Regarding the "Omnis"

[mitchellmckain]

Only because of your equivocation of authority with power. I was refering to authority that every person has with regard to His own will. Jesus like everyone He had all the authority to speak for Himself about His own choices, but no he had no powers that other human beings did not have. But since He was God, His authority to speak for Himself about His own choices was the authority of God to speak for Himself about the choices of God.

Ok, just so I understand your point, are you saying Jesus had all of the authority to speak for the triune one God because He was part of this triune God yet did not have the power or wisdom of this triune one God other than what He solicited from another part of this triune God, who He calls His God and Father? I agree with you, He obviously had the authority to speak for "Himself," but who was Himself? Himself as a human that has to submit to the wisdom and power of another, or Himself as God that has no need to "appeal to some higher power" as you put it? Who did He have the authority of and where did He get that authority? Was it "given to him" or did he have it already because "God does things from His own ability and knowledge of how to do things NOT by appealing to something else to do it for Him."?

Jesus subjected himself to humanity and all the laws of this world, but He had all the authority to speak for God because He was God. But a big part of this was the fact that He in every way acted as He said a human being should act in one accord with God the Father. Rather than acting on his own limited perspective as a human being, He always went to the Father first. Thus Jesus said, "I can do nothing on my own authority, as I hear, I judge, and my judgement is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of Him who sent me." While subjected to the limitations of humanity, He further subjected Himself to the dictates of the Father, and it is because of this that He did speak with the authority of God. Indeed any human being can theoretically do the same, for if we are in complete obedience to God then the authority of God is naturally behind it. In practice we know that no fallen human being is even close to 100% obedient to God and in fact the authority of God is not behind most of the things he does.

But yes, the incarnate Jesus certainly did appeal to the higher power and greater knowledge of the Father, because He had left all that power and knowledge behind Him when He subjected Himself to the laws of this world and became a helpless human infant.

Ok, so this will help with future discussions so I appropriately understand your theology. I have a few questions:
1. Do you believe Jesus knew He was "God" while on earth?

That is an interesting question. I do not know an absolute answer to it. I am not even sure all of what that may entail. Human awareness is by nature finite and limited and so it is natural to think that there may be some limitations of Jesus awareness in this regard. All I can do is quote the things He said that did indicate that He did have a significant portion of such an awareness, such as John 14:9-11.

2. Do you disagree with Augustin and others within orthodoxy that there were actually actions that He performed under His own power "as God" while on earth?

Huh? He WAS God. All his actions were actons that He performed under His own power as God. BUT all of them were ALSO within the limitations of the power and knowledge of a human being.

3. Without the power and knowledge of the one true God while on earth, are you still comfortable saying He was "equal" to God while here?

YES! ABSOLUTELY!

Power and knowledge are not the measure of worth -- NOT according to God!

[ChristianHeretic]

He had all the authority to speak for God because He was God.

I'm still trying to understanding what Trinitarians really are supposed to believe with this. Do you mean speak for "the Father" because He was God? Or do you mean he had all the authority to speak for Himself because He was God? Which "God" are you referencing with the first "God" above?

All I can do is quote the things He said that did indicate that He did have a significant portion of such an awareness, such as John 14:9-11.

He does say that he is in the Father and the Father is in him, but this obviously gives no indication that he thought he was God because he also says that we can be "in" them as well "just as" they are in eachother: Jn 17:21 "just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us "; also in 1 Jn 4:15 "Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." So biblically, it is appropriate for us to say the Father is in us and we are in the Father as well...

Huh? He WAS God. All his actions were actons that He performed under His own power as God.

Once again, you're losing me...per your previous comments....

Anyhow, I don't understand how you mean Jesus had no powers other human beings did not have. Can you elaborate?

Yes and the disciples "performed" many miracles too. All this is by the power of God

Let's be a little more specific so those of us with lower IQ's can follow. When He was avoiding temptation in the desert on His way to a sinless life, was He doing this with "no powers other human beings did not have" or was He doing this "under His own power as God"?

