Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

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

Cibertus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 57

Posted 7/23/2001 9:09 AM (GMT -6)

When speaking of free will do we need to make a distinction between pre-fall free will and post-fall free will?

The reason I’m asking is because it occurs to me that what is assumed very often within a discussion on free will, that free will decisions made under the influence of reigning evil is the same as free will outside of that influence.

Mr. Merriam-Webster’s definition of freedom reflects a very individualistic take on what freedom is—“2 a : not determined by anything beyond its own nature or being : choosing or capable of choosing for itself b : determined by the choice of the actor or performer c : made, done, or given voluntarily or spontaneously”

If we are believers “true freedom” (pre-fall) is the truest form of freedom. But how is that different than what exists now? Sometimes I almost want to call post-fall free will, “restriction”.

Cibertus

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 7/23/2001 9:46 AM (GMT -6)

Off the top of my head, it seems to me that "pre-fall" the big question regarding free will was whether we will continue to resist the temptation of evil and corruption. The opposite seems to be true now. The question is whether and how long we will resist the power of God in our lives. God wants the one thing God cannot have by divine fiat alone: creatures who willingly obey when they could do otherwise.

Not sure how helpful that is, just some thoughts.

"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

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/23/2001 8:52 PM (GMT -6)

Free will.....

Beyond my field, but I think a philosopher would make some comment about necessary things--that only for God is nothing necessary--in contrast to us--because we depend on God for our very existence and God can take care of that Himself. That is one contrast. I'm content not being free in that regard.

I've seen another discussion. In that one the issue of deliberation between two choices was raised. Contrary to our consumerist training--though pre-dating TV--deliberating (not really the exact term) shows a lack of freedom. In the abstract that's too weird to grasp. But if I say I chose to protect my child from danger when he was in his car seat AND THAT I DID NOT DELIBERATE that rings true. That choice feels "freer" than whether to break a diet with one food or another. I suspect the distance from God's will in the second example as compared to the first is relevant. Another term added helps: nature. Human nature, as a creation of God, is GOOD. Even when fallen the nature is good. The personality is sinning. Choices are being made that are not really "free," but are in bondage. The "soulish man" is not free. As I understand it, the only hope is to die. . .and have Christ live in me--no other way.

Quoting St. Athanasius (in "Against the Arians IlI, 24"):

"We, apart from the Spirit, are alien and remote from God,
and are untied with the Godhead by participation in the Spirit;
so that our being in the Father does not belong to us,
but to the Spirit which is in us and dwells in us"

PotOnWheel

Cibertus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 57

Posted 7/24/2001 9:36 AM (GMT -6)

quote:

Off the top of my head, it seems to me that "pre-fall" the big question regarding free will was whether we will continue to resist the temptation of evil and corruption.

Modes:
Hmmm... Seems to me just the opposite. Pre-fall worries didn't include the everyday resistance to evil for there was no knowledge of good and evil.

Perhaps I’m being way too careful in how I ask this, and I’m not really communicating anything at all. So—a little grace from ya’all?

I thought of this analogy last night.

The fall has limited us all significantly, yet our capacity for free will has not been diminished. It is as if a race of emos was created with sight and fast cars but suddenly something happened where all emos are entirely blind but they all still operate their fast cars. Plus, they’ve all forgotten what it was like to have sight and still operate their cars as though they had sight.

Is free will not something like the fast cars for the emos. They continue to use their full capacity but they do so blindly. We could observe the Emos from the outside and say “They have a built in self-destruction mechanism.” And we would be right. We’d likely suggest to them to give up their fast cars.

Because of what has changed AROUND free will. Separation from God. Centuries of accumulated personal and societal sins. Free will doesn’t look the same at all. In fact, it operates as an instrument of self-destruction (for the self with the free will). And we can hardly call it free will proper anymore. Under the influence of evil it (free will) is more determined than free.

Pot man: What kind of pot is on your wheel?

Thanks for joining us.

Cibertus

Edited by - cibertus on 07/24/2001 2:38:37 PM

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 7/24/2001 11:11 AM (GMT -6)

Ciber-buddy,

What I was thinking was that even "pre-fall," there was the command "do not," this is what God required us to resist: "doing" what God said "not" to do. We might actually agree more than not...

