|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Wrath and sacrifice
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
I meet with a small group of blokes to drink red wine and argue theology. I am utilising Tony Lane- 'The Wrath of God as an aspect of God' and Burgess 'Salvation as judgement and grace' as a defence against double predestination. (Sort of builds on Barth's divine attributes).
So, Jesus dies for humanity, but in Him, humanity dies as well. God doesn't love the sinner but hate the sin- he hated both and in love through Christ reconciled all humankind to the Holy Trinity for all time.
But I am not entirely sure how the OT animal sacrifice fits in. The sacrifice 'covers' the sin , but if Christ died for all, for all of time, then wasn't it redundant. Was it purely to demonstrate the concept of sacrifice?
And to all, Christ is risen.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
Sorry, a bit of context. most of my mates are very Calvinistic and seem to almost rejoice in the smitey nature of God. I am the opposite end of the theological spectrum and probably over emphasise relationship and love and ignore the wrath element.
I am looking for common ground, and a cohesive theology.
I am aware of the different theories of atonement and aren't wishing to open that can of worms- just a simple view of animal sacrifice and how it fits into the historical context.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teilhard
Shipmate
# 16342
|
Posted
The problem of human beings longing to -- insisting upon -- being or becoming more and more God-like is an ancient human problem -- not a Divine problem (see the story about the incident in the garden, the snake and the trees, etc.) ... …
I see the entire history and practice and meaning of "sacrifice" as a means of settling OUR problem with God, rather than God settling a problem with US ...
Posts: 401 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
God does love the sinner, doesn't he?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
God does love the sinner, doesn't he?
I hope so. Otherwise he wouldn't love anybody but other members of the Trinity.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
God does love the sinner, doesn't he?
I hope so. Otherwise he wouldn't love anybody but other members of the Trinity.
I'm hip. Maybe Patdys meant something else.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
But an all time all people approach gives me universalist leanings. The only people excluded by my understanding of God are those who say No to the offer of grace or relationship.
And this is where I find myself up against my fellow red drinkers. Their understanding of God emphasises the importance of the sinners prayer and saving souls. Whereas I speak of the offer of participation in the Trinitarian dance, relationship.
And which is why we struggle to find commonality. My approach will condemn people to Hell by their understanding. And my understanding of their approach is that it demeans what is on offer, and demeans the grace of God.
The only point of connection is a rather fine Barossa Shiraz.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
I'm at your end of the spectrum Patdys.
I too see it that the sacrifices were for our sakes, not for God's.
People wanted to appease and please their gods, who they saw as in control of everything that happened in the world, so that all would go well with their tribes, particularly with regard to fertility.
The one and only real live God must engage with people where they are, and help all humanity to see that none of the other gods are real, and in fact what people were doing to appease and please them was harmful to humanity. And so God gave the people who were prepared to accept the truth and reject other gods healthy rules to live by, so that they would thrive. It is healthy to face up to our wrongdoing, make reparation, and start again. It makes sense to me then that God would give the people a ritual they were already familiar with tied in with the right attitude he wanted them to foster.
The wrath was always disgust at the harmful things people were doing to themselves and to each other, especially when sacrificing their children to false idols.
I don't think that humanity died with Christ, but that God was showing humanity that he is fully appeased, he understands that people will sin, and he loves us so much that he is ready to show everyone who wants to know the way to live and to die in relationship with him.
And so I think that you are both right, your friends as they see the importance of baptism in which people repent and begin their relationships with God through Christ, and you as you see that there is no need for cringing fear at the wrath of God.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I am beginning to wonder to what extent the "wrath" is our projection onto God. Let me get this straight I am not saying we want a "wrathful" God. I am saying something more complicated than that.
We tend to make God in our image. In this world, those who are "special" rulers, popstars, etc. tend to mark quite clearly the division between them and the everyday person. Society emphasises this division by security measures and protocols that we must follow. If this is how the big people in this world act then surely if God is bigger than all the big people in the world then there must be a division that is bigger still. That at least is our reasoning. To mark this, we label this divide "holy".
I suspect we have, in projecting this onto God, deceived ourselves. God, precisely because he is the biggest of the big does not need any of the trappings our big people have. Instead, he seems to desire intimacy and contact. I even think this projection of God as more like our rulers is a sin.
Now I do believe God is a God of justice; it is just that the nature of justice is radically different to that of rulers of this world. He could no doubt be a severe judge dishing out punishment for the slightest sin. However, that is not how he behaves. He is more like a good parent, standing with us as we face up to the pain we have caused, the injustice we have tolerated and times we have failed to love. We are not let off the hook for to truly be able to experience a relationship with him we must face it for in doing these things we disappoint God. Apart from that we wander deluded in our imaginings and projections. The question is not whether we can know God but are we prepared to know ourselves.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
A couple years ago there was a Kerygmania discussion in which some said "wrath" is a poor translation of the word/concept. I think the proposed better word was something like "disappointment." How a parent feels when a kid disobeys and messes up instead of trusting parental wisdom and guidance
I currently figure it like this - the law says anyone who hangs on a tree is cursed. Jesus is hung on a tree, by law he is cursed, dies "in sin", no last minute opportunity to "confess" by bringing a couple of birds to sacrifice as a way of expressing regret and fresh start.
What does God do with this person who died cursed? Raise him up and hand him the throne.
It's a dramatization for us of who God is, what God does, how God responds to us sinners, as God has always done, throughout the Bible pleading "Come back to me!" no questions asked, no punishment required.
By the law Jesus was condemned, as are we all; the resurrection proved that's not a barrier to God loving and welcoming us. That's why if there's no resurrection our faith is in vane. It all hangs not on the "death as penalty" but on the "resurrection as proof of God's acceptance of those who die in sin." (A lot of my friends think the death is what matters, the resurrection is just a byproduct. They talk endlessly about the death and barely mention the resurrection.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
I beieve that "orge", the greek word translated as "wrath", is better understood as "indignation that compels action", or something close to that. God does not save us in spite of His "wrath", much less from His wrath, but rather because of his wrath. His wrath at the way the way His creation (that's including us) is screwed up compels Him to rescue us. It's the flip side of compassion. To us, the exact same action is compassion, from the outside it is wrath.
Which, istm, is precisely nothing to do with sacrifice. Sacrifice is to remind us of the covenant relationship that we have with God; It's a reaffirmation of God's binding promises towards us. Transactional sacrifice is not an OT concept. Which explains the OT hostility to sacrificial practice when unaccompanied by faithfulness to the covenant which it is intended to seal.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
A couple years ago there was a Kerygmania discussion in which some said "wrath" is a poor translation of the word/concept.
I could have been one of those, but Jolly Jape has summarised it nicely.
So I'll just put my oar in and say that the idea of a fellowship offering in the Levitical sacrifices does not fit in with the idea that sacrifices are to fend off an angry God.
Rob Bell has said something about this being about God wishing to have fellowship with us. If anyone can cite this it would be an interesting addition to the discussion. I tend to think of a fellowship offering to have been about loss of fellowship between two people. But either way it does not fit in with the idea of sacrifices are to fend off an angry God. There is something else at work here.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
Thank you for your thoughtful replies.
Anthropomorphising God is probably not a good idea. But, I do it often and would use a Christocentric focus to justify it.
Sacrifice as a reminder of covenant, and wrath as indignation that compels action.
The importance of baptism in which people repent and begin their relationships with God through Christ, and you as you see that there is no need for cringing fear at the wrath of God.
Again, I can fit all these concepts into my relational understanding.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
God does love the sinner, doesn't he?
I hope so. Otherwise he wouldn't love anybody but other members of the Trinity.
[Side tangent]
Classical theology, I believe teaches that the three persons of the Trinity love each other perfectly, that they do not need to love creation. Rather the act of loving creation is a pure act of free choice on the part of the Triune God.
As in, the Trinity doesn't "need" to love us, but loves us simply out of free will.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The Trinity HAS to love us. As in has no option.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Their understanding of God emphasises the importance of the sinners prayer and saving souls. Whereas I speak of the offer of participation in the Trinitarian dance, relationship.
And which is why we struggle to find commonality. My approach will condemn people to Hell by their understanding. And my understanding of their approach is that it demeans what is on offer, and demeans the grace of God.
I have attended a Bible study of conservatives for a decade, until changed leadership changed focus from "how to get through life with some shred of sanity with God's help", to "wrathful God is sending 95% (or more) of the population (including some of your dearly loved family members) to eternal torment." I keep wondering, and have muttered the wondering to the Ship, at what point does disagreement about God's values and personality and abilities become not just different understandings of God but descriptions of different gods?
I'm not sure there is any commonality other than the surface level of the historical story. We agree that Jesus lived, died, was Resurrected. We disagree on all of the understandings of why, to what effect, for whom; we disagree on God's values; we disagree on how we are to relate to others especially to "sinners." (And "Wives, SUBMIT!" And capitol punishment. Etc.)
And yet, many people evolve in their understanding of God as they muddle through life, whether liberal to conservative or conservative to liberal or simple to muddled. Unless there's a sudden major change, it really is not a conversion from one viewpoint to another but an evolution over years or decades, one tidbit at a time.
Maybe the two poles come together at the point of "God wants relationship with us." Bypassing whether the "sinners prayer" is the only way to initiate relationship, perhaps "ways to develop that relationship" is a topic in common?
