 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > How does Greg define judgment? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/29/2007 11:47 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Involved? Sure. But they weren't "instruments" of the sentance. They didn't gauge his eyes or slit their throats, etc. God himself was the executioner. It wasn't THEIR idea that this should take place. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/29/2007 11:56 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey,
The point is that God can use his servants to be instruments of divine judgement leading to harm and death of other human beings. You can't talk about the death of A and S without talking about Peter's words. And you can't talk about E's blindness without talking about Paul's words. You seem to make a demarcation just because Peter and Paul didn't do the deeds using their own bodies that they weren't instrumentally involved. Maybe that would go back to how you see God's providence working in human beings. But we could go Romans 13 on that one.
Greg's position doesn't allow for the POSSIBILITY of Christ's Spirit working through a Kingdom person's actions (verbal or otherwise) for the harm and/or death of another human for divine, beautifying purposes (like calling down a "curse" on someone).
"For it is said, 'The two will become one flesh.' But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in Spirit.
"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."
Post Edited ("I Am Spirit") : 12/29/2007 11:10:31 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/30/2007 12:33 AM (GMT -6) | | | It looks to me, Corey, that Peter is an 'instrument' of A & S's death in ch. 5 in the same sense he's an 'instrument' of the cripple beggar's healing in ch. 3. Being full of the Spirit, Peter discerns God's will as 'declares' it. Healing and/or judgement follow accordingly. God's the one who mediates the reality, sure. But he does it through us.
There doesn't seem to be any room in Greg's thought for believers doing A&S type stuff. The way to argue Greg's position might be to say that miracles were for the days of the apostles during the establishment of the church but they're not for today. So not only do we not declare miraculous deaths, we no longer heal people either. But Greg doesn't argue that. And being a Pentecostal, I can't go that route either. And I don't know of any other way to admit ch. 3 for today but disallow ch. 5. Greg essentially chooses and just says ch. 3 is good and loving and belongs to the kingdom (because it looks like Jesus) while ch. 5 isn't and shouldn't characterize the church (because it doesn't look like Jesus [but is that entirely right?]). Problem is that ch. 5 does characterize the church in Acts.
Still, fact is that ch. 3 type stuff has consistently characterized the church's mission from day one while ch. 5 type stuff has NOT. What's that mean? I don't know.
Tom
Post Edited (PLANIS) : 12/29/2007 11:46:30 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/30/2007 12:28 PM (GMT -6) | | Gotcha. Greg may not be consistent here. But there nonetheless remains a needed corrective against the assumed "righteous" use of force against our enemies. Whatever Greg is or isn't saying, I'M saying that we need to not let ourselves off the hook too easily in regards to turning the other cheek and loving our enemies. I'm concerned at straining a gnat and swallowing a camel here. Okay, there may be problems with how he's working out the tension, but at least he's engaged in the problem. I'd rather err in that direction than dismiss the weightier matters.
I'm not really trying to parse out the use of the word "instrument"... I just wanted to show that clearly these events in Acts were of God, while it's not so clear that our acts today are. That said, I still think the apostles spoke as they were led by God; God didn't curse the people to back up his apostle's words. God was doing something here, and the apostles gave voice to it.
If, somehow, the apostles were mistaken about it being of God, then nothing would have come of the curse. They weren't in any way taking it into their own hands to carry this out. I do think this is important to note. There may be something to the phraseology "The Lord rebuke you".
Before God, in grace, we will with all our power to be that which He shows us we are. Post Edited (Corey) : 12/30/2007 11:46:09 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/30/2007 12:30 PM (GMT -6) | | | I think Greg is coherent in his own mind. Because he has talked about how God will providentially render the christian's pacifist life as a positive, consequential effect upon unbelievers. And then, little by little, this positive effect will bring about a postmillenial kingdom. As far as coherence is concerned, so far so good.
But when he talks about LOVE being pacifist, that's where he runs into the bifurcation problem Tom is talking about. It just seems incoherent so long as Greg is simultaneously positing that an essentially loving God uses force. And he seems to be doing just that. THEREFORE, he needs to omit the verses about LOVING enemies from his proof of non-use of force to be consistent, it would seem. But when we remove those verses, what of any substance is left of his position?
