ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

lee_merrill

New member
What then is "Abraham's Bosom"? (Luke 16)
The bosom of Abraham! So then this would be wherever Abraham is. I don't believe this is a technical term for the place of the righteous dead who are not yet in Paradise.

If it is agreed that death does not mean that one is destroyed then why did you bring it up?
If by "Jesus died spiritually" you mean Jesus was forsaken by the Father, but his spirit was not destroyed, or that Jesus' spirit went to the Father, then I agree with you.

If I am wrong then prove it with Scripture and plain reason or show me how others have done the same, otherwise I'm not interested.
Only we don't have time to investigate every question in one lifetime, so when some teacher says "the meaning of dunamis is not like 'dynamite', it does not have a sense of 'explosive power'" we may need to accept that statement, instead of doing a word study ourselves. So then we need to know which teachers are to be trusted in general, and which are not.

But yes, it's best to investigate yourself, especially for the important questions, but even then we will wind up taking some aspects of the question on authority, it really is unavoidable (such as the meaning of words in Greek and Hebrew, unless you are a scholar).

Blessings,
Lee
 

RobE

New member
Cause-effect does not apply to moral creation like it does to inanimate creation.

Desires are not causative.

I'm tempted to believe this until I realize that temptation is a desire which causes. And your answer to this in light of ---- "Desires are not causative."
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I'm tempted to believe this until I realize that temptation is a desire which causes. And your answer to this in light of ---- "Desires are not causative."


Jesus was tempted (influenced) without being caused to sin (sinless).

Temptation is an influence and may be resisted before the will choses to sin.

I think it would be wise to see the will as causative (working with mind), not outside forces, lest we fall into evolutionary determinism like B.F. Skinner's behavioralism. The latter negates personal responsibility, contrary to Scripture.

I think some of your assumptions are flawed leading to wrong conclusions.
 

RobE

New member
I will survive my physical death with my memories and personality intact. My body influences who I am but does not define me as a person. It is my heart, my soul/spirit that defines who I am.

An interesting point considering that open theists often comment that God's nature changed when Jesus became human. God's essence saw no change during the incarnation according to this accurate thinking.

And if that which died on the cross was merely human, it was not sufficient to pay the sin debt of the entire human race.

Another valid point. If the death of innocence was the only requirement then all those infants who died before accountability would have been sufficient cause of redemption.

What then was the reason that man was unable to save himself, Clete? Did Adam have this same 'mysterious' defect? What was it that God had that man did not which was required for atonement?

The conclusion of my arguments will be that Jesus Christ was the point of creation from the beginning.
 

RobE

New member
Jesus was tempted (influenced) without being caused to sin (sinless).

Temptation is an influence and may be resisted before the will choses to sin.

I think it would be wise to see the will as causative (working with mind), not outside forces, lest we fall into evolutionary determinism like B.F. Skinner's behavioralism. The latter negates personal responsibility, contrary to Scripture.

I think some of your assumptions are flawed leading to wrong conclusions.

However, if temptation is accepted, it is a cause. Why else was the serpent cursed for His participation in the fall of man?
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
However, if temptation is accepted, it is a cause. Why else was the serpent cursed for His participation in the fall of man?

Even in our criminal system, one can be an accessory to murder just by hiding the actual murderer. The penalty is up to life in prison (Canada).

James talks about lust, sin, death being internal caused, not external caused (you can't say the devil made you do it or you would not be responsible). Lucifer fell without external temptation. It was a matter of mind and will that led to his prideful downfall.

Avoid causation lest you negate responsibility. Jesus was tempted without sin. Lucifer was not tempted, yet sinned. You are on the wrong track.
 

RobE

New member
Even in our criminal system, one can be an accessory to murder just by hiding the actual murderer. The penalty is up to life in prison (Canada).

James talks about lust, sin, death being internal caused, not external caused (you can't say the devil made you do it or you would not be responsible). Lucifer fell without external temptation. It was a matter of mind and will that led to his prideful downfall.

Avoid causation lest you negate responsibility. Jesus was tempted without sin. Lucifer was not tempted, yet sinned. You are on the wrong track.

