 |
| 
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/12/2001 6:47 PM (GMT -6) |   | What up TGB!
Dang, your doing really well on this one! Let me live up to my name for a miniute and relativize this issue a couple of different ways:
1. OV'ers disagree on this, so, your right, I shouldn't hang OV as a whole on it. My bad. (Sanders on your side, Boyd on mine--to a degree, as you may know by now.)
2. What we are not being clear about is, what is sin? What specifically constitutes the fall? You refer to it rather matter-of-factly as though it were a given, but is it really that simple? Eve ate a bad apple? Gave it to the main squeeze, and now we all fry? 'cept if we say we love Jesus? I bring this up to challenge the notion of the over-idealized "pre-fall" state which is very dfficult to accept unless you read the whole Adam-Eve thing VERY literally, which I think, for many reasons, is irresponsible scholarship. Heaven is not a return to a pre-fall state. It is the consumation of Creation. In fact, I would say, that in an important sense, when Jesus groaned, "it is finished!" on the cross, this was a critical development for all of reality, both for God and Creation, one well beyond the initial act of creation.
3. Okay, and one more thing, is there an intelligible distinction--with regard to THIS ISSUE--between sin being inevitable and sin being necessary? Or is it merely splitting hairs?
Meph, hope your peakin' cause I think you got my back on this one. Here goes:
Tom, with other OV'ers proposes:
1. God created out of love for the sake of love.
2. Love must be freely chosen in response, by the person, toward God.
the difference comes in here:
3T. Tom says, Adam and Eve DID choose love for a while at least and then they blew it. This may have been inevitable, but it was not necessary.
3M. (not the tape dudes) Modes says "huh? that sounds like mincing words to me, inevitabilities grow up to be necessities, if indeed they are inevitable." So what Tom is really saying is that sin might not have EVER entered the world. People, some things that mathematicians say are possible, have no practical use in the real world. Ockham's razor says, cut it. The logic of the risk God took in creating a world which could respond in love, but also could refrain, lends straightaway to the necessity of an incomplete creation.
I understand there's a principle your after (God not being, ultimately, the author of sin. And I agree, we just say it differently), but let me get at it another way: we both should be able to admit that there is at least an incompleteness to the God-world relation PRIOR to humanity responding to God in love. Here is why I threw in the bit about whether OV is for you. We are advocates of a work in progress. BOTH for God and the world. Where Plato (so Augustine) has an uncaused cause, and Aristotle (so Thomas Aquinas) has an unmoved mover, we have a "most moved mover" to steal a line from the title of a forthcoming book by Pinnock. God is continually surpassing Godself! (You asked if God is incomplete, the answer of course, is NO, but perfection is not static, God is continually surpassing Godself and at the very least, yo will have to wrestle with the question of God's knowledge contiunally changing in some sort of perfect way, is it not for the better?) The world is a work in process as well, but it does not have the character of God's perfection. Let this settle in, its fundamental to the difference between a metaphysics of being (classical) vs. one of becoming (Open/relational). To sum up so far, insofar as we had not chosen love yet, THAT fact reflects an incompletion in creation. PARTICULARLY if God's purpose was to create a world with beings who love God of their own volition. God could not create it otherwise and satisfy such a purpose.
I would venture to say, that the "risk" God took was one on a continuum, HOW MUCH would the creation deviate? How bad would it really get? THIS best explains the texts in my mind.
You suggest that the Bible clearly claims that creation is complete, please support this claim.
Meph states: "Redemption was a PART of the plan from the jump, and predestination of the same (though maybe not exhaustive) is inevitable. This INCLUDES God knowing for a certainty that human beings would sin." Of course, this is the point of contention and I am proud to agree with my main Meph. As I said before, inevitability breeds certainty in this case (when one posits an infinite amount of time granted to blow it), that entails necessity. Beyond this, there is the problem of creation being incomplete from the get go until IT responds to God.
Of course, you can continue to hang on to the infinitely remote possibility that NO ONE WOULD EVER, EVER, EVER have sinned, but this seems like only a theoretical possibility, not an actual one. I do agree with you that the PURPOSE of God's creating was love. God wanted a responsive, love relationship in which the creation freely chose to love its creator. We do agree, I am simply more realistic about what that inevitably means about God's necessary accomodations to such a plan. God will need a plan "A" to deal with the obvious and the inevitable. Unless we add, "omnioptimism" to God's attributes  , just yankin' yer chain.
As for the challenge of Acts 2:23. This would be the obvious conclusion to God's incarnate life. When Love comes to the town of Hate, it will be killed. However much of the details are deemed necessary to settle ahead of time, this event definitely classifies as TOP PRIORITY for God (by virtue of its universal necessity for the purpose of God for creation) and is insured by God's omnipotence.
My objections should be clear, but let me add, I do think your doing very well in defending your position.
Hoping to entice a bit more feedback from either your or Meph (all are welcome!).
Let me throw one more thought your way. #2 at the top points in this direction. Creation was not complete until GOD entered into it in the flesh! In the incarnation, God experienced creation in a whole new way, as a participant, and as the fulfilment of what we NEVER could have done on our own. Does this make God the author of sin? Not at all, but it clearly makes God the author of our salvation! And one who can relate to us in every conceivable way.
Love ya man...get back with me on this one if you will...
Edited by - ModesofThought on 07/12/2001 11:58:22 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
pneumatika
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 7/13/2001 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes,
This is off subject, but could you answer a dumb question for me?
Aeons ago I asked for a definition of OV. I think that old thread got converted here.... Anyways, I have been completely unable to define the word "apophatic" that you used. Would you mind defining that word for me.
Thanks
-that Pneumatika guy
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/13/2001 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Modes,
This is off subject, but could you answer a dumb question for me?
Aeons ago I asked for a definition of OV. I think that old thread got converted here.... Anyways, I have been completely unable to define the word "apophatic" that you used. Would you mind defining that word for me.
Thanks
-that Pneumatika guy
Apophatic - 1. refers to "negative" theology. In this view, it is maintained that God cannot be known in human categories. Some go so far as to say that there is more "no" than "yes" in the analogies which are said to provide meaningful descriptions of God. An apophatic theology would have more to say about what one cannot assert about God than what one can assert about God. 2. refers to the deepest thoughts of overweight apes. These apes led a leisurely lifestyle on the backs of servant apes which enabled them to have time to think deeply and retain full stomachs.
What's with all the definitions? You writing a theological dictionary?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/14/2001 12:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes-
You got me on the ropes, dude! If Mephi jumps in I’m done for.
Let me try to summarize things in a few points.
1) On the possibility of my having over-idealized the pre-Fall state, first a quick comment on “sin.” I honestly don’t know how literally to take the creation narratives. I’m sure there’s more to man’s fall than the few lines we get in Gen. 1-3. My hunch is a good deal of it is symbolic (serpent, tree, eating the fruit). But these things do represent real things (tempter, occasion to sin, choice to disobey), and the basic story we DO have, it seems to me, is all God thought it important enough for us TO have. So whatever is necessary for us is there in the story. What I basically get is that a) our parents were offered something wonderful (“tobh” [good] and “tamim” [excellent, complete]) with God, b) this included the opportunity/occasion to ruin what was wonderful, a command not to do so, and a warning regarding the consequences, and c) they freely chose to ruin for themselves and us the wonder and beauty of creation and fellowship with God.
2) You and I seem to disagree over what all is involved in a) above, that is, over just WHAT God was providing man in the garden. Let me say first that I totally agree with you that there was an “incompleteness” (I would call it “potential”) in the God-world relationship prior to the Fall. Whatever the pre-Fall conditions were like, the absence of sin in the God-man relationship did not mean God did not have more planned for man, that the relationship had nowhere to go, no room for growth, no novelty to experience, no new vistas for the relationship. I think we agree on this.
But we disagree over whether or not the ONLY place the relationship could possibly have gone was DOWN, over whether or not God could have achieved this MORE he had planned for us apart from sin and evil. I think he COULD have. I return to the analogy of a healthy growing marriage relationship. Marriage is not everything it can and should be on wedding day (in this sense it is “incomplete”), but what it CAN be is certainly achievable apart from adultery and unfaithfulness. So I do see an incompleteness (I prefer “potential” which implies there’s more to become) about the pre-Fall state, but I don’t see that SIN is necessary to completing what’s lacking or, rather, to realizing the creative potential of creation. Hence, I can agree with you that “Heaven is not a return to a pre-fall state” and that “The logic of the risk God took in creating a world which could respond in love, but also could refrain, lends straightaway to the necessity of an incomplete creation,” but I think what you mean is the risk lends straightaway to the necessity of a SINFUL creation.
3) Let’s talk about “probation.” Specifically, was Eden probationary for ALL mankind (through our representatives, Adam and Eve)? Or was Eden only probationary for them as individuals? You assume that the possibility that nobody would ever sin is merely a theoretical possibility and that Ockham’s razor (which I learned about in the movie “Contact” with Jodie Foster! Very cool movie!) basically forbids our bringing the possibility into our theology in any meaningful way. I don’t know if I have the intellectual equipment to address this, but I’d suggest that if Eden was probationary for ALL mankind (i.e., in that THEIR Fall involved US, which Doc certainly would argue for, I think), then shouldn’t it follow that their having chosen rightly would have predisposed us to righteousness in precisely the same way their having blown it predisposed us to sin? That is, the probability for sin entering the race was greatest with Adam and Eve (for whom choosing rightly was certainly far more than a theoretical possibility) and it would have dramatically decreased had they not blown it. If their loss was our loss, then their victory would have been ours as well. What would this have meant practically for subsequent generations? Who knows? But if you want to argue that every individual throughout history has his own individual “probation,” (which seems to be assumed in your arguing that “somebody would eventually sin”), then I wonder if you’re not the one who’s courting Pelagius. 
4) Modes: “I would venture to say, that the "risk" God took was one on a continuum, HOW MUCH would the creation deviate? How bad would it really get? THIS best explains the texts in my mind.” I can’t rule out that possibility, however theoretical it might be!
5) Gotta comment on this one: “Let me throw one more thought your way. #2 at the top points in this direction. Creation was not complete until GOD entered into it in the flesh! In the incarnation, God experienced creation in a whole new way, as a participant, and as the fulfilment of what we NEVER could have done on our own.” I’d agree with two tiny qualifications: 1) “…as the fulfilment of what we DIDN’T become…” (not what we COULD NOT become), and 2) Even IF was had realized God’s desires for us progressively through obedience rather than through disobedience, I’d still say this would have involved our inability to do it “ON OUR OWN.” That sort of independence was never part of the deal. God never intended the right exercise of our wills to happen apart from a conscious dependence upon him as our source of strength and victory. Other than these two TINY adjustments, I’d say we’re saying the same thing!
Modes, can I get academic credit for any of this? I feel like I’m thinking more for this forum than I did for most of my undergrad (and grad!) courses.
Adiaphora (if you read this far into the abyss of threads)-
What comes after being a “neophyte,” and what are the requirements for graduating?
I’m gonna be gone for the next four or five days. I might pop in to read, but I won’t be able to respond. Catch ya later!
Later,
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight
Edited by - TGB on 07/14/2001 05:46:55 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
adiaphora
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 123
| Posted 7/14/2001 12:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: What comes after being a “neophyte…”
adia: It’s a surprise.
Tom: …and what are the requirements for graduating?
adia: You must have 50 posts.
Have a nice trip. ~ a
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/16/2001 3:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom said:
quote:
2) You and I seem to disagree over what all is involved in a) above, that is, over just WHAT God was providing man in the garden. Let me say first that I totally agree with you that there was an “incompleteness” (I would call it “potential”) in the God-world relationship prior to the Fall. Whatever the pre-Fall conditions were like, the absence of sin in the God-man relationship did not mean God did not have more planned for man, that the relationship had nowhere to go, no room for growth, no novelty to experience, no new vistas for the relationship. I think we agree on this.
But we disagree over whether or not the ONLY place the relationship could possibly have gone was DOWN, over whether or not God could have achieved this MORE he had planned for us apart from sin and evil. I think he COULD have. I return to the analogy of a healthy growing marriage relationship. Marriage is not everything it can and should be on wedding day (in this sense it is “incomplete”), but what it CAN be is certainly achievable apart from adultery and unfaithfulness. So I do see an incompleteness (I prefer “potential” which implies there’s more to become) about the pre-Fall state, but I don’t see that SIN is necessary to completing what’s lacking or, rather, to realizing the creative potential of creation. Hence, I can agree with you that “Heaven is not a return to a pre-fall state” and that “The logic of the risk God took in creating a world which could respond in love, but also could refrain, lends straightaway to the necessity of an incomplete creation,” but I think what you mean is the risk lends straightaway to the necessity of a SINFUL creation.
God stuff Tom, I can see that I will have to get more specific about several things:
Your marriage analogy fails for several reasons: I. human marriages are between two EQUAL partners, this is clearly not the case with the God-person relation. This is very important. II. Sin as disobedience is important, as you indicate, but even barring the occurance of sin as disobedience, we still have the problem of the infinite difference between a human and God. God's holiness, or set apartness (qedesh, i believe?) is another dimension of the problem that ONLY God can overcome. Herein lies the necessity of the incarnation, for its own sake (or dare I say, for God’s?). III. Have you ever noticed that there are MANY theories of the atonement? Part of the reason is that there are an infinite number of ways to distinguish us from God! Some have to do with us, others have to do with God, some it seems we should be able to do something about, others, well, only God can overcome. Now, let's go back to the "sin" problem, we know that the law is what reveals our sinfulness to us. But we are seperated from God even without the law. But the law is not sin, it only reveals what is true about us. We are incomplete, and we are in need of completion. We participate in our own completion, and God participates in a qualitatively new way in Christ, moving beyond the Law method of recognizing sin, to the true possibility of entering INTO Christ (thereby the community of God) first hand. The entire history of humanity represents the true probational period. Who will resist the call of God to such a degree that they destroy themselves? Who will yield to the power of the Spirit? Even if, not perfectly, at least in trusting faith in the mercy of God?
Love between non-equals requires either that the lower be raised or the higher be brought low. God became what we are (cursed-Gal. 3:13, sin-2 cor. 5:21, finite-Phil. 2:1-11), so that we could become what God is, holy pure and righteous, in Christ. The law (the command in the garden or whathaveyou) made us aware of our incompatibility with God, but did not create that incompatibility. (Romans 5-7 is in the background here) More below...
quote:
3) Let’s talk about “probation.” Specifically, was Eden probationary for ALL mankind (through our representatives, Adam and Eve)? Or was Eden only probationary for them as individuals? You assume that the possibility that nobody would ever sin is merely a theoretical possibility and that Ockham’s razor (which I learned about in the movie “Contact” with Jodie Foster! Very cool movie!) basically forbids our bringing the possibility into our theology in any meaningful way. I don’t know if I have the intellectual equipment to address this, but I’d suggest that if Eden was probationary for ALL mankind (i.e., in that THEIR Fall involved US, which Doc certainly would argue for, I think), then shouldn’t it follow that their having chosen rightly would have predisposed us to righteousness in precisely the same way their having blown it predisposed us to sin? That is, the probability for sin entering the race was greatest with Adam and Eve (for whom choosing rightly was certainly far more than a theoretical possibility) and it would have dramatically decreased had they not blown it. If their loss was our loss, then their victory would have been ours as well. What would this have meant practically for subsequent generations? Who knows? But if you want to argue that every individual throughout history has his own individual “probation,” (which seems to be assumed in your arguing that “somebody would eventually sin”), then I wonder if you’re not the one who’s courting Pelagius.
No, Eden is not the period of probation, actually, creation itself is probationary for eternity. As I mentioned above, we have more to deal with than simply our sin having been revealed to us through the law. We have the problem of incommensurability between God and the human individual. The most Absolute of all and the most relative of all. Both God and the individual change in the process of reconciliation (think here of what it takes to make an individual human being to become commensurable with the God of the universe.), but it can only happen by God's initiative, we simply don't have the resources, but we can reject the proposal.
quote:
5) Gotta comment on this one: “Let me throw one more thought your way. #2 at the top points in this direction. Creation was not complete until GOD entered into it in the flesh! In the incarnation, God experienced creation in a whole new way, as a participant, and as the fulfilment of what we NEVER could have done on our own.” I’d agree with two tiny qualifications: 1) “…as the fulfilment of what we DIDN’T become…” (not what we COULD NOT become), and 2) Even IF was had realized God’s desires for us progressively through obedience rather than through disobedience, I’d still say this would have involved our inability to do it “ON OUR OWN.” That sort of independence was never part of the deal. God never intended the right exercise of our wills to happen apart from a conscious dependence upon him as our source of strength and victory. Other than these two TINY adjustments, I’d say we’re saying the same thing!
NOW you have it clearly in sight! The issue, as I have argued above, is that there is plenty that we COULD NOT ever accomplish, not simply on our own, but even with God's help, we must have mercy, God must come in the flesh to overcome issues of seperation that are beyond our comprehension. Issues which require MULTIPLE theories of atonement to account for the effects of God's incarnation, death, and resurrection. Even if we were "good people" who obeyed God, we would not be commensurable with the God of the universe! We become that only as we are identified with Christ. We become one with Christ as a husband and wife become one, and this makes us commensurable with God, because Christ is so commensurable. Again, Christ's cry on the cross, that "it is finished" is taken to mean, that FINALLY the bridge has been built across the gap between God and creation in all the various ways that is imaged by atonement theories. Some which have to do with our sinfulness, and others which have to do with God's distance from creation by virtue of God's infinitude and holy otherness. Sin should be envisioned as BOTH active disobedience (moral issue-disobedience) AND and indication of our radical distance from God ontologically (cosmological issue-finitude) and probably a number of other ways as well (sociological issue-violence, etc.).
BTW: this jives with doc’s idea that there was a “fall” even before our “fall” in the “heavenly realms,” but doc and I might work out some of the specifics differently from there. Either way, it relativizes the “novelty” of sin in the Garden.
quote:
Modes, can I get academic credit for any of this? I feel like I’m thinking more for this forum than I did for most of my undergrad (and grad!) courses.
Hmm, you've got the makings here for several different paper topics! If you go to other threads you could never have to think of a topic for a Sem. paper again! That's something, I guess.
There is sooo much more to say about all this with regard to the human individual’s self understanding and self relation as well as their (the individual’s ) relation to God. Anyway, another time perhaps!
One more thing, you suggest that in my view the only way for the God-world relation to go is down. Actually, in my view, it could only go up from where it was. One of the ways it went up was by becoming conscious of itself as separate from and then disobedient to God. This is an improvement from being ignorant of its state of incompletion (why else is the tree called that of the knowledge of good and evil? Ingorance of the reality of evil must be overcome, the serpent is there waiting right?). Even before all that, in the story, Adam is created “purposefully incomplete” he needed Eve. In fact, at that point it was already admitted that “it is not good that the man should be alone”!!! See here “not good” and incompletion associated together? There are some incompletions (“not goodnesses”) that we cannot avoid, like Adam’s problem, and Christ is the second Adam…now I’m getting ahead of myself…
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/17/2001 4:17 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes-
There’s TOO much being discussed here for me to follow! I’ll try to respond as best I can. I guess graduating to the level of abecedarian hasn’t done anything for me mentally.
Hey, Chance, where in the friggin blankity-blank are ya, dude? Has all Israel followed Modes and left me the only one who has not bowed the knee to Baal?  I think I’m out of ammunition, but I’ll try to summarize my thoughts in response to a couple of your key paragraphs, Modes.
quote:
Love between non-equals requires either that the lower be raised or the higher be brought low. God became what we are (cursed-Gal. 3:13, sin-2 cor. 5:21, finite-Phil. 2:1-11), so that we could become what God is, holy pure and righteous, in Christ. The law (the command in the garden or what have you) made us aware of our incompatibility with God, but did not create that incompatibility. (Romans 5-7 is in the background here) More below...
You’re arguing on the basis of Paul’s treatment of things as they in fact are that things had to be this way; that since we alienated ourselves from God and have in Christ now become compatible partners for God, our “sinning and being redeemed” was the only avenue God had at his disposal for getting pre-Fall humans from where they were (“good” and “complete,” as Scripture clearly describes them, but less than totally “compatible” [your word] for the kind of relationship God desired) to where he wanted them to be (in Christ compatible for God). I’m not sure this “since-it-happened-this-way-it-had-to-happen-this-way” reasoning is in itself valid. I don’t see anything in the way things turned out out to suggest mankind could not have traversed a path of obedience and humble dependence upon God that would have led to our “becoming” to be “in Christ.”
quote:
Both God and the individual change in the process of reconciliation (think here of what it takes to make an individual human being to become commensurable with the God of the universe.), but it can only happen by God's initiative, we simply don't have the resources, but we can reject the proposal.
Right. I still don’t see how our pre-Fall incommensurability had to fall lower still through sin before it could be made commensurable. I guess there’s a veil over my eyes!
quote:
NOW you have it clearly in sight! The issue, as I have argued above, is that there is plenty that we COULD NOT ever accomplish, not simply on our own, but even with God's help, we must have mercy, God must come in the flesh to overcome issues of separation that are beyond our comprehension.
Yes! But why is it this could not have been the case in the event we had not fallen?
quote:
Issues which require MULTIPLE theories of atonement to account for the effects of God's incarnation, death, and resurrection…
Some of these issues follow from the established fact that we DID sin and rebel.
quote:
Even if we were "good people" who obeyed God, we would not be commensurable with the God of the universe!
Right.
quote:
We become that only as we are identified with Christ.
With “God incarnate,” right.
quote:
We become one with Christ as a husband and wife become one, and this makes us commensurable with God, because Christ is so commensurable.
Right!
quote:
Again, Christ's cry on the cross, that "it is finished" is taken to mean, that FINALLY the bridge has been built across the gap between God and creation in all the various ways that is imaged by atonement theories. Some which have to do with our sinfulness, and others which have to do with God's distance from creation by virtue of God's infinitude and holy otherness.
Now you’re back to assuming that the way it happened is the only way it could have happened. I totally agree that “our sinfulness” required the cross, that once fallen the only avenue open to God to achieve his creation-goals for us was the cross. But it doesn’t follow from this that the only avenue God had open to him for bridging the “others [ways] which have to do with God’s distance from creation by virtue of God’s infinitude” was the cross.
quote:
Sin should be envisioned as BOTH active disobedience (moral issue-disobedience) AND indication of our radical distance from God ontologically (cosmological issue-finitude)…
I’m with you regarding sin as a moral issue, but not with viewing our ontological finitude as “sinful.” This appears nowhere in Scripture and it looks distinctively gnostic to me (i.e., the world is “inherently” evil/sinful). It also seems to me to attribute “sin” directly to the creative act of God. What you’re doing, Modes, is going back to the creation narrative and instead of replacing “good” in “And God saw that it was good” with “incomplete” (i.e., “that which may become more than it is,” which I totally agree with), you’re now replacing it with “sinful.” “And God saw that it was sinful”?
quote:
One more thing, you suggest that in my view the only way for the God-world relation to go is down. Actually, in my view, it could only go up from where it was. One of the ways it went up was by becoming conscious of itself as separate from and then disobedient to God. This is an improvement from being ignorant of its state of incompletion (why else is the tree called that of the knowledge of good and evil? Ignorance of the reality of evil must be overcome…
Now we’re farther away. Adam’s wilful disobedience was an “improvement” in his relationship with God? A “step up”? Because it brought him “knowledge of evil”? We should rejoice that this lack of knowledge was overcome? Man could not have understood his otherness via humble submission to God? He could not have grasped his finitude and need to consciously depend upon God through looking TO God in loving trust and faith? This could only have been realized through looking AWAY from God in wilful mistrust and unbelief?
Like I said. I’m outta ammunition. Chance? Revivaltime? Dr. Sanders? Jesus? Anybody?
From a cleft in the rock
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight
Edited by - TGB on 07/17/2001 09:26:46 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
pneumatika
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2
| Posted 7/17/2001 7:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes,
Dictionary of theological terms: actually in a way, yes.
Thanks for defining "apophatic."
-- that Pneumatika guy | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/17/2001 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom, it seems you are misunderstanding me at a couple of points, I will try to be more focused and clear:
1. My point about love between non-equals is not dependant upon the occurrance of sin to be true. We are not God, even if we were not sinners. There is a problem here that the incarnation resolves INDEPENDENT of the question of moral obedience! (Don't forget, as an aside, and having to do with this seperation is the concept of "qedesh" which is NOT originally a moral category! But one of radical difference, seperateness, set apartness, if you will).
2. Clearly God is the one who must resolve this sort of problem, and God elected to do so WITH our participation. Were IN on the process. We can cooporate, or not, but the work WILL GO ON! With or without us, as individuals.
3. It was NOT GOOD for Adam to be alone, this shows the problem of unrelatedness from the get go. This is "pre-fall" and THAT matters. The creation [adam is the active image here in the story] participates in the future of the project by God's design and also by God's design there must be a consummation for this project. a point where God enters into it to bring to completion God's desire for a "bride".
4. Sin enters, this complicates things, but does not alter the overall plan, God still will come, but we will not recieve Christ well. In fact, we kill him.
quote:
I’m not sure this “since-it-happened-this-way-it-had-to-happen-this-way” reasoning is in itself valid. I don’t see anything in the way things turned out out to suggest mankind could not have traversed a path of obedience and humble dependence upon God that would have led to our “becoming” to be “in Christ.”
I don't think that your phrasing of my logic in the first sentence above is correct. I am saying that the "sin" issue is not the only issue, and it is not simply based upon a retrospect. Your second sentence is precisely where we disagree the most.
Tom said:
quote:
I still don’t see how our pre-Fall incommensurability had to fall lower still through sin before it could be made commensurable.
This is NOT what I am saying. You've accepted incompletion in creation, you've acknowledged that we are not equal with God, yet somehow, you seem intent upon saying that WE could have achieved these realities. My point is quite simply this, the incarnation is what is needed to over come the incompletion and inequality. Try these statements on (esp. #3):
1. There is more that seperates us from God than sin, though not less.
2. The consummation of all creation is more than the overcoming of sin, but not less.
3. God's plan of creation required an incarnation for completion, our sin precipitated the Cross for redemption.
4. Holiness is an important part of this: we cannot be holy and sinful in the same way at the same time. BUT (hypothetically) simply because one is not sinful does not yet make them holy. We must be, not only morally blameless (set apart from sin/world), but ALSO set apart TO God. God set's things apart according to God's own purposes (in a technically amoral way).
quote:
Modes wrote:
NOW you have it clearly in sight! The issue, as I have argued above, is that there is plenty that we COULD NOT ever accomplish, not simply on our own, but even with God's help, we must have mercy, God must come in the flesh to overcome issues of separation that are beyond our comprehension.
Tom said: Yes! But why is it this could not have been the case in the event we had not fallen?
Because of #1-4 above.
quote:
Modes said:
Issues which require MULTIPLE theories of atonement to account for the effects of God's incarnation, death, and resurrection…
Tom said:
Some of these issues follow from the established fact that we DID sin and rebel.
Modes says: YES, AND some do not.
quote:
Modes said:
Even if we were "good people" who obeyed God, we would not be commensurable with the God of the universe!
Tom said: Right.
Modes asks: How can you agree with this at present? If you agree here, it seems you should agree that something more than simply dealing with sin is required to consumate the marriage, something like an incarnation...or do you have something else in mind?
Tom said:
quote:
I’m with you regarding sin as a moral issue, but not with viewing our ontological finitude as “sinful.” This appears nowhere in Scripture and it looks distinctively gnostic to me (i.e., the world is “inherently” evil/sinful). It also seems to me to attribute “sin” directly to the creative act of God. What you’re doing, Modes, is going back to the creation narrative and instead of replacing “good” in “And God saw that it was good” with “incomplete” (i.e., “that which may become more than it is,” which I totally agree with), you’re now replacing it with “sinful.” “And God saw that it was sinful”?
Modes says: Tom, after reviewing the above, particularly #1-4 and the other reiterations, do you still feel this way? Even if sin is simply a moral issue, do we not need something more to say about the holiness issue, which appears to be above morality?
quote:
Modes said: One more thing, you suggest that in my view the only way for the God-world relation to go is down. Actually, in my view, it could only go up from where it was. One of the ways it went up was by becoming conscious of itself as separate from and then disobedient to God. This is an improvement from being ignorant of its state of incompletion (why else is the tree called that of the knowledge of good and evil? Ignorance of the reality of evil must be overcome…
Tom responded: Now we’re farther away. Adam’s wilful disobedience was an “improvement” in his relationship with God? A “step up”? Because it brought him “knowledge of evil”? We should rejoice that this lack of knowledge was overcome? Man could not have understood his otherness via humble submission to God? He could not have grasped his finitude and need to consciously depend upon God through looking TO God in loving trust and faith? This could only have been realized through looking AWAY from God in wilful mistrust and unbelief?
Modes offers:
Note the order of my words, we become conscious of our seperateness from God, this is a step in the right direction...and THEN we become disobedient. Even in the "and THEN" didn't happen, we'd still have the seperation, God is holy and wholly other.
BTW: Standard Lutheran theology talks about an "upward fall", so I'm not exactly pulling all this out of my own hat.
Is this any more clear? Thanks for putting up with the repetition. I think we are getting closer to some sort of mutual understanding...stick with me for just a bit more okay?
Your bro Modes.
Meph, I am curious, what do you make of this mess? Any thoughts? Does my marble bag have a hole in it?
Edited by - ModesofThought on 07/17/2001 1:41:48 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/17/2001 9:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes-
How do you do that? Answer so quickly! My ability to stump people is fading quickly!
I'll get back asap. Just got home and Anita is not feeling so good. Gotta make her some tea! Love between equalls, ahh, 'tis wonderful!
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/17/2001 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | That's right brother, keep the priorities straight! I will be very patient.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/17/2001 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | | How many times have I edited this sucker? Let’s try one last time…
Modes-
You’re not making it easy for me to stay away from this forum! I made the wife tea, put her to bed, and now it’s 2 AM. So  !
I think I get your basic point, but let’s keep trying to fine-tune things. I apologize for the length of this one. I’m gonna rest a few days now!
Modes: 1. My point about love between non-equals is not dependant upon the occurrence of sin to be true. We are not God, even if we were not sinners. There is a problem here that the incarnation resolves INDEPENDENT of the question of moral obedience!
Tom: There’s something in this I agree with and something I disagree with. I agree that independent of the question of moral obedience there’s still an “incompleteness” (to use your word) that needs to be addressed. And I’m pretty sure the incarnation addressed this. But I disagree that this incompleteness was, as you call it, a “problem” that needed fixing. God created us finite, contingent beings. Apparently he thought this was “good” (“tobh”) and “complete” (“tamim”). I’ve agreed to call this finiteness an “incompleteness,” as you would have it, but I much prefer to find a word that doesn’t have such negative overtones (i.e., “incompleteness” now becomes a “problem”). I prefer to say that God created us incomplete in the sense that we were endowed with “potential,” potential to “become” all God had envisioned for us.
So, yes, we were created “incomplete,” but this is a “good” (“tobh”) thing, not a “problem” that needs to be fixed, for this is what makes the freely chosen loving relationship God envisioned for us possible. Where you and I differ I think is that I believe God intended and expected Adam and Eve to choose rightly; such choosing was a possibility which they COULD have actualised without surprising God and messing his plan up. Given God’s provision, the goodness of his creation, his manifest presence, and the absence of sin, I think trusting, obeying, and depending on God was not only possible, but both probable and the logical thing to expect. In the Fall, the “IMprobable” and “IRrational” happen.
Modes: 2. Clearly God is the one who must resolve this sort of problem, and God elected to do so WITH our participation. Were IN on the process. We can cooporate, or not, but the work WILL GO ON! With or without us, as individuals.
Tom: If what God intended the God-Man relationship to be necessitated finitude, contingency, and free will in man, it doesn’t follow that this is a “problem” which God “fixes” by inviting man to cooperate in the process. The cooperation which is obedient dependence upon God is a “good” thing that takes what God called a “good” creation (Man) toward its intended purpose in Christ.
Modes: 3. It was NOT GOOD for Adam to be alone, this shows the problem of unrelatedness from the get go. This is "pre-fall" and THAT matters. The creation [adam is the active image here in the story] participates in the future of the project by God's design and also by God's design there must be a consummation for this project. a point where God enters into it to bring to completion God's desire for a "bride".
Tom: As a happily married man, I totally agree with ya here. It was not good for man to be alone. I’d like time to work through the implications of this. The fact that the creation of man is told TWICE, once without the “not good” comment, is curious. Didn’t God know it wouldn’t be good for Adam to be alone? I wonder. Is it possible that Adam was a self-procreating being and that God, with Adam, learns that this arrangement will not work out? Am I too far left of center? Should I buy that pipe and start smoking it now? Either way, we can’t interpret the “not good” of Adam’s singleness to mean the “not good” of everything that’s preceded, which is still part of what I hear you saying.
Modes: 4. Sin enters, this complicates things, but does not alter the overall plan, God still will come, but we will not recieve Christ well. In fact, we kill him.
Tom: I’ve heard you saying from the start that sin was part of the overall plan, that there never existed a plan apart from sin. Now there’s a plan which sin “interrupts”?
Modes: You've accepted incompletion in creation, you've acknowledged that we are not equal with God, yet somehow, you seem intent upon saying that WE could have achieved these realities. My point is quite simply this, the incarnation is what is needed to overcome the incompletion and inequality.
Tom: I’ve tried to avoid suggesting that WE could have achieved “on our own” what God intended the God-Man relationship to be. I’ve only tried to suggest that we could have achieved these realities through dependence upon God (i.e., through submitting to him, trusting him, believing his promise, and obeying him). You seem to assume that the only people capable of depending upon God are sinners! All I’m suggesting is that Adam and Eve COULD HAVE done what God told them to do not without him, but WITH him, and that their doing so would not have been an act of prideful, self-willed independence, but one of humble, trust-filled, submission and love to God. I believe this WAS possible, that’s all.
Modes: Try these statements on (esp. #3): 1. There is more that separates us from God than sin, though not less. 2. The consummation of all creation is more than the overcoming of sin, but not less. 3. God's plan of creation required an incarnation for completion, our sin precipitated the Cross for redemption. 4. Holiness is an important part of this: we cannot be holy and sinful in the same way at the same time.
Tom: 1 and 2 assume the FACT of the fall and consequent sin of man, in which case I agree with them. But re: 1, I’d like to move away from describing our finiteness and contingency as constituting a “problem” that “separates” us from God to describing them in biblical terms as “tobh” (good) and “tamim” (complete), which I believe more accurately depict the “potential” which God endowed us with as a “gift” that SHOULD have and COULD have been celebrated by our first parents through obedient submission to their vocation as vice-regents over creation. I agree that the incarnation would have remained the consummating event which our trust and faith would have anticipated (for those who predated Christ) and celebrated (for those who followed him) via trust in the grace and goodness of God. But since things didn’t work out this way, we’re both speculating, right?
Point 2 assumes the Fall and sin. I’d agree, given the fact that man is lost in sin, the consummation of all creations must necessarily include overcoming this sinfulness. I would not say that creation COULD NOT have been what he wanted it to be without sin.
Point 3 seems fine by me as long as part A (that God intended to bring creation to its consummation in Christ) and part B (that our sin precipitated the cross for redemption) are kept separate and are not blended into “God’s plan of creation required (which I understand to mean his purpose for creation) a fallen humanity he could redeem through incarnation.”
Point 4 may need some discussing. I agree with it in principle, except it would be a gross misunderstanding of the creation narrative to say God did NOT set humankind apart for special purposes. The amoral setting-aside of humankind you speak of IS there in the creation. God doesn’t wait until Christ comes along to consecrate mankind for a special relationship and vocation. Sin takes man OUT of relationship and OFF course in terms of his vocation. God is committed to turning this around, and in THIS sense the fall may be viewed as a “fall upward.” Perhaps this may be our most fundamental difference, Modes: I would say God achieves his purposes for creation and man IN SPITE OF sin (i.e., he never needed it to get what he wanted), whereas you seem to be saying God achieves his purposes for creation and man IN CONCERT WITH sin (i.e., sin was somehow required for God to get what he wanted). If I’m still missing you on this crucial point, Modes, then help me out.
Modes said: Even if we were "good people" who obeyed God, we would not be commensurable with the God of the universe!
Tom replied: Right.
Modes replied: How can you agree with this at present? If you agree here, it seems you should agree that something more than simply dealing with sin is required to consummate the marriage, something like an incarnation...or do you have something else in mind?
Tom: Bad wording on my part. I agree that had we followed the path of obedience and love, creation and mankind would still have found their consummation in God-incarnate, but the incarnation would not have been a “rescue” mission to redeem man from sin. All that man’s love and trust and faith in God would then have anticipated would have found its consummation in Christ.
Modes: Tom, after reviewing the above, particularly #1-4 and the other reiterations, do you still feel this way? Even if sin is simply a moral issue, do we not need something more to say about the holiness issue, which appears to be above morality?
Tom: Back to God’s holiness again. In one sense, if you want man holy in an amoral-technical sense, to “set him apart” for a special relationship and vocation, then you don’t need to wait for Christ. What else does Gen. 1-3 say about man if not that God makes him special, relates to him uniquely, endows him supremely, and employs him responsibly? That’s above morality, set apart, consecrated “holiness.” But you mean more. You want the finiteness of man “resolved.” It’s a “problem” that has to be “fixed.” In the end, Modes, I guess I don’t see it. I celebrate human finiteness and agree with God that was “tobh,” the “potential to become.” We may need to reconsider your claim that God can’t relate to, love, and enjoy finite creatures who freely choose to love him and still have more planned for them which the incarnation accomplishes without requiring that man sin and so doing only THEN become something God can perfect. Maybe you ought to explain again why God cannot choose to do such a thing. I’m inclined to believe God could have perfected us either way--as untainted by sin but needing (as contingent, finite creatures) to trust and believe, or as fallen rebellious creatures needing to trust and believe.
Modes: Note the order of my words, we become conscious of our separateness from God, this is a step in the right direction...and THEN we become disobedient. Even in the "and THEN" didn't happen, we'd still have the separation, God is holy and wholly other.
Tom: Yes, we’d still have our finiteness and contingency, which God created and calls ”tobh” and “tamim.” I can’t get away from the Bible’s own description of this finiteness! We may have started out less than what God intended for us to become, but I don’t see that becoming whatever more he had planned for us required our first sinning so we could then become “eligible to become what he intended us to be.” Our finiteness is not bad, sinful, or a problem that needs to be fixed. It’s simply what it means to be human, possessing the potential to become what God intended. Potentiality is not sinful or problematic in itself. It involves the inevitability of actualizing one of however many possibilities exist. You argue that there was for all intents and purposes only one possibility out potentiality could in fact actualize, that of sin. So, God gave Adam a command he knew was “for all intents and purposes” impossible (Ockham’s razor) to keep; it was only “theoretically” possible. Let me ask you a question: Are we more or less like God for asking our children to perform what WE know is about as possible as a tennis ball passing undisturbed through the strings of my racket (which I understand IS a physical possibility, however slight) and then holding them fully accountable for not doing the impossible?
Modes, my brain is absolute mush. I need to hook it to some jumper cables to recharge it.
With Modes, I’d appreciate others jumping in to analyze things.
Love in Christ,
Tom
Edited by - TGB on 07/17/2001 7:11:37 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 7/17/2001 3:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph Speaks Up
Ok, y'all. Here's some of my input.
This is the way that I see Modes using the thought of "completeness" and "incompleteness", with reference to human beings. I am probably wrong on this, but here goes...
Completeness: Unity with God
Incompleteness: Identification with God
Moral Implication of Completeness: Being able to have complete, genuine moral freedom while, at the same time, having the genuine ABILITY (not just capacity) of resisting ALL God-denying choices and motivations.
Moral Implication of Incompleteness: Being able to have complete, genuine moral freedom while such that one has the capacity (though not the ABILITY) of resisting ALL God-denying choices and motivations. This entails that, given enough time and moral agents, "sin" WILL emerge.
Defining the terms this way is the best way I make sense of what Modes is saying. "Completeness" is ONLY possible by partaking of the divine nature. Therefore, any NON-divine beings not partaking of the divine nature are "incomplete", and have to deal with the implications of that. God's overall plan includes incomplete humanity becomes complete. Notice that God chose HUMANITY to do this with. Not angels. Angels don't have the Imago Dei, right?
Keep all this in mind...now...
Tom, you have to ask this question:
Is being morally JUSTIFIED before God the same thing as being ONE and unified with God?
This is what I think is the crux of the issue. Modes and I would say NO. If Adam and Eve had remained completely WITHOUT sin...and even all of their descendents, their STILL would have been a fundamental separation between us and God, though not necessarily morally. Meaning that even if Adam and Eve were to have remained morally pure all their lives, they would still merely be in close identification with God, not in true UNION with God. With the Incarnation, something new happened. Deity and humanity were unified in a novel way in Jesus Christ. Not only that, but through Christ, humans are able to partake of the divine nature...which is something we could have NEVER done, even had we remained morally perfect from the Adamic couple. Through the ramifications of the Incarnation, an unbridgeable gap between the Holy (Wholly OTHER) God and incomplete human beings has been miraculously BRIDGED! Do you see what we're getting at? We have to think deeper than just a "relationship" when we think about reconcilation between God and man. Because of Jesus, we aren't just "friends" with God again. We are now actually PARTAKERS of the divine life through Christ, something that beats what Adam had by leaps and bounds.
**************************************
Now, here's a problem that I think maybe Tom sees. Tom is wondering (rightly) if we can TRULY say that the "sin/redemption" thing is the ONLY way that "completeness" could have taken place. Wasn't there other ways? Why didn't God just INCARNATE himself at first? He could have made human beings "partakers" from the jump where none of the sin and all that would have emerged. Or he could have even incarnated himself IN LIEU of the "tree of good and evil" Remember, no law, no SIN, as Paul indicates. (in the formal since) It seems feasible that God could have incarnated Himself (thus satifying his main intent) WITHOUT making the way for "sin" and death to have emerged.
Now, this is where my thought comes in. You'd be pretty hard pressed to think of a reason other than "God just wanted to" with respect to all this. 'Cause basically what we are saying is that God created incomplete beings...AND ALLOWED THEM TO SEE THE DEPTH OF THEIR INCOMPLETENESS via "sin"...before attempting the great reconciliation via the Incarnation. How did he do this? He set an explicit LAW and waited for the inevitable to occur. But why did God want them to see their incompleteness via SIN in the first place? I would say because God simply wanted to display His graciousness, liberating, healing power and wanted human beings to experience these things in a MEANINGFUL context. This was something God just wanted to do for His glory. I think this is more explanatory than solely the "love requiring freedom" thing. Why? Because we must remember that freely loving God, as I see it, did not mandate being in a state of sin. Humans could have freely loved God while being in a state of moral goodness, the genuine freedom to love cannot be the sole focus.
What I see as Tom's frustration is that he may see some of the above issues. He may realize that there was really no good reason other than God's own CHOICE to let sin and death emerge. Moreover, he probably realizes that, if what we are advocating is true, God TRULY DID WANT sin to arise just so that humans could recognize their incompleteness and need for God. Sin was a FACILITATOR of God's plan, not a frustration per se. It is not the case that sin and death HAD to precede reconciliation through Incarnation. And this would seem to form a moral quandary. Why would God (however we are understanding that), who conceivably has SOME indication of how heinous the effects of sin COULD be via His infinite intelligence and omniscience, truly 1) let sin emerge in the first place when He didn't have to and 2) wait SO LONG to incarnate Himself when he could have done this very thing in about the 2nd generation of mankind, if not the first?
Well, you already know my answer to all these questions.
I'm done. Like I said, I'm probably wrong. But sue me. Heh.
PS: Just thought of something else. Think of the position on the subjegation of the world to demonic influence and humanity supposedly being God's viceroy to assert God's rule against evil forces. One could really wonder why, if this was truly the case, that God didn't incarnate Himself in two human beings from the jump. His victory would have been MUCH more assured. This is something to think about.
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love.
Edited by - Mephi2K on 07/17/2001 9:09:50 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/17/2001 4:32 PM (GMT -6) | | Warning!!! I have not read Mephi's contribution, so this may all be irrelvant by now, but will post it anyway because I am stubborn.
Summary time (This means any of you who have been waiting for a natural place to jump in should do so HERE! Thanks Meph!! now the rest of ya'll jump in too!):
I get the impression that if I stopped using the pejoritive language, like "problem", to describe the pre-fall state of affairs Tom’d be nearly satisfied. I hesitate to do that because the "situation" is indeed a "problem" in terms of the final goal of the consummation of God to his Bride, the Church. Not a problem in the sense that God is puzzled, simply a state of affairs which requires further initiate on God’s part to resolve into the final goal. Of course, it also requires further contribution on our part as well, but it is both/and, not either/or. Both God must become incarnate, and humanity must respond to God, both as Creator, and as, let’s say, "Completor" (with reference to the incarnation). Now, having said all that, we also respond (these are not separate instances of responding to God, but are aspects/angles of God’s activity in Creation/Salvation history) to Christ as Redeemer/Victor/Final Sacrifice/etc. according to the various atonement images. So now God is Creator, Completor, and Redeemer/etc. If we are agreed at this point, then we have really done something.
Tom, I agree that this creation, even our finitude and so forth, is good, but we have also confessed that it is not complete, in that sense, it is "good enough", but not perfect. I think I asked for this before, but please show me why you think creation was considered complete ("tamim"), I am no Hebrew scholar so please give me a reference. But perhaps we can leave that behind because we have agreed that there is much unrealized potential, lots of room to "become" as you have said, in creation. So I can say with you, that our incompleteness is a good one, that it serves God’s purposes and creates possibilities for creation. Don’t go ape on me man, but can you see that we will still have to say that its’ being good enough is temporally relative? Its not "good enough" the second instant it existed if it didn’t behave perfectly the first instant, and so forth. The "good enough" status continually moves UP in demand upon creation. If Openness is about anything, it is surely about time.
Tom suggested:
quote:
Given God’s provision, the goodness of his creation, his manifest presence, and the absence of sin, I think trusting, obeying, and depending on God was not only possible, but both probable and the logical thing to expect. In the Fall, the "IMprobable" and "IRrational" happen.
Modes objects:
Remember the increasing encrouchment of perfection upon our hero and heroin (er, heroine)? Add to this the FACT of Chaos present in the BEGINNING (Gen. 1:2 is clearly an acknowledgement of God’s carving order OUT of Chaos), add to that the presence of the Serpent in the garden… this is not an omnibenevolent context that seems to emerge… But even if it were, we have agreed that God has more work to do. There is more that seperates creation from God than sin alone. Insofar as that seperation prevents consummation of the God-Bride marriage, it is a "problem".
quote:
Tom: If what God intended the God-Man relationship to be necessitated finitude, contingency, and free will in man, it doesn’t follow that this is a "problem" which God "fixes" by inviting man to cooperate in the process. The cooperation which is obedient dependence upon God is a "good" thing that takes what God called a "good" creation (Man) toward its intended purpose in Christ.
Modes:
Two things: God does not fix the problem BY inviting humanity into the process as an active agent. God "fixes" the problem by becoming incarnate. Given your take on this, what is the purpose of Christ’s incarnation OTHER than to solve the "sin" problem? It seems you want to assert that the incarnation what forordained, but perhaps not the cross, but you don’t want to use my logic… what is yours? I almost suspect we are beginning to agree here…almost.
quote:
Modes: 3. It was NOT GOOD for Adam to be alone, this shows the problem of unrelatedness from the get go. This is "pre-fall" and THAT matters. The creation [adam is the active image here in the story] participates in the future of the project by God's design and also by God's design there must be a consummation for this project. a point where God enters into it to bring to completion God's desire for a "bride".
Tom: As a happily married man, I totally agree with ya here. It was not good for man to be alone. I’d like time to work through the implications of this. The fact that the creation of man is told TWICE, once without the "not good" comment, is curious. Didn’t God know it wouldn’t be good for Adam to be alone? I wonder. Is it possible that Adam was a self-procreating being and that God, with Adam, learns that this arrangement will not work out? Am I too far left of center? Should I buy that pipe and start smoking it now? Either way, we can’t interpret the "not good" of Adam’s singleness to mean the "not good" of everything that’s preceded, which is still part of what I hear you saying.
Dude, I don’t take Adam to be a literal reference to a single human male God initially created. As you know, adam, is a generic reference for an "earthling" of sorts. I am an Theistic Evolutionist, so I’ll not speculate about adam being self-creating and so forth…the meaning is not found it that sort of speculation. I’d still say the pipe is an option, and do send me a nice cigar and email me when you light up. IGNORE the rest of this paragraph and get this point "I am not saying that creation was NOT GOOD."
quote:
Modes: 4. Sin enters, this complicates things, but does not alter the overall plan, God still will come, but we will not recieve Christ well. In fact, we kill him.
Tom: I’ve heard you saying from the start that sin was part of the overall plan, that there never existed a plan apart from sin. Now there’s a plan which sin "interrupts"?
Modes:
If you been hearing me say that sin was the plan, then I have been communicating ineffectively. Sorry. YES, there is a plan which sin interrupts, and which endures inspite of sin, by the grace of God. That original plan includes the incarnation of God into the world.
quote:
Tom: Bad wording on my part. I agree that had we followed the path of obedience and love, creation and mankind would still have found their consummation in God-incarnate, but the incarnation would not have been a "rescue" mission to redeem man from sin. All that man’s love and trust and faith in God would then have anticipated would have found its consummation in Christ.
Tom, this is what gives me the hope that we are not so far apart. You still acknowledge the need for the incarnation, regardless of the occurrence of sin! That has been my point all along. One of my self-conscious goals was to persuade you that the incarnation was necessary; not contingient upon our sinning and then God had to move ahead with plan B. We agree here, this is good.
The further question is: did Christ choose the cross? Remember that one? Now, we have Christ "planned in," so to speak, for the incarnational appearance, did he choose the cross? or was that part of the script? Here, I am not so confident.
NOTE: What follows is a different issue from the ones above!!
Tom, we do clearly differ about the way in which we understand the probability of sin emerging. You say the glass was half full and our original parents knocked it over. I say it was half empty and it may as well have evaporated, ‘cause somebody would knock it over sooner or later. If they didn’t, they aren’t becoming a self as defined over and against others. This is only the first step beyond complete dependence, recognizing and actualizing independence, from there a self needs to learn interdependence and agape love. These are stages however, and one does not swim without swallowing some water. Ideality is always tested and tempered by actuality.
Part of the reason for my thinking has to do with stages I believe a person goes through in spiritual maturity. conflict is a part of the gig, and that is a matter of reality, not simply sin. A boulder hard enough to stand on also will crush you if it accidentally rolls over you. We have to USE our free will in order to master it and ultimately crucify it. Submit it to a Lord.
None of the above even posits a HOSTILE environment, as we see hints of in Genesis, it only assumes an ACTUAL one where the REALITY of a thing can have a variety of effects, some positive and others negative. My case is much stronger if the lingering evil in Gen. is acknowledged as per doc’s "God@War". Yes, God’s work in creation is good, even very good, this is to counter the ANE’ern assumption that matter is evil, but it is also the case that chaos lurks in the shadows, there is opposition to God’s intentions already in the garden! (Hence, a problem.)
Edited by - ModesofThought on 07/17/2001 9:33:33 PM
Edited by - ModesofThought on 07/17/2001 9:34:42 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/17/2001 4:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Meph! You got my points very close to right, I have only a few differences (off the top of my head):
1. Of course, my preferred terminology is different than yours but that is not the main thing.
2. I would not say that God's decision to do it this way is so arbitrary. Rather, I would abduct the positive aspects of a "soul-making" theodicy precisely here. There are stages on the way to becoming a healthy self in relation to God, these stages required this sort of world in which to emerge. Of course, this is not the whole theodicy, but this is way to get at an explanation for the WHY of our current situation.
3. Umm, third... why can't I think of a third thing!!! Oh yeah, we are talking about third things on another thread. Nevermind.
So I lied, there is only one immediately obvious difference between us at this point.
 Oh yea, I remembered, I am not sure jive with all the "moral implications" part of what you set forth. But that's another discussion...
Thanks again for piping up, can't wait to hear what Tom has to say!
Edited by - ModesofThought on 07/17/2001 10:02:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/19/2001 2:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Modes and Mephi-
Ôhanks very much Meph for jumping in.
I’m sitting before my laptop, pipe smoldering beside me. Here’s what I’m thinking. Eh, wait a minute, let me put my new “open faced” pipe in place, jettisoned off to the conservative “right” of my face. Now I can’t think clearly…
Meph locates the crux of the issue in the answer we give to the following question: Is being morally justified before God the same thing as being one and unified with God?
Let me rephrase the question just to make sure I’ve understood it to your satisfaction. First, I’m inclined to believe “justified” assumes a previous state of guilt. And since the question imagines the moral state of humanity had sin never infected the race, let’s find a way to say it that reflects this unpolluted state. How about “morally blameless or righteous”? Secondly, seems to me that in what Meph follows with he’s arguing that being “one” or “unified” with God means to “partake of the divine nature” (2Pet. 1.4) or to be “in Christ.” I’d agree. Thus the question, as I understand it, is: Are “moral blamelessness” before God and “partaking of the divine nature” the same thing?
If I’ve understood the question rightly, I would agree with you both that the answer to this is “No.” Surprised? Don’t be. I DO affirm the pre-Fall necessity for the incarnation. But, and here is where we differ, you argue that it would have been impossible for “morally blameless” persons to come to partake of the divine nature through freely responding to God’s incarnation in Christ. You argue that mankind must first have become sinful and ruined, and in so doing actualize their personhood, SO THAT we could become “eligible” (can’t think of a better word) to receive and respond to the offer to partake in the divine nature in Christ. That is, you believe God can ONLY make the gracious offer of “sharing his nature” TO SINNERS, that the offer simply cannot be made to a morally blameless persons. I categorically reject this because, besides the fact that Scripture nowhere actually says it, I believe it implicates God in the authoring of sin just as if he had determined it in the Calvinistic sense. If you can convince me to see it otherwise I may be able to open up to it.
I on the other hand am inclined to believe that traveling the path of humble obedience and righteousness was a possibility we did face in the garden and that the incarnation was still necessary. Thus, I would answer Meph’s question “No” as well. Being morally blameless is not the same as partaking of the divine nature in Christ. But I would disagree with your claim that morally blameless persons could NOT have gotten to the later (“sharing in the divine nature through Christ”) directly from the former (“moral blamelessness”), that is, without having first to become sinful, ruined creatures.
Again, Mephi comments: Now, here's a problem that I think maybe Tom sees. Tom is wondering (rightly) if we can TRULY say that the “sin/redemption" thing is the ONLY way that "completeness" could have taken place. Wasn't [weren’t] there other ways?
Tom: Exactly, except I’m not wondering whether or not there were other “ways,” only whether or not there was another “way.” Seems to me that the provision of a “real choice” in Eden under the assumption of libertarian free will demands that this other way exist. It may not exist now, but it did then. Modes agrees it was only theoretically possible. But if the possibility was no more than equal to that of a tennis ball passing undisturbed through my racket, that is, not a possibility worth considering in view of Ockham’s razor, then again I ask, would we be more or less like God for holding others morally accountable for what was no more possible for them to avoid than it would be for a tennis ball to avoid contacting the strings of my racket when I hit it? In my view this is no different than Doc’s “Are they free who cannot do other than what they do?” thread. This sort of reasoning has been the bulwark of those who have argued libertarian free will since I’ve been on this forum, and there’s something about what Modes is arguing that calls this very free will into question. If Adam was not equally free to realize either option (especially in his circumstances), then what of libertarian free will?
One last response to something Mephi said: But why did God want them to see their incompleteness via SIN in the first place? Of course, I’m not assuming with you and Modes that the only way Adam and Eve could have “seen their incompleteness” was “via sin.” I’m inclined to believe that part of their being “morally blameless” persons would have included the humility of recognizing their finiteness, of recognizing that even right choices aren’t enough to bridge the finiteness that spans the gap between them and God, and that therefore such right choices themselves anticipate something more GOD would have to do (i.e., the incarnation).
This is interesting. We both concede that our inherent “incompleteness” or “finiteness” is itself “amoral,” but in actuality we also seem to recognize that mankind (in Adam) could not have gained the necessary understanding of this finiteness, could not have “seen” it or submitted to it, apart from morally significant choices. There’s a moral quality that attaches to accepting or refusing to accept one’s finiteness. It’s a morally praiseworthy thing to humbly recognize our finiteness and a morally blameworthy thing to ignore or refuse it (even though the finiteness itself is not a moral thing).
Here again we differ. You view man’s sinning as a “recognition of,” “understanding of” “acceptance of” this finiteness on his part. To argue this is, I think, to misunderstand sin. In my view, sin was, among other things, a stubborn REFUSAL to recognize and submit to human finiteness. To sin is, among other things, to assert ourselves independently over and against God. Even if in so doing Adam “evidenced” his finiteness, it does not follow that in so doing he “understood” and “accepted” this finiteness. The question which follows Mephi’s above is, Was “via sin” the only way Adam could have evidenced his finiteness? Is it in fact the only way any of us may evidence our finiteness? I think not. Finiteness is evidenced as much, perhaps more so, in humble submission to God, for in the end Adam does not become MORE of a person when he sins. He becomes LESS a person when he sins. Therefore I’m inclined to argue that Adam’s sin, though it evidences his finiteness in retrospect of the fact, actually constitutes a failure to recognize and accept his finiteness, his otherness, and thus a failure to truly actualize his personhood.
I’ll stop here to keep things short and will try to get to Modes’ last post later, unless Modes thinks I've already won! Besides, my pipe needs to be rekindled!
Puff Puff,
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight
Edited by - TGB on 07/19/2001 07:30:06 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
pia†desideria
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 301
| Posted 7/19/2001 3:59 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Dr. John Sanders
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 7/19/2001 7:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Dear Modes, Mephi, and Tom;
This is Dr. John Sanders. I'm on vacation and am taking a break from other responsibilities. My good friend Dr. Boyd has encouraged me to "jump in" to some of these conversations. My time is very limited for such endeavors and I've had to read this thread quickly so please be patient with me if I've failed to understand some of your points. I deeply appreciate the spirit with which you folks have been dialoging--I sense you are genuinely trying to learn from one another. Now to the issues.
In my opinion, Tom has been doing a marvelous job of representing the openness perspective. Of course, not all proponents of openness agree on every point (e.g. I'm not a gap theorist as is Dr. Boyd). In particular, Tom has done a wonderful job of articulating the answers I'd likely give. Someone accused Tom of being close to "Pelagianism." Please be careful when accusing someone of heresy. Pelagianism does not apply to what Tom said about the state of humans prior to the fall. It would only be if he said that was true of humans after the fall. As an aside, current scholarship on Pelagius is suggesting that he did not affirm the "we can do it on our own" position that the textbooks typically attribute to him.
As for the incompleteness of creation prior to the fall, a proponent of openness can accept this. It all depends upon precisely how one unpacks it. In my, "The God Who Risks," I argued that the incarnation (not the cross) was planned from the beginning in order for God to achieve a degree of intimacy in the relationship not possible apart from the incarnation. Here I'm going back to a view held by some medieval scholars that the original purpose of the incarnation was not for atonement. It is not necessary that proponents of openness affirm this. If one claims that the incarnation did turn out to be, at least in part, for the purpose of atonement, therefore it was always intended to be for redemption, then one is saying that God always either knew (not merely believed) or intended we would sin. If God intended us to sin, then God did not take a risk in creating us with the freewill necessary for a relationship of love to develop. Modes come close to saying this, but I'm not sure he is.
Yes, the creation was not "finished" in an absolute sense. The divine project was just beginning. How we unpack this is important. One can go the way many Christians have with the soul-making theodicy where God created us immature and the fall is sort of an "upward" fall because it is moving us in the direction God has planned for us. There are numerous problems with the soul-building" view (e.g. is the amount of evil necessary for us to mature? How can the suffering of an infant who dies build its soul? I list other problems in my book). I prefer the freewill defense (the logic of love defense) in which God did not want, nor intend, for us to sin. It was the risk God took.
Regarding the incommensurability betweeen God and humans, yes, the creator is different from the creature. The question is in what ways were we created different? Modes suggests "holiness" is one of the ways we were different. We need to somehow obtain the divine holiness. However, many Christians, both Protestant and Catholic, have taken the view that God created us in his "likeness" (i.e. holiness) as well as in his (image). The likeness was lost in the fall while the image was not. If so, then we did not lack the holiness God wants for us. However, if you reject this distinction I do not see a reason to accept holiness as the critical difference between God and humans prior to sin. True, it is a difference after the fall and Leviticus emphasizes this, but what evidence is there that it is the crucial ontological separator between God and humanity prior to the fall? The biblical emphasis on divine holiness being a key difference between God and humanity comes after the fall and in occurs in conjuntion with sin.
Finally, though it seems some of the participants are drawing away from affirming "O felix culpa" (O happy fall)--that the fall was a good thing that God always intended and desired, let me say this. If the fall was an improvement. If sin was something God wanted to happen since it improves the human situation, then why does God "grieve" over human sin and why is God alwyas represented as opposed to sin? Does God grieve over what he wants to happen? If God wanted our sin, then he did not take a risk that sin would come about. The issue of divine risk is one of the watershed divides between theological determinism on the one hand and freewill theism (both openness and traditional Arminianism) on the other.
Keep us the good work,
John Sanders
Dr. J | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/19/2001 6:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Dr. Sanders,
Honestly, we are honored to have you here! Thanks for joining in. I hope you find the conversations beneficial and worthwile for your ongoing participation.
Four questions for you on this. 1-3 could be as simple as yes/no if your time is short:
1. Clearly you deny that sin was necessary. BUT... are you also denying that sin was inevitable?
2. You deny Dr. Boyd's gap theory, how then do you account for the presence of evil ("serpent") in the garden as well as the "not good" state of adam's being alone? It seems like the pre-fall existence of evil (I might drag in the "chaos" theme from the beginning of Gen. 1 as well) is related to and anticipates the inevitability of sin.
3. In terms of God's risk, I would differ with your opinion that if God knew that humanity would sin, that this eliminates the risk factor. It seems that there is a real risk factor in that God takes in the possibility that God might subject Christ to the incarnation and noone would believe! You suggest the risk of creating something pure that gets spoiled is ulitmately risky, but isn't the possiblity of our refusal to abide in Christ equally qualified to show that God risks?
4. In each instance, however, it seems we are speaking of impractical extremes (but still logical possibilities) on a global spectrum. In your view, that risk is what seems to me the very remotest possibility of sin not occurring EVER. In the one I am currently defending, it is the possibility that noone would chose Christ. Each preserves "risk" for the sake of saying that we are truly free. My preservation of risk seems more realistic in that it is likely that some will accept and others will reject Christ. This seems to reflect the free will defence quite naturally. In your view, if no one had ever sinned, we would have no need of a free will defence and the point is moot. For you, everything hangs on the possibility of an impractical extreme for meaningfulness (cogency of free will at least hangs on this, and if you lose free will, you lose Love as OV'ers define it). Whereas, for myself, the impractical extreme in my spectrum of risk would result in the worst of all possible worlds-none would be redeemed! I guess, if I had my druthers, I'd say its better to have the numbers largely in our favor.
Thanks again for your presence. Even if it proves to be temporary!
OV'ers UNITE!
Well, we'll see.
Blessings,
Modes
Edited by - ModesofThought on 07/20/2001 12:25:00 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/19/2001 10:43 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes-
If it were not for the edit feature I'd be history!
I hope Dr. J. finds time to revisit us! I don’t feel so alone! Though I don’t want to pre-empt any reply he might want to give, I thought I’d toss in some thoughts of my own in the meantime. I might be way off.
BTW, my hunch was that as I got nearer to really settling on a partly open future, the first theological category to occasion working out the implications of an open future would be Christology, i.e., the Christ event. Seems to me that’s what we’re up to!
Modes: 2. You [Dr. Sanders] deny Dr. Boyd's gap theory, how then do you account for the presence of evil ("serpent") in the garden as well as the "not good" state of Adam's being alone? It seems like the pre-fall existence of evil (I might drag in the "chaos" theme from the beginning of Gen. 1 as well) is related and anticipates the inevitability of sin.
Tom: This keeps getting more and more interesting folks! Why the “not good” of Adam’s being alone? My hunch is that God fully intended to create Eve from the get-go but only after Adam discovered on his own his need for a partner and in so doing gained some insight into his finiteness and the relational wonder involved in being human. This would suggest that Adam was busy discovering and submitting to his finiteness/otherness as well as actualizing his personhood in morally significant ways prior to the Fall. This is telling.
Seems to me, Modes, that you’re arguing a causal link between Adam’s “finiteness” and the “not goodness” of his being alone to his sinning. Maybe “causal” is not the word, but you’re arguing that our finiteness necessarily involves more than just the “opportunity” to sin.
I don’t see any necessary link Adam’s finiteness or the “not goodness” of his being alone has to the prior existence of evil in the person of Satan. Why must the pre-Fall existence of evil and chaos anticipate anything more than Satan’s opposition to man’s ruling? This necessitates the existence of “opportunities” for man to fall, deny his finiteness, and abdicate his calling, but I still don’t see why it has to entail the inevitability of these things. If in discovering his need for a partner Adam discovers and accepts his finiteness and in so doing actualizes (at least partly) his personhood in a morally significant way without sin ever entering the picture, then why suppose that sin must inevitably enter the picture at all?
I do think there is some relationship between the pre-Fall existence of Satan and evil and man’s creation as a finite, contingent being. Doc (chapter three of GAW) argues that Satan and his cohorts were “subjugated” and “domesticated” in recreation and that man was given the privilege to rule this world for God. This encourages me to continue considering the possibility (which I think Doc thought was entirely “speculative” on my part and perhaps not all that helpful) that man’s creation is, in part, God’s response to the cosmic rebellion. God intends to reclaim his creation (trashed by Satan and his angelic partners, (i.e., ch. 3 of GAW) via creation itself, that is, via man. Chaos was to be eradicated through man/woman who through loving submission to God were progressively to realize the vocational, relational, and other finite dimensions of their nature and calling with a view to the necessary consummation of it all in God-incarnate, an event which would have “completed” man and creation and brought about the ultimate and final destruction of Satan and his cohorts. No sinful man and no cross. This, I want to believe was possible, and I hope I can muster a cogent argument for it in time.
I’m also still thinking on the “sooner or later it would happen” argument for the inevitability of man’s sinning. This is purely a statistical argument. And I’m still wondering if Adam’s personal victory would have involved us in some way similar to how his having blown it involved us and predisposed us to sin. In this case your statistical “sooner or later” doesn’t hold true in quite the same way through time, the probabilities of our sinning dramatically decreasing as it were as man subdued the earth for God. I’m just tossing this thought around in my head. It seems that we want to argue that Adam, as the fountainhead, federal head, representative head, or whatever, of the human race was in a position to involve us somehow in his sinful choice but NOT in his righteous choices. I’m just wondering why. Why do we assume the “fallout” of Adam’s choice could only have influenced us for the worse and not for the better?
I hope Dr. J can get around to addressing your other questions. Modes, you can’t imagine how much I’m learning from this forum. Many thanks.
Puff Puff Pia!
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight
Edited by - TGB on 07/20/2001 03:46:25 AM
Edited by - TGB on 07/20/2001 03:48:28 AM
Edited by - TGB on 07/20/2001 04:03:32 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 7/20/2001 4:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom and others,
What do you think of my relocation of the "risk factor" in #'s 3-4 of my questions to Dr. Sanders?
As an aside:
Tom, I agree this is good work for us to do. My thinking is tightening up here too. It seems, however, that our assumptions about how to read Gen. are becoming increasingly the dividing factor. I read it first in its context of ANE creation myths, then in terms of its DIFFERENCE from those stories and what THAT says about our creation. Boyd does the same, as you know from G@W, andthe gap theory attempts to take this into account. "Adam" is a single individual you seem to trace all humanity to, for me adam is not a real person, but a part of divinely revealed explanitory story. These differences are bearing out more and more as we go along. Honestly, given what we know about the history of these texts I cannot buy the literal version, it would be intellectually dishonest of me and a breech of faith. I know many vehemently disagree, but they have not been convincing to me.
I only bring htis up because we could swing around each other for a long time before we run in to this explicitly. Arguments which depend upon a literal Adam will hold little weight for me, just so you know.
I too am excited about the extra input we got recently!! More brains is better.
Blessings brother,
Modes
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Dr. John Sanders
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 7/20/2001 2:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Dear Modes:
You asked:
1. Clearly you deny that sin was necessary. BUT... are you also denying that sin was inevitable?
--> Yes.
2. You deny Dr. Boyd's gap theory, how then do you account for the presence of evil ("serpent") in the garden as well as the "not good" state of adam's being alone? It seems like the pre-fall existence of evil (I might drag in the "chaos" theme from the beginning of Gen. 1 as well) is related to and anticipates the inevitability of sin.
--> In my GWR I discuss two different approaches to Gen 1 (ex nihilo and chaos). They are both interesting and I try to find some commonalities in the approaches. I don't have an explanation for the "serpant" (he is not called Satan in Genesis). It all depends upon the way you read the text. I don't think I have to nail down any single specific approach. When it comes to talking about things prior to what we read (have revealed) I try to keep my speculation to a minimum. It is part of my epistemology.
3. In terms of God's risk, I would differ with your opinion that if God knew that humanity would sin, that this eliminates the risk factor. It seems that there is a real risk factor in that God takes in the possibility that God might subject Christ to the incarnation and noone would believe! You suggest the risk of creating something pure that gets spoiled is ulitmately risky, but isn't the possiblity of our refusal to abide in Christ equally qualified to show that God risks?
--> I think I'm beginning to see your approach. Yes, if no one responded to the work of Christ, that would be a risk for God. So, your point is well taken. However, I did not say that if God foreknew humans would sin, then God did not take a risk. I said that if God wanted (ordained) sin as part of accomplishing something greater, then God was not taking a risk for it was precisely what he intended all along--it was not against his moral will. In my book I have a long section arguing that even if God foreknew we would sin (but did not want us to do so) God still took a risk. The basic divide between freewill theism (including Arminianism) and theological determinism is not foreknowledge.
As for the "not good" I think Tom is on track. I highly recommend the commentaries by Fretheim and Bruggemann on Genesis.
Sorry for my brevity. I've tried to explain myself elsewhere or I direct you to where it is explained well by others.
Blessings;
Dr. Sanders
Dr. J | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/20/2001 5:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Great to have you on board brother Sanders. Welcome!
I'm enjoying this thread, mostly as an outsider. (Time issues). But I have a moment for a couple of reflections, FWIW (for what its worth).
While I don't necessarily believe this, I don't see any inherent inconsistency between affirming a) it was certain that sooner or later sin would occur; and b) God takes a genuine risk in creating the world. The risk, in this case, wouldn't be that sooner or later the world might experience sin. He knew it would. The risk would rather be that various individuals whom God loves might not accept (despite his constant influence -- Holy Spirit) his remedy for sin. Hence, I have no problem accepting that Rev. 13:8 and 17:9 (?) refer to the "lamb" being slain from the foundation of the world.
Tom: While it is speculative to suggest that humans were created in part as a strategic maneuver to defeat the enemy, it is, I think, a plausible speculation. (Eric Sauer argues this in his book .... uhhh? something King of the Earth.  )
Modes and Tom: I think the issue of how we are affected by Adam "our head" is important -- and totally foreign to our western individualistic consciousness. Moreover, the issue stands whether or not you take Adam as a literal individual or as a figure for the human race (as Modes does). Somehow, "Adam's" fall now renders it CERTAIN that NONE of us will NOT sin.
There is a REAL LAW of sin and death that was introduced via Adam... and this constitutes our identity with him.
Enough meandering for now.
Blessings
Doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/20/2001 11:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Modes and others-
What’s the name of that rubber toy figure we (eh, “I”) used to play with as a kid? Gumby? He was green, had a head that pointed off upwards to one side, and was plain and flat. The cool thing was he stretched. You could stretch and contort him all out a shape. He had a horse too, I think, that you could stretch any way you wanted as well. You’re probably too young (can’t believe I’m saying THAT!) to remember! Anyhow, this was going somewhere. Oh, yeah, the something meaningful I wanted to say was that I feel like Gumby, being stretched to consider new ideas and challenges to the way I’ve always thought, and I appreciate it!
About the literalness of it all. I want to understand the main features of the non-literal, evolutionary view of the creation of man in the image of God. I understand your basic point. But I’m wondering if our conversation wouldn’t still have relevance, even about the “not goodness” of Adam’s being alone, whether Adam represents successive stages in the process of evolution which produced homo sapiens, or whether Adam was a direct creation of God. I’d still say someone of your persuasion regarding the non-literalness of the story can argue that what the text is saying about Adam’s singleness suggests that God intended mankind to come to terms with his finiteness, and that Eve’s coming into the picture is in some sense God’s predetermined response to this. I think this is really difficult to do if Adam and Eve are not historical individuals, but I suppose one could argue it.
Seems to me that what the text is saying theologically about Adam’s discovery of his need for a partner requires a certain passage of time between Adam’s creation in the image of God and Eve’s creation in the image of God. Theologically, Eve’s creation appears to be in an important sense in response to Adam’s having discovered and embraced his finiteness at this point. This, or something like it, seems to be the point of the story itself. But evolution assumes the male and female of the species evolved together. Whatever we believe to be the theological point of the Bible’s pointing out the “not goodness” of Adam’s being alone, wouldn’t it appear to require the view that God gave Eve (whatever she represents) subsequent to, or in response to, Adam’s (whatever he represents) discovery of his need for a partner? And he discovers this as he is involved in carrying out his divinely appointed responsibilities. My question is, Can sense be made of this on the evolutionary scheme? If we concede the non-literalness of the “timing” which appears to be essential to the theological point the text is making about the “not goodness” of Adam’s being “alone,” what “aloneness” is there to speak of?
Just tossing out ideas. I really want to get a grasp on this.
Blessings,
Tom
"The will to prepare to win is greater than the will to win." Bobby Knight
Edited by - TGB on 07/21/2001 04:14:33 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Mephi2K
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 713
| Posted 7/21/2001 3:49 AM (GMT -6) | | Just a thought. The question must be asked that I think will inform this, whether or not one believes in the literal nature of the Adam/Eve thing. Given God's infinite intelligence and omniscience, did God geniunely think that the emergence of God-denying decisions would NOT EVER occur, given the very nature of libertarian free will? It seems to me that this is unbridled optimism, on the verge of naivete. Surely, God saw this coming. We could say that he "hoped against hope" on the matter, but surely to do so would have went against common sense and every intuition God may have had. Hence, my question, was God the quintessential "wide-eyed" optimist, to His own detriment?
PS: Perhaps saying that God is optimistic in this way avoids the problem that I try to highlight in my "Was It Worth It?" In other words, to say that God found it INEVITABLE that sin and its reprecussion WOULD come into being has far reaching implications on many levels.
Love God. Love People. Love Truth. Dedicate your all to that which you love. | | Back to Top | | |
| 59 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:51 AM (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 |
|
|