[Vision2020] responding to Nick re: forgiveness and immutability

[Joe Campbell]

Keely,

I haven't had time to finish reading the rest yet so forgive me if  
I've missed something!

Your comment about blasphemy being an unforgivable sin seems a bit  
ambiguous. If I say something blasphemous and later regret it (and I'm  
honest about this) and ask for God's forgiveness will I be forgiven?  
If it is unforgivable the answer should be "no" but in your response  
to Nick the answer seems to be "yes" (which is the answer I like!).

And please don't hate process theology! I love it. Which is not to say  
I accept it, or to say I don't. The fact is that of all religious  
truths the one that is most obvious is that there is some considerable  
distance between our beliefs and a true understanding of the Divine!

Like it or not many reject God's existence precisely because of the  
problems raised for traditional theism, noted by Nick. Process thought  
offers another option, other than atheism. And it is pretty cool to  
boot!

But I agree with you that the problems are not as insurmountable as  
they might first seem. So hopefully I'll have something to say about  
this in the next few days, in response to Nick's thoughtful posts.

Joe Campbell

On Jan 23, 2009, at 11:01 AM, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:

>
> Good morning, Visionaires,
>
> Some of you may have been following my exchange with Nick Gier over  
> the immutability -- the unchanging nature and character -- of God,  
> and the issue of forgiveness' origin, divine or human.  It's been an  
> interesting dialogue and, once again, I thank Nick for the  
> invitation to engage with him.  He is my friend, no matter how much  
> we disagree, and our disagreements here are congenial and frank,  
> which I know both of us appreciate.
>
> In examining Nick's response to my objections to process theology  
> and the Gospel accounts of the "unforgivable sin," I tried to  
> explain the context of the text that asserts that God will not  
> forgive "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit," and if you've been following  
> (both of you), there's no need for me to go into it again.  Suffice  
> to say that I believe God's statement, through Jesus, that blasphemy  
> against the Spirit cannot be forgiven is because acceptance of the  
> Spirit is necessary for forgiveness; if it's rejected, sin can't be  
> forgiven.  So I see this as "God will not" forgive, not because He  
> doesn't want to, but because He will not force forgiveness on  
> someone who is bent on rejecting it.  This is the classic, orthodox,  
> evangelical interpretation of the verse in question.
>
> The other point that Nick raised and that I responded to is whether  
> or not God "changes," "repents," "relents," or otherwise becomes  
> somehow different from how He was or will be.  Again, you can review  
> our exchange from last week if you'd like; here, I'd make only a  
> couple of points:
>
> First, it's easy to see from Nick's response to my post that he is  
> justifiably considered an academic expert on matters of comparative  
> religion, philosophy, theology, and the history thereof.  I don't  
> even mind that, to some, it might have looked like he kicked  
> academic butt in his exchange with me -- he countered my claims and  
> assertions with his own, and I have no difficulty acknowledging that  
> his depth of knowledge is greater than mine.  One of the things I  
> like about Nick, though, is that he's never patronizing; he's not  
> trying to "kick butt," he's trying to defend a position.  Here's  
> where I don't get to fall back on, "Well, I'm just a housewife with  
> a fairly useless BA."  Nick shows me remarkable and much appreciated  
> honor in asking for my views on issues of theology, and I wade into  
> the waters eagerly because I feel able, by grace, to do so  
> confidently.  My point here is that much of Nick's response is  
> difficult for me to answer, and that's my fault for not being  
> equipped; it isn't his for challenging me.  I can respond with the  
> knowledge and perspective I've gained, and it's up to the reader to  
> gauge whose answer makes more sense.  Either way, though, I hope  
> I've earned Nick's respect for my character, if not my conclusions.
>
> Second, I still hold to the omniscience, omnipresence, and  
> omnipotence of the LORD God; I cannot accept, from Scripture, a  
> theology that accommodates a Divine, Eternal Being who can be  
> surprised by the finite and temporal He creates.  I do wish that I  
> had not said I "abhor" process theology -- that was unnecessarily  
> combative-sounding, and a better way to put it would have been to  
> say that I reject process theology.  Nonetheless, I hold to the  
> immutable nature and character, represented by the "omni"s as well  
> as the Scriptural testimony of His dealing with fallen humanity, of  
> Yahweh.  I believe there is "no shadow of turning," no state of un- 
> knowing, no "sleep nor slumber," of my God -- the God who is the  
> same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.  I couldn't trust, and neither  
> should you, a being who finds things out at the same rate, in the  
> same experiential way, as I do.  I do acknowledge Nick's point that  
> if the Incarnation -- Jesus, fully God and fully human -- is true,  
> it represents a change, of sorts, in Yahweh's nature.  Yes, if Jesus  
> appeared in time, at some specific point on the linear timeline,  
> then there was a time when God was not a baby in the manger; the  
> Incarnation, then, does represent a change in the nature of God by  
> introducing into real time an ontologically human/God Person in  
> Christ.  Still, I don't see this as an argument against  
> immutability, or the unchanging nature of God.  I take the  
> Incarnation as true, obviously, and believe it to be consistent with  
> the unchanging lovingkindness of God -- and I also see that God, as  
> a Person (a Being with volition, self-awareness, and emotion), is  
> portrayed in Scripture as sometimes angry, sometimes not.  If  
> immutability in ontology is made to deny changing emotions or  
> volition, then I think the word has lost much of its intended  
> meaning.  Perhaps, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the limits of  
> language require that we hold this and other doctrines in tension.
>
> I believe that Christ made certain truth claims, and I believe those  
> to be true -- based on Scripture and not on my own hunches, hope, or  
> hermeneutic.  I also think that these truth claims are things I can  
> defend, and if I do it reasonably well, it's because of the gifts  
> God has given me.  The glory for insightful analysis goes to Him;  
> whatever rebuke or admonition that results from a deficit in my  
> defense is only my own.  The testimony of God in Scripture is  
> something I seek to understand and apprehend completely, knowing  
> that as sure as my devotion is the certainty that I won't always  
> succeed.  But that's OK -- the point is to try, to be equipped to  
> respond, and to always do so graciously.  If every reader of Vision  
> 2020 digested my response and determined from it that I had "won"  
> some debate or another, but did so ungraciously or arrogantly, I  
> would consider the whole thing a failure.  I'm willing to go mano-a- 
> mano in friendly, open, frank debate with Nick or anyone else, and  
> I'll do my best.  No cop-outs because I'm "just a homemaker," no  
> jabs at "the wisdom of manking vs. the wisdom of God," and no cheap  
> shots and cheap hermeneutics.  I am honored that Nick would ask for  
> my opinion and perspective, and I'm equally honored when he  
> disagrees.  I trust that in this and other exchanges, I've added  
> some light to the issue and done so without the darkness of arrogant  
> dismissiveness.
>
> So thanks, Nick, and I'm sure we'll talk more.
>
> Keely
> http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
> Windows Live™: E-mail. Chat. Share. Get more ways to connect. Check  
> it out.
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090124/29b4e80a/attachment-0001.html