|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Kerygmania: A Sovereign God
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I have been challenged to get up to date with OT studies and recommended to read Walter Brueggemann.
I have done so. Particularly his book on Jeremiah.
But I cant see anything new. Just a throw-back to an old fundamentalism though expressed in current language. Particularly I cannot come to terms with his insistence of the sovereign freedom of God to act. In crude terms its a bit like the old concept of God as a Puppet Master pulling the strings of personal and historical response as (S)he wills.
Did God really intervene by direct action to bring about the Assyrian destruction of Israel and the exile in Babylon? To what extent is God personally involved in determining and actioning the blessings / curses of Deuteronomy?
Bruegemmann never seems to say so in so many words. But the implication is that God is directly intervening for good or ill. Moreover God acts without regard to anything other than an inscrutable Will.
And I am left questioning if there is indeed any morality underlying this.
Maybe some friends on the other side of the pond where Bruegemann operates can enlighten me.
[ 19. November 2013, 02:00: Message edited by: Mamacita ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
I think your problem isn't so much with Brueggemann as with the text.
Personally, I figure that if that's what the Bible says, it's what I should believe. You seem to adopt a different understanding. Why is that?
ETA - and anyone who knows me knows I'm not a naive literalist....
[ 16. June 2010, 10:47: Message edited by: Custard ]
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I have a number of difficulties - yes with the text which Brueggemann seems to accept at face value.
One difficulty is with the morality of much of the text. If, as I believe; the character of God is revealed perfectly in Christ, then huge chunks of the text attribute unChristlike actions to God.
Thats just for starters.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Bruegemmann never seems to say so in so many words. But the implication is that God is directly intervening for good or ill. Moreover God acts without regard to anything other than an inscrutable Will.
What, you mean like in the New Testament?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
It could be that Brueggemann is looking at the text to allow it to speak for itself rather than trying to enforce his own theology on it. His silence may not necessarily mean agreement, but simply that this is the theology contained in the text
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
By all means we should listen first to the text itself.
But can we just leave it there? Ought we not to be asking questions of the text such as "what kind of a God is presupposed in these words?"
[ 16. June 2010, 16:01: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
maybe he wants you to do the work!
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
By all means we should listen first to the text itself.
But can we just leave it there? Ought we not to be asking questions of the text such as "what kind of a God is presupposed in these words?"
ISTM that asking "what kind of a God is presupposed in these words?" is listening to the text, and that Brueggeman provides answers to precisely that question. The follow-on question to be asked after reading the text and Brueggeman's exposition is, "do I believe in this kind of a God?" or, slightly different but same idea, "did the biblical writers always get it right about God?"
I find it a difficult question to ask, as I try to give the Bible and tradition importance, and yet ask questions that challenge the Bible. On the one hand I think they're important questions, and God knows I'm filled with a gazillion doubts and questions that I can't just quash by saying "that's not what the Bible and tradition say." On the other hand I'm made uncomfortable by my imperfect understanding of the theologians we study in smatterings in EfM, who often seem to be draping an understanding over the divine that seems to use the words and symbols of the Bible, but in ways drastically removed from what they traditionally meant. Is that being true to our faith?
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
When I was in theological college (1955 -) the theologian who was all the rage was G/ Ernest Wright whose book "God who acts" was very influential.
Having read Brueggamann on Jeremiah it seems to me that we have here a reincarnation of that theology.
Everywhere the sovereign freedom of the imcomparable God dominates. In other words (non-theological) God can do what he damn=well likes - and He does.
Evensong asked about this in relation to the NT. It is there in Paul where he asserts that God has mercy on those whome he wills and consigns to Hell those whom he wills. Shades of a Calvinistic double-predestination doctrine!
I dont believe that the imcomparability and sovereignty of God allows for a freedom of action which is amoral at best and immoral at worst.
Nor do I believe that God acts unilaterally to impose upon us.
My belief is rather expressed in terms of Romans 1 where God simply allows the consequences of our actions to work themselves out. "God handed them over" is the recurring phrase.
The moral law which invokes retribution and punishment is written into the fabric of the universe IMO; it is always consequence and no less derived from God because of that.
