tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5123278470109210131..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: "I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked"Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53567441735949045382011-03-22T08:46:21.366-04:002011-03-22T08:46:21.366-04:00HALO SAID:
“I don't think that just because w...HALO SAID:<br /><br />“I don't think that just because we can do things that make God angry that this means we are controlling Him, I was careful to state that God ordains those things that anger Him, thus He is the one ultimately pulling the strings.”<br /><br />For someone who’s interested in divine psychology, you’re not offering a psychologically plausible explanation. It’s like saying a novelist invents characters who make him mad, then invents other characters who pacify his rage. The whole exercise becomes a charade. <br /><br />If you wish to make literal sense of divine wrath, the way to do it is to say that God disapproves of sin, in and of itself, but sin can also serve a larger purpose in the plan of God, and God approves of his own plan. <br /><br />“And it seems the most straightforward judgement to many people is that the texts do intend to communicate what they seem to say about how God feels.”<br /><br />Well, many readers are naïve. They don’t consider the implications of their interpretation. Many readers view Yahweh like a comic book superhero. A figure with human foibles and feelings who is simply more knowledgeable and powerful than mere mortals. <br /><br />“I don't really think it had ever occurred to me that those kind of passages were not actually a true portrait of aspects of God's psychological state.”<br /><br />“True portrait” is misleading, inasmuch as that implies a contrast with a false portrait. But that misses the point. The truth or falsity of the passage depends on the intent of the speaker. <br /><br />“Perhaps I am not understanding your argument fully because it does not seem as subjectively persuasive to me as it seems to be to you.”<br /><br />You don’t understand it because you operate with a completely different paradigm. When you wear tinted-glasses, everything looks amber.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11989322321572309862011-03-21T18:49:26.482-04:002011-03-21T18:49:26.482-04:00It gives us power over God if we can make him angr...<i>It gives us power over God if we can make him angry. </i><br /><br />I don't think that just because we can do things that make God angry that this means we are controlling Him, I was careful to state that God <i>ordains</i> those things that anger Him, thus He is the one ultimately pulling the strings.<br /><br /><i> i) Well, for one thing, you fail to distinguish between different types of discourse. It is primarily informative or performative? That’s something you must judge from the context.</i><br /><br />And it seems the most straightforward judgement to many people is that the texts do intend to communicate what they seem to say about how God feels. I don't really think it had ever occurred to me that those kind of passages were not actually a true portrait of aspects of God's psychological state. <br /><br />Perhaps I am not understanding your argument fully because it does not seem as subjectively persuasive to me as it seems to be to you.<br /><br />Regards,<br />haloHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76726171194163121282011-03-21T09:37:36.111-04:002011-03-21T09:37:36.111-04:00HALO SAID:
“That leaves me thinking that those pa...HALO SAID:<br /><br />“That leaves me thinking that those passages are quite misrepresenting of God if in fact he does not really weep (metaphorically) over them, or have the strength of feeling communicated towards them. It was just a rhetorical ploy not representative of the truth.”<br /><br />It’s only misrepresentative if it was meant to be illocutionary rather than perlocutionary. If, by contrast, it was not intended to reveal God’s mental state, but rather, to elicit a certain type of response, then that’s hardly misrepresentative unless God didn’t intend to elicit a certain type of response.<br /><br />So your objection doesn’t even engage the argument. <br /><br />We’re dealing with hortatory language. That’s not designed to tell you what the speaker’s ulterior motives may be. Rather, it’s designed to persuade or deter. Trigger a suitable reaction. It’s not self-revelatory; rather, it’s directed at a second-party. <br /><br />A field commander will use hortatory language to inspire his troops, but that’s not designed to convey the commander’s game plan. They don’t know the ultimate purpose of the orders. They don’t know how taking the bridge contributes to the strategic objective. <br /><br />You also disregard the complexities of intent, although I discussed that under points IV-V.<br /><br />“Why could this not be going on in any number of other passages? Passages where it says God is angry at sin for example, maybe he is not and it is not intended to 'unveil God's psychological state', likewise with the passages about God's love for the elect. Why are they not also merely a rhetorical ploy?”