A Theology of the Cross

[Quiddity]

I'm still laughing about this! :biglaugh:

My bad AA. I could have sworn you said this elsewhere...
Am I dreaming in thinking you said you were Presb...?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My bad AA. I could have sworn you said this elsewhere...
Am I dreaming in thinking you said you were Presb...?

I've been attending a Presbyterian church for about a year. You're not dreaming.

My theology, however, is decisively not Presbyterian. I'm just making stuff up as I go along and loosely relating it to Scripture - not much better or worse than any other Protestant. My denomenation right now is better termed: biblical studies doctoral student in his own little world until he has to commit to something to get a job after graduation if he lives that long. My doctoral scholarship doesn't require denomenational affiliation, so I'm footloose and fancy free until someone descides to douse me with gasoline, light me on fire, and kick me out unless I choose sides for life.

After graduation I suppose that I will spend my life making tiny philosophical and theological adjustments to my work so that the feller in charge of my paycheck (=research grants) is satisfied that my conclusions fit the denomenational profile - if - the only jobs available are with a church.

 

[Quiddity]

I've been attending a Presbyterian church for about a year. You're not dreaming.

My theology, however, is decisively not Presbyterian. I'm just making stuff up as I go along and loosely relating it to Scripture - not much better or worse than any other Protestant. My denomenation right now is better termed: biblical studies doctoral student in his own little world until he has to commit to something to get a job after graduation if he lives that long. My doctoral scholarship doesn't require denomenational affiliation, so I'm footloose and fancy free until someone descides to douse me with gasoline, light me on fire, and kick me out unless I choose sides for life.

After graduation I suppose that I will spend my life making tiny philosophical and theological adjustments to my work so that the feller in charge of my paycheck (=research grants) is satisfied that my conclusions fit the denomenational profile - if - the only jobs available are with a church.

Adjust away! :cheer:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Adjust away! :cheer:

That's just about the funnest part of what I do. If I must adjust or perish, it is absolutely exhilirating to make a tiny adjustment to something and to marvel at folks who can't tell that the adjustments are there (eg, that what I'm saying contradicts their dogma at very critical points) and insist that it fits perfectly into dogma to the ones who refuse to accept the adjustments/interpretations.

Life is good.:beach:

 

[Augustine]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sojourner




You're arguing that free will can be exercised, even though there is not choice other than to obey God. God is good. If we must choose good...how is that a choice?




I've already said that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_E post # 25




Simple: by not allowing evil choices as possibilities and only good choices.

The Garden of Eden myth provides an excellent model for this kind of Eutopia:

The Lord places Adam and Eve in the Garden, and gives them the freedom to be completely human without the possibility of sin. They can choose where and what to farm, create art and music, and have sex. Evil choices are not a possibility: God creates Adam and Eve without the ability to exploit one another, be selfish, or disobedient to God. God does not create any animal or person with the ability for guile or deceit.

It's entirely possible.

God gave them the freedom of choice in the garden, but Adam and Eve both chose evil by eating of the tree that God forbade them of eating. I believe your model for a world where only good choices exist is flawed.

God does not do evil. He is guilty of no sin. Mankind sins because it defies, and has defied, God's commands. God gave us free will. Sinning is having things our way, with disregard to what God wants. God lets us have it our way because he has given us free will. However, the ultimate consequence of having things our way is eternal damnation. Out of His Divine Mercy, God sent His Son Christ to die for our sins. God is a just God. He does not tolerate sin. He demands atonement for our sins. He has recieved that atonement through Christ's sacrifice. He did not need to receive that atonement from Christ. He could have just as easily taken our lives. But instead, we have life in Christ.

Therefore, sin and evil came from our decision, our free will. God is good, and hates evil. Therefore, he demands its destruction. He does this, and saves us through his Son at the cross. That is the theology of the cross. It is not God atoning for "His sin" of creating an evil world. It is Him giving His Son as an atonement for us bringing sin into the world.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

God gave them the freedom of choice in the garden, but Adam and Eve both chose evil by eating of the tree that God forbade them of eating. I believe your model for a world where only good choices exist is flawed.

God does not do evil. He is guilty of no sin. Mankind sins because it defies, and has defied, God's commands. God gave us free will. Sinning is having things our way, with disregard to what God wants. God lets us have it our way because he has given us free will. However, the ultimate consequence of having things our way is eternal damnation. Out of His Divine Mercy, God sent His Son Christ to die for our sins. God is a just God. He does not tolerate sin. He demands atonement for our sins. He has recieved that atonement through Christ's sacrifice. He did not need to receive that atonement from Christ. He could have just as easily taken our lives. But instead, we have life in Christ.

Therefore, sin and evil came from our decision, our free will. God is good, and hates evil. Therefore, he demands its destruction. He does this, and saves us through his Son at the cross. That is the theology of the cross. It is not God atoning for "His sin" of creating an evil world. It is Him giving His Son as an atonement for us bringing sin into the world.

There's nothing wrong with the model at all. You've completely ignored that it's been adjusted.

Curious that a God so intolerant of sin would make it so readily available to humanity, thereby bringing all of our greif and troubles.

 

[sojourner]

There's nothing wrong with the model at all. You've completely ignored that it's been adjusted.

Curious that a God so intolerant of sin would make it so readily available to humanity, thereby bringing all of our greif and troubles.

I don't like that word. It infers that God is intolerant of the free choice of humanity. Choice and sin are not the same thing.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I don't like that word. It infers that God is intolerant of the free choice of humanity. Choice and sin are not the same thing.

Nor do I.

I was using Augustine's term...

 

[sojourner]

God gave them the freedom of choice in the garden, but Adam and Eve both chose evil by eating of the tree that God forbade them of eating. I believe your model for a world where only good choices exist is flawed.

God does not do evil. He is guilty of no sin. Mankind sins because it defies, and has defied, God's commands. God gave us free will. Sinning is having things our way, with disregard to what God wants. God lets us have it our way because he has given us free will. However, the ultimate consequence of having things our way is eternal damnation. Out of His Divine Mercy, God sent His Son Christ to die for our sins. God is a just God. He does not tolerate sin. He demands atonement for our sins. He has recieved that atonement through Christ's sacrifice. He did not need to receive that atonement from Christ. He could have just as easily taken our lives. But instead, we have life in Christ.

Therefore, sin and evil came from our decision, our free will. God is good, and hates evil. Therefore, he demands its destruction. He does this, and saves us through his Son at the cross. That is the theology of the cross. It is not God atoning for "His sin" of creating an evil world. It is Him giving His Son as an atonement for us bringing sin into the world.

If one believes in atonement. Not all Xians accept the theology of atonement.

 

[Quiddity]

I don't like that word. It infers that God is intolerant of the free choice of humanity. Choice and sin are not the same thing.

I don't see how it infers that at all. Perhaps some clarificaiton?

 

[sojourner]

I don't see how it infers that at all. Perhaps some clarificaiton?

Because sin is imbedded in the human will, which is the instrument of our free choice.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Because sin is imbedded in the human will, which is the instrument of our free choice.

Now that's telling.

 

[Quiddity]

Because sin is imbedded in the human will, which is the instrument of our free choice.

The imbedded ideals is where the intolerance lies. If I can seperate them and make the distinction, I'm sure God can too. To not seperate them one would have to place culpability in the human will itself, whether something is embedded in it or not. Human will is a gift. I'd be surprised if we disagreed.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The imbedded ideals is where the intolerance lies. If I can seperate them and make the distinction, I'm sure God can too. To not seperate them one would have to place culpability in the human will itself, whether something is embedded in it or not. Human will was gift. I'd be surprised if we disagreed.

If not, we can figure out something else to argue about.

 

[Quiddity]

If not, we can figure out something else to argue about.

Sure can....and I know you ain't shy.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

bump ~

 

[Quiddity]

bump ~

So, do you personally hold to the idea that God made mistakes and grew from them?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So, do you personally hold to the idea that God made mistakes and grew from them?

It's a possibility, but I'm not the one judging God. What I am saying is that if we want to judge God, we do have pretty hard evidence - the existence of evil versus God's power - to condemn God of crimes against humanity. God's voluntary death and resurrection give adequate penalty, particularly if God descended into hell for three days and eventually redeems the cosmos by this activity.

 

[sojourner]

The imbedded ideals is where the intolerance lies. If I can seperate them and make the distinction, I'm sure God can too. To not seperate them one would have to place culpability in the human will itself, whether something is embedded in it or not. Human will is a gift. I'd be surprised if we disagreed.

Of course human will is a gift. But it's a gift we always abuse without the help of the H.S. It is human nature to be separate from God, because of our self-identity. Therefore, it is human nature to be sinful (separated from God). So, God's intolerance of sin implies God's intolerance of the human will. I'm uncomfortable with the concept that God is intolerant of us. God has put up with us for this long, extending mercy and lovingkindness when we don't deserve it.

I think it's better to say that God desires a love relationship with us. (I'm not a big fan of Augustine.) In order to have that kind of relationship, we need to approach God through our own will, not God's will.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It is human nature to be separate from God, because of our self-identity. Therefore, it is human nature to be sinful (separated from God).

Curious here as to how this would affect the human nature of Adam before sin and Jesus (the second Adam) without sin.