How are we made in the Image of God?

[Tambora]

Choice (free will) is the ability to choose what one prefers.

Well, no.
I cannot choose to fly simply because I might prefer to do so.
Choice must always be within the parameters of ability.
Scripture even tells us that there are things God can't do.

God gives some to prefer him and, therefore, they freely choose him.

What does that even mean, that God "gives" some????
"Gives" how????
Is this some sort of extra ability that God has to somehow magically zap (for lack of a better term) into some men a certain desire he could not otherwise have on his own?

I believe God's desire is to have a real, pure, and honest relationship with mankind without any manipulation to force one into it.
Sorry, but I do not believe a man cannot have, by his own volition, the capability to choose God over another.
And I believe scripture bears that out.

 

[Tambora]

The sons do not share (incur) the inquity of father Adam. . .that iniquity is imputed to them (Ro 5:17),
which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the righteousness of Christ also being Imputed to us (Ro 5:18-19).

That is your addition (of "impute") and misinterpretation of Eze 18:20, which in the light of Ro 5:17 means "inherit."

"The son will not share (naturally incur) the guilt of the father," (Eze 18:20)
So Jesus bore my ("original;" i.e., inherited) sin unjustly?

If the son does not BEAR the iniquity of the father, then he does not BEAR it at all.
If it were imputed to him then he would most definitely BEAR it, but Ezekiel says he does not.

 

[Tambora]

Correction of my last line of post #95 above which should be:

So Jesus bore my ("original;" i.e., imputed sin, Ro 5:17) unjustly?

Hi Eleanor,
Thanks for your input so we can both express our viewpoints and reasons why we believe as we do.

Christ could pay for the penalty of another.
We have the instance of a sacrificial animal (of which Christ fulfilled) paying the penalty of what man had done, thus releasing man from that debt.
It's not unjust when one does it willingly instead of being forced upon him.

 

[Tambora]

Because your original post stated that R/C teaches that man can't make choices.

What else has been said, I do not know.

But to say that the Reformed position leads to a conclusion that some of mankind are incapable of making the choice to serve YHWH, depends on how one is defining "incapable".

If it is being defined as having no inherent ability to make a choice, that is not the Reformed view.

If it is being defined as not being able to choose to believe in Christ, because man cannot choose other than what he wills to choose, then it is the Reformed view. To put it into less confusing language (my bad): Man cannot make a choice that is opposed to his own will. He may have conflicting will as in the case of "Give me your wallet or die." Either one of those things is opposed to his will. However, he will either offer up his wallet or he will die. We can assume he values his life more than his money, so the strongest pressure moves the will to the action of giving up his wallet.

If man in his natural state of being at enmity with God, prefers his supposed autonomy independent of a God who considers many of the things he does and loves to be sin, his will cannot bow to that God. The greater pressure is his love for sin. His will is in bondage to sin.

Would you like me to give the scriptures?

From the very creation of man, man has sinned.
That never stopped God from accepting those that put their trust in Him.
How can "trust" actually be a true trust if it is something he cannot do of his own volition?

A "trust" in God that has to be somehow programed into a man by an outside source before he is even capable of trusting God has a real Stepford Wives vibe to it.
I don't believe that is the type of relationship God wants with mankind.
I believe he wants a genuine, true, honest relationship.

 

[prism]

Scripture even tells us that there are things God can't do.

It does? Where?
I read...
Luke 1:37 KJV
For with God nothing shall be impossible.
That is no-thing.

 

[Josheb]

Simple.
I can prove scripture does not say Naaman entered into or agreed to a covenant because no scripture states he did.

Which is irrelevant. Salvation is not a function of choice. No scripture states it is. You've just refuted your original position. Instead of making inferences based on what scriptures does not say, try accepting and believing what scripture does state.

Ephesians 2:8
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God...


For by grace Naaman was saved through faith, and not of Naaman's self.

Acts 4:12
And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among mankind by which we must be saved.

If Naaman was saved from sin and wrath (and not just leprosy), then he was saved by the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene.

John 6:44
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.

If Naaman was saved from sin, then he was dragged like a fisherman hauling a net out of water to Jesus, the only name by which he could ever possibly be saved. If Naaman was saved from sin, then it was when the little girl from Israel was captured that God began to work in Naaman and Naaman was oblivious to that fact. God saw fit to have a little girl captured and brought to his house to tell him of Elisha. We might even say he was struck with leprosy for the purpose of bring the knowledge of God to Babylon because God never acts fruitlessly, nor without purpose. Like everyone else in scripture, the man had to be broken. All his pride, anger, and preconceived notions had to be stripped from him? Why? Because choice does not save. It is knowledge, not faith, that causes a person to say, "Behold now, I know that there is no God in all the earth, except in Israel." He did not believe it. He knew it. It's very much like getting knocked off one's donkey, being struck blind, and hearing a voice from the sky state "I am Jesus, who you are persecuting," or having one's hip broken or hearing and seeing a speaking bush that's on fire but does not burn. If Naaman was saved, then it is only through the promises made to Christ that he got that way. If scripture never states Naaman never entered into a covenant, then maybe he was not a covenant member, and you should not think he was. Likewise, if scripture never states Naaman made a choice to be saved from sin then maybe he did not make such a choice, and you should not think he did. There were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, but only Naaman the Syrian.

 

[Eleanor]

[

If the son does not BEAR the iniquity of the father, then he does not BEAR it at all.
If it were imputed to him then he would most definitely BEAR it, but Ezekiel says he does not.

< sigh >

Ro 5:17