[Vision2020] responding to Nick re: forgiveness and immutability

[Joe Campbell]

This makes sense.

Joe Campbell

On Jan 25, 2009, at 6:05 PM, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:

> 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. Check it out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090126/b852e461/attachment-0001.html