Ricardus: Possibly, but the idea that God suffers is technically the heresy of Theopaschitism.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Because being cast out of the Garden of Eden, being cursed with painful things, then obliterated in a flood, then scattered to the ends of the earth with different language was considered punishment enough to assuage God's holy wrath against us sinners.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Can anyone tell me why we have removed any reference to God's holy wrath against sinners from modern liturgy, both a scriptural and patristic belief?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Or 'culture' as we godless call it. Re the rest of your list - natural disasters are the tariff for a viable planet; pain is a necessary survival mechanism, and an idea of a not-currently-present perfection good for the poetry industry.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Because being cast out of the Garden of Eden, being cursed with painful things, then obliterated in a flood, then scattered to the ends of the earth with different language
quote:That's pretty good. The Jesus of the gospels seemed to be much much more hacked off by indifference, pontificating and pettifoggery over religious rules than anything else. That stuff made him pretty wrathful.
Originally posted by Firenze:
Turn your attention to what we are responsible for, and set about fixing that.
quote:When you say "sinners", are you talking about other people, yourself, or both?
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Can anyone tell me why we have removed any reference to God's holy wrath against sinners from modern liturgy, both a scriptural and patristic belief?
quote:True enough. That is if we leave out the captivity in Egypt, the captivity in Babylon, the first and second razing of the temple, life under the Romans and that thug, Herod. That's just for starters. What am I leaving out?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Because being cast out of the Garden of Eden, being cursed with painful things, then obliterated in a flood, then scattered to the ends of the earth with different language was considered punishment enough to assuage God's holy wrath against us sinners.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Can anyone tell me why we have removed any reference to God's holy wrath against sinners from modern liturgy, both a scriptural and patristic belief?
quote:That we turn and be saved?
What more can the bastard want?
quote:Interesting question.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
The Confession and Absolution is so watered down in Common Worship that it almost feels like we ignorer our sin and its place next to the Atonement altogenher.
quote:Because there's not much about it in the Gospel. True, some of the Fathers got a bit hot under the toga - too much desert sun, probably - but as a dominating theme in Christianity, you really have to go to hard-line Calvinism or some of the more lurid manifestations of counter-reformation Catholicism.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Can anyone tell me why we have removed any reference to God's holy wrath against sinners from modern liturgy, both a scriptural and patristic belief?
quote:Someone being sacrificed on the Cross.
Evensong: What more can the bastard want?
quote:Thousands of years of punishment does not appear to be working.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:True enough. That is if we leave out the captivity in Egypt, the captivity in Babylon, the first and second razing of the temple, life under the Romans and that thug, Herod. That's just for starters. What am I leaving out?
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Because being cast out of the Garden of Eden, being cursed with painful things, then obliterated in a flood, then scattered to the ends of the earth with different language was considered punishment enough to assuage God's holy wrath against us sinners.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Can anyone tell me why we have removed any reference to God's holy wrath against sinners from modern liturgy, both a scriptural and patristic belief?quote:That we turn and be saved?
What more can the bastard want?
quote:No she didn't.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Someone being sacrificed on the Cross.
Evensong: What more can the bastard want?
quote:No wonder I hate poetry.
Originally posted by Firenze:
... pain is a necessary survival mechanism, and an idea of a not-currently-present perfection good for the poetry industry.
quote:Karl, that is a standard trope in my preaching: God is not an abusive father with anger management issues. Rather Christ is the divine physician. Sometimes the cauterization of the wound can be painful.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Hmmm - have to add that to my Images of God list - God the Abusive Parent.
quote:Which is fine, but you earlier gave me the image of a parent chasing a child around with a big stick, beating them and insisting that the child is making them do it.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:Karl, that is a standard trope in my preaching: God is not an abusive father with anger management issues. Rather Christ is the divine physician. Sometimes the cauterization of the wound can be painful.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Hmmm - have to add that to my Images of God list - God the Abusive Parent.
quote:The same way that a child beaten enough by an abusive parent eventually becomes acquiescent.
Originally posted by Porridge:
How effectively does God's wrath and anger toward sinners turn those self-same sinners toward God?
quote:Miaow! That's pretty cutting, but - hmm - maybe you have a point...
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:The same way that a child beaten enough by an abusive parent eventually becomes acquiescent.
Originally posted by Porridge:
How effectively does God's wrath and anger toward sinners turn those self-same sinners toward God?
There's more than a hint of Stockholm Syndrome in some expressions of Christianity.
quote:(Psst, I agree with you. In my first post, I was going along with your sarcasm.)
Evensong:quote:No she didn't.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Someone being sacrificed on the Cross.
Evensong: What more can the bastard want?
We did that.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:The same way that a child beaten enough by an abusive parent eventually becomes acquiescent.
Originally posted by Porridge:
How effectively does God's wrath and anger toward sinners turn those self-same sinners toward God?
quote:On the other hand, traditional liturgy says little on corporate sin against the environment or economic sin, for example. Isn't this a way in which traditional liturgy is lacking?
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Can anyone tell me why we have removed any reference to God's holy wrath against sinners from modern liturgy, both a scriptural and patristic belief? Could it be yet another attempt to exalt man before God?
The Confession and Absolution is so watered down in Common Worship that it almost feels like we ignorer our sin and its place next to the Atonement altogenher.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:No she didn't.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Someone being sacrificed on the Cross.
Evensong: What more can the bastard want?
We did that.
quote:Or our superegos.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
In answer to your question Evensong, in answer to Indifferently, that we stop projecting our ids on Him.
quote:Sad but true. Mine own not excepted.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's more than a hint of Stockholm Syndrome in some expressions of Christianity.
quote:That's what you believe. I don't. And I wouldn't want to have anything to do with someone (or Someone) who'd plan on killing his own child, whatever good reasons he might have for it.
daronmedway: He did. Jesus was given up to death in accordance with God's definite plan and foreknowledge. God [i]planned/[i] the perfect sacrifice of his Son by crucifixion. It wasn't an accident.
quote:exaggerate absurdly much?
Originally posted by Indifferently:
which many liberals have burned and buried in embarrassment
quote:Can you provide evidence of 'liberals' (define liberal) burning copies of the BCP? Liturgical innovation is not unique to liberals, as conservative evangelical Anglicans show.
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.
quote:I think it's possible that the point of view you express here is rooted in a sub-Trinitarian relational anthropomorphism. Them's big words for saying that ain't how it works 'cos that ain't who God is.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:That's what you believe. I don't. And I wouldn't want to have anything to do with someone (or Someone) who'd plan on killing his own child, whatever good reasons he might have for it.
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.
quote:Substitutionary atonement not being the only atonement theory is surely not a new idea?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:I think it's possible that the point of view you express here is rooted in a sub-Trinitarian relational anthropomorphism. Them's big words for saying that ain't how it works 'cos that ain't who God is.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:That's what you believe. I don't. And I wouldn't want to have anything to do with someone (or Someone) who'd plan on killing his own child, whatever good reasons he might have for it.
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.
quote:It was metaphorical.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Can you provide evidence of 'liberals' (define liberal) burning copies of the BCP? Liturgical innovation is not unique to liberals, as conservative evangelical Anglicans show.
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.
quote:Another one to add to my collection of heresies!
daronmedway: I think it's possible that the point of view you express here is rooted in a sub-Trinitarian relational anthropomorphism.
quote:The particular motive you ascribe to our metaphorical burning of the book is still offensively bullshit.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:It was metaphorical.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Can you provide evidence of 'liberals' (define liberal) burning copies of the BCP? Liturgical innovation is not unique to liberals, as conservative evangelical Anglicans show.
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.
quote:Might be true though. 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.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Another one to add to my collection of heresies!
daronmedway: I think it's possible that the point of view you express here is rooted in a sub-Trinitarian relational anthropomorphism.
Sub-Trinitarian relational anthropomorphism. Now, there is one that has the right ring of pompousity to it.
quote:Was the thing about liberals hating the BCP a metaphor too? Because a lot of AffCath folks love a BCP service, myself included. Meanwhile many conservative evangelical Anglicans will never have gone to a BCP service in their life.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:It was metaphorical.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:Can you provide evidence of 'liberals' (define liberal) burning copies of the BCP? Liturgical innovation is not unique to liberals, as conservative evangelical Anglicans show.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:You could start off by spelling patripassianism correctly.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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. "'Tis mystery all, th'immortal dies: who can explore his strange design?"
