|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Should the Cross be the Church's symbol?
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
This does not mean though, and here I admit my bias against substitionary atonement, that God in anyway, willed the Son to be violently tortured and put to death in the Roman fashion.
This reveals a common mistake that is little more than adoptionism - that God chose a man and made him suffer.
Whilst we do not believe that the Father suffered on the cross as the sacrifice, we do believe that God (the Father) was in Christ and therefore suffered with him.
Jesus suffered as God not because of God.
Are you suggesting that there is no real distinction between God the Father and God the Son?
Because if you are, then the entire Trinitarian doctrine collapses.
[ 12. January 2013, 15:33: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
This does not mean though, and here I admit my bias against substitionary atonement, that God in anyway, willed the Son to be violently tortured and put to death in the Roman fashion.
This reveals a common mistake that is little more than adoptionism - that God chose a man and made him suffer.
Whilst we do not believe that the Father suffered on the cross as the sacrifice, we do believe that God (the Father) was in Christ and therefore suffered with him.
Jesus suffered as God not because of God.
Are you suggesting that there is no real distinction between God the Father and God the Son?
Because if you are, then the entire Trinitarian doctrine collapses.
What gave you that impression? I did say quite clearly that the Father did not suffer on the cross - that's patripassionism, but that he suffered with his son, as in (to clarify) as Jesus suffered (the divine in Jesus also suffering), then the father also suffered. Moltmann said that in the cry of dereliction the Son faced the loss of his Father but that the Father too also suffered in that he lost his Son. Different suffering, different persons, one God.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I did say quite clearly that the Father did not suffer on the cross - that's patripassionism, but that he suffered with his son, as in (to clarify) as Jesus suffered (the divine in Jesus also suffering), then the father also suffered. Moltmann said that in the cry of dereliction the Son faced the loss of his Father but that the Father too also suffered in that he lost his Son. Different suffering, different persons, one God.
That's still in part patripassianist though: quote:
In Christian theology, patripassianism is the view that God the Father suffers (from Latin patri- "father" and passio "suffering"). Its adherents believe that God the Father was incarnate and suffered on the cross and that whatever happened to the Son happened to the Father and so the Father co-suffered with the human Jesus on the cross. This view is opposed to the classical theological doctrine of divine apathy. According to classical theology it is possible for Christ to suffer only in virtue of his human nature. The divine nature is incapable of suffering. [ link ]
I know that you don't believe that God the Father was incarnate and suffered with Christ on the cross, but to believe that God in God's divine nature can suffer was also considered a heresy from very early on, and still is by the Catholic (and Orthodox, I think?) Church today. Of course, that needn't necessarily bother you - I'm just pointing it out. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Different suffering, different persons, one God.
That's still in part patripassianist though: quote:
In Christian theology, patripassianism is the view that God the Father suffers (from Latin patri- "father" and passio "suffering"). Its adherents believe that God the Father was incarnate and suffered on the cross and that whatever happened to the Son happened to the Father and so the Father co-suffered with the human Jesus on the cross. This view is opposed to the classical theological doctrine of divine apathy. According to classical theology it is possible for Christ to suffer only in virtue of his human nature. The divine nature is incapable of suffering. [ link ]
I know that you don't believe that God the Father was incarnate and suffered with Christ on the cross, but to believe that God in God's divine nature can suffer was also considered a heresy from very early on, and still is by the Catholic (and Orthodox, I think?) Church today. Of course, that needn't necessarily bother you - I'm just pointing it out.
Do you have a source to back that up? My understanding is similar to that found in the wiki link-- that patripassianism is heresy only because it conflates the 1st & 2nd persons of the Trinity, not because it posits a God who suffers in the divine nature-- something for which there is abundant biblical support.
[Code & attribution fix, DT, Host]
[ 13. January 2013, 07:28: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Do you have a source to back that up? My understanding is similar to that found in the wiki link-- that patripassianism is heresy only because it conflates the 1st & 2nd persons of the Trinity, not because it posits a God who suffers in the divine nature-- something for which there is abundant biblical support.
Actually, that's not all that the link says, cliffdweller. It still contains this bit (which I quoted above) in it, which would make it a heresy even without the modalist bit: quote:
This view is opposed to the classical theological doctrine of divine apathy. According to classical theology it is possible for Christ to suffer only in virtue of his human nature. The divine nature is incapable of suffering.
Therefore, God the Father cannot suffer.
Have I misunderstood your question?
[ 12. January 2013, 16:52: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Whilst rooting around for sources, I found this Orthodox Church in America link, which (if it is representative) suggests that I was wrong to guess that the doctrine that God is impassible is Orthodox teaching: quote:
Yet it needs to be stated as well that in a particular sense, God the Father indeed "suffered" at the Crucifixion. A child will ask: "Why did God send His Son to die and not come Himself?" The question reflects a double misunderstanding. On the one hand, He who died on the Cross was indeed God: the eternal Son of the Father. Yet when the apostle Paul speaks of "God" and "Christ," he is referring respectively to the Father and the Son. Thus he can declare, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself" (2 Cor 5:19). To answer the child's question, it is enough to point out that no father could sacrifice his son without undergoing the same or even greater suffering than the son himself is called to bear. In other words, God the Father, in His infinite compassion and boundless love, endured a degree of personal suffering at the Crucifixion that was no less than the suffering borne by His Son, Jesus.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting, Chesterbelloc. I wonder whether that is representative?
On Mudfrog's emphases ... I don't have any particular issue with the way he's framing things here, but do wonder whether there's an element of sentimentality in there which has seeped into the Wesleyan tradition from Lutheran pietism?
But then, there can be plenty of sentimentality in RC treatments and depictions of these things ... the Orthodox would claim that all Western Christianity can incline either towards cold, calculating Scholasticism on the one hand, or a kind of mawkish sentimentality on the other.
They'd reckon that they get the balance right, of course.
I think Mudfrog's 'take' is fine as far as it goes, whatever quibbles some of us might have with the penal substitutionary aspects, but I would argue that it needs 'fleshing out' a bit more in terms of the resurrection aspect ... the resurrection does more than simply 'vindicate' Christ's salvific action on the cross - it's about a lot more than that. As I'm sure Mudfrog will appreciate.
I'm very wary of isolating one or other aspect of the 'Christ event' - I'd rather look at it in its entirety - his life, teachings, passion, death, glorious resurrection and ascension and his sitting at the right-hand of the Father in glory where he ever lives to make intercession for us.
I can understand his qualms about the 'sacrifice' of the Mass, but our Roman friends are always at pains to point out that this is an 'unbloody' event and that they aren't recrucifying Christ over and over and over again in the way that certain Protestant polemicists claim ... although I stand ready to be corrected if this isn't the case.
If I understand it correctly, the RCs and others with a highly sacramental view would see it in terms of them 'tapping into' - as it were - the very eternal dimension that Mudfrog has mentioned - the 'Lamb slain before the foundation of the earth.'
On a recent discussion of transubstantiation and so on, IngoB reminded us, very usefully I felt, that RCs don't see themselves as cannibalising a first century Jew, but partaking of the risen and ascended Christ - there's something transcendent 'breaking into' the here and now.
Whatever the case, and I still have a lot of sympathy for the Wesleyan strand that Mudfrog represents (for all its capacity to descend into sentimentality and mush) I think that whatever tradition we're from we could do ourselves a big favour by concentrating on the totality of the 'Christ event' - 'Thanks be to God for his indescribable gift!'
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Do you have a source to back that up? My understanding is similar to that found in the wiki link-- that patripassianism is heresy only because it conflates the 1st & 2nd persons of the Trinity, not because it posits a God who suffers in the divine nature-- something for which there is abundant biblical support.
Actually, that's not all that the link says, cliffdweller. It still contains this bit (which I quoted above) in it, which would make it a heresy even without the modalist bit: quote:
This view is opposed to the classical theological doctrine of divine apathy. According to classical theology it is possible for Christ to suffer only in virtue of his human nature. The divine nature is incapable of suffering.
Therefore, God the Father cannot suffer.
Have I misunderstood your question?
