 |
| 
Holiday
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 11/12/2004 8:33 AM (GMT -6) |   | I guess after writing this it really turned out to be two questions. Sorry. Ok. Now that I’m done I guess it is really more like a slew of questions.
1.)
In talking about Judas Doc says,
“when he so chooses, God can narrow the parameters within which certain people act out their freely chosen character.” Pg. 22 Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views
Doc says in SATPOE
“Our libertarian freedom is the probationary means by which we acquire compatibilistic freedom either for or against God.” Pg. 189
So how should I understand God’s unilateral intervention to bring about his purposes?
Is it that: Judas’s will had become deterministic no longer possessing the capability of addressing possibilities as might or might not and now only as would or would not? Thus God knows with certainty how Judas will respond to the “parameters within which” Judas will turn over Jesus? Seems like God does a Molonism thing here if I’m understanding correctly.
Or is it: that God unilaterally somehow acts through Judas to turn over Christ, not bringing about parameters, but just causing Judas directly to desire to do it? I suppose more like a Calvinist model.
2.)
Which when I look at the two, seems to me like Molonism is just sexy Calvinism. Don’t they really just do the same thing. Only one says that God’s foreknowledge conditions the future where the other says, God figures out wills in given circumstances and then decrees what he wants. So really in both models God creates to get what he wants.
Or would a Molonist say that God desires a world that isn’t possible and thus doesn’t get what he wants, but rather the best possible world?
And what is the supposed strength of my essence having a libertarian freedom before the creation event? I don’t remember choosing before the creation event what I would do in all these counterfactual conditions. Even if I could have chosen then, it seems my ultimate freedom is really just disregarded. What if I do chose something I want in this given world amongst my options, but what my essence really, really wanted it couldn’t have because that wasn’t even possible in this actualized world. Is that freedom? And doesn’t Craig hold to libertarian freedom? Wouldn’t that mean that I would be able to choose (as defined by the principle of alternative possibilities), ontologically in the now? Which to me does not at all seem to be true of Craig’s Molonism.
Sorry I really have rambled. Please feel free to answer any or all of my questions or point me to a post that answers these.
Thanks much,
Holiday
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 11/12/2004 11:29 AM (GMT -6) | | I don't know why we can't just avoid the whole Molinism/LFW/ compatibilism issue and say that Scripture reveals in several places that Jesus was able to know what was in the hearts and minds of people, and this is how He knew what Judas was planning.
John 2:24 But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men, 25 And needed not that any should testify of man: for he knew what was in man.
John 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning* who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
(*from the beginning of his calling of the Twelve).
John 13:11 For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.
(Surely Christ knew that Judas did not have a clean heart).
Matt. 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
(If Jesus knew the thoughts of his enemies, he would also quite obviously have known the thoughts of his disciples, even Judas).
John 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.
Often in the NT, "that the scripture might be fulfilled" does not refer to a predictive OT prophecy per se, but instead is an example of "ecbatic" prophecy. In the NT the future Antichrist is spoken of as "the son of perdition" as well, so unless we think Judas will somehow be resurrected, this would seem to simply be a category that both Judas and the Antichrist fit into, not necessarily a particular individual foreordained to this fate.
The following verses seem to imply that perdition is something one chooses, not something one is fated to:
Hebrews 10:39 - But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul.
2 Peter 3:7 - But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 11/12/2004 7:24 PM (GMT -6) | | HI Holiday, let me take a quick stab at this. [
Judas’s will had become deterministic no longer possessing the capability of addressing possibilities as might or might not and now only as would or would not?
Doc: As a preliminary word, let just note that if Jesus hadn't been betrayed -- if he'd been crucified some other way -- no one would be sitting around wondering why the "prophecy" about Jesus betrayal wasn't fulfilled. The "prophecy" is a complaint of David that has nothing predictive about it. Most "fulfillments" fit into this category. When parallels occur between Jesus nad David -- or Israel, or whatever -- the author notes it by saying Jesus "fulfilled" (illustrated par excellance) the point of an OT passage. So, I doubt Judas in any sense HAD to betray Jesus.