[spongebob]

I'm sorry. Were you elected President of the forum while I was away?

Me? You're the one flouting the forum rules and then being a jerk about it What is your problem? Atheists object (and rightly) when Christians post on their forum. Usually it's accidental on both sides - we see an interesting topic and forget we're on the "opposite" forum and post. Then we're reminded that we posted on the wrong forum, and graciously apologize and withdraw. I figured you posted accidentally, so I politely reminded you and asked you to leave. I guess I was wrong - you're just being a jerk.

Sigh....will this never end. Rian, I did not post here accidentally. My post here was intentional. My comments were well within the topic being discussed and were a valid point being made to the observations. I posted 2 times in response to you, hardly a trend. I posted a couple of other times as well to other members comments, all directly related to the topic. I'm not debating the validity of Christianity here, nor the existence of god. This is completely allowed on this thread so far as I interpret the spirit of this forum. If you have a complaint about me posting here, then you must also complain about the many times other non-believers have posted as well. When I look over the Christian threads, I see no one else complaining. So please just mind your own business. I will not ask your permission to post on any part of this forum.

And thank you so much for being the first to start the flame wars again by calling me a jerk when I did nothing wrong.

[spongebob]

A lot of the atheists here believe that a selfless act is an impossibility and so they see the selfishness nature of the kind of christianity you preach. But I disagree with both you and these atheists. I believe that there is such an things as a selfless act and I believe in a God who is completely self-less in this way, and the most significant way to get near Him is to share His values and not be so completely wrapped up in what is in it for yourself. I worship God because of who He is, which is to say because of what He values and fights for, and NOT because of what I can get out of it. Sure people may find that incomprehensible and continue to justify a "me-first" approach to everything by saying that self-less-ness is impossible, but it seems to me that this, more than anything else, is the deepest and darkest hole that people can be in.

Mitch, I totally agree with you on this subject. I'm not sure who these atheists are you mentioned, but I certainly believe selfless acts exist. I believe that this was the core meaning of the gospel, or at least that's how I interpret it, so I can see value in it even if I don't acknowledge it as divinely inspired. I have found that selfless acts are the way to truly understand many things and people. I seems to me that you have to kind of ignore your own self interests in order to open a pathway for understanding. One's own ego is often an obstacle to enlightenment.

[ChristianHeretic]

I worship God because of who He is

This sounds wonderful, presuming of course you know who God is? Yes, God is loving, but that does not encapsulate the "God" I know and worship? Ghandi, Dalai Lama, Buddha and spongebob would probably all agree with your version of God as well? This is a major error in Christianity. Yes, "Jesus" was selfless, but that is because He had to be for the role He chose/was given. He was constantly submitting Himself to the will of the one true God, who requires reverence and glory. There is a significant separation between Jesus and God, that even Jesus Himself saw. Paul even tells us in Phil 2:11 that "every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." This is not a cosmic battle between two "persons" looking for bragging rights...this was Jesus, fully submitting Himself to the one God BECAUSE it brings that God, His Father, glory...

God is not selfless, this is a human obligation, for subjects alone. He is God and has no requirement to 'play nice'! I promise you, spongebob and many other educated non-Christians in this post can go to long links as to how the God of the Bible is not a fair, selfless God...from what I have read, this is one of the many reasons many reject God, because He's not the God you describe...

For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act;
For how can My name be profaned?
And My glory I will not give to another.

I like the way Greg Johnson puts it, he envisions God going on trial for the charge of "selfishness":

In his remarks, the prosecutor points to the way the Defendant burned to death two young men, Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1-7). Further, the Defendant struck dead a man named Uzzah for touching the Defendant's Ark of the Covenant in a sincere attempt to keep it from falling off its cart (2 Sam 6:6-8). On one occasion, the Defendant killed everyone on earth but eight people (Gen 6-8). More recently, he took the lives of a married couple, Ananias and Sapphira, even though they were giving money to the Defendant's church (Acts 5:1-11). The Defendant thinks he's more important than other people. He thinks his rules are the only rules. He thinks everything revolves around him. The Defendant, the prosecution insists, is selfish.

