|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by piers ploughman:
[QB] If I might nudge in again on this tight little discussion: am I alone in having grown sick and tired of the current Christian obsession with the notion of 'sin'? From the tone and content of perhaps the bulk of contemporary Christian preaching you could easily get the impression that sin is a huge and crucial part of the Gospel - as most of those in the Anselmian tradition in fact maintain.
OK I'll talk to you.
The notion of sin? The fall did a couple of significant things would you agree?
It allowed for the corruption of man's nature we describe as sinfulness. It made us into sinners. It darkened the spiritual awareness we had as a species by turning the love in our nature inward. It made us selfish. Now the issue becomes,'How bad is the problem?' How serious?
Now the answer to this seems to be the determiner of one's view of atonement.
If one takes the view that sin left unchecked would ultimately fill the universe with darkness and evil. If one sees that it alienates the creation of which we are a part, from fellowship with the creator, then you have to ask what exactly is this disease, and what does scripture suggest about its nature?
Romans 1 suggests that there is a hopelessness about our state. Jesus himself states that rebirth is the only solution in Jn 3 and That the way to rebirth is repentance, "Unless you repent, you shall all likewise perish."
Now having said that, one has to recognise that since the problem is so radical and fundamental, that we, mankind, were helpless before it. We literally, could not reform, (as demonstrated by the failure of the Hebrew nation, despite the incredibly miraculous history of their Genesis and preservation.)
If you say Jesus minimized it, to me that is serious misinformation.
That he came as a reconciler, a forgiver, a model of the way we could and should be toward God and others, who could disagree. But he could only do this work by first dealing with the fundamental problem which is why he came to die. That problem was the alteration and reversal of the effects of the fall.
Consequently, Sin was primary in the ministry of Jesus. He never tolerated it. the woman caught in adultery was told to 'sin no more.'and it was central in that he put himself into its power in order to defeat it. The fact that his message was one of hope in no way minimises the problem of sin. The resurrection is primarily significant as a triumph over sin.
Now we come to the real issue which is how the cross functions. Let me reiterate at once that the motivation of God is love not wrath, but the radical nature of the problem demanded sin be removed. In the incarnate Christ was founded a perfect hatred of sin. In the heart of the Father, a perfect love for sinners. In the heart of the Godhead, a perfect plan of salvation.
Sin's removal demanded its judgement, Its judgement demanded its negation. Its negation cost a perfect life given the scripture tells us as 'a ransom for many'. That life could only be provided by the incarnate God-man since only he was untainted by the fall and lived according to the Mosaic revelation, a perfect life.
Now the issue of whether God in fact judged the innocent Christ on the cross has been the subject of much discussion. Why I believe this is so is because of the cosmic and humungous nature of the problem. I interpret the scriptures the way I do because the alternative is that I and the rest of my ilk stand condemned and without hope unless God acted the way he did.
This is not the act of a cruel, malicious omnipotent being. It is the act of a father who moves to rescue a loved one at immense cost to himself.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Piers, I would pretty much agree with most of your points. I'm a bit nervous about reinstating the whole "classic" view of the role of Satan, not because I don't believe in a personal (better non-personal) Satan, but because it gives him (it?) an overly-important position in the Divine economy of salvation. However, the role conventionally enacted by Satan as the one who binds us to the transactional/contractual nature of a fallen creation (the law of sin and death, as Paul calls it) is certainly a role that is confronted and defeated by Jesus on the cross. I'm really quite attracted to Girard's notion that we are the accusers, both of ourselves and our fellow creatures. I don't think this can be demonstrated from scripture, but if we take a wider understanding of the nature of evil, then it is certainly consonant with scripture.
With regard to sin, I guess I see personal, moral failure as only tangential to the atonement process. It is the effect of that sin, the destructive principle to which it opens the door, that is dealt with on the cross. Jesus makes so little (to modern evo ears) of sin because it was a done deal. The (jewish) people of Jesus' time fully understood how God deals with sin, by forgiveness and subsequent repenatnce. Their quarrel with Jesus was concerned not with the fact that forgiveness was available (undeservedly - after all, what else was the sacrificial system but a calling to mind of a covenant which defined relationship with God as being by the undeserved choice of God) but rather that Jesus thought it appropriate to proclaim that forgiveness with authority, which was the prerogative of God (or at certain defined times the role of the High Priest, acting on God's behalf).
--------------------
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
|
|
piers ploughman
Shipmate
# 13174
|
Posted
Jamat,
Thankyou for your lengthy response.
Of course I hear and understand what you say very clearly and have heard it very many times before. It is a version of the fall/redemption motif that has been incredibly influential in various guises in elite Christian thought through tne centuries. As such it is part of the ABC of historical theology. What I am trying to do is to invite shipmates along some other and more fruitful paths.
Your remarks are also a perfect illustration of what I said about this obsession with sin that Jesus DIDN'T display in his own life and teaching. I hope you would agree with me when I suggest that if we want to know what the Gospel is there is no better way of finding out than by looking at the Gospels themselves and taking what they say with the utmost seriousness. It seems to me that one of the many fundamental problems with fall/redemption models is that they impose on the Gospels themselves a way of reading that dictates from the outset what we see there. It is like a pair of highly distorting spectacles constructed by mere human beings in different times and places. When you read without them, one of the many things that stands out is that Jesus had far less concern with sin than it seemed when they were on your nose. In other words, Jesus hardly ever mentions sin, and when he does it is in very different ways to those we are led to expect by the atonement theorists.
Take Matthew's Gospel. The word sin (hamartia) occurs a mere 7 times (many fewer times in the whole Gospel than in your last posting). These are in 1:21, 3:6, 9:2, 9:5, 9:6, 12:31 and 26:28. Only 5 of these are on Jesus' own lips and never to accuse 'normal' people of guilt. By contrast, the words forgive and forgiveness (aphiemi)occur 47 times in the same gospel, mostly uttered by Jesus. Now if sin is the kind of problem you suggest it is, why doesn't Jesus make much more of it than he does? Why doesn't he make the Fall/redemption schema obvious so that no one could possibly miss the point? And who is really likely to be guilty of 'serious misinformation' in proclaiming the Gospel: someone who mentions sin sparingly like Jesus himself and who is careful not to trade in guilt, shame and accusation or someone who mentions sin frequently and (eg.) forgiveness hardly at all?
