Sin/Salvation (redux)

Originally posted by duecer
Many of you might find the writings of Julian of Norwich interesting on this subject. She had numerous revelations, and the catholic church has recognized her visions as authentic.
One of the main themes is "that all will be well", the idea being that in the end, God heals all. The view that sin being a kind of sickness of the soul, that we cannot cure, but ...[text shortened]... , but i would recommend all who are interested too do some research, it is quite enlightening.

"All shall be well, and all shall be well, and every manner of thing shall be well."

Originally posted by vistesd
"All shall be well, and all shall be well, and every manner of thing shall be well."

Thaaaats the one. I really enjoyed reading the book Julian of Norwich, it was truly enlightening (I know I'm repaeting myself).

Originally posted by Nordlys
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that if we'd know what's best, we would lose the ability to choose. If "free will" means "being able to make bad choices based on a lack of knowledge", I can't see why it's something worth keeping. If I get to choose between two things I know too little about to know which one I'd prefer, I don't feel that I am c ...[text shortened]... to keep me from knowing that one choice is clearly better, that would be manipulation.

It is akin to your loved one telling you not to take a particular coarse of action for whatever reason. Assuming they are an authority on the matter, you have the option of choosing that coarse of action despite their warnings or listening to them. If you choose to defy them, however, what does this say about your faith that you place in them? What does it say about the love you have for them if you know your actions will, in the end, displease them?

Originally posted by whodey
It is akin to your loved one telling you not to take a particular coarse of action for whatever reason. Assuming they are an authority on the matter, you have the option of choosing that coarse of action despite their warnings or listening to them. If you choose to defy them, however, what does this say about your faith that you place in them? What does it say about the love you have for them if you know your actions will, in the end, displease them?

And what does it say about the lover who demands that the beloved please him?

As to faith in the lover: Nordlys’s question goes to sufficient information to have such faith. I hope my beloved does not have such faith in me that she will allow me to diagnose an illness she has, based on my claim to have medical knowledge which, in all our years of marriage, she has never heard about before.

Does the lover demand faith? Your faith in God, as you’ve expressed it on here, is based on your faith in the Biblical texts as the revelation of God, and your understanding of them. Suppose you get it wrong? My wife does not believe that I have a medical degree; suppose she gets it wrong? Am I to condemn her (forever!) for that?

I am not denying the element of risk in both love and faith. I am denying that the lover places a burden of risk on the beloved. It is the lover who risks.

Of course, in mutual love, both parties become both lover and beloved. The more each demands from the other, the less the love. Each hopes for the other. (There, I have managed to get faith, hope and love all in one post.)


You seem to view both love and faith as juridical concepts (you’re not alone!): love me or else; have faith in me or else.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
No, they really don't. First of all, if God is truly omnipotent he can, by definition, overcome his "character". and do what he pleases. Therefore, the fact that he does not is a result of his *decision* rather than simply an immutable aspect of his character...nice try slipping that one by though.

Further, because He is omnipotent he could have ...[text shortened]... better ideas for salvation, and I'm not even omnipotent.

EDIT: had to turn the bold off.[/b]

First of all, if God is truly omnipotent he can, by definition, overcome his "character". and do what he pleases. Therefore, the fact that he does not is a result of his *decision* rather than simply an immutable aspect of his character...nice try slipping that one by though.

I don't know what God you are talking about. The God of the Bible has certain immutable characteristics. Characteristics absolutely native to God as God. If these characteristics were to be altered (if that were possible), then God would no longer be God. For instance, just because God is omnipotent, doesn't mean He can cause Himself to cease being holy. If He were to cease being holy, then He would no longer be Himself. God's will is determined by His character, and His omnipotence serves His will. It is ludicrous to think that God would will something contrary to His own character.

Further, because He is omnipotent he could have easily built his system in such a way that there are no eternal penalties for sin, but he did not which indicates he did not want to, which indicates he wants some of us to suffer eternally. What a guy!

Jesus died for all men, proving in His death that even God cannot change the verdict against us. He had to suffer the penalty for our sins in His own body and die in our place in order to satisfy the holy law of God (i.e., God's character). What you are asking of God is for Him to cease being righteous, which is really asking Him to cease being Himself. But God is righteous. And since God is also perfectly good, any person acting contrary to His will is by nature evil, and therefore cannot abide in His holy presence. We deal with realities everyday which we cannot change, like gravity. The holiness of God is another.

Lastly, instead of all the cloak and dagger BS, He could easily simply prove his existence to each and every one of us and *then* ask us to choose to be with him or not. Rather than the current system where I must suspend disbelief in the supernatural to even have a chance at making the right choice.

If God appeared to you and asked you to be with Him, would you?

There ya go, two better ideas for salvation, and I'm not even omnipotent.

I think you need to better understand the term omnipotent.

Originally posted by TheSkipper
No, they really don't. First of all, if God is truly omnipotent he can, by definition, overcome his "character". and do what he pleases. Therefore, the fact that he does not is a result of his *decision* rather than simply an immutable aspect of his character...nice try slipping that one by though.

Further, because He is omnipotent he could have ...[text shortened]... better ideas for salvation, and I'm not even omnipotent.

EDIT: had to turn the bold off.[/b]

No, they really don't. First of all, if God is truly omnipotent he can, by definition, overcome his "character". and do what he pleases.
Your word choice is deceptive and yet illustrative of a key concept, with respect to the main issue. According to your wording, the all-powerfulness of God ought to enable Him to denigrate any other given characteristic. In other words, He should be able to become less than what He is, relative to attributes of His integrity.

How does that happen, exactly, that one attribute essentially renders other (all other) attributes mute--- and yet He remains God? Integrity demands wholeness, and yet your scenario declares that wholeness isn't what is required. Love is meaningless without reference to the other characteristics. You've effectively thrown out the baby with the bath water.

As has been said repeatedly, sin is not the issue. The Lord Jesus Christ is the issue. You (and some others here) are fixated on sin, its penalties and etc. God has already dealt with sin. What say you of His Christ?

Originally posted by vistesd
Thank you for the detailed and articulate post. (Well, we're back to it, you and I, aren't we? 🙂 )

If God’s essence is agape (which I think is what John clearly says in his letter), then all of God’s attributes are conditioned by that essence—not the other way around. Which is why I think John’s statements cannot be contextualized by ...[text shortened]... to God’s ability to act redemptively. I’m going to have to go back and read that whole thing.[/b]

If God’s essence is agape (which I think is what John clearly says in his letter), then all of God’s attributes are conditioned by that essence—not the other way around.
That's compartmentalizing one aspect without consideration to any and all others. God is righteousness. God is justice. God is perfect. God is love. Many attributes to our one God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]If God’s essence is agape (which I think is what John clearly says in his letter), then all of God’s attributes are conditioned by that essence—not the other way around.
That's compartmentalizing one aspect without consideration to any and all others. God is righteousness. God is justice. God is perfect. God is love. Many attributes to our one God.[/b]

No, Freaky, I think that is the error. I could not find one instance in the OT or NT where it says God is righteousness, or holiness, or justice. Those are applied to God as aspects/attributes (adjectives, if you will); just as you stated that God is perfect, not perfection—let’s call that a Freudian grammatical slip on your part (albeit a trivial one), relative to the point you’re trying to make.

Now, John does not give agape as another attribute/aspect (adjective) of God. He says (twice, in 1st John 4:8 & 16): ho theos agape estin.* Theos and agape are set in deliberate and explicit identification with one another by both being in the nominative case. In the same way, the gospel of John says that the Logos was God., with the same explicit nominative-case identification.

In orthodox (small “o” ) Trinitarian theology,** logos is of one and the same substance/essence (ousia) with pater and pneuma.*** Logos is hypostasized as ho uios, the son. pneuma is hypostasized as the Holy Spirit.

—In the West, hypostasis was translated as person, a translation which the Greeks accept, but with some discomfiture.

That substance/essence that the hypostases share is agape. The substance/essence of God as ho theos (divinity), logos and pneuma is agape.**

A crude analogy: I am not tall and two-legged and dark-haired—and embodied. Those are attributes of my embodiment.

To make agape just another aspect/attribute of God both: (1) misreads John at a fundamental level, and (2) in fact leads to the false compartmentalization of agape. And that, as you would put it, leads to theological confusion.

To say: “God is love, but God is also righteous”, is like saying: “You’re a two-legged creature, but you’re also running.”

_____________________________________

Heavy footnotes:

* The ho (“the” ) here can indicate emphasis (as in this God[/i]), but is also used as a grammatical convention to indicate which word in the nominative case comes first in the phrase (the same for John 1:1). Ho theos has also been translated as meaning “the one who is God.”

** A key to this Trinitarian understanding, which I am abbreviating severely here, lies in the dispute between East and West over the addition (in the West) of the filioque, (in the 8th and 9th centuries) to the original version of the Nicene Creed, which the East has maintained. pater is used, contextually, to refer to both the very Godhead of the tri-unity, and the hypostasis of God acting as creator / originator / begettor.

Another way to see it is that Christian theologians hypostasized the Stoic formula of theos – logos – pneuma as pater – uios – pneuma hagion.

*** pneuma and ho theos are similarly identified in the nominative case in John 4:24

Originally posted by TheSkipper
Well, this is very good news! I have never rejected a gift God tried to give me.

Did you ever accept it?
Kelly

Originally posted by whodey
It is akin to your loved one telling you not to take a particular coarse of action for whatever reason. Assuming they are an authority on the matter, you have the option of choosing that coarse of action despite their warnings or listening to them. If you choose to defy them, however, what does this say about your faith that you place in them? What does it say about the love you have for them if you know your actions will, in the end, displease them?

First of all, I don't think that's a good analogy, because as vistesd said, the lack of information prevents me from having faith in the first place. If I trust a loved person, it's because I know the person well and have experienced before that they are trustworthy. If a person has good credentials, that will help, but I wouldn't completely trust someone just because I have read or heard somewhere that I should. And when it comes to God, I don't even have enough information to know if he exists, in fact there's a lot more pointing in the direction that he doesn't. So with the information I have, I have little reason to put faith into him.

Another point is that even if I trust someone, I would expect them to explain to me why I should not take a particular course of action. If they are experts on the matter and I am not, I would expect that some things can't be explained easily, so that I may have to rely on their expertise on some points, but I would get suspicious if they would deliberately withhold information and tell me to just trust them. And if I turn the situation around, I would never expect anyone to blindly trust me either.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]And what does it say about the lover who demands that the beloved please him?

This is the wrong way of looking at it. The correct way to look at it is if you love me then you will naturally want to please me. The picture we have of Christ in Revelation is him standing at the door of our hearts knocking. Again, no where is he knocking down the door. In fact, if he demanded something of us do you think an all powerful God would be denied his demand? In fact, you might say that God went out of his way to please us because he loves us by coming to earth and serving mankind unto the cross. He did it not because we demanded he do it, rather, he did it because he loves us and there is a natural component of service in the concept of love. The Bible says that we love him because he first loved us. Think of it as a game of tennis. Now the ball is in our court. If we recipricate perhaps he will then feel the urge to serve us again and then we will later do the same because we love him as well. We have no problem thinking this way in terms of a spouse, for example. No one puts a gun to our head to serve them and their needs, rather, we do it because we love them. However, if we do not love them we will serve only ourselves and ignore our respective spouses.

Originally posted by Nordlys
First of all, I don't think that's a good analogy, because as vistesd said, the lack of information prevents me from having faith in the first place. If I trust a loved person, it's because I know the person well and have experienced before that they are trustworthy. If a person has good credentials, that will help, but I wouldn't completely trust someone ju ...[text shortened]... if I turn the situation around, I would never expect anyone to blindly trust me either.

That is the issue. How does one get to know another? I guess you first have to be introduced to another and then spend time with them. We have been introduced to God on many occasion. Of coarse I believe the Bible to be a record of such interactions. In fact, Christ was God incarnate who introduced creation to himself on a personal level. Therefore, I would spend time reading about him and asking him to reveal himself to me if he is real. For me, I fell in love with his teachings and with the way he revealed himself to me. The health of any relationship is equivalent to the time spent in that relationship.

Originally posted by whodey
That is the issue. How does one get to know another? I guess you first have to be introduced to another and then spend time with them. We have been introduced to God on many occasion. Of coarse I believe the Bible to be a record of such interactions. In fact, Christ was God incarnate who introduced creation to himself on a personal level. Therefore, I w ...[text shortened]... elf to me. The health of any relationship is equivalent to the time spent in that relationship.

You are not answering the question at all. Is the question too difficult for you or did you just hope to squeeze a little preaching in?

Originally posted by whodey
This is the wrong way of looking at it. The correct way to look at it is if you love me then you will naturally want to please me. The picture we have of Christ in Revelation is him standing at the door of our hearts knocking. Again, no where is he knocking down the door. In fact, if he demanded something of us do you think an all powerful God would be de ...[text shortened]... However, if we do not love them we will serve only ourselves and ignore our respective spouses.

This is the wrong way of looking at it. The correct way to look at it is if you love me then you will naturally want to please me.

Then God is the lover who naturally wants to please us? Without demanding that we please him in return?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]This is the wrong way of looking at it. The correct way to look at it is if you love me then you will naturally want to please me.

Then God is the lover who naturally wants to please us? Without demanding that we please him in return?[/b]

How has God demanded that you serve him? I thought he does'nt really exist in your mind, or at least, as a distinct personalized being.