 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 12/19/2008 8:26 AM (GMT -6) |   | I'm having trouble reconciling the concepts of Agape (unconditional love) and some of the biblical examples of God's Judgment. I see and understand, on the one hand, that "God is love (Agape)", and that Christians are supposed to live in Agape toward one another and unbelievers, and that the Church is supposed to model Agape rather than performance-driven morality or judgmentalism. On the other hand, I see in the Old and New Testaments some severe examples of what would seem to be conditional love on God's part, and in Acts I see the divine slaying of Ananias and Sapphira, and Paul speaks of shunning church members who persist in certain sins, alongside some other notable examples of what would seem to be conditional love throughout the New Testament.
Alongside considering this, I keep running through my head with the following questions: "Is God petty? Was Jesus ever genuinely petty in the Gospels? Is pettiness ever commendable amongst Christians, or as a Christian behavior?"
What are some of ye thoughts on these things?
Note: To clarify, I don't have a problem reconciling Agape with acts of Judgment that are appropriate to the situation; it is the examples of what one could arguably call "overkill", acts of Judgment from God that seem over-the-top and inappropriate for the situation at hand, that seems at odds with the teaching that "God is Agape".Post Edited (Ricco) : 12/21/2008 7:01:22 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2008 8:30 AM (GMT -6) | | God is "spirit" and "truth." A person cannot truly live in love while living according to the "devil's language." (Falsehood). So, God's "judgement" is really little more than truth-telling or truth-revealing of a people's sins to themselves...in sometimes stark ways. This is how I see the Ananias/Saphira thing. They were "lying to the Spirit"...lyin' to God. Can't have that going on, homie. Lesson time.
Chastisement (hard stuff) by a Loving Father for the greater good of the sons and daughters.
And God...unconditional love and patience...being petty?
Please. Hehehe... 
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." Post Edited (One Love) : 12/19/2008 7:38:59 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/19/2008 8:36 AM (GMT -6) | | | Random thought:
Anything not done in love has no "reality" to it. (1 Corinthians 13) Everything Jesus did had real, personal impact. That's why he attracted prostitutes, tax collectors, religious people...and children.
He was a real human person, always expressing love and freedom...constantly anointed by the Spirit of Love and Freedom.
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." Post Edited (One Love) : 12/19/2008 9:32:10 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 12/19/2008 6:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Let's see...
I think I'm going to give the topic a little more time to (hopefully) generate some more replies from (hopefully) several other people before I write back. | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 12/20/2008 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | | The first reply perfectly illustrates the compartmentalization I'm having trouble with.
On the one hand you affirm:
One Love said...
So, God's "judgement" is really little more than truth-telling or truth-revealing of a people's sins to themselves...in sometimes stark ways. This is how I
see the Ananias/Saphira thing. They were "lying to the Spirit"...lyin' to God. Can't have that going on, homie. Lesson time.
Chastisement (hard stuff) by a Loving Father for the greater good of the sons and daughters.
And on the other hand you affirm:
One Love said... And God...unconditional love and patience...being petty? Please. Hehehe... 
So let me illustrate exactly why this isn't working for me:
A man receives a call from his children's teacher, who informs him that they are failing in their classes. He waits at the door for their arrival home from school. As the son and daughter walk up to him, he asks, "How are your grades?" And they both reply, "Nothing but A's and B's." Their father says, "I know you're lying - I just got a call from your teacher." He then proceeds to... :
A) ... lead them inside, sit them down, and tell them about the importance of honesty and diligent study, and that they are grounded... [Response: arguably consistent with the parable of the prodigal son].
B) ... deny them entrance, telling them they are forbidden to enter their home and must fend for themselves, for a time, until he deems they have learned their lesson... [Response: arguably consistent with 1 Cor 5.]
c) ... draw forth a pistol and fire a bullet into the heart of each child, while saying "Lesson Time!", and then turning to his other children who are still inside the house and saying, "Let that be a lesson to you..." [Response: arguably consistent with the Ananias and Sapphira incident.]
Before any of you respond, please give some thought to each of these choices, in a purely human setting (a human father dealing with his human children), and honestly ask yourself which of these actually illustrates Agape. If you decide that either B or C do in fact illustrate Agape, please proceed to elaborate why and how.
If you find yourself unable to admit to either B or C as examples of genuine Agape, then I must ask, how do we go about considering B or C as Agape when they are placed in the context of a divine/human relationship? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/21/2008 2:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | Ricco, I have some thoughts. But I don't have time right now to elaborate. Let me just say by way of summary that I think God has to strike a balance at any given time in the history of the earth between the degree He can increase His self-revelation and the degree of SIGNIFICANT freedom required for the attainment of His creational purpose(s). Degree plays a huge role in my understanding of God's teleological activity. Things are not always either/or for God any more than they are for us.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/21/2008 3:35 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Ricco: A) ... lead them inside, sit them down, and tell them about the importance of honesty and diligent study, and that they are grounded... [Response: arguably consistent with the parable of the prodigal son].
Jeff: "Grounding" some one is also judgment. I wasn't sure if you were trying to suggest otherwise. True NON-judgmental action would entail only that action which does NOT cause unease to a person no matter what they did. But eternal life is to KNOW God. If coming to know God causes unease, because of our pride or vain conceit, it's still worth it to experience that unease to get to the joy of knowing God. To get around this we could say that God could create us with the divine nature in the first place. But that hasn't happened apparently. So we need to explain things differently.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 12/21/2008 2:38:51 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/21/2008 8:06 PM (GMT -6) | | | Granted there have been judgments in the OT that seem severe relative to what is apparently occurring today. But even in the OT those were exceptional cases. And if Matthew 24 is true, that prophecy accounts for an exceptional case in the NT. So it's not an OT vs. NT thing, I think. I think God is revealing Himself in a way that advances history towards the glorification of His Son. When balancing this self-revelation against the degrees of significant freedom required to glorify the Son maximally, it just might be that God's self-revelation varies with time and place, even in terms of judgment. But nothing that has occurred yet even compares to some of the more extreme judgment coming in the future if the "age-abiding torment" language is durationally-accurate. And we also have to remember that there is continual natural evil that is at least as difficult to explain as severe cases of historical judgment--I would say more difficult. In fact, there are philosophers who think the problem of evil (primarily natural evil) is the strongest argument against benevolent theism.
Also, what do you mean by "performance-driven" morality?
Post Edited (Similtude) : 12/21/2008 7:11:40 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 12/22/2008 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | ... "performance-driven" morality.
Morality, good behavior, motivated by seeking God's approval, or obtaining grace, or obtaining salvation, or remaining in good-divine-standing, etc. etc. | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 12/23/2008 10:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Similtude said...
I take it by your definition that you're suggesting that any motivation that is not that of perfect love is wrong. Is that what you're saying?
I'm saying that, inasmuch as I understand the New Testament, we're ideally supposed to operate out of reciprocal love (reciprocal between God and us) rather than merit-seeking.
Similtude said...
Also, did you follow what I was saying about "age-abiding torment?" IOW if judgment can be that severe, post-mortem, then for all we know the judgments that have occured pre-mortem may not be relatively severe at all. Would you agree?
Relatively speaking, yes, I would agree, if the afterlife actually does entail eternal conscious torment (ECT), then pre-mortem judgments pale by comparison. But let's keep that topic separate please - I've already come to reject the concept of ECT as being even remotely compatible with the idea that "God is Agape", inasmuch as ECT typically puts God in the position of being the tormentor (whether actively, or passively by having constructed a place specifically designed for eternal suffering).
Preferably I'd like to keep this particular discussion, at least for now, in the "pre-mortem" realm, and in particular addressing Ananias and Sapphira primarily, and the 1 Cor 5 practice of Shunning secondarily. And I certainly wish some more of the regulars here would join in on this topic, I thought for sure this would peak some interest and some lively discussion from a variety of perspectives  | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/23/2008 9:23 PM (GMT -6) | | | Ricco: I'm saying that, inasmuch as I understand the New Testament, we're ideally supposed to operate out of reciprocal love (reciprocal between God and us) rather than merit-seeking.
Jeff: I think merit-seeking is not to the point so much as right-relating produces joy. Jesus endured the shame for the joy set before him.
Ricco: I would agree, if the afterlife actually does entail eternal conscious torment (ECT), then pre-mortem judgments pale by comparison. But let's keep that topic separate please - I've already come to reject the concept of ECT as being even remotely compatible with the idea that "God is Agape", inasmuch as ECT typically puts God in the position of being the tormentor (whether actively, or passively by having constructed a place specifically designed for eternal suffering).
Jeff: ECT is beside the point. There could be 3 months of torment and all historical judgments would pale by comparison to that.
Ricco: Preferably I'd like to keep this particular discussion, at least for now, in the "pre-mortem" realm, and in particular addressing Ananias and Sapphira primarily, ...
Jeff: I think pre-mortem judgments are a form of God's self-revelation to the world. I don't see what else it could be. And God's self-revelation decreases epistemic distance. This is a good thing for those with eyes to see and ears to hear. It may harden others, though.
Ricco: .. and the 1 Cor 5 practice of Shunning secondarily.
Jeff: Maybe we're looking at the order backwards. Maybe the PRIMARY reason for withdrawing intimate fellowship is because, like Paul says, a little leaven leavens the whole lump. IOW, it's for our sanctification and, hence, God's glory. Secondarily, we HOPE that they will be restored like the prodigal son. We don't need to see it as punitive at all. It is a form of revelation, though, just like divine acts in human history.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 12/23/2008 8:27:05 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 12/24/2008 6:55 PM (GMT -6) | | This is a confusing topic because we mean different things at different times about some of these things. Separating things that need to be separated is necessary, I believe. But that is difficult because we value (rightly or wrongly) things that contradict each other in varying ways. I do have a few things to say in regard to all this, but in the interest of honesty and full disclosure, I should make this disclaimer - - - I am a very untraditional Christian. Indeed, some other Christians think I am not a Christian at all. I love Jesus and have encountered Him in various ways. Based on my encounters and reflection upon them, I have arrived at some very different beliefs than nearly every other Christian. For example, I do not believe that the Bible is THE WORD OF GOD in a strong absolute sense. God can be encountered in the Bible and it is not surprising that many find Him there, because that is where they look for Him, and He wants to be found. And there are some true things there, as well as some untrue things (Hell for example) So, knowing this may make everything I have to say of no importance to you, but here it is anyway.
Love and Truth and Judgment cannot be separated. They are unitive.
In describing love as Agape we must be very careful not to mix meanings. If we say explicitly that love has no conditions or limitations we must mean that there is no reason not to love, ever. What can slowly seep in is the concept of love being similar to grace (an idea I do not hold), bringing us to think consciously or not that we should love people even though they do not deserve it...i.e. there is reason not to love, but we will love anyway. That is confusion and puts water in the gas tank.
There is no undeserved love. But there is an estimation, a valuation. Not of what you deserve or are capable of receiving...but of how you stand in relation to the standard. The standard is God's original intent and design specifications for humanity. (Even this is complex, because God did not make us whole and complete, but He made us with the capacity to gain capacities...so we are expansionary) We can fall short of that standard and then JUDGMENT comes into play. Judgment just is love, just is truth.
This is confusing because we use the word judgment in different ways. And this is were Greg and others miss the boat. Let's call judgment 1 (subscript one) this...you are not good enough, you can't be good enough, you never will be good enough, you are defective. Let's call judgment 2 (subscript two) this...you are not good enough (in relation to the standard), but you can be, you will be, you have the capacity to be good enough, or minimally you have the capacity to gain the capacity to be good enough.
So to judge you is to say you fall short of the standard and to call you to the standard. To judge you is to hold a better you in trust, for you, until you are able to possess it; and a call to you to take action to possess it.
To judge you with judgment 2 is to love you!
And when we commit judgment 2 upon those who are committing judgment 1 we ARE NOT doing to them what they are doing to others. We are saying that they are falling short of the standard by the very act of committing judgment 1, and we are telling them to stop it, we are calling them to love, we are calling them to truth, we are calling them to judgment 2, we are calling them to their humanity, we are calling them to the image of God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/24/2008 9:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Retake of Mufasa/Simba dialogue from "The Lion King"
"Child, you have forgotten me."
"No, God, my Father, I could never..."
"You have forgotten who you are and so have forgotten me. Look inside yourself, my child. You are more than what you've become. You must take your rightful place in My Kingdom."
Unconditional love of the child by the father...and the loving, convicting call for the son to "remember the father" by living in truth and becoming who he really is.
Through the imago Dei in us, the embedded call for us to be "a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God's special possession"
God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them.
"I love, therefore I am in I Am." Post Edited (One Love) : 12/24/2008 8:43:12 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/26/2008 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | | Ricco: I've already come to reject the concept of ECT as being even remotely compatible with the idea that "God is Agape", inasmuch as ECT typically puts God in the position of being the tormentor (whether actively, or passively by having constructed a place specifically designed for eternal suffering).
Jeff: If God never does anything to motivate peope who are not otherwise motivated out of love, then I would agree with you that the bible is either very non-perspicuous or very incoherent (even divine discipline of sons/daughters would be out the window, in that case). Either way, the bible would be of little aid in understanding what divine love is. As I see it, God is sympathetic. Thus, like us, He SUFFERS when people suffer from wrong-doing. So if judgment is applied as a form of motivation UNTO right-relating (objectively, if not subjectively), then God is essentially motivating people so that the world doesn't more rapidly descend into the state where "it repented God that He had made man." IOW, there are degrees of wrong-relating for which God is not willing to continue the creational project. So God's judgment is positive in the sense that it motivates people in such a way that the duration of the creational project is increased. And if UR is true, that is a positive thing in every sense of the word.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 12/26/2008 10:27 PM (GMT -6) | | To reiterate, I don't object to the concept of judgment in and of itself, so broad statements about the purpose of judgment are not addressing my question.
Again, what I'm troubled with here, is what appears to me to be severe overkill in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. They lied to God; they were divinely slain. I need input on how this is not essentially on the same level of a father shooting two of his own children - for lying.
As Christians, throughout the New Testament, we are assured as new creations in Christ that God loves us, and we can and should trust Him. Ananias and Sapphira trusted in Christ, and then made a bad decision, and the result of God's agape toward them was to kill them. How does that apply to me, to us, as Christians today? When I look back on my life as a Christian, I see where I have at times lied to God. I know from Acts that God was willing to slay two Christians - people just like me, people with family and friends, people who loved them, people in the church who loved them - for something I myself have done. How does the concept of "trust" apply to such a Being? Knowing the story of Ananias and Sapphira, I'm having trouble understanding just how I'm supposed to love (agape) and trust, and call ABBA, a Being that has shown Himself willing to slay two Christians, just like me, for something I'm fairly sure I've done myself.
Are any of you getting where I'm coming from here? Because I'm not seeing any of you genuinely entering into the question with me, putting yourself in their shoes, in the shoes of their loved ones, their parents if they were alive, their children if they had any; putting yourself in the position of being someone in the Church, just like them, but today, and arguably having committed similar and/or worse sins in the course of our time as Christians (except for the truly virtuous amongst ye out there), and knowing that the very same God could be standing right above you ready and willing to slay you just the same.
Is any of this making any sense? | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:50 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|