Religion, Politics and Conflicts

[Adam]

::I read in a previous post that you don't consider the New Testament as Scripture, so obviously we're going to have some differences of opinion based purely on what we consider to be authoritative.

I consider the New Testament to be an authority, but I won't call an apple an orange. To me, part of recognizing the authority of the New Testament is acknowledging that it does not claim for itself the title of Scripture.

::But I think your giving two extreme soteriological views of which a biblical doctrine of man's sinful nature comes down somewhere in the middle. Being unworthy of God's gift of salvation does not make us worthless. God's image is still in us and causes us to be beloved, but that does not make us deserving of salvation.

I don't think there is a middle ground to be walked, so much as a contradiction to be danced around. Either we are beloved, worth saving, or we are not, not worth saving. If we say that God loves us but does not think we are worth saving, we have not found a middle position, we have just violated the definition of love.

::I don't think we can judge God's actions by human standards. God's grace upon the undeserving may seem arrogant and selfish from a purely human viewpoint, but if God is truly holy, and if we are not, then grace isn't arrogant, it is necessary for Him to show us charity. And if our acts in imitation of God are done to give Him glory, than there is no room for arrogance or selfishness on our parts. If they are not done to give Him glory, then there can be arrogance and selfishness, but there is only temporal reward as well.

Sorry, I was unclear; I find the prospect of imitating God's grace to be arrogant on our behalf. We can imitate God's justice, but not His grace. This is one area where I consider modern Christians to be in some sense blaspheming. The good we do for others is not grace, it is justice; we can barely manage to give people what they deserve.

God's grace is what allows us to be just.

::I'm not understanding you. The first statement seems to say that man deserves good, but the second seems to say man deserves punishment.

Children are punished because they are loved. When you are dealing with the author of life, even death is a correction, not an end.

::So am I. But I don't think being "comfortable" is always the way I'm supposed to feel when confronted by the reality of who God is. Discomfort is oft times an impetus to action. My discomfort at having Jesus making amends for my sake causes me to want to give my life for Him. That devotion is not for the sake of reward, but for the sake of love and justice.

Ultimately, did Jesus die to save me, or to please the Father? Or perhaps what pleases the Father is to have His children saved. But of course the Father wants willing servants who share His vision, not slaves who do the work but do not understand (know) their master's business. God wants me to love others, not because He asks me to, but because He teaches me to see that they are worthy of love.

Adam

[JRosemary]

[Adam]

[Guest]

[Adam]

::Maybe I wasn't clear. Is man worth saving? Yes. Is the reason for that worth due to divine image in man? Probably. Is man worth saving because of his actions? No. There's nothing there that is in disagreement with the fallen nature of man.

I'm confused. I never suggested man is worth saving because of his actions. He is worth saving because of his divine nature. That is in disagreement with the fallen nature of man; obviously, he either retains his divine nature or has acquired a fallen nature. It can't be both.

::God is holy, and compared to God's holiness, our righteous is of the filthy rag variety, so imitating God's grace is not so much arrogant as foolish to me. That is not to say we cannot show grace. Imitating God's actions of unmerited favor does not have to imply superiority. In fact, if it's not done with humility, it ceases to glorify God.

Again, I'm confused. My very point is that we cannot show grace. We are not capable of actions of unmerited favor; because of their divine nature, people merit favor, at least whatever meager favors we can preform. There is no such thing as grace from a person; our hope is to act justly.

::I think God wants us to see the loveliness in everyone as well. I'm trying to do that, but sometimes I fail. But ultimately, it is not necessary for me to know the reason why God wants me to love others. His desire is enough for me to act. The reasons why come as I grow closer to Him.

Our understanding of the reason is more important than the actions. The activity is how we learn the lesson.

Put another way, the spirit becomes willing before the flesh becomes strong. We understand the reason BEFORE we can become capable of the action. It is that capability which comes slowly as we grow closer to Him. In my estimation, you have it backward.

Adam

[Guest]

[Adam]

::Yeah, I can see how divine nature would be hard to reconcile with fallen nature. But then again, divine nature doesn't seem to describe what's in my heart either. Man having a divine nature seems to be in disagreement with New Testament teaching, that's why I'm saying that being created in the image of God is what makes us worth saving. I have no problems reconciling being created in God's image and yet still having a fallen nature. If I have a divine nature, what would I need saving for anyway?

What does it mean to be created in the image of God, if not that you have a divine nature?

Of course, the issue of nature is a philosophical construct, and ultimately I don't believe it. I understand "in the image" to mean this: Christ is the image of God. Paul says that through our faith we are "in Christ." Being made in the image means being made "in Christ." This is to say, "in the image" is not a type, it is a place, or state, or status. We are the body of Christ, He is our head. We are a part of the Second Person.

It is simple. We belong to the family. We are the prodigal children. Salvation is not grace, it is our birthright. The very birth, that was grace.

::I suppose if you believe men are all divine, then grace from each other is impossible. But I would think grace from God would be impossible as well. But there are a lot of times that I behave like an ass. If there's a divine nature in me, it's buried deep down enough to be more theoretical than practical. The fact that my wife loves me despite my donkey-like behavior still seems like grace to me.

The ones who love us always know us better than we know ourselves. They are not fooled by our mistakes the way we are.

::Ditto. Having to wait until I understand why someone is loveable before can act lovingly to them seems backward to me. I have found that loving actions often change my heart towards someone and show the loveliness within them.

There is no waiting for understanding. It is a simple thought; either we begin our loves together with the assumption that we are worth it, or we poison our love from the very beginning by imagining that it is our grace, and not their worth, that is the root of love.

::BTW, are there any churches that teach this doctrine of the divine nature and the absence of grace among men? I thought I was familiar with most teachings, but this one is fairly new to me.

The idea that man does not have a fallen nature but a divine nature that is "covered up" is according to Athanasius and is preserved in the Orthodox Church. The idea that we can act justly but not gracefully is my particular expression of a sentiment that I think is subconsciously understood in Orthodoxy but is consciously opposed by the concept of original sin; that is, regardless of doctrines or confessions, it seems a common understanding in Protestant and Catholic Christianity, or at the very least American Christianity, that Christian charity is an activity of grace, undeserved love passing from God through us to the undeserving. I think that love is passive, belovedness as a quality of God that He created in the deserving and which is perceived by those who respond, justly, with love.

[AllanS]

[AllanS]

[moordarjeeling]

[Guest]

[Adam]

::We have thought, intelligence, humor, free will, emotions and (originally) holiness. Though our nature is fallen and that holiness is lost, the other aspects of God's image still exist within us...
...I'm confused by this. The divine nature isn't a matter of your faith then? Is it just a philosphical exercise?

There is nothing Scriptural or Apostolic about the term "nature" specifically; it is a constructed concept that proves useful, but you can't cut me in half and find the nature. When discussing spiritual things, I think it is well to keep in mind that the ideas that we use for our own understanding and communication are not necessarily accurate representations of God's reality.

Either we are lost children of God who need to be found, or we are strangers that need to be adopted. The son who leaves home does not cease to become a son. Our nature, that is, our constructed concept for an essential characteristic of our existence, is to be a child of God; all of creation waits for us to take our rightful place. Our intelligence, humor, will, emotions, these are all characteristics, attributes, but our essential being, our very identity, remains always children of God.

::Are you saying here that we are all the same as Christ? Different in mission perhaps, but the same in divinity and physicality?

My arm is alive as my head is, is the same body as my head, but it is no fair cutting off my arm and then suggesting that it's lifelessness is proof that it is different or distinct.

We are in Christ through faith; when He died, we died, as He was resurrected, so we shall be resurrected. His suffering was ours, and His forgiveness is ours. We relate to the Father and to the Spirit by being a part of the Son; He is our conduit to the Godhead; through Him we shall participate in the Trinity.

We are the same as Christ in the way that flame and wood are both part of the fire, though apart from flame the wood is nothing.

::How can we be prodigals if we have the divine nature? For what reason is salvation necessary if we are already divine?

How can we be prodigals if we do not have the divine nature? Someone else's dog is not my lost sheep. We are children who have lost their way home. We don't cease to be children because we are lost, and if we did cease to be children we would have no home to miss.

::So if I love my wife, but believe her to have a sinful nature, I'm actually poisoning our love? Don't get me wrong. I know she's worthy of love. Every person is. I just think you're misunderstanding what a sinful nature is if you think that believing it makes me unable to see the worth of individuals. Perhaps rather than "original sin" you're thinking more of the Calvinistic doctrine of the total depravity of man.

In some sense, yes, you are poisoning yourself. Or else you aren't taking the logical or rhetorical consequences of the doctrine of original sin seriously. If to you she is worthy of love, not in the sense that you believe that love ought to be graceful, or that God commands it, or that everyone has potential that deserves a chance, but rather that you believe she is worthy of love such that you believe it would be unjust, wicked, not to love her, then you admirably sidestep the consequences to the doctrine of original sin.

The Father sacrificing the Son for our sake was not grace, it was justice. That is what it means to say in Him the righteousness of God was revealed. If the Father had not saved us, it would be an injustice.

God's graceful act is not saving His children; it is what His children deserve, it is what their belovedness demands. God's graceful act was making us His children in the first place; His grace is what created the beloved.

Adam

[Adam]

[JRosemary]

[JRosemary]