Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

197 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/3/2001 7:05 PM (GMT -6)

In his address at the ETS conference, Bruce Ware raised about 20 objections to the Open View. All of them have been adequately addressed by openness proponents in one venue or another (mostly omitted in Ware's address) except one. It has to do with Christology.

Since we hold that humans possess libertarian freedom, Ware assumed that Openness advocates must hold that Jesus could have sinned. He thus pointed out that this implies that the incarnation could have failed, which in turn raises serious questions about the whole of the biblical narrative. What of all the messianic prophecies? What would have happened to the plan of salvation? Could God's over all plan to have a redeemed bride have failed? Doesn't the possibility of Jesus falling imply that it was possible for God's whole project to fail?

Though he didn't go into the classical view, the assumption is that the classical view which embraces a compatiblistic view of freedom avoids these difficulties. Jesus, like the rest of us, had compatibilistic freedom -- freedom to do what God ordains we do. Hence Jesus could not have fallen, though he experienced real temptation as a full human being. God's plan for world history was thus not "at risk" in the incarnation, according to classical theology.

So, here's the million dollar question: Did God take a genuine risk in the Incarnation? Could Jesus have fallen? If you say yes, does this imply that all the biblical prophecies about the messiah could have failed to come to pass? Does it imply that God's whole project for world history could have flopped? Indeed, does it not imply a "Nestorian" christology (Nestorius basicallyheld that Jesus had two "persons" in him), for it seems that the all holy divine Son of God would have abandoned the human Jesus if he sinned. If the incarnation could have been "aborted," as it were, it seems the union of God and man in Jesus was not the union of one person.

If you say no, however, does this not compromise the full humanity of Jesus? Is it the case that those who hold that humans must possess libertarian freedom must hold that Jesus possessed libertarian freedom if they are to hold that Jesus was a full human being?

This is an area Openness advocates have not yet worked through, and it seems to me that this board is the place to do it. Now, as you may have suspected, I have a proposal in my back pocket -- though its not one most of my openness friends like. But rather than me blurping out right now, I'd like others to pipe in and lets wrestle with it together. Maybe after a couple of pages I'll have revised my proposal.

Lets have at it.

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 12/3/2001 8:02 PM (GMT -6)

Hey Doc,
Welcome back. I suppose you are driving all your friends crazy by talking with a British accent!

It's good to read a post that doesn't contain the words 'homosexual' and 'remarried'

Not that there's anything wrong with that. ha

I think that the 40 days in the wilderness attest to the fact that Jesus had freewill, not to mention the anguish in the garden, but God has said we will not be tempted with more than we are able to overcome. I believe that we can overcome any temptation if we are connected to God and rely on his Spirit.

There I got my two cents in before all the big guns showed up.

I'm going out of town to a convention. I won't have to do any public speaking but I'll have as much fun as you did, and I'll look better doing it!

-S

"God has instituted prayer so as to confer upon his creatures the dignity of being causes." — Blaise Pascal

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/3/2001 8:34 PM (GMT -6)

Hello late-night-springs: fine, well and good. Yes Jesus EXPERIENCED temptation. But does this mean he actually COULD HAVE fallen. And if so, how do you answer all the questions raised above?

I ain't lett'n you off the hook THAT easy!

Have fun at your Amway or Metaluca or Herbalife or Victoria's Secret

or whatever convention. But then get back here and answer the question!!!

Blessings
Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Triskal
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 198

Posted 12/3/2001 8:53 PM (GMT -6)

I definately do believe that Jesus could have fallen. Yes, then I suppose that does imply that God took a very big risk. But doesn't that also mean that God took a risk in HIS own abilities? We have to remember here that Jesus and God are united as One. God basically incarnated himself as a man inorder to carry out his plan of salvation. He knew that he would be perfectly capable of carrying it through. Although this does raise an interesting question: how much does God trust Himself?

When you look at the whole picture, if God WAS taking a risk, the only risk he was taking was whether or not HE HIMSELF had the power to withstand sin.

I have another question. How is that Jesus, being united with God, could have even been interested in sin? Doesn't sin seperate from God? Isn't it totally incompatible with His nature? How then could Jesus have even been able to sin? Would he be seperating himself FROM himself? That's awefully confusing. Maybe i'm making more of this than there really is. Oh well, we'll see.

In His Grip,
Matt

"In Him we live and move and have our being" - Acts 17:28

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/4/2001 1:52 AM (GMT -6)

I can see that this is goung to be a good thread. (Necessary stuff!)

