Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Rutherford on this topic

Expand Messages
  • raging_calvinist
    PATRICK Gillespie referred his readers to Samuel Rutherford on this topic of whether or not God punishes sin by necessity of nature, or out of a free act of
    Message 1 of 734 , Jul 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      PATRICK Gillespie referred his readers to Samuel
      Rutherford on this topic of whether or not God punishes sin
      by necessity of nature, or out of a free act of His
      will. Here are some helpful statements from
      Rutherford's "Covenant of Life Opened":<br><br>�What? Could
      not God have said [to Adam - gmw] eat not of the tree
      of knowledge, for if ye eat not, your obedience
      shall be rewarded with life eternal, and no more? Might
      he not have laid aside all threatening? What
      Scripture or reason teacheth to say, that God, if he create
      a reasonable creature, and under moral dependency,
      which it hath and must have of God, then must God, by
      necessity of nature, punish the sinner, yea so as, if he
      punish not, he should not be God, nor just, but must
      fall from his natural dominion, except he make penal
      laws, and so he should not be God, except he say to
      Adam 'if thou eat thou shalt die' or 'shalt be
      punished for eating' but this is not proven by one word,
      except this, the reasonable creature is not, nor cannot
      be subject to God Creator, except God punish the
      sinner; But that it denied: Adam should have had a moral
      dependence upon God, and God should have been God, and
      essentially just, if sin had never come into the world, and
      if God had kept Adam under a Moral Law, as he did
      the Elect Angels, who never felt or knew the fruit of
      a Moral Law broken and transgressed. And God, if he
      imposed any penal Law upon Elect Angels as penal (which
      shall be an hard work to prove) yet had a natural
      dominion over the Elect Angels, he is not worthy to be
      refuted.� [pg. 25]<br><br>�But we do deny that God falls
      from his natural dominion over man, though he never
      impose a penal Law upon him, and never punish, and
      desire that this may be proven, nor is it imaginable,
      how God by necessity of nature, must punish sin; And
      yet, in the way, measure, and degree of punishment,
      and in the time when, he can use moderation. Which is
      as good as to say, fire must, by necessity of
      nature, burn, the Sun cast light; But fire hath free will
      to burn when it pleaseth, and at this time, and not
      at this time; and the Sun must shine, by necessity
      of nature, but it is free to shine at ten hours of
      the day, and not at twelve, and it may shine as
      bright as the Sun, or as dim as the Moon. Or God the
      Father loves himself, but it is free to him to love
      himself today, not tomorrow, and to love himself so much,
      not so much. And so he may say, God is so merciful
      and just today, as he may be no merciful, no just,
      tomorrow; and God is infinitely merciful and just, and yet
      he is less merciful and more merciful essentially
      according to his good pleasure, which are speaking
      contradictions.� [pg. 27]<br><br>More to follow...<br><br>gmw.
    • almo_no1
      prayers are easy gmw, you ve got em.
      Message 734 of 734 , Sep 18, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        prayers are easy gmw, you've got 'em.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.