 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Rules, Risks & Remedies--Atonement as Covenant Fulfillment | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/6/2007 10:06 AM (GMT -6) |   |
The soul that sins shall die. Both physically and spiritually. The wages of sin is death. These thigns we know.
I take the position that God truly can forgive sins without the need of a sacrifice. I believe that since we can forgive each other, regardless of our sinful context, this only proves the point. That's love.
What God can never do, however, is "fellowship" with darkness, be it a darkness that derives from evil (Satan) or a darkness that derives from a context (this darkened world). God can never fellowship in His sphere of existence with anything that is not righteous or reckonded as righteous.
God's command to Adam was a statement of incorportation; as Adam goes, so goes the world, like it or not. It wouldn’t do, apparently, to have split realities going on—Adam and, say, a few of his decendents do fine, and then someone comes along and screws things up, leaving the world in a “which way did he go, which way did he go?” Bugs Bunny / Loony Tunes cartoon context. Nope, in Adam it’s all or nothing. Either sin or eat of the tree of life. Either way, it was Adam’s and no one elses’ actions that would set the world on its ultimate course. When Adam, therefore, chose to sin, the entire world and its inhabitants were sent on a course away from God, out from under "fellowship" with God. This meant that the Spirit of God was no longer within spiritual proximity to protect mankind's place of standing before God. And we all know what happened after that.
So there God sits, enthroned in “heavenly” places, but with His creation enthroned in “earthly” places. Yes, God can forgive mankind, but He cannot fellowship with mankind within this death context. The God of heaven is on one course, the world and its people are on another course. The two can never meet.
We are stuck at this point. No one here on earth possess power over death. And even if God gave someone the power to resurrect himself, that doesn't speak for the whole world. It only speaks for that person. And for that person there would still be a seperation from God, for no man possesses life eternal by default. On may live with everlasting life--the Lord removed Adam from the Garden let Adam partake of the tree of life and live forever--but only God possesses that quality of life we can Eternal Life.
God's solution was found in Jesus, the one who could "save" the world from its collision course with everlasting death. In the context of love and forgiveness, Jesus, who alone possessed that particular quality of life called Eternal Life, was able to take unto Himself the course of human history, that is, He went down the same trek for which and to which mankind is destined: death. But only He was able to defy it all by both resurrecting from the dead and by having done so because of the Eternal Life, the life God alone possesses. This was new. This was life-changing. This was world-changing. It was a change in the direction of this world.
The Son of God resurrected from the dead having overcome death. It is this very act of having “overcome” that is so important to understand here. When Jesus resurrected, He was able to make a way for all of the world and its occupants, just as Adam had made a way for all the world and its occupants. Jesus set the course of the world toward a new direction, a direction away from death. Ah, but there is a slight difference between the affect of Adam’s work and Christ’s work, but it is in Romans 5, again, where we discover Paul’s thinking about this matter.
Vs. 12 – Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned . . . .
Simple enough, though it seems a bit unfair that I, how have not sinned as Adam did, must be hostage to the same death he chose. Nevertheless, this is reality. But it’s this very reality that makes sense out of why Christ could enter the stream of the world’s course and effect a change.
Vss. 15-17 – But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grce of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand, the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness [emphasis Starkman] will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ.
What is Paul saying? It looks at first glance as if Paul is teaching universalism. However, that’s not Paul’s point. We are five chapters into a letter, and what Paul has already written sets the context. In chapters one and two, Paul argued that the rebellion of mankind (both Jew and Gentile) proves that all men are outside of relationship with God. Men are bent toward sin and try to justify their actions. In chapter three, Paul argued for the insufficiency of the Law, but that there is the righteousness we need found in Jesus’ sacrificial death. In chapter four, Paul argued that Abraham walked in this righteousness, by faith. And now in chapter five, Paul explains the mechanics of how Christ’s death can bring about our righteousness (our right-standing that makes the way for us to fellowship with God at the level of that particular life called “Eternal Life”).
Again, Paul is not espousing universal reconcilation for its own sake, but that the power of the free gift was greater than the power of the result of Adam’s sin. Just as Adam’s sin took all with him toward a direction away from God, the free gift takes those who will receive it, into a new direction (those who are in Christ are his—Romans 8:9-11). The Son of God was able to take on humanity unto Himself, die, and then conquer death in a way that had never been done before, in a way that only God could do, since He alone is the only one who possesses Eternal Life. The way Paul drives home the mechanics of how this works, however, is in the inclusive language of “all,” as demonstrated in the next verse:
Vs. 18 - So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.
The world sits in a different context now that the Son has come. But that context is available only to those who receive it. Whatever happens post-mortem is not the issue here.
Perhaps if Paul had put this information ahead of his great discourse in Romans 3, we would not so easily have missed this important information. As it stands, and I’ve said before, Romans 5 is one of the least touched-upon passages in Romans. That’s sad, too. It’s as if by Romans 3 many seem to conclude that Paul’s made his point, so move on to Romans 6 where the meat picks up again. But the thinking person will be left with the questions we are asking on this board: how does death have much to do with God being able to forgive? How is itthat a sacrifice can have anything to do with my sins? I believe that Romans 5 is the clue to answer these questions.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/6/2007 11:05 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
I think that though God’s defeat of Satan is PRIOR in terms of strategy (first bind the strongman, then take the spoils), it’s SECONDARY in terms of PURPOSE. And I never felt like Greg was saying THIS.
Greg may have an easier time if he goes back to WHY the universe was created in the first place. If God's purpose is SELF-REVELATION, which I would argue, in the context of Greg's metaphysic, is a form of SELF-RELATION (Of course, all of this is grounded in Love because God IS love)...AND if humans were CREATED to become the "likeness of God" in a unique way in the universe that shapes the becoming of said universe, then their is no need to place cosmic concerns before anthropological concerns...or vice versa. Humanity is PART of the created order, after all.
Basically, I agree with you, Tom. 
"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be One, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be One as we are One— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete UNIty. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to SONship. And by him we cry, "Abba, Father." The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/7/2007 9:58 AM (GMT -6) | | | Tom: If God's the sort of God who WOULD reconcile and forgive us while just blowing off the consequences, then that's what God DID DO, in which case the Cross is not about us PERIOD. But there’s just too much in the NT about ‘payment’ and ‘ranson’ that Christ embraces ‘on our behalf’ to say that Christ’s death isn’t this kind of an action. That's always been my problem with the Christus Victor model.
Jeff: ABSOLUTELY. Here's what Greg says in the Atonement book:
It is arguably for this reason that Paul does no see "sin" first and foremost as a matter of individual behavior, as most modern Westerners do.
Now this is the same kind of confusion of emphasis you're talking about, Tom. How can one even define sin except in terms of "individual behavior?" Isn't sin the act of misrelating by an individual?
I understand what Greg is trying NOT to say. But I think he ends up going too far to another extreme to do it. Paul makes it clear that God has an incorruptible glory and that sinning causes us to "fall short" of that glory. So even though God's loving character is such that God would not risk significant suffering apart from the possibility or certainty (UR) of forgiveness, it is still true that God can't just "blow off" sin by forgiving the way humans do. Hence, there need not be that problem of reconciling forgiveness with love that Greg is struggling with.
It's may have at least something to do with self-revelation, as D. says. If God creates intelligent creatures, He can not help but want to have intimacy with them. But intimacy means "in-to-me-see." So God wants us to see Him exactly as He is. Substitutionary death by a sinless, HUMAN member of the godhead is the most potent revelation of the incorruptible nature of God to a sinful world.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/7/2007 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...
Tom: If God's the sort of God who WOULD reconcile and forgive us while just blowing off the consequences, then that's what God DID DO, in which case the Cross is not about us PERIOD. But there’s just too much in the NT about ‘payment’ and ‘ranson’ that Christ embraces ‘on our behalf’ to say that Christ’s death isn’t this kind of an action. That's always been my problem with the Christus Victor model.
Ware says:
"How do we interpret the cross today? What does it mean to us, personally, and as a community? How do we understand the saving work of Christ effected on the cross?
If we look at scripture and tradition what we find there is not a single theory of the atonement, worked out in legal and philosophical language. Rather, what we find there is a variety of images and symbols coexisting, juxtaposed, symbols of profound meaning and power, yet, for the most part un-explained, but left to speak for themselves.
Approaching then, the "mystery of the cross" our best motto is "safety in numbers." We are not to isolate any one image of symbol, placing exclusive emphasis upon it and ignoring the others. No single image or symbol is to be pressed to far, developed one-sidedly into an exclusive explanation. We must be careful not to turn a symbol or image into a rational or syllogistic argument. We must respect the distinctive, nonrational logic of symbols. A logic that is often poetic."
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/7/2007 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...
I think Paul's language in Romans clearly ties the propriety of the remission of sins to the incorruptibility of God. Somehow, I think that language grounds the fittingness or needfulness (or both) of Christ's death for redemption. What we all agree with Greg on is that God WANTS to forgive even though it is fitting or needful (or both) THAT He forgive. Wouldn't Eastern Orthodoxy agree with that?
With Both:
1) God's will is to redeem. (Only our own will can interfere, or our lack of effort.)
2) And it took God to "trample down death" in his death.
If any man be devout and loveth God,
Let him enjoy this fair and radiant triumphal feast!
If any man be a wise servant,
Let him rejoicing enter into the joy of his Lord.
If any have laboured long in fasting,
Let him how receive his recompense.
If any have wrought from the first hour,
Let him today receive his just reward.
If any have come at the third hour,
Let him with thankfulness keep the feast.
If any have arrived at the sixth hour,
Let him have no misgivings;
Because he shall in nowise be deprived therefore.
If any have delayed until the ninth hour,
Let him draw near, fearing nothing.
And if any have tarried even until the eleventh hour,
Let him, also, be not alarmed at his tardiness.
For the Lord, who is jealous of his honour,
Will accept the last even as the first.
He giveth rest unto him who cometh at the eleventh hour,
Even as unto him who hath wrought from the first hour.
And He showeth mercy upon the last,
And careth for the first;
And to the one He giveth,
And upon the other He bestoweth gifts.
And He both accepteth the deeds,
And welcometh the intention,
And honoureth the acts and praises the offering.
Wherefore, enter ye all into the joy of your Lord;
Receive your reward,
Both the first, and likewise the second.
You rich and poor together, hold high festival!
You sober and you heedless, honour the day!
Rejoice today, both you who have fasted
And you who have disregarded the fast.
The table is full-laden; feast ye all sumptuously.
The calf is fatted; let no one go hungry away.
Enjoy ye all the feast of faith:
Receive ye all the riches of loving-kindness.
Let no one bewail his poverty,
For the universal Kingdom has been revealed.
Let no one weep for his iniquities,
For pardon has shown forth from the grave.
Let no one fear death,
For the Saviour's death has set us free.
He that was held prisoner of it has annihilated it.
By descending into Hell, He made Hell captive.
He embittered it when it tasted of His flesh.
And Isaiah, foretelling this, did cry:
Hell, said he, was embittered
When it encountered Thee in the lower regions.
It was embittered, for it was abolished.
It was embittered, for it was mocked.
It was embittered, for it was slain.
It was embittered, for it was overthrown.
It was embittered, for it was fettered in chains.
It took a body, and met God face to face.
It took earth, and encountered Heaven.
It took that which was seen, and fell upon the unseen.
O Death, where is thy sting?
O Hell, where is thy victory?
Christ is risen, and thou art overthrown!
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life reigns!
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave.
For Christ, being risen from the dead,
Is become the first-fruits of those who have fallen asleep.
To Him be glory and dominion
Unto ages of ages.
Amen.
(o)Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/7/2007 1:42:32 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/14/2007 10:52 AM (GMT -6) | | "So I'm kind of in between Zach and the more traditionally articulated view of substitution. Unlike Zach, I think there are rules to life in the sense that all humans exist FOR something. If there were truly NO rules to life, it would be equivalent, seemingly, to saying we don't exist for any end whatsoever with respect to volitional behavior."