But I've got to go cook breakfast for the kids, and get on off to teaching.

PoW

trosie
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 550

Posted 12/4/2001 2:14 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
Matt: How is that Jesus, being united with God, could have even been interested in sin? Doesn't sin seperate from God? Isn't it totally incompatible with His nature? How then could Jesus have even been able to sin?

Jesus said, "When you see me, you see my Father in heaven" and "May they be one as I am in you and you are in me"

Jesus was fully God and NOT just fully human (as we are limited to being) so it almost appears that it would have been impossible for Jesus to sin since sin separates us from God and Jesus, being also fully God, couldn't separate himself from himself.

quote:
Is it the case that those who hold that humans must possess libertarian freedom must hold that Jesus possessed libertarian freedom if they are to hold that Jesus was a full human being?

Does one need to have libertarian freedom to fully experience what it is to be fully human? I don't think so. I think it's possible for Jesus to experience the same feelings, temptations ... and everything else that goes into being created fully human, yet at the same time restricted himself from the freedom to choose.

Does libertarian freedom EQUAL being fully human? I don't think so. I think Jesus could have been fully human yet have been predestined at the same time. The open view could be compatible with predestination in the case of the person of Jesus.

I want to get my two cents in before this thread takes off and becomes complicated...
trosie

Edited by - trosie on 12/04/2001 07:26:02 AM

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 12/4/2001 3:10 AM (GMT -6)

Matt: "How could Jesus, being united with God, even be interested in sin?" I would guess it comes with the territory of being among us humans, EVEN if you are born without sin. But your question does cause another one in my mind, as to whether God is good by nature or by choice. If would seem that if Jesus could sin, that could mean that God is good by choice, not nature. Didn't a post deal with some of these subjects a while back (back when Revival was here. Hey where did Revival go)?
I am not sure I have any answers, but my take is Jesus could have sinned because the option must be there to be truly human and to truly conquer sin and to truly (a trinitarian truly) be an example for us. But I have nothing to back that up. Harold PhD

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/4/2001 4:35 AM (GMT -6)

I wonder if the question coul be reframed. Right now it is whether God took a "risk" in being incarnate. I'd say no. But here' why. Risks are our way of measuring what might happen when we aren't sure. God knew that if God became incarnate in a vulnerable form, Christ, that we would kill him. We usually refrain from doing things that are "too risky". But this is because that action has a potential consequence that we are not willing to bear. A cost. The risk for God in this is eliminated because it is certain that humans will seek to destroy the godly and if righteousness is presented in a vulnerable manner, it will be destroyed. So we are not speaking of risk, really, but cost.

We have to ask, what did it cost God to become a human being? If reconciliation between God and creation is the goal, what must be overcome to acheive it? If sin is the problem, the first thing that must be clearly established is what exactly sin is. But this line of questioning just continues to regress....if we could have understood sin, we wold not have needed God to reveal it to us. But we did need God to reveal it to us. Why? Because it is precisely against God that sin is defined. So could Jesus sin? Of course not. Neither could Jesus not sin. The category doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense to use a caliper when you need a thermometer. Its like trying to measure a certain temperature in a chamber using a caliper. Jesus is God and sin is defined against God. Could Jesus do what might appear to us as sin? Well, now, we've been down this road before! God does things that we cannot explain adequately and that don't fit neatly into our individual (or cultural) versions of biblical ethics. When we try to explain these away I start to wonder if we are unwittingly trying to domesticate God in our sinfulness to make things a litle easier on us. Perhaps the primary example of this is the sheer arbitrariness of God's forgivenes of sins! Justice (our ethics) demands that the sinner pay the penalty. God's mercy goes against this and frees those who owe a tremendous debt. This is not ethical nor is it just, but praise God that God is not bound by our understandings of rules! God would then be required to kill us all.

