Open Theism Discussion Board
  HomeLog InRegisterSearch the ForumHelp
   
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > The raging debate continues here... > (No Subject)
 
Forum Quick Jump
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
63 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3 
[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

Shane
Registered Member


Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 6
 
   Posted 12/29/2001 8:56 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hello everyone,

Would an open theist please define atonement for me?

Thanks

Back to Top
 

Shane
Registered Member


Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 6
 
   Posted 12/29/2001 8:58 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Neophyte?Hmmm....

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 12/29/2001 9:08 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
(I'm not an open theist, so I won't post an answer right now.Here is the definition I use, though. -search that page for "atonement"...bold text-)
Back to Top
 

Shane
Registered Member


Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 6
 
   Posted 12/31/2001 8:17 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Hi PotOnWheel,

Thanks. Why the name, can I ask?

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 12/31/2001 9:04 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:
Hi PotOnWheel,

Thanks. Why the name, can I ask?


Nothing important. When you sign up to post here they want you to do two things: give yourself a name, and give them an e-mail address. I decided to take advantage of anonymity because I have family in both the BGC and in Minnesota -- I am in neither. And since the Boyd/Piper thing affected both the Gopher State AND the BGC, and since I wanted free-reign to participate here...the anon. is great!

I am a potter. I WAS making pottery the two weeks that I signed up. But I am also a parent, a husband (my wife and kids were out of town for two weeks), and a teacher of little and big kids. I have NO TIME to make pots. (But I'd like that to change--if I can swing it.)

But there are some things that I like about the name. it tags onto one of Doc's sermons (I've never heard any.) about Jeremiah. I also do talks about that. The idea of being "centered" as opposed to being way off to one side has utility beyond the potter's wheel. I can sign my name "(o)" to show that--which is WAY to subtle to be even noticed!!! Also, I can do "()o"--which you can guess about. So, it is a fun name to play around with.

Thanks for asking.

If you followed the link to the OCA site (my brother-in-law is a priest in a different Orthodox autocephally from the OCA, but knew the guy who wrote that page...) you will find two things, which really are one: first, that at-one-ment is not, in Orthodoxy, a juridically limited idea; and, second, that the being "made to be at one with God", as it says, the "saving and redeeming action of Christ" is not just something from the outside, but is present in us. The verses quoted illustrate that wonderfully. It goes on: In contemplating the saving and redeeming action of Christ, it has become traditional to emphasize three aspects which in reality are not divided, and cannot be; but which in theory (i.e., in the vision of Christ's being.and activity as the Saviour of the world) may be distinguished. and lists as the three: Jesus, the Perfect Image of Human Life; Jesus, the Reconciler of Man with God; and Jesus, the Destroyer of Death.

So if you wish to, you can construct a definition for yourself that includes these three parts!

Welcome to a very diverse board, with lots of great folks to discuss with!!!

PoW

P.S. -- Oh, when I took the name "PotOnWheel" I had absolutely NO idea that it would end up PoW (sound's Vietnam era) or POW (sounds like in the old Batman T.V.--Yes, I'm in my forties; but I'm not alone.) "Pot" pops up now and then too.

Signed -- "???" (that anon. guy who misses Minnesota snow!!!)


PotOnWheel

(ISA 64:8 "Yet, O Lord, you are our Father. We are the clay, you are the potter; we are all the work of your hand.")



Edited by - potonwheel on 12/31/2001 2:07:33 PM
Back to Top
 

BBBCanada
Registered Member




Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
 
   Posted 1/2/2002 11:50 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
PotOnWheel

quote:
you will find two things, which really are one: first, that at-one-ment is not, in Orthodoxy, a juridically limited idea;


True. There are so many biblical expressions and images for the atonement that fitting these into a judicial category does it no justice to say the least. As a matter of fact it really distorts the hell out of (to use an expression) God's work/stance towards us.

Charles Hodge was the big proponent for the penal substitutionary theory--and remember, that is all it is, a theory. He borrowed from the surrounding culture much like Anselm borrowed from the feudal system of his day and went so far that God is like this tyrant whose wrath needs to be avenged or appeased, unlike the Father in the parable of the prodigal son.

