Jesus could do no deed of power there

Clare73 · Mar 15, 2021

fhansen said:
Not necessarily. For some reason, and theologians have struggled with understanding this,

Not all do. There are volumes of them who do understand the NT revelation in this regard.

Adam chose against being disposed to God. At the end of the day Adam simply willed to disobey.

You can't choose your disposition, it's given to you as standard equipment. You can follow its inclination or not, but you cannot choose it, anymore than you can choose your eye color. Adam simply chose to disobey because his natural disposition to Eve was in conflict with his obedience to God, and he chose what he preferred more. That is what sin is, preferring something more than God's will, and that is what Adam did, he loved the creature more than the Creator.

Yes, in his fallen state, as I 've maintained. Man's righteousness comes only to the extent that he's in partnership with God, a relationship we're here to realize-or not. His fallen state consists chiefly of not being in that relationship, of not knowing God to put it another way.
Yes
Yes, that is one aspect of his "falleness".
Yes, and grace is not a violation of man's will precisely because that grace is resistible; man can still opt out.

Yes, except for the fact that man has a "God-shaped hole" in him as some have put it. And that can make him aware of the fact that something is missing, something is wrong; he can at least develop a hunger and thirst for something right. Man was weakened and wounded by the fall; he became lost, but not totally corrupted; the image of God remained buried inside. A teaching I'm familiar with puts it this way, speaking of the state of "original sin":
"It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence".

I'm not saying that a person cannot experience it that way. I'm saying that this is not part of the definition of "election". Those same people could've said "no", and still can. We cannot predict our own perseverance. Again, we can say that we're "caused" to like ice cream. We cannot say that we're caused to like God in the same manner, or that we still don't possess whatever resistance to that preference that Adam had to begin with. And this is why we still struggle with sin and doubt at times. We're not yet fully "bound" to God, as another teaching puts it, until we totally love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind and strength, without distraction. There our perfection, our purpose, our teleios would be achieved-and God's creation, us in this case-would exist perfectly in the state of being we are created for. Technically possible here but probably not gonna happen until we see Him "face to face", where we know Him fully.

I am, and that's the point. While I recognize that Scripture is not and was never intended to be some sort of clear and exhaustive catechism the overwhelming ponderance of passages and concepts within its pages support my viewpoint.

No, and that's the point I've been making, that as long as man's choice, his will, is involved in choosing good over evil, God over no God, heaven over hell, then it's not God's choice that sends him to hell, because the man was not caused to choose that way, which means he's not caused to choose heaven as well. He can taste of the heavenly gift and still reject it. Otherwise there's no reason for the bible to ever command man to make that choice, a command which runs clear through Scripture from beginning to end. There'd be no reason for the bible, or the incarnation, the Word in the flesh, at all for that matter. The decision would be all about God's election anyway, and nothing concerning us.

The problem with your "non-faulty" reasoning is that, in the case of man's situation in this world, your theology effectively means that God gives him the intention to drive through the guardrail,

No, the Word of God reveals that man is born with the intention to drive through the boundaries--
"by birth (nature), an object of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3)--that's why it is called original sin, you are born with it.

is born with that intention (original sin). and no means to do otherwise unless God changes his intention. Puppetry for all practical purposes. This world is actually a place o formation, of the human will.
Adam chose against being disposed to God. At the end of the day Adam simply willed to disobey.

You can't choose your disposition, it's given to you as standard equipment. You can follow its inclination or not, but you cannot choose it, anymore than you can choose your eye color. Adam simply chose to disobey because his natural disposition to Eve was in conflict with his obedience to God, and he chose what he preferred more. That is what sin is, preferring something more than God's will, and that is what Adam did, he loved the creature more than the Creator.

fhansen · Mar 15, 2021

Clare73 said:
Not all do. There are volumes of them who do understand the NT revelation in this regard.

Most don't. And the ones who understand best never come down on the side of absolute determinism, although close in some cases.

Clare73 said:
No, the Word of God reveals that man is born with the intention to drive through the boundaries--"by birth (nature), an object of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3)--that's why it is called original sin, you are born with it.

So you'd say that Adam was created as an object of wrath? Did God want him to sin after commanding him not to?

Clare73 said:
You can't choose your disposition, it's given to you as standard equipment. You can follow its inclination or not, but you cannot choose it, anymore than you can choose your eye color. Adam simply chose to disobey because his natural disposition to Eve was in conflict with his obedience to God, and he chose what he preferred more. That is what sin is, preferring something more than God's will, and that is what Adam did, he loved the creature more than the Creator.