There are rules for life. But I think it is very important in this context to note that whatever rules for life there may be, they are the outgrowth of the divine nature. The divine nature is love. Love in the sense of confident, other-edifying, vulnerable giving. God is Trinity, and within the Trinity there are no protective shields guarding one person from the other. No fortifications are made in preparation for conflict within the Godhead. This is not because such conflict is impossible. It is simply because the three persons continue to live in confident, other-edifying, vulnerable harmony.
There is no 'good,' no natural law, no rules for life which exist prior to God. Nothing is foundational to God. God is the foundation of all ethical rules.
All creation is likewise the outgrowth of the divine nature. God is the one (or three) who originally decides how to organize creation. So how does a God who chooses to love create? He creates on the basis of love. He created a world which is well-suited for love (or so I believe). Now, love is not an outwardly imposed condition. By definition, God cannot 'create' loving creatures, for the simple reason that it is not love if it is not freely chosen by the lover. Blissful or content or selfless creatures may be created; but love cannot be created in another. It can only be chosen by the potential lover. Other people may (quite legitimately) define 'love' differently, but this is what I mean when I use the word.
So, humans are created with the potential for love, but not with love 'hardwired' into us. To have the potential for love, all we need is the ability to choose it and the awareness that it is an option. Some people suffer from physical or psychological conditions that deny them the ability and or the awareness. It is good to help people gain the ability and awareness. But judging by Jesus' example and teachings, it is bad to force the choice on them. It is bad to threaten people with suffering or death if they choose differently from us.
There are rules for life that God has established. But what if they are broken? If they are broken within a covenant, then we start applying the Matthew passage on church discipline. If they are broken outside covenant, then those who have pledged themselves to the covenant of love allow the rule-breaker that choice. After all, they never agreed to those rules in the first place, and they are beings whom God created free in hope that they would choose well. God is the creator, the originator. But more remarkable is that God has chosen to be loving and therefore allows us that same choice (without an ax hanging over us in case we choose poorly; that wouldn't be a free choice and would show God to be unloving and render us unable to attain love on the most fundamental level).
And the cross? Well, Jesus says, "I'm about to die on a cross, and you followers of mine are going to take up a cross too." The cross is love. The cross is a confident, other-edifying, vulnerable demonstration of who God is. It is indescribably powerful. When we followers take up our crosses, we share in his sufferings and in their power. The crucifixion does not fix things so that God can stand us or reconcile his righteous indignation with his love. The crucifixion fixes things so that we can stand God. It poses for onlookers the choice between the 'self-preservation' which results in unjust suffering and death and the love which for a time succumbs to the destructive self-preserving impulses in others but finally results in resurrection and life.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/14/2007 11:10 AM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: But judging by Jesus' example and teachings, it is bad to force the choice on them. It is bad to threaten people with suffering or death if they choose differently from us.
Jeff: Right. We can't force love on people by definition. Love is not enforceable.
Zach: There are rules for life that God has established. But what if they are broken? If they are broken within a covenant, then we start applying the Matthew passage on church discipline. If they are broken outside covenant, then those who have pledged themselves to the covenant of love allow the rule-breaker that choice. After all, they never agreed to those rules in the first place, and they are beings whom God created free in hope that they would choose well.
Jeff: But isn't God ultimately responsible for people dying from sin even if persons don't choose death consciously like in cases of suicide? The fact that they never agreed to those rules is irrelevant to God, seemingly. Don't you think that apart from their repentance/forgiveness, they're gonna die whether they agreed to it or not?
Zach: The crucifixion does not fix things so that God can stand us or reconcile his righteous indignation with his love. The crucifixion fixes things so that we can stand God. It poses for onlookers the choice between the 'self-preservation' which results in unjust suffering and death and the love which for a time succumbs to the destructive self-preserving impulses in others but finally results in resurrection and life.
Jeff: All I can say here, is that the crucifixion poses no such thing to me. I literally don't even know how to make sense of what you are saying here. Let's get it down to something simpler. God creates a world. In this world there is such a thing as sin, right? Isn't sin acting contrary to God's will, in some sense? If these are true, then does sin lead to death? If so, isn't forgiveness required to escape death? Isn't forgiveness itself a changing of relationship?
This is what I don't understand. There seems to be some sense in which God's relationship with us changes in time. Whether repentance is the only thing required or whether atonement AND forgiveness is required, the point still stands--the degree and duration of the experience of God's love is in some sense conditional. This seems undeniable to me. I just say that God satisfies at least some conditions, Himself. Scripture is understandable to me if this is the case. It isn't, otherwise.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/14/2007 3:57:30 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/17/2007 5:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: But isn't God ultimately responsible for people dying from sin even if persons don't choose death consciously like in cases of suicide?
Zach: I've argued against this proposition elsewhere. The simple answer is no. I have not seen the logically sound argument for this proposition. When an omnipotent being voluntarily grant power to creation outside himself, he is not responsible for how that power is used. He is responsible for allowing potential alternatives but not responsible for which alternative is chosen. There is a significant difference.
Jeff: Death is either natural (which we call mortality), or it is volitionally caused. But the biblical account says God removed humans from the "tree of life." This was not natural, seemingly. And yet all people thereafter have died because of what they did. Now, if we reject that story completely, it would seem we're stuck with the idea that we're just mortal period. But seemingly God would have made us that way. We certainly didn't make ourselves that way. So either way, it seems that God has assured that we will die unless we repent or live perfectly (which seems to be impossible).
Zach: But let's turn the question around. If you believe God is ultimately responsible for forcing death on those people who only want to be left alone by God, then how can you call God loving? It is as though the most hateful things are loving in our eyes if they are ascribed to God.
Jeff: I can only explain it one way. Christ is to be beneficiary of this world. The degree to which Christ becomes beneficiary is increased by the Father allowing the world to continue for some time. But after the Fall, God apparently found it contrary to some aspect of His purpose to allow Adam/Eve to live forever. So He prevented it in such a way that it has affected all the sons and daughters of Adam. I assume that this has to do with God's revelation of His nature. Because I know of no other way to explain it. It seems plausible to me that God's nature would not be clearly manifested in a world where sinners could live in utopian conditions with zero impunity. And eternal life is to KNOW God. Knowing God is part of our TELOS.
But I can't see how any view that doesn't entail universal reconciliation can square with a creator that is perfectly loving. Even those who just want to be left alone are subject to all kinds of vanities, groanings, and travailings that they haven't asked for, and God is powerful enough to prevent this suffering, but doesn't. So as I see it, if we choose to suffer with God, we will be rewarded accordingly. If we don't choose to suffer with God, we will be judged according to what has been given, but eventually saved. Either way, people will end up living eternally because they will come to KNOW HIM in one way or another. Short of this, I can only argue that God is just--but not perfectly loving.
Jeff: If so, isn't forgiveness required to escape death? Isn't forgiveness itself a changing of relationship?
Zach: Yes. But forgiveness is made available by God apart from human sacrifice. God does not first need to satiate his thirst for holy blood. We are the ones who thirst for holy blood. We are the ones who need to be changed.
Jeff: My guess is that substitution is the best way God can reveal His incorruptible nature. That if He forgave without the accountability of the death that the OT says He required of sinners, we would be more apt to view His forgiveness as analogous to ours. But it is not. We are corruptible and He is not. Therefore, it is hypocritical of us to not forgive if we want to be forgiven. Not so for God.
Why does God have to forgive at all? I assume it is because He is incorruptible and He can't be KNOWN BY, and thus intimate with, sinners. So repentance and substitution are required of God because they have the revelatory effect of bringing us to the most clear knowledge of Him (i.e., His nature). One thing is for sure, to me; the whole NT seems to literally scream the idea that Christ's death served as a kind of substitution in a propitiatory sense. None of the language, including Christ's, seems even remotely indicative of an idea of Christ's death being only exemplary or as indirectly affirming our own depraved blood lust. God wants us to know Him as He IS--not as we want to believe He is. This is what repentance is about --changing our mind to know what God is really like. Why then, would He put forth Christ's death as a means of satisfying our depraved ideas?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/17/2007 7:28:06 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/17/2007 9:21 PM (GMT -6) | | You said, "So either way, it seems that God has assured that we will die unless we repent or live perfectly." Actually, it seems that God has assured that we will die. Period. There is no 'unless' (with the exception of three non-Christian sinners mentioned in the Bible). I have no problem with the idea of a loving God creating temporary creatures and offering those creatures the alternative of eternal life. And we don't need to 'reject the story' either. In the story itself it says, "for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." But they didn't physically die that day. Even if we loosen it to the NIV version, 800+ years isn't exactly what you'd expect from "when you eat of it you will surely die." Plenty of conservative theologians see a spiritual meaning in the fall story.
Your explanation of how God can both kill and love the same people seems to be that God has a more important goal than love for us. Essentially, God stops acting out of love for us when it gets in the way of his own goals. But a love that puts self ahead of others is no love at all. The Father loves the Son, so if your life is "contrary to some aspect of His purpose," he will kill you. That's not love, and it sure doesn't sound like anything Jesus would say.
"But I can't see how any view that doesn't entail universal reconciliation can square with a creator that is perfectly loving." Not only that. All universalism does is promise that God will be perfectly loving at some later date. (by depriving people the ability to make an ultimate choice against love?) It doesn't allow for a creator who is presently perfectly loving (if we assume, as I don't, that such love would result in the elimination of unwanted suffering.)
You said, "The whole NT seems to literally scream the idea that Christ's death served as a kind of substitution in a propitiatory sense." I agree completely. So does Rene Girard. I'm am only a poor parrot of him.
Like you, I reject the "idea of Christ's death being only exemplary or as indirectly affirming our own depraved blood lust."
You ask me, "Why then, would He put forth Christ's death as a means of satisfying our depraved ideas?" But this is a non sequitur. I say we, not God, put forth Christ's death in this way. I say, the satanic impulses at work in us sought to kill Jesus in satisfaction of our lust. The gospels are clear. Caiaphas is the one who thought of Jesus as a sacrificial scapegoat. Caiaphas. The bad guy! Jesus knew what was about to happen (even before the Incarnation and from the foundation of the world), and still he let it happen. But the motivation to make Jesus a sacrifice to appease the need for blood is the idea of those who opposed Jesus. Jesus (who is very God and one with the Father) opposed the practice of oppressing and sacrificing victims. He supported the practice of voluntarily loving, defending, and even taking the place of those victims. But let us be clear: defending the oppressed by fighting fire with fire only shifts the focus of the sin. Jesus defended the defenseless while bending down and writing in the dirt.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/17/2007 9:28:25 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/18/2007 7:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Don't have much time, Zach. So I'm gonna try to be real quick here:
Zach: I have no problem with the idea of a loving God creating temporary creatures and offering those creatures the alternative of eternal life.
Jeff: What I was trying to get at it is something along these lines: You say that God requires nothing of those who just want to be left alone. But does God love them? Some two year-olds are used as ash trays by adults and are eventually killed by them. You say they get a second chance, post-mortem. I have problems with that as it is since I don't know how the second chance wouldn't necessarily entail the same kind of world. But apart from that, in the post-mortem, second chance, they might just want to be left alone. But then God kills them for that, AFTER watching them be used as an ash tray so some thug can have a snow-ball's chance (since such thugs are typically pretty solidified) of deciding correctly. This is a more impressive love than universalism?
Zach: And we don't need to 'reject the story' either. In the story itself it says, "for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die." But they didn't physically die that day. Even if we loosen it to the NIV version, 800+ years isn't exactly what you'd expect from "when you eat of it you will surely die." Plenty of conservative theologians see a spiritual meaning in the fall story.
Jeff: I don't know if there was a spiritual death or not. But God said they would return to dust in that very context. But this is irrelevant to your theodicy. According to the story, Adam didn't get to choose to covenant. God just laid the rule on him. Then, He seemingly caused all his descendants to be born a-spiritual even though they had nothing to do with the original sin.
