Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Christian Theodicy in Light of Genesis and Modern Science” (expanded version)

William Dembski
May 12, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here is a substantially expanded version of my theodicy paper that was earlier discussed on this blog (go here for the earlier discussion): http://www.designinference.com/documents/2006.05.christian_theodicy.pdf.

Comments
Has anyone here read "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis?seekeroftruth
May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT
JaredL wrote: TinaB – There are explicit answers in my own religion. If you care to discuss, drop a note to jaredlivesey@yahoo.com Could you share some of those answers here Jared?seekeroftruth
May 29, 2015
May
05
May
29
29
2015
07:22 PM
7
07
22
PM
PDT
This thread is likely defunct ... still for what it's worth ... yours truly is no theologian, which no doubt is quite obvious ... but sometimes the naïve see things hidden from those who know better. Thus Romans 5 ... evidently it's verse 12 that leads the theologians to believe that death began with Adam -- "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned ..." First off this seems not to say that we inherit death (a la "original sin") but rather we die because we sin--not because Adam sinned. Maybe we sin because Adam-Messiah does not sit on the throne in Jerusalem ... but that's not what I want to talk about now. According to (Ezekiel 18:4, 20), "The soul that sinneth, it shall die [הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַחֹטֵאת הִיא תָמוּת]." This just as God had said to Adam (Gen 2:17), "for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die [כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת]." But according to (Heb 9:27), "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment". Was Adam mortal? Was he from the beginning appointed once to die but after that the judgment? It sure appears so, as it says (Gen 3:22), "... and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever ..." "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Heb 9:27), so maybe the death Adam incurred was that which awaits him in the judgment. Compare that with Jesus' statement (Mat 10:28): "And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." Remember (Ezekiel 18:4, 20): "The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Adam sinned and penalty is the death of his soul. And only God can kill the soul. Throughout Romans 5 Paul is talking about atonement, as for example (Rom 5:10), "For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life." Had Adam not sinned, would we have been saved by the lordship of his life? Anyway in the Torah atonement is through the shedding of blood (Lev 17:11): For the life of the flesh is in the blood: כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר בַּדָּם הִוא and I have given it to you upon the altar וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ to make an atonement for your souls: לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. כִּי־הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר׃ And according to the sages (e.g., Rambam in Mishne Torah - הלכות בית הבחירה פרק ב), "Adam was created at the place of his atonement [אָדָם מִמָּקוֹם כַּפָּרָתוֹ נִבְרָא]." If Intelligent Design triumphs such that theologians and scholars finally begin to take God seriously, then everything should be placed on the table--the Bible, the Church fathers, the vast rabbinical literature, history, archaeology, linguistics, all of it for serious discussion, but this time not by modernists and postmodernists or other erudite nincompoops but by those shocked and humbled by the fact that Darwin was wrong and that God might really have revealed himself to Israel of old.Rude
May 23, 2006
May
05
May
23
23
2006
07:51 PM
7
07
51
PM
PDT
Doc, Another thought -- evolutionists mock their skeptics with the "god of the gaps" and claim the gaps are constantly shrinking in favor of naturalistic explanations. Maybe it's the other way around. Scripture makes claims, naturalists make claims but what is shrinking is not the gap between science and naturalistic explainations but the gap between science and scriptural ones.tribune7
May 21, 2006
May
05
May
21
21
2006
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
Okay, tina :-)tribune7
May 20, 2006
May
05
May
20
20
2006
04:03 AM
4
04
03
AM
PDT
tribune7: I don't disagree with your sentiments about authority. I don't know why you assume that our views of authority per se are different. I tried to take pains to define 'dominion' in a way which is potentially more benevolent than typical interpretations, and I think you are absolutely correct that "God is the only one deserving of worship..." etc. What I am saying is just that Paul seems to endorse (in 1 Corinthians 11, a verse which I will now free myself to forget about!) a view of authority hierarchies which goes God over man/ man over women. I just started the comment thread by saying that I disagree with this hierarchy since I consider men and women to be equals. I will stick to Galatians from now on. thanks.tinabrewer
May 19, 2006
May
05
May
19
19
2006
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
