 |
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/7/2006 5:25 PM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/7/2006 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/7/2006 8:30 PM (GMT -6) | | POW answers the question:
Yes, and sorrowful too.
I'd agree with you on the sorrowful. I'd disagree with the anger thing, though. But I can agree to disagree.
I am interested. I'd ask you a favor, POW. I'd really like to know on what basis you think God gets angry at people for sinful/thoughts and behavior. I really value your opinion and I know that you will bring resources to bear that I need to take into account. I'd seriously like to know what grounds your belief. So...
Board Administrator, I'd like to ask a favor. I'd like POW to post whatever he feels necessary to convey a sense of why he believes God gets angry. It seems from my perspective that POW has historically found various ways to communicate his sentiments (or at least pointers in the direction of sources that inform his sentiments). Things like quotations, pictures, etc. (I've always dug that about you, man.  ) If you wouldn't mind, I'd like to give a little freer reign on the lengthy quote/lots of pictures informal rule for THIS thread. The reason is simple. I'd really...REALLY...like to know what informs POW on the matter of whether or not God gets angry. What church fathers or/ homileticians informs his view. I'd like to give him whatever space he needs to convey that sentiment.
I'd appreciate your leniency here. 
OK, POW. Lemme have it.
If you wouldn't mind, please share your perspective on what grounds your belief that God gets angry at sinners.
So...take it away.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 9/7/2006 9:44 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/8/2006 12:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Ok, y'all.
26 views...and only 3 votes??
This IS an anonymous poll.
No one's conservative pastor or Aunt Susie is gonna find out.
I promise.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
Live in Christ's love, the Spirit's empowerment, and the Father's grace.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/8/2006 8:13 AM (GMT -6) | | |
(o) said... Yes, and sorrowful too.
(o): Caught me. Darn. I really wanted to slip in an answer here, and not have to "show my work." (like arithmetic)
.
D.P.: "...what informs POW on the matter of whether or not God gets angry...?"
(o): First, I take "gets angry" with respect: Its revelation, to us, for us. While it is partly our observation--in history or personally--it is not just that. Revelation given becomes revelation revealed to those who have eyes and ears to hear. Clearly that is true of topics like grace and like love. Revelation is given to be unfolded/revealed by the Spirit and in the Body. A matter like "anger" twists back upon itself because it would be bazzar to say that God reveals his anger to those who love him and are pure of hear--argh! But the revelation of "gets angry" is not purely historical, but it also communicates and is communication. It is word. And that communication is limited -- imho -- by our creatureliness. So we say and we unsay. That's what we have to do!
And what about saying and unsaying. Negative and positive theology)?
Balance!
Balance is a word I heard used to describe Orthodoxy (correct worship). And since lex orandi, lex credendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of belief = theology is prayer and prayer is theology), balance is what is to be expected. That is, its an expectation, but not a tool. But as an expectation it might prepare me to be willing to know know or understand everything myself. So...
So, I'm open to hearing what those whom I respect in doxia (both orandi and credendi) have to say about "saying and unsaying." And at this point in my life I'm fixed on not expecting myself to do any kind of math on figuring out details about wrath and mercy. Frankly, what I can't know about whether God is being mercify or punishing to someone else rivals only the same thing applied to me. "He who thinks he stands, take heed lest he fall!" Reardon has an e-homily of recent where he said that Job didn't know he was being tested; and likewise if we could know that "hey, I'm just being tested" it might make gutting things out more easy--but we don't. After the fact we might know. And some really, really godly people (who don't act like it, because they don't consider themselves as anything but the worst of sinners) might have discernment and even calling to counsel us by pointing it out. But, though all that, it is really the COMMUNITY that is at play there.
LENT is designed, from its beginning, as a preparation for baptism, and for the exhorcisms that preceed baptism. (Click " Models for Lent " below) And, as is obvious, Lent has lots of fasting. But who fasts. Certainly the individual catechumins fast. But the BODY fasts. Nothing pertaining to the individual escapes affecting the Body. And nothing of the Body is alien to the individual. (The one and the many.) Fasting in Lent was never about the two things we think it is for: self-punishment or individual progress. Lent is about corporate gathering and installing. Corporate discernment and corporate formation.
