@GJDS
Just to clarify, do you mean orthodoxy in the small “o” sense or are you referring specifically to Orthodox Christians, as opposed to Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals, etc?
It seems to me that since many of the Creeds were developed in response to heresies, they serve better to clarify what Christianity is not than what it is. Since the controversies and questions are different now, the historic creeds don’t always speak to them.
I wish more people would make reference to actual Scripture and the Creeds though when they are presenting their ideas. It sometimes feels like the common ground real estate is pretty limited, but if you don’t start there, you don’t really get anywhere.
I am referring to Orthodoxy established before the Church became two denominations, and as expounded in Patristic writings. However much of Christendom acknowledges Orthodoxy, and it is not uncommon for many Christians in various denominations finding common ground in these writings. I agree that references should begin with scripture and the Creeds are extremely good guides to understanding the Faith. The controversies that are current are often ‘mixed’ with view that are, to me, heterodoxy, or very loosely defined. Thus the present topic is most often a weak attempt to incorporate some odd version of evolutionary outlooks with odd sounding ‘theological ideas’. For example, the notion of “focussing on the cross”, is odd by any reckoning, but it serves to fracture a discussion (and we have the addition “God did not will the cross”, which directly contradicts scripture):
It is important to understand the entire Gospel message when discussing Christ, His life, death and resurrection, and to understand this as a complete and profound expression of God’s message to humanity. Instead these odd ideas are reduced to God trying to find a way to get on with us, because His previous attempts failed and He is trying desperately to find a modern way to relate. Such nonsense does not represent ideas worthy of serious discussion - if someone has critical comments to make regarding Orthodoxy on this central topic, it is imperative they commence with a sound understanding of Orthodoxy, and from there we may try and understand what they have to say. Even heretics put that effort in the past - nowadays, it seems all they need to do is say they are discussing evolution, do not like YEC, and suddenly they achieve legitimacy - imo they are naïve and unscholarly.
To be clear, and also show that scripture is the final authority, I will add this from 1John 3:4-10.
Every one who commits sin is guilty of lawlessness; sin is lawlessness. You know that he appeared to take away sins, and in him there is no sin. No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous. He who commits sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God. By this it may be seen who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not do right is not of God, nor he who does not love his brother.
It is clear that sin had a beginning which preceded Adam and Eve – knowledge of sin by humans began with Adam; it is also clear that ‘born of God’ is equated with God’s nature.
That is not the way that I define sin. That said our sin does injure others and it injures us. If God loves us and others as revealed by Jesus then God would hate sin because it does hurt people. Sin separates humans from God and from other people and from ourselves and from God’s good Creation.
This is the wrong way to live, because Jesus told us the right way to live is to love God with our whole being and to love others as we love ourselves. He also said love others as I have loved you. Love involves suffering although in the long run we expect it to result in less suffering, so ending suffering is not our goal.
Our goal as was the goal of Jesus is to expand the Kingdom of God or bring others into right relationship with God.
One big problem that we have is that there are two covenants found in our Bible, the Old Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. Often we confuse the two, Christians are not under the Old Covenant Law, which defines sin for the Jews, but under the New Covenant which defines sin for Christians. This point has been argued elsewhere, so I do not wish to argue it again, just to state this fact of the New Testament,
Jesus taught us to love God with our whole self, but we cannot do that on our own because of sin, selfishness, and pride. However we can I believe to repent, which means to choose God’s Way of Love over our way of selfishness and hate. When we give our lives to Jesus God forgives us and sends the Holy Spirit, which enables us to love God and others. See 1 John 4.
Without this change from faith in ourselves to faith in God we cannot be right with God. Without this change of attitude toward others we are not right with God and God’s people, which includes everyone. Mt 5:43-47.
I do not think that selfishness is a secular view of sin, any more than hatred is. These are objective terms that must understand in the context of morality and theology and human existence. God is Love.
@Relates
Here is where we disagree. Repentance, as I see it described in the recorded sermons of the apostles in Acts 2, 4, 10, and 12 is not about turning from selfishness and hate to love. It is about acknowledging God has made Jesus Christ Lord (by raising him from the dead because of his sacrificial, atoning death on the cross), and forgiveness and salvation is found in no one else. Repentance is a change of allegiance and authority (as made clear by Paul’s slavery analogies in Romans) from the lordship of self and sin (the law of sin and death) to the lordship of Jesus Christ (the law of the Spirit of life, Rom 8:2), to whom God the Father has given all authority on earth and heaven.
