|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: God's wrath and indignation against us
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I always have problems with the "God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son" phrase. That "chopped up god" thought is helpful there. I think there has been too much comparison with Abraham being made. It's a pity it wasn't originally expressed that "God so loved the world that He gave Himself.."
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The traditional BCP confession is lacking in the sense that it makes sin strictly about God and the individual penitent. The modern confessions bring in sin against neighbour as well as to God.
It also neglects sin against oneself. One can sin against one's self by beating up on one's person too harshly.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: If you start with a chopped up God, substitutionary atonement will look like abuse. If you start with the Trinity it begins to look like love.
I guess it might look a bit like love if you allow for the fact that God as a whole suffered on the Cross (Patripassionism). I'd still have a couple of uses with it though.
If by "God" you mean God the Father then, strictly speaking, he didn't suffer on the cross. However, that does not mean that "God" didn't suffer on the cross because God, in the person of the Son, did suffer on the cross. The Father and the Son are co-equal in dignity and deity but not the same in person or purpose, yet without compromising their unity within the trinity.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: If by "God" you mean God the Father then, strictly speaking, he didn't suffer on the cross. However, that does not mean that "God" didn't suffer on the cross because God, in the person of the Son, did suffer on the cross. The Father and the Son are co-equal in dignity and deity but not the same in person or purpose, yet without compromising their unity within the trinity.
That's what you believe. I prefer to believe that the whole Trinitarian God suffered on the Cross: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I always have problems with the "God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son" phrase. That "chopped up god" thought is helpful there. I think there has been too much comparison with Abraham being made. It's a pity it wasn't originally expressed that "God so loved the world that He gave Himself.."
...in the person of his Son with whom he is eternally one.
That would do it for me! And it squares with Jesus' high priestly prayer later in John's gospel too. Oh we'll, perhaps we can tell John when we meet him, if he's open to critical feedback, that is.
[ 12. June 2013, 16:23: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: If by "God" you mean God the Father then, strictly speaking, he didn't suffer on the cross. However, that does not mean that "God" didn't suffer on the cross because God, in the person of the Son, did suffer on the cross. The Father and the Son are co-equal in dignity and deity but not the same in person or purpose, yet without compromising their unity within the trinity.
That's what you believe.
You're right, that is what I believe. But that doesn't settle the issue. It just means that we need to establish whose beliefs are correct.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: It just means that we need to establish whose beliefs are correct.
Why?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: It just means that we need to establish whose beliefs are correct.
Why?
I'm trying to show you that the statement, "that's what you believe" when made in relation to a different view doesn't actually settle anything. If, on the other hand, you're trying to say that you don't want talk about it anymore, that's fine!
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
To the person who enquiries about what I am comparing CW to, I recommend a copy of the Book of Common Prayer which many liberals have burned and buried in embarrassment at the fact that it demonstrates our utter helplessness before the throne of Grace. The whole Communion sequenee - Invitation to Confession "Ye that do truly and earnesdly repent you of your sins" to General Confession "We acknowledge and Brazil our manifold sins and wickedness ... provoking most justly thy wrath" to Absolution "all them that with hearty repentance and true faith" to Comfortable Words "If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father". It's so beautiful in the way it demonstrates God's love for us even though we are sinners.
Compare that to the text in Common Worship, where one of the Confessions doesn't even require us to say we are sorry, or even worse the 1979 American liturgical service book, where the Absolution doesn't even require repentance.
Thank you. I was the one who first referred to the BCP, of course, so naturally I am well aware what is in that book. I asked for clarification because the only hint you were throwing out about which Church, service, liturgical tradition you were complaining about was a mention of 'Common Worship'.
Strangely enough, many of the liberals I know, including myself, are very fond of the BCP, though the 16thc expression of penitence is arguably outdated and unhelpful in modern times, when plain vernacular English of the times we actually live in is a little more useful to those of us of a less self-flagellatory nature.
16thc prose is very quaint and poetic, of course, but it does rather over-egg the pudding. To say nothing of it being, well, er, 16th century. Theologically the Anglican Church is a little wider now, than it was then. Thank God.
