|
Post by Soulfyre on Mar 19, 2005 14:36:56 GMT -5
God cannot be limited within the rational restrictions of Aristotelian logic or Platonic/neo-Platonic thought forms. One cannot compass the Eternal and Ineffable within the limited structures of our language and categories. This is not to say, of course, that God is unknowable on any level. God has spoken to us illustratively, through the wonder of His creation. God has spoken to us propositionally, using the forms of words and language. The act itself presumes the ability to verbally communicate substance. God has also communicated to us objectively in the person of His Son incarnate, in whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead, and who is the express image of God. God's communication to us has been written in Holy Scripture, and has been passed down through traditions of the Church, in whom the Holy Spirit dwells both individually and corporately. It is therefore more accurate to say that we may know God truly because He has communicated Himself and His Truth to us. It is not warranted, however, to assume that we may know God exhaustively or comprehensively, nor may we assume that God has communicated all Truth to us. Holy Scripture does not make this assertion. Such a premise, however, seems inimical to the Western mindset, where theology tends to be treated as a science first, rather than as an organic, living relationship. Many seem to treat knowledge of God as a problem of apprehension. The assumption is that the fullness of knowledge of God is available to His creatures, only limited by our current capabilities of perception, whether inherent to our fallen state (including moral turpitude and an inability to reason dispassionately) or as a result of the limitations imposed by the process of exegesis and textual criticism. Short shrift is given discussions of the limitations which inhere because of essential differences between the Triune God and His creation. There is a reticence to accept the appearance of conflicting assumptions and the dilemmas thrust upon us by the attempt to reconcile communion between the Infinite Eternal and His creation. The Western mindset is less likely to accept the concept of mystery, feeling impelled to reconcile issues which may seem, on the surface, to be contradictory or paradoxical. Nowhere is this more evident than the inevitable controversy which surrounds any discussion concerning the Divine decree and predestination. In any such discussion looms the tension between the sovereignty of God and significance of human choice. Our discussion reflects this struggle. I believe, as do we all, that great care must be taken to avoid the natural tendencies of fallen humanity to be obsessed with knowledge as a form of control, whether actual or merely predictive--that is, that the more we know, the more we may not only guide our own decisions, but determine our own future. We endeavor assiduously to determine with finality our relationship to God, not merely in the present moment, but for the future. We know our fallibility, and are anxious to resolve our final state. We tremble at any assessment that would allow our behavior to impinge upon our ultimate salvation, assuming that any such possibility would inevitably result in a "salvation by works". So we are less likely to rely on the mercy of a loving God than on a dispassionate, juridical arrangement, determined in eternity past. For us, there can be no unrequited love, if the Triune God be the Lover. I, for the reasons I have suggested, have wrestled with this topic, and ask your forgiveness that I have not given a response sooner. When I recently shared with a friend of mine how I have labored over this response, he challenged me by suggesting that perhaps I should let others answer this issue--the fathers and theologians of the church (in this case, the Eastern Orthodox church), whose knowledge was and is certainly greater than mine, and whose godly lives demonstrate their lively faith. Yet I believe that I am called, in obedience to my Lord, to give an answer concerning my own faith, to think the thoughts of those godly witnesses who have preceded me after them--to know and love my Savior and my God as His loving child, not vicariously. Although I am but one member, and the least such, of the living Body, the Bride of Christ, yet I, too, am related to the Head and cannot thrust my obedience on another. I pray your patience with my own frailty, as I respond. KCsr, concerning my response to Kenny you said: [/i][/ul]Allow me to state at the outset that it is far different to say "It was God's will for Adam to sin," as opposed to "It was not God's will to keep Adam from sinning", that is, God chose or "willed" not to restrain Adam. The first would seem to an active prior determination of Adam's actions, the later deference to the active choosing of Adam. I propose that there is, in fact, little we can presume to know about the essence, in motive or substance, of God's eternal decree, to which we are neither privy, nor to which we can fully gain access after the fact by logical inference based on observed results. I believe that we all share what might be called a "high trinitarian" view of God who is fully Sovereign over all His creation. Such a view accepts that God is the First and the Last, the Alpha and