Originally posted by whodey
So we can agree that love can cause others pain, albiet, in the name of justice/healing.

Good.

We can also agree that there may be suffering in the next life, or at least, according to scripture.

Good.

So this brings us to God being unable to "save" people or not. Keep in mind, free will was created by God. Have you ever wondered why? Why is fr ...[text shortened]... d they really have the free will to reject him? Does love really give us a choice to love back?

EDIT: Double post.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]So at some point, God either has to come to the crossroads of allowing those with free will to reject him forever, or forced/led/coerced/inticed back. If the later, did they really have the free will to reject him? Does love really give us a choice to love back?

I have already explained, in detail, why the free-will argument is just a bad one. But ...[text shortened]... denying our free will! Because we might be “led” or “enticed” by that very nature of God’s being!

So would you say that love being compulsory is preferable to being able to reject it?

Originally posted by vistesd

That God invites others into the redemptive project, to love as God does—as closely as we can in our existential condition anyway. The innkeeper is entrusted with the man’s care; he could, of course, spend the two denarii on himself, and not trust the Samaritan. The fundamental point remains—the man was not asked to believe or anything else. None o ...[text shortened]... obbers?"
37 He said, "The one who showed him mercy." Jesus said to him, "Go and do likewise."”[/b]

So at least we both see the innkeeper as an important element in the story. Without the care of the innkeeper, the man in question would probably die.

I suppose we could just call the innkeeper one of God's people, but then, does that mean that there are those who are not God's poeple?

Originally posted by whodey
So would you say that love being compulsory is preferable to being able to reject it?

So would you say that love being compulsory is preferable to being able to reject it?

I have not once—not a single time—implied that compulsory love was even possible, let alone desirable. I don’t know why you seem so confused on that.

You put the words “led” and "entice" in the same category as the words “forced” and “coerced”; do you then find the following verse to indicate an objectionable compulsion or coercion?

“Romans 2:4 Or do you despise the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience? Do you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance?”

Do you find the following to be an objectionable compulsion or coercion?

John 12:32 “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself."

I find my wife’s love to be irresistible. Is she thereby coercing me? Is my love for her therefore compulsory? Of course not!

Originally posted by whodey
So at least we both see the innkeeper as an important element in the story. Without the care of the innkeeper, the man in question would probably die.

I suppose we could just call the innkeeper one of God's people, but then, does that mean that there are those who are not God's poeple?

Without the care of the innkeeper, the man in question would probably die.

There is nothing in the story to justify that statement.


. . . does that mean that there are those who are not God's poeple?

It means that there are none who are precluded from becoming children of God (see Paul, Romans 6 through 8 on becoming children of God). It means that there are none who cannot be healed of delusion and sin.

Though I think I have to add a modified Augustinian category to the trilemma: Those who believe that God desires to save only those who (in this lifetime) desire to be saved—without any “enticement” by God. That seems to be closer to what you are arguing than the Arminian view.

Originally posted by whodey
So at least we both see the innkeeper as an important element in the story. Without the care of the innkeeper, the man in question would probably die.

I suppose we could just call the innkeeper one of God's people, but then, does that mean that there are those who are not God's poeple?

Before the story begins Jesus says love God and your neighbour as yourself and you will live. The Good Samaritan story was given to the man who did not know what 'neighbour' meant. At the end Jesus says to go and do likewise meaning to go and be a Good Samaritan. What you have done is to make incorrect assumptions and extrapolated on that causing your interpretation to go way off the mark.

To think that Christ is giving a story about how HE is a good neighbour and HE is a Good Samaritan meaning that HE will get into Gods Kingdom and live ... is utter nonsense.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Before the story begins Jesus says love God and your neighbour as yourself and you will live. The Good Samaritan story was given to the man who did not know what 'neighbour' meant. At the end Jesus says to go and do likewise meaning to go and be a Good Samaritan. What you have done is to make incorrect assumptions and extrapolated on that causing your interp ...[text shortened]... E is a Good Samaritan meaning that HE will get into Gods Kingdom and live ... is utter nonsense.

You’re right, but I don’t understand your last sentence. Yes, Jesus turned the tables on the question who is my neighbor, by asking who was a neighbor to the man in the ditch. And we all understand the relevance to the Samaritan being the exemplar in the context of the audience. But—

I don’t think the parable stops there. I think the Samaritan is intended as an analog of God’s treatment of people. There is no question of justice in this story at all. The Samaritan dispenses pure grace, without any requirements vis-à-vis the beaten man. If that is not the way God responds, then God requires of us what he will not do.

Thus, on the one hand, it is how we are to behave according to the great commandment. And it means that to love—God and one’s neighbor—is something we are to do, not a feeling. But the word for love in this passage is not phillia, but agape—the very love that 1st John sets as God’s essential nature: “God is agape.” So, this story is also telling us how agape responds, how God responds. And at that level, we are the man in the ditch.

In Matthew 5, as part of the Sermon on the Mount, we find the following:

“43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
48 [i]Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.[/.i]” (My emphasis)

Again, I think it is clear that we are called to love—as God loves.

So, I see it as a parable on (at least) two levels. On one level, we are called to be the Samaritan. On another level, we are the unconscious man in the ditch. And God’s promise is that he will respond to us—whether we are able to respond to God consciously at all—exactly as the Samaritan does in the parable.

Also, Jesus’ response is to the question of what one must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus, I think, turns the tables on that notion too. One does not normally “inherit” by one’s behavior. Jesus trapped the questioner with his first question about what is written in the Torah, and the questioner makes a mis-step. One inherits by who one is—in this case, a descendant of Jacob/Israel. But one can, of course, be disinherited. In the end, I think no one is forever disinherited. But I do think we will bear the consequences of our actions—just not as a forever-lasting condemnation (which I think is a terrible misreading, much of it based on unfortunate translation). The lawyer was being clever ("in order to justify himself" ); I suspect his head was spinning by the end of the encounter (as I suspect others were as well).

Raj, unlike you, I also rely on Paul. And perhaps that puts us at some impasse—and that’s the kind of impasse there is really no way around. We will both reason honestly from different perspectives.

In any event, I think this is a parable that operates on multiple levels. I was stressing one in the context of the thread—but you are right to correct that by bringing in the (clear) other—and fundamental—one. (Perhaps there are others.)

Originally posted by vistesd
You’re right, but I don’t understand your last sentence. Yes, Jesus turned the tables on the question who is my neighbor, by asking who was a neighbor to the man in the ditch. And we all understand the relevance to the Samaritan being the exemplar in the context of the audience. But—

I don’t think the parable stops there. I think the Samaritan is inte ...[text shortened]... correct that by bringing in the (clear) other—and fundamental—one. (Perhaps there are others.)

Certainly there are many pronouncements in the Bible and in particularly from Christ that can operate on mulitple levels and there is no problem in seeing them . It is however pointless [fatal in this case] to see another interpretation while ignoring the prime purpose. You have recognized the prime purpose of the parable, and this is reason why I did not address my comment to you but to Whodey. There are many Christians that will state categorically that the parable of the Good Samaritan is about God/Christ love for people, and that it has nothing to do with personal conduct.

NO! The parable of the Good Samaritan [according to Christ] is about what people need to DO to Live in Gods Kingdom and Christ says so very clearly .. "do this and you will live .. go and do likewise". That God does not expect us to perform to a higher standard than Him is obvious but that cannot change the prime objective Christ had in mind when giving this parable. This parable is for people and what people need to do. Matt 25 statement of sheep and goats confirms this in no uncertain terms [..although Christianity has managed to twist that as well]. In fact all of Christ and the Apostles teachings is centered around the life of the follower of Christ and how that impacts on his salvation. Yes Gods love is agape and not phillea and 90% of the references to love means brotherly or charitable love. It is the only thing that matters in the end.

Anyway, you are wrong about me not relying on Paul. I rely on the teachings of Jesus Christ first and give Christ priority. Paul and the Apostles are second, and All of the teachings of the Apostles must be read and understood in the light of what Christ taught. Paul said that not everything he says comes from Christ .. sometimes he gives his own opinion on things. Sometimes also his teachings apply to a particular time and place and cannot be applied elsewhere. It cannot be correct to place the teachings of the Apostles above Christ. Christians do exactly that .. they even inventeded something called the Administration of Grace, in which the teachings of Christ no longer apply. These are teachings and interpretations that lead to death, not life.

Nobody is forever condemned? I am not sure about that. That seems to go against what Christ and the Apostles said. Again I refer to the fatal consequences of making assumptions which are not in keeping with the teachings of the Bible. To say that God is love and put our own meaning to it is a deadly mistake. God destroys, God kills and God removes permanently those who are not pleasing to him. There are far too many passages and examples about this to ignore it. Certain actions or sins or deeds are unforgivable. Certain lifestyles lead to destruction. The warnings in the Bible are dire and cannot be trivialized.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]So would you say that love being compulsory is preferable to being able to reject it?

I have not once—not a single time—implied that compulsory love was even possible, let alone desirable. I don’t know why you seem so confused on that.

You put the words “led” and "entice" in the same category as the words “forced” and “coerced”; do you then fi ...[text shortened]... sistible. Is she thereby coercing me? Is my love for her therefore compulsory? Of course not![/b]

I don't view coercion and simply appealing to ones better senses as the same thing. However, sometimes neither work. What then?

If one or the other works 100% of the time, is there really free will?

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Without the care of the innkeeper, the man in question would probably die.

There is nothing in the story to justify that statement.


. . . does that mean that there are those who are not God's poeple?

It means that there are none who are precluded from becoming children of God (see Paul, Romans 6 through 8 on becoming children of God ...[text shortened]... ny “enticement” by God. That seems to be closer to what you are arguing than the Arminian view.[/b]

If the innkeeper was not needed to help save the man, then there was no need to include him.

Keep in mind that the battered man never awoke, therefore, I think it very possible he would have died without the help of the innkeeper.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Before the story begins Jesus says love God and your neighbour as yourself and you will live. The Good Samaritan story was given to the man who did not know what 'neighbour' meant. At the end Jesus says to go and do likewise meaning to go and be a Good Samaritan. What you have done is to make incorrect assumptions and extrapolated on that causing your interp ...[text shortened]... E is a Good Samaritan meaning that HE will get into Gods Kingdom and live ... is utter nonsense.

True, but the Bible is full of double meanings. I don't see an issue with applying it to God's love for us, especially since God is referencing the same agape love that he wants us to share with others.

Before Jesus came, was the human race in much the same situation as the man lying on the road dying? Were we not helpless without Jesus coming into the world to save us?

Originally posted by whodey
True, but the Bible is full of double meanings. I don't see an issue with applying it to God's love for us, especially since God is referencing the same agape love that he wants us to share with others.

Before Jesus came, was the human race in much the same situation as the man lying on the road dying? Were we not helpless without Jesus coming into the world to save us?

There is no issue. Everyone reading the teachings of Christ is going to have to account for their actions after they have claimed to understand and claimed to believe.

So there are those who will say that the Good Samaritan story is just about how Jesus came along and saved the helpless man lying in the street, and all Christians need to do is to lay there and wait for Christ to save them. And that is what Christians have done with all the teachings that pertain to good works .. they have watered it down, changed the meaning and lie down waiting for Christ to come and save them.

For me that interpretation ignores what Christ is actually saying.

Again there is no issue. Christ will judge .. because he knows why people change his doctrines.

Originally posted by whodey
I don't view coercion and simply appealing to ones better senses as the same thing. However, sometimes neither work. What then?

If one or the other works 100% of the time, is there really free will?

Obviously, I don’t think the kind of “free will” you seem to be referring to exists at all. And, as I said before, so-called “libertarian free will” is either internally contradictory or reduces to randomness.

All of our choices are conditional choices—conditioned by such things as our view of the circumstances, our ability to process information, our education and knowledge, our cultural condition, etc. The fact that our choices are conditional means that we can change with new information, understanding, ability, etc.

The question becomes: when are we sufficiently able and informed to make a decision that God will hold as final. My view is that, in the end, we will be healed of our ignorance and illusions, which underlie the existential nature of sin as human error and failure (moral and otherwise). That does not mean that everyone is immune from suffering consequences—just as some healing modalities in medicine entail some suffering (e.g., chemotherapy and radiation treatment for cancer).

Re the innkeeper: when you change “probably” to possibly”, with regard to the possibility that the injured man might still have died, I have no further argument. And I think your point is well-taken as part of the parable.

Originally posted by Rajk999
There is no issue. Everyone reading the teachings of Christ is going to have to account for their actions after they have claimed to understand and claimed to believe.

So there are those who will say that the Good Samaritan story is just about how Jesus came along and saved the helpless man lying in the street, and all Christians need to do is to lay ther ...[text shortened]...
Again there is no issue. Christ will judge .. because he knows why people change his doctrines.

What are you talking about Raj?

Do you think that salvation would be possible without Jesus?

If so, then your point is valid. However, if we do, in fact, need the sacrifice of Jesus for redemption then we are that dying helpless person on the road.

Originally posted by vistesd
Obviously, I don’t think the kind of “free will” you seem to be referring to exists at all. And, as I said before, so-called “libertarian free will” is either internally contradictory or reduces to randomness.

All of our choices are conditional choices—conditioned by such things as our view of the circumstances, our ability to process information, our ed ...[text shortened]... died, I have no further argument. And I think your point is well-taken as part of the parable.

I still await your interpretation of what Jesus meant regarding blasphemy against the Holy Spirit being the "unforgivable sin".

Such issues need to be addressed before embracing your theology, don't you think?