J
John_Hiner
Guest
Laudetur Iesus Christus.
Dear “StrawberryJam:”
No; it is the “agnostic” position that God cannot be known. This is neither evident nor true.
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
- Status
Dear “StrawberryJam:”
No; it is the “agnostic” position that God cannot be known. This is neither evident nor true.
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
R
ready
Guest
One thing I failed to mention in my earlier post is that it says in the Bible (I’m sure repeatedly) that God doesn’t lie. Yes, he lets abominable, deceitful souls to be deluded and to believe in lies, but that is not God directly deceiving them, but their evil doing being the blinders and causes of their delusions.
P
PJM
Guest
No, God cannot lie. It would violate God’s Divine and perfect Nature.
***2 Cor. 1: 17 "Was I vacillating when I wanted to do this? Do I make my plans like a worldly man, ready to say Yes and No at once? 18 As surely as God is faithful, our word to you has not been Yes and No. 19 For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, whom we preached among you, Silvanus and Timothy and I, was not Yes and No; but in him it is always Yes. 20 For all the promises of God find their Yes in him. That is why we utter the Amen through him, to the glory of God. ***
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
How is hardening a heart not God directly interfering in a person’s free will?
J
John_Hiner
Guest
Laudetur Iesus Christus.How is hardening a heart not God directly interfering in a person’s free will?
One’s will is instrumental in one’s reactions, both emotional and rational. Thus, a person who suffers repeated difficulties may feel tempted to become hard or bitter. However, an act of will can resist this temptation, and further practical acts of will can seek solace and relief from this temptation. Hence, the fact that circumstances tempt a person to hardness does not amount to that person’s will being overrun.
Now God knows each of us well. Hence, He knows what will affect a given person and can see how that person will respond. However, His seeing and even acting with the knowledge of one’s propensities is not the same as robbing that person of his will.
To argue otherwise is to argue like the little brother who cannot resist a dare, who eats a worm and then says, “You made me do it,” to his big brother who dared him. This is just false. The elder brother did not “make” him do it, though he did cause him to do it. In fact, this is an excellent way for older brothers to teach younger brothers to strengthen their wills, so that they can resist dares in the future.
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
God hardening Pharoh’s heart was like daring him to do what he knew he would do anyway? So, can I ask why the need to harden his heart if that is the case? Or does God choose to act like a six year old boy with humans then, turns around and kills their son?
N
nancy_dalrymple
Guest
Please Peter, what do you mean? Can you explain? Love of Christ Nancy
J
John_Hiner
Guest
Laudetur Iesus Christus.
Dear StrawberryJam:
Your sacrilege is not welcome. If you want to discuss these matters we can do so. However, you should not demean God in the way you phrase your questions – or are they not actually questions but rather slurs against God?
You may not realize it, but the members of the Holy Church are enjoined not to offer holy things to people who seek to tear them apart. Are you seeking to understand or to tear up or down?
By the way, your restatement is not accurate. The dare in my example was the thing which the younger brother could not resist. In the case of Pharaoh, that would be parallel to hardening of heart, not to the action which God took to occasion Pharaoh’s hardness of heart. That is why one would say that the older brother dared the younger brother and, as the parallel suggests, God “hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” Perhaps your question could be more carefully phrased, if it is indeed a question.
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I will be happy to ask this question on a seperate thread. I understood your comparison to be about God being like the children you described in your post.
If you meant it another way, I did not see that.
I’m wondering why you use a comparison for me to understand this, and then object if I use the same comparison and then go with it.
I was simply asking about hardening hearts and free will. I did not use an analogy of a child to talk about God. I simply went with your analogy.
I don’t hate your God, or wish to commit sacrilidge (what that is I do not even know)
N
nancy_dalrymple
Guest
The first question to ask when looking at the question of ‘Can God lie?’ is a look at which God or god this is being asked of. Many old religions have a trickster god as part of the pantheon. Such a being as Loki, the Coyote, or Hermes has it as part of the very nature of the being to lie, cheat, and be a general trickster. In these stories, it is not only the trickster gods that lie or deceive, but a fair portion of the pantheon too (as Hera asks Zeus “Honey, have you impregnated any more young maidens today?”).
