Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
Re: Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
Thank you, Steve, for that wonderful post to Singalphile. It touched my heart, and moved me to tears. If only we could love others in one trillionth the measure that God the Father and His Son Jesus loves all, what might be accomplished right here on earth while we are still fallen, mortal human beings!
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
Homer,
I'm sorry that you think it "maudlin" to talk about God the way Jesus does.
As far as passing-on threats is concerned, we should do no more or less than Jesus did, in that respect. The problem I have with your position is that you interpret the "threats" in a manner independent from Jesus' teachings about the character of the one making threats. Thus your interpretation of the threats ends up contradicting the main message of Christ—the character of God.
I recommend allowing the clear and major teaching (which is about God) to provide the template for interpreting the subordinate and occasional teachings (the threats). If it is entirely possible to interpret the threats in a manner consistent with the teaching about God's character, why not do so?
If you cannot see the relevance of Jesus' likening God to an earthly father to the topic under discussion here, I think we will not be able to communicate much further on this topic. To my mind, nothing is more relevant to the subject of man's salvation than the teachings of Jesus. The story of the prodigal does not mention the father punishing the son—true. The story is a parable, not an allegory. It is teaching a lesson about the heart of God toward sinners, not providing a one-size-fits-all, point-by-point correspondence to the conversion of any one man in any given case.
Do you really object to using the standard of a good earthly father as a means of understanding God's ways? If this is not what Jesus intended for us to take away from His teaching about the fatherhood of God, what possible lesson was He trying to get across?
"If you fathers, being evil, [love your children a certain way], how much more will your Father who is in heaven...?" (Matt.7:11)
It is true that Jesus indicates a disparity between the love of human fathers and the love of God, but Jesus makes the disparity go the opposite direction from your teaching. He says that the Father's love exceeds ("how much more") that of human parents. Your teaching is that God's love is inferior to that of a human parent (or even to that of a decent person). On your view, God will do things to His rebellious children that no humane person would do to another, unless forced to do so. Nobody forces God to do anything.
You say that God has done things to sinners that we would never do to our children. This is not true. We all have done things to our children which we did not enjoy doing—but only for their good. God is not different (or at least not inferior) in this respect. He has done hard things to His children also. He has hurt them in the short term, in order to benefit them in the long term. I have done the same to my own children. We call it discipline.
When God has to hurt His children—let's say, in the sense that you think so defining of God's judgments, i.e., the killing of egregious offenders—He takes "no pleasure" in doing so (Ezek.33:11). I never took pleasure in hurting any child of mine either. However, unless God is a worse father than I am, He must only take such steps if He believes them necessary for the good of all, including the offending child.
You say we are not to stand in judgment of God's ways. Agreed! But we are to stand in judgment of doctrines that claim to represent God's behavior as being a certain way. No universalist I have read has made any judgment against God. The judgment is against careless exegesis of passages, which misrepresents what God has actually revealed and said about Himself.
If you say we are not in the position to make judgments about what is consistent for God to do, I believe you are mistaken. Making judgments about righteousness is exactly what God has commanded us to do (John 7:24/Luke 12:57). In fact, it is precisely our assignment, as spiritual men:
"Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (1 Cor.6:2)
We sometimes say that man is not capable of making proper judgments about the ways of God. This is the opposite of what the Bible says. Unbelievers are, of course, too ignorant to make such judgments. However, the spiritual and the righteous are much more in a position to trust their instincts about right and wrong.
"For the Lord gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding...Then you will understand righteousness and justice, equity and every good path." (Prov.2:6,9)
"Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand all." (Prov.28:5)
"I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts" (Jer.31:33)
"He who is spiritual judges all things." (1 Cor.2:15)
Can it be that your own righteous heart does not rebel against the low view of God that makes Him vengeful against His enemies? I am convinced that, were you in God's position, you would behave more mercifully to your blind and foolish enemies than your theology will allow God to do. This is, I think, because you feel compelled to go against your own instincts by the traditional (and poor) exegesis of a few "proof texts." This is as clear a case of missing the forest for the trees as any I can imagine.
I'm sorry that you think it "maudlin" to talk about God the way Jesus does.
Not so! It is those who talk about God contrary to the way Jesus does who come under this criticism. Say only what Jesus says about Him, and you could never fall into this sin.And all Christians who pass on these threats and warnings by saying what Jesus said are libeling God.
As far as passing-on threats is concerned, we should do no more or less than Jesus did, in that respect. The problem I have with your position is that you interpret the "threats" in a manner independent from Jesus' teachings about the character of the one making threats. Thus your interpretation of the threats ends up contradicting the main message of Christ—the character of God.
