The first comment left on this post asked, "In favor of or in fear of?" Rather than responding inside, I will respond here. Here goes:
both.
and neither.
first, both.
in my experience fear comes from the following: (a) a threat; and (b) a sense of hopelessness in light of the threat.
that pretty much sums up reprobation, no? it is the perfect marriage of the most awful threat imaginable coupled with perfect hopelessness. because god chooses the elect as he chooses, and he chooses the damned as he chooses, and one's volition in that calculus is about as meaningful as 15 spf sunblock at ground zero of a nuclear blast.
so fear, for sure.
"in favor of,' well, i suppose that doesn't matter. reprobation-- or whatever name one wants to give it--is a thread that runs throughout the bible from genesis to revelation. those who wish to deny it may do so, but they must deny the bible along with it. or at least deny one of its central themes. so insofar one holds (a) the bible to be a work that is to be read plainly and, where at all possible, literally, and (b) the bible speaks truth, then the real question isn't so much of approval as assent to truth. i suppose if one adds (c) that the god behind the bible is a good god and worthy to be loved, then it should prompt us to see reprobation, finally, as good.
but i do not. i see it as twisted and sick. At least I do today.
so, for me, neither is also true.
as far as fear goes, reprobation releases one from fear in a way. calvin and edwards both speak of the assurance that the doctrine of predestination gives to the elect. one need not trust in one's goodness because the victory has been won on one's behalf. the victory is secure because god's grace is efficacious. but the reverse holds true as well. if one is not saved, then there is nothing one can do about it. being dead unto one's sins means, well, that the deal has been sealed. why fret? enjoy with abandon the earthly moments that you have.
easier said than done, of course. hell's a pretty hard thing to block out of one's mind.
and as for being in favor of it in the sense of finding the doctrine agreeable to my simple sense of ethics or in the sense of recoginzing in it the attributes of a glorious god worthy of my love, well, that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax. i feel like were i put on the spot to represent calvin or edwards (or even Thomas) on the doctrine of repropbation, i could provide a pretty convincing intellectual tap dance: I’d speak of god's unimaginable and ineffable holiness; I’d speak of his perfect sense of justice; and of our own grotesque "throats as open graves"-level of wickedness; and how god's sovereignty demands his utter control over the entire arc of history and how giving humans a share in their salvation would necessarily thwart god’s plans; and how justice requires (demands!) punishment of the wrongdoer; and how by our nature we hate god with the burning hatred of a thousand suns and how we want nothing remotely as much as to harm him and to live apart from him in the slime of our wickedness; and how our sin against an infinitely good god requires eternal punishment as recompense; and how god's grace cannot be squandered on those who would choose damnation.
and on and on.
and on.
i know the drill.
but i don't feel it. I mean if god is our father. If…
when my children err or sin against me or against others, i do not cast them out. I punish them insofar I think they can benefit from that punishment. but the universe does not capsize when they are left unpunished. They may learn a bad habit from lack of discipline, but I mean, come on. i do not have one child to cast away and another to lavish with tender affection.
of course the analogy is imperfect.
of course.
and neither.
first, both.
in my experience fear comes from the following: (a) a threat; and (b) a sense of hopelessness in light of the threat.
that pretty much sums up reprobation, no? it is the perfect marriage of the most awful threat imaginable coupled with perfect hopelessness. because god chooses the elect as he chooses, and he chooses the damned as he chooses, and one's volition in that calculus is about as meaningful as 15 spf sunblock at ground zero of a nuclear blast.
so fear, for sure.
