 |
| 
Seymour
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 5/9/2002 8:19 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Your logic is correct, that under your definitions, the gift is not a gift.
Good, I’m glad you at least think my logic is correct. For the sake of argument lets just use my definitions to get at my point. Either something is a gift and it has no strings attached--it is a giving for which nothing is returned, OR it is not a gift and therefore an ECONOMY--a transaction which sets up a system of debt.
quote:
If you want to convince us of your point, then show us that scripture considers God's "gift" in the way you say. However, you cannot do this, because the rules of language and grammar do not allow it, especially in the context they are used in the Bible.
I have never suggested that the Bible considers God’s “gift” in the way I am speaking of it. This is my point! Whatever the Bible means it CANNOT be talking about giveness as I have defined it. Which means that whenever the Bible talks about a “gift” it is really an ECONOMY. It inaugurates a system of DEBT. That’s the point. All of the Bible’s “gifts” have strings attached.
This is what we’re arguing about: is God’s gift really free, or is it simply one movement in an economy that requires another movement to pay for it. You say that my logic is correct, so will carry this out consistently and concede that God’s so called gift is really an economy?
Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/10/2002 1:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Wonderful discussion. And what I'm going to pipe up on here takes nothing away from it. As to the "U" word (universalism), it seems that there might be two different forms. And I'D LIKE to know whether that ever causes any confusion! The first would be a definition that I really don't see defined here, but which I suspect would be the one to pop into the head of someone walking down the street if you said that word: a social-welfare-safetynet view that God just can't go through with the judgement thing, and will change his mind, and in Prairie Populist, DFL, fashion will reward everyone the same. The second, and not always well defined, would be the one held by many in the earlier histories of the Church, and on in some monastic traditions, and pretty openly by many contemporary EO book writers, is that God will on a day judge and even those who are not eternally damned to eternal punishment will still not have a picnic, as the salvation that they experience will be a tough-tow-to-hoe! THAT sort of historic universalism seems very much to have judgement involved.
I have to sketch out in my head that it is the "Lamb" who is worthy to judge, and that the 'judged' also in a significant way judge/bring-judgement upon themselves. Kind of like in John 3:18-20
quote:
John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. 19This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.
What do you think, Doc and Seymour? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/10/2002 4:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Seymour,
After my last post to you, I trotted over to my dictionary to look up "gift", and I found something very intersting.
quote:
"n. 1. Something bestowed voluntarily and without compensation. 2. the act, right, or power of giving." -- American Heritage College Dictionary
However, it goes on to make the following usage note:
"The verbal use of gift in Modern English is irredeemably tainted ... by its association with the language of advertising and publicity."
It goes on to point out that we are given "gifts" for renewing our subscription to Time magazine. Or, we give gifts to a politician, with the expectation they are going to do something we want. Correct me if I am wrong, but this type of "tainted" gift is exactly what you are talking about, Seymour.
However, I would suggest that this is a "Modern" shift in usage. The next question that comes to me is what the Bible means by "gift". I am no Greek scholar, but I know the Greek language makes distinctions that English does not. Perhaps we can learn from those distinctions? Let's see....
I found a number of different words that are translated as "gift". Here are some common ones:
Strong's Number Word Meanings
G1431 dorea freely, gift, w/o cause, w/o charge, w/o paying
G1435 doron a gift, present, spec. a sacrifice, offering
G5485 charis grace, kindness, blessing, favor, gracious work
G5486 charisma gift of grace, a free gift, spiritual gift
G2129 eulogia praise, blessing, bountiful gift
Okay, now let's see what words are used in some key scripture verses. In looking at the "hits" I got on "gift" I found G1431 and G5486 used frequently.
For by graceG5485 you have been savedG4982 throughG1223 faithG4102; and that not of yourselvesG4771, it is the giftG1435 of GodG2316; Eph. 2:8 (NASB)
By "charis" we receive the "doron".
For the wagesG3800 of sinG266 is deathG2288, but the freeG5486 giftG5486 of GodG2316 is eternalG166 lifeG2222 in ChristG5547 JesusG2424 our LordG2962. Rom. 6:23 (NASB)
This is VERY interesting, it is by the "charisma charisma" of God. Perhaps Tom can tell us the significance of the double use of the word, but it seems like the writer is emphasizing the point that our salvation is a grace, and has no strings attached.
Perhaps you will still disagree with me on this, but I think this little exegesis suggest that Doc is correct that God's gift of salvation really does not carry a debt with it.
What do you think, Seymour?
YBIC,
Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
Edited by - winghead on 05/10/2002 9:30:18 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Seymour
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 5/10/2002 7:06 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Perhaps you will still disagree with me on this, but I think this little exegesis suggest that Doc is correct that God's gift of salvation really does not carry a debt with it.
You just don't get it man. By the very fact that God's gift annouces itself AS a gift it has strings attached and carries a debt. It has nothing to do with exegesis.
Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 5/10/2002 8:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the exegetical work, Winghead. I have one correction to add.
Winghead:
The next question that comes to me is what the Bible means by "gift"....I found a number of different words that are translated as "gift". Here are some common ones:
Strong's Number Word Meanings
G1431 dorea freely, gift, w/o cause, w/o charge, w/o paying
G1435 doron a gift, present, spec. a sacrifice, offering
G5485 charis grace, kindness, blessing, favor, gracious work
G5486 charisma gift of grace, a free gift, spiritual gift
G2129 eulogia praise, blessing, bountiful gift
For the wages of sin is death, but the freeG5486 giftG5486 of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom. 6:23 (NASB)
This is VERY interesting, it is by the "charisma charisma" of God. Perhaps Tom can tell us the significance of the double use of the word, but it seems like the writer is emphasizing the point that our salvation is a grace, and has no strings attached.
Reply:
There is no double use of "charisma" in Rom 6:23. The one Greek words is translated with two English words as "free gift." In the Greek text it reads: "to de charisma tou theou zoe aionion", or "the free gift of God is eternal life."
Seymour writes:
In order for a gift to be a gift it must not appear to the one it is given to AS a gift, it must not appear under the name 'gift'. And because as soon as we accept God's gift, we are actually entering into an economy with God, we are buying our own salvation in one form or another. We are put into debt by receiving his gift, a gift that is of all things a forgiveness from debt! And by accepting this debt we also accept an attempt to pay it off, either with thanks or with an orthodox life, or with praise, or by some other means. It is no longer a gift but rather a kind of binding contract, an economic loan. [emphasis added]
Reply:
Your thoughts are stimulating, Seymour. In pondering them, I was reminded of the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matt. 18:23-34). A servant owes his master a vast debt, far beyond any ability of his to pay it off, but his merciful master forgives the debt. The merciful master, of course, represents God. The servant with the enormous debt represents each of us. Now it seems to me that you are incorrect in thinking that the gift of forgiveness initiates an economy with God. In line with the parable, an economy was already in place. The servant was indebted to God before the gift was ever announced or received. Furthermore, it seems to me that there are two aspects to this debt. (1) By virtue of the Creator/creature relationship, we are by nature God's servants and owe him our love and obedience, (2) by virtue of our sin, God has not received from us what was owed according to (1), putting us into arrears, as it were. The gift of forgiveness made possible by Christ's payment on our behalf eliminates (2) but does not and cannot eliminate (1). The gift doesn't create an obligation to love and obey God--that obligation was there all along and is grounded not in the receipt of the gift but in the very order of creation.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. Look forward to your response.
Your brother in Christ,
Alan
Lege, lege, lege, ora, labora, et relege.
Edited by - Alan Rhoda on 05/11/2002 9:41:14 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Seymour
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 105
| Posted 5/11/2002 11:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Now it seems to me that you are incorrect in thinking that the gift of forgiveness initiates an economy with God. In line with the parable, an economy was already in place. The servant was indebted to God before the gift was ever announced or received.
BINGO! Before i have ever committed a crime i am already in debt!
BUT, i want to argue that the "economy that was already in place" was put into place by an originary GIFT. The giveness of God to us, God's very PRESANCE (Present-ing) is what puts us into debt.
We are only debt free when no other is present to us. as soon as the other is presented to us we enter into infinite debt in relation to the other. It is the gift of the other which inagurates debt.
quote:
The gift of forgiveness made possible by Christ's payment on our behalf eliminates (2) but does not and cannot eliminate (1).
BUT for-give-ness actually doubles (at least) the debt of (2). Sure we owed a debt of sin to God BEFORE she forgave us, but that is nothing compaired to the debt we owe God AFTER she forgave us. She merely replaced one debt with a different and larger debt.
Lets use the parable you begin with as an example.
quote:
Your thoughts are stimulating, Seymour. In pondering them, I was reminded of the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Matt. 18:23-34). A servant owes his master a vast debt, far beyond any ability of his to pay it off, but his merciful master forgives the debt. The merciful master, of course, represents God. The servant with the enormous debt represents each of us.
In this parable the servant begins in masive debt, his creditor basically owns him at this point. But when the creditor for-gives the debt he does not free the debtor, but rather he buys him to an even greater extent. He now has complete power over the debtor because the debtor now owes him a greater debt. And the debtor is expected to pay it off by returning it, by means of an economy, a gift/counter-gift, he is expected to earn his way just as before by paying with the counter-gift of for-giving someone else.
Now suppose that this servant was not possesed by this creditor at all, he turns around and refuses to forgive a trival debt owed to him and the master has no hold on him, he can do as he likes. BUT since the servant is in total debt to the master the master has the power over him to extract his debt of for-give-ness when he refuses to for-give another. The master has even more power over the servant because the servant is in even greater debt to the master.
The same is true for us and Christ. We are hopelessly in debt now that he has forgiven us of our debt. We are ultimatly damned preciesly BECAUSE he has forgiven us. AND there are even MORE strings attached because of this so called "free gift" he has given us.
The only possilbe out of debt is forgetfullness. Self-forgetting. See the "Dumb Question Alert" for whether or not an all-knowing God can forget, and also see the "Is Doc a Universalist" tread which i will someday post.
I think there might be the possiblitity of giving through Doc's borrowed concept of das nichtige--an annuling of being that even extends to 'having been'. Perhaps there is a possiblity of giving by truely annuling the debt, not through for-give-ness, but through destruction. The debt enters das nichtige, it doesn't really exist any more, and even it's 'having existed' no longer exists. The only way giving is possible is through a holocoust, a sacrifice which sacrifices itself. A forgetting which forgets itself. And isn't this the essence of love, a sort of self-forgetfulness that places the other first?
Some folks dance cool, all angels and swaying hips, Sensual as all get out and in. Me, I'm a hick, and I dance like one, I just kinda jump around and grin.
--Greg Brown
Edited by - Seymour on 05/11/2002 4:34:08 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 5/11/2002 6:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Seymore (in response to my "edification") cute. i can't seem to get through the day with someone thinking its their duty to blow sunshine up my ass... that's fundagelicalism for ya, those who dispense the gift of a sunshine enima.
Doc: My new Title:
Rev. Enima-giving- fundagelical- sunshine up-the-behind-blower.
kind of catchy, ain't it.
heh, if you can't get through the day without this happening to you, well you have got to have yourself one sore back, one very pure intestinal track, and one incredibly bright butt!
Consider yourself lucky dude!
gotta love ya ol Seymour. Your's is a different kind of universe.
a universe in which every gift is really an i.o.u. and every blessing a sunshine enima.
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6
Edited by - GregBoyd on 05/11/2002 11:17:45 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Winghead
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132
| Posted 5/11/2002 7:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Alan,
Winghead:quote:
For the wages of sin is death, but the freeG5486 giftG5486 of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom. 6:23 (NASB)
This is VERY interesting, it is by the "charisma charisma" of God. Perhaps Tom can tell us the significance of the double use of the word, but it seems like the writer is emphasizing the point that our salvation is a grace, and has no strings attached.
Alan:quote:
There is no double use of "charisma" in Rom 6:23. The one Greek words is translated with two English words as "free gift." In the Greek text it reads: "to de charisma tou theou zoe aionion", or "the free gift of God is eternal life."
Not being a New Testament scholar, I cannot explain the differences in manuscripts. I did a little comparison, and found that the KJV uses on "charisma" and the NASB uses two. The NASB being newer and drawing on more recent scholarship may have found MSS that have two "charisma". The only Greek MSS I have access to has on "charisma".
However, allowing for only one "charisma" I think scripture is still supporting the idea that eternal life is a "free gift", a gift of grace, a gift from God, because the word "charisma" is used. In contrast to sin, which economically yields death, eternal life is a gift from God. The Greek meanings for "charisma", and the other words for "gift", seem to conflict with Seymour's contention that God's gift puts us into debt to God. Unless, he is saying that we owe God more than we can ever repay, which is true. The point is, however, that God does not exact payment from us.
Seymour, have I understood you correctly as saying God's gift of eternal life puts us into debt to God? Also, are you saying that God exacts payment from us, or just that we owe God?
YBIC,
Winghead
"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)
Edited by - winghead on 05/12/2002 12:29:11 AM | | Back to Top | | |
| 33 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:34 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 |
|
|