|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Should the Cross be the Church's symbol?
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't know, Mudfrog. That's a new heresy on me and I don't see anyone here arguing for it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I always thought that mainstream Christian orthodoxy held that God was immutable, Kaplan.
Sure, I know that there's the 'openness' of God thing that Cliffdweller is talking about and I'm 'open' to that ... I am not a 'closed' Calvinist.
The Big O Orthodox position would seem to be that God doesn't 'suffer' in the sense we might be talking about here - assuming we're on the same page, which we mightn't be.
I don't see that as meaning that God doesn't 'care' or that he's completely indifferent to suffering or 'feelings' as it were - as if he's some kind of cosmic Vulcan, a kind of Spock from Star Trek.
All these concepts are anthropomorphisms to a greater or lesser extent. I can handle a certain amount of mystery here ... as in much else. It's not something I can particularly exercised about.
Whatever you might say, though, whatever view we take it does, of necessity, find an outlet in our 'spirituality'. There's a warmth about Wesleyan spirituality which I find very attractive but equally there can be a slushy, sentimental aspect which I don't ... Mudfrog has been exploring this in Ecclesiantics on the issue of hymnody where even John Wesley found some of Charles's more 'fond' hymns somewhat difficult to stomach.
Conversely, a highly Calvinistic theology can (I said 'can', not 'must') lead to a rather cold, clinical and overly cerebral approach.
I'm simply saying that there's a balance in there somewhere. The Orthodox would claim, of course, that they've got the balance about right. I'm not saying they have or they haven't - they can be given to sentiment as much as anyone else.
I'm just thinking aloud and thinking around these subjects.
I don't have a closed mind that simply dismisses what anyone says by going 'Yep ... Yep ... Yep' as though I've got it all sussed and cut-and-dried.
--------------------
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
Of course God suffers, He can't not. All suffering. Omnipathy is a corollary of omniscience.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Ah yes! It's Gnosticsm!!
I am not surprised that this heresy may not have been recognised - it pervades a heck of a lot that is written about on the ship - a distant, immutable god, no need for atonement for sin, not even for a death to take place.
Gnostics so believe that the divine cannot suffer they teach that 'the christ' left the man Jesus before he could suffer.
quote:
Gnostic Jesus- DID CHRIST REALLY SUFFER AND DIE?
As in much modern New Age teaching, the Gnostics tended to divide Jesus from the Christ. For Valentinus, Christ descended on Jesus at his baptism and left before his death on the cross. Much of the burden of the treatise Against Heresies, written by the early Christian theologian Irenaeus, was to affirm that Jesus was, is, and always will be, the Christ. He says: “The Gospel…knew no other son of man but Him who was of Mary, who also suffered; and no Christ who flew away from Jesus before the passion; but Him who was born it knew as Jesus Christ the Son of God, and that this same suffered and rose again.” Irenaeus goes on to quote John’s affirmation that “Jesus is the Christ” (John 20:31) against the notion that Jesus and Christ were “formed of two different substances,” as the Gnostics taught.
Taken from HERE
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Mudfrog quote:
His death was the final Mosaic sacrifice.
There can be no redemption with[out] sacrifice and no forgiveness without the shedding of blood.
Mudfrog, it seems to me, having read your various posts on this topic, summed up by the above quote, that you should be in the crucifix rather than the empty cross camp. Indeed, that should be the position of all who support PSA, the articulation of which by Anselm was closely associated with the introduction of the crucifix in Christian iconology, unless I am much mistaken.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
If there can be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood as Mudfrog asserts then why on earth did Jesus spend two years calling on people to repent and be forgiven?
And, if people did repent, were they not forgiven?
I dont get it.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
If there can be no forgiveness without the shedding of blood as Mudfrog asserts then why on earth did Jesus spend two years calling on people to repent and be forgiven?
And, if people did repent, were they not forgiven?
I dont get it.
As I understand it, Jesus' atoning death operated backwards in history (see Romans 4 for Paul's explanation); that is why Abraham etc were saved by the cross.
Can I say, not being an expert, this is an extremely 'edifying' thread that is clarifying my thoughts on a lot of stuff, so please continue!
One thought re the (im)possibility of God changing/suffering, can one solve the biblical inconsistency by saying Malachi 3 shows God's nature cannot change, but that suffering/changing his mind is not 'change'? If I suffer compassionately for someone else, my nature has not changed. If I 'change my mind' (which is of course a figure of speech, infact my thinking develops), I am still me and have not altered my nature.
[ 14. January 2013, 12:43: Message edited by: ButchCassidy ]
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I always thought that mainstream Christian orthodoxy held that God was immutable, Kaplan.
Sure, I know that there's the 'openness' of God thing that Cliffdweller is talking about and I'm 'open' to that ... I am not a 'closed' Calvinist.
It's not just openness that has a problem with immutability. I don't think the doctrine has ever been as "mainstream" as you're suggesting. It squares well with Hellenistic philosophy, which is why you see it in classical theology and the church fathers who are most influenced by Platonic thought. But it just doesn't square at all with biblical revelation, which is why it has never had the kind of universal traction you're trying to make it out to be. I would say this is the least controversial aspect of Open Theology-- because it really isn't much of a shift for mainstream Christianity.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The Big O Orthodox position would seem to be that God doesn't 'suffer' in the sense we might be talking about here - assuming we're on the same page, which we mightn't be.
Again, not my area of expertise, but I'd still like to see a source on this-- so far there's been nothing to support it. Although I would suppose if anyone's going to be influenced by Hellenism, it would be Orthodox theology.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
All these concepts are anthropomorphisms to a greater or lesser extent. I can handle a certain amount of mystery here ... as in much else. It's not something I can particularly exercised about.
Sorry, but "anthropomorphism" is a cheap rhetorical trick-- it's what everyone throws out when something in the text doesn't fit their paradigm. At some point you gotta stop calling it anthropomorphic and start considering the possibility that the biblical writers knew what they were talking about.
--------------------
"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 ButchCassidy:
One thought re the (im)possibility of God changing/suffering, can one solve the biblical inconsistency by saying Malachi 3 shows God's nature cannot change, but that suffering/changing his mind is not 'change'? If I suffer compassionately for someone else, my nature has not changed. If I 'change my mind' (which is of course a figure of speech, infact my thinking develops), I am still me and have not altered my nature.
Exactly. God's essential nature, his character, does not change. Part of that essential nature is a whole 'nother level of compassion. The incarnation is not some weird one-off exception-- it is the ultimate expression of God's deep care for the world.
It's far easier to interpret Mal. 3 in light of the rest of biblical revelation than it is to try and manhandle the entire thrust of the OT and NT to fit with a narrow and wooden interpretation of Mal. 3.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Steady on, Cliffdweller, I'm quite 'open' about these things ... I'm not accusing you of anthropomorphism necessarily - simply observing that we have to use some kind of anthropomorphic language sooner or later ... if we say that scripture is 'God-breathed' for instance - to get to the biblical side of things - does that mean that we are saying that God has lungs?
Meanwhile, I don't know what Mudfrog's banging on about accusing people here of Gnosticism. I don't see many people - other than, perhaps, some of the more out-and-out liberal types, suggesting that we don't need the atonement and incarnation and so on.
--------------------
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 Mudfrog:
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?
Adoptionism. And yes, while that isn't being explicitly or directly argued here, I think that is the logical progression of a slavish devotion to the doctrine of immutability.
--------------------
"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:
Steady on, Cliffdweller, I'm quite 'open' about these things ... I'm not accusing you of anthropomorphism necessarily - simply observing that we have to use some kind of anthropomorphic language sooner or later ... if we say that scripture is 'God-breathed' for instance - to get to the biblical side of things - does that mean that we are saying that God has lungs?
I don't deny that there's anthropomorphic imagery in the Bible-- obviously there is. But it has become a cheap and easy out any time something doesn't fit our paradigm. Classical theology uses it all the time in precisely the way you did-- and I find it (obviously) unconvincing. When you have to keep appealing to "anthropomorphism" to dismiss Scripture after Scripture in order to get them to conform to your pre-existing paradigm, again, I think it's time to consider if your paradigm needs adjusting. That's quite different than the sorts of imagery we see with "breath of life".
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Meanwhile, I don't know what Mudfrog's banging on about accusing people here of Gnosticism. I don't see many people - other than, perhaps, some of the more out-and-out liberal types, suggesting that we don't need the atonement and incarnation and so on.
Well, there's more to Gnosticism than that. One of the central tenets of Gnosticism is the separation of "spirit" and "flesh" and the notion that "flesh" and physicality and suffering are somehow "earthly" and "less than" that which is divine. Obviously those Gnostic tendencies are underlying many of the early Christological heresies.
And I think that's not unrelated to what we see here. The "scandal of the cross"-- really the "scandal of the incarnation"-- is precisely that assault on Gnsoticism and Hellenistic assumptions-- all those assumptions that we bring to our notion of divinity. I think that's what the great hymn of Phil. 2 is all about-- the paradigm-shifting awareness that rather than the immutable, passive, omni-everything, biggest dog on the block god of Platoism, we have a God who enters fully into human suffering.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
One thought re the (im)possibility of God changing/suffering, can one solve the biblical inconsistency by saying Malachi 3 shows God's nature cannot change, but that suffering/changing his mind is not 'change'? If I suffer compassionately for someone else, my nature has not changed. If I 'change my mind' (which is of course a figure of speech, infact my thinking develops), I am still me and have not altered my nature.
Ah, but you are not your nature, whereas God (according to classical theology) is. (Summa Theologica Ia, 3, 3. This question is probably the best answer to all the theopaschites in the thread, should they choose to trust the Angelic Doctor...) You have something apart from your own nature (a body) wherein change can exist. God, who is incorporeal, is beyond the realm of potential or accident: he is now what he always has been and always will be.
If you can show a form of suffering that does not involve change from one state to another (worse) state, you may have a form of suffering that is compatible with God. But I don't believe such a form is conceivable.
But all of this shouldn't occlude the fact that there is suffering in God. That suffering is precisely human suffering. God entered creation in Jesus Christ and suffered according to the human nature. This is true compassion, that he suffered alongside us the precise form of suffering that we endure. The most radical paradoxes of the Incarnation are for me this:
- the uncreated was born
- the immortal died
- the impassible suffered
I'm with S. Thomas on this one.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
My view is that separating the Cross out as a single event which alone is 'salvific' actually violates the Biblical story of salvation.
Why not have the Cradle as the sign of our salvation?
For me the heart of 'atonement' is the principle of identification. God saves us by becoming one of us and one with us in Christ.
Thats the meaning of Christmas and the incarnation. Jesus is Immanuel; God with us.
Its the meaning of the Baptism of Jesus. Jesus identiifies himself with those he came to save.
Its the meaning of the Cry from the Cross -- 'My God, why have you forsaken me?'/ Jeus has so identified with sinful humanity that he feels in his own experience the alienating consequence of sin.
Its the meaning of Ascension. There is a Man in heaven and our humanity has been taken up into the life of God.
Nowhere is all this is there a 'necessity' for the shedding of blood. Salvation is what God has done for us in Christ and to identify ourselves with him by faith means we share in all that God achieved in Christ.
Oversimplified? Maybe.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by ButchCassidy:
One thought re the (im)possibility of God changing/suffering, can one solve the biblical inconsistency by saying Malachi 3 shows God's nature cannot change, but that suffering/changing his mind is not 'change'? If I suffer compassionately for someone else, my nature has not changed. If I 'change my mind' (which is of course a figure of speech, infact my thinking develops), I am still me and have not altered my nature.
Ah, but you are not your nature, whereas God (according to classical theology) is. (Summa Theologica Ia, 3, 3. This question is probably the best answer to all the theopaschites in the thread, should they choose to trust the Angelic Doctor...) You have something apart from your own nature (a body) wherein change can exist. God, who is incorporeal, is beyond the realm of potential or accident: he is now what he always has been and always will be.
If you can show a form of suffering that does not involve change from one state to another (worse) state, you may have a form of suffering that is compatible with God. But I don't believe such a form is conceivable.
But all of this shouldn't occlude the fact that there is suffering in God. That suffering is precisely human suffering. God entered creation in Jesus Christ and suffered according to the human nature. This is true compassion, that he suffered alongside us the precise form of suffering that we endure. The most radical paradoxes of the Incarnation are for me this:
- the uncreated was born
- the immortal died
- the impassible suffered
I'm with S. Thomas on this one.
But that doesn't hold up. Obviously God is not fixed-- he moves in (and, in many views, out) of history. He redeems. He heals. He acts. That all involves change. So when Mal. 3 talks of God as "unchanging" clearly it doesn't mean it in a literal, wooden way.
Your paradigm assumes that God's innate, unchanging nature is a state that is inconsistent w/ suffering. But God is love-- his innate, unchanging nature is one that is always seeking union with the beloved. That means experiencing suffering because we experience suffering. That is not contrary to God's innate, unchanging nature-- it is the ultimate expression of it (Phil. 2).
--------------------
"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 no prophet:
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?
I don't see why any of that is necessary for the cross to be the church's symbol. (a) because saying "God chose for Jesus to die" is tantamount to saying that Jesus somehow didn't realize when he agreed to be incarnate that he was going to die, and would have refused had he known. Which rather makes a mockery of what St. Paul says about kenosis. (2) because there's no indication that crucifixion was necessary, only contingent, and it needn't be necessary to be a symbol of Christ's death. (3) because it's not necessary that Christ have been killed against the wills of the people who killed him for his death to be meaningful or salvific, or the means of his death to be the church's symbol.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I would suppose if anyone's going to be influenced by Hellenism, it would be Orthodox theology.
And your suppositions count for shit. You could also suppose that if anyone's going to be on their guard against Hellenism, it would be the ancient Orthodox theologians. As they were, doubly.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Obviously God is not fixed-- he moves in (and, in many views, out) of history. He redeems. He heals. He acts. That all involves change.
Sure, in the thing healed there is change. You might as well say that because a brick wall injures a person who runs into it, it must be changed.
[ 14. January 2013, 15:55: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What, a brick wall that is thinking the person that runs in to it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Cliffdweller, please, I'm not attacking your point of view nor am I seeking to fling out accusations of anthropomorphism etc ...
The only things I've objected to on this thread so far is what I would see as a tendency towards sentimentality in some aspects of Wesleyan revivalism - whilst fully accepting that this particular tradition isn't alone in that.
I've also taken exception to the rather dismissive and cursory 'yep ... yep ...yep' comments of Kaplan Corday's which I've found irritating in the same way as I'd find a yapping dog irritating - 'yep ...yep ...yep ... yap ... yap ... yap'.
I've not attacked your open-theism at all. In fact, I'm quite intrigued by your exposition of these issues and interested in following your line of thought.
The anthropomorphism thing wasn't a dig at you nor at anyone else - all I was saying was that we have to anthropomorphise to some extent or other to even begin to get to grips with some of this stuff ... I'm thinking of Moses hidden in the cleft of the rock and seeing God's 'back' and so forth ...
I'm simply saying that human language and concepts are inadequate and that's why a degree of anthropomorphism is necessary.
I'm quite prepared to accept challenges against 'classic theology' and to consider issues of 'open theism' - the only point I'm making is that in our anthropomorphism we have to be careful ... otherwise we can begin to get an overly sentimental approach or else regard God as overly fluffy and cuddly on the one hand or else as a harsh and unyielding ogre on the other.
I wasn't having a 'go' at your ideas at all. I'm genuinely surprised at your reaction.
I'm with Shamwari in seeing the totality of the 'Christ event' as important rather than isolating particular aspects of it. That said, I think that both Mudfrog and Kaplan are right to highlight the emphasis on 'the cross' in the Pauline corpus and its part in our salvation. No cross without the resurrection, no resurrection without the cross.
As an old sentimental song we used to sing used to have it, 'If you don't bear a cross you can't wear a crown ...'
We do need a 'theologiae crucis' as well as a 'theologiae gloriae' - the two things go hand-in-hand, they are both two sides of the same coin.
I think we'd all agree on that - Mudfrog, Kaplan, Shamwari, Mousethief, whoever else has been posting on this thread.
The only differences are the extent to which we hold to a penal, substitutionary angle in all of this or the extent to which we believe that God the Father suffers in the process.
I've got an open mind. I'm not a Thomist - or at least not so far as I am aware and neither am I a Gnostic or an Adoptionist.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What, a brick wall that is thinking the person that runs in to it?
We're more real than that.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But that doesn't hold up. Obviously God is not fixed-- he moves in (and, in many views, out) of history. He redeems. He heals. He acts. That all involves change. So when Mal. 3 talks of God as "unchanging" clearly it doesn't mean it in a literal, wooden way.
Change to whom? To the creation, not to the creator, so far as I can see. Our perception of sequential change (i.e. suffering) in God is due to our own limitations, not to God's nature.
quote:
Your paradigm assumes that God's innate, unchanging nature is a state that is inconsistent w/ suffering. But God is love-- his innate, unchanging nature is one that is always seeking union with the beloved. That means experiencing suffering because we experience suffering. That is not contrary to God's innate, unchanging nature-- it is the ultimate expression of it (Phil. 2).
Yes, the ultimate expression of God's essentially loving nature is the Incarnation, wherein God assumed human suffering to himself in the person of Jesus Christ. God suffers because we suffer: yes. I couldn't agree more. But the suffering is according to the human nature, not according to the divine nature.
Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?
If God is passible, mutable, temporal, etc., where's the scandal in the Incarnation?
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What, MORE real than Him thinking us autonomous? So in Him we do NOT live and move and have our being?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Actually, I'm not doing a nur-nur-na-nur-nah thing here, 'I'm-telling-on-Mousethief' - but am I alone in finding Mousethief's challenge to Cliffdweller to be rather OTT and out of order?
'Your presuppositions count for shit.'
That's a bit strong.
It's not an unreasonable presupposition for anyone to make that Orthodoxy would be influenced by Hellenism - given where the Orthodox heartlands have traditionally been located and that Greek, rather than Latin, has been the lingua-franca for Orthodox discourse.
I'd have assumed the same at one time and it was only when I looked into it some more that I found that Orthodoxy is actually quite Semitic/Hebrew in tone rather than Hellenic - although I think it is fair to say that many of the Fathers were influenced by Platonic thought - but, as with all these things, it's not quite as simple as that.
In my experience, Orthodoxy is very earthy, very earthy, tactile and down-to-earth. That said, the overall impression I get in Orthodox worship is that the whole thing is a lot less anthropocentric than is often the case in popular forms of evangelicalism and revivalism - there's more there about God than there is about 'us'.
So, whilst I would agree with the broad thrust of MT's riposte, I don't think the tone of it is appropriate. Ok, that's for the Hosts and not for me to decide ...
But I'm trying to be fair here. I chelped at what I took to be Kaplan's dismissive and haughty tone, now I'm taking issue with Mousethief's.
People are perfectly at liberty to take issue with mine too.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[qb]I would suppose if anyone's going to be influenced by Hellenism, it would be Orthodox theology.
And your suppositions count for shit.
Which is pretty much what I said-- hence my honest question. Not sure why that poked the bear.
--------------------
"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:
Cliffdweller, please, I'm not attacking your point of view nor am I seeking to fling out accusations of anthropomorphism etc ...
...I wasn't having a 'go' at your ideas at all. I'm genuinely surprised at your reaction.
I wasn't at all thinking you were attacking me or my pov-- did I sound defensive? You & I always challenge each other to think deeper and articulate our positions with greater clarity & consider new angles-- that's honestly all I saw as well. As you know, this is one of my pet topics I love to debate, so perhaps my passion or strongly held positions came across defensive-- my apologies!
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
....The only differences are the extent to which we hold to a penal, substitutionary angle in all of this or the extent to which we believe that God the Father suffers in the process.
I've got an open mind. I'm not a Thomist - or at least not so far as I am aware and neither am I a Gnostic or an Adoptionist.
Oh, yes, I know that. My comments on Gnosticism and Adoptionism were in response to another poster's question, and really apply to the argument in general and not anyone's position in particular. (Hey, as an Open Theist enthusiast I'm used to charges of "heresy" being flung about!) Again, sorry for the misunderstanding.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
Might be interesting to ask the question in a different way - what do we use symbols for? I'm not big on jewellery (sorry, no earrings) but I do have cufflinks in the shape of a fish with a cross as part of the art. Very nice they are to. So far one bloke who'se not a Christian recognised the symbolism and commented on it. If anyone ever asks, I'd use them as a visual aid to explain the Ichthus acrostic. If I wanted to use the cross symbol evangelistically, I'd go for a Russian Orthodox one with the slanted cross bar. Someone's more likely to ask me about that than a standard cross or one in a circle.
We used to be big on symbols because literacy was low. Now we're big on symbols for other reasons - we're in an icon-driven society. Since the UK is a post-Christian nation (can't speak for shipmates from elsewhere) I'd want to know if the cross is an appropriate symbol for Christianity in a post-Christian culture which we need to re-evangelise.
Help me out here Col Mudfrog - watcha reckon?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But that doesn't hold up. Obviously God is not fixed-- he moves in (and, in many views, out) of history. He redeems. He heals. He acts. That all involves change. So when Mal. 3 talks of God as "unchanging" clearly it doesn't mean it in a literal, wooden way.
Change to whom? To the creation, not to the creator, so far as I can see. Our perception of sequential change (i.e. suffering) in God is due to our own limitations, not to God's nature.
Again, this strikes me as the old "anthropomorphism" dodge. If we can't explain it, if it doesn't fit the paradigm, it must be an anthropomorphism. Again, obviously there's some anthropomorphisms in the Bible, but when we start seeing them everywhere-- and particularly when they mean you're turning the thrust of a passage completely on it's head-- I think you've gone overboard.
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
[QUOTE]Your paradigm assumes that God's innate, unchanging nature is a state that is inconsistent w/ suffering. But God is love-- his innate, unchanging nature is one that is always seeking union with the beloved. That means experiencing suffering because we experience suffering. That is not contrary to God's innate, unchanging nature-- it is the ultimate expression of it (Phil. 2).
Yes, the ultimate expression of God's essentially loving nature is the Incarnation, wherein God assumed human suffering to himself in the person of Jesus Christ. God suffers because we suffer: yes. I couldn't agree more. But the suffering is according to the human nature, not according to the divine nature.
Again, stated as an a priori self-evident proposition, when it is anything but. It is a very speculative thesis, awaiting an argument. A single proof-texted verse doesn't do it.
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?
Pretty much. I believe God's innate nature does not change, and that his innate nature is to seek union with his beloved (us). Thus when we suffer, God suffers.
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
If God is passible, mutable, temporal, etc., where's the scandal in the Incarnation?
Precisely that. Read through this thread: 2000 years later and we're still scandalized by a God who enters into human suffering. But it's not an exception, it's the ultimate expression of it (Phil. 2). (fyi: "temporal" is a whole 'nother thread. A worthy one, but a whole 'nother one. We don't need to unpack the whole of open theism here!)
[ 14. January 2013, 16:43: 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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Mudfrog will respond better than I can, Truman White, but I suspect he'd say that we need the cross as a Christian symbol in a post-Christian culture because the apostle Paul emphasised the cross when engaging with a pre-Christian pagan culture.
If so, I would agree with him. The fact that the cross was an offence to the Jews and foolishness to Greeks didn't stop him from using it, as it were (although I'm not thinking of its use here in symbolic terms or in iconography and so on, which was clearly a later development - and one which I don't have an issue with, by the way).
If anything, the 'scandal' of the cross appears to have made the apostle Paul more willing to use it.
I s'pose the question I'd ask, is 'what would we put in its place?'
I wouldn't want to see a cross-less Christianity -nor would I want to see us adopting symbols willy-nilly just for the sake of it or because we thought that by doing so, in and of itself, we are somehow making the Gospel more 'relevant'.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The only differences are the extent to which we hold to a penal, substitutionary angle in all of this or the extent to which we believe that God the Father suffers in the process.
Firstly, I haven't mentioned PSA at all! My point is that the death of Christ - the cross - is a sacrifice - he is the Lamb of God i.e. the sacrificial lamb required by Mosaic law. He was sacrificed and his blood spilt precisely because 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin.
Where does the incarnation come into this?
He was 'born 'under the law (Torah) to redeem those living under the law.' In order to do that, he had to end the sacrificial law by being the final, perfect sacrifice - provided by God himself.
It's in Hebrews.
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Might be interesting to ask the question in a different way - what do we use symbols for? I'm not big on jewellery (sorry, no earrings) but I do have cufflinks in the shape of a fish with a cross as part of the art. Very nice they are to. So far one bloke who'se not a Christian recognised the symbolism and commented on it. If anyone ever asks, I'd use them as a visual aid to explain the Ichthus acrostic. If I wanted to use the cross symbol evangelistically, I'd go for a Russian Orthodox one with the slanted cross bar. Someone's more likely to ask me about that than a standard cross or one in a circle.
We used to be big on symbols because literacy was low. Now we're big on symbols for other reasons - we're in an icon-driven society. Since the UK is a post-Christian nation (can't speak for shipmates from elsewhere) I'd want to know if the cross is an appropriate symbol for Christianity in a post-Christian culture which we need to re-evangelise.
Help me out here Col Mudfrog - watcha reckon?
rebranding very rarely works.
It's expemnsive and causes confusion.
If you were to tear down every cross from every steeple in the country and replace it with a fish, the hilarity this would cause would heap even more ridicule on the church than she already experiences.
A cross is fine. Everyone knows what the cross mean - my wife and I were given (and I kid you not) a two foot high brass crucifix as a wedding present by a non-religious aunt and uncle, 'because we are religious'.
Leave the cross - accepted, understood and 'liked' or not, it means 'church' to most people.
You see a fish on a building and you'll find people asking for fries as well ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?
If God is passible, mutable, temporal, etc., where's the scandal in the Incarnation?
Can you provide a definition of incarnation that is not change from one state to another (worse, or better, or equally-good) state? Or would you say "God changes"?
I would say, "God does not change," because the ousia that the three persons of the Trinity share does not change. We're not talking about changing states, we're talking about changing essences. In the case of either incarnation or suffering, God does not change, although what God is doing (or even "feeling," to the extent that that means anything for God) changes.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
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?
I don't see why any of that is necessary for the cross to be the church's symbol. (a) because saying "God chose for Jesus to die" is tantamount to saying that Jesus somehow didn't realize when he agreed to be incarnate that he was going to die, and would have refused had he known. Which rather makes a mockery of what St. Paul says about kenosis. (2) because there's no indication that crucifixion was necessary, only contingent, and it needn't be necessary to be a symbol of Christ's death. (3) because it's not necessary that Christ have been killed against the wills of the people who killed him for his death to be meaningful or salvific, or the means of his death to be the church's symbol.
You post answers some things and furthers my understanding, but it also creates some more questions.
At what point did Jesus understand he was to die? The gospels make it clear as he started his ministry that he knew he was coming to the attention of the authorities with the lead up to the last passover (palm Sunday etc) making it doubly clear, but what about when he was a little boy, a teen, a 20 year old? I'm thinking of the impending doom narrative in the Garden of Gethsemane pervading his life. But I don't get that. I get a man ministering to people, healing and talking about repenting etc.
I also query the insertion of bits into the narrative that presage his death, after the fact. And so they could write so as to fulfil scripture.
--------------------
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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?
If God is passible, mutable, temporal, etc., where's the scandal in the Incarnation?
Can you provide a definition of incarnation that is not change from one state to another (worse, or better, or equally-good) state? Or would you say "God changes"?
I would say, "God does not change," because the ousia that the three persons of the Trinity share does not change. We're not talking about changing states, we're talking about changing essences. In the case of either incarnation or suffering, God does not change, although what God is doing (or even "feeling," to the extent that that means anything for God) changes.
I think this unchanging essence bit is a red-herring, even a straw man.
Philippians 2, that famous 'kenotic' hymn (I do not accept the 'theory' of kenosis I'm afraid) is more about what God took on rather than about anything he may have removed.
The first phrase that impresses me is the one about being in the form of God.
The word 'being' from the Gk 'hyparchon' which means 'unchangeable essence.'
The word 'form' is the Gk 'morphe' which means 'essential form' as opposed to outward appearance.
Therefore, 'being in the form of God.' means that Jesus, essentially 'God' in his being and nature reomained so whehn his outward appearance changed and he became flesh.
The second important phrase is 'and took upon himself the form, of a servant.'
Again, notice the word form: 'morphe' - 'essential form'. Notice! He took upon himself a new, (from that moment on) 'essential form'. He changed his essence and added to his divine 'essence' the very essence of a servant.
He changed within himself.
But notice also, in contrast, this:
He was 'made in the likeness of a man'.
The word 'likeness' is Gk 'gignesthai' which means 'a changing phase'. His humanity was not a permanent, essential change.
'He was found 'in appearance as a man.'
'Appearance' is Gk 'schema' - changeable, temporary'
Thus, Jesus was essentially Lord God in form, but he changed his divine essence to become, in addition, a servant in form and essence.
His flesh was transitory - and now is glorified and is itself given a new, immortal and unchangeing form - thus he is now forever, since the incarnation and resurrection, essentially God and glorified man.
God can change. Even in essence.
[ 14. January 2013, 18:30: 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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Fair enough, you didn't mention PSA. I wasn't particularly suggesting that you had - although I took it as implied - rather I was listing some issues we might each have different views over when looking at the same things from different angles ...
But I take your point and it is well made.
Not sure I'm with you on the kenosis thing though.
--------------------
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
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
@Col. Mudfrog
I got your rank right? Not that it bothers you, just beng polite.
Now here's a thing. You wrote:
A cross is fine. Everyone knows what the cross mean - my wife and I were given (and I kid you not) a two foot high brass crucifix as a wedding present by a non-religious aunt and uncle, 'because we are religious'.
I remember a youth pastor telling me about a chat with some teenagers he was working with. No joke, they seriously asked "Was Jesus on a cross to keep the vampires away?"
Now I'm all for the cross as a symbol - it reminds us of Christ's genuine humanity, the reality of God's entering into human suffering and abandonment, and gives us some licence to talk about bridging the gap between heaven and earth. Best reason to keep is is the significance Jesus gave it himself - he wasn't just going to die, he was going to be 'raises up' and specifically crucified.
But like the pals of my youth worker, a familiar symbol can lose its meaning - plenty of non religious people where crosses without the first idea what it means. So yeah, let's keep explaining what it means and campaign for the right to wear it as a statement of faith. I'd also ask, are there other Christian symbols that will speak to our society and convey Christ's message?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
'Your presuppositions count for shit.'
That's a bit strong.
C'mon Gamaliel, cut him some slack.
In the context of a thread in which haughty and dismissive people resort to single-syllable responses, mousethief's offence pales into venial insignificance.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
We would appreciate it, if you would all cool it a bit.
Doublethink
Purgatory Host
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
This seems a contradiction mudfrog:
quote:
His humanity was not a permanent, essential change.
...
he is now forever, since the incarnation and resurrection, essentially God and glorified man.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
no prophet: quote:
At what point did Jesus understand he was to die? The gospels make it clear as he started his ministry that he knew he was coming to the attention of the authorities with the lead up to the last passover (palm Sunday etc) making it doubly clear, but what about when he was a little boy, a teen, a 20 year old?
As you mention, as a human being, he probably came to understand death as we all mostly do. Even more closely in his day where people died easily of disease, accident, and violence. As the Eternal Word, I'm sure he knew what he was signing up for: if you are born, you die. And when he started his mission, aware of its divinity, and the forces of evil arrayed against it, the nature of his end likely became clearer and clearer.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Change to whom? To the creation, not to the creator, so far as I can see. Our perception of sequential change (i.e. suffering) in God is due to our own limitations, not to God's nature.
Again, this strikes me as the old "anthropomorphism" dodge. If we can't explain it, if it doesn't fit the paradigm, it must be an anthropomorphism. Again, obviously there's some anthropomorphisms in the Bible, but when we start seeing them everywhere-- and particularly when they mean you're turning the thrust of a passage completely on it's head-- I think you've gone overboard.
I'm not quite sure why you think I'm using anthropomorphism as an argument. I'm not.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Your paradigm assumes that God's innate, unchanging nature is a state that is inconsistent w/ suffering. But God is love-- his innate, unchanging nature is one that is always seeking union with the beloved. That means experiencing suffering because we experience suffering. That is not contrary to God's innate, unchanging nature-- it is the ultimate expression of it (Phil. 2).
Yes, the ultimate expression of God's essentially loving nature is the Incarnation, wherein God assumed human suffering to himself in the person of Jesus Christ. God suffers because we suffer: yes. I couldn't agree more. But the suffering is according to the human nature, not according to the divine nature.
Again, stated as an a priori self-evident proposition, when it is anything but. It is a very speculative thesis, awaiting an argument. A single proof-texted verse doesn't do it.
No, stated as an obvious derivation from standard, orthodox Chalcedonian Christology.
What I was attempting to do was to show that the impassibility of God does not exclude the (for me) more radical option of God's suffering in the person of Jesus Christ.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?
Pretty much. I believe God's innate nature does not change, and that his innate nature is to seek union with his beloved (us). Thus when we suffer, God suffers.
So you believe there is something to God other than God's nature?
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
If God is passible, mutable, temporal, etc., where's the scandal in the Incarnation?
Precisely that. Read through this thread: 2000 years later and we're still scandalized by a God who enters into human suffering. But it's not an exception, it's the ultimate expression of it (Phil. 2). (fyi: "temporal" is a whole 'nother thread. A worthy one, but a whole 'nother one. We don't need to unpack the whole of open theism here!)
On the contrary, I think it's all bound up together. I'm arguing from a position that says that the classical pagan philosophers had a point and that Thomas Aquinas was essentially correct; you're arguing from a position that says they are irrelevant and he is essentially wrong. The whole of Thomas' argument about the divine nature is a unity. You can't pick and choose elements and argue as if they weren't relevant to each other. Ultimately, we're bound to argue past each other because our initial and methodological assumptions are poles apart. I'm an Anglican neo-Thomist, while you're an open theist: those positions are not reconcilable.
And to the other point, where's the scandal in saying "God, who suffers all the time, suffered a bit more in a slightly different way"?
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
no prophet: quote:
At what point did Jesus understand he was to die? The gospels make it clear as he started his ministry that he knew he was coming to the attention of the authorities with the lead up to the last passover (palm Sunday etc) making it doubly clear, but what about when he was a little boy, a teen, a 20 year old?
As you mention, as a human being, he probably came to understand death as we all mostly do. Even more closely in his day where people died easily of disease, accident, and violence. As the Eternal Word, I'm sure he knew what he was signing up for: if you are born, you die. And when he started his mission, aware of its divinity, and the forces of evil arrayed against it, the nature of his end likely became clearer and clearer.
This takes me right back to the theology and symbolism of the cross (or stones etc if that had been the method of execution). The symbolism of the cross underscores the idea that God sent Jesus into the world to be killed. Not just to die of some expectable cause, but to be sacrificially, ritually, killed.
I realize my comments can be taken as adoptionist, or some other historical heresy, but let me venture further into this territory. It is as if, within the arguments as presented that the death of Jesus was foreordained. That it was going to happen at some point, in some way, and with violence, not of natural causes.
Let me digress slightly. Isaac would have calmly allowed Abraham to tie him up and install him on the kindling and twigs really to light, and even more, gathered up the burnables and sharpened the knife for his own expected throat slitting? Yet God stopped it, or perhaps that's a gloss, and Abraham stopped it.
Thus, maybe the cross was a cosmic accident, and the developed theology we discuss today is the make-do way of repairing a bad situation. The cross thus not required and probably avoidable. The cross used subsequently to tie the Jesus story to the ancient and thus respected beliefs of the Jews at the time.
--------------------
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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
I don't have a problem with a cross as a physical symbol (although one of many) for Christianity or the Church. I think it's likely that Paul meant his references to the cross to be taken literally. Crucifixion was a powerful part of his culture, and it's likely that the message of transforming the very real death associated with the cross into something radically counter-cultural and salvific was of huge significance to Paul's message.
Like it or not, Paul and the gospels are what have shaped the church. And whether it took 40 years or 400 for one symbol to rise above the others in universal acceptability, the cross - as a physical representation and encapsulation of the basic Christian message - has ticked all the boxes.
Interestingly, even before he himself went to the cross to die, Jesus was urging his followers to take up their cross, if they wished to be his disciples. It's not the only flavour on the menu, true, but the associations that Christ himself seems to have attached to it are more than merely accidental, imo.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?
Pretty much. I believe God's innate nature does not change, and that his innate nature is to seek union with his beloved (us). Thus when we suffer, God suffers.
So you believe there is something to God other than God's nature?
Huh? Not following.
I believe God's essential, innate nature is to seek union with the beloved, something that entails suffering with us. I don't think that is outside of God's nature, but intrinsic, almost defining of it.
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Ultimately, we're bound to argue past each other because our initial and methodological assumptions are poles apart. I'm an Anglican neo-Thomist, while you're an open theist: those positions are not reconcilable.
Agreed. My goal here has been mainly to point out (not so much to you, but to some others) that there is more than one perspective here, none of which are "provable" (as claimed upthread) or self-evident.
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
And to the other point, where's the scandal in saying "God, who suffers all the time, suffered a bit more in a slightly different way"?
Again, I think the notion of a God who suffers has always been "scandalous". Jesus as the ultimate, final, and most visible representation of that suffering is and was scandalous.
Indeed, it would seem to undermine your "immutability" argument to suggest otherwise. In the incarnation, God is acting entirely in character. If that were not the case, he would not be "immutable".
--------------------
"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
|
|
RdrEmCofE
Shipmate
# 17511
|
Posted
quote:
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.
The most important reason that The Cross, (and in particular a crucifix showing Christ on the cross), is the main symbol of The Christian Church is because it is the most comprehensive visible demonstration of the central truth of Christianity. Namely, it shows both the Glorious Grace and unlimited forgiveness of God to undeserving mankind. It also visually demonstrates the extreme depravity that mankind is capable of, that of attempting to murder God for no other reason than to ‘shut him up’, and render him impotent. John 11:50; 18:14
It is therefore the ultimate expression of the unlimited extent of God’s forgiveness of sin and the extremity of his desire for reconciliation. Rom.5:8
“That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us, (his followers), the message of reconciliation”. 2 Cor. 5:19
It also is the most graphic expression of the meaning of The Gospel. i.e. That we, (who believe that God in Christ has forgiven our sins), should go into a world that either does not know, or has rejected this truth. It is our task to convince those who do not know, of their salvation, and to convince those, (who know, but are now rejecting God’s reconciliation), of judgment. The Gospel being a two edged sword which cuts both ways. Prov.5:4; Heb.4:12; Rev.1:16
--------------------
Love covers many sins. 1 Pet.4:8. God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not holding their sins against them; 2 Cor.5:19
Posts: 255 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Basilica
Shipmate
# 16965
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Can you provide a definition of suffering that is not change from one state to another (worse) state? Or would you say "God changes"?
Pretty much. I believe God's innate nature does not change, and that his innate nature is to seek union with his beloved (us). Thus when we suffer, God suffers.
So you believe there is something to God other than God's nature?
Huh? Not following.
I believe God's essential, innate nature is to seek union with the beloved, something that entails suffering with us. I don't think that is outside of God's nature, but intrinsic, almost defining of it.
Hmm, I think I'm probably not quite getting your idea of what suffering is.
My position would be that suffering is change from one state to another. If God's nature does not change (as you suggest), then there must be some other "bit" of God where the change takes place. I would argue, following S. Thomas, that God is his essence: there is nothing else.
I'm probably misunderstanding your point somewhere in this: I'd be interested to know where.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
And to the other point, where's the scandal in saying "God, who suffers all the time, suffered a bit more in a slightly different way"?
Again, I think the notion of a God who suffers has always been "scandalous". Jesus as the ultimate, final, and most visible representation of that suffering is and was scandalous.
Indeed, it would seem to undermine your "immutability" argument to suggest otherwise. In the incarnation, God is acting entirely in character. If that were not the case, he would not be "immutable".
Oh, I fully accept that the Incarnation stands in contradiction to the divine attributes of impassibility, immutabiity, eternity, immortality, etc. This is why it is an unfathomable paradox. (My principal objection to much theology—including open theism—is that it attempts to iron out the paradoxes, rather than revelling in them.)
The one attribute that it does not iron out is love, which I consider the supreme attribute of God.
Posts: 403 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:.
I believe God's essential, innate nature is to seek union with the beloved, something that entails suffering with us. I don't think that is outside of God's nature, but intrinsic, almost defining of it.
Hmm, I think I'm probably not quite getting your idea of what suffering is.
My position would be that suffering is change from one state to another. If God's nature does not change (as you suggest), then there must be some other "bit" of God where the change takes place. I would argue, following S. Thomas, that God is his essence: there is nothing else.
This is probably another example of the "talking past each other" you mentioned before, but I'll take a stab at it.
I don't think the "change" entailed in suffering is a change of God's essential nature. It is simply a change of orientation-- same as the "change" involved in saying "God loves Billy" and "God loves Susan". There's a change of orientation, of expression. But since God has loved both Billy and Susan all along, and because God IS love, there really is no change.
So again, God's basic nature is to seek union with the beloved. That entails all sorts of things, including suffering. All of those things are entirely consistent with God's nature, which is love.
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
[QUOTE]Oh, I fully accept that the Incarnation stands in contradiction to the divine attributes of impassibility, immutabiity, eternity, immortality, etc. This is why it is an unfathomable paradox. (My principal objection to much theology—including open theism—is that it attempts to iron out the paradoxes, rather than revelling in them.)
Agreed. The one thing I like about Open Theism is that at least it is honest about that-- I don't see that in too many other systematic theologies, with the exception of Orthodox theology (if experience serves, someone may chime in, half tongue in cheek, to suggest that Orthodox theology is not "systematic". But it's not gonna be me after the last slapdown).
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
[QUOTE] The one attribute that it does not iron out is love, which I consider the supreme attribute of God.
Here Open Theists would agree with you.
[ 14. January 2013, 22:01: 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
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
This seems a contradiction mudfrog:
quote:
His humanity was not a permanent, essential change.
...
he is now forever, since the incarnation and resurrection, essentially God and glorified man.
Not really, he was raised by the Father and it was that glorification that made his humanity divine.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
The discussion of symbols left behind for now I see.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
