 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Greg's discussion of OT violence | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/8/2008 4:15 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
D, Romans 13 isn’t really that difficult a passage for somebody like Greg. All that it necessary says is that the basic maintenance of good and evil judged on the basis of what is generally best for society is something God placed in the hands of human beings and which works itself out naturally (sociologically). And that’s a wonderful thing when you think about it. Governments generally get it right on one level.
What it cannot mean is that everything any government does “in the name of law and order” or “in the name of punishing evildoers” etc, is a reflection of the right, the good, and the loving which God is and which Christ embodies. But you quote the passaage as if that’s what it says. Unless you want to say that all governments, any government, is infallible in its execution of law, its pursuit of justice, etc., you’ll have to struggle your way through Romans 13 like everybody else. Just quoting it doesn’t prove anybody’s point. [You do that a lot since you’ve become a mystic by the way,  just quote passages as if that constituted an argument.] But they have to be read carefully and humbly. They admit competing interpretations.
My point is that you don’t see NT Christians picking up the sword or enforcing the Kingdom by means of violence which requires no direct divine involvement. I know you see this point. It’s true with Jesus and the tree, Peter in Acts, and Paul and the sorcerer. The one time Peter picks up a sword in order to make his own judgment about how much violence to dish out, not led by the Spirit, Jesus said no, in spite of having cursed a tree to death himself. Those who live BY THAT RULE (Peter’s particular version of adjudicating b/ right/wrong) die by that rule. That’s not to say the infinite God of love won’t take people out, and won’t use even Christians to do so, but it’ll be a unique execution of justice that isn’t ENTIRELY left in our hands and under our control. Of course, I could be wrong. I’m just trying to make the different passages fit together and say something coherent.
I think you’re right that Greg’s view entails the rejection of all employment or involvement that involves use of deadly force. And I wouldn’t agree with Greg on this.
Yes, Zach, I have to agree with D that all God does is an expression of love—if God is love—including his judgment of Ananias and Saphira. What would you suggest, that God stopped loving Ananias?
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/8/2008 6:00 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
D, Romans 13 isn’t really that difficult a passage for somebody like Greg. All that it necessary says is that the basic maintenance of good and evil judged on the basis of what is generally best for society is something God placed in the hands of human beings and which works itself out naturally (sociologically). And that’s a wonderful thing when you think about it. Governments generally get it right on one level.
No one's trying to advocate for the infallibility of governmental systems. My main point is what you already acknowledged...
I think you’re right that Greg’s view entails the rejection of all employment or involvement that involves use of deadly force. And I wouldn’t agree with Greg on this.
I'd told Greg this when "Myth" was in MANUSCRIPT FORM...
It doesn't make sense for the text to say that the "authorities" act as "God's servants" in any real sense...but THEN to say that Kingdom people (who ARE God's servants as well) cannot act AS "God's servants" in this governmental sense simply by definition of what it means to be "Kingdom." This would mean that "God's servants" in governmental authority MUST be unbelievers, because believers WOULD NOT and SHOULD NOT participate.
This is exactly what Greg's been doing from the beginning. Problematic to say the least.
A secondary point was that God obviously WORKS THROUGH "God's servants" in the authorities. So even though there's no MIRACULOUS divine involvement per se (like supernaturally imposed death or blindness), there is DEFINITELY is some form of divine involvement when the "God's servants" discharge there duties. This would include the divinely sanctioned use of the sword. So to make some kind of TOTAL bifurcation between divine "Kingdom" activity and human use of the "sword" (which Greg wants) seems unwarranted.
**************************************
Sahid:
I only suggest a closer reading of the passage and that we draw a distinction between the text and the presuppositions we bring to it. The passage doesn't say Peter killed them. The passage doesn't say the Holy Spirit killed them. What the passage DOES say is that Peter claimed Ananias' heart was filled by Satan.
Please give me the most plausible explanation that you have of Ananias and Sapphira's deaths...given the text. I'm open to see what you have.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 4/8/2008 6:09:55 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/8/2008 7:39 PM (GMT -6) | | ACTS: about three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?"
"Yes," she said, "that is the price."
