Originally posted by Rajk999
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 ad ...[text shortened]... in lifestyles lead to destruction. The warnings in the Bible are dire and cannot be trivialized.

First off, apologies for my comment about not relying on Paul—I must have been thinking of someone else. But, frankly, for your general understanding to hold, I think you have to reject most of what Paul taught.

To say that God is love and put our own meaning to it is a deadly mistake.

It is John who says God is love, and I don’t have to put my own meaning on agape. I rely on both Greek scholars and Greek-speaking Christians, who might translate for others, but do not need to translate for themselves. Agape is not charity (that is a weak translation); nor is it “brotherly love”—that is philia. Originally, agape and eros were near synonyms, and God’s unconditional agape also includes God’s passionate love—though it is far more than either philia or eros.

That is not to say that agape is an easily graspable term, and that is illustrated in John 21:15-17, where Jesus asks peter if he (Peter) loves him—the word Jesus uses is agape. Peter answers, not with agape, but with philia. Peter either resisted the word agape, or—as I prefer to think—was bewildered by Jesus’ use of that word rather than philia. He simply didn’t know how to respond.

To say that agape is just “charity” and “brotherly love” is just wrong. And agape is far and away the most used term for love in the New testament--at least 90%, I would say.. It is the most unconditional and passionate love you can have for another person—a person you might call “beloved”. And that is what makes it such a high standard. (It is also the word used in the Greek Septuagint version of the Song of Songs.) Notice that I did not say that it is what you merely “feel” for the beloved—it either completely forms your behavior toward that person, or it is not there.

John says that “Whoever does not love (agape) does not know God, for God is agape” (1 John 4:8). In 1 John 4:10, he says: “In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.” The Greek word translated here as “atoning sacrifice” is ilasmos, and means the “means of reconciliation” (which is close to what the English word “atone” at least originally meant. Earlier, in verse 2:2, he says: “and he is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

However, he also says in 2 John 2:2: “And this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment just as you have heard it from the beginning—you must walk in it.”

Certain actions or sins or deeds are unforgivable.

That is not what Jesus is recorded as saying in the Gospel of Matthew (the same Gospel that includes the parable of the sheep and goats). At Matthew 12:31 he says: “Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.”

Now, you might read that verse more conditionally than I do—but that goes to what I said about which texts are taken to contextualize which others. No one can escape that. The best we can do is to reasonably justify our choices, with some humility and willingness to revisit them.

Further, James, the Apostle who clearly says that faith without actions is “dead”, also says (at 5:15): The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven.”

Now, let’s go back to the parable of the Samaritan. I quoted the closing line: “Be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect.” The Greek word translated as “perfect” is teleiso, which also carries the meaning of whole, complete, or accomplished. I argue that it is impossible for a human being to be perfect as God is perfect—and that that statement is therefore a challenge, not a commandment that one can fulfill. It is an important challenge, nonetheless. (And I seem to recall that you have been falsely accused before of demanding perfection—and that is not my point.)

That seems to go against what Christ and the Apostles said.

I would suggest putting heavy emphasis on that “seems”. We likely read the relevant texts far differently from one another.

In terms of your following comment to whodey: . . . and all Christians need to do is to lay there and wait for Christ to save them—that is not a position that I have ever advocated. I view salvation as the eschatological end-point of a salvific process.

I am also not one of those who says that someone who is “saved” cannot bear the consequences for their behavior. I have never argued that ultimate salvation means that. But I do rest on the God who is agape. There are certainly understandings of God in the Biblical texts that contradict that understanding of God—or else render agape essentially meaningless. Your understanding of God seems hard to reconcile with such a God. We perhaps also have differing views of the Bible as well.

I’m still working through all this as I go. But I think the word forgiveness also comes into play. In terms of debt, for example, one is not forgiven if one has paid off the debt—it is the debt itself that is forgiven. In that context, we either pay what we owe for our sins and transgressions—or they are forgiven. In the conventional juridical model of salvation (which is not mine), one is either punished or pardoned (or receives a suspended sentence). In a healing model of salvation, forgiveness means that we are freed (aphiemi/apoluo from our sin in the way that one is freed of a disease. Both models are found in the Biblical texts; I just think that the healing model is the best choice—in part based on the underlying meaning of soterias itself.

