homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: Christus Victor (Page 49)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  ...  67  68  69 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: Christus Victor
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Nothing can undo past crimes.

Then for so many people in the world there is no hope - suicide is to be encouraged. [Frown]
I'm not sure I understand. Things can be improved. Crimes can be repented of. Crimes can be prevented. Restitution can be made for many past crimes. But after something terrible has happened - a murder, a rape - nothing can undo it.

Why suicide?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Both are equally real, but Christ consistently prioritizes the heavenly reality over the worldly one. Or do you have another explanation for statements such as:

Your quotes pit 'heaven' against 'this world / this life' not heaven against earth. Also, who says 'kingdom' (e.g. Matt. 6: 33) is a purely 'spiritual' term? Surely it is a term that embraces both ... as I keep saying. [Biased]
Yes, it does embrace both, since both are present with us in the world. Nevertheless, they are two things, and heavenly things are to have priority, according to Jesus.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just to clarify, I see the whole problem that necessitated the Incarnation as being that heaven had lost its priority in human minds. Therefore hell was growing out of proportion and out of control.

The whole point was to arrest its growth, reduce its power, and enable people to willingly prioritize heaven over hell, or over worldly interests, and find peace on earth.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Why suicide?

Because some things are so horrible to live with that no hope of 'undoing them' is no hope at all.


quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Nevertheless, they are two things, and heavenly things are to have priority, according to Jesus.

But my point is that you are setting up a false dichotomy. If Christ's kingdom is both a new heaven AND a new earth then (in this sense) it is redundant to speak of 'heavenly things having priority'.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
infinite_monkey
Shipmate
# 11333

 - Posted      Profile for infinite_monkey   Email infinite_monkey   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Nothing can undo past crimes.

Then for so many people in the world there is no hope - suicide is to be encouraged. [Frown]
I don't see the logic here. We are given in Christ an example of suffering transformed, not unmade--his body raised by God with the wounds still on it. We are taught to look to the Kingdom of Heaven as a place where God will wipe every tear from every eye, not drench us all in the unremembering bliss that makes tears unnecessary in the first place.

To return to the initial point, I don't see a faith problem or a reason for despair in the simple reality that past crimes don't get uncommitted--on Earth or (ISTM) in Heaven. I think we might do well to trust that God has another means of making things right--a means that became visible in the resurrection of Christ.

--------------------
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
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
I think we might do well to trust that God has another means of making things right--a means that became visible in the resurrection of Christ.

Okay, but you are now the one using language of justice (making things right) - this was exactly what I raised with JJ and Freddy in the first place.

I'm happy to ditch the phrase 'undo' - how does Jesus 'make things right'?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
OK, been away from the computer for a few days.

First, I realise that my imprecise user of the term "unmake" may have caused some confusion. Infinate Monkey sort of iterpreted this as "drench(ing) us all in the unremembering bliss that makes tears unnecessary in the first place. This isn't quite what I meant. My starting point was, indeed the Revelation passage of every tear being wiped away, but, rather than this being the result of unremembering, I think the biblical image of the pain of childbirth is probably nearer to my thinking. So, more transformation of suffering by Divine grace. The point is that, from the pewrspective of the suffering person, the negative effects of the suffering pass away, and the person is left with the positive understanding of how God redeems that suffering through union with Christ, for God's glory and their "consolation". if that's the right technical term.

Now to the more substantive points. John, I'm still not sure that I follow your argument here. What you articulate is a general problem theodicy, rather than a specific problem of CV vs PSA.
quote:
If he just 'fixes' everyone when they die then why can't he do it now? It seems cruel and malicious to make us experience all that pain.
This is the same problem faced by any Atonement doctrine. PSA as well as Exemplar or CV. But, of course, neither CV nor PSA would allow for the "just" in line 1. God, of course, does work towards "fixing" these things in this life as well as the next, but, as yet, we only experience it in part. Why that should be so is not explained by any Atonement theory.

quote:
Some form of universalism ... in which case how can God put any of this right without 'forcing' X and Y to accept it?

You know that I am unwilling to discuss universalism on this thread, as I don't accept the link between a universalist hope and any particular Atonement theory, but I'm sure you realise that there are ways in which God can put things right without any "forcing" going on. For example, one possibility is that, freed of their bondage to sin and death at the general resurrection, both X and Y would be free to choose that which they would always have chosen had it not been for that bondage. This is an affirmation, rather than a denial, of free will.

Furthermore, a retributive view of Atonement does no more, in restutionary terms, than does a non-retributive view, in bringing about justice. Punishing the guilty does nothing towards restoring the victim, and, of course, the guilty themselves are, in some sense, victims of the law of sin and death.

[ 15. March 2008, 12:17: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

--------------------
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      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
I think we might do well to trust that God has another means of making things right--a means that became visible in the resurrection of Christ.

Okay, but you are now the one using language of justice (making things right) - this was exactly what I raised with JJ and Freddy in the first place.

I'm happy to ditch the phrase 'undo' - how does Jesus 'make things right'?

Thanks, that's what I was hoping for. Why talk about "undoing" past actions - as if something could make it so that the Holocaust never happened. The point is to prevent it from happening again.

Making things right involves taking a world where there is hatred and injustice and turning it into a world where there is love and fairness. It means cleaning up a poluted world. It means ending hunger, poverty and violence.

