|
A condition of obligation in any particular form is a sine qua non of obligation in that
particular
form. It is that, without which, obligation in that form could not
exist, and yet is not the fundamental reason of the obligation. For
example, the possession of the powers of moral agency is a condition of
the obligation to choose the highest good of being in general, as an
ultimate end, or for its own sake. But the intrinsic value of this goal
is the ground of the obligation. This obligation could not exist without
the possession of these powers, but the possession of these powers
cannot of itself create the obligation to choose the good in preference
to the ill of being. The intrinsic difference between the good and the
ill of being is the ground of the obligation to will the one rather than
the other. I will first define the conditions upon which all obligation
depends, and without which obligation in no form can exist, and
afterward proceed to point out the conditions of distinct forms of
obligation.
1. Moral agency is universally a condition of moral
obligation. The attributes of moral agency are intellect, sensibility,
and free will.
(1) Intellect includes, among other functions
which I need not name, reason, conscience, and self-consciousness. As
has been said on a former occasion, reason is the intuitive faculty or
function of the intellect. It gives by direct intuition the following
among other truths: the absolute for example, right and wrong; the
necessary space exists; the infinite space is infinite; the perfect God
is perfect God's law is perfect, etc. In short, it is the faculty that
intuits moral relations and affirms moral obligation, to act in
conformity with perceived moral relations. It is the faculty that
postulates all the a priori truths of science whether mathematical,
philosophical, theological, or logical.
This is a treatise in
which he is directing his arguments against the Calvinistic position.
We believe that man has lost his moral ability. He is saying that man
has moral ability because man is under obligation to choose the highest
end. In other words the more man understands this obligation the better
he will achieve in obeying. In essence the moral ability in man is the
process as a man works through the way he was created that proves he is
able to obey. I think this is more unorthodox than the semi pelagian.
First
because Charlie is making an effort to describe this moral ability in
terms that make these meta physical actions in man to be acceptably to
God on the basis of the process of the moral functions of man. We are
saying that man does not have a cause within himself to claim moral
ability through understanding his obligation. Man lost his understanding
of his obligation in the first sin.
Charlie is saying that the
intellect is the knowledge of the obligation. But we know that the
intellect is more then knowing what to do. It is being pleased with the
good. The intellect in man is apprehending spiritual good through a
knowledge of desire. The intellect is the place where the motive to obey
is seen. When sin entered the world man became blind to spiritual good.
Not only did man lose the desire to do spiritual good but he lost the
understanding of the obligation. This doctrine of man and the total
inability to do good is fundamentally seen in how a man views himself
and not what he is obligated to do.
Charlie here seems to think
that man has an ability to view himself before God as able to do the
good based upon mans innate obligation to do it. What Charlie is
confusing is the lack of keeping the obligation as proof that man is
unable to do one good thing rather than having a God who has a sliding
scale so that everyone is measure based upon his efforts. We know this
is not real ability but a doctrine of prejudice.
| 2416
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Galatians Commentary .... Martin Luther
|
on: June 05, 2011, 01:28:28 PM
|
|
St. Paul also presents a true picture of Christ as the virgin-born Son of God, delivered into death for our sins.
To
entertain a true conception of Christ is important, for the devil
describes Christ as an exacting and cruel judge who condemns and
punishes men. Tell him that his definition of Christ is wrong, that
Christ has given Himself for our sins, that by His sacrifice He has
taken away the sins of the whole world.
Make ample use of this pronoun “our.” Be assured that Christ has canceled the sins, not of certain persons only, but your sins.
Do
not permit yourself to be robbed of this lovely conception of Christ.
Christ is no Moses, no law-giver, no tyrant, but the Mediator for sins,
the Giver of grace and life.
We know this. Yet in the actual conflict with the devil, when
he scares us with the Law, when he frightens us with the very person of
the Mediator, when he misquotes the words of Christ, and distorts for
us our Savior, we so easily lose sight of our sweet High-Priest.
20For
this reason I am so anxious for you to gain a true picture of Christ
out of the words of Paul “who gave himself for our sins.” Obviously,
Christ is no judge to condemn us, for He gave Himself for our sins.