Tina: You have a completely different concept of authority than I. It's not hard for me to put myself psychologically under someone's authority because I've been under authority many times including to women, and I've been in authority too. It's not a big deal to me. You have a job you have to get it done, you have an obligation to do your best which includes providing honest feedback. If you worship the person in authority or fear the person in authority, you are doing something wrong since God is the only one deserving of worship and faith should desolve fear. Nor, is being under authority the same as blind obedience. Think of Abigail. It is really stupid to try to be the boss, whoever you are. It is, however, immoral not to do what you can in the place God assigns. If 1 Cor 11 really bothers you, re-read Galatians 5:22-24. Follow Gal 5:22-24 and don't worry about 1 Cor. 11.tribune7
May 19, 2006
May
05
May
19
19
2006
05:26 PM
5
05
26
PM
PDT
tribune7: I didn't say to put your self in the position of a beaten wife. I said to put yourself, psychologically, into the position of someone whos husband has authority over her and is expected to be nice about it. It is rather different. Of course a "true Christian" would never beat his wife! Please do not read my comments as in any way anti-Christian or whatever. I just take exception to the notion that a man is the glory of God, while the woman is the glory of man. This is a clear hierarchy, which I feel to be unjustified by my experiences of both men and women. I also think it is possible that "authority over" means different things in different contexts, and that we should be careful about assuming that Paul meant it in the way in which it clearly manifests today in places like Afghanistan, etc. For example, where in Genesis it is said that man has dominion over the fish, animals, etc., many take this, like the lovely Ann Coulter, to mean (paraphrased) 'God gave you the earth. rape it. do what you want with it. its yours'. I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept conveyed by dominion. Perhaps dominion really implies 'with greater power comes greater responsibility'. Dominion of humanity over the earth and animals is a result of the fact that humans, unlike any other animal, carry spiritual substance within them, and are energetically more powerful than animals. This means that their will, which is a free volition as opposed to instinct, can shape the conditions of matter more powerfully than any other creature. This 'dominion' is descriptive rather than being some blanket right-giving passage. If, as you say, and I wholeheartedly agree, service is the true ideal, then in this example, dominion has a noble and powerful command associated with it. It still doesn't resolve for me the hierarchy implied in 1 Corinthians 11... I want to make a public apology to the spirit of Paul here. I don't agree with him in many respects, but like you feel he was a true Apostle. However, we must remember that even those nearest to Christ often misunderstood him. How many times does Christ express frustration at the total inability of his disciples to understand basic concepts he was trying to convey "o ye of little faith" "do you still not understand" etc. How much more this might be true when time and distance separated the Son from those who followed him.tinabrewer
May 19, 2006
May
05
May
19
19
2006
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
infinite dialectic resolves Newcomb's paradox our choices have meaningQualiatative
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
I find his doctrines to be in disharmony with what Christ seems to have been teaching in some areas. I disagree. I think he was a true apostle directed by God and I don't think any of us would be Christians without him. To a large degree he's the foundation of our concept of freedom -- the letter kills but the spirit gives life. You suggested earlier that I put myself in the place of a beaten wife. Would a true Christian be a wife beater? I don't mean someone who attends church or professes a doctrine but one filled with the spirit of Christ. I'm certain it's not possible, at least not in sense that you described where the beatings were a means of maintaining authority. What do you think Paul would say if he were confronted by somone like that? It's in his writtings --back to Galatians-- http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%205:14-24;&version=31;tribune7
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
10:33 PM
10
10
33
PM
PDT
I'm not upset with Paul in a personal sense. I find his doctrines to be in disharmony with what Christ seems to have been teaching in some areas. I admit this to be an interpretation, but it is a deeply felt intuition on my part. When I say that I don't have to explain Galatians, I only meant that for me, finding philosophical or doctrinal discrepancies from place to place is something which I expect to have happen. Therefore, when it is pointed out, I just say "yeah" and have no further need to rationalize or explain it, whereas someone whos foregone conclusion is that there is consistency from passage to passage due to holy inspiration might feel a distinct need to explain such apparent differences. The passage we are discussing, is for me a classic example of the difference in spirit between some of the writings of Paul (which can, at times, feel interpretive and churchy) and the words of Christ. Sometimes, when reading the gospels, this incredible sense of the magnitude of love and purity comes pouring forth over the centuries from Christ's simple words. The energy of his presence is still reverberating after all of these years. And he never concerned himself with religion, per se. Only truth. He never told people what to wear when they did this or that, etc. he tried to explain creation itself. And the authors of the gospels recount that he taught so much more than could reasonably be recorded...and he treated women with tremendous respect and protectiveness.tinabrewer
