Can the Impossible be Obligatory?

[InkBlott]

I've been looking at Roman's chapter 3. I will quote verses 21-23 with verse 23 in bold:

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished—he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

If God is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles (which encompasses all of mankind in Paul's worldview, if I understand correctly), and if there is but one God, then God is a unique being from the human standpoint. By definition God's glory is the character of God's presence, it's weightiness and significance as it were, and is connected in this passage to God's righteousness. Interestingly according to the following passage, God's righteousness is also unique, being wholly derived from God's nature. I will put verse 4 in bold.

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.”
But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved.

How then is it that we can be said to have fallen short? If the glory of God is unique to a unique being, how can it be obligatory to anyone but that being? IOW, how is it than any but God is obliged to possess God's glory? If sin is to be defined by Paul as the absence of God's glory, then mankind, is necessarily going to be in a state of sin by nature of not being God, who is a unique individual.

So what?

Can the impossible be obligatory?

 

[CalmRon]

I would say that since God is sinless and cannot commune with sin he therefore demands sinlessness from whatever he communes with, since man is not a sinless being God can not commune with man it remains for God to destroy man, thankfully he is a loving God along side being a holy and just God he sent Jesus as a way to make man sinless before his eyes so that he can again commune with man. you ask if man should have to possess the glory of God in order to be with God- this is only found in Christ who is in the very image and glory of God. so possess Christ in your life and you have the key to access the presence of God. at least thats how I understood your question.

God Bless.

 

[christianmomof3]

I've been looking at Roman's chapter 3. I will quote verses 21-23 with verse 23 in bold:

I am glad that you are reading the bible!

How then is it that we can be said to have fallen short? If the glory of God is unique to a unique being, how can it be obligatory to anyone but that being? IOW, how is it than any but God is obliged to possess God's glory? If sin is to be defined by Paul as the absence of God's glory, then mankind, is necessarily going to be in a state of sin by nature of not being God, who is a unique individual.

So what?

Can the impossible be obligatory?

Such a wonderful observation and question!
We were created as vessels to contain God's life.
Therefore, when we are empty vessels, we fall short of His glory because we do not yet have Him living within us.
When we call upon the name of the Lord, we are regenerated and He dwells within us. As we grow in our Christian life by praying, reading the Bible, fellowshipping with other Christians and enjoying the Lord, His life grows within us saturating us spreading from our human spirit to our soul and after the Lord's return even our bodies will be glorified.
So, is it impossible for us to share in God's glory? No, it is not. It is our destiny.

 

[nolongerhome]

Sure the impossible can be obligatory... as long as you don't expect anyone to fulfill their obligations.

 

[InkBlott]

I would say that since God is sinless and cannot commune with sin he therefore demands sinlessness from whatever he communes with, since man is not a sinless being God can not commune with man it remains for God to destroy man, thankfully he is a loving God along side being a holy and just God he sent Jesus as a way to make man sinless before his eyes so that he can again commune with man. you ask if man should have to possess the glory of God in order to be with God- this is only found in Christ who is in the very image and glory of God. so possess Christ in your life and you have the key to access the presence of God. at least thats how I understood your question.

God Bless.

Thank you for your reply.

It seems that God had to make an adjustment in his own state in order to stay in communion with his creation. Good. Too rigid a righteousness, too weighty a gloriousness is not a good thing, even for a deity.

On a side note, it interests me that Paul intimates in I Corinthians 6 that Christ in his glorified state is somewhat more squeamish about prostitutes than he was in the flesh. I have trouble believing that. If there is an existence after death, and if Jesus is in a glorified state, I would expect him to be of an ever more tender and loving disposition toward prostitutes and all those on the margins of society, so beyond despoiling that he could joyously join himself with complete abandon to anyone he might wish. In John 14 and 15, Jesus indicates that it is in loving one another that one invites the Holy Spirit, and in fact Christ and the Father as well, to dwell in one's heart. He makes no mention in all that long discourse about correct belief or righteousness, but only of love for one another. I would say that paying to have sex with someone is not conducive to whatever mysteries Jesus was referring to in John. I doubt the problem is the prostitute herself (whom Jesus made in clear in the story of the woman caught in adultery he would not condemn) but the fact that such is not a loving relationship. One can most certainly be in a more loving relationship with a prostitute than that.

Sorry. That's a little off my initial subject, but I had to get it off my chest.

 

[InkBlott]

I am glad that you are reading the bible!