To which God responds..."Guilty! I am God"

My God is a god of power, wisdom and authority AND love and compassion. But you can't have one without the other and still recognize the one true God.

[Rian]

I'm sorry. Were you elected President of the forum while I was away?

Me? You're the one flouting the forum rules and then being a jerk about it What is your problem? Atheists object (and rightly) when Christians post on their forum. Usually it's accidental on both sides - we see an interesting topic and forget we're on the "opposite" forum and post. Then we're reminded that we posted on the wrong forum, and graciously apologize and withdraw. I figured you posted accidentally, so I politely reminded you and asked you to leave. I guess I was wrong - you're just being a jerk.

Sigh....will this never end. Rian, I did not post here accidentally. My post here was intentional. My comments were well within the topic being discussed and were a valid point being made to the observations. I posted 2 times in response to you, hardly a trend. I posted a couple of other times as well to other members comments, all directly related to the topic. I'm not debating the validity of Christianity here, nor the existence of god. This is completely allowed on this thread so far as I interpret the spirit of this forum. If you have a complaint about me posting here, then you must also complain about the many times other non-believers have posted as well. When I look over the Christian threads, I see no one else complaining. So please just mind your own business. I will not ask your permission to post on any part of this forum.

And thank you so much for being the first to start the flame wars again by calling me a jerk when I did nothing wrong.

No, YOU started the flamewar with your sarcastic remark about being president in response to my very polite requests for you to leave.

The Christian forum says "Where Christians can talk among themselves" and the atheist forum says "Where atheists can talk among themselves", and no one has EVER had a problem with respecting that when asked to leave - until you. The idea is clear - everyone talks in the open forums, and Christians and atheists can talk in their own forums amongst themselves - with the occasional accidental drop-in from the other side, or even a quick intentional post, but ALWAYS leaving graciously when asked. I've never seen ANYONE not respect that - until you. EVERYONE has always graciously left when asked - until you.

You are following me and picking a fight again, Bob - once again, you didn't post in a thread until I did, then you contradicted me, then tried to start a fight with a stupid sarcastic comment about being president after polite responses on my side. You have some kind of weird thing about me, and that's why I've had to stop responding to you on the general discussion forum - I guess that's why you followed me here . I had no idea that you'd actually fight a request to leave the Christian forum - no one has EVER done that with either forum - but I see that you'll even do that, so I'll have to stop responding to you here, too, even with the simple request to leave the Christian forum.

So finally - I ask you again to please honor the forum description and leave, and stop ruining threads with your flamewars. Whatever you do, I'm going to stop responding to you at this point (you know that I would have put you on ignore long ago but I can't - you're a moderator ) so you can't wreck the thread any more than you have already.

[Rian]

I like the way Greg Johnson puts it, he envisions God going on trial for the charge of "selfishness":

In his remarks, the prosecutor points to the way the Defendant burned to death two young men, Nadab and Abihu (Lev 10:1-7). Further, the Defendant struck dead a man named Uzzah for touching the Defendant's Ark of the Covenant in a sincere attempt to keep it from falling off its cart (2 Sam 6:6-8). On one occasion, the Defendant killed everyone on earth but eight people (Gen 6-8). More recently, he took the lives of a married couple, Ananias and Sapphira, even though they were giving money to the Defendant's church (Acts 5:1-11). The Defendant thinks he's more important than other people. He thinks his rules are the only rules. He thinks everything revolves around him. The Defendant, the prosecution insists, is selfish.

To which God responds..."Guilty! I am God"

My God is a god of power, wisdom and authority AND love and compassion. But you can't have one without the other and still recognize the one true God.

