This can become a controversial subject, yet freedom and God’s totality as Creator can be a difficult subject to discuss in detail. I believe that God determines all things from the beginning to the very end (whatever that may mean to us), and yet the Creation is so vast and comprehensive, that we as limited human beings are presented with the freedom to choose from any number of possibilities that may confront us. Yet God is not surprised by such outcomes, nor does He need to change his mind (attributes that are indications of human frailty and not the divine power). I suggest that the difficulties encountered by those who talk of “micromanagement”, “control”, “autonomy” stem from attributing human limitations to God.
His teaching may have been a threat to political stability of the region. But this may be an embellishment also. The Romans in Judea at the time, would execute anybody for any reason. It was just daily business. Jesus could have just been at the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up dead. Of course the story could have been embellished to make him a central figure at the time but the Romans wouldn’t let any poor Jew get too much a following before wiping out the whole group.
Of course it could be an embellished story. If that is the case, my point then is what purpose might it serve within the gospel narrative?—which points back to the contextual symbolism of the “sea” and Jesus’ relationship to that sea.
Patrick, from what you say, in killing Jesus the Romans were spectacularly unsuccessful in
squashing Jesus’ message—given what happened in the centuries that followed! Eventually Christianity became the Roman Empire’s state religion…and has altered world history. I would venture to say that even the most ardent modern critics of the historicity of the resurrection—and the miracles the gospel writers’ attribute to Jesus—still find the essence of the teachings attributed to Jesus as historically credible.
Amen, Mr Molinist!
One thing that convinced me that the stress on theodicy (particularly in academic treatments of evolution/divine action in TE circles) is mistaken is the same reason that I rejected the idea that creation has come apart because of the Fall - and that is that Scripture neglects to mention it at all.
Except, that is, in passages like “who are you, the clay, to question the potter?” or “You say my ways are unjust - it is your ways that are unjust.”
The fact that many accusations of the injustice of God as Creator come from militant atheists should indeed give us food for thought - not because one should not respond to honest doubt, but that one should not let ones opponents set ones theological agenda.
“I believe that God determines all things from the beginning to the very end…”
“determines all things” is a power-filled position, consistent with “all controlling” or “micromanaging” even if those words seem to you—and others—as too anthropomorphic or anthropocentric. In my humble opinion, no theologian is deliberately trying to “limit” God; they know that’s futile. Rather, they merely try to construct tentative, coherent, systematic frameworks to understand God and God’s activities in the world. My own view is that these deliberations enhance, not diminish, worship. Differing views on God and time, God’s attributes, etc… are to be expected and serve to enrich the body of Christ as we strive for unity within inevitable diversity.
1 Like
It certainly has the same effect. Whether or not anyone could ever document
a pre-Muhammed Phoenician influence on Arab culture or religion, I really
couldn’t say!
George
Hi Tim.
I’ll try not to be a hornet, let alone a nest of them. My objection is not to the “autonomy” of secondary causes in the legitimate sense of their having their “own laws” (auto + nomos) given by God. Of course science depends on that, and creation doctrine requires it - though to be fully Christian it also requires the immanent governance of God. There need be no compromise with deism if we’re doing our theism right.
But the idea is routinely taken beyond an analogy, so that “autonomy” ceases to be “law for itself” and becomes “law unto itself”, couched in anthropomorphic terms of freedom and dignity. Even Polkinghorne follows those like Howard Van Till or John Haught there, using terms like “tyrant”, “puppet-master”, “dancing to God’s tune” and so on, at paragraph length.
This is done not at all to make nature tractable to scientific investigation, but intractable, since this “freedom”, if the the analogy is once pierced, translates into “randomness” considered as a morally virtuous lack of divine control.
It’s also routinely used as a rather poor theodicy - creation being an autonomous demiurge/co-creator turns up evolution red in tooth and claw, earthquakes and tsunamis, letting God off the hook for what we like to call “natural evil”, though the phrase is not Scriptural.
And in many cases that evil even includes human sin - since Darwin’s time “evolutionary” theologies have taken sin to be an inevitable result of nature’s selfishness (anticipating Dawkins, and then parroting him), rather than a choice of the one genuinely “free” creature on earth. That misrepresents both the nature of sin and the nature of nature.
The “Micromanagement” accusation is more often than not an expression of this libertarian mindset, rather than being a legitimate denial of divine arbitrariness or occasionalism. Thomas Aquinas deals with the micromanagement question in almost as many words in his work on providence, showing that there is a profound difference between an insecure human boss trying to do everything himself, and the Sovereign Creator and sustainer directing all things to their ends.
It could have served the purpose of whatever the writers wanted to relate when the wrote the story many years later .
Does it really matter today what pre-Muhammed Phoenician’s thought or did? We live to today’s world. How does such ideology permeate today?
Of course, ideology is nearly impossible to eradicate from human thought. Take a look at ISIS today. We bomb, we kill attackers, but the ideology stays alive and new people join.
I believe you were the one who depicted Jesus as being unable to escape his fate - indicating a lack of capacity>
I pointed out that in the ancient world … ESPECIALLY in the pre-Christian centuries of the Levant,
that there was actually varied theologies that led one to INTENTIONALLY be martyred.
Frankly, I don’t know why you made the comment about Jesus; to what end? But you having
done so, I felt honor-bound to at least provide you with some additional grounding in the
ancient context.
George
No it didn’t. Jesus didn’t escape his fate.
No different from today. Do you see a difference?
I made the comment because it has always been unsatisfying to me that Jesus and his Father were required (by themselves?) to have himself (his son) executed. I never could get my head around all-powerful and required torture and execution of self or son.
Well, now you have a SECOND theology to compare it to … the Phoenician theology of Melqart and
the ancient world’s practice of ‘Devotio’.
George
Even the kidnapping, imprisonment and repeated rape of the little girl Jaycee Dugard? The kidnapper impregnated her twice and delivered her babies.
We can generally agree with this, and it is not my intention to introduce controversy where there is no need or basis for such. I would point out however, that the way you discuss “determines”,“power” “micromanagement” seem to me to be circular - the statement “God Created all things” as a divine act, is equivalent to the phrase I used (which you quoted). The act of creation and sustaining demonstrates God’s power. Introducing other terms, such as you have, brings the discussion into the context of human power and attributes, and this may contribute to theological error.
I also suggest that we ought to differentiate between the activities of nature, which are synonymous with God and creation and sustaining, from human choices. The hand of God is present in both, but the latter are such, they include the possibilities for humans to disobey, or obey, God’s laws.
You seem obsessed with conflating acts of evil by human beings with Faith. Are you suggesting these people acted on the basis of God’s law, or contrary to that Law?
I think it is interesting and relevant that immediately after Jesus walks on the rough sea in John 6, we have the “this is hard teaching, who can accept it” episode where the disciples are turning away and leaving. When Jesus asks the Twelve if they are going to leave too, Peter says, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. We know that you are the Holy One of God.” It’s like you said, the miracles let them know exactly who they were following.
In the green intro, which I also assume is Jim’s, he said, “According to anti-evolutionary readings, it is easy to understand “very good” as “perfect” and construct an entire narrative that follows from that understanding.” With this in view, should readers conclude that you hold an anti-evolutionary perspective and understand “very good” as “perfect”? And if so, isn’t this Christian orthodoxy that you speak of constructed on a faulty interpretation of that narrative? According to Jim’s perspective as well, “…the biblical text itself does not allow this” view. You seem to be implying that I “leave most/all of Christian orthodoxy behind with the view of the Creator God being an impersonal force.” However Christian orthodoxy is not left behind with the concept that God [Elohim] is an impersonal force, but rather, is upheld. Remember… Jesus was a Jew and the “Christian orthodoxy” that you bring up refers to “Messianic orthodoxy.” Who understands Messianic orthodoxy better than the Christian Jew who is fully knowledgeable and enlightened with regards to Messiah? I say… No one is! With this perspective in mind, the personal force that has you worried of being left behind is Yahuwah (the I, I am, the Higher Self)—He, that became the Word of God Himself in [Yeshua], that we as Christians should aspire to. Allow the Higher Self to become in its becoming and submit to its will.
Is a theory of everything where all could eventually be answered something we should fret over or worry about? “For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.” (Luke 8:17) I don’t think Jesus spoke these words in Promethean arrogance but in reverence for the will of the Spirit. Likewise those of us today who follow Jesus’ example and have this same reverence for the truth are not led by any Promethean arrogance, but by the love of the truth to be known. In the previous verse Jesus said, “No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.” (Luke 8:16) Interestingly, many seem to want to do the exact opposite and cover the light—that it shine not. “Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.” (Luke 8:18) The parable of the sower of seed, in Luke 8, should be read in its whole context to grasp the full intended meaning.
Actually, if we are being honest with ourselves, the more sober thinkers among us are led by the Spirit to search deeper still. These sober thinkers are answered by the Spirit itself as it reveals these hidden mystical secrets. So, of course, it is the Spirit who will have the last Word because the Seven Seals that secured the scroll of Revelation have been loosened. Of course these considerations are referring to Jewish Messianic Orthodoxy.
I see huge cracks all over your foundation of reason and logic and the levee won’t hold much longer. The rising water behind it is building with more and more pressure with every passing day—it won’t stand much longer and will soon give way to the rushing tide of God’s word.
Mervin… are you speaking for everyone here…? (“So you may not get much traction here”) I don’t think so. Neither do I regard you as speaking for me, so, you shouldn’t attempt to speak and twist my words around to fit your purposes. That God is both holy and just and personal is referring to the Yahuwah aspect of God [Elohim]—the I, I am, or Higher Self. He is the Personal Hebrew God who spoke to Adam in the garden story, who warned Noah of the impending flood to come. Yahuwah is the God who communicated with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and conferred with Moses and with the prophets. And Yahuwah is the God who spoke through Jesus Christ—who is the very Word of God Himself.
It’s plainly evident throughout this excellent essay by Tim Reddish that the Creator God [Elohim] is an impersonal force. Appropriately, he writes, “A morally neutral chaos has a creative place within God’s dynamic world, with both the potential for good and bad for creatures.” He also says, “…these events also have the capacity to bring suffering to humans and animals—even for righteous people, such as Job.” God [Elohim] the eternal animating force is the God that created the heaven and the earth, and we are all awestruck with the marvelous beauty of “His” (anthropomorphically) magnificent splendor. “He” (anthropomorphically) deserves our most deepest respect and we should show this respect by treating nature and all life with admiration and appreciation.
However, this “working out” or “simply accepting” will only occur precisely by “walking away” from that damaged foundation. As a matter of fact, I would recommend “running away as fast as you can.” Don’t forget the words of the Spirit spoken to John on the Isle of Patmos (who incidentally was imprisoned with the intention to stifle the word of God), “And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.” (Revelation 18:4) And, “in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.” (Revelation 18:24)
For me, and many others, this is an extremely serious and dire warning to be heeded with the utmost careful attention, for already have her plagues become apparent, and many are suffering the judgments coming upon her.
That’s quite a tangle of words there, Tony; and you certainly managed to make a tangle out of mine. You’ve got me accusing Jesus of being arrogant and fretting over things that don’t cause me any loss of sleep. It sounds here more like you have a message to push than a dialogue to engage in. But I can’t say for sure since, to be honest, I’m not entirely sure what web you weave here sprinkled through, as it is, with scripture.
But I do know this; unlike what you seem to suggest I should do, I will not be running away from my already secure foundation, my rock who is Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone. Bring on or fret about what floods you will; I am already secure in Him, and Lord forbid that I should ever walk away from that, come hell or high water.