|
|
Bible Questions and Spiritual Discussion
| |
Saint Grogan
|
01/30/2012 14:19 |
Lanny,
Jesus is more than just the lens by which we perceive God. In order to understand the Gospel, it is important to recognize Jesus as God, the creator of all things. God established His moral law that in them, we would understand the Holiness of the creator and live peaceably with one another on Earth. When those laws are broken, it is sin. God’s holiness demands that He punish sin. But, because of God’s love for mankind, He has created a way by which he can forgive sinners and still be just. He provided Himself as the sacrifice that would pay the debt of all who will believe. Because the punishment is eternal, only an eternal sacrifice could atone for sinners.
It’s a simple formula, Lanny. Why are you trying to find a scientific answer for Salvation? There is none.
|
| |
Catholica
|
01/30/2012 15:48 |
Lanny, sorry to hear about your wife. MRSA is nasty stuff. I will pray my divine mercy chaplet today for her.
Andre
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/30/2012 15:48 |
Grogan,
I'm not sure why you think I'm looking for a "scientific answer."
Theology has been defined as "faith in search of understanding,"
and all I'm doing is seeking to understand and express what I believe.
Interestingly, I find myself returning to ideas I held more than 40 years ago
when I was still in seminary, but ideas refined and deepened over time.
Again, I have addressed the question of the atonement in another thread,
and I simply do not accept the sacrificial theory of the atonement.
I cannot conceive of God as a cosmic judge, unwilling to forgive
unless we "pay the price," or someone pays the price for us.
Certainly, we as parents would be willing to forgive our children
if they asked without demanding blood!
There might be consequences for our disobedience,
just as there are natural consequences for violating the laws of nature
of violating the moral laws of the universe.
But that's not the same as not forgiving.
And certainly God is no less loving than human parents!
Throughout the Old Testament, God forgives time and time again
when people repent and ask for forgiveness.
He makes it clear through his later prophets
that what is pleasing to God is a broken and contrite heart,
not sacrifice.
As for Jesus,
the cross was the natural consequence of the life he was living.
He could have escaped the cross if he had stopped talking about
loving one's enemies
and if he stopped associating with "sinners and tax collectors,"
if he had stopped talking about peace and forgiveness.
But instead, he remained faithful to his calling to embody the fullness of God's love, and accepted the cross.
And in doing so, he fulfilled his words,
"If I be lifted up, I will draw all people to myself."
That's what the moral influence theory of the atonement is all about -
that the demonstration of love on the cross,
affirmed by God in the resurrection, is so powerful
it draws people to God and makes us willing to follow Jesus,
even though it means taking up our own cross.
The cross offers us salvation by offering us a new way
of understanding God and God's love,
and awakening the desire to live in accordance with the Spirit of God in Christ.
I know you view it differently,
but from my understanding,
the cross has nothing to do with "paying a debt"
or satisfying God's wrath.
Though I don't doubt the sincerity of those who hold to that belief,
I find it barbaric and pre-Christian
and not in keeping with the view of God I see in Jesus.
(And my view is a "simple formula" as well.)
Grace and Peace,
Lanny
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/30/2012 15:50 |
Thank you, Andre.
Your prayers are very much appreciated.
|
| |
Saint Grogan
|
01/31/2012 04:04 |
God’s plan of Salvation is laid out in the pages of Scripture, Lanny. Yet you say “I don’t like it.” God IS willing to forgive sinners but only on the basis of the Cross. The Cross has EVERYTHING to do with paying a debt and satisfying God’s wrath. It is how He has decided to demonstrate His love, forgiveness, and righteousness through the sacrifice of himself on behalf of the sinner. You may not like it and think it barbaric but that’s how it is. There is no other way around it.
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/31/2012 09:22 |
Andre,
Your long post from January 30 was very well written,
and expresses your position very well.
Nor can I argue with your logic.
I wont's attempt respond to everything you've written.
To speak of God as A person, though, does raise some questions.
If God is A PERSON, as we normally use that word,
as you and I are persons, as individual creatures,
then where did that person come from?
That's the age-old question, "Who created God?"
And that involves us in infinite regression.
Or it leads to the reality that God is eternal,
which can't be said about any person in the normal sense of the word.
So God must be transpersonal, as Thich Nhat Hanh says,
"not a person, but not less than a person."
To speak of a person also leads us to speak of God anthropomorphically,
to create God in our image and speak of God in human terms.
Even if we no longer think of God as a grandfatherly figure
sitting on a throne "up there," it's nearly impossible to think of God
without putting some sort of human features on God.
Admittedly, when I pray to God,
I don't think of myself talking to some amorphous blob -
but if I pray to God as Father, as Jesus did and taught us to do,
I realize, of course, that I'm really using a human concept.
But it's the best I can do, because it's all I have.
I like what Thich Nhat Hanh says,
"It is impossible to use our words and concepts to describe God.
All the adjectives and nouns that we use to describe waves cannot be used to describe God. We can say that this wave is high or low, big or small, beautiful or ugly, has a beginning and an end. But all these notions cannot be applied to water. God is neither small nor big. God has no beginning or end. God is not more or less beautiful. All the ideas we use to describe the phenomenal world cannot be applied to God. So its very wise not to say anything about God. To me the best theologian is the one who never speaks about God." ("Going Home:Jesus and Buddha as Brothers," p. 8)
In reality, of course, we do and must speak of God.