This topic of God's "selfishness" and the whole thing about God's "glory" is an interesting one, and one that I've thought a lot on, because frankly, I'm in the camp of "I wouldn't worship a selfish God and one that whines about getting glory for himself even if I knew that he existed and was very powerful". IOW, I worship what is morally worthwhile, although I may be impressed by power.

I don't think that God would respond "Guilty! I am God". I think that he would respond "Oh ye of little faith!"

Let me tell a story - a true story. It happened about 8 years ago.

My middle son is handicapped - he basically has no legs (they're just very short little stubbies). He is, however, very personable and cute - big blue eyes, beautiful blonde hair - and strangers come up to him all the time to talk to him. One day, I was with my son, and this man starts to walk up to him. No problem - this happens a lot. However, suddenly things were different. He pulled out a knife and started going for my son. I'm talking a real knife here - made of metal, and with a sharp edge on it. What did I do?

(darn - here's where I need that "spoiler" option that I asked Emery about, where you can gray-out text! Oh well ...)

What did I do? I held my son down for the man so he could get at him with the knife, because the man was a doctor and we were in an emergency room and my son had a post-operative infection that the doctor had to open up in order to save his life. (and it was yucky! tons of pus came out - I got a little light-headed ... )

Anyway, my point is that if we don't know everything, we often don't judge rightly. And I think that's the case with the selfish thing and the glory thing. What seems at first glance as something selfish is, I think, something very different (and yes, some people might cry that this is trying to justify things or whatever that word/phrase is - yes, that CAN happen, but it doesn't HAVE to be the case, either - and my experience with God is so deep and long now that it makes more sense to think that something a little odd has a good reason behind it than not. My experience with atheists is that often when we have a good explanation for something that is a little complex, they fall back on the "you're just trying to justify it" phrase because that's the easy way out for them).

I think there are 2 main reasons why God does not want to "give his glory to others", and neither of them are selfish:

The first is that not only does God like truth; he IS truth (cf. John 14:6 - so interesting that he says he IS the truth, not merely that he TELLS the truth) and to give ANYTHING of ANYONE to anyone else is a lie.

The second is that it is vitally important that we know all about God for our own good, so that he can help us! which we need very much! If I'm drowning and there's a guy on the shore, I'd sure like to know if he's a champion swimmer or not!

And I just thought of a third - I think that God is very relational - his very essence is relational, in that he is three-in-one with Jesus and the Holy Spirit - and obviously he wants a relation with us, and the best thing for any relationship is knowing all about the other person.

Anyway, whatcha think?

[Rian]

God is not selfless, this is a human obligation, for subjects alone.

I disagree - I think that morally, God is everything that he asks us to be, although there are certainly differences in our beings and our responsibilities. I think that God embodies selflessness.

Yes, "Jesus" was selfless, but that is because He had to be for the role He chose/was given

Well, I'd word that a little differently - I wouldn't say "had to be" - that sounds like he might have been a selfish couch-potato until God gave him his task, then he's all "Rats! Now I gotta be selfless!" (I don't think you meant it that way, but it sounded a little funny! )

(and btw, I heard a really interesting thing about Uzzah that I want to remember to write about, too, in another post)

[mitchellmckain]

Mitch, I totally agree with you on this subject. I'm not sure who these atheists are you mentioned, but I certainly believe selfless acts exist. I believe that this was the core meaning of the gospel, or at least that's how I interpret it, so I can see value in it even if I don't acknowledge it as divinely inspired. I have found that selfless acts are the way to truly understand many things and people. I seems to me that you have to kind of ignore your own self interests in order to open a pathway for understanding. One's own ego is often an obstacle to enlightenment.

I certainly did not mean to imply that this was an atheist characteristic or anything. I am refering back to a podcast ("Should you be true to yourself") and the discussion that followed, and there were both atheists and christians that agreed with the "no such thing as a selfless act" stand, including Scott apparently.