Here's a fun quote that I'd agree with:
"Speculation, which talks itself out of the paradoxes, snips off a little bit from both sides and thereby gets along more easily--it does not make sin quite so positive--but nevertheless cannot get it through its head that sin is to be completely forgotten. But Christianity, which was the first to discover the paradoxes, is as paradoxical on this point as possible; it seems to be working against itself by establishing sin so securely as a position that now it seems to be utterly impossible to eliminate it again--and then it is this very Christianity that by means of the Atonement wants to eliminate sin as completely as if it were drowned in the sea." -SK "The Sickness Unto Death" pg. 100. (newer Princeton version)

This is my fear, that we so often "snip off a little bit from both sides" of a difficult problem to make it fit our systems. The bit about sin being positive and a position is critical but not defined in this passage. SK is saying that sin preceeds us in an important sense (original sin in Adam) and that we, insofar as we are out of right relation to God, participate in sin perpetually. After all, we do go on relating, just not in relation to God. So we stand/live positionally and willfully against God. This is opposed to a purely negative definition of sin as a lack of this or that (knowledge, spirit, etc.). Sin is an act of the will. Christ related to God perfectly and willfully. Perhaps the way I might frame the question would be, could God in Christ have so emptied Godself that Christ might have ceased to relate rightly to God? But this is not different than asking if Christ could have not been God, and this is to inquire of one of the many Christological heresies.

Of all the issues we deal with, here more than anywhere, it seems we have to resign ourselves to a sort of confessionalism. We know how to say it right, but it is difficult, or even impossible, for us to grasp what that means. Jesus Chist is fully God and fully human that is the core paradox.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 12/4/2001 5:30 AM (GMT -6)

Wonderful topic. We’ve been here before. I love coming back. I’m pretty sure I know what Doc has in his back pocket, but I wanna see what people say.

Three quick ideas for the mix:

1. According to Hebrews 4.15, Jesus as High Priest is able to sympathize with us in our weaknesses because he “was tempted in every way, just like we are, yet without sin.” This is the closest the NT comes to addresses the peccable/impeccable question. The writer of Hebrews understands the temptation narratives of Jesus as intended to encourage us in our temptations. How we are encouraged in OUR temptations should figure into any answer to Doc’s question.

2. According to Paul, Jesus is the “Second Adam” which, among other things, seems to include the notions of “representation” and/or “example.” Jesus represents, or heads up, the new humanity. There’s a fundamental similarity that exists between the relationship all humanity has to/with/in Adam and all believers have to/with/in Christ.

I should think our Christology has to account for both. Jesus has to be a genuine High Priest and he has to genuinely represent us as the Second Adam.

Lastly, the idea that Jesus was peccable (capable of sinning) is held by a LOT of non-openness folk. I mean, the open view may be consistent with both peccability and impeccabilty. Evangelicalism embraces both already, so what does Ware hope to prove?

I’d like to hear Modes on this too. He mentioned that he uses SK’s “suspension of the ethical” to deal with this question. As God incarnate, Jesus stands outside moral categories, thus to ask the question “Could Jesus have sinned?” is to take Christology in the wrong direction from the start. Modes?

Tom

Oops. After posting I saw your post Modes. Gotcha.

Edited by - tgb on 12/04/2001 10:33:11 AM

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 12/4/2001 8:29 AM (GMT -6)

Doc, welcome back! I realized how much I missed you when I read: “But rather than me blurping out right now, I'd like others to pipe in and lets wrestle with it together.” Wrestling, piping in, and blurping out (?), that’s what this board is all about!

I’m just wrapping up a course on christology, which has involved frantically reading Barth, Tillich, Anselm, Aquinas, Luther, Schleiermacher, Elizabeth Johnson, Julian, von Blathazar, Welker, Rahner, and about 86 other really important theologians that I can’t think of right now, on top of analyzing the christologies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, after briefly surveying resources for christology in the Hebrew Bible. So here’s my response to the question of Jesus Christ’s (im)peccability: I HAVE NO IDEA. This is bad, because I have to right a paper on this.… Yikes, pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
I think we are in “violent agreement” most of the time. § Iconoclast

Edited by - pia†desideria on 12/04/2001 1:30:42 PM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/4/2001 8:40 AM (GMT -6)

TGB, Modes posted just ahead of you, and went precisely where you anticipated he'd go.

But I'm not sure we can avoid the difficulty as quickly as Modes suggests. Modes wants to affirm that since sin is against God, and Jesus is God, of course Jesus couldn't sin. That would be fine, except we could use the same logic in a different direction, toward an opposite conclusion. We confess that Jesus is fully human, and since humans CAN of course sin, Jesus therefore MUST have been able to sin. Hence, as God Jesus can't sin. And human he must be able to sin.

