Post Edited (Daniel M) : 2/16/2009 9:39:37 PM (GMT-6)

Daniel: Not really. I think you’re using too Hellenized of an understanding of what “perfect” means in this context. You seem to be relating the potential for violence in the OT as something that ought to be imitated because if we are to be perfect, and God is perfect, then obviously being perfect includes the potential use of violence. I don’t think Christ is calling us to be, in all things, like God. It’s much more specific then that.

Jeff: If it's much more specific, then how specific is it? It's much easier to say that we are to love as the Father loves. But that doesn't mean we imitate the OT, because we can't. I can't be in a circumstance where God is telling me to kill nations whose iniquity is "filled up" so I can possess their land that was promised to me. Why? Because it wasn't promised to me. And the people that live in that land now may not be characterized by iniquity that is "full." To the extent that violence can be justified, it would necessarily be very rare. But you still haven't argued for anarchism, so I'm still not seeing how you can even be consistent.

Daniel: I think Matthew 5.45 gives us a clear understanding of what was meant by perfect, “that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.” IOW, be indiscriminate in choosing the objects of love, just as God is indiscriminate in who he sends the rain on. It could be taken a step further and look at this verse in the context of Christ’s death. Which could be taken to mean, ‘die for everyone indiscriminately just as Christ (who is one with the Father) died for everyone indiscriminately’

Jeff: We should love all. But we can not love all in the SAME way. Your love for your family is different than your love for your co-workers. A love for a spouse is different than love for an infant. People are different. Thus, relationships are different. Thus, love varies in its modes of expression.

Daniel: Not exactly. The Torah is not the fullest revelation of God. Jesus calls us to a higher standard then the Torah, for an example that relates to violence, the notion of eye for an eye being discarded for more forgiveness, for indiscriminate love. For a fuller understanding of God. Sure the Torah is a great starting point, but it most certainly is not where we end.

Jeff: The Torah didn't condone individuals avenging themselves. That was left to the "state" just as it is in the NT. Jesus was saying that not only should we not retaliate, but that we should overcome evil WITH good when possible. But this was clearly recognized in the OT as the proper way of rightly-relating. Paul even quotes the verse in the OT about feeding enemies to prove it WAS in the OT all along. Jesus was expounding the MEANING of the law and the prophets and revealing how the scribes and pharisees had twisted it to their own self-interest. Again, see Matt. 19 on the divorce question addressed in the Sermon on the Mount. In no way was Jesus arguing against the Torah there either.

Post Edited (Similtude) : 2/20/2009 9:55:31 PM (GMT-6)

Jeff: Tom & D, what do you think about this? A non-universalist could argue that Paul's argument, that the State has a ministry unto GOOD by instilling fear in evil-doer's by doling out just recompense, seems to be purely utilitarian. At face value, that seems true.

Tom: Right.

Jeff: But what if the State was instituted by God to deter evil for the purpose of PROLONGING the creational project.

Tom: But to me that’s still utilitarian, isn’t it? In the present fallen context, God needs the State to prolong human existence. As broken down as the State inherently is, it’s better than no State and it at least keeps us from anarchy. So it serves a 'purpose' and thus is utilitarian.

Jeff: In that case, it would be no coincidence that God told Noah AFTER the Flood that those who shed human blood should have their blood shed. The Flood was brought about because the earth had become FILLED with violence and God became "repentant that HE had made man."

Tom: I read it this way. The length of human life at that time was long enough that the solidification process meant evil persons were capable of having a far greater detrimental impact upon society. Imagine a Hitler who lived for 200 years. I take it human society got THAT bad. The flood wipes the slate clean and then God starts over but with a few new rules: 1) shorten the standard life span, and 2) establish capital punishment. All utilitarian, no?

Jeff: So if the state maintains order sufficient to PROLONG the creational project, God would actually be MORE loving by sanctioning the State IF UR is true.

Tom: Everything makes more sense if UR is true! But there's no question that Paul's view is that God sanctions the State purposefully (for some utility). If UR is not true, it becomes more difficult to balance the eternal consequences of the individual whom God loves and the wider whole. God would presumably want to keep Hitler alive as long as possible to avoid his eternal loss (this would be an argument against capital punishment as well). But keeping a Hitler alive might mean the eternal loss of all those he kills. So...avoiding eternal conscious torment would weigh in big-time in God’s providential use of the State if UR is false. But if UR is true, although hell is to be avoided, it’s being remedial and not purely retributive would give us different options for viewing God’s use of the State. But in either case, it’s all utilitarian isn’t it?

Jeff: For the prolonging of the project allows for MORE humans to partake of God. And the just judgment of individuals by the state is appropriated as a subset of God's judgment anyway. So that judgment is not gratuitous or utilitarian at all. UR seems to be the easiest way to eliminate the utilitarian APPEARANCE of Paul's argument. Make sense?

Tom: I guess ‘gratuitous’ and ‘utilitarian’ seem to me to be jointly exhaustive. It’s one or the other. Isn’t all judgment utilitarian for both UR and non-UR folk though? Piper says judgment (as utility) serves as the justification of God and the enhancement of his holiness. A universalist will say judgment (as utility) serves a remedial, redemptive function in bringing the wicked to realize their offense. But in both cases it constitutes some utility, right?

T

Tom: Gotcha. Right. If that case, killing someone might be the most loving thing to do for the 'whole' (those humans spared who'd otherwise be cut down by Hitler, for example), but it wouldn't be the most loving thing to do for Hitler. Agreed.

Jeff: More specifically, killing Nazi's, if successful (for just war theory only allows war when the good to be gained is worth the cost--which good is the KIND of good that allows God to prolong the project), would have been better for the relatively "innocent", but not for Hitler, per a non-UR view unless we can know his judgment would have been worse OTHERWISE. We want to believe (because no other belief is grounded in analogy) that justice is ABSOLUTELY better. But that means it must be better for ALL. There may be a way to work that out for a pro-state, non-UR position. But it would be difficult. And it would be absolute only in the sense that it minimizes suffering for all. UR solves it easily while maximizing joy/pleasure.

Tom: But if UR is true, then love for the individual can always motivate my actions toward that individual. And this is the case because only UR views hell as redemptive (i.e., a loving thing to do). Non-UR views of hell have to bail at this point and ground hell in something other than benevolence (like justice).

Jeff: But to agree that the state is legitimate, we have to say that justice is ULTIMATELY best for all because the state is only authorized to motivate JUSTLY. UR is the ticket for that that makes sense even to a child. No jumping through hoops required. Because the implications of the institution of the state with RESPECT TO the pre-Flood conditions it is to supposedly prevent or postpone makes justice ULTIMATELY best for all if UR is true. Again, I mean that in the sense that it not only minimizes dissatisfaction, but that there is a truly POSITIVE effect for ALL of just state action once the post-mortem effects of it are taken into account.

In short, I can see how non-universalists can see a problem with the state. And I don't even have a problem with their problem, PHILOSOPHICALLY. It is the attempt to justify an anti-state position from scripture that I have a problem with. But I think UR solves it philosophically. Thus, the more perspicuous reading of scripture on the state is not problematic in any sense if UR is true.

A specific exampe may help. Christians typically think that, since converted criminals should be free to seek God (because God has forgiven them) without turning themselves into the state, that criminals that have been incarcerated already should have the same out. That is not true by what I am arguing. Paul specifically said, in the end of ACTS, he had no problem paying for the crimes he was accused of IF they were true, but they weren't, he said. IOW, though he was guilty of murder of christians, THERETOFORE, that was no reason to turn himself into the state as a murderer even if they would have agreed that he was guilty. For God had forgiven him and had a purpose for his life. But once God allows, in His providence or whatever, for Paul to be incarcerated for actual crimes THEREAFTER, God doesn't want us to argue AGAINST the legitimate function of the state just to avoid the legal consequences of our actions. For THAT is to undermine the divinely sanctioned role of the state. God is big enough to  keep us out of prison if He needs to.

UR removes the philosophical problems of justice as the best for all. Because even forgiveness is accomplished by justice: God SHEWED FORTH HIS JUSTICE in forgiving by setting forth Christ as a PROPITIATION suited to God's nature (Rom. 3). Justice is ultimately served EVEN in God's forgiveness so that humans can have eternal life.

It seems to me that the bare requirements of justice are what makes a moral order possible for beings that are epistemologically bound to adjudicate morally in terms of REASON, as we are. IOW, justice seems to be the necessary adjudicating principle for rational beings so they can deliberate MORALLY at all. That's why, to me, substitutionary atonement doesn't contradict relational dynamics. God has to relate to, and communicate with, His creatures AS THEY ARE DESIGNED to relate and communicate. I.e., it may very well be that God can forgive without atonement. But maybe He can't forgive in A WAY that rational beings can RATIONALLY comprehend by doing so. Once God SAID that sin results in death, there are only a few ways to explain how God isn't contradicting Himself:

1) death was meant to be temporal for all and, thus, substitutionary atonement is unnecessary. This leaves us needing to answer what SPECIFICALLY was in need of propitiation by Christ's death.

2) substitutionary atonement satisfies the requirement of the penalty of death of sinners

3) Christ's death and its mode (I'm thinking of Hebrews, here) satisfies the requirement of those who, pre-mortem, are converted and, therefore, partake with Christ in his temporal reign, while 2), independent of mode, takes care of the rest of UR.

4) Christ's death, by virtue of its mode, is ONLY necessary for those who, pre-mortem, are converted and, therefore, partake with Christ in his temporal reign.

and so on...

We have to make sense of Rom. 5, though, which seems to constrain the possibilities. To me, if UR is true, it seems that the NT is most easily reconciled with something like 3).

Post Edited (Similtude) : 2/21/2009 1:31:22 PM (GMT-6)