A Basis for Reasoning Together
Paul Muad'dib
In article <4ubsdu$4...@geneva.rutgers.edu>,
Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
> In article Paul Muad'dib writes:
> >The essence of idolatry
> >is the entertainment of thoughts about God that are unworthy of Him. It
> >begins in the mind.
>
> Indeed! So now the question becomes which view of God is more worthy:
> the God who fears and despises homosexual sex acts or the God of love and
> understanding?
> Peace,
> Hedgehog
One wonders why you even bother with signing off in -peace. There is
nothing peaceful about your replies.
Your comment and quotes of Scripture alluded to the conclusion that God is
governed by love. This is a partial truth, but only partial. I have
mentioned in our talks before, the Greek syntax for this scriptural
passage, God is love, puts forth the structure that you cannot reverse its
word order. Indeed, from a Christian philosophical view you cannot do it
either. Love is not God. God's love is governed by all His other
attributes equally and without conflict.
I think some of out problems we see here on SRC stem from the fact that we
continually argue more about effects than root causes. I would like to
propose we suspend talks on effects for a moment and look at something
more specific -the basis for Christian ethics. All ethics, whether
Christian or non-Christian, necessarily center on three questions.
1) What is the motive of human action?
2) What is the standard of human action?
3) What is the end or purpose of human action?
A Christian writer on ethics will naturally have to write according to the
genius of Christianity while a non-Christian writer on ethics will
naturally have to write in accordance with the genius of non-Christian
philosophy. But it is often maintained that the genius of non-Christian,
or at least non-orthodox, thought is free and unbound in its ethical
investigation. On the other hand, those of us in the Christian camp
maintain that the genius of Christian, or at least orthodox Christian,
thought is that it is bound to an absolute and extraneous authority. It
is interesting to observe that as Christians we readily accept this
bondage -if bondage it be- but with good reason.
But there is something that must be discussed before we take a closer look
at the questions mentioned above and it is this, the ethics of the
Christian will have to be in accordance with his epistemology. There are
non-Christian schools of ethical philosophy which maintain that ethical
good is totally independent of moral consciousness. Actually they put
forth the idea that it is the business of the moral consciousness of man
to merely recognize what is good and then set himself forth to accomplish
it. This is sometimes is referred to as objective morality and its
bedfellows include any number of thinkers from Plato to Kant. However,
this school of thinkers stand opposed to the advocates of subjective
morality where the moral consciousness of man is the final and only source
of information concerning morals. Of the objective school of thought we
could point to either those in the pragmatic camp or even those
idealistic camp. It is interesting to note that though these schools are
different in many ways, when we begin to talk about methodology, they find
them sleeping together in the same bed. What they have in common is that
they rest upon the presupposition that all thought, human and divine, (if
divine exists) is essentially of one type. i.e. it is impossible to speak
intelligently of man9s thought as being analogical of God9s thought. One
of the most fundamental aspects of idealistic epistemology is that all
dualism is to be avoided (metaphysically also). Idealism would consider
the idea that God9s moral consciousness, if we may speak of God in this
way, should be the absolute and original standard of the moral
consciousness of man as an evidence of unpardonable dualism. As for the
pragmatist it is too obvious to need comment that he would reject the
Christian view.
I do not mention all this to setup an apology against non-Christian
epistemology but only to emphasize or set apart in a clear cut opposition,
the Christian epistemological model. Non-Christian thought forms hold that
the moral consciousness is no more than the immediate or proximate source
of information on ethical matters. However, the Christian ethical model
stands steadfastly upon the foundation of a revelational, self-contained
God, the ontological Trinity as found in Scripture, as the ultimate
reference point in all ethical matters.