"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

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/24/2001 11:48 AM (GMT -6)

"What kind of pot is on your wheel?"

Today is a firing. Yesterday was spent glazing.

I think you were more clear than I was. I agree with you when you say: "And we can hardly call it free will proper anymore. Under the influence of evil it (free will) is more determined than free."

I'd like to throw in the two-bits that this whole thing does apply to the discussions elsewhere, where speculation is being made about Christ's human will. I don't actually know if it is treated in that detail. Maybe Jesus gets treated sometimes as if God and Jesus were separate. I don't want to go back and check. I think I remember that some sort of drama was made about Jesus debating with God. Whatever periphery might be involved in the motivation for that scenario...the important thing relative to our salvation is that Christ ASSUMED everything of humanity except sin. That is absolutely necessary for our salvation. The Cross is necessary too--part of it all--but the doctrine of the incarnation is not something that can be tinkered with. Christ ASSUMED our human nature--which has its own kind of will--separate from His divine will. Likewise, my own body has a will/energy, and in the second half of this rollercoaster I can really feel it in the morning.

Let me make a new paragraph--that way anyone who wants to disagree can see what they are looking for. What I've read (I don't have much original thinking; I just like taking images and making pictures out of them.) The issue in Gethsemane was that of Christ's human will REALLY not wanting to die. Wrenching of soul from body was not a rosy picture to look forward to. His divine will could not fear that death--that's because (if I'm still on track) His divine will is with regard to his divine nature. As a Person (hypostasis) Christ willed the same as the Father and the holy Spirit--as one should expect from the Triune God. Christ's human body faced death and the wrath from our sins and said "not my will/energy/imputice/motivation/need/reflext but Thine be done." I think (I'm NOT in my twenties, or even my thirties anymore!) I remember reading the OLD preachers (Please visit for the Church fathers online. Harry Plantinga--same family--did a remarkable job.) pointing out that Christ said al this so that we would know that it did affect him. (No planted tape recorder, so no transcript. Besides, it was also written as a gospel message.) Christ ASSUMED humanity and made it subject to the divine will without any confusion of natures, nor any annihilation of humanity. Christ deified human nature, died to save us, trampled down death by his death and rose from the dead, ascended to heaven in his human body, and will dwell "among men" in the New Jerusalem. He will be our light.

........................
Allow me to sketch just a little background. Big theological battling concerned whether Christ had one or two wills--whether will involves one's person (hypostasis) or one's nature. Christ--two natures and one person--has either one of two "wills" or energies depending on whether one went with nature or person. But, look closely at this: for Christ to have one will/energy--respective of being one person--then the Trinity would have three different wills. That would be three Gods. Anathema. Ooops.
........................

There are perhaps reasons why some would speculate and spin stories about what might have happened. Let me just suggest that some reading in the context of where this was all worked out is VERY important.

Dogma, as it turns out, wasn't fought over for speculation sake. It came about because the actual salvation of many was at stake. A quick run down on the Trinitarian and Christological issues can be quickly picked up at which is by one of the ethnically centered dioceses of those Eastern Orthodox churches that are in North America. (Orthodox are really big on orthodoxy!) Specifically:
_for TRINITY see
_for Christology see <> and follow for a couple of link through Son of God, Incarnation, Redemption, Resurrection, Ascension, and Judgment.
_for Holy Spirit see
_for the crafting of dogma about the Son of God see especially

Reading all that was quite an eye opener for me. And for me, having a clear presentation is the only way I can handle something that history made seem so complicated.

PotOnWheel

Cibertus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 57

Posted 7/24/2001 2:13 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

Ciber-buddy,

What I was thinking was that even "pre-fall," there was the command "do not," this is what God required us to resist: "doing" what God said "not" to do. We might actually agree more than not...

Modes: Yeah. I agree we agree

I was just flipping this rock over.

Pot man: Oh, Holy cow... Ya buried me!
I'm a slow reader. Or probably just slow period. But yer sweeping out the corners for me. I'll read this later.