If the world were to change in those directions this would, in effect, "undo" the Holocaust because it would mean that it couldn't be repeated, or that the conditions that foster holocausts would be gone.

This is what Jesus came to do. He did it by the power of His Word. He came to educate the world, and bring it from the darkness into the light, by exposing its evils and defeating the power of darkness. Jesus said:
quote:
“I have come as a light into the world, that whoever believes in Me should not abide in darkness.” John 12:46

“For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” John 18.37

“For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, nor hidden that will not be known.” Luke 12.2

“I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.” John 10:10

The point is that His "will be done on earth as it is in heaven." With every individual the point is that we stop sinning and do God's will. This "undoes" our past actions and is our reception of God's forgiveness.

[ 15. March 2008, 12:29: 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
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Nevertheless, they are two things, and heavenly things are to have priority, according to Jesus.

But my point is that you are setting up a false dichotomy. If Christ's kingdom is both a new heaven AND a new earth then (in this sense) it is redundant to speak of 'heavenly things having priority'.
Are you missing the part where I point out that Jesus specifically gives priority to the kingdom of heaven?

Do you disagree with Jesus, or do you have another explanation for what He says about such things as seeking heavenly treasure rather than worldly treasure?

--------------------
"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      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Are you missing the part where I point out that Jesus specifically gives priority to the kingdom of heaven?

I think the term 'heaven' is confusing us here - it has connotations of being 'spiritual only' and being set opposed to 'earth'.

However, in the gospels Jesus speaks of the 'kingdom of God' as a synonym.

So when I read 'kingdom of heaven' I read 'the rule of Jesus as King whether on earth or in heaven' ... like the Lord's Prayer.

Jesus is contrasting those who put their trust in transient things (that rust) of this present age as opposed to things of eternal significance. It is not about spiritual being more important than physical.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Back on line briefly - clearly loads of catching up to do).

Johhny S and Freddy. I think you will find that the Orthodox (or some of them) also have a different take on basileia i.e kingdom in English. It's an abstract word in the Greek (meaning sovereignty) which we tend by association in the West to see as denoting a territory or people under that sovereignty. But I think they see it different to either of you (my take is pretty much the same as Johhny S's BTW).

Rather as Myrrh has flagged energeia as a distinctive, I think basileia is a distinctive. But I'm not sure.

Back after more catch-up. Probably this evening UK time.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think the term 'heaven' is confusing us here - it has connotations of being 'spiritual only' and being set opposed to 'earth'.

Fortunately it is a word that occurs frequently in the Bible, so it is not that difficult to see from the context what it means.

In many contexts, heaven is definitely a realm, an unseen realm that is somehow apart from and above the earth. God is consistently said to be in heaven. Angels "come down from heaven." Jesus came down from heaven. Jesus says:
quote:
John 3:13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.
So heaven is an unseen world where God and angels live, and where Jesus came from. God's will is done in that realm, and our prayer is that His will done on earth as it is in heaven:
quote:
Matthew 6:10 Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
This statement seems clearly to say that when His kingdom comes His will shall be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Nevertheless, heaven and earth are two distinct places, so that, for example Jesus says:
quote:
Matthew 18:18 “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."

If heaven and earth were the same thing, or if there was no such thing as heaven, or if heaven was only God's kingdom on earth, then there would be no point is His saying these things.

Jesus also made a distinction between "earthly things" and "heavenly things":
quote:
John 3:12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
This is echoed when He speaks of "treasures in heaven" compared with "treasures on earth", or "riches" compared with being "rich toward God."

So heaven is, in one sense, spiritual only and distinct and different from things on earth. There is even an opposition implied in the statements about it.

But the term is also used in other contexts, as you point out:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, in the gospels Jesus speaks of the 'kingdom of God' as a synonym.

So when I read 'kingdom of heaven' I read 'the rule of Jesus as King whether on earth or in heaven' ... like the Lord's Prayer.

Yes, exactly.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus is contrasting those who put their trust in transient things (that rust) of this present age as opposed to things of eternal significance. It is not about spiritual being more important than physical.

Yes, Jesus is contrasting those who put their trust in transient things as opposed to things of eternal significance. But it is also about spiritual being more important than physical. The things that He is calling "heavenly" are spiritual things and these are the same thing as things of eternal significance. We are to seek spiritual pleasures, that is heavenly pleasures, or pleasures that have eternal significance, ahead of physical pleasures. Spiritual things are to have the priority. These seems very clear fro mthe quotes:
quote:
Matthew 6:19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

Matthew 6:33 But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.

Matthew 16:26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?

John 3:31 He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all.

Heaven is above earth, and heavenly things are above earthly things. Heavenly things are love, truth, peace, honesty, virtue, humility, service, innocence. Earthly things are pleasure, food, rest, sex, success, power, money.

The kingdom of heaven is on earth when people prioritise heavenly things over earthly things. In this situation these earthly things are perfectly in order and perfectly consistent with God's will. But the priority is seeking first the kingdom of God.

So I certainly agree that the "kingdom of heaven" in many contexts refers to God's kingdom on earth. Nevertheless, even in that situation the priority always rests with heavenly things over earthly things, because these are the things that are of eternal worth and significance.

--------------------
"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
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Why does anything have to 'fit in' with anything else?

The writes of the gospels and epistles had different ways of understanding atonement so would not necessarily fit in with each other.

