Why didn't the son of God incarnate himself as the first man, saving the world and himself a lot of trouble?

  • Thread starter Thread starter N0X3x
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The offspring of Jesus would work the same way Eve does. They would inherit a divine nature only if God wanted them to. He is quite capable of keeping his kids from being divine.
I believe you are wrong on what begetting is… You can only beget what you are, If God wanted to withhold his divinity he would be creating something new.

Perhaps you should think that Man was created in God’s image…
 
Atonement means “at-one-ment”, by means of a scapegoat but with the power of love.
Correction:

Atonement means “at-one-ment”, **not **by means of a scapegoat but through the power of love.
 
I’ve thought about this for a few days.
My thoughts,
First God did create beings with the beatifc vision, angels, yet they still have free will as demostrated by Lucifier. God could have made every single angel in heaven not have free will, yet he gave them free will. They also had the joy of being in his presence, yet some were not happy with that, Lucifier’s rebellion.
Second, God wants us (who are greater than the angels in heaven) to want to be with him, all of our hearts, longing, souls, every bit of us. He wants true love from us. You can not get true love by not letting a person not have the chance to not love you. He wants us to have the complete chance to turn from Him, but for us to turn to Him, instead.
 
I’ve thought about this for a few days.
My thoughts,
First God did create beings with the beatifc vision, angels, yet they still have free will as demostrated by Lucifier. God could have made every single angel in heaven not have free will, yet he gave them free will. They also had the joy of being in his presence, yet some were not happy with that, Lucifier’s rebellion.
Second, God wants us (who are greater than the angels in heaven) to want to be with him, all of our hearts, longing, souls, every bit of us. He wants true love from us. You can not get true love by not letting a person not have the chance to not love you. He wants us to have the complete chance to turn from Him, but for us to turn to Him, instead.
👍 Incontestable!
 
No, it doesn’t. No teacher who gives his students a test “wills” that his students fail. Merely presenting Adam with a choice does not translate to God wanting him to make the wrong choice.
If the greatest possible good for humanity can only come about through the atonement, the atonement is only possible through sin, and God wants the greatest possible good for humanity, than God wanted Adam, or at least one of his descendents, to commit the original sin.

Furthermore, if God actually *did *want Adam to eat of the tree, then it wasn’t actually an evil act, original sin would never have come into being, and the atonement would still not have been necessary. In other words, it makes no logical sense to claim that God can use actions which are outside his own plan (sin) to fulfill his own plan (atonement). He can use sin in his own plan, but not more efficiently than if the sin never existed in the first place. Heck, one might even say that sin, by definition is an action which opposes God’s plan.
Of course man tries to meddle in God’s ultimate plan, but God is always one step ahead. And who says he can’t make the situation better than if we had not sinned? St. Paul disagrees with you on that one. 😉
I’d have to see the quote from St. Paul, because I find that very difficult to believe. I think that it is inconcievable that a portion or even all of God’s ultimate plan can only come about through sin.

Additionally, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, then there is nothing to prevent God from using our personal sins in his own plan to bring about our greater good. If that were the case, then we could never know which of our actions were ones that God actually planned for and willed. It would mean that God would want some of us to sin in certain circumstances in order to somehow make us better people. I disagree with that view entirely. Sin always corrupts; there is nothing in it that is good.

I think that it is far more likely that God can very efficiently and effectively bring about circumstances which nearly cancel the spiritual, and sometimes physical, effects of sin. For example, sin can occasionally make us humble when we are spiritually prideful. But even in such circumstances where God uses your sin to bring about good, I still don’t think he can make things better than if you hadn’t sinned at all.
 
If the greatest possible good for humanity can only come about through the atonement, the atonement is only possible through sin, and God wants the greatest possible good for humanity, than God wanted Adam, or at least one of his descendents, to commit the original sin.

Furthermore, if God actually *did *want Adam to eat of the tree, then it wasn’t actually an evil act, original sin would never have come into being, and the atonement would still not have been necessary. In other words, it makes no logical sense to claim that God can use actions which are outside his own plan (sin) to fulfill his own plan (atonement). He can use sin in his own plan, but not more efficiently than if the sin never existed in the first place. Heck, one might even say that sin, by definition is an action which opposes God’s plan.

I’d have to see the quote from St. Paul, because I find that very difficult to believe. I think that it is inconcievable that a portion or even all of God’s ultimate plan can only come about through sin.

Additionally, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, then there is nothing to prevent God from using our personal sins in his own plan to bring about our greater good. If that were the case, then we could never know which of our actions were ones that God actually planned for and willed. It would mean that God would want some of us to sin in certain circumstances in order to somehow make us better people. I disagree with that view entirely. Sin always corrupts; there is nothing in it that is good.

I think that it is far more likely that God can very efficiently and effectively bring about circumstances which nearly cancel the spiritual, and sometimes physical, effects of sin. For example, sin can occasionally make us humble when we are spiritually prideful. But even in such circumstances where God uses your sin to bring about good, I still don’t think he can make things better than if you hadn’t sinned at all.
Once again, merely knowing what will happen does not equal willing it to happen.

And here is the quote by St. Paul who explains it quite thoroughly:

[14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
[15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
[16] And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.
[17] If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
[18] Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
[19] For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
[20] Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
[21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
 
We still determine our own destiny with the help of God’s grace. No one is compelled to go to heaven or hell.
We do that now, yes, because Jesus made it possible. Before him, were were compelled to go to hell because of the actions of our ancestor. I think it is pretty clear that the actions of individual human beings (Adam and Jesus) do in fact affect, or even determine, the eternal destiny of the human race as a whole.
God didn’t come into the picture for Sartre because he was an atheist.
That’s true, but persons did. We claim that God is a person (or rather, three); Sarte made a blanket statement about persons. His statement applies to God as well, whether or not he was considering God when he said it.
More than one Messiah was not predicted nor needed.
That isn’t the argument I’m putting forward here. I’m not suggesting that the God-man should have become incarnate twice, I am suggesting that it seems that perhaps he should have become incarnate at the beginning of humanity, instead of first century Isreal. Additionally, I am not concerned with what actually happened; I know that. I’m asking, why didn’t it happen this way?
If God prevented sin it would defeat the purpose of giving us free will.
You may have a point there. Mytruepower2 argues that the test in Eden is only feasible with a person who has the power to do evil, which God allegedly does not not have. Her reasoning is that in order for a human to have a meaningful relationship with God, there must be a possibility of rejecting that relationship. In the case of humans, rejecting a relationship is equivalent to rejecting what is good, which is not true for God.

The problem here is that, if true, the trinity has no power to reject the relationships among themselves, and that idea seems to contradict the notion that the trinity is the most intimate relationship there is. Either God does have the power to do evil, God is not equivalent with goodness, or else the inability to reject a relationship does not substantially affect the intimacy of that relationship.

In any case, it seems that God making a choice as man is an action that would not substantially alter the relationship between humanity and God.
Atonement means “at-one-ment”, by means of a scapegoat but with the power of love.
right. By the power of love, Jesus took on the punishment for our sins and died on the cross. that’s what I mean when I say he paid our fine. It might not be the best analogy, but no analogy is perfectly accurately representative of God’s mysteries. If you don’t like the analogy, I’ll drop it.
We can never be worthy of salvation. Nothing we do can merit sharing God’s life in heaven. We are redeemed by the Cross but we saved by our love in response to His love.
I make a distinction between “worthy” and “deserving”, where deserving means that you merit something, and worthy simply means that you “fit” in that place. If you look at it this way, we can be worthy, but not deserving, of heaven.
That is the flawed theory of Utilitarianism which would sacrifice individuals for the sake of the majority. No formula can replace our conscience. God’s Love desires the greatest possible good for everyone. We all have an equal right to life, liberty and happiness.
That’s true enough, but when God can’t secure the greatest good for everyone, (he can’t, if there are actually people in hell.) then I figure he’ll probably have to settle for as many as possible. And, it appears that he can set up scenarios in which the decisions of one person can influence, and even determine, the eternal destiny of the rest of the race. (Again, Adam and Jesus) So, God sets up an initial test that, if the first man passes, everyone is saved, and if he fails, everyone is damned. He takes this risk because he know that in the worst case scenario, he can become incarnate and crucified so that salvation is possible again.
The Church teaches that our ultimate authority is our conscience. No one else can ever be responsible for our moral decisions.
that may well be ture, But our eternal destiny is not based solely on our moral decisions. it is also based on the actions of the representative humans, Adam and Jesus.

That idea is diametrically opposed to the injunction of Jesus that we should take up our cross and follow Him: there is no greater love than to lay down one’s life for another person.

We get ourselves into spiritual trouble through our own sins, Jesus comes and fixes part of that trouble for us. He laid down his life for us sinners because he loves us. He doesn’t say, “they made their decisions, they’ll get what they deserve.” We **can ** be saved from trouble that we inflict on ourselves.
 
It is simply not true to statw that Jesus would not have come or been incarnate if Adam and Eve had never sinned.

Jesus has always existed as He is way before the world even began. He was the first creation.

“Born of The Father before all ages…”

“I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be…”
 
I’ve thought about this for a few days.
My thoughts,
First God did create beings with the beatifc vision, angels, yet they still have free will as demostrated by Lucifier. God could have made every single angel in heaven not have free will, yet he gave them free will. They also had the joy of being in his presence, yet some were not happy with that, Lucifier’s rebellion.
Second, God wants us (who are greater than the angels in heaven) to want to be with him, all of our hearts, longing, souls, every bit of us. He wants true love from us. You can not get true love by not letting a person not have the chance to not love you. He wants us to have the complete chance to turn from Him, but for us to turn to Him, instead.
Aquinas
  1. GRACE AND GLORY OF THE ANGELS
  2. Although the angels were created in heaven, and with natural happiness or beatitude, they were not created in glory, that is, in the possession of the beatific vision.
  3. To possess God in the beatific vision the angels require grace.
  4. And, while the angels were created in the state of sanctifying grace, this was not the grace which confirms the angels in glory. Had the angels been created with the confirming grace, none of them could have fallen, and some did fall.
  5. Angels were created in grace, and by using this grace in their first act of charity (which is the friendship and love of God) they merited the beatific vision and heavenly beatitude.
  6. Instantly upon meriting the beatitude of heaven, the angels possessed it. The angelic nature, being purely spiritual, is not suited for steps and degrees of progress to perfection, as is the case with man.
  7. The higher angels, those of more perfect nature and keener intelligence, have greater gifts of grace than other angels; for their more perfect powers turn them more mightily and effectively to God than is the case with angels of lesser capacity.
  8. The heavenly beatitude enjoyed by the angels does not destroy their nature or their natural operations; hence the natural knowledge and love of angels remain in them after they are beatified.
  9. Beatified angels cannot sin. Their nature finds perfect fulfillment in the vision of God; it is disposed towards God exclusively. There is in beatified angels no possible tendency away from God, and therefore no possible sin.
  10. Angels who possess God in beatific vision cannot be increased or advanced in beatitude. A capacity that is perfectly filled up cannot be made more full.
Peace
 
That isn’t the argument I’m putting forward here. I’m not suggesting that the God-man should have become incarnate twice, I am suggesting that it seems that perhaps he should have become incarnate at the beginning of humanity, instead of first century Isreal. Additionally, I am not concerned with what actually happened; I know that. I’m asking, why didn’t it happen this way?
Who would the God-man have been incarnated in if Man had not yet been created? You keep ignoring that point…
 
It is about love or obedience? They could practice their free will in the garden not being puppet as angels did practice their free will in heaven without tree.
In the case of our relationship to God, love and obedience amount to the same thing in the end.

