 |
| 
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/12/2005 5:19 PM (GMT -6) |   | Ok, so I told a friend today that I think we should look at what Jesus said about the kingdom (not elsewhere) to gain insight into the ultimate plan and the character of the King.
Now, I'm not so sure. Maybe you guys can help me out.
Start with the parables, I don't get them. If Jesus is love, and doesn't want any to perish, why
talk in parables that some can't understand? That's my first question.
Check it out:
Matthew 19:9 "He who has ears, let him hear." 10 And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" 11 Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
That doesn't sound very loving (or fair) to me. Who does this "granting" anyway?
He continues:
13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 "In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, `You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; for the heart of this people has become dull, with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes, othewise they would see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, and I would heal them.'
I wanna say, hmm. Who (but the King of the Kingdom) sent that prophecy to Isaiah anyway?
Was Jesus merely revealing the Kingdom and not revealing the character of the King? This King seems to be
holding back.
Another one I don't get:
Matthew 25:10
10 "And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. 11 "Later the other virgins also came, saying, `Lord, lord, open up for us.' 12 "But he answered, `Truly I say to you, I do not know you.' 13 "Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.
In this case the 5 virgins really WANT to go with the bridegroom...yet he shuts them out.
What happens to them after the King says "I do not know you"
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud Lee | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/12/2005 5:43 PM (GMT -6) | |
Luke 13:22-30
Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
“But he will answer, ‘I don't know you or where you come from.’ “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ “But he will reply, ‘I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’ “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”
Perfect love? Perfect, self-sacrificing, ever-emphathizing love? Is this the character of God? "Open up the door? Accept you? I don't even KNOW you, fool. Get the hell on from me!" | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/12/2005 5:56 PM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said...
Ok, so I told a friend today that I think we should look at what Jesus said about the kingdom (not elsewhere) to gain insight into the ultimate plan and the character of the King.
Look to "unless a grain of wheat..." (die, fall, be buried) and look to how that verse is used in Christian funerals (identifying our death with Christ's for us--which is a MUST and not optional), and then look to Christ's being "lifted up" to die and the example of the rod with a serpant that Moses raised up and how all were called to identify with that...
Dying is pretty terminal, and not half way. If the Cross came with instructions they would be clear, and unambiguous. Pointedly, D.B. wrote "When Christ calls a man, He bids him 'Come and die.'"
Christ said "If anyone thirst..." and he also said "take up his cross..."
I guess those ARE the instructions the Cross comes with!
"We are free not because we can choose, but only when we have chosen well." - Hart | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/12/2005 6:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Thought:
In this gospel, the author is using his writing to deal with situations in his own time and, WITHIN that context and his own ideologies, he is describing the life and teachings of Jesus.
Psalm 6
1O LORD , do not rebuke me in your anger
or discipline me in your wrath.
2 Be merciful to me, LORD , for I am faint;
O LORD , heal me, for my bones are in agony.
3 My soul is in anguish.
How long, O LORD , how long?
4 Turn, O LORD , and deliver me;
save me because of your unfailing love.
5 No one remembers you when he is dead.
Who praises you from the grave?
6 I am worn out from groaning;
all night long I flood my bed with weeping
and drench my couch with tears.
7 My eyes grow weak with sorrow;
they fail because of all my foes.
8 Away from me, all you who do evil,
for the LORD has heard my weeping.
9 The LORD has heard my cry for mercy;
the LORD accepts my prayer.
10 All my enemies will be ashamed and dismayed;
they will turn back in sudden disgrace.
If you notice in Matthew, the bolded phrase is used MORE THAN ONCE by Jesus. Could the author be trying to say something? Possibly...like unto how in Mark, right before Jesus dies, he says "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" in Aramaic...which happen to be...
Psalm 22
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel. [a]
4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8 "He trusts in the LORD ;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."
Could be coincidence...but...
The authors of the gospels had intentions and literary ways of fufilling those intentions, yes? Interesting, how Mark has Jesus say that statement in a loud passionate cry before gething they sponge with sour wine....while John simply has Jesus ask for something to drink before he says "It is finished." (Mark doesn't say this)
God's Word in HUMAN words.Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/12/2005 5:28:38 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/12/2005 6:41 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hi Selah,
The important thing to remember in interpreting parables is to thoroughly take note of the entire context of the passage. Usually, Christ explains the parables to his disciples later, which is precisely what your first reference refers to:
Matthew 19:9 "He who has ears, let him hear." 10 And the disciples came and said to Him, "Why do You speak to them in parables?" 11 Jesus answered them, "To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 "For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him.
That doesn't sound very loving (or fair) to me. Who does this "granting" anyway?
The key to understanding this is found in verse 12. This is simply another way of stating the principle that spiritually speaking, God gives people what they want. Those who rejected Christ's word were further blinded (just like Paul describes in Romans 1), while those who truly desire to know Him better, he reveals more to them.
He continues:
13 "Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 "In their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, `You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; for the heart of this people has become dull, with their ears they scarcely hear, and they have closed their eyes, othewise they would see with their eyes, hear with their ears, and understand with their heart and return, and I would heal them.'
I wanna say, hmm. Who (but the King of the Kingdom) sent that prophecy to Isaiah anyway?
This is God giving the hardened sinner what he wants--further spiritual blindness and deafness.
Matthew 25:10
10 "And while they were going away to make the purchase, the bridegroom came, and those who were ready went in with him to the wedding feast; and the door was shut. 11 "Later the other virgins also came, saying, `Lord, lord, open up for us.' 12 "But he answered, `Truly I say to you, I do not know you.' 13 "Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.
In this case the 5 virgins really WANT to go with the bridegroom...yet he shuts them out.
What happens to them after the King says "I do not know you"
In this parable, Jesus is emphasizing readiness for His return--"Be ye therefore READY, for the Son of man cometh in such an hour as ye think not." These foolish virgins simply did not avail themselves of their abundant opportunities to stay alert, and were not ready to meet the bridgegroom. In first-century Jewish culture (as in many cultures today) this would be egregiously disrespectful towards the bridegroom.
It is not clear to me why it is unloving for God to harden those who have already hardened themselves, for God to indicate that there is in fact a point of no return spiritually, that if we don't stay ready to meet Him we may be caught unaware (cf. 1 John 2:28), and that in fact, the type of people described by these foolish virgins truly were not Christ's followers at all, but were mere pretenders. Thus He says to them, "I never knew you."
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 1/12/2005 5:59:49 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/12/2005 7:05 PM (GMT -6) | | |
It is not evident to me how it is unloving to tell people essentially, "Look! Grab hold of the lifeline I'm throwing you! You may not get another chance!"
It is clear from virtually every book in the Bible that God reserves the right to "shut the door of Noah's Ark," so to speak, in condemning judgment upon those who have passed the point of no return. Their selfish pleas for mercy at the last were only to save their skin, not a genuine expression of true repentance and faith. And yes, God does call such people fools, in both the Old and New Testaments.
John
MephEternal said...
Luke 13:22-30
Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’
“But he will answer, ‘I don't know you or where you come from.’ “Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ “But he will reply, ‘I don't know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’ “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. People will come from east and west and north and south, and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.”
Perfect love? Perfect, self-sacrificing, ever-emphathizing love? Is this the character of God? "Open up the door? Accept you? I don't even KNOW you, fool. Get the hell on from me!"
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/12/2005 7:46 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
It is not evident to me how it is unloving to tell people essentially, "Look! Grab hold of the lifeline I'm throwing you! You may not get another chance!"
It is clear from virtually every book in the Bible that God reserves the right to "shut the door of Noah's Ark," so to speak, in condemning judgment upon those who have passed the point of no return. Their selfish pleas for mercy at the last were only to save their skin, not a genuine expression of true repentance and faith. And yes, God does call such people fools, in both the Old and New Testaments.
I think John brings up something pretty good here. And I want to address this thought in the way of themes. Concerning divine judgement, we can say all of these things:
1) God has the divine right to "harden" people that are already self-hardened (a form of compatibilism) to a certain degree via whatever means.
2) God has the divine right to set specific "probationary period" times beyond which he will choose not to extend more grace...and then begin judgement.
3) God has the divine right to ONLY accept "pleas" of genuine repentance.
4) God has the divine right to seriously warn us about faithful vigilance, under the real threat of exclusion and loss.
HOWEVER...
These things will NOT square with the idea of a God who is PERFECT LOVE, does NOT delight in the destruction of the wicked, and truly wants EVERYONE to be saved...UNLESS all of the above things are aspects of divine judgement (which is punitive AND rehabilitative) that are MEANS unto ULTIMATE redemption of whatever may be possibly be redeemed! To say otherwise is to posit a God who is NOT restricted by some metaphysical limitation (as Doc would have us say), but a volitional one. That is to say, we would have a God who is VERY gracious and VERY loving...BUT ONLY TO A SELF-CHOSEN POINT! And beyond that point that is chosen by God...yo A$$ is grass, baby! Prepare for mowin'. 
In other words, God would be loving, gracious, and merciful beyond all other beings...but by NO means PERFECTLY so.
I believe that it could be reasonably argued that perfect love does NOT have this type of volitional conditionality. Perfect love does NOT give up on it's object...while there is yet hope. That's why Doc (and others like Doc) ultimately posit a METAPHYSICAL reason for exercises of divine justice. Because they know that this specter looms large. Positing the willed exercise of the three "divine rights" above unto eternal damnation would DEFINITELY go against the idea that God wants ALL people to experience his salvation.
So...
One possible way to reconcile these themes with the idea of God being perfect love and goodness is to posit that there IS no end state of irrevocable damnation for sentient beings. Yeah, universalism of the type that I described on another thread here. Eternal losses and rewards exists (saving the notion of autonomy). A suffering "hellish" state exists (saving, for some, the meting of divine justice). But ultimately ALL finite beings, over however long it takes, are reconciled to the Infinite God.
Again, this is one possible way.
 Post Edited (MephEternal) : 1/12/2005 6:49:13 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/12/2005 7:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah asks very good question. How DO we know what the actual words of Jesus were? How do know that certain things weren't put in the mouth of Jesus for ideological reasons that were consistent more or less with Christ's basic teachings...but spun towards a certain direction for a certain reason? Frankly, it amazes me that people don't feel more of the pinch about the longer and shorter endings of Mark. Here, one has TACIT evidence of persons putting words in the mouth of Jesus that he most likely NEVER SAID.
Hello! What might this indicate to us about the idea of maintaining PERFECT objective reporting on what Jesus ACTUALLY said? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/12/2005 8:02 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
Meph, that is certainly congruent with the whole "love, not judgment" (LNJ) theme, and in fact only strengthens my conviction (or "hardens my heart") against such philosophical wishful thinking as that. Weren't you the one who tried to argue that God loves Satan a year or so ago? (That would likewise be completely consistent with the antinomian paradigm of the LNJ theme, so at least you're trying to be consistent).
Anyway, I can certainly understand the attempt to stay consistent with one's basic philosophical POV, as scripturally untenable as it may be.
However, I do find your assertion that God's love could not be perfect if it were in any sense condemnatory simply antithetical to God's own revelation of himself. It is no more unloving for an omnibenevolent God to consign willful moral rebels to Hell than it is for a benevolent human government to incarcerate criminals. Again, it's the whole LNJ thing that causes all this denying of the clear statements of scripture concerning God's perfectly loving character, which at some times involves absolute condemnation.
We are not disagreeing as much as you think we are, John. I've said that divine justice IS fulfilled with the view I'm espousing. NO ONE gets off any hook. Moral accountability IS maintained in full effect. And it assumes AS TRUE all of the themes that I mentioned.
Honestly, our MAIN disagreement is based upon whether or not sentient being MUST have the capacity for being irrevocably "hardened" against God. Do you not see this? | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 1/12/2005 8:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Jesus claims he is revealing the very words and deeds of the Father when he says the following:
John 5:19 Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life. 25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself, 27 and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. 30 "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.
It is difficult for me to see why this clear revelation of the TRUTH is so persistently ignored by the "love, not judgment" crowd.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/12/2005 8:20 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
It is difficult for me to see why this clear revelation of the TRUTH is so persistently ignored by the "love, not judgment" crowd.
and...
It seems to me that our difference lies, more deeply, in the question of the righteousness of God's condemnation of sinners. I don't find the "Hell is locked from the inside" idea gives the WHOLE picture. While it is true with regard to the damned, the scripture also reveals that it is GOD who deals out the Final Judgment
My #2 theme...
2) God has the divine right to set specific "probationary period" times beyond which he will choose not to extend more grace...and then begin judgement.
I don't mean to derail the spirit of this thread...but I would like to know something. How is the view that I'd been talking about concerning universalism INHERENTLY negating the scripture you just cited. Please remember all the discussion I've had about the view. It...
--Posits the existence of conscious suffering in a hellish existence
--Posits the existence if DIVINE JUDGMENT (which is punitive AND rehabilitative) being meted out to ALL people
--Posits God's RIGHTEOUS (punitive?) condemnation of sinners
--Is consistent with the idea of the "second death" of unbelievers
--Is consistent with libertarian freedom
--Is consistent with the "love (and moral responsibility) requires freedom" idea
--posits the elimination of ALL sin, evil, and unrighteousness.
HOW am I negating "clear" revelation of the scripture you just mentioned? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/12/2005 8:32 PM (GMT -6) | |
Back to the topic. I do think it's helpful to recognize that Gospels are PROPAGANDA. Not in the pejorative sense. They are writings that have an intent of proclaiming a belief and are unashamed in structuring their writing style and literary usage AROUND that.
prop·a·gan·da
n.
The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
John 20
Jesus did many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
Hmmm... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/13/2005 8:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah: Oh no ... Where's Tom.... Tom O Tom .... splain this paleeze
Tom: I'm gonna change my picture to an avatar of a shinning white horse with me on it carrying Selah off to safety with Mephi (pictured as a dragon) left slain on the battlefield. Ha. Guys, I cannot WAIT to move to the Twin Cities this coming summer. What a year it'll be!
I think John made the basic point that "giving her who has even more" refers to rewarding faithful stewardship of truth, while "taking away from her who has little even the little she has" refers to judgment on those who were not faithful to respond with what truth they did have. Of course, if Jesus were a universalist, then he perhaps would have said, "Nothing will be taken away from either him who has or him who has not; both win in the end."
Another thing about WHY Jesus spoke in parables might be:
1) Parables were how the culture spoke. Jesus didn't make them up. Even today, Middle Easterners don't like to go straight to the point, they tell a story to communicate the point. So a) it's not unusual that Jesus like other teachers would use parables, and b) Jesus uses them to communicate (not hide) the truth [i]to only certain KINDS of people[/i] (which people themselves determine whether or not they are the right KIND), and
2) God doesn't seem to like to overwhelm people. He gives enough evidence that he's here and what he's like for those looking, but not enough to overwhelm a person so that a person's choice is constrained. God wants the choice to be "in faith" which by definiion means not having absolute test-tube proof that God exists. So parables make truth plain enough to the pure in heart but obscure enough to those who don't love the truth to find fault with the evidence and excuse themselves (in their own eyes). I still fail to see how God's designing LFW to choose FOR God at some point in the future if by then it hasn't is still LFW. If it's still LFW, then the agent is BY DEFINITION able to choose against God. I know Mephi says the wicked will be "able but won't" choose against God at some point, but I don't know what that means. This reduces to " 'might' but 'will not'," which we've already established are contradictories. So long as the agent is libertarianly free, she's free "to" and free "not to." How's this the case if it's true that she "will" choose for God and "will not" choose against God? I don't know. If God designs LFW at some point "to" choose, and that choice is now guaranteed, then something OTHER THAN THE AGENT now grounds the truth of this "will" and the defintion of LFW fails to obtain in the case of the choice in question. I don't mind affirming universalism if it's true. I just don't see that it is yet. I'd like it to be true I suppose, but I don't yet see it. Tom Post Edited (TGB) : 1/13/2005 7:44:54 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 1/13/2005 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Today's parable. Can we agree that THIS parable reveals the character of the king? There seems to be clear distinctions AND big implications for the POE as well as the idea of universalism. imho. Talk to me :)
24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 "But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 "But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27 "The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, `Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?' 28 "And he said to them, `An enemy has done this!' The slaves said to him, `Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?' 29 "But he said, `No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 `Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, "First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.""' ... 36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, "Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field." 37 And He said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40 "So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 "The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 "Thenthe righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.
"When we acknowledge that all of life is sacred and that each act is an act of choice and therefore sacred, then life is a sacred dance lived consciously each moment. When we live at this level, we participate in the creation of a better world."
Scout Cloud LeePost Edited (Selah) : 1/13/2005 8:52:51 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2005 1:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:(emphases mine)
I still fail to see how God's designing LFW to choose FOR God at some point in the future if by then it hasn't is still LFW. If it's still LFW, then the agent is BY DEFINITION able to choose against God. I know Mephi says the wicked will be "able but won't" choose against God at some point, but I don't know what that means. This reduces to " 'might' but 'will not'," which we've already established are contradictories. So long as the agent is libertarianly free, she's free "to" and free "not to." How's this the case if it's true that she "will" choose for God and "will not" choose against God? I don't know. If God designs LFW at some point "to" choose, and that choice is now guaranteed, then something OTHER THAN THE AGENT now grounds the truth of this "will" and the defintion of LFW fails to obtain in the case of the choice in question.
Hey there, Tom. When we are talking about the ability to choose for or against God, we have to specify what we are saying. Are we talking about the MOMENT-TO-MOMENT freedom to choose for or against God in daily life...or are we talking about END STATES ala "heaven OR hell dichotomy"? If we are talking about the former, then this is consistent with the view I hold. One the other hand, if you are saying that LFW MUST entail that it must be primarily within an agents power to determine whether they ULTIMATELY end up, then, of course, this would not be consonant with my universalist view.
However, I would argue that the heaven or hell dichotomy view presupposes a BINARY, "in-or-out" idea of final states with respect to human autonomy. In other words, it is thought that the ONLY scope that autonomy can have is with the final states, heaven or hell. As I've argued this is not the case. (See my stuff on autonomy.
http://www.opentheismboard.org/beta/default.aspx?f=5&m=50111&p=2)
I won't go into all of it again here, but we are able to affirm the idea that earthly decisions affect eternal states meaningfully, such that one's capacity for eternal gain is commensurate with one's capacity for eternal loss. THAT'S ALL THAT'S NEEDED. We need LFW for character development, moral responsibility, and ontological distinction from God We DON'T need an eternal FINAL STATE of loss (an eternal state of hell). I've talked to Doc about this...and he's granted this line of argument as being persuasive! Seriously. Uh huh...
What this means it that there is NO REASON to say that LFW MUST entail the ability to primarily determine whether they WILL end up in heaven or hell. All LFW must entail is that sentient beings are free to make MOMENT-TO-MOMENT decisions that lead to a solidication process either towards or against God. I do that. I just say that it is POSSIBLE that in the creative designing process of finite, sentient creatures, God effectively draws a creational constraint that renders it inevitable, THOUGH NOT NECESSARY, that, given an infinite amount of time and an certain level of God's consistent self-revelation, any particular sentient being will eventually hit "rock bottom" with respect to resisting God. At that time, the being will begin the process of turning towards and choosing God. (I describe the ontological root for this on that thread I mentioned earlier. "The Craig/Talbott Discussion" thread) Doc is also down with this idea. Why? Because of what he has said in NO uncertain terms in SATPOE with his 6th thesis...
6. Power to Influence is Finite | God’s creatures are finite. Although their freedom cannot be revoked, it can be thought of as “probabtional.” The scope and duration of their freedom is conditioned by many variables and ultimately determined by God’s will. The warfare between God and creatures who choose to use their freedom for evil is not eternal. Christ will vanquish his enemies in the end and creatures will be free to participate in the triune love of God at last.
Doc acknowledged that all that is being posited is ANOTHER CREATIONAL CONDITION of creaturely existence that circumscribes, but does not eliminate, a meaningful concept of human freedom.
[Digression: For an example of something that is INEVITBABLE though not necessary, look at the existence of car wrecks. If one's intention is to have literally hundreds of thousands of free people driving automobiles in a country, would ANYONE argue the INEVITABILITY of at LEAST fender-bender?? Heck, no. Same kind of idea applies.]
Notice, Tom, that even though the "rock bottom" thing will happen, the person still has the LFW ability to MOMENT-BY-MOMENT choose for or against God. The journey towards self-solidification in God is the AGENT'S own journey. No 1st order compatibilism posited.
So, everything is preserved. Moral deliberation. Character development and solidification. LFW. And universal reconciliation.
So, Tom. Does this help?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
| 34 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:14 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 |
|
|