When John says “sin is lawlessness” in the passage GJDS quotes above, he is obviously not referring to the Law of Moses, he is referring to a rejection of God’s rule and reign through Christ, the Lord. Someone who is submitted to God’s law (or rule, or lordship, or kingdom, if those words are less confusing) will, by their new God-birthed nature, live lives of love and righteousness.
God is more than Love and his purposes are aimed at more than merely establishing love between himself and creation and among his creatures. The angels around the throne of heaven don’t cry,“Love, Love, Love, the earth is full of his love” they cry “Holy, holy, holy, the earth is full of his glory” (Isaiah 6:3, Rev 4:8). The goal of God’s mission on earth is that he would be worshiped and his name would be glorified by all people everywhere. This theme is repeated from Genesis through Revelation.
It seems reductionistic to me to make the gospel just about living in harmony with God and people, or “choosing God’s way of love.” I work cross-culturally, and there are other religious traditions in which people are choose to deny themselves, reject hatred, and live in harmony with their fellow humans. Sometimes they appear to be doing a better job at it than many Christians I know. But they do not worship Yahweh, the one true God, and they do not call Jesus Lord.
[quote=“Christy, post:69, topic:612”] Repentance is a change of allegiance and authority (as made clear by Paul’s slavery analogies in Romans) from the lordship of self and sin (the law of sin and death) to the lordship of Jesus Christ (the law of the Spirit of life, Rom 8:2), to whom God the Father has given all authority on earth and heaven.[/quote]
Christy, I fail to see hold what you have said is different from what I said. Paul says that the Law breeds sin and lawlessness, because it creates a sense of sin that cannot be satisfied by the Law.
1 Peter 1:14-19 (ESV)
14 As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignorance,
15 but as He Who called you is Holy, you also be Holy in all your conduct,
16 since it is written, “You shall be holy, for I am Holy.”
17 And if you call on Him as Father Who judges impartially according to each one’s deeds, conduct yourselves with fear throughout the time of your exile,
18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
Peter calls Christians to be Holy as God is Holy. What does he mean, if not the standard of Love that Jesus gave us and lived for us? How are we to be holy like God if not loving as God loves?
> I work cross-culturally, and there are other religious traditions in which people are choose to deny themselves, reject hatred, and live in harmony with their fellow humans.
If that is true and I am not questioning your word, then I would like to discuss it, rather than let this statement go by unexplored. Jesus in Mt 25 makes the standard for the Judgment of the Gentiles, those who do not know God, that of compassion. “As you have done it to the least of these my brothers, you have done it unto me.”
Interesting interpretation of Mt 25. I never read it as applying to Gentile unbelievers. Both groups of people are calling Jesus Lord in that passage. I have always thought the point was that our works matter as evidence of our belonging to God’s people, not just our labels, bloodlines, and professed beliefs. That was hard for the Jews to hear.
I don’t want to get into a big discussion of exclusivism/inclusivism/pluralism because it is very tangential to the topic at hand. My point in bringing up other religions was that other religions often have concepts of sin and righteousness, but generic love and harmony is not righteousness in the Christian sense. In the Christian sense there is no righteousness apart from Christ.
I believe we have different concepts of what we are talking about when we say “law.” I don’t think that every mention of law in Scriptures is meant to refer to the Law (God’s covenantal law with Israel). God’s law in the general sense I use it refers to God asserting his rightful rule over his creation and people submitting to or rejecting that rule. The themes of dominion, reign, lordship, governance, divine messengers/ambassadors/representatives/image bearers, and Kingdom are present from Genesis to Revelation. It is clear God intends to rule his creation and bring his perfect justice/righteousness to earth.
I also don’t think the strict division between God’s covenant with Israel being a Law of works (old covenant) and God’s covenant with Jesus as being the Law of grace (new covenant) that you find in a typical expression of covenantal theology makes the most sense of the storyline of the Old Testament, the gospel according to Jesus and the apostles, and the writings of Paul. Covenental theology (at least in some forms) makes God out to have a failed plan A with Israel that forced him to resort to something totally different with Christ. I think God has had one consistent and coherent mission in history, from Adam, to Noah, to Abraham, to Israel and her kings, to the culminating work of Christ which is continued by his church and which extends God’s covenant to all nations. He has consistently offered covenants of grace to his people, God relating with grace is not just a New Testament phenomenon. But again, that is probably a tangential discussion.
