Ship of Fools: Purgatory: Should the Cross be the Church's symbol?

Thread: Purgatory: Should the Cross be the Church's symbol? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000920

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

I did some reading over Christmas, and no doubt some of it is a little over-simplified. However, the point is made that the cross and crucifix was not a Christian symbol until the 4th century. The point is further made that the death (Passion) with all the emphasis on suffering was not at all central to Christianity and much less emphasized.

Particularly the crucifix with the dead body of a mutilated Christ would seem problematic if the consideration is that he is not supposed to be dead and the cross should be empty. That aside, the images of the Good Shepherd, the fish (icthys), and various letter combinations appear to have been more used earlier.

Does the use the cross give us an excessive focus on suffering and pain, of violence, and defocus from the images of a loving God and example from Christ's life? I think it does.

[ 10. April 2013, 05:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I did some reading over Christmas, and no doubt some of it is a little over-simplified. However, the point is made that the cross and crucifix was not a Christian symbol until the 4th century. The point is further made that the death (Passion) with all the emphasis on suffering was not at all central to Christianity and much less emphasized.

Particularly the crucifix with the dead body of a mutilated Christ would seem problematic if the consideration is that he is not supposed to be dead and the cross should be empty. That aside, the images of the Good Shepherd, the fish (icthys), and various letter combinations appear to have been more used earlier.

Does the use the cross give us an excessive focus on suffering and pain, of violence, and defocus from the images of a loving God and example from Christ's life? I think it does.

I don't have a problem with any of the symbols but it does seem possible, if not probable, that staring at just one too long may distort one's focus.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I did some reading over Christmas, and no doubt some of it is a little over-simplified. However, the point is made that the cross and crucifix was not a Christian symbol until the 4th century. The point is further made that the death (Passion) with all the emphasis on suffering was not at all central to Christianity and much less emphasized.

You might find it worthwhile to consider how much of each Gospel is devoted to His arrest and execution. It seems out of proportion to the rest of His life if it was "not at all central to Christianity."

--Tom Clune

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
[QUOTE]You might find it worthwhile to consider how much of each Gospel is devoted to His arrest and execution. It seems out of proportion to the rest of His life if it was "not at all central to Christianity."

--Tom Clune

I may be thick, but not that thick. We didn't have only a collection 4 gospels at the time, with the firming up of what was accepted as "canon" until about the same time as the use of the cross became regularized. We also did not have a uniform creed (like Nicene). Thus we had a diversity of opinions. So we cannot use the 4 gospels as more than another argument. And it is probable that the 4 gospels as accepted as telling the version of the story as they do were a reason for the adoption of symbol and orientation to death, cross, etc.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Does the use the cross give us an excessive focus on suffering and pain, of violence, and defocus from the images of a loving God and example from Christ's life? I think it does.

I agree. My church does not feature the cross in any way, and the Cathedral where I preach does not even have a cross in it anywhere except on the baptismal altar.

The symbol of the church should be the Word of God, enlightening humanity.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I would be very interested to know what book you were reading and to find out what its author thought about Paul's own writings; especially:

"...but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles..."
1 Corinthians 1 v 23

"...May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world."
Galatians 6 v 14

The cross is the central focus of the Christian faith. Without it there isn't even any hope of salvation.

Your book is wrong.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Your book is wrong.

The book is right about the non-use of the cross as a symbol of Christianity in the early period, at least.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

But Paul has not been the centre of my Christianity after I gave up the puritanism of my maternal family some 40 years ago. Progressively, and accelerating recently, the life of Christ, with his death as a feature of it, but not as the centre of it, have been the focus. Just like when I consider the lives of my parents in law, I consider their deaths as merely a coda to the lengthy music of their lives. Instead of glorying in their deaths, I think of their lives and talking to them, remembering what they did, and what they said. I can conjure up the details of their dying, what they looked like, how they breathed at the last, but it is certainly not the focus of my thoughts of them.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
But Paul has not been the centre of my Christianity after I gave up the puritanism of my maternal family some 40 years ago. Progressively, and accelerating recently, the life of Christ, with his death as a feature of it, but not as the centre of it, have been the focus.

It seems to me, then, that the question should be whether the cross is a symbol you adopt for yourself as a Christian, not whether the cross should be the symbol of the Christian church.

You may surely choose not to accept the cross as a symbol for yourself. But the weight of Christian tradition and history is against you on that matter, and you ought not to pretend that it is not. Do with that what you will.

[ 11. January 2013, 20:21: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

We always have a cross carried in front of everyone, the choir, the vicars etc, with two lights beside the cross, which is much bigger. It ends up behind the chalice area, and stays there till there is a Matthew, Mark, Luke, John reading and it's carried there, and also when we collect money and deliver the bread and wine to the vicars. And it leads again as they all leave where they stay while we always stand up as they pass us. So it definitely feels normal for everyone in that church.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

It's true the cross wasn't quite the ubiquitous symbol it is today for the first 400 years or so--and that's 20% of the time the church has existed.

Even from Mudfrog's points, there is no particular reason why it would be the cross--it seems to me the empty tomb is a much better symbol (or at least as good) for representing what he is trying to say. Except it would probably look like a dinner roll...

So why the Cross? Maybe because it's a better graphic symbol than the empty tomb, or a fish. Constantine's vision (whether it happened or not...) probably has something to do with it, too. The best symbols--for anything--tend not to be too complex. Any village woodworker or blacksmith could fashion a cross for a church.

At this point, though, it has the weight of 1600+ years of reverence and worship behind it, regardless of why it may initially have become so widespread. That's a lot of baby to throw out with the bathwater.

Posted by CL (# 16145) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
[QUOTE]You might find it worthwhile to consider how much of each Gospel is devoted to His arrest and execution. It seems out of proportion to the rest of His life if it was "not at all central to Christianity."

--Tom Clune
I may be thick, but not that thick. We didn't have only a collection 4 gospels at the time, with the firming up of what was accepted as "canon" until about the same time as the use of the cross became regularized. We also did not have a uniform creed (like Nicene). Thus we had a diversity of opinions. So we cannot use the 4 gospels as more than another argument. And it is probable that the 4 gospels as accepted as telling the version of the story as they do were a reason for the adoption of symbol and orientation to death, cross, etc.

Do you engage in anything other than "special pleading" on this messageboard?

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

Don't like the cross? How about Buddy Christ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BEZaPN8gUY
'Christ didn't come to earth to give us the willies!'

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

Part of the original post was about the question of an empty cross versus a nonempty cross. Some churches prefer an empty cross to emphasize the risen Christ. In particular, this is the practice in American United Methodist churches.

It is interesting to speculate about what we would have in our churches if Jesus had been executed in some other fashion: a hangman's noose (with or without effigy), a stake for burning with a perpetual flame, a chopping block, a bullet-riddled wall, a gurney with straps and IVs? At some point, doesn't this sound rather grisly?

Posted by Ikkyu (# 15207) on :

Related song on this same topic:
La Saeta sung by Camaron De la Isla

Relevant Quote:

quote:

..no puedo cantar, ni quiero
a este Jesús del madero
sino al que anduvo en la mar!

...I cannot sing, nor do I want to
not to this Jesus of the wood (suggesting the Jesus nailed to the cross)
But rather He who walked on water.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I have heard that the crucifix, as opposed to the cross, did not become a widespread symbol until the late Middle Ages.

Moo

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

And I suspect that the empty cross has more to do with iconoclasm and the avoidance of [the appearance of] idolatry than with any re-emphasis on the risen Christ. The Methodist tradition draws heavily from Lutheran pietism in its emphasis on the Passion and Crucifixion.

Posted by Clemency (# 16173) on :

What about the foliate cross? I happen to be an archaeologist of sorts; the cross shown on medieval grave slabs is usually a foliate one (or cross fleury, the heraldic term), the cross becoming a flower, life coming through death - sometimes very elaborate, sometimes with foliage covering the whole stone. I love them. People cite the influence of the Persian Tree of Life motif for these - again a fitting connotation. Apparently there is a link as well to the old tradition of throwing fresh foliage onto a coffin at the burial. At the Reformation, or under the 17th century Puritans, people deliberately smashed these stones as the cross itself was seen as a superstitious symbol, which is why some market 'crosses' of this period are simply shafts with a ball on the top, nothing like a cross at all...
The power of symbols - we cannot get away from it (look at all the current hoohah over flags in Northern Ireland)

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
The cross is the central focus of the Christian faith. Without it there isn't even any hope of salvation.

No, the Incarnation is the central focus of the Christian faith. Hundreds, if not thousands of people were crucified, not just Jesus.

What makes Our Lord unique was that he was God, not because he was crucified.

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
It is interesting to speculate about what we would have in our churches if Jesus had been executed in some other fashion: a hangman's noose (with or without effigy), a stake for burning with a perpetual flame, a chopping block, a bullet-riddled wall, a gurney with straps and IVs? At some point, doesn't this sound rather grisly?

Saints are traditionally depicted with the objects of their martyrdom. It can get pretty grisly, yes.

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
No, the Incarnation is the central focus of the Christian faith.

Well actually, Jesus is the central focus of the Christian faith. Most crucially (*cough*) his birth, crucifixion, and resurrection (without which, St. Paul tells us, our faith is in vain).

If the antiquity of the cross as a Christian symbol has any bearing on this (and I believe it does), we ought to note that as early as 215 or so St. Clement of Alexandria was calling it the "Lord's sign". At the same time, Tertullian calls Christians "devotees of the Cross."

I don't doubt that the cross as the public symbol of a widespread religion (placed on church steeples, and such like) was due at least in part to Constantine's dream (in hoc signo...) and the finding of the True Cross, and still other influences as well. But to deny that the cross carried particular meaning to believers since the earliest days of the church is just silly.

[ 11. January 2013, 22:29: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:
No, the Incarnation is the central focus of the Christian faith.
Well actually, Jesus is the central focus of the Christian faith. Most crucially (*cough*) his birth, crucifixion, and resurrection (without which, St. Paul tells us, our faith is in vain).

Quite right, John in the Nati. Incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection, used as terms on their own, are all synecdoches (I had to look that one up, but it means a figure of speech in which one term is taken to include more.) There is no point in the incarnation if it doesn't mean the incarnation of God in human form in order to die and rise again. It's meaningless to talk of resurrection without implying a death, and a life to which it is the conclusion.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What makes Our Lord unique was that he was God, not because he was crucified.

Is Christianity about what is unique about Christ, or what is salvific about Christ?

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

The cross shouldn't be the symbol. As others have pointed out,tThe point of Jesus was birth death and rebirth.

But, lacking any coherent other item that is both easy to understand and verifiable, its hard to see how the church as a whole could take anything else.

Now as for individual denoms and groups, that's another matter.

Personally, I don't need a cross to focus worship.

Some do.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Personally, I don't need a cross to focus worship.

Some do.

Really? Who?

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."

I don't see why you and Mudfrog take this to mean the literal cross. I rather presume Paul was rejoicing in the risen Christ and everything else symbolized by the cross.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

It makes perfect sense to me that Christians might not depict a cross or crucifix while crucifixions were still going on. Too painful, probably.

But as the writings of St. Paul demonstrate, the Cross is a very subversive symbol for many reasons - not least because the fact that Jesus had been crucified would, to the mind of most non-Christians, at least, rendered him ineligible to be God, Christ, or even much of a man. (Getting beaten up, penetrated in any way, sexual or otherwise, or even getting made a fool in public would demote a man to "girly-man" status.)

The famous Alexamenos graffito in fact shows us just what pagan Rome thought of the whole thing!

Add to that the fact that we know Christ rose from the dead. The Cross became a sign of Christ's victory over death.

I think it's vital that we maintain this symbol, rather than choosing a more humanly triumphalist symbol, such as the images "masculine Christianity" produces. The whole point of calling Jesus "Lord" is not just that someone else isn't (as if you popped Caesar out of that role and plopped Jesus in). It's that Jesus defines Lordship, upending our ideas about what power, authority, even victory.

Wanting a different symbol, in my opinion, demonstrates a lack of understanding of all that. It often gets presented, though, as if the person championing it has discovered something more original to Christianity than the rest of us know about.

Also, the crucifix is a stumbling block to those of us who are comfortable and enjoy privilege. It is a great comfort to many who are suffering, because in it they can see that God has chosen to join them in their suffering. I suspect that's why, as we veil statuary and images during Lent or Holy Week, we also veil crosses and crucifixes. It's been explained to me, anyway, that the veiling is to deny ourselves the consolations of the various icons and images. If the Cross were all about throwing Christ's suffering and death in our face, we wouldn't veil it during that liturgical season!

ETA: Sorry, I knew I was forgetting something... In his book, The Beauty of the Cross: The Passion of Christ in Theology and the Arts from the Catacombs to the Eve of the Renaissance, Richard Viladesau claims that the orans position might have been a cruciform gesture.

[ 12. January 2013, 02:03: Message edited by: churchgeek ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."
I don't see why you and Mudfrog take this to mean the literal cross. I rather presume Paul was rejoicing in the risen Christ and everything else symbolized by the cross.

Yes, indeed - something else I forgot! We should also keep in mind the power of such a simple symbol, particularly because of its similarity to the first letter of "Christ" in Greek (X). It's a form of shorthand on top of everything else. It should be thought of as standing in for Christ, his whole person, agency in creation, divinity, humanity, birth, life, ministry, death, descent into hell, resurrection, ascension, sending of the Holy Spirit, action in the Church, and remaining with us to the end of the world. (Am I forgetting anything in there? [Biased]

)

Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on :

quote:
Yes, indeed - something else I forgot! We should also keep in mind the power of such a simple symbol, particularly because of its similarity to the first letter of "Christ" in Greek (X). It's a form of shorthand on top of everything else. It should be thought of as standing in for Christ, his whole person, agency in creation, divinity, humanity, birth, life, ministry, death, descent into hell, resurrection, ascension, sending of the Holy Spirit, action in the Church, and remaining with us to the end of the world. (Am I forgetting anything in there?

The plain cross (as in Presbyterian churches) speaks to me of all these things; for me, the crucifix adds nothing. I was taught as a child that the cross is empty because Christ has risen.

GG

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

The cross is the symbol because it is at the heart of 'salvation story.'

Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. The incarnation is the means by which God in Christ was able to 'be' that sacrificial lamb.

The event on Calvary/Golgotha was the real, actual and effective demonstration of a truth that eternally exists in the heart and mind of God - that without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. Christ came to demonstrate that and then fulfil the sacrificial system.

The resurrection was the event that authenticated the cross - proved that it was a victorious act in itself and proved that this man, hanged on an accursed cross, was in fact both Lord and Christ.

As far as the empty cross as an object/picture in churches is concerned, yes that is probably as a result of the Reformation where all images of Christ/saints, etc were removed. The image of the cross was a simple reminder that it was on a cross that Jesus suffered and that it is now an empty cross to show his victory over death and his divinity.

I am more and more aware and appreciative of this truth that in the heart of God there is an eternal experience of death and sacrifice - he 'lives with it' as it were. There is a Methodist hymn that we often use in The Salvation Army (being good Wesleyans), that has the line:

quote:
He suffers still, yet loves the more,
And lives, though ever crucified.

It may be true that a physical cross set up on an altar, or painted on a mural, is a rare thing in the first few centuries of the church but it cannot be denied that from the days of the apostles they preached about it (Peter), they wrote about it (Paul), they sang about it (the hymn quoted by Paul in Philippians 2), they offended and puzzled people by talking about it (stumbling block and foolishness).

Therefore the cross should indeed be the church's symbol because it represents fully the USP of our faith - grace provided through sacrifice. If the cross is reduced in prominence or importance then Christianity becomes just another philosophy.

People have hated the cross - even to the extent of denying that Jesus died on it (Thanks Mohammed) - let's not play into the hands of an unbelieving world. The cross is central.

[ 12. January 2013, 08:24: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Clavus (# 9427) on :

A plain cross does not 'show that' Christ is risen - it shows that his body was taken down from the cross (who knew?).

I honour the cross on which Jesus died.
I worship Christ crucified (a stumbling block for many).

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
A plain cross does not 'show that' Christ is risen - it shows that his body was taken down from the cross (who knew?).

I honour the cross on which Jesus died.
I worship Christ crucified (a stumbling block for many).

Well that might be the inference of someone who may not know fully, but to those who put the things up in church, they knew that it meant the resurrection.

[ 12. January 2013, 08:35: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
A plain cross does not 'show that' Christ is risen - it shows that his body was taken down from the cross (who knew?).

I honour the cross on which Jesus died.
I worship Christ crucified (a stumbling block for many).

Maybe "Yes" a plain cross does show that Christ was both killed and then came alive and up to Heaven, because we all are told about Jesus being killed to rescue us, and we have sadness and thanksgiving about Jesus.

We also have a big picture in our church of a cross behind Jesus and Jesus alive again and happy and beautiful - that's also useful to have.

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

The good thing about symbols is that they can be given different meanings. I'm happy with the cross as long as I can see it as a refusal to have a symbol that sums up the heart of Christianity. So I'd interpret an empty cross as an empty symbol, one that refuses to say what it's about.

I once went round a museum in Barcelona full of 15th Century crucifixes, painted wood, life sized, many showing Jesus with, oddly, an exaggerated number of bloodied ribs: it was grim. But if I had to live with that as the symbol, again I would say that it's a refusal to have a symbol you can like or be happy with. It's a deliberate frustration of our desire to fixate on some nutshelled expression of our faith, some twee distillation. It revolts and confuses us in order to reject our devotion.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:

quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
A plain cross does not 'show that' Christ is risen - it shows that his body was taken down from the cross (who knew?).

I honour the cross on which Jesus died.
I worship Christ crucified (a stumbling block for many).
Maybe "Yes" a plain cross does show that Christ was both killed and then came alive and up to Heaven, because we all are told about Jesus being killed to rescue us, and we have sadness and thanksgiving about Jesus.

We also have a big picture in our church of a cross behind Jesus and Jesus alive again and happy and beautiful - that's also useful to have.

Of course: and it's good that the cross is in the picture because the picture of just a smiley man looking healthy wouldn't actually convey much - other than that we focus on a man who, we hope, was indeed a smiley man [Smile]

[ 12. January 2013, 10:07: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The good thing about symbols is that they can be given different meanings. I'm happy with the cross as long as I can see it as a refusal to have a symbol that sums up the heart of Christianity. So I'd interpret an empty cross as an empty symbol, one that refuses to say what it's about.

I once went round a museum in Barcelona full of 15th Century crucifixes, painted wood, life sized, many showing Jesus with, oddly, an exaggerated number of bloodied ribs: it was grim. But if I had to live with that as the symbol, again I would say that it's a refusal to have a symbol you can like or be happy with. It's a deliberate frustration of our desire to fixate on some nutshelled expression of our faith, some twee distillation. It revolts and confuses us in order to reject our devotion.

I would say that you are interpreting the art of those crucifixes with 21st century eyes.

The graphic nature of bloodied anatomical statues, popular before the Victorian squeamishness and piety that still effects us today, took hold, people lived lives that were bloody and brutal, lacked privacy or decorum. They died publicly and painfully and so, a bloodstained and 'grim' crucifix would not have had the shock-value that it may have today. in fact it's quite probably true that had those crucifixes not been like that people wouldn't have looked at them twice, inferring that the death of Jesus was pleasanter then their own and therefore irrelevant.

Maybe we should look at our society with its gory, obscene, in-your-face, foul-mouthed and PG rated art and media industry and reassess how we portray Jesus.

Maybe we should get Tarantino and Hurst to redesign our crucifixes and pictures and see whether the Gospel reconnects with our more 'gothic' culture.

Oh wait, Mel Gibson did that and upset people - that film was an excellent moving crucifix: it caused the greatest offence, was a huge stumbling block and was an artistic folly.

Ta da!

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

In his book "Anam Cara" John O'Donohue has an interesting comment about the Celtic cross:

"... the Celts even transfigured the Cross by surrounding it with a circle. The Celtic Cross is a beautiful symbol. The circle around the beams of the Cross rescues the loneliness where the two lines of pain intersect; it seems to calm and console their forsaken linearity."

Nen - disturbed at the concept of Jesus being constantly crucified.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
In his book "Anam Cara" John O'Donohue has an interesting comment about the Celtic cross:

"... the Celts even transfigured the Cross by surrounding it with a circle. The Celtic Cross is a beautiful symbol. The circle around the beams of the Cross rescues the loneliness where the two lines of pain intersect; it seems to calm and console their forsaken linearity."

Nen - disturbed at the concept of Jesus being constantly crucified.

Not 'constantly', it's 'ever' crucified. As I suggested it's because Jesus is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. It's a way of saying that there is sacrificial pain in the heart of God- he is always self-giving in order to heal us and redeem us. The crucifixion is the physical demonstration of that eternal truth. He isn't physically crucified - that was once and for all (which is why Protestants reject both the crucifix and the reenacted 'sacrifice' of the Mass).

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
(which is why Protestants reject both the crucifix and the reenacted 'sacrifice' of the Mass).

Like all Protestants believe the same.

I am a Protestant, and you are not speaking in my name. I kiss a crucifix each Sunday at church.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosa Winkel:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
(which is why Protestants reject both the crucifix and the reenacted 'sacrifice' of the Mass).
Like all Protestants believe the same.

I am a Protestant, and you are not speaking in my name. I kiss a crucifix each Sunday at church.

A 'High Anglican Quaker with Orthodox tendencies' is a slightly unusual Protestant maybe [Biased]

don't you think?

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

Several people have mentioned Constantine seeing a vision of the cross. Years ago I read a book on this subject, supporting the view that the crucifix was not widespread in the first centuries of Christianity. That author (forgotten now, I'm afraid) suggested that the sign that Constantine saw was probably the Chi Rho, as that would have been the Christian symbol he was most familiar with.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

The Christus Rex crucifix, portraying Christ as priest and king, reigning from the cross is a theologically powerful statement that obviates the putative problems both with a crucifix portraying a suffering Christ and an empty cross that many find iconographically null and inspirationally and devotinally lacking. The Christus Rex can only be seen as an image of the Risen Christ who has overcome evil and death, thus also implicitly emphasising a Christus Victor atonement theology.

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
Several people have mentioned Constantine seeing a vision of the cross. Years ago I read a book on this subject, supporting the view that the crucifix was not widespread in the first centuries of Christianity. That author (forgotten now, I'm afraid) suggested that the sign that Constantine saw was probably the Chi Rho, as that would have been the Christian symbol he was most familiar with.

That is what I also understood to have been the case. Didn't he then order his troops to paint the Chi Rho on their battle shields?

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What makes Our Lord unique was that he was God, not because he was crucified.
Is Christianity about what is unique about Christ, or what is salvific about Christ?

Both, really
[Razz]

I think, hypothetically speaking, that Jesus' Incarnation and Proclamation of the Kingdom would have been sufficient to confer salvation. If the Romans did not crucify him and he died of natural causes, and understandably, God raised him afterwards, salvation would still be procured. The means of death is less important than the fact that he died.

Yes, I know, Paul talks about the glory of the Cross. But that glory is understood within the context of the Resurrection. The Resurrection shows that no death, even if inflicted violently by other human beings, can overcome the will and power of God. Crucifixion is then rendered powerless so when Paul talks about the "glory of the cross", IMHO, there is a hint of ironic comedy. The Resurrection renders the crucifixion powerless and ironically, this means that the death becomes a means for glory. Crucifixion which supposed to shut the Son of God up for good, ended up in leading to his glory.

This does not mean though, and here I admit my bias against substitionary atonement, that God in anyway, willed the Son to be violently tortured and put to death in the Roman fashion.

I do have a crucifix in my room in my family room. For me, it represents the power and horror of human evil, that the One who offers life and grace, received violence and hate from humanity. The Resurrection, especially in the stories of Christ offering grace and peace to his disciples, is about Christ overcoming that violence and hate with love.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Here the prevailing symbol of Christianity for a very long time was the fish and the bell - a tradition that persists to a degree even today. However, it wasn't to the exclusion of the cross as a symbol either. We had a habit of erecting huge crosses with the depiction of the crucifixion on one side and the resurrection on the other (both having figures). The best ones had the whole history of faith carved on them. One symbol that did die a death that we used was the snake as a symbol of resurrection; although it did persist for a while.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Here the prevailing symbol of Christianity for a very long time was the fish and the bell - a tradition that persists to a degree even today. However, it wasn't to the exclusion of the cross as a symbol either. We had a habit of erecting huge crosses with the depiction of the crucifixion on one side and the resurrection on the other (both having figures). The best ones had the whole history of faith carved on them. One symbol that did die a death that we used was the snake as a symbol of resurrection; although it did persist for a while.

Coming from a place packed with Celtic crosses and early conversion Viking crosses the image of the snake in Christianity is quite enduring in my mind... I have a beautiful reproduction of a Celtic cross which bears out the entirety of salvation history from creation, it is quite profound really to sit and consider the symbols and the interlocking of all of history leading upto, and after, the cross...

Saying that there is something rather stylish about the way the Ethiopian Orthodox Church presents the cross - it is not a plain cross or cruicifix as in Europe but stylised, almost a piece of art IMO... set in to an icon it has made a really powerful backdrop to my family 'altar' and has helped me in my journey to greatly appreciate how the word beautiful can be properly attached to the Cross at Calvary...

But anyway, enough of my ramblings...

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
...an empty cross that many find iconographically null and inspirationally and devotinally lacking.

I do not think so at all!