Your comparison with the angels is a good one, but it’s important to remember two things about it.
  1. The angels aren’t temporal in the same sense that we are, and therefore, they have only one choice to make; good or evil.
  2. Like ourselves, the angels were given a chance to make that choice, and like ourselves, some chose wrongly. The main difference is that man, being in linear time, has the chance to turn his back on sin and return to God.
Need? Based on Christian theology God knew everything, including man fall at the point of creation, which means they were part of creation and necessary.
Only God himself is necessary. Everything else is contingent.
I almost wrote, “I think you’ve answered my question, thanks!” but I thought of one more possible wrinkle to your idea: the trinity. If what you say is true, then no person in the trinity can have a meaningful relationship with any other person of the trinity, because rejecting the relationship is equivalent to rejecting God, which is in turn equivalent to rejecting morality, which is not something God has the freedom to do.

And it seems to me that the trinity is the most intimate of *all *relationships!
I agree. The Trinity is the most intimate and perfect relationship, but it would be a mistake to compare it with relationships between God and angels/humans. In those situations, a person/persons with one nature is in relationship to a person/persons with another nature.

In the case of the Trinity, each person shares the same nature, and so is united by necessity. It’s simply not logically-possible for them to be in disunity with one another, because that would make one or more persons of the Trinity imperfect, and that would make them not God.

Relationships between God and created things aren’t -total unions,- because of the distinction between God and the created thing. Instead, the created thing is simply designed by God to do his will, in the way that he sets forth, and in the cases where the created thing has free will, God gives it a purpose and the ability to fulfill that purpose. The correct use of free will is to freely choose relationship with God, but this is still only a function of a created thing, and therefore is less complete than the total union within the trinity, objectively.

I guess what I’m trying to get across is that God’s relationship within the Trinity is fundamentally different from his relationship to us, because God is so different from man. In the same way that God is unable to sin or lie, he’s unable to cause discord within himself, or reject himself.
 
I believe you are wrong on what begetting is… You can only beget what you are, If God wanted to withhold his divinity he would be creating something new.
We, as humans, do not by our nature “beget” beings like ourselves. We produce biological organisms. God has to provide that organism with a spirit. God could choose not to infuse a child with a spirit, and then that child would be merely a biological organism. Divine intervention is necessary for human begetting to be possible. God has to intervene even to infuse a God-man’s child with a spirit, let alone a divine nature.
Perhaps you should think that Man was created in God’s image…
I do. :confused: I am not sure where you got the impression that I didn’t.
 
Correction:

Atonement means “at-one-ment”, **not **by means of a scapegoat but through the power of love.
whoops. didn’t see this before posting.

In any case, I disagree. We placed our sins on Jesus the same way we would place them on a sacrifical lamb, and he died for for them, as a scapegoat, through the power of love.
 
Once again, merely knowing what will happen does not equal willing it to happen.
That’s not what I’m arguing. I understand that God knew it would happen, but he still wanted the results of the test to come out a certain way. Things happen that God knows will happen beforehand, but he might will things to happen quite differently.

My contention is that if you believe that God wants what is best for mankind, the atonement is what is best for mankind, and that original sin is necessary for the atonement (which is the claim you seem to be making), then it also seems you must believe that God desired the original sin in order to make the atonement possible. Formally:
  1. God wants what is best for mankind.
  2. The atonement is the best possible thing to happen for mankind, including total innocence.
  3. by 1 and 2, God wants the atonement.
  4. the atonement is only possible through original sin.
  5. Therefore, God wants man to commit the original sin for the sake of atoning for it.
I don’t accept premise two, but if all the premises are accepted, I don’t see how the conclusion can be denied. You said something along those very lines earlier:
Because God knew it, otherwise, he would not have allowed man to be tested in the first place.
It seems you are stating that God gave man the test because he wanted man to sin so that he could redeem us!
And here is the quote by St. Paul who explains it quite thoroughly:
[14] Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
[15] But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
[16] And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification.
[17] If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
[18] Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.
[19] For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.
[20] Law came in, to increase the trespass; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
[21] so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
I can certainly see where the idea that the cross is better than human innocence could be gleaned from this passage. At first glance, it almost looks like St. Paul is claiming that grace increases with respect to sin. This runs contrary to everything I’ve heard from the Catholic church, which is that in sin, you fall from grace, not gain it.

I think that what he is really claiming here is that Grace abounds all the more in sin compared to the sin, not compared to other cases of grace. I think he is saying that God’s grace is far more powerful and present than human sins, rather than saying we receive more grace because of our sin.
 
In the case of our relationship to God, love and obedience amount to the same thing in the end.

Your comparison with the angels is a good one, but it’s important to remember two things about it.
  1. The angels aren’t temporal in the same sense that we are, and therefore, they have only one choice to make; good or evil.
  2. Like ourselves, the angels were given a chance to make that choice, and like ourselves, some chose wrongly. The main difference is that man, being in linear time, has the chance to turn his back on sin and return to God.
Only God himself is necessary. Everything else is contingent.

I agree. The Trinity is the most intimate and perfect relationship, but it would be a mistake to compare it with relationships between God and angels/humans. In those situations, a person/persons with one nature is in relationship to a person/persons with another nature.

In the case of the Trinity, each person shares the same nature, and so is united by necessity. It’s simply not logically-possible for them to be in disunity with one another, because that would make one or more persons of the Trinity imperfect, and that would make them not God.

Relationships between God and created things aren’t -total unions,- because of the distinction between God and the created thing. Instead, the created thing is simply designed by God to do his will, in the way that he sets forth, and in the cases where the created thing has free will, God gives it a purpose and the ability to fulfill that purpose. The correct use of free will is to freely choose relationship with God, but this is still only a function of a created thing, and therefore is less complete than the total union within the trinity, objectively.

I guess what I’m trying to get across is that God’s relationship within the Trinity is fundamentally different from his relationship to us, because God is so different from man. In the same way that God is unable to sin or lie, he’s unable to cause discord within himself, or reject himself.
So, as I understand it, You are arguing that in order to have a meaningful relationship with another person, you must either share the same nature as that person, or be free to reject the relationship?

Even if that were the case, the God-man satisfies the first condition! Thus, he could have a meaningful relationship with God even though he is not free to do evil, because he is one of the persons of the trinity!
 
So, as I understand it, You are arguing that in order to have a meaningful relationship with another person, you must either share the same nature as that person, or be free to reject the relationship?

Even if that were the case, the God-man satisfies the first condition! Thus, he could have a meaningful relationship with God even though he is not free to do evil, because he is one of the persons of the trinity!
Essentially, although by “nature,” I don’t just mean “species” or something like that, but the core essence, that makes a being who they are. Because the Trinity is perfectly united, and all three draw on the same nature, they have a perfect relationship. However, this relationship is different in kind from relationships between human beings, each of whom has a “human nature.”

The difference is that each “human nature” is distinct from the next “human nature,” while in God, these distinctions don’t exist. This is the one thing that I felt still needed an explanation.
 
Essentially, although by “nature,” I don’t just mean “species” or something like that, but the core essence, that makes a being who they are. Because the Trinity is perfectly united, and all three draw on the same nature, they have a perfect relationship. However, this relationship is different in kind from relationships between human beings, each of whom has a “human nature.”

The difference is that each “human nature” is distinct from the next “human nature,” while in God, these distinctions don’t exist. This is the one thing that I felt still needed an explanation.
thanks for the clarification. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top