I'm afraid I'm not up to date with all the CofE Common Worship confessions - there are quite a few. Is there a reason why you are choosing to focus on that one that you mention, while choosing to ignore, say, the one that plainly states we are sinners who have sinned in thought, word or deed etc?
Naturally, I know nothing about any American Prayer Book. You didn't mention it until now as being part of your complaint.
As I aske before, are you worried that too many people are coming to church and not feeling like the 'miserable offenders' they apparently should be? Not enough blood on the carpet?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
daronmedway: I'm trying to show you that the statement, "that's what you believe" when made in relation to a different view doesn't actually settle anything. If, on the other hand, you're trying to say that you don't want talk about it anymore, that's fine!
No it doesn't settle anything, that wasn't my purpose. I have no problem with stopping to talk here, PSA has been discussed enough on the Ship already.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Isn't it true that orge, the word commonly translated as "wrath", is better translated as something nearer to "outrage". It's like the flip side of compassion, a situation that demands action from the outraged party. The point isn't so much that God is angry, rather that His loving nature is such that He has to do something to remedy the sin that is destroying the lives of those who he created and loves. He is "angry" at sin in the same way that an oncologist is "angry" at cancer - not because it is somehow an affront to His own moral dignity, but because it is the very thing that is preventing His creation from being what He intends it to be.
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Isn't it true that orge, the word commonly translated as "wrath", is better translated as something nearer to "outrage". It's like the flip side of compassion, a situation that demands action from the outraged party. The point isn't so much that God is angry, rather that His loving nature is such that He has to do something to remedy the sin that is destroying the lives of those who he created and loves. He is "angry" at sin in the same way that an oncologist is "angry" at cancer - not because it is somehow an affront to His own moral dignity, but because it is the very thing that is preventing His creation from being what He intends it to be.
That - or something like to it - would be close to the ancient understanding of the church fathers, ISTM. It is a consequence of his love. It is not that God is angry like a human is angry, which would be a mutable God.
[ 12. June 2013, 19:54: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Strictly, patripassionism is when the Father is seen as suffering on the Cross (in the terms of the Athanasian creed, confounding the persons) but then not to allow that God suffers when the second person of the Trinity dies on the cross is surely (in Athanasian creed terms) to divide the substance.
Possibly, but the idea that God suffers is technically the heresy of Theopaschitism. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jolly Jape: Isn't it true that orge, the word commonly translated as "wrath", is better translated as something nearer to "outrage". It's like the flip side of compassion, a situation that demands action from the outraged party. The point isn't so much that God is angry, rather that His loving nature is such that He has to do something to remedy the sin that is destroying the lives of those who he created and loves. He is "angry" at sin in the same way that an oncologist is "angry" at cancer - not because it is somehow an affront to His own moral dignity, but because it is the very thing that is preventing His creation from being what He intends it to be.
I could live with that.
quote:
Ricardus: Possibly, but the idea that God suffers is technically the heresy of Theopaschitism.
Finally the right word! Thank you for that.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
See, Le Roc - you are an ultra-traditionalist after all! None of this modernist error nonsense!
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Ricardus: Possibly, but the idea that God suffers is technically the heresy of Theopaschitism.
Finally the right word! Thank you for that.
Interesting link. But the unfortunate fact is that condemnations of both Theopaschitism and Patripassianism invariably import Greek philosophical assumptions about God without much scriptural support. This article, for example, argues that God cannot suffer because, if God were to suffer, God could not redeem us from suffering. But at the same time we know that it's a heresy to state that Christ did not die, because if Christ did not die, Christ could not redeem us from death. So God can't redeem us from suffering if God suffers, but God can only redeem us from death if God dies?
On the other hand, there are plenty of passages a straightforward reading of which suggest that God is more than capable of changing his mind.
It's possible, by the way, to thread the needle a little, by arguing that God the Father did not suffer on the cross, per se (that would be conflating the Father and the Son), but that the Father suffered while the Son was on the cross, compassionately (i.e., sharing his suffering).
