Literary Framework View & Exodus 20:11

[JAL]

There’s no way anyone could possibly read this passage and come to the conclusion that only Simon didn’t receive the Holy Spirit.

So it's even worse than I thought, then - God broke his covenant principles for additional people even beyond Simon?

 

[JAL]

@BNR32FAN,

You act like I was wrong to bring Pentecost into this debate. Really? Pray tell, what did the 120 believers receive on Pentecost, in your view? Was it the indwelling Spirit? If so, doesn't that confirm my allegation that your God broke His covenant principles for 50 days?

 

[BNR32FAN]

@BNR32FAN,

You conveniently ignored my analysis of Galatians demonstrating that OT saints, as heirs of Abraham, DID receive the Holy Spirit. More selective answering on your part.

I apologize I missed that one, not that it makes any difference because Galatians 3 doesn’t say that Abraham received the indwelling Holy Spirit.

“So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.””
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3‬:‭5‬-‭8‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Where in this passage do you see Abraham receiving the Holy Spirit? Do you think that the word “it” in the phrase “it was reckoned to his as righteous” is referring to the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is NEVER, NOT ONCE referred to as an inanimate object in the scriptures. The Holy Spirit is ALWAYS referred to as He or Him and ALWAYS beginning with a Capital letter just like every single reference to The Father and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is never referred to as “it”.

 

[BNR32FAN]

@BNR32FAN,

You act like I was wrong to bring Pentecost into this debate. Really? Pray tell, what did the 120 believers receive on Pentecost, in your view? Was it the indwelling Spirit? If so, doesn't that confirm my allegation that your God broke His covenant principles for 50 days?

What does this have to do with the FACT that every passage I quoted specifically says that these people BELIEVED and they HAD NOT RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT? There is no promise made by God of WHEN a person will receive the Holy Spirit. Let’s get one thing straight here. I’m not the one saying that these people believed without having received the Holy Spirit. I didn’t write the gospel accounts or the book of Acts. I’m simply relaying the message WORD BY WORD copied & pasted directly from the Bible with the book and verse reference so you can go directly to each verse and see it for yourself. I’m not paraphrasing anything.

 

[BNR32FAN]

So it's even worse than I thought, then - God broke his covenant principles for additional people even beyond Simon?

What passage of scripture says that a person will immediately receive the indwelling Holy Spirit BEFORE they believe?

 

[JAL]

I apologize I missed that one, not that it makes any difference because Galatians 3 doesn’t say that Abraham received the indwelling Holy Spirit.

“So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham. The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “All the nations will be blessed in you.””
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3‬:‭5‬-‭8‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

Where in this passage do you see Abraham receiving the Holy Spirit? Do you think that the word “it” in the phrase “it was reckoned to his as righteous” is referring to the Holy Spirit? The Holy Spirit is NEVER NOT ONCE referred to as an inanimate object in the scriptures. The Holy Spirit is ALWAYS referred to as He or Him and ALWAYS beginning with a Capital letter just like every single reference to The Father and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is never referred to as “it”.

Let's take a look at the passage. Paul twice refers to receiving the Holy Spirit via the "hearing of faith" ("hearing of faith", as given in KJV, is the literal rendering of the Greek).

2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?... 5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Now in the next verse he mentions Abraham. As Calvin and several other scholars have noted, he's clearly adducing Abraham as the PARADIGMATICAL EXAMPLE of receiving the Spirit (and miracles) via the hearing of faith. Specifically he cites the last verse of the passage Genesis 15:1-6. So our task here is simple. Can we turn back to that passage and find ANY evidence that Abraham received an outpouring of the Spirit and miracles by the hearing of faith? Let's turn back there:

1After these things the [divine] word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision [speaking promises] 6And he believed [the promises] and he counted it to him for righteousness"

God didn't drop a bible on his head. It was an outpouring of the divine Word - faith comething by hearing/receiving the divine Word (Romans 10:17) spoken from God's mouth (Isaiah 55:11) as the "hearing of faith". In short, it was an outpouring of the third Person. Was it ALSO an outpouring of miracles? I mean, Paul was using Abraham to prove that part too, right? Yes, because one of those promises, for example, was the promise of a son in his old age.

