September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  


« Understand the Same-Sex Marriage Issue | Main | How Can I Be a Good Ambassador When My Job Makes Me Teach Humanism? »

January 24, 2015


the cure for what ails us

What ails us is that we're spiritually dead and totally depraved through and through! Thus, Jesus is more than just "the cure for what ails us."

Even if we had committed zero moral crimes against God, that still wouldn't be good enough. We need not only Christ's substitutionary atonement for our sins, but also his imputed righteousness to us on our behalf so that it's not our own righteousness, which is as "filthy rags", but Christ's righteousness, which is perfect.

"God offers a pardon on His terms (works)?"


I agree with you that we are suffering from depravity, but I should think that unless one actually commits a crime, he should not have it put to his account, for which payment must be made. It is not enough for one to be born with the original sin, but you need not be too concerned about that, it does not take long to actually have sins to one's account. Everyone does and it is early in life.

The point that we both can agree on is our desperate need for Jesus...even if we might have slight differences on some of the details. They're really not that big as differences go. :)

Hi Louis Kuhelj, I think you may have missed the legitimate point tha "c" made...Jesus didn't only die a death as substitutionary atonement for the sins of His beloved...whether imputed or actual.

Jesus also demonstrated and earned/worked for a positive righteousness, and that without His being imputed also to us sinners, we'd still be in similar case of Adam pre fall, that is on probation until positive righteousness is earned-something we can never attain.

Sometimes I think that Christians underestimate Adam's purity and pre fall glory and while in that state disobeyed, failed to pass the test and many among us think we'd do better...I say there is no way any of us fallen mankind could have even done near as well.

Re: Louis Kuhelj

You have to keep in mind that “the wages of sin is death” and infants who never consciously sin – die.

We are told in Romans 5 that this happens because God “imputed” Adam’s sin to us and, even as infants, we are born sinful and die as a result of this.

On the other hand, God “Imputed” Christ’s righteousness to the elect the same way He originally imputed Adam’s sin to us.

Because of this we own Christ’s righteousness the same way we owned Adam’s sin – through imputation.

Jesus’ atoning death on the cross, particularly in our place, secured the imputation of Jesus’ righteousness for us.

It also atones for our sin, even making our petty self-righteousness acceptable with God-as though we are perfect.

Charles Hodge has an excellent Commentary on Romans Chapter 5, probably widely available on the Net.

It cannot be any other way but that the All-Sufficiency that just is Necessity (God in all possible worlds) pours out - is debased - empties, such that the Contingency that just is In-Sufficiency (Man in our particular world) is filled - made whole - glorified. Reality cannot be some other way. The First Adam and the Last Adam find no recourse here where "Man" actualizes as obedience alone fails whether in innocence or in corruption. Contingency and Necessity must - if Immutability is to be birthed in the Contingent - actualize a final amalgamation. And for that God, Necessity, must pour out, must fill, and Man, In-Sufficiency, must be filled, must drink. Man in Innocence and Man in Corruption both fill under His Motion alone as Man-In-God, God-In-Man emerges for the landscape of Incarnation is but a semantic for the obvious. The unique and peculiar beauty of Christ and the Christian paradigm is that in that metaphysical regress, and nowhere else, do all such necessary vectors seamlessly converge in singularity's simplicity, and that in all possible worlds.

This is why the Christian says that if you want to know what "reality ultimately looks like" in all possible state of affairs, then look at Christ. He is the fullness of all possibility, the express image of Ultimate Reality - of God. And should we find that there never is a created order, *still* we find such Pouring Out, such Filling Up, such Debasement, such Glorification, ever in motion amid Self/Other there in love's ceaseless reciprocity housed in Trinity, found void of what temporal becoming calls "first" and void of what temporal becoming calls "last" in ontology's only living water there in the immutable love of the Necessary Being. Whether in the created order or in God, it is *Christ* in Whom all such vectors sum to unity.


It's not intended to state that there is no act of creation. The sentence, "And should we find that there never is a created order, *still* we find...." may better be stated instead as, "And should we find that there never is a created order or should we ask that particular what-if, it simply is the case that *still* we find such Filiation, such Pouring Out, such Filling Up, such Debasement, such Glorification, ever in motion amid Self/Other there in love's ceaseless reciprocity housed in Trinity....."

Necessity Alone, or, Necessity and Contingency, it matters not, find those contours of actuality which we perceive as *Christ* as inescapable, whether God Alone or in God and His acts of creation.

The Philosophical Naturalist and the Theist have much in common here as nowhere do reason or logic escape those peculiar contours we call “Necessarily Existent” and “Contingent”. It is an odd state of affairs when PN is pressed into the semantic predicament which change and temporal becoming forces it into. PN there must assert *Stasis* as the Actual and *Motion* as the Illusion as the Contingent cannot be that which ends any regress. Real Time is imaginary and Imaginary Time is real.

Well, the Theist is in the same sort of predicament when it comes to God and Man.

All sorts of Contingent X’s can be fathomed, and in Man we come to the business of Personhood, of Volition, of that Image housed in Trinity there amid those contours which all of us taste, experience, as the milieu of the “self” and those contours all of us taste, experience, as the milieu of the “other” and of course those contours in the singular milieu which we all taste, experience, as the singular “us”. Such is Being. Such is Relationality. And, in the Christian paradigm at least, such is Being’s landscape given that God is Trinity, or (if it helps) such that God is Love, or (if it helps) such that God is Relationality. Indeed, in the Christian’s paradigm the immutable love of the Necessary Being just is such a topography.

It is *therein* where all moral lines emerge and when such begins to impinge on the interface between the Divine (God) and the Contingent (Man, whether in Innocence or in Corruption) we begin to find a differentiation amid all Theistic regresses.

We are moving towards Necessity and Contingency.

Where Contingency is found in any possible world there comes that necessary business of the regress to one’s full stop. In our particular world, it is Man which is the Contingent we speak of. Man in Innocence, Man in Corruption, Man in God. Man outside of God. None of that matters here. It is all, every bit of it, [Necessity / Contingency]. Obviously then, should any Theistic regress end in Man rather than God, well, we find, then, an incoherence.

In the Christian paradigm we come upon rather distinct and unique vectors where Ought and Ought Not interface with Necessity and Contingency. In fact, in no other paradigm do we find that seamless frame of the immutable love of the Necessary Being inextricably embedded with the Contingent’s Ought and Ought Not as love’s ceaseless reciprocity housed in Trinity just does define all moral lines therein. And that is (ontologically) the case because in Trinity we discover the very lines of Self Sacrifice – ceaselessly so – of Pouring and of Filling – ceaselessly so – of Filiation – ceaselessly so – of Debasement and of Glorification – ceaselessly so – of “Thee and not I” ceaselessly begetting the Great I AM – and (just as easily) of “I and not Thee” ceaselessly begetting the Great I AM, and in such Motion we find temporal becoming’s “First” and temporal becoming’s “Last” revealing no break in the music as such finds Man awakening in his own, contingent, Moral Frame.

For those who saw it and worried, where the Great I AM motions “I and not Thee” and thereby in ceaseless Filiation breathes God within Trinity, we find “there” that peculiar necessity of Man’s “contingent-ness” in Man’s own powerlessness to attempt such a motion and in that motion find Wholeness. While Privation in Trinity just is God, Privation in Contingency just is lovelessness (Godlessness). And it is love and lovelessness wherein all moral lines begin and end.

God must pour out, thirst, descend. Man must be filled, drink, ascend. Such is love. Such is Trinity. Such Is God.

We are racing towards *Christ*.

It is in this sense that the Theist who juxtaposes Necessity / All-Sufficiency (God) next to Contingency / In-Sufficiency (Man in Innocence, Man in Corruption) and seeks an ontological regression of amalgamation (whether inside or outside of Time) but who fails to find Necessity filling the Contingent is (philosophically) akin to the Non-Theist who finds in philosophical naturalism's regress that all *motion*, all *change*, all *actualization* just must be illusion for it is *stasis* alone wherein Contingency "on its own" can in any way *appear* to end the regress - but such an end of regress is (everybody knows) incoherent. PN has its a priori commitment to No-God and so is forced to embrace the dissolution of all its own truth predicates in the incoherent nihilism of eliminative regress.

But the Theist is in the similar situation.

The Necessary and the Contingent are at once juxtaposed and should there ever be *amalgamation* the question posed to any Theistic regress is where? when? how? on what grounds? by what power? And so on. In such an arena there is no power of causation which Necessity can grant to Contingency whereby the Contingent can overtake the Necessary and it is precisely *that* kind of incoherent “power” which all Theistic regressions but the Christian’s find lurking in the subtext ever ready to *actually* dismantle the most elegant of contexts. The Christian paradigm, void of such a subtext, finds coherence for it concurs that reality cannot find Contingency so empowered and all the while succeeds in *actually* avoiding the fatal *categories* of so many Theistic regressions such as Love as (final) Illusion, such as Volition amid Self/Other as (final) Illusion, such as Ought and Ought Not as (finally) Indistinguishable, or such as Contingency’s Personhood as that which *actually* (finally) dissolves either into Imperceptibility or into Nothingness.

Actuality, or Reality, is what it is: The Necessary Existent (God) within Himself in that peculiarly triune and immutable love of the Necessary Being, and, also, in juxtaposition, the Contingent in the created order of Man. Full stop, as it were. Being / Personhood is found on such fronts ever in Filiation, the Beloved’s Pouring Out or (if it helps) Acquiescence or (if it helps) Debasement, and the Beloved’s Filling Up or (if it helps) Glorification or (if it helps) Ascension. The Contingent Person called Man finds every last metaphysical regression of his limits, margins, or reach in such contours, but of course it is a *certainty* that in God all such vectors traverse distances which neither you nor I nor any contingent eye could ever hope to spy by either experience or by logic or by any other mode of perception as we are on all fronts simply, casually – gently but certainly – out distanced by those beautiful contours housed in Divine Simplicity.

Summation to unity in all of this from the highest to the lowest, from the loveliest to the most hideous, is found seamlessly converging in *Christ* whether in Time or in Timelessness, whether in Mutability or Immutability, whether in Corruption or in Innocence, whether in Contingency’s Privation or in the Amalgamation of Necessity/Contingency in those unavoidable semantics of incarnation, whether in our World or in any other – possible – conceivable – World, for it just is the ontological state of affairs that *Christ* just is the fullness of all Possibility.

The comments to this entry are closed.