As to the original topic, maybe Indifferently should move to the United States and become an Episcopalian. If one walks into any early-morning Rite I Eucharist, one will inevitably hear either:
quote:
Most merciful God,
we confess that we have sinned against thee
in thought, word, and deed,
by what we have done,
and by what we have left undone.
We have not loved thee with our whole heart;
we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
We are truly sorry and we earnestly repent.
For the sake of thy Son Jesus Christ,
have mercy on us and forgive us;
that we may delight in thy will,
and walk in thy ways,
to the glory of thy Name. Amen.
or
quote:
Almighty and most merciful father,
we have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep,
we have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts,
we have offended against thy holy laws,
we have left undone those things which we ought to have done,
and we have done those things which we ought not to have done.
But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us,
spare thou those who confess their faults,
restore thou those who are penitent,
according to thy promises declared unto mankind
in Christ Jesus our Lord;
and grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake,
that we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life,
to the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.
If you go to confession, you might even get to use the classic line "But I have squandered the inheritance of your saints, and have wandered far in a land that is waste."
Or do these not count because they don't say we're miserable, horrible, ugly, terrible, atrocious sinners? I'm honestly not really sure what's seen as lacking, here.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Bostonman wrote: quote:
On the other hand, there are plenty of passages a straightforward reading of which suggest that God is more than capable of changing his mind.
Very true. The question is "what does it mean?" What does it mean to say that the ancient of days, incorporeal, who dwells in light inaccessible in eternity, has "a mind?" Let alone what does "changing your mind" mean in the concept of eternity?
The standard rabbinical response to such questionings would be, I understand, to point out that all matters concerning God that use physical language are obviously metaphors. Metaphors for what exactly would need to take account of the narrative in which the expression was embedded.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
daronmedway: I'm trying to show you that the statement, "that's what you believe" when made in relation to a different view doesn't actually settle anything. If, on the other hand, you're trying to say that you don't want talk about it anymore, that's fine!
No it doesn't settle anything, that wasn't my purpose. I have no problem with stopping to talk here, PSA has been discussed enough on the Ship already.
That seems an odd way to approach a tangent about suffering within the Trinity on a thread about God's wrath.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Honest Ron Bacardi: See, Le Roc - you are an ultra-traditionalist after all! None of this modernist error nonsense!
That's no problem! I'll just savour this heresy in a reclinging chair then with a good glass of wine ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
On a more serious note: this isn't the first time that I found 'liberal' thoughts quite traditional, and some 'orthodox' ones rather modern.
quote:
Bostonman: This article, for example, argues that God cannot suffer because, if God were to suffer, God could not redeem us from suffering.
Way too much logic applied to God in this article for my taste.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Ricardus: Possibly, but the idea that God suffers is technically the heresy of Theopaschitism.
Finally the right word! Thank you for that.
Interesting link. But the unfortunate fact is that condemnations of both Theopaschitism and Patripassianism invariably import Greek philosophical assumptions about God without much scriptural support. This article, for example, argues that God cannot suffer because, if God were to suffer, God could not redeem us from suffering. But at the same time we know that it's a heresy to state that Christ did not die, because if Christ did not die, Christ could not redeem us from death. So God can't redeem us from suffering if God suffers, but God can only redeem us from death if God dies?
On the other hand, there are plenty of passages a straightforward reading of which suggest that God is more than capable of changing his mind.
It's possible, by the way, to thread the needle a little, by arguing that God the Father did not suffer on the cross, per se (that would be conflating the Father and the Son), but that the Father suffered while the Son was on the cross, compassionately (i.e., sharing his suffering).
As to the original topic, maybe Indifferently should move to the United States and become an Episcopalian. If one walks into any early-morning Rite I Eucharist, one will inevitably hear either:
quote:
Most merciful God,
we confess that we have sinned against thee
in thought, word, and deed,
by what we have done,
and by what we have left undone.
We have not loved thee with our whole heart;
we have not loved our neighbors as ourselves.
We are truly sorry and we earnestly repent.
