Just Yet Merciful

[JesusFan]

Did you catch my earlier point about conceding territory in the debate to the volitionalists (synergists) by using a term that doesn't exist in scripture, a term that does not mean what it states, and a term that should always be defined and clarified at the beginning of any discussion on salvation so as to avoid everything from factual falsehood to fallacies of ambiguity and false equivalence?

For the record: Humans did not have free will prior to the fall, either (see Post 30).

Calvinists do talk of bondage of the free will, and limited free will now

 

[Josheb]

What God said and has done in the scriptures though is only thing he could say and do,

Hmmm... I hope it is not being suggested God is limited. I hope it is not being suggested there are occasions when God CANNOT do but one thing and one thing only.

as He gave to us the best perfect expression of Himself thru his actions, deeds, and words that He could have period

Yes, but that misses my point(s). The point of discussion pertains to the monergism or synergism of divine mercy and compassion. A proper Christology does not compare Jesus to sinful humanity. It does not quantify or qualify Jesus' compassion with comparison to creaturely dependence on the Creator, especially not in a post-disobedient state. The post-redemptive or -regenerate state is not the correct measure, either because Jesus was never in any of those states. The closest anyone can come is to say that we are compassionate because the Spirit of God is at work within us to be that way but 1) the Spirit at work within Jesus is the same Spirit as God's, 2) Jesus commands that Spirit, and 3) that Spirit is never working in a sinful, estranged Jesus. Any so-called "synergism" that exists is one only of Person, not kind. Both the Son and the Spirit are identically divine. That is not the case with both the man and the Spirit. Our dependence on God and the Son's dependence on God is not identical.

And for the record, God could have done anything he liked. His Father, too.

Matthew 26:51-54
51And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. 53Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”

A day later he was dead. That did not happen because he had no choices and no power to do anything other than be murdered. It did not happen because it was the only thing he could say or do. Jesus said and did only what the Father instructed, but the Father could have done any number of things, including rid the entire planet of sinful man and start over. He could have even wiped the planet clean, started over and then credited whatever salvation was accomplished with the start-overs back to the prior creatures who lived by faith. God is not limited by sin, and He most definitely is not limited by time, space, or circumstance.




Post 19 does not apply to Jesus. Post 22 does not apply to Jesus. Jesus, and Jesus alone, is free in the absolute sense, and Jesus alone can transcend even the most determinative temporal causes within creation.

Luke 22:41-42
And he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and began to pray, saying, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from me; yet not my will, but Yours be done.”

Do you think his Father would have said, "Do it anyway. Do it against your will because My will is what matters and you do not have any choice or say in the matter," had Jesus told his Father he did not want to go? Is that what we're supposed to understand from Luke 22's plea?

 

[Josheb]

Calvinists do talk of bondage of the free will, and limited free will now

I've already addressed that fact.

Calvinists mistakenly conceded territory when they accepted the language of "free" will. A bound will is not a free will, so the phrase "free will" is always and everywhere a misnomer. The only reason the term persists is because unwitting concession were made hundreds of years ago and now most folks play along with a convention..... unnecessarily. Volitional agency exists. Volitional autonomy does not.

 

[Josheb]

Yahweh did not force and cause either to fall into their sin

What's the topic of discussion? We're talking about the nature of divine mercy and the seeming dichotomy between divine mercy and justice. You and I are discussing how that manifests in Christ's earthly role as bondservant. We're not talking about Adam, Eve, or any other sinful human. My point is that we're made in God's/Jesus' image, not the other way around. Sinful anthropomorphic comparisons fail due to categorical differences between Christ's humanity and the sinner's (not to mention the inherent divine nature of Christ's humanity). Jesus is fully sinless God and fully sinless man. That "sinless" part matters ginormously.

 

[makesends]

JesusFan said:
What God said and has done in the scriptures though is only thing he could say and do,

Hmmm... I hope it is not being suggested God is limited. I hope it is not being suggested there are occasions when God CANNOT do but one thing and one thing only.

Yes, but that misses my point(s). The point of discussion pertains to the monergism or synergism of divine mercy and compassion. A proper Christology does not compare Jesus to sinful humanity. It does not quantify or qualify Jesus' compassion with comparison to creaturely dependence on the Creator, especially not in a post-disobedient state. The post-redemptive or -regenerate state is not the correct measure, either because Jesus was never in any of those states. The closest anyone can come is to say that we are compassionate because the Spirit of God is at work within us to be that way but 1) the Spirit at work within Jesus is the same Spirit as God's, 2) Jesus commands that Spirit, and 3) that Spirit is never working in a sinful, estranged Jesus. Any so-called "synergism" that exists is one only of Person, not kind. Both the Son and the Spirit are identically divine. That is not the case with both the man and the Spirit. Our dependence on God and the Son's dependence on God is not identical.

And for the record, God could have done anything he liked. His Father, too.

Matthew 26:51-54
51And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear. 52Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword will perish by the sword. 53Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54How then would the Scriptures be fulfilled, which say that it must happen this way?”

A day later he was dead. That did not happen because he had no choices and no power to do anything other than be murdered. It did not happen because it was the only thing he could say or do. Jesus said and did only what the Father instructed, but the Father could have done any number of things, including rid the entire planet of sinful man and start over. He could have even wiped the planet clean, started over and then credited whatever salvation was accomplished with the start-overs back to the prior creatures who lived by faith. God is not limited by sin, and He most definitely is not limited by time, space, or circumstance.




Post 19 does not apply to Jesus. Post 22 does not apply to Jesus. Jesus, and Jesus alone, is free in the absolute sense, and Jesus alone can transcend even the most determinative temporal causes within creation.

Luke 22:41-42
And he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, and He knelt down and began to pray, saying, “Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from me; yet not my will, but Yours be done.”

Do you think his Father would have said, "Do it anyway. Do it against your will because My will is what matters and you do not have any choice or say in the matter," had Jesus told his Father he did not want to go? Is that what we're supposed to understand from Luke 22's plea?

I keep seeing this expression of the ability of God to do this or that was the way to say it. If it's something God does not do, it is not for lack of ability, but for force of purpose. When the Bible says "...it is impossible for God to lie", it means that it is logical foolishness to suppose it. Of COURSE God does not lie —not for lack of ability, but because of what/who he is.

So, here: It's not because it is all he could do. What he could or could not do is a bogus conversation. Our current use of English is not ancient Greek. That it may be logically impossible that he would do other than what he did is what should be looked at here —not whether he was/is able to do otherwise.

 

[makesends]

REven if we were to stae God could do many different things or say many different ways, what he did do is what He only could have done

Wrong way to look at it, or, at least, wrong way to state it. It is logically impossible that he would do other than he did— it is not that a question of what he could or could not do. It is not for lack of power or ability, but only that his decree is absolutely "universal" (sorry, no pun intended.) It is not that he cannot do the logically self-contradictory, (such as to make the rock too big for himself to pick up), but that the logically self-contradictory is a non-thing. Foolishness. So with whatever he does. HE does it, and that includes the whole of history and beyond. There is no fact that is outside his decree. He is not a co-inhabitant with us within a larger context of possibility.

 

[makesends]

Yahweh did not force and cause either to fall into their sin

Yet you would not say that God tried to stop them. It was God's decree that it happen.

Yes, he is that much above us.

 

[makesends]

Adam and satan though before they sinned were not restricted nor confined by sin natures so were free

They were not free (even in the sense that the redeemed are —that is, we are even above the angels, in the end— ) and they were no more able than anybody else to do anything apart from God's decree. Lucifer had no sin nature, until he did; likewise, Adam and Eve. Nevertheless, what they did was not because THEY were spontaneous, or little first causers, but because God is first cause. There is no possibility for anything to happen that God did not bring about by creating omnisciently, intentionally.

 

[JesusFan]

They were not free (even in the sense that the redeemed are —that is, we are even above the angels, in the end— ) and they were no more able than anybody else to do anything apart from God's decree. Lucifer had no sin nature, until he did; likewise, Adam and Eve. Nevertheless, what they did was not because THEY were spontaneous, or little first causers, but because God is first cause. There is no possibility for anything to happen that God did not bring about by creating omnisciently, intentionally.

God did not cause them to sin against Himself, but being sovereign permitted it for His greater glory in the end result of the Cross and Final state

 

[JesusFan]

Yet you would not say that God tried to stop them. It was God's decree that it happen.

Yes, he is that much above us.

He decreed the Fall would happen, and that the Cross would happen, but did not direct cause that sin

 

[Josheb]

JesusFan said:
What God said and has done in the scriptures though is only thing he could say and do,

I keep seeing this expression of the ability of God to do this or that was the way to say it. If it's something God does not do, it is not for lack of ability, but for force of purpose.

That is true, but God's purpose(s) can be accomplished in many ways, none of which are dependent upon temporal circumstances (just covering that base, not saying anyone has actually argued that pov).

When the Bible says "...it is impossible for God to lie", it means that it is logical foolishness to suppose it. Of COURSE God does not lie —not for lack of ability, but because of what/who he is.

That is also true, but it is a categorical difference apart from Christ's inherent mercy or compassion relevant to divine justice. God's character does not require He forgive sin. Neither does it require Jesus to take on the role of a bondservant. God's purpose of salvation (or more globally, His purpose creating a new, never-before-created creature capable of housing His own Spirit) might, but His character does not. His honesty and purpose are not in the same category. As far as His purpose goes, salvation might have been accomplished in other ways, at other times, as God chose. In fact, it would have been merciful for all the rest of creation had God eradicated humanity in its entirety and started over. Mercy and justice served simultaneously but in a much different manner with a much different understanding of God's simplicity.

So, here: It's not because it is all he could do.

I agree.

What he could or could not do is a bogus conversation.

I disagree.

Our current use of English is not ancient Greek.

Irrelevant. Logic is not bound to Greek or English.

That it may be logically impossible that he would do other than what he did is what should be looked at here — not whether he was/is able to do otherwise.

No, that's a post hoc argument that does not apply to the Creator. It might apply to the temporally bound creature, but not to God. There are no predicates dictating to God what must be that would inform the premise "What happened is the only thing that could have happened." Furthermore, this is a very odd premise to place on mercy or compassion because those conditions are ontological in Christ, not in humans. We lost that nature with the entrance of sin into our being. That doesn't apply to Jesus. Jesus is the only truly free human when it comes to his decisions regarding compassion (and justice).

I reiterate: The exact same guy who went silently like a lamb to slaughter is going to return in violent, un-silent judgment. Same exact guy.

Romans 9:15-16 ESV
For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

God's/Christ's compassion is not a function of temporal conditions. God never compromises Himself if and when He is not compassion because He is not required to be compassionate with sin. It's solely by grace that any of us draw breath sufficient to post in this forum.

 

[makesends]

God did not cause them to sin against Himself, but being sovereign permitted it for His greater glory in the end result of the Cross and Final state

Ok. Can you show how it happened, if he did not cause it?

 

[makesends]

He decreed the Fall would happen, and that the Cross would happen, but did not direct cause that sin

I didn't say he direct caused sin. But it did come as a result of his creating creatures that are responsible to him, and that, intentionally creating them for [at least] that purpose—that sin would happen. Use the term, "allowed", if you like—there is no reason to think it came out of thin air, without cause.

 

[Josheb]

I didn't say he direct caused sin. But it did come as a result of his creating creatures that are responsible to him, and that, intentionally creating them for [at least] that purpose—that sin would happen. Use the term, "allowed", if you like—there is no reason to think it came out of thin air, without cause.

Are you familiar with the recent shooting of two National Guard soldiers in DC on November 26? One of them, Sarah Beckstrom, died.


Was Sarah's mother the cause of Sarah's death? Did Sarah die because Gary Beckstrom impregnated Sarah's mother? Is Gary the cause of Sarah's death? Did she die because Andrew Wolfe was talking to her? Is that what caused Rahmanullah Lakanwal to leave Washington State, drive across the country and shoot Sarah Beckstrom?

 

[makesends]

Are you familiar with the recent shooting of two National Guard soldiers in DC on November 26? One of them, Sarah Beckstrom, died.


Was Sarah's mother the cause of Sarah's death? Did Sarah die because Gary Beckstrom impregnated Sarah's mother? Is Gary the cause of Sarah's death? Did she die because Andrew Wolfe was talking to her? Is that what caused Rahmanullah Lakanwal to leave Washington State, drive across the country and shoot Sarah Beckstrom?

Is God not a cause, and the first cause at that, of Sarah Beckstrom's death? No, I didn't say primary cause, but the first in the string of causes leading to her death. I didn't say efficient cause, but the first.

Or is your protest about God's immanence? Or his upholding the existence of all fact?

 

[Josheb]

Is God not a cause, and the first cause at that, of Sarah Beckstrom's death? No, I didn't say primary cause, but the first in the string of causes leading to her death. I didn't say efficient cause, but the first.

Or is your protest about God's immanence? Or his upholding the existence of all fact?

That's not an answer to my questions.

No, I didn't say primary cause, but the first in the string of causes leading to her death. I didn't say efficient cause, but the first.

You did not say anything about proximate cause, either. Do you know that term?

Or is your protest about God's immanence? Or his upholding the existence of all fact?

I did not post any protest. I simply answered a series of questions that have yet to be answered (in favor of having my post misrepresented as a protest about God's immanence ). Just answer the questions asked. Which of this causes listed caused that man to shoot that woman?

 

[makesends]

That's not an answer to my questions.

You did not say anything about proximate cause, either. Do you know that term?

Do we need to list some more terms, or can you get my point with the few we have? SMH

I did not post any protest. I simply answered a series of questions that have yet to be answered (in favor of having my post misrepresented as a protest about God's immanence ). Just answer the questions asked. Which of this causes listed caused that man to shoot that woman?

The man that shot the woman shot the woman. What's more, he did so because he chose to. The myriad of causes leading up to it were indeed causes. And every one of them part of God's decree.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
JesusFan said:
What God said and has done in the scriptures though is only thing he could say and do,
I keep seeing this expression of the ability of God to do this or that was the way to say it. If it's something God does not do, it is not for lack of ability, but for force of purpose.

That is true, but God's purpose(s) can be accomplished in many ways, none of which are dependent upon temporal circumstances (just covering that base, not saying anyone has actually argued that pov).

Not if he purposes to do it the way he does it. Nothing else is possible. (You are speculating over your head. No, it's not a personal comment on you, but on the limits of temporal beings and their terms.) If God does something different, then he does that. If he does this, then he does this. It is what it is. It is nothing else. And yes, it all depends on what God does.

makesends said:
When the Bible says "...it is impossible for God to lie", it means that it is logical foolishness to suppose it. Of COURSE God does not lie —not for lack of ability, but because of what/who he is.

That is also true, but it is a categorical difference apart from Christ's inherent mercy or compassion relevant to divine justice. God's character does not require He forgive sin. Neither does it require Jesus to take on the role of a bondservant. God's purpose of salvation (or more globally, His purpose creating a new, never-before-created creature capable of housing His own Spirit) might, but His character does not. His honesty and purpose are not in the same category. As far as His purpose goes, salvation might have been accomplished in other ways, at other times, as God chose. In fact, it would have been merciful for all the rest of creation had God eradicated humanity in its entirety and started over. Mercy and justice served simultaneously but in a much different manner with a much different understanding of God's simplicity.

I don't know if you realize that most of what you say, as if "It is so", is actually, "This is a well thought-out point of view, worth holding onto." It is human, and temporal, thinking, and a human and a temporal way of putting it. (Not saying that mine isn't, btw). I'm presenting a way to look at it, that honors God as the beginning and sustainer of fact. He does not adapt himself to possibles that rise up on their own.

Salvation would not have been the same thing, done a different way. The end of the matter —God with his people, the Children of God, the Bride, the Body of Christ, etc. — is ONLY what it will be when we see it. It's not a matter of God accepting whatever turns out. (This I think you agree; I have heard you speak of it). THIS —all fact— is what God is doing. To say that he could have done different is irrelevant.

makesends said:
So, here: It's not because it is all he could do.

I agree.

makesends said:
What he could or could not do is a bogus conversation

I disagree.

I disagree with that.

makesends said:
Our current use of English is not ancient Greek.

Irrelevant. Logic is not bound to Greek or English.

Not irrelevant at all. The point I made earlier you agreed with, that the way it is stated, translated from the Greek, and full of ancient thought, is not our current use of English, which is what I take @JesusFan to be using.
makesends said:
That it may be logically impossible that he would do other than what he did is what should be looked at here — not whether he was/is able to do otherwise.

No, that's a post hoc argument that does not apply to the Creator. It might apply to the temporally bound creature, but not to God. There are no predicates dictating to God what must be that would inform the premise "What happened is the only thing that could have happened." Furthermore, this is a very odd premise to place on mercy or compassion because those conditions are ontological in Christ, not in humans. We lost that nature with the entrance of sin into our being. That doesn't apply to Jesus. Jesus is the only truly free human when it comes to his decisions regarding compassion (and justice).

I reiterate: The exact same guy who went silently like a lamb to slaughter is going to return in violent, un-silent judgment. Same exact guy

I'm saying it is worth looking at, and that what you think is worth speculating on is bogus. It is not a matter of whether justice demands mercy or any other thing that God has done. What God has done is all that we need to understand, and that, pretty quickly, should be understood as that which God did. To go beyond that is to elevate yourself into his category.

We should praise him and admire him and wonder why he did it the way he did. But what he had in mind for the end, from the beginning is the only way it will happen, and that depends on all the causal sequences between the beginning and the end, and there is no use in saying it can happen any other way.

 

[makesends]

That is true, but God's purpose(s) can be accomplished in many ways, none of which are dependent upon temporal circumstances (just covering that base, not saying anyone has actually argued that pov).

That is also true, but it is a categorical difference apart from Christ's inherent mercy or compassion relevant to divine justice. God's character does not require He forgive sin. Neither does it require Jesus to take on the role of a bondservant. God's purpose of salvation (or more globally, His purpose creating a new, never-before-created creature capable of housing His own Spirit) might, but His character does not. His honesty and purpose are not in the same category. As far as His purpose goes, salvation might have been accomplished in other ways, at other times, as God chose. In fact, it would have been merciful for all the rest of creation had God eradicated humanity in its entirety and started over. Mercy and justice served simultaneously but in a much different manner with a much different understanding of God's simplicity.

I agree.

I disagree.

Irrelevant. Logic is not bound to Greek or English.

No, that's a post hoc argument that does not apply to the Creator. It might apply to the temporally bound creature, but not to God. There are no predicates dictating to God what must be that would inform the premise "What happened is the only thing that could have happened." Furthermore, this is a very odd premise to place on mercy or compassion because those conditions are ontological in Christ, not in humans. We lost that nature with the entrance of sin into our being. That doesn't apply to Jesus. Jesus is the only truly free human when it comes to his decisions regarding compassion (and justice).

I reiterate: The exact same guy who went silently like a lamb to slaughter is going to return in violent, un-silent judgment. Same exact guy.

Romans 9:15-16 ESV
For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.

God's/Christ's compassion is not a function of temporal conditions. God never compromises Himself if and when He is not compassion because He is not required to be compassionate with sin. It's solely by grace that any of us draw breath sufficient to post in this forum.

Maybe it would be more clear for me to say, I'm not applying it to God. I'm applying this to us. It is WE who think of possibility. God doesn't need that.

 

[Josheb]

....The myriad of causes leading up to it were indeed causes...

No, they weren't.

Not if he purposes to do it the way he does it. Nothing else is possible.

That sounds correct but it is not (and I explained why).

(You are speculating over your head. No, it's not a personal comment on you, but on the limits of temporal beings and their terms.)

Yes, it is a personal comment. No, I am not speculating, and no, I am not speculating over my head. I asked the questions I asked in an effort to get you to think about divine causality outside your little, misguided, limited, God-binding, ways and the fact in evidence is you had some difficulty answer the questions asked and applying them to this op without resorting to dross like, "You are speculating over your head."

It's a mistake in logic to think creation is fixed (even if it has only one purpose). Any god can make creatures who say and do only what they are made to say and do (regardless of the length of the causality chain). You and I, in fact can do that. That does not make us Gods. The action figure god is not a God, and s/he/it is most definitely not the God of the Bible.

Maybe it would be more clear for me to say, I'm not applying it to God. I'm applying this to us. It is WE who think of possibility. God doesn't need that.

Is it possible for God to ordain possibility? Can God ever achieve His purpose(s) in multiple ways? Think through that last question because the problem of defining anf limiting God by a single means of accomplishing a single purpose will lead to a variety of conflicts.