Is Anything *Impossible* for God?

[Outrider]

Good question.

Of course, it could be that where the Logos principle is being borrowed from the attempt on the part of such as Philo of Biblos to syncretize Greek philosophy with Judaism (Hellenism) and interpreted onto Christ, some may be led astray as to just what "logos" means in the New Testament. Perhaps an Older Testament interpretation of the "logos" is more helpful in our understanding of Christ that an Hellenistic interpretation. Perhaps John never had Hellenism in mind when he wrote John.

 

[depthdeception]

Sounds good, but how do you make it practical? My question, you'll recall was: " Sounds fancy. Now explain how the knowledge of God gets into the head and heart of a person from what you have said above. Take a person who knows nothing about God and show me how revelation works to bring that person the knowledge of God, Christ and salvation. Step by step."

I don't understand what you want. There is nobody in all of creation who knows "nothing" about God--as beings created in the image of God, our very createdness and participation within the created order reveals a certain level of information about God. Through all of creation, God reveals grace through the revelation of Christ. This grace permeates the very fabric of creation, so that all that occurs is in some way (either positively or negatively) an aspect of God's revelation and self-disclosure in Christ. Furthermore, this grace is given to all (who are created in the image of God, that is, Christ) and seeks to lead them into knowledge of the truth. Obviously, not all will respond and will choose rather to bury the influence of grace under self-will. However, those that do respond to the impelling of this grace will seek to find God through whatever means are available to them, whether that be simply through "natural revelation" (that is, what may be known of the revelation of God in Christ through the created order), the Church (the body of the revealed Christ in the world), Scripture (the testimony of the body of Christ to the same's self-revelation), etc. It is not, by any means, "practical." Rather, it is the miracle of revelation, that humans can respond to the grace offered by God in Christ.

In order for Christ alone to be the sole Revelation of God, it seems to me he must be personally perceived by everyone who ever comes to believe in what it is he is revealing about God. Testimonies are good in courts of law for settling judicatory disputes, but where does the revelation become evident to those to whom it is revealed. To be a revelation, it must, at some level, be exposed to the perception of the the receiver. Where today is Christ the Logos being exposed to human perception?

Again, Christ is exposed in a variety of means, through a variety of "testimonies" to Christ's revelation of God's love and grace: Scripture, the Church, the created order, reason, experience of God's grace, etc.

 

[Outrider]

I don't understand what you want.

I want to know how, in your estimation, Christ as a revelation is revealing God to men right now.

There is nobody in all of creation who knows "nothing" about God--as beings created in the image of God, our very createdness and participation within the created order reveals a certain level of information about God.

True. Romans 1. We know there is a god out there. Who is he? What is he like? How do we find out the more particular things, particularly what we need to know to deal with guilt?

Through all of creation, God reveals grace through the revelation of Christ. This grace permeates the very fabric of creation, so that all that occurs is in some way (either positively or negatively) an aspect of God's revelation and self-disclosure

Could you give some examples of how creation reveals God's grace through the revelation of Christ? I can see how creation may show God's control, his providence. I'm having trouble seeing where creation reveals his salvation. That's a pretty complicated subject, you know. How does creation reveal that the rebellion of man holds the penalty of death, or that a worthy substitute can take the death on behalf of the guilty, or that the worthy substitute must be both God and man in hypostatic union of natures, or that this substitute as God is one of a Trinity of God, or that grace can only be efficacious by the perfectly righteous life of the substitutionary victim who is also the eternal Priest and King. I, persoanlly see these things revealed in the written Scriptures. I'm afraid I don't see them revealed in nature.

Furthermore, this grace is given to all (who are created in the image of God, that is, Christ) and seeks to lead them into knowledge of the truth.

This "grace". Is it an entity or an attribute? If it is an entity, why does it fail to bring some and succeed in bringing others? If it is an attribute, by what determinism does it operate?

Obviously, not all will respond and will choose rather to bury the influence of grace under self-will. However, those that do respond to the impelling of this grace will seek to find God through whatever means are available to them, whether that be simply through "natural revelation" (that is, what may be known of the revelation of God in Christ through the created order), the Church (the body of the revealed Christ in the world), Scripture (the testimony of the body of Christ to the same's self-revelation), etc.

What of those who have been made into the image of God and who (to whom, I believe you said, this grace has been given) are isolated from the Church and the Bible? How will they find the grace in nature or creation?

It is not, by any means, "practical." Rather, it is the miracle of revelation, that humans can respond to the grace offered by God in Christ.

Am I to understand that the human nature has no say or place in this transaction? I thought you said that "will" comes into the picture, the ability to squelch the urgings of grace, words to that effect? Where is the miracle of which you speak?

So, Christ is the revelation.

Excuse my thick-headedness, but I still fail to see where you have proven your case. Don't get me wrong, please. I thoroughly understand that Christ is the revelation of the Father. I just don't see how you make him the revelation of God apart from Scripture. It is in Scripture that Christ is revealed. Or did you come to the knowledge of Christ by some other means? I take you did not. After all, you know him by name, the name that is recorded in Scripture.