<br /><br />i) Well, for one thing, you fail to distinguish between different types of discourse. It is primarily informative or performative? That’s something you must judge from the context. The genre. <br /><br />ii) We must also make allowance for what is or isn’t congruent with an omniscient, omnipotent speaker. Otherwise, you’re suggesting a God who’s at the mercy of his creation. A bipolar God prone to violent mood swings. A God whose buttons we can push. It gives us power over God if we can make him angry. Make him sad. Such a God loses control. Instead of controlling us, we control God by provoking him, by yanking his chain–as if we were teasing a dog.<br /><br />You don’t really believe that, do you?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-67409616947383537172011-03-20T21:00:03.470-04:002011-03-20T21:00:03.470-04:00That leaves me thinking that those passages are qu...That leaves me thinking that those passages are quite misrepresenting of God if in fact he does not really weep (metaphorically) over them, or have the strength of feeling communicated towards them. It was just a rhetorical ploy not representative of the truth. Why could this not be going on in any number of other passages? Passages where it says God is angry at sin for example, maybe he is not and it is not intended to 'unveil God's psychological state', likewise with the passages about God's love for the elect. Why are they not also merely a rhetorical ploy?<br /><br />If, on the other hand, you say He does have those feelings but only with respect to the elect amongst them, then: <br /><br />1) to many that is less than obvious from the passages, at least less obvious than the 2-wills approach<br /><br />2) it does not explain the weeping that seems to be post judgement - i.e. they were not elect<br /><br />Please understand I am not meaning this in an unfriendly tone, I am just trying to see how your view is coherent.Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-54538285833561424722011-03-20T20:36:13.347-04:002011-03-20T20:36:13.347-04:00That's why I had a section on speech-act theor...That's why I had a section on speech-act theory.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55564426163055705622011-03-20T19:29:56.751-04:002011-03-20T19:29:56.751-04:00sure, but what do the anthropopathisms of God weep...sure, but what do the anthropopathisms of God weeping over those He nevertheless exercises judgement upon communicate?<br /><br />- that God does not have any feeling about the fact of their destruction?Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14837079517202612822011-03-20T19:15:27.981-04:002011-03-20T19:15:27.981-04:00That's why I also had a brief section on anthr...That's why I also had a brief section on anthropopathisms.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81659667057191134312011-03-20T17:42:54.079-04:002011-03-20T17:42:54.079-04:00point ii) is interesting, but since you (I presume...point ii) is interesting, but since you (I presume) can allow that God is grieved at times in scripture, that he ordains things that consequently make Him extremely angry at other times etc.., then why is it so out of place that he would see fit to ordain things that cause him to feel the emotion of frustration?<br /><br />It is not necessary that this is an eternal frustration, I think J.Edwards believed that after death believers would no longer feel love or pity for unbelievers in hell, perhaps a similar thing may be so with the part of God's desires that may feel (self-ordained) frustration. <br /><br />Are there not verses that suggest this - such as Jeremiah 48:31-36 which describes God weeping over people he deliberately decided to judge.<br /><br />Other passages such as Isaiah 15:5-9 and Isaiah 16:9-11 communicate the same.<br /><br />I don't think the two-wills approach necessitates a diminishing of God's sovereignty, i.e. what He ultimately wants to happen. <br /><br />Could be wrong, but I confess I still don't see the big problem.Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65077061401563605412011-03-20T15:10:50.304-04:002011-03-20T15:10:50.304-04:00i) For reasons I've cited in this post, I don&...i) For reasons I've cited in this post, I don't think that's the most exegetically satisfactory interpretation. It neglects other contextual delimiters.<br /><br />ii) On the face of it, I don't know why God would be frustrated with the way things turn out. Surely God can have exactly the world he wants. <br /><br />iii) I think the two-wills rubric is a makeshift explanation.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56310386989129504652011-03-20T13:17:13.155-04:002011-03-20T13:17:13.155-04:00Hi Steve,
I'd like to ask what you see as wro...Hi Steve,<br /><br />I'd like to ask what you see as wrong with Piper and Spurgeon's view (http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/1516.htm) that God does actually desire all to be saved, that you go for this alternative?<br /><br />Since I don't see a problem with Piper's view, what is the need to have this alternative?<br /><br />ThanksHenryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06242793531954844979noreply@blogger.com