Monthly Archives

3 Articles

The Contingent Will

Posted by Nathanael Szobody on

The human is by nature of a contingent will.

Because humanity is contingent, there is a finite number of possible scenarios in which they can exist. Therefore their choices are limited to pre-established, finite possibilities. It is from these pre-established dispositions that they ‘choose’ with the will. Because they are restricted and thus choose according to a certain existential pre-determination, their context and possibility of choice is of a certain exclusive character. This exclusive character is their nature. Therefore what a person chooses is indeed of themself, and what is of themself is of their nature and therefore exclusive. In this way any choice excludes the other possibilities within their nature and leaves them with a more restricted nature than before: slavery to sin.

In God all things are possible and the choice to continue to exist in this possibility is the choice to not choose anything but what is already given in God. When humanity chose something finite which was not already given, they chose necessarily to have an exclusive nature whose character was that without the infinite possibility of God’s provision, i.e., death necessarily. So the choices now available to the will are exclusive to death.

The solution of Christ is that he shares of the non-contingent life of God; the first premise does not apply. Though he took on contingent flesh, dependent on his father also spiritually, althewhile he remained non-contingent God. He has a nature whose exclusive character is God and so is the only one able to give to the contingent person God’s life by exchanging a nature exclusive to death for the nature exclusive to life as the non-contingent son of God in contingent humanity.

When a person receives this life of God by faith in Jesus they have all the possibilities that are in the infinite God, with infinity defined as God’s will; and they rest in them, not grabbing one or the other, but trusting in him who provides all. So then they are free and have a freedom in regards to all things, yet the very joy of that freedom is essentially in the rest and not in the exercise of choice (which would in fact leave the person in a more exclusive position) but in the exercise of submission to the non-contingent will of God.

Romans 7: 7-23 for the Greek student.

Posted by Nathanael Szobody on

7 What should I say, is Greek grammar a linguistic sham? Not in the least; but I would not have know my wrong translation but through Greek grammar, for I would not have known that ‘en’ could signify a dative of means had not Greek grammar said “‘en’ does not always mean ‘in'”. 8 And folly of the subconscious, seizing only on the point that ‘en’ usually means ‘in’ as implied by the very grammar rule stated, produced in me all sorts of narrow translations. 9 Formerly I was oblivious to such a distinction, but when the rule was stated, the narrow translation of ‘en’ sprouted up all over 10 and I lost all integrity as a translator, and found that because of my lack of critical thinking the rule that was meant to be instructive proved my downfall; 11 for when my laziness sought refuge in the rule, the rule killed me. 12 So the rule is good and Greek grammar is instructive, and useful and beneficial. 13 So the good rule was my downfall? No, of course not; but that my error might be pointed out as such, it used the good rule to bring about my downfall so that a slight mistake might be known as a serious grammatical error through the rule. 14 For we know that the grammar rule has the final say; I am but a student, paying through my nose to get a piece of paper that says I know something. 15 I don’t have a clue what I’m doing here; cuz I don’t mean to write what I end up translating; I actually think my translation is pretty hysterical. 16 But atleast if I recognize its absurdity I’m acknowledging the purity of the original Greek grammar–that it does actually make sense. 17 So it’s not really a reflection of my integrity that my translation is bad, but only a recognition of the limited extent of my learning. 18 For I’ll confess I hardly remember a thing I studied in Machen, that is conscientiously, cuz I can remember the rule when I see it, but I can’t reproduce the results in my translation; 19 for I can’t remember the rules that I know are correct, and so even though I don’t want to produce a horrible translation that’s exactly what I end up doing. 20 But If I didn’t mean to butcher the grammar so badly, it’s not really something you can hold against me personally, but it just shows you what empty pockets and a bad memory does to you. 21 So the general principle is that the more I try to memorize rules, the more I realize what a horrible rule memorizer I am; 22 Cuz I love Greek as far as that is concerned, personally and all, 23 but I see the constant struggle with my limitedness and bad memory just taking over my actual translations. 24 I really am a hopeless case. Who can get this stuff pound into my head? Thank God his Word is greater than my linguistic prowess. So I can say I really enjoy translating the truth, althewhile recognizing that, as a translation, it’s really worthless.

Christ, a Grafted Person

Posted by Nathanael Szobody on

In grafting we divide and open up the trunk, which will receive the graft. Now the fruit of this graft, selected by the gardener, is not the ordinary fruit of the tree to be grafted. In a similar fashion, the eternal Father whom the gospel mentions as the divine cultivator of the gospel, chose a wild plant from the earth (if we consider it in its origin and nature), which is humanity bearing the likeness of sinful flesh. God separated the nature from the person that would have been proper and connatural to it and that would have flowed out of its essence once it was actuated and existing. He substituted the heavenly graft, and the divine subsistence, the very person of his Son in the place of the human subsistence, which had been negated. Therefore this plant, divided in this way and wounded in what is most intimate, most appropriate and most connatural to its being, bears fruits that are different and do not belong to it, but rather to what was grafted onto it.

–Pierre de Berulle