Primacy of Jesus Christ, Alpha and Omega (sin or no sin)

D to X: In all fairness, I don't mean to trash your reasoning. But it IS human reasoning

Good observation, dangus, because it's universally applicable. When it comes to anything that involves human interpretation, especially the Bible, some people seem to present their private viewpoints as if God were speaking through them, and they do it without any humility.

some people seem to present their private viewpoints as if God were speaking through them, and they do it without any humility.

And the Holy Spirit does not speak to you through His Holy Word ?
I'm sorry to hear that.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

I only have one example (hence rare)...

Anecdotal. Psychosomatic conversion reactions (loss of vision, paralysis, even false pregnancy...) have been treated as "demonic" (possession) "diseases" throughout history. They are not demonic.

You would not be happy if you had an infection and the doctor told you it's caused by a "bug." Science ha isolated disease-causing organisms and knows quite a bit about them and can effectively present evidence of their existence.

The "demonic" approach to illness stops at the "bug" stage. It'sa still on a tribal level of medicine. There is as much evidence of that as there is that rumbling volcanoes rumble because the "god" inside the mountain is "angry" or "hungry" and needs sacrifice, preferably human.

Jesus healed a woman hemorraging--no mention of casting out demons, he healed Peter's mother in law--no mention of demons; and ten lepers and various paralytics and blind--no mention of demons, and the man with the withered hand--no mention of demons, etc.. Obviously there were sicknesses directly caused by demons in the Gospels and in those cases Jesus healed them by delivering them from their root cause, the devil

Jesus is also said to have believed mustard seed is the smallest seed, as well as treating demonic illnesses as something 'real.' The Bible says the world is standing on four pillars. Do you believe that too?

Lev 11:12 tells us that there are "fowl that creep." Duet. 14:7 says that hares chew their cud. Would God say something like that to Moses when we know it's not true?

The Bible also tells us that God could not find one innocent child worthy of saving in Sodom and Gomorrah.

Do you believe our enemies' children are just as guilty as their fathers, and should be destroyed along with them? The Bible seems to teach that on numerous occasions—God instructs his" people to kill men, women, and children ("dash them to pieces," and smash them against rocks, etc), and even their live stock, and being very graphic about it. It seems like God is either unable or unwilling to help people become better human beings.

Do you find "Christ" in Sodom and Gomorrah? The same Christ that says to love your enemies and those who hate you? The same Christ who says that the kingdom of God belongs to those who are like little children, yet God destroys all the children in them (it seems God sometimes teaches one thing and does another).

With all due respect, I think it is rather "retrograde" for the lack of a better word, to believe that the world sits on four pillars, that God doesn't know or doesn't want to tell the whole truth which is the smallest seed, and that illnesses are caused by "demons" which we cannot quote, identify and name, but treat anecdotal hearsay "evidence" as something creidble and verifable.

Try to hang your coat on that and see how long before it falls on the ground. That's how much "substance" such arguments have.

And the Holy Spirit does not speak to you through His Holy Word ?

Do you have any proof that it's the Holy Spirit speaking to you?

Before we got side tracked, mainly by my frustation that I cannot quote St. Paul as an authority, you responded (71) to my entry (60) and were going to respond some more. I’d like to return back to that part of the discourse, if you have time

Of course.

My faith does not rest on which day Christ was born. The ancients had a valid, Christian reason to suppose it was on Dec. 25th. While the arguments that such a date was pagan in origin are demonstrably false,

Why would the creator of the universe, the one who
commanded Feast Days ( appointments ) for his ekklesia,
instead select some man made pagan date for His Birth.
Answer He would not !
Since Yah'shua re-celebrated in sequence His commanded Feast Days,
why would anyone, who claims to be one of His followers believe that
His birth would not have been on one of His Commanded Feast days?
The most likely date would be hinted at by John
when he wrote that :
NAsbU John 1:14 And the Word <3056> became <1096> flesh <4561>, and dwelt <4637> among <1722> us,
<4637> skhno,w skenoo
Meaning: to have one’s tent, dwell
Origin: from 4633
Usage: dwell(3), dwelt(1), spread His tabernacle(1).
Notes: (1) Or tabernacled; i.e. lived temporarily

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

...my frustation [to kosta's objection] that I cannot quote St. Paul as an authority...

I didn't say you can't qote him as authority. Of course you can, but if you want him to carry some weight (rememebr: you are arguing to convince me, not you), then Pauline statenments should be synchronized (corroborated) with those of the Gospels. Otherwise, you are using St. Paul as a stand-alone authority that trumps Christ.

What else were you going to respond to in (60)?

I will have to re-read everything. Part of the reason I stopped and never came back to it is because I gave you specific verses to back up my arguments and you totally ignored them (#74). You never went pasts my first paragraph. Why should I spend time and energy researching my notes only to have them ignored. My post #71 is pretty lengthy and is full of quotes.

For instance the one where Jesus tells his disciples "your God and my God." His God?!? It seems you never even saw something as provocagtive as that verse is. For if you did, I can't imagine that you wouldn't respond.

It's like you never even read it.

But I will go back to your post #60 and see what I left out. The reason I had to break it is because it took so long to put together than I couldn't do it in one sitting , and when I realized that all that work was going to just go over like a lead balloon, I saw no reason to continue.

Kosta, I made a mistake: 71 is in response to 65 (not 60).

You wrote:It's like you never read it.

Blush. I admit it, I reacted at first because my arguments were dismissed because of two Pauline references in parentheses--not even essential to the points I was making. At any rate, I have read it and am even meditating a bit on St. John of Damascus. Another reason I didn't respond to 71 more thorougly (77 was a partial response) is because there is a lot to respond to. You know how to pack a ping!!!

XS> And the Holy Spirit does not speak to you through His Holy Word ?

Do you have any proof that it's the Holy Spirit speaking to you?

I trust Yah'shua.
NAsbU John 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father
will send in My name, He will teach you all things,
and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai

Do you have any proof that it's the Holy Spirit speaking to you?

When He glorifies the Son, He is worthy our trust, faith and confidence in His sanctifying work in us.

Your arguments here would be more appropriately addressed to sola Scriptura Biblical literalists -- or more effectiively to the equally obtuse scientific literalists. They won't convince the former, but by all means, have at it! (BTW, my Lev 11:12 only says that fish are only kosher if they have fins and scales. Typo? If an arnevet is indeed a hare as we know them, the confusion is likely from the fact that hares groom themselves like cats and so are subject to fur balls, which are in fact regurgitated like a cud.)

Jesus is also said to have believed mustard seed is the smallest seed, as well as treating demonic illnesses as something 'real.' The Bible says the world is standing on four pillars. Do you believe that too?

It is only in grammar books that the superlative is always the "most." In modern English, other meanings are more common in colloquial speech: "Isn't he the cutest thing!" Granted, I don't know Aramaic, but in Hebrew the superlative is expressed by definite article + adjective, which of course also occurs in mention of any adjective describing a definite noun. Then there's poetic usage: There's a line in a modern Hebrew song (by a songwriter steeped in Biblical Hebrew) to the effect that "I am smaller than the smallest of your sons."

The pillars you'll have to give me a reference for -- I can't find it my concordance. But in the usage of a pre-scientific community, I don't think it's important.

Do you believe our enemies' children are just as guilty as their fathers, etc., etc.

The Bible tells a story -- IMO, a true story, but it has an actual plot, with real characters and change and development, as, for example, from assuming that worldly prosperity is a sure sign that God is pleased to the understanding that knowledge of God is the true treasure. God takes a barbaric tribe and gradually, over a couple of thousand years, brings them to where the Christian message is possible. He inspired the writers of Scripture, but He didn't make them into something they weren't, i.e., they were men of their time and their culture, with the physical and mental limitations common to the human condition. (Again, I recommend C.S. Lewis's Reflections on the Psalms.) Naturally, this view probably won't go down with the frothier Biblical literalists, who seem to think that each verse of Scripture is of equal value to every other verse; some agree with you that the Bible should be read on the level of a science textbook, only they think it's correct on that level.

as well as treating demonic illnesses as something 'real.'

Science deals only with immediate causes (material cause, as I said before); it says nothing about why there should be disease, deformity, etc. For this, you have to look to final, formal and efficient causes (to use the traditional vocabulary, inadequate as it might be), which science excludes from its purview.

Maryz: thank you for that post.