You mention Romans 1. I note that Paul doesn't mention sin in that passage. What he does do is to proclaim the revelation of the wrath of God against a very particular and familiar class of people: those who know very well what God is really like and yet 'clutch on' to that knowledge in injustice and thereby sink into foul apostacy. Such conspicuously religious people have always been inclined to lord it over others and seek to hold the world in bondage to guilt, shame and the fear of punishment. Those whom Jesus encountered he readily described as children of their father the Devil - which brings us back into the realm of CV notions of what Jesus was about. The people of God have always been tormented by them in various ways, but we have the deep consolation of the knowledge that Jesus destroyed them in his life and death so thaqt we might live abundantly now and in the world to come.
--------------------
Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
William Blake.
Posts: 2121 | From: perth wa | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Well I wouldn't see a softened view of sin as being a more fruitful path.
The issue is about the hopelessness of our lostness. Unless one finds the path out of that lostness one can't find peace.
Of couse if one denies the 'lostness' then either ther is no problrm or one is blinded to it. Is their a third alternative?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well I wouldn't see a softened view of sin as being a more fruitful path.
The issue is about the hopelessness of our lostness. Unless one finds the path out of that lostness one can't find peace.
Of couse if one denies the 'lostness' then either ther is no problrm or one is blinded to it. Is their a third alternative?
Not so much softened, as more biblically balanced.
No-one is denying the lostness, merely that the said lostness is not as a result of judicial condemnation by God, but rather the destructive effects of sin upon our ontology. Hence the remedy is re-creation by the new birth, rather than juridical aquittal. We are not lost because we are guilty before God. Sin is that which can be forgiven. Our plight is much more serious than juridical guilt - it is the bondage to decay and death that sin brings with it. We can be fully forgiven and still be bound to decay which prevents us from enjoying eternal life. It is much more significant, from God's point of view, that we are freed from that bondage than that we are forgiven, since the incarnation would not have been necessary if our only need was for forgiveness.
--------------------
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
|
|
piers ploughman
Shipmate
# 13174
|
Posted
Tell us, Jamat,
What is it you find least fruitful - or most frightening - about the proposition that we strive to be exactly as hard or soft on 'sin' as was Jesus himself??
Posts: 2121 | From: perth wa | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
piers ploughman said:
quote:
My real interests in Anselm, however, lie a move or two beyond the controversy about moral agency and cosmic child abuse (which I certainly agree with you about. I am specifically interested in:
1. The disappearance of the Devil from the central Christian soteriological narrative as the accuser who demands retribution, punishment for sin and settlement of the demands of justice. This disappearance created, I suggest, a blank space in which he was gradually to be reconstructed over the next few centuries as the chief character of the demonologies which underlay elitel egitimation for persecutions of heretics, Jews, witches and anyone else Church hierarchs didn't like; and
2. The resurgence of Anselmian patterns of thought in the Twentieth century in the massively influential work of Karl Barth and in Evangelical thought generally. Many thousands were taught penal substituionary theories at seminaries and theological colleges and sent out to sell it as THE Gospel to millions of hearers who, not surprisingly, simply didn't buy it.
If I am at all right about either or both of thses things, the Anselmian Medieval morass has led us into a huge amount of diabolical mischief and the sooner we leave it behind as an unfortunate historical curiosity and get down to form of presentation of a rich, superb Gospel that come across as complex insults to both God and humanity (which they are) the better off we shall all be.
With the same caveats that Jolly Jape articulates, I agree with you (particularly on your last point about the effects of Anselmian thought on the 20th C and ff).
Like JJ, I think rather than being accused by an outside entity (whether God or the Devil) we judge ourselves. Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ, although we do a damned good job of it at times by turning to other things (or ourselves).
Albeit that a friend of mine who's in first year formation recently spent a week at Wontulp Bibiya College (an Aboriginal seminary). She said that while the Devil makes no sense in our culture, in theirs the Devil, as the personification of the temptation to drug and alcohol addiction and the cycle of abuse, made perfect sense.
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Tell us, Jamat,
What is it you find least fruitful - or most frightening - about the proposition that we strive to be exactly as hard or soft on 'sin' as was Jesus himself??
It is the appreciation of the nature of the problem. I suspect that a view of sin that deemphasises its seriousness is ostrich country. Wishful thinkng. Jesus spoke powerfully of judgement. Have you done the maths on that? The reason for judgement is obviously sin isn't it? Both in our nature and committed by us.
Basically, though, I wouldn't look at the number of times this or that is mentioned in the Gospels as an indicator of its relative importance in doctrine formation. What is important is the incarnation, its nature, function and consequence.
[ 22. November 2007, 00:22: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
piers ploughman
Shipmate
# 13174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Like JJ, I think rather than being accused by an outside entity (whether God or the Devil) we judge ourselves. Nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ, although we do a damned good job of it at times by turning to other things (or ourselves).
Albeit that a friend of mine who's in first year formation recently spent a week at Wontulp Bibiya College (an Aboriginal seminary). She said that while the Devil makes no sense in our culture, in theirs the Devil, as the personification of the temptation to drug and alcohol addiction and the cycle of abuse, made perfect sense. [/QB]
I admit that it is a strange thing to come (back) to a belief in the existence and the effects of a personal Devil in mid and later life. Perhaps it is some kind of cerebral softening already - although I seriously doubt it. What intrigues me is that it not only puts in in company with the vast majority of indigenous peoples and their intuitions (cp. your example)but with increasing numbers in this Post-modern era for whom evil is a palpable reality they have to deal with, both intellectually and emotionally.
I hear what you are saying about judging ourselves rather than doing so under the influence of an outside entity, but my mind has been too moulded by sociological perspectives to accept that as a primary or even a major cause. Guilt and shame are profoundly sociological matters, which is why there is so much variation between cultures. Blame, shame, accusation, denigration, scandal, the imputation of inferiority or inadequacy are directed to us by both individuals and institutions. It is possible to account for these social processes without recourse to diabolical explanations (as Walter Wink does in his famous "Powers" trilogy, for instance), but I can't help but be increasingly fascinated by the ways in which Jesus keeps on ascribing the activities of his enemies who constantly traded in blame, shame, judgement and moral superiority to the influence of their Father the Devil. It is possible that modern Europeans did really have a more enlightened worldview than Jesus, but I seriously doubt it - don't you?
Thanks for talking to me, BTW.
--------------------
Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
William Blake.
Posts: 2121 | From: perth wa | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
I can't help but be increasingly fascinated by the ways in which Jesus keeps on ascribing the activities of his enemies who constantly traded in blame, shame, judgement and moral superiority to the influence of their Father the Devil. It is possible that modern Europeans did really have a more enlightened worldview than Jesus, but I seriously doubt it - don't you?
Yes, I doubt it too. Jesus too consistently ascribed evil to malevolent spiritual forces for us to deny that this was His view.
The modern western perspective tends to deny the reality of spiritual beings who interact with us without our conscious awareness.
But this is the biblical view, and it was these malevolent forces that Jesus overcame. Or so He says:
quote:
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
The idea that Christ died to satisfy the Father's justice, instead of to cast out the "ruler of this world", contradicts many New Testament passages and much of Messianic prophecy. The consistent message of those prophecies is exemplified in the very first one:
quote:
Genesis 3:14 So the LORD God said to the serpent:...
15 I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.”
The serpent is Satan, or hell itself, and the woman's Seed is Jesus, who would suffer (His heel) but overcome (bruising the serpent's head).
The whole idea of the Advent prophecies is that God would come to save His people, to restore justice to the world, and to cast out evil. He would suffer in bringing this about, but He would not fail.
[ 22. November 2007, 01:21: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
piers ploughman
Shipmate
# 13174
|
Posted
I do like the way your mind works, Freddy.
Keep talking!! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2121 | From: perth wa | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
piers ploughman
Shipmate
# 13174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[:
It is the appreciation of the nature of the problem. I suspect that a view of sin that deemphasises its seriousness is ostrich country. Wishful thinkng. Jesus spoke powerfully of judgement. Have you done the maths on that? The reason for judgement is obviously sin isn't it? Both in our nature and committed by us.
Basically, though, I wouldn't look at the number of times this or that is mentioned in the Gospels as an indicator of its relative importance in doctrine formation. What is important is the incarnation, its nature, function and consequence. [/QB]
Of course, it's not a question of Maths, but when you want to understand someone, especially someone who chooese their words as carefully as Jesus does, it is a good idea to pay careful attention to the words they actually use and how frequently. It gives us a pretty good indication of what was on their mind. I'm merely suggesting that, that being so, sin was on Jesus' mind a lot less than it seems to be on those of many contemporary Christians (to judge by their utterances) and that is one of the reasons why I find it so much more refreshing to listen to him than to them!
No ostrich here, though, Jamat; I'm deeply aware of what a desperate mess the world is in and millions of those in it. Otherwise there would, as you suggest, be no need for Incarnation, for God's becoming human. We're under a most unkind and tyrannical usurper here, and God has not forgotten us. He has raised up for us a horn of salvation.
--------------------
Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
William Blake.
Posts: 2121 | From: perth wa | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
I hear what you are saying about judging ourselves rather than doing so under the influence of an outside entity, but my mind has been too moulded by sociological perspectives to accept that as a primary or even a major cause. Guilt and shame are profoundly sociological matters, which is why there is so much variation between cultures. Blame, shame, accusation, denigration, scandal, the imputation of inferiority or inadequacy are directed to us by both individuals and institutions. It is possible to account for these social processes without recourse to diabolical explanations (as Walter Wink does in his famous "Powers" trilogy, for instance), but I can't help but be increasingly fascinated by the ways in which Jesus keeps on ascribing the activities of his enemies who constantly traded in blame, shame, judgement and moral superiority to the influence of their Father the Devil. It is possible that modern Europeans did really have a more enlightened worldview than Jesus, but I seriously doubt it - don't you?
I don't necessarily disagree with you, Piers, and I do believe in the objective existance of wicked spiritual powers, though whether or not they are fallen angels is something about which the Bible is not clear and I am agnostic. But they certainly, IMHO, exist.
The point that I was trying to make was that to put these, undoubtedly "real" forces at the very centre of the atonement, as Classic theory does, seems to me to invest them with a power that they do not have. Or rather, that they would not have if we didn't "feed" them. There seems to me to be, within Classic theory, a danger of making Satan almost the equal of God, and that makes me uncomfortable.
I think that a Classic view would be that Satan enslave us directly, whereas CV would see rather that Satan is an opportunist who makes use of the fact that we already are enslaved to our fallen nature in order to control us.
--------------------
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 Jolly Jape:
I think that a Classic view would be that Satan enslave us directly, whereas CV would see rather that Satan is an opportunist who makes use of the fact that we already are enslaved to our fallen nature in order to control us.
Is there a difference between being enslaved by our fallen nature, being enslaved by sin, and being enslaved by the devil or hell?
I think they are all different ways of saying the same thing. The whole point of fallen-ness is to do what the serpent suggests rather than what God wills.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
We're under a most unkind and tyrannical usurper here, and God has not forgotten us. He has raised up for us a horn of salvation.
I agree with you here. I think that there is a far greater influence in our lives of negative sppiritual forces than we realise. Really it is a separate topic though.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think that there is a far greater influence in our lives of negative sppiritual forces than we realise. Really it is a separate topic though.
It's not a separate topic. This is what Christus Victor is about. What does Jesus triumph over if not negative spiritual forces?
--------------------
"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
|
|
piers ploughman
Shipmate
# 13174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The point that I was trying to make was that to put these, undoubtedly "real" forces at the very centre of the atonement, as Classic theory does, seems to me to invest them with a power that they do not have. Or rather, that they would not have if we didn't "feed" them. There seems to me to be, within Classic theory, a danger of making Satan almost the equal of God, and that makes me uncomfortable. [/QB]
It is arguable that the centre of our attention to the work of Christ is the best and safest place to put such a malevolent and deceptive force. It is there that, rather than being fed, his weakness and defeatedness become most apparent and he can't quietly sneak off and re-emerge to cause havoc somewhere outside of our normal focus of attention, somewhere we are more vulnerable than we realise.
--------------------
Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
William Blake.
Posts: 2121 | From: perth wa | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There seems to me to be, within Classic theory, a danger of making Satan almost the equal of God, and that makes me uncomfortable.
I agree about that. Satan is nothing compared to God. The only place he has any power at all is in the ability to deceive humanity. So the contest is only a contest in the context of human weakness and stupidity.
--------------------
"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
|
|
piers ploughman
Shipmate
# 13174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree about that. Satan is nothing compared to God. The only place he has any power at all is in the ability to deceive humanity. So the contest is only a contest in the context of human weakness and stupidity. [/QB]
You put me in mind of the inimitable William Blake:
Truly, My Satan, thou art but a Dunce,
And dost not know the Garment from the Man.
Every Harlot was a virgin once,
Nor can'st thou ever change Kate into Nan.
Tho' thou art Worship'd by the Names Divine
Of Jesus & Jehovah, thou art still
The Son of Morn in weary Night's decline,
The lost Traveller's Dream under the Hill.
--------------------
Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
William Blake.
Posts: 2121 | From: perth wa | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think that a Classic view would be that Satan enslave us directly, whereas CV would see rather that Satan is an opportunist who makes use of the fact that we already are enslaved to our fallen nature in order to control us.
Is there a difference between being enslaved by our fallen nature, being enslaved by sin, and being enslaved by the devil or hell?
I think they are all different ways of saying the same thing. The whole point of fallen-ness is to do what the serpent suggests rather than what God wills.
Well, I see your point, Freddy, but I think that I would, nevertheless, see a distinction, though I'm having difficulty finding an analogy to adequately define that distinction. If we use my beloved medical thinking, Classic theory has Satan as the "disease" that controls us, whereas, under CV, he is more like the snake-oil salesman who feeds us poisonous medicine in order to make us dependant on him. Our disease, our enslavement to decay, would be there whether Satan is "real" or not. He just uses it to serve his own purposes. If Satan is a roaring lion, searching for those he would devour, he is able to do so because we are already easy pickings. Does that make any sense?
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The point that I was trying to make was that to put these, undoubtedly "real" forces at the very centre of the atonement, as Classic theory does, seems to me to invest them with a power that they do not have. Or rather, that they would not have if we didn't "feed" them. There seems to me to be, within Classic theory, a danger of making Satan almost the equal of God, and that makes me uncomfortable.
It is arguable that the centre of our attention to the work of Christ is the best and safest place to put such a malevolent and deceptive force. It is there that, rather than being fed, his weakness and defeatedness become most apparent and he can't quietly sneak off and re-emerge to cause havoc somewhere outside of our normal focus of attention, somewhere we are more vulnerable than we realise. [/QB]
Hmmn, I see what you mean, and I certainly think that this is an argument for the desirability of belief existance of an objective Satan. However, to give him such centrality in the redemption story has its own dangers. IMHO Satan is parasitic on our fallen nature, rather than the source of it, and we lay ourselves open to deception of the "the devil made me do it" type if we forget this. As the blessed St Clive said, Satan hails the materialist and the magician with equal glee.
--------------------
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 Jolly Jape:
Our disease, our enslavement to decay, would be there whether Satan is "real" or not. He just uses it to serve his own purposes. If Satan is a roaring lion, searching for those he would devour, he is able to do so because we are already easy pickings. Does that make any sense?
Yes, that makes sense, JJ. I am not meaning to confound Satan and our own nature.
My real view is that there is no particular personal satan. Terms such as "satan",
"the devil", "the ruler of this world", "the serpent" all refer, in my understanding, to evil itself or hell itself personified as if it were a single individual.
The inhabitants of hell, in my opinion, are not fallen angels, but simply people who love themselves and the world rather than God and the neighbor. When they pass on into the next life they bring the misery that is inherent in that orientation on themselves, and this is what hell is.
People in the next life are inextricably connected with people in this world, so that they continue to exercise an influence on people in this world to love what they love. This is what is called the work of satan or the devil. It is not that they consciously influence anyone to anything, or even that they are in any way aware of the connection or their influence. It is simply that we are all bound together, and what one person thinks, desires, and does, affects what others think, desire and do. The added feature that there is no space and time in the spiritual realm means that people in hell become closely present with people on earth who are involved in hellish thoughts, actions and desires. This is also, happily, true of the presence of heaven with people who think, love and do the opposite.
The real issue is that if more people in the earth's population choose to love themselves and the world than choose to love God and the neighbor, then more people begin to enter hell than heaven. Over long periods of time this trend has a self-reinforcing effect. As hell grows larger and stronger its influence on humanity becomes greater. The balance between heaven and hell then begins to tip and be lost, and humanity becomes gradually enslaved by its own desires, goaded on by the close presence of hell with them.
This was the situation that necessitated the Incarnation. This is why the prophetic language speaks of darkness covering the earth and wicked nations overtaking Israel. Christ had to come to dispel the darkness, overcome the nations, and re-establish Israel (the kingdom of heaven, or the kingdom of God).
So Christ's mission was to overcome the forces of darkness by providing the light, and this involved fighting intense spiritual battles and enduring immense suffering. The reason for the suffering is that the loves of self and the world are powerful loves, they are backed up by tortuous and persuasive reasoning, and they do not release their hold on a person easily. Fundamentally, to overcome them a person needs to value God more than they value their own life - and this drama was played out literally and painfully in Jesus.
The result was that the balance between heaven and hell was restored and the influence of hell on us was reduced. The central mechanism used was the light, or the truth, which dispels the darkness that encourages or allows people to act from worldly and self-centered desires. These desires ruin life and destroy happiness if unchecked, but if they are brought into the light and subordinated to heavenly desires they are part of a happy and orderly world.
So, yes, the influence of satan is not the same thing as the influence of our own fallen nature. The distinction, though, is just between the influence of self and the influence of others. Our fallen nature makes us easy pickings. Luckily, the power of Christ protects us and gives us the power to choose to resist that influence.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Freddy, The problem with your scenario is that one can't tell where metaphor ends and the concrete truth begins. Also, surely one of the greatest deceptions by the great deceiver is that he doesn't really exist..he is just a projection of our minds.
I think the Bible teaches a lierally real devil. It is obvious Jesus did too when he said to the Pharisees. 'You are of your father the devil.'Jn 8:44
[ 23. November 2007, 23:45: Message edited by: Jamat ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Freddy, The problem with your scenario is that one can't tell where metaphor ends and the concrete truth begins.
Isn't this the problem with almost any scenario? You have made it clear that you don't take it all literally. Jesus Himself emphasized that He was using figurative language:
quote:
John 16:25 “These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; but the time is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly about the Father."
Matthew 13:34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying: “ I will open My mouth in parables; I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”
It may not be easy to discern which is figurative and which is concrete truth, but it is hard to argue that metaphors are not in play here.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Also, surely one of the greatest deceptions by the great deceiver is that he doesn't really exist..he is just a projection of our minds.
I'm not saying the devil doesn't exist. He is literally real. It's just that he is numerous. Every devil claims to be him. But as the demon said to Jesus:
quote:
Mark 5:9 “My name is Legion; for we are many.”
I don't think that this was true only of that particular devil.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think the Bible teaches a lierally real devil. It is obvious Jesus did too when he said to the Pharisees. 'You are of your father the devil.'Jn 8:44
Yes, the Bible consistently describes a single devil who is apparently in charge of hell, and who is called "the devil", "satan", "the serpent", "the dragon", the "ruler of this world" and other names as well. But I don't believe that he is really a dragon, a serpent, actually "the ruler of this world", or actually in charge of hell.
--------------------
"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
|
|
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think the Bible teaches a lierally real devil. It is obvious Jesus did too when he said to the Pharisees. 'You are of your father the devil.'Jn 8:44
Surely that's no more "literal", though, than when Jesus refers to James and John as Sons of Thunder. In my mind, both verses make a point about how something can be so deeply entrenched in someone's character that it does, in a sense, parent them. Figuratively speaking.
[ 24. November 2007, 04:51: Message edited by: infinite_monkey ]
--------------------
His light was lifted just above the Law,
And now we have to live with what we did with what we saw.
--Dar Williams, And a God Descended
Obligatory Blog Flog: www.otherteacher.wordpress.com
Posts: 1423 | From: left coast united states | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I think the Bible teaches a lierally real devil. It is obvious Jesus did too when he said to the Pharisees. 'You are of your father the devil.'Jn 8:44
...In my mind, both verses make a point about how something can be so deeply entrenched in someone's character that it does, in a sense, parent them. Figuratively speaking.
Especially since the alternative is that Jesus really thought that their mothers had sexual intercourse with satan. Which I doubt.
But, Jamat, I am a little confused as to why, if you believe in a literal satan, Jesus' primary mission would not be to defeat him? Don't you agree that this is what the prophecies predicted and what Jesus Himself spoke about?
Is it just that, despite Jesus' statements, you don't understand how the contest took place and what the victory looked like? Or is it that the cross seems more like a defeat than a victory? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
the Bible consistently describes a single devil who is apparently in charge of hell, and who is called "the devil", "satan", "the serpent", "the dragon", the "ruler of this world" and other names as well. But I don't believe that he is really a dragon, a serpent, actually "the ruler of this world", or actually in charge of hell.
Freddy ,
To answer an earlier question, I have no issue with Christ as victor. I don't agree that the 'Christus Victor' model does justice to scripture or to the experience of conversion and regeneration.
Regarding the devil, I take your point above but surely we need to distinguish between a real being described in metaphorical terms and seeing that being as just an effect, as a means to describe evil. There is a distinction. You could describe someone as a man-mountain . It doesn't mean he is either a mountain or not real.
The devil is seen in metaphor as a dragon and a serpent. He is not thereby not an objectively real being. Would yopu agree?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
piers ploughman
Shipmate
# 13174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To answer an earlier question, I have no issue with Christ as victor. I don't agree that the 'Christus Victor' model does justice to scripture or to the experience of conversion and regeneration.
Whether or not the CV model does justice to Scripture is surely a moot point - otherwise it wouldn't be making the slightest bit of sense to be having this dicussion. My own exerience is that it makes sense of much that happens after conversion and regeneration, especially the tests and trials that are unaviodable, and then it also begins to make more sense of what happened to us in the unsophisticated innocence of the begiining of our conscious Christian experience.
quote:
Regarding the devil, I take your point above but surely we need to distinguish between a real being described in metaphorical terms and seeing that being as just an effect, as a means to describe evil. There is a distinction. You could describe someone as a man-mountain . It doesn't mean he is either a mountain or not real.
The devil is seen in metaphor as a dragon and a serpent. He is not thereby not an objectively real being. Would yopu agree? [/QB]
I suspect that one of the worst aspects of having minds soaked in modern thought and imagination is that it almost completely mucks up our ability to think in metaphor and images the way our ancestors evidently could, as well as our sense of the true relation between image and reality.
[ 25. November 2007, 06:34: Message edited by: piers ploughman ]
--------------------
Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
William Blake.
Posts: 2121 | From: perth wa | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To answer an earlier question, I have no issue with Christ as victor. I don't agree that the 'Christus Victor' model does justice to scripture or to the experience of conversion and regeneration.
Whether or not the CV model does justice to Scripture is surely a moot point - otherwise it wouldn't be making the slightest bit of sense to be having this dicussion. My own exerience is that it makes sense of much that happens after conversion and regeneration, especially the tests and trials that are unaviodable, and then it also begins to make more sense of what happened to us in the unsophisticated innocence of the begiining of our conscious Christian experience.
quote:
Regarding the devil, I take your point above but surely we need to distinguish between a real being described in metaphorical terms and seeing that being as just an effect, as a means to describe evil. There is a distinction. You could describe someone as a man-mountain . It doesn't mean he is either a mountain or not real.
The devil is seen in metaphor as a dragon and a serpent. He is not thereby not an objectively real being. Would yopu agree?
I suspect that one of the worst aspects of having minds soaked in modern thought and imagination is that it almost completely mucks up our ability to think in metaphor and images the way our ancestors evidently could, as well as our sense of the true relation between image and reality. [/QB]
I guess our 'modern mental baggage' is considerable. This is one of the reasons I value scripture. It cuts across our sensibilities and preconceptions and forces us to confront them.
We certainly tend to tend exist in metaphor. I think we always have. My point though is that there is not an easy either/or contrast between metaphor and objective reality
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Jamat,
Thankyou for your lengthy response.
Of course I hear and understand what you say very clearly and have heard it very many times before. It is a version of the fall/redemption motif that has been incredibly influential in various guises in elite Christian thought through tne centuries. As such it is part of the ABC of historical theology. What I am trying to do is to invite shipmates along some other and more fruitful paths.
And reference back to Jamat's original post.
As influential as it has been it's only been so in the West, we (Orthodox) don't have the Original Sin teaching, so no 'fall from a perfection into a sinful state'.
Myrrh
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
piers ploughman
Shipmate
# 13174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Jamat,
Thankyou for your lengthy response.
Of course I hear and understand what you say very clearly and have heard it very many times before. It is a version of the fall/redemption motif that has been incredibly influential in various guises in elite Christian thought through tne centuries. As such it is part of the ABC of historical theology. What I am trying to do is to invite shipmates along some other and more fruitful paths.
And reference back to Jamat's original post.
As influential as it has been it's only been so in the West, we (Orthodox) don't have the Original Sin teaching, so no 'fall from a perfection into a sinful state'.
Myrrh
Must be bliss without it. Any comments on the status of the CV model in the east??
--------------------
Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
William Blake.
Posts: 2121 | From: perth wa | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Jamat,
Thankyou for your lengthy response.
Of course I hear and understand what you say very clearly and have heard it very many times before. It is a version of the fall/redemption motif that has been incredibly influential in various guises in elite Christian thought through tne centuries. As such it is part of the ABC of historical theology. What I am trying to do is to invite shipmates along some other and more fruitful paths.
And reference back to Jamat's original post.
As influential as it has been it's only been so in the West, we (Orthodox) don't have the Original Sin teaching, so no 'fall from a perfection into a sinful state'.
Myrrh
Must be bliss without it. Any comments on the status of the CV model in the east??
I didn't realise just how blissful it was until I learned about Augustine's Original Sin... Orthodox teaching is that children are born innocent (become as little children hardly makes sense otherwise) and don't sin until the age of reason, whatever that is for them.
Most Orthodox don't know Augustine's OS doctrines having lost real contact around that time mainly from language differences and fall of the Roman Empire. With the Jews who don't have OS either, we see Adam and Eve as ancestors of the human race who ended up sinning because of the fruit they ate, which was both good and evil, and we say from the evil came death.
I think the 'fathers' generally explain their 'disobedience' as making the decision to acquire knowledge too early, still in a childlike state, not that knowledge of good and evil was barred to them. In other words that they would have come to that knowledge in God's time. I don't agree with that reading either in all its detail, but that's another argument...
Orthodox begin with seeing Gen II as Adam and Eve in neither mortal nor immortal state, from this we get the CV of Christ conquering death by death and so taking us to the immortality which Adam & Eve missed out on and we with it as sin spread death. At the same time we very much see all of humanity as in Genesis I, which God saw as good, and never losing free will in the relationship with Him which remains synergistic, and so on. We really don't have this huge emphasis on Gen II which is prevalent in the West.
I'm pushed for time now as I'm in the last few days of preparing to leave for several months, but anyway am not up to the task of discussing it in the depth you're probably hoping for - Andreas, don't know where he is he doesn't seem to be posting at the moment, is much more learned in the 'fathers' and 'Orthodox' explanations.
I don't think the CV in orthodoxy can be appreciated without the base that we have a completely different relationship with God than that set out in the OS doctrines from which comes the juridical view of God morphing into the crucifixion as a sacrifice God required for 'satisfaction', 'appeasing wrath', 'blood necessary', and so on as we've seen in the discussion here - with Christ and the prophets, God doesn't require sacrifice. Orthodox teaching generally is that God would have incarnated anyway, 'OS' or not, 'fall' or not.
Myrrh
p.s. If I can't get back to this before I leave I'll find an internet cafe at the weekend or thereabouts.
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Jamat,
Thankyou for your lengthy response.
Of course I hear and understand what you say very clearly and have heard it very many times before. It is a version of the fall/redemption motif that has been incredibly influential in various guises in elite Christian thought through tne centuries. As such it is part of the ABC of historical theology.
Maybe, that's because it is true? Could be couldn't it?
By the way Myrrh, If the Orthodox don't believe in the fall, where does their notion of sin come from?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
piers ploughman
Shipmate
# 13174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by piers ploughman:
Jamat,
Thankyou for your lengthy response.
Of course I hear and understand what you say very clearly and have heard it very many times before. It is a version of the fall/redemption motif that has been incredibly influential in various guises in elite Christian thought through tne centuries. As such it is part of the ABC of historical theology.
Maybe, that's because it is true? Could be couldn't it?
By the way Myrrh, If the Orthodox don't believe in the fall, where does their notion of sin come from?
Hearing something many times doesn't mean it's true, of course - although human beings are sadly prone to that illusion.
--------------------
Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
William Blake.
Posts: 2121 | From: perth wa | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
...If the Orthodox don't believe in the fall, where does their notion of sin come from?
Not wishing to speak for Myrhh, but my understanding, which may be flawed since I'm not Orthodox, is that they don't believe in original sin. That is a position quite different from that of not believing in the fall.
--------------------
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 Jolly Jape:
quote:
...If the Orthodox don't believe in the fall, where does their notion of sin come from?
Not wishing to speak for Myrhh, but my understanding, which may be flawed since I'm not Orthodox, is that they don't believe in original sin. That is a position quite different from that of not believing in the fall.
I don't completely understand this, having read several explanations from Orthodox shipmates. I understand the antipathy to Augustine and the idea of original sin, but not how we get away, or not, from some concept of a fall.
My own belief is that the fall was a gradual spiritual decline from an actual "golden age" that is described in Scripture by the story of Eden. Rather than being a single fruit-eating event, the decline came as humanity became more interested in, and confident of, the information of their senses than the interior wisdom that they received from God and heaven.
I agree with the Orthodox denial of original sin. It seems like an inherently unfair concept - to blame descendants for the actions of their ancestors. It also sets up the scenario that Jamat believes in - some kind of age-old debt that must be paid to God.
In its place I accept the idea that tendencies towards self-centered and worldly motivations are passed on from parents to children, just as all character traits are. These traits change over generations in ways that can be good or bad. So different populations behave differently from each other, and populations can improve or decline.
Instead of orginal sin I accept the idea of inherited tendencies to sin. These tendencies no more condemn us to hell than our physical slowness and weakness condemn us to starve. Nevertheless, they are impediments than need to be overcome if we are to live in peace and find happiness in heaven. Christ came to help us overcome them - indeed, to overcome them for us.
I'm curious, therefore, as to how the Orthodox see our sinful nature and how Christ redeemed us.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Freddy, I recently made yet another effort to contribute to clearing up all this confusion about the "Orthodox understanding of original sin" and now, I can't find the thread! It was one of those "Immaculate Conception" threads....