"in favor of,' well, i suppose that doesn't matter. reprobation-- or whatever name one wants to give it--is a thread that runs throughout the bible from genesis to revelation. those who wish to deny it may do so, but they must deny the bible along with it. or at least deny one of its central themes. so insofar one holds (a) the bible to be a work that is to be read plainly and, where at all possible, literally, and (b) the bible speaks truth, then the real question isn't so much of approval as assent to truth. i suppose if one adds (c) that the god behind the bible is a good god and worthy to be loved, then it should prompt us to see reprobation, finally, as good.
but i do not. i see it as twisted and sick. At least I do today.
so, for me, neither is also true.
as far as fear goes, reprobation releases one from fear in a way. calvin and edwards both speak of the assurance that the doctrine of predestination gives to the elect. one need not trust in one's goodness because the victory has been won on one's behalf. the victory is secure because god's grace is efficacious. but the reverse holds true as well. if one is not saved, then there is nothing one can do about it. being dead unto one's sins means, well, that the deal has been sealed. why fret? enjoy with abandon the earthly moments that you have.
easier said than done, of course. hell's a pretty hard thing to block out of one's mind.
and as for being in favor of it in the sense of finding the doctrine agreeable to my simple sense of ethics or in the sense of recoginzing in it the attributes of a glorious god worthy of my love, well, that's a whole 'nuther ball of wax. i feel like were i put on the spot to represent calvin or edwards (or even Thomas) on the doctrine of repropbation, i could provide a pretty convincing intellectual tap dance: I’d speak of god's unimaginable and ineffable holiness; I’d speak of his perfect sense of justice; and of our own grotesque "throats as open graves"-level of wickedness; and how god's sovereignty demands his utter control over the entire arc of history and how giving humans a share in their salvation would necessarily thwart god’s plans; and how justice requires (demands!) punishment of the wrongdoer; and how by our nature we hate god with the burning hatred of a thousand suns and how we want nothing remotely as much as to harm him and to live apart from him in the slime of our wickedness; and how our sin against an infinitely good god requires eternal punishment as recompense; and how god's grace cannot be squandered on those who would choose damnation.
and on and on.
and on.
i know the drill.
but i don't feel it. I mean if god is our father. If…
when my children err or sin against me or against others, i do not cast them out. I punish them insofar I think they can benefit from that punishment. but the universe does not capsize when they are left unpunished. They may learn a bad habit from lack of discipline, but I mean, come on. i do not have one child to cast away and another to lavish with tender affection.
of course the analogy is imperfect.
of course.
no, i'm not perfectly holy like god, who cannot abide the tiniest mote on the end of a hair's worth of sin in his kingdom.
but neither am i perfectly loving like god, but i love my children enough to keep them within the fold of my love.
christ's parable of the prodigal son strikes me as truer to the model of a worship-worthy god than the god depicted in the more reprobation-friendly parables. the son sins against the father and his brother. he comes back in shame. the father runs to meet him. no punishment. I don’t know about the justice in that story, but I can see the love.
that's what i want to believe. if ours is a god who relishes and delights--and GLORIES--in the torment of his creatures for the sake of justice, well, that's certainly his divine prerogative. but insofar what he wants is to be glorified for his attributes, well...
Nietzsche says that when people do harm to him, the beauty and merit of justice is that it providee him the sublimely pleasurable gift of allowing him to inflict harm back on them in its name.
Is it surprising that before Nietzsche studied philosophy he first studied theology?
christ's parable of the prodigal son strikes me as truer to the model of a worship-worthy god than the god depicted in the more reprobation-friendly parables. the son sins against the father and his brother. he comes back in shame. the father runs to meet him. no punishment. I don’t know about the justice in that story, but I can see the love.
that's what i want to believe. if ours is a god who relishes and delights--and GLORIES--in the torment of his creatures for the sake of justice, well, that's certainly his divine prerogative. but insofar what he wants is to be glorified for his attributes, well...
Nietzsche says that when people do harm to him, the beauty and merit of justice is that it providee him the sublimely pleasurable gift of allowing him to inflict harm back on them in its name.
Is it surprising that before Nietzsche studied philosophy he first studied theology?
Posts
.jpg)
7 comments:
In favor of or in fear of?
Nice. A man after my own angst. I, too, would like to reject the exclusionary components of the scriptures, as well as some other aspects, if truth be told. However, the a la carte approach to religion can be a little disturbing, can't it? Both on a personal level of is-religion-really-just-up-for-interpretation? and on the macro level of fearing the events already wrought and those yet to come that are done "in the name of religion" or their interpretation thereof. And not just newsworthy events, but those prejudices that manifest themselves on a daily, anywhere level.
Thanks for your comments. You raise terrific questions. I wish I had good answers for them.
I’m struggling to think this through, but the following roughly approaches what I desire to express. For me at least there is something like a serious trilemma involved with Biblical interpretation.
In brief, it strikes me as impossible to hold the following beliefs simultaneously.
1. The Bible is true.
2. The Bible is to be read plainly and literally when the language is not clearly poetic or metaphorical.
3. God deserves to be glorified for His perfect attributes.
Conditions one and two may be true, but if the Bible is true and plainly so, then it makes a kind of moral monster of God. In many, many ways. Just from beginning to end. If the first two conditions hold it makes it very very difficult if not impossible to love and worship him on account of His goodness. We can worship Him for His power, yes, and perhaps for his holiness. But not for His loving goodness. Unless of course we define love and goodness simply as “whatever God chooses to do,” in which case we should worship Him for His loving goodness even if He breaks His promises and hates truth and loves cruelty for its own sake.
Perhaps the Bible is true and also God indeed deserves to be worshipped for his attributes. In which case, the Bible must be interpreted more metaphorically than is customary. The literal God of the Bible is too often cruel and arbitrary.
If God does deserve to be glorified for His perfect attributes AND we ought to read the Bible as plainly and literally as possible, then we must reject the Bible as essentially true. There may be a God, but we can’t receive our understanding of Him from the Bible. The Bible is but one more historical book and we must consult elsewhere to learn about who God is.
It obvious that all sorts of folks do not take these conditions as leading to a trilemma. Truthfully, I don’t understand how this can be so, but I don’t see it my place to judge.
For me clearly the least important of these three claims is the second one. This is the one that must give way for me. As it stands naturally, the Bible has been interpreted in many ways through the millennia, and we are richer (on balance) for the variety of teachings. Still, the concerns you express about constructing our own theology from the pleasant parts that we like are valid, Mr. Justcurious. Fundamentalists may be more right than not about the slippery slope toward religious vapidity when one turns away from a plain and literal interpretation.
My more flippant (but basically genuine) response to your concerns is that every Protestant is already thoroughly guilty of cafeteria Christianity. Catholics not so much so. Which, finally, is the most pressing reason I haven’t converted to Catholicism. Converting to Catholicism asks too much in the way of really hard, challenging beliefs. I like my cafeteria Christianity; at heart I'm a good Protestant. Still, it strikes me that on issue after issue, Catholic apologetics and reasoning simply crushes the very best of Protestant thought. But that is a topic for another post. I’ve spent too much time on this post as it is.
How ever did you get a picture of my front door?
well don't get all huffy about it, satan4763!
i thought you weren't choosy about who came to visit you. at least that's your reputation. so if you are choosy, where do YOUR rejects go? huh?
The Bible is a spiritual book. It must be spiritually discerned; to read it with the natural mind alone leads to error, even if one reads metaphorically. To avoid error, the Bible must be interpreted by the Holy Spirit. This is why so many students of the Scriptures in Jesus' day missed the Messiah -they had been interpreting the Torah with the natural mind and failed to see the spiritual aspects that pointed to the Christ. A few, however, saw God's plan alluded to in what we call the Old Testament, and looked for the manifestation. Simeon comes to mind, and it is important to note that it is testified of him in Luke that "the Holy Ghost was upon him." Of course, "spiritual interpretation" leaves the option for any man to follow his own bias and call it spirit-led. But God's promise is to lead those who will honestly seek truth, in spite of and in recognition of the fact that the human heart is deceitful. John 7:17--"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." I agree that it is the second point of your trilemma that must give way; that is where the fundamentalists err.
applebee--
i really appreciated your contribution. it gives me great food for thought. plus i think your tone of calm and contemplative resolve is a good one to emulate. too often, for the sake of rhetorical impact, i appropriate a more strident tone than i actually feel.
----
on an unrelated note, though i don't know who you are, i like your name.
Post a Comment