For the sake of thy Son Jesus Christ,
have mercy on us and forgive us;
that we may delight in thy will,
and walk in thy ways,
to the glory of thy Name. Amen.
or
quote:
Almighty and most merciful father,
we have erred and strayed from thy ways like lost sheep,
we have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts,
we have offended against thy holy laws,
we have left undone those things which we ought to have done,
and we have done those things which we ought not to have done.
But thou, O Lord, have mercy upon us,
spare thou those who confess their faults,
restore thou those who are penitent,
according to thy promises declared unto mankind
in Christ Jesus our Lord;
and grant, O most merciful Father, for his sake,
that we may hereafter live a godly, righteous, and sober life,
to the glory of thy holy Name. Amen.
If you go to confession, you might even get to use the classic line "But I have squandered the inheritance of your saints, and have wandered far in a land that is waste."
Or do these not count because they don't say we're miserable, horrible, ugly, terrible, atrocious sinners? I'm honestly not really sure what's seen as lacking, here.
Watered down rubbish. Where is the acknowledgment that we are miserable offenders with no health in us? What is removed is much more interesting than what is retained.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Watered down rubbish. Where is the acknowledgment that we are miserable offenders with no health in us? What is removed is much more interesting than what is retained.
Once again, why is it so important to you that that is included? Because you're aware that you're a miserable offender with no health in you, or you feel you need reminding that other people are, or some other reason? Your reason for annoyance would help understand where you're coming from.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
How on Earth do those confessions not constitute repenting of our sins, though? Why is the exact wording of the BCP necessary? Has the BCP been declared Scripture? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Also, you have not responded to my comments that liturgical innovation is usually not done by liberals, but by evangelicals.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Evensong: What more can the bastard want?
Someone being sacrificed on the Cross.
No she didn't.
We did that.
He did. Jesus was given up to death in accordance with God's definite plan and foreknowledge. God planned the perfect sacrifice of his Son by crucifixion. It wasn't an accident.
Oh God knew what would happen when God became man. That wasn't hard to figure out. Same thing happened to the prophets. How much more difficult would the God/Man me?
But she did not plan for Jesus' death. To plan for the death of a human being is abusive and cruel.
Jesus the man did not want to die. It's quite obvious from the anguish in the Garden of Gethsemane.
If you don't think Jesus was fully human, and it was just God the Son dying on the cross then no, it's not abusive because God gave godself as the second person of the trinity.
The only way you can make penal substitution palatable is to succumb to the heresy of modalism.
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Indifferently
Shipmate
# 17517
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Watered down rubbish. Where is the acknowledgment that we are miserable offenders with no health in us? What is removed is much more interesting than what is retained.
Once again, why is it so important to you that that is included? Because you're aware that you're a miserable offender with no health in you, or you feel you need reminding that other people are, or some other reason? Your reason for annoyance would help understand where you're coming from.
Amateur psychoanalysis isn't your strong suit. I think it is imperalive for every Christian to remind himself of his utter helpless wretchedness. This then brings the Cross to its full beauty, and brings the believer to hearty repentance and true faith. By God's grace, of course.
Posts: 288 | From: United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Isn't it true that orge, the word commonly translated as "wrath", is better translated as something nearer to "outrage". It's like the flip side of compassion, a situation that demands action from the outraged party. The point isn't so much that God is angry, rather that His loving nature is such that He has to do something to remedy the sin that is destroying the lives of those who he created and loves. He is "angry" at sin in the same way that an oncologist is "angry" at cancer - not because it is somehow an affront to His own moral dignity, but because it is the very thing that is preventing His creation from being what He intends it to be.
This is dynamite! Do you know if it's a commonly held view, that the word translated 'wrath' really means something closer to 'outrage'? Or is it a somewhat controversial understanding of the word, disputed by most Greek scholars?
If the meaning can be reasonably argued to be 'outrage' then doesn't it have big implications for some core conservative evangelical doctrines? I'm thinking of penal substitutionary atonement in particular, but also perhaps original sin, eternal hell and so on...? I'm tired and thinking aloud before I go to bed, so if someone else wants to develop - or debunk - this idea then go ahead!