But in doing so, we must be extremely careful
not to equate GOD with our CONCEPTS of God.
To do so is to use our concepts as "graven images,"
and to worship our concepts is a form of idolatry.
I should probably respond to some of your comments regarding Scripture.
When I read about God "walking in the garden"
or "speaking from the burning bush"
or writing the Ten Commandments with his "finger,"
I have to read those words metaphorically,
else I am required to reduce the God of the entire, unfathomable universe
to a creature physically inhabiting this dust speck in a tiny galaxy.
Yes, I believe God is a reality everywhere -
there is no place where God is not -
but to my mind at least, these notions make God far too small.
I don't believe the writers of Scripture were being dishonest;
I do believe Moses sensed God speaking to him.
I believe God speaks to us.
But if God is everywhere, and within everything,
God is within us, and speaks to us through the Spirit within us.
Prayer and meditation are ways of getting "in tune" with that Spirit.
And Jesus, whose God-consciousness was so deep
that he lived at One with the Creator
provides the lens through which we understand the nature of God
as fully as any human being can understand,
and to discern the Spirit and differentiate the Spirit's "voice"
from the other voices our mind might think we hear.
One more comment.
You wrote,
"it seems that this manner of religion that you adhere to
is based completely on human reason and not on faith."
In reality, to believe in God at all is a matter of faith.
I can't prove the existence of God,
any more than an atheist can prove there is no God.
But I agree whole-heartedly with you when you say,
"The Universe did not pop out of nothing, there HAD to be a creator."
It seems reasonable to believe in God,
but ultimately belief is a matter of faith,
and my FAITH begins with the conviction that God Is.
Well, I guess I better bring this to a close.
Even at 65-years of age
and after 33 years of active ministry,
my faith is still a work in progress.
Though I am amazed that I seem to have come full circle
and that many of the things I am writing now
are really a return to and an expansion and clarification of
things I wrote in my Credo in 1971,
I know that a year from now I might be saying these things quite differently
or understanding these things differently.
So consider this a sort of "progress report,'
as I continue on this journey of faith.
God bless you, brother!
Grace and Peace,
Lanny
PS -
Here's another quote from Thich Nhat Hanh following the quote I shared.
"Not being able to speak about God
does not mean that God is not available to us.
I believe with Andre Gide who said,
'God is available to us twenty-four hours a day.'
The question is whether you are touching God
twenty-four hours a day.' (p.8)
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
01/31/2012 20:44 |
Grogan,
In your last post, you said,
"The Cross has EVERYTHING to do with paying a debt and satisfying God’s wrath."
That's certainly true of the "Satisfaction Theory" of the atonement,
a theory that embodies the sincere beliefs of many Christians.
But you need to recognize that many other devout Christians,
from the very beginning, have held other views,
including what is known as the "Moral Influence Theory,"
the theory to which I ascribe.
Here is the link to an excellent description
of six different "Models of Atonement,"
including the ones you and I hold.
I hope you will read it carefully.
http://www.plts.edu/docs/ite_models_atonement.pdf
|
| |
Saint Grogan
|
02/01/2012 04:00 |
Hi Lanny,
Thank you for providing the article “Models of Atonement”. It will take me some time to go through the information but I will read it and give it some consideration. I must however, tell you that, according to the Bible there is but one exclusive model regarding the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Salvation is not a matter of picking out which model of atonement we like best and believing that God will honor that choice. Also, the concept of the Trinity is taught in Scripture and therefore, I have every reason to believe that it was understood in the early church well before the 3rd and 4th century as you’ve asserted. The incarnation of Christ is very important in understanding the Gospel.
Give me a few days and I may or may not get back with you on this. Meanwhile, I don’t understand the nature of MRSA or what it is but I will pray that your wife will get better and that God will give you strength. My wife was ill a few years back and I almost lost her so I can at least empathize somewhat.
Peace
|
| |
Lanny Carlson
|
02/01/2012 07:48 |
Thank you.
I really do appreciate your thoughts and prayers.
We will be driving 2 hours to Sioux Falls today
for yet another test.
MRSA is a wide spread and highly resistant virus.
She got it from her second knee replacement surgery in March,
and it has been a long drawn out process.
As for the link I sent
(and there are many similar on the Internet,
this is just one I found last night,
and is one of the best I have seen).
You will see that it really isn't a matte of pick and choose.
These different theories are all Scripturally based
and are various ways Scripture has been understood.
by serious and faithful believers.
As for the Trinity,
you must know that the word "Trinity" is not found anywhere in Scripture.
Some will argue that it is implied in Scripture,
and is the product of interpretation.
But it is again only one way of understanding the Scriptures,
and is only one human theory.
|
 |
Saint Grogan
|
02/01/2012 13:46 |
Here's one for you to ponder, Lanny. Perhaps the subject of the "Trinity" should be reserved for a thread of it's own since it wasn't part of your original thought when you started this. That way the Community could get involved.
http://bible.org/article/trinity-triunity-god
Later
|
(page
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9)
|
