Is Christ God?

[makesends]

Well, that is probably true. But the question is: Is belief in the virgin birth necessary for salvation.

Frank and Helen had to "come together" to produce Fastfredy0 and from that aspect this coming together was necessary for my salvation too but we're dealing with the "knowledge content of faith" needed for salvation and not other ancillary items.

I just can't help feeling like this line of thinking in effect is synergistic. Faith is not unreasoning, but I cannot accept that our human ability to grasp a concept is any basis of faith nor salvation. There is something behind what we consider concrete, that is more solid than conscious thought.

The facts of the Gospel are absolute, but our words and concepts are not.

 

[Arial]

I just can't help feeling like this line of thinking in effect is synergistic. Faith is not unreasoning, but I cannot accept that our human ability to grasp a concept is any basis of faith nor salvation. There is something behind what we consider concrete, that is more solid than conscious thought.

The facts of the Gospel are absolute, but our words and concepts are not.

Since it is God who effectually calls and it is God the Holy Spirit who regenerates, and God who gives us faith, he is, I believe, providing what is necessary to be a part of that faith, even if we don't yet know intellectually, in our conscious mind, all the necessary content, of the person and work of Christ. He will open our eyes to it from his word and the proper exhortation of preachers and teachers.

 

[makesends]

Since it is God who effectually calls and it is God the Holy Spirit who regenerates, and God who gives us faith, he is, I believe, providing what is necessary to be a part of that faith, even if we don't yet know intellectually, in our conscious mind, all the necessary content, of the person and work of Christ. He will open our eyes to it from his word and the proper exhortation of preachers and teachers.

Amen ...from him, and through him and to him. IN HIM.

 

[fastfredy0]

This has always been an interesting notion to me. I'm pretty sure God could have equally sired Jesus by a non-virgin, but I believe he sired Jesus by a virgin as a testimony to silence anyone's claims as to whether it was really by a human father.

I was thinking the same thing. But, if God always does things the best way as determined by His essence, then He couldn't do it a different (2nd best) way. But I get what your saying. In theory there's no need for Christ to die and be resurrected as God could have created men that would not sin like He did with 2/3s of the angels, but the current way must be the best way.

 

[fastfredy0]

I'm pretty sure we all agree here that we will be pretty surprised at who will 'make it to heaven' and who won't.

I just hope that I am not surprised.

Maybe this discussion could be more productive if consider that "denying a fact", is active intent, which is not the same thing as "failing to intellectually comprehend".

"Failing to comprehend" can lead to hell. All those who never heard of Christ fail to comprehend.
Even those that heard of Christ ... what scripture says "failing to comprehend" is not damning?

We know our precious Lord Jesus Christ because we are 'in him', but we increase in knowledge of him.

Some decrease in knowledge. Lot's of indoctrination in churches leads to error. i.e. Women preachers, O.K. to be gay even a pastor. History seems to show we are often getting it wrong. I.E. 6 of the 7 churches in Revelation

 

[makesends]

I was thinking the same thing. But, if God always does things the best way as determined by His essence, then He couldn't do it a different (2nd best) way. But I get what your saying. In theory there's no need for Christ to die and be resurrected as God could have created men that would not sin like He did with 2/3s of the angels, but the current way must be the best way.

To say that God's essence determines his deeds is kind of a human way to put the notion. As @Josheb said lately, "I doubt God who IS sits around wondering if He's simple or complex." God is not a slave to his nature. God IS his nature. It isn't that he couldn't do it a second way. It's only that it makes no sense to think that he would, or that there 'could have been' another way. God needn't consider which is the best course.

There is a principle of the relationships of cause and effect, that everything affects everything else. I can't remember what it is called, to look up good valid statements of it. But, regardless, if even one particle had been different in the beginning, everything subsequent would be different in some way. God had a specific end to all things, in mind, when he created. That precise end will happen in all its specificity. And there is only one way it CAN happen. God's way. God's decree.

 

[fastfredy0]

I just can't help feeling like this line of thinking in effect is synergistic.

I don't see it that way. God can cause my faith to be strong or weak. God can harden and blind the hearts of men.

Faith is not unreasoning, but I cannot accept that our human ability to grasp a concept is any basis of faith nor salvation.

Agreed, we cannot self-determine anything. God is the first cause and what we do is an effect. The basis of faith is God giving us the ability to know/understand the facts needed in order to be saved and God causing us to believe in those facts and trust those facts to be true causing imperfect obedience.

There is something behind what we consider concrete, that is more solid than conscious thought.

God

 

[makesends]

I just hope that I am not surprised.

You will be, and so will I, but very pleasantly surprised.

"Failing to comprehend" can lead to hell. All those who never heard of Christ fail to comprehend.
Even those that heard of Christ ... what scripture says "failing to comprehend" is not damning?

THAT kind of 'failing to comprehend' is the same as actively denying the facts. Intentional. No implication of someone innocent being damned.

Some decrease in knowledge. Lot's of indoctrination in churches leads to error. i.e. Women preachers, O.K. to be gay even a pastor. History seems to show we are often getting it wrong. I.E. 6 of the 7 churches in Revelation

Yep

 

[fastfredy0]

There is a principle of the relationships of cause and effect, that everything affects everything else. I can't remember what it is called, to look up good valid statements of it.

The Law of Causality

• There is no change or beginning of existence without a cause
• Every material effect must have a simultaneous or adequate antecedent cause
• Every change in nature is produced by some cause

 

[makesends]

The Law of Causality

• There is no change or beginning of existence without a cause
• Every material effect must have a simultaneous or adequate antecedent cause
• Every change in nature is produced by some cause

That is part of it, but that is not the statement I'm looking for. It is more closely related to "the ripple effect", though that isn't it, either.

 

[fastfredy0]

THAT kind of 'failing to comprehend' is the same as actively denying the facts.

Re: ignorance of Christ and His gospel which is needed for salvation

Deny definition: state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.
How can you deny the facts if how are unaware of what the facts are?

 

[fastfredy0]

That is part of it, but that is not the statement I'm looking for. It is more closely related to "the ripple effect", though that isn't it, either.

Holy smokes. I don't see how your wife could understand you. *giggle*

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
I just can't help feeling like this line of thinking in effect is synergistic.

I don't see it that way. God can cause my faith to be strong or weak. God can harden and blind the hearts of men.

Of course he can, but salvation is not based on whether our faith is strong or weak, but on its validity, which is only possible if God generates it.

But my feeling that that line of thinking is synergistic is because of the sound of the validity of OUR thought is necessary, almost as if our getting something consciously right contributes to the validity of our faith. Sorry, but that sounds synergistic. We have nothing to contribute—not even something to contribute that was given to us for the purpose of contributing it.

makesends said:
Faith is not unreasoning, but I cannot accept that our human ability to grasp a concept is any basis of faith nor salvation

Agreed, we cannot self-determine anything. God is the first cause and what we do is an effect. The basis of faith is God giving us the ability to know/understand the facts needed in order to be saved and God causing us to believe in those facts and trust those facts to be true causing imperfect obedience.

Yet, we are not involved —that is, we are not consulted nor do we contribute, in his giving us faith. We believe in God, not because of what we comprehend, but because of who he is and what he has done in our hearts.

makesends said:
There is something behind what we consider concrete, that is more solid than conscious thought.

God

 

[makesends]

Re: ignorance of Christ and His gospel which is needed for salvation

Deny definition: state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of.
How can you deny the facts if how are unaware of what the facts are?

Until regeneration, we are at active enmity with God. Witness Romans 1: They KNEW him, but rejected that knowledge. Denied it.

There is none that has any excuse. None are innocent. It is not because they did not know, that they are condemned but because they did not believe.

The syllogism, 'how will they know unless they are told' (etc), is about those whom God will raise to life. They must (and will) be told. That is grace. If they were not told, they were no better than the rest, and would rot in hell.

There is no indication that anyone is condemned by God because the Gospel didn't get that far.

 

[fastfredy0]

Of course he can, but salvation is not based on whether our faith is strong or weak, but on its validity, which is only possible if God generates it.

Agreed

But my feeling that that line of thinking is synergistic is because of the sound of the validity of OUR thought is necessary, almost as if our getting something consciously right contributes to the validity of our faith. Sorry, but that sounds synergistic.

The "validity of OUR thought" is proof of our salvation, not proof of the cause of our salvation. If salvation is monogistic as we believe then the "validity of OUR thought" is proof that God has caused us to think/believe in such a way that we are saved.

Faith is not unreasoning, but I cannot accept that our human ability to grasp a concept is any basis of faith nor salvation

Our "human ability" is determined by God not ourselves just like the ability of those who will never heard of Christ is determined by God or the fact that we were born male was determined by God. Proof of this is that we have a 'winkie' to pee from. The fact that I do so is not determined by me, but God; yet if I do not do so it is evidence that I am not a male.

Yet, we are not involved —that is, we are not consulted nor do we contribute, in his giving us faith. We believe in God, not because of what we comprehend, but because of who he is and what he has done in our hearts.

Agreed. We comprehend because God caused us to do so.

Until regeneration, we are at active enmity with God. Witness Romans 1: They KNEW him, but rejected that knowledge. Denied it.

Hmmm... well, we are without excuse and I suppose from nature we should all understand and therefore from that vantage point I agree we deny Him. But, though we all deny Him in that regard, the solution is faith in Christ which those who never heard of Him can't be said to be denying where deny is to state that one refuses to admit the truth or existence of. I think we are just jostling over semantics. O.K., you win. *giggle*

*bedtime*

 

[makesends]

Holy smokes. I don't see how your wife could understand you. *giggle*

She couldn't. (And didn't).

 

[Fred]

And there are no atheists in foxholes. People who are not saved call upon the Lord every day.... and never get saved.

Probably because many don't believe in His resurrection (Romans 10:9) which validates His Lordship.

 

[David Lamb]

Probably because many don't believe in His resurrection (Romans 10:9) which validates His Lordship.

Certainly here in the UK it has become so common to use the name "God" as an exclamation that the people who use it that way are not likely to be even thinking of God, the almighty, immortal Being. They can't truly be said to be "calling on His Name."

 

[fastfredy0]

Certainly here in the UK it has become so common to use the name "God" as an exclamation that the people who use it that way are not likely to be even thinking of God, the almighty, immortal Being.

We watch a few UK reality shows and they use the un-blipped "F" bomb a lot.

 

[David Lamb]

We watch a few UK reality shows and they use the un-blipped "F" bomb a lot.

Yes, my wife and I often see what appears to be a good programme advertised, but when we start to watch it, the language used is disgusting, so we switch it off.