, there are two ways to know God. One for Adam and one for the rest of mankind. Do the scriptures support such a “special case” for Adam?

Adam had a relationship with God by faith in his revelation. This is the same way that we have a relationship with God. It has always been that way. Man has never had a relationship with God apart from faith.

So are there two ways to know God? Well, technically speaking yes. The OT person knew him through verbal revelation and general revelation. We know him through Christ via verbal revelation. That is not the same as saying there are two ways to have a relationship with God or two ways to be saved.

When was there “no sin”? What about Lucifer?

What about eternity past, when there was not even a creation?? Was God the redeemer then??

Again, you’re separating God from the concept of “redemption”. You’re implying “redemption” is only an action. I believe it is part of revelation and thus “who God is”.

I disagree. I can conceive of God without redemption. Scripture seems to clearly indicate. God is not a redeemer to everybody. I think redeeming is a part of the wonderful works of God. The key thing here is that we don't separate redemption from the person of God.

 

[4study]

Pastor Larry,

Although we disagree, I think I understand your perspective. However, I must clarify something. In these comments, I’ve meant “to know” as “to have a relationship with”. Are you saying Adam had a relationship with God apart from Christ?

In the OT, God was known even though Christ had not yet come.

Point taken, however, I would question your understanding of God’s revelation of Himself. Does God reveal Himself outside or apart from The Son? John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Adam had a relationship with God by faith in his revelation.

And what are the specifics of this “revelation”? Did God reveal Himself to Adam apart from The Son? Was Adam able to “see” and “know” the “invisible God” that according to scripture “no man hath seen”?

Before the fall, Adam and Eve walked with God in the cool of the afternoon.

Who “walked” with them if it wasn’t The Son? Does the “invisible God” use some other means other than "the image" to project Himself to His creatures?