God Is a Physical Being

[topher694]

Sorry I don't see any clear connection between these witchcraft stories and the present debate.

I do

 

[TedT]

That's a copout. Real debate shows why an argument is specious.

That is why I refuse to enter real debate with those who desire a win above all. Conscientious dialectic, searching for truth, is more my style.

Since you evidently don't understand the difference between "will not" and "cannot", I'm probably wasting my time.

HE WILL NOT! I said that clearly a few times. HE will not ! no matter what your definition of cannot is.

I do know time is being wasted...

 

[JAL]

From what I've seen, you press your points whenever you feel you've backed me into a corner. Then when I diffuse your objections by a simple logic that seems to back YOU into a corner, you seem to copout with statements like this:

That is why I refuse to enter real debate with those who desire a win above all. Conscientious dialectic, searching for truth, is more my style.

You keep repeating this:

HE WILL NOT! I said that clearly a few times. HE will not ! no matter what your definition of cannot is.

Scripture says He CANNOT. That's the point.

 

[JAL]

HE WILL NOT! I said that clearly a few times. HE will not ! no matter what your definition of cannot is.

If he CAN sin, how can you be sure He won't? You can't base it on His promises because anyone who has unlimited free will can renege on his promises. In your system, then, none of us safe, because God could turn evil.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Nope, I showed clearly that despite all the translations of John 20:22 as Holy Spirit, Oden revealed the most literal translation to be 'Holy Breath'. Sorry you don't like what he said.

Oden was the " Henry Anson Buttz Professor of Theology and Ethics at Drew University in New Jersey from 1980 until his retirement in 2004."
Thomas C. Oden - Wikipedia

Nothing written about him says he was a translator.

He did quote someone in the statement you claim he made.

In post 406 you wrote, "He breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy [Breath]" Also, googled this phrase.

The [brackets] does not mean it was a literal translation.

I googled "He breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy [Breath]" to see if any Bible translation has that rendering. There was only one link besides Watchmen Lee.

DEREK PRINCE on his book on the Holy Spirit --- he is not a translator too.
"The twenty-second verse makes an important statement. The Greek word for Spirit, pneuma, also means "breath" or "wind." This act of breathing on them was related to the words Jesus spoke, "...he breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy breath' [Holy Spirit, the breath of God]." 26"

Just googling Holy Breath gets some interesting results.

witness lee, Christ became the Spirit to Breathe Himself into us: Receive the Holy Breath! THE BREATH

Urantia Technologies., Books | The Inner Sherpa (new age).
"Thought Adjuster: “As you consciously slow down your breathing in order to condition your whole being to access the Stillness, you are pondering what it means to be connected to the Holy Breath."
THE HOLY BREATH | The Inner Sherpa

Urantia Technologies is a new age denomination of those who study the Urantia Book. urantia - Norton Safe Search
Paper 86 - Early Evolution of Religion

from urantia book,
86:5:13 (955.1) Primitive men thought that the soul was associated with the breath, and that its qualities could be imparted or transferred by the breath. ... Among early Christians the ceremony of bestowing the Holy Spirit was accompanied by breathing on the candidates.
Search

holy breath john 20:22 a systematic theology - Norton Safe Search

Googling Bible Translation "he breathed on them and said, 'receive the holy breath" In short, those that agree with you is a Pentecostal who is not known for his Orthodoxy, Witness Lee whose group was one known as a cult and sued Christians, New Agers and Urantia Book groups. And, Oden who is quoting someone that is not known to most people. Oden when speaking of the Holy Spirit often in his chapter does not agree with your view.

I searched for legitimate translations of a Bible that has your mis-translation. None has it. Bible Translation "he breathed on them and said, 'receive the holy breath" - Google Search

You may find part of the below as a more interesting approach for you.

