 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 9/17/2006 3:59 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Alright...something that's been preying on my mind quite a bit over these last few days.
Grace...what does one make of it. Here's the issue;
On one level I want to be able to say that Grace is totally undeserved, that it is God's pure gift
On another, I feel that it is my obligation to offer Grace to others, it is the right thing to do, and if it is an obligation then they must be worthy of it in some way, mustn't they?
How does one reconcile the two? They seem contradictory if I try to put them together - if I say that Grace is [i]the[/i] right thing to do, then surely it can't be totally unmerited?
Thoughts? | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/17/2006 7:41 PM (GMT -6) | | | Maybe not worthy of it, but reconciliation is desired of them. The propitiation renders it possible, so God, being a lovingly relational being, desires it. Thus, it is obligatory for us to act according to God's desire. As Paul said, "the love of Christ constrains me." "Blessed are the peace-makers for they shall be called the sons of God." For God, himself, desires peace with His enemies so He can experience the satisfying fruits of it.
Good to hear from you, bro. It's been too long.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/17/2006 7:48:22 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 9/18/2006 4:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, it has indeed been a long time... it's good to be back
I'm not sure whether what you say addresses the issue or not, I'll press you one step further if that's ok. If reconciliation is desired of them, does that not imply something worth being reconciled? | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 9/18/2006 5:14 AM (GMT -6) | | | Let's just add one more thought. It's to do with Love. There's something it seems to me that knows it's right to Love people despite their faults, how does this play into the whole thing? Does God choose to have compassion on us? Or can't he help but pity us?
[another edit to add]
I've just noticed the stuff in Matthew 10 about being worth more than sparrows too....argh...so much stuff to try and hold together. Post Edited (markporter) : 9/18/2006 6:00:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/18/2006 6:04 AM (GMT -6) | | Mark: If reconciliation is desired of them, does that not imply something worth being reconciled?
Jeff: I would say yes, in this sense: Obviously we are fit as rational, volitional creatures to bring Christ satisfaction by glorifying him and worshipping him. Sin gets in the way, of course. But the propitiation makes a way to deal with the sin. In other words, if there's nothing about us (apart from sin) that God derives sentient satisfaction from, why did he even create us in the first place? It is THAT thing about us that makes us worth saving once the propitiation has been obtained.
So I would say God creates to glorify Christ (the Father didn't created for any need of His own), and He fulfills that purpose by the propitiation since, otherwise, all would die and leave Christ without a people.
In short, once the propititaion is secured to redeem even ONE person, why not go for all and maximize Christ's glory thereby? I see love and glory as being correlative in the sense that the Father creates FOR the glory of the Son. So all that the Father does to that end, is an act of love. Love and glory are never compromised by each other. And only the plurality of the godhead can account for this. If there was only one person in the godhead, this would be impossible.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 9/18/2006 9:33 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...
Mark: If reconciliation is desired of them, does that not imply something worth being reconciled?
Jeff: I would say yes, in this sense: Obviously we are fit as rational, volitional creatures to bring Christ satisfaction by glorifying him and worshipping him. Sin gets in the way, of course. But the propitiation makes a way to deal with the sin. In other words, if there's nothing about us (apart from sin) that God derives sentient satisfaction from, why did he even create us in the first place? It is THAT thing about us that makes us worth saving once the propitiation has been obtained.
So I would say God creates to glorify Christ (the Father didn't created for any need of His own), and He fulfills that purpose by the propitiation since, otherwise, all would die and leave Christ without a people.
In short, once the propititaion is secured to redeem even ONE person, why not go for all and maximize Christ's glory thereby? I see love and glory as being correlative in the sense that the Father creates FOR the glory of the Son. So all that the Father does to that end, is an act of love. Love and glory are never compromised by each other. And only the plurality of the godhead can account for this. If there was only one person in the godhead, this would be impossible.
Aha. This in interesting. OK... So how does this somehow being worth saving (can that be differentiated from being worthy of being saved?) fit in with not deserving it? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 9/18/2006 12:36 PM (GMT -6) | |
markporter said...
Aha. This in interesting. OK... So how does this somehow being worth saving (can that be differentiated from being worthy of being saved?) fit in with not deserving it?