And that brings up a very rational question, one that people frequently bring up in response to your line of thinking. Why didn’t God simply give Adam the right disposition to begin with, if that’s the entire dividing line between sinlessness and sin, justice and injustice, within His creation? I mean, if that’s all there is to it, giving created beings a right disposition, if the will plays no role whatsoever as if man’s will really makes him little different from a beast who just operates on instinct, then why create a human who sins willfully without recourse to being able to refrain? He couldn’t be even slightly responsible for any of the sin/evil in his own life, let alone the centuries of ugly victimization and suffering that resulted and followed in our world. Only God would be responsible-and that would make Him less trustworthy than satan.

Clare73 · Mar 15, 2021

duplicate

Clare73 · Mar 15, 2021

fhansen said:
Most don't. And the ones who understand best never come down on the side of absolute determinism, although close in some cases.

So you'd say that Adam was created as an object of wrath?

Adam was created sinless, an object of God's pleasure.

Did God want him to sin after commanding him not to?

And that brings up a very rational question, one that people frequently bring up in response to your line of thinking. Why didn’t God simply give Adam the right disposition to begin with, if that’s the entire dividing line between sinlessness and sin, justice and injustice, within His creation?

Adam had an uncorrupted disposition, capable of perfect obedience, as well as disobedience.

All his progeny are born with a corrupt disposition inclined toward self and disobedience when it conflicts with self.

I mean, if that’s all there is to it, giving created beings a right disposition, if the will plays no role whatsoever as if man’s will really makes him little different from a beast who just operates on instinct, then why create a human who sins willfully without recourse to being able to refrain? He couldn’t be even slightly responsible for any of the sin/evil in his own life, let alone the centuries of ugly victimization and suffering that resulted and followed in our world. Only God would be responsible-and that would make Him less trustworthy than satan.

d taylor · Mar 15, 2021

public hermit said:
I am curious how those who hold to a strong notion of divine sovereignty, i.e. God pre-determines all aspects of an individual, would explain the following situation:

"He left that place and came to his home town, and his disciples followed him. On the sabbath he began to teach in the synagogue, and many who heard him were astounded. They said, ‘Where did this man get all this? What is this wisdom that has been given to him? What deeds of power are being done by his hands! Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon, and are not his sisters here with us?’ And they took offense at him. Then Jesus said to them, ‘Prophets are not without honour, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.’ And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief. (Mark 6:1-6).

I would say a prima facie reading of the text indicates that Jesus could not heal many because of their lack of faith. These are people who knew Jesus well and simply could not believe he was anything except the hometown boy they always knew.

More to the point, the implication is that Jesus could not heal without some faith on the part of the one being healed. Why could he do only a few "deeds of power" there? Well, because of their unbelief. Is there another reading of this text that eliminates this implication? If not, how does one square this passage with a strong notion of divine sovereignty?

These pages i have scanned and are posting covers the 12th chapter of Matthew, which is the dividing line in Jesus's ministry. Mark 6 is actually after Matthew 12 so mark 6 is Jesus's second half of His ministry. Please excuse the pen markings

d taylor · Mar 15, 2021

Page 625 of the scanned book addresses your question.

public hermit · Mar 15, 2021

d taylor said:
Page 625 of the scanned book addresses your question.

So, prior to this moment healing didn't require faith, but after it did?

d taylor · Mar 15, 2021

public hermit said:
So, prior to this moment healing didn't require faith, but after it did?

Yes before Matthew 12 Jesus was offering freely The Kingdom but they had to believe in Him, that He was the promised Messiah. So He healed anyone, people did not have to have faith to be healed. But it was because He was showing Israel their Messiah was there.

Then Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.

fhansen · Mar 16, 2021

Clare73 said:
Adam was created sinless, an object of God's pleasure.

And yet Adam sinned, driving through the boundaries, by an act of the will.

Clare73 said:
Adam had an uncorrupted disposition, capable of perfect obedience, as well as disobedience.

All his progeny are born with a corrupt disposition inclined toward self and disobedience when it conflicts with self.

But you're saying that God now gives some people a right disposition, turned towards Him. Do you have an idea why God didn't just do that same thing with Adam to begin with-if at the end of the day that's the way it works anyway, with God deciding it all, who will like Him and be saved and who will not?

Clare73 · Mar 16, 2021

fhansen said:
And yet Adam sinned, by an act of the will.

Yes, by a will with no innate inclination (disposition) to sin.
That is why it was so egregious.

But you're saying that God now gives some people a right disposition, turned towards Him. Do you have an idea why God didn't just do that same thing with Adam to begin with-

There was no need to do so, Adam had no innate inclination to sin. He stood in total moral power and free will. . .not fixed in them, but mutable, like the angels at their creation.

if at the end of the day that's the way it works anyway: God deciding that some will like Him and be saved while deciding that others will not?

Adam had a moral power which we don't have, and which he forfeited.
He didn't need God to enable him to make the right moral choices; i.e., obedience.
He had the moral power to do so, to live a sinless life, nothing limited his ability to do so.
He was not by nature inclined to sin. He was totally free of that inclination.

Unregenerate man (not born again) doesn't have that. We are innately inclined (disposed) to sin, slaves to sin ("Everyone who sins is a slave to sin." John 8:34), no one can live a sinless life, no one has the moral power to do so. Our free will is now limited, we cannot make all moral choices, e.g., the moral choice to be sinless.
In order for man to overcome this inclination toward sin, and in his heart to love and obey God, God must enable him to do so. . .in the new birth. (". . .no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." John 6:65)

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." (John 6:37)

"And this is the will of him who sent me, I shall lose none of all that he has given me." (John 6:45)

You do the math. . .why doesn't everyone come?. . .because they are not enabled. . .but those who are enabled do come. . .and none of those are lost.

fhansen · Mar 17, 2021

Clare73 said:
Yes, by a will with no innate inclination (disposition) to sin.
That is why it was so egregious.
There was no need to do so, Adam had no innate inclination to sin. He stood in total moral power and free will. . .not fixed in them, but mutable, like the angels at their creation.

Adam had a moral power which we don't have, and which he forfeited.
He didn't need God to enable him to make the right moral choices; i.e., obedience.
He had the moral power to do so, to live a sinless life, nothing limited his ability to do so.
He was not by nature inclined to sin. He was totally free of that inclination.

Unregenerate man (not born again) doesn't have that. We are innately inclined (disposed) to sin, slaves to sin ("Everyone who sins is a slave to sin." John 8:34), no one can live a sinless life, no one has the moral power to do so. Our free will is now limited, we cannot make all moral choices, e.g., the moral choice to be sinless.
In order for man to overcome this inclination toward sin, and in his heart to love and obey God, God must enable him to do so. . .in the new birth. (". . .no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." John 6:65)

"All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." (John 6:37)

"And this is the will of him who sent me, I shall lose none of all that he has given me." (John 6:45)

You do the math. . .why doesn't everyone come?. . .because they are not enabled. . .but those who are enabled do come. . .and none of those are lost.

And yet Adam sinned, opening the door to all the ugliness and sin that followed in our world. And apparently, according to your theology, if Adam was later raised again from his fallen condition it could only be accomplished as an act of God's alone, with no more appeal to the human will considered since that will is no longer capable of any right response in the least. And while that's close, it's not the gospel. Because it means that, since God knew Adam would fall from the beginning, the only way that man could ever end up in either heaven or hell is simply by His decision, predisposing man towards Him, or not. Regardless of how we frame that theology man is created by God to either spend eternal life with Him, with a God I doubt I'd trust anyway, or be eternally tormented, all due to a will that He, alone, already determined to be rightly or wrongly oriented. Man is, in that case, a completely amoral drone/beast for all practical purposes. And this world, this exile from God, serves no purpose other than as some sort of strange holding place with suffering punctuated by a few delights. For some reason.

Bobber · Mar 17, 2021

Old Lady said:
Isaiah 55
8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Not all our questions have answers.

Maybe you're forgetting something though. Deut 29:29 states

The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

Yes not all of our questions may have answers that God is willing to give....there are secret things...BUT that which is revealed belong to us and the revelation of all things that pertain to life and godliness have been revealed. 2 Pt 1:3 Answers of things ARE in God's word revealing about salvation, and healing issues.

1 Corinthians 13
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Again let's not make the mistake that God hasn't revealed some things and yes even many things in his word. Depends on the subject.

Clare73 · Mar 17, 2021

Clare73 said:
Yes, by a will with no innate inclination (disposition) to sin.
That is why it was so egregious.
There was no need to do so, Adam had no innate inclination to sin. He stood in total moral power and free will. . .not fixed in them, but mutable, like the angels at their creation.

Adam had a moral power which we don't have, and which he forfeited.
He didn't need God to enable him to make the right moral choices; i.e., obedience.
He had the moral power to do so, to live a sinless life, nothing limited his ability to do so.
He was not by nature inclined to sin. He was totally free of that inclination.

Unregenerate man (not born again) doesn't have that. We are innately inclined (disposed) to sin, slaves to sin ("Everyone who sins is a slave to sin." John 8:34), no one can live a sinless life, no one has the moral power to do so. Our free will is now limited, we cannot make all moral choices, e.g., the moral choice to be sinless.

In order for man to overcome this inclination toward sin, and in his heart to love and obey God, God must enable him to do so. . .in the new birth. (". . .no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him." John 6:65) "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." (John 6:37) "And this is the will of him who sent me, I shall lose none of all that he has given me." (John 6:45)You do the math. . .why doesn't everyone come?. . .because they are not enabled. . .but those who are enabled do come. . .and none of those are lost.

fhansen said:
And yet Adam sinned,

With full knowledge and full consent, and with all moral power to do otherwise, Adam chose to violate God's explicit command to him personally.

the door to all the ugliness and sin that followed in our world.

A witness to the magnitude of his rebellion against the divine order of creation.

And apparently, according to your theology, if Adam was later raised again from his fallen condition it could only be accomplished as an act of God's alone,

Absolutely.

Adam was in no position to restore his sinlessness any more than a woman is to restore her virginity.

with no more appeal to the human will considered since
that will is no longer capable of any right response in the least.

The will is now incapable of making the response required to be pleasing to God--sinlessness.

And while that's close, it's not the gospel. Because it means that, since God knew Adam would fall from the beginning, the only way that man could ever end up in either heaven or hell is simply by His decision, predisposing man towards Him, or not.

No one would end up in heaven because no one could meet the requirement--sinlessness.

[Regardless of how we frame that theology man is created by God to either spend eternal life with Him, with a God I doubt I'd trust anyway, or be eternally tormented, all due to a will that He, alone, already determined to be rightly or wrongly oriented.

You don't get to hang it on God.

Adam's will was totally free, with total power to be sinless. That he chose otherwise can't be pinned on God.

Man is, in that case, a completely amoral drone/beast for all practical purpose.

He is definitely dead to God.

And this world, this exile from God, serves no purpose other than as some sort of strange holding place with suffering punctuated by a few delights. For some reason.

I'm not exiled from God, I live in his continual fellowship, provision, and protection.

fhansen · Mar 17, 2021

Clare73 said:
Adam was in no position to restore his sinlessness any more than a woman is to restore her virginity.

At some point or another Adam, or anyone else, must begin to care. There's no reason for that to occur until Adam begins to understand that he was wrong in his sin to begin with. Then justice begins to be restored, even as grace is an essential part of the process. Otherwise, he'd immediately make the same mistake all over again; his disobedience would remain, for the same reasons it occurred to begin with. If, OTOH, God suddenly changed Adam's will, to dispose Adam towards Himself to halt his disobedience without regard to Adam's choice in the matter, without Adam's experience in a world free from God (as Adam apparently preferred with His rejection of God's authority), playing any part in his decision, then why, do you think, God didn't simply so dispose Adam to begin with? Is God irrational?

Clare73 said:
Adam's will was totally free, with total power to be sinless. That he chose otherwise can't be pinned on God.

I was actually speaking of fallen man there, having no choice in the matter one way or the other according to your beliefs. But even fallen man is not an amoral drone/beast-that would make him unaccountable. The fact that he is held accountable means that God does not overwhelm him in order to save him, but rather shines His light on him and lets him decide if he prefers darkness or not. And He'll keep shining that light, being patient, not wanting any to perish, but will eventually allow us to go our own way, whichever way we finally choose. Otherwise all culpability would really be God's.
“If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." Matt 16:24-25

Clare73 said:
I'm not exiled from God, I live in his continual fellowship, provision, and protection.

If you've entered fellowship with God, then you're a step removed from the exile I speak of-but still in it. Most have no idea, cannot begin to imagine, what God has in store-it's much better than here-because He'll be much closer.
"For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." 1 Cor 13:12

Dorothy Mae · Mar 17, 2021

Saint Steven said:
Why some don't receive healing is a great mystery. (to me) I believe we have already been healed completely by the work of the cross. (we just don't know it) This healing must be received for what it is. The enemy is constantly offering us sickness. They come like claim tickets for disease. You sneeze and someone asks if you are sick. Do you want to claim that sickness, or reject it? I tear up those claim tickets. I will even reject a doctor's diagnosis as an evil report.

1 Peter 2:24
“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

So how does that theology work for you? Never ill a day in your life since you reject doctor's reports and so on?

Saint Steven · Mar 18, 2021

Dorothy Mae said:
So how does that theology work for you? Never ill a day in your life since you reject doctor's reports and so on?

It's quite remarkable. I never get sick. I haven't missed a day of work due to illness in years. I can't remember the last time I was ill.

It's easy for anyone to try. Reject illness, even the suggestion of it. Get well soon. - lol

Saint Steven said: ↑
Why some don't receive healing is a great mystery. (to me) I believe we have already been healed completely by the work of the cross. (we just don't know it) This healing must be received for what it is. The enemy is constantly offering us sickness. They come like claim tickets for disease. You sneeze and someone asks if you are sick. Do you want to claim that sickness, or reject it? I tear up those claim tickets. I will even reject a doctor's diagnosis as an evil report.

1 Peter 2:24
“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.”

Jesus could do no deed of power there

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

social troglodyte

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Similar threads