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
Dave: In the U.S. women weren’t even allowed to vote until 1920. That's true. OTOH, when this continent was discovered one was pretty much running things as was when the first colony was established, and in the latter case it was in a rather absolute sense. That's also true about women in Islam but Moslems aren't big on Paul, either. Tina:I don’t need to explain Galatians 3: 26-28. So what are you upset with Paul about?tribune7
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT
I don't need to explain Galatians 3: 26-28. I take it as a foregone conclusion that there will be discrepencies. I may be reading it incorrectly, but 1 Corinthians 11 certainly sounds like a provision for male supremacy, at least within the context of worship. Lets face it, until relatively recently in history, no one would have batted an eye at such a view. While it is certainly true, as you say, that men are supposed to love their wives instead of beat them when they are "uppity"(your wording) , I challenge you to humble yourself,as a thought experiment, into the position of feeling grateful that your wife, like the kind owner of a dog, decides not to beat you when you are uppity...and feel really good about herself for it! I also think that the evidence of history shows that the supremacy of males, taken for granted, certainly took more of the form I refer to than one of pure, equal, mutual service ( an ideal I certainly agree with you on )tinabrewer
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
08:37 PM
8
08
37
PM
PDT

Gal 3:26-28 -- http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gal%203:26-28&version=31

There seems to be a bit of not practicing what's been preached going on then. In the U.S. women weren't even allowed to vote until 1920. They've been second class secular citizens until recently even in progressive western Christian democracies to say nothing of repressive Islamic cultures where they're still treated as chattel today. Most Christian churches still refuse to ordain women so they're still second class sectarians. -ds tribune7
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT
Tina, do you think the Bible is about "who's the boss"? Do you think Paul was a male supremist? How do you explain Gal 3:26-28? I think those zingers aimed at women are God's (not Paul's) way of humbling women -- just like He has His way of humbling men (the Lord washing the feet of the disciples, the command to turn the other cheek etc.) And if you look at it closely those commands are directed at women -- not men. What are men supposed to do with uppity wives? Beat them with a stick the circumference of their thumbs? You can't find that in the Bible. What men are supposed to do is to love their wives like Christ loved the church. According to Scripture nobody is supposed to try to be the boss. We are all supposed to serve.tribune7
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
08:16 PM
8
08
16
PM
PDT
Do you think a man should have authority over woman? I guess I should have picked a pseudonym, because my gender is evident, while yours is not! I think that men have a certain natural material advantage over women, because they are more attuned to matter in their basic nature. This leaves open the question of what women contribute which is unique and makes them the equals of men. (In my view they most definitely are) I think women are less bound to matter, and more intuitive. Since the overvaluation of matter leads women to believe that equality means playing on the same field as men (I don't think I have ever successfully used a sports metaphor in my life before today! Yippee!) the special field of activity in which women are clearly superior (the intuitive, inner life) is left fallow. Tragic. The consequences, in my opinion, are everywhere evident. Plus, who really knows what Paul exactly meant when he said "authority over her"...tinabrewer
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
Why Paul's hmmmmm?tribune7
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
whose ego, Paul's?tinabrewer
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PDT
Ahh. An ego thing :-)tribune7
May 18, 2006
May
05
May
18
18
2006
05:58 AM
5
05
58
AM
PDT
How beautiful 1Corinthians 13 is! i used the opening passage in my own wedding, omitting the traditional verses in the middle, because verses 1-4 are particularly powerful to me. On the other hand, there is 1 Corinthians 11...tinabrewer
May 17, 2006
May
05
May
17
17
2006
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
On the other hand, if one views the scriptures as records of happenings, written by men and containing both truth and human opinion side-by-side, then it is possible, even necessary, to use an inner capacity to percieve “truth” to judge which is which. My view is obviously the latter. Tina, it is impossible for a reasoning person to believe that Judas threw the silver back in the Temple then hung himself as per Matthew AND bought a field with it in which he tripped an fell as per Acts. Concerning Paul, the clincher to become a Christian for me was 1 Corinthians 13.tribune7
