Mystery
New member
Okay.
lain:
ARCHIVE: Open Theism part 2
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
lain:
It isn't a matter of opinion. That's the definition of the word "righteous". If God does not choose to act in the best interest of others then it is meaningless to refer to Him as righteous.
Then, by definition, you do not believe God is righteous. You just believe that God is God and that's it. In effect you've impaled yourself on one horn of Euthyphro's dilemma. The fact is that words mean things and their definitions are not matters of opinion. That's not to say that someone can't dispute some particular definition of a term but that's not what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is not a matter of opinion is the concept that is being communicated when the word 'righteous' is used. When people talk about someone being righteous, they are talking about that person having chosen to act in the best interests of others. That's what the term means - period. And in fact, your difficulty in communicating what it means for God to be righteous stems precisely from the fact that you've attempted to divorce yourself from the actual meaning of that term, which cannot be done, and the result is confusion. It would be like trying to define color while denying it has anything to do with light. It just doesn't work.
It is in His nature to do so! He's righteous!
See what I mean? If you disconnect the term righteous from its meaning, you'll spin yourself in these circles every time! As I said before, righteousness is an adjective which describes His nature. God IS righteous therefore He acts righteously and vise-versa!
Thank God for what?
If God cannot do otherwise how is He deserving of any thanks? It is precisely God's ability to do otherwise (His ability to choose) that gives His love (i.e. righteousness, justice and any other qualitative attribute you can think of) meaning.
For God to be justly praised for keeping his promises to Mankind, he must be capable of breaking those promises, even if He is not at all inclined or likely to do so. Conversely, if breaking His promises is genuinely impossible for God, for whatever reason, then He warrants no praise for keeping them. (Read this)
How am I wrong?
Resting in Him,
Clete
elected4ever
New member
Consider carefully what I say here. I have said it before and i will say it again. The trinity as it is presently taught in the churches today is not biblical. It is incoherent and confusing. God is not the author of confusion.
Fact #1 There is but one God. Not three gods agreeing together as one. I use to believe this because it is what I was taught to believe.
Fact #2 God the Father is the one true God. It is God the Father that thinks, speaks and is substantive.
Fact #3 The Holy Spirit of God is the life that is God. The Holy Spirit gives animation to the Father. The Holy Spirit is not the Father but is the life of the Father. When some one tells me that they are partakers of the Holy Spirit they tell me they are partakers of God's life and where is God's life? Is it not with the Father. The Holy Spirit cannot be where the Father is not. If the Holy Spirit left the Father the Father would be dead.
Fact # 4 The word of God is the dynamic creative communicative force of God. The word is the expression of God. The word goes forth from the mouth of God and accomplishes all that the Father intended when the word was spoken by Him. So yes, In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God the same was in the beginning with God. Just as the life that sustains and animates God is eternal, so is His word because it comes forth from Him.
Fact #5 Jesus is the word of God made flesh. Jesus had no existence before the life of Jesus was imparted to a women by the spoken word of God and a child was conceived in her womb by the Holy Spirit of God. God gave that child of His life and the word of God was resident in that child. That child's name was Jesus. The life that sustained Jesus is the same life that sustained God , His Father. Jesus was in fact the Son of God in the flesh.
So before anyone calls me a heretic again. be prepared to defend your phony trinity logic. If you say that Jesus could have sinned be prepared to defend your phony logic. I will defend the honer of my King with my life if need be.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
elected4ever
New member
Then why the big fuss about me saying that Jesus is not god but the Son of God? All of Jesus authority came from God but that does not make Him God.
Many false religions can say that Jesus is the Son of God, but define this title in an unbiblical way. Only true Christians can say He is the Son of God and God the Son.
A denial of who He is (Deity) is a denial of Christ Himself. A counterfeit Christ (2 Cor. 11:4) is worthless and a false gospel leaves one eternally cursed (Gal. 1:6-10).
elected4ever
New member
How can Jesus be anything less than divine when He is born of God's seed? He was not created like you and me. That still does not make Jesus God but the Son of God.
We partake of the divine nature, but we are not God. The Deity of Christ is more than this. Jesus was worshipped as God and said to be equal with the Father. He is the uncreated Creator, not a creature. John 1:1 is explicit. The Word, who is God, became flesh, one person with two natures (Deity and Humanity, not just a divine man, whatever that means).
elected4ever
New member
Jesus does not have duel natures. Never did and never will. You and I are the ones with the duel natures. Being born of God in the Spirit and of man in the flesh. Jesus was born of God in the form of a man not of the seed of a man.
elected4ever
New member
John 1:1 ¶In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 ¶And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
I agree that Jesus was the word made flesh but where in there does it say that Jesus had two natures?
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 ¶And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
I agree that Jesus was the word made flesh but where in there does it say that Jesus had two natures?
patman
Active member
Ok, but in this conversation, a witness for proof is a second person's word.
What I have been telling E4E all along is that Jesus didn't need to prove his righteousness by being tempted for 40 days. The temptation was for a different reason, not proof.
E4E is confused by a lot of things in the Bible, mostly because he adds his own thoughts to what he reads. This with this one example of Christ's temptation, I am trying to show him his ideas are not the only ideas, so he shouldn't apply them to the word.
If that made since...
We shouldn't have any ideas about the parts of the word that not much is said on. Those parts are a "mystery" to us, and we should respect that.
Grammatically, the anarthrous qualitative phrase 'the Word was God' refers to His nature as Deity. It is the same nature/essence/substance the Father has. This was true in His preexistence (imperfect tense 'was' is continuous). This establishes His Deity/God-nature.