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote: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.
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.
quote:But, but ... people told me.
Dinghy Sailor: Then you could admit that its definition as a heresy is pretty sketchy, being grounded in a particular philosophy rather than in the bible.
quote: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.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote: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.
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.
quote:That's what you believe. I prefer to believe that the whole Trinitarian God suffered on the Cross: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
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.
quote:...in the person of his Son with whom he is eternally one.
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.."
quote: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.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:That's what you believe.
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.
quote:Why?
daronmedway: It just means that we need to establish whose beliefs are correct.
quote: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!
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Why?
daronmedway: It just means that we need to establish whose beliefs are correct.
quote: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'.
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.
quote: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.
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!
quote: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.
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.
quote:Possibly, but the idea that God suffers is technically the heresy of Theopaschitism.
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.
quote:I could live with that.
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.
quote:Finally the right word! Thank you for that.
Ricardus: Possibly, but the idea that God suffers is technically the heresy of Theopaschitism.
quote: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?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Finally the right word! Thank you for that.
Ricardus: Possibly, but the idea that God suffers is technically the heresy of Theopaschitism.
quote:or
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.
quote: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."
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote:That seems an odd way to approach a tangent about suffering within the Trinity on a thread about God's wrath.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote: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.
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!
quote:That's no problem! I'll just savour this heresy in a reclinging chair then with a good glass of wine
Honest Ron Bacardi: See, Le Roc - you are an ultra-traditionalist after all! None of this modernist error nonsense!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:Way too much logic applied to God in this article for my taste.
Bostonman: This article, for example, argues that God cannot suffer because, if God were to suffer, God could not redeem us from suffering.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote: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?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Finally the right word! Thank you for that.
Ricardus: Possibly, but the idea that God suffers is technically the heresy of Theopaschitism.
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:or
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.
quote: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."
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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote: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?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:No she didn't.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Someone being sacrificed on the Cross.
Evensong: What more can the bastard want?
We did that.
quote: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.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote:And another thing.
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.
quote: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
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.
quote: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?
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote: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.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote: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.
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.
quote:It certainly has an impact on how In Christ Alone is viewed
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote: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?
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.
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!
quote: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.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I fail to see how God being "outraged" is significantly different in its implications from him being "wrathful".
quote: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.
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.
quote:Indifferently's posts may consist mostly of sneering, but I think he has a point here.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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;
quote: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.
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.
quote:Maybe 'total depravity' was the wrong term. But I interpret 'no health in us' as expressing conformity to:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote: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.
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;
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.'
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.’
quote: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.
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.
quote:That's a great point, thanks. The complexity and sheer oddness of translating between two very different languages, eh?
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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!
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.'
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.’
quote:Come on Evensong. This is playschool stuff.
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.”
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:I agree with your sentiment, though I'm not sure it's right to be fed up with people going on about God's Love (though I guess that was hyperbole).
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.
quote:I love Ship of Fools. So rarely in my real life do I get the chance to take part in discussions like this and learn about things like monothelitism / dyothelitism.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Oooooh! Is this thread now dancing around the Monothelitist heresy, which states that Christ had only one will?
![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif)
to you all! (This is genuine, btw, not some clever mockery or teasing.)
quote:He did not give it willingly. The Garden of Gethsemane proves that.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
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.
quote:Only when Mary isn't nearby.
Anglican_Brat: 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?
quote:He didn't?
Ricardus: Oooooh! Is this thread now dancing around the Monothelitist heresy, which states that Christ had only one will?
quote:Maybe you want to write the letters PSA on a paper and burn it or bury it into the ground? (I've heard that these ceremonies can be helpful
South Coast Kevin: 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...
)quote:Reading about that particular dispute was the point where I gave up trying to understand Christological controversies ...
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:He didn't?
Ricardus: Oooooh! Is this thread now dancing around the Monothelitist heresy, which states that Christ had only one will?
quote:I can understand that. I have the feeling that I'm going to have another heresy to write on my bedpost here...
Ricardus: Reading about that particular dispute was the point where I gave up trying to understand Christological controversies ...
quote:
Originally posted by cosmic dance:
quote:Go for it, SCK...you can do it, just take the plunge. I'm cheering for you.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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...
quote:Thanks, both of you! I'll try to find a suitable 12-Step programme to help with my struggle...
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Maybe you want to write the letters PSA on a paper and burn it or bury it into the ground? (I've heard that these ceremonies can be helpful
quote:http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/m/monty_python/oh_lord_please_dont_burn_us.html
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
There is a great deal of beauty in the old BCP, but in the modern context there is something about it that leans towards what today would be considered a pathological obsession (a bit like the same pathological obsession some have that it should be the BCP and nothing else) in willingly wallowing in an unbalanced penance. It's a Tudor thing, I get that, a product of its time; but for today it is in grave danger of being a parody, beautiful and all as it is. It reminds me a little of that Monty Python sketch where God appears and asks them all to quit grovelling cos it's making him nauseous.
There is also the question of whether it is a true and fair representation of the Christian Gospel. If the balance is wrongly weighted towards the penitential aspect, does that cloud the truly good aspect of forgiveness and of a resurrected life?
quote:It is not pathological to suggest that the Church of England, in order that it make prayer in common with itself should have a commonly enforced liturgy, and then to suggest that this be a legitimate version of the Book of Common Prayer. No two parishes are the same, and as a result we have lost our common identity.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
(a bit like the same pathological obsession some have that it should be the BCP and nothing else)
quote:I heard there is one that is called Ship of Fools
South Coast Kevin: I'll try to find a suitable 12-Step programme to help with my struggle...
quote:As I see it, our identity as Christians is in Christ - so whenever we gather together to praise God and encourage, build up, and challenge one another, we do so in common cause with all other Christians worldwide. For me, that doesn't need us all to use the same pattern of worship.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
No two parishes are the same, and as a result we have lost our common identity.
quote:I seriously doubt that a common identity is something that the Church of England has ever had.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote:It is not pathological to suggest that the Church of England, in order that it make prayer in common with itself should have a commonly enforced liturgy, and then to suggest that this be a legitimate version of the Book of Common Prayer. No two parishes are the same, and as a result we have lost our common identity.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
(a bit like the same pathological obsession some have that it should be the BCP and nothing else)
quote:I thought it had to do with GIN and elderly ladies serving coffee after the service?
daronmedway: I seriously doubt that a common identity is something that the Church of England has ever had.
quote:Gin is a little divisive I think, but the old ladies are truly ubiquitous.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I thought it had to do with GIN and elderly ladies serving coffee after the service?
daronmedway: I seriously doubt that a common identity is something that the Church of England has ever had.
quote:Maybe -but i regularly conduct choral evensong at the university church here and am faced with a congregation comparison of quite a few in their late teens who have never been to church before but like the music and are supporting their mates in the choir.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
quote: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.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote: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.
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.
quote:But their 'coffee' needs scare quotes in order to represent the true Anglican tradition.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Gin is a little divisive I think, but the old ladies are truly ubiquitous.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I thought it had to do with GIN and elderly ladies serving coffee after the service?
daronmedway: I seriously doubt that a common identity is something that the Church of England has ever had.
quote:I forgot about that!
Angloid: But their 'coffee' needs scare quotes in order to represent the true Anglican tradition.
See, lots of things that CofE congregations have in common.
quote:I would submit that the crucifixion wasn't an accident, but not a penal substitutionary sacrifice/atonement either. The crucifixion was inevitable, in that this is how a majority sample of humanity and the powers that be react to the Divine Love. But that Love is stronger than the hate, fear, and murderousness of humanity and its politicians. The atonement is one of Christus Victor, and this understanding of the atonement subsumes the sacrifice on Calvary into itself.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Might be true though. 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.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Another one to add to my collection of heresies!
daronmedway: I think it's possible that the point of view you express here is rooted in a sub-Trinitarian relational anthropomorphism.
Sub-Trinitarian relational anthropomorphism. Now, there is one that has the right ring of pompousity to it.
quote:Well, there is an original point of view. I'm not sure if we have a name for this heresy
Crœsos: Isn't there a case to be made that the Crucifixion was an act of self-defense? If we take the story at face value, God's stated intention was to inflict eternal torture on all humanity for the crimes of a distant ancestress. Moreover, getting Him before He got us is reputed to have saved us from this fate.
