Unless you are a Pelagian; virtually all Christians believe that humans need the aid of God’s grace for salvation. That being said, through the course of history and even today, there are different views as to how God’s grace works within a human to bring that person to the fullness of God’s salvation. Sometimes this process of bringing about the fullness of salvation is termed spiritual healing.
As we all know, there are times when physical healing comes about strictly from the healing powers within the human body. I’ve just recently struggled through a bout with the flu and a head cold. While I used over-the-counter decongestants, I didn’t have to go to the doctor to have him prescribe an antibiotic. A doctor’s prescription, though, is often needed to aid the curative powers of the body. The medicine assists the human body and represents a simultaneous cure coming from both inside and outside the person. On the other hand, it never happens that a person is cured entirely from an outside source. Medical procedures and medicines aid the human body.
As for spiritual healing, it can never be the case that a person is cured simply from within themselves. Humans cannot deliver themselves without the supernatural assistance of God—by grace. Yet, spiritual healing must also engage the internal powers of the individual. The reason this is true is that the main thing that has to be healed is man’s mind. In order for one’s mind to be healed the human will must be involved.
The thing that is most damaged by sin is the mind. The temptations and impact of sin draw a man’s mind away from God toward all manner of other things. This disordering of man’s mind must be cured. Additionally, sin tends to weaken human resolve in the will so that by habitual sin, a person is prone to further sinning and becomes resistant to doing God’s will.
Consequently, the first thing that God must do through His grace is reorder the human mind toward Himself. God does this by nothing less than His love. God’s love demonstrated in the humiliating and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ on the cross causes the human mind and will to be melted in humble contrition. It is this contrition that is the inner cure for man’s mind and comes from man’s free will. However, the enabling ability to humble oneself before God actually comes from God’s grace demonstrated on the cross and infused by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, spiritual healing—which cannot be simply an inward action of man—comes about from both God’s grace and man’s willful contrition.
Romans 5: 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Luke 15:20-24 “And he arose and came to his father. But when he was still a great way off, his father saw him and had compassion, and ran and fell on his neck and kissed him. 21 And the son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and in your sight, and am no longer worthy to be called your son.’ 22 “But the father said to his servants, ‘Bring out the best robe and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand and sandals on his feet. 23 And bring the fatted calf here and kill it, and let us eat and be merry; 24 for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.
|
I wish I had read this before our Young Adults Class tonight. We are talking about the 16 fundamental truths of the A/G and tonight we covered Salvation.
This would have made an interesting discussion point. We did deal with a lot though and ended up running late as it was, so I guess it is best we stuck to the points I had already planned on raising.
Anyways, I like the way you show how our will is involved. I've got to get to bed, but I will post some of the discussion we had on the subject as it relates to this tomorrow if I get the chance.
I think this is going to be an interesting post to follow some comments on.
I am going to be teaching about Charles Finney next week at my Religion in Amercia class. Finney is probably America's most famous Pelagian theologian. Yet, his lectures on Revival are still widely read. He was an astute psychologist (even though the word was not invented until long after his death).
I look forward to seeing how this topic is developed in the coming week.
ron
Man and woman must actualize upon the theoretical you offer up in this topic. Learning line upon line and precept upon precept and actualizing that which is learned brings spiritual healing and a mind that is reordered (formerly known as "born again").
I tend to agree with your comments of applying what is said here in our lives so that we can move from the theoretical to the actual. This, of course, is true of any discussion here. We certainly need to apply it to our lives.
Thom, et al.
In our discussion yesterday we dealt with some hard questions ... well hard for an introduction to basic beliefs. Two of the questions I posed were, "Why could one man damn us all, but it take more than a man to save us all?" and "Why did God create us knowing of the failure and what it would cost Him to restore the relationship of Man to Him?"
The first question is actually one we discussed last week under the heading of "The fall of man," and with the question "is it fair for the sin of one man to damn us all?" We established, of course, that it is really our sin that brings judgment on us and not the sin of Adam. Adam is just the first and so ushered in a life of toil and death. Our sins, though, are what bring damnation from second death. One of the asides that was brought up through this discussion was Enoch and Elijah who appear to have been spared death and so appear to have lived blameless lives. Why couldn't they have died for us as a blameless sacrifice? I would suggest that the sacrifice for the sins of multitudes requires the death of an infinite God with infinite worth as opposed to a finite, but good, man with finite worth.
The second question garnered some very interesting and well thought out responses. Most revolved around this idea that man is a kind of experiment or test to prove to Satan that people with freewill can still choose God and righteousness when the odds are stacked against them.
Now, I don't believe this because it establishes that God is capricious to the point of creating billions of lives just to prove a point to one that stands in judgment already, but it shows that they have been engaged in thought on the subject already.
