 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > What do Y'all Think About This Statement? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/23/2012 7:22 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
There's no doubt that angels do indeed do bad stuff. The question is whether ALL suffering not due to humans and not explicable by soul-building should be attributed to angels. I'm not even arguing that he isn't trying to explain things that need explaining. After all, Genesis 1-3 taken together with the "lion" and "lamb" passages seem to be saying something very much like what Greg is saying is at issue.
My only point is this: If you don't already agree with Greg on that issue, you probably won't see the so-called "violence" passages as particularly problematic from a theodicy point of view. They may seem problematic historically to some, but not theodically. Once you see no need to explain all seeming natural evil as volitional acts (or natural consequences of volitional acts) of CREATURES, the OT "god" is child's play by comparison. Because then much if not all of that "natural" suffering really is attributable to the CREATOR unless the creator is very short-sighted and/or incompetent.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/23/2012 7:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
Once you see no need to explain all seeming natural evil as volitional acts (or natural consequences of volitional acts) of CREATURES, the OT "god" is child's play by comparison.
But that's the problem. There's too much of a "gap" between the evil that Greg sees in the world (animal violence included) between what could justifiably be from "soul-making" and what's supposedly above and beyond that. Greg uses angelic/demonic reality to fill that gap.
But I find his take on the "futility" in Creation (Romans) poor. Basically he says that God TAKES RESPONSIBILITY for the coming of "futility" in the world...even though it's just him ALLOWING the quasi-demiurge, Satan, to do what he wants to do because supposedly he can do NOTHING ELSE. He let Satan have basically ALL of the power over matter/energy BEFORE he fell. Now that he fell, God can't take the power back. (TWT 5, I believe). I ain't buying that. So, God, IN HOPE, "took responsibility" for Satan's mess???? You need Greg's interpretive view to SEE things this way in the first place.
Paul also expressed the view of creation as cursed when he said that ” the creation was subjected to frustration” and that “the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time” (Rom. 8:20-22). Whatever else Paul intends by saying creation is subject to “frustration” or “futility” (mataiotais), it certainly includes the fact that everything dies. Yet, death is as natural as anything can be, according to the laws of nature as they presently operate. In fact, the law of entropy (2nd law of thermodynamics) is one of the most fundamental laws of physics. Yet, if Paul (and Genesis) is correct, this law does not reflect the Creator’s creational ideal.
According to the author of Hebrews, it rather reflects the anti-creational goals of Satan. Christ came to “break the power of him who holds the power of death – that is, the devil” (Heb. 2:14). Put all of this together, and it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the creation has been subjected to Satan, the lord of death, decay and destruction.
Again, Satan becomes DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE and the SOLE REASON for existence of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If Satan would have never rebelled in his GOD-GRANTED quasi-demiurgism over Creation, the 2nd law of thermodynamics would not exist...at all.
How many modern people do you believe will believe that? Would C. Stephen Evans by that? Or David Bentley Hart?
I don't know if this is gonna continue to fly.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/23/2012 6:44:49 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/23/2012 7:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Piper's right right here. Greg's idea that God merely "takes responsibility" for ALLOWING Satan to make the 2nd law of thermodynamics is IMPORTED via his assumptions.
Here's what I mean. Look at verse 20: "For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope." Here is the beginning of the futility and corruption and groaning of creation. What is he referring to? Don't miss this, because this is the most important point so far.
Paul is referring here to God's action is subjecting the creation to futility and groaning and corruption. How do we know it was God that he is referring to? How do we know it was not Adam by his sin, or Satan by his temptation of Adam and Eve? We know this because of the words "in hope" at the end of verse 20: "The creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope." Adam did not subject the world to futility in hope. Adam had no plan for the revelation of the children of God in due time. Satan did not subject the world to futility in hope. Satan had no plan for the revelation of the children of God in due time.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/23/2012 7:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
Even Job implied God has to give EXPLICIT permission for Satan to do what he did to Job.
Bravissimo. But...
One final word about the prologue should be noted before we discuss the body of this work. Since we are dealing with an epic poem, most Old Testament scholars agree that it is misguided to press this prologue for literal details about God’s general relationship to Satan. The literary point of the prologue is not to answer questions like, “Does Satan always have to get specific permission every time he does something?,” or “Is every affliction the result of a heavenly challenge to God’s authority?” As with Jesus’ parables, the central point of the prologue is the only point the reader is supposed to get. We misunderstand Jesus’ parable about Lazarus, for example, if we wonder whether people in hell can literally talk to people in paradise (Lk 16:19-31). This is simply a literary prop to allow Jesus to make the point that if people don’t repent now on the basis of the revelation they’ve already received, they wouldn’t respond even if someone (like Larzarus) came back from the dead (Lk 16:31).
So it is in the prologue of Job. The purpose of the prologue is to set up a specific episode that will vindicate God’s wisdom and integrity. It serves this function by bringing the readers in on the satan’s assault on God’s wisdom and character while leaving the actors in this drama in the dark. It thus highlights the ignorance of the actors as they each put forth their theological perspectives. It shows that things happen to people on earth because of chance encounters in heaven, about which these people know nothing. And, as we shall see, this is the central point of the whole epic drama.
He deconstructs that away...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/23/2012 7:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg actually says that the OPPOSITE is true. Satan's a virtual WILDMAN that God can barely contain!
We see that the satan is not a being who operates under Yahweh’s authority, as do the regular council members. He was not carrying out assignments from God. Rather, he randomly walks to and fro on the earth on his own. Indeed, Yahweh has to protect people from him (1:10).
Dude. This is NOT a one-storey view of existence.
Right, Jeff?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/23/2012 6:56:30 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/23/2012 9:14 AM (GMT -6) | | I think I see something...
Who ran the universe during the incarnation? The Bible tells us that Christ holds all things today (Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3). However, if Christ relinquished the exercise of his omnipresence and omniscience while on earth, there is no way he could have continued to perform this role.
In reply, the passages that celebrate Christ's role as Creator and Sustainer of the universe describe Christ's customary role. They do not rule out the possibility that Christ, for a season, set aside this function. The doctrine of the Trinity allows us to assert that God exists in three distinct ways at the same time. According to kenotic theorists, the second way God is God--The Second Person of the Trinity--emptied himself and became a full human. But (thankfully) the universe was not thereby vacated. The Father and Spirit continued to exercise their omnipotent and omniscient capacities.
If it were exegetically necessary, we could argue that Christ still held all things together even while he was incarnate. Consider this example: The owner of a company who goes on vacation may nevertheless be credited with "holding the company together" if he has responsibly arranged for things to carry on a certain way while he is gone. So long as Christ's wisdom and power lie behind the sustaining of the universe, it can be said that he held all things together even after he temporarily surrendered the use of his infinite wisdom and power to become a man.
The Kenotic View from "Across the Spectrum". From the "Kenotic View" section...page 121-122
I bet you a million dollars that THIS is why many Protestant Christians, along with Greg, think Jesus so praiseworthy. Because they feel like it's God placing himself as extreme DISadvantage against Satan. God's own Eternal Son becoming NOTHING MORE THAN A baby? Becoming THAT vulnerable? WOW! Against, his old arch enemy, SATAN, the quasi-demiurge of pure evil? And He perserves through to the end, armed with nothing more than his faith in his God and Father, knowledge of His Word, and power of the Holy Spirit. And he BEAT Satan. And saved ALL of us in doing so.
Christus Victor.
Sooo...to say that at the same time that Jesus was in the womb, he was also personally, simultaneously, actually, continually holding Creation (angelic realities included) in existence by his divine power in his divine person...would take away the "ultimate DISadvantage" idea.
And also there's...
WHO…
BEING
(pres. ptc)
the brightness of his glory
and the express image of his substance/essence
and
CARRYING/UPHOLDING
(pres. ptc) all things by the word of his power
SAT DOWN
(Aor Ind) on the right hand of the majesty on high
HAVING MADE
(Aor Ptc) cleansing of our sins
HAVING BECOME
(Aor Ptc) so much better than angels…
[Yay, Tom!]
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/23/2012 8:52:57 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/23/2012 11:56 PM (GMT -6) | | D: Greg actually says that the OPPOSITE is true. Satan's a virtual WILDMAN that God can barely contain! Greg: "We see that the Satan is not a being who operates under Yahweh’s authority, as do the regular council members. He was not carrying out assignments from God. Rather, he randomly walks to and fro on the earth on his own. Indeed, Yahweh has to protect people from him (1:10)." Dude. This is NOT a one-storey view of existence.
T: I don't see how one-storiedness means we can't say evil occurs outside God's authority. My goodness. Of course evil in a one-storied universe occurs outside God's authority, and of course God protects us from evil, and of course evil that occurs in a one-storied universe is not always carrying out as assignment from God.
----------
Jeff: Even Job implied God has to give EXPLICIT permission for Satan to do what he did to Job.
D: Bravissimo.
T: Can we make some important distinctions? "One-storied" dudn't equal "determinism." And once you posit free-will, you've got stuff happening that's outside God's authority and control. He authorized the freedom, yes, so that means all evil that occurs is allowed by God in the sense that its limitations are written into the rules of engagment. But that doesn't mean we (and Greg) can't speak about Satan acting outside of what God wills, desires, and that given those same rules of engagement God doesn't do all he can to prevent particular evils and sometimes FAIL.
Is this dump on Greg month or what? Ha!
Tom
"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg BoydPost Edited (Tom) : 2/23/2012 11:07:18 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/24/2012 12:03 AM (GMT -6) | | | D quoting Greg:
We see that the satan is not a being who operates under Yahweh’s authority, as do the regular council members.
Tom quoting Greg:
We see that the satan is not a being who operates under Yahweh’s authority, as do the regular council members.
He made a quuuuaaaallifiiiied denial.
T
"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg BoydPost Edited (Tom) : 2/23/2012 11:07:42 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/24/2012 9:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Is this dump on Greg month or what? Ha!
Are you Captain Save-A-Theologian? Where's your cape at? LOL!
**********************************
Tom:
Can we make some important distinctions? "One-storied" dudn't equal "determinism." And once you posit free-will, you've got stuff happening that's outside God's authority and control. He authorized the freedom, yes, so that means all evil that occurs is allowed by God in the sense that its limitations are written into the rules of engagment. But that doesn't mean we (and Greg) can't speak about Satan acting outside of what God wills, desires, and that given those same rules of engagement God doesn't do all he can to prevent particular evils and sometimes FAIL.
Of course, we can speak about Satan acting outside of God's wills/desires/whatever. We are LFWers, right? What I have a problem with is that Greg minimizes the PARAMETER SETTING POWER that God has on sentient creatures. In Job, it seems clear that God set SPECIFIC PARAMETERS around how much damage that Satan could do on Job. I don't see how anyone could read Job and NOT get that.
I've told Greg about this before. Greg is not willing to say that God Himself can set an allowed amount of evil/suffering/pain for a specific evil/suffering/pain event that fallen angels can do. Like so...
"Ok, guys. You can kill ONE daughter...but NOT the whole family"
Greg doesn't want to say that God can do that kind of thing, having THAT kind of "authority" over the actions of fallen angels. But I don't see how he could say such a thing when it was CLEAR that's what happened in Job. It seems to me that Greg wants to see Satan as NOT being under THAT kind of authority with God, hence my "wildman" thing.
It sounds like Greg wants to say that, in Job, God CONTAINS Satan's antics (via protection of people in Satan's way) much more than CIRCUMSCRIBES them (via parameters of what Satan can and cannot do).
Get the difference?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/24/2012 9:36:14 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/24/2012 9:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Example. Remember 9-11? I remember Greg saying that God had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. That is was simply only demons and humans misusing their free will. That God COULD NOT have had any kind of ordaining purpose behind or within it. The ONLY thing God was trying to do was 1) stop it and 2) bring any possible good out of it.
That goes DIRECTLY AGAINST the type of "authority" that God is said to have in Job. For all we know, God could have SET PARAMETERS on what would happen. Greg didn't (doesn't) want to admit that possiblity.
That's why I think the whole Ananias/Sapphira thing gets to him. To admit that Jesus can (and has) killed and blinded others DIRECTLY--for whatever reason--he could not use the same "limits" of violence/evil to try to say where God is NOT doing something.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/24/2012 8:25:50 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/24/2012 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Gotta love the guy...and we do. 
Love covers a multitude of heresies...I mean sins...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/24/2012 10:03:55 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/24/2012 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | |
D: What I have a problem with is that Greg minimizes the PARAMETER SETTING POWER that God has on sentient creatures.
T: Greg’s on the record as agreeing (and he has to, it’s central to his theodicy) that whatever evil occurs, it occurs BECAUSE its possibility of occurring lies WITHIN the parameters God has on sentient creatures. There’s no way, given Greg’s views, to suggest that he’s minimized God’s parameter setting power when any ACTUAL evil is being discussed. So I’m not sure what you mean.
D: In Job, it seems clear that God set SPECIFIC PARAMETERS around how much damage that Satan could do on Job. I don't see how anyone could read Job and NOT get that.
T: Ah, I see. And you think Greg believes that God only set one general parameter so to speak when he created, and since then just works within that without making any “decisions” on how much muscle to flex or rope to let out? Maybe in the end there's not great difference. If we view God as negotiating on a case by case basis how much rope to let Satan have, he still believe God is principled in doing so, i.e., his nature of love and his competent wisdom and purposes are in effect define the case-by-case decisions what he allows/permits or not. How's that different from God's laying down in the machinery of creation those same limitations.
Are we splitting hairs?
D: I've told Greg about this before. Greg is not willing to say that God Himself can set an allowed amount of evil/suffering/pain for a specific evil/suffering/pain event that fallen angels can do. Like so...
T: Hmm. Do you remember on his porch when we were disagreeing over A&S? You wanted to say God “killed” them—boom, pulled the trigger, decked them all by himself. And you kept saying Greg didn’t have any way to explain God’s involvement at all. But Greg said, “God ‘let’s go’” and that “letting go” is different than “throwing down.” But this would HAVE to mean Greg believes God can “let go” to different degrees so that what one is “exposed to” in judgment is that degree or severity of judgment God wills. Maybe Greg doesn’t SEE that he had God effectively doing this, but it’s there.
D: It sounds like Greg wants to say that, in Job, God CONTAINS Satan's antics (via protection of people in Satan's way) much more than CIRCUMSCRIBES them (via parameters of what Satan can and cannot do). Get the difference?
T: Not really. What’s the real difference between God’s ‘containing’ Satan in certain respects by protecting people from him (so that Satan can’t do ALL he wants) and God’s ‘circumscribes’ Satan’s actions by TELLING him, you can do this but you can’t do that? I mean, remembering that Job is one long poem in Hebrew (a clear literary invention, not a historical event at all, IMO), might we do better reading it as poetry and not historical narrative?
D: Example. Remember 9-11? I remember Greg saying that God had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. That is was simply only demons and humans misusing their free will. That God COULD NOT have had any kind of ordaining purpose behind or within it. The ONLY thing God was trying to do was 1) stop it and 2) bring any possible good out of it.
T: Yeah. But we told him he was being inconsistent with HIS OWN theodicy on this. Remember he agreed that he really COULDN’T say that Zosia couldn’t possibly be a pawn being sacrificed for a rook? Dude, he knows he can’t absolutely say there’s no way—given all those variables Greg admits he can’t even begin to fathom (he said there are probably more variables we don’t know about than we do know about)—9/11 might be God deflecting a greater evil, like our switching the tracks so the train runs over a single girl scout instead of over ten. We should just ask him whether he thinks God EVER pulls the level to switch the tracks. You know he’d have to admit it’s consistent with love and his theodicy. So when he preaches that he KNOWS 9/11 is the result of God SIMPLY doing all he could to convince evil wills to not to THAT PARTICULAR evil (as if Greg knows those are ALL the variable at work), he’s just being inconsistent. We can get him to admit that!
D: That's why I think the whole Ananias/Sapphira thing gets to him. To admit that Jesus can (and has) killed and blinded others DIRECTLY--for whatever reason--he could not use the same "limits" of violence/evil to try to say where God is NOT doing something.
T: If he wants to “distance” their deaths by saying God “let them drop” out of his protection and to their deaths, hey, whatever. But I wouldn't fault his major published works (i.e., God at War and TNT1-6), because THAT "let 'em drop" isn't necessary to that theodicy. Maybe GREG is changing. I'm like, God knows death is what they’re dropping into, and he knows that his dropping them is a sufficient cause of their deaths. I’m like, really? What REAL gain does Greg think we get in saying this as opposed to saying God “threw them” into death? Right. But that's a question I'd ask HIM. I wouldn't ask God at War or his main TNT theses. See?
T
"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg BoydPost Edited (Tom) : 2/24/2012 10:40:41 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/24/2012 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Do you remember on his porch when we were disagreeing over A&S? You wanted to say God “killed” them—boom, pulled the trigger, decked them all by himself. And you kept saying Greg didn’t have any way to explain God’s involvement at all. But Greg said, “God ‘let’s go’” and that “letting go” is different than “throwing down.” But this would HAVE to mean Greg believes God can “let go” to different degrees so that what one is “exposed to” in judgment is that degree or severity of judgment God wills. Maybe Greg doesn’t SEE that he had God effectively doing this, but it’s there.
and...
But we told him he was being inconsistent with HIS OWN theodicy on this. Remember he agreed that he really COULDN’T say that Zosia couldn’t possibly be a pawn being sacrificed for a rook? Dude, he knows he can’t absolutely say there’s no way—given all those variables Greg admits he can’t even begin to fathom (he said there are probably more variables we don’t know about than we do know about)—9/11 might be God deflecting a greater evil, like our switching the tracks so the train runs over a single girl scout instead of over ten. We should just ask him whether he thinks God EVER pulls the level to switch the tracks. You know he’d have to admit it’s consistent with love and his theodicy. So when he preaches that he KNOWS 9/11 is the result of God SIMPLY doing all he could to convince evil wills to not to THAT PARTICULAR evil (as if Greg knows those are ALL the variable at work), he’s just being inconsistent. We can get him to admit that!
and...
What REAL gain does Greg think we get in saying this as opposed to saying God “threw them” into death? Right. But that's a question I'd ask HIM. I wouldn't ask God at War or his main TNT theses. See?
Ah. I DO see. It's not Greg's trinitarian warfare theodicy that is the problem, it's his own consistency WITHIN it in it's application to certain particular events. When you take away the euphemizing (ie dropping instead of throwing), it IS there...like you say.
You right. 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/24/2012 11:00:14 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/24/2012 12:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | I think his sensibilities exercise an ongoing influence over his thought. I've never seen anyone evolve like Greg. It's almost as if once a book goes to print he's already thought his way into alternative explanations of things that he prefers over what he wrote!
He'd probably LIKE to get to a theodicy that conceptually guarantees that God is distanced enough from all actual evil, so that EVERY actual evil is the outcome of a 1 to 1 struggle between God and other wills where God does all he can given the variable of those wills and NEVER sacrifices the pawn for the rook. Greg would like to dump sacrificing the pawn from his system I think.
T
"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg BoydPost Edited (Tom) : 2/24/2012 11:09:40 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/24/2012 12:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
I think his sensibilities exercise an ongoing influence over his thought. I've never seen anyone evolve like Greg. It's almost as if once a book goes to print he's already thought his way into alternative explanations of things that he prefers over what he wrote!
Smacked the nail on the head, buddy. Yep! I honestly don't see how ANYONE could do that with Trinity and Process, though. Genius.
*************************
Tom:
He'd probably LIKE to get to a theodicy that conceptually guarantees that God is distanced enough from all actual evil, so that EVERY actual evil is the outcome of a 1 to 1 struggle between God and other wills where God does all he can given the variable of those wills and NEVER sacrifices the pawn for the rook. Greg would like to dump sacrificing the pawn from his system I think.
YES! My goodness, YES, bro.
But I can understand. If you are on the battlefield, it does you cold comfort (in a way) to believe that in SOME TYPE OF WAY, no matter how benevolent the leader is, you may be in the "field of expendibility" given the scale of a certain battle. Thinking the General is a good, kind one does cold comfort when you KNOW that he can tell his men to shell YOUR little area of the world (or leave that area to the enemy) to save countless others unknowable to you. Yes? Yeah, he destroyed your world, but he loved you while it happened...AND he was sorry it had to happen...AND...he will make it up to you later.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/24/2012 11:19:23 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/24/2012 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | | D: In the context of what you've said, Tom, how does Greg's take on OT violence (ie God would not order genocide, so God didn't do it in the OT) even make any sense to use anymore?
T: I don’t know. His illustration is Nanny McPhee, right? She bangs her magic staff on the floor when kids don’t listen to her and gives them the evil they want until they’re sick of it and repent. When they repent, she appears a bit more beautiful to them. Somehow they come to distinguish between their evil and its pain—which she had a part in bring them into—and her beautiful goodness. I’m not sure it works. But whatever it is, it LOOKS like more than “letting go.” Nanny McPhee essentially “spanks” people with her stick.
D: His own theodicy project ALLOWS FOR God sanctioning genocide as a "deflecting greater evil" activity in the "war" within Creation, especially thinking about the "factors" of the violent societies around God's people at the time.
T: Yeah. I too am really anal about what to CALL it. “Sanctioning genocide” miscommunicates. It’s more like genocide because the least amount of evil God was able achieve in oppose evil outright. See? And like I said, the greater the evil (in scope and consequence), the more difficult it is to imagine it being the sacrificing of a pawn for a rook? Really? Genocide is a pawn? It stretches credibility to imagine there to be a rook out there of such worth/value to God’s plan that GENOCIDE is a mere pawn by comparision. That’s why the greater the evil the MORE SURE Greg is that it’s just a straight up battle over a particular evil that God lost.
And dude, I can appreciate that.
D: THEN put the Risen Jesus "dropping" A&S in this. THEN put post-mortem evangelism and our EUR with that. When you do all that, there's REALLY no need to postulate that God couldn't have actually sanctioned the OT genocides. Everything is consistent and everything works. Right?
T: It feels better in the end, yeah. Everybody is hugging bunnies in heaven. But one still wonders…what could possibly be at stake in God’s over plans for humanity that genocide would be a necessary evil that God would sign off on (a pawn he sacrifices for some more important piece)? That’s tough.
T
"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." Greg Boyd | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/24/2012 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
what could possibly be at stake in God’s over plans for humanity that genocide would be a necessary evil that God would sign off on (a pawn he sacrifices for some more important piece)?
Well, let's get specific. 1 Samuel 15
-------------------
And Samuel said to Saul, “The LORD sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’”
So Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand men on foot, and ten thousand men of Judah. And Saul came to the city of Amalek and lay in wait in the valley. Then Saul said to the Kenites, “Go, depart; go down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them. For you showed kindness to all the people of Israel when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites. And Saul defeated the Amalekites from Havilah as far as Shur, which is east of Egypt. And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive and devoted to destruction all the people with the edge of the sword. But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fattened calves and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them. All that was despised and worthless they devoted to destruction.
The word of the LORD came to Samuel: “I regret that I have made Saul king, for he has turned back from following me and has not performed my commandments.” And Samuel was angry, and he cried to the LORD all night. And Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning. And it was told Samuel, “Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set up a monument for himself and turned and passed on and went down to Gilgal.” And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, “Blessed be you to the LORD. I have performed the commandment of the LORD.” And Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of the sheep in my ears and the lowing of the oxen that I hear?” Saul said, “They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice to the LORD your God, and the rest we have devoted to destruction.” Then Samuel said to Saul, “Stop! I will tell you what the LORD said to me this night.” And he said to him, “Speak.”
And Samuel said, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel. And the LORD sent you on a mission and said, ‘Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Why did you pounce on the spoil and do what was evil in the sight of the LORD?” And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the LORD. I have gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me. I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have devoted the Amalekites to destruction. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the best of the things devoted to destruction, to sacrifice to the LORD your God in Gilgal.”
And Samuel said,
“Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,
as in obeying the voice of the LORD?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
and to listen than the fat of rams.
For rebellion is as the sin of divination,
and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the LORD,
he has also rejected you from being king.”
Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the LORD and your words, because I feared the people and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me that I may bow before the LORD.” And Samuel said to Saul, “I will not return with you. For you have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you from being king over Israel.” As Samuel turned to go away, Saul seized the skirt of his robe, and it tore. And Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you. And also the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret.” Then he said, “I have sinned; yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the LORD your God.” So Samuel turned back after Saul, and Saul bowed before the LORD.
Then Samuel said, “Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites.” And Agag came to him cheerfully. Agag said, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” And Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag to pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.
Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house in Gibeah of Saul. And Samuel did not see Saul again until the day of his death, but Samuel grieved over Saul. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.
-------------------------------
Now what's important about this is that Greg SPECIFICALLY uses texts in here to justify open theism biblically...
What is the significance of 1 Samuel 15:10?
What is the significance of 1 Samuel 15:35?
From here...
Once again, the Lord expresses his regret over having made Saul king of Israel, an emotion which is inconsistent with the classical view of God’s foreknowledge.
It’s important to note that Samuel had prayed all night trying to change the Lord’s mind regarding Saul’s dethronement (vs. 13) but in this instance it seems the Lord’s decision was final (cf. 1 Sam. 13:13–14). Hence, as Saul begged Samuel to try to change things (vs. 27), Samuel responded, “the Glory of Israel will not recant or change his mind for he is not a mortal, that he should change his mind” (vs. 29).
The verse does not say that God cannot change his mind (which is what the classical view requires), only that in this instance he will not change his mind. His mind is resolved on this matter and, unlike mortals, once God’s mind is truly resolved he does not change it. (There are other verses in which the Lord declares “I will not change my mind” [Ezek. 24:14; Zech. 8:14], but these exceptions prove the rule: ordinarily God is willing to change his mind if the situation calls for it [cf. Jer. 18:7–10; Jon. 4:2; Joel 2:12–13]).
So he CAN'T just write this whole thing off. Greg SPECIFICALLY uses the HISTORICITY of this text to try to bolster open theism. But how does he deal with it? It seems like to take all of 1 Samuel is to say that the LORD HIMSELF is the one who authorized a PROPHET to tell the Lord's KING to wholesale slaughter men, women, children, and animals.
HOW can Greg even HANDLE this? He would have to say that Samuel was lying about God talking to him and that Saul really didn't do wrong because he was actually MORE COMPASSIONATE then the order of God specified. Moreover, he'd have to say that God the Son was NO WHERE IN THIS AT ALL.
For Greg to try to uses 1 Sam 15 for the cause of open theism, he would HAVE to essential depower his neo-marcionite take on OT violence. God supposedly REPENTED because Saul didn't obey his genocidal order!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/24/2012 11:59:30 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 607 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:15 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|