Of course this is true. The influences are only causes when we cooperate with them. It's the cooperation which brings responsibility. Every action we engage in is influenced by some stimulus. We don't behave at random. This brings us back to our original point. Sure Lucifer was tempted by something, even if it was an idea which originated within himself. What reasons do you have to post on TOL?

Cause-effect does not apply to moral creation like it does to inanimate creation.

Sure it does. Reasons, reasons, and more reasons. Why do you do the things you do? Because your reason dictates your actions. Again Cause and effect. Where does your mode of thinking come from? More influences. Are there reasons you think the way you do? Come on. Let's not let the long argument cloud our judgement. Let's reason together and see if it can cause us to develop a different conclusion than we currently believe.
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Drop a rock and it falls. Impersonal Cause-effect.

Love, freedom, relationship, self-determination, creativity, choice, ideas, feelings, etc. More than cause-effect like stimulus/response. We are moral creation, free moral agents in the image of God. God does not operate on a causal system, but is the ultimate free being who can think, act, feel due to intelligence and will (personal). This is a higher order of governance than inanimate creation or animate creation that operates on instinct, not free will image of God beauty and complexity.
 

Evoken

New member
Clete said:
Your objection to my claim that God died was based on your presumption that death meant that one ceases to exist or is extinguished. If that's what it meant to die, I would understand and agree with your objection but it isn't. Death is merely a separation. Physical death is separation of your spirit from your body. Spiritual death is separation from God.

And what is death to God, who is a spirit, Clete? This is the point you are missing. As I said in my previous post, you were not clear that you were talking about the incarnation, in your posts you were talking about God. Now, since God is a spirit (John 4:24), and if spiritual death is as you say a separation from God, what then does it means for God to die? Surely it cannot mean separation from himself, for that is an obvious contradiction. God, being a spirit also has no composition or parts, so we cannot talk about his "vital functions" ceasing or anything resembling that. The only intelligible way a spirit can die (not merely being separated from God which is the state of the damned, but to really die) is to cease to exist, to vanish into nothingness. For God it would be that he would no longer be, the very opposite of who he claims he is (I AM).

How then would Jesus' physical death as a human male fix the physical and spiritual death of all mankind?

The spiritual death of Adam pertains to a severed relationship of him and the rest of mankind with God, hence why we are born all alienated from God and in need of his grace. The spiritual death could only be restored through obedience, hence spiritual death in so far as is understood by it a separation from God is actually contrary to the work of redemption for it is the very thing he came to fix.


Well aren't we all damned before we get saved? You're a Catholic and so I know you believe in original sin and all that but even if children are not born in sin, which is what I believe, that is only because Jesus died on the cross, right? Can you point out a person that you know of who wasn't spiritually dead before his having put his faith in Christ for salvation?

I am not sure what you mean with this question, for I was talking about Christ being spiritually dead, which is impossible. But as far as us goes, yes we all are spiritually death until we receive the grace of God.


The could you explain what you think it means for God the Father to have forsaken Jesus? (Matthew 27:46)

It does not says God the Father, it just says God, Lord Jesus is very careful about the words he uses. This is a very important distinction. This is said to fulfill a Messianic prophecy, it is the same saying found in the Psalm: "O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me?" (Psalm 21:1) . This chapter is heavy on the fulfillment of several prophesies, this is the context on which things are happening in this chapter. The Psalm 21 closely matches many of the events that take place in the life of Christ, which we see in Matthew 27:

"O God my God, look upon me: why hast thou forsaken me?" (Psalm 21:1)
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

"He hoped in the Lord, let him deliver him: let him save him, seeing he delighteth in him." (Psalm 21:8)
"He trusted in God; let him now deliver him if he will have him; for he said: I am the Son of God." (Matthew 27:43)

"The council of the malignant hath besieged me. They have dug my hands and feet." (Psalm 21:17)​

A clear parallel with his crucifixion and the trial before the council.

"They parted my garments amongst them; and upon my vesture they cast lots." (Psalm 21:19)
"They divided my garments among them; and upon my vesture they cast lots." (Matthew 27:35)

Now, since Christ is God, then certainly the verse cannot mean that he was forsaken by God, for that is like he being forsaken by himself, which is contradictory. Nor can it mean that he doubted God, for that too would be contradictory, and even if possible, it would amount to a lack of faith which would itself be a sin, but we know that Christ did not sin (Hebrews 4:15, 2 Corinthians 5:21). So, it is clear then both by the context in which the verse is found, by the text of the verse itself and by the very nature of Christ that this is a fulfillment of prophecy and that it does not implies any separation neither from God nor from the Father.


