 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > A Critique of a Critique of Eller's Thesis | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/21/2008 12:22 PM (GMT -6) |   | | J: When Jesus told the disciples, in the Sermon, that we are to be perfect in benevolence to our enemies as God is, since He rains on the just and the unjust, what were they to assume was the cause of a famine? In other words, was Jesus saying that God is the volitional cause of rain but not famines?
Z: It context it seems that is exactly what is implied. Otherwise, Jesus is being very confusing. I've never read a serious commentary that says otherwise, although I admit I don't read many commentaries.
J: First of all, you said previously that you don't rule out the possibility that God uses natural evils providentially. But maybe you had retracted that. Can't remember. Second, I was under the impression that most biblical commentators thought that weather in general, rain or drought, was a natural, as opposed to volitional, phenomenon. That's not to say that they deny that God COULD volitionally cause either rain or famine for His purposes.
Granted, there are those who say that all events but those directly caused by volitional choices are caused by God as He literally sustains creation in its very existence (meaning that apart from God's continual, intentional causation of creational existence, the world would instantaneously cease to exist). But this view would be in contradiction to what you call "serious commentators" if, indeed, serious commentators believe that famines are not caused by God. If I'm wrong, here, help me think it through.
So what commentator actually says that rain is always volitionally, as opposed to naturally, caused, whereas famine and drought are natural or volitionally caused by beings other than God? Besides Calvinists, i.e. For they think God is the final cause of everything--good and evil. Whereas we believe humans and angels are volitional, and hence final causes, as well.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 6/21/2008 12:41:06 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/21/2008 2:30 PM (GMT -6) | | J: First of all, you said previously that you don't rule out the possibility that God uses natural evils providentially. But maybe you had retracted that.
Z: You weren't asking what I thought about natural evil. You asked about the implications of Jesus' teaching. I've not retracted my earlier comment. The "famine" in this context is less than figurative. It's not even mentioned. Rain can be unpleasant. Rain can be considered natural evil.
The matter at hand, what Jesus was talking about was God's blessing irrespective of the righteousness of the recipient, and our imitation of this practice. In that context there is not even a mention of God's teaching through discipline and suffering (which is where I'd categorize your famine). That's a more subtle distinction than Jesus was making here. Since I don't believe God meticulously directs every raindrop and photon, I don't think this verse has anything to do with particular appearances of sun and rain. It does have to do with God's sustenance and blessing.
J: Second, I was under the impression that most biblical commentators thought that weather in general, rain or drought, was a natural, as opposed to volitional, phenomenon.
Z: Like I said, I don't know about commentaries. Most I've read tend to stay on the surface, so I stopped bothering with them. I've heard Calvin's are good; maybe I should give them a try. What do you think about weather and God's will?
J: But this view would be in contradiction to what you call "serious commentators" if, indeed, serious commentators believe that famines are not caused by God. If I'm wrong, here, help me think it through.
Z: I'm lost. Who are you referring to here? Different writers say different things.
J: So what commentator actually says that rain is always volitionally, as opposed to naturally, caused, whereas famine and drought are natural or volitionally caused by beings other than God? Besides Calvinists, i.e. For they think God is the final cause of everything--good and evil. Whereas we believe humans and angels are volitional, and hence final causes, as well.
Z: I'll tell you what I think. I think God probably leaves weather to do its own thing most of the time. I believe God designed creation with us in mind so that things like weather are blessings even when he is not intervening in them meticulously. So God "causing the sun to rise" and "sending rain" is not a reference to individual acts but to an overarching loving attitude and movement. I think your comments miss the forest for the trees. Jesus used an analogy that may or may not correlate in the details. Nevertheless, the main point is clear: God gives his blessings without respect to the recipient's righteousness or unrighteousness; we should do the same. To act otherwise is pagan.
Matt 5 relates only tangentially to natural evil. If the meaning of the text does not relate to natural evil, then we'd better be careful drawing such implications. If Jesus' metaphors here have unacceptable repercussions for natural evil when picked apart to a degree unsupported by the text, then so be it. We could take it a step further. Jesus must be saying something unique about miners upon whom the sun does not shine and the rain does not fall. We could discuss the theological implications of mining with respect to this verse. But to do so we'd be straining gnats and missing the camel.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 6/21/2008 2:34:30 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/21/2008 4:20 PM (GMT -6) | | | Z: You weren't asking what I thought about natural evil. You asked about the implications of Jesus' teaching.
J: Maybe I'm confused. I haven't had time to hang with this discussion. But I was thinking of "natural" as being NOT "volitional." And I asked this, with that distinction in mind:
When Jesus told the disciples, in the Sermon, that we are to be perfect in benevolence to our enemies as God is, since He rains on the just and the unjust, what were they to assume was the cause of a famine? In other words, was Jesus saying that God is the volitional cause of rain but not famines?
So maybe you missed the relevance of the words "volitional cause of rain." If God is not volitionally tinkering with weather, then Christ's point can mean just what most people take it to mean. Most people assume that it means that we are to try to overcome evil with good. Seemingly, there were those who, especially the Pharisees who had turned all Mosaic laws on their intended heads for their own self-interest, LITERALLY SAID "hate your enemies." Yet there is no verse in the OT that even says that, to my knowledge. It was their interpretation, ONLY.
But taken the way most people take it, it doesn't have anything to do with the propriety of taking legal recourse for the protection of society from murderers, etc. And I was thinking you thought the Sermon ruled that out too. Sometimes you use this very passage in the Sermon. But if God, Himself, brings the "good" from the rain as well as the "evil," how are we to imitate God in bringing about evil? Jesus specifically says in this passage, be perfect as your Father in heaven, for He rains on the just AND the unjust.
Most people say we are NOT to imitate God in every respect. And that is the point. You have said you are re-thinking this issue. I'm just trying to see how you can get a radically anti-government view out of the Sermon if we are not to imitate God in every respect. Christ specifically said that the Father avenges. So I'm trying to understand the ground for your radical anti-state view.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 6/22/2008 3:06 AM (GMT -6) | | "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
"causes his son to rise" and "sends rain" mean "bless". That is my interpretation. To say that the son and rain are blessings AND curses is to create a pretty difficult hermeneutic knot since this would give the last half of v. 45 little to no bearing on the surrounding text.
So, let me ask this: Are we in agreement that Jesus is here using "son" and "rain" as examples of blessings and not curses?
If so, then it is no stretch at all to summarize this passage as saying: The Father blesses irrespective of worthiness; so should you.
If not, then why does Jesus preface and conclude the passage the way he does? Jesus never hints and "good rain" and "evil rain". And such an interpretation makes the passage as a whole nonsensically contradictory.
My point is not that we must imitate God in every conceivable respect. But we are specifically called to imitate the Father in THIS respect.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 6/22/2008 7:48 PM (GMT -6) | | | Z: So, let me ask this: Are we in agreement that Jesus is here using "son" and "rain" as examples of blessings and not curses?
J: Yes, in the context that's what it seems to be referring to. But you had answered in the affirmative to my question about famines being non-volitionally caused and rain being volitionally caused--hence the confusion. You really weren't meaning to answer affirmatively to the WAY I worded the question, after all.
Z: My point is not that we must imitate God in every conceivable respect. But we are specifically called to imitate the Father in THIS respect.
J: Ok, but since Jesus says the Father avenges and that judgment is given to him, what specific texts do you think rule out the possibility that God has delegated His vengeance to man in the form of civil government (not personal vengeance--most christians agree that individuals are not to avenge themselves)? The torah itself says "Vengeance is Mine, saith the Lord," while simultaneously providing for civil government. Paul seems to be doing the exact same thing in Rom 13. Jesus' words can be taken the same way. In fact, I can't imagine what else Jesus would have been saying since the mere fact that someone's picture is on a coin doesn't mean it belongs to them. I don't think my quarters belong to George Washington. Nor do I think God thinks my quarters belong to George Washinton.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/5/2008 3:51 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Z: Let me know what passage you are referring to where "Jesus says the Father avenges".
J: Luke 18:7-8. Compare that with Luke 21:22 where Christ says of future hard times that they are the "days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled." In line with this last, Christ, per Luke 2:18-19, said he was about the fulfilling of the scripture of Isaiah 61:1-2. But Christ leaves off right where Isaiah adds a bit about divine vengeance. It says, "The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me ... to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the DAY OF VENGEANCE OF OUR GOD.
The whole NT ties God's wrath to a coming divine vengeance. Paul says give place to vengeance for "Vengeance is MINE saith the Lord." 1st & 2nd Thess. are explicit about the vengeance of the Lord. Christ himself told people to fear Him who could destroy both body and soul in Gehenna. WHat sense would it have made to say that if, in fact, God would only do so at the wish of the subject. In that case, Jesus wouldn't have said fear God. He would have said fear yourself for being so stupid to wish age-abiding torment upon yourself, because God is going to give you exactly what you wish even though He'd rather not do it.
But it seems to me we have no compelling scriptural evidence that God gives everyone exactly what they wish for in the first place. Right after Jesus says "ask and ye shall receive," he says "seek and ye shall find," thereby making the absolute nature of the first phrase hard to believe. James seems right that asking is a necessary condition, but not always a sufficient condition of receiving/finding.
Jesus, elsewhere, conditioned the receiving of things asked for upon faith, the will of God, and even the admission of being a gentile "dog." He said they were to pray (i.e., ask, for all practical purposes) that God's will be done one earth. And it does indeed seem to create an existential contradiction to say God gives everyone what they want, anyway.
Hence, I have no reason to believe God gives everyone everything they want. So I would need to know from which verses you are inferring that God will give them age-abiding torment simply because they want it or ask for it. I would also need to know how you know anyone DOES want age-abiding torment. I have a hard time believing there is such a person, or that Christ believed there was such a person.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 7/5/2008 4:17:45 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/6/2008 2:34 AM (GMT -6) | | J: But Christ leaves off right where Isaiah adds a bit about divine vengeance.
Z: It doesn't take much imagination to guess how I might respond to this.
J: Paul says give place to vengeance for "Vengeance is MINE saith the Lord."
Z: Yes, but Paul brings an entirely new interpretation to bear upon this passage.
J: 1st & 2nd Thess. are explicit about the vengeance of the Lord.
Z: Ok. Let's get to it.
The wrath of God has come upon them at last. -1 Thess 2:16
It is God's will that you should be sanctified... ...The Lord will punish men for all such sins, as we have already told you and warned you. -1Thess 4:3, 6
While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. -1 Thess 5:3
He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power. -2 Thess 1: 8-9
That's all I could find apart from the man of lawlessness stuff. I think that would muddy the waters, but if you want to talk about it too, I'm game. Quite simply, I agree with all this. I read "punish" in the same way to Paul treats the theme in Romans. What specifically do you see that conflicts my views?
J: WHat sense would it have made to say that if, in fact, God would only do so at the wish of the subject.
Z: Ah... that's not exactly what I've expressed, is it?
J: In that case, Jesus wouldn't have said fear God. He would have said fear yourself for being so stupid to wish age-abiding torment upon yourself, because God is going to give you exactly what you wish even though He'd rather not do it.
Z: I've repeatedly said that those who "assign themselves" to destruction often do not know what they are getting themselves into. I'll say it again: Those who "assign themselves" to destruction often do not know what they are getting themselves into. I'll say it a third time: Those who "assign themselves" to destruction often do not know what they are getting themselves into. You are quite correct in rejecting the perversion of my view that leaves this out. But since we both understand that I have repeatedly and consistently affirmed this point, there is no real difference between the two alternative teachings of Jesus which you offer. In fact Jesus quite frequently DOES warn people to stop being foolish. The foolish man described by Jesus tends to have missed some key element of the big picture, a key element the neglect of which leads to destruction... exactly what I've been talking about.
J: But it seems to me we have no compelling scriptural evidence that God gives everyone exactly what they wish for in the first place.
Z: I agree completely. "Exactly what they wish for" is completely lacking from by position. I think you've confused me with someone else - someone made of straw.
J: And it does indeed seem to create an existential contradiction to say God gives everyone what they want, anyway.
Z: Yes.
J: Hence, I have no reason to believe God gives everyone everything they want.
Z: Ditto.
J: I would also need to know how you know anyone DOES want age-abiding torment.
Z: Well, it's beside the point since that's not my position in the first place. But I do think there are people who want to suffer. I've met some of them. It's sad. I hesitate to do this, but here goes... ***DISCLAIMER*** I do NOT give my approval of ANYTHING in this movie, but to get a sense of what I'm talking (it regards to this specific issue, not judgment overall) about watch "What Dreams May Come" with Robin Williams and Cuba Gooding. There are lots of messed up people out there.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/6/2008 2:38:51 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/6/2008 8:47 AM (GMT -6) | | J: Paul says give place to vengeance for "Vengeance is MINE saith the Lord."
Z: Yes, but Paul brings an entirely new interpretation to bear upon this passage.
J: And what would that interpretation be? Also, what did Jesus mean when he said the Father would avenge His elect?
Personally, to say GIVE PLACE to vengeance for the Lord says VENGEANCE IS MINE makes it pretty clear, to me, that God does the very vengeance He forbids us to do. So help me see what Paul is really saying, here. What else does "give place" mean other than to not usurp?
Post Edited (Similtude) : 7/6/2008 9:12:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/6/2008 1:41 PM (GMT -6) | | The wrath of God is being [present tense] revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness...
Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man...
For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— because anyone who has died has been freed from sin.
I'm sure I could find some more, but these will do.
First, this: "What else does 'give place' mean other than to not usurp?" This is not the point of our disagreement. The issue is the nature of God's vengeance/wrath/punishment. Throughout Romans, Paul's dominant themes are sin, death, faith/grace, and life. When describing the state of the sinner, he freely moves from language of natural consequence to language of punishment, e.g. "death reigned... ...judgment followed". Strictly and literally speaking, both cannot be true. It cannot be the case that death reigned and also that God reigned, 'God' is not synonymous with 'death'. But Paul goes ahead and uses them almost interchangeably. What happens to the sinner? Well, he reaps the death that he sows, AND this is the punishment of God. Just as Old Testament prophets saw the sinful acts of bloodthirsty empires as the vengeance of God, Paul sees the patently non-God consequences of sin as appropriated by God within his wrath.
The Eastern church sees sin as disease. The Western church sees sin as crime. The East sees man as the victim of sin. The West sees man as the perpetrator of sin. Strictly speaking, these two perspectives cannot be reconciled. But Paul goes back and forth between them without batting an eye. He describes the same one event in two ways: God's punishment and sin's culmination. He sees God's wrath as already being revealed. He sees man simultaneously enslaved to sin and subject to God's punishment.
Not to sound too pretentious, but I think I'm following in the tradition of the prophets and Paul (and Jesus: Luke 13, John 9) in recognizing 'natural' and man-made disasters as God's wrath while at the same time not necessarily being God's direct action. Sure, God hardened Pharaoh's heart, sent the Babylonian army, caused the tower of Siloam to fall, and caused the man to be born blind. But he 'did' these things after they were directly caused by other means. Pharaoh, Nebuchadrezzar, gravity, and birth defects also had a little something to do with these events. If we are going to speak with precision we'd have to lay the blame for the oppression of the Jews at Pharaoh's feet and not Yahweh's. But speaking theologically and more loosely, God sent them down to be oppressed and then released them to display his glory. It's when this latter interpretation is taken too literally that I (and Jesus in Luke 13 and John 9) have a problem.
That's not to say that I disbelieve Jesus when he says "you will likewise perish". It is just to say that while affirming these words, I have not forgotten his immediately preceding teaching.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/6/2008 2:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | Don't have time to respond to the second half. But none of the verses you quote by Paul prove what you are positing. Death is one thing. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, money for money, is something else altogether. We have no right to do the latter anymore than kill someone in vengeance. Yet Paul tells me to give place to vengeance in general, not just that resulting in death.
Paul says in 1 Thess that christians who have been defrauded by their brothers will be avenged by God. That can't mean death if they also receive eternal life by virtue of being a christian brother. Unless you think it means pre-parousia death. In that case, you would have to say that any christian that defrauds his brother will be "prematurely" killed by God OR that defrauding one's brother NATURALLY results in a NATURAL cause-and-effect sequence resulting in a "pre-mature" death.
Also, it is not necessarily true that death is MERELY a natural result of sin. Being banished from a tree of life is not a natural event. You would have to prove that Paul thought that particular language was metaphorically descriptive of a purely natural sequence of events rather than a divine act.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 7/6/2008 2:12:30 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/7/2008 4:32 AM (GMT -6) | | J: Death is one thing. Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, money for money, is something else altogether.
Z: If by "eye for an eye" you refer to vengeance, then no. It is not something else altogether. The two are different categories which Paul treats as overlapping.
J: Paul tells me to give place to vengeance in general, not just that resulting in death.
Z: If you leave it at that - at "give place", then we agree. Vengeance has a place, a God-given place. I hardly disagree.
J: That can't mean death if they also receive eternal life by virtue of being a christian brother.
Z: Let's think about this... Those who die cannot receive eternal life? Really? Jesus is out of luck then. This seems like the most anti-Pauline claim you could come up with.
J: Unless you think it means pre-parousia death. In that case, you would have to say that any christian that defrauds his brother will be "prematurely" killed by God OR that defrauding one's brother NATURALLY results in a NATURAL cause-and-effect sequence resulting in a "pre-mature" death.
Z: Really?
My position is that God's wrath appropriates the wrath-like stuff of life. If a person is in covenant relationship with God, then there are also likely going to be some directly God enforced consequences. If a person isn't at all, then that is not the case. And all those in-between tacit, implied, whatever commitments God will sort out and deal with appropriately. I have a very difficult time understanding how your comments address my view. I never said divine vengeance is always death. So why bother arguing against that position?
J: Also, it is not necessarily true that death is MERELY a natural result of sin.
Z: ...
J: Being banished from a tree of life is not a natural event.
Z: Really?
J: You would have to prove that Paul thought that particular language was metaphorically descriptive of a purely natural sequence of events rather than a divine act.
Z: If I were making such claims (and I'm not), then I would have to prove no such thing. Especially since Paul is comfortable describing non-divinely caused events as God's wrath. Paul finds considerable overlap between the two categories. So do the prophets and Jesus. So it is NOT the case that Paul must espouse either one view OR the other. In fact, he holds one view AND the other simultaneously. (Of course, who knows what he thought about the specifics of the fall? Maybe he read it entirely metaphorically or entirely literally or maybe somewhere in between. I don't know. But in general, he uses both viewpoints.)
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/7/2008 1:57:16 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/7/2008 9:08 PM (GMT -6) | | “The form of the crucified disarms all thinking aimed at success, for it is a denial of judgment. Neither the triumph of the successful, nor the bitter hatred of the successful by those who fail, can finally cope with the world. Jesus is certainly no advocate for the successful in history, but neither does he lead the revolt of the failures against the successful. His concern is neither success nor failure but willing acceptance of the judgment of God. Only in judgment is there reconciliation with God and among human beings. Christ sets the human person judged by God, the successful and the unsuccessful, over against all thinking that revolves around success or failure. God judges people because, out of sheer love, God wants them to be able to stand before God. It is a judgment of grace that God in Christ brings on human beings. Over against the successful, God sanctifies pain, lowliness, failure, poverty, loneliness, and despair in the cross of Christ. Not that all this has value in itself; it is made holy by the love of God, who takes it all and bears it as judgment. The Yes of God to the cross is judgment on the successful. But the unsuccessful must realize that it is not their lack of success, not their place as pariahs as such, that lets them stand before God, but only their acceptance of the judgment of divine love. It is the mystery of God’s reign over the world that this very cross, the sign of Christ’s failure in the world, can in turn lead to historical success; this cannot be made into a rule, though in the suffering of God’s church-community it repeats itself here and there.” Bonhoeffer, Ethics
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/8/2008 7:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Z: "Over against the successful, God sanctifies pain, lowliness, failure, poverty, loneliness, and despair in the cross of Christ. Not that all this has value in itself; it is made holy by the love of God, who takes it all and bears it as judgment." Bonhoeffer
J: How are statements like this one less mystical than what you consider substitution to be? Why did God make non-persons holy which WERE NOT holy? When I read of non-persons being sanctified in the OT, it meant, seemingly, that they were to be treated AS THOUGH they were intrinsically holy. Is that really what Christ wants me to do with pain and failure? What kind of failure? Any kind? Sin can be failure. What kind of pain? Any and all of it?
I guess I just don't know what Christ said that would mean this. What Christ said about these things, to me, is summed up in the the 1st and 2nd greatest commandments of the OT. I have no more idea how Christ's cross effectually sanctifies non-persons than I have of how Christ's death propitiates. In fact, one of the problems I have with all non-propitiatory explanations of why Christ had to suffer (besides the fact that they seem extremely implausible, exegetically) is that they all seem to imply that his death would have been beneficial to more people if it had happened earlier in human history. Propitiation doesn't have that problem.
Did Bonhoeffer consider state action intrinisically evil?
Post Edited (Similtude) : 7/8/2008 8:48:05 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/21/2008 4:28 PM (GMT -6) | | J: Regardless, why do you think God resurrects people so they can suffer more simply because they want to suffer?
Z: You think it all comes back to pleasure or sentient satisfaction. I'm not sure. Either way, it's not a position I'm arguing. I said, "Well, it's beside the point since that's not my position in the first place." My guess is that there may be more to choice than sentient satisfaction (although if you define it broadly enough to include everything and lose it's explicative power, then I'd probably agree to it). But the position I'm seeking to defend is not that at all. I don't "think God resurrects people so they can suffer more simply because they want to suffer". I'm undecided on the premises that would support such a conclusion.
J: IOW, where do we get the idea that a covenant made by man independent of God's consent somehow motivates God to accomodate their desire for suffering?
Z: Do you agree that God consents to our choice when it comes to salvific decision? I assume you do. So there is ONE example of God consenting to something he doesn't like (when someone chooses No, this holds even for UR if you allow some 'meantime' in which all are not saved). That's just intrinsic to the open view it seems to me. Now, I don't see how a human can sustain his/her existence apart from God. So I don't see how separation from God can be eternal in the sense of 'ongoing', but that still does leave me with the sense of 'final' or 'irrevocable'. Notice, none of this has anything necessarily to do with masochism. Someone may choose to refuse salvation out of anger or out of fear or for some other reason. I'm NOT saying that being unredeemed MUST be a matter of deliberately desiring personal suffering. I think that possibility for SOME is not ruled out. But I'm not confident it's 'ruled in' either.
J: Is is scriptural?
Z: We've been down that road before. I'm not eager to go again. Here's one verse: "Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me."
J: Is it self-evident? What, exactly?
Z: We know what the Father is like from his perfect representation in Jesus. I think what I believe follows from that. The person is the inerrant standard. Yeah, yeah, I know about him from an imperfect book and imperfect people, so how can I be certain? I'm not. All I've got is faith and what I think is the Spirit's guidance. Jesus is a narrow path. Open to all, but few find him. I don't think he forces people off the wide path. He wants friends not slaves. (And I know all the slave to Christ stuff, but hopefully you catch my drift.)
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/21/2008 4:31:05 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/24/2008 9:24 PM (GMT -6) | | J: IOW, where do we get the idea that a covenant made by man independent of God's consent somehow motivates God to accomodate their desire for suffering?
Z: Do you agree that God consents to our choice when it comes to salvific decision? I assume you do. So there is ONE example of God consenting to something he doesn't like (when someone chooses No, this holds even for UR if you allow some 'meantime' in which all are not saved). That's just intrinsic to the open view it seems to me. Now, I don't see how a human can sustain his/her existence apart from God. So I don't see how separation from God can be eternal in the sense of 'ongoing', but that still does leave me with the sense of 'final' or 'irrevocable'. Notice, none of this has anything necessarily to do with masochism. Someone may choose to refuse salvation out of anger or out of fear or for some other reason. I'm NOT saying that being unredeemed MUST be a matter of deliberately desiring personal suffering. I think that possibility for SOME is not ruled out. But I'm not confident it's 'ruled in' either.
J: Here's what I don't get. Why would a God who ignores people who beg Him to deliver their kidnapped children, or to provide them deliverance from great evils and sufferings be so bent on giving people suffering simply because they, in some confused, demented way, prefer it? IOW, He's not intervening to help people who beg Him for reasonable requests (like a fish and not a serpent; like bread and not a stone), but for some reason there's something about a confused preference for suffering that compels Him. I don't get it. It doesn't sound benevolent at all, to me, that God would ONLY be compelled to intervene in behalf of humanly devised covenants that are formulated from confusion and ignorance.
In the case of christianity, God is the pursuer; He is not being compelled by our preference at all. God comes to SEEK and SAVE the lost because of His own desire. I see nothing that says God is compelled or even wants to assume fidelity to covenants that are formulated by misguided thinking. Nor does it seem self-evident to me that it would be the case.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 97 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:26 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 |
|
|