Cibertus

Cibertus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 57

Posted 7/26/2001 10:20 AM (GMT -6)

So it all boils down to the bottom blocks of being and the self. (Cool—Dwelling on the nature and limits of “being” and the self mesmerizes me and puts my brain in a trance)

Okay so there are some who think their will is their being and others who place will as a property of being, the former being the heretics. And if the later is true it means that Christ had two natures 2 corresponding with the 2 wills. Where the two wills run in a common vector at all times throughout Jesus life Which would make—let’s say the choice of the cross. That does bring us back to a former discussion (Did Jesus Choose the Cross) where someone was asking questions relating to the two wills of Jesus. Included with the two natures, the two wills, the two choices. There’d be a problem if the destiny of Christ was known by God/Christ’s God nature, when the human nature still had conform (choose) the will of God. So we either have the problem here or the problem in the tape recorded words of Jesus at Gethsemane. (I think that’s what I’m trying to say)

And if none of that makes sense cause I’m way of track, I got something else from an entirely different realm…

The fall, the self, separation from God, deception…here’s a poem that came to me as I’m letting this train of thought wash over my neurons…
(Modes might be too logical to appreciate this expression but surely Pot man’s in my corner when it comes to the artistic. I thought it was a cool little diddy. Hope its not out of place, here. Pot man, I’ll dedicate this to you, if it ever gets published. I think I’ll entitle it Lucifer or Master of Deception—not sure yet.)

Oh thou two faced idiot!
How long wilt thou hide in thy faces
How long wilt thou speak to thyself.
In jaded wispers and baudy tales.

Didst thou not fall and brake thy face afore.
The sun rises and rests its colors.
The clock tocks thy certain fall.
And thy mask is but of painted clay.

Oh that thou coulds’t be thyself.
My heart aches with thine own.
Yet to be free of thy wearysome shadow
Is but more certain than to change thy being.

BTW—Pot man, WHERE-O-WHERE??? does one find brightly colored ceramic pieces? I’m working on a mosaic and have literally looked everywhere for quality bright red ceramic pieces. Colors are important! You know. And all I can find is the dull boring beiges.

Cibertus

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/26/2001 6:38 PM (GMT -6)

Well, CLAY talk first!

Reds are ussually from Cadmium--like in the acrylic paint. 'Cept at any kind of high temperature (1850*-ish...but I'd read the bottle) Cad. reds, oranges and yellows tend to vaporize...as if to evaporate. Thicker applications concerve the bottom layers. But a movement towards grey (uglifying) can only be achieved by firing up and down FAST. Melt that sucker, but "freeze" it solid quickly (still 1200* hot) afterwards.

But you are going to buy it? OK

The thing I'd like to tell you is to use what is free. In writing that is grammer. (I married someone good at that, and spelling too.....and even name recognition.

) In art it is design that is free. Here are three design principles to try--even in a sketchbook. Then back to the DiscussionBoard. Contrast is everything. (In realestate its location--same thing.) To make something dark put something really light next to it. Light?...make a neighboring dark accent. Red is warm....experiement with various cools. Second--and can't think of a name for this right now--is trugin a marbling or mixing of a variety of reds together. look through pictures of paintings or photos of flowers to find and example of this. Too much zing and one gets tired. Interchange differnt zings and it will keep ya go'en. Third. This one is called contrast by extention. Somply, a little red REALLY speaks if one...there is really one a very litte of it; and two...you really, really want there to be some --or are really glad. Think of a woman in a red hat seated in a row of men in black. Better, think of just the MIB with one of them having a single pink carnation in his lapel.

Try it.

Cibertus: you wrote:

"There¹d be a problem if the destiny of Christ was known
by God/Christ¹s God nature, when the human nature still
had conform (choose) the will of God."

I've done mainly cutting and pasting here--curating other folks ideas and trying to put them into this mix in an interesting way. More ussual is for me to ask you why you say this. So I will. Why?

I think what you wrote about the deity knowing and the human not is true--but I've read a really lot of variations. Historically some of the Church Fathers used Jesus statements to be dramatizations--for evvect to make a point--and others to deal seriously with his ignorance. Maybe both are true.

