Theodicy

[steve7150]

This is one of the reasons I don't prefer the term annihilation. It seems to have a connotation of an active role on God's part in extinguishing the (otherwise immortal?) humans.





When God created the flood wasn't he active and didn't he annihilate almost the entire world assuming you believe in a worldwide flood.

If we try to classify God into being to inactive he starts looking like a Budda type figure.

[dwilkins]

In order for people to be judged finally they have to be resurrected. Annihilation isn't physically dying the first death. It's being finally destroyed in the second death after being resurrected and then judged by God.

Doug

[steve7150]

In order for people to be judged finally they have to be resurrected. Annihilation isn't physically dying the first death. It's being finally destroyed in the second death after being resurrected and then judged by God.

Doug






Annihilation seems just, sounds like it makes sense and is a good middleground but i just don't really see where it takes place in the lake of fire. It's possible that it's simply not specifically mentioned yet still takes place.

[dwilkins]

In order for people to be judged finally they have to be resurrected. Annihilation isn't physically dying the first death. It's being finally destroyed in the second death after being resurrected and then judged by God.

Doug






Annihilation seems just, sounds like it makes sense and is a good middleground but i just don't really see where it takes place in the lake of fire. It's possible that it's simply not specifically mentioned yet still takes place.

What do you see happening at the Great White Throne Judgment and Lake of Fire? It seems to me that there is a resurrection to judgment and then either reward or the 2nd Death.

Doug

[mattrose]

When God created the flood wasn't he active

I don't know. Surely if you read Genesis 6 it sounds active. Then again, it seems to me that one of Greg Boyd's main points is that the Bible sometimes uses 'active' language for something that is actually God withdrawing from a situation (and I think he's proven that point pretty well with examples). I think it is at least possible that it takes God's grace to sustain this world every second from the threat of chaos. A withdrawal of that grace could easily result in a worldwide flood.

and didn't he annihilate almost the entire world assuming you believe in a worldwide flood.

If the flood was God backing off, as an interested gentlemen backs off from a woman giving him signs that she is uninterested... then the flood was a natural consequence to human freedom, rather than God actively wiping out humanity.

If we try to classify God into being to[o] inactive he starts looking like a Budda type figure.

I think God is extremely active. I just tend toward thinking God is extremely active in doing positive loving grace-filled things rather than in doing negative, vengeful, wrath-filled things. I think the latter three are more likely evidence of God's withdrawal from a situation.

Maybe the reason so many of us see bad things as requiring a divine cause is that we haven't taken seriously enough extent of our depravity or the generosity of God in letting us exist for more than a second in the first place.

[mattrose]

In order for people to be judged finally they have to be resurrected. Annihilation isn't physically dying the first death. It's being finally destroyed in the second death after being resurrected and then judged by God.

Doug

I understand you to be arguing that annihilation IS active (on God's part) because God actively resurrects wicked people on judgment day.

I would simply respond that between judgment day and their extinction there may be opportunity for them to respond to grace. So the resurrection is motivated by a desire for right relationship on God's part, not by the desire to annihilate. Annihilation (extinction) is simply the result of not responding to that grace.

[steve7150]

What do you see happening at the Great White Throne Judgment and Lake of Fire? It seems to me that there is a resurrection to judgment and then either reward or the 2nd Death.







The second death is the lake of fire, i'm just saying that despite the name i don't really see annihilation in the second death or lake of fire.

"Rev 22.15 "For without are dogs and sorcerers and whoremongers and murderers and idolators and whosoever loves and makes a lie"

This sounds like folks in the lake are still alive , so annihilation or extinction may be an option but i don't see where it's mentioned.

[Homer]

If someone is under my superintendence and care, and if my withdrawel will cause their death just as if I actively killed them, how am I any less responsible? Even our own courts would say as much. Seems we are gratuitiously protecting God's reputation when He, for example, plainly claimed responsibility for the judgements on Israel, and then turned around and punished those who carried out His will.

[psimmond]

Homer said...

If someone is under my superintendence and care, and if my withdrawel will cause their death just as if I actively killed them, how am I any less responsible? Even our own courts would say as much. Seems we are gratuitiously protecting God's reputation when He, for example, plainly claimed responsibility for the judgements on Israel, and then turned around and punished those who carried out His will.

Exactly what I was thinking. It seems to me that people like Boyd are trying too hard to turn Aslan into a safe lion.

[mattrose]

I don't think the issue has to do with God's responsibility or God's reputation.

I think the issue has to do with God's character. Boyd's point seems to be that God has the kind of character to take responsibility for things that aren't directly caused by God AND the kind of character to allow his reputation to suffer in such situations.

But to answer the question, I think there is quite a difference b/w directly hurting someone and withdrawing from a situation and letting things play out in their fallen way.

I should say, though, that I'm not wholly endorsing Boyd's line of argument. I'm playing Boyd's advocate in this thread. I look forward to reading the book b/c I think he's a good thinker with the right motivation and has spent a lot of time on this topic. I'm willing to read it with an open mind when it comes out (his 2 sermons directly on the subject, so far, have been very thought provoking). I think we'd do well to wait until he publishes the book to get too far down the FOR or AGAINST Boyd road.