tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post8078016413232318249..comments2024-02-29T19:21:32.831-05:00Comments on Possible Worlds: Impeccability of ChristRandy Everisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-52333040767865432662016-02-23T22:59:00.478-05:002016-02-23T22:59:00.478-05:00But yes, even if they had such capability, God doe...But yes, even if they had such capability, God does not!Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-80676753619504597312016-02-23T22:58:39.075-05:002016-02-23T22:58:39.075-05:00This part is where it gets super speculative. Many...This part is where it gets super speculative. Many theologians have speculated there was a time of decision, at Satan's rebellion; those that chose Satan were confirmed in their choice, while those who chose God were confirmed in their choice.<br /><br />However, C.S. Lewis speculated that some could still fall, and the fallen could be redeemed. He explored this a bit in his fiction work.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-34421111169776214022016-02-21T21:47:18.003-05:002016-02-21T21:47:18.003-05:00So, in regard to the angels, it's simply a cap...So, in regard to the angels, it's simply a capability issue, in that although they haven't sinned and will not do so in future they are capable of sinning (maybe if placed in certain situations) unlike God who isn't?Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-13580078184131839842016-02-21T20:16:33.190-05:002016-02-21T20:16:33.190-05:00I have a speculation about that, but I think it is...I have a speculation about that, but I think it is justified. I think there is a substantive difference between "morally perfect" and "morally innocent." Moral innocence is a lack of guilt, based on a lack of transgression. Adam and Eve were created morally innocent, and of course the opposite of innocence is guilt. It says nothing about the ability of the one who is innocent of sinning; it does suggest that such a person has moral obligations attached to him.<br /><br />God is morally perfect, and I take moral perfection to be that ultimate standard of good, who cannot sin. By definition, that can only be God.<br /><br />So, to answer directly: there is no conflict, if we understand angelic beings as morally innocent, and God as morally perfect. :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-19671116844876408712016-02-21T13:16:49.389-05:002016-02-21T13:16:49.389-05:00OK, thanks. Just one more thing that came to mind:...OK, thanks. Just one more thing that came to mind: In Mark 10:18 it is said that only God is good, and by "good" I guess it means "morally perfect". I wonder how that lines up with the fact that some of the angelic beings (2/3 of them based on Rev 12) have not and, it seems, will not in future, sin? What's the difference between them and God in that respect? It seems both are sinless but would that not contradict Mark 10:18?Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-75063272258055785722016-02-20T22:29:01.654-05:002016-02-20T22:29:01.654-05:00Hi James,
Directly, the point was to demonstrate ...Hi James,<br /><br />Directly, the point was to demonstrate that Jesus the man was worthy, and passed the test Adam did not. He, acting as our representative, then, could take on sin--provided he was also God--something no other person could do!<br /><br />I think it was possible to avoid sin for Adam and Eve, given that they had a choice. But they did, nonetheless.<br /><br />But I think the direct answer to the question was what I had stated just a moment ago: that Jesus of Nazareth was sinless, and that is what we needed for a sacrifice for sins: a sinless human. :)Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-8048150357824470712016-02-20T21:31:42.495-05:002016-02-20T21:31:42.495-05:00Hi Randy,
In your post you quote Lightner as sayi...Hi Randy,<br /><br />In your post you quote Lightner as saying "the purpose of Jesus’ temptations wasn't to see whether or not He would sin, but to demonstrate His power over it." It'd seem that one reason Jesus came to earth was so that he could live a sinless life under the law - which humans failed to do - and therefore this meant that he was able to present himself as a perfect sacrifice to remove our sin since we cannot do it ourselves. But why is God proving his power over sin? Is he showing that, even with taking upon himself a human body with all its weaknesses, it's possible not to sin as a human and therefore the first human couple should never have sinned in the first place? What's the point in showing he had power over sin?Jamesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1433428682510068517.post-33672727665027207542011-02-16T18:16:52.452-05:002011-02-16T18:16:52.452-05:00In interests of disclosure, I'd like to point ...In interests of disclosure, I'd like to point out this is a reposting of something I wrote on Facebook over a year ago.Randy Everisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06870605678781409126noreply@blogger.com