[quote=“Mervin_Bitikofer, post:1243, topic:50194, full:true”]
(239) Free Will (starting at the very beginning of the next sermon)
For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.–MATTHEW x. 26; Luke xii. 2.
God is not a God that hides, but a God that reveals. His whole work in relation to the creatures he has made–and where else can lie his work?–is revelation–the giving them truth, the showing of himself to them, that they may know him, and come nearer and nearer to him, and so he have his children more and more of companions to him. That we are in the dark about anything is never because he hides it, but because we are not yet such that he is able to reveal that thing to us.
That God could not do the thing at once which he takes time to do, we may surely say without irreverence. His will cannot finally be thwarted; where it is thwarted for a time, the very thwarting subserves the working out of a higher part of his will. He gave man the power to thwart his will, that, by means of that same power, he might come at last to do his will in a higher kind and way than would otherwise have been possible to him. God sacrifices his will to man that man may become such as himself, and give all to the truth; he makes man able to do wrong, that he may choose and love righteousness.
From MacDonald’s unspoken sermon “The Final Unmasking” (239 - 249)[/quote]
I find it interesting to read MacDonald in the present day, knowing how George MacDonald faced criticism throughout his career and in the years since his passing. This is especially true because MacDonald’s theological views were considered unorthodox by some during his time and many hardliners probably have difficulties with him today. In particular, his universalist beliefs, which suggest that all people will eventually be reconciled with God, were seen as diverging from traditional Christian doctrines of eternal damnation.
At the same time, the lines that are quoted here stating what God can and can’t do has me asking what his motivation was. Obviously, he was taking the Bible literally, and laying out what he believed would be to the benefit of mankind, but he was writing at a time when there was little knowledge of other traditions, other than transmitted by Christian missionaries and often interpreted to carry biblical principles. For me this means that he was writing with a limited vision, unable to see left or right, and his writing style and use of imagery seems to be overly sentimental or verbose, with a heavy reliance on allegory and symbolism.
Despite my criticism, George MacDonald’s works continue to be appreciated by many readers and literary enthusiasts for their imaginative depth and spiritual insights, but I find that the momentum of his writing, the forcefulness with which he formulates, sometimes overbearing. I have found many statements that would serves well as quotes, but often the quote in context has that brunt to it. What appealed to me more than anything was his exploration of complex moral and spiritual themes like in his novel “Lilith,” although I have heard that some people missed the kind of straightforward moral guidance that they were hoping for.
For me the biblical narrative is a collection of narratives worked into a history for Israel, as well as an anthology of religious themes, all with profound messages, but which become contradictory when taken literally. I see also mythology, legend, and symbolism, which also need to be appreciated for what they are, extending into the NT. We also have to take into account that the expansion of Christianity from its Semitic origins to different cultural contexts has led to significant cultural shifts over time. It spread across various regions and encountered diverse cultures, it naturally underwent adaptations and transformations that were influenced by the cultural, philosophical, and linguistic contexts of those regions.
Therefore, the view of MacDonald is a valuable insight into the creative religious mind, but needs to be viewed critically with regard with what we have come to know since his death.
I think, In the 1800s it was much the same as now, just the other way around, perhaps a little better. I often think Proclus was the eclipse of civilization…anyway, the problem wasn’t atheists, its was other Christians. For myself, really I don’t mind what other people choose to believe as long as the soul is in the right place. I don’t even know why the afterlife matters so much to so many people, I mean they run around trumpeting John 3:16 when Jesus said it to pahrisee who visited him in private, at night, frightened he’d be found out. I understand das consolation, but then it turned into a donkey’s carrot,but so what, if you want to believe in it fine. If you don’t, fine, and everyone gets angry at me for saying that all the time…THEN what happens is, when people insist on that others believe EITHER in increasingly unlikely supernatural events OR that nothing else exists but boring atoms, that emotions get intensified on both sides, and people get increasingly defensive about whatever position they take on it.