 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/27/2003 4:35 AM (GMT -6) |   | I have difficulty figuring this out, so maybe someone here has some reply:
If God is necessary for morality, then does God determine morality- and if so, is it an arbitrary determination? IN other words, if God was to declare torture good and altruism bad, would it then be so?
If not, does that mean that there is a DIFFERENT set of moral rules that operate outside of God, that God has to act in accordance with (or cannot NOT act in accordance with).
This is difficult, for if we say that there is a "morality" out there that God follows but exists apart from God's fiat, then we get closer to not needing God.
It seems that most of us, through our conscience or whatever, know that torturing innocents is wrong, and that if God was to declare it good, we would argue that he is not right.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
 |
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 5/27/2003 4:56 AM (GMT -6) | | So I can't ask a question now? I'm interested in people helping me formulate a reply to this objection. That's why I posted it under Apologetics.
I must say how disappointed i am that this board contains some of the most rude posters I've ever seen.
Thanks for telling me to go get busy. I really respond well to orders. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 5/27/2003 5:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Please ignore PoW, Gina. You've been on this board long enough to know that 90% of the time, he is either unintelligible or offensive or both.
You ask a good question here. I'll get back to it soon. Hang in there! 
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
BJS
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587
| Posted 5/27/2003 5:40 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Sorry, Brett, but that truly offends me. Opinions and points of view are to be encouraged and not just tolorated. But there is a real line between leaven and non-leaven.
Then why did you delete your previous post, PoW? To remove the evidence of how rudely you behaved toward Gina? C'mon.
Brett
"Siste viator et memento mori." | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/27/2003 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I'm interested in people helping me formulate a reply to this objection. That's why I posted it under Apologetics.
OK, Gina, now I see. This is so you can explain it to someone else. That wasn't clear from your initial post: "I have difficulty figuring this out..."
Who do you have in mind?
Again, we must avoid ask questions in such a way as to make God a subject. And it does not help the person questioning along their path go God either. But if you can find out the REAL question they are up against, maybe you can help them with THAT.
If you care deeply about the person you will help them come to
KNOW God, and not just have rational ideas to replace God.
"God himself has been understood as an absolute Subject (with which understanding man has transformed him into an object, transcendent certainly, but subject to the rules of correct reasoning). (CY, "Man")
from:
quote:
Thus life and truth are transformed from an event of relationship and communion into an anthropocentric subjectivism. The truth has become a knowledge subject to the conceptual demands of the subject and life, likewise, a subjective realization of utilitarian goals. God himself has been understood as an absolute Subject (with which understanding man has transformed him into an object, transcendent certainly, but subject to the rules of correct reasoning). God owes his existence to his given Essence, while the Persons of the triadic revelation function simply as modes (modi) of activity or as "internal relationships" of the Essence, seeing that a unique character is attributed–-as is logically necessary–-to this objectified Subject. And when both God and man are understood as subjects or individuals, as beings in themselves beyond any dynamic relationship or communion, then the one "images" the other with objectively given qualitative analogies. We refer to the absolute and we attribute to God the marks which characterize the human subject– and finally God is even created "in the image and likeness" of man, instead of the other way.
Who do you have in mind?
(Remember, we CAN avoid "objectivizing" God.)
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/27/2003 11:14:26 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/27/2003 6:08 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
If God is necessary for morality, then does God determine morality- and if so, is it an arbitrary determination? IN other words, if God was to declare torture good and altruism bad, would it then be so?
If not, does that mean that there is a DIFFERENT set of moral rules that operate outside of God, that God has to act in accordance with (or cannot NOT act in accordance with).
This is difficult, for if we say that there is a "morality" out there that God follows but exists apart from God's fiat, then we get closer to not needing God.
- "If God is necessary for morality..."
God created everything. But I think the "necessary for morality" idea comes from the thinking that has God "objectivized." God too, in this way of thinking, is determined by a certain "deity" that functions as his inherent guidelines. (As Yannaras says in the quote I posted above: "God owes his existence to his given Essence...") But God is Personal. Leading to what you intuited...
- "...if we say that there is a "morality" out there that God follows but exists apart from God's fiat, then we get closer to not needing God."
You rightly set God's fiat (a personal act) AGAINST the view that there is something "out there" (either outside God, or existing as his God-substance) that God is slave to. God is free. Good going, Gina!
- Dismissing, "If not, does that mean that there is a DIFFERENT set of moral rules that operate outside of God" and turning to "If God is necessary for morality, then does God determine morality"
We have to be equally careful not to fall into the SAME pit. Its the same problem as "Ethics" where rationalistic compartmentalization separats "behavior" from "faithfulness" (also symbol from reality). Asking "If God is necessary for morality" makes "morality" into a thing in itself. It makes it a subject, objectizing it. Rather, the Bible says that "God will be all in all." Nothing will exist that is not in God. "Morality" as such is an abstraction. Living IN CHRIST is not. Piet-ISM is the objectivized, object-ized counterfeit to "walking in the Spirit."
See the difference?
If anything WE determine "morality." in its best sense we create moral behavior that is ALSO faithfulness. God creates us, and together with us, synergistically works righteousness in us.
- "This is difficult, for if we say that there is a "morality" out there that God follows but exists apart from God's fiat, then we get closer to not needing God."
"Not needing God" happens when we create morality to replace God.
My two cents. ("Unintelligible or offensive" as they may be.  )
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/27/2003 11:11:22 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/27/2003 6:21 AM (GMT -6) | | So, Gina, the REAL question is asked with the HEART!
The heart does not make God a subject, it joins with God's Spirit.
As I pointed out above, it is a real offense to God--it is sin--to place of ideas and thoughts on the same level as God. It seems to me that was what Adam and Eve did too: made God a subject.
So, what does your HEART say???
(Sorry to misunderstand your purpose, Gina.)
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/27/2003 4:21 PM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt
If God is necessary for morality, then does God determine morality- and if so, is it an arbitrary determination? IN other words, if God was to declare torture good and altruism bad, would it then be so?
If not, does that mean that there is a DIFFERENT set of moral rules that operate outside of God, that God has to act in accordance with (or cannot NOT act in accordance with).
This is difficult, for if we say that there is a "morality" out there that God follows but exists apart from God's fiat, then we get closer to not needing God.
It seems that most of us, through our conscience or whatever, know that torturing innocents is wrong, and that if God was to declare it good, we would argue that he is not right.
Iconoclast
Great question Reasonable. This question really gets at the heart of the matter. This question comes out of the filter of the "legal view" - which is the stolen knowledge of good and evil. You articulate well how its logic results in us being separated from God. Because we have eaten the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil we have become separated from God. The trouble is that this “good and evil” we now know can ONLY be known from the perspective of disunion from the very source of our life, from the source of our very being for it creates this disunion itself by the very knowing of it. “Adam and Eve felt shame and they hid.” Shame only arises out of disunity with another.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer nails this issue in his book, “Ethics”. I highly recommend reading it if you want to dig further into this question.
My very inarticulate answer is that the “morality” we think we know does not really even exist as we know it. There is no “morality” in the sense we think of it. There is no “good and evil” there is only life and death. Loving union and disunion. Togetherness and the utter aloneness of death.
We all deeply WANT to be in union with our creator and in union with each other OR we deeply WANT to be a god unto ourselves and bind others to us. We all either want to support God as the source of our life by allowing Him to be our “center” or source of life OR we all want to be our own “center” or source of life where all other life serves us.
It turns out however that there is only ONE source of life and that is God. For humans to try and have life in themselves is what God calls “death.” “For in the DAY that you eat of it (the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) you shall surely die.” Separation from God, the source of life, is death.
It is NOT about morality. It is NOT about being “good enough.” It is only about choosing to be connected to the source of life and therefore having eternal life as a free gift OR choosing to try and gain life on your own. “You must die to live”.
There is only one command: “do not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil” which is the same ONE command as “love God and love one another.”
When we love one another we, by definition, CANNOT be trying to gain our own life at their expense. Rather, by definition, we are ascribing worth to them at OUR expense. Those who seek their own life will lose it. You must die to live. To love another IS the very definition of Life.
The very knowledge of good and evil that we stole caused us to then SEE the world in terms of “good” and “evil”, “right” and “wrong”, “pleasure” and “pain”. It sets up what I call the “legal view” within us. Thus, we see everything through this false filter of the “legal view.”
Our shadow version of “morality” comes from the very definition of Life which cannot exist without Love. God has Life within Himself. God is Love.
Life begets Love and Love supports Life and we only even know of these thing really to the extent that we know God. For God is the source of these things.
If God was to declare torturing innocents as good we know that this means that God just declared that Life no longer chooses to Love which means that Love no longer supports Life which means that Life no longer exists which means that God doesn’t exist which means that God is not eternal which means that God never existed. It is the same thing as saying that God just declared that He is Not-God. It has nothing to do with “morality” or “good and evil”. It has to do with what IS. And the source of all that IS. Which is God. Who has Life in Himself and who therefore Loves us. Who sets before us Life and Death in order that we freely choose Life because He Loves us.
Deu 30:19
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, [that] I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 05/27/2003 9:25:47 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/28/2003 1:58 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I have difficulty figuring this out, so maybe someone here has some reply:
If God is necessary for morality, then does God determine morality- and if so, is it an arbitrary determination? IN other words, if God was to declare torture good and altruism bad, would it then be so?
If not, does that mean that there is a DIFFERENT set of moral rules that operate outside of God, that God has to act in accordance with (or cannot NOT act in accordance with).
This is difficult, for if we say that there is a "morality" out there that God follows but exists apart from God's fiat, then we get closer to not needing God.
Hi Gina,
Speaking of course only for myself, I endeavor to base my ethics on the Holy Scriptures, which I believe are the Word of God. It seems to me that the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (Scripture, Reason, Tradition, and Experience) comes into play in our interpretation of Scripture, no matter if we are aware of it or not.
It seems to me that God himself submits to what is good, right and loving. God is love. I don't believe God's sense of morality is somehow above ours, in that if God committed a sin it wouldn't be a sin, because of who did it (God). I do find that for us humans some degree of knowlege about God, sin, righteousness, and judgement is necessary for morality. This I think is a major theme of Paul's argumentation in Romans 1 through 3. All men are without excuse for sinning, for though all have at least some degree of knowledge about God, all have willfully violated whatever degree of revelation of God's law they have, whether nature, conscience, or Torah.
I am positive that I will continue to be condemned by some here as a legalist in saying this, but I for one am deeply saddened and grieved at the how "open" some openness advocates seem to be morally.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 05/28/2003 7:24:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 5/28/2003 2:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Gina, I also have read some astonishingly rude comments online in these topics. A prime example is Brett's reply to you telling you to ignore POW and calling him unintelligible and offensive. I am not aware of POW's comments, but Brett's commentary does little more than contribute to the atmosphere of rudeness and haughtiness that exists in here.
Your comments have been very intelligent Gina and you obviously are a bright young woman. I have enjoyed reading your posts. I have been greatly disappointed by the type of dialogue that often takes place in these forums and disappointed that Chrisitans cannot be more civil and gracious to one another even while disagreeing.
Edited by - Christian on 05/28/2003 7:19:20 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 5/28/2003 2:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello John, I will not be one to condemn you but I am interested in hearing more about your comment on how open some openess advocates have become. I experienced this with my own personal experience with the OV (I once embraced it; I no longer do). Why do you believe it is that some openess advocates have become as "open" as they are? My belief is that the OV lends itself to a more emotional experience of God vs. a disciplined and obedient relationship. Obviously there are extremes even with that (legalism). I do not wish to offend you seeing as you ascribe to the OV and I do not, but I am curious to hear more on your feelings regarding this particular comment. I am also curious as to why you feel other OVers will condemn you as "legalistic". It seems to me that you are not expecting love or an appreciation of your feelings and opinions. It is a shame when we expect to be condemned by our Christian brothers and sisters, yet I too often wonder if I will receive it after I have commented in a topic. God bless you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/28/2003 5:32 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hello John, I will not be one to condemn you but I am interested in hearing more about your comment on how open some openess advocates have become. I experienced this with my own personal experience with the OV (I once embraced it; I no longer do). Why do you believe it is that some openess advocates have become as "open" as they are? My belief is that the OV lends itself to a more emotional experience of God vs. a disciplined and obedient relationship. Obviously there are extremes even with that (legalism). I do not wish to offend you seeing as you ascribe to the OV and I do not, but I am curious to hear more on your feelings regarding this particular comment. I am also curious as to why you feel other OVers will condemn you as "legalistic". It seems to me that you are not expecting love or an appreciation of your feelings and opinions. It is a shame when we expect to be condemned by our Christian brothers and sisters, yet I too often wonder if I will receive it after I have commented in a topic. God bless you.
Hi Christian,
I think the problem originates in the fact that I apparently came to the Open View in a different context than did several of the more outspoken OV advocates here. My journey has been (and continues to be) within the parameters of the Holiness theology articulated by Charles Finney and John Wesley. My church background is the Pentecostal movement, and at least the part that I come from has always emphasized the following: (1) Without following after holiness, no one shall see God (Heb. 12:14), (2) Prayer changes things, (4) Sin is a morally responsible choice, and (3) We can and should make a difference. These points, to my mind, have only been underscored by my study of Open Theism, not deemphasized.
However, it is no secret that on this board I have been accused repeatedly of being "stuck in the legal view," "like the Pharisees," etc., etc., ad nauseum, because I do not view sodomy as anything BUT a sin, and I do not subscribe to a self-contradictory definition of love which is trumpeted by some here.
I'm not looking for sympathy, not at all. I'm just very disappointed. It is a necessary corollary of freedom of the human will that one is morally responsible for their own acts. To my mind Open Theism only emphasizes that fact.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 05/28/2003 10:34:03 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 5/28/2003 7:03 PM (GMT -6) | | John, Thank you for sharing. I am unaware of the accusations made to you on this board but it is unfortunate as it sounds that you have defended holiness (by calling sodomy sin). It is unfortunate when a desire for holiness is viewed as legalism or being a Pharisee. The catcall of Pharisee is misused too often towards Christian brothers and sisters. Would you mind further explaining what you mentioned of a self-contradictory definition of love? I have a suspicion of what you might be referring to but am not fully certain. God bless you.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/28/2003 7:50 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Would you mind further explaining what you mentioned of a self-contradictory definition of love? I have a suspicion of what you might be referring to but am not fully certain. God bless you.
The definition goes: "Love is to ascribe infinite worth to another, at cost to oneself." (Icon has claimed that the operative word is not "infinite," but "unsurpassable." I honestly don't see a difference in the two terms, and I honestly don't see how this definition is at all possible. If one ascribes such worth to one individual, one by definition is ascribing no worth or at the very least far, far less worth to all others. (You might want to check out the threads in the Theological Questions section, "Definition of Love," and "Knowledge of Good & Evil vs. Tree of Life."
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/28/2003 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/29/2003 1:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Christian: if you think that OV alone is vulnerable to an "emotional" response, I would simply ask you to become more experienced with dealing with Christians in general. As a veteran on debates with all kinds of Christians, from reformed to Othodox to CAtholics I can tell you from experience that ALL Christians are prone to such things, as all Christians (humans in general) get emotional when their views are challenged. I would also ask that you try to stick with the topic, rather than "seek out" bad behaviour by open theists. Almost every post I've read by you has contained some slight about how you've been hurt or become disllusioned by open theism. I would venture that just about all of us have some story about some part of the church that has hurt us. Most of go on. I would suggest the same for you.
The Christian church is filled with all kinds, but all are human. We all should cut each of us some sack, in love, to disagree, but do so lovely. Open theists are just as human as everyone else. This does not mean they are not Christian, in just means they fail sometimes. Try to remember that.
I agree with what John said, but I would also add that I believe it is a malaise of the church in general to uphold "grace" at the expense of striving for holiness and not a particular "vice" of open theism specifically. When you have a Christian saying there is no "Christian ethic," which basically means to me that Jesus has no general way he would call us to live, then of course you have problems.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/29/2003 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
I am positive that I will continue to be condemned by some here as a legalist in saying this,
…
However, it is no secret that on this board I have been accused repeatedly of being "stuck in the legal view," "like the Pharisees," etc., etc., ad nauseum,
Iconoclast
John, I sincerely apologize for attacking you. It is not my intent to in any way attack you or condemn you for anything. I see now that I communicated poorly by using a “you are …” statement. I will be more vigilant in the future in how I communicate.
I do not think you are a Pharisee.
I do perceive you as coming from the perspective of what I call “the legal view”. If you hear this as an attack then I am still saying it wrong. In my view this is no different than you saying that you perceive someone coming from the perspective of a “determinist” world view or a Newtonian world view. Clearly, none of us would attack or condemn someone for holding to a “determinist” world view. We may disagree with them but would never attack or condemn them.
Again, I apologize for attacking you. That was not my intent.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/29/2003 8:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I like you John
I like you too, honordude.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 5/29/2003 8:26 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
John Earp
I am positive that I will continue to be condemned by some here as a legalist in saying this,
…
However, it is no secret that on this board I have been accused repeatedly of being "stuck in the legal view," "like the Pharisees," etc., etc., ad nauseum,
Iconoclast
John, I sincerely apologize for attacking you. It is not my intent to in any way attack you or condemn you for anything. I see now that I communicated poorly by using a “you are …” statement. I will be more vigilant in the future in how I communicate.
I do not think you are a Pharisee.
I do perceive you as coming from the perspective of what I call “the legal view”. If you hear this as an attack then I am still saying it wrong. In my view this is no different than you saying that you perceive someone coming from the perspective of a “determinist” world view or a Newtonian world view. Clearly, none of us would attack or condemn someone for holding to a “determinist” world view. We may disagree with them but would never attack or condemn them.
Again, I apologize for attacking you. That was not my intent.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Icon,
I appreciate your apology. As even being accused of "coming from a legal viewpoint" to my mind cannot mean anything but, "Pharisee," and therefore enemy of Christ (as Paul fought against among the Galatians for example), I think we will just have to agree that we don't see eye to eye on how we approach Christianity, and leave it at that. It is a very different thing for you to say I'm "coming from a legal view" than for you to not condemn someone for being a determinist, as it is absolutely impossible for a person to be a legalistic Pharisee (or, in your words, "to come from the legal view") and a true Christian at the same time. (e.g., Paul's conversion from one to the other excluded both being possible for one person to be at the same time). On the other hand, I think we all agree that a person can be a true Christian and a determinist.
What I hear you saying is that for one to hold that the New Testament has specific moral directives still binding upon Christians today is legalistic. This seems quite problematic to me, as I find the New Testament to have far more strict moral standards than the Old Testament. I will not belabor this point, as I do not find the second (or 100th) kick of a mule to have any real educational value.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 05/30/2003 01:58:26 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/30/2003 6:28 AM (GMT -6) | | I do think it is important to recognize that the NT talks as much about living for righteousness and holiness as it does love and grace. I've been thinking a lot about that lately...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/30/2003 8:42 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
As even being accused of "coming from a legal viewpoint" to my mind cannot mean anything but, "Pharisee,"
Iconoclast
Then we are all Pharisees for we all spend much of our time in the "legal view". It is our "fallen essence" and it will simply not go away until our minds are fully transformed / renewed.
John, I saw a post of yours where you showed how a key issue of the Pharisees was their bad intent. I thought that was very insightful. Unfortunately I can't seem to find that post.
I also view the New Testament as setting a much higher standard. The standard is the perfection of always loving one another. Holiness is not perfectly following the law. Holiness is perfect love for one another. Love fulfills the law it does not satisfy it. This is a huge distinction. The law can guide us toward this kind of love when we actually DO the law ourselves. The problem is when we try and apply the law to others for in that very moment we are no longer loving others but judging them and thus are missing the whole point to begin with.
Ethics can guide us toward love but love can only happen when we let go of ethics. Love is not an ethic. To love out of an ethic is NOT to love but rather to be trying to satisfy an ethical demand. Imagine a mother who has a child because she is supposed to in order to be a good mother. Is she doing it out of love or out of a desire to be a good mother? If she has the child because she is supposed to but then actually loves the child has she let go of the ethical demand to have a child? If she does not let go of the ethical demand to have a child will she ever really love the child?
Jesus said of the Pharisees that it was okay to do what they say but NOT to do what they do. It is okay to seek to meet strong ethical demands for yourself BECAUSE that will lead you down the right path. But it is NOT okay to judge others according to those same ethical demands because that will NOT lead you down the right path.
We are all stuck in the "legal view". To apply it to ourselves ONLY will lead us to loving others and giving up the "legal view" alltogether. To apply it to others will lead us to despise others - our intent will become corrupt.
Life and death. It is not really about good and evil at all.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/30/2003 8:47 PM (GMT -6) | | honorman
I do think it is important to recognize that the NT talks as much about living for righteousness and holiness as it does love and grace.
Iconoclast
I agree. I view righteousness and holiness AS love and grace. God loves us and gives us grace. This IS righteousness and holiness. When we do the same - love others and give them grace - then this is also righteousness and holiness.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 5/30/2003 9:05 PM (GMT -6) | | John Earp
What I hear you saying is that for one to hold that the New Testament has specific moral directives still binding upon Christians today is legalistic. This seems quite problematic to me, as I find the New Testament to have far more strict moral standards than the Old Testament.
Iconoclast
I agree with you. Although in some sense the standard has always been the same: love God and love one another. Jesus makes it clear how far from this standard we really are. Saying, "thou fool" to your brother is unloving and thus puts you in danger of hell fire. I would agree that it is certainly more clear in the New Testament how high the bar really is but I don't think it has ever really been lowered.
At the same time. I see the New Testament telling us that it isn't about meeting some specific "moral directive". That, in fact, to be seeking to meet some moral directive for that directive's sake is itself trying to meet a moral directive - the moral directive of meeting all moral directives. The law is for a purpose and when we live in that purpose - when we love one another - the law is fulfilled and is thus no longer needed to serve that purpose.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Edited by - Iconoclast on 05/31/2003 02:18:09 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/31/2003 5:08 AM (GMT -6) | | Then you view love and grace as righeousness and holiness? You are confusing the terms and you are applying terms where they should not be applied. Each verse was must be taken on its own. Would you at Jesus command to love one another and say we should be holy before one another. I doubt it. I think you are simply applying your standard of love to the NT and deciding what it says. I truly do not believe you are giving the verses of the NT that concern these issues a fair shake.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 5/31/2003 5:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Icon: I truly wonder, on your view, why Paul bothered to even use the words "holiness" and "righteousness" when they are simply love in disguise. I would have to jog my memory, but it seems to me that holiness and righteousness are defined differently in a dictionary. In most of Paul's passages the word love isn't even mentioned. to live in holiness is to do and not do certain things that are holy. I think you are taking all the love verses in scripture and trumping them over anything you view as legalistic. Not unlike reformed believers and their "god does not change" verses.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 32 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:58 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 |
|
|