"
Jesus is not giving the disciples "the Spirit" because "spirit" is a bogus concept. "Spirit" is just a synonym for "breath". He is giving them holy breath. Ever since Genesis 2:7 the idea of God filling people with his own breath has permeated the scriptures. Paul calls this "the principle of the breath of life":

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit [breath] of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and of death.

This principle, that the breath gives life is explicitly stated by Jesus:

John 6:63 [cleaned up] The breath gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are breath and life.
" Is Jesus giving the Holy Spirit in John 20:22?

Receive the Holy Breath

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Show everyone a valid Bible Translation that has your phrase, "He breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy [Breath]"

I googled, there were none.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Regeneration makes us holy. Evidently you don't believe in regeneration.

I agree that the Holy Spirit inhabiting us makes us holy.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

And He will make us fully holy in heaven. You won't have freedom to sin in heaven. Does that make us Stepford wives? Curious question. God can't sin, right? Does that make Him a Stepford spouse as well?

Here's why we can't sin in heaven. Sin requires temptation, and temptation involves suffering (viz. the agony of temptation). Since God intends to terminate suffering - heaven will not be a place of eternal torment - He must terminate temptation as well. Therefore sin will be impossible for us. We'll still have freedom to choose between good things (whether to play chess versus checkers, or eat strawberry ice cream versus vanilla) and freedom to use our minds (chess is actually cherished among intellectuals).

I do not see a connection between stuffing and sinning.

How do you explain how demons sinned in Heaven?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

BTW, my metaphysics is flexible enough to allow for the Arminian claim that salvation can be rejected because a material mind has both regenerated sections and unregenerate sections (the sinful nature). In fact 1John 1:9 seems to indicate a neutral section as well. Theoretically, if the neutral section of the mind freely chooses to reject the Lord, thereby grieving the Third Person situated in the regenerate section, He could withdraw from the human body, forfeiting our salvation. I don't know if He would actually do so. I'm just saying that my metaphysics is flexible enough to allow for both monergistic and synergistic salvation.

Whereas traditional theories of regeneration, BTW, do not even allow for the sinful nature to persist. (After all, regeneration makes us holy). This is a longstanding contradiction in evangelical theology, even though no one admits to it.

Gal 5 comes to mind, why?

material mind ??? "it is the belief in a bodily soul and a material mind, a soul governed by the body and a mind in matter."????? really?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I find a good way to hit the "reset" button and clear one's head for a debate is to remind ourselves about what is most important. A good way to do that is to simply declare: I love Jesus!!!

Can you do that with me?

Jesus is Lord!!!!

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Of course we will have a free will just like HE does but because of our experience with the consequences of evil and also of true love so we will never ever choose to sin ever again. Galatians 5:13 You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. which implies we can choose either sin or love. This implies our enslavement to sin has been broken and our free will restore because before our regeneration our will is enslaved to the addictive power of evil and sin imbues our every choice.

It is the strict discipline of Heb 12:5-11 wherein after generation we still chose to indulge the flesh we get slapped back until we learn righteousness is our best choice and we mature in holiness as per Matt 13:28 ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

So the servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ [ie, bring the judgement upon them] 29 ‘NO,’ he said, ‘if you pull the weeds now, you might uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest. The time of the harvest is when the wheat is mature and the only maturity that saves anyone from judgment is a mature holiness.

GOD can sin but HE won't ever chose to sin because HE knows its destructive power.

Anyway, the Stepford wife metaphor is about robot wives with no will of their own to be a wife. They are forced to be 'loving, caring' fake wives without any choice. GOD with HIS ability to experience a real love will not abide this kind of fake marriage.

The whole Bible story ends with HIS version of a pure righteous marriage of people who entered into it by their free will, some of whom forced the postponement of the wedding when they fell away into sin by rebelling against the call for the judgement. They finally choose holiness, the judgement occurs and then the wedding.

"Question: "Monergism vs. synergism—which view is correct?"