Those who hold to the penal substitutionary theory will tell you that God is love, but within context of Hodges theory, this is sorta like a owner who is holding a growling barking dog at the end of a leash, and the is "assuring" you, "He won't bite." The combination of messages you recieve tell you not to go near the dog, but to stay away from it. Hodge's God would seem like the kinda God we need to be saved from.

Brandon



Edited by - BBBCanada on 01/02/2002 4:51:23 PM
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/2/2002 11:58 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
And it was Hodges textbook that taught the teachers, spreading it.
Back to Top
 

BBBCanada
Registered Member




Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
 
   Posted 1/3/2002 6:23 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

And it was Hodges textbook that taught the teachers, spreading it.



Well, yes, but most who are influenced by the penal substitutionary theory probably have had no contact directly or indirectly with Hodge. Most probably just accepted it as the biblical view passed on to them by their churches who just have a long tradition of it. It's spread by televangelists, etc, who accept it as the norm as well. And because the general protestant evangelical population has absolutely no critical thinking skills whatsoever, they fall hook line and sinker for it, as if it is gaaaaaspel. It's times like these, as an evangelical, that make me want to embarrassingly hide under a rock. Ugh...

Brandon

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/3/2002 6:29 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I once posted a series of links (to sections) of an article called THE RIVER OF FIRE. It was written by an old Greek physician who was really hot under the collar. Doc's comment on it wa that "that guy doesn't pull any punches." I couldn't find the links again by searching this site. (Almost esactly July 31st of 2001.) So here they are! It is in installment form in an Orthodox e-mag. I had first seen it at Franky Schaeffer's site, in whole. And there it had footnotes--good ones. (Ask if you want them.)










Edited by - potonwheel on 01/03/2002 11:54:40 AM
Back to Top
 

fr.patmos
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 45
 
   Posted 1/3/2002 8:05 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
One problem w. the penal theory as
primary atonement metaphor is it renders
the faith-imagination unable to grasp
that it is God-Incarnate who dies on the
cross. It makes Jesus out to be other than divine; or it denies the Incarnation in the experience of the death of Christ.

Back to Top
 

Starkman
Registered Member




Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
 
   Posted 1/3/2002 8:10 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
You're the man, POW.

I'll be reading these myself.

Thanks,

Starkman

Back to Top
 

BBBCanada
Registered Member




Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
 
   Posted 1/5/2002 10:41 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
fr. patmos, it also pits the members of the Trinity against each other.

Brandon

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/5/2002 11:46 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
As it says in the Divine Liturgy attributed to St. John Chrysostom, Christ is the OFFERER, the OFFERING, and the OFFERED.
Back to Top
 

freegrace
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 1
 
   Posted 1/6/2002 7:58 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
quote:

fr. patmos, it also pits the members of the Trinity against each other.

Brandon

Not so!!! This is actually the type of arguments used by arians and anti-trinitarians of all stripes.
It refuses to see the differences between the ontological trinity and the economical trinity.
The work of Christ on the cross DOES NOT pit the members of the Trinity against each other. Jesus had a dual nature. He was not just God, He was also a man--human.
Jesus said "My Father is greater than I". Yet we know the Father and Son are EQUAL in Diety! In His role as a man, the Father was greater than Jesus. Also the Father is greater (not better) than Jesus in the sense the the Father sent the Son to be clothed in human flesh and pay the penalty for our sins.
On the Cross, the Father put the sins of the world on THE MAN, Christ Jesus, not God the Son. This does NOT pit the members of the triune God against each other. It recognizes the human nature of Jesus Christ.
So many wish to (over) emphasize one of Christ's natures to the exclusion of the other. God has ALWAYS been a Trinity, but the INCARNATION certainly brought this truth to even more light. And the fact that one of the persons of the Trinity took on a human nature certainly changed things. Most of the errors of anti-trinitarians, whether arians or modalists, is the confusing of the roles of the persons in the Godhead and of the DUAL nature of Christ.
Sad, but most trinitarians are even confused, as evidenced by saying that God pouring out His wrath on a substitute (the Man), is pitting the members of the Trinity against each other!! Might be true if Jesus did not become a MAN!!!
www.faithalone.org





Back to Top
 

BBBCanada
Registered Member




Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
 
   Posted 1/7/2002 11:28 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
freegrace,

I haven't ignored your post. I work midnights and sleep during the day. Kinda like a vampire. Right now, I am in the midst of writing a somewhat lenghty response to it. May take a day or two. So please bear with me.

Brandon



Back to Top
 

fr.patmos
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 45
 
   Posted 1/7/2002 11:40 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Jesus claims, emphatically and absolutely, that everything He did in his earthly life is consonant with, and representative of,
the Father. That is the primary theme of his voice as recorded in John's Gospel.

As He makes explicit in his words recorded in John 12, Christ's crucifixion is the glorifying/revealing/representative act which embodies the One God's suffering death
for the sake of the salvation of the world.

The penal metaphor of atonement necessarily
qualifies or mutes the divinity of Christ in
his death.

Especially on the cross (is the Gospel's loudest and most essential claim) Jesus is the revelation and action of God to save us.

He is - none other than the Incarnate One -
God, the man, who dies by the hand of sinful and rebellious humanity.

He is given to us - given over to us - and we kill him. He dies at our hand.
He is revealed and defined as broken and poured out to us, for us. We are exposed in the deed as contemptuous and violent enemies of God (we once were).

Then He is risen, and extends scarred hands of friendship to this world of sinners
(aka the fellow murderers of Christ).
We are, thus, tragic players - but then
(surprise!) grace recipients - in the Story.

Back to Top
 

BBBCanada
Registered Member




Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
 
   Posted 1/9/2002 2:23 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
freegrace,

I tried writing some of this before but it somehow got lost in cyber space. Anyhoo, I will try this again.

First of all, you use a guilt by association argument. Simply because anti-trinitarians may use a particular argument, doesn't mean that I am not trinitarian in my beliefs. I can assure you that I am thoroughly trinitarian.

quote:

Also the Father is greater (not better) than Jesus in the sense the the Father sent the Son to be clothed in human flesh and pay the penalty for our sins.
On the Cross, the Father put the sins of the world on THE MAN, Christ Jesus, not God the Son. This does NOT pit the members of the triune God against each other. It recognizes the human nature of Jesus Christ.


Whether it is Jesus as God the Man or God divine, Christ is still taking a divine pounding from the wrath of God on behalf of humanity in this view as you may very well admit in your expression of "putting the sins of world on..." phrase. Let me add that feminist theologians rail against this view, validly to some extent, as "divine child-abuse" and which has been used by the bearers of power and privilege in particular social contexts to abuse those less fortunate. Indeed, many people both secular and saint wrestle with images of an angry God. The penal substitutionary atonement is built, in part, on the base of human fear of God and the need to placate an emotion-laden God ever on the verge of striking out against any who disobey his every will.

It is true what fr. patmos says.

God shows us his love by means of what Christ did for us. Not by God's own deeds, but Christ's! It is not merely an expression of Christ's sentiment but God's. According to Paul, there is an affirmation of the oneness of purpose and activity of God and God's own Son in the cross. To assume God does something "to" Jesus is not only an affront to the Christian doctrine of the trinity, but clearly misrepresents Paul's affirmation in Roman's 5:8.

God is a gracious God. He is not capricious. The long and short end of the wrath/grace of God is:

1. Atonement should not focus on the anger of or appeasing an angry God or trying to win God's mercy. The stories throughout the Bible indicate that human proclivity towards sin is NOT matched by God's withdrawl. To be sure, God does draw near to see what humankind has done. He does pronouce judgment. But then (as a couple of scholars put it), God "...in gracious optimism and mercy tries again. The scriptures as a whole provide no ground for a portrait of an angry God needing to be appeased in atoning sacrifice." More on the highlighted parts below.

2. When the wrath of God is present in the O.T. it is response to Israel's failure to keep the covenant and is presented as a collary of God's righteousness.

3. Again, the long and short of wrath in Paul is that while wrath may be eschatological, that is future, according to Roman's 1:18,24,26,28 the wrath of God is revealed in giving humanity over to their lusts, degrading passions and to debasement of mind a "letting us go our own way." In other words our sinful acts do not invite God's wrath but prove that God's wrath is already active. One Jewish writing from the same period says that God "torments" those who live unrighteously by allowing them their own atrocitites. (Wis 12:23) This is very similar to what Greg talks about with regard to Barth's "Das Nichtige"in chapter 12 of "Satan and the Problem of Evil", subtitled "Giving creatures what they want."


Thoughts from the O.T.

It should be remembered that sacrifices for the most part were not "for sins" or exclusively a way to deal with sin. The purpose of sacrifices in the O.T. is not always clear. Many times, atoning of sin is alongside of thanksgiving, worship, communion with God and feasting. Even the "sin offerings" are not necessarily related to sin, but to religious impurity, i.e. menstruation or noctural emission. In the prophetic tradition contrition and acts of justice are preferred over sacrifice. By 70 A.D. the sacrifical system was criticized in Israel's scriptures and in some cases was may have already been abandoned. Israel may have very well had the capacity to thrive without sacrifice at all. Forgiveness was grounded in penitential prayer, repentance, acts of charity, etc.

While sacrifice in many cases had nothing to do with sinful activity (i.e. sacrifice of obedience) or it's consequences, again there were sin and guilt offerings that atoned for the sins of the people. Yet it should not be thought of in terms of an angry God needing appeasement, but of a way of restoring relationship with God (Luke 2:22, Lev 12).

That sacrifice in the O.T. is "identification" or "representation" is basic. Sacrifice carried over into the N.T. means that Christ's death was substitutionary. But in terms of "sin," far from showing an angry God needing appeasement one of the images for example is freedom from the rule of sin found in Hebrews, the book itself considered a "message of exhortation" Heb 13:22.

Ransom, according to the Bible may be thought of as a slave who is bought and is now owned by the one who bought them. But a more important image is one of "delieverance" where God ransoms Israel not by "paying someone off" but by delivering Israel from Egypt Ex 6:6, 16:13.

What this means within context of Jesus saying that he is giving his life as a "ransom" in Mk 10:45 (which was really a spiel on humility in service to God and others, as opposed to who would be the greatest) is not that his death is a means of providing a ransom to a angry God/gods (including Satan). Jesus incarnates his own message on humility through his life and death.

At the Last Supper, Jesus views his own death, in terms borrowed from the history of Israel of deliverance and sees an inaugral event of renewal. Suffering in this context, again, far from appeasing an angry God is seen not in terms of "divine punishment" or in some sort of masochistic fashion but in context of "this wicked and adulterous generation."

Believe it or not according to some scholars, the sentimentalizing of the physical suffering of Jesus (crucifixion was the choice mode of execution, not because of pain, but more so because of the public humiliation) on the cross detracts from taking up our own cross Mk 8:27:38. That is, seeing as Jesus suffering is "for us" we can expect little else. He did it all. What's there for us to do?

We do this with the ressurection. As Joel B. Green and Mark D. Baker say:

"Rarely do we think of the resurrection as an affirmation of Jesus and his cross, witht eh consequence that we fail to see the profundity of the claim that the cross places on the faith and life of the church."

Any thoughts?

Brandon






Edited by - BBBCanada on 01/09/2002 7:30:28 PM
Back to Top
 

Starkman
Registered Member




Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
 
   Posted 1/10/2002 3:43 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
I believe Scripture does teach that God's wrath was upon Christ; however, I believe that something is kind of lost in the word wrath when it takes on emotional connotation; as if God's so emotionally angry He's saying to us, "I'd like to get you good (fists in air), but I can't so I'll get my Son, just you watch". That kind of wrath is not the objective of the crucifiction. There must be payment in full or there's no justice.

Unlike when we go to court and the judge (a non-personally involved judge) sentences accordingly, our Great Judge is more personal; it is Him we have offended. There's emotion involved, for sure, but it's not "I'll get even" (oh, that will come, so to speak, later) as it is "I have to do this, I will administer justice fairly, impartially and in full".

Starkman

Back to Top
 

BBBCanada
Registered Member




Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
 
   Posted 1/10/2002 5:35 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Stark,

F'r sure, God is not Capricious. But just as the Jewish people of the O.T. had many different sacrifices we would do much better to allow their understanding to inform our way of thinking of Jesus' death rather than a penal substitionary model as Green and Baker say in their excellent book, "Recovering the Scandal of the Cross."

Probably another way of understanding this issue would be from the angle of "contextualization." The penal substitionary model is not very affective in conveying the msg of the cross and atonement to other cultures outside of the Western hemisphere. For example, in shame-based cultures such as Asian ones, the model does not fit very well at all.

There is guilt when an offense has occurred but it is much different than shame. A law has been broken, but it is relationship that has been fractured that is emphasized. Even in cultures like Africa where blood sacrifice is made to atone for the wrong (between humans and between humans and God/god) that occurs within a village atonement is not necessarily a way of appeasing a god(s) but is a way of removing a barrier or curse. Again this will be different from culture to culture.

Shame based cultures are more in line with the Bible than guilt based ones.

By the way, even Anselm with his "satisfaction theory" does not provide an angry God needing appeasing. His metaphor is one of a debt that is owed that Christ satisfies. The penal substitionary model would be more in line with the gruesome stories of a man who substitutes his own son say in some tragic "accident." It not only fails to deliver on "how" this could save (humanity), (again, in other cultures this is not a question to be wrestled with) but it depicts nothing more than a God who is willing to kill his own son so that others may be saved. While I don't mean to base an argument against this view on emotion, again the many images that one recieves from this particular theory tells us that this would more or less be the kind of God we would want to be saved from.

Brandon

You know, I put my favorite links up in my bio. Yet no one ever looks at them...I think. Boo, hoo... Here is a link to the Robert Brow Model Theology Web.
www.brow.on.ca/Letters/Atone.htm

Read his article, "Evangelical Megashift" that was written way back in '88.







Edited by - BBBCanada on 01/10/2002 10:39:14 AM
Back to Top
 

fr.patmos
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 45
 
   Posted 1/10/2002 7:04 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
It is 'anti-trinitarian' to divide the divine and human natures of Christ in viewing his crucifixion and its meaning.

It is Trinitarian to see - and insist - that there on the cross, especially there, this is God-enfleshed who dies to be made known and to save us.

To hedge on this is to lose the truth
and the power of the Gospel.

It's a big deal, the biggest deal.
Because what is realized concerning God
on the cross is what shapes both the
essential message, and the culture, of the
church.

God is not blood-thirsty, but bloodshedding/merciful.
Let us, in the light God's defining deed
(the cross), go and be and do likewise, in
Jesus' name.



Edited by - fr.patmos on 01/10/2002 12:07:31 PM

Edited by - fr.patmos on 01/10/2002 12:30:22 PM
Back to Top
 

Starkman
Registered Member




Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
 
   Posted 1/10/2002 10:50 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
BBBCanada,

Oh, I'm certainly not disagree with the emotional and shamefull side of this, and of the heart of God trying desperately to work through the issue of broken relationship. But consider Cain and Able, Noah, Abraham - all offering blood atoning offerings prior to the Law which, in context to the imediate fall of mankind, is something of substitutionary provision, most particularly Abraham's offering up Isaac, who of course is not killed.

I think Scripture first addresses the issue of substitionary death on behalf of man; "And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel". Gen 3:15

I mean, there's no sense talking from an OT view point about relationship with mankind if this passage, the sacrificial system, the tabernacle, etc., all do not speak of substitution! I do not, however, believe in an emotionally angry God, but I do believe that Scripture is insistant upon a God who as a true, fair and impartial judge, must require justice.

But there's so much more after this, or rather, layered on this. There's the heart of God, there's man's shame, there's the shame brought upon God, there' pain, turmoil and death. There's broken relationship and eternity. Oh, it is so much more than just a penal concept, but none the less it is a debt-owed issue at heart

Again, I'm agreeing with you, BBBCanada, just talking out loud here.

For the great conversation,

Starkman

Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/10/2002 11:37 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Thanks for those comments, fr.patmos!

And I'm glad to see Rbt. Brow's links, BBBCanada. I did some e=mail disucssions with him a while back. A gentleman. I particularly enjoyed "Does Romans Need Justification" that is linked from your pagelink.

Hi, Starkman!

I'd like to lauch from two comments of Starkman's, if I might.

    "There's emotion involved, for sure, but it's not "I'll get even" (oh, that will come, so to speak, later) as it is "I have to do this, I will administer justice fairly, impartially and in full[/]".

    and

    I do not, however, believe in an emotionally angry God, but I do believe that Scripture is insistant upon a God who as a true, fair and impartial judge, must require justice.


So,I will launch from there.
HERE is a link to an article that belongs in this discussion.

Here is the portion of the above that applies:
quote:
II. The Justice of God and Law

It is obvious, according to what has been said about St. Paul's views concerning the non-dualistic nature of fallen creation, that for Paul there cannot exist any system of moral laws inherent in a natural and normal universe. Therefore, what man accepts as just and good according to his observations of human relationships within society and nature cannot be confused with the justice of God. The justice of God has been revealed uniquely and fully only in Christ.[ 44 ] No man has the right to substitute his own conception of justice for that of God.[ 45 ]

The justice of God as revealed in Christ does not operate according to objective rules of conduct,[ 46 ] but rather according to the personal relationships of faith and love.[ 47 ] "The law is not made for a just man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners..."[ 48 ] Yet the law is not evil, but good [ 49 ] and even spiritual.[ 50 ] However, it is not enough. It is of a temporary and pedagogical nature,[ 51 ] and in Christ must be fulfilled [ 52 ] and surpassed by personalistic love, according to the image of God's love as revealed in Christ.[ 53 ] Faith and love in Christ must be personal. for this reason, faith without love is empty. "Though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing."[ 54 ] Likewise, acts of faith bereft of love are of no avail. "Though I bestow all my goods and though I give my body to be burned, and have not love, it profiteth me nothing."[ 55 ]

There is no life in the following of objective rules. If there were such a possibility of receiving life by living according to law, there would be no need of redemption in Christ. "Righteousness should have been by the law."[ 56 ] If a "law was given capable of giving life"[ 57 ] then salvation, and not a promise, was bestowed upon Abraham.[ 58 ] But life does not exist in the law. It is rather of essence of God, "Who alone hath immortality."[ 59 ] Only God can bestow life and this He does freely, according to his own will,[ 60 ] in His own way, and at the time of His own choosing.[ 61 ]

On the other hand, it is a grave mistake to make the justice of God responsible for death and corruption. Nowhere does Paul attribute the beginnings of death and corruption to God. On the contrary, nature was subjected to vanity and corruption by the devil,[ 62 ] who through the sin and death of the first man managed to lodge himself parasitically within creation, of which he was already a part but at first not yet its tyrant. For Paul, the transgression of the first man opened the way for the entrance of death into the world,[ 63 ] but this enemy [ 64 ] is certainly not the finished product of God. Neither can the death of Adam, or even of each man, be considered the outcome of any decision of God to punish.[ 65 ] St. Paul never suggests such an idea.

To get at the basic presuppositions of Biblical thinking, one must abandon any juridical scheme of human justice which demands punishment and rewards according to objective rules of morality. To approach the problem of original sin in such a naive manner as to say that tout lecteur sense concilura qu'une penalite commune implique une offense commune, and that thus all share in the guilt of Adam,[ 66 ] is to ignore the true nature of the justice of God and deny and real power to the devil.

The relationships which exist among God, man and the devil are not according to rules and regulations, but according to personalistic freedom. The fact that there are laws forbidding one from killing his neighbor does not imply the impossibility of killing not only one, but hundreds of thousands of neighbors. If man can disregard rules and regulations of good conduct, certainly the devil cannot be expected to follow such rules if he can help it. St. Paul's version of the devil is certainly not that of one who is simply obeying general rules of nature and carrying out the will of God by punishing souls in hell. Quite on the contrary, he is fighting God dynamically by means of all possible deception, trying by all his cunning and power to destroy the works of God.[ 67 ] Thus salvation for man and creation cannot come by a simple act of forgiveness of any juridical imputation of sin, nor can it come by any payment of satisfaction to the devil (Origen) or to God (Rome). Salvation can come only by the destruction of the devil and his power.[ 68 ]

Thus, according to St. Paul, it is God Himself Who has destroyed "principalities and powers" by nailing the handwriting in ordinances, which was against us, to the cross of Christ.[ 69 ] "God was in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing to them their offences."[ 70 ] although we were in sin, God did not hold this against us, but has declared His own justice to those who believe in Christ.[ 71 ] The justice of God is not according to that of men, which operates by the law of works.[ 72 ] For St. Paul, the justice of God and the love of God are not to be separated for the sake of any juridical doctrine of atonement. The justice of God and the love of God as revealed in Christ are the same thing. In Romans 3:21-26, for example, the expression, "love of God," could very easily be substituted for the "justice of God."

It is interesting to note that every time St. Paul speaks about the wrath of God it is always that which is revealed to those who have become hopelessly enslaved, by their own choosing, to the flesh and the devil.[ 73 ] Although creation is held captive in corruption, those without the law are without excuse in worshipping and living falsely, because "the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead[ 74 ]--"Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the desires of their own hearts to dishonor their own bodies between themselves..."[ 75 ] and again, "God gave them over to reprobate mind."[ 76 ] This does not mean that god caused them to become what they are, but rather that He gave them up as being completely lost to corruption and the power of the devil. One must also interpret other similar passages in like manner.[ 77 ]

This giving up by God of people who have already become hardened in their hearts against His works is not restricted to the gentiles, but extends, also, to Jews.[ 78 ] "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified."[ 79 ] And, "For as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law."[ 80 ] The gentiles, however, even though they are not under the Mosaic law, are not excused from the responsibility of personal sin, for they, "having not the law, are a law unto themselves, who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and amongst themselves accusing or else excusing their thoughts."[ 81 ] At the last judgment, all men, whether under the law or not, whether hearers of Christ or not, shall be judged by Christ according to the Gospel as preached by Paul,[ 82 ] and not according to any system of natural laws. Even though the invisible things of God "from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead," there is still no such thing as moral law inherent in the universe. The gentiles who "have not the law" but who "do by nature the things contained in the law" are not abiding by any natural system of moral laws in the universe. They rather "shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness." Here, again, one sees Paul's conception of personal relationships between God and man. "God hath shewed it unto them, [ 83 ] and it is God Who is still speaking to fallen man outside of the law, through the conscience and in the heart, which for Paul is the center of man's thoughts, [ 84 ] and for members of the body of Christ the dwelling place of the Holy Spirit [ 85 ] and Christ.[ 86 ]

(from ORIGINAL SIN ACCORDING TO ST. PAUL, by John S. Romanides, linked above.



So...fr.patmos and BBBCanada, since you two share some agreement and some differences, what do each of you have to say about that section?

PoW

Edited by - potonwheel on 01/10/2002 4:45:27 PM
Back to Top
 

fr.patmos
Registered Member


Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 45
 
   Posted 1/10/2002 1:05 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
PoW -

Romanides lifts Paul's theme of the cross's victory over the devil. What was, before Christ's cross, the insurmountable problem of sin, is - not God's problem with us - sin is (devil induced) human captivity to unbelief; this is human unrighteousness.
In this bondage to sin's unbelief, it is us who have the problem with God! Sin is not merely a moral problem with spiritual consequences; sin is, within humanity, a spiritual problem (spiritual deadness) with moral - and other - symptoms. ('Sin with good manners' is especially insidious and putrifying.)

From the inception of sin, God was effectively misrepresented by the evil one.
In the beginning we were created to live by every word proceeding from the mouth of God ... but, in our sin, we would not.

But then ...
The Word become flesh is lifted up, draws all humanity to behold this One who has claimed to speak and act in perfect representation of God the Father. The cross puts Christ's claim of representing God to the test. We look upon Him whom we have pierced; this One, who was God from the beginning, who prays the Father's will: "forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing." The Father's will = the Son's voice. The Father's self-giving mercy = the Son's body, broken & blood, poured out.

The world did not receive him then.
The world, then, was effectively inspired by it's spiritual master - the devil - to murder Jesus. (you see, the devil is absolutely opposed to God as Jesus Christ perfectly and completely represents him!)
In the murder of this One on the cross, the true nature and spirit of sin exposed.

But the crucified One was and is none other than God with us. He is, in His living, dying and rising - but chiefly on His cross: He is the sole and complete image of the invisible God. And the truth concerning this God, revealed and enacted in Christ crucified, is invested with divine power to save. It is the Truth that shall form eternal songs of praise from all creation to God, "Worthy, worthy, worthy!" to this God with scarred hands.

From his cross, and through His church, God declares with mercy:
"Let there be faith!" And the power of God
through this crucified One creates what God's will commands. That faith is reckoned righteous, even as the Lamb is solely ascribed worthy of all that belongs to God alone - "...judgement, to you alone!"
("Where are those who condemn you ?... I do not condemn you, did not come into the world to condemn the world ... It is God who justifies!" declares the voice of God through His only Son, Jesus Christ.)

The power of Christ's victory on the cross continues to advance through the proclamation of the Gospel, to cast out the spirit of darkness, unbelief and rebellion which the devil has seeded into the human spirit.

And, as Romanides also brings out, we are just beginning to see how counter-intuitive the Gospel is, when compared to this world's sense of what sin is, what God's righteousness is, and what is right judgement concerning all things (John 16:8).

So: you think, before Christ-crucified this world knew who God was, what God was up to, what to expect? The Romans and Jews were convinced they knew; Peter's good sense caused him to oppose the death Christ predicted.

The Bible says (Ephesians 3:5ff) that the true light of God, and what God was up to through Christ, were kept secret until the appointed time.

The penal metaphor projects, through a veil, a human understanding of the prior texts and knowledge upon Christ and His cross.

But Jesus says that when he is lifted up to be crucified; then, for the first time and definitively, the Father is glorified (John 12). With Christ crucified, the lights are - at last! - turned on:
"Behold, your God!!!"

The angels cannot stop singing about this God. Nor can the creation cease from humming in anticipation of what He brings.

When we speak of the divinity of the One who suffered death in substitution for us: the gates of hell do not prevail against Him.



Edited by - fr.patmos on 01/10/2002 11:12:19 PM
Back to Top
 

PotOnWheel
Registered Member




Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
 
   Posted 1/10/2002 2:52 PM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Rock and Roll!
Back to Top
 

BBBCanada
Registered Member




Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
 
   Posted 1/11/2002 11:13 AM (GMT -6)    Quote This PostAlert An Admin About This Post.
Couple of things. Yes Bob Brow is the man! Been very supportive of me in some personal areas.

Secondly, Stark I think you and I are emphasizing the different hues found throughout Scripture. Although, I think to some extent the penal framework is still containing your understanding of the atonement.

Some excellent points in this article. I remember when I first read about OT. I read "The Openness of God" (which to me is a slightly misconstrued title, should it not rather be entitled "The openness of the Future?" Actually my first encounter with OT was John Boykin's book, "The Gospel of Coincidence: Is God in Control?" still available at Amazon.com) I came away thinking how rather "different" it was then the the standard fan fare of the Calvinistic compatiblism that I was use to. Especially the blueprint model. Now as much as those who would argue for a God/god with Calvinistic tendencies on these boards, I am still left with the same old image of God, even after a year and a half of hearing the arguments, (which are rather powerful objections, thank you Meph, yet they don't satisfy). My point is this. This is what happens with the atonement. The satisfactory and penal theories of the atonement may still be argued, but what am I left with? Greg talked about this in God At War and in God of the Possible with regard to what does the determinist view point leave us with. Something needs to be said about what happens or what results when the atonement is contained within a penal or satisfactory definition.

Even the Bible's "definition" of sin is not something that is viewed strictly in terms of disobedience or disobedient acts. The individualism of our culture veiws disobedience in terms of our "relationship with God" outside of any corporate understanding. The opposite of that is forgiveness involves incorporation into the "family of God." This hardly fares well with "the plan of salvation" grounded in disobedience (acts)-forgiveness understanding of sin and salvation.

Secondly, if disobedience is something that is understood in terms of a "divine slate" that Jesus death wipes clean, to the extent that he covers all sinful acts completely, the question remains, are we any less likely to engage in future sinful acts?

Brandon





Edited by - BBBCanada on 01/11/2002 4:19:26 PM
Back to Top
 
New Topic Post Reply Printable Version
63 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page :
 1  2  3 
   
Forum Information
Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:07 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads