The Evangelical Universalist Forum

God's responsibility in our soteriological confusion

:laughing:

Very funny, Akimel! :laughing:
I just read this from Peter Ennsā€™s blog earlier today:patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/02/its-not-every-day-jesus-comments-on-your-blog/ Some of the comments are quite humorous as well. Apparently at least two of the persons of the Trinity are using modern mediaā€¦ :smiley:

Itā€™s about time that the Holy Trinity caught up with modern technology. I guess this proves that those who conceive of God as a temporal being are correct. :wink:

Contradictions in the Bible:

  • on one hand genocidal commands
    the psalmist praying God to eliminate the children of his foes under an atrocious pain

-on the other hand: Ezechiel proclamation that children do not have to pay for the sins of their parents.
Jesus call to love our enemies.

Any harmonization I am aware of is extremely implausible and would be laughed at by Evangelical apologists if it concerned the Koran or any other non-Christian religious book.

My thinking is that the psalmist was faithfully recording his heartā€™s desire - not Godā€™s. There are a number of places - notably Psalm 137 - where, if we attribute the writerā€™s feelings to God, weā€™re falsely accusing God of those terrible emotions. In Ps. 137, the thirst for revenge cannot reasonably be attributed to the Father.

Hi Lotharson,

Yes, there are lots of problems with a fairly literal reading of the Bible. I know you are familiar with Peter Ennsā€™s work which I have been reading lately. I think if you read some of his books, you may find an acceptable explanation for the morally unacceptable passages in the Bible. Ennsā€™s reasoning will probably not be adequate to differentiate the OT from other ancient Near Eastern literature for a full-on skeptic, but for someone who accepts the reality of the truth of the death and resurrection of Christ (or is at least agnostic about it), I think it may be very helpful. I would suggest reading* Inspiration and Incarnation* and perhaps the* Evolution of Adam* after that.

Okay thanks for the recommendation.

You have made my endless stack of books a bit bigger :wink:

Cindy S: Regarding the freedom of Adam & Eve, I have been listening to WL Craigā€™s defense of Molinism. If youā€™re unfamiliar with that theology, it contends, that through Godā€™s Middle Knowledge (or knowledge of what would happen if an individual was placed in certain circumstances, as opposed to what could or would happen - if I have described the view adequately), we have genuine, libertarian free will, while at the same time, God is sovereign. Obviously, Calvinists are not satisfied with the view and think it is inherently contradictory; yet, since the Bible endorses both Godā€™s sovereignty and our freedom-to-choose, it would seem like something like Molinism, or compatiblism (as Jason P said), would be closest to the truth.

alecforbes: I believe in taking a leap-of-faith, but, at the same time, I believe that oneā€™s beliefs should be rationally defendable; otherwise, idolatry would be rampant. Univeralists are considered humanistic (in a pejorative sense) and unfaithful to the Word b/c the eventual salvation of all humanity is music to ā€œitching earsā€. I would like to be able to respond to my own doubts, as well as those of others, without advocating fideism. A non-universalist, esp. one steeped soteriology as most who are debating this issue are, needs rational reasons to be persuaded as much as anything, though I hope that isnā€™t undermining to faith. ā€œFaith seeking understandingā€ - what is the division of labor there?

I donā€™t think deism is philosophically unsustainable, or theologically. Natural theology, or general revelation, convinces us in the existence of God (or at least, convinces theists and deists :smiley: ) From there, it is an extra move to theism, though I agree with Jason P that Occam may be misapplied if it can be shown that natural theology is insufficient in its explanation. I guess I am on the fence, as, one the on hand, I absolutely see the need for a Redeemer and the miracle of the atonement, on the other, when our religions are so badly fragmented and divisive, it is hard for me to believe or reason that any one revealed religion or denomination has the monopoly (or even a significant portion) of the truth. However, I suppose, that logically (unless the fragments of the religions were perfect opposite puzzle pieces so to speak), one religion or denomination has to be closest to the truth, and universalism is, not to be crass, the best horse to bet on, since I feel it best reconciles the existence of God and the POE.

This is why Iā€™m charitable to the Koran or any other non-Christian religious book. :slight_smile:

(Also, I find it helps in evangelism to be respectful to the opposition, thus not to apply tactics against them that I wouldnā€™t accept against my positions.)

Lotharson -
You didnā€™t reply to my post above. It was very short so Iā€™ll just paste it here, since I would like to know your comments:

My thinking is that the psalmist was faithfully recording his heartā€™s desire - not Godā€™s. There are a number of places - notably Psalm 137 - where, if we attribute the writerā€™s feelings to God, weā€™re falsely accusing God of those terrible emotions. In Ps. 137, the thirst for revenge cannot reasonably be attributed to the Father.

What is so extremely implausible about that?

Thanks

An interesting take on the Garden and choice. From Jewishpathways.com. I think this is relevant to this discussion.

The Tree

Let us begin by describing the Tree, formally known as the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The word for knowledge, daā€™at, is used later to describe the marital union between Adam and Eve. Therefore an alternative translation might be: the Tree of Union Between Good and Evil.2

And this is the crux of the matter: When God created the world, He clearly defined right from wrong. All moral issues were objective and not subjective. There was one, obvious, absolute morality. True, one could choose to do the wrong thing, but that choice was clear.

Yet God did create one place of moral confusion: the Tree. Eating from the Tree would actually internalize a confusion between right and wrong. Avoiding this fate was Adam and Eveā€™s one mitzvah to observe. And were they to refrain from eating ā€“ i.e. from entering that state of confusion ā€“ the world would have reached its ultimate completion. Mankind would have been immortal; forever in Paradise.

The Tree had a tremendous alluring power, primarily in how it affected the senses: Eve first listens to the snakeā€™s seduction. She is then attracted to the look of the tree. She then takes the fruit in hand and tastes it. As the verses say: ā€œAnd when the woman saw that the tree wasā€¦ a delight to the eyesā€¦ she took of the fruit, and did eatā€¦ā€ (Genesis 3:6).

When Adam and Eve eat from the tree, it triggers a new modus operandi for the entire human experience: The senses become more powerful than the intellect. And because all sensory delights are by nature subjective, at this point manā€™s frame of reference becomes personal rather than universal. Thus each person feels empowered to decide for themselves between right and wrong, and moral confusion enters the world.

The entire essay is good reading and makes some good discussion points as well: jewishpathways.com/chumash-t ā€¦ arden-eden