 

[depthdeception]

I want to know how, in your estimation, Christ as a revelation is revealing God to men right now.

In the same way that Christ has always been the revelation of God to humanity. And I have outlined these already.

True. Romans 1. We know there is a god out there. Who is he? What is he like? How do we find out the more particular things, particularly what we need to know to deal with guilt?

Guilt? I do not understand what you mean by this? Through creation, humanity can learn of the sovereignty and love of God, a love that desires to live in relationship of the created and the creator.

Could you give some examples of how creation reveals God's grace through the revelation of Christ? I can see how creation may show God's control, his providence. I'm having trouble seeing where creation reveals his salvation.

Again, through creation is revealed God's care and plan and creation. IOW, as humans created in the image of God, we can know, by virtue of our createdness, that God has created us and that God desires to be related to those whom God has created. However, apart from the revelation of the Incarnate Christ, it is impossible that humanity could know this. However, because God has been revealed in humanity through Christ, the way is open that the created might not only know, but more importantly commune with its creator.

That's a pretty complicated subject, you know. How does creation reveal that the rebellion of man holds the penalty of death, or that a worthy substitute can take the death on behalf of the guilty, or that the worthy substitute must be both God and man in hypostatic union of natures, or that this substitute as God is one of a Trinity of God, or that grace can only be efficacious by the perfectly righteous life of the substitutionary victim who is also the eternal Priest and King. I, persoanlly see these things revealed in the written Scriptures. I'm afraid I don't see them revealed in nature.

Again, I am not saying that nature exhaustively informs the human of the revelation of divine love in Christ. Rather, as I have consistently maintained, creation is one source among many which testifies to the self-revelation of God in Christ. However, nature, like the Scriptures, is not properly "revelation." After all, only that which is consubstantial with that which is being revealed can be revelation. As the Scriptures are not consubstantial in nature with God, they cannot properly be understood as the self-revelation of God. This does not mean, however, that they do not inform us of God. Rather, as a testimony to the self-revelation of God in Christ, the Scriptures are an accurate source of information, teaching, and instruction re: this revelation. However, they are not themselves equivalent with the revelation.

This "grace". Is it an entity or an attribute? If it is an entity, why does it fail to bring some and succeed in bringing others? If it is an attribute, by what determinism does it operate?

"Grace" is a relational term. Grace is the relational way in which God relates to humanity, and the means by which humanity is reconciled to God. And, as I have maintained, this revelation of God's grace occurs in Christ.

What of those who have been made into the image of God and who (to whom, I believe you said, this grace has been given) are isolated from the Church and the Bible? How will they find the grace in nature or creation?

Again, their very "createdness" (in the image of God) communicates the grace of God to them. In other words, as persons created by God, their creaturliness makes them desirable to God for relationship. Therefore, the grace of God is naturally communicated to them through God's desire that God's creatures should live and commune with God.

Am I to understand that the human nature has no say or place in this transaction? I thought you said that "will" comes into the picture, the ability to squelch the urgings of grace, words to that effect? Where is the miracle of which you speak?

The miracle is that despite the desires of self-will to the contrary, the grace of God nonetheless extends to these, drawing them in their creaturliness into relationship with their Creator.

It is in Scripture that Christ is revealed.

Christ, as the revelation of God, was present in creation long before the prophets and apostels wrote the Scriptures. Christ's revelation is an eternal reality, while the Scriptures (as written within this temporal experience of reality) are a testimony--a reaction to--the eternal revelation of Christ in the history of salvation.

Or did you come to the knowledge of Christ by some other means? I take you did not. After all, you know him by name, the name that is recorded in Scripture.

The apostles came to know Christ without Christ's name being written in a book. Moreover, they passed on this name to others for several decades before the name was ever written down by the gospel writers and the apostles. What of them? Did they get Christ's "name" from the New Testament which had yet to be written? Of course not. They recognized the truth through other witnesses, i.e., creation, the testimony of the apostles, etc.

 

[immortalavefenix]

Perhaps John never had Hellenism in mind when he wrote John.

That would be quite hard to believe really.

Through creation, humanity can learn of the sovereignty and love of God, a love that desires to live in relationship of the created and the creator.

Very much agreed. After all, it is all a matter of information. Not all information is transmitted with ordered sets of black ink markings on the remains of dead plants.

Again, through creation is revealed God's care and plan and creation

Though I would like to agree to that statment, I reserve myself becuase of lack of apparent substance; In other words, how would, or could you substanciate that claim? How indeed can God's plan be interpepated in nature, and in a way if not the same, or more so, then in scripture? I think interpatation through nature is very iffy grounds, and one subject to much personnal bias.

Scriptures are an accurate source of information, teaching, and instruction re: this revelation. However, they are not themselves equivalent with the revelation

Agreed 100%

Again, their very "createdness" (in the image of God) communicates the grace of God to them

What would you say then of viresus and other "ill" creations? Why would actively grace organisims that only serve to do harm to humanity? But this is a question outside the subject... just wanted to make the observation.

The apostles came to know Christ without Christ's name being written in a book

Hmmm.

 

[depthdeception]

Of course, it could be that where the Logos principle is being borrowed from the attempt on the part of such as Philo of Biblos to syncretize Greek philosophy with Judaism (Hellenism) and interpreted onto Christ, some may be led astray as to just what "logos" means in the New Testament. Perhaps an Older Testament interpretation of the "logos" is more helpful in our understanding of Christ that an Hellenistic interpretation. Perhaps John never had Hellenism in mind when he wrote John.

Oscar Cullman would agree with you...and I would completely respect a good exposition of this point.

 

[yuzuyuzuken]

God cannot lie - there lies our trust
God cannot sin - praise God

 

[Outrider]

Oscar Cullman would agree with you...and I would completely respect a good exposition of this point.

The phrase “the word of the Lord” is one of the most common phrases used in the Older Testament, so that it would be surprising if John, who shows in all of his writing an astute knowledge of Older Testament theology, did not view Christ as the Word from an Older Testament point of view. The idea that he borrowed from Hellenism is an impositional perspective based upon very slim evidence. The most preponderant argument is in favor of an Older Testament perspective and groundwork for this doctrine.

It must be understood from the language of John 1 that this Logos is being set up as equal to and yet distinct from God, that is, he is a person in the Trinity. It was this understanding of the passage that gave strength to the early Church to define the Trinity and the hypostatic union of Christ’s divine and human natures at Nicea and Chalcedon. The use of the verb hen in the first verse for “with” is in the imperfect tense and indicates continuity of being, the Word was always with and continues to be with God. In this is the distinction between the Logos and God. The next phrase “and the Word was God” indicates the oneness of substance between the Logos and God. The fact that no definite article is used in this phrase maintains the distinction. To say that the “Word was [the] God” would identify the Logos as indistinguishable from God. The verse, as a whole, does two things: it establishes a clear doctrine of plurality and unity in the godhead and it gives something of the nature of the Second Person in distinction to the First Person. Whatever the First Person’s distinct attribute may be (we would have to go to other Scriptures for this because this passage deals with the identification of the Logos who, in turn, will reveal the First Person and all of the godhead together), the Second Person is both message and messenger.

It is for this reason that we are presented with a theophany of the Second Person in the Older Testament as “the Angel of the Lord”. This is the Older Testament version of the Logos. He is sent by Jehovah and yet he receives sacrifices and worship in his own name on several occasions.
The personification of wisdom in Proverbs 8 is a more probable source for the logos doctrine. Here wisdom and the Creator are seen together creating the world as in John 1. True that the proverb is poetical and wisdom is initially presented as feminine, but because of the poetical nature of the proverb it should not b e excluded that there is an insight into Christ in this chapter, particularly knowing that Christ is presented in the New Testament as being the actuator of Creation under the initiatory auspices of the Father. The Father is eternally begetting while the Son is eternally begotten. By the time one meets Proverbs 8:27-30, it is difficult to miss the reference to the Father/Son relationship described by Jesus in John 10:17 For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. Compare to Proverbs 8:30... then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always.... Jesus reference to his relationship with his Father are striking throughout the book of John and reflect what has been founded in the first chapter, that the Father and the Son are one and that the Father initiates salvation through the Son whom he has sent to show his glory in grace, that is salvation is a manifestation of God’s effulgence against the dark background of human sin and this is revealed in Christ. To see Jesus is to see the Father.

There is no need to go outside of Scripture to establish the Logos doctrine and the biblical doctrine bears no true resemblance to Greek philosophy. It is much more exalted and is amenable to our salvation.

 

[EmmaTheGreat]

It is impossible for God to sin, correct?

 

[strikerchris0411]

The first question asked in Philosophy is inevitably "Can God make a rock so big that God can't pick it up?" Usually the answer is smoke screened with some business about "God's power cannot contradict God's wisdom." What do you think?

I hate trick Questions lol

God can do anything. I don't know where people can ask questions about it, but anything means anything, however you put it

 

[humbledbyhim]

How does one determine the "categories" to which God does and does not belong. Any category within which we describe the infinite is going to be obviously lacking and limited. However, the approach which you are suggesting mitigates against any possibility of exploring God in philosophy--or theology--for it is quite impossible to determine objectively the proper categories to which God belongs and doesn't belong, and will invariably be determined by one's own subjective prejudices.



No, Christ is the revelation of God, not the Bible.

O.K. the bottom line here is that God did not reveal himself to us for us to study his nature since his nature is beyond studying. He rreveals himself to us so that we can examine ourselves and see if WE are in line with what he wants US to be. This type of vanity is foolisness. Read ecclesiastes to learn about vanity.

 

[depthdeception]

O.K. the bottom line here is that God did not reveal himself to us for us to study his nature since his nature is beyond studying. He rreveals himself to us so that we can examine ourselves and see if WE are in line with what he wants US to be. This type of vanity is foolisness. Read ecclesiastes to learn about vanity.

So your answer is...what?