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I think Cranmer was apt to confuse the nature of God with that of Tudor monarchs.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:I'm delighted that you have seen the light at last Croesos. Our master and lord the great Cthulhu will have much fun on his return as poor sad humanity screams and begs to die rather than THAT. I'll get the membership papers to you by return courier.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't there a case to be made that the Crucifixion was an act of self-defense? If we take the story at face value, God's stated intention was to inflict eternal torture on all humanity for the crimes of a distant ancestress. Moreover, getting Him before He got us is reputed to have saved us from this fate.
quote:I don't know. Zeus seems pretty reliable to me. I mean sure, you never know exactly what kind of thing he was going to change into in pursuit of his latest seduction, but Zeus-sees-pretty-mortal has a result so reliable you could set your sundial by it.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is a common misunderstanding; to say that God has no 'passions' doesn't mean that he has no strong feelings - what it means is that he is not externally controlled by those feelings. A Greek or Latin theologian talking about divine 'passions' meant the kind of thing you see in the legends of Zeus - only has to see a pretty girl (or boy) and he's lost all his self-control and starts planning deceptions and abductions so that he can have sex with said girl or boy. Other pagan gods show similar problems, meaning that instead of being a rock you can rely on they are seriously unstable and unreliable.
quote:I think this is helpful. The idea that God has no passions is not the same as saying that he is without affection. Surely, the impassibility of God is the idea that he is not prone acting rashly in an ecstasy of rage or to succumbing to the paralysis of grief. The impassibility of God surely must mean that he is not prone to being "controlled" by his passions in the same way as human beings. That doesn't mean that he doesn't experience anger, grief or joy. It simply means that those affections are always under his sovereign control and that he acts upon them only in accordance with his eternal rectitude.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Sorry to be going back a bit but I noticed the following some days back;
'I mean, the literal meaning of wrath is anger. But the Thirty-Nine Articles tell me God is without passions, i.e. emotions. Therefore God's wrath must be a metaphor for something else. But what?'
This is a common misunderstanding; to say that God has no 'passions' doesn't mean that he has no strong feelings - what it means is that he is not externally controlled by those feelings. A Greek or Latin theologian talking about divine 'passions' meant the kind of thing you see in the legends of Zeus - only has to see a pretty girl (or boy) and he's lost all his self-control and starts planning deceptions and abductions so that he can have sex with said girl or boy. Other pagan gods show similar problems, meaning that instead of being a rock you can rely on they are seriously unstable and unreliable.
quote:So for you, wrath and indignation are the only two reasons to respond? That's what you're saying here.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
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?
quote:I'm not sure that such a God experiences passions is a way that is meaningful for us to use talk of passion?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The idea that God has no passions is not the same as saying that he is without affection. Surely, the impassibility of God is the idea that he is not prone acting rashly in an ecstasy of rage or to succumbing to the paralysis of grief. The impassibility of God surely must mean that he is not prone to being "controlled" by his passions in the same way as human beings. That doesn't mean that he doesn't experience anger, grief or joy. It simply means that those affections are always under his sovereign control and that he acts upon them only in accordance with his eternal rectitude.
quote:Setting aside the pathology revealed in such a claim, I have doubts about its effectiveness as an evangelical tool. Does anyone really imagine that language like this will bring people closer to Jesus? Perhaps in Girolamo Savonarola's day, or Jonathan Edwards', though the emotional conversions brought about by such things as "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" generally did not last very long.
Watered down rubbish. Where is the acknowledgment that we are miserable offenders with no health in us?
quote:Indeed.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I think Cranmer was apt to confuse the nature of God with that of Tudor monarchs.
quote:But I think there is more to it than that.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is a common misunderstanding; to say that God has no 'passions' doesn't mean that he has no strong feelings - what it means is that he is not externally controlled by those feelings.
quote:Dude, I said none of that. 'Twas the Mudfrog!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So for you, wrath and indignation are the only two reasons to respond? That's what you're saying here.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
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?
quote:Apologies! bad code. bad.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:Dude, I said none of that. 'Twas the Mudfrog!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So for you, wrath and indignation are the only two reasons to respond? That's what you're saying here.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
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?
quote:With regard to (a) I think it's a mistake to assume that the physical elements of the human emotional experience evidence that God doesn't know comparable emotions. On the contrary, it would suggest God has chosen to create psychosomatic beings in his image and likeness. It would Gnostic to suggest otherwise, I think.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:But I think there is more to it than that.
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
This is a common misunderstanding; to say that God has no 'passions' doesn't mean that he has no strong feelings - what it means is that he is not externally controlled by those feelings.
a. On a fundamental level, our experience of feelings is ultimately determined by glands and nerves and neurochemicals and other things that God doesn't have. So to that extent God can't feel because He has nothing to feel with.
b. Also feelings take place in time. We feel sad at one moment in response to one situation and then the situation changes and we feel something else. But God is outside time and all times are Now to Him. So if He were to feel anything, He would feel the same at all times, which is alien to the way we experience emotions.
None of which is to disparage language that attributes emotions to God, but I think the implication of (a) and (b) is that any emotions attributed to God must be metaphors for something else.
quote:
Originally posted by Indifferently:
Can anyone tell me why we have removed any reference to God's holy wrath against sinners from modern liturgy, both a scriptural and patristic belief? Could it be yet another attempt to exalt man before God?
The Confession and Absolution is so watered down in Common Worship that it almost feels like we ignorer our sin and its place next to the Atonement altogenher.
quote:But it isn't our emotions that put us in God's image and likeness. Animals have emotions too.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
With regard to (a) I think it's a mistake to assume that the physical elements of the human emotional experience evidence that God doesn't know comparable emotions. On the contrary, it would suggest God has chosen to create psychosomatic beings in his image and likeness. It would Gnostic to suggest otherwise, I think.
quote:Well, technically it was a willing act, because Jesus conformed his will to the will of the Father; so he did indeed willingly give his life. It wasn't ripped from him reluctantly against his will, if you see what I mean.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:He did not give it willingly. The Garden of Gethsemane proves that.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
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.
quote:But you cannot take one verse or even two verses. You have to take them all - including 'The Son of man came not to be served but to serve and give his life a ransom for many.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.'
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.’
quote:No, my love is a good reason to respond!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:So for you, wrath and indignation are the only two reasons to respond? That's what you're saying here.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
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?
quote:Can I recommend reading the thread?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But you cannot take one verse or even two verses. You have to take them all - including 'The Son of man came not to be served but to serve and give his life a ransom for many.
quote:I don't think that's right. John the Baptist spoke of it.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
One notes, however, that Jesus’ anger is not directed against humanity in general but to specific instances of inhumanity: the loveless righteousness of the pharisees and the greed of the money changers. ISTM that the notion of God’s wrath directed against humankind is Pauline.
quote:And Jesus himself mentions it as well.
John said to the crowds coming out to be baptised by him, ‘You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Luke 3:7
quote:and
How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. Luke 21:32
quote:
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on them. John 3:36
quote:The last time I went to the dentist, I went willingly. No one tied me hand and foot and took me there. I drove myself, in my car, on my own. I did it willingly. Was I scared? Yes I was. Why? Because I don't like pain.
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:Well, technically it was a willing act, because Jesus conformed his will to the will of the Father; so he did indeed willingly give his life. It wasn't ripped from him reluctantly against his will, if you see what I mean.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:He did not give it willingly. The Garden of Gethsemane proves that.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
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.
What happened in Gethsemane (I think) was his awareness that it was going to smart, and wouldn't it be lovely if there was an alternative! As he said to the blokes falling asleep, the spirit was willing but the flesh was weak - or in his case perhaps naturally shrinking from the task ahead. But the will was still there.
quote:Gethsemane was the point at which Jesus wrestled most with the fear of death and the joy of being the willingly saviour, and won. He did it willingly.
For the joy that was set before him {Jesus} endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
quote:I think this is where the concept of religious affections comes into play. By religious affection I mean the experiential response, which includes emotions, to certain spiritual concepts, ideas, propositions, illustrations, parables etc.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:But it isn't our emotions that put us in God's image and likeness. Animals have emotions too.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
With regard to (a) I think it's a mistake to assume that the physical elements of the human emotional experience evidence that God doesn't know comparable emotions. On the contrary, it would suggest God has chosen to create psychosomatic beings in his image and likeness. It would Gnostic to suggest otherwise, I think.
quote:Well, that brings us back to a properly Trinitarian theology inasmuch as a theology which doesn't of necessity include the eternal Son, Jesus, isn't a truly Christian theology. Hence, my point about notions of divine child abuse being explained by sub-Trinitiarian theologies in which God is artificially chopped up into separate beings.
I think it's a mistake to try to imagine the divine psychology. If we want a God we can empathise with, we have Jesus.
quote:I think you're right about John 3:36. It's not Jesus speaking. But it's not John the Baptist either. It's actually John, the author of the gospel. John's gospel is well known for the way voices blend into one another. So, good point!
Originally posted by Kwesi:
See last post by Daronmedway
Are you convinced that your biblical references rebut my argument, Daronmedway?
Luke 3:7. As you recognise, these are the words not of Jesus but John the Baptist; and, as I’m sure you are aware, in Matthew 3:7 they are addressed specifically to the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Luke 21:23 is not a reference to the wrath of God against humankind but the wrath of the Romans leading to the destruction of Jerusalem. Note also in the same verse that to the extent is might been seen as God’s punishment it is directed towards “this people” , the Jewish citizens of Jerusalem, not humankind.
John 3: 36. Again, these are words spoken by John the Baptist.
I may be wrong in my suggestion that Jesus and Paul had differing views about human nature and God’s attitude to it, but I don’t think your references prove me mistaken.
quote:I usually compare this with people like Martin Luther King for example.
Anselmina: Well, technically it was a willing act, because Jesus conformed his will to the will of the Father; so he did indeed willingly give his life. It wasn't ripped from him reluctantly against his will, if you see what I mean.
quote:I don't think that analogy works. Jesus is explicitly recorded as having said that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). And this passage from John's gospel, Chapter 10 says it very clearly indeed:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I usually compare this with people like Martin Luther King for example.
Anselmina: Well, technically it was a willing act, because Jesus conformed his will to the will of the Father; so he did indeed willingly give his life. It wasn't ripped from him reluctantly against his will, if you see what I mean.
MLK didn't want to die. Yet he knew that his activities could lead to his death. He didn't seek death. But he couldn't abandon his people either.
quote:
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.’
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Daronmedway, thank you for your fair reply. I was not seeking to deny that God was incapable of being angry or wrathful, as far as one can articulate his nature. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that a being who is the quintessence of love could be indifferent to the harmful consequences of sinful actions. That is, however, not to agree with Paul’s argument in the first two chapter of Romans that God is wrathful towards humans as a species.
Originally posted by Kwesi
Are you convinced that your biblical references rebut my argument, Daronmedway?
Luke 3:7. As you recognise, these are the words not of Jesus but John the Baptist; and, as I’m sure you are aware, in Matthew 3:7 they are addressed specifically to the Pharisees and Sadducees.
Luke 21:23 is not a reference to the wrath of God against humankind but the wrath of the Romans leading to the destruction of Jerusalem. Note also in the same verse that to the extent is might been seen as God’s punishment it is directed towards “this people” , the Jewish citizens of Jerusalem, not humankind.
John 3: 36. Again, these are words spoken by John the Baptist.
I may be wrong in my suggestion that Jesus and Paul had differing views about human nature and God’s attitude to it, but I don’t think your references prove me mistaken.
Daronmedway. I think you're right about John 3:36. It's not Jesus speaking. But it's not John the Baptist either. It's actually John, the author of the gospel. John's gospel is well known for the way voices blend into one another. So, good point!
As for your point about Jerusalem, I grant Jesus is saying that God's wrath is directed at a particular group of people at a particular point in history via the agency of a pagan Empire (as it is in so often in the OT), but it is nonetheless God's wrath.
quote:Oh, I don't know. He could have sensed that His death was inevitable, and have reminisced about it in this way.
daronmedway: I don't think that analogy works. Jesus is explicitly recorded as having said that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). And this passage from John's gospel, Chapter 10 says it very clearly indeed:
quote:I think the analogy of MLK works perfectly.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:I don't think that analogy works. Jesus is explicitly recorded as having said that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). And this passage from John's gospel, Chapter 10 says it very clearly indeed:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I usually compare this with people like Martin Luther King for example.
Anselmina: Well, technically it was a willing act, because Jesus conformed his will to the will of the Father; so he did indeed willingly give his life. It wasn't ripped from him reluctantly against his will, if you see what I mean.
MLK didn't want to die. Yet he knew that his activities could lead to his death. He didn't seek death. But he couldn't abandon his people either.
quote:
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.’
quote:this point if view , to have any integrity, must surely come with the following caveat: you won't quote scripture in support of your arguments.
Originally posted by deano:
Also there is enough stuff in the Bible that is clearly wrong.
The mere men who wrote it down must have misunderstood.
quote:Tosh. That assumes that all of scripture is of equal character and worth; that if one part is wrong the whole of it is worthless. Besides, in discussion with someone who does believe that the Bible is inerrant, what better source to quote from? If I were arguing with a devout Muslim, it would be appropriate to quote the Qu'ran, even though I don't believe it be accurate.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:this point if view , to have any integrity, must surely come with the following caveat: you won't quote scripture in support of your arguments.
Originally posted by deano:
Also there is enough stuff in the Bible that is clearly wrong.
The mere men who wrote it down must have misunderstood.
quote:Is someone going to respond to Martin PC's questions?
So tell me about the wrath of God. What is it? Is it something I should be bothered about? Does it make a difference?
And what does Jesus have to do with it? I know He's going to fix Marc and Jason and Drew and Sunil and Lizzie and Tony and Syria. Where does this wrath come in ?
quote:I'll have a go.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Martin PCquote:Is someone going to respond to Martin PC's questions?
So tell me about the wrath of God. What is it? Is it something I should be bothered about? Does it make a difference?
And what does Jesus have to do with it? I know He's going to fix Marc and Jason and Drew and Sunil and Lizzie and Tony and Syria. Where does this wrath come in ?
quote:I not talking about the ranson idea, Evensong. I'm talking about your assertion that Jesus didn't die willingly, whereas Mark 10:45 and John 10:17-18 both have Jesus saying that he did die willingly, especially John 10:17-18. What do you have to say about that? Here are his words again. And here are my questions:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:I think the analogy of MLK works perfectly.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:I don't think that analogy works. Jesus is explicitly recorded as having said that he had come to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). And this passage from John's gospel, Chapter 10 says it very clearly indeed:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I usually compare this with people like Martin Luther King for example.
Anselmina: Well, technically it was a willing act, because Jesus conformed his will to the will of the Father; so he did indeed willingly give his life. It wasn't ripped from him reluctantly against his will, if you see what I mean.
MLK didn't want to die. Yet he knew that his activities could lead to his death. He didn't seek death. But he couldn't abandon his people either.
quote:
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.’
Neither the ransom idea nor the John passage contradict that.
quote:
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.’
quote:
Matthew 20.18:
‘See, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be handed over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death;
quote:But its irrelevant anyways. His death happened. You just want to interpret it your way with no reference to the Gospels.
Matthew 23.37:
‘Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you were not willing!
quote:Fair enough.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The decision making faculty of the soul is called the will, from which we get the word willing. Jesus was willing to die. He died willingly.
quote:Ok. But I'm in the middle of making dinner. Give me a bit.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Now, how about answering my questions in my previous post one at a time from the text?
quote:So when he told Pilate that 'my kingdom is not of this world', he meant what?
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Jesus came here to serve as "King of the Jews." He was in the bloodline at a time when they needed leadership.
quote:1) For what reason does Jesus say the Father loves Him? (v.17)
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. John 10:17-18
quote:I'd be happy to discuss these verses in pretty much any translation you want.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What a singular interpretation of a bad translation.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Kwesi,
Perhaps you'd like todo the same bible study as Evensong. Here it is:
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life – only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father. John 10:17-18
quote:According to Jesus the reason the Father loves him is that he lays down his life - only to take it up again.
1) For what reason does Jesus say the Father loves Him? (v.17)
quote:No. According to Jesus, no-one is taking his life from him.
2) According to Jesus, is anyone taking his life from him? (v18b)
quote:Jesus says that he lays his life down of his own accord.