This changes when the pantheon is reduced to one supreme being as it is with the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian branch of religion as this question implies, one must look at the nature of the supreme being and the attributes that are ascribed to it.
God has three key components as part of His being:
•Omniscient
•Omnipotent
•Omnibenevolent
While there are debates as to if any or all of these are contradictory in nature, the question of omnibenevolance and omnipotence comes into play with the question of “Can God lie?”.
To an extent, the question of “Can God lie?” pits the ability of being able to lie (mandated by omnipotence) with His omnibenevloant nature prohibiting Him from doing so. This is similar to the question of “Can God make a square circle?” or “Can God make a rock that He can’t lift?”
Descartes works from this in several of his arguments for the existence of material objects (the world) - that God exists, and that God is not a deceiver.
1.God is no deceiver
2.He created me and gave me reason which tells me that my ideas come from external corporeal things.
3.If they do not come from external objects, then God must be a deceiver. But this is an absurdity
4.Therefore - Material objects exist
The classic definition of omnibenevolence with regard to God is that God is perfectly good. There are a fair number of examples in the Old Testament where one may reasonably call into question the aspect of omnibenevolence (casting out of Eden, the flood, Tower of Babel to name a few). Assume for the sake of argument that God is omnibenevolant - if he isn’t, then there is less of an argument for that God is not a deceiver and the very computer that you sit in front of reading this will disappear in a puff of logic as you find yourself to be awaken as a brain in a vat.
If God is perfectly good, then He will not lie. This can be reasonably upheld given the works available (I can’t think of any instances in the Bible where God didn’t uphold His side of a deal - though this can easily be countered with it just may not be recorded). Just as a vegetarian has the free will choice of to exercise the power of eating meat or not, God has the free will choice of exercising the power of deceiving or not. The outcome of this should be fairly apparent to even someone without omniscience.
Yes, God can lie and deceive us. However, doing so is not in His nature. The ability to do so exists and is not in conflict with omnipotence. Nor does this refusal of deception contradict His free will. One may accept on faith (the same faith that presupposes the existence of God) that God will not lie or deceive us.
This changes when the pantheon is reduced to one supreme being as it is with the Jewish, Islamic, and Christian branch of religion as this question implies, one must look at the nature of the supreme being and the attributes that are ascribed to it.
God has three key components as part of His being:
•Omniscient
•Omnipotent
•Omnibenevolent
While there are debates as to if any or all of these are contradictory in nature, the question of omnibenevolance and omnipotence comes into play with the question of “Can God lie?”.
To an extent, the question of “Can God lie?” pits the ability of being able to lie (mandated by omnipotence) with His omnibenevloant nature prohibiting Him from doing so. This is similar to the question of “Can God make a square circle?” or “Can God make a rock that He can’t lift?”
Descartes works from this in several of his arguments for the existence of material objects (the world) - that God exists, and that God is not a deceiver.
1.God is no deceiver
2.He created me and gave me reason which tells me that my ideas come from external corporeal things.
3.If they do not come from external objects, then God must be a deceiver. But this is an absurdity
4.Therefore - Material objects exist
The classic definition of omnibenevolence with regard to God is that God is perfectly good. There are a fair number of examples in the Old Testament where one may reasonably call into question the aspect of omnibenevolence (casting out of Eden, the flood, Tower of Babel to name a few). Assume for the sake of argument that God is omnibenevolant - if he isn’t, then there is less of an argument for that God is not a deceiver and the very computer that you sit in front of reading this will disappear in a puff of logic as you find yourself to be awaken as a brain in a vat.
If God is perfectly good, then He will not lie. This can be reasonably upheld given the works available (I can’t think of any instances in the Bible where God didn’t uphold His side of a deal - though this can easily be countered with it just may not be recorded). Just as a vegetarian has the free will choice of to exercise the power of eating meat or not, God has the free will choice of exercising the power of deceiving or not. The outcome of this should be fairly apparent to even someone without omniscience.