As for the spat between you and Ryan in this forum, I would assume it is over and that you were not planning to say anymore about it. I would rather not say anything myself. sigh... All I can suggest is trying to avoid being defensive in the Christian section in case that might be misinterpreted. For example, I shouldn't have had to make the qualification above since I wasn't speaking to a mixed audience.

[Rian]

For example, I shouldn't have had to make the qualification above since I wasn't speaking to a mixed audience.

Exactly! I think that's the whole reason behind the forums. It's not trying to be mean or anything - it's just simply that on ANY topic, discussions are different between those that agree on something and have a background in it, and those that disagree. It's just that simple, as well as there's less likely to be flare-ups between those that agree on something, so we can talk in deeper and different ways.

Although there's been the occasional post on opposite forums, everyone has ALWAYS graciously respected the request to leave - until now. I hope that Sponge will change his mind and gracefully leave.

[mitchellmckain]

ChristianHeretic,

Jesus subjected himself to humanity and all the laws of this world, but He had all the authority to speak for God because He was God. But a big part of this was the fact that He in every way acted as He said a human being should act in one accord with God the Father. Rather than acting on his own limited perspective as a human being, He always went to the Father first. Thus Jesus said, "I can do nothing on my own authority, as I hear, I judge, and my judgement is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of Him who sent me." While subjected to the limitations of humanity, He further subjected Himself to the dictates of the Father, and it is because of this that He did speak with the authority of God. Indeed any human being can theoretically do the same, for if we are in complete obedience to God then the authority of God is naturally behind it. In practice we know that no fallen human being is even close to 100% obedient to God and in fact the authority of God is not behind most of the things he does.

Or to put it another way, there is no need to buy into this split personality crap because Jesus never did act independently of the Father. It wasn't two minds in one body but simply two seperate persons, Jesus and the Father who worked together intimately. But the point is that all Christians are called to be in the same kind of relationship with God.

When He was avoiding temptation in the desert on His way to a sinless life, was He doing this with "no powers other human beings did not have" or was He doing this "under His own power as God"?

He was avoiding tempatation by refering to the scriptures and so, absolutely yes, He was doing this with no ability or aid other than that which is available to other human beings through Him. Furthermore, Jesus wasn't "on His way to a sinless life". His life was always sinless.



As for the rest, I see no reason to rehash all our old arguments about Trinitarianism and the divinity of Jesus in this thread. Let's leave that in the other threads devoted to that topic.

[ChristianHeretic]

Huh? He WAS God. All his actions were actons that He performed under His own power as God.

He had left all that power and knowledge behind Him when He subjected Himself to the laws of this world and became a helpless human infant.

He had all the authority to speak for God because He was God

He further subjected Himself to the dictates of the Father, and it is because of this that He did speak with the authority of God

Ok, but you can see how comments like the ones above make this topic confusing for those that don't speak the confusing Trinitarian dialect of logic? So now I understand you to be saying you misspoke above and Jesus did NOT avoid temptation through "His own power of God" or "because He was God." I understand you to be saying:

He was doing this with no ability or aid other than that which is available to other human beings

...unfortunately, many fellow christians presume we do not have the same abilities He had because they allege that He was God, and so how could we...specifically in the areas of sin, miracles, access to the Father, etc. So it is helpful for me to understand that you are not in that camp.

You seem to be endorsing the Kenosis theology that He gave up or purposefully suppressed His deity while here on earth. That he either didn't have access to his deity while here, or chose not to access His deity while on earth so that He could personify humanity. Got it...still leaves plenty of questions on logical inconsistencies for me, which is what started this whole thing regarding Thomas Morris' scathing indictment of Kenosis theologians, but I won't address them again here...

[ChristianHeretic]

I worship what is morally worthwhile

Then what separates your God from those of the other morally sound religions? I would argue that most Jainists or Buddhists I've run into have a better grasp on morality than many Jews or Christians?