3) By whose accord does Jesus say his life is laid down?
quote:According to Jesus he has the authority to lay his life down - only to take it up again.
4) By whose authority does Jesus die and rise again? (v18c)
quote:According to Jesus the Father commanded him to lay his life down and to take it up again.
5) Who commanded Jesus to lay his life down and take it up again? (v.18c)
quote:Yes, Jesus had the authority to lay his life down - only to rise again - of his own accord. He did this in direct obedience to the command of his Father.
6) Did Jesus obey that command of his own accord (i.e. willingly)?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Evensong:
But you cannot take one verse or even two verses. You have to take them all - including 'The Son of man came not to be served but to serve and give his life a ransom for many.
quote:Our lives--and God's Dominion--are full of contradictions and paradoxes.
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.
quote:The writer of John's gospel uses the term to lay down one's life to describe dying willingly as an act of loving sacrifice. In John 10:11 Jesus says, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
@daronmedway: Laying down one's life isn't quite the same thing as dying. "Laying down" something can refer the act of offering it as a gift, e.g. to a monarch, to see if it is accepted.
quote:To suggest that this merely means to live sacrificially is to do an injustice the the whole structure of the narrative, which is all about Jesus being in absolute sovereign control of his destiny, including his death.
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
quote:Well yes. The gospel of John's depiction of Jesus is quite different from the Synoptics in this regard. In the gospel of John Jesus is almost superhuman. From memory, that's one of the reasons it almost didn't make the canon.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:The writer of John's gospel uses the term to lay down one's life to describe dying willingly as an act of loving sacrifice. In John 10:11 Jesus says, "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep."
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
@daronmedway: Laying down one's life isn't quite the same thing as dying. "Laying down" something can refer the act of offering it as a gift, e.g. to a monarch, to see if it is accepted.
The language of "laying down" and "taking up" one's life in John 10:17 is about death and resurrection, not merely living sacrificially. The whole trajectory of the book is towards the death of Jesus. That's also the meaning of Jesus in John 15:13,
quote:To suggest that this merely means to live sacrificially is to do an injustice the the whole structure of the narrative, which is all about Jesus being in absolute sovereign control of his destiny, including his death.
Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
quote:Because those poor wretches are afraid they're gonna burn, burn, burn, burn in the fires of Hell.
Originally posted by Porridge:
How effectively does God's wrath and anger toward sinners turn those self-same sinners toward God?
quote:On the contrary. It is precisely the idea of "God" murdering "Jesus" that I utterly reject, as I clearly said right at the beginning of the thread. Such notions are deeply sub-trinitarian and give rise to precisely the sort of charges of divine child abuse that some on this thread have raised. To be honest, it seems to me that the objections to substitutionary theories of the atonement, couched in terms such as "God" killed "jesus', are actually rooted in Arianism
That's why you don't have any trouble with the idea that God murdered Jesus. Because Jesus to you wasn't really human was he?
Straight modalism.
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Now, how about answering those questions of mine, from the text?
quote:1) Because he lays down his life for his sheep
Originally posted by daronmedway:
1) Why does the Father love Jesus? (v.17)
2) Who can take Jesus' life from him? (v18b)
3) By whose accord was Jesus' life laid down?
4) Who commanded Jesus to lay his life down and take it up again? (v.18c)
5) Did Jesus obey that command of his own accord (i.e. willingly)?
quote:Uniquely? Really? I'm the only person to hold that view of John 10:18?
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
daronmedway, you uniquely interpolate and in fact misinterpret that God the Father commanded Jesus to sacrifice Himself.
quote:I don't know if we agree. You just keep restating your opinions and not engaging with mine.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Evensong, my point is this:
The Father commanded Jesus to lay his life down - only to take it up again. By faith, Jesus knew he would rise. Jesus, therefore, had the authority to lay his life down. This he did of his own accord in willing obedience to the command of his Father.
Now, if we can agree that this is what John 10:17-18 is saying we can move on to discuss why the Father might command such a thing.
quote:This is the nub of the issue, and an avenue well worth exploring. FWIW, I agree that there are obvious statements in John's gospel concerning the Father's motives for ordaining the death of his Son. I think a closer reading of the big picture narrative would help in that regard.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
It seems to me that the question is where the necessity of Jesus' death originated. There is a big difference between the Father saying "I need you to die for what has happened in the past (i.e. to atone for human sin)" and "I need you to let them kill you for the sake of what will then happen in the future (i.e. his enemies would be subdued, but still around)."
quote:I agree. The biggest motif concerning Jesus' death in John is the narrative congruence of the crucifixion with the Passover. Maybe this would be something to explore.
Did Jesus have to die because the Father required an atoning sacrifice or because the power of evil was so strong? My point is that the passages you quote can be taken either way - they don't necessarily support only the atonement view of his death.
quote:Yes. I agree. Not much fun talking to yourself.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Then it's probably best that we leave it there then.
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
quote:It's rare that I agree with many people on the ship politically, but theologically I bow to better commentators when I see them... and this is one!
Originally posted by Evensong:
Indeed. Saying Jesus had to die in order to effect some dubious salvation seems to limit God quite considerably.
God doesn't have to do anything. God is not bound.
quote:How about if we try to put 'Christ needed to die' in a slightly different way? If Christ's death and resurrection were the only way of rescuing humanity, whom God loves with a perfect, unquenchable love, then God's character would demand that He do whatever was necessary to rescue us. That 'whatever was necessary' was the sending of the Son to earth.
Originally posted by deano:
God can do anything He chooses and He is not bound in any way.
To say Christ "needed" to die to provide us with something is logically reducing God to a litigant!
quote:Oh I agree. There was no coercion. There was a command. I agree that Jesus freely chose to die at our hand. He did it at the Father's command. Commands aren't coercive.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
There was NO command, no coercion. Jesus freely chose to die at our hand.
quote:My reading of the text is as follows:
John 10: 11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 The hired hand is not the shepherd and does not own the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. 13 The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.
14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
quote:True. And the Apostles have told us how he chose to do it. Here's my dilemma: I can either believe you, or I can believe them. Do you see the problem?
Originally posted by deano:
quote:Because there is nothing more poweful than God, then God is not obligated to give us anything. He can CHOOSE to give us things, such as salvation, but it is entirely up to Him how he does that.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Indeed. Saying Jesus had to die in order to effect some dubious salvation seems to limit God quite considerably.
God doesn't have to do anything. God is not bound.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Nothing.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
I guess I’m struggling to see what this has to do with a thread about God’s wrath.
quote:No they haven't.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
True. And the Apostles have told us how he chose to do it. Here's my dilemma: I can either believe you, or I can believe them. Do you see the problem?
quote:That's not my suggestion.
Originally posted by deano:
quote:No they haven't.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
True. And the Apostles have told us how he chose to do it. Here's my dilemma: I can either believe you, or I can believe them. Do you see the problem?
I don't pretend to any great skill in biblical proof texting, but I don't think the Apostles have explicitly confirmed any kind of force being applied to God in order to "judicially" compel Him to give us salvation.
quote:Only if the "need" is a legal need.
Originally posted by deano:
God can do anything He chooses and He is not bound in any way.
To say Christ "needed" to die to provide us with something is logically reducing God to a litigant!
quote:This post is supposed to be about the wrath of God. As far as I can make out we are now discussing something entirely different. Perhaps someone can indicate why the present discussion is relevant to the thread or clarify what we are now on about.
quote:
Original post, Kwesi:
I guess I’m struggling to see what this has to do with a thread about God’s wrath.
Evensong Reply: Nothing.
quote:Fair enough, but a "need" is counterbalanced by something that "must" happen if the "need" is not met.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Only if the "need" is a legal need.
Originally posted by deano:
God can do anything He chooses and He is not bound in any way.
To say Christ "needed" to die to provide us with something is logically reducing God to a litigant!
quote:Daronmedway, I really am getting confused by your argument, especially in relation to John 10: 17-18: 17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
If we can agree on that much, we can then start to explore why the Father might have "commanded" the Son to lay down his life.
quote:But we have one word "command" that is the cornerstone of your argument. As I said earlier, I am no Biblical scholar, but perhaps the original Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic understanding of the word would help here.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
This post by Lamb Chopped on The Gospel of John, a verse at a time thread in Kerygmania is pretty much where I'm coming from on he issue of the Father commanding the Son to lay down his life.
