Perhaps it is more of a "willingness" to understand rather than a failure to communicate....
Here's the alleged problem. God works (and speaks)through people. Through imperfection. God works perfectly through imperfection. People make mistakes (often in the meaningless details which have nothing to do with the heart of the message).
Not only do people make mistakes..but our langauges do NOT address single meanings. Often not only do words have double meanings but ALSO phrases have to be understood within CONTEXT.
This is VERY important.
Let's look at two basic phrases.
"What you do is more important than what you believe."
"What you believe is more important than what you do."
In Christianity, BOTH of these statements are true... but to a person who is NOT willing to understand, but is just looking for face value contradiction - they are not going to address the "context" of these two statements.
The first context is the "testimony" of the believer and the second context is the "salvation" of the believer.
Context changes everything.... and that is why correct interpretation is so important.
The "bible" doesn't fail to communicate to the believer who is correctly interpreting....
that is who it is written to really.
It wasn't written to the unbelievers who would reject it.
Question everything...especially "why" unbelievers would reject it.
Question also why believers themselves have so many different interpretations on peripheral theology. Salvation, however, is what separates the believer from the unbeliever....and that is agreed upon by all born-again Christains.
this concept of "failure to communicate" fails to address specifically "what."
What does it fail to communicate?
Everything it says?
Such a extreme requirement on minor details will only lead to deception...because the ancient cultures didn't think with this level of hyper-technicality. They knew that when a human was communicating that there would be mistakes in the minor details.
So what? The languages of Paleo-Hebrew and koine Greek are flawed themselves.
This objection doesn't buy you anything - as far as a valid basis to reject the basic message by dissecting it with hyper-technicality (or alleged critical thinking).
Until you deal with "understanding" itself (or wisdom that comes from God - is a GIFT from God - and often comes through humility) your point about "failure to communicate" is an argument based on numbers rather than on hearts.
It's amazing, the hoops Christians will jump through to rationalize their faith.
I once posited the following scenario to a Christian friend of mine, and it seemed to keep him quiet for a while. I've posed it to a number of believers, and haven't received a coherent answer yet.
Christians believe God is omnipotent and, by extension, omniscient. If God is all-knowing and exists independently of space-time, he knows all events at all times in the past, present and future. He knows every human thought that has happened, and ever will happen, right down to every twitch of a bacterial flagellum.
So then, why do people end up not believing, or going to hell? While we might be said to have "free will", God would, by definition, have to know exactly what choices each of us would ultimately make, and therefor know who would end up in hell. Why create anyone who would end up in hell?
The only way to resolve this paradox is to assert that God doesn't actually know the future, in which case he is not all-knowing and thus cannot be all-powerful. If he is neither, why call him God?
"God would, by definition, have to know exactly what choices each of us would ultimately make,"
He does. (but claiming there is no choice is a wrongful form of isolating (over-analyzing)on the end result and forgeting the *means* to the end.... a classic mistake that needs to be carefully dissected so you can see clearly where you went wrong (if you make the assertion that omniscience and choice/volition are incompatible).
"and therefore know who would end up in hell."
He does...but you must remember that ORDER and JUSTICE "come along side of" (imperfect and needs clarification) Grace/Mercy.
First, you need to understand how perfect justice and the eternal nature of sin and how it is contrary to the Holiness of God. IOW, you need to understand "why" and how eternal hell (without atonement/forgiveness) is LOGICAL with the multi-faceted connected premises of the Holiness of God, the state of humankind, and the state of hell - and how claiming it is an eternal punishment for a finite action misses what is really going on with eternal separation from God's glory.
"Why create anyone who would end up in hell?"
In answering this you need to understand that there is NOT just one simple answer. The answer is far too complex as to isolate on just one factor (i.e. the necessity of learning contrast, the knowledge of God, forgiveness vs. non-forgiveness, grace vs. no grace, salvation from something real, the right for love to exist in God's universe, the potential byproduct of the ability to love, the way in which MORE people are brought into existence through the choices of human beings in a fallen state, etc etc etc).
One could answer "so that more could go to heaven" but THIS too would be a horrible isolation on those going to heaven - and would fail to deal with dozens of other reasons which are connect to the eternal glory of love and the eternal protection of God's children - and LOVE'S right to exist at the cost of evil.
