 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > What do Y'all Think About This Statement? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/26/2012 10:25 PM (GMT -6) |   | I do feel the need to say this: I don't think that "Satan as prince of matter" is a necessary feature to the trinitarian "struggle" (  ) theodicy. Greg brought that in when he didn't need to (ie the Romans "futility" passage Greg misinterpreted). You can even have Satan and other demonic presence(s) negatively influencing the material world...along with everything else. We just don't have to make Satan into a functional second creator. I don't think we have to through the TWTs and the worldview as a whole away.
Agreed, my peoples?
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 2/27/2012 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Unassailable Biblical Argument against Greg's "Cruciform" Position
2 Samuel 6:5-11
And David and all the house of Israel were making merry before the Lord, with songs and lyres and harps and tambourines and castanets and cymbals. And when they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah put out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen stumbled. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God. And David was angry because the Lord had burst forth against Uzzah. And that place is called Perez-uzzah, to this day. And David was afraid of the Lord that day, and he said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” So David was not willing to take the ark of the Lord into the city of David. But David took it aside to the house of Obed-edom the Gittite. And the ark of the Lord remained in the house of Obed-edom the Gittite three months, and the Lord blessed Obed-edom and all his household.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Numbers 16...
Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men. And they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, 250 chiefs of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men. They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” When Moses heard it, he fell on his face, and he said to Korah and all his company, “In the morning the Lord will show who is his, and who is holy, and will bring him near to him. The one whom he chooses he will bring near to him. Do this: take censers, Korah and all his company; put fire in them and put incense on them before the Lord tomorrow, and the man whom the Lord chooses shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi!” And Moses said to Korah, “Hear now, you sons of Levi: is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do service in the tabernacle of the Lord and to stand before the congregation to minister to them, and that he has brought you near him, and all your brothers the sons of Levi with you? And would you seek the priesthood also? Therefore it is against the Lord that you and all your company have gathered together. What is Aaron that you grumble against him?”
And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and they said, “We will not come up. Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, that you must also make yourself a prince over us? Moreover, you have not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you put out the eyes of these men? We will not come up.” And Moses was very angry and said to the Lord, “Do not respect their offering. I have not taken one donkey from them, and I have not harmed one of them.”
And Moses said to Korah, “Be present, you and all your company, before the Lord, you and they, and Aaron, tomorrow. And let every one of you take his censer and put incense on it, and every one of you bring before the Lord his censer, 250 censers; you also, and Aaron, each his censer.” So every man took his censer and put fire in them and laid incense on them and stood at the entrance of the tent of meeting with Moses and Aaron. Then Korah assembled all the congregation against them at the entrance of the tent of meeting. And the glory of the Lord appeared to all the congregation.
And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, “Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.” And they fell on their faces and said, “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and will you be angry with all the congregation?” And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Say to the congregation, Get away from the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.”
Then Moses rose and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him. And he spoke to the congregation, saying, “Depart, please, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be swept away with all their sins.” So they got away from the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. And Dathan and Abiram came out and stood at the door of their tents, together with their wives, their sons, and their little ones. And Moses said, “Hereby you shall know that the Lord has sent me to do all these works, and that it has not been of my own accord. If these men die as all men die, or if they are visited by the fate of all mankind, then the Lord has not sent me. But if the Lord creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the Lord.”
And as soon as he had finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split apart. And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods. So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly. And all Israel who were around them fled at their cry, for they said, “Lest the earth swallow us up!” And fire came out from the Lord and consumed the 250 men offering the incense.
Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Tell Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest to take up the censers out of the blaze. Then scatter the fire far and wide, for they have become holy. As for the censers of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives, let them be made into hammered plates as a covering for the altar, for they offered them before the Lord, and they became holy. Thus they shall be a sign to the people of Israel.” So Eleazar the priest took the bronze censers, which those who were burned had offered, and they were hammered out as a covering for the altar, to be a reminder to the people of Israel, so that no outsider, who is not of the descendants of Aaron, should draw near to burn incense before the Lord, lest he become like Korah and his company—as the Lord said to him through Moses.
But on the next day all the congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and against Aaron, saying, “You have killed the people of the Lord.” And when the congregation had assembled against Moses and against Aaron, they turned toward the tent of meeting. And behold, the cloud covered it, and the glory of the Lord appeared. And Moses and Aaron came to the front of the tent of meeting, and the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Get away from the midst of this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.” And they fell on their faces. And Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer, and put fire on it from off the altar and lay incense on it and carry it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone out from the Lord; the plague has begun.” So Aaron took it as Moses said and ran into the midst of the assembly. And behold, the plague had already begun among the people. And he put on the incense and made atonement for the people. And he stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was stopped. Now those who died in the plague were 14,700, besides those who died in the affair of Korah. And Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance of the tent of meeting, when the plague was stopped.