What has disturbed my about this blog post and many of the responses to it is the fact that it has, at least from my perspective, reduced Jesus to an exemplary human being that made God more sympathetic to the plight of humans in this broken world and showed people how to be more loving and “fully human.” That is not the gospel. Our main problem as humans is not that we don’t love well enough (though we don’t) our problem is that we don’t glorify the one true God.
The gospel is fundamentally eschatological. Jesus is the reigning Lord of the universe, and he is coming again to judge and establish justice, right what is wrong, and vindicate God’s people. The Kingdom that is presently breaking into our reality and will come in its fullness is not just about getting people to love each other and love God. Ultimately, it is about all of creation recognizing that God has made Jesus Lord, given him all authority, and everyone will bend the knee to his just rule and he will vanquish evil once and for all and complete the work he began in his incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension, and embodiment in the church through the Holy Spirit.
Holy means set apart and other, not loving. We are to be set apart for the Kingdom of God, which operates by different rules and relates differently (in love and service, yes) than the kingdoms of the world. God is love. God is holy. But that doesn’t mean you can conflate love and holiness, they are different concepts.
An interesting thought that has occured to me agrees with what you have said, Christy. It is this, that although God is love, and therefore Jesus is love, and he died for love, yet, Jesus did not identify himself as love. Jesus did not say, “I am the way, the love, and the life.” Rather, he said “I am the way, the Truth, and the Life”. No one comes to the Father except through me. "
God is also One. Jesus is also One with the Father. Love and Holiness cannot be radically different.
Yes, God rules, but the question is why does God rule? And why did God created the universe? God can rule and does rule without the universe and without us. To say that God created humans so we can love and worship God, does not make any real logical sense. God does not need us, we need God.
My position which seems to be consistent with the Bible, if not exactly explicit, is that God created humans because God loves humans, even when we are rebellious. God loves the just and the unjust as Jesus said. Again if God loves us as Jesus said and demonstrated then God’s primary concern is humans and our welfare, rather than God’s well-being or pride or power.
We worship God, not because God demands it, but because God is worthy. Anything else is a lie and corrupts us and the Creation of which humans are an important part. What I tried to point out is that as pointed out in 1 John 4:7-21 we believe that Love (agape) is closely tied to the revelation of Jesus Christ. I can say with some kind of certainty that Islam has a very different understanding of how God works as does Hinduism and Buddhism.
Our main problem as humans is not that we don’t love well enough (though we don’t) our problem is that we don’t glorify the one true God.
If we glorified the one true God more, what would that change? Jihadists yell, “Allah Akbar!, God is Great,” when they kill people and themselves. I don’t think that is what you mean, but I will raise the question, Is that what you mean?
They can’t be mutually exclusive, but yes, they can be radically different. Being all-powerful is very different from being all-knowing, but they are both considered attributes of God.
I didn’t say God created humans for the purpose of producing love and worship, and I agree that God does not need us or any of the rest of his creation. I believe he created because Creator and Source are fundamental to his being along with Love and Justice and the other attributes we ascribe to God. But I take it as a revealed truth that creation exists to glorify God. I think humans were created to be, or at least, chosen by God out of creation to be God’s image bearers and to exercise dominion on earth on God’s behalf and according to his righteous justice. We screwed that part up repeatedly so God became incarnate in Christ.
God does love us and Jesus did demonstrate God’s love, but you present a false choice here. Throughout Scripture God’s primary concern is the glory of his name among the peoples of the world, but that is not motivated by pride or power-hunger or any lack in himself. That is an unfortunate anthropomorphism. It is motivated by reality. God is worthy of glory because he is who he is, because he is love and justice and righteousness and holiness and for whatever reason, he chooses to reveal himself. If you go back and read why God establishes covenants with humans, again and again, the reason given by God himself is “for the glory of my name.” I don’t think you can separate his worthiness of glory from his love though.