In order to even have love, you have to understand how sin is going to be a danger unless you completely remove its potential.
Removing this potential involves transformation as well as knowledge that must be learned/observed, as well as motivation and eternal loyalty (that is logical,btw) so that choice is no longer a danger to a being who "could" (but won't finally in heaven - "could" is in quotes for a reason - and its imperfect use)commit it (without certain knowledge that needs to be learned).
*BUT* the temporary creation is NOT all about removing our potential to sin...that TOO would be "isolating" and forgetting everything else that God is doing with this temporary creation.
Breckmin, you are a piece of work man. The most amazing thing is that you actually seem to believe the contorted things you write.
- I wasn't talking about the omniscience paradox; I was talking about God's knowledge of all past, present and future human thoughts and actions.
But, you don't escape the omniscience paradox by suggesting that the means to an end provides an avenue for volition, since God would have foreknowledge of all processes by which he would arrive at a conclusion; indeed the very suggestion that an omniscient, omnipotent being would require a means at all is self-defeating.
- You keep telling me what I need to understand, and toss out all this nonsensical babble about love and justice, but you never answer the question. "Would" and "could" have nothing to do with anything. God either knows who will end up in hell or he does not. If he does, he cannot be perfectly loving, because he would create someone with the foreknowledge that they would reject him and be eternally tormented.
sorry about the multiple post of the same thing...
back to "Why would God create people knowing they would end up in eternal hell?"
This is a very important question to answer. Without understanding the Holiness of God as well as LOVE's right to exist and how Love's right to exist trumps the fact that evil will indeed exist...most people will wrongfully paint God as a monster out of their lack of understanding and their petty God-concept.
Love requires choice. Choice creates the inevitable byproduct of sin (unless this inevitability is removed). Knowledge of consequences must be observed/learned. Choice is a danger to us...and God is removing that danger through salvation and through the temporary creation... but once again - this is just ONE aspect of it that is multi-faceted. God is also showing us His Self-Sacrificing love. God is also teaching us through chastisement. God also going to display His Perfect Justice by judging sin/disobedience to those who do not receive forgiveness. God is also demonstrating the REALITY of the consequences for sin (which are indeed eternal and indeed real).
God is also providing payment for what is a danger to us.
You can't forget that a morally bad choice (sin) objectively "taints" a being of choice forever - because of the nature of sin.
Clearly, there is much more to explain...and this discussion will only bring forth more questions which need to be answered.
Love has a right to exist...and God has a right to do what is Perfect for all of eternity...and that is remove the potential of losing one of His children in heaven as well as judge choices which are against His Holy Nature.
one of the problem Mike, is that you are perhaps falling victim to the imperfection of terms such as omnibenevolent or omnipotence.
Clearly omniscient is a much more accurate term to describe the Infinite Creator...but God doesn't "love" trees He will destroy. He doesn't love rocks or have a relationship with them. He doesn't love demons or Satan. Applying "all-loving" then becomes a human imperfection of encompassing "all" - just as we would have problems with the "all" in "all-powerful" which fails to address self-contradictory occurences which do NOT apply to how God is all-logically-powerful.
Another problem is that you are attempting to look at God from a foreknowledge perspective which will only confuse you. You even made the statement "exists independently of space-time" which I believe is incorrect wording in describing the atemporal state of existence from which God operates.
There are answers to your questions..and I would be happy to go through many of them with you..but at some point you need to go to your Heavenly Father on your own and pray for His grace and protection.
There is nothing fair (equal opportunity) about God's grace... but YOU can receive it here and now if you get out of your own way to it - and allow God's Spirit to live inside you.
"since God would have foreknowledge of all processes by which he would arrive at a conclusion"
That "we" would arrive at together with God.
Here's the problem. You believe that if the future is known then it is defined...and therefore can be nothing else... but once again this is wrongful over-analyzing and isolating on the ends and failing to address the fact that the MEANS actually defines the ends. If you plot the Holy Infinite Creator on a timeline as though God is experiencing time as we do...then you will not understand the concept of "observation of choice" nor how concurrence plays into this.
Also, God being a God of "order" and of "justice" does not mean He can't give grace at the same time.