What is punishement and what is wrath. For that matter what is the nature of each... Its hard for an individual to tell -- from the perspective of an individual.
Let alone looking at eternal pronouncements.
So, I'm left NOT showing my own work. But, rather, I'm content having the work of others. And appreciating the balance found therein.
I listen to what is said and how it is said. And I appreciate the thoughts behind the thoughts which express the reasons for the limitations and afirmations.
A common balanced statement, and one not unfamiliar is this: "Do not dispair, and do not presume."
THAT even fits the statement in the Canons of Dort addressing "Election." So says the President of Calvin Seminary, Neil Plantinga, in a book of his I have.
D., I've sent you links and you've enjoyed listening to a few of the homiles by Patirick Henry Reardon. I cn'at point right now to just one. But what comes quickest to mind in the way of both content and balance are those. (I'll list links.) Part of what is said has to be considered theory, and they are best expressed openly as theory of opinion.
Here are some LINKS:
All Saints Homilies - Fr. Pat Reardon
http://www.ancientfaithradio.com/archives.html
COOL! THESE ARE 'CLICKABLE.' TRY THEM!!!
Final Touches
Abrahams Obedience
The Resurrection-Essence of Gospel
Spirit Bearing Jesus
Holy Unction-Healing and Forgiveness
Lazarus, Joanna, Matthew
Son And Heir
Resurrection and the Burning Bush
The Cross-Hope, Transformation, Warning
Veneration of Icons
Models for Lent
Lent-What God Does For Us
Lent-Preparing Catechumens
Transfiguration
Holy Week - The Cross
Holy Week-Christ Our Friend
Spirit of Pentecost
Abraham
Panic
Restoration to Real Life
Sanctification of Time
The Light of Creation
The Judgment of God
For God so Loved the World
The Virgin Mary
Life in the Church, Forgiveness
Faith in Jesus, the Son of God
Becoming a Christian
Qualities of Christian Love
Maintenance of The Life In Christ
Intercessory Prayer
Justification By Faith
The Church Is A Living Organism
Melchizedek
and
http://www.receive.org/index.php?menu=3&submenu=23&id=408
Can a Loving God Cast People into hell?
.
and, of "course" another "link" too:
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 9/8/2006 8:35:34 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/8/2006 8:24 AM (GMT -6) | | | (The "Come Recive The Light file will just play right away, with only some ka-ka-thchup at the beginning.)
As to all the clickable links of Reardon's homilies I find it best to use the right-ckick's "save target as," and then listen to it after it is done downloading.
Tell me what you think!
(o)Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 9/8/2006 8:38:13 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/8/2006 1:20 PM (GMT -6) | | I really like Reardon's homilies. They're great.
Of course, you that I would agree with Reardon's general direction, as I interpret it: Humanity will be evaluated by a Standard Bearer other than itself one of these days. And it's not gonna be pretty for a lot of people. Warning has gone lovinglyforth about this, and what is needful is to heed the warning.
I can definitely get with all of that. God as divine, consuming fire. Can definitely get down with it...and all that means. And of course, I listened to the "How can a loving God cast people into hell" sermon before. Though it seems like Reardon is a bit of an annihilationist, we STILL both agree that "hell" is ultimately a function of human autonomy; that is to say, "hell" exists as a testament to the REALITY of our moral autonomy. Our temporal decisions DO have eternal ramifications.
However...
What I struggle with, POW, is the idea that God is ANGRILY appropriating his judgement. This is what you said:
First, I take "gets angry" with respect: Its revelation, to us, for us. While it is partly our observation--in history or personally--it is not just that. Revelation given becomes revelation revealed to those who have eyes and ears to hear. Clearly that is true of topics like grace and like love. Revelation is given to be unfolded/revealed by the Spirit and in the Body. A matter like "anger" twists back upon itself because it would be bazzar to say that God reveals his anger to those who love him and are pure of hear--argh! But the revelation of "gets angry" is not purely historical, but it also communicates and is communication. It is word. And that communication is limited -- imho -- by our creatureliness. So we say and we unsay. That's what we have to do!
