I've seen many fathers echo this - God endowed man with the blessing of a rational, free will, and then gave man the garden and the tree as an object to practice the will upon. Love is only possible with freedom. That's why I've said the denial of free will even climbs up to preventing us from knowing God at all, because that relationship is love.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Orko said:

---

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

KWe believe the most good God to have from eternity predestinated unto glory those whom He has chosen, and to have consigned unto condemnation those whom He has rejected; but not so that He would justify the one, and consign and condemn the other without cause. (Decree 3)

But since He foreknew the one would make a right use of their free-will, and the other a wrong, He predestinated the one, or condemned the other. (Decree 3)

---

I struggle with this...as there are legions of very smart people who think this is all buttoned up...but it just looks like nonsense to me. He basically confirms double predestination, then tries to undo it by simulating free will as if that's sufficient.

To me, this stuff makes way more sense to say we have "relative free will" and no "absolute free will". Basically, act like you do is what we are called to do.

---

To me it makes more sense to say, "Only God knows. I'm going to do my best to follow his will. If I am successful in reaching Heaven and he was steering the wheel or I was, its still his grace that got me here. I don't know why I should care."

For those of you that do care about this question. Can you explain why? Won't even argue with you about it, I just want to understand why so many people make this point (which nobody can do anything about anyway) a bone of contention between us.

Its always come off as a little like taking a position on whether Jesus prefers leather or hemp sandals. It doesn't matter in the end.

---

If the Bible talks about it, then it matters. To an Arminian, it matters because unconditional election makes God out to be a monster. To a Calvinist, it matters because it gives a Christian something to boast about - "I have faith and you don't."

---

Au contraire! How about, it matters to the Arminian because they just can't give up on the conceit of free will; and to the Calvinist because it removes any grounds for boasting...

Quote:

---

Love is only possible with freedom.

---

Exactly! The ability to reject love is necessary for one to truly love.

Can God sin?

AgLiving06 said:

---

Can God sin?

---

No.

tehmackdaddy said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Can God sin?

---

No.

---

Does that mean God does not have Free Will?

Quote:

---

I disagree. IMHO, the entire point of the Tree of Knowledge was to give Adam and Eve a choice and tempation to disobey God. What virtue does obedience have if there is no other option? So God left them an alternative to obedience within easy reach.

Without free will none of that makes any sense. How can God predetermine disobedience to God? The only scenario that doesn't descend into absurdity is that God gave Adam and Eve instructions after specifically creating them to break those instructions. Then He punishes them for breaking the instructions that He knew they would break when he Created them.

---

With an all-knowing, all-powerful God, it all descends into absurdity.

Quote:

---

I've seen many fathers echo this - God endowed man with the blessing of a rational, free will, and then gave man the garden and the tree as an object to practice the will upon. Love is only possible with freedom. That's why I've said the denial of free will even climbs up to preventing us from knowing God at all, because that relationship is love.

---

This is such a strange, convoluted way of viewing love. What's not loving about giving humans the garden, never having the tree to begin with, and humans enjoying the garden to this day?

What's wrong with raising your child as a perpetual infant, and letting them bottle feed forever?

AgLiving06 said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Can God sin?

---

No.

---

Does that mean God does not have Free Will?

---

I presume He does, but how could I or anyone possibly answer such a question?

I'm not interested in a "can God create a rock large enough that even He cannot move it" paradox. As C.S. Lewis puts it, nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

Quote:

---

"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words, 'God can.' It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

---

Quote:

---

What's wrong with raising your child as a perpetual infant, and letting them bottle feed forever?

---

Theoretically nothing, if are living in the Garden.

I'm not sure why you're arguing that we need death and destruction to know what love is.

Quote:

---

I'm not interested in a "can God create a rock large enough that even He cannot move it" paradox. As C.S. Lewis puts it, nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

---

I don't really find his statement compelling, as you can apply is to anything you don't want to consider. I think the rationalization of free will vs predestination isn't complete nonesense, so it doesn't really apply anyway.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

What's wrong with raising your child as a perpetual infant, and letting them bottle feed forever?

---

Theoretically nothing, if are living in the Garden.

I'm not sure why you're arguing that we need death and destruction to know what love is.

---

We do not. That wasn't a requirement. Adam did not have to eat the fruit. Obdeduence requires the option to disobey to exist.

tehmackdaddy said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Can God sin?

---

No.

---

Does that mean God does not have Free Will?

---

I presume He does, but how could I or anyone possibly answer such a question?

I'm not interested in a "can God create a rock large enough that even He cannot move it" paradox. As C.S. Lewis puts it, nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.

Quote:

---

"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say, 'God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it,' you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words, 'God can.' It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."