Peter said to her, "How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord (JESUS)? Listen! The feet of those who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."
At that moment she fell down at his feet and died.
Jeff: What seems obvious to me, from this text, is that the timing language truly screams out that God intended the deaths to occur in synch with Peter's confrontation. This means that God intentionally associated a person with their death. Furthermore, Acts goes on to say that after that, no one dared to join them.
This is profound. To my mind, this turns Greg's post post-millenial interpretation on its head. Greg has argued that our supposed obligation to virtual pacifism is to result in conversions because of the "outrageous love" that such pacifism supposedly exhibits. But here we have the opposite effect. We have God providentially associating divine judgment with him to whom it was said, "what thou doest bind on earth will be bound in heaven." And the result is that people quit joining the Jerusalem church out of fear. HHMMMM!!!
I will say this. I can see how Greg can be consistent about Christians being prohibited from governmental positions that use force--although I think his hermeneutics is way too weak and circumstantial to justify that conclusion and the correlative judgment that it implies. He could say, though, that God, having proven the futility of force through the Israelites is NOW, post-Christ, using a different weapon to prevail over evil--though he also admits that God uses force to prevail over evil to some extent, also. But I think he needs a real explanation as to how to fit this text into his postmillenial interpretation of how pacifism and/or its equivalent, non-intervention, (as the expression of Christ-like love) is supposedly related to conversion and the leavening of the world unto good.
He was already on really weak ground, IMO. Once he has to qualify his approach to account for this text (assuming he does), that ground will probably seem even less substantial. For it seems from this text that God has temporal ends for which He is actually willing to scare people away by associating certain persons, who are harmless as a dove, with His own use of force, if that is necessary to attain them.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/8/2008 8:20:57 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/8/2008 8:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: What seems obvious to me, from this text, is that the timing language truly screams out that God intended the deaths to occur in synch with Peter's confrontation. This means that God intentionally associated a person with their death. Furthermore, Acts goes on to say that after that, no one dared to join them.
Zach: Peter believed Ananias (and probably Sapphira) were processed by Satan. Do we agree there?
Matt 5: But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven... ...Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Zach: So I'm supposed to believe that the God who spoke these words is also the God who kills those processed by Satan?... when the passage in question doesn't even make this claim? Go back to the gospels; how did Jesus handle demon procession? I am supposed to believe that the Spirit kills out of love? If love is synonymous with hate, then we are wasting our time talking about it. What is the Holy Spirit's will for Ananias? The same as the Satan's? Really? There is a difference between good and evil, the Holy Spirit and Satan, love and murder.
1 John: Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.
D: Please give me the most plausible explanation that you have of Ananias and Sapphira's deaths...given the text. I'm open to see what you have.
Z: They gave themselves over to Satan and God ultimately allowed them to finalize that choice. And then, shockingly, Satan acted like Satan. Does the Spirit kill those who sin against Him, or does the Spirit give them over to their sinful desires. These are two starkly different approaches.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/8/2008 8:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid:
They gave themselves over to Satan and God ultimately allowed them to finalize that choice. And then, shockingly, Satan acted like Satan.
I want to make sure I got this. With respect to Sapphira...
about three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, "Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?" "Yes," she said, "that is the price."
Peter said to her, "How could you conspire to test the Spirit of the Lord (JESUS)? Listen! The feet of those who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also."
At that moment she fell down at his feet and died.
Peter doesn't mention Satan to Sapphira...but...let's just go with this. So, she "finalized her choice" after Peter asked her the question...and then Satan was allowed to kill her, not God. Is that what you are saying?
I just need to be sure.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 4/8/2008 9:00:53 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/8/2008 9:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Sahid:
Does the Spirit kill those who sin against Him?
Two words.
"Egyptian firstborn."
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/8/2008 11:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Tremper Longman III in Show Them No Mercy:
"A number of years ago Meredith Kline, a brillant Old Testament theologian whose writings have unfortunately been neglected, introduced the concept of intrusion ethics into the discussion of herem warfare. Kline reminds us that the punishment for sin is death. The lesson that rebellion...and all sin is rebellion...leads to death is made clear in the Garden of Eden. It is only because of God's extraordinary grace that Adam and Eve were not killed on the spot when they ate of the fruit of the tree. Indeed, it is because of that grace that any of us breathe. The period of God's extraordinary grace, often called common grace, is a special circumstance. In this light, we should not be amazed that God ordered the death of the Canaanites, but rather we should stand in amazement that he lets anyone live. The Conquest, according to Kline, involves the intrusion of the ethics of the end times, the consummatrion, into the period of common grace. In a sense, the destruction of the Canaanities is a preview of the final judgment."
A note or two: I think you run into trouble when you assume that God does everything out of love, as if somehow God must fit our preconceptions of what love is, or how he should act. I, personally, believe God judges unrighteousness, that there are people who God hates and that God is under no obligation to act in a way that is befitting to my personal tastes. When God kills in judgment I don't think he is usually acting in love towards that person. That, it would seem to me, would lead to universalism, which I reject. Rather, I believe, many times, God's judgment occurs when that person has made himself God's enemy . Sad, but true. Thats what I believe happened in Acts. God judged them for their sins, which is, God's right as God.
 The assumption that God must always act in love towards a person, I believe, is an unbiblical one. It is an assumption that is used to trump any other act God might take. For me, God is free. He does not have to love anyone. He chooses to love each of us.
Finally, I would add this: In order to take the Old Testament seriously, I believe, we must recognize that God has enemies that he hates. "It is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of a living God." Hebrews
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/9/2008 12:39 AM (GMT -6) | | D: Peter doesn't mention Satan to Sapphira...but...let's just go with this. So, she "finalized her choice" after Peter asked her the question...and then Satan was allowed to kill her, not God. Is that what you are saying?
Z: No. Maybe Sapphira finalized her choice 20 years earlier, who knows? But when demon-possessed people like Ananias (and probably Sapphira) are harmed in the gospels it is always the demon who is doing the harm and Jesus who is doing the healing. The "traditional" understanding has the Spirit of the Lord Jesus acting in a way that is not at all keeping with the spirit of the Lord Jesus, but rather acting just like Satan.
D: Sahid: Does the Spirit kill those who sin against Him?
Two words. "Egyptian firstborn."
Z: Say what?! The Egyptian firstborn sinned against the Spirit? What Bible are you reading? That's not in mine.
J: Zach, if the gospels were not chocked full of language about divine judgment, I could follow you. I still don't know how you make sense of that language.
Z: Whenever you ask, I answer.
J: You said in another post that you believe God is going to ressurect people UNTO JUDGMENT. What does that entail, in your opinion, that would explain why they're ressurected to judgment at all?
Z: I believe that God loves enemies and blesses those who curse him. And I think that C. S. Lewis quote is appropriate. People are given what they ask for. For many, this is judgment. But it is, if we are speaking precisely, self-judgment.
J: The unbelievers are dead, and then God raises them to judgment. Flesh that our for me in accordance with your contention that God doesn't hold people accountable. I'm truly at a loss to understand what you're saying still.
Z: All are raised (ignoring self-annihilation for now). The Lewis quote says it best. "There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell choose it."
I really don't mean to be mysterious.
Feel: I think you run into trouble when you assume that God does everything out of love, as if somehow God must fit our preconceptions of what love is,
Z: This is why I have repeatedly specified Christ-likeness or Christ-like love. I agree that it is not our preconceptions God must fit. I feel it is our preconceptions that fight against the idea that a man who commanded that we not resist evil men was God. Our preconceptions are what make us want to modify Christ's teachings or bring external values to bear upon it.
Feel: There are people who God hates... ...For me, God is free. He does not have to love anyone. He chooses to love each of us.
Zach: He loves each of us, but hates some?
Feel: BTW, Charles book Between Pacficism And Jihad, starting at page 88 pretty much destroys Yoder's arguments in the Politics of Jesus. Sad but true...
Zach: Ok. Tell me how.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/9/2008 7:26 AM (GMT -6) | | If God is immutable, unconditional love...then, by definition, it can never be the case that God fails to love any sentient being, regardless of his ACTIONS towards any being. Either a person loves unconditionally or they don't. There is no in between. A person cannot love unconditionally sometimes. That doesn't make sense.
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/9/2008 8:24 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid:
The "traditional" understanding has the Spirit of the Lord Jesus acting in a way that is not at all keeping with the spirit of the Lord Jesus, but rather acting just like Satan.
The WORDS of Jesus.
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"
"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
--------------------------------
Will the unconditionally loving Jesus CEASE LOVING these evildoers while making this pronouncement?
Whoever knows and recognizes how near God’s Kingdom is to him may say with Jacob, “God is in this place, and I knew it not.”
Meister Eckhart, "The Nearness of the Kingdom"
Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the Kingdom of God is within you.
Post Edited ("I am-in-I Am") : 4/9/2008 8:26:39 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/9/2008 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | J: You said in another post that you believe God is going to ressurect people UNTO JUDGMENT. What does that entail, in your opinion, that would explain why they're ressurected to judgment at all?
Z: I believe that God loves enemies and blesses those who curse him. And I think that C. S. Lewis quote is appropriate. People are given what they ask for. For many, this is judgment. But it is, if we are speaking precisely, self-judgment.
Jeff: Since Lewis wasn't a pacifist, I have no reason to assume that Lewis means what you're trying to say. But to help me understand what you're getting at, do this for me:
1) Define what you mean by responsibility/accountability.
2) Give me an example of how a thief would "take responsibility" for stealing.
3) Explain to me how you or God could know the thief would "take responsibility" (as you have defined and explained it above) voluntarily, since you don't believe God will hold him responsible.
For if God can't know that anyone would take said responsibility for said action, why does Jesus warn about a judgment to come? Were thieves voluntarily taking responsibility for their theft in Jesus' day, according to your definition of it?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/9/2008 8:38 PM (GMT -6) | | J: Since Lewis wasn't a pacifist, I have no reason to assume that Lewis means what you're trying to say.
Z: I didn't use the Lewis quote in connection with pacifism. I used it in connection to self-determined afterlife, which he wrote an entire book about.
J: 1) Define what you mean by responsibility/accountability.
Z: I'll stick to Webster's dictionary. I'm trying to be as transparent as possible. I'm not making up exotic meanings for common words. But those who claim to reconcile being held accountable and forgiveness must be doing just that.
Webster's: Responsible - 1 a: liable to be called on to answer b (1): liable to be called to account as the primary cause, motive, or agent <a committee responsible for the job> (2): being the cause or explanation <mechanical defects were responsible for the accident> c: liable to legal review or in case of fault to penalties
synonyms - responsible, answerable, accountable, amenable, liable mean subject to being held to account. responsible implies holding a specific office, duty, or trust <the bureau responsible for revenue collection>... ...accountable suggests imminence of retribution for unfulfilled trust or violated obligation
J: 2) Give me an example of how a thief would "take responsibility" for stealing.
Z: Um... ok. The thief would confess. Making amends/reparations should follow, but this goes beyond mere "taking responsibility". For instance, the US government openly confesses to assessing taxes, and in a strict sense this constitutes "taking responsibility." However, they do not make amend/reparations; they feel that this kind of stealing is morally permissible. I don't think this is extreme at all. Don't I mean the same thing by responsibility/accountability as you all? At least old Webster agrees with my usage.
J: 3) Explain to me how you or God could know the thief would "take responsibility" (as you have defined and explained it above) voluntarily, since you don't believe God will hold him responsible.
Z: I guess it's the verb. To my ear "taking" responsibility connotes admitting ownership/responsibility for an action e.g. "I did it." But when you say "hold" responsible, I think of being held and made forced to bear consequences - the very opposite of forgiveness and grace. If a person is responsible for an action, I believe God knows it. But I also believe that God freely forgives anyone who will receive forgiveness i.e. he does not "hold" them responsible in the sense of "holding" them to the consequences.
J: For if God can't know that anyone would take said responsibility for said action, why does Jesus warn about a judgment to come? Were thieves voluntarily taking responsibility for their theft in Jesus' day, according to your definition of it?
Z: Well the Bible records at least one taking responsibility, and I don't assume guilt is so recent a development that it was new in the time of Jesus. But this is beside the point. As D pointed out. Some do not appreciate the consequences of their actions, and so when forgiveness is refused, they are in for a surprise. Now, if the surprise is so unexpected as to render the person not guilty, I'm sure God will act fairly somehow. Luke 12:47-48 expresses some of this relative accountability albeit in "judgment language".
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/9/2008 8:44:14 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/10/2008 7:44 AM (GMT -6) | | | Z: To my ear "taking" responsibility connotes admitting ownership/responsibility for an action e.g. "I did it." But when you say "hold" responsible, I think of being held and made forced to bear consequences - the very opposite of forgiveness and grace.
J: I don't see how taking ownership for an action is the equivalent for "being judged." I think people "take ownership" for actions every time they remember having done them. The very act of you remembering having done an act is a recognition that you as opposed to someone else was the actor. Why this would be considered judgment, I don't know.
Jesus' judgment language sounds, to me, clearly like the "forced to bear consequences" option that you attribute to being "held" responsible. There is passage after passage in the gospels that sound just that way. But what's more, there is NT language that sounds as if Christians themselves will "receive" for what they've done "in their body," whether good or evil. I don't know what that could possibly mean but consequences.
I understand why you, as a pacifist, think God can not judge in terms of just consequences. But it is not a coincidence that even Greg (thus far, anyway), who is virtually a pacifist, can not see God as being pacifist. It's because it is well nigh impossible to explain biblical judgment language in a way compatible with divine pacifism. And once reasonably plausible readings of texts have no value for ascertaining correct theology, we might as well just argue philosophy.
Our time would be better spent that way, because the texts, in that case, are actually a troublesome distraction. And then several posts are made in the vain attempt to come to agreement on them. The problem with abandoning the texts , though, is that you want to prove pacifism FROM the texts. This approach seems problematic in the extreme, to me. And apparently it even seems problematic to people like Greg who IS troubled by OT divine violence language.
That's not to say that Greg won't come down on your side eventually. But he sees how the plausibility of a historically-recoverable Christ can only be grounded on the plausibility of textual readings--NOT apriori metaphysics, etc. And that creates the problem for him. It requires that his pacifistic views be explained somewhat differently.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/10/2008 7:51:47 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/10/2008 2:49 PM (GMT -6) | | | Sahid, destroy of course is a relative term . In the next day or two I'll quote some from the chapter in which he interacts with Yoder and the Anabaptist tradition. As with everything, it is subjective. I FEEL it destroys Yoder's arguments. But that may just be my own preconceptions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/10/2008 10:51 PM (GMT -6) | | J: I don't see how taking ownership for an action is the equivalent for "being judged."
Z: Neither do I.
J: Why this would be considered judgment, I don't know.
Z: Me neither.
J: Jesus' judgment language sounds, to me, clearly like the "forced to bear consequences" option that you attribute to being "held" responsible. There is passage after passage in the gospels that sound just that way. But what's more, there is NT language that sounds as if Christians themselves will "receive" for what they've done "in their body," whether good or evil. I don't know what that could possibly mean but consequences.
Z: I'm happy to look at individual passages. But a couple things first. My hermeneutic is going to give primacy to the actions and non-parabolic teachings of Jesus over his parables. This is not to say the parables are untrue or anything else horrifyingly liberal. It's just a recognition that Jesus used his capacity to speak poetically. When the God figure in a parable is a sleepy neighbor or an unjust judge, we have to look to the meaning of the parable rather than a literal interpretation of every detail. I think even the most dyed-in-wool fundamentalists would agree.
As to the sheep and goat teaching, this is not properly speaking a parable. So I think quite a bit of literalism is justified. It is intended to speak to the issue of actual participation in the Kingdom as opposed to mere lip service (or in Pauline terms: the relationship of faith and works). I admit that the consequences for sheep and goats are also described apart from parable or obvious metaphor, so I'm fairly comfortable taking them literally.
So I'm willing to admit that there is plenty of room for the belief that after death, at judgment God will force people to accept the consequences of their decisions. However, there is also room for the belief that the judgment of God requires no direct compulsion from God but rather that having "solidified" themselves against God, some will veer away from him at the crucial moment (I'm imagining Lewis' scene from the Last Battle). What makes me favor the second interpretation is that it posits the King acting consistently with Kingdom which Jesus proclaimed. The political titles Jesus transformed (Lord, King, Messiah, Master) are transformed specifically in the area of compulsion and dominance. The LORD submits to evil men who crucify him. The MASTER washes feet. I am more confident that the authority of the King in this teaching will be consistent with the Kingdom Jesus preached. The alternative is to posit two standards (which seems quite a lot like the pattern of Lordship/Kingship/Messiahship that Jesus came to put an end to).
J: I understand why you, as a pacifist, think God can not judge in terms of just consequences. But it is not a coincidence that even Greg (thus far, anyway), who is virtually a pacifist, can not see God as being pacifist. It's because it is well nigh impossible to explain biblical judgment language in a way compatible with divine pacifism.
Z: I think there is general agreement on this board that Greg's pacifism doesn't go far enough to be consistent. I like his trajectory, and I especially like that he is honest and open about his lingering questions, but I'm not going to give blanket approval to whatever he says. So, if we agree that Greg's pacifism is not yet consistent, is it a surprise that I have taken it further?
Also, I'd like to make it clear that the Bible takes higher priority than pacifism for me. There is no way I would consider pacifism if it weren't for the example of Jesus and the teachings of the apostles given in the Bible.
Finally, when you say it's "well nigh impossible to explain biblical judgment language in a way compatible with divine pacifism," I just say, "nuh uh." I'm happy to look at specifics; that's how I got here and how I hope to continue: looking deeply and reverently at the Bible. I think just like agricultural language could be utilized to make a spiritual point, judgment language can be used to make "non-judgment" points. Now wait. I know that doesn't quite work. But hear me out. Granted, I'm comparing appels and oranjes. But Jesus, of all people, can use language fundamentally opposed to his position (King, Master, etc.) because by looking at his life we are forced to give these terms radically new meaning. You are a king? "You are right." He says this while acting nothing like a king. And so we are drawn to see kingship anew. So he uses judgment language. He also lets a plot to betray him go on under his nose; he eats dinner with a man who is helping to oppress his people through taxation; he forgives his own killers. Answer me this: if he forgives them, can he also judge them? Can a square be a circle? If he offers forgiveness and some refuse, is it incorrect for me to say they choose their own fate?
J: And once reasonably plausible readings of texts have no value for ascertaining correct theology, we might as well just argue philosophy. Our time would be better spent that way, because the texts, in that case, are actually a troublesome distraction. And then several posts are made in the vain attempt to come to agreement on them. The problem with abandoning the texts , though, is that you want to prove pacifism FROM the texts. This approach seems problematic in the extreme, to me. And apparently it even seems problematic to people like Greg who IS troubled by OT divine violence language.
Z: Let's be clear: this is NOT what I'm proposing. I'm am NOT proposing that we abandon the texts. (Neither is Greg for that matter.) You have decided that my reading is "well nigh impossible". But as far as I can recall, I've answered every objection you've raised (and there have been quite a few). So, respectfully, I think your "well nigh impossible" call is ungrounded. My position is grounded in the Bible, so much so that this weekend when I was talking to an unbelieving friend about similar issues, I could barely form a coherent sentence. It just doesn't make any sense without a biblical starting point. So I will not just argue philosophy. It's pretentious but here it goes: I will only argue Christ and him crucified. I think that's where this discussion belongs. I answered each of a hundred different claims that my position is not consistent with Christ or not biblical. If it isn't, I want to be corrected. But I can't just buy that without reason.
J: That's not to say that Greg won't come down on your side eventually. But he sees how the plausibility of a historically-recoverable Christ can only be grounded on the plausibility of textual readings--NOT apriori metaphysics, etc. And that creates the problem for him. It requires that his pacifistic views be explained somewhat differently.
Z: Are you saying that my pacifism IS grounded on apriori metaphysics and not the plausibility of textual readings? If so, I strongly disagree. If I weren't committed to an honest reading of the scriptures, I would not be holding these views.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/10/2008 10:56:42 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 94 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:30 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 |
|
|