In essence, my point was that whether or not the "tendency" to do our own will rather than God's will is "inherited" or not, it's a human tendency we all have, and in our baptism--even in our desire for baptism should baptism not be possible for some reason--there is power that comes to us from God to fight against and to conquer this tendency to succumb to the various temptations we all go through as human beings.
We have the tendency, but we are forgiven because we repent and are washed clean of our sins in baptism. What we ought not to do, it seems to me, is to keep tracing our continual tendency to sin to Adam and "heredity". We're each responsible for our own sins, whether they're sins of omission or actual sins committed knowingly or unknowingly. Does that help at all? I am unwilling to claim to speak for all the Orthodox Christians here, so I'm sure this idea of mine will meet with lengthy responses where there are other contrary opinions.
It's one of those "burning questions", isn't it, and I guess one that will meet with varying answers. I do have firm faith that whatever we believe or don't believe, God will answer for us individually, in His own good time.
Best wishes,
Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Leetle Masha, thanks! That sounds just like what I believe.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
Well, Freddy, just so you and others on all the topics of this board make sure you understand that I'm not the head Orthodox on here! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Best wishes, Mary
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
...If the Orthodox don't believe in the fall, where does their notion of sin come from?
Not wishing to speak for Myrhh, but my understanding, which may be flawed since I'm not Orthodox, is that they don't believe in original sin. That is a position quite different from that of not believing in the fall.
'T aint d'point. D'point is lots of wonderful Christians have based their whole foundation on't. 'T works!
Think of Aladdin. Would you swap a new lamp for an old if it's the old that has the genie?
I still don't see how you can believe in sin without a fall..may need words of one syllable..sorry may be the Irish or some't.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well I wouldn't see a softened view of sin as being a more fruitful path.
The issue is about the hopelessness of our lostness. Unless one finds the path out of that lostness one can't find peace.
Of couse if one denies the 'lostness' then either ther is no problrm or one is blinded to it. Is their a third alternative?
Not so much softened, as more biblically balanced.
No-one is denying the lostness, merely that the said lostness is not as a result of judicial condemnation by God, but rather the destructive effects of sin upon our ontology. Hence the remedy is re-creation by the new birth, rather than juridical aquittal. We are not lost because we are guilty before God. Sin is that which can be forgiven. Our plight is much more serious than juridical guilt - it is the bondage to decay and death that sin brings with it. We can be fully forgiven and still be bound to decay which prevents us from enjoying eternal life. It is much more significant, from God's point of view, that we are freed from that bondage than that we are forgiven, since the incarnation would not have been necessary if our only need was for forgiveness.
You are 'not far from the kingdom' here. How close to a version of the 'Christ is sinbearer model' is this? The only comment I'd suggest is that the 'born again ' component is possible only BECAUSE of 'acquittal' (which of course you deny) and the aquittal is allowable since Christ paid the penalty, and this enabled forgiveness, and this made possible the regeneration, as we , by faith 'subsume' ourselves into Christ.
Please excuse my arrogance..Call it conviction!
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
...If the Orthodox don't believe in the fall, where does their notion of sin come from?
Not wishing to speak for Myrhh, but my understanding, which may be flawed since I'm not Orthodox, is that they don't believe in original sin. That is a position quite different from that of not believing in the fall.
'T aint d'point. D'point is lots of wonderful Christians have based their whole foundation on't. 'T works!
Think of Aladdin. Would you swap a new lamp for an old if it's the old that has the genie?
I still don't see how you can believe in sin without a fall..may need words of one syllable..sorry may be the Irish or some't.
OK, firstly, to deal with the observayion that many fine christians have based their faith on this understanding. Well, of course, the obvious rejoinder is that many (more?) fine Christians have rejected, (or at least, not accepted) this as the basis of their faith. This kind of suggests that this particular understanding is less central than you seem to think it.
But of course, none of us, not even you, Jamat, in fact base our faith on this particular doctrine. We base our faith in the person and saving power of Jesus. Now the way we express our faith is certainly coloured by our image of God, but, ultimately, our salvation, istm, depends on Him, and, depending on how monergist we are, our response to Him. How God works to acheive our salvation may be important for our grasp of the faith, but it's very much second-order.
With regard to the fall, an acceptance of the fact of human sinfulness (let's call it "the fall") is not the same as an acceptance of original sin. One can hold to the first whilst rejecting the second. There is a difference between inherited judicial guilt (OS) and a (maybe) inherited bondage to sin and death. Of course, if we continue in our bondage, the end result may well be the same (ie we do not enjoy eternal life) but the reasons for this are quite different depending on which schema we believe. Under PSA it is because we are under the wrath of God, whilst under CV, it is because our ontology is such that it is impossible for us to live eternally, since we are dying a bit more every day, and the way out is not concerned withn forgiveness (since the problem is not one of juridical guilt) but with regeneration into an ontology like that of Christ, or, as Paul would put it, becoming a new creation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well I wouldn't see a softened view of sin as being a more fruitful path.
The issue is about the hopelessness of our lostness. Unless one finds the path out of that lostness one can't find peace.
Of couse if one denies the 'lostness' then either ther is no problrm or one is blinded to it. Is their a third alternative?
Not so much softened, as more biblically balanced.
No-one is denying the lostness, merely that the said lostness is not as a result of judicial condemnation by God, but rather the destructive effects of sin upon our ontology. Hence the remedy is re-creation by the new birth, rather than juridical aquittal. We are not lost because we are guilty before God. Sin is that which can be forgiven. Our plight is much more serious than juridical guilt - it is the bondage to decay and death that sin brings with it. We can be fully forgiven and still be bound to decay which prevents us from enjoying eternal life. It is much more significant, from God's point of view, that we are freed from that bondage than that we are forgiven, since the incarnation would not have been necessary if our only need was for forgiveness.
You are 'not far from the kingdom' here. How close to a version of the 'Christ is sinbearer model' is this? The only comment I'd suggest is that the 'born again ' component is possible only BECAUSE of 'acquittal' (which of course you deny) and the aquittal is allowable since Christ paid the penalty, and this enabled forgiveness, and this made possible the regeneration, as we , by faith 'subsume' ourselves into Christ.
Please excuse my arrogance..Call it conviction!
Well, I'm not at all opposed to Christ being the "sinbearer". I just don't understand the term to mean what you understand it to mean. I agree that Christ bears our sins, but not that our sins were punished by God in His (Christ's) person (indeed that God deals with sin by punishment at all). His body was certainly the locus of the battle between sin and righteouseness, the place where the ultimate power of good/love/forgiveness was vindicated over the power of evil/self/retribution. But that has nothing to do with being rejected by God or being the vessel of God's wrath towards sinful mankind. I reject wholly the notion that there is any precondition for forgiveness. It is toatally without warrant from the teaching of Jesus. Rather, the whole emphasis of His teaching on forgiveness is that it is unconditional, unearned, free and without limits. If the cross were about forgiveness, we would be left forgiven but still bound to time and decay, and thus unable to share eternity with God.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
If the cross were about forgiveness, we would be left forgiven but still bound to time and decay, and thus unable to share eternity with God.
Sorry, the last sentence didn't quite read as intended. The point I was trying to make was that, wheter or not you consider the cross to be about forgiveness (I would say it demonstrates, but does not initiate, forgiveness) it must be about far more than forgiveness if it is to bring us the opportunity of eternal life.
--------------------
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 Jolly Jape:
But that has nothing to do with being rejected by God or being the vessel of God's wrath towards sinful mankind.
Yes. The reference to this in Isaiah 53 is that "we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted" (v. 4), not that God esteemed Him that way. His feelings of being abandoned on the cross by the Father were feelings associated with the pain of His condition, not the reality.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I reject wholly the notion that there is any precondition for forgiveness. It is totally without warrant from the teaching of Jesus.
Yes, God's forgiveness is unconditional. It is always there. As He says:
quote:
Luke 6:35 But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. 36 Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.
Matthew 5:44 Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
This says to me that God loves the evil and the good, and that His forgiveness is therefore always available to everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Rather, the whole emphasis of His teaching on forgiveness is that it is unconditional, unearned, free and without limits.
At the same time, there are statements that do place conditions on His forgiveness.
For example, we need to forgive others:
quote:
Matthew 6:12 "And forgive us our debts, As we forgive our debtors. For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
Matthew 12:32 "Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."
Mark 11:25 “And whenever you stand praying, if you have anything against anyone, forgive him, that your Father in heaven may also forgive you your trespasses. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father in heaven forgive your trespasses.”
Luke 6:37 “Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven."
Other statements demand repentance as a precondition:
quote:
Luke 3:3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins,
Luke 13:5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.
Luke 17:3 Take heed to yourselves. If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, ‘I repent,’ you shall forgive him.
Luke 24:47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
Acts 3:19 Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
Acts 8:22 Repent therefore of this your wickedness, and pray God if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven you.
Revelation 2:5 Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent and do the first works, or else I will come to you quickly and remove your lampstand from its place—unless you repent.
Revelation 2:16 Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.
Revelation 2:22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds.
Despite these statements, I think it is still fair to say that God's love and forgiveness are unconditional. He says:
quote:
Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent.
His love and forgiveness are unconditional. It's just that we need to repent in order to come into a state of being able to appreciate His unconditional love.
Regardless, the idea that God's wrath needs to be satisfied by a worthy sacrifice, especially the death of His Son, is completely incompatible with these teachings. At least that's how I read it.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
His love and forgiveness are unconditional. It's just that we need to repent in order to come into a state of being able to appreciate His unconditional love.
I think this is spot-on Freddy. It does seem as if there are confusing messages in the Gospels wrt forgiveness. I think it is possible to reconcile the teaching that you quote, Freddy, with the concept of unconditional forgiveness, by thinking about wheter the person is the forgiver or the recipient of forgiveness. For the forgiver, forgiveness must always be unconditional. It's what God expects of us, and what he models in Jesus. But for the recipient to receive the benefits of forgiveness in his or her life, it is necessary to realise (ie make real) that grace in their life. The fact of their forgiveness is not in doubt, but unless they respond to that foprgiveness, it will not have an influence on their life. That is how I see it, anyway, and I do think that such a view is consonant with scripture, even if it could hardly be described as a plain teaching.
--------------------
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 Jolly Jape:
But for the recipient to receive the benefits of forgiveness in his or her life, it is necessary to realise (ie make real) that grace in their life. The fact of their forgiveness is not in doubt, but unless they respond to that foprgiveness, it will not have an influence on their life.
That is precisely the way that I see it.
I would extend this reasoning even into hell. God loves every individual there, desiring nothing but their eternal happiness. This love and happiness is always available to them, but unless they respond it will not have an influence on them.
This is far from the idea that God prescribes eternal punishments for the wicked in hell. Still, from our point of view, it is nevertheless true that trusting and obeying Christ is the way to find eternal happiness.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Jolly Jape said:
I'm not at all opposed to Christ being the "sinbearer". I just don't understand the term to mean what you understand it to mean. I agree that Christ bears our sins, but not that our sins were punished by God in His (Christ's) person (indeed that God deals with sin by punishment at all). His body was certainly the locus of the battle between sin and righteouseness, the place where the ultimate power of good/love/forgiveness was vindicated over the power of evil/self/retribution. But that has nothing to do with being rejected by God or being the vessel of God's wrath towards sinful mankind. I reject wholly the notion that there is any precondition for forgiveness. It is toatally without warrant from the teaching of Jesus.
Good on you JJ. I have been pretty acerbic and defensive at times and you have always bitten your tongue and attempted reasoned argument. I acknowledge you as someone who has integrity and toleration. Like Jesus said,'You will know them by their fruits.' A few pages back I got close to stating that I doubted that anyone who disagreed with me could be a real Christian. Please accept my apology for that and I'd like to acknowledge Karl and Greyface as well here. I am in a church environment where very little of the quality of thinking, knowledge and discussion available here on the ship is open to me. I'd like you to know that your view of CV and that of many others has been really informative and challenging as well as interesting and stimulating. While it is you I have primarily engaged with, there are so many other 'sharp pencils' on the ship who have posted on this thread from lots of different viewpoints. I love you all (is this heaven?) even if I'm still pretty definite in my NSH opinions.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Thanks for that, Jamat. I have always felt that our debates have been carried out with passion, but in good spirit. We are engaging in ideas, but behind those ideas are people, and if I have occasionally forgotten that, I ask your forgiveness. Pax.
--------------------
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
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Thanks Jamat, I appreciate that.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
