One Died For All

JAL said:

Again, desist with the double-talk. The real question here is not whether a "thing" (beauty) deserves praise, but whether the PERSON merits praise, and whether he DESERVES more praise than someone else (viz. the lazy sloth versus the diligent person).




So merit is intrinsic/innate? It has nothing to do with earned accolades? Fine. Then your God is unjust because on YOUR premises, the angels who sinned, when faced with suffering/temptation, should be honored just as much as those who diligently overcame it.

You're not making any sense. On your premises, every human who stands before the throne of God on judgment day merits equal accolades - regardless how slothful they were - and likewise angels.

Click to expand...

Again, you seem to have a fundamental misconception based on a category error in addition to your non-sensical premise. God's attributes cannot be separated from His person, what He is He is in full. What you appear to be arguing is that passive qualities do not belong to who a person is, which is not true. A beautiful person deserves praise for their beauty, whether they work for it or not. In fact, nothing in either definition of merit requires effort. People who possess knowledge are praised for the knowledge they possess regardless of how easy or difficult it was for them to acquire. Effort itself may be praiseworthy, but it has only a tangential bearing on merit. We generally don't give prizes to people who try the hardest but for those who realize something that we value for its intrinsic qualities, regardless of effort. As for the rest of your post, you are again doing nothing but creating a straw man rather than dealing with my argument proper.

(Sigh). It's obvious you are not rebutting me since you remain silent when I ask you key questions. I 've been calling you out on this since post 108.

Fervent said:

A beautiful person deserves praise for their beauty, whether they work for it or not.

Click to expand...

So it is then PROPER to honor a person lucky enough to have good genes (good looks) MORE than the rest of us, as if that person DESERVES/MERITS more honor/accolades/praise?

Oh that's right. I shouldn't have bothered to ask you a key question. You just ignore them.

JAL said:

@Fervent,
@Mark Quayle

Mostly I've been pressing you guys to respond to the first one (post 850).

Click to expand...

I did, but you didn't think it merited (*snerk*) the status of "response". I think I mentioned that it began with a false premise, from a false point of view (bias). For the sake of clarity, I'll paste it here, and interject as I hope it to be profitable to do so:

Your post 850 (I am showing in red, {my comments in black}) follows:

Newsflash: As for the Son of God, His entire life on earth was an exercise in mutability.

"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).
{Here you begin already sloughing use of a word. God being Immutable does not mean that the person Jesus as a man did not undergo change. God even goes to the trouble to say that he had set Moses to stand in the gap between him and Israel to talk him out of destroying them. Yet Scripture does not contradict itself. Furthermore, God says himself that God (and even Jesus Christ himself) does not change (Hebrews 13:8). It's pretty obvious you want his steadfastness and perfection to be conflated with his activities so you can support your thesis denying his perfection. Of course Jesus grew, and maybe the use of the idea of his two natures (divine nature, and human nature) might help you understand --his divine nature never changed.}

Not my fault you don't believe the Scriptures. That was YOUR decision. {Well, no, actually. That was your use of what he said --not what he said. YOU took what he said, and YOU took what Scripture said, and ignoring their actual use, just to make a snarky comment.} As for immutability, let's put the final nail in the coffin, shall we? {Your condescending rhetoric doesn't help here.} These two definitions of divine holiness stand diametrically opposed:
(1) Innate, immutable, intrinsic holiness. (The orthodox position)
(2) Acquired holiness - acquired by free will. (My position).
Now I will show why #1 contradicts the whole Bible. This is an argument I haven't unveiled as yet, although I hinted at it back at post 665. {So now we've got to jump another hoop just to chase down what we already know is bogus, based on your method so far?}

Scripture doesn't merely COMMAND us to praise God. It goes further than that - it insists that He is WORTHY of our praise, that He DESERVES/MERITS our praise. {I'm not sure why you thought it useful to translate "Worthy" to "Deserves"/"Merits" except for the use of your narrative, particularly concerning your definition or use of "merit". Whatever your reason --it seems to me to be pretty slippery logic --bait and switch.} The problem is, holiness as defined in #1 does not merit praise! Innate characteristics do not merit praise! {Mere assertion.} For example, do not praise me for being human, or for my red blood, or my gorgeous features - all these things exist, but do not merit praise. The UNANIMOUS definition of merit - the definition that has grounded every sermon in the last 2000 years {according to whom? This is another bare assertion, not self-evident, particularly in its application to God}, is the following:

"Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time". {Who came up with that definition? You? Google says, "the quality of being particularly good or worthy, especially so as to deserve praise or reward." God doesn't deserve praise merely because he earned it, (though he has more than done that in his deeds on our behalf), but because of who and what he is.}

The best example is the cross. Suppose the Father had anesthetized Christ's nerves, and tranquilized His mind, sufficiently to prevent any suffering for the whole ordeal of the cross. How much praise would the cross merit, in that case? Zero! Zilch! None! Nada! {Supposing your premise to be true, that if he had not suffered there would still be redemption through his mere death, how would his substitution not be praiseworthy, even from your pov that assumes praise can only be for some act (yeah, I know, cheap shot), but for the Christian, his substitution, not to mention suffering, is actual part of his very nature and goodness, for which he is to be praised.}

How much labor? Bear in mind that even the angels have merit - they labored/suffered against the agony of temptation for at least a period of time, and overcame it. And even ordinary Christian men labor for more than 50 years. {Not that Labor does not deserve recognition, even praise at times, but...}

But Scripture claims that God has ineffably more merit than men have. Recently I was debating with a YEC (young earth creationist). I told him it was impossible that God created the world in 7 24-hour periods, that it contradicts His holiness. (At first he thought I was crazy as he couldn't connect the dots).

Then I explained to him. Since both angels and men have labored more than 7 days, we would merit more praise than God has merited for creation. Therefore you must conclude that God TOOK TIME to learn how to create (and manage) this complex planet. Start thinking in terms of millions of years, nay, BILLIONS even. Perhaps even tens of billions of gradual learning and skill. As I said, we already know that God's knowledge is NOT innate, it is ACQUIRED/LEARNED - we know this from the Incarnation: {A whole line of thinking rendered moot by the fact you must use "merit" in place of "worth" before you can reasonably praise (or so you talk), and at that, your own inadequate (fake) definition of "merit". God merits praise by being who he is.}


"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).
{Already dealt with above, the two natures, divine and human.}
Of course it is learned. Otherwise His knowledge wouldn't merit any praise!
{Same logic as your above --mere assertion that his knowledge would not merit praise if it is not learned.}
And more than that - only a jerk would want us to praise him for His innate characteristics! How would you feel about me, if I expected you to praise me for my red blood, my beating heart, and (of course) my gorgeous face? You'd consider me a jerk! {Ha! I wouldn't need that to consider you a jerk. But you are not God, nor anywhere near to being what he is, in spite of your attempts to lower him to your mind and status. You are only my peer --I can consider you a jerk. But God is my Master, my Lord, and my Maker, my Owner --I have no status by which to judge him. How I feel about you has no relation to how I should feel about God, except in your feeble thesis of God improving himself.}

To summarize, for 2,000 years the church has been willing to praise the Ancient of Days for 3 days of passion for the cross, but has DENIED HIM ALL THE GLORY for His holiness (acquired over probably 13 billion years of labor minimum, if science is correct about the age of the universe). This is TOTAL DISREPECT for His age, it despises His title as Ancient of Days, it deprives Him of 99.9999999% of the glory, and it is probably worse than spitting on the cross. {and it is a bogus claim that the church denies him praise for his holiness / glory. But even a worse claim that he is worthy of praise only by way of ACQUIRING holiness. I don't even need to go where you want me to go, to see your line about how holiness can only be acquired is false.}

JAL said:

(Sigh). It's obvious you are not rebutting me since you remain silent when I ask you key questions. I 've been calling you out on this since post 108.

So it is then PROPER to honor a person lucky enough to have good genes (good looks) MORE than the rest of us, as if that person DESERVES/MERITS more honor/accolades/praise?

Oh that's right. I shouldn't have bothered to ask you a key question. You just ignore them.

Click to expand...

Now you're asking me to forward an opinion on what is "proper?" How do we determine propriety? If we value beauty as an intrinsic good, the one who possesses more beauty is praiseworthy on that basis regardless of how it was acquired. And in each intrinsic good, God possesses the most of them.

Fervent said:

A beautiful person deserves praise for their beauty, whether they work for it or not.

Click to expand...

When we say that a person DESERVES/MERITS more honor than someone else (or relative to someone else) - and when we say this in the CONTEXT OF VIRTUE - we mean something very specific by that (viz. Mother Teresa), and it is always predicated on effort/labor/self-sacrifice/suffering.