Kosta50, and anyone else that's interested:

1. I think we're agreed that Christ came to save sinners. His name, Jesus, after all, means God saves or God savior and the angel spelled out to Joseph that Mary would bring forth a son and "thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins." (Matthew 1:21). And Jesus himself, after eating with sinners, says, "For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost." (Luke 19:10)

St. Paul confirms this in many places. For example, "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief." (I Timothy 1:15).

2. But we are also told by the Gospel that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us" (John 1:14) so that we might become God's children: "as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:12-13).

Once again, Paul corroborates in many places: "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:3-6) In this passage we see that God sends his son so that we may be his adopted children in Christ, so that we might receive every spiritual blessing in Christ, so that we might be holy and without blame in love in his sight, etc. As St. John says, "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God" (I John 3:1).

3. And did not Christ come to be our mediator with God the Father? "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6).

St. Paul: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (I Timothy 2:5). Through his mediation Jesus enriches and elevates us: "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich." (2 Corinthians 8:9), or St. Peter: "Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust." (II Peter 1:4).

Conclusion: After the sin of Adam there is no question that Christ Jesus came to save man as Redeemer. However, seeing that there are many other reasons for the incarnation, one cannot rule out the fact that the primary "purpose" (to use Paul's terminology in Ephesians) of the coming of Christ might lie outside of man's need for redemption. In other words, as Philip Yancey puts it in the article posted, it is possible that Christmas (which presupposes the incarnation) would have occurred even if humanity had not sinned.

Aquinas maintains that this opinion is probable and even lists a host of reasons why the Incarnation would bring about a "furtherance in good" quite apart from remedying man's woe. (Summa III, Q 1, art. 2, "I answer that...").

St. Francis de Sales held this position.

As well as Fr. Frederick Faber (Anglican converted to Roman Catholicism).

As noted before, Fr. Florovsky (Orthodox) shows this as possible.

And more recently Fr. Gabriel Amorth (Roman Catholic), chief exorcist in Rome.

And Fr. Maximilian Dean (Roman Catholic) who, besides posting here at FR has a whole video series and a book on this very subject--very engaging. Actually, it was Fr. Maximilian's posts that sparked my interest in being a "FReeper".

And of course the author of the article at the head of this thread, Philip Yancey (Evangelical), who discusses how this is possible and seems to favor this few. Yancey concludes his article: Among Jesus' final words, in Revelation, are these: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." John Duns Scotus must be smiling.

All glory to Christ. Amen.

So although [God] can permit evil, he never chooses evil, he never wills evil

First, does anything happen that is contrary to His will? If so, please define sovereign. Then please define evil.

[C]learly he does not predestine Adam’s fall and therefore is not the power behind the emergence of sin

God placed the tree, and the serpent in the Garden, knowing Adam and Eve would sin. How did he know it? He "predestined" it! He wrote to screenplay. If that's what really happened, it had to happen that way. Otherwise, God is not in control.

So I think we are on the same page. Predestination, or foreknowledge, on the part of God means that he is utterly omniscient and transcendent

But not always in control?

And God foreknows our response and thus, before the foundation of the world predestines to glory in Christ those “few” who will cooperate

Yes, I think it is fair to say that God would know who will use his blessings in harmony with his will.

(no predetermination here—he foreknows the cooperation of the elect and therefore predestines—not predetermines—them to glory)

I am not sure I agree with this difference. A movie will end the way it was produced to end regardless of what we do in the movie theater. We could sleep, instant message or actually watch the movie. What we do only affects our experience of that movie, but not its end.

The author/director created the screenplay and therefore foreknew how it will end (because he decided how it will end!), which pretty much predestined the end.

Isa 38:5 suggests, however, that God does change the outcome and that his foreknowledge is not predetermined independent of our cooperation, which suggests that our will is outside> of his will (we believe, by God's decision form all eternity). The verse says

"I have heard your prayer, I have seen your tears; behold, I will add fifteen years to your life."

If that's the case, then God surrenders some of his sovereignty to man, and rewards us when our will is in harmony with his, but is not his. In other words, when we act the way Christ would act, when we conform ourselves to the image of Christ, when we are Christ-like, or restored (even for a moment) to the likeness of God.

The important element is prayer and tears (repentance), for there is no forgiveness without repentance. We must ask in order to receive.