Answer: This topic has been hotly debated within the church for centuries. It is not exaggerating to say that this debate concerns the very heart of the gospel itself. First, let us define the two terms. When we talk about monergism vs. synergism, theologically speaking, we’re talking about who brings about our salvation. Monergism, which comes from a compound Greek word that means “to work alone,” is the view that God alone effects our salvation. This view is held primarily by Calvinistic and Reformed traditions and is closely tied to what is known as the “doctrines of grace.” Synergism, which also comes from a compound Greek word meaning “to work together,” is the view that God works together with us in effecting salvation. While monergism is closely associated with John Calvin, synergism is associated with Jacob Arminius, and his views have greatly shaped the modern evangelical landscape. Calvin and Arminius aren’t the creators of these views, but are the best-known proponents of Calvinism and Arminianism.

These two views were heavily debated in the early 17th century when followers of Arminius published The Five Articles of the Remonstrance (FAR), a document stating where their theology differed from that of Calvin and his followers. The pivotal point in this debate is between the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election vs. the Arminian doctrine of conditional election. If one believes election is unconditional, then one will tend toward a monergistic view of salvation. Conversely, if one holds to a view that election is based on God’s foreknowledge of who would believe in Him, then one tends toward the synergistic view.

The view of unconditional election is stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith: “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his free grace and love alone, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace”(WCF III.5, emphasis added). As we can see, unconditional election teaches that God’s choice of the elect is based on the good pleasure of His will and nothing more. Furthermore, His choice in election is not based on His foreseeing a person’s faith or any good works or that person’s persevering in either faith or good works.

Two classic biblical passages support this doctrine. The first is Ephesians 1:4-5, “For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will.” According to this passage, we were chosen by God to be in Christ—holy and blameless—before the world was created, and this choice was based on the “purpose of God’s will.” The other passage is Romans 9:16, “It does not, therefore, depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy.” God’s choice is not dependent on anything we do or believe in, but is made solely at the discretion of God’s mercy.

The essence of Calvinism, and the monergistic argument, is that God is in the business of actually saving people and not merely making them savable. Because all people are born in sin and because of their fallen nature (total depravity), they will always reject God; therefore, God must act in saving the elect without any pre-condition on their part such as faith. In order to bestow the blessings of salvation and eternal life to the elect, God must first atone for their sins (limited atonement). This grace and salvation must then be applied to the elect, and thus the Holy Spirit applies the effects of salvation to the elect by regenerating their spirits and drawing them into salvation (irresistible grace). Finally, those whom God has saved He will preserve to the end (perseverance of the saints). From beginning to end, salvation (in all its aspects) is a work of God and God alone—monergism! The point is that actual people are being saved—the elect. Consider Romans 8:28-30. In that passage we see that there is a group of people whom God “calls according to his purpose.” These people are identified as “those who love God.” These people are also those who in vv. 29-30 are foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified. God is the one who is moving this group of people (those who love God, the elect) from foreknowledge to glorification, and none are lost along the way.

In support of the synergistic argument, let’s turn our attention to the Five Articles of the Remonstrance: “That God, by an eternal and unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ his Son, before the foundation of the world, hath determined, out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save in Christ, for Christ’s sake, and through Christ, those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall believe on this his son Jesus, and shall persevere in this faith and obedience of faith, through this grace, even to the end; and, on the other hand, to leave the incorrigible and unbelieving in sin and under wrath, and to condemn them as alienate from Christ, according to the word of the Gospel in John 3:36: ‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him,’ and according to other passages of Scripture also” (FAR, Article I, emphasis added). Here we see that salvation is conditional upon the faith and perseverance of the individual. What conditional election does is place the determining factor of our salvation squarely upon us, on our ability to choose Jesus and remain in Him. Now Arminians will claim that our ability to choose Jesus is the result of a universal grace that God first gives to all people that offsets the effects of the fall and allows man to choose to accept or reject Christ. In other words, God must do something to even make the choice of salvation possible, but in the end it is our choice which saves us. The Scripture reference that Article I supplies certainly affirms that those who believe have eternal life and that those who reject do not have eternal life, so it would seem there is some scriptural support for this doctrine. Thus, the synergistic argument claims that God makes salvation possible, but it is our choice that makes salvation actual.

