|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
In fact I would say that as in Luther's time the question was "how can I find God's grace?" today our question is "how can a loving God allow abuse and tragedy".
I think you are probably right, although the questions are likely to be closely related.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
But that is where you have to part company with Open Theism in order for a more 'Reformed' position.
Are you maybe confusing open theism with process theology?
I don't think I am, but I guess it is always possible. Open Theism is gaining popularity in by-passing traditional theodicies. God is not responsible for suffering and evil because the future is 'open'. However, my point is that by solving one problem you merely create another.
The question moves from 'how can God allow suffering?' to 'how can we be sure that God can defeat evil and suffering?'
Now, at this point I'm sure we would all agree that the answer to the second question is - through the death and resurrection of Jesus! However, that only 'works' if:
a) the atonement does something objective (i.e. exemplar is not enough)
and
b) the atonement demonstrates Christ's victory over evil.
If you are still with me, you will be eager to point out that CV fits the bill perfectly. Well, I'm open to persuasion, but I've still not got my head round the link between how Christ's death and resurrection demonstrates his victory over evil for him with how he does it for us.
PSA I can understand because, issues of justice etc. aside, a punishment / debt can theoretically be paid by someone else. I know you all think I am too 'literal' but I can't see how Christ's victory can become 'our' victory.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm trying to understand what you mean by CV and found this precis of Swedenborg (The Gist of Swedenborg)
So, for you CV means a rejection of the human body, ('Christ overcame the human nature he got from his mother')which appears to be Gnostic thinking as rejection of creation as inherently good.
In Swedenborgianese CV is the glorification of Christ's human and the subjugation of the hells. This is redemption. It is put this way in Swedenborg's True Christianity:
quote:
It must first be stated what redemption is. To redeem means to free from damnation, to reclaim from everlasting death, to snatch from hell, and to release the captives and those in bondage from the hands of the devil. The Lord performed this by conquering the hells and founding a new heaven. The reason why people could not by any other means be saved was that the spiritual world is so closely integrated with the natural world that they are inseparable. This principally affects people's interiors, what is called their souls and minds; those of the good are linked with the souls and minds of angels, those of the wicked with the souls and minds of the spirits of hell. Their union is such that if a person were deprived of them, he would fall lifeless, like a block of wood. Likewise neither could angels and spirits remain in existence, if human beings were taken away from them. This will make it plain why redemption took place in the spiritual world, and why heaven and hell had to be brought into order before a church could be established upon earth. This is clearly stated in Revelation, where it is said that after the creation of a new heaven, the New Jerusalem, which is the new church, came down from that heaven (Rev. 21:1, 2). True Christianity 118
So it is not about rejecting the human body. It's not gnostic. The part about Christ overcoming the human nature that He got from Mary is that His mortal human nature was the means by which hell could encounter and attack Him. He fought the loves of self and the world associated with His humanity in favor of the love of the whole human race and of His Father. He didn't reject the body, He glorified it, or made it divine. He rose with it on the third day.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I've still not got my head round the link between how Christ's death and resurrection demonstrates his victory over evil for him with how he does it for us.
It is a victory over evil for him because he really solves the objective problem of evil by liberating us, reconciling us, healing us, and giving us a new identity. PSA deals with just the reconciling part. CV (which includes an expanded form of PSA -- let me know if I lose you on this part) deals with all 4.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
PSA I can understand because, issues of justice etc. aside, a punishment / debt can theoretically be paid by someone else.
A monitary debt, yes. A punitive debt, no. Not in any legal system. CV says he pays our monitary debt by releaseing us from slavery. With that new "ownership" we have a new identity in Christ, which is how what God does also effects us.
I know you all think I am too 'literal' but I can't see how Christ's victory can become 'our' victory. [/QB][/QUOTE]
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I've still not got my head round the link between how Christ's death and resurrection demonstrates his victory over evil for him with how he does it for us.
It is a victory over evil for him because he really solves the objective problem of evil by liberating us, reconciling us, healing us, and giving us a new identity.
This is what my quote above addresses also.
Christ's victory for Him is a victory for us because it reduces hell's power over us by exposing them, putting them in their place, and giving us defenses against them. This in effect liberates us, reconciles us, heals us, and gives us a new identity insofar as we align ourselves with Him.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
In Swedenborgianese CV is the glorification of Christ's human and the subjugation of the hells. This is redemption. It is put this way in Swedenborg's True Christianity:
..
So it is not about rejecting the human body. It's not gnostic. The part about Christ overcoming the human nature that He got from Mary is that His mortal human nature was the means by which hell could encounter and attack Him. He fought the loves of self and the world associated with His humanity in favor of the love of the whole human race and of His Father. He didn't reject the body, He glorified it, or made it divine. He rose with it on the third day.
Thanks for the further explanation, obviously difficult to work out doctrine from such a cursory reading as mine. But, it does seem to me that he equates human nature itself with evil, though he rejects OS istm he still postulates that the material world is evil in that it's all damned.
From your quote: "It must first be stated what redemption is. To redeem means to free from damnation, to reclaim from everlasting death, to snatch from hell, and to release the captives and those in bondage from the hands of the devil."
And from the Gist of: "THE LIFE ON EARTH
The Lord had at first a human nature from the mother, of which He gradually divested Himself while He was in the world. Accordingly He kept experiencing two states: a state of humiliation or privation, as long and as far as He was conscious in the human nature from the mother; and a state of glorification or union with the Divine, as long and as far as He was conscious in the Humanity received from the Father. In the state of humiliation He prayed to the Father as to One other than Himself; but in the state of glorification He spoke with the Father as with Himself. In this state He said that the Father was in Him, and He in the Father, and that the Father and He were one.
The Lord consecutively put off the human nature assumed from the mother, and put on a Humanity from the Divine in Himself, which is the Divine Humanity and the Son of God."
I'm having difficulty in seeing this other than as the Gnostic idea of matter being evil. OC teaching is that matter is good, that human nature is good (created in image and likeness of God) and that Christ became fully human for a way to bring human nature to its fulfillment, not to destroy human nature by making it something different.
In this process of Christ 'divesting himself of human nature', everything that is human nature is associated with that which is not of God.
Istm although Swedenborg's rejected OS he still retains the concepts of damned nature, of estrangement from God, privation, which is part and parcel of the Gnostic OS and from this postulates CV as the only remedy much as OS demands baptism to restore lost grace.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Myrrh - Sorry, I'm not catching what "OS" stands for. I see that OC must mean "Orthodox Church". Is that right?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But, it does seem to me that he equates human nature itself with evil, though he rejects OS istm he still postulates that the material world is evil in that it's all damned.
I can see how you have that idea. I'll try to explain.
Human nature is not evil, nor is the material world. The quote is talking about the hereditary tendencies to sin that are common to everyone. Jesus received these through His mother, and these are what He overcame, not human nature itself. So in that translation it says that He overcame the nature received from His mother, and that is what it means.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I'm having difficulty in seeing this other than as the Gnostic idea of matter being evil. OC teaching is that matter is good, that human nature is good (created in image and likeness of God) and that Christ became fully human for a way to bring human nature to its fulfillment, not to destroy human nature by making it something different.
I agree with you. Matter is good, human nature is made in the image and likeness of God.
The confusion arises because worldly things, in a certain sense, resist spiritual ones. The desire for worldly treasure, for example, is in some sense the opposite of the desire for heavenly treasure. Allowing ourselves to be led by the desires of our senses is not usually seen as the pathway to spiritual enlightenment.
This does not make the desires of our senses evil, nor does it make worldly treasure evil. It only means that the desire for worldly things needs to be subordinated to the desire for heavenly ones - that is, that our interest should be in people's welfare and in serving God.
The purpose of the Incarnation was to restore this kind of order, so that people could genuinely treasure the things of heaven, and no longer be led astray.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
I'll leave Myrrh and Freddy to it (although I assume OS = original sin.)
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
It is a victory over evil for him because he really solves the objective problem of evil by liberating us, reconciling us, healing us, and giving us a new identity. PSA deals with just the reconciling part. CV (which includes an expanded form of PSA -- let me know if I lose you on this part) deals with all 4.
Yep, you lost me ... tell me more. I appreciate there is mystery here but there has to be some point of contact between the model and reality as we experience it now. I'm genuinely interested, how does CV deal with all four?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
A monitary debt, yes. A punitive debt, no. Not in any legal system.
Actually we've covered this before, there are countless examples of someone paying a fine for someone else, where that fine is both monetary and penal. Others have argued that it is not common for 'major' crimes (point taken) but it is still commonly accepted in modern law.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV says he pays our monitary debt by releaseing us from slavery. With that new "ownership" we have a new identity in Christ, which is how what God does also effects us.
Once you move from 'ransom' to 'debt' then you really are in the territory of 'owing it to someone'. I presume we owe the debt to God? If so how is that qualitatively different to him demanding punishment? (I can possibly see how a monetary debt is quantatively different to punishment but not qualitatively.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
there are countless examples of someone paying a fine for someone else, where that fine is both monetary and penal.
Let me clarify: Jesus did not pay a monetary fine of any sort, he was physically executed. One can pay money for someone else, one cannot be executed for someone else in any legal system.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
It is a victory over evil for him because he really solves the objective problem of evil by liberating us, reconciling us, healing us, and giving us a new identity. PSA deals with just the reconciling part. CV (which includes an expanded form of PSA -- let me know if I lose you on this part) deals with all 4.
Yep, you lost me ... tell me more. I appreciate there is mystery here but there has to be some point of contact between the model and reality as we experience it now. I'm genuinely interested, how does CV deal with all four?
CV illustrated what God does
1) in liberating us because it is a ransom out of bondage,
2) reconciling us because CV includes substitutionary atonement which is an expanded form of PSA that includes more than PSA does, not less. (that is, PSA only deals with Christ bearing our sin, while SA deals with Christ bearing our sin, and bearing the sin done to us, and bearing our suffering and sickness)
3) in liberating us from the devil, we are given a new identity, no longer being slaves to sin, but as children of God
4) this liberation includes healing or purification because the bondage is internal. In the Orthodox view (which has always been CV) sin is seen as a medical model not a legal one.
PSA on the other hand deals exclusively with reconciliation and nothing else. So at the very least, it would need to be combined with other models to get the full picture.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV says he pays our monitary debt by releaseing us from slavery. With that new "ownership" we have a new identity in Christ, which is how what God does also effects us.
quote:
Once you move from 'ransom' to 'debt' then you really are in the territory of 'owing it to someone'. I presume we owe the debt to God?
You need to look at what Scripture says. It always speaks of the cross in the context of ransom when it mentions a "price". The only reference to debt I am aware of is a parable of Jesus were the moral is that we should be "forgiving of debt" as God is. Correct me if I am overlooking something.
You need to also remember that the idea of ransom or debt is an analogy there is not literally a legal problem. So we need to ask with CV and with PSA how they apply to "real life".
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Let me clarify: Jesus did not pay a monetary fine of any sort, he was physically executed. One can pay money for someone else, one cannot be executed for someone else in any legal system.
Ummh, someone once said: ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:
You need to also remember that the idea of ransom or debt is an analogy there is not literally a legal problem. So we need to ask with CV and with PSA how they apply to "real life".
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
PSA on the other hand deals exclusively with reconciliation and nothing else. So at the very least, it would need to be combined with other models to get the full picture.
Okay, I can see that.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The only reference to debt I am aware of is a parable of Jesus were the moral is that we should be "forgiving of debt" as God is. Correct me if I am overlooking something.
![[Confused]](confused.gif) The NT is full of the idea of sin as a 'debt'. We could start with the Lukan version of the Lord's Prayer ... interesting that we have to ask God to 'forgive us our debts'.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
But, it does seem to me that he equates human nature itself with evil, though he rejects OS istm he still postulates that the material world is evil in that it's all damned.
I can see how you have that idea. I'll try to explain. ....
Thank you Freddy, with that in mind I've read some more from the books available on Gutenburg - he really was quite extraordinary, a complete change from what I've come to associate with Western Christianity with its emphasis on Original Sin (OS) and Augustinian mindset.
Quite refreshing actually...
...I really can't stand Augustine...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Thank you Freddy, with that in mind I've read some more from the books available on Gutenburg
I had heard that there were old books available on Gutenburg, but had not seen them. Thanks for pointing that out.
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
he really was quite extraordinary, a complete change from what I've come to associate with Western Christianity with its emphasis on Original Sin (OS) and Augustinian mindset.
Yes, thanks. Very similar in some ways to Orthodoxy.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Myrrh,
I think the central issue in the idea of God being self-limited in entering into relationship is not so much predestination (which as a non-Calvinist is a non-starter for me anyway) but rather the issue of God's sovereignty and how this effected by relational self-limitation. Any thought about that?
I think I understand where Openness Theology has gone with this reminding me as it does of thoughts I had about it some time back, this could be a bit of ramble as I remember in no particular order.
Basically I see no problem in holding the two concepts of God's sovereignty and human free will true at one and the same time - as the OC has it that God is all-knowing and God cannot act against our free will - on thinking some more about this I have to note, as dredged up from memory, that it only takes one to say it's against his will for God to know him to successfully limit God's omniscience.
Orthodox teaching is that man has free will to turn to or reject God (not lost as in OS) and keeping it to this rather than going into the head to head abilities of free will, if Christ was willing the storm to cease and you wanted it to continue raining) and working to the principle that God's omniscience could be limited by those not willing to be known, I wondered how willing I was to be known by God and what in general this willingness to be be known or not known meant and how much did God actually know.
It seemed to me then that God's omniscient knowledge of us could only be in love (which as an uncreated energy of God is in all things and which as perfect love drives away all fear) because I couldn't accept, was unwilling, to be fully known by another in anything less. I decided I was willing to be known completely by this God only.
Openness suggests that God is not omniscient because we have free will to change minds etc., but my thoughts about this included Christ's teaching that God actually was and I concluded, that God is omnicient in that love which He is, which is also the love that we are created in image and likeness, but He can be not omnicient in relationship where one can choose to not be known because we have free will to choose relationship.
Thinking some more about this, I think the first commandment "to love God" is this exercise of our free will, the moment we choose to obey this commandment is the moment we open ourselves, align ourselves, to knowing God who as love can only be fully known by love, and in this we also come to know ourselves.
Perhaps 'how omniscient is God?' comes back to the similar Orthodox position on the eschatology of universal salvation - God wills all to be saved and it's an eternal willing, but we can only hope that all will be saved because God can't act against our will and force salvation on us if we're unwilling. It may well be that in God's will we are already saved, but our salvation is constrained by how we work it out in time, with the possibility that it doesn't become universal. So likewise I think God's omniscience; in perfect love is omniscience, but that is limited by how willing we are to participate in it in time (and which I recall now was the deciding factor for me in being willing to be known).
And, perhaps how to read God's possible rejection of us, "I never knew you"?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
I said
The only reference to debt I am aware of is a parable of Jesus were the moral is that we should be "forgiving of debt" as God is. Correct me if I am overlooking something.
quote:
you said
The NT is full of the idea of sin as a 'debt'. We could start with the Lukan version of the Lord's Prayer ... interesting that we have to ask God to 'forgive us our debts'.
The Lord's prayer, like the parable I mentioned is about our forgiving debt as we are forgiven our debts by God. It does not say that God paid our debt, but that he simply waives our debt and expects us to do likewise with others.
Now both CV and PSA say there is more to the cross then simply God forgiving or canceling our trespass (otherwise why have the cross at all if God can just forgive our debt?). Based on that, I don't think the passages that mention debt are specifically about the atonement (what God did to be able offer grace), although they are about sin and forgiveness as you say.
[ 25. August 2007, 02:59: Message edited by: sharktacos ]
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Myrrh,
My take on God's "omni" qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and ominipresence is that they are more based in Greek philosophy than the Bible. When the Bible talks about God "knowing us" it is always a statement not of God's ability to have exhaustive knowledge, but a statement of intimacy, "before a word was formed on my tongue you know it completely". The same goes for predestination, election, calling, etc. They are all not about God determining and controlling but about God loving us, desiring us, wooing us, even marrying us.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Myrrh,
I have an OT question on OS in the OC.
Origin writes, "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
That sounds a lot like original sin. Thoughts?
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Also,
"an infant... having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born... the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another"
-Cyprian of Carthage, Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253].
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Myrrh,
My take on God's "omni" qualities of omniscience, omnipotence, and ominipresence is that they are more based in Greek philosophy than the Bible. When the Bible talks about God "knowing us" it is always a statement not of God's ability to have exhaustive knowledge, but a statement of intimacy, "before a word was formed on my tongue you know it completely". The same goes for predestination, election, calling, etc. They are all not about God determining and controlling but about God loving us, desiring us, wooing us, even marrying us.
Well yes, but how does this God who can make this statement of intimacy come to be?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Original Sin....
Orthodox Church teaching is that children are born innocent - I don't know if Andreas is around, but he's far more knowledgeable on the 'fathers' than I - so baptism as washing away sins doesn't apply to them.
I don't now recall the detail, but that part of an Orthodox baptism which deals with sin wasn't used for children, over the years the two came to be used together, but with the understanding that children don't actually need it - baptism for the OC is primarily joining the Church which Christ established. A similar conjoining of two separate ceremonies is the marriage sacrament - in the Coptic Church the "betrothal" is still separate and some several months preceding the "marriage", while in the Orthodox Church "marriage" follows on from the "betrothal" in the same service.
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well yes, but how does this God who can make this statement of intimacy come to be?
Myrrh
Why do we need to know how God came to be?
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
One of the reasons Augustine gives in helping him form his doctrine of Original Sin was his puzzlement about infant baptism, since it existed and since baptism cleansed from sin then infants must therefore be sinful.
That his doctrine, that we are born damned, estranged from God without the free will to turn to God etc., made no sense of Christ's teaching that we become as little children to enter the kingdom of heaven doesn't seem to have bothered him, but I haven't read everything he's written...
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well yes, but how does this God who can make this statement of intimacy come to be?
Myrrh
Why do we need to know how God came to be?
How this God came to be.
..because it's of interest to those who are taught that we're created in His image and likeness?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Orthodox Church teaching is that children are born innocent - I don't know if Andreas is around, but he's far more knowledgeable on the 'fathers' than I - so baptism as washing away sins doesn't apply to them.
That would seem to contradict the two early church fathers I quoted. Does the Orthodox church think they were wrong?
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I don't now recall the detail, but that part of an Orthodox baptism which deals with sin wasn't used for children
That's interesting. Can you quote me a source for this?
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well yes, but how does this God who can make this statement of intimacy come to be?
Myrrh
Why do we need to know how God came to be?
How this God came to be.
..because it's of interest to those who are taught that we're created in His image and likeness?
Myrrh
Why? I don't see the relevance.
Being created in God's image has nothing to do with God's origin. It has to do with God's nature. God is good, we were created good.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Orthodox Church teaching is that children are born innocent - I don't know if Andreas is around, but he's far more knowledgeable on the 'fathers' than I - so baptism as washing away sins doesn't apply to them.
That would seem to contradict the two early church fathers I quoted. Does the Orthodox church think they were wrong?
Pious speculation. The 'fathers' aren't infallible...
I've never heard of infants being thought of a sinful in the OC, but as Chrysostom says somewhere, they are wholly innocent. It's a given, there's nothing to speculate about it..
OK, for example here's a typical inclusion of the concept as a given: (Patriarch Pavle Nativity 2001)
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I don't now recall the detail, but that part of an Orthodox baptism which deals with sin wasn't used for children
That's interesting. Can you quote me a source for this? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Father Ambrose in New Zealand, it came up in some discussion or other on an RCC board. I don't know where he got it from.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
Well yes, but how does this God who can make this statement of intimacy come to be?
Myrrh
Why do we need to know how God came to be?
How this God came to be.
..because it's of interest to those who are taught that we're created in His image and likeness?
Myrrh
Why? I don't see the relevance.
Being created in God's image has nothing to do with God's origin. It has to do with God's nature. God is good, we were created good.
I was referring back to the nature of God, OT knowing as personal as you described.
How do you know God is good?
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
How do you know God is good?
By Divine revelation, primarily in Jesus.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Origin writes, "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
That sounds a lot like original sin. Thoughts?
I think that we must be careful about reading Origen with an Augustinian mindset. What did Origen mean by a "flesh soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin"? Well, given the "medical" approach to salvation of Orthodoxy, and bearing in mind Paul's teaching on human bondage to sin and death, I think it is highly probable that he was merely stating the obvious - that babies share human nature, and are therefore in the same bondage of all humans to the forces of decay. This would be even more obvious in a society where most infants died before their fifth birthday.
This idea, that the primary effect of sin in humans is not moral guilt, since that could readily be solved by forgiveness, but our ontological nature of bondage to decay, which would lead if unremedied, sooner or later, to eternal death, is totally consonant with the CV idea that the cross is not about forgiveness but ontological change.
So did Origen believe in OS. Well, kinda. But what he understood it to be was, I suspect, worlds apart from what Augustine would have thought. But maybe I'm being unjust on Augustine.
--------------------
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
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Origin writes, "Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous" (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).
That sounds a lot like original sin. Thoughts?
I think that we must be careful about reading Origen with an Augustinian mindset. What did Origen mean by a "flesh soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin"? Well, given the "medical" approach to salvation of Orthodoxy, and bearing in mind Paul's teaching on human bondage to sin and death, I think it is highly probable that he was merely stating the obvious - that babies share human nature, and are therefore in the same bondage of all humans to the forces of decay. This would be even more obvious in a society where most infants died before their fifth birthday.
This idea, that the primary effect of sin in humans is not moral guilt, since that could readily be solved by forgiveness, but our ontological nature of bondage to decay, which would lead if unremedied, sooner or later, to eternal death, is totally consonant with the CV idea that the cross is not about forgiveness but ontological change.
So did Origen believe in OS. Well, kinda. But what he understood it to be was, I suspect, worlds apart from what Augustine would have thought. But maybe I'm being unjust on Augustine.
Origen does not seem to be using medical language, more cleanliness language which is related. He does say that there is something in a baby that needs remission of sins.
Cyprian does use a medical model: "an infant...has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born... the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another"
So a baby is "sick" and "soiled" with Adam's sin.
I found this page, which says that Augustine would say that guilt is passed on from Adam, but the above guys are saying a condition of death is being passed on. It seems rather obvious to me that guilt cannot be inherited, while the consequences of guilt can. But I wonder what the consequences are of this "sin sickness" in an infant? What happens to an unbaptized infant who dies in the Orthodox view?
The above link seems quite pertinent to our CV discussion.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
The Lord's prayer, like the parable I mentioned is about our forgiving debt as we are forgiven our debts by God. It does not say that God paid our debt, but that he simply waives our debt and expects us to do likewise with others.
Whether God 'just forgives' or 'pays the debt himself' is, of course, the difference between CV and PSA. My point was that the scripture speaks of sin as a 'debt' owed to God. In other words it is an objective 'thing' that needs to be dealt with.
Therefore I repeat my previous question - how is it different (qualitatively not quantitatively) to speak of us 'owing a debt' as to 'deserving a punishment'? (Again, how God deals with that problem is another matter.)
I have just come from someone who is just about to die. I was reading and praying with her and, as I often do, read from Romans 8. I was struck again how creation has been subjected to frutration by the will of God - i.e. however we describe the consequences of sin they are part of God's plan.
I think this is also relevant to the discussion of OS. Any atonement model has to come to terms with the whole 'package' of humanity's sinfulness ... consequences and guilt. I'm happy with cleansing metaphors but they are not enough if they do not deal with the root cause. Consequences are usually symptoms of an underlying disease. If we follow the medical model right through then the 'cure' involves the destruction and defeat of the disease.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
...there is post 9/11 an increased awareness of the problem of evil and suffering in the world that people are restling with. In fact I would say that as in Luther's time the question was "how can I find God's grace?" today our question is "how can a loving God allow abuse and tragedy".
Returning to this comment you made a while back.
On reflection I think your observation needs looking at more closely. Although terrorism is a very real threat in the western world, I think suffering was much, much more of an every day issue in Luther's day - for example infant mortality meant that most families had to cope with death of a child. He lived in turbulent times when war, disease and death were very common. And yet he asked 'his' question, not 'ours'. Interesting. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
I found this page, which says that Augustine would say that guilt is passed on from Adam, but the above guys are saying a condition of death is being passed on. It seems rather obvious to me that guilt cannot be inherited, while the consequences of guilt can. But I wonder what the consequences are of this "sin sickness" in an infant? What happens to an unbaptized infant who dies in the Orthodox view?
The above link seems quite pertinent to our CV discussion.
Yes, it is. No one would argue that the purpose of the Incarnation was not generations in the making, or that it would not affect future generations.
Isn't the simplest explanation that many aspects of human nature are passed down hereditarily? These include characteristics such as tendencies towards anger, substance abuse, interest in power, laziness, immoral behavior, and many others. Everyone knows that these characteristics are more prominent in some families than others. Everyone also knows that they are exacerbated or improved through the environment that a child grows up in. Nor do I think that many people believe that they are completely helpless victims of their inherited nature - they have choices.
My version of CV involves Jesus inheriting these same characteristics, fighting against them, and overcoming them.
Babies, however, are not usually addicts, rage-aholics, megalomaniacs, intentionally cruel, or immoral. They are innocent. These characteristics don't show up until they begin to mature, and aren't fully there until adulthood.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Babies, however, are not usually addicts, rage-aholics, megalomaniacs, intentionally cruel, or immoral. They are innocent. These characteristics don't show up until they begin to mature, and aren't fully there until adulthood.
<tangent>
Have you met any toddlers?
Don't confuse the desire with the ability to carry out said desire!
<end tangent>
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Whether God 'just forgives' or 'pays the debt himself' is, of course, the difference between CV and PSA.
No it is not Johnny. Neither theory would say God "just forgives".
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My point was that the scripture speaks of sin as a 'debt' owed to God. In other words it is an objective 'thing' that needs to be dealt with.
Both CV & PSA are objective theories.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Therefore I repeat my previous question - how is it different (qualitatively not quantitatively) to speak of us 'owing a debt' as to 'deserving a punishment'? (Again, how God deals with that problem is another matter.)
Well, first of all you are clearly not reading the intended point of these passages which are about generosity and forgiveness, and not a definition of sin as debt. Reading a passage as the author intended it is an extremely important factor in correct interpretation.
But as to your question, it is not obvious that if one does not pay a debt that they will receive physical punishment. This would not be the case in our legal system, and I am fairly certain it was also not the case in Hebrew law. Being physically punished for an outstanding debt was the case in the Feudal system of Anselm, but Anselm saw Christ paying our debt as a way to avoid punishment, he did not think that the punishment itself was what was desired, rather the payment was desired, which Anselm said was in Christ's obedient love, not in Christ being punished.
So there are several ways to interpret the idea of "paying a debt" that have nothing to do with punishing, including Anselmian satisfaction. Taking our human legal system, whether it is a Feudal system or a medieval one, and assuming that God must think the same way as us is natural theology and quite a dangerous assumption. In as much as PSA does this it is natural theology not biblical theology. I see absolutely nothing that would indicate that justice/restoration comes about through punishment in the Bible. Biblically, punishment is a bad thing that one wants to avoid, not the justice one wants to seek.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If we follow the medical model right through then the 'cure' involves the destruction and defeat of the disease.
Yes. That's good right?
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Babies, however, are not usually addicts, rage-aholics, megalomaniacs, intentionally cruel, or immoral. They are innocent. These characteristics don't show up until they begin to mature, and aren't fully there until adulthood.
<tangent>
Have you met any toddlers?
Don't confuse the desire with the ability to carry out said desire!
<end tangent>
You're right. I take it back. The characteristics show themselves pretty quickly. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
What I meant was that children are not fully responsible for their actions until they are mature. Nor are they fully responsible for their desires. I think that most people recognize this.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Neither theory would say God "just forgives".
Tell me more. I have been told several times on this thread (unless I've got the wrong end of the stick) that PSA is so monstrous because God doesn't need anything to happen in order to forgive, he does it anyway.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Both CV & PSA are objective theories.
I know. Bear with me. I was trying to build an argument. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
But as to your question, it is not obvious that if one does not pay a debt that they will receive physical punishment.
I didn't mean my point that literally. My point was more to do with statements like 'the wages of sin is death'. If debts are owed to God then, whether or not he wipes them clean, there is an objective problem for God to deal with. Similarly, if (e.g. Romans 8) our present suffering is the result of God's will then God stands behind (in some sense) this cause and effect process which you call sin and judgment.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Being physically punished for an outstanding debt was the case in the Feudal system of Anselm, but Anselm saw Christ paying our debt as a way to avoid punishment, he did not think that the punishment itself was what was desired, rather the payment was desired, which Anselm said was in Christ's obedient love, not in Christ being punished.
You'll have to explain this more here. My instinctive reaction (although I expect you don't quite mean it like this) is ... of course Christ wanted to avoid our punishment that was the point of the cross. Of course the payment was desired over the punishment (no PSAer would say otherwise) the issue is whether it was demanded. But as I said, you probably didn't mean it like that.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Biblically, punishment is a bad thing that one wants to avoid, not the justice one wants to seek.
So why did Jesus speak about punishment and judgment so often then? Was he confused? Let's take that parable (in Matthew 18) about forgiving debts that you say is only about 'generosity and forgiveness'. How does it end?
"In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart."
Poor Jesus. He didn't get the point of his own story, and he certainly couldn't apply it properly. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If we follow the medical model right through then the 'cure' involves the destruction and defeat of the disease.
Yes. That's good right?
Yep. We are all agree on this.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Neither theory would say God "just forgives".
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Tell me more. I have been told several times on this thread (unless I've got the wrong end of the stick) that PSA is so monstrous because God doesn't need anything to happen in order to forgive, he does it anyway.
CV would say that God needed nothing to make us love him, but that we need to be cleansed of our sin. Athanasius for example says that if it were simply a matter of transgression (a personal/legal problem) that God could just let it go and forgive, but because it involves our corruption by the sickness of sin (a medical model) WE need to be cured by God. Hence Jesus dies "for sinners" not "for God".
To simply say that God says "that's ok, nevermind" underestimates the gravity of sin's internal hold on us, and is not CV at all.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My point was more to do with statements like 'the wages of sin is death'. If debts are owed to God then, whether or not he wipes them clean, there is an objective problem for God to deal with. Similarly, if (e.g. Romans 8) our present suffering is the result of God's will then God stands behind (in some sense) this cause and effect process which you call sin and judgment.
I agree. But would add that the medical model gives us further insight: a doctor would say that it is "right" that you have lung cancer after smoking 10 packs a day, but still do everything in her power to try and save your life now, and then tell you to quit smoking. Likewise Jesus does not condone sin, but nevertheless goes to sinners and loves them, defends them from the stone throwing mob, and then says "go and sin no more"
quote:
My instinctive reaction (although I expect you don't quite mean it like this) is ... of course Christ wanted to avoid our punishment that was the point of the cross. Of course the payment was desired over the punishment (no PSAer would say otherwise) the issue is whether it was demanded. But as I said, you probably didn't mean it like that.
You lost me here.
Anselm says that God did not desire nor demand the punishment of his beloved son, he desired obedience to love. It was Christ's obedience in fearlessly standing up to evil and loving sinners that God honored above and beyond Christ's sinless life. That act of love (which cost Jesus his life) was counted, Anselm says, as a superabundance of merit that was then transfered to us paying our debt of honor to God. So Anselm says Jesus paid our debt by his life, not by his being punished. Kind of like how we admire a firefighter for rushing into a burning building to save people, not that he died of smoke inhalation 12 hours later, as if we were desiring his death. For Anselm, it was Christ loving us despite the risk of death which was God's will, not his Son's punishment.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Biblically, punishment is a bad thing that one wants to avoid, not the justice one wants to seek.[QUOTE]So why did Jesus speak about punishment and judgment so often then?
So we would avoid the "krisis" we were headed for by repenting.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
To simply say that God says "that's ok, nevermind" underestimates the gravity of sin's internal hold on us, and is not CV at all.
Got that.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
CV would say that God needed nothing to make us love him, but that we need to be cleansed of our sin. Athanasius for example says that if it were simply a matter of transgression (a personal/legal problem) that God could just let it go and forgive, but because it involves our corruption by the sickness of sin (a medical model) WE need to be cured by God. Hence Jesus dies "for sinners" not "for God".
Got that too, but you still seem to be saying that God doesn't need anything to forgive... he forgives anyway, but we need to be cured...?
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
For Anselm, it was Christ loving us despite the risk of death which was God's will, not his Son's punishment.
Risk of death? Risk? According to Jesus (e.g. Mark's gospel) his death was not a risk but a certainty. He even rebuked Peter when he suggested otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
quote:
So why did Jesus speak about punishment and judgment so often then?
So we would avoid the "krisis" we were headed for by repenting.
I'm not sure many others on this thread would agree with you.
Also, whatever word games you try to play with krisis you cannot remove all sense of punishment. We keep coming back to this issue. When I discipline my children I often tell them that I do not want to punish them but they are merely receiving the consequences of their wrong choices. That is true, I do not want to punish them, out of love I want to discipline them. However, for me to try and remove all responsibility from myself and make out as if the 'punishment' is not part of my will is simply ridiculous. It happens precisely because of the moral worldview that my wife and I are trying to create in and around them.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
Maybe spiderman can help?
Tomorrow I've got to do a family service at church which wraps a holiday club for children about 'Junior Heroes'.
Looking at Spiderman3 the two main themes will be:
1. 'the greatest battle lies within' (Romans 7)
2. 'Jesus is the greatest superhero' (Colossians 2)
Okay, so in Colossians 2 I'll explain Jesus as per CV, as the hero who defeats the villains for us. However, unlike spiderman he does not defeat them by 'kapow' but by being 'kapowed'.
Okay so far. Now that begs one VERY big question - how? How does Jesus win by losing? If, as we believe, Jesus turns our natural world order on its head, he must show how his way is natural.
For example, if it is a soccer game and our team is losing, it is meaningless to speak of Jesus being a star striker who comes on to score the winning goal for us ... because he doesn't. He would 'win' us the game by losing it for us. That doesn't work. Now, I know that is the point. He made the world, he makes the rules. But that means that the cross must somehow make the 'old order' obsolete. Otherwise CV becomes a silly childish taunt when they suddenly 'change the rules' when they are losing and say 'ah, but its the one with the least goals wins!'
PSA 'works' because it does both of those things. It speaks of an end to revenge and punishment, an end to might makes right, but it does so by 'fulfilling' the old order. Jesus can say, as it were, I make the new rules because I fulfilled the old ones.
Faced with a 7 year old tomorrow asking, 'how did Jesus win when he lost?' How would you answer him / her?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
Why are Calvinists so fixated on punishment? It strikes me as a rather unhealthy obsession that reveals more about the kind of person who is attracted to Calvinism then it does about the Bible.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Okay so far. Now that begs one VERY big question - how? How does Jesus win by losing? If, as we believe, Jesus turns our natural world order on its head, he must show how his way is natural.
He wins by continuing to love even those who are murdering him, by forgiving them, and in doing so is our constant reminder that this love is our natural way.
I think attempts to put this in context of one side or another winning a soccer game are misplaced. They are however good examples of the nonsense we make of God and Christ's teaching in thinking we can claim God supports our personal vanities (our doctrines, our believes, our wars..) - what is more ridiculous than both teams praying to the same God for victory over the other?
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Okay so far. Now that begs one VERY big question - how? How does Jesus win by losing? If, as we believe, Jesus turns our natural world order on its head, he must show how his way is natural.
This is the easiest question of all. As Myrrh points out, the victory is about having what is truly important triumph over what is less important. At its root it is about the priority of love and faith over our worldly and self centered desires.
Jesus taught repeatedly that everyone wins by losing:
quote:
Matthew 10:39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
Matthew 16:25 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.
Mark 8:35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.
Luke 9:24 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will save it.
Luke 14:26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.
John 12:25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life.
Luke 17:33 Whoever seeks to save his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.
Revelation 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death.
Jesus is not saying that we win by losing our life. Rather, we win by placing faith in Him and obedience to Him ahead of our own lives. We win by valuing heaven over earth. We win by valuing others over ourselves. Worldly desires must in effect "die" so that heavenly ones can "live."
Jesus fit His own death into this same paradigm. He gives His life so that others may live. He wins by giving up His own life:
quote:
John 10:11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd gives His life for the sheep.
John 10:15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.
John 10:17 “Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again.
John 12:24 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain.
John 15:13 Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.
The point in laying down His life is to defeat the power that would refuse to lay down its life. The "ruler of this world" values nothingmore highly than its own life and its pleasures. Jesus came to defeat him. He summarizes it in John 12:
quote:
John 12.23 But Jesus answered them, saying, “The hour has come that the Son of Man should be glorified. 24 Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain. 25 He who loves his life will lose it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it for eternal life. 26 If anyone serves Me, let him follow Me; and where I am, there My servant will be also. If anyone serves Me, him My Father will honor.
27 “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour’? But for this purpose I came to this hour…
31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out. 32 And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all peoples to Myself.”
The "ruler of this world" will be cast out because what Jesus is doing completely refutes his dominion. This is the central idea behind Jesus' temptations in the wilderness. Each temptation is about valuing self and the world over heavenly things.
The whole theme of winning by losing is addressed countless times by Jesus, as He urges people to give up worldly goals in favor of treasure in heaven:
quote:
Matthew 6:25 “Therefore I say to you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink; nor about your body, what you will put on. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?
Luke 12:23 Life is more than food, and the body is more than clothing.
John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him.”
John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.
Matthew 6:19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.
Luke 12:21 “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”
Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”
A person who is struggling to overcome the obsession with wealth, power, comfort, good food, etc. will feel like they are losing their life. Jesus says that we win by losing. This is the sense in which Jesus talks about "the world" as something that opposes heavenly life:
quote:
Matthew 13:22 Now he who received seed among the thorns is he who hears the word, and the cares of this world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful.
John 8:23 And He said to them, “You are from beneath; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world.
John 14:30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.
Jesus victory will therefore not look like a worldly victory because it is a spiritual victory. This is why He says:
quote:
John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”
By not being a worldly kingdom, Jesus means that His kingdom is about love and faith.
So, Johnny, how can you ask "How does Jesus win by losing?" Isn't this the whole game?
Jesus turns our natural world order on its head, clearly explaining how his way is natural. It is natural because true order is for heaven to be valued over earth. Jesus is simply resotring order by preaching and demonstrating this.
When a person has their priorities straight, then life works as it should. If everyone had their priorities straight, life on earth would be like life in heaven. Isn't that the point of our prayer "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For example, if it is a soccer game and our team is losing, it is meaningless to speak of Jesus being a star striker who comes on to score the winning goal for us ... because he doesn't. He would 'win' us the game by losing it for us. That doesn't work.
But He does win the game for us. ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
He unselfishly gives everything He has. He cares only about us, not Himself. He puts every ounce of effort into winning the game. He then dies from pure exhaustion as He scores the winning goal. He may seem to lose, but the team wins. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
I agree with Myrrh that it is ludicrous for each team to ask God to help them defeat the other. But the metaphor still works.
Every player on a team needs to put the team first and himself or herself second. The person needs to play unselfishly, and the person has to be willing to put effort into the game, even when they would rather rest. Self-sacrifice is a lesson that athletics teaches in a tangible way, because when you are very tired, or feeling very defeated, intimidated or frustrated, you are asked to give of yourself in ways that go against everything in your nature.
So athletes win by losing by subordinating their own interests and needs to the interests and needs of the team or of the contest itself.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
So, Johnny, how can you ask "How does Jesus win by losing?" Isn't this the whole game?
Yes it is the whole game! I whole heartedly agree with all your comments about Christ turning the world's values upside down. It is at the very heart of what I believe. We do not take revenge, instead, like him, we forgive.
My question is - how does Jesus win? I'm not so bothered about the mechanics, more 'how do we know that he won?' Assuming the answer for him is the resurrection then how do we know he won for us?
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But He does win the game for us.
He unselfishly gives everything He has. He cares only about us, not Himself. He puts every ounce of effort into winning the game. He then dies from pure exhaustion as He scores the winning goal. He may seem to lose, but the team wins.
Yes, I'm with you so far ... however, you can guess what's coming next...
How does he 'win'? We need some kind of explanation as to how, what seems to us a great failure, is in fact a great victory. Simply stating that it was a victory is (well for me at least) extremely unsatisfying. As Christians we believe that Jesus defeated sin on the cross, but how did he do that? It doesn't have to all the mechanics but at least an analogy or something that explains how the great 'defeat' was really a great 'victory'.
ISTM CV explains well the victory but gives no explanation as to 'how'. PSA may not have the cosmic scope but it does point to how a seeming failure is really God's salvation plan.
I realise that all of this is just about analogies, I'm not claiming that we need a literal explanation. And yet I don't think we can leave it as a magicians hat where victory is pulled out the hat in place of defeat.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharktacos:
Why are Calvinists so fixated on punishment? It strikes me as a rather unhealthy obsession that reveals more about the kind of person who is attracted to Calvinism then it does about the Bible.
Come on, don't give up so easily.
IME people usually resort to ad hominem arguments when they've run out of steam.
This thread is discussing whether CV should replace PSA completely in atonement models. The big issue that most have against PSA is the 'penal' element (oh, you don't say. )
Therefore, if I am going to drop PSA I obviously need convincing that punishment is not necessary in the model.
... hence is it really that surprising that what I want most clearly demonstrated is that God's punishment isn't in the bible?
[ 26. August 2007, 16:06: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharktacos
Shipmate
# 12807
|
Posted
God's punishment is in the Bible, but it is a bad thing that you should avoid because it means you die and go to Hell.
So Jesus came to give us a way out. What could be more basic than that?
The solution to how he gives us a way out needs to go beyond punishment. Instead of an "eye for an eye" the new model is "love your enemies". That is how God makes the way out.
--------------------
The Rebel God blog
http://sharktacos.com/God/
Posts: 235 | From: California | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
Together with the instruction to pick up our own cross and follow him.
Easier said than done.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Got that too, but you still seem to be saying that God doesn't need anything to forgive... he forgives anyway, but we need to be cured...?
Absolutely, you've got it. Because the problem that we have, that keeps us from experiencing God forever, is not our sin (dealt with by forgiveness, apart from the cross), but our ontological identity as bound to "sin and death". Without this change in our nature, the forgiveness of God would still leave us without eternal life. We are not separated from eternal life because of God's wrath, but because our nature is one of decay. Thus our most pressing need is not for forgiveness, but for healing, for ontological remaking.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How does he 'win'? We need some kind of explanation as to how, what seems to us a great failure, is in fact a great victory. Simply stating that it was a victory is (well for me at least) extremely unsatisfying. As Christians we believe that Jesus defeated sin on the cross, but how did he do that?
One way to look at Jesus' whole life is as a series of contests in which Jesus is continually the victor. From the temptations in the wilderness, to debates with the religious authorities, to encounters with demons, sicknesses, and even death, Jesus always comes out on top. By the end we are told:
quote:
Matthew 22:46 And no one was able to answer Him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare question Him anymore.
Mark 12:34 After that no one dared question Him.
Luke 20:40 After that they dared not question Him anymore.
These contests, if we look at them that way, are for the most part not very substantial. Jesus is not defeating armies or swaying heads of state. So what is going on here?
Jesus Himself definitely seems to think that He has a major contest going on with Satan:
quote:
Matthew 12:26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? 27 And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. 28 But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29 Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. 30 He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.
Luke 10:18 And He said to them, “I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven."
Matthew 25:41 “Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
John 14:30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me.
John 16:8 He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
How is it that Jesus sees Himself as entering into contests with Satan, the devil, or the ruler of this world, and judging him, overcoming him, or casting him out?
It seems to me that Jesus is battling the devil in ways that aren't apparent in the text, and/or the conflicts described in the text are actually much deeper and more significant than they appear.
What was really happening in these conflicts?
When a person sins he gradually becomes a slave to whatever sin he enjoys doing. Isn't that what Jesus says? Doesn't everyone know that the more a behavior is repeated the harder it is to stop? The biblical model for this is that people who sin gradually come under the power of hell or the devil.
Conversely, the more that people "continue in My word", that is, refrain from sinning, the more they are freed from that sin. The biblical model for this is that the devil grows weaker and loses control over the person as the person invites God into their life.
So the New Testament describes Jesus repeatedly encountering the devil, repeatedly resisting or overcomign his power, and making him weaker and weaker. Except that whereas an ordinary person's resistance only affects them, Jesus' resistance affected the entire demonic population, weakening the devil.
By the time of the cross, Jesus had substantially defeated the devil. The cross, however, involved the most basic of human desires - the desire for life itself. In letting even that go He overcame once and for all "the ruler of this world" who wanted Him to value worldly life above all things.
Just as Jesus says of everyone that they gain life if they lose their life for His sake, the same was true of Jesus. He could not be killed - the crucifixion instead defeated His enemies, hell itself.
In essence He restored order to the spiritual world, restoring spiritual freedom to humanity. In this way He saved humanity from imminent destruction, or redeemed us.
This is how Jesus defeated sin. He did His Father's will, and not the devil's. The same is true for us:
quote:
John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.
This is the formula for defeating sin.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Absolutely, you've got it. Because the problem that we have, that keeps us from experiencing God forever, is not our sin (dealt with by forgiveness, apart from the cross), but our ontological identity as bound to "sin and death".
I'm not clear if you are fundamentally disagreeing with sharktacos here or not?
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Without this change in our nature, the forgiveness of God would still leave us without eternal life. We are not separated from eternal life because of God's wrath, but because our nature is one of decay. Thus our most pressing need is not for forgiveness, but for healing, for ontological remaking.
I like that idea but am struggling to divide two concepts which (ISTM ) are fundamentally linked in scripture. For example, in Romans 1 and 8 Paul seems to link our present state of 'decay' with the wrath of God. How do you read those passages?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