This seems to me like pure conjecture. I understand that this is what you believe but I've shown Biblically that Jesus DESCENDED to the place of the righteous dead (i.e. Abraham's Bosom or Paradise).

I'll ask you the same questions that I ask Lee. What is Abraham's Bosom? And what is Paul talking about in the following passage..
Ephesians 4:8 Therefore He says:
“ When He ascended on high,
He led captivity captive,
And gave gifts to men.”

9 (Now this, “He ascended”—what does it mean but that He also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things.)

Nobody is denying that Lord Jesus descended into Hell, so why are you telling me that you have shown "Biblically that Jesus DESCENDED" into Hell? At death his soul was separated from his body and descended into Hell during the three days he was dead (Matthew 12:40). The verses you quoted must be read within the context of the Gospel, the moment at which Lord Jesus descended into Hell was during the three days that his body was at the tomb, while his soul was separated from his body. It was neither before nor after that. Thus it is why it is said that "...neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption." (Acts 2:31). His soul descended into Hell, his body did not, it remained at the tomb. For him to go to Abraham's Bosom, he had to die first, like all humans and then, his soul went there to release the just (Matthew 27:52-53).


Again, this seems to me to be pure conjecture. The text does not say that he had not yet ascended bodily to the Father but simply the HE had not ascended to His Father. Your addition of "bodily" is only your theology being read into the text, isn't it?

Not at all, it is actually what a carefully reading of the Scriptures lead one to. There was no separation of the Father and the Son, there is no Scriptural evidence to support that idea. Lord Jesus affirms plainly throughout the Scriptures his intimate union with the Father and even equates himself with him:

"I and the Father are one" (John 10:30).

"Do you not believe, that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? The words that I speak to you, I speak not of myself. But the Father who abideth in me, he doth the works. Believe you not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?" (John 14:10-11).

"All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him." (Matthew 11:27, Luke 10:22).

From the the beginning (John 1:1-2) to his baptism (Matthew 3:17) to his death (Luke 23:46) at all times the Son was united to God, and since the Father is God, he was likewise united to the Father. You cannot posit a separation of the Son from the Father (or the Holy Ghost or God) without compromising the integrity of Christ's divinity and the Blessed Trinity.

WHAT?

Do you have ANY Scripture to back such an idea up? God the Father descending into Hell? Isn't that a bit of a stretch just to keep your Augustinian theology intact? Jesus, God the Son, is the one who died, not the Father and not the Holy Spirit. There is no Biblical support for any other position.

Well Clete, according to John 5:19: "...the Son cannot do any thing of himself, but what he seeth the Father doing: for what things soever he doth, these the Son also doth in like manner."

Very simple, the Son cannot descend into Hell until he sees the Father doing it so that he does it as well. The Son descended into Hell to preach, to release the dead by loosing the sorrows of Hell (Acts 2:24, 1 Peter 3:19), in short to do things, which as the verses above show he cannot do unless the Father does them. The Father and the Son are one in the most intimate way. This verse is also very important for it shows that while God is a Trinity of Persons, he has only one will, not three and thus the three persons act in unity (see also Genesis 1:26, John 1:3).

I am not sure why you mention St. Augustine. Do you think he made up the idea of the three persons acting in unity or of them being one in essence and thus inseparable? You think that he "corrupted" the gospel with "greek philosophy"? Hopefully that is not what you think because going long before he was even born we find that this is precisely what the earliest Christians believed. Here are some examples:

St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180: "For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things"

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, A.D. 213: "Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit."

Dionysius, A.D. 260, fragment in Athanasius' Nicene Definition: "I may reasonably turn to those who divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partitive subsistences and god-heads three [...] Sabellius [...] blasphemously says that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son, but they in some sort preach three Gods, as dividing the sacred Monad into three subsistences foreign to each other and utterly separate."