He does not trample the fallen but raises them. He comforts the broken-hearted.
Otherwise Paul should lie when he writes “who gave himself for our sins.”
I
do not bother my head with speculations about the nature of God. I
simply attach myself to the human Christ, and I find joy and peace, and
the wisdom of God in Him. These are not new truths. I am repeating what
the apostles and all teachers of God have taught long ago. Would to God
we could impregnate our hearts with these truths.
This is a
man who knows how to think. Then he applies the doctrine to gain His own
freedom from the dictates of men. Here is faith in practice.
|
 Remove
 Reply
 Quote
 Notify
|
|
2418
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Reformed Doctrine
|
on: June 05, 2011, 01:14:57 PM
|
|
(1) When man is denied all uprightness, he
immediately takes occasion for complacency from that fact; and, because
he is said to have no ability to pursue righteousness on his own, he
holds all such pursuit to be of no consequence, as if it did not pertain
to him at all. (2) Nothing, however slight, can be credited to man
without depriving God of his honor, and without man himself falling into
ruin through brazen confidence. Augustine points out both these
precipices.
Here, then, is the course that we must
follow if we are to avoid crashing upon these rocks: when man has been
taught that no good thing remains in his power, and that he is hedged
about on all sides by most miserable necessity, in spite of this he
should nevertheless be instructed to aspire to a good of which he is
empty, to a freedom of which he has been deprived.
In fact, he
may thus be more sharply aroused from inactivity than if it were
supposed that he was endowed with the highest virtues. Everyone sees how
necessary this second point is. I observe that too many persons have
doubts about the first point. For since this is an undoubted fact, that
nothing of his own ought to be taken away from man, it ought to be
clearly evident how important it is for him to be barred from false
boasting. At the time when man was distinguished with the noblest marks
of honor through God's beneficence, not even then was he permitted to
boast about himself. How much more ought he now to humble himself, cast
down as he has been - due to his own ungratefulness - from the loftiest
glory into extreme disgrace! At that time, I say, when he had been
advanced to the highest degree of honor, Scripture attributed nothing
else to him than that he had been created in the image of God [Genesis
1:27], thus suggesting that man was blessed, not because of his own good
actions, but by participation in God. What, therefore, now remains for
man, bare and destitute of all glory, but to recognize God for whose
beneficence he could not be grateful when he abounded with the riches of
his grace; and at least, by confessing his own poverty, to glorify him
in whom he did not previously glory in recognition of his own blessings?
Calvin
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2421
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: T.U.L.I.P. blooms
|
on: June 04, 2011, 11:04:16 AM
|
I’ve
come here a few times over a couple of weeks to read what MBG wrote on
this thread. MBG, you’re on fire here, brother, and I learn more with
each reading.
KK, you make very good and valid points, too, but
I have to admit I was a bit shocked by you saying in your last post
that the old nature reasserts (resurrects?!) itself and needs to “be
crucified again”.
The Scriptures testify that Christ was
crucified “once and for all”. HE is the firstfruit from the dead (not
the sin nature) and the work He did on the cross was complete—without
the need for re-application, do-overs, annual sacrifices, or some added
mojo from us to make it complete. His victory over sin was absolutely
complete. It is finished!
Every time we sin, we are like those
snake-bitten people in the desert who looked by faith at the one that
was raised up and they were healed. We go on and we live, but that’s
not because we now have some special knowledge of how to kill the snake
but because we simply look to Him to be healed from its bite. Subtle,
but big, difference there. He simply is victorious over sin and has no
need of us proving what He already accomplished.
The world will
never believe in our absolute goodness anyway—they’re not stupid. We
make a huge mistake when we think our witness is about our changed
behavior. Our witness is Christ, and Him crucified. That’s what they
need to hear, to know.
