Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Where the heck is Jesus?  Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
92 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3  4 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 8/10/2010 6:07 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Daniel: Abscombe's response was that it is never right to boil a baby. Even if it saved 100,000 from death, it is not right to boil a baby. Just like it is not right to rape someone if it saves 100 other peoples lives.

Jeff: Daniel, consequentialism, as a motivator of choice, means that the consequences for the chooser are better for the chooser. How, given what scripture says about post-mortem accountability, can it be better for a person to choose to kill a baby by boiling? I'm flat not seeing it.

Surrender, the consequences for both God, as the chooser, and all people born, is better if UR is true. Because we all have more persons to party with forever that way. God is enduring this creational project as long as He possibly can, in part, for that very reason, IMO. That means UR makes perfect theodical sense in terms of consequentialism.


 

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 8/10/2010 6:09 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom, I responded to you on the last post of page 2.


 

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/10/2010 9:01 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Jeff: To my memory, those verses made similar comparisons that, if taken absolutely, were non-sensical in terms of eschatology. That led me to believe that some liimited, contextual time-frame and range of experience was being assumed to render the comparisons sensible. And therefore it is fair to assume that Christ was using just such a limited, contextual comparison.

Tom: Yes, now I remember. Just gotta find that passage!

T


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

Daniel M
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
 
   Posted 8/10/2010 3:14 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Jeff: Daniel, consequentialism, as a motivator of choice, means that the consequences for the chooser are better for the chooser.

Daniel: I thought it was about maximizing good and minimizing evil? "better" in what sense? Is this effectively a form of utilitarianism?

Jeff: How, given what scripture says about post-mortem accountability, can it be better for a person to choose to kill a baby by boiling?

Daniel: If a person if forced to choose to boil a baby or save the lives of 100,000 people, most of whom have not heard the gospel. If "right" actions are only intelligible in consequentialism then how does one legitimately argue that genocide, mass-murder, oppression, etc etc are categorically wrong? Since, theoretically, those malevolences might actually lead to more people coming to know Christ. Which would be a better outcome then those people not coming to know Christ. Isn't the formation of a relationship between any individual and God the maximum good? Thus whatever caused that relationship to form must be considered a 'right' action. Even if that action was rape, murder of a loved one, whatever.

I'm not saying that consequences aren't an important factor in ethical decision making, but I cannot see how "right" actions are ONLY intelligible inside of consequentialism. That implies that there is no specific act that is categorically evil.
Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/10/2010 3:47 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Personally I think we can and DO often (rightly) make choices to sacrifice a pawn (so to speak) for a queen or for the king. But given our limited perspective/perception and biased characters, we cannot be often trusted to judge what is best and most loving to do in conflicted situations. But putting us aside, I have little doubt that God can and does make such choices. Does that relativize objective moral standards to a degree? Yes, in terms of objectivized lists and maps of what's right and wrong.

Does God sometimes drown innocent babies for a greater good? Absolutely. Example? Genesis 6. Whether or not WE are ever in a place to make those sorts of judgments, it seems clear that God is. So I can say that drowning a baby is always, universally, and unconditionally an abhorrent thing to do, since God has done it.

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 8/10/2010 8:00 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Daniel: Since, theoretically, those malevolences might actually lead to more people coming to know Christ. Which would be a better outcome then those people not coming to know Christ. Isn't the formation of a relationship between any individual and God the maximum good? Thus whatever caused that relationship to form must be considered a 'right' action. Even if that action was rape, murder of a loved one, whatever.

Jeff: But note what you've done. You've made a deduction from a "might" statement. But "might" is equivalent to "might not." That doesn't help us much. Here's how accountability works: Where much is given, much is required; where little is given, little is required. God doesn't expect me to kill babies on the grounds of "mights" or "might not's," the probabilities of which can not even be calculated by humans. For in that case, the only thing "given" by God is the knowledge that we are to love that baby as we wish to be loved. We are not, in that case, given the knowledge that we are loving anyone else by killing the baby. So I'm not required to do or not do anything based on those "might"/"might not" scenarios.

Daniel: I'm not saying that consequences aren't an important factor in ethical decision making, but I cannot see how "right" actions are ONLY intelligible inside of consequentialism. That implies that there is no specific act that is categorically evil.