AND Numbers 26:1-10...
After the plague, the Lord said to Moses and to Eleazar the son of Aaron, the priest, “Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, from twenty years old and upward, by their fathers' houses, all in Israel who are able to go to war.” And Moses and Eleazar the priest spoke with them in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying, “Take a census of the people, from twenty years old and upward,” as the Lord commanded Moses. The people of Israel who came out of the land of Egypt were:
Reuben, the firstborn of Israel; the sons of Reuben: of Hanoch, the clan of the Hanochites; of Pallu, the clan of the Palluites; 6 of Hezron, the clan of the Hezronites; of Carmi, the clan of the Carmites. These are the clans of the Reubenites, and those listed were 43,730. And the sons of Pallu: Eliab. The sons of Eliab: Nemuel, Dathan, and Abiram. These are the Dathan and Abiram, chosen from the congregation, who contended against Moses and Aaron in the company of Korah, when they contended against the Lord and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died, when the fire devoured 250 men, and they became a warning.
AND Deuteronomy 11:1-7
“You shall therefore love the Lord your God and keep his charge, his statutes, his rules, and his commandments always. And consider today (since I am not speaking to your children who have not known or seen it), consider the discipline of the Lord your God, his greatness, his mighty hand and his outstretched arm, his signs and his deeds that he did in Egypt to Pharaoh the king of Egypt and to all his land, and what he did to the army of Egypt, to their horses and to their chariots, how he made the water of the Red Sea flow over them as they pursued after you, and how the Lord has destroyed them to this day, and what he did to you in the wilderness, until you came to this place, and what he did to Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, son of Reuben, how the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households, their tents, and every living thing that followed them, in the midst of all Israel. For your eyes have seen all the great work of the Lord that he did.
------------------------------------------
Acts 5:1-11
But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and with his wife's knowledge he kept back for himself some of the proceeds and brought only a part of it and wlaid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last. And great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you1 sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.” But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test fthe Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” Immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.
******************************************
I will make direct ties...
1) All 3 cases have God Himself directly causing human death for disobedience to God's "orders."
2) All 3 cases have fear coming on the witnessing people.
3) All 3 cases have the uncreated Person who is Jesus Christ, the Eternal Word/Son of God, there as present and involved.
And this ain't even counting Tom's 4 points...
1) Yep. I don't see how we can use 1Sam to suppose open theism and dismiss it all as fictional.
2) God offered the genocide of all Israel to Moses and Moses turned it down. But God offered it. Is THAT fiction? Greg uses that too as evidence that proves God changes his mind.
3) God in the end got the genocide of THAT generation anyway! He let their sorry carcasses die in the desert.
4) Does Greg take the story of Soddom and Gomorrah as historical? Do you? I mean, God wiped them OUT. He didn't drop THEM. He dropped fire and brimstore ON THEM!
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/27/2012 9:21:44 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/27/2012 7:20 AM (GMT -6) | | |
The Principle of Responsible Identification.
Though he was in fact all-holy, on Calvary the Son of God identified with our sin to the point of bearing our guilt. So too, the Father is said to have afflicted his Son (Isa. 53) though in fact he merely allowed wicked powers using wicked people to crucify Jesus. When we read the Old Testament through this lens, we find God frequently identifying himself as the agent of violence, though the context makes it clear that he is merely allowing violent agents to do what they want to do. God is portrayed as doing what he actually merely allows. There are historical and exegetic reasons for this, but the theological reason, I argue, is that God has always been a God who takes responsibility for all that he allows — even though he detests much of what he allows. This is how God bears our sin and why he takes on the semblance of a nationalistic, law-oriented warrior god.
------------------------------------------------------
I don't see how Greg's take can withstand this the biblical data above. The ONLY thing he could try to do is specifically say that he's solely looking at Christ ON THE CROSS and nowhere/nowhen else. But that would be to implicitly limit our Christocentrism to the taken-on human NATURE for the divine PERSON of the Incarnate Word/Son of God, which some would say it not appropriately TRINITARIAN as an approach.
THEN he'd have to say that God did NONE of the actions represented in those Scriptures ever occurred; that they are all fictional. But if he does that, then he's sunken the whole ship as far as why any rational person should hold other divine activity in the OT as historical...like the Exodus.
His position seems easily picked apart...and the book ain't even out yet. 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/27/2012 8:31:31 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/27/2012 7:44 AM (GMT -6) | | What cha'll vote: Revelation or Madness?
Heh.
My take: Well meaning, yet...
I guess that's what unchecked genius will do to a person. 
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/27/2012 6:50:19 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/27/2012 9:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg
"...the theological reason, I argue, is that God has always been a God who takes responsibility for all that he allows — even though he detests much of what he allows. This is how God bears our sin and why he takes on the semblance of a nationalistic, law-oriented warrior god."
Differentiate this idea from the idea of a longsuffering God who bears as love bears. (which would go with Orthodoxy and his own trinitarian process metaphysic)
Those views are worlds apart.
Greg's view has God taking responsibility for all that he allows to happen to Creation...AND feeling disgust about it at the same time. That's making God speficially accountable (to who? Himself? or his creation) about all of the evil God has allowed to "fall" on to his poor suffering creatures. So, we have God implicitly being accountable TO US in the Cross of Christ and we get the "joy" of knowing that God took responsibility for the hell he put us through and felt disgusted the whole time he was "allowing" it. And that satisfies us knowing that he let us know that he did that. In the Cross and at the scene, God took responsibility for and was appropriately disgusted by what happened to Zosia and her mother...and all the sufferers in the Holocaust.
What are the presuppositions of that stance?
Do you see it?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/27/2012 8:43:48 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/27/2012 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | | reposting...
The core of the book is structured around six “principles.” Just to provide a little “heads up” as to the direction I’m going, here’s a short definition of each principle. The Christocentric Principle: All of our thinking about God must be rooted in Christ. Jesus reveals what God has always been like. We thus need to read the Old Testament “through the lens” of Christ. The Principle of Incarnational Flexibility. If Jesus reveals what God has always been like, then God didn’t start being “incarnational” with the Incarnation. Rather, God has always been willing to humbly “embody” himself within our fallen humanity and has always “borne our sin.”The portrait of Yahweh as a nationalistic, law-oriented, violent-tending warrior god is the result of God condescending to “embody” himself within our barbaric and deceived views of him in order to work toward freeing us from them. (The reference to “god” rather than “God” in this previous sentence is intentional, since I argue God takes on the semblance of a sub-Christ-like “god” when he condescends to work within our fallen framework). Like Nanny McPhee, God is willing to appear as ugly as he needs to in order to free us from our ugliness and eventually reveal himself as he truly is to us (which is what takes place in Christ). The Principle of Contrastive Pedagogy. Though you’d never get this reading the Old Testament itself, Paul tells us that the most fundamental reason God gave the Law was to increase our sin and, by way of negative example, drive us to Christ. I argue that when we read the Old Testament through the lens of Christ, we can say the same thing about the nationalism and violence of God’s program in the Old Testament. It tells us more about what God is not like and how not to build his Kingdom than it tells us what God is like and how we are to build the kingdom. When Jesus shows up, he reveals a God and a Kingdom that invalidates nationalism, is rooted in empowering grace (not law) and is utterly free of violence, for it is centered on loving and serving enemies. The Principle of Punitive Withdrawal. When Jesus was crucified, God delivered Jesus up to wicked humans and “the powers.” Moreover, by entering into solidarity with us in our spiritually oppressed and fallen condition, Jesus experienced God-forsakenness. Since all of our understanding about God must be centered on Christ, Jesus’ abandonment and God-forsakenness should form the center of our understanding of how God punishes sin. He does so by withdrawing his protective presence and turning people over to experience the consequences of their decisions — a truth that is confirmed throughout the Old Testament. God’s “wrath” is his withdrawal.
The Principle of Cosmic Conflict. Jesus’ ministry as well as the whole of the Old and New Testaments reveal that the world is engulfed by cosmic forces of destruction. Like a dam being opened, when God withdraws his protective hand to bring judgment, the powers are allowed to carry out their evil intentions and chaos ensues. Yet, whenever God “pours out his wrath” by withdrawing himself, he does so with a grieving heart and for the ultimate purpose of bringing healing and redemption.
The Principle of Responsible Identification. Though he was in fact all-holy, on Calvary the Son of God identified with our sin to the point of bearing our guilt. So too, the Father is said to have afflicted his Son (Isa. 53) though in fact he merely allowed wicked powers using wicked people to crucify Jesus. When we read the Old Testament through this lens, we find God frequently identifying himself as the agent of violence, though the context makes it clear that he is merely allowing violent agents to do what they want to do. God is portrayed as doing what he actually merely allows. There are historical and exegetic reasons for this, but the theological reason, I argue, is that God has always been a God who takes responsibility for all that he allows — even though he detests much of what he allows. This is how God bears our sin and why he takes on the semblance of a nationalistic, law-oriented warrior god. I argue that each of these six principles are rooted in Christ and confirmed throughout Scripture, and they take us a long way in reconciling the crucified God with the violent portrait of God found in the violent strands of the Old Testament.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/27/2012 10:39:39 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/27/2012 11:36 AM (GMT -6) | | | from here...from "Are You An Annihilationist..and if so, Why?"
Annihilationism is the view that whoever and whatever cannot be redeemed by God is ultimately put out of existence. Sentient beings do not suffer eternally, as the traditional view of hell teaches. I’m strongly inclined toward the annihilationist position. The reason is that it strikes me as the view that has the best biblical support.
4) Peter specifically cites the total destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah as a pattern of how God judges the wicked. The Lord turned the inhabitants of these cities “to ashes” and “condemned them to extinction” thus making “them an example of what is coming to the ungodly…” (2 Pet. 2:6). Conversely, the Lord’s rescue of Lot sets a pattern for how the Lord will “rescue the godly from trial” (2 Pet. 2:9).
5) Throughout the Old Testament the Lord threatens the wicked with annihilation. about the wicked Moses says God will “blot out their names from under heaven” (Deut. 29:20). God will destroy them “like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah…which the Lord destroyed in his fierce anger…’” (Deut. 29:23).
-----------------------------------------
And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying, “Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.” And they fell on their faces and said, “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and will you be angry with all the congregation?” And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Say to the congregation, Get away from the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.”
------------------------------------------
And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God. And David was angry because the Lord had burst forth against Uzzah. And that place is called Perez-uzzah, to this day. And David was afraid of the Lord that day, and he said, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?”
-----------------------------------------------
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/27/2012 10:45:13 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/27/2012 8:16 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Greg recreates anew in his view of God's "wrath" the very problem he never totally solved regarding natural evil. The point of his theodicy with respect to natural evil was to demonstrate that we don't have to infer that God is actively DOING seemingly natural evil that can not be explained in terms of soul-building. Fair enough.
So when a 6-month old infant is killed by some "natural" evil, it can't help build that 6-month old's soul. But even worse, it prevents any "this-worldly" soul-building AT ALL for that 6-month old. That's why even his original approach needed to posit something like UR to make what he is now admitting make sense. For what he is now admitting is that the OT actually shows God as having PURPOSES for ALLOWING the angels to do harm to other creatures. Otherwise, why change His stance from disallowing to allowing at all?
So what does this imply about the 6-month old? That if that 6-month-old was intended by God to "become" or experience divine-sociality in a meaningful way, then God's purpose for THAT 6-month old is EITHER forever thwarted OR will eventually be worked out POST-MORTEM.
But that's the WHOLE point! If you don't posit that POST-MORTEM working out of God's intent for that 6-month old, you have no truly workable theodicy. On the other hand, if you DO posit that POST-MORTEM working out of God's intent for that 6-month old, we have no reason NOT to assume that God is ACTIVELY doing these things. For He definitely has a purpose for allowing such "evil" if God moves from DISALLOWING to ALLOWING in the first place. What else would explain the change in divine posture but divine intent? And once we have divine intent, the "allow" aspect of the IMPLEMENTATION of the intent has no relevance to theodicy.
In short, Greg would have been wise to be content to solving seemingly natural animal suffering via his original theodicy. This way he accounts for original benevolent divine intent in verses about animals, etc. But he has gone much further. And by doing so, he has created even greater hermeneutical difficulties than he already had. And he still seems to be missing the NECESSARY post-mortem component to make even his current project work.
God's INTENTIONAL allowing of diverse degrees of non-soul-building suffering creates the problem of UNJUST utilitarianism apart from post-mortem consequences that render that unjust utilitarianism MERELY temporally unjust. What would render it temporal in that way? That ALL creatures will find existence SUFFICIENTLY satisfying to have endured the suffering. But however Greg wants to play that out, the UNJUST utilitarianism of God's purposeful "allowings" is the element Greg never addresses. And it's screaming out for attention. Because the extent to which suffering is unjustly utilitarian and non-soul-building (i.e., not ACTUALLY conducive to some greater good for the sufferer), it is not explicable in terms of competent benevolence.
But once we satisfy the criteria of all creatures being SUFFICIENTLY satisfied to have endured their sufferings, DIVERSE graciousnesses are not problematic. For in that sense, the parable which says, "Do I not have the right to do with My own as I wish?" is right on.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 2/27/2012 7:25:37 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/27/2012 9:42 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Greg: Jesus’ abandonment and God-forsakenness should form the center of our understanding of how God punishes sin. He does so by withdrawing his protective presence and turning people over to experience the consequences of their decisions — a truth that is confirmed throughout the Old Testament. God’s “wrath” is his withdrawal.
Tom: I’m fine with this. I’m even fine with make “divine withdrawal” THE paradigm for divine wrath. The question is—Can “withdrawal” guarantee “specific outcomes”? Sometimes it may only permit a range of specific outcomes. But surely God often specifies judgment. Judgment comes in various intensities and scope depending on the gravity and scope of the sin. If Greg can offer a model of “withdrawal” which actually enables God to circumscribe specificity of scope and severity and other variables, then sure, let’s go with that.
But if that WERE the case THEN the question is whether such ‘withdrawal’ would be effectively equivalent to the kind of “hands on” engagement that Greg seems to object to. Is there a real difference between my picking up a knife and driving it into your chest (on the one hand) and my withdrawing whatever personal variables I know are preventing someone else (who WANTS to drive the knife into your chest) from doing the same thing? I actually do think there’s a difference here. But I’m not sure that “withdrawal” can guarantee the specificity of outcomes that divine wrath passages describe.
Greg: God is portrayed as doing what he actually merely allows.
Tom: This MAY be a distinction without a difference. A lot is riding on there being a real, morally-significant difference. I'm not sure there. is.
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/27/2012 10:01 PM (GMT -6) | | |
D: Let's simplify things. Do you believe that Satan is the God-authorized "prince" of matter/energy/time/space, having complete God-given, irrevocable authority over it...even now?
Tom: I think supposing that angels were created as mediators of some kind has explanatory value. I think supposing (given God’s tolerance of Satan’s abiding abuse of creation) that Satan was in some sense given a measure of say-so to administrate creation makes sense, yes. I don’t think this much requires all Greg does with it. But as it stands, it makes as much sense of the texts and our experience as does denying all of it and supposing that God permitted Satan (apart from any ground in Satan’s repertoire of God-given gifts and responsibilities) to turn the world into what it’s become. In fact, what REAL difference is there in the end between denying Greg’s take and supposing that God allowed Satan to step utterly and completely out of his job-description? I don’t see any. In fact, D, remember, all that Satan does illegitimately must still lay within the scope of his own logos for being.
Dude, in the end, it dudn’t matter! Whether you suppose that God did not create Satan with the job-description Greg supposes but that Satan’s God-given logos of being did includes his screwing things up this much OR suppose that God created Satan with the job-description Greg supposes, either way Satan is doing what he does WITHIN the constraints of God’s permissive will. I don’t know if we can (or how helpful it is to even try to) break it down further than that.
D (asks Greg): "If you are NOT a universalist...and you ARE an annihilationist...please tell me, what will happen to the created order whenever Satan, your "prince of matter" is absolutely destroyed? Will God himself take that task over? Will he make another ANGEL to do it? What?"
Tom: That’s easy. Greg will say Satan’s job-description is a temporary-finite arrangement, until such a time as it concludes along with the consummation of God’s purposes (given all the variables). Shoot, he’s already on record as saying that.
God’s charged you as the father of your kids to lead and provide and care for them, yada yada. But though that’s very REAL and consequential, it’s temporary. What will happen to them when this arrangement ends? Will God take the task over? Probably, yeah.
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) : 2/27/2012 9:04:35 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/27/2012 10:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
It means there IS NO BENEVOLENT GOD in the OT. If Israel in the OT is such that God is LIMITED to BEING UNDERSTOOD in SUCH A PERVERTED (UnChristlike) WAY (because Israel just wasn't capable of any HIGHER view), then how DOES one excavate truth from OT texts outside Christ at all? What did the OT texts say TRUTHFULLY to OT readers?
But in the end Israel WAS capable of a HIGHER view of God as benevolent! There are HUGE bright moments in OT texts, SO BRIGHT in fact that God appears as loving as he ends up being Christ (even WITHIN THE SAME BOOK!) in which case Greg can't argue that Israel's cultural and theological blinders limited God to stooping to allowing himself to be understood in such violent terms.
For the LORD is good; his steadfast love endures forever, and his faithfulness to all generations.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/27/2012 9:37:11 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/27/2012 10:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
I’m not sure that “withdrawal” can guarantee the specificity of outcomes that divine wrath passages describe.
Exactamundo. I actually don't mind the "withdrawl" motif at all. It seems that's what goes on in Romans 1, right? It's just that Greg seems to say that divine wrath is ONLY this "withdrawl" type. I don't think he has biblical backing on that, specifically with Korah and A&S. Plus one has to take his "prince of matter" take of Satan to the hilt to even make sense of making ALL divine wrath of the "withdrawl" motif.
Like you said, Tom. He doesn't want any "sacrificing the rook for the queen" moments, specifically by any DIRECT action by God himself.
************************************************************
Jeff:
God's INTENTIONAL allowing of diverse degrees of non-soul-building suffering creates the problem of UNJUST utilitarianism apart from post-mortem consequences that render that unjust utilitarianism MERELY temporally unjust. What would render it temporal in that way? That ALL creatures will find existence SUFFICIENTLY satisfying to have endured the suffering. But however Greg wants to play that out, the UNJUST utilitarianism of God's purposeful "allowings" is the element Greg never addresses. And it's screaming out for attention. Because the extent to which suffering is unjustly utilitarian and non-soul-building (i.e., not ACTUALLY conducive to some greater good for the sufferer), it is not explicable in terms of competent benevolence.
I really do think that Greg believes that the Cross of Christ is supposed to be God's means of "taking responsibility" for the "unjust utilitarianism" of which you speak, Jeff. That's the only way that any of it can make sense in an annihilationist perspective. God's competent benevolence is saved by his 1) positive intent, 2) greiving heart, 3) high disgust at what he had to allow, and 4) his "responsible identification" on the Cross.
He'd be better off with EUR, I agree.
But Satan's gotta fry in his mind.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/27/2012 9:37:58 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/27/2012 10:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Greg's made a VERY shrewd chess-move, D. He's DEFINED away any advantage that even the BEST and most literal of OT exegesis can determine for any OT text. He's effectively argued that God has LET HIMSELF BE DESCRIBED AS IF the truth about God REALLY WAS what the strictest and most conservative hermeneutic would say those texts mean. There really is no other way to understand those texts OUTSIDE OF CHRIST. Outside of Christ, those texts ARE what God looks like (ugly Nanny McPhee). It is ONLY IN CHRIST that we are even ABLE TO SEE GOD ANY OTHER WAY. See?
1) Which "Christ" is he talking about, though? Is he talking about the Incarnate Uncreated John 1:1 Word/Son of God by the Power of the Spirit...or his he talking about Jesus the "non-omniscient, non-omnipotent, non-omnipresent human being"? Feel me? His Christocentricism is far too narrow,I believe.
2) Is Greg gonna say that God DIDN'T REALLY try to kill Moses for not circumcizing his Son...or didn't REALLY do anything the 1 Sam 15 says? God merely let himself be DESCRIBED such a way? Doesn't that mean it DIDN'T happen???
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/27/2012 9:39:42 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/27/2012 10:44 PM (GMT -6) | | D: That's the only way that any of it can make sense in an annihilationist perspective. God's competent benevolence is saved by his 1) positive intent, 2) greiving heart, 3) high disgust at what he had to allow, and 4) his "responsible identification" on the Cross.
J: And yet none of that, per se, helps the 6-month-old that is slaughtered in a hurricane. That's the deal. He needs MORE! Now he probably posits that 6-month-olds that die experience "baby post-mortem something or other." But he needs to recognize that such HAS to be the case for God to be competent at either of these two intents for said infant:
1) Meaningful "becoming"
AND/OR
2) Meaningful experience of satisfying social relationality with God.
In other words, once you recognize that positing post-mortem states for dying infants is just PART of the theodicy, you see why we can posit other post-mortem states to account for the unjust utilitarianism for NON-babies in a way that seems consistent with divine benevolence. Intent is not competence. Competence is EFFECTIVELY ATTAINING one's intent.
And once you get that far, logically, you see that OT "violent-providence" passages are literally NO MORE of a problem than hurricanes.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 2/27/2012 9:54:27 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/28/2012 4:44 AM (GMT -6) | | D: I really do think that Greg believes that the Cross of Christ is supposed to be God's means of "taking responsibility" for the "unjust utilitarianism" of which you speak, Jeff. That's the only way that any of it can make sense in an annihilationist perspective. God's competent benevolence is saved by his 1) positive intent, 2) grieving heart, 3) high disgust at what he had to allow, and 4) his "responsible identification" on the Cross.
Tom: Personally I’m OK with saying there’s a sense in which the Cross IS a “responsible identification” with Creation in which God “takes responsibility” not fur “unjust utilitarianism” but for his own choices. You and I, D, believe that God knew sin was a virtual inevitability given LFW, so that inherent in God's choice to create a free world was his willingness to bear in love the consequences of the world he created. That all precedes creation. All we’re saying is that creating a free world was a loving risk to make, and that means it was a ‘responsible’ risk to make. So in the Cross love is doing what it told itself it would do should evil errupt.
-------------------------
J: And yet none of that, per se, helps the 6-month-old that is slaughtered in a hurricane. That's the deal. He needs MORE! Now he probably posits that 6-month-olds that die experience "baby post-mortem something or other." But he needs to recognize that such HAS to be the case for God to be competent at either of these two intents for said infant:
1) Meaningful "becoming"
AND/OR
2) Meaningful experience of satisfying social relationality with God.
T: He does recognize that such HAS to be the case. Greg’s metaphysics of freedom and loving relations forbids the possibility that babies who die waking up in heaven. We MUST freely choose our way into relationship with God, that means babies (and the mentally handicapped) must make this journey post-mortem. What Greg doesn't do is reason that since babies have eyes (remember the eyes thing?) and eyes are meant to see, we need a post-mortem fulfillment of that purpose PRIOR to glorification. All that's needed for competency is achievment of intent, and if eyes spend eternity seeing, the intent is fulfilled. But with loving relations, there's no conceivable fulfillment of them apart from the free exercise of the will. So Greg's got to posit post-mortem states.
J: In other words, once you recognize that positing post-mortem states for dying infants is just PART of the theodicy, you see why we can posit other post-mortem states to account for the unjust utilitarianism for NON-babies in a way that seems consistent with divine benevolence.
T: That’s what I’m not seeing. It sounds like you’re saying that since God is benevolent enough to save everybody eventually, it doesn’t really matter how he treats people in the meantime. But if you’re sure that God is always benevolent (even in the OT), and you think God ordered genocide, surely we can ask for some plausible explanation of the benevolence of genocide.
J: Intent is not competence. Competence is EFFECTIVELY ATTAINING one's intent.
T: Intent is not competence, but it is an essential part of benevolence. It’s benevolent competency we want to say is at work in the OT, right? I’m not sure how just positing UR gets us that.
J: And once you get that far, logically, you see that OT "violent-providence" passages are literally NO MORE of a problem than hurricanes.
T: I guess you and D are seeing something I’m not seeing. I don’t quite see how God’s ordering genocide is no more of a problem than allowing for hurricanes simply because of post-mortem UR.
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 | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 2/28/2012 6:25 AM (GMT -6) | | T: Tom: Personally I’m OK with saying there’s a sense in which the Cross IS a “responsible identification” with Creation in which God “takes responsibility” not fur “unjust utilitarianism”
J: I say the Cross is primarily for the remission of sins. As such, it is competent to affect UR. As such, it is competent to, by implication, resolve unjust utilitarianism by rendering it ULTIMATELY JUST in the long run. Remember, I define just utilitarianism as that utilitarianism that can only increase the happiness of some if the rest are also benefited or, at least don't suffer diminishing of total satisfaction, in the long run. Standard utilitarianism implies we can harm some to benefit others so long as the TOTAL amount of happiness is maximized.
T: He does recognize that such HAS to be the case. Greg’s metaphysics of freedom and loving relations forbids the possibility that babies who die waking up in heaven. We MUST freely choose our way into relationship with God, that means babies (and the mentally handicapped) must make this journey post-mortem. What Greg doesn't do is reason that since babies have eyes (remember the eyes thing?) and eyes are meant to see, we need a post-mortem fulfillment of that purpose PRIOR to glorification.
J: Nor do I say "that since babies have eyes (remember the eyes thing?) and eyes are meant to see, we need a post-mortem fulfillment of that purpose PRIOR to glorification." All I contend is that that the destruction of even ONE PAIR of developing eyes could not have been INEVITABLE. Remember the discussion?
T: All that's needed for competency is achievment of intent, and if eyes spend eternity seeing, the intent is fulfilled. But with loving relations, there's no conceivable fulfillment of them apart from the free exercise of the will. So Greg's got to posit post-mortem states.
J: The point is, he HAS to do this for THEODICAL reasons--NOT exegetical ones.
T: That’s what I’m not seeing. It sounds like you’re saying that since God is benevolent enough to save everybody eventually, it doesn’t really matter how he treats people in the meantime.
J: Just the opposite. I'm agreeing with Greg that ORIGINAL INTENT has to be benevolent and competent. In particular, these things that imply an apparent problem of evil can NOT have been INEVITABLE. Not even ONE of them.
T: But if you’re sure that God is always benevolent (even in the OT), and you think God ordered genocide, surely we can ask for some plausible explanation of the benevolence of genocide.
J: Right. But that "plausible explanation" can, with UR, now be justly UTILITARIAN in the long run rather than saying the genocide is UNjustly utilitarian with nothing post-mortem to render it just in the long run. IOW, once you posit something for babies that's not taught in scriptural texts, don't we have the right to posit more if doing so solves more seemingly apparent problems? If not, why not?
J: Intent is not competence. Competence is EFFECTIVELY ATTAINING one's intent.
T: Intent is not competence, but it is an essential part of benevolence. It’s benevolent competency we want to say is at work in the OT, right? I’m not sure how just positing UR gets us that.
J: Positing UR is the same thing as positing post-mortem baby SOFA's. It's just how we resolve certain problems that are not resolvable by explicit texts. But either have an epistemological right to posit both or you have no right to posit either. THAT'S the significant point. So why not resolve EVERYTHING.
J: And once you get that far, logically, you see that OT "violent-providence" passages are literally NO MORE of a problem than hurricanes.
T: I guess you and D are seeing something I’m not seeing. I don’t quite see how God’s ordering genocide is no more of a problem than allowing for hurricanes simply because of post-mortem UR.
J: Because even Greg is admitting that this suffering is INTENDED by God. It's either solved by ORIGINAL, BENEVOLENT/COMPETENT INTENT plus post-mortem states, or it isn't. Thus, both kinds of divinely-intended suffering is resolvable these ways or neither are. I'm not seeing how it can be otherwise.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 2/28/2012 5:29:38 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/28/2012 7:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Really quick take.
Greg goes on record in "Across the Spectrum" about his belief in post-mortem evangelism. He specifically says that the whole free-will defense (theodicy, Jeff) falls to the ground if any babies make it to heaven immediately upon death. So, he posits post-mortem states from that. Interestingly enough, John Piper posits post-mortem states for "elect" deceased babies for them to exercise their will for faith by grace! I'm just saying even HE does it.
I think what Jeff is saying is this: if we are already positing post-mortem states for theodicy's sake, and Scripture gives us reason to believe that these post-mortem states are such that 1) all of the suffering ever experienced here will be relativized according to it's fulness^ (Greg makes a LOT of that in "Letters from a Skeptic" ) and 2) the gates of the City are always open*...why not solve everything with EUR, since theodicy is WHAT we are doing anyway with the post-mortem states thing. Have I got that right, Jeff?
I would say it like this: earthly experiences of the "Void" (suffering, pain,death, etc) are "swallowed up" upon experience of the Void itself being merely the "shadow of the Holy" (Loder) The Holy (the Summom Bonum, right) is the "positive absurd" that takes the sting away from "sin" and the victory away from "death", both now AND in the future. I could see this being an offense too.
---------------------------------------------------------
^
For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
Romans 8:18
*
1) In Revelation 21:22-27, the "kings of the earth" and "nations" do not refer to anyone in the Redeemed "Bride, Wife of the Lamb", the "holy city Jerusalem." In other words, the "kings" and "nations" are not to be identified with the "holy city Jerusalem."
2) The fulfilment in Revelation 21 of what Isaiah 60 anticipates (ie. conquered "kings" and "nations" bringing their glory into God's Holy City) occurs AFTER the White Throne Judgement and the "second death" in Revelation 20:7-15.
3) Given 1 and 2, it is reasonable to surmise that the "kings of the earth" and "nations" who are coming into the "holy city Jerusalem" (in Revelation 21:22-27) are coming from the "lake of fire", which would be the only other "location" of any human beings at that time.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 2/28/2012 6:58:14 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/28/2012 7:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
I’m OK with saying there’s a sense in which the Cross IS a “responsible identification” with Creation in which God “takes responsibility” not fur “unjust utilitarianism” but for his own choices. You and I, D, believe that God knew sin was a virtual inevitability given LFW, so that inherent in God's choice to create a free world was his willingness to bear in love the consequences of the world he created. That all precedes creation. All we’re saying is that creating a free world was a loving risk to make, and that means it was a ‘responsible’ risk to make. So in the Cross love is doing what it told itself it would do should evil errupt.
Agreed. But what MAKES it "responsible"...and not an "unaccepable" risk...is God knowing that the Uncreated/Created relationship made irrevocable elimination of futher God-ward movement (that which ECT and annihilationism HAVE to posit!) IMPOSSIBLE.
Such that "no child would be left behind."
That's what we said, right?
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
| 607 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:03 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 |
|
|