Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

johnmd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154

Posted 2/21/2004 2:54 PM (GMT -6)

From prior thread--The Lord Giveth and the Lord Taketh Away."

John
"Ultimately, I find comfort in a God who declares He can redeem whatever
Satan throws at Him—Hence, the last Chapter of Job—God redeemed"-

Borg
Then I suppose it's a good thing that truth isn't based off of our comforts,
ideals, etc. For if it were; 1) very relativistic, and 2) I find more comfort in a
God who has Satan on a leash, and a pretty small leash at that, not able to
do anything outside of God's soveriegn will.

John's Response,

“Truth” is revealed in God’s word which goes to great length to draw a sharp contrast BETWEEN good and evil. If what you say is true there is no ultimate distinction between good and evil. Satan is not on a “leash”…Satan is GOD’s puppet. Satan IS the hand of God. Your leash analogy is a hoodwink. The length of the leash is inconsequential.

Your prior statement is self defeating.

Borg said
“You cannot get away from that fact that Satan, though evil, wicked, disastorous, cunning, and tying his best to destroy God's redemptive plan; is on a leash. And God holds this leash tightening the choke chain if he dare try to move too close, or too far.”

You attempt to imply that a dog on leash can genuinely DO anything of his own accord. The Master determines what the dog doesand to what extent. Your presentation of Satan “trying his best” while on a leash and your proposal of “God’s redemptive plan” with God designing the plan while simultaneously holding the leash and is a pointless contrast.

Your proposal draws no distinction between God’s intent and action and those of Satan. Indeed, with your proposal Satan has no real intent or action at all independent of God. No need for two characters. Ultimately, “all” is good—BECAUSE ALL ULTIMATELY COMES FROM GOD’S HAND. That is a violation of the intent of Scripture which from Genesis onward presents the God who “…is light and in Him is no darkness at all.” There is no point of the contrast if there is no real opposing object.

I refer you to my previous post (to you) on the “Carlie was murdered—Where was God” thread.

Borg said
“Another comment regarding the idea that Calvinism says "God makes the mess"- NO. There is no mess, there is no mistake. God is not cleaning up the mess but spinning all to His glorious wonderous will that is complete and perfect in every aspect.”

John asks?

My question, “Is EVERYTHING that IS or WAS God’s doing?”

If so…Since God can only do “good.” There is no such concept as evil—No
ultimate distinction between good and evil…Evil simply does not exist for the
Calvinist because God ultimately does ALL. Evil is an illusion for the Calvinist.
This is Eastern “Philosophy” and not Christianity which clearly distinguishes
between good and evil.

Scripture defines the fallen world in no uncertain terms… “The world IS a mess.” Now, “Who made the mess?” If God made the mess but it is really not a mess (only a “perceived mess”) you have just moved Christianity into the realm of the Hindu and you have violated the emphatic statement of James—“God is not the author of evil.”

What is it that God is “spinning all to His glorious wonderous will that is complete and perfect in every aspect.”? Something that is ultimately good (because God is the ultimate author of all (per Calvin) doesn’t need to be
“spun.”

I submit that Scripture clearly testifies that Satan and Man made the mess and God is redeeming it. Otherwise, the concept of goodness, justice, holiness, etc, not only becomes counterintuitive but arbitrary and meaningless.

In summary, the reason that I am not a Calvinist is the same reason I am not Hindu or a New Age. There is no ground for understanding who God is. There are no penultimate categories between good and evil. There is no basis for communication. Words and concepts have no real meaning. Scripture, in contrasting good and evil, is disingenuous—indeed deceitful.

In the final analysis, it is Calvinism that is “relativistic.” Fundamentally, “Relativism” discards reason that God beacons us to practice with Him and replaces it with determinism at all costs. Relativism is at the foundation of much of the so-called linguistic analysis and analytical philosophy of our day that results in such questions as, “Well, it depends on what the definition of ‘IS’ is?” (Clinton, 2002). Relativism hijacks the fundamental meaning of language and communication between God and man (“Come let us REASON together…). The error of Calvinism is that all interpretation is made “relative to” the manmade philosophical constructs of Augustine, Calvin, et al. instead of to a reasoned approach to Scripture and the revealed character of God in Christ. Such that when we are given a clear statement in Scripture (e.g., God is light) Calvin derives the so-called “hidden God” with “secret ways” completely antithetical to the emphatic statements of Scripture which should serve as the linchpins of our understanding (and not vice versa). With Calvin’s definition of God’s “sovereignty”—which includes all evil— there is no real need for Satan. Satan is just an arbitrary character “relative” only to the charade. There is no real point to introducing Satan in the Prologue. Satan is only there to distract the reader from the real author of the evil who is God. What is the point of declaring I am sovereign over my puppet?