My two cents tonight is that I think of (and have heard--I'm not very original outside the studio) Jesus' ignorance as being a part of all that he did for us--what he went through. One can hav elots of fun talking aout Jesus hitting his finger with a hammer and not swearing.......BUT I'm wondering (note my tense--this is ongoing!) if it isn't richer to consider Him through ignorance and learning to be identifying fully with mankind.

What you wrote above is no stranger than anything I'm going to quote below!

I clipped this earlier tonight; but I'll put it here too:

__The inconceivable was conceived in a womb of a virgin;
__the Unmeasurable becomes three cubits high,
__the Unqualified acquires a quality;
__the Undefinable stands up, sits down, and lies down;
__He who is everywhere is put into a crib;
__He who is above time gradually reaches the age of twelve;
__He who is formless appears with the shape of a man,
__and the Incorporeal enters into a body
__Therefore, He is describable and indescribable.
(Theodore the Studite, 759-826 AD)

Again, what are YOUR views/feelings.

What are you making with mosaic?

PotOnWheel

Cibertus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 57

Posted 7/27/2001 11:07 PM (GMT -6)

With respect to the “clay talk”—I say I think I need a reference on all that before I can place its relevance let alone buy it, for the quality and price of your recommendations are highly questionable. Oh well!!, it’s more a rarity than the norm to get a straight answer, from a question asked.

Pot man says: “I’ve done mainly cutting and pasting here.”

Me: I believe you here! (roll eyes--shake head) Your random scrambled pieces make me wonder what other kind of pot is on your wheel. (puff puff). (No offence—couldn’t hold that dig)

Yet as for the questions at hand—And I really hope to get a clear response from somebody here (Not mine own will but thine own dear Lord, I pray).

I was asked why I said, “There’d be a problem if the destiny of Christ was known by God/Christ’s God nature, when the human nature still had to conform (choose) the will of God.”

Answer: Because I do see a problem here if we define the being of God as we did (the orthodox three person God, who’s will is distinct from his being, yet harmonious within the three persons). Why: Okay lets start here—There is Jesus in the garden (as Pot man says)…

“The issue in Gethsemane was that of Christ's human will REALLY not wanting to die. Wrenching of soul from body was not a rosy picture to look forward to. His divine will could not fear that death--that's because (if I'm still on track) His divine will is with regard to his divine nature. As a Person (hypostasis) Christ willed the same as the Father and the holy Spirit--as one should expect from the Triune God. Christ's human body faced death and the wrath from our sins and said "not my will/energy/imputice/motivation/need/reflext but Thine be done."

(human will wrestles with divine will I’d take that to say)

So, there is Jesus in the garden. His being composed of human nature and deity nature, human will and diety will (and some sort of intersection of human knowledge (ignorance) and deity knowledge) (since we have already established will as a property of being) But in order for Christ to will the same as the Father (or the divine will of Christ harmonize with the human will--however you want to say it) his human nature had to align itself with the father’s will or the diety nature. This requires a choice. True choice requires free choice. Harmony ensues once choice is made. So, if Christ truly chose against human will/nature (not my will but yours be done”) in the garden (concerning will to die). God (the father and Christ’s diety nature) could not have known the resulting choice until after the garden experience of Jesus, where Jesus’ diety will prevailed over human will. Yet scripture seems to suggest that Jesus, presumably his diety had knowledge of the forthcoming crucifiction. He tells his disciples, “ you know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.” Matthew 26:2. THAT is what I find problematic if Christs death was determined by at least the time of that statement (before Gethsemane) where his human will chose (in sweat, blood and tears) to relinquish to the deity’s will.

Or Jesus could simply be pretending to choose at Gethsemane, with all the sweat and the tears. But I’d find that problematic too. Pick the location of your problem—I guess. Would you like it here, or here, or here?

“What are you making with mosaic? “

Me: A piece for my kitchen with a garden of eden type theme—serpent, vine and flowers.

Cibertus

Edited by - cibertus on 07/28/2001 04:09:21 AM

Edited by - cibertus on 07/28/2001 04:10:36 AM

Edited by - cibertus on 07/28/2001 04:12:44 AM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/28/2001 5:15 PM (GMT -6)

Dear Cibertus:

A few posts above you said: "...the two wills, the two choices." Is it you who is a technitian? If so it shows. You handle lots of elements of which you say they are new (?), and do so with great accuracy--that's a skill! I do well to slowly come up to speed and get a degree of literacy--enough that I can spot correctness. Then, if I have the right sounding board, I can try composing my own thoughts about applications of an idea that are peripheral to how I became aquainted with it. (I'm slow.) That said. . .I am NOT sure that the two parts I'm quoting from you above are both true.

In '...two wills, the two choices...' I'm sure of the two wills. "Will" in the church Fathers, is, as you understood, from nature. Energies is another like term. I'm just not sure which--nature or being--to put "choice" with. Christ is two natures and one person. If I were not concious of this exchange, the first thought would probably be to put "choice" with person. That's my thought.

ITS COMING! I'm going to try and give an answer to your whole last post--this (wills/choices) was from before that--as soon as I can.

But for now, what is YOUR take on this wills/choices thing? Are they the same or different? ane then where do(es) they/it fit(s)?

Var sa gut!

PotOnWheel

Cibertus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 57

Posted 7/29/2001 2:03 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

(I'm slow.)

I doubt it. 32 posts in a week. Compared to my 14 in my entire existence on here.

quote:

ITS COMING! I'm going to try and give an answer to your whole last post--this (wills/choices) was from before that--as soon as I can.

Sorry, didn’t mean to be of any pressure to you. I couldn’t see the pained expression on your face. And I didn’t know you were taking me seriously. Nor that I was saying anything worth responding to.
Am I new to this? Depends on your perspective. New to my existence on this earth? No. I’ve been thinking these thoughts since way way back while I was still hoeing the cornrows and picking strawberries for 5 cents a quart under a beating hot sun. New to the exclusive circle of theological and philosophical speak. Yes. Like many other circles, there are many requirements. Unfortunately, I meet few of them and many of them have nothing to do with the skill for the trade. Perhaps I should develop yet another identity and find myself a briefcase, a tweed slightly musty sport coat, round glasses, a pipe, practice the curled lip and the raised eyebrow and drop the plans for a sex change. There are always ways to crash the party. Anyway lets not get into my beef with exclusive circles, especially this one.

quote:

But for now, what is YOUR take on this wills/choices thing?

Choice with being?? Ugh Yes in light of this exchange that would be painful. In light of this exchange I would be hesitant to put anything with being. I’d almost put being into a category by itself. One that no man can figure out and then wait for an epiphany to enlighten me on its parameters and contents.

But what I understand about being so far is…Being is something that must be found (sustained) in God the creator of being but then is also distinct from God and other beings. To find being in the self of these human trappings is to march it to its death.
Will precedes choice in relation to being or maybe it exists in a dynamic interaction a few steps removed from being. Will emanates from what the being has already become and influences choice, where choice radiates back into being and solidifies the being’s content.

As for energies. Hmm… now energies are interesting. If you get them aligned between beings just right (God to human and human to human and any number of other combinations) you get strange and amazing things like instantaneous transfer (of knowledge, of mood, etc.) It almost like plugging your solitary computer into a mainframe. Maybe that’s all to weird for this board, but there is something to be said about the energy that is emitted by people as they do their being/will/choice interaction and I would place energy as emanating from being as well as emanation from the interaction of nature (and all that is included with nature (I prefer to call nature property of being)) with that being.

One more thing I thought to include is experience.
Choice solidifies experience before reaching being. Experience is the path of stimuli acting upon being. Knowledge is perceiving the terrain of existing stimuli.

Okay so much for an afternoon of daydreaming.
Tear me apart.

Cibertus

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/29/2001 4:09 PM (GMT -6)

(Well, somehow the server didn't post the first message right away, and after the second came up the first was there--or else I made more than one mistake. So, I'm going to erase this one. It is long, wordy, to boring for anyone else to read, and now its GONE!)

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 07/29/2001 9:55:21 PM

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/29/2001 4:47 PM (GMT -6)

Cibertus: Thanks for your answer. Looked good. Creatively put too. Contrasting-ly, I'm holding a few terms in my head with confined contexts to maintain a literacy in how despite the limitations of words the church somehow defined and protected what it knew had to be expressed. Hense, I'm going to be boring. YOU were very poetic.

As to Pots. I thought I was saying you might just go to a TileCity (There was one on Snelling Ave. in the 60's and 70's...if it is still there...?) and pick up what you need easy and cheep. I finally guessed that by "expensive" you thought I was trying to sell you them.

Ain't got the time, and don't like the frustration. I wish you the best!

PotOnWheel

I PREDICT THAT BELOW _Cibertus_ WILL WRITE: "I would have enjoyed seeing your response no matter how boring you thought it was. I would have dug it. I'm certain it would have been better than my daydreamed bits. Its good to look at things from all angles.
I really hope you stick around. I like your style and your thoughts."

IT WAS JUST THE SAME THING--BUT THE REWRITE WAS MORE TO THE POINT.

(WASN'T THE MOVIE "GROUDHOG DAY" GREAT!)

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 07/29/2001 10:01:05 PM

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 07/30/2001 2:10:12 PM

Cibertus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 57

Posted 7/30/2001 4:31 AM (GMT -6)

Ahh rats!!

I would have enjoyed seeing your response no matter how boring you thought it was. I would have dug it. I'm certain it would have been better than my daydreamed bits. Its good to look at things from all angles.

I really hope you stick around. I like your style and your thoughts.

Cibertus

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 7/30/2001 10:34 AM (GMT -6)

READY OR NOT.....

Cibertus quotes POW: ³The issue in Gethsemane was that of Christ's human will REALLY not wanting to die. Wrenching of soul from body was not a rosy picture to look forward to. His divine will could not fear that death--that's because (if I'm still on track) His divine will is with regard to his divine nature. As a Person (hypostasis) Christ willed the same as the Father and the holy Spirit--as one should expect from the Triune God. Christ's human body faced death and the wrath from our sins and said "not my will/energy/impetus/motivation/need/reflex but Thine be done."

Cibertus remarks: (human will wrestles with divine will I¹d take that to say)

POW answers: Cibertus, I'm going to understand your line "human will wrestles with divine will I¹d take that to say " to be in reference to Christ's two wills--one human and one divine.

POW counters: You say the opposite from what I understand when you say ³human will wrestles with divine.² The incarnation was a uniting in one person of human nature and divine nature, without confusion, and without mixing. (Mixing would be the destruction of human nature.) Similarly, in our rebirth the Holy Spirit comes to dwell in our souls, to make us divine by grace (only God is divine by nature) without destroying us. For the framers of these doctrines this was not an exercise with ideas; it is about salvation. (Maximus the Confessor had his tongue and right hand cut off over this. He a Greek died a martyr along with one of the Latin Popes.) The issue was bringing people to saving grace.

The "problem" for all of us is conformity of our wills to the spirit. What do we expect to find in Christ. If HE could not do that....the WHAT hope is there for us? (I sense that I¹ve jumped to a collateral issue, and off the main one in this paragraph.)

³Will" is according to nature. "Free will² means out of bondage to the "passions of the flesh." Out of bondage to serving the dying part of you. What is "natural" is for the flesh to be "integrated" with the whole of our humanity. But sin spoiled that integrity!

Cibertus said: "But in order for Christ to will the same as the Father (or the divine will of Christ harmonize with the human will--however you want to say it) his human nature had to align itself with the father¹s will or the deity nature. This requires a choice."

Hmmm. Yes. I agree. Now, slowing down...because this isn¹t my field...I¹d ask whether that ³choice² has to be at the level of nature, or whether you would find any objection to it being at the level of person? Could Christ have two choices--where choice would have to be from the natural level. I¹ll vote no. What I¹ve been understanding from the ³hypostatic union² doctrine is that it means that the one person of Christ made choices as a person will two natures--two wills/energies. The strong feelings (worship and awe) that I¹ve had is in realizing that God actually suffered, and in the historic statement: ³One of the Trinity died.² The divine, immutable God was changed. I don¹t let that go.

Cibertus continued: "True choice requires free choice."

POW asks: Does ³free choice² mean the requirement of being able to chose more than one option? That is not necessary for my understanding. My wife was the only one for me. That would have been true if she was the only woman on the planet too.

I'M convinced that True choice requires ³FREEDOM² of choice.

