Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Regardless, Christ still had to execute this plan. Freely.
Christ was not subject to the weakness of the flesh.
Sure He was. He was hungry, tired, pursued by critical Pharisees who disbelieved His teaching Source. Christ was subject to these external temptations just as we are. He was like us in all ways, except actual sin.
He was righteous from the beginning fully capable of doing what is right.
As is the regenerated man after Baptism.
Christ, being God, was empowered and led by the Holy Spirit throughout His life on earth. We cannot make this claim.
After we were born from above, we also are empowered by the Spirit, if we are completely open to the Will of God. This requires humility and obedience.
Adam and his descendant are creatures of God. Christ is God.
Which would make it impossible for Christ to sin. This is a paradox, except that Jesus enfleshed a human nature that is similar to what Adam possessed before his fall. Not only is Christ an example of what can be, He provides the ability to become ANOTHER Christ by adoption.
Christ had “free will” but that “free will” was used to follow the ONE perfect plan of God the Father set before the foundation of the world.
You don't attach much value to the Passion of Christ, then, do you? What you are forgeting is that God's plan of the salvation of man and its execution of Christ's Passion and death occured all within that one moment of the present called eternity, for God. For GOD, the plan and its execution occured simultaneously. The Son's "yes" came instantly upon the utterance of the plan by the Father. God does not unwillingly bind Himself to the "plan"! God's foreknowledge does not erase His Will, because His "foreknowledge" and Will occur at the same moment. Christ's Passion is the greatest expression of love - it was not a mere part of the plan in which Christ had no choice. He was highly exalted BECAUSE of His obedience.
Was there ever a choice in the matter or was it all predestined?
God can do what He desires. He was not bound to save mankind or to save us in a particular manner.
Any deviation from God’s will would have been sin and God (Christ) could not sin.
How can God the Son deviate from God the Father's Will? There is only ONE Divine will! While there are three Persons, there is only one God, one Will. If Christ would have chose differently, it would have been God's will! Don't you realize that Christ is the manifestation of the Father? ANYTHING that Christ did was GOD'S will, if we continue to say that Christ was God. Thus, nothing Christ could do would be considered sinful - against the Divine Will. However, this Christological relationship was not fully developed for many years after the Scriptures were written. We can make such inferences only based on this Tradition as expounded in the Creeds and Counciliar declarations made 1500 years ago.
We can go to Nineveh the easy way or the hard way, but we will still ("freely") go to Nineveh.
Over the course of our lives, we will realize that God is moving us to fulfill His own will - but He does this in time based on our own free will choices during the moment of decision. God's Will be done, but it doesn't follow that man's will will not be done.
Regards
Your memory serves you well. But note this is the bare minimum. It is like a doctor telling you that you need 500 calories a day. This is not a recommendation, but a warning that we should take in our food (spiritually or physically) much more often to be fully healthy (spiritually or physically). Through the sacrament, we recall all that Christ has done and we abide with Him in a most personal and intimate connection. It goes without saying that a once-a-year reminder won't do.
Regards
"It is a theological hypothesis not supported by the scripture."
The scriptures do support justification as a forensic term.
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Rom 3:27 Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
In fact the use of the terms propitiation and blood demonstrate this was forensic in nature, i.e. "without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin".
It is a forensic term, but it is more. First of all, what God says, God makes happen. Thus, when God says we are righteous, we are not "pretending" to be righteous, He really makes us righteous in His eyes. We are not merely covered! God is not subject to the limits of a human judge who merely declares something. God brings about a new creation through water and the Spirit!
Secondly, as I said before, we have different definitions...Justification is not a one-time process in the bible, nor is it to us. Consider Abraham, he was declared righteous by God on at least three occasions. We consider justification and sanctification nearly synonymous terms. As a result, brothers talk past each other without understanding.
Clearly, our redemption has been fully paid for and that cannot change. But we don't consider redemption as the same thing as justification, because not everyone responds to this great gift.
Regards
Such is the nature of election. If God had wanted to elect everyone, He would have. We agree that He didn't elect everyone. I say, therefore, God could not have wanted all men to be saved, or else He is a weak God. In a similar way, if God allows men to snatch themselves out of His hand, then God wasn't strong enough to accomplish what He wanted in terms of the most important thing to humans. It seems that your side believes that to God, it is much more important that man be free to kill himself than it is for His children to be saved.
In the way you seem to be speaking of it, the extra factor (man's free will) is actually the deciding factor in salvation. Man decides his own destiny using his free will. Our disagreement is that I do not believe man has "enough" goodness on his own to make the right decision, you apparently do. You can say that God gives all the help you want, but under your theology, man still makes the final decision. Free will, in the way you are using the term, cannot be free if God controls.
[On why Christ would go to the cross if it was unnecessary:] For love. God wasn't required to do any such thing as die. He could have merely came down, waved His hand, and said "all men are forgiven". WHY does God "have" to die?? Who is forcing God to die on the cross but love?
That is my point, God COULD have waived His hand IF it would have worked, but He didn't. How in the world does it show love to us for Him to die if it wasn't necessary? And the quote you must be thinking of does not apply. If I said to my wife "I love you honey, I'm doing this for you", and then jumped off a building, would that really be showing love for my wife? That is what you seem to be asking me to believe Jesus did. If Jesus didn't HAVE to die to save us, then He committed blind suicide. I conclude that Christ gave His life FOR us because it was the only way.
He didn't give us Commandments for the express purpose of their being broken and disobeyed!
Well. maybe not the expressed purpose, but I would still say it was one purpose of them. I'll borrow one of your own types of arguments and ask why would God give a set of Commandments He knew no one could keep to His standards? A major reason must have been to show us this was not the way to heaven.
It is NOT God's "Will" that sin exists - He makes goodness come from it, but it is illogical that God desires sin to exist for its own sake. It is a side effect of man's free will.
No one said God wills that sin exist for its own sake or for no reason, but since there is a reason, I still say God wills it. It is immaterial if it is categorized as a side effect of men or not, it exists, God is in full control, so He willed it.
To believe that God releases control is to place God into time, awaiting humans to make decisions, or forcing them to make the decisions He wants them to make!
But you have already said that God uses His foreknowledge of man's decisions to make some of His decisions. That is releasing control. If God sees that a man will choose 'A', then God will choose 'B'. If God really was in control, He would choose 'B' independently and then make sure that 'A' would make the corresponding "choice".
FK: "Calvinists believe that man has free will."
That's rhetoric. A Calvinist does not believe in freedom of choice. An unregenerated man can ONLY choose evil, while the regenerated man can ONLY choose good, according to Harley. This is not free will, this is a bound will.
From Harley's description and my agreement, it is clear that we see the concept of free will very differently from you. That is true. However, while we would say that an unregenerated man cannot choose good in God's eyes, NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE on our side has ever said that a regenerated man can only choose good. A nickel says that Harley and I together can put up two good examples why that is impossible. :)
But look at our differences on the issue of freedom of choice. We would say that on the side of "good" choices, that man does not have the capability to make them independently of God. Your side disagrees, and says that man IS "good" enough to make good choices, with help BUT STILL, independently of God (wounded vs. total depravity). Where is each side placing its faith concerning salvation? In the case of "bad" choices, I would imagine that both sides are very close.
But God's foreknowledge of our actions doesn't make God dependent on man - He is able to plan accordingly, simultaneously, to enable man to make what is a free will choice for him, done the way God desires.
I don't see how that can be. The second you say "plan accordingly", whether outside of time or not, that means God is dependent because God's plan would have been different BUT FOR man's decisions. The only way out would be to say that God's plan is not implemented in full because man's decisions necessarily deviate from what God would have planned had He been in control. (You said that God only gives us the tools to do what He wants, but of course, that doesn't always work out, so therefore the plan God would have made without man's input is thwarted.)
It was their [fallen angels] free will choice to NOT follow God - which God foresaw but not desire or ordain. IF God created an evil being, then God IS the author of evil, correct?
God created an angel, knowing full well this angel would later become satan. If God did not desire or ordain this, then why did He do it? The millisecond after satan became satan, God could have crushed him like a bug, but He didn't. Why not, if He did not desire or ordain satan's existence? To answer your question, it depends on what you mean by "evil being". If you mean a being equivalent to satan in his present state, then I would agree. However, if evil is the absence of God, then all of us are born in that state, and God creates all of us, so ...
It is His will that evil exists, despite that He did not create it or desires its existence. God is pure holiness. He does not desire the existence of evil - accept in that it enable man to retain free will.
Jo Kus from above - "It is NOT God's "Will" that sin exists ..." Well, does God desire the existence of evil or not? Your view here is rather encompassing. :) Another issue I see cropping up is that we see the concept of "ordaining" differently. I would say that all that God wills, He ordains. Do you disagree?
TBC ...
I think you are right about different definitions.
Salvation is a process including justification,(at the moment one trust Jesus for slavation), sanctification (a life long process of maturing) and ultimate glorification when we are in the presence of God. However, justification renders us righteous before God because of the sacrifice of Jesus on our behalf.
I'm a bit busy today so I haven't had time to explore all of your's and qua statements. I come from a more Baptist background so perhaps there's still hope for me. :O)
Justification is being seen as righteous in God's eyes. This "requirement" for being in such a state has largely remained unchanged - it relys on faith and trust in God in such a way that a man is moved to love - all given to man as a freely given gift. During the age of the Church, this faith is based on the Christ and His message. However, even Old Testament figures were declared righteous by God, such as Abraham and David. The point of commonality is faith in God.
Regards
If God had wanted to elect everyone, He would have.
UNLESS God also has another will that logically would make BOTH "desires" impossible to fulfill completely! "Can God make a rock that He cannot pick up"? Can God save all men if all men are to have free will? In the latter question, we must hold BOTH as true, despite our inability to completely solve this mystery. Refusing one side of the equation is an attempt to rationalize and deify one's own intellect - the heresy of Rationalism. We are not about to go down the road paved by Kant, are we? Remember, the Scriptures are the Word of God, even if we don't understand them fully, we must not deny its dictates - that God desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.
In the way you seem to be speaking of it, the extra factor (man's free will) is actually the deciding factor in salvation.
This will is maleable by the ever-present graces offered by God - not by our own intellect and desires. Thus, it is incorrect to assume that God has no role to play BECAUSE of man's free will. Quite the opposite. We absolutely require God's sanctifying grace to move our will to please Him.
Free will, in the way you are using the term, cannot be free if God controls.
Free will is not free if there is no choice. When something becomes a necessity, it is not free. Are you making a free will choice when someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to do something? No, your are being coerced.
How in the world does it show love to us for Him to die if it wasn't necessary? And the quote you must be thinking of does not apply. If I said to my wife "I love you honey, I'm doing this for you", and then jumped off a building, would that really be showing love for my wife?
"There is no greater love than this, that a man die for his friends". IF your death was vicarious sacrifice, then it WOULD be an incredible act of self-giving. Surely, you are aware by now that love = giving of yourself?
If Jesus didn't HAVE to die to save us, then He committed blind suicide. I conclude that Christ gave His life FOR us because it was the only way.
Tsk, tsk. You make God the Father out to be a blood-thirsty tyrant, rather than a loving Father. Christ obeyed the Father's Will to the end. You call Christ's death suicide, but it is ultimate trust in His Father's love.
I would still say it was one purpose of them. I'll borrow one of your own types of arguments and ask why would God give a set of Commandments He knew no one could keep to His standards?
Laws are meant to be kept - regardless of another's evil intent on breaking them. Society sets moral standards that are meant to be followed for the good of all. And yet, people break those laws. Hmm, let's just get rid of the legislative branch of the government...
A major reason must have been to show us this was not the way to heaven.
I just finished reading the first 35 verses of Psalm 119. I don't find your concept of the Law in Scriptures, but rather see the Law as a great gift given to man...
It is immaterial if it is categorized as a side effect of men or not, it exists, God is in full control, so He willed it.
I think it would be more proper to say that sin is NOT an existence, but a lack of an existence, namely, good. Thus, God did not create on non-existence. At least that is the concept that the Greek and Latin Fathers have taught from 1500-1700 years ago. Again, we are probably dealing with varying "will's" or "desires" of God.
If God sees that a man will choose 'A', then God will choose 'B'. If God really was in control, He would choose 'B' independently and then make sure that 'A' would make the corresponding "choice".
Or we can say that God foresees what it would take for a man to choose "A" and place the correct circumstances in man's path to choose "A".
NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE on our side has ever said that a regenerated man can only choose good.
I was quoting Harley at the time. I'd have to search to find that exact post. Perhaps you can mail him and ask for a clarification.
We would say that on the side of "good" choices, that man does not have the capability to make them independently of God.
There are differences between "morally good deeds" and "God pleasing deeds". They are sometimes mutually exclusive - such as the Pharisees and their "morally good deeds". Man doesn't necessarily need God to do "morally good deeds", but to perform ONE good and salutary act worthwhile and meritorious in God's eyes absolutely requires God's graces. "For without me, you can do nothing good".
Your side disagrees, and says that man IS "good" enough to make good choices, with help BUT STILL, independently of God (wounded vs. total depravity). Where is each side placing its faith concerning salvation?
This is a perfect example of the caricature of the Catholic position I have described in the introduction of this post. See my immediately preceding response for clarification.
The second you say "plan accordingly", whether outside of time or not, that means God is dependent because God's plan would have been different BUT FOR man's decisions. The only way out would be to say that God's plan is not implemented in full because man's decisions necessarily deviate from what God would have planned had He been in control. (You said that God only gives us the tools to do what He wants, but of course, that doesn't always work out, so therefore the plan God would have made without man's input is thwarted.)
I am pressed for time, so I will try to answer this quickly. Forgive me if it is not precise. God has a particular will for man. How man and God interact, I must humbly say this is a mystery of faith that man's rational thought will never grasp upon. Any system that attempts to explain how God and man interact is bound to run into difficulties in explanation. What is important is that we do not ignore parts of the faith so as to rationalize it. And that is what I see happening by denying man's activity or denying that God does not desire all men to be saved because it doesn't place God in a box of one's intellect...
Regards
God withholds grace not knowing what a man will do with grace given Him makes God just? Is God randomly choosing the elect?
I'm sorry, I don't understand your first question or how it comes from what I said. God does nothing randomly.
When someone ordains something, they are creating it, authoring it. The moment you say "God ordained sin", you are saying that God authored sin. You can't have it both ways. Either God does NOT ordain sin, man does, or God DOES ordain sin, and He is responsible for man's sinning.
OOPS, I should have stuck this part in with the other post, sorry. Surrounding the crucifixion was a multitude of sins. If God ordained none of them, then man was in control? Is this right? Now I may see why you cannot believe that the crucifixion was necessarily the only way. Since man was in control, God looked down the corridor, saw that man would crucify the Son, and ordered His plan accordingly. What would have happened had God seen that man would not have crucified Jesus? God would have been forced to come up with another method of salvation. Therefore, you're saying that with man in control, the crucifixion must not have been the only way.
FK: "If God actually plans differently than He otherwise would have, because of man, then that necessitates a change based on foreknowledge."
That is all speculation, I suppose. Who can say what sort of options move around in the mind of God or how He plans things such as that?
I know we touch on this in the other post, but I would say we can know that the plans would be different because our ways are not God's ways.
Is God's will bound by His foreknowledge???
Saying that everything happens simultaneously renders such a good question moot, and you know I don't like that. :) My answer would be that God's foreknowledge is bound by His will. To me, it seems that the only way we can possibly understand this is to say that God willed first. His foreknowledge is the box score of His will. This can only be true if God is truly in control. If, OTOH, God molds His will around the decisions of men, then God's will would be bound by His foreknowledge. Of course I hold to the former.
And why would God withhold grace from us, knowing full well we need it to be saved - UNLESS we reject it? To say God purposely withholds grace from an unelect people who might have followed Him otherwise makes God a just God?
God withholds from whom He will withhold. His will alone determines who gets grace and who does not. He is the potter. That He withholds from anyone does make Him a just God. I don't understand your speculation on who "would have" come to God with grace. There must be a certain level of grace whereby everyone would come to God, right? But God doesn't give that to everyone, so in that sense He withholds from everyone who doesn't make it.
God does not withhold Himself from anyone whom He foresees would come to repentance due to His graces given them. He is a just and merciful God who deeply desires our love.
Here is another example of God's dependence on man. God foresees man's exercise of his free will, and then God is bound not to withhold. Under your view, man steers God's will.
Yes, God ordains His elect. ... Regardless of HOW God decides, He certainly DOES predestine the elect and ordains that they be saved without losing any.
OK, great! I did think you believed in single predestination.
Sadly for us, we don't know who is on that list right now!!
God never said I couldn't repeat this, so, He actually gave me a redacted version of the list! I could show it to you if you want. :)
Who named the animals in the Garden? Who was given the command to be fruitful and multiply (to create)? Who was made in the image and likeness of God? Yes, God is in control in that He has already seen our choice.
Since it happened before the fall, God named the animals through Adam. God creates all people through their parents. I don't think God is in control because He knows our choices, He is in control because He does the work that is good. Earlier, you used the example of a football game when you argued that knowing the outcome would NOT mean that the person was in control of the outcome of the game.
When God does not abide in man, He is spiritually dead, but this doesn't mean that the man is beyond any possibility of doing a morally good deed. We should distinguish between doing a good deed and doing a pleasing deed in God's eyes.
Good idea. If you make that distinction, then we probably agree on this. The question I would have surrounds "morally". Is there such a thing as "man's morality" vs. "God's morality"?
In this context? The context, FK, which you left out, is in the last sentence that says abstaining from everything evil. In that context, Job is described as sinless.
What is the difference between your phrase and the other words that I listed? I took it all to be saying the same basic thing. IOW, "abstaining from everything evil" is a description of someone who is "blameless", or "righteous", or "godly", or "perfect". The point is that this is how God sees Job after he was covered in the righteousness of Christ. It does not mean that Job never committed a sin in his life. I'm sure you would have told me by now if the Greek translation of "abstaining" went beyond the present tense to include a lifetime condition.
I've missed most of today's discussion, but this line certainly stands out.
If all men have been redeemed, then all men have been judged innocent by virture of Christ's perfect and complete atonement, and thus no one has been in hell for at least 2,000 years.
You've become a unitarian, jo kus.
And then Adam sinned, according to the will of God no doubt, and that was good too? Correct? It was so "good" that God had to sacrifice Himself on the Cross to repay that decision?
God then decided to drown the wicked men, made wicked by His will, no doubt, according to your theology, and you call that "good?"
God is Love, and love is kind (cf 1 Cor 13:4). The "fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness." [Gal 5:22]
A vengeful and angry God that drowns His own creation is kind? Especially, if we consider your theology to proclaim that even our wickedness is strict obedience to God's will?
Your example of saying "I do this our of love," and kissing your wife as you jump off a bridge is not what Christ did for us. Your jumping off a bridge, for her, would be related only if she was in mortal danger with no other way of being saved. Yes, then your sacrifice would be meaningful and would reflect your love for her -- and could not be considered a "suicide."
Jo, you stated our beliefs very well, thank you.
You've become a unitarian, jo kus.
You are jumping to conclusions, ma'am. I said we Catholics define redemption differently then you. We do not equate redemption with salvation. They are two different things. Thus, we CAN say that all men are redeemed but all men are not saved for eternal life. I firmly believe that hell exists and it is occupied - by whom, I don't know, but it is not empty.
Regards
Then, he was a perfect man (in God's eyes -- and that's what matters right?)! And then St. Paul's assertion that "none, not one is righteous" (in God's eyes) is what?
Job was only perfect from the perspective that God did not look upon his sin. Job was not like Adam before he fell. Paul is quite correct.
I just wanted to share with you all a quick anecdote we heard during the sermon yesterday. Our pastor told us that last Friday, he had been invited to an evening service at a Greek Orthodox Church. He said that he understood some of it from his training, but since the whole thing was in Greek, he had to rely more on what he saw, which was a lot.
He kidded us that if we ever complained about being in church 2 1/2 - 3 hours every Sunday (between Sunday School and service) that we should just visit an Orthodox Church sometime. :) Anyway, he told us of a reenactment of Jesus carrying His cross through the streets. He also told us of a ritual (?) where 4 able-bodied men held up high a large table. Then everyone walked under it, symbolizing coming out of the tomb. Our pastor was obviously very positively impressed with his experience and I was glad he told us the story. I thought of all of you.
This is precisely the principle of imputed righteousness.
Amen, and great find, Harley! Thank you. FWIW, here is what my version says:
Job 14:16-17 : "16 Surely then you will count my steps but not keep track of my sin. 17 My offenses will be sealed up in a bag; you will cover over my sin."
Thanks for the ping. Yes, the services of Holy Week are very moving -- even if one is only able to understand the liturgical movement. If one is able to understand the hymnology and Scriptural readings fully, it is infinitely more moving.
After Matins of Holy Friday, at which the 12 Passion Gospels are read (our service took about 2 1/2 hours, and we abbreviated it a fair amount), our priest told us the story of having one of his parishioners being amused at the water fountain at work some years back. She overheard a Protestant colleague complaining that at their Good Friday service, their preacher had insisted on reading the entire story of the Crucifixion from the Gospel of Mark. We couldn't help but chuckle out loud -- as you would, too, if you had just heard the 12 appointed accounts from all four Gospels read.
An interesting point that he made was that these extensive public readings of the Scripture appointed in the Orthodox Church were terribly important in the days before the printing press. (If the Holy Week services are served fully, the book of Psalms, all four Gospels and the book of Acts would be read in their entirety in church.)
This is of course commonsense. His truly interesting point, though, was that he felt that in the modern age, the public reading of Scripture has become more important than it has been since those pre-printing press days. We in the 21st c. are so married to our TV and computer screens that we read less and less (and chatter more and more on-line about what little we do read.) I thought it was an insightful point...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.