Jeff: True; per consequentialism, no action is wrong categorically. But an action could still be unconditionally wrong. Categorically means one thing (groundless, yet true); unconditionally means something else (i.e., it doesn't imply groundlessness). E.g., it could always, under any conceivable conditions, be true that it is wrong for humans to deny the existence and benevolence of God and it still be wrong because of the consequences of that action. But to say it is categorically wrong means it is wrong independent of consequences or any conceivable grounds. But why is the latter preferable to the former from a theoretical perspective? Indeed, how can we logically relate the normativity of volitional action to God at all if "right" and "wrong" are categorical, having nothing to do with teleological grounds? By that approach, normativity has no knowable relation to God at all.


 

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 8/10/2010 8:01 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom: Does God sometimes drown innocent babies for a greater good? Absolutely. Example? Genesis 6. Whether or not WE are ever in a place to make those sorts of judgments, it seems clear that God is.

Jeff: Exactly. And if it turns out that UR is the only way to account for theodicy consistent with that fact, then so be it.


 

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/10/2010 9:27 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Bada-bing bada-boom.

T


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

Daniel M
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
 
   Posted 8/12/2010 2:33 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I have a response, but I think this might warrant its own thread. I have a feeling this is the point where I split with you guys in terms of ethics, and it's implications (such as pacifism, and in social thought). I'd like to explore it more as I think it's totally wound up in christology. I'll try to get something up soon.
Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/12/2010 2:50 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Daniel: I think it's totally wound up in christology...

Tom: Ain't it all baby, ain't it all!

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/13/2010 10:14 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I know Greg is working big-time on his book re: God and violence in the OT. He basically argues that Moses and Joshua and other OT writers (redactors) were mistaken. God was NOT involved/behind their violence the way THEY thought he was, BUT God is revealed in the fact that he lets himself be identified with such misinterpretations.

Don't quote me, but it's something close to this.

So what about Gen. 6 and the flood? I'm guessing Greg will have to say that IF there was a Noah at all, that God did NOT tell him, "I'm grieved and how screwed this all is. I'm going to send a flood and wipe everybody off the map, except for you and your family. Build an ark." Because if God did say this, then THIS is Christlike too. So Christ not only dies for the world, Christ also sends floods that wipe all human beings off the planet except for a faithful family.

This thing is that Greg has used Gen. 6 to establish his doctrine of God, based on Scripture, based on a hermeneutic that assumes truth about God IS found in the things that the authors ascribe to God. And it works as far as one takes it here in Gen. 6. That is, if you want to say God FEELS and GRIEVES over our sin, that he REPENTS, etc., then this passage gets you that. BUT you have to take the rest that comes right along in the same sentence: "I'm going to wipe all humanity off the planet." THAT has to establish our doctrine of God too.

I think Greg will say that JESUS is the hermeneutical key. Whatever in the OT looks like Jesus is truth about God and directly establishes our doctrine of God. Whatever doesn't look like Jesus, even if it's found in the same sentence attributed to God, it's false.

Boy that's a really difficult hermeneutic, and I don't see how you can pick and choose in this particular instance. If God spoke to Noah at all prior to the flood (universal or local, dudn't matter) and instructed him to built some kind of ark, then God knows a flood is coming, which on Greg's view God can't know UNLESS God has determined to cause the flood. But that blows apart the "If it don't look like Jesus it ain't God" theory. I'm more inclined to say the flood, GIVEN THE TOTALITY OF ITS CIRCUMSTANCES, is compatible with Jesus dying on the cross.

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 8:39 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Tom: I'm more inclined to say the flood, GIVEN THE TOTALITY OF ITS CIRCUMSTANCES, is compatible with Jesus dying on the cross.

Jeff: Me too, because of the very exegetical nightmare the alternative creates (as you mentioned). And here's the additional, relevant point. I used to always come to dead ends trying to find a plausible, exegetical way to account for dying fetuses and infants receiving eternal life. I could never do it. It seemed to me that scripture talks about justification by faith vs. mortality. So, if we have to merely POSIT a divine intervention, not revealed in scripture, to explain God's grace (i.e., gift of eternal life) to dying fetuses and infants, how is the exact same KIND of positing not equally warranted for UR if, in fact, UR helps resolve the same kind of tension between our conception of benevolence and God's attribute of benevolence?

To me, it seems we're doing the exact same thing in both cases. And this is what I was trying to explain to Laika a while back. I don't see how Laika can argue for eternal life for dying fetuses/infants without logically legitimizing that very epistemological approach for the UR adherent. At that point, the issue between Laika and me is not scriptural differences, but what does it MEAN to be perfectly benevolent. Right? Because you've even come up (to my memory, at least) with a plausible UR exegesis for the Judas verse, which is about as difficult a verse for UR as you can get.



 

Post Edited (Similitude) : 8/14/2010 8:45:01 AM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 9:41 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.

Tom:
I know Greg is working big-time on his book re: God and violence in the OT. He basically argues that Moses and Joshua and other OT writers (redactors) were mistaken. God was NOT involved/behind their violence the way THEY thought he was, BUT God is revealed in the fact that he lets himself be identified with such misinterpretations. Don't quote me, but it's something close to this.

I want Greg's interpretation of Joshua 7, which followed the whold Jericho thing...

But the people of Israel broke faith in regard to the devoted things, for Achan the son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the devoted things. And the anger of the Lord burned against the people of Israel.

Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is near Beth-aven, east of Bethel, and said to them, “Go up and spy out the land.” And the men went up and spied out Ai. And they returned to Joshua and said to him, “Do not have all the people go up, but let about two or three thousand men go up and attack Ai. Do not make the whole people toil up there, for they are few.” So about 3,000 men went up there from the people. And they fled before the men of Ai, and the men of Ai killed about thirty-six of their men and chased them before the gate as far as Shebarim and struck them at the descent. And the hearts of the people melted and became as water.

Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell to the earth on his face before the ark of the Lord until the evening, he and the elders of Israel. And they put dust on their heads. And Joshua said, “Alas, O Lord God, why have you brought this people over the Jordan at all, to give us into the hands of the Amorites, to destroy us? Would that we had been content to dwell beyond the Jordan! O Lord, what can I say, when Israel has turned their backs before their enemies! For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear of it and will surround us and cut off our name from the earth. And what will you do for your great name?”

The Lord said to Joshua, “Get up! Why have you fallen on your face?  Israel has sinned; they have transgressed my covenant that I commanded them; they have taken some of the devoted things; they have stolen and lied and put them among their own belongings. Therefore the people of Israel cannot stand before their enemies. They turn their backs before their enemies, because they have become devoted for destruction. I will be with you no more, unless you destroy the devoted things from among you. Get up! Consecrate the people and say, ‘Consecrate yourselves for tomorrow; for thus says the Lord, God of Israel, “There are devoted things in your midst, O Israel. You cannot stand before your enemies until you take away the devoted things from among you.” In the morning therefore you shall be brought near by your tribes. And the tribe that the Lord takes by lot shall come near by clans. And the clan that the Lord takes shall come near by households. And the household that the Lord takes shall come near man by man. And he who is taken with the devoted things shall be burned with fire, he and all that he has, because he has transgressed the covenant of the Lord, and because he has done an outrageous thing in Israel.’”

So Joshua rose early in the morning and brought Israel near tribe by tribe, and the tribe of Judah was taken. And he brought near the clans of Judah, and the clan of the Zerahites was taken. And he brought near the clan of the Zerahites man by man, and Zabdi was taken. And he brought near his household man by man, and Achan the son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was taken. Then Joshua said to Achan, “My son, give glory to the Lord God of Israel and give praise to him. And tell me now what you have done; do not hide it from me.” And Achan answered Joshua, “Truly I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel, and this is what I did: when I saw among the spoil a beautiful cloak from Shinar, and 200 shekels of silver, and a bar of gold weighing shekels, then I coveted them and took them. And see, they are hidden in the earth inside my tent, with the silver underneath.”

So Joshua sent messengers, and they ran to the tent; and behold, it was hidden in his tent with the silver underneath. And they took them out of the tent and brought them to Joshua and to all the people of Israel. And they laid them down before the Lord. And Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver and the cloak and the bar of gold, and his sons and daughters and his oxen and donkeys and sheep and his tent and all that he had. And they brought them up to the Valley of Achor. And Joshua said, “Why did you bring trouble on us? The Lord brings trouble on you today.” And all Israel stoned him with stones. They burned them with fire and stoned them with stones. And they raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day. Then the Lord turned from his burning anger. Therefore, to this day the name of that place is called the Valley of Achor.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

or...Numbers 16...

Now Korah the son of Izhar, son of Kohath, son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and On the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men. And they rose up before Moses, with a number of the people of Israel, 250 chiefs of the congregation, chosen from the assembly, well-known men.  They assembled themselves together against Moses and against Aaron and said to them, “You have gone too far! For all in the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”  When Moses heard it, he fell on his face,  and he said to Korah and all his company, “In the morning the Lord will show who is his, and who is holy, and will bring him near to him. The one whom he chooses he will bring near to him.  Do this: take censers, Korah and all his company;  put fire in them and put incense on them before the Lord tomorrow, and the man whom the Lord chooses shall be the holy one. You have gone too far, sons of Levi!”  And Moses said to Korah, “Hear now, you sons of Levi:  is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated you from the congregation of Israel, to bring you near to himself, to do service in the tabernacle of the Lord and to stand before the congregation to minister to them,  and that he has brought you near him, and all your brothers the sons of Levi with you? And would you seek the priesthood also?  Therefore it is against the Lord that you and all your company have gathered together. What is Aaron that you grumble against him?”


 And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, and they said, “We will not come up.  Is it a small thing that you have brought us up out of a land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, that you must also make yourself a prince over us?  Moreover, you have not brought us into a land flowing with milk and honey, nor given us inheritance of fields and vineyards. Will you put out the eyes of these men? We will not come up.”  And Moses was very angry and said to the Lord, “Do not respect their offering. I have not taken one donkey from them, and I have not harmed one of them.”

And Moses said to Korah, “Be present, you and all your company, before the Lord, you and they, and Aaron, tomorrow.  And let every one of you take his censer and put incense on it, and every one of you bring before the Lord his censer, 250 censers; you also, and Aaron, each his censer.”  So every man took his censer and put fire in them and laid incense on them and stood at the entrance of the tent of meeting with Moses and Aaron.  Then Korah assembled all the congregation against them at the entrance of the tent of meeting. And the glory of the Lord appeared to all the congregation.

And the Lord spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying,  “Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.”  And they fell on their faces and said, “O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and will you be angry with all the congregation?” And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Say to the congregation, Get away from the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram.”

Then Moses rose and went to Dathan and Abiram, and the elders of Israel followed him.  And he spoke to the congregation, saying, “Depart, please, from the tents of these wicked men, and touch nothing of theirs, lest you be swept away with all their sins.”  So they got away from the dwelling of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. And Dathan and Abiram came out and stood at the door of their tents, together with their wives, their sons, and their little ones.  And Moses said, “Hereby you shall know that the Lord has sent me to do all these works, and that it has not been of my own accord.  If these men die as all men die, or if they are visited by the fate of all mankind, then the Lord has not sent me.  But if the Lord creates something new, and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that belongs to them, and they go down alive into Sheol, then you shall know that these men have despised the Lord.”


And as soon as he had finished speaking all these words, the ground under them split apart.  And the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households and all the people who belonged to Korah and all their goods. So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly.  And all Israel who were around them fled at their cry, for they said, “Lest the earth swallow us up!”  And fire came out from the Lord and consumed the 250 men offering the incense.

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying,  “Tell Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest to take up the censers out of the blaze. Then scatter the fire far and wide, for they have become holy.  As for the censers of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives, let them be made into hammered plates as a covering for the altar, for they offered them before the Lord, and they became holy. Thus they shall be a sign to the people of Israel.”  So Eleazar the priest took the bronze censers, which those who were burned had offered, and they were hammered out as a covering for the altar,  to be a reminder to the people of Israel, so that no outsider, who is not of the descendants of Aaron, should draw near to burn incense before the Lord, lest he become like Korah and his company—as the Lord said to him through Moses.

But on the next day all the congregation of the people of Israel grumbled against Moses and against Aaron, saying, “You have killed the people of the Lord.” And when the congregation had assembled against Moses and against Aaron, they turned toward the tent of meeting. And behold, the cloud covered it, and the glory of the Lord appeared. And Moses and Aaron came to the front of the tent of meeting, and the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Get away from the midst of this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.” And they fell on their faces. And Moses said to Aaron, “Take your censer, and put fire on it from off the altar and lay incense on it and carry it quickly to the congregation and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone out from the Lord; the plague has begun.” So Aaron took it as Moses said and ran into the midst of the assembly. And behold, the plague had already begun among the people. And he put on the incense and made atonement for the people. And he stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was stopped. Now those who died in the plague were 14,700, besides those who died in the affair of Korah. And Aaron returned to Moses at the entrance of the tent of meeting, when the plague was stopped.

(Interestingly enough, this seems a LOT LIKE the "object lesson" that the Spirit of JESUS did to Ananias and Sapphira!)

 -----------------------------------------------------------------

or Numbers 1-10

After the plague, the Lord said to Moses and to Eleazar the son of Aaron, the priest, “Take a census of all the congregation of the people of Israel, from twenty years old and upward, by their fathers' houses, all in Israel who are able to go to war.” And Moses and Eleazar the priest spoke with them in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho, saying, “Take a census of the people,  from twenty years old and upward,” as the Lord commanded Moses. The people of Israel who came out of the land of Egypt were:

Reuben, the firstborn of Israel; the sons of Reuben: of Hanoch, the clan of the Hanochites; of Pallu, the clan of the Palluites; 6 of Hezron, the clan of the Hezronites; of Carmi, the clan of the Carmites.  These are the clans of the Reubenites, and those listed were 43,730.  And the sons of Pallu: Eliab.  The sons of Eliab: Nemuel, Dathan, and Abiram. These are the Dathan and Abiram, chosen from the congregation, who contended against Moses and Aaron in the company of Korah, when they contended against the Lord and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up together with Korah, when that company died, when the fire devoured 250 men, and they became a warning.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

or Deuteronomy 11:1-7

“You shall therefore love the Lord your God and keep his charge, his statutes, his rules, and his commandments always. And consider today (since I am not speaking to your children who have not known or seen it), consider the discipline of the Lord your God, his greatness, his mighty hand and his outstretched arm, his signs and his deeds that he did in Egypt to Pharaoh the king of Egypt and to all his land,  and what he did to the army of Egypt, to their horses and to their chariots, how he made the water of the Red Sea flow over them as they pursued after you, and how the Lord has destroyed them to this day,  and what he did to you in the wilderness, until you came to this place,  and what he did to Dathan and Abiram the sons of Eliab, son of Reuben, how the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, with their households, their tents, and every living thing that followed them, in the midst of all Israel. For your eyes have seen all the great work of the Lord that he did.


Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/14/2010 9:59:08 AM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 9:55 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Greg's hermenetic would have to say that ALL this was a lie.

He can't defend this...and STILL want to take the hermeneutic for openness that he does.

Sheesh.


Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Post Edited (One Love) : 8/14/2010 9:59:51 AM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

Surrender
Registered Member


Date Joined Feb 2010
Total Posts : 41
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 11:34 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom:
I know Greg is working big-time on his book re: God and violence in the OT. He basically argues that Moses and Joshua and other OT writers (redactors) were mistaken. God was NOT involved/behind their violence the way THEY thought he was, BUT God is revealed in the fact that he lets himself be identified with such misinterpretations.

Surrender:
I have a few of Greg's books and I’ve read several articles on his site and that view has never surfaced. Where did you get your info.? Can you post a link?
Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 11:59 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Surrender, I know Greg has talked about his idea on that on his blogpost. But that was months ago. Don't know if he's been addressing it more recently there. Greg is seeming to be attempting a synthesis of a kind of pacifistic love as a means to a postmillenial state of affairs. I think he has exegetical problems for both the pacifistic side of that theology as well as the postmillenial side of it. But I can see why he does what he does. He takes the Sermon on the Mount to be an articulation of a NEW way for God's people to live, as opposed to the other view, which is that Christ is elucidating the true meaning of the law and the prophets over against the misinterpretation of the law and the prophets by the scribes and pharisees.
 
IMO, virtually all the textual evidence is in favor of the latter view--even the textual evidence within the Sermon itself. The bit about "turning the other cheek" is the only text that seems, at face value, to be inexplicable in terms of the latter view. But I think the common view of that text is quite plausible--namely, that Christ is saying, as Paul does in Romans, that there are times, when you overcome evil BY GOOD. But clearly Paul did not see that as an absolute ethic, for he immediately follows up by saying that whereas we can't avenge ourselves (and therefore should try to overcome evil with good when possible), the STATE is actually a minister UNTO GOOD by executing VENGEANCE upon evil-doers! There is no contradiction in Paul's argument when you understand that individuals are more limited in their legitimate modes of increasing good and minimizing evil than is the State. For God delegated to the State a role He never delegated to individuals acting AS individuals.
 
 


 

Post Edited (Similitude) : 8/14/2010 12:15:04 PM (GMT-5)

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 12:41 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Is there any time that God sanctions, whether in individuals or collectives, the breaking of the Great Commandments of Jesus?


Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 12:55 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi Surrender,

It's coming out in his new book on Jehovah/Violence and the OT. I've seen it ahead of time. Plus some personal emails.

I'd cut and paste but I think that's a no-no for not-yet-published works.

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 12:56 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Tom, does he deal with the texts I posted above? Specifically the ones about God opening up the earth to kill the people?

You and I BOTH know he STILL hasn't given a good reason for the Ananias/Sapphira thing...


Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 12:59 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
D: Is there any time that God sanctions, whether in individuals or collectives, the breaking of the Great Commandments of Jesus?

T: Don't think so. I think that in destroying the world with a flood God was expressing that same love. Jesus is the incarnation of the love that makes tough choices. It might be that WE can never adjudicate all the contributing factors, and that we ought only to sacrifice and die. But God sure doesn't always refrain from destruction.

Tom


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

One Love
Registered Member




Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 1:03 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
D: Is there any time that God sanctions, whether in individuals or collectives, the breaking of the Great Commandments of Jesus?

T: Don't think so. I think that in destroying the world with a flood God was expressing that same love. Jesus is the incarnation of the love that makes tough choices. It might be that WE can never adjudicate all the contributing factors, and that we ought only to sacrifice and die. But God sure doesn't always refrain from destruction.


Sounds fair. If you wanna do "big boy" stuff, you'd better have a demonstrable "big boy" character to go with it. Agreed?

I'd love to hear this on the battlefield...


Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.

Back to Top
 

Daniel M
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 1:07 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
D:Greg's hermenetic would have to say that ALL this was a lie.

Daniel: Or that N.T. Wright is right, and literary epistemology is as hard as hell.
Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 1:22 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Daniel: Or that N.T. Wright is right, and literary epistemology is as hard as hell.

Jeff: In which case we need to cease to be dogmatic. But since that ain't gonna happpen, never has happened, and is contrary to the perspicous tenor of scripture itself, something must be easy enough (IOW, not "hard as hell," after all) for communal christianity to work at all. What would that "something" be? And how would we know it?


 

Back to Top
 

Tom
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 1:30 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
T: It might be that WE can never adjudicate all the contributing factors, and that we ought only to sacrifice and die. But God sure doesn't always refrain from destruction.

D: Sounds fair. If you wanna do "big boy" stuff, you'd better have a demonstrable "big boy" character to go with it. Agreed?

T: I don't know of any explanation of this stuff that makes it easy for us to follow Christ.

And I'll keep trying to follow him as best I can.

T


KIXYTΘEMTA

Back to Top
 

Similitude
Registered Member


Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
 
   Posted 8/14/2010 1:52 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
T: I don't know of any explanation of this stuff that makes it easy for us to follow Christ.

And I'll keep trying to follow him as best I can.

J: The way I see it is this: God doesn't allow us to be tested above what we are able. At the time God allows us to be put in a situation where we have to make a judgment, all He expects is for us to be as intellectually honest as we can with the wisdom we have thus far. If scripture makes anything clear, it seems to me that one such thing is that God gives wisdom incrementally. He gives; if we use it, He gives more. If we don't use it, He takes away that which was given. He is faithful to only require as He has given.


 

Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
92 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3  4 
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:05 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