Could not

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by menageriekeeper, Oct 3, 2010.

  1. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Mar 6:5 And he could there do no mighty work, save that he laid his hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them.

    Why couldn't Christ do any mighty work there and what does this say about the soverienity of God and man's will (free will?)?
     
  2. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0

    it doesn't say anything about His soverienity or man's free will. This is about unbelief. The pople did not believe in Him so they did not come to
    Him and hear His message or come in froves to be healed. He healed a few, but most did not believe.

    And he marvelled because of their unbelief. And he went round about the villages, teaching.
     
  3. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    So if it has nothing to do with man's free will to believe or not, then Jesus "elected" only a few at that place. Of course He knew who He would elect, so why did He marvel at it?
     
  4. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    Christ did only what God commanded. If God did not command it, then Christ could not do it. So, for whatever reason, God did not command Christ to do mighty works there.

    And realize that "could not" does not necessarily mean "without the capacity or ability to do so". It can simply mean "totally inconsistent with one's wishes and desires". So, if you say that you could never kill your child, you mean the latter sense, but not the former. Clearly, you have the capacity to kill, but doing so would go so against your desires and wishes that its an action you could not do.
     
  5. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amy Jesus was not omniscient according to the bible. He only knew what the Spirit revealed to Him. He marveled because He was surprised.
     
  6. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    The Bible teaches that Jesus knew the hearts of all men----even from afar off-----"When you were under the fig tree---I saw thee!!"

    Absolutely nothing catches Jesus by surprise!!!
     
  7. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    blackbird not according to scripture. That does not say that He knew the hearts of all men. but even if He did scripture teaches that He did not know everything. Today however that He is glorified He does know, but not then. We know that the Lord did not know everything because scripture says that He did not.

    Mark 13:32 But of that day and [that] hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

    On the cross He is surprised at the Father forsaking Him.

    And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

    In His earthly stay He gave up much and depended on the Spirit to show Him and lead Him. He was completely dependent on the Father.

    Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.
     
    #7 freeatlast, Oct 4, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2010
  8. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Problem: The passage makes no reference to God commanding Christ to "not do any mighty work" whatsoever. The passage clearly says that Christ could do no mighty work (that is no or few miracles, bring no repentance/salvation) in that place because of their unbelief.

    I agree that that both of your definitions can be correct depending on the context, but the context here is that Christ couldn't do any mighty work in that place even though not doing so was/is clearly totally inconsistant with His will and desire (and God's will and desire too for that matter <2 Peter 3:9>).

    If God is sovereign in the manner that most Calvinists define the word, wouldn't the scripture be more consistant to say that Christ "wouldn't" do any mighty work there, instead of "couldn't"?

    Freeatlast, I really don't believe the context of those passages means to suggest that Christ was not omnicient.
     
  9. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0

    Well if omniscient means all knowing, and it does, and the Lord Himself says that He does not know something, guess what? He was not omniscient while here on earth. It only takes not knowing one thing to not be omniscient.

    Also based on your assessment that scripture has to state that God commanded the Lord to do something before He could do it means that he did a lot of things that God did not want Him to do. I find that a little hard to swallow.
     
    #9 freeatlast, Oct 4, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2010
  10. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are suggesting, then, that Jesus was not God while He was human. This is as far afield from biblical theology as you can possibly get.

    Jesus, the lamb slain before the foundation of the earth, was in no way, shape, or form surprised by His being forsaken by the Father.

    The theology that you are espousing here is very dangerous (because it is so unbiblical) and it is more akin to the theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses than true, biblical theology.

    The Archangel
     
  11. Luke2427

    Luke2427
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2010
    Messages:
    7,598
    Likes Received:
    8
    It certainly does NOT mean that God lacked the ability to override their "free" will.

    There are billions of things God CANNOt do. For example: God cannot lie. Any time you see the idea communicated that God "cannot" it refers to his inability to be less than perfect.
     
  12. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am saying what scripture says and teaches. I am making no suggestions. It is you who is rejecting the word of God. Jesus was and is God, BUT in His incarnation He was limited by His own choice. You have scripture that proves that and yet you deny it. That is your choice. He did not know everything according to His own words. His words to the Father while on the cross clearly point out that He was surprised/shocked at the rejection. If you think He was not surprised at the Father's forsaking Him offer some reasonable explanation for His words.
     
  13. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    Jesus knew He had been forsaken in fulfilment of Scripture and was confirming it by quoting the Scripture.

    Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

    He quoted this Scripture for our sakes and our understanding of what price He had to pay for sin and not because He was surprised.

    2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

    HankD​
     
  14. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    I seriously doubt that understanding. It makes no sense. It is a question not simply a statement of fact. What you have Him doing is acting out a part. I would venture to say that those around did not think He was acting in His plea.
     
    #14 freeatlast, Oct 4, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2010
  15. Amy.G

    Amy.G
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2006
    Messages:
    13,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jesus did some things in order to fulfill prophecy, such as riding a colt into Jerusalem and quoting scripture in the temple from Isaiah. It doesn't mean He was acting.
     
  16. HankD

    HankD
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2001
    Messages:
    15,147
    Likes Received:
    322
    He wasn't acting out a part, He was fulfilling scripture.

    Jesus did many things to fulfill not only scripture but "all righteousness".

    Matthew 3
    13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
    14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
    15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.​

    HankD
     
  17. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Really? Billions of things? You know better.

    However, in the passage quoted, it is out of context to say that Christ couldn't perform a mighty work in that place because He was too perfect/sinless.

    The passage clearly states that Christ could do no mighty work in that place (his own hometown btw) because of their unbelief. In all the other places that Christ visited, with all the trouble He encountered in those places, He was still able to draw massive crowds, heal many, many people, change many, many lives, and only in this one place does the Bible tell us that something was different. And that difference is the massive unbelief of the people.

    How did it happen? Explain just how the unbelief of the inhabitants could have an effect on Christ's ability to change lives. After all, the Calvinists believe that God forces our choice upon those of us He wishes to save, why didn't He do it in this case? Was it just to make me ask questions?
     
  18. canadyjd

    canadyjd
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,896
    Likes Received:
    0
    The doctrine of election has to do with bringing people to salvation, not with Christ doing or not doing miracles at any given place.

    This passage does not say there were people there that Jesus wanted to save, but was unable to save. It says He couldn't do miracles there.

    peace to you:praying:
     
  19. The Archangel

    The Archangel
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    SO....when Jesus told Peter that He could call 12 Legions of angels...was He joking?

    And after that...when He said "But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled..." was He not expecting to be forsaken? Of course He was.

    Jesus, as God, was not surprised in the slightest.

    And, for the record, Jesus choosing not to exercise His divine prerogatives and not being able to exercise those prerogatives are two completely different things. You are saying that He had no ability to exercise His prerogatives and you are simply mistaken.

    The Archangel
     
  20. dwmoeller1

    dwmoeller1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,155
    Likes Received:
    0
    1. I understand the verses doesn't say that God didn't command Christ. But from other clear statements we can reason backwards to this conclusion. I can do so in more detail if you wish.
    2. Neither does the verse say that He "couldn't" because of their unbelief. It merely states that they didn't believe and that He couldn't do might works - it never says that the latter was caused by the former. Don't confuse correlation with causation.

    The verse no more says that doing might works represented His will and desire that it says the God commanded Him not to. Nor is it clear from the context. The only thing that is clear from the context about His will and desire is that He wanted them to believe.

    So, given the paucity of what the passage actually says, the question then becomes what assertion represents the most sound line of reasoning from other known principles.
     

Share This Page

Loading...