---

---

I'm certainly not asking whether "God can create a rock" scenario. I'm not asking God to do anything. It is an interesting concept though to say that God cannot do "something", yet he is free to do "something."

It was simply something I was thinking about as I was reading through this thread.

k2aggie07 said:

---

What's wrong with raising your child as a perpetual infant, and letting them bottle feed forever?

---

Wouldn't a better scenario be to say:

What's wrong with giving your child a loaded gun and tell them not to pull the trigger?

Wouldn't that fit better with the concept of the Fall introducing death into the world?

AgLiving06 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

What's wrong with raising your child as a perpetual infant, and letting them bottle feed forever?

---

Wouldn't a better scenario be to say:

What's wrong with giving your child a loaded gun and tell them not to pull the trigger?

Wouldn't that fit better with the concept of the Fall introducing death into the world?

---

Sure, but only because obedience and sin are binary ideas. It's the same as giving your child a lollipop and telling him not to eat it. The flip side is - if we accept that freedom is a prerequisite for both love and obedience, what is the alternative?

k2aggie07 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

What's wrong with raising your child as a perpetual infant, and letting them bottle feed forever?

---

Wouldn't a better scenario be to say:

What's wrong with giving your child a loaded gun and tell them not to pull the trigger?

Wouldn't that fit better with the concept of the Fall introducing death into the world?

---

Sure, but only because obedience and sin are binary ideas. It's the same as giving your child a lollipop and telling him not to eat it. The flip side is - if we accept that freedom is a prerequisite for both love and obedience, what is the alternative?

---

I think you put it well.

Though I wonder, can we say this freedom is real or simply perceived as real?

Did Christ Jesus have a free will? Or was He bound to fate?

k2aggie07 said:

---

Did Christ Jesus have a free will? Or was He bound to fate?

---

Do you consider Jesus conception and birth to be materially different than ours?

Yes, obviously. Was His humanity different than ours though?

Fully God, fully man. No asterisk there.

diehard03 said:

---

With an all-knowing, all-powerful God, it all descends into absurdity.

---

That sounds more like an axiom than the result of a reasoned argument

Quote:

---

Does that mean God does not have Free Will?

---

First of all, the question of whether God can sin makes no sense under any definition of sin. Sin is doing/thinking/willing contrary to God's Will. So asking whether God can be in contrast to His own Will is a nonsense question. I'm pretty sure that's why K2 wrote any entire post about nonsense statements.

I'd like to ask a counter question. Adam was created in God's image. To me the meaning of that is easy. Adam had a free will just like God. Adam was not omnipotent, so his will cannot be entirely free. But Adam's freedom to will anything within his power to will is the image of God's Will.

So the question: If man does not have free will, in what way are we made in God's image?

Quote:

---

Adam had a free will just like God. Adam was not omnipotent, so his will cannot be entirely free.

---

This reads strangely me. Usually we don't talk about Free Will as in you have to actually bear out your will to be free. It's more of just freedom of thought or freedom of choice.

In regards to mankind that is true. But I was comparing and contrasting mankind's free will to God's Free Will. Only God's Will is absolutely free, because He can do anything He Wills.

Mankind's will is relatively free, because we can only will things we could actually do or not do. That's why ethics questions like the trolley problems are interesting. Do you pull the lever and kill one person or not pull the level and 5 people die? Now I could just will that everyone lives, but since I can't actualize my will in that case my willing is meaningless. Superman could will everyone to live, flip the switch, pull the single man out of the way, and then stop the trolley himself.

I agree that it only makes sense to talk this way when speaking of God's Free Will in relation to our free will.

Quote:

---

I agree that it only makes sense to talk this way when speaking of God's Free Will in relation to our free will.

---

I get what you are saying...I just don't know the value of making the distinction. I think it's a given that God's will works like this.

I guess to follow up, does this mean that we look at reality and say that everything that happens is God's Will...because if his is truely free because anything he wants happens, is the converse true? Does anything that doesn't happen because he does not will it to happen? (bad english sentence, but i hope you get the drift)

Quote:

---

I guess to follow up, does this mean that we look at reality and say that everything that happens is God's Will...because if his is truely free because anything he wants happens, is the converse true? Does anything that doesn't happen because he does not will it to happen? (bad english sentence, but i hope you get the drift)

---

I think that's the idea, except that mankind has the ability to oppose God's Will. So anything not under the control or influence of people happens exactly as God Wills it. Unless you don't subscribe to the idea of free will for people. In which case everything happens as God alone Wills.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Yes, obviously. Was His humanity different than ours though?

Fully God, fully man. No asterisk there.

---

While I absolutely agree with you that Jesus is fully God and fully Man, i don't want to presume to know your definition of humanity.

Certainly Jesus had all of the aspects of being a human. We know he hungered, he was tired and showed emotions such as crying and anger, etc.

However, this is why I asked if Jesus conception and birth were different because, at least in the west, this sets Jesus apart in terms of original sin.

I know the east doesn't hold the view of original sin, so I wonder if this will be a point of difference?

AgLiving06 said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Yes, obviously. Was His humanity different than ours though?

Fully God, fully man. No asterisk there.

---

While I absolutely agree with you that Jesus is fully God and fully Man, i don't want to presume to know your definition of humanity.

Certainly Jesus had all of the aspects of being a human. We know he hungered, he was tired and showed emotions such as crying and anger, etc.

However, this is why I asked if Jesus conception and birth were different because, at least in the west, this sets Jesus apart in terms of original sin.

I know the east doesn't hold the view of original sin, so I wonder if this will be a point of difference?

---

He didn't merely have all the aspects of man. That is far, far, too weak of a statement. He was actually a man, a human being. "Fully" means what it says. Hebrews says He was made like us in every way. St Gregory the Theologian says He took upon our nature - from Mary the Theotokos. St Athanasius in "On the Incarnation" describes the union as the Immortal God with our human nature.

On Hebrews 2:16-17 St John Chrysostom says "For do not regard lightly what is spoken, nor think this merely a slight [matter], His taking on Him our flesh...For in very deed it is a great and a wonderful thing, and full of amazement that our flesh should sit on high, and be adored by Angels and Archangels, by the Cherubim and the Seraphim. For myself having oftentimes thought upon this, I am amazed at it.."

He also says in the homily on chapter 4 "'After our likeness, without sin.' In these words another thing also is suggested, that it is possible even for one in afflictions to go through them without sin. So that when he says also 'in the likeness of flesh' [Romans 8:3], he means not that He took on Him [merely] the 'likeness of flesh,' but 'flesh'. Why then did he say 'in the likeness'? Because he was speaking about 'sinful flesh': for it was 'like' our flesh, since in nature it was the same with us, but in sin no longer the same.

These were the topics of debate of the Christological controversies of the first six councils. And these are not eastern councils in particular. Christ is fully God and fully man, with two natures - the divine and the human - and two wills - the divine and the human. His human will is not a human will* and his human nature is not a human nature* in the same way that His divine nature is not the divine nature** and His divine will is not the divine will**.

*mostly like ours but not really because divine
**mostly like the Father's but not really because human

These teachings are in some ways the bedrock and crux of our faith, the very reason and means by which He saved us.


His Human nature was normal, average joe human. His humanity came wholly from the Theotokos, a normal unspecial woman who became abnormal and special because her faithfulness and obedience led her to bear God Himself.

///

Here is the difference between the Roman Catholic teaching and the Orthodox teaching. The Theotokos, for us, was just a girl. A normal, unspecial human. She was not born special or in any particular way. She is special because she chose to be obedient. The late Fr. Alexander Schmemann gave a really nice homily on this, but the point is that she was a normal human being, and He took our normal humanity and deified it.

I think you're trying to find a difference somewhere it doesn't exist.

I also called him fully man. I gave examples simple to show that as well. You quoted the Father's which is fine as well. We don't disagree here.

----------------

Lutheran's don't even disagree with you on Mary. The concept of Mary's immaculate conception isn't something we stress or worry about. However, that's why I wanted to make the distinction in Jesus conception and birth.

It could certainly be argued (incorrectly) that Jesus humanity is different than ours because he was conceived differently.

The Lutheran view is that he was conceived in a manner that kept original sin from impacting him as it does us. This shows itself in His nature truly showing fear and faith in the Father. Something that we don't do.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

Quote:

---

Does that mean God does not have Free Will?

---

First of all, the question of whether God can sin makes no sense under any definition of sin. Sin is doing/thinking/willing contrary to God's Will. So asking whether God can be in contrast to His own Will is a nonsense question. I'm pretty sure that's why K2 wrote any entire post about nonsense statements.

I'd like to ask a counter question. Adam was created in God's image. To me the meaning of that is easy. Adam had a free will just like God. Adam was not omnipotent, so his will cannot be entirely free. But Adam's freedom to will anything within his power to will is the image of God's Will.

So the question: If man does not have free will, in what way are we made in God's image?

---

I'll ask the same question I asked K2.

Is there any part of Adam' birth, (I don't think he had a conception per se) that is similar to ours?

Even more simply, was Adam born with Original/Ancestral sin?

