ohio jones wrote:Just ran across an article by Bruxy Cavey on the subject. More ways of looking at this than are often listed, and all of them true to some degree; it really takes all of them together to appreciate the scope of what Christ did for us.
Thankyou, I just read Bruxy's article. I especially like how Bruxy says it wasn't God's wrath but rather it was our wrath and gave those supporting scriptures in the sermons in Acts.
As Bruxy says - "regardless of our disagreements, we should be united in this basic Bible truth: through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, God is reconciling the world to himself, and us to one another."
I read J. Denny Weaver's "Keeping Salvation Ethical" and my head hurt from reading the first chapter or two. His explanation or discussion of atonement left me confused and I could not connect that with the rest of the book which I did appreciate. I understand keeping salvation ethical and how those writers who he quoted throughout the book showed the concept.
Sudsy wrote:
Thankyou. Well, I won' be one that goes into that much detailed study and look for a summary, which I think is possible with all these theories. This view that the Father was not angry with the Son and poured out His wrath on the Son but rather the Son gave up His life as a sacrifice that God accepted as sufficient to cover all sin, is one that registers with my thinking. And viewing Christ death as coming from the one's who killed Christ and by association we killed Christ, I also believe is well supported by what Bruxy in his article shows us in Acts. I may not have summarized the RC view exactly but what I gathered from this summary makes more sense to me than the PS view when it comes to how I view the character of God.
I misunderstood, Sudsy. I thought you wanted a detail exploratory of it. I agree the Catholic definition is much closer to your description than the PS concept.
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35 Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
Sudsy wrote:
Thankyou. Well, I won' be one that goes into that much detailed study and look for a summary, which I think is possible with all these theories. This view that the Father was not angry with the Son and poured out His wrath on the Son but rather the Son gave up His life as a sacrifice that God accepted as sufficient to cover all sin, is one that registers with my thinking. And viewing Christ death as coming from the one's who killed Christ and by association we killed Christ, I also believe is well supported by what Bruxy in his article shows us in Acts. I may not have summarized the RC view exactly but what I gathered from this summary makes more sense to me than the PS view when it comes to how I view the character of God.
I misunderstood, Sudsy. I thought you wanted a detail exploratory of it. I agree the Catholic definition is much closer to your description than the PS concept.
Sudsy, found this homily that does an excellent job of explaining the Catholic view. It's much less time intensive and easier to follow than our catechism. Four Immediate Effects of the Passion
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35 Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
I think I found something that may help with my question regarding the seemingly contradiction between the God of wrath in the OT to the Jesus of the NT -
This is from an Anabaptist source. Will give my thoughts later.
"The wrath of God is not the irritability of God; it is the love of God in friction with injustice... God's wrath does not contradict God's love; it proves it. A love that pampers injustice is not lovable." - Bruner
Wade wrote:"The wrath of God is not the irritability of God; it is the love of God in friction with injustice... God's wrath does not contradict God's love; it proves it. A love that pampers injustice is not lovable." - Bruner
Thanks Wade for that quote. I think some of us feel uncomfortable to sing 'the wrath of God was satisfied' in the song 'In Christ Alone' as it sounds that God was taking out His frustration with sin in a violent way on His own Son. We would prefer perhaps it be sung as “Till on that cross as Jesus died/the love of God was magnified.” More of a sacrificial statement.
So lets explore further how some Anabaptists struggle with this PS view. I'll see if I can clarify what I'm trying to get at.
Jesus said to love our enemies and return good for evil. Even to lay down our own lives for another. Yet God the Father can violently take life (men, women and children) and approve of taking another's life in the OT and even in the first part of Acts. Is this not a contradiction within the God head ? I could use the quote above that Wade provided to justify being directly involved in not pampering injustice and expressing love for cases such as removing Hitler.
I believe it is true that Jesus laid down His life as the sacrificial lamb to save us from our sins. He could have called thousands of angels to protect him from this death on a cross. And it is also true that humans killed Jesus. We read how this fact was preached throughout Acts. But Is it not also true that God the Father killed Jesus ? "He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" Romans 8:32 and as prophesized in Isaiah 53 which includes - "Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief" verse 10. God the Father therefore as an act of love was pleased to give Jesus over to be killed, right ?
I will stop it here and ask for how Anabaptists explain what appears to be OK for God to do but not OK for us to do.
Here is a 5 minute explanation from a Reformed source -
What do you think of this explanation ? Again, all are welcomed to give an answer. Thankyou.
God is God and we don't question Him. He alone is able to judge perfectly. We cannot judge perfectly so we will err if we tried to say God set the example so we can try to copy Him. So it is okay for God to rule as He will but not for us. We are to follow the example and teaching of Jesus and the apostles or the Word as it is given to us in the scriptures.
I have difficulty with the teaching that wicked men killed Jesus; it seems that we are being told that this was wrong. And yet God had this plan, and he needed people to carry out His plan. Jesus submitted to that plan: Pilate, Herod, the soldiers, the Chief Priests and the Pharisees, the mob, were all required to carry out God's plan. Can I condemn any of these people who made it possible for Jesus to die four our sins? These people were only fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah. I am not suggesting that any of them were innocent but someone had to take the necessary parts.
Hats Off wrote:God is God and we don't question Him. He alone is able to judge perfectly. We cannot judge perfectly so we will err if we tried to say God set the example so we can try to copy Him. So it is okay for God to rule as He will but not for us. We are to follow the example and teaching of Jesus and the apostles or the Word as it is given to us in the scriptures.
I have difficulty with the teaching that wicked men killed Jesus; it seems that we are being told that this was wrong. And yet God had this plan, and he needed people to carry out His plan. Jesus submitted to that plan: Pilate, Herod, the soldiers, the Chief Priests and the Pharisees, the mob, were all required to carry out God's plan. Can I condemn any of these people who made it possible for Jesus to die four our sins? These people were only fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah. I am not suggesting that any of them were innocent but someone had to take the necessary parts.
So did they have a choice?
0 x
Noah was a conspiracy theorist...and then it began to rain.~Unknown
Maybe - I suppose - I don't know - of course they did because I don't believe in predestination - but if not Judas, then who? If not Pilate, who? Did they have choice - you tell me. Does it make any difference to you and me today?