I steered the conversation into a presentation of some Thomistic Theology which was discussed here previously. Specifically that God doesn't need us because He is completely self sufficient, but because of God's goodness He creates good things. To create "very good" things God gives us freewill and also established a plan of salvation to fulfill all of our needs, even to the point of infinitely great cost to Him by death because He is good.
Anyways, that is a part of what we talked about last night. I think it is great to see them wrestle with the questions I pose for them. In fact, I like that they are thinking this through so much that I tend to keep throwing questions out until my wife reminds me that it is almost 10pm and some people have to wake up in the morning.
I think we could have kept the conversation going until this morning if she wasn't around to keep me in line.
This entire statement implies that works (obedience) is necessary for spiritual healing. This is an ancient heresy. We are not saved by our own efforts by "being good" or "obedience". The doctrine of grace alone is a distinctly Christian doctrine. Most religions require man to reach up to God by living right, doing right, thinking right. In Christianity, man is powerless to achieve this on his own and it is only by God, reaching to man by grace that we can find salvation. The desire to do right and live obediently to God's will is a product of spiritual healing. It is the result, not the cause.
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast." Ephesians 2:8-10
All he did was humbly confess and his father did the rest, welcoming him, clothing and feeding him and mostly, simply accepting him in his present lowly condition. He received spiritual healing by grace and not because he could or did anything to earn it.
In our discussion yesterday we dealt with some hard questions ... well hard for an introduction to basic beliefs. Two of the questions I posed were, "Why could one man damn us all, but it take more than a man to save us all?" and "Why did God create us knowing of the failure and what it would cost Him to restore the relationship of Man to Him?"
The first question is actually one we discussed last week under the heading of "The fall of man," and with the question "is it fair for the sin of one man to damn us all?" We established, of course, that it is really our sin that brings judgment on us and not the sin of Adam.
●Man-o-man what great questions for a study group, Puri! It is a youth group isn’t it? Whether is it a youth group or adults I want to commend you for the way you are leading them to dig into these challenging issues. As you may know, I have been really concerned with the drop-out rate of Christian students when they graduate from their high school groups--it ranges between 75% to 90% of our Christian youth. The Southern Baptists have done a lot of research to see why this is happening and what can be done to reverse this drop-out rate. The leading problem is that kids know a lot about the Bible but they don’t know how to translate that into answering hard questions posed by secularism (often coming from college professors and other students). Second to this, they discovered that those students that have been engaged in activities that force them to share and defend their faith tend to be much better equipped to deal with challenges and to stay connected to a church. It seems that what evangelical churches have been doing is cloistering and protecting students from the “world” and this has backfired. Again, I commend you for engaging their minds in serious discussion.
●By the way, a couple of things that we have done may be of interest. We have changed the focus of our student mission trips. We no longer simply send kids to Mexico or other places to do service projects. We do have them do service but we also have them involved in “street” evangelism. In order to prepare them for this we do intensive training and even bring in the Stand to Reason organization to supplement this training. For instance, right now we have our high school ministry on a mission trip to San Francisco working on projects and sharing their faith. Our college ministry is in Utah doing the same thing. The side benefit to this is that our students have become less fearful about sharing their faith locally.
This entire statement implies that works (obedience) is necessary for spiritual healing. This is an ancient heresy. We are not saved by our own efforts by "being good" or "obedience". The doctrine of grace alone is a distinctly Christian doctrine. Most religions require man to reach up to God by living right, doing right, thinking right. In Christianity, man is powerless to achieve this on his own and it is only by God, reaching to man by grace that we can find salvation. The desire to do right and live obediently to God's will is a product of spiritual healing. It is the result, not the cause.
●Good stuff, Timbo. By the way, part of the reason I wrote this particular post is that I’ve recently listened to a couple of lectures about Abelard, the brilliant but “different” medieval theologian. He got into a huge brouhaha with St. Bernard of Clairvaux over the atonement. Bernard believed that Abelard was propagating a view of the atonement that did not teach that Christ’s death on the cross affected a true change in man’s status before God. Bernard believed that Abelard was discrediting the objective aspects of the atonement and teaching a purely subjective view of it. I don’t believe this is the case; however, because of these lectures I have a greater appreciation for the subjective power of Christ’s atonement as that which woos us to God by a display of sacrificial love demonstrated on the cross. I, of course, adhere to the penial substitution by Christ which objectively deals with God’s wrath against sin; however, in the story of the Prodigal Son, it is the compassionate love of the father that melts the son’s heart into humble contrition. In short, the cross has both objective and subjective aspects. This Easter I am enthralled with the subjective power of the cross to humble us.
Soon I will be teaching the High Priests from the "Teachings from the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith" Manual Chapter 7 entitled -Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost - it being obedience that symbolically links to "the aid of God's grace for salvation". For the Christian it can be said that the spiritual healing you refer to is brought about through obedience after the acceptance of grace, even experimenting on the Word.
●You do present the proper order for things as believed by Christians. Christians believe that grace precedes obedience. However, perhaps a more accurate way to put it would be that God’s grace humbles the sinner which leads to repentance and faith. True faith is demonstrated in good works (“faith working in love” as Paul puts it). Grace, however, is given by God for all these things. As Paul said to the Corinthians, “What do you have that you have not received?”
As you know, Abelard's theory of the atonement is called, in theology, 'the moral influence theory.'
Here is John Stott's evaluation of Abelard's theory:
(After discussing two lesser points, Stott comments) "Thirdly, the moral influence theory has a fatal flaw in its own central emphasis. Its focus is on the love of Christ, which both shines from the cross and elicits our responsive love. On these two truths we desire to lay an equal stress. We to know that it is because Christ loved us that he gave himself for us. We too have found that his love awakens ours. In John's words, 'we love because he first loved us' (I Jn. 4:19). We agree with Denney when he wrote: 'I do not hesitate to say that the send of debt to Christ is the most profound and pervasive of all emotions in the New Testament.' So far then we are agreed. The cross is the epitome of Christ's love and inspiration of ours. But the question we desire to press is this: just HOW (author's emphasis) does the cross display and demonstrate Christ's love? What is there in the cross which reveals love? True love is purposive in its self-giving; it does not make random or reckless gestures. It you were to jump off the end of a pier, and drown, or dash into a burning building and be burnt to death, and if your self-sacrifice had no saving purpose, you would convince me of your folly, not of your love. But if I were myself drowning in the sea, or trapped in a burning building, and it was in attempting to rescue me that you lost your life, then I would indeed see love not folly in your action. Just so the death of Jesus on the cross cannot be seen as a demonstration of love in itself, but only if he gave his life in order to rescue ours. His death must be seen to have had an objective, before it can have an appeal. Paul and John saw love in the cross because they understood it respectively as a death for sinners (Rom. 5:8) and as a propitiation for sins (I Jn. 4:10). That is to say, the cross can be seen as a proof of God's love only when it is at the same time seen as a proof of his justice. Hence, the need to keep these two demonstrations together in our minds, as Berkouwer has insisted: 'In the cross of Christ God's justice and love are SIMULTANEOUSLY (author's emphasis) revealed, so that we can speak of his love only in connection with the reality of the cross.' Again, 'God's graciousness and justice are revealed only in the real substitution, the radical sacrifice, in the reversing of the roles.'"
Further Stott says,
"We should not , therefore, allow Anselm and Abelard to occupy opposite poles. In general terms, Anselm was right to understand the cross as a satisfaction for sin, but he should have laid more emphasis on God's love. Abelard was right to see the cross as a manifestation of love, but wrong to deny what Anselm affirmed. Anselm and Abelard need each other's positive witness, the one to God's justice and the other to his love. For it was precisely in making a just satisfaction for sin that the manifestation of love took place."
John Stott, The Cross of Christ, 220-221.
Thom, sounds like the issue is two things: balance and more important making sure our starting point is correct.
This is the Young Adults class so the target age group is 18-25. I am concerned about the falling away from high school grads and we are working on a stronger discipleship program including mentor relationships. This is a bit of a long range goal with the Young Adults class that we started just over a week ago being the second step in the process.
Interestingly the 3rd step is getting started before I thought we would be able to based on interest in learning the fundamental truths by the older adults. This will give us a spring board to start the discipleship classes that I had discussed with the pastor before being brought on board. It is exciting to see the elements for these steps being put into place without feeling like I have to drum up interest.
Once the second phase of the discipleship class is underway we will begin laying some foundation in the youth for developing mentor relationships. The third phase of the discipleship class in the adults is to help facilitate mentor relationships so they can begin to use all that they have learned.
On a related note, we are also starting communion in the youth service, which meets tonight. This has never been done before and I've noticed the Youth in Sunday services don't seem to understand the importance of communion based on their actions when we do have communion. To help with the instruction on that we are having a Seder tonight with communion as part of the 3rd cup and afikomen. I hope they not only learn the heritage of communion, but experience God in a very real way tonight so that it changes their attitude towards communion in the future.
I would appreciate the prayers of those who read and write here for the youth as they experience the story of passover and communion together tonight.
I should also mention that we are revamping the outreach side of the youth as well. While I still want to encourage the AIM trips, which we are trying to go to White River AZ this year to an Apache Indian reservation as a pre-trip to a Northern CA trip next year to 3 Indian reservations, I am also pushing for other outreach that hasn't really been done in the past here.
For one thing we live close to DC and there is an AG missionary that ministers to inner-city DC. I want to start doing Saturday trips on a semi regular basis to go work with him.
The other side involves totally revamping the drama program. In the past there was a pretty solid drama ministry in the Youth but they did very little evangelistic outreach. Even now I'm having a hard to getting this across to the people that are helping coordinate things. I tell them I want to get out of the church with the group and they come back with a list of churches we can go visit ... Out of the church doesn't mean into another church.
Anyways, the group has suffered because the people in charge push drama since it is a "drama" group and many of the teens aren't that into drama right now. Instead we will re-brand the group for multi-talent including drama, singing, signing, art, preaching ... you get the point. I have two people heading it up right now as we put this together that understand where I'm coming from and know what the group was like when it was all drama and people liked that but also know what it was like when the drama interest failed and the leaders kept pushing drama. They are going to try and identify the talents of the youth based on the natural talents and interest and then find a way to use them in evangelism.
If we have a sign language group then they will go to a deaf school or other appropriate setting to minister the gospel. We have 2 hard core (as in you can't understand the words kinda heavy metal) bands and I don’t see why we can't host them at the church to reach a whole sub-culture of teens/young adults that our worship band can't. We are working with a couple of churches to do outreach in the town we live in as well, this way we are showing the Youth that they can be effective.
Anyways, it is a huge amount and we are really building a lot of this from the ground up. I am most concerned that some of the things we are doing will become too big and be done for the sake of doing. For this reason I'm trying to take small steps towards each of these ministries and keep everything inline with the greater goal, which is evangelism and discipleship. We need to lay the foundation of discipleship first so when we begin evangelism, a natural product of discipleship, then we will have a discipleship program in place for the new people that are reached through the evangelism.
If we can do what has been placed on my heart and the pastor's heart then the church will grow not just in numbers but in spiritual quality.
In response to your quote from John Stott,
Not to disagree with what he has said regarding the sacrifice of Christ, but more to build upon it. If I were to jump into the sea and drown trying to save someone it might speak well of my love and not my folly, assuming that there was some chance of saving the person I died trying to save. On the other hand if I could not swim and in my folly jumped into the sea to save them, but instead dragged them down in my foolishness, then the question of love becomes a bit of a sticky issue.
This is why it is important to consider Christ's sacrifice. Certainly it was motivated by love, but while it is foolishness to the gentile, the proof of the wisdom is in the fact that Jesus had the ability to save us all through His death and bodily resurrection. This is the power of the atonement. He is the person with extensive coast guard training that sacrifices himself to save others for sure, but he rose again making His life more valuable than his death since it is the first fruit of what is to come.
On a side note, the reference to the Coast Guard above is a movie reference The Guardian has a very interesting messianic sub plot that one could easily use as a jumping point into a Christological salvation conversation.
all metaphors have a weak point, I think Stott would acknowledge this.
I just happen to be a fan of his - I think I own everything he ever wrote.
ron
I wasn't trying to point out the weakness of the metaphor, but rather to build upon it. I rather like the idea being conveyed. The fact is, Jesus was acting in love but also with the ability to accomplish the goal. It would still be foolish to act in love if there is no means to accomplish the goal. It would be like finding out a friend needs a million dollars to pay for a surgery and writing the friend a check for a million dollars in love when you don't have the money in your account.
Like I said, I just wanted to build on what he said not criticize it.
This is a great quote Ron. Thank you. It helps explain Thom's comment and really adds something more. Justice and Love are both integral to the Atonement. It has to be both.
Berkouwer has insisted: 'In the cross of Christ God's justice and love are SIMULTANEOUSLY (author's emphasis) revealed, so that we can speak of his love only in connection with the reality of the cross.' Again, 'God's graciousness and justice are revealed only in the real substitution, the radical sacrifice, in the reversing of the roles.'"
Further Stott says,
"We should not , therefore, allow Anselm and Abelard to occupy opposite poles. In general terms, Anselm was right to understand the cross as a satisfaction for sin, but he should have laid more emphasis on God's love. Abelard was right to see the cross as a manifestation of love, but wrong to deny what Anselm affirmed. Anselm and Abelard need each other's positive witness, the one to God's justice and the other to his love. For it was precisely in making a just satisfaction for sin that the manifestation of love took place."
●I love both of these quotes. As you noted, it is in the proper balance of the objective and subjective aspects of the atonement that we find the greatest power of the cross.
●Also, in studying Anselm and Abelard I’ve been impressed with their towering intellects and insights. I know that they were each part of intellectually vibrant dialectical communities; yet, in the middle of these communities they demonstrated unusual acumen. I so appreciate our rich Christian heritage.
●Okay, since I am of recent so enthralled with the subjective power of the cross, I will supply here my own quote. Dr. Robert Stackpole is a Catholic author who specializes on writing articles on God’s mercy. In this quote he is reflecting on Aquinas’ insights on God’s mercy.
Secondly, St. Thomas asks: Is mercy the greatest attribute of God? Since God is the absolute superior, the perfect and self-existent creator, St. Thomas says, He is never self-seeking, but acts only and always with selfless generosity, pouring out good gifts out of His abundance on his creatures. Showing mercy is therefore proper to God in a special way, for it manifests His infinite perfection, and His infinite abundance and generosity. St. Thomas writes (II-II.30.4): "If we consider a virtue in terms of its possessor, however, we can say that mercy is the greatest of the virtues only if its possessor is himself the greatest of all beings, with no one above him and everyone beneath him." This, of course, is properly true only of God Himself. Thus, mercy is, in that sense, the greatest attribute of God.
Glad to contribute to the discussion - I think it is rather beautiful that we can have this discussion during Holy Week.
ron
I think that true faith is more than just demonstrated in good works, but that charity and faith are integrally intertwined. Like justice and mercy in God, they are one thing. Grace makes faith possible. Grace makes charity and its good works possible. Grace allows us to unite our works and our sufferings with Christ's so that they are one thing as one mystical body with nothing lacking. Only our malice stands in the way and only our obstinate malice prevents it from ultimately being efficacious for our salvation.
Col 1:24 "Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body, which is the church.
I think that true faith is more than just demonstrated in good works, but that charity and faith are integrally intertwined. Like justice and mercy in God, they are one thing. Grace makes faith possible. Grace makes charity and its good works possible.
●Oh, I agree with you; however, I was just reflecting on Gecko’s comment in regard to the order of grace, faith and good works. Certainly true faith is intertwined with charity. I think this is what Paul meant when he said that the only thing that counts is “faith working through love.”
Against the Armenians.
There is certainly a subjective element in there. Is there the objective element?
This seems like an objective comment from the same document, Chapter 7:
"The whole human race was subject to sin. To be restored to the state of justice, there would have to be a penalty which man would take upon himself in order to fulfil the order of divine justice. But no mere man could satisfy God sufficiently by accepting some voluntary punishment, even for his own sin, to say nothing of the sin of the whole human race. For when man sins he transgresses the law of God and tries, were he able, to do injury to the God of infinite majesty. The greater the person offended, the greater the crime; we see, for instance, that someone who strikes a soldier is punished more than someone who strikes a farmer, and much more if he strikes a king or prince. Therefore a sin committed against the law of God is somehow an infinite offence.
Again we must observe that the dignity of the person making reparation is also to be considered. For example, one word of a king asking for pardon of an offence is considered greater than if someone lower went on his knees and showed any other sign of humiliation to beg pardon from the one who suffered the injury. But no mere man has the infinite dignity required to satisfy justly an offence against God. Therefore there had to be a man of infinite dignity who would undergo the penalty for all so as to satisfy fully for the sins of the whole world. Therefore the only-begotten Word of God, true God and Son of God, assumed a human nature and willed to suffer death in it so as to purify the whole human race indebted by sin. Thus Peter says (1 Pet 3:18): "Christ himself died once and for all for sins, the upright for the sake of the guilty."
http://www.diafrica.org/kenny/Rationes.htm#7
Aquinas was a really smart guy.
First of all, because the strongest way God could show how much he loves man was his willing to become man for his salvation; and nothing can provoke love more than to know that one is loved.
●What can I say about this quote other than to note that this is why I enjoy reading Aquinas. I once heard Leonard Bernstein say that in all of Beethoven’s works each and every note is precisely as it should be. Likewise, Aquinas has this uncanny ability to communicate exactly what needs to be said with almost a startling economy of words. It seems that each word is as it should be. Then, of course, what is being communicated is of the highest order of insight.
I think that is not only a profound theological insight, but it is a amazing insight into an often over-looked truth of human life.
It is also a terrific bit bit of practical wisdom that can be applied in one's life.
This error does not serve the real God very well. Invariably, when we do not have an explanation, it must be supernatural. Thus, God's domain shrinks with an ever expanding understanding of the natural world.
There is no line, or even zone, of division drawn between the natural and the so-termed supernatural. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has always recognized this truth, and therefore has not been a party to the conflict. This contrasts boldly with the attitude of the denominational minister who is constantly warning his flock against science and scientific investigation. The man who is unwilling to compare his views with those of another should be considered ignorant or cowardly. Take your pick.
For some unexplained reason, all unaccountable phenomena have been catalogued with the supernatural. Strange it is that an event should be considered above or beyond the natural just because it is not understood. By this flawed method of reasoning, all miraculous occurrences are accepted as directly opposed to the laws of the universe. This position is certainly faulty and untenable. Laws should be classified as known and unknown and all as natural.
Commercial time again?
Lets start by correcting this preposterous notion, the LDS church deals with truth by ignoring, denying and attacking. This is especially true for any academic work that threatens their fantasy. Exhibit number one- David P. Wright, a professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Near East Studies (academic site) http://members.aol.com/jazzdd/index.htm/
was kicked out of the LDS church for his science.
See this link for his defense of intellectual honesty contained in his letter to his Bishop prior to his excommunication trial. http://www.lds-mormon.com/dpw.shtml
They just kick you out if they don't agree with your scientific investigation so....no conflict.
Contrast this with Michael Heller, a Polish cosmologist and Catholic priest and winner of the Templeton Prize and his 40 years of scientific work. http://www.templetonprize.org/bios.html
The Catholics didn't kick him out.
Tell me again who avoids dealing with the truth?
These commercials of Gecko's.....sheesh.
Years before your recent appearance into our world here it has proven important to make sure what is Orthodox (standard, old, corrupted) and what is authentically Restored (different, new, pure) is properly differentiated. Otherwise, you guys feel compelled to identify with hand to nose - who I am every single time...and not get down to the business of dialogue on the issue at hand.
In his topic, Thom differentiates between natural law and things supernatural. He pleases the most Christians possible by straddling both camps, science and religion.
●Are you reading the same blog that I am writing???????? First of all, how in the world could you possibly get out of this post that I am differentiating between natural law and God’s supernatural intervention?
Secondly, it is you who has consistently created an artificial dichotomy between science and religion--remember? I am the one (along with others who post here) that have advocated for a harmony between the natural and supernatural and science and religion. Where do you get this stuff? Hmm…poof…let’s just make up something out of thin air…poof! Or as Alice in Wonderland said using Gecko-Think:
If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense. Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?
Gecko wrote using Gecko-Think:
For Thom's purposes here, God demonstrates his power through direct intervention, which has the effect of temporarily suspending natural law.
●Hmm…again, “Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn’t.” I would never in a million, zillion years propagate such utter nonsense. Hint…God does not have to temporarily suspend natural law to directly intervene in human history. He can supernaturally intervene using natural laws or He can intervene separate from natural laws as He did in the creation—Ex Nihilo. Oh, and by the way, Mormons do not believe that God can create the universe Ex Nihilo. This, of course, is what is driving Gecko’s comments here.
Gecko wrote using Gecko-Think:
Out of this belief the thought has grown among the Orthodox that divine law operates so frequently in direct opposition to natural law, and is, therefore, called the "supernatural."
●This, again, is so much balderdash. As I have said ad nauseum (a Latin term used to describe something that has been continuing "to the point of nausea"); the divine law is the explicit promulgation of the natural law. There is absolutely no opposition between the natural and divine laws. And, as we have seen demonstrated here time-and-again, it is Gecko who has posited an opposition between the natural and divine laws. Hellllloooo…Alice!
Let me explain why Gecko has posited an opposition between the natural and divine laws:
LDS theology, on many points is incoherent and violates not only the natural order of things (i.e. an infinite regress can be traversed), but, it also violates the Law of Non-contradiction. The Law of Non-contradiction means that X is not Y. Without it, we would truly be living in Alice’s Wonderland. However, LDS theology often violates the Law of Non-contradiction. Example: the LDS deity was once a mortal that has progressed to perfection; yet, he is the creator of all things. This is like saying that a Chevrolet car manufactured at an auto plant in 2007 also created the auto plant in 1971. The LDS has many other self-contradictory and incoherent theological tenets. This is why Gecko has always advocated an opposition between the natural and divine laws. In Gecko-LDS-Land… “Nothing would be what it is because everything would be what it isn't. And contrary-wise; what it is it wouldn't be, and what it wouldn't be, it would. You see?”
If you were trying to respond to my point concerning the supernatural vs natural, I think you missed the mark there also.
I say this in the comment. To see the letter to the Bishop, see this site: http://www.lds-mormon.com/dpw.shtml
I think it is right on target. His research and publications did get him kicked out. That was after getting fired from BYU for the same problem, integrity.
By reading it. That is, by reading your post about your discussion of spiritual healing in relation to God's supernatural influence. You were very clear about differentiating between the natural and the supernatural.
Do you now disavow and repudiate one or the other?
I have never met a person who felt it appropriate that they were fired/released/RIFed/layed off. In any event, I have not felt justified in being so released. BYU is an elite university. It requires more than simply a terminal degree to continue to work there. Where you feel it was integrity that caused him to be fired plus excommunicated, that he was wrongfully terminated, I wonder when the law suit will surface? By the way, I'm sure integrity had something to do with it. Honoring signed agreements.
A point of clarification, the Law of Non-Contradiction means that a thing can't both be and not be, i.e. it can't be true that X is also not X. To claim that God is the creator of everything and then say that there are things God did not create (e.g. pre-existing matter, other spirits etc.) would be such a contradiction.
Gecko seems to be trying to make a point with regard to falsely juxtaposing the natural with the supernatural. Who cares which God choses to use? They are both equally His. If Gecko's point is that many hastily jump to supernatural/extraordinary explanations for what have more natural and ordinary explanations, I can certainly buy that. Just look at what Joseph Smith managed to sell.
Thom comments: "●Are you reading the same blog that I am writing???????? First of all, how in the world could you possibly get out of this post that I am differentiating between natural law and God’s supernatural intervention?"
By reading it. That is, by reading your post about your discussion of spiritual healing in relation to God's supernatural influence. You were very clear about differentiating between the natural and the supernatural.
Do you now disavow and repudiate one or the other?
●Here is your actual comment that elicited my question regarding whether or not you actually read the posts.
In his topic, Thom differentiates between natural law and things supernatural. He pleases the most Christians possible by straddling both camps, science and religion.
●As I have already pointed out to you, natural law and the supernatural are not at odds in any way. Secondly, notice that you equate natural law with “science” and the supernatural with “religion.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy states that natural law “…does not refer to the laws of nature, the laws that science aims to describe.” The IEP states that natural law, “…refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory.” It goes on to state the following:
The second thesis constituting the core of natural law moral theory is the claim that standards of morality are in some sense derived from, or entailed by, the nature of the world and the nature of human beings. St. Thomas Aquinas, for example, identifies the rational nature of human beings as that which defines moral law: "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts" (Aquinas, ST I-II, Q.90, A.I). On this common view, since human beings are by nature rational beings, it is morally appropriate that they should behave in a way that conforms to their rational nature. Thus, Aquinas derives the moral law from the nature of human beings (thus, "natural law").
●From this we can conclude these things:
1. You have wrongly confused “natural law” with the “laws of nature” which are studied by science.
2. You have wrongly identified “religion” with just the “supernatural.” This, of course, is a Gnostic view of religion. Christianity includes the natural order of things, natural law, divine law and God’s supernatural acts. Mormons, being Gnostics, posit a strong dichotomy between the “spiritual” (or supernatural) and the natural order of things. I do not.
3. You clearly do not understand what natural law is. You’ll note that the IEP states that Aquinas saw that the moral law was actually embedded in the “nature of human beings.” The moral law, of course, is derived from a supernatural source—God Himself. Therefore, there can be no strong dichotomy between the supernatural eternal law and natural law because they have the same source—God.
●You may be reading my posts, but you certainly don’t understand them.
To claim that God is the creator of everything and then say that there are things God did not create (e.g. pre-existing matter, other spirits etc.) would be such a contradiction.
●Or, here is another one; a created mortal is the immortal creator.
So, you repudiate neither the natural nor the supernatural. You embrace both.
●I do embrace both. As you know “naturalism” is the philosophical system that posits that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws. As a Christian, I obviously do not believe in naturalism. A supernaturalist believes that a supernatural agency intervenes in the course of things. This intervention does not have to violate the laws of nature. The intervention can be above or through the laws of nature.
You wrote: I have seen you hold to the Natural as pertaining to all created things, material and spiritual, including all forms of being but the supernatural. And the Supernatural—that which exists "outside of the body" (where true healing is only found) above the forces of nature; being outside the range or operation of natural law....upward beyond all our understanding to the supernatural.
●Honestly, I cannot quite get a handle on what you are saying about what I believe.
●The natural generally refers to nature. The supernatural is that which is above nature. Angels and God are above nature.
Worth Watching.
This is an hour and half talk by Tim Keller that in a conversation, non-didactic, nonpolemical way tanks the most common objections of the New Atheists to religious belief. Keller is the author of The Reason for God, which describes his thoughts on the objections to religion offered by the upscale New York liberals to whom he ministers.
The interesting thing in this presentation is the different tone and the vastly broader knowledge base that Keller brings to his presentation than is found in the writings of the New Atheists. For example, while Keller is familiar with Kant and Polanyi, it became clear from reading Christopher Hitchens' "God is Not Great" that Hitchens hadn't a clue about what it was that Aquinas actually wrote.
Also interesting is just how bad and cliched were some of the questions from the atheist and philosophy majors. It was clear that these students had come prepared with opinions and very little knowledge apart from what they had been told or felt. Keller's common response was to politely and gently point out that the students needed to do their homework, which, frankly, is something that Undergraduates ought to be told.
Also, Keller touts Richard Bauckham's "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" - a book that takes the "revolutionary" position that the Gospels are what they claim to be: eye-witness accounts of Jesus' ministry, Passion and Resurrection - as threatening to overturn the conventional wisdom that the Gospels are essentially mythical concoctions.
Your supernatural and natural laws must be a puzzlement for you, given you claim to be Christian.... Because you readily admit that your God lives by two sets of laws. He can by your understanding violate His own laws to accomodate personal interests. He, in fact, sets laws in conflict by His defined natural and supernatural laws. Your God is a relative God without absolute law.
●I read your comment here and think to myself that you must either be pulling my leg or you don’t have the foggiest notion of what I mean when I write things.
Please explain the following:
1. Your supernatural and natural laws must be a puzzlement for you, given you claim to be a Christian: Please explain how you could ever in a million years come to such a conclusion given all that I have written about how the natural law is rooted and grounded in God’s essential nature. I will await your reply.
2. Because you readily admit that your God lives by two sets of laws: Please, oh, please reveal to me when I ever claimed anything remotely close to this when I have repeatedly advocated God’s simplicity against your repeated attempts to discredit it and your attempt to propagate the idea of God’s extreme volunteerism. I will await your reply.
3. He (God) can by your understanding violate His own laws to accommodate personal interests: Please explain to me how I could possibly believe such a notion which is the exact opposite of what I have repeatedly advocated here at TFD. In fact, it is you who has—along with Muslims—propagated the extreme volunteerism of God and that He can do essential impossibilities like make a square circle. Remember how you scoffed at my post about essential impossibilities and mocked the idea that God cannot lie or do essential impossibilities? Remember? But, please show me where I have advocated that God can violate His own laws to accommodate personal interests.
4. He (God), in fact, sets laws in conflict by His defined natural and supernatural laws: Please show me where I have ever stated such a ridiculous notion. Again, in fact, I have advocated the uniformity of God’s law through its eternal, divine and natural manifestations. It is you who has posited the idea that God can violate and cause a conflict between the natural and supernatural. But, please show me where I have advocated this incoherent idea—which you hold to.
5. Your God is a relative God without absolute law: Hmmm…how could this possibly be so, since I have spent my time on this blog defending the orthodox view of God against the incoherencies of LDS theology? Remember the idea of immutability—which you adamantly and consistently have opposed? You do not believe in God’s immutability…remember? You have opposed God’s immutability at every turn. Now you claim that I believe that God is “a relative God.” All I can say is that you are a man of amazing courage to float such boldface mendacity. But, okay, show me where I have said these things.
1. Your supernatural and natural laws must be a puzzlement for you, given you claim to be a Christian: Please explain how you could ever in a million years come to such a conclusion given all that I have written about how the natural law is rooted and grounded in God’s essential nature. I will await your reply.
For you God created natural law (you said it). For you God created "supernatural law" which violates natural law. I can't believe you can close your eyes to this. So, you must be puzzled.
2. Because you readily admit that your God lives by two sets of laws: Please, oh, please reveal to me when I ever claimed anything remotely close to this when I have repeatedly advocated God’s simplicity against your repeated attempts to discredit it and your attempt to propagate the idea of God’s extreme volunteerism. I will await your reply.
You have suggested here that he readily but no necessarily needs to supernaturally impose Himself on natural law.
3. He (God) can by your understanding violate His own laws to accommodate personal interests: Please explain to me how I could possibly believe such a notion which is the exact opposite of what I have repeatedly advocated here at TFD. In fact, it is you who has—along with Muslims—propagated the extreme volunteerism of God and that He can do essential impossibilities like make a square circle. (Never said this) Remember how you scoffed at my post about essential impossibilities and mocked the idea that God cannot lie (God chooses not to lie) or do essential impossibilities (There is nothing impossible to God, by definition - excepting what would be counted as absurd as in 'creating a rock He cannot lift'')? Remember? But, please show me where I have advocated that God can violate His own laws to accommodate personal interests. (Please read number 2)
4. He (God), in fact, sets laws in conflict by His defined natural and supernatural laws: Please show me where I have ever stated such a ridiculous notion. Again, in fact, I have advocated the uniformity of God’s law through its eternal, divine and natural manifestations. It is you who has posited the idea that God can violate and cause a conflict between the natural and supernatural. But, please show me where I have advocated this incoherent idea—which you hold to.
Your notion of supernatural law suppercedes natural law. For you, the burning bush is a supernatural law that tramples natural law.
5. Your God is a relative God without absolute law: Hmmm…how could this possibly be so, since I have spent my time on this blog defending the orthodox view of God against the incoherencies of LDS theology? Remember the idea of immutability—which you adamantly and consistently have opposed? You do not believe in God’s immutability…remember? You have opposed God’s immutability at every turn. (As for this point we must not suppose that God's immutability does not deprive Him of Free agency. If God cannot freely choose, then He is not omnipotent. among other things)