Further, I'm convinced by the view that says that those who deliberate do not really have freedom of choice (e.g., Should I follow the Spirit's leading or should I give into temptation.) Deliberation in the form of really entertaining temptation is a true slippery slope. THAT sort of freedom is actually a kind of servitude--to the tempter or to the "flesh." To tease the NIV a bit, true freedom means following out nature. (We do not have a ³sinful nature" according to Genesis 1.) The true freedom of choice in true choice (free will) is the capacity to choice according to our God-designed nature. (Echoes of Kuyper.)

POW explaining: Your next paragraph seems to be part of the ongoing OV versus EDF debate. I am not in that one. (Doesn¹t interest me.) I¹d be concerned though, that some kind of reverse reasoning might occur where ones position on EDF.OV make constructions (or proof text the Gethsemane passages) that do violence to Christological dogma. I want to believe that that does not happen. But when the whole Piper/Boyd show hit the BGC THAT was one of my fears. I¹m glad to be invited to post here (Modes invited me several times, because I¹d bring Œbalance¹--meaning we disagree.). So now I¹ve posted my fear. Put my fears to rest!

Cibertus: "So, if Christ truly chose against human will/nature (not my will but yours be done²) in the garden (concerning will to die). God (the father and Christ¹s deity nature) could not have known the resulting choice until after the garden experience of Jesus, where Jesus¹ deity will prevailed over human will. Yet scripture seems to suggest that Jesus, presumably his deity had knowledge of the forthcoming crucifixion. He tells his disciples, ³ you know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be handed over to be crucified.² Matthew 26: 2. THAT is what I find problematic if Christs death was determined by at least the time of that statement (before Gethsemane) where his human will chose (in sweat, blood and tears) to relinquish to the deity¹s will."

Pulling out from Cibertus: "So, if Christ truly chose against human will/nature (not my will but yours be done²) in the garden (concerning will to die)..."

POW replies: Did Christ chose against human will? Or did Christ chose to do something similar to what Paul asks us to do in Romans 12:1. I read in Evdokimov today that it was Christ¹s human nature that did the ³supernaturally natural² miracles. It was Christ¹s human will that was transfigured on Tabor. At the Jordan the Holy Spirit baptized Him, and the Father said ³Today I have begotten Thee.² I¹d just rather approach it from the soteriological, economic direction than to try and fit it to what I¹ve only understood as being philosophical debates. (Though I applaud the correctives to the EDF problems!)

.....

As to our "human nature." A complexity of our fallen-ness is that "self preservation" can be either, in one situation, God-willed. In another is might be sin.

If the issue is whether Christ's offering himself to die can be according to human will...dying is NOT healthy for our human nature.

But given all the saints who have gone rejoicing to their martyr¹s death (Stephen, Polycarp) then it is very easy for Love incarnate to purpose from the foundation of the world to be the Lamb.

Hope that was half worth waiting for...

Edited by - PotOnWheel on 07/30/2001 4:46:47 PM

Cibertus
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 57

Posted 7/31/2001 12:51 PM (GMT -6)

Okay, I knew it’d be good. Now its my turn to think hard and read frantically. I think I’m toast.

But to alleviate fears expressed here

quote:

POW explaining: Your next paragraph seems to be part of the ongoing OV versus EDF debate. I am not in that one. (Doesn¹t interest me.) I¹d be concerned though, that some kind of reverse reasoning might occur where ones position on EDF.OV make constructions (or proof text the Gethsemane passages) that do violence to Christological dogma. I want to believe that that does not happen. But when the whole Piper/Boyd show hit the BGC THAT was one of my fears. I¹m glad to be invited to post here (Modes invited me several times, because I¹d bring Œbalance¹--meaning we disagree.). So now I¹ve posted my fear. Put my fears to rest!

I will respond to your concern now.

I was prompted to use this Christ story from a previous discussion. My intention is to use the story as a playing field (a number of stories could have worked equally well), so that we don’t have to discuss one of my stories which runs roughly parallel to it. Looking into time, the nature of the future, present and past, its relationship to being Plus within the workings of that whole mess, I would like to understand the place of the prophetic in it, especially predictive prophecy. These are my adjendas.

Prooftexting and redoing years of established Christology is not intended here. Also I am in neither EDF or the OT camp. Rest in peace. Both are problematic to me. I am on here for reasons similar to yours. To see what Modes is up to half the time.

and Pia. The fringed benefits are that I get my butt kicked into the library and I am kept humble by the brainiacs on here.

If we do it right, Christological dogma should be reinforced. Contradictions eliminated—Nothing like expecting the mostest.

Thanks for your response.

Cibertus

themuzicman
Always ready for lunch and the weekend

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 48

Posted 8/10/2001 4:18 AM (GMT -6)

I was just thinking about this, today.

I came up with this analogy:

We are "free" to fly to Saggitarius in a space ship (a star) and see what planets are there (or at least try). The problem is that we are incapable, because our nature is limited.

So, while we have free will to do what we wish, our nature makes doing many of those things impossible.

Michael

"God is dead" - Nietscke

"Nietscke is dead" - God

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 9/2/2001 1:18 PM (GMT -6)

TheMuzicMan says "we have free will to do what we wish [but] our nature makes doing many of those things impossible." The analogy is that we are "free to fly to Saggitarius... but we are incapable, because our nature is limited."

I do not see what meaning the word "free" has if it refers to something we aren't capable of doing. If I can be said to be "free to fly to Saggitarius" even though I'm incapable of this, I can also be said to be "free to become a cucumber" though I'm incapable of this.

What does the word "freedom" mean unless it means power to do in contrast to to lacking power to do and necessity to do. If I can't do x, or if I must do x, I am not FREE to do x.

There's my take.

Greg

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

Bob Hill
Registered Member

Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 98

Posted 9/21/2001 5:13 PM (GMT -6)

To continue in Doc’s vein, I’d like to add 2 of my favorite passages. When Adam sinned, it seems from Calvinistic theology that from that point on he could only do evil. But John 1:9 shows us “That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.”, so man could believe or reject God’s plan of salvation. Also, 2 Pe 3:9 says, “The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should have room for repentance.” The word “willing”, here is boulomenos, counseling. no one can prevent His counsel, boulhv, from happening. He is going to bring His counsel, boulay, to pass. The participle, boulomenos, counseling, which correlates to the word counsel, boulay, is found in this passage. I want to give you my translation of 2 Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow concerning His promise, as some count slowness but is long-suffering toward us, not counseling, boulomenos, any to perish but [counseling] all to have room for repentance. No one has resisted His counsel. He has determined that everyone will have room for repentance, and they do. But they can resist His counsel for them.

Luke 7:30 shows us that the Pharisees rejected God’s counsel for themselves: “But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the will, the counsel, tayn boulayn, of God for themselves, not having been baptized by him.” Therefore, we can see that “the Lord . . . is not counseling any to perish.” What is He counseling? He is counseling all to have room for repentance.” This is one of the strongest verses in God’s word which shows that the redemption of Christ is for all, and all have the ability to repent because God made room in everyone. That should be a motivation for us to speak boldly as the Lord opens doors.

The Greek for come is cwrew [w’s are omegas, long o’s]. The basic meaning of this word is “have room, accommodate.” All the definitions in BGD are nuances of this basic meaning. Matthew 19:11-12 is a good example. “But He said to them, ‘All cannot accept (cwrew) this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept (cwrew) it, let him accept (cwrew) it.’” cwrew, occurs 10 times in the following references: Mat 15:17; Mat 19:11,12; Mk 2:2; John 2:6; John 8:37; John 21:25; 2 Co 7:2; 2 Pe 3:9. In the KJV it is translated receive 3, contain 2, come 1 [our verse], go 1, have place 1, receive 1, be room to receive 1. In the NKJV it is translated accept 3, goes 1, room to receive 1, containing 1, has place 1, could contain 1, and open 1. It is defined 1) to leave space (which may be filled or occupied by another), to make room, give place, yield 1a) to retire 1b) metaphorically, to betake one’s self, turn one’s self 2) to go forward, advance, proceed, succeed 3) to have space or room for receiving or holding something.

Bob

Edited by - Bob Hill on 09/21/2001 10:15:48 PM

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:36 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