We worship God because he is worthy, and worship must be freely offered, but that does not mean God’s law does not require worship of humans. Not because God needs our worship, but because to fail to worship him for who he is is to rebel against the reality of who he is.
By glorify God I mean acknowledge that he is who he has revealed himself to be and submit to his reign. How to submit to his reign is revealed in the story of redemption that culminates in Christ, and living a life of love and sacrifice as Jesus did is definitely the main sign that someone belongs to the Kingdom. I am not arguing against love or the fact that those who belong to God are known by their love.
But the teleology of it all is important, I think. We don’t just love for love’s sake, because love is the ultimate good and the highest aim. We love because that is the Kingdom way of life, because love opposes and undoes evil and draws others into the Kingdom, which ultimately brings glory to God.
Thank you from your response. Power and knowledge are not basically different. One cannot have power over something if one does not understand it and of course knowledge is power. God as Trinity is Complex, but God is One. God is not composed of attributes, but Persons.
Holiness is usually associated with God’s purity or integrity, faithfulness, and unity. A problem with this is purity can be seen as negative or positive. God can be seen as positive that is loving God’s Creation starting with humans or negative hating sin.
Jihadists believe that they are serving God when they hate people who they identify as sinners. It seems we have jihadists who call themselves Muslims and jihadists who call themselves Christians. I trust we are agreed that jihadists as I have described them are very wrong.
But I take it as a revealed truth that creation exists to glorify God.
“The heavens are telling the glory of God.” Very true, but this fact does not mean that the heavens exist for the sole purpose or even the primary purpose to glorify God. I buy a car to provide transportation. It also looks good, which might be another reason why I bought this particular car. However it is a mistake to say that the car exists to look good.
It is my understanding of revealed truth that the Creation was created by God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a home for humanity. Many people, including scientists and philosophers, do not accept this, but this what the Bible says. See Psalm 8 for a good example.
Rationally if God created the universe to glorify God’s Self, God would not have created humans, because God certainly knew beforehand that humans would rebel against God. Therefore, since God did create humans there must have been another reason for the universe.
God created humans to love them and for humans to love God and one another. It is our nature to love in that we are created in the Image of God and through the Logos Jesus Christ. Therefore hatred not only injures the hated, it injures the hater. This is sin and is what God is against, not only for God’s sake because hatred/sin destroys God’s Creation, made for us, but primarily because it destroys us who are God’s people.
God’s salvation history as found in the Bible is about sin and salvation. Sin is the wrong relationship between humans and God; and humans and others. Salvation through God’s Love is the opposite and the cure for sin in that it is right relationship of us to God, ourselves, and others as stated by Jesus in the Summary of the Law and the Prophets.
I disagree with your logic, because it would seem to imply the possibility that God needs something from his creation or that it is possible to thwart God’s ultimate purposes. Human rebellion does not ultimately thwart the glory of God, because of the Incarnation, which God also knew about beforehand.
The article said:
Making the cross the primary or only reason for the Incarnation is problematic for me too, but not for the same reason. This is something I have been thinking about lately. I have come to think that the primary reason for the Incarnation is God’s desire to unite himself permanently with his creation and usher in the New Creation, which has been his plan for earth from the beginning. After all, the Son is still incarnate as a human, and will be incarnate as a human in the Eschaton. The Incarnation wasn’t a temporary rescue mission where God swoops into human history, fixes some stuff, and then returns to business as usual.
The final Resurrection (of humanity) to eternal life with God in the New Creation has always been part of God’s plan, sin was just a complication. The Incarnation was the first step toward raising humanity to incorruptible bodies and eternal life with God, because Jesus’ resurrected body is the first of the harvest of the final Resurrection and a guarantee of what is to come. If humanity had never rebelled, I believe the Incarnation and Resurrection would have still happened.
Having Jesus, the Son Incarnate as a human, on the throne of the universe brings God the most glory of anything. So the creation of humans does not ruin his plan for self-glorification at all, it is integral to it. And the fact that we rebelled, and that rebellion was redeemed at the Cross, and the broken relationship was restored just brings more glory to God for his love and grace.
The way of God, the truth of God, and the Life given by God. God’s Way,
God’s Truth, God’s Life. (This includes love, but not limited to love.) If we deny God’s love, we deny God. If we limit God to love, we have reduced God. God’s love is great because He is holy, and majestic, and mighty, and