The earliest heresies such as the one of Sabellius mentioned in the last quote, who was excommunicated in A.D. 220 as well as the Gnostic sects as lead by the likes of Marcion who proposed a separation in the godhead or some other form of distinction besides the persons were opposed on all fronts in the early Church as being contrary to sound doctrine. St. Augustine didn't make anything up nor did he corrupt anything, he simply followed and like all his predecessors before him, gave fuller expression to the teaching of The Church, not by inventing some new doctrine but by making it more explicit and clearer. Something that became necessary as more heresies emerged.

That is precisely what Jesus Himself says...
Revelation 1:18 I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.

Yes, he died a human dead in the fullest sense. The divine nature did not nor could it have died.


Yeah! That's the gospel Evoken! Your entire spiritual life is dependent upon the death of God!

The Gospel of Clete, perhaps, but not the one we find in Scripture.

Meaning that God the Son suffered separation from the Father, not that He was destroyed or that He ceased to exist.

Scripture and reason exclude absolutely the notion of the Son being in any way separated from the Father. In addition to what has been said above, also consider: "Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption." (Acts 2:27). Why do you think that is if not because he is united with the Father and because he is the same God as Fathers? Again, at death he gave up his spirit to the Father, no separation occurs at any time.

I don't care anything about the Nicene Creed. The Bible teaches me that God the Son died for my sin and that's what you're up against.

The only thing I am up against is your own arbitrary opinion which you equate (quite erroneously) with the real sense of Scripture. You are proud of quoting Luther, I wonder if you are aware that he would be dismayed by some of the things you are saying about God? If there is anyone who is up against anything here it is you and that is against almost 2,000 years of Christian history and tradition and also against the very Scriptures. For you to pompously claim that you don't care anything about the Nicene Creed, a creed that even the most liberal of Christians agree with only shows how drowned you are in delusions of grandeur. I noticed that in other posts you were calling Pentecostals heretics, I am lead to ask, in what grounds do you call them heretics, when you have set yourself outside the bounds of even the most liberal forms of Christianity? I suggest you look yourself in the mirror first before condemning others.

If there is something I don't care about it is the personal interpretation of the Scriptures of some random individual (there are over 40,000 personal interpretations and raising), specially when it goes against what has been believed and defended even to the death in the history of Christianity down to the earliest Christians.


This is speculation at best. The fact is that the Bible does not explain the Trinity to us. There is a sense in which God is One, and another sense in which God is three distinct persons. How that works, we are not told in Scripture. My position is simply that in whatever respect God the Son is distinct from God the Father, He was separated from Him for three days. It is not my position that Jesus ceased being God the Son.

How is it speculation? Either God is one in three persons or he is three separate gods. Scripture and Reason, remember? Your claim that the Son was separated from the Father is not in the Scriptures and is in fact precluded by what is clearly stated in them. How was the Son separated from the Father for three days anyway? Did God become two for a while and then became one again? This makes no sense. Again, if the Son is separated (keep apart or divide; remove or sever from association) from the Father, then it simply cannot be maintained that there are not three gods but one. Some things may not be explicitly taught in Scripture but they are there implicitly, that is, the facts from which we can draw the conclusion are clearly there. In such a way is that the doctrine of the Trinity (among others) is found in the Scriptures.

But it was precisely because of His divine nature that made that redemption possible.

God being omnipotent could have redeemed man in any way. The incarnation while the most appropriate means for the redemption of man, was not absolutely necessary as a means to redeem man. Otherwise the redemption would lose it's gratuitousness, mercifulness and lovingness as it would be simply something God was cohered to do. Now since God, who is infinite demanded full atonement for the offense committed to him, then a sacrifice of infinite value was needed, which only a divine person can provide. This is the reason for the union of Christ's human nature with the divine nature in the person of the Son. It makes Lord Jesus not only fully human and fully God but gives his human nature the infinite value needed for the full atonement by virtue of it's union with the divine nature.

You don't know this either Evoken! Are you going to tell me that you know enough about the nature of humanity and the exact nature of the incarnation to be able to say with certainty that humanity is fundamentally incompatible with the divine? Were we not created in His image for the purpose of being in the direct presence of God Himself? You simply have no basis whatsoever for making such an assertion.

