God's retribution -- the CURE?!?

C

Ceridwen

Guest
According to Socrates in his dialogue "Gorgias," God's retribution is the means of salvation. Thus, there is no salvation for those who escape from the wrath of God. Those who, by faith, are washed in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins shall be damned.

Socrates tells us that God's vengeance is a retribution of good for evil. "Justice punishes us, and makes us more just, and is the medicine of our vice." "The unjust or doer of unjust actions is more miserable if he be not punished and does not meet with retribution, and less miserable if he be punished and meets with retribution at the hands of gods and men." Socrates, Gorgias.
Gorgias - Wikisource, the free online library

But the Bible says that God's retribution brings death rather than life. And God's forebearance brings life rather than death: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 3:36. "You turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath." 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10. The Bible says that in return for evil, God brings evil rather than good upon the wrongdoer: "The LORD will bring on you all the evil he has threatened, until he has destroyed you." Joshua 23:15.

If Socrates is correct, and if Christians somehow manage to avoid Yahweh's reckoning by pleading the blood of Jesus, then how shall Christians be saved? But if the Bible is right, and if God's wrath is not the Balm that Socrates waits for, then how shall Socrates and other deluded Pagans be saved?

Here is an image of the Passover Angel from the Book of Exodus.

deathangel.jpg
 
Last edited:
C

Ceridwen

Guest
I am curious, Ceridwen, why are you accepting Socrates' thesis rather than Christ's?

What would make you think that I accepted Socrates' thesis? Socrates was a deluded pagan. His conscience was an idol factory. In the Euthyphro dialogue, Socrates insisted that he wanted himself to be the ultimate judge of the nature of Goodness, and that he did not care what God said about it.

This thread is intended as a thought experiment, to, among other things, explore the extent and limit of Pascal's Wager. Also, it is to explore the content and dimensions of Christian theology.
 
Upvote 0

Harry3142

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2006
3,749
259
Ohio
✟20,229.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Ceridwen-

What Socrates is referring to is what we Christians call 'chastening', not 'wrath'. As an example, God chastened David for his illicit affair with Bathsheba by having the child who was the fruit of that affair die shortly after its birth.

But an example of God's wrath is Sodom and Gomorrah. There he 'erased' the entire cities, as well as their populations, with the exceptions of Lot and his daughters. There is no surviving God's wrath, unlike his chastisement.

If we accept Plato's Republic as Socrates' teaching, then Socrates cannot be accepted as an influence on our society. In Plato's Republic, Socrates advised that all children be removed from their parents as soon as they were weaned, and never be permitted contact with them after that time. Instead, they were to be reared in a communal center, where they would be taught to see all citizens that approximated their parents' age as their parents, and so worthy of the respect and obedience which normally would be exclusive to their actual parents.

He also taught that the ideal form of government was the oligarchy, not the democracy. That oligarchy would consist of retired military officers and merchants, who would have absolute authority to make laws which applied to all the citizenry.

Socrates condemned democracies as inevitably leading to tyrannies. This would occur due to the pressure of special-interest groups putting such a strain on both the general public and the governing authorities that the people, who had the authority to choose their leaders under a democratic form of government, would deliberately choose a person whom they knew to be both powerful enough and brutal enough to crush all the special-interest groups who attempted to dictate to him how he should rule. This leader would become the dictator of that nation.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,492
28,587
73
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,240.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
What would make you think that I accepted Socrates' thesis? Socrates was a deluded pagan. His conscience was an idol factory. In the Euthyphro dialogue, Socrates insisted that he wanted himself to be the ultimate judge of the nature of Goodness, and that he did not care what God said about it.

This thread is intended as a thought experiment, to, among other things, explore the extent and limit of Pascal's Wager. Also, it is to explore the content and dimensions of Christian theology.
As long as we can keep it off the Sabbaths, Circumcisions and Food Laws, I am up with that :)
 
Upvote 0

Clare73

Blood-bought
Jun 12, 2012
24,939
6,054
North Carolina
✟273,674.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
According to Socrates in his dialogue "Gorgias," God's retribution is the means of salvation. Thus, there is no salvation for those who escape from the wrath of God. Those who, by faith, are washed in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins shall be damned.

