Jesus could do no deed of power there

[public hermit]

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?

 

[Albion]

Who believes that "God pre-determines all aspects of an individual?"

I don't mean any disrespect, and anyone is free to pose whatever question he chooses, but this seems like a discussion topic about a POV that has hardly any following.

 

[Hmm]

Who believes that "God pre-determines all aspects of an individual?"

I don't mean any disrespect, and anyone is free to pose whatever question he chooses, but this seems like a discussion topic about a POV that has hardly any following.

I don't know if the POV has much following IRL but I've come across it frequently on threads discussing Calvanism, or at least Calvinism as presented in those threads.

 

[public hermit]

Who believes that "God pre-determines all aspects of an individual?"

I don't mean any disrespect, and anyone is free to pose whatever question he chooses, but this seems like a discussion topic about a POV that has hardly any following.

Some Calvinists might hold to a notion of Divine sovereignty where every single thing in the world is predetermined. And, perhaps such a notion is held by some that don't identify as Calvinist.

 

[Albion]

I don't know if the POV has much following IRL but I've come across it frequently on threads discussing Calvanism, or at least Calvinism as presented in those threads.

Calvinism doesn't posit that every action and every thing about us is pre-set by God, however.

That he chooses those to whom he will grant the Grace sufficient for them to have saving Faith is quite far removed in concept from thinking of every human as being moved, in all respects, like a robot.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

Hey PH! Excellent inquiry! I can't quite remember where I read it, but one commentator I came across said that this passage you've cited (and those like it) imply that the folks spoken of in the text didn't receive healing because they refused to come to Jesus for any healing.

In other words, because they lacked faith, they stood aloof and away and thus didn't get close. If this is the case, we could surmise that this 'lack of faith' was a form of skepticism with manifested aversion.

 

[public hermit]

Calvinism doesn't posit that every action and every thing about us is pre-set by God, however.

That he chooses those to whom he will grant the Grace sufficient for them to have saving Faith is quite far removed in concept from thinking of every human as being moved, in all respects, like a robot.

So, are you a Calvinist? If so, how would you interpret the passage?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

As to what the possible presence of skepticism and aversion might imply about the nature of God's Sovereignty, I'd have to contemplate further. But frankly, I've never been one very convinced by Calvin's notion of "Irresistable Grace."

 

[Albion]

Some Calvinists might hold to a notion of Divine sovereignty where every single thing in the world is predetermined. And, perhaps such a notion is held by some that don't identify as Calvinist.

So the question was hypothetical? OK.

I just was questioning its relevance to the spectrum of Christian belief in today's world, not that it was somehow wrong to ask it.

 

[Albion]

So, are you a Calvinist? If so, how would you interpret the passage?

We see that Jesus was preaching in the synagogue. But the people of that region didn't see anything special in him. As a result, and although he healed a few, not necessarily the same people, out of his compassion towards them, he chose not to work any greater miracles at that time.

Put another way, it was because the hearts of most of the locals were hardened against him that Jesus knew that for him to work any greater miracles then and there would "fall on deaf ears" as it were.

 

[public hermit]

So the question was hypothetical? OK.

I just was questioning its relevance to the spectrum of Christian belief in today's world, not that it was somehow wrong to ask it.

I don't know why you are trying to derail this thread.

The way I framed the OP is in no way outside the bounds of Calvin's doctrine:

"We make God the ruler and governor of all things who in accordance with his wisdom has from the farthest limit of eternity decreed what he was going to do, and now by his might carries out what he has decreed. From this we declare that not only heaven and earth and the inanimate creatures, but also the plans and intentions of men, are so governed by his providence that they are borne by it straight to their appointed end." Institutes I.XVI.8

"However, that men can accomplish nothing [emphasis mine] except by god's secret command, that they cannot by deliberating accomplish anything except what he has already decreed with himself and determines by his own secret direction, is proved by innumerable and clear testimonies. What we have cited before from the psalm, that God does whatever he wills certainly pertains to all the actions of all men" Institutes I.XVIII.1

If you disagree with the way I have framed the OP, you may go create a thread offering a clear explication of Calvinism. Otherwise, please contribute to the OP.

 

[public hermit]

he chose not to work any greater miracles at that time.

The passage doesn't say he chose not to work. It said he could not work deeds of power...and it surprised (amazed) him.

 

[Albion]

I don't know why you are trying to derail this thread.

How nice. I'm sorry now that I took the time to give an interpretation of the scriptural passage when you asked me for my understanding of it.

 

[public hermit]

How nice. I'm sorry now that I took the time to give an interpretation of the scriptural passage when you asked me for my understanding of it.

This thread is not about your feelings. I responded to the interpretation you finally gave, three posts in.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This thread is not about your feelings. I responded to the interpretation you finally gave, three posts in.

@Albion, @public hermit .... oh no, guys! Let's not let this useful and interesting discussion between us fellow Christians devolve to a verbal fisticuff (... not that I don't enjoy the occasional karate match between Anglicans and Calvinists, mind you! But we can do better here I think.)

 

[public hermit]

@Albion, If I have misconstrued your intentions or come across as overly harsh, I apologize.

 

[Hmm]

Calvinism doesn't posit that every action and everything about us is pre-set by God, however.

As to what the possible presence of skepticism and aversion might imply about the nature of God's Sovereignty, I'd have to contemplate further.

Me too. At a minimum though, the fact that God allows us to be sceptical and aversive at all is very strong evidence that He does not determine all of our thoughts and choices. I don't see where the challenge to God's sovereignty is in this anyway: a King is sovereign but he doesn't control every single thought and decision of his subjects. It's a false connection.

But frankly, I've never been one very convinced by Calvin's notion of "Irresistable Grace.

It makes absolutely no sense to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Me too. At a minimum though, the fact that God allows us to be sceptical and aversive at all is very strong evidence that He does not determine all of our thoughts and choices. I don't see where the challenge to God's sovereignty is in this anyway: a King is sovereign but he doesn't control every single thought and decision of his subjects. It's a false connection.



It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Well, it is a bit of a stretch, but even though I think Calvin went a little too far in extrapolating what he thought God's Sovereignty is, I can still understand the interpretive inclination within Calvin's mind to read this as being the case when see Jesus say, "ALL (whom) the Father gives me will come to me ..." (John 6:37, and other verses that imply something similar).

 

[SkyWriting]

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?

Attitude. God has no actual power on earth except that they allow God to get credit for everything that He does.

If you want a HINT of what I'm saying, think about a friend or acquaintance who has all the opportunity in the world, and complains when one thing goes differently and they blame God.

You could (poof!) give them a goose that lays golden eggs and they'd complain about feeding the goose. You can't even hand an unbeliever a miracle without them discarding it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hey PH! Excellent inquiry! I can't quite remember where I read it, but one commentator I came across said that this passage you've cited (and those like it) implied that those folks spoken of in the text didn't receive healing because they refused to come to Jesus for any healing.

In other words, because they lacked faith, they stood aloof and away and thus didn't get close. If this is the case, we could surmise that this 'lack of faith' was a form of skepticism with manifested aversion.

@public hermit, I briefly shuffled through my sources and found that it was Robert L. Saucey who made this comment about the aversion of unbelief in Mark 6. Just thought I'd put that out there as a related note.