|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Saved from what (or who?)
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
@OP. This is about as far as I've gotten since Father Gregory posted his good question. Have been thinking about this for a couple of days.
I find the question easy to answer from a forumlaic stance - the usual things Christians say - from sin, from death, to heaven etc. But I find it incredibly difficult to answer from the standpoint of daily human life, well, my own anyway.
It is clear to me that we are not saved from the experience of evil within the world as we live day to day. Perhaps the offer of salvation is to be saved from despair (and other bad things) that living with evil would have to bring, where there is no hope?
The second aspect seems to me to be being saved from our responses to evil. I seem to respond with wrath more frequently of late, due to my experiences with evil, including on these boards as I've perceived it (or misperceived it. (and probably some other of the Seven Deadlies, like Pride) Thus I'm certain that my salvation must be a work in progress, and never successful all by my loser myself.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
There is no punishment at all - there are only the natural consequences inherent in the choices we make.
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
It sounds so plausible to the moralising mind yet God does not treat us according to our sins but rather to the extent that we are prepared to come back to Him, the Life-Giver.
That still sounds remarkably like something a torturer would say.
"I'm not keeping you here. The guards aren't keeping you here. The only one keeping you here is you. This ends as soon as you start cooperating."
Really? Do those statements sound like something that only a torturer would say? I could sympathize with your objection if that were the case, but how does it make sense to object to a statement just because a torturer would use it? Would it make sense to object to my telling my children that I love them because it sounds like something parents who abuse their children would say? Would you take it as a sign that I might be an abuser myself?
You can look for ways to interpret the way we express our belief about God as being a belief in an abusive God, or you can realize that we're saying that God doesn't force himself on us or coerce us in any way.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Really? Do those statements sound like something that only a torturer would say? I could sympathize with your objection if that were the case, but how does it make sense to object to a statement just because a torturer would use it? Would it make sense to object to my telling my children that I love them because it sounds like something parents who abuse their children would say? Would you take it as a sign that I might be an abuser myself?
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm in a cleft stick on this one.
On the one hand, I read Marvin the Martian's post on the thread about what image we have of God - seen by Marvin as the Dad who sets impossibly high standards and wonders why you haven't scored a century each cricket match - and I want to abandon judgemental, legal/forensic Western Christianity for Fr Gregory's apparent guilt-free version ...
Then I read verses like this:
'Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.' (Romans 5:9 New American Standard Version)
And I find myself agreeing with Mudfrog's post.
Ok, I know that other translations, such as the Douai Version and the King James/Authorised Version don't specify that it's the 'wrath of God' that is referred to here - it's simply 'wrath'.
But whose wrath?
I sometimes think that a Calvin-free Gospel is too good to be true ... and at other times I think that the scriptures don't permit us to have a Calvin-free Gospel either ...
I'm confused ...
![[Frown]](frown.gif) ![[Confused]](confused.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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
I trust God to coerce us or force Himself on us if that would do it. And for some - many - it doubtless will.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Gamaliel
Guilt free? .... absolutely not .... I just don'[t believe in manufacturing guilt for something I haven't done (in Eden that is). I have inherited a flaw. I am not responsible for something I have not done.
Your confusion will remain until you ditch Sola Scriptura.
[ 21. June 2012, 17:44: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I ditched Sola Scriptura a while back ... (or at least modified it in the cold light of day)
I'm still confused ...
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Then I read verses like this:
'Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.' (Romans 5:9 New American Standard Version)
No one is saying that the Bible doesn't talk about the fires of hell or the wrath of God. The question is what these statements mean and the nature of the imagery that is used.
The imagery is of God as a very very powerful person who you need to listen to because He might get mad. The reality is harder to understand - that God is the only reality, and that disjunction with Him is not really living. How do you express ideas like this in ways that make sense in mideast society and culture 2,000 years ago?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Sure, I know what you mean about interpreting scripture through Tradition, Fr Gregory, it's just that I don't quite understand how Tradition (in this instance) gets around what appears to be a fairly direct statement - that we are saved from God's wrath.
I've heard/read Orthodox say that God doesn't have any wrath or express wrath. I can understand the position but it does appear - at face value - that scripture and Tradition might be at variance on this point. Although I fully accept what Freddy has said here - and I tend not to interpret the accounts of genocides and God zapping people in the OT as actual historical events in the same way that, say, the Spanish Armada was an historical event - although I do believe that they reflect a genuine historical background.
No, I tend to see the more violent parts of the OT, the judgements and the zappings as part of Post-Exilic Jewry's attempts to understand where they came from and how they went into exile in the first place. I don't doubt that they drew on earlier oral tradition when compiling these accounts, but I don't regard them as historic blow-by-blow accounts of what actually happened. They're histographical myths ... with myth being used in the C S Lewis sense here.
Whatever the case, it's still something I struggle with and I'd accept it's the legacy of a Calvinistic mindset to a large extent.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Gameliel, I think some of the problem here is in trying to render the greek "orge" as wrath or anger. A better, if somewhat less snappy, translation is "indignation which compels action". Maybe we are more "delivered through God's wrath" than "delivered from God's wrath". Though I seem to recall the "God's" bit is an interpolation into the text (can't check as I don't have access to my interlinear on my Smartphone).
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I believe the orthodox answer to the OP is 'what have you got?'
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Gamaliel
I approach this as follows:-
(1) Understandings of God's character and actions do and should develop. The Yahwist has Him walking in the Garden.
(2) God is passionate in His relationship with His people. In other words he cares enough to be angry. Nonetheless how many times does OT scripture insist that he relents?
(3) After the Incarnation and the example, teaching and action of Christ the usually language of getting wrathful at sinners has to change.
(4) It changes by being transposed from God to humanity. We experience God's love as wrath when we rebel. It's like trying to saw against the grain on a block of wood. We have the problem, not God.
The movement from (1) to (4) is of course, Tradition, the work of the Holy Spirit. Newman was right. Of course doctrine develops (which rather pulls the rug from beneath Dawkins as well).
[ 21. June 2012, 20:24: Message edited by: Father Gregory ]
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
(4) It changes by being transposed from God to humanity. We experience God's love as wrath when we rebel. It's like trying to saw against the grain on a block of wood. We have the problem, not God.
Wait, isn't it easier to saw against the grain of wood (crosscut) than it is to saw with the grain (ripping)? And isn't cutting against the grain generally safer and less likely to lead to wrath-like lumbermill accidents?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
We experience God's love as wrath when we rebel. It's like trying to saw against the grain on a block of wood. We have the problem, not God.
You directed this differently, toward another response, but I will bite.
Wrath is not love. Love and wrath (or hate) do have a similarity, in that both mean engagement or connection. The opposite being apathy or disregard: it is only in this there is a snippet or kernel of truth. It is not love to be angry to the point of wishing or causing death and serious harm to someone. God appears not just wrathful, but actually hateful if we allow this idea. If it stands, then God does hate at least some of us, because we seem to gain so much more wrath than love in our worldly experiences.
It seems a fine line between experiencing God's wrath in a loving way, to discussing, say, a motor accident that killed a loved one as "God had a purpose in it". Which only results in thinking God a devil.
--------------------
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
You misunderstand. God never gets angry. But we experience his love as dis-taste, dis-ease, dis-gust ... effectually the recoil of anger in our own soul. The big mistake was to attribute this to God. Precisely the opposite is the case. It is the state of the soul being out of sorts with God. You also miss my emphasis on how the supposed wrath of God got deconstructed and reconstructed through the Incarnation. You are analysing my response in a static framework. Revelation is progressive.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
You misunderstand. God never gets angry. But we experience his love as dis-taste, dis-ease, dis-gust ... effectually the recoil of anger in our own soul. The big mistake was to attribute this to God. Precisely the opposite is the case. It is the state of the soul being out of sorts with God. You also miss my emphasis on how the supposed wrath of God got deconstructed and reconstructed through the Incarnation. You are analysing my response in a static framework. Revelation is progressive.
You'd need to say more about the 'static framework' and 'progressive'; I'm not seeing what I'd understand as either from God's side. Rather, I'm seeing humans refining their thinking and getting better ideas (or at least different ones) about who God is, with God not really doing much about it or anything else. He is like a father who works away from home, shows up with nice presents and grand promises, and then heads off again without letters, emails or phone calls. He's been away for a very long time now, having passed the job off to his son, who also does very little tangible activity, with both 'maturing' it seems into dealing with things in the spiritual realm only. So in this analysis, we're saved spiritually only. Not from anything nasty on the planet.
I'm also not differentiating wrath and anger well, and I think you may be using them in different senses of something. To me, it had never seemed that wrath was compatible with God, and that projection of our own wishes, say to slaughter people wantonly in Joshua, had nothing really to do with God - or I would have to see God as an Omnipotent A-hole. But then, the main thing about God is not much activity is it? in terms of intervention, and allowing us to do whatever, including kill Jesus or any number of the rest of humanity like in Joshua if we want to. In not jumping up to save Jesus or the babies, how could we expect anything else for ourselves? So we're not saved physically, in the world, and not saved from each other.
My thinking has progressed to considering that not intervening is a type of violence and wrath, and there find the son a better example than the father on this. Is this what might be 'progressive revelation' in your thinking? In that respect, then, it could be argued that the saving is from the neglectful father who says he loves us. I'm not accepting the blameworthiness of most of humanity, most particularly the children.
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Huh? So when I post one of Luther's most famous quotes, I am supposed to quote everything he wrote, otherwise I'm engaging in selective quoting? Good grief. Martin Luther wrote a huge body of work and as he went through his spiritual evolution contradicted himself on many occasions.
And your point doesn't even begin to address mine.
Well since everybody else is now discussing God's wrath and what it means they seem to have got it.
My point was that you appeared to be deliberately omitting one of the things the NT says we are saved from. I am in complete agreement with the other three, you seemed to be leaving one out. I'm happy to believe you that this was just a coincidence. At the time you posted it I thought it was unlikely. (After all this subject has been discussed so many times.)
Right. After that short intermission let's back to arguing exactly what 'wrath' means.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
OK, Johnny. Wrath isn't a synonym for anger, but righteous indignation, basically, the same as compassion but viewed from a different perspective. To anthropomorphoze somewhat, both are a result of God seeing something which is harming His creation, and Him saying "this should not be". But, of course, when God says something, it becomes an action to bring it about. In this sense, and only this sense, the PSAers have it right. Jesus was the vessel of God's wrath on the cross, because He was the means by which God's saving action, his desire to destroy sin (and therefore, in eschatological terms, death) was enacted. But it has nothing to do with anger.
[ 22. June 2012, 06:45: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Jesus put it very simply when he said that God so loved the world that he gave his only beghotten Son so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
The truth is that Jesus has indeed made atonement for the whole world.
The truth is that none need perish because of that.
The truth is that people need to 'believe in him' in order to access that atonement that is theirs already.
Those who refuse to believe cannot have life - God will not save anyone against their will.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How many of us is that ?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
How many of us is that ?
Those who hear the message and still won't believe
--------------------
"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
Interesting, Jolly Jape and thanks for your four-points too, Fr Gregory.
Although I've never seen 'four-points' like that on an evangelistic tract (and I doubt I ever will), they aren't a million miles from where I'm at.
There's still this nagging Calvinistic legacy though ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
@Martin. How many? Only God knows that.
I'm happy to leave the whole 'election'/'effectual calling' and so on and so forth as something of a divine mystery. It might sound like a cop-out but find both the full-on Arminian approach (articulated here by Mudfrog) and the full-on Calvinistic approach to be missing the point somehow ... perhaps it is a Scholastic/Thomist thing ... I dunno ...
I don't get all het up these days about who is 'in' and who is 'out' and whether we can know we are saved and so on and so forth ... I've got enough on my plate trying to work it all out in practice ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
OK, Johnny. Wrath isn't a synonym for anger, but righteous indignation, basically, the same as compassion but viewed from a different perspective. To anthropomorphoze somewhat, both are a result of God seeing something which is harming His creation, and Him saying "this should not be". But, of course, when God says something, it becomes an action to bring it about. In this sense, and only this sense, the PSAers have it right. Jesus was the vessel of God's wrath on the cross, because He was the means by which God's saving action, his desire to destroy sin (and therefore, in eschatological terms, death) was enacted.
I appreciate the way you engage with 'orge' JJ - you are wrestling with the text of the NT.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But it has nothing to do with anger.
Nothing?
That statement is virtually Marcion. Grab a LXX and do a search for 'orge' there. Your search will be no resemblance to your paragraph above at all.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
So, what are you saying, Johnny S, that God's 'indignation' is not righteous?
I'd have thought that 'righteous indignation' was a pretty unexceptionable way of looking at what is, after all, an anthropomorphic projection to some extent.
How is that Marcionite?
The antidote to Marcion isn't a Westboro-style God as a Cosmic Fascist ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So, what are you saying, Johnny S, that God's 'indignation' is not righteous?
No, I said that, according to the many, many occasions it occurs in the OT it does have something to do with anger.
I'm not sure you can come up with JJ's definition from the NT but I'm certain that you can't from the OT.
God's righteous indignation is not only towards all the injustice in the world but also towards those who cause it. That God also shows his love and mercy towards these same people is a wonderful mystery of the gospel... but it is something that I cannot avoid in the scriptures.
To my mind most attempts to do otherwise necessitate a wholesale rejection of the OT.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
To my mind most attempts to do otherwise necessitate a wholesale rejection of the OT.
Not rejection but reinterpretation. God's anger in the OT, which appears frequently, is a way of expressing His love that made sense to an ancient people. It expresses great concern, perceived as anger the way that children perceive a parent's concern and love as anger.
We anthropomorphize this into anger the way that ancient peoples saw a storm or a drought as God's anger. When a person leaps from a cliff and falls to the ground we don't say that his leaping angered God, who therefore smashed him to the ground. It's just physics.
"Anger" as a response to sin is really just spiritual physics. The truth is that sin destroys, and that this is why it is sin. It's got nothing to do with anger.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, Johnny S, thanks for clarifying.
I can see the point you're making, but equally I can see Freddy's and Fr Gregory's. I think the progressive revelation thing is an important point he's raised.
As usual, I'm cursed with the ability to see both sides ...
Perhaps it's a problem with the English language? Does the Greek and the Hebrew have a word for God's wrath - or righteous indignation of whatever we might call it - that doesn't have the connotations of pique and personal grudge bearing etc that the term 'anger' tends to have in English?
'In your anger do not sin ...' as it were.
I am sure it is possible for God to be 'angry' in some way without being subject to human passions. There seems to be a middle way here ... somewhere ...
--------------------
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:
I'm happy to leave the whole 'election'/'effectual calling' and so on and so forth as something of a divine mystery. It might sound like a cop-out but find both the full-on Arminian approach (articulated here by Mudfrog) ...
Erm, I'm not a 'full-on Arminian'. I'm a Wesleyan.
Unlike pure Arminians, we believe in total depravity - an inability to choose without grace being applied 'preveniently.'
I would also add to that a slice of 'CS Lewis-ism'.
There is a lot more mercy involved than some would say. I could never say 'turn or burn.' But I'm definately not a universalist.
One has to have faith in Christ - or, according to Lewis, faith in one's god in the absence of the truth about Christ.
--------------------
"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 Gamaliel:
Ok, Johnny S, thanks for clarifying.
I can see the point you're making, but equally I can see Freddy's and Fr Gregory's. I think the progressive revelation thing is an important point he's raised.
As usual, I'm cursed with the ability to see both sides ...
Perhaps it's a problem with the English language? Does the Greek and the Hebrew have a word for God's wrath - or righteous indignation of whatever we might call it - that doesn't have the connotations of pique and personal grudge bearing etc that the term 'anger' tends to have in English?
'In your anger do not sin ...' as it were.
I am sure it is possible for God to be 'angry' in some way without being subject to human passions. There seems to be a middle way here ... somewhere ...
God's wrath is a constant attitude, not a flare up of emotion that is in response to something we've done. Anyway, the logical conclusion to God having no wrath is that kind of Greek stuff where the gods have no emotions, no feelings - what's the term? I can't think of it.
--------------------
"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
Ok - thanks for clarifying, Mudfrog. I am pleased to stand corrected.
I still wonder about the whole mental jostling and so on that goes on within Western Christianity (particularly in its Protestant form) between election/'pre-venient' grace and so on ...
I just wonder how necessary it all is.
Of course, the Orthodox don't 'need' it in their schema as they don't have the same understanding of Original Sin (nor did/do the Jews come to that) so the whole edifice is a complete chimera from their point-of-view, a complete irrelevance.
That doesn't mean that they don't believe that we need God's grace in order to be saved, though.
They'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that their position is not commensurate with the Wesleyan one but closer to it than either full-on Arminianism or full-on Calvinism - neither of which seem 'satisfactory' to me ...
--------------------
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
Sorry to cross-post ...
Yes, I know the term you mean, but can't think of it either. The Orthodox view of God does strike me as similar to that - the Almighty is rather immutable and rather dispassionate, certainly not given to 'passions' - but, unlike with the Greek pantheon, he is very personal.
There is certainly a 'dispassion' about much Orthodox worship - a lack of sentimentality that some of us Westerners raised on Wesleyanism or Welsh 'hwyl' might find dispiritingly distant at first ...
But I wouldn't say there was no warmth there. It's more subtle and understated.
Comparisons are onerous (and odourous ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) ) but some RC practices seem quite 'sensual' compared to the Orthodox - even though they're essentially doing the same thing.
That said, the Russians seem a lot more sentimental (and indeed more 'Welsh'!) than the rest of the Orthodox I've come across ...
There's a balance of course. Give me a Byzantine icon any day of the week rather than a High Baroque or Mannerist painting or sculpture.
Which doesn't mean that I don't appreciate a decent Wesleyan hymn, a sentimental, minor-key Welsh hymn tune or even a jaunty Salvation Army medley ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The truth is that Jesus has indeed made atonement for the whole world.
The truth is that none need perish because of that.
The truth is that people need to 'believe in him' in order to access that atonement that is theirs already.
That's only part of the biblical truth.
You have forgotten the main point of the gospels: the kingdom of God.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The truth is that Jesus has indeed made atonement for the whole world.
The truth is that none need perish because of that.
The truth is that people need to 'believe in him' in order to access that atonement that is theirs already.
That's only part of the biblical truth.
You have forgotten the main point of the gospels: the kingdom of God.
No I haven't - kingdom of God = eternal life = life in all its fullness = life in his name, etc
We don't just believe in 'going to heaven when you die, we believe in the kingdom here and now which death is powerless to destroy, and this kingdom is inherited by those who believe in Christ.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We don't just believe in 'going to heaven when you die,
Good to hear. But I'm afraid your short kerygma (taken mainly from Paul with a little bit of John) does rather give that impression.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we believe in the kingdom here and now which death is powerless to destroy, and this kingdom is inherited by those who believe in Christ.
"Inherited" is another odd term. It's like something that happens after you die.
The kingdom is "inherited" by those that believe in him and follow his commandments.
Therefore, the doing matters too.
Which, of course, is a big part of the kerygma of the Gospels.
And of course, you can do God's will and not be aware of it.
But God shows no partiality.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, the logical conclusion to God having no wrath is that kind of Greek stuff where the gods have no emotions, no feelings - what's the term? I can't think of it.
I think the term is impassibility.
But I don't think that this is the logical conclusion. We can say that God has only love, and its attendant emotions such as concern and mercy.
There are a number of reasons why wrath is inconsistent with the true nature of God. One is that since He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, nothing can happen outside of His permission.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We don't just believe in 'going to heaven when you die,
Good to hear. But I'm afraid your short kerygma (taken mainly from Paul with a little bit of John) does rather give that impression.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we believe in the kingdom here and now which death is powerless to destroy, and this kingdom is inherited by those who believe in Christ.
"Inherited" is another odd term. It's like something that happens after you die.
The kingdom is "inherited" by those that believe in him and follow his commandments.
Therefore, the doing matters too.
Which, of course, is a big part of the kerygma of the Gospels.
And of course, you can do God's will and not be aware of it.
But God shows no partiality.
No argument from me there at all ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Salvation Army doctrine states:
quote:
We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has by his suffering and death made an atonement for the whole world so that whosoever will may be saved.
We believe that repentance toward God, faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit, are necessary to salvation.
We believe that continuance in a state of salvation depends upon continued obedient faith in Christ
Faith must be expressed by actions and words. It is not enough just to believe.
--------------------
"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 Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, the logical conclusion to God having no wrath is that kind of Greek stuff where the gods have no emotions, no feelings - what's the term? I can't think of it.
I think the term is impassibility.
But I don't think that this is the logical conclusion. We can say that God has only love, and its attendant emotions such as concern and mercy.
There are a number of reasons why wrath is inconsistent with the true nature of God. One is that since He is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, nothing can happen outside of His permission.
Considered, measured and consistent wrath is a part of love. Love for all he has made means he cannot simply love that which is evil, destructive, vile and rebellious. When Jesus spoke about a millstone being tied round the neck of someone who caused a 'little one' to sin, that is wrath that comes from his love for the little ones.
I don't believe a god can be described as loving if he has no hatred of sin and despair.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Who's heard Mudfrog ?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Who's heard Mudfrog ?
who's heard? Do you mean, heard the gospel?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't believe a god can be described as loving if he has no hatred of sin and despair.
Sin and despair are indeed opposed to God, and certainly no person can be described as loving who does not hate sin and despair.
God also continually works for the eradication of sin and despair.
But everything that comes from God is for the sake of love and from love. He is incapable of hatred and wrath.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I don't believe a god can be described as loving if he has no hatred of sin and despair.
Sin and despair are indeed opposed to God, and certainly no person can be described as loving who does not hate sin and despair.
God also continually works for the eradication of sin and despair.
But everything that comes from God is for the sake of love and from love. He is incapable of hatred and wrath.
Only if you ignore the fact that the Bible speaks clearly of his wrath.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Only if you ignore the fact that the Bible speaks clearly of his wrath.
Yes, the Bible speaks clearly of His wrath. The Bible is true and is God's Word.
But the Bible speaks in parables and appearances. They need to be understood in the light of Christ's teachings.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure if Freddy is ignoring that, Mudfrog, just putting a different slant on 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
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
We anthropomorphize this into anger the way that ancient peoples saw a storm or a drought as God's anger. When a person leaps from a cliff and falls to the ground we don't say that his leaping angered God, who therefore smashed him to the ground. It's just physics.
"Anger" as a response to sin is really just spiritual physics. The truth is that sin destroys, and that this is why it is sin. It's got nothing to do with anger.
We've been here before Freddy.
Your explanation has a lot going for it but is ultimately non-trinitarian. That is to say, God is revealed to us in three persons and your explanation is completely non-personal.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
If we deny that God feels anger, what gives us the confidence - the right, even - to say that God loves, that he feels love for us?
To speak, as some do, of a god who feels no emotion, who is impassible and to talk about 'spiritual physics', is logically to speak of a god with no personality, no will, no consciousness.
It's not that far from atheism.
And as far as the charge of anthropomorphism goes well, I would rather say that we attribute emotional response to God because we are indeed created in his image and therefore reflect him, rather than creating in our own minds a god who feels just because we do, and we want to project back onto this idol our own human traits.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Why are you being disingenuous Mudfrog ? And I'm surprised at you Gamaliel.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
@Johnny, re his last post to Freddy.
I would have thought the "personal" aspect was well looked after in God the Trinity's response to the "de-personizing" effects of sin, through the incarnation event.
In fact, is the very impersonal nature of sin which is the problem. To be a person is to be able to choose. Sin robs us of that ability, and ultimately, therefore, robs us of any authentic personhood at all. That is why the scriptural writers bang on about "slavery to sin". As a slave cannot choose to do what he would like, so we are in bondage to habits, fears, shame and so on. The atonement is the repersonisation of humanity, the breaking of that bondage.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
I think you need to talk to Freddy then JJ.
I've no problem with your comments about sin. I can't square them with Freddy's "spiritual physics" though.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think you need to talk to Freddy then JJ.
I've no problem with your comments about sin. I can't square them with Freddy's "spiritual physics" though.
Well I know Swedenborgianism isn't Trinitarian in the normally accepted sense, but I can't help but think you are reading that background into Freddy's post. I do think that the ontological nature of sin is intimately related to death, and therefore anti-personal. Furthermore, the end effect of sin is a wasting away of personhood, and ultimately, eternal death, however we understand that. I do not think this requires any intervention from God to bring this about. We would not die eternally because God curses us, rather we would die eternally if God does not sustain us. I don't see that as being all that different to what Freddy wrote, whatever other theological differences we might have.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