Didn't say we disagreed. I said that saying "he had all aspects of being human" falls short of the confession of the councils. Any time we start to qualify His humanity, there is really only one way we can - the Chirch teaches the only exception is sin. In every other possible way He was fully human. Which is to say, He was completely and totally human, because sin is not proper or essential to our nature.

Quote:

---

The Lutheran view is that he was conceived in a manner that kept original sin from impacting him as it does us. This shows itself in His nature truly showing fear and faith in the Father. Something that we don't do.

---

This feels like just another way to say that His humanity was different than ours. It wasn't. But again, original sin is not a teaching of the eastern Church, and never has been. The immaculate conception is a solution to a problem created by the teaching of original sin. And, as we can see, that theological framework creates other secondary issues, raises questions about Christ's humanity.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Didn't say we disagreed. I said that saying "he had all aspects of being human" falls short of the confession of the councils. Any time we start to qualify His humanity, there is really only one way we can - the Chirch teaches the only exception is sin. In every other possible way He was fully human. Which is to say, He was completely and totally human, because sin is not proper or essential to our nature.

Quote:

---

The Lutheran view is that he was conceived in a manner that kept original sin from impacting him as it does us. This shows itself in His nature truly showing fear and faith in the Father. Something that we don't do.

---

This feels like just another way to say that His humanity was different than ours. It wasn't. But again, original sin is not a teaching of the eastern Church, and never has been. The immaculate conception is a solution to a problem created by the teaching of original sin. And, as we can see, that theological framework creates other secondary issues, raises questions about Christ's humanity.

---

The second part is why I was careful in how I talked through Jesus humanity.

Put different, would you say from the east perspective that Jesus was born with the consequences of ancestral sin?


And I and Lutherans do agree with you on the immaculate conception. It's more driven by their desire to elevate Mary to more than the Theotokos into something there's no scriptural evidence to support.

Quote:

---

Put different, would you say from the east perspective that Jesus was born with the consequences of ancestral sin?

---

The consequences of ancestral sin are death and corruption. I don't know surely how to answer this, because I'm not sure how death would work for Adam. For example, if Adam climbed up to the top of a tree in the garden and leaped down headfirst to a broken neck, would he die? I mean...probably? I don't know.

Obviously Christ was subject to death in the form of physical destruction. He could be physically hurt and His body harmed, cut, scarred, to the point that His heart stopped beating. But, being God, He could not be dead or subject to corruption. Death has no hold over Him by virtue of His divinity, and He did not stay dead.

If the consequences of ancestral sin are dying and staying dead, no - because of His divinity. If the consequences of ancestral sin are being able to die at all (i.e., in the first case if Adam falls he bounces and doesn't die - again, I dono) then yes.

Quote:

---

I'll ask the same question I asked K2.

Is there any part of Adam' birth, (I don't think he had a conception per se) that is similar to ours?

Even more simply, was Adam born with Original/Ancestral sin?

---

Adam's "birth" was definitely different than ours, but I think making more of it than that gets you in a lot of trouble. You could certainly make the argument that only Adam and Jesus had free will based on the idea of original sin. That leaves a major problem though. If that's the case, then Adam and Jesus were fundamentally different from us. So much different than us than you can't even call them human but instead they would be superhuman. Or else if they are human then we are subhuman. That flies in the face of all teachings that Jesus was human the same way that we are human.

I accept original sin in the context of human frailty, mortality, and the need for reproduction. In other words, I accept the physical consequences of Adam's original sin. I disagree that original sin somehow makes us different than pre-fall Adam in other ways.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Quote:

---

Put different, would you say from the east perspective that Jesus was born with the consequences of ancestral sin?

---

The consequences of ancestral sin are death and corruption. I don't know surely how to answer this, because I'm not sure how death would work for Adam. For example, if Adam climbed up to the top of a tree in the garden and leaped down headfirst to a broken neck, would he die? I mean...probably? I don't know.

Obviously Christ was subject to death in the form of physical destruction. He could be physically hurt and His body harmed, cut, scarred, to the point that His heart stopped beating. But, being God, He could not be dead or subject to corruption. Death has no hold over Him by virtue of His divinity, and He did not stay dead.

If the consequences of ancestral sin are dying and staying dead, no - because of His divinity. If the consequences of ancestral sin are being able to die at all (i.e., in the first case if Adam falls he bounces and doesn't die - again, I dono) then yes.

---

I'm certainly not the expert on Ancestral Sin (or Original Sin for that matter), but when I look at OrthodoxWiki, it also says the following:

Quote:

---

In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. ) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man's "inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors" and that this is removed through baptism. St. Gregory Palamas taught that man's image was tarnished, disfigured, as a consequence of Adam's disobedience.

---

Would these statements fit that Jesus image was tarnished and disfigured as ours is?