1:14 shows that He became flesh (without ceasing to be God Phil. 2). This is a human nature. Jesus is one person, not two people. He was not always flesh. He has two natures: Deity/humanity.
Phil. 2:5-11 uses the Gk. word 'morphe'/form. He had the nature of God, but took on the nature of man. If Jesus is not God, then He is not a servant/man (grammatically, contextually, theologically). This was addition of humanity, not subtraction of Deity.
We can give many verses to show that Jesus is a man, the Son of Man. He was hungry, tired, wept, died. We can also give verses to show His essential equality with the Father and His Deity. To claim to be the Son of God is equality with God. Together, this shows that He is the God-Man, one person with two natures.
This should not be confused with your concepts of man and sin.
Immanuel= God with us.
The virgin conception without an earthly father also proves His Deity since the Holy Spirit is God. Mary contributed His human nature (Catholic ideas of Mary being sinless or sin nature coming from Adam are specious).
Mystery
New member
Where do you get your definition of "righteous"? It simply means that God is right. Whatever right is, God is it.
God does what He is, not is what he does.
God is not a liar, not because He chooses not to lie, but because He cannot lie. God is the truth. He does good because He is good, and only He is good.
According to you, but I do not believe you., nor do I accept your faulty "dilemma". God is not a free moral agent. God has nothing to do with morality. That is the concept of a false god. A god created by man.
I have not and will not suggest that if God were to lie, it would be righteous or good. That is a false concept that I wholly reject. God cannot do unrighteousness nor that which is not good. I know and understand what you are trying to set forth in your argument, but It has nothing to do with who God is, or my understanding of who God is.
Just as darkness is the absence of light, so is unrighteousness the absence of righteousness, and if all that existed was God there would be no concept or reality of darkness or unrighteousness.
Yes they do, but they are only relevant to man, not to God. Man is unrighteous and not good, because man is not God.
That is not how I would understand or use the term. That is a false idea of being righteous. People have lots of false ideas about terms.
No, it does not. It does not mean that at all.
The "confusion lies in your misappropriation of the term. In fact, to believe that righteous is the result of doing what is right, is exactly the opposite of what the term means. The one who does righteouness is righteous (not declared righteous). Just as the one who sins is a sinner (not declared a sinner). The nature dictates the action.
The nature of the light dictates the color.
How is it "vice-versa"? God is not righteous because He acts righteously.
Because I am thankful that He cannot choose to do otherwise. Just as I am thankful that I can no longer choose to not be in Christ. That I no longer have free will to be other than who I am in Christ.
Adam should have said to God, "remove the tree".
If God were a man, but He is not.
I read it.
Mystery
New member
Is the Holy Spirit in us? Was it also in Jesus? Why can't the Holy Spirit be in the Father and in Jesus and in you?
elected4ever
New member
The reason for the temptations of Christ was certainly not to get Jesus to sin. That was an impossibility. It wasn't for Christ's benefit. He gained nothing by it. It was not for the father's benefit. he already knew. The only possible reason for Christ being tested as He was must have been for our benefit. It was proof positive that Jesus was exactly who God the Father said He was. That we may believe who Jesus is. We are the only skeptics on the block. Things are tested to prove reliability. Jesus was proven reliable for our sake.
Mystery
New member
I agree with this, but I also believe He was tempted to deny who He was, just as we are. "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased".The reason for the temptations of Christ was certainly not to get Jesus to sin. That was an impossibility. It wasn't for Christ's benefit. He gained nothing by it. It was not for the father's benefit. he already knew. The only possible reason for Christ being tested as He was must have been for our benefit. It was proof positive that Jesus was exactly who God the Father said He was. That we may believe who Jesus is. We are the only skeptics on the block. Things are tested to prove reliability. Jesus was proven reliable for our sake.
This is why Satan tempted Him with... "If you are the Son of God"
elected4ever
New member
If the Holy Spirit of God is in us why is it necessary for our Spirit to commune with God's Spirit? The only answer that I can come up with is that the new birth is a birth of a new spirit in life from the Holy Spirit of God the Father. This makes the new creation, us, of the same Spirit that was in Christ Jesus as both He and us are born of God. The difference between us and Jesus is that His body also was born of the Holy Spirit. We shall receive a new glorified body like that of Jesus upon His return. Our spirit is as holy as that of Jesus. That is why He is the firstborn among many brethren. We have the same Father.
patman
Active member
The reason for the temptations of Christ was certainly not to get Jesus to sin. That was an impossibility. It wasn't for Christ's benefit. He gained nothing by it. It was not for the father's benefit. he already knew. The only possible reason for Christ being tested as He was must have been for our benefit. It was proof positive that Jesus was exactly who God the Father said He was. That we may believe who Jesus is. We are the only skeptics on the block. Things are tested to prove reliability. Jesus was proven reliable for our sake.
Jesus/God couldn't sin. Agreed. That would go against his nature. Jesus, however, was in human form. I think Satan saw an opportunity to get him to sin.
Also, being in human form, Jesus got to experience God like we do. He became closer to God by fasting. It is really a remarkable love Jesus showed to God. He gave up of his fleshly desires for food and the desires of this world even though they were constantly felt. So by fasting and withstanding temptation, he demonstrated to God his love and dedication.
If anything, Jesus was showing how to give yourself to God. He never needed to prove his righteousness to us, maybe Satan wasn't convinced, but what can ya say?
If Jesus wanted to show off, he could have wowed a few witnesses. But oddly enough, Jesus didn't come to show off, most of the time he instructed the recipients of miracles to keep it on the hush-hush, and hid when the people wanted to see signs(after all, when he did show his powers people questioned him anyway ["Is this Jesus the son of Joseph who grew up among us?"]).
- Status