I recommend allowing the clear and major teaching (which is about God) to provide the template for interpreting the subordinate and occasional teachings (the threats). If it is entirely possible to interpret the threats in a manner consistent with the teaching about God's character, why not do so?
If you cannot see the relevance of Jesus' likening God to an earthly father to the topic under discussion here, I think we will not be able to communicate much further on this topic. To my mind, nothing is more relevant to the subject of man's salvation than the teachings of Jesus. The story of the prodigal does not mention the father punishing the son—true. The story is a parable, not an allegory. It is teaching a lesson about the heart of God toward sinners, not providing a one-size-fits-all, point-by-point correspondence to the conversion of any one man in any given case.
Do you really object to using the standard of a good earthly father as a means of understanding God's ways? If this is not what Jesus intended for us to take away from His teaching about the fatherhood of God, what possible lesson was He trying to get across?
"If you fathers, being evil, [love your children a certain way], how much more will your Father who is in heaven...?" (Matt.7:11)
It is true that Jesus indicates a disparity between the love of human fathers and the love of God, but Jesus makes the disparity go the opposite direction from your teaching. He says that the Father's love exceeds ("how much more") that of human parents. Your teaching is that God's love is inferior to that of a human parent (or even to that of a decent person). On your view, God will do things to His rebellious children that no humane person would do to another, unless forced to do so. Nobody forces God to do anything.
You say that God has done things to sinners that we would never do to our children. This is not true. We all have done things to our children which we did not enjoy doing—but only for their good. God is not different (or at least not inferior) in this respect. He has done hard things to His children also. He has hurt them in the short term, in order to benefit them in the long term. I have done the same to my own children. We call it discipline.
When God has to hurt His children—let's say, in the sense that you think so defining of God's judgments, i.e., the killing of egregious offenders—He takes "no pleasure" in doing so (Ezek.33:11). I never took pleasure in hurting any child of mine either. However, unless God is a worse father than I am, He must only take such steps if He believes them necessary for the good of all, including the offending child.
You say we are not to stand in judgment of God's ways. Agreed! But we are to stand in judgment of doctrines that claim to represent God's behavior as being a certain way. No universalist I have read has made any judgment against God. The judgment is against careless exegesis of passages, which misrepresents what God has actually revealed and said about Himself.
If you say we are not in the position to make judgments about what is consistent for God to do, I believe you are mistaken. Making judgments about righteousness is exactly what God has commanded us to do (John 7:24/Luke 12:57). In fact, it is precisely our assignment, as spiritual men:
"Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?" (1 Cor.6:2)
We sometimes say that man is not capable of making proper judgments about the ways of God. This is the opposite of what the Bible says. Unbelievers are, of course, too ignorant to make such judgments. However, the spiritual and the righteous are much more in a position to trust their instincts about right and wrong.
"For the Lord gives wisdom; From His mouth come knowledge and understanding...Then you will understand righteousness and justice, equity and every good path." (Prov.2:6,9)
"Evil men do not understand justice, but those who seek the Lord understand all." (Prov.28:5)
"I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts" (Jer.31:33)
"He who is spiritual judges all things." (1 Cor.2:15)
Can it be that your own righteous heart does not rebel against the low view of God that makes Him vengeful against His enemies? I am convinced that, were you in God's position, you would behave more mercifully to your blind and foolish enemies than your theology will allow God to do. This is, I think, because you feel compelled to go against your own instincts by the traditional (and poor) exegesis of a few "proof texts." This is as clear a case of missing the forest for the trees as any I can imagine.
Re: Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
Steve,
Are you saying that god does not act vengefully or with wrath at anyone?
I must say I am suprised by what appears to be your evolving position toward universalism. Your view of man as simply ignorant and mistaken is another charecteristic. I thought you "leaned" toward the annihilationist camp but your continuing comparison of God to a human father is just as damaging to annihilationism as to the traditional view. Human fathers do not usually execute their rebelling children.
I think the whole "daddy God" thing began with something Joachim Jeremias and has been overblown. The scriptures have much to say about fearing God and about His wrath.
Can it be that your own righteous heart does not rebel against the low view of God that makes Him vengeful against His enemies?
Are you saying that god does not act vengefully or with wrath at anyone?
That is quite a stretch comparing fatherly discipline to 70AD and a great number of other instances that can be adduced.You say that God has done things to sinners that we would never do to our children. This is not true. We all have done things to our children which we did not enjoy doing—but only for their good.
