 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > Spiritual warfare -- how does it work? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/21/2004 6:28 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
Concerning my disagreement with arminianism, I would say the whole book of Romans seems to be saying that the human race has not only fallen short of the glory of God, but that most (if not all) of their hearts have been darkened because having known God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave Him thanks (Rom. 1). Romans 3 then seems to say that NOT ONE person seeks God or fears God - at least at the time of it's writing.
Hi Jeff,
(No rush to respond to this post; I respect your desire to cut back on your time spent on the internet, and can completely relate).
Romans 1, 2, & 3 clear do show how "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" voluntarily. However, Romans 2 also makes it clear that "His kindness leads you to repentance." Additionally, Romans 1 explictly says that all are without excuse for their sins.
As to Romans 3 saying that "no one seeks after God," there are also many other passages in other books of the Bible that say people are ABLE to seek after God, if they choose to. For instance, Paul's sermon on Mars' Hill in Acts 17, in which he says, "if perhaps they might feel after Him...for he is not far from any one of us...for in Him we live, and move, and have our being. John 1 says that Christ is the light that lighteth every man that comes into the world, and in John 12:32 Jesus said, concerning his crucifixion and death, "and I, if I be lifted up, will draw all men unto me." Finally, Romans 2 plainly states that all men have the knowledge of God in their conscience, whereby they are able to know right from wrong, and to seek "glory, honor, and immortality" if they do good.
So while it is true that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, unless we want to give the biggest and best possible EXCUSE for the behavior of every child molester, murderer, rapist, thief, or liar who ever lived, we must not say that "they can't help themselves; they're just victims of circumstance," which is precisely what the Augustinian/Calvinian view does--God sends people to hell for doing that which he knows they couldn't have avoided, INDEED, that He himself CAUSED them to do!
The Arminian concept of prevenient grace, by which the depraved individual is wooed, persuaded, and influenced (but not coerced) by the Holy Spirit to repent and believe the gospel gives a reasonable answer to the issue of total depravity and moral responsibility, in that it categorically affirms that all have sinned and cannot save themselves by any of their own works, and that they are bound, lost, and dead in their trespasses and sins (that they entered into by their own free choice), AND that without the intervention of the Spirit of Christ on their behalf, none would or could believe, and all would in fact be lost.
quote:
So let's start with Romans 8:28-30. Theses verses seem to say that those who love God are CALLED according to God's purpose and that those who God CALLS will be glorified. That sounds like an effectual call to me.
So you wouldn't agree that love must be chosen?
Personally, I find that the corporate view of election is the most agreeable with Scripture & Reason. If we view "the called" as a CLASS or group, which can be voluntarily joined by anyone (whosoever will), the apparent difficulty you raise is avoided, and God's character is exalted to its rightful place of GOODNESS and mercy unto ALL.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/22/2004 1:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Jeff-
Say hello to your wife from all of us! 
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/22/2004 1:43 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
Finally, Romans 2 plainly states that all men have the knowledge of God in their conscience, whereby they are able to know right from wrong, and to seek "glory, honor, and immortality" if they do good.
So while it is true that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, unless we want to give the biggest and best possible EXCUSE for the behavior of every child molester, murderer, rapist, thief, or liar who ever lived, we must not say that "they can't help themselves; they're just victims of circumstance," which is precisely what the Augustinian/Calvinian view does--God sends people to hell for doing that which he knows they couldn't have avoided, INDEED, that He himself CAUSED them to do!
The Arminian concept of prevenient grace, by which the depraved individual is wooed, persuaded, and influenced (but not coerced) by the Holy Spirit to repent and believe the gospel gives a reasonable answer to the issue of total depravity and moral responsibility, in that it categorically affirms that all have sinned and cannot save themselves by any of their own works, and that they are bound, lost, and dead in their trespasses and sins (that they entered into by their own free choice), AND that without the intervention of the Spirit of Christ on their behalf, none would or could believe, and all would in fact be lost.
I pretty much agree with every thing you said, including what's wrong with the Calvinistic view of election. EXCEPT that it seems like there is an effectual CALL to the elect. I don't see it as coercion(?) because the CALL is a revelation to the heart and mind, not a force of will. And how God leads other men to repentance may be different than that effectual revelation - like Pharaoh.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So let's start with Romans 8:28-30. Theses verses seem to say that those who love God are CALLED according to God's purpose and that those who God CALLS will be glorified. That sounds like an effectual call to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you wouldn't agree that love must be chosen?
Personally, I find that the corporate view of election is the most agreeable with Scripture & Reason. If we view "the called" as a CLASS or group, which can be voluntarily joined by anyone (whosoever will), the apparent difficulty you raise is avoided, and God's character is exalted to its rightful place of GOODNESS and mercy unto ALL.
Yes, LOVE must be chosen, for LOVE is an act of volition. And I think there are verses that speak of corporate election. It's just that the fact that those whom God calls, He also justifies and glorifies seems pretty conclusive as to an effectual call. And it seems totally consistent with the way the rest of Paul's argument builds in the previous part of the epistle.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/22/2004 2:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Yeah, I don't think Love disregards the fulfillment of whatever might be required. So God says something like "Because I love them, I'll do what's necessary to fix what's wrong." What would motivate such a sacrifically just provision of our needs?
Love. 
Blessings,
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/22/2004 3:09 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by jefscott
In Rom. 3, Paul says that Christ was put forth as a propitiation SO THAT God could be JUST and the Justifier of him who believeth. Would you not agree that it seems like Paul is saying that God's justice must be satisfied before He can show mercy? And if so, God's justice seems to be at least as fundamental to His character as love.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christ's death was not in order to satisfy any sort of personal vengeance on the part of God; it was instead, so that He could freely forgive all who repent and believe the Gospel, without relaxing the standard of His own Law. (That He might be just...)
This, I think, is what I was saying. But as for vengeance, the greek word has at it's root the word for righteous/just. I.e., Biblical vengeance is nothing but just punishment. It is wrong for US to avenge because vengeance is the Lord's, not because it is intrinsically unrighteous or unloving. You yourself have argued that eternal torment is consist with God's love for people.
quote:
But all of this is grounded in the love of God (John 3:16). That is, the Father's motivation in offering His Son as an atoning sacrifice was not out of some desire to be strict, but rather proceeded from His great heart of love for sinners.
I know that God DOES love sinners. What I don't know is that the offering of His Son is MERELY due to some inherent love for sinners. There are verses that imply there are OTHER considerations for God saving people. Like "that He might be the first-born among many brethren," and "Behold I and the children which God GAVE ME." These verses imply that the elect are God's gift to His Son. Ephesians 1 talks of God saving folks "unto the praise of His glory" Thus, to me it is fair question to ask which, if either, is the more fundamental reason for salvation. It seems to me that the Arminian view plays down the doxological purpose of salvation that is clear in scripture.
quote:
I can't recommend enough Waldenstrom's classic, Be Ye Reconciled Unto God, for a clear understanding of the difference between the two basic views of God and his atonement: The God of LOVE, and "the angry justice-exacting God."
Thanks. I'll try to find time next week to look it over. But the doxological perspective I was talking about above doesn't assume an "angry justice-exacting God" either. It just assumes that God has a SELF-interest in this creation which is completely righteous - just like we can have legitimate self-interests which do not imply we're "selfish" in an immoral way.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/22/2004 3:20 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
But as for vengeance, the greek word has at it's root the word for righteous/just. I.e., Biblical vengeance is nothing but just punishment. It is wrong for US to avenge because vengeance is the Lord's, not because it is intrinsically unrighteous or unloving. You yourself have argued that eternal torment is consist with God's love for people.
Yes, but with regard to the Atonement, it clearly was not a "satisfaction of the wrath/offended justice of God", or else damnation would be an empty category, and all the Scriptures subsequent to Calvary that speak of God's wrath as a present reality are nonsensical.
quote:
It seems to me that the Arminian view plays down the doxological purpose of salvation that is clear in scripture.
I think the Arminian view plays down the Calvinistic idea of God's glory; i.e., that God is glorified in doing whatever He wishes, forcing His will upon all, predestining all, most to hell, and a few to heaven.
The Arminian view, to my mind, exalts God's justice far more than does the Calvinistic one, for in Arminianism "God is no respector of persons" is unequivocally affirmed. As Abraham said, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
quote:
But the doxological perspective I was talking about above doesn't assume an "angry justice-exacting God" either. It just assumes that God has a SELF-interest in this creation which is completely righteous - just like we can have legitimate self-interests which do not imply we're "selfish" in an immoral way.
Well, yes, God is the most important person in all the universe, and as such His interests are the most important ones of all, and that doesn't require us to think of Him as in any way selfish. What is in God's best interest is obviously in the best interest of all moral agents.
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/22/2004 3:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
John,
quote:
If we keep in mind that benevolence is acting towards the highest good of the universe of moral creatures, then God's justice and wrath are not antithetical to God's love, but are instead seen to be integral to it. (No one would think a judge who didn't administer equal justice for all were truly benevolent).
With him there is no variableness nor shadow of turning
I don't have any problem with the above as long as it recognizes the possibility that God has a righteous self-interest which seemingly rules out God forgiving everyone.
I don't find Scripture to teach that God holds a grudge somehow, and because of personal offence is unwilling to forgive anyone. What I do find Scripture to teach is that the atoning death of Christ provides for the salvation of all, yet pays for the sins of none. That is, there is no "quid pro quo" in the atonement, whereby anyone's sins are "paid for," much less, "forgiven ahead of time," as the pop theology of our days says (i.e., "all your sins, past, present, and future, were paid for on the Cross").
To my understanding, it is not an unwillingness to forgive on God's part that God the Son had to overcome through the atonement (What a schizophrenic view of God that would present!). Instead, it was an unwillingness to be reconciled to God on man's part that needed (and yet still needs) to be overcome by the blood of Christ.
quote:
Given the effectualness of Christ's propitiatory death, I don't know what argument PROVES that God can't just forgive everybody.
I have been unable to find anywhere in Scripture where God is revealed as forgiving unconditionally; that is, without true repentance and genuine faith in Him.
quote:
Wouldn't that be the highest good for all?
Were God to just unilaterally forgive everyone without requiring their repentance and faith in order for them to be forgiven and reconciled to him, heaven would in no time become the most hellish place in all the universe, populated as it would be with perfect REBELS who were simply given an unconditional "pass" into heaven.
quote:
One could argue that God would be trumping their will, but won't He be trumping ours once we are made compatibilistically holy? Why not do the same for all?
I happen to disagree with Dr. Boyd that holiness can ever be compatibilistic. All vice and virtue are by definition voluntary. Certainly, the longer a moral agent continues in a path of good or evil, the more habituated his character becomes; however, I do not find the idea of compatibilism to be consistent with the basic premise that "love must be chosen." I also don't find Scripture anywhere to teach that death is anything but an enemy to us; the idea that we will be delivered/saved from our "sinful nature" in death, besides being perfectly Manichean in philosophy, makes death out to be the savior instead of Christ.
Thanks for the stimulating conversation, Jeff. Please feel free to continue.
Sincerely,
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/23/2004 7:48 AM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
I don't find Scripture to teach that God holds a grudge somehow, and because of personal offence is unwilling to forgive anyone.
Me either. But if there is an effectual call for the elect, which seems to be the case from Rom. 8 etal, then the fact that God does not effectually call the rest doesn't necessarily imply He has a grudge against them. He simply sets His love on some, like Israel vs. other nations. The circumcision PROFITED, according to Romans, from having had that divine love set on them. But that didn't make God unrighteous for not having set His love on others, for Rom. 1 says they are without excuse, regardless. God doesn't seem to be an egalitarian in scripture, to me at least.
quote:
What I do find Scripture to teach is that the atoning death of Christ provides for the salvation of all, yet pays for the sins of none. That is, there is no "quid pro quo" in the atonement, whereby anyone's sins are "paid for," much less, "forgiven ahead of time," as the pop theology of our days says (i.e., "all your sins, past, present, and future, were paid for on the Cross").
I agree, but I think the Pauline theology rules out any need for the forgiveness of future sins. According to the standard of righteousness by faith, the only way one could become non-elect is by ceasing to believe. Other lawlessnesses would not be considered sins in need of atonement. Indeed, I think Paul makes it clear that even the elect will be punished for them. But that falls under the category of our slave relationship to our Master, Christ - NOT that of a Law being held up as our standard of justification for Life.
And as I've argued before, their are some kinds of sinful behavior that I think Paul claims will result in disciplinary death, "lest we be condemned with the world." This is how I think Pauline grace theology avoids radical antinomianism.
quote:
To my understanding, it is not an unwillingness to forgive on God's part that God the Son had to overcome through the atonement (What a schizophrenic view of God that would present!). Instead, it was an unwillingness to be reconciled to God on man's part that needed (and yet still needs) to be overcome by the blood of Christ.
I would agree that this is the case for the non-elect. But if the elect are called effectually, as I think Rom. 8 etal suggest, then their reconciliation is affected completely by God. There is, of course, the sanctification aspect of that reconciliation which is always a work in progress for the elect.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the effectualness of Christ's propitiatory death, I don't know what argument PROVES that God can't just forgive everybody.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been unable to find anywhere in Scripture where God is revealed as forgiving unconditionally; that is, without true repentance and genuine faith in Him.
I agree, but what scripture proves that God CAN NOT forgive unconditionally? That is the fundamental question I'm raising - Is it God's doxological/benevolent choice to do things as He does, or is He unable to do otherwise?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One could argue that God would be trumping their will, but won't He be trumping ours once we are made compatibilistically holy? Why not do the same for all?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I happen to disagree with Dr. Boyd that holiness can ever be compatibilistic. All vice and virtue are by definition voluntary. Certainly, the longer a moral agent continues in a path of good or evil, the more habituated his character becomes; however, I do not find the idea of compatibilism to be consistent with the basic premise that "love must be chosen." I also don't find Scripture anywhere to teach that death is anything but an enemy to us; the idea that we will be delivered/saved from our "sinful nature" in death, besides being perfectly Manichean in philosophy, makes death out to be the savior instead of Christ.
So do you see why I think my question is a legitimate one with respect to the views of Doc etal? Now with respect to your view that holiness can not be compatibilistic, what does it mean to say we will "be like Him" and take on the "divine nature," etc? I thought you had once argued that Christ could NOT have sinned because of His NATURE? Maybe I need clarification here as to how your view differs from Doc's.
quote:
The Arminian view, to my mind, exalts God's justice far more than does the Calvinistic one, for in Arminianism "God is no respector of persons" is unequivocally affirmed. As Abraham said, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
This can tie in with Romans 3 which says that it is Christ's propitiatory work which shows God's JUSTICE/RIGHTEOUSNESS in redeeming. So why could there not be an unconditional forgiveness that was righteous/right? Is it God's nature that prevents it, or God's choice? And how would we know that?
BTW, I've recently attained the status on this forum of ZOSIMA. What, pray tell, is a ZOSIMA?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/23/2004 10:46 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: Yeah, I don't think Love disregards the fulfillment of whatever might be required. So God says something like "Because I love them, I'll do what's necessary to fix what's wrong." What would motivate such a sacrifically just provision of our needs?
Jeff: But phrases like "whatever might be required" and "what's necessary" are simply acknowledgements that God's justice is fundamental. Love may be AS fundamental, but your comments don't prove it to be MORE fundamental.
Hmmm. Now, the Bible does say "God IS love." God isn’t ‘justice’ or ‘judgment’. He is just. And he does judge. But these and other qualities aren't attributed to God in the same way "love" is attributed to God. Where God does love, he’s also uniquely said to “be” love. There does appear to be something unique being said about God in saying he is love that isn’t the case with other attributes which are not attributed to God in quite the same way. I don’t know all that this means, but it's safe to assume at least that it means there is something uniquely defining about God as love that isn’t the case with other attributes.
Jeff: I don't have any problem with the above as long as it recognizes the possibility that God has a righteous self-interest which seemingly rules out God forgiving everyone. Given the effectualness of Christ's propitiatory death, I don't know what argument PROVES that God can't just forgive everybody.
Tom: Well, you’d have then to offer SOME explanation of what’s behind the particular way in which God DID provide salvation in Christ “in order to be just” and the justifier of the one who believes. Is God’s being just merely incidental to his offering salvation to us THROUGH Christ, on the BASIS OF Christ? Doesn’t seem so. I don’t know all this does mean, but it seems to suggest that divine justice is necessary to the project, that justice delimits the ways in which God might have provided for us, or that Christ's dying for us really does satisfy some just demand. I don't have a problem with this and don't understand the recoil some have at the idea. I agree of course that there’s no reason to assume this means God is appeasing his own sense of vengeance, as if God’s a skitzoid who wants to crush us and wants to forgive us. But that’s not to say there isn’t some inherent sense of divine justice that doesn’t metaphysically rule God’s just forgiving us without any condition being met.
Jeff: Wouldn’t that be the highest good of all [God’s just forgiving everybody]? As far as I can tell from scripture, such a universal forgiveness must be inconsistent with His own doxological ends.
Tom: Or inconsistent with the metaphysical constraints of loving and morally responsible relationships. If such relationships are the highest good God wills for creation, then the highest good entails the highest risk, in which case we DO have a world in which God CAN forgive everybody. We just don't have a world in which God can GUARANTEE that all ask for it. But...doxological ends? What might that involve? God's sense of glory? A glory that requires that SOMEONE fry so that there is no attribute the exercising of which would redound in glory to God which is left unexercised?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/23/2004 1:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
quote:
Hmmm. Now, the Bible does say "God IS love." God isn’t ‘justice’ or ‘judgment’. He is just. And he does judge. But these and other qualities aren't attributed to God in the same way "love" is attributed to God. Where God does love, he’s also uniquely said to “be” love. There does appear to be something unique being said about God in saying he is love that isn’t the case with other attributes which are not attributed to God in quite the same way. I don’t know all that this means, but it's safe to assume at least that it means there is something uniquely defining about God as love that isn’t the case with other attributes.
The scripture does say that God is righteous, though. And I don't think there is a big difference in the greek language between just and righteous.
quote:
Jeff: Wouldn’t that be the highest good of all [God’s just forgiving everybody]? As far as I can tell from scripture, such a universal forgiveness must be inconsistent with His own doxological ends.
Tom: Or inconsistent with the metaphysical constraints of loving and morally responsible relationships. If such relationships are the highest good God wills for creation, then the highest good entails the highest risk, in which case we DO have a world in which God CAN forgive everybody. We just don't have a world in which God can GUARANTEE that all ask for it.
I would agree that a forgiveness that's independent of repentance would not be to the highest good of God for such moral relationships. Even we humans prefer a conversion from wrong-doing to occur with an apology rather than without one. But what I can't see is why NOT being saved due to a lack of repentance is the highest good for the unrepentant. So if they could be forgiven without repentance, then it would seem to be to their highest good to be forgiven thus.
So, though Christ's death seems to be a metaphysical requirement for God to remit sins, I don't know of a verse that says repentance is metaphysically required for God to forgive. We, after all, are told to forgive one another as Christ forgave us. Does that mean we have to get an apology and repentance first? I know there is that passage in the gospels that says that. But the verse in Colossians doesn't seem to demand repentance from brethren.
And I don't see where there is a lot of risk involved with respect to the majority of humans. Arminian or no, the scripture says there will be few that enter into life. No uncertainty for God about that.
quote:
But...doxological ends? What might that involve? God's sense of glory?
Yes.
quote:
A glory that requires that SOMEONE fry so that there is no attribute the exercising of which would redound in glory to God which is left unexercised?
I don't see where the scripture claims that God gets glory from frying people. It does say that God gets glory from having all bow down and confess that Christ is Lord, though - whether or not they repent. Do you think this confession will be voluntary? Do you believe Satan will voluntarily confess that Jesus is Lord??
To me, this confession seems compelled and contributes nothing to the good of the unrepentant sinners and angels. From them, it seems PURELY for the glory of Christ and God.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/23/2004 4:47 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: The Bible does say "God IS love." God isn’t ‘justice’ or ‘judgment’. He is just. And he does judge. But these and other qualities aren't attributed to God in the same way "love" is attributed to God. Where God does love, he’s also uniquely said to “be” love. There does appear to be something unique being said about God in saying he is love that isn’t the case with other attributes which are not attributed to God in quite the same way. I don’t know all that this means, but it's safe to assume at least that it means there is something uniquely defining about God as love that isn’t the case with other attributes.
Jeff: The scripture does say that God is righteous, though. And I don't think there is a big difference in the greek language between just and righteous.
True, God is just, righteous, and other things that could be said to be attributes of his. My point is that for none of these does the Bible turn from the adjective to the predicate and say “God is ____.” But it does do so with “love.” And only with love. There's something unique being said about God as love in the way love, and only love, is predicated to God.
Jeff: But what I can't see is why NOT being saved due to a lack of repentance is the highest good for the unrepentant.
Tom: I’d argue it’s NOT her highest good. It’s her worst nightmare.
Jeff: So if they could be forgiven without repentance, then it would seem to be to their highest good to be forgiven thus.
Tom: The enjoyment of such forgiveness does not seem possible.
Jeff: So, though Christ's death seems to be a metaphysical requirement for God to remit sins, I don't know of a verse that says repentance is metaphysically required for God to forgive. We, after all, are told to forgive one another as Christ forgave us. Does that mean we have to get an apology and repentance first?
Tom: This would be a great subject for a new thread. My hunch is that somewhere in here there’s a distinction between ‘forgiveness’ and the ‘restoration of relationship’ (and enjoyment of fellowship). It may be that God does forgive everybody ‘just like that’ but that God still has to live with the reality of peoples’ unrepentant attitudes and that it’s the latter that keeps people out of relationship with God and so out of heaven. After all, even when we forgive others unconditionally we and they are not automatically brought into a restored relationship with them. Ultimately salvation is about relationship, the kind one must choose one’s way into. So perhaps the question of whether or not God really does forgive unrepentant sinners is moot.
Jeff: I don't see where the scripture claims that God gets glory from frying people.
Tom: I think it was Edwards who developed the argument that some must necessarily go to hell because in judging sinners God is “revealed” as a righteous and holy judge. He argued there is “glory” to be had when the righteous of heaven bow and worship an awesome God who does such things (which they wouldn't do for THIS reason if he didn't do such things). So, no, God doesn’t get glory in frying sinners. It's a little more sophisticated than that. But there is a wider revelation and recognition of his righteousness and glory that’s to be had in the judging of sinners. There’s a dimension to God that’s left unrevealed if sin never existed and was never judged. But God wants to be revealed in every way possible. God wants to be known and glorified as a healer. But this isn’t possible without SOME sickness. So God determines sickness. God wants to be revealed and worshipped as a Savior. But you can’t be a savior without sinners, so the FULLEST expression of God's glory requires sin. So the argument goes, as I understand it. Ultimately, then, God wants to be revealed as the righteous judge of sin and sinners. But that can only be had, even for God, if there are unrepentant sinners to judge. Makes sense! Thus, all sin, all sickness, all suffering, all evil (in the determinist’s world) redounds to the glory of God. And since God’s glory is what it’s all about, it’s cool. It's more than cool. It's right. It's good. I don't agree with such an understanding of God's desire to be glorified.
Jeff: It does say that God gets glory from having all bow down and confess that Christ is Lord…
Tom: Can you remind me of this passage? I mean, specifically where is says God “gets glory” from this. Not saying it’s not there. Just curious.
Jeff: …whether or not they repent. Do you think this confession will be voluntary? Do you believe Satan will voluntarily confess that Jesus is Lord?
Tom: Univeralists like Tom Talbot try to make the point that the specific ‘confession’ referred to in Phil. 2 is ‘voluntary’ and so must reflect a willing heart-conversion. I’m not convinced at all. But if it does by definition require a ‘willful’ confession, I don’t see any reason why it has to also entail Satan’s conversion (which some now argue for as well). I don’t see why Satan cannot be made to choose to confess just who Jesus is without this involving his conversion. Would this confession be a loving acceptance of Jesus’ Lordship? I don’t think so. Like you, I need 105% absolute proof in no less than 7 verses of the Bible explicitly stating this is so; and it would help if the verses actually addressed themselves to me personally. But you know what? If it is the confession of the saved that Satan and fallen angels give, then you won’t find me objecting to God that such a thing is just not right. I’m happy leaving those decisions up to him. So I don’t see the point which a right answer (or any answer in this case) has for life or ministry.
Jeff: To me, this confession seems compelled and contributes nothing to the good of the unrepentant sinners and angels. From them, it seems PURELY for the glory of Christ and God.
Tom: I can live with that. I just don’t see that God’s getting glory in this case is an argument that sin and evil were somehow necessary because without them God wouldn’t get this specific confession and be glorified.
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/24/2004 2:11 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Tom: There’s a dimension to God that’s left unrevealed if sin never existed and was never judged. But God wants to be revealed in every way possible...
Selah: Right. Love through redemption is somehow better than original love - God wanted to be fully revealed through redemptive love, therefore sin/evil was inevitable. I see.
Oh wait! I wasn’t agreeing with what I said here, I was just presenting one and the same view as that with which you disagree down here…
quote:
Tom: God wants to be known and glorified as a healer. But this isn’t possible without SOME sickness. So God determines sickness. God wants to be revealed and worshipped as a Savior. But you can’t be a savior without sinners, so the FULLEST expression of God's glory requires sin. So the argument goes, as I understand it. Ultimately, then, God wants to be revealed as the righteous judge of sin and sinners. But that can only be had, even for God, if there are unrepentant sinners to judge. Makes sense! Thus, all sin, all sickness, all suffering, all evil (in the determinist’s world) redounds to the glory of God. And since God’s glory is what it’s all about, it’s cool. It's more than cool. It's right. It's good. I don't agree with such an understanding of God's desire to be glorified.
Selah: Tom, you're so funny. You simply say "I don't agree with such an understanding of God's desire to be glorified" la la la... You're such a skilled discussion board participant!!!
I'm sitting here thinking of much stronger statements. This idea of God glorifying Himself through pain, suffering, and evil while also defining Himself as the very definition of LOVE is just absurd….
Aha! But, Oh Selah of the Misty Waters, the view you disagree with and find revolting IS the idea that God wants to be revealed in every possible way, even in those ways that follow from his responding to sin. So why are you OK up above with “love THROUGH REDEMPTION” being God’s purpose for us? I know a LOT of openness folk see God’s purpose for us as being “love through redemption” (Hi Modes and Mephi!), but I don’t see how THIS isn’t essentially the same thing as God’s purposing the evil necessary for such the fulfillment of such a purpose. God wants redeemed love. Redeemed love requires redemption. Redemption requires sin and evil. God wants sin and evil.
What d’ya think? How optimistic can we be?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/24/2004 6:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom: The Bible does say "God IS love." God isn’t ‘justice’ or ‘judgment’. He is just. And he does judge. But these and other qualities aren't attributed to God in the same way "love" is attributed to God. Where God does love, he’s also uniquely said to “be” love. There does appear to be something unique being said about God in saying he is love that isn’t the case with other attributes which are not attributed to God in quite the same way. I don’t know all that this means, but it's safe to assume at least that it means there is something uniquely defining about God as love that isn’t the case with other attributes.
But I think the "uniqueness" you refer to is the fact that the attribute "JUST" is obvious to all right-minded humans. Whereas, it is by revelation (including the cross) that we clearly see the LOVE aspect in it's fulness. So when Christ said "I give you a new commandment," it was not really a new commandment - it was illuminated by Christ's work and mission.
Indeed, it would seem that humans, apart from the Judaeo-Christian revelation, would tend to think of God as purely unitarian. If that were the case, Rom. 3 would imply that justice would prevail over mercy. So the extent to which God's attribute of Love is revealed through Christ is surprising to us - hence the uniqueness.
And I think you would agree that God's love is not a syruppy sentimentalism. It is a sober, active love oriented to goodness in the context of righteousness/justice. 1 Cor. 13 says love rejoices on the truth, but it does NOT rejoice on unrighteousness.
quote:
Jeff: So if they could be forgiven without repentance, then it would seem to be to their highest good to be forgiven thus.
Tom: The enjoyment of such forgiveness does not seem possible.
Jeff: So, though Christ's death seems to be a metaphysical requirement for God to remit sins, I don't know of a verse that says repentance is metaphysically required for God to forgive. We, after all, are told to forgive one another as Christ forgave us. Does that mean we have to get an apology and repentance first?
Tom: This would be a great subject for a new thread. My hunch is that somewhere in here there’s a distinction between ‘forgiveness’ and the ‘restoration of relationship’ (and enjoyment of fellowship). It may be that God does forgive everybody ‘just like that’ but that God still has to live with the reality of peoples’ unrepentant attitudes and that it’s the latter that keeps people out of relationship with God and so out of heaven. After all, even when we forgive others unconditionally we and they are not automatically brought into a restored relationship with them. Ultimately salvation is about relationship, the kind one must choose one’s way into. So perhaps the question of whether or not God really does forgive unrepentant sinners is moot.
But this is where my question is. Is it metaphysically impossible or a choice that God makes for doxological purposes? This gets to mine and John's discussion. John says Doc believes that in the ressurection, we'll be compatibilistically holy. I, for now, agree. So if that's the case, why couldn't God forgive the non-elect through the sufficiency of the Cross and ressurect them into this compatibilistic holiness? I.e., universalism. Now, I agree that universalism is NOT true. But I don't know how to prove it's metaphysically impossible based on what I know of God from creation and scripture. Do you? For if it IS metaphysically possible for God to save all, then what could be the reason for not doing so, other than He gets more glory doing it the way He does?
quote:
Tom: I think it was Edwards who developed the argument that some must necessarily go to hell because in judging sinners God is “revealed” as a righteous and holy judge. He argued there is “glory” to be had when the righteous of heaven bow and worship an awesome God who does such things (which they wouldn't do for THIS reason if he didn't do such things). So, no, God doesn’t get glory in frying sinners. It's a little more sophisticated than that. But there is a wider revelation and recognition of his righteousness and glory that’s to be had in the judging of sinners. There’s a dimension to God that’s left unrevealed if sin never existed and was never judged. But God wants to be revealed in every way possible. God wants to be known and glorified as a healer. But this isn’t possible without SOME sickness. So God determines sickness. God wants to be revealed and worshipped as a Savior. But you can’t be a savior without sinners, so the FULLEST expression of God's glory requires sin. So the argument goes, as I understand it. Ultimately, then, God wants to be revealed as the righteous judge of sin and sinners. But that can only be had, even for God, if there are unrepentant sinners to judge. Makes sense! Thus, all sin, all sickness, all suffering, all evil (in the determinist’s world) redounds to the glory of God. And since God’s glory is what it’s all about, it’s cool. It's more than cool. It's right. It's good. I don't agree with such an understanding of God's desire to be glorified.
I disagree with that view, also. And I have a hard time believing anyone, except extreme Calvinists, would voluntarily praise God for such treatment. And Genesis 1-3 seems to contradict it.
quote:
Jeff: It does say that God gets glory from having all bow down and confess that Christ is Lord…
Tom: Can you remind me of this passage? I mean, specifically where is says God “gets glory” from this. Not saying it’s not there. Just curious.
Phillipians 2:10,11.
quote:
Jeff: …whether or not they repent. Do you think this confession will be voluntary? Do you believe Satan will voluntarily confess that Jesus is Lord?
Tom: Univeralists like Tom Talbot try to make the point that the specific ‘confession’ referred to in Phil. 2 is ‘voluntary’ and so must reflect a willing heart-conversion. I’m not convinced at all. But if it does by definition require a ‘willful’ confession, I don’t see any reason why it has to also entail Satan’s conversion (which some now argue for as well). I don’t see why Satan cannot be made to choose to confess just who Jesus is without this involving his conversion. Would this confession be a loving acceptance of Jesus’ Lordship? I don’t think so. Like you, I need 105% absolute proof in no less than 7 verses of the Bible explicitly stating this is so; and it would help if the verses actually addressed themselves to me personally. But you know what? If it is the confession of the saved that Satan and fallen angels give, then you won’t find me objecting to God that such a thing is just not right. I’m happy leaving those decisions up to him. So I don’t see the point which a right answer (or any answer in this case) has for life or ministry.
I think the point it makes is that God's glory is not necessarily bound up with the good of the non-elect. Indeed, in this case, the confession would seem to be an unpleasant thing for many of them.
quote:
Jeff: To me, this confession seems compelled and contributes nothing to the good of the unrepentant sinners and angels. From them, it seems PURELY for the glory of Christ and God.
Tom: I can live with that. I just don’t see that God’s getting glory in this case is an argument that sin and evil were somehow necessary because without them God wouldn’t get this specific confession and be glorified.
I absolutely agree!
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 10/24/2004 5:26 PM (GMT -6) | |
Hi Jeff,
Again, it seems to me that you are (unnecessarily) assuming a particularistic view of election. As such, your conclusions necessarily follow. I on the other hand am assuming a corporate view of election, in which the "effectual call" is not a consideration. In short, I don't find Scripture to teach that God unilaterally determines which particular individuals He will save by this so-called effectual call, etc. I find God gives a general call to all, some louder and longer, but all perceive "the light that lights every man" (John 1), and all perceive the light of their conscience (Romans 2), and know they should seek God and stop suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
quote:
What I do find Scripture to teach is that the atoning death of Christ provides for the salvation of all, yet pays for the sins of none. That is, there is no "quid pro quo" in the atonement, whereby anyone's sins are "paid for," much less, "forgiven ahead of time," as the pop theology of our days says (i.e., "all your sins, past, present, and future, were paid for on the Cross").
Jeff said: I agree, but I think the Pauline theology rules out any need for the forgiveness of future sins. According to the standard of righteousness by faith, the only way one could become non-elect is by ceasing to believe. Other lawlessnesses would not be considered sins in need of atonement.
JE: Why then, would God tell Christians through John, "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."?
quote:
To my understanding, it is not an unwillingness to forgive on God's part that God the Son had to overcome through the atonement (What a schizophrenic view of God that would present!). Instead, it was an unwillingness to be reconciled to God on man's part that needed (and yet still needs) to be overcome by the blood of Christ.
Jeff said:
quote:
I would agree that this is the case for the non-elect. But if the elect are called effectually, as I think Rom. 8 etal suggest, then their reconciliation is affected completely by God. There is, of course, the sanctification aspect of that reconciliation which is always a work in progress for the elect.
If their reconciliation is unilaterally effected completely by God, when then does Paul say in Acts 17 that God now "commands all men everywhere to repent."?
quote:
I have been unable to find anywhere in Scripture where God is revealed as forgiving unconditionally; that is, without true repentance and genuine faith in Him.
Jeff said:
quote:
I agree, but what scripture proves that God CAN NOT forgive unconditionally? That is the fundamental question I'm raising - Is it God's doxological/benevolent choice to do things as He does, or is He unable to do otherwise?
To my understanding, God's moral (perfectly righteous and loving) government requires that all sin be vanquished in the heart of the sinner in order for happy, loving fellowship between God and man to be restored, which is impossible apart from repentance (metanoia--a change of heart and mind on the part of the sinner) and faith (loving trust in God's proferred grace).
quote:
I happen to disagree with Dr. Boyd that holiness can ever be compatibilistic. All vice and virtue are by definition voluntary. Certainly, the longer a moral agent continues in a path of good or evil, the more habituated his character becomes; however, I do not find the idea of compatibilism to be consistent with the basic premise that "love must be chosen." I also don't find Scripture anywhere to teach that death is anything but an enemy to us; the idea that we will be delivered/saved from our "sinful nature" in death, besides being perfectly Manichean in philosophy, makes death out to be the savior instead of Christ.
Jeff said:
quote:
So do you see why I think my question is a legitimate one with respect to the views of Doc etal?
Yes, I can see how you might come to that question based on Doc's view of "compatibilistic character" of the saints in heaven.
Jeff said:
quote:
Now with respect to your view that holiness can not be compatibilistic, what does it mean to say we will "be like Him" and take on the "divine nature," etc? I thought you had once argued that Christ could NOT have sinned because of His NATURE?
That must have been someone else, Jeff. My view is that Christ had the real natural ability to sin (free will), but not the MORAL ability (meaning His character was such that He "could" not sin--morally). This is in sharp contrast with the idea that His NATURE prevented Him from sinning. If He lacked the ability to sin by nature, then his temptations were a sham.
quote:
The Arminian view, to my mind, exalts God's justice far more than does the Calvinistic one, for in Arminianism "God is no respector of persons" is unequivocally affirmed. As Abraham said, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
Jeff said:
quote:
This can tie in with Romans 3 which says that it is Christ's propitiatory work which shows God's JUSTICE/RIGHTEOUSNESS in redeeming. So why could there not be an unconditional forgiveness that was righteous/right? Is it God's nature that prevents it, or God's choice? And how would we know that?
In my paradigm, it is in the nature of the moral universe that God created, not something necessarily in God's own nature that prevents him from forgiving unconditionally. The moral law, by which God governs the moral universe, requires that "the wages of sin is death."
John
P.S.: All the titles under the screen names in this forum, including "Zosima" are determined by the total number of posts you have made. If I recall correctly, "Zosima" status is bequeathed when one reached 500 posts.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/1/2004 4:06 PM (GMT -6) | | John,
quote:
Again, it seems to me that you are (unnecessarily) assuming a particularistic view of election. As such, your conclusions necessarily follow. I on the other hand am assuming a corporate view of election, in which the "effectual call" is not a consideration. In short, I don't find Scripture to teach that God unilaterally determines which particular individuals He will save by this so-called effectual call, etc. I find God gives a general call to all, some louder and longer, but all perceive "the light that lights every man" (John 1), and all perceive the light of their conscience (Romans 2), and know they should seek God and stop suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.
I think Romans teaches an effectual call AND that man is accountable to act from the light he/she has.
quote:
Jeff said: I agree, but I think the Pauline theology rules out any need for the forgiveness of future sins. According to the standard of righteousness by faith, the only way one could become non-elect is by ceasing to believe. Other lawlessnesses would not be considered sins in need of atonement.
JE: Why then, would God tell Christians through John, "if we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."?
I'm not sure if it's referring to conversion or afterward.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To my understanding, it is not an unwillingness to forgive on God's part that God the Son had to overcome through the atonement (What a schizophrenic view of God that would present!). Instead, it was an unwillingness to be reconciled to God on man's part that needed (and yet still needs) to be overcome by the blood of Christ.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would agree that this is the case for the non-elect. But if the elect are called effectually, as I think Rom. 8 etal suggest, then their reconciliation is affected completely by God. There is, of course, the sanctification aspect of that reconciliation which is always a work in progress for the elect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If their reconciliation is unilaterally effected completely by God, when then does Paul say in Acts 17 that God now "commands all men everywhere to repent."?
Grace. God commands men to repent even when He KNOWS they won't repent - like Pharoah. Or like Israel when He said "can a leopard change it's spots?"
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been unable to find anywhere in Scripture where God is revealed as forgiving unconditionally; that is, without true repentance and genuine faith in Him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, but what scripture proves that God CAN NOT forgive unconditionally? That is the fundamental question I'm raising - Is it God's doxological/benevolent choice to do things as He does, or is He unable to do otherwise?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To my understanding, God's moral (perfectly righteous and loving) government requires that all sin be vanquished in the heart of the sinner in order for happy, loving fellowship between God and man to be restored, which is impossible apart from repentance (metanoia--a change of heart and mind on the part of the sinner) and faith (loving trust in God's proferred grace).
After a bit of thought I remembered the verse in 2 Thessalonians where Paul says their sufferings make them worthy/fitted for the kingdom. This would harmonize perfectly with what you are saying. No sharing of Christ's sufferings, no sharing in the inheritance, etc. Thus, my question is answered.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now with respect to your view that holiness can not be compatibilistic, what does it mean to say we will "be like Him" and take on the "divine nature," etc? I thought you had once argued that Christ could NOT have sinned because of His NATURE?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That must have been someone else, Jeff. My view is that Christ had the real natural ability to sin (free will), but not the MORAL ability (meaning His character was such that He "could" not sin--morally). This is in sharp contrast with the idea that His NATURE prevented Him from sinning. If He lacked the ability to sin by nature, then his temptations were a sham.
I'm not sure I understand the difference between a natural inability to sin vs. a moral inability.
quote:
Well, yes, God is the most important person in all the universe, and as such His interests are the most important ones of all, and that doesn't require us to think of Him as in any way selfish. What is in God's best interest is obviously in the best interest of all moral agents.
Before the Fall, God's interest was in harmony with the best interest of all. Afterwards, it doesn't seem clear to me. Does the best interest of all equal the least amount of evil? It's the minimizing of evil that doesn't seem obvious to me.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
| 126 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:49 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 |
|
|