Agreed - there will always be a tension between our systematic and biblical theologies - however, there is a difference between asking how different views might complement each other and allowing for direct contradiction.

IMHO If we allow for outright contradiction then we lose all sense of being able to speak of a coherent gospel.

A coherent gospel might not have appeared 'folly to the Greeks'.

--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com

Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the gospel appears folly to most people groups, whether made coherent or not.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

I will link to three lectures by metropolitan Callistos on the Cross:

http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_1.mp3
http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_2.mp3
http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_3.mp3


I hope they help illuminate the issues at hand! I understand that still there will be many things that are not clear, but we can discuss further after we get benefited from metropolitan Kallistos' explanation.

A quick preliminary question, andreas, as I get up to speed. Are these talks by the late Metropolitan Callistos of Corinth? (As mentioned in this OrthodoxWiki article).

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No, it's your compatriot! Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) of Diocleia! The author of the Orthodox Way etc.

[ 16. March 2008, 18:11: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Listening now - and a quick poke around the website revealed my error! Just finished talk 1 - v. good indeed. Good way to start Holy Week.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Heaven is above earth, and heavenly things are above earthly things. Heavenly things are love, truth, peace, honesty, virtue, humility, service, innocence. Earthly things are pleasure, food, rest, sex, success, power, money.

But what would that look like in practice?

For example, do you think those who chose marriage over chastity are preferring earthly things over spiritual ones?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
A coherent gospel might not have appeared 'folly to the Greeks'.

C'mon Leo - have you forgotten where that quote comes from?

It is specifically 'Christ crucified' that is such folly ... not Christ crucified and risen ... in 1 Cor. 1 and 2 it is just the cross which is considered 'foolishness'.

Ummh. Where does CV fit into that?

It would be easy to make a case from 1 Corinthians that CV is an attempt to make the atonement coherent but actually PSA is being faithful to the charge of being a 'stumbling block'! (Applying the logic of your argument that is. [Biased] )

So thanks, I'm thinking of getting a sig. of "PSA - as officially approved by Leo" [Big Grin]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But what would that look like in practice?

I'm sort of amazed that this isn't clear to you. How on earth do you interpret "seek first the kingdom of heaven and all these things shall be added to you"?

Doesn't it simply mean that if you seek to obey God in your life you are not likely to suffer materially for doing so? That is, if you are honest, conscientious, respectful, hardworking, kind, generous, moral, prudent, and seek to serve God, you are likely to do fine in life.

This is all that it means to put heavenly things first. It means to love God and the neighbor and to act from those principles. They are the things that matter, that are important, that are eternal.

I thought that this is what everyone understood by Jesus' words.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
For example, do you think those who chose marriage over chastity are preferring earthly things over spiritual ones?

In my church marriage is considered to be more chaste than celibacy. So it's not a good example for me.

Another example might be those who prefer the pleasures of a promiscuous lifestyle over marriage. That would be preferring the earthly pleasures of sexual freedom over the deeper and more spiritual pleasures of a life-long committment to a spouse and family.

I'm not expecting that we will disagree about this.

You were originally asking about this when I said that "bad" things happen and always will happen in the physical world according to the implacable laws of physics. The more important reality, however, is on a different level. You seemed not to agree that there was a different level that was more important and permanent, and which took precedence over the things of the physical world.

Do you still see it that way?

[ 16. March 2008, 23:14: 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
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This is all that it means to put heavenly things first. It means to love God and the neighbor and to act from those principles. They are the things that matter, that are important, that are eternal.

On this we are agreed - but therefore isn't loving my neighbour a very 'earthly' thing to do?

I think we are both saying similar things but it is the terminology that is confusing. I think that Christ's death and resurrection has an equal impact on both 'heaven' and 'earth'.


quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
You were originally asking about this when I said that "bad" things happen and always will happen in the physical world according to the implacable laws of physics. The more important reality, however, is on a different level. You seemed not to agree that there was a different level that was more important and permanent, and which took precedence over the things of the physical world.

Do you still see it that way?

I see one reality (that is BOTH physical and spiritual). That one reality has been spoilt by sin and therefore needs to be redeemed by Christ. So, for me, it is about all of creation (phyiscal AND spiritual) coming to accept Jesus as King, and not about saying that the spirit realm is any better than the physical realm.

Me: fallen world --> redeemed world

Freddy: physical world --> spiritual world.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On another tangent entirely, it is Easter. All the stories we tell deal with the betrayal, trials, crucifixion and resurrection. What about what Jesus' spirit got up to between the giving up of his body and the resurrection? Surely that has some relevance to he atonement!. My understanding is that Paul taught that he first descended before he ascended and Col 2:14, states that he spoiled principalities and powers making an open show of them. The nicene creed states that he descended into Hell. The precise purpose and accomplishment of this descent seems quite germane to the discussion. My take is that Satan obviously took Jesus into the lowest hell before recognising the horrific mistake he had made. The Christ spirit was sinless and therefore beyond the authority of Hell. God proceeded to empower his spirit to throw off Hell's chains. Christ acted to take possession of Hell with his presence, proceeded to free the OT righteous dead from 'paradise' and headed up to recapture his body.

The fact that God saw the shed blood of Christ as an offering for sin is what enabled the whole process. Ro 8:3 "For... God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"

--------------------
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
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:


I will link to three lectures by metropolitan Callistos on the Cross:

http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_1.mp3
http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_2.mp3
http://holycrossonline.org/media/05/Kallistos_Lecture_3.mp3


I hope they help illuminate the issues at hand!

Yes they do, and I found myself in very great measure in agreement with him. (andreas, on some issues which you and I have disagreed about I think he agrees more with me ! But more of that later.)

I recommend the talks to other Shipmates, regardless of where we might be in the Christian rainbow. You'll need the time (2 hours plus, I guess) and you'll also need QuickTime! I liked his sonorous voice, his gentle humour, the clarity of his delivery, and his illustrations. But of course YMMV. Calenders differ, but I found these were very helpful and thought-provoking talks at the start of Holy Week.

Thanks for the links, andreas. I'll return to the questions of difference and agreement after some more reflection (and possibly listening again). I am much taken by the idea of a Bishop falling asleep in the middle of a talk he was delivering himself after lunch - and also the joys of kite-flying!

[ 17. March 2008, 11:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
This is all that it means to put heavenly things first. It means to love God and the neighbor and to act from those principles. They are the things that matter, that are important, that are eternal.

On this we are agreed - but therefore isn't loving my neighbour a very 'earthly' thing to do?
I wouldn't call it earthly, but His will being done on earth as it is in heaven. The point is to do God's will.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I see one reality (that is BOTH physical and spiritual). That one reality has been spoilt by sin and therefore needs to be redeemed by Christ. So, for me, it is about all of creation (phyiscal AND spiritual) coming to accept Jesus as King, and not about saying that the spirit realm is any better than the physical realm.

Me: fallen world --> redeemed world

Freddy: physical world --> spiritual world.

Yes, there is really only one reality, and it is both spiritual and physical, just as there is one world and it is land, sea, and air. So unless you are denying that there is such a thing as the spiritual realm, I don't see the point of your comparison. I agree that the world is fallen, and that Christ has redeemed it.

I wouldn't say that the spirit realm is better than the physical realm. It is "higher" and it is better to act from spiritual principles than physical desires, but they are both part of one reality.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes, there is really only one reality, and it is both spiritual and physical, just as there is one world and it is land, sea, and air. So unless you are denying that there is such a thing as the spiritual realm, I don't see the point of your comparison. I agree that the world is fallen, and that Christ has redeemed it.

Fantastic ... one might even say 'hallelujah!' ... we are one in mind and purpose!? [Angel]

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I wouldn't say that the spirit realm is better than the physical realm. It is "higher" and it is better to act from spiritual principles than physical desires, but they are both part of one reality.

In that physical desires are often tainted by sin ... then, yes... but not because physical desires are some how 'lower' just because they are physical.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
What about what Jesus' spirit got up to between the giving up of his body and the resurrection? Surely that has some relevance to he atonement!. My understanding is that Paul taught that he first descended before he ascended and Col 2:14, states that he spoiled principalities and powers making an open show of them. The nicene creed states that he descended into Hell. The precise purpose and accomplishment of this descent seems quite germane to the discussion.

Yes, it is very germane. The purpose and accomplishment here is central to our discussion, I think.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
My take is that Satan obviously took Jesus into the lowest hell before recognising the horrific mistake he had made. The Christ spirit was sinless and therefore beyond the authority of Hell. God proceeded to empower his spirit to throw off Hell's chains. Christ acted to take possession of Hell with his presence, proceeded to free the OT righteous dead from 'paradise' and headed up to recapture his body.

Aren't you sort of recapitulating the Christus Victor theory?

The whole idea of Christus Victor, as I understand it, is that Jesus overcame the power of hell, enabling humanity to choose good or evil in freedom.

So the way I view this "harrowing of hell" is that at His resurrection Christ first descended into hell and freed the righteous who had been unjustly imprisoned there. He was able to do this because He is God Himself, and has "all power in heaven and on earth" as He says in Matthew 28.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The fact that God saw the shed blood of Christ as an offering for sin is what enabled the whole process. Ro 8:3 "For... God sending his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the flesh"

Not at all. The shedding of blood was simply part of the process of victory. Romans 8:3 is saying that God came down and put on flesh and blood in order to combat sin. He overcame the power of sin and condemned it by exposing it and removing its power. That's my read, anyway.

So, yes, Christ's descent into hell is vital to His entire mission. He set the captives free, and He sets us free as well.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I wouldn't say that the spirit realm is better than the physical realm. It is "higher" and it is better to act from spiritual principles than physical desires, but they are both part of one reality.

In that physical desires are often tainted by sin ... then, yes... but not because physical desires are some how 'lower' just because they are physical.
That's right. Physical desires are perfectly good and right when they are properly subordinated to spiritual purposes. They are only tainted by sin to the extent that they become ends in themselves. The very thing that we call the taint of sin is our propensity to make our physical desires and worldly objectives into ends in themselves.

So, in my view, eating and drinking, procreating and resting, and having money, success and power in this world, are all perfectly good and blameless aspects of a God-centered, heaven-bound lifestyle - as long as the real motives and goals are about service to God and the neighbor. This is seeking first the kingdom of God and His righteousness. Then these other things, which we have need of, fall in line behind them.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not at all. The shedding of blood was simply part of the process of victory. Romans 8:3 is saying that God came down and put on flesh and blood in order to combat sin. He overcame the power of sin and condemned it by exposing it and removing its power. That's my read, anyway.

But how? How did his death overcome the power of sin? Lots of innocent men have died before, how did Christ's death expose sin and remove its power when no one else's death did? What was different here?

If it was because he was God - then how does the 'death' of God do this?

If it was because he rose to life again then why didn't Lazarus do it?

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not at all. The shedding of blood was simply part of the process of victory. Romans 8:3 is saying that God came down and put on flesh and blood in order to combat sin. He overcame the power of sin and condemned it by exposing it and removing its power. That's my read, anyway.

But how? How did his death overcome the power of sin? Lots of innocent men have died before, how did Christ's death expose sin and remove its power when no one else's death did? What was different here?

If it was because he was God - then how does the 'death' of God do this?

If it was because he rose to life again then why didn't Lazarus do it?

It wasn't simply His death. It was two things.

First it was the "power of His Word" or the power of the truth that He spoke that exposed and defeated the false ideas that empower sin.

Second, it was His continual spiritual battles with the power of hell, or with the hells themselves, that overcame them and put them in their place.

Jesus death and resurrection were the final victory because the power of evil rests in placing natural/physical life ahead of spiritual life. It rests in our propensity to prefer the things of this world to the things of heaven. When a person resists following their desires and does what is right, it is a small victory and sin's power over them is lessened. When Christ did this, the effect was enormously greater, because He is God Himself. The effect was to defeat, in a permanent way, the power of that evil.

In allowing Himself to be crucified Jesus defeated the power of hell that would place physical life over spiritual life. This is why He spoke so frequently about this:
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 saying that a person should not value physical life over obedience to God. Rather, a person should be willing to sacrifice physical things, including his own life, in order to serve God. This is life. Jesus fits His own death into this same paradigm, saying that His death was about 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.

Christ's death was significant only as part of His ongoing struggle with the inner forces of evil. It was the final blow in the battle, the giving of life as the ultimate sacrifice in the war against the primacy of the physical over the spiritual. It defeated hell because of the way that hell was bound up and involved in human physical desires. This is what it meant to be "fallen" or to be "sinful."

All of this is simply part of Christ's admonition to "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness." When this happens, there is a victory and hell is overcome. The alternative is that whoever commits sin is the slave of sin. Christ modeled the former, and the effect of doing this, which was called "fulfilling the Scriptures" was the victory over evil.

--------------------
"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      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Freddy, all you say is true but you still haven't explained why Jesus (in doing all this) was qualitatively and not just quantitatively different from the rest of us.

Read the list in Hebrews 11, Jesus wasn't the first person to be 'obedient unto death'. So why did his obedience do something that no one else could?

... I'm off to bed. [Snore]

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Not at all. The shedding of blood was simply part of the process of victory. Romans 8:3 is saying that God came down and put on flesh and blood in order to combat sin. He overcame the power of sin and condemned it by exposing it and removing its power. That's my read, anyway.

But how? How did his death overcome the power of sin? Lots of innocent men have died before, how did Christ's death expose sin and remove its power when no one else's death did? What was different here?

If it was because he was God - then how does the 'death' of God do this?

If it was because he rose to life again then why didn't Lazarus do it?

Besides the usual conquering of the fear of death, which played such an extraordinary part in the life of the early Church, historically he succeeded where Moses failed, (Mohammed made the same error as Moses). It's one thing to come down from the mountain all aglow with the commandment from God not to kill, quite another not to get offended when people don't agree with you - especially when you've just gathered them together in an amazing series of events following God's instructions. Christ's - 'you know not which spirit you're of' was followed through, God himself came to show the way; from which 'pick up your cross and follow me'. This was as much a victory for God as it was for us, by inextricably involving himself in the human condition, Christ could have failed (temptation in the desert and so on).


Myrrh

--------------------
and thanks for all the fish

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515

 - Posted      Profile for Pokrov   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Didn't some of the early fathers see Christ's death and resurrection affecting a victory because, as human, death attempted to swallow him up and hades contain him but, as God, this couldn't be done and so he literally 'burst forth' destroying both death and hades and lifting all those united to him from their slavery to death and hades?

But for 'God' to enter death and hades he needed to be, also, a human (since humans die).

Now, because death and hades have been defeated, those united to Christ have no fear of death since what was a route to slavery is now the passage to glorification.

Lazarus could achieve nothing by his resurrection because he was not the 'Life'.

--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!

Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Beautifully put.

Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365

 - Posted      Profile for Freddy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Freddy, all you say is true but you still haven't explained why Jesus (in doing all this) was qualitatively and not just quantitatively different from the rest of us.

Read the list in Hebrews 11, Jesus wasn't the first person to be 'obedient unto death'. So why did his obedience do something that no one else could?

... I'm off to bed. [Snore]

As Myrrh and Richard Collins suggest, it was because Christ was divine.

What was happening, as I understand it, was that entire communities of devils were encountering and being defeated by Jesus throughout the course of His lifetime. This does not happen with any ordinary individual because we actually have no power at all and cannot defeat any evil spirit. Our victories are from the power of God, because only He has power.

Still, it is true that if humans were not willingly sinning then hell would have not accumulated such power, and Christ would not have had to come. Humanity did not have to "fall." But it did because "men preferred darkness to the light."

The whole issue was that since people had so consistently chosen evil they were losing the power to do otherwise, because they were losing access to God, who alone has that power. The world was becoming "the slave of sin."

Jesus came to restore that access and so restore humanity's power to resist evil. He replaced false ideas with true ones, or darkness with light.

He also encountered and overcame every community of hell, breaking its power over the human race by His own power. People have no power to break those links, and can only do it from God. But with God's help, relying on the truth that Jesus taught, we are able to turn away from sin and obey His will.

[ 17. March 2008, 13:23: 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
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Didn't some of the early fathers see Christ's death and resurrection affecting a victory because, as human, death attempted to swallow him up and hades contain him but, as God, this couldn't be done and so he literally 'burst forth' destroying both death and hades and lifting all those united to him from their slavery to death and hades?

Let's not get carried away here. While the Orthodox Church might make use of the imagery of Christus Victor, let's keep in mind that the fathers thought it wouldn't make any sense for God to trick death into defeat... Plus, it's part of he imagery to personalize Hades, he is not an actual person!

The imagery might be good to use, because it sets forth in a graphical way the fact that the fear of death no longer exists for those in Christ, but it's only an imagery; there was no real battle between Christ on the one hand and Death and Satan on the other.

ETA: Dear Barnabas

True, metropolitan Kallistos disagrees with me in one point, on how we interpret Jesus' "my God, my God...", but we knew that, didn't we? You have already quoted from him when we discussed the issue. Nothing new here. I do want to note, however, that this was the only issue from his talks he didn't refer to any of the fathers though. I wonder why [Razz]

[ 17. March 2008, 15:33: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Collins:
Didn't some of the early fathers see Christ's death and resurrection affecting a victory because, as human, death attempted to swallow him up and hades contain him but, as God, this couldn't be done and so he literally 'burst forth' destroying both death and hades and lifting all those united to him from their slavery to death and hades?

Let's not get carried away here. While the Orthodox Church might make use of the imagery of Christus Victor, let's keep in mind that the fathers thought it wouldn't make any sense for God to trick death into defeat... Plus, it's part of he imagery to personalize Hades, he is not an actual person!
I'm not sure what you're getting at here Andreas, this is our liturgy as we'll soon be singing. It was no trick, but very real and I don't see where Richard has personalised it as "H"ades and don't see it a problem even if he did, we personalise the adversary as The Evil One...

quote:
The imagery might be good to use, because it sets forth in a graphical way the fact that the fear of death no longer exists for those in Christ, but it's only an imagery; there was no real battle between Christ on the one hand and Death and Satan on the other.
It's not just the victory of life over death, we still bury our dead, but of life more abundantly, but anyway, the imagery is spot on. (for the Resurrection Icon)


O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Given these recent exchanges, which are very significant in the understanding of CV and in contrast with SA, I thought I would throw into the pot some quotes from Kallistos Ware (Lecture 1). Considering "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me", he explains this way.

"Although True God from True God, Jesus experiences the Divine absence, the spiritual separation from God. There is no play acting on the cross".

And then later, in response to a question about the meaning of the Greek for forsaken, Kallistos Ware, explains further both the meaning and use of this scripture on the Cross in these terms.

"Because this quotation comes from Psalm 22, some people see Jesus as quoting the scripture. While it is understandable that he would know the scripture (and it might indeed come to his mind in these circumstances) I cannot dismiss this as a quotation. Surely if he said it, he meant it." He then explains the Greek as meaning "left, deserted, desolate". And observes further that there is a mystery here. We cannot understand what it would be like to be inside the unique mind of Christ, fully God and fully human. But "He who is God experiences the loss of God". There is a paradox here, and it reaches its climax at this moment (the cry of desolation).

Kallistos sees the practical consequences as being that Jesus entered completely into the human condition, at this point, experiencing the fullness of human desolation, loneliness and despair. Later on, at the start of lecture 2, he warns (wisely I think) of the dangers of going too far into speculation into the meaning of the atonement - and I think he does this very effectively and well. I must emphasise that he does not in any way use the language of sinbearing to explain the mystery of separation he sees illustrated by the cry of desolation.

Of course many who believe in PSA and SA would say, with conviction, that this is the revealed mystery of this cry of desolation. That He who was God experienced the loss of God, because this was the time when "he bore the sin of the world, in his body, on a tree". There, precisely, may be the heart of our differences.

Later, in lecture 2, Kallistos comments on substitution in these very precise terms. In contract with the satisfaction theory (Anselm) "substitution is a New Testament theme" as exemplified by 2 Cor 5 v 21 (God made him to be sin who knew no sin in him we might become the righteousness of God). He also observes that "the idea of substitution is certainly used by the Fathers". He believes the essence of substitution is that "Christ has done something for us which we could not do ourselves". He does not like the language of "instead of me" and he is unhappy when substitution "is interpreted in very legalistic terms".

Given the title thread, I found what Kallistos had to say about Christus Victor was quite marvellous, but rather than quote from it, I think it is well worth listening to in its entirety and in its context, which is a clear and well thought out review of all the major atonement themes.

Finally, in view of andreas' latest post, it is worth observing that Kallistos provides an excellent critique of the "trickery" elements of the Ransom theories of atonement, rebutting both Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa and commending Gregory the Theologian who observed that "God does not trick and the Devil has no rights". No fish caught on a hook, no mousetrap.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
PS andreas

I think he does not agree completely with you about substitution either. He confirms that it is a NT theme and the idea is certainly used by the Fathers. Numpty and I spent a good deal of time and effort to emphasise both points. He explains his reservations about "instead of" and too legalistic" and I think he makes good sense on both points.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If I remember the speeches accurately, he rejects all models based on those themes. As themes, as imagery, they might illustrate some aspects of the truth, but if we take them and use them as philosophical models, they are mistaken and they are to be rejected. So, he rejects these models, as philosophical interpretations of what truth is, but he doesn't mind their use as imagery, provided the Truth is preserved and not distorted by the imagery's philosophical implications.

Which is my take as well.

I disagree with his take on Gregory Nyssen. I think the Saint uses the theme as imagery and not as a theological explanation. I might disagree on his reading of history on that point, I don't disagree with his theology. What he says is very Orthodox indeed!

The problem with mp3 files is that you can't just have a quick look... You have to listen to them again... I might do that later, so I can come back with more info.

[ 17. March 2008, 16:48: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One more thing that I remembered:

In lecture 2, he says that we must not separate Christ from the Father even when he says "my God, my God"... When I heard that I realized that he didn't mean what I originally* thought he did. So, I agree to what he is saying, to an extent.

Unfortunately, I don't agree with his point about that verse fully, and that might be either because I'm not yet ready to understand or because he is expressing a view he has which is not supported by the fathers. I find it strange that he didn't refer to anyone when he spoke on that issue in lecture 1, just like I found it worth noticing that he was asked questions (which were a bit of objections) by his audience on that interpretation of the verse.

*when you first quoted from him in a discussion we had in a thread somewhere

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
If I remember the speeches accurately, he rejects all models based on those themes.

Your memory is at fault, I think. He cautions that they might have defects and explains why he thinks that it. He is also very careful to explain when his reasoning is his own. Have another listen. His biggest caution is in respect of all theological speculation - of crossing lines, of going too far.

Interestingly to me, he says, rather like Tom Wright, that the inner truth of these things is to be found in our worship, in the sacraments. Jesus did not leave us a concise theological explanation for his death and resurrection - instead he instituted a meal.

I found Metropolitan Kallistos to be both open and [i]irenic[/b] in his explanations, in addition to his clear and faithful profession of Orthodox Christianity.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, where I would say "that's a grave heresy", he says "that's profoundly disturbing", and where I would say "that's heresy", he says "I don't find my self very attracted to that image".

I don't know what's irenic and what's not. I prefer others to reply to me in an explicit way, because if they don't I might miss their point and the substance of what they are saying. [Yipee]

That said, I listened to the second lecture again, and I think that what he accepts is the power of the imagery of these models, because some truth is conveyed in them, and what he rejects is the full philosophical implications of these models. And in this thread we have been discussing about a full philosophical explanation of the Cross! Perhaps we should discuss this, but I do think the metropolitans way of speaking should be taken into account. To put it differently, I don't have any trouble adding my signature to what he said! (save the two small points I spoke of in an earlier post)

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think he rejects anything, andreas. "Reject" is your language, not his.

He is fine for example with ransom, provided one does not ask to whom the ransom is paid. Instead he emphasises the effect of ransom, which is that we go free. (I agree with him).

He does not like satisfaction because it is a medieval theory, influenced by ideas of offence and honour. (I agree with him).

He is concerned to clarify a proper understanding of sacrifice and I think he does an excellent job there.

He confirms substitution as a NT theme, an idea used by the Fathers. His says it does not necessarily mean a change in God (that would be PSA) - which gets it a tick - and it is objective rather than subjective - which gets it another tick. His reservation is that it implies a separation in the Godhead - and I do understand that - but he acknowledges (the cry of desolation argument) that there is a mystery there. He concurs in lecture 1 that "He who was God experienced the loss of God". So the substitutionary model does not get a tick against his test (true) but he has already pointed to an exception - there is separation in the cry of desolation (also true).

It is undoubtedly true that the models which speak most truth to him are Christus Victor and Example. I've said it lots before but I'm personally most strongly influenced by CV and I loved his explanation.

Anyway, that's what I hear.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sigh.

He is fine with ransom, provided it's no real ransom that was paid to someone. That's the line he takes for all four models he talks about. He is fine with Christus Victor, but not with a real victory that is based on God's power, but a "victory" based on weakness, through "the refusal to use force and violence". He is fine with Example, but only when that means that Love transforms us objectively, and not that we as individuals can change by following the example of Christ...

The metropolitan sets some criteria by which all models are to be judged. And if a criterion is not fulfilled, then the model becomes problematic. And by showing the problems he rejects the models as philosophical explanations.

We will have to agree to disagree once again! He does not accept a separation as an exception! On the contrary, he affirms in lecture 2 that no separation is to be accepted. "Even in my God my God...". And I agree with that. Even in that cry no separation really took place!

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:

We will have to agree to disagree once again! He does not accept a separation as an exception! On the contrary, he affirms in lecture 2 that no separation is to be accepted. "Even in my God my God...". And I agree with that. Even in that cry no separation really took place!

Well, only if you choose to ignore what is there! Having bowed before a mystery, Kallistos can hardly set it aside in an explanatory argument!

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What I can't understand is this.

Kallistos says that even when the cry My God, my God, why did you forsake me is spoken, there is no separation between Christ and the Father. And he does not seem to think a contradiction between what he said in lecture 1 and what he is saying in lecture 2 exists.

How do you take that into account? Because you seem to stop in what he said in lecture 1, and not interpret it under the light of what he said in lecture 2.

What's your take on that?

P.S. Forgive the sigh. Haven't realized fully it's Great Week for you.

--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483

 - Posted      Profile for Myrrh         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
He is fine with Christus Victor, but not with a real victory that is based on God's power, but a "victory" based on weakness, through "the refusal to use force and violence". He is fine with Example, but only when that means that Love transforms us objectively, and not that we as individuals can change by following the example of Christ...

I shouldn't really be taking part in this exchange as I haven't listened to the talks, my computer is without audio and printer at the moment, but, I'm having a problem understanding you here. How is God's real power in this victory anything else but Love as the icon of Extreme Humility shows? (Extreme Humility)


Myrrh

Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515

 - Posted      Profile for Pokrov   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Andreas - don't fear, I'm fairly happy to agree that ''tis Mystery all!' but that the church (starting with Christ himself - 'binding the strong man' anyone?) has found ways to articulate this greatest of mysteries.

I think it's fair to summarise that the eastern approach is to explore the mystery in terms of a cosmic victory, 'Trampling down death by death and bestowing life on those in the tombs', and there's enough scriptural support for the idea of the Triumphant King defeating his enemy and ascending on high to give 'gifts' to his people (psalm 110 is instrumental here).

The point Johnny et al are making is that scripture also alludes to the idea of a sacrificial substitution, of the just undergoing punishment in order to make the unjust just, such that the parallel theme of the 'suffering servant' (for which Isaiah 53 is instrumental as well as Psalm 22) plays a part.

I'd need to dig out the liturgical text for Holy Friday to see just how our church deals with this theme of self-giving sacrifice, but it's true that - as an 'explanation' of the atonement - this is more common to the latin/western theological tradition (and it's heirs) than the eastern one. I wonder why that is?

--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!

Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Pokrov
Shipmate
# 11515

 - Posted      Profile for Pokrov   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
also to add that I believe Fr Tom Hopko (a US Orthodox scholar/priest) made mention that the Hebrew word used in Psalm 22 'forsaken' is also only used in Genesis for 'he will forsake his mother and father and be joined as one flesh etc...'

I think he used this parallel to point out that the Cross was a form of 'marital consummation' between Christ and his harlot bride (c.f. Hosea) for her sake (to make her pure and spotless) and which necessitated 'leaving' his Father to cleave with fallen flesh (or something like that).

I'm still processing this perspective, but it does open up some possibilities (esp. that, in John's Gospel, the Theotokos - for John often an image of the Bride/Church - is mentioned only at the start at the wedding in Cana - 'my hour has not yet come' - and at the end when he is on the cross, his 'hour' and he cries it is 'finished', which I also understand can mean 'it is consummated').

hmmmm....

--------------------
Most Holy Theotokos pray for us!

Posts: 1469 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313

 - Posted      Profile for El Greco   Email El Greco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Myrrh:
I shouldn't really be taking part in this exchange as I haven't listened to the talks, my computer is without audio and printer at the moment, but, I'm having a problem understanding you here. How is God's real power in this victory anything else but Love as the icon of Extreme Humility shows? (Extreme Humility)

Dear Myrrh

I truly believe and confess that God is victorious and that His Victory lies in Humble Love. However, when one sees the phrase Christus Victor, at first glance one might think that there was a battle between Christ and Satan or Death, and that Christ won because he was powerful. This thing is not worthy of Christ. It was never an issue of power, it was never an issue of a war, where two opposing forces fight with each other.

Which is why Christus Victor could be used as an image, but not as a full philosophical explanation, because if we take the image literally, then it is not in accordance with Truth.

Dear Richard

Indeed, the word is one, both in Genesis and in the Gospel. Perhaps in the Gospel it's a bit stronger.

That said, Jesus Christ is a true Sacrifice. He sacrifices Himself for all, and it is in self-sacrificial humble love that God's majesty is revealed. The problem with what Johnny et al are saying is not with sacrifice, but with sacrifice satisfying some notion of divine justice. God's mercy is free, we don't get it because Christ had works of merit. Forgiveness, Mercy, Healing, they come for free, out of God's humble, self-sacrificial love, and not out of meritorious works. Grace comes for free, and not through works.

If I understand them correctly, some Protestants are very fierce that grace does not come by works, but, at the same time, they place what they see as Christ's meritorious works at the heart of grace. This is very ironic to say the least, and I would like to ask you guys if that's right, if I understood that correctly. That would be an interesting spin!

Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581

 - Posted      Profile for Johnny S   Email Johnny S   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
As Myrrh and Richard Collins suggest, it was because Christ was divine.

But neither have explained why / how that makes a difference!

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:


What was happening, as I understand it, was that entire communities of devils were encountering and being defeated by Jesus throughout the course of His lifetime. This does not happen with any ordinary individual because we actually have no power at all and cannot defeat any evil spirit. Our victories are from the power of God, because only He has power.

True - but Jesus was not unique in this. Elisha's ministry in the OT was very similar.

You still haven't explained what it was about the ministry of Jesus that was completely unique to him and why the NT specifically says that it was his death that brought us freedom.

Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  ...  67  68  69 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools