Theology Question For Calvinist/Reformed Members

[Arial]

Jesus did not have two natures in union? He did.
Two distinctly different natures? Or, not?
Then it would be only one nature, and no union.

Was his humanity omniscient? No.
Was His Deity in need to grow in wisdom as Jesus had? No.

Once you understand the two natures and that Jesus did not have only one nature?
It can become clear...

Sorry.... those details are needed to be understood.

My question did not pertain to the incarnate Christ.

End of discussion.

 

[GeneZ]

Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance?

You said this much, which is what I responded to...

Just not in a manner you would have expected.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

What I do have some difficulty [with] is the idea of temples? Why?

As an introduction to the idea, I would recommend Gregory K. Beale, "Eden, the Temple, and the Church's Mission in the New Creation," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 48, no. 1 (2005): 5-31. He delves quite deeply into this in his book The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (2004), and applies the idea in his A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (2011).

Beale presents the garden of Eden as the first archetypal temple from which later Old Testament temples derived their imagery and symbolism, all pointing toward the final restoration of God's dwelling with humanity in the new creation. He argues that Adam was given a mandate to extend Eden's boundaries until God's presence filled the whole earth, a motif that is seen throughout the Old Testament and culminates in John's vision in Revelation 21-22 of the new heavens and earth as the eschatological temple where God's presence fills the cosmos.

For a very brief introduction, see Derek Rishmawy, "Nine Reasons the Garden of Eden was a Temple," Reformedish (blog), December 7, 2012.

 

[Ladodgers6]

From a practical/logical POV I would say that whatever God does is necessarily with the purpose of producing every result that ensues. From God's POV, (stated in human language, and, of course, from my limited perspective and understanding —i.e. "I'm pretty sure"—), there's no difference to him between 'Intention' and 'Result'. His plan is whatever happens, and whatever happens is for the accomplishing of his plan.

I do love your notion of The Father creating us specifically to give us to His Son. And yes, it was, (IMHO), as far as God is concerned, an accomplished fact as soon as he spoke it into existence; and this temporal "envelope" is what it took make it so.

But that's more philosophical than exactly doctrinal. Yet I find nothing —except terminology and our necessarily temporal POV— in Christian orthodoxy, nor, certainly, in Reformed/Calvinist theology, nor in Scripture, that would dispute it. And there is a LOT, that once a person gets the point I'm making here, they begin to see promoted in Scripture.

Ephesians 1 come to mind.

 

[Ladodgers6]

Are the elect created to belong to Christ and is the choosing that God does choosing to create those specific persons for Christ, for His glory, and as His inheritance? That would certainly change one's perspective from redemption being man centered to being God centered. I have been trying to work through this to see if it is compatible with the things that we do know doctrinally and keep hitting possible snags---and then my mind wanders off to other things less taxing. I do not want to lean on my own understanding and call it good. And I don't want to singularly arrive at a doctrine and consider it truth.

I am asking for help in working through this, from fellow Reformed, well versed in scripture, theology, and doctrine, of which there are many on this forum.

Ephesians 1 comes to mind.

 

[Mr GLee]

As an introduction to the idea, I would recommend Gregory K. Beale, "Eden, the Temple, and the Church's Mission in the New Creation," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 48, no. 1 (2005): 5-31. He delves quite deeply into this in his book The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (2004), and applies the idea in his A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (2011).

Beale presents the garden of Eden as the first archetypal temple from which later Old Testament temples derived their imagery and symbolism, all pointing toward the final restoration of God's dwelling with humanity in the new creation. He argues that Adam was given a mandate to extend Eden's boundaries until God's presence filled the whole earth, a motif that is seen throughout the Old Testament and culminates in John's vision in Revelation 21-22 of the new heavens and earth as the eschatological temple where God's presence fills the cosmos.

For a very brief introduction, see Derek Rishmawy, "Nine Reasons the Garden of Eden was a Temple," Reformedish (blog), December 7, 2012.

Hi Thanks I would offer.

Something new to me. A red flag went up.

I wonder what prompted them to call the "garden city" a temple? Christ apposes temple made with human hands .Calling it a abomination of desolation. Dying mankind in the place of the invisible head our husband Christ. The foundation of Paganism .