Thanks Gouda... yes we are
talking about sovereign grace and not just any kind of grace. That will
determine if it is added to a person in a way that defines who they are
and what they trust in as the motif for all their relationships. Thanks
... hope i can encourage to trust in Christ alone through faith alone by
grace alone.
|
|
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2422
|
Forums / Prayer Requests / Re: New Beginings of Lake County Fla.
|
on: June 04, 2011, 09:27:26 AM
|
|
My wife who is the director of outreach for
New Beginnings was interviewed by a local paper about the homeless
problem in Florida.
By Rosemarie Dowell, CORRESPONDENT
Clermont group that helps homeless sees rising demand on food ministry
June 2, 2011
CLERMONT
— A faith-based organization for the homeless is scrambling to meet the
increasing demands on its food ministry, brought about by high
unemployment and rising food costs.
New Beginnings in Clermont
began the outreach a year ago, distributing hot meals, food and clothing
to about 20 needy families every weekend. Now, though, the number of
families seeking help has grown to 60 each week.
"We felt that
with the bad economy people needed a helping hand," said Sandy Williams,
director of community outreach for the organization, founded in 2007.
"We wanted to reach out to them."
In all, more than 1,000 pounds of food is given out each week, which strains the group's resources and depletes its food bank.
A
slew of churches, spanning several denominations, financially supports
and assists the food ministry, including Real Life Christian Church, the
Church at South Lake, The Crossings Church, GateWay Church, Celebration
of Praise and First Baptist Church of Clermont, she said.
Still
others, like Clermont Seventh Day Adventist Church and Legacy Church,
send volunteers. The group also buys through Second Harvest Food Bank to
save money, which helps stretch their budget, Williams said.
"We're
very grateful for everyone's help, but we never have enough food or
money these days," she said. "We are gaining 15 to 20 new families each
week and it's getting harder and harder to keep up with the demand."
Demand for services
The
group distributes the food and clothing from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. Saturday
in the Winn-Dixie parking lot on State Road 50. Some families come
every week, while others come just a few times.
Williams blames
Lake's double-digit jobless rate as well as underemployment for the
surging demand for services. The rising cost of food has hurt many
families as well, she added.
"So many people in Lake County are
out of work," she said. "And many people are underemployed, working jobs
that pay far less than what their previous jobs did."
But the ministry's goal is more than just handing out food. It's to give hope as well, Williams explained.
Armed with resources
Armed
with lists of information on social-service organizations and
employers, New Beginnings shares the resources with the families.
"We
don't just feed them a hot meal and hand them a bag of food. We try to
connect them with resources or jobs that will help them," she said.
"That's all that most people need — just some help to get them back on
track."
Interested in donating? Food donations can be made at the
New Beginnings 2econd Life Resale store on U.S. Highway 27 in Minneola.
Monetary donations can be dropped off or mailed to the group's office
at 200 E. Washington St., Clermont.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2425
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: The Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides
|
on: June 03, 2011, 02:00:28 PM
|
THE three verbs raah, hibbit, and ḥazah, which
denote "he perceived with the eye," are also used figuratively in the
sense of intellectual perception. As regards the first of these verbs
this is well known, e.g., And he looked (va-yar) and behold a well in
the field" (Gen. xxix. 2) here it signifies ocular perception: "yea, my
heart has seen (raah) much of wisdom and of knowledge" (Eccles. i. 16);
in this passage it refers to the intellectual perception. In this
figurative sense the verb is to be understood, when applied to God
e.g., "I saw (raïti) the Lord" (1 Kings xxii. 19); "And the Lord
appeared (va-yera) unto him (Gen. xviii. 1); "And God saw (va-yar) that
it was good" (Gen. i. 10) "I beseech thee, show me (hareni) thy glory"
(Exod. xxxiii. 18); "And they saw (va-yirü) the God of Israel" (Exod.
xxiv. 10). All these instances refer
to intellectual perception, and by no means to perception with the eye
as in its literal meaning: for, on the one hand, the eye can only
perceive a corporeal object, and in connection with it certain
accidents, as colour, shape, etc.: and, on the other hand, God does not
perceive by means of a corporeal organ, as will be explained.In
the same manner the Hebrew hibbit signifies "he viewed with the eye;
comp. "Look (tabbit) not behind thee" (Gen. xix. 17); "But his wife
looked (va-tabbet) back from him" (Gen. xix. 26); "And if one look
(ve-nibbat) unto the land" (Isa. v. 30); and figuratively, "to view and
observe" with the intellect, "to contemplate" a thing till it be
understood. In this sense the verb is used in passages like the
following: "He hath not beheld (hibbit) iniquity in Jacob" (Num. xxiii.
