Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
from your NFI background you will know how central Ephesians 2:1-10 is to popular evangelical doctrine. A passage full of nasssty Calvinistic speak

---

I would say a passage full of Orthodox and Apostolic insight (ole Jean's thoughts came somewhat late in the day ).

All teasing aside, I have a lot more time for the Calvinism of Calvin himself (rather than later versions of what 'Calvinism' was ) and find him a lot more sacramental than most modern evangelicals who go around calling themselves 'Calvinists'.

Which raises a point about exactly 'which' protestantism one is speaking about, since it is pluriform in thought and nature. Unfortunately the caricatures you see are more common than I think you realise (which makes me wonder how 'round the houses' you been in the evangelical movement - honest question, not a jest).

And as for the faults in Orthodoxy, don't worry I have my eyes wide open. One can find representations of it even here on the ship (those who have ears to hear let them hear). Combine that with ethnicism and the assumption that there must have been a Great Entrance at the Last Supper (sorry, 'in' joke) makes for enough pitfalls to avoid. But for all the faults I believe the theology to be wholly more faithful to scripture and more 'joined up'.

--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:

All teasing aside, I have a lot more time for the Calvinism of Calvin himself (rather than later versions of what 'Calvinism' was ) and find him a lot more sacramental than most modern evangelicals who go around calling themselves 'Calvinists'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Which raises a point about exactly 'which' protestantism one is speaking about, since it is pluriform in thought and nature. Unfortunately the caricatures you see are more common than I think you realise (which makes me wonder how 'round the houses' you been in the evangelical movement - honest question, not a jest).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There's a big difference between "consonant with" and "evidence supporting"; there are many scriptures which it is possible to gloss in a PSA friendly way. The question remains: is such glossing exegesis or eisegesis. You think it's the former, I think it's the latter

---

I'm not talking here about proof-texts for PSA, but rather texts that presuppose a world where God the Father has wrath against humanity.

e.g. "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him"
John 3: 36

How do interpret such passages which speak of God's wrath against humanity?

I don't think that the argument is really over PSA per se but rather whether or not God's is angry with sinful people. PSA is merely an attempt to explain the cross once you have answered that question in the affirmative. I think the real issue is wrath (or whatever else you want to call it.)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Richard Collins:

Finally, to drag this over-long response back to the thread in question, it should be clear therefore that ones thinking re: Atonement fundamentally underpins the success in the quest for true assurance.

---

What can I say, other than my experience of Protestantism is different to yours?

I have found all you say you are looking for in an evangelical protestant expression of faith.

I fully agree with your last point - atonement is essential to assurance. And from your NFI background you will know how central Ephesians 2:1-10 is to popular evangelical doctrine. A passage full of nasssty Calvinistic speak and yet one which climaxes with the claim that we are saved in order to do good works.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Those who hold, as you do (though tentatively, I suspect) that God is actually, apart from the work of Christ, angry at sinners, and, but for that Work, would ultimately actively destroy them in some manner, have to come to some way of interpreting God's "position", whereby it is possible to hold the view that He can simultaneously perfectly love one of His creatures whilst actively willing that creature's destruction. This seems to me akin to a belief that God can create a square circle, because
by definition to love someone is to want the best for that person. Any attempt to reconcile these two seems, to me, to be mere sophistry.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
"I am determined to do something to bring about a change in this situation in such a way as to remove the cause of this indignation".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I hope that you can see that a non-penal interpretation of these same texts is similarly valid.

---

On their own I would agree with you. However, how do all the many references to God's destruction of the wicked fit into your scheme? (As it happens our church is working its way through Revelation at the moment! )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Those who hold, as you do (though tentatively, I suspect) that God is actually, apart from the work of Christ, angry at sinners, and, but for that Work, would ultimately actively destroy them in some manner, have to come to some way of interpreting God's "position", whereby it is possible to hold the view that He can simultaneously perfectly love one of His creatures whilst actively willing that creature's destruction.

---

I'm trying not to split hairs here but ( ) I have never claimed that God actively wills their destruction just that, as you put it, 'he must remove the cause of this indignation.'

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
This seems to me akin to a belief that God can create a square circle, because
by definition to love someone is to want the best for that person. Any attempt to reconcile these two seems, to me, to be mere sophistry.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
But what if the recipient of God's love refuses to let God remove the cause?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I hope that you can see that a non-penal interpretation of these same texts is similarly valid.

---

On their own I would agree with you. However, how do all the many references to God's destruction of the wicked fit into your scheme? (As it happens our church is working its way through Revelation at the moment! )

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
If you will indulge me suddenly having a pious turn - I simply trust in the same Jesus who taught the parable of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15 as the Parable of the Tenants in Luke 20.

I can't square circles, but neither can I deny that there are squares and there are circles.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I assume you mean the forgiveness of the prodigal son compared with the harshness towards the one who hid his talent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
It is like someone who jumps off a building and then rails against a God who he perceives as angrily slamming him to the ground.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
No, that was tenant and not talent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm quite happy to go with you on the anthropomorphism angle here, but what are we left with? You've still got God sending the 'wicked' to destruction. What real difference does it make what emotion we attribute to God when he does it?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

1] “Come on! Let’s return to the Lord!
He himself has torn us to pieces, but he will heal us!
He has injured us, but he will bandage our wounds!
2] He will restore us in a very short time;
he will heal us in a little while,
so that we may live in his presence.
3] So let us acknowledge him!
Let us seek to acknowledge the Lord!
He will come to our rescue as certainly as the appearance of the dawn,
as certainly as the winter rain comes,
as certainly as the spring rain that waters the land.”

4] What am I going to do with you, O Ephraim?
What am I going to do with you, O Judah?
Your faithfulness is as fleeting as the morning mist;
it disappears as quickly as dawn’s dew!
5] Therefore, I will certainly cut you into pieces at the hands of the prophets;
I will certainly kill you in fulfillment of my oracles of judgment;
for my judgment will come forth like the light of the dawn,
6] because I want loyalty, not simply sacrifice;
acknowledging of God, not simply burnt offerings.

7] At Adam they broke the covenant;
Oh how they were disloyal to me!

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
On this basis, I'd read “sacrifice” and “burnt offerings” (v.6b) as parallel metaphors for “loyal obedience” and “mercy” as “return to loyalty by those in rebellion.” This fits well with the Prodigal Son parable, where the indignation of the obedient and loyal older brother is offset against the return-to-loyalty-from-rebellion younger son. The younger son is equivalent to the 'mercy' and the older to the 'sacrifice' in Hosea.

For what it's worth. Right; I'll tramp back out of Sheol and pop my feet back up in Keryg.

---

Very nice as always, Nigel. I think that's a great comparison. Thanks.

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I think that the answer to that is that God set up the best possible system...So God is not the author of bad choices and their consequences.

---

So God created the world (set up the best possible system) but is not the author of consequences to our actions ... go figure.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
From my reading, I see the context of Hosea 6 in terms of the suzerain-vassal covenant...

---

Isn't that what you see everything in the light of Nigel?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
From my reading, I see the context of Hosea 6 in terms of the suzerain-vassal covenant...

---

Isn't that what you see everything in the light of Nigel?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
So God created the world (set up the best possible system) but is not the author of consequences to our actions ... go figure.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nigel M:
Absolutely! If the shoe fits, walk a mile in it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
He is not responsible for the dropping of glass or the lack of food.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Being responsible for something is not the same as actively wanting it to happen.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Being responsible for something is not the same as actively wanting it to happen.

---

This is where the concept of permission comes in. God created the universe and permits evil to exist there. He permits glasses to break and people to be hungry.

He is responsible in the sense that He made those things possible. He is not responsible in the sense that He does not actively want them to happen, but permits them for the sake of more important long term goals.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Therefore, any possible creation which in any way relies on scientific laws to structure it, inherently has the possibility of negative as well as positive effects.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QUOTE]Those who hold, as you do (though tentatively, I suspect) that God is actually, apart from the work of Christ, angry at sinners, and, but for that Work, would ultimately actively destroy them in some manner, have to come to some way of interpreting God's "position", whereby it is possible to hold the view that He can simultaneously perfectly love one of His creatures whilst actively willing that creature's destruction. This seems to me akin to a belief that God can create a square circle, because
by definition to love someone is to want the best for that person. Any attempt to reconcile these two seems, to me, to be mere sophistry.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Therefore, any possible creation which in any way relies on scientific laws to structure it, inherently has the possibility of negative as well as positive effects.

---

But don't you see what you have done?

By breaking it all down to 'cause and effect' you have made the positive effects merely the counter balance to the negative effects.

God's love for me is as active / personal as gravity!

JJ and Freddy in your desire to see God only as a God of love you have made it impossible to see him as 'love' at all.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Don't think so, Johnny. That little word "all" again. JJ's words do not rule out Grace as an overarching principle. He just doesn't mention it.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
By breaking it all down to 'cause and effect' you have made the positive effects merely the counter balance to the negative effects.

God's love for me is as active / personal as gravity!

JJ and Freddy in your desire to see God only as a God of love you have made it impossible to see him as 'love' at all.

---

Huh?

Yes, God's love is active and personal. I don't grasp your objection here. So if God's love is universal and constant like gravity then it becomes an impersonal force? Does that follow?

I also don't understand what you mean by "having your cake and eating it too." I recall you making that point before and leaving me confused.

[ 14. June 2008, 09:37: Message edited by: Freddy ]

--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I also don't understand what you mean by "having your cake and eating it too." I recall you making that point before and leaving me confused.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jude:
The Christian group I've been attending seems to be going towards the "if you're not healed it's because you lack faith" stance. Whenever they pray for somebody who is seriously ill, they pray for a cure. This often leads to disappointment, does it not? Yes, ideally we would prefer if the person suffering from terminal cancer was somehow completely healed. But sometimes God decides that a person has suffered enough and should come to live with him.

Incidentally, these people also reject the theology behind "the Lord gives and the Lord takes away". They believe that it's the devil only who takes our loved ones from us.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
This self-knowledge leads to a continual true repentance that is salvific and casts out fear because the work of saving/sanctifying has been, is being and will be done by Christ.

---

quote:

---

When we become so conscious of our frailty that our spirit despairs, somehow, in an unknown fashion, a wondrous light appears, proclaiming life incorruptible. When the darkness within us is so appalling that we are paralyzed with dread, the same light will turn black night into bright day. When we properly condemn ourselves to eternal infamy and in agony descend into the pit, suddenly strength from Above will lift our spirit to the heights. When we are overwhelmed by the feeling of our own utter nothingness, the uncreated light transfigures and brings us like sons into the Father’s house. How are these contrasting states to be explained? Why does our self-condemnation justify us before God? Is it not because there is truth in this self-condemnation and so the Spirit of Truth finds a place for Himself in us?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]The Bible describes it as wrath because of our anthropomorphic needs. It is easy for us to understand that God hates and punishes sin, because this is how humans react to harmful things. It is not so easy for a child to understand that the parents want him or her to go to bed because staying up would be harmful. It doesn't seem harmful, so the child mainly responds to the wishes and potential anger of the parents.

But this isn't how God really works. We know this from a careful reading of the Bible. PSA seems to miss this.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
I wouldn't choose either. I don't know how both views are in there, Jeremiah, as it's written, swings between the two. It does have the feel of being written by different people sometimes.

---

Whether it was all written by Jeremiah or not, the final redactor obviously saw the book as one unit which we have to deal with.

I thought I'd dealt with it, either there is more than one author or there is only one going through life changes or there is more than one author and Jeremiah going through life changes.

quote:

---

I don't understand your approach to it though - you seem to be saying that you accept the bits that fit your theory and reject the bits that don't.

---

? Not sure what you mean here. My theory is, it's a book.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
so, squashed into that it appears to be a strengthening of the pharisaical practices, keeping the Sabbath strictly more important than the commandments. Christ told us what he thought of that.

---

Where does Jesus say that God does not require sacrifice? (As opposed to his ministry bringing the on going need for sacrifice to an end?)

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus has a wonderful opportunity to make the point you want him to in Matthew 5: 21-27 when discussing bringing a gift to the altar. There he makes the point that the sacrifice is useless if detached from genuine heart repentance. However, he does not say that the sacrifice itself is pointless, or not what God really wants.

"Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift."

If Jesus taught what you say he did, then why does he not even allude to it here?

I have to say that it comes across to me that there is a large disjuncture between what you wish were in the text and what is actually there.

---

quote:

---

(Holy Eucharist)

Orthodox Theology sees the Holy Eucharist as a sacrifice and this is affirmed in the words of the Priest, when he says, during the Eucharistic Canon, "Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee on behalf of all and for all." The sacrifice offered at the Eucharist is Christ Himself, but He Who brings the sacrifice is also Christ. Christ is, at one and the same time, High Priest and Sacrifice. In the prayer before the Great Entrance, the Priest prays: "For Thou art the Offerer and the Offered, the Receiver and the Received, 0 Christ our God...."

..

According to the Orthodox Church, then, the Eucharist is not just a reminder of Christ's sacrifice or of its enactment, but it is a real sacrifice. On the other hand, however, it is not a new sacrifice, nor a repetition of the Sacrifice of the Cross upon Golgotha. The events of Christ's Sacrifice - the Incarnation, the Institution of the Eucharist, the Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension into Heaven, are not repeated during the Eucharist, yet they become a present reality. As one Orthodox theologian has said, "During the Liturgy we are projected in time to that place where eternity and time intersect, and then we become the contemporaries of these events that we are calling to mind" [P. N. Evdokimov, L'Orthodoxie, p. 241]. Thus the Eucharist and all the Holy Liturgy is, in structure, a sacrificial service.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
I wouldn't choose either. I don't know how both views are in there, Jeremiah, as it's written, swings between the two. It does have the feel of being written by different people sometimes.

---

Whether it was all written by Jeremiah or not, the final redactor obviously saw the book as one unit which we have to deal with.

---

quote:

---

I don't understand your approach to it though - you seem to be saying that you accept the bits that fit your theory and reject the bits that don't.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
We still offer the sacrifice, we keep the offering of the gifts on the altar.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
But this isn't how God really works. We know this from a careful reading of the Bible. PSA seems to miss this.

---

Now if I unpack this correcrly Freddy, what you are saying is:

The Bible doesn't really say what it says, it says something else.

The Bible not only doesn't say what it says, but by not saying it, it actually means what I believe.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
We still offer the sacrifice, we keep the offering of the gifts on the altar.

---

Right. So after arguing for pages and pages and pages that God does not require sacrifice you now say that he does.

---

Posted                       

My recent comments about dualism have been prompted by the book of Revelation. At our church we have been working our way through it over the past weeks.

I've got to speak on chapter 12 next week.

Various things that strike me:

• The entire chapter is strongly CV - victory against Satan because of the cross.

• However, it is the 'blood of the Lamb' (v 11) through which 'our brothers' conquer.
  Interestingly there is no resurrection in sight.

• The victory over Satan is important to the book of Revelation but very much subordinated to the main theme - Satan only first appears here in chapter 12 (or quite possibly in chapters 8 and 9 first).

• Hence the defeat of Satan is just one victory painted on a far-wider canvas. Any atonement model which puts that victory centre stage just doesn't quite fit.

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
The victory over Satan is important to the book of Revelation but very much subordinated to the main theme

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Hence the defeat of Satan is just one victory painted on a far-wider canvas. Any atonement model which puts that victory centre stage just doesn't quite fit.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't Myrrh saying that they keep what the gifts and sacrifices were all about in the first place?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
What do you see as the main theme?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
How do you read chapters 19-22, then? Don't these describe a final victory over Satan and the paradise that then results?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Isn't Myrrh saying that they keep what the gifts and sacrifices were all about in the first place?

---

Whatever gymastics the quote she gave goes through, the wording is clear about one thing - 'it is a real sacrifice.'

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

A couple of pages which might help: (Holy Eucharist)

(Development of Christian Worship)

---

Help who? These two sites both make it crystal clear - for the Orthodox sacrifice is at the heart of Christian worship.

Now this is a bit of a tangent since actually both CV and PSA can utilise the image of sacrifice - however you were the one who keep trying to say that God doesn't actually require sacrifice.

How on earth do either of those sites defend your position?

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

A couple of pages which might help: (Holy Eucharist)

(Development of Christian Worship)

---

Help who? These two sites both make it crystal clear - for the Orthodox sacrifice is at the heart of Christian worship.

Now this is a bit of a tangent since actually both CV and PSA can utilise the image of sacrifice - however you were the one who keep trying to say that God doesn't actually require sacrifice.

How on earth do either of those sites defend your position?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

(Development of Christian Worship)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[QUOTE]Those who hold, as you do (though tentatively, I suspect) that God is actually, apart from the work of Christ, angry at sinners, and, but for that Work, would ultimately actively destroy them in some manner, have to come to some way of interpreting God's "position", whereby it is possible to hold the view that He can simultaneously perfectly love one of His creatures whilst actively willing that creature's destruction. This seems to me akin to a belief that God can create a square circle, because
by definition to love someone is to want the best for that person. Any attempt to reconcile these two seems, to me, to be mere sophistry.

---

Interesting.

I think you have a problem here with defining what love is.

God can desire the best can't he? At the same time as rejecting the disease of sin which he finds unacceptable?

Is it sophistry to say that God's love and justice met at the cross and the resultant formula adds up to love being offered by God to man consequent to the admission (by man,) of his flawed and warped nature. Consequent to repentance in other words.

Ergo. The glorious heart of the gospel!

Love meets wrath equals sacrifice, mix with repentance eguals salvation. (Now that's a nice arminian equation.)

---

Right, catching up

I find there is no inherent link between God "rejecting the disease of sin, which He finds unacceptable" and forgiveness being consequent on repentance.

The sophistry to which I was referring wat the line of reasoning that goes something like "God loves us perfectly, yet he chooses to (or is constrained by his holiness to) exclude us from eternal life unless we do x or y. My submission is that it is sophistry to try to hold these two "truths" in dynamic tension; sophistry, because the very definition of love contains within it the desire for the well-being of the object of that love.

What would not be sophistry would be to allow this contradiction to drive us back to the scriptures to examine where we might have misunderstood them.

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
[QUOTE]The Bible describes it as wrath because of our anthropomorphic needs. It is easy for us to understand that God hates and punishes sin, because this is how humans react to harmful things. It is not so easy for a child to understand that the parents want him or her to go to bed because staying up would be harmful. It doesn't seem harmful, so the child mainly responds to the wishes and potential anger of the parents.

But this isn't how God really works. We know this from a careful reading of the Bible. PSA seems to miss this.

---

Now if I unpack this correcrly Freddy, what you are saying is:

The Bible doesn't really say what it says, it says something else.

The Bible not only doesn't say what it says, but by not saying it, it actually means what I believe.

Well done Nice piece of reasoning.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Therefore, any possible creation which in any way relies on scientific laws to structure it, inherently has the possibility of negative as well as positive effects.

---

But don't you see what you have done?

By breaking it all down to 'cause and effect' you have made the positive effects merely the counter balance to the negative effects.

God's love for me is as active / personal as gravity!

JJ and Freddy in your desire to see God only as a God of love you have made it impossible to see him as 'love' at all.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I give up. You are being as a clear as mud.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:

(Development of Christian Worship)

---

The following quote is taken from the site above:

"These elements constituted the revealed manner in which the worship and sacrifice of Israel were to be made to God. Again, the primary function here was that of sacrifice: the offering of an animal to propitiate and atone (make amends or reparation) for the sin of God's people. The belief of the early Church was that the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ and His subsequent resurrection supplanted all temple sacrifice as a means of propitiation and atonement. In the sacrifice of Himself, Jesus Christ becomes the propitiation for all of mankind's sins; He is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29). Thereafter, for Christians, there was no need for an additional sacrifice. The Good News of Jesus Christ is that sins are forgiven in Him, and in Him Christians are reconciled to the Father."

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
What do you see as the main theme?

---

Vindication of God's servants, destruction of the unjust, to make way for the new heaven and new earth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
How do you read chapters 19-22, then? Don't these describe a final victory over Satan and the paradise that then results?

---

Yes they do describe that, but that is just one subplot. Indeed the last judgment and the destruction of the ultimate enemies - death and Hades - happens after Satan is thrown into the fire.

So the final victory over Satan is important but it is only part of a bigger story.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
However, if one adopts an orthodox position, rather than the extremes of deism and pantheism, God indeed does interact with His creation, most notably, as far as this thread is concerned, in the Atonement. That intervention is directed, in this case, at undoing the harm that we bring upon ourselves as the "effect" of the "cause" of sin, our own and that of others.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
but, and this is a big but, we could never say that God ever required it, we don't have that sort of God

---

Where does it say that in the websites you cited?

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
However, if one adopts an orthodox position, rather than the extremes of deism and pantheism, God indeed does interact with His creation, most notably, as far as this thread is concerned, in the Atonement. That intervention is directed, in this case, at undoing the harm that we bring upon ourselves as the "effect" of the "cause" of sin, our own and that of others.

---

Okay, I think I see where we struggle.

You cannot accept God being totally sovereign because that makes him the cause of evil.

I cannot accept evil being outside of God's control for then we would have no certain hope that he will defeat evil.

Either way I think you hit a brick wall.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I've no problem at all with the idea of God being ultimately totally sovereign, I just don't believe He micro-manages the whole of the universe in the sort of way that would make Him responsible for evil. And, of course, I believe that He has, in Christ, already defeated evil. We're just working through its death throes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I also think that you are conflating "God is in control of evil" with "God will defeat evil". Actually, my view is that evil is, by definition, that which is not under the rule of God, but that the purpose of the atonement is to bring all things in subjection to Christ. If that is so, then clearly, all things are not now in subjection to Christ.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I also think that you are conflating "God is in control of evil" with "God will defeat evil". Actually, my view is that evil is, by definition, that which is not under the rule of God, but that the purpose of the atonement is to bring all things in subjection to Christ. If that is so, then clearly, all things are not now in subjection to Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
evil is a bothersome human tendency

---