Still, Jesus says Judas WILL betray him, so it was, it seems, at least certain that Judas would do this when Jesus said this. All this means is that at t1, Judas' character was determinate enough such that with respect to situation y Judas WOULD DO (not might and might not do) z. This much is true of all of us. We have some degree of "might and might not" freedom, but also some degree of "would and would not" character. Perhaps the character was given us by virtue of genetic and sociological factors. But much of it is given by our previous choices, all of which factor into our present character. The more we free journey down a road (choosing a "might and might not"), the more our character is formed (becoming "would or would not"). God perfectly knows the extent we are one and the extent we are another, and he knows it with regard to all possible situations.
HoldiaySeems like God does a Molonism thing here if I’m understanding correctly.
Doc: God doesn't DO "a Molonist" thing here. Rather, REALITY is "a molinistic thing here." To the extent that people's characters are solidified to the point where they WOULD or WoULD not act in such and such ways in various situations, to THAT degree the Molinist analysis of things is accurate. The only trouble with Molinism is
a) they assumed ALL of hte future coudl be described in these terms, rather than seeing that "might and might not" also characterize the future.
b) they assumed this state of affairs was true eternally (rather than coming into being in time).
Holdiay: Or is it: that God unilaterally somehow acts through Judas to turn over Christ, not bringing about parameters, but just causing Judas directly to desire to do it? I suppose more like a Calvinist model.
Doc: I know of no reason to think God did this with Judas, or with anyone. If God made someone do something THEY OTHERWISE WOULDN'T DO and that was OUT OF CHARACTER for them, HE would be responsible for their actions, not they.
HOldiay: Which when I look at the two, seems to me like Molonism is just sexy Calvinism.
Doc: SEXY???? That's not the adjective that comes to my mind.
Holiday: Don’t they really just do the same thing. Only one says that God’s foreknowledge conditions the future where the other says, God figures out wills in given circumstances and then decrees what he wants. So really in both models God creates to get what he wants.
Doc: The HEART of the two systems is different in that Molinist genuinely want to affirm libertarian freedom while Calvinists do not. But Molinist don't work this out consistently, owing chiefly, I believe, to their neglect of the possibility that the future could, to some degree, be characterized by what "might and might not" happen.
Holdiay: And what is the supposed strength of my essence having a libertarian freedom before the creation event?
Greg: Not exactly sure what you're asking. But if your wondering how a yet non-existent essence can freely decide to do such and such things in a yet non-existence circumstances so that God eternally knows what essences will do in all conceivable circumstances, THAT is a very good (and unanswerable) question. Its called "the grounding objection."
Have a nice day, or night,
Greg
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Holiday
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 22
| Posted 11/15/2004 7:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks to the three of you for taking time to share some of your thoughts.
I sincerely appreciate it!
Doc, I really was ministered to you Kingdom Holiness sermon, I downloaded and listened to it this morning. A great way to start the day. I’m glad Woodland posts the sermons for us folk who live outside Minnesota.
HoldiaySeems like God does a Molonism thing here if I’m understanding correctly.
Doc: God doesn't DO "a Molonist" thing here. Rather, REALITY is "a molinistic thing here." To the extent that people's characters are solidified to the point where they WOULD or WoULD not act in such and such ways in various situations, to THAT degree the Molinist analysis of things is accurate. The only trouble with Molinism is
a) they assumed ALL of hte future coudl be described in these terms, rather than seeing that "might and might not" also characterize the future.
b) they assumed this state of affairs was true eternally (rather than coming into being in time).
I think you answered what I asked, but I guess I mustn’t have asked the correct question. I should have asked about the parameters.
So if it is a molonistic reality, which makes sense to me and I assumed was how the O.V. God would work here, then my question is not about the “would or would not” choices of Judas, but rather the contingent parameters that give the context for these would or would not decisions to be made. Especially if some of these parameters are contignent on libertarian choices of non-solidified beings.