21); for "iniquity" cannot be seen with the eye. The words, "And they
looked (ve-hibbitu) after Moses" (Exod. xxxiii.  --in
addition to the literal understanding of the phrase--were explained by
our Sages in a figurative sense. According to them, these words mean
that the Israelites examined and criticised the actions and sayings of
Moses. Compare also "Contemplate (habbet), I pray thee, the heaven" p. 18 [paragraph
continues] (Gen. xv. 5); for this took place in a prophetic vision.
This verb, when applied to God, is employed in this figurative sense;
e.g., "to look (me-habbit) upon God" (Exod. iii. 6) "And the similitude
of the Lord shall he behold" (yabbit) (Num. xii. ; And thou canst not look (habbet) on iniquity" (Hab. i. 13). The
same explanation applies to ḥazah. It denotes to view with the eye, as:
"And let our eye look (ve-taḥaz) upon Zion" (Mic. iv. 11); and also
figuratively, to perceive mentally: "which he saw (ḥazah) concerning
Judah and Jerusalem" (Isa. i. 1); "The word of the Lord came unto
Abraham in a vision" (maḥazeh) (Gen. xv. 1); in this sense ḥazah is used
in the phrase, "Also they saw (va-yeḥezu) God" (Exod. xxiv. 11). Note
this well. This is the ot wisdom teaching on the fear of God.
The fear of God is simply to think Gods thoughts after Him. You cant do
this unless you are enlightened to know God. |
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2426
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Romans Chapt. 5 and 6 commentary John Calvin
|
on: June 03, 2011, 01:45:44 PM
|
|
12. Let not sin then, etc. He now begins with
exhortation, which naturally arises from the doctrine which he had
delivered respecting our fellowship with Christ.
Though sin dwells in us, it is inconsistent that it should be so vigorous as to exercise its reigning power; for the power of sanctification ought to be superior to it, so that our life may testify that we are really the members of Christ.
I
have already reminded you that the word body is not to be taken for
flesh, and skin, and bones, but, so to speak, for the whole of what man
is. 191191 That is, as a corrupt being: literally it is “for the
whole mass of man.” The “body” here may be the same with that of “the
old man” in Romans 6:6; and the word for “lusts,” ἐπιθυμίαις, is often
applied to designate the desires of the mind as well as the lusts of the
natural body. The word, θνητω, “mortal,” would in this case mean,
doomed to die, having been crucified; it is a body in the process of
dying. Innate sin is here personified as a king, a ruler, and as having a
body, he being “the old man;” and this body is represented as belonging
to Christians — “your,” as the old man is — “our old man.” — Ed. This
may undoubtedly be inferred from the passage; for the other clause,
which he immediately subjoins respecting the members of the body,
includes the soul also: and thus in a disparaging manner does Paul
designate earthly man, for owing to the corruption of our nature we
aspire to nothing worthy of our original. So also does God say in
Genesis 6:3; where he complains that man was become flesh like the brute
animals, and thus allows him nothing but what is earthly. To the same
purpose is the declaration of Christ, “What is born of the flesh is
flesh.” (John 3:6.) But if any makes this objection —
that
the case with the soul is different; to this the ready answer is — that
in our present degenerate state our souls are fixed to the earth, and
so enslaved to our bodies, that they have fallen from their own
superiority.