My assumption is that "classical theology" is being used here in the more technical sense, in which it's referring to a specific stream of theology-- which, as the link notes, is heavily drawn from Hellenistic philosophy. That specific link to Hellenistic thought is where concerns re: a suffering God would originate. That would not necessarily equate perfectly with Catholic or Orthodox theology, although there would be a lot of overlap. I'm no authority on either, but would be surprised if their denunciation of patripassianism was broad enough to encompass all divine suffering (not just the cross), since there is so much biblical support for divine suffering, as well as references to it in patristic writings in both traditions (and then there's the link you found as well). But again, not my area of expertise-- hence the question.
[ 12. January 2013, 19:37: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Wasn't there a book in the 70's or 80's entitled 'Does God Suffer?' that addressed this issue in relation to Trinitarian theology that came to the conclusion that God the Father did not suffer/ I might be mis-remembering and mis-representing the comtents of the book, but I have a vague memory that it presented a fairly solid argument that has yet to be overturned.
Anyway, I'm not sure what any of it has to do with the OP. Might be better to open a new thread seeing the conversation might be quite fruitful
[ 12. January 2013, 20:04: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Wasn't there a book in the 70's or 80's entitled 'Does God Suffer?' that addressed this issue in relation to Trinitarian theology that came to the conclusion that God the Father did not suffer/ I might be mis-remembering and mis-representing the comtents of the book, but I have a vague memory that it presented a fairly solid argument that has yet to be overturned.
There has been a LOT written on the topic, and quite a few books written with similar titles-- coming to both yeah and nay conclusions. The whole area of open & process theologies is predicated on a fairly solid (IMHO) argument that God DOES indeed suffer (the classic Openness of God makes a strong biblical and philosophical argument, more recent work by Greg Boyd looks at the argument from patristic theology). Much of more broadly Arminian and even some aspects of neo-Orthodox theology would also resonate along those lines. At the very least, your statement "a fairly solid argument that has yet to be overturned" is VASTLY overstated.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Jurgen Moltmann's The Crucified God is the source for what i wrote.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I can't find a quote or extract from Moltmann but THIS contains an outline of his thesis.
Read from p 119
[ 12. January 2013, 20:57: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Yes, his would be one of the most significant voices in the debate. Again, it is far from a settled matter by any stretch of the imagination.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I do not worship a God who is apathetic, unfeeling, detached.
The Father loves therefore he must suffer.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Personally, I don't need a cross to focus worship.
Some do.
Really? Who?
Many an evangelical crowd in North America.
Especially during communion.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nenya:
"... the Celts even transfigured the Cross by surrounding it with a circle. The Celtic Cross is a beautiful symbol. The circle around the beams of the Cross rescues the loneliness where the two lines of pain intersect; it seems to calm and console their forsaken linearity."
And, yes, our crosses that we wear, are like that, with the circle round it. My two came from Mull and Iona, and also in Iona there is a big cross standing up outside the church, showing the rescuing of the MacLean man who is buried there. It has a round circle around the top of it.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not worship a God who is apathetic, unfeeling, detached.
The Father loves therefore he must suffer.
Exactly. The notion that God is impassive comes from Greek philosophy, not Judeo-Christian teaching. It's really antithetical to the picture of God we have throughout Scripture.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not worship a God who is apathetic, unfeeling, detached.
The Father loves therefore he must suffer.
1. Must all love contain suffering?
2. One who doesn't suffer is perforce apathetic, unfeeling, and detached?
I submit you are using a different dictionary than any I have.
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
Personally, I don't need a cross to focus worship.
Some do.
Really? Who?
Many an evangelical crowd in North America.
Especially during communion.
Can you show me some pictures or videos or articles to substantiate this? I have never heard of evangelicals needing to focus on a cross during communion.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think, hypothetically speaking, that Jesus' Incarnation and Proclamation of the Kingdom would have been sufficient to confer salvation.
2000 years of Christian tradition stand against you. One of the obstacles to our salvation was death, which Christ had to destroy by entering and shattering it from within. Which one can believe independently of PSA.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Nenya, I fear the circle on celtic crosses has no symbolic aspect - it's purely practical, to stop the heavy arms breaking off.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
2000 years of Christian tradition stand against you. One of the obstacles to our salvation was death, which Christ had to destroy by entering and shattering it from within. Which one can believe independently of PSA.
Not just 2000 years of tradition (though this is true), one would have to throw out one of the dominant themes of the Pauline epistles as well.
Romans 5
quote:
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. 9 Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. 11 But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Yes, Paul's epistles are a very important part of tradition.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not worship a God who is apathetic, unfeeling, detached.
The Father loves therefore he must suffer.
1. Must all love contain suffering?
Yep
quote:
2. One who doesn't suffer is perforce apathetic, unfeeling, and detached?
Yep
quote:
I submit you are using a different dictionary than any I have.
I submit that using a dictionary to demonstrate the relationship betwen love and suffering is simplistic, reductionist and ultimately futile.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
The expression “the cross” stands historically for the Passion and theologically for soteriology, and is therefore an example of metonymy, but there has always been a tendency to “demetonymise”, ie realize, or literalise it.
An example is the hymn The Old Rugged Cross, which I intensely dislike despite my evangelical and PSA convictions.
On the other hand I have no objection to the use of crosses in art, architecture or personal ornament, though as C.S. Lewis pointed out, representations of crosses only appeared at about the time when the generations who had actually witnessed a crucifixion were dying out.
The gospel writers and Paul would, I suspect, have regarded as grotesque the idea of a cross (empty or inhabited) on top of a building or around one’s neck, despite their emphasis on the centrality and importance of the cross event.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not worship a God who is apathetic, unfeeling, detached.
The Father loves therefore he must suffer.
1. Must all love contain suffering?
Yep
quote:
2. One who doesn't suffer is perforce apathetic, unfeeling, and detached?
Yep
quote:
I submit you are using a different dictionary than any I have.
I submit that using a dictionary to demonstrate the relationship betwen love and suffering is simplistic, reductionist and ultimately futile.
So instead you're demonstrating it with ... "Yep"?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
There's a lot of simplistic and reductionistic in this thread. None of it from me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Surprised no one has brought up lily crucifixes yet.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So instead you're demonstrating it with ... "Yep"?
Yep
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Custard
Shipmate
# 5402
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
We didn't have only a collection 4 gospels at the time, with the firming up of what was accepted as "canon" until about the same time as the use of the cross became regularized. We also did not have a uniform creed (like Nicene). Thus we had a diversity of opinions. So we cannot use the 4 gospels as more than another argument. And it is probable that the 4 gospels as accepted as telling the version of the story as they do were a reason for the adoption of symbol and orientation to death, cross, etc.
Rubbish. The final NT canon was firmed up after 325 (Hebrews, Jude, etc). But the agreement on the 4 gospels goes so far back that even Irenaeus in AD180 says "We've got 4 gospels, we've always had 4 gospels". The Muratorian Canon (c AD170) has 4 and only 4 gospels. Origen (early 200s) recognised 4 and only 4 gospels.
You've been reading too much Dan Brown.
--------------------
blog
Adam's likeness, Lord, efface;
Stamp thine image in its place.
Posts: 4523 | From: Snot's Place | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
You've been reading too much Dan Brown.
Who? Read a number of things about Nicolas of Cusa, Peter Abelard, Augustine, St Bernard and a series of the popes if you really wish to know.
If you want to discuss things rather than make pronouncements then do it. Otherwise back in the bain-marie for a little firming up please.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waterchaser
Shipmate
# 11005
|
Posted
My understanding is that:
1) The four gospels are quoted far more regularly than any other documents about Jesus's life by the early church both by those of orthodox belief and also those later deemed to be heterdox.
2) That the gnostic gospels were written far later than the four and are more remote from the eye witnesses.
I am not a scholar but I thought these points were widely accepted outside of fiction?
Posts: 310 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
You've been reading too much Dan Brown.
Who? Read a number of things about Nicolas of Cusa, Peter Abelard, Augustine, St Bernard and a series of the popes if you really wish to know.
If you want to discuss things rather than make pronouncements then do it. Otherwise back in the bain-marie for a little firming up please.
Custard made a quite solid argument leading up to your clip-- one that most scholars would affirm. If you are in fact interested in a thoughtful debate, try responding to that.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by Custard:
You've been reading too much Dan Brown.
Who? Read a number of things about Nicolas of Cusa, Peter Abelard, Augustine, St Bernard and a series of the popes if you really wish to know.
If you want to discuss things rather than make pronouncements then do it. Otherwise back in the bain-marie for a little firming up please.
The Dan Brown reference might be a cheap shot, but it seems to me that Custard has made a good point with the antiquity of his references. While some other parts included in the NT might have been a little loosy-goosy, the four traditional Gospels, I've always read, were pretty firmly in place early on.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Mudfrog: [QUOTE] "There can be no redemption with[out] sacrifice and no forgiveness without the shedding of blood." [QUOTE] Leviticus 17:11.
The Old Covenant. As the writer of Hebrews reiterates.
And that's it? God CANNOT forgive us or save otherwise? Unless we all accept that we - inevitably - murdered Him? By proxy? Including the 3/4 of humanity that died by the age of 5 and the 80% before birth?
So what is our forgiveness? His passed on?
These are truly open questions.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not worship a God who is apathetic, unfeeling, detached.
The Father loves therefore he must suffer.
1. Must all love contain suffering?
Yep
quote:
2. One who doesn't suffer is perforce apathetic, unfeeling, and detached?
Yep
This is quite a way from an in depth explanation of your position...
I totally and utterly disagree with this. First off, there are biblical grounds for saying "God does not change", e.g. Malachi 3.6. Suffering obviously involves change, so one can say that God does not suffer.
Secondly, I don't think there's any grounds for assuming that all love involves suffering. It might be true for humans, but I see no a priori reason to think it so. Moreover, I don't see any reason why human love---sinful, fallen, imperfect human love---should govern our understanding of the divine love. As scholastic theology adequately demonstrates, there must be a relation between divine love and human love, but that relation does not imply equality.
God is love, said S. John: it seems to me that we might infer that God's way of loving is infinitely bound up with his identity and existence. Our way of loving is and must be different, as it is not essential to our sinful nature. To say "God is love" is to say "God is eternally, constantly love": his love is outside the confines of time and space within which we comprehend our world and all of existence. Our understanding of love is linear, transient and changing. But that isn't a necessary understanding of God's love.
To cap this all off, we do have a God who is the very opposite of apathetic, unfeeling and detached. God became human in Jesus Christ and he suffered. God suffered. But he suffered not in his own nature, the divine nature, but in the human nature that he adopted and perfected in Jesus Christ.
This is a paradox: the one who cannot suffer suffers. But paradox has never been an obstacle to Christian orthodoxy (Virgin Birth, Incarnation, Beatitudes, Servant King, etc.).
This isn't an overwhelming case. There is still an argument for theopaschitism. But I think you need a little more to justify it than "Yep".
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Am I alone in feeling mildly irritated by Kaplan's 'Yeps' - as though this pronouncement settles the matter despite ancient and long-standing debates to the contrary?
Ok, I'm not saying that antiquity in and of itself is the determining factor, but the issue I have with the kind of spirituality that both he and Mudfrog appear to be promoting here is that it so easily descends into sentimental mush.
Kaplan isn't fond of 'The Old Rugged Cross' - and I can understand why. Personally, I can't stand it. I've heard it in pubs more often than in chapels in my native South Wales and it's all part and parcel of an overly mawkish and sentimental culture - in both pub and chapel - that both resonates with me in some ways (it's the feeling of 'home' - it's the 'hiraeth') but repels me in others.
I'm sure Welsh sentimentality in religion pre-dates the Reformation but it was there in spades in Welsh revivalism ... and I suspect it's one of the reasons (among others) why Wales is now one of the most secular parts of the UK. The same thing will happen in the US as a reaction to the vacuity of the mega-churches.
I'm fairly agnostic on the 'suffering' aspect - but God is immutable and I don't see it in the same kind of terms that have been aired here. Sure, I'm not saying that God is some kind of unfeeling robot or some kind of intellectual principle - the warmth of the Wesleyan heritage is it's strongest point and to that extent I'm on the same page as Mudfrog.
And yet, I dunno ... it seems to descend into a kind of cloying sentimentality ... other traditions can have that tendency too, of course, but over different issues and in different ways. But I'm uncomfortable with this aspect in this particular instance.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Oh and uh, when we forgive, haven't we foregone our rights in the matter? Sacrificed?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
I totally and utterly disagree with this. First off, there are biblical grounds for saying "God does not change", e.g. Malachi 3.6.
Yes. But there is also biblical grounds-- more so, in fact-- for saying God changes. There are numerous places where God changes his mind-- "repents", actually, in the Hebrew. Many, many examples of conditional prophesy-- IF you do this, THEN I will do that, but IF you repent, THEN, I'll do this. Moses is famously able to argue God out of judgment.
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Suffering obviously involves change, so one can say that God does not suffer.
...To cap this all off, we do have a God who is the very opposite of apathetic, unfeeling and detached. God became human in Jesus Christ and he suffered. God suffered. But he suffered not in his own nature, the divine nature, but in the human nature that he adopted and perfected in Jesus Christ.
Again, I don't think the biblical record supports that. We have numerous places pre-incarnation where we hear of God suffering-- God being angered, God being grieved, all sorts of feeling words.
Further, John (as well as Phil. 2) tell us that Jesus is our best picture of the Father. We look to Jesus to understand and know what the Father is like. Phil. 2 suggests to me that Jesus' willingness to enter into suffering fully is a characteristic that is true of the Godhead, not specific to his "human nature".
The biblical & philosophical support for this is covered well in The Openness of God. Again, obviously it's a position of much debate, but one can at least say that the extreme position taken by "classical theology" (again, a technical term not to be confused with orthodox or patristic theology) has no more compelling support than the opposite extreme of open theism.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Am I alone in feeling mildly irritated by Kaplan's 'Yeps' - as though this pronouncement settles the matter despite ancient and long-standing debates to the contrary?
...I'm fairly agnostic on the 'suffering' aspect - but God is immutable and I don't see it in the same kind of terms that have been aired here.
I don't see what you're doing here as much different from Kaplan's "yep". You're making an a priori assumption, but presenting it as a self-evident propositional truth: "God is immutable." Even if Kaplan didn't do so, plenty of us on this thread have demonstrated that, at the very least, it is far from a self-evident proposition. You're in good company making the argument, but it is still an argument that needs to be made (as I feel I'm in fairly good company making the counter argument).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Am I alone in feeling mildly irritated by Kaplan's 'Yeps' - as though this pronouncement settles the matter despite ancient and long-standing debates to the contrary?
Far from. But calling Kaplan to Hell has been played on the radio too much lately.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That's a fair point, Cliffdweller. I'm not as opposed though, to 'open theism' as some and I'd need to mug up on it all a lot more ... but you're right to challenge me on the a priori nature of my interjection.
@Mudfrog, yes, and a fair point you've made too.
I'm sorry Kaplan, but your 'yeps' sounded rather smug to me and would have done so even if I completely agreed with you.
It's as if you're saying, 'I don't give a stuff about what the Fathers or previous generations/theologians believed, I've got my own views and the rest of you can sod off.'
I'm sure that's not what you meant, but that's how it came across. This may just be a perception, which is why I'm reluctant to get into Hellish territory here.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
There are, at least, three levels at which one can discuss whether God as God can suffer.
First, there is the level of metaphor, analogy and anthropomorphization. Much of the bible is written at this level. Most of the time we think of God in this way, and communicate about Him and with Him in this way. Clearly God can suffer there. Just as he can rejoice or rage in wrath. There's nothing wrong with saying any of this, as long as one keeps in mind that one is projecting human concepts on Divine action.
Second, there is the level of considering the will of God vs. the will of man. Certainly God willed us to be free. But in doing so, He has in some sense made Himself subject to our wills. For we can decide to do His will, or we can decide against it. Hence God can suffer at this level too, namely our sins. He cannot suffer a pulsar rotating, for that is just a thing that must do what was appointed to it. But we can do other than what was appointed to us by God, and then God is thwarted. This is suffering, and only we (and the angels, and any other free-willed being in the world) can inflict it on God.
Third, there is the principle level. God is the Father Almighty. All is as it is upon His word. Nothing is against His will. All existence is from Him, nothing can move without Him. Not a Planck time of action escapes His grasp, always, everywhere, everything is His. How can this God suffer? To suffer is a passive thing, is being subject to someone or something. God is subject to nothing, is Master of everything. All is as it is on His word, and His word alone, so how can such a Being possibly "suffer"?
These levels do not stand in contradiction to each other. Yes, humans in their sin do act against God's will in a sense, but in another sense it is God's will that they can do so, and it is God's will at least permissively that the world will include such acts (in order for Him to work, we believe, a greater good from it in the end). And that nothing makes God suffer but our sins does not mean that God cannot be described as happy or sad, or as changing His mind according to our deeds. This is simply putting a human spin on what is concretely happening, and God was not beyond putting a human spin on Himself.
We get into problems only when people start to mix these levels, or play them against the other. But really there is a deep harmony there, and a compelling one. For it is good to know that while our God may appear to us sometimes like a Greek god, fickle, in a weird love-hate relationship to us, in reality the only thing that ever disturbs God's unbending love is our sin. And it is good to know that even sin, as devastating as it appears to be in this world, in an ultimate sense is not disturbing God's plan but rather somehow contributing to it. The impassibility of God at the principle level is not denying His love, but guaranteeing it. No sin can destroy it. No wrath can wipe it out. It is eternal.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There are, at least, three levels at which one can discuss whether God as God can suffer.
First, there is the level of metaphor, analogy and anthropomorphization. Much of the bible is written at this level. Most of the time we think of God in this way, and communicate about Him and with Him in this way. Clearly God can suffer there. Just as he can rejoice or rage in wrath. There's nothing wrong with saying any of this, as long as one keeps in mind that one is projecting human concepts on Divine action.
Second, there is the level of considering the will of God vs. the will of man. Certainly God willed us to be free. But in doing so, He has in some sense made Himself subject to our wills. For we can decide to do His will, or we can decide against it. Hence God can suffer at this level too, namely our sins. He cannot suffer a pulsar rotating, for that is just a thing that must do what was appointed to it. But we can do other than what was appointed to us by God, and then God is thwarted. This is suffering, and only we (and the angels, and any other free-willed being in the world) can inflict it on God.
Third, there is the principle level. God is the Father Almighty. All is as it is upon His word. Nothing is against His will. All existence is from Him, nothing can move without Him. Not a Planck time of action escapes His grasp, always, everywhere, everything is His. How can this God suffer? To suffer is a passive thing, is being subject to someone or something. God is subject to nothing, is Master of everything. All is as it is on His word, and His word alone, so how can such a Being possibly "suffer"?
These levels do not stand in contradiction to each other. Yes, humans in their sin do act against God's will in a sense, but in another sense it is God's will that they can do so, and it is God's will at least permissively that the world will include such acts (in order for Him to work, we believe, a greater good from it in the end). And that nothing makes God suffer but our sins does not mean that God cannot be described as happy or sad, or as changing His mind according to our deeds. This is simply putting a human spin on what is concretely happening, and God was not beyond putting a human spin on Himself.
We get into problems only when people start to mix these levels, or play them against the other. But really there is a deep harmony there, and a compelling one. For it is good to know that while our God may appear to us sometimes like a Greek god, fickle, in a weird love-hate relationship to us, in reality the only thing that ever disturbs God's unbending love is our sin. And it is good to know that even sin, as devastating as it appears to be in this world, in an ultimate sense is not disturbing God's plan but rather somehow contributing to it. The impassibility of God at the principle level is not denying His love, but guaranteeing it. No sin can destroy it. No wrath can wipe it out. It is eternal.
I would say we get into trouble not because we are mixing these levels, but because we are assuming them to be true. There are several assumptions here about God that are, again, not self-evident nor even particularly biblical. There are other paradigms (open theism being but one) with different assumptions about the divine nature and the nature of reality that have IMHO better internal consistency (less of the "level" gymnastics you have to undergo to make it hold together) and with at least as much biblical and logical support.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Isn't part of the problem with the Cross as Symbol for the church that it assumes God chose: (a) that Jesus should die, (2) that the cross was a good way to kill him, (3) that free will of the humans involved was suspended for the duration of the passion so that Jesus could get killed for God's Very Good Reason? What if any of the players hadn't wanted to do what is written in the gospels as "so scripture could be fulfilled"? Was God was playing puppets.
This is why I'm messed on the cross and all it signifies.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There are other paradigms (open theism being but one) with different assumptions about the divine nature and the nature of reality that have IMHO better internal consistency (less of the "level" gymnastics you have to undergo to make it hold together) and with at least as much biblical and logical support.
I consider the immutability of God to be strictly provable, and hence open theism and like paradigms, as well as your humble opinion, to be strictly and provably wrong. In fact, I have basically given one possible proof above already (derived from the incompatibility of omnipotence and suffering). I did not describe these three levels to hold anything together, but simply as a reflection of what I see people doing. It is in my opinion simply the case that people talk in several discernibly different ways about "God suffering".
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There are other paradigms (open theism being but one) with different assumptions about the divine nature and the nature of reality that have IMHO better internal consistency (less of the "level" gymnastics you have to undergo to make it hold together) and with at least as much biblical and logical support.
I consider the immutability of God to be strictly provable, and hence open theism and like paradigms, as well as your humble opinion, to be strictly and provably wrong. In fact, I have basically given one possible proof above already (derived from the incompatibility of omnipotence and suffering). I did not describe these three levels to hold anything together, but simply as a reflection of what I see people doing. It is in my opinion simply the case that people talk in several discernibly different ways about "God suffering".
The above was not a proof-- it was a very rough outline of a systematic theology, one held together with several a priori assumptions and a couple of glossed-over inconsistencies. Which is fine-- every systematic theology includes those, including my favored open theism. Most of those glossed-over inconsistencies have to do with our a priori assumptions about theodicy-- the incompatibility of omnipotence & suffering-- which, no, you didn't come close to "solving" (but again, neither does anyone else).
All of which goes to the point that the immutability of God is a perfectly fine theory but very, very far from "provable".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
I'd come down with Kaplan, cliffdweller, and Moltmann on this one.
The argument goes very simply like this: Love includes suffering, if the person one loves is suffering (this is what compassion means, literally). Compassion cannot simply be explained away as a part of the fallen nature of our love; God chose to come and suffer alongside humanity, so compassion seems central to love. The First Person loves the Second Person, not only Christ's divine nature. To the extent that Christ suffered (through his human nature, at least), his loving Father suffered, not in the sense (bodily pain, etc.) that Christ suffered, but as a Father.
Against this IngoB and others just put forward the assumption that God cannot suffer. The claim that God cannot suffer because everything is going according to plan is certainly not obvious, and again simply asserted.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Am I alone in feeling mildly irritated by Kaplan's 'Yeps' - as though this pronouncement settles the matter despite ancient and long-standing debates to the contrary?
Nope
quote:
Ok, I'm not saying that antiquity in and of itself is the determining factor, but the issue I have with the kind of spirituality that both he and Mudfrog appear to be promoting here is that it so easily descends into sentimental mush.
Sticking with single word responses, whataloadofbullshit.
Honestly, Gamaliel, get a grip.
Neither Muddy nor I are "promoting" any sort of "spirituality".
We are simply asserting the obviously biblical facts that God loves and God suffers.
There is nothing remotely mushy or sentimental about it.
You can attempt to explain them away on the basis of hellenistic concepts of divine immutability and impassibility, or dismiss them as anthropomorphisms, until you're blue in the face, but you're arguing not against South Wales chapel singalongs, but against the mainstream of Christian orthodoxy.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Two can play at one-word responses, Kaplan. I'm tempted to go for a two word response.
The second word is 'off'.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Don't you accuse me of bullshit, when you yourself are talking bollocks.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
What is the name of the heresy that taught that the 'Christ' left Jesus at the cross so that only the human body/soul suffered?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
