The Prodigal God

[Jeff K.]

You still offer no proof. You offer no counter point and in fact pretty much give yourself an escape hatch because you "may not be interested"? Yet you were interested enough to present an assertion, however you are not interested enough to answer inquiry to your assertion. Do you consider that honest?

Jeff K., on 10 November 2009 - 06:04 PM, said:

You haven't shown that interpretation as fact.

That's true, and I may or may not present some of the evidence depending upon time and interest.

Lets emphasize, you admit you have not shown interpretation as fact.

Quote

But I have shown that your view would make an ancient scripture in the Old Testament redundant. I have also shown that the Hebrew language anciently had used a distinct word for its obey, and love.

No offense, but your comments simply illustrate that you don't quite understand the argument. I blame myself for not expressing it more clearly.

And yet, you cannot articulate your point sufficiently to explain the nuance? Nor have you offered anything substantial. I don't blame you, you may not have sufficient backing in the form of evidence to substantiate a counter claim.

Please note that my statement regarding the Shema and the historical evolution connected with its meaning within Judaism does not stem from "a" book. We would have to survey at least 50 years of intense scholarly analysis coupled with cognate Near Eastern sources in or to support my claim. My understanding of the facts behind this matter, do not derive from "a" book, nor for the record, was this specific issue discussed at all in Keller's brief study which is the focus of this thread.

And yet, I found a passage (as I have already stated) that negates such an evolution since the proposed use would have been redundant. Indeed I also provided Hebrew wording that showed a clear distinction between the claim you made regarding the book and the supposedly "evolved" word usage. The distinct words existed from and were used at the time of David and Solomon, a good thousand years before, thus showing a definitive lack of evolution.

And yet you choose not to counter the assertion.

[David Bokovoy]

It sounds like a very interesting book. Where, though, in the parable does it say that the older brother is lost? The father tells him, "All that I have is yours." That tells me that, in spite of his attitude, he receives his inheritance as well.

Hi Katherine,

That's a good question, and one of the new insights I gained from Keller's analysis. I don't want to give the whole book away, but in essence, Keller shows that the parable falls into a group of stories told by the Savior which all share the theme "lost." Lost sheep, lost coin, lost sons. While it is easy for readers to see that the prodigal son is lost and then found, Keller argues that the older Brother is also lost spiritually by his attempt to control the Father through his fidelity and strict obedience.

Keller argues that as interpreters, it is essential for us to remember Jesus' specific audience, namely the Pharisees, who represent the lost elder brother who try to control the Father through their obedience and the wayward sinners who enjoy fellowship with Jesus represented by the prodigal son. The fact that the Father restores the younger brother to the family and offers his love and property to the elder son who offends him by questioning his actions and refusing to enter the Father's feast, illustrates that the Christian God is truly prodigal, i.e. "recklessly extravagant" offering his forgiveness and love to both types of sinners.

[David Bokovoy]

I second that emotion.

All the Best!

--Smokeylieri

LOL! That was too clever!

[David Bokovoy]

Here is the link to Wikipedia's brief bio. of Keller. He is a PCA pastor, whom I never heard of before now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_J._Keller

I'm going to read his other book, William. Keller's theology resonates with me.

[David Bokovoy]

I too found this book to be extremely thought provoking, and even started two threads about it. The first was titled the same as yours, the second focused on whether or not works, in LDS practice, might actually be sinful, based on Keller's POV. In both threads I was left with the distinct impression that the Mormons here were entirely unimpressed. One or two even came right out and said they were entirely unimpressed. Interesting!

Respectfully,

Balzer

Sorry I missed them. I would have joined in. Seriously, what a fantastic book!

I personally agree with Keller and absolutely believe that our good works can be sinful, or at least damning to our spiritual progression. That's not to suggest that good works in an effort to acquire blessings from God are not a step in the right direction. Even Keller, at least as I read him, wouldn't argue that point. As a Latter-day Saint, I simply see the matter as a reflection of Terrestrial versus Celestial levels of obedience.

best

[David Bokovoy]

Jeff,

And yet you choose not to counter the assertion.

Patience, dear Brother. There's a lot going on in this thread and the subject of the Shema is but a side point.

[Balzer]

Sorry I missed them. I would have joined in. Seriously, what a fantastic book!

I personally agree with Keller and absolutely believe that our good works can be sinful, or at least damning to our spiritual progression. That's not to suggest that good works in an effort to acquire blessings from God are not a step in the right direction. Even Keller, at least as I read him, wouldn't argue that point. As a Latter-day Saint, I simply see the matter as a reflection of Terrestrial versus Celestial levels of obedience.

best

Wow what a refreshingly candid post! On the earlier thread I couldn't get a single LDS member to say/admit that their works could be sinful, and I had/have a great deal of trouble with that. If you don't mind, I'd like to re-post my OP in the other thread in order to get your thoughts:

"As hinted at in another thread, I came upon an interesting perspective on works that I'd like to share. Based on the parable of the two sons in Luke 15, it has been asserted that Jesus taught that sin can not only be defined as breaking a list of rules, (younger brother in Luke), but can also be defined as putting yourself in the place of God as Savior, Lord and Judge, (older brother in Luke). It is believed that a person can seek to put God in his debt, and gain control over Him through his good works - instead of relying on His sheer grace - thereby acting as his own Savior.

After reading a lot of threads here on the subject of works, I have made a few observations. First, a lot of posters here have said that they think that non-Mormons believe that "they can do whatever they want" and still be saved. (this may be true btw) This assertion is typically made with some degree of attitude. Second, some LDS seem to believe that works are required for salvation, and some LDS believe that works are not in fact required for salvation, but are required for exhaltation.

I have also experienced, many times, a profound sense of superiority in the LDS poster on this (and other) subjects. The word "clearly" gets used a lot. My internal response to this sort of attitude has typically been simply "it ain't that clear to me." But, after considering this expanded definition of sin, I am now wondering if indeed the believing Mormon truly does consider him/herself superior to other Christians, and, if this sense of superiority can itself be sinful? Considering this idea in the context of the LDS belief that they will one day be gods themselves, and how they might achieve this, it would seem that the LDS approach to works, coupled with the doctine of eternal progression, looks a lot like "putting yourself in the place of God as Savior, Lord and Judge. It also seems as though this approach is a means by which one might place God in his debt, and gain control over Him through his good works in order to secure salvation/exhaltation, rather than simply relying on His sheer grace.

So, my question is, if an LDS person performs good works as a means to become a god, (or even partially for that purpose), rather than perform good works born solely of their salvation in Christ, are those "good works" in fact sinful?"

Your thoughts?

Also, could you please explain what you mean by "a reflection of Terrestrial versus Celestial levels of obedience."?

Respectfully,

Balzer

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Jeff,

You still offer no proof... you cannot articulate your point sufficiently to explain the nuance? Nor have you offered anything substantial. I don't blame you, you may not have sufficient backing in the form of evidence to substantiate a counter claim.

Well, here's a start:

So first of all, I

[David Bokovoy]

Hey Balzer,

Wow what a refreshingly candid post! If you don't mind, I'd like to re-post my OP in the other thread in order to get your thoughts:

This is really good, And very important from my perspective. I want our thread to get back to this topic, but it will have to be tomorrow. 12:12 AM my time, and I've got to get to bed. Thanks for your thoughts and keeping us on track. Definitely more on this tomorrow.

best,

--DB

[Jeff K.]

Hello Jeff,

Well, here's a start:

So first of all, I

[Jeff K.]

Inventing God's Law

While I did find this link, page 97 on the whole only speaks to a finished version not perhaps the original which of course still leaves open the interpretation quite different from your point of view.

[David Bokovoy]

Inventing God's Law

While I did find this link, page 97 on the whole only speaks to a finished version not perhaps the original which of course still leaves open the interpretation quite different from your point of view.

That makes me smile. Not sure if you can access page ix, but it reads: "I also thank the several students who served as research assistants on this work in its various stages: David Bokovoy..." I may not know much, but I can assure you that when it comes to this book, I'm on pretty good ground

Good night.

[DH]

A certain Rabbi Shumley Boteach made a similiar point once. He said Christianity is about God doing for u, where as judaism was about you doing for God.

That's cute, but I don't think history bears that out. And I don't like him implying that Judaism is better than Christianity.

One thing ive noticed is that when u serve God because u love Him, its alot easier.

Yes. One reason may be that you're not constantly worrying whether or not you're doing well enough. Nobody does well enough to "earn" God's approval or blessings, but thankfully we don't have to worry about that. When we have faith that God loves us no matter what, and serve Him because we love him, we can have a more peaceful, joy-filled life.

DH

[DH]

Keller illustrates that many Christians are like the older brother in the famous parable using our devotion to the Father in order to secure his blessings rather than obeying God out of pure love.

Good observation. While I suppose it's better to follow the commandments in order to secure blessings than not to obey them at all, serving God out of love is, indeed, much preferable. And a problem with the older brother's POV is the fact that none of us truly does well enough. Even those among us who do better at keeping the commandments than some of the others are eternally in God's debt and cannot truthfully claim God's blessings on their own merit.

Thanks for the recommendation.

[cinepro]

It's really good. I think you would seriously enjoy the book. So far as the Shack, I don't know if you're serious. All I know about the novel is that the author apparently depicts God as a 300 pound black woman, something, for the record, that I'm not opposed to at all. I don't normally do much reading in this genre, but if you Cinepro, are seriously recommending the Shack, I'll pick it up this week.

best,

-DB

The most interesting thing about "The Shack" is that it seems to present a view of "God" the resonates with a certain kind of people. It's definitely "theology-lite". Worth checking out from the library, or flipping through while your tires are getting changed at Costco. But it's not going to go on your shelf next to "Discourses in Mormon Theology". It might fit nicely next to "The Christmas Box" though.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Balzer,

After reading a lot of threads here on the subject of works, I have made a few observations. First, a lot of posters here have said that they think that non-Mormons believe that "they can do whatever they want" and still be saved. (this may be true btw) This assertion is typically made with some degree of attitude.

I happen to agree with this statement, which is why I could see myself and many of my fellow Church members falling into the category of

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Jeff,

You note the psalms as reflecting that a request of blessing for devotion is the only reason for the love that exists. I do not believe that to be true/quote]

Apparently I didn't express myself clearly. I never intended my reference to promises of praise in the Old Testament as an illustration that God is emotional and wants his people to feel an emotional attachment to him as "the only reason" to accept the fact that a New Testament like love for deity appears in the Old Testament.

[David Bokovoy]

You still offer no proof. You offer no counter point and in fact pretty much give yourself an escape hatch because you "may not be interested"? Yet you were interested enough to present an assertion, however you are not interested enough to answer inquiry to your assertion. Do you consider that honest?

Hi Jeff,

Here's a bit more.

JeffK:

I would disagree to a strong extent because the commandment was reiterated in the New Testament by Christ as the greatest commandment. I would say the context was very clear when Christ asked what the greatest commandment was, he was answered correctly that it was to love God, and the second greatest was like unto the greatest, to love they neighbor. Not obey them.

This is why I have stated that you appear not to understand the argument. I haven

[volgadon]

Even the sages saw the Shema as obedience and allegiance to God. Love simply did not exist without doing something.

The shema was seen as Israel's pledge to God, and was reiterated twice-daily, in order not to forget amidst the daily drudge who it was you were sworn to obey.

R. Aqiba made the Shema his life. He saw it as the greatest sign of devotion, for to love truly was to obey, and as Benyamin Lau suggested, he said the shema when being tortured to death to remind himself of his loyalty, becuase it is quite easy to think things like so this is what keeping the commandments gets you.

[katherine the great]

I have also experienced, many times, a profound sense of superiority in the LDS poster on this (and other) subjects. The word "clearly" gets used a lot. My internal response to this sort of attitude has typically been simply "it ain't that clear to me." But, after considering this expanded definition of sin, I am now wondering if indeed the believing Mormon truly does consider him/herself superior to other Christians, and, if this sense of superiority can itself be sinful? Considering this idea in the context of the LDS belief that they will one day be gods themselves, and how they might achieve this, it would seem that the LDS approach to works, coupled with the doctine of eternal progression, looks a lot like "putting yourself in the place of God as Savior, Lord and Judge. It also seems as though this approach is a means by which one might place God in his debt, and gain control over Him through his good works in order to secure salvation/exhaltation, rather than simply relying on His sheer grace.

So, my question is, if an LDS person performs good works as a means to become a god, (or even partially for that purpose), rather than perform good works born solely of their salvation in Christ, are those "good works" in fact sinful?"

Well, "clearly" pride in one's own works is sinful. This parable is kind of interesting though. The reward does seem to require some type of "works" in order to receive it. The younger son does not sit down and have faith that his father will come and rescue him. He gets up and returns to the father in full humility and offers himself up as a servant. A servant does not serve through only faith. A servant does works. I'm not really sure that the age old "faith vs. works" argument is as much a matter of doctrinal difference than it is personality difference. Some types of personalities are very duty driven and they show their love by being dutiful. To them, that IS love. Those people may be more prone to focus on the reward because the service itself may not be so joyful. Other people are more emotionally driven and once they feel love for someone, it becomes easy and enjoyable to be faithful and dutiful towards that person. I don't see why the same wouldn't apply to our relationship to God. I think God accepts all of his children who try to draw closer to Him, even when their method is flawed. I personally think that the atonement covers these sins when a person is truly trying to be a disciple of Christ. I think this parable represents both of these personalities.