God Fails At Salvation?

Another perspective in this debate is to say that if God's creation had not fallen, then God would have failed in offering us free will. In a sinless universe, how could God claim that his creation had free will to begin with? Where would be the evidence for such free will?

Originally posted by KellyJay
So you are of the opinion that God will always get His way, or that
God could always get His way? Love since God is Love must God force
His views and desires upon all things all the time? This is important,
because if you think it must happen, than we lose all ability to choose
for ourselves anything at all. We can talk about Hell and Love, but
right now, choice and salvation is the topic.
Kelly

Well, my real opinion is that this dilemma is the result of erroneous and inconsistent claims about God. And that is what it is aimed at.

I agree that love cannot be compelled or coerced. But, if God is love—that is, that is God’s very essence—then when does God cease to seek the benefit of the beloved? At death? If the soul is immortal, why? Especially if God has the power to heal the recalcitrant and unloving soul? If my beloved ceases to love me, if she leaves me, I can either continue to love her and be ready, not only to welcome her back, but to act for her benefit and well-being even at a distance—or I can stop loving her. If her love for me is more important to me than her well-being, then that is not—to my mind—agape. If I see her lying injured in the ditch, and decline to help her because she hates me (I am a Samaritan, after all...), then I am not acting from love.

I am spinning off of quite ancient Christian viewpoints here that death, being conquered, is nevertheless no frontier beyond which God cannot act to heal; and that salvation really means (as it does in the original Greek, he says, boringly, again) to cure or heal or make well. And that, if God is love, then that God cannot act in any unloving way toward anything. [I also do not think that an eternity of torment in hell can in any way be conceived of as just, let alone loving; but I have tried to set that issue aside here.]

You see, I am not yet convinced that, even within the theistic concept of God as a supernatural being (which is the concept that I am keeping for this thread, even though it is not mine), the dilemma is insurmountable. But it is for some concepts of God.

Originally posted by whodey
Another perspective in this debate is to say that if God's creation had not fallen, then God would have failed in offering us free will. In a sinless universe, how could God claim that his creation had free will to begin with? Where would be the evidence for such free will?

Interesting questions. The first problem I have is the nature of “free will.” Our ability to make choices is always conditional, including conditions imposed by the nature of our existence.

What’s interesting in the “fall” story is that the first humans made a choice (unless Eve was confused about which tree she was eating of—a very plausible, but not the only, way to read the text) before having any knowledge of good and bad choices...

Nevertheless, I think that my response to KJ goes to your questions here as well.

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, my real opinion is that this dilemma is the result of erroneous and inconsistent claims about God. And that is what it is aimed at.

I agree that love cannot be compelled or coerced. But, if God is love—that is, that is God’s very essence—then when does God cease to seek the benefit of the beloved? At death? If the soul is immortal, why? Especia ...[text shortened]... even though it is not mine), the dilemma is insurmountable. But it is for some concepts of God.

Christ gave the example of the prodigal son as an example as to how he relates to the sinner. The prodigal son decides to go off on his own and wants nothing more to do with his father. All the son wants is all that his father has already given him, as if it were really his to begin with. However, the father obliges the sons will and gives him his inheritance and sends him on his way. Now at this time they are seperated. The father cannot help the son or communicate with the son because the son does not wish for the father to be there for him. The father must honer his sons will. However, the father never stops loving his son and, in fact, awaits his arrival with open arms as soon as the son wills to return. This is how I view God verses the sinner. As the God of life and love withdraws from you, via your own choice I might add, terrible things await you. This can be seen in the account of Job. Notice that God does not inflict pain and death upon Job, rather, he simply withdraws his hand slightly from his life and Satan has a field day with him. Granted, this is not the norm and in fact, his friends drilled him as to what wicked act he had committed in order to open himself up to such abuse.

Originally posted by whodey
Christ gave the example of the prodigal son as an example as to how he relates to the sinner. The prodigal son decides to go off on his own and wants nothing more to do with his father. All the son wants is all that his father has already given him, as if it were really his to begin with. However, the father obliges the sons will and gives him his inherita ...[text shortened]... ds drilled him as to what wicked act he had committed in order to open himself up to such abuse.

I would add that a point of the story is that the prodigal son returned. I wouldn’t gloss over that; I think it is a deliberate point of the story—there are not two sons, one who returned and one who didn’t. The question becomes two-fold:

(1) Why assume that death is a bar to return (especially when so many of the early church did not see it so)? After all, that is when we would no longer see “through a glass, darkly.”

(2) Why assume that, after death, God does not make the reconciliation, whether we have returned in life or not? Again, the early church seems not to have made that assumption

Now, I realize that your understanding is not inconsistent with the texts. And, the final return of all to God who is all-in-all (apokatastasis), while not becoming a doctrine of the church, is nevertheless not rejected (at least in the Eastern churches) as a possibility and expectation.

To expand on this, read the parable of the Good Samaritan, with God in the role of the Samaritan (again, according to lucifershammer anyway, an ancient understanding of that parable). In that way, it might complement the prodigal son story.

(Of course, you know that I’m a non-dualistic rebellious teenager. 😉 But I am not assuming non-dualism in this thread at all—I am hinting that early church understanding leaned toward answer #2. On the other hand, Kirk has a different “relational theology” that seems not to hinge on God’s omnipotence...).

Originally posted by whodey
Christ gave the example of the prodigal son as an example as to how he relates to the sinner. The prodigal son decides to go off on his own and wants nothing more to do with his father. All the son wants is all that his father has already given him, as if it were really his to begin with. However, the father obliges the sons will and gives him his inherita ...[text shortened]... ds drilled him as to what wicked act he had committed in order to open himself up to such abuse.

One of the most interesting phrases in the Prodigal Son story is that "he came to himself." It doesn't say he came to is father or to God, but he came to himself.

Let's get back to Job. In an earlier post in another thread, I talked about Jung's "Answer to Job." Jung described Yahweh's behavior as "unconscious, amoral, totally lacking self-reflection, no insight, savage, ruthless, revolting, double-faced, jealous, despotic, intolerable, clueless, and a monster." Mind you Jung was my no means an atheist or a man with a negative view of religion or faith. In fact , he once said that he had never met anyone whose problems were not spiritual in nature.

So what is your reaction to this litany that Jung described as God's shadow at work?

Originally posted by kirksey957
One of the most interesting phrases in the Prodigal Son story is that "he came to himself." It doesn't say he came to is father or to God, but he came to himself.

Let's get back to Job. In an earlier post in another thread, I talked about Jung's "Answer to Job." Jung described Yahweh's behavior as "unconscious, amoral, totally lacking self-reflectio ...[text shortened]...
So what is your reaction to this litany that Jung described as God's shadow at work?

I’m going to let you carry this one, Kirk. You’re doing a much better job than I am. Besides, you’re giving it a spin that I am interested in.

Very intriguing, that “he came to himself.”

Originally posted by vistesd
I would add that a point of the story is that the prodigal son returned. I wouldn’t gloss over that; I think it is a deliberate point of the story—there are not two sons, one who returned and one who didn’t. The question becomes two-fold:

(1) Why assume that death is a bar to return (especially when so many of the early church did not see it so)? Afte ...[text shortened]... nd, Kirk has a different “relational theology” that seems not to hinge on God’s omnipotence...).

Maybe I'm a little slow, but it occurs to me that you draw alot of your conclusions from extra biblical sources.
Your wording in #2. Are you suggesting that the early church did not make the assumption that God does not reconcile, after death, or just what are you saying there?

Originally posted by vistesd
I’m going to let you carry this one, Kirk. You’re doing a much better job than I am. Besides, you’re giving it a spin that I am interested in.

Very intriguing, that “he came to himself.”

"He came to himself" simply means he realized he made a big mistake, and admitted it to himself.

Originally posted by vistesd
I’m going to let you carry this one, Kirk. You’re doing a much better job than I am. Besides, you’re giving it a spin that I am interested in.

