Ship of Fools: Saved from what (or who?)

Thread: Saved from what (or who?) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023179

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Christians often say that they are being saved (or have been saved). According to your understanding ... from what or who?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

From my self-imposed separation from the Almighty.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Like it! [Overused]

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :

So do I!

Posted by TomOfTarsus (# 3053) on :

Well that was quick! [Smile]

Posted by poileplume (# 16438) on :

Kierkegaard is it not?

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Kierkegaard is it not?

No, I think Kierkegaard is fairly harmless. It's Heidegger I want to be saved from.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

Saved from sin and it's penalty, death.

[ 20. June 2012, 17:05: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Hatless ... take a little Python

Philosopher's Song

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

And for the Americans who got blocked from Father Gregory's link: "The Philosopher's Drinking Song" from the Hollywood Bowl.

[ 20. June 2012, 17:25: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
From my self-imposed separation from the Almighty.

--Tom Clune

I like it. Shorter than my wording -- saved from the twisted goals and twisted personalities of our fallen selves. It's a process, growing to be more like Jesus in our values, goals, attitudes towards others and ourselves and God.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
From my self-imposed separation from the Almighty.
--Tom Clune

And this is called "re-birth" or "being born again."

The self that imposes that separation from the Almighty needs to die and a new self needs to take its place - a self that is not separated from Him.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Lyda-Rose

The Hollywood Bowl version with the Ozzie extras wasn't the original TV version.

Posted by WhateverTheySay (# 16598) on :

We are being saved from our sins.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And for the Americans who got blocked from Father Gregory's link: "The Philosopher's Drinking Song" from the Hollywood Bowl.

A WARNING:
None not already familiar with MP should have the Hollywood bowl performance as their introduction. Their timing and delivery were bloody awful. They were phoning it in to fans who knew the routines better than python did. Sad thing to see or hear.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Self-imposed Tom ?!

Far be it from me to be considerably liberaller than yow, but how did you or I self-imposedly separate ourselves from God ?

We're being rescued from the contingent suffering of creation.

[ 20. June 2012, 19:43: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by hatless:

quote:
Originally posted by poileplume:
Kierkegaard is it not?
No, I think Kierkegaard is fairly harmless. It's Heidegger I want to be saved from.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Martin - It's OUR choice that creates hell not God's choice. God's choice is union with Him - Heaven; but He won't choose against us and our will even if we choose against Him and His.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

What choice ? What choice did A&E have ? Only those God has freed have choice.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Martin ... you and I both know the love you have for the French lawyer of old but to me ... he is a heretic. Sorry.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Christians often say that they are being saved (or have been saved). According to your understanding ... from what or who?

If I read two ways to live (hardly the only offender the answer's pretty clear. Saved from the greatest monster I can imagine - God The Father.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

No problem with rejecting Descartes, Father Gregory, but so what ? What choice ? What IS choice ? I don't understand the term. Like freewill. Quite meaningless.

[ 20. June 2012, 20:18: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What choice ? What IS choice ? I don't understand the term. Like freewill. Quite meaningless.

That's right.

Everything that accords with our desires is what we call freedom. But the reality here is as slippery as an eel.

Thankfully it is this very slipperiness that allows God to guide the human race, rescuing it from a purely mathematical absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I HATE it when we agree Freddy [Smile]

And I'm not joking as you know !

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Martin ... you and I both know the love you have for the French lawyer of old but to me ... he is a heretic. Sorry.

I think Martin has his German namesake in mind, rather than M. Chauvin. We lack free will because of the power of sin to enslave, not because of Divine determinism, (in truth a misunderstanding of predestination). The bondage of the will, and all that.

As he writes, only those who God has freed can be truely said to have free will.

Posted by Clodsley Shovel (# 16662) on :

From being eternally punished for our sins.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Ay up Clodsley. Are there any that aren't ? In other words are there any that are going to be eternally punished for their sins ?

And Jolly Jape, coo! You got me. (Far be it from me etc, etc, but it's Descartes surely ?)

Posted by Clodsley Shovel (# 16662) on :

Well all those who don't ask God for their salvation via the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross I suppose.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Martin Luther's quote comes to mind:

quote:
If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.

