homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Kerygmania: A Sovereign God (Page 4)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Kerygmania: A Sovereign God
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And maybe if I could understand what Martin PC is getting at, or where he is coming from, or what standpoint he is arguing from then I could ask an intelligent question ot make an appropriate reply.

I find his posts as unfathomable as the hieroglyphics which conclude them.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah well.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ah well is hardly an answer to someone who is genuinely interested and wants to engage.

But perhaps being a deliberatly opaque non PC person is the object of the exercise.

Ah well

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's all right, I understand you perfectly.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274

 - Posted      Profile for Kwesi   Email Kwesi   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Shamwari, the answer to your question But in what way was Jesus attitude towards his enemies consistent with God's command to Samuel? , is contained in Nigel M's premiss The Bible shows that Jesus' character is consistent with the God of the OT. What we and people like us treat as a testable hypothesis Nigel treats as an irrefutable assertion into which the evidence has to be shoe-horned. That assertion, ISTM, is a necessary consequence of an a priori belief in biblical inerrancy. I also share your frustrations with Martin PC's contribution. It's a bit like trying to figure out Daniel and Revelations!

Nigel M, I feel that our conversation is going round in circles without getting anywhere very much. I was not arguing that the Amalekites were saints, though we cannot exclude the possibility that perhaps one or two were and certainly the infants were assuredly innocent, merely to point out that a judge who differentiates between the guilty and the rest is different from the judge who doesn't. Your claim of support from Romans 1 for the slaughter of the Amalekites is highly problematic, because in Romans 2 Paul argues the Jews are just as bad! In that case the God of the NT would have treated Saul and his tribe no less severely than the Amalekites. It really does make a difference when God ceases to be a God of the tribe and becomes the God of all humankind. I don't think you appreciate the significance of that paradigm shift.

I can't accept your refusal to regard some sins as worse, often much worse, than others, and doubt whether you really believe that. Committing genocide is a much more serious matter than swearing or drinking too much (or at all), though, of course, all sinning is wrong. As Jesus, himself, recognised, there is a difference between a mote and a beam. I think your attitude arises out of your need to minimise the crime of genocide in order to sustain your position that OT and NT concepts of God are consistent, which is where we came in............

Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Gentle Jesus said:

Matthew 8:11 I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. 12 But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Matthew 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 13:41 The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42 They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 22:13 "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Matthew 24:51 He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Matthew 25:30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

Luke 3:9 The axe is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire."

Luke 13:28 "There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out.

Revelation. Just about ALL of it.

21:8 ...the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death."

Admittedly these are personal and not because one happened to be a Sodomian or an Egyptian or Amalekite. If being in a doomed army of two hundred million is personally accountable.

No matter how hyperbolic, symbolic, allegorical.

Happy Judgement Day

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250

 - Posted      Profile for W Hyatt   Email W Hyatt   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel M:
I was distinguishing between those acts attributed to God (or at least, believed by the writers to have been authorised by God), and those which are not.

I'd still be very interested in any thoughts you're willing to share about the relationship between the divine purpose and the human authorial purpose you mentioned earlier (assuming you don't mind walking into a minefield [Help] ).

--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.

Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:


No matter how hyperbolic, symbolic, allegorical.


Of course it matters!

I use these figures of speech a great deal - I'm a dramatic sort of person - it doesn't mean I'm about to come round and smite your oxen.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Heyyyyyy, I was just kidding.

Satan and all the unregenerate, it's cool, you can come out now.

You guys ! Eh ? What are you like !

Happy Judgement Day.

[ 07. July 2010, 06:46: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What we and people like us treat as a testable hypothesis Nigel treats as an irrefutable assertion into which the evidence has to be shoe-horned.

It would be too repetitious to go over everything in full again here, so I'll just post the links.

In this post I pointed out the defect in the initial assertion that character only goes one way (i.e., Jesus fully reflects God's character).

Here I set out a sample starting point of evidence in support of the counter-assertion.

Here I noted that sensitivity to context was essential when assessing the evidence. This was developed further here.

Here I pointed out the further weaknesses in the initial assertion.

Here I explained the logical route associated with the initial assertion and here tried to clarify it even further. In this post I extended the logical route associated with the initial assertion. In the second half of this post I recapped, setting out the criterion that had been offered in support of the initial assertion. I repeated there some of the issues that needed to be taken into account with each of them.

In respect of the character of Jesus I have already linked to posts showing how this goes two ways – it must include the evidence from the record that shows Jesus' character and God's character as consistent reflections. I won't bother repeating the links.

With respect to the criterion of 'love', here I pointed the need to define the criterion of 'love.' I clarified this further here in terms of a biblical definition, and further here. I used a test case as an example here.

With respect to the criterion of Natural Justice, I critiqued that for starters in the second half of this post.

I can only repeat that I am waiting for robust evidence in support of the initial assertion, or for answers to my critiques.

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
That assertion, ISTM, is a necessary consequence of an a priori belief in biblical inerrancy.

At point [6] in this post I pointed out the inadequacy of this argument. The argument works both ways and takes the discussion no further forward.

In this discussion I've concentrated on the need to supply evidence based on the publicly available data i.e., the biblical record that anyone and everyone can read for themselves. I have deliberately kept the discussion at this lower more scientific level because I am aware that not everyone reading these threads is a Christian. Even those who are Christian would not be comfortable with assertions based solely on doctrinal bases.

Perhaps we should concentrate in more depth on specific texts to see how they pan out in context. Romans has been offered as an example and although that is rather large one, we can use it as a good base from which to work.

I'm out of time again today, but will come back to this.
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I'd still be very interested in any thoughts you're willing to share about the relationship between the divine purpose and the human authorial purpose you mentioned earlier (assuming you don't mind walking into a minefield.

Definitely! that's a topic I would indeed love to explore – though perhaps it would be better to do so on a new thread given that it is rather tangential to this OP? Would you like to kick it off (if the phrase “After you” is at all appropriate for people entering a minefield...)?

Nigel

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Romans – bite size...

Chapter 1:1-17 is usually taken to be the introduction and as Paul's works follow the standard rules of rhetoric for his day it makes sense to understand his extended introduction as the place where he grabs his reader's attention by setting out the key themes he wants to explore in more detail later.

At the top of this list of themes comes the good news message that Paul had been called and set apart for (1:1). Paul gives a brief summary of the content of this good news message (1:2-4):
* It was not a new thing – it had been promised and recorded a long time before;
* It was about Jesus, the Messiah and God's Son;
* This Jesus was associated as a human with Israel's (Judah's) kingly line;
* This Jesus was also associated with the Holy Spirit by being appointed to the position of Son-of-God-in-power;
* This appointment was made on the basis of his being resurrected from death.

The purpose (aim) of the good news message was “obedience of faith” among all non-Jews (1:5-6).

After this top-line introduction, Paul extends that introduction (1:8-17), culminating in the claim that the good news message is authorised and mobilised by God, it is therefore powerful enough to achieve its purpose (aim). That aim, the “obedience of faith,” Paul now expands upon to say it involved a saving of everyone who believes (both Jew and Gentile).

Paul also makes the claim here that the good news message does something else: it brings out into the open a “righteousness of God.” Paul tags to this a direct quote from Habakkuk 2:4, confirming that the saving to life is dependent on faith.

There are a few technical phrases in there that Paul will develop and explain as writes, but at this point he has simply provided enough information to orient his readers and to tease them a bit with the promise of more to follow.

Of interest to this thread in the introduction is the link to the past, both in terms of the good news message and the person of Jesus; the status of Jesus after the resurrection; and the aim of the good news message in terms of obedience and revelation of God's character.

Before launching into main body of his work to see how he expands on these themes, is there any concern with what has been said thus far?

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So far so good.

But Paul twists the Habbakuk quote.

Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How ?

Romans 1:17 For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: The righteous will live by faith.

Habakkuk 2:4 ... but the just shall live by his faith.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556

 - Posted      Profile for shamwari   Email shamwari   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not by his faith but by his faithfulness is the hebrew text. very different.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
How ? We can always find vast gulfs WITHIN words. Why ?

[ 08. July 2010, 22:06: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The 'faith' connection is textually difficult in Habakkuk as well. The Septuagint translators struggled with it, too; the various versions of the Septuagint do not all agree on how to translate the verse. Paul probably uses his own translation (different to the Septuagint), and the writer of Hebrews gives it another slant. Fortunately for us, I don't think we need to get hung up on the translation too much because I don't think it is of primary relevance to the discussion. It's enough to know that 'faith' in the introduction is one of the themes that Paul will want to expand on later.

Paul's 'gospel' – his good news message – receives a work out in Romans. I can imagine this being the written form of what is presupposed in his other letters, the stuff of his teaching when he arrived in a new town, together with his answers to the regular objections he would have come across when teaching that message. I can appreciate what recent commentators have been pointing out here: that Paul is giving a run down of the Genesis narrative from creation onwards. This is a very Jewish gospel.

From 1:18 to 3:20 Paul puts the background picture in place, and it provides a universal focus on the human character over against God's character. Paul refers to God's theiotes (= θειοτης) in 1:20, which I think is a close enough match to what we are looking for – the character of God: “since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made.”

It's this piece that formed the basis for the point I made earlier about God's creation being a reflection of God's character. It is tangible, evidential. It also make sense to see this as Paul's' understanding of what Genesis 1-3 was saying – all humanity began with God and has no excuse for rebelling from him. It is not a case of people coming to know a new God. Paul wants to knock that argument on the head very early on and hence he starts from the universal beginning. His portrait of humankind is very bleak, but it is consistent with what he would have read in the Jewish Scriptures and is necessary for his argument that God has a right to be angry.

There is a theme of judicial process in this section, too: God 'handed over' (paradidomi = παραδιδομι), which connotes the post-sentence process where the judge hands the prisoner over to the person who would carry out the judgement.

This reads like a very Jewish story in a Greek world, it emanates from the Jewish narrative but is being applied universally. I think it would be fair to say that Paul does not dream up this universality: he takes the good news message to the Greeks (and non-Greeks) because he sees warrant for doing so in the Jewish narrative itself. The warrant appears in part here by virtue of the reference to creation, but Paul will bolster this later when he takes history down to Abraham.

So for this section down to 3:20 Paul has started to expand his first theme (It was not a new thing – it had been promised and recorded a long time before).

Is it fair to say that Paul saw God's character here in judicial terms? He is the Judge and humankind needed judging?

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This thread appears to have developed two strands:
a) the Sovereignty of God vs. human autonomy and responsibility; and
b) the perceived incompatibility of the God revealed (or described) in the OT (especially with regard to the killing of the Amalekites) and the God revealed in Jesus

I’ll give my thoughts on b) first; and despite the much-to-be-respected comment from NigelM: ‘... answers in a forum like the Ship are useless unless we can demonstrate the process one is using for getting to them’, I regret that I can’t right now give an extensive justification for my thoughts. This is my weakness: I can just about remember what I think and believe, but remembering the complete logical infrastructure to explain why I believe what I do is well beyond the capability of my memory. (Other than going: ‘er, I think there’s something in the Bible about it... [Hot and Hormonal] [Help] )

I have found Covenant theology to be a very useful framework for understanding the way that God has interacted with mankind over the millennia. I’m still getting to grips with the subject, I’m certainly no expert, and I’m not sure how it relates to dispensationalism. I’d probably want to distance myself from the latter. I’m sure that my following thesis is very susceptible to challenge and refinement, but I’ll throw it into the ring anyway.

The basic premise of Covenant theology is that God has related to mankind, and different groupings of mankind, in different ways at different times. This does not mean that He changes in Himself, but rather that His revelation and dealings may progress and develop over time.

At the time of the events recounted in 1Sam:15, the Mosaic covenant was in force, which established the Twelve tribes of Israel as God’s chosen people, and occupying a land which God gave to them. One element of this covenant was that God’s condemnation of wrongdoing was to be implemented there and then by his chosen people. The death penalty was prescribed in the Law for certain wrongdoing by members of the people of Israel (see Lev.20); and when wrong was done to God’s chosen people by another tribe (the Amalekites), the death penalty for that whole tribe was also commanded through the prophet (1Sam15:3).

When Jesus established a new covenant in His blood, a lot of things changed. I can’t start to give a comprehensive explanation of what did, but for example, the membership of God’s chosen people was now open to all nations of the world, the initiation rite was changed from circumcision (done to Jewish males) to baptism (done to Jews and gentiles, men and women). Also, the implementation of the death penalty for wrongdoing was withheld from God’s people, and reserved now for God alone to implement. (Lev20:10 cf. John 8:1-11). We don’t have the execution of adulterers in the Christian church.

The timing of the judgement was also deferred, from there and then, to the Last Judgement as predicted by Jesus. The deferment giving time for repentance to occur. So instead of God’s people implementing God’s judgement by killing their enemies, Jesus commands his followers to love their enemies, such that they may repent and become friends instead of enemies.

The job of implementing God’s judgement, will, according to Jesus, be done by Him. See John5:22-29: “22The Father judges no one, but has given all judgement to the Son... 27And he has given him authority to execute judgement because he is the Son of Man. 28Do not marvel at this for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgement.” (ESV, bold emphasis added). Other quotations from Jesus can be presented here in agreement, possibly including those quoted by Martin PC not... above.

It’s worth noting that the criteria for judgement quoted in bold in the above passage from John, are the same as those used by the God who, through Samuel, charged Saul: “Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.”(1Sam15:18, ESV) – the Amalekites had done evil. A valuable contrast can be seen in the tribe of the Kenites. They escaped destruction because they had done good to the people of Israel (1Sam15:6), just as those who have done good will experience the resurrection to eternal life at the Last Judgement.

Once one sees the difference under the two covenants with regard to who executes judgement, and when, God's consistent nature can be seen. I think that this can remove any perception of a contradiction between God’s nature as reported in the OT, and God’s nature as revealed by Jesus in the NT. It is the same God who establishes the criteria for judgement, and the pronouncement of the judgement, but different people implement the penalty in the two instances.

As a gentile, I could definitely agree with Kwesi: "Thank God I was born AD rather than BC! He`s improved a lot." as the covenant established by Christ extends to include gentiles like me, but that’s an improvement for me not of God. Another improvement is that the deferment of judgement gives time for repentance. But this should not be taken for granted – the Amalekites had no idea when the death sentence would be passed on them, and neither do we know when Jesus will return in judgement.

With regard to this timing of God’s execution of judgement, either in the OT case of the Amalekites, or in the NT case of the whole world at the Last Judgement, that is entirely up to the sovereign prerogative of God. Which leads me on to strand a), which I might continue in another post!

Angus [Smile]

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You beat me to it, Angus!

I began this rather long and winding road with a challenge to the assertion that God's character is incompatible with much that is attributed to him in the bible. I think the end point would indeed be that the evidence shows the character of Jesus to reflect the very characteristics demonstrated of God in the likes of 1 Samuel 15. We can avoid that latter passage only by stripping out huge chunks of data from the bible as a whole.

To cut to the chase, as you say, herem has now been reserved to God and Jesus. In this respect the activities of God's People have changed from then to now, but I haven't had to argue or discuss that point; merely that God's character is the same. If there is one slight qualification here, it is that the NT does retain a hint that God's People will also be judges of creation, which could imply that herem will still be practised by 'the saints.'

I agree too with your concern over dispensationalism. If it helps, I think we can eat our cake and still have it here. When Walter Eichrodt published his three-volume work on the Theology of the Old Testament (2 volumes in the 1960s SCM English translation), he attempted to show that covenant was the central theme of the bible. His weakness was that he saw covenant as a series of enactments by God with his people, including Noah, Moses, and so on. This accorded reasonably well with a dispensationalist view, but he struggled to explain how the gaps were accounted for: where, for example, did the Wisdom literature fit in this? And how did covenant as he understood map over to the New Testament.

I think a more fruitful way of perceiving covenant is to raise it out of the specific instances of covenant – Moses and so on – and see it as a worldview. It was, in other words, a consistent and comprehensive filter through which the biblical writers understood life, the universe, and everything. It was their life, their social setting, their politics and religion. As such, the specific enactments were merely localised instances of this much larger and wider framework. Even when there did not appear to be a specific covenant in existence, the gap did not mean the absence of God's eternal covenant with all of creation. This also as something understood by the biblical writers. It allows Wisdom literature under the umbrella, too. It's elegant! It explains everything!

I'm sorely tempted here to show how this might work out in terms of divine purpose in authorship of the bible, but that would blow my chances of producing yet another long-winded and tedious to read post on the other thread!

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Meanwhile, back in Romans...

Paul carries on the continuity theme in 3:21 – which could be paraphrased:-
quote:
[Despite the fact that humans have proved to be notoriously unfaithful to the covenant] God has now proved himself to be the opposite: very faithful. This too is consistent with the purpose of the [Jewish] Scriptures.
The loyalty spoken about here is dependent on the human response of 'faith in Jesus' (3:26). This starts to bring in Paul's second introductory theme (the good news message is about Jesus...) but also repeats the 'obedience of faith' theme, something that crops up again in 4:24 (dependency on belief in the one who raised Jesus from the dead).

This repeated dependency, the qualified offer of reconciliation, runs through the message and it really has to be addressed as part of the good news message. It cannot be ignored. When Paul refers to Deut. 30:14 ("The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart" in 10:8), it is to make the point that only those who believe and confess loyalty are saved. So what happens to those who do not confess loyalty? Paul refers back to God's anger when he says (11:17-24) that God proved his sternness by not sparing those who broke faith. In fact, a key principle in all this comes out in Paul – who incidentally makes my point(!):
quote:
(Rom. 11:22)
Pay attention to two things when considering God's character: his loyalty and his harshness. He is loyal to those who are loyal, but harsh to those who are disloyal.

That rather sums up the balance of the message. It is consistent with the character of God in both Testaments.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The discussion on this thread sort of carried on on the thread dealing with divine intention, so rather than lose that momentum, I've taken things back here. The context: God's character would be morally reprehensible if he had caused damage to a human being for any purpose.
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Nigel: the criterion?

The God who revealed Himself in Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus didnt play games with people's lives. Nor did he regard God in the same way as Tess of the Durbavilles. The Immortal(s) was not making sport of human existence.

OK - We've already established that God revealed himself in Jesus of Nazareth through human authors who were well versed in OT ways of thinking. How do you respond to the fact that those authors revealed a Jesus who presented a consistent worldview with that of his predecessors in Israel?

I know you find the idea of a progressive revelation a useful model. My case would be that you would have to relegate the entire bible to an earlier stage in that revelation, not relying on a human portrayal of Jesus of Nazareth, because that is as flawed (as I think you would have to see it) as that of the OT.

This in turn opens up the issue of where then you would draw justification for living a Christian life today. It must come from a more recent past - keeping the idea of progressive revelation going.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Again, from the Divine Purpose thread - moved here because it fits better:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What kind of Christian apologetic is it that seeks to defend genocide after the experience of the last and present century? What sort of message of salvation is that to a world ravaged with ethnic conflict? In an attempt to preserve the indefensible notion that the bible is the inerrant word of God, which anyone with two brain cells knows it isn't, we get the kind of contortions in so many of the posts on this thread. It may satisfy Christians in the closet, but it does nothing to engage the faithful with God's world and the people in it. ...

You are right about the dangers of 'cherry-picking', but its contents have to be measured against what we understand about the Word and the Godhead: to be Christologically coherent and in accordance with trinitarianism.

I think you are giving the game away again, Kwesi. How can you show that you are not reading into the NT texts (never mind the OT) the worldview that occupies us in the light of the 20th century?

The is nothing unique to Christianity about saying that we should all learn the lessons of man's inhumanity to man so ably demonstrated a few decades ago. Even the Fabian Society worked that out all by themselves! One of the challenges I have been posing to your reading of the bible is to be able to justify it to someone who is not a Christian and who would want to know what you have to offer that he or she could not get more easily from another source. You have made reference to the character of Jesus (now I see you want to bring in wider doctrinal points as well - trinitarianism and christology). You now need to deal with the phenomenon that what we know of Jesus comes to us via human authors who present Jesus in terms familiar to those embedded in an OT worldview.

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256

 - Posted      Profile for Nigel M   Email Nigel M   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Probably time for another summary to pull threads together, particularly since the discussion has spawned two threads – for my assistance if for no one else's! First, though, I would like to thank all those who have engaged in the debate (especially, but by no means limited to, shamwari and Kwesi) – it's gone further than too many before, both on and off the Ship, where either one side or the other backs out too soon with the “Agree to disagree” clause, or “This is my truth, you can have yours!” option.

Key question: Were the human authors of the bible right to attribute to God their authority for the destruction of human beings (including the non-military, e..g, women and children, and where there was a generational gap between the original offence and the subsequent destruction).

I did a summary of points based on that question back here, so I won't repeat all that.

I think we can agree on the following – though of course open to correction:-
[1] The authors of texts like 1 Sam. 15 present their world in terms familiar to them. They have their worldviews and presuppositions, and they lived within a societal make-up that was based around family loyalties, working up through clan, tribe, nation and occasionally empire. Part of the world involved interaction with other nations having different politico-religious loyalties. It is, therefore, no surprise that the world presented in the bible is to an extent time- and space-bound. The question is about whether 'light shines through' and to what extent.

[2] The focus of the authors is ultimately on how God interacts with his creation. God forms a focus, as it were, of the writings.

[3] The methodology we can use to tease out authorial intention in the OT is exactly the same as that we use with the NT. In other words, we don't have to assume that the Gospels require any special approach to interpretation. We can approach them in the same way we read 1 Sam 15 as far as interpretation goes. Application, of course, is a different matter altogether.

Where differences emerge, as I see it, are over the following issues:-
[1] Is there evidence of a paradigm shift in the way the biblical authors saw the character of God with the coming of Jesus? This would involve a wholly new way of looking at the world and God's interaction with it.

[2] Somewhat linked to the above, does the shift involve a move from viewing God's dealings at a corporate level to an individual level?

[3] Similarly, does the shift involve a move from seeing God as tribal (or national) to universal?

[4] To what extent does our current world-view affect our reading of the bible?


A crucial element in this has been to focus on Jesus, as the best option we have for defining God's character. Here's where another issue arises. We have Jesus mediated by human authors. When these authors present Jesus in terms familiar to a reader of our OT, to what extent are we able to say this or that is a true reflection of God's character? So, for example, if Jesus says things that demonstrate a corporate and 'tribal' world-view, and if Jesus and his Father are one, then does that not reflect the character of God? Or is it just another example of a human author doing the best he could according to his lights? This, of course, goes to how one justifies one's reading of the bible, or one's distinction between the parts.

We've been running through a few options in an attempt to locate a criterion for justifying how we define God's character, e.g.,:-
[1] The character of Jesus;
[2] Love;
[3] Natural Justice;
[4] Our experience of human nature in the not too distant past.

I suppose we could add the “It just couldn't be that way” line, but that doesn't assist in providing evidence.

Nigel

Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools