I maintain that the Bible is only part of a progressive revelation of the goodness of God, and that those violent acts attributed to Him are contrary to the true nature of God—in spite of the Bible stating otherwise.
Eaglesway (directly above) writes that he believes God can indeed be violent, noting that
Also, to further support the position that God uses violence, Eaglesway highlights Romans 13:4-5:
The general consensus is that Paul authored Romans. How should we best interpret this discussion of Paul? Again, I point to the writings of my favorite author, Richard Murray. From an essay titled, “How Do We Tell The Difference Between Paul’s ‘Philosophy And Paul’s ‘Revelation’?” I offer a few relevant quotes from Murray:
On this topic of God’s nonviolent nature, probably you have read or seen The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe? If so, you doubtless remember Aslan giving up his life on the Stone Table in order to rescue Edmund from the White Witch.
Question: which major theory of the atonement is C.S. Lewis depicting in that story?
[As a quick and dirty review—[b]The Two Major Theories of The Atonement:
[size=125]1) The Ransom Theory[/size]
<1000 AD
-Started with Early Church (Patristic)
-One subtype (as an adaptation/clarification): Christus Victor Theory of Gustaf Aulén, c. 1931
[size=125]= God sends Jesus to rescue us FROM THE DEVIL[/size]
One subtype (as an adaptation/clarification): Penal Substitution Theory, developed under the Protestant Reformers
[size=125]= Jesus offers himself to rescue us FROM GOD ][/size]
What happened is that yesterday I was reading an interesting blog called “Experimental Theology,” and the author (Richard Beck) said,
Beck goes on to discuss the Christus Victor theory of the Atonement, (a subtype of Ransom Theory) and says “…It points to a key theological insight: the non-violence of God.” Amen!
Other Quotes from Beck:
Btw, in Spanish, the Ransom Theory (Aslan’s atonement, if you will), is called “La Teoría del Rescate.” The Spanish word for ransom, rescate, is the very same word used for “rescue.” So it can also be translated “The Rescue Theory” of the Atonement.
I am making the point (in my comment above) that the Ransom Theory of Atonement is consistent with a nonviolent God, whereas Calvin’s Penal Substitution Theory is not. I quote from a blog discussion about Aslan’s death on the Stone Table in Lewis’s *The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe, * whose author maintains that Aslan’s atonement story is consonant with the Ransom/Christus Victor Theory of Atonement.
Are you agreeing about this, or disagreeing? Your comment is only that *‘Eastern Orthodoxy teaches the Recapitulation Theory.’ *
Btw, here is a quote from the entry on Christus Victor at Theopedia.com indicating Recapitulation Theory is compatible with Christus Victor:
I definitely agree with the Eastern Orthodox theological position on atonement (as well as some of their other theological positions). Regardless if you label it “Ransom” or “Christus Victor” or "recapitulation” view. If I remember correctly, the anti-baptists also take the Ransom theory view. I guess I should have explicitly stated it. But things in my signature, like Anglo-Orthodox + Theosis and Holy Fool - should imply it.
-Have you read The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe?
-Do you agree with the blog author, Richard Beck, that Aslan’s atonement is in line with the Ransom Theory?
-Do you agree that God is nonviolent?
I have not read The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe
-I have not read the blog author, Richard Beck,. So I have no informed opinion on whether that Aslan’s atonement is in line with the Ransom Theory.
Violence and non-violence are man made categories and God transcends both of these categories. We must first define and elaborate on what we mean by “violent” and “non-violent” And then figure out how and why, we are applying these categories to God. Which I would need time to review all that is said - in this thread. And I currently don’t have time to devote to that task. So I will defer further comment, until events in my life - provide me with that time (much like the defense or prosecution, asking the judge for time, to “review the evidence”).
I have been carefully studying the current US political candidates. So I’m learning how to carefully craft my forum answers.
Time to work on my new “super duper espresso machine.”
I don’t like to say that the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or some Protestant position of the atonement - is right or wrong. I would rather say that one might be a little bit more coherent than another. For the most part, most Protestant church bodies inherited and kept the position of the Roman Catholic Church - regarding the atonement. Eastern Orthodoxy looks at original sin differently. Hence, the different position on the atonement. Rather then inheriting the guilt of original sin - we inherit the stain. There is a very subtle - but important - distinction there. Let me quote here from Evangelical Inclusivism; Recovering the Position of the ‘Church Fathers’…::
Have you seen these crazy headlines in the last 48 hours? :
-“Orlando massacre blamed on Christians”
-“Orlando: Christianity and Islam are Not Different”
-“Here’s how right-wing Christians share the blame for the massacre in Orlando”
-“Before You Bash the Quran, Make Sure You Know How Violent the Bible Is”
So, what is the best way to fight Muslim radicals? My family has served America in war since the War of Independence. Right now I have a close family member in Special Forces who has continuously been in combat, back and forth between Iraq and Afghanistan (other than training and R & R), for the last ten years (!)
I am proud of him, and my family history, but there is a better way for us Christians.
-May we really get the revelation of God’s nonviolence. As A.W. Tozer said, “We tend by a secret law of the soul to move toward our mental image of God.”
-May we really get that “Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Eph. 6.
And that “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds.” 2 Cor. 10.
As Larry Norman asked in his song, “Do you really think the only way to bring about the peace is to sacrifice your children and kill all your enemies?”
It is quite true that violence is advocated in the Old Testament, supposedly by God. However, at no time did Jesus, the Son of God, or his apostles ever advocate violence.
Another important factor in all of this is that modern Christians and Jews don’t go around trying to force their religion on people through violence, as modern Muslim extremists do.
Just some footnotes here. Muslims look upon Mohammad as the perfect example. Very much like Christians look to Christ and Buddhists to Buddha. But there are some differences.
As Christians, we obtain our view of how Christ lived and acted from the bible Alone. It’s not true of the Koran. So we have to look at Sharia law . Wiki defines it this way:
Muslims get the way Mohammad lived and acted, from the Hadiths. Which is the basis for Sharia law. Wiki defines it this way:
Unfortunately, with Mohammad, we run into what I call the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde aspects. In the Mecca or Dr. Jekyll aspect, Mohammad is very kind, generous, etc. In the Medina or Mr. Hyde aspect, he was a ruthless and cunning military leader. And he did weasel out of packs and deals he made with Jews, Christians, pagans, etc.
So whom do Muslims look to - Dr. Jekyll aspect in Mecca? Or the Mr. Hyde aspect in Medina?
ISIS likes the Mr. Hyde aspect. Moderate Muslims like the Mecca aspect, which they try to officially promote. And Moderates are at a loss, on what to do with the Mr. Hyde aspect.
But I believe God is only about LIFE. Adam and Eve (and editor Moses) saw God through a wrathful filter, listening to lies about Him, especially after The Fall. (We have, too.)
For example, God was going for his afternoon walk in the Garden and they hid from Him, because they felt ashamed. “Who told you that you were naked?,” He asked them.
More to the point, Genesis 6 says that the LORD regretted making humans, and decided to “wipe from the face of the earth” almost the entire human race. (I don’t think God’s omniscience allows Him to be “surprised” or “disappointed” or “regretful.” He is just “Daddy” to those who receive His wavelength in Christ.)
By distinguishing inspiration from inerrancy, and by seeing the truth of “progressive revelation,” when we read Hebrews 2:14 (“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—”), we can now see it is actually Satan who has the power of death, not God. We can believe it is plausible that although God did warn Noah about the coming Flood, He did NOT send the Flood, nor want the Flood. (We don’t have to go farther than Noah’s worldwide Flood to battle this out in our thinking.)
I know you have actually read the Murray article, and that takes real effort! I know you are struggling with this, but I believe that your “cognitive dissonance” will be resolved by the revelation that God is unipolar, even though most Christians don’t see it yet.
You recognize the historicity of the Scriptures. So let me give you more food for thought from another thread:
PS I think Dr. Brown taught my brother Physics at the Air Force Academy many years ago.
There is indeed a real devil. Demons are real people, and need to be confronted and cast out.
Here is an excerpt from one police officer, Sheriff David Clarke, regarding this tragic incident, and “the irresponsible use of words" :
As to the responsible use of words, consider this verse:
**
Matthew 16:19.**
Blessings. PS re. President Obama—we are to pray and give thanks for “All those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.” 1 Tim. 2.
Today at World Net Daily, there is a column titled,“Fair-Weather Followers: Greg Laurie looks to Scripture to describe people who are not true believers.”
Greg Laurie is a pastor in the Calvary Chapel affiliation, and although I myself was involved with Calvary Chapel for some years, I now disagree with Laurie’s general tone—that is, focusing on what we need to do, vs. what Jesus has already done.
More specifically, I would like to draw your attention to one person’s comment posted at the bottom of that column, and my response to his (“C Harm’s”) comment.
I offer you this exchange because I want to point people here at The Evangelical Universalist to GRACE TEACHINGS. I submit that “grace teachings” reveal the true nature of God, and help lead people to the acceptance of Evangelical Universalism.
Yes, Thomas Aquinas and Augustine both held that view. But the concept that “God is total control and predestination” is contradictory to “free will” in the sense of “the ability to choose.” In their paradigm,one doesn’t have the ability to choose, but rather God prompts one to “choose” since He has complete control of every event that takes place. So your choice doesn’t originate with you, but from God. So Aquinas et al. have to say that God permits evil in order to fulfill some deeper purpose. As I see it, this makes God the author of evil.
I think the ability to choose is one of the ways in which man was created in the image of God. Like God, man’s choices originate with himself, and God seldom interferes with those choices. God, who is pure LOVE, does not cause evil in order to fulfill some mystical, deeper purpose, never revealing what that deeper purpose is. Rather He seldom interferes with MAN’S working of evil. Those evil acts originate with man himself and not from God, for God wants people, of their own free wills, to come under His authority, and He patiently waits for this to happen. Eventually all people will do so.
Today, after reading an essay at WND.com (an online evangelical news agency), I felt compelled to respond in the Comments Section. The essay is titled, *“Epic poem immortalized hideous Muslim atrocities: Bill Federer remembers France’s most famous author, poet,” * and here was my response to the author, in which I reference my own essay on God’s nonviolent nature:
