 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/20/2008 10:50 AM (GMT -6) |   | Some of the guys here on base and I have a small Bible study on Wednesday nights. We’ve just started reading through the letter of James. Pretty interesting. I have a few thoughts I’d like to toss out there about some ch. 1 verses, but right now I wanna ask a question about 2. 12f:
“Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!”
Alright. By “the law that gives freedom” James means the gospel (cf. 1.18, 21f, & esp. 1.25 where the “law that gives freedom” is the same “word” that gives life, the gospel, the truth about redemption and life in Jesus Christ). OK. So, we’re to be “judged” by THIS law that gives freedom, that is, we're "judged by the gospel." Interesting. Just what’s meant here by “judgment” if it’s also true (as has to be the case) that those who live by this “word,” this “law that gives freedom,” are to be “shown mercy”? Sounds like he’s saying those who live by the truth of Christ will be judged by being shown mercy. A bit strange. I’m guessing that by “judged” right here he just loosely means to say something like “Your life will be ‘measured’ or ‘processed’ by mercy. You get processed and evaluated mercifully.” But in the next sentence he means something a bit rougher by “judgment,” namely, “judgment without mercy.” Whamo! This leads to a final question, if those who do not show mercy are to be shown “judgment without mercy,” how in the he** is it the case that “Mercy triumphs over judgment”? What sort of triumph is it for Mercy if there are those who receive "judgment and no mercy"?
T | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/20/2008 3:09 PM (GMT -6) | | "But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."
"Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors."
Our being forgiven is contingent* upon our forgiving of others. If we do not forgive others (even before they repent or make amends), we do not follow Christ, we are not 'in Christ'. You can tell who Christ's disciples are: they keep his commandments.
*yeah, yeah. I know. Not the best way to say it. Still, if we don't accept Christ, then we don't accept Christ. To refuse to forgive is to reject the way of Christ. So, sure, it's judgment, but the sort of judgment that the New Testament speaks of. Like if I decide to put my hand on a hot stove, I get burned and experience 'judgment', but it's my own choice and so a lot of the usual judgment connotations are lost. Likewise, if I refuse to forgive, I get a Spiritless malaise (or worse) and experience judgment.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 8/20/2008 3:16:41 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/21/2008 6:19 AM (GMT -6) | | | Tom: This leads to a final question, if those who do not show mercy are to be shown “judgment without mercy,” how in the he** is it the case that “Mercy triumphs over judgment”?
Jeff: Mercy triumphs over judgment because if we are merciful, we shall receive mercy. It need not be absolute, though. IOW, he may not be addressing an all or nothing saved vs. unsaved question. It's may be about accountability as servants to our master at the level of obedience to him in particulars. I.e., I may receive mercy in particulars because of my mercy to others in particulars. And I'll receive judgment in particulars because of my judgment of others in particulars.
Looked at non-absolutely (i.e., in a way such that we can experience BOTH mercy and judgment for different particulars at the time of judgment), James seems completely coherent. There are verses in the NT about servant-like accountability for particulars. These are not much dealt with in most sermons. But they are there.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/21/2008 5:39 PM (GMT -6) | | Looking at what James has been saying in chapter two, he's interested in his readers understanding the sin of showing favortisim. One, in essence, has stepped outside of grace and back into the Law when one does not love another as one's self (2:8-9):
If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers.
To "do right" is to stay in the sphere where grace has abounded; outside of and away from the Law. The way to "do right" is found (along the same line James is speaking of) in Paul's letter to the Galatians, chapter 5:19-23:
The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
Those who live in the Law will not inherit the kingdom. But those who live in the Spirit—outside of and away from the Law—are exempt from judgment with regard to eternal life and death.
Paul's letter to the Romans, chapter 13:8-10, gives us more along these lines:
Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
He who loves has fufilled the Law; love is the sphere in which no Law can, nor need, rule. It transcends Law.
