Like Button

Monday, January 23, 2012

One Like Yourself

I wrote recently about the value of human life. I wrote about how we need to value human life because God said, "Let us make Man in our image." I wrote that since we value God, we must value human life. The skeptic would then ask, "Oh, so why is it that humans die?" The question would likely be more subtle ... and more diverse. "Why are there hurricanes and tornadoes that kill people?" (because these are clearly supposed to be things that God controls). "Why does God allow abortion doctors?" (because clearly He does ... or doesn't exist). "How do you justify going to war?" (because lots of Christians do -- but not all). (Oddly, a large number of Christians who call all war a sin because it takes human life don't mind at all that babies are murdered in the womb. Isn't that strange? But I digress.) The claim, then, is that while we do value life and while we are supposed to value life, it appears that God does not. At least, not like we do. I mean, from a Christian perspective, who actually determines who lives and who dies? God does. And if God determines that people die, well, how does that work itself out? Isn't He contradicting Himself?

It's not just skeptics with a problem here. Rob Bell, for instance, wrote his controversial Love Wins book because he thoroughly dislikes the concept that people who never heard the Gospel could end up in Hell. "The real question," he told Relevant Magazine, "is essentially if millions and millions of people who have never heard of Jesus are going to be tormented forever by God because they didn't believe in the Jesus they'd never heard of, then at that point we will have far larger problems than a book by a pastor from Grand Rapids." Whether or not you agree with Rob Bell on his views of heaven and hell, the import of that concern has to hit home. If God desires that all come to repentance and not all get that opportunity, isn't He contradicting Himself? Don't we have billions who will die (and God values human life) and go to eternal torment against God's wishes? And, being human, you have to ache for them.

The problem is that we are anthropocentric and God is not. God is theocentric.The problem is that we are human and finite and God is not. He is supernatural and infinite. The difference is that we don't own any of this and God does. Here, let me try to illustrate it with my own little parable.

The art gallery had a grand showing of the works of a famous artist. Lots of people came to see. At one point in the evening, a young man came into the gallery, walked up to one of the pieces, and started writing on it. Writing on it! Before he got too far, security grabbed the man and held him until the police came and took him off in handcuffs. He was now a criminal. Well, the evening went back to normal and people continued to look at the work. Awhile later, another fellow came into the gallery. He walked up to one of the paintings, took it off the wall, pulled out a knife and slashed it from top to bottom and then again from side to side. He pulled it out of the frame and stepped on it until it broke. Then he put the pieces under his arm and walked out. The patrons were shocked. Some went to the gallery owner. "What was that? Your security men stopped the first guy but didn't do a think to stop the second. Why?" "Well," he answered with a shrug, "the first one was a vandal. The second was the artist. The vandal has no rights to the work, but the artist has the right to do as he pleases with his own work."

Different categories.

Psalm 50 has the text from which we get a popular line of thinking. "Every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills" (Psa 50:10). You know, that comforting thought that God can supply all our needs because "He owns the cattle on a thousand hills." That kind of thing. But that wasn't God's intent. His intent was a rebuke. "If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are mine" (Psa 50:12). To put it another way, "I don't need you." His is a rebuke against mankind in general and the wicked in particular. What is the primary failure? "You thought that I was one like yourself. But now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you" (Psa 50:21). God is not like us. He isn't human. He isn't subject to our rules. He isn't required to meet our standards. He isn't one of us. He's the Owner. For us to kill a human is a violation because we don't have that right. God does. And if God believes that it's in His best interest that people who have chosen to rebel against Him end up in Hell, He will see that it happens and rightly so. Our problem is the same as the Psalm 50 problem. We tend to think of God as just like us. He's not. He's in a different category altogether. Not a good mistake.

36 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Just another man's opinion: Suggesting that God "owns" we who were created "in God's image" and who are just a "little lower than God" and uses/abuses us for God's own enjoyment, that would seem contrary to solid biblical or rational thinking.