Mankind is used to represent the living temple. In the new heaven and earth there will be no temple. Just as it was the first three days. then his glory as the literl light of world departed

On the last day under the sun, the invisible things of God will return. God as the temple. No Sun, No visible temple

Revlation22-23 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it." And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

Eden "delightful place, is reckoned as a city. It could be called the garden city from it four gospel streams of living water universal (north, south, east , west

Cities are used to represent the residents (demonym) The location is not of value its not the subject

Genesis 4: 10 And a river (gospel) went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

Those who did desire to build a temple were scattered God, took away the understanding of each other .in order to emphasize he does not dwell in temples made with the dying hands as the will of mankind

Genesis 11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth

Revelation 3:12Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name.

Revelation 17:18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth

Revelation 21:2And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.

Revelation 21:23 22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of itAnd the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof

Gethsemane meaning oil press A picture or parable of the lord restoring the garden city

Matthew 26:36-46 Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me. ..

 

[Arial]

Ephesians 1 comes to mind.

Thanks for that reminder.

Though I have a doctrinal understanding of the book, there is more than one doctrine (teaching) in it concerning redemption and its purpose. I refer specifically to Eph 1:3-14, as it answers the question I asked. Which may or may not have been clearly understood as to what I was wrestling with.

So to put the question another way----does God choose people for salvation after they are created, or does He create them---in Adam---but to belong to Christ? The answer of necessity must be the latter. Otherwise, His choosing would have to be based on something in the person or of the person, no matter how small the degree. Or be utterly random as the doctrine of election is accused of. It would be as though He were picking a team, "I choose you, and you, and let's see---you." And the rest He gives to the devil. It would also mean that the covenant of redemption was not fully formed within the Godhead before creation, therefore dependant on unknown contingencies. In which case, God would not be omniscient.

In verses 3-14 the Covenant of Redemption is summarized as to its purpose and means. He predestined those He chose, (created for what follows)to be adopted to Himself through Jesus----according to the purpose of His will.

I have always seen those last six words, and I think many do, as the purpose of His will relating to why He chooses who He chooses. Which it is, of course, but not so much as in the sense that it is often used as an argument for His not choosing "according to anything they have done good or bad."

The purpose of His will is for the praise of His grace, that rescues a fallen people from their falleness, and in doing so through the person and work of Christ, is "as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on the earth."

We were sealed in Him by the Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, this "all things in heaven and earth united in Him." The purpose is not simply our possession of Heaven. It is Christ bringing heaven to earth, the home He made for us. The goal is "I will dwell among them, and they will be My people, and I will be their God." Just like He did in Eden before the fall.

 

[Eleanor]

Let me repeat the question.

Does God "create" all humans, or only Adam and Eve, from whom all humans are generated?

 

[GeneZ]

Thanks for that reminder.

Though I have a doctrinal understanding of the book, there is more than one doctrine (teaching) in it concerning redemption and its purpose. I refer specifically to Eph 1:3-14, as it answers the question I asked. Which may or may not have been clearly understood as to what I was wrestling with.

So to put the question another way----does God choose people for salvation after they are created, or does He create them---in Adam---but to belong to Christ? The answer of necessity must be the latter. Otherwise, His choosing would have to be based on something in the person or of the person, no matter how small the degree. Or be utterly random as the doctrine of election is accused of. It would be as though He were picking a team, "I choose you, and you, and let's see---you." And the rest He gives to the devil. It would also mean that the covenant of redemption was not fully formed within the Godhead before creation, therefore dependant on unknown contingencies. In which case, God would not be omniscient.

In verses 3-14 the Covenant of Redemption is summarized as to its purpose and means. He predestined those He chose, (created for what follows)to be adopted to Himself through Jesus----according to the purpose of His will.

I have always seen those last six words, and I think many do, as the purpose of His will relating to why He chooses who He chooses. Which it is, of course, but not so much as in the sense that it is often used as an argument for His not choosing "according to anything they have done good or bad."

The purpose of His will is for the praise of His grace, that rescues a fallen people from their falleness, and in doing so through the person and work of Christ, is "as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on the earth."

We were sealed in Him by the Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, this "all things in heaven and earth united in Him." The purpose is not simply our possession of Heaven. It is Christ bringing heaven to earth, the home He made for us. The goal is "I will dwell among them, and they will be My people, and I will be their God." Just like He did in Eden before the fall.

He did not choose us according to what we are capable of doing in our present human capabilities.
For what we are is nothing when compared for what He has chosen for us to be made into.

Why did God chose to make the robin as it is? The eagle?

Its for "his pleasure" that He chose us to be given by Him what gives Himself pleasure in His own manifestation of being alive!
It will be done accordingly as to how much we can be trusted with. That is what our souls are now being tested for here on earth.
Amazing rewards and gifts will be given to us according to some very simple core values we possess in our soul that was tested for its faithfulness (consistency).

His master said to him, Well done, you upright (honorable, admirable) and faithful servant! ​

You have been faithful and trustworthy over a little; I will put you in charge of much. ​

Enter into and share the joy (the delight, the blessedness) which your master enjoys." Mat 25:23​

He wants to see us rejoicing in the happiness He knows!

That is what He ultimately chose us for!

 

[Arial]

Does God "create" all humans, or only Adam and Eve, from whom all humans are generated?

He creates all humans. The fact that He designed all forms of life to propagate through a natural means, does not lessen the fact that He is our creator. David declares this in Psalm 139, Jeremiah in Jer.1, Paul in Gal 1, Rom 8, Job in Job 31, 10. We do not exist unless God brings us into existence.

 

[GeneZ]

He creates all humans. The fact that He designed all forms of life to propagate through a natural means, does not lessen the fact that He is our creator. David declares this in Psalm 139, Jeremiah in Jer.1, Paul in Gal 1, Rom 8, Job in Job 31, 10. We do not exist unless God brings us into existence.

We propagate only the bodies.
God creates each soul that is live in the body that has been propagated.

Man and wife do not create the soul of their child.
They only provided a body for the soul that God created to be in that body....
Yes.. God brings us into existence...

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine.

Ezekiel 18:4a

.​

 

[GeneZ]

As an introduction to the idea, I would recommend Gregory K. Beale, "Eden, the Temple, and the Church's Mission in the New Creation," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 48, no. 1 (2005): 5-31. He delves quite deeply into this in his book The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (2004), and applies the idea in his A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (2011).

Beale presents the garden of Eden as the first archetypal temple from which later Old Testament temples derived their imagery and symbolism, all pointing toward the final restoration of God's dwelling with humanity in the new creation. He argues that Adam was given a mandate to extend Eden's boundaries until God's presence filled the whole earth, a motif that is seen throughout the Old Testament and culminates in John's vision in Revelation 21-22 of the new heavens and earth as the eschatological temple where God's presence fills the cosmos.

For a very brief introduction, see Derek Rishmawy, "Nine Reasons the Garden of Eden was a Temple," Reformedish (blog), December 7, 2012.

Could you please invite Mr. Beale here to discuss this with us?

For we have no idea if you are properly understanding what he wrote.
And, why he wrote it.

It would be most helpful...

 

[makesends]

We propagate only the bodies.
God creates each soul that is live in the body that has been propagated.

Man and wife do not create the soul of their child.
They only provided a body for the soul that God created to be in that body....
Yes.. God brings us into existence...

Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine.

Ezekiel 18:4a

.​

That's hardly the point.

God creates all fact, and does so intentionally.

 

[GeneZ]

That's hardly the point.

God creates all fact, and does so intentionally.

Creates "all fact?"

Did God create all the names Adam chose to give the animals that God brought his way?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Could you please invite Mr. Beale here to discuss this with us?

Sure, because he is totally in my Contacts.

For we have no idea if you are properly understanding what he wrote.

Feel free to engage me with your own understanding of what he wrote.

I mean, that is what these forums are about—exploring, engaging, and challenging one another's understanding of this or that subject.

If you want to know what Beale's views are in his own words and why he wrote it, I cited three different sources for you to consult. He does not need to come here and repeat what he already spent months writing.

 

[GeneZ]

As an introduction to the idea, I would recommend Gregory K. Beale, "Eden, the Temple, and the Church's Mission in the New Creation," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, vol. 48, no. 1 (2005): 5-31. He delves quite deeply into this in his book The Temple and the Church's Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (2004), and applies the idea in his A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (2011).

Beale presents the garden of Eden as the first archetypal temple from which later Old Testament temples derived their imagery and symbolism, all pointing toward the final restoration of God's dwelling with humanity in the new creation. He argues that Adam was given a mandate to extend Eden's boundaries until God's presence filled the whole earth, a motif that is seen throughout the Old Testament and culminates in John's vision in Revelation 21-22 of the new heavens and earth as the eschatological temple where God's presence fills the cosmos.

For a very brief introduction, see Derek Rishmawy, "Nine Reasons the Garden of Eden was a Temple," Reformedish (blog), December 7, 2012.

Temple?
There were no blood sacrifices in the Garden.

No atonement ever needed....

A Temple (altar) was not needed until after Adam and Eve were banished from the Garden..