For the Christian, the God of Scripture is the ultimate category of
interpretation for man in every aspect of his being. This God is the
self-contained triune God. Every attribute of God will, in the nature of
the case be reflected primarily in every other attribute of God. There
will be mutual and complete exhaustiveness in the relationship of the
three persons of the Trinity. (If it were not for the Trinitarian
doctrine within Christianity, I would today be an agnostic because no
other model gives an answer to the age old question of unity and diversity
in the universe or in man) Consequently no one person of the Trinity can
be said to be correlative in its being to anything that exists beyond the
Godhead.
The application of this is that if man is indeed created, it must be that
he is absolutely dependent upon his relationship to God for the meaning of
his existence in its every aspect. And if this is true, it means that the
good is good because it has been set as good for man by God. This is
usually expressed by saying that the good is good because God says it is
good. As such it is contrasted with non-Christian thought models which
necessitate that good exists in its own right and that God strives for
this good. Let it be noted, however, that when we as Christian theists
maintain that our thought world stands in contrast to the non-Christian
thought world we do so without artificially separating the will of GOd
from the nature of GOd. Christian theism maintains that the will of GOd
expresses the nature of GOd. It is the nature of God as the will of God
that is ultimately good. Yet since this nature of God is personal and
infinite there is in no sense a way which allows us to say that good
exists in its own right.
Now with this as a basis we need to proceed to look at man in the garden.
Scripture tells us that Adam appeared upon the earth as a perfect though
finite replica of the Godhead. Indeed, the marriage of one man and one
woman is the only finite representative given to man as a type of the
Tri-Unity. I dont intend to say anything in detail about this here.
However it is necessary to point out that the original perfection of man
in every respect and in particular in his morality, is implied in the
conception of God which lies at the foundation of the whole structure of
Christian thought. Man is created in the image of God and as such was
perfect when first created. It cannot be any other way without making God
the Devil.
There is not and cannot be any evil in God. THis is involved in the very
idea of God as an absolute person. If there were evil in his being there
would be a mutual cancellation instead of a mutual complementation of the
attributes. (selah) Absolute negation and absolute affirmation would
therefore cancel one another out. Plato saw this and wrestled with the
idea without resolve as -the mud, the hair and the filth.
Now, if we can understand that there can be no evil in God it would be
incomprehensible to put forth the idea that He could create man evil. Not
only is this idea abhorant to us it is philosophically a contradiction of
His being. Therefore, Christian theists maintain that man was created
with a perfect moral consciousness.
At this point we must be quick to realize that the Christian theist also
is saying that even in the perfection of moral consciousness, its being
was derivative. Man is finite and by that fact necessarily has to live by
revelation. Man9s moral thought processes as well as other aspects of
thought were created as being receptively reconstructive. (selah) This is
of major importance to come to terms with. Man, standing in paradise, was
reliant upon God to reveal to him what to do and what not to do.
But notice that at this point, the non-Christian model has mans moral
activity as being creatively constructive. There is no absolute moral
infinite/personal to whom man is responsible and from whom he has received
his conception of what is and what is not good. One the other hand, the
Christian has an infinite/personal reference point from whom revelation as
to the true nature of morality comes forth. This revelation was
originally internal as well as external. Man found in his own makeup, in
his very moral fibers, an understanding of and a love for that which is
good. His own nature was revelational as to the will of God. However,
after saying this it must be immediately augmented with the fact that even
while standing in paradise, man9s nature was never meant to function by
itself. It was at once supplemented by the supernatural-external-positive
expression of God9s will as its correlative.
Now we need to touch a bit on the influence sin has had on this moral
consciousness of man. It would be too much to perform even a brief survey
of what the Scriptures have to say concerning this question here. But the
main point is clear enough. Just as sin has blinded the intellect of man
(as opposed to the assumptions of Aquinas followers) so it has corrupted
the will of man. This is so obvious to Christians that often we over look
its significance in the area of morals. Paul and others in Scripture
refer to this as a hardening of the heart. Paul goes further, however, to
mention that man is now at enmity against God. THe natural man is
incapable of performing deeds of the will acceptable to GOd. He cannot
even know what is the good is. The sinner is therefore by definition
capable of only worshipping the creature rather than the Creator. All
moral standards for him are turned upside down.
The Reform doctrine of total depravity makes it perfectly plain that the
moral consciousness of man as he stand today cannot be the source of
information about what is good or even concerning what is the standard of
the good let alone the true nature of the will which strives to do good
even though it is fallen. Here is where the pavement meets the road.
This were the line is drawn in the sand. Either you must stand with the
Christian or you stand against him.
It is here that one must, by necessity of its very foundational meaning,
maintain without apology and without any concession that it is Scripture
and Scripture alone that sheds any true light upon which all moral
questions stand to be answered in the reality of the God who stands behind
them. The necessity for this is simple -man in born in sin. Because he
born sinful, no man can even put the moral problem as it ought to be put.
He cannot ask the moral questions as he ought even to this day unless he
has the Scriptures to light his foot path. If then man cannot even ask
the question then he surely has no sufficiency with which to answer them.
Mans moral consciousness then is 1) finite and 2) sinful. To the extent
that man is not restrained by God9s common grace from living out his
sinful principle, the natural man makes his own moral consciousness the
ultimate and normal standard for the universe of moral action.
****************
I want to move on to the regenerate conscious next and then touch upon
some of the difficulties that we now share. But that will require another
hour or two from my schedule and I don9t have it presently. Also, I
don9t see how I can avoid discussing the RCC model because of its
acceptance and implimentation of Aquinas infusion of Aristotlian concepts
into its doctrines. To the RCC fallen man is not *very* different than
non-fallen man. This is an important crossroads for understand Christian
theistic ethics and needs clarification. (sorry, chl. I don9t see an
honest way around it)
-Loren
loren_...@admail.fnal.gov
Lex...@adcalc.fnal.gov
--
God created Arrakis to train the faithful.
mark ashley
HH>Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
HH> Indeed! So now the question becomes which view of God is more worthy:
HH> the God who fears and despises homosexual sex acts or the God of love and
HH> understanding?
It's funny that you're interested in a "view of God".
How important is that compared to following God and His teachings ?
The Church that you despise the most has congregations of
priests and nuns providing help to AIDS victims. Show us what
other people or organizations do to show "love and understanding"
so that we may understand what you're looking for.
When you say "love and understanding", are you implying that
God should allow people to commit sin and (without their repentance)
still send them to Heaven ?
Hans-Michael
Loren Senders a.k.a Paul Muad'dib (Paul_Muad'd...@admail.fnal.gov) wrote:
: Hedgehog <hedg...@scripps.edu> wrote:
: > Indeed! So now the question becomes which view of God is more worthy:
: > the God who fears and despises homosexual sex acts or the God of love
: > and understanding?
: > Peace,: > Hedgehog
: One wonders why you even bother with signing off in -peace. There is
: nothing peaceful about your replies.
C'mon Loren. What's your problem? You have mocked me as well for signing
off with the wish of peace. What would you prefer, a quote from some
science fiction book? The portion of Hedgehog's post to which you "reply"
befits such a benevolent farewell. Hedgehog calls forth an image of God
which is comapassionate and peaceful.
Your arguments seem to be full of paradoxes, Loren. Perhaps you might
clarify some things:
1) Why do some Christians invoke OT Law in order to condemn homosexuality
when they themselves ignore a host of OT laws?
2) Why do they interpret Paul as being anti-gay and lift up his writings
as condemning homosexuality wheny they themselves only pretend to follow
his teachings? Why do they treat his writings as being infallible when
Paul himself disputes this?
3) Why do you criticize homosexuality as be "unnatural" when Paul uses
the same term with reference to God? Why did you claim that everything
which is "atypical" is inherrently sinful?
4) Why do you take Paul's word on what is natural and what is unnatural?