May 17, 2006
May
05
May
17
17
2006
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT
mentok: interesting notions. I think many things in the bible are intended to be stories/allegories, etc., but I cannot share your radical symbolization of everything. Jesus really lived. He really taught people things, and he really died. This is not an allegory, but a life. Also, the key to percieving the magnitude of God is in coming to understand the very fundamental difference between the Creator and the created. You justify your view of God by taking what happens to us, as creatures, developmentally, and saying "there cannot be any other way". I disagree with your assertion that divinity is subject to developmental constraints or demands. When we describe something in its essential nature, we describe its inherent qualities. Humans must learn and grow and develop in order to gain knowledge. That is a human quality. Perception of divinity being essentially different has allowed us to describe God as 'alpha and omega' that which never wasn't and never won't be. In addition, we describe this God as being perfect, and perfection seems to imply that development is no longer necessary. The concept overwhelms our own limited capacity to percieve, and yet we get a likeness of an image of its magnitude. This glimmer of perception, gained after laborious spiritual striving, usually leads to a state of blissful worship. This has been my own inward experience. I know that spiritual experiences are very personal, and I cannot speak to yours, only to my own.tinabrewer
May 17, 2006
May
05
May
17
17
2006
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT
tina you mentioned two ways of looking at the bible, the first was of seeing the holy spirit guiding the writing of the bible and therefore there can be no questioning of what is found there. Yet we see throughout history there has been much disagreement over the meaning of what is found there. Should we read the bible or any scripture 100% literally or is there a deeper more esoteric meaning to scripture which is understood when they are viewed metaphorically. You mention that you are uncomfortable with the idea of the passion of Jesus. I view the passion as a metaphorical story that reveals a timeless truth about the true story of God and the real sacrifice and suffering God went through which was necessary in order to "save" humanity. If we take the view that Jesus represents God i.e. God in the flesh, then maybe there is a metaphor in the life of Jesus which reveals the life of God. Where did God come from? This is a question that atheists like to ask when they try to disprove the concept of God. Nevertheless it is a good question. Regardless of where God has come from one fact is unavoidably true about what God went through for a period of time. God is an intelligent thinking entity, an individual being possessing self awareness, intellect, knowledge and ability i.e. an intelligent person. We all know from experience that knowledge and intellect requires experience by a thinking being in order to manifest. No one can be knowledgable without gaining knowledge through some type of experience. A person with a mind is not inherently knowledgable. A person with a mind develops knowledge through experience. There is no other way for a person with a mind to gain knowledge. Be it reading from a book or hearing from a source, or from life lessons or from trial and error, all knowledge has to be acquired. God has a huge intellect. God has vast knowledge. Because God is a living thinking being that knowledge that God has had to be acquired. Knowledge is not inherent in anything nor anyone. God designed and built the universe, but first there had to be a stage of acquisition of knowledge on how to do it. Therefore there had to be a period of time between the creation of the universe and the beginning of the acquisition of the knowledge on how to do it. If you want your child to grow up to be an architect first the child will have to develop from the stage of zero knowledge and experience. From the tabula rasa stage the child will develop the intellect and acquire knowledge until eventually he can design buildings. God also went through a similar experience. There is no possibility that God did not go through a similar experience. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." The very first stage of the development of knowledge is language or the ability to communicate rationally within your own mind. God began to develop from a tabula rasa state until his mind and intellect developed the ability to communicate with himself. Having no parents but nevertheless being alive God had to have begun without knowledge of any kind. Knowledge has to be acquired, therefore God had too live through a stage of life without the ability to comprehend anything anymore then a new born child. When God eventually developed the ability to communciate rationally it is at that point which can be called the beginning of what was to come. Without the development of the ability to communicate rationally to yourself you will never grow beyond a child like mental state. So the "Word" or the ability to communicate rationally was something which God developed. That was the first language, the first means of intelligent thought in the history of time and eternity. Nowhere had there ever been a thinking intellect in existence anywhere until that