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
He did. Jesus was given up to death in accordance with God's definite plan and foreknowledge. God planned the perfect sacrifice of his Son by crucifixion. It wasn't an accident.
And another thing.
If you think of it your way, the paraphrase would be:
God is angry with sin and decides (after thousands of years) to do something about it herself. So God becomes a man, kills godself and then no longer feels angry, sin is no more and all are forgiven.
I mean come on. WTF kind of ridiculous thinking is that?
It also implies God needs something to forgive us. Which is some other kind of heresy. God can do whatever the eff God wants and does not need to kill godself or a man to do it.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Evensong: God is angry with sin and decides (after thousands of years) to do something about it herself. So God becomes a man, kills godself and then no longer feels angry, sin is no more and all are forgiven.
Ridiculous yes, but at the same time killing yourself and then ressurecting would be the perfect form of anger management. I wish I could do it sometimes
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Watered down rubbish. Where is the acknowledgment that we are miserable offenders with no health in us? What is removed is much more interesting than what is retained.
Once again, why is it so important to you that that is included? Because you're aware that you're a miserable offender with no health in you, or you feel you need reminding that other people are, or some other reason? Your reason for annoyance would help understand where you're coming from.
Amateur psychoanalysis isn't your strong suit. I think it is imperalive for every Christian to remind himself of his utter helpless wretchedness. This then brings the Cross to its full beauty, and brings the believer to hearty repentance and true faith. By God's grace, of course.
Of course it is important for Christians to repent of their sins, but do not call unworthy what God has made worthy. Why is the phrase 'miserable offenders with no health in us' so crucial? Why is a paraphrase not good enough?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Isn't it true that orge, the word commonly translated as "wrath", is better translated as something nearer to "outrage". It's like the flip side of compassion, a situation that demands action from the outraged party. The point isn't so much that God is angry, rather that His loving nature is such that He has to do something to remedy the sin that is destroying the lives of those who he created and loves. He is "angry" at sin in the same way that an oncologist is "angry" at cancer - not because it is somehow an affront to His own moral dignity, but because it is the very thing that is preventing His creation from being what He intends it to be.
This is dynamite! Do you know if it's a commonly held view, that the word translated 'wrath' really means something closer to 'outrage'? Or is it a somewhat controversial understanding of the word, disputed by most Greek scholars?
If the meaning can be reasonably argued to be 'outrage' then doesn't it have big implications for some core conservative evangelical doctrines? I'm thinking of penal substitutionary atonement in particular, but also perhaps original sin, eternal hell and so on...? I'm tired and thinking aloud before I go to bed, so if someone else wants to develop - or debunk - this idea then go ahead!
It certainly has an impact on how In Christ Alone is viewed
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
I fail to see how God being "outraged" is significantly different in its implications from him being "wrathful".
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I fail to see how God being "outraged" is significantly different in its implications from him being "wrathful".
For me, 'wrathful' strongly implies anger at us; i.e. we are the target of God's wrath. But outrage is far easier to depersonalise, as with Jolly Jape's great analogy upthread about a doctor being outraged at cancer.
So if 'outrage' is a valid translation of the Greek word then I think that undercuts doctrines like penal substitutionary atonement, which I've thought for a while now seems to jar with what else I read in the Bible about God's character. People say, though, that God's wrath is clearly in the Bible so we have to understand Jesus' death as turning aside God's anger against us. But if it's 'God's outrage' instead of 'God's anger' then I think it becomes easier to set aside PSA. Which is something I'd quite like to do...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Amateur psychoanalysis isn't your strong suit. I think it is imperalive for every Christian to remind himself of his utter helpless wretchedness. This then brings the Cross to its full beauty, and brings the believer to hearty repentance and true faith. By God's grace, of course.
Good thing I wasn't attempting it - thanks for answering my question anyhow; all I wanted to know was where you were coming from. I'm glad your motives are charitable.
I can see why this is turning into a PSA discussion. For me, I'm very aware of my helpless wretchedness, and I'm not sure how constant constant reminding of that helps. If there's something I need to hear regularly, it's that God gives a crap about me despite myself.