PSA doesn't feature in this passage, but that's not issue at the moment. The issue is simply reaching an agreement that the mission of Jesus, given to him by his Father, involved the laying down of his life.
If we can agree on that much, we can then start to explore why the Father might have "commanded" the Son to lay down his life.
quote:I would point out that the Passover sacrifice was not an atonement sacrifice. I believe the only purposes stated for it were to provide blood to mark the doorways and to provide food for a meal.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The biggest motif concerning Jesus' death in John is the narrative congruence of the crucifixion with the Passover. Maybe this would be something to explore.
quote:First and foremost, the reason why the Father loves Jesus is because He is His Son (Mark 1:11).
17 The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again.
quote:When Jesus, who is God, came to Earth to side with the weak against power, it was inevitable that power would try to seek a way to destroy Him.
18 No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.
quote:No but its purpose was to deflect wrath.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I would point out that the Passover sacrifice was not an atonement sacrifice.
quote:What command from his Father do you think Jesus is talking about in this verse?
This command I received from my Father.
quote:The command (I prefer to say: agreement) not to do anything supernatural to save Himself from the Cross.
daronmedway: What command from his Father do you think Jesus is talking about in this verse?
quote:That's a good point.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:No but its purpose was to deflect wrath.
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I would point out that the Passover sacrifice was not an atonement sacrifice.
quote:I've been doing some thinking lately along the lines of evil being so powerful, even God can't just magically wave it away but must die in the struggle against it--not to fight to the death would be allowing death the final victory. Exactly how God uses death to defeat death and evil is a mystery to me, but it seems to require passing through death and out the other side--there's no stepping around it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Only if the "need" is a legal need.
Originally posted by deano:
God can do anything He chooses and He is not bound in any way.
To say Christ "needed" to die to provide us with something is logically reducing God to a litigant!
quote:I'm not sure I see the point of worshipping a God who has to die to defeat evil!
Originally posted by Lothiriel:
quote:I've been doing some thinking lately along the lines of evil being so powerful, even God can't just magically wave it away but must die in the struggle against it--not to fight to the death would be allowing death the final victory. Exactly how God uses death to defeat death and evil is a mystery to me, but it seems to require passing through death and out the other side--there's no stepping around it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Only if the "need" is a legal need.
Originally posted by deano:
God can do anything He chooses and He is not bound in any way.
To say Christ "needed" to die to provide us with something is logically reducing God to a litigant!
So God's death is not a legal requirement, but it seems to be the only way to win the battle, and thus is necessary.
quote:I do see the point however in worshopping a God who has decided to become weaker than evil to defeat it.
Jade Constable: I'm not sure I see the point of worshipping a God who has to die to defeat evil!
quote:That's a good point, hmmm.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I do see the point however in worshopping a God who has decided to become weaker than evil to defeat it.
Jade Constable: I'm not sure I see the point of worshipping a God who has to die to defeat evil!
quote:The Jesus of John's gospel is pretty darn good at it though, wouldn't you say?
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I guess it must have been difficult for Jesus at times to try to put the inter-Trinitarian communication into human words.
quote:The Apostle Paul seems to agree:
Originally posted by mousethief:
On the word "command" ( ἐντολή )
Here is the Strong's info from Blue Letter Bible.
Here's the Liddell/Scott/Jones definition.
It sure doesn't seem to give credence to the idea that it means Jesus received the ability from the Father. Rather he received the command, order, or decree.
quote:
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age according to the will of our God and Father to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. Galatians 1:3-5
quote:More or less, yeah. God in effect says to evil "okay, do your worst" and, by defeating that worst weapon through the resurrection, emerges the victor.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:I do see the point however in worshopping a God who has decided to become weaker than evil to defeat it.
Jade Constable: I'm not sure I see the point of worshipping a God who has to die to defeat evil!
quote:Well, it's certainly true that Jesus did refuse to save himself through supernatural means when he was on trial under Pontius Pilate, but on other occasions he seems to have done just that, interestingly we have an example in John 10:39.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:The command (I prefer to say: agreement) not to do anything supernatural to save Himself from the Cross.
daronmedway: What command from his Father do you think Jesus is talking about in this verse?
quote:This seems to suggest that Pilate's power over Jesus, and more specifically his power to sentence Jesus to crucifixion, is ascribed ultimately to the Father (i.e. "from above").
Jesus answered, ‘You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.’
quote:That's disingenuous. Le Roc most specifically said to save himself from the cross. Jesus didn't save himself from the cross in John 10.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well, it's certainly true that Jesus did refuse to save himself through supernatural means when he was on trial under Pontius Pilate, but on other occasions he seems to have done just that, interestingly we have an example in John 10:39.
quote:I agree, and what's more: John 10:39 doesn't state that Jesus used supernatural means to escape. He might have just pulled Himself free and ran.
mousethief: That's disingenuous. Le Roc most specifically said to save himself from the cross. Jesus didn't save himself from the cross in John 10.
quote:I read it in this way: neither the Father nor the Son will use their superhuman Almighty ways to prevent Pilate from sentencing Jesus.
daronmedway: This seems to suggest that Pilate's power over Jesus, and more specifically his power to sentence Jesus to crucifixion, is ascribed ultimately to the Father (i.e. "from above").
quote:I'm not using it to interpret John 10:18, I'm offering it as another biblical text which presents a very similar idea.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Whatever Paul had to say in Galatians cannot be used to interpret the text from John.
quote:I just can't see that in the text. It just sounds like you're trying to avoid an interpretation which doesn't fit your theology.
The text from John (John 10:18) does not say that Jesus received a command from God to lay down his life. Rather the reverse, the instruction from the Father is that the son has been given autonomy to make his own decision: that is the command.
quote:How about Galatians 1:3-4?
If you want to argue that Jesus received a command from God to die on the cross then present the relevant biblical texts.
quote:Because 1) you won't be able to discuss models of the atonement if you don't understand the Trinity, and 2) because if we can agree on texts like John 10:18 and Galatians 1:4 we can move on to discuss why Jesus' death was the will of God the Father (e.g. Was it to conquer evil? Was it to satisfy justice? Was to provide an example? etc.)
I still want someone to tell me how all this relates to God's wrath, the subject of this thread.
quote:Fair call. I wasn't trying to be disingenuous. It was a mistake. But Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:That's disingenuous. Le Roc most specifically said to save himself from the cross. Jesus didn't save himself from the cross in John 10.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Well, it's certainly true that Jesus did refuse to save himself through supernatural means when he was on trial under Pontius Pilate, but on other occasions he seems to have done just that, interestingly we have an example in John 10:39.
quote:Well, nobody does. They might think they do, they may even believe that they do. But they don't.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because 1) you won't be able to discuss models of the atonement if you don't understand the Trinity
quote:God is just so far outside of our experience and ability to conceptualise Him, that we have to resort to simplified models such as The Trinity to be able to reduce Him down to our levels of understanding.
"If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't ..."
quote:Like I said, He didn't seek death.
daronmedway: But Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
quote:Get behind me Satan.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Like I said, He didn't seek death.
daronmedway: But Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
quote:
Mark 8:31-33 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. ‘Get behind me, Satan!’ he said. ‘You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.’
quote:I'd go even further, and say that orthodoxy is also a theology we made up as we stumbled along. That doesn't mean it's without value though.
daronmedway: We can all just use orthodoxy as a foil for the theologies we just make up as we go along.
quote:Jesus saying that He surely must suffer because He was siding with the weak doesn't necessarily mean that He sought death.
daronmedway: Get behind me Satan.
quote:No more and no less pointless than trying to understand quantum physics. Just because we can't, doesn't mean we should stop, and it doesn't mean we can't make use of what we find or the simple models we create.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
@deano
I suppose the straight answer - if your point of view is true - is that it's pointless trying to establishing any kind of objective Christian truth. We can all just use orthodoxy as a foil for the theologies we just make up as we go along.
quote:The word translated 'must' here is δεῖ. It seems to refer more to a necessity, an inevitability, rather than a command. It also seems strange that God would have commanded the elders, priest and teachers to reject Jesus.
31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.
quote:"My Lord and Master, you don't have to go through this! You're the Almighty, just summon your angels to save you!"
