Re: [asa] Re: asa-digest V1 #6228

*Abraham argues with God over Sodom, and the passage reads like
someone who expects God to behave in a certain way, and not once does
God shut him down and say "just who do you think you're talking to?"*

But God essentially *did* say that to Job.

Moreland I think is coming from a natural law perspective. I think it's
fair to say that the moral sense inherent in everyone can prompt us to
question God when it seems that He has transgressed what the moral sense
tells us is right. The Psalms are full of exemplars of this. Yet,
we have
to be very careful, I think, not to presume on that basis that we can
*judge
* God's actions. Natural law and the moral sense ultimately derive from
God's character; they are not *above* God (this is the response to the
infamous Euthyphro Dilemma).

There are points at which God can say to us, as He did to Job, "where
were
you when I laid the earth's foundation?" (Job 38:4). His
foreknowledge and
wisdom are infinite, and therefore He is able to make perfectly just
judgements that can appear unjust to us. As tricky and unsatisfying
as it
seems, I think that ultimately is a large part of the "answer" to the
"jihad" passages in the OT. It's impossible to swallow those passages
without presupposing an infintely wise and knowing God.

On 10/17/06, Merv <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
>
> Perhaps we are called to be permanently uncomfortable with the
> scenarios
> written in Scripture. To wrestle with paradoxes and accept that, to
> nonbelievers, they are just contradictions or evidence of a "nasty
> God"
> may be fully warranted. J.P. Moreland insists that believers should
> never start with Scripture when addressing a non-believer anyway. He
> insists that the general revelation of God (via nature) is
> accessible to
> everybody apart from Scripture. Otherwise (so his logic goes) the
> state would have to be a Scripture based theocracy before it could do
> its Romans 13 job. Since states obviously aren't / weren't, then the
> general revelation (natural moral law) must be sufficient to hold
> people
> accountable. Certainly evil was denounced (even in non-Israelite
> cultures) and certainly before any law was given at Mt. Sinai. So I
> think Moreland's case is strong. Jesus & scripture bring the rest of
> the revelation of God -- the special revelation which finishes the
> job.
>
> Interestingly, as it bears on the objections below, Moreland also
> thinks Scripture (& even God from our perspectives) should be seen as
> accountable to a standard (I think I'm sharing his thoughts
> accurately). Too many of us (my words now) become comfortable on the
> Sovereignty side of the paradox reacting with impatience to those who
> fret about all the atrocities God commands in the O.T. "Get over
> yourselves we want to say --- God will do what God will do, He
> giveth,
> He taketh away --- the death rate back then was approx. one per
> person,
> and the death rate in our oh so sensible advanced modern times is
> about
> well, let's see ---- one per person!" But of course this is too
> make
> light of a serious unanswered point: the manner of death by such
> apparently ruthless means elsewhere condemned ought to be
> disturbing to
> us. Abraham argues with God over Sodom, and the passage reads like
> someone who expects God to behave in a certain way, and not once does
> God shut him down and say "just who do you think you're talking
> to?" Of
> course God still ends up destroying Sodom, but there are other
> places in
> the O.T. where God does actually change his mind after being argued
> with. So I think Moreland's point actually has a sound Biblical
> basis. Perhaps more than the "roll over and automatically declare
> God
> always right" side of things. To neglect either side of this is to
> miss Scriptural Truth though. To automatically question God at every
> turn is to ignore the "clay in the hands of the potter" aspect of
> reality.
>
> --merv
>
> David Opderbeck wrote:
>> *Anyway -- read the chapter. God tells Saul to commit genocide.
>> Including
>> infants. And when Saul does not, he gets zapped for disobedience*
>> **
>> Yes, I've wrestled with and still wrestle with those "jihad"
>> passages as
>> well. But the answer can't be concluding that the Bible simply is
>> advocating immorality. You are saying then that God is the author of
>> immorality, which is nonsensical in at least two ways: it makes
>> God not
>> "God" because he would not be perfectly holy and just, and it makes
>> God not
>> "God" because he would be subject to a higher law of some sort.
>> It also
>> makes God's word not really "authoritative" or "infallible in
>> faith and
>> practice," contra the formulation you cited, because it would give
>> license
>> to us to judge which parts of God's word seem immoral to us and to
>> elide
>> those parts. Something -- who knows what -- would then be
>> authoritative
>> over scripture.
>>
>> As difficult as it is to swallow and defend, I think we have to
>> acknowledge
>> that God is justified in judging people and nations, and that his
>> judgments
>> in these particular instances were immediate and took the form of
>> wars waged
>> by His covenant people. That is not "immoral," because God's
>> judgments are
>> perfectly wise and just. God will in fact one day judge people and
>> nations
>> in such an immediate way again in the eschaton. This is, so to
>> speak, the
>> "other side" of the Gospel.
>>
>> But -- and this is critical -- scripture makes plain that God is not
>> presently judging in this fashion, but is patiently waiting for
>> people to
>> repent and accept the invitation of the cross. This is a time of
>> grace, not
>> judgment, and neither Church nor State are authorized to engage in
>> wars of
>> judgment. Yet, Christ will return as a judge; the Christian story is
>> incomplete without God's wrath and judgment.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/10/06, Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com> wrote:
>>
>>> David wrote: "What a heinous doctrine of scripture. On what basis
>>> do we
>>> "recognize" that scripture teaches things that are morally evil?"
>>>
>>> I think you have to wrestle with the scriptures. One of the texts
>>> that
>>> intrigues me is the 15th chapter of I Samuel.
>>>
>>> I was looking up "Amalekites" in a Nelson-published Bible a few
>>> years
>>> ago.
>>> Strangely, I Samuel 15 was not cited in the concordance, although
>>> other
>>> instances of the word appeared. Could it be that Nelson, a
>>> conservative
>>> publisher, left out that reference because it was so
>>> problematical? I
>>> always wondered.
>>>
>>> Anyway -- read the chapter. God tells Saul to commit genocide.
>>> Including
>>> infants. And when Saul does not, he gets zapped for disobedience.
>>>
>>> History? Then what makes God any better than Saddam?
>>>
>>> Just a story? What moral does it teach?
>>>
>>> Maybe genocide is OK in some instances? I reject that conclusion,
>>> but it
>>> is a possible inference from the text.
>>>
>>> Or what? Have you ever heard a sermon based on the chapter? What was
>>> said?
>>>
>>> I am still wrestling with it after 5 years.
>>>
>>> Other examples can be cited; this one ought to be enough.
>>>
>>> Burgy
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Oct 18 18:24:57 2006