|
Post by christopher on Nov 14, 2010 23:03:12 GMT -8
OK, so make it undeniable for me. You'll have to do better than the scriptures you provided because you already know what my answer will be.
It's too late for me to give a thorough response right now, but I will say you're making a lot of leaps and assumptions about things I've never asserted (unpack that ;D).
|
|
|
Post by robin on Nov 15, 2010 9:19:24 GMT -8
Just a few references to God being at war: Exodus 14:14 The LORD will fight for you; you need only to be still. Exodus 14:25 He jammed the wheels of their chariots so that they had difficulty driving. And the Egyptians said, “Let’s get away from the Israelites! The LORD is fighting for them against Egypt.” Zechariah 14:3 Then the LORD will go out and fight against those nations, as he fights on a day of battle. These scriptures seem to be describing God's Willingness to fight in battles that His people are engaged in, if we will allow. But in the end they are Man's battles, and God fights on man's behalf. The only exception I see id the Zechariah quote. I'm not quite sure how the fits into the discussion, in it's context. I'm a little reluctant to have a single sentence extracted from a rather large prophecy in order to make a point. Perhaps you could expand your thoughts on the particular quote?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 15, 2010 11:22:57 GMT -8
The war against the enemy need not be exclusively God's war for God to be at war. If God fights for us, it is taken for granted that he is at war. Is the binding of the strong man an act of war? Were Jesus' exorcisms an act of war? Then, of course, we have it stated overtly that there is a war not solely involving humanity: Rev. 12:7-9 Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him. Chris, please point out where I'm assuming things about your position. I'm actually unsure of your position*- that's why I used words like "it seems like", etc.. *made a bit more difficult to ascertain by your willingness to change theological hats, which, of course, is great, but a bit confusing to argue with
|
|
|
Post by robin on Nov 15, 2010 13:58:49 GMT -8
Yes. In fact it was Perelandra that had never fallen.
By the way, I'm a fan of many theologians and authors, including Boyd. But simply attaching his, or another name, to an idea wont convert me. I still need to be convinced by relevant arguments. On this subject I have heard both sides, to some extent, and I have been convinced by (guess who?) Steve Gregg, and his view of the topic. In the end I don't think we can absolve God of His responsibility in the existence of evil. He created the conditions or chose to allow those conditions to be present prior to the fall when he could have prevented those conditions. I just don't see any way around this.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 15, 2010 17:40:07 GMT -8
. By the way, I'm a fan of many theologians and authors, including Boyd. But simply attaching his, or another name, to an idea wont convert me. I still need to be convinced by relevant arguments. Of course I know this Robin. I was teasing you. But I really think his logic in this book might change your opinion on a least a few things as it seems to be doing on mine. I'm still not finished with the book and he's promising to clear up some red flags I've had before the end of it, so I'm waiting. I should also note that this book is just part 1 of a two part exposition. Part 2 is entitled Satan & the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy and Boyd's goal is really to substantially vindicate God in regard to the origin of evil. I was just thinking based on the responses from you and Chris that perhaps there is a way to get past one hang up we seem to be having, which is over whether God is "responsible for evil". I've been trying to argue with Chris along the lines of "God is responsible for creating the possibility of evil but not evil itself" but he doesn't think the distinction works. How about this way of thinking? Is God less "responsible" for the Holocaust than Hitler is? What would you guys say to that?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 15, 2010 21:09:03 GMT -8
The problem of evil and the problem of pain are big ones and they’re certainly not going to be settled in this forum. Now, you asked: Well, first, I’ve never taken a position on this topic…remember? Only playing “devil’s advocate” (so to speak ;D). I personally think the evidence for Satan’s origins is too ambiguous to be overly confident one way or another. Second, you keep lumping together Satan and demons and using the passages about demons to make your point about Satan. That’s a leap. Satan can be the “ruler of demons” the same way he is the “ruler of this world”. That is, as far as he is able to coerce other beings to do his bidding, he is their ruler. But that doesn’t necessitate Satan being the same kind of thing as demons. Demons could be the angels that sinned spoken of in 2 Peter and Jude. We really don’t know. But that doesn’t automatically carry over to Satan. We have little information on what kind of being he is. I think it’s entirely possible that God created one tester (Satan) who has managed to muster quite the following of both angelic beings as well as men (kind of like Sauron and Saruman). If Satan was the original “tester”, than the rest of them are merely corrupted by him. To the war thing I will say this. My premise is that God is not at war with Satan and demons if He has the power to extinguish them at any moment. That’s not really war in my mind. That would be like me saying I got in a “fist fight” with Zachary the other day*. Where there’s no contest, there’s no war. That is not to say that God’s people aren’t in a war with principalities and powers, they are. And it could be said that God is routing for us. And that’s really what His war is all about. It’s against sin. It’s against the propensity of His people to side with the enemy. It’s a much more formidable opponent for God, because he wrestles against our free will. It’s almost like He has to condition us to side with Him against our nature. And I think that may be where Satan comes in handy for Him. Without a test of strength, there’s no measure to encourage getting stronger. Without something to resist, choosing God is cheap and meaningless. Until all evil is overcome, and swallowed up in victory, there would always be the potential for it. That’s why, like Robin, I think the fall was not only inevitable, but planned. Does that mean that God created evil? No, I don’t think evil is a thing in itself, but rather the absence or corruption of good. Like you, I believe that God created a universe that had the potential of corruption. But I don’t think He had any hopes that it never would be. Come on, give Him more credit than being caught off guard by the fall. I think the restored creation will be much better than the original and incorruptible because of the journey getting there. And I think that’s what God had in mind from day 1. Whether God created Satan just as he is, or whether Satan rebelled and became the tester is really of little matter IMO. The unavoidable truth is that he is a tempter, and God chooses to keep him around for some reason. *Zach, by the way, would be a much more formidable foe to me than Satan is to God.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 15, 2010 21:15:56 GMT -8
Responsible to who? Us?
If I leave my gun laying around and Zach picks it up and shoots Jonathan, who's the most responsible for that? I didn't put it in his mind or make his decision for him, but who do you think goes to jail?
Can't we see past Hitler and see things more eternally?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 15, 2010 22:08:08 GMT -8
So I guess not...
So, if I was diagnosed with cancer and I held God responsible for it, would you agree with me? If someone murdered my children, would you tell me that God was responsible for it?
As to God "rooting for us"- it seems you'd have to go at least a bit futher than that since Scripture does unquestionably say he "fights for us".
He can be part of the fight if He has self-limitations, can't He? And one of the self-limitations can be his respect for human free will.
On a tangental note, do you agree that angels and demons* war against each other?
*or satan or spiritual forces of wickness or fallen angels or any or all of these categories
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 16, 2010 17:42:49 GMT -8
Again, I would ask responsible to who? It seems that, implied in your question is that you have some sort of right to life. Why should we assume that our life is our own? How did we come to own it? My understanding is that God owns all life and if He chooses to end one (or even allow one to end), He doesn't owe anyone an explanation. What is all this "responsibility" stuff?
I never said God doesn't fight for people, that's not my assertion. I'm saying that I don't think His war is with principalities and powers. That's our war.
By the way, scripture also unquestionably says that God has fought against His people at times as well. It just depends on what His purpose is.
Sure. Why?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 16, 2010 18:09:04 GMT -8
First off, weren't you invoking "responsibility" (and it corrolary, who to blame, in your analogy about Zachary above???
But anyway, if you like, substitute the term causal agent for responsible if you like.
Is God the/ a causal agent for someone getting cancer?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 16, 2010 20:43:02 GMT -8
Is the war in Afghanistan our war? We are fighting for some Afghanis against other Afghanis, but it is still our war.
What would be problematic about saying the cosmic struggle is God's war as well as ours?
I think Joshua 6 is revelent here:
Joshua 6:13-14 Now when Joshua was near Jericho, he looked up and saw a man standing in front of him with a drawn sword in his hand. Joshua went up to him and asked, “Are you for us or for our enemies?” “Neither,” he replied, “but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come.” Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, “What message does my Lord have for his servant?”
Here we have some relevant information; God has his own army and his own military agenda independent* from the Israelites.
*though obviously with the potential to overlap
Chris- it's not nearly as important to me to precisely identify what kind of creature satan is. I don't think it's crucial whether he should technically be considered a demon or fallen angel or what have you. What I think is important is that he be seen as 1) evil and 2) the enemy of God and His people.
It seems like you probably agree with both premises since you used the terms corrupted.
What I don't think Scripture allows is for us to see Satan as a non-evil servant of God who is not in rebellion against Him.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 16, 2010 22:08:46 GMT -8
Responsibility works fine for me, because I am accountable to someone. God, on the other hand, isn't accountable to anyone.
Of course he is. He's the first cause...making Him the causal agent of all things.
Now, you already know that I don't believe God ordains all things.
I believe in free will and things that "never crossed God's mind".
So to say that God causes cancer would have to land in the eye of the beholder. I would say no, on my level. I think a corrupted, fallen, and degenerated world has natural consequences.
What can't be denied though, is that God chooses to intervene in some cases, and not in others. Evil happens, and it's not beyond God's control. Therefore, I conclude, He has a purpose for it and He's not at it's mercy.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 16, 2010 22:32:55 GMT -8
No, the war in Afghanistan could be easily be won tomorrow. We are at war with an ideology. It's the war on Terror, not Afghanis, remember? But either way, it's not the same because we are not God. I don't know what you think is "relevant" about this passage. Notice he said He's not on either side? Also, the Lord has many armies, including an army of locusts send to judge His people. Joel 2:25 25 "So I will restore to you the years that the swarming locust has eaten, The crawling locust, The consuming locust, And the chewing locust, My great army which I sent among you. NKJV Well, he is evil for sure. I don't think anyone is disputing that. Is he in rebellion to God? Or is he doing what he was created to do? I think that still remains the question on the table doesn't it?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 17, 2010 7:33:56 GMT -8
I made an error here. It wasn't your Zachary analogy. It was your analogy of the "armed cop", which you did intend as a statement that God would be responsible for letting someone die on his dime if He didn't intervene. Didn't you?
Would you say that satan is God's "enemy"?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 17, 2010 11:15:50 GMT -8
Quote: I don't know what you think is "relevant" about this passage. Notice he said He's not on either side? Also, the Lord has many armies, including an army of locusts send to judge His people.
The Joshua 6 passage is relevant because it reveals that God has, in effect, a standing army with its own agenda, which may wage war on its own prerogatives independent of mens. What is it's prerogative? To wage war against evil- whether that evil be outside Israel or within Israel.
To make a further point I need to know if in your view angels have free will. What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 17, 2010 16:02:11 GMT -8
Right, I did. But I also said it was a weak analogy. It breaks down on the responsibility part because the cop is not God. The point of that was to say that it's conceivable for God to have a purpose for devilish things to happen.
Would I say the devil is God's "enemy"? Well, I certainly think he's our enemy. But I don't think it's even been established that he is a free moral agent yet. What if he's more like a robot programmed to do what he does? Can he truly be an enemy of his Creator then? Isn't that kind of what this debate is all about?
If so, he doesn't get an "atta boy" for tempting, but neither does he suffer eternal torment. He just gets discarded when God is done with him.
It's a plausible view.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 17, 2010 16:09:00 GMT -8
So, how does it reveal that God has some sort of "standing army"? Does he also have a standing army of locusts based on the passage I cited? Why can't the passage be metaphorical and situational? I mean, you might be right, but it seems to me that you have to read in some presuppositions to conclude what you're saying.
Do angels have free will? I think they do if there are some that have sinned.
Ok, hit me.
|
|