Literary Framework View & Exodus 20:11

[BNR32FAN]

So the cross merits the same amount of praise both with, and without, labor/suffering? You don't seriously believe that. Someday, God's going to evaluate your work on this earth. By what measure? The IQ you were born with? Your pretty blue eyes and blond hair? No. He will evaluate you based on the definition of merit that I gave you. In fact, almost every sermon in the last 2,000 years revolves around that definition, and rightly so.

And congratulations again you successfully built up your own strawman then proceeded to knock it down as if you’ve accomplished some sort of victory. I never said anything to imply that all works are deserving of equal merit. You just invented that all on your own then proceeded to show how that is a false idea. Great job you just refuted something you completely made up on your own that has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'll answer with a question. Did it involve suffering? Suppose you suffered nothing because you were fully convinced I'd pay you back the next day. In that case there would be little merit - but there would still be SOME merit, because we always suffer the agony of temptation. Meaning, the devil was tempting you to be a cruel person who refuses to lend me the money. You had to suffer to endure and overcome that temptation.

This isn’t anything like what I said. I didn’t say anything about a loan I said “if I gave you a million dollars would that merit praise or gratitude?”

If I won the lottery and I gave you a million dollars does that not MERIT gratitude or praise? Is it not deserving of gratitude or praise?

 

[JAL]

Except there’s indication of revelation anywhere in any of the gospel accounts pertaining to Jesus’ Triumphant Entry.

Would you follow any man who says, "Leave all your possessions and come follow me" ???? The best explanation as to why people, particularly the disciples, pledged allegiance to Jesus is that the Inward Witness (Direct Revelation) convicted/convinced to them. We don't know the extent of that revelation , how informative and detailed it was, but to some degree it was certainly there, hence we must allow for that consideration in a debate like this one.

 

[JAL]

No one had received the indwelling Holy Spirit yet because Jesus had not been glorified. So that doesn’t work either.

Baloney. I subscribe to Covenant Theology - I find no distinctions between OT and NT saints.
Conversion isn't a stupid act of blind faith. It is FULLY warranted, and the human mind is too fallible to fully warrant it by its own flawed knowledge and reasoning. Therefore Calvin postulated the Inward Witness and almost all evangelical theologians have accepted it. The thing is, it can't just be for the moment of conversion, it must warrant my faith DAILY, which means a CONSTANT Inward Witness, hence a constant indwelling Spirit. Paul says:

"Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his" (Rom 8)

When did that become true? Rest assured, it has ALWAYS been true.

 

[JAL]

And congratulations again you successfully built up your own strawman then proceeded to knock it down as if you’ve accomplished some sort of victory. I never said anything to imply that all works are deserving of equal merit. You just invented that all on your own then proceeded to show how that is a false idea. Great job you just refuted something you completely made up on your own that has nothing to do with anything I’ve said.

This reply makes no sense. I have no idea what you think you're responding to.

 

[JAL]

This isn’t anything like what I said. I didn’t say anything about a loan I said “if I gave you a million dollars would that merit praise or gratitude?”

I said I would answer the question with a question, "Was suffering involved." The remaining half was just further extrapolation, elaboration, and analogy. Evidently you understood neither half.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Incoherent assertion because none of us can comprehend atemporal consciousness. Again, consciousness is an ongoing stream of impressions more or less distinct('loud and clear'). Desistence of them is unconsciousness and/or death. The Three persons are a fellowship (they communicate/converse) which can ONLY be conceived as consecutive communications and thus as temporal. Also note that if God exists in my future - then my future already exists - which means I too exist in my future, thereby making me atemporal like God is.

The God presented to us in Scripture is a temporal being. Yahweh became angry with Moses at the burning bush. He wasn't angry with Moses from atemporal "eternity to eternity".

None of that atemporal nonsense makes ANY sense to the human mind. It's just hollow and deceptive Greek philosophy infiltrating Christianity.

God’s reaction to what we do doesn’t negate His omnipresence. When He is interacting with us He does that on a level that is congruent to our perception of events so that we can understand Him. If He was angry with Moses from the very first moment of their conversation Moses would’ve been confused. So God didn’t show any anger until Moses would understand why He was angry. It’s really not that hard to understand.

 

[BNR32FAN]

This reply makes no sense. I have no idea what you think you're responding to.

I quoted your post in that reply.

 

[JAL]

No your the one saying they praised Him without proper warrant. Your the one saying that if God did something that didn’t require intense labor that it doesn’t merit praise, not me.

That's an oversimplification of my position. Since I'm not writing 1500 page Systematic Theology here, my language on this forum will never be as precise/detailed as I could wish. Therefore you need to read between the lines a little. Of course you're not willing to do that if you care more about winning the debate than finding truth. (Sigh). Fine. I'll give you a little more detail/precision here. Suppose God heals someone, and He finds it to be effortless in this case. (I'm not even fully convinced that's possible, for reasons too complex to discuss here). Does He merit praise for it? Yes and No.
- No, because effortless activity does not merit praise. You've at least got to labor/suffer against the agony of temptation to merit praise.
- Yes, because, in this case, I'm really praising Him for 13 billion years of labor/suffering to ACQUIRE the skills to heal the sick.

After everything I've told you, I shouldn't have had to spell that out. If you're going to keep levying shallow objections merely to win the debate, I'll probably stop responding.

Apparently God has no problem with people praising Jesus for performing miracles that were not cumbersome or burdensome.

The Son's 13 billion years of learning how to surgically heal any species were not cumbersome/burdensome? If you say so. Look even as an incarnated man, Jesus had to labor/suffer against the agony of temptation. There was merit to most or all of what He did. This is not to say that all deeds have the same merit.

Do you have any non-shallow objections?

 

[BNR32FAN]

What doesn't make sense is your assumption of an atemporality contradictory to the only possible definition of merit.

And yet I included the definition of the word “merit” in my post to support my position and it doesn’t have anything to do with intensive labor or suffering.

 

[JAL]

I quoted your post in that reply.

And yet said nothing related to it or worthy of my attention, nothing I can discern anyway.

 

[JAL]

But wait a minute you said they were praising Him because they knew He is God. Now your changing that position and saying they were praising Him because they thought He was a mere human?

I said it's a moot point because both men and God acquire merit. Do you believe in praising your wife and kids for merit? I certainly do:

"Honey, you're an INCREDIBLE mother. I love the way you handle the kids. In fact you are a WONDERFUL human being in every sense of the word."

 

[JAL]

God’s reaction to what we do doesn’t negate His omnipresence. When He is interacting with us He does that on a level that is congruent to our perception of events so that we can understand Him. If He was angry with Moses from the very first moment of their conversation Moses would’ve been confused. So God didn’t show any anger until Moses would understand why He was angry. It’s really not that hard to understand.

Hard? It is IMPOSSIBLE to understand the notion of God being atemporally angry at Moses from eternity to eternity. Scripture says that His anger subsides and thus does not endure forever. THAT is temporal. THAT is what the human mind can comprehend.

 

[JAL]

@BNR32FAN

I think I've adequately responded to your objections. If you think I missed anything crucial, please let me know.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Um.er..Scripture teaches that God worked/labored and rested. It was YOUR decision to insinuate that Moses was lying when he claimed that God engaged in work/labor/suffering, followed by engaging in real rest.

Nowhere do the scriptures ever state that God had to acquire any of His abilities. What you pulled out of thin air is your statement that “The Three jointly acquired those healing skills, before creation, via ages of labor/suffering”. This is not biblical. What verse did you get this information from?

No, the incarnate Jesus didn't heal anyone. On earth, He had to avail of the Father's knowledge and power via availing of the Third Person. Just like a modern healer would do today.

The Three jointly acquired those healing skills, before creation, via ages of labor/suffering.

And your just pulling this out of thin air because this is not discussed in the scriptures.

 

[JAL]

And yet I included the definition of the word “merit” in my post to support my position and it doesn’t have anything to do with intensive labor or suffering.

You're adding to my formula. It doesn't have the word "intensive". Yes, the more intense, the more merit. And I don't even claim it's a granular, highly calibrated formula, it's just the general outline. It's not granular because it's hard for me to know how much each of the two factors add to merit. Meaning, does duration generally contribute more to merit than the intensity of the suffering? Or less? I'll let God decide that part. All I know is that you need both factors to speak plausibly of merit.

 

[JAL]

Nowhere do the scriptures ever state that God had to acquire any of His abilities. What you pulled out of thin air is your statement that “The Three jointly acquired those healing skills, before creation, via ages of labor/suffering”. This is not biblical. What verse did you get this information from?

And nowhere does Scripture mention the word Trinity. It's a logical construct.

If you believe that God's ways are higher than our ways, higher than the heavens above the earth, you need to listen carefully to my assertions about merit.

 

[JAL]

@BNR32FAN

Out of curiosity, what is your definition of merit? What makes a person worthy/meritorious of praise?

 

[JAL]

@BNR32FAN,

I hope you have read my definition of Yahweh at post 15 on another thread. Here is why there is no burden of proof on me: the only thing we know for sure are finite material objects. The only thing that I believe in are - wait for it - finite material objects. Anything beyond that is an extraordinary claim, viz. "Use the immaterial Force, Luke!" Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary amounts of corroborating evidence.

Here's why that puts the burden of proof on you. Consider God's knowledge and skills. ORDINARILY, people have to labor/suffer over time to acquire their knowledge and skills. That's an ORDINARY claim. To allege that God inherently had all knowledge and skills flies in the face of everything we know - it is an EXTRAORDINARY claim. That puts the entire burden of proof on YOU.

Admittedly animals "seem" to be born with some knowledge and skills but in reality a well-crafted nervous system quickly force-feeds their souls with that information, so learning is involved, and it's not even acutely understood. Acute understanding for any of us TAKES LABOR AND TIME to develop.

An infinitely knowledgeable being can't LEARN anything new. Is this the type of God we serve? Consider:

1. Jesus is God.
2. Jesus learned.
3. Therefore God is the kind of being who can learn.

He is thus NOT the sort of God postulated by theologians who sought fidelity to Plato's Greek philosophy.

And please don't try to rebut that 3-point argument by appealing to the two natures of Christ (the Hypostatic Union). That would be like speaking Chinese to me. The Hypostatic Union is a humanly incoherent/incomprehensible "doctrine". Nobody understands what is being said. I provided 2 demonstrations of its incomprehensibility on the other thread, and can provide two more. I also cited several theologians admitting it is beyond human understanding.

 

[JAL]

@BNR32FAN

BTW, I didn't mean to say that God acquired His healing skills BEFORE creation. (I make typos due to aging, poor health, poor memory, poor concentration). Morely likely he acquired these skills during the 13 billion year creation period.