YOU want to dissociate this from God because it rules out your definition of God. But Christ is God, and His work on the cross - His effort/labor/self-sacrifice/suffering - is one of the prime examples of what it means to merit/deserve honor/accolades.

If we strip the cross of effort/sufferings, we reduce it to a facade divested of merit, it is no longer worthy of honor/accolades/merits, in the CONTEXT OF VIRTUE.

Fervent said:

Now you're asking me to forward an opinion on what is "proper?" How do we determine propriety? If we value beauty as an intrinsic good, the one who possesses more beauty is praiseworthy on that basis regardless of how it was acquired. And in each intrinsic good, God possesses the most of them.

Click to expand...

You ignored the question. The question was, relative to someone else with inferior genes, does she (the PERSON) deserve/merit more honor?

It's become pretty obvious that your every response to me has been, and will continue to be, a side-stepping/deflection of my arguments.

JAL said:

When we say that a person DESERVES/MERITS more honor than someone else (or relative to someone else) - and when we say this in the CONTEXT OF VIRTUE - we mean something very specific by that (viz. Mother Teresa), and it is always predicated on effort/labor/self-sacrifice/suffering.

YOU want to dissociate this from God because it rules out your definition of God. But Christ is God, and His work on the cross - His effort/labor/self-sacrifice/suffering - is one of the prime examples of what it means to merit/deserve honor/accolades.

If we strip the cross of effort/sufferings, we reduce it to a facade divested of merit, it is no longer worthy of honor/accolades/merits, in the CONTEXT OF VIRTUE.

Click to expand...

Now we're back in the realm of opinion, since you seem to be placing "effort" as the chief virtue. But I see nothing inherently valuable or virtuos to effort, and in fact in the context of Christianity effort can be a major negative since it often leads to self-righteousness rather than a true righteousness. It is only when that effort is put towards a good purpose that it gains value, and that from the recognition that such a thing is worth striving for.

And truthfully I don't think you're fooling anyone, so I will probably desist debating the issue of "merit" with you at some point, lest we go round 'n round in circles forever.

JAL said:

You ignored the question. The question was, relative to someone else with inferior genes, does she (the PERSON) deserve/merit more honor?

It's become pretty obvious that your every response to me has been, and will continue to be, a side-stepping/deflection of my arguments.

Click to expand...

I didn't ignore your question, the naturally beautiful person deserves more praise for their beauty should they possess more of it than the one who works and simply has poor genes. Does the person who studies a lot but gets more wrong answers deserve a better grade than the one who doesn't study but gets every question right?

Fervent said:

Now we're back in the realm of opinion, since you seem to be placing "effort" as the chief virtue. But I see nothing inherently valuable or virtuos to effort, and in fact in the context of Christianity effort can be a major negative since it often leads to self-righteousness rather than a true righteousness. It is only when that effort is put towards a good purpose that it gains value, and that from the recognition that such a thing is worth striving for.

Click to expand...

The words in bold were an explicit stipulation of my definition of merit - the post I've been begging you guys to read for - what - about 100 posts now?

Fervent said:

I didn't ignore your question, the naturally beautiful person deserves more praise for their beauty should they possess more of it than the one who works and simply has poor genes. Does the person who studies a lot but gets more wrong answers deserve a better grade than the one who doesn't study but gets every question right?

Click to expand...

Another strawman. Another sidestepping. Where is this a debate about grades? It's a debate about merit and the question you are alluding to has been answered multiple times. (Sigh). I'll repeat that answer again: The person who diligently applies himself in life (e.g. studies faithfully) is more likely a candidate for merit than the sloth.

(Again, I'm assuming he is laboring for a righteous cause. I don't feel the need to repeat that disclaimer on every post).

Fervent said:

Now you're asking me to forward an opinion on what is "proper?" How do we determine propriety?

Click to expand...

Largely, effort/suffering. I know plenty of Christians who spend a LOT of time praising Christ for His efforts/suffering on the cross.

Isn't it interesting I've never met a Christian who praised Christ:
(1) For His periods of sleep/resting
(2) For His ingestion of meals.
(3) For His periods of play/recreation, as a youth.

Actions speak louder than words. For 2,000 years, the church has clearly identified - by both her sermons and actions - what it means to merit/deserve praise. And that definition is the same as mine.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that it rules out your understanding of God.

Mark Quayle said:

"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).
{Here you begin already sloughing use of a word. God being Immutable does not mean that the person Jesus as a man did not undergo change.

Click to expand...

(Guffaw). The immutable God was mutable on earth? Thanks very much - for although I hardly needed a reminder that the Orthodox position is complete gibberish, I am grateful for the laugh nonetheless. Tell you what? Are there any infants in your vicinity? If so, why not press his hands to the keyboard - I'm pretty sure the output would make just as much sense to me as some of these orthodox doctrines.

Furthermore, God says himself that God (and even Jesus Christ himself) does not change (Hebrews 13:8). It's pretty obvious you want his steadfastness and perfection to be conflated with his activities so you can support your thesis denying his perfection. Of course Jesus grew, and maybe the use of the idea of his two natures (divine nature, and human nature) might help you understand --his divine nature never changed.}

Click to expand...

2 natures is not humanly comprehensible. It's gibberish. Ignored. Newsflash: Gibberish is not a rebuttal.

These two definitions of divine holiness stand diametrically opposed:

Click to expand...

(1) Innate, immutable, intrinsic holiness. (The orthodox position)
(2) Acquired holiness - acquired by free will. (My position).
Now I will show why #1 contradicts the whole Bible. This is an argument I haven't unveiled as yet, although I hinted at it back at post 665. {So now we've got to jump another hoop just to chase down what we already know is bogus, based on your method so far?}

Click to expand...

No. No need to read post 665. I didn't ask you to.

Scripture doesn't merely COMMAND us to praise God. It goes further than that - it insists that He is WORTHY of our praise, that He DESERVES/MERITS our praise. {I'm not sure why you thought it useful to translate "Worthy" to "Deserves"/"Merits" except for the use of your narrative, particularly concerning your definition or use of "merit". Whatever your reason --it seems to me to be pretty slippery logic --bait and switch.}

Click to expand...

OR, maybe I prefer extensive elucidation/clarification via multiple synonyms, in stark contrast to nebulous gibberish.

The problem is, holiness as defined in #1 does not merit praise! Innate characteristics do not merit praise!

Click to expand...

{Mere assertion.} For example, do not praise me for being human, or for my red blood, or my gorgeous features - all these things exist, but do not merit praise. The UNANIMOUS definition of merit - the definition that has grounded every sermon in the last 2000 years {according to whom? This is another bare assertion, not self-evident, particularly in its application to God}, is the following:
"Merit is a status achieved by freely choosing to labor/suffer for a righteous cause over an extended period of time".

Click to expand...

You say it's not a consensus? Fine. Find me a counterexample. Fine me ONE SERMON in the last 2000 years that, instead of going like this:
"Be faithful to the Lord. Be diligent, pray and work faithfully in service to Him, and you will receive commendations/accolades for it in heaven".

Goes instead like this:

"Be lazy sloths. Merit has nothing to do with effort. In fact, those of you with good genes (good looks) will be rewarded with plenty of accolades in heaven."

Can you find me any sermons like that?

{Who came up with that definition? You?

Click to expand...

(Sigh). Again, it has been implicit in every sermon for the last 2,000 years.

The best example is the cross. Suppose the Father had anesthetized Christ's nerves, and tranquilized His mind, sufficiently to prevent any suffering for the whole ordeal of the cross. How much praise would the cross merit, in that case? Zero! Zilch! None! Nada! {Supposing your premise to be true, that if he had not suffered there would still be redemption through his mere death, how would his substitution not be praiseworthy,

Click to expand...

No you're confirming my point. Anticipation of death IS suffering, unless anesthetized. If you're saying that the cross atones without suffering, then the Father is the cruel parent who needlessly has His son suffering for nothing.

even from your pov that assumes praise can only be for some act (yeah, I know, cheap shot), but for the Christian, his substitution, not to mention suffering, is actual part of his very nature and goodness, for which he is to be praised.}

Click to expand...

That' doesn't make sense. Substitution means undertaking suffering on our behalf. He suffers for us.

Please continue. You're just confirming my position. As for your insinuation that my paradigm doesn't apply to God, I remind you that Christ on the cross IS God.

How much labor? Bear in mind that even the angels have merit - they labored/suffered against the agony of temptation for at least a period of time, and overcame it. And even ordinary Christian men labor for more than 50 years. {Not that Labor does not deserve recognition, even praise at times, but...}

But Scripture claims that God has ineffably more merit than men have. Recently I was debating with a YEC (young earth creationist). I told him it was impossible that God created the world in 7 24-hour periods, that it contradicts His holiness. (At first he thought I was crazy as he couldn't connect the dots).

Then I explained to him. Since both angels and men have labored more than 7 days, we would merit more praise than God has merited for creation. Therefore you must conclude that God TOOK TIME to learn how to create (and manage) this complex planet. Start thinking in terms of millions of years, nay, BILLIONS even. Perhaps even tens of billions of gradual learning and skill. As I said, we already know that God's knowledge is NOT innate, it is ACQUIRED/LEARNED - we know this from the Incarnation: {A whole line of thinking rendered moot by the fact you must use "merit" in place of "worth" before you can reasonably praise (or so you talk), and at that, your own inadequate (fake) definition of "merit". God merits praise by being who he is.}

Click to expand...

God merits praise by being who he is.

Click to expand...

Asserting what is in debate is NOT an argument.

"And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).
{Already dealt with above, the two natures, divine and human.}

Click to expand...

No, a gibberish claim (the hypostatic union) is not a rebuttal. How can I assess a "rebuttal" if no one can comprehend what is being said? You might as well speak chinese to me.

Of course it is learned. Otherwise His knowledge wouldn't merit any praise!
{Same logic as your above --mere assertion that his knowledge would not merit praise if it is not learned.}
And more than that - only a jerk would want us to praise him for His innate characteristics! How would you feel about me, if I expected you to praise me for my red blood, my beating heart, and (of course) my gorgeous face? You'd consider me a jerk! {Ha! I wouldn't need that to consider you a jerk. But you are not God, nor anywhere near to being what he is, in spite of your attempts to lower him to your mind and status. You are only my peer --I can consider you a jerk. But God is my Master, my Lord, and my Maker, my Owner --I have no status by which to judge him. How I feel about you has no relation to how I should feel about God, except in your feeble thesis of God improving himself.}

Click to expand...

This is just relativism, or special pleading. You're saying that God is an exception to the usual definition of merit. But Christ is God, and the cross proves that He was no exception to the rule. Read Isaiah 53 - the account of the Suffering Servant. For His efforts, He is rewarded richly.

To summarize, for 2,000 years the church has been willing to praise the Ancient of Days for 3 days of passion for the cross, but has DENIED HIM ALL THE GLORY for His holiness (acquired over probably 13 billion years of labor minimum, if science is correct about the age of the universe). This is TOTAL DISREPECT for His age, it despises His title as Ancient of Days, it deprives Him of 99.9999999% of the glory, and it is probably worse than spitting on the cross. {and it is a bogus claim that the church denies him praise for his holiness / glory. But even a worse claim that he is worthy of praise only by way of ACQUIRING holiness. I don't even need to go where you want me to go, to see your line about how holiness can only be acquired is false.}

Click to expand...

When you say that God's holiness is not acquired, you liken Him to a lazy sloth. You are plainly stating that He is UNACCOMPLISHED !!!!

@Mark Quayle,

For all your rambling, Scripture disagrees with you. Isaiah 53 is so probative on the question of God's definition of merit as earned accolades that it is worth citing here. Notice how it explicitly removes good genes (beauty) from the formula:

1Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.5But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.6We all, like sheep, have gone astray,each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.8By oppression a and judgment he was taken away.Yet who of his generation protested?For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished. b 9He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence,nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,and though the Lord makes c his life an offering for sin,he will see his offspring and prolong his days,and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. 11After he has suffered, he will see the light of life d and be satisfied e ; by his knowledge f my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.
12Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, g and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.For he bore the sin of many,and made intercession for the transgressors.

JAL said:

Another strawman. Another sidestepping. Where is this a debate about grades? It's a debate about merit and the question you are alluding to has been answered multiple times. (Sigh). I'll repeat that answer again: The person who diligently applies himself in life (e.g. studies faithfully) is more likely a candidate for merit than the sloth.

(Again, I'm assuming he is laboring for a righteous cause. I don't feel the need to repeat that disclaimer on every post).

Click to expand...

It's a debate about merit, since you appear to be arguing that merit is only proper if it's tied to effort. The grade analogy is yet another demonstration of how merit is not tied with effort. In what way is the analogy misrepresenting your argument?

JAL said:

Largely, effort/suffering. I know plenty of Christians who spend a LOT of time praising Christ for His efforts/suffering on the cross.

Isn't it interesting I've never met a Christian who praised Christ:
(1) For His periods of sleep/resting
(2) For His ingestion of meals.
(3) For His periods of play/recreation, as a youth.

Actions speak louder than words. For 2,000 years, the church has clearly identified - by both her sermons and actions - what it means to merit/deserve praise. And that definition is the same as mine.

I'm sorry you don't like the fact that it rules out your understanding of God.

Click to expand...

Christ's "work" on the cross is not praiseworthy for the suffering. No one praises anyone else who was unjustly put to death on the cross by Romans, so the suffering is not what is meritorious. What is praiseworthy about the cross is a combination of the obedience unto death and the mercy demonstrated in not inflicting that suffering on us even though we are the ones who have earned it.

@Mark Quayle,
@Fervent

Scripture gives every indication that Christ, on His judgment seat, will
(1) award the diligent with commendations
(2) will NOT dispense accolades on the basis of innate characteristics such as beauty/genes.

Matthew 25:14-30 is a good example of this principle. The Master entrusts each of three servants with coins, and later commended the two diligent servants. Note His response to the other servant:

"The master replied, ‘You wicked and lazy servant!"

Lack of effort. In terms of merit, that pretty much says it all.

JAL said:

@Mark Quayle,

For all your rambling, Scripture disagrees with you. Isaiah 53 is so probative on the question of God's definition of merit as earned accolades that it is worth citing here. Notice how it explicitly removes good genes (beauty) from the formula:

1Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3He was despised and rejected by mankind, a man of suffering, and familiar with pain. Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.5But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.6We all, like sheep, have gone astray,each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.8By oppression a and judgment he was taken away.Yet who of his generation protested?For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished. b 9He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence,nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,and though the Lord makes c his life an offering for sin,he will see his offspring and prolong his days,and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. 11After he has suffered, he will see the light of life d and be satisfied e ; by his knowledge f my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities.
12Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, g and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors.For he bore the sin of many,and made intercession for the transgressors.

Click to expand...

For all your efforts, it seems a shame they merit you nothing toward the proof you crave. I never said merit cannot also be earned. In fact, I have said repeatedly, that God does indeed merit praise by for his deeds. But I have also said that God (in all three persons) merits praise by who and what he is.

To your sort of logic, I suppose, the two things are mutually exclusive.

JAL said:

(Guffaw). The immutable God was mutable on earth? Thanks very much - for although I hardly needed a reminder that the Orthodox position is complete gibberish, I am grateful for the laugh nonetheless. Tell you what? Are there any infants in your vicinity? If so, why not press his hands to the keyboard - I'm pretty sure the output would make just as much sense to me as some of these orthodox doctrines.

Click to expand...

So you guffaw as you ignore the two-nature claim I made. I sense rather a large proportion of intellectual dishonesty. Good day, sir. Sorry I tried again to reason with you.

JAL said:

Scripture gives every indication that Christ, on His judgment seat, will
(1) award the diligent with commendations
(2) will NOT dispense accolades on the basis of innate characteristics such as beauty/genes.

Click to expand...

Like I said. We are not him; he is not us. I agree with both statements you make here, but not with your use of them, as though they are what defines his merit.

Fervent said:

It's a debate about merit, since you appear to be arguing that merit is only proper if it's tied to effort. The grade analogy is yet another demonstration of how merit is not tied with effort. In what way is the analogy misrepresenting your argument?

Click to expand...

Don't feign confusion. Society would LIKE to provide a level playing field, where everyone is graded equally based on merit/effort, but hasn't managed to do so, by reason of expedience. The standard apology is, "Sorry, but life isn't fair."

But if you asked those same members of society as to how God can hope to judge us all fairly, would they likely respond this:

"Based on good genes and good IQ"

Or this:

"Based on our degree of effort"

Christ's "work" on the cross is not praiseworthy for the suffering. No one praises anyone else who was unjustly put to death on the cross by Romans, so the suffering is not what is meritorious. What is praiseworthy about the cross is a combination of the obedience unto death and the mercy demonstrated in not inflicting that suffering on us even though we are the ones who have earned it.

Click to expand...

You just contradicted yourself. First you say that suffering is not praiseworthy but the words in bold belie that nonsense.

In absolutely futility, you're attempting to escape an essentially tautological definition of merit. The only person who would be convinced by your responses is someone so committed to orthodoxy that he is willing to buy into contradictions and lies concerning merit.