I comment reluctantly at this time and with great respect, because I read your posts every day now since discovering them at the turn of the year. I find them unusually deep, very thought provoking and I often use them as a starting point for my own daily and wide ranging theological and philosophical studies. I greatly admire your devotion to the blog which you assiduously maintain and interact with. I have noticed that you do have a habit of setting up what I would consider to be false dichotomies and this post is a good example. I am a Christian who would say that Jesus Christ is necessary. I am also, in general terms, a believer in what you call the omni-God who is entirely accountable for good and evil in this World. I take my metaphysics (which I largely agree with you are unprovable in human terms) from the Scriptures. So, on good and evil, we have Isaiah 45 verse 7: “Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil, I, Yahweh, make all these things”. Add to this the implications of 1 Timothy 4 verse 10 and you have a very different set of metaphysical assumptions on which to base an entirely different and coherent theology: “. . . (for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers”. There is also the crowning verse at Colossians 1 verse 20, “. . . and through Him to reconcile all to Him (-making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens.” These three “assumptions” alone cast a very different light on the necessity for Jesus, God’s first born of creation and through whom all things are made: John 1 verse 3: “All came into being through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into being which has come into being.” The overarching term is Universal Reconciliation which describes an aspect of the purpose of God and ties revelatory metaphysical assumptions together with their good and necessary consequences into a glorious, coherent whole. The Scriptures themselves summarise the purposed end, but almost all miss it: “ . . . that God may be All in all.” 1 Corinthians 15v28. The necessity of Jesus is, therefore, revealed as sensible under a different set of metaphysical assumptions, summarised as Universal Reconciliation enabling God to become All in all – everything to each and every one of His Creation whether on the earth or in the heavens. The necessity of Jesus does not make sense under the orthodox Christian dogma of annihilation/eternal punishment for unbelievers and the Trinity which denies the creaturehood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
@Allen F - I don't think I follow your argument. As I understand the "omni" definition, God is already "complete", already all-in-all - so there could not be anything lacking that needed reconciling by the specifics of Jesus.
I comment reluctantly at this time and with great respect, because I read your posts every day now since discovering them at the turn of the year. I find them unusually deep, very thought provoking and I often use them as a starting point for my own daily and wide ranging theological and philosophical studies. I greatly admire your devotion to the blog which you assiduously maintain and interact with.
ReplyDeleteI have noticed that you do have a habit of setting up what I would consider to be false dichotomies and this post is a good example.
I am a Christian who would say that Jesus Christ is necessary. I am also, in general terms, a believer in what you call the omni-God who is entirely accountable for good and evil in this World.
I take my metaphysics (which I largely agree with you are unprovable in human terms) from the Scriptures. So, on good and evil, we have Isaiah 45 verse 7: “Former of light and Creator of darkness, Maker of good and Creator of evil, I, Yahweh, make all these things”.
Add to this the implications of 1 Timothy 4 verse 10 and you have a very different set of metaphysical assumptions on which to base an entirely different and coherent theology: “. . . (for this are we toiling and being reproached), that we rely on the living God, Who is the Saviour of all mankind, especially of believers”.
There is also the crowning verse at Colossians 1 verse 20, “. . . and through Him to reconcile all to Him (-making peace through the blood of His cross), through Him, whether those on the earth or those in the heavens.”
These three “assumptions” alone cast a very different light on the necessity for Jesus, God’s first born of creation and through whom all things are made: John 1 verse 3: “All came into being through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into being which has come into being.”
The overarching term is Universal Reconciliation which describes an aspect of the purpose of God and ties revelatory metaphysical assumptions together with their good and necessary consequences into a glorious, coherent whole.
The Scriptures themselves summarise the purposed end, but almost all miss it:
“ . . . that God may be All in all.” 1 Corinthians 15v28.
The necessity of Jesus is, therefore, revealed as sensible under a different set of metaphysical assumptions, summarised as Universal Reconciliation enabling God to become All in all – everything to each and every one of His Creation whether on the earth or in the heavens.
The necessity of Jesus does not make sense under the orthodox Christian dogma of annihilation/eternal punishment for unbelievers and the Trinity which denies the creaturehood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
@Allen F - I don't think I follow your argument. As I understand the "omni" definition, God is already "complete", already all-in-all - so there could not be anything lacking that needed reconciling by the specifics of Jesus.
ReplyDelete