This is far fetch, but let me try and explain what I mean.
Suppose that the parameters are fixed “enough” that Jesus could know for certainty what Judas would do, (which seems reasonable), what the chief preists guards etc. would do in response (seems reasonable), but what if an anamous band of let’s say Zealot’s who possessed libertarian freedom and non-solidified libertarian freedom got drunk and decided to go on a killing spree and killed those guards and whoever came to arrest Jesus.
God couldn’t know these parameters as fixed because of their libertarian, non-solidified, “might or might not,” characters.
Is it that God in his perfect present knowledge knows all possibilities at this point, and all possibilities (taking into account ‘causal circumstances’ ‘solidified wills’ and whatsoever God Himself determines as reality for the given moment) are such that for sure Judas will with his libertarian solidified freedom ‘will’ not only attempt to do what Jesus has predicted, but also that all these factors will not prevent the attempt from coming about.
In short must it be true that for God to know what someone “would or would not do,” no “might or might not” wills, can intersect and thus thwart the actions of the “would or would not” agent.
Hence my question about the difference between doing…well I guess better said observing a “molonistic reality vs. a Calvinsitic reality.”
Next point,
The "prophecy" is a complaint of David that has nothing predictive about it. Most "fulfillments" fit into this category.
I’m glad you brought this up, because it is something I have long wondered. If this is the case, which it seems to me be, then it seems like N.T. writers seem to be doing more a Hawthorne effect type of thing.
“Hawthorn Effect is where the participants or subjects in research projects, instead of acting naturally, try to please the researcher by giving her the results she is looking for.”
(I got this off the internet).
Seems like in a sense the Gospel authors, just kind of look for a O.T. passage to reference and then try and make it fit. Why do they do that? (to try and please the text I mean?) hence my analogy.
Next point
HOldiay: Which when I look at the two, seems to me like Molonism is just sexy Calvinism.
Doc: SEXY???? That's not the adjective that comes to my mind.
Sorry, I should have picked a better adjective. Maybe a little to scandalous for the discussion board.
Anyhow I asked this above and s perhaps explains what I mean, by sexy Calvinism.
What if I do chose something I want in this given world amongst my options, but what my essence really, really wanted it couldn’t have because that wasn’t even possible in this actualized world. Is that freedom?
So take Paul Helm for example. He’s going to say that I choose exactly what I want. But wouldn’t Bill Craig have to say the same thing. In a sense it is the same kind of freedom. So take right now. Right now I want to type this message, but let say that my pre-creation essence (which apparently made all my decisions for me) in all possible worlds, preferred the world where in the now I’m at Disney Land. There is no way in Craig’s system for me to be there, BECAUSE GOD ACTUALIZED WITH FOREKNOWLEDGE and thus certainty WHAT I WOULD DO. So yeah I could have done otherwise in another world (hence my fake molonistic libertarian freedom), but I can’t do that now, because God actualized (against my essence’s preference) this world. So where is my libertaria freedom? Hence my comparison of the Helm and Craig. I get choose what I want in Helm’s system because God fore-ordained it, and I get what I want in Craig’s system because God actualized what my libertarian freedom would want in these circumstances (even though I might have really wanted something else). I’m sure I’m probably missing something.
Next point,
Holdiay: And what is the supposed strength of my essence having a libertarian freedom before the creation event?
Greg: Not exactly sure what you're asking. But if your wondering how a yet non-existent essence can freely decide to do such and such things in a yet non-existence circumstances so that God eternally knows what essences will do in all conceivable circumstances, THAT is a very good (and unanswerable) question. Its called "the grounding objection."
You answered my question correctly, but why do we concede that Molonist affirm libertarian freedom. Even if all this were true…My essence choosing before the creation event…I don’t really choose anything in the libertarian sense (which I’m understanding as defined by principle of alternative possibilities). I guess maybe my problem is that I only consider the temporal now to present me with an ontological choice. If that were the case then I really couldn’t choose among options, I choose what according to the circumstances God has actualize.
I get that Molonism and Calvinism, differ in thier affirmations of libertarian and compatiblisitc freedom on paper, but do they really differ all that much?
I realize I’m novice on the subject though, so I’m readily waiting to be corrected for my abundance of errors.
Ross thanks for the post. You cleared some things up for me.
John,
Thanks for your response. I always love when we can examine these issues in light of scripture. You posted quite a few scriptures and thus I must take time to investigate your thoughts, though it seems from the outset that I agree with much of what you say. I’m not yet ready to abondon or avoid as you said, “Molinism/LFW/ compatibilism issue and say that Scripture reveals in several places that Jesus was able to know what was in the hearts and minds of people.” Hopefully scripture does, but I need to wrestle with these thing for at least a little while as I bet you did.
Blessings to all of you,
Holiday
| | Back to Top | | |
|
wstaylor
Registered Member
Date Joined Sep 2002
Total Posts : 4
| Posted 11/16/2004 8:52 PM (GMT -6) | |
Holiday (written after the quoted text - 11/17/2004),
I have decided to respond to multiple related posts here as your's is the most recent thread in this area. As a new comer to this very busy and intereting discussion forum I ask to be excused if my method of reply is some what onerous. I do beg for a Christian level of indulgence while I'm "getting my sea legs" as it were. In fact, my experience of reading various posts with interweaving threads over a period of a month or more makes me feel like an old grizzly standing in the water during salmon spawning migration. First I see one flying up stream over there. When I get there, I see one emerging from the rapid over there. I almost got my paw on one back there but I'm still at a disadvantage. What's an old grizzly to do?!
Oi Vhey! So shoot me. But not before you get any questions answered that this post will undoubtedly raise.
quote:
Originally posted by Holiday
I guess after writing this it really turned out to be two questions. Sorry. Ok. Now that I’m done I guess it is really more like a slew of questions.
1.)
In talking about Judas Doc says,
“when he so chooses, God can narrow the parameters within which certain people act out their freely chosen character.” Pg. 22 Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views
Doc says in SATPOE
“Our libertarian freedom is the probationary means by which we acquire compatibilistic freedom either for or against God.” Pg. 189
So how should I understand God’s unilateral intervention to bring about his purposes?
Is it that: Judas’s will had become deterministic no longer possessing the capability of addressing possibilities as might or might not and now only as would or would not? Thus God knows with certainty how Judas will respond to the “parameters within which” Judas will turn over Jesus? Seems like God does a Molonism thing here if I’m understanding correctly.
...
Thanks much,
Holiday
Holiday,
I am re posting some thing I did for Tigress in a related vein in this forum. The answers there are germane here. In particular, the two fold nature of how "fulfilled" prophecy can be interpreted was discussed. In formal terms they are categorized as the telic and ecbatic fulfillment of prophecy. Most all the Grammars cover this but one rarely finds them discussed in an exegetical format. (Though I did see that JEE did make reference to ecbatic prophecy, and Dr. Boyd described ecbatic fulfillment of prophecy in this forum). The two categories may be listed as follows. First is purpose and the second is result. In the first case a familiar or traditional sense is recognized as 'some thing in the present occurred BECAUSE it was spoken of in the past." Whereas in the later case it would fall into the column of the "a certain thing which has occurred in the present *fell out* such that it bears a striking resemblance to a similar occurrence in history. Now that the constructs have been introduced it remains only for the application of a little elbow grease to move the distinction into proper exegetical function.
Other issues were discussed that have significant bearing but I'll let you pick that one on your own. I will, with some boldness, sum up by saying the if we allow ourselves to be properly and fully informed by the rules of interpretation then it is possible to emphatically state that:
1.) Judas's betrayal of his Savior had nothing to do with the Atonement proper. His betrayal was not necessary, needed or wanted by God. In fact, it encumbered the purpose of God and added gratuitous pressure upon the load that Jesus was already carrying.
2.) Judas' betrayal and consequent damnation could not in any wise make the suffering of Christ more efficacious. Whether in life or death Judas' betrayal is only a moral obscenity. A true day of infamy, the like of which has never been seen nor will be. That would make salvation in some way dependent on Judas' sin.
I'm sorry to encumber the already extended discussion. At first, it may not become immediately apparent what I am defending. That's O.K., the material treats on the most important event that could ever transpire, on any world, in any age. It is to be expected that to make headway in understanding on such an important subject, we would be taxed to our intellectual and spiritual best. What ever else our failings may be as a generation, let us not be guilty of refusing to give the subject matter its proper due.
On a lighter note I'd like to close this section with a question about the following verse. Revelation 21:14 "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." Was Judas's name every etched on one of those foundation stones?
For your indulgence,
W. Scott Taylor
A newly discovered diabetic (as in today -> thanks Dr. Crider) which strikes me as a fair example of the meaning of the word ambivalence. Here's how. Many have accused me of diminished mental capacities for some time now. So even though the condition is only ignored by people with the flattest of foreheads ( i.e. it's nothing to be sneezed at) it furnishes me with a "cause" of said observation to my well meaning comrades. It is now incumbent upon them to bite their proverbial tongues until such a time as I am able to recover into a maintenance mode. At that time, they will undoubtedly begin their re-examination of said mental competence. All things being equal I'm sure that I will evidence that level of lucidity that will serve as estoppel to all criticisms from thence forth to ages to come. Conversely, in the unlikely, (indeed, highly improbable) event that said capacities have not risen to my cause, I suppose that it will be incumbent on me to sit as far back in the pews as I can, preferably behind a pillar and thereby hide my head in shame.. That is, until such time when the Lord release me from my physical limitations and of course by then to have liberated my comrades from their unkind dispositions.
Yea, Come Lord Jesus!
---------------------
Posted - 11/01/2004 : 9:14:54 PM
-------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tigress
Here's my question: Why was it even necessary for there to be a betrayer anyway? . . .
[II] I just read about this during my Bible reading last night. Jesus said, "Woe to the one who betrays the Son of Man. It would have been better for him never to have been born," . . .
[III] I mean what Judas did was no worse than Peter denying Jesus three times, right? So, if Judas had asked for forgiveness he would have been saved like the rest of the disciples.
[IV] What about a Christian who struggles with depression and in a moment of agony kills himself before climbing out of that misery again? . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tigress,
I thought your questions above (Romanized for ease of response with out breaking up ,aside from truncation, your post) are especially interesting, to say nothing of the importance of the subject matter, and judging from the responses so far I wanted to provide some further information to help you resolve the issue.
I haven't posted at CV for some time, but a cage rattling by a certain active member here roused me to action. While looking for the post that called me forth by name I saw this thread and thought I'd stop here before proceeding to my original task.
I suppose I ought to introduce myself (I hate dropping in on folks like a certain las from Kansas) and so will make a passing nod in that direction.
|*|. . . [this became more than a passing nod, so feel free to skip over]. . . |*|
wstaylor = W. Scott Taylor, Board Member and Web Editor for Evangelical Education Ministries, Inc. (EEM for short). EEM has been in existence for roughly thirty years and was founded by businessmen and clergy to provide educational material on theology that was preached and taught in the previous (i.e. circa 1850) century in and during what Church Historians refer to as the "Second Great Awakening" in America. Due to various forms of theological hegemony the views spoken for above have not had a fair hearing. Enter EEM, which was able to leverage decades of research of that era into the market place of ideas. If the truth be told, Youth With A Mission owes it's present existence to members of Bible Research Inc., Men For Missions Inc., and EEM, Inc. We're are talking about the late 60's when Harry Conn (MFM) was solicited by Loren Cunningham to teach said views at all the YWAM bases. He was also asked to serve as President but declined. For some ten years or so, YWAM actively studied the referenced research materials from Gordon Olson (BRC), who was introduced to YWAM by Harry Conn. They taught those views openly for about the same time. The views spoken of were described by the 1800's proponents as "Moral Government" a shortened form of "New England Theology" (see Edwards - Governmental View of the Atonement, derived from Hugh Grotious's work available from the Yale theological library. Samuel Hopkins was known to favor that work as well). That was not the only renewal in theology that transpired at that time. Dr. Lorenzo Dow McCabe, professor of Philosophy and Mathematics as Ohio Wesleyan published "Foreknowledge and Cognate Themes" and "Divine Nescience of Future Contingencies - A Necessity" 1882. Professor McCabe was the American source of what is now called "Open Theism." McCabe referred to his exposition of this new hermeneutic, "Neo Arminianism" as he felt that the view extricated Arminianism from the charge of Theological Fatalism. It was from these and many other sources that Gordon Olson collected and published an abbreviated amalgation of the two (MG and NeoA) in a training manual (Originally called "Sharing Your Faith" that was given to facilitate a two lecture series that he gave at the YWAM bases during the "early days." By the early 80's he had to revise and reduce the lecture series (due to difficulties related to age)and published the associated manual as "The Truth Will Set You Free." Mr. Olson and Dr. Harry Conn have both been Promoted, but the EEM resource offerings carry that work (with related tape series) and much more. I'm winding this "more than a passing nod" to identifying my background etc.. I'll close this section by noting that EEM has had Dr. Boyd and Dr. James Sanders as featured speakers at our anual Fall Conference series, not once, but twice! The most recent being 2004 where both were speakers. This should indicate that we believe that both these men are preaching a message that forms solidarity with us and are considered friends. It is at this point I signal the END of the "skip over material."
Believe it or not I'm ready to engage your questions now and without further ado I rise to the occasion.
I. "Why was it even necessary for there to be a betrayer anyway? . . ." Good question. When all is said and done we should not flinch when unsaved people ask about that. If you have red blood in your veins you will flinch and if there be no greater insight given then that's all we can do. Fortunately, there are cogent reasons for indicating that a betrayer was extrinsic to a plan of Salvation by a God "who is not willing that anyone should perish." It would be a bitter task to quote that text knowing (depending on your theological persuasion - "Decree's" or Absolute Foreknowledge") that Judas was chosen to betray Christ (and that before the world was created) or that God viewed his freely chosen betrayal as an absolute certainly (for God's knowledge must be based on fact) before the creation of the world. There is no functional difference in either view, the end is the same. Jesus' betrayal MUST happen and this was decided/known before the world was created. As I said before, there is a scripturally founded alternative that permits an orthodox ground for denial that Judas' betrayal had anything to do with the Plan of Salvation. Without attempting a rigorus answer I think an interjection from A. T. Robertson's "Word Pictures ..." should suggest a new path to consider. In John 6.70-71 Jesus speaks to the present condition of one of his disciples in a context of general defection by the Jews from following him.
John 6:70-71 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
Note Robertson's educated analysis (A.T. Robertson was a world renound expert in Biblical Languages who most seminary students know)
"John 6:70 - And one of you is a devil (kai ex humôn heis diabolos estin). Jesus does not say that Judas was a devil when he chose him, but that he is one now. In 13:2,27 John speaks of the devil entering Judas. How soon the plan to betray Jesus first entered the heart of Judas we do not know (12:4). One wonders if the words of Jesus here did not cut Judas to the quick."
This much is suggested in the New American Standard (NAS) version -
"Jesus answered them, "Did I Myself not choose you, the twelve, and yet one of you is a devil? Now He meant Judas the son of Simon Iscariot, for he, one of the twelve, was going to betray Him."
Usage, etymology, and syntax provide ample grounds for this translation. The Greek could be rendered with further clarity as follows: v 70 ... and yet one of you a devil now is. Further, verse 71 the word "should" in the KJV is misleading to present day readers. It carries a connotation of "must betray", but the word in the original e;mellen a verb (indicative imperfect active 3rd person singular) that could be properly translated with phrase as "was about to betray."
This translation shears off the theological wool from the subject matter. Jesus's statement is one of lament and incredulity that Judas, one of the 12, singled out for unparallel revelation of Divine things, even such a one has decided to betray his Lord. He knew from the beginning the formation of betrayal in the heart of one of His Disciples, freely loved and honored. This says nothing about a coupling with the plan of Salvation.
II. Jesus's statement that "it would be better if that man was never born" is not hyperbole. Surely, He would not wax poetic during such a serious moment. Rather, He is saying (and certainly to Judas by way of appeal) that to do this, the consequence would be so horrible that the offender himself would sooner not be born than to live and die with the single most infamous treachery on his conscience.
III. In Judas' case, Jesus throws a flag down, if you will, a marker when Judas began the bail out/betrayal process. Remember, this was about eight months prior to the Crucifixion. For that period of time Judas successfully resisted all the love inspired attempts to wake him up to his peril, remind him of His love and patience and friendship. This was no mean feat. To be sure, it involved one of the most desperate battles with conscience ever attempted. We do not see Christ in the flesh. Judas was privileged beyond all but 11 men to be in close proximity with the Word made flesh. Peter's denial of Christ has mitigating circumstances. In his case it was a blind spot revealed. How many people make a similar error in judgement by mistaking comprehension of truth as the measure of the character of a person. Time will not allow much more here, but I could talk to this issue for a night and a day but will refrain for now. This much I should point out, that when Peter impetuously asserted that "even though these others betray Him, He would not" and that during a meeting of the most solemn import no less. Jesus is laying bare that which had the closest exercise of His Heart. And Peter is stung by Jesus' general announcement that He must proceed alone (Shepherd being "smitten" and the sheep scattered) and they must not intrude into His special strange work. Their "betrayal" is not the subject of the quotation. Being scattered does not necessarily cannote moral blemish. It could but it isn't required by its mention.
It is here that I merely mention the importance of understanding the two fold nature of "fulfillment" of scripture. The Grammars explain the telic vs the ecbatic fulfillment of scripture. In the first case, an event happening now, happened BECAUSE it was spoken of before. In the latter case, the event now occurring is fulfilled only in the sense that a thing has historical similitude, or indefinite reference to the result of a class of persons. Confused yet? We can go further into it later. The difference amounts to (in the latter) our notion of history repeating itself. Not that it must, but that it has fallen out such that it does. See the difference?
IV. This final question is as complex as any other concept we have discussed. I note it because it pulls on one's heart strings to see another person so swamped under an unbearable mental load (delusion?) that they see death as preferable to continued existence. I would like to ask that this be considered on a dedicated thread at another time. Topically, I think more than enough has been suggested to occupy high level thinking.
Grace and Peace from God to all who love Him,
Scott
W. Scott Taylor
EEM, Inc. Board Member
& Web Editor
http://eeminc.org
| | Back to Top | | |
|
God_Is_Truth
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2003
Total Posts : 33
| Posted 11/16/2004 9:36 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by GregBoyd
Doc: As a preliminary word, let just note that if Jesus hadn't been betrayed -- if he'd been crucified some other way -- no one would be sitting around wondering why the "prophecy" about Jesus betrayal wasn't fulfilled. The "prophecy" is a complaint of David that has nothing predictive about it. Most "fulfillments" fit into this category. When parallels occur between Jesus nad David -- or Israel, or whatever -- the author notes it by saying Jesus "fulfilled" (illustrated par excellance) the point of an OT passage. So, I doubt Judas in any sense HAD to betray Jesus.
i have a quick question about the issue at hand. if the scripture didn't HAVE to be fulfilled, then why does Jesus make this statement?
John 17:12
While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction so that Scripture would be fulfilled.
and also this verse seems in conflict.
Matthew 26:54
But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"
what scriptures is Jesus referring to and what action is he talking about that fulfill it? cause if he is talking about Judas then i don't understand how your point can stand. maybe i've overlooked something, thanks for looking into it. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:56 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 |
|
|