Zach: Your explanation of how God can both kill and love the same people seems to be that God has a more important goal than love for us.
Jeff: I don't think anyone can say that God is loving (except in a purely emotional and intentional sense) 2-year olds that are being used as human ash trays at the time of their abuse. But in a purely intentional sense, God can love everyone all the time, equally.
Zach: Essentially, God stops acting out of love for us when it gets in the way of his own goals.
Jeff: Except for a purely emotional and intentional sense, God doesn't love a great number of people in the short run. The world is too complex for humans to do this either. When I'm loving someone in the action sense of the term, I'm automatically deprived of the opportunity of loving others in an action sense at that same time. The only way God could love everyone equally at the same time in the action sense of the term is if there was no possibility of sin. So I think we're all stuck with that.
Zach: The Father loves the Son, so if your life is "contrary to some aspect of His purpose," he will kill you.
Jeff: Why does "If you want to be left alone, I'll kill you" sound so sweet to you? Why does "If you want repent, I'll kill you" sound so sweet to you? What is sin but an action contrary to God's purpose?
Zach: The gospels are clear. Caiaphas is the one who thought of Jesus as a sacrificial scapegoat.
Jeff: Not only is the one gospel not clear, it seems like a very improbable interpretation. It never dawned on me (and doubt it did on many others) that Caiaphas actually thought killing Christ would serve the function of a propitiating human sacrifice to God. What seems much more probable to me is that Caiaphas thought Jesus was going to start a movement that would result in Roman intervention that would lead to the very social catastrophe that ended up happening 40 years later, anyway. What's more, there is nothing in the other NT writings about Christ's death that even hints that the language of propitiatory substitution is an allusion to the thoughts of Caiaphas.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/18/2007 8:36 PM (GMT -6) | | | One more thing: When Paul (or whoever) says God promised life before the the ages, I think this implies that God is fidelity-bound to carry out the creational project even though it is fallen. In that sense, God CAN'T do other than proceed with the creational purpose(s) constrained by those conditions that the Fall and subsequent sinfulness have resulted in. Because God can't be motivated to break a promise. And I suspect that God has to allow/create certain conditions as revelatory means to knowing Him as He is.
The only thing God can do to love as fully as possible, given these constraints, is to make it where all will ultimately be better off for having existed. Just like God and Christ are true beneficiaries of creation even though They have had to suffer to benefit therefrom. I don't say that God doesn't prefer maximal volitional beauty. But I don't think universalism rules out freedom. God is free, and so will we be. I just don't think He or we will be free to sin. We will only be free to creatively love.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/18/2007 8:39:18 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 7/19/2007 12:15 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: "But then God kills them for that, AFTER watching them be used as an ash tray..."
I'm confused as to who you claim God is killing in my view. Are you saying that God is the one who kills victimized children? It is my position that God is not killing. If the bad man kills a child, then God did not kill that child. Only one person (or party) is morally culpable for the act. Otherwise you are left with determinism.
Jeff: "This is a more impressive love than universalism?"
As I define it 'love' is always a free choice. Outwardly determined 'choices' cannot be loving, properly speaking. Universalism is the belief that it is determined that a certain choice will be made universally, or else it is the belief that those 'choices' are immaterial and God is sending all to heaven whether they like it or not. Either way it's not love. So any instance of love is more impressive than the love of universalism simply because universalism is not an instance of love at all.
There have been some fairly deft arguments put forth where free choice is thought to be describable with the language of probability, but our experience of freewill should be enough to convince us that rolling dice and choosing to obey God in love are two qualitatively different events. Plus Jesus says it just about as clearly as is possible: "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Jeff: "According to the story, Adam didn't get to choose to covenant. God just laid the rule on him."
Really? And Adam must have had blue eyes because the story never says he had brown. This is an argument from silence. But there is more than silence. The rule that was laid on him is just an instance of God wasting his breath if the freedom to choose for himself was not given to Adam. And sure enough, on the next page we find that apparently God did leave Adam the ability to choose. Now Adam's choice was not one that allowed for every conceivable alternative. But the one fundamental choice was given: Live in closeness with the God who sustains you or go do your own thing and try to sustain yourself. If that is a rule laid on humans, then I am ok with God laying down rules without consent. But in the language of the 21st century, this looks more like 'freedom' than 'rule.'
Jeff: "Then, He seemingly caused all his descendants to be born a-spiritual even though they had nothing to do with the original sin."
Seemingly. But perhaps God does not determine everything. Perhaps God allows humans to make meaningful and consequential choices which impact others.
Jeff: "I don't think anyone can say that God is loving (except in a purely emotional and intentional sense) 2-year olds that are being used as human ash trays at the time of their abuse."
That is the crux of the matter certainly. But our God is not the God of emotions and intent with no action. God is strong and involved. Jesus taught that the kingdom of God is near, here, and within you. The Kingdom! Here! But the problem of the abused child is reflected in the problem of the crucified king and the promised crucifixion of his followers. Although the kingdom is here, not everything is right. Jesus is king not just in principle but in reality. Yet still men retain the power to harm others. It makes me rethink my understanding of what sort of king Jesus is.
Sometimes it baffles me how close we get without seeing. It's standard procedure for American Protestants to say, "Jesus' kingdom was not of this world, but the Jews were expecting a king like David, and that's why they rejected Jesus." But we still make the exact same mistake. We still think that for Jesus to be a king he must go out killing his enemies and imposing his rule like David. Since he is clearly not doing that, we think Jesus' kingdom is not yet here in any real since. But Jesus' kingdom is unique. The gospels spend half their time recounting his descriptions of the kingdom. Like yeast that starts small, like scattered seed. But we persist in thinking: if it's a kingdom it must be the forceful imposition of rule.
Jeff: "But in a purely intentional sense, God can love everyone all the time, equally."
I've had some friends who were looking for some sort of salvation. And I think I can speak for most of them when I say that they cannot honestly care less about what God's intentions are if he is unwilling or unable to do anything about it. Deism only works for the rich.
Jeff: "The only way God could love everyone equally at the same time in the action sense of the term is if there was no possibility of sin."
I don't know how to respond except to say I disagree 100%. I think we must mean two considerably different things when we say 'love.'
Jeff: "Why does "If you want to be left alone, I'll kill you" sound so sweet to you? Why does "If you want repent, I'll kill you" sound so sweet to you?"
I don't know what you mean. These are exactly the things I am opposed to. I am not the one arguing that God kills people.
Jeff: "It never dawned on me (and doubt it did on many others) that Caiaphas actually thought killing Christ would serve the function of a propitiating human sacrifice to God."
That never dawned on me either. I have consistently said that Jesus was made a sacrifice by sinful man to sinful man - the sacrifice of Caiaphas. I have, for quite some time now, been arguing that Jesus was not a sacrifice to God, but to what is worst in man. Now the incarnation and Jesus' decision to vulnerably love people, is a sacrifice in another since - a sacrifice from God to man. And the two sacrifices coincided at the cross. But humans are ultimately responsible for killing Jesus. Jesus knew that coming here would almost certainly end in his violent death, and he spoke about laying down his life, but that does not mean that it was not the collective sinful acts of men and women that was responsible for the crucifixion.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 7/19/2007 12:32:10 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/19/2007 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | |
Sahid said...
That never dawned on me either. I have consistently said that Jesus was made a sacrifice by sinful man to sinful man - the sacrifice of Caiaphas. I have, for quite some time now, been arguing that Jesus was not a sacrifice to God, but to what is worst in man. Now the incarnation and Jesus' decision to vulnerably love people, is a sacrifice in another since - a sacrifice from God to man. And the two sacrifices coincided at the cross. But humans are ultimately responsible for killing Jesus. Jesus knew that coming here would almost certainly end in his violent death, and he spoke about laying down his life, but that does not mean that it was not the collective sinful acts of men and women that was responsible for the crucifixion.
Sacrifice: The Incarnate Logos as Offering.
Here is Athanasius’ central doctrine of the Logos’ sacrifice for humanity: that He gave His life as a ‘sufficient exchange for all’; that through His offering of a human death, divine life might ultimately be restored to all humankind.
. . .Athanasius seems to use the term ‘sacrifice’ in its simplest and most direct sense: that of one man’s dying for another. Yet here it is not only a man who dies, but a man who possesses also the fullness of the divinity, and thus One who can truly be efficacious in His offering for the world.
. . .any act which simply forgave humanity the extent of its sin in a single fiat would not produce lasting salvation—humanity might still again lapse into death. The results of this sin had to be healed, it is true, but truly efficacious salvation would require more: it must involve, as well, a change in the very nature of humanity. The divine image and likeness, which had been present in the original creation, had been damaged to a deadly degree as the result of humanity’s sin; thus humanity’s true salvation must involve the restoration of that original creation. We find the how of this concept once again in the essential notion of the incarnation: by lifting humanity to a renewed state of communion with God, Christ changed human nature. He conquered death by death, and then made it impossible for death to ever again have the last word in man’s life.
(o)Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 7/19/2007 12:56:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/19/2007 8:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: "But then God kills them for that, AFTER watching them be used as an ash tray..."
Zach: I'm confused as to who you claim God is killing in my view. Are you saying that God is the one who kills victimized children? It is my position that God is not killing. If the bad man kills a child, then God did not kill that child. Only one person (or party) is morally culpable for the act. Otherwise you are left with determinism.
Jeff: What I said was, if the child dies at the hands of a brute after being tormented, and THEN, in its second post-mortem chance that you say God gives children, the child just wants to be left alone, you say God will kill that person for wanting to be left alone.
Jeff: "This is a more impressive love than universalism?"
Zach: As I define it 'love' is always a free choice.
Jeff: Me too. As long as we're talking about the lovER. For the lovER, love is always a choice. But an animal can be the beneficiary of love by my definition. Because by my definition, love has to do with intentionally affecting sentient satisfaction in another. Non-interference, per se, independent of any sentient satisfaction resulting from it, has nothing to do with love as I conceive of it.
Zach: Universalism is the belief that it is determined that a certain choice will be made universally, or else it is the belief that those 'choices' are immaterial and God is sending all to heaven whether they like it or not.
Jeff: If God takes away our capacity for evil desires and enlightens our minds, we can not but WANT to be with Him and enjoy Him eternally.
Zach: Either way it's not love. So any instance of love is more impressive than the love of universalism simply because universalism is not an instance of love at all.
Jeff: If I will partake of an incorruptible nature by partaking of the divine nature like Peter and Paul say, then you're right, that partaking is not an act of love on my part. It's an act of love on God's part. Because I can't choose the divine nature as an object of choice. Only God can give me incorruptibility. But by doing so, He is loving me par excellence. Because He is affecting in me the ultimate sentient satisfaction.
Zach: Plus Jesus says it just about as clearly as is possible: "But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
Jeff: Granted, if the life he was referring to is not that life of reigning with him and the Father, but life in the absolute sense, then universalism is false. But all this means to me is that God does less than He can to affect sentient satisfaction in His creatures. Like I said, that is a view of divine love that I used to have. If I had to, I could live with that. But once God is conceived as doing less than He can, I don't know what else that means except that God endures the world for His own sake at the expense of a lot of undeserved victimization of others. You can call that love 'til the cows come home, but most people don't.
Jeff: "According to the story, Adam didn't get to choose to covenant. God just laid the rule on him."
Zach: But the one fundamental choice was given: Live in closeness with the God who sustains you or go do your own thing and try to sustain yourself. If that is a rule laid on humans, then I am ok with God laying down rules without consent. But in the language of the 21st century, this looks more like 'freedom' than 'rule.'
Jeff: Good. We're agreed, then. That's what I was getting at: there is at least the one rule that all who sin impenitently must die.
Jeff: "I don't think anyone can say that God is loving (except in a purely emotional and intentional sense) 2-year olds that are being used as human ash trays at the time of their abuse."
Zach: That is the crux of the matter certainly. But our God is not the God of emotions and intent with no action.
Jeff: Granted. But would you consider a parent who watched their baby ignorantly bring great harm to themselves a loving parent? INaction in some cases looks unloving to superficial appearances. I'm arguing that something about God's purpose is irreversible and/or that it constrains Him such that He must forebear in the short run. If universalism is not true, so be it. But I still think that something like the former must be true if God is a God of action AND love.
Zach: Although the kingdom is here, not everything is right. Jesus is king not just in principle but in reality. Yet still men retain the power to harm others. It makes me rethink my understanding of what sort of king Jesus is.
Jeff: But don't you believe that Jesus will one day rule over the earth? If so, it's not so much what kind of king Jesus was, but what kind of king Jesus is AT WHAT TIME. You see, you say universalism posits God loving in the future. But so does your view posit that Christ will reign IN THE FUTURE. So God/Christ are doing something different in the future no matter what. This is true of amillenialism, even. It's simply not about what kind of being Jesus WAS; it's about what kind of being he is such that we can explain his action on the one hand in one season, and his inaction in another season. This is what you don't even attempt to explain in terms of his essence. But it's sitting there like an elephant in the living room demanding an explanation. It's what your friends can't explain.
Zach: Sometimes it baffles me how close we get without seeing. It's standard procedure for American Protestants to say, "Jesus' kingdom was not of this world, but the Jews were expecting a king like David, and that's why they rejected Jesus." But we still make the exact same mistake. We still think that for Jesus to be a king he must go out killing his enemies and imposing his rule like David. Since he is clearly not doing that, we think Jesus' kingdom is not yet here in any real since. But Jesus' kingdom is unique. The gospels spend half their time recounting his descriptions of the kingdom. Like yeast that starts small, like scattered seed. But we persist in thinking: if it's a kingdom it must be the forceful imposition of rule.
Jeff: I don't think any but possibly a small sect of postmillenialists believe what you are saying. I've never heard that articulation of their view by most Christians. Have you read this of them, or do you judge them without evidence? E.g., no pre-millenialist that I've ever read or heard thinks human government has anything to do with Christ's kingdom, per se, or it's implementation precisely because government existed prior to Christ's claim that the kingdom was near in 30AD. You seem to have an amazing ability of standing up straw men to knock them down via false dichotomies, all the while making the most illiberal interpretations of your brethren.
Jeff: "But in a purely intentional sense, God can love everyone all the time, equally."
Zach: I've had some friends who were looking for some sort of salvation. And I think I can speak for most of them when I say that they cannot honestly care less about what God's intentions are if he is unwilling or unable to do anything about it. Deism only works for the rich.
Jeff: Deism, per the modern term, rules out any intervention in creation even post-mortem. Christianity is not deism. But Christianity entails the idea that God forebears rather than acts in a host of ways and cases. But while He is forebearing, He also intended that all men do right and live in peace and bliss. How is this deniable by you?
Jeff: "The only way God could love everyone equally at the same time in the action sense of the term is if there was no possibility of sin."
Zach: I don't know how to respond except to say I disagree 100%. I think we must mean two considerably different things when we say 'love.'
Jeff: Yes we do disagree. Because as I've said, I don't think non-interference, per se, has anything to do with love. On the one hand, you could say, "Yes, but He intends for us to choose benevolently." And then when I talk about God's intention, you poo-poo it because your friends aren't happy with that. Or you could say that God's non-interference actually provides the highest sentient satisfaction for all. But then why even incarnate at all? Why not just sit back like a deist deity and watch us all be better off without His interference in the created order? Or if some intervention helps, why intervene in such a way that it only helps those who were lucky enough to experience it in history? Wouldn't that be discriminatory love?
Jeff: "Why does "If you want to be left alone, I'll kill you" sound so sweet to you? Why does "If you want repent, I'll kill you" sound so sweet to you?"
Zach: I don't know what you mean. These are exactly the things I am opposed to. I am not the one arguing that God kills people.
Jeff: You said of the non-repentant, "Actually, it seems that God has assured that we will die. Period." Sounds like killing to me.
Jeff: "It never dawned on me (and doubt it did on many others) that Caiaphas actually thought killing Christ would serve the function of a propitiating human sacrifice to God."
Zach: That never dawned on me either. I have consistently said that Jesus was made a sacrifice by sinful man to sinful man - the sacrifice of Caiaphas. I have, for quite some time now, been arguing that Jesus was not a sacrifice to God, but to what is worst in man.
Jeff: I keep hearing this assertion, but you have yet to explain it. How was Caiaphas sacrificing Christ to me? I don't even know what that means. How was I propitiated because Christ died? When I read Paul's sermons to the Gentiles, he doesn't even talk about Christ's death except to bring up the ressurection as a lead-in to his lordship. The teaching of Christ's sacrifice was something Paul seemingly taught after converts believed in the lordship of Christ. So your whole theory makes no sense to me.
Zach: Now the incarnation and Jesus' decision to vulnerably love people, is a sacrifice in another since - a sacrifice from God to man.
Jeff: What sense? If you mean it was a sacrifice to some men--those who were able to witness or read about that love--then, yeah. But in what sense was it a sacrifice for those who know, and could know, nothing about his incarnated life?
Post Edited (jefscott) : 7/21/2007 7:33:37 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/1/2007 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello, I'm back. This place is dangerous. These debates end up making me want to be right instead of wanting truth. I might need to disappear again. But for now, I'm going to try to be very deliberate.
First, this. God killing people who want to be left alone.
Jeff: Good. We're agreed, then. That's what I was getting at: there is at least the one rule that all who sin impenitently must die.
Zach: In once sense yes, God is killing them. But in a more significant sense, I don't see it as God killing. It is my position that in this world and the next God offers humans a fundamental choice: be with God or without God. If a person chooses to be without God, then I believe there eventually comes a point when God grants this wish and allows it ultimacy. This does not entail God doing anything, because apart from God there is no life. We talk about God being the foundation of our existence. Many Christians hold a doctrine of Providence which claims that God continually upholds creation. All I'm saying is that this upholding can be stopped in certain cases. I would expect the rebuttal to my position would be that this is still tantamount to killing. It's like removing a feeding tube. And yes I agree, it is. But it's not a parallel to the Terry Schiavo situation. The situation I'm dealing with is one where the creature consciously refuses God's care. In such a case the alternatives are (1) affectionate disregard for the creature's will and (2) acceptance and regard for the creature's regrettable choice. I think both experience and the Bible teach that God does both of these. But I think God ultimately chooses option 2, although he sometimes takes his time getting there which looks more like option 1.
Further, there is an important distinction between active killing and God's acceptance of his creature's choice to remove the feeding tube that has been forcibly put down his/her throat. The life of Jesus offers an analogy. The Father sacrificed the Son (in a certain sense), but the Father did not kill the Son. The Son willingly emptied himself, and this choice had terrible and foreseeable consequences. The most terrible being that he would be killed by his own people. (I'm not rejecting Open Theism; groups are more often than not slaves to Satanic patterns that God has no trouble understanding; the individual may, at certain times, be free to accept or reject such group membership.) The Father, in essence, pushed a button that he knew would eventually lead to the death of the Son. This would be equivalent to killing had the Son not willingly consented. Similarly, if God removes providence in such a way that death is caused, it is only "killing" in this specific sense if it is done against the will of the creature. If it is the creature who is doing the choosing, then it is the creature who accepts whatever moral culpability is tie to the action. God's choice is not specifically the death of his creature, but the allowance of his creature's effective choice. It is this allowance for which God is morally culpable. I see this allowance as "loving," and therefore I hold God morally culpable for a good choice; I acknowledge that he is loving.
Now this is not a happy story. I am not pleased that anyone would make such a choice. But I am pleased that God has made us people and not puppets. Were God to eternally make choice #1, we would ultimately be puppets. Puppets with desires that are either ignored or forcibly removed. If God did not allow this most fundamental choice, we would be living life in some sort of disutopian novel. Everyone might be blissful, but no one is truly alive. How would it work? Would God make us physically unable to think certain thoughts, so that when we bumped up against them we got bored or distracted or fell asleep? I'm not being glib. These mind-control scenarios are the frightening crystallizations of a process that is Satanic. It is Satan who marshals those who were formerly human and marches them down the broad road that leads to destruction, unthinkingly and without eyes to see. And he has always used the lure of pleasure. The unthinking, unseeing march is enticingly pleasant, but it destroys our very humanity. A god who imposes his will by pacifying, reprogramming, and dehumanizing... these are key attributes of Satan whose presence is disturbing in the universalist picture of God.
Jeff: If I will partake of an incorruptible nature by partaking of the divine nature like Peter and Paul say, then you're right, that partaking is not an act of love on my part. It's an act of love on God's part. Because I can't choose the divine nature as an object of choice. Only God can give me incorruptibility. But by doing so, He is loving me par excellence. Because He is affecting in me the ultimate sentient satisfaction.
Zach: But Peter, Paul, you, and I have chosen to accept God's love. The idea I rebel against is that God forces people to accept his love. Furthermore, it is not love because "He is affecting in me the ultimate sentient satisfaction." This is simply hedonism. It shows no regard for the faculty of choice in the lovED. It is also a mystery as to why God simply doesn't actively love everyone right now. The Bible says the end is postponed out of the desire that none should perish. That doesn't make much sense if universalism is the case anyway. There seems to be the implication that postponing the end somehow gives more opportunities for people not to perish. But if all are spared the second death, then postponing the end just means that more people will experience the first.
I find it much more happy and plausible and consistent to say that a true lovER takes into consideration the wished of the lovED. Not only that, but it just seems like common sense.
Finally, this:
Zach: That never dawned on me either. I have consistently said that Jesus was made a sacrifice by sinful man to sinful man - the sacrifice of Caiaphas. I have, for quite some time now, been arguing that Jesus was not a sacrifice to God, but to what is worst in man.
Jeff: I keep hearing this assertion, but you have yet to explain it. How was Caiaphas sacrificing Christ to me? I don't even know what that means. How was I propitiated because Christ died? When I read Paul's sermons to the Gentiles, he doesn't even talk about Christ's death except to bring up the ressurection as a lead-in to his lordship. The teaching of Christ's sacrifice was something Paul seemingly taught after converts believed in the lordship of Christ. So your whole theory makes no sense to me.
Zach: I am not saying that Caiaphas sacrificed Christ to you. Let's just rip away all metaphysical assumptions (although I believe there was something very spiritual or metaphysical in what Caiaphas did). Those who sought Jesus' death were sacrificing him to themselves. Man made a sacrifice to man. In the case of Caiaphas he thought it was best to kill one man if it could spare his people from increased Roman oppression. (This happens to be the same reasoning that resulted in orphanages and homes being bombed in America's Shock and Awe mission.) In the case of Pilate, Jesus was sacrificed for his career. In the case of Peter, Jesus was sacrificed for his desire not to be excluded and embarrassed. In the case of Judas, Jesus was sacrificed for his idea of what a Messiah should be. In the case of the Pharisees, Jesus was sacrificed for their status and self-righteousness. Men sacrificing Jesus to themselves. This is what I mean. It is men like Caiaphas who required Jesus' blood be sacrificed to their gods.
The Father and Jesus both sacrificed Jesus (but in the most important sense of the word, did not "kill" Jesus) for man as well. We (including those biblical characters as well as you and I) were given Jesus so that we could become part of the kingdom of God. Being part of the kingdom of God does not require that the just God be appeased with perfect blood. (At least not in the way that this is commonly understood.) Entrance into the kingdom simply requires that we be born again. The particular way this works out in the lives of individuals differs. For some, it requires leaving the dead to bury their own dead or for others selling all that you have and giving it to the poor. The kingdom of God is that economy, that way of life, that Weltanschauung which epitomizes God's own loving character. Paul, who spoke of God's foolishness and a Lord who suffers, did emphasize Christ's lordship. But he wasn't shy about using the present and past tenses when referring to that lordship. The Lord was on the Cross. The Lord wore a crown of thorns. The Lord showed us what greatness is when he knelt down at our feet and washed. We need not assume that Paul's use of lordship language implies what I'd call "lording over."
P.S. While of course I'd love it if people were convinced by my word, my motivation for posting here is more selfish even than that. I'm trying to be careful and not be combative so that I can learn and move closer to truth. So thanks.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/2/2007 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: Hello, I'm back. This place is dangerous. These debates end up making me want to be right instead of wanting truth. I might need to disappear again. But for now, I'm going to try to be very deliberate...
P.S. While of course I'd love it if people were convinced by my word, my motivation for posting here is more selfish even than that. I'm trying to be careful and not be combative so that I can learn and move closer to truth. So thanks.
Jeff: Welcome back, bro. Heck, if we can't be allowed to vent a little emotion in our frustration over miscommunication every now and then, we're doomed.  The beauty of a forum is that it allows us to try again and again until we see how our starting points are different, or our definitions are different, or whatever . Once we understand that, we can focus more until we either come a bit closer or agree to disagree. But verbal dialogue is so much more difficult because there is never enough time to do all that. Paul reasoned all day over matters with Jews who held relatively similar starting points, to no avail. So I'm not assuming this stuff shouldn't take some time and frustration. Zach: In once sense yes, God is killing them. But in a more significant sense, I don't see it as God killing. It is my position that in this world and the next God offers humans a fundamental choice: be with God or without God. If a person chooses to be without God, then I believe there eventually comes a point when God grants this wish and allows it ultimacy. This does not entail God doing anything, because apart from God there is no life.
Jeff: As you said, in one sense, God is killing them. Because God did do something in the sense that He has made it to where death is inevitable unless people do something to obtain forgiveness or choose life (or whatever we want to say). I don't know that God couldn't have made it to where created, volitional beings could live forever regardless of their choices, unless there is something in God's nature such that He just can't eternally abide any kind of choice. Supposedly, God can create immortal bodies. So the reason why death must result from certain kinds of "choice" is because of God's nature. I don't know any other way to explain it.
I assume God just can't desire such a state of affairs. And I think the reason why He can't desire such a state of affairs is because He can attain better--"better" being defined in terms of God's sentient nature. Question is, what exactly is that?
Zach: The situation I'm dealing with is one where the creature consciously refuses God's care.
Jeff: How can one "consciously" refuse God's care if one is not "consciously" cognizant of "rules of life?" You have said there are no rules to life until one covenants with God, at which time rules originate by consent. But if one is not conscious of rules, how would one conclude that death is the result of an improper choice, since people and animals die in the short run no matter what they choose?
Moreover, how would one even come up with the idea of covenanting without perceiving that some choices are better than others in the first place? In that case, covenanting with God means that one already realizes that God's actions towards him/herself are conditioned upon "proper" choices. But this means humans perceive something like rules before covenanting can take place. And this means that something like rules are "forced" upon us without our consent. We die for sin whether we consent to it or not, e.g.
Zach: Further, there is an important distinction between active killing and God's acceptance of his creature's choice to remove the feeding tube that has been forcibly put down his/her throat... If it is the creature who is doing the choosing, then it is the creature who accepts whatever moral culpability is tie to the action.
Jeff: But how can we be morally culpable for what we can't know? If we can't know there are rules to life (because there are no rules for life), how can we know that death is the result of improper choice(s)--again, all people die in the short run regardless of their choices, and this is all that can be observed. In which case, how can we be morally culpable for our death? In which case God has set us up to die against the consent of some without giving them the knowledge to know better.
Zach: (I'm not rejecting Open Theism; groups are more often than not slaves to Satanic patterns that God has no trouble understanding; the individual may, at certain times, be free to accept or reject such group membership.) The Father, in essence, pushed a button that he knew would eventually lead to the death of the Son.
Jeff: I agree. Solidification is what enabled God to foreknow what would happen.
Zach: If God did not allow this most fundamental choice, we would be living life in some sort of disutopian novel.
Jeff: If there are no rules to life AND all die in the short run regardless of their choices, it would seem that life is a disutopian story for those who haven't received providential revelation. I say this is not the case. I agree with Paul that people at some point in their life know there are rules and that they are worthy of death just like Rom. 1 says. All God expects of people is that they not harden their hearts (so as to justify their sin to themselves) and do the best they can to live non-hypocritically--which entails walking with a contrite spirit in the fear of God.
Zach: Everyone might be blissful, but no one is truly alive. How would it work? Would God make us physically unable to think certain thoughts, so that when we bumped up against them we got bored or distracted or fell asleep? I'm not being glib. These mind-control scenarios are the frightening crystallizations of a process that is Satanic. It is Satan who marshals those who were formerly human and marches them down the broad road that leads to destruction, unthinkingly and without eyes to see. And he has always used the lure of pleasure. The unthinking, unseeing march is enticingly pleasant, but it destroys our very humanity. A god who imposes his will by pacifying, reprogramming, and dehumanizing... these are key attributes of Satan whose presence is disturbing in the universalist picture of God.
Jeff: This all makes sense if there is no point in the future when natural evil will be gone. But if there is, the elimination of that natural evil needs explaining. Because natural evil is that suffering that is not caused by concurrent choices of volitional beings. Solidification unto holiness of itself does not explain it. Christ was perfectly obedient, but he lived in a world of natural evil (i.e., suffering uncaused by the concurrent choices of volitional beings). But I assume he experiences no such thing now, and yet he is still perfectly human, to my knowledge.
Zach: But Peter, Paul, you, and I have chosen to accept God's love. The idea I rebel against is that God forces people to accept his love.
Jeff: But changing our sentient nature, to where we no longer experience that state where the flesh desires against the Spirit (Galatians), is not the same thing as experiencing a state of feeling forced. It is no more forced than the fact that we're now subject to natural evil contrary to our consent.
Moreover, Christ told Peter, "you have not chosen me, I chose you." And again, "flesh and blood hath not revealed it to you, but the Father." And again, "no man can come unto the Son unless the Father draw him." Likewise, Paul was dropped to his knees in blindness on the road to Damascus. And I am told that God, who called the light out of darkness. shone in my heart His glory in the face of Christ. There is much to be said for the unilateral efficacy of God's love.
Zach: Furthermore, it is not love because "He is affecting in me the ultimate sentient satisfaction." This is simply hedonism. It shows no regard for the faculty of choice in the lovED.
Jeff: Don't people choose that which they believe will result in their highest sentient satisfaction? If not, what grounds human choice?
Zach: It is also a mystery as to why God simply doesn't actively love everyone right now. The Bible says the end is postponed out of the desire that none should perish. That doesn't make much sense if universalism is the case anyway. There seems to be the implication that postponing the end somehow gives more opportunities for people not to perish. But if all are spared the second death, then postponing the end just means that more people will experience the first.
Jeff: This is exactly why I explain the postponing of the end at least partly in terms of the sentient satisfaction it occasions for the Son (in terms of increasing the size and extent of his kingdom and the manner in which judgment somehow abounds to his glory). For if we try to explain it merely in terms of human interest, it's difficult to explain even apart from universalism.
E.g., you had argued against universalism by saying, "Plus Jesus says it just about as clearly as is possible: 'But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.'" Now clearly this statement seems to imply that postponing not only gives occasion for more of the "few" to "find" life, but it also seems to guarantee that even more will not find it. And this seems to imply something about God's nature if indeed His preference works this way.
Zach: I find it much more happy and plausible and consistent to say that a true lovER takes into consideration the wished of the lovED. Not only that, but it just seems like common sense.
Jeff: Given what I just said, how is God taking into consideration the "wished of the lovED" in the cases where the "lovED" are the many that perish, if they can't even know any rules of life to know how to choose their way out of perishing?
Zach: Being part of the kingdom of God does not require that the just God be appeased with perfect blood. (At least not in the way that this is commonly understood.)
Jeff: I'm OK with that if we can explain it in a better way. I can agree that the idea of propitiation is tied to how the human mind works. I just think that the human mind works rightly in judging that we truly "deserve" (i.e., specific means result in specific ends) negative consequences for certain choices. Furthermore, justice is the only rational way the human can infer what those consequences will be, assuming there are post-mortem consequences at all. So I'm OK with the idea that substitution is the only thing the human mind can conceive of to account for how forgiveness can occur consistently with the idea of justice. And therefore, maybe Christ's death is necessarily a "shewing forth of God's righteousness" even if it is not the only explanation, insomuch as the human mind can't think of any other way to understand it.
But we are stuck with the idea that forgiveness is a condition of attaining life. I.e., no one can attain unto life unconditionally. This is the profound truth. Reconciliation truly means a change of relationship occurs because of some change in condition. So perfect love can not be absolutely unconditional if scriptural language is reasonably perspicuous.
If the Fall account is true, God said sin would result in death. Granted, Adam died once already. But maybe, for God to be most perspicuously honest, no sinner can live forever unless someone dies in their stead to render God's word unequivocally true in the most absolute sense possible. IOW, maybe substitution has more to do with God's fidelity to His word than some metaphysical causal power.
Zach: We need not assume that Paul's use of lordship language implies what I'd call "lording over."
Jeff: I agree. But other prophets who talk of Christ "shepherding the gentiles with a rod of iron" suggest that Christ will be a king in the most political sense of the term. And I don't know of anything in Paul's language that is inconsistent with that. The very idea of "reign" entails "subjection" by one mean or another. If we always chose rightly, the idea of Christ's "reign" would be meaningless. Because in that case, we would be the "reignors" (reigning in the sense that we exercise self- control). If Christ truly reigns, he alone must be effectual somehow in causing certain effects.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/2/2007 10:33:56 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 9/2/2007 2:49 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/2/2007 5:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: I don't know that God couldn't have made it to where created, volitional beings could live forever regardless of their choices, unless there is something in God's nature such that He just can't eternally abide any kind of choice. Supposedly, God can create immortal bodies. So the reason why death must result from certain kinds of "choice" is because of God's nature. I don't know any other way to explain it.
Zach: Here's how I see it. Only God is uncreated. All other things only exist by God's permission (and, I suspect, continual upholding). So, let's say a person separates himself from God (with, of course, God's permission). In that day, he separates himself from the very source of life. I have no problem with the idea of God being able to create immortal bodies, but I don't think such creation is required of love. God could have made me more self-sufficient in many ways. But my understanding of love does not require God to have created me everlasting or even to grant immortality to any who demand it. (And yes, I realize that this causes problems for things I've written in the past. I've been mulling things over.)
So, I guess I agree with you that death results from this choice because of God's nature, but what I mean is different from what I think you mean. Part of God's nature is that he is the only source being. So if I choose to abandon God, I have chosen to abandon the only source of being.
God permits us to choose life or death, albeit with strings attached. But the string that are attached are not accidental or arbitrary. Things like sharing, trust, and even self-sacrifice are quite naturally tied to life, while self-centeredness, isolation, and self-preservation are naturally tied to death. I believe that the communal and loving nature of the Trinity itself reflects that these attributes are quite literally "what it means to be alive." I don't mean that in a flowery, poetic way. Soberly, prosaically, and with precision I mean to say that love is life.
We are given to thinking that death is essentially the state of being without consciousness. But I propose that even more generally and broadly speaking, death is the deprivation of relationship. We may speak of the relationship to self, but relationships to others are key as well. When a person is separated from a loved one, I believe this is a taste of death. They are qualitatively the same thing, but quantitatively different. Again, I don't mean this in a poetic "I died a little" sort of way.
So when a person chooses self-centered, relation-negating sorts of behaviors, I don't say that God has tied these behaviors to death. I instead say that these behaviors are deathly in themselves apart from God making them that way. I was reading some Jung not too long ago, and he was talking about the formation of consciousness in young children. He claims that relationships to other people and to the world actually give rise to the consciousness. Without these relationships a child would grow to be something that we would likely deem less than humanly sentient. I think there is a connection between life and relationship that is so close that it is accurate to say they are two sides of the same coin.
Now you could still say that God has made this the way things are. But to claim God creatively tied 'being' itself to relationship, has consequence for how we view the Trinity. Is the Trinity three persons who all happened to exist eternally but decided to be one? I suppose that's a workable alternative, but I think it's also conceivable that existence and relationship are unified by definition and not divine mandate. We talk about God not being able to make square circles. Why not talk about God not being able to make loveless existence?
Jeff: How can one "consciously" refuse God's care if one is not "consciously" cognizant of "rules of life?"
Zach: Hopefully, the above comments cover this as well. "Rules of life" I believe was your phrase. (I could be wrong.) And I'm only using it with caution. Perhaps "definition of life" is a better description of what I'm getting at. But to answer the question, if one is not aware of the choice, I can only assume that God will give them some opportunity to become aware. However, I do suspect that a more "implicit" awareness and decision are sufficient. But I'm very reluctant to speculate about what all that means. There are passages, though, that might hint at an intermediate state and that Peter passage, so I'm not ready to abandon the idea of postmortem opportunities.
Jeff: If there are no rules to life AND all die in the short run regardless of their choices, it would seem that life is a disutopian story for those who haven't received providential revelation. I say this is not the case. I agree with Paul that people at some point in their life know there are rules and that they are worthy of death just like Rom. 1 says. All God expects of people is that they not harden their hearts (so as to justify their sin to themselves) and do the best they can to live non-hypocritically--which entails walking with a contrite spirit in the fear of God.
Zach: I agree with the first sentience. That is why I am led to believe that all do in fact receive all that is required to make a true choice. Perhaps this happens for some after death. As to Romans 1, we all impose some sort of unspoken limitation to the passage. You say that "people at some point in their life know..." But this is clearly not universally true. There are those who die at a young age or who suffer from mental problems who do not know whatever is required for moral culpability. It does not mean that Paul is wrong or that I disagree with Paul if I say that some men do have an excuse (v.20). We usually take it for granted that Paul was not talking about all humans but only those who have reached an "age of accountability" or something. All that being said, I still think it's possible for a person to make the decision (either for or against) without framing it in Christian or even religious terms.
Jeff: This all makes sense if there is no point in the future when natural evil will be gone. But if there is, the elimination of that natural evil needs explaining. Because natural evil is that suffering that is not caused by concurrent choices of volitional beings. Solidification unto holiness of itself does not explain it. Christ was perfectly obedient, but he lived in a world of natural evil (i.e., suffering uncaused by the concurrent choices of volitional beings). But I assume he experiences no such thing now, and yet he is still perfectly human, to my knowledge.
Zach: I read something that Tom said on another post about natural evil not technically being 'evil.' I like that. I'm not convinced that all we lump into 'natural evil' will be eliminated at the end times. Also, I'm not sure why we cannot say that natural evil will be gone. Why would God need to explain it's elimination?
Jeff: But changing our sentient nature, to where we no longer experience that state where the flesh desires against the Spirit (Galatians), is not the same thing as experiencing a state of feeling forced. It is no more forced than the fact that we're now subject to natural evil contrary to our consent.
Zach: I disagree. Imposing a new will on an already willful individual is different than creating life in a situation which may or may not be agreeable to the creature. In the first case we have a cut and dry case of coercion. In the second we have the only way in which free and conscious beings could possibly be created.
Jeff: There is much to be said for the unilateral efficacy of God's love.
Zach: I suppose this could be it's own thread. I know that we all came on different paths, but irresistible grace is what drove me away from Calvinism to become an Open Theist. I don't say that God can't force people to feel, think, and act certain ways. But I do say that this forcing is not love. "Unilateral efficacy of love" is a non sequitur to my thinking. Like square circles. None of the examples you gave imply that God's love is ever unilaterally effective. Saying that 'Christ chose Peter' is much different than saying 'Christ forced Peter to become a loving follower.' The Bible is rife with examples of God's elected people betraying him. One of whom happens to be Peter.
Zach: "He is affecting in me the ultimate sentient satisfaction." This is simply hedonism. It shows no regard for the faculty of choice in the lovED.
Jeff: Don't people choose that which they believe will result in their highest sentient satisfaction? If not, what grounds human choice?
Zach: Sure. But doing what you believe will result in satisfaction is often quite different than do what actually will result in ultimate satisfaction. Surely you'd agree that people often don't do what will result in ultimate satisfaction. From the Garden to today, God has allowed choice a role. Ensuring "ultimate sentient satisfaction" makes all human choice meaningless (including many parts of Jesus' ministry). Why bother if God is going to reprogram everyone anyway? No choice has any lasting consequence or meaning, and therefore no human action has any lasting moral significance. But every prophet from Noah to Paul seems to take human choices seriously.
Jeff: This is exactly why I explain the postponing of the end at least partly in terms of the sentient satisfaction it occasions for the Son
Zach: Yes, but what about the part that is explained in terms of human salvation? "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." This verse is made entirely superfluous by universalism. Under universalism God's desire to bring everyone to repentance would be served by hastening the end not postponing it.
Jeff: 'But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.'" Now clearly this statement seems to imply that postponing not only gives occasion for more of the "few" to "find" life, but it also seems to guarantee that even more will not find it. And this seems to imply something about God's nature if indeed His preference works this way.
Zach: Yes, exactly.
Jeff: Given what I just said, how is God taking into consideration the "wished of the lovED" in the cases where the "lovED" are the many that perish, if they can't even know any rules of life to know how to choose their way out of perishing?
Zach: I say that none will perish (eternally) apart from knowledge of these "rules." And those who are allowed to perish will be examples of God lovingly and selflessly putting his creatures' choice over his own feelings of affection. Again, I'm not happy if this happens, but I think that it is good that God grants us meaningful freedom.
Jeff: But we are stuck with the idea that forgiveness is a condition of attaining life. I.e., no one can attain unto life unconditionally. This is the profound truth. Reconciliation truly means a change of relationship occurs because of some change in condition. So perfect love can not be absolutely unconditional if scriptural language is reasonably perspicuous.
Zach: Again, this one could be its own thread. Up until the last sentence I agree, and even the last sentence I can agree with in a certain light.
"Forgiveness is a condition of attaining life." - Agreed. But not the only condition. If the life we are talking about is the relationship/life of salvation, then it must go two ways. Both God and sinner must accept. If it is a case of unilateral effectiveness, then we have a God-object relationship or maybe a God-animal relationship but not a God-man relationship. It is my believe that forgiveness is always readily supplied by God toward the sinner, but forgiveness is not actually made as a result of the sinner's refusal to accept. Like Lewis said, "The doors of hell are locked on the inside." (I don't usually agree with C. S. Lewis.)
"Reconciliation truly means a change of relationship occurs because of some change in condition" - Yes. The change in condition is that the sinner opens the door upon which Jesus has been knocking. Jesus does not require a death and resurrection to allow him to knock. He's God. There is no conception of retaliatory justice which rules over God. If God accepts retaliatory justice, he does so because he wants to. He could just as easily choose to forgive without retaliation. I believe he does.
"Perfect love can not be absolutely unconditional" - It is on God's part. The loving, multi-directional relationship is conditioned on the willingness of the participants. But God is willing before, during, and after our attempts to bring reconciliation by way of killing. Those who participate in these rituals don't really even know what they are actually doing and yet God forgives.
Jeff: I agree. But other prophets who talk of Christ "shepherding the gentiles with a rod of iron" suggest that Christ will be a king in the most political sense of the term. And I don't know of anything in Paul's language that is inconsistent with that. The very idea of "reign" entails "subjection" by one mean or another. If we always chose rightly, the idea of Christ's "reign" would be meaningless. Because in that case, we would be the "reignors" (reigning in the sense that we exercise self-control). If Christ truly reigns, he alone must be effectual somehow in causing certain effects.
Zach: My understanding of the Old Testament is likely to just divert the topic. You know how I feel about those things. I'm fine with saying Jesus will be a king in the most political sense of the term. In fact I'd go further and say that Jesus was and is and king in the most political sense of the term. But I strongly disagree with the idea that "reign" entails "subjection." Jesus says just the opposite.
"Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.
Greatness in the kingdom is being in the subordinated role, not in the subordinating role. It is not true that "if Christ truly reigns, he alone must be effectual somehow in causing certain effects." Jesus exercise lordship in his foot-washing. But he was not doing any "lording over" as your view claims is implied in lordship. It is possible to be a king with loyal and free subjects. It is possible for the lord to call us friends.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/3/2007 8:02 PM (GMT -6) | | | Zach: So, I guess I agree with you that death results from this choice because of God's nature, but what I mean is different from what I think you mean. Part of God's nature is that he is the only source being. So if I choose to abandon God, I have chosen to abandon the only source of being.
Jeff: But how do you make a syllogism from those premises such that the conclusion is a necessary one? God is the source of life, I grant. But for God to distinguish as to who continues to live and who does not continue to live based on what they do or don't do seems to require another premise about the nature of God to account for that specific distinction.
Zach: God permits us to choose life or death, albeit with strings attached. But the string that are attached are not accidental or arbitrary. Things like sharing, trust, and even self-sacrifice are quite naturally tied to life, while self-centeredness, isolation, and self-preservation are naturally tied to death. I believe that the communal and loving nature of the Trinity itself reflects that these attributes are quite literally "what it means to be alive." I don't mean that in a flowery, poetic way. Soberly, prosaically, and with precision I mean to say that love is life.
Jeff: I don't see how any of that follows if there is no post-mortem life. To my mind, to say "love is life" is just a metaphorical way of saying those who love will live forever. Apart from post-mortem life, that really does seem like mere "flowery, poetic" words. There is a relativistic truth to it in the sense that for some people a life of love is a happier one. But the opposite is true for other people. And I dare say that Paul himself was sufficiently clear that he would not have suffered the sufferings he experienced had he not believed in a ressurection. Jesus, too, talked similarly.
Zach: I read something that Tom said on another post about natural evil not technically being 'evil.' I like that. I'm not convinced that all we lump into 'natural evil' will be eliminated at the end times. Also, I'm not sure why we cannot say that natural evil will be gone. Why would God need to explain it's elimination? Jeff: Well, I think God has explained it. Also, Tom thinks (I'm pretty sure of this) much of that inevitable suffering will pass. But this is a very important contribution to the discussion. Because if natural (i.e., inevitable) suffering will be an eternal feature of human life, then I think scripture is so non-perspicuous that it's not worth my time trying to understand. I'm not a rocket-scientist. 
More importantly, if scripture is that non-perspicuous, I can only think of two reasons for it:
1) It truly takes a rocket scientist to figure it out. That leaves me out. And I don't know what good such a state of affairs would do most people anyway. Because scripture, like other subjects, has its share of contradictory experts explicating it. If I'm already not a rocket scientist, what good does it do me to hear contradicting rocket scientists tell me their opinion. This is why I don't argue with private revelation; plenty of people claim to have it, but way too many of them contradict one another.
For that same reason, any belief I have that I deem as the result of private revelation I see no reason to posit as an argument for any particular view. I think scripture and reason is all we have communally. And since I agree with Jesus and James that not only do the blind lead the blind into the ditch, but those assuming the role of the enlightened have greater accountability when they try to change people's minds, I'm not about to try to argue a person out of their opinion unless I have some sure ground to argue from. To my mind, the only sure ground is a perspicuous scripture. I see no other way to safely infer who the historical Jesus was.
2) The NT was written by a bunch of genius frauds. Enough said about that option.
Jeff: But changing our sentient nature, to where we no longer experience that state where the flesh desires against the Spirit (Galatians), is not the same thing as experiencing a state of feeling forced. It is no more forced than the fact that we're now subject to natural evil contrary to our consent.
Zach: I disagree. Imposing a new will on an already willful individual is different than creating life in a situation which may or may not be agreeable to the creature. In the first case we have a cut and dry case of coercion. In the second we have the only way in which free and conscious beings could possibly be created.
Jeff: Again, if you're right, scripture is way off in its eschatology, to my mind. This in turn means that NT prophets were either speaking way above my head, or they were really just false prophets. In either case, I'm left with nothing to proceed on.
Zach: "He is affecting in me the ultimate sentient satisfaction." This is simply hedonism. It shows no regard for the faculty of choice in the lovED.
Jeff: Don't people choose that which they believe will result in their highest sentient satisfaction? If not, what grounds human choice?
Zach: Sure. But doing what you believe will result in satisfaction is often quite different than do what actually will result in ultimate satisfaction. Surely you'd agree that people often don't do what will result in ultimate satisfaction. From the Garden to today, God has allowed choice a role. Ensuring "ultimate sentient satisfaction" makes all human choice meaningless (including many parts of Jesus' ministry). Why bother if God is going to reprogram everyone anyway? No choice has any lasting consequence or meaning, and therefore no human action has any lasting moral significance. But every prophet from Noah to Paul seems to take human choices seriously.
Jeff: First of all, I was only responding to your claim that I was a mere hedonist. In one sense I am. And it seems you are too by what you say. Second, I thought you previously said you didn't believe in eternal conscious suffering for wrong choices. If that's the case then, per that view, there is no wrong "choice" that "has any lasting consequence" for unbelievers. For the unbeliever, per that view, all choices have temporal consequences only. I think the same is true for some of the choices of believers.
Jeff: This is exactly why I explain the postponing of the end at least partly in terms of the sentient satisfaction it occasions for the Son
Zach: Yes, but what about the part that is explained in terms of human salvation? "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance." This verse is made entirely superfluous by universalism. Under universalism God's desire to bring everyone to repentance would be served by hastening the end not postponing it.
Jeff: First, I'm not absolutely convinced of universalism. Second, I think if universalism is true, unbelievers will miss out on the kingdom of Christ and God. They will not be restored to life until all co-reigning (due to co-suffering) is complete. So unbelievers, per my view, really do perish for a long time and miss out on a great deal of glory and sentient satisfaction. Because the sufferings with Christ of this present time are not worthy to be compared to what sentient satisfaction will result when those sufferers reign with him.
Jeff: 'But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.'" Now clearly this statement seems to imply that postponing not only gives occasion for more of the "few" to "find" life, but it also seems to guarantee that even more will not find it. And this seems to imply something about God's nature if indeed His preference works this way.
Zach: Yes, exactly.
Jeff: In particular, it means that God is bringing people into this world without their consent knowing that the vast majority of them will be judged for giving into desires that they did not create or choose--and I doubt they would have consented to such an existence if they knew the consequences of it. You see this as loving. I don't. I, with Greg and others who think the OT is prophetic, can make no sense of divine love if the Fall (and the associated inevitable suffering associated with it) is not a temporary and tragic setback to God's purposes. But again, this has to do with how we conceive of the divine nature. You think of God in ways that seem counter-intuitive to me. But hey, the same can be said of Greg and everyone on this forum.
Zach: "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. "You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.
Greatness in the kingdom is being in the subordinated role, not in the subordinating role. It is not true that "if Christ truly reigns, he alone must be effectual somehow in causing certain effects." Jesus exercise lordship in his foot-washing. But he was not doing any "lording over" as your view claims is implied in lordship. It is possible to be a king with loyal and free subjects. It is possible for the lord to call us friends.
Jeff: If you read other parts that Jesus said, he talked of not seeking the first seat in the synagogues or desiring to be called "father." The idea to my mind, then, is not that there can be no first seat in a synagogue or that I can never speak of a biological father (for such an interpretation seems counter to the intent), but that our pursuits are to be regulated by a spirit of serving the best interests of our neighbor, and not ourselves only. There is no position of privilege that exempts us from loving servanthood--including creator of the universe.
It doesn't follow from that, though, that absolute non-interference of volitional actions or consent is mandatory for God or man. For it is conceivable that the best interests of our neighbor are attained by resisting the consent of some. I can't imagine how God could even judge people if He had to honor their consent. Nor do I see anything in scripture that says God only judges man according to what they themselves regard as wrong. As I understand scripture, God will judge men for hypocrisy they don't even believe they have. With respect to man, the only other scriptural guide I have is the golden rule. How are christians not loving their neighbor as themselves simply because they honestly believe scripture reveals that God instituted government?
But you're probably wasting your time arguing with me about his stuff. I'm probably closer to you, practically, than the vast majority of Christendom simply because of my views of politicians (and other purely consequentialist reasons). I just think your view entails such a non-perspicuous view of scripture that I would just give up the attempt of trying to understand or persuade if I went there.
I don't see how I can know we have an inductively-discernable historical-Christ if NT writers were so off on so many things about which they seemed to be convinced they were speaking prophetically. Such extreme confusion seems like the delusions of mad men to me. And I don't intentionally get my history from mad men. Much less do I try to persuade others to accept the "histories" of mad men.
But that's just me, Zach. Everyone has to draw their inductive lines as they most honestly see fit. That's all I'm doing. It makes me a relatively lonely person (and we naturally crave community to share our beliefs with), but living with a clear conscience requires me to abide where I'm at for now.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/3/2007 9:39:35 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/4/2007 1:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: But for God to distinguish as to who continues to live and who does not continue to live based on what they do or don't do...
Zach: This is it right here! God is not the one choosing who will live and die. We ourselves choose. That's what I'm saying in a nutshell. Of course God is all-powerful, so he could kill or sustain life against the creature's will, but at the point of decision I believe God is vocal but not determining. He leaves both paths open, and it is less than accurate to say that God 'sends someone to hell' or 'distinguishes who will live or die' (if by 'distinguish' you mean more than 'observe') when that someone is the one who knowingly jumped in.
Jeff: I don't see how any of that follows if there is no post-mortem life. To my mind, to say "love is life" is just a metaphorical way of saying those who love will live forever. Apart from post-mortem life, that really does seem like mere "flowery, poetic" words.
Zach: That's why I made a big deal about it. I don't mean it metaphorically. I'm claiming that "a person entirely without love" is equivalent to "a dead person." I'm mean that both spiritually and physically. I'm sure there's a true way to think about it metaphorically, but that's not what I'm doing here.
Jeff: There is a relativistic truth to it in the sense that for some people a life of love is a happier one. But the opposite is true for other people. And I dare say that Paul himself was sufficiently clear that he would not have suffered the sufferings he experienced had he not believed in a ressurection. Jesus, too, talked similarly.
Zach: I didn't really mean to side one way or the other on this relativistic truth. But my response is that a life of love opens up a deep kind of joy than what is usually meant by "happiness." Both Paul and Jesus endured suffering while looking to a joy set before them.
Jeff: Because if natural (i.e., inevitable) suffering will be an eternal feature of human life, then I think scripture is so non-perspicuous that it's not worth my time trying to understand.
Zach: What I was trying to ask was how this connected to the larger discussion. I don't see the link. But just for fun... if you include the Hebrew scriptures there are images of death in the picture of there version of heaven. Isaiah 65:20 - the new heaven and earth. But of course the Old Testament is subordinated to the New. 
Jeff: Again, if you're right, scripture is way off in its eschatology, to my mind. This in turn means that NT prophets were either speaking way above my head, or they were really just false prophets. In either case, I'm left with nothing to proceed on.
Zach: How so? What NT prophecy are you referring to? I know there is language about being born again and having renewed minds, but I don't know of these things being spoken of as forced on the unwilling. I have no problem with people being drastically changed (even having new minds). My problem is with the idea of forcing this on the unwilling. If that is contrary to the New Testament, I don't know how. Now, if we are talking about the opposite case of those in hell, then I'd admit that if there is a time period before annihilation (as I suspect there is), people will very likely regret their decision. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a free decision in the first place.
Jeff: First, I'm not absolutely convinced of universalism. Second, I think if universalism is true, unbelievers will miss out on the kingdom of Christ and God. They will not be restored to life until all co-reigning (due to co-suffering) is complete. So unbelievers, per my view, really do perish for a long time and miss out on a great deal of glory and sentient satisfaction. Because the sufferings with Christ of this present time are not worthy to be compared to what sentient satisfaction will result when those sufferers reign with him.
Zach: Wow. Here's another than could be its own thread. First of all, I'm not absolutely convinced about my stuff either. I get the feeling I don't have a good picture of your view of the end times. "until all co-reigning is complete" This in particular I would almost certainly misconstrue if I responded. But I'm still not sure how ensuring that unbelievers miss out on certain good things makes sense of the verse in Hebrews. That they miss out does not make sense of God's prolonging this age out of a desire to save. But I'm sure I'm missing something here.
Jeff: In particular, it means that God is bringing people into this world without their consent knowing that the vast majority of them will be judged for giving into desires that they did not create or choose--and I doubt they would have consented to such an existence if they knew the consequences of it. You see this as loving.
Zach: Yes, exactly.
Jeff: I don't.
Zach: Wait, how? What part? I would expect that you'd agree with all that. Bringing people into existence without (the logically impossible) prior consent. Knowing that they would be judged for giving into desires they did not create or choose (to have, I assume. They do choose to give into them.) These are things that I'd expect everyone on the board would confess as true. And if you disagree about this being loving, then do you see it as neutral? Because ascribing an unloving act to God is tricky territory.
Jeff: I, with Greg and others who think the OT is prophetic, can make no sense of divine love if the Fall (and the associated inevitable suffering associated with it) is not a temporary and tragic setback to God's purposes.
Zach: Temporary is the word. Sure, the fall and it's consequences are temporary in one sense. But if you mean it in a way that amounts to universalism, there are plenty of people who claim to have made sense of divine love apart from this viewpoint. I thought Greg was one of them, but maybe he became a universalist when I wasn't looking.
When I play a video game, I can steal, kill, cheat, deal honesty, protect, or help. But none of it has moral significance. There are two reasons. One is that the characters are not real people themselves, but the other is that when I'm done I hit the power button and all consequences are erased. Universalism seems to me to be a game where the characters are real. And God hits the reset button. In such a scenario all human actions are truly inconsequential. There are a wealth of varying and opposing viewpoints in the Bible, but I don't want to give Ecclesiastes the last word. I think this is what universalism does. There's plenty of truth there, but it's not the whole story. Apart from Ecclesiastes and a few similar passages, and especially in the New Testament, I think the Bible affirms that our actions have eternal consequences. Universalism is the denial of this very claim.
Jeff: First of all, I was only responding to your claim that I was a mere hedonist. In one sense I am. And it seems you are too by what you say. Second, I thought you previously said you didn't believe in eternal conscious suffering for wrong choices. If that's the case then, per that view, there is no wrong "choice" that "has any lasting consequence" for unbelievers. For the unbeliever, per that view, all choices have temporal consequences only. I think the same is true for some of the choices of believers.
Zach: Not at all. I know it's an awkward way of speaking, but if we have to choose between calling annihilation 'temporary' or 'eternal,' I'd say it's eternal. Wouldn't you? How is that not a lasting consequence? I get what your saying. But the choice is to continue living or to die. Framed in those terms, eternal life does not share the 'temporary' characteristic of annihilation. That being said, I do think we will be changed, and many choices will only have temporary consequences. But this one (and, in a sense, only) fundamental choice has lasting consequences. I guess I'm speaking more of the general choice of life rather than each individual choice along the way.
Jeff: It doesn't follow from that, though, that absolute non-interference of volitional actions or consent is mandatory for God or man.
Zach: I've modified by views a hair. I want to move away from particularizing what I've been driving at. Syllogisms are so pretentious. Here I go. (I don't think this technically qualifies as a syllogism.)
1. We make some moral (good or bad/relationship supporting or negating/healthy or deadly) decisions.
2. That we make them implies that they were our free, unforced choices.
3. If the are free and unforced, no one (including God) interferes with the decision.
Also there's this:
4. We are told that we are to love God.
5. This is a moral (and therefore free, unforced) action.
6. So this one crucial action is not interfered with by God.
I don't want to make a claim about every choice. But I do claim that all moral choices are essentially the same: yes or no to God, love or don't, live or die. And this one choice is truly ours to make. And it is not really our choice if God has locked one of the two doors. That is interference that would make the command to love nonsense. Now maybe God interferes in particulars. (And maybe I'll take that back; it's late and I'm working it out as I write.) Maybe what looks like a very moral decision is not actually one "in the eyes of God." I want to posit a general choice over and above all the various good and bad choices.
Jeff: For it is conceivable that the best interests of our neighbor are attained by resisting the consent of some.
Zach: Yes. But this can get complicated. And is love defined as acting in the loved's best interest. Or does love involve respecting the loved's decisions when they are opposed to their own best interests? He could have called down angels to prevent Judas or anyone else from acting against their own best interest. Acting in the best interest of people is something that God is notorious for not doing. I could roll out the standard list from Hitler to Darfur, but that's unnecessary at this point. Maybe all that permitting of evil is meaningless and will be forgotten when God presses the universalist reset button. But my gut (and, I think, the Bible) says otherwise. There must be something about permitting serious evil that is consistent with divine love. And it can't be a consequentialist, greater good thing. It's next to impossible to believe that six million permitted Jewish killings somehow work for some greater good than 5,999,999. But still, that one death is serious evil.
For me it's not a question of, "How can we best work for our neighbors' best interests?" Rather it's a question of, "How can love be defined this way if God is so clearly not this way?" Maybe God will miraculously make each instance of human evil somehow worthwhile and beneficial to everyone's best interest. Maybe it will turn out that God will force our best interests on us whether we like it or not. But such a God is quite different from Jesus IMHO.
Jeff: I can't imagine how God could even judge people if He had to honor their consent. Nor do I see anything in scripture that says God only judges man according to what they themselves regard as wrong. As I understand scripture, God will judge men for hypocrisy they don't even believe they have.
Zach: It's fine to say hypocrisy will be judged, but Jesus gives a more detailed explanation. He says that we will be judged by our own measures. If it's detail to the Law or if it's forgiveness for all, we will get what we've dished out. I also think it's fine to say this is the judgment of God. But I also think a more detailed explanation is that God presides over an orderly creation in which we receive the natural consequences of our actions.
Jeff: With respect to man, the only other scriptural guide I have is the golden rule. How are christians not loving their neighbor as themselves simply because they honestly believe scripture reveals that God instituted government?
Zach: If your conscience tells you that you can't eat meat, you'd better not eat meat. If your conscience tells you it's your duty to participate in mob rule, I mean, democracy, then you'd better get educated on the candidates and issues and vote (unless patriots are still allowed to abstain). I do not at all condemn the actions taken in support of any government or institution or cause if they are done in good faith according to the person's conscience. What I disapprove of is the way we all fudge on our consciences and lie to ourselves. We must obey our conscience and keep to our beliefs. But we have all twisted our consciences and belief for self-serving reasons. I have family in the military, and I'm proud of them. I have family and friends who vote, and I think they are doing something admirable. I guess I'm an intentionalist. I believe the thing they are doing is flat-out sin. But the real issue is one of the heart and mind. Until that is changed I can hardly expect or approve of a change in action.
That probably came out condescending. Of course that's kind of inherent in any position that sees sin in another's actions. But I regret that I can't put the idea forth with more humility. I only mean to reiterate 1 Corinthians 8.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/5/2007 6:28 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Zach: For me it's not a question of, "How can we best work for our neighbors' best interests?" Rather it's a question of, "How can love be defined this way if God is so clearly not this way?"
Jeff: I reason differently. I don't define the word "love" so that it renders God's non-interventionism loving. Because 1) I don't think humans are loving just because they don't intervene, and 2) I think we should look at how the greek word "agape" is used and then see if there is a way to conceive of God as literally being "agape" in that sense. In the Sermon, when Christ said to love our enemies, wasn't that where He said God "rains on the just and the unjust?" Throughout my life, I've heard people complaining about rain. So even in that analogy, there's no way to render it completely consistent with all human consent. But it does have to do with intended action as opposed to non-interventionism.
What is important is that there are many verses that say God loves, just like humans do. There is only one that says "God is love." And Christ did not say that one. So if we don't assume that NT writers always got it right, we could just say that God loves in various times and manners, but that He is not necessarily essentially love. This picture of God would be completely consistent with the OT.
But let me clarify how I draw my lines. I don't throw out any traditionally accepted NT book unless I have compelling reasons to do so. I assume that the NT must be true per authorial intent if it is to be used to make judgments about what other folks and myself are right and wrong about. I don't do this because I prefer autorial intent. I do this because, as a non-rocket-scientist, I truly have no idea how else to do scriptural theology. And I don't see that those who reject authorial intent come to the same conclusions about theology anyway. So I don't see what I have to lose.
So if authorial intent applied to the NT (or the majority of it) does not provide a coherent picture, I just give up the communal game. I would still have personal convictions that I couldn't rationally justify. But I fear advocating communally that which even I can't rationally justify. And rationality necessarily includes induction, to my mind. Because there are a myriad of deductively consistent, but radically implausible, views. So I feel compelled to define "agape" according to a word study of the original language. If you're interested in that, I'm game.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/5/2007 8:47:29 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 9/6/2007 6:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Yeah, I'm game I suppose. A few things though. I am not asserting that "humans are loving just because they don't intervene." Also, I don't mean to rest my argument on the "God is love" verse. I don't say this to be difficult, but because defining the term is the actual crux of the matter. We could use many terms: goodness, morality, hesed, benevolence... I like 'love.' I guess the main gist is: (1) God lets the un-good happen, but (2) God is good, so (3) goodness is consistent (at least in some respect) with letting un-good happen. We can substitute many different words for 'good.' Only statement 2 rests on biblical support (unless we are questioning God's omnipotence, in which case #1 requires biblical support).
I don't really see the need for biblical backing on this basic argument in our context. It goes without saying that whatever happens is allowed by God and that bad things happen and that God remains good. I think we are in agreement on those points. Even the concluding statement I don't see how you could deny. It is clear that "goodness" is consistent when allowing "un-good." The only disagreement I see is in how and when this "letting un-good happen" embodies "goodness."
Maybe a study of the Koine words for love or goodness would illuminate this subject, but I think the bulk of what we need to know is found in the gospel as a whole.
And here's that verse in context:
You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get?
Causing the sun to rise and sending rain are good things. Both can be overbearing when there is too much. But the context is clear. It's about loving enemies and about how doing so makes us like the Father. I hear what you're saying about people complaining about God's gifts. But that is a level of meticulous literalism that I simply discount and hopefully don't resort to myself. That is the sort of argument that people use to make the claim that the earth rests on four pillars. What the verse certainly does say is that we should actively love and pray for all people, good and bad. What the verse is silent about is the issue of forcing good things on those who would prefer to be left alone. It's simply not speaking to the matter. That's not the author's intent.
I should say that I might be backing off the idea that we must always give when asked anything. I don't see God doing that, and the NT often specifies that God will give "good gifts" or "the Spirit" when asked. But I remain firm that we should allow God to define love (or goodness) and not allow a human term to exclusively define God. Certainly, God is king, but by saying this I do not mean to heap upon him the sinful practices that were common to ancient Middle-Eastern kings. Likewise God is loving, good, and benevolent, but I'd prefer to let God's own record speak for itself rather than taking the standard Greek usages of the terms as perfectly accurate when applied to God.
The fact that God allows evil while remaining good is accepted here. So the question is what sort of evil is allowed, under what circumstances is it allowed, and why is it allowed?
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/6/2007 9:00 PM (GMT -6) | | | I think what you're describing is close to how I used to think. But I used to say that God loves various people in various ways at various times. I didn't deem non-interference as love. But I didn't deem it as malevolence either--nor ultimately unjust. The problem that most people have with that is that it seems to imply that God allows the "un-good" for His own sentient satisfaction, whether that be from glory or whatever. Because the argument goes, "God doesn't even need creation AT ALL." So why allow the innocent and the helpless to be abused so more people will be saved or have opportunity to choose? If it's not for God, then it would seem that the helpless innocents are allowed to suffer for the sake of those that reach the age of accountability and believe and/or volitionally choose.
Either way we have God allowing "un-good" to the helpless for the sake of someone other than the helpless. This is why I don't see how saying God endures for the sake of Christ is problematic. It would seem that this much is inescapable--the helpless are not the beneficiaries of God's "allowances" if God forebears merely for the sake of other humans. Because this means their suffering is truly vain and meaningless when those other humans choose badly. When the helpless are infants, their abuse is not even "allowed" for the sake of their own volition. They are simply taken advantage of, and this is allowed for the sake of another.
What my approach buys me, IMO, is that God literally can't (in the sense that He can't be motivated to) but forebear in longsuffering. Hence, the standard problem of evil argument is refuted in that God is truly not able to bring the project to an end. God purposed that Christ would be the beneficiary of creation in some maximal way. Thus, He must see it through even though much has gone, and is still going, awry.
What does this buy me? For one, scriptural TEXT! Instead of having to speculate about post-mortem explanations for those whose sufferings we find hard to explain (while scripture says nary a word about it), I'm on the solid footing of scriptural statements that this creational project is FOR THE SON. No speculation needed. So I have two things going here:
1) The problem of evil is solved since God truly can't (because He can't be motivated to abandon His purpose for His Son) stop the show just because their is suffering in it.
and...
2) I have scriptural texts telling me of at least one person, other than the Father Himself, who is the unconditional beneficiary of God's allowance of "non-good." Why unconditional? Because Christ will be glorified BOTH by those who suffer with him AND by the judgment, which the Father has given to him.
Why then is it any more problematic to say that divine intervention is postponed for the sake of Christ's maximal glory? For if allowing "un-good" is for the purpose of attaining the benefit to Christ of sentient satisfaction from creation, THEN that "un-good" is never ultimately vain and meaningless. It is always, regardless of human choice, endured for the inevitable sentient satisfaction of the Son.
The fact that no suffering is ultimately vain, per this view, gives me the hope that when unbelievers are judged justly, and their "mouths are stopped," they are "stopped" because they will intellectually perceive the truthfulness of Christ's judgment. And if this is the case, maybe when all bow the knee and confess with the tongue, it will be with intellectual consent. All epistemic distance will be eliminated.
Now Christ is said to reign "until he subjects all enemies under his feet," and, then, he delivers the kingdom to the Father. I think the new heavens and new earth is when that kingdom is delivered to the Father. And if Christ's reign is temporal, maybe the Father's reign is temporal. Maybe there will come a time when ALL reigning is over--when all are totally unified, as the Father and Son are in unity without any reigning involved. It seems conceivable to me that at that time, every person will be incorporated into the unity, for they will have all bowed and confessed that Jesus is Lord. Christ will have become the beneficiary of EVERY single created volitional being, just like God had intended from the beginning. But because of the Fall, ALL will have had to suffer to become full beneficiaries of creation, just like God/Christ did.
I don't see why God would require that infants who died pass some post-mortem test. If He doesn't need creation in the first place for Himself, and Christ's satisfaction from the voluntary aspect of creation has been attained in his temporal kingdom, why wouldn't God just ressurect those infants right into the divine family? You, I think, would agree with Tom that such a person can't exist--that the test is a necessary condition for the post-mortem state. I don't know how to prove that. And it isn't self-evident to me. So, for me, it is an unnecessary postulate that complicates the scriptural account of divine love/benevolence.
If this view of universalism doesn't work, I still like the idea that no suffering is ultimately vain entailed in my view of why the "un-good" is allowed. When the "un-good" is allowed merely for human choice, it is ultimately vain and meaningless much of the time.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/6/2007 9:05:32 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 79 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:47 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 |
|
|