None:
Polyps:
Strongs:

The Truth Shall Make You Free

As creations of God we stated that being "created in the image of God" was equivalent to the statement that we may show a subset of those virtues displayed in Christ (that God Himself holds true in Himself) and that this subset we may hold is pleasing to Him.We would not presume to have anything but a proper subset of those virtues found in Christ, in whom God is "well pleased". God Himself stated, "This is my beloved Son,. hear ye Him". We should note however that the virtues which we do have must not private any positive properties, least of all those virtues found in Christ.

The virtues which we ourselves indeed have must entail only positive properties, and we would assume such a set of "virtues" would be closed. In requiring a closed set of virtues we must be able to state that there are virtues to be found in God, as L(G) - of His own choice) as by His liberty to give us good things according to His promises, for instance.

However it is a virtue for God to choose how to display whatever positive properties He sees fit to: - He is not subject to the laws to which we are subject, as we have only a subset of virtues in God and we require commandments to separate us from those that would imagine God to suit themselves.

For if there were a commandment upon a set of virtues that we may show, then it does not private those virtues found in Christ, (See the "perfection in Christ" page in the "Liberty, faith and authority" section.) The commandments are there to preserve the virtues that we do have: We would assume that keeping them is a positive property in separating out those whom obey God: that it is positive for G~x if x is obedient under L(G) and thence pos(x~G).

However there is more to this than that: For if God has virtues we can not attain to but through them has freedom to change the law, we find we are at an impasse, for Christ broke no law He was subjected to: He was permitted virtue we find ourselves unable to come by: that said, the law could not restrict even those virtues in Christ.

If virtue is then to be found in emulating Christ; then as having only a subset of those virtues in Christ we would have to state that keeping commandments privates no virtue chosen by God to be found in His creations.

Yet as these virtues found in Christ (but not in us) indicate that in general God has virtues which we may never attain, we state that "His ways are higher" than our ways, and God is free to make commandments to suit Himself, even over those things that are pleasing to Him, in the image of which we are created "to attain".

For as virtues they must not private any positive property: yet what is merely positive for us may yet be a virtue solely to God: (c.f. "It is mine to avenge, I will repay") If there is judgement against evildoers, it is virtuous for God to fulfil His promise rather than to allow us to wage some holy war of spite against other sinners, since we are sinners ourselves. A little rough perhaps, but we may state that God may exercise virtue over the virtues we have, without privating them!

For if a positive property for us is found to be a virtue in God, we would have that we would ultimately expect it from God solely, and would not be able to realise it in ourselves perfectly. It is positive for justice to be done, but we exercise it imperfectly, as there are false accusations and the wrongly punished: It is positive for us to emulate the justice of God, but it is not perfected by us: We would ultimately call it virtuous for God to judge evildoers perfectly, whereas we would not call it a virtue for us to exercise judgement in a similar form because positve properties such as presumed "innocence" can be privated by our poor judgement.

Given that our virtues must be a closed set under those of God, we would require an ultimate virtue to be one that entails no other positive properties. We already have such a candidate. For if L(G) is a virtue to God, then L(x) for any x must be a virtue also! And if the believer x is at liberty to do nothing of requirement; or may do as He pleases, then nothing logically is entailed by his liberty L(x).

The truth of the matter, as to the sovereignty of God is that we know the truth: and the truth shall make us free! Our liberty is upon obedience to the law, and to live within the bands of grace. (We must believe and show L(G) over us in order to justify we have L(x) for all us 'x' also.)

So the truth, that the laws of God are the standard set in Christ, show us that when we understand the virtues that we are to emulate in Christ, we are at liberty to choose to emulate Christ, but only free when we have done so.

So then, how do we show that L(G) entails all the law upon which we may find freedom under grace? L(G) will represent the full requirement of God, under grace as L(G) would entail that HG(G) is possible which entails all f&¬f as before.

We consider a proper subset of virtues in Christ as "q" So that L(G) is realised only as L(q). Then we would assert that there are positive properties that may seem to be correct in conjunction, but may be discerned as mutually exclusive by a virtue in G not in q.

I.e. if some N¬(q1&p1&p2) then we may insist that pos(p1&p2) => ¬pos(q1). Whereas if q1 is missing from q then p1&p2 is assumed positive. In reality we would have that q entails the disjunction pos(p1) v pos(p2).

So commandments are useful to assure the positive properties that God may perfect (such as q1) are not taken by us to the furtherence of evil.

I.e. in the case above, we could replace the justice of God in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah which was "perfect" with the assumption that since it is positive for us to not be rapists (pos(p1)) taken with the Godly virtue (pos(p2)) that it is good to punish such, we could come up with the result that it is positive for us to destroy any such city with rapists in.

Were we to acknowledge the commandment "It is mine to avenge, I will repay" to avoid such situations we would be able to use God as a justification to do evil and punish the wicked with the innocent in that allegorical "city".

We would have excluded the virtue q1 that would entail pos(p1) v pos(p2), by virtue of avoiding the commandment to preserve vengeance for God only.

Likewise when we have a complete set of virtues, we would assume that every possible positive statement has its converse, and in holding true L(G) in everything, we find ourselves free upon the keeping of commandments freedom in that we do not "tread on God's toes" on His ground, and we have no further requirements from God. (We would dwell in every good standing with God: - we would not be able to private Him of any positive property He may solely perfect) Our faith could be said to be "without deprivation" by being truly of the one God, as opposed to one of our own making that lays upon us laws to no end.


Continue To Next Page

Return To Section Start


'