I also participated in a group contemplative activity based on Nouwen’s experience with the painting. We projected a copy of the painting in front of the group and invited each of us to focus on a detail and meditate on where we saw ourselves in the painting… which figure we identified with, and which we wanted to identify with. As each shared the fruits of their contemplation, the experience of the parable became richer for all present.

-Wade

Dear Julian,
While I agree to a point, I have come to see that Jesus is more directly answering the question than most recognize. Perhaps one could say he directly answers the question in an indirect manner?

“The answer was obvious – their neighbors were the Jews among whom they lived and worshiped and carried out their daily lives. Jesus laid down a new way of looking at the concept of “neighbor” in showing how a Samaritan was the neighbor . . . .”

I think this is most true when we understand that “neighbor,” as from Lev 19:18, is defined as “fellow covenant member.” Thus I believe Jesus is directly teaching (albeit in a somewhat indirect manner) that He is the Messiah prophesied to reunite the long-divided Northern (Israel) with the Southern (Judah) parts of greater Israel (cf. Isa 11:13; Hos 1:11; Jer 3:18; Ezek 37:16, etc.).

Therefore, while this parable can be extrapolated to address the question of our relation to non-covenant members, it does not address it. There is still a determinative distinction between Christians and non-Christians. It specifically teaches about the prophesied messianic reunification of Israel.

N.T. Wright is helpful for the framework from which I developed this understanding.

Thus Jesus answers the question of “who is my fellow covenant member” by saying that the Samarian Northern Israelites are to be recognized as part of the covenant even though the exclusivist and/or racist Judaeans exclude them.

The Edz asked, “If the Bible is shown to be false in those areas that can be checked on (some history and some science), then why should the Bible be believed in the areas that cannot be checked on (the spiritual parts)?”

I ask, why not?

Writers from the biblical eras did not have the technological and social resources to investigate the details of the historical claims they made, nor did they have the scientific method and instrumens to investigate the natural world, as we have. We are unfair to hold them to the same standards we hold modern researchers.

2 Timothy 3.16-17 reads, “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.”

Scripture prepares us for good works. It is not a history or science text. Mistaken historical and scientific claims throughout the Bible are incidental. Concerning the Bible, Charles Augustus Briggs wrote, ” It does not follow, however, that circumstantial, incidental errors, such as might arise from the inadvertance or lack of information of an author, are any impeachment to his credibility.”

The Edz makes a valid of my account of the Bible throughout Church history. I therefore briefly revise it: There has not been a singular, dominant position, conservative or liberal, concerning the Bible maintained throughout Church history. The Edz cited Augustine, whose position differs quite significantly from that of Origen, who came before him.

Furthermore, to bring this back to several posts prior to this one, I am arguing that Augustine’s, as cited by The Edz, and the positions of modern fundamentalists’ and Evangelicals’ is not biblical. In other words, their statements regarding the Bible do not actually find support in the Bible – at least, as the Bible is objectively and thoroughly interpreted.

A biblical statement regarding the Bible might read something like this: The biblical texts were written over several centuries by men guided by God’s inspiration and are valuable resources for spiritual formation and for understanding the ways God has directed God’s people.

Eric’s arguement would have more strength as applied to eschatological fullfillment when evil and suffering are vanquished and we are supposed to come into an age where the faithful will have supremely fulfilling happiness.

This arguement is founded on the two greatest commandments, that we are to love God with all our being and we are to love our neighbor as our selves. How can we be happy if some who were our neighbors, friends and reletives are damned for eternity because they rejected God’s grace. I think this is a strong arguement for universalism and I have sympathies for it as arguements along a similar line are also used against the concept of reprobation (gauranteed damnation that exists prior to the person’s existence) which I hate. This excellent arguement was in fact developed by a universalist, Thomas Talbott. To make the arguement way too short, (but long enough for this discussion) I will say that nobdy would accept reprobation for themselves hence, following the second greatest commandment, we should not accept it for our neighbors either, and the grief over the reprobation of others as if it were our own would surely keep us from loving God with our whole hearts.

There is a reason why an arguement geared against reprobation does not necessarily spill into an arguement for universalism. In my love for myself, which is the model for my love for my neighbor, I recognize that I am responsible for my response to God’s grace as God has made it completely accessable to me. I am responsible to respond and accept God’s salvation from damnation. If I accept this responsibility for myself, then naturally, I should accept it for those that I am charged to love. As a matter of fact, If I don’t reinforce the recognition of that personal responsibility to others, then I am acting in an unloving way Because to love someone including yourself is to act responsibly for your well being as well as the well being of others and to encourage them to act for the sake of their well being.

So if we have a responsibility to respond to God’s grace and therefore accept that responsibility in others, what about after they reject it. Naturally grief should be the response of the loving. But should that grief be eternal if their rebellion is eternal? To get technical, the second law applies to the living, to our neighbors. Is that enough, to accept that the second law doesn’t apply to those who are seperated from us in hell? Perhaps not. But if they rejected the love of God and our love which should have been united with the love of God on earth in concern for their souls and whole well being, is scorned to the end, surely even though our response should be grief, God can heal us of these wounds that were neither ultimately inflicted by him nor ourselves in as far as we were obedient to God in carrying his messege of grace and forgiveness.

I don’t expect that this definitely answers the problem with damnation but I think it goes a certain way. But this concern that Eric has pointed out continues to make me question the reality of the tragedy of eternal damnation or even of it’s rationality. Though I recognize that there is considerable reason to question it, I currently believe that eternal damnation is a part of the description of the afterlife and represents the best understanding of scriptures on the topic and I don’t believe that the concerns of the universalists have shown eternal damnation to be definitely and irrevably problematic and irrational. The arguements are strong, but they have not been strong enough to sway me.