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
What makes Our Lord unique was that he was God, not because he was crucified.
Is Christianity about what is unique about Christ, or what is salvific about Christ?
Both, really

I think, hypothetically speaking, that Jesus' Incarnation and Proclamation of the Kingdom would have been sufficient to confer salvation. If the Romans did not crucify him and he died of natural causes, and understandably, God raised him afterwards, salvation would still be procured. The means of death is less important than the fact that he died.

No, he had to give his life as a ransom for many.
He also had to be 'the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world' and therefore needed to die 'prematurely' as a sacrifice.

His death was the final Mosaic sacrifice.
There can be no redemption with sacrifice and no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

This does not mean though, and here I admit my bias against substitionary atonement, that God in anyway, willed the Son to be violently tortured and put to death in the Roman fashion.

This reveals a common mistake that is little more than adoptionism - that God chose a man and made him suffer.

Whilst we do not believe that the Father suffered on the cross as the sacrifice, we do believe that God (the Father) was in Christ and therefore suffered with him.

Jesus suffered as God not because of God.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

This does not mean though, and here I admit my bias against substitionary atonement, that God in anyway, willed the Son to be violently tortured and put to death in the Roman fashion.
This reveals a common mistake that is little more than adoptionism - that God chose a man and made him suffer.

Whilst we do not believe that the Father suffered on the cross as the sacrifice, we do believe that God (the Father) was in Christ and therefore suffered with him.

Jesus suffered as God not because of God.

Are you suggesting that there is no real distinction between God the Father and God the Son?

Because if you are, then the entire Trinitarian doctrine collapses.

[ 12. January 2013, 15:33: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
A 'High Anglican Quaker with Orthodox tendencies' is a slightly unusual Protestant maybe don't you think?

Irrelevant.

Look at this link of a Protestant church in Germany: http://chroma.to/photos/3995242 What do you see?

Or this one in Bethlehem: http://allbeggars.blogspot.com/2012/03/resurrecting-crucifix.html

Or this cathedral in Chester: http://www.flickr.com/photos/30120216@N07/8196366717/

I've also seen plenty Anglicans kissing crucifixes in my time as well.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:

This does not mean though, and here I admit my bias against substitionary atonement, that God in anyway, willed the Son to be violently tortured and put to death in the Roman fashion.
This reveals a common mistake that is little more than adoptionism - that God chose a man and made him suffer.

Whilst we do not believe that the Father suffered on the cross as the sacrifice, we do believe that God (the Father) was in Christ and therefore suffered with him.

Jesus suffered as God not because of God.
Are you suggesting that there is no real distinction between God the Father and God the Son?

Because if you are, then the entire Trinitarian doctrine collapses.

What gave you that impression? I did say quite clearly that the Father did not suffer on the cross - that's patripassionism, but that he suffered with his son, as in (to clarify) as Jesus suffered (the divine in Jesus also suffering), then the father also suffered. Moltmann said that in the cry of dereliction the Son faced the loss of his Father but that the Father too also suffered in that he lost his Son. Different suffering, different persons, one God.

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I did say quite clearly that the Father did not suffer on the cross - that's patripassionism, but that he suffered with his son, as in (to clarify) as Jesus suffered (the divine in Jesus also suffering), then the father also suffered. Moltmann said that in the cry of dereliction the Son faced the loss of his Father but that the Father too also suffered in that he lost his Son. Different suffering, different persons, one God.

That's still in part patripassianist though:

quote:
In Christian theology, patripassianism is the view that God the Father suffers (from Latin patri- "father" and passio "suffering"). Its adherents believe that God the Father was incarnate and suffered on the cross and that whatever happened to the Son happened to the Father and so the Father co-suffered with the human Jesus on the cross. This view is opposed to the classical theological doctrine of divine apathy. According to classical theology it is possible for Christ to suffer only in virtue of his human nature. The divine nature is incapable of suffering. [ link ]

I know that you don't believe that God the Father was incarnate and suffered with Christ on the cross, but to believe that God in God's divine nature can suffer was also considered a heresy from very early on, and still is by the Catholic (and Orthodox, I think?) Church today. Of course, that needn't necessarily bother you - I'm just pointing it out. [Smile]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Different suffering, different persons, one God.
That's still in part patripassianist though:
quote:
In Christian theology, patripassianism is the view that God the Father suffers (from Latin patri- "father" and passio "suffering"). Its adherents believe that God the Father was incarnate and suffered on the cross and that whatever happened to the Son happened to the Father and so the Father co-suffered with the human Jesus on the cross. This view is opposed to the classical theological doctrine of divine apathy. According to classical theology it is possible for Christ to suffer only in virtue of his human nature. The divine nature is incapable of suffering. [ link ]
I know that you don't believe that God the Father was incarnate and suffered with Christ on the cross, but to believe that God in God's divine nature can suffer was also considered a heresy from very early on, and still is by the Catholic (and Orthodox, I think?) Church today. Of course, that needn't necessarily bother you - I'm just pointing it out.

Do you have a source to back that up? My understanding is similar to that found in the wiki link-- that patripassianism is heresy only because it conflates the 1st & 2nd persons of the Trinity, not because it posits a God who suffers in the divine nature-- something for which there is abundant biblical support.

[Code & attribution fix, DT, Host]

[ 13. January 2013, 07:28: Message edited by: Doublethink ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Do you have a source to back that up? My understanding is similar to that found in the wiki link-- that patripassianism is heresy only because it conflates the 1st & 2nd persons of the Trinity, not because it posits a God who suffers in the divine nature-- something for which there is abundant biblical support.

Actually, that's not all that the link says, cliffdweller. It still contains this bit (which I quoted above) in it, which would make it a heresy even without the modalist bit:

quote:
This view is opposed to the classical theological doctrine of divine apathy. According to classical theology it is possible for Christ to suffer only in virtue of his human nature. The divine nature is incapable of suffering.

Therefore, God the Father cannot suffer.

Have I misunderstood your question?

[ 12. January 2013, 16:52: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

Whilst rooting around for sources, I found this Orthodox Church in America link, which (if it is representative) suggests that I was wrong to guess that the doctrine that God is impassible is Orthodox teaching:

quote:
Yet it needs to be stated as well that in a particular sense, God the Father indeed "suffered" at the Crucifixion. A child will ask: "Why did God send His Son to die and not come Himself?" The question reflects a double misunderstanding. On the one hand, He who died on the Cross was indeed God: the eternal Son of the Father. Yet when the apostle Paul speaks of "God" and "Christ," he is referring respectively to the Father and the Son. Thus he can declare, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor 5:19). To answer the child's question, it is enough to point out that no father could sacrifice his son without undergoing the same or even greater suffering than the son himself is called to bear. In other words, God the Father, in His infinite compassion and boundless love, endured a degree of personal suffering at the Crucifixion that was no less than the suffering borne by His Son, Jesus.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interesting, Chesterbelloc. I wonder whether that is representative?

On Mudfrog's emphases ... I don't have any particular issue with the way he's framing things here, but do wonder whether there's an element of sentimentality in there which has seeped into the Wesleyan tradition from Lutheran pietism?

But then, there can be plenty of sentimentality in RC treatments and depictions of these things ... the Orthodox would claim that all Western Christianity can incline either towards cold, calculating Scholasticism on the one hand, or a kind of mawkish sentimentality on the other.

They'd reckon that they get the balance right, of course.

I think Mudfrog's 'take' is fine as far as it goes, whatever quibbles some of us might have with the penal substitutionary aspects, but I would argue that it needs 'fleshing out' a bit more in terms of the resurrection aspect ... the resurrection does more than simply 'vindicate' Christ's salvific action on the cross - it's about a lot more than that. As I'm sure Mudfrog will appreciate.

I'm very wary of isolating one or other aspect of the 'Christ event' - I'd rather look at it in its entirety - his life, teachings, passion, death, glorious resurrection and ascension and his sitting at the right-hand of the Father in glory where he ever lives to make intercession for us.

I can understand his qualms about the 'sacrifice' of the Mass, but our Roman friends are always at pains to point out that this is an 'unbloody' event and that they aren't recrucifying Christ over and over and over again in the way that certain Protestant polemicists claim ... although I stand ready to be corrected if this isn't the case.

If I understand it correctly, the RCs and others with a highly sacramental view would see it in terms of them 'tapping into' - as it were - the very eternal dimension that Mudfrog has mentioned - the 'Lamb slain before the foundation of the earth.'

On a recent discussion of transubstantiation and so on, IngoB reminded us, very usefully I felt, that RCs don't see themselves as cannibalising a first century Jew, but partaking of the risen and ascended Christ - there's something transcendent 'breaking into' the here and now.

Whatever the case, and I still have a lot of sympathy for the Wesleyan strand that Mudfrog represents (for all its capacity to descend into sentimentality and mush) I think that whatever tradition we're from we could do ourselves a big favour by concentrating on the totality of the 'Christ event' - 'Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!'

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Do you have a source to back that up? My understanding is similar to that found in the wiki link-- that patripassianism is heresy only because it conflates the 1st & 2nd persons of the Trinity, not because it posits a God who suffers in the divine nature-- something for which there is abundant biblical support.
Actually, that's not all that the link says, cliffdweller. It still contains this bit (which I quoted above) in it, which would make it a heresy even without the modalist bit:
quote:
This view is opposed to the classical theological doctrine of divine apathy. According to classical theology it is possible for Christ to suffer only in virtue of his human nature. The divine nature is incapable of suffering.
Therefore, God the Father cannot suffer.

Have I misunderstood your question?

My assumption is that "classical theology" is being used here in the more technical sense, in which it's referring to a specific stream of theology-- which, as the link notes, is heavily drawn from Hellenistic philosophy. That specific link to Hellenistic thought is where concerns re: a suffering God would originate. That would not necessarily equate perfectly with Catholic or Orthodox theology, although there would be a lot of overlap. I'm no authority on either, but would be surprised if their denunciation of patripassianism was broad enough to encompass all divine suffering (not just the cross), since there is so much biblical support for divine suffering, as well as references to it in patristic writings in both traditions (and then there's the link you found as well). But again, not my area of expertise-- hence the question.

[ 12. January 2013, 19:37: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Wasn't there a book in the 70's or 80's entitled 'Does God Suffer?' that addressed this issue in relation to Trinitarian theology that came to the conclusion that God the Father did not suffer/ I might be mis-remembering and mis-representing the comtents of the book, but I have a vague memory that it presented a fairly solid argument that has yet to be overturned.

Anyway, I'm not sure what any of it has to do with the OP. Might be better to open a new thread seeing the conversation might be quite fruitful

[ 12. January 2013, 20:04: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Wasn't there a book in the 70's or 80's entitled 'Does God Suffer?' that addressed this issue in relation to Trinitarian theology that came to the conclusion that God the Father did not suffer/ I might be mis-remembering and mis-representing the comtents of the book, but I have a vague memory that it presented a fairly solid argument that has yet to be overturned.

There has been a LOT written on the topic, and quite a few books written with similar titles-- coming to both yeah and nay conclusions. The whole area of open & process theologies is predicated on a fairly solid (IMHO) argument that God DOES indeed suffer (the classic Openness of God makes a strong biblical and philosophical argument, more recent work by Greg Boyd looks at the argument from patristic theology). Much of more broadly Arminian and even some aspects of neo-Orthodox theology would also resonate along those lines. At the very least, your statement "a fairly solid argument that has yet to be overturned" is VASTLY overstated.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Jurgen Moltmann's The Crucified God is the source for what i wrote.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I can't find a quote or extract from Moltmann but THIS contains an outline of his thesis.

Read from p 119

[ 12. January 2013, 20:57: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Yes, his would be one of the most significant voices in the debate. Again, it is far from a settled matter by any stretch of the imagination.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

I do not worship a God who is apathetic, unfeeling, detached.

The Father loves therefore he must suffer.

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Personally, I don't need a cross to focus worship.

Some do.
Really? Who?

Many an evangelical crowd in North America.

Especially during communion.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
"... the Celts even transfigured the Cross by surrounding it with a circle. The Celtic Cross is a beautiful symbol. The circle around the beams of the Cross rescues the loneliness where the two lines of pain intersect; it seems to calm and console their forsaken linearity."

And, yes, our crosses that we wear, are like that, with the circle round it. My two came from Mull and Iona, and also in Iona there is a big cross standing up outside the church, showing the rescuing of the MacLean man who is buried there. It has a round circle around the top of it.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not worship a God who is apathetic, unfeeling, detached.

The Father loves therefore he must suffer.

Exactly. The notion that God is impassive comes from Greek philosophy, not Judeo-Christian teaching. It's really antithetical to the picture of God we have throughout Scripture.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not worship a God who is apathetic, unfeeling, detached.

The Father loves therefore he must suffer.

1. Must all love contain suffering?
2. One who doesn't suffer is perforce apathetic, unfeeling, and detached?

I submit you are using a different dictionary than any I have.

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Personally, I don't need a cross to focus worship.

Some do.
Really? Who?
Many an evangelical crowd in North America.

Especially during communion.

Can you show me some pictures or videos or articles to substantiate this? I have never heard of evangelicals needing to focus on a cross during communion.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think, hypothetically speaking, that Jesus' Incarnation and Proclamation of the Kingdom would have been sufficient to confer salvation.

2000 years of Christian tradition stand against you. One of the obstacles to our salvation was death, which Christ had to destroy by entering and shattering it from within. Which one can believe independently of PSA.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Nenya, I fear the circle on celtic crosses has no symbolic aspect - it's purely practical, to stop the heavy arms breaking off.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

2000 years of Christian tradition stand against you. One of the obstacles to our salvation was death, which Christ had to destroy by entering and shattering it from within. Which one can believe independently of PSA.

Not just 2000 years of tradition (though this is true), one would have to throw out one of the dominant themes of the Pauline epistles as well.

Romans 5

quote:
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. 9 Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. 11 But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Yes, Paul's epistles are a very important part of tradition.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not worship a God who is apathetic, unfeeling, detached.

The Father loves therefore he must suffer.
1. Must all love contain suffering?

Yep

quote:

2. One who doesn't suffer is perforce apathetic, unfeeling, and detached?

Yep

quote:

I submit you are using a different dictionary than any I have.

I submit that using a dictionary to demonstrate the relationship betwen love and suffering is simplistic, reductionist and ultimately futile.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

The expression “the cross” stands historically for the Passion and theologically for soteriology, and is therefore an example of metonymy, but there has always been a tendency to “demetonymise”, ie realize, or literalise it.

An example is the hymn The Old Rugged Cross, which I intensely dislike despite my evangelical and PSA convictions.

On the other hand I have no objection to the use of crosses in art, architecture or personal ornament, though as C.S. Lewis pointed out, representations of crosses only appeared at about the time when the generations who had actually witnessed a crucifixion were dying out.

The gospel writers and Paul would, I suspect, have regarded as grotesque the idea of a cross (empty or inhabited) on top of a building or around one’s neck, despite their emphasis on the centrality and importance of the cross event.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not worship a God who is apathetic, unfeeling, detached.

The Father loves therefore he must suffer.
1. Must all love contain suffering?
Yep

quote:

2. One who doesn't suffer is perforce apathetic, unfeeling, and detached?
Yep

quote:

I submit you are using a different dictionary than any I have.

I submit that using a dictionary to demonstrate the relationship betwen love and suffering is simplistic, reductionist and ultimately futile.

So instead you're demonstrating it with ... "Yep"?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

There's a lot of simplistic and reductionistic in this thread. None of it from me.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Surprised no one has brought up lily crucifixes yet.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So instead you're demonstrating it with ... "Yep"?

Yep

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
We didn't have only a collection 4 gospels at the time, with the firming up of what was accepted as "canon" until about the same time as the use of the cross became regularized. We also did not have a uniform creed (like Nicene). Thus we had a diversity of opinions. So we cannot use the 4 gospels as more than another argument. And it is probable that the 4 gospels as accepted as telling the version of the story as they do were a reason for the adoption of symbol and orientation to death, cross, etc.

Rubbish. The final NT canon was firmed up after 325 (Hebrews, Jude, etc). But the agreement on the 4 gospels goes so far back that even Irenaeus in AD180 says "We've got 4 gospels, we've always had 4 gospels". The Muratorian Canon (c AD170) has 4 and only 4 gospels. Origen (early 200s) recognised 4 and only 4 gospels.

You've been reading too much Dan Brown.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
You've been reading too much Dan Brown.

Who? Read a number of things about Nicolas of Cusa, Peter Abelard, Augustine, St Bernard and a series of the popes if you really wish to know.

If you want to discuss things rather than make pronouncements then do it. Otherwise back in the bain-marie for a little firming up please.

Posted by Waterchaser (# 11005) on :

My understanding is that:

1) The four gospels are quoted far more regularly than any other documents about Jesus's life by the early church both by those of orthodox belief and also those later deemed to be heterdox.

2) That the gnostic gospels were written far later than the four and are more remote from the eye witnesses.

I am not a scholar but I thought these points were widely accepted outside of fiction?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
You've been reading too much Dan Brown.
Who? Read a number of things about Nicolas of Cusa, Peter Abelard, Augustine, St Bernard and a series of the popes if you really wish to know.

If you want to discuss things rather than make pronouncements then do it. Otherwise back in the bain-marie for a little firming up please.

Custard made a quite solid argument leading up to your clip-- one that most scholars would affirm. If you are in fact interested in a thoughtful debate, try responding to that.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
You've been reading too much Dan Brown.
Who? Read a number of things about Nicolas of Cusa, Peter Abelard, Augustine, St Bernard and a series of the popes if you really wish to know.

If you want to discuss things rather than make pronouncements then do it. Otherwise back in the bain-marie for a little firming up please.

The Dan Brown reference might be a cheap shot, but it seems to me that Custard has made a good point with the antiquity of his references. While some other parts included in the NT might have been a little loosy-goosy, the four traditional Gospels, I've always read, were pretty firmly in place early on.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Mudfrog: [QUOTE] "There can be no redemption with[out] sacrifice and no forgiveness without the shedding of blood." [QUOTE] Leviticus 17:11.

The Old Covenant. As the writer of Hebrews reiterates.

And that's it? God CANNOT forgive us or save otherwise? Unless we all accept that we - inevitably - murdered Him? By proxy? Including the 3/4 of humanity that died by the age of 5 and the 80% before birth?

So what is our forgiveness? His passed on?

These are truly open questions.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not worship a God who is apathetic, unfeeling, detached.

The Father loves therefore he must suffer.
1. Must all love contain suffering?
Yep

quote:
2. One who doesn't suffer is perforce apathetic, unfeeling, and detached?
Yep

This is quite a way from an in depth explanation of your position...

I totally and utterly disagree with this. First off, there are biblical grounds for saying "God does not change", e.g. Malachi 3.6. Suffering obviously involves change, so one can say that God does not suffer.

Secondly, I don't think there's any grounds for assuming that all love involves suffering. It might be true for humans, but I see no a priori reason to think it so. Moreover, I don't see any reason why human love---sinful, fallen, imperfect human love---should govern our understanding of the divine love. As scholastic theology adequately demonstrates, there must be a relation between divine love and human love, but that relation does not imply equality.

God is love, said S. John: it seems to me that we might infer that God's way of loving is infinitely bound up with his identity and existence. Our way of loving is and must be different, as it is not essential to our sinful nature. To say "God is love" is to say "God is eternally, constantly love": his love is outside the confines of time and space within which we comprehend our world and all of existence. Our understanding of love is linear, transient and changing. But that isn't a necessary understanding of God's love.

To cap this all off, we do have a God who is the very opposite of apathetic, unfeeling and detached. God became human in Jesus Christ and he suffered. God suffered. But he suffered not in his own nature, the divine nature, but in the human nature that he adopted and perfected in Jesus Christ.

This is a paradox: the one who cannot suffer suffers. But paradox has never been an obstacle to Christian orthodoxy (Virgin Birth, Incarnation, Beatitudes, Servant King, etc.).

This isn't an overwhelming case. There is still an argument for theopaschitism. But I think you need a little more to justify it than "Yep".

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Am I alone in feeling mildly irritated by Kaplan's 'Yeps' - as though this pronouncement settles the matter despite ancient and long-standing debates to the contrary?

Ok, I'm not saying that antiquity in and of itself is the determining factor, but the issue I have with the kind of spirituality that both he and Mudfrog appear to be promoting here is that it so easily descends into sentimental mush.

Kaplan isn't fond of 'The Old Rugged Cross' - and I can understand why. Personally, I can't stand it. I've heard it in pubs more often than in chapels in my native South Wales and it's all part and parcel of an overly mawkish and sentimental culture - in both pub and chapel - that both resonates with me in some ways (it's the feeling of 'home' - it's the 'hiraeth') but repels me in others.

I'm sure Welsh sentimentality in religion pre-dates the Reformation but it was there in spades in Welsh revivalism ... and I suspect it's one of the reasons (among others) why Wales is now one of the most secular parts of the UK. The same thing will happen in the US as a reaction to the vacuity of the mega-churches.

I'm fairly agnostic on the 'suffering' aspect - but God is immutable and I don't see it in the same kind of terms that have been aired here. Sure, I'm not saying that God is some kind of unfeeling robot or some kind of intellectual principle - the warmth of the Wesleyan heritage is it's strongest point and to that extent I'm on the same page as Mudfrog.

And yet, I dunno ... it seems to descend into a kind of cloying sentimentality ... other traditions can have that tendency too, of course, but over different issues and in different ways. But I'm uncomfortable with this aspect in this particular instance.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Oh and uh, when we forgive, haven't we foregone our rights in the matter? Sacrificed?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

I totally and utterly disagree with this. First off, there are biblical grounds for saying "God does not change", e.g. Malachi 3.6.

Yes. But there is also biblical grounds-- more so, in fact-- for saying God changes. There are numerous places where God changes his mind-- "repents", actually, in the Hebrew. Many, many examples of conditional prophesy-- IF you do this, THEN I will do that, but IF you repent, THEN, I'll do this. Moses is famously able to argue God out of judgment.

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Suffering obviously involves change, so one can say that God does not suffer.

...To cap this all off, we do have a God who is the very opposite of apathetic, unfeeling and detached. God became human in Jesus Christ and he suffered. God suffered. But he suffered not in his own nature, the divine nature, but in the human nature that he adopted and perfected in Jesus Christ.

Again, I don't think the biblical record supports that. We have numerous places pre-incarnation where we hear of God suffering-- God being angered, God being grieved, all sorts of feeling words.

Further, John (as well as Phil. 2) tell us that Jesus is our best picture of the Father. We look to Jesus to understand and know what the Father is like. Phil. 2 suggests to me that Jesus' willingness to enter into suffering fully is a characteristic that is true of the Godhead, not specific to his "human nature".

The biblical & philosophical support for this is covered well in The Openness of God. Again, obviously it's a position of much debate, but one can at least say that the extreme position taken by "classical theology" (again, a technical term not to be confused with orthodox or patristic theology) has no more compelling support than the opposite extreme of open theism.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Am I alone in feeling mildly irritated by Kaplan's 'Yeps' - as though this pronouncement settles the matter despite ancient and long-standing debates to the contrary?

...I'm fairly agnostic on the 'suffering' aspect - but God is immutable and I don't see it in the same kind of terms that have been aired here.

I don't see what you're doing here as much different from Kaplan's "yep". You're making an a priori assumption, but presenting it as a self-evident propositional truth: "God is immutable." Even if Kaplan didn't do so, plenty of us on this thread have demonstrated that, at the very least, it is far from a self-evident proposition. You're in good company making the argument, but it is still an argument that needs to be made (as I feel I'm in fairly good company making the counter argument).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Am I alone in feeling mildly irritated by Kaplan's 'Yeps' - as though this pronouncement settles the matter despite ancient and long-standing debates to the contrary?

Far from. But calling Kaplan to Hell has been played on the radio too much lately.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

That's a fair point, Cliffdweller. I'm not as opposed though, to 'open theism' as some and I'd need to mug up on it all a lot more ... but you're right to challenge me on the a priori nature of my interjection.

@Mudfrog, yes, and a fair point you've made too.

I'm sorry Kaplan, but your 'yeps' sounded rather smug to me and would have done so even if I completely agreed with you.

It's as if you're saying, 'I don't give a stuff about what the Fathers or previous generations/theologians believed, I've got my own views and the rest of you can sod off.'

I'm sure that's not what you meant, but that's how it came across. This may just be a perception, which is why I'm reluctant to get into Hellish territory here.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

There are, at least, three levels at which one can discuss whether God as God can suffer.

First, there is the level of metaphor, analogy and anthropomorphization. Much of the bible is written at this level. Most of the time we think of God in this way, and communicate about Him and with Him in this way. Clearly God can suffer there. Just as he can rejoice or rage in wrath. There's nothing wrong with saying any of this, as long as one keeps in mind that one is projecting human concepts on Divine action.

Second, there is the level of considering the will of God vs. the will of man. Certainly God willed us to be free. But in doing so, He has in some sense made Himself subject to our wills. For we can decide to do His will, or we can decide against it. Hence God can suffer at this level too, namely our sins. He cannot suffer a pulsar rotating, for that is just a thing that must do what was appointed to it. But we can do other than what was appointed to us by God, and then God is thwarted. This is suffering, and only we (and the angels, and any other free-willed being in the world) can inflict it on God.

Third, there is the principle level. God is the Father Almighty. All is as it is upon His word. Nothing is against His will. All existence is from Him, nothing can move without Him. Not a Planck time of action escapes His grasp, always, everywhere, everything is His. How can this God suffer? To suffer is a passive thing, is being subject to someone or something. God is subject to nothing, is Master of everything. All is as it is on His word, and His word alone, so how can such a Being possibly "suffer"?

These levels do not stand in contradiction to each other. Yes, humans in their sin do act against God's will in a sense, but in another sense it is God's will that they can do so, and it is God's will at least permissively that the world will include such acts (in order for Him to work, we believe, a greater good from it in the end). And that nothing makes God suffer but our sins does not mean that God cannot be described as happy or sad, or as changing His mind according to our deeds. This is simply putting a human spin on what is concretely happening, and God was not beyond putting a human spin on Himself.

We get into problems only when people start to mix these levels, or play them against the other. But really there is a deep harmony there, and a compelling one. For it is good to know that while our God may appear to us sometimes like a Greek god, fickle, in a weird love-hate relationship to us, in reality the only thing that ever disturbs God's unbending love is our sin. And it is good to know that even sin, as devastating as it appears to be in this world, in an ultimate sense is not disturbing God's plan but rather somehow contributing to it. The impassibility of God at the principle level is not denying His love, but guaranteeing it. No sin can destroy it. No wrath can wipe it out. It is eternal.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There are, at least, three levels at which one can discuss whether God as God can suffer.

First, there is the level of metaphor, analogy and anthropomorphization. Much of the bible is written at this level. Most of the time we think of God in this way, and communicate about Him and with Him in this way. Clearly God can suffer there. Just as he can rejoice or rage in wrath. There's nothing wrong with saying any of this, as long as one keeps in mind that one is projecting human concepts on Divine action.

Second, there is the level of considering the will of God vs. the will of man. Certainly God willed us to be free. But in doing so, He has in some sense made Himself subject to our wills. For we can decide to do His will, or we can decide against it. Hence God can suffer at this level too, namely our sins. He cannot suffer a pulsar rotating, for that is just a thing that must do what was appointed to it. But we can do other than what was appointed to us by God, and then God is thwarted. This is suffering, and only we (and the angels, and any other free-willed being in the world) can inflict it on God.

Third, there is the principle level. God is the Father Almighty. All is as it is upon His word. Nothing is against His will. All existence is from Him, nothing can move without Him. Not a Planck time of action escapes His grasp, always, everywhere, everything is His. How can this God suffer? To suffer is a passive thing, is being subject to someone or something. God is subject to nothing, is Master of everything. All is as it is on His word, and His word alone, so how can such a Being possibly "suffer"?

These levels do not stand in contradiction to each other. Yes, humans in their sin do act against God's will in a sense, but in another sense it is God's will that they can do so, and it is God's will at least permissively that the world will include such acts (in order for Him to work, we believe, a greater good from it in the end). And that nothing makes God suffer but our sins does not mean that God cannot be described as happy or sad, or as changing His mind according to our deeds. This is simply putting a human spin on what is concretely happening, and God was not beyond putting a human spin on Himself.

We get into problems only when people start to mix these levels, or play them against the other. But really there is a deep harmony there, and a compelling one. For it is good to know that while our God may appear to us sometimes like a Greek god, fickle, in a weird love-hate relationship to us, in reality the only thing that ever disturbs God's unbending love is our sin. And it is good to know that even sin, as devastating as it appears to be in this world, in an ultimate sense is not disturbing God's plan but rather somehow contributing to it. The impassibility of God at the principle level is not denying His love, but guaranteeing it. No sin can destroy it. No wrath can wipe it out. It is eternal.

I would say we get into trouble not because we are mixing these levels, but because we are assuming them to be true. There are several assumptions here about God that are, again, not self-evident nor even particularly biblical. There are other paradigms (open theism being but one) with different assumptions about the divine nature and the nature of reality that have IMHO better internal consistency (less of the "level" gymnastics you have to undergo to make it hold together) and with at least as much biblical and logical support.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Isn't part of the problem with the Cross as Symbol for the church that it assumes God chose: (a) that Jesus should die, (2) that the cross was a good way to kill him, (3) that free will of the humans involved was suspended for the duration of the passion so that Jesus could get killed for God's Very Good Reason? What if any of the players hadn't wanted to do what is written in the gospels as "so scripture could be fulfilled"? Was God was playing puppets.

This is why I'm messed on the cross and all it signifies.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There are other paradigms (open theism being but one) with different assumptions about the divine nature and the nature of reality that have IMHO better internal consistency (less of the "level" gymnastics you have to undergo to make it hold together) and with at least as much biblical and logical support.

I consider the immutability of God to be strictly provable, and hence open theism and like paradigms, as well as your humble opinion, to be strictly and provably wrong. In fact, I have basically given one possible proof above already (derived from the incompatibility of omnipotence and suffering). I did not describe these three levels to hold anything together, but simply as a reflection of what I see people doing. It is in my opinion simply the case that people talk in several discernibly different ways about "God suffering".

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There are other paradigms (open theism being but one) with different assumptions about the divine nature and the nature of reality that have IMHO better internal consistency (less of the "level" gymnastics you have to undergo to make it hold together) and with at least as much biblical and logical support.
I consider the immutability of God to be strictly provable, and hence open theism and like paradigms, as well as your humble opinion, to be strictly and provably wrong. In fact, I have basically given one possible proof above already (derived from the incompatibility of omnipotence and suffering). I did not describe these three levels to hold anything together, but simply as a reflection of what I see people doing. It is in my opinion simply the case that people talk in several discernibly different ways about "God suffering".

The above was not a proof-- it was a very rough outline of a systematic theology, one held together with several a priori assumptions and a couple of glossed-over inconsistencies. Which is fine-- every systematic theology includes those, including my favored open theism. Most of those glossed-over inconsistencies have to do with our a priori assumptions about theodicy-- the incompatibility of omnipotence & suffering-- which, no, you didn't come close to "solving" (but again, neither does anyone else).

All of which goes to the point that the immutability of God is a perfectly fine theory but very, very far from "provable".

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

I'd come down with Kaplan, cliffdweller, and Moltmann on this one.

The argument goes very simply like this: Love includes suffering, if the person one loves is suffering (this is what compassion means, literally). Compassion cannot simply be explained away as a part of the fallen nature of our love; God chose to come and suffer alongside humanity, so compassion seems central to love. The First Person loves the Second Person, not only Christ's divine nature. To the extent that Christ suffered (through his human nature, at least), his loving Father suffered, not in the sense (bodily pain, etc.) that Christ suffered, but as a Father.

Against this IngoB and others just put forward the assumption that God cannot suffer. The claim that God cannot suffer because everything is going according to plan is certainly not obvious, and again simply asserted.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Am I alone in feeling mildly irritated by Kaplan's 'Yeps' - as though this pronouncement settles the matter despite ancient and long-standing debates to the contrary?

Nope

quote:
Ok, I'm not saying that antiquity in and of itself is the determining factor, but the issue I have with the kind of spirituality that both he and Mudfrog appear to be promoting here is that it so easily descends into sentimental mush.

Sticking with single word responses, whataloadofbullshit.

Honestly, Gamaliel, get a grip.

Neither Muddy nor I are "promoting" any sort of "spirituality".

We are simply asserting the obviously biblical facts that God loves and God suffers.

There is nothing remotely mushy or sentimental about it.

You can attempt to explain them away on the basis of hellenistic concepts of divine immutability and impassibility, or dismiss them as anthropomorphisms, until you're blue in the face, but you're arguing not against South Wales chapel singalongs, but against the mainstream of Christian orthodoxy.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Two can play at one-word responses, Kaplan. I'm tempted to go for a two word response.

The second word is 'off'.

[Razz]

Don't you accuse me of bullshit, when you yourself are talking bollocks.

[Biased]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

What is the name of the heresy that taught that the 'Christ' left Jesus at the cross so that only the human body/soul suffered?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't know, Mudfrog. That's a new heresy on me and I don't see anyone here arguing for it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I always thought that mainstream Christian orthodoxy held that God was immutable, Kaplan.

Sure, I know that there's the 'openness' of God thing that Cliffdweller is talking about and I'm 'open' to that ... I am not a 'closed' Calvinist.

The Big O Orthodox position would seem to be that God doesn't 'suffer' in the sense we might be talking about here - assuming we're on the same page, which we mightn't be.

I don't see that as meaning that God doesn't 'care' or that he's completely indifferent to suffering or 'feelings' as it were - as if he's some kind of cosmic Vulcan, a kind of Spock from Star Trek.

All these concepts are anthropomorphisms to a greater or lesser extent. I can handle a certain amount of mystery here ... as in much else. It's not something I can particularly exercised about.

Whatever you might say, though, whatever view we take it does, of necessity, find an outlet in our 'spirituality'. There's a warmth about Wesleyan spirituality which I find very attractive but equally there can be a slushy, sentimental aspect which I don't ... Mudfrog has been exploring this in Ecclesiantics on the issue of hymnody where even John Wesley found some of Charles's more 'fond' hymns somewhat difficult to stomach.

Conversely, a highly Calvinistic theology can (I said 'can', not 'must') lead to a rather cold, clinical and overly cerebral approach.

I'm simply saying that there's a balance in there somewhere. The Orthodox would claim, of course, that they've got the balance about right. I'm not saying they have or they haven't - they can be given to sentiment as much as anyone else.

I'm just thinking aloud and thinking around these subjects.

I don't have a closed mind that simply dismisses what anyone says by going 'Yep ... Yep ... Yep' as though I've got it all sussed and cut-and-dried.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Of course God suffers, He can't not. All suffering. Omnipathy is a corollary of omniscience.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Ah yes! It's Gnosticsm!!
I am not surprised that this heresy may not have been recognised - it pervades a heck of a lot that is written about on the ship - a distant, immutable god, no need for atonement for sin, not even for a death to take place.

Gnostics so believe that the divine cannot suffer they teach that 'the christ' left the man Jesus before he could suffer.

quote:
Gnostic Jesus- DID CHRIST REALLY SUFFER AND DIE?

As in much modern New Age teaching, the Gnostics tended to divide Jesus from the Christ. For Valentinus, Christ descended on Jesus at his baptism and left before his death on the cross. Much of the burden of the treatise Against Heresies, written by the early Christian theologian Irenaeus, was to affirm that Jesus was, is, and always will be, the Christ. He says: “The Gospel…knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again.” Irenaeus goes on to quote John’s affirmation that “Jesus is the Christ” (John 20:31) against the notion that Jesus and Christ were “formed of two different substances,” as the Gnostics taught.

Taken from HERE

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Mudfrog

quote:
His death was the final Mosaic sacrifice.
There can be no redemption with[out] sacrifice and no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.

Mudfrog, it seems to me, having read your various posts on this topic, summed up by the above quote, that you should be in the crucifix rather than the empty cross camp. Indeed, that should be the position of all who support PSA, the articulation of which by Anselm was closely associated with the introduction of the crucifix in Christian iconology, unless I am much mistaken.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

If there can be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood as Mudfrog asserts then why on earth did Jesus spend two years calling on people to repent and be forgiven?

And, if people did repent, were they not forgiven?

I dont get it.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Yup!

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
If there can be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood as Mudfrog asserts then why on earth did Jesus spend two years calling on people to repent and be forgiven?

And, if people did repent, were they not forgiven?

I dont get it.

As I understand it, Jesus' atoning death operated backwards in history (see Romans 4 for Paul's explanation); that is why Abraham etc were saved by the cross.

Can I say, not being an expert, this is an extremely 'edifying' thread that is clarifying my thoughts on a lot of stuff, so please continue!

One thought re the (im)possibility of God changing/suffering, can one solve the biblical inconsistency by saying Malachi 3 shows God's nature cannot change, but that suffering/changing his mind is not 'change'? If I suffer compassionately for someone else, my nature has not changed. If I 'change my mind' (which is of course a figure of speech, infact my thinking develops), I am still me and have not altered my nature.

[ 14. January 2013, 12:43: Message edited by: ButchCassidy ]

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I always thought that mainstream Christian orthodoxy held that God was immutable, Kaplan.

Sure, I know that there's the 'openness' of God thing that Cliffdweller is talking about and I'm 'open' to that ... I am not a 'closed' Calvinist.

It's not just openness that has a problem with immutability. I don't think the doctrine has ever been as "mainstream" as you're suggesting. It squares well with Hellenistic philosophy, which is why you see it in classical theology and the church fathers who are most influenced by Platonic thought. But it just doesn't square at all with biblical revelation, which is why it has never had the kind of universal traction you're trying to make it out to be. I would say this is the least controversial aspect of Open Theology-- because it really isn't much of a shift for mainstream Christianity.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Big O Orthodox position would seem to be that God doesn't 'suffer' in the sense we might be talking about here - assuming we're on the same page, which we mightn't be.

Again, not my area of expertise, but I'd still like to see a source on this-- so far there's been nothing to support it. Although I would suppose if anyone's going to be influenced by Hellenism, it would be Orthodox theology.

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All these concepts are anthropomorphisms to a greater or lesser extent. I can handle a certain amount of mystery here ... as in much else. It's not something I can particularly exercised about.

Sorry, but "anthropomorphism" is a cheap rhetorical trick-- it's what everyone throws out when something in the text doesn't fit their paradigm. At some point you gotta stop calling it anthropomorphic and start considering the possibility that the biblical writers knew what they were talking about.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:

One thought re the (im)possibility of God changing/suffering, can one solve the biblical inconsistency by saying Malachi 3 shows God's nature cannot change, but that suffering/changing his mind is not 'change'? If I suffer compassionately for someone else, my nature has not changed. If I 'change my mind' (which is of course a figure of speech, infact my thinking develops), I am still me and have not altered my nature.

Exactly. God's essential nature, his character, does not change. Part of that essential nature is a whole 'nother level of compassion. The incarnation is not some weird one-off exception-- it is the ultimate expression of God's deep care for the world.

It's far easier to interpret Mal. 3 in light of the rest of biblical revelation than it is to try and manhandle the entire thrust of the OT and NT to fit with a narrow and wooden interpretation of Mal. 3.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Steady on, Cliffdweller, I'm quite 'open' about these things ... I'm not accusing you of anthropomorphism necessarily - simply observing that we have to use some kind of anthropomorphic language sooner or later ... if we say that scripture is 'God-breathed' for instance - to get to the biblical side of things - does that mean that we are saying that God has lungs?

Meanwhile, I don't know what Mudfrog's banging on about accusing people here of Gnosticism. I don't see many people - other than, perhaps, some of the more out-and-out liberal types, suggesting that we don't need the atonement and incarnation and so on.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What is the name of the heresy that taught that the 'Christ' left Jesus at the cross so that only the human body/soul suffered?

Adoptionism. And yes, while that isn't being explicitly or directly argued here, I think that is the logical progression of a slavish devotion to the doctrine of immutability.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Steady on, Cliffdweller, I'm quite 'open' about these things ... I'm not accusing you of anthropomorphism necessarily - simply observing that we have to use some kind of anthropomorphic language sooner or later ... if we say that scripture is 'God-breathed' for instance - to get to the biblical side of things - does that mean that we are saying that God has lungs?

I don't deny that there's anthropomorphic imagery in the Bible-- obviously there is. But it has become a cheap and easy out any time something doesn't fit our paradigm. Classical theology uses it all the time in precisely the way you did-- and I find it (obviously) unconvincing. When you have to keep appealing to "anthropomorphism" to dismiss Scripture after Scripture in order to get them to conform to your pre-existing paradigm, again, I think it's time to consider if your paradigm needs adjusting. That's quite different than the sorts of imagery we see with "breath of life".

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Meanwhile, I don't know what Mudfrog's banging on about accusing people here of Gnosticism. I don't see many people - other than, perhaps, some of the more out-and-out liberal types, suggesting that we don't need the atonement and incarnation and so on.

Well, there's more to Gnosticism than that. One of the central tenets of Gnosticism is the separation of "spirit" and "flesh" and the notion that "flesh" and physicality and suffering are somehow "earthly" and "less than" that which is divine. Obviously those Gnostic tendencies are underlying many of the early Christological heresies.

And I think that's not unrelated to what we see here. The "scandal of the cross"-- really the "scandal of the incarnation"-- is precisely that assault on Gnsoticism and Hellenistic assumptions-- all those assumptions that we bring to our notion of divinity. I think that's what the great hymn of Phil. 2 is all about-- the paradigm-shifting awareness that rather than the immutable, passive, omni-everything, biggest dog on the block god of Platoism, we have a God who enters fully into human suffering.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
One thought re the (im)possibility of God changing/suffering, can one solve the biblical inconsistency by saying Malachi 3 shows God's nature cannot change, but that suffering/changing his mind is not 'change'? If I suffer compassionately for someone else, my nature has not changed. If I 'change my mind' (which is of course a figure of speech, infact my thinking develops), I am still me and have not altered my nature.

Ah, but you are not your nature, whereas God (according to classical theology) is. (Summa Theologica Ia, 3, 3. This question is probably the best answer to all the theopaschites in the thread, should they choose to trust the Angelic Doctor...) You have something apart from your own nature (a body) wherein change can exist. God, who is incorporeal, is beyond the realm of potential or accident: he is now what he always has been and always will be.

If you can show a form of suffering that does not involve change from one state to another (worse) state, you may have a form of suffering that is compatible with God. But I don't believe such a form is conceivable.

But all of this shouldn't occlude the fact that there is suffering in God. That suffering is precisely human suffering. God entered creation in Jesus Christ and suffered according to the human nature. This is true compassion, that he suffered alongside us the precise form of suffering that we endure. The most radical paradoxes of the Incarnation are for me this:

the uncreated was born
the immortal died
the impassible suffered

I'm with S. Thomas on this one.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

My view is that separating the Cross out as a single event which alone is 'salvific' actually violates the Biblical story of salvation.

Why not have the Cradle as the sign of our salvation?

For me the heart of 'atonement' is the principle of identification. God saves us by becoming one of us and one with us in Christ.

Thats the meaning of Christmas and the incarnation. Jesus is Immanuel; God with us.

Its the meaning of the Baptism of Jesus. Jesus identiifies himself with those he came to save.

Its the meaning of the Cry from the Cross -- 'My God, why have you forsaken me?'/ Jeus has so identified with sinful humanity that he feels in his own experience the alienating consequence of sin.

Its the meaning of Ascension. There is a Man in heaven and our humanity has been taken up into the life of God.

Nowhere is all this is there a 'necessity' for the shedding of blood. Salvation is what God has done for us in Christ and to identify ourselves with him by faith means we share in all that God achieved in Christ.

Oversimplified? Maybe.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
One thought re the (im)possibility of God changing/suffering, can one solve the biblical inconsistency by saying Malachi 3 shows God's nature cannot change, but that suffering/changing his mind is not 'change'? If I suffer compassionately for someone else, my nature has not changed. If I 'change my mind' (which is of course a figure of speech, infact my thinking develops), I am still me and have not altered my nature.
Ah, but you are not your nature, whereas God (according to classical theology) is. (Summa Theologica Ia, 3, 3. This question is probably the best answer to all the theopaschites in the thread, should they choose to trust the Angelic Doctor...) You have something apart from your own nature (a body) wherein change can exist. God, who is incorporeal, is beyond the realm of potential or accident: he is now what he always has been and always will be.

If you can show a form of suffering that does not involve change from one state to another (worse) state, you may have a form of suffering that is compatible with God. But I don't believe such a form is conceivable.

But all of this shouldn't occlude the fact that there is suffering in God. That suffering is precisely human suffering. God entered creation in Jesus Christ and suffered according to the human nature. This is true compassion, that he suffered alongside us the precise form of suffering that we endure. The most radical paradoxes of the Incarnation are for me this:

the uncreated was born
the immortal died
the impassible suffered

I'm with S. Thomas on this one.

But that doesn't hold up. Obviously God is not fixed-- he moves in (and, in many views, out) of history. He redeems. He heals. He acts. That all involves change. So when Mal. 3 talks of God as "unchanging" clearly it doesn't mean it in a literal, wooden way.

Your paradigm assumes that God's innate, unchanging nature is a state that is inconsistent w/ suffering. But God is love-- his innate, unchanging nature is one that is always seeking union with the beloved. That means experiencing suffering because we experience suffering. That is not contrary to God's innate, unchanging nature-- it is the ultimate expression of it (Phil. 2).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Isn't part of the problem with the Cross as Symbol for the church that it assumes God chose: (a) that Jesus should die, (2) that the cross was a good way to kill him, (3) that free will of the humans involved was suspended for the duration of the passion so that Jesus could get killed for God's Very Good Reason?

I don't see why any of that is necessary for the cross to be the church's symbol. (a) because saying "God chose for Jesus to die" is tantamount to saying that Jesus somehow didn't realize when he agreed to be incarnate that he was going to die, and would have refused had he known. Which rather makes a mockery of what St. Paul says about kenosis. (2) because there's no indication that crucifixion was necessary, only contingent, and it needn't be necessary to be a symbol of Christ's death. (3) because it's not necessary that Christ have been killed against the wills of the people who killed him for his death to be meaningful or salvific, or the means of his death to be the church's symbol.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would suppose if anyone's going to be influenced by Hellenism, it would be Orthodox theology.

And your suppositions count for shit. You could also suppose that if anyone's going to be on their guard against Hellenism, it would be the ancient Orthodox theologians. As they were, doubly.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obviously God is not fixed-- he moves in (and, in many views, out) of history. He redeems. He heals. He acts. That all involves change.

Sure, in the thing healed there is change. You might as well say that because a brick wall injures a person who runs into it, it must be changed.

[ 14. January 2013, 15:55: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What, a brick wall that is thinking the person that runs in to it?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Cliffdweller, please, I'm not attacking your point of view nor am I seeking to fling out accusations of anthropomorphism etc ...

The only things I've objected to on this thread so far is what I would see as a tendency towards sentimentality in some aspects of Wesleyan revivalism - whilst fully accepting that this particular tradition isn't alone in that.

I've also taken exception to the rather dismissive and cursory 'yep ... yep ...yep' comments of Kaplan Corday's which I've found irritating in the same way as I'd find a yapping dog irritating - 'yep ...yep ...yep ... yap ... yap ... yap'.

I've not attacked your open-theism at all. In fact, I'm quite intrigued by your exposition of these issues and interested in following your line of thought.

The anthropomorphism thing wasn't a dig at you nor at anyone else - all I was saying was that we have to anthropomorphise to some extent or other to even begin to get to grips with some of this stuff ... I'm thinking of Moses hidden in the cleft of the rock and seeing God's 'back' and so forth ...

I'm simply saying that human language and concepts are inadequate and that's why a degree of anthropomorphism is necessary.

I'm quite prepared to accept challenges against 'classic theology' and to consider issues of 'open theism' - the only point I'm making is that in our anthropomorphism we have to be careful ... otherwise we can begin to get an overly sentimental approach or else regard God as overly fluffy and cuddly on the one hand or else as a harsh and unyielding ogre on the other.

I wasn't having a 'go' at your ideas at all. I'm genuinely surprised at your reaction.

I'm with Shamwari in seeing the totality of the 'Christ event' as important rather than isolating particular aspects of it. That said, I think that both Mudfrog and Kaplan are right to highlight the emphasis on 'the cross' in the Pauline corpus and its part in our salvation. No cross without the resurrection, no resurrection without the cross.

As an old sentimental song we used to sing used to have it, 'If you don't bear a cross you can't wear a crown ...'

We do need a 'theologiae crucis' as well as a 'theologiae gloriae' - the two things go hand-in-hand, they are both two sides of the same coin.

I think we'd all agree on that - Mudfrog, Kaplan, Shamwari, Mousethief, whoever else has been posting on this thread.

The only differences are the extent to which we hold to a penal, substitutionary angle in all of this or the extent to which we believe that God the Father suffers in the process.

I've got an open mind. I'm not a Thomist - or at least not so far as I am aware and neither am I a Gnostic or an Adoptionist.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What, a brick wall that is thinking the person that runs in to it?

We're more real than that.

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But that doesn't hold up. Obviously God is not fixed-- he moves in (and, in many views, out) of history. He redeems. He heals. He acts. That all involves change. So when Mal. 3 talks of God as "unchanging" clearly it doesn't mean it in a literal, wooden way.

Change to whom? To the creation, not to the creator, so far as I can see. Our perception of sequential change (i.e. suffering) in God is due to our own limitations, not to God's nature.

quote:
Your paradigm assumes that God's innate, unchanging nature is a state that is inconsistent w/ suffering. But God is love-- his innate, unchanging nature is one that is always seeking union with the beloved. That means experiencing suffering because we experience suffering. That is not contrary to God's innate, unchanging nature-- it is the ultimate expression of it (Phil. 2).

Yes, the ultimate expression of God's essentially loving nature is the Incarnation, wherein God assumed human suffering to himself in the person of Jesus Christ. God suffers because we suffer: yes. I couldn't agree more. But the suffering is according to the human nature, not according to the divine nature.

Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?

If God is passible, mutable, temporal, etc., where's the scandal in the Incarnation?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What, MORE real than Him thinking us autonomous? So in Him we do NOT live and move and have our being?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Actually, I'm not doing a nur-nur-na-nur-nah thing here, 'I'm-telling-on-Mousethief' - but am I alone in finding Mousethief's challenge to Cliffdweller to be rather OTT and out of order?

'Your presuppositions count for shit.'

That's a bit strong.

It's not an unreasonable presupposition for anyone to make that Orthodoxy would be influenced by Hellenism - given where the Orthodox heartlands have traditionally been located and that Greek, rather than Latin, has been the lingua-franca for Orthodox discourse.

I'd have assumed the same at one time and it was only when I looked into it some more that I found that Orthodoxy is actually quite Semitic/Hebrew in tone rather than Hellenic - although I think it is fair to say that many of the Fathers were influenced by Platonic thought - but, as with all these things, it's not quite as simple as that.

In my experience, Orthodoxy is very earthy, very earthy, tactile and down-to-earth. That said, the overall impression I get in Orthodox worship is that the whole thing is a lot less anthropocentric than is often the case in popular forms of evangelicalism and revivalism - there's more there about God than there is about 'us'.

So, whilst I would agree with the broad thrust of MT's riposte, I don't think the tone of it is appropriate. Ok, that's for the Hosts and not for me to decide ...

But I'm trying to be fair here. I chelped at what I took to be Kaplan's dismissive and haughty tone, now I'm taking issue with Mousethief's.

People are perfectly at liberty to take issue with mine too.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[qb]I would suppose if anyone's going to be influenced by Hellenism, it would be Orthodox theology.
And your suppositions count for shit.

Which is pretty much what I said-- hence my honest question. Not sure why that poked the bear.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Cliffdweller, please, I'm not attacking your point of view nor am I seeking to fling out accusations of anthropomorphism etc ...

...I wasn't having a 'go' at your ideas at all. I'm genuinely surprised at your reaction.

I wasn't at all thinking you were attacking me or my pov-- did I sound defensive? You & I always challenge each other to think deeper and articulate our positions with greater clarity & consider new angles-- that's honestly all I saw as well. As you know, this is one of my pet topics I love to debate, so perhaps my passion or strongly held positions came across defensive-- my apologies!

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
....The only differences are the extent to which we hold to a penal, substitutionary angle in all of this or the extent to which we believe that God the Father suffers in the process.

I've got an open mind. I'm not a Thomist - or at least not so far as I am aware and neither am I a Gnostic or an Adoptionist.

Oh, yes, I know that. My comments on Gnosticism and Adoptionism were in response to another poster's question, and really apply to the argument in general and not anyone's position in particular. (Hey, as an Open Theist enthusiast I'm used to charges of "heresy" being flung about!) Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

Might be interesting to ask the question in a different way - what do we use symbols for? I'm not big on jewellery (sorry, no earrings) but I do have cufflinks in the shape of a fish with a cross as part of the art. Very nice they are to. So far one bloke who'se not a Christian recognised the symbolism and commented on it. If anyone ever asks, I'd use them as a visual aid to explain the Ichthus acrostic. If I wanted to use the cross symbol evangelistically, I'd go for a Russian Orthodox one with the slanted cross bar. Someone's more likely to ask me about that than a standard cross or one in a circle.

We used to be big on symbols because literacy was low. Now we're big on symbols for other reasons - we're in an icon-driven society. Since the UK is a post-Christian nation (can't speak for shipmates from elsewhere) I'd want to know if the cross is an appropriate symbol for Christianity in a post-Christian culture which we need to re-evangelise.

Help me out here Col Mudfrog - watcha reckon?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But that doesn't hold up. Obviously God is not fixed-- he moves in (and, in many views, out) of history. He redeems. He heals. He acts. That all involves change. So when Mal. 3 talks of God as "unchanging" clearly it doesn't mean it in a literal, wooden way.
Change to whom? To the creation, not to the creator, so far as I can see. Our perception of sequential change (i.e. suffering) in God is due to our own limitations, not to God's nature.

Again, this strikes me as the old "anthropomorphism" dodge. If we can't explain it, if it doesn't fit the paradigm, it must be an anthropomorphism. Again, obviously there's some anthropomorphisms in the Bible, but when we start seeing them everywhere-- and particularly when they mean you're turning the thrust of a passage completely on it's head-- I think you've gone overboard.

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:

[QUOTE]Your paradigm assumes that God's innate, unchanging nature is a state that is inconsistent w/ suffering. But God is love-- his innate, unchanging nature is one that is always seeking union with the beloved. That means experiencing suffering because we experience suffering. That is not contrary to God's innate, unchanging nature-- it is the ultimate expression of it (Phil. 2).
Yes, the ultimate expression of God's essentially loving nature is the Incarnation, wherein God assumed human suffering to himself in the person of Jesus Christ. God suffers because we suffer: yes. I couldn't agree more. But the suffering is according to the human nature, not according to the divine nature.

Again, stated as an a priori self-evident proposition, when it is anything but. It is a very speculative thesis, awaiting an argument. A single proof-texted verse doesn't do it.

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?

Pretty much. I believe God's innate nature does not change, and that his innate nature is to seek union with his beloved (us). Thus when we suffer, God suffers.

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

If God is passible, mutable, temporal, etc., where's the scandal in the Incarnation?

Precisely that. Read through this thread: 2000 years later and we're still scandalized by a God who enters into human suffering. But it's not an exception, it's the ultimate expression of it (Phil. 2). (fyi: "temporal" is a whole 'nother thread. A worthy one, but a whole 'nother one. We don't need to unpack the whole of open theism here!)

[ 14. January 2013, 16:43: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Mudfrog will respond better than I can, Truman White, but I suspect he'd say that we need the cross as a Christian symbol in a post-Christian culture because the apostle Paul emphasised the cross when engaging with a pre-Christian pagan culture.

If so, I would agree with him. The fact that the cross was an offence to the Jews and foolishness to Greeks didn't stop him from using it, as it were (although I'm not thinking of its use here in symbolic terms or in iconography and so on, which was clearly a later development - and one which I don't have an issue with, by the way).

If anything, the 'scandal' of the cross appears to have made the apostle Paul more willing to use it.

I s'pose the question I'd ask, is 'what would we put in its place?'

I wouldn't want to see a cross-less Christianity -nor would I want to see us adopting symbols willy-nilly just for the sake of it or because we thought that by doing so, in and of itself, we are somehow making the Gospel more 'relevant'.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

The only differences are the extent to which we hold to a penal, substitutionary angle in all of this or the extent to which we believe that God the Father suffers in the process.

Firstly, I haven't mentioned PSA at all! My point is that the death of Christ - the cross - is a sacrifice - he is the Lamb of God i.e. the sacrificial lamb required by Mosaic law. He was sacrificed and his blood spilt precisely because 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.

Where does the incarnation come into this?
He was 'born 'under the law (Torah) to redeem those living under the law.' In order to do that, he had to end the sacrificial law by being the final, perfect sacrifice - provided by God himself.

It's in Hebrews.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Might be interesting to ask the question in a different way - what do we use symbols for? I'm not big on jewellery (sorry, no earrings) but I do have cufflinks in the shape of a fish with a cross as part of the art. Very nice they are to. So far one bloke who'se not a Christian recognised the symbolism and commented on it. If anyone ever asks, I'd use them as a visual aid to explain the Ichthus acrostic. If I wanted to use the cross symbol evangelistically, I'd go for a Russian Orthodox one with the slanted cross bar. Someone's more likely to ask me about that than a standard cross or one in a circle.

We used to be big on symbols because literacy was low. Now we're big on symbols for other reasons - we're in an icon-driven society. Since the UK is a post-Christian nation (can't speak for shipmates from elsewhere) I'd want to know if the cross is an appropriate symbol for Christianity in a post-Christian culture which we need to re-evangelise.

Help me out here Col Mudfrog - watcha reckon?

rebranding very rarely works.

It's expemnsive and causes confusion.

If you were to tear down every cross from every steeple in the country and replace it with a fish, the hilarity this would cause would heap even more ridicule on the church than she already experiences.

A cross is fine. Everyone knows what the cross mean - my wife and I were given (and I kid you not) a two foot high brass crucifix as a wedding present by a non-religious aunt and uncle, 'because we are religious'.

Leave the cross - accepted, understood and 'liked' or not, it means 'church' to most people.

You see a fish on a building and you'll find people asking for fries as well [Biased]

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?

If God is passible, mutable, temporal, etc., where's the scandal in the Incarnation?

Can you provide a definition of incarnation that is not change from one state to another (worse, or better, or equally-good) state? Or would you say "God changes"?

I would say, "God does not change," because the ousia that the three persons of the Trinity share does not change. We're not talking about changing states, we're talking about changing essences. In the case of either incarnation or suffering, God does not change, although what God is doing (or even "feeling," to the extent that that means anything for God) changes.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Isn't part of the problem with the Cross as Symbol for the church that it assumes God chose: (a) that Jesus should die, (2) that the cross was a good way to kill him, (3) that free will of the humans involved was suspended for the duration of the passion so that Jesus could get killed for God's Very Good Reason?
I don't see why any of that is necessary for the cross to be the church's symbol. (a) because saying "God chose for Jesus to die" is tantamount to saying that Jesus somehow didn't realize when he agreed to be incarnate that he was going to die, and would have refused had he known. Which rather makes a mockery of what St. Paul says about kenosis. (2) because there's no indication that crucifixion was necessary, only contingent, and it needn't be necessary to be a symbol of Christ's death. (3) because it's not necessary that Christ have been killed against the wills of the people who killed him for his death to be meaningful or salvific, or the means of his death to be the church's symbol.

You post answers some things and furthers my understanding, but it also creates some more questions.

At what point did Jesus understand he was to die? The gospels make it clear as he started his ministry that he knew he was coming to the attention of the authorities with the lead up to the last passover (palm Sunday etc) making it doubly clear, but what about when he was a little boy, a teen, a 20 year old? I'm thinking of the impending doom narrative in the Garden of Gethsemane pervading his life. But I don't get that. I get a man ministering to people, healing and talking about repenting etc.

I also query the insertion of bits into the narrative that presage his death, after the fact. And so they could write so as to fulfil scripture.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?

If God is passible, mutable, temporal, etc., where's the scandal in the Incarnation?
Can you provide a definition of incarnation that is not change from one state to another (worse, or better, or equally-good) state? Or would you say "God changes"?

I would say, "God does not change," because the ousia that the three persons of the Trinity share does not change. We're not talking about changing states, we're talking about changing essences. In the case of either incarnation or suffering, God does not change, although what God is doing (or even "feeling," to the extent that that means anything for God) changes.

I think this unchanging essence bit is a red-herring, even a straw man.

Philippians 2, that famous 'kenotic' hymn (I do not accept the 'theory' of kenosis I'm afraid) is more about what God took on rather than about anything he may have removed.

The first phrase that impresses me is the one about being in the form of God.
The word 'being' from the Gk 'hyparchon' which means 'unchangeable essence.'
The word 'form' is the Gk 'morphe' which means 'essential form' as opposed to outward appearance.

Therefore, 'being in the form of God.' means that Jesus, essentially 'God' in his being and nature reomained so whehn his outward appearance changed and he became flesh.

The second important phrase is 'and took upon himself the form, of a servant.'
Again, notice the word form: 'morphe' - 'essential form'. Notice! He took upon himself a new, (from that moment on) 'essential form'. He changed his essence and added to his divine 'essence' the very essence of a servant.

He changed within himself.

But notice also, in contrast, this:

He was 'made in the likeness of a man'.

The word 'likeness' is Gk 'gignesthai' which means 'a changing phase'. His humanity was not a permanent, essential change.

'He was found 'in appearance as a man.'
'Appearance' is Gk 'schema' - changeable, temporary'

Thus, Jesus was essentially Lord God in form, but he changed his divine essence to become, in addition, a servant in form and essence.

His flesh was transitory - and now is glorified and is itself given a new, immortal and unchangeing form - thus he is now forever, since the incarnation and resurrection, essentially God and glorified man.

God can change. Even in essence.

[ 14. January 2013, 18:30: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Fair enough, you didn't mention PSA. I wasn't particularly suggesting that you had - although I took it as implied - rather I was listing some issues we might each have different views over when looking at the same things from different angles ...

But I take your point and it is well made.

Not sure I'm with you on the kenosis thing though.

Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on :

@Col. Mudfrog

I got your rank right? Not that it bothers you, just beng polite.

Now here's a thing. You wrote:

A cross is fine. Everyone knows what the cross mean - my wife and I were given (and I kid you not) a two foot high brass crucifix as a wedding present by a non-religious aunt and uncle, 'because we are religious'.

I remember a youth pastor telling me about a chat with some teenagers he was working with. No joke, they seriously asked "Was Jesus on a cross to keep the vampires away?"

Now I'm all for the cross as a symbol - it reminds us of Christ's genuine humanity, the reality of God's entering into human suffering and abandonment, and gives us some licence to talk about bridging the gap between heaven and earth. Best reason to keep is is the significance Jesus gave it himself - he wasn't just going to die, he was going to be 'raises up' and specifically crucified.

But like the pals of my youth worker, a familiar symbol can lose its meaning - plenty of non religious people where crosses without the first idea what it means. So yeah, let's keep explaining what it means and campaign for the right to wear it as a statement of faith. I'd also ask, are there other Christian symbols that will speak to our society and convey Christ's message?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'Your presuppositions count for shit.'

That's a bit strong.

C'mon Gamaliel, cut him some slack.

In the context of a thread in which haughty and dismissive people resort to single-syllable responses, mousethief's offence pales into venial insignificance.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

We would appreciate it, if you would all cool it a bit.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

This seems a contradiction mudfrog:

quote:
His humanity was not a permanent, essential change.
...
he is now forever, since the incarnation and resurrection, essentially God and glorified man.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

no prophet:

quote:
At what point did Jesus understand he was to die? The gospels make it clear as he started his ministry that he knew he was coming to the attention of the authorities with the lead up to the last passover (palm Sunday etc) making it doubly clear, but what about when he was a little boy, a teen, a 20 year old?

As you mention, as a human being, he probably came to understand death as we all mostly do. Even more closely in his day where people died easily of disease, accident, and violence. As the Eternal Word, I'm sure he knew what he was signing up for: if you are born, you die. And when he started his mission, aware of its divinity, and the forces of evil arrayed against it, the nature of his end likely became clearer and clearer.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

If the cap fits Kaplan ... [Biased]

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Change to whom? To the creation, not to the creator, so far as I can see. Our perception of sequential change (i.e. suffering) in God is due to our own limitations, not to God's nature.
Again, this strikes me as the old "anthropomorphism" dodge. If we can't explain it, if it doesn't fit the paradigm, it must be an anthropomorphism. Again, obviously there's some anthropomorphisms in the Bible, but when we start seeing them everywhere-- and particularly when they mean you're turning the thrust of a passage completely on it's head-- I think you've gone overboard.
I'm not quite sure why you think I'm using anthropomorphism as an argument. I'm not.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Your paradigm assumes that God's innate, unchanging nature is a state that is inconsistent w/ suffering. But God is love-- his innate, unchanging nature is one that is always seeking union with the beloved. That means experiencing suffering because we experience suffering. That is not contrary to God's innate, unchanging nature-- it is the ultimate expression of it (Phil. 2).
Yes, the ultimate expression of God's essentially loving nature is the Incarnation, wherein God assumed human suffering to himself in the person of Jesus Christ. God suffers because we suffer: yes. I couldn't agree more. But the suffering is according to the human nature, not according to the divine nature.
Again, stated as an a priori self-evident proposition, when it is anything but. It is a very speculative thesis, awaiting an argument. A single proof-texted verse doesn't do it.

No, stated as an obvious derivation from standard, orthodox Chalcedonian Christology.

What I was attempting to do was to show that the impassibility of God does not exclude the (for me) more radical option of God's suffering in the person of Jesus Christ.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?
Pretty much. I believe God's innate nature does not change, and that his innate nature is to seek union with his beloved (us). Thus when we suffer, God suffers.

So you believe there is something to God other than God's nature?

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

If God is passible, mutable, temporal, etc., where's the scandal in the Incarnation?
Precisely that. Read through this thread: 2000 years later and we're still scandalized by a God who enters into human suffering. But it's not an exception, it's the ultimate expression of it (Phil. 2). (fyi: "temporal" is a whole 'nother thread. A worthy one, but a whole 'nother one. We don't need to unpack the whole of open theism here!)

On the contrary, I think it's all bound up together. I'm arguing from a position that says that the classical pagan philosophers had a point and that Thomas Aquinas was essentially correct; you're arguing from a position that says they are irrelevant and he is essentially wrong. The whole of Thomas' argument about the divine nature is a unity. You can't pick and choose elements and argue as if they weren't relevant to each other. Ultimately, we're bound to argue past each other because our initial and methodological assumptions are poles apart. I'm an Anglican neo-Thomist, while you're an open theist: those positions are not reconcilable.

And to the other point, where's the scandal in saying "God, who suffers all the time, suffered a bit more in a slightly different way"?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
no prophet:
quote:
At what point did Jesus understand he was to die? The gospels make it clear as he started his ministry that he knew he was coming to the attention of the authorities with the lead up to the last passover (palm Sunday etc) making it doubly clear, but what about when he was a little boy, a teen, a 20 year old?
As you mention, as a human being, he probably came to understand death as we all mostly do. Even more closely in his day where people died easily of disease, accident, and violence. As the Eternal Word, I'm sure he knew what he was signing up for: if you are born, you die. And when he started his mission, aware of its divinity, and the forces of evil arrayed against it, the nature of his end likely became clearer and clearer.

This takes me right back to the theology and symbolism of the cross (or stones etc if that had been the method of execution). The symbolism of the cross underscores the idea that God sent Jesus into the world to be killed. Not just to die of some expectable cause, but to be sacrificially, ritually, killed.

I realize my comments can be taken as adoptionist, or some other historical heresy, but let me venture further into this territory. It is as if, within the arguments as presented that the death of Jesus was foreordained. That it was going to happen at some point, in some way, and with violence, not of natural causes.

Let me digress slightly. Isaac would have calmly allowed Abraham to tie him up and install him on the kindling and twigs really to light, and even more, gathered up the burnables and sharpened the knife for his own expected throat slitting? Yet God stopped it, or perhaps that's a gloss, and Abraham stopped it.

Thus, maybe the cross was a cosmic accident, and the developed theology we discuss today is the make-do way of repairing a bad situation. The cross thus not required and probably avoidable. The cross used subsequently to tie the Jesus story to the ancient and thus respected beliefs of the Jews at the time.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I don't have a problem with a cross as a physical symbol (although one of many) for Christianity or the Church. I think it's likely that Paul meant his references to the cross to be taken literally. Crucifixion was a powerful part of his culture, and it's likely that the message of transforming the very real death associated with the cross into something radically counter-cultural and salvific was of huge significance to Paul's message.

Like it or not, Paul and the gospels are what have shaped the church. And whether it took 40 years or 400 for one symbol to rise above the others in universal acceptability, the cross - as a physical representation and encapsulation of the basic Christian message - has ticked all the boxes.

Interestingly, even before he himself went to the cross to die, Jesus was urging his followers to take up their cross, if they wished to be his disciples. It's not the only flavour on the menu, true, but the associations that Christ himself seems to have attached to it are more than merely accidental, imo.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?
Pretty much. I believe God's innate nature does not change, and that his innate nature is to seek union with his beloved (us). Thus when we suffer, God suffers.
So you believe there is something to God other than God's nature?

Huh? Not following.

I believe God's essential, innate nature is to seek union with the beloved, something that entails suffering with us. I don't think that is outside of God's nature, but intrinsic, almost defining of it.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Ultimately, we're bound to argue past each other because our initial and methodological assumptions are poles apart. I'm an Anglican neo-Thomist, while you're an open theist: those positions are not reconcilable.

Agreed. My goal here has been mainly to point out (not so much to you, but to some others) that there is more than one perspective here, none of which are "provable" (as claimed upthread) or self-evident.

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

And to the other point, where's the scandal in saying "God, who suffers all the time, suffered a bit more in a slightly different way"?

Again, I think the notion of a God who suffers has always been "scandalous". Jesus as the ultimate, final, and most visible representation of that suffering is and was scandalous.

Indeed, it would seem to undermine your "immutability" argument to suggest otherwise. In the incarnation, God is acting entirely in character. If that were not the case, he would not be "immutable".

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

quote:
This reveals a common mistake that is little more than adoptionism - that God chose a man and made him suffer.

Whilst we do not believe that the Father suffered on the cross as the sacrifice, we do believe that God (the Father) was in Christ and therefore suffered with him.

Jesus suffered as God not because of God.

The most important reason that The Cross, (and in particular a crucifix showing Christ on the cross), is the main symbol of The Christian Church is because it is the most comprehensive visible demonstration of the central truth of Christianity. Namely, it shows both the Glorious Grace and unlimited forgiveness of God to undeserving mankind. It also visually demonstrates the extreme depravity that mankind is capable of, that of attempting to murder God for no other reason than to ‘shut him up’, and render him impotent. John 11:50; 18:14

It is therefore the ultimate expression of the unlimited extent of God’s forgiveness of sin and the extremity of his desire for reconciliation. Rom.5:8

“That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us, (his followers), the message of reconciliation”. 2 Cor. 5:19

It also is the most graphic expression of the meaning of The Gospel. i.e. That we, (who believe that God in Christ has forgiven our sins), should go into a world that either does not know, or has rejected this truth. It is our task to convince those who do not know, of their salvation, and to convince those, (who know, but are now rejecting God’s reconciliation), of judgment. The Gospel being a two edged sword which cuts both ways. Prov.5:4; Heb.4:12; Rev.1:16

Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?
Pretty much. I believe God's innate nature does not change, and that his innate nature is to seek union with his beloved (us). Thus when we suffer, God suffers.
So you believe there is something to God other than God's nature?
Huh? Not following.

I believe God's essential, innate nature is to seek union with the beloved, something that entails suffering with us. I don't think that is outside of God's nature, but intrinsic, almost defining of it.

Hmm, I think I'm probably not quite getting your idea of what suffering is.

My position would be that suffering is change from one state to another. If God's nature does not change (as you suggest), then there must be some other "bit" of God where the change takes place. I would argue, following S. Thomas, that God is his essence: there is nothing else.

I'm probably misunderstanding your point somewhere in this: I'd be interested to know where.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

And to the other point, where's the scandal in saying "God, who suffers all the time, suffered a bit more in a slightly different way"?
Again, I think the notion of a God who suffers has always been "scandalous". Jesus as the ultimate, final, and most visible representation of that suffering is and was scandalous.

Indeed, it would seem to undermine your "immutability" argument to suggest otherwise. In the incarnation, God is acting entirely in character. If that were not the case, he would not be "immutable".

Oh, I fully accept that the Incarnation stands in contradiction to the divine attributes of impassibility, immutabiity, eternity, immortality, etc. This is why it is an unfathomable paradox. (My principal objection to much theology—including open theism—is that it attempts to iron out the paradoxes, rather than revelling in them.)

The one attribute that it does not iron out is love, which I consider the supreme attribute of God.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:.

I believe God's essential, innate nature is to seek union with the beloved, something that entails suffering with us. I don't think that is outside of God's nature, but intrinsic, almost defining of it.
Hmm, I think I'm probably not quite getting your idea of what suffering is.

My position would be that suffering is change from one state to another. If God's nature does not change (as you suggest), then there must be some other "bit" of God where the change takes place. I would argue, following S. Thomas, that God is his essence: there is nothing else.

This is probably another example of the "talking past each other" you mentioned before, but I'll take a stab at it.

I don't think the "change" entailed in suffering is a change of God's essential nature. It is simply a change of orientation-- same as the "change" involved in saying "God loves Billy" and "God loves Susan". There's a change of orientation, of expression. But since God has loved both Billy and Susan all along, and because God IS love, there really is no change.

So again, God's basic nature is to seek union with the beloved. That entails all sorts of things, including suffering. All of those things are entirely consistent with God's nature, which is love.

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
[QUOTE]Oh, I fully accept that the Incarnation stands in contradiction to the divine attributes of impassibility, immutabiity, eternity, immortality, etc. This is why it is an unfathomable paradox. (My principal objection to much theology—including open theism—is that it attempts to iron out the paradoxes, rather than revelling in them.)

Agreed. The one thing I like about Open Theism is that at least it is honest about that-- I don't see that in too many other systematic theologies, with the exception of Orthodox theology (if experience serves, someone may chime in, half tongue in cheek, to suggest that Orthodox theology is not "systematic". But it's not gonna be me after the last slapdown).

quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
[QUOTE] The one attribute that it does not iron out is love, which I consider the supreme attribute of God.

Here Open Theists would agree with you.

[ 14. January 2013, 22:01: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
This seems a contradiction mudfrog:

quote:
His humanity was not a permanent, essential change.
...
he is now forever, since the incarnation and resurrection, essentially God and glorified man.

Not really, he was raised by the Father and it was that glorification that made his humanity divine.

Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :

The discussion of symbols left behind for now I see.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

No, not really. The symbol is meant to convey or at least represent the central truth - that of atonement. Within that concept is the question of suffering and whether God can indeed suffer.

If suffering is alien to god then the cross itself becomes not just unnecessary, but even irrelevant, unwarranted and therefore no longer central.

Then the symbol would not be valid or an accurate representation of the faith.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Nadia Eweida has won her case at the ECHR

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Nadia Eweida has won her case at the ECHR

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, not really. The symbol is meant to convey or at least represent the central truth - that of atonement. Within that concept is the question of suffering and whether God can indeed suffer.

If suffering is alien to god then the cross itself becomes not just unnecessary, but even irrelevant, unwarranted and therefore no longer central.

Then the symbol would not be valid or an accurate representation of the faith.

The "central truth of atonement" is neither central nor necessarily true for some of us. The question Peter Abelard asked more than 10 centuries ago is "why is it that we do not know that the loving God has already saved all of us", understanding that God is infinite in love, not interested in damning anyone and won't. Jesus' mission was not to die - that's what we did to him, but to show God's love to us. God loves us even though we essentially kill him everyday. There's no atonement involved, only love, even though Bernard, Aquinas and others advanced the secular and political power of the church by building up the atonement ideas.

The symbol for the church? if not the cross, then what? The cross has become the brandname for Christianity. It is time to rebrand it toward love and away from a torturous death device.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I agree that a plain cross is a clear symbol for buildings. As far as jewellery is concerned, I rather prefer a heart, as the symbol of Love. But if this is too vague (Eros as well as Agape), then how about the triple symbols of Faith, Hope and Love - the Cross, the Heart and the Anchor?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The symbol is meant to convey or at least represent the central truth - that of atonement.

I don't think that is the only way to look at it. At least the Protestant cross is typically not a crucifix -- it is empty. It is intended to call to mind the resurrection -- Christ's triumph over death -- even more than the death itself. Or so ISTM.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I've always found that bizarre - that evangelicals stress the crucifixion as being their faith emphasis yet have an empty cross (if they have one at all) whereas Catholics, who arguably place more focus on the resurrection, have Christ still hanging there typically.

Without wishing to derail this thread or shunt it off into a tangential siding, does anyone have any ideas why this might be so?

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

I agree, Matthew, that's why I asked Mudfrog why he didn't advocate the crucifix, given his theological position. He has yet to reply to that point. The problem, I suspect, is that the Roman Catholics got there first!

Posted by Alaric the Goth (# 511) on :

I think it's two things. One, as said above by tclune, is that the very emptiness symbolises that it is done, finished, and He went through that terrible death as an historical fact and was taken down off the Cross and laid in the tomb: our sins were over and done with in their effect when His life ended.

The other thing is probably to do with graven images: most evangelicals don't like a statue of Jesus (or Mary) in their churches and a round-the neck crucifix is a smaller version of something we generally don't want in our buildings!

Are Catholics in fact more focused on the Resurrection? The status of the bread and wine in the Mass, and its importance/frequency suggests to me that they focus more on His death/sacrifice, seeing the Mass as being the priest making a 'sacrifice'.

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

I don't know; I've rarely heard an evangelical talk much about the resurrection but plenty about the crucifixion.

Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :

I was raised in strict Christian sect - like Baptists but More So ! And all tangible symbols including crosses, altars, pictures etc were Out, and as for ritual - what dat !

Texts of Scripture (I wrote Tests first off !) alone could be employed. There was a verse of scripture nicely painted with a slight border of flowers and leaves, on a board on the wall behind the preaching platform. Nofurther would they go !

Rome and all thing Romish like the Anglians and Methodists were viewed with alarm - and more !

Although having discovered other expressions and of Christianity and embraced them, I still find it hard to view crosses etc as essential or vital. Helpful to many - yes of course.

The communin service de rigeur sundays was really pared down like a Good Friday service and ''the cross'' was central, but after that for all the other hours of the week, the resurrection was The Thing ! And it's largely beyond depiction in its essence.

Then there's the principle of 'reserve in communicating religious truth.'

Pearls, swine and all that...

Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :

In other news three lose their cases at ECHR

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Nadia Eweida has won her case at the ECHR

http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-115881#{"itemid":["001-115881"]}

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Brethren, perchance?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I agree, Matthew, that's why I asked Mudfrog why he didn't advocate the crucifix, given his theological position. He has yet to reply to that point. The problem, I suspect, is that the Roman Catholics got there first!

Simply because the cross doesn't need to be occupied for it to be effectual - in fact, it (and the tomb) must be empty in order for the death to have any meaning whatever.

I do not agree that we pay less attention to the resurrection that the RCs - that's just silly!
What grounds do you have for such thing?

- I have been criticised for always including a resurrection hymn at the end of our ecumenical Good Friday open air service, that's how much we play down the resurrection!

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Good for you but news to me

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I don't know; I've rarely heard an evangelical talk much about the resurrection but plenty about the crucifixion.

We're always going on about it [Smile]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

See above [Smile]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

See also the Steve Chalke kerfuffle!

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

Steve Chalke is not as indicative of evo opinion as he used to be... [Biased]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

From our song book:

Christ is alive, let Christians sing.
Christ the Lord is risen today!
I know that my redeemer lives!
Let us rejoice the fight is won,
Look ye saints the sight is glorious
Up from the grave he arose!
O joyful sound, O glorious hour!
The strife is o'er, the battle done
Thine be the glory
This joyful eastertide, away with sin and sorrow
Welcome happy morning, age to age shall say...
Crown him with many crowns
I serve a risen saviour

etc, etc, etc

And that doesn't include the many modern songs and choruses we sing!

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Steve Chalke is not as indicative of evo opinion as he used to be...

Indeed

He featured in an essay I wrote. Silly man.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I once heard an Orthodox sermon about the way the RCs tend to have a figure of Christ on their crucifixes and Protestants don't ...

You won't be surprised to hear that the priest thought that both emphases were true at one and the same time and that the falling-out-with-one-another over it was rather silly ... he also felt that the Orthodox view (of course) was the better way as it holds both the cross and resurrection together without over-emphasising one over against the other.

Whether he's right in that respect, I don't know, but I would have thought that any balanced view in any of our respective traditions would equally emphasise both.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

In fact, one criticism I've heard about evangelicals is that we are too much in a hurry to skip from Palm Sunday to Easter Sunday without taking enough time to pause on Good Friday.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
There's no atonement involved, only love...

You seem to have deciuded to unilaterally redefine the word "atonement" to mean "a strawman version of the idea of penal substituionary atonement which some catholics and theological liberals commonly accuse evangelicals of holding".

The word "atonement" means restored unity, reconciliation, making many one. In this context restored unity between us and God, which is exactl;y what God's love and free grace makes available to us. The details of how God does it can safely be left up to God.

[ 15. January 2013, 15:33: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Are you expecting us to accept that your essay was any less silly than Steve Chalke is, Mudfrog?

[Razz]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think we've been this way before on other threads, Mudfrog - whilst commending you on your Easter emphasis, my experience of evangelicalism has been the reverse. I've even known Baptist ministers in Christmas sermons fast-forwarding right through the Nativity Story and 33 years including three action-packed years of ministry and teaching to '... a hill outside Jerusalem, a place of execution, three condemned men, each hanging from a cross ...'

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Are you expecting us to accept that your essay was any less silly than Steve Chalke is, Mudfrog?

Well I hope it was a little more honest than his argument and a little less full of sarcasm and 'smart' comments. It was certainly more balanced - and yes, I did give him credit for the points he made where I agreed with him.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I think we've been this way before on other threads, Mudfrog - whilst commending you on your Easter emphasis, my experience of evangelicalism has been the reverse. I've even known Baptist ministers in Christmas sermons fast-forwarding right through the Nativity Story and 33 years including three action-packed years of ministry and teaching to '... a hill outside Jerusalem, a place of execution, three condemned men, each hanging from a cross ...'

Hmmm, I wonder if you actually mean "ONE Baptist minister in ONE Christmas sermon fast-forwarding right through the Nativity Story..."

How easy it is for us to want to make our point so strongly that we exaggerate an incident to make one example become the representative of what we just 'know' happens universally!

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

To be fair to the evangelical contingent (at least in my own experience and perception of it) the cross that Christ was crucified on is seen as much as a symbol of victory as the open tomb - because it was through the cross that the resurrection happened.

So the resurrection - in terms of an empty tomb, a specific moment in time with grave clothes laid to one side, Mary's witness etc - is all inextricably tied in to the meaning of the cross; which becomes a symbol for the whole story. So to certain kinds of evangelicalism it isn't possible to look at the cross, or talk of the cross or consider the cross without the resurrection getting in there, too.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I've always found that bizarre - that evangelicals stress the crucifixion as being their faith emphasis yet have an empty cross (if they have one at all) whereas Catholics, who arguably place more focus on the resurrection, have Christ still hanging there typically.

Without wishing to derail this thread or shunt it off into a tangential siding, does anyone have any ideas why this might be so?

I am pretty sure that this was originally because of a concern to avoid graven images. I think many evangelicals would be less doctrinally twitchy about this these days, but the tradition of "no crucifixes" has become established.

And there is still a significant contingent who would hold to the traditional Reformed position - images of Jesus are against the second commandment. J.I.Packer, for example, takes this line in his (reasonably)-famous-(in-evangelical-circles) book "Knowing God".

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
And there is still a significant contingent who would hold to the traditional Reformed position - images of Jesus are against the second commandment. J.I.Packer, for example, takes this line in his (reasonably)-famous-(in-evangelical-circles) book "Knowing God".

Christians in general are amusingly inconsistent about which bits of the Old Testament they think apply to them, and which don't.

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
And there is still a significant contingent who would hold to the traditional Reformed position - images of Jesus are against the second commandment. J.I.Packer, for example, takes this line in his (reasonably)-famous-(in-evangelical-circles) book "Knowing God".
Christians in general are amusingly inconsistent about which bits of the Old Testament they think apply to them, and which don't.

Indeed they are.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Bit of a tu quoque there? Bad form. Particularly when I didn't exclude myself.

[ 15. January 2013, 17:56: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Nadia Eweida has won her case at the ECHR

I'm also pleased about that because it now seems less prejudiced against Christians, even though e don't all wear crosses.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
And there is still a significant contingent who would hold to the traditional Reformed position - images of Jesus are against the second commandment. J.I.Packer, for example, takes this line in his (reasonably)-famous-(in-evangelical-circles) book "Knowing God".
Christians in general are amusingly inconsistent about which bits of the Old Testament they think apply to them, and which don't.

I know I am [Big Grin]

!

But then I don't think the Bible - Old and New Testaments both - is consistent itself in any way which makes it possible to assume 'it' can apply to everyone in the same way all the time.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I tease Mudfrog, you should know me by now ...

On a more serious point, yes, I concede that I am stretching my point a bit but I can actually think of more examples than this bloke in South Wales.

I wasn't accusing your strand/brand of evangelicalism of putting less focus on the resurrection but in some quarters it really does seem like a bolt-on extra rather than an intrinsic part of the whole.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I notice on Catholic bracelets (for children) that it is common to have the crucifix paired with an image of the Virgin Mary. And also common for children to have necklaces of a saint eg. Francis, Christopher, rather than a cross.

As far as statues are concerned, it is common to see Mary with an adult Christ (pieta) as well as the more widespread Mother and Child image.

Interestingly, when looking around CofE churches, I see - in the stained glass and roof decorations - far more angels than crosses. One could be forgiven for thinking that an angel is the most prevalent figure in Christianity. It is similarly popular in New Age merchandise.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
I notice on Catholic bracelets (for children) that it is common to have the crucifix paired with an image of the Virgin Mary. And also common for children to have necklaces of a saint eg. Francis, Christopher, rather than a cross.

As far as statues are concerned, it is common to see Mary with an adult Christ (pieta) as well as the more widespread Mother and Child image.

Interestingly, when looking around CofE churches, I see - in the stained glass and roof decorations - far more angels than crosses. One could be forgiven for thinking that an angel is the most prevalent figure in Christianity. It is similarly popular in New Age merchandise.

That is interesting and accurate, I think. In my own church we have adult, resurrected Jesus in the stained glass with angels, the BVM, apostles etc. For statues we have a Sacred Heart of Jesus, Our Lady of Wisdom, an Our Lady of Perpetual Help (I think - still learning the artistic representations of the various titles of Our Lady) and an Our Lady of Walsingham in the Lady Chapel - so very Marian I suppose. But we're Holy Trinity so we don't have a patron saint to have statuary/icons of beyond an icon of Rublev's Trinity.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Mudfrog quote

Originally posted by Kwesi:
I agree, Matthew, that's why I asked Mudfrog why he didn't advocate the crucifix, given his theological position. He has yet to reply to that point. The problem, I suspect, is that the Roman Catholics got there first!

Mudfrog: Simply because the cross doesn't need to be occupied for it to be effectual - in fact, it (and the tomb) must be empty in order for the death to have any meaning whatever.

I do not agree that we pay less attention to the resurrection that the RCs - that's just silly!
What grounds do you have for such thing?

- I have been criticised for always including a resurrection hymn at the end of our ecumenical Good Friday open air service, that's how much we play down the resurrection!

My point, Mudfrog, is that for penal substitutionists, of which, unless I'm mistaken, you are one, the death of Christ is a sacrifice, the shedding of blood, which is demanded by God as the price of atonement for sin. That dead body on the cross is what it's all about, the whole purpose of the incarnation. It satisfies the honour of an offended God. That is why I suggested that the crucifix rather than an empty cross might be the expected preference of those who hold the PSA position. It would symbolise their atonement theology and mark it off from those theological positions with which they disagreed. That Protestant PSAers do not, I was suggesting, was less to do with their atonement theology than their distaste for the adoption of a Roman Catholic icon.
As to your inclusion of a resurrection hymn on Good Friday, I guess I would want to know why you do so, given that the sacrifice is what it's all about from your viewpoint. I think you will find that PSA ers do have problems in attaching significance to the resurrection beyond it being a formal demonstration that the job had, indeed, been done on the Friday.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
The question Peter Abelard asked more than 10 centuries ago is "why is it that we do not know that the loving God has already saved all of us", understanding that God is infinite in love, not interested in damning anyone and won't. Jesus' mission was not to die - that's what we did to him, but to show God's love to us.

The late Leon Morris made a number of points critiquing Abelard's soteriology.

He drew an analogy with someone who jumps into a stream to show his love for me while I am sitting on the bank and in no danger of drowning.

If sinners were already safe, and Jesus' death did nothing to help them, there was no earthly point to it.

quote:
There's no atonement involved, only love, even though Bernard, Aquinas and others advanced the secular and political power of the church by building up the atonement ideas.

Bernard and Aquinas's view of church-state relations might well have been questionable, but to suggest that their (or anyone else's) atonement theology can be simply explained away by political expediency is unbelievably trivial and unhistorical.

[ 15. January 2013, 23:50: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
I was raised in strict Christian sect - like Baptists but More So ! And all tangible symbols including crosses, altars, pictures etc were Out

I can remember that attitude, IC.

Today, in the Brethren churches I know, crosses are quite common, but they invariably consist of just two rough pieces of timber, and are displayed on particular occasions. such as Easter.

They are never stylised, or incorporated permanently into the architecture or decor, both of which tend to remain resolutely non-ecclesiastical.

The main decoration in our church is banners, which fluctuate wildly in quality.

[ 16. January 2013, 00:00: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The late Leon Morris made a number of points critiquing Abelard's soteriology.

And the church at the time censored him. He died very shortly thereafter.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

He drew an analogy with someone who jumps into a stream to show his love for me while I am sitting on the bank and in no danger of drowning.

I understand the feeling, but the Prodigal Son story is biblical, however much the undeserving son should have been condemned by his father on his return.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If sinners were already safe, and Jesus' death did nothing to help them, there was no earthly point to it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Today, in the Brethren churches I know, crosses are quite common, but they invariably consist of just two rough pieces of timber, and are displayed on particular occasions. such as Easter.

That's inept. The cross is the symbol Good Friday, not Easter.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:

My point, Mudfrog, is that for penal substitutionists, of which, unless I'm mistaken, you are one, the death of Christ is a sacrifice, the shedding of blood, which is demanded by God as the price of atonement for sin. That dead body on the cross is what it's all about, the whole purpose of the incarnation. It satisfies the honour of an offended God. That is why I suggested that the crucifix rather than an empty cross might be the expected preference of those who hold the PSA position. It would symbolise their atonement theology and mark it off from those theological positions with which they disagreed. That Protestant PSAers do not, I was suggesting, was less to do with their atonement theology than their distaste for the adoption of a Roman Catholic icon.
As to your inclusion of a resurrection hymn on Good Friday, I guess I would want to know why you do so, given that the sacrifice is what it's all about from your viewpoint. I think you will find that PSA ers do have problems in attaching significance to the resurrection beyond it being a formal demonstration that the job had, indeed, been done on the Friday.

Let me answer this almost phrase by phrase:

quote:
My point, Mudfrog, is that for penal substitutionists, of which, unless I'm mistaken, you are one,

I also believe and rejoice in the metaphors of Christus Victor, satisfaction, recapitulation, moral example, etc, etc. "PSA-ers" like me, I think you'll find, do not reject ANY of the atonement metaphors (no longer, of course, called 'theories. Why would we reject any of them, since they all have truth and foundation in Scripture?

quote:
for penal substitutionists ... the death of Christ is a sacrifice... It satisfies the honour of an offended God

Er, I think you've conflated three whole atonement metaphors into one here. Sacrifice and satisfaction are quite happy to stand alone without having to be penal substitution, I believe.

quote:
the crucifix rather than an empty cross might be the expected preference of those who hold the PSA position. It would symbolise their atonement theology

Why specifically? Did Jesus not die then, under the theology of Christus victor, ransom, recapitulation and moral influence? Is death only required by PSA?

quote:
their distaste for the adoption of a Roman Catholic icon

No, I repeat again, the empty cross is a witness that Jesus, though crucified for us, is no longer dead. It's use does not suppose or affirm any 'distaste' for a supposedly RC icon.

quote:
As to your inclusion of a resurrection hymn on Good Friday, I guess I would want to know why you do so, given that the sacrifice is what it's all about from your viewpoint.

#

Simply because the open air service is an act of witness to the many people in the city centre who are doing their shopping on Good Friday. It's an ecumenical service attended and having contributions from Methodists, Anglicans Catholics, Salvationists, Black Pentecostals and White charismatics. We don't want people to hear the story that Jesus died and then for us all to disappear leaving the impression that that's where the story ends. The final hymn reminds people that Jesus did rise again and that Easter Sunday, just 2 days away, is a day of great joy and celebration - please go to church and find out for yourself!

quote:
the resurrection (is) a formal demonstration that the job had, indeed, been done on the Friday

Well that is part of the truth - it's a vindication of Jesus by the Father; but it is so much more! What a day of joy and victory over death, of the power of God, of the living Saviour, of the power of God to save and heal and restore. It's a positive and glorious day and you will find ALL Christians, including those who ascribe to PSA, 'out of their heads with praise' on that day for the 'Risen Conquering Son!

I think the comments about our lack in the 'resurrection department' are based on some sort of prejudicial misunderstanding. I don't recognise it all!

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

Kwesi , usually when it's a "picture" of Jesus dead or still alive on the cross, the picture has a bit of cloth, not showing his whole personality. That's generally "respect" for Jesus.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Today, in the Brethren churches I know, crosses are quite common, but they invariably consist of just two rough pieces of timber, and are displayed on particular occasions. such as Easter.
That's inept. The cross is the symbol Good Friday, not Easter.

I was using the term Easter in its broad, general sense of the period from Good Friday (or even Passion Sunday) to Easter, as so many Christians are lamentably wont to do.

Your insistence on restricting it to the Sunday commemorating the Resurrection is, of course, quite correct.

Very ept of you.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Today, in the Brethren churches I know, crosses are quite common, but they invariably consist of just two rough pieces of timber, and are displayed on particular occasions. such as Easter.
That's inept. The cross is the symbol Good Friday, not Easter.

I was using the term Easter in the broad, general sense in which a lamentably large proportion of Christians are prone to use it, as a reference to the period from Good Friday (or even Passion Sunday) to Easter.

You are, of course, quite correct to restrict it to the Sunday commemorating the Resurrection.

How very ept of you.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Mudfrog, why do people who happen to disagree with you or have a slightly different experience to yours have to be 'prejudiced'?

You've accused me of that in relation to using one example from one Baptist minister.

I could, if I wanted, accuse you of the same thing in relation to Muslims based on a comment on another thread resulting from an unfortunate encounter you had with three strident Muslims ...

[Roll Eyes]

To clarify my own position on this particular issue we're discussing here:

- Yes, I agree that some non-evangelicals can over-react when faced by the emphasis of SOME evangelicals and conclude that the evangelical movement as a whole downplays the resurrection.

- I, personally, don't think that this is true right across the board and I have specifically said that in relation to your own brand/strand of evangelicalism.

- That said, there is no smoke without fire and I believe that there is an over emphasis on some aspects of the atonement in some evangelical circles - that might equally be matched by equal and opposite imbalances found in other traditions.

Is that better?

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Apologies for double post.

The system was screwing with me.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The late Leon Morris made a number of points critiquing Abelard's soteriology.
And the church at the time censored him. He died very shortly thereafter.

His ideas survived, however, and have never been incorporated into any orthodox Christian tradition, creed or confession, because he was wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

He drew an analogy with someone who jumps into a stream to show his love for me while I am sitting on the bank and in no danger of drowning.

I understand the feeling, but the Prodigal Son story is biblical, however much the undeserving son should have been condemned by his father on his return.

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
If sinners were already safe, and Jesus' death did nothing to help them, there was no earthly point to it.

And if they are not, then I will personally hold the nails when we crucify Jesus the second time. After I beat on him. Because if this is the deal, that atonement as you describe is the deal, he deserves it. Because according to some of the opinions on the thread that's as close as we can come to killing God. And I would rather be somewhere far away from him, like in hell, if he is like as you say.

[/QB][/QUOTE]

Parables are not exercises in systematic theology.

The Prodigal Son makes the general point that God is loving, forgiving and gracious - it has nothing to say about the details of soteriology.

Every single orthodox, credal Christian tradition, without necessarily insisting on a tight theology of Original Sin or PSA, nonetheless teaches that human beings have a problem in their relationship with God, and that Christ's death in some way deals with that problem.

Your florid outburst of purple prose is therefore directed not against some imagined spurious version of the faith, but against Christianity per se.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Kaplan, I was under the impression that most small-o orthodox commentators on this issue would concede that there was 'something' in Abelard's position but it didn't represent the full picture ... John Stott for instance, who defends PSA more adroitly than many, I think, in his book 'The Cross of Christ', certainly gives Abelard some kudos alongside other views of the atonement - whilst concluding that his views don't take full account of the scriptural record and so on ...

I'd have thought it would be perfectly compatible with Christian orthodoxy to entertain a measure of Abelardian beliefs, as it were, whilst taking due cognisance of the bigger picture and other aspects of the atonement that his treatment leaves unaccounted for.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Your florid outburst of purple prose is therefore directed not against some imagined spurious version of the faith, but against Christianity per se.

No it's directed, only your narrow and cruel version of it. I spent decades of my life sorting out terrible ideas of God being a mean bastard from the God of love. I know what this sort of theology leads to, having generations of Brethren in one side of the family tree. Not allowing your dismissive tone to go unchallenged.

The cross has been a political tool since Constantine decorated a sword and slaughtered at the Milvian bridge, after which Christians damned people to hell and sent them there by killing them on earth first. If God damns people like your theology insists, I want to be damned with them. We love those who do not deserve to be loved.

If the prodigal son story is not designed to demonstrate something about God's nature, why is it recorded?

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
The discussion of symbols left behind for now I see.

Which is a shame really. I was rewatching Dogma last night and it prodded my mind to think about this topic again... what would we, as an entire Universal Church (all denominations - which yes probably makes the answer really difficult to come to) have as a symbol if we 'did away' with the Cross as our predominanat symbol?

I appreciate the chat on PSA that's been going on, it's all rather interesting i nthe main, but as I say I was prompted to thinking about the original path of this thread on symbols and am therefore seeking some answers from peeps...

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

The Tau?

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
The Tau?

What's so special about a Greek letter?

Did you infact mean Tao?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Where I live the Tau is an important Christian symbol, and has been for a long time. It is the letter written on the the foreheads of the faithful to be resurrected, by the angel in Ezekiel. It has been erected in churches on sea shores and adorned Bishop's croziers to name but a few.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Mudfrog, thank you for sending such a comprehensive reply to my last post. In reply, I should like to make the following response:
1. I’m somewhat confused as to your own position because at times you seem to be a supporter of PSA and at other times adopt of much more ecclectic view, embracing theories which would seem to be at variance with it. Perhaps I should not have made mention of your view specifically, but simply to refer to PSA, because my principal intention, in the light of this thread, was to suggest that the crucifix would be a particularly apposite symbol for those holding that view, and to speculate why it had not become so.
2.You may be correct that I have conflated PSA with other atonement theories, although PSA is not unrelated to Anselm, as exemplified in the newly popular hymn by Getty & Townend: “till on that cross as Jesus died/ the wrath of God was satisfied.”
3. You also have a point in suggesting that other theories might also adopt the crucifix, some, perhaps, more than others, but it seem to me PSA might be one of those especially attracted to it.
4. Regarding Resurrection Hymns, it seems to me that they reflect a Christus Victor view of the atonement, or one in which the cross is demanded by evil men rather than God the Father and the resurrection was God’s response: “the powers of death have done their worst/ And Christ their legions has dispersed”; “Up from the grave he arose/ with a mighty triumph o’er his foes”; “Christ has burst his prison.” One could go on........

daisymay

quote:
Kwesi , usually when it's a "picture" of Jesus dead or still alive on the cross, the picture has a bit of cloth, not showing his whole personality. That's generally "respect" for Jesus.

I’m not entirely sure of the point you are trying to make. Would you enlighten me? [Confused]

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Where I live the Tau is an important Christian symbol, and has been for a long time. It is the letter written on the the foreheads of the faithful to be resurrected, by the angel in Ezekiel. It has been erected in churches on sea shores and adorned Bishop's croziers to name but a few.

I am happily educated. Thankyou.

Although, does it not still count as a cross?

[ 16. January 2013, 15:59: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

No - its a tau. Here for instance is a resurrected Jesus holding a Tau in one hand and a cross in the other.

[ 16. January 2013, 16:09: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog, thank you for sending such a comprehensive reply to my last post. In reply, I should like to make the following response:
1. I’m somewhat confused as to your own position because at times you seem to be a supporter of PSA and at other times adopt of much more ecclectic view, embracing theories which would seem to be at variance with it.

I'm not Mudfrog, but I agree with him that actually existing believers in PSA almost always treat it as just one of many descriptions of the Atonement that can be supported from Scripture. As you can tell by leafing though any old evangelical hymn book. Or even any new one. Different images of the work of Jesus will be found on the same page, in the same hymn, even in the same verse.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog, thank you for sending such a comprehensive reply to my last post. In reply, I should like to make the following response:
1. I’m somewhat confused as to your own position because at times you seem to be a supporter of PSA and at other times adopt of much more ecclectic view, embracing theories which would seem to be at variance with it.
I'm not Mudfrog, but I agree with him that actually existing believers in PSA almost always treat it as just one of many descriptions of the Atonement that can be supported from Scripture. As you can tell by leafing though any old evangelical hymn book. Or even any new one. Different images of the work of Jesus will be found on the same page, in the same hymn, even in the same verse.

Thanks

It is so true. I have mentioned it before that the atonement is like a many-faceted diamond; not one 'theory' is enough to give the full meaning of the phrase 'Jesus died for us'.

In my studies I was pleased to read (courtesy of McGrath) that the 'theories ' of atonement are no longer called such. A problem I have with them is that, without rejecting any one of them particularly, I would much rather go right back to Scripture rather than some medieval scholar.

In the Bible we can see all of the metaphors outlined in various place - (Mosaic) sacrifice is there, so is ransom, Christus victor, substitution (penal and otherwise), moral influence; and so it goes on.

The Cross is such a deep mine of truth and meaning that I for one can not be satisfied(!) to settle for one of two metaphors - I want them all!

There are times when I thank God that Jesus died in my place, the innocent for the guilty.
I am glad on other occasions to thank God that he provided the blood sacrifice that covered my sins.
That he redeemed me by his blood and 'purchased' my salvation.
I grieve over my sin when I see him dying on the cross and pray that I might be forgiven for his sake and want to live for him.
I praise God for the victory over death that Jesus won as he disarmed death and Satan on the cross.
And yes, I even thank God that Jesus took my punishment and freed me from condemnation that was justly mine.

All of these things are, as you said, contained in our songs, as well as the Bible, and it is my opinion that our faith would be all the poorer for the loss of any one of them.

If you cut an evangelical in half you will see a rainbow of atonement metaphors running through him - and not one will be missing. Why would anyone want to omit any of them?

crucifix? cross, picture of a stone that's rolled away - all wonderful images. It depends how and wear you use them, I suppose.

Tangent: It is perhaps ironic that those who have been accused of 'playing down' the resurrection, it seems to me, are precisely the very people who will stand up and shout about the need for and the evidence for, the empty tomb and the bodily rising of Jesus. It is the more liberal non-evangelicals that are often wanting to keep the bones behind the stone whilst trying to pretend that Jesus is somehow 'alive' in the church.

[ 16. January 2013, 16:45: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mudfrog, why do people who happen to disagree with you or have a slightly different experience to yours have to be 'prejudiced'?

You've accused me of that in relation to using one example from one Baptist minister.

No I didn't, I merely said that you exaggerated.
I didn't use the 'P' word at all.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Where I live the Tau is an important Christian symbol, and has been for a long time. It is the letter written on the the foreheads of the faithful to be resurrected, by the angel in Ezekiel.

That's hard to believe since Ezekiel spoke Hebrew and the Tau is a Greek letter.

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
daisymay
quote:
Kwesi , usually when it's a "picture" of Jesus dead or still alive on the cross, the picture has a bit of cloth, not showing his whole personality. That's generally "respect" for Jesus.

I’m not entirely sure of the point you are trying to make. Would you enlighten me?

I think, am fairly sure, that people do not want to see the "bits" of a male as they are always taken off everything they wore before attached on to the cross. So almost everyone has got in church bits of cloth covering his bowels. They think that respects Jesus as well as many think it respects others. And people are not allowed to walk around wearing nothing, and get taken up by the police.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog, thank you for sending such a comprehensive reply to my last post. In reply, I should like to make the following response:
1. I’m somewhat confused as to your own position because at times you seem to be a supporter of PSA and at other times adopt of much more ecclectic view, embracing theories which would seem to be at variance with it.
I'm not Mudfrog, but I agree with him that actually existing believers in PSA almost always treat it as just one of many descriptions of the Atonement that can be supported from Scripture. As you can tell by leafing though any old evangelical hymn book. Or even any new one. Different images of the work of Jesus will be found on the same page, in the same hymn, even in the same verse.

This was not my experience at the conservative evangelical Anglican church I attended for ~5 years. PSA was the only correct way of looking at the Atonement, full stop, and no other theories were Scriptural or right. Regarding evangelical hymns, we only sang a select few hymns (certainly had no hymnbooks, it was all on a projector) which agreed with PSA. And this was a huge church with 500+ people every Sunday morning.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog, thank you for sending such a comprehensive reply to my last post. In reply, I should like to make the following response:
1. I’m somewhat confused as to your own position because at times you seem to be a supporter of PSA and at other times adopt of much more ecclectic view, embracing theories which would seem to be at variance with it.
I'm not Mudfrog, but I agree with him that actually existing believers in PSA almost always treat it as just one of many descriptions of the Atonement that can be supported from Scripture. As you can tell by leafing though any old evangelical hymn book. Or even any new one. Different images of the work of Jesus will be found on the same page, in the same hymn, even in the same verse.
This was not my experience at the conservative evangelical Anglican church I attended for ~5 years. PSA was the only correct way of looking at the Atonement, full stop, and no other theories were Scriptural or right. Regarding evangelical hymns, we only sang a select few hymns (certainly had no hymnbooks, it was all on a projector) which agreed with PSA. And this was a huge church with 500+ people every Sunday morning.

In my little cross-pond evangelical niche, there's becoming more and more talk along the lines of the "multi-faceted" approach to understanding the atonement (multiple images, all valid & true)-- myself included, fwiw. But for the most part it hasn't trickled down to the rank & file. Most have heard allusions to theories other than PSA in sermons, hymnody, etc. but won't notice the discrepancy unless it's pointed out (there's a depressing thought). For example, most don't identify Aslan's death in
The Lion, the Witch & the Wardrobe as ransom theory until it's pointed out. However, when I have presented the multi-faceted approach I've always had it well received-- as long as I demonstrate the biblical pedigree and keep PSA in the mix.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
This was not my experience at the conservative evangelical Anglican church I attended for ~5 years. PSA was the only correct way of looking at the Atonement, full stop, and no other theories were Scriptural or right. Regarding evangelical hymns, we only sang a select few hymns (certainly had no hymnbooks, it was all on a projector) which agreed with PSA. And this was a huge church with 500+ people every Sunday morning.

This is my experience of evangelicalism also.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Me too. I can't stand 'In Christ Alone' because of it's superb, powerful, alluring tune and 'The wrath of God was satisfied.'

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I was intrigued by Mudfrog's reply to Kwesi in which he outlined his own personal ( and supposedly inclusive) views of atonement.

In fact they were hardly inclusive. They were all in the sacrificial / PSA camp

With a nod in the direction of Christus Victor arising out of this view.

[ 16. January 2013, 21:13: Message edited by: shamwari ]

Posted by TurquoiseTastic (# 8978) on :

But surely it's precisely Mudfrog's "inclusiveness" that you're objecting to? Isn't the point of the thread to object to the "inclusion" of certain things - like PSA, or (in the OP) the whole idea of the Cross?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I was intrigued by Mudfrog's reply to Kwesi in which he outlined his own personal ( and supposedly inclusive) views of atonement.

In fact they were hardly inclusive. They were all in the sacrificial / PSA camp

With a nod in the direction of Christus Victor arising out of this view.

I'm sorry

but I didn't formulate the atonement metaphors! I didn't make them up or present them. It's hardly my fault if a number of them are indeed 'sacrificial'.

Let me say that only ONE of them is PSA - and that is penal substitutionary atonement.
I mentioned TWO that are specifically NOT sacrificial - Christus victor and moral influence; I am surprised that you suggest that there was merely 'a nod in the direction of Christus victor' - what do you want me to do, write it in BLOCK CAPITALS so that you notice it more?

In my description I wrote, along with the others:

quote:
I grieve over my sin when I see him dying on the cross and pray that I might be forgiven for his sake and want to live for him.
I praise God for the victory over death that Jesus won as he disarmed death and Satan on the cross.

The first one is moral influnce - it's the 'love so amazing, so divine, demands my soul, my life, my all' metaphor and response.
The second one is Christus victor - speaks for itself.

What do you want me to say that will make it any clearer; My references to these two theories were not just 'nods' towards them - I treated them as fully as the others.

[Roll Eyes]

Finally, can you tell me which atonement theory I didn't include in my list? Becasue I'd like to include it. I thought I had included them all.

I get the sneaky feeling that what you are actually asking me to do is to reject all the theories of atonement that mention sacrifice and substitution.

Hmmm, hard to have a eucharist with them I would have thought.
Not that THAT would bother me much [Smile]

Maybe you should accuse Salvationists of not just having no crucifix, not even an empty cross, but no death at all - seeing that 'we don't commemorate it', have no altar and no bread and wine!

[ 16. January 2013, 23:50: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by mouse:

quote:

That's hard to believe since Ezekiel spoke Hebrew and the Tau is a Greek letter.

I never said it was Greek. The Tau is the last letter of the Hebrew alpahabet

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Sorry, 'hard to have a eucharist without them...'

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
This was not my experience at the conservative evangelical Anglican church I attended for ~5 years. PSA was the only correct way of looking at the Atonement, full stop, and no other theories were Scriptural or right. Regarding evangelical hymns, we only sang a select few hymns (certainly had no hymnbooks, it was all on a projector) which agreed with PSA. And this was a huge church with 500+ people every Sunday morning.
This is my experience of evangelicalism also.

Astonishing - seriously! I'd like to know what kind of evangelicalism, specifically, you have had so much experience of!

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
This was not my experience at the conservative evangelical Anglican church I attended for ~5 years. PSA was the only correct way of looking at the Atonement, full stop, and no other theories were Scriptural or right. Regarding evangelical hymns, we only sang a select few hymns (certainly had no hymnbooks, it was all on a projector) which agreed with PSA. And this was a huge church with 500+ people every Sunday morning.
This is my experience of evangelicalism also.
Astonishing - seriously! I'd like to know what kind of evangelicalism, specifically, you have had so much experience of!

IMO (can't speak for mousethief), this approach to PSA happens a lot within conservative evangelical Anglicanism as a response to liberalism (or perceived liberalism). I was in the church I described when the Steve Chalke debacle happened, which lead many in the church to doubt Chalke's salvation. Certainly belief in PSA was seen as important to salvation as PSA itself.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Kaplan, I was under the impression that most small-o orthodox commentators on this issue would concede that there was 'something' in Abelard's position but it didn't represent the full picture ... John Stott for instance, who defends PSA more adroitly than many, I think, in his book 'The Cross of Christ', certainly gives Abelard some kudos alongside other views of the atonement - whilst concluding that his views don't take full account of the scriptural record and so on ...

I'd have thought it would be perfectly compatible with Christian orthodoxy to entertain a measure of Abelardian beliefs, as it were, whilst taking due cognisance of the bigger picture and other aspects of the atonement that his treatment leaves unaccounted for.

Yes OK, you could argue that he just doesn't go far enough.

On the other hand, the truncated soteriology you are left with is entirely inadequate.

As McGrath, who was recently cited by Muddy, puts it, "Abelard fails to provide an adequate theological foundation to allow us to understand precisely why Christ's death is to be understood as a demonstration of the love of God".

If anyone were to say, "I love you Gamaliel, and to prove my devotion I am going to hit myself as hard as I can on the head with this sledge hammer", you might be touched by their sincerity, but......

[ 17. January 2013, 01:49: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Your florid outburst of purple prose is therefore directed not against some imagined spurious version of the faith, but against Christianity per se.
No it's directed, only your narrow and cruel version of it. I spent decades of my life sorting out terrible ideas of God being a mean bastard from the God of love. I know what this sort of theology leads to, having generations of Brethren in one side of the family tree. Not allowing your dismissive tone to go unchallenged.

It's nothing to do with Brethrenism in particular, or even just evangelicalism.

Your argument is with mainstream, orthodox Christianity which, while differing over details, is united in asserting the moral inadequacy of human beings and the simultaneous holiness and love of God.

There are indeed huge intellectual and moral problems thrown up by Christianity, and any Christian with a skerrick of discernment finds them a distressing challenge, but the only acceptable alternatives are to abandon the faith, or trust that God will somehow sort things out eventually in a way which which is currently beyond our comprehension ("And all shall be well.....").

To put together a personal mix'n'match, smorgasbord faith which flies in the face of Scripture and tradition is not an option.

quote:
The cross has been a political tool since Constantine decorated a sword and slaughtered at the Milvian bridge, after which Christians damned people to hell and sent them there by killing them on earth first. If God damns people like your theology insists, I want to be damned with them. We love those who do not deserve to be loved.

You won't get an argument out of me over the deleterious effects of political Constantinianism.

If, however, you are suggesting that the preaching of salvation through the cross was invented by Constantine, then you are historically and theologically illiterate.

quote:
If the prodigal son story is not designed to demonstrate something about God's nature, why is it recorded?

It demonstrates his love for human beings who are separated from him and his desire that they return to him.

I would have thought that was enough for any parable.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Astonishing - seriously! I'd like to know what kind of evangelicalism, specifically, you have had so much experience of!

1. Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship;
2. The Evangelical Covenant Church

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Astonishing - seriously! I'd like to know what kind of evangelicalism, specifically, you have had so much experience of!
1. Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship;
2. The Evangelical Covenant Church

Never really heard of these groups - are they widespread? Are they denominations or just one congregation each meeting under their pastor?

I've obviously heard of Inter-varsity Press - is there a link?

The problem with America, I guess, is that there are thousands of independent congregations with no authority above them, no accountability. In the UK that is less of a problem and evangelicalism is a lot more mainstream.

You will find that most evangelicals, unless they are turning slightly to the more non-evangelical stream - as Steve Chalke appears to be doing (but he's not exactly that influential any more), do mostly believe that PSA is a very important and quite standard interpretation but, as I have tried to stress - they also honour and place great importance on the other theories as well.

Just a quick glance at The salvation Army song book reveals what songs we would sing, specificially about the atonement:

Alas! And did my Saviour bleed (Isaac Watts)
Arise my soul arise (Charles Wesley)
Hark, my soul! it is the Lord! (William Cowper)
In the cross of Christ I glory (John Bowring)
Jesus keep me near the cross (Fanny Crosby)
Jesus, thy blood and righteousness (Zinzendorf, trs Wesley)
Man of sorrows! What a name (Philip Bliss)
Not all the blood of beasts (Isaac Watts)
O come and look awhile on him (Frederick Faber)
O Sacred head once wounded (Gerhardt, from Bernard of Clairvaux)
On a hill far away (George bennard)
There is a fountain filled with blood (William Cowper)
There is a green hill far away (C Frances Alexander)
When I survey the wondrous cross (Isaac watts)
Would Jesus have the sinner die? (Charles Wesley)

And that's not to mention songs written by Salvation Army poets that deal with ransom, moral influence, sacrifice and victory.

These are the songs we have in our main hymn book (1986). We have supplementary books that have contemporary songs that we have added with care and theological scrutiny. we don't sing anything that is 'dodgy'.

Not all evangelicals are so narrow minded that they only sing 'In Christ alone' at Easter (though we do have that magnificent hymn as well - sounds good played by a brass band!)

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Mudfrog, I am in the UK too and that's still not my experience of evangelicalism and PSA. As for the Salvation Army, the evangelical Anglican church I was part of considered them to be woolly liberals. I wasn't aware that singing In Christ Alone was just done at Easter though - we sang it all the time.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Mudfrog, I am in the UK too and that's still not my experience of evangelicalism and PSA. As for the Salvation Army, the evangelical Anglican church I was part of considered them to be woolly liberals. I wasn't aware that singing In Christ Alone was just done at Easter though - we sang it all the time.

Woolly liberals?? LOL That's funny!
Theologically, doctrinally and ethically we are conservative through and through.

Any issues you might have with our non-practice of the 2 sacraments and the use of women in leadership has more to do with nineteenth century revivalism and the extremely low-church flavour of the Methodist church (at the time) from which we came.

And the comment I made about singin ICA at Easter was tongue in cheek - we sing it all the time too [Smile]

*walks away chuckling to himself...'Woolly liberals indeed, the very thought!'

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Mudfrog, I am in the UK too and that's still not my experience of evangelicalism and PSA. As for the Salvation Army, the evangelical Anglican church I was part of considered them to be woolly liberals. I wasn't aware that singing In Christ Alone was just done at Easter though - we sang it all the time.
Woolly liberals?? LOL That's funny!
Theologically, doctrinally and ethically we are conservative through and through.

Any issues you might have with our non-practice of the 2 sacraments and the use of women in leadership has more to do with nineteenth century revivalism and the extremely low-church flavour of the Methodist church (at the time) from which we came.

And the comment I made about singin ICA at Easter was tongue in cheek - we sing it all the time too

*walks away chuckling to himself...'Woolly liberals indeed, the very thought!'

You misunderstand me - I may be Anglo-Catholic now but the church I mentioned attending, despite being Anglican (albeit +Benn-endorsed Anglicanism...) was and is lower than low. Salvationists only celebrate the sacraments slightly less often than we did [Biased]

In all seriousness though, certainly the vast majority of the evangelicals I know (whether Anglican or not) believe PSA to be the only possible Biblical Atonement theory, and belief in anything else puts one's salvation in question. I still know more evangelicals than high church folk and PSA-only is definitely the most common viewpoint amongst them.

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :

Ha! Have to agree with Jade: I'm afraid the general view of Salvos among my evo brothers is of a great start followed by a lapse into social-work Christianity. Always slightly surprised me that you still find a home among them [Big Grin]

And as for atonement, PSA is the only game in town.

However, that is a view formed by the hothouse London student world of St Helens and Mens Conference; as I get older I found more who would have space for the 'many metaphors for the same event' view.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Have you read our doctrines?

And as for liberal in social issues and ethics, you only have to read our Positional Statements

We are in no wise 'liberal'.

And to get back on track to the subject, the cross is central to our beliefs - in all its interpretations.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
Ha! Have to agree with Jade: I'm afraid the general view of Salvos among my evo brothers is of a great start followed by a lapse into social-work Christianity. Always slightly surprised me that you still find a home among them

And as for atonement, PSA is the only game in town.

However, that is a view formed by the hothouse London student world of St Helens and Mens Conference; as I get older I found more who would have space for the 'many metaphors for the same event' view.

Yes, an interesting perception - and commonly held, it must be said.

Maybe I can say to you that here in the UK our churches far outnumber those SA institutions that offer social work for the homeless. We have more than 800 churches in the UK and Ireland all of which are evangelical and put great emphasis on the Gospel of Christ, personal salvation, the infilling of the Holy Spirit and the need for scriptural holiness.

The perception that we are now too far into social work is, in part, I guess, an unintended consequence of our huge publicity machine that raises money for those social programmes - you may have seen the adverts on the telly.

You may not know, of course, that UK law forbids the promotion of religion on television advertisements but we have a huge outlay (because it's so expensive) on our programmes for the homeless, etc. That's why we advertise our social work, thereby making it look like that's all we do.

It may also interest you to know that very few of our hostels are run by ordained Salvation Army officers - they are usually run by Christian lay people - and they MUST be active Christians - even if they are not Salvationists.

Therefore the unadvertised local church work seems to be hidden from view as far as the public is concverned, but let me assure you that the evangelical, Spirit-filled Salvation Army, 'cross-centred' is still worshipping and witnessing and preaching the gospel of personal repentance and redemption through Christ alone.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Have you read our doctrines?

And as for liberal in social issues and ethics, you only have to read our Positional Statements

We are in no wise 'liberal'.

And to get back on track to the subject, the cross is central to our beliefs - in all its interpretations.

I think me and ButchCassidy are perfectly aware that the SA aren't liberals - we're simply pointing out that they are *considered* to be liberals by some evangelicals, and certainly by most evangelicals I know. I know the SA aren't liberal, that's just how very very conservative the evangelicals I know are. And certainly, if PSA isn't the only possible Atonement theory for the SA, that is considered liberal by many evangelicals I know. Amongst most evangelicals I know, if you're less than PSA-only and 5-point Calvinism, your salvation is in serious doubt.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Ah well, 5 point calvinists are another matter. but I would just say that no Salvationist, no Methodist, no Pentecostal - Elim or Apostolic - and no Spring-Harvest/New Wine-type charismatic, nor any Keswick 'conventioner' is 5 point Calvinistic! I have met Evangelicals with a "BIG E" - they of the 'Reformed' variety, and you're quite correct: they might see TSA as less than evangelical, but that's their narrow problem, I'm afraid.

I must say that in the evangelical circles I have mixed in over 25 years of ministry, including evangelical Anglicans and Methodists, none of them have been 5 point calvinists and PSA only people [Smile]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Where I live the Tau is an important Christian symbol, and has been for a long time. It is the letter written on the the foreheads of the faithful to be resurrected, by the angel in Ezekiel.
That's hard to believe since Ezekiel spoke Hebrew and the Tau is a Greek letter.

LXX, possibly?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Ah well, 5 point calvinists are another matter. but I would just say that no Salvationist, no Methodist, no Pentecostal - Elim or Apostolic - and no Spring-Harvest/New Wine-type charismatic, nor any Keswick 'conventioner' is 5 point Calvinistic! I have met Evangelicals with a "BIG E" - they of the 'Reformed' variety, and you're quite correct: they might see TSA as less than evangelical, but that's their narrow problem, I'm afraid.

I must say that in the evangelical circles I have mixed in over 25 years of ministry, including evangelical Anglicans and Methodists, none of them have been 5 point calvinists and PSA only people

Reformed Evangelicalism was definitely the angle of my previous church, and is the angle of the main Christian Union church at my university. They would barely consider Methodists to be Christians at all! The problem is that this kind of very strict evangelicalism is very popular. Extreme doctrinal purity seems attractive to floundering people, I suppose.

Back to PSA (I consider it relevant to the OP), when the Steve Chalke story had broken I attended my evening Bible study and sat through a study on how PSA was the only possible Atonement theory and that believing in it was key to salvation. However, it was very much presented as an intellectual idea, as so much of Reformed theology is - very few crosses in church. No symbolism of the theory being taught. I think my former church would have preferred to use a picture of the Bible or some nails as a symbol - the cross was tainted by other uses [Disappointed]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I can't stand 'In Christ Alone' because of it's superb, powerful, alluring tune and 'The wrath of God was satisfied.'

But that song is a perfect example of what we're talking about. If you could score hymns by giving them one point per line per theory, the top theory of atonement in it is Christus Victor, and after that the idea that the Incarnation achieves our salvation through unity between God and humans. There is also that a PSA image, but as well as that there is there is also sacrificial imagery, and the idea of of being "purchased" by Christ (those are three different metaphors or symbols, sacrifice is not the same as PSA) So it covers a number of bases...

I think you will find the same in many other hymns. If it is possible to tell what Catholic theology is by their rituals, or Orthodox by their ikons, then its surely possible to tell what evangelicals really believe by their songs. Just listen to the sound track!

[ 17. January 2013, 11:08: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by ButchCassidy (# 11147) on :

Me too Jade. I would say university evangelicalism, certainly in London, is pretty well saturated with Piper, Driscoll, Keller etc. Saw a list of London diocese ordinands with at least half from Reform-orientated sponsor churches. So certainly New Calvinist influence will continue to grow.

However, this is utterly tangenital, and I've just read 1 Cor 1 so will cease with it ;-). Very pleased and encouraged to read your description of Salvos Mudfrog!

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Back to PSA (I consider it relevant to the OP), when the Steve Chalke story had broken I attended my evening Bible study and sat through a study on how PSA was the only possible Atonement theory and that believing in it was key to salvation. However, it was very much presented as an intellectual idea, as so much of Reformed theology is - very few crosses in church. No symbolism of the theory being taught. I think my former church would have preferred to use a picture of the Bible or some nails as a symbol - the cross was tainted by other uses

I'd never heard of this man (Steve Chalke) and just looked him on wikipedia. Not clear what the controversy could be at all. Please clarify.

He seems to advocate tolerance, rejects penal substitution, wants to ensure private faith can influence public policy in a positive and non-dominating way, rejects fundamentalism and verbatim interpretation of the bible. Am I missing something? He sounds mainstream. I suspect he would agree about the use of the cross being questionable as the church's "brand" and the negative influence of using the cross on charity and expression of Christian love in action.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

I doubt that all members of any confession believe the same thing on certain points. I've known Sally Army types, and I've seen a diversity of beliefs.

It is also my experience within evangelicalism that PSA was "the" model (in pentecostal, baptist, independent Assemblies of God and also Anglican churches). Now, perhaps there are others and the PSA stayed in my head more for some reason, but I was brought up evangelical, and it never occured to me that there was a thing as different interpretations of the cross.

My point is not to prove that evangelicals believe in PSA, just that it does happen. (Bear in mind that most of my experience with evangelicals was in the 1980s. It could be that my experience of the baptist and Assemblies of God church is therefore to be interpreted through that experience. Call it my evangelical guilt [Biased]

.)

[ 17. January 2013, 12:29: Message edited by: Rosa Winkel ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Back to PSA (I consider it relevant to the OP), when the Steve Chalke story had broken I attended my evening Bible study and sat through a study on how PSA was the only possible Atonement theory and that believing in it was key to salvation. However, it was very much presented as an intellectual idea, as so much of Reformed theology is - very few crosses in church. No symbolism of the theory being taught. I think my former church would have preferred to use a picture of the Bible or some nails as a symbol - the cross was tainted by other uses
I'd never heard of this man (Steve Chalke) and just looked him on wikipedia. Not clear what the controversy could be at all. Please clarify.

He seems to advocate tolerance, rejects penal substitution, wants to ensure private faith can influence public policy in a positive and non-dominating way, rejects fundamentalism and verbatim interpretation of the bible. Am I missing something? He sounds mainstream. I suspect he would agree about the use of the cross being questionable as the church's "brand" and the negative influence of using the cross on charity and expression of Christian love in action.

He is a well-known UK evangelical, and those things are not very popular with most conservative evangelicals. The controversy was over his rejection of PSA, which in the church I was in at the time, was pretty much equivalent to a total rejection of the gospel. Recently he has spoken about affirmation of LGBTQ people, also considered utterly unchristian by conservative evangelicals that I know.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Matt

quote:

LXX, possibly?

You missed a post.
Here is an explanation of it. But you are essentially right, it becomes the Tau in the LXX and therefore is represented by a 'T' shape

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Astonishing - seriously! I'd like to know what kind of evangelicalism, specifically, you have had so much experience of!
1. Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship;
2. The Evangelical Covenant Church
Never really heard of these groups - are they widespread? Are they denominations or just one congregation each meeting under their pastor?

I serve in an Evangelical Covenant Church. It's a small denomination, but happens to be the fastest-growing denom. in the US. It's a bit more open than most American evangelicals (why I like it)-- more emphasis on social justice, less wedded to conservative American politics, less rigid in ideology. There's actually a lot of good scholarly discussion going on within the denom. right now about how to stress/ include other atonement imagery besides/in addition to PSA. As I mentioned before, as I've done that, I've had a good response-- but it is interesting how many have been exposed to alternate imagery all along w/o even noticing it.

[ 17. January 2013, 14:08: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The problem with America, I guess, is that there are thousands of independent congregations with no authority above them, no accountability.

Well, that's where I live, and those are the evangelicals I have had experience with. I should also mention Foursquare Church.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think you will find the same in many other hymns. If it is possible to tell what Catholic theology is by their rituals, or Orthodox by their ikons, then its surely possible to tell what evangelicals really believe by their songs. Just listen to the sound track!

In which case they are a jumble of self-contradiction.

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Matt

quote:

LXX, possibly?

You missed a post.
Here is an explanation of it. But you are essentially right, it becomes the Tau in the LXX and therefore is represented by a 'T' shape

Tav <> Tau. English is not Latin; the letters indicate different things, and in this case the two words indicate different letters and shapes entirely. Hence my confusion.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
but it is interesting how many have been exposed to alternate imagery all along w/o even noticing it.

The hymn imagery, as I have noted, is all over the map. It's the sermons and lectures and discussions that I am referring to.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think you will find the same in many other hymns. If it is possible to tell what Catholic theology is by their rituals, or Orthodox by their ikons, then its surely possible to tell what evangelicals really believe by their songs. Just listen to the sound track!
In which case they are a jumble of self-contradiction.

Are you saying then, that the church's use of a cross should reflect just one interpretation of atonement; that holding to two or more metaphors - let's say ransom and moral influence - is just a jumble of self-contradiction?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
I think you will find the same in many other hymns. If it is possible to tell what Catholic theology is by their rituals, or Orthodox by their ikons, then its surely possible to tell what evangelicals really believe by their songs. Just listen to the sound track!
In which case they are a jumble of self-contradiction.
Are you saying then, that the church's use of a cross should reflect just one interpretation of atonement; that holding to two or more metaphors - let's say ransom and moral influence - is just a jumble of self-contradiction?

I didn't say anything in that post about the church's use of the cross. Nor do I think it reflects just one interpretation of atonement; as I've said before, the EOC is firmly not PSA, yet uses the crucifix as a symbol. Heck, we kiss a crucifix every week as we file out of the church.

People who hold PSA, in my experience, are far from thinking it a metaphor. They think it is the pith at the very core of Christianity.

As for the hymns, I should probably drop out of that part of the discussion because the next thing to happen is somebody is going to ask me for examples, and I'll have to drag out the hymnals (I have many, of various denominations, because I love many of the old protty hymns even if we don't sing them in our services) and spend hours flipping through them looking for examples. Which would take time away from arguing on Facebook.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Mudfrog, I took up your invitation to mug up on Salvation Army Doctrines, and read "We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God;" and "in the eternal happiness of the righteous; and in the endless punishment of the wicked." The thought does arise that if men (and women, presumably) are "totally depraved" (including new-born infants?), how can they possibly respond positively to a gospel of love? How can such people "will to be saved?"
It seems to me that Salvationists have a much more gracious attitude to sinners that their doctrines suggest, for which we thank God!

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog, I took up your invitation to mug up on Salvation Army Doctrines, and read "We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God;" and "in the eternal happiness of the righteous; and in the endless punishment of the wicked." The thought does arise that if men (and women, presumably) are "totally depraved" (including new-born infants?), how can they possibly respond positively to a gospel of love? How can such people "will to be saved?"
It seems to me that Salvationists have a much more gracious attitude to sinners that their doctrines suggest, for which we thank God!

The answer is, of course, the well-known and widely accepted Wesleyan doctrine of prevenient grace.

From our doctrine book:

quote:
Wesley held that because of their fallen nature, humans are powerless to choose good or evil solely on their own. However, all humans benefit from God's prevenient grace. The term 'prevenient' comes from the Latin, 'pre' - before, 'venient' - coming to. this, grace available before coming to Christ. Through this grace humans are enabled to choose good, and ultimately by faith to accept God's saving grace. Salvation by grace through faith begins then with preventing - or prevenient or enabling - grace, grace which can be resisted by free will, but if accepted, becomes the beginning of the path to salvation.

It is by his grace that we are awakened to our need of salvation, and the necessary response is our repentance. The term 'prevenient grace' describes this preparatory work of the Holy Spirit. It is the grace that comes before conversion. Our moral sense, or conscience, although imperfect because of ignorance and sin, can act as a stimulus to spiritual awakening. God gives a measure of moral enlightenment to all human beings, and the teachings of Jesus assure us that those who hunger and thirst after righteousness will be satisfied. All this is a work of the Spirit who can transform natural remorse or human moral philosophy into a true awareness of God. It is through the grace of God that the Holy Spirit convicts of sin. He reveals our real and appropriate guilt as opposed to feelings aroused by cultural or religious factors or excessive introspection. Grace that leads to this conviction has positive results - repentance, forgiveness and new life.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

While I respect the good works of the Sally Ann, I did not realize its difficult theology. We work with (by we meaning my church and denomination) with them for Christmas hampers and other things, but we've never discussed anything about religion. The ideas as posted are so far afield that it is almost not recognizable to me.

It is an interesting contrast. How the theology of the cross damns people in the next world, and how the good works save tangibly in the world here. Does it seem a juxtaposition to anyone else?

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Mudfrog, I am, of course, aware of the doctrine of prevenient grace, my problem with the SA position is as to how a "totally depraved person" can have a "a moral sense, or conscience, although imperfect because of ignorance and sin, [that] can act as a stimulus to spiritual awakening."
Incidentally, do you think a new-born child is "totally depraved"?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrog, I am, of course, aware of the doctrine of prevenient grace, my problem with the SA position is as to how a "totally depraved person" can have a "a moral sense, or conscience, although imperfect because of ignorance and sin, [that] can act as a stimulus to spiritual awakening."
Incidentally, do you think a new-born child is "totally depraved"?

Are you really a Methodist and you don't know these things?

A quick definition of what totally depraved means - it does not mean irredeemably evil; black as black can be; it does not mean beyond redemption, it does not mean depraved in thers ense that we might use it in the popular press - e.g. 'a depraved child molestor'. No one is saying that a human being, least of all a little child, is like that. It simply means that there is not one part of us that not touched by sin - that even the beautiful, the good, the honourable is still in need of redemption. Even that which is a reflection of the love of God; in an unredeemed person, that love must still come for cleansing - and in seeking there will always be that cleansing from God.

Is a child totally depraved - by the second definition, yes.
But certainly not by the first.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
While I respect the good works of the Sally Ann, I did not realize its difficult theology... The ideas as posted are so far afield that it is almost not recognizable to me.

It is an interesting contrast. How the theology of the cross damns people in the next world, and how the good works save tangibly in the world here. Does it seem a juxtaposition to anyone else?

Interesting really, seeing that our doctrines are entirely Methodist.

Difficult to understand what your objection is - did you not think that we would have doctrines and a theology?

And just how exactly does the theology of the cross damn people? It's their full and free salvation! Our 'good works' as you put it, are the sacramental expression of redemption - they are pictures of grace, expressions of love and compassion.

They do not, in themselves, save people but their motivation is to ultimately to point people to God's love for them - a love seen perfectly on the cross, of course.

[ 17. January 2013, 21:13: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

I realise we are getting off the subject. I'll start a new thread:
Is Humanity Totally Depraved?

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
While I respect the good works of the Sally Ann, I did not realize its difficult theology... The ideas as posted are so far afield that it is almost not recognizable to me.

It is an interesting contrast. How the theology of the cross damns people in the next world, and how the good works save tangibly in the world here. Does it seem a juxtaposition to anyone else?
Interesting really, seeing that our doctrines are entirely Methodist.

Difficult to understand what your objection is - did you not think that we would have doctrines and a theology?

And just how exactly does the theology of the cross damn people? It's their full and free salvation! Our 'good works' as you put it, are the sacramental expression of redemption - they are pictures of grace, expressions of love and compassion.

They do not, in themselves, save people but their motivation is to ultimately to point people to God's love for them - a love seen perfectly on the cross, of course.

I do not agree with God damning anyone. One grandmother, at the end of her life felt she was damned, and expedited her way to her reward via poisoning herself. I never knew her. It caused a wholesale rejection by my mother of the Methodism of one side of the family and the Plymouth Brethren of the other. Such sins are visited until the 5th (hopefully not the 7th) generation I suppose, and I'm hopeful that it is possible to limit such things which seem bred in the bone.

I have felt, that with religion, that there is no dogma so awful, that some church somewhere will not declare it true. If God does damn people, then he learned nothing when he became incarnate and lived as a person.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

no prophet

quote:
If God does damn people, then he learned nothing when he became incarnate and lived as a person.

.......But, of course, that is not the case, if John 3:17 is to be believed: "God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've been away for a day or two, so backing up a bit ...

@Mudfrog, point taken, but you did accuse me of 'prejudice' on the exorcism thread, if I remember rightly ...

But hey ... I'm about to support some of the points you've made here ...

@Kaplan, I didn't say that the Moral Influence theory or Abelardianism was sufficient in and of itself, I agree that it is a truncated view and needs considering alongside and as part of the other atonement theories that are available to us ...

Which brings me to my supporting point on what Mudfrog is saying here, that we need a multi-faceted approach that takes all the different aspects into account.

I'm with Mudfrog and Ken on the extent to which there are other models than PSA around within evangelical circles, but in my experience these take secondary place to PSA which remains the dominant paradigm. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, just saying that's how it plays out.

It all depends on where we stand, of course. To Mousethief, understandably, evangelical hymnody is going to look like a dog's breakfast and a mass of competing and contradictory emphases. If, however, we take Mudfrog's analogy of the multi-faceted diamond on board and apply it to hymnody as well as to the atonement then it is possible to reconcile the apparent contradictions.

In fairness to the Salvation Army my suspicion would be that their hymnody is a lot broader in many respects than that found in most predominantly evangelical settings. For a kick-off they are drawing on the most excellent Wesleyan tradition of hymnody - those cracking Charles Wesley hymns - and they're also drawing on contemporary sources too - as well as hymnody that would be familiar to many Anglicans and Catholics.

Alongside that they've also got the Moody & Sankey revivalist style of hymns and sacred songs and solos (many of which haven't stood the test of time, of course, but still ....) and they've also got a lot of their own material which the rest of us aren't familiar with. I've attended two Salvation Army concert/rally type events in Yorkshire town-halls and at each I was pleasantly surprised by the range and variety of the musical offerings - including some more challenging contemporary choral or brass pieces.

Salvationist music certainly isn't all oompah-oompah - much as I like to hear that every now and then.

Now - all that said, I think it's a mixed picture and a bit rough-diamond-ish ... Protestantism doesn't have things as finely honed as Orthodoxy does in terms of what goes on in public worship - although I don't think anyone could accuse the Orthodox of being all in-step and 'in-tune' either, for all their use of very similar material to one another in worship.

Sure, there's greater coherence within Orthodoxy, you know where you are with the Great Entrance, the Little Entrance and so on and so forth ...

Howbeit, whilst I think that Mudfrog and Ken are broadly correct in their assessment of how the broad, middle-ground of evangelicalism handles the atonement, I'd suggest the picture is quite mixed.

There are shades and gradations between full-on TULIP Calvinism and the tradition Mudfrog represents.

At the risk of gross generalisations, I would suggest the following broad categories:

1. Full-on Calvinistic evangelical - PSA all the way, C S Lewis might not have been 'saved' because he was squeamish about it.

2. Mildly Calvinistic evangelical - PSA still the dominant paradigm but there is space allowed for the various other atonement theories and models alongside it - but in a subordinate sense.

3. Moderately Calvinistic/Moderately Wesleyan - PSA probably the 'first among equals' - but still the clincher.

4. Moderately Wesleyan/Moderately Calvinistic - PSA probably the 'first among equals' - but still the clincher [Biased]

If you go further 'left' from 4 you end up in a more liberal and possibly post-evangelical paradigm.

In and amongst all of that, I would also suggest that there's another category (that isn't represented here on the Ship) and that's:

The Totally Confused: I'm thinking of prosperity-gospel style types who've imbibed the appalling atonement theories of Hagin, Copeland and similar 'out-there' US name-it-and-claim-it/Word Faith evangelists ... but they're bonkers and most mainstream evangelicals, whether conservative or charismatic wouldn't touch that stuff with a barge-pole.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Mudfrog above asserts that "our doctrines are entirely Methodist".

Not so.

They might have been "entirely Methodist" at the time that Wm Booth unilaterally declared independence.

But Methodism has moved on.

Not so the SA. Caught in a theological time-warp methinks.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Mudfrog above asserts that "our doctrines are entirely Methodist".

Not so.

They might have been "entirely Methodist" at the time that Wm Booth unilaterally declared independence.

But Methodism has moved on.

Not so the SA. Caught in a theological time-warp methinks.

hahahahahahahaha

Our doctrines are entirely Methodist from when Methodism had 'moved on' from John Wesley's Anglican views, albeit solidly evangelical! Sadly, Methodism has now ditched its evangelical roots inherited from Wesley and the nineteenth century revival period, in a misguided and ultimately fruitless yearning to become like the Church of England.

[ 18. January 2013, 18:06: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Our doctrines are entirely Methodist from when Methodism had 'moved on' from John Wesley's Anglican views, albeit solidly evangelical! Sadly, Methodism has now ditched its evangelical roots inherited from Wesley and the nineteenth century revival period, in a misguided and ultimately fruitless yearning to become like the Church of England.

So you're basically saying that YOU are the REAL Methodists, and the Methodists aren't really Methodists at all anymore. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Sadly, Methodism has now ditched its evangelical roots inherited from Wesley and the nineteenth century revival period

Hurrah! I knew there was a reason I'm a Methodist.

[Big Grin]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Were Methodists ever against baptism?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Our doctrines are entirely Methodist from when Methodism had 'moved on' from John Wesley's Anglican views, albeit solidly evangelical! Sadly, Methodism has now ditched its evangelical roots inherited from Wesley and the nineteenth century revival period, in a misguided and ultimately fruitless yearning to become like the Church of England.
So you're basically saying that YOU are the REAL Methodists, and the Methodists aren't really Methodists at all anymore.

Not at all. We may have taken 11 doctrines from the Methodist movement but we have a 150 year old narrative of our own.

We are not Methodists now, but we do maintain our doctrinal integrity.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I suspect, Mudfrog, that Salvationists are closer to the more evangelical mid-19th century Methodists than they are to those inveterately High Tory, High Church and highly sacramental Wesley brothers ...

[Biased]

The evangelical strand was there, of course, with the pair of them, but in a very Anglican context. The Salvationists, The Church of The Nazarene and the various other 'Wesleyan Holiness' groups - and - at another step removed, the Pentecostals - are all their spiritual descendants but the Salvationists, Nazarenes and Penties have both shed certain of the original Wesleyan emphases as well as adding emphases of their own.

I'm not saying that their development hasn't been in line with a trajectory that was there with the Wesleys - of course it has been - but the legacy has shifted to a certain extent.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Mousethief, this happened with all the Wesleyan spin-offs and splinter-groups - they all claimed to be preserving or retaining elements of the founding principles of the Wesley brothers - hence the name 'Primitive Methodists' for the group/s that emanated from the Mow Cop 'camp meetings' not five miles from where I'm sitting in the early 1800s.

It's a bit like the non-canonical Orthodox groups all claiming to be the original and best.

In essence, I think the various Methodist offshoots (many of which were absorbed back into the parent body over time) did indeed preserve elements of the original thrust ... but it would be reductionist in the extreme to see them as somehow preserving intact a Wesleyan legacy. That said, it is indeed arguable how much the mainstream Methodist movement has done so too.

The Wesleyan shadow is there, but I suspect it's been diffused and variegated among all these groups.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Mudfrog above asserts that "our doctrines are entirely Methodist".

Not so.

They might have been "entirely Methodist" at the time that Wm Booth unilaterally declared independence.

But Methodism has moved on.

Not so the SA. Caught in a theological time-warp methinks.
hahahahahahahaha

Our doctrines are entirely Methodist from when Methodism had 'moved on' from John Wesley's Anglican views, albeit solidly evangelical! Sadly, Methodism has now ditched its evangelical roots inherited from Wesley and the nineteenth century revival period, in a misguided and ultimately fruitless yearning to become like the Church of England.

Er, surely Methodists wanting to be like the CoE is more in tune with original Methodism? Methodism is an offshoot of Anglicanism. I would say the SA is more in tune with the Baptists.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Mudfrog above asserts that "our doctrines are entirely Methodist".

Not so.

They might have been "entirely Methodist" at the time that Wm Booth unilaterally declared independence.

But Methodism has moved on.

Not so the SA. Caught in a theological time-warp methinks.
hahahahahahahaha

Our doctrines are entirely Methodist from when Methodism had 'moved on' from John Wesley's Anglican views, albeit solidly evangelical! Sadly, Methodism has now ditched its evangelical roots inherited from Wesley and the nineteenth century revival period, in a misguided and ultimately fruitless yearning to become like the Church of England.
Er, surely Methodists wanting to be like the CoE is more in tune with original Methodism? Methodism is an offshoot of Anglicanism. I would say the SA is more in tune with the Baptists.

Really? Why would you say that?
The Salvation Army is an hierarchical Wesleyan movement in the Catholic tradition.

The Baptists are an association of fellowships in a loose union and come from the Calvinist and Reformed tradition.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Mudfrog: Please dont try and guarantee your credentials by trying to claim your Methodist roots.

You have long since left them behind.

Just accept that you are yet another 'denomination' with a particular emphasis.

Were you truly loyal to your Methodist legacy you would have both baptism and holy communion as integral to your life as SA.

You have neither.

So I am happy for you to insist on your theologial position and for you to retain it.

But please dont try and get credit for it by assering that yours is a 'Methodism' in any sense of the word.

Its not. Never has been ( in any sacramenatal sense) and is far removed from Methodism today. Nor do we accept the charge that we are simply apeing the Anglcans. Your knowledge of contemporary Methodism is abysmal.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Your knowledge of contemporary Methodism is abysmal.

As, it seems, is your knowledge of nineteenth century Methodism - which is where we have our roots.

The Salvation Army doctrines that you have seen are almost word for word Methodist New Connexion doctrines. It is, after all, doctrine that we are discussing.

As for sacramentalism, UK Methodism in the mid 1850 and 60s had become as far removed from wesley's Anglicanism as you can imagine. from that era onwards, the services of Holy Communion were frequently neglected and the preaching of the word was elevated to the status of the chief 'means of grace' almost to the exclusion of the Lord's Supper.

This state of affairs continued until living memory when communion was very much an optional extra tagged on to the end of the main service and taking place after the blessing had been spoken and after half the congregation had left!

Methodism in the UK has beciome very different to what it was even 40 years ago. My gopod friend, the local superintendant, in whose church and with whose church we worship every Sunday, has said that Methodism has lost a generation to the false hope of unity with Canterbury. The 'unifiers' have all but retired disappointed men now, having entered the Methodist ministry with the vain hope of one day becoming Anglicans. That now will never happen and the 'anclicanising' of Methodism is retreating as Methodism finds its confidence in itself once again.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

You're making my point for me, Mudfrog. You are descended from the mid-19th century 'incarnation' of Methodism and are closer to that than you are to the Methodism of the mid-18th century.

I suspect there is something in what you say of a false expectation of reunion with Anglicanism in much of contemporary Methodism - and that as that hope (or false hope) fades, we are seeing something of a recovery of confidence in specifically Methodist values. I can certainly see that to some extent locally - this is a traditionally strong Methodist area - but I do wonder whether it's all a bit too late. There have been many pundits predicting the demise of Methodism in its organised sense by the middle of the current century ... although I suspect that a broadly 'Methodist' spirituality will persist in some form.

This has become something of a tangent, but a useful one I think as I do believe that Methodism - it's it varied forms - has a lot to bring to the table and acts as something of a bridge between nonconformity as a whole and the older, more sacramental traditions.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Mudfrog above asserts that "our doctrines are entirely Methodist".

Not so.

They might have been "entirely Methodist" at the time that Wm Booth unilaterally declared independence.

But Methodism has moved on.

Not so the SA. Caught in a theological time-warp methinks.
hahahahahahahaha

Our doctrines are entirely Methodist from when Methodism had 'moved on' from John Wesley's Anglican views, albeit solidly evangelical! Sadly, Methodism has now ditched its evangelical roots inherited from Wesley and the nineteenth century revival period, in a misguided and ultimately fruitless yearning to become like the Church of England.
Er, surely Methodists wanting to be like the CoE is more in tune with original Methodism? Methodism is an offshoot of Anglicanism. I would say the SA is more in tune with the Baptists.
Really? Why would you say that?
The Salvation Army is an hierarchical Wesleyan movement in the Catholic tradition.

The Baptists are an association of fellowships in a loose union and come from the Calvinist and Reformed tradition.

What? How is the SA remotely in the Catholic tradition? Not all Anglicans are even in the Catholic tradition. Modern Baptist theology seems more in tune with SA theology than SA theology does with Methodism. Methodism is much more liberal.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

We are Arminian/Wesleyan - Baptists are Reformed and Calvinistic.

The Salvation Army's spiritual heritage is catholic through Anglicanism and then Wesley. We are in that line of descent - a lot of our holiness teaching, coming as it does (with other influences of course) is from Wesley who was influenced by Anglicanism, Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

The baptist/reformed tradition is the descendant of the puritan/Calvinist model.

Our doctrine of who may be saved is different.
Our doctrine of sanctification is different.

We are not like the Baptists.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The short, and cynical answer, Jade Constable, would be that the SA is in the Catholic tradition because Mudfrog insists that it is and wants it to be ...

[Biased]

But I suspect it's not as simple as that.

Wesleyanism, arguably, inherited or revived some of the more 'mystical' elements that were there in pre-Reformation spirituality - and which had been tamed or air-brushed out to some extent during the Reformation. The Lutheran and Moravian pietistic tradition also fed into Methodism and some of the imagery about Christ's wounds and so on found in the hymnody has a distinctly 'medieval' and Catholic feel about it.

Equally, the emphasis on good works and social action etc harks back to earlier Catholic emphases.

So the argument would be, should we wish to accept it, that the SA builds on the same Patristic and broadly Catholic foundation as all other Trinitarian churches - only with a particular slant and flavour of its own.

I think that's fair enough, although I might suggest that the SA is small 'c' catholic rather than Big C ... in the same way as I might say that non-Orthodox (Big O) Christians can be orthodox (small 'o') rather than Orthodox, Big O.

The SA may 'look' more like the Baptists (and indeed, other non-conformist or Free Churches) but they do derive from somewhat different routes and directions - although I would agree with Jengie Jon that the Arminian/Wesleyan strand is itself a subset of the broader Reformed position rather than something necessarily antithetical to it.

What was called 'Old Dissent' at the time of the Wesleys - the Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists etc - had taken on various flavours - they were largely Calvinistic and many had diverged into forms of unitarianism - whether explicitly or practically to all intents and purposes.

There were two-way influences but many Baptists and others took on a warmer and more 'Methodist' feel as a result of the Great Awakening of the mid-18th century.

But Mudfrog is right to distinguish the particular strand/tradition that led to the SA and to the other 'holiness' and later some Pentecostal groups from that which was the dominant strand within the Baptists, the Independents (Congregationalists) and the Presbyterians.

We are not talking about differences as wide as that between camels, say and horses, but perhaps camels and giraffes ... or perhaps, more accurately, the differences between different breeds of dog or horse ... a Shetland Pony isn't a different species to a Shire Horse nor a Labrador a different species than an Alsatian, say ... they are simply different breeds within the same species or genus.

Biologists and zoologists could express it better than I can.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Whoops ... Mudfrog has answered for himself, apologies for cross-posting ...

I'd broadly agree with his analysis, although it depends on the standpoint or the vantage point from which someone is viewing the terrain.

I'm sure, though, that many RCs and Anglo-Catholics or Orthodox would recognise broadly 'catholic' elements in SA belief and praxis. I know, because I've heard people from these traditions acknowledge as much - and yes, Mudfrog is right, the SA has the 'catholic' elements in its spiritual DNA through its descent from Wesleyan Methodism which in turn fed from the broader Catholic tradition - with elements of the Reformed tradition in there too - if we accept that Anglicans are essentially 'Reformed Catholics' to some extent or other.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Whoops ... Mudfrog has answered for himself, apologies for cross-posting ...

I'd broadly agree with his analysis, although it depends on the standpoint or the vantage point from which someone is viewing the terrain.

I'm sure, though, that many RCs and Anglo-Catholics or Orthodox would recognise broadly 'catholic' elements in SA belief and praxis. I know, because I've heard people from these traditions acknowledge as much - and yes, Mudfrog is right, the SA has the 'catholic' elements in its spiritual DNA through its descent from Wesleyan Methodism which in turn fed from the broader Catholic tradition - with elements of the Reformed tradition in there too - if we accept that Anglicans are essentially 'Reformed Catholics' to some extent or other.

I still don't see any Reformed 'DNA' in SA doctrine.

Booth was openly hostile to predestination/election/final perseverence and once said that anyone who believed such doctrines had non place in The Salvation Army.

As far as the reformed nature of the CofE it was my understanding that it was the Lutheran/Zwinglian influence that was taken by Cranmer and others, whilst Calvin was not really taken on board, he being the hero of those outside the Anglican communion.

An interesting point:
I studied chaplaincy at Ushaw College which was an RC seminary up here in the North east of England. VERY Catholic. I was told by a priest that The Salvation Army would make a very good Catholic Order.

So, come the Vatican revolution when all churches are stormed by militant nuns and all church property and clergy are restored to the Pope's authority, look out for Fr Mugford and his military style cassock [Biased]

[ 19. January 2013, 09:00: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Might I also add that The Salvation Army is also episcopal in government?

Pope = General
Cardinal = Territorial Commander
Archbishop = Commissioner
Bishop = Divisional Commander
Priest = Commanding officer (this is what I am)

Also, when it comes to morality and ethics, the Roman Catholic Church and The Salvation Army are very close (except on the contraception issue)

Posted by RdrEmCofE (# 17511) on :

quote:
Jesus said to Peter that he should forgive his brother not seven times but seventy times seven; meaning you should forgive your brother countless times.

Why can’t God be that way? Why did he insist something innocent die for man’s sin? Why did he feel a need to send his son to be used as a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind? Why couldn’t he just forgive us when we ask for forgiveness and be done with it without someone/something innocent dying?

The original concept that SIN was a serious barrier between man and God which had destroyed man’s previously intimate connection or relationship, to the degree that man could no longer even hear God’s voice without feelings of ‘guilt and fear’, goes right back to the Garden of Eden Story. The point that the author intended us to understand was that you and me and all the human race has had their relationship with God disrupted.

“And the man said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” And God said, Who told thee that thou wast naked?” Gen 3:10-11

The story may be a fable, allegory or metaphor, but the alienation between man and God is real enough. How often have you wished that God would reveal himself to you. But if He did, how you you react? Probably like the Israelites did at Mt. Sinai.

for this great fire will consume us: if we hear the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we shall die. For who is there of all flesh, that hath heard the voice of the living God speaking out of the midst of the fire, as we have, and lived? Deut. 5:25-26.

The rest of the Old Testament is a record of God’s dealings with a person, a family, a tribe, a nation and eventually with the whole of mankind. It is a record, (most often in story form), of the slow but steady education of these persons and groups to the point where they can understand that they must accept responsibility for their deeds, that for everything there is a price to pay for somebody.

Jesus of Nazareth grew up under Roman occupation, the son of an artisan but with a clear idea that he had a destiny and a purpose. His teachings and deeds were part of that purpose and his death was the culmination of that purpose.

Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. John 3:14-15

When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me. And he who sent me is with me. He has not left me alone, for I always do the things that are pleasing to him. John 8:28-29

Remember what he told you while he was still in Galilee, 'the Son of Man must be handed over to sinful men, be crucified, and rise on the third day.' " Luke 24:6-7

Jesus of Nazareth had a relationship with God, (who he called his Father), which was uniquely unimpaired by ‘guilt and fear’ of God. He embraced his destiny voluntarily, he became a willing sacrifice, not because God demanded it but because he recognized and accepted it as his fate, foreseen in the scriptures. His identity was so integrated with the will of God, (the Father) that His will was God’s will. To the effect that St Paul could later truthfully say :

God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not holding their sins against them, and putting the word of reconciliation in us (i.e. those who accept the truth of the previous statement). Then we are ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as if God were exhorting through us, we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 2 Cor. 5:19-20

So instead of God demanding the death of his Son, Jesus the Christ, it was God himself, (in Christ), who allowed himself to be handed over to sinful men and suffer crucifixion. Demonstrating by the dying words of his Son that neither HE nor God any longer holds our sins against us.

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. Luke 23:34

If you ever had any doubt that God wants to be reconciled to man, here is the proof. Even if you were to nail him to a piece of wood and watch him die while spitting in his face, God would still not hold it against you.

That attempt at being reconciled with humanity deserves a positive response. A negative response, characterized by a life lived in opposition to ‘the golden rule’ and a stubborn refusal to be ‘reconciled to God’, will doubtless finally obtain it’s true reward.

God does not demand we ‘believe in him’. God just expects us to take the teaching of His Son seriously. When we do that we become ‘ambassadors’ for Christ, bearing a Gospel of reconciliation and ‘peace on earth to men of good will’. Luke 2:14

The cross is the ultimate demonstration that it is WE, not God, who are the problem in the breakdown of our relationship with God. It is God who has done everything that is required to restore that relationship, if only WE will recognize and respond to it.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I still think that you might be more 'reformed' than might be comfortable for you to acknowledge, Mudfrog, insofar that the atonement model/s you espouse still have a very large facet of PSA among the others ... you wouldn't find that on more Catholic diamonds, as it were.

Jengie Jon has argued, cogently in my view, that both Calvinism and Arminianism are subsets of the Reformed approach. Just because you're not Calvinists doesn't mean that you're not part of the reformed (small r) tradition. For the record, the CofE did imbibe Calvinistic influences alongside the Lutheran and Zwinglian ones - which is why some of the posters here who have been involved with Anglican evangelicalism are somewhat incredulous when you insist that the evangelical approach to the atonement is broader than simply PSA.

It might well be where you are, but not where they've been. I'm on a similar page to you on this one, but I well remember visiting my mother-in-law's old Anglican church during an interregnum and the interim cleric - a vicar from Northern Ireland - breaking us all into groups to discuss what he saw as three key issues. We were meant to discuss them openly and frankly and share our views, but it was obvious from the outset that there was meant to be only one acceptable 'correct' answer.

If I remember rightly, the issues were :

- PSA as the only correct way to understand the atonement.
- There was no possibility whatsoever of anyone who wasn't a Christian being 'saved'.
- The third, I think, was about the necessity of taking the Bible completely literally.

Ok, I know that there's wiggle-room within each of these positions but I thought I'd been transported to a Paisleyite Presbyterian church in Northern Ireland or an ultra-conservative evangelical independent fellowship of some kind.

I was with the Baptists at the time and was shocked ... I'd not heard such woodenly literal approaches from the Baptist circles I moved in. We were still pretty conservative, but the minister where we were would at least have put forward several alternatives and invited us to make up our own minds on the issue. I couldn't wait for the service to be over so I could escape ...

Nevertheless ...

I think your RC friend was right that the SA would make a very good RC religious order, though.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I studied chaplaincy at Ushaw College which was an RC seminary up here in the North east of England. VERY Catholic. I was told by a priest that The Salvation Army would make a very good Catholic Order.

So, come the Vatican revolution when all churches are stormed by militant nuns and all church property and clergy are restored to the Pope's authority, look out for Fr Mugford and his military style cassock

I'd agree, and that's why I was surprised by Jade Constable's comment:

quote:
What? How is the SA remotely in the Catholic tradition?

That seems to me a very Anglo-Catholic, Staggers, understanding of what being Catholic means. To me there's a lot about the SA that looks very like the Friars and other of the more activist orders.

I could almost imagine St John Bosco in an SA uniform.

[ 19. January 2013, 11:27: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

It may surprise some readers to know that in 1882 there were very serious discussions about bringing The Salvation Army into the Church of England, with some support from some of its senior figures.

At the time we were still observing the sacraments so that wasn't an issue. What was an issue however was the fact that in the joint services that were held throughout that year, it was discovered that during the Eucharist some vicars were refusing the bread and wine to newly-converted Salvationists who had not been baptised and confirmed prior to their joining the SA. They were told to go down the road to the Methodist chapels. Booth was greatly offended and wrote that we were 'being divided at the church door.'

There was also an issue of what to do with the existing female captains.

Because they could only become deaconesses, Booth's talks with Canterbury were discontinued.

The Church of England then went on to make up it's own 'Army' and called it Church Army.

How things would have been different if there had been some flexibility on both sides.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Yes, I've heard this and you've shared this with us before and it's very interesting too.

I wonder what would have been different if this scheme had gone ahead?

It'd be interesting for someone to write one of those alternative history things - you know, like those novels which imagine a German victory in WWII etc.

Would the revival enthusiasm of the SA have 'leavened' the Anglican lump? Or would it have become blunted and 'establishment'? Or would it simply have produced a larger version of the Church Army or even some kind of 'order' within Anglicanism rather like one of the RC orders we've been considering.

It's a fascinating thought to consider the various scenarios. I rather suspect that it would have made the CofE a lot more effective in terms of outreach into inner-city and working-class areas and I have no doubt that numerical success in some districts would have been spectacularly impressive.

Whether it would have changed the course of history or the direction of the CofE overall, I'm not so sure ...

But it's an interesting one ... a very interesting one ...

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Might I also add that The Salvation Army is also episcopal in government?

Pope = General
Cardinal = Territorial Commander
Archbishop = Commissioner
Bishop = Divisional Commander
Priest = Commanding officer (this is what I am)

With respect, this much of the argument only makes the Salvation Army's government hierarchical.

What makes it episcopal?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Might I also add that The Salvation Army is also episcopal in government?

Pope = General
Cardinal = Territorial Commander
Archbishop = Commissioner
Bishop = Divisional Commander
Priest = Commanding officer (this is what I am)
With respect, this much of the argument only makes the Salvation Army's government hierarchical.

What makes it episcopal?

quote:
Episcopal polity is a form of church governance that is hierarchical in structure with the chief authority over a local Christian church resting in a bishop. This episcopal structure is found in the ancient Churches: in the various churches of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and other Eastern Church lineage, and also those of Anglican lineage. Some churches founded independently of these lineages also employ this form of church governance.

I always thought that episcopal did refer to the hierarchy of the church.

Our Divisional commanders are in charge of an division, roughly in the same way that a bishop is in charge of a diocese.

What else is there? I'm sure there is a lot, but basically that's it.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RdrEmCofE:
[QUOTE]Jesus said to Peter that he should forgive his brother not seven times but seventy times seven; meaning you should forgive your brother countless times.

Why can’t God be that way? Why did he insist something innocent die for man’s sin? Why did he feel a need to send his son to be used as a sacrifice for the sins of all mankind? Why couldn’t he just forgive us when we ask for forgiveness and be done with it without someone/something innocent dying?

If we ignore, as I have, the proof texting and quotations you provide, the answer is actually rather simple. God didn't insist. The people did the killing. And God did forgive and does always. There is something more complicated that simple recapitulation of an ancient Jewish sacrificial idea with a human sacrifice. And I am back to hammering away on the over-emphasis of the cross.

I was interested to watch a series of episodes of "Magnificata Italia" which is an aerial journey through regions of Italy. They focus on the towns, countryside and monuments. The cross is certainly present in the churches, but the main image/symbol inside is the baby Jesus with Mary, followed by the Good Shepherd image, which appears to be more ancient (not sure if it this is artefact of what they viewed versus reality). The crucifixion is certainly depicted, but in frescos and pictures. Also struck with the use of the chicken/rooster/cock as symbol in other Latin countries I've visited.

I have no doubt that the death scenes, suffering etc., resonated with the people at the time. There is also little doubt that the RC church wanted to maintain its worldly power by dispensing from earth things that are heaven's to provide, including salvation, and motivating the people by fear of being damned if not right with the church, versus right with God.

I'm also struck that the centralisation of church power increased with the creation of countries and secularization of what was church responsibility, of nationalism, such that popes (and later other church denominations) had less challenge as deracination of clergy occurred (greatly reduced clergy power within secular institutions and ejection of religious orders entirely) in countries.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Might I also add that The Salvation Army is also episcopal in government?

Pope = General
Cardinal = Territorial Commander
Archbishop = Commissioner
Bishop = Divisional Commander
Priest = Commanding officer (this is what I am)
With respect, this much of the argument only makes the Salvation Army's government hierarchical.

What makes it episcopal?
quote:
Episcopal polity is a form of church governance that is hierarchical in structure with the chief authority over a local Christian church resting in a bishop. This episcopal structure is found in the ancient Churches: in the various churches of Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and other Eastern Church lineage, and also those of Anglican lineage. Some churches founded independently of these lineages also employ this form of church governance.
I always thought that episcopal did refer to the hierarchy of the church.

Our Divisional commanders are in charge of an division, roughly in the same way that a bishop is in charge of a diocese.

What else is there? I'm sure there is a lot, but basically that's it.

All episcopal governments are hierarchical but not all hierarchical governments are episcopal. It's just one sort of hierarchical govt. Reformed churches also have a hierarchy, but it's not an episcopal one but rather a presbyterian one.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Then you will need to define exactly what makes an hierarchical authority 'episcopal'.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Then you will need to define exactly what makes an hierarchical authority 'episcopal'.

I'll let the Anglicans do that, as I'm in the Reformed type of hierarchical govt.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The Anglicans will probably link it to the sacraments ...

But you knew that already, Mudfrog.

[Biased]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

AND we're in the apostolic succession (very tongue in cheek that one!) [Razz]

We trace our ordinations and commissionings right back...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
It may surprise some readers to know that in 1882 there were very serious discussions about bringing The Salvation Army into the Church of England, with some support from some of its senior figures.

At the time we were still observing the sacraments so that wasn't an issue. What was an issue however was the fact that in the joint services that were held throughout that year, it was discovered that during the Eucharist some vicars were refusing the bread and wine to newly-converted Salvationists who had not been baptised and confirmed prior to their joining the SA. They were told to go down the road to the Methodist chapels. Booth was greatly offended and wrote that we were 'being divided at the church door.'

There was also an issue of what to do with the existing female captains.

Because they could only become deaconesses, Booth's talks with Canterbury were discontinued.

The Church of England then went on to make up it's own 'Army' and called it Church Army.

How things would have been different if there had been some flexibility on both sides.

While I have a lot of time for the Church Army, it is an absolute disgrace that the C of treated the SA like that and it should be a matter of priority to put it right.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I studied chaplaincy at Ushaw College which was an RC seminary up here in the North east of England. VERY Catholic. I was told by a priest that The Salvation Army would make a very good Catholic Order.

So, come the Vatican revolution when all churches are stormed by militant nuns and all church property and clergy are restored to the Pope's authority, look out for Fr Mugford and his military style cassock
I'd agree, and that's why I was surprised by Jade Constable's comment:

quote:
What? How is the SA remotely in the Catholic tradition?
That seems to me a very Anglo-Catholic, Staggers, understanding of what being Catholic means. To me there's a lot about the SA that looks very like the Friars and other of the more activist orders.

I could almost imagine St John Bosco in an SA uniform.

Mudfrog and Gamaliel both explained, but personally a church that does not have sacraments (or at least does not participate in them) is stretching 'Catholic' quite far! That was what surprised me about the SA being Catholic, not that the SA doesn't have things in common with Catholics in a general (pun not intended!) sense.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Thanks Mudfrog and Gamaliel for explaining - and the zoological metaphor is very helpful. I suppose you could say that the Anglican church are birds and the SA are crocodiles, but they're still descended from ancient reptiles even if distantly (the RCs). Note that I am speaking purely biologically and not inferring anything about resemblance to birds, crocodiles or ancient reptiles [Biased]

That is also very interesting about the SA and Church Army. While I personally am not for an open table, certainly that was a serious pastoral mis-step by the CoE in refusing SA members the Eucharist.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I still think that you might be more 'reformed' than might be comfortable for you to acknowledge, Mudfrog, insofar that the atonement model/s you espouse still have a very large facet of PSA among the others ... you wouldn't find that on more Catholic diamonds, as it were.

Jengie Jon has argued, cogently in my view, that both Calvinism and Arminianism are subsets of the Reformed approach. Just because you're not Calvinists doesn't mean that you're not part of the reformed (small r) tradition. For the record, the CofE did imbibe Calvinistic influences alongside the Lutheran and Zwinglian ones - which is why some of the posters here who have been involved with Anglican evangelicalism are somewhat incredulous when you insist that the evangelical approach to the atonement is broader than simply PSA.

It might well be where you are, but not where they've been. I'm on a similar page to you on this one, but I well remember visiting my mother-in-law's old Anglican church during an interregnum and the interim cleric - a vicar from Northern Ireland - breaking us all into groups to discuss what he saw as three key issues. We were meant to discuss them openly and frankly and share our views, but it was obvious from the outset that there was meant to be only one acceptable 'correct' answer.

If I remember rightly, the issues were :

- PSA as the only correct way to understand the atonement.
- There was no possibility whatsoever of anyone who wasn't a Christian being 'saved'.
- The third, I think, was about the necessity of taking the Bible completely literally.

Ok, I know that there's wiggle-room within each of these positions but I thought I'd been transported to a Paisleyite Presbyterian church in Northern Ireland or an ultra-conservative evangelical independent fellowship of some kind.

I was with the Baptists at the time and was shocked ... I'd not heard such woodenly literal approaches from the Baptist circles I moved in. We were still pretty conservative, but the minister where we were would at least have put forward several alternatives and invited us to make up our own minds on the issue. I couldn't wait for the service to be over so I could escape ...

Nevertheless ...

I think your RC friend was right that the SA would make a very good RC religious order, though.

Those three issues you mention are exactly the things I was taught in my evangelical Anglican church. Possibly less of an issue now Open Evangelical Anglicans are growing, but certainly that church I attended is still uber-conservative when it comes to Bible literalism and the Atonement. Only one correct answer, ever. It is interesting that this keeps cropping up in Anglicanism - from reading between the lines, I think my church was striving for a 'purer' (!) Anglicanism, hence the purging of anything remotely Catholic or liberal, whether it was either of those or not. Worth pointing out that my church was under the See of and a great favourite of +Benn too...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

My general 'take' these days is that many Anglican evangelicals feel the need to wear their evangelicalism on their sleeve a lot more than Baptists or Salvationists, say, might ...

The Baptist Union of Great Britain and Ireland is about 95% evangelical and whilst there are variants and shades, a lot of this evangelicalism is pretty congruent with Open Evangelicalism within the CofE.

Even so, I do find myself wondering where all these wonderful, lovely Open Evangelicals are in the Anglican Church ... I don't seem to come across that many of them - although most Anglican evangelicals seem 'open' on some things there are definitely things they're pretty 'closed' on too ...

Meanwhile, back to the zoology - I can see what you're saying about Anglicans and Salvationists in the sense that birds and reptiles are related ... but I think you're putting the SA at rather more of a remove than they deserve.

I'd suggest that iguanas and crocodiles might be a closer analogy - ie. alligators and crocodiles are more closely related than iguanas are to either, but they are still reptiles.

I'm not sure that, say, newts and frogs would be a close analogy either - both amphibians - because I think Anglicans and Salvationists are more closely related than that.

Blackbirds and crows?
Emus and ostriches?
Tapirs and elephants perhaps, rather than Indian and African elephants ...

I'd be very careful not to 'de-species' or 'de-catholicise' the Salvation Army ... I don't agree with them on the sacraments but this doesn't mean that they're a completely different 'species' of Christian in the way that it would if they, say, denied the divinity of Christ or the Trinity etc.

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

That makes more sense now, thank you.

Re open evangelicalism and Anglicans, there is a thriving open evangelical church in my town, and my uni chaplain is open evangelical. But I'm in an FiF heartland so anything low church is quite hard to find (my own church being in a group of the four AffCath churches in the town). I can only think of two evangelical Anglican churches in Northampton, one extremely conservative but not really in the town itself, and one open and larger with a significant homeless ministry.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:

That is also very interesting about the SA and Church Army. While I personally am not for an open table, certainly that was a serious pastoral mis-step by the CoE in refusing SA members the Eucharist.

It was also one of the three BIG reasons for The Salvation Army making the decision to stop providing the Eucharist in worship. If it's that divisive, we're all better off without it!

The other two reasons, incidentally, were that the eucharist is not necessary for salvation (i.e.conversion and subsequent sanctification) and secondly that we were not considered by others, and nor did we consider ourselves at that time, to be 'a church'. We therefore felt OK about not having them.

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I always thought that episcopal did refer to the hierarchy of the church.
...
What else is there?

Gamaliel points to the sacraments, which encourages one to think of them as if they were possible selections from a menu, from which one might choose when building a New York deli sandwich.

The church is a sacrament--what it does is celebrate the Eucharist--and all else leads up to and flows from that. So, however flawed--and around these parts, it is very flawed--the unity of the local church flows from the office and person of its bishop, the bishop ideally being chosen by the local church and confirmed by the other bishops. The catholicity of the greater Church flows from the conciliarity of the local churches in and through their bishops gathered. Recent Orthodox would say sobonost to emphasize the needful participation of the laity and religious.

So all the Church is and does is a reflection, marred though it is, of the faith handed over to the primitive church, preserved and enlivened by the constant action of the Holy Spirit, through the life and councils of the church.

I'm not throwing the predictable rocks here, rather I'm interested in what ways the Salvation Army incorporates this, or similar, sense of the Church.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

It is interesting that none of the acts of the church, the sacraments, emphasize the Cross. Rather other things.

The Cross is this unconscious brand name like presence however, isn't it. Makes me think: be happy with this baptism or this eucharist, but always think of my painful death, required by God because -- well, why because -- and what does that say about the church's emphasis and priorities?

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

How does the Eucharist not emphasise the Cross? There would be no point to it without Christ's body and blood being shed, even if one is a memorialist. Baptism emphasises the Resurrection, since both the Cross and Resurrection are necessary.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
All episcopal governments are hierarchical but not all hierarchical governments are episcopal. It's just one sort of hierarchical govt. Reformed churches also have a hierarchy, but it's not an episcopal one but rather a presbyterian one.

The problem is that episcopal has come to be synoymous with monepiscopal.

The terms episcopos and presbuteros are of course interchangeable in the NT, so in (etymological) theory episcopal and presbyterian should mean the same thing.

As I have remarked before, I am sceptical of the idea that the NT teaches a consistent and normative ecclesiology, but I quite unashamedly contend that Brethren ecclesiology, ie a collegial group of presbuteroi/episcopoi, is the best approximation to the prescriptive NT ideal if there is one.

[ 20. January 2013, 07:50: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There was a practice in the West early on, which died out in the East, I understand, of the bishop/lead presbyter (whatever we want to call him) breaking the eucharistic bread into smaller and smaller pieces so that the presbyters could take it to smaller gatherings and churches in the surrounding district in order to symbolise visible unity in them all partaking of the same loaf, as it were.

In the East this was delegated and the presbyters could use other loaves as essentially it meant the same thing ...

I'm not suggesting that this was a practice in NT times - but it was an early one from what I can gather. I agree with Kaplan that the ecclesial practices weren't prescriptive in NT times but they do seem to have developed into the germ of an episcopal system pretty quickly afterwards ... I'd like to agree with him on the Brethren approach - the collegiality etc that this affords - but my experience of the Brethren didn't quite bear that out ... but people's experiences vary ...

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
How does the Eucharist not emphasise the Cross? There would be no point to it without Christ's body and blood being shed, even if one is a memorialist. Baptism emphasises the Resurrection, since both the Cross and Resurrection are necessary.

Death is the issue, not the cross, and eucharists were celebrated before the cross became the symbol. Eucharist is about the death that becomes life. It is arguable that it is at least, if not more, about life.

I was thinking this morning as the priest said the prayer of consecration and a person in front of us crossed themselves. My first thought was about the incredibly close association of all we do, as interpreted through the cross. My second thought after church was what might the church look like, if we celebrated the Loaves and Fishes in place of Bread and Wine. -- the NT lesson was the water into wine at Cana -- wondered about that too, but the version read said the inferior wine was brought out when guests were drunk which steered me elsewhere.

But this all has me thinking about a question: Is the miracle of the eucharist objectively bigger and more worth celebrating/commorating than others? (I know that it may be said Jesus said to do it, but do we really know this? Scriptural quotations are beside the point to consider here.)

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

Why would loaves and fishes instead of bread and wine be appropriate when all the NT discussion of the Eucharist talk about bread and wine? If you want to celebrate something of your own with loaves and fishes, that's fine but it's not the Eucharist.

And I don't think modern Western squeamishness about death is a reason to not associate the Eucharist with the Cross - the whole point is to remember the One who died for all and that death of His.

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Jade, it is not about squeamishness with death. It is about whether the message of Jesus is more about one thing and some others are neglected in terms of emphasis. If I soften the position in the face of argument -- should we have a rebalancing of which the cross-as-symbol is a sign of lack of balance?

Is Christianity more about life or resurrection than death?

Are we emphasizing one of this trinity (death, resurrection, life) excessively? And are there implications for the over-emphasis on the cross cum death?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0