I wouldn't worship a selfish God and one that whines about getting glory for himself

I'd be careful with comments like those Rian...would you worship a God that struck you down dead for violating a law of his even if you did it with a morally sound conscience (2Sam 6:6-8)? Would you worship a jealous God insisting that you only worship Him (Ex 20:4-5)? Would you worship a God that wouldn't forgive a person for blaspheming His Spirit (Mt 12:31-32)?

I'm completely fine if you don't want to worship the God of the bible, but just understand that you are creating a morally appropriate God that you believe is worthy of your worship. This is the God that couldn't possibly choose an entire people solely for Himself. Or potentially abandon some to their sin. Or allow evil in the world...etc

I choose to worship God because He's God. If He decided to abandon any promise He gave to save me, I would still worship Him. If I thought He turned His back on me, I would still worship Him. If he wasn't what you and mitch are calling a "morally worthwhile" God, I would still worship Him. Because if worship were based on my perception of morality, He would have lost me way before He killed toddlers in Egypt or struck down Uzzah. I am forever grateful for His grace and goodness, but do not require it for Him to be worthy of my worship.

[mitchellmckain]

You seem to be endorsing the Kenosis theology that He gave up or purposefully suppressed His deity while here on earth.

Incorrect. His deity cannot be suppressed. He was always God and always will be. What I reject is your equivalence of deity with power. I do not worship power. I do not think that power = God. I do not identify or define God by power. This is WHY I can believe that omnipotence is NOT a logically contradictory or logically inconsistent concept. One who is truly all-powerful really can do as He chooses and it is His will that is in control and not some definition of a human theology that says God cannot take risks, make sacrifices or become a helpless human infant. Real omnipotence must include a power over oneself and this is in fact the most significant aspect of it. God really is omnipotent because He really can do anything or be anything.

That he either didn't have access to his deity while here, or chose not to access His deity while on earth so that He could personify humanity.

Incorrect. He had FULL access to His deity, full access to the Father, but by His own choice He submitted himself to the limitations of being human, so yes He did indeed set aside all power and knowledge that were outside those limitations, and so He was fully human. But He was fully God because His deity is not a function of power. Power is not the definition of deity. I do not worship power and I NEVER will.

My God is love. My God is sacrifice. My God is the suffering servant. My God is one for whom power and knowlege is nothing and it is love and goodness that is everything. And this He showed us when for the sake of love He cast infinite power and knowledge aside to become a helpless human infant. Power is not my god, not my Lord and not my savior. Love and goodness is my savior and my Lord and my God.

[ChristianHeretic]

His deity cannot be suppressed. He was always God and always will be...He did indeed set aside all power and knowledge that were outside those limitations

Ok, maybe I misstated your position. You don't believe Jesus lost or suppressed his "deity", just his prerogatives as deity. Is that correct? Hold on, never mind, in your view, God doesn't have to have power, authority or wisdom to be called God, so the discussion is really moot.

I do not worship power. I do not think that power = God.

UNCLE with the worshipping power bit! I'm not claiming that you or I or anyone else worships power, I'm claiming that the God that I worship happens to be powerful. So let's drop that straw man you're beating like a dead horse...I was simply pointing out the observation that an entity that has "made the heavens and the earth by your great power and outstretched arm. Nothing is too hard for you (Jer 32:17)" seems to me, and the author of Jeremiah, to have a significant amount of power. But I'm fine if it makes you feel better to change Jesus' prayer to "...Yours is the kingdom and the [love] and the glory forever. Amen."

The point of my comments is a simple, and practical one. Did Jesus, as He was performing acts here on earth, access His deity...err, power, wisdom and authority God doesn't have to have to call Himself God...to accomplish these acts. You've pseudo-answered that question above. You do no believe He exercised super-human talents to do anything we couldn't do. Except of course you "clarify" your position with:

All his actions were actons that He performed under His own power as God.

which basically makes your position as clear as mud...