This is what I meant about liturgy not being able to encompass all theology. There's overlap, but they have different emphases. The liturgy tells us what we need to be hearing regularly. It doesn't dispute that we're wretched sinners, and does mention it, but doesn't linger on it. It's God's Grace and forgiveness that are rightly lingered upon. Those are the things that we really struggle to comprehend and remember, that we need reminding of.
In addition, I'd be careful not to conflate our wretchedness with God's Wrath. As others have said, the former isn't in dispute; the latter is (or at least, certain understandings of it). Hence the PSA discussion.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Either way, it is still a form of anthropomorphism.
Does anyone really believe that God has smoke flowing from his ears, face turning red, and feet stamping in heaven, when it comes to describing his anger at sin?
I think that is why notions of divine wrath are unappealing. It is not b/c people don't realize that there are some things that are clearly evil: child abuse, genocide, greed, etc. It's that people don't believe that God is exactly like us when it comes to emotions.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Watered down rubbish. Where is the acknowledgment that we are miserable offenders with no health in us? What is removed is much more interesting than what is retained.
Once again, why is it so important to you that that is included? Because you're aware that you're a miserable offender with no health in you, or you feel you need reminding that other people are, or some other reason? Your reason for annoyance would help understand where you're coming from.
Indifferently's posts may consist mostly of sneering, but I think he has a point here.
The second of the quoted prayers is basically the traditional BCP confession, minus the lines 'and there is no health in us' and '[us] miserable offenders'. Which suggests a conscious decision to remove them, either:
a. Because the Episcopal church no longer holds to the theology it expresses, i.e. total depravity. This may be a good or a bad thing but it is certainly significant;
b. Because the words 'health' and 'miserable' have changed in meaning - but if that were the case, why leave 'devices' untouched?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cosmic dance
Shipmate
# 14025
|
Posted
[/qb][/QUOTE] But if it's 'God's outrage' instead of 'God's anger' then I think it becomes easier to set aside PSA. Which is something I'd quite like to do... [/QB][/QUOTE]
Go for it, SCK...you can do it, just take the plunge. I'm cheering for you.
--------------------
"No method, no teacher, no guru..." Van Morrison.
Posts: 233 | From: godzone | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
My views are these:
God does express wrath - it's not just a natural consequence we feel, it's God's own feeling directed towards us.
God has an opinion! I am sick to death odfpeople goimng on about God being loving and kind. He is therse things, above all else of course! But wrath is included in his love because it's an outworking of that love.
If I saw my wife, whom I love dearly, being beaten by my oldest son, whom I also love dearly, do you think I would use my love for them both as an excuse to feel no anger, no sense of indignation, no need to respond?
Any god who declares himself to be good and loving and then has no opinion on the evils men do, no requirements for them to change their behaviour, no justice to mete out to the impenitent, is neither good nor loving.
As for Jesus not wanting to die that was only for that brief moment in Gethsemane that was totally resolved in the words, Yet not my will, but thine be done.' The rest of the Gospel nattarive shows jesus 'setting his face towards Jerusalem,' and teaching the disciples that 'The Son of Man must suffer many things,' There is no way that Jesus was anything less than aware and willing as far as the cross was concerned. His own words were 'no one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord.'
Father, Son and Spirit suffered at Calvary, but only Jesus the Son died on the cross. Jesus, in the cry of derelction suffered the weight of sin and the absence, the loss of the father's presence. The Father, likewise, suffered the loss of his Son. The Father was not the sacrifice, Jesus was. But the pain of suffering was real. God (the Father) was in Christ but he was not 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
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Because the Episcopal church no longer holds to the theology it expresses, i.e. total depravity. This may be a good or a bad thing but it is certainly significant;
That's news to me. When has Anglicanism ever accepted "total depravity"? My understanding is that the Reformers in the CofE used the words "very far gone" in Article IX of the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion as opposed to "completely gone" to indicate their disagreement with total depravity.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
God has an opinion! I am sick to death odfpeople goimng on about God being loving and kind. He is therse things, above all else of course! But wrath is included in his love because it's an outworking of that love.