My conclusion? Reading Brueggann is an exercise which leads me to impatience. He proceeds by way of assertion, not moral argument.
And mere assertion is no argument.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Tobring matters up to date
I cringe and inwardly fume at the way people belt out the song "Our God reigns" along with suitably triumphant actions.
If God reigns and is in control then why a tsunami which kills thousands? or an earthquake which does the same? And if God organises the demise of Babylon then why didnt He organise the demise of Mugabe long before a whole nation is plunged into suffering?
Conclusion. Our God doesnt reign.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Perhaps, Our God reigns but is a complete and total bastard?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Shades of a Calvinistic double-predestination doctrine!
"Shades"? Its the other way round - Calvin (and Augustine, and Aquinas, and Barth, and others) found predesination and the sovreignty of God taught in the Scriptures. Its not something read back into them through a modern lens.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
...
Conclusion. Our God doesnt reign.
So, you want a God who is a puppet-master. Everyone on a string, dancing to whatever the master wants, while the sets are made up nice and pretty.
Just because God is sovereign, doesn't mean He decides what color socks I wear today.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
If God is sovereign in the way you imply how do you know that he didnt determine the colour of the socks you wear?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Shades of a Calvinistic double-predestination doctrine!
"Shades"? Its the other way round - Calvin (and Augustine, and Aquinas, and Barth, and others) found predesination and the sovreignty of God taught in the Scriptures. Its not something read back into them through a modern lens.
Of course not. Being in a culture steeped for hundreds of years in medieval law had nothing to do with their understanding or view of the Bible. They were able, with open eyes, to read exactly what the text meant, with no spin or shading from their own cultures, something nobody had been able to do for the 1200 years (at least) before them.
Ever considered owning a bridge?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
If God is sovereign in the way you imply how do you know that he didnt determine the colour of the socks you wear?
How do you know She did? That one can cut either way. Bill Gates is the King of Microsoft, but I don't think he has to choose what color of tie his employees wear, or exactly how any particular bit of code is written. Smart autocrats know how to delegate.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Being in a culture steeped for hundreds of years in medieval law had nothing to do with their understanding or view of the Bible.
Sorry to be a teeny-weeny bit pedantic but how was Augustine steeped in medieval culture?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
And even then (and I'll grant that mousethief has a good point,) the notion of sovereignty itself is embedded in the bible, even if dudes like Anselm project their medieval ideas of what sovereignty looks like onto these images.
&Kappa&upsilon&rho&iota&omicron&sigmaf does mean Lord with a capital L, and, I think, connotes a certain authority.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Being in a culture steeped for hundreds of years in medieval law had nothing to do with their understanding or view of the Bible.
Sorry to be a teeny-weeny bit pedantic but how was Augustine steeped in medieval culture?
Well, that was a reference to Calvin. Augustine was steeped in Roman law, which gave rise to medieval law. Six of one.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Well, that was a reference to Calvin. Augustine was steeped in Roman law, which gave rise to medieval law. Six of one.
Gave rise to?
(Obviously there is no point in trying to sell you a bridge. You've got 16 already.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Of course sovereignty was expressed in the Scriptures. It was the mind-set of the day. Everything that happened was down to an immediate and direct act of God in pursuance of His purpose.
And they never made a distiction between purpose and consequence.
For what its worth I don't believe that God is almighty in the normally accepted sense of the word.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Do you mean you believe he doesn't have omnipotent power, or that he's decided not to exercise his omnipotence?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Of course sovereignty was expressed in the Scriptures. It was the mind-set of the day. Everything that happened was down to an immediate and direct act of God in pursuance of His purpose.
Exodus 7:3 "I will harden Pharaoh's heart .."
Exodus 7:13 & 22 "Pharaoh's heart became hard ..."
Exodus 8:15 & 32 "Pharaoh hardened his heart ..."
The Bible is more subtle than you think.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
LR: I mean that God's power is constrained.
For one (s)he cannot act out of character. And I take it as axiomatic that Christians believe the character of God is fully revealed in Jesus. So that gives us a benchmark.
I think that the freedom of will given to humans also acts as a constraining influence. I dont believe that God over-rides that freedom.
If there are constraints they are not imposed by anything outside of God but are self-constraints. In itself that is an act of power.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Of course sovereignty was expressed in the Scriptures. It was the mind-set of the day. Everything that happened was down to an immediate and direct act of God in pursuance of His purpose.
And they never made a distiction between purpose and consequence.
Not sure about that.
2/3rds of the Psalms are laments. They had an idea, but God did not always live up to that idea. The psalms of lament are something of a complaint against God.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Of course sovereignty was expressed in the Scriptures. It was the mind-set of the day. Everything that happened was down to an immediate and direct act of God in pursuance of His purpose.
And they never made a distiction between purpose and consequence.
Have you actually talked to any of these ancients trapped in their primitive mind-sets? Where do you get this from?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I got it from the scriptures.
All the way through the writers attribute every action to God.
Amos says that God sends locusts and famines and eathquakes and God knows what as punishments.
And he is 8th Century BC.
What alternative explanation can you provide? Except to re-iterate the Scripture?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
My angst is this.
Brueggemann goes on ad infinitum about the sovereignty and "freedom" of God. he never explains in practical terms what this means.
One idiot on another site interprets this to mean that God can do what he likes and that extends to approving ( commanding?) the massacre of the people of Ai ( Joshua) and the wholesale slaughter of the Amalekites ( 1 Sam 15) plus the command to Abraham to sacrifice his one and only son.
When Bruegemann is interpreted to mean this then I say to hell with the whole concept.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Thing is, I'm not sure it is as simple as you are making out.
For example, in Isaiah 10, the prophet is quite happy to describe Assyria as both a mere pawn in God's sovereign hand and as morally responsible for her actions as a nation.
Sometimes even in the same sentence:
quote:
"Woe to the Assyrian, the rod of my anger, in whose hand is the club of my wrath...
... When the Lord has finished all his work against Mount Zion and Jerusalem, he will say, "I will punish the king of Assyria for the willful pride of his heart and the haughty look in his eyes.
Isaiah 10: 5 - 12
What do we do with texts like that?
ISTM that either we conclude that the ancients were simply too stoooopid to see the apparent contradiction here, or that it fitted within their theology and they weren't as reductionistic as we tend to be.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
What is your theology on such "contradictions", Johnny? If God is sovereign and made them do it, how can they be blamed for their actions? If God is sovereign and willed their actions, did they really have any moral choice in the matter?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
I'm a compatiblist - i.e. that God's Sovereignty and human responsibility are compatible.
Exactly how they are compatible I'm not sure. A famous Baptist once put it like this - I know that railway tracks meet at the horizon but it puzzles me how that it is possible. Since parallel lines really do meet at an infinite distance then God is that infinite presence.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What Johnny S said.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
quote:
Shamwari: I mean that God's power is constrained. For one (s)he cannot act out of character
Spot on, Shamwari! Or you might have put it more positively: that the omnipotent God of Love cannot be forced to choose to act in contradiction to his essence. As the hymn-writer, Joseph Hart wrote: `This is the God we adore...Whose love is as great as his power,/ And neither knows measure nor end.`
I also agree that his nature was revealed in Jesus Christ, so it follows that we are entitled to question the provenance of OT commands of God that are incompatible with the father who is revealed through the son.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
One difficulty is with the morality of much of the text. If, as I believe; the character of God is revealed perfectly in Christ, then huge chunks of the text attribute unChristlike actions to God.
Here's a conundrum, because if "I and the Father are one" (e.g., John 10:30), then the character of Jesus is also revealed perfectly in God the Father.
To take this seriously is then question whether if, in fact, the actions of God in the (whole) text are not to be taken seriously as the character of the (whole) God - Jesus included. And that would mean that we may need to question our understanding of God and the picture we have built up of him. If it doesn't square with the whole picture of the whole Bible, then perhaps our picture is the one at fault, not the biblical picture?
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
NigelM, sophistry, sophistry! Too clever by half!
If the OT revelation had been adequate there would have been no need for the incarnation, no need for a new testament. You are attempting to put new wine into old bottles.
If you want to press your case, NigelM, then you have to do better- like demonstrating to us how the genocidal and tribal God of much of the OT is seen in Christ if you wish to seriously challenge Shamwari`s position.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
Righty-ho, Kwesi!
Firstly, something I should deal with up front -
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
If the OT revelation had been adequate there would have been no need for the incarnation, no need for a new testament. You are attempting to put new wine into old bottles.
What is the backing for equating the “new wine, old wineskins” saying of Jesus with the New and Old Testaments? I've certainly heard it said before, but the context doesn't seem to fit:
quote:
Mark 2:18-22 [NET Bible]– the immediate context:
Now John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting. So they came to Jesus and said, “Why do the disciples of John and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples don’t fast?” Jesus said to them, “The wedding guests cannot fast while the bridegroom is with them, can they? As long as they have the bridegroom with them they do not fast. But the days are coming when the bridegroom will be taken from them, and at that time they will fast. No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and the tear becomes worse. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins; otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the skins will be destroyed. Instead new wine is poured into new wineskins.”
Taken with the wider context – eating with 'sinners' (Mk. 2:15-17) and picking corn on the Sabbath (Mk. 2:23-28) – this seems to be a comment not against the Old Testament, but against the interpretation placed on it by the religious teachers. It is a criticism of old ways, not a statement regarding the superiority of the (soon to become) New Testament.
I just needed to challenge that assumption because it can colour the view one has of the Testaments – and also of the character of God, I think. I would even go so far as to say that the NT would not have been necessary, were it not for the incorrect interpretations imposed on it by Israel's religious ruling elite. It wasn't the revelation that was inadequate, it was the interpretation.
Anyway, pressing on...
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
If you want to press your case, NigelM, then you have to do better- like demonstrating to us how the genocidal and tribal God of much of the OT is seen in Christ if you wish to seriously challenge Shamwari`s position.
Well, it would be easy to give a proof-text list, like:-
Matthew 25:31-46
Mark 3:29
Mark 4:15-19
Mark 7:6-13
Mark 8:34-38
Mark 9:42-49
Mark 10:1-9
Mark 11:12-14
Mark 11:15-17
Mark 13
Luke 4:1-12
Luke 9:59-62
Luke 10:10-16
Luke 11:37-52
Luke 12:49-53
Luke 24:27
Romans 1:18
Romans 2:2-11
Romans 15:4
1 Thess. 1:10
Hebrews 2:1-4
James 5:1-6
1 Peter 1:24-25
2 Peter 2
2 Peter 3
2 John 1:7-11
Revelation (seriatim)
That is just a dip sample, but it's getting boring and each passage really needs discussing in its context. Two key themes come out here, though: Judgement (and justice) is the warp and woof of God's action; and Jesus saw an important part of his role as being a correct teacher / interpreter of the Scriptures (our OT) - and one who taught his followers to be the same.
A God of justice and faithfulness to his people (perhaps a more accurate description than "genocidal and tribal"?).
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Parallel lines really don't meet at an infinite distance or they wouldn't be parallel, by definition. So it's hard to hang a theological impossibility on that.
Those who say both God is sovereign and humans are responsible for their actions (at least, when they choose wrong) are showing they don't understand either "sovereign" or "free". If God causes everything that happens, then I am not free. If I am free, then there is something that God isn't sovereign over, namely, my free act. Otherwise you are either using "sovereign" or "free" to mean something that they don't mean when normal people use them. It's equivalent to saying God can create a rock so big she can't lift it. It's patent nonsense.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Is God free to not enact his sovereignty?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Is God free? Must God not act according to God's nature? Can God be said to "decide" anything since God is outside of time? I think the concept of freedom just doesn't apply to God at all. It's a category error.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Does he not 'forget' your sins?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't believe so, no. He forgives my sins. But why do you think that is a decision?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
OK, take another view of it. In the incarnation, does God not choose in some way to limit himself? In Jesus, does he not choose day and daily to be self limiting? You could argue that it was all inevitable because this is God's nature, but then through various twisty arguments you could also say that God's nature is to be sovereign, but also to self limit this sovereignty for our sake.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
That's exactly what I say. God limits his sovereignty to allow us freedom. Why wouldn't I want to say that?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
NigelM quote:
A God of justice and faithfulness to his people (perhaps a more accurate description than "genocidal and tribal"?).
NigelM, thank your for your tedious (to you) researched reply! I am not in disagreement with you concerning Jesus` identification with the God of law and justice justice nor his role as judge, and that these facets of the divine nature are evident in the Old Testament. I`m sure we could find others.
My contention is that the character of God in scripture is not consistent, which means either the character of God changes over the course of time or our understanding of God changes. Differences are apparent not only between the testaments but also within the Old Testament. Is it not difficult to reconcile the God of 1 Samuel 15: 1-3, with the God who poses the question at the conclusion of the last chapter of Jonah? The God of Jonah seems more compatible with the God revealed in Jesus than that of Samuel.
Can you persuade me that the command to massacre the Amalekites is evidence of `God`s justice and faithfulness to his people?` I find it difficult to relate it to the God seen in Jesus Christ. Can you suggest to me how we might sort out our differences of interpretation on this matter?
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
NigelM quote:
A God of justice and faithfulness to his people (perhaps a more accurate description than "genocidal and tribal"?).
NigelM, thank your for your tedious (to you) researched reply! I am not in disagreement with you concerning Jesus` identification with the God of law and justice justice nor his role as judge, and that these facets of the divine nature are evident in the Old Testament. I`m sure we could find others.
My contention is that the character of God in scripture is not consistent, which means either the character of God changes over the course of time or our understanding of God changes. Differences are apparent not only between the testaments but also within the Old Testament. Is it not difficult to reconcile the God of 1 Samuel 15: 1-3, with the God who poses the question at the conclusion of the last chapter of Jonah? The God of Jonah seems more compatible with the God revealed in Jesus than that of Samuel.
Can you persuade me that the command to massacre the Amalekites is evidence of `God`s justice and faithfulness to his people?` I find it difficult to relate it to the God seen in Jesus Christ. Can you suggest to me how we might sort out our differences of interpretation on this matter?
Doubt I could persuade you of anything, but granted that God's covenant, as expressed in the Torah, is very specifically with the Hebrew people to the exclusion of others, then yes, taking out the rival tribes who are competing over scarce resource shows a great deal of faithfulness and even justice particularly vis a vis the Hebrew people.
The justice in 1 Samuel is retributive. "They did this to you, so now I shall help you get even with them." It's the kind of justice you see when a widow cries out at her husband's murderer's trial for an execution. That's not the same as Jesus' notion of justice, but it sure gets tossed around a lot as "justice" even today. And God is faithful in keeping his promise to them as he delivers what is portrayed as the "just" "retribution." Note that we're not looking at individualistic cultures here, but tribal ones. The tribe is an incorporated entity, not a consensual group of persons.
Jesus just changes that relationship by applying God's covenant to all tribes and nations so that nobody is excluded. Instead of loving just one people, he shows that love to all.
There are a few places in the OT where God hints at having relations with other tribes (sometimes using them as mere instruments to torment the Hebrews per Jeremiah, other times less malevolently as in a brief passage in Amos,) but it's never made so explicit until the gospel-writers and Paul came along.
Now, I do think that the portrayal of God shifts a bit over the text. It may be that by the time Jonah came along (and Jonah is a seriously late text by OT standards,) the old bitterness had dissipated and people were beginning to see the former oppressors in a less hostile light. It's also worth noting that Jonah's Book is loaded with irony and sarcasm. Reading it as a straight up portrayal of God may not be true to the original author.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Bullfrog, thanks for making my point, couldn`t have put it better.
Thank God I was born AD rather than BC! He`s improved a lot.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Bullfrog, thanks for making my point, couldn`t have put it better.
Thank God I was born AD rather than BC! He`s improved a lot.
You see, I'm not so sure She's changed, though I am glad to live in this time, myself.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
posted by mousethief
quote:
That's exactly what I say. God limits his sovereignty to allow us freedom. Why wouldn't I want to say that?
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant you didn't believe in God's sovereignty at all. Crossed wires
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nigel M
Shipmate
# 11256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Is it not difficult to reconcile the God of 1 Samuel 15: 1-3, with the God who poses the question at the conclusion of the last chapter of Jonah?
Regarding the issue of the divine mandate to destroy utterly a group of people, it is important here, I think, to put ourselves in the shoes of the readers of the time. The ancient near eastern peoples were – as Bullfrog points out – bound together around (pretty much blood-based) loyalties: family, tribe, clan, nation, empire. One's life was tied intimately to the brothers around about, and in covenant relationship with those above and below one.
This was reflected in the theologies of the nations. Gods were gods for specific peoples. This has its reflection in the Jewish Scripture with the picture of a Heavenly Court. Loyalty to one's family / tribe / nation and so on meant loyalty to the god of that family, tribe, nation. Sneaking off a sacrifice to the god of another family / tribe / nation was treachery. State and Religion were bound together.
It's into this setting that God communicated to creation, and the most relevant model to use was that of covenant with a specific people. That model worked well, because it could be used to explain creation itself, and also God's interaction with humans everywhere and well as with individuals. A great deal can hang off covenant as an overarching interpretive framework for the bible: gospel, faithfulness, sin, justification, eschatology and so on (though it's helpful to use more modern words nowadays!).
There are, of course, two sides to covenant: blessings and curses. Deuteronomy 28 reflects a theme that permeates the whole bible. 1 Sam. 15 has its counterpart in Revelation 20 in much the same way that Genesis 12 has in Romans. Without an understanding of covenant it will be extremely difficult to fathom huge swathes of the bible – and of God, too. A God who is slow to anger, abounding in love, relenting from calamity (Jonah 4:2) will also be a God who has to bring judgement when 'sins are filled up.'
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I find it difficult to relate it to the God seen in Jesus Christ.
I suppose the thing is that Jesus doesn't step aside from the nasty sounding judgement job; he doesn't leave that to the stern OT-type God so that he (Jesus) can get on with loving people. The point is made in John:
quote:
John 5:19-29 (NET Bible)
...“I tell you the solemn truth, the Son can do nothing on his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise. For the Father loves the Son and shows him everything he does, and will show him greater deeds than these, so that you will be amazed. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes. Furthermore, the Father does not judge anyone, but has assigned all judgement to the Son, so that all people will honour the Son just as they honour the Father. The one who does not honour the Son does not honour the Father who sent and he has granted the Son authority to execute judgement, because he is the Son of Man. Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out – the ones who have done what is good to the resurrection resulting in life, and the ones who have done what is evil to the resurrection resulting in condemnation. I can do nothing on my own initiative. Just as I hear, I judge, and my judgement is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the one who sent me.
Obviously we've got a close functional equation of Jesus with God here. This raises the question about the nature of the judgement. What is it, if not the same thing we read about in the Jewish Scriptures? What else would Jesus have been referring to?
I appreciate it is difficult to sit comfortably with the idea of a God whose character on the face of the text is out of sync with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, never mind "Love one another." I could scissor out the biblical bits that don't fit, but that raises other issues about canon and the specific principles I would have to use as a basis for the scissor action. I could ditch modern values in favour of an 'on-the-face-of-it' adherence to the letter of the text, though that smacks of reader-response reading in the extreme (and plays merry havoc with the concept of a divine author). As far as I can tell, the only other option for a Christian is to take the text seriously as a divine communication in human words and immerse oneself in the assorted disciplines for understanding authorial meaning.
Posts: 2826 | From: London, UK | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by mousethief
quote:
That's exactly what I say. God limits his sovereignty to allow us freedom. Why wouldn't I want to say that?
Sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you meant you didn't believe in God's sovereignty at all. Crossed wires
Well, "sovereignty" and "omnipotence" aren't at all the same thing. A king is sovereign over his kingdom but that doesn't make him all-powerful. God is the rightful king of all creation. In a sense, she could play the world like a puppet show. But in another sense, he could not. Because that's not what God is like. In order to be a puppetmaster god, God would have to be a different god than she is. But God doesn't "want" (that's an anthropomorphic term I hope you'll forgive) puppets, God wants sons and daughters who choose to love him, and each other, freely. So although God has the "ability" to rule the world as an absolute despot, of the kind no human despot could ever hope to be, she "chooses" not to.
But from another angle, also true, God doesn't choose anything at all. God is God, and his nature is immutable. God is always creating the world, God is always giving us the "room" to choose freely, God is always dying on the cross. To do otherwise would be to have a different nature than God actually has.
(This is all probably terribly heretical.)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
