Simple Philosophical discussion 101

[Kings_kid]

God's grace is not limited to what we might call His "covenant of grace".  He shows grace to all mankind, because of who He is, not who we are.

Jesus Christ is the only person who kept, or could keep, the whole Law by living in/out the heart of it, which is God's loving-kindness.

The Covenant of Grace only requires that we receive the Gift of forgiveness and new Life in Christ, which is freely available to all who can accept Him as the Saviour He is.

The Law was/is a school-master to lead us to Christ.  And He Himself then writes the Law of Love on our hearts and minds, in His time and way.

We cannot truly love anyone apart from the expression of His perfect love through us.  There is no "Agape'" outside of Him.

I don't think we are so very far apart, do you?

[mybigGod]

Kk i will need to talk at you later ... i got to leave for a few hours... be back to respond... thanks for your patience.

[mybigGod]

God's grace is not limited to what we might call His "covenant of grace".  He shows grace to all mankind, because of who He is, not who we are.

Kk .. i agree with this but there is a difference between common grace and special grace. I think one is a secondary issue and the other special grace demands all of our attention. I do not think we are safe in thinking since there is common grace in society that we sort of blur the lines. Common grace will get you in the same place in eternity ...as the most sinful society.

I do not disagree with the other statements. I mean as an over all teaching... there are specifics . That last Edwards post is a good discussion about what we are talking about here... i will use it to continue in the title of this thread... after your response.

[Kings_kid]

I would definitely agree that Redemption in Christ is a special form of Grace.  Also that God shows great grace toward even the vilest of sinners, even those who will reject Him in the End.

And i don't want to blur the line between them either.  Still, i think we, as Christians, often minimize the most excellent grace of our perfect Dad by limiting our conception/discussion of it to the Cross.  (No, that is not intended to minimize the value of the Cross, just to keep our horizon open to the broader picture which focuses on to Christ, the One full of grace and truth before, during, and after the Incarnation.)

[mybigGod]

"By a general and habitual moral Inability, I mean an Inability in the heart to all exercises or acts of will of that kind, through a fixed and habitual inclination, or an habitual and stated defect, or want of a certain kind of inclination."   

Edwards is saying that when we have a defect... a sin that we have been practicing as a habit or we have a weakness in our disposition... very quiet... too boisterous... controlling... or coming from a family that is eccentric...etc... these translate into inability... or it is impossible that we can do something different as a habit. I think its in the time context and it depends on the nature of the malady. What say you?

[Kings_kid]

I believe we have a limited, usually decreasing with age, ability to superficially control our attitudes and behavior.  Thus, the alcoholic (until the final stages) can "quit" for brief periods of time.  But then pride will usually empower the idea that "I can have just one, and control it this time".  Then off to the "races" they go. 

The hostile, anger-problem guy can be given "anger management" classes and learn to channel the anger differently.  But the heart of the problem is still in the heart.

And then there are the small gifts of Grace, from God, in which the person thinks their "will-power" is what made a major change in their lives.  Like the person who works real hard to quit smoking.  If they succeed they are often self-righteous against other smokers, since after all they quit so anyone can quit.  What they usually miss seeing is that the very power to stop the addiction came from the God they may not even believe in.

So Edwards seems to be lacking including the little anonymous gifts of ability to change which the Lord provides as part of His greater Plan.  Yes?

[mybigGod]

I believe we have a limited, usually decreasing with age, ability to superficially control our attitudes and behavior.  Thus, the alcoholic (until the final stages) can "quit" for brief periods of time.  But then pride will usually empower the idea that "I can have just one, and control it this time".  Then off to the "races" they go. 

The hostile, anger-problem guy can be given "anger management" classes and learn to channel the anger differently.  But the heart of the problem is still in the heart.

And then there are the small gifts of Grace, from God, in which the person thinks their "will-power" is what made a major change in their lives.  Like the person who works real hard to quit smoking.  If they succeed they are often self-righteous against other smokers, since after all they quit so anyone can quit.  What they usually miss seeing is that the very power to stop the addiction came from the God they may not even believe in.

So Edwards seems to be lacking including the little anonymous gifts of ability to change which the Lord provides as part of His greater Plan.  Yes?

I think Edwards point is and i must add in St Thomas ... that the corporal things are the lowest forms. That being matter. And that the intellect is that by which God created us as distinct from the other creatures that He made ... i mean separating the creatures of instinct from this activity that we have available to us to treat inanimate objects as reality or the activity available to live in the reality of the understanding of things as that by which we receive truth that translates into matter. So that an idea of something has a form.. and my interjection here is that focusing on matter gets in the way.

