Theology discussions always involve assumptions that makes clear answers challenging. To address one part requires dealing with many other areas. For example, here the first part of Adam’s question:
Dr. Paul: “The OT and NT Scriptures speak often of the anger and wrath (thumos) of God(Romans 1:18) and the “judgment” of God (Romans 2:5) and eternal punishment. Granted in my view these passages refer to non believers. But do you teach and address these attributes of God?Answering requires looking at assumptions about several key issues: What is the character of God? Who is Jesus and why was he here? What point-of-view we are using in reading the Scriptures? Our answers become working assumptions as answer other questions. For example, Adam’s phrase “eternal punishment” likely assumes that the primary meaning is “everlasting, without an end, or forever.” And the same applies to “eternal life.” I now see the meaning not primarily about a permanent state but about a quality of life beginning here and now. What is eternal life? Jesus’ links it to a quality of relationship, “And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” John 17:3 (NSV) “Know” here is not about facts but intimate experiential knowing.
The early church Fathers assumed that of the characteristic unselfish loving, pure and dynamic relationship among the members of the Trinity was the essential nature of holiness and righteousness. Later theologians shifted to a legal definition of holiness, purity and righteousness. John’s “God is love” was twisted into “Yes, but God is just” and then “God must be just and justice requires punishment.”
Today I am amazed and shocked that I believed that and at the same time read Jesus’ description of the Father as the farmer who paid the late-hired workers the same wages as those who worked all day. Was that just? There was the humiliated father who danced his son home as if he’d never left. Was that just? I even missed that after elder brother attacked the father for being unjust and refused to come to the party, the father lets him off scott free to stew in his own anger. The brother had to sit in the hell he created for himself; a hell in which he heard the sounds of joy, laughter and music to which he had a full invitation. Now that’s punishment – but self-inflicted, not father-inflicted.
My answers will create interesting dialog. I am creating, AudaciousGrace.org, to post answers there. Some may be comforting and others may seem quite dangerous. What I know is that “unlearning” is much more difficult than learning.
Grace and Peace
Dr. Paul
No comments:
Post a Comment