The promised Holy Spirit is our inheritance - it is the principal/primary promised Land afforded to believers in every generation, and to their descendants as heirs of Abraham.

 

[JAL]

What passage of scripture says that a person will immediately receive the indwelling Holy Spirit BEFORE they believe?

Huh? Maybe a better question is this, What passage says that a believer can lack the Spirit of regeneration?

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

God doesn't break His Abrahamic covenant. OT saints had the indwelling Spirit.

 

[JAL]

What does this have to do with the FACT that every passage I quoted specifically says that these people BELIEVED and they HAD NOT RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT?

(Sigh). Again, it's a matter of context/qualification. A great example of context/qualification is when Scripture says that no one has ever seen God. Yet Scripture documents that people HAVE seen God - so it's a matter of context/qualification. You and I might differ on the qualification, but we both have to qualify it. Here's MY qualification: people saw only a shaded view of God's face, as would have died beholding it in the fullness of its radiant Light.

When it says believers did not yet receive the Spirit, MY qualification is that it's referring to greatest reviving, charismatic/prophetic outpouring in church history (Pentecost). Has nothing to do with whether they received the Spirit of regeneration. Paul is clear that ALL believers have the indwelling Spirit of regeneration.

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

I’m not the one saying that these people believed without having received the Holy Spirit.

I'm confused. This sounds different than what you said before. I thought you cited John 7:39 as proof of believers lacking the Spirit.

What does this have to do with the FACT that every passage I quoted specifically says that these people BELIEVED and they HAD NOT RECEIVED THE HOLY SPIRIT?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Let's take a look at the passage. Paul twice refers to receiving the Holy Spirit via the "hearing of faith" ("hearing of faith", as given in KJV, is the literal rendering of the Greek).

2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?... 5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Now in the next verse he mentions Abraham. As Calvin and several other scholars have noted, he's clearly adducing Abraham as the PARADIGMATICAL EXAMPLE of receiving the Spirit (and miracles) via the hearing of faith. Specifically he cites the last verse of the passage Genesis 15:1-6. So our task here is simple. Can we turn back to that passage and find ANY evidence that Abraham received an outpouring of the Spirit and miracles by the hearing of faith? Let's turn back there:

1After these things the [divine] word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision [speaking promises] 6And he believed [the promises] and he counted it to him for righteousness"

God didn't drop a bible on his head. It was an outpouring of the divine Word - faith comething by hearing/receiving the divine Word (Romans 10:17) spoken from God's mouth (Isaiah 55:11) as the "hearing of faith". In short, it was an outpouring of the third Person. Was it ALSO an outpouring of miracles? I mean, Paul was using Abraham to prove that part too, right? Yes, because one of those promises, for example, was the promise of a son in his old age.

The promised Holy Spirit is our inheritance - it is the principal/primary promised Land afforded to believers in every generation, and to their descendants as heirs of Abraham.

Paul said that faith precedes the Holy Spirit.

“This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3‬:‭2‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

“So then, does He who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith?”
‭‭Galatians‬ ‭3‬:‭5‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

After we hear the gospel and believe we receive the indwelling Holy Spirit NEVER before. NO ONE in the scriptures ever received the indwelling Holy Spirit before believing. In the case of Abraham the gospel had not been revealed, he was justified by hearing God’s promise and believing it. You quoted Genesis 15 as evidence that Abraham had received the indwelling Holy Spirit but Abraham had faith in God’s promise way back in chapter 12 long before he received that divine revelation. Peter received thru divine revelation that Jesus is the Son of God before he received the indwelling Holy Spirit.

 

[JAL]

After we hear the gospel and believe we receive the indwelling Holy Spirit NEVER before. NO ONE in the scriptures ever received the indwelling Holy Spirit before believing.

I see your point now. First of all, depends on what you mean by "receive". When the Spirit enters the heart for initial conviction, is that "receiving" Him already. That might depend, for example, on Arminianism vs Calvinism. An Arminian might say, "The person could reject the Lord of free will, hence the Spirit departs, and thus the Spirit never made His home there, this person never really 'received' the Spirit in the Pauline sense". That's a fine point I generally don't address. On this same fine point, I believe the heart is a multiplicity where part of it is in a simultaneity of believing/receiving Him, while the REST of the heart MIGHT still be free enough to put up some resistance/rejection. I don't think Scripture is 100% clear on these fine points, so I rarely ruminate on them.