We are saved from sin, death and the world.

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

I think it's also interesting (and more optimistic in my view) to think about what we are saved FOR, rather than simply what we are saved FROM.

Might we be saved in order to preach the Gospel to the poor, to heal the brokenhearted, to bring deliverance to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind and to bring freedom to the oppressed? Or to make disciples of the nations, and to be salt and light to them? To love the LORD our God and know that we are loved by Him. Or to love our neighbour as ourselves, and to love also our enemy? To lay down our lives for our friends? To take up our cross?

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Justinian

quote:
If I read two ways to live (hardly the only offender the answer's pretty clear. Saved from the greatest monster I can imagine - God The Father.

Precisely. Which is why I asked the question. The French lawyer was Calvin of course ... but I will take Luther as well.

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Christians often say that they are being saved (or have been saved). According to your understanding ... from what or who?

From death (spiritual death) brought about by sin which I see as separation from God our Creator.

Posted by Rosina (# 15589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clodsley Shovel:
From being eternally punished for our sins.

I do not believe God punishes at all - we punish ourselves by the choices we make.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
I HATE it when we agree Freddy And I'm not joking as you know !

Because you know I'm wrong, so you begin to doubt yourself! [Two face]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:

quote:
Originally posted by Clodsley Shovel:
From being eternally punished for our sins.
I do not believe God punishes at all - we punish ourselves by the choices we make.

Is there a way to phrase that so it doesn't sound like something a serial abuser or torturer would say?

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:

quote:
Originally posted by Clodsley Shovel:
From being eternally punished for our sins.
I do not believe God punishes at all - we punish ourselves by the choices we make.
Is there a way to phrase that so it doesn't sound like something a serial abuser or torturer would say?

There is no punishment at all - there are only the natural consequences inherent in the choices we make.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by Rosina:

quote:
Originally posted by Clodsley Shovel:
From being eternally punished for our sins.
I do not believe God punishes at all - we punish ourselves by the choices we make.
Is there a way to phrase that so it doesn't sound like something a serial abuser or torturer would say?

OK, I'll bite. There is an ontological identity between sin and death. Indeed, almost the definition of sin is that which brings death. God does not hate sin because it is "wrong things" but because it is that which kills those He loves, that is, us. It's not a matter of punishment; you may as well say terminal cancer punishes those who contract it. It's just not a sensible way of talking. God, in Christ breaks the power of sin/death in our lives, healing us, as it were, from what would otherwise be the normal course of the illness.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Jolly Jape: It's not a matter of punishment; you may as well say terminal cancer punishes those who contract it.

I'm afraid this doesn't work when you also stipulate an Almighty God. Such a being could just take sin or its effects away from us, and it wouldn't have to be conditional on us believing in Him/accepting Jesus as our Saviour/confessing our sins to Him/whatever.

So, logically, this line of reasoning only leaves two options:

God isn't Almighty. He's powerless to take sin or its effects away unless certain conditions are fulfilled.
God is cruel. He could take sin and death away from all of us, but He doesn't.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Well, of course, I believe He has already done that through the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus. That God is almighty does not constrain the methods that he chooses to accomplish his aims, but they must be in keeping with His own Nature. And, of course, from a personal point of view, I believe that, ultimately, all things will be reconciled.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Jolly Jape: And, of course, from a personal point of view, I believe that, ultimately, all things will be reconciled.

Does this mean that you're some kind of Universalist? I could live with that.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There is an ontological identity between sin and death. Indeed, almost the definition of sin is that which brings death. God does not hate sin because it is "wrong things" but because it is that which kills those He loves, that is, us. It's not a matter of punishment; you may as well say terminal cancer punishes those who contract it. It's just not a sensible way of talking. God, in Christ breaks the power of sin/death in our lives, healing us, as it were, from what would otherwise be the normal course of the illness.

This is so right. [Overused]

It's also what other people seem to be saying too. So why do we seem to get this simple concept here, and yet so many people struggle with it when there is a thread about hell and how unjust it is?

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Dear Freddy

As you know this is how the Orthodox account for hell as well.