Omega, knowing the beginning from the end, and rejects all pretense of Open Theism that appears to have God co-terminous with His creation, therefore limited in His foreknowledge by that which has not yet happened, making God knowledge in some way contingent on the unfolding of time. We may logically infer that God knows all possible choices and their outcomes, but I believe that we must take care that we not superimpose a framework of Aristotelian logic on God's decree. In our haste to define God as one who acts proactively rather than reactively, have we become practical deists, effectively consigning God's activity to His eternal decree, a single choice in which all is set in motion and God's interaction with His creation becomes a one-act play in which even God's movements have been irrevocably established by the original script? Have we rejected the concept of a Christian God who intervenes in His creation with the fatalism of Islam? Clearly, our understanding of God does not allow us to impugn His essential goodness and holiness by ascribing to Him motives that are less than pure. Arguably, Christianity denies fatalism, for in the doctrine of providence, all events are controlled by God who is both Good and Rational. If, then, we believe in a good and rational God, how can we say, for example, that evil is the will of God? This, as most have come to know it, is the problem of evil, sometimes referred to as "theodicy." to be continued.... Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by Soulfyre on Mar 19, 2005 14:40:25 GMT -5
continued from previous post...I also believe that we must differentiate between God's decree by fiat as expressed in His will to do--His will to create--and God's will as His desire. "Will", in common parlance, can be used of both choice and desire, and often implies cause. Certainly, in most Western formulations that address the sovereignty of God, causation is a necessary conclusion. Such presumptions of causation become particularly difficult if one presumes all choices of created beings are essentially the subsequent reflections of the antecedent choices of God (neo-platonism). It results from establishing a false dilemma which states that if God is truly sovereign, then no created being can have a free or autonomous will (including Adam or Satan)--the choices of the created must be directed by God (at which case, such choices are no longer truly free: at best, they are uncoerced, but this is a stretch, philosophically); if, however, man at any point has free or autonomous will (for example, if Adam could, in fact, have chosen not to take the fruit from Eve's hand to eat, or if Satan could have submitted to God rather than rebelling against God), then God could not be sovereign, for His eternal decree would be in some sense dependent on external factors which by definition are uncontrollable. Neither extreme is warranted by scripture, however, nor the "necessities" of reason. It is, in fact, God who determines what is ultimately "reasonable". And we certainly cannot presume a knowledge of the interaction between God's omniscience, God's creative will, and Adam's choice to disobey God and deny his birthright. Our grasp of causation is too self-limited, as is our ability to adequately define the interaction between God and Adam in the statement: "It was God's will for Adam to sin." An Orthodox scholar has suggested that by exercising an autonomous sense of reason obsessed with defining the indefinable and putting the deep things of God within our grasp, we demonstrate that we have yet to be redeemed "from the neck up." The result of such presumption is a domino effect in the interpretation of scripture. One must continually redefine such apparently universal words such as "all" and "the world" and "any". An example of this may be found in Paul's first letter to Timothy (vv. 1-6), in which Paul states: [/b]--for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men--the testimony given in its proper time.[/i][/ul]Of course, I, too, am familiar with the parsing that defines "all" as "all without distinction" (i.e. Jews and Gentiles, masters and slaves, rulers and subject, etc.) as opposed to "all without exception". Of course, "all" MUST be carefully defined if we presuppose that what God wants (His desire) must always be reflected in what God decrees. I am uncomfortably reminded of the equivocating words of one of our former leaders: "It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is..." How far such eisegesis seems from the plain speech of Jesus who said, "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No'." In your further response, KCsr, you state: [/i][/ul]. No, it glorifies God all the more that He loves His enemies. God loves those who love him (which brings Him glory) but he also loves sinners (which brings Him even more glory). This was His decree before time, which we know because it was manifest in time: [/i][/ul] And: [/i][/ul]So, we can see from history that it was obviously not God's will to restrain all sin. We ask "Why?" and we can see that scripture answers that it brings more glory to God, and one way is through the glory of His love toward sinners.[/ul]I believe you make a cogent argument, yet my reply is similar. Such a conclusion is ultimately circular, in that it must, in fact, assume the validity of the premise it is trying to establish. For example, although this is a small quibble, it treats God's glory as something which God desires to "increase", rather than simply "demonstrate". Is self-glorification God's motive? Or is God's glory simply demonstrated by the exercise of His love, mercy and compassion? While it may be argued that "love" is only one of the attributes of God's personhood by which His glory is demonstrated, it is certainly identified with God in a unique and definitive way by the Apostle John (who also said "God is light"). God demonstrates His love in the face of suffering and death in a fallen world. Can we conclude, however, that God therefore desired the existence of suffering and death so that He might demonstrate His love all the more? Could it not rather be concluded that the existence of suffering and death in a fallen world, the results of sin, are the inevitable results of creating a truly significant human being who could choose freely to accept or reject the love of his Creator? Jesus Christ, the very image of the invisible God, demonstrated the profundity of this love while on the cross when He said: [/i][/ul]Are we then to say that God desired the suffering of His Son so that He could demonstrate His glory? Such an assumption would befit the arrogance of man, but surely is beneath God, the Loving Father. Did God glorify Himself in the crucifixion of His Son? Yes. He demonstrated the glory of His love in the most horrible, yet wonderful manner. But was God's self-glorification the motive, or simply the inevitable result of such a wondrous love? In the face of such things, perhaps it is better to conclude, with Job: [/i][/ul] God bless and keep you always in His Love, demonstrated by Jesus Christ, and shed abroad in our hearts by His Holy Spirit, Matthew (soulfyre)
|
|
|
Post by melinky on Mar 19, 2005 20:30:25 GMT -5
I believe you make a cogent argument, yet my reply is similar. Such a conclusion is ultimately circular, in that it must, in fact, assume the validity of the premise it is trying to establish. For example, although this is a small quibble, it treats God's glory as something which God desires to "increase", rather than simply "demonstrate". Is self-glorification God's motive? Or is God's glory simply demonstrated by the exercise of His love, mercy and compassion? While it may be argued that "love" is only one of the attributes of God's personhood by which His glory is demonstrated, it is certainly identified with God in a unique and definitive way by the Apostle John (who also said "God is light"). God demonstrates His love in the face of suffering and death in a fallen world. Can we conclude, however, that God therefore desired the existence of suffering and death so that He might demonstrate His love all the more? Could it not rather be concluded that the existence of suffering and death in a fallen world, the results of sin, are the inevitable results of creating a truly significant human being who could choose freely to accept or reject the love of his Creator? Jesus Christ, the very image of the invisible God, demonstrated the profundity of this love while on the cross when He said: [/i][/ul]Are we then to say that God desired the suffering of His Son so that He could demonstrate His glory? Such an assumption would befit the arrogance of man, but surely is beneath God, the Loving Father. Did God glorify Himself in the crucifixion of His Son? Yes. He demonstrated the glory of His love in the most horrible, yet wonderful manner. But was God's self-glorification the motive, or simply the inevitable result of such a wondrous love? In the face of such things, perhaps it is better to conclude, with Job: [/i][/ul] God bless and keep you always in His Love, demonstrated by Jesus Christ, and shed abroad in our hearts by His Holy Spirit, Matthew (soulfyre) [/quote] I have to agree with what you've said Matthew. I think God's glory is "demonstrated by the exercise of His love, mercy and compassion." I also want to say that I don't believe that 'Obviously, it was God's will for Adam to sin.' Yes, that is what happened, the Bible tells us that is what happened, but it does not say that it was God's will for Adam to do so. As I re-read the story, it appears to me that God did not know what had happened until He found the man and woman hiding from Him in the garden: [/i][/ul] Am I missing something here? Where is God's will for Adam to sin expressed? (Sorry, I know my questions read as being confrontational, but I really don't mean it that way.) Yours in Christ, The ever curious, Melinda
|
|
Rey
Inquirer
Posts: 1
|
Post by Rey on Mar 19, 2005 20:37:21 GMT -5
Where's a good Arminian when you need one Great discussion guys. I like the flow of thought stretching beyond proof-texting and delving into some honest searching while simultaneously trying to make sure to keep our definitions on what scripture has dilineated. Excellent. I've read a lot of this and I'm still in the process or reading it all more in depth. Forgive me for not partaking as much in forum discussions. As to the original question: Agreed. ;D
|
|
KCsr
Catechumen
Posts: 17
|
Post by KCsr on Mar 21, 2005 19:28:23 GMT -5
I really enjoyed your post, Matthew, and I think the bulk of it I agreed with. We have far far far more in agreement than disagreement. However I feel the need to reply to the areas of disagreement to try to show where I am coming from. This will be a very long post, and since I will be mainly going over areas in which I disagree with, I apologize ahead of time. First, some definitions. When I say "glorify God" I am speaking, not from the perspective of God (for he always sees his own glory in its fullness) but in the sight of man. Man does not see or feel or know all of God's glory. In man's sight, and feeling, and knowledge, God can be glorified. In man's sight, God can increase in glory. From God's perspective we say, God "demonstrates his glory". He demonstrates the glory he already has. In him it cannot be increased. In man's understanding God's glory can be increased. God's glory is essential to his nature. It is the shining of his attributes. Thomas Watson said "Glory is the sparking of the Deity." Scripture calls him, "the God of glory." Just his being God shines forth this glory. Just being God, he exercises the attributes of God which are radiant beams glorifying the attributes that shined them forth. God's attributes are his glory. For instance God's glory is his goodness (which includes his grace and compassion): "And he said, 'Please, show me Your glory.' Then He said, 'I will make all My goodness pass before you, and I will proclaim the name of the LORD before you. I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion'" (Ex. 33:18-19 note: his love and goodness go together) God's glory is his truth: "the Glory of Israel will not lie or have regret, for he is not a man, that he should have regret" (1 Sam. 15:29) God's glory is his wisdom and power seen in creation: "The heavens declare the glory of God" (Psa. 19:1). God's glory is his righteousness: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Rom. 3:23) God's glory is his power, love, and faithfulness (seen in reference to his son): "Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father" (Rom 6:4). God's glory is his grace: "to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved... that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory... who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory" Eph 1:6, 12, 14). It is in the nature of God to will to use his attributes. He wills to use his wisdom by his plans of creation and providence and revealing scripture. He wills to show his power by creating and providentially sustaining and governing creation. He wills to display his justice by governing righteously. He wills to demonstrate love and show kindness which displays his goodness, etc. All I am saying is that by being God it is in his nature to choose to use his attributes. A person cannot start with the presupposition that wisdom, or power, or love is something outside of God's nature. God loving is God's glory, Powerfully working is God's glory, etc. Justly acting is God's glory. Saying that God willed to love us, and that we may enjoy that expressed love, we are not saying that he is giving us some abstract quality that is outside of his nature. Love comes from him, it is a part of his attributes. Enjoying true love is enjoying something from God's nature. Enjoying true wisdom is enjoying God. Enjoying true justice is enjoying God. Our expressing of love is glorifying God's very nature by being a reflection of him. Our expressing true wisdom is glorifying God's very nature. Expressing true justice is glorifying God's very nature, etc. Same with God. To express love, wisdom, justice or any other attribute is to glorify his very nature. So if I say, "God willed to love me" and love is a part of God's very nature, I am saying that God willed to reveal his nature to me. His own love cannot be separated from his nature. Saying God willed to express love toward me is the same as saying God willed to show himself to me ("God is love"). Or from our perspective of not knowing his fulness, we say God willed to glorify himself in me. If you delight in God's love, you are delighting in God's glory, etc. So saying (from our perspective) that "God willed to glorify himself through his love, and wisdom, and power, and..." is not different than saying "God willed to show us love, and use wisdom, and exert power." These things are glory. Sorry for being so repetitive. In light of this, I previously pointed out that the following statement makes no sense: "There is also a tendency among our Reformed brethren to emphasize God's glory to the virtual exclusion of His love." For this comment to make sense, one has to assume that love is not a part of God's glory. If it is not a part of God's glory, then God choosing show love to man is not the same as God choosing to show his glory to man. But If this is true, then God is not glorified by love. If this is true then love is not glorifying to God. If this is true then loving our brother is a sin, because we are called to do all things to the glory of God. I now you don't believe this. I know that you believe that love does glorify God... but therefore love is a part of God's glory, therefore being loved by God is experiencing God's glory, therefore God showing love (or other attributes) to us and God showing his glory to us are the same thing. Therefore your statement is basically saying a person can "emphasize God's glory to the virtual exclusion of His glory." CONTINUED...
|
|
KCsr
Catechumen
Posts: 17
|
Post by KCsr on Mar 21, 2005 19:29:15 GMT -5
....CONTINUED
Now to your reply (I'll do this by paragraph, using ellispes in this so that I don't have to repost the whole reply.)
In your first paragraph you say:
I agree with everything you said i this paragraph with the exception of your specific understanding of tradition (which you don't go into here but elsewhere). Very well written and concise!
Amen again, great paragraph. Our reformed pastor always says (even mentioned it again yesterday) that Christianity is not some sort of knowledge of systematic theology (which he does not discredit but enjoys) and points out the Puritan/reformed emphasis on "experimental Christianity" (which they of course meant in the sense of "experiential"). I have also learned from my pastor to say "I don't know" when faced with paradox, but to believe exactly what scripture says whether God has revealed how the paradox is reconciled or not (he of course enjoys Van Till who emphasizes the mystery of paradox that must exist between creatures and their creator). Because of the gulf between finite creatures and infinite God, there must exist apparent contradiction. So I do not fear saying, "I don't know."
This "I don't know" is not supposed to replace our study of scripture however, because being ignorant creatures we cannot say whether the paradox exists because a specific issue is a part of "the hidden things of God" or whether the paradox lies in our ignorance of the fullness of the "revealed things of God". To say that we can determine whether a thing is hidden or revealed is to say that we have a perfect understanding of the revealed things, and we must admit that we don't. For instance, do you believe that one of the following statements is true?
1) The relationship between "God's decrees" and "man's freedom" is fully a mystery; it is not among the revealed things of God.
2) The relationship between "God's decrees" and "man's freedom" is a mystery to me; I do not know whether it is among revealed things of God in scripture.
I believe that as ignorant creatures we must say, I don't know whether God has revealed such-and-such in scripture or in creation. We can say that something has been hidden from us personally or corporately so far (as Job should have done) but we cannot say with certainty that God has not revealed more than we currently know about the relationship between, say, his decree and human responsibility. The church as a living organism is to grow into the fulness of the knowledge of God. The church will always be maturing and growing in her understanding of the revealed things of God. Her growth was not stunted at some time in the past. The church learns more of the good, and we hold on to the good that we have learned since the beginning, and the church throws out the bad as we grow in understanding. The church grows. She will always be growing toward maturity.
Here is an example of a major paradox that the Old Testament brought into view–<br>God says, "I will not justify the wicked" (Ex. 23:3,7) but then we see that God "justifies the ungodly" saying "Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin" (Ps. 32). How can he be just and yet pass over their sins and justify them? Scripture says God does not justify the wicked, but also says God does justify the wicked. Should Paul have left this paradox alone? No, by the Spirit he used logical arguments based on the previously revealed things of God, things that they accepted but that were not fully understood by everyone in times past. In this way he shed light on the revealed things of God and explain how that in the promised Christ, God could be "just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Rom. 3:26) Christ was revealed in the law and prophets yet not fully revealed in the understanding of God's people. By the Spirit, the church grew in her understanding of the previously revealed things. Although there is always mystery within this because we will never come to that infinite knowledge of it, yet there is far less mystery now then there was in the old covenant, and the church will continue to grow in her understanding of this.
CONTINUED...
|
|
KCsr
Catechumen
Posts: 17
|
Post by KCsr on Mar 21, 2005 19:30:44 GMT -5
..CONTINUED
I agree with this paragraph as well, but I am curious if there is actually anyone who believes that there was a "dispassionate, judicial arrangement, determined in eternity past." Reformed theology sees the decrees and election all through a covenantal relationship of love between the Father and the Son, in which the creation was planned to be made through the Son, the church was loved in the Son, and the church was given grace and promised eternal life through the Son in eternity past (Titus 1:1-3; 2 Tim. 1:1, 9, 10; John 17; John 1 with Prov. 8:30; etc.).
I'm not sure what you mean. I agree that we are not privy to all of it, but we still grow in our knowledge of it. The passing of time itself is the revealing of God's decree. If someone asked me, what was God's will for me to do tomorrow, I'd say, "It's a mystery! But ask me the day after tomorrow and I'll let you know."
"Come now, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit'; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow... Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.” (James 4:13-15)
And so only the day after tomorrow will it be revealed to me what what God's mysterious will was for me to do tomorrow. What is plainer than this? How can we know parts of his decree? Because the revealed things belong to us forever. The church does not just grow in her knowledge of God's decree through scripture but also through the working out of God's plan in creation.
In answer to your question, no. I don't think we have become practical deists. I would join together with you in persuading any who might hold to these incorrect ideas. As the WCF says, in God's decree he is "neither the author of sin nor hath fellowship with any therein; nor is violence offered to the will of the creature, nor yet is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established." The confession holds these to be scriptural facts and also assumes that our knowledge of these and the decrees are a paradox, not contradiction. Both sides of the coin are true.
Exactly, hence the confession brings up the decrees and human liberty as a paradox, not contradiction.
I'm confused at what you are trying to say here. Here you have a logical argument that seems to point out a contradiction between "good and rational God" and "evil is the will of God." I am not sure whether you agree with the argument or whether you were just stating it as a common objection made by Christians. I think these two are not a contradiction, but a paradox, and both are true in the same way that a judge cannot be just and justify the godly, and God, the great Judge, is just and does justify the ungodly. It is a mystery to my knowledge how the decrees and freedom fit exactly together. I do not know how fully the answer has been revealed to us by God in scripture, but I strive to grow in the truth that has been revealed. ...CONTINUED
|
|
KCsr
Catechumen
Posts: 17
|
Post by KCsr on Mar 21, 2005 19:31:27 GMT -5
...CONTINUED I agree, that is a false dilemma. Although I would only use the word "autonomous" of God. Since law and freedom could be considered from God (in the sense that God freely acts in accordance with his nature, and true law is a reflection of his self–his nature) then man's freedom and rule of life are a reflection of God's and thus he can not technically be called autonomous. I assume however that you were using the term loosely, like when Paul said he discovered a "law of sin" in his members. Fallen man does live by his own set of rules–he does not sin against his will. In this sense he freely sins. And as far as I can tell, I have not pried into the interaction between God's decrees and Adam's choice in regards to these two things. I don't feel that I have written outside of scriptural facts in regards to them. Scripture tells us: “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.”<br> Adam ate the fruit. The Lord willed, Adam didn't do this, he did that. I feel like I am just agreeing with what scripture says (but I admit I could be misunderstanding scripture). I have admitted in an earlier post that I don't understand the relationship or interaction between God choice and human choice. It is a mystery to me–it is a paradox. Since scripture says both, I believe both to be true. I realize that you have made a few logical arguments in your posts pointing to the fact that these to things are contradictory and so scripture must not say that God willed Adam to sin. My only answer to this would be that the contradiction is only apparent. The same as the apparent contradiction in a judge justly justifying the unjust. It is a paradox. This brings up an interesting question... if you do believe that 1) "Adam sinning" and 2) "God willing what Adam did" are contradictory, and thus the 2nd is not true, how can you come to this understanding without a logical argument that comes to "presume a knowledge of the interaction between God's omniscience, God's creative will, and Adam's choice"? How then could a a person say that "It was God's will for Adam to sin" contradicts the statement "Adam freely chose to sin" without having to make a logical argument defining the relationship between them? Nice quote. I agree. But we of course cannot choose to define which things are indefinable ourselves (such as whether God has or hasn't revealed in scripture that everything happens in accordance with his will, including Adam's sin–this will have to be shown from scripture) but the quote is true nonetheless. Many reformed interpreters also understand this passage to be referring to all men generally, and many take it as kinds of men. Obviously both can not be right, but it would be more helpful if you gave your exegesis to show what you understand the proper interpretation to be. By the way, your definition of exegesis ("How far such eisegesis seems from the plain speech of Jesus who said, "Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No'.") is eisegetical. Jesus is speaking in the context of swearing. Of course I'm circular! I'm as circular as the laws of logic are logical! (At least I'm not a square.) I tried to answer this at the beginning of this post. When we say glorify we are speaking in relation to man's ignorance of all of God's glory. When we say demonstrate, we are speaking in relation to God who knows the fulness of his own glory. In my understanding, when God shows love, mercy, and compassion he is revealing his glory which consists of things like love, mercy, and compassion. The love, mercy, and compassion are glory– the "showing" of glory is "glorifying". God chose to glorifiy/show his glory = God chose to show his love, mercy, strength, etc. CONTINUED...
|
|
KCsr
Catechumen
Posts: 17
|
Post by KCsr on Mar 21, 2005 19:32:14 GMT -5
...CONTINUED
True, from your viewpoint, what I said cannot make sense. It can not fit into your paradigm. You assume that scripture does not state that God willed Adam to sin, and so you would never ask the question, "Why?" Which leaves you answering me with a question: "Why ask why?"
Saying God desired the suffering of his Son is also the same as saying God desired justice– a righteous judgment. Both statements of yours basically mean the same thing. This righteousness or justice is in itself God's glory. He desired his nature to be displayed. So absolutely, yes, God desired the suffering of his Son in that it displayed God's righteous justice (his glory) which is basically the same as saying God desired to demonstrate his glory. Paul says it this way: "Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness..." Of course God also desired the death of his Son because it displayed his other attributes, including love: "for God so loved the world that he gave his only son..." The giving of his Son is the act of love–or the display of his love–and love is the glory of God. For God, to love is to be God. To show his love is to show his glory. To will to show his love is to will to show his glory. For his people to experience that love it is to experience God. It is to experience his glory. So from our perspective we say God is willing to glorify himself in their eyes. He is willing that they experience the essence of God. The same goes for all his other attributes.
What you wrote here with my comments inserted: "He demonstrated the glory of His love [which means He revealed his glory to man]... But was God's self-glorification [which means the revelation of his glory to man] the motive, or simply the inevitable result of such a wondrous love [which if thought of as showing/revealing such love would mean revealing his glory to man] ?"
So when I read this it is hard to know what to answer. Like you earlier statement "glory at the expense of love" it is hard for me to make sense of it. To me it is saying, "He revealed his glory... but was revealing his glory the motive, or simply the result of revealing his glory?"
I can't see the forest for all the trees.
God reveals his glory to us, not in some intellectual assent to a systematic structure, but through a living covenantal bond and experiential love, knowledge, power, justice, grace, etc. by the Spirit through the word. We experience the glory of God's attributes through grace. Whatever is freely bestowed on us is graciously bestowed. Does God love us freely? Yes, love is grace. Does God choose us freely? Yes, election is grace. Does God sanctify us freely? Yes, sanctification is grace. Does God redeem us freely? Yes, redemption is grace. I could go on and on. And what is the reason that he gives us this grace upon grace? Well his gracious nature is obviously not separate from his nature (I know it sounds silly to state the obvious like that!). It was his will that we experience his glorious nature! We experience his love, his strength, his wisdom, his justice. All these things we receive through grace (they can be categorized under grace, being freely shown by God) and this grace that encompasses God's attributes toward us is his glory. In willing to show any of them to us so that we may experience them, God is willing to show us his glory so that we can experience the joy of his glory (I.e. He shows us love and we experience his love).
Notice in the following passage (elow this paragraph) how Paul includes all these things–election, sanctification, love, adoption, redemption, forgiveness, wisdom, the revelation of his mysterious will, the inheritance, the Holy Spirit–as given to us by means of the kind intention of his will (no "dispassionate" decree here. It is of his kindness) and are all means to this end: "to the praise of the glory of his grace... according to His purpose who works all things (all things?!) after the counsel of His will to the end that we... would be to the praise of his glory... with a view to the redemption... to the praise of His glory..." This shows us that even the love we experience will all the other attributes we experience is a means to this end: God's glory. But they are not separate from this end! They are not just means... they are his very glory! He freely bestows the light of his glory on us in his beloved son to the praise of his glory. Read the passage:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us in all wisdom and insight. He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God's own possession, to the praise of His glory."
CONTINUED...
|
|
KCsr
Catechumen
Posts: 17
|
Post by KCsr on Mar 21, 2005 19:32:43 GMT -5
CONTINUED... First off, we are made in the image of God and not the other way around. It is wrong for a man to have pride because he is a creature. What makes pride wrong is that man is not self-sufficient or self-powerful or whatever. He is not the "I AM". In him we live and move and have our being. What about God's reply to Job–"I did this by my strength, I did that by my strength. You didn't." God claims this. God boasts, God glories in his strength and wisdom. When man has pride he is claiming to be God. But how could it be beneath God to claim to be God?! Notice in Isaiah 10 why it is that pride is wrong. It is because nothing man does is by his own strength, but God's. In his righteous justice God wills that the Assyrians punish Israel by robbing them, taking some as slaves, and killing others (God is not sinning here by willing this, all goods and people are his to do with as he pleases. The intent of God is good in willing this, but the intent of the Assyrian is sin). Notice why the Assyrian's pride is sin. He says things like, "By the strength of my hand... I have robbed their treasuries" and God corrects their pride by claiming the glory for himself. The correction for sinful pride is to glorify God as he glorifies himself: “Woe to Assyria... I will send him against an ungodly nation... To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets. Yet he does not mean so, Nor does his heart think so; But it is in his heart to destroy... Therefore it shall come to pass, when the Lord has performed all His work... He will say, 'I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his haughty looks.' For he says: 'By the strength of my hand I have done it, And by my wisdom, for I am prudent; Also I have removed the boundaries of the people, And have robbed their treasuries...' Shall the ax boast itself against him who chops with it? Or shall the saw exalt itself against him who saws with it? As if a rod could wield itself against those who lift it up, Or as if a staff could lift up, as if it were not wood! Therefore the Lord, the Lord of hosts...will burn and devour His thorns and his briers in one day. And it will consume the glory of his forest and of his fruitful field, Both soul and body..." Secondly, as the Ephesians passage I used earlier shows, this redemption is a means to the end that he be glorified by his grace. We could look up other passages as well which give God's motive as glorifying his attributes. Here is one, for instance, which says his motive was to reveal his glorious righteousness which also shows that your comment ("Are we then to say that God desired the suffering of His Son so that He could demonstrate His glory? Such an assumption would befit the arrogance of man") is incorrect: "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness..." Thirdly, if it is true that it is truly arrogant and below God that his works and actions are by motivated by his will to use his glory, then it would be infinitely more arrogant and below us creatures to be motivated to love and obey by our will to glorify God. Yet what does scripture teach in regards to our motives? What should our primary motive be in loving God and our neighbor? "...whatever you do, do all to the glory of God" (1Cor 10:31). Why is it righteous for us to have this motive but not righteousness to God? Is there some righteous standard that exists outside of God's nature? We are to reflect the attributes of God in all that we do. Not by our strength, but God reveals them in and through us by his strength. And so by this, all that we do is to his glory. We reflect him. It is God's nature to be God. It is his nature to be glorious and shine forth glory. It is his nature to love, and be wise, and strong, and just. Scripture calls him, "the God of glory." If this is arrogance, than praise be to God for his arrogance! For we will enjoy the blessings of the His wonderfully gracious, glorious arrogance for eternity. Sorry for making this post so ridiculously long! And again forgive me for it having a negative tone... I feel comfortable speaking in this way among brothers because of the huge amount of unity we have, and I am not afraid of losing my brothers and sisters in Christ (who in Christ cannot be lost), and I am not afraid of being corrected if I am completely off in my understanding here. God bless! CaseySr.
|
|
KCsr
Catechumen
Posts: 17
|
Post by KCsr on Mar 22, 2005 2:17:14 GMT -5
Note: I updated my my second to last post because upon re-reading it I realized that I did not adequately explain what I was thinking and it was rather confusing. I updated that post so please re-read that part if you previously read it and were confused. Thanks!
CaseySr.
|
|