You claimed the act of men kissing men was so obviously wrong that even
your 3rd and 4th grade students could tell you so even though Paul taught
that men should greet each other with a kiss. Why? Why don't you call
men with long hair to repent? (Paul thought it was unnatural.)
5) Why have you made references to "sodomy" and to gays as "sodomites"
even though NO biblical writer connects the destruction of Sodom with
homosexual activity? "These inferences go far in explaining how
sodomites can profess to believe as Christians and yet continue to
practice their sodomy. They fall into the trap characteristic of
unregenerate mankind." (Loren Senders)
6) If you a really against homosexuality and not against homosexuals, why
have you posted articles which calls for discrimination against gays and
lesbians? You quoted on Christan scholar as saying:
> "It is apparent that a homosexual ought not to hold
> positions in education, government, law enforcement,
> medical profession, counseling, ministry, etc.,"
7) Is it true that your contact with homosexuals has been limited to
those who are unhappy and/or maladjusted or dying of AIDS?
--
Peace, ha...@teleport.com
Paul Muad'dib
In my first post on this probing of root causes and understanding into
ethical reasoning I chose to express the non-Christian view of mans moral
activity in the thought form/model of creative construction while defining
the Christian thought form/model as receptive reconstruction. However, in
having to take into account the fall, according to the Christian
understanding, or evil / cruelty in the non-Christian understanding,
receptive reconstruction took on a new dimension in that it needs to be
regenerated.
So, continuing on, what of this regenerated moral consciousness then?
First we would note that in principle, the regenerated consciousness
(remember that this is specific only to the Christian) has been reinstated
to its former place. The implication is that because man, still in
Paradise, could go to his unfallen consciousness for answers, being
created in the image of God and having a complete moral nature because God
is good and cannot instill evil into his creation, regenerate man now has
his moral consciousness restored to him as a reference point with which to
serve him in his quest for universals. However, being regenerated, it
must be maintained that regenerate man is still finite and must therefore
still be reliant, as the original, upon external revelation. Regenerated
man9s restored moral consciousness can never achieve the status of federal
information bureau.
It was noted that this is in principle only. Though regenerate man has
had his moral consciousness reinstated, he has not yet had his sinful
moral consciousness removed from him. Therefore, regenerate man still and
often does err. Consequently, regenerate man must continually reckon
himself in need of Divine revelation and must constantly test his moral
consciousness by the Scriptures. Because the reinstated moral
consciousness of regenerate man is still perimetered by his finiteness and
hounded by his yet retained capacity to do evil, it cannot by or in and of
itself fabricate any conclusion in a moral dispute.
Regenerated moral consciousness can, however, now receive answers and
rework them. Constantly nourished by the Scripture, regenerate mans moral
consciousness maybe thought of in the terms as the plenipotentiary who
knows with reasonable assurance what his authority desires.
So, in summation I would conclude:
1) There was once in pre-fallen man a moral consciousness that was
perfect (complete) and could act as a source (but only as a proximate
source) of information on moral inquiries.
2) There are now two distinct types (Christian vs non-Christian) of moral
consciousnesses which ultimately agree on no ethical answer and not even
in regards to any ethical question.
3) The non-regenerate consciousness necessarily denies while the
regenerate consciousness necessarily affirms that the moral verdict of any
man must be tested by Scripture because of the depravity of man.
-Loren
Paul Muad'dib
Difficulties
I do not presume nor wish to lead the reader to presume that I can or will
address all the difficulties involved in this conclusion. However, I do
believe substantial progress can be achieved in a modest while. Let us
start with a major point and if time permits work our way to the less
substantial.
In his publication, Christian Ethics, Newman Smyth thinks to subvert these
conclusions by the implication of a single question. Quote: To what is
the authority of the Bible addressed?
