 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Greg's discussion of OT violence | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/11/2008 6:25 AM (GMT -6) |   | |
Zach: 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.
Jeff: This alone, though, means that the OT language and that of Acts is consistent with a non-pacifist God. That's why I'm still confused. How is God forcing people to accept the consequences of their decisions consistent with pacifism? Moreover, isn't that logically equivalent to saying that God also DETERMINES the consequences of their actions?
Zach: 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).
Jeff: Even so, you're still saying that God RESSURECTS them to be judged. The idea of God determining consequences and forcing them is STILL there. The only way your view can work, as I understand it, is if God never ressurects them at all. This is why I'm still confused. You don't seem to be positing a pacifist view of God/Christ with respect to judgment. Rather, you seem to be saying, as Greg is, that God is pacifist only at certain times and under certain conditions. But you don't seem to be trying to account for the differences as Greg is struggling to do.
The fact is, no one on this board, probably, thinks that people should never, under any circumstances, be pacifist. It's the absolute extreme to which you take pacifism that renders the idea of post-mortem divine judgment meaningless, to me.
With respect to your other question about forgiveness vs. judgment, I basically agree with you. When Christ my Master holds me accountable as an insubordinate servant, one might say that in that sense, he has not forgiven me of that insubordination. But my offences against the law of God are forgiven, and I'm reckoned as just by my faith. So I see my accountability to Christ, my master, as motivational--not determinative of whether I'll have eternal life.
In short, that realm of accountability has nothing to do with life vs. death as does sin against law. I think there's a logical reason why there is a judgment from a book of life AND a book of works. They don't have the exact same implication.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/11/2008 8:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: This alone, though, means that the OT language and that of Acts is consistent with a non-pacifist God.
Z: Yes. If we are ignoring Jesus for now.
J: That's why I'm still confused. How is God forcing people to accept the consequences of their decisions consistent with pacifism?
Z: This brings me back to self-annihilation. For those who do not want to live in a world of consequences, for those who just want to be left alone, there is no resurrection and no judgment. I'm not saying this group is comprised of anybody. I am saying that the mere availability of such an option renders the state of being "forced to accept the consequences" ultimately THEIR choice. That is, NOT ultimately God's choice - unless he has delegated this much, we have a unilateral foundation which makes all morality language a non-sequitur.
J: Moreover, isn't that logically equivalent to saying that God also DETERMINES the consequences of their actions?
Z: First of all, I'm not agreeing to the premise, so it's a moot point. But no, I'd say it's equivalent to saying God determines that there be consequences of their actions. But this is still something that I'd object to.
J: Even so, you're still saying that God RESSURECTS them to be judged.
Z: AND... I'm saying that God allows them to opt out of this whole scenario ahead of time through the option of self-annihilation.
J: The only way your view can work, as I understand it, is if God never ressurects them at all.
Z: Or if their ressurection is ultimately their call and not God's - which actually IS my position. Like any argument, if you leave one crucial point out, then of course it looks ridiculous.
J: You don't seem to be positing a pacifist view of God/Christ with respect to judgment...
Z: I'd prefer "Christlike" to pacifist, but like I said, you've left off self-annihilation.
J: With respect to your other question about forgiveness vs. judgment, I basically agree with you. When Christ my Master holds me accountable as an insubordinate servant, one might say that in that sense, he has not forgiven me of that insubordination. But my offences against the law of God are forgiven, and I'm reckoned as just by my faith.
Z: So the person of Christ does NOT forgive, but legally you still stand forgiven? I'm I reading this correctly?
J: In short, that realm of accountability has nothing to do with life vs. death as does sin against law. I think there's a logical reason why there is a judgment from a book of life AND a book of works. They don't have the exact same implication.
Z: Accountability is bookkeeping language just as forgiveness is. But if you can show some sort of divide in scripture between the two, I'd like to see it. Are you positing something like a distinction between mortal and venial sin? Dividing the realm of being held accountable/released from the realm of unforgiveness/forgiveness may work philosophically. You could have Christ personally not forgiving you but being bound to abide by the law which declares you forgiven. But making a case that this is biblical is going to be a lot more difficult.