time. There was no one else. Imagine if you were a new born child on a planet devoid of all people and animals. There is plenty of food lying around for you to eat, but no other person to educate you or be with you. Your parents crash landed on the planet on their spaceship when you were 1 day old, and then they died from injuries. You are 1 day old and all alone and no one is coming to rescue you. How long until you eventually develop the ability to communicate with yourself? Once you have developed that rudimentry ability you will wish you hadn't. You will realize just how alone you are. You will realize just how there is so much you don't understand. You will be afraid of never getting out of your situation. God suffered greatly for a very long time before he developed the ability to create the universe and other people. All alone, fearfull of always being all alone. When you are a child and have first developed the ability to communciate with yourself you do not have the vision of eventually seeing yourself creating a universe, creating people to be with. Instead you fear you will always be a fearful entity in a confusing world. Since death is unknown to you you will not be able to conceive of a time of ever being not alone and with nothing much to do. The result is much suffering, deep unhappiness and fear. God suffered beyond what we can imagine for a period of time that we cannot imagine before developing the ability to create ourselves and a world for us to enjoy. Jesus was tortured and then dies and then comes back from the grave as a supernatural being. By doing so humanity is delivered from damnation. God suffered greatly for a long time, it was tortuous. The fear and misery of being all alone once God developed knowledge to the extent of understanding that he was all alone and knew very little, at that point God was like Jesus on the cross. Then after a long period of developing his inherent mental ability God developed enough knowledge that he could build the universe and everything and everyone in it. This was like Jesus coming back to life and rising from the cave. The cave represents the darkness and emotional death God went through for a very long time. The resurrection represents God eventually developing the abilities and knowledge he has today, leaving misery behind, being reborn into a world with lot's to do and people to be with. God suffered greatly and as a result we get the gift of eternal life. God "died for our sins".mentok
May 17, 2006
May
05
May
17
17
2006
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
Hey, thanks for the thumbs up! Tribune and Tina. As for inerrancy perhaps it needn't be an absolutist either-or deal. One can, for example, take the Torah as foundational. The New Testament authors make no claim to be writing Scripture. Paul, for example, says that (Rom 3:2) "the oracles of God [τα λογια του θεου]" were committed to the Jews. There is in the New Testament no "and the word of the LORD came to me saying [וַיְהִי דְבַר־ה´ אֵלַי לֵאמֹר]" such as you encounter everywhere in the prophets. So unless you're a King James only or Byzantine text only proponent, there is a certain amount of messiness in our New Testament documents. Though I don't believe Bart D. Ehrman is a supporter of biblical inspiration, I have found his "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" insightful. The Scriptures call for humility. Even though we accept their authority we know others read them differently than ourselves. This is no reason to take a postmodernist "each to his own truth" approach. We can still strive to find THE truth that is contained in them. For those who take Scripture seriously it may be, as you say, "impossible to question any of its teachings", but that doesn't mean that we have the final understanding of those teaching. Why not take the same approach as in science? Truth is the goal but we ain't all the way there yet.Rude
May 17, 2006
May
05
May
17
17
2006
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
tribune7: I am so glad. I think I had a sense of guilt about being argumentative around this very serious issue, and I read anger where there was none! I think a major and unresolvable splitting off point comes in the way in which one views scripture. If it is taken, as a foregone conclusion, that all of scripture, or at least the New testament, is inerrant and directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, then it is of course impossible to question any of its teachings, and the only real task is to get comfortable with them. On the other hand, if one views the scriptures as records of happenings, written by men and containing both truth and human opinion side-by-side, then it is possible, even necessary, to use an inner capacity to percieve "truth" to judge which is which. My view is obviously the latter. I respect that the majority of believers take the former view, and arguing back and forth is completely fruitless, because I will fully admit that everywhere in the Pauline literature is this insistence on the animal-like sacrificial death. When I read through the gospels and then get to Paul's letters, I feel, intuitively, a very distinct differnce in spirit emerge. To me, where there is a logical or intuitive conflict between a doctrine of Paul and the recorded words of Christ in the gospels, I tend to think (although I know that to be consistent, I have to doubt the gospels as much as Paul's letters) that the impression left on the authors of the gospels of what Christ thought are more significant. This may or may not end up being the truth. I do, however, feel that this particular issue is of grave spiritual significance. Either the angels and Creator are jumping for joy at the salvation of humanity through Christ's death, or they are filled with horror and preparing the vials of wrath. It isn't academic or semantic. Christ definitely seemed to oppose his murderers, and even prayed that the suffering and death be taken from him. These are logically inconsistent with the view that the death was an animal-type sacrifice necessary for the forgivenness of sins. He also called the priests who sought to trap him servants of their father, the devil. If this whole schema was God's plan for salvation, then certainly they were agents of God, not the devil, and being the love of God, Christ would have embraced them instead of repudiating them. There are other points. Before his death, Christ says (paraphrased here) 'I have completed my work, I have come what I came to do', something also logically inconsistent with the sacrificial death notion. He also says 'for this cause came I into the world, to bear witness unto the truth'. etc. Anyway, due to the scriptural view which probably separates us, I think it will always come down to that in the end.tinabrewer
May 17, 2006
May
05
May
17
17
2006
07:59 AM
7
07
59
AM
PDT
Tina: I enjoy your posts. Do not read any anger into my response. I am not angry :-)tribune7
May 17, 2006
May
05
May
17
17
2006
03:46 AM
3
03
46
AM
PDT
tribune7: I don't know what to say. Your last post sounded angry. Thank you for clarifying your view. I hope that I have not contributed to this degenerating into disputation. The topic is too serious for that, and I think it is best for us to go our ways agreeing to disagree. I also want to thank Rude for his/her helpful and thoughtful posts...tinabrewer
May 16, 2006
May
05
May
16
16
2006
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT
The question at hand is whether his death itself, like the animal sacrifices of ancient times, was what his mission was about. Tina: OK, suppose Jesus was greeted with open hearts and open arms as he longed for? Suppose if the Jewish leadership said "this guy is right, you ought to listen to him?" Or Pilate said "The heck with politics, I'm letting Him go"? Or Judas said "I'm upset about something but I'm not betraying my friend?" Would Jesus have had to die? No. Or supposed people had just followed the prophets (and God) with their whole hearts, souls and minds? Would He even have had to make an appearance in the flesh? But we don't live in an alternative universe. The prophets were not followed, the crucifixion was prophesied and the crucifixion happened. So it is by His blood we are reconciled and and His sacrifice was His death. Rude: Your posts are great. Thanks.tribune7
May 16, 2006
May
05
May
16
16
2006
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
TinaB - There are explicit answers in my own religion. If you care to discuss, drop a note to jaredlivesey @ yahoo . comjaredl
May 16, 2006
May
05
May
16
16
2006
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT

Pelagius challenged Augustine on original sin, which by the way I don't think we can say is in any way a Jewish concept. Here, this is from Wikipedia: "An objective view of Pelagius and his effect is most difficult. His name has been maligned and used as an epithet for centuries by both Protestants and Catholics alike, and he has had few defenders. The Roman Catholic church denounced his work in word and yet the Reformation accused Catholics of succumbing to his ideas regardless and condemns both Pelagius and the Catholic Church. Meanwhile the Eastern Orthodox Church is silent. Regardless, Pelagius stands, both in reality and in icon, as a radical from the traditional thoughts on original sin and the means of salvation. In any analysis of his work, we should bear in mind that Pelagius' chronology and teachings can only be understood through the actions of his opposition because they have left the only record of him and his works."

I too wrestle with "the doctrine of propitiatory sacrifice". Obviously there's so much I don't understand. One thing that has helped is the Jewish concept of the merit of the fathers [זְכוּת אָבוֹת]. Individually and collectively we stand before God with insufficient merit for his mercy. When Israel sinned the sin of the golden calf we read (Exodus 32:9-10), "And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people: Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation." We may think the same offer was made to Jesus and that he accepted. But not Moses! His response was that if You destroy them then I want no part of your plan (Ex 32:32-33): "Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written. And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book."

And so Moses pleads by invoking the merit of the fathers. And he seems to think that God cares about what the Egyptians think (Ex 32:11-14): "And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

So maybe there is this also in the New Testament Messiah. By his merit we are saved, not so much because God thirsts for blood, but because Jesus proved by his death that he will be responsible for God's people, and for this reason we call him Lord.

Rude
May 16, 2006
May
05
May
16
16
2006
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply