|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What if I'm right?
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Custard123: quote:
I think that this comes across as probably pejorative on your part, despite your efforts.
Well, it is pejorative about the theology, which I hold to be deeply flawed. I just wanted it to be clear that I wasn't insulting people, or calling them stupid.
quote:
I think the issue is simply what we understand by "theology".
Hmmm...
quote:
I'd say theology is essentially the process of systematising and interlinking the Bible's teaching.
But you see, this is exactly what I don't think you do.
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.
And this is precisely what I think you do do. Grits has already pointed out the irony. 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:
...is not quite on when we both know that there are lots of theologians on both sides of this.
Agan, you're hearing insults, where I'm trying to make structural points. What's the starting=point of your theology? God's love (which is mine?) God's glory (which at one point seemed to be Contouredburger's, though he'd have to articulate this for himself? Or "The Bible is true"? Which is where you do sem to start. Note that I'm not saying that that's necessarily incoherent - it wouldn't be for a unitary scripture like the Qur'an - just that I think that the Bible is scripture of such a nature that if you start where you're starting, even if you deny the incoherences and contradictions in the Bible, you will eventually wind up with an incoherent and contradictory position, because the incoherences and contradictions are really there in the Bible. Whereas if you are embarking on doing a theology, you approach the Bible from a particular presupposition - e.g. that Jesus Christ is the Revealer - my starting point - and allow this (in fact, Him) to integrate your understanding of Scripture.
Here's a test you cn run - and a bit of a challenge, too. I don't think you can integrate "God is love" into your scheme properly. I'm not sayting that you don't believe it, because I'm sure you do. I don't believe, though, that you can make theological sense of it. Caveat - Matt Black has already to my mind ctrashed and burnt in his two immediately preceding posts to this one.
My fifteen mins. of mid-morning coffee are up. Back into the parish...
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
contouredburger
Apprentice
# 7409
|
Posted
I would like to apologise to everybody in advance for a second long-winded post in such a short space of time.
Psyduck,
I can see that our theological approaches are somewhat similar, although our conclusions are divergent. [Dammit, what happened to good old Presbyterian finger-wagging dogmatism? Why haven't we anathematized each other yet? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif) ] It would seem that our differences centre largely on our approaches to Scripture. I am happy with the notion that we all approach Scripture and interact with it in a hermeneutical spiral. The place of human reason is critical and unavoidable, but must be subservient to the goal of determining what Scripture is trying to tell us (i.e. are we dealing with myth, or history, or parable etc. or a revealed truth that defies category?) and to find cohesion between these findings. This is of course an ideal, because one cannot extrapolate from the Bible to the exact makeup and proceedings of Edinburgh Presbytery (unless it's in Revelations somewhere...). Hence, I readily admit that sola scriptura is a limiting step to which I believe we must aspire, but it remains constantly out of reach. It is a desirable asymptote. Moreover, as other threads demonstrate, one can take faithfully and with the utmost seriousness the words of Jesus at the Last Supper and end up with Transubstantiation or Zwingli's bare symbolism. Therefore, I am an inerrantist (when Scripture intends to tell us something factual it does so, and Scripture is never deliberately misleading, although it can be opaque to say the least) but I am not a propositionalist.
I agree wholeheartedly that there is empirical evidence for propositionalism going haywire (a la Chick, everyone's favourite foam-speckled loon) because of an inherent lack of checks and balances, but the same can be said of non-OPer theology. For example, what holds us to the eminently reasonable (but wildly verbiose) Barth and prevents us from veering off into Cobb or Robinson or Cupitt? Whilst I disagree intensely with these three figures, I cannot discount them as presenting innately unreasonable or inconsistent arguments. There arguments are, however, all to varying degrees unbiblical and so it is Scripture, and not human reason, that provides us with our checks and balances in this respect. The question is then one of the extent to which we can or should rely on these scriptural checks and balances.
In fine, propositionalism (abandon reason) and (for me) Process Theology (abandon Scripture and hope) represent extremes in the relationship of Scripture and Reason. My instinct is to go towards the propositionalist pole and rest in an uneasy but honest balance of biblicism and systematic theology. If we venture towards the other pole, the risk is an evermore selective appropriation of biblical texts governed by evermore external factors such as ecclesial mandate, personal discomfort or philosophical considerations. Of course this is a caricature, and I am certainly not pointing the finger at any person or any denomination. The converse danger for propositionalism might ultimately be a dismissal of the Nicene Creed or the doctrine of the Trinity because these cannot literally be read off the pages of Scripture. We might even go so far as to argue that propositionalism arguably represents a misanthropy with respect to human reason. I cannot in all conscience go so far, but I would find Scripture more constant than the vagaries of human reason.
If you use enough shotguns for a firing squad you only need a sponge to clean up afterwards...oh, and an umbrella for the pink rain.
--------------------
I seem to be having tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle
Posts: 46 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
KLB, Adeo XXXXX yore fundy bruvva Mar'in
I'm sure I'm not intellectual enough or verbose enough to merit a response from the hyper-Calvinists defending the OP God, which is why the must continue to pretend to be deaf and blind to Jesus' words concerning Bethsaida, Chorazin and Sodom.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
I agree with you about Bethsaida, Chorazin and Sodom. But since I'm only a semi-skimmed, decaffeinated postmodern Calvinist, this may not mean much...
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
XXXX 2 U 2 Psyduck.
Wasn't Karl Barth a bit of a watered down, latte too?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
They also seem purblind to the grace inherent in Paul:
Romans 2:13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15 since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)
as quoted just this a.m. on the Credo thread.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Contoured Burger, where did this be-all and end-all focus on the Bible come from? That's one thing that's so evident in the statements-of-faith of modern Protestant (if you'll forgive the expression) groups, when compared to the Creeds. The Nicene Creed, for instance, mentions Scripture exactly once, as the source of the prophecy of Christ's resurrection. Most of the modern statements-of-faith insert a codicil about the Bible and its trustworthiness or even inerrancy (depending on whom you ask).
My faith isn't in a book, but in a person. There are times (uncharitable perhaps but I'm trying to be honest here) when it seems that some Christians treat the Bible as the fourth person of the Trinity. Sure the Bible is the crowning centerpiece of God's revelation to the human race. But it's not God. God, and our relating to Him, must stand at the center. "You shall have no gods above Me," and that includes the Bible he gave us.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Mousethief: quote:
The Nicene Creed, for instance, mentions Scripture exactly once, as the source of the prophecy of Christ's resurrection.
Interesting - I'd always assumed that "spake through the prophets" was an allusion to Scripture as well - but then I've a very strong sense of Scripture as crystallizing out of the oral tradition in both Old and New Testaments. I've always understood all of this as the work of the Holy Spirit.
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
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 ? ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ). 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
I'm tempted to remark that you're better than your philosophy...
But instead I'll just wonder whether the difference between the two sides here is that where you "hope", some "trust", (i.e. trust that God will do us better than some readings of the Biblical evidence suggest).
Regards,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Grits has already pointed out the irony.
indeed
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."
Ah, regular in the sense of "regulus" rather than as in "regular family situation". Still not sure I agree.
I'd certainly say that you shouldn't interpret one passage so it is contradictory to another - and I think that it is possible to so interpret the whole Bible. There might well be incoherence (in the physical sense) or tension, but not contradiction.
I think imposing more rules on Scripture would be placing our rules above Scripture as a source of truth.
I'm not totally a propositionalist - I think for example that the Psalms are mainly non-propositional in nature.
How about we see whose understanding of Scripture better accommodates the whole Bible? I see we are already starting to do this. How about Romans 9 by the way?
I'm not quite clear from what you wrote what the starting point of your understanding of the Bible is. Is it:
quote:
God's love
or
quote:
that Jesus Christ is the Revealer
I don't think that I could start theology from the former. For one thing, the word "love" would already have implicit meaning to me, some of which would be what John meant when he wrote it, and some of which might not be.
It seems a bit extreme to take just two quotes from 1 John 4, out of context, and use them as the intepretative key to the rest of Scripture.
Incidentally, I think I could (and do) start from the latter position.
Thanks for the challenge - I think that John Piper (with whom I am largely but not entirely in agreement) does a fairly good job in Desiring God.
Otherwise, both statements that "God is love" are clearly in the context of telling Christians to love one another.
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.
So John unpacks what it means for God to be love - it's all about Jesus as the propitiation for our sins (v9,10,14). So to say God is love in that context is to say that God's very essence is self-giving and hence that ours should be too. Therefore, if we don't love our brothers in Christ, then we aren't in Christ.
It's a shame that so often that love isn't reciprocated!
You still haven't answered my question about how to understand Romans 9 btw.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
Custard 123: Romans 9 - OK. A quick sketch, without recourse to commentaries - because this isn't Kerygmania - though I'll happily take it there if you wish, and reserve the right to refine anyting I say here if we do.
Verses 3-5: Paul agonizes about his people, the Old Israel.
Verses 6-13: Election works through God's call, not works;
Verses 14-18: God isn't unjust, because the issue is mercy and compassion.
Verse 19: an objection: Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?"
Verses 20-24: The vessels of beauty and menial use, wrath and mercy. And I note that there's no statement that the vessels of wrath are destroyed. It's perfectly possible to read this section as the opposite of Augustine's "The bliss of the saved is increased by the sufferings of the damned" ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) and to understand that it's the enduring with much patience that makes known the riches of his glory. At all events this is not a full-blown Doctrine of Reprobation. I don't believe that Reprobation in that sense is to be found in Paul.
The argument of the rest of the chapter is exclusively about the Jews - as is the whole framework of this section. Paul quotes Hosea about God's re-electing the de-elected Israel, and Isaiah about the Remnant, which I take to be contrasting verses, setting out a most optimistic and most pessimistic limiting case, and then he brings the discussion back to the Law, and the obstacle that it has become to Israel, and Christ's becoming a stumbling-block. He finishes (10:1) with a prayer for the salvation of his people.
I note
1) That this isn't anything like a high-Calvinist exposition of election and reprobation.
2) That what is clearly taught here is Classical Election - the election of groups to salvation. (This doesn't exclude individual election, of course, but this barely appears on Paul's horizon as an issue: if it did, how could he tell all the Corinthians "You are the Body of Christ" (ch.12)? The whole discussion in chapter 10 is one-sidedly about the consequences of faith, not its lack. And yes, I am looking at 10:14(a).
3) That the frame of the discussion is the fate of Israel, as the community to whom the Law applies.
I just don't see any necessity at all of reading it the way the OPers read it, and the only way it seems to me that you can do so is by reading in stuff from outside.
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psyduck
Ship's vacant look
# 2270
|
Posted
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.
And for the record, my own structure of belief is that Jesus Christ is revealer and revelation, Scripture is the impress of that revelation on the community - the way I'd put it is that the Church didn't write Scripture so much as have Scripture stamped onto it - and that because the Son reveals the inmost being of God, as well as revealing the attitude of God towards the world, the Son reveals God as love. God is love is the primary Christian statement about God; it's the given starting point of theology because theology begins with Jesus Christ (not with the human assessment that God is love).
--------------------
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)
Posts: 5433 | From: pOsTmOdErN dYsToPiA | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Posted by Martin PC not etc: quote:
I'm sure I'm not intellectual enough or verbose enough to merit a response from the hyper-Calvinists defending the OP God
You and me both, seemingly. Apparently 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?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
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.)
Adeodatus, I promised you I'd get back to you...have been mulling this oneoverin my head and, more importantly, my heart for some days now.
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.
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hmmm Psyduck, Human assessment?
1 John 4:8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1 John 4:16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Matt Black- 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.
Aren't we all blessed by Jesus? He lived and died for the world. Whether we are in the Amazon tribe, born and raised Christian, or have been so screwed up by sin and hurt that we can't see him clearly, we still have been blessed with his grace.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fatprophet
Shipmate
# 3636
|
Posted
I just read the OP and first dozen or so posts and skipped the next 14 cos I suspected they might be of the oh rather predictable liberal v conservative, bible says this v that type argument.
I know its cheeky to post at this late stage, but i would like to comment on the OP to the effect that such a God would be feared but not loved. He would be the gnostic demiurge and I would still want to believe in an even higher and more purer being of light and beauty.
In answer to the 14 pages of posts i did not read, I can only say this:
evangelicals and the OP are right in saying that their picture of God is rather justified by reading the bible. The biblical God is more often than not a complete fascist.
Liberals woud be more honest if they said we don't really care whats in the bible, because we don't have to take it literally (folks, thats why we are liberals, its nothing to be ashamed of)
Remember:The bible is written by an angry, oppressed and deprived people who's perception of God is often very wrathful indeed, and slightly manic while they equally assert he is a God of Love. In the very midst of this anger and indeed near genocidal pent up hatred because of their oppression, the beleaguered jewish nation paradoxically discovers profound truths and a better way not understood by more powerful and more self satisfied peoples.
Its not politically correct to say this but I think oppressed minorities and emotionally scarred people often tend to exhibit this almost schizophrenic ability to demostrate both profound hate and profound love not known to those who have not suffered real pain.
The biblical writers also have major chips on their shoulders and a tendency to revert to denunication and revenge, but they have a deep insights not available to those who have not suffered and even if they (e.g. St Paul) fail to apply their own insights consistently (what human being is after all truly consistent with his values?). No doubt this is why God chose people like them as a vehicle of his revelation and inspiration. Just have in mind that the bible and the biblical God has a split personality but that dynamic tension which is profoundly creative and insightful is often lost sight of.
On a slightly autobiographical note...
Having been an evangelical of the extreme kind, I now realise that I was at that time really projecting all my nerdy anger and self loathing on to the world through a religious view that treats non believers as the 'enemy' while lobbing evangelistic hand grenades at them from my deeply dug trench on the front line (e.g church, university CU)to appease the deity's order to capture a few.
Then I matured, learnt some hard lessons, discovered sex, got married, got some self respect and made friends with people who were gay, muslim, or atheist or downright disinterested in religion (the biggest challenge of all was why they didn't care)
Then I realised that the nasty God of the OP which made sense before no longer made sense.
Evangelicals would call that backsliding. Liberals would call it growing up.
--------------------
FAT PROPHET
Posts: 530 | From: Wales, UK | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
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
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Russ -
Psyduck and I are (I think) well and truly on the same side of the argument - against the OP. 'Cept Psyduck is there with eloquent and beautifully-argued theology and I'm there in a steaming rage at anyone who can sign up to the imaginary conversation I posted in my last-but-one (or thereabouts).
On which subject... Matt Black, of course one can be blessed by Jesus and not love him. "Bless those who curse you" was presumably his practice as well as his preaching; and of the ten lepers healed, didn't only one have sufficient love to return and thank him?
And it's the OP that doesn't recognise what you call quote:
the innocence of a child before God
According to the OP, there is no exception for children who do not acknowledge Christ as Lord in this life. This holds true to the theology behind the OP, too, which asserts that children are far from innocent ("a sinner was I conceived"; "all have sinned"; etc) and that they, like the rest of us, "deserve" hell.
Anyone signing up to the OP would have no problem accepting the imaginary conversation I have outlined. Do you?
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
phoenix_811
Shipmate
# 4662
|
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.
Where is Father Gregory when you need him to point out a heresy?
Posts: 487 | From: the state of confusion | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
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?
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.
2) The Bible consistently depicts judgement as being something God does with weeping
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?
4) Given that we have all been blessed by God, do you think that anyone will go to hell?
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
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.
And this hypothetical conversation happened after death which means your first point is outside the parameters of the OP.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
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.
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.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
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.
After death. Invalid point.
quote:
2) The Bible consistently depicts judgement as being something God does with weeping
See Exodus where God hardens Pharaoh's heart simply so he can bring down the plagues. See the genocide mandated by God.
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?
You think a public disgrace would seriously hurt Jesus? How about the example where they reguarded Jesus as a prophet or holy man rather than as Lord? They could easily accept the blessing then without reguarding him as Lord- and still be condemned under the terms of the OP.
quote:
4) Given that we have all been blessed by God, do you think that anyone will go to hell?
That depends on the nature of God and the nature of the blessing. I've been arguing against the lake of fire for a while now.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
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.
Not so much 'ergo' as 'er...no', unless you're a hyper-calvinist ruling out free will.
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
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.
So it is possible to be blessed by Jesus and not love him? Or does God not love all his creation enough to bless it?
The first option directly contradicts what I was quoting from you and the second says that God is not Love.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
