 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > God’s Two Wills in Openness – March 19 debate | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/11/2004 9:24 AM (GMT -6) |   | He's baaack...
My hiatus was not as long as expected. The Father-in-law showed up during my time off and helped me get some projects done anticipated to take a couple of weeks. So my wife has graciously granted extra computer time as a reward. What a woman!!!
She says I am addicted to this sight. I tell her there are much worse things to be addicted to on the internet and she seems to understand. I don't know how long the hiatus will last but I do have an hour or so...
Response to Lee
John: a WAR that Scripture reveals that man is involved in must correlate with man’s concept and definition of the term (inspired by the Spirit) “WAR.” You submit a war that man is not “really” involved in a that rebuts not my comments, but Scripture.
Lee
Oh, we're involved all right! I agree with that! But it's not a war like the world fights:
2CO 10:3 For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.
John
Then we just disagree. I believe that words have consistent meaning. War is War. And bad things happen on both sides BY DEFINITION. Your view is typical of Calvinistic theology which redefines key words and concepts which are redifined for the sake of (the Calvinistic) argument (e.g. “world,” “all,” “free will,” etc.)
Regarding 2Cor 10:3, what is your point? We all agree that we do not wage war “like” or “as” the world does. However, Paul is referencing “technique” or “weaponry” here (e.g., prayer, humility, servanthood, etc.). Also consider, “Test every spirit…” These are methodologies which, incidentally, occurred, not in the heavenlies, but right there with Paul’s two feet firmly planted on earth. Just because you wage war “differently” does not render the outcome of war differently in some circumstances. In fact a predominate metaphor of Paul describing the Christian’s experience is “armor.” Is this just coincidence or could Paul be adding another bit of reality to the concept of Spiritual War that correlates with man’s intuition of physical war. The martyr’s of Revelation sure are described as casualties of war—not ultimately defeated but casualties nonetheless.
So how are we involved in “WAR” and how is the outcome different? Are people injured and killed in your war? Why would the Spirit conjure up a word which immediately brings to mind death and suffering if His intension was to really convey a “production”?
As I see it. Man “colabors” with God (by God’s on choice) to redeem the fallen world. This means you join God in battle and you might get hurt or killed. God being God will ultimately win and the faithful will celebrate forever in Heaven. That point is where I am sure we agree. I just take a different path in exegesis—a method that does not reassign meaning to words and concepts and remains true not only to man’s intuition and understanding but to the intent of the writers of the inspired authors.
John
Not only did God rebuke Job’s friends. He rebuked Job. Both of their “theologies” were wrong.
Lee,
God did rebuke Job. But he also approved him at the same time:
JOB 42:8 You have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.
So we have to sift what Job said! There's some wheat there, as well as chaff.
John,
You raise a good point that has helped me develop my position further. Because of my assumption that the inspired author of Scripture was sincere in describing a real contrast between Satan and God vs. not hoodwinking the reader of Scripture with a “hidden” God who was pulling Stan’s strings like a puppet in the background, I have always JUST MADE THE ASSUMPTION that those statements derogatory toward God and His actions must be the aspect of Job’s theology that was included in the rebuke from the Almighty and, hence, was wrong.
The better way to solve this problem is not, however, with my “assumption” of Scripture or your “regurgitation” of Scripture but, rather, through exegesis. Hence, I submit the ‘wheat” as it were, or those things that Job “spoke right” of God are those verses where Job’s theology (partly correct) contrasts with the theology of the friends (completely incorrect). Neither party was privy to the prologue. Now the overwhelming common thread between Job and his friends was that God had “taken away.” They disagreed as to WHY God had “taken away” but they were in agreement that it WAS God who had “taken away.” In fact that the calamity had originated from the hand of the Almighty is the only point Job and his friends DID agree on. So, since ALL of his friend’s theology was rebutted by God, where Job’s theology and his friend’s theology intersect, this theology should be rejected as incorrect. Where Job’s theology diverges from his friend’s theology provides the proper contrast and dividing line between the errant theology of both vs. where Job did, indeed, “speak rightly.” An example of the contrast between Job and his friends illustrating where Job “spoke rightly” of God is Job’s perpetual insistence that God did not punish righteousness.
John
From your previous post (I did look it up): A major point of the story and the foundation of God’s confidence in Job was God’s expectation that Job would not assume God was behind His calamity and curse God—EVEN DESPITE JOB’S IGNORANCE of who was really behind the calamity (Satan) as per the heavenly prologue!!!
Lee,
But how can you say God was not behind his calamity? This is very clear:
JOB 1:21 ... and the Lord has taken away...
JOB 2:3 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
JOB 42:11 They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the LORD had brought upon him.
John
Again there is a difference between regurgitating Scripture and typing your opinions in bold print and exegesis.
Now you may not agree with me and that is O.K. However, it is very “clear to me” that God was NOT BEHIND the calamity and that is the point of the entire essay. The prologue clearly states that it was Satan who incited God and the calamity and that it Satan who was behind it all. Satan had a plot to foil the Almighty. He approached the throne. He started a battle. People got hurt but God ultimately won the day. Satan incited God. Incite means “to instigate,” “to set a process in motion that cannot, hence forth be avoided.” Satan is mentioned FIRST then Satan incites God and the battle begins. That is what is documented clearly in the prologue. Satan started it. God’s integrity was challenged in front of the sons of God and He responded. He sent a soldier into battle, as it were, to prove that faithfulness was possible even in the face of the evil Satan was proposing.
Regarding Job 42:11, the passage simply states the perspective of the friends and relatives who came to the aid of Job. They were also not privy to the prologue. Why do you think that the inspired author suddenly interjects his perspective? Why do you think the author would suddenly break rank from the epic poetic form and suddenly interject His external perspective divorced from the characters in the script. He is telling a story through his characters and their perspective.
Another way of restating the scenario is that God is the one who, in fact, did send Job into battle and the battle did, in fact, bring Job “trouble.” However, that does not infer that God was behind the calamity or that God started the battle. The prologue clearly states Satan incited the battle and that Satan was behind the calamity.
Job 1:21 et al has been dealt with ad nauseum in the post I referenced ealier.
The main problem I have with your interpretation is it leaves me in a position where I cannot tell the difference between God and Satan. Hence, my previous comment”:
“Whatever we conjure up in exegesis, surely we do not come full
circle and bite ourselves in the butt and end up with an
interpretation where God and Satan cannot be differentiated.”
John
So, would you punish your child if he was born with Down’s Syndrome (i.e., a slave to a disease he was born with) if he could not score 1300 on the S.A.T.?
Lee
Not at all. But I would punish them if they misbehaved. Oftentimes, when a child disobeys, they are just trying to find out what you will do. Should you punish them, then? It wasn't *really* disobedience. It was kind of a question. Yes, I think you should still punish them.
John
Sure but you are still avoiding the question.
THE QUESTION IS: Would you punish them for doing something that YOU CAUSED THEM TO DO? And Would you punish them for being unable to do what you knew for a certainty was impossible for them to do?
John
Well, I ask you “Where’s the power?” Fill in the blank…”To know Him and the POWER of His R____________n.
Lee
I agree! And there is power in the cross, too:
1CO 1:17-18 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
No, this is not just hair-splitting, this is important.
John
The cross without the resurrection IS powerless. The cross had no power in and of itself. The context of the verse is “the gospel.” The “good news,” not that Christ was crucified but that Christ has risen. That phrase “saved by the power of God is the same concept as the power that raised Jesus from the dead. The foolishness referenced by Paul is the way the power was achieved (i.e., through the cross). The context of Corinthians you reference is heavily contextualized against Corinthian wisdom rhetoric and Greco-Roman philosophical culture. The “scandal of the cross” and the lack of understanding on the part of the philosophical element of Corinth were arguing against any concept of “power” in such a scandalous event as crucifixion. Hence, Paul's introduction in I Corinthians 1 is not the end-all-be-all of the point he is trying to make. READ ON. He develops his argument and concludes in chapter 15. Recall his statement in chapter 15 without the Resurrection we are not only POWER LESS we are “pitiful.” Now I know you know that. So that is why I think we are splitting hairs.
John
Universalism is unjust which would also frustrate God.
LEE
Not sure what you mean here, how would God be frustrated if all are saved? Though this is not the forum for this, as you mention a bit later. Not sure also why you consider your position very far from mine, as you seem willing to both hope that all will be saved, and fear that some will not be. That's where I come down on this...
John
You reference my quote that “Universalism is unjust which would also frustrate God.” Yet you do not respond to it.
However, to respond to the question you do state: The difference is that I not only fear some will not be saved, I “know” all will not be saved (Scripture documents this as I previously referenced). Hence God IS frustrated.
A “universalist” deity is the only way that “all WILL be saved.” Since Universalism is ultimately unjust and since God IS just, All will not be saved.
John, from another thread:
GE 50:20 "And as for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good."
Here, God is simply RESPONDING to the [evil] situation at hand—an evil situation according to James that God had nothing to do with. God "meant" the evil now in existence for good.
Lee
You seem to be saying that God allows the evil, and still means it. I would disagree, God meant it, and he planned it, I think "meant" implies planned it, too. God showed Joseph the end of his plan in a dream, I think God already had it all mapped out then.
John
I, of all people on this Board, save Laika, have argued most vehemently against the concept of God “allowing” evil. I actually credit Laika (back when) for the seed that germinated this thought. God RESPONDS to evil (PERIOD) is my position. God is not double minded. God does not practice what He condemns in Scripture (cp. James)
Here is the progression given by the inspired author:
The brothers conspired evil [“IT”] (no mention of God yet in the narrative) à The [“IT”] evil happens à God is introduced in the text and meant the [“IT”] (i.e., the evil the brothers had caused) for good. Remember, Joseph is reiterating the scenario in the PAST TENSE. The evil [“IT”] referenced is in the past tense for both the brothers and God—hence “meant.”
I believe that the narrative intent of the inspired author was that God meant to bring good out of the evil that the BROTHERS HAD CAUSED.
John
If God reveals in Scripture that He grieves when His children go astray (and He does) and he punishes them then He is being disingenuous in both his grief and punishment if He is the one who caused His child to do that which He says grieved Him. You see how contorted that is?
Lee
It's not contorted if he bears the suffering, too. Actually, it's God's suffering that we share, and not the other way around:
PHP 3:10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death...
You don't put a man in jail for injuring himself. He may be insane, but he's not guilty. So the remaining question is, is God reasonable when he bears suffering that he inflicts? Paul wanted to be like him in this, he called it fellowship, even.
John,
So are you saying it is not contorted if He punishes a man for doing that which God caused Him to do just because God chooses to suffer too.
Are you saying that it is not contorted for God to grieve over a man doing what God made Him to do just because God chooses to suffer too.
That is not only masochism, that is forced masochism on another party. And that is illegal. Why should we allow God to get away with that which we put men in jail for? (I wish I knew who said that).
You say, “You don't put a man in jail for injuring himself. He may be insane, but he's not guilty.” Correct, but if He is insane he is also not God.
So, NO God is NOT reasonable when he bears suffering that He, Himself, inflicts. In medicine we call this insanity. However, God Is reasonable when He volunteers to bear suffering on behalf of others. That is the suffering that Paul wants to partake of in fellowship—a suffering on behalf of others-a suffering which arises out of benevolence, which is the very fabric of the universe—not a suffering that beats someone up then beats Himself up in order to “share” in the suffering which He, Himself caused or created-hence "CONTORTED." That concept is so contorted it can't even be diagrammed much less conceptualized.
To God alone be the glory,
John | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/11/2004 1:00 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
St. Aurelius Augustin
THE CITY OF GOD.
Book XV
Chapter 25.-Of the Anger of God, Which Does Not Inflame His Mind, Nor Disturb His Unchangeable Tranquillity.
The anger of God is not a disturbing emotion of His mind, but a judgment by which punishment is inflicted upon sin. His thought and reconsideration also are the unchangeable reason which changes things; for He does not, like man, repent of anything He has done, because in all matters His decision is as inflexible as His prescience is certain. But if Scripture were not to use such expressions as the above, it would not familiarly insinuate itself into the minds of all classes of men, whom it seeks access to for their good, that it may alarm the proud, arouse the careless, exercise the inquisitive, and satisfy the intelligent; and this it could not do, did it not first stoop, and in a manner descend, to them where they lie. But its denouncing death on all the animals of earth and air is a declaration of the vastness of the disaster that was approaching: not that it threatens destruction to the irrational animals as if they too had incurred it by sin.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/11/2004 3:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
Welcome back! Short time no see. Glad your father-in-law gave you such a lift.
quote:
John: I believe that words have consistent meaning. War is War. And bad things happen on both sides BY DEFINITION. Your view is typical of Calvinistic theology which redefines key words and concepts which are redifined for the sake of (the Calvinistic) argument (e.g. “world,” “all,” “free will,” etc.)
Actually! I take exception to redefining "world" and "all", to mean "world of the elect" and "some of all kinds". "Free will" I don't subscribe to, so call that redefining if you will.  Now about war...
quote:
Regarding 2Cor 10:3 <snip snip snip> Just because you wage war “differently” does not render the outcome of war differently in some circumstances.
That's true. Just an indication that we may be talking about something different than the normal meaning.
quote:
As I see it. Man “colabors” with God (by God’s on choice) to redeem the fallen world. This means you join God in battle and you might get hurt or killed. God being God will ultimately win and the faithful will celebrate forever in Heaven. That point is where I am sure we agree.
Yes, we basically agree. The devil can chew up people, he's not a paper tiger. But God will ultimately win, and we will celebrate, as you say. Good news!
quote:
Neither party was privy to the prologue. Now the overwhelming common thread between Job and his friends was that God had “taken away.” They disagreed as to WHY God had “taken away” but they were in agreement that it WAS God who had “taken away.”
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying the agreement was incorrect (God took away), but Job's disagreement was correct? But Job's disagreement implies the part where they agreed (God took away).
quote:
An example of the contrast between Job and his friends illustrating where Job “spoke rightly” of God is Job’s perpetual insistence that God did not punish righteousness.
Well, I would say that they both actually agreed that God did not punish righteousness. I would add also that their disagreement was about whether Job was righteous. Job even seemed to waver on this point some. But he finally decided he *was* righteous. And then God rebuked him for *that*, actually:
JOB 40:8 "Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?"
He implied God had done him wrong, and God said basically, "let's review your knowledge". And never mind about the problem of suffering and evil, let's just discuss basic biology...
quote:
Lee: But how can you say God was not behind his calamity? This is very clear:
JOB 1:21 ... and the Lord has taken away...
JOB 2:3 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
JOB 42:11 They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him.
John: Now you may not agree with me and that is O.K. However, it is very “clear to me” that God was NOT BEHIND the calamity and that is the point of the entire essay. The prologue clearly states that it was Satan who incited God and the calamity and that it Satan who was behind it all.
God made the first move, though:
JOB 1:8 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job?"
quote:
Regarding Job 42:11, the passage simply states the perspective of the friends and relatives who came to the aid of Job. They were also not privy to the prologue. Why do you think that the inspired author suddenly interjects his perspective? Why do you think the author would suddenly break rank from the epic poetic form and suddenly interject His external perspective divorced from the characters in the script. He is telling a story through his characters and their perspective.
JOB 42:9 The Lord accepted Job's prayer.
JOB 42:10 The Lord made him prosperous again.
JOB 42:12 The Lord blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first.
Surely this isn't just Job's family's perspective. "The Lord blessed", that is a true insight, "The Lord brought" (verse 11), that is a true insight, too. The author of Job is telling us what is really happening, here, like in the prologue.
quote:
John: THE QUESTION IS: Would you punish them for doing something that YOU CAUSED THEM TO DO? And Would you punish them for being unable to do what you knew for a certainty was impossible for them to do?
Paul does ask that question:
RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
And Paul's answer is not that man chooses freely to resist God, therefore God is just in punishing them. On the contrary, Paul says God has a right to do with us what he pleases (verse 21). And what God is pleased to do may be to show mercy to all:
RO 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
So I think it's clear here that God does form some people as "vessels of wrath," and for a good purpose. We can trust his wisdom:
RO 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
quote:
John: The difference is that I not only fear some will not be saved, I “know” all will not be saved (Scripture documents this as I previously referenced). Hence God IS frustrated.
A “universalist” deity is the only way that “all WILL be saved.” Since Universalism is ultimately unjust and since God IS just, All will not be saved.
RO 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved.
Is that unjust? Then how is it unjust if all men are saved? I think there are verses on both sides of this issue, which is why I try not to come down firmly on one side or the other. But I think we are allowed to hope that all men will be saved:
MT 19:25-26 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
quote:
John: The brothers conspired evil [“IT”] (no mention of God yet in the narrative). The [“IT”] evil happens. God is introduced in the text and meant the [“IT”] (i.e., the evil the brothers had caused) for good. Remember, Joseph is reiterating the scenario in the PAST TENSE. The evil [“IT”] referenced is in the past tense for both the brothers and God—hence “meant.”
I believe that the narrative intent of the inspired author was that God meant to bring good out of the evil that the BROTHERS HAD CAUSED.
So God turned it to good, is what he should have said. To mean something, you are there when it happens, and intend it then. "Joe said Ben is a good-looking guy, I just heard about him saying that, but I meant it, too." No, that won't do...
quote:
Lee: It's not contorted if he bears the suffering, too. Actually, it's God's suffering that we share, and not the other way around:
PHP 3:10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death...
Lee: You don't put a man in jail for injuring himself. He may be insane, but he's not guilty. So the remaining question is, is God reasonable when he bears suffering that he inflicts? Paul wanted to be like him in this, he called it fellowship, even.
John: So, NO God is NOT reasonable when he bears suffering that He, Himself, inflicts. In medicine we call this insanity. However, God Is reasonable when He volunteers to bear suffering on behalf of others. That is the suffering that Paul wants to partake of in fellowship—a suffering on behalf of others-a suffering which arises out of benevolence, which is the very fabric of the universe—not a suffering that beats someone up then beats Himself up in order to “share” in the suffering which He, Himself caused or created-hence "CONTORTED."
No, it's not insanity, it's noble. Like the judge who sentenced his daughter in traffic court, then took off his robes, went down to the clerk, and paid her fine. Now maybe he also grounded her for a week, but he took most of the punishment himself.
1PE 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.
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 | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/11/2004 5:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
Welcome back! Short time no see. Glad your father-in-law gave you such a lift.
John: I believe that words have consistent meaning. War is War. And bad things happen on both sides BY DEFINITION. Your view is typical of Calvinistic theology which redefines key words and concepts which are redifined for the sake of (the Calvinistic) argument (e.g. “world,” “all,” “free will,” etc.)
Lee
Actually! I take exception to redefining "world" and "all", to mean "world of the elect" and "some of all kinds". "Free will" I don't subscribe to, so call that redefining if you will. Now about war...
Regarding 2Cor 10:3 <snip snip snip> Just because you wage war “differently” does not render the outcome of war differently in some circumstances.
That's true. Just an indication that we may be talking about something different than the normal meaning.
John says
But it is the same word in the same context.
John
As I see it. Man “colabors” with God (by God’s on choice) to redeem the fallen world. This means you join God in battle and you might get hurt or killed. God being God will ultimately win and the faithful will celebrate forever in Heaven. That point is where I am sure we agree.
Lee
Yes, we basically agree. The devil can chew up people, he's not a paper tiger. But God will ultimately win, and we will celebrate, as you say. Good news!
John
Sounds like a war then where people are hurt (chewed up)
John
Neither party was privy to the prologue. Now the overwhelming common thread between Job and his friends was that God had “taken away.” They disagreed as to WHY God had “taken away” but they were in agreement that it WAS God who had “taken away.”
Lee
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying the agreement was incorrect (God took away), but Job's disagreement was correct? But Job's disagreement implies the part where they agreed (God took away).
John
I am saying that Scripture says Satan took away.
John
An example of the contrast between Job and his friends illustrating where Job “spoke rightly” of God is Job’s perpetual insistence that God did not punish righteousness.
Lee
Well, I would say that they both actually agreed that God did not punish righteousness. I would add also that their disagreement was about whether Job was righteous. Job even seemed to waver on this point some. But he finally decided he *was* righteous. And then God rebuked him for *that*, actually:
JOB 40:8 "Would you discredit my justice? Would you condemn me to justify yourself?" He implied God had done him wrong, and God said basically, "let's review your knowledge". And never mind about the problem of suffering and evil, let's just discuss basic biology...
John
Yeah my statement should have followed with Job’s insistence that he was righteous. And of course God declared this as well
John
Lee: But how can you say God was not behind his calamity? This is very clear:
JOB 1:21 ... and the Lord has taken away...
JOB 2:3 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil. And he still maintains his integrity, though you incited me against him to ruin him without any reason."
JOB 42:11 They comforted and consoled him over all the trouble the Lord had brought upon him.
John: Now you may not agree with me and that is O.K. However, it is very “clear to me” that God was NOT BEHIND the calamity and that is the point of the entire essay. The prologue clearly states that it was Satan who incited God and the calamity and that it Satan who was behind it all.
Lee
God made the first move, though:
JOB 1:8 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job?"
John
Back it up a verse. God was sitting there minding his on business and Satan came to pick a fight. That was the “first move.”
John
Regarding Job 42:11, the passage simply states the perspective of the friends and relatives who came to the aid of Job. They were also not privy to the prologue. Why do you think that the inspired author suddenly interjects his perspective? Why do you think the author would suddenly break rank from the epic poetic form and suddenly interject His external perspective divorced from the characters in the script. He is telling a story through his characters and their perspective.
Lee
JOB 42:9 The Lord accepted Job's prayer.
JOB 42:10 The Lord made him prosperous again.
JOB 42:12 The Lord blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first.
Surely this isn't just Job's family's perspective. "The Lord blessed", that is a true insight, "The Lord brought" (verse 11), that is a true insight, too. The author of Job is telling us what is really happening, here, like in the prologue.
John
The reference is adjacent to Job’s family and friends.
To reiterate from a slightly different perspective:
“Another way of restating the scenario is that God is the one who, in fact, did send Job into battle and the battle did, in fact, bring Job “trouble.” However, that does not infer that God was behind the calamity or that God started the battle. The prologue clearly states Satan incited the battle and that Satan was behind the calamity.”
John
John: THE QUESTION IS: Would you punish them for doing something that YOU CAUSED THEM TO DO? And Would you punish them for being unable to do what you knew for a certainty was impossible for them to do?
Lee
Paul does ask that question:
RO 9:19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"
And Paul's answer is not that man chooses freely to resist God, therefore God is just in punishing them. On the contrary, Paul says God has a right to do with us what he pleases (verse 21). And what God is pleased to do may be to show mercy to all:
RO 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
So I think it's clear here that God does form some people as "vessels of wrath," and for a good purpose. We can trust his wisdom:
RO 11:33 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out!
John
You regurgitate Scripture without exegesis. This is typical Calvinistic determinism. For the sake of time (and in order to not push my wife too far) I commend the readers of this Thread to Dr. Boyd’s IS GOD TO BLAME. Other reasonable perspectives on Romans 9 can be found by doing a search on Roman’s 9 on the search engine. Here is a clue, any exegesis that does not explicitly extrapolate from the nation of Israel is out of context and errant. Romans, through and through, is about Israel first and foremost. I also commend the writings of N.T. Wright.
John
John: The difference is that I not only fear some will not be saved, I “know” all will not be saved (Scripture documents this as I previously referenced). Hence God IS frustrated.
A “universalist” deity is the only way that “all WILL be saved.” Since Universalism is ultimately unjust and since God IS just, All will not be saved.
Lee
RO 11:26 And so all Israel will be saved.
Is that unjust? Then how is it unjust if all men are saved? I think there are verses on both sides of this issue, which is why I try not to come down firmly on one side or the other. But I think we are allowed to hope that all men will be saved:
MT 19:25-26 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, "Who then can be saved?" Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
John
We not only hope all men will be saved, we work toward that end. Your take on Romans 11:26 presumes that spiritual Israel and political Israel are one and the same. If you assume that the reference is to political Israel you pull the rug out from under yourself because these are the vessels of wrath who will not be saved. If the reference is spiritual Israel then Paul is simply stating that all who have been saved will be saved.
John
John: The brothers conspired evil [“IT”] (no mention of God yet in the narrative). The [“IT”] evil happens. God is introduced in the text and meant the [“IT”] (i.e., the evil the brothers had caused) for good. Remember, Joseph is reiterating the scenario in the PAST TENSE. The evil [“IT”] referenced is in the past tense for both the brothers and God—hence “meant.”
I believe that the narrative intent of the inspired author was that God meant to bring good out of the evil that the BROTHERS HAD CAUSED.
Lee
So God turned it to good, is what he should have said. To mean something, you are there when it happens, and intend it then. "Joe said Ben is a good-looking guy, I just heard about him saying that, but I meant it, too." No, that won't do...
John says
Semantics. You say tomAtoe I say tomauto.
God was there when the evil was committed. At that point He “meant” it for good.
John
Lee: It's not contorted if he bears the suffering, too. Actually, it's God's suffering that we share, and not the other way around:
PHP 3:10 I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death...
Lee: You don't put a man in jail for injuring himself. He may be insane, but he's not guilty. So the remaining question is, is God reasonable when he bears suffering that he inflicts? Paul wanted to be like him in this, he called it fellowship, even.
John: So, NO God is NOT reasonable when he bears suffering that He, Himself, inflicts. In medicine we call this insanity. However, God Is reasonable when He volunteers to bear suffering on behalf of others. That is the suffering that Paul wants to partake of in fellowship—a suffering on behalf of others-a suffering which arises out of benevolence, which is the very fabric of the universe—not a suffering that beats someone up then beats Himself up in order to “share” in the suffering which He, Himself caused or created-hence "CONTORTED."
Lee
No, it's not insanity, it's noble. Like the judge who sentenced his daughter in traffic court, then took off his robes, went down to the clerk, and paid her fine. Now maybe he also grounded her for a week, but he took most of the punishment himself.
1PE 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.
John
Careful, your analogy is not consistent with nature of the case.
Would it be noble if the judge made his daughter commit the crime and then paid her fine and then grounded her? Of course God doesn’t take any punishment for others whom He fashioned for wrath according to your interpretation. Is that noble--to fashion a man for eternal torment? Remember, the definition of noble is not arbitrary and must correlate to man's intuition. We aren't talkin' traffic tickets and jay walking here. We are talkin' eternal torment for temporal guilt. That is the bottom line of Calvin's "two-wills" God. What Calvin's God actually DOES is a mountain compared with the mole hill of what the Arminian God "allows" much less what the Open God of Scripture not only disallows but genuinely responds to and redeems.
Blessings,
John
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/12/2004 2:35 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi John,
Thanks for your reply...
quote:
Lee: I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying the agreement was incorrect (God took away), but Job's disagreement was correct? But Job's disagreement implies the part where they agreed (God took away).
John
I am saying that Scripture says Satan took away.
Well, the Scripture doesn't say that, though:
JOB 1:21 ... and the Lord has taken away.
The devil was involved, certainly, but Scripture says the Lord did it.
quote:
Lee: God made the first move, though:
JOB 1:8 Then the Lord said to Satan, "Have you considered my servant Job?"
John: Back it up a verse. God was sitting there minding his on business and Satan came to pick a fight. That was the “first move.”
Well, the devil didn't make God fight, though, God could have just ignored him. Are you saying that the devil has some power over God? Surely not...
And if you want to trace it all the way back, well, God made the devil...
quote:
JOB 42:9 The Lord accepted Job's prayer.
JOB 42:10 The Lord made him prosperous again.
JOB 42:12 The Lord blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the first.
Surely this isn't just Job's family's perspective. "The Lord blessed", that is a true insight, "The Lord brought" (verse 11), that is a true insight, too. The author of Job is telling us what is really happening, here, like in the prologue.
John: The reference is adjacent to Job’s family and friends.
It's also adjacent to Job's comforters bringing their sacrifices. Why not their perspective, then? It's also adjacent to Job praying for them. Why not his perspective? This is not good, though. If it's just man's perspective, then "the Lord blessed Job" was just man's idea, not necessarily true. But it was true, though:
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:
Lee: Paul says God has a right to do with us what he pleases (verse 21). And what God is pleased to do may be to show mercy to all:
RO 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.
So I think it's clear here that God does form some people as "vessels of wrath," and for a good purpose.
John: ... any exegesis that does not explicitly extrapolate from the nation of Israel is out of context and errant. Romans, through and through, is about Israel first and foremost. I also commend the writings of N.T. Wright.
RO 1:13 ... in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles.
RO 3:9 We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin.
RO 9:24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?
RO 11:13 I am talking to you Gentiles.
RO 15:11 And again, "Praise the Lord, all you Gentiles."
No, Romans is written primarily to Gentiles, and considers them extensively. Even in Romans 9-11. Especially in Romans 9-11:
RO 9:30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith.
RO 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
"You" meaning the Gentiles. He's writing to the Gentiles, about the Gentiles here. There are extensive references to Israel here, that is true, but also extensive references to Gentiles. And the Gentiles are his audience.
quote:
John: The brothers conspired evil [“IT”] (no mention of God yet in the narrative). The [“IT”] evil happens. God is introduced in the text and meant the [“IT”] (i.e., the evil the brothers had caused) for good. Remember, Joseph is reiterating the scenario in the PAST TENSE. The evil [“IT”] referenced is in the past tense for both the brothers and God—hence “meant.”
John: God was there when the evil was committed. At that point He “meant” it for good.
But that won't do, either, John. Ben says, "Joe is a good fisherman." Joe asks Ben, "did you mean that?" You say, "Yes, Joe meant that, and I meant it, too." You can't even say "I mean it." You have to say it yourself, to mean it. You have to be involved, to mean something. God was the primary cause, and Joseph's brothers were secondary causes. God meant it, and he meant it for good.
quote:
Lee: No, it's not insanity, it's noble. Like the judge who sentenced his daughter in traffic court, then took off his robes, went down to the clerk, and paid her fine. Now maybe he also grounded her for a week, but he took most of the punishment himself.
John: Careful, your analogy is not consistent with nature of the case.
Would it be noble if the judge made his daughter commit the crime and then paid her fine and then grounded her? Of course God doesn’t take any punishment for others whom He fashioned for wrath according to your interpretation. Is that noble--to fashion a man for eternal torment? Remember, the definition of noble is not arbitrary and must correlate to man's intuition. We aren't talkin' traffic tickets and jay walking here. We are talkin' eternal torment for temporal guilt. That is the bottom line of Calvin's "two-wills" God. What Calvin's God actually DOES is a mountain compared with the mole hill of what the Arminian God "allows" much less what the Open God of Scripture not only disallows but genuinely responds to and redeems.
That wasn't the point I was making, though. God can cause pain, and bear it himself, and be commendable, and not insane. You had objected to that here, and thus the analogy.
Now there is a further question: is God just to make vessels of wrath, and then condemn them? Well, we did address this some above. But first of all, I do not subscribe to "two wills" in God. Calvin didn't either, actually! At least in the book of his that I have read. He most emphatically objects to that. It is ironic that people refer to this as "Calvinism." Just an aside...
Now you do know my position on eternal torment. I am willing to hope that all men may be saved. Thus now the question becomes, "is God just to cause any pain at all?" And I answer that he is, because he has a good purpose, not an evil one. We will see the results, and be glad, just as God was (and will be) glad about the cross:
ISA 53:11 As a result of the anguish of his soul, he will see and be satisfied...
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 | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/12/2004 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Lee
I say let the people read and the people decide. We have beat the dead horse to death. I have commended other authors who exegese Romans 9 differently and from my perspective in context. Again, my intent is only to offer a perspective different than Calvin's God of 2 wills (Revealed and "hidden). Read the Institues, "the book" you read of Calvins hardly provides his full perspective.
Your commitment to the text is admirable. However, there is more to Scripture than regurgitation and defining the audience. Satan is really irrelevant in your exegesis. The fundamental assertion of your exegesis is "God did it." God did it all...evil, Satan, the whole nine yards. And because God did it it must be right. We ultimately disagree as to what Scripture reveals that God did and did not do. When you encounter a Scripture that implies God did something that appears evil you are OK with that "because the Bible says so." When I encounter Scripture that on the surface seems to imply that God did something which is evil to man's intuition then I assume, because God IS light and in Him is NO DARKNESS AT ALL, that one has an occassion to dig for Truth as for silver or gold so as not to smear the holy character of God with the methods Scripture reveals are of Satan.
"As I have said before, the main problem I had/have with Calvism is that it ultimately renders no distiction between God and evil and God and evil. The implications of Calvinistic exegesis and the "GOD" derived is nauseating and wreaks more of evil to me than holiness.
I will apply Lewis' quote to the God which derives from your exegesis and from Calvinism: "We have met God and He is the Devil.
Let the people read and let undifferentiated minds decide which God described in this thread most closely approximates Jesus, the Icon of God, and start your exegesis from that point instead of from the immutable God decribed by Calvin who takes his lead from Plato via Augustine.
For those who still have questions, Dr. Boyd has a book forthcoming entitled "THE MYTH OF THE BLUE PRINT" which will present an alternative Biblical and historical exegesis rebutting in detail the Augustinian/Calvinistic myth that the life we perceive as real and dynamic is nothing more than a chrade or glorified puppet show. In the mean while I commend Dave Hunt's book WHAT LOVE IS THIS and Boyd's IS GOD TO BLAME. I also recommend CALVIN'S INSTITUTES for those who do not understand what the full implication of deterministic theology is.
I am going to move on as we are getting more into the Calvinism-Arminian debate which has been debated ad nauseum-ad vomitus for centuries
To God alone be the glory
John | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/12/2004 4:01 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
But first of all, I do not subscribe to "two wills" in God. Calvin didn't either, actually! At least in the book of his that I have read. He most emphatically objects to that. It is ironic that people refer to this as "Calvinism." Just an aside...
Glad to see that. Makes sense.
It feels like Kuyper recovered some of Calvin's tragectory in this regard. (No, Laika-John, I don't know what actions Abraham Kuyper took when he was Prime Minister of the country of Holland.) Neo-Kuyperian theologians put their stock in Creation/Fall/Redemption and in Structure/Direction as a way of understanding the difference and similarities between what God made and what we deal with now. I taught two years at one of their colleges. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/12/2004 4:05 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by PotOnWheel
quote:
Originally posted by Lee Merrill
But first of all, I do not subscribe to "two wills" in God. Calvin didn't either, actually! At least in the book of his that I have read. He most emphatically objects to that. It is ironic that people refer to this as "Calvinism." Just an aside...
Glad to see that. Makes sense.
It feels like Kuyper recovered some of Calvin's tragectory in this regard. (No, Laika-John, I don't know what actions Abraham Kuyper took when he was Prime Minister of the country of Holland.) Neo-Kuyperian theologians put their stock in Creation/Fall/Redemption and in Structure/Direction as a way of understanding the difference and similarities between what God made and what we deal with now. I taught two years at one of their colleges.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnmd
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 154
| Posted 4/12/2004 4:15 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/12/2004 4:46 PM (GMT -6) | | JohnMD: you are hitting the wall with Lee that I hit with primary causes and secondary causes. One can swing away forever IF your opponent is throwing strikes...
I particularly like what you said about good and evil being meaningless. Like Doctor Boyd said awhile back, there is no real difference between Calvinism and pantheism practically speaking...
Better to mind the gold and find the truth than to simply accept odd contradictions...or mysteries... | | Back to Top | | |
|
feelinahole
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 754
| Posted 4/12/2004 4:51 PM (GMT -6) | | POW: so glad you posted someone else's quote twice. Wouldn't want to have missed that one... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 4/13/2004 1:08 PM (GMT -6) | | A parting quote!
"The way to think of God so as to know Him, is to think of Christ. Then we see Him, and can understand how tender and merciful and good He is. We see that if He sends us sorrows and difficulties, He only sends them because they are the true blessings, the things that are truly good. He would have us like Himself, with a happiness like His own, and nothing below it; and so as His own happiness is in taking sorrow and infirmity, and ever assisting, and giving and sacrificing Himself, He gives us sorrows too, and weaknesses, which are not the evils that we think them, but are what we should be most happy in, if we were perfect and had knowledge like Him. So there is a use and a service in all we bear, in all we do, which we do not know, but which He knows, and which in Christ He shows to us. It is a use for others, a hidden use, but one which makes all our life rich, and that richest which is most like Christ's." (James Hinton)
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 | | |
| 262 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:18 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 |
|
|