|
Post by robin on Nov 19, 2010 9:26:49 GMT -8
Unlike Chris I'm still not quite ready to jump on board and concede the point. I still want some clarification.
Is it your view that because we read in 1 John 3:8 that the devil "sinned from the beginning" that logically we should conclude that he had the freedom to either sin or not sin? In other words, if the devil had no choice in the matter it would be unfair to attach such a negative term to him. Would you say that deceiving someone is only a sin if it was done freely?
On the other side of the coin would you also say that it would be unfair to describe someone as righteous if they were not able to sin? Even though God, by His nature, cannot sin or even be in the presence of sin (Hab 1:13 & 2 Cor 5:21), we still describe God a righteous even though He can do nothing that is not righteous.
I still think it is fair to describe the devil and his acts as sinful, Even if he has no freedoom to do otherwise, because the nature of those acts are sinful. Stealing is sinful not only because the thief has acted freely, but because an injustice has been done to the person who was victimized.
I can see how your argument gives credibility to your view, but I don't see it as the open and shut case that you see it as.
I have to run now.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 21, 2010 19:18:14 GMT -8
First off, let me say that I'm shy of "open and shut" case. I just think that on the preponderance of the evidence, the idea that satan was originally good and then fell into sin is a lot more compelling when logical arugment and the totality of Scripture are brought to bear on the subject.
Yes and yes.
No I don't think it's unfair or a double standard because this is an issue of blame (it would be wrong for God to blame a creature that had no choice). Where there is sin, there is blame (moral culpability). It would not be wrong for God to be pleased with something that had no moral choice (such as an animal), because righteousness is, arguably, the natural state of all of God's creatures.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Nov 22, 2010 9:27:27 GMT -8
I like the explanation, but I still have a problem with this statement.
"Where there is sin, there is blame (moral culpability)."
Sin is a word we use to describe an action, and sinner is a word we use to describe a person who carries out those actions, right? In regards to Satan, if he was created as he is today (a sinner), why would it be unfair to describe is actions as sinning? Let's just assume that I'm correct. How would you describe his actions when he lies about the character God, or even murders (as the bible said he does)? Would you still call that murder a sin, and if not how would you describe it?
I'm just not convinced that sinning requires us to assume that there was freedom not to sin . Also, I cant agree with your last paragraph. However I will say that it is fair to assume blame when we are talking about free beings.
I want to make this clear. I have no Problem with calling God righteous. In fact, I can't think of any better work to describe Him. I also have no problem calling Satan a sinner or a murderer, even if he is not free. I just think were reading about what Satan does, and it is not clear to me that we can conclude from the scriptures available to us that Satan was free not to sin.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 23, 2010 15:57:16 GMT -8
I hope to respond to your last post, Robin, but in the meantime a bit more from God at War. The following isn't intended to put forward a new argument but just to give you Boyd's take on this subject in his own words:
"There is never any suggestion (in Scripture)...that God has some "higher" good purpose behind or above this cosmic evil, as though Satan and his legions were secretly carrying out God's will. From the Gospels' perspective, all talk about finding "the sovereign will of God" above or behind the atrocities of the world is utterly misguided. Their view was, in the words of Karl Heim, that "the satanic power is God's mortal enemy, that is to say not merely an intermediate stage on the way to a divine end of the world but a radical evil agent against which a total war must be waged.
Satan, therefore, was not for them an agent of God, but the enemy against God. Despite volumes of learned classical-philosophical theistic writings attempting to argue the contrary, these two offices are simply not compatible. As Howard Pendley inquires, "If Satan's activity is part of God's plan, how can it be said that Satan is God's enemy?" Yet the assumption that he is God's enemy runs throughout the whole New Testament. Hence all who hold this inspired library to be authoritative ought to abandon the impossible claim that he is also God's "secret" agent, or (what is the same thing) that God is his "secret" controller"
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 23, 2010 18:27:27 GMT -8
I don't know. Boyd seems to have a very low view of the power of God and a high view of the power of Satan. Think about it, he's been fighting this enemy for at least thousands of years (depending on your YEC/OEC theology ) and still hasn't won the war. Couple this with Open theology, and how can Boyd (or God Himself for that matter) be sure He will ultimately win? The assertion that God is at war with Satan is inconceivable to me.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 23, 2010 19:43:30 GMT -8
So far, Boyd hasn't really explained what he believes to be God's self-limitations in this war. He has stated that this is not dualism- that God is superior and more than "up to the task" of taking on satan. He seems to see Boyd as omnipotent but as self-limiting but how it's not clear yet. I have one chapter left so I'm curious if he gets into that in this book or the sequel.
He does a good job all things considered making his case that God is at war despite the implications of that theory.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 23, 2010 19:49:43 GMT -8
I'm unclear. Who sees Boyd as omnipotent? Boyd himself or God?
SO, now we get to the real thrust of the book....to deify Greg Boyd. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 23, 2010 20:30:12 GMT -8
1 Thess. 2:18
For we wanted to come to you—certainly I, Paul, did, again and again—but Satan blocked our way.
Here's a interesting verse that leans in the direction that satan has real power not easily overcome even by servants of God. It also seems a strange action to attribute to a being who is merely God's instrument.
Note how Paul doesn't accept this blockage as being "God's will"- as he at least does when he accepts that God is allowing Satan to bring him his thorn in the flesh.
|
|
Michael
Intermediate Member
Posts: 68
|
Post by Michael on Nov 23, 2010 20:46:07 GMT -8
I'm unclear. Who sees Boyd as omnipotent? Boyd himself or God? SO, now we get to the real thrust of the book....to deify Greg Boyd. ;D I hold to the omnipotence of Boyd doctrine, myself. But I would personally stop short of deifying the man.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 23, 2010 20:47:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 23, 2010 21:33:35 GMT -8
Ok- I finished the book. It's available for you Robin or Chris. You guys can rochambeau it.
Two final thoughts/ excerpts from the last chapter:
1) 2 Cor. 6:14-15 seems to be yet another peice of potential evidence against the satan- as- god's agent view:
Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord [or agreement] has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?
2) Here are Boyd's (not God's, Boyd's) own words on his understanding of God's self-limitation in the war:
"From the perspective of the New Testament there is no possibility that the enemies of God shall escape this destiny [the lake of fire] God has ordained temporal parameters around the freedom of angelic and human creatures, just as God has ordained parameters around the scope of this freedom... Apparently out of respect for the gift of freedom he has given, God endures for a time the wrath of these destructive rebels. To do otherwise would undoubtedly render the gift of freedom disingenuous."
Chris wrote:
Chris, I don't think your argument here holds up because you agree that God has been "putting up" with humans for thousands of years and still hasn't decisively ended our evil rebellion. It's no different.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 23, 2010 22:14:33 GMT -8
Josh wrote:
I disagree. It's much different IMO. Ending our evil rebellion is not something God can exercise omnipotence over if we are free willed beings. It's something He has to convince us of. He has to win us over. Worship is the one thing God cannot make us do.
Conversely, taking Satan out would greatly reduce the temptation of man and you would think would better serve His cause....unless, of course, that convincing us to "end our rebellion" requires such a vigorous resistance conditioning as can only be provided by a very effective tempter.
The argument holds.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 23, 2010 22:20:37 GMT -8
I think this is an oversimplification. God's "instruments" are much more nuanced than that. Joseph's brothers were God's instruments and they didn't even know it. I think it's quite possible to say the same goes for Satan. What he "means for evil" God "means for good".
Now you're talkin'
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 23, 2010 22:22:26 GMT -8
Robin, you can have it. I'm in no hurry to read it.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Nov 23, 2010 22:34:45 GMT -8
Interesting theory, and as good as any other in the absence of clear biblical teaching on it. But since that theory is mere speculation, it puts it on the same level as other viable theories and leaves us back at square one. Here's my question though:
How does any of this change the war for us? Whether I believe God is using Satan, or "self-limiting" Himself by not taking him out, scripture is pretty clear about our part in the whole thing and that we don't need to speculate about.
So what is Boyd's main motivation here for his theories? I don't think I've gotten a clear picture of that from what you've posted so far.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 25, 2010 11:34:15 GMT -8
Prove it.
It's not "mere speculation". It's his thesis. His book is his attempt to back it up with evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Nov 25, 2010 11:40:55 GMT -8
His motivation is that Christians have often promoted a strange, unbiblical heartless view of God as one who deliberately brings evil our way and he is arguing that this damages our view of God which could potentially have far and wide consequences to our motivation to serve Him. If we doubt his goodness because of these things, then we cannot truly serve him with our whole hearts. The answer would be the same that you would give to a Calvinist about the practical reasons they shouldn't be a Calvinist- how Calvinism distorts their view of God and affects everything from there in some way or another.
|
|