My Response to GC of Moreno Valley California
By
Steve "Count Dukoo" Wilson
Orange County California
Steve's New Blog Can Be Found at:
CG
SW
Mystery, contradiction and paradox. All so closely related yet so vastly apart. I would agree that we cannot contradict scripture for poetic purposes, but does Ed really contradict scripture?
Yes. Nowhere in scripture does it state or imply that the sheep that Christ died for are the ones responsible for killing him. If you want to argue, as you did later in this reply, that the Jews who screamed for him to be crucified, and the Romans who nailed him to the cross are responsible, then I can address that. Yes, I believe it is accurate to say that God killed God to save God's elect from God. If God used certain Jews and certain Romans as tools for accomplishing this plan (prepared before the foundation of the world, I'd add), then God can hold those tools accountable - as is done in Acts, as you point out later in your response. So, I would agree that scripturally it is accurate to blame for the crucifixion of His Son the Jews and Romans that God used to carry out his plan - God can hold accountable whoever He wants, even if He has decreed their part in His plan. But that person, ( if I may hold to sola scriptura), is not Ed Enoch. I would challenge you to show me where in scripture the sheep are ever accused of crucifying Christ because they are the ones He died for.
I don't know if you agreed with the guy earlier who said "God killed God." Why does Jesus ask the Father to "forgive them for they know not what they do". Who betrayed Jesus? Judas or God?
Yes, I agree with that statement, as stated above.
Jesus asks them to be forgiven because they remain responsible for their actions.
Also, I want to make clear; You are not suggesting that Jesus asked the Father to forgive them because it was their sins that He was dying for (if they were) are you?
In regard to Juda; Judas, by God's plan, betrayed Jesus and was held responsible...so, if you can find a poem written by Judas where Judas expresses his act of betraying Jesus; I'd accept Judas' poem as a theologically sound poem.
The scripture said that God ordained Judas' betrayal and yet Judas indeed betrayed Jesus. This is a Paradox my friend not a contradiction. What you have done is pit scripture against scripture and chosen one and neglected others to prove your point. If Ed's statement is a contradiction becase of John 10:17 then that means that Acts 3:12-15 contradicts John 10:17 since it says that the Jews killed Jesus: "You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead."What did Ed intend to mean when he made his statement?
Addressed above.
What did Jesus want to convey when he made his? And what was Peter's purpose for his statement? All these are the questions that must be answered. When these paradoxical things are analyzed we will see that the contradiction is removed becuase of what each person intended to communicate to his intended audience. The best example of this is two exactly opposite statements by Jesus that appear to contradict yet when audience is brought in they are clearly harmonized. Mark 9:40 says "for whoever is not against us is for us." But Matt 12:30 says He who is not for me is against me." By your logic these things are contradictions, by mine they are different statements to different audiences and both are true.
I never addressed this argument, nor expressed my logic toward these two verses. Here is my logic applied to these two verses (for what it is worth):
Those who are not against Christ, will be for Christ, and those who are not for Christ, will be against Him. I think this is an accurate systematic response to these two statements of Jesus.
Please, don't apply my logic on one issue and transfer it inaccurately to another; I know that trick.
...I think this rigid and even somewhat legalistic attitude is a bit dangerous to hearing from the Lord through others and our spiritual growth. If we cannot be blessed from things such as Ed's poem I have to wonder if we haven't become so Theological minded that we are of no earthly good (I might start another debate on that line alone).
You just did. Let me see if I can accurately summarize your statement above:
"I think that you are being legalistic in regard to the freedom that we have in regard to emotions of a theological sort, in that, we should have more liberty to express our theology loosely when it is coming from our emotions. Otherwise, our emotions will not be expressed in a way that is beneficial to spiritual growth, and we'll become sound theologically but not emotionally expressive, rather than emotionally expressive while somewhat theologically sound." - this may not be what you meant to say, but it is how I take the sentences above. It sounds like you're placing emotional expression above sound theology.
Yes. Nowhere in scripture does it state or imply that the sheep that Christ died for are the ones responsible for killing him. If you want to argue, as you did later in this reply, that the Jews who screamed for him to be crucified, and the Romans who nailed him to the cross are responsible, then I can address that. Yes, I believe it is accurate to say that God killed God to save God's elect from God. If God used certain Jews and certain Romans as tools for accomplishing this plan (prepared before the foundation of the world, I'd add), then God can hold those tools accountable - as is done in Acts, as you point out later in your response. So, I would agree that scripturally it is accurate to blame for the crucifixion of His Son the Jews and Romans that God used to carry out his plan - God can hold accountable whoever He wants, even if He has decreed their part in His plan. But that person, ( if I may hold to sola scriptura), is not Ed Enoch. I would challenge you to show me where in scripture the sheep are ever accused of crucifying Christ because they are the ones He died for.
I don't know if you agreed with the guy earlier who said "God killed God." Why does Jesus ask the Father to "forgive them for they know not what they do". Who betrayed Jesus? Judas or God?
Yes, I agree with that statement, as stated above.
Jesus asks them to be forgiven because they remain responsible for their actions.
Also, I want to make clear; You are not suggesting that Jesus asked the Father to forgive them because it was their sins that He was dying for (if they were) are you?
In regard to Juda; Judas, by God's plan, betrayed Jesus and was held responsible...so, if you can find a poem written by Judas where Judas expresses his act of betraying Jesus; I'd accept Judas' poem as a theologically sound poem.
The scripture said that God ordained Judas' betrayal and yet Judas indeed betrayed Jesus. This is a Paradox my friend not a contradiction. What you have done is pit scripture against scripture and chosen one and neglected others to prove your point. If Ed's statement is a contradiction becase of John 10:17 then that means that Acts 3:12-15 contradicts John 10:17 since it says that the Jews killed Jesus: "You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead."What did Ed intend to mean when he made his statement?
Addressed above.
What did Jesus want to convey when he made his? And what was Peter's purpose for his statement? All these are the questions that must be answered. When these paradoxical things are analyzed we will see that the contradiction is removed becuase of what each person intended to communicate to his intended audience. The best example of this is two exactly opposite statements by Jesus that appear to contradict yet when audience is brought in they are clearly harmonized. Mark 9:40 says "for whoever is not against us is for us." But Matt 12:30 says He who is not for me is against me." By your logic these things are contradictions, by mine they are different statements to different audiences and both are true.
I never addressed this argument, nor expressed my logic toward these two verses. Here is my logic applied to these two verses (for what it is worth):
Those who are not against Christ, will be for Christ, and those who are not for Christ, will be against Him. I think this is an accurate systematic response to these two statements of Jesus.
Please, don't apply my logic on one issue and transfer it inaccurately to another; I know that trick.
...I think this rigid and even somewhat legalistic attitude is a bit dangerous to hearing from the Lord through others and our spiritual growth. If we cannot be blessed from things such as Ed's poem I have to wonder if we haven't become so Theological minded that we are of no earthly good (I might start another debate on that line alone).
You just did. Let me see if I can accurately summarize your statement above:
"I think that you are being legalistic in regard to the freedom that we have in regard to emotions of a theological sort, in that, we should have more liberty to express our theology loosely when it is coming from our emotions. Otherwise, our emotions will not be expressed in a way that is beneficial to spiritual growth, and we'll become sound theologically but not emotionally expressive, rather than emotionally expressive while somewhat theologically sound." - this may not be what you meant to say, but it is how I take the sentences above. It sounds like you're placing emotional expression above sound theology.
How can being theologially minded (accurately) make us no good on earth for Christ? Was Paul so theologically minded that he was of no earthly good? Did his sound theology stop him from collecting for the poor, or spreading the gospel? Or did his theological soundness give him the credabilty to do such things? I would argue for the latter.
I love good Theology just as much as anyone here. The problem is that good theology means taking things in context and not creating proof texts, ...
I agree, though accurate use of proof texts is also a part of it, I believe. But in this case, it is simply a matter of poetic expression concerning the Lord of the Universe and His servants, and expression of their relationship being accurate and in accordance with the Word of God.
This is where I stand.
God bless you Gabe,
Steve Wilson
