Soteriological Reductio Ad Absurdum

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Apparent contradictions are due to...
1- verses read out of context
2- words with a poor translation
3- the readers own bias or lack of understanding
4- not understanding the culture in which it was written
5- not understanding figures of speech or when they can be applied.
to name just a few. There are other reasons, I'm sure.
The words spoken b ...[text shortened]... . Study, research, prayer, etc. can open up more understanding as we apply what we already know.

These surely count. I would add, not reading the texts according to the kind of literature they (individually) are. I have said this before, but it comes home to me as I re-read Romans, and realize the dialectical nature of Paul’s presentation—not a simply thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic, but one in which a matter is presented in varying ways before a final summation (or ultimate synthesis).

But I also agree with Ghost of a Duke: There are contradictions—because there are multiple authors who have different views on the matter. I also think that to make essentially divine claims for the biblical texts at least approaches idolatry—and though I refrain from making judgment generally, to call the Bible the “Word of God”, if by that one means the logos, would be straightforward idolatry. [That is not addressed to you, but a general statement.]

I’m not sure that the quest for spiritual certainty (such that faith becomes irrelevant) isn’t essentially idolatrous. It is from a traditional Jewish understanding, at any rate.

Originally posted by vistesd
These surely count. I would add, not reading the texts according to the kind of literature they (individually) are. I have said this before, but it comes home to me as I re-read Romans, and realize the dialectical nature of Paul’s presentation—not a simply thesis-antithesis-synthesis dialectic, but one in which a matter is presented in varying ways before ...[text shortened]... vant) isn’t essentially idolatrous. It is from a traditional Jewish understanding, at any rate.

Yes, I generally agree with all you stated. Even Ghost's comments....
However, having said that, I think it is possible to get back to the original words, if you will.
I don't know if you have ever read "The New Testament Documents" by F.F. Bruce, but I think the original manuscripts were authentic, of which we only have copies.
Then there are of course, the scribes who penned the words from the originals, who also may have had their bias opinions, i.e., Triune God, death after life, God is in total control of all that happens, etc.
But I would not call it idolatry if the student is prayerfully being guided in his research by holy spirit, their love for God and the desire to know more.
I suppose we will never get to the original word which was spoken by holy men of God as the spirit gave them utterance, but we should never stop trying.
On the contrary, I think this honors God, as one who diligently searches the scriptures and takes a stand on what he already has learned for application.
I believe God speaks to us today, I believe He heals today, I believe in miracles today, and I believe God answers prayer.

Originally posted by whodey
Pharaoh had previously killed the first born of Israel of his own free will. Pharaoh was then led down a trail to be judged accordingly as the final plague took the first born of Egypt.

At least, that's how I see it.

The big thing still in my opinion was Pharaoh was fighting God while God was showing
Him a kindness. The events that were transpiring were beyond natural, he knew he was
up against God, and still fought on till it cost him everything. God's kindness verses our
hard hearts, He can show us and we harden our hearts so we don't have to acknowledge
God being God. There is a lot of that going around.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think you are implicitly (without realizing it) coupling love (in fact, a conditional love) with a retributive notion of justice—those who do not love God back will suffer condemnation, or at least forever-lasting consequences. I argue two alternative soteriological views: that of reformative/restorative justice or that of healing/well-making (both of wh ...[text shortened]... hat a love based on free will could be commanded either—and yet we have the “great commandment”.

I am taken back to God's confrontation with David after he had the affair with a married woman and then had her husband murdered.

God's comment was interesting. He asked him why he hated him. Here God's justice is being equated with God himself. If you hate God's justice, then you must hate him. In fact, a prophet confronted David with a story about a man who had done exactly what king David had done, while not telling David it was him who was being discussed. Without hesitation, David responded that the man in question should be put to death, unknowingly casting judgement on himself. So as we see, David actually agreed with God's justice even though he violated the said justice.

And what is this justice? It is simply love for you fellow man, nothing more.

So what was the punishment for king David? His unborn son was sentenced to death and his sons rose up against him to overthrow him as king, and eventually be killed for doing so. I think this is by far a more severe punishment than had God simply taken his life.

Interestingly, God said that he had forgiven David after David repented of his crime, but David still had a price to pay for his sin.

So what are we to make of this? Why must sinful behavoir be punished, even if the said partys are forgiven? More to the point, where does this said punishment end? The question is not that punishment for sin does not exist, but when does it end, if ever?

Originally posted by KellyJay
The big thing still in my opinion was Pharaoh was fighting God while God was showing
Him a kindness. The events that were transpiring were beyond natural, he knew he was
up against God, and still fought on till it cost him everything. God's kindness verses our
hard hearts, He can show us and we harden our hearts so we don't have to acknowledge
God being God. There is a lot of that going around.

Like you say, once we choose to head down a certain road God may put up signs for various detours, but your choice to go down that road has already been made.

Originally posted by whodey
Like you say, once we choose to head down a certain road God may put up signs for various detours, but your choice to go down that road has already been made.

Our choices can harm us, if God warns us and we ignore Him, it is on us.

Originally posted by whodey
I am taken back to God's confrontation with David after he had the affair with a married woman and then had her husband murdered.

God's comment was interesting. He asked him why he hated him. Here God's justice is being equated with God himself. If you hate God's justice, then you must hate him. In fact, a prophet confronted David with a story about a ...[text shortened]... end? The question is not that punishment for sin does not exist, but when does it end, if ever?

First, I have to reject the idea that God harms others for our sins—so I have to read the story of David here as a kind of parable (otherwise as the author’s wrong understanding of God, which I do not dismiss).* But, as Wulebgr pointed out elsewhere (in terms of myth), such narrative stories can point to another truth, even if they do not reflect actual events. [Actually, that’s not quite what he said—but not too far off.]

And what is this justice? It is simply love for you fellow man, nothing more.

Yes, if God’s essential nature is agape, then all attributes and actions of God have to be seen as reflections of God’s loving action. That is why retribution—punishment for punishment’s sake, or for revenge—can have no place. Although I prefer the healing model of soteriology, a justness-based model (which is certainly also Biblical) has to be seen in terms of reformative (or curative) and/or restorative justice, as an expression of agape.

Gerard Manley Hopkins wrote: “The just man justices.” Similarly: The God who is love—loves.

Why must sinful behavoir be punished, even if the said partys are forgiven?

The “punishment” has to been as curative/restorative—retribution makes no sense for a God who is agape.

—I also want to echo checkbaiter’s point about bad translation—or at least translations that do not reflect certain real differences in the underlying Greek words—such as kolasis and timoria, and other words all translated as “punishment”.

The question is not that punishment for sin does not exist, but when does it end, if ever?

That is the question. And I think we need to be cautious about how we translate stories that—how to put this?—are rooted in everyday temporality with eschatological questions; not that they don’t relate, but just that we need to be cautious. And this also relates to your previous question about punishment after one is forgiven.

If it is retributive punishment, then it lasts as long as it lasts—until ,basically, a satisfying vengeance is satisfied (to call pure retribution “justice” really doesn’t change its nature, I think). If it’s justice as the action of agape, then there is an end: healing and restoration.

Or else God is defeated. Which is, of course, one of the options under the reductio.

____________________________________________________________

* I hope that I have never been mistaken for a Biblical literalist.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think you are implicitly (without realizing it) coupling love (in fact, a conditional love) with a retributive notion of justice—those who do not love God back will suffer condemnation, or at least forever-lasting consequences. I argue two alternative soteriological views: that of reformative/restorative justice or that of healing/well-making (both of wh ...[text shortened]... hat a love based on free will could be commanded either—and yet we have the “great commandment”.

So you would say that an irresistible reconciliation is not coerced?

Originally posted by vistesd
First, I have to reject the idea that God harms others for our sins—so I have to read the story of David here as a kind of parable (otherwise as the author’s wrong understanding of God, which I do not dismiss).* But, as Wulebgr pointed out elsewhere (in terms of myth), such narrative stories can point to another truth, even if they do not reflect actual ev ...[text shortened]... _________________________

* I hope that I have never been mistaken for a Biblical literalist.

It is said that a parent that does not discipline their child does not love them. I must, therefore, reject the notion that love must be devoid of punitive action.

In addition, if you had a loved one who was treated poorly or even murdered, the natural inclination is justice. Any other reaction would be indifference to the loved ones sufferings.

So as we see, there is a punitive element to love. The only question becomes, to what degree and for how long?

Originally posted by whodey
So you would say that an irresistible reconciliation is not coerced?

Is an irresistible love coerced? Is being irresistibly drawn to beauty coercion? In the Eden story, before Adam and Eve had any conception of "good and bad" (Hebrew: tov and ra, which are not exclusively moral but cover anything at all that you could label good or bad--e.g., a meal), and so could not choose good or bad--were they just under God's coercion?

How about if I am offered a "gift", but the threatened consequences for nonacceptance are both punitive and unending? How is that not a coerced choice?

By the way, I suspect that your notion of "free will" is a libertarian one which is either logically incoherent or reduces to randomness. Suppose you face a choice for which your education, ability to sort the facts, ability to reason, life experience, etc., has not prepared you to make a fully informed and unbiased decision? Is that a "free choice"? Are you omniscient? If not, then every choice you make will include some element of ignorance or illusion, and hence potential for error (the literal definition of "sin" ). You seem to ignore that. Are you holding human beings to a standard of omniscience? Or do you think that a free, knowing and healthy mind--fully informed and conscious--can rationally choose eternal condemnation and torment? Or do you think that it is impossible for God's healing power to awaken in one such a mind?

Do you believe that a doctor who treats someone who is unconscious has unethically "coerced" that person to good health?

_______________________________________________

The "free will" argument for ultimate rejection of God and the justness (let alone the lovingness) of God's resultant condemnation, really just is a very bad argument--on several grounds.

Originally posted by whodey
It is said that a parent that does not discipline their child does not love them. I must, therefore, reject the notion that love must be devoid of punitive action.

In addition, if you had a loved one who was treated poorly or even murdered, the natural inclination is justice. Any other reaction would be indifference to the loved ones sufferings.

So as ...[text shortened]... here is a punitive element to love. The only question becomes, to what degree and for how long?

I think you need to re-read my use of the distinction between retributive justice, and that that is reformative/restorative. You seem to not be making any distinction. Retribution is not, and cannot be, a loving act.

Originally posted by chaney3
Hi Checkbaiter. This is a slippery slope that you are suggesting. At what point do we find things in the Bible that we disagree with....and blame it on poor interpretation, or 'figure of speech'?

The story of God hardening the heart of Pharoah has always troubled me. Because God didn't just do it once.....He did it 10 times...resulting in plagues and d ...[text shortened]... new one to me, and just 'appears' to make excuses for God's seemingly clear motive and behavior.

Here is a simple figure,

Gen 4:10
The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground.
NKJV

We know that blood does not cry out, it is more, an emphasis on the brevity of the sin.

This kind are obvious, and there are many in the bible. But the ones we are looking at are like these....

The figure of speech asterismos is the use of words such as “behold,” “look,” “verily,” or “yes (yea),” in a way that does not add essential meaning to the sentence, but rather just catches the attention of the reader. If the words in the Bible are a direct quotation of what a biblical character said, the words still were originally spoken to catch the attention of the person listening and not to add essential meaning to what he or she said.

A good example of a Hebrew word used as an asterismos is hinneh Strong’s 2009, pronounced, hin-nay’, which means, “behold, lo, look, see.” A person who takes the time to look up the Hebrew word hinneh in a concordance will see that it is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament, and thus will have many examples of the figure asterismos in the Hebrew text. Here is one example:

Genesis 17:4 (ESV)
“Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations.”

God said this to Abraham, and caught his attention with “Behold” (as if talking with God would not tend to catch one’s attention anyway!). By including the “Behold” in the Bible, God catches our attention just as He caught Abraham’s.

The only real way to experience the force of the “Behold,” is to read the Bible and note how many times God speaks without using “Behold” or any other asterismos. Once we have a feel for how seldom it is used, we can see that when God does use it, we should sit up and pay attention. In the example above, the Abrahamic covenant is one of the most important covenants and promises that God makes in the entire Bible, and deserves our full attention.

Originally posted by vistesd
Is an irresistible love coerced? Is being irresistibly drawn to beauty coercion? In the Eden story, before Adam and Eve had any conception of "good and bad" (Hebrew: tov and ra, which are not exclusively moral but cover anything at all that you could label good or bad--e.g., a meal), and so could not choose good or bad--were they just under ...[text shortened]... ngness) of God's resultant condemnation, really just is a very bad argument--on several grounds.

The story of the Garden of Eden speaks to me in that mankind is not all knowing and never will be. There will always be questions that are unanswered or not known. In the end, we have the option of dealing with the unknown by ourselves or submt to a higher power that warns us about the unknown.

This is why faith is so important. It is the only method of relationship that an all knowing God can have with his creation that is not all knowing.

As for love not being punitive, exactly how was the story of Noah not punitive? God was not an irresistible love for these people. Instead, God simply wiped them out.

If God did have any love for mankind, he would be indifferent and let them destroy themselves and/or he would have wiped away all life from earth.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think you need to re-read my use of the distinction between retributive justice, and that that is reformative/restorative. You seem to not be making any distinction. Retribution is not, and cannot be, a loving act.

What about justice? Is justice retribution? Is there no love in justice?

What justice is there for those who shoved Jews into the ovens in Poland?

Originally posted by whodey
As for love not being punitive, exactly how was the story of Noah not punitive? God was not an irresistible love for these people. Instead, God simply wiped them out.

If God did have any love for mankind, he would be indifferent and let them destroy themselves and/or he would have wiped away all life from earth.

Well this part of your post pretty clearly indicates that you think that the vision of God in the OT can be used to set limiting context on the vision of God in the NT (rather than the other way around), and that your vision of God is not love. Okay. That just puts us at impasse.