Calvinism concedes, even embellishes, the depravity, the wickedness, the evil of the fallen world (and rightly so), yet renders this tenet not only “relative” but nonsensical with its definition of sovereignty that obliterates any ultimate, real, or genuine distinction between the omnibenevolent Creator and the penultimate author of evil. This is “Relativism” at its worst. My suspicion is that the root of “Relativism” that plagues our society is Calvinism. For it is Calvinism that ultimately removes our ability to distinguish between good and evil. As Borg said previously, “There is no mess.” God is in all. God controls Satan “on a leash.” What is the motive to come against the dog on the leash when it is God holding the leash. Indeed, we should do the opposite. Are we to pray against that which God foreordained? Are we to believe that the God in whom “there is no shadow of turning” foreordained that man pray against that which He had otherwise foreordained? My suspicion is that the church called by God to come against the forces of evil with the power of God is timid because down deep we have given precedent to Calvin over Scripture and our zeal has been tainted because deep down we believe that God is behind it all anyway. Why bother? Or even worse, as Lewis said, “We have met the Devil and it is God.”

Jesus never once appealed to such counterintuitive ideas. He simply confronted evil and instructed His disciples to do the same. There was never thought nor mention that God was ultimately behind, orchestrating, or manipulating (for any reason) the evil that he was challenging. Does Jesus’ own reasoning not apply to Himself and to God when He says, “I and the Father are one,” juxtaposed against, “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?”

Calvinism violates Scripture because there is no example of this perspective in the revealed life of Jesus (i.e., the foundation from which our understanding of God must begin and never contradict is revealed in the actions of Jesus). Jesus IS the “icon” of the invisible God. If Calvin’s proposal is the nature of the case surely there would be at least one example in the gospels where Jesus “causes” evil to bring good to support the claim with regard to God “orchestrating” evil.

Scripture states that “God is not the author of evil.” As per James, THERE IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY IN THE CREATED UNIVERSE—Not coequal or coexistent, just relatively independent—and that entity is neither good nor God. James emphatically insists that [while God created Satan] God is not the author of Satan’s intents or actions. So, however we interpret Job, we must begin with these first principles and the statement of Scripture which allows for a meaningful definition of sovereignty that does not have to include (indeed must not include) God authoring evil (either directly or via Satan, man, or otherwise).

To God alone be the glory,
John

P.S. Borg, I have started 2 other threads under THEOLOGICAL Q&A which further address your prior comments.

borg
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324

Posted 2/21/2004 3:55 PM (GMT -6)

Good= faith solely aimed at God's glory in complete perfection, only seen in the icon of the invisible God, Christ.

Evil= anything less than that.

The leash, God's sovereign, righteous, holy, pleasing will.

A) It is not sinful for God to will that there is sin. B) When someone is under God's soveriegnty, we are still accountable for our actions. *When under Satan's power to do his will, 2 Tim 2:24-26, we are still accountable for our actions, and Satan though under Christ's control Heb 2:8 is still responsible for his actions.

Why is Job interpruted in light of James? By the argument of relativism in Calvinism, I did not have time to read, but I read the first and last paragraph to get an overview, and it's seems just as easy for me to throw those very claims back in your face, but I won't. Calvinism is only as relativistic as Scripture, and I've come to believe that Scripture is not relativistic.

Blessings,
Borg

"So it is a more glorious work of power to uphold a soul in a state of grace and holiness, and to carry it on till it is brought to glory, when there is so much sin remaining in the heart resisting, and Satan with all his might opposing, than it would have been to have kept manfrom falling at first, when Satan had nothing in man." Edwards

johnmd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154

Posted 2/21/2004 4:14 PM (GMT -6)

Good is what God does. Evil is that which is God would never do.

Borg said
It is not sinful for God to will that there is sin.

John said

Yet if I will sin then I am punished. Sounds like doubleminded God to me who has double standard.

Ultimately "sin" becomes a meaningless concept.
"We have met the Devil and He is God."

Come let us reason together. Reason requires concepts. Concepts require definitions. Definitions require contrast and must correlate with reality.