Look, I value your insights (as well as your integrity), and the way in which you present them—and will continue to do so, even when we disagree. (And I also refer you to my brief last response to whodey.)

Originally posted by whodey
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?

I don’t know what blasphemy against the Spirit entails. Apparently there are a range of opinions, and so it seems to be somewhat speculative. Perhaps it is a kind of total nihilism. In the Markan version, however, it says “for they said, ‘He has an unclean spirit.’” (Mark 3:29) Perhaps it is to claim that the spirit of life is “unclean”, or that the Christ's spirit is unclean, or that anyone’s spirit (essential being) is unclean. Some (though not all) versions of “original sin” (e.g., as Calvinist “total depravity” ) might fall into that category.

I think the real issue is what happens if a sin is not forgiven. In terms of debt, for example, one is not forgiven if one has paid off the debt, or is required to pay off the debt—it is the debt itself that is forgiven. In that context, we either pay what we owe for our sins and transgressions—or they are forgiven. So if the sin is not forgiven—in this age or the age to come—it will have to be paid for (one model) or otherwise purified (the healing model). That does not mean that the debt can never be paid, or that underlying condition can never be healed. Just that it is not forgiven. That is what a “purgatorial” notion of “hell” is all about.

By the way, I do not translate the Greek word aionion as everlasting or “eternal” in the sense of forever-lasting time. I think that is a mistake. But that is a whole other issue, which needs treated at some length.

I have not “embraced” a particular soteriology yet. My intent is to make a case—and that will take time and a new thread. Here, I wanted to lay out the options in the form of the rediuctio. Of course, that has naturally led to discussions that touch on the whole soteriological question, which is (for me, anyway) helpful.

Originally posted by vistesd
First off, apologies for my comment about not relying on Paul—I must have been thinking of someone else. But, frankly, for your general understanding to hold, I think you have to reject most of what Paul taught.

[b]To say that God is love and put our own meaning to it is a deadly mistake.

It is John who says God is love, and I don’t have to put m ...[text shortened]... ue to do so, even when we disagree. (And I also refer you to my brief last response to whodey.)[/b]

You probably think I reject Paul saying that you are saved by faith and not works, but I do not. I reject Christianity's interpretation of what meant by 'saved' in that context. But I would not pursue that here.

I would not pursue the interpretation of the GS stroy further as it might derail your main topic.

The notion of punishment for the purpose of revenge is in the Bible. The God of love is capable of killing for revenge. I actually see no conflict in that. There are many references for that, but here is one:

Rom 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

While there are many that God will correct and guide along the right path sometimes even by force, there are some people that will feel the wrath of God. I believe in the Catholic idea of a purgatory as the idea is expressed in the Septuagint, in one of the books left out of the modern KJV.

Originally posted by whodey
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.

All that is irrelevant Whodey. What is the purpose of the story of the Good Samaritan? What is Christ intention to tell people that he is going to save them?

Originally posted by Rajk999
All that is irrelevant Whodey. What is the purpose of the story of the Good Samaritan? What is Christ intention to tell people that he is going to save them?

The story is designed to tell us about agape love that we, as well as God, are epected to share.

To think that agape love is mutually exclusive to mortals such as ourselves is absurd. Why would God construct a morality we must live by that he himself rejects?

Originally posted by whodey
The story is designed to tell us about agape love that we, as well as God, are epected to share.

To think that agape love is mutually exclusive to mortals such as ourselves is absurd. Why would God construct a morality we must live by that he himself rejects?

Did I ever say or imply that God rejects anything?

You seem to have missed the point of the Good Samaritan story.

Christ is telling people what they must do to get into Gods kingdom.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You probably think I reject Paul saying that you are saved by faith and not works, but I do not. I reject Christianity's interpretation of what meant by 'saved' in that context. But I would not pursue that here.

I would not pursue the interpretation of the GS stroy further as it might derail your main topic.

The notion of punishment for the purpose of ...[text shortened]... tory as the idea is expressed in the Septuagint, in one of the books left out of the modern KJV.

I think this thread is already pretty done in terms of the original topic, but that’s okay. Just a couple of final notes on my end:

(1) A loving person can take revenge, but not against someone they love (without distorting any meaning of love that I am aware of).

(2) Love itself cannot be vengeful, as vengefulness is not itself love; so even if one is otherwise loving, vengeance becomes an exception, in any case where one ceases to be loving toward the target of vengeance.

(3) A God who is love cannot be at the same time vengeful—so something in scripture has to give (which is not a problem for me, simply a hermeneutical choice).

(4) With regard to your Pauline quote—

(a) I think Romans has to read as a whole, and I think Paul demonstrates a dialectical approach summed up in a final synthesis pointing to an ultimate reconciliation, first for Israel (Romans 11:26-7), and then for (Romans 11: 30-36). This final summation is presaged in Romans 5:18. Similarly I don’t think that Romans 12:19 (quoting Deuteronomy 32:35) means that vengeance must be God’s final act—vis-à-vis anyone. And, even if vengeance were to be taken literally here, there is no indication that vengeance must be unending or the final endgame—for anyone.

(b) The rest of Romans seems to indicate Paul’s view that God’s enemies are not people, per se, but “ungodliness and wickedness”, which must be cleansed.

(c) The word vengeance occurs a scant four times in the New Testament. It is at most a minor footnote to the over-arching theme of agape. That, to me, (in addition to the other considerations I have mentioned) makes it hard to give vengeance the hermeneutical weight required for it set conditions on God’s love—rather than the other way around.

(d) In sum, it is, for me, our understanding of vengeance—as applied to God—needs to be reconfigured, in light of God’s agape, rather than the other way around. And, in matters such as this (as I noted in my outline of hermeneutical principles that I would apply) it is the NT that has to contextualize and modify the OT, rather than the other way around.

I think I understand your position (please correct me if I don't)—I just disagree.

Originally posted by vistesd
I think this thread is already pretty done in terms of the original topic, but that’s okay. Just a couple of final notes on my end:

(1) A loving person can take revenge, but not against someone they love (without distorting any meaning of love that I am aware of).

(2) Love itself cannot be vengeful, as vengefulness is not itself love; so eve ...[text shortened]... ay around.

I think I understand your position (please correct me if I don't)—I just disagree.

Well stated Vistesd, I am at a point where I feel sad that man's understanding of a loving God has been so distorted.
When I understood even a little of the passion of God's love, first it shamed me, then I rejoiced in awe of this kind of love. Especially when I was "lifted up" by it. It solved a lot of issues, questions, etc.

Originally posted by vistesd
All of the following is intended to fall within a Christic context. The reductio ad absurdum is this:


1. It is God’s will (intention) to save everyone;

2. There is no exogenous power that can defeat God;

3. Not everyone is saved.



It is a reductio ad absurdum because not all three statements can be true without contradicti ...[text shortened]... h I imagine that rwingett could make a cogent argument for its importance in Christic thinking).

BTW, #1. would be more accurate as follows....

1 Tim 2:4
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
NKJV

God "desires" not "intends" that all men be saved.
So I think all 3 would be true.

NT:2309

NT:2309
<START GREEK>qe/lw
<END GREEK> thelo (thel'-o); or ethelo (eth-el'-o); in certain tenses theleo (thel-eh'-o); and etheleo (eth-el-eh'-o); which are otherwise obsolete; apparently strengthened from the alternate form of NT:138; to determine (as an active option from subjective impulse; whereas NT:1014 properly denotes rather a passive acquiescence in objective considerations), i.e. choose or prefer (literally or figuratively); by implication, to wish, i.e. be inclined to (sometimes adverbially, gladly); impersonally for the future tense, to be about to; by Hebraism, to delight in:


KJV - desire, be disposed (forward), intend, list, love, mean, please, have rather, (be) will (have, -ling, -ling [-ly]).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Originally posted by checkbaiter
BTW, #1. would be more accurate as follows....

1 Tim 2:4
4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
NKJV

God "desires" not "intends" that all men be saved.
So I think all 3 would be true.

NT:2309

NT:2309
<START GREEK>qe/lw
<END GREEK> thelo (thel'-o); or ethelo (eth-el'-o); in certain tense ...[text shortened]... tionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Thanks, CB. But I don’t think it works.*

First, thelo can be used to mean what one wills or intends or resolves to do (as your KJV reference also indicates). [See the lexicon references below; I also list other Greek words that can also mean wish or desire.]

Second—and more importantly, I think—it would seem to be contradictory to desire that something happen, while not intending that it happen—especially if it is in one’s power to achieve the desired end. (And, if it is not in one’s power, then we are back to rejecting 2.) Humans may be subject to cognitive dissonance, contradictory urges, inner turmoil, etc.—and hence be paralyzed with regard to action; but is God subject to that kind of paralysis?

The question, then, is whether we are speaking of an active intent—an exercise of the will that cannot be thwarted—or some kind of passive wish. I can’t see how the latter can be true, without really rejecting 1.


____________________________________________________________

Friberg Lexicon: exercising the will; wish, want, desire; a readiness or inclination; resolve, decision or design—will, intend, purpose, aim.

Barclay-Newman Greek Dictionary: wish, desire, want, will, like.

Liddell-Scott-Jones: The abridged version in BibleWorks just said “shortened form of ethelo.” The full LSJ entry can be seen here: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e%29qe%2Flw&la=greek&can=e%29qe%2Flw0&prior=e)pifilopone/omai#lexicon.

The LSJ entry came up when I searched for “will”, not “desire”. The entry indicates that it can mean generally to wish, but also “to be willing (of consent rather than desire); to decree or ordain; or intent.

Young’s Literal Translation translates as both “will” and “wish”.

There are other Greek words translated as wish or desire, e.g., epithumia: strong impulse or desire, longing, passion—even lust (so it ranges from neutral to excessive); boulomai: want, desire, wish, intend or plan; euxomai: pray, wish, long for, want; ophelon: a verbal particle expressing an unattainable wish, as in “would that I could”.

_________________________________________

* EDIT: But I seem to recall having seen similar distinctions made before. And I'm not dismissing it out of hand as strictly illogical--I just don't think it works.

Originally posted by vistesd
Thanks, CB. But I don’t think it works.

First, thelo can be used to mean what one wills or intends or resolves to do (as your KJV reference also indicates). [See the lexicon references below; I also list other Greek words that can mean wish or desire.]

Second—and more importantly, I think—it would seem to be contradictory to desire that so ...[text shortened]... ophelon: a verbal particle expressing an unattainable wish, as in “would that I could”.

Then indeed, it is a great mystery, but not enough to reject my faith (I know that is not your intent ) in what I do know.

I don't think every thing about God can be known, only what he has revealed. But the discussion is nevertheless, interesting.

Deut 29:29
"The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
NKJV

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Then indeed, it is a great mystery, but not enough to reject my faith (I know that is not your intent ) in what I do know.

I don't think every thing about God can be known, only what he has revealed. But the discussion is nevertheless, interesting.

Deut 29:29
"The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but those things which are reveale ...[text shortened]... ng to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.
NKJV

That is certainly not my intent. Really, I appreciate the challenges, as they force me to examine my own thinking (and dig deeper into the research). I made a late edit to my last post that I don't think you could see before you posted--sorry about that.

Originally posted by vistesd
That is certainly not my intent. Really, I appreciate the challenges, as they force me to examine my own thinking (and dig deeper into the research). I made a late edit to my last post that I don't think you could see before you posted--sorry about that.

Second—and more importantly, I think—it would seem to be contradictory to desire that something happen, while not intending that it happen—especially if it is in one’s power to achieve the desired end. (And, if it is not in one’s power, then we are back to rejecting 2

I have always regarded 1Tim 2:4 as meaning desire other wise it is illogical because we know or assume that not everyone is saved.
I don't see it as contradictory if 2. is wrong.
I wish it wouldn't rain, but it may.
The question then is,

There is no exogenous power that can defeat God

Is that true? I can ask, can God lie? Can he go against his word?
No, I agree not exogenous, but limited by his own righteousness. He is bound by his own words.

