Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

Speaking of which, exactly what does: "Until you are willing to accept that God will hold all men accountable and separate sin from Himself, I don't believe that you can truly accept the work of Christ on the Cross. " mean? If it means what I think it means, we can discuss it in the Hot Place.

---

Posted                      

Psyduck, you've been gathering a lot of s lately, and your last post gets you another from me.

I was struck also by an image you mentioned in passing, but that I think will stick with me all day -

quote:

---

Jesus Teaching Children In The Galilean Meadows

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
It strikes me that if the OP is true, then in his mind he was thinking all the time, "... and if this child does not confess me as Lord, I will throw it into fire where it will burn forever."

As I said - lovely image, isn't it?...

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I think of God's judgement a lot more like the end of Matthew 23

---

quote:

---

There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Now, tell me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be objecting to is that people posting on the other side of the argument are professing to be repulsed, morally and spiritually, by the God you profess to believe in. Whereas you seem to say that you aren't repulsed by the God(s! - not polytheism, just a variety of God-concepts) they profess to believe in. And you feel that this is a fundamental imbalance in the argument. I'm not sure that I understand why, but I think I see what you mean.

---

quote:

---

you are shocked to find that in this argument your views are being treated in what must seem to you to be such an unbalanced and - let me use the word - prejudiced way.

---

quote:

---

It doesn't seem to me to be unBiblical to say that there is much more about our relationship to God in the Parable of the Good Shepherd than in the genealogy of Matthew 1. The understanding we have of God, for those on this side of the OP, isn't contained in the Bible. It's formed in us by the Bible. Yes, it's selective. But it's the Bible that does the selecting. We wrestle with the Bible - and the whole Bible just as much as you - but we don't come away with the understanding of God that you do.

---

quote:

---

And our accusation against your side of the thread is that that is how you leave them. A chaos. Out of which this God of rage and spite and malice, and bullying power emerges, inevitbly, out of a refusal to do theology –– which is itself generated by what seems to us to be , not reverent fear, but simple timidity. Should we be doing theology at all?? Should we not rather just lick God’’s boots (a metaphor which has cropped up several times on this thread.)

---

quote:

---

And the key to the real untenability of an inerrantist position, because such a position involves you guys in breaking off debating with us periodically, and saying to the Bible “Shut up! We’’ll tell you what you mean!!” And the problem you have is that the Bible won’’t shut up, and stop undermining your own positions! The Bible is only the Word when the Living Word speaks through it, and the idea that you can sum up what He says in a paragraph in an OP is…… well, for the sake of Christian charity let’s not go there.

---

quote:

---

the sheer arbutraryness and injustice and amorality of this God.

---

quote:

---

In other words, the outrage is moral information. It’’s part of the argument. And I would have thought that it would have to mean something to the OPers that their being greeted by such a visceral response to what they say is what they believe would have constituted important information for them too.

---

quote:

---

I can understand your astonishment and hurt. But can’t you maybe look at where it’s coming from, and why?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Custard123:

quote:

---

I think of God's judgement a lot more like the end of Matthew 23

---

You may think that, but the OP doesn't -

quote:

---

There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place. Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.

---

(My emphasis.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Grits:
For pysduck:
Yes, that is what I mean. Why? Because in order to complete your concept, God can only be one way, the way you perceive Him to be. I just think our concept – of sovereignty, omniscience, beyond human wisdom – allows God a little more flexibility. However, I don’t believe He will flex beyond what He has revealed to us through His word.

---

quote:

---

I would certainly agree with this. But the parable of the Good Shepherd is also the parable of the lost sheep. He is not willing that any of His little ones “perish”. From what was He trying to save them? Physical death? He cannot save us from that. Jesus came to save us from spiritual death. The God of love is evidenced, not just in the seeking, but in the saving, as well.

---

quote:

---

This does not strike me as harsh, but I do think you have finally orated my feelings about this. Some folks just love to “do” theology. It has to be constantly static, which, to me, creates a much more chaotic effect than my acceptance of things.

---

quote:

---

It is the inability to truly humble ourselves – intellect and reason included – and allow God to be God.

---

quote:

---

I do believe the Word is living, but I also believe it has been revealed.

---

quote:

---

My God does not rage nor spite nor malice.

---

quote:

---

He watches and waits. He runs to meet those who seek Him. He basks in our praise and elicits our prayers. He wants us to recognize and appreciate the gift of His love – Jesus – and He keeps His promises. I feel no fear nor timidity in a continual study of His message and asking for the Spirit to guide me and continue to reveal to me the truths that are there. And I will bow and fall prostrate before Him. He is God.

---

quote:

---

This struck me as a little humorous, as it sounds like something I would say about you! It will always seem that you are ignoring the obvious teachings in the Bible of a literal and eternal hell, spoken of and warned about by Christ Himself, and deciding that isn’t really at all what is meant. It's just hard to see it any other way.

---

quote:

---

Once again, this comes across as being based on human-bound definitions of those characteristics – not giving credence to a God who transcends them.

---

quote:

---

It is important information. It helps me see how people take the personal, the human, this present life and the “moral information” we are fed from these sources, and try to apply it to something that is beyond the barriers and understanding of said sources. And, simply speaking for myself, it's just something that I cannot do.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
And our accusation against your side of the thread is that that is how you leave them. A chaos. Out of which this God of rage and spite and malice, and bullying power emerges, inevitbly, out of a refusal to do theology – which is itself generated by what seems to us to be , not reverent fear, but simple timidity. Should we be doing theology at all?? Should we not rather just lick God’s boots (a metaphor which has cropped up several times on this thread.)

---

I feel I must take issue with this portrayal of OP thinking, Psyduck. Are you suggesting that OPers are all fideists/theologically inept/propositionalists/fundamentalists/any other undesirable epithets?
I for one agree with the OPer position, and therefore I regard your argument here to be a caricature of my position. I agree that OP and non-OP positions are selective, either out of inconsistency or error or simple distaste. However, I have not seen any greater consistency in non-OP theology, with respect to biblical hermeneutics or theological considerations. Moreover, I find little evidence in this thread to suggest that even a majority of OPers could be accused of naively attempting to read off the "plain meaning" of Scripture, without engaging their brains, and engaging with the text. I have worked on, and struggled with, my OPer theology for a number of years - it is not some pastiche of randomly-culled biblical motifs. I do not suggest that non-OP thinking is either, as the articulate posts from your good self and others have ably demonstrated. If you deem OP thought to be inherently inconsistent with other biblical concepts or with human reason (and I don't mean that pejoratively), well and good, but this has yet to be demonstrated - it is not apodeictic. Believe it or not, it is possible to engage honestly and thoroughly with non-OPer positions and still come back to an OP position!

--------------------
I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle

Posted                          

quote:

---

1) Adam and Eve were real live created (sans bely button) people who sinned and caused humanity to need salvation.

2) Old Testament people were saved by following the guidelines set out in scripture, specifically regular sacrifices for their sins.

3) Jesus, the perfect sacrifice, died to pay the price for sin and is the only way into Heaven.

4) Heaven is where we praise God for eternity.

5) There is a real Hell. Satan lives there - it is not a nice place.

6) Anyone who does not acknowledge that Jesus is Lord here on earth will endure eternity separated from God.

---

quote:

---

fideists/theologically inept/propositionalists/fundamentalists/

---

quote:

---

This does not strike me as harsh, but I do think you have finally orated my feelings about this. Some folks just love to “do” theology. It has to be constantly static, which, to me, creates a much more chaotic effect than my acceptance of things. It is the inability to truly humble ourselves – intellect and reason included – and allow God to be God. I do believe the Word is living, but I also believe it has been revealed. My God does not rage nor spite nor malice. He watches and waits. He runs to meet those who seek Him. He basks in our praise and elicits our prayers. He wants us to recognize and appreciate the gift of His love – Jesus – and He keeps His promises. I feel no fear nor timidity in a continual study of His message and asking for the Spirit to guide me and continue to reveal to me the truths that are there. And I will bow and fall prostrate before Him. He is God.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

In Matthew 23, we see God grieved over the fact that Jerusalem rejected him and therefore that they would not be taken under his wing.

How is that different to the OP, except to add that God is grieves over those he judges?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Very different indeed. The OP says that those who do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord in this life will spend eternity in Hell. Matthew 23 says Jesus is grieved over those who were not willing to be gathered under his wings.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

do not believe in Adam and Eve as literal beings: Check! nonetheless, I feel the description of the Fall is an inspired theology to teach us the meaning of our sense of alienation from the world, and the reason for the divine wrath that faces us all. Broadly, but unequivocally yes - though I suspect I'd probably feel freer in using non-theological perspectives, such as psychoanalysis and approaches like Girard's to eke out this understanding. And I'd also feel quite free to acknowledge, use and critique the typological relationships between, say, Genesis 3 and Paul. Not sure where you'd stand on this.

I cannot say that Satan lives in Hell, because Hell appears to be the eschatological punishment for Satan. If we accept that Heaven and Hell are timeless, then we might say that Satan has already received this punishment. I've explained elsewhere my preference for "the Satainic" over "Satan" - but my position is that there's truth articulated here which is profoundly human and theologiclly necessary.

Hell is the continuance and intensification of the separation and alienation from God that we all originally face, Yes. I have a partly empirical attitude to Original SIn. You look for it by watching the news and reading the paper, and by asking yourself "Why did I -a nd how could I do that?" But it is there as a sundering, alienating reality, of that I have no doubt., as envisaged by the fate of those who must remain outside the heavenly city in Revelations. Revelation - hmmm! Unignorable but fraught with danger! Handle with Extreme Care... On the question of eternal punishment for the unbeliever, I believe the Bible provides evidence not only for election, but for double predestination, although this is a theological construct. I believe that the predestination of the elect is to be found in Paul, but I can't see reprobation, not even in Romans 9, as other than the shadow-side (! Yes, I know where that comes from!) of the assurance that "You, hearing this, are safe!" On the other hand, just as Calvin found this doctrine very difficult, so do I, and therefore whilst I hold to the belief in Hell I hope that St. Peter has a bigger guest list than I can find evidence to construct a more universalist theology on. If Double Predestination is a theological construct, then so too is universalism - and of a closely related kind. I'm not a universalist, and as I've said elsewhere, my understanding here is pretty much what I undrestand Karl Barth's to be. Classical election - perhaps followed by space for the repudiation of salvation. But then there's Origen - God is love: God is omnipotent: All must ultimately be saved. I hope that's true. But I don't profess it, I just reiterate it with admiration.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I've explained elsewhere my preference for "the Satanic" over "Satan"

---

I realize this could seem very misleading!!!

--------------------
The opposite of faith is not doubt. The opposite of faith is certainty.
"Lle rhyfedd i falchedd fod/Yw teiau ar y tywod." (Ieuan Brydydd Hir)

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Theologically inept no, absolutely not but - and intending nothing pejorative by this - a conspicuous number of OPers have happily asserted their suspicion of anything approximating to a regular theological method;

---

quote:

---

How do you understand Romans 9?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Very different indeed. The OP says that those who do not acknowledge Jesus as Lord in this life will spend eternity in Hell. Matthew 23 says Jesus is grieved over those who were not willing to be gathered under his wings.

---

But I'd then say that being willing to be taken under Jesus' wings is just another way of saying the same thing as acknowledging Jesus as Lord.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

But I'd then say that being willing to be taken under Jesus' wings is just another way of saying the same thing as acknowledging Jesus as Lord.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I'm still haunted - and, frankly, disturbed and upset - by the image that came to me yesterday: Jesus blessing a child, smiling and with his hand resting gently on its head ... while all the time thinking how his glory and majesty will one day be displayed by his throwing this child into a lake of fire, if it does not confess him as Lord.

[

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by contouredburger:
...and therefore whilst I hold to the belief in Hell I hope that St. Peter has a bigger guest list than I can find evidence to construct a more universalist theology on.

---

Yours in Christ

Matt

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posted                      

quote:

---

Preliminary and trite response - "what if that child grew up to be Hitler or Stalin?"

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I think that this comes across as probably pejorative on your part, despite your efforts.

---

quote:

---

I think the issue is simply what we understand by "theology".

---

quote:

---

I'd say theology is essentially the process of systematising and interlinking the Bible's teaching.

---

quote:

---

I am deeply suspicious of your "theological methods" because they seem not to do this, but instead to emphasise some parts of Scripture so much that you effectively ignore others.

---

quote:

---

To describe your methods as "regular" and mine, therefore as "irregular"...

---

quote:

---

...is not quite on when we both know that there are lots of theologians on both sides of this.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

The Nicene Creed, for instance, mentions Scripture exactly once, as the source of the prophecy of Christ's resurrection.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by contouredburger:

Now, as I can hear the sound of many SoF posters loading their shotguns, if you'll pass me the blindfold and my last cigarette, I shall find a nice sunny wall to lean on...briefly.

---

We save the shotguns for those who aren't thinking clearly (or clearly aren't thinking ? ). You don't seem to be in that category...

quote:

---

Originally posted by contouredburger:

I hope that St. Peter has a bigger guest list than I can find evidence to construct a more universalist theology on

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Grits has already pointed out the irony.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

To describe your methods as "regular" and mine, therefore as "irregular"...

---

Er, no, that's not actually whjat I am saying. Not that my theology is somehow normative, or normal, and yours is not. I'm saying that your theology doesn't seem to me to be rule-based, beyond the rule that if "this is what it seems to me that the Bible is saying, then this is true."

---

quote:

---

God's love

---

quote:

---

that Jesus Christ is the Revealer

---

quote:

---

1 John 4:8-16 (ESV)
Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.
By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Incidentally, I think I could (and do) start from the latter position. [sc. that Jesus is the Revealer.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I'm sure I'm not intellectual enough or verbose enough to merit a response from the hyper-Calvinists defending the OP God

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Preliminary and trite response - "what if that child grew up to be Hitler or Stalin?"

---

And my response to that - what if the child never grew up at all, but died shortly after this encounter? Imagined conversation between this 8-year-old and Jesus on the Last Day, according to the OP -

8-y-o: I know you don't I?
JC: Yes. We met.
8-y-o: That's right. You blessed me. Can I come into heaven now please?
JC: Hang on, did you during your earthly life acknowledge me as Lord?
8-y-o: Erm ... what do you mean, exactly?
JC: I thought not. Go to hell.

(Angels fling the screaming child "But you blessed me ... you blessed me!!! ) into the flames. JC sits back in satisfaction at this demonstration of his justice, majesty and glory.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Is it possible to be blessed by Jesus and not love Him? Seriously, is there any Biblical basis for such a thought? The Scripture - Rom 8 - states that God is for us. That means He is not exercising a mean-hearted spirit toward us. The confusion you are presenting about the small child does not recognize the innocence of a child before God, nor the heart of our Abba Father.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
we're just poor naive souls who insist on spoiling the abstract arguments by introducing real people and situations into them. How inconvenient we both are.

I wonder if the screams of the damned are audible from inside an ivory tower?

---

I hope you're not picking on psyduck here - seems to me that he's making an effort to talk to people in their own language, which is generally a good way to communicate

He's also making the important point that the non-OPers are interpreting the Bible theologically, just as much as the OPers are.

Fundamentalism, ISTM, is characterised by inadequate recognition of the role of perception/interpretation in everyone's thinking. I think we've seen an example or two on this thread - people arguing that there own beliefs correspond exactly with what the Bible says, denying that they have made any act of interpretation at all. Whilst accusing those they disagree with of constructing their own beliefs entirely from imagination, of having no Christian basis.

Refuting that - making clear that what we're talking about is different ways in which Christians interpret the same Christian source material - seems to me a worthwhile point to make.

However, I fully agree with you that it's important to deal in reality and plain language. There's something really scary and horrible about someone who can smilingly draw a conclusion from dry technical premises (theological or otherwise) about the extreme suffering that someone else deserves.

In one sense justice should be dispassionate. But in another sense, anyone with any human empathy should recoil from punishing or approving the punishment of others. They should only be able to do it by focussing on the pain that the wrongdoing of those others has itself caused.

Sure, much of the time many of us can close our eyes/ears/hearts/imaginations to the suffering of others. But that's not supposed to be a good thing...

The emotional disconnection involved when a sweet-natured caring Christian person recites with innocent approval some doctrine of hell, implying everlasting pain and anguish for many (who have not chosen to inflict like pain and anguish on others but are merely human beings with a different point of view) is a sign that something's philosophically wrong - the word-categories in which they think are somehow preventing a vital association being made.

Plain language may be part of the solution.

Russ

--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas

Posted                      

quote:

---

the innocence of a child before God

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Custard 123:

quote:

---

Incidentally, I think I could (and do) start from the latter position. [sc. that Jesus is the Revealer.

---

I know that you profess to (and again I don't mean this personally pejoratively) but if you hold that it's the Bible that is, in the primary sense, revelation, I don't see how you can. The Bible necessarily replaces Jesus Christ as the revelation of God.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Anyone signing up to the OP would have no problem accepting the imaginary conversation I have outlined. Do you?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:
1) anyone claiming that the main reason that they should go to heaven is something Jesus has done for them rather than what they have done for themselves or for him sounds to me like they are acknowledging Jesus as Lord.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Is it possible to be blessed by Jesus and not love Him? Seriously, is there any Biblical basis for such a thought? The Scripture - Rom 8 - states that God is for us. That means He is not exercising a mean-hearted spirit toward us. The confusion you are presenting about the small child does not recognize the innocence of a child before God, nor the heart of our Abba Father.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Custard123:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Anyone signing up to the OP would have no problem accepting the imaginary conversation I have outlined. Do you?

---

I don't think it could happen, for the following reasons:

1) anyone claiming that the main reason that they should go to heaven is something Jesus has done for them rather than what they have done for themselves or for him sounds to me like they are acknowledging Jesus as Lord.

---

quote:

---

2) The Bible consistently depicts judgement as being something God does with weeping

---

quote:

---

3) Don't you think it rather depends on how the child responds to that blessing? Whether the child values it or whether they regard it as worthless and so subject Jesus to public disgrace?

---

quote:

---

4) Given that we have all been blessed by God, do you think that anyone will go to hell?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Is it possible to be blessed by Jesus and not love Him? Seriously, is there any Biblical basis for such a thought? The Scripture - Rom 8 - states that God is for us. That means He is not exercising a mean-hearted spirit toward us. The confusion you are presenting about the small child does not recognize the innocence of a child before God, nor the heart of our Abba Father.

---

Ergo God must deliberately choose all the people he sends to hell by not blessing them, thereby proving he doesn't love all his creation and can't be Love. Either that or hell doesn't exist. There goes the OP.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Is it possible to be blessed by Jesus and not love Him? Seriously, is there any Biblical basis for such a thought? The Scripture - Rom 8 - states that God is for us. That means He is not exercising a mean-hearted spirit toward us. The confusion you are presenting about the small child does not recognize the innocence of a child before God, nor the heart of our Abba Father.

---

Ergo God must deliberately choose all the people he sends to hell by not blessing them, thereby proving he doesn't love all his creation and can't be Love. Either that or hell doesn't exist. There goes the OP.

---

Not so much 'ergo' as 'er...no', unless you're a hyper-calvinist ruling out free will.

---