14 Aug 15
5 edits
Originally posted by whodeyIs justice retribution?
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?
Retributive justice seems to me to be most often another term for revenge—purely punitive. I have been arguing quite clearly against that being God's justice. (By the way, you might consider doing a word search on “punishment” in the NT—you will find no more than a handful of references, and those referring to different Greek words that do not have the same exact meaning.)
Is there no love in justice?
In restorative/reformative justice yes. In efforts to prevent greater harm, yes. In pure punitiveness (i.e., retribution)—no (or else love loses all meaning).
One error that I think you are making is to apply punitive retribution eschatologically—that is, as God’s final word. You ignore the possibility of either reformative/restorative justice or divine healing as the real meaning of soterias (salvation)—and willy-nilly dismiss them as possibilities for God’s redemptive action. You also appear to think that a decision made under admittedly limited understanding (your lesson from the Eden story) legitimates eternal suffering as punishment, such as to think it just.
I also suspect that you view “sin” in strictly moral terms—which neither the Hebrew nor the Greek terms, nor the English word originally, do—rather than as the result of existential limitations that we all have. Thus “sin”, for you, is not something to be ultimately healed—but to be punished. In the end, you hold to a model of punishment versus pardon—not really justice at all, of any kind—just punishment or pardon.
Under what conditions do think that those who pushed Jews into the ovens might be forgiven their sins? How is that just? Do you think that “forgiveness” (in New Testament terms) means pardon? If so, why?
14 Aug 15
5 edits
Originally posted by whodeyIt strikes me that I might be confused about your position on the terms of the trilemma. Since not all three propositions can be true, which do you reject? That God desires to save everyone, but fails (apparently defeated by human free will)? Or that God does not desire/will to save everyone (apparently because that would be unjust)? Or that God ultimately does save everyone?
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?
EDIT: Deleted.
14 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdYou are quoting false religion..............
All of the following is intended to fall within a Christic context. The reductio ad absurdum is this:
1. It is God’s will (intention) to save everyone;
2. There is no exogenous power that can defeat God;
3. Not everyone is saved.
It is a reductio ad absurdum because not all three statements can be true without contradicti ...[text shortened]... h I imagine that rwingett could make a cogent argument for its importance in Christic thinking).
Why do you do it?
The idea that some one is not saved is false. (it s a Christian falsity)
15 Aug 15
Originally posted by DasaYou clearly either did not read the whole post, or read it carelessly before leaping to judgment. So, you reject 3. As do I (as you would know if you had bothered to read carefully).
You are quoting false religion..............
Why do you do it?
The idea that some one is not saved is false. (it s a Christian falsity)
I am not interested in your views on “true” and “false” religion, as they have been shown in the past to be uninformed about the religions that you judge to be false, as well as arbitrary in regards to the criteria for what must be “true” religion. Yet you keep returning with the same tired dogmatism.
I will not respond to you further, as you obviously do not understand this thread, and I won’t abet your hijacking it in your ignorance.
15 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdOriginally posted by vistesd
[b]Is justice retribution?
Retributive justice seems to me to be most often another term for revenge—purely punitive. I have been arguing quite clearly against that being God's justice. (By the way, you might consider doing a word search on “punishment” in the NT—you will find no more than a handful of references, and those referring to different Gr ...[text shortened]... that just? Do you think that “forgiveness” (in New Testament terms) means pardon? If so, why?[/b]
" You ignore the possibility of either reformative/restorative justice or divine healing as the real meaning of soterias (salvation)—and willy-nilly dismiss them as possibilities for God’s redemptive action."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not at all. I do not ignore the fact that justice can be and is reformative and restorative, quit the contrary. Any action God moves is to restore justice.
Do you consider an "eye for an eye" to be justice? Is there no measure of justice here? What about reaping what you have sown? Is there no element of justice here? Clearly there is, and clearly there is no promise of "reform" in the process. Our own laws reflect his agreement on some level in regards to "justice". For example, a murderer is either put away for life or killed himself. This is an eye for an eye. There is no hope of the said person being reformed, he simply has to pay his debt to society. However, through God there is hope of reform spiritually, but that does not negate his debt to society which he must pay. In fact, the Bible tells us all pretty much the same thing, you sin, you die. There is no hope of evading the said "justice" even though we also may have hope in reconcilation with God apart from this current life.
Now in terms of Biblical salvation, it is said that Jesus paid the price for our sins. In other words, there is no forgiveness unless the said debt (sin) has been paid. I think we both agree here, but the question begs, who's sin? Is it everyones sin? I take pause to the warnings of Jesus when he said that all sin can be forgiven except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. What is your take on this? Is this not an indication that not everyone will be reconciled with God?
15 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdClearly the scriptures indicate his desire to save everyone. This is a given unless you ignore the scriptures. As for being defeated by human free will, we obviously have the ability to reject God scripturally, the only question becomes, can we ever escape him for all eternity?
It strikes me that I might be confused about your position on the terms of the trilemma. Since not all three propositions can be true, which do you reject? That God desires to save everyone, but fails (apparently defeated by human free will)? Or that God does not desire/will to save everyone (apparently because that would be unjust)? Or that God ultimately does save everyone?
EDIT: Deleted.
It is not my job to answer the last question. All I have are the scriptures and the gospel leading me to God. I will therefore let God be God, and not talk ignorantly as if those trying to council Job as matters that are over my head.
15 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdOriginally posted by vistesd
[b]Is justice retribution?
Retributive justice seems to me to be most often another term for revenge—purely punitive. I have been arguing quite clearly against that being God's justice. (By the way, you might consider doing a word search on “punishment” in the NT—you will find no more than a handful of references, and those referring to different Gr ...[text shortened]... that just? Do you think that “forgiveness” (in New Testament terms) means pardon? If so, why?[/b]
[b]Is justice retribution?
I also suspect that you view “sin” in strictly moral terms—which neither the Hebrew nor the Greek terms, nor the English word originally, do—rather than as the result of existential limitations that we all have. Thus “sin”, for you, is not something to be ultimately healed—but to be punished. In the end, you hold to a model of punishment versus pardon—not really justice at all, of any kind—just punishment or pardon.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sin is to be extinguished. That is the message of the Bible. In the OT, there was no hope at times apart from the cross of extinguishing sin without extinguishing the sinner. However, with Christ the new law is that Christ has the power of the said sin in our lives, therefore, the life of the sinner can be spared while removing the sin in the persons life.
I think we can agree thus far, correct?
So the question begs, what of the next life? If sin cannot be removed from people through Christ, are they then to be destroyed along with their sin?
There are but two possibilities. Either everyone will be saved from their said sin across the board, which I can find no where is scripture, or some will be destroyed with their sins, for which there seem to be multiple scriptures that seem to indicate this. The whole notion of hell, which is presented in the Bible, seems to be the final destination for those who cannot be reconciled to God, but must be dealt with in order to stop the disease of sin. If not, why do you think the mention of hell and lake of fire and cast into outer darkness forever, etc., are mentioned?
15 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdNot at all. God has and always will be love.
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.
Throughout the Bible, God has provided a message to the people to come back to him. God sent Moses to free his people and provide us with the Ten commandments. Clearly this was out of love.
Love sometimes dictates that you cause harm to those who cause harm. I think you would agree as well, only, you mandate that the harm that is caused them must be temperal and be made right again. However, in our lives, this is not the case, is it? Sometimes we must inflict harm on those around us, perhaps in the hopes of reconciliation, but sometimes not finding it.
15 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdOriginally posted by vistesd
[b]Is justice retribution?
Under what conditions do think that those who pushed Jews into the ovens might be forgiven their sins? How is that just? Do you think that “forgiveness” (in New Testament terms) means pardon? If so, why?[/b]
[b]Is justice retribution?
Under what conditions do think that those who pushed Jews into the ovens might be forgiven their sins? How is that just? Do you think that “forgiveness” (in New Testament terms) means pardon? If so, why?[/b]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reason I bring this up is that most people, unless you hate Jews, see the justice that needs to be distributed here. Those that particiapted in this genocide must all be held accountable and put to death themselves. When the Nazi war criminals were put on trial and hanged, there was no attempt to rehabilite anyone. Do you view this to be unjust?
15 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdI agree with what you have said here. The Good Samaratin is an illustration of agape love that Jesus preached. There is no exchange between the two, which goes to prove that the "love" Jesus is talking about has NOTHING to do with personal likes and dislikes about a human being. In fact, Jesus purposefully picked the Samaratin because the two men SHOULD HAVE hated each other due to cultural norms. And lastly, the man lying on the road was completely helpless. He had no free will to express in the matter. He was completely dependent upon the Good Samaritan.
Further, I think that God’s love (or—and I agree with you here—God as love) is perhaps best exemplified by the parable of the Good Samaritan—wherein the Samaritan’s loving actions are not conditioned upon any response from the injured man, who, so far as we know from the story, was never even conscious of what was going on. I believe that the Samaritan represents the God who is unconditional love (or the Christ who is the incarnation of that love).
Having said that, what of the rest of the story? What did the Good Samaritan then do? DId he nurse the man back to health? No, he hired an innkeeper to nurse the man back to life. What is your take on this? Clearly, the man had not been "saved" as of yet.
15 Aug 15
5 edits
Originally posted by whodeyThank for your detailed responses. You are right that we do agree on a number of points. I will respond mostly to those where I see differences here, responding to all your posts above in one place.
I agree with what you have said here. The Good Samaratin is an illustration of agape love that Jesus preached. There is no exchange between the two, which goes to prove that the "love" Jesus is talking about has NOTHING to do with personal likes and dislikes about a human being. In fact, Jesus purposefully picked the Samaratin because the two men SHOULD HA ...[text shortened]... man back to life. What is your take on this? Clearly, the man had not been "saved" as of yet.
Any action God moves is to restore justice.
First, I want to reiterate that, while I have been addressing “justice models” of salvation here, I firmly believe that the healing model makes more sense, and is also biblical. God’s action, then is taken to restore health and well-being (including the spiritual). Restorative justice generally means making restitution, restoring the state of affairs before an injustice occurred. Reformative justice is action aimed at reforming the sinner, so that they might be reconciled to God.
Do you consider an "eye for an eye" to be justice?
Generally, no. It is certainly not what I see as the justice of the God described in the NT—and Jesus himself is said to have repudiated it. Punishment for punishment’s sake—or because someone “deserves it” is simply revenge. If you want to call that justice, then I'll accept that, under my original heading of retributive justice. But God’s goal—and the goal of restorative/reformative action, as well as healing action, is redemption and whole-making.
Now, the conventional juridical model of salvation is not one in which justice is served by everyone getting what they deserve—it is simply one of pardon versus punishment.
I take pause to the warnings of Jesus when he said that all sin can be forgiven except blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. What is your take on this? Is this not an indication that not everyone will be reconciled with God?
No. At most, it indicates the possibility that all might not be reconciled. I don’t know what blasphemy against the Holy Spirit entails. Must it be done knowingly? If one does it in ignorance, is their ultimate condemnation sealed? [NOTE: I’ll look into this a bit more deeply.]
As for being defeated by human free will, we obviously have the ability to reject God scripturally, the only question becomes, can we ever escape him for all eternity?
That is indeed the question. But it also hinges on God’s ability and willingness to act beyond bounds of this time-bound existence.
I think we can agree thus far, correct?
Yes.
Either everyone will be saved from their said sin across the board, which I can find no where is scripture, or some will be destroyed with their sins, for which there seem to be multiple scriptures that seem to indicate this.
I disagree. Now, I’m sure that multiple passages can be strung together to make that case, but I don’t think that’s compelling. There are passages that clearly (unless twisted) indicate ultimate restoration and reconciliation (apokatastasis; Paul in Romans, for example)—the question is whether they are decisive or are relativized by other texts. I think that the other texts have to be relativized by those—that is what contextual decisions are about.
Love sometimes dictates that you cause harm to those who cause harm.
No doubt—but in the interest in preventing harm. Love cannot be purely punitive with no other point. But the real question is how does punishment for people for all eternity accomplish anything? That is what I meant when I said that we ought not to confuse temporal issues with eschatalogical ones.
The reason I bring this up is that most people, unless you hate Jews, see the justice that needs to be distributed here. Those that particiapted in this genocide must all be held accountable and put to death themselves. When the Nazi war criminals were put on trial and hanged, there was no attempt to rehabilite anyone. Do you view this to be unjust?
This illustrates my last point. Let’s say it’s just—admitting that, for humans, retributive justice is just. Can God forgive them? Under what conditions? If God forgives them, is that just? Is human justice thwarted thereby?
—Question: I don’t recall if you are an annhilationist or a forever-hellist?
I want to make another point here: I am not denying the possibility of suffering the consequences of one’s actions after death—what is generally called “Hell”. I am denying that, for a God who is love, who desires to save all, such a state can be forever-lasting—unless such a God is powerless to prevent it.
DId he nurse the man back to health? No, he hired an innkeeper to nurse the man back to life. What is your take on this? Clearly, the man had not been "saved" as of yet.
I think that’s a huge and unwarranted leap. Of course, the man was being saved—and, in the Orthodox church, salvation is a process, not an event. But if God sent ministering angels, would that mean that it was not God’s work?
____________________________________________________________________
Okay. In the following post, I’m going to make a kind of summation. As I noted earlier, I am still working my way through this question (and you have added the one about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit; maybe that’s denying that everyone can be saved?).
15 Aug 15
6 edits
By way of a mid-point summation—
Any concept of God’s justness must be seen as an expression of God as love (agape). I take John (in the 1st Letter of John) to be making a statement of God’s essential nature, stated (in Greek) in the nominative of identity. No attribute or action of such a God can limit that essential nature.
—Some people respond: “Yes, God is love, but God is also just.” But this is like saying, “Paul is a human being—but, he’s also short.”
Human concepts of justice—meritorious or not—are not necessarily, or even mostly, expressions of love, and are often expressed as limits on loving action—which I think has been shown here. This cannot be the case for a God who is agape. And the difference is a skandalon for advocates of particularly a retributive model of justice.
There are several possible soteriological views—and there is certainly more than one in the Biblical texts. But one of pure justice does not seem to be really prominent—even among Christians on here. The most dominant (especially Western, and especially Protestant) model is not one where everyone receives justice—but where some are punished for their sins, and some are pardoned. Some are forgiven their sins, and some are not.
I think it is important to note that the Greek word for “sin”—like the English word when the Bible was first translated—does not mean moral fault. It means error or failure, whether as a result of moral fault or not. Wickedness may always be sin, but sin is not always wickedness. “Original sin”, is nothing more than the existential human “error term”. This means that punishment just for sin, per se, can be punishment for simply ignorance, for example.
— The translators from the Greek of the Philokalia, for example, note that delusion (Greek: plani) is “the literal sense of sin as ‘missing the mark’” (Greek: hamartia, failure to hit the mark).
Although I have discussed reformative/restorative model of justice as compatible with a God who is agape, justice is not the root meaning of the Greek word soteria—nor of the English word “salvation”. It is healing, well-making, whole-making.
Now, if God is agape, sin is the result primarily of delusion and ignorance, and soteria is healing/whole-making—how can any of that support forever-lasting condemnation or punishment? In fact, “forgiveness” does not simply mean pardon—the Greek words aphiemi and apoluo both mean to release, to set free from, to let go. Forgiveness means, basically, being freed from the deleterious effects of human failure—“sin”. (I think the parallel between forgiveness and healing ought not to be superficially ignored in Matthew 9, for instance.)
If, as whodey asserts, some sin cannot be destroyed without destroying the people—and if, as whodey agrees, it is God’s will that all be saved—then there is something that defeats God’ healing/whole-making activity.
Can it be “free will”? I think not—on a number of grounds. First, libertarian free will reduces to incoherency or randomness (if that’s the “free will” that is meant). Second, it is difficult to argue Biblically that God is unwilling to interfere with our desires (as has been pointed out in this thread), and so respecting our “free will” is hardly God’s priority. Third, our ability to freely will whatever we might desire is already limited, just by the conditions of our existence. Fourth, it is hard to see how a “free will” encumbered by existential delusion and ignorance (plani) is truly “free”—and sufficient to prevent God from removing that very delusion and ignorance.
To sum up:
—God’s justice (as opposed to our understandings) must be an expression of God as agape, since that is God’s essential nature. Love never punishes just for retribution—if that be justice.
—The seemingly conventional soteriological model of “pardon versus punishment”, or “forgiveness versus condemnation” does not fit with human models of justice, anyway. Some are punished for their sins, some or not—based on some other criteria (e.g., faith/grace).
—No human judge confronts the eschaton when rendering judgement. So I think that great caution is called for before one assigns our everyday models of justice to God in that setting.
—When it comes to issues such as justice and grace, and the essential nature of God, the NT vision is quite different from the OT vision. Thus it is the NT writings that, from a Christic point of view, have to set the conditional context for the OT—and not the other way around. (As a hermeneutical principle.)
—There is not a single model of salvation in the Bible—or even in the New Testament. That is why hermeneutical decisions, such as which texts contextualize—and hence condition the interpretation of—which other texts. One cannot simply say, “But what about this verse . . . or that verse . . . or . . .”. I outlined my hermeneutical principles here generally in the OP.
I plan on starting a new thread—when I am ready—making the argument for universal salvation (rejecting 3. in the reduction ad absurdum). My argument will be mostly Biblical, but I will draw on other sources as interpretive aids (e.g., “tradition” ). I don’t expect to convince anyone—because I think there are legitimate exegetical and hermeneutical choices that simply lead to impasse, beyond which it is fruitless to argue. But I am convinced that the case for a “Christic universalism” is a compelling one.
Now, I need a bit more time for my continuing study. Thanks for all your comments and arguments.
15 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdSo we can agree that love can cause others pain, albiet, in the name of justice/healing.
I want to make another point here: I am not denying the possibility of suffering the consequences of one’s actions after death—what is generally called “Hell”. I am denying that, for a God who is love, who desires to save all, such a state can be forever-lasting—unless such a God is powerless to prevent it.
Good.
We can also agree that there may be suffering in the next life, or at least, according to scripture.
Good.
So this brings us to God being unable to "save" people or not. Keep in mind, free will was created by God. Have you ever wondered why? Why is free will so important? As I have said, without free will love does not exist. This is the foundation of my philosophy here. God is only powerless to the extent that he allows himself to be.
Just put yourself into the position of God, or at least, the God of the Bible. You have full knowledge of everything and full power over everything. Would it not be like playing tic tac toe with yourself? What satisfaction do you get palying tic tac toe? After a while, it is either a draw or a win, there is no losing.
Now let's assume that human free will is the only thing God has chosen to be free of his power. Would it not be the most interesting aspect of creation? Even though the size of the universe may be infinite in our limited abtility to understand it, if human free will is as presented it would consume you, would it not?
So at some point, God either has to come to the crossroads of allowing those with free will to reject him forever, or forced/led/coerced/inticed back. If the later, did they really have the free will to reject him? Does love really give us a choice to love back?
15 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdA huge uwarranted leap? Jesus included the innkeeper for a reason, did he not? It is then for you to understand why, is it not?
I think that’s a huge and unwarranted leap. Of course, the man was being saved—and, in the Orthodox church, salvation is a process, not an event. But if God sent ministering angels, would that mean that it was not God’s work?
____________________________________________________________________
My take is that the innkeeper is symbolic of the church. Without the church doing its job, the sick are not nursed back to health, nor does the message of salvation get out.
If not, then what is the significance of the innkeeper?
15 Aug 15
4 edits
Originally posted by whodeySo at some point, God either has to come to the crossroads of allowing those with free will to reject him forever, or forced/led/coerced/inticed back. If the later, did they really have the free will to reject him? Does love really give us a choice to love back?
So we can agree that love can cause others pain, albiet, in the name of justice/healing.
Good.
We can also agree that there may be suffering in the next life, or at least, according to scripture.
Good.
So this brings us to God being unable to "save" people or not. Keep in mind, free will was created by God. Have you ever wondered why? Why is fr ...[text shortened]... d they really have the free will to reject him? Does love really give us a choice to love back?
I have already explained, in detail, why the free-will argument is just a bad one. But you have not answered any of that, you just keep on insisting “free will, free will”.
But—when you reject even God’s efforts to “lead” us to God’s love, or “entice” us with Gods love (that is, with God’s very nature—as you agreed), the only logical conclusion is that God can do nothing, in fact, reveal nothing of God’s true nature, without denying our free will! Because we might be “led” or “enticed” by that very nature of God’s being!
If not, then what is the significance of the innkeeper?
That God invites others into the redemptive project, to love as God does—as closely as we can in our existential condition anyway. The innkeeper is entrusted with the man’s care; he could, of course, spend the two denarii on himself, and not trust the Samaritan. The fundamental point remains—the man was not asked to believe or anything else. None of the Samaritan’s actions depended on repentance or anything. The Samaritan ensured the man’s salvation, and entrusted the innkeeper with further care. The story contradicts any notion that the man’s ultimate healing was not secured before being left with the innkeeper.
And the Samaritan did perform the initial healing actions:
Luke 10: 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 The next day he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said, 'Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.'
36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?"
37 He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."”