 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > God's Longsuffering and the Problem of Evil | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/7/2004 1:25 PM (GMT -6) |   | Yo Lee!
I'm back with just enough wakefulness to reply. If I'm incoherent, demand that I respond when I have more energy!
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOB 2:3 [God said] "... you incited me against him to ruin him."
JOB 2:10 [Job said] "Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?"
JOB 42:11 They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him...
Jeff: To me, the verses you quote from Job are idiomatic expressions that are to be understood in light of the beginning of the book of Job. God dropped the "hedge," and by doing so was instrumental in what came to pass. But the dropping of the "hedge" is not intrinsically evil.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But I think more than this is implied, though:
JOB 1:21 ... and the Lord has taken away.
God did drop the hedge, but "accept trouble from God", "taken away" implies more than just allowing these events. Could the devil have decided not to bother Job, in your opinion? If not, then I think we must insist that God was the primary cause of these events. Also, there is this verse:
JOB 42:12 The Lord blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first.
Surely this is not idiomatic, and I think the verses that say God acted "to ruin him" previously are not idioms, either.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Idiomatic doesn't mean wildly figurative. It is a simple parsimonious use of language to talk of God ruining Job when one understands HOW God did so - which is defined in the beginning of the book of Job. Per the beginning of Job, God WAS, in one sense, the primary cause of the whole ordeal. But in another sense the devil was; for he asked God for permission to do what God ultimately allowed him to do. But WHY was Satan desirous of such an ordeal? Well, the Fall explains that doesn't it? So the real question is - Did God MAKE the devil tempt Eve?? OV'ers say no - otherwise, God is the author of evil.
Given that, it is irrelevant whether or not Satan could have done otherwise with Job, for Satan has become something which he was NOT, originally. Just as humans BECOME more and more reprobate as they continually harden their heart.
quote:
RO 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Lee: ...it implies a definite plan on God's part, and definite action to carry out that plan. Thus, I think, Adam's disobedience was also planned by God.
Jeff: I think the context makes clear that the timing of God's "concluding" all (Jews and Gentiles) in disobedience coincides with the proclamation of the gospel to all (both Jew and Gentile).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But how can this refer to "all men," though? I think literally "all men" is meant here:
RO 11:7-8 The others were hardened, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."
And this is a quote from Isaiah, referring not only to the Israelites of Paul's day, but also to those of Isaiah's day, or even all the way back to Moses, in Deut. 29:4, if Paul had that verse in mind as well.
Israelites and Gentiles does account for ALL men. And to read past men into the passage is inappropriate to me. The whole idea of Romans 9-11 is to prove that JUST as Israel has been concluded in unbelief, and thus salvation sent to Gentiles to provoke them to jealously, SO when the fulness of the Gentiles is attained, ALL Israel will be saved. TIME is absolutely relevant to the context. Read the 3 chapters and note the train of thought.
Obviously there is a sense in which all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, etc., but the context in Romans 9-11 is clearly dealing with timing in redemptive history.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God had intentions for the creation before the Fall. There were also inentions for Christ's role in the creation. When the Fall occurred, God's glory had to be obtained differently because of the new conditions and Christ had to suffer to redeem what, otherwise, would have needed no redemption. I don't believe that God's glory intrinisically requires Him to be malevolent - but that seems to be implied by the anti-OV view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly God is not malevolent! And I believe we are allowed to hope that all men may be saved, so how does this non-OV view imply malevolence?
As I understand universalism, it kinda works like the following analogy. I love a woman and marry her. Then to prove how much I love her, I beat her so badly that she is in need of special surgery and rehabilitation which can only be obtained at great expense. So I work 3 jobs utterly spending my very life energy to pay for the special surgery/rehabilitation. When my wife is finally rehabilitated she is supposed to love me for my great sacrifice for her. Sounds pathological to me - just like a God who WISHES to show wrath with no provocation thereto.
Does God really NEED to cause evil to show His love? That, as I see it, is what ALL non-OV perspectives seem to imply. When I read the 1st few chapters of Genesis thru the verse that says "it repented God that He made man," I see a God who intended to be the benevolent provider for man. This was evidenced in God making a help-meet for Adam because it was NOT GOOD for man to be alone. Eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil symbolized the desire to be autonomous from God's benevolent provision - the refusal to be properly thankful and cognizant of our creaturely dependence and servanthood. When the ills of the Fall were pronounced by God, in each case he said it was because of what Adam, Eve, and the Serpent had done - not because of something He, Himself, had secretly done/planned/wished in direct contradiction to the clear revelation to them of His intent for the creation.
Thus, when we read of the purposes of God thereafter, they should not be understood to be pre-Fall purposes BUT purposes that have been necessitated by God's character, GIVEN the preceding Fall and the on-going history of man and Satan's actions/decisions. This is how the rest of Genesis reads. See for example the Tower of Babel account. Because of what man did there, God decided to do something.
The same kind of language is used in the New Testament. Because unrighteous man does not "glorify God as God or give Him thanks, ... God gave them over to a reprobate mind." Because man did not "receive the love of the truth, God will send them a lie." "WHEN the world, by it's wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who believe." And so on.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/7/2004 4:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Howdy Jeff! (I'm typing with a Southern accent)
quote:
Did God MAKE the devil tempt Eve?? OV'ers say no - otherwise, God is the author of evil.
On to the next point! I think this next question addresses that...
quote:
RO 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
Lee: ...it implies a definite plan on God's part, and definite action to carry out that plan. Thus, I think, Adam's disobedience was also planned by God. [And] I think literally "all men" is meant here:
RO 11:7-8 The others were hardened, as it is written: "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see and ears so that they could not hear, to this very day."
Lee: And this is a quote from Isaiah, referring not only to the Israelites of Paul's day, but also to those of Isaiah's day, or even all the way back to Moses, in Deut. 29:4, if Paul had that verse in mind as well.
Jeff: Israelites and Gentiles does account for ALL men. And to read past men into the passage is inappropriate to me. The whole idea of Romans 9-11 is to prove that JUST as Israel has been concluded in unbelief, and thus salvation sent to Gentiles to provoke them to jealously, SO when the fulness of the Gentiles is attained, ALL Israel will be saved. TIME is absolutely relevant to the context. Read the 3 chapters and note the train of thought.
Obviously there is a sense in which all men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, etc., but the context in Romans 9-11 is clearly dealing with timing in redemptive history.
How about the last verse in this passage, though?
RO 11:36 For from him and through him and to him are all things.
And "all things" I think includes the past. And are you saying that "bound all men over to disobedience" does not reference the past? Surely it does, the examples Paul gives are mostly past examples, Esau, Pharaoh, Israel by and large rejecting God, the Gentiles in the past being apart from Israel. Almost every example of disobedience he gives is prior to the Gospel, and Esau stretches back even before Abraham. All these examples are surely included in "all men", and no bound should be put on this, I think, it does apply to Adam, too.
quote:
Lee: Certainly God is not malevolent! And I believe we are allowed to hope that all men may be saved, so how does this non-OV view imply malevolence?
Jeff: As I understand universalism, it kinda works like the following analogy. I love a woman and marry her. Then to prove how much I love her, I beat her so badly that she is in need of special surgery and rehabilitation which can only be obtained at great expense. So I work 3 jobs utterly spending my very life energy to pay for the special surgery/rehabilitation. When my wife is finally rehabilitated she is supposed to love me for my great sacrifice for her. Sounds pathological to me - just like a God who WISHES to show wrath with no provocation thereto.
No, I asked why all men being saved implies malevolence. Why men are lost, and why God shows his wrath needs to be addressed, but that is a different question. How is all men being saved malevolent? But on to the next question...
quote:
Does God really NEED to cause evil to show His love?
Yes, I think that is part of God's plan:
RO 5:7-8 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Without us being sinners, this demonstration of God's love would be impossible. I think the analogy of a man beating up his wife so he can show her his love is inaccurate, though. God bears suffering, he doesn't just cause it. You don't put a man in prison for beating on himself. Now is God a masochist? No, he is not:
ISA 53:11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied.
HEB 12:2 ... who for the joy set before him endured the cross.
He sees the result, and rejoices in that, though the plan involves pain. It's his suffering we share in, and not the other way around, too (Php. 3:10). And we can rejoice in suffering, too:
PHP 2:17-18 But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.
quote:
When the ills of the Fall were pronounced by God, in each case he said it was because of what Adam, Eve, and the Serpent had done - not because of something He, Himself, had secretly done/planned/wished in direct contradiction to the clear revelation to them of His intent for the creation.
RO 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Now you don't make a pattern without making a plan. Adam was a pattern, and thus even his sin was in God's plan.
quote:
The same kind of language is used in the New Testament. Because unrighteous man does not "glorify God as God or give Him thanks, ... God gave them over to a reprobate mind." Because man did not "receive the love of the truth, God will send them a lie." "WHEN the world, by it's wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who believe."
Yes, man's sin evokes a response from God. But the proclamation that saves has always been God's plan, he did not form this after man sinned:
REV 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/7/2004 5:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
...And are you saying that "bound all men over to disobedience" does not reference the past? Surely it does, the examples Paul gives are mostly past examples, Esau, Pharaoh, Israel by and large rejecting God, the Gentiles in the past being apart from Israel. Almost every example of disobedience he gives is prior to the Gospel, and Esau stretches back even before Abraham. All these examples are surely included in "all men", and no bound should be put on this, I think, it does apply to Adam, too.
The point of Romans 9-11 is to show that there had always been a remnant within Israel (all Israel are not Israel) and that the same was true then. But that just as a kind of judgement had been passed on Israel "nationally," and thus Gentiles were being saved to provoke them to jealousy, SO they would eventually ALL be saved AFTER the fulness of the Gentiles was come in. The concluding all in disobedience had to do with that judgement on Israel "nationally" - the gentiles were already disobedient. Thus TIME is most certainly key to the meaning of the passage - otherwise Paul's just repeating what he argued in chapters 1-3.
quote:
Jeff: As I understand universalism, it kinda works like the following analogy. I love a woman and marry her. Then to prove how much I love her, I beat her so badly that she is in need of special surgery and rehabilitation which can only be obtained at great expense. So I work 3 jobs utterly spending my very life energy to pay for the special surgery/rehabilitation. When my wife is finally rehabilitated she is supposed to love me for my great sacrifice for her. Sounds pathological to me - just like a God who WISHES to show wrath with no provocation thereto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I asked why all men being saved implies malevolence. Why men are lost, and why God shows his wrath needs to be addressed, but that is a different question. How is all men being saved malevolent?
All men being saved is NOT malevolent, just as working to get the wife healed is NOT malevolent. It is the intentional bringing about of, otherwise, needless suffering that IS malevolent. That is why the wife would not see it as love.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does God really NEED to cause evil to show His love?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I think that is part of God's plan:
RO 5:7-8 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Without us being sinners, this demonstration of God's love would be impossible. I think the analogy of a man beating up his wife so he can show her his love is inaccurate, though.
So when God made Adam a help-meet because it was NOT GOOD for the man to be alone, that wasn't love? Here's where we might forever disagree. To me, this benevolent provision of God, like the care that a man takes for his wife/children, IS PRECISELY LOVE!!
I agree that we might not have known the depths of God's love apart from the Fall, but I am not sure that that deep love was for man alone - it was probably for His own glory primarily, for Christ secondarily, and man incidentally to the former two. In other words, God's love for man in redemption is wrapped up in his own doxological self-interest and His intent that Christ receive the kingdom that God had originally desired He receive. The verb "saved" in the greek is usually in the middle voice which implies that God receives benefit from saving us - He probably wouldn't save the pathetic, defiant lot of us otherwise. In this, I probably differ substantially from the Arminian view.
quote:
God bears suffering, he doesn't just cause it.
The husband in my analogy bore suffering, too - it was still pathological.
quote:
He sees the result, and rejoices in that, though the plan involves pain. It's his suffering we share in, and not the other way around, too (Php. 3:10). And we can rejoice in suffering, too:
PHP 2:17-18 But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you. So you too should be glad and rejoice with me.
None of this is inconsistent with my view.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the ills of the Fall were pronounced by God, in each case he said it was because of what Adam, Eve, and the Serpent had done - not because of something He, Himself, had secretly done/planned/wished in direct contradiction to the clear revelation to them of His intent for the creation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RO 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Now you don't make a pattern without making a plan. Adam was a pattern, and thus even his sin was in God's plan.
The fact that the redemptive second Adam was planned does not prove that it was a PRE-FALL plan. That's what you have yet to prove.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same kind of language is used in the New Testament. Because unrighteous man does not "glorify God as God or give Him thanks, ... God gave them over to a reprobate mind." Because man did not "receive the love of the truth, God will send them a lie." "WHEN the world, by it's wisdom, knew not God, it pleased God, by the foolishness of the proclamation to save those who believe."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, man's sin evokes a response from God. But the proclamation that saves has always been God's plan, he did not form this after man sinned:
REV 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim.
The greek word for "eternal" is an adjective form of the word for age, but that doesn't imply eternality.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 5/8/2004 4:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff,
quote:
Lee: ...And are you saying that "bound all men over to disobedience" does not reference the past? Surely it does, the examples Paul gives are mostly past examples, Esau, Pharaoh... All these examples are surely included in "all men", and no bound should be put on this, I think, it does apply to Adam, too.
Jeff: The concluding all in disobedience had to do with that judgement on Israel "nationally" - the gentiles were already disobedient. Thus TIME is most certainly key to the meaning of the passage - otherwise Paul's just repeating what he argued in chapters 1-3.
Are you saying that "all men" means "all Israel", though? And you have also pointed out that some Israelites were then believers. So does "all men" mean "all unbelieving Israelites at that time"? I agree that Paul makes a survey through time here. But how is it that "all men" does not include the examples of Esau and Pharaoh etc.? If Paul had meant "all unbelieving Israelites right now," surely he would have used a different expression than "all men."
And I am also wondering whether you believe that God changed his plan, and did not bind men over to disobedience before the gospel was available. I think the gospel was available to people before Jesus came:
GAL 3:8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."
God's promise here is called "the gospel," for Abraham, thus I think God's plan in Paul's day was God's plan then, too.
quote:
Jeff: It is the intentional bringing about of, otherwise, needless suffering that IS malevolent. That is why the wife would not see it as love.
Needless suffering is malevolent. But I believe that suffering is not needless, that God always has a good purpose in mind, and a good result:
PS 119:71 It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees.
quote:
So when God made Adam a help-meet because it was NOT GOOD for the man to be alone, that wasn't love? ... To me, this benevolent provision of God, like the care that a man takes for his wife/children, IS PRECISELY LOVE!!
Certainly that is love. Love does not always require suffering. But sometimes it is part of God's plan:
JAS 5:11 As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.
quote:
God's love for man in redemption is wrapped up in his own doxological self-interest and His intent that Christ receive the kingdom that God had originally desired He receive. The verb "saved" in the greek is usually in the middle voice which implies that God receives benefit from saving us.
No, God is not selfish!
LK 22:27 But I am among you as one who serves.
I'm not sure that the middle voice implies benefit for a third party, as well. "You faith has saved you" does not mention God, it would be odd if "saved" here referenced him somehow...
quote:
Lee: God bears suffering, he doesn't just cause it.
Jeff: The husband in my analogy bore suffering, too - it was still pathological.
But he didn't endure the beating...
quote:
Lee: He sees the result, and rejoices in that, though the plan involves pain. It's his suffering we share in, and not the other way around, too (Php. 3:10).
Jeff: None of this is inconsistent with my view.
Glad to agree!
quote:
RO 5:14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
Lee: Now you don't make a pattern without making a plan. Adam was a pattern, and thus even his sin was in God's plan.
Jeff: The fact that the redemptive second Adam was planned does not prove that it was a PRE-FALL plan. That's what you have yet to prove.
No, the first Adam was planned, he was "a pattern." I think that does make the point that even the fall was planned. You could say that God decided Adam was to be a pattern after he sinned. So here is another verse:
RO 5:20-21 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign...
I think this applies to the command "don't eat from this tree," it had a purpose, "that grace might reign."
quote:
Lee: ... the proclamation that saves has always been God's plan, he did not form this after man sinned:
REV 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim.
Jeff: The greek word for "eternal" is an adjective form of the word for age, but that doesn't imply eternality.
It sometimes does! I think it does here. And the gospel goes all the way back to Abraham, as mentioned previously, and to the Israelites in the desert:
HEB 4:2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did...
And I think the message of the good news has always been in God's mind:
PS 119:89 Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 5/8/2004 6:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Lee,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee: ...And are you saying that "bound all men over to disobedience" does not reference the past? Surely it does, the examples Paul gives are mostly past examples, Esau, Pharaoh... All these examples are surely included in "all men", and no bound should be put on this, I think, it does apply to Adam, too.
Jeff: The concluding all in disobedience had to do with that judgement on Israel "nationally" - the gentiles were already disobedient. Thus TIME is most certainly key to the meaning of the passage - otherwise Paul's just repeating what he argued in chapters 1-3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that "all men" means "all Israel", though? And you have also pointed out that some Israelites were then believers. So does "all men" mean "all unbelieving Israelites at that time"? I agree that Paul makes a survey through time here. But how is it that "all men" does not include the examples of Esau and Pharaoh etc.? If Paul had meant "all unbelieving Israelites right now," surely he would have used a different expression than "all men."
The Romans apparently were "high-minded and did not rather fear." This was due to a misunderstanding of grace. Paul clears that doctrine up in the early chapters of Romans and then returns to a theme which was hinted at in the early chapters - the fact that Israel constituted the "natural branches."
Because of this, the gospel was preached to the Israelites first, as Romans 1 said. This was also documented in the book of Acts. Also because of this, the Israelites would still receive the gifts and callings promised to the fathers. The Romans seemed to have thought that God had "cast away His people." Paul is correcting this error. So 9-11 explains that God has NOT "cast away His people (Israel)" by showing there has always been a remnant within it. He then explains that their "fall" will not be permanent - that they will again be "grafted back into" their tree when ALL Israel will be saved. Thus, TIMING is definitely in the context here.
THE gospel that Paul speaks of was specifically about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and was, thus, NEW. This new gospel of grace could be initiated because there was, THEN (post-ressurection), a situation where Gentiles could become Abrahams "seed" by virtue of having Christ (the Spirit)- the "seed" - in them. This was not possible before the resurrection and thus UNCIRCUMSIZED Gentiles could not be saved this way before the resurrection. Thus, we have Paul saying to GENTILES,
Acts 17:29-30 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of Gd, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the TIMES of this ignorance God winked at; but NOW commandeth ALL men EVERYWHERE to repent.
God had NOT sent apostles commanding "ALL men EVERYWHERE" to preach in those pre-resurrection "TIMES."
quote:
And I am also wondering whether you believe that God changed his plan, and did not bind men over to disobedience before the gospel was available. I think the gospel was available to people before Jesus came:
GAL 3:8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: "All nations will be blessed through you."
God's promise here is called "the gospel," for Abraham, thus I think God's plan in Paul's day was God's plan then, too.
It was, indeed, PLANNED before Paul's day - but could not be IMPLEMENTED until the Spirit was given. But that doesn't prove it was planned before the Fall - which is the gist of my contention.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff: It is the intentional bringing about of, otherwise, needless suffering that IS malevolent. That is why the wife would not see it as love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Needless suffering is malevolent. But I believe that suffering is not needless, that God always has a good purpose in mind, and a good result:
PS 119:71 It was good for me to be afflicted so that I might learn your decrees.
I've alreay explained why I think Genesis most naturally reads as if the post-Fall suffering was not pre-planned and, thus, UNNECESSARY. You insist that God DID pre-plan it but have provided no scriptural proof of that so far. Nor have you explained how the suffering of the non-elect has some point to it. Can God only save the non-elect if they suffer such things as tooth-aches, headaches, abuse at the hands of their fellow-men, etc? And if so, why?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So when God made Adam a help-meet because it was NOT GOOD for the man to be alone, that wasn't love? ... To me, this benevolent provision of God, like the care that a man takes for his wife/children, IS PRECISELY LOVE!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly that is love. Love does not always require suffering. But sometimes it is part of God's plan:
Exactly! But when was the plan made? - THAT'S the question! Once you concede that "that is love," you're argument against my view REQUIRES you to demonstrate that the plan was made PRIOR to the Fall. Since you admit that love doesn't necessarily REQUIRE suffering, why would God "require suffering" unless something outside of Him (the BENEVOLENT One), necessitated it?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
God's love for man in redemption is wrapped up in his own doxological self-interest and His intent that Christ receive the kingdom that God had originally desired He receive. The verb "saved" in the greek is usually in the middle voice which implies that God receives benefit from saving us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, God is not selfish!
Your view REQUIRES that you find some redemption in the suffering of the non-elect, and I applaud you for finding the classical view of Calvinism TOO extreme. But from the OV veiwpoint (which I think is the perspicuous view of scripture), God is not selfish for NOT saving defiant, rebellious people - He is simply being just.
Humans OWE God obedience - precisely because He IS the rewarder of those who seek HIM!! And God ALWAYS intended for man's good to be obtained by pleasing HIM - not autonomously!! If you disagree with that, we are fundamentally at odds.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee: God bears suffering, he doesn't just cause it.
Jeff: The husband in my analogy bore suffering, too - it was still pathological.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But he didn't endure the beating...
Aye, but assuming that by some magical means he could "fix" his wife by enduring an analogous beating, he would still be PATHOLOGICAL for needlessly inflicting the suffering on his wife in the first place. So your counter-argument does not hold up, as far as I can see.
quote:
No, the first Adam was planned, he was "a pattern." I think that does make the point that even the fall was planned. You could say that God decided Adam was to be a pattern after he sinned. So here is another verse:
RO 5:20-21 The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign...
I think this applies to the command "don't eat from this tree," it had a purpose, "that grace might reign."
The context of Romans 5 makes it clear that the law is referring to Moses law. No pre-Fall redemptive plan evident there.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee: ... the proclamation that saves has always been God's plan, he did not form this after man sinned:
REV 14:6 Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim.
Jeff: The greek word for "eternal" is an adjective form of the word for age, but that doesn't imply eternality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It sometimes does! I think it does here. And the gospel goes all the way back to Abraham, as mentioned previously, and to the Israelites in the desert:
HEB 4:2 For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did...
And I think the message of the good news has always been in God's mind:
PS 119:89 Your word, O Lord, is eternal; it stands firm in the heavens.
You've provided no evidence to convince me that it IS meaning "eternal" in these verses. That's what I need to be convinced that the perspicuous, intuitive reading of Genesis is incorrect. Genesis is the foundation book of the Bible - whatever it means decides how to interpret later passages when they are equivocal. If you disagree with that, then we have a FUNDAMENTALLY different view of epistemology and hermeneutics and we need to argue at a different level.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| 82 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:36 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 |
|
|