The problem, I think, is one of MEANING. What do we MEAN when we say that Jesus is "fully God and fully human"? When we say he is fully God, it seems we MEAN (among other things) he could not sin (here's Mode's categorical analysis). But when we say he is fully human, it seems we MEAN (among other things) he could have sinned. And affirming BOTH simultaneously is not a paradox: its NONSENSE. A and -A. Round triangle. married bachleur. shuberkimbosowa.

I don't wish to "snip the paradox on both ends," but SOMETHING has got to give here -- if we are to say anything meaningful at all. A paradox is one thing. A contradiction a no-thing.

Triskal expressed the problem well. He begins by saying "I definately do believe that Jesus could have fallen." And he grants that this "does imply that God took a very big risk." But the risk, he thinks, was in whether God trusted his own ability to overcome sin. But how much of a risk is it for a being who CANNOT SIN to trust his own ability to choose not to sin? With admirable honestly, while thinking outloud, he then intensifies his own dilemma by noting that sin is separation from God. So if Jesus could have sin, this would have entailed that Jesus could separate himself from himself. At best, this is Nestorianism. At worst, this is sheer contradiction, violating the law of self-identity. A and -A. Jesus is not Jesus.

Both Triskal and Trosie zero in on the problem: Is libertarian freedom part of what it MEANS to be "fully human"? The difficulty is that both Arminians and Open Theists have insisted that this IS part of what it means to be fully human. Hence they want to affirm it of Jesus, while also affirming that God can't sin. Hence Jesus both can and cannot sin. A and -A. Married bachleur. Round triangle. shuberkimbosowa.

The other alternative was hinted at by Writerdad: perhaps the part of the equation that must be modified to speak meaningful concerns God. Is it the case that part of the definition of what it is for God to be God that he CANNOT sin.

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/4/2001 9:21 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

TGB, Modes posted just ahead of you, and went precisely where you anticipated he'd go.

At least I'm consistent somewhere in my life.

quote:

But I'm not sure we can avoid the difficulty as quickly as Modes suggests. Modes wants to affirm that since sin is against God, and Jesus is God, of course Jesus couldn't sin. That would be fine, except we could use the same logic in a different direction, toward an opposite conclusion. We confess that Jesus is fully human, and since humans CAN of course sin, Jesus therefore MUST have been able to sin. Hence, as God Jesus can't sin. And human he must be able to sin.

I would maintain that what remains perfectly consistent (unchanged) with the Son of God incarnate is the Second Person of the Trinity. The person is the center of willing and being. When you frame it the way you do above, you act as though this were an algebra problem. It's not. It is about a person and if the person in question is the person who is the criterion for sin then regardless of what form that person takes, sin is not a relevant category. The continuity is in personhood. More below.

quote:

The problem, I think, is one of MEANING. What do we MEAN when we say that Jesus is "fully God and fully human"? When we say he is fully God, it seems we MEAN (among other things) he could not sin (here's Mode's categorical analysis). But when we say he is fully human, it seems we MEAN (among other things) he could have sinned. And affirming BOTH simultaneously is not a paradox: its NONSENSE. A and -A. Round triangle. married bachleur. shuberkimbosowa.

Have a little faith Greg, I am not anti-meaning, as I hope you would trust by now. I am not affirming the contrary propositions you have said above. I know the difference between a paradox and a contradiction. I can't wait to see how you solve this whole problem for us.

quote:

I don't wish to "snip the paradox on both ends," but SOMETHING has got to give here -- if we are to say anything meaningful at all. A paradox is one thing. A contradiction a no-thing.

Linear logic has limits. Depending on what counts as "meaning" for you, we will see whether the something that has to give amounts to snipping or not.

quote:

....So if Jesus could have sin, this would have entailed that Jesus could separate himself from himself. At best, this is Nestorianism. At worst, this is sheer contradiction, violating the law of self-identity. A and -A. Jesus is not Jesus.

This is one thing I am careful to avoid. The violation of self-identity.

quote:

Both Triskal and Trosie zero in on the problem: Is libertarian freedom part of what it MEANS to be "fully human"? The difficulty is that both Arminians and Open Theists have insisted that this IS part of what it means to be fully human. Hence they want to affirm it of Jesus, while also affirming that God can't sin. Hence Jesus both can and cannot sin. A and -A. Married bachleur. Round triangle. shuberkimbosowa.

Being a person entails libertarian freedom of the will. This is true for God and to a lesser extent for humans. We, as soon as we are released from God's creative hand (at the moment of "independence"), relate to ourselves and our world out of relation to God. That is the beginning of sin. We are not created sinners, but our independence/seperation from God intiates it. MY saying that sin is a function of the will is a category that applies to humans who become sinners as they relate to themselves and others in a way other than God intended. Jesus, so far as we can see, never did this. Furthermore, I can't see what sense it makes to even suggest that this could have happened. I am already hearing round-triangle from you folks. Hey, Greg, don't you even know what a shuberkimbosowa is?

Please tell me precisely why it is appropriate to predicate "sin" (other than God's will) of God. If that is not a contradition, then I don't know what a contradiction is. Of course, I am ruling out the possiblity that God is schizophrenic up front.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/4/2001 11:46 AM (GMT -6)

Modes: Please tell me precisely why it is appropriate to predicate "sin" (other than God's will) of God. If that is not a contradition, then I don't know what a contradiction is.

Doc: I agree that predicating sin to God is a contradiction. But, it seems, predicating the inability to sin to humans is also a contradiction. If so, then it is simply impossible for God to become a human. OR, we have to agree that predicating the ability to sin to humans is NOT a contradiction.

Is this where you want to go? Others?

Doc

"Three is the magic number, oh yes it is, it's the Magic Number" - De La Soul

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 12/4/2001 12:22 PM (GMT -6)

Question: Does self-determining freedom require the possibility of sin? If so how can we be free in heaven and how could Jesus be free on earth? If not, then how can there be a “greatest good”? pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
I think we are in “violent agreement” most of the time. § Iconoclast

Barry Davis
Registered Member

Date Joined Nov 2001
Total Posts : 6

Posted 12/4/2001 12:41 PM (GMT -6)

If Jesus could not sin, how can we say He was tempted? Doesn't the very definition of temptation imply the possibility of giving into it? In other words, if Jesus did not have the ability to choose, and to choose wrongly, in what way was He tempted?

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/5/2001 1:08 AM (GMT -6)

Pia, what is "self-determined freedom?"

Barry, regarding: "If Jesus could not sin, how can we say He was tempted? Doesn't the very definition of temptation imply the possibility of giving into it? In other words, if Jesus did not have the ability to choose, and to choose wrongly, in what way was He tempted?" Let me give one input.

A key here might be Christ's SUFFERING. That might help. His human will/energies were very much tempted, in time and space; and it hurt. In the three temptations in the desert the idea of bread from stones would have had bodily appeal. (an an extension of that the idea of angels upbearing him could have particular appeal too; "...beam me up Scotty.") This is, of course, not just a suffering of a body. Christ suffered in human body, soul and spirit. (As Gregory the Theologian said, "What is not assumed is not healed.") Christ's divine will/energy is shared with the other Persons of the Trinity. The math gets confusing -- but (going for a near pun) there is "no confusion" of natures in Christ. When Christ experienced the spiritual abandonment of descending into hell (not a place, but a condition) he healed THAT for us too.

Let me change your words "possibility of giving into it" to "potentiality of giving into it." The IMPORTANT point to all this is our salvation[b/], and not some skinny intellectual exercises. He was tempted enough to save us; even if there was no way that God the Son was EVER going to obey Satan. Still, Christ the God-man (100% like us in his humanity, in every way except sin--including taking on our fallenness; and 100% God in his divinity), in his humanity, was tempted in every way like us, AND suffered ALL of our sufferings--in just 33 years for the whole world.

Or else he is not OUR Savior!

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

writerdad
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 448

Posted 12/5/2001 1:24 AM (GMT -6)

I would like to add, that such things are influenced by how the person feels about the subject and, of course, his own sin. For me, it is important to know that Jesus could sin, because that let's me know that he conquered sin. If Jesus could not sin, then it cuts a lot of the power out of what he did, because there was no risk involved for him whatsoever. The man who jumps into the raging river to save a drowning child is applauded equally for the risk he takes in doing what he did as for the actual saving of the child. To me, the risk is important. If Jesus could not sin, it undercuts the importance of what he did, because his love seems to compel risk. But that's just me. Harold the PhD

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/5/2001 2:57 AM (GMT -6)

writerdad,

In reading what you said, "If Jesus could not sin, then it cuts a lot of the power out of what he did, because there was no risk involved for him whatsoever." I think immediately of what Modes said above about calipers and thermometers. I do so because so often on this board folds have wanted to reduce "stuff" to quantitative measurements. (Physics and Theology...)The RISK Jesus took was maximalist. It killed him.

But since Jesus did not buy us back from the devil (a flaming heresy!!!) it does not matter that God was not going to sin. The cure has, HAS to fit the illness. WE were the illness. WE brought sin into the world, not the Devil. (We are part of material-creation, not the angelic powers.) So it is OUR sickness that needed to be healed. Not some abstract justice.

PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 12/5/2001 3:39 AM (GMT -6)

POW, I read post and thought to myself; "I wish I had written that."

Thanks for clarifying

Writerdad, I completely agree with your intuition. In fact until very recently, took your exact position on this. What changed was my definition of sin and that changes everything. I still need to work on reconciling better with that intuition you hold. the early fathers said what was not assumed was not redeemed. I agree, but am not sure how to work this all out yet. That's why we're here I imagine.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

ScottEmerson
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 17

Posted 12/5/2001 6:29 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Doc: I agree that predicating sin to God is a contradiction. But, it seems, predicating the inability to sin to humans is also a contradiction. If so, then it is simply impossible for God to become a human. OR, we have to agree that predicating the ability to sin to humans is NOT a contradiction.

I would say that predicating the inability to sin to humans is a contradiction insofar as the ability of God to become a human is a contradiction.

My personal view of sinful nature is that each of us has that part in us that can sin, and has a disposition to that nature. However, we are not sinners until we choose to sin - I suppose this is an Arminian view of things, although I had to be "labelled" as anything! This can apply to Christ in this manner:

God took a chance in endowing Himself with the temptations of humanity in the form of Christ. Christ was, indeed, a human being, but until he actively chose to sin, (which I believe he never did), he wouldn't become a "sinner." Christ could have fallen in many different ways, such as with the temptation scenes, in his actions with the Pharisees, or in the way he...interacted...with such women as Mary Magdalene. All were temptations and COULD HAVE prompted Christ to sin, but He decided not to.

I do believe if this had happened, God would have "tried" again. Many of His prophesies are contingent in the OT, so it would make sense that He could work things out to make them "come true" even if Christ had failed.

SEC, who is still new here.

Nobody teaches a plant to grow. If I water and care for her, she grows on her own. - F. Perls

pia†desideria
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301

Posted 12/5/2001 6:55 AM (GMT -6)

Welcome to the board SEC! Wow, an openness southern baptist…that reminds me of the simul they always quote at my Lutheran Seminary…

Glad to have you! pia

~·•·~·•·~·•·~·•·~
I think we are in “violent agreement” most of the time. § Iconoclast

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 12/5/2001 7:48 AM (GMT -6)

Barry said: If Jesus could not sin, how can we say He was tempted? Doesn't the very definition of temptation imply the possibility of giving into it? In other words, if Jesus did not have the ability to choose, and to choose wrongly, in what way was He tempted?

This highlights the dilemma. What if we say that yes, Jesus could have chosen sin, being fully man. But the only thing that can prevent sin is the full giving oneself up to God in a relationship where you are open to God's will. Because Jesus is also God, he is able to recognize himself and be open to himself (the part of himself in the Trinity that did NOT become man), to an extent that he would be able to realize his own infinite will. His temptation would still be great, and real, because he was a man made of flesh, but he would be able to resist it because of his relationship with the other two-thirds of the Trinity. In this way he could hold out hope to the rest of humanity that if we only rest in the Lord's will, we too could resist temptation. We cannot get ourselves off the hook by saying Jesus had a closer connection to God, and so he had an easier time of it. Because after all, the temptation before him was to reject a willing death on the cross, which is far worse than any of us have had to resist. For Jesus, the fulfilling of God's will took the same motion toward resting in him that God asks from us.

Does that make any sense?

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/5/2001 11:17 AM (GMT -6)

I WAS GOING TO APPOLOGIZE FOR A POST-'N-RUN.
(Short on time, long on kid's homework)

Semeia, read this and see if it helps. (Especially where you wrote: "(I'll put that in a separate post....sneaky me!)")

Now there are TWO (2) Wares being quoted on this thread!

Twofold yet One

Theotokos

God was born.

two natures

homoousios

one person

died

not only a divine will but also a human will

depict his face

only God can save us.