Very intriguing, that “he came to himself.”

Let's suppose that this "journey" he takes is a necessary part of his spiritual growth. Has he gained something by leaving home? Yes, I think so. Has the other brother lost something by staying home and being the complaint dutiful son. I believe so. Clearly his reaction at the joy and celebration is one of entitlement.

What if this coming to himself is the "god-image" within himself that he connects with? I think we tend to look down on this son for leaving home and perhaps that is natural as he "wants his share of the inheritance." There was the possiblity of his doing something good with it besides squandering it. His journey may not be that different from Jesus' venture into the wilderness. Both had experiences of temptation and "coming to themselves."

Originally posted by josephw
"He came to himself" simply means he realized he made a big mistake, and admitted it to himself.

There is a step in AA (the 5th I believe) that says we admitted to God, ourselves and another person the exact nature of our wrongs. This is not just an admission of wrong, but a powerful spiritual beginning and journey.

Originally posted by josephw
Maybe I'm a little slow, but it occurs to me that you draw alot of your conclusions from extra biblical sources.
Your wording in #2. Are you suggesting that the early church did not make the assumption that God does not reconcile, after death, or just what are you saying there?

(1) Yes, I am not a sola scripturist (that as never doctrine before Luther). So I draw as well as I am able on early church tradition, mostly as it has been preserved and developed in the Eastern Orthodox churches.

(2) You are correct: that assumption was not made by the ancient church—nor was the counter assumption.

Origen’s view of universal salvation was rejected, in part, because he did hold it dogmatically, as a necessity according to the nature of God; Gregory of Nyssa’s (and others) was not rejected because he did not assert it dogmatically—he simply articulated it as his belief. The possibility of universal salvation (as ultimate healing) is still held in the East, though not asserted as doctrine.

Orthodox theologian Olivier Clement and Gregory of Nyssa—

“We must pray, however, that the fire of judgment—which is the fire of God’s love—will not consume the wicked, but only that part in each one which is evil. The division into ‘sheep’ and ‘goats’ of which the Last Judgment scene speaks would thus be made, not between two crowds of human beings, but between two kinds of character within each individual. In practice, other parables of a similar kind like that of the ‘good seed’ and the ‘tares’ cannot be interpreted in any other way. Jesus explains that the ‘good seed means the sons of the Kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one’, and that at the end these latter will be cast into the blazing furnace (Matthew 13:36). Only Gnostics and Manicheans can hold that it is a question here of people. All human beings are creatures of God. What is ‘sown by the devil’ is destructive suggestions, the seeds of idolatry and folly. Good seeds and tares are human dispositions. To destroy the thoughts sown by the evil one is not to destroy the person but to cauterize him. What Gregory of Nyssa suggests is precisely this divine surgery.

“‘The body is subject to various forms of illness. Some are easy to treat, others are not, and for the latter recourse is had to incisions, cauterizations, bitter medicine... We are told something of the same sort about the judgment in the next world, the healing of the soul’s infirmities. If we are superficial people, that amounts to a threat and a process of severe correction... But the faith of deeper minds regards it as a process of healing and therapy applied by God in such a way as to bring back the being he created to its original grace.’ (Gregory of Nyssa, Great Catechetical Oration, Clement, The Roots of Christian Mysticism)”

St. Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) referred to the apokatastasis, the return of all things to God as “the final restoration which is expected to take place later in the kingdom of heaven of those who have suffered condemnation in Gehenna.” (The Life of Moses, II-82-4.)

_______________________________

I have really no other arguments to put forth on this than the ones that I recently have. Wearily, I accept whatever impasse I come to vis-à-vis the thinking of others.

Originally posted by kirksey957
Let's suppose that this "journey" he takes is a necessary part of his spiritual growth. Has he gained something by leaving home? Yes, I think so. Has the other brother lost something by staying home and being the complaint dutiful son. I believe so. Clearly his reaction at the joy and celebration is one of entitlement.

What if this coming to himse ...[text shortened]... e into the wilderness. Both had experiences of temptation and "coming to themselves."

This is the best Easter homily I've heard in years!

Originally posted by kirksey957
One of the most interesting phrases in the Prodigal Son story is that "he came to himself." It doesn't say he came to is father or to God, but he came to himself.

Let's get back to Job. In an earlier post in another thread, I talked about Jung's "Answer to Job." Jung described Yahweh's behavior as "unconscious, amoral, totally lacking self-reflectio ...[text shortened]...
So what is your reaction to this litany that Jung described as God's shadow at work?

Well to answer the first question I would say that in order to come to God one must come to their senses. In other words, one must see the truth and desire it and proceed from there. If this is not the case then we have no free will.

As far as Jung's response goes, I could not find Jung's response in Job. I could only find his three friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zuphar who responded to Job. Can you give me a scripture? However, in terms of his three friends response, it seems that God scorned them for judging Job and assuming he had done something wrong to deserve his fate. As a matter of fact God is rather upset with Job's friends in 42:7 and says that they had counseled Job wrongly and had to atone for thier sins.

Originally posted by whodey
Well to answer the first question I would say that in order to come to God one must come to their senses. In other words, one must see the truth and desire it and proceed from there. If this is not the case then we have no free will.

As far as Jung's response goes, I could not find Jung's response in Job. I could only find his three friends Eliphaz, Bil ...[text shortened]... friends in 42:7 and says that they had counseled Job wrongly and had to atone for thier sins.

I wrote something on the Job story some time back. I’ll just drop it in here...

______________________________________

Job didn’t sin; that’s part of the point—or rather the question—of the story. This is the original “When Bad Things Happen to Good People” text. Nor is there anything about “original sin” (or sin-nature), as this is not a Jewish concept.

Job: 1:1—A man was in the land of Uz, Job his name, the man himself perfect [Hebrew: tam, whole, complete, having complete integrity] and upright; who held God in awe and turned aside from evil. [My translation]

_____________________________________

All throughout the story, Job maintains his innocence against the arguments of three “friends”—

The following are a few brief commentaries by rabbis on the general thrust of the friends’ arguments (from the Stone Tanach):

Eliphaz: “He contends that suffering is not haphazard. Rather than railing about his fate, Job should examine his deeds and try to discover why God punished him,” i.e., Job must have sinned even if he doesn’t know it.

Bildad: Job should just repent. “If [he] would repent, the blessings [God] would bestow upon [him] would overshadow even those of the past.” (Ramban) In 18:4, “Addressing Job, Bildad asks sarcastically whether Job expects God (‘the Rock&rsquo😉 and the world to change as a consequence of his complaints.” (Rashi)

Zophar: “Zophar berates Job for thinking himself ‘virtuous in God’s eyes,’ since no mortal can fathom God’s doctrine. If all were known, Job would realize that he deserved to be punished even more.”

The “friends” make several more accusations and arguments against job as the narrative proceeds. Then the young Elihu speaks; his basic argument is: “God inflicts illness to make the victim consider his mortality and mend his ways, thereby saving his life in the process.” (Rashi) Also: “God is not responsible to a Higher Authority and has no need to pervert justice to destroy a man. Why should God deal with man unjustly? He could simply take back the soul that He granted man.” (Rashi)

But—in what way did Job have to mend his ways?

___________________________________

God’s answer to Job is basically that Job does not know enough to question God—

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind: 2 "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? 3 Gird up your loins like a man, I will question you, and you shall declare to me 4 "Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. (NRSV)

That is really all the answer Job gets, and Job submits to it. God rebukes the others for not having “spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has.” (42:7, NRSV)

____________________________________

So, Job’s three “friends” make basically these three arguments:

(1) Job must have sinned, even if he doesn’t realize it.

(2) Job should just repent, even if he believes he is innocent; one should not complain of God.

(3) No mortal is virtuous in God’s eyes, and no mortal can understand God’s purpose.

Do not many Christians still make these arguments?