Continued E-mail Response

Opening and Program Setup

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now. It's 602 9 7 3 4 6 0 2 or toll-free across the United States. It's 1 8 7 7 7 5 3 3 3 4 1. And now with today's topic here is James white.

Responding to the Email on Adam, Eve, and Divine Judgment

And good morning, welcome to the second jumbo edition of the dividing line in two days a 90-minute program getting started 15 minutes late. I had an interview that we just finished up and And now we're gonna launch into a 90-minute program the same format as yesterday first 45 minutes responding to the same email Letter that was the the subject of our first half yesterday and then second half.

Dive into the Phil Fernandez Chris Comus debate on the subject of Reformed Theology. I'm not going to reread the note. It's a lengthy note. If you are listening for the first time that is somewhat to your disadvantage.

But it is a lengthy note focusing primarily upon the claim of impossibility for God to hold accountable Man for his sin in essence in light of certain presuppositions specifically the well. Interestingly enough the very first sentence of the next paragraph in the email that I need to respond to I think lays out the primary argument and that is no rational being when given a certain amount of information requisite for some future culpability and action would ever deny a supreme infinite being that is the the assumption is that if Adam and Eve had sufficient Information about the existence of God and they knew God's Existence perfectly in the sense that they knew perfectly well that God existed.

They had direct communion with him and direct conversation with him if they had sufficient knowledge of his existence and Sufficient knowledge of the ramifications of their actions such as in taking of the fruit.

Then there has to have been a constituent problem in their makeup. He's gonna go so far as to say that they would have to be borderline retarded to sin. The Assumption is that for God to hold man accountable God must have made man in such a way that man would not sin as long as he had complete knowledge and I have asserted this reduces man to a calculator you put in the Inputs and the calculator all spit out the right answers Based upon what's put in and that's not what man is.

Man is not simply a calculator. He's not a mechanism whereby you can Put in the numbers and out comes the the right end of the equation. That's not how man is. That's not how God created man to be. There is a spiritual nature in a man.

There is a will of man. Man's will acts upon his nature and of course One of the problems here is that we switch back and forth between our current experience of fallen creatureliness and experience that we only know a very little bit about and that is the unfallen nature of Adam and Eve and I think one of the problems here is a speculation on the nature of Adam and Eve that sometimes is unwarranted in response that statement when given a certain amount of information requisite for some future Culpability in action, I'm not sure exactly what that means.

It seems that our correspondent believes that if Adam and Eve had been given a clear enough revelation of God Then they would never would have sinned therefore they weren't given a clear enough revelation of God or there was something wrong with them in their constituent makeup one of the two and Either one of those Renders it impossible for God to hold them accountable for their actions.

Why we're not told evidently there is a is some kind of ability on our writers part to Determine what is right and wrong for God based upon some external standard that I don't know. I don't get any real evidence of Where this external standard is derived from how is derived I don't know.

But it's there and that would be one of the things that would need to be asked is where does that come from? Now notice what it said next this is not to claim that we are completely rational beings. It is clear that we are not we engage in all sorts of nonsensical behavior yet.

How in our perfect free fall pre-fallen state? Could we ever engage in this most irrational of all acts? And I would say because we Adam and Eve Were individuals who while made perfect that is complete.

They were not changed in such a way as To be made incapable of sin. There is a lengthy discussion in Augustine from long ago Regarding the subject of Ability to sin Possibility to sin impossibility to sin.

I won't try to impress you with all of the Latin phrases. But The point is that the Apostle Paul in Romans chapter 5 when he talks about the gift and the transgression he says That the gift is not like the transgression there is something greater About the relationship of the redeemed in Christ Jesus.

That relationship is different and in fact superior to The unfallen relationship of Adam and Eve with God and it is superior to and greater than that relationship because of union to Christ and the Incarnation and the accomplishment of everything that the triune God chose to do in his self-glorification in Christ Jesus in taking on human flesh in joining that human nature to himself and then joining the elect to Christ so that his death becomes their death his resurrection their resurrection and Their very life is his life resurrection life eternal life.

That is not the position that Adam and Eve were in and so I would say to you they were made with sufficient knowledge and sufficient intellectual capacity To function in the way that God chose them to function and that was specifically Adam as the covenant head of the race that is in him.

Just as Christ was perfectly fit for the role of the covenant head of the race that is in him. Romans chapter 5 again same discussion that is found there. Now it seems that the argument is being made.