You quoted Genesis 15 as evidence that Abraham had received the indwelling Holy Spirit but Abraham had faith in God’s promise way back in chapter 12 long before he received that divine revelation.

Genesis 15 is the passage that Paul adduced of proof that the promise of the Spirit is received by the hearing of faith.

Hearings are multiple because the heart is a multiplicity. This wasn't Abraham's first hearing/reception of an outpouring. He had heard/received the divine Word many times before, by the "hearing of faith". Hence Genesis 15 was yet another outpouring for SANCTIFICATION, and Paul's message to the Galatians is that they too, like Abraham, need to receive these (sanctifying/reviving) outpourings again and again and again, for incremental purposes of maturation.

 

[Helmut-WK]

As explained, there is only one possible definition of merit.

But merit is not the only reason why someone is to be praised.

Take a lover, he praises his beloved not because it has merits acquired by labor, but because of its nature.

If those skills cost Him nothing in labor/suffering over time to acquire, they would merit no praise because, as explained, there is only one possible definition of merit. To prove this, consider two sons:
....(1) The first is born with the highest IQ in the world. Never works a day in his life. He's rich because he was smart enough to seize upon a couple of investments even as a child. Laziest sloth you've ever met, although highly skilled.
....(2) The second son is born with a low IQ but works diligently - struggles day and night - for many decades to become successful.

Which of these two sons merits more praise?

Well, the one that the skills inherited, for they are part of his nature, and not accidentia that he had to acquire.

Most people in antiquity (at least, most »hellenists«) would have said this is obvious, and they would have been astonished if one told them that there is a sort of »merit» point of view by which the latter one is more to be praised.

That does not mean the second one deserves no praise at all, he merits some praise (just compare him to a guy who never acquires anything because of his low »IQ«).

Does God merit praise for creating in six days? Yes. More praise than we who labor/suffer 50 years? Yes. More praise than the angels who labored/suffered against the agony of temptation and NEVER SINNED? Yes. Then it must have been six LONG days of labor/suffering. The conclusion is irresistible.

In your framework, the conclusion is irresistible.

But consider two kings:

• One that has inherited his kingdom and rules as a wise ruler
• One that is of low birth, but worked hard and somehow managed to gain the kingdom, and now rules a wise ruler.

The first one is more to be praised, for he is of noble birth, the other one is just a parvenu. You don't agree? So you are probably no royalist, but a (modern) democrat. And yes, I am a modern one who praises the second one more than the first prince. But I know that I can't project this attitude into biblical authors, especially not on the question why God is to be praised.

There are many verses in the Bible that praise God for what he does (He rules with justice), but I don't know any verse that praise God because He acquired any skill (He acquired a people by saving it through Jesus, but this is no skill He acquired, it is a work He has done).

Ps 104:1 Praise the Lord, my soul. Lord my God, you are very great; you are clothed with splendour and majesty.

Ps 93:1 The Lord reigns, he is robed in majesty; the Lord is robed in majesty and armed with strength; indeed, the world is established, firm and secure. 2 Your throne was established long ago; you are from all eternity.

 

[Helmut-WK]

The Holy Spirit is ALWAYS referred to as He or Him and ALWAYS beginning with a Capital letter just like every single reference to The Father and Jesus. The Holy Spirit is never referred to as “it”.

There were only »capital« letters in ancient Greek (minuscles are an 8th century invention). So you refer to a decision of Bible editors, not of the original scripts. Spirit (pneuma) is a neuter word in Greek, and so the Spirit in Mt 10:20 has a neuter article (this is the first unanimous example, where there is no point to enter a discussion on manuscripts or interpretation). In John 14:17, we read:

Jn 14:17 … the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot receive …

I know that English versions prefer "whom", but the Greek has ho, meaning which (neuter).

This does not mean that the Spirit is no person, it is just a matter of gender in language (German Geist is masculine, Greek pneuma is neuter, and the Hebrew ruah is feminine, and what about English?).

 

[JAL]

But merit is not the only reason why someone is to be praised.

Take a lover, he praises his beloved not because it has merits acquired by labor, but because of its nature.

Well, the one that the skills inherited, for they are part of his nature, and not accidentia that he had to acquire.

Most people in antiquity (at least, most »hellenists«) would have said this is obvious, and they would have been astonished if one told them that there is a sort of »merit» point of view by which the latter one is more to be praised.

That does not mean the second one deserves no praise at all, he merits some praise (just compare him to a guy who never acquires anything because of his low »IQ«).

In your framework, the conclusion is irresistible.

But consider two kings:

• One that has inherited his kingdom and rules as a wise ruler
• One that is of low birth, but worked hard and somehow managed to gain the kingdom, and now rules a wise ruler.

The first one is more to be praised, for he is of noble birth, the other one is just a parvenu. You don't agree? So you are probably no royalist, but a (modern) democrat. And yes, I am a modern one who praises the second one more than the first prince. But I know that I can't project this attitude into biblical authors, especially not on the question why God is to be praised.

There are many verses in the Bible that praise God for what he does (He rules with justice), but I don't know any verse that praise God because He acquired any skill (He acquired a people by saving it through Jesus, but this is no skill He acquired, it is a work He has done).

Ps 104:1 Praise the Lord, my soul. Lord my God, you are very great; you are clothed with splendour and majesty.

Ps 93:1 The Lord reigns, he is robed in majesty; the Lord is robed in majesty and armed with strength; indeed, the world is established, firm and secure. 2 Your throne was established long ago; you are from all eternity.

I don't believe these statements reflect your real values. The cross merits no praise without labor/suffering. The cross is what we praise the Incarnate Christ for most of all. Very few people would even think to praise Him for His good looks or even His IQ. Secondly, you know good and well that, at the judgment seat of Christ, our accolades will be based on my definition of merit.

Take a lover, he praises his beloved not because it has merits acquired by labor, but because of its nature.

Unclear. I'm assuming you mean praising his wife for her beauty and other enjoyable qualities that she might not have labored/suffered to acquire. We do this out of kindness, and even selfishly to avoid losing her to divorce. But by no means do we really believe that she merits more praise than someone born with DNA less photogenic. Christ is not going to judge us by our DNA but by real merit. If He did, He would be a jerk.

You don't seriously want me to believe you're a jerk, right? Because I don't believe it, no matter what you wrote in that last post. I think you should retract the post.

Also, Christ would be a jerk if He held to a double standard where, on the one hand, He judges us by the excruciatingly difficult standard of real merit while, on the other, He considers Himself praiseworthy based on the effortless standard of innate traits.

 

[Helmut-WK]

I don't believe these statements reflect your real values. The cross merits no praise without labor/suffering.

We did not speak about the cross, but about creation.

Ant if I'm not fooled by biased memory, the authors of the NT give more stress on the shame of the cross than of the suffering.

In those old times folks were rather acquainted to suffering, so the willingness to die a shameful, yet even accursed death was more important to them as the suffering.

Secondly, you know good and well that, at the judgment seat of Christ, our accolades will be based on my definition of merit.

1.Kor 13:3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

According to your definition of merit, the »hardship« of the body counts more than the love. Paul says otherwise. Do you really think that Christ in the judgement seat will be on your side, and will not join Paul?

Unclear. I'm assuming you mean praising his wife for her beauty and other enjoyable qualities that she might not have labored/suffered to acquire. We do this out of kindness

Or out of testosterone I see your point.

You don't seriously want me to believe you're a jerk, right? Because I don't believe it, no matter what you wrote in that last post. I think you should retract the post.

Is this a comment to my example of the two sons? This is an outcome of some knowledge about differences between ancient and modern thinking. The upper class despised the poor ones because they had to work. Later, this developed into the aristocratic way of thinking …

Also, Christ would be a jerk if He held to a double standard where, on the one hand, He judges us by the excruciatingly difficult standard of real merit while, on the other, He considers Himself praiseworthy based on the effortless standard of innate traits.

There are different measures of merit. One is that which Christ will use, another is yours, yet another the measure in antiquity.

Thou I don't claim to fully know the standard by which we shall be judged, I can't see a biblical proof that your »standard« is the same as Christ's measure. So do not snear at me, bur show to me where the Bible teaches what you say.

The Bible praises God for what He has done, no matter whether it was effortless or whether it was hard labor. Do you believe in a God who might have failed in His plan out of exhaustion or so?

 

[JAL]

We did not speak about the cross, but about creation.

I don't believe in moral relativism. The cross is just as good an example of divine values as any.

Ant if I'm not fooled by biased memory, the authors of the NT give more stress on the shame of the cross than of the suffering

In those old times folks were rather acquainted to suffering, so the willingness to die a shameful, yet even accursed death was more important to them as the suffering.

Shame involves suffering.

1.Kor 13:3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

According to your definition of merit, the »hardship« of the body counts more than the love. Paul says otherwise. Do you really think that Christ in the judgement seat will be on your side, and will not join Paul?

When Paul says "have not love" it's not a meritorious act. Love and selfishness are opposites. My definition of merit is for righteous causes.

Is this a comment to my example of the two sons? This is an outcome of some knowledge about differences between ancient and modern thinking. The upper class despised the poor ones because they had to work. Later, this developed into the aristocratic way of thinking …

You're forcing to me picture this kind of fatherhood.
"You son, of high IQ (but lazy), I'm sooooooo proud of you. Great job. Much praise for your accomplishments"
"Dad, are you proud of me too?"
"No. I don't care how much you labored/suffered, I can't be proud of you, and I can't praise you, because you're a stupid numbskull."

Yes, that would make you a complete jerk.

There are different measures of merit. One is that which Christ will use, another is yours, yet another the measure in antiquity.

I'll stick with Christ's measure. If you prefer to follow the example of jerks, that's on you.

Thou I don't claim to fully know the standard by which we shall be judged, I can't see a biblical proof that your »standard« is the same as Christ's measure. So do not snear at me, bur show to me where the Bible teaches what you say.

....(1) The Bible is useless/hopeless if God's definition of the virtues is different than ours. The virtues are things like love, honesty, merit, patience, longsuffering, gentleness, etc.
....(2) The Bible says that God is worthy of praise - He merits our praise. And my definition of merit is the only viable one for the non-jerk. Does God merit praise for creation? Yes. Therefore it must have involved labor/suffering.
...(3) Again, is God a hypocrite? He wants praise for effortless traits while evaluating us on our efforts? The bible says that a man who does not work shall not eat. I think that's clear enough regarding how He feels about human labor. Other verses:
......"Six days you shall labor, and do all your work,:
.......See 2Thes 3:6-9
.......See Heb 6:10-12

From a logical standpoint, I'm not insisting that He had to suffer during creation. It would be enough if He suffered before creation, to acquire the skills necessary. Scripture is pretty clear, however, that He actually suffered during creation (can't recall if I demonstrated that part).

The Bible praises God for what He has done, no matter whether it was effortless or whether it was hard labor.

I don't believe it does. Again, the question is whether He earlier labored to acquire those skills. Nowadays many of those feats are effortless, but not so in the beginning. God would be a jerk if Scripture proclaims Him worthy of praise for effortless feats.

Do you believe in a God who might have failed in His plan out of exhaustion or so?

Absolutely. I believe in a finite God who had to face the possibility of failure in his effort to become holy. In my theodicy, He has made Himself irreversibly holy wherefore failure is no longer a possibility.

Emotional exhaustion was a much greater threat than physical exhaustion, in my view. Being physically exhausted doesn't necessarily make you unholy, probably just means you need rest. Ultimately it depends on how you define "holy". For me the term amounts to "competent ruler". So yes, by my definition of "holy", He would have failed to have attained to holiness if rulership were a job too physically demanding for Him.

 

[JAL]

So do not sneer at me, bur show to me where the Bible teaches what you say.

Strong disagreement isn't necessarily sneering.

People always say, "Show me chapter and verse" but equally important is logical consistency. I don't care if you have a million verses to back up your position, it amounts to nothing if it is internally self-contradictory. In terms of consistency, then, ask yourself, "Have I ever approved of a Sunday sermon?"

I say this because Christian sermons are based on my definition of merit, if you examine them closely. Almost every one of them is an exhortation to put forth your best effort for a righteous cause, namely Christianity itself.

Once you approve of any sermons, then, you can't sit here and tell me that you disapprove of my definition of merit.

 

[Helmut-WK]

I don't believe in moral relativism. The cross is just as good an example of divine values as any.

It's not about mpral relativism. There are two great deeds of God: Creation an Salvation,. Both are quite different, and it is no immorality to assume that they are praised for different reasons.

Shame involves suffering.

This is a modern, individualistic approach. Honor or shame is what your environment puts on you. Something »objective«, not just a feeling.

Feeling the burden of shame involves suffering. Feeling the burden of guilt also. Is remorse without repentance enough?

Think of "honor killing": A child is killed because it has brought shame on the family, and the only way to remove this shame is to kill the child. Maybe you are not that acquainted with this (in Germany, such things happen sometimes in migrant communities, e.g. Turks).

When Paul says "have not love" it's not a meritorious act. Love and selfishness are opposites. My definition of merit is for righteous causes.

And righteous cause without suffering is no merit?

You're forcing to me picture this kind of fatherhood.
"You son, of high IQ (but lazy), I'm sooooooo proud of you. Great job. Much praise for your accomplishments"
"Dad, are you proud of me too?"
"No. I don't care how much you labored/suffered, I can't be proud of you, and I can't praise you, because you're a stupid numbskull."

Now you twist my example to the exact opposite of what you said. I did not say that it doesn't matter how much one worked. I only put it into relation to other reasons of merit.

....(2) The Bible says that God is worthy of praise - He merits our praise. And my definition of merit is the only viable one for the non-jerk. Does God merit praise for creation? Yes. Therefore it must have involved labor/suffering.

So you think almost every thinker in antiquity was a jerk. They praised a superior for his power, his glory, splendor, his great deeds, etc. BTW, praising inferiors was a somewhat different matter, you can't praise an inferior because he is superior to you This makes your father-son example meaningless to our discussion.

… and when you look why God is praised: for His power, His glory, and for his great works. And in the NT for His readiness to die in a shameful way in order to give us the glory He gave up. Ph 2:2-11 is all about glory and no mention of suffering at all. It was this part of the Gospel that made humbleness from a despised attitude into a Christian virtue.

Yes, there are other places in the Bible where the suffering of Christ is mentioned.

From a logical standpoint, I'm not insisting that He had to suffer during creation. It would be enough if He suffered before creation, to acquire the skills necessary.

The only skill that God (or to be precise: Jesus) acquired was obedience (Hbr 5:8). or can you show me any Bible verse about amnother skill God had to acquire?

Scripture is pretty clear, however, that He actually suffered during creation (can't recall if I demonstrated that part).

Plöease recall and show it to me.

God would be a jerk if Scripture proclaims Him worthy of praise for effortless feats.

So that someone is a »jerk« when he does not subscribe to your definition of "worthy to be praised". It is a basic assumption, which influences your understanding of Scripture. You assume what you want to prove.

Absolutely. I believe in a finite God who had to face the possibility of failure in his effort to become holy. In my theodicy, He has made Himself irreversibly holy wherefore failure is no longer a possibility.

Now you are a jerk in my eyes. God does not change, He may change the ways He deals with us mortals, but there is no Change within God, James 1:13.

 

[Helmut-WK]

People always say, "Show me chapter and verse" but equally important is logical consistency.

I'm logical consistent. You have a presupposition, which combined with my thinking produces inconsistency.

But if I dismiss this presupposition, take it as a statement that can be tested by Scripture, I got to the conclusion that it is simply wrong. But telling you that it is wrong makes me a "jerk" in your eyes. But I am a logically consistent jerk!

I don't care if you have a million verses to back up your position, it amounts to nothing if it is internally self-contradictory.

I have met atheists that think I am logically inconsistent in my belief in God, because I don't share their atheistic presuppositions (e.g. »science can, in principle, explore anything, so if science cannot find God, he can't exist«). Now I have a similar experience with you.

I know that the Bible teaches an eternal God, that did not acquire omnipotence etc., but was almighty from the beginning. If this contradicts your definition why God should be praise, so bad for your notion.

I say this because Christian sermons are based on my definition of merit, if you examine them closely. Almost every one of them is an exhortation to put forth your best effort for a righteous cause, namely Christianity itself.