Such a wonderful observation and question!
We were created as vessels to contain God's life.
Therefore, when we are empty vessels, we fall short of His glory because we do not yet have Him living within us.
When we call upon the name of the Lord, we are regenerated and He dwells within us. As we grow in our Christian life by praying, reading the Bible, fellowshipping with other Christians and enjoying the Lord, His life grows within us saturating us spreading from our human spirit to our soul and after the Lord's return even our bodies will be glorified.
So, is it impossible for us to share in God's glory? No, it is not. It is our destiny.

This is an interesting reply. Quite unexpected. If you don't mind, I'll think about it for a while rather than debating it. (Besides, CF is being very wonky for me just now.)

 

[InkBlott]

Sure the impossible can be obligatory... as long as you don't expect anyone to fulfill their obligations.

From my extremely slender understanding of deontic logic, although it is correct to assert that what is obligatory may not be the case even if it ought to be so, it becomes extremely problematic to insist that what cannot under any circumstances be the case ought to be obligatory. In terms of human thought processes, consistently insisting that the impossible is not only obligatory but ought to be so would be a sign of extremely poor cognitive ability, something one might expect from a small child, a psychiatric patient, or a petulant despot. The Christian conception of God seems to me to include such a sublime degree wisdom and reasonableness that God's very nature defines justice.

I cannot seem to put it all together.

 

[Penumbra]

No, I feel that it is illogical to ask people to do what is impossible for them under threat of punishment.

Christians believe that it's impossible for a human to go through life without sinning. With billions of lives lived, no true mortal has done it. (Supposedly Jesus did it, but he's not entirely mortal under that doctrine. Also, Catholics believe Mary did it, but only because of God's grace.)

Threatening people with violence for not having lived a perfect life is basically the same as telling people that if they cannot learn to fly by themselves without technology, then they will be punished. Or like telling a baby that if she cries ever, I'll beat her.

Life is about growing, learning, adapting, exploring, expressing, enjoying, making mistakes and learning from them, and so forth. To demand people to be perfect from the start is asking people to be boring clones, and if that's the case he might as well have made everyone in heaven.

Judaism did not require perfection from it's members, merely respect and their best. Christianity, unlike Judaism, tries to spread and convert followers, and one tactic is to tell people that they need to be perfect or be punished.

-Lyn

 

[MrPolo]

How then is it that we can be said to have fallen short? If the glory of God is unique to a unique being, how can it be obligatory to anyone but that being? IOW, how is it than any but God is obliged to possess God's glory? If sin is to be defined by Paul as the absence of God's glory, then mankind, is necessarily going to be in a state of sin by nature of not being God, who is a unique individual.

I am not sure I entirely follow your question. But in the beginning, man was created NOT having been fallen short, given the will to freely choose to obey God and remain in communion with Him. Man chose evil and not until God became Incarnate was man able to reconcile with God again.

You see in this new covenant, God bestows upon us His glory, His grace. You are correct to assume that man of his own accord CANNOT achieve God's righteousness. But since God gives us the supernatural gift of grace, we CAN, and are obligated to become more like Him: loving, just, merciful. More Christlike.

 

[CalmRon]

Thank you for your reply.

It seems that God had to make an adjustment in his own state in order to stay in communion with his creation. Good. Too rigid a righteousness, too weighty a gloriousness is not a good thing, even for a deity.

On a side note, it interests me that Paul intimates in I Corinthians 6 that Christ in his glorified state is somewhat more squeamish about prostitutes than he was in the flesh. I have trouble believing that. If there is an existence after death, and if Jesus is in a glorified state, I would expect him to be of an ever more tender and loving disposition toward prostitutes and all those on the margins of society, so beyond despoiling that he could joyously join himself with complete abandon to anyone he might wish. In John 14 and 15, Jesus indicates that it is in loving one another that one invites the Holy Spirit, and in fact Christ and the Father as well, to dwell in one's heart. He makes no mention in all that long discourse about correct belief or righteousness, but only of love for one another. I would say that paying to have sex with someone is not conducive to whatever mysteries Jesus was referring to in John. I doubt the problem is the prostitute herself (whom Jesus made in clear in the story of the woman caught in adultery he would not condemn) but the fact that such is not a loving relationship. One can most certainly be in a more loving relationship with a prostitute than that.

Sorry. That's a little off my initial subject, but I had to get it off my chest.

in the first part of the post you mentioned that God had to adjust his character, but I disagree; I believe from reading through out the entire bible you will find God's righteousness and justice stand alongside his compassion and mercy. in other words I dont believe he adjusted anything but he was exercising what what had been natural to him through all of eternity past. What I am saying is it was not God who had to change, it is man; but God loves man so much he didn't leave man to face the impossible but rather set up a way for man to come to God- Jesus Christ met the righteous obligations for us so that we may come to God.

as to the second part of your post I would say that christ loved the prostitute but being that he is God hates sin hates what the prostitute has done. that is the reason he came; to save the people from their sins. maybe you've heard that explanation before. I believe that God loves us just the way we are but loves us to much to leaves in that state. it says in romans 13:10 that love is fullfilling the law; that one who loves his neighbor will not seek to harm or defraud him and that if one loves God he will render to him the worship due him, in this way love is the fullfilling of the law of God- the ten commandments. I think you missed the point of the passages you referenced in 1 corinthians 6 as it condemns sexual immorality which includes uniting with a prostitute.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Can the impossible be obligatory?

No.

If there would be some benefit to flap your arms and fly to the Moon, and yet it is impossible to do so, then you can't be held to blame for failing at the attempt. Indeed, you could be blamed for the silliness of trying!


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[InkBlott]

in the first part of the post you mentioned that God had to adjust his character, but I disagree; I believe from reading through out the entire bible you will find God's righteousness and justice stand alongside his compassion and mercy. in other words I dont believe he adjusted anything but he was exercising what what had been natural to him through all of eternity past. What I am saying is it was not God who had to change, it is man; but God loves man so much he didn't leave man to face the impossible but rather set up a way for man to come to God- Jesus Christ met the righteous obligations for us so that we may come to God.

[emphasis mine]

Thank you for you reply.

I would seem then that the obligation fell to God all along. Correct? It was impossible for mankind to achieve God's glory, but it was somehow possible for God, in Christ, to take on the form of man. God became something that it was not within God's nature as God to be. It seems to me that the onus fell where it should: upon God. Yet, Paul uses language in Romans that seems to imply that the onus was upon mankind, that we ought to have become what it was impossible for us to become and that we failed to meet that obligation. We "fell short."

as to the second part of your post I would say that christ loved the prostitute but being that he is God hates sin hates what the prostitute has done. that is the reason he came; to save the people from their sins. maybe you've heard that explanation before. I believe that God loves us just the way we are but loves us to much to leaves in that state. it says in romans 13:10 that love is fullfilling the law; that one who loves his neighbor will not seek to harm or defraud him and that if one loves God he will render to him the worship due him, in this way love is the fullfilling of the law of God- the ten commandments. I think you missed the point of the passages you referenced in 1 corinthians 6 as it condemns sexual immorality which includes uniting with a prostitute.

I do indeed understand the context. Paul was using the example of joining oneself to a prostitute in order to make a point about sexual morality. I think it was a point ill taken. In the story of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus did not forgive her. It wasn't necessary as he never condemned her. Those who are not condemned have no need of forgiveness. The punishment has never been pronounced. Having sex with prostitutes is not wrong because God gets squicked out if we get physically intimate with them. Having sex with prostitutes is wrong because reducing a human relationship to a monetary transaction fails to recognize the profound value of both partners.

 

[InkBlott]

No.

If there would be some benefit to flap your arms and fly to the Moon, and yet it is impossible to do so, then you can't be held to blame for failing at the attempt. Indeed, you could be blamed for the silliness of trying!


eudaimonia,

Mark

Do you feel that Paul's writings imply that mankind has fallen short of an impossible obligation? Am I misreading him?

Have we fallen short?

 

[InkBlott]

I am not sure I entirely follow your question. But in the beginning, man was created NOT having been fallen short, given the will to freely choose to obey God and remain in communion with Him. Man chose evil and not until God became Incarnate was man able to reconcile with God again.

You see in this new covenant, God bestows upon us His glory, His grace. You are correct to assume that man of his own accord CANNOT achieve God's righteousness. But since God gives us the supernatural gift of grace, we CAN, and are obligated to become more like Him: loving, just, merciful. More Christlike.

Becoming more Christlike seems a doable obligation. Even the tiniest budge in the right direction would fulfill it.

If I understand correctly, mankind chose not evil, in the Genesis story, but the knowledge of good and evil, and thereby the potential to become as gods if not for having been barred from the tree of life.

It occurs to me that a Christ responding to such a state of affairs might lead us beyond that duality into a way of being in which such things as justice and mercy are no longer opposites, where those who condemn sin are compelled to walk away one at a time while a woman caught in the act of adultery finds out that she is mysteriously capable of sinning no more.

But then that's just crazy talk...

 

[InkBlott]

No, I feel that it is illogical to ask people to do what is impossible for them under threat of punishment.

Christians believe that it's impossible for a human to go through life without sinning. With billions of lives lived, no true mortal has done it. (Supposedly Jesus did it, but he's not entirely mortal under that doctrine. Also, Catholics believe Mary did it, but only because of God's grace.)

Threatening people with violence for not having lived a perfect life is basically the same as telling people that if they cannot learn to fly by themselves without technology, then they will be punished. Or like telling a baby that if she cries ever, I'll beat her.

Life is about growing, learning, adapting, exploring, expressing, enjoying, making mistakes and learning from them, and so forth. To demand people to be perfect from the start is asking people to be boring clones, and if that's the case he might as well have made everyone in heaven.

Judaism did not require perfection from it's members, merely respect and their best. Christianity, unlike Judaism, tries to spread and convert followers, and one tactic is to tell people that they need to be perfect or be punished.

-Lyn

I like how you've put this.

If it was the knowledge of good and evil that got us into trouble in the first place, it seems to me that the Christian tendency to push the poles of perfection and degradation ever farther and farther apart is actually an inflation of that problematic tendency.

Why are we obligated to be anything other than human beings?

 

[CalmRon]

[emphasis mine]

Thank you for you reply.

I would seem then that the obligation fell to God all along. Correct? It was impossible for mankind to achieve God's glory, but it was somehow possible for God, in Christ, to take on the form of man. God became something that it was not within God's nature as God to be. It seems to me that the onus fell where it should: upon God. Yet, Paul uses language in Romans that seems to imply that the onus was upon mankind, that we ought to have become what it was impossible for us to become and that we failed to meet that obligation. We "fell short."


I do indeed understand the context. Paul was using the example of joining oneself to a prostitute in order to make a point about sexual morality. I think it was a point ill taken. In the story of the woman caught in adultery, Jesus did not forgive her. It wasn't necessary as he never condemned her. Those who are not condemned have no need of forgiveness. The punishment has never been pronounced. Having sex with prostitutes is not wrong because God gets squicked out if we get physically intimate with them. Having sex with prostitutes is wrong because reducing a human relationship to a monetary transaction fails to recognize the profound value of both partners.

In response to the first part of your post, yes, I agree with you there. since it is impossible for man by himself to achieve what God demands of him it was well within God's nature that he might feel compassion for his creation so God did the 'foot work' for us if you will. God made the impossible possible, all that is placed upon man is the choice.

as to the second part, paul also used the illustration of the union with a prostitute as a warning against the desecration of oneself made holy through Christ through sexually immorality, paul calls the believer a temple of the holy and admonishes the believer to be holy. Christ did not condemn the prostitute in the gospel account because he had come to seek and save the lost but you must notice what he tells the women who recieves this mercy to leave the life of sin she had been leading. uniting with a prostitute is still condemned under the 'do not commit adultery' command. in all of this my question would be; do you believe jesus was a radical or what might be called a libertarian in american politics?

by the by,conversing with you has made me look at my bible closer

 

[Penumbra]

I like how you've put this.

If it was the knowledge of good and evil that got us into trouble in the first place, it seems to me that the Christian tendency to push the poles of perfection and degradation ever farther and farther apart is actually an inflation of that problematic tendency.

Why are we obligated to be anything other than human beings?

It's a sales pitch. If you don't need their product, then they've lost a convert. So their claim is that everyone needs their product, because God demands perfection even when nobody is perfect (and even when people are born with original sin/imperfection to begin with according to the same doctrine).

Judaism has Yom Kippur, which is the most important of Jewish holidays. It's a day of atonement and fasting to acknowledge their mistakes, ask for forgiveness, and work harder. God also showed a handful of times in the OT that he truly liked certain people and found them righteous, such as Job or Elijah. (This wouldn't have made sense, because according to Christian doctrine, they'd all still be sinners.)

-Lyn

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you feel that Paul's writings imply that mankind has fallen short of an impossible obligation? Am I misreading him?

Have we fallen short?

I will let Paulians attempt to speak for him.

I'll just say this. Contrary to what I argued in my previous post, there is a reason one may "aim" at the impossible (while not being blamed for not achieving it), and that is if there is a benefit in being partially successful. You might not be able to fly an aeroplane to the Moon, but it will get you across the Atlantic. The impossible may serve as a target at which to aim, even though you will never hit a mathematical bullseye.

The ethical problem is with considering full success to be morally obligatory. It can't be this unless it is also possible. Without possibility, there can be no blame except for not aiming properly.


eudaimonia,

Mark