I must say I am suprised by what appears to be your evolving position toward universalism. Your view of man as simply ignorant and mistaken is another charecteristic. I thought you "leaned" toward the annihilationist camp but your continuing comparison of God to a human father is just as damaging to annihilationism as to the traditional view. Human fathers do not usually execute their rebelling children.
I think the whole "daddy God" thing began with something Joachim Jeremias and has been overblown. The scriptures have much to say about fearing God and about His wrath.
Re: Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
Homer, are you not tracking with the conversation? Of course God has to avenge the wrongs done against His people. Parents have to settle injustices among their children too. The question is whether any of His children—including those with whom He has to settle such scores—cease to be the objects of His redeeming love. God had to avenge the murder of His Son, but those who crucified Christ were not unloved by Him—else why did Jesus intercede for their forgiveness?Are you saying that god does not act vengefully or with wrath at anyone?
It is a stretch as far as eternity is a stretch beyond time. We discipline our children in their lifetimes (and for a very short portion of those, at that). God disciplines for eternity. Physical death comes on all—the righteous and the unrighteous. If God brings it sooner, rather than later, on some, because it suits His plans or the needs of His people to do so, this does not tell us anything about His dealings with them in eternity. You might be interested in seeing this contrast between earthly fathers' discipline and that of the Father in Hebrews 12:10. It's the same principle on a different scale.That is quite a stretch comparing fatherly discipline to 70AD and a great number of other instances that can be adduced.
True, unless they are executioners and their sons have committed capital crimes. One difference, though, is that the human father has no power to continue the correction of his children after death—which can not be shown to be true of God. Human parentsd cannot use physical death as a step in the training of their children. As far as any of know, God can.Human fathers do not usually execute their rebelling children.
You mean it was Jeremias who came up with that "Abba" ("Daddy") thing? And all this time I thought that guy in the gospel records was Jesus!I think the whole "daddy God" thing began with something Joachim Jeremias and has been overblown...your continuing comparison of God to a human father is just as damaging to annihilationism as to the traditional view.
Homer, I am afraid something is slipping in your otherwise scriptural and sane comments. Something about the prospect of God loving everybody and determining to save them somehow makes you see red! I get the impression you are becoming too desperate, in your attempts to debunk this concept, even to evaluate your own statements before posting. Wherein lies the offense here? Don't we both agree that God can save all kinds of sinners? Don't we both hope that He will save as many as possible? Then what is offensive about the possibility He may actually accomplish His will—and ours?
When you wrote of my "continuing comparison of God to a human father," I could hardly believe my eyes! So now you think that I am the author of this comparison? My Brother, how long has it been since you looked at the teaching of Jesus (instead of the anti-universalist commentators)? If a sustained "comparison of God to a human father" becomes "just as damaging to annihilationism as to the traditional view," then what options do we have— A) throw out the teachings of Jesus, or B) dump any view that is fatally damaged by His teachings? Seems like a no-brainer to me. How would you pick?
By the way, I do not think that annihilation is necessary inconsistent with the love of God—but if I did, it would be off my list of options.
.The scriptures have much to say about fearing God and about His wrath
So true. Which makes it necessary for us to understand these concepts correctly, since they are such a dominant scriptural theme. It would probably be best if we could interpret them in a manner that does not make God out to be schizophrenic.
Re: Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
A queston for anyone that wishes to answer: what is the difference between discipline and condemnation?
Thinking of this verse: 1 Cor 11:32 "Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world."
Is this relevant to the '"hell controversy"?
Robert
Thinking of this verse: 1 Cor 11:32 "Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world."
Is this relevant to the '"hell controversy"?
Robert
Last edited by Roberto on Wed Dec 19, 2012 12:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
True Homer, 'God and Jesus' are the ones who bring up chaff, and burning, and hell and the pit, we didn’t come up with this God did (!?). 'I' would not have the concept except that I read it from His Word (!?). The Flood, 70AD, etc. Jesus forgives because He took Gods wrath on Himself, if you do not Repent and Believe then you will experience the wrath, same God, same message; Repent, bring a sacrifice, or else!
I really am taken aghast by the 'we are all children of God' thing.
The prodigal is 'one' person who 'repented', how does that help the case??
Steve; 'However, there is more than one sense in which people can be called "children" of God. It does no good to quote only verses about one of those senses, and to leave out the ones that speak of another sense'
That is a relatively weak sense of children (Psalm 24:1?), I know in a sense God is the Father of 'all creation' including animals which He cares for too, and Paul is quoting a Greek poet who in a sense says God is father of creation, we have no record of Adam being saved either, not much to build case with. 'There is also more than one sense in which people can be called sinners;
"You neglected the Rock who begot you,
And forgot the God who gave you birth.
19 "The LORD saw this, and spurned them
Because of the provocation of His sons and daughters.
20 "Then He said, 'I will hide My face from them,
I will see what their end shall be;
For they are a perverse generation,
Sons in whom is no faithfulness…
For a fire is kindled in My anger,
And burns to the lowest part of Sheol,
And consumes the earth with its yield,
And sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.
23 'I will heap misfortunes on them;
I will use My arrows on them.
24 'They will be wasted by famine, and consumed by plague
And bitter destruction;
And the teeth of beasts I will send upon them,
With the venom of crawling things of the dust…
I will render vengeance on My adversaries,
And I will repay those who hate Me.
42 'I will make My arrows drunk with blood,
And My sword will devour flesh,
With the blood of the slain and the captives,
From the long-haired leaders of the enemy.'
43 "Rejoice, O nations, with His people;
For He will avenge the blood of His servants,
And will render vengeance on His adversaries,
And will atone for His land and His people." (Duet 32)
It is very hard to cut out any of these verses because they all are so relevant, but since my processor prints them long, excuse me, the context is they are his sons, but still the context is still that they repent and take this to heart. Note that none of the adversaries seem to have a very bright future waiting for them. On top of that Moses tells them also;
"Take to your heart all the words with which I am warning you today, which you shall command your sons to observe carefully, even all the words of this law.47 For it is not an idle word for you; indeed it is your life. And by this word you will prolong your days in the land, which you are about to cross the Jordan to possess." (Duet 32:46-47)
Are these warnings only for Israel?? Why bother reading this part of the Bible, if it is not a warning for every reader?
I really am taken aghast by the 'we are all children of God' thing.
The prodigal is 'one' person who 'repented', how does that help the case??
Steve; 'However, there is more than one sense in which people can be called "children" of God. It does no good to quote only verses about one of those senses, and to leave out the ones that speak of another sense'
That is a relatively weak sense of children (Psalm 24:1?), I know in a sense God is the Father of 'all creation' including animals which He cares for too, and Paul is quoting a Greek poet who in a sense says God is father of creation, we have no record of Adam being saved either, not much to build case with. 'There is also more than one sense in which people can be called sinners;
"You neglected the Rock who begot you,
And forgot the God who gave you birth.
19 "The LORD saw this, and spurned them
Because of the provocation of His sons and daughters.
20 "Then He said, 'I will hide My face from them,
I will see what their end shall be;
For they are a perverse generation,
Sons in whom is no faithfulness…
For a fire is kindled in My anger,
And burns to the lowest part of Sheol,
And consumes the earth with its yield,
And sets on fire the foundations of the mountains.
23 'I will heap misfortunes on them;
I will use My arrows on them.
24 'They will be wasted by famine, and consumed by plague
And bitter destruction;
And the teeth of beasts I will send upon them,
With the venom of crawling things of the dust…
I will render vengeance on My adversaries,
And I will repay those who hate Me.
42 'I will make My arrows drunk with blood,
And My sword will devour flesh,
With the blood of the slain and the captives,
From the long-haired leaders of the enemy.'
43 "Rejoice, O nations, with His people;
For He will avenge the blood of His servants,
And will render vengeance on His adversaries,
And will atone for His land and His people." (Duet 32)
It is very hard to cut out any of these verses because they all are so relevant, but since my processor prints them long, excuse me, the context is they are his sons, but still the context is still that they repent and take this to heart. Note that none of the adversaries seem to have a very bright future waiting for them. On top of that Moses tells them also;
"Take to your heart all the words with which I am warning you today, which you shall command your sons to observe carefully, even all the words of this law.47 For it is not an idle word for you; indeed it is your life. And by this word you will prolong your days in the land, which you are about to cross the Jordan to possess." (Duet 32:46-47)
Are these warnings only for Israel?? Why bother reading this part of the Bible, if it is not a warning for every reader?
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
Listen, O heavens, and hear, O earth;
For the LORD speaks,
"Sons I have reared and brought up,
But they have revolted against Me.
3 "An ox knows its owner,
And a donkey its master's manger,
But Israel does not know,
My people do not understand."
4 Alas, sinful nation,
People weighed down with iniquity,
Offspring of evildoers,
Sons who act corruptly!
They have abandoned the LORD…
5 Where will you be stricken again,
As you continue in your rebellion…
9 Unless the LORD of hosts
Had left us a few survivors,
We would be like Sodom,
We would be like Gomorrah.
16 "Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight.
Cease to do evil,
17 Learn to do good;
Seek justice…
18 "Come now, and let us reason together,"
Says the LORD,
"Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow…
19 "If you consent and obey,
You will eat the best of the land;
20 "But if you refuse and rebel,
You will be devoured by the sword."
Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.
21 How the faithful city has become a harlot…
They do not defend the orphan,
Nor does the widow's plea come before them.
24 Therefore the Lord GOD of hosts,
The Mighty One of Israel, declares,
"Ah, I will be relieved of My adversaries
And avenge Myself on My foes.
25 "I will also turn My hand against you…
27 Zion will be redeemed with justice And her repentant ones with righteousness.
28 But transgressors and sinners will be crushed together,
And those who forsake the LORD will come to an end.
29 Surely you will be ashamed of the oaks which you have desired,
And you will be embarrassed at the gardens which you have chosen.
30 For you will be like an oak whose leaf fades away Or as a garden that has no water.
31 The strong man will become tinder,
His work also a spark.
Thus they shall both burn together And there will be none to quench them.
Is the meaning that hard to exegete? Zion will be redeemed with justice, and her repentant ones with righteousness, but transgressors and sinners will be crushed together.
Mark the blameless man, and behold the upright;
For the man of peace will have a posterity.
38 But transgressors will be altogether destroyed;
The posterity of the wicked will be cut off. (Psalm 37)
So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him.
12 As far as the east is from the west,
So far has He removed our transgressions from us.
13 Just as a father has compassion on his children,
So the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.
14 For He Himself knows our frame;
He is mindful that we are but dust.
15 As for man, his days are like grass;
As a flower of the field, so he flourishes.
16 When the wind has passed over it, it is no more,
And its place acknowledges it no longer.
17 But the lovingkindness of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him,
And His righteousness to children's children,
18 To those who keep His covenant And remember His precepts to do them.(Psalm 103)
How much commentary does this need? I suppose I should work on my exegesis; lets see, those who fear Him, we are but dust, we are like grass, they are no-more, but for those who fear Him - His righteousness is given to the children, who keep His covenant.
That wasn't too hard to exegete!
For the LORD speaks,
"Sons I have reared and brought up,
But they have revolted against Me.
3 "An ox knows its owner,
And a donkey its master's manger,
But Israel does not know,
My people do not understand."
4 Alas, sinful nation,
People weighed down with iniquity,
Offspring of evildoers,
Sons who act corruptly!
They have abandoned the LORD…
5 Where will you be stricken again,
As you continue in your rebellion…
9 Unless the LORD of hosts
Had left us a few survivors,
We would be like Sodom,
We would be like Gomorrah.
16 "Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean;
Remove the evil of your deeds from My sight.
Cease to do evil,
17 Learn to do good;
Seek justice…
18 "Come now, and let us reason together,"
Says the LORD,
"Though your sins are as scarlet,
They will be as white as snow…
19 "If you consent and obey,
You will eat the best of the land;
20 "But if you refuse and rebel,
You will be devoured by the sword."
Truly, the mouth of the LORD has spoken.
21 How the faithful city has become a harlot…
They do not defend the orphan,
Nor does the widow's plea come before them.
24 Therefore the Lord GOD of hosts,
The Mighty One of Israel, declares,
"Ah, I will be relieved of My adversaries
And avenge Myself on My foes.
25 "I will also turn My hand against you…
27 Zion will be redeemed with justice And her repentant ones with righteousness.
28 But transgressors and sinners will be crushed together,
And those who forsake the LORD will come to an end.
29 Surely you will be ashamed of the oaks which you have desired,
And you will be embarrassed at the gardens which you have chosen.
30 For you will be like an oak whose leaf fades away Or as a garden that has no water.
31 The strong man will become tinder,
His work also a spark.
Thus they shall both burn together And there will be none to quench them.
Is the meaning that hard to exegete? Zion will be redeemed with justice, and her repentant ones with righteousness, but transgressors and sinners will be crushed together.
Mark the blameless man, and behold the upright;
For the man of peace will have a posterity.
38 But transgressors will be altogether destroyed;
The posterity of the wicked will be cut off. (Psalm 37)
So great is His lovingkindness toward those who fear Him.
12 As far as the east is from the west,
So far has He removed our transgressions from us.
13 Just as a father has compassion on his children,
So the LORD has compassion on those who fear Him.
14 For He Himself knows our frame;
He is mindful that we are but dust.
15 As for man, his days are like grass;
As a flower of the field, so he flourishes.
16 When the wind has passed over it, it is no more,
And its place acknowledges it no longer.
17 But the lovingkindness of the LORD is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear Him,
And His righteousness to children's children,
18 To those who keep His covenant And remember His precepts to do them.(Psalm 103)
How much commentary does this need? I suppose I should work on my exegesis; lets see, those who fear Him, we are but dust, we are like grass, they are no-more, but for those who fear Him - His righteousness is given to the children, who keep His covenant.
That wasn't too hard to exegete!
Re: Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
It is a small point, and I don't mean to be niggling, but I can find no place in scripture where Jesus brought up the idea of either "chaff" or "the pit." The fact that these terms are used by John the Baptist and by John the Revelator, of course, make them worthy of our serious consideration. I just have a pet peeve about the common habit of attributing things to Jesus that He didn't say. Call me touchy.'God and Jesus' are the ones who bring up chaff, and burning, and hell and the pit'
As for "burning" and "hell," of course, it seems silly for you to bring up these words in this discussion as if they were self-explanatory.
This is your problem. You do not realize that these scriptures (especially if you are trying to apply them to any postmortem scenario) are indeed very hard to exegete. Your level of awareness with reference to the subject of exegesis reminds me of a child woodenly playing "Chopsticks" on the piano, and saying, "See! It's easy to play the piano!"How much commentary does this need? I suppose I should work on my exegesis; lets see, those who fear Him, we are but dust, we are like grass, they are no-more, but for those who fear Him - His righteousness is given to the children, who keep His covenant.
That wasn't too hard to exegete!
I have tried to help you. I have called attention to the fact that you cannot get very far in the discussion by cutting and pasting large blocks of scripture without somehow demonstrating that they are discussing your topic or making the point you wish to make. The fact that traditionalists, conditionalists and restorationists are equally comfortable with such passages (and with most passages in the Bible) should alert you to the fact that you are going to have to do more work in order to show that your view better fits these scriptures than do the alternative views. That is what exegesis means. It doesn't mean underlining phrases.
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
'you cannot get very far in the discussion by cutting and pasting large blocks of scripture without somehow demonstrating that they are discussing your topic or making the point you wish to make'
Seems I cannot get the Universalist to come up with (but a few) supporting scriptures.
Where as I have a really hard time reducing supporting scripture down to chapters and books.
It seems we cannot get very far into discussion when I bring up 'these' scriptures.
How does Genesis thru Malachi 'not' make my point?
'All must repent' and have Faith to be saved, otherwise they are punished and destroyed.
What amount of exegesis will prove this is wrong?
Steve wrote; 'The fact that traditionalists, conditionalists and restorationists are equally comfortable with such passages (and with most passages in the Bible) should alert you to the fact that you are going to have to do more work in order to show that your view better fits these scriptures than do the alternative views'
I should be equally comfortable with every passage in the Bible also, if my theology is correct. And I am comfortable that everything jives; Jesus took Gods wrath, and those who do not believe will experience the wrath of the Lamb. Same God, same plan, same warning, pretty much makes everything jive to me.
The fact that even a cult can agree with Gods Word in some 'passages' does not mean my view of those passages need to change (or that the passage needs to change to fit my esegesis). Steve, That is a fallacious argument.
I said before I underline so it will not be missed. Why does anyone underline, or did I invent it? Maybe I should highlight instead, I like highlighters. I over Apostrophe and hyphenate too, excuse me.
I really thought you would enlighten me to what the deeper meaning is behind these verses, I recall that when the King found the Book in the Temple he tore his clothes, and in Acts;
'Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself' (Acts 2)
(Does one have to be a Theologian not to get the message? Or can it cause an immediate response, as it should)
It is interesting, do you think understanding the plain meaning of scripture has to be like learning to play a piano? How many people can learn piano?
How many can thus understand the plain teachings of scripture?
You seem to think that only after studying the Bible for 40 years can the truth be 'finally' realized and that is how God meant the Bible to be. I see God writing so that it would be clear to the average reader, even on the first reading! He is not the God of Confucius.
It seems to work for most people most of the time, study then involves sorting out apparent inconsistencies identifying false doctrines and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching. We can go deeper, but not higher, into what has been revealed to us.
I appreciate that minds can change, but they don’t always change for the better.
The 'I used to think that way' is interesting, but as you have noted also before; some who seem to have been orthodox once, can go off into the dark later, sometimes.
An exhaustive amount of research does not impress me if the result is still faulty, many large buildings have been built on faulty foundations, just look at Calvinism and also the Catholic Empire. Even if someone is a great mathematician they still need to show the math at the end of the day. (I see the 'sum' of Universalist thinking, just seems like a lot of numbers have been reduced, or left out. Maybe 'all' is a quotient, while the unsaved are the 'remainder')
Every single person Created in Gods image + Freewill + Gods Love ÷ (divided by) Sin ÷ Judgment ÷ Atonement ÷ Fear ÷ Repentance ÷ Belief ÷ Faith ÷ Justice + Hell
= Every single person saved?
If Math had no other factors other than itself that would be fine, but when dealing with the 'created' material world, measurements have adjustment factors, loss and gain, time and space, heat and size, throw in freewill and consequences and I do not see God expecting the result to be the same as the dividend, any more than anyone else who deals with carpentry, farming, or pottery.
Are you telling me that only an exhaustive reading of scripture will reveal that we 'cannot' take all the wrath, punishment, killing, hell, fire, destruction, warnings of urgency, warnings to repent at face value?
(That they really are 'not' what they sound like - Warnings - warnings of what? Paidion's painful refiners fire?)
Seems I cannot get the Universalist to come up with (but a few) supporting scriptures.
Where as I have a really hard time reducing supporting scripture down to chapters and books.
It seems we cannot get very far into discussion when I bring up 'these' scriptures.
How does Genesis thru Malachi 'not' make my point?
'All must repent' and have Faith to be saved, otherwise they are punished and destroyed.
What amount of exegesis will prove this is wrong?
Steve wrote; 'The fact that traditionalists, conditionalists and restorationists are equally comfortable with such passages (and with most passages in the Bible) should alert you to the fact that you are going to have to do more work in order to show that your view better fits these scriptures than do the alternative views'
I should be equally comfortable with every passage in the Bible also, if my theology is correct. And I am comfortable that everything jives; Jesus took Gods wrath, and those who do not believe will experience the wrath of the Lamb. Same God, same plan, same warning, pretty much makes everything jive to me.
The fact that even a cult can agree with Gods Word in some 'passages' does not mean my view of those passages need to change (or that the passage needs to change to fit my esegesis). Steve, That is a fallacious argument.
I said before I underline so it will not be missed. Why does anyone underline, or did I invent it? Maybe I should highlight instead, I like highlighters. I over Apostrophe and hyphenate too, excuse me.
I really thought you would enlighten me to what the deeper meaning is behind these verses, I recall that when the King found the Book in the Temple he tore his clothes, and in Acts;
'Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, "Brethren, what shall we do?"38 Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself' (Acts 2)
(Does one have to be a Theologian not to get the message? Or can it cause an immediate response, as it should)
It is interesting, do you think understanding the plain meaning of scripture has to be like learning to play a piano? How many people can learn piano?
How many can thus understand the plain teachings of scripture?
You seem to think that only after studying the Bible for 40 years can the truth be 'finally' realized and that is how God meant the Bible to be. I see God writing so that it would be clear to the average reader, even on the first reading! He is not the God of Confucius.
It seems to work for most people most of the time, study then involves sorting out apparent inconsistencies identifying false doctrines and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching. We can go deeper, but not higher, into what has been revealed to us.
I appreciate that minds can change, but they don’t always change for the better.
The 'I used to think that way' is interesting, but as you have noted also before; some who seem to have been orthodox once, can go off into the dark later, sometimes.
An exhaustive amount of research does not impress me if the result is still faulty, many large buildings have been built on faulty foundations, just look at Calvinism and also the Catholic Empire. Even if someone is a great mathematician they still need to show the math at the end of the day. (I see the 'sum' of Universalist thinking, just seems like a lot of numbers have been reduced, or left out. Maybe 'all' is a quotient, while the unsaved are the 'remainder')
Every single person Created in Gods image + Freewill + Gods Love ÷ (divided by) Sin ÷ Judgment ÷ Atonement ÷ Fear ÷ Repentance ÷ Belief ÷ Faith ÷ Justice + Hell
= Every single person saved?
If Math had no other factors other than itself that would be fine, but when dealing with the 'created' material world, measurements have adjustment factors, loss and gain, time and space, heat and size, throw in freewill and consequences and I do not see God expecting the result to be the same as the dividend, any more than anyone else who deals with carpentry, farming, or pottery.
Are you telling me that only an exhaustive reading of scripture will reveal that we 'cannot' take all the wrath, punishment, killing, hell, fire, destruction, warnings of urgency, warnings to repent at face value?
(That they really are 'not' what they sound like - Warnings - warnings of what? Paidion's painful refiners fire?)
-
jriccitelli
- Posts: 1317
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
- Location: San Jose, CA
- Contact:
Re: Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children
Steve wrote; It sounds as if you think that Evangelical Universalists see man as "entitled" to eternal life. I don't believe there are any who believe this.
It certainly is pretty common that most people 'think' they are going to heaven, the different reasons are manifold, but most do put the demand on God that He would be unloving 'not' to save them, 'despite' His mandates, what is their reasoning, 'because' they are human?.
I see many Universalists using the God is 'too' loving to destroy (or send someone to hell) as an entitlement simply because we are born. The entitlement comes from 'some' unknown universal law that says; 'If God created you, God cannot destroy you'
Steve wrote; Your statement that men are worse sinners than animals, and that animals do not have eternal life, seems to imply that sinful man cannot, or should not, be saved if innocent animals are not. Yet, here we are—saved men! Apparently, if God does not save animals, but does save men, it has nothing to do with the relative sinfulness or innocence of the two groups.
This does not 'imply that sinful man cannot, or should not, be saved' it means that God created animals also, and God makes it clear that we should not think of ourselves to highly because of 'His' common equating us with animals in 'His' word. I did not say anything to the effect that we 'cannot' be saved, that is a really poor reading of my intent in writing. I pointed out that God equates us with animals, we should observe this, as God does not speak in vain, and a 'side note' was that the hedge hogs and pelicans remained where man 'was not' to be found, a point 'God' made. I was not the One who brought that to pass.
Steve; In fact, the only obvious difference, that accounts for God's desire to save men, rather than animals, is that men are made in the image and likeness of God. If this image and likeness is the reason that God has saved some men (though no animals), then would not the fact that all men bear that image and likeness similarly argue for God wishing to save all men? Why would God favor some of those who bear His image and likeness over others?
We are made in his image but that is no proof of our indispensability.
I understand your thinking to be that some may - presume they are special - because they were wise enough to believe, were given a chance to believe, and others were not. But that is the difference, I see people been given the chance and freewill to Repent, fear God, Believe and demonstrate Faith. I am saved by Faith if that is a work, so be it. I do not feel better or smarter but I feel repentant and sorry, is that wrong, you be the judge.
I am not calling you Calvinistic (as we both despise the thought) but is not a view that all 'will' repent similar to irresistible grace?
It certainly is pretty common that most people 'think' they are going to heaven, the different reasons are manifold, but most do put the demand on God that He would be unloving 'not' to save them, 'despite' His mandates, what is their reasoning, 'because' they are human?.
I see many Universalists using the God is 'too' loving to destroy (or send someone to hell) as an entitlement simply because we are born. The entitlement comes from 'some' unknown universal law that says; 'If God created you, God cannot destroy you'
Steve wrote; Your statement that men are worse sinners than animals, and that animals do not have eternal life, seems to imply that sinful man cannot, or should not, be saved if innocent animals are not. Yet, here we are—saved men! Apparently, if God does not save animals, but does save men, it has nothing to do with the relative sinfulness or innocence of the two groups.
This does not 'imply that sinful man cannot, or should not, be saved' it means that God created animals also, and God makes it clear that we should not think of ourselves to highly because of 'His' common equating us with animals in 'His' word. I did not say anything to the effect that we 'cannot' be saved, that is a really poor reading of my intent in writing. I pointed out that God equates us with animals, we should observe this, as God does not speak in vain, and a 'side note' was that the hedge hogs and pelicans remained where man 'was not' to be found, a point 'God' made. I was not the One who brought that to pass.
Steve; In fact, the only obvious difference, that accounts for God's desire to save men, rather than animals, is that men are made in the image and likeness of God. If this image and likeness is the reason that God has saved some men (though no animals), then would not the fact that all men bear that image and likeness similarly argue for God wishing to save all men? Why would God favor some of those who bear His image and likeness over others?
We are made in his image but that is no proof of our indispensability.
I understand your thinking to be that some may - presume they are special - because they were wise enough to believe, were given a chance to believe, and others were not. But that is the difference, I see people been given the chance and freewill to Repent, fear God, Believe and demonstrate Faith. I am saved by Faith if that is a work, so be it. I do not feel better or smarter but I feel repentant and sorry, is that wrong, you be the judge.
I am not calling you Calvinistic (as we both despise the thought) but is not a view that all 'will' repent similar to irresistible grace?