32 He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
quote:Jesus seems to refer explicitly to His temptation by Satan here. And in Matthew's telling of this story, Satan made the same proposal as I suggest Peter was making here.
33 But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter. "Get behind me, Satan!" he said. "You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."
quote:Cos it wasn't yet The Cross™. Seems to me.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
quote:Me too. So, what was it about the cross that made Jesus' death of choice? Why not stoning, or being thrown off a cliff? What made crucifixion so special?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Cos it wasn't yet The Cross™. Seems to me.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
quote:Prophecy. He had to be lifted up. He had to have his arms spread out. He had to be pierced. What else fits?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Me too. So, what was it about the cross that made Jesus' death of choice? Why not stoning, or being thrown off a cliff? What made crucifixion so special?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Cos it wasn't yet The Cross™. Seems to me.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
quote:True, but it sort of begs the question. Did Jesus die in that specific way because such a death was foretold in prophecy, was such a death prophesied because of the foreknowledge that such a death would be the fate of such a man living in that particular place and at that particular time?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Prophecy. He had to be lifted up. He had to have his arms spread out. He had to be pierced. What else fits?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Me too. So, what was it about the cross that made Jesus' death of choice? Why not stoning, or being thrown off a cliff? What made crucifixion so special?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Cos it wasn't yet The Cross™. Seems to me.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
quote:The cross was an instrument of torture to display Roman imperial power and control.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Did Godself choose the Cross. Yes, of course. The precise process by which the Mystery of the Holy Trinity came to that choice is hidden from us; any hints that we have from scripture are bound to be a) reflective of some real truth, and b) a partial representation of Reality.
quote:It's that word "had" that people seem to dislike, especially if the "had" originates in God.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Prophecy. He had to be lifted up. He had to have his arms spread out. He had to be pierced. What else fits?
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Me too. So, what was it about the cross that made Jesus' death of choice? Why not stoning, or being thrown off a cliff? What made crucifixion so special?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Cos it wasn't yet The Cross™. Seems to me.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus did save himself from death on a numbers of occasions. I wonder why?
quote:I am wondering how far this dispute really turns on different anthropomorphisms of the Trinity.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because 1) you won't be able to discuss models of the atonement if you don't understand the Trinity,
quote:Indeed so. In Johannine theology, the lamb is slain since the foundation of the world. The self-offering on the cross is identical with the self-offering in eternity.
ISTM that from the standpoint of eternity both interpretations are wrong, or simplifications, because they suppose a before and an after.
quote:What kind of language? What do you mean by a "real term"?
Originally posted by Evensong:
wtf does that kind of language actually have in real terms?
quote:Strange, isn't it, how different individuals draw different conclusions from the same event?
I love the prefiguring of Jesus in the Abraham story.
quote:I've heard and read at least 10 different opinions about this story, and everyone was equally convinced that theirs was the only possible opinion. It's one of my favourite stories in the Bible.
Kwesi: Strange, isn't it, how different individuals draw different conclusions from the same event?
quote:To whom?
Mudfrog: God has given his only begotten Son in substitution
quote:I'm convinced that is does. ISTM, that there is an Arian trajectory in the anthropomorphic imagery of divine child abuse that many liberal protestants raise in objection to the idea of penal satisfaction in the atonement. They have a "chopped up God" and a sub-divine Jesus and therefore don't cope very well with notions of intra-trinitarian relationship.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:I am wondering how far this dispute really turns on different anthropomorphisms of the Trinity.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because 1) you won't be able to discuss models of the atonement if you don't understand the Trinity,
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:Funny thing, I don't remember "in substitution" being in John 3:16 in any of the Bibles I've read. Bad translations, I suppose.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:To whom?
Mudfrog: God has given his only begotten Son in substitution
quote:It means that the Son had willingly purposed from eternity to obey the command of the Father to lay down his life for salvation of humankind. This decision was made from eternity, and wasn't just an event of pragmatic or emerging happenstance within the earthly ministry of the incarnate Son. The death of Jesus, the incarnate Son, on the cross for sin was, is and always will the will of the Trinity.
Originally posted by Evensong:
wtf does that kind of language actually have in real terms?
quote:And then the ram was slaughtered in an offer to God.
Mudfrog: God gave his Son to us, to the world.
In the same way he gave the ram to Abraham.
quote:Precisely.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:And then the ram was slaughtered in an offer to God.
Mudfrog: God gave his Son to us, to the world.
In the same way he gave the ram to Abraham.
quote:Great. I want to have nothing to do with that God.
Mudfrog: Yes, it was a sacrifice asked for by God.
quote:I guess you should know by now that there are different ways in how we see the Bible and which place we give it in our faith. And even given that, this thread has shown that there are different ways in which we can interpret the references to sacrifice in it.
Mudfrog: Why? Have you gone through your Bible and deleted every single reference to sacrifice - including all those that refer to Jesus Christ?
quote:I already answered your statement about Scripture above. My church doesn't have a Tradition that it recognizes as its base (although it respects Tradition as a source of inspiration). And if my faith is different than yours, then so be it.
Mudfrog: You can of course do that but what's left will be be a very different Faith to the one we now by Scripture and Tradition.
quote:Don't worry. You probably haven't.
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:Great. I want to have nothing to do with that God.
Mudfrog: Yes, it was a sacrifice asked for by God.
quote:Well meaning, semi-Arian, sub-Trinitarian.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Toxic faith
quote:
Here’s a simple rule of thumb: if your theory of the cross completely contradicts everything Jesus stood for and taught… it’s probably wrong.
quote:I could make the 'another heresy to add to my list!' joke again, but I guess you realize by now that accusing me of heresies doesn't really disturb me.
daronmedway: Well meaning, semi-Arian, sub-Trinitarian.
quote:What a load of hypocritical rubbish.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:I'm convinced that is does. ISTM, that there is an Arian trajectory in the anthropomorphic imagery of divine child abuse that many liberal protestants raise in objection to the idea of penal satisfaction in the atonement. They have a "chopped up God" and a sub-divine Jesus and therefore don't cope very well with notions of intra-trinitarian relationship.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:I am wondering how far this dispute really turns on different anthropomorphisms of the Trinity.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Because 1) you won't be able to discuss models of the atonement if you don't understand the Trinity,
quote:You mean the one that God says I desire mercy and not sacrifice?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Why? Have you gone through your Bible and deleted every single reference to sacrifice - including all those that refer to Jesus Christ?
You can of course do that but what's left will be be a very different Faith to the one we now by Scripture and Tradition.
quote:I think that's the argument he's levelling at advocates of PSA. I can see that you might think that this is based on a misunderstanding of the more, shall we say, " Piperesque " position of nuanced PSA as held by many neo-calvinists, but I don't see anything remotely sub-trinitarian in his argument. Quite the reverse.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Well meaning, semi-Arian, sub-Trinitarian.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Toxic faith
quote:Most of the scriptures don't think it was God's idea to kill Jesus. Atonement theory has put his idea onto scripture.
Originally posted by no prophet:
After I recovered from this sort of theology, I understood that the killing of Jesus was what the people did, and then they explained their behaviour away excusing themselves with the notion it was all God's idea.
quote:
‘You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— 23this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. 24But God raised him up , having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power.
quote:
‘Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter,
and like a lamb silent before its shearer,
so he does not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation justice was denied him.
Who can describe his generation?
quote:People killed Jesus. God raised him (according to his plan and foreknowledge - he knew Jesus would inevitably be killed by people).
The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him. 14But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to you, 15and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead.
quote:God kills godself.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:It means that the Son had willingly purposed from eternity to obey the command of the Father to lay down his life for salvation of humankind. This decision was made from eternity, and wasn't just an event of pragmatic or emerging happenstance within the earthly ministry of the incarnate Son. The death of Jesus, the incarnate Son, on the cross for sin was, is and always will the will of the Trinity.
Originally posted by Evensong:
wtf does that kind of language actually have in real terms?
quote:translation: LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR ANY THEOLOGY I DISAGREE WITH LA LA LA LA LA
Originally posted by Evensong:
[Edited to say: No, don't answer that. The whole theory gets totally ridiculous and unrealistic from that point on and has no bearing on reality. It's not a line of theology worth pursuing.]
quote:An argument against PSA which couches PSA in the language of "God killed Jesus? What a monster" is sub-Trinitarian. It relies upon semi-Arian notions of coercion between a sub-divine Jesus and an evil Father.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:I think that's the argument he's levelling at advocates of PSA. I can see that you might think that this is based on a misunderstanding of the more, shall we say, " Piperesque " position of nuanced PSA as held by many neo-calvinists, but I don't see anything remotely sub-trinitarian in his argument. Quite the reverse.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Well meaning, semi-Arian, sub-Trinitarian.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Toxic faith
quote:I've heard it. Tons of times.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:translation: LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR ANY THEOLOGY I DISAGREE WITH LA LA LA LA LA
Originally posted by Evensong:
[Edited to say: No, don't answer that. The whole theory gets totally ridiculous and unrealistic from that point on and has no bearing on reality. It's not a line of theology worth pursuing.]
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I don't know if we agree. You just keep restating your opinions and not engaging with mine.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I've heard it. Tons of times.
I just no longer feel the need to listen to garbage.
quote:Yes, and it's that very sub-trinitarian position that is being argued against by such as Martin. Now you might well feel that a straw man is being attacked here, but the grounds on which it is being attacked are that it comes across as being christologically "low" rather than "high".
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:An argument against PSA which couches PSA in the language of "God killed Jesus? What a monster" is sub-Trinitarian. It relies upon semi-Arian notions of coercion between a sub-divine Jesus and an evil Father.
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:I think that's the argument he's levelling at advocates of PSA. I can see that you might think that this is based on a misunderstanding of the more, shall we say, " Piperesque " position of nuanced PSA as held by many neo-calvinists, but I don't see anything remotely sub-trinitarian in his argument. Quite the reverse.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:Well meaning, semi-Arian, sub-Trinitarian.
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Toxic faith
quote:I think it is a mistake to conflate the idea of the shedding of blood in sacrifice with satisfaction. That is a pagan, not a Jewish, understanding. The purpose of OT sacrifice was that it was supposed to point people back to the covenant. It was the covenant that saved, and the shedding of blood had the same function as a seal on that covenant. It ratified the terms and conditions of both parties, and affirmed their assent to them. That is why there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood. It's not that "someone must be punished to pay for the sin" (ie, satisfaction) but rather "sin can only be dealt with in a covenant of grace" - no-one can pay the price of forgiveness, it can only be received as a gift, but the covenant is a covenant of grace, and it has been duly ratified by the appropriate sacrifice. Of course, the twist in the tail is that the commitment of the one party, God, is that He, Himself, sheds His own blood - he is both party to the agreement and the sacrifice which ratifies it.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mudfrogquote:Strange, isn't it, how different individuals draw different conclusions from the same event?
I love the prefiguring of Jesus in the Abraham story.
In my book the significance of the Abraham/Isaac incident is that it demonstrated that the God of the patriarch did not demand human sacrifice. That is one reason why I find the notion that God the Father could only be satisfied through human blood sacrifice rather strange.
quote:Yes, it is.
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:Most of the scriptures don't think it was God's idea to kill Jesus. Atonement theory has put his idea onto scripture.
Originally posted by no prophet:
After I recovered from this sort of theology, I understood that the killing of Jesus was what the people did, and then they explained their behaviour away excusing themselves with the notion it was all God's idea.
I was reading Acts yesterday for an exam.
It's quite clear who killed Jesus:
quote:
Acts 2:23 This man was handed over to you by God’s deliberate plan and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross.
quote:Eh? It was God all along?
So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God.
quote:I think there's maybe another way. There is free will, and God saw that the inevitable consequence of that free will would be for Jesus to cause anger and resentment among those with the power to have him executed, thus they would indeed have him executed.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Can I suggest a kind of middle ground? The passage in Acts does certainly seem to suggest that both Daronmedway & Evensong are right. That it was God's plan, but man's action. The only way both could be true would be if there's no free will, and that's not a path many want to go down.
quote:I'm saying, contra Evensong et al, that the death of Jesus by crucifixion is attributed simultaneously both to the definite plan of God and to the wickedness of men. No developed doctrine of the atonement is expressed and, if you care to check, I have not mentioned wrath once in this entire thread. My aim at the moment is to show from scripture (John, Paul, Luke and arguably Peter) that it is possible to view the death of Jesus on the cross as being by God's plan through the agency of human wickedness.
Originally posted by Kwesi:
So, Daronmedway, your thesis, based on a verse from Peter’s pentecost sermon, is that God the Father was responsible for the death of God the Son. It is, however, not entirely in accord with other scriptural references, including Luke, that point to less sublime authorship.
<snip>
ISTM, Daronmedway, that if you wish to argue that “the deliberate plan” referred to by Peter was some form of substitutary atonement etc., then you have to demonstrate that is what the apostle meant, and show how it fits in with the rest of his sermon. One can think of other things that the “deliberate plan” might have been, or explore what Luke understood by “deliberate plan”.
quote:Too weak, I think. It doesn't adequately account for the 'command' of John 10:17, the 'definite plan' of Acts 2:23 and the "will" of Galatians 1:4. This isn't a passive God who makes contingency plans, this is an active God who makes salvation plans.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:I think there's maybe another way. There is free will, and God saw that the inevitable consequence of that free will would be for Jesus to cause anger and resentment among those with the power to have him executed, thus they would indeed have him executed.
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Can I suggest a kind of middle ground? The passage in Acts does certainly seem to suggest that both Daronmedway & Evensong are right. That it was God's plan, but man's action. The only way both could be true would be if there's no free will, and that's not a path many want to go down.
So people chose to have Jesus crucified but God foreknew that it would certainly happen. How about it?
quote:So now there's plan? Whose plan? What's the plan?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Of course.
The plan was not to kill Jesus, but to raise Jesus.[/b]
quote:[[goperryrevs, I don't mean to make you sound like you're saying something you're not, and if I've done this with selective editting, I apologize.]]
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Can I suggest a kind of middle ground? The passage in Acts does certainly seem to suggest that both Daronmedway & Evensong are right. That it was God's plan, but man's action. The only way both could be true would be if there's no free will, and that's not a path many want to go down.
<snippage>
For me, the way to understand this isn't to say that it was God the master puppeteer pulling everybody's strings and making them succumb to his master plan. Despite all the bad choices people made, through them God managed to save Joseph's family (and a few nations) from famine, reconcile Joseph with his brothers and so on. It's that God is so masterful at turning crappy situations around. He didn't decide upon and make people carry out those evil acts. He just flipped them round and turned them for good.
For me, it's the same with Jesus' death. It didn't have to happen that way. God certainly didn't want it to happen or force people to kill Jesus. It wasn't "necessary" in that it was the only possible way that sin could be dealt with and forgiveness given. But somehow, just as with Joseph, despite the actions of evil people, God flipped it all on its head and turned it into victory. So much so that it looks like that was his masterplan all along.
So, I think that the suggestions that Jesus had to die to satisfy a wrathful God, and that that was the Godhead's plan in the first place are way off.
<more snipped>
quote:Loath as I am toi defend OPSA in any way, I don't think tyhat is right.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Penal substitutionist deny Jesus' humanity. That's why they have no problem with divine child abuse.
quote:Only if you want to use the theoretical notion of Trinity to defend PSA, or at least to try to protect it from anti-PSA attacks.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
An argument against PSA which couches PSA in the language of "God killed Jesus? What a monster" is sub-Trinitarian.
quote:I agree the way it can be taught can be distasteful and unhelpful. But I'm loath to chuck it out all together. There is some biblical clout behind it:
Originally posted by deano:
I prefer to use the concept of Trinity to negate the concept of PSA, because I view PSA to be heretical, theologically inconsistent and quite distasteful.
quote:Straw man and a non-sequitur. I'm an open evangelical, biased towards the Arminian/free-will camp, and certainly not a big fan of Calvinism. And I think that all the atonement theories are subject to critique, PSA no less. But to paint anyone who accepts PSA as being OK with child abuse and bullying is ... well, really, is this what our discourse has turned into?
But I guess one's appetite for violence, and the acceptability of bullying, varies from person to person.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:Killing, the sacrifice, of Jesus was pure Annunaki dogma. Annunaki have been acting out this way of saying, "You are less than your society," for millennia.
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:So now there's plan? Whose plan? What's the plan?
Originally posted by Evensong:
Of course.
The plan was not to kill Jesus, but to raise Jesus.[/b]