Socrates tells us that God's vengeance is a retribution of good for evil. "Justice punishes us, and makes us more just, and is the medicine of our vice." "The unjust or doer of unjust actions is more miserable if he be not punished and does not meet with retribution, and less miserable if he be punished and meets with retribution at the hands of gods and men." Socrates, Gorgias.
Gorgias - Wikisource, the free online library

But the Bible says that God's retribution brings death rather than life. And God's forebearance brings life rather than death: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 3:36. "You turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath." 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10. The Bible says that in return for evil, God brings evil rather than good upon the wrongdoer: "The LORD will bring on you all the evil he has threatened, until he has destroyed you." Joshua 23:15.

If Socrates is correct, and if Christians somehow manage to avoid Yahweh's reckoning by pleading the blood of Jesus, then how shall Christians be saved? But if the Bible is right, and if God's wrath is not the Balm that Socrates waits for, then how shall Socrates and other deluded Pagans be saved?

The same and only way anyone is saved from the just wrath of God on their sin, by faith in Jesus Christ.

In the faith,
Clare
 
Upvote 0
C

Ceridwen

Guest
There is no surviving God's wrath, unlike his chastisement.
You are correct in that Christianity teaches that God's wrath is intended by God to destroy its object: "I the Lord have spoken in my zeal. I will make you a ruin when I inflict punishment on you in anger and in wrath and with stinging rebuke. I the LORD have spoken. When I shoot at you with my deadly and destructive arrows of famine, I will shoot to destroy you." Ezekiel 5:13-17. In contrast, Socrates in the Gorgias taught that all forms of divine punishment always had, as its end, the rehabilitation of its object.
If we accept Plato's Republic as Socrates' teaching, then Socrates cannot be accepted as an influence on our society.
Only the early Socratic dialogues, recorded by Plato, can be considered to be Socrates' views, questions, and method. The middle dialogues, and the later dialogues, illustrate Plato's thoughts, with Socrates used as a mouthpiece for Plato's views. Gorgias is an early dialogue, the Republic is a middle dialogue.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,886
3,525
✟320,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
According to Socrates in his dialogue "Gorgias," God's retribution is the means of salvation. Thus, there is no salvation for those who escape from the wrath of God. Those who, by faith, are washed in the blood of Christ for the forgiveness of sins shall be damned.

Socrates tells us that God's vengeance is a retribution of good for evil. "Justice punishes us, and makes us more just, and is the medicine of our vice." "The unjust or doer of unjust actions is more miserable if he be not punished and does not meet with retribution, and less miserable if he be punished and meets with retribution at the hands of gods and men." Socrates, Gorgias.
Gorgias - Wikisource, the free online library

But the Bible says that God's retribution brings death rather than life. And God's forebearance brings life rather than death: "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him." John 3:36. "You turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath." 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10. The Bible says that in return for evil, God brings evil rather than good upon the wrongdoer: "The LORD will bring on you all the evil he has threatened, until he has destroyed you." Joshua 23:15.

If Socrates is correct, and if Christians somehow manage to avoid Yahweh's reckoning by pleading the blood of Jesus, then how shall Christians be saved? But if the Bible is right, and if God's wrath is not the Balm that Socrates waits for, then how shall Socrates and other deluded Pagans be saved?

Here is an image of the Passover Angel from the Book of Exodus.

deathangel.jpg
"Retribution" isn't a perfect fit IMO. Sin, especially at it's worse as in the Orignal Sin, is willfull disobedience of God's will- it's essentially to reject God as God. And all sin is related to and a reflection of this disobedience in one way or another. To distance oneself from God is to distance oneself from the very source of goodness, life, love.

So retribution or punishment is really just the natural consequence of this turning away from Him. Adam produced a world of Prodigals who don't necessarily know it until they begin to sense that there's s something missing. And Jesus came to show us in dramatic detail just how much we're missing, how far we fell, and give us a glimpse of what real home is like while showing us the way there, back to the Father.
 
Upvote 0
C

Ceridwen

Guest
So, fhansen, who is being obedient to God: The Christian who pleads the blood of Christ, and begs for God's forebearance of punishment, or the modern-day follower of Socrates who refuses to plead the blood of Christ, and instead begs for God's vengeance (which he hopes will correct him)? Which one of these people desires God, desires to be close to God, and desires to be like God?

Socrates in the Gorgias taught that we should not seek ways of being pardoned by God, but instead seek ways of receiving any kind of punishment he might wish to mete: "If [a man] does wrong, he ought of his own accord go where he will be immediately punished; he will run to the judge, as he would to the physician, in order that the disease of injustice may not be rendered chronic and become the incurable cancer of the soul."
 
Upvote 0

Harry3142

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2006
3,749
259
Ohio
✟20,229.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
You are correct in that Christianity teaches that God's wrath is intended by God to destroy its object: "I the Lord have spoken in my zeal. I will make you a ruin when I inflict punishment on you in anger and in wrath and with stinging rebuke. I the LORD have spoken. When I shoot at you with my deadly and destructive arrows of famine, I will shoot to destroy you." Ezekiel 5:13-17. In contrast, Socrates in the Gorgias taught that all forms of divine punishment always had, as its end, the rehabilitation of its object.

Only the early Socratic dialogues, recorded by Plato, can be considered to be Socrates' views, questions, and method. The middle dialogues, and the later dialogues, illustrate Plato's thoughts, with Socrates used as a mouthpiece for Plato's views. Gorgias is an early dialogue, the Republic is a middle dialogue.

Since Plato was one of the students of Socrates, were his writings later in life a departure from Socrates' teachings, or were they an attempt to take those teachings to their logical conclusion?
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
13,886
3,525
✟320,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
So, fhansen, who is being obedient to God: The Christian who pleads the blood of Christ, and begs for God's forebearance of punishment, or the modern-day follower of Socrates who refuses to plead the blood of Christ, and instead begs for God's vengeance (which he hopes will correct him)? Which one of these people desires God, desires to be close to God, and desires to be like God?

Socrates in the Gorgias taught that we should not seek ways of being pardoned by God, but instead seek ways of receiving any kind of punishment he might wish to mete: "If [a man] does wrong, he ought of his own accord go where he will be immediately punished; he will run to the judge, as he would to the physician, in order that the disease of injustice may not be rendered chronic and become the incurable cancer of the soul."
Suffering in this life is inevitable-we don’t have to go looking for it-and it has value because it causes us to become aware of our dependency on God in a world where we’re already geared to snub Him to the extent we think we can get away with it.

Self-discipline (denying oneself) is also beneficial, not just for practical reasons but for spiritual also, because mastery over the self, to the extent it’s possible for humans, brings our character closer to the image of God, because this involves squelching the pride that so easily masters us, while cultivating humility, which opens us increasingly to God. So, IMO, the ascetic life, at least, if directed towards growth in the knowledge and love of God, and if not overdone, can have value for those who choose to follow it.

But neither of the things I mentioned matter at all if ones trust is not placed in God, if we don’t recognize our need for forgiveness and accept His offer and I tend to think pride was at work in Socrates’ method. However, the two aren't necessarily totally at odds with each other. Because the desire to become authentically just is correct-to strive for righteousness by depending on the grace of Gods’ forgiveness coupled with the grace to overcome sin (living in the Spirit), is how the New Covenant is intended to work, IMO. God will chastise those He loves; we just need to cooperate with His work.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Jpark

Well-Known Member
Oct 11, 2008
5,019
181
✟13,882.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Pleading the blood is not taking an initiative. It's expecting God to do it for you. It's lazy.

There are more important steps than just making a request.

People who plead the blood ask God to protect their shells, not their hearts.

Which is why pleading the blood ultimately fails.

But even if it were to succeed, it does not guarantee salvation.

After repentance, there must be a manifestation of power, command, and fear. And of course, gentleness and purity.
 
Upvote 0