Well, if they weren't made in such a way that they could not fall then that's God's fault. Well, I certainly believe that the fall was part of God's plan. I mean, I just don't see any. I mean unless you don't believe God has knowledge of future events.

Then clearly it is and the entire purpose of God in redeeming of people in Christ Jesus makes no sense outside of the fall. So if that is the case then They're being created in such a way as to be able to fall without Without having God having to force a change upon them or force them to sin is the issue and it seems like What is being said is no, he could not have given that kind of freedom.

He could not have made that kind of age. They would have to have been made the same way that we are as redeemed people united with Christ with the changed nature a nature specifically longs for Christ so on so forth and I Again go how do you get that out of two and a half chapters of Scripture that almost never mentions anything like that?

What where is this external? Source from which this kind of Thinking is coming from is the question. Here's the here's the phrase Adam and Eve must have been borderline retarded to believe a talking snakes wily suggestions.

I Almost find a little bit of sarcasm there. It says they could have never properly understand their position in relation to God. We have a tremendous amount of revelation From God concerning our relationship to God what he has done in Christ Jesus.

May I submit that any Christian who ever sins and I do that every day Is sinning against far more light than Adam and Eve did. Does that make me irrational? Well, I suppose if you define rationality as as in such a way as implying sinless perfection maybe but it's it's.

It goes far beyond that. It goes to our lusts and our desires and our nature and and and our emotions and and Exalting ourselves over God and and all sorts of things like that. We don't just simply live on the the stick and carrot model.

Which seemingly this author thinks we do I? Mean if we're perfectly rational. Then we know that if we go against God he's gonna whack us over the head and therefore walls could do no. It doesn't work that way.

There's there's great complexity as to our behavior and the reasons for our behavior and I just don't think that we can Boil it down like this. And and as I said, there seems to be some Sarcasm here and talking about a snake's wily suggestions the nature of the serpent prior to the temptation is not known to us.

There's one thing it's that is clear and this author had mentioned this earlier is the curse of the serpent. Results in its current form that we have today. We don't know what it was like beforehand and Atheists and others just love mocking the talking snake.

There must not have been anything overly unusual about its ability to communicate in light of Adam and Eve's response to it. So what its nature was before fault? We don't know again. It's pure speculation and it's pure speculation on the part of atheists and others to engage in sarcasm as if there is a direct relationship to the modern form of a snake today and that of the means by which communication took place and the statements that were made.

It goes on to say Adam supposedly named all creatures. So they would they knew all the animals and were aware that God created them. What is this ridiculous subordinate snake saying? Well, why would you think that it would seem ridiculous to them is what I would ask.

What does he know? Perhaps we should check with that incredibly enormous being who made all of this appear from nowhere including this tree in us. We know he purposely put it here and told us not to touch it.

Why would he create a tree that somehow made us become like him. Something is amiss. Well If if what is being asked fundamentally in this is is for Genesis chapters 1 through middle of chapter 3 to be expanded into a systematic theology written in modern Western language replete with References to scientific literature psychoanalysis and everything else if that's what you want.

That's not what God's given us and of course that would also mean that if God had given us that it wouldn't have made any sense to anybody for the vast majority of redemption history. And I would suggest that that also Would cause you to think hmm what kind of revelation God give us that would actually be satisfying to any humble person who will Stand humbly before God in light of the death burial resurrection of Jesus Christ and the clear ordered nature of the universe and yet not Make me and my current standards the standard by which everything must be judged.

I would have to Ask you what kind of revelation would would allow that to happen and that might help to answer some of the questions. Something is amiss it sounds like what's being said as well, I would have done better than Adam and Eve and I suppose if you wish to think that you would that's your prerogative from a biblical perspective Adam was placed in a position and God has accepted his role his federal role as head of those who are in him and That's the way that is You can speculate all you want that you would have done better.

You would have been smarter. You wouldn't been borderline retarded. But I think that involves a tremendous amount of speculation and a tremendous amount of Presupposition being read into something that's really not there.

The snake said you will not surely die as a means of enticing them after God told him they would Enticing them. Well, maybe I think it was just a direct contradiction of What God had said and that in fact remains the lie that we continue to believe every day.

I People who if their eyes were but to be opened would see all the evidence of God around them. They're suppressing that evidence. It's made been made clear to them and They sin every day. They mock God every day.

In fact some of the smartest people in our world What are they known for mocking God? Are you telling me that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens aren't smart that they're borderline retarded? No, they tend tend to be very intelligent people, but that obviously demonstrates that it's not one's IQ that determines the quote-unquote rationality of sin.

What in the world is death to them it is an absurd notion. They had never witnessed it and a full explanation must have been required. Why again? Two and a half chapters and you can come up with this kind of certainty.

Really. Where'd you get this? I Just have to under I just have to ask the question. Where where does this level of Certainty about the nature of pre-fallen man and what had and had not been said and the level of understanding.

Where does this come from? I don't have that certain kind of certainty. I can't. God's Word doesn't give it to me. You can only you can only guess at such things and that's a rather weak basis upon which to make such grand conclusions.

What in the world is death to them? Well, maybe they were smart enough to understand. It is an absurd notion why. They had never witnessed it and a full explanation must have been required. How do you know God didn't give it to him?

Do you really think this is an I mean it's look at the Gospels. You can read the Gospel of Mark and in a very short period of time and yeah. It's a record of three about three years worth of ministry.

Do you do do you really think any of this is meant to be an exhaustive? All we are told is that they are told they will die and that they know what that means. Now as as Adam and Eve walked in the garden the cool the day did they not say anything.

But because the entirety of the conversations aren't recorded for us. That means they didn't happen. Or they only talked about baseball. Maybe they talked about the lockout and you know, how excited they were the lockout was over.

You know, I don't again it seems like there's a tremendous amount of speculation here. That then becomes the basis upon which to in essence ridicule God in his revelation. But where is the speculation coming from?

Is what I would like to know wait says Eve you mean we will no longer exist like we did not exist a few days. Ago, okay. What would that matter? Well, I know I didn't exist prior to 1962, but I don't want to die.

What would it matter? I don't want to die. That's why I don't sound even at this point. It sort of went off track a little bit and I I'm like. What would that matter? Everything that I know that is alive wants to stay alive.

You know the ant running across my kitchen sink. When I miss with the first shot. Turns and runs and tries to live. I Normally don't miss the second time around but that's that's. What would that matter?

Well, I is that really a question? But if threatened with more than death it would again be ludicrous to go against the knowledge they must have possessed. Yes, we agree sin is stupid but people do stupid things pre-fall and post fall because the reasons.

Motivations of sin are manifold many and complex. We are not a calculator. Okay, it just doesn't work that way. They were given one command to not eat from that tree. So they already had within themselves.

Understanding of what to do and what not to do a direct knowledge of good and evil. When you say a direct knowledge of good and evil they have a direct knowledge of God's law. But does not knowledge have different components.

I mean I I Can know certain things but I haven't experienced certain things. I Can know how a parachute functions, but I have never voluntarily exited my body from a perfectly functioning aircraft. Okay that's that's you know and so I would be careful at this point because I'm unfortunately there's a lot of ambiguity and and Mixing of categories when it says they a direct knowledge of good and evil not experientially.

But of the consequences. They were allowed to do whatever they wanted except this one thing if a snake talked to you aside from immediately seeking psychiatric attention. Okay, I'm just gonna skip over that because that's just silly sarcasm because again assumes, you know something about the form of the serpent prior to the fall, which you don't know and so.

That's one of the indications that makes me go okay, you need to dial up dial back the Whatever it is you're reading these days if a snake talked to you aside from immediately seeking psychiatric attention.

It might be a good idea to check his facts if it went against that one command. Again I have clear revelation from God that I am to love my wife as Christ loved the church and. So when I snap at her. Does that not mean I'm stupid?

Well in a sense, yeah. But there's a whole lot more behind Husband-and-wife relationships and the sin in them than just one command do it or you're stupid. I Mean, that's just such a simplistic approach that that I I don't understand the origins of it.

And it just doesn't doesn't fit with our experience it doesn't fit with the scripture either. Someone in Challenges said I would shoot a talking snake on site. But the question is with the game warden allow you to shoot a talking snake on site, that's that's the question, I don't know.

Anyway, this act of disobedience if rationality is to be saved. Eliminates the possibility that they possess the necessary knowledge to make decisions which they could be condemned wrong. Just that that that foundation has not been laid.

That is the the fundamental error of the objections that have been raised here. The the fundamental error is that there can be no culpability because it would be absolutely irrational to go against This level of knowledge that's ludicrous and therefore there must be something wrong with them and therefore God's to be blamed for all of that.

That is a simplistic mechanistic understanding of How man functions makes decisions and interacts with God that there is no basis for in scripture. Or really no basis for even in our post fall state. And so that is one of the fundamental errors of this thinking right there.

And so I'll just have to keep repeating that as it ends up being the foundation of everything else that comes afterwards. It will be objected that ignorance does not preclude us from obedience. Well, no, I I do not object.

I do not make that objection. It's not a matter of ignorance. It wasn't that they were ignorant of what God's purposes were. And there is only a certain level of knowledge that is necessary for culpability.

So I'll just skip over the rest of that because that's not where I would go. Anyways, the Roman Church must have seen all this ridiculousness and tried to save it early on by claiming We have free will along with some proper knowledge necessary for culpability.

Well, I don't know what being read here as to. What statement of the Roman Church or when the Roman Church? Allegedly did this hour the other thing I have no way of knowing. This was a valiant but futile effort free will for these purposes broadly means we have the ability to do what we want with certain physical or spiritual restraints.

Originally, we must also have had the freedom to do what we ought. Now I'm not sure if this is the ought implies ability argument. That has been gone over many many many times. Ought does not imply ability even though that is what many many many people think.

Well, God told us that means we have the ability be perfect. He was a father. Heaven is perfect. Well, that must mean, you know, you're a good Pelagian. This was a valiant but futile effort free will for these purposes.

Probably means that we have the ability to do what we want within certain physical or spiritual restraints. Originally, we must also have the freedom to do what we ought but why would the want? But why would the want ever be in discord with the ought?

When full knowledge of the incredible power of God is clearly seen not only seen generally but with a special certainty of its origin. Well, we've gone over this a number of times. You can have full knowledge of God's ability to punish and still go against that man.

Does that all the time and obviously did so in Adam as well? No one in the entire world has been more certain existence of God than Adam and Eve must have been. It even says God walked with Them the Garden of Eden.

Yep. If they were not fully aware of God's power position relation to them. This must be a function of God keeping it from them purposefully or their own mental faculties were of an extremely inferior Constitution which was obviously also designed of God neither one.

They must have been completely capable of irrationality or they were perfectly capable of rebellion and sin. And that rebellion sin is not merely to be defined on rational or irrational grounds. They must have been completely capable of rationality the most contrary trait imaginable in the classical deity.

Therefore the deity must have constructed the existence of irrationality in humans. No, Adam and Eve were made capable of rebellion against God and rebellion against God is not merely to be defined within categories of just what is rational or irrational.

There is much more to it than that. It has more moral ethical Categories that Transcend the argument that is being presented here and even we experienced that in our post fall state as well. Even if some open-ended ability of freedom were granted without the clear logical necessity of having been created with this flaw Which permitted their excursion into unreason what caused the emergence of irrationality in the serpent unreason must?

Permeate reality a reality God created and so again the the argument basically is if anybody even if we just move the question back to the serpent. If anyone goes against the creator, this is irrational and no one would ever do that.

Well again this ultimately comes down to the question of the origin of evil itself and there has been great discussions of evil as the absence of good and So on and so forth. The the fact the matter is that I don't have any problem whatsoever.

In fact, I have to I am forced by meaningful Understanding of theodicy the justification of God in the light of the existence of evil that evil Exists as part of God's decree, but it exists for a purpose a morally Justifiable purpose which is fundamentally the glorification of God in the redemption of a particular people in Christ Jesus and Whether you place that origin in Satan Or in Adam and Eve or how you work all of that out a discussion of means and things like that it is not a Failure in the creation as if God is under some type of obligation to make a creation.

They cannot fall that seems to be part of the presupposition here. Is it God had to create in such a way there couldn't be a fault? No, his purpose was to redeem a particular people which included the fall.

So he creates a such a way that you have a a being that is perfect in its creation but it is not given the gift of indefectibility and That indefectibility leads to the mechanism whereby you have redemption itself.

If we were to save the literal veracity of this story, and I'm not sure what literal veracity Means in this person's mind by this point, especially in light of the talking snake stuff. Something in Christian belief has to give well, I don't see that.

I certainly have not been convinced by this mechanistic Argumentation about you know Assuming certain things about Adam and Eve or talking snakes or near retardedness. Either God is not of the omniscient omnipotent sort.

Which logically leads to everything being determined or human suffering not to mention enormous amounts of animal suffering which many Very confused people claim does not really exist out human levels of consciousness.

I'm not going to get into a discussion about animal suffering does not actually matter in any humanly conceivable sense the word. Now I've tried to figure out what this means. Actually does not matter in any humanly conceivable sense the word what what is what does that mean?

Are you saying it doesn't matter in the sense that God Would never allow this to happen or that God could have no purpose for it. It doesn't say I don't know. I can't answer that question. The fact the matter is if you have a sovereign God who is accomplishing his purpose.

And in fact he his purpose is to engage with his creation engage with his people in time so as to bring about redemption of a particular people. Who are who demerit that redemption? Then How can that?

How can anything not have a purpose? How could how could any of that not have any? So I don't understand it to us love cannot exist or be defined in any remotely Transcendentally factual way neither can judgment.

Why why I mean God's nature. When you say love can't be defined. How about in this is love that? We did not love God, but he loved us first and we have the incarnation we have redemption and we even have the fact that that people who deserve instant judgment for their sinfulness experience long lives of great blessings and happiness and It's been often said that the the mark of a changed heart the mark of a changed heart Is not asking the question why?

Do bad things happen to good people. The mark of a changed heart is asking why do good things happen to anybody at all? Because that's the mark of a heart that actually knows the depth of its own depravity and I cannot believe I'm looking at the clock and it's quarter till.

But I've still got 15 minutes to go because we started 15 minutes. I was sitting there going no way I'm normally good at remembering what time it is Man I was I was freaking out there for a second. We'll take a break straight up at the hour.

And and folks I know this is sort of heavy stuff. I There there are not many programs like this out there. They just aren't This this is not. I'm not entertaining anybody right now. I understand that but I hope that you see this is important and These issues need to be thought through and it may not be comfortable.

I'm gonna be fun. But You know what? It has it has I think very positive long-term benefit and that's why we need to press on. Okay. Love cannot exist or be defined in any remotely transcendentally factual way.

I don't understand I do not see that a basis has been given to that. I Hear the assertion. But where's the basis neither can judgment? Why not? Unless you have reduced God down to our level and Set up an external authority to him God says it is sufficient to judge man for doing what man loves to do for acting upon the desires and intentions of his heart and in fact God is actively involved in restraining man's madness and Yet he doesn't judge us on the basis of what we would have done if he hadn't restrained us.

But only upon what we did do is there not grace and mercy even there. So what's the basis of saying that love cannot be defined in a transcendentally factual way. Or the judgment cannot be defined. What's the basis is I haven't seen it.

It is claimed that those without the knowledge of Christ or their need of redemption will be judged less Harshly and those with greater knowledge of the law and redemptive plan. Yeah Crazen and Bethsaida versus Sodom and Gomorrah.

Amount of amount of light. Yes, it is uncertain what this differing judgment could mean. Well given that I don't nobody knows the exact nature of eternal punishment I would suggest that Part and parcel and I think I have solid biblical basis for saying this part and parcel of eternal judgments.

It's not God exercising power to torment anybody. I Think when the restraining hand of God is removed from man's wild God hating and Detestation of God and hence detestation of self. I think it's primarily a self-torture.

I think it's it's and it's what you see in In the worst of the atheists who are absolutely Consumed in their hatred of God. Remember what Doug Wilson? It's funny. We'll be talking about Doug Wilson a little bit more here in a little while, but Doug Wilson said something very wise about Christopher Hitchens.

Remember that member the statement I've repeated a number of times There are two things. They're absolutely certain about Christopher Hitchens That he believes that God does not exist and that he hates God.

And it's true he's certain God doesn't exist and he's certain that he hates him and that is that is the self-contradictory nature of the atheist and the rebel against God when God's restraint is removed from him will consume himself in his Loathing of God and all that God has made.

There's the problem. Is it he's made in the image of God and It becomes self-loathing. So How does that reason how does that translate into. It will be more tolerable on the day of judgment. I don't know.

I'm not sure. I don't understand the the exact mechanism of punishment, but I'm told that there will be a Difference in how God judges in light of the amount of light that a person had. Though I tremble to venture at the difference between one infinite horror in comparison to double that horror.

Um, well, I think it is appropriate to consider punishment as a horror, but it is a punishment that is a horror in light of Both justice as well as the nature of the one who has been sinned against. These people apart from the knowledge of Christ are said to disobey the law within them will be condemned according to this refusal of conscience.

But they are incapable of performing in accord with this conscience. That would be due to their fallen nature and There's the one thing that's always missing in this con in this in this context listen to what says.

But they are incapable and incapable as an italics by the way of performing in accordance conscience. How can somebody be condemned for something? They are absolutely incapable of accomplishing by the very Constitution given them by the condemner.

But notice what was just said, I don't think our writer understood that he had just contradicted himself. Because he's just recognized. Yes, it's it's it's going to be based upon the light that we had and Then he turns around and says but it's based upon absolute standards.

You see the question that the element that's always missing when I hear these objections. Is that none of these people ever desired? To do these things they never desired. They love their sin. They love their sin they love their idolatry what whatever it might be.

I mean we can have the religious pygmy in Africa, or we can have the secular humus scholar in in Scandinavia someplace. They're both engaged in idolatry in very different ways on very different levels, but it's still idolatry nonetheless and One had far more light than the other.

But the argument of culpability has to take into consideration the desires of the heart of the person and I will say once again God has never stood behind some morally pure person with a theological or spiritual gun and said sin you I Don't want to sin.

No you must sin it will fulfill my plan. That's not how it works and It would have to work that way if it's going to be relevant to the idea of the condemner the pat answer and again I I Pick up on these types of phrase Phrases the pat answer is that this is all part of a pure and unknowable plan a demonstration of infant wisdom mercy and judgment.

Well, that's not a pat answer. That's a transcendental answer. But certainly there's far more to the answer that has been given even as I just noted. Then oh, well, you know, it's just infinite wisdom.

Yeah, there is infinite wisdom. There is infinite mercy. There is judgment. There's no question about that and and I am NOT saying that I can sit here as a finite human being with one ten billionth of the information of The world and what God is doing in this world and make judgments based upon that but I do have the revelation of the Word of God and I do see its consistency in mankind's behavior and In light of that would indeed tremble to be in a position of Arguing that God does not have sufficient reasons for acting as he has he as he has.

What terror and feverish sorrow I feel for any creature subjected to the negative side of this determination. In other words What terror and feverish sorrow I feel for the non-elect? Who do in this life exactly what they desire to do and who refused to bow the knee before the Creator.

The I but what I'm hearing and maybe I'm reading between the lines but I I think I have read this as carefully as I can numerous times is I'm hearing a fundamental rejection of God's ability to judge and God's ability to demonstrate the entirety of His divine attributes in his own creation either God has to limit the revelation of his attributes to Justice holiness wrath and give everyone punishment or He has to limit himself to Love mercy and grace and save everybody.

But if he actually desires to accomplish his purpose so that the entirety of his body of attributes are revealed in his creation. That doesn't work. That that can't that can't be just not allowed to do it.

Because this would require us to believe that he transcends merely human categories of activity and judgment. Could there not be any way to complete this plan by saving just one of those people in the hills the Himalayas by preventing their birth.

He has saved many of the people in the hills the Himalayas. Who did not deserve to be saved. Or just one Aborigine? How many believers have given their life to reach? The Aborigines. Or just one poor child of the streets of Compton.

How many poor children off the streets of Compton bow in worship before Jesus Christ and will experience? Unmerited. Demerited eternal life in his name. How supposedly precious is an eternal human soul and how terrible these torches with tortures which are affected against them?

Oh. That just one be prevented from being born. How this would save them from immeasurable pain. Well How this would save them from immeasurable pain. It would save them from existence I suppose. And So the idea here is well, they're just there cannot be Punishment that is appropriate to a creature.

Not only for having lived their lives in rebellion against God, but just simply for having been related to Adam fundamentally. The argument here is God cannot act federally. God cannot act federally. So if this writer is consistent then this writer likewise cannot accept the idea that by one act of Self-giving sacrifice by the perfect God man Jesus Christ.

That that can have any effect for anyone else because it is by union in Christ that receive his benefits. In the same way that by union with Adam we received the condemnation. If what's being said is I just I will not accept that well it is only the Spirit of God that can cause anyone to accept that and There's many a person who will look at that and say I'm not going there.

No, I I don't want to. I don't want to accept that sure according the scriptures. That's how God has dealt with people in the past and at the example of Aiken, but I think that's unfair, too. I'm just I refuse to worship That kind of God.

I will either create my own or I'm just not going to believe anything. That does not change the reality that we live in a created universe that clearly Has the the fingerprints of God all over it and the God has invaded this universe in the person of Jesus Christ there was a resurrection and That one who predicted his own resurrection and then brought about his own resurrection taught that these things were true.

But again outside of the work of the Holy Spirit of God I can I can explain Why there is no contradiction I can explain how God has done these things but fundamentally if you want to get to the point of saying I reject God's economy I Reject the idea that God has the right to act in this way or because I have some humanly derived standard I Just reject that you can talk about love.