Love, Justice, Wisdom, Power - the Resurrection

by xelder 55 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Deputy Dog

  Nark

  I'm speaking of those who steadily champion it with an odd (to me) zeal against more merciful perspectives, who even glorify it as a motive of gratitude, appreciation and praise.

  I probaly fit your discription, and I enjoy being saved, but I wouldn't use the word "enjoy", knowing many of my friends and family may not be saved.

  That's a strange question (and an even stranger example) coming from a Calvinist. Wouldn't God's freedom to save whomever he chooses, Calvin style, be even better illustrated if Hitler (or, say, some devout Protestant Nazi official, there have been so many) was saved, and the people he contributed to kill reproved? What has final condemnation to do with relative ethics (aka "works") in the Calvinist system? Everyone should be condemned, Hitler no more than Gandhi or Anne Frank, right?

  I see you ducked the question. "Isn't there someone (like Hitler) you think should be condemned?" I'm not questioning God, I trust Him. I'm asking you.
• 

  Narkissos

  DD,

  I didn't mean to "duck the question" at all. From the embracing, absolute perspective of final judgement (that's what we're talking about, not the Nurenberg trials!), no, I wouldn't want anybody condemned in the sense of ultimately rejected, cast out, lost, let alone subject to "eternal torment". Definitely not. Because that would be the very negation of redemption and reconciliation, which exceed politics and ethics.

  I can better relate to Barth's reinterpretation of Calvin: everyone is elect and saved in Christ, just as s/he is reproved and lost in Adam. The "demarcation line" isn't drawn between but within people. More generally, a judgement which would assess what everything is worth, rather than everyone, would be most interesting.

  Now you did duck my questions... ;)
• 

  Perry

  Good points on this thread.

  Joseph Malik and to a lesser degree Narkissos...please use paragraghs.

  For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all......That's an example of what I called the "universalistic horizon".)

  Of course it is if you take it out of context.

  Just as a side note, the modern versions based on Wescott and Hort have a nasty habit of changing God's word of belief and unbelief into obedience and disobedience. In other words "God concluded them all in unbelief"...not "imprisoned them all in disobedience." Big difference. Best to stick with the Majority Text - Authorized Version, especially when distilling doctrine.

  Based on the immediately previous contextual uses of the word "mercy" ...."all" must mean all peoples, Jew and non-Jew... and not all in the sense of every single person.

  Romans 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
  Romans 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.
  Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
  Romans 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
  Romans 11:30 For as ° ye in times past have not believed God, yet have now obtained mercy through their unbelief:
  Romans 11:31 Even so have these also now not believed, that through your mercy they also may obtain mercy.
  Romans 11:32 For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

  Paul later supports this view of (all peoples) here:

  Romans 15:9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.

  A dozen scriptures come to mind right off the top of my head disproving universalism. It is simply not taught.
• 

  Perry

  Because that would be the very negation of redemption and reconciliation, which exceed politics and ethics.

  Separation doesn't negate the terms of redemption and reconciliation, it defines them. Without eternal separation for some, the terms redemption and reconciliation are meaningless.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Nark

  ...I wouldn't want anybody condemned in the sense of ultimately rejected, cast out, lost, let alone subject to "eternal torment".

  Well, I'll give you some credit for trying, but... Wow! You scare me. If you think that simple death would be ultimate justice for killing millions of people. Now, that is beyond me. I believe I deserve "eternal torment". If that sounds harsh, remember, those in hell would continue to sin eternally, so it's not like they are going there for one little "mistake".

  Now you did duck my questions... ;)

  OK I guess that's fair.

  Wouldn't God's freedom to save whomever he chooses, Calvin style, be even better illustrated if Hitler (or, say, some devout Protestant Nazi official, there have been so many) was saved, and the people he contributed to kill reproved?

  Something like that may well have happenned, and if I had all knowledge or was God, I would be in a better position to judge or to give you a better answer.

  What has final condemnation to do with relative ethics (aka "works") in the Calvinist system? Everyone should be condemned, Hitler no more than Gandhi or Anne Frank, right?

  I think even Calvin believed in degrees of punishment in hell.

  I can better relate to Barth's reinterpretation of Calvin: everyone is elect and saved in Christ, just as s/he is reproved and lost in Adam. The "demarcation line" isn't drawn between but within people. More generally, a judgement which would assess what everything is worth, rather than everyone, would be most interesting.

  I guess it may be interesting (humanly speaking), but how is judging/punishing a thing, any form of justice? Hitler, for example, escapes the wrath of God, while treading on the blood of Christ.
• 

  Narkissos

  I come back here from Sad Emo's thread which is, after all, about the same general topic, only from a subjective standpoint which I find most interesting and do not want to hijack with "objective" theological considerations.

  Another essential aspect of Barth's post-Calvinist soteriology which I forgot to mention is the following: Christ is not only the one ultimate Elect in whom all are elect (i.e. justified and saved).He is also the one ultimate Reprobate in whom all are reprobate (i.e. judged and condemned). Or, more exactly, penultimate inasmuch as God's "No" in Christ is his "second" and "next-to-last word" as it were. The first and last word being "Yes" according to Barth's understanding of supralapsarianism (God's decree of Redemption precedes the decree of Fall). What probably comes closer to that view in the NT is the (Pauline? Marcionite?) doctrine of Galatians (3:13): "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming curse for us."

  Whence Barth's criticism of Calvin's doctrine of double predestination: if God's negative "decrees" (of Fall and reprobation) are considered apart from Christ as God's one and only revelation they actually rest on nothing -- except a "purely human" deduction by binary logic Aristotle-style.

  But if divine judgement is totally fulfilled in Christ, as redemption is, there is no room for anyone to be left outside. All find their judgement in Christ -- and their salvation as well.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  Nark

  Whence Barth's criticism of Calvin's doctrine of double predestination: if God's negative "decrees" (of Fall and reprobation) are considered apart from Christ as God's one and only revelation they actually rest on nothing -- except a "purely human" deduction by binary logic Aristotle-style.

  So the potter has no freedom over the clay (Romans 9)?

  So what does Barth's view do with faith (as far as giving it to whom God pleases)? It would negate faith's role(as a gift) in the equation, wouldn't it?
• 

  designs

  The sad mental plight of the x-JW who becomes a Fundamentalist.
• 

  PSacramento

  Its a strange thing when anyone brings up Hitler, LOL !

  I mean, did he PERSOANLLY kill anyone? what about thsoe that actually acted out the orders? those that went even beyond the orders ( of the time)?

  Hitler was just one man, all the German people that allowed for the atrocities to happen have to answer for that, not just Hitler, he will answer for his part, but what about the soldier shooting the innocent old men, children, preganant women, what about him?

  Even the most grotesque of orders are meaningless without someone to carry them out, its those thatcarry out the orders that give despots the power.

  But here is an even sadder thing, the worst of them is still God's child, God still knows why that person did what they did, God still knows what happened in that person's life to drive them to so much hatred and death, God knows who and what that person is.

  Put yourself in God's place and see that person as your child, the same child you love, the child you watch grow up and see their first steps, their first words, the first time they say "love you", their first smile...

  Now see them take a bayonet and drive it into the womb of a preganant woman, see them setting fire to children that are still alive, see them do things that...

  I can't even bring myself to finish...

  Now, judge that child.

  I would NOT want God's job...
• 

  Perry

  But here is an even sadder thing, the worst of them is still God's child, God still knows why that person did what they did, God still knows what happened in that person's life to drive them to so much hatred and death, God knows who and what that person is.

  Hi PS,

  I know that in the popular press we hear the phrase "we are all God's children" all the time. Even many liberal churches that do not teach the bible further this misconception. However God has a very different view of mankind in general. Here are just a few points and characterizations:

  We start out as God's enemy because of our fallen nature:

  For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son - Rom. 5: 10

  You are the children of your father the Evil One - JN 8: 44

  Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name,
  he gave the right to become children of God-- ... JN 1: 12

  We all start out as children of Adam, OUTSIDE of God's family. Only through faith, adoption, and regeneration are we grafted into God's family.

  PS. 53: 2,3 - God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.