But one doesn't have to agree with someone to enjoy a glass of wine with them.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, but there are plenty of Christian traditions which don't have 'the sinner's prayer' as a point of initiation.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
nobody but me
Apprentice
# 18084
|
Posted
As a sort of liberal (whatever) I have managed to find common ground with Evangelicals/neo Calvinists over how we can see and build the Kingdom here and now by following Christ in feeding the poor, seeking justice for the oppressed. They did for a bit get their knickers in a twist over whether this was trying to be right with God through "works" rather than "sola gratia". Regarding the Sinners Prayer, it seems to me that evangelism that focused on it misses the fact that plenty of people with a deep and meaningful relationship with God have this relationship because the world has told them they were bad and worthless but Jesus (through people) restored their sense of self worth as a loved child of God. Very few broken people need further conviction of their rottenness. Much sinful behaviour stems from a broken sense of self.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
nobody but me
Apprentice
# 18084
|
Posted
Martin60: please explain what you mean by the Trinity having no choice in loving us? I agree instinctively but I don't know why.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Yes, but there are plenty of Christian traditions which don't have 'the sinner's prayer' as a point of initiation.
That's why I said "bypassing that" maybe it was poorly phrased - skipping the question of "how does one initiate becoming Christian" (not everyone gets baptized, either!) - maybe conversation could focus on how to pursue relationship with God.
I should admit I have had friends who believe the sole legitimate purpose of every Christian's life is evangelism, save people from hell; they might struggle to see any relevance of a discussion on how to develop relationship with God.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Here I have started a separate thread based on your remark, so as not to create a tangent on this one.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
nobody but me - that's all you need.
I can make up a story for you if you like. But so can you. Just make it the best possible one. It will be true.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nobody but me:
please explain what you mean by the Trinity having no choice in loving us? I agree instinctively but I don't know why.
One could argue that if a definition of God is love (the verb, not the noun), then God loves, just does, that's who God is; so of course God loves us because God can't not love, that would be self-contradictory.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Thanks for clarifying your point, Belle Ringer - and yes, I'm with you on that and on this latest point too.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
The love is God's; the wrath is ours. God's sacrifice neutralises the wrath and allows us to experience and connect with the love.
I first encountered this idea in its raw state in Julian's Revelations, and have experienced in my own life. I believe firmly that focus on "terms and conditions Christianity" is one of the biggest blockages to the development of relationship with God, and therefore of a life of faith. I see this as being true of individuals and of the church as a whole.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The love is God's; the wrath is ours. God's sacrifice neutralises the wrath and allows us to experience and connect with the love.
I might word it "the mistaken assumption of wrath is ours." Adam and Eve ate from the tree, and hid from God, that behavior is consistent with belief God would be angry or rejecting. A&E were still physically in the Garden, but emotionally they were no longer in paradise. Their later physical departure merely reflected what they were already experiencing.
But God provided for them by making them clothes, for which he may have killed some of his own creatures. If that was the first sacrifice, it was for us, not for God. To provide what we needed, not something God needed.
How might the story be different if instead of hiding they had run to God in tears "we disobeyed you and it's all gone wrong, please help"? If they had believed God is loving and welcoming?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I like the word 'indignation'.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nenya
Shipmate
# 16427
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The love is God's; the wrath is ours. God's sacrifice neutralises the wrath and allows us to experience and connect with the love.
I might word it "the mistaken assumption of wrath is ours." Adam and Eve ate from the tree, and hid from God, that behavior is consistent with belief God would be angry or rejecting. A&E were still physically in the Garden, but emotionally they were no longer in paradise. Their later physical departure merely reflected what they were already experiencing.
But God provided for them by making them clothes, for which he may have killed some of his own creatures. If that was the first sacrifice, it was for us, not for God. To provide what we needed, not something God needed.
How might the story be different if instead of hiding they had run to God in tears "we disobeyed you and it's all gone wrong, please help"? If they had believed God is loving and welcoming?
This is very much the way my thinking has been going, of late. I've read some of Julian of Norwich and how she says she could find no wrath in God, no matter how hard she looked. Also, though not exactly in those terms, I believe she expressed the whole idea of projection - we are the ones who feel the need for sacrifice and punishment and we are angry with ourselves, so we project that anger on to God. I am still trying to get my head round this and it certainly wouldn't be the accepted view in my con-evo church. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Thank you to everyone who is contributing to this thread.
--------------------
They told me I was delusional. I nearly fell off my unicorn.
Posts: 1289 | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Glad that my voice is one among many. Jesus sacrificed Himself to OUR wrath. And cancelled it. Made it void. An evolutionary relic.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Glad that my voice is one among many. Jesus sacrificed Himself to OUR wrath. And cancelled it. Made it void. An evolutionary relic.
I think that's broadly right, Martin. Apart from the bit about evolution, though as I think it's peripheral to the argument I'll disregard it.
However, it's only part of the story. I'm sure the vengeful sadist god is a projection. But then so is the simpering dotard god who winks at our every invention. That's the one we need to worry about, because he doesn't exist either.
Here is a different take on the matter. Have a look at it and see what you think. It's about John Chrysostom, who wrote to Theodore of Mopsuestia, to give him comfort. He was despairing about the wrath of God, having broken his vows.
The reference to Julian of Norwich is a good one. By all accounts she was a wise and cheerful woman who inspired all she came into contact with. A saint in other words. That's how you get to see there is no wrath in God. I don't know about you, but I'm a long way from that.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Dame Julian wasn't as evolved as we, although as evolved as she could be:
Revelations of Divine Love. (ch. 32)
And in this sight I marvelled greatly and beheld our Faith, marvelling thus: Our Faith is grounded in God's word, and it belongeth to our Faith that we believe that God's word shall be saved in all things; and one point of our Faith is that many creatures shall be condemned: as angels that fell out of Heaven for pride, which be now fiends; and man in earth that dieth out of the Faith of Holy Church: that is to say, they that be heathen men; and also man that hath received christendom and liveth unchristian life and so dieth out of charity: all these shall be condemned to hell without end, as Holy Church teacheth me to believe. And all this [so] standing, methought it was impossible that all manner of things should be well, as our Lord shewed in the same time.
She accepted Church teaching:
And yet in this I desired, as [far] as I durst, that I might have full sight of Hell and Purgatory. But it was not my meaning to make proof of anything that belongeth to the Faith: for I believed soothfastly that Hell and Purgatory is for the same end that Holy Church teacheth, . . . (ch. 33)
Passing references indicate that she casually accepted the existence of hell:
For if afore us were laid [together] all the pains in Hell and in Purgatory and in Earth—death and other—, and [by itself] sin, we should rather choose all that pain than sin. (ch. 40)
For I thought in sooth were I safe from sin, I were full safe from all the fiends of hell and enemies of my soul. (ch. 49)
. . . all the pain that is in hell. (ch. 76)
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Dame Julian wasn't as evolved as we, although as evolved as she could be:...
She accepted Church teaching:
And yet in this I desired, as [far] as I durst, that I might have full sight of Hell and Purgatory.
CS Lewis ends the Narnia series with some people sitting in the dark doorway insisting this was their assigned fate.
I have gradually evolved from "most people go to hell" to "God welcomes everyone, yes Hitler and Pot Pol." But some people seem determined to create "hell" for themselves even if they don't need to. So maybe there is a purgatory and a hell, not because God demands them, but because we self-impose them?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It would certainly appear to be so for Jesus and Milton's Lucifer Belle. And therefore others.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Al Eluia
Inquisitor
# 864
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nobody but me:
As a sort of liberal (whatever) I have managed to find common ground with Evangelicals/neo Calvinists over how we can see and build the Kingdom here and now by following Christ in feeding the poor, seeking justice for the oppressed. They did for a bit get their knickers in a twist over whether this was trying to be right with God through "works" rather than "sola gratia".
I get tired of the endless nature of this debate. Not that the faith vs. works question doesn't have its place, but can't we, as the Nike slogan goes, "just do it"? Do justice and love mercy and walk humbly with God and not get our knickers in a twist about whether we're trying to "earn" salvation?
quote:
Very few broken people need further conviction of their rottenness. Much sinful behaviour stems from a broken sense of self.
Amen!
[ 10. April 2015, 10:52: Message edited by: Al Eluia ]
--------------------
Consider helping out the Anglican Seminary in El Salvador with a book or two! https://www.amazon.es/registry/wishlist/YDAZNSAWWWBT/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_ep_ws_7IRSzbD16R9RQ
https://www.episcopalcafe.com/a-seminary-is-born-in-el-salvador/
Posts: 1157 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
But I am not entirely sure how the OT animal sacrifice fits in. The sacrifice 'covers' the sin , but if Christ died for all, for all of time, then wasn't it redundant. Was it purely to demonstrate the concept of sacrifice?
If you're really serious about looking into the issue of sacrifice in all it's permutations - I'd recommend Sacrifice and the Body.
Heavy but comprehensive. He was a New Testament lecturer of mine and I think he too has a trinitarian approach.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
That looks like a potentially interesting book, Evensong. Pity about the price!
Patdys, on animal sacrifices, I posted this (link) on another recent thread. That's the sacrifice for the day of atonement. The other animal sacrifices cover other aspects of sin (accidental, or rectified transactional).
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
There's a thread in Hell about a man in California insisting that people he considers sinful should be killed because it's "better that offenders should die rather than that all of us should be killed by God's just wrath."
This concept of God's wrath intrigues me - do people really believe God kills his friends just because God is angry at some (supposed) enemies?
[Edited to remove negative labeling of the man in question]
[ 14. April 2015, 16:10: Message edited by: Belle Ringer ]
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
