25 Oct 07
Originally posted by whodeyIf I understand you correctly, you are saying that if we'd know what's best, we would lose the ability to choose. If "free will" means "being able to make bad choices based on a lack of knowledge", I can't see why it's something worth keeping. If I get to choose between two things I know too little about to know which one I'd prefer, I don't feel that I am choosing freely, but rather that I am guessing; and if the person offering the choice would deliberately withhold information in order to keep me from knowing that one choice is clearly better, that would be manipulation.
Only humans are burdened with the unknown, hence, we contemplate what might be best. If God's creation knew what was always best we also would not be burdened with making "choices", hence, this is why we must rely on God or suffer accordingly. So I guess my answer is (a) because this is the best that can be done while keeping in tact our ability to choose. ...[text shortened]... oose, rather, God would simply be talking/interacting with himself. What good would that be?
25 Oct 07
Originally posted by epiphinehasThis is interesting, Epi: you still choose (b)—though without the “double predestinationism” that you relinquished some time back.
I think what is needed here is a deeper appreciation of what it is to be a human being in God's created world.
We are accustomed to seeing our selves and our world as being insignificant within the overwhelming expanse of the universe surrounding us. Modern science teaches us that we are merely puppets dancing on the strings of our genetic cod ...[text shortened]... might possibly fit the crime, regardless of any preconceived notions to the contrary?
Just a couple side comments—
What happens to a child if you tell him that he is worthless over and over, throughout his entire life? Will he come to value his own decisions? Will he grow up to understand the weight of his own choices? Any psychology professor could tell you that depressed people generally regard their own choices as meaningless. Indeed, we are raised by our parents, but by and large we are raised by our culture, too, and as such, each and every person, at least in part, has been raised with the message, "you are worthless," pounded into their brains.
I got this message pounded into my brain in a thoroughgoing Christian-culture; and I don’t just mean my own family and church. I recall, for example, the old Lutheran confessional statement: “We confess that we are by nature sinful and unclean....” (That’s no longer the statement used, I don’t think; and I can’t find my old-version Lutheran Book of Worship, but that’s verbatim from memory.
And this from the Presbyterian Book of Common Worship (1956), the First Service for Young People: “We confess to thee, O God, that we have sinned against heaven and in thy sight; and we are not worthy to be called thy children....” This is for the Young People; there are several orders of confession for the older folks, more or less strong.
Never once did I hear the Christian message that God loves us because we’re lovable. Never once did I hear a message other than that God loves us even though we are unworthy because of our inherent sinfulness; by grace worth may be imputed to our worthlessness, but that’s all. I have never met a Christian of my own age, who grew up in the church, of any mainline denomination, who learned a different message. Hopefully, there are some now—as I think the severity of that message has been moderated in more up-to-date liturgies.
My point is, in order to truly understand the significance of sin and salvation without resorting to shallow logic and flawed conclusions, we first would have to understand that we are truly rational and truly free creatures over whom God exercises no control...
I haven’t yet seen you point out where the logic is shallow, nor the conclusions flawed—especially since you seem to be articulating (b) very clearly. You are now simply making a defense of that choice. I don’t mean that as a criticism at all—it is the move to the next level, so to speak; but since different folks are going to see the options differently, there are certainly going to be different defenses.
...and, as you've pointed out vistesd, that there is no escape from the responsibility of who we choose to submit to, whether it is ourselves, other people, or God.
Good place for me to shut up. . . 😉
25 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou and I differ on this point. I agree that the text shows confusion and deception in relationship to the woman's decision. However, the serpent never speaks to the man, only to the woman. The man is only convinced on his course of action after dialogue with the woman. The man took his cue from the woman without dialogue--- presumably he assessed her condition and further decided to be with her outside of the communal relationship with God was be preferred to being in communion with God without her.
[b]—Basically, they were suckered by the serpent, in the Genesis account, into an act of disobedience.
You and I differ on this point. I agree that the text shows confusion and deception in relationship to the woman's decision. However, the serpent never speaks to the man, only to the woman. The man is only convinced on his course of action after d ...[text shortened]... ove these choices in your original post, the answer would then be yes to both questions.[/b]
Actually, I’m not sure if we differ or not. I have simply ignored this part when you’ve raised it before—mea cupola! (Unless I responded way back during the “Tale of Two Trees” discussion; I can’t recall). I’d have to take a look at the text again.
Here again, is where we depart. The final reckoning offers absolutely no evidence of a salvation-by-works determination, nor does the rest of properly-read Scripture tell of anything but a grace/faith-based salvation. Instead, at the Judgment Seat of Christ, we see works in view for other purposes (this discussion currently being fleshed out within a different thread).
Well, I meant God’s action, not any action on the part of human beings.
That being said, salvation was universally rendered, although not universally applied.
I’m coming to believe that you have a “two-fer” for everything! 😉 Nevertheless, that means that God’s act for salvation is not universally efficacious. Which brings me to—
If you were to change the word "some" with the word "all" in the portion immediately above these choices in your original post, the answer would then be yes to both questions.
I can’t do that, since the result—as things are applied—is still “some.” I think you’re basically under option (b).
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by gaychessplayerYou might the discussion on this thread interesting, as it became a debate over the possibility of universal salvation (not necessarily without a stint in hell); on about page 7 it kicked into a detailed scriptural duel between Epi and me until we wound down to impasse.
I believe that God is all-loving and all-powerful. A consequence of that belief of mine is that all people will be saved at some point. I believe that some people may end up in hell, but that they won't stay there forever. I believe that God's love is irresistible. It's just that some people will "resist" longer than others!
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=66497&page=1
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdI thought the same when I read epiphinehas' post. In fact, I have personally experienced this almost exclusively in church. I grew up in a non-religious family where I was loved and valued for the person I am, not in spite of who I am. As a teenager, I went to a rather conservative Lutheran church, where we had to recite the confessional statement every week as part of our confirmation classes. I don't think it was mentioned in the confession that we are sinful by nature, but it started with "ich armer, elender, sündiger Mensch" (I, a poor, wretched, sinful person) and didn't exactly make you feel good about yourself.
(Epiphinehas: ) [b]What happens to a child if you tell him that he is worthless over and over, throughout his entire life? [...]
(vistesd: ) I got this message pounded into my brain in a thoroughgoing Christian-culture; and I don’t just mean my own family and church. I recall, for example, the old Lutheran confessional statement: “We confess t ...[text shortened]... le[/i]; there are several orders of confession for the older folks, more or less strong.
[/b]
Never once did I hear the Christian message that God loves us because we’re lovable.
That's an important point. It's also quite strange, considering that he supposedly created us.
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by NordlysThanks for adding your experience to mine, Marauder Clone! 🙂 I grew up Lutheran; my wife grew up Presbyterian. Later, we both became Anglican (Episcopalian): by then, I think the scene had changed somewhat, so I don’t know if growing up Anglican would’ve been any different or not.
I thought the same when I read epiphinehas' post. In fact, I have personally experienced this almost exclusively in church. I grew up in a non-religious family where I was loved and valued for the person I am, not in spite of who I am. As a teenager, I went to a rather conservative Lutheran church, where we had to recite the confessional statement eve ...[text shortened]... s an important point. It's also quite strange, considering that he supposedly created us.
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by vistesdWell, I meant God’s action, not any action on the part of human beings.
You and I differ on this point. I agree that the text shows confusion and deception in relationship to the woman's decision. However, the serpent never speaks to the man, only to the woman. The man is only convinced on his course of action after dialogue with the woman. The man took his cue from the woman without dialogue--- presumably he assessed her condit ...[text shortened]... e result—as things are applied—is still “some.” I think you’re basically under option (b).
God's action did result in universal payment for sin, thus the reference to the final judgment and what is brought forth. Sin is nowhere mentioned; faith is. Everyone's name begins in the books of life (salvation is the default position, apparently) and can only be blotted out by virtue of rejection of the gift.
So, if the question is, can God make something heavier than He can pick up, the answer would be yes: He made human volition.
26 Oct 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell, this is very good news! I have never rejected a gift God tried to give me.
[b]Well, I meant God’s action, not any action on the part of human beings.
God's action did result in universal payment for sin, thus the reference to the final judgment and what is brought forth. Sin is nowhere mentioned; faith is. Everyone's name begins in the books of life (salvation is the default position, apparently) and can only be blo ...[text shortened]... d make something heavier than He can pick up, the answer would be yes: He made human volition.[/b]
26 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe I'll put you back to (a).
[b]Well, I meant God’s action, not any action on the part of human beings.
God's action did result in universal payment for sin, thus the reference to the final judgment and what is brought forth. Sin is nowhere mentioned; faith is. Everyone's name begins in the books of life (salvation is the default position, apparently) and can only be blo ...[text shortened]... d make something heavier than He can pick up, the answer would be yes: He made human volition.[/b]
One could argue that God made that decision knowing that some of his creatures would be damned to eternal torment, or question whether the fire is worth the candle; but I'm not going to. I'm really only interested here in how various Christians view the apparent unbalance with regard to the effects of man's (and/or) Satan's acts, and God's act(s) to redeem the situation.
The reason I decided to have one more pass at it, from a slightly different angle, is that the last thread where I raised the question ultimately got side-tracked, as usually happens here--this time into what I thought was a very fruitful debate between Epi and I on the question of universal salvation per se.
(a) puts you in company with Harold Kushner, whom, if I recall rightly, you have read.
26 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdBut God's actions wrought all mankind's salvation. Sin was eliminated by God's actions. Only man can keep himself from the love of God.
The I'll put you back to (a).
One could argue that God made that decision knowing that some of his creatures would be damned to eternal torment, or question whether the fire is worth the candle; but I'm not going to. I'm really only interested here in how various Christians view the apparent unbalance with regard to the effects of man's (and/or) Satan
(a) puts you in company with Harold Kushner, whom, if I recall rightly, you have read.
I recall reading at least a book or two of Kushner's, although I cannot recall the titles.
26 Oct 07
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdThis is interesting, Epi: you still choose (b)—though without the “double predestinationism” that you relinquished some time back.
This is interesting, Epi: you still choose (b)—though without the “double predestinationism” that you relinquished some time back.
Just a couple side comments—
[b]What happens to a child if you tell him that he is worthless over and over, throughout his entire life? Will he come to value his own decisions? Will he grow up to understand the weight of hi o, whether it is ourselves, other people, or God.
Good place for me to shut up. . . 😉[/b]
Actually, I choose neither--or both.
(1) Human beings are under God's judgment because, as rational and free creatures, we willingly disobey God.
(2) Therefore, we are, as a whole, in need of God's mercy.
(3) Whether God grants mercy or not, righteousness is fulfilled.
(4) God grants mercy by sending His Son into the world to suffer our judgment on our behalf.
(5) The Holy Spirit strives with men, giving them the ability to choose Jesus Christ.
(6) As rational and free creatures we are allowed to either accept or reject God's mercy.
(6) Some choose to accept God's mercy, some don't.
(7) Righteousness is fulfilled by Christ for those who accept God's mercy.
(8) Otherwise righteousness is fulfilled in a sinner's eternal condemnation.
(9) Either way, God's righteousness prevails, either according to the Law, or according to Grace.
-----------
(a) God is only able to save those who choose to appropriate His grace.
(b) God cannot choose to do any better than He has (without violating the free will of man, which would violate God's law of loving your neighbor as yourself).
Never once did I hear the Christian message that God loves us because we’re lovable. Never once did I hear a message other than that God loves us even though we are unworthy because of our inherent sinfulness; by grace worth may be imputed to our worthlessness, but that’s all. I have never met a Christian of my own age, who grew up in the church, of any mainline denomination, who learned a different message. Hopefully, there are some now—as I think the severity of that message has been moderated in more up-to-date liturgies.
These are the passages which convince me of the Lord's love for all men, His intention to save all men, and that His loving-kindness is the essence of His call to repentance:
"The goodness of God leads you to repentance" (Rom. 2:4).
"We love him, because he first loved us" (1 John 4:19).
"For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:6-8).
"Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life" (Rom. 5:18).
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (2 Peter 3:9).
I haven’t yet seen you point out where the logic is shallow, nor the conclusions flawed—especially since you seem to be articulating (b) very clearly. You are now simply making a defense of that choice. I don’t mean that as a criticism at all—it is the move to the next level, so to speak; but since different folks are going to see the options differently, there are certainly going to be different defenses
God is omnipotent, but He also has a certain character. His character is holy, so He will not allow sinners in His presence. His character is love, so He cannot violate the free will of His creatures. Even though God is omnipotent, doesn't necessarily mean He will do everything He is capable of doing. That is, He will not force you to accept the invitation to reconciliation through Jesus Christ, but neither will He allow you in His presence otherwise.
The logic is shallow, in my opinion, because you do not take into consideration God's character, nor the reality of who we are (which I attempted to describe in my last post). It is essentially accurate logic, but shallow. The conclusions derived from it are also essentially accurate, but flawed in that it is possible to brush them aside without understanding the underlying dynamics, i.e., the underlying dynamics explain adequately what one might otherwise deem unreasonable or illogical in God's plan.
26 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehas[/b]No, they really don't. First of all, if God is truly omnipotent he can, by definition, overcome his "character". and do what he pleases. Therefore, the fact that he does not is a result of his *decision* rather than simply an immutable aspect of his character...nice try slipping that one by though.
[b]i.e., the underlying dynamics explain adequately what one might otherwise deem unreasonable or illogical in God's plan.
Further, because He is omnipotent he could have easily built his system in such a way that there are no eternal penalties for sin, but he did not which indicates he did not want to, which indicates he wants some of us to suffer eternally. What a guy!
Lastly, instead of all the cloak and dagger BS, He could easily simply prove his existence to each and every one of us and *then* ask us to choose to be with him or not. Rather than the current system where I must suspend disbelief in the supernatural to even have a chance at making the right choice.
There ya go, two better ideas for salvation, and I'm not even omnipotent.
EDIT: had to turn the bold off.
26 Oct 07
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasThank you for the detailed and articulate post. (Well, we're back to it, you and I, aren't we? 🙂 )
[b]This is interesting, Epi: you still choose (b)—though without the “double predestinationism” that you relinquished some time back.
Actually, I choose neither--or both.
(1) Human beings are under God's judgment because, as rational and free creatures, we willingly disobey God.
(2) Therefore, we are, as a whole, in need of God's mercy.
( ly what one might otherwise deem unreasonable or illogical in God's plan.[/b]
If God’s essence is agape (which I think is what John clearly says in his letter), then all of God’s attributes are conditioned by that essence—not the other way around. Which is why I think John’s statements cannot be contextualized by references to God’s holiness or righteousness, but must stand as the context under which they are considered. If you want to claim that the author of the letter of John did not mean that—but was simply specifying another attribute—I think you are going to have a hard time (in the Greek, both ho theos and agape are identified with one another in the nominative case).
On the other hand, you seem to be implying that God’s love is fulfilled simply by allowing humans to exercise free will.
“As a copious spring could not be stopped up with a handful of dust, so the Creator’s compassion cannot be conquered by the wickedness of creatures.” (St. Isaac of Nineveh; 7th century)
You are arguing that, in fact, it can be and is: that God’s “intention to save all men”* is circumvented by human wickedness. If god’s loving intention is to save all men, then his intention is simply not fulfilled if that does not come to pass. (You have reflected on this before, in your comments about the importance of evangelism.)
That is why I’ll let you have “both” (a) and (b), but not “neither.”
___________________________________________
* My italics: do you remember our going round and round over that single word in our “Great Debate”? 🙂 We also argued over whether, and why, mortal death ought, or ought not, to be considered a bar to God’s ability to act redemptively. I’m going to have to go back and read that whole thing.
26 Oct 07
Many of you might find the writings of Julian of Norwich interesting on this subject. She had numerous revelations, and the catholic church has recognized her visions as authentic.
One of the main themes is "that all will be well", the idea being that in the end, God heals all. The view that sin being a kind of sickness of the soul, that we cannot cure, but that God will ultimately cure. too much information for a short post, but i would recommend all who are interested too do some research, it is quite enlightening.