Featured Obligation with ability

The fallacy in that argument is more than a little remarkable to anyone familiar with the system of Animal sacrifices given to Israel with the explicit purpose of dealing with sin and obtaining forgiveness.

ALL were "saved by grace through faith" from Adam onward - covered under the ONE Gospel "from Adam onward" and Paul points out that the "Gospel was preached to Abraham" Gal 3:7-8 as well as in Heb 4:1-2 "The Gospel was preached to US just as it was to THEM also".

The Gospel of God from the fall of man onward included the moral law of God written on the heart (Even the "Baptist Confession of Faith" admits to this) - and the promise of forgiveness illustrating Christ under the types of the animal sacrifices.

"They all drank from the same Spiritual ROCK (Petra) and that ROCK was Christ" 1Cor 10.

The Nation had not sinned when it swore allegiance to God - though some individuals likely sinned that very day - but no objection from God in heaven. Because they had a model, a system for mediation and forgiveness.

The "God is unreasonable so don't complain if we present him that way to the world" argument that Calvinism "needs" to rely upon - is flawed.

Hence the "Lament of God - vs Calvinism's Gospel saboteur" thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The fallacy of this argument is also revealed by simply looking at the ACTUAL purpose of the Law rather than the perceived purpose of the Law from the perspective of Israel. This is revealed by answering some simple questions:

1. Can anyone attain righteousness through keeping the law?
2. Was the purpose of the Law to attain righteousness in the first place? If not, what was it's purpose?
3. How can man attain righteousness, if not through the law?
4. Is proof that man cannot attain righteousness through law keeping also proof that man cannot attain righteousness through other gracious means set forth by God in scripture? If so, why?
5. Are their people in heaven and in hell who broke the laws of God? If so, what is the distinction between those finally condemned to Hell and those granted entrance into Heaven? What does that difference tell us about what actually condemns a man?

 

They weren't condemned for their inability to keep the law. If your argument is correct, then no one from Moses until Christ is in Heaven. They couldn't be justified through the law, or saved by the sacrifices. They were saved by faith, same as today.

Just like now, there were people who obeyed the law as much as possible, sacrificed what they needed to, and still ended up in Hell. It wasn't about the law or sacrifices. It was about faith that the Messiah would come and make the ultimate sacrifice for their sins. If they were trusting in a physical lamb, then they ended up in Hell. If they trusted in God's promise, they were saved.

 

RIGHT!!! And that is what the law was sent to teach us. It was never intended as a means for us to attain righteousness, thus to point to our inability to attain righteousness through it is fallacious. "The righteous will live by faith."

 

Where does scripture say that this can be applied this way? And where does scripture say that men cannot or could not keep the law sinlessly or lacked the ability. ( not saying it doesn't I just want to see your clear scriptural case)

I don't know how they do it, But what I know from scripture is that the law was our schoolmaster to show us that we are sinners in need of a Savior (Galatians 3:24) Its intent was never to prove obligation without ability.

Which is another passage that was never intended to be used in that manner. That is not the context of that passage. It is simply there to show that as sin came into the world by one man it is resolved by one man.

 

the Law reveals the violation history of the lost and the fact that they cannot comply with it apart from the Gospel.

Thus there is a way of escape - where compliance is possible.

There is no "unreasonable God" theory supported in the Bible where God simply sticks you in an impossible situation leaves you there and roasts you for being in a situation where He simply does not care about you.

The entire Calvinist model is without support in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The "way of escape" through the Gospel begins with mankind outside of the Garden of Eden - one sin committed - Gospel in place.

God never said "because I have unreasonable demands that do not work even in the way of escape I provide via the Gospel" and I think both sides can agree to that much.

Thus for all humanity starting with Adam and Eve - the way of escape - a way to comply with God's Word was made available.

Not because we are sinless - but because having been justified and made a "new creation" we are enabled by the power of the Holy Spirit to do what 1John 2:1-8 says we are to do as saints.

Since God made this way of escape starting with Adam (and since Enoch obvious was among the saved saints of the OT) it can be concluded that this world-wide reach of God extends to down to this very day.

in Christ,

Bob

 

In God's model for Atonement "The Day of Atonement" in Lev 16 the life and death of Christ are depicted in the selection of the "Lord's Goat" a spotless victim that is slain as "the sin offering". So that is Lev 16:15.

The scope for the Bible concept of "Atonement" also includes vs 15-32 the work of Christ as High Priest. (Which is why we do not have universalism - even though we have a once-for-all completed atoning sacrifice at the cross).

But in the High Priestly work of Christ we have victory over sin - not merely the covering for the past - but the new creation "we have been RAISED with him" Romans 6 and in that work of Christ we are freed from slavery to sin - to sinning.

Thus the 1Cor 10 statement that Paul makes about victory over sin that is made available to the saints - through Christ,

There is no "unreasonable God demands" in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Agreed. But He is just in that scenario precisely because He provides the way of escape of 1Cor 10.

The "unreasonable God" idea is not found in scripture.

in Christ,

Bob

 

You failed to grasp my point. I did not ask for scripture to prove Israel should keep the law. I asked for scripture to prove your particular application of Israel keeping the law ie obligation without ability.

 

You have a problem here because total inability would also have to mean that they can never do one thing to keep any part of the law. So are you suggesting that each individual never once kept any single part of the law? In other words they always and in every single moment broke every single ;aw and never once kept any of them at all?

 

I have been considering your statements, but question certain wording of your points.

The work on the "day of atonement" is perhaps better considered as the day of propitiation. For it was the shedding of blood that started the work of atonement. On the Cross, the shedding of blood was the start of the work of redemption.

Christ as "high priest" was the one offering the sacrifice not the sacrifice itself, though He was the sacrifice.

Remember after in the garden He stated, "Don't touch me..." But, what then of the "work of the High priest." John calls that work "advocate."

I am not certain that Romans 6 is presenting that we have "victory over sin," but that we die to sin. That is, just as Christ died in our place taking on the sins of us, and not only us, but the whole of humankind from the beginning to the last, the believer must also die to the fleshly and be enslaved to God.

We are to "present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God."

Christ being the sacrifice, we are to be like Aaron, who did not present himself that day unwashed and in old filthy garments, but clean and with the appropriate robing.

Here again, you place the victory as some accomplishment that redeem have available. See, what Paul said, "Nevertheless, with most of them God was not well-pleased; for they were laid low in the wilderness." So, where is the "victory over sin" that you cite?

Christ paid in full the sin debt of all humankind for all time(s). (1 John 2)

What then is left? The same as was neglected by the "examples" that Paul discussed in 1 Cor.

The reconciliation (the true meaning of atonement) and throughout the OT that was that part of redemption that was missing and why "most ... were laid low." Not that God was reconciled to man (for that can not be) but that man must be reconciled to God.

That the "most" were not reconciled to God is why they were "laid low."

The question then is, "Why were they not reconciled?" Because they loved darkness rather than light. The attempted to hide from the light for fear the light would expose their evil.