If I saw my wife, whom I love dearly, being beaten by my oldest son, whom I also love dearly, do you think I would use my love for them both as an excuse to feel no anger, no sense of indignation, no need to respond?
Any god who declares himself to be good and loving and then has no opinion on the evils men do, no requirements for them to change their behaviour, no justice to mete out to the impenitent, is neither good nor loving.
Yeah but - the doctrine of PSA states that God has wrath / anger against us, which can only be turned aside by our acceptance of Jesus' death in our place. Furthermore, it's usually accompanied by the idea that if we don't accept Jesus' death in our place then we'll spend eternity in hell, because God's anger cannot simply be overlooked or trumped by God's love.
But if 'orge' doesn't mean 'wrath' then all this is pretty significantly undermined, ISTM; also universalism and other ways of understanding the atonement become easier to justify biblically.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
The OP quotes the Anglican BCP confession speaks of "God's wrath and indignation". Outrage is a closer synonym to indignation, I think. Could it be that wrath is an active animosity to evil, whereas indignation is a personal response to the injustice that evil precipitates?
Whatever it means,, it doesn't deal with idea that God's indignation (at least according Anglican liturgy) is against people, not just what sin has done to those people. God is indignant against us, according to he liturgy.
Furthermore, it might be worth considering if "wrath" and "indignation" are being used to describe different - but related - aspects of God's settled attitude toward evil and sin and those people who commit evil and sin, or whether they are simply being used to say he same thing twice as a form of rhetorical amplification.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Because the Episcopal church no longer holds to the theology it expresses, i.e. total depravity. This may be a good or a bad thing but it is certainly significant;
That's news to me. When has Anglicanism ever accepted "total depravity"? My understanding is that the Reformers in the CofE used the words "very far gone" in Article IX of the Thirty Nine Articles of Religion as opposed to "completely gone" to indicate their disagreement with total depravity.
Maybe 'total depravity' was the wrong term. But I interpret 'no health in us' as expressing conformity to:
quote:
Article IX: ... man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is of his own nature inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit.
Article X: The condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith; and calling upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing [i.e. preceding] us.
Article XIII: Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ; neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School-authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea rather, for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin.
My general point is that omitting a thing but keeping everything else implies a rejection of that thing, which in turn seems to me to imply a theological change.
[ 13. June 2013, 08:26: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
Total depravity does not mean completely evil. Total depravity is the belief that sin has - to some expent - affected every aspect of human nature.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If I saw my wife, whom I love dearly, being beaten by my oldest son, whom I also love dearly, do you think I would use my love for them both as an excuse to feel no anger, no sense of indignation, no need to respond?
Of course not. You'd just realise murdering yourself (God the Son) or an innocent victim (Jesus the man) would do nothing to correct that injustice and stop you being rightfully angry.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As for Jesus not wanting to die that was only for that brief moment in Gethsemane that was totally resolved in the words, Yet not my will, but thine be done.' The rest of the Gospel nattarive shows jesus 'setting his face towards Jerusalem,' and teaching the disciples that 'The Son of Man must suffer many things,' There is no way that Jesus was anything less than aware and willing as far as the cross was concerned. His own words were 'no one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord.'
Which bit of not my will are you having trouble reading and comprehending? It was not Jesus' will to suffer and die. He just knew it was part of what had to be done to proclaim the Kingdom of God - for that is what he came to do, that was his calling.
quote:
Luke 4.43:
But he said to them, ‘I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose.’
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Total depravity does not mean completely evil. Total depravity is the belief that sin has - to some expent - affected every aspect of human nature.
I've been round the block enough times to know that is true. The problem is that in vernacular usage "completely corrupt" is more or less what it now means. And reading the interwebs on people who talk about such things, it seems pretty clear that it's what many people understand by it now - except of course the theologically informed.