So, while monergism claims that God is both a necessary and sufficient condition for our salvation, synergism will agree that God is a necessary condition, but will deny His sufficiency. Our free will plus God’s activity is what makes it sufficient. Logically speaking, we should be able to see the flaw in the synergistic argument—that God doesn’t actually save anyone. This places the responsibility for salvation on us, for it is we who have to make salvation real by placing our faith in Christ. If God doesn’t actually save anyone, then it is possible that no one will be saved. If God doesn’t actually save anyone, how do we explain such strong passages as Romans 8:28-30? All of the Greek verbs in that passage are aorist/indicative, meaning that the action described therein is complete; there is no potentiality implied in that passage. From God’s perspective, salvation has been effected. Further, Article IV of the Remonstrance says the grace of God is resistible, and Article V asserts that those who have chosen the grace of God can also fall from that grace and “return to this present evil world” becoming “devoid of grace.” This view contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture in regard to the eternal security of the believer.

If that is the case, how then do we respond to the biblical support for conditional election (cf. John 3:36)? There is no denying that faith is necessary to make salvation a "done deal" in our lives, but where does faith fall in the order of salvation (Ordo Salutis)? Again, if we consider Romans 8:29-30, we see a logical progression of salvation. Justification, which is typically in view when considering salvation by faith, is fourth on that list preceded by foreknowledge, predestination, and calling. Now calling can be broken down into the following: regeneration, evangelism, faith and repentance. In other words, the "call" (referred to as “effectual calling” by Reformed theologians) first must involve being born again by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 3:3). Next comes the preaching of the gospel (Romans 10:14-17), followed by faith and repentance. However, before any of that can take place, it must be logically preceded by foreknowledge and predestination.

This brings us to the question of foreknowledge. Arminians will claim that foreknowledge refers to God foreknowing the faith of the elect. If that is the case, then God’s electing us is no longer based on the “good purpose of his will,” but rather on our being able to choose Him, despite our fallen condition which, according to Romans 8:7 is hostile to God and incapable of doing so. The Arminian view of foreknowledge also contradicts the clear teaching of the passages mentioned above in support of unconditional election (Ephesians 1:4-5 and Romans 9:16). This view essentially robs God of His sovereignty and places the responsibility for salvation squarely on the shoulders of creatures who are wholly incapable of saving themselves.

In conclusion, the weight of the logical evidence and the weight of the biblical evidence supports the monergistic view of salvation—God is the author and perfecter of our salvation (Hebrews 12:2). He who began a good work in us will perfect it on the day of Christ Jesus (Philippians 1:6). Monergism not only has a profound impact on how one views salvation, but on evangelism as well. If salvation is solely based on God’s saving grace, then there is no room for us to boast, and all the glory goes to Him (Ephesians 2:8-9). In addition, if God actually saves people, then our evangelistic efforts must bear fruit because God has promised to save the elect. Monergism equals greater glory to God!"
Monergism vs. synergism-which view is correct? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Daniel Marsh]

If he CAN sin, how can you be sure He won't? You can't base it on His promises because anyone who has unlimited free will can renege on his promises. In your system, then, none of us safe, because God could turn evil.

Based on God's nature, I do not think we have a problem.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

John 14:26
But the Helper will teach you everything and cause you to remember all that I told you. This Helper is the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name

"
Verse 22
He breathed on them (ενεπυσησεν — enephusēsen). First aorist active indicative of εμπυσαω — emphusaō late verb, here only in N.T. though eleven times in the lxx and in the papyri. It was a symbolic art with the same word used in the lxx when God breathed the breath of life upon Adam (Gen 2:7). It occurs also in Ezek 37:9. See Christ‘s promise in John 16:23. Jesus gives the disciples a foretaste of the great pentecost.