To make the definition of love work that way he wants, he must, it would seem, claim that God never has used or never will use force, Himself, in a way analogous to the way he is prohibiting for humans. Now if he wants to tie this down to the distinction between perfect perspective (in God) and imperfect perspective (in man), then he can be coherent. But thus far he has grounded pacifism in the very meaning of LOVE. And that's where his view seems to be inconsistent with his view of God.
To make it work, as far as I can tell, he MUST tie it to the distinction of perfect perspective vs. imperfect perspective. In this case, he would have to say that the guard could not have known with sufficient certainty that the shooter would shoot another person, or something like that. But even more than that, he would have to say that she couldn't have trusted what even seemed like private revelation to the effect that she should shoot the guy.
Now this latter claim would entail other implications, seemingly. It would mean that either the A&S event never really happened, OR Peter had no self-control in that matter at all, OR that Peter did have self-control in the matter and chose wrongly. Now in 1 Cor., we are told that spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. So I'm not sure I would go so far as to say that Paul & Peter had no say so in the incidents they were involved in. Regardless, the A&S incident did have an effect that Greg would not find positive. Acts says something to the effect that thereafter, no one "durst join them" (the church, i.e.).
That seems to be the opposite effect of what Greg is claiming our outrageous loving lives should have on people. So maybe Greg would actually say Peter really DID have some volitional control in the A&S incident and that he chose wrongly. I'd be interested in knowing just how he explains that whole thing.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/30/2007 11:41:46 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/30/2007 1:43 PM (GMT -6) | | | Corey: Whatever Greg is or isn't saying, I'M saying that we need to not let ourselves off the hook too easily in regards to turning the other cheek and loving our enemies. I'm concerned at straining a gnat and swallowing a camel here. Okay, there may be problems with how he's working out the tension, but at least he's engaged in the problem. I'd rather err in that direction than dismiss the weightier matters.
Jeff: I think everyone is at least in agreement with this. And I think Paul's allusion to the OT proverb about feeding the hungry enemy is what clarifies the real issue. Even the OT said "Vengence is Mine." What Jesus seems to be saying is that the pharisaical interpretation of the Torah had moved 180 degrees away from the spirit of the golden rule. The Sermon even ends up with the affirmation of the golden rule (a Torah command) as the very principle of adjudication of the Torah. In that sense, the Proverbs and the Prophets were accurately interpreting the Torah.
Thus, to the extent that we CAN be peace-makers, we ought to be. Paul even says it just that way. I.e., Paul puts the obligation unto peace-making in terms of what is possible. Christ, on the other hand, just says BE peace-makers. But there is no contradiction between Paul and Christ--just a difference in literary style. Christ (or the gospel writers recounting his discussions) talks more in the wisdom literature style, which is more absolute-sounding, while Paul talks in language more understandable to the Gentiles of his day.
The bottom-line for me is this. I think Greg needs to see the extent to which the hermeneutical approach he is taking is a bit circumstantial. It's not obvious precisely because of the example I brought up about Christ's statements about divorce. And there are probably many other examples. It's a dangerous thing to start absolutizing only SOME verses and then judging others by that hermeneutic. He just needs to give a full account of his hermeneutics so people can feel like they're not being judged hypocritically, at least.
Because although I don't believe that all right-relating will draw all men to Christ, I definitely believe that some wrong-relating (including wrong judgment) can influence some people unto wrong-relating. To have the opportunity to use a world-wide-web blog for Christ entails a huge responsibility. Where much is given, much is required. I just wish Greg would be a bit more careful about fleshing his viewpoints out in that forum.
And I say this because of the high quality of communication I've seen him capable of in his academic writings. Therein, he is particularly careful to be respectful to other academic views. But ironically, academic views are the ones we least need to worry about. Those folks are not influenced particularly easily. It's the average folks reading WWW blogs that can be more easily turned against a true position because of faulty or insufficient reasoning.
And I think it is Greg's insufficient reasoning that helps those who are more naturally apt to "strain a gnat and swallow a camel" to feel justified in doing so because of the seeming inability of their opposition to give a compelling argument against them. Elders are, indeed, to convict the gainsayers. But this is because elders have supposedly learned how to clearly expose what is wrong with the reasoning of those gainsayers.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/30/2007 1:02:29 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/4/2008 10:16 PM (GMT -6) | | | Zach, I bet you're as confused as I am by this last post:
Whatever happens in this rat race, please don't let yourself get sucked in. Have you're opinions, make your guesses, vote if you want to. But always remember that the power that will ultimately conquer evil and save the world is not the power that flows from Caesar's throne. It's rather the power that flows from Calvary.