Hello Mark,
You ask an excellent question.  Recently Laika asked a similar question here, and got no acceptable response. Here is his quote:
“Also, grace is meaningless without judgment. Grace is us being spared from judgment. Without judgment, what are we spared from? And it's not rewards grace is giving us, grace isn't sparing us from punishment, what scripture says grace gives us is life. So I assume the opposite holds, rejecting grace means we forfit life. Not rewards, relief from punishment. Again, for true free will, God cannot guarantee universality of anything that is chosen.”
http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=10&p=3&m=86839
Unmerited favor is what God extents towards us, we must extend out our heart in order to receive it. While there is nothing we can do to earn grace or even change the conditions of grace (like accept it after we’re dead) we do need to freely, from our own volition, accept the gift.
(Rev. 22:17) "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." KJV 17 The Spirit and the bride say, "Come!" And let him who hears say, "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. - NIV
On must choose to freely accept the gift. This is how reality works in the real world we live in. In the following story we see that death is the other choice:
During the presidency of Andrew Jackson, George Wilson robbed a federal payroll from a train and in the process killed a guard. The court convicted him and sentenced him to hang. Because of public sentiment against capital punishment, however, a movement began to secure a presidential pardon for Wilson, and eventually Jackson intervened with a pardon. Amazingly, Wilson refused it.
Since this had never happened before, the Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether someone could indeed refuse a presidential pardon. Chief Justice John Marshall handed down the court's decision: "A pardon is a parchment whose only value must be determined by the receiver of the pardon. It has no value apart from that which the receiver gives to it. George Wilson has refused to accept the pardon. We cannot conceive why he would do so, but he has. Therefore, George Wilson must die." "Pardon," declared the Supreme Court, "must not only be granted, it must be accepted." George Wilson, as punishment for his crime, was hanged.
Likewise, God, through His mercy, has provided every human being pardon from their sins. However, that pardon must be accepted in the way God has ordained. Those who do not accept the pardon will perish.
Peace out,
Mark
Love is like a ball in a game of catch: throw it and it will come back to you; hold onto it and that ends the game. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 9/18/2006 12:42:52 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 9/18/2006 1:00 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Grace is not only understood in negative terms (avoiding God's punishment) but also in positive terms (receiving God's provision). So I don't think it's proper to say that "grace is meaningless without judgment".
Mark: Likewise, God, through His mercy, has provided every human being pardon from their sins. However, that pardon must be accepted in the way God has ordained. Those who do not accept the pardon will perish.
Corey: I really agree, Mark. I don't think universalism is in tension with this claim. All who reject Christ will be sentanced to second death on Judgement Day. My question, however, is that after they have finally been forced to die to Self, will they have the chance to finally become alive to/through Christ? I speculate that God, being Love, keeps pursuing them even then.
Post Edited (Corey) : 9/18/2006 1:07:48 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/18/2006 2:26 PM (GMT -6) | |
markporter said...
Yes, it has indeed been a long time... it's good to be back
I'm not sure whether what you say addresses the issue or not, I'll press you one step further if that's ok. If reconciliation is desired of them, does that not imply something worth being reconciled? Mark, I don't really mean to leave you a long quote. But I'm going to give evertying necessary here to say "YES" to worth, and also to tell WHY there is worth--on what basis. Its a quote from a Russian Orthodox theolgian.
ertyuifdghjkcvbnm,
Ooops, I see that I cited and linked to it in a reapons to Cory one time. Here that is:
Corey said...
our worth to God
Here's a discussion on our worth to God, with Florevsky critiquing Nygren's delapidation of Luther.
Read the section called "THE INADEQUACY OF THE CRITIQUE BY ANDERS NYGREN"
Luther’s writings on the Divine nature of love are not only interesting but valuable, not only penetrating but in one emphasis accurate. Indeed, if one considers Luther’s doctrine of Divine love by itself, exclusive of his other doctrines, . . . a view not dissimilar from that of ancient Orthodox Christianity. At times Luther can even appear to be somewhat mystically inclined. Luther’s well known description of Christian love as "eine quellende Liebe" [a welling or ever-flowing love] is by itself an Orthodox view. For Luther, as for the Fathers of the Church, this love has no need of anything, it is not caused, it does not come into existence because of a desired object, it is not aroused by desirable qualities of an object. It is the nature of God. But, at the same time, it is God who created mankind and hence the love of God for mankind, though in need of nothing and attracted by nothing, loves mankind not because of a value in man but because there is value in man because man is created by God. Herein lies the difference and it is indeed a great divide when one considers the differing views on the other subjects closely related to the nature of Divine love.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 9/18/2006 3:54 PM (GMT -6) | | OK, lots of reponses...would be really interested to hear what Mephi has to say what with his controversial views and all, but not sure he's gonna weigh in here...
PotOnWheel: OK, so value in us is there because it is created by God, but I'm not sure how this helps to resolve the tension of both not deserving Mercy and yet Mercy somehow seeming to be the right thing to do.
Jeff: Let's see if I've got what you're saying. Mercy is not at all merited by current conditions, but it is the future possibilites that merit it?
Let's try a scenario, see if it leads anywhere.
Say I have a friend, X. X somehow wrongs me, but then comes back and asks for forgiveness. Now, what is the right thing for me to do here? Are there really any circumstances under which I can say 'no, what you did to me was too bad, I can't accept you back?' - do we not hold persons in a higher esteem than that? Even at great cost to ourselves. What am I saying, except that 'you as a person are WORTH forgiving and welcoming back despite the evil you committed'
Now, let's look at God's relation to me. Can I say the same? There's something that wants to...but there's also something that wants to say 'but I'm not worthy of your forgiveness after what I did, it's only your sheer grace that can restore me'
[edit to add] There also seems to be a discrepancy between the two in that my forgiveness doesn't seem to demand any punishment, but God's does[/edit] Now, thinking about this, my mind starts questioning what forgiveness even means, and wonders whether I know it in the first place...On the one hand, taking a financial kind of analogy I know what it means to not make someone repay a debt, but then, interpersonal relations don't seem to work quite like that? or do they. Post Edited (markporter) : 9/18/2006 4:40:40 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/18/2006 3:54 PM (GMT -6) | | ABOVE:
"...there is value in man because man is created by God"
and
"...this love has no need of anything, it is not caused, it does not come into existence because of a desired object, it is not aroused by desirable qualities of an object. It is the nature of God."
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/18/2006 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | |
markporter said...
PotOnWheel: OK, so value in us is there because it is created by God, but I'm not sure how this helps to resolve the tension of both not deserving Mercy and yet Mercy somehow seeming to be the right thing to do.
We have value. But does that mean that we "deserve" mercy? Off the top of my head I'd say we deserve (merit of our own actions) hell!
And, as to the other, to saay "seeming to be the right thing to do...", doesn't that presuppose something bigger than God, that God has to conform to, and obey? Why do that?
The Florevsky quote above is content to say that: "this love has no need of anything, it is not caused, it does not come into existence because of a desired object, it is not aroused by desirable qualities of an object. It is the nature of God."
This way the "right thing to do" extends from God, rather than God following the "right thing to do."
Sooo...
I would'nt want to "resolve the tention" of two things like those. I'd pitch one and modify the other, as above.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 9/18/2006 5:18 PM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
Corey: I really agree, Mark. I don't think universalism is in tension with this claim. All who reject Christ will be sentanced to second death on Judgement Day. My question, however, is that after they have finally been forced to die to Self, will they have the chance to finally become alive to/through Christ? I speculate that God, being Love, keeps pursuing them even then. What do you think the "second death" is? It certainly isn't "die to Self", because that's an English colloquialism.
The second death has to mean cessation (of some kind of life) as the first death does.
First death, cessation of physical life.
Second death, cessation of soul/spirit life.
1. All languages would have a concept of cessation of life, what we denote "death". But not all languages would use the same word for "cessation" as for "death/denial of self" as well. Some languages may not even have a concept of "death/denial of self".
So that can't be the "second death".
For example, in Japanese, you cannot just take the same word for death, "shinu" or "naku nai", and conflate it with the word for self, "jibun", and get a phrase Japanese would understand. Their concept would be in a phrase that possibly would not use the concept of "cessation of life". It's just a concidence that "death(denial) of self" uses the same word as "cessation" does in English, "death".
The second death has to mean the cessation of some kind of life and since the first death is the cessation of the physical, the second death is the cessation of the spirit/soul.
2. Even if the "second death" is "death of self", why does God have to pursue them hence?
Believers don't go through the "second death", non-believers do. If "second death" is cessation of some kind of life, then there's nothing to pursue. If "second death" is "death to Self", they don't need to be pursued. In fact, they wouldn't have died to self themselves, "second death" is done to people, they are passive, God is the agent.
Jesus says "deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me", three actions the hearer is responsible for.
3. As for pursuing people past physical cessation and spiritual/soul cessation,
Genesis 6:3 “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever.”
Does this mean God gives up and leaves them be? Or does God force them into the kingdom as most universalists (being determinists) believe?
never say you're bitter, jack
bitter makes the worst things
come back
Post Edited (Laika) : 9/18/2006 5:27:52 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/19/2006 6:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Mark,
If I may, I think that you are asking the wrong question. You ask:
On one level I want to be able to say that Grace is totally undeserved, that it is God's pure gift. On another, I feel that it is my obligation to offer Grace to others, it is the right thing to do, and if it is an obligation then they must be worthy of it in some way, mustn't they?
How does one reconcile the two? They seem contradictory if I try to put them together - if I say that Grace is THE right thing to do, then surely it can't be totally unmerited?
Bottom line: If a person feels like grace is an OBLIGATION, then they truly haven't plumbed the depths of God's grace in their lives. How can I say this so confidently?
Matthew 18:21-35
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive someone who sins against me? Up to seven times?"
Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand bags of gold was brought to him. Since he was not able to pay, the master ordered that he and his wife and his children and all that he had be sold to repay the debt.
"The servant fell on his knees before him. 'Be patient with me,' he begged, 'and I will pay back everything.' The servant's master took pity on him, canceled the debt and let him go.
"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred silver coins. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.
"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'
"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.
"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' In anger his master handed him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive a brother or sister from your heart."
Now most people will read this and be like...
"Well, see there! We'd better give people grace like the kind WE receive...because that's what we're SUPPOSED to do! We're obliged to do it."
Hmmm...think again...
Is that REALLY what the parable is trying to communicate? Let's see something else...
Luke 7:36-50
When one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. A woman in that town who lived a sinful life learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, so she came there with an alabaster jar of perfume. As she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."
Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."
"Tell me, teacher," he said.
"Two people owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he forgave the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"
Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt forgiven."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.
Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—as her great love has shown. But whoever has been forgiven little loves little."
Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"
Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
I won't belabor this.
The point is simple:
If a person TRULY understands the DEPTH of forgiveness that they've been shown by God, living a life filled with loving grace towards others NATURALLY emerges from that person.
Such a person would not see extending grace to another as an obligation...but as an OPPORTUNITY to give away the same loving grace that they have received.
Our job is to cultivate hearts that are so aware of God's grace and forgiveness in our lives...that we LOOK FOR opportunities to express our thanks and love in extending grace to others. Living as Christ's followers is NOT some Christian moralism where we are focused on doing the "right thing"...it's about being conformed into the character and way of Christ. And that means having a heart permeated with lovingkindness and forgiveness.
Moralists ask questions like "How many times should I forgive X"
People following Christ spend their time weeping for joy at the thought of serving another...because of how Christ has served them.
Perhaps this is one of the ways that we are supposed to be the salt in the earth...ya think?
I hope this helps.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/19/2006 6:28:45 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 9/19/2006 10:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Laika: What do you think the "second death" is? It certainly isn't "die to Self", because that's an English colloquialism.
The second death has to mean cessation (of some kind of life) as the first death does.
First death, cessation of physical life.
Second death, cessation of soul/spirit life.
Corey: Yes, "die to self" was just my attempt using common evangelical language. The way this "second death" actually works out in reality I'm sure is not adequately desribed by such a short English phrase.
Laika: Even if the "second death" is "death of self", why does God have to pursue them hence?
Corey: God pursues God's image. I believe that all humans, regardless of their damnation, still hold something of the image of God. If I could figure out how God could NOT love God's image, it would be a lot easier for me to believe that God gives up for good. But love endures all things.
I take it your position is that there is nothing remaining to pursue, i.e. annihilationism. Am I right?
Laika: Genesis 6:3 “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever.” Does this mean God gives up and leaves them be? Or does God force them into the kingdom as most universalists (being determinists) believe?
Corey: I simply understand this to mean that Judgement is coming. It's a precursor of the common theme, repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. If you're not allied with God, you're allied against him, and the clock is ticking down to your doom.
As I think I've stated clearly elsewhere, I reject that God ever "forces them into the kingdom". Some DO say that, but I myself don't. Post Edited (Corey) : 9/20/2006 8:08:35 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 9/20/2006 8:43 AM (GMT -6) | |
Corey: God pursues God's image. I believe that all humans, regardless of their damnation, still hold something of the image of God. If I could figure out how God could NOT love God's image, it would be a lot easier for me to believe that God gives up for good. But love endures all things.
I take it your position is that there is nothing remaining to pursue, i.e. annihilationism. Am I right?
I don't currently have a "position", call me agnostic on this issue. I just don't think free will, logic and revelation support the universalist view. There's a reason it's called the "second" death, in that it would resemble the "first" death, which is the annihilation of the body. Since the body is gone, what would be annihilated?
The "God will redeem that which He can redeem" sounds cool but is totally nonsensical to me. What's 38% of my spirit/soul?
As I think I've stated clearly elsewhere, I reject that God ever "forces them into the kingdom". Some DO say that, but I myself don't.
I understand. I don't think God can give us true free will and then turn around and guarantee the outcome of those free choices.
There's reasons most universalists are determinists and you should try to understand those reasons.
Some posit that open theism says that, though God may know all the possible choices people make, He doesn't know what they will choose in the future.
But universalism denies this. Universalists say God knows they all will choose Him. That's an incompatibilty between open theism and universalism.
Incompatibilities between free will and universalism, God can guarantee the outcome because He determines the outcome.
Incompatibilities between open theism and universalism, God knows how all will choose.
The free will theodicy says that evil is in the world because that's the price that has to be paid for true free will.
But universalism says that God can guarantee that all will eventually make the right choice. But why not now? Is He powerless to compel people to make the right choices now but later He will be powerful enough? The presence of evil contradicts the view that God is able to bring about universal correct choices. Now or ever.
Laika: Genesis 6:3 “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever.” Does this mean God gives up and leaves them be? Or does God force them into the kingdom as most universalists (being determinists) believe?
Corey: I simply understand this to mean that Judgement is coming. It's a precursor of the common theme, repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand. If you're not allied with God, you're allied against him, and the clock is ticking down to your doom.
Laika: This wasn't rhetorical. God actually did something about it, He shortened the lifespan of humans to 120 years.
'Because I will not strive with humans forever, I'll shorten their lives to 120 years.'
God was done striving with evil humans that lived 900 years. So why do universalists think God will strive with evil people for eternity?
120 years is quite a bit less than eternity
never say you're bitter, jack
bitter makes the worst things
come back
Post Edited (Laika) : 9/20/2006 9:35:53 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 9/20/2006 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi, Thanks for weighing in...comments/questions as follows;
You pick up on my use of the word obligation, and taken it's negative connotations....perhaps that was the wrong word to use - I was trying to convey a sense of one avenue being the good and perhaps even, from that, the right thing to do. I think I'm left with two theological roots to take, and I can't quite work them out.
1) God's grace shown at the cross was purely and absolutely a sovereign choice, there was nothing in him, nothing in any one else that made one choice right or fitting over and above the other, God could equally as well have not done that and been just as happy. The prodigal son could have repented, and God could have found it in himself to turn his face away and said 'no, you don't deserve it, I'm not havin' ya back'
(if anyone's going to make a distinction between Justice and Love as habit often makes me, you're going to have to argue for it...I'm not taking it just like that, I see them both in the end as placing value where value's due)
2) For some reason, welcoming the prodigal back through the cross was the good and right thing to do, even at great expense to God, there was something that meant that this wasn't pure decision but the scales were tipped as it were. Is the cross what God is like? Or is it what God chose to be like?
Do you get what I'm trying to express? I'm finding it really hard to do... | | Back to Top | | |
| 56 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:12 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 |
|
|