 

[makesends]

Very true. And wouldn't that make HIs purpose of each of elect precede their creation (in human terms)? In the same way each of the OT saints had a purpose in God's economy and the were created and equipped and led, for that purpose? And though it does involve and is integrated into His whole plan of redemption, each also has a specific purpose in it. We know the purpose of the OT saints because we see the end. We do not always see the purpose of us other than to glorify Christ and spread the gospel, and I doubt we ever see all of it. Are guessing at best, nevertheless He leads us where He wants us to go.

What struck me when I had the notion, was that even though I know all these things are true, and that it is all about God and not us, we are the beneficiaries and the objects of His love, was a thing that shook me---in a good way. The knowledge that it is all for and about God left its resting place in my mind, and shot like an arrow into my heart. A different perspective of God that elevates Him yet higher. in my lowly estimation. I cannot really describe it and don't know if I am making anything clear in this.

Maybe it is philosophical and not doctrinal, but if it is also opposed to doctrine it is no good at all. But I practically disappeared when the notion struck me, except for one who was created by God, for the most magnificent purpose of all, to be given to the very Son of God. All I could do was worship in awe, and I could only glimpse what I was seeing, for the concept was too awesome to stand in. (Also because, having gone through way too many years as a charismatic, I have come to a place where I do not linger where there is danger of reaching a state of euphoria, and I need to contemplate it with my mind in full gear.) If I were to find a way to express it I guess it would be, "Oh thank God it is not about me at all, it is about You!"

AMEN! And nicely written.

I've been gone awhile, so I looked to see if I had already answered this. I guess not.

If I had to guess, I'd say you were converted under synergistic theology, in which Man seems to be the primary mover; (believe it or not, there are reformed Charismatic congregations). Orthodoxy, like theological axioms and so on, (and even the Bible), can be agreed upon by believers of many different perspectives. So when I consider the POV we are addressing here, I'm not so sure that it could not more accurately be argued to be what IS doctrinal even though it is philosophically logical. (I argue with atheists sometimes about the facts, trying to get them to see that the meanings and assumptions behind their statements is based on the notion that naturalism is base fact, and a foundation from which to argue. If, on the other hand, GOD is base fact, then everything opens up to where their arguments are garbage, logically.)

On re-reading this, it seems disjointed. Sorry. I'm trying to say that while you or I may not be able to prove it doctrinally, some of this perspective SHOULD drive doctrine, or doctrinal meaning, (and I can't help but wonder if some of it used to be, but meanings and assumptions have migrated by modern mindsets), until what we read even the confessions and creeds to say implies to us something less monergistic when it was not originally intended to be that way. (I hope that makes sense to read.)

By way of example, when I say "God" —I have been able to have a more meaningful conversation with a Muslim man than I would have with many professing Christians, because at least philosophically, he believed God to be absolutely sovereign, and neither he nor I could stomach the kind of 'god' that depends on us for anything— I am thinking in absolute sovereign terms (so help me God) and not in 'a powerful being who adapts to me', as being the one referred to in Scripture. So the doctrine IS different, not just in focus but, in fact, in very meaning.

What is logically consistent is usually a good basis for definitions. What stands for sound doctrine, may, from a logical POV be very good doctrine, but the same axiom from a synergistic (though supposedly 'Biblical') POV can be lousy doctrine.

So, when you ask if God made each individual for his particular purpose concerning them, and when you say 'their election preceded their creation' said from a human perspective, (which is an entirely logical fact), I see it as also Biblical, since what I read in the Bible always agrees and in some places is explicitly claiming that God has done so —from this POV.

—When I consider that this all (the universe, and all fact) started with GOD, and is for his sake and by his purposes, then the Bible starts to open up and life warms up. I can't help but smile.

(Explaining it is a bit more difficult for me).

 

[makesends]

Creates "all fact?"

Did God create all the names Adam chose to give the animals that God brought his way?

Can you show me fact that came to be, apart from God's creating?

 

[GeneZ]

Can you show me fact that came to be, apart from God's creating?

I do not know what you mean by that....

Did you mean to say?....

Can you show me a fact that came to be, apart from God's creating it?

 

[makesends]

I do not know what you mean by that....

Did you mean to say?....

Can you show me a fact that came to be, apart from God's creating it?

Sure, that works too. But I mean to imply that God "invented" (for lack of a more to-the-point word) very reality. All fact is his bailiwick, there is no fact outside of his "decree" (plan). Fact is not a stand-alone principle. It is God-made, and God-sustained.

God does not come upon an already existing fact, principle or set of principles to which he, like his creatures, must fit and according to which he must operate. Fact and very existence operates by his decree.