Who said that human nature is incompatible with the divine? I believe that we receive grace and become partakers of the divine nature through the Sacraments and also that we become Holy by it. So of course our nature is compatible with the divine!

That doesn't means however that the incarnation took place either by a transformation of the human nature into the divine nature, an absorption of the human nature into the divine or a fusion between the two natures resulting on a third nature. All three of these ideas were advanced by proponents of Monophysitism, a heresy that was condemned very early, and for good reason, for their teaching ended up destroying the integrity of Christ's human nature in such a way that he could not be said to be fully human, but something else. It also lead to another problem in that if the divine nature became flesh, then not only the Son but also the Father and the Holy Ghost became flesh as there is but one divine nature which all three of them share. Unless, of course, one would like to propose three separate natures, one for each person, which would again lead into Tritheism.

Neither is the idea that Jesus had two natures Biblical in the first place. Jesus was and is God become man.

Make up your mind, First you deny that Lord Jesus has two natures and say he is God become man and then below you say that "Jesus was fully human and fully God.". So which one is it?

Jesus was fully human and fully God. There is no contradiction there Evoken. It is your theology that teaches you otherwise, not the Bible.

Where did I said that there was a contradiction? It is you who is denying that Lord Jesus has two natures, yet you affirm he has two natures (how else do you understand fully human and fully God, since both things refer to natures?) and argue with me as if I were denying it.

This is nothing but theologians making things more complicated than they need to be. The Bible says that the Logos of God, God the Son, became a man. It's no more complicated than that.

Well if Clete says it, that makes it so, no? In the every Scriptures things are more complicated than that. Simply saying that God the Son became man explains nothing, the very statement raises a plethora of questions that scream for answers. It is true that sometimes people tend to make things more complicated than they need to be and thus are lead to erroneous conclusions. But it also true that some people ignore the complexities of a given subject and adopt a naive approach to it that leads to equally erroneous conclusions.

What makes a person who they are Evoken? Is it not their soul/spirit? It isn't their physical body! I will survive my physical death with my memories and personality intact. My body influences who I am but does not define me as a person. It is my heart, my soul/spirit that defines who I am.

Of course, the body is not what makes a person but the soul/spirit, hence there is another reason why the divine and human natures did not need to be fused together. That the soul/spirit is what makes a person is precisely why it is said that the person of the Son incarnated. It is why it is said that the union took place not in the nature but in the person. and yes, as you say, you (the person) survive your physical death with your memories and personality intact, so too did the person of the Son when the human nature died at the cross, ergo the divine nature did not die.


Evo
 
Last edited:

RobE

New member
Drop a rock and it falls. Impersonal Cause-effect.

Love, freedom, relationship, self-determination, creativity, choice, ideas, feelings, etc. More than cause-effect like stimulus/response. We are moral creation, free moral agents in the image of God. God does not operate on a causal system, but is the ultimate free being who can think, act, feel due to intelligence and will (personal). This is a higher order of governance than inanimate creation or animate creation that operates on instinct, not free will image of God beauty and complexity.

I don't know what to say. It seems to hold on to your ideas you are willing to throw common sense right out the window. If you are unable to to see that your ideas are causing you to think irrationally, then what am I to do?

Godrulz, don't we do things for reasons?
 

RobE

New member
And what is death to God, who is a spirit, Clete? This is the point you are missing. As I said in my previous post, you were not clear that you were talking about the incarnation, in your posts you were talking about God. Now, since God is a spirit (John 4:24), and if spiritual death is as you say a separation from God, what then does it means for God to die? Surely it cannot mean separation from himself, for that is an obvious contradiction. God, being a spirit also has no composition or parts, so we cannot talk about his "vital functions" ceasing or anything resembling that. The only intelligible way a spirit can die (not merely being separated from God which is the state of the damned, but to really die) is to cease to exist, to vanish into nothingness. For God it would be that he would no longer be, the very opposite of who he claims he is (I AM).