For Duns Scotus, and I’m of the same opinion and I think I hear you saying the same, God is utterly free in his decrees and man is utterly free in his response

No wonder the Reformed call the traditional Christians "Pelagians!" :) Yes, that's what the Orthodox teach. Christ died for all mankind and desires all mankind to be saved. He give us the reason and the freedom to choose, just as he gave that freedom to Adam and Eve.

This is why the “reformers” mocked Duns Scotus by calling people who followed his Catholic doctrine “dunces”, especially his doctrine on freedom, both man’s and God’s.

The Reformed unfortunately have this deformed idea that God must be a micro manager. Love must be free and we must come freely, in love, to God. Love does not compel. Forced love is no love. The prodigal son came back on his own (the way most of us do when we are in dire need and our pride has been deflated) and was forgiven when he repented.

Just think how different that story would be if the father sent out guards and forced (dragged) his frivolous son back to him because he could have and you will understand how far removed form mainline Christianity the Reformed are.

Finally, you wrote of the Incarnation that: His primary and, in fact, only purpose was to bring back "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat 15:24) into his fold. If you said “in my opinion His primary…”, I would simply respond that I’m of another opinion.

But it's not my opinion. :) It's what the NT says. The way the Greek text reads, it's the purpose (English language Bibles say "only" [NAB, NIV] , the koine Greek text says ei me [except, a conditional particle], the KJV version says "sent but for..."). Either way, there is no doubt that the text states his purpose is exclusive.

I think Fr. Frolovsky's excellent presentation, very sober and reserved, makes it clear that the opinion that God’s masterpiece in all creation, the Incarnation, was willed absolutely and not simply as a remedy for man’s sin is a valid opinion to be respected

I will say that it is a theologoumenon (theological opinion or, in Latin, hypothesis), but not valid orthodox Church theology, and it is certainly contrary to the very explicit and exclusive statement already mention in Mat 15:24.

When He glorifies the Son, He is worthy our trust, faith and confidence in His sanctifying work in us

That may be a sufficient reason for a believer, but it doesn't constitute a proof. It can be expressed as a statement of one's personal faith and not as a universal fact.

Kosta50, good morning! Thank you for these responses; and thanks for responding in two instalments :) A couple of clarifications on #114…

You wrote: First, does anything happen that is contrary to His will? If so, please define sovereign. Then please define evil.

Regarding God’s will, I would make this distinction. There is God’s sovereign will and his permissive will. Hence all that happens in time is part of his will—either his sovereign will or his permissive will. Evil, which is a privation of good, is permitted by God who in his goodness respects and honors our free will, even to allowing us to definitively reject his love and to choose Hell. God permits evil; he allows free rational creatures to disobey—it’s his permissive will. But by no means does he sovereignly will evil—this would be against his very nature as the all-perfect and good God.

I like how St. John of Damascus puts it in his Exposition on the Orthodox Faith: God in His goodness(3) brought what exists into being out of nothing, and has foreknowledge of what will exist in the future. If, therefore, they were not to exist in the future, they would neither be evil in the future nor would they be foreknown. For knowledge is of what exists and foreknowledge is of what will surely exist in the future. For simple being comes first and then good or evil being. But if the very existence of those, who through the goodness of God are in the future to exist, were to be prevented by the fact that they were to become evil of their own choice, evil would have prevailed over the goodness of God. Wherefore God makes all His works good, but each becomes of its own choice good or evil. (BOOK IV CHAPTER XXI).

In other words, the very fact that man can choose evil shows the goodness of God who, foreknowing that this or that man will choose evil, in his goodness he creates them just the same. Otherwise, if, foreseeing this or that man’s fall he were not to create them, then as St. John of Damascus says, “evil would have prevailed over the goodness of God” and God would not have created them.

Therefore, as you noted, God placed the tree, and the serpent in the Garden, knowing Adam and Eve would sin.

This is true. The omniscient God foreknows everything that will happen in time. But foreknowledge and predestination are not the same thing; and predetermination is another thing still.

Foreknowledge has to do with the intellect. God knows all because he is outside of time, above it. Just as I can look at a map of the U.S. and see New York and Los Angeles and Dallas all at once, because I am outside the map, I transcend the map and see the whole country from above; so too, God is outside of time, above and transcending it and can see the outcome of all events. This is foreknowledge. But it is not the same as predestination.

Predestination has to do with God’s will, his loving choice. He is free to predestine man or not (he is not obliged—he doesn’t owe anyone anything) and he allows for man’s free cooperation. Those who God foreknows will not cooperate he does not predestine to glory—he leaves them free, he doesn’t force them, he doesn’t send out armed brigades to coerce the prodigal sons to come to their senses, as you so brilliantly put it!

In our discussion it seems that you sometimes equate predestination with predetermination. Whereas God’s foreknowledge and his choice to predestine the elect to glory entirely respect and honor man’s free will, predetermination indicates that which is fixed and immutable in God’s plan. For example, it was predetermined that I exist. I had no say in the matter; I can’t cooperate in coming into existence because before my creation I don’t exist :)

St. John of Damascus is clear: We ought to understand(2) that while God knows all things beforehand, yet He does not predetermine all things(3). For He knows beforehand those things that are in our power, but He does not predetermine them. For it is not His will that there should be wickedness nor does He choose to compel virtue. So that predetermination is the work of the divine command based on fore-knowledge(4). But on the other hand God predetermines those things which are not within our power in accordance with His prescience. For already God in His prescience has prejudged all things in accordance with His goodness and justice. (BOOK II CHAPTER XXX)

You have frequently referred to a screenplay in speaking of God’s plan and our role in that plan. It is a limited analogy (that’s true of all analogies by their very nature). I’ll toss in a couple of thoughts. If we think of it more as a live act, instead of a recorded movie, I think the analogy is better. And let us say that parts of the play are sovereignly willed by God and that others are freely improvised within a fixed context, so in this play God allows improvisation (part of his permissive will). This is true of comedy plays, for example, where there is a certain amount of license on the part of the comedians, but the outline is already determined. It’s still an analogy, limited by its very nature, but at least it somewhat illustrates what is happening in the great drama of salvation where there are both dimensions—the sovereign, predetermined parts and the permissive, free parts. If all were predetermined and God controlled every act, we would be like the planets who have no say, or the animals who act based on instinct; but clearly, as you so beautifully noted, we are free to pray and weep for our sins.

At first the movie analogy was God and the movie (and we were part of the movie), but then you threw in a new dimension—we are the viewers of the movie. In this expanded analogy the movie is predetermined, but the response of the viewers is not. The viewers response does not affect the movie or its turnout, but it does affect its impact on their lives. So the end of the film is predetermined, but not the end of those who view the film. And here the analogy fails, because in this world the filmmaker cannot foreknow how the viewers will respond, much less predestine the viewers to some reward. Moreover, in the drama of salvation, we are not spectators, but players on the field freely cooperating or not as it unravels in our lives.

In the end, I looked up the Roman Catholic take on all of this and I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a sound synthesis.

1. God freely predestines the elect: God is love: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God freely wills to communicate the glory of his blessed life. Such is the "plan of his loving kindness", conceived by the Father before the foundation of the world, in his beloved Son: "He destined us in love to be his sons" and "to be conformed to the image of his Son", through "the spirit of sonship".94 This plan is a "grace [which] was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began", stemming immediately from Trinitarian love.95 It unfolds in the work of creation, the whole history of salvation after the fall, and the missions of the Son and the Spirit, which are continued in the mission of the Church.96 (CCC #257)

2. Man is free to cooperate or not: To God, all moments of time are present in their immediacy. When therefore he establishes his eternal plan of "predestination", he includes in it each person's free response to his grace. (CCC #600)

The biblical teaching of St. John of Damascus and the Roman Catholic Church are in stark contrast with the Calvinistic notion of predestination: We say, then, that Scripture clearly proves this much, that God by his eternal and immutable counsel determined once for all those whom it was his pleasure one day to admit to salvation, and those whom, on the other hand, it was his pleasure to doom to destruction. John Calvin (Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 21, Section 7) . For Calvin all is predetermined (and this is not what St. Paul means by predestination).

I’ll take a look at #115 later today (if my schedule permits) or perhaps tomorrow. As I said, you know how to pack a ping ;)

I left out another quote from the CCC #2002: “God’s free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love.” Hence predestination presupposes the free initiative on teh part of God who loves us first and teh free response to that love on the part of man, as the Orthodox Church believes.

As long as a person seeks proof of His existence and action, that same person places themselves independent of God as a judge of God. As such, that person places themselves in sin, unable to perceive the truth, but further scarring their own thinking processes.

Oustanding post. Thanks for the witness.