dunno about the exact Cathodox doctrine on this; but God clearly told Adam and Eve to multiply IN Paradise.
Also they, you know, sinned while they were IN Paradise. Not possible if they were regenerate beings.
The Garden was merely the "first Paradise" and wasn't somehow identical in holiness to "Paradise of Paradise" or, Heaven, God's Throne.
But it was simply an inevitability. Free Will + Flesh = sin.
Why make like this? It pleases God that man overcomes the Flesh to then believe on Him.
All things are "made for his good pleasure"
To live on earth is probation.
So God ordered his greatest creation to be caused by a far less good? It seems more probable to me that he based his creation around Jesus Christ (and Mary in the same decree) and then predestined the rest of the world downward
The Incarnation is for man and not man for the Incarnation.
God, as both infinitely powerful and infinitely humble, could care less about holier than thou sophistry
You could argue that obviously God (Christ) both made man, and desires man to be saved, and therefore the Incarnation was foreordained, which is true; but this does not mean that God made man to fall so that the Incarnation would come to pass.
Jesus himself prays the Father: >Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
In reference to the crucifixion, said crucifixion being an end purpose of the Incarnation >Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
I think this takes for granted the Thomistic position, that he came principally to die and redeem man of his sins, but I don't think the incarnation and thus the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the immaculate heart of Blessed Virgin were left up to chance, and i think it's principle reason was God's love that he would come down to something he created, hence it would have happened even if Adam didn't sin (Fransiscan Thesis). I believe this is what the Blessed Apostle meant by, >Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy
2 weeks ago
Solitaire
My interpretation requires less assumptions, no?
Everything is foreordained of God, but this does not always imply God's "preference" if you will.
The logic behind your argument could easily justify saying that God is behind all the evil in the world.
All things were and are created by him in my* interpretation, yet he also takes into account the free will of man.
How can you reconcile your interpretation to the many verses such as: >And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. >And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
God is the Architect of the Universe, but he is not joining every piece by hand, if you understand what I'm saying.
Everything ultimately proceeds* according to his will, but not everything that happens must be* his will.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well God doesn't need time to make decisions, he does work by a logical series in his decisions >incarnation is the greatest possible good >mary >create the world for it >predestine a hierarchy of beings to serve him and for him to love, with some getting grace to go above and some being passively left >adam sins, higher up will be saved lower will not be
2 weeks ago
Solitaire
>incarnation is the greatest possible good
this isn't possible if Adam doesn't sin.
therefore, you imply that Adam's sin was a net positive. Which further implies that God authors evil.
God becoming man to take on the sins of man isn't a thing if man didn't sin. God is not arbitrary.
you are starting at a completely unbiblical point and then trying to make the Bible fit.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>this isn't possible if Adam doesn't sin.
so God can't become man if Adam doesn't sin? how does that make sense? >God becoming man to take on the sins of man isn't a thing if man didn't sin
If Adam didn't sin of course he wouldn't have died for our sins. But the Fransiscan Thesis says that wasn't the principle reason for the incarnation, but that it is an expression of God's love and the greatest creation (the greatest possible good going in the creation)
2 weeks ago
Solitaire
>so God can't become man if Adam doesn't sin? how does that make sense?
No... I mean that it is impossible for the Incarnation to be the greatest possible good if Adam (man) didn't sin
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Well I don't think there is a better thing that can happen in creation than the best thing being in it
2 weeks ago
Solitaire
I think that that thesis is merely pious sophistry. You don't need to praise God more than the Bible does. In doing so, you see how you inadvertently make God the author of evil.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
in fact, it does the opposite by removing from sin one of, in your estimation, it's good effects. The "felix culpa" attitude does much more to do what you're saying than the Fransiscan or Scotistic position.
2 weeks ago
Solitaire
>it does the opposite by removing from sin one of, in your estimation, it's good effects.
The Incarnation undid man's sin. Since sin is infinitely evil; the Incarnation is infinitely good since it undoes infinite sin. It undoes* man's sin.
It's not a "positive effect" but a "reconciliation" as the Bible calls it.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
God explicitly calls himself the creator of all good and all evil
2 weeks ago
Solitaire
His evil is not moral evil.
When he does evil to people, they deserve it.
I say "evil" in a modern English colloquial sense, whereas the Bible means "evil" as in "bad thing happening"
That is to say, God is never the author of moral wrong. God blew up Sodom and Gomorrha, he did "evil" to them but it wasn't "wrong"
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
Where? Don't quote that KJV Isa verse
2 weeks ago
Solitaire
It's fine when you realize the different definitions of "evil"
even the "Problem of Evil" uses the old definition of evil as in >bad thing happening
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
>even the "Problem of Evil" uses the old definition of evil as in
This is incorrect. While this is true of the common form found amongst most unbelievers, such arguments as "go into a children's oncology ward and ask yourself if there's a God" are nothing more than irrational appeals to emotion. The actual proper "problem of evil" as philosophers have used to attack the Christian faith for millennia is an attempt to do an internal critique on Christian doctrine and allege a contradiction between divine omnipotence and the existence of moral evil.
2 weeks ago
Anonymous
I'd just say problem of evil != problem of suffering but problem of evil is generally a colloquial term for the problem of suffering
>“This is that great and hidden mystery. This is the blessed end for which all things were created. This is the divine purpose foreknown before the beginning of creation… Really, it was for the sake of Christ, that is the mystery of Christ, that all the ages and all the things of all the ages themselves received the beginning and end of existence in Christ.” >St. Maximus, Ad Thalassium, q.60; PG 90, 620-621.
Flesh is a term in reference to "natural sin"
Not to go into detail, but we know little about the exact "nature" of angels, but clearly they are beings whose nature may lead them to sin, similar to humans.
"Flesh" is simply the common biblical shorthand for man's sinful nature; even if angels also possess a nature capable of sin.
God's nature is not sinful.
Godness cancelled it out.
The only way to be human and not sin your entire life is to be God.
And let me further clarify; man does not have a sinful "essence" if you will, but a sinful nature; a proclivity to sin due to what he is, but neither a compulsion to sin* nor an inherent sinful "essence."
Jesus taking on human flesh is no sin at all. Neither were fleshy Adam and Eve in some "state of sin"... UNTIL they actually sinned of their own free will* (even then, the state is more of a residue* of their prior sins) >For ALL HAVE SINNED
is why man is condemned. Not because man = bad automatically.
we would be in Eden still;
there's nothing barring Christ from becoming incarnate if His lineage came forth in the Garden.
that said, Christ was made incarnate to save humanity from sin, to reunite us to God.
we could just as well be perfectly okay, still united, and be with Him in Eden, as Adam and Eve did.
it's a direct translation of the word 'Logos'.
Go look into that instead. As said before, greek is much more precise, and quite a great language for theological discussion.
It means "words" sure. But it also means something like >now here's a word from our sponsor
It's speech; it's words; it's a thesis; it's the completeness of speech. Everything you say is "your word" as in >I'll keep my word
According to your own myths there would be no humanity
dunno about the exact Cathodox doctrine on this; but God clearly told Adam and Eve to multiply IN Paradise.
Also they, you know, sinned while they were IN Paradise. Not possible if they were regenerate beings.
The Garden was merely the "first Paradise" and wasn't somehow identical in holiness to "Paradise of Paradise" or, Heaven, God's Throne.
Very obvious "no"
But it was simply an inevitability. Free Will + Flesh = sin.
Why make like this? It pleases God that man overcomes the Flesh to then believe on Him.
All things are "made for his good pleasure"
To live on earth is probation.
So God ordered his greatest creation to be caused by a far less good? It seems more probable to me that he based his creation around Jesus Christ (and Mary in the same decree) and then predestined the rest of the world downward
>So God ordered his greatest creation to be caused by a far less good?
What do you mean? If you're alluding that Christ is created you are 100% wrong.
I meant the incarnation, hence my question
>would the Word have become Incarnate
The Incarnation is for man and not man for the Incarnation.
God, as both infinitely powerful and infinitely humble, could care less about holier than thou sophistry
You could argue that obviously God (Christ) both made man, and desires man to be saved, and therefore the Incarnation was foreordained, which is true; but this does not mean that God made man to fall so that the Incarnation would come to pass.
Jesus himself prays the Father:
>Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
In reference to the crucifixion, said crucifixion being an end purpose of the Incarnation
>Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
I think this takes for granted the Thomistic position, that he came principally to die and redeem man of his sins, but I don't think the incarnation and thus the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the immaculate heart of Blessed Virgin were left up to chance, and i think it's principle reason was God's love that he would come down to something he created, hence it would have happened even if Adam didn't sin (Fransiscan Thesis). I believe this is what the Blessed Apostle meant by,
>Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy
My interpretation requires less assumptions, no?
Everything is foreordained of God, but this does not always imply God's "preference" if you will.
The logic behind your argument could easily justify saying that God is behind all the evil in the world.
All things were and are created by him in my* interpretation, yet he also takes into account the free will of man.
How can you reconcile your interpretation to the many verses such as:
>And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
>And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
God is the Architect of the Universe, but he is not joining every piece by hand, if you understand what I'm saying.
Everything ultimately proceeds* according to his will, but not everything that happens must be* his will.
Well God doesn't need time to make decisions, he does work by a logical series in his decisions
>incarnation is the greatest possible good
>mary
>create the world for it
>predestine a hierarchy of beings to serve him and for him to love, with some getting grace to go above and some being passively left
>adam sins, higher up will be saved lower will not be
>incarnation is the greatest possible good
this isn't possible if Adam doesn't sin.
therefore, you imply that Adam's sin was a net positive. Which further implies that God authors evil.
God becoming man to take on the sins of man isn't a thing if man didn't sin. God is not arbitrary.
you are starting at a completely unbiblical point and then trying to make the Bible fit.
>this isn't possible if Adam doesn't sin.
so God can't become man if Adam doesn't sin? how does that make sense?
>God becoming man to take on the sins of man isn't a thing if man didn't sin
If Adam didn't sin of course he wouldn't have died for our sins. But the Fransiscan Thesis says that wasn't the principle reason for the incarnation, but that it is an expression of God's love and the greatest creation (the greatest possible good going in the creation)
>so God can't become man if Adam doesn't sin? how does that make sense?
No... I mean that it is impossible for the Incarnation to be the greatest possible good if Adam (man) didn't sin
Well I don't think there is a better thing that can happen in creation than the best thing being in it
I think that that thesis is merely pious sophistry. You don't need to praise God more than the Bible does. In doing so, you see how you inadvertently make God the author of evil.
in fact, it does the opposite by removing from sin one of, in your estimation, it's good effects. The "felix culpa" attitude does much more to do what you're saying than the Fransiscan or Scotistic position.
>it does the opposite by removing from sin one of, in your estimation, it's good effects.
The Incarnation undid man's sin. Since sin is infinitely evil; the Incarnation is infinitely good since it undoes infinite sin. It undoes* man's sin.
It's not a "positive effect" but a "reconciliation" as the Bible calls it.
God explicitly calls himself the creator of all good and all evil
His evil is not moral evil.
When he does evil to people, they deserve it.
I say "evil" in a modern English colloquial sense, whereas the Bible means "evil" as in "bad thing happening"
That is to say, God is never the author of moral wrong. God blew up Sodom and Gomorrha, he did "evil" to them but it wasn't "wrong"
Where? Don't quote that KJV Isa verse
It's fine when you realize the different definitions of "evil"
even the "Problem of Evil" uses the old definition of evil as in
>bad thing happening
>even the "Problem of Evil" uses the old definition of evil as in
This is incorrect. While this is true of the common form found amongst most unbelievers, such arguments as "go into a children's oncology ward and ask yourself if there's a God" are nothing more than irrational appeals to emotion. The actual proper "problem of evil" as philosophers have used to attack the Christian faith for millennia is an attempt to do an internal critique on Christian doctrine and allege a contradiction between divine omnipotence and the existence of moral evil.
I'd just say problem of evil != problem of suffering but problem of evil is generally a colloquial term for the problem of suffering
>“This is that great and hidden mystery. This is the blessed end for which all things were created. This is the divine purpose foreknown before the beginning of creation… Really, it was for the sake of Christ, that is the mystery of Christ, that all the ages and all the things of all the ages themselves received the beginning and end of existence in Christ.”
>St. Maximus, Ad Thalassium, q.60; PG 90, 620-621.
It's unfortunate that when posed with a theological question, so many Christians first response is to consult their own mind instead of God's worse.
Of course, most Christians simply can't do theology by going to the bible because when you do that, you become a Calvinist.
God's word*
If freewill + flesh = sin then why did the Angels sin?
Why didn’t Jesus sin if he was an ordinary human like everyone else?
Flesh is a term in reference to "natural sin"
Not to go into detail, but we know little about the exact "nature" of angels, but clearly they are beings whose nature may lead them to sin, similar to humans.
"Flesh" is simply the common biblical shorthand for man's sinful nature; even if angels also possess a nature capable of sin.
God's nature is not sinful.
So why didn’t Jesus have sinful nature?
Godness cancelled it out.
The only way to be human and not sin your entire life is to be God.
Why would God rig humanity from the start then?
Makes him more glorious.
Especially when we are rid of our sinful flesh.
Rising in estate is glorious. Granting us glory gives glory to him.
And let me further clarify; man does not have a sinful "essence" if you will, but a sinful nature; a proclivity to sin due to what he is, but neither a compulsion to sin* nor an inherent sinful "essence."
Jesus taking on human flesh is no sin at all. Neither were fleshy Adam and Eve in some "state of sin"... UNTIL they actually sinned of their own free will* (even then, the state is more of a residue* of their prior sins)
>For ALL HAVE SINNED
is why man is condemned. Not because man = bad automatically.
No.
He was announced in Gen 3:15 only as a solution to the fall so no
we would be in Eden still;
there's nothing barring Christ from becoming incarnate if His lineage came forth in the Garden.
that said, Christ was made incarnate to save humanity from sin, to reunite us to God.
we could just as well be perfectly okay, still united, and be with Him in Eden, as Adam and Eve did.
why do people call it the word
does it mean something other than words
it's a direct translation of the word 'Logos'.
Go look into that instead. As said before, greek is much more precise, and quite a great language for theological discussion.
It means "words" sure. But it also means something like
>now here's a word from our sponsor
It's speech; it's words; it's a thesis; it's the completeness of speech. Everything you say is "your word" as in
>I'll keep my word
It's the word St. John uses for the preincarnation Christ, so I use it here for the same purpose
Jhn 1, Memra
i think he'll get better results searching for the greek 'Logos'.
haven't seen many talk about it in hebrew.