Yes, God can lie and deceive us. However, doing so is not in His nature. The ability to do so exists and is not in conflict with omnipotence. Nor does this refusal of deception contradict His free will. One may accept on faith (the same faith that presupposes the existence of God) that God will not lie or deceive us.
(I like it!)
J
John_Hiner
Guest
Laudetur Iesus Christus.I will be happy to ask this question on a seperate thread. I understood your comparison to be about God being like the children you described in your post.
If you meant it another way, I did not see that.
I’m wondering why you use a comparison for me to understand this, and then object if I use the same comparison and then go with it.
I was simply asking about hardening hearts and free will. I did not use an analogy of a child to talk about God. I simply went with your analogy.
I don’t hate your God, or wish to commit sacrilidge (what that is I do not even know)
Dear “StawberryJam:”
Sacrilege is treating God with less respect than He is due.
I did not say that the brothers were children, though one might have inferred youth in the younger brother from his weakness of will. Sadly this inference is not always justified. There are men of advanced years who cannot resist dares, even one’s involving eating worms – especially if they are in the bottom of tequila bottles.
It would not be demeaning to God to compare Him to a child, if one respected children. Your phrasing did not express much respect for “six year old boys.” Nevertheless, as I said, your restatement did not follow the analogy accurately.
I would be happy to respond further to your question in a separate thread, if you authentically wish to explore these matters, but I think this topic is related to the question of whether God can deceive. I will continue either in a new thread or here, as you judge best.
I hope you are correct that you do not hate my God. However, since I suspect you are referring to an emotional disposition and not to objective hate, I am unsure about your reassurance. I am interested to see whether you are correct.
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
One may have inferred a child under the age of reason simply by talking about eating worms.
I started a thread about Hardening Hearts and Free will in order to not derail this thread any further.
Objective hate? For a being I dont even believe in?
J
John_Hiner
Guest
Laudetur Iesus Christus.One may have inferred a child under the age of reason simply by talking about eating worms.
I started a thread about Hardening Hearts and Free will in order to not derail this thread any further.
Objective hate? For a being I dont even believe in?
Dear “StrawberryJam:”
There would have been no difficulty with such an inference, either from weakness of will or from the worm, if it had not been used in a demeaning or scoffing way in phrasing the response. You seem, however, to display a tendency not to respond to or acknowledge substantive points. Have you never been tempted by tequila?
Do you have a link to the new thread?
Subjective unbelief makes objective hate much more likely, removing almost all moral and intellectual protections of the “dis-belived.”
Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.
John Hiner
N
nancy_dalrymple
Guest
StrawberryJam,
Agnosticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual-beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself, and the terms are not mutually exclusive, since agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief.[2]
Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people,[3] using ‘agnostic’ in the sense of ‘noncommittal’.[4][dubious – discuss] However, this can be misleading given the existence of agnostic theists, who identify themselves as both agnostics in the original sense and followers of a particular religion
‘Agnostic’ was introduced by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1860 to describe his philosophy which rejects Gnosticism, by which he meant not simply the early 1st millennium religious group, but all claims to spiritual or mystical knowledge.
Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe “spiritual knowledge.” Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism. Huxley used the term in a broad sense.
[edit] Qualifying agnosticism
Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt.[6]. He asserted that the fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition (as in, “all bachelors are unmarried” or “all triangles have three angles”). All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin “I believe that …” are simply shorthand for, “Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that…” For instance, when one says, “I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy,” one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence. Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that waking up will be possible, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the earth might be destroyed, or one might die before the alarm goes off).
The Catholic Church sees merit in examining what it calls Partial Agnosticism, specifically those systems that “do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the Unknowable, but at excluding special kinds of truth, notably religious, from the domain of knowledge.”[7] However, the Church is historically opposed to a full denial of the ability of human reason to know God. The Council of the Vatican, relying on biblical scripture, declares that “God, the beginning and end of all, can, by the natural light of human reason, be known with certainty from the works of creation” (Const. De Fide, II, De Rev.)[8]
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories.
Strong agnosticism (also called “hard,” “closed,” “strict,” or “permanent agnosticism”)
—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, “I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.”