I think the problem is that a straight line is drawn from "rewards and punishments" as we experience them in the personal and social order of things to heaven and hell with "God" as some sort of Uber Moral Guardian of the Universe.

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.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Martin Luther's quote comes to mind:

quote:
If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.
We are saved from sin, death and the world.

Er, the same Luther who wrote this about Galatians 3?

quote:
"For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

Paul goes on to prove from this quotation out of the Book of Deuteronomy that all men who are under the Law are under the sentence of sin, of the wrath of God, and of everlasting death.

According to Luther we are saved from sin, death, and the wrath of God.

You seem to be doing some very selective quoting there TD.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

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.

Not "coming back to Him" is the same as "our sin" isn't it? You're still left with the reward/punishment divide.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Jolly Jape: And, of course, from a personal point of view, I believe that, ultimately, all things will be reconciled.
Does this mean that you're some kind of Universalist? I could live with that.

I maintain a pious hope that God is able to accomplish that which He purposes, and what he purposes is that all people should be saved.
[Biased]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Martin Luther's quote comes to mind:

quote:
If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.
We are saved from sin, death and the world.
Er, the same Luther who wrote this about Galatians 3?

quote:
"For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

Paul goes on to prove from this quotation out of the Book of Deuteronomy that all men who are under the Law are under the sentence of sin, of the wrath of God, and of everlasting death.
According to Luther we are saved from sin, death, and the wrath of God.

You seem to be doing some very selective quoting there TD.

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.

[ 21. June 2012, 13:05: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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."

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Christians often say that they are being saved (or have been saved). According to your understanding ... from what or who?

I'd say the writers of the New Testament would say

1) The wrath to come
2) Sins
3) The devil/evil (or the powers of this present evil age)
4) Oppression ( in its various forms - including poverty and bondage )

Not necessarily in that order.

These days I suspect its more about salvation from nihilism.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

Yes, but we are not detained by someone else are we Croesos? We truly are free. I suspect that you are still working with the Calvinist model, knowingly or unknowingly. That enables you to make all sorts of clever sounding soundbytes but on closer examination they are easily unmasked for the counterfeits they truly are. Torturer or Brainwasher? No one I recognise in the Orthodox Christian lexicon.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Father Gregory. Jolly Jape. My ignorance is indeed all but invincible. CALVIN. Cauvin. (Not Chauvin JJ!) Although Descartes was also a French lawyer. And heretic.

And ... er, was that irony Father Gregory ? I couldn't have loved Calvin LESS initially. But have learned to respect him warts - Servetus - and all. He tried so hard. Close but no cigar.

And agreed, of course he was heretic, in settling for wooden predestinarianism.

The more I read about Orthodoxy the more I am beguiled I have to admit ... I sat in St. Nicholas & St. Xenophon a year or so ago during a christening, the door was open and yer know ... theoria vs. scolasticism.

Evangelicalism's only hope is post-E~ through emergence. Maybe we'll meet up some day! BEFORE post-mortem.

Hmmmmmmm ...

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

@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.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

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.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

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?

--Tom Clune

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I trust God to coerce us or force Himself on us if that would do it. And for some - many - it doubtless will.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

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 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I ditched Sola Scriptura a while back ... (or at least modified it in the cold light of day)

I'm still confused ...

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

The next step you know Gamaliel ... (I mean the means of biblical interpretation).

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

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?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

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).

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I believe the orthodox answer to the OP is 'what have you got?'

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

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 ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

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?

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

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.

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :

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.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

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.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

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.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

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 ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

How many of us is that ?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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]

@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 ...

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So, what are you saying, Johnny S, that God's 'indignation' is not righteous?

[Confused]

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 ...

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

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.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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 ...

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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 ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

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]

) 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 ...

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

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.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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]

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Who's heard Mudfrog ?

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Who's heard Mudfrog ?

who's heard? Do you mean, heard the gospel?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

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.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm not sure if Freddy is ignoring that, Mudfrog, just putting a different slant on it ...

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

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.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

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.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Why are you being disingenuous Mudfrog ? And I'm surprised at you Gamaliel.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

@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.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

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.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

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.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
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.