Concerning "no health in us", there is a similar issue. The Latin for health is salus, a word which is cognate with salvus. meaning safe or out of danger. From which we get a whole raft of English words such as salve, save, salvage and of course salvation. It's saying we can't save ourselves. I'm not even sure that is remotely controversial, but in its original context it seems to sound like a crushing personal disapproval, whereas the focus of the original was surely more ontological.
Re orge - most people probably are aware that Greek has several different words to use for love, each referring to a different sort of love - affective love, erotic love etc. Orge is the other way around - whereas in English there are lots of words we could use to translate it, whatever word we eventually choose is going to suffer from a higher degree of precision than the original carried. It certainly can mean wrath etc., but it also means indignation, impulse, mental bent and a load of other things. If you wanted to translate it more accurately - if more verbosely - something like "sufficiently worked up to do something about it" might be better.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Re orge - most people probably are aware that Greek has several different words to use for love, each referring to a different sort of love - affective love, erotic love etc. Orge is the other way around - whereas in English there are lots of words we could use to translate it, whatever word we eventually choose is going to suffer from a higher degree of precision than the original carried. It certainly can mean wrath etc., but it also means indignation, impulse, mental bent and a load of other things. If you wanted to translate it more accurately - if more verbosely - something like "sufficiently worked up to do something about it" might be better.
That's a great point, thanks. The complexity and sheer oddness of translating between two very different languages, eh?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My general point is that omitting a thing but keeping everything else implies a rejection of that thing, which in turn seems to me to imply a theological change.
Perhaps. But it could just as easily imply a change in theological emphasis, or a change to cater for a corresponding change in cultural application. The theology underneath it all hasn't necessarily changed.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If I saw my wife, whom I love dearly, being beaten by my oldest son, whom I also love dearly, do you think I would use my love for them both as an excuse to feel no anger, no sense of indignation, no need to respond?
Of course not. You'd just realise murdering yourself (God the Son) or an innocent victim (Jesus the man) would do nothing to correct that injustice and stop you being rightfully angry.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
As for Jesus not wanting to die that was only for that brief moment in Gethsemane that was totally resolved in the words, Yet not my will, but thine be done.' The rest of the Gospel nattarive shows jesus 'setting his face towards Jerusalem,' and teaching the disciples that 'The Son of Man must suffer many things,' There is no way that Jesus was anything less than aware and willing as far as the cross was concerned. His own words were 'no one takes my life from me, I lay it down of my own accord.'
Which bit of not my will are you having trouble reading and comprehending? It was not Jesus' will to suffer and die. He just knew it was part of what had to be done to proclaim the Kingdom of God - for that is what he came to do, that was his calling.
quote:
Luke 4.43:
But he said to them, ‘I must proclaim the good news of the kingdom of God to the other cities also; for I was sent for this purpose.’
You can't quote Luke 4:43 in support of an argument in way which is repugnant Christ's stated purpose recorded in Mark 10:45!
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
quote:
Mark 10:45 says: For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Come on Evensong. This is playschool stuff.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
You learnt wrong in playschool.
There is absolutely no mention of to whom a ransom is paid in the New Testament. There is absolutely no mention of punishment or averting God's wrath in the New Testament.
There are mulitple images of God redeeming and liberating the Israelites from slavery and oppression in the Old Testament with no "payment" or "punishment" or averting his wrath when God rescued the Israelites from Egypt. God chooses to liberate his people through Grace.
The whole punishment bullshit is pure biblical eisegesis from a creative lens of the suffering servant and Paul's substitutionary atonement ideas.
Those that promulgate PSA say they are biblical. Far from it. They seem to entirely ignore the theology of the Gospels which is about the Kingdom of God.
They also make the resurrection redundant.
Way to miss the point!! ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
They succeed only in placating their own fear through a false rationalisation.
[ 13. June 2013, 10:49: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I wasn't quoting Mark 10:45 in support of any particulr argument or theory of atonement. I was quoting Mark 10:45 to refute your assertion that Christ did not come to give his life willingly, or willingly come to give his life.
[ 13. June 2013, 10:53: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Oooooh! Is this thread now dancing around the Monothelitist heresy, which states that Christ had only one will?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
