[Vision2020] responding to Nick re: forgiveness and immutability

Sun Jan 25 18:05:44 PST 2009

Thanks for ringing in, Joe.  If you'll remember, the issue wasn't whether or not "blasphemy" was an unforgivable sin, or THE unforgivable sin; the issue was something called "blasphemy of the Holy Spirit."  This isn't like, say, cursing God when you slam your fingers in the car door.  It's an utter, final, complete rejection of His forgiveness, which Christians believe is applied through the cleansing work of the Holy Spirit.

I pointed out that anyone worried that they had, perhaps, committed this sin can know that they haven't -- the question can only come from the heart of someone whose conscience is still soft enough to receive the Spirit.  It's the hardened-unto-death soul that "blasphemes the Holy Spirit" by rejecting, unto death, that which can save her, namely, the Holy Spirit of God.  

I agree that process theology is one that's better than atheism (I'm saying "better" here in terms of "closer to the mark of orthodox Christianity), but I just don't agree that it's compatible with "the faith handed down once and for all by the saints."  

OK, we just got in from a weekend away and I'm exhausted, so . . . more later, if anyone cares to!

Keely
http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/

From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
To: kjajmix1 at msn.com
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] responding to Nick re: forgiveness and immutability
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 18:14:01 -0800
CC: vision2020 at moscow.com

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
=======================================================
_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live™ Hotmail®:…more than just e-mail. 
http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_hm_justgotbetter_explore_012009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090125/7719e102/attachment.html 