Thank you JJ. Yes, I don't see what my spiritual physics has to do with the New Church view of the Trinity. Jesus Christ is the one only God of heaven and earth, and Father, Son and Holy Spirit are within Him in the same sense that every person's soul, body, and actions make one person. If anything this is more personal not less.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
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.

Yes, I agree with this way of looking at it.

It's not that God is not intimately involved and present with everything that happens with every person. But His actions are continually about rescuing us from the harm caused by evil and drawing us toward Him. All "punishment" and unhappiness is the effect of whatever distances us from Him.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

[Confused]

Surprised at me, Martin?

Why, what have I done or said to surprise you?

I wasn't agreeing with Freddy necessarily, just saying that he wasn't 'ignoring' the references to God being capable of anger but putting a different slant on them to the way that Mudfrog would understand these things. What's so surprising about that?

It would be like saying that Mousethief or Fr Gregory aren't overlooking references to predestination, say, in the Bible, but talking a different stance on these things to the way that a Protestant, or more specifically, a Calvinist, would.

[Confused]

I wasn't saying any more than that.

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

In what way am I allegedly being disingenuous?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Gamaliel, my dear friend I've yet to play chess, paintballing and the violin with (eternity, OK?), the trouble is I DO agree with Freddy, cultic heterodoxarian (unless one can noun heterodox?) nay heretic that he is.

I can't find it on this thread, but I'm sure it was you, and my profuse apologies if not, BUT in all your inclusive, beguiling Orthodoxy I thought you said something like God didn't create people to damn or damned in advance but that He knew who would be damned.

As He can't possibly know that it's going to rain tomorrow without proliferating entities a tad, how does He know that even Satan himself is reprobate ? As Satan has not yet seen the outworking of mercy in the Resurrection, has not yet seen one hundred billion monkeys obtain the edict of grace ?

And if you didn't, someone did, but where ?! Hmmm ? HMMM ?

It can't have been Mudfrog or Johnny S who both preach it like Wesley but believe it like Calvin, talking of whom KEN??!

Explain!

Not you Gamaliel, Ken, and you Gamaliel!

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Martin, what the heck are you talking about?

Your posting style has a certain charm, but I'm damned ( [Big Grin]

) if I can make head nor tail of it at times ...

And by the way, I'm fairly Orthophile but not Orthodox ... not with a big O anyway ...

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Mutter, mumble. Lovely word Orthophile. Sorry. Oh, er, well, er, somebody did. Somebody on a thread just like this one and just like you. Said that.

That God knows who's damned.

And Mudfrog, my brother (and therefore Johnny S), what proportion of humanity is damned ? What TYPES of people ? Who has accountably heard THE gospel and rejected it ? I can't think of even a TYPE bar one, like Priscilla.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It might have been me, it might not have been. It's difficult to tell what I'm supposed to have said.

Your prose style sounds like James Joyce meets Dylan Thomas meets a Norwegian tourist lost in central London and using a Norwegian-English phrasebook that has been translated from the Portuguese ...

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I know you've addressed your question to Mudfrog (and therefore Johnny S), Martin, but my somewhat Orthophile answer to your question 'what proportion of humanity will be damned' is ...

I really have no idea. I am not God.

And I think a small c-calvinist answer to that question would run along similar lines, but perhaps from a different direction ...

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Tusen takk - Obrigado

Ah HAH! But you know God. You FEEL God. You are no damnationist, not even a closet one. So when you say that you are not God and it ain't your call, yeah we can all assent to that small c-calvinism and know it's safe, that we can trust God to be perfect in His [process of and final] judgement, in Sovereignty as sovereign effectual love, because we don't know who ANY MORE THAN HE CAN.

That's me by the way. The because.

We are ALL saved from our heresies AKA theologies.

[ 24. June 2012, 13:03: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It can't have been Mudfrog or Johnny S who both preach it like Wesley but believe it like Calvin... [/QB]

I've heard this sentiment before but I have no idea what it means!

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It can't have been Mudfrog or Johnny S who both preach it like Wesley but believe it like Calvin... [/QB]

I've heard this sentiment before but I have no idea what it means!

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Mutter, mumble. Lovely word Orthophile. Sorry. Oh, er, well, er, somebody did. Somebody on a thread just like this one and just like you. Said that.

That God knows who's damned.

And Mudfrog, my brother (and therefore Johnny S), what proportion of humanity is damned ? What TYPES of people ? Who has accountably heard THE gospel and rejected it ? I can't think of even a TYPE bar one, like Priscilla.

The truth is that we are all 'damned' as you put it. The wages of sin is death and there is none righteous, no not one. Jesus said those who don't believe are condemned already.

BUT atonement is made for the world and is appropriated by those who believe, as I have said.

The grey areas are judged by God in his mercy, grace and compassion.

It's not my call [Smile]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Martin - I don't know whether I am a damnationist or not - a closet one or otherwise.

I'm more than happy to leave that one to Almighty God.

Sure, I would have difficulties with a full-on universalism ... people like Hitler, Stalin, child-rapists and murderers etc etc ... but then, 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' ...

I mightn't be as full-on as Mudfrog, though, in his 'we're all doomed unless we repent' stance - although I can understand that position.

I tend to find a completely universalist position as untenable as I find a double-predestinarian one.

But it ain't my call ...

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Hmmmm. When's the mental age of responsibility, of peccability ? How grey an area is that ?

How saved are the saved and how damned are the damned ?

All are forensically damned in Adam and then damned for their own sins. So who isn't included in the blood of Christ ?

So a good Baluchi Muslim who burns his daughter alive for being raped to restore his honour isn't damned for that ? He's to be commended and rewared surely ?

And good Christian Ukrainian guards at Auschwitz who did their duty and buried the Jews in the sky, they're OK ?

But the Jew smoke burns twice ?

What do you THINK ?

Are Sodom and Gomarrah damned ?

It's none of our business ? Or shouldn't we KNOW ? Twice ?

We who are oh so saved ? On the basis of what we say we believe ?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And Mudfrog, my brother (and therefore Johnny S), what proportion of humanity is damned ?

17.67%

(I'm not sure if you round up or down though.)

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Nice one, I smiled out loud. Snorted actually.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Nice one, I smiled out loud. Snorted actually.

I have no trouble explaining that God knows who is damned before they are even born.

It doesn't affect human freedom one wit.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

The key is that "damned" doesn't mean what you think it means.

The proof is that, assuming He is not only good but also omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, He would not have set something in motion that would fail to get the results He desires.

I'm sure that most of us understand that uncertainty only applies to small samples. Once the samples are large ones the results are always predictable within certain limits.

But the fact that God knows that my behavior is likely to vary from the norm doesn't bother me in the least. I take comfort in the fact that I don't know this, and that since He is a good God the overall project (that is, creation) is sure to turn out well.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

NT Wright's new book says God is saving creation (including people).

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
NT Wright's new book says God is saving creation (including people).

As does Romans 8

Why do we have to wait until a theologian says it before we believe it?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

I believed that people were part of creation before Wright told me.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

So the Apostle Paul wasnt' a theologian then, Mudfrog?

[Biased]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

As ever Freddy, I have to agree [Frown]

Apart from any hint that God knows because He's seen the indeterminate, unhappened future from 'outside'. Outside Himself.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I believed that people were part of creation before Wright told me.

HERETIC!!!!

--Tom Clune

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
NT Wright's new book says God is saving creation (including people).
As does Romans 8

Kinda.

Not entirely sure what Paul is on about there. Sounds somewhat Martinesque. (Tho Martin is often easier to understand).

Wright seems to say we are saved from decay and corruption.

Very much inline with his "resurrection on earth in the age to come" routine.

Tho one wonders why God created a decayed and corrupted world in the first place ......

Oh no wait...WE somehow did that right? Completely changed the ontological nature of all of creation ( and ourselves ) by eating that blasted bit of fruit.

[Roll Eyes]

[ 26. June 2012, 13:56: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by NJA (# 13022) on :

"Saved" means delivered. In the Old testament they were delivered from oppressive situations. In the New Testament people are delivered from a mortal, unfulfilling existance, without God, to the opposite.

This is achieved by us receiving God's Spirit, His Life:
"he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Tit 3:6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ" (Titus 3:5-6)

- as detailed in scripture - Acts 2:4, 33; 10:44-46, John 3:8.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0