It seems to me you must be using technical/exotic definitions of accountability, responsibility, and forgiveness that bear little resemblance to everyday language. I think my position makes more straight-forward use of these terms.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/11/2008 12:20:44 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/11/2008 8:56 PM (GMT -6) | | J: The only way your view can work, as I understand it, is if God never ressurects them at all.
Z: Or if their ressurection is ultimately their call and not God's - which actually IS my position. Like any argument, if you leave one crucial point out, then of course it looks ridiculous.
Jeff: How is it their call? They don't ressurect themselves, do they? And I certainly don't see why they would volunteer to be ressurected if they knew it was for their own judgment. Therefore, it's God's call best I can tell.
You said in the other thread that it is NOT loving to hold people accountable. Why ressurect them to judgment, then? This seems like a flat-out contradiction. You're the one that says God is not bound by any laws or nature. Then why does He freely CHOOSE to hold people accountable to standards of their own making?
The only argument I could see you making is that they are ASKING to be held accountable and God gives to those who ask. But first, it simply ain't so that people ask to be held accountable. On the contrary, most people believe that being held accountable is simply what it means for God to be just, and they don't know how a benevolent God could be unjust.
Second, certain Israelites accepted a covenant that they were told was made with them independent of their choosing. That's why they were circumsized (the seal of the covenant) as BABIES. I really don't know any one who thinks they have the power to unilaterally obligate God to a covenant of any kind.
Third, even if God grants accountability to those who ask for it, it seems obvious to me that they will ask for mercy once they see what that entails (like the rich man in the parable). So by that view, God would have to honor one request or the other. Which is to say that God can't give us everything we ask for in the first place. So we need a theology to explain how to distinguish.
Zach: It seems to me you must be using technical/exotic definitions of accountability, responsibility, and forgiveness that bear little resemblance to everyday language. I think my position makes more straight-forward use of these terms.
Jeff: Forget corporeal punishment for the sake of this analogy: When parents put kids in "time-out" or teachers have kids "write lines" or there is any such non-corporeal consequence brought to bear upon a kid by a supervising adult, do you assume that those kids are absolutely unforgiven in every sense of the word? I don't think most people do. And yet there ARE consequences for the actions. Those consequences are applied to motivate to a better type of human behavior, supposedly. You may call this wrong, as I'm sure you do. But I don't think people consider it proof there is no forgiveness of any kind.
Or take one closer to home. There may be kids in your class that are there involuntarily. Yet you impose tests upon them and give them bad grades if they do poorly, even though there can be negative consequences to failing in school. That doesn't mean you harbor anything other than complete acceptance for the kids in another sense. The point of the grades is to help them know what to improve in FOR THEIR OWN SAKES.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/11/2008 9:19:21 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/11/2008 10:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: How is it their call? They don't ressurect themselves, do they? And I certainly don't see why they would volunteer to be ressurected if they knew it was for their own judgment. Therefore, it's God's call best I can tell.
Z: I'm discouraged because after all this time we are still at the point of defining my position. Here's a stupid analogy.
My friends are going to a drive-in movie. I choose to get in the car with them. Am I driving myself to the movie? No. Is it my call whether I go to the movie? Yes. If I don't like the movie, do I have anybody but myself to blame? No, I could have looked up a review online, or I could have stayed home.
J: ...if they knew it was for their judgment...
Z: I never made this claim either. If fact I've already spoken to this. In the teaching of the sheep and goats Jesus makes it clear that some will be surprised, and I thought I made myself clear that I agreed.
From a couple days ago... "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'."
J: Then why does He freely CHOOSE to hold people accountable to standards of their own making?
Z: Because it is their choice to make lasting decisions or not. Because he is is not the one "holding" them. The way you phrase it leaves out a crucial point. I would ask the question this way:
Then why does He freely CHOOSE to let people make lasting decisions?
or...
Then why doesn't God just force us to be godly?