We can accomplish more than just combating the non-Christian objection by
looking at Smyth9s question, we can also overthrow the position of the
modern humanist viewpoint found in much of today9s liberal theology when
it reduces the Scriptures to containing the Word of God instead of being
the Word of God. Smyth does this by his implication in asking smartly to
what does the Bible addresses itself. He rightly understands, in the
nature of the case, that he cannot deny that the Bible does appeal to the
moral consciousness of man. Throughout, the Bible is consistent with the
principles of, As a man thinketh, so is he, and, Come let us reason
together. Now in the case of the latter, as we seek to reason with
someone we necessarily appeal, in the final analysis, to the consciousness
of the person with whom we are seeking to persuade. Thus we have Smyths
argument.
Smyth seeks to undercut the priority of the Scripture by at least equating
the moral consciousness with the Scriptures.
_Yet we have granted that each has truth and authority._
So, Smyth tries to give both equal authority or at least give each a
measure of authority. However, this division is untenable and even Smyth
realizes it.
_Obviously, as already observed, we cannot admit two independent rules,
two final authorities. We cannot hold that both the Bible and the
Christian consciousness are courts of final appeal._
Symth is not through though by supposedly deeming the Scriptures alone as
normative. This is an:
_easy solution . . . [and] like most easy solutions of profound spiritual
problems, needs to be followed but a little way before it will be seen to
plunge into difficulties and to lose itself in hopeless confusion9s._
However, Symth is not true to himself or his readers for he fails to point
out that his model (which amounts to only the regenerated consciousness
being normative) does lead to confusion. But being a modernist, this he
cannot do. On the contrary, it is perfectly plain that if one starts down
the road on which Smyth begins, there is no stopping till one has gone the
whole way of pagan or non-Christian ethics. Cornelius VanTil,
progenerator of much of Francis Schaeffers ethical conclusions, states at
this point:
_If the Christian consciousness has no absolute standard by which to judge
itself, it is soon lost in the ocean of relativity, in which all the
standards of non-Christian ethics swim. More than that, if the Christian
consciousness does not completely submit itself to the Scripture it is
already pagan in principle. All that does not spring from obedience to
God is sin. _
Smyth was foolish because he should have demonstrated that ethical
predication is possible based on the non-Christian model. Not only
ethical predication but predication as such is possible in the
non-theistic model. Simply, he should have attempted to meet the
Christian position squarely and should have attacked it at its foundation
for he should have known that the relation of regenerate consciousness to
Scripture is the very bedrock of Christian theism itself. One can not
dispose of the orthodox position by taking for granted that it is mere
traditionalism and by mentioning a few difficulties with respect to it.
At this point it must be emphasized that even while man was in the state
of perfection God would be addressing his commands to the consciousness to
that man. The opposite non-Christian position, however, assumes that a
personal act, to be personal, must be uni-personal. It takes for granted
that if man is to be responsible for his deeds he must be wholly
independent. The non-Christian position puts man in an ultimately
impersonal atmosphere. This is Smyth9s implied objection to the
submission of the moral consciousness to Scripture. Scripture is nothing
but the voice of the absolute God in a world of sin.
But even in the case of God addressing his commands to the consciousness
of perfect man, it would not mean that God was submitting his commandments
to the final judgments of that man. God always expects implicit obedience
when He addresses His commands to the consciousness of man. This is true
whether He is walking in the coolness of night with Adam untarnished or
whether he is speaking to sinful man through the Scriptures. Either way,
He has not and will not forfeited His claim to absolute authority and
obedience.
The problem with modern man is that when he reads Isaiah9s passage, come
let us reason together, he suddenly reduces God to a democracy -one man
one vote. However, reasoning together means that God is asking man to see
that submitting to Him is best for him. Irregardless, whether man sees
the good of it or not, he still has to be obedient or suffer the
consequences.
The conclusion is this then, Smyth along with liberal theology,
maintaining that there is no absolute god who has full authority over His
creation, reduces the command of the absolute God to being merely the
advice of a finite God. This is the only escape when assuming that there
is an ultimately an impersonal atmosphere surrounding both God and man.
(Love is God)
One particularly important form in which this attitude manifest itself is
in the contention of many Christians that there are many moral questions
about which the Bible has nothing to say, whether due to lack of specificy
or due to lack of cultural relevance. If the objection is raised that the
Bible no longer addresses many of the problems man finds himself faced
with today, regenerate man should reply that this is simply not true. The
Bible does say something about every problem that we are faced with today
if only we comprehend the spiritual art of fitting our situation to that
of which the Scriptures offers, either in principle or in example.
(Leaving the elementary things . . . having been enlightened )
Paul Muad'dib
Now, an important point. If this conception of the complete and
unqualified submission of the Christian consciousness to the scripture be
understood, and the reason for the necessity of it be clearly seen, then
many difficulties of detail would fall away. Smyth asks at this
juncture:
_Would a plain grammatical rendering of some accredited word of an apostle
warrant us in thinking evil of God?_
Smyths question wishes to infer that there are some passages of Scripture,
(or at the very least the possibility) if taken as they had originally
meant to be taken, would lead one to conclude that God was indeed evil.
However, by asking this question, Smyth forces the question of whether or
not we are to form our concept of God from the Bible or from somewhere
else. If the former, then it follows that the concept achieved from good
exegesis of the Scriptures is the true concept. By his questioning, Smyth
ends up revealing his assumption, namely, that the regenerated conscious
must be the final judge of the Scriptures.
This assumption, however, stands in stark contrast to the one that Paul
himself arrives at in Romans 9 -man is a lump of clay in the Master
Potters hands. Without qualification (almost all commentaries agree on
this point) Paul leaves the readers of Romans 9 standing before the bare
fact that God is absolutely sovereignty. God is the final court of
appeal. As honest men, we must admit that we all from time to time rebel
against the finalness of God. However, in our rebellion, we also make a
basic error in assumption, concluding wrongly that we as creatures have a
right to rebel. God, being the creature9s rightful sovereign with even
greater force than the potter over his clay, necessitates that this is not
the case.
At this point some would raise the issue that the Old Testament is just
that -old, to be done away with and no longer used as a standard. The New
Testament, they would defend, is the better covenant obtained by a more
excellent ministered upon better promises.
But the reply would be, What shall we say then? Is the law now sin?
The difficulty of this situation is easily resolved when we realize that
the Old Testament is Christ foretold and the New Testament is Christ
realized. The OT was the type while the NT was the original. However, in
stating that the OT was the symbol one cannot reduce that to mean that it
was an incorrect symbol, merely incomplete. The principles still apply
because they are rooted in what is true. I would assert that often there
are differences between the OT and NT as to what they command but only in
that they command into different dispensations of which they where meant
to serve. The truth remains, however, that whatever can be shown to be
universal in the OT must be as implicitly followed as what is meant for us
in the NT.
As we have seen in our debates (about homosexuality, for example), there
is an effort on the part of some to find a difference of principle between
the Old and the New Testaments. Again, Smyth speaks to the situation:
What is right for Abraham? Whatever God orders. What shall Abraham do?
Not what he thinks God ought to desire of him; The story of the offering
of Isaac can be ethically interpreted only as we put ourselves _back_ into
the primitive moral conditions of Abraham9s life. The question which on
our moral plane at once arises is, How could Abraham have supposed that
Jehovah could have required him the life of his firstborn son? We see
from the result, when a ram was substituted for the son whom Abraham had
bound to the altar, that God did not desire the offering of human
sacrifices. Had Abraham known God at the mountain9s foot as well as he
knew him at the mountain9s top, there would have been no need of the that
long, silent, heartbreaking journey up the mountain9s side. (emphasis
mine)
Smyth stands just about where the typical modernist stands today in his
methodology. His position is that whatever seems to violate the moral
consciousness of man must be taken out of Scripture or even ignored if it
cannot be taken out of the context. This is the logic behind those
holding that the Bible merely contains the word of God but not actually
being the Word of God. The presumption that Smyth makes is that God has
no right to command Abraham to offer his son. (Here again is the -love is
God- mentality).
Looking back upon this from our perspective (as looking down from the
upper stage of an oriental theater) we can say that it is true that God
did not wish to see such a command come to full fruition. But we must not
stop here. Rather we must continue by pointing out that it is equally
true that according to the narrative God actually did command Abraham to
offer his son, in order to test whether he was willing to be completely
obedient to Jehovah. When Abraham showed that he was perfectly obedient,
inasmuch as he had faith in God, being who He had revealed Himself to be,
was so great as to be able to raise his son from the dead, thus overcoming
any harm that would seemingly result from strict obedience, the necessity
of the offering ceased. The problem is that man is trapped in sequential
time, not that God commanded the sacrifice of Abrahams son.
Again, Smyth9s contention (and that of the modern liberal of which I am
using Smyth as an example of) is that the NT prioritises the principle of
love over that of obedience. This is simply an untrue conclusion. It is
the same God in both the OT and the NT and He has not changed. By virtue
of the fact that we are His creation, he expects his creatures implicit
obedience. If anything, the NT reveals to the regenerate man more clearly
than the OT that by redemption we are restored to the original recognition
that we are the creature and we can be nothing but the creature. We
forget into Who9s presence we come. We come into the presence of the
Creator of the universe and HE IS GOD. And so man is without excuse.
The concept of love in the NT means (as far as our discussion of ethical
interpretation is concerned) nothing but the complete willingness and the
internal desire to be perfectly obedient to God. -For this is the love of
God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not
grievous/burdensome. (1 Jn 5:3) And this is the reason for Abraham9s
title as to being the father of those who have faith.
It is not that the NT has introduced changes in this respect, rather it is
the perverted modernist that has tried to introduce changes into both the
Old and the Net Testaments with a faulty view of man. Those who reject
the story of the sacrifice of Abraham because it violates their moral
consciousness can usually, if not always, be depended upon to reject the
NT teaching of eternal punishment as taught by Christ himself. That, too,
is objectionable.
Thus the epistemological presuppositions of Christian ethics must be that
the conception of an absolute God and an absolute Christ and an absolute
Scripture go hand in hand. We cannot accept one without accepting the
other or the building falls apart. It is very much like removing one of
the elements of the space/mass/time continuum without destroying the
universe. It is only with a Scripture of absolute comprehensive authority
that we can find meaning in that discussions of ethical questions, as they
confront us, has any relevancy. Without God9s propositional truth, we
have nothing left us substantial enough to provide a sufficient point of
reference. There must be either an absolute submission to the Scriptures
and the God that stands behind them or and absolute and total rejection of
both. There is not third alternative.
*******************
Next, where the position of Roman Catholicism falls in this discussion.
Hedgehog
In article <4uec49$7...@geneva.rutgers.edu> Paul Muad'dib,
Paul_Muad'd...@admail.fnal.gov writes:
>One wonders why you even bother with signing off in -peace. There is
>nothing peaceful about your replies.
How do you suggest that I sign off?
>Your comment and quotes of Scripture alluded to the conclusion that God is
>governed by love.
And this demonstrated a complete lack of peace on my part?
>This is a partial truth, but only partial.
I think this says a lot about your position. Regardless of the ultimate
nature of God, the primary command to Christians is to love.
>All ethics, whether
>Christian or non-Christian, necessarily center on three questions.
>
>1) What is the motive of human action?
>2) What is the standard of human action?
>3) What is the end or purpose of human action?
I find that I must disagree with you 100% here. Not all ethical systems
center on these three ideas. Further, I don't even agree that an ethical
system of rules, exception to the rules, special cases, precendents, etc.
etc. is what Christianity is fundamentally about. Those thingfs are part
of a legal system. Christianity is not simply a legal system and I think
attempts to turn it into one will ultimately be fruitless.
>For the Christian, the God of Scripture is the ultimate category of
>interpretation for man in every aspect of his being. This God is the
>self-contained triune God.
But I have shown over and over again that the Triune God is not
particularly Scriptural rather than the result of human philosophizing.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Hedgehog
In article <4umedm$9...@geneva.rutgers.edu> mark ashley, ash...@netcom.com
writes:
>The Church that you despise the most has congregations of
>priests and nuns providing help to AIDS victims.
1) I wouldn't say that I despise it. I only mantain that this church
you mention was not the creation of Jesus Christ.
2) A large denomination has many more resources than a small
denomination. If a small denomination with few resources makes a
contribution of those resources, how should that contribution be judged?
Let's see what Scripture teaches:
Mr 12:42 And there came a certain poor widow, and she threw in two mites,
which make a farthing.
43 And he called [unto him] his disciples, and saith unto them, Verily I
say unto you, That this poor widow hath cast more in, than all they which
have cast into the treasury:
44 For all [they] did cast in of their abundance; but she of her want
did cast in all that she had, [even] all her living.
Peace,
Hedgehog
Michael C. Horsch
Your fundamental premise seems to be:
> For the Christian, the God of Scripture is the ultimate category of
> interpretation for man in every aspect of his being.
I think that when we compare ourselves to God as an infinite
quality, we abuse the notion of comparison. I am infinitely small,
compared to God who is infinitely large. I am infinitely foolish,
compared to God who is infinitely wise. My span of years on this
mortal coil is infinitessimal, compared to God's infinite existence.
All these things are excruciatingly unhelpful. I am big enough
to require 3 square meals a day. I am wise enough not to make any
claims about my own wisdom. :-) I am not too old, but these years
have meaning for me, and cannot be brushed away as irrelevant in
comparison to an infinite God.
> The Reform doctrine of total depravity makes it perfectly plain that the
> moral consciousness of man as he stand today cannot be the source of
> information about what is good or even concerning what is the standard of
> the good let alone the true nature of the will which strives to do good
> even though it is fallen.
I think the phrase "total depravity" makes a big deal of the
comparison between God and people. It's not a helpful comparison.
I am dependent of God's grace for salvation, but that's the extent
to which "total depravity" contains any helpful message.
> There is not and cannot be any evil in God. THis is involved in the very
> idea of God as an absolute person. If there were evil in his being there
> would be a mutual cancellation instead of a mutual complementation of the
> attributes. (selah) Absolute negation and absolute affirmation would
> therefore cancel one another out.
Your whole argument is intended to support the notion that God defines
what is good and what is evil. It is therefore uninformative (or worse,
circular) to apply these terms to God. It's also completely unnecessary,
by the same argument. Why did you feel the need to substantiate a claim
which is true by definition?
(Why did you think that you could substantiate this claim by cancelling
good and evil? Is this a new kind of arithmetic? :-) )
Mike (goo)
--
Michael C. Horsch | Entropy: The tendency for things
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/spider/horsch | to proceed from inconvenient to
| ugly.
---
[I think the primary usefulness of "total depravity" is to alert
people to the danger of various theories of partial depravity. I'm
not sure whether it's ever been official theology of a major group,
but now and then people give the impression that somehow the primary
danger comes from the body or the senses. The point of total
depravity is that the whole person is fallen. It is not just the
body, but the mind and will. Indeed many writers consider the sensual
sins to be the least dangerous, with sins like pride being ultimately
more damaging. Total depravity does not mean that the fall is so
complete that it erases the image of God. Rather, it means that no
aspect of man is untouched by sin. Thus we are entirely dependent
upon grace to get out of the pit into which we have fallen. There's
no remnant of unfallen will that can initiate the process. I believe
that as I've stated it, this is held by most major Christian groups.
(There would be other closely related ways of stating it that would
not be.) --clh]