In view of James's statement, then, we are to walk in love, outside of and away from Law. When we do this, we love others as ourselves. When we love others as ourselves, the only issue of "judgment" that can come upon us is . . . no judgment, with regard to the Law's condemnative quality. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
However, everyone of us must stand before the Judgement seat of Christ to receive to ourselves those things that were done in the body, whether good or bad (II Cor 5:10), and I betting that part of what constitutes this judgment is in line with what James said ealier in chapter 1:23-25:
Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it—he will be blessed in what he does.
He who lives in and by the Perfect Law is free from judgment, but he who does not is subject to judgment; for that is the criteria he gives the Lord to work with; Law and jugdment.
I don't believe the judgment that results from walking in Law, however, is a matter of life and death, as James is speaking about it. Rather, it is a matter of in or out of the Spirit. In all fairness, God will judge each of us as we have walked our paths. This is only fair. Each of us will know exactly where we stand in heaven. No one will have any questions as to his or her placement. And, frankly, I don't think it will take more than a eye-to-eye gaze between each of us and the Lord to see everything as it really is.
As to mercy triumphing over judgment, it seems James is saying nothing more than this: If you walk in the flesh, then you will be judged by that standard: the Law. If, however, you walk in the Spirit, you are triumphing over judgment; you are walking outside of Law.
It is always the case that he who walks in the Spirit is triumphing over judgment; for loving others as we love ourselves is to show mercy, which has no law against it, which is to triumph over Law, over judgment. Obviously, then, one is not triumphing over the Law when when shows favortisim, as was the case with some of those James addressed.
For freedom from the judgment of the Law,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/21/2008 7:20 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/23/2008 12:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Sounds good. Thanks all.
Stark, where ya been man? What's been going on?
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/25/2008 11:29 AM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
As to mercy triumphing over judgment, it seems James is saying nothing more than this: If you walk in the flesh, then you will be judged by that standard: the Law. If, however, you walk in the Spirit, you are triumphing over judgment; you are walking outside of Law.
Hi Starkman,
I seem to be the only one here on the board that finds your position of “walking outside of law” as problematic, that is, if one is to love rightly. Your view seems to present a false dichotomy that posits love and law as mutually exclusive.
To rightly love by “walking outside of law” resembles fuzzy logic if one considers that the highest norm of human life is the divine law itself - eternal, objective and universal, by which God orders, directs and governs the whole world and the ways of the human community according to a plan conceived in his wisdom and love. God has enabled man to participate in this law of his so that, under the gentle disposition of divine providence, many may be able to arrive at a deeper and deeper knowledge of unchangeable truth. For this reason everybody has the duty and consequently the right to seek the truth in matters of the heart so that, through the use of appropriate means, he may prudently form judgments of conscience which are sincere and true.
Deep within his conscience, man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, tells him inwardly at the right moment: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. His dignity lies in observing this law, and by it he will be judged. His conscience is man's most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths. By conscience, in a wonderful way, that law is made known which is fulfilled in the love of God and of one's neighbor.
All who have sinned apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God's sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them on the day when, according to my gospel, God, through Jesus Christ, will judge the secret thoughts of all. -Romans 2:12-16
So if the law is written on the tablets of one’s heart and one is to love God with all your heart, as well as love your neighbor as yourself with “all your heart”, then it would seem to follow that one would walk in love on a path within the guardrails of the law that is written on the heart.
Peace out,
Mark
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/25/2008 12:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Thank you Mark! Law is an expression OF love. I don't see how it can be otherwise.
T | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/25/2008 7:50 PM (GMT -6) | | ONE LOVE: One can "walk in the Spirit of God" and always succeed in "fulfilling the Law". (Look at Jesus, even when he "broke" the Sabbath)
I see a bi-polar assymetrical relational unity between Love (Higher level) and Law (Lower level)...but that's just me.
