 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > MS-13 | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/12/2007 11:10 AM (GMT -6) |   | | He wrote this book along with numerous others.
He's a prof of communications at Calvin. Excellent book. Ironically, he still redeems televangelism.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/13/2007 12:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Zach: The Biblical record is clear that the Babylonians are bad precisely because they executed God's wrath. That they didn't leave vengeance to the Lord doesn't mean that God's plans are frustrated. Joseph's brothers can do their worst and God can "intend" their actions for good.
Jeff: The example of Joseph and his brothers is exactly what renders it UNCLEAR "that the Babylonians are bad precisely because they executed God's wrath." Joseph's brothers were not necessarily executing vengeance, and we don't have to assume that Babylon was--unless scripture says they were. For all we know (apart from scripture), it was simply a military move to extend or beef up the Babylonian empire. God could have still used Babylon thus for good just as he used the antipathy of Joseph's brothers.
And no one is denying that we are to respond in love. We are questioning whether it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that absolute pacifism is always the loving "response."
Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/13/2007 1:03:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/13/2007 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | "Joseph's brothers were not necessarily executing vengeance"
That's not what I'm saying. All I'm getting at is that when people do bad things with bad intentions, God is on the ball and he intends them for good / he makes all things work together for good.
"and we don't have to assume that Babylon was--unless scripture says they were. For all we know (apart from scripture), it was simply a military move to extend or beef up the Babylonian empire. God could have still used Babylon thus for good just as he used the antipathy of Joseph's brothers."
That's what I'm saying! It was a self-serving military choice. It was bad. But God is so on top of things that he comes up with a way to intend it for good. In the company of open theists I think I can get agreement that Babylon's sin was either it's own choice or it was God's choice. If Babylon chose it, technically God did not, and if God chose it, technically Babylon did not. So the only way I (as an open theist) can understand God's ordering of sinful action (be it of Babylon or of Joseph's brothers) is to say that God incorporated the actions chosen by others into his own plans intended for good.
So, in a real sense, every action we see is "the will of God" or "part of God's plan," but I'm careful not to put the word 'eternal' in there. This plan is augmented as God responds to human choice. Things like the Lamb slain before the foundations of the earth can be considered part of the eternal plan, but this is a general strategy not the particulars.
Since every slap to my face and every soldier who commands that I carry his armor on his way to kill my family is actually part of God's plan (or has been considered and will be dwelt with by God), it begins to make since that I should submit. Of course I submit to God. And the slap to my face is part of God's plan. It gets much more emotional when it's a Roman soldier marching through Palestine or a terrorist in an airport or a Stalin killing millions or a Bush starting a war that kills Iraqis at a faster rate than Saddam ever did. But I don't think taking up arms against the Roman, the terrorist, Stalin, or Bush is the Christian thing to do. God is in control. Taking the wheel from God is not responsible; it is only a lack of faith in his ability.
And now is another good time for the "sorry to sound preachy/I respect and appreciate other opinions" disclaimer. I sound a lot more close-minded than I am.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 6/13/2007 1:36:22 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/13/2007 6:17 PM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: Yeah, but vengeance or not, it was bad. I'm not saying 1 Babylon being vengeful, 2 in their use of their use of force, so 3 all force is vengeful. I'm saying God can and will handle the bad stuff, and returning evil for evil or violence for violence is only adding to the pile of bad stuff he has to handle.
Jeff: But that's because you are a pacifist. One who is not a pacifist doesn't believe that all force is "only adding to the pile of bad stuff." You had said:
The Biblical record is clear that the Babylonians are bad precisely because they executed God's wrath.
I was only trying to make the point that that claim is not "clear" unless we want to say that it is clear that vengeance was Babylon's motive and/or God's wrath is "bad." Neither of those is clear to me.
Zach: For a hopefully not too inflammatory example: Saddam was bad enough. Then the US tried to fix the situation with more violence. Now it looks like Iran might try to do some fixing too. All three parties are only adding to the problem. I'm not saying that the US had bad intentions or were incompetent. Even assuming the best, violence just begets more violence.