I don't think that the Bible teaches that we are a mere bit of passing artwork of God's, to be destroyed or purchased or sold off on God's whim. I would suggest a more rational biblical view would be that we are beloved children, co-creaters, friends, partners, and co-workers with God. Jesus helped clarify all these thoughts for us, it seems to me.

He taught how God longs to gather us under God's wings, as a mother chicken would her children, to protect and love.

Given that, it is reasonable (and biblical) to assume that one would treat beloved children and friends differently than a piece of property. Just another opinion, for what it's worth.

Danny Wright said...

On your digression. I don't think it is at all strange that some "Christians" call themselves pacifists, AND, have no problem with murder in the womb. It is because they are adherents to a different KIND of Gospel; a SOCIAL Gospel. This gospel is however no gospel at all, it is a political arm of party politics that seeks control. It is for the sake of control that the religion is co-opted then used to turn its adherents into easy to control pacifists while it simultaneously commits millions of murders. I respect true pacifists, those who know that murder in the womb can be fought at the ballot box, and who are willing to endure suffering rather than kill their enemies. Of course, we were warned in scripture about such shenanigans, "you will know them by their fruit".

Danny Wright said...

As to the rest of your article good take. Great "first principle". You know, it's not as if these questions have not been raised before in the 2000 year run of Christianity, but I think that up until recently your point here was a basic part of the Christian worldview. Christians knew they were redeemed sinners and as such didn't dare to judge God based on their fallen ideas of right and wrong, for to do so would be considered blasphemy. Instead, they were animated to not LET those who have never heard the gospel die without doing so.

Another question I asked myself as I was considering Christianity was, "Is God Good?". Now I realize I was never in a position to ask such a question because I had not sufficient means to define the word "good".

Stan said...

@Dan Trabue:

Just the blog owner's opinion: Suggesting that I suggested that God "uses/abuses us" for His own personal enjoyment like some sadistic scientist poking lab rats is not only irrational; it's despicable. I made no such suggestion. I had no such idea in my head.

Thanks for playing.

Dan Trabue said...

I am sorry if I misunderstood. I thought the analogy to artwork that the owner was free to destroy if he wanted was to make a comparison to God, who would also be free to destroy his "artwork" if God wanted.

Perhaps you can see how I misunderstood, given the analogy and how you said...

He isn't required to meet our standards. He isn't one of us. He's the Owner.

Do you see how it might SEEM like you were suggesting God was our "owner" free to do as God wished with us, including destroy us?

If that wasn't your point, what was, if I may ask?

Stan said...

That's not what you originally said. What you said was that I had suggested that God "uses/abuses us for God's own enjoyment".

Now, let me see if I understand you correctly. Is it your view that God does not own His creation, that God does not "free to do as God wished with us, including destroy us?" (Or perhaps you're arguing that either there is no hell or that hell is not destruction?)

I would be interested in further clarification, if you are arguing that God is not free to do as He wishes with us. How, then, do you explain "evil", both in the sense of catastrophes like hurricanes and tornadoes and in the sense of the evil that men do? No, never mind. Asking the question, "If God is not free to do as He wishes ..." of any kind just boggles my mind, like, "Is there even the slightest question?"

Dan Trabue said...

First off, I didn't say that YOU were suggesting that. I simply said, "Suggesting that God 'owns' us... and uses/abuses us..." is contrary to good Bible reasoning. I specifically did NOT say that you were suggesting it, just pointing out that IF anyone suggests it, that I think this is not sound logically or biblically.

My apologies if that was not straightforward and clear enough.

If you ARE suggesting that, then I would say that I don't find that sound reasoning. If you aren't suggesting it, then I would say that anyone who DOES suggest it is not engaging in sound reasoning.

Secondly, I am suggesting that I believe God treats us as dearly beloved children, not as property. God IS free to do as God wishes with us and God, I believe (and I believe the Bible teaches) wishes to treat us as dearly beloved children worthy of respect and grace and able to make our own choices, not puppets or property or slaves.

Having answered directly your direct question, here's a question for you:

Do you think that God treats us as puppets, property or slaves? OR, do you think that God treats us as dearly beloved children?

starflyer said...

Stan,

Stop using clear Scripture in your blogs please...it confuses us. Kidding...

Stan said...

Dan Trabue: "I didn't say that YOU were suggesting that."

Okay, so now you're saying, "No one was suggesting that, but if they did ..."?

So, let me say further that if anyone suggests that unicorns eat rainbows, I'd have to say that it is contrary to good biblical reasoning ...

Dan Trabue: "I am suggesting that I believe God treats us as dearly beloved children, not as property."

That is not an answer to the question. The primary question was "Is God not 'free to do as God wished with us, including destroy us'?"

And in answer to your question, I have stated that I believe that God is in a different category, so the categories of "puppets, property or slaves" are meaningless. But, of course, I also believe that God is Sovereign, which would mandate that He has ultimate say over whatever His creation might do. In human terms, when we treat others "as dearly beloved children worthy of respect and grace and able to make our own choices", it means that we do not have ultimate say. We are mandatorily limited by those factors. We don't get to kill babies or the like. We don't have the right to determine the right to live or die (for instance). (And, in fact, that was my second question that you didn't answer -- two for two.) If God treats us as dearly beloved children (etc.), then you must consider Him limited in what He can do with His children. Damning them to Hell, for instance, must be right out. Just a first example.

Dan Trabue said...

You asked for clarification...

I would be interested in further clarification, if you are arguing that God is not free to do as He wishes with us...

I answered directly to this request for clarification, saying...

God IS free to do as God wishes with us and God, I believe (and I believe the Bible teaches), wishes to treat us as dearly beloved children worthy of respect and grace and able to make our own choices

Does that help clarify that question?

Your second question went like this...

How, then, do you explain "evil", both in the sense of catastrophes like hurricanes and tornadoes and in the sense of the evil that men do? No, never mind.

I took, "NO, NEVER MIND" to mean, don't bother answering that question, so I didn't. If you meant, by "No, never mind," that you wish for me to proceed to answer, then I will, but perhaps you can understand why I did not answer. I thought you were telling me not to when you said, "NO, NEVER MIND..."

So, now, then, do you explain "evil", both in the sense of catastrophes like hurricanes and tornadoes...

I don't consider hurricanes or tornadoes to be evil, any more than I consider other non-animate, non-sentient objects/factors to be evil. Evil requires intent, it seems to me. MW defines evil as "morally reprehensible" and "arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct" and I don't think rationally it makes sense to call natural phenomena "evil."

Do you?

You continued...

and in the sense of the evil that men do?

I think that God, who loves us, who created us in God's own image and with freedom to make choices - NOT being robots, slaves or puppets, but with free will - allows us to make those choices that have evil consequences.

How do you explain evil in human acts? Differently than I do?

Dan Trabue said...

To answer this other question...

"Is God not 'free to do as God wished with us, including destroy us'?"

I would begin by thinking that it is an irrational question, like asking, "Could God create a rock so big that God couldn't lift it?"

God is God and free to do what God wants. AND, what I believe God wants (what I think the Bible and reason teach us) is to love God's children and invite us all to the party.

I don't think that the Bible teaches a God that would destroy God's own children any more than suggesting that God would command us to rape or kill babies.

I DO agree with your suggestion that we need to keep in mind our own fallible, human nature is not one in the same as God's infinite perfect nature, just a creation of and reflection of it (as through a glass, darkly).

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

so now you're saying, "No one was suggesting that, but if they did ..."?

Would you really like for me to explain my reasoning? You SOUNDED like you were hinting at what I talked about, that God creates us as property ("He's the owner") and is free to do whatever he will with us, including destroy us. Since you sounded like that is what you were suggesting, I offered AN OPINION for what it's worth, that IF anyone (including you) is suggesting that God created us to be property to do with as God will, including destroying us, THEN I would find that a less-than-sound conclusion based on what the Bible has to say as a whole and just plain logic.

If it wasn't what you were saying, then that gave you the opportunity to clarify, "No, Dan, I DON'T think God created us to be property to do with as God will, including destroy us..." Or, if it IS what you think, then you could say, "I guess we disagree on this one, brother Dan..." and leave me to my ill-informed (in your estimation, perhaps) opinion.

