RobE said:
Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
Unfortunately for your argument, 'become' is the point and knowing is the adjective.
Well, that's fine, but if I train you to be an Oracle DBA, and then I say, "Now, you've become like me, in that you know Oracle", does that imply an ontological change on your part? One may "become like" in an ontological way, but one may "become like" in an epistiomolgoical and ethical way, as well.
The adjective tells is
how Adam and Eve became like God, in this case, epistimologically (and ethically, since this appears to be experiential.)
No. I claim that without the knowledge of good and evil the law/love has no meaning and that knowledge combined with the rejection of evil are part of God's essence.
Well, the verse you cited (and the name of the tree itself) seems to point to the fact that Adam and Eve had now gained the knowlege of good and evil after eating of the tree. Granted that Adam and Eve had one command to follow, so that might be considered a law, which was sufficient to meet your requirements, but they certainly had not experienced evil in any way before they met the serpent.
No. Adam was created with the capacity to sin and in an eternity was bound to sin. With the introduction of the Law(Romans 7) Adam's desire to sin increased. The whole purpose of the garden perhaps.
You're bumping into the problem of evil, here. If you're saying that the command not to eat of the tree was designed to arouse "the evil passions of flesh", then Adam already has evil passions and a sinful nature pre-fall:
Romans 7 - 5 For while we were in the flesh, the sinful passions, which were [aroused] by the Law, were at work in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.
So, I find a problem with God declaring creation (and mankind) to be "very good", and yet Adam has these evil passions from a sinful nature just waiting for a law to violate.
Maybe you should re-read your scenario above.
Sorry, but the Pelagian would be saying that you swim to shore yourself. The semi-pelagian would say that the coast guard drops a boat, and you row yourself ashore.
The whole point of the analogy was that the Coast Guard is the one who saves you, even though you grab the rope (which is faith in Christ, not Christ Himself.) It's just silly to say that you save yourself because you grab the rope.
John 7:39 By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified.
Receiving the Spirit is an
ontological change?
John 12:23 Jesus replied, "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. 24I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. 25The man who loves his life will lose it, while the man who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26Whoever serves me must follow me; and where I am, my servant also will be. My Father will honor the one who serves me.
Jesus is first speaking of His own death. Are you saying that God underwent an
ontological change? (Oh, a seed grows up in the ontology in which it was planted. You don't plant corn and get tomatoes, so I don't think that's an ontological change, either.)
John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever— 17the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be[c] in you. 18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. 19Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. 20On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.
Again, receiving the spirit is an
ontological change?
John 15:4 Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.
This analogy can be taken any number of ways.
John 17: 24 "Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. 25"Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. 26I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them."
I see a lot of "known", here. Not much ontology.
Shall I continue throught the scriptures about flesh begets flesh; and Spirit begets spirit.
I think the key to understanding this verse is that Nicodemus was a Pharisee. The Pharisees went about teaching the people and were very popular among the people. They also believed staunchly in a resurrection. If we take that and Jesus' reaction to Nicodemus' question, I think it's pretty obvious that Jesus is talking about natural birth (flesh, water), and
the resurrection of the dead (born of the spirit.) To read anything else into Jesus' conversation, especially given the context of the rest of the book of John, just doesn't fit.
You know there is an ontological change in those who become one with Him. The Vine and the branches.
The vine and branches, once again, are an analogy, and don't necessarily refer to ontological change.
Michael
ureX: ?