Originally posted by checkbaiter

Second—and more importantly, I think—it would seem to be contradictory to desire that something happen, while not intending that it happen—especially if it is in one’s power to achieve the desired end. (And, if it is not in one’s power, then we are back to rejecting 2

I have always regarded 1Tim 2:4 as meaning desire other wise it is illo ...[text shortened]...
No, I agree not exogenous, but limited by his own righteousness. He is bound by his own words.

I neither know nor assume that not everyone is saved—in the final act. (Nor do I know or assume to contrary—which would be to accept 3.)

There is a choice here: Either God’s agape is understood as subject to God’s righteousness, or God’s righteousness is understood as subject to God’s agape. Since I read John (in 1st John) as stating clearly that agape is God’s essential nature (again, with statements couched in the nominative of identity in the Greek), then I have to think that God’s attribute of righteousness cannot counter God’s essential nature—but must be an expression of it.

—Example: To say that CB is a human being, and then to counter with something like, “Yes, but he’s also a man”—as if being a man were not an expression/attribute of the humanness, rather than the other way around—I would think makes no sense.

Therefore, I tend to see God’s righteousness in terms of God’s activity to bring about an ultimate apokatastasis—restoration or reconciliation of all things. And I do not restrict that activity to this life.

Now, I suspect that we might see the Bible itself differently. I see differing views in the various Biblical texts, from the perspective of different authors—all grappling with the divine mystery (whether “inspired” or not). Within that, however, I also see the general theme of the NT as really recasting God’s righteousness as an expression of God’s agape (or, perhaps, instead of “recasting”, emphasizing).

I also am not a sola scripturist (and I think that was a profound error on the part of Luther—not that some traditions didn’t need to be changed). I tend to follow the Anglican (Episcopalian) principle of the “three pillars of faith”: scripture, tradition and reason. And I think that some of the early post-apostolic “fathers” knew what they were talking about. In the end, however, it is not about taking God at God’s word—but how we are to interpret and understand those words, and that is an inescapable task.

To put it simply (at the risk of over-simplifying), you and I contextualize differently. That is, we differ on which texts set the ruling context for which other texts. We both recognize context—we just apply it differently. (Which is why I say that your view cannot be dismissed out-of-hand. It has to be taken seriously, which I do. I simply disagree with it.)

In the Eastern Orthodox churches, the question of universal salvation (or not) has never been made dogma—and Orthodox theologians such as Kallistos Ware speak of the legitimate hope for universal salvation. Protestant theologian Karl Barth held a similar view, I believe. [Note: Salvation in the Orthodox view is a process toward a final end—not a one-time event.]

There is another issue: Justice versus mercy and grace. If unsaved sinners are punished, but saved sinners are pardoned (forgiven)—then only those who are punished receive justice. If faith is accounted as justice for the saved, then the definition of justice is already changed. I commend the following homily by St. Isaac the Syrian (613-700C.E.):

https://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/st-isaac-the-syrian-homily-60/

Originally posted by vistesd
I neither know nor assume that not everyone is saved—in the final act. (Nor do I know or assume to contrary—which would be to accept 3.)

There is a choice here: Either God’s agape is understood as subject to God’s righteousness, or God’s righteousness is understood as subject to God’s agape. Since I read John (in 1st John) as stating cl ...[text shortened]... n (613-700C.E.):

https://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/st-isaac-the-syrian-homily-60/

There is another issue: Justice versus mercy and grace. If unsaved sinners are punished, but saved sinners are pardoned (forgiven)—then only those who are punished receive justice. If faith is accounted as justice for the saved, then the definition of justice is already changed. I commend the following homily by St. Isaac the Syrian (613-700C.E.)

I do not understand, it seems that you are missing Christ. The justice for the "saved" was laid on Jesus Christ. He took our sins.
I will read your link in a bit, and get back later.