Jeff: I agree that all three parties are adding to the problem. But it doesn't follow that all violence just begets more violence. We can empirically observe what this violence is doing. To make the generalization that absolutely all violence just makes things worse is not logically warranted. Worse for who?
Zach: Best case scenario: we end up proving God wrong when he said it was foolish to trust in chariots.
Jeff: Even if we win that won't prove that. God can bring us down whenever He wants for providential purposes we're not privy to. And that alone is reason enough not to trust in chariots.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/13/2007 8:21:28 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/13/2007 8:58 PM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: All I meant to say was that spending a lifetime in jail or being killed is short term in comparison to scope of what is to come. If we only look at Friday and dwell on the bad short term, we fail to enjoy the hope that comes to the one who remembers Sunday. If we think of the scope of our natural lives as "the long run," then we are missing something essential to the Christian faith. We have the mind of Christ, but if Christ thought of the natural life as the long term, he wouldn't have died on the cross. There was a long term joy set before him. There is more than death for us too. The long term is supposed to have an effect on the short term.
To address what I think you were getting at... I believe that bad things done with bad intentions are incorporated into God's plan, such as Babylon's invasion being chalked up to divine punishment/correction.
Brandon: You have the forest and you have the trees. God can see the forest. We see the trees. Nobody is denying that God cannot somehow or another work good out of evil. But there is a lot of gratuitous evil. And God has to work with that providentially. But here you are automatically assuming that you have the knowledge of the big picture. You are automatically assuming that a lifetime in jail or being kill is something that God had planned as some sort of good. But how do you know that killing a perpetrator is not what God had planned too? Which is why D doesn't want to rule anything out.
Should we rely on the Spirit? Yes. But this is why they call it a moral DILEMMA. Should I hold to the principle that all life is sacred and should be saved at all costs? No. But the dilemma is what causes me to ask the Holy Spirit for direction. And as D said, we just have to trust the Holy Spirit and leave it at that. But a part of what helps us in this (adjudicates) are those "knowable principles" (forsaking a lower law for a higher law) that we usually live with day to day until the dilemma occurs. Dilemmas occur on the edges of ethics. On the margins if you will (if you even believe in moral dilemmas that is). Normally our default position would be toward life as it is day to day i.e. take fornication. Dwayne doesn't fornicate day to day, but he might have to commit fornication for a higher purpose and that higher purpose is usually life affirming.
Jeff, what do you think?
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 6/13/2007 9:02:36 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/14/2007 5:33 AM (GMT -6) | | | Well it seems to me from all of the discussions we've had on these boards i.e. Faith and Doubt thread that even for God there are instances in which God will forsake a lower law for a higher law or if you want to say in some situations allow or cause evil for a greater good purpose. Regardless, the man with the withered hand in the Matt 12 passage clearly indicates that this is going on.
Matt 12, 9Going on from that place, he went into their synagogue, 10and a man with a shriveled hand was there. Looking for a reason to accuse Jesus, they asked him, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?" 11He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/14/2007 3:39 PM (GMT -6) | | "But here you are automatically assuming that you have the knowledge of the big picture. You are automatically assuming that a lifetime in jail or being kill is something that God had planned as some sort of good. But how do you know that killing a perpetrator is not what God had planned too?"
This is not what I'm assuming. The tense matters. Me going to jail or killing the bad guy is not something that God HAD planned. It is something that God incorporates into a good plan in response to human action.
"But I'm not sure Zach agrees that cases like the ox on the sabbath are cases of higher vs. lower. So he may not see Christ as teaching such a method of adjudication at all."
The Sabbath is a time of liberation. Rest from the work week is just one aspect of the liberation. There is not higher/lower with the ox on the Sabbath. The Sabbath has always been about releasing: releasing from oppression, labor, suffering, etc.
"On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant, nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor the alien within your gates, so that your manservant and maidservant may rest, as you do. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm. Therefore the LORD your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day."
"God will forsake a lower law for a higher law or if you want to say in some situations allow or cause evil for a greater good purpose. Regardless, the man with the withered hand in the Matt 12 passage clearly indicates that this is going on."
What is the lower law that God forsakes in this case? I would think Jeff would be the first to point out that Sabbath laws against healing are extrabiblical Pharisaical additions. So God forsakes a lower law that's not even a law.
"Indeed, Brandon. Matthew uses that language of "least" and "better" and "more weighty" etc quite a bit. We see the idea of degree over and over in these statements. And it is precisely degree that a consequentialist ethic must take into consideration."
Certainly there is comparison of degree. But he's saying, "We all agree that a sheep or ox should be rescued on the Sabbath. Since a person is much more valuable than an animal, your lower tradition (not Biblical law) is wrong since it contradicts with the one true law." He is not saying, "Ignore one of God's lower laws this time because it contradicts with one of God's higher laws." For this to be an example of two of God's laws contradicting, there need to be at least two of God's laws in question. It's not consequentialism. It's Jesus telling people to stop breaking God's one Sabbath law that says, "Set people free like you've been set free."
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/14/2007 9:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Zach: But here you are automatically assuming that you have the knowledge of the big picture. You are automatically assuming that a lifetime in jail or being kill is something that God had planned as some sort of good. But how do you know that killing a perpetrator is not what God had planned too?"
This is not what I'm assuming. The tense matters. Me going to jail or killing the bad guy is not something that God HAD planned. It is something that God incorporates into a good plan in response to human action.
Brandon: Basically, that's what I meant to say. Essentially the same diff. God responds to his creatures. Sometimes he has to "sacrifice a rook to save the queen." That's something God providentially incorporates into his stradegy of the master chess game.
Zach: God will forsake a lower law for a higher law or if you want to say in some situations allow or cause evil for a greater good purpose. Regardless, the man with the withered hand in the Matt 12 passage clearly indicates that this is going on."
What is the lower law that God forsakes in this case? I would think Jeff would be the first to point out that Sabbath laws against healing are extrabiblical Pharisaical additions. So God forsakes a lower law that's not even a law.
"Indeed, Brandon. Matthew uses that language of "least" and "better" and "more weighty" etc quite a bit. We see the idea of degree over and over in these statements. And it is precisely degree that a consequentialist ethic must take into consideration."
Certainly there is comparison of degree. But he's saying, "We all agree that a sheep or ox should be rescued on the Sabbath. Since a person is much more valuable than an animal, your lower tradition (not Biblical law) is wrong since it contradicts with the one true law." He is not saying, "Ignore one of God's lower laws this time because it contradicts with one of God's higher laws." For this to be an example of two of God's laws contradicting, there need to be at least two of God's laws in question. It's not consequentialism. It's Jesus telling people to stop breaking God's one Sabbath law that says, "Set people free like you've been set free."
Brandon: Aside from what I think is a spurious view of the Pharisical understanding of the law (it simply wasn't a matter of "adding to the law" or "making mountains out of mole hills," [though that should not automatically be disqualified] these guys were very serious about wanting to please God and follow God genuinely. The question is, "Do you not believe there are real moral conflicts or dilemmas in scripture i.e. lying to save the life of another?"
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/15/2007 1:10 PM (GMT -6) | | Maybe I can compromise. The lower law is the Bible; the higher law is the Bible properly understood. So by an unflinchingly literal reading, rescuing or healing on the Sabbath is labor and therefore disobedience. But if we read Sabbath law as God telling Israelites to treat their neighbors as God has treated them, then rescuing and healing are actually demanded, especially on Sabbath.
I think we can all agree here. God has things figured out. Contradictions between "do no labor" and "love your neighbor" are the result of the fragmented and particularized way in which the Bible is written. It is not written as a sylogism or always with precise language. But I believe that if the thoughts of God were expressed in a precise way, the contradictions would fall away.
On the day-to-day level I can agree that we discern which priorities are higher or lower. I may need to abandon my "do no labor" in order to keep "love your God/neighbor." But I'm not abandoning a commandment of God. I'm abandoning a simplistic (albeit well-intended) Pharisaical understanding of one particular way we are taught to love our God/neighbors.
Basically, I see higher/lower distinctions as merely an optical illusion not unrelated to the way God condescendingly speaks down to lower beings. The condescending and progressive way God has communicated sacrifices precision having realized that humanity can't swallow the whole of what God has to say in one gulp.
All this to say, those of us who submit ourselves to Jesus' teaching have full revelation. We have the Word in flesh; those who have seen the Son have seen the Father.
"He replied, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him.... ...But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For I tell you the truth, many prophets and righteous men longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it. Listen then to what the parable of the sower means..."
The scripture points to Jesus. If there is any question as to which of God's contradictory claims is "highest," just look at Jesus. He is "the truth without any mixture of error." The Old Testament has violence ascribed to God that looks suspiciously like the consequence of non-divine humans and forces of nature. I don't deny that there is a sense in which God intended the evil actions of Jacob's sons, but to say this we must sprinkle poetry amongst the prose. But if we are speaking precisely, Jacob's sons and only Jacob's sons intended their actions. God made the best of things, and his best was amazing. But to say he intended sin is poetic at best and a flat out lie at worst.
The same goes for Sabbath law, and I'm inclined to say something very similar goes for David and the bread (although I haven't studied that story nearly as much).
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/16/2007 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Zach: Maybe I can compromise. The lower law is the Bible; the higher law is the Bible properly understood. So by an unflinchingly literal reading, rescuing or healing on the Sabbath is labor and therefore disobedience. But if we read Sabbath law as God telling Israelites to treat their neighbors as God has treated them, then rescuing and healing are actually demanded, especially on Sabbath.
I think we can all agree here. God has things figured out. Contradictions between "do no labor" and "love your neighbor" are the result of the fragmented and particularized way in which the Bible is written. It is not written as a sylogism or always with precise language. But I believe that if the thoughts of God were expressed in a precise way, the contradictions would fall away.
On the day-to-day level I can agree that we discern which priorities are higher or lower. I may need to abandon my "do no labor" in order to keep "love your God/neighbor." But I'm not abandoning a commandment of God. I'm abandoning a simplistic (albeit well-intended) Pharisaical understanding of one particular way we are taught to love our God/neighbors.
Brandon: Zach I think I can agree with most of this (except your second paragraph and the last half of your third). This is ESSENTIALLY what I'm saying when I used the fornication example and that disobeying a "higher law for a lower law" is life affirming (which is the whole point of the exercise). In one of his books, Lewis Smedes spoke about a woman who was told that if she did not have sex with SS guards that her family would be killed. Now fornication is not merely some "extrabiblical Pharisaical addition" or "tradition." This is a case in which there are two moral norms that contradict. You want to articulate that there really is no contradiction between moral norms but between a moral norm and some understanding of it. That I don't agree with. Personally, I believe in REAL moral dilemmas.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/16/2007 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | | I'll add one more point I think is pertinent. Christ asked them a rhetorical question. He asked, "Which of you would not get your ox/sheep out of the ditch on the sabbath?" The fact that this is rhetorical is important. It means that even the Pharisees knew to adjudicate this much (and the fact that priests could sometimes profane the Sabbath, and David could eat the shewbread, etc). But their lust to undermine Christ was so intense it blinded them (in this one case) to the even more obvious truth that a man is better than an ox. I.e., they were hypocritically defying their own legitimate mode of adjudicating the Law just to get Christ. That's why Christ calls them hypocrites. They bent the rules and the principles to suit their self-interest.
So I would disagree that Christ is our final say about every single case of judgment. Christ elucidates a few examples, but I think Christ is saying that there are myriads of such cases that we have to adjudicate. There is no way his recorded words and actions exhaustively tell us how to adjudicate every situation. Christ taught the guiding principles by way of his examples. He didn't give an exhaustive detailed explanation of how to judge every single situation in our life. Loving our neighbor as ourself is way too complex for anyone to do that.
And the verse you quote, Zach, about God giving is not necessarily a one time gift. God gives continually as we grow--surely He continually gave to the apostles. This, too, is evidence that Christ could not live or verbalize everything a person needs to know. Only living faithfully with what we have will fit us for God's gift of more wisdom--so we can be more fruitful. If we don't use what He has given us, He takes away what we have. One thing is for sure. If the professing church lived out even that which can be easily apprehended from a relatively straightforward reading of the NT, the world would be a different place.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 6/16/2007 8:46:22 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/16/2007 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | B: Now fornication is not merely some "extrabiblical Pharisaical addition" or "tradition." This is a case in which there are two moral norms that contradict.
Z: I disagree. Any biblical law about fornication is summed up in 'love God' and 'love your neighbor.' Any law about fornication is a particular applications of this ONE command to love. And I respectfully consider simplistic any interpretation that doesn't put the particular in it's proper context.
B: Personally, I believe in REAL moral dilemmas.
Z: Then, I would expect that you consider all biblical laws apodictic and none casuistic unless there is an explicit 'if, then' structure. Also, I can't see how you can see various biblical laws as summed up in the law of love.
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Show me how I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are quite pointedly disagreeing with these verses.
J: The fact that this is rhetorical is important. It means that even the Pharisees knew to adjudicate this much
Z: It means no such thing. It only means that if you rule out a unified understanding of God's commands from the beginning. Jesus doesn't say that rescuing the ox profanes the Sabbath (but such profaning is acceptable). You have to assume that to get where you are going. It's not in the bible.
I agree with you that the Pharisees where being hypocritical. But that says nothing about their differentiating of higher and lower which you hypothesize and even less about Jesus' hypothetical unspoken reaction to their hypothetical attitude.
Again, Jesus use of degree is him saying, "Obviously P ~> Q, so even more P still ~> Q." There is nothing necessarily consequentialist or higher/lower law about it. Jesus uses this device repeatedly: Matt 6:30, 7:11, 10:25, Luke 11:13, 12:24, 12:28. Paul uses it as well. Never is it used in this consequentialist or higher/lower way. It's always "If God cares for relatively low valued birds, he will of course care for high value humans." There is degree, but there is no idea of compromising one divine obligation to fulfill another. Such an idea is in direct contradiction to passages like the one in Romans I quoted above, which (coincidentally?) immediately follows Paul's teaching on submission to (never participation with) the governing authorities. "...does no harm [except of course when there are bad consequences to deter]... ...fulfillment of the [higher but not lower] law."
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/16/2007 1:53 PM (GMT -6) | | I don't think the passage of the ox on Sabbath has much at all to do with how one arrives at the belief that it is ok to rescue an ox. Jesus says, "If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?" This is assumed. Everyone does this. Maybe the Pharisees do this emotionlessly out of a detailed understanding of higher/lower law. The passage doesn't say this; it could be that the Pharisees understood something similar to Jesus' "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." In Mark Jesus says to a teacher of the law, "You are not far from the kingdom of God" in reference to the first commandment.
However the Pharisees came to their conclusions about rescuing animals and children on the Sabbath, Jesus' words are not necessarily an endorsement of their reasoning. He is pointing out their hypocrisy, and hypocrisy does not imply good initial reasoning. I can apply a belief in the immorality of chewing gum in a hypocritical manner. That doesn't imply that chewing gum is in fact immoral.
So, I guess my answer is: I don't know. I don't know if the Pharisees held to a higher/lower view of law or a unified view. I do know that the New Testament presents the unified view. This view is expressed by both Paul and Jesus (maybe others, I don't know). There is an either/or scenario here. Either the law and the prophets are summed up in the law of love, or they are not. (I'd nuance that to say the messages God intended to communicate through the law and prophets is summed up in the law of love. But still these messages are summed up or they are not. It's still a dichotomy.) A 'compromise the lower for the higher' ethic is irrelevant if there is no lower law to compromise (except, I'll grant, if we call misinterpretations 'lower law').
Making sense of the passage in question:
There in front of him was a man suffering from dropsy. Jesus asked the Pharisees and experts in the law, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath or not?" But they remained silent. So taking hold of the man, he healed him and sent him away. Then he asked them, "If one of you has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?" And they had nothing to say.
I think he is primarily addressing their attitude which is not focused on the greatest commandment but legalism. I don't think this passage says anything one way or another about higher/lower law or the law being summed up. That is a different passage.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 6/16/2007 2:01:36 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 82 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:36 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 |
|
|