That seems reasonable to me.

Craig said...

"I would suggest a more rational biblical view would be that we are beloved children, co-creaters, friends, partners, and co-workers with God."

I'd love to see some Biblical, rational support for the hunch that we are "co-creators" with God. Ditto "partners".

I'm pretty sure that God doesn't need any one to help Him create. I'd guess we could maybe be veeerrrrrrryyyy junior partners.

Seems like an anthropocentric view of God to me.

As far as children, it seems Biblical to say that those who follow God are like adopted children.

Again, some actual Biblical support for these "Biblical" positions would be helpful in assessing them.

Dan Trabue said...

The idea of "co-creators" is not a new one to me. If Stan is up to it, here is John Armstrong talking about being "co-creators with God..."

"In the narrative of creation, work is not bad… work was the gift of God; that He, God, is a worker. He’s a creator. And he put man on the earth to be the steward to cultivate, to create, to be as a co-creator, with God."

Many evangelicals have used this language. It's just a way of acknowledging our work with Christ, our following in Christ's steps, our walking in God's Ways. It's just a way of acknowledging that, as God created the World and it was Good, so too, we can create that which is good, as well. Our children are a great example, but how about a business that employs the homeless? How about a non-profit that heals the sick?

I'm not really proposing anything radical in that notion, just acknowledging our role in walking out the faith.

D.L. Moody once said that "If you partner with God, Make your plans big!"

Paul said...

For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.

By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.


That's all I'm saying. If you don't like the term, then just call it "faithful stewards," or "God's workers..."

How about the other terms - and my actual point - brother Craig? Do you think we are more like beloved children/friends with God or more like slaves/puppets/servants, in God's eyes?

I do not call you servants any longer, for the servant does not know what his master is doing. But I have called you My friends

~Jesus

In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy because of your partnership in the gospel

~Paul

you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

~Paul

[If we are created in the Image of the Great Creator, is it really that far of a reach to think that we would be creators as well?]

Stan said...

Dan Trabue: "You SOUNDED like you were hinting at what I talked about."

I'm sorry, Dan. I just can't do this dance anymore. Too old, I suppose.

"Suggesting that God 'owns' we who were created 'in God's image' and who are just a 'little lower than God' and uses/abuses us for God's own enjoyment, that would seem contrary to solid biblical or rational thinking."

"I am sorry if I misunderstood."

"You SOUNDED like you were hinting at what I talked about."

So, when I told you that I did not suggest that God "uses/abuses us" for His own personal enjoyment, you back pedaled. Now you're back on the same kick. So, let's see in what form I can state this that will make sense to someone like you.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT GOD ABUSES HIS CREATION. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT HE PLAYS WITH HIS CREATION FOR HIS OWN PETTY AMUSEMENT. I HAVE MADE NO SUCH CLAIM AND SUGGESTED NO SUCH THING.

I know, I know, that looks like shouting, but it appears to be the only method left to me to make myself clear.

If the objection is to the word "own", then your objection is noted. I admit that I believe that the Bible clearly teaches that all that exists belongs to God. Silly, I know. I come to this silly conclusion because I read bizarre philosophies like "To the LORD your God belong the heavens, even the highest heavens, the earth and everything in it" (Deut 10:14) or "For everything in heaven and earth is Yours. Yours, O LORD, is the kingdom; You are exalted as head over all" (1 Chron 29:11) or "The world and its fullness are Mine" (Psa 50:12). Oh, wait, that last one comes from the very place I quoted in the post. Oh, well. Yes, I do believe that God owns His entire creation. Of course, that would not be considered "unbiblical" because, well, it's biblical.

Now, if it is your view that God does not have the freedom or the inclination to destroy His creatures if He wishes, who does? I mean, obviously God's creatures die. They die from old age, famine, disease, catastrophe, murder, all sorts of stuff. Since God doesn't plan it, allow it, or execute it, who does? And since the Bible is abundantly clear that there are those who will go to Hell (referred to as "perish" in one favorite verse) and God doesn't do that, who does?

Stan said...

Craig, I understand the use of the term "co-creaters" (although I spell it "co-creator"). It is applied by many when humans do something like create technology or even create a life (called pregnancy). Of course, Dan's version here gets really, really close to the Mormon's "We are little gods."

Dan Trabue, while we are called all those things ("beloved children, co-creaters, friends, partners, and co-workers with God"), it would be a mistake to think of them as all humans. John wrote "To all who received Him, who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God" (John 1:12), requiring that not all, but only those who believe become children of God. (You obviously can't become what you already are.) Jesus didn't tell the world, "No longer do I call you servants." Instead, He specified: "You are My friends if you do what I command you" (John 15:15). These are all terms applied to believers, and to believers only. Interestingly enough, while many believers are interested in reaching for a closer "equality" with God, Paul considers all that he is "loss" in view of knowing Christ and repeatedly refers to himself as a slave (bond-servant) of Christ.

Dan Trabue said...

Craig...

if it is your view that God does not have the freedom or the inclination to destroy His creatures if He wishes, who does? I mean, obviously God's creatures die. They die from old age, famine, disease, catastrophe, murder, all sorts of stuff. Since God doesn't plan it, allow it, or execute it, who does?

No one. Life happens. Death is part of life. It's not "caused," it's the way things were created.

"Rain falls on the just and the unjust," Jesus tells us. Life comes and goes. For everything, there is a time and a season, the Poet tells us.

Our days on earth are like grass;
like wildflowers, we bloom and die.
The wind blows, and we are gone—
as though we had never been here.
But the love of the Lord remains forever
with those who fear him.
His salvation extends to the children’s children


...the Psalmist tells us.

Do you think God goes around and physically causes/ordains each death, each worm that becomes one with the earth, each leaf that falls from a tree and each tree that falls to the ground? Do you see God as a hyper-interventionist in day to day affairs on earth?

Okay, I would have another vision of God, one which makes more sense to me. You're welcome to that opinion, I reckon. I would say God allows it, is the most rational and biblical way to understand it.

Of course, all this is way beyond my pay grade, I'm just offering my opinion - freely admitting that it's one I can't prove. Like you, in that regards.

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

while we are called all those things ("beloved children, co-creaters, friends, partners, and co-workers with God"), it would be a mistake to think of them as all humans.

Well, I would say you are right in some senses and yet, there is also a sense in which we ALL are God's children. Paul, after all, speaking to the Pagans of Athens says...

"as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His [God's] children.’

Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone..."


So, in the Bible, generally speaking, when it speaks of Children of God, it is speaking of those who are God's followers and that is true in one sense. But in yet another sense, we are all God's children, as Paul demonstrates here.

Fair enough?

Stan said...

Dan Trabue: "Do you see God as a hyper-interventionist in day to day affairs on earth?."

Ah! There's the deist I knew resided back there.

Stan said...

And that was Stan, not Craig, you were quoting.

Dan Trabue said...

As some like to say about being "calvinistic," I reach my conclusions based upon prayerful Bible study: If my Christian conclusions make you want to call me a "deist" then go for it. It'd be a Christian deist, though, as I reach my positions striving to understand the teachings of Christ my Lord.

David said...

"Vessels of wrath, prepared for destruction" "I (God) am the Potter, you are the clay" "Paul, the bond-servant of Christ" "You cannot be slave to two masters"
These all seem to point to an Owner free to do with His creation as He pleases. In fact, it would seem He created most of it to be destroyed. It is clear we are either slaves to sin or Christ. There is a difference between being God's children and His creation. All of God's children are His creation, but not all of His creation are His children.

Not exactly sure how it can not be concluded that all creation is His to do with as He pleases.

Dan Trabue said...

My apologies, just a slip on the Craig/Stan thing.

So, I'm curious: Are we agreed that "children of God" can be rightly used both ways, or at least that the Bible does so?

Stan said...

1) FYI, deists believe that God set everything in motion and it spins on its own, so to speak. Theists believe that God holds all things together, that "in Him we live and move and have our being", that not a sparrow falls without His knowing, that there is no such thing as a maverick molecule. Deists allow for a laregly "hands off" God. Theists view God as the One in Whom, through Whom, and for Whom all things exist. If He did not actively hold everything together, nothing would hold together. Or, in terms of your question, deists believe God lets the little things take care of themselves and theists believe that God is active in all things. (And, of course, in that explanation I included several of the biblical references that lead me to that conclusion. Since you come to your deism through "prayerful Bible study", perhaps you could share some of the Scriptures that tell you that God takes a "hands off" approach for "each death, each worm that becomes one with the earth, each leaf that falls from a tree and each tree that falls to the ground".)

2) On the "children of God" thing, there is a sense in which all are "children of God". And artist might refer to all his works as his "children". We are all His creation, so we are, in a sense, all His "children". But that has its (severe) limitations if John 1:12 (and the like) are to have any meaning. (And your use of the phrase "children of God" held up against the magnitude of death in the human race is a serious problem for poor God who has all these beloved children for whom He can do nothing to protect them.) The Bible also indicates a general love for the people of the world, but that God has a distinct, separate, of-a-different-magnitude love for His own. It is a mistake to say blithely "God loves everybody" when the Bible draws distinctions, distinctions that we need to keep in mind. He loves everyone in the sense that He provides rain for the just and the unjust, doesn't immediately terminate the existence of evil people, and so on. The biblical explanation of the way in which God loves the world is in John 3:16. God loved the world in this way: He gave His Son. Thus, His provision of an escape is love ... but Christ loves His Bride in a radically different way.

Craig said...

Dan and Stan,

I see where you are coming from with the creation thing. I guess when I think of God and creating I think of "big C" creating. God spole and the world came into existence creating. I do understand your point that we do, in a sense, "create" things.

Thanks

Stan said...

Dan Trabue: "Paul said, 'For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.'"

Where did Paul say that? I've looked and looked and looked. "Maybe Dan isn't mistaken here." I can't find it. I ask because I don't read that as "co-workers with God" but "co-workers together working for God". There is a difference between being a co-worker with God and being a co-worker for God.

Dan Trabue said...

That verse is from 1 Cor 3, here it is in NIV...

"For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building."

Or, KJV...

"For we are labourers together with God..."

I think the meaning of co-workers is as you say, "me and this guy, we are co-workers, fellow laborers, working together for/with God..." that suggests to me a working WITH God in the building of God's kingdom, the inviting of folk to join the party.

Again, if you don't like co-workers, no problem. Use another word. I think it is apt, you are free to disagree.

And, for what it's worth, I DO think God is at work in the here and now, but it is as the Bible says: God at work through you and me and the Holy Spirit. Working together as a team (not unlike Jesus and the early disciples).

Don't like that suggestion? Okay, it seems biblical and rational to me.

If you're interested, here are some thoughts along those lines...

Tim Geddert

bible.org

Just some thoughts...

I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing.

~Jesus

Stan said...

There it is. Thanks. (Although Paul here is talking about "Apollos and me" as the laborers and the Corinthians as "the field" or "the building" -- the work. Not "We're all co-workers with God.")

In this particular case (this particular question), I was just looking for the clarification, the source, not fault-finding. Just as we can be classified as "co-creators" when we create something, we can be classified as "co-workers" when we cooperate with God in His work. (Although that still doesn't get me to "All human beings are God's children, co-workers, etc.")

Oh, I glanced over that whole hurricane and tornado thing. You said "They're not evil." I indicated two forms of "evil". Isaiah 45:17 says (God speaking) "I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity." The King James says at the last "I create evil." The dictionary says evil can be "morally reprehensible" or "harmful" or even "characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering". I specified both of those types of "evil" because Scripture and the English language carry both meanings.

Dan Trabue said...

Are you saying you think God CREATES evil?

I would suggest those sorts of verses are best understood poetically, rather than literally.

Stan said...

No, the King James was saying that God creates evil. The newer translations understand it to mean "calamity", that which causes suffering, things like tornadoes and hurricanes and building collapses and the like, not directly attributed to sin (but certainly attributed to God). Of course, you have that "deism" thing going where God is kind of "hands off" rather than intimately involved in everything that happens and I'm a "theist" with the belief that God is intimately involved with everything, so we'd differ there, wouldn't we. (Notice that that's not a question.)

I, of course, tend not to take God as "poetic" when He states, "I, the LORD your God, do these things." But, hey, that's just me, right? That wacky "God is absolutely Sovereign" guy rather than the "we are in many ways nearly equal with God and somewhat independent" fellow. :)

Dan Trabue said...

"You [God] have made him [humanity] a little lower than God"

I'm just going where the text and logic lead, my brother.

As to your Isaiah passage, you don't think the Prophet engaged in a bit of poetic symbolism, at least at times?

From that very same chapter, we read...

Drip down, O heavens, from above,
And let the clouds pour down righteousness;
Let the earth open up and salvation bear fruit,
And righteousness spring up with it.
I, the LORD, have created it.


Do you think Isaiah was speaking of literal righteousness "pouring down" literally from the clouds?

Sounds poetic to me, but you are free to hold your interpretation, brother.

Stan said...

No, really, Dan, you are really cute. God speaks and says, "I, the LORD, do these things" and you're pretty sure that He doesn't (poetic, you know). On the other hand, when the poetry of the Psalms says something, that is not poetic? Really. Funny.

Of course, I haven't a clue what translation you're using. I don't find that in the ones I read. "A little lower than the angels" or "a little lower than heavenly beings" perhaps, but God? Even if the translation was God and we ignore the fact that it's poetry (without any question), surely it's hyperbole and not literal equivalence with The Most High.

Well, okay. My passage refers to God doing these things and you conclude it means that He doesn't actually do anything of the sort. Your passage refers to man being "a little lower than" and then gets a little foggy -- angels, heavenly beings, God? That means that we are absolutely and fairly literally godlike beings so close to being God ourselves that any suggestion that God might harm one of us would be, well, sacrilegious or something. My approach is anti-biblical and illogical. Yours is simple deductive reasoning. I suppose we're each entitled to our own approach. Readers can determine which one is making sense.

Dan Trabue said...

The word in Psalm 8 is "elohim," and, while I'm no Hebrew scholar, I'm told that is a word for God, not for angels. I have no bone to pick with either "angel" or "God," but the more modern translations (NASB, ASB, etc) have translated the word literally, "God," and I see no problem with it.

I also have no problem with it being hyperbole, although I'm not sure that makes sense in context, but whatevs. I'm sure that, in a sense, we who are God's beloved children and created in God's very image, God's very workmanship/masterpiece, created to do good works that Christ has prepared for us, that we ARE just a little lower than God's own Glorious Self. On the other hand, I'm equally sure that we who are fallen and prone to sin, who seemingly do the wrong we don't even want to do all the time, that we are "only" a little lower than angels, and not in any sense a little lower than God.

They both can make sense to me, so however you wish to read it is fine with me. Could I be extended the same grace, brother?

Also, I still wonder, Stan, do you think that Isaiah was being poetic or literal at least at points in the chapter you cited? Do you think God literally had righteousness "pouring down" literally from literal clouds? Or was it poetic, metaphoric, symbolic, as it appears to be to at least me?

Stan said...

Some sample translations (with ESV actually being the latest, most literal):
"Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings" (ESV)
"Thou hast made him a little less than the angels" (DRB)
"Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels" (KJV)
"You have made him lack a little from God" (LITV) (That one's interesting, isn't it?)
"[Thou] causest him to lack a little of Godhead" (YLT)

On elohim, Strong's says it refers to "gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God; occasionally applied by way of deference to magistrates; and sometimes as a superlative", and is translated "angels, gods, great, judges, mighty" and, of course, "God".

As I said, "Readers can determine which one is making sense." You think that it makes the most sense to say that we are roughly equivalent to God and I think that poetically it is suggesting that God has made much more of us than we could possibly have dreamt ("What is man that You take thought of him?"). You think that this would make it impossible/unlikely/(possibly wrong?) for God to cause the death of His creatures (at least Man, I suppose) to which I asked what you attribute death, let alone damnation. Clearly it cannot be God.

Do I think Isaiah was speaking the truth? No, of course God wasn't being literal (because it was God who was speaking in the Isaiah text). When He said He creates "light and darkness, causing well-being and calamity", He actually meant that light and (obviously) darkness exist, and that while He creates some well-being, He has absolutely nothing to do with calamity in any form and that was just a meaningless (but poetic) turn of a phrase.

Of course that last paragraph is sarcasm. I believe that the text is clear. "I am the LORD, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me; That men may know from the rising to the setting of the sun That there is no one besides Me. I am the LORD, and there is no other, The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the LORD who does all these (Isa 45:5-7). Is it poetry? Sure. Almost all prophecy is poetry. But poetry doesn't mean it doesn't mean what it says. Do I think there will be something dripping from heaven? Come on, Dan. Get a grip.

Tell ya what. Since God did not mean what He said in Isa 45:5-7 and you do know what He meant, why not explain it. I've given the text. I see no reason to mitigate it. You think it's hogwash; God does not cause well-being and create calamity (or, more likely, He does cause well-being but no calamity). What does the text mean?

And while you're there, tell me why Psalm 8 (a poem) to you is hardcore literal and Isaiah 45 is poetic hogwash (or whatever you think it is)?

Dan Trabue said...

Stan...

You think that it makes the most sense to say that we are roughly equivalent to God and I think that poetically it is suggesting that God has made much more of us than we could possibly have dreamt

I didn't say that. I don't think it. Nor do I think it is hogwash. Nor do I think it is meaningless. I think it is written in a poetic manner, a point which you agree with, it would seem.

Could I speak for myself, please? I'll refer you to what I actually said...

"I'm sure that, in a sense, we who are God's beloved children and created in God's very image, God's very workmanship/masterpiece, created to do good works that Christ has prepared for us, that we ARE just a little lower than God's own Glorious Self. On the other hand, I'm equally sure that we who are fallen and prone to sin, who seemingly do the wrong we don't even want to do all the time, that we are "only" a little lower than angels, and not in any sense a little lower than God.

They both can make sense to me, so however you wish to read it is fine with me. Could I be extended the same grace, brother?"

Stan said...

Well, we've clearly gotten off track here ... again. I asserted (in the post ... remember there was a post here?) that God is not like us, that He is a different order of being. I asserted that He owns everything and has the ultimate right to do as He pleases with His creation. You disagreed, calling it "contrary to solid biblical or rational thinking". You cited Psalm 8 as your "proof" text (so to speak). We are much more important than that because we are "just a little lower than God". Any suggestion that God has the freedom to do as He pleases with His creation is not accurate.

In the dialog, then, I offered Scriptures that offered a different opinion than yours. One of them -- one of the clearest -- was Isaiah 45 where God says that He causes well-being and creates calamity. You assured me that this was poetic, not actual. So I asked for an explanation of what you think it does mean. From what I've read so far from you, God views us as much too important ("a little lower than God", "beloved children, co-creaters, friends, partners, and co-workers", etc.) to "create calamity". I read that to mean "God does not create calamity" (or, to answer your "hogwash" objection, "It is hogwash to say that God would create calamity") to which I ask, "So, assuming that the text does not mean what it says, what does it mean?" To which you replied, "Could I be extended the same grace, brother?"

You have often complained that you answer all our questions but we fail to answer yours. I would like to point out that you have neither answered my question about what the Isaiah 45 text means or your answer to the problem of evil if God is not involved (earlier in this conversation). In this discussion alone, then, that's two quick examples of unanswered questions. I don't point these out to make you answer, but to answer your complaint that no one has given you examples of when you don't answer questions. Just to be helpful, you know?

Ultimately, then, we've gotten so far off track that we've forgotten where we started, forgotten what we've said, and forgotten where we're going. It would be a good idea, then, to terminate the discussion. In fact, I would consider that the grace you are requesting. Let's just let it go.