 |
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/15/2012 1:52 PM (GMT -6) |   | I'd just ask Greg the question...
"Can the Aurora massacre be an example of God 'sacrificing a rook for the queen' or 'collateral damage' with respect to divine struggle against created wills?"
In other words, could God, for inscrutable reasons given all the factors in Creation, truly be GOD-INTENDED on some level?
I don't see how he give an absolute "No" to either question.
And what does that do?
Yeppers.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/15/2012 7:32 PM (GMT -6) | | |
I'm satisfied with a theodicy where God assures that
1) all will agree (per an enlightened, objective analysis) that their own existence is worth it,
and
2) all will agree (per an enlightened, objective analysis) that the thus-far perpetuation of the creational project is better than the alternative.
Now, objectivity involves certain epistemological conditions as well. So those have to be entailed in the enlightened, objective analyses above. Surely it is of no avail to say that all is well so long as people merely agree that it is, subjectively and inaccurately. For they could do so with false memories, e.g. The assent must be informed to be relevant to theodicy.
UR seems to be the simplest way to account for 1) and 2). The free-will theodicy that Greg defends is the simplest way to account for the epistemological conditions (i.e., in a sinless world, all developing eyes could have ultimately seen and all human fetuses would have been born, rendering analogy/induction relevant where it matters most to us, but can't be tested empirically--like inferring the existence of other minds).
So 2) is the more constraining providential criteria. God can do stuff that looks less than maximally benevolent to us in our short-sightedness so long as it perpetuates the project. There may be a lot of room for providential flexibility even within the constraint of 2). This is probably why prayer can not only be effectual for us personally, but actually a means to perpetuating the project.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 8/15/2012 8:22:52 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/15/2012 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 8/31/2012 12:36 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/31/2012 10:41 PM (GMT -6) | | So, Greg's answer this situation is the following:
1) A and S had lifestyles that left them "open" to Satan's homicidal desires. The assumption seems to be that God was the "hedge" that was holding Satan/demons back from actualizing his desires, even in the midst of their openess to Satanic/demonic influence.
2) Lying to the Spirit was the "final straw", as it were, meaning that THAT act represented a solidification point into incorrigibility where God could only let them have "what they wanted" ie wanted to move away from God (and thus from life)
3) God didn't kill them. God just "let them go" (meaning lifting the divine "hedge" ) and let Satan/demons have his way with them...and they died INSTANENOUSLY.
Wow...
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 8/31/2012 10:45:28 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/31/2012 11:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg:
"...if the cross is the hermeneutical key to understanding God’s true character, the first question we must ask is, what does the cross reveal about the nature of Gods’ judgments? What it says, I contend, is that God judges sin by withdrawing from it, thereby allowing people to suffer its death consequences. God “delivered Jesus over” to suffer at the hands of wicked humans as well as Satan and other fallen powers. And when Jesus became our sin (2 Cor 5:21) and our curse (Gal 3:13), God the Father withdrew his presence from him, which is why Jesus experienced genuine God-forsakenness (Mt 27:46)."
1) This is the absolute ground of Greg's kenotic view, as i see it. He believes that any dual-consciousness of God the Son (ie, Orthodox "two-wills in the one Son view" ) would eliminate the possibility of God the Father being personally withdrawn from the Son in a GENUINE way. What this means is that Greg's cruciform hermeneutic is COMMITTED to kenoticism.
2) Greg's view assumes a deeply two-storey perspective on Creation. Instead of God being immediately, immutably, personally present to all Creation as it's continual source of being, God can "withdraw" his personal presence from an relatively-autonomously-existing Creation, at various places and times.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 8/31/2012 11:16:38 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/1/2012 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, Greg could be commited to kenoticism and still believe that creatio-continua is true because of the Father's creatio-continua activity. But continua-creation, even, doesn't rule out the possibility of God just ceasing to continually create. So CC, per se, doesn't buy us benevolent theism. Ultimately, it's God's benevolent nature that gives us hope, not CC or the alternative (whatever it's called).
What I see absolutely no evidence for (and plenty of counter-evidence for), though, is the claim that God's judging amounts to God's MERE withdrawal. Clearly there are senses in which God withdraws. But that doesn't prove that's what judgment IS. E.g., II Thessalonians seems to indicate that God in some sense "withdraws" to allow the man of sin to be revealed and perform lying signs and wonders. But the subsequent verses indicate that it is not merely that withdrawing but subsequent actions by Christ that constitute at least part of what is meant by judgment.
This, too, gets to Greg's radically implausible view about government. He admits that Rom. 12 says we're not to render evil for evil while Rom. 13 says government does avenge to deter. Unfortunately, he omits the part in 12 that says we are to "give place to vengeance" since "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY, SAITH THE LORD." And he omits the part in 13 where it implies that government implements GOD'S VENGEANCE. Hardly sounds like a mere "withdrawal." How is bearing the sword "withdrawal?"
I see no plausibility in Greg's approach. If one can be that arbitrary with texts, one can be just as plausibly (a-plausibly?) arbitrary in a contrary way.
Post Edited (Similitude) : 9/1/2012 9:55:33 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/2/2012 6:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
What I see absolutely no evidence for (and plenty of counter-evidence for), though, is the claim that God's judging amounts to God's MERE withdrawal. Clearly there are senses in which God withdraws. But that doesn't prove that's what judgment IS. E.g., II Thessalonians seems to indicate that God in some sense "withdraws" to allow the man of sin to be revealed and perform lying signs and wonders. But the subsequent verses indicate that it is not merely that withdrawing but subsequent actions by Christ that constitute at least part of what is meant by judgment.
Right. For example, http://bible.cc/2_samuel/6-7.htm
And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah, and God struck him down there because of his error, and he died there beside the ark of God.
ESV
Greg's gonna end up eviserating the Bible more than he thinks.
**********************************
Jeff:
This, too, gets to Greg's radically implausible view about government. He admits that Rom. 12 says we're not to render evil for evil while Rom. 13 says government does avenge to deter. Unfortunately, he omits the part in 12 that says we are to "give place to vengeance" since "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY, SAITH THE LORD." And he omits the part in 13 where it implies that government implements GOD'S VENGEANCE. Hardly sounds like a mere "withdrawal." How is bearing the sword "withdrawal?"
Good thought.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. Post Edited (One Love) : 9/2/2012 6:23:20 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:11 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 |
|
|