We both believe that God DOES allow us to make bad choices, right? I'm just arguing that this stance is standard for God (because it is the natural growth of (or prerequisite for) love).
J: The only argument I could see you making is that they are ASKING to be held accountable and God gives to those who ask. But first, it simply ain't so that people ask to be held accountable. On the contrary, most people believe that being held accountable is simply what it means for God to be just, and they don't know how a benevolent God could be unjust.
Z: Like I said, I'm getting a little frustrated, because I thought I spelled it out pretty clearly. Whenever your understanding of my position involves "being held accountable," you can go ahead and assume this is not actually my position. My position is that they have "taken" a path of consequences. They are people who got into the car not bothering to find out about the movie, so it's their own fault that it's bad. Of course the metaphor breaks down. I much prefer the Last Battle scene.
J: Second, certain Israelites accepted a covenant that they were told was made with them independent of their choosing. That's why they were circumsized (the seal of the covenant) as BABIES.
Z: Then why did the next generation of adults after Moses renew the covenant at Shechem? Remember I'm granting progressive revelation.
J: I really don't know any one who thinks they have the power to unilaterally obligate God to a covenant of any kind.
Z: huh? I don't think that either.
J: Third, even if God grants accountability to those who ask for it, it seems obvious to me that they will ask for mercy once they see what that entails (like the rich man in the parable). So by that view, God would have to honor one request or the other. Which is to say that God can't give us everything we ask for in the first place. So we need a theology to explain how to distinguish.
Z: Ok, let's look at that parable.
"And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us."
Apparently, God chooses to honor the decision we make in life. Another bad analogy, when the man in the movie says, "Whatever you hear me saying, don't open this door," are we to honor this request or the one he makes while inside? Now I'm NOT saying that this request is explicitly or even consciously made. But I am saying it is made (or not in the case of self-annihilation). Just as a drunk driver is responsible for his own actions behind the wheel even if he is "not himself" at the time, we are responsible (or not in the case of self-annihilation) for the choices we make even if we have failed to think them through. We are not "held" responsible, but we have already "taken" responsibility (or not in the case of self-annihilation).
J: ...do you assume that those kids are absolutely unforgiven in every sense of the word?
Z: Maybe not in a poetic or metaphorical sense. But in reality, in the basic sense of the word, YES, they are not forgiven. That's what forgiven means.
J: I don't think most people do.
Z: Then most people must not be using the word the same way Jesus and Paul did. I think both of them would be (and actually were) outraged by the idea that we can merely summon a feeling called forgiveness and then act unforgivingly.
J: But I don't think people consider it proof there is no forgiveness of any kind.
Z: What kind? Private? Internal? Certainly not actual.
(Don't let this get into the ethics of parenting. I don't know. I leaned one way, now I'm leaning the other.)
J: Or take one closer to home. There may be kids in your class that are there involuntarily. Yet you impose tests upon them and give them bad grades if they do poorly, even though there can be negative consequences to failing in school. That doesn't mean you harbor anything other than complete acceptance for the kids in another sense. The point of the grades is to help them know what to improve in FOR THEIR OWN SAKES.
Z: Talking about children muddies the waters. Let's assume I teach college classes to adults in order to clear this up.
Now, none of them are in there involuntarily. So it cannot be said that I "impose" tests. I do give them grades, but that is what they signed up for. There are consequences for doing poorly, but I think we both agree that they are fully THEIR responsibility, which they have "taken". Now I may harbor "passing feelings" for them, whatever that may mean, but in actuality if I fail them for missing assignments, I have not forgiven their missing assignments. All the nice feelings in the world don't change this fact. Neither do all the nice words or thoughts or prayers or further acts of kindness I do for them. I doesn't matter if I don't forgive "for their own sakes." It is still the case that I don't forgive.
One of Webster's six definitions of forgiveness fit this internal/not actual meaning. Most dictionaries I've looked up stick to "actual" meanings. The word means "set free," "release." To do this internally, but not externally betrays the meaning.
afihmi,v {af-ee'-ay-mee}
1) to send away 1a) to bid going away or depart 1a1) of a husband divorcing his wife 1b) to send forth, yield up, to expire 1c) to let go, let alone, let be 1c1) to disregard 1c2) to leave, not to discuss now, (a topic) 1c21) of teachers, writers and speakers 1c3) to omit, neglect 1d) to let go, give up a debt, forgive, to remit 1e) to give up, keep no longer 2) to permit, allow, not to hinder, to give up a thing to a person 3) to leave, go way from one 3a) in order to go to another place 3b) to depart from any one 3c) to depart from one and leave him to himself so that all mutual claims are abandoned 3d) to desert wrongfully 3e) to go away leaving something behind 3f) to leave one by not taking him as a companion 3g) to leave on dying, leave behind one 3h) to leave so that what is left may remain, leave remaining 3i) abandon, leave destitute
And still, where do you see this distinction in scripture in connection to the forgiveness of Jesus?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/11/2008 10:43:06 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/12/2008 8:46 AM (GMT -6) | | | Zach, your analogy about going to the movie misses the crucial point. No one is making you watch the movie at any point. You could ask to get out of the car. You could stay in the car and sleep or read a book. You could go to Starbucks til the movie was over. You could sit in the movie theater and sleep or daydream. In this world, choices don't always bear out. We have the ability to CHANGE OUR MIND. You're saying God will not let us change our mind on this one choice unless we do so in JUST that way that results in the conversion He prefers.
I don't see how THAT God you're describing is the one you keep saying doesn't hold people accountable. It seems like a downright contradiction to me to say that, for some reason, this God won't allow people to change their mind about the one previous decision that will result in possibly their greatest suffering. People are called covenant-breakers precisely BECAUSE they change their mind about the implications of their covenants. And God does nothing to stop this, regardless the extremity of the consequences to the other human parties.
As I'm understanding you, it is this same non-intervention by God that is so now that you appeal to to demonstrate what God is LIKE. But if you're saying that eventually God is going to hold people accountable, then what He is passing over now is not the crucial point about what God is LIKE, is it? In that case, God's current non-intervention is not the whole story about what God is like, at all. In that case, we can't know that it was not the Holy Spirit that acted in association with the words of Paul and Peter in Acts. That is precisely Greg's point, too.
It also seems like a stretch in the extreme to claim that teenagers are incapable of involuntary states.
I'll try to find time to find some scriptures that you ask for. But off the top of my head, there are three that might ring your bell.
1) In II Cor., Paul talks about "knowing the fear of the Lord" grounded in the fact that we shall all stand before the judgment seat of the Lord and receive for what was done in our body, whether good or evil.
2) In Colossians, Paul tells masters how to treat their slaves knowing they have a Master in heavens since they who do wrong will receive for the wrong.
3) In 1 Thess, Paul tells them that God will avenge the "defrauding?" of their brother.
Also, Jesus says in a parable in the gospels somewhere that some servants will be beat as the unbelievers for their insubordination. In the Rev., it speaks of reward for works, both good and bad.
I'm assuming the definition you gave was for the word "remit" rather than "forgiveness." There are two different greek words for those. I agree that "remit" means what you are contending for. But it is also true that scripture consistently portrays remittance of sins as CONDITIONAL on repentance, even when it is by a baptism of repentance, etc.
Tom is arguing that God forgives unconditionally. He is not saying that consequences are remitted unconditionally. Lewis made this point in saying that we can forgive our neighbor for harming us, but only God can remit their post-mortem accountability to the wrong they've done. Hence, forgiveness and remission are distinct in certain cases and senses.
All that is necessary to ground the distinction between the two, with respect to consequences in this life, is that certain consequences motivate unto better behavior. If this is the case, then consequences can be applied for that reason alone. We say it is holding people accountable not because there is some law outside of God that He is adhering to. Rather, we say people are being held to account in the sense that, because of justice, it just so happens that specific consequences ARE the best consequences to motivate unto better behavior. Rational people know that just consequences are the only ones a benevolent God can apply, short of revealing to us something better.
The same kind of thing works in a corporation. The corporation has consequences, both positive and negative, to motivate people. There is no law outside of the corporation that dictates these motivators (though outside laws can rule some out). It is their own sense of what works best statistically given human nature, etc. These consequences can include being sent home for a time without pay and so forth.
But it is still appropriate to say people are being held accountable when corporations apply these negative consequences. Because those consequences are, for the most part, known to be applicable to employees, per a stated corporate policy. But applying these negative consequences does not mean that people are unforgiven in the sense that they are fired or that they will be treated with other than normal relational dignity and respect otherwise.
So when Christ and Paul tell us of certain distinct ways to deal with believers who are unrepentant of certain wrongs, those are consequences that are intended to motivate to better behavior. But they do not contradict the fact that we forgive them in the case we were wronged in the circumstance.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/12/2008 9:21:33 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/12/2008 9:29 AM (GMT -6) | | J: Zach, your analogy about going to the movie misses the crucial point. No one is making you watch the movie at any point.
Z: Yeah, I know, that's why it was bad. So, make the car something else more "irrevocable"... like my second analogy of the man who says, "Whatever I say, don't open this door"... or a flight to the city of the Lord's presence. Once you get on the plane, there is no going back. Your view would have God preventing us from making such choices. I am saying that we are capable of making irrevocable decisions and God allows us to make them. Once you are in the Lord's presence, how will you handle it? Will you rush toward him in love or will you veer away in disgust?
J: You're saying God will not let us change our mind on this one choice unless we do so in JUST that way that results in the conversion He prefers.
Z: No, I'm saying God will let us make irrevocable choices.
J: But if you're saying that eventually God is going to hold people accountable,
Z: No.
J: It also seems like a stretch in the extreme to claim that teenagers are incapable of involuntary states.
Z: huh?
J: 1) In II Cor., Paul talks about "knowing the fear of the Lord" grounded in the fact that we shall all stand before the judgment seat of the Lord and receive for what was done in our body, whether good or evil.
2) In Colossians, Paul tells masters how to treat their slaves knowing they have a Master in heavens since they who do wrong will receive for the wrong.
3) In 1 Thess, Paul tells them that God will avenge the "defrauding?" of their brother.
Z: So is it your claim that these sins fall into the category of "unforgivable"? This really does seem like a mortal/venial distinction. From the first one, we'd have to say that ALL sins are this unforgivable sort. Don't let me put words in your mouth, but are you supposing that "forgiveness" is the state of having only the worst consequence (hell) removed but having all other consequences unforgiven?
J: Also, Jesus says in a parable in the gospels somewhere that some servants will be beat as the unbelievers for their deriliction of duty. In the Rev., it speaks of reward for works, both good and bad.
Z: Like the sheep and goats, I would take this to be a defense of "works salvation". I have no problem with this if we understand that they are "works of faith". After all, faith without works is dead. If one has no works, then one has no faith, and if one has no faith, then how can he hope for salvation? I do not suppose a judgment according to faith existing alongside and separate from a judgment according to works where heaven and hell is not at stake (purgatory?) I can see that there is room for such a belief, but I see it requiring a more strained reading.
J: I'm assuming the definition you gave was for the word "remit" rather than "forgiveness." There are two different greek words for those. I agree that "remit" means what you are contending for.
Z: I posted afiemi. That's the standard word for forgiveness as I recall. It's the one in the Lord's prayer. It's been a couple years since I studied Greek, so if you know another word, let me know... I'm rusty.
J: But it is also true that scripture consistently portrays remittance of sins as CONDITIONAL on repentance, even when it is by a baptism of repentance, etc.
Z: And I agree. That is the part of my position I thought you were disagreeing with.
J: Tom is arguing that God forgives unconditionally. He is not saying that consequences are remitted unconditionally.
Z: IF Tom is arguing that, then I sharply disagree (mostly with the idea that forgiveness is different from remission). But it takes two. I think that's our disagreement. God can do all the one-sided unconditional forgiving he wants, and that does nothing to change our state of being unforgiven. We must ACCEPT forgiveness for it to be "active". This acceptance involves both faith and works - both believing with your heart and confessing with your mouth. I was under the impression that Tom agreed.
J: Lewis made this point in saying that we can forgive our neighbor for harming us, but only God can remit their post-mortem accountability to the wrong they've done. Hence, forgiveness and remission are distinct in certain cases and senses.
Z: But this is not the distinction we were talking about. When I forgive my neighbor, am I not also remitting his accountability to me for the wrong he's done? Let's imagine that this is not the case. I forgive but don't remit. Is that what Jesus means when he says, "...as we have forgiven our debtors"? Are we to extend a feeling of forgiveness and still demand our money back? Is that biblical forgiveness?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/12/2008 9:35:37 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/12/2008 10:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Z: When I forgive my neighbor, am I not also remitting his accountability to me for the wrong he's done? Let's imagine that this is not the case. I forgive but don't remit. Is that what Jesus means when he says, "...as we have forgiven our debtors"? Are we to extend a feeling of forgiveness and still demand our money back? Is that biblical forgiveness?
J: In some cases, like money, you can both forgive and remit in the sense that you can postpone the accountability by not holding them to account in this life via civil government--but you can NOT remit their post-mortem accountability for that wrong-doing. There are other cases where you can only forgive, because remittance is impossible insomuch as there is no consequence that you can justly apply even if you wanted to.
But you're saying we are to remit because God does. Yet you're also saying that God remits only if we repent. But you don't say that about your neighbor. You say we should forgive them whether they repent or not. So I still don't see how your argument is working for you if you're claiming our forgiveness/remittance is to be a copy of God's.
The word "forgive" used in Eph. 4:32, Col. 2:13, 3:13, Luke 7:42,43, 2 Cor. 2:7,10, 12:13 is "charizomai" per my Vines. It is defined by Vines as "to bestow a favour unconditionally, is used of the act of forgiveness, whether divine .... or human."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/14/2008 12:56 AM (GMT -6) | | J: In some cases, like money, you can both forgive and remit in the sense that you can postpone the accountability by not holding them to account in this life via civil government--but you can NOT remit their post-mortem accountability for that wrong-doing. There are other cases where you can only forgive, because remittance is impossible insomuch as there is no consequence that you can justly apply even if you wanted to.
Z: Ignoring Matt 18:18 and however it is to be interpreted, I agree.
J: But you're saying we are to remit because God does. Yet you're also saying that God remits only if we repent. But you don't say that about your neighbor. You say we should forgive them whether they repent or not. So I still don't see how your argument is working for you if you're claiming our forgiveness/remittance is to be a copy of God's.
Z: I'm saying that God respects the decision of those who check the "Do not remit" box on their form.
Let's standardize our vocabulary. For this the rest of this post I'll only use "forgive" in the sense of a feeling or attitude, and I'll only use "remit" in the sense of acting upon/in accordance with that feeling.
In the case of both God and me, forgiveness is given unconditionally. In the case of both God and me, remission is only achieved by the recipient's acceptance of it. In the case of both God and me, the forgiveness/remission/reconciliation process is taken as far as is possible.
J: The word "forgive" used in Eph. 4:32, Col. 2:13, 3:13, Luke 7:42,43, 2 Cor. 2:7,10, 12:13 is "charizomai" per my Vines. It is defined by Vines as "to bestow a favour unconditionally, is used of the act of forgiveness, whether divine .... or human."
Z: Which, if any, or these do you claim speak to the idea that God legally/objectively remits without forgiving? Am I even understanding your position correctly?
It seems that you are saying that we can have our sins remitted in terms of their heaven and hell consequences, while at the same time not having these same sins remitted in terms of their lesser consequences. If this is the case, then it's not the forgiveness/remission distinction that's really at issue, since the same sins are remitted/not-remitted in respect to their different "levels" of punishment. This seems quite a bit like purgatory. Is this a fair summary of your position?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/14/2008 12:58:07 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/14/2008 1:44 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/15/2008 8:00 AM (GMT -6) | | Do we agree about how God "judges" or "exercises wrath on" the nations? By making best use of sinful acts which he did not cause. We both believe that the Babylonian invasion was a "the wrath of God" and also a sin, don't we? And we both believe that God doesn't cause anyone to sin, don't we?
So applying this understanding to what is said in these links about wrath, I think what is said there is very close to what I'm saying. I don't know what he thinks about self-annihilation. But otherwise I think this matches me.
Now what about this:
J: The word "forgive" used in Eph. 4:32, Col. 2:13, 3:13, Luke 7:42,43, 2 Cor. 2:7,10, 12:13 is "charizomai" per my Vines. It is defined by Vines as "to bestow a favour unconditionally, is used of the act of forgiveness, whether divine .... or human."
Z: Which, if any, or these do you claim speak to the idea that God legally/objectively remits without forgiving? Am I even understanding your position correctly?
It seems that you are saying that we can have our sins remitted in terms of their heaven and hell consequences, while at the same time not having these same sins remitted in terms of their lesser consequences. If this is the case, then it's not the forgiveness/remission distinction that's really at issue, since the same sins are remitted/not-remitted in respect to their different "levels" of punishment. This seems quite a bit like purgatory. Is this a fair summary of your position?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/15/2008 9:50 AM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
Do we agree about how God "judges" or "exercises wrath on" the nations? By making best use of sinful acts which he did not cause. We both believe that the Babylonian invasion was a "the wrath of God" and also a sin, don't we? And we both believe that God doesn't cause anyone to sin, don't we?
Hi Jeff,
If you agree with Zach, as he suggest above, then how do you remedy this schizophrenic god that would be characterized? Let me scratch my head and ask, how does any god “exercise wrath” that “he did not cause”? Hmmm… maybe it’s this “passive god” that turns his cheek to evil. Excuse me my head is getting dizzy, is god a poser of pacifism or an imposter of justice? Please help me out. 
Thanks,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/15/2008 7:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Z: It seems that you are saying that we can have our sins remitted in terms of their heaven and hell consequences, while at the same time not having these same sins remitted in terms of their lesser consequences. If this is the case, then it's not the forgiveness/remission distinction that's really at issue, since the same sins are remitted/not-remitted in respect to their different "levels" of punishment. This seems quite a bit like purgatory. Is this a fair summary of your position?
J: It gets more to what I said about the book of life vs. the book of works. The penalty (wage) of sin is death--not judgment. To my mind, judgment for works is about motivation. It's just that people can not come up with any other RATIONAL scheme of motivational consequences than justice. All else is arbitrary. We are told from our youth that God is just. This seems imminently reasonable to us since. So most people don't question it. To my mind, the alternative is that there is only death and no ressurection unto a judgment for works.
One could say that God only motivates with positive motivation, but Christ talks a whole lot about negative motivation, too. I think we're all motivated more effectively by positive motivation for some things and more effectively by negative motivation for other things. And these differences have to do with our strengths and weaknesses. When love is perfected in us, fear may have no role.
As far as providence, I think God "hardened" Pharoah's heart in the sense that Pharoah was sufficiently solidified that God could know how he would respond to Moses. In that sense, God "hardened" his heart and knew it beforehand. In another sense, Pharoah hardened his own heart. I think the same kind of reasoning applies to Babylon being used to punish Israel in accordance with the prophecies in Deuteronomy. God uses the soldification of persons and groups of persons to providentially bring about His own ends.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 4/15/2008 8:01:26 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 4/17/2008 1:15 AM (GMT -6) | | The truth that I don't believe this proposition? You'll just have to take my word for it. How can I prove to you that I really don't believe it?
But sure, I'll play along.
But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person.
Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
For our struggle is not against flesh and blood
Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
The disciples said, "See, Lord, here are two swords."
"That is enough," he replied.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 4/17/2008 1:34:14 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 4/17/2008 3:45 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
Mark, I believe it, because Jesus taught it, lived it, and died it.
Zach, please define who Jesus is on the following thread:
Thanks,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
| 94 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:23 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 |
|
|