We do not fight against matter but against our understanding as a form. Because God has given us an intellect so that we receive truth as in a form through our physical senses as a form and not intrinsically a form of truth in our physical senses. We are not animals who are under the power of matter by instinct. So we need to explore this idea that we go from the impossible to the possible which is an activity of the higher function of the intellect ... rather than the lower form of instinct and matter. This is very important in finding the possible in this life.  OK everyone is confused... i am beginning to apply this so its going to take some time.   

[Kings_kid]

Part of the confusion, it seems to me, is in the use of the word "form".  If that is very clearly defined, or more accurate words are used, the meaning would be clearer.

Or not.   

[mybigGod]

Part of the confusion, it seems to me, is in the use of the word "form".  If that is very clearly defined, or more accurate words are used, the meaning would be clearer.

Or not.   

We know that God is a spirit and He does not have a form ....technically... but in order for us to discuss the difference between God and us... we having a body and are created so that since we are form there is separate parts.. there is a description as being described from one sequence to another... or a succession of matter... but God is not in parts... He is eternally present... but for our purposes in making a distinction between God and us we say that He is a form unlike ours... and then we have His attributes... as a form.
Because we are created with intelligence so that we can have a thought that is more than a connection to matter.. but we have reason and understanding so that we have a potential intelligence which is a form of our understanding. 

[Kings_kid]

Some mental red flag goes off when you talk about God having a form, or at least we can act as if He has one for purposes of discussion.

Here are some definitons of the word "form" on the web:
=========
# the phonological or orthographic sound or appearance of a word that can be used to describe or identify something; "the inflected forms of a word ...
# kind: a category of things distinguished by some common characteristic or quality; "sculpture is a form of art"; "what kinds of desserts are there?"
# a perceptual structure; "the composition presents problems for students of musical form"; "a visual pattern must include not only objects but the spaces between them"
# shape: any spatial attributes (especially as defined by outline); "he could barely make out their shapes"
# human body: alternative names for the body of a human being; "Leonardo studied the human body"; "he has a strong physique"; "the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"
# shape: the spatial arrangement of something as distinct from its substance; "geometry is the mathematical science of shape"
# the visual appearance of something or someone; "the delicate cast of his features"
# a printed document with spaces in which to write; "he filled out his tax form"
# (biology) a group of organisms within a species that differ in trivial ways from similar groups; "a new strain of microorganisms"
# create (as an entity); "social groups form everywhere"; "They formed a company"
# an arrangement of the elements in a composition or discourse; "the essay was in the form of a dialogue"; "he first sketches the plot in outline form"
# to compose or represent:"This wall forms the background of the stage setting"; "The branches made a roof"; "This makes a fine introduction"
# a particular mode in which something is manifested; "his resentment took the form of extreme hostility"
# develop into a distinctive entity; "our plans began to take shape"
# phase: (physical chemistry) a distinct state of matter in a system; matter that is identical in chemical composition and physical state and separated from other material by the phase boundary; "the reaction occurs in the liquid phase of the system"
=========

I think we can agree that most of these do not apply to the Lord.  Can you select the ones that do apply to Him, in your understanding?  Then we can look at each one of your selections and see if we can make a Biblical case for it.

My temporary thinking is that God has no "form" in any sense other than the Resurrected body of Christ (Who is the Image of God).

[mybigGod]

The Subsistence of God
What is God made up of? What is the being of God?

 The Subsistence of God
by Dr. William Ames

1.  This subsistence, or manner of being of God is his one essence so far as it has personal properties.

2. The essence is common to the three subsistences. As far as essence is concerned, therefore, the single subsistence is are rightly said to exist of themselves.

3. Nothing is attributed to the essence which cannot be attributed to each subsistence in the matter of essence.

4. But was is attributed partly to each subsistence in the matter of subsistence cannot be attributed to the essence

5. The subsistences are distinguished from the essence, because the mode of subsistence, though consolidated with the essence, are distinguished from it considered by itself.

6. They are distinguished from each other as things connected by certain relative properties, so that one cannot be another, although they are the same nature. Neither can one be said to be first or last, except in order of beginning and manner of subsistence.

7. These relative properties are, as it were, individual forces in one essence, spiritually and perfectly alive. Hence the subsistences are rightly called persons.

13. The relative property of the Son is to be begotten, that is, so to proceed from the Father as to be a participant of the same essence and perfectly carry on the Father’s nature. Hence is second in order. Hebrews 1:3, the brightness of His glory in the character of His person.

14. The property of the Holy Spirit is to be breathed, to be sent forth and to proceed from the Father and the Son John 15:26, He whom I will send forth you from the Father, that Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father: Romans 8:9, the Spirit of Christ; Galatians 4:6, the Spirit of the Son.

[mybigGod]

# a particular mode in which something is manifested; "his resentment took the form of extreme hostility"
# develop into a distinctive entity; "our plans began to take shape"
# phase: (physical chemistry) a distinct state of matter in a system; matter that is identical in chemical composition and physical state and separated from other material by the phase boundary; "the reaction occurs in the liquid phase of the system"

Yes i am developing some distinctions here. If you have a form enter from another realm into the earths atmosphere there would not be characteristics that are natural to how we are designed to survive in the earths atmosphere.. and it is how we receive a teaching for the first time. It has a form of understanding that we translate into our views as we are connected to what we know and our past experience. This holistic definition of our total disposition as we relate to the new teaching is that spirit in which we test it. Because words create the identity of the object in our understanding and how we relate to its effects. This is why i am questioning the idea of the eternal in form. Cannot we say that the word brings us to God Himself? When we are discussing the idea that God is a form and we have a form of the potential intelligence isnt that the same thing as the design of a life form that is intermediate in the description of the soul? If God works in us then He delights in His own goodness in that work.- i know this is Edwardian... but it needs some flesh on it. Ok..... not now. 
This is the question that i have as to the reasons for this beatific vision. And it has a lot to do with our understanding of the nature of the idea and the image that is the Trinity otherness that places us in rite relation to the glory of God. If the mind is darkened and it needs spiritual light to survive in a spiritual healthy state... then we are defining that light in its personal effects in that image of otherness.   

[Kings_kid]

mbG: "Because words create the identity of the object in our understanding and how we relate to its effects. This is why i am questioning the idea of the eternal in form. Cannot we say that the word brings us to God Himself?"

K_k:  As the Son of God, the Word is God in form, both living and written.  So we speak of the Bible as the Word of God and Christ as the living Word.  Yet, as God, the Word is not perceptible to the senses of man as a form, unless He reveals Himself to us.  So yes, the Word brings us to God Himself since the living Word speaks the written Word into our souls to create the desire for more of Him. 

mbG: "If the mind is darkened and it needs spiritual light to survive in a spiritual healthy state... then we are defining that light in its personal effects in that image of otherness."

K_k: The form of God, the Image/Word is the Light that lights every man who comes into the world, it is written.  Yet man has the ability to suppress that light and shut up himself in darkness.  This is "free will", the ability to reject the truth and suppress the light.  And every person born exercises this ability to one degree or another (excepting Jesus, of course).

So the Form of God draws us into a state of willingness for Him to form Himself in us, shining Light into our darkness, building a new "cell" in His Body, a new "living stone" in His Temple.  We are/are becoming the perfect form He is fashioning. 

Communicator mechanism functioning sufficiently?

[mybigGod]

I have been reading St Thomas... form is a hard concept for me.. because of the immensity of God. How can there be a space in between the creation and God? Ok... when we think of transparency we are talking about being consumed by the otherness of that immensity. In other words is it a real ... reality to think that God communicates to us as parts? Or is it more of a transparent reality that we are in God? The otherness of God is His knowledge about the whole as seeing it as it really is. This is why He does not think in linear paradigms. But everything is laid bare with who we have to give an account. That account of being in Christ of God.
If we are in God then Gods revelation of Himself is His image of the word. Or its the Word revealed. Ok... form or image if it comes from the concept of the revelation then as long as its God Himself in the word and the end of the image ... the beginning of the image and the end of the image then there are things we do not know but the potential to know is that transparent nearness to the image. Or its dwelling in God.
Ok there is no separation because His work is His pleasure in us. Or the goodness in us is His goodness. So that He is good in our badness and our goodness.   

[Kings_kid]

discussion 101

Ever hear of the saying "K.I.S.S."?  I have had to be told, regularly, to "keep it simple stupid", since i have a tendency to get lost in abstractions.

mbG: "He is good in our badness and our goodness."

K_k: Sounds simple enough to me.  Some of the rest got garbled in my pea-brain.  I picked up hints of the Scripture (Paul in Acts) that says "In Him we live and move and have our being". 

And i can see that though we live "in Him", in most cases without even knowing it, He only "lives in us", as the Holy Spirit, at our invitation.  And that is the Word, the Son of God, revealed to our heart-understanding.

Am i missing some other important idea you are trying to convey?  (I don't get the concept that there could be a space between the creation and God, for example - except in our finite awareness.)