Jeff: I think the sabbath issue illustrates your point well, D. Jesus did not even remotely seem to be trying to abolish/annul the Law (lower level) so much as he was demonstrating that, like David with the shewbread, there are occasions where the lower level does not accomplish the ends of love as it does in more "normal" circumstances. Normally, taking a day of rest, as opposed to working 7 days out of greed, is a good thing. But foregoing rest for the elimination of hunger/sickness/lameness and the liberation of those stuck in the ditch has nothing to do with foregoing rest for the sake of greed. The sabbath was made FOR man; not man FOR the sabbath.
This is not to say that I think we are bound to keep the sabbath law as Jesus did, as one "come under the law." Rather, to the extent that the Jews, as a covenant people, were bound to the covenant, Jesus was telling them that even in the covenantal context there are exceptions to lower level laws. David knew this.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/26/2008 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Mark,
Perhaps I could have worded things differently, but I feel that the main point of the Scriptures I quoted were self explanitory. My fault for assuming.
When I say "walking outisde of law," I do not mean that there is no law at all. We are talking here about Old Testament Law, that which Paul was speaking about with regard to the Scriptures I quoted.
Of course there is the Law written in our hearts, but it is not to be obeyed in the "manner" that the Old Testament prescribed. One is apart from our outside of that camp when one is a Christian. One cannot combine the old with the new in order to walk in love.
Jesus was very clear that the Law was fufilled when one loves God with all one's heart, soul, mind and strenght, and loves one's neighbor as one's self. Indeed, this is the Law written on the heart being manifested in the way God has always wanted it to be manifested.
Finally, for clarity's sake, we are never outside of law in general; indeed, we are called to rise above the written code and demonstate it's insufficiency by living under the Royal Law.
I hope that is more clear.
Thanks,
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/12/2008 9:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Zach: So, sure, it's judgment, but the sort of judgment that the New Testament speaks of. Like if I decide to put my hand on a hot stove, I get burned and experience 'judgment', but it's my own choice and so a lot of the usual judgment connotations are lost. Likewise, if I refuse to forgive, I get a Spiritless malaise (or worse) and experience judgment.
Jeff: Jesus said where much is given, much is required and where little is given, little is required. Consequently, he can't be talking about mere death. If he's talking about consequences of actions in this life, as you seem to be arguing above, then, for the proportionality that Jesus spoke of to work out, nature must be designed very precisely to assure that natural consequences occur in a proporitional way based on what has been "given." That seems quite unlikely in the first place. But it ends up being metaphysically equivalent to positing post-mortem judgment anyway. You've just changed the timing. In both cases, the consequences are sentiently dissatisfying and they are DESIGNED and INTENDED by God. Only the timing is different.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/13/2008 11:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: Jesus said where much is given, much is required and where little is given, little is required. Consequently, he can't be talking about mere death.
Zach: Explain this step to me.
Jeff: If he's talking about consequences of actions in this life, as you seem to be arguing above, then, for the proportionality that Jesus spoke of to work out, nature must be designed very precisely to assure that natural consequences occur in a proporitional way based on what has been "given."
Zach: I didn't make any exposition on Luke 12. I have a feeling I will have a difference of opinion once I better understand your take, but up til now I haven't made a case on this issue for you to critique. "As I argu[ed] above" was not written as an interpretation of Luke 12. I see that passage as referring to post-mortem consequences. I'm more or less an inclusivist, so I read it in that light. The twelve year old Native American boy who dies in 200 A.D. should not be held to the same particular standards as you or I. If he has rejected what of the Spirit was available to him, and assuming (arrogantly?) that we have more access than he, then somehow he is treated accordingly. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/15/2008 7:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: Jesus said where much is given, much is required and where little is given, little is required. Consequently, he can't be talking about mere death.
Zach: Explain this step to me.
Jeff: To my mind there are no degrees of death. You're either dead or not. Are there degrees of being dead in your opinion?
Zach: I didn't make any exposition on Luke 12. I have a feeling I will have a difference of opinion once I better understand your take, but up til now I haven't made a case on this issue for you to critique. "As I argu[ed] above" was not written as an interpretation of Luke 12. I see that passage as referring to post-mortem consequences. I'm more or less an inclusivist, so I read it in that light. The twelve year old Native American boy who dies in 200 A.D. should not be held to the same particular standards as you or I. If he has rejected what of the Spirit was available to him, and assuming (arrogantly?) that we have more access than he, then somehow he is treated accordingly.
Jeff: What does it mean to be "treated" proportionately for rejecting the Spirit? Maybe this is where I'm missing your view. I thought you've been saying that all unbelievers are treated identicallly by God in the same way (namely, by setting in motion their natural mortality). And that all other consequences are volitionally-caused by humans or natural and, hence, coincidental to some degree. Is that a correct assessment of your view?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/15/2008 8:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: To my mind there are no degrees of death. You're either dead or not. Are there degrees of being dead in your opinion?
Zach: For the passage to address death, we need not posit degrees of being dead. We need only see death as an example of a high degree of requirement. But I'm not necessarily making that argument.
Jeff: What does it mean to be "treated" proportionately for rejecting the Spirit?
Zach: It seems simple to me, so I must not understand the question. To be treated according to the circumstances means to take those circumstances into consideration.
Jeff: Maybe this is where I'm missing your view. I thought you've been saying that all unbelievers are treated identicallly by God in the same way (namely, by setting in motion their natural mortality). And that all other consequences are volitionally-caused by humans or natural and, hence, coincidental to some degree. Is that a correct assessment of your view?
Zach: It is my view that people can die, permanently. And it is my view that God created the world in such a way as to include that possibility. It is not my view that God "set[ s] in motion their natural mortality". Whether or not natural mortality was part of God's pre-lapsarian plan, I do not know. I do not believe that it is strictly true that God directly causes death in unbelievers. I'm not sure what you mean by human-caused consequences being coincidental. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/16/2008 7:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: To my mind there are no degrees of death. You're either dead or not. Are there degrees of being dead in your opinion?
Zach: For the passage to address death, we need not posit degrees of being dead. We need only see death as an example of a high degree of requirement. But I'm not necessarily making that argument.
Jeff: I don't think the passage addresses death. I think it addresses judgment in the form of negative consequences for negative behavior (i.e., behavior that causes unnecessary sentient dissatisfaction). But it was my understanding that you don't believe God does that. So I guess I'm wondering how you take natural consequences, which are not consistent from one person to the next for the same negative behavior, to be judgment.
Jeff: What does it mean to be "treated" proportionately for rejecting the Spirit?
Zach: It seems simple to me, so I must not understand the question. To be treated according to the circumstances means to take those circumstances into consideration.
Jeff: It seems simple to everybody. But the vast majority of people believe God judges in the form of negative consequences. Thus, they would take "treated" proportionately in that sense as well. But you don't, right?
Zach: It is my view that people can die, permanently. And it is my view that God created the world in such a way as to include that possibility. It is not my view that God "set[ s] in motion their natural mortality". Whether or not natural mortality was part of God's pre-lapsarian plan, I do not know. I do not believe that it is strictly true that God directly causes death in unbelievers.
Jeff: Here's the possibilities I can think of:
1) God created humans with conditional immortality in the sense that if they sinned, they would not have access to some life-endowing source that could otherwise keep them alive indefinitely, after which (sin) they were essentially mortal. Then all their descendants were born mortal insomuch as they had no access to the life-endowing source either. This seems to be the straight forward reading of the bible to me.
2) God creates humans immortal but later makes them mortal.
3) God created humans immortal, but humans have the capacity to annul their own immortality voluntarily. And that's why all people die--because of exercising that power to affect their own mortality.
4) God created humans mortal.
There may be more I can't think of. But what do you believe is the case?
Zach: I'm not sure what you mean by human-caused consequences being coincidental.
Jeff: I meant naturally-caused consequences were coincidental in their effects. IOW, they are not proportional to everyone's behavior--or at least they don't seem to be.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/18/2008 11:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: I don't think the passage addresses death. I think it addresses judgment in the form of negative consequences for negative behavior (i.e., behavior that causes unnecessary sentient dissatisfaction). But it was my understanding that you don't believe God does that. So I guess I'm wondering how you take natural consequences, which are not consistent from one person to the next for the same negative behavior, to be judgment.
Zach: I don't think much of anything of the passage. My focus has been elsewhere lately. Whether the consequences are pre- or post- death doesn't really matter for my view since I view them as morally equivalent.
Here's what I think of negative consequences and judgment (without specifically addressing Luke 12 which I don't have the motivation to do right now):
Outside of covenant with God... "Stuff" happens. Maybe randomly, maybe because of the deliberate choice of people, maybe because of unforeseen-yet-natural consequences, or maybe because people want stuff to happen to them. Whatever, the stuff happens. Outside of any covenant, there is no grounds for speaking of morality, so the stuff just happens independent of any moral implication.
Within covenant with God... Stuff still happens. For the same reasons. But now there is also the possibility that God is disciplining/refining. If he is directly disciplining, then there is a true sense in which we can call this 'judgment'. If stuff is happening for one of those other reasons, God is aware of this and can appropriate those things into his disciplining or judgment. A good example of this is the exile. The conquering armies were doing evil. Stealing and killing is bad. However, these bad things which were not directly caused by God can be and are appropriated into God's judgment.
I understand that this does not fully address Luke 12. But you just brought that passage up out of left field, and I'm not ready to talk about it yet.
Jeff: It seems simple to everybody. But the vast majority of people believe God judges in the form of negative consequences. Thus, they would take "treated" proportionately in that sense as well. But you don't, right?
Zach: Yeah, I too am part of this "vast majority". I have no problem with God using negative consequences. That has not been my position. I've only said anything resembling this when I've first made clear that I'm talking about people outside of covenant with God. This is a very important specifying premise that you tend to let fall away when paraphrasing my position. Every time Tom has shouted "Atta boy!" from the sidelines, you had first let this premise drop away. Thus I agree that my position as paraphrased by you tends to be inconsistent and untenable. I do not hold to that position. I've grown tired of going back and forth like this. I say "X." Then you say "But Y is untrue because of Z." Tom says "You tell 'em Jeff!" Then I say "But I never said Y." And round and round we go...
Jeff: Here's the possibilities I can think of:
...
There may be more I can't think of. But what do you believe is the case?
Zach: As I said above: "Whether or not natural mortality was part of God's pre-lapsarian plan, I do not know." This has not changed in the last three days. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/26/2008 5:44 PM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: I have no problem with God using negative consequences. That has not been my position. I've only said anything resembling this when I've first made clear that I'm talking about people outside of covenant with God. This is a very important specifying premise that you tend to let fall away when paraphrasing my position.
Jeff: I'm with you on your distinction. But you had said,
The twelve year old Native American boy who dies in 200 A.D. should not be held to the same particular standards as you or I. If he has rejected what of the Spirit was available to him, and assuming (arrogantly?) that we have more access than he, then somehow he is treated accordingly.
I was assuming you would say one who rejects the Spirit is a non-covenanter. So I was wondering what you mean by "treated accordingly" in that case. Is it all good treatment with varying degrees of goodness for rejecting the Spirit? Or is one who rejects the Spirit a covenanter? Are there degrees of death? Or what?
Post Edited (Similtude) : 10/26/2008 6:53:07 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 10/26/2008 8:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: I was assuming you would say one who rejects the Spirit is a non-covenanter.
Zach: Not necessarily. I'm not even sure any non-covenanters actually exist. And I did not say that the 'treated accordingly' involved 'negative consequences' in this hypothetical case. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:28 AM (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 |
|
|