Receive ye the Holy Ghost (λαβετε πνευμα αγιον — labete pneuma hagion). Second aorist (ingressive) active imperative of λαμβανω — lambanō Note absence of article here (πνευμα αγιον — pneuma hagion) though το πνευμα το αγιον — to pneuma to hagion in John 14:26. No real distinction is to be observed, for Holy Spirit is treated as a proper name with or without the article.

" John 20 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

 

[JAL]

Show everyone a valid Bible Translation that has your phrase, "He breathed on them and said, 'Receive the Holy [Breath]"

I googled, there were none.

(Sigh). The whole point of this thread is to be a corrective on metaphysics including poor Bible-translations. You've chosen to disregard the evidence presented on this thread.

 

[JAL]

How do you explain how demons sinned in Heaven?

Same as us. They weren't fully holy at the outset. They had to undergo a trial period where they had a good measure of free will. Personally I believe that those angels are fully holy now and thus can no longer sin. And we too will be made fully holy in heaven.

 

[JAL]

material mind ??? "it is the belief in a bodily soul and a material mind, a soul governed by the body and a mind in matter."????? really?

If you're questioning a material mind please don't ignore my three-part proof (basically posts 189-192)

 

[JAL]

John 14:26
But the Helper will teach you everything and cause you to remember all that I told you. This Helper is the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in my name

"
Verse 22
He breathed on them (ενεπυσησεν — enephusēsen). First aorist active indicative of εμπυσαω — emphusaō late verb, here only in N.T. though eleven times in the lxx and in the papyri. It was a symbolic art with the same word used in the lxx when God breathed the breath of life upon Adam (Gen 2:7). It occurs also in Ezek 37:9. See Christ‘s promise in John 16:23. Jesus gives the disciples a foretaste of the great pentecost.

Receive ye the Holy Ghost (λαβετε πνευμα αγιον — labete pneuma hagion). Second aorist (ingressive) active imperative of λαμβανω — lambanō Note absence of article here (πνευμα αγιον — pneuma hagion) though το πνευμα το αγιον — to pneuma to hagion in John 14:26. No real distinction is to be observed, for Holy Spirit is treated as a proper name with or without the article.

" John 20 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org

Your usual strawman. You keep posting these long citations that don't prove anything. The church has for 2,000 years translated the Third Person's title as "Holy Spirit" but that's exactly what I've refuted. You've chosen to disregard the evidence presented on this thread.

 

[JAL]

Oh that's right - I don't need any evidence for my position because matter is all we know for sure. The burden of proof falls on those postulating fairytales about magical, supernatural immaterial substances.

 

[JAL]

Based on God's nature, I do not think we have a problem.

Non-responsive. What's your understanding of His 'nature'? If it includes unlimited freedom to do evil, then we DO have a problem.

 

[TedT]

Question: "Monergism vs. synergism—which view is correct?"

Answer: This topic has been hotly debated within the church for centuries. It is not exaggerating to say that this debate concerns the very heart of the gospel itself. First, let us define the two terms. When we talk about monergism vs. synergism, theologically speaking, we’re talking about who brings about our salvation. Monergism, which comes from a compound Greek word that means “to work alone,” is the view that God alone effects our salvation. This view is held primarily by Calvinistic and Reformed traditions and is closely tied to what is known as the “doctrines of grace.” Synergism, which also comes from a compound Greek word meaning “to work together,” is the view that God works together with us in effecting salvation. While monergism is closely associated with John Calvin, synergism is associated with Jacob Arminius, and his views have greatly shaped the modern evangelical landscape. Calvin and Arminius aren’t the creators of these views, but are the best-known proponents of Calvinism and Arminianism.

What a great paragraph!

I'm a mono-lapsarian (we, you and me, not just Adam, sinned first totally on our own by our own free will) and monergist, saved by GOD alone from the consequences of our choice to sin.