In a word, the nature of man is said to be
corporeal, because he is destitute of celestial grace, and is only a
sort of empty shadow or image. We may add, that the body, by way of
contempt, is said by Paul to be mortal, and this to teach us, that the
whole nature of man tends to death and ruin. Still further, he gives the
name of sin to the original depravity which dwells in our hearts, and
which leads us to sin, and from which indeed all evil deeds and
abominations stream forth. In the middle, between sin and us, he places
lusts, as the former has the office of a king, while lusts are its
edicts and commands.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2428
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Romans Chapt. 5 and 6 commentary John Calvin
|
on: June 02, 2011, 03:44:57 PM
|
|
11. So count ye also yourselves, etc. Now is
added a definition of that analogy to which I have referred. For having
stated that Christ once died to sin and lives for ever to God, he now,
applying both to us, reminds us how we now die while living, that is,
when we renounce sin.
But he omits not
the other part, that is, how we are to live after having by faith
received the grace of Christ: for though the mortifying of the flesh is
only begun in us, yet the life of sin is destroyed, so that afterwards
spiritual newness, which is divine, continues perpetually.
For except Christ were to slay sin in us at once to the end, his grace would by no means be sure and durable.
The
meaning, then, of the words may be thus expressed, “Take this view of
your case, — that as Christ once died for the purpose of destroying sin,
so you have once died, that in future you may cease from sin; yea, you
must daily proceed with that work of mortifying, which is begun in you,
till sin be wholly destroyed: as Christ is raised to an incorruptible
life, so you are regenerated by the grace of God, that you may lead a
life of holiness and righteousness, inasmuch as the power of the Holy
Spirit, by which ye have been renewed, is eternal, and shall ever
continue the same.” But I prefer to retain the words of Paul, in Christ
Jesus, rather than to translate with Erasmus, through Christ Jesus; for
thus the grafting, which makes us one with Christ, is better expressed.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2429
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Dietrich Bonhoeffer.... by Dallas M. Roark
|
on: June 02, 2011, 03:14:31 PM
|
|
WHAT IT MEANS TO BE REAL
The next
essay, "Christ, Reality, and Good," is a further treatment in depth of
the view that Christian ethics is not concerned with the knowledge of
good and evil. He declares that the questions "How can I be good?" and
"How can I do good?" are supplanted by a different question: "What is
the will of God?" 30 The first two questions reduce the idea of good to
an abstraction. Bonhoeffer’s question concerns ultimate reality, and
although he presupposes faith, it makes ethics concrete and specific.
The ultimate reality is seen in none other than Jesus Christ who is not
an idea of good, or an abstraction. Consequently that aspect of ethical
discourses given over to the question of motives and consequences not
only divides man up in an arbitrary way but does not reflect the real,
or God’s self-revelation. The real purpose of ethics is to participate
in reality. In Christ this becomes actual.
If there is one
ultimate reality, why do we think in terms of two spheres of nature and
grace, sacred and profane, and other opposites? Bonhoeffer rejects the
two antinomies because there is only one reality, God, who has become
manifest in Christ and in the world.31 These antinomies that are
reflected in Roman Catholic as well as post-Reformation thought are
nonbiblical. There is no possibility of being a Christian outside of the
world or outside of Christ. Even the kingdom of the devil does not
support the two spheres, for "he must serve Christ even against his
will."32 The world has been reconciled in Christ.
To accept the two spheres is to neglect or reject this reconciliation.
|
|
Remove
Reply
Quote
Notify
|
|
|
2430
|
Forums / Theology Forum / Re: Freedom For The Addicted
|
on: June 02, 2011, 03:10:41 PM
|
|
Im kind of confused. In acknowledging that you
are powerless why do you think you can do the twelve steps? If you come
to the conclusion that you are powerless doesnt it mean the He Himself
must redeem you? Or do you mean you are powerless?... but...
So if He does not require you to do them by going out and obeying them then not everyone in the group needs to do the 12 things?
So
if He molds you while you do them then you must be required to
participate or else He is not available? Very confusing. Are they
absolutely necessary in order for both God and you to participate? Or do
you have a free choice? lol
If its an inside job how do you act
upon what you cannot see? Does God understand your inside if you
participate ? Can you understand your own heart? Can God act upon you
without your will being involved? If you are powerless that seems to be
the case. lol.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment