Why did Jesus stop reading?

[Homer]

I don't think he Greg Boyd said quite that, Homer, at least not in the clip that Matt posted. Rather, he said that it was God saving humanity and "the human project".

I must open my ears and listen again and eat crow if necessary.

[Paidion]

I am presently reading George MacDonald's novel "Donal Grant." Here are a quote and some words of exchange that may be relevant to the theme in this thread:

Every life is between two great fires of the love of God. So long as we do not give ourselves up heartily to him, we fear his fire will burn us. And burn us it does when we go against its flames and not with them, refusing to burn with the fire with which God is always burning. When we try to put it out, or oppose it, or get away from it, then indeed it burns!

Note: In the following exchange, GMD uses "punishment" in the sense of correction, and not in the sense of penalty, nor in the sense of retribution:

Donal Grant:

No other than the God exactly like Christ can be the true God. It is a doctrine of devils that Jesus died to save us from our father. There is no safety, no good, no gladness, no purity, but with the Father, his father and our father, his God and our God.

Lady Arctura:

But God hates sin and punishes it!

Donal Grant:

It would be terrible if he did not. All hatred of sin is love to the sinner. Do you think Jesus came to deliver us from the punishment of our sins? He would not have moved a step for that. The horrible thing is being bad, and all punishment is help to deliver us from that, nor will punishment cease till we have ceased to be bad. God will have us good, and Jesus works out the will of his father. Where is the refuge of the child who fears his father? Is it in the farthest corner of the room? Is it down in the dungeon of the castle, my lady?

Lady Arctura:

No, no!—in his father's arms!

Donal Grant:

There!

[Homer]

How far do we push the metaphor or God being just like a good human Daddy. Seems to me He is wholly other.

[mattrose]

So God saved everyone with the flood? And people take him seriously? Sad.

His position is that God 'withdrew' from the bulk of an increasingly rebellious humanity in order to save the human project through an individual (and his family). Since it was a withdrawal, God did not directly punish those destroyed by the flood... but since God is ultimately the last link in every chain of causation, it can be spoken of as a divine judgment.

I like Boyd and am looking forward to his book. Even still, there were two parts of his answer I didn't quite agree with. First, he makes brief (though, in my opinion, unnecessary) use of the whole 'angels had sex with human women interpretation which I don't support. Second, he seems to say that when the New Testament mentions the flood, it always focuses on the saving aspect which doesn't seem to actually be the case (it seems to me judgement is just as much the focus in those passages, if not moreso).

[Paidion]

How far do we push the metaphor or God being just like a good human Daddy. Seems to me He is wholly other.

Well, He is not wholly other, or it would not be the case that man was created in His image.

I agree that He is not just like a good human Daddy. For He is far better than any human daddy—infinitely better!

[steve7150]

5. God doesn't allow evil.
...and much more.








Assuming Satan acts independent of God and assuming Satan was actually responsible for the killing in scripture attributed to God , isn't the fact God doesn't destroy Satan a form of God allowing evil? God has no reason to allow Satan "free will" as he may have for allowing free will to humans. In fact allowing Satan the power of deception and death is in effect impinging on man's free will is it not?

[Paidion]

I decided to remove the link to the book until I have read it completely. However, to answer your question I think he means that God doesn't permit evil, and also doesn't allow it in any sense in order to fulfill a deeper purpose.

[Homer]

Matt wrote:

His position is that God 'withdrew' from the bulk of an increasingly rebellious humanity in order to save the human project through an individual (and his family). Since it was a withdrawal, God did not directly punish those destroyed by the flood... but since God is ultimately the last link in every chain of causation, it can be spoken of as a divine judgment.

It seems to me that Boyd is desperate to rehabilitate God's reputation. Folks have believed for thousands of years God caused the flood, and with good reason - the scriptures say He did:

Genesis 6:7,13,17 (NASB)

7. The Lord said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”

13. Then God said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth.

17. Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

Boyd says it would not be in God's character to directly send the flood. Verse 17 appears to directly contradict that statement. And if God brought about the destruction indirectly what difference would that make? Certainly God can control nature anytime He pleases. Elijah (and James) was confident of that:

James 5:17-18 (NASB)

17. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it would not rain, and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. 18. Then he prayed again, and the sky poured rain and the earth produced its fruit.


Boyd's take on the flood strikes me as a fanciful attempt, with no basis in scripture, to make God acceptable to certain people. Reading the account in Genesis I see not a hint of Boyd's view, which doesn't rise to the level of exegesis or even eisegesis.

[mattrose]

Boyd's take on the flood strikes me as a fanciful attempt, with no basis in scripture, to make God acceptable to certain people. Reading the account in Genesis I see not a hint of Boyd's view, which doesn't rise to the level of exegesis or even eisegesis.

Not a hint? Really? Because he actually mentioned some specific exegetical reasons for his claim.

[Homer]

Hi Matt,

It seems to me the overall point, the reason for Boyd's view, is that he can not believe that God's character would allow Him to directly send the flood on man; he says sin is self punishing. What is there in the story of the flood that would support this?

I am not grasping the significance of God not directly being the agent causing the flood. And if God caused the flood by simply withdrawing, what difference would it make? If a father normally cares for his children and wakes up during the night to find the house on fire, and walks out the door to leave them to their fate, is he any less guilty than if he started the fire himself?

Unless Moses is making it up, God is clearly pictured in the scriptures cited as the agent causing the flood.