[salvation must reach the point of human need.

totus in suis, tous in nostris

Complete in what is his own

Complete in what is ours

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 12/05/2001 4:18:50 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 12/5/2001 12:02 PM (GMT -6)

Semeia, as I think Modes would say, your intuitions are right. I might want to return to this and clean up a few technicalities, that matter.

quote:
Semia said: Because Jesus is also God, he is able to recognize himself and be open to himself (the part of himself in the Trinity that did NOT become man), to an extent that he would be able to realize his own infinite will. His temptation would still be great, and real, because he was a man made of flesh, but he would be able to resist it because of his relationship with the other two-thirds of the Trinity. In this way he could hold out hope to the rest of humanity that if we only rest in the Lord's will, we too could resist temptation. We cannot get ourselves off the hook by saying Jesus had a closer connection to God, and so he had an easier time of it.

Where it says in your post "the part of himself in the Trinity that did NOT become man" I jumped. i think I know what you mean. but re-read bishop Ware's quote above. 100%/!00% does not just refer to the temperature and humidity at our outdoor wedding (dark grey wool strollers on the men, thankyou)! And rational thought is important to faith! so there are some orthodoxies that are well worth knowing and saying right!

An aside: .........MODES READ THIS!!!...........

An important thing that has slipped into Evangelical Christianity, too, is something that is present in the Christology or Soteriology of Theodore of Moptusia (who has some wonderful spiritual writings, despite the flaw I'm trying to mention.). he basically focused on morality as merit, that Christ by his good behavior (which seems present in Semeia's post, as an example):

quote:
Faced with the need to combat determinism in both its ethical and cosmological or philosophical forms, it seems that a Syrian theological tradition was created which emphasized the superiority of what is done according to will as over against what is done by nature. What is done by nature can neither be praised nor rewarded nor justly punished, whereas what is done by will is indicative of a higher form of life. A man who realizes his own freedom to will what is good can occupy himself with meritorious works, on the one hand, for the reward of eternal life, and at the same time become instrumental for the betterment of society. Such a moralistic foundation would overcome the pessimism of pagan religions and philosophies and at the same time would be conducive to building up the moral stamina of the Roman Empire. Within such categories there would automatically be a strong tendency to think of divine adoption primarily as a reward which comes at the end of a process of meritorious living and the Biblical doctrine of grace and sin would become subordinated to this principle. The grace of God would not be so much a gift bestowed upon man in order to liberate him from the enemy, but a reward bestowed upon him because he has fulfilled the law. The destruction of Israel's enemies would not be the work of God's glory, but rather the work of Israel who would thereupon be rewarded with the glory of God for such meritorious efforts. Such an inversion of the Biblical pattern is perhaps the most characteristic feature of Theodore's Christology. In this respect Galtier is entirely wrong in claiming that the sole initiative for the incarnation lies with the Son of God. For Theodore, God unites Himself by will to the assumed man, but this union. is dependent on God's foreknowledge of the assumed man's merits. Theodore could not imagine that one could preserve both the freedom of God and Christ otherwise.
HIGHLIGHTS IN THE DEBATE OVER THEODORE OF MOPSUESTIA'S CHRISTOLOGY
AND SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR A FRESH APPROACH - Part 2
© John S. Romanides

Semeia
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522

Posted 12/5/2001 12:37 PM (GMT -6)

Pow and anyone else:

I am neither a theologian nor a philosopher, so maybe someone can help me out here.

Considering PoW's quoted statements:

quote:

1. Jesus Christ is fully and completely God.

2. Jesus Christ is fully and completely man.

3. Jesus Christ is not two persons but one.

Because Jesus Christ is fully and completely God, does it follow that God is fully and completely Jesus Christ? I mean, he calls out to his father on the cross, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me if he IS the father. I am fully and completely American, but America is not fully and completely me.

Isn't the "Father" part of the Trinity "outside of" Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ can be 100% God, but God doesn't have to be 100% Jesus Christ. A set completely imbedded in another set. If that's not how it is, I'm so confused. Who is Jesus calling out to?

I know Jesus says "If you know me, you know the father", but that makes sense because Jesus' whole person is all God--there is nothing in Jesus that would contradict God, he is God. But God is even bigger.

Am I misunderstanding what you are saying?

Maybe the confusion is this, you say: "Where it says in your post 'the part of himself in the Trinity that did NOT become man' I jumped."

I think I worded my statement poorly. I didn't mean to suggest Jesus was not 100% God. I meant to suggest that part of God existed outside of Jesus. But maybe that is just as bad for you.

Thanks,
Semeia

"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard

197 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:12 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual