The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles)

AP ^ | 3/24/01

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams

Previous Thread

[malakhi]

However, since you decided to take a shot,,,is the Jewish tradition that there is a potential messiah in every generation a "fabrication?"

As I said, it is equivalent to theological speculation. There are several different schools of thought in Judaism as to when moshiach will come. His coming is tied in with the End of Days, although even this is subject to some debate. Some say, for example, that these things will happen after the world has fallen deeply into evil. Others say it will be when enough people have repented. This latter view finds support in the following verse:

And he will come to Zion as redeemer,
to those in Jacob who turn from transgression, says the LORD. (Isaiah 59:20)

When Jacob turns from transgression, God will redeem his people, and send moshiach to be their king.

Since, at least in theory, it is possible that this turning from transgression could happen in any generation, then it follows that there must be in each generation someone who could potentially be moshiach.

As I said, though, this is but one theory as to when moshiach will come. All the different schools of thought agree, though, as to how we will know he is the one.

[CindyDawg]

You know what I meant. We should never assume someones salvation or lack of. Some people may act "christian " and not be saved. Some people may need to have a heart to heart with God about their behavior but still be saved. Yes we should walk with God and our actions should show that we do but that is what I meant on an earlier post that is the behavior a sin of God or something man came up with? Ex; I went to the movies a couple of weeks ago (gasp) The preacher considers this sin. I see nothing that I did that went against scripture.

[SoothingDave]

You obviously have not heard the monogistic argument concerning theodicy - (the problem of evil). Briefly, the argument goes as follows: God decrees all that happens and in doing so has only pure motives. Men carry out that plan, often with wicked motives of their own. The two best examples are the slavery of Joseph (see Gen 50:19ff) and the death of Christ on Calvary. In both cases, God's plans are entirely holy, righteous, and just: many are saved as a result. The men who carried out God's plan were wicked and sinful and unwittingly did the will of God for their own sinful reasons. It is for those reasons that htey are judged. A third example is the use of the nations to judge Israel. They accomplished God's purpose in judging israel but committed sin in doing so because of their heart. Accordingly, they were judged. The result is that a holy God is sovereign over all and is not yet the author of evil.

How is it that the motives of these evildoers are judged, if not according to a standard of obedience to God? What is sin? Are we not to do what God wants us to do? If men do what God wants, how can this be wrong?

This is so much nonsense.

Regardless, you haven't addresed the basic idea. God, (the sovereign, remember?) created existence in such a way that certain people end up in hell. He chose this. And now you say that even if these condemned men do exactly what God wants, they are still evil because of their motives? Well, isn't god sovereign? From where outside of creation did these men get their motives? Are they free to decide what to do and what motives to have or is God sovereign?

if God is still sovereign, which seems to be your high holy point, then you still have the same problem.

It is systemic.

SD

[SoothingDave]

And since He's God, if he chooses to permit a man to jump off the railroad platform, and allows the train to continue down the tracks until it hits the man and and splatters his vital bodily fluids all over the mud, even though that man jumped in front of the train on his own, God still did nothing to prevent it.

Isn't God sovereign? Why this talk of "permitting" and "allowing." God decreed it. Before time. And it happened. Isn't that more like it?

You will be more loving to your family and more gracious to strangers.

Ahem

And here's the best part. This spectacular gift, this wondrous peace, is available to all. Everyone. All over the world. For all time.

Have I awoken in bizarro world? Does Santa Claus steal toys from small children? Is denial just a river in Egypt?

SD

[malakhi]

Yep, it's a hard pill to swallow to say every man deserves hell, and some men, through God's gift of faith alone, and not for anything they are or do, will get the stairway to heaven.

But the opposite point of view is absurd. It has God being subservient to man; God waiting blindly on man; and God not really knowing what man will do next.

I disagree (big surprise ;o). I think you have set up a false dichotomy. God using His divine sovereignty to endow man with free will (exercised within the limited domain in which He permits us to operate) does not make God subservient to man.

You can try to say God knows a person's choices beforehand

God exists not in time, but in eternity. He is "I AM" -- all of creation is eternally present to Him. So He doesn't "foreknow". He "knows". I think the introduction of language pertaining to time muddles the picture and creates the appearance of a paradox where none exists.

[SoothingDave]

Show me an alleged Christian who doesn't believe in a universal, free offer of the gospel extended to all men in good faith, and I'll show you someone who's systematic theology has made a cruel parody of the truth.

Um, Calvinists?

Unless "in good faith" means something different to you.

Calvinists don't believe the gospel is only offered to the elect, just that only the elect could choose to accept it.

And didn't the soverein God decide that the reprobates would be unmoved? Is this a good faith offering to you?

SD

[drstevej]

First, Jesus didn't heal everone He came in contact with. He was selective.

Second, please define "love" as an attribute of God.

Third, does enlighten mean shine on or shine in?

Fourth, how dead is dead?

[SoothingDave]

It's more like offering candy to a group of hardened candy-haters. The hand remains unmoved, the offer still on the table, but because we are hardened sinners who hate God, apart from his intervention, we'd all reject His gospel.

Who decided the candy-haters would hate candy? Isn't God sovereign? Didn't He decide to create creation this way?

SD

[SoothingDave]

That playoff series set back hockey in Pittsburgh another 10 years. That, and in 89 when we blew a 3-1 series lead against the hated Flyers.

SD

[HarleyD]

HD-"However, in the Reform doctrine God shows no partiality."

SD-"This is an absolutely, stunning, mind-boggling statement."

Hmmmm...I can see where this would be mind-boggling. It is a rather stupid statement. :O)

God in His sovereignty does shows partiality. But how does God selecting His elect out of Hell differ from God selecting Jeremiah in the womb to go to Israel?

[malakhi]

Mankind is already destined for Hell.

We'll part company on this point; Judaism rejects the doctrine of original sin. But we also disagree with the Romantic view, exemplified by Rousseau, that man is basically good. The Jewish view is that we are in essence born morally neutral: we are capable of both good and evil, and are subject to both good and evil impulses. Which we choose is a free act of moral will. And we therefore bear moral responsibility for the choices we make.

[malakhi]

We know what happened to Jonah. We don't know what happened to Herman, his cousin from his mother's side.

He moved to Crown Heights and opened a kosher deli.

[HarleyD]

You left of vesus 27

"All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."

The verses you refer to refers to our Lord Jesus' instructions to His believers.

[SoothingDave]

But how does God selecting His elect out of Hell differ from God selecting Jeremiah in the womb to go to Israel?

I think part of the problem is that we're never simultaneously talking about the same thing. There is no difference between the two that I can see.

The objection to Calvinism is that God selects people for hell without ever giving them a real, honest, good faith opportunity to choose otherwise.

The denial of a free will and the insistence on total depravity places all of the blame for damnation upon God Himself as sovereign author of all creation.

It is unfit for a just and merciful God to create simply to destroy. If men have a real opportunity to choose good or evil, then they bear the responsiblity for their actions. Thus damnation is just. But if they are hamstrung by design, then there is no justification for punishing them.

If the Calvinist position is simply that punishment or anything is simply God's perogative and it need not follow any principles of responsibilty or rationality, then we will disagree. But I don't think that is your position.

SD

[Quester]

First, Jesus didn't heal everone He came in contact with. He was selective.

So, you know of those that Jesus sent away unhealed ?

Per my reading of the scriptures, Jesus healed everyone which came to Him for healing.

Second, please define "love" as an attribute of God.

Roman 13:1 If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.

2 And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

3 If I give away all I have, and if I deliver my body to be burned, but have not love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful;

5 it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful;

6 it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right.

7 Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never ends; ...

Third, does enlighten mean shine on or shine in?

En - lighten ?

Well, ... I'd say 'shine in' for $100, Alex.

Fourth, how dead is dead?

Finally, ... this looks to be a one for God.

[malakhi]

We know what happened to Jonah. We don't know what happened to Herman, his cousin from his mother's side.

He moved to Crown Heights and opened a kosher deli.

Of course, that's just tradition. ;o)

[HarleyD]

"The Jewish view is that we are in essence born morally neutral: we are capable of both good and evil, and are subject to both good and evil impulses. Which we choose is a free act of moral will."

How do you reconcile the birth of Jeremiah? He was obviously not given the "choice" of his moral will.

Jeremiah 1:4-5 "Now the word of the LORD came to me saying, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

[SoothingDave]

He moved to Crown Heights and opened a kosher deli.

And here I thought he started a rock and roll band known as the Hermits.

SD

[Tares]

And despite your valiant efforts, still a truism. When you interpret "all" as "all those who repent," your verse ends up saying "all those who repent should come to repentance." That doesn't pass the smile test.

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. – Exodus 3:13-14

Truisms should not be dismissed simply because they are truisms.

[SoothingDave]

Truisms should not be dismissed simply because they are truisms.

Neither should the unveiling of the Holy One's Name be considered a "truism."

SD