Did you vote for Clinton?
Eyebrow

--Well, it depends on what the definition of 'IS' is" Knife

John

borg
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324

Posted 2/21/2004 8:49 PM (GMT -6)

I still fail to see how this "argument" is such a killer one. I personally thought it was filled with many opinions, that reflected a biased attitude with a hatred for Calvinism. I will go along with you in that good= whatever God does. But just by assuming this, we are both taking a stance that could be called "relativistic". Isn't this what was the Meno problem? "Are things pious because the gods follow them, or are things pious because the gods declare them." Either way you have problems. For with the first, you have a law that God is required to submit to, and in the second, God could have just as easily declared murdering right. This question has stumped people for centuries.
So what do I make of it? I say that things are "pious" or in this case "right" if God ordains them to be right. And yes this, for all I believe, could bring in a whole mess of an idea of relativism. But that shouldn't frieghten us for we know that all the acts of God are good, by His nature. Therefore when He killed Pharaoh and all his men, His lovingkindness endured even in that. And when He killed the kings that opposed Israel, His lovingkindness endured in that. And when He commanded Israel to smash and kill the babies of the foriegn nations, His lovingkindness was endured in that, for all God's ways are righteous and just! When God brought about a paratial hardening on Israel's heart so that the fullness of the gentiles might be grafted in, His love was still visible, and still visible to Israel.
But to get more at the issue of relativism in that you see this as unfair of God and not portrayed in the person of Christ. My first response to that would simply be that Christ has not been revealed in His full nature yet. For there is still a testament to come, and no I'm not talking about the Book of Mormon, but Revelation. There is a day when Christ will return, and He will break the legs of many to make them bow before Him. So I question, do you see in the future revelation of Christ anything that might hint at what you are rising up against? Secondly I bring forth an example from the Gospels. Once again the story of Lazarus. For Christ caused Lazarus to die, as we see in the beginning of the story. Jesus could have gone to Lazarus immediatley, spoken a word and He would have been healed, but He said that his death was for the glory of God. This still caused Mary and Martha pain. But Christ allowed and placed them in that situation so that He could later go and raise Laz from the dead. The love of God is not the human meaning of love. We think love to be something that makes much out of us. Well it's not. God's love towards us, is a love that allows us to make little out of ourselves, and glory in Christ, partaking in the richest of fair. The Love of God isn't to make us feel good about ourselves, but to allow us to see God for who He is. For this reason among others, I will not be an Open Theist. For it makes much out of man and less out of God. God's love is not a bandade love, but a surgeon love in that He pricks at us and cuts us open, feeling the pain and suffering (evil as you might feel inclined to equate it to), solely for the purpose that God will mend it up Himself so that we can glory in Him. Is this making any sense? Sorry it's late and I don't know how well this is playing out, so I will depart for now. Let me know what you think and where I can help you out more. But just remember, it is better for the mere human mind to be broken and cast off into thevoid of not understanding than for the Holy Writ to be broken.
Blessings,
Borg

borg
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324

Posted 2/22/2004 8:54 AM (GMT -6)

The more I thought about it, the more I questioned the help of my previous post. But now, after pondering this question I guess I have some problems with how you view Calvinism and God.
1) I think your first claim and presupposition should be defended. Why do you believe that the Bible/ God goes to a great extent to draw a distinct line between good vs. evil? What drew you to this claim? I would say "yes" God goes to great measure to show us what truth is, but God is truth, but is this between good and evil? Could you just expound on this idea a bit?
2) Satan does play a vital role. However Satan cannot go beyond the bounds of what God allows him to do. Satan is subject to God's soveriegnty, but it is not God acting the evil, but Satan. To say that Satan isn't subject to God, seems to defeat the prologue to Job. Satan is a prowling lion seeking to destroy us, Satan is the great deciever trying to make us guilty of our sins before God. But God still uses Satan for His good pleasure and the works of Satan to bring about His perfect plan of redemption.
3) Even a Boydian would say that all comes from God's hand. The freedom you use when you sin with your free will comes from God. Nothing has it's existance outside the will of God, for He and He alone is the sufficeint cause of all, and His aisety is unlike any other.
4) I may admit that evil is an illusion for the saved. For everything that happens to us is for our own GOOD, Rom 8:28. And if something is done for our own good, how can we view it as evil? If the surgeon cuts deep into my skin to remove my dead kidney and replaces with another, in the moment of his cutting into me, would I view it as evil? No, for the sugeon is allowing me to get broken so that he alone can mend me. I see God working in this way.
5) I may have missed something; how does the Bible contradict itself between good and evil? The unbeliever could be said to experience nothing but evil/ wrath. For everything done in his/ her life is building up for the day of judgment in which God will declare them guilty and damn them to eternal punishment in the fire pits of hell. And all the unbeliever does is evil, for their actions are done with a) a love for God, b) for God's glory, c) by faith. After reading your post and the Holy Word, I find no points of contradiction, for all of God's judgments are righteous and pure. Even Him commanding Israel to slaughter everyone who opposes them.
6) John: "I submit that Scripture clearly testifies that Satan and Man made the mess and God is redeeming it. Otherwise, the concept of goodness, justice, holiness, etc, not only becomes counterintuitive but arbitrary and meaningless." And I would agree with this. However to God it doesn't appear to be a mess. For He "has the whole world in His hand". i dont' think we would disagree on the propostition.
7) "No ground for understanding who God is..." how well does anyone understand God?
8) Even our darkest darkness is still light to God.
9) Look at the Lazarus story in which, had you been there, you would have felt the sickness to be evil, but because we have the full story to read from, we realize that this "apparent" evil, was not evil at all, but a glorious outpouring of God's might, love, and strength.
10) Every kigdom divided against itself cannot stand. I agree. But how "in unision" are you with the kingdom of God? Don't your actions more often portray a love for darkness and sin? Are you divided against God's kingdom? How do you resolve that?
11) John: "As per James, THERE IS AN INDEPENDENT ENTITY IN THE CREATED UNIVERSE—Not coequal or coexistent, just relatively independent—and that entity is neither good nor God. James emphatically insists that [while God created Satan] God is not the author of Satan’s intents or actions. So, however we interpret Job, we must begin with these first principles and the statement of Scripture which allows for a meaningful definition of sovereignty that does not have to include (indeed must not include) God authoring evil (either directly or via Satan, man, or otherwise)."
Please explain an independent entity unrelated to God. I've never heard of such a thing. If Job is to be interpruted in light of James, then even though God brough adversity to Job, it wasn't evil of God. What's so hard to reconcile about this point? God didn't author evil, we did. We fell by our own desires, Satan fell by his own desire, and God is not the author of evil. But since evil exists it is not sinful for God to decree sin in the already fallen human race.
12) I still don't think you made your case clear as to why Calvinists are relativists. We have a definition of evil and a definition of good. And all God does is GOOD. Even Him being jealous is good, though it wouldn't be good for us to be jealous, because we cannot do it with the right heart.
Blessings,
borg

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 2/22/2004 11:49 AM (GMT -6)

John,

You are making an excellent point here! To me the fundamental difficulty with a Calvinistic understanding of God and his sovereignity is the inability for us to know anything about God.

Borg, I appreciate your presence here on this board. While we have disagreed many times, you have always been cordial and thorough in your debate. That said, there are many things that you have said in this thread that do not really make much sense to me. So I'll try to ask some clarifying questions to see if I can come to a better understanding of your position.

Borg

quote:
I bring forth an example from the Gospels. Once again the story of Lazarus. For Christ caused Lazarus to die, as we see in the beginning of the story. Jesus could have gone to Lazarus immediatley, spoken a word and He would have been healed, but He said that his death was for the glory of God. This still caused Mary and Martha pain. But Christ allowed and placed them in that situation so that He could later go and raise Laz from the dead. The love of God is not the human meaning of love. We think love to be something that makes much out of us. Well it's not. God's love towards us, is a love that allows us to make little out of ourselves, and glory in Christ, partaking in the richest of fair.

1.)In the example of Lazarus, God brought good out of Lazarus's death for all involved. He showed his love for Laz, for Mary and Martha, and for all who were there who saw Christ's glory.

What glory does God get out of creating a human and determining that she will be damned for eternity?

2.)If "the love of God is not the human meaning of love" then HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE WORDS LOVE OF GOD MEAN?

3.) Is it a good thing for us to partake in the "richest of fair" that we both say that Christ wants for us?

Alright, there are alot of other things that you have said that I can't get, but I think that it's because we have some fundamental differences on key issues. So can I ask you some questions about what you believe?

1.) What is sin?

2.) What is the purpose of God's punishment?

3.) Did Satan fall freely, or did God determine his "fall"?

4.) Could God have created a world where there was no sin?

I would really like to try to understand your position better, so I hope that you will respond when you get a chance.

Ross

"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

borg
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324

Posted 2/22/2004 1:08 PM (GMT -6)

my pleasure to answer to your questions, though I would like to begin with one addressed in the body of your text.
1) What glory does God get with damning someone to hell for eternity? Rom 9, what if the objects of wrath prepared for destruction were endured with longsuffering to make known His power among the objects of mercy? God's wrath, power, holiness, etc., will be displayed among those who are sentenced to eternal punishment. His power and the like are just as great attributes as is His love, and deserves just as much glory as the rest of his "kind" attributes.
2)Romans 14:23 says anything not done in faith is sin.
3) concerning the question of love in relation to human understanding. Through Scripture. And what I mean by "human meaning" of love is the 21st century idea of what love is. God's love towards us is not to make us feel good about ourselves, nowhere in Scripture are we taught that a healthy self-esteem is our goal. Our goal is to make less out of ourselves and more out of Him. Therefore God's love towards us is a love that allows us to love Him back. Look at the love poured out on Christ by God, while on the cross. Christ suffered, anguished, died, and God did all this while still loving Him. So likewise Christ says, "As the Father has loved Me so I will love you" (jn 10:15?). 1 Jn 4 tells us the definition of love, "Not that we loved Him, but that He loved us and sent His Son..." The idea of love in today's world is making us feel wram and comfortable on the inside, making one another feel good about ourselves and build one another's confidnce in ourselves up. God's isn't! God's love is a jealous love that desires for Him to be glorified above all else. God's love bestowed on us, allows us to love Him back. Make sense?
4) The purpose of God's punishment is to fulfill the just reqirements of all people whom Christ did not die for. Sin MUST be paid for. Either Christ died for you (elect) or you pay the punishment.
5) We are not given much in Scripture about Satan's fall and whether angels had free will or not. Therefore any answer I would give would be assuming things outside of the Scripture, which is dangerous to do. Therefore I will say, Satan's fall did not go against God's soveriegnty nor did it disrupt God's plan in all creation.
6) Another question that jumps into the unknown answers of the Bible. Could He have? Sure, but then not all His attributes would have been perfectly glorified i suppose.

let me know what you think
By Grace Alone,
Borg

johnmd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154

Posted 2/22/2004 5:41 PM (GMT -6)

Borg
I still fail to see how this "argument" is such a killer one. I personally thought it was filled with many opinions that reflected a biased attitude with a hatred for Calvinism.

John
As they say “Hate the sin. Love the sinner.”
I actually just disagree with how Calvin’s portrait of God maul’s God’s character and holiness rendering “God’s will” arbitrary and capricious—Like the parent who does not practice what they preach and ultimately, only because they are “bigger,” resort to the mantra of the fickle, “Because I said so.”

Defining God’s goodness on the basis of declaration alone is unbecoming of holiness.

Of course my posts are filled with my opinions and interpretations of Scripture. THIS IS A DISCUSSION BOARD! No need to state the obvious. Move on.

Borg
…in the second, God could have just as easily declared murdering right. This question has stumped people for centuries.

John
The issue is not what God could do. The issue is what God in fact does and has done. Any tenet that renders the possibility that “God can declare murder right” while at the same time holding me accountable for murder renders a fickle and arbitrary God unworthy of worship. There is no instance in Scripture that remotely demonstrates what you submit as an insoluble problem as even a possibility. God is truth therefore he CANNOT lie. God has declared circles are round and squares have 4 sides. Therefore God CANNOT create square circles. MY OPINION based on the revealed character of God in Scripture as well as the distinct categories of reason that God established is that God CANNOT murder.

What’s the problem. This question does not stump me. I just simply discount, out of the gate, any system that gives any credence to a God who is associated with “murder” in any way while telling me “Thou shalt not murder.” Since Calvin’s God ordains each and every incidence of murder, I discount Calvin at that point. God breaks His own commandment. Go figure. That’s not diety. That is Schizophrenia—i.e., detaching one’ self from the reality one declared???

Borg
So what do I make of it? I say that things are "pious" or in this case "right" if God ordains them to be right. And yes this, for all I believe, could bring in a whole mess of an idea of relativism. But that shouldn't frieghten us for we know that all the acts of God are good, by His nature.

John
Isn’t that the title of the Thread? CALVINISM: THE ROOT OF RELATIVISM. Thanks for verifying my intuition. Of course I am frightened by relativism…especially if the one with the power—“GOD”—can just capriciously declare murder is right “because my nature is good.” Therefore “ murder is good.”

How about this scenario… Father, Son, and Holy Sprit have been practicing holy benevolent fellowship (that does not include murder) from eternity past. The math alone declares murder is wrong and, therefore, will always be wrong. Infinity only equates with infinity. Good is what God does and has done. He has “tested” the hypothesis of benevolence (if you will allow me some latitude here) from all eternity.
That is the nature of Trinity and it is verified by infinity.

Have you had Calculus. If so you will recognize that we have just integrated from zero to infinity and have derived THE area under the curve. MURDER (nor any other contrabenevolent notion) is not nor ever has been an option for God as even a consideration much less a declaration as “good.” Therefore we may surmise from our own intuition that declaration renders nothing in and of itself. It is the basis of the declaration that renders meaning and in this case “goodness.”

Borg
Therefore when He killed Pharaoh and all his men, His lovingkindness endured even in that. And when He killed the kings that opposed Israel, His lovingkindness endured in that. And when He commanded Israel to smash and kill the babies of the foriegn nations, His lovingkindness was endured in that, for all God's ways are righteous and just! When God brought about a paratial hardening on Israel's heart so that the fullness of the gentiles might be grafted in, His love was still visible, and still visible to Israel.

John
There are distinctions in Scripture between killing and judgment and murder

Be careful here. You are mixing your metaphors. Avoid this mistake on your midterms or your professor will “kill” your grade.

Sure, death is a consequence of judgment…WHICH IS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE NATURE OF THE CASE—i.e., man’s choice to rebel. These examples you cited do not have to imply nor do they imply anything arbitrarily “declared” by God. Judgment was required BECAUSE OF Rebellion—God’s loving kindness endures because there are REASONS for His judgments and actions which man can understand.

Borg
But to get more at the issue of relativism in that you see this as unfair of God and not portrayed in the person of Christ. My first response to that would simply be that Christ has not been revealed in His full nature yet.

John
Take this up with the Apostle, not me. “He IS the icon of God.” Either you believe the testimony of the gospel writer that “He is THE ICON of God (check your Greek) or you do not. Either/Or. The “Both/And” propositions are for the Hindu Websites. I submit that while we will spend an eternity exploring the MAGNITUDE of God’s character we will learn nothing contra to the revealed NATURE of God in Christ in Scripture. If what you are saying is true…Scripture has no penultimate meaning…Which of course is the problem with Calvinism. Hence…CALVINISM: THE ROOT OF RELATIVISM.

You are getting tired. You are making this too easy for me. Where is that spunky college sophomore I’ve been dialoguing with?

Borg
For there is still a testament to come, and no I'm not talking about the Book of Mormon, but Revelation. There is a day when Christ will return, and He will break the legs of many to make them bow before Him.

John
Revelation has been REVEALED. No surprises here. Else what is the point of the ink and parchment at $50 a page?

Actually I believe the view of the “Lamb that was slain” will suffice to provoke worship without the need to go through the crowd clubbing knee caps. I hope I can assume you are just employing a bad metaphor here.

Borg
So I question, do you see in the future revelation of Christ anything that might hint at what you are rising up against?

John
No. I think I am rising up against a “future revelation of Christ” that is nonexistent in Scripture.

Borg
Secondly I bring forth an example from the Gospels. Once again the story of Lazarus. For Christ caused Lazarus to die, as we see in the beginning of the story. Jesus could have gone to Lazarus immediatley, spoken a word and He would have been healed, but He said that his death was for the glory of God. This still caused Mary and Martha pain. But Christ allowed and placed them in that situation so that He could later go and raise Laz from the dead.

John
Borg, Borg, Borg, Borg, Borg (read with rhythm)
I just addressed this in detail in the “Book of Job—How ‘bout it Doc” Thread less than a month ago in response to Meph. Here we go again.

The death (of Lazarus or any one else) represents the nature of the case. This is not the case that God willed or caused. God did not will or cause the arena of death. However, (the fallen) arena of death is the arena in which God must work.

Because God is good, we assume that anything that He does is a morally good RESPONSE to further the Kingdom in some way. I submit Jesus is responding to an evil (which He did not will) in the example of Lazarus and not causing an evil by hesitating. Ultimately, it is agreed that finite man can not comprehend all of the variables impacting the circumstances. However, lack of understanding does not have to imply that Jesus’ “causing” evil by hesitating is a valid paradigm for interpreting the passage.

Ultimately, even if I concede your point, redemption of the situation was experienced by all in short order. Within a paragraph or two no one (past or present) is left “scratching their head” as to what God is doing here. Now that distinction is a far cry from the hundreds of casualties of 911 or the countless millions of rape and abuse victims who (along with their families) go to their grave never having any idea of God’s redemptive purpose in “causing” or “allowing” their torture. So, attributing causation of evil to Jesus in this case and failure to concede “the nature of the case” as the cause results in a sort of logical anachronism.

All agree that Jesus “intentionally waited.” However, the point is not THAT He waited. Rather the question is “Why He waited?” Did He intentionally wait as a function of causing an evil in order to later redeem? Or Did he intentionally wait because he had too given all the variables he was confronted with in redeeming the evil situation (which He did not cause) that he was confronted with.

(1) “There was IMMENSE suffering and mourning caused by Jesus’ delay.”

(2) “Jesus could have went earlier…”

These are two assumptions on your part that I do not grant. I can only assume that Jesus did the best He could and that His timing was as good as it could have been all things considered (geography, “level of faith,” spiritual warfare, etc.) in order to maximize the Kingdom of God in the evil situation He was dealing with. “Death” (the nature of the case that Jesus did not will) caused the suffering. Jesus hesitation did not cause anything and hence cannot be properly understood as evil because His hesitation (given the assumption that Jesus is always doing the best He can do) could not be helped given all of the variables of the fallen world He must deal with in responding to evil. Furthermore, Jesus’ “hesitation” did not add to the suffering. Rather, it was the many factors that impacted the situation that necessitated the “hesitation” that added to their suffering.

For what it’s worth, Jesus (via the eyes of faith), in fact did relieve their suffering on the spot when he stated to the messenger from the sisters that “This sickness will not end in death.” Maybe the point of the passage is that we suffer needlessly when we fail to listen to the word of the Lord? So, from the outset Jesus is responding to evil and suffering and doing His best to provide relief

If Jesus has the ability to just do whatever He wants to in any given evil circumstance (i.e., NOT to hesitate) then the spiritual warfare motif in scripture is disingenuous. The war is either real or it is not. The statement of Jesus representing Satan as the “Prince of this world” and Jesus’ refusal to rebuke the authority that Satan daunted during His temptation in the wilderness has no real meaning or connection with what man perceives as real linguistically or otherwise. His prayer “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” becomes unnecessary if there is no real distinction between Jesus’ hesitation being a cause of evil verses a necessity in responding to evil.

I would add one thing to TGB’s shepherd/lamb analogy. The “evil” is the sheep’s “propensity to wander.” “Breaking the leg of the sheep” is a response to the evil not a cause.

So, in a sense we are saying the same thing. I am just uncomfortable assigning causation of evil to God because of the moral culpability implied. Consider World War II. Every allied soldier killed was a murder committed by (“caused”) Hitler. In contrast, German casualties (equally dead) resulted from a response and not a cause. International Law (at least at this point based on Natural law-intuitive to man…based on God’s law-one in the same) draws a sharp contrast between causation and response even though the end result (dead soldiers) is the same.

Borg
The love of God is not the human meaning of love. We think love to be something that makes much out of us. Well it's not. God's love towards us, is a love that allows us to make little out of ourselves, and glory in Christ, partaking in the richest of fair.

John
Agreed. But there is only one track called love and it heads in the direction opposite of hate.

Borg
The Love of God isn't to make us feel good about ourselves, but to allow us to see God for who He is.

John
This does not have to imply that “feeling good about ourselves” is excluded by the Love of God…And of course when we see God for who He BECAUSE OF HIS LOVE AND HIS REVELATION TO MAN OF WHAT LOVE IN FACT IS AND WHAT LOVE IS NOT, we will not see an image that correlates with our perception of a tyrant

Borg
For this reason among others, I will not be an Open Theist. For it makes much out of man and less out of God. God's love is not a bandade love, but a surgeon love in that He pricks at us and cuts us open, feeling the pain and suffering (evil as you might feel inclined to equate it to), solely for the purpose that God will mend it up Himself so that we can glory in Him. Is this making any sense?

John
No it is not making sense. Sorry. You lost me.
As I said before…With Calvin: God makes the mess God cleans up the mess.
Calvin’s God only orchestrates situations He Himself creates

The God of Scripture is presented redeeming situations made by fallen man (man is “less of”) and Satan. So OT actually is making “much of God”

It takes a better surgeon to mend the chaos of a wound created by a gunshot verses a nice clean sterile wound “planned” by the surgeon operating “electively”--as long as we are talking about “making much of God.” The surgical God of OT mends the wound created by the gun shot by Satan. He doesn’t even have to aim the gun for Satan in order to mend the wound. Give Him any wound and he can fix it (given the opportunity). He doesn’t have to “plan” the surgery. Now that is the surgeon I want to operate on me. The one who can think on the fly. The one with wisdom to handle the “unpredictable.”

Borg
But just remember, it is better for the mere human mind to be broken and cast off into thevoid of not understanding than for the Holy Writ to be broken.

John
Of course this works both ways. BTW it is “the mere human mind” that God invited to “Come and reason,” I submit the point of God investing in ink and parchment was in fact so that there would not be a “void of not understanding” which ultimately was conceded by the man himself—You got it Calvin—whose hidden sinister God trumps the Icon of God overtly revealed in the Holy writ.

UNCLE!!!
I am growing weary. Do you watch O’Reilly? I give you the last word. The weekend is over.

Blessings
John

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 2/26/2004 5:42 PM (GMT -6)

Borg,

I have always appreciated your willingness to answer my questions in discussion. Sorry that it has taken me so long to reply. I've been mad busy. I'm also sorry to keep asking questions but I want to make sure that you (and I) think through the implications of what we believe.

In response to my first question you said

quote:
God's wrath, power, holiness, etc., will be displayed among those who are sentenced to eternal punishment.

So I'm wondering, did God have these attributes before he created? Now power and holiness I'll grant, but wrath? When all that existed was the triune God, did he have anything to be wrathful about?

The way that I see God's wrath is that it is NOT on the same level as LOVE. In Christ, the only thing that matters is faith energized by love. God's wrath flows out of His love; if he did not love goodness then he would not be wrathful, but apathetic. We see this displayed throughout the Bible. When God speaks through the prophets, he is furious with Israel because the have become a whore and went after other God's. Jesus cries out "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."(Matt 23:37)

So if on your view, God needs to damn sinners to hell (after he bound their will to sin) then was God lacking this glory before he created?

As far as you response to my second question concerning sin, perhaps I should ask a more specific question -- DOES GOD HATE SIN? Your answer to this question would be helpful to my understanding of how you integrate your worldview.

I'm gonna read a little more over what you have said before I respond to your other answers to my questions...

Ross

"Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite." -Thomas Reid

borg
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324

Posted 2/26/2004 6:55 PM (GMT -6)

Let me begin by taking you down a path of your own answer. You asked if God could be wrathful when there was nothing to be wrathful against, and yet you granted me holiness. And yet I ask, if the definition of holiness is to be set apart as is the common definition, then how could God have been "holy" before there was anything to be set apart from? So if you go under this line of thinking, one must clearly observe that not only is God's wrath gone, but His holiness, and we can probably throw in mercifulness, goodness, and other like attributes. But pushing the argument further, what is love? I would like to begin by asking what is up? The clear definition of up. I could hear you responding to me in such a way as north; away from in a heightened extension from point (A), or things like that. But perhaps a better definition that any level headed clearly thinking person would grasp, is if we say 'its not down'. And likewise what is "heat"? Well we know what "heat" is because we know what heat is not (coldness). Now to bring it back to love, how do we know what love is? Could we define love if we didn't know what "hate" was? Could we humanly conceptualize the meaning of the Triune God loving Himself, if there was nothing to measure that "love" in degrees with? I don't know. Now granted one might respond, well that's God. Perhaps He can know things without knowing their opposites. And I'll give that to them. But that doesn't solve the problem as I see it. So what did God "hate" before the world was created? (To start out with, I think He hated questions like this :) ) But I would perhaps take a stab and say that God hated what He was not. Now you might respond, that makes no sense for all there was was God, therefore there was nothing to hate. And yet we have brought it back into the realm of what was existing before God created, and anything we say about such times is pure assumption. But I don't doubt that God still had the attributes of holiness, goodness, and yes even wrath. Does that make sense at all?
The following presuppositions that you made, I could easily turn the tables and say, "The only thing that matters is love energized by faith". I don't see any sound reasoning for why one is required to think within the parameters that you do. But if you have any more logical conclusions or reasonings, i would love to hear them, but at the same time, we must make sure that the tables cannot be reversed so easy. Why can't we say that God's attributes flows from His goodness?
The Matthew 23 verse is an excellent verse in which we can see the compassion and love of God. We need to fully embrace that verse and say that "yes" Jesus does do such things, He is emotional, and yet we have the verses in John 6 where Christ says, "No one can come after me unless the Father so draws Him" and "All that the Father gives to me, will come to me." These seem to be conflicting verses. For one could easily, and i see no reason why not, say that "yes" Jesus longed to draw Jerusalems children unto Him, and yet Jesus wasn't willing. Sound like a contradiction? Within God's complexity, He can appear to want one thing, and on a deeper level He won't will it. Hmmm... Let me think about that more and how more appropriatley to respond to the arguments I know will come.
Did God need to damn sinners to hell? "Who are you oh man to talk back to God? Does not the potter have the right to form out of the same lump of clay one vessel for glory and the other for dishonor?" God does as He pleases. God doesn't need us to glorify Himself, and yet, by His good pleasure He chose to use us to glorify His attributes. But again I question, did God need us in order to more fully glorify His love? Was He lacking some amount of Glory within the Triune love that He needed to create earthen vessels? Again, we are speculating into the unknown, but God created, because God wanted to create.
I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
Blessings,
Borg

Clay
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 8

Posted 2/26/2004 9:34 PM (GMT -6)

see look he's on a leash...
i rest my case...

-christian

!kyrie eleison!
...then again, Yeshua...
*I CAN'T CONTEND WITH YOU*

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:10 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual