|
cognitivemagic -> RE: Becoming obsessed with fear (8/4/2008 6:31:11 PM)
|
quote:
It seems that you are presenting the Orthodox persepective on sin and guilt. However Scripture is very clear. Sin is the transgression of God's laws, and every sinner is guilty before God. Therefore there is no escaping the legalistic or forensic aspect of sin and guilt. Christ bore the judgment for sin, and where there is judgment there is a Judge and a forensic issue.
Once again, this is not according to Scripture. God saves us from (1) the penalty, (2) the power and (3) the presence of sin. Death (physical and eternal) is a consequence of sin, and therfore God also saves us from death, but to omit sin and guilt from this is to deny what the Bible affirms.
I did not deny that the "legal" metaphor is in scripture. What I do deny is that it is the dominant metaphor; as though an infinite God could be encapsulated under a single metaphor!! There are many other metaphors in the scripture (i.e. "bridegroom and bride", "landowner and tenants", "hen and chicks", "master and servant", "father and sons/daughters", "shepherd and sheep", "doctor and patient", etc.). I was suggesting, for the benefit of those who are fearful, to think about God in terms that suggest "healing"; a metaphor that helps a person draw nearer to God, rather than a metaphor that exacerbates anxiety. Therefore, you misrepresented and/or misunderstood my position.
But a second point about the "legal" metaphor is this: it offers no hope.
A judge acts solely in the interest of "justice". When it comes to an "offense", a judge must give sentence to the offender, based upon the nature of the crime and the culpability of the criminal. "Mercy" may be administered as to the leniency of punishment, as the judge will take into consideration those factors when reaching a verdict; but never is there a fiat acquittal in any case of "guilt".
But if we draw the parallel with Christianity, this is also true of the Divine Judge. God didn't just fiat "forgive" us, right? Well, why not?
Answer: because that would subvert Divine "justice".
So what did Jesus Christ accomplish?
Answer: He provided a way of escape for mankind. As it's been said: "hell used to hold only victims....now it only has volunteers".
But it's precisely this salvation, provided through Jesus Christ, that ends up collapsing the entire "legal" metaphor. And since scripture never places it's metaphorical eggs in one basket, then neither should we!!
quote:
This is indisputable, but God cannot and will not ignore or condone our sinfulness. Therefore He has dealt with it through the life, death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.
In regards to Protestant theology, this is far from indisputable. The Reformed/Calvinist believes that God loves only the "elect". The Lutherans waffle on this issue. And the Weslyan tradition affirms this, but cannot break from the "legal" theology that they inherited from Roman Catholicism.
quote:
Once again, you are misrepresenting something on which Scripture is quite clear. Hell is the Lake of Fire and a place of eternal torment for unredeemed sinners as well as unrepentant angels.
Is it not a place of "outer darkness" as well? Do you really take the "lake of fire" idea literally? That may very well suit medieval scholasticism and Dante, but it's not scriptural; anymore than God is literally a "consuming fire" (Heb. 12:29; representing "light") or "thick darkness" (Exodus 20:21) or a "cloud" and "fire" (Ex. 40:34-38, representing both "light" and "darkness").
But the heart of the error in your theology is that it means that God is mutable. For instance, before the "fall", God was "happy" with man. But after the "fall", God becomes "wrathful".
So, based upon your statements and my readings of classic Protestant theology, something that mankind did by "sinning" has caused a change in God's attitude towards us. Is that your view?
Contrary to such notions, I affirm that God never has nor ever will change his attitude towards mankind. He is, from my perspective, truly immutable.
Therefore, the scriptural language of "wrath", "indignation", "anger", etc., which is attributed to God, is not literal; but rather anthropomorphic. God is love. But human experience of God, from the standpoint of man's inner subjectivity (or qualia) as "sinner", is wrath, anger, indignation, etc. But God's "love" and "goodwill" towards us is never flagging.
Which is also why the scripture calls God "faithful and true"; and even uses the contrasts of "sand" (man's character, which shifts all the time) to "rock" (God's character which, in contrast, is an anchor).
And also, why the scripture says: "God sends his rain on the just and the unjust" and "God is no respecter of persons".
Worse yet, is the greater heretical notion that arises from the idea that God's attitude changes: namely, that God is a lawless hypocrite.
How could God, speaking through the apostles, command us to "put away malice, anger and strife", yet He Himself not do the same? Or ask us to "love our enemies" and "bless those who persecute you", yet refuse to do so Himself? What kind of God is that?
It would mean that God puts burdens on mankind's shoulders that He Himself will not lift!!
The "medicinal/therapeutic" metaphor, as you said, has been favored by Eastern Orthodoxy. But here's the real rub: that metaphor was favored by those very "Greek Orthodox" believers that proceeded the Apostles, some of which were associates of the Apostles (and even spoke and read Greek as their "first" language, with a better understanding of idiomatic expressions that are not so clear to people who read the Greek 1900 years later); and of whom, preserved and transmitted the Gospels and Epistles. And finally, those Orthodox who weighed which texts were "authoritative", and ratified that decision by "canonizing" the selected texts.
But in the wake of Tertullian (a North African, Latin theologian, trained in law) and later St. Augustine (another North African, Latin theologian, with similar training), the dominance of the "legal" metaphor took root in the Western wing of the Empire; but not so in the Byzantine wing. "Original sin" was introduced, in rudimentary form, by Tertullian; but St. Augustine elucidated and defended it; along with a spurious understanding of "election" and "predestination". And since the theological heritage of all Western Theology is traceable to these two thinkers, it should not be surprising that Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are bedfellows (as strange as some might think it to be).
Which is why Philip Schaff, rightly, prefaces his Church Fathers volume containing the writings of Tertullian with this subtitle: Father of Latin Christendom.
Before St. Augustine, "original sin" was absent. And with the schism of 1054 A.D., the West adopted Augustinianism as it's default theology. The torch was taken up by Thomas Aquinas and passed down to Luther, Calvin, Knox and Zwingli. And, by proxy, to you.
So before you hastily accuse me of being "un-scriptural", perhaps you should evaluate the roots of the theological heritage and world-view that you're defending; and then ask yourself: Is this scriptural? Is this the consensus of the entire Church?
I think that history bears out the truthfulness of what I say. But what good are points about Church history if everyone is mostly ignorant of it?
|
|
|
|