Oh no, an evangelistic preaching may stress the grace of God. The inner core of the Gospel does not speak of an effort we have to make, since this would mean that "grace would no longer be grace" (Rm 11:6). Even the efforts we as Christian should do are just the performance of good works created by God for us (Eph 2:10).

 

[JAL]

It's not about mpral relativism. There are two great deeds of God: Creation an Salvation,. Both are quite different, and it is no immorality to assume that they are praised for different reasons.

If God has different values than we do, the Bible is hopeless. Don't tell me has two masks, one for Creation, one for Salvation.

He is unchanging in virtues/values.

This is a modern, individualistic approach. Honor or shame is what your environment puts on you. Something »objective«, not just a feeling.

Feeling the burden of shame involves suffering. Feeling the burden of guilt also. Is remorse without repentance enough?

I am not getting your point. Are you asking me if suffering without repentance/righteousness enough? Not on my definition of merit.

Think of "honor killing": A child is killed because it has brought shame on the family, and the only way to remove this shame is to kill the child. Maybe you are not that acquainted with this (in Germany, such things happen sometimes in migrant communities, e.g. Turks).

Again I don't get your point. It almost sounds like you are adducing evil men and evil deed as proof that my definition of merit is wrong? What kind of argument is that?

And righteous cause without suffering is no merit?

Correct. But don't be shallow here. Was there free will? Freely choosing to behave righteously always involves suffering because you face the agony of temptation to yield to evil. (Assuming you have full freedom).

Now you twist my example to the exact opposite of what you said. I did not say that it doesn't matter how much one worked. I only put it into relation to other reasons of merit.

Oh I see. So IQ still scores some points for merit. So if one son is completely lazy, but his IQ is high enough, he can still outscore a comparatively diligent son. Sorry that still would make you a complete jerk.

So you think almost every thinker in antiquity was a jerk. They praised a superior for his power, his glory, splendor, his great deeds, etc.

Again, it's not a question of whether they praised him. We talked about this: a man praises his wife for miscellaneous reasons.

It's a question of whether they they think he really merits that praise. Yes, they are jerks if they think that a person lucky to be born with good DNA merits praise.

BTW, praising inferiors was a somewhat different matter, you can't praise an inferior because he is superior to you This makes your father-son example meaningless to our discussion.

I didn't get you.

… and when you look why God is praised: for His power, His glory, and for his great works.

See above.

And in the NT for His readiness to die in a shameful way in order to give us the glory He gave up.

This is silly isn't it? If it were effortless, it wouldn't merit praise. There had to be suffering of some kind, at least emotional.

Ph 2:2-11 is all about glory and no mention of suffering at all. It was this part of the Gospel that made humbleness from a despised attitude into a Christian virtue.

See above.

The only skill that God (or to be precise: Jesus) acquired was obedience (Hbr 5:8). or can you show me any Bible verse about amnother skill God had to acquire?

He merits praise only for those skills he had to acquire through labor/suffering. I believe that God is worth/meritorious praise for all His skills. Therefore, out of consistency, I believe He had to acquire them all.

So that someone is a »jerk« when he does not subscribe to your definition of "worthy to be praised". It is a basic assumption, which influences your understanding of Scripture. You assume what you want to prove.

As mentioned, every Christian I've met approves of a sermon now and then. This is all based on my definition of merit.

Now you are a jerk in my eyes. God does not change, He may change the ways He deals with us mortals, but there is no Change within God, James 1:13.

That's what I said. He does not change. Irreversibly holy.

You obviously hold to the traditional assumption that there was never a time when God changed. It's a problematical one.

 

[JAL]

Oh no, an evangelistic preaching may stress the grace of God. The inner core of the Gospel does not speak of an effort we have to make, since this would mean that "grace would no longer be grace" (Rm 11:6). Even the efforts we as Christian should do are just the performance of good works created by God for us (Eph 2:10).

Oh no, get real. What the sermons say is - and even Paul said this - "In light of the grace undeservedly bestowed upon you, show Him your gratitude by putting forth your best efforts for His kingdom."

The message is never, "Just go out and be as lazy as you want since it's all about grace."

Your posts do nothing to dissuade me from what I said at the start. Your true values align with mine much as you hate to admit it.