We say. We unsay. Do we ever RESTATE or REDEFINE what has been said? Do we ever circumscribe what is UNSAID by what has been said? As a matter of fact, do we ever RESTATE or REDEFINE what has been said...and THEN, use that body of process to circumscribe what is UNSAID? Can all of these processes be expresssions of respect for the revelation?
I am just noting the very fluid and interpenetrating dimension of communication. And the CRITICAL/DISCERNING/SHAPING/RESHAPING (no pejoration here!) elements involved.
Is "anger" the best term to use?
Prayers for Orthodox Christians
Morning Prayers
www.oca.org/OCSelect-Prayer.asp?SID=2&name=Morning%20Prayers
TO THE GUARDIAN ANGEL:
O Holy Angel, keeping guard over my wretched soul and my passionate life, do not forsake me, a sinner, nor depart from me because of my incontinence. Do not give the evil enemy room to overcome me by force of this mortal body. Strengthen my weak and feeble hand, and set me on the way of salvation. Yea, O Holy Angel of God, guardian and protector of my wretched soul and body, forgive me everything by which I have offended you all the days of my life, and even what I have done this past night; protect me during this day, and guard me from every temptation of the enemy, that I may not anger God by any sin. Pray to the Lord for me, that He may confirm me in His fear and prove me a worthy servant of His goodness. Amen.
Now this is a daily prayer. Not only does a person that prays this SOCIALIZE themselves to understand that their actions are an OFFENSE to holy persons (which would have to include God, right), but also that sin ANGERS God. Not just ALL sin, but PARTICULAR sins. Hence the "by any sin"
This is a GOOD thing, POW?
NOw, this is for PREPARING ALTAR BOYS for a particular Eastern Orthodox church...ok?
www.stbasilchurch.org/altar_boys.html
Instructions to a Church Reader
1. A God-fearing reader ought always to remember that he is proclaiming doxologies and prayers for himself and for all who are praying in church, where God Himself, His immaculate mother, the angels and the saints are always invisibly present. The Lord, the Knower of hearts, knows the feeling and attitude with which the reader performs his obligations.
2. A God-fearing reader knows that those standing in church also notice his mistakes, his inattention, etc., and that they may be tempted thereby. That is why he does not allow carelessness; he fears thereby to anger God. For it is said in Scripture: "Cursed is every man that doeth the Lord's work with carelessness" (Jer. 48:10). When reading words of prayer in the holy church in the hearing of all the faithful, we carry out God's work; therefore, read reverently and decorously, distinctly and unhurriedly.
So, the servants of God are to FEAR making God angry...right?
Anyways, I, of course, like Kalomiros "River of Fire"
www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm
The "God" of the West is an offended and angry God, full of wrath for the disobedience of men, who desires in His destructive passion to torment all humanity unto eternity for their sins, unless He receives an infinite satisfaction for His offended pride.
What is the Western dogma of salvation? Did not God kill God in order to satisfy His pride, which the Westerners euphemistically call justice? And is it not by this infinite satisfaction that He deigns to accept the salvation of some of us?
What is salvation for Western theology? Is it not salvation from the wrath of God? 2
Do you see, then, that Western theology teaches that our real danger and our real enemy is our Creator and God? Salvation, for Westerners, is to be saved from the hands of God!
How can one love such a God? How can we have faith in someone we detest? Faith in its deeper essence is a product of love, therefore, it would be our desire that one who threatens us not even exist, especially when this threat is eternal.
Hmmm...now THAT sure is a perspective, now isn't it?
Anyways...what's the worry. This guy makes it plain...you quoted this before, POW...from "An Angry God in the Hands of Fr. Morelli"
I have commented on Fr. Morelli’s article not to deny the goodness, gentleness, or loving-kindness of our great God, or to establish the idea that God is mean, cold, and vicious. Rather, I defend here the idea that we must accept Him as He has revealed Himself to us, not turning to the right hand or the left. There is a significant trend today in Orthodoxy to deny the wrath and justice of God in favour of entirely “non-juridical” conceptions, to assert that God, being goodness and love, and not subject to passions, cannot have any measure of dispassionate wrath; that the good God would not consign anyone to the fire. A key example of this is Alexander Kalomiros’ very popular lecture, The River of Fire.
The position militates against a great deal of the revelation though. In fact, Jesus Himself spoke more about Gehenna than any other figure in the Scriptures. Certainly it is true that when we speak of God’s wrath, anger, jealousy, etc., we are speaking by analogy. God, again, is not subject to passions. But the analogy would not exist, indeed, He would not have used these descriptions of Himself, were there not a core of shared meaning. Thus, in the apophatic tradition of Orthodox theology, we understand that God’s anger is not precisely the anger we have, but that it denotes His attitude toward sin and rebellion.
But Fr. George Morelli, following the modern trend (one shared by liberal Protestantism), to make God good and loving while denying His hatred for sin, His Divine wrath against the rebellion of His creature, and His eternal justice which will cause some to be told to depart into outer darkness, has preached for us a truncated Gospel.
Jesus Christ is the Truth, and anything that seeks to emphasise some of His attributes at the expense of others serves not the Truth, but a lie; a lie that makes our Lord less than what He Is.
Bottom line: This person seems worried about 1) "preserving" the revelation (as he sees that) and 2) God's hatred for sin being minimized. It would interesting if this person could understand that there is very APPROPRIATE language to us that would 1) NOT allow for the denial of the reality of revelation and 2) completely articulate God's attitude towards sin in a HELPFUL way.
Later...
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
Live in Christ's love, the Spirit's empowerment, and the Father's grace.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/8/2006 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/9/2006 8:09 AM (GMT -6) | | | I've only got time for one post this weekend, as I'm preparing for an interview next week. I'm trying to get a job in town so I don't have to be out of town all week. I'd appreciate you guys' prayers on this.
I apologize for not even having time to catch up on the reading, but I want to try to articulate what I think my favorite philosopher would say about this. The point of that is not to say that it is the truth, or the only logical possibility. Rather, I'm trying to defend the possibility that those who say they are angry "at" people are not necessarily being sinful in doing so.
Emotions, per se, are only sentient states. As such, they have no moral quality. But they can be occasioned by moral states of affairs--like intentional evil. But emotions, per se, are natural and are aroused naturally under certain conditions. Because we are corruptible, though, we can associate different emotions together that do not naturally belong together necessarily--like anger and hate or beauty and erotic lust.
So emotions, being merely sentient states, can not be "at" anything. What can be "at" something is the impulse unto action that arises in association with an emotion. So whereas it is the evil effect of volition that occasions the emotion of anger, it is only the impulse to stop or minimize the evil effect that can be "at" something. But insomuch as sin is an abstraction, we can't act against sin, per se. We can only act upon volitional beings--whether by persuasion or coercion.
In short, when we say we are angry "at" someone, we're merely saying that the impulse associated with our anger is impelling us to action to stop the person from continuing the evil. I see no reason to assume that there is any such thing as an emotion, per se, that is morally evil. Only actions can be morally evil. Sentient displeasure is the natural evil (i.e., state of affairs) that we are trying to stop or minimize by our moral actions and restraint (which is a kind of action--an action upon ourselves).
Post Edited (jefscott) : 9/9/2006 10:21:30 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/10/2006 6:29 PM (GMT -6) | |
PoW said...
Contrast:
1. ANGRILY appropriating his judgement
2. sin ANGERS God
Oh what a difference a verb makes.
Ditto!
(p.s., Ask me about Bruce Shelly.)
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 9/10/2006 6:45 PM (GMT -6) | | | POW: p.s., Ask me about Bruce Shelly.
Jeff: Alright, what about Bruce Shelly.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/10/2006 7:49 PM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...POW: p.s., Ask me about Bruce Shelly.
Jeff: Alright, what about Bruce Shelly.
Shelley's "Church History in Plain Language" contrasts western juridicism with Orthodoxy on page 142-143.
Above I contrasted "ANGRILY appropriating his judgement" and "sin ANGERS God." The first appears consonant with juridicism, while the later fits the notion of sin that is an "inflicted(ed) wound in the original image of God." (Shelley, p. 142)
Not tell Meph!
Thanks for asking.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2006 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Is this kinda what you are saying, POW?
The Difference Between Orthodox Spirituality and Other Traditions
by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos
www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hierotheos_difference.aspx
Some of it...
In the interpretation of this parable by Saint John Chrysostom, it is clearly shown that the Church is a Hospital which cures people wounded by sin; and the bishops and priests are the therapists of the people of God.
and I found this interesting, too.
web.ukonline.co.uk/pbrooke/p%26t/sin/sin1
Some of it...
But here, immediately, we touch on a difference between the Orthodox tradition and what, because it includes both Roman Catholics and Protestants, we might call 'the Western tradition.' Both speak of the loss of Paradise, and both speak of Paradise as a state of communion with God. But in the Western tradition, the rupture comes about because of God's immeasurable anger against the disobedience of Adam. It is an act of Justice, and much ingenuity has been devoted to explaining why we are all alike guilty of Adam's sin and therefore punished for it, justly.
The Orthodox Church too talks about the Wrath of God, but we understand it differently as an image to express, not a feeling of anger experienced by God (the thought is absurd), but a state of illness experienced by us. Sin is a disease which has spread throughout the world. The symptoms of this disease are the passions the eight vices. The passions cannot enter into union with God. 'Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.' The pure in heart are those whose hearts are free from the passions. When the passions approach the Light of God, they (and we with them) experience it as fire. That is the Wrath of God.
The passions are, broadly, what are known in the West as the seven Deadly Sins gluttony, lust, avarice, anger, sloth, envy, pride. The eighth is despair, or despondency and it is to be taken every bit as seriously as the others. The great nineteenth century philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, has written a book about it (The Sickness unto Death). The mere fact that we give ourselves up to the other passions indicates despair at the possibility of Union with God.
and...
The point here is not that we are culpable and deserving of God's anger because of these unexpressed, festering passions (though, for what it is worth, we are culpable, and we would be deserving of God's anger if the passion of anger was an attribute of God ...); the point is, rather, that we are diseased. We are ill, and like anyone who is ill, this means we are incapable of certain things which, under other conditions, would be natural to us. Perhaps a person with a serious physical disability cannot walk, cannot concentrate on his or her work, cannot have children. But those who are afflicted with this particular serious spiritual disability cannot attain to Eternal Life, cannot enter into communion with God, the source of everything on Earth that is good, noble, beautiful.
So, this is going to come down to a presuppositional empasse. I don't agree with the premise that Scripture can NEVER communicate anything about God's actual existence. What's interesting to me is that my view pretty much USES a version of the "sin and sickness" motif in my conception of eventual universal reconciliation. That's why I like the River of Fire idea.
So...where does that leave us?
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/11/2006 7:39:18 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2006 7:47 AM (GMT -6) | | When you say "Sin angers God", it seems to me that you mean this:
Sin inflicts "wounds" upon God's image...and this affects the relationality between God and God's Image in a negative way (ie we experience God's Light as fire instead of experiencing it primarily as Light)
Is this what you are saying?
If so, I can dig it. I would be willing to say that many people from American evangelical circles who hear "sin angers God" wouldn't interpret it this way. Wouldn't you agree?
I think we are saying the same thing but from different vantagepoints.
I hear you saying that God doesn't have the internal self-dispositional passion of anger, and we are wrong to deduce that from Scriptures saying that God gets angry. (Just like we are wrong to think that anything said in Scripture can reflect the actual existence of God's inner states.)
I'm saying that, granting that one COULD talk about God's inner states from biblical testimony, God's nature (as we've been discussing it here) wouldn't allow for the context for God to have the internal self-dispositional passion of anger.
What do you think? Post Edited (MephEternal) : 9/11/2006 7:52:47 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/11/2006 9:04 AM (GMT -6) | | CAPS USED TO DISTINGUISH MY COMMENTS FROM YOURS. HOPE THAT'S OK!
.
MephEternal said...
When you say "Sin angers God", it seems to me that you mean this:
Sin inflicts "wounds" upon God's image...and this affects the relationality between God and God's Image in a negative way (ie we experience God's Light as fire instead of experiencing it primarily as Light)
Is this what you are saying?
YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES.
.
If so, I can dig it. I would be willing to say that many people from American evangelical circles who hear "sin angers God" wouldn't interpret it this way. Wouldn't you agree?
BUT, THOSE SAME AMERICAN EVANGELICALS ARE SELF-COMMITTED TO NOT ONLY MEMORIZING JOHN 3:16-21 BUT ALSO TO MEDITATING ON IT. WHEN THEY DO THAT THEY WILL COME AROUND. "WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY" AND NOT JUST THE TRADITIONS OF MAN. THE "FREE" IN EVANGELICAL FREE REFERS TO READING SCRIPTURE.
.
I hear you saying that God doesn't have the internal self-dispositional passion of anger, and we are wrong to deduce that from Scriptures saying that God gets angry. (Just like we are wrong to think that anything said in Scripture can reflect the actual existence of God's inner states.)
I'm saying that, granting that one COULD talk about God's inner states from biblical testimony, God's nature (as we've been discussing it here) wouldn't allow for the context for God to have the internal self-dispositional passion of anger.
What do you think?
I THINK THAT THE BEGINNING POINT CANNOT BE ACADEMIC. WHAT USE IS IT?
THE BEGINNING POINT MUST BE OUR SALVATION -- BY WHICH I DO NOT MEAN ONE POINT IN TIME GOING FORWARD BUT WHAT GOD WORKS WITH US THROUGHOUT OUR LIVES, AND AS PAUL SAYS DOES NOT HAPPEN EVEN WITH THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD BUT WITH THE FINAL JUDGEMENT. OUR SALVATION IS THE LENSE THROUGH WHICH TO VIEW "GOD'S ANGER." AND VIEWED SUCH IT IS PERFECTLY GOOD TO USE THIS PHRASE; IT IS BIBLICAL AFTER ALL. BUT IT TELLS US about OUR SALVATION, AND DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO MAKE A DEFINATIVE DEFINITION OF GOD.
SCRIPTURE DOES NOT TRY TO FORMALLY MAKE A DEFINITIVE ACADEMIC DEFINITION OF GOD. WHY SHOULD WE?
CHRIST IS THE REVELATION WE NEED. AND HE IS LORD AND SAVIOR. IT IS THOSE TWO DEFINITIONS THAT WE NEED FOR OUR SALVATION.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2006 9:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph: When you say "Sin angers God", it seems to me that you mean this: Sin inflicts "wounds" upon God's image...and this affects the relationality between God and God's Image in a negative way (ie we experience God's Light as fire instead of experiencing it primarily as Light) Is this what you are saying?
POW: YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES. YES.
Sweet.
*******************************
Meph: If so, I can dig it. I would be willing to say that many people from American evangelical circles who hear "sin angers God" wouldn't interpret it this way. Wouldn't you agree?
POW: BUT, THOSE SAME AMERICAN EVANGELICALS ARE SELF-COMMITTED TO NOT ONLY MEMORIZING JOHN 3:16-21 BUT ALSO TO MEDITATING ON IT. WHEN THEY DO THAT THEY WILL COME AROUND. "WHAT DOES SCRIPTURE SAY" AND NOT JUST THE TRADITIONS OF MAN. THE "FREE" IN EVANGELICAL FREE REFERS TO READING SCRIPTURE.
I would agree that there needs to be more meditation on the Scriptural passage you mention. I even believe that people would come to see what you are saying. I have less optimism that people would associate this idea with God being angry at sinners. Particularly if they are focussing on the OT. Their loss, right?
***************************
Meph: I hear you saying that God doesn't have the internal self-dispositional passion of anger, and we are wrong to deduce that from Scriptures saying that God gets angry. (Just like we are wrong to think that anything said in Scripture can reflect the actual existence of God's inner states.)
I'm saying that, granting that one COULD talk about God's inner states from biblical testimony, God's nature (as we've been discussing it here) wouldn't allow for the context for God to have the internal self-dispositional passion of anger.
What do you think?
POW: I THINK THAT THE BEGINNING POINT CANNOT BE ACADEMIC. WHAT USE IS IT?
THE BEGINNING POINT MUST BE OUR SALVATION -- BY WHICH I DO NOT MEAN ONE POINT IN TIME GOING FORWARD BUT WHAT GOD WORKS WITH US THROUGHOUT OUR LIVES, AND AS PAUL SAYS DOES NOT HAPPEN EVEN WITH THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD BUT WITH THE FINAL JUDGEMENT. OUR SALVATION IS THE LENSE THROUGH WHICH TO VIEW "GOD'S ANGER." AND VIEWED SUCH IT IS PERFECTLY GOOD TO USE THIS PHRASE; IT IS BIBLICAL AFTER ALL. BUT IT TELLS US about OUR SALVATION, AND DOES NOT ATTEMPT TO MAKE A DEFINATIVE DEFINITION OF GOD.
SCRIPTURE DOES NOT TRY TO FORMALLY MAKE A DEFINITIVE ACADEMIC DEFINITION OF GOD. WHY SHOULD WE?
CHRIST IS THE REVELATION WE NEED. AND HE IS LORD AND SAVIOR. IT IS THOSE TWO DEFINITIONS THAT WE NEED FOR OUR SALVATION.
By saying that the starting point should be salvation, aren't you implicitly saying that the starting point for all of our thinking about this should be our EXPERIENCE of the salvific effects of God's relationship to Creation as mediated to us through Scripture? And that God's"anger" should be framed in terms of that experience? I would say the same thing, insofar as it has to start with our experience...but I would BROADEN the content of that experience. Not to exclude what's been mentioned, but to engage it. This is why I believe that process philosophy has tremendous insights for life in the Reign of God.
I believe that God can use formal "descriptions" of theological reality in order to bring people into more experiential, lived internalization of the Reign of God. It can be a portal into experiencing the Triune God.
Isn't that a good thing?
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
Live in Christ's love, the Spirit's empowerment, and the Father's grace.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2006 9:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Let's also say this. There is a deep presuppositional impasse.
From my perspective, you don't believe that God's internal states of being (emotionally or otherwise) can EVER be known...nor communicated. This is because of God's incomprehensibility. All that can be done is for US to understand OUR experiences in relationship to God's "energies".
I believe that God's internal states of being can be SOMEWHAT (truthfully, though not exhaustively) known BECAUSE God has communicated. (Creation IS divine communication to those equipped to perceive it as such. Romans 1)
We're on different pages, as I see it.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
Live in Christ's love, the Spirit's empowerment, and the Father's grace.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 9/11/2006 9:38 AM (GMT -6) | | |
These are my observations from the cheep-seats along the leftfield foul line...
MephEternal said...
Is this kinda what you are saying, POW?
The Difference Between Orthodox Spirituality and Other Traditions
by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos
www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hierotheos_difference.aspxSome of it...
In the interpretation of this parable by Saint John Chrysostom, it is clearly shown that the Church is a Hospital which cures people wounded by sin; and the bishops and priests are the therapists of the people of God.
and I found this interesting, too.
web.ukonline.co.uk/pbrooke/p%26t/sin/sin1Some of it...
But here, immediately, we touch on a difference between the Orthodox tradition and what, because it includes both Roman Catholics and Protestants, we might call 'the Western tradition.' Both speak of the loss of Paradise, and both speak of Paradise as a state of communion with God. But in the Western tradition, the rupture comes about because of God's immeasurable anger against the disobedience of Adam. It is an act of Justice, and much ingenuity has been devoted to explaining why we are all alike guilty of Adam's sin and therefore punished for it, justly.
The Orthodox Church too talks about the Wrath of God, but we understand it differently as an image to express, not a feeling of anger experienced by God (the thought is absurd), but a state of illness experienced by us. Sin is a disease which has spread throughout the world. The symptoms of this disease are the passions the eight vices. The passions cannot enter into union with God. 'Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.' The pure in heart are those whose hearts are free from the passions. When the passions approach the Light of God, they (and we with them) experience it as fire. That is the Wrath of God.
The passions are, broadly, what are known in the West as the seven Deadly Sins gluttony, lust, avarice, anger, sloth, envy, pride. The eighth is despair, or despondency and it is to be taken every bit as seriously as the others. The great nineteenth century philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard, has written a book about it (The Sickness unto Death). The mere fact that we give ourselves up to the other passions indicates despair at the possibility of Union with God.
and...
The point here is not that we are culpable and deserving of God's anger because of these unexpressed, festering passions (though, for what it is worth, we are culpable, and we would be deserving of God's anger if the passion of anger was an attribute of God ...); the point is, rather, that we are diseased. We are ill, and like anyone who is ill, this means we are incapable of certain things which, under other conditions, would be natural to us. Perhaps a person with a serious physical disability cannot walk, cannot concentrate on his or her work, cannot have children. But those who are afflicted with this particular serious spiritual disability cannot attain to Eternal Life, cannot enter into communion with God, the source of everything on Earth that is good, noble, beautiful.
Vlathos is well worth frequent reading!!!!!!!!!!
Over and over.
MephEternal said...I found this interesting, too. web.ukonline.co.uk/pbrooke/p%26t/sin/sin1The passions cannot enter into union with God. 'Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.' The pure in heart are those whose hearts are free from the passions. When the passions approach the Light of God, they (and we with them) experience it as fire. That is the Wrath of God. . . . The mere fact that we give ourselves up to the other passions indicates despair at the possibility of Union with God.. . .
So, this is going to come down to a presuppositional empasse. I don't agree with the premise that Scripture can NEVER communicate anything about God's actual existence.
So...where does that leave us?
I don't think that anyone would say that Scripture does not communicate anything about God's actual existence! To do so would require something that I can't stand: the notion that the Trinity is an illusion based only on the economy and not being true about God. The Triunity is a mystery!!!!!!!!!!! But it is true and "about God's existence." The fact of the eternal begottenness of the Son and the Progression of the Spirit are mysteries -- but they are true and they are "about" God.
D., if this is all about academia, then it does look like we are at a "presuppositional empasse." But I'm not even coming at this via academia! (Not to say that intellect and academic skills aren't used, of course.)
Where it leaves us is a charge to go back to the matters of salvation and to anthropology:
Sin is a disease which has spread throughout the world. The symptoms of this disease are the passions the eight vices. The passions cannot enter into union with God. 'Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.
The WHOLE DISCUSSION about essence and energy SHOULD REALLY be recognized -- and historically it is -- to be attention to slavation of us men. ("...for us men/humanity and our salvation...") Salvation is NOT about an intermediary, like Thomas' followers morphed his theology into. Relationship with God is not solely in the intellect, like some strains of Scholasticism. PERSONAL relationship with God is a relationship with the PERSONAL uncreated energies of God. Lets be timely to reaffirm that I am not a member of the Trinity and neither are you. We do not relate to the Spirit or the Son or the Father as another person in the Godhead. But Orthodoxy affirms that this DOES NOT limit our relationship with God. And neither is salvation, then, limited to legal changes. SALVATION is becoming "engodded" just our Lord became enfleshed. And Christ is "the man" in whom our salvation is. The coinherence/perichoresis in Christ by the Spirit SHOWS US that humanity naturally is formed for communion with God.
Any academic interests should begin, not as being in the image of God -- for we are NOT. We are created "AFTER" (in the image of) Him who IS the very image of God. We were conceived and formed in Christ's image as ones who together were to be in communion with God. Academic tools should recognize their second-place of knowledge "about" God before the superior goals of KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.
And WHAT does Scripture tell us about how we can KNOW God, and about what the nature of that knowing is?
There's your question.
(o)Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 9/11/2006 9:55:12 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 51 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:25 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
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|