tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post8623380326960728870..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Forgiveness-3Rhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-1710070729571468092009-01-27T06:33:00.000-06:002009-01-27T06:33:00.000-06:00You can call the Cathars whatever you like, but......You can call the Cathars whatever you like, but... they really were pretty whacked out. And don't even get me started on the Fraticelli or the Muslims.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-84362045290607695412009-01-26T13:00:00.000-06:002009-01-26T13:00:00.000-06:00Paul C, we believe in a God who guides His people,...Paul C, we believe in a God who guides His people, and who has spoken in the Bible. Many issues are resolved by reading it. And yes, God many times has used that Bible to cause the right side to "win". <BR/><BR/>And of course, dispute just means that people care about it and think it's important. I don't know why anyone would think that's a bad thing. You may not be used to that since your side is so trigger-happy silencing dissent, but maybe you can learn.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-85127746224359753942009-01-26T12:44:00.000-06:002009-01-26T12:44:00.000-06:00In the history of the church, the core theological...<I>In the history of the church, the core theological issues were generally only disputed by fanatics</I><BR/><BR/>You would say that, of course, since a) you have the benefit of hindsight, and b) your side "won".Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-70602470173083914282009-01-26T12:04:00.000-06:002009-01-26T12:04:00.000-06:00In the history of the church, the core theological...In the history of the church, the core theological issues were generally only disputed by fanatics; so I should hope the present discourse, astonishing or not, is not entirely similar.<BR/><BR/>Anyhow,<BR/>1. Badness of sin - as I said, I wasn't trying to make a positive statement, so I'll concede your point. On the tithing question, I would say that sacrifice without obedience is not sacrifice, strictly speaking, so the issue is not really one of weighing portions of the law against itself. I don't think the Bible is trying to parse things that finely - 'Well, if your sacrificial sheep is blemished, that's not quite as bad as coveting your neighbour's bicycle, assuming he has more than two of them...' Rather, as James said, 'whoever shall stumble in one point is guilty of all.' Jesus and prophets rail against a legalistic 'keeping of the law' which is actually a concealed form of law-breaking. It's not keeping the wrong laws that was the proplem, as if the Pharisees were righteous sometimes, but rebelliously breaking them all.<BR/><BR/>2. "The Key"... I'm not sure what you mean by this paragraph. You seem to be saying that a sinner who constantly returns to the offended party to ask forgiveness has the same destructive impact on the church that the offended party would have by never letting anything slide. Is that what you mean?<BR/><BR/>3. So on repentance, we seem to be at something of an impasse. I say sinners cannot repent, you say they can. You agree with me that they cannot repent in an ultimate sense, but seem to be advocating an intermediate category of non-salvific remorse that is nevertheless virtuous. I wonder how you would defend your view? To me it seems a little silly to talk as if non-Christians could really do virtuous-seeming things that really are virtuous. The mind set on the flesh does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so. That those in sin can do nothing that is not sin seems to me like a pretty fundamental point. Rather, their righteousnesses (which in the Hebrew context meant the precise observance of various 'good' actions from the Mosaic law) are as filthy rags. So I'd like to hear more from you on this point. <BR/><BR/>I fully agree that most people are inconsistent and muddled in their thinking. But I am trying to argue that repentance as such entails a degree of clearheadedness about sin to which unbelievers have no access. What leads you to "split the difference", as it were, between the dark stoniness of an unbelieving heart and the lucidity of a Christian's conscience?<BR/><BR/>4. Your reticence to out-do God in any virtue is understandable and does you credit. But I think the present case, rightly considered, need not present us with such lunacy.<BR/><BR/>Your standard appears to be that we should forgive only those things God forgives, which is intuitive, but I think it gets you into some difficulty. You know perfectly well that God never forgives non-Christians for anything - that is why they go to hell. Divine justice requires that all sins be atoned for, either by proxy in the boundless suffering of Christ, or directly by the eternal suffering of the sinner. I ask you, then, how I can forgive a non-Christian? Suppose he (to use my favourite example) cuts me off on the interstate. I may or may not forgive him; we seem to have agreed that I should, especially if he asks for it. But regardless of what the man says to me, God most certainly will not forgive him, unless and until he seeks refuge in Christ's blood. It would seem we must decided between unappealing alternatives: either to forgive Christians exclusively, or else to be more virtuous than God himself.<BR/><BR/>I am suggesting a model of forgiveness that circumvents this. Rather than bearing the heavy and complicated burden of determining whether someone was sincere - my idea is that in forgiving we merely release whoever it is from their debt to us. We are in a different position from God's, as I'm sure you will agree; whereas he is responsible for the justice of the universe, we are only responsible for emulating Christ who "when reviled did not revile in return, when suffering uttered no threats, but kept entrusting himself to the one who judges righteously." (I do not, by the way, agree that God is the exemplar of our actions - at least not completely. There are zillions of divine attributes to which we dare not aspire, except in very limited and derivative fashion. Like condemming the guilty to hell, or rebuking the devil, or non-contingency of essence, or creating worlds... rather, I think Christ on earth is far nearer the mark.) The offense, considered in itself, God will require of them - whether they pay for it themselves or plead his grace, the point is that we, individual Christians, are not responsible for settling things.<BR/><BR/>I think this is the meaning of the imprecatory Psalms. The Psalmist is not embittered at his enemies, he is not in sin at the moment of his inspired composition; yet nonetheless he prays with some heat that God would blot them out for his name's sake. It occurs to me that perhaps this is the model for our forgiveness - forgiving those who trespass against us, yet praying for justice in the world (ideally carried out on Christ, but not necessarily).<BR/><BR/>5. Excommunication I'm going to leave for the moment. I hear what you're saying, but want to keep this to a manageable length.<BR/><BR/>6. I haven't yet touched on withholding forgiveness for the offender's good, because as a motive it seemed secondary to the discussion of whether the practice itself was biblical or not. (As an additional note, I intend 'unbiblical' in the strictly descriptive sense of 'not entirely in line with what I understand the bible to teach' - I certainly understand that this is a complex issue, and wouldn't dream of calling you a heretic.) But anyway, that's why I haven't dealt with it yet. It seems to me that I could come up with any number of ways, motivated by pure love, to encourage people to righteousness. A very biblical example of this would be parents spanking their children. An unbiblical example might be parents spanking their children's teachers. In either case one might argue that it springs from a genuine love and desire to see whoever it is become more virtuous and ultimately come to know Christ - and for all I know, maybe it's an effective technique. That one is biblical and the other rather less so seems to me to have logical priority. Do you see what I mean?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-6602140823483902142009-01-24T12:30:00.000-06:002009-01-24T12:30:00.000-06:00I honestly didn't think that the biblical teaching...<I>I honestly didn't think that the biblical teaching on different levels of, well, badness of sin would be in question.</I><BR/><BR/>What, you mean in exactly the same way as nearly every other theological issue in the history of Christianity has been in question?<BR/><BR/>Astonishing!Paul Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13361948689477122420noreply@blogger.com