 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/21/2004 3:21 PM (GMT -6) |   | Response to Borg from previous thread, "The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh Away":
John said
"Resolution of the two poles is implied in the phrase, “Job spoke ‘rightly.’” Obviously speaking “rightly” does not mean that Job spoke “correctly.” Else, God would not have rebuked him. Furthermore, Job went on to accuse God of many horrendous things. So, the rebuke (from God) alone calls in to question anything Job has said prior to chapter 38"
Borg said,
"NO. God rebuked him for the things that he did wrong, and yet there were still things in which Job was correct in saying. Where do you draw this line that just because God chastizes him for the horrendous things he has said, He is descrediting everything he has said? That doesn't make sense. Just because Peter was wrong when he spoke about the Gentiles, does that mean we discredit everything he has to say? NO."
John's Response:
The example of Peter is simple. He misfired bad doctrine and He was rebuked every time. Remember, “Get the behind me Satan”? He later stated truth and it was allowed to stand. He slipped again and stated improper doctrine regarding the Gentiles and was rebuked again. He later stated truth and it was allowed to stand. That is the point. God does not allow Peter's bad doctrine to stand. However, when He speaks rightly he is commended...Recall, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God...
The same applies to Job. God stated in response to EVERYTHING Job had said with one wide swath, “Who darkens my counsel.” NOTHING Job said was allowed to stand as proper theology. There is no specific commendation for any of Job's theology, not even the "Redeemer" passage. All that is said is that “Job did not sin.” His interpretation of the prologue—which he was not even aware of—was not endorsed. The polygamous King David is another example of how one may not have clue relative to proper doctrine yet be “after God’s own heart.” Everything Job stated prior to his encounter with the Almighty “darkened” perception of the situation as it actually had happened (in the prologue). We know because of the testimony of the inspired text that Job was wrong (even in Chapter 2) when he stated “the Lord taketh away” because the inspired author introduces a separate character who was the one who did the “taking away.” Interestingly, the dialogue is characterized as being “darkened,” [perhaps(?), not absolutely wrong in every detail] by Job which allows for other passages to reveal traces of truth (the “Redeemer” passage, etc.). So, Job was not “completely” wrong. However, if your position is that it was in fact the Lord who “taketh away” you (and Calvin) must contend not with me but with the inspired author who went to great length to give revelation of the real nature of the case of this world and the real author of evil—The Satan—who “taketh away.”
You commit hermeneutical anachronism by trumping the intent of the inspired author of Scripture with a manmade systematic theological construct. Job is not responsible for the prologue. Nor were his brothers and sisters. They did not no about the prologue. You and I, however, are culpable for the prologue because the Spirit has revealed what the real nature of the case is. Now if Job, completely unaware of the prologue, could sense that God was ultimately not responsible--hence the Redeemer passage. Surely we, knowing the details of the prologue and with the full revelation of Scripture, can draw an indelible line between God and Satan.
I challenge you to START WITH SCRIPTURE. START WITH THE TEXT, not with Calvin. Do not read into the text what is not there just because everybody else does. Do not let manmade philosophy carry you where the concept of “love” derived is ultimately nauseating as is the case when we bring your "dog on a leash" analogy down to earth. I commend you for drawing us to Scripture in our discussions, but I encourage you to exegete the text not just regurgitate it.
Blessings,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/21/2004 3:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg
Right behind you.
I don't have a life today either
Keep reading. Your getting to the best part. You're reading them backwards because I accidentally posted them backwards.
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/21/2004 4:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg
Come on!
Borg says
Nowhere did you address this, and no where do your claims justify this statement as being "incorrect theology".
Read my post
It is a short one.
You commit hermeneutical anachronism by trumping the intent of the inspired author of Scripture with a manmade systematic theological construct. Job is not responsible for the prologue. Nor were his brothers and sisters. They did not no about the prologue. You and I, however, are culpable for the prologue because the Spirit has revealed what the real nature of the case is. Now if Job, completely unaware of the prologue, could sense that God was ultimately not responsible--hence the Redeemer passage. Surely we, knowing the details of the prologue and with the full revelation of Scripture, can draw an indelible line between God and Satan.
Come on guys...Let's take a poll...I call for the question...
Did I address Borg's concern or did I not?
Come let us reason...
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/21/2004 4:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by johnmd
Borg
Come on!
Borg says
Nowhere did you address this, and no where do your claims justify this statement as being "incorrect theology".
Read my post
It is a short one.
You commit hermeneutical anachronism by trumping the intent of the inspired author of Scripture with a manmade systematic theological construct. Job is not responsible for the prologue. Nor were his brothers and sisters. They did not know about the prologue. You and I, however, are culpable for the prologue because the Spirit has revealed what the real nature of the case is. Now if Job, completely unaware of the prologue, could sense that God was ultimately not responsible--hence the Redeemer passage. Surely we, knowing the details of the prologue and with the full revelation of Scripture, can draw an indelible line between God and Satan.
Come on guys...Let's take a poll...I call for the question...
Did I address Borg's concern or did I not?
Come let us reason...
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/21/2004 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Borg
The real meet is in the "RELATIVISM" post.
Chew on that one. The other stuff is just the smoke.
Good luck with you tests
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 2/21/2004 4:36 PM (GMT -6) | | I wasn't going to, but I thought about it while doing my work and thought I'd make a quick post. To say that Job isn't accountable for the prologue would clear him of sin, because it seems he is doing it in ignorance. However, we are still held accountable for sins of ignorance, which can best clearly be seen with Christ on the cross when He said, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." Therefore to let Job off of the hook solely because he didn't know, doesn't make sense. And if he is kept off of the hook, not held accountable for the things he didn't know, then I don't want to know Scripture, I don't want to know about God, i don't want to know anything, so in the end, I can plead ignorance. But I'm sure this isn't what you meant, so let me have it.
Blessings,
Borg
"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards | | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 2/21/2004 5:08 PM (GMT -6) | | I appreciate your confidence in stating that I AM NOT SAYING ...then I don't want to know Scripture, I don't want to know about God, i don't want to know anything, so in the end, I can plead ignorance. But I'm sure this isn't what you meant, so let me have it.
Job is not culpable for the prologue simply means He does not have this information. He cannot be expected to make a decision on the basis of information that He does not have. This has nothing to do with sin, the cross, the soldiers, etc. That is a different thread.
God does not expect one to derive integral calculus before you take Algebra I.
Interestingly, and as a testimony to the intuition God planted in man and despite His fallen nature, Job senses something is wrong and does not ultimately blame God and passes the test.This premise is ultimately verified by the Lord Himself when He reveals to Job the likes of contending with Leviathon and Behometh. The real cause of His anguish.
Do your homework
I don't want to be responsible for a bad grade
And I don't think God foreordained this conversation if you have homework to do.
John | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:36 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 |
|
|