D: 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 its fullness…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?

J: Pretty much, yeah. The relativizing you're talking about seems to be basically what I'm saying—that our sufferings will not outweigh our satisfaction sufficiently.

T: OK, that’s what I thought.

My point is that this still doesn’t help us solve the OT genocide passages. Yes, it’ll all be relative in the end, but we still have to plausibly imagine the genocide passages (if we attribute them to God as conservative exegesis does) as expressive of the character and purposes of God. To THAT extent they may undermine the case for UR. See? I mean, if attributed to God, the genocide passages would THEN have to be entered as evidence for/against (presumably against unless we can show HOW they can plausibly be loving, which is the WHOLE question anyhow) God’s being a God of love who intends to save everybody. See what I mean?

One STILL has to square the genocide passages with God’s being this kind of God (the UR kind of loving God). Presumably such a God wouldn’t make sport of wiping people off the map just because he intends to redeem them eventually. Right. That means we still have to FIT genocide into the character and purposes of God; i.e., we have to insist genocide IS a loving thing to do, given all the variables. THAT is what nobody’s doing. Just supposing that God eventually saves those he wipes out provides questionable relief, for how would you KNOW God really intends to save all eventually (as we say the NT texts mean) if God is a God of genocide (as we way these OT texts mean)?

Tom

And DON'T FORGET A&S, bro.  All this ties together...IF the Pre- AND Post-Ressurection Christ both have the "character and purposes of God" that we are talking about.

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/29/2012 12:59:32 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/29/2012 1:06:00 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/29/2012 1:32:07 PM (GMT-6)

I’m not afraid of ‘being there’, it’s the ‘getting there’ that bothers me. Ed Dobson.

D: How would the OT genocide passages make an argument against the universalistic NT texts, specifically the Revelation argument?

T: Just as I explained. I can see someone having difficulty believing that a God of genocide can be trusted to keep the gates of heaven open. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a doubter who could suggest that you want one biblical text (Revelation) to be believed over another (OT genocide) texts. Why not believe the latter over the former. You’ll say, “There’s no incompatibility. You don’t have to choose one over the other.” She’ll say, “I can’t SEE how genocide is compatible with universal-unconditional love. Can you please SHOW ME HOW it is without just falling back on Revelation?”

Let’s try to see the “fit” and at least suggest possible ways genocide could be thought of as a loving thing to do. I don’t think showing people that everybody makes it in the end just—poof—make the booboo feel better.

D: I must say. One thing I looooooooooooooove about the Revelation argument. You can be the most fundy of the fundamentalists...or the most liberal of the liberal, but whether taken LITERALLY or SYMBOLICALLY, it still points in the same direction: God's lovingkindness endures forever towards God's children (The doors are always open for any "prodigals" in the "lake of fire." )

T: Well, actually Don Carson has offered a plausible explanation of the open gates that doesn’t lead to universalism, and it’s got something going for it. In biblical days as you know, city gates were shut at night to protect the inhabitants from invaders or other harmful people from sneaking in at night. So all that “open gates” has to signify is the abiding safety and rest of the glorified, i.e., finally we arrive at an existence free from all possible threat and harm.

D: Eventual Universal Reconciliation is the only rational conclusion from the argument.

Tom: I love your passion, dang; that all or nothing persistence. It’s mesmerizing sometimes! I mean, we just got finished with 10 pages of you insisting to me that non-UR Calvinism IS rationally possible (that even God-as-effectively-Satan is rationally possible) and that Calvinists can enjoy theosis, blah blah blah. Now the ONLY rational conclusion is EUR?

I love you D!

Tom

And I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb. And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb. By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there. They will bring into it the glory and the honor of the nations. But nothing unclean will ever enter it, nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Love you too, bro!

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/29/2012 4:27:03 PM (GMT-6)

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

T: Just supposing that God eventually saves those he wipes out provides questionable relief ....

J: Right. I have always maintained that UR, per se, is not enough. We need BENEVOLENT/COMPETENT original intent. IOW, sin was NOT inevitable. All eyes COULD have seen IN THIS LIFE. I agree with Greg that something went wrong.

T: One STILL has to square the genocide passages with God’s being this kind of God (the UR kind of loving God).

J: I've made the argument but probably unclearly. Let me try again. I don't start with the assumption that God is unsurpassingly satisfied. That, to me, renders theodicy unsolvable by the human mind. I say sin, by definition, is contrary to God's intent. I further say that sin can not, therefore, have been inevitable if God is competent. Finally, I contend that sin DIMINISHES God's satisfaction. But it can't render the creational project "NOT worth it."

I further say that teleology (i.e., LFW), by definition, is a choosing of conflicting impulses -- either impulses to cease/diminish dissatisfaction or impulses to generate/increase satisfaction. Thus, we can't get around a theodicy that entails the fact that God gets something in terms of satisfaction FROM creation. That's what it means, IMO, to say God creates FOR Himself. But God is perfectly sympathetic. THus, some of His satisfaction comes FROM the satisfaction of others.

So God creates a world as a project that involves deriving satisfaction from its aesthetics, its intrinsically delightful novel experiences (i.e., via unpredictable events) AND satisfying sympathetic experience. In this original world, all suffering could have been soul-building and, therefore, conducive to "WORTH IT" existence. But then something goes horribly awry. But God knows that the longer He suffers this project-gone-awry, the greater sympathetic satisfaction can be had by all because it will involve MORE members of the final redeemed community. So God intervenes, sometimes "violently," to keep creation within tolerable bounds so He can hold out longer to increase the final community size. But that's not all. He also allows natural evils (which are mostly side-effects) that can be horrendous to human perspective--He does this to keep the order rational (in this case, predictable). But from the total perspective, these natural evils are nothing compared to the additional satisfaction that will derived be from the increase in the community that results from God's long-suffering.

So the question is, is it plausible that sympathetic beings can derive additional pleasure from a greater community than a small one? I don't think that's implausible at all. If nothing else, it increases our own extended experience of satisfying novelty through time. The more people acting delightfully unpredictable, the more VARIETY to the delightful novelty there is. And so on.

But notice, this means that God's longsuffering has limits both in terms of SOFA's and TIME. But this is not at all problematic. This doesn't rule out either benevolence OR competence. It just sets the parameters for both in terms of creational projects. Finally, scripture seems to virtually scream this aspect of God's longsuffering at us.

The point is, ALLOWING the suffering to continue is NO more problematic than OT direct providence. BOTH require the INTENT of God. And that's all that's ultimately relevant to theodicy.

Post Edited (Similitude) : 2/29/2012 6:02:11 PM (GMT-6)

This "offense" is JUST how Greg seems to have forgotten what his thesis says...

"The aesthetic value the world has for God is in expressing, not constituting, the aesthetic value God eternally finds within Godself." --Greg Boyd

Post Edited (One Love) : 2/29/2012 7:01:37 PM (GMT-6)

We can also brain-storm, if necessary, how the Son's particular experience of the novelty/sympathy plays into the "bounds/parameters." That's what the diversity of the godhead can allow. And maybe there are things about theodicy that will require that move as well. I'm not saying these moves are plausible. But they don't seem particularly implausible on the other hand. Diverse natures appreciating diverse SOFA's gives us room to work.

Point is, even if I'm still missing something, I don't think I'm misunderstanding this: The ALLOWANCE of the CONTINUANCE of natural evil over and beyond what seems to be soul-building suffering is ultimately no more problematic than OT providential "violence." Because both are divinely INTENDED.

Post Edited (Tom) : 3/1/2012 8:16:15 AM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/1/2012 11:57:25 AM (GMT-6)

That's why I don't dig marcionism.  It functionally cuts out the continuity between the Old and New Covenants.

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/1/2012 12:04:30 PM (GMT-6)

Let's look at it this way.  I think many people would say that if 1) God is unsurpassably happy with or without Creation AND 2) babies like little Addison die like this and don't end up enjoying life with God post-mortem--for whatever reason, then Creation just wasn't "worth it".  They would say that Creation was a morally "unacceptable risk" for a such an immutably satisfied God who is JUST AS FULFILLED in himself WITHOUT Creation as WITH it.

-----------------------------------------------------

"Tell me yourself, I challenge you answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature that little child beating its breast with its fist, for instance—and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth!"
- Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/1/2012 1:25:08 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/1/2012 1:27:28 PM (GMT-6)

Post Edited (One Love) : 3/2/2012 11:01:11 AM (GMT-6)