Breckmin said "God being a God of "order" and of "justice" does not mean He can't give grace at the same time."
I apologize for this meaningless statement - because I was late for an apointment and had a house full of activity while mult-tasking.
What I meant to say was God is not only a God of order and perfect justice, but He is also a God of relationships.
God's relationship with those who love Him is clearly different than with those who do NOT have a relationship with Him. Jesus will even say "depart from me, I never knew you" (or never had a relationship with you that was one of spiritual intimacy).
This is very important to understand the difference between those whom God "adopts" through the price of atonement/suffering...and those who never receive such eternal adoption. What is problematic here, however, is that we are discussing the "meat of election" without first learning how to chew. If you don't drink the milk of the basics first and mature enough to grow your teeth, then you are going to choke on the steak of Truth that you can't yet chew (with valid assumptions and proper God-concept).
Systematic theology is all about God-concept. If you have a Creator who is petty (needs worship, worship is to appease Him, is somehow blood thirsty or delights in the smell of blood, or is an old man in the clouds) and anything less than an Infinite Existence rather than a finite being...then you are going to get confused. I recently heard a Christian give a ridiculous apologetic that God created because He was somehow "lonely."
These are petty God concepts that do NOT apply to the Incredible and Awesome Holy/Righteous/Perfect infinite Creator who is amazingly powerful and mind-blowing in His capability. Every time I eat a bit of chicken I can recognize that God "grew that chicken" knowing that I would someday eat it - and that He ultimately provided for me. God knew I was going to eat it (but I still made absolute choices which resulted in me purchasing the sandwich or dinner). This is what people don't understand. The God Who you accuse of somehow murdering babies actually weaved those babies in their mothers wombs through His sustaining order and He knows their every atom/molecule.
This idea that God fails to communicate is also evasive to the fact that everyone is LEARNING.
We are all at different points and different stages of learning so of course we will all think differently. That is "one of" the many reasons why their are so many different denominations. It's not that God somehow "failed" but rather we are seeing people at different stages of Christian maturity and biblical understanding.
14 comments:
Perhaps it is more of a "willingness" to understand rather than a failure to communicate....
Here's the alleged problem. God works (and speaks)through people. Through imperfection. God works perfectly through imperfection. People make mistakes (often in the meaningless details which have nothing to do with the heart of the message).
Not only do people make mistakes..but our langauges do NOT address single meanings. Often not only do words have double meanings but ALSO phrases have to be understood within CONTEXT.
This is VERY important.
Let's look at two basic phrases.
"What you do is more important than what you believe."
"What you believe is more important than what you do."
In Christianity, BOTH of these statements are true... but to a person who is NOT willing to understand, but is just looking for face value contradiction - they are not going to address the "context" of these two statements.
The first context is the "testimony" of the believer and the second context is the "salvation" of the believer.
Context changes everything.... and that is why correct interpretation is so important.
The "bible" doesn't fail to communicate to the believer who is correctly interpreting....
that is who it is written to really.
It wasn't written to the unbelievers who would reject it.
Question everything...especially "why" unbelievers would reject it.
Question also why believers themselves have so many different interpretations on peripheral theology. Salvation, however, is what separates the believer from the unbeliever....and that is agreed upon by all born-again Christains.
Also,
this concept of "failure to communicate" fails to address specifically "what."
What does it fail to communicate?
Everything it says?
Such a extreme requirement on minor details will only lead to deception...because the ancient cultures didn't think with this level of hyper-technicality. They knew that when a human was communicating that there would be mistakes in the minor details.
So what? The languages of Paleo-Hebrew and koine Greek are flawed themselves.
This objection doesn't buy you anything - as far as a valid basis to reject the basic message by dissecting it with hyper-technicality (or alleged critical thinking).
Until you deal with "understanding" itself (or wisdom that comes from God - is a GIFT from God - and often comes through humility) your point about "failure to communicate" is an argument based on numbers rather than on hearts.
Q.E.
It's amazing, the hoops Christians will jump through to rationalize their faith.
I once posited the following scenario to a Christian friend of mine, and it seemed to keep him quiet for a while. I've posed it to a number of believers, and haven't received a coherent answer yet.
Christians believe God is omnipotent and, by extension, omniscient. If God is all-knowing and exists independently of space-time, he knows all events at all times in the past, present and future. He knows every human thought that has happened, and ever will happen, right down to every twitch of a bacterial flagellum.
So then, why do people end up not believing, or going to hell? While we might be said to have "free will", God would, by definition, have to know exactly what choices each of us would ultimately make, and therefor know who would end up in hell. Why create anyone who would end up in hell?
The only way to resolve this paradox is to assert that God doesn't actually know the future, in which case he is not all-knowing and thus cannot be all-powerful. If he is neither, why call him God?
"God would, by definition, have to know exactly what choices each of us would ultimately make,"
He does. (but claiming there is no choice is a wrongful form of isolating (over-analyzing)on the end result and forgeting the *means* to the end.... a classic mistake that needs to be carefully dissected so you can see clearly where you went wrong (if you make the assertion that omniscience and choice/volition are incompatible).
"and therefore know who would end up in hell."
He does...but you must remember that ORDER and JUSTICE "come along side of" (imperfect and needs clarification) Grace/Mercy.
First, you need to understand how perfect justice and the eternal nature of sin and how it is contrary to the Holiness of God.
IOW, you need to understand "why" and how eternal hell (without atonement/forgiveness) is LOGICAL with the multi-faceted connected premises of the Holiness of God, the state of humankind, and the state of hell - and how claiming it is an eternal punishment for a finite action misses what is really going on with eternal separation from God's glory.
"Why create anyone who would end up in hell?"
In answering this you need to understand that there is NOT just one simple answer. The answer is far too complex as to isolate on just one factor (i.e. the necessity of learning contrast, the knowledge of God, forgiveness vs. non-forgiveness, grace vs. no grace, salvation from something real, the right for love to exist in God's universe, the potential byproduct of the ability to love, the way in which MORE people are brought into existence through the choices of human beings in a fallen state, etc etc etc).
One could answer "so that more could go to heaven" but THIS too would be a horrible isolation on those going to heaven - and would fail to deal with dozens of other reasons which are connect to the eternal glory of love and the eternal protection of God's children - and LOVE'S right to exist at the cost of evil.
In order to even have love, you have to understand how sin is going to be a danger unless you completely remove its potential.
Removing this potential involves transformation as well as knowledge that must be learned/observed, as well as motivation and eternal loyalty (that is logical,btw) so that choice is no longer a danger to a being who "could" (but won't finally in heaven - "could" is in quotes for a reason - and its imperfect use)commit it (without certain knowledge that needs to be learned).
*BUT* the temporary creation is NOT all about removing our potential to sin...that TOO would be "isolating" and forgetting everything else that God is doing with this temporary creation.
Breckmin, you are a piece of work man. The most amazing thing is that you actually seem to believe the contorted things you write.
- I wasn't talking about the omniscience paradox; I was talking about God's knowledge of all past, present and future human thoughts and actions.
But, you don't escape the omniscience paradox by suggesting that the means to an end provides an avenue for volition, since God would have foreknowledge of all processes by which he would arrive at a conclusion; indeed the very suggestion that an omniscient, omnipotent being would require a means at all is self-defeating.
- You keep telling me what I need to understand, and toss out all this nonsensical babble about love and justice, but you never answer the question. "Would" and "could" have nothing to do with anything. God either knows who will end up in hell or he does not. If he does, he cannot be perfectly loving, because he would create someone with the foreknowledge that they would reject him and be eternally tormented.
sorry about the multiple post of the same thing...
back to "Why would God create people knowing they would end up in eternal hell?"
This is a very important question to answer. Without understanding the Holiness of God as well as LOVE's right to exist and how Love's right to exist trumps the fact that evil will indeed exist...most people will wrongfully paint God as a monster out of their lack of understanding and their petty God-concept.
Love requires choice. Choice creates the inevitable byproduct of sin (unless this inevitability is removed). Knowledge of consequences must be observed/learned. Choice is a danger to us...and God is removing that danger through salvation and through the temporary creation... but once again - this is just ONE aspect of it that is multi-faceted.
God is also showing us His Self-Sacrificing love. God is also teaching us through chastisement. God also going to display His Perfect Justice by judging sin/disobedience to those who do not receive forgiveness. God is also demonstrating the REALITY of the consequences for sin (which are indeed eternal and indeed real).
God is also providing payment for what is a danger to us.
You can't forget that a morally bad choice (sin) objectively "taints" a being of choice forever - because of the nature of sin.
Clearly, there is much more to explain...and this discussion will only bring forth more questions which need to be answered.
Love has a right to exist...and God has a right to do what is Perfect for all of eternity...and that is remove the potential of losing one of His children in heaven as well as judge choices which are against His Holy Nature.
one of the problem Mike, is that you are perhaps falling victim to the imperfection of terms such as omnibenevolent or omnipotence.
Clearly omniscient is a much more accurate term to describe the Infinite Creator...but God doesn't "love" trees He will destroy. He doesn't love rocks or have a relationship with them. He doesn't love demons or Satan. Applying "all-loving" then becomes a human imperfection of encompassing "all" - just as we would have problems with the "all" in "all-powerful" which fails to address self-contradictory occurences which do NOT apply to how God is all-logically-powerful.
Another problem is that you are attempting to look at God from a foreknowledge perspective which will only confuse you. You even made the statement "exists independently of space-time" which I believe is incorrect wording in describing the atemporal state of existence from which God operates.
There are answers to your questions..and I would be happy to go through many of them with you..but at some point you need to go to your Heavenly Father on your own and pray for His grace and protection.
There is nothing fair (equal opportunity) about God's grace... but YOU can receive it here and now if you get out of your own way to it - and allow God's Spirit to live inside you.
"since God would have foreknowledge of all processes by which he would arrive at a conclusion"
That "we" would arrive at together with God.
Here's the problem. You believe that if the future is known then it is defined...and therefore can be nothing else... but once again this is wrongful over-analyzing and isolating on the ends and failing to address the fact that the MEANS actually defines the ends. If you plot the Holy Infinite Creator on a timeline as though God is experiencing time as we do...then you will not understand the concept of "observation of choice" nor how concurrence plays into this.
Also, God being a God of "order" and of "justice" does not mean He can't give grace at the same time.
(cont, later)
H.L. Mencken is purported to have said, "Never argue with a man whose job depends on not being convinced."
Breckmin said "God being a God of "order" and of "justice" does not mean He can't give grace at the same time."
I apologize for this meaningless statement - because I was late for an apointment and had a house full of activity while mult-tasking.
What I meant to say was God is not only a God of order and perfect justice, but He is also a God of relationships.
God's relationship with those who love Him is clearly different than with those who do NOT have a relationship with Him. Jesus will even say "depart from me, I never knew you" (or never had a relationship with you that was one of spiritual intimacy).
This is very important to understand the difference between those whom God "adopts" through the price of atonement/suffering...and those who never receive such eternal adoption.
What is problematic here, however, is that we are discussing the "meat of election" without first learning how to chew. If you don't drink the milk of the basics first and mature enough to grow your teeth, then you are going to choke on the steak of Truth that you can't yet chew (with valid assumptions and proper God-concept).
Systematic theology is all about God-concept. If you have a Creator who is petty (needs worship, worship is to appease Him, is somehow blood thirsty or delights in the smell of blood, or is an old man in the clouds) and anything less than an Infinite Existence rather than a finite being...then you are going to get confused. I recently heard a Christian give a ridiculous apologetic that God created because He was somehow "lonely."
These are petty God concepts that do NOT apply to the Incredible and Awesome Holy/Righteous/Perfect infinite Creator who is amazingly powerful and mind-blowing in His capability. Every time I eat a bit of chicken I can recognize that God "grew that chicken" knowing that I would someday eat it - and that He ultimately provided for me. God knew I was going to eat it (but I still made absolute choices which resulted in me purchasing the sandwich or dinner).
This is what people don't understand. The God Who you accuse of somehow murdering babies actually weaved those babies in their mothers wombs through His sustaining order and He knows their every atom/molecule.
This idea that God fails to communicate is also evasive to the fact that everyone is LEARNING.
We are all at different points and different stages of learning so of course we will all think differently. That is "one of" the many reasons why their are so many different denominations.
It's not that God somehow "failed" but rather we are seeing people at different stages of Christian maturity and biblical understanding.
Question everything.
Post a Comment