Weak agnosticism (also called “soft,” “open,” “empirical,” or “temporal agnosticism”)
—the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, “I don’t know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out.”
Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)
—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]
Agnostic atheism
—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[9]
Agnostic theism (also called “spiritual agnosticism”)
—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: “If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.” (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)
Ignosticism
—the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn’t coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept “a deity exists” as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.[10][dubious – discuss]
Which one are you? Love of Christ Nancy
Agnosticism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual-beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself, and the terms are not mutually exclusive, since agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief.[2]
Demographic research services normally list agnostics in the same category as atheists and/or non-religious people,[3] using ‘agnostic’ in the sense of ‘noncommittal’.[4][dubious – discuss] However, this can be misleading given the existence of agnostic theists, who identify themselves as both agnostics in the original sense and followers of a particular religion
‘Agnostic’ was introduced by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1860 to describe his philosophy which rejects Gnosticism, by which he meant not simply the early 1st millennium religious group, but all claims to spiritual or mystical knowledge.
Early Christian church leaders used the Greek word gnosis (knowledge) to describe “spiritual knowledge.” Agnosticism is not to be confused with religious views opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism. Huxley used the term in a broad sense.
[edit] Qualifying agnosticism
Scottish Enlightenment philosopher David Hume contended that meaningful statements about the universe are always qualified by some degree of doubt.[6]. He asserted that the fallibility of human beings means that they cannot obtain absolute certainty except in trivial cases where a statement is true by definition (as in, “all bachelors are unmarried” or “all triangles have three angles”). All rational statements that assert a factual claim about the universe that begin “I believe that …” are simply shorthand for, “Based on my knowledge, understanding, and interpretation of the prevailing evidence, I tentatively believe that…” For instance, when one says, “I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy,” one is not asserting an absolute truth but a tentative belief based on interpretation of the assembled evidence. Even though one may set an alarm clock prior to the following day, believing that waking up will be possible, that belief is tentative, tempered by a small but finite degree of doubt (the earth might be destroyed, or one might die before the alarm goes off).
The Catholic Church sees merit in examining what it calls Partial Agnosticism, specifically those systems that “do not aim at constructing a complete philosophy of the Unknowable, but at excluding special kinds of truth, notably religious, from the domain of knowledge.”[7] However, the Church is historically opposed to a full denial of the ability of human reason to know God. The Council of the Vatican, relying on biblical scripture, declares that “God, the beginning and end of all, can, by the natural light of human reason, be known with certainty from the works of creation” (Const. De Fide, II, De Rev.)[8]
Agnosticism can be subdivided into several subcategories.
Strong agnosticism (also called “hard,” “closed,” “strict,” or “permanent agnosticism”)
—the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, “I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.”
Weak agnosticism (also called “soft,” “open,” “empirical,” or “temporal agnosticism”)
—the view that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is currently unknown but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until/if any evidence is available. A weak agnostic would say, “I don’t know whether any deities exist or not, but maybe one day when there is more evidence we can find something out.”
Apathetic agnosticism (also called Pragmatic agnosticism)
—the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic.[citation needed]
Agnostic atheism
—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, and do not believe in any.[9]
Agnostic theism (also called “spiritual agnosticism”)
—the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence. Søren Kierkegaard believed that knowledge of any deity is impossible, and because of that people who want to be theists must believe: “If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe.” (See Knowledge vs. Beliefs.)
Ignosticism
—the view that a coherent definition of a deity must be put forward before the question of the existence of a deity can be meaningfully discussed. If the chosen definition isn’t coherent, the ignostic holds the noncognitivist view that the existence of a deity is meaningless or empirically untestable. A.J. Ayer, Theodore Drange, and other philosophers see both atheism and agnosticism as incompatible with ignosticism on the grounds that atheism and agnosticism accept “a deity exists” as a meaningful proposition which can be argued for or against. An ignostic cannot even say whether he/she is a theist or a nontheist until a better definition of theism is put forth.[10][dubious – discuss]
Which one are you? Love of Christ Nancy
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Good question nancy. How do I reply to an encyclopedia definition, and tell you wich I am of the long explainations given?
Well, here is one thing I realized after reading your post. I do think that it is impossible to define exactly which one I am. There is a great deal of pressure in this world to call oneself an agnostic so as not to be considered an athiest I admit freely. Perhaps, this has also been a reason I have convinced myself I am agnostic, rather than an athiest. I realize there are pressures and influences that could be a part of my preference to call myself that.
I did not grow up in a home where either parent had any belief in any god. I was not stopped from asking questions, and I had them. I was not stopped from having christian friends, or barred from learning about any god and had childhood friends that were believers and still are.
My christian friends have never tried to convert me, and I have never engaged them in my questions about their beliefs because I realize that could jepordize our friendships.
Quite frankly, I don’t see many reasons to believe. I could start a list of those reasons, but how will that satisfy your question? I do have an active interest to “put this to bed” once and for all now in my life. I really don’t know if I ever would have if my circumstances in life had not changed so drastically. But, I have to say I have learned much more about christian beliefs being here. Not enough to believe, but enough to see some things in a way I did not before.
I am sure this is not a helpful reply, but I am just as confused about believers as you may be about me. I have seen so many misunderstandings and statements made about those without belief here, that I wonder if any of you know anyone personally without any belief.
Sorry if this is not clear enough, but it’s as clear as I can say it now. I’m doing all I can do to see this God. I want to at least have a clear conscience that I did exhaust all the options before I die.
Thank you for asking.
Well, here is one thing I realized after reading your post. I do think that it is impossible to define exactly which one I am. There is a great deal of pressure in this world to call oneself an agnostic so as not to be considered an athiest I admit freely. Perhaps, this has also been a reason I have convinced myself I am agnostic, rather than an athiest. I realize there are pressures and influences that could be a part of my preference to call myself that.
I did not grow up in a home where either parent had any belief in any god. I was not stopped from asking questions, and I had them. I was not stopped from having christian friends, or barred from learning about any god and had childhood friends that were believers and still are.
My christian friends have never tried to convert me, and I have never engaged them in my questions about their beliefs because I realize that could jepordize our friendships.
Quite frankly, I don’t see many reasons to believe. I could start a list of those reasons, but how will that satisfy your question? I do have an active interest to “put this to bed” once and for all now in my life. I really don’t know if I ever would have if my circumstances in life had not changed so drastically. But, I have to say I have learned much more about christian beliefs being here. Not enough to believe, but enough to see some things in a way I did not before.
I am sure this is not a helpful reply, but I am just as confused about believers as you may be about me. I have seen so many misunderstandings and statements made about those without belief here, that I wonder if any of you know anyone personally without any belief.
Sorry if this is not clear enough, but it’s as clear as I can say it now. I’m doing all I can do to see this God. I want to at least have a clear conscience that I did exhaust all the options before I die.
Thank you for asking.
N
nancy_dalrymple
Guest
Why your a very sweet person StrawberryJam, and i pray for only the best for you and that the holy spirit will lead you to the wonderful greatness of God and his Son Jesus the Christ the annointed one, i pray for him to lead. guide, and direct, you so you will find the answers you need for a beautiful relationship with our Lord and savouir and i want you to know that you are loved and I know that you didn’t have a chance comming out the gate, and i am sorry about that. At least like you stated you can learn here and find friends who were once where you are at now. I do know an Athiest and Agnostic I love them both, one is searching the other left the church . they have their reasons and all I can do is pray Please believe me prayer is a very explosive thing, if you truly believe with all your heart you want to find God you realy will "And you will seak me, “and you will find me, if you seek me with all your heart” You are loved Nancy Keep on keeping on!