Here's what's confusing about that to me. If I understand Greg correctly, he says christians ought not exercise power-over influence. The president has lots of discretionary power-over authority with respect to war. We are IN a war. And to my knowledge, virtually all candidates profess to be christian. And all but about two are advocating remaining in the Middle East for a while.
Which means these professing christians running for president are telling us up front they will use their discretionary war authority to wage power-over influence on folks in the Middle East. How can Greg suppose that voting for (i.e., intentionally attempting to empower) a christian candidate for president, under said circumstances, is morally neutral? How can we approve of or be indifferent to empowering a professing christian to wield power-over influence over humans, if such is inherently wrong for chrisitans?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 1/5/2008 10:43 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...
How can Greg suppose that voting for (i.e., intentionally attempting to empower) a christian candidate for president, under said circumstances, is morally neutral? How can we approve of or be indifferent to empowering a professing christian to wield power-over influence over humans, if such is inherently wrong for chrisitans?
I don't understand Greg to be saying that voting is morally neutral. As I recall, he took up this conversation because of being pressured to advocate one political platform over another. His response to this (see "Myth of a Christian Nation" ) is that he refused to engage in such advocation because none of our political parties are the "Christian" ideal, and such advocation lends itself to missing the point of the kingdom of God, mistaking it for just another version of one of the kingdoms of the world. He's trying to avoid, and help others avoid, the mistake of thinking that any particular political party/platform is the official God-approved party/platform. So, yes, go ahead and vote, according to your conscience; but don't make the mistake of thinking that your vote, or this or that party, is the representative of the church/God/kingdom-of-God.
I think such a clarification is sorely needed in the American church, for all too many Christians seem to be of the opinion that (for example) the Republican party is God's party, and that to vote for it is to obey the will of God, and that to not vote for it is an act of rebellion against God. Such nonsense needs to be refuted. Myself, I have always reckoned that any vote is always a choice for (what I perceive to be) the lesser of two evils.Post Edited (Ricco) : 1/5/2008 4:09:55 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/5/2008 11:53 AM (GMT -6) | | | Ricco: Myself, I have always reckoned that any vote is always a choice for (what I perceive to be) the lesser of two evils.
Jeff: I understand. But there's a difference in choosing between a lesser of two evils in some cases, and empowering a christian to do what is intrinsically wrong for him/her to do, isn't there? Are we to use our christian brethren as means to our own ends with no regard for the consequences to them?
I've never understood how the whole complicity thing can have no limits. It would seem that if that's the case, there should never be such a thing as a martyr. It is always the case, it seems, that staying alive is of some value to someone here on earth. If you agree that there are limits to complicity with evil, then how do you, personally, determine the cut-off?
For me, it is the distinction between the first and second greatest commandments. IOW, if by choosing a lesser of evils for humans (2nd greatest commandment), I am violating the greatest command, then I must refuse the former. E.g., if I become a martyr at some point in my life, my children (assuming I have children) may very well be worse off in some sense. But that can not trump the original obligation to confess Christ, can it?
And yet, the NT seems to clearly claim that we have special duties to our brothers and sisters in Christ. I guess for me, personally, voting for a christian for president would be a clear cut-off point for lesser-of-evil choices if Greg's view is correct. I mean, if Paul was worried about us undermining the walk of our brethren in such matters as what they eat, because of the manner in which that affects the glory of God, I can't imagine why I should be able to choose to empower a christian to do wrong simply because it serves some utilitarian good.
What's worse, because power is divided in our form of federalism, there is almost no way to calculate the goods that would result from different presidential candidates anyway. Presidents almost always end up doing things they claimed they wouldn't or don't do things they claimed they would. This is partly because of how compromises are worked out in a system of divided power. This sheer uncertainty seems to render the gamble of complicity with a christian's sinfulness problematic.
P.S. Maybe one way to reconcile the 1st and 2nd commandments is to suppose that obeying the 1st will necessarily fulfill the 2nd, whatever superficial appearances seem to be. Regardless, the idea that there are not limits to complicity seems to contradict the propriety of martyrdom. If any one can explain why this is not the case, or why martyrdom is always improper, I would definitely appreciate it.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/5/2008 12:42:01 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/5/2008 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | One more postscript:
I suppose we could say that martyrdom, under the conditions that Christ advocates it, simply is a fulfillment of the 1st and 2nd greatest commandments whether we can understand all of its effects or not. If so, I guess I would still feel a sense of caution about voting, assuming Greg is right about the absolute prohibition on power-over influence for christians, just from the idea that anything not of faith is sin.
I just can't see how we can be sure enough about the supposedly better consequences of electing one professing christian candidate over another in the first place. And I guess this makes it difficult for me to understand it. But I suppose Greg could be allowing for the possibility that people really can see consequential differences for different candidates with sufficient clarity.
Would that work, Zach. I mean, suppose that Greg believes that christian behavior (including christian pacifism) somehow transcends morality, whereas non-christian doesn't and can't. Could voting work under that approach? Could voting somehow be seen as non-influential in a power-over sense? It's still hard for me to see that. Because an intent and action to empower power-over influence seems to be power-over influence itself--just at a different point of the means-end sequence.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/5/2008 7:33:14 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 1/6/2008 3:27 PM (GMT -6) | | J: "Are we to use our christian brethren as means to our own ends with no regard for the consequences to them?"
Z: As Christians our ends are love of God and neighbor. This love excludes "using others." So your question becomes, "Are we to use our Christian brethren as means to the end of not using them as a means to an end..."
J: "Would that work, Zach. I mean, suppose that Greg believes that christian behavior (including christian pacifism) somehow transcends morality, whereas non-christian doesn't and can't. Could voting work under that approach?"
Z: I don't quite understand what you mean by "transcend morality." There are two basic types of morality of which I am aware. There is the morality that is based on some principal of what is good, and there is the more ad hoc morality which in Christian circles tends to be accompanied by some reference to "the Spirit's leading" or "good intentions". I have more respect for principal-based morality. If you mean transcend ad hoc morality, I can't imagine what that would be. If you mean transcend principal-morality, then I would guess you mean the idea of having a higher and lower principal.
So if you say Kingdom ethics are not expected of non-Kingdom people, then yeah I suppose it is good for these people to vote if it is consistent with their "lower" principal. But my conception of the Kingdom is that it is open to all. So whatever excuse there is for being outside the Kingdom, it is not the fault of the Kingdom itself that anyone is excluded. I don't know what percentage of people simply cannot make the choice (because of societal circumstances or physical limitations or whatever), but Jesus seemed to have a wide audience in mind with his "Repent for the Kingdom is near," so I assume a sizable group today is responsible for its choice to live by the lower morality rather than the higher.
J: "Could voting somehow be seen as non-influential in a power-over sense? It's still hard for me to see that. Because an intent and action to empower power-over influence seems to be power-over influence itself--just at a different point of the means-end sequence."
Z: I basically agree. But I see (most) voting itself as a power-over activity and not only preliminary step in that direction. In the upcoming presidential election American non-felons 18 years and up will be electing a ruler over a wider group. He or she will not only be the president of American non-felons 18 years and up. He or she will be the president of all Americans, all immigrants, all territorial citizens. He or she will be commander of armies spread across the globe. And the power behind this power is the citizen's vote. This vote (watered down as it may be) is an exercise of power over untold numbers of people.
Look at how our Heavenly Father and King of Kings exercises his authority and follow him. Who has he elected? We should make the same choice.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 1/6/2008 2:43:23 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/6/2008 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | J: "Could voting somehow be seen as non-influential in a power-over sense? It's still hard for me to see that. Because an intent and action to empower power-over influence seems to be power-over influence itself--just at a different point of the means-end sequence."
Z: I basically agree. But I see (most) voting itself as a power-over activity and not only preliminary step in that direction.
J: So by "most," are you saying that some votes could be attempts to lessen power-over influence? Like, say, voting for someone that wants to cease hostilities? I could see how Greg could be consistent if that's what he's saying. But he doesn't seem to come across that way. But maybe that's all he's saying.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/6/2008 6:29:02 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 1/8/2008 8:58 PM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...Zach: I believe that exerting power over a second party in order to force the second party not to have power over a third party is still unacceptable. Jeff: But what if someone was voting for what they honestly thought would entail a systematic reduction in power-over influence? Not arguing that such can be known, or is even possible. Just, IF someone honestly believed that, could Greg be consistent if that's all he means about the legitimacy of SOME voting? I'm thinking he could. What do you think, Ricco?
I'm not sure what to think about this topic  Maybe I'll need to go back and re-read some things, when I get some time, but I primarily understood most of Boyd's conversation about power to be more or less about violence - authority by force and/or threat of lethal force. But, the library is about to close in 2 minutes, and I'll be without internet access for a few days, so I'll have to get back to on this one :)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 1/11/2008 8:25 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/11/2008 9:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
|
Z: For me the problem is not the evil intentions of the voter. I assume most voters have more or less good intentions. The pertinent issue for me is not WHAT we vote for or WHY we vote for it, but HOW we vote for it.
Here's what I see Greg doing:
-Power-over relationships are sinful.
-I believe that one particular power-over relationship (democracy) will likely reduce the quantity and extent of other power-over relationships.
J: I meant a person who honestly believes that by voting for a particular candidate THAT candidate will exercise LESS power-over influence in all areas of influence (as a libertarian like Ron Paul would in comparison to his predecessors and competitors). This way the voter believes his/her vote is absolutely diminishing power-over influence across the board for that one political office holder. In other words, the voter, in our system, has no choice to vote for NO power-over influence as opposed to SOME power-over influence. The vote CAN conceivably be, however, for an absolute diminishing of power-over influence in the one role of one candidate. The vote can be an influence against power-over influence, in that sense.
I'm not convinced that this is what Greg is saying. I just think he could be consistent IF that's what he's saying. Otherwise, I can't see the consistency in Greg's seeming indifference to voting. |
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 1/12/2008 12:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Yeah it's a case of WHY vs. HOW or ends vs. means. Using the same methods you hope to bring to an end. We will be judged by the same measure we use to judge others. But I think this is telling:
"In other words, the voter, in our system, has no choice to vote for NO power-over influence as opposed to SOME power-over influence."
I think the obvious solution is to stop being a voter. Stop participating in a system that necessarily puts us in no-win situations. If voting is a matter of necessarily doing evil, then just don't vote. I go to the doctor and say that it hurts a lot when I poke my eye. He tells me to stop poking my eye. Problem solved. We have no moral imperative to participate in democratic government. As democratic government expands around the globe, so does bloodshed. If you frame the issue by assuming that we must vote, then I agree Ron Paul is probably the best choice. But he wont get the nomination. Out of the potential winners I'd say I'd have to go with Edwards or Obama, but they both subscribe to the old Democratic standard of raising taxes and killing babies.
No matter who I vote for, it's a mixed bag. And all along I could actually be practicing what I preach instead. I know I keep drifting from your question, but no, I don't think Greg can legitimately marry a power-under, cross-bearing ethic to democratic participation. The two are fundamentally opposed. If a particular voter thinks that it is his responsibility to abandon the cruciform life on election day or somehow believes in a non-political Kingdom of God, then he must follow his conscience. But I don't believe such positions are consistent.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 1/14/2008 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | I draw a distinction between speech and action on this point. We can say, since you refuse to love your neighbor, at least do not take this sin further and attack him. We know that murder and hatred are the same, but there is still merit in minimizing sin (given the presupposition that our audience refuses to abandon sin altogether). But I DON'T think we can justifiably refuse to love our own neighbor with the defense, "At least I never attack him."
Democracy is a form of power-over politics: sin. There are different lengths to which this sin might be taken. Voting to raise sales tax half a cent is different than authorizing the president to have the power to commit war crimes. But both are sin. And for the Christian, both are off limits. We can speak to our neighbors saying, "We feel democracy is morally wrong, and although you disagree with us on that point, please at least don't use democracy to commit war crimes." But what we CANNOT do is justify our own "lesser" sins by pointing to the greater potential sins from which we abstain.
There is a distinction is between the sin of holding positions of power over others and actually using these positions to commit further sin. But either way, it's sin.
When it comes to voting for a candidate, my position is not so nuanced: Jesus is Lord. That's a political term with religious meaning attached to it, not the other way around. And even Jesus refused this sort of candidacy.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - Stavesacre | | Back to Top | | |
| 67 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 7:05 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|