God's very nature is goodness, goodness is by definition self-giving, and the most perfect goodness gave himself to creatures in the most perfect way, uniting to himself created nature personally: the Word of God taking on soul and flesh. The mystery of the incarnation involved no change in God's eternal state, but united him in a new way with what he created, or rather, united what he created with himself. What God creates is by nature changeable, so that for it to change its way of existing is not inappropriate. Just as all creation began to exist after first not having done so, so appropriately after first not having been united to God it later became united. The differences between the Creator and what he created are all established by God's wisdom and serve God's goodness: change and matter are creations of the uncreated, unchanging, immaterial goodness of God, and penal evils are instituted by his justice to vindicate his glory; only culpable evil is committed by creatures turning aside from God's wise plan and refusing service to his goodness. So it was appropriate for God to take on a changeable nature, material and afflicted with penal evil, but not to take on the culpability of any fault.
We needed God to become flesh if we were to be saved. But notice that some things are needed for a purpose because we can't do without them at all (food for staying alive) and some because we can't do so well without them (a horse for a journey). God needed to become man to restore human nature only in the second sense, since there were many other ways available to God's almighty power, but none so appropriate for healing our wretchedness. By this way way of doing things God brought us good and took away our evil. He brought us the surest faith by speaking to us himself: Truth himself, the Son of God made man, established and confirmed our faith; he immensely lifted our hopes: What better sign of God's love than that his Son deigned to share our nature; he most greatly enkindled our love: if we have been slow to love then at least let us not be slow to return this love; he has set an example of living life well: that we might have a model we could both see and follow, God became man; and he has brought us to the true and happy goal of life, a full share in his own godhead: God became man that man might become God. By becoming man he also took away our evil: he taught us not to go in awe of the devil, the author of sin: Because God joined human nature to himself in one person, no proud and evil spirits dare any longer vaunt over men their fleshlessness; he taught also the dignity of human nature unsullied by sin: Acknowledge your dignity, O Christian, and since you share God's nature do not by your conduct degenerate into your former worthlessness; the unmerited grace that God showed us in becoming man in Christ rebukes our presumption; such great humility on God's part rebuts and cures man's pride; and finally, God in this way freed us from slavery overcoming the devil by a man's justice, since amends which could not be made by man alone and should not be made by God were made by Jesus Christ, God and man, providing a cure because truly God, and an example because truly man. And a multitude of other advantages flow from God becoming man which are beyond human comprehension. Amends are sometimes made perfectly, with adequate recompense for any fault committed. But no one merely human could make amends for sin in this way: sin corrupted all mankind and no individual's goodness could outweigh that; it was infinite in the sense that it offended God's infinite majesty. To make amends adquately and infinitely would need a man who was also God. Someone merely human could however make sufficient amends imperfectly, in the sense of a recompense inadequate but willingly accepted. All such imperfect amends by men are now effective because of the perfect amends made by Christ. Whatever exceeds a creature's due and is decided by God's will alone can only be known to us through holy scripture. Since scripture always gives Adam's sin as the reason for God becoming man, it seems better to presume that had there been no sin there would have been no incarnation. Although we cannot limit God's power by saying it could not have happened otherwise. The perfection of the universe required only that creatures should be ordered to God as goal in the ways natural to them. For we must distinquish the capacities natural to things (which God always fulfils by gifts thaht accord with those capacities) from the capacity of all creatures to respond to the call of God's power. Capacity for union with God is of this latter sort, and God does not have to fulifil every such capacity: otherwise he could only ever do in creation what he in fact does, and this is false. Nor was it inappropriate for God to raise human nature to a greater perfection after sin than before, for God permits evil precisely in order to draw forth greater good: where wickedness abounded grace abounded even more; O happy fault that deserved so great a ransomer. But without doubt Christ came into the world to wipe out not only the sin of Adam that we all inherit, but also all subsequent sins. Not that they are all wiped out--some people fail to hold fast to Christ, the light came into the world and men preferred darkness to the light--but Christ did enough to wipe them all out. He came principally to wipe out the greater sin. The sins we commit are more intensely sin than the sin we inherit because more voluntary; but inherited sin is the most extensive, infecting the entire human race and not just an individual, so in this sense Christ came principally to take away inherited sin, the good of a whole people being more godlike than the good of an individual. Fittingly God became man not immediately after Adam's sin, but when the fulness of time had come. Adam's sin came from pride, and if man was to be freed from it he had better first become humble eough to recognize his need of a liberator: God first left us to our free will under the law we have in us by nature, so that we could learn our natural powers; then when we failed we received the Law, but the disease grew worse, so that we could recognize our weakness and call out for the medicine of grace. Moreover proceeding from imperfect to perfect goodness is a natural pattern of growth: the physical first and then the spiritual, the man from earth first, earthly, and the man from heaven, second, heavenly. The fullness of time also fitted the dignity of the incarnate Word of God himself: the greater the coming judge, the longer should be his file of heralds. Were a doctor to give medicine to a sick man at the very beginning of the illness, it might benefit him less and even perhaps do more harm than good. So too the Lord did not provide mankind with the remedy of the incarnation straight away, lest it be proudly spurned by men who did not recognize their weakness. All things considered, perfection precedes perfection in time and by nature, but in each particular thing imperfection, however secondary to perfection in nature, precedes it in time. Thus God's eternal perfection preceded man's imperfect human nature in duration, but the imperfect state of human nature preceded the fuilflment of human nature by union with God. When God became man human nature was raised to its highest perfecdtion, so it was inappropriate for that to take place at the beginning of mankind's history. But because the Word became flesh is the cause that brings about our human perfection--of his fullness have we all received--it would also have been inappropriate to wait until the end of time. What will come at the end of time is the perfection of glory, to which the Word made flesh is finally leading human nature. God becoming man ended the process from imperfection to perfection, and began that perfection. --- In [email protected], "emptybill" <emptybill@...> wrote: > > Doesn't matter what you say. Your history is as a deceiver > Such is the name for the great demon. > Your identity is covered with the emotional blood of your > victims ... yet you attempt to justify yourself. > This fact alone is proof that you deceive yourself and others. > > Instead of hitting the floor with your head bowing lower than > your heart - you parade yourself and your prelest ... your spiritual > pride. > > You do not have the slightest concept or remorse for your delusive > grandiosity. Get on your knees fool and pray to God to give toyou > something of Himself rather than Youself. > > Realize that you live by His grace alone and that you ... Robin > can serve Him in Truth by making yourself least and helping > everyone to the best of what is left of your life. > > In other words ... give to others only on the foundation of > your recognition that your life is a real possibility to help others. > > And, btw ... don't answer or bother me with your struting reply. > I could care less about you justifications. Only He knows your heart > but if you confess, do it in front of a monasitc cofessor who alone > knows > the endless attempts of human to justify themselves. > > But then again maybe this is just more BS for you. > > > --- In [email protected], "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > wrote: > > > > Ann went to the newspaper to expose me as a cult leader. She wrote a > stinging letter to me after I had attempted (1991) to apologize for my > behaviour--I wrote to each person within the cult (as Bill Howell > comments upon in his book). She thought me to be lying in my sincerity. > > > > She has said things to you personally, and on this website which would > indicate her perspective on Robin Carlsen has altered over time. She has > even commented on the book before deciding to reread it. > > > > The point is not what you would have it, Lord Knows: the point is: is > Ann Woelfle Bater's point of view on Robin Carlsen at this time valid, > existentially honest, true--and at least as meaningful to her as the > point of view she had when she was exiled as an "evil being" and spilled > her story to the newspaper in Victoria? > > > > She opposed me, despised me as much as anyone has--at a particular > point in her life; and she sent that personal letter to me (which I > still have somewhere) dismissing my sincerity in those letters--she was > adamant about refusing to grant me any good faith in my actions at that > time. > > > > She learned during a funeral in Victoria that I was posting on FFL. > She posted. I wrote her a personal letter of thanks, since what she said > there, although not contradicting in the main any of her actions against > me in the past, exhibited a kind of sophistication and mercifulness that > had allowed her to view me with more of a mixture of feelings. > > > > In our correspondence she proved to me that she knew me as the person > Robin quite independently of the mask of the enlightened man--and she > made comments to this effect, proving, to my surprise, that she had not > entirely lost sight of something about me which remained true for her > despite the grave actions she had taken in her attempt to shut down the > cult. > > > > It is not a question of simple moral calculus here, Lord Knows. What > you and Bill Howell have to take on is the person Anne Woelfe Bater as > she lives her life at this time--and to determine whether in modifying > her position regarding Robin Carlsen she has in effect betrayed a level > of truthfulness for which she felt accountable when she endorsed Bill's > book. > > > > The point, Lord Knows, is that you have already learned of Ann's > position vis-a-vis Robin Carlsen. Bill making this book available does > not change anything on the ground in your relationship with her. If in > principle she was expressing sentiments which you deemed morally and > psychologically inconsistent with her testimony in the past, you surely > would have raised this with her in your many conversations with her > before now. > > > > The availability of Bill's book does not alter things simply on the > basis of what it says about me, nor that Ann in the past actually > contributed to and concurred with what was said in that book. > > > > If you truly sense that Ann has traduced herself--or that she is > somehow being deceitful or hypocritical in what she has already said > about that book, or what she may say about that book, then it is your > own responsibility to raise this matter with her. > > > > You would make Ann a liar then with the dissemination of this book? > > > > Ann is fearless and honest and she will tell the truth. As she > experiences it as deeply as she can at this point in her life. She will > not flinch in her remembrance of all that was so terribly wrong in the > past--nor the wounds that remain. But for you to make her behaviour in > the past (and what it implied about her judgment of me) invalidate the > veracity of her present judgment of Robin Carlsen--that is something > which can't work here, Lord Knows. > > > > I have not attempted to challenge the facts or incidents Bill Howell > describes in his book--not that my memory agrees with his narration; I > doubt Ann will do this either. But the whole point here, Lord Knows is: > Does Bill's book capture the person Robin Carlsen in some definitive way > that would make his portrait there an objective judgment of the person > he is now--or even the person he was then. > > > > I am confident that Ann, should she read the book, will come to her > own autonomous conclusions in regard to both of these questions. I am > not expecting her to adhere to my own point of view as she once adhered > to Bill's point of view. But I think she must be given the freedom to > express her judgment of the book's relevance to 1. the truth of what > actually was going on in those three years in some fundamental sense, > and 2.the truth of Bill's portrayal of the cult leader as he existed 26 > years ago, and as he exists now in November of 2012. > > > > Ii do not fear her judgment of those years, nor her judgment of me. > She is extremely thoughtful and even profound in her judgments about > people, about is true for her, about what life means for her. I am sure > she will make an honest and searching judgment of the book as she finds > its application to both her experience at that time, her experience now, > and her perspective on her experiences then--from the vantage point of > the person she presently is. > > > > She has already done this numerous times on FFL. > > > > Her judgment will not affect my own judgment of the book, however. > > > > Let us just see what she does, and then you can determine whether she > is being true to her conscience, her past history, and her sense of what > counts for her now. > > > > I don't think Ann could countenance any falsification of either her > experience or her beliefs. > > > > Are you warning her that she faces some kind of tribunal of justice > here? > > > > She can say and write whatever she wants to say or write. You will > know that in the example of her you have something which does not go to > proving the case that Bill Howell has made in his book--Else you must > call her a liar--and her characterization of her past with me during the > time described in that book (as viewed in the present) a deliberate and > culpable act of treason--to herself, to Bill, to all of her friends whom > she loves so deeply. > > > > You want a public lynching, Lord Knows. But what is at stake here is > something much more important: What is the final truth of those Ten > Years--and what is the way that time should be viewed in the present? > And is Robin Carlsen who Bill Howell would say he always will be even in > this moment? Let's just see what Ann ways--if indeed she says anything > beyond what she has already said here on FFL. Where it is apparent she > looks upon me in quite a different light than Bill Howell does, than you > do, and than the book CULT would have me be. > > > > I am not, by the way, the person depicted in that book. > > > > Ann will do what she does heedless of anything but her own conscience, > Lord Knows. > > > > And you already know this. > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "lordknows888" lordknows888@ > wrote: > > > > > > Robin, > > > You have put Ann in a very difficult position; she can not possibly > > > truthfully agree with your judgement on the book "Cult" as being > > > essentially false. She read the book years ago and added whatever > > > comments and/or corrections to William at that time. She did not > object > > > to his essential portrayal of the cult experience in the book at > that > > > time,and she can not very well go back on what she stated then and > now > > > state, so many years later, that the book is essentially false. Even > > > more personally, I can not imagine that Ann could look William or > myself > > > in the eye and tell us that this book is a lie, that it does not > > > represent our very real essential experience of the cult. > > > Lord Knows > > > > > >