R
ready
Guest
You mean like in the case of Pharoah? I suppose it could mean that God allowed Pharoah’s own nature to take over without giving him the grace of conversion of heart. Everything - every desire, every good thought we think or every good deed we do - is a grace from God. We just cooperate with that grace (our cooperation requiring but another grace from God) - you accept that, right? For example, when we desire to do something good, it is because we received that desire (grace) from God Himself and we said “yes” to it (through another grace). When we remain unrepentant on our death bed, for example, we either never received the grace of conversion of heart from God or we never gave our “yes” to that grace of conversion (we never cooperated with that grace through another grace). The Church teaches that every good thing we desire or think or do comes from grace and also that our salvation is through grace - a free gift. Some inveterate sinners receive the last grace of conversion on their death-beds along with the grace to cooperate with that death-bed grace - to their salvation; others don’t receive the grace to convert or to be able to cooperate with the grace of conversion (having their hearts hardened by not having received the grace to cooperate). They did not receive the grace of conversion because the grace of conversion was denied them or they were unable to give their “yes” and cooperate with the grace of conversion through another grace). God chooses to whom He will give these graces and to whom He does not want to give these graces - not to interfere with our free will or to be unfair, but because He favors whomever he wills and lavishes His graces on some of us who appear undeserving but have found some favor with Him.How is hardening a heart not God directly interfering in a person’s free will?
Thank you for not being angry with me from my other post.
N
nancy_dalrymple
Guest
What is meant by the grace of God?
When we speak of God’s grace, we mean all the good gifts we enjoy freely in life. There are so many. We could spend a lifetime celebrating them: blackberries, buttercups, moonlight, salamanders, etc. A more summary approach is to affirm that life itself is the fundamental gift, with all its delights. For us, the gift of life includes the wondrous gift of being human, finding ourselves plopped down in the midst of the larger gift of creation. That is the bedrock of grace—creation, life, human being. As humans, we are given a unique place in the created order. The creation stories in Genesis are ways of celebrating this original grace. In the stories, God pronounces all creation, including humankind, very good, that is, full of grace.
We also use the word grace to mean the secondary gifts we perceive in the skill and intelligence of creatures. The gospel says the boy Jesus grew in grace and favor, meaning he began to exhibit his unique personality and potential to contribute to his community. We speak of the beauty of a lion or a dancer, saying they exude an animal grace, discerned in the vitality and fluidity of their movement. When we use the word graceful to describe a creature, it’s because the creature is being expressive of its God-given self.
There is another way of speaking about grace that is more about redemption than about creation. Whereas God pronounced original grace, the other side of the story is when we head off on our own, ignoring the Giver. This headstrong straying we have called original sin, meaning our freedom to choose the not so good, to turn aside from original grace. Ironically, this freedom is itself the most unique grace given humankind by God, the capacity to choose our own way, which must necessarily entail the possibility of choosing poorly. Because we have not always chosen the most graceful path, we have ended up in some miserable, blind alleys along the way. When we grasp our predicament and call for the help we had previously spurned, amazing grace comes to the rescue.
As in the beloved old hymn, the amazing kind of grace is God’s gift of redemption, the grace which prompts us to repent, causing us to think again when we find ourselves in a bad way, and which prompts us to return, putting us back on a more godly path. This turning and returning we call conversion. As another simple hymn says, conversion is turning, turning, til we come round right. When we forget grace and our need of it, amazing grace prompts our memory and then upholds our will, our intention to right our lives, to make amends. The process of continual conversion is the grace most associated with the Holy Spirit. It is also called sanctifying grace. The action of this kind of grace is summarized as repentance, confession, and amendment of life. We rely on grace to make us whole, personally and communally, over time.
Redemptive grace is focused most clearly in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians call Christ, meaning the one chosen to deliver this particular grace. We might refer to Jesus as Grace himself, as Grace in the flesh, as Grace walking around. The grace of Christ can inspire us in such a transformative way as to change our awareness of ourselves, of our potential as human beings and as humankind, and our awareness of God’s gracious purpose for us and through us for all creation. It is this changed awareness which recognizes a still more specialized form of grace—the grace made available to all who choose to serve God’s hope for all in Christ. This is the grace which makes us disciples and is available as spiritual power for goodness’ sake. Jesus exhibited this kind of power and challenged us to do the same.
The spiritual power demonstrated by Jesus, and the saints who have sought to imitate his cooperation with God, is the energy which continues to heal the world, to bring it into more and more wholeness. This specialized grace is available to any who want to offer themselves in gratitude, to enlist in God’s vision for humankind and to discover our proper place in creation as we serve. This is the grace that makes us into earth stewards for Christ’s sake. This grace is the assistance given us when we choose to become the people that God means us to be, giving ourselves over to whatever goodness we are meant to create, to redeem, to sustain. This kind of grace comes with the breathtaking awareness that we are participating in the very life of God, and it’s awesome good!
When we speak of God’s grace, we mean all the good gifts we enjoy freely in life. There are so many. We could spend a lifetime celebrating them: blackberries, buttercups, moonlight, salamanders, etc. A more summary approach is to affirm that life itself is the fundamental gift, with all its delights. For us, the gift of life includes the wondrous gift of being human, finding ourselves plopped down in the midst of the larger gift of creation. That is the bedrock of grace—creation, life, human being. As humans, we are given a unique place in the created order. The creation stories in Genesis are ways of celebrating this original grace. In the stories, God pronounces all creation, including humankind, very good, that is, full of grace.
We also use the word grace to mean the secondary gifts we perceive in the skill and intelligence of creatures. The gospel says the boy Jesus grew in grace and favor, meaning he began to exhibit his unique personality and potential to contribute to his community. We speak of the beauty of a lion or a dancer, saying they exude an animal grace, discerned in the vitality and fluidity of their movement. When we use the word graceful to describe a creature, it’s because the creature is being expressive of its God-given self.
There is another way of speaking about grace that is more about redemption than about creation. Whereas God pronounced original grace, the other side of the story is when we head off on our own, ignoring the Giver. This headstrong straying we have called original sin, meaning our freedom to choose the not so good, to turn aside from original grace. Ironically, this freedom is itself the most unique grace given humankind by God, the capacity to choose our own way, which must necessarily entail the possibility of choosing poorly. Because we have not always chosen the most graceful path, we have ended up in some miserable, blind alleys along the way. When we grasp our predicament and call for the help we had previously spurned, amazing grace comes to the rescue.
As in the beloved old hymn, the amazing kind of grace is God’s gift of redemption, the grace which prompts us to repent, causing us to think again when we find ourselves in a bad way, and which prompts us to return, putting us back on a more godly path. This turning and returning we call conversion. As another simple hymn says, conversion is turning, turning, til we come round right. When we forget grace and our need of it, amazing grace prompts our memory and then upholds our will, our intention to right our lives, to make amends. The process of continual conversion is the grace most associated with the Holy Spirit. It is also called sanctifying grace. The action of this kind of grace is summarized as repentance, confession, and amendment of life. We rely on grace to make us whole, personally and communally, over time.
Redemptive grace is focused most clearly in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, whom Christians call Christ, meaning the one chosen to deliver this particular grace. We might refer to Jesus as Grace himself, as Grace in the flesh, as Grace walking around. The grace of Christ can inspire us in such a transformative way as to change our awareness of ourselves, of our potential as human beings and as humankind, and our awareness of God’s gracious purpose for us and through us for all creation. It is this changed awareness which recognizes a still more specialized form of grace—the grace made available to all who choose to serve God’s hope for all in Christ. This is the grace which makes us disciples and is available as spiritual power for goodness’ sake. Jesus exhibited this kind of power and challenged us to do the same.
The spiritual power demonstrated by Jesus, and the saints who have sought to imitate his cooperation with God, is the energy which continues to heal the world, to bring it into more and more wholeness. This specialized grace is available to any who want to offer themselves in gratitude, to enlist in God’s vision for humankind and to discover our proper place in creation as we serve. This is the grace that makes us into earth stewards for Christ’s sake. This grace is the assistance given us when we choose to become the people that God means us to be, giving ourselves over to whatever goodness we are meant to create, to redeem, to sustain. This kind of grace comes with the breathtaking awareness that we are participating in the very life of God, and it’s awesome good!
B
Barry_Gabriel
Guest
What are these verses?
R
ready
Guest
When Jesus says to his disciples that he will not go to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths, he was not lying. That was his decision made with his disciples but not his final decision.
- Status