« Last post by Jstwebbrowsing on Today at 01:36:41 PM »
I don't know - if he crossed this magic 'sinful nature' threshold you seem to think exists out there somewhere, then perhaps he still is.
That's correct. But the important word is "perhaps". His resurrection is not a free ticket to everlasting life. It's an opportunity to gain it.
Apparently that would prevent him from ever, ever getting rid of his sinful nature. Or maybe Christ/Jehovah or Jehovah's god could remove it, irrespective of current state of sinful nature.
Yes he can, but he requires a willing participant. You guys say "atheists can be moral". Fine. But what you don't consider is that perfection is the goal and you cannot achieve it without Jehovah.
He's going to remove it. That's why he died. What does one have to do with the other? It makes no sense, Jstwebbrowsing.
Christ did not die only to allow for the forgiveness of sin but for the removal of it and it's effects. We are not always going to exist in a fallen state.
If he's going to remove it, he'll remove it. Why did he have to die a long time beforehand? Oh, he had to pay the ransom wage? Ransom to who or what? God? God can't just, like, forgive that debt through his infinite divine grace? You connect these two things because your narrative dictates that they are connected, but that's about it. There is nothing that actually connects 'death of Jesus' with 'elimination of sinful nature in people'. None. Nothing.
The sinful nature is hereditary. The death and resurrection of Christ provides a second human ancestoral parent that does not pass on that inheritance. This is one way of looking at it.
I dunno man. There just seem to be so many rules that god has work with. So many rules that appear to be imposed on god from some external source.
Yes, the ransom is legal in nature, but also effectual. It is a cause and there is an effect.
[qoute]Who or what established these rules that god is subject to exactly?[/quote]
Who is to say they are not objective?