A fine piece of work. :up:
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
And what is death to God, who is a spirit, Clete? This is the point you are missing. As I said in my previous post, you were not clear that you were talking about the incarnation, in your posts you were talking about God. Now, since God is a spirit (John 4:24), and if spiritual death is as you say a separation from God, what then does it means for God to die? Surely it cannot mean separation from himself, for that is an obvious contradiction. God, being a spirit also has no composition or parts, so we cannot talk about his "vital functions" ceasing or anything resembling that. The only intelligible way a spirit can die (not merely being separated from God which is the state of the damned, but to really die) is to cease to exist, to vanish into nothingness. For God it would be that he would no longer be, the very opposite of who he claims he is (I AM).
I don't have time for a full response right now - I haven't even read past this paragraph yet but I thought I'd respond to this much right away so as to not have you waiting.

This question has been directly answered already, which you may have responded too in the rest of your post and if so I'll get to it as soon as time allows but for now the answer to this question remains the same...

God the Son was separated from God the Father. (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34, Luke 23:43, John 20:17) Just as all of the righteous dead were so separated while in the grave (i.e. Abraham's bosom, paradise, whatever you want to call it).


Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Philetus

New member
Evo: Now, since Christ is God, then certainly the verse cannot mean that he was forsaken by God, for that is like he being forsaken by himself, which is contradictory.

Except that God is three persons; great mystery indeed, one that we can only marvel and wonder at. Perhaps what God abandoned at the cross was His complete and utter separation from humanity on the basis of His absolute righteousness. The life and death of God in the flesh was in no way a compromise of God’s holiness, yet He took upon Himself the sins of the whole world and in that moment (on the cross) of accountability for sin could not look upon Himself in that state. Later through resurrection God embraced all repentant human beings by grace through faith. Something divine that existed before the passion of Christ no longer existed after.

There was no separation of the Father and the Son, there is no Scriptural evidence to support that idea.

We must define separation in light of forsakenness. The scriptures do not teach that Jesus didn’t go to hell, only that He wasn’t left there. His body remained in the grave where all bodies remain without resurrection. It was resurrected and glorified and remains so forever.

This verse is also very important for it shows that while God is a Trinity of Persons, he has only one will, not three and thus the three persons act in unity …

Clearly two conflicting wills: temptation in its rawest form. Two wills ONE person! Could we suggest that God in the flesh was ‘tempted’ to abandon His (Their) plan of redemption that required that sinners die for their sins or that somebody righteous die in their stead? 'Tempted' by His own righteousness? I think so. Temptation carries a much neglected aspect that is almost entirely over looked by evangelicals. It is possible to be tempted to do good because it is inviting or attractive. But, to know the Good to do and not do it is sin. Jesus didn't sin. Jesus surrendered.


James 1:13 When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone; 14 but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed. 15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.​

Jesus was tempted in all things the same way we are tempted ... yet without sin. Scripture doesn’t say He was not tempted in ways we are not. There are both similarities and dissimilarities between Matthew 26:39 and James 1:13-15. The variance existed between Father and Son … the sin did not. Yet Jesus died anyway. I only wish it were as ‘simple’ and as clear as your good post makes it sound.

Philetus
 

godrulz

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I don't know what to say. It seems to hold on to your ideas you are willing to throw common sense right out the window. If you are unable to to see that your ideas are causing you to think irrationally, then what am I to do?

Godrulz, don't we do things for reasons?


We do things for a reason, but at a higher level of intelligence and volition than causation/machines. The image of God is a higher level than animate or inanimate creation. We are moral creation with will and intellect and emotions. Self-determination, not causation/coercion, is our birth right.
 

RobE

New member
We do things for a reason, but at a higher level of intelligence and volition than causation/machines. The image of God is a higher level than animate or inanimate creation. We are moral creation with will and intellect and emotions. Self-determination, not causation/coercion, is our birth right.

Those reasons influence our decisions don't they? Do they become the basis or cause of our decisions? I'm not saying that they are coercive, just that we base our actions upon the decisions we base on reasons. Once you understand that causation doesn't equate to coercion when our free will is involved; then we might be able to understand each other better. I say this because we are able to reject those reasons when we make our decisions. What we want(our will) is the basis for our actions, but our will has a basis itself; it's not just random. There is a reason our will exists as it is. I would say conflicting reasons at that.
 

Evoken

New member
Philetus said:
Perhaps what God abandoned at the cross was His complete and utter separation from humanity on the basis of His absolute righteousness. The life and death of God in the flesh was in no way a compromise of God’s holiness, yet He took upon Himself the sins of the whole world and in that moment (on the cross) of accountability for sin could not look upon Himself in that state.

Well, this doesn't makes sense in light of the verse in question. For that would mean that God abandoned his separation from humanity and that then God cried to himself why he has forsaken himself. This sounds awfully similar to how atheists mock the work of the cross in that they say that God sacrificed himself to himself in order to save us from himself.


We must define separation in light of forsakenness. The scriptures do not teach that Jesus didn’t go to hell, only that He wasn’t left there. His body remained in the grave where all bodies remain without resurrection. It was resurrected and glorified and remains so forever.

That he descended into Hell is something I mention in my post, I do not deny it. While his body was at the tomb, his soul descended into Hell and released the just. Even if we define separation in light of forsakenness (deserted, abandoned) as you suggest, the same issues would apply. The Son, who is God, cannot be abandoned by God, nor can the Son, who is one with the Father, who is in the Father as the Father is in him and who cannot do anything other than what the Father does, as the verses I cited in my last post show, be abandoned by the Father. The notion of a separation between the Father and the Son (or the Holy Ghost or God) does not fits with the facts stated in the Scriptures.

The Son being abandoned/separated from the Father is also something that is unnecessary, as it doesn't accomplishes anything. Why would he be abandoned? Was he unfaithful? Did he doubt God? Was it as a form of test so that God could see if God would persevere in faith? There is no reason for it. There is also the fact that abandonment/separation from God is the state in which sinful creatures are, and we know that the stain of sin cannot be in Lord Jesus. Therefore he could in no way be separated from God.

As I said in my previous post, these ideas undermine the integrity of the Blessed Trinity and the Divinity of Christ.


Clearly two conflicting wills: temptation in its rawest form. Two wills ONE person! Could we suggest that God in the flesh was ‘tempted’ to abandon His (Their) plan of redemption that required that sinners die for their sins or that somebody righteous die in their stead? 'Tempted' by His own righteousness? I think so. Temptation carries a much neglected aspect that is almost entirely over looked by evangelicals. It is possible to be tempted to do good because it is inviting or attractive. But, to know the Good to do and not do it is sin. Jesus didn't sin. Jesus surrendered.

Lord Jesus had two wills, a human and a divine will. However, his human will was at all times subordinate to and in harmony with the divine and thus he was incapable of sinning, he didn't just not sin but he simply could not sin. The subordination of the human will to the divine will is seen in several places of Scripture (Matthew 26:39, Luke 22:42, John 6:38, John 4:34, John 5:30, Philippians 2:8).

The idea of concupiscence by which "the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh" (Galatians 5:17), cannot be attributed to Lord Jesus. This notion is inconsistent with his perfection, for the possibility of sinning, like the possibility of erring is an imperfection and the result of lacking in something (virtue as regards to sin). Now, unless we want to assert that he was lacking in virtue, then the possibility of sinning must be altogether excluded from him. Indeed, as St. Thomas says:

"...the more perfect the virtues are in any man, the weaker the "fomes" of sin becomes in him. Hence, since in Christ the virtues were in their highest degree, the "fomes" of sin was nowise in Him" (ST III, Q 15, Art. 2)​

Lord Jesus told us to "be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" and that "I and the Father are one", thus attributing perfection to himself. So, neither sin, nor the possibility of sinning can be attributed to him. The devil may have tempted him by trying to persuade him to abandon his plan but there was nor could there be any personal struggle in Christ by which he contemplated the possibility of accepting the devil's offer and then rejected it.


Evo
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
Lord Jesus had two wills, a human and a divine will. However, his human will was at all times subordinate to and in harmony with the divine and thus he was incapable of sinning, he didn't just not sin but he simply could not sin.

I must take issue with this concept that while Jesus (temporally) possessed two natures, that it must essentially follow, that He then possessed or exhibited two wills. Having two wills would conflict with His divinity; being one in essence and will with God.



The subordination of the human will to the divine will is seen in several places of Scripture (Matthew 26:39, Luke 22:42, John 6:38, John 4:34, John 5:30, Philippians 2:8).


Agreed . . .but the subordination of the creaturely human will to the divine will is exemplified in Christ; not copied by Christ. The sons of God conform to His image as the perfect Man, etc . . .not vice versa.

IOW's can it be that the uncreated essence and will of God, ever be anything but uncreated?

Is not the very purpose of the vicarious work of Christ, the means of reconciling the created will of man with the uncreated will of God?

I do not believe this was accomplished by the divine will of God becoming just another (human) will; despite God coming in flesh.

(It was not necessary that Jesus be reduced to human motivations (will), but rather it was necessary that the God/Man elevate and provide means for human motivations (will) to be united and subjected to the divine.)

The idea of concupiscence by which "the flesh lusteth against the spirit: and the spirit against the flesh" (Galatians 5:17), cannot be attributed to Lord Jesus. This notion is inconsistent with his perfection, for the possibility of sinning, like the possibility of erring is an imperfection and the result of lacking in something (virtue as regards to sin). Now, unless we want to assert that he was lacking in virtue, then the possibility of sinning must be altogether excluded from him. Indeed, as St. Thomas says:

"...the more perfect the virtues are in any man, the weaker the "fomes" of sin becomes in him. Hence, since in Christ the virtues were in their highest degree, the "fomes" of sin was nowise in Him" (ST III, Q 15, Art. 2)​

Lord Jesus told us to "be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" and that "I and the Father are one", thus attributing perfection to himself. So, neither sin, nor the possibility of sinning can be attributed to him. The devil may have tempted him by trying to persuade him to abandon his plan but there was nor could there be any personal struggle in Christ by which he contemplated the possibility of accepting the devil's offer and then rejected it.

Exactly. What I say.

I do not believe the divine will (that purposes, promises, and power to cause and effect) was changed or became a lesser, human will, in the Person of Jesus Christ during His incarnation.

Jesus Christ was motivated and acted strictly according to the divine will of His Father at all times. Jesus Christ was never motivated or acted according to any other will than His own.

So, I contend Jesus Christ possessed only one will. Which, by nature, proved to be both human and divine; demonstrated to the the perfect exercise of the will, by subjecting Himself completely and totally to the will of God.

Nang
 

Evoken

New member
Nang said:
I must take issue with this concept that while Jesus (temporally) possessed two natures, that it must essentially follow, that He then possessed or exhibited two wills. Having two wills would conflict with His divinity; being one in essence and will with God.

Not really, for it pertains to human nature to have a will, just as the divine nature has a will. Now, since both natures remained in their integrity, not being fused together, then it follows that the will that corresponded to each nature was also left intact and thus there were in Christ two wills. Having two wills poses a problem only if both wills are in conflict, as in one willing one thing and the other another. But this is not how the two wills are in Christ, where the human will is freely subordinated to the divine will and thus when it comes to the act of willing, both have as their aim the same object and act in unity, the human will obeying the divine will. As far as this unity goes, one may speak of one will, if by will we understand not the the mere factuality of willing but the willing itself, the act. So, since both the human and the divine will act in harmony, we may think of them as a single will when it comes to the performance of an act.


Agreed . . .but the subordination of the creaturely human will to the divine will is exemplified in Christ; not copied by Christ. The sons of God conform to His image as the perfect Man, etc . . .not vice versa.

Sure, but I was speaking about Christ's human nature, not about human nature in general.


I do not believe the divine will (that purposes, promises, and power to cause and effect) was changed or became a lesser, human will, in the Person of Jesus Christ during His incarnation.

The divine will did not become lesser nor did it change, it is simply that since human nature was assumed and human nature has a will, then there were two wills, each belonging to it's respective nature.


So, I contend Jesus Christ possessed only one will. Which, by nature, proved to be both human and divine; demonstrated to the the perfect exercise of the will, by subjecting Himself completely and totally to the will of God.

If by this you mean that he had two wills that acted in unity (what we may understand by will, as I said above), then yes, in that sense we may speak of Christ possessing one will. But if by this you mean that there was only one will that emerged due to a combination of the two natures, then this idea cannot be accepted for it violates the integrity of both natures (that will would not be neither human nor divine but something else), it would go against the Chalcedonian definition, which I am sure you agree with and would also land us straight into the heresy of Monothelitism, who proposed a single will in Christ.


Evo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top