Mark 8 Brief On Spitting/Fourth Short Study

Christianity Explored

Mark 8:22-26

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

22 And they *came to Bethsaida. And they *brought a blind man to Jesus and *implored Him to touch him.
23 Taking the blind man by the hand, He brought him out of the village; and after spitting on his eyes and laying His hands on him, He asked him, “Do you see anything?”
24 And he [a]looked up and said, “I see men, for [b]I see them like trees, walking around.”
25 Then again He laid His hands on his eyes; and he looked intently and was restored, and began to see everything clearly.
26 And He sent him to his home, saying, “Do not even enter the village.”

Footnotes: Mark 8:24 Or gained sight Mark 8:24 Or they look to me

During the Christianity Explored class, Wednesday, the question was asked in regard to Mark 8: (paraphrased) Why did Jesus Christ use spitting and saliva in some healing? I stated that God and Christ could have healed the blind man instantly, but this was a matter of progressive faith or a progression of faith. The man would be provided more healing as he demonstrated more faith.

Short explains this was done 'to awaken faith in the man.' (1166). 'But on account, perhaps, of the weakness of the man's faith, he did not at first attain full clarity of vision...' (1166). The healing did ultimately fully occur. (1166).

John 9, also contains a story where Jesus Christ uses spittle.

Barclay has an interesting take on the use of spittle in the context of the three synoptic gospels. He writes in regard to Mark (7: 33; 8:23).

Mark 7:33

New American Standard Bible (NASB) My add:

33 Jesus took him aside from the crowd, by himself, and put His fingers into his ears, and after spitting, He touched his tongue with the saliva;

Barclay

'What was it about these miracles which made Matthew and Luke omit them? They are unusual miracles and they do stand apart. In both of them Jesus used spittle to effect a cure (7: 33; 8:23); and the healing of the blind man is one of the rare occasions where a miracle had, as it were, two stages.' (92).

Barclay opines that Matthew and Luke may have omitted Jesus Christ's lack of immediate success with the healings, as he used spittle which was a conventional method. (92). 'Matthew will tell no miracle story in which the cure in not immediate.' (92). Perhaps, in regard to miracles, Mark was more willing to document the humanity and human workings of Jesus Christ as Messiah. This done without differing with three other gospels in essential New Testament theology. This differing emphasis is reasonable within the New Testament theology of God, the Holy Spirit inspiring Scripture through individual writer perspectives.

2 Timothy 3:16

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16 All Scripture is [a]inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for [b]training in righteousness;

Footnotes: 2 Timothy 3:16 Lit God-breathed 2 Timothy 3:16 Lit training which is in

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

SHORT, STEPHEN S. (1986) ‘Mark’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Middle Knowledge Revisited

French Riviera

Middle Knowledge Revisited

Middle Knowledge: Latin-Scientia Media 

Edited for an entry on academia.edu, November 27, 2022

This view has intellectual merit, although problematic based on my studies.

Simon Blackburn documents in his entry 'scientia media' that middle knowledge is the way that God has of knowing the truth in regard to future events. This speculatively for philosophers enables God to reconcile his present knowledge with open choices. Blackburn (1996: 343). In other words this view of middle knowledge presupposes a type of libertarian free will and incompatibilism.

This view reasons that there is the simultaneous act of given grace and the persons freely accepting it, as opposed to a prior determination of that grace leading to acceptance. Blackburn (1996: 343). The concept was elaborated on by Luis de Molina (1535-1600). Blackburn (1996: 343). It is known as a view among many of the followers of Thomas Aquinas. Blackburn (1996: 343).

William Hasker explains middle knowledge is knowledge of certain kinds of propositions usually defined as 'counterfactuals of freedom' traced back to Luis de Molina. Hasker (1996: 492). These propositions state in each situation, concerning each possible free creature that God could create, and what that creature would do in each situation with the use of libertarian free will/choice. Hasker (1996: 492). The claim that God with foreknowledge knows these libertarian potential actions explains how he can maintain providential control over the universe. Hasker (1996: 492). Hasker argues that opponents of middle knowledge typically state that it is impossible for there to be true counterfactuals of freedom. Hasker (1996: 492). By this I reason he means knowledge of what might have occurred with the use of free will, assuming it libertarian. The view is indeed questionable without libertarian freedom.

A view of middle knowledge is also known as Molinism. Middle knowledge was a view I came across in my MPhil and PhD theses work within texts and journal articles which dealt with the problem of evil and theodicy, free will and determinism, but I never actually discussed it thoroughly within either theses work.

My view is a Reformed view of compatibilism and reasons that God as first cause wills all things. Therefore God would not only have knowledge and foreknowledge of all potential and actual thoughts, acts/actions of persons, angelic and demonic beings with significant and yet limited free will, but God would cause and will as the primary cause the actual thoughts, acts/actions of persons, angelic beings and demonic beings with significant and yet limited free wills and these finite beings would be secondary causes. If any secondary thoughts, acts/actions were somehow forced or coerced, for example, with the use of drugs forced upon him or her, a human being would not be morally responsible lacking significant freedom. God as infinite, eternal, and holy would will all things in moral and ethical perfection even when at times willing events that were evil, although I reason leading to greater good purposes.

Middle Knowledge Revisited

If hard determinism did take place, in my view there would not be significant moral responsibility from a finite creature and human being. I reason significant human freedom requires limited free will and not libertarian free will.

Example:

Did you with libertarian free will have a choice of your nature, as in either perfect and sinless, or imperfect and sinful?

The answer is a definitive, no.

This is problematic for libertarian free will supporters that claim that if 'one could not do otherwise', outside of libertarian free will and choices, it is not true freedom. This is a problem for those that reason significantly free human beings must take the initiative in free will, when one could not take the initiative in regard to core nature, behind the will.

This example seems to indicate that it is not a matter of 'being able to do otherwise', but is rather a matter of being able to via nature and will (and the hypothetical chain which I have speculated on my PhD and on this website) to significantly understand and embrace sinful thoughts, acts and actions that God simultaneously causes (Feinberg in the Many Faces of Evil). This based on Scripture (Romans) leads to human guilt. To have a significant understanding of good and evil and to embrace one's nature with significant freedom.

Human nature was created by God, that willingly caused and allowed, in my view without force or coercion, the first human beings (Genesis 1-3) to via nature and will (Feinberg adds desires in the chain), to reject the command of God with led to corrupted sinful nature and sinful choices. In my view, God sanctioned this and therefore willed and caused it as primary cause, and this was significantly embraced by the first persons as secondary cause. Therefore, they were held morally responsible for sin as sinners (Genesis 1-3, Romans 5, Romans 1-6). Humanity as descendants of Adam and Eve (Romans) embrace sinful nature and sinful choices and therefore are held morally responsible, despite not being the primary cause; or being able to cause human nature, will and choices outside of God's simultaneous influence (Feinberg).

Libertarian free will supporters attempt to often state that God with permissible will merely allows this to occur. We do have some common ground. I agree with a perfect will and permissible distinction as very helpful. I found this well explained by Erickson (Christian Theology) in my theses research. But, I reason that this in a sense does not 'get God off the hook'. As God is infinite and omnipotent, which most Biblical Christians agree on theologically, if God allows something, within permissible will, he is the still the primary cause. If he could prevent thoughts, acts and actions as he is infinite and omnipotent, and he does not, then he is still the first cause/primary cause.

Here I think Calvin's work is useful as it points to differing motives in thoughts, acts and actions. God's being perfectly good and holy, and humanity (and demonic beings at times) being imperfect and sinful. The historical, Biblical, crucifixion of Christ, being in my mind, the best classic example of this theological and philosophical concept. Satanic beings and human beings having wrong, sinful motives in killing Christ, and being held morally responsible by God. The triune God having perfect motives in the same events, leading to the atoning work, resurrection and eventual culminated Kingdom of God.

Calvin stated concerning free will:

If freedom is opposed to coercion, I both acknowledge and consistently maintain that choice is free and I hold anyone who thinks otherwise to be a heretic. If, I say, it were called free in this sense of not being coerced nor forcibly moved by an external impulse, but moving of its own accord, I have no objection. Calvin (1543)(1996: 68).

Human beings in Calvin’s thinking were not forced by God to sin, but God as an infinite being had and used the power to use their sin for the greater good. So to say that God willed evil for the greater good means that God could use sinful actions of others in order to accomplish his divine purpose. 

Calvin stated:

For we do not say that the wicked sin of necessity in such a way as to imply that they sin without wilful and deliberate evil intent. The necessity comes from the fact that God accomplishes his work, which is sure and steadfast, through them. At the same time, however, the will and purpose to do evil which dwells within them makes them liable to censure. But, it is said, they are driven and forced to this by God. Indeed, but in such a way that in a single deed the action of God is one thing and their own action is another.

For they gratify their evil and wicked desires, but God turns this wickedness so as to bring his judgements (judgments) to execution. Calvin (1543)(1996: 37).

God could set up events in such a way that someone would freely choose to sin, but this is not done in such a way that God is forcing or hard determining one to do so.

The objection is raised that this makes God, the author of sin. Again, divine motives are key, and if God as infinite and omnipotent, does not prohibit sin, then he is still, in a sense, the cause of it.

Based on what Calvin stated:

'For we do not say that the wicked sin of necessity in such a way as to imply that they sin without wilful and deliberate evil intent. The necessity comes from the fact that God accomplishes his work, which is sure and steadfast, through them.'

Sin in this context is performed willfully by second cause human agents, held morally responsible by God. Sin, is caused by God in perfect and holy motives. I do not have an intellectual problem with stating God allowed it, but I do not think that terminology is exhaustive enough in context.

Mystery

There is the negative critique that the Reformed perspective involves an overuse of mystery.

From my Doctoral thesis (Edited).

'A praxis of sovereignty theodicy would be that, from start to finish, salvation is primarily the goal directed plan of God. Human beings are not brought to Christ through compulsion, but when predestined in election shall be convinced to accept the offer of salvation. Praxis shifts from the incompatibilism of free will that assumes God desires to save all persons, but can only save those who are eventually persuaded to believe, to an understanding that whom God desires to save shall be regenerated and placed in a process of salvation.

The problem of evil is therefore not primarily subject to, and in existence, because human sin is stalling the culmination of God’s plans. I do not doubt that human beings do often oppose God’s plans, but God being almighty can overcome the problem of evil, and is working through this process slowly in history. Within a sovereignty perspective human sin does oppose God, but God will use sin for his purposes and regenerate and mould those he chooses towards salvation.

As long as one can accept the idea that a perfectly moral God wills and allows evil within his plans for the greater good, there is a degree of intellectual certainty with sovereignty theodicy that free will theodicy lacks. God could inevitably bring about, through the use of the regeneration and the resurrection of elected human persons, the end of human corruption, and even Plantinga’s concept of transworld depravity.'

End citation

A mystery with incompatibilism is that in light of Romans and the universal corrupt nature of humanity, allowing for significant free will, and in light of Plantinga’s transworld depravity, why would anyone choose God and Jesus Christ, without being simultaneously influenced to do so? In my mind, this seems extremely unlikely (Ephesians 1: 5: ‘He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the intention of his will.’ New American Standard Bible). Ephesians 2 states that those in Christ are saved by grace through faith for good works.

To state that if God alone is the initiator of cause and therefore, secondary causes are not true causes is to misinterpret the theology of Ephesians. God as first and primary cause brings about salvation leading to the secondary cause, in my view, not being a hard determinist, simultaneously embracing this regeneration by grace through faith.

This is Biblically supposed to lead to legitimate good human works. This does not read as hard determinism, nor libertarian free will. Clearly it reads as compatibilism.

Overuse of Philosophy

I reasoned while researching and analyzing my MPhil and PhD work that both compatibilists and incompatibilists can be guilty at times of depending more on theology, philosophy and philosophy of religion than Scripture. But here I am using Ephesians as example.

Feinberg's work speculated on going behind will to desires within 'The Many Faces of Evil'. Perhaps going behind significant human free will to human nature is helpful. My example that one cannot choose their nature via will, at least in the context of perfection versus imperfection and sinless versus sinful, has merit.

In the case of the unregenerate that God eventually regenerates, the Reformed concept I reviewed in theses studies of God enlightening persons through preaching and teaching is reasonable. This would culminate in regeneration and the human embracing of salvation. In the regenerated in Christ, moulding of persons may be viewed as the sanctification process. Being set apart for holiness with God.

Note

I reason the Reformed 'tag' is more accurate for my position than that of Calvinist. I am not a resident or citizen of the United States of America and did not grow up in that culture. A stronger Calvinist in my mind would not favour Believer's Baptism to Infant Baptism, as do I. I am Reformed, theologically and philosophically on many issues, but I am also a baptized Mennonite Brethren in an Evangelical church. My sacramental leanings would be Anabaptist and Baptist. I state this because online in some what I view as rare unnecessarily heated contexts, I have been written-off as a Calvinist by upbringing, and that is far from the truth. My views, are of course a product of influence, as with everyone, but they are mainly a product of seeking the Lord's truth, academically. But I did with God's help manage to develop enough expertise to pass two major British theses of Reformed Theology and Philosophy of Religion in secular departments, not in agreement with my views.

I am still in process.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1976) The Letters of James and Peter, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CAIRD, GEORGE B. (1977) Paul's Letters from Prison Paperback, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville,

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

DUNN, JAMES D.G. (1988) Romans, Dallas, Word Books. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FEINBERG. JOHN S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1996) ‘Middle Knowledge’, in Robert Audi (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

LA SOR, WILLIAM SANFORD, DAVID ALLAN HUBBARD, AND FREDERIC WILLIAM BUSH. (1987) Old Testament Survey, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

LIGHTFOOT, JOHN B. (1993) The Destination of the Epistle to the Ephesians in Biblical Essays, New York, Macmillan. 

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers. 

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Middle Knowledge: Internet Encylopedia of Philosophy 

Selected references

a. Books 

Craig, William Lane. Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism, Omniscience. New York: Brill, 1990. 

Craig, William Lane. The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingents from Aristotle to Suarez. New York: Brill, 1988. 

Molina, Luis de. On Divine Foreknowledge: Part IV of the Concordia. Translated by Alfred J. Freddoso. Ithaca: Cornell, 1988. Plantinga, Alvin. The Nature of Necessity. Oxford: Clarendon, 1974. 

b. Articles

Hasker, William. “Middle Knowledge: A Refutation Revisited.” Faith and Philosophy 12:2 (April 1995): 223-36.

Hasker, William. “A New Anti-Molinist Argument.” Religious Studies 35:3 (September 1999): 291-97. 

Author Information John D. Laing  

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary U. S. A.

Also online

Lonergan, Bernard J.F. Grace and Freedom: Operative Grace in the Thought of St. Thomas Aquinas. New York: Herder and Herder, 1971.

---

Saturday, October 06, 2012: Middle Knowledge: Latin-Scientia Media (In Brief)

Mark 12 Third Short Study

Georgia Straight: trekearth

Christianity Explored

This week, the course leading Pastor and the Christianity Explored, DVD focused on Mark 12 in regard to the meaning of life. I will discuss this as opposed to workbook concepts already dealt with in the two previous posts.

Mark 12: 29-31 from the New American Standard Bible (NASB)

29 Jesus answered, “The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord;
30 and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’
31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

I agreed with the DVD presenter that stated following this would be technically humanly impossible, in this realm. The atoning and resurrection work of Christ is applied to believers, by faith, through grace, and by faith through grace, alone, for good works. (Ephesians 1-2, Galatians 2, Romans 1-9). Spiritual, moral and ethical perfection should be a human goal (Matthew 5: 48), but in this temporal state only God is truly good (Mark 10: 18, Luke 18: 19). I would add that the angels of God, in his holy presence, are finitely, spiritually, morally and ethically perfectly good, but only God is infinitely perfectly good. What humanity can accomplish in the future resurrection (1 Corinthians 15) forward is levels of finite spiritual, moral, ethical and physical perfection. Short states in his Mark commentary: 'It should be appreciated that there is a great deal more involved in 'loving God' and 'loving one's neighbour' than might be superficially imagined, the implication of the latter of these duties having been expanded by Jesus earlier...parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10: 30-37). Short (1986: 1174). Being saved by grace through alone, indicates a human nature and limited free will that cannot obtain perfection in this realm.

The concepts from Mark 12, led to a table discussion where a kind agnostic asked, what I view a common and reasonable question from a secular perspective. That being (paraphrased):  How is it that the more sinful Christian that repents can be saved through the work of Christ and within the Kingdom of God, while the more moral person that does not accept Christ is hell-bound?  I quoted as I often do on my sites, from the New American Standard Version, Ephesians 2 8-10. I stated that because the atoning and resurrection work of Christ is applied to those in Christ by grace through faith for good works, it is not as if, for example, the 1 billion most moral and ethical people will be in the Kingdom of God. Rather it is those God chooses that chooses him in return (not over-emphasizing compatibilism and workings in this non-academic church ministry context). I did mention that sinful choices did arise from a universal human nature.

Further, for this website presentation, the 'moral person' that does not accept Christ, still has a sinful nature and is with limited free will, embracing sin and rejecting the Biblical God. This regardless of the finite heights of human morality and ethics. In regard to a question presented in regard to obedient and disobedient people in the Church, I quoted 1 Corinthians 6 (NASB) where those who struggle with sin in Christ are differentiated from those that live in sin outside of Christ. I also mentioned James 2: 17 (related James 2: 26) from the (NASB): 'Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.'

Adding to what I stated, the 1 Corinthians verse definitely and definitively is discussing non-believers ('Do not be deceived neither fornicators' etc..).  I should acknowledge that with James there is some theological room to consider a person in James 2: 17 as having a dead faith and therefore being a non-believer, or having a dead faith that is not a non-faith, but is rather a faith with no substantial good works, or both possibilities.  I have read scholarship that supports various views. Either way my quotation of the verse worked to demonstrate to the agnostic that the New Testament acknowledges the obedient Christian life from other in the Church. The following scholarship does seem to support a view compatible with Reformed perspectives in light of 1 Corinthians 3 (leadership), 2 Peter 3 and Hebrews 6. These verses would be debated, especially 2 Peter 3 and Hebrews 6 with various views. It seems theologically difficult, although I admit not impossible, to equate non-faith with dead faith. The assumption would be the Christian faith was fake and not real. A theological problem is dead faith indicates a faith that existed as alive faith at some point. Does not a non-believer have no faith at every point? No saving faith in Christ and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Redeeming God: James 2 14-26

Cited:

'It does not mean to be delivered or saved from hell and given eternal life unless the context indicates that this is the meaning. In Ephesians 2, the context tells us that our salvation, our deliverance is from sin and the eternal consequences of sin. So Ephesians 2 is talking about being delivered from sin.'  

'But is that what James 2 is talking about? No, not even close.'...

Cited:

'Faith alone in Christ alone gets you into heaven. Works earn you reward in heaven. If all you have is faith in Christ, that will get you into heaven, but faith will not save your reward, or inheritance or profit that could have been yours in heaven. When Christians ask, “Why can’t I sin all I want?” the most basic Biblical answer is: “Because you will lose heavenly reward. You will be disinherited at the judgment seat of Christ.”'

SHORT, STEPHEN S. (1986) ‘Mark’, in F.F. Bruce (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

Mark 3-5 Second Short Study

Giants Causeway, Northern Ireland: trekearth

Christianity Explored

Thank you for the more numerous 'Likes' for the first Mark post.

From the second week of facilitating at Christianity Explored. The first post mainly focused on Mark 1 with some work from Mark 2. Therefore the title:

Mark 1 Short Study

From Mark 3:7-5: 43

In the following events:

1. What does Jesus show authority over in these events?

a) calming of the storm (Mark 4: 35-41)

Jesus Christ demonstrated authority over the wind, storms and weather.

This was Biblically evident for everyone at our course table, based on the Marcan text. The Bible accepted as true religious history. I noted that accepting the text as historical documentation would minimally mean Jesus Christ had access to supernatural power and was perhaps supernatural in origin himself. I explained that the critic could opine that Jesus Christ was a god like Thor, for example.

Jesus Christ also healed a sick woman (Mark 5:24-34).

To be noted is the importance of human faith many times in the New Testament, in God acting for persons. The miraculous and supernatural was not typical even in Biblical times, but primarily occurred to demonstrate the power of the culminated Kingdom of God in Jesus Christ.

Any supernatural activity demonstrating power over life and death is a cumulative proof of an almighty God nature, not merely a god nature, This is infinitely beyond what could be reasoned in our modern age a finite god-like alien, like Thor and Superman. This was demonstrated by Jesus Christ as perfect man and incarnated God that raised the girl from death (Mark 5: 35-43).

Most importantly the resurrection of Christ documented in the New Testament, is the ultimate divine proof over life and death. This directly connects to the eventual and ultimate resurrection and perfection of those in Christ (1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 21-22).

It is simply reasonable that the infinite, divine author of life, even incarnated as a man, can recreate and resurrect life.

Again, in Mark 5: 36, and the New American Standard Bible, Jesus Christ asked the synagogue official to not be afraid any longer and only believe. God works through faith, although I would not state dogmatically that God always requires human faith. God is sovereign and acts accordingly.

The course handbook asks if it was a reasonable request by Jesus Christ. It was only if Christ has access to life and death and God's power. Christ went further in his ministry by forgiving sins and holding power over life and death as God.

2. How does this add to what we've already seen about his power and authority in earlier chapters.

I agreed with the church teacher that the disciples were gaining knowledge of the supernatural power and origin of Jesus Christ. Again, I pointed out that the resurrection of Jesus Christ from dead demonstrated infinite, almighty power from God.

Mark 2: 5-11 New American Version Bible (NASB)

5 And Jesus seeing their faith *said to the paralytic, “[c]Son, your sins are forgiven.” 6 But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, 7 “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins [d]but God alone?” 8 Immediately Jesus, aware [e]in His spirit that they were reasoning that way within themselves, *said to them, “Why are you reasoning about these things in your hearts? 9 Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven’; or to say, ‘Get up, and pick up your pallet and walk’? 10 But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—He *said to the paralytic, 11 “I say to you, get up, pick up your pallet and go home.”

From the first article I stated in regard to the title 'Son of Man.'

Browning notes the phrase Son of Man is common from Jesus and is in the gospels and in Acts 7 and Revelation 1:13. Browning (1996: 349). Browning reasons that an increasingly accepted view is that Jesus meant the term in an elusive, roundabout way of acknowledging his significance as ‘I, being the man I am’.Browning (1996: 350).

Erickson writes that the resurrection established the fact that the Son of Man is Christ, and that he is both a man that walked on earth and a heavenly being who would come in the future in the clouds of heaven. Erickson (1994: 693). Erickson explains that Jesus used the term Son of Man of himself and that one person, Jesus Christ, was both earthly man and pre-existent divine God who became incarnate man. Erickson (1994: 726).

Reasons for God June 17, 2013 By Carson Weitnauer

Bart Ehrman objects to the idea of Jesus Christ being God:

Quote

'For instance, in his book Did Jesus Exist?, Dr. Bart Ehrman claims in at least three places that the Gospel of Mark never mentions that Jesus is God. Most emphatically, Ehrman states, “In Mark Jesus is certainly not God.”'

Quote

'Instead, Ehrman thinks history leads to a fundamentally different conclusion about the nature of Jesus. He writes, Moreover, I agree with Schweitzer’s overarching view, that Jesus is best understood as a Jewish prophet who anticipated a cataclysmic break in history in the very near future, when God would destroy the forces of evil to bring in his own kingdom here on earth (KL 176-178).'

Interestingly, Jesus Christ leads with 'Son, your sins are forgiven'.and not God the Father or God has forgiven your sins. He takes personal authority for forgiving sins. Jesus Christ claims to be the Son of Man and does not make the theological corrective in the story that he was only a prophet representing God.

In Acts, as example, disciples and Apostles would perform the supernatural in the name of Jesus Christ as part of the triune God-head.

Acts 3: 4-9

'4 But Peter, along with John, fixed his gaze on him and said, “Look at us!” 5 And he began to give them his attention, expecting to receive something from them. 6 But Peter said, “I do not possess silver and gold, but what I do have I give to you: In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene—walk!” 7 And seizing him by the right hand, he raised him up; and immediately his feet and his ankles were strengthened. 8 With a leap he stood upright and began to walk; and he entered the temple with them, walking and leaping and praising God. 9And all the people saw him walking and praising God;'

The disciples and Apostles as would a Prophet healing in the name of the Biblical God, make the definite and definitive distinction between themselves as finite servant and healer and the infinite, almighty God. Even as incarnate man in the context of the text it is clear Jesus Christ healed and forgave sins as God.

3. What are the different ways in which people respond to Jesus?

In Mark 4: 40-41

Timid and with no faith (NASB). As we discussed in the course, there was a progression of faith occurring with the disciples.

In Mark 5: 15

The disciples feared the 'legion' of demons from the demon-possessed. In time, based on the New Testament many disciples that endured in the new Christian faith and philosophy would eventually be able to cast out demons through the power of Christ and the triune God.

In Mark 5: 27-28, 34

The use of human faith by Jesus Christ and God is shown. Philosophically, I would opine that God as first cause, causes and wills a second cause to have significant faith.

God can force or coerce human thoughts, acts and actions and then later the person having been molded by God could with what I call 'limited free will' within compatibilism, embrace it. But I reason significant moral accountability by human, angelic, demonic or other rational beings is only the case with a significant limited free will and choice. If God forces or coerces persons or rational beings in thoughts, acts and actions, in agreement with philosophers of religion such as Alvin C. Plantinga (God, Freedom and Evil), I hold that freedom is required for human and rational finite creature, moral accountability. It could be stated that divine force or coercion would eventually evolve to divine moulding and persuasion.

I have pondered on this issue recently and opine it would not be in error to pray that someone be forced or coerced by God to reason and perform within God perfect will as opposed to God's permissible will. This is acceptable in regard to human and rational creature moral responsibility, as long as eventually within the chain of events, human limited free will embraces what God has initially caused. This limited free will connected by chain to finite human nature that within this realm is corrupted (Romans).

I am not stating that God always uses force or coercion in dealing with fallen human beings. As I documented in my MPhil and PhD theses work, moulding and  persuasion were the preferred terms and meanings in the case of God's enlightening of the elect (Ephesians 1-2).

In Mark 5: 42

People were astounded by the power over life and death from Jesus Christ. I agreed with the church teacher that I would be too, until led by God with significant evidence.

I therefore answer the final workbook question that I do relate to these responses. It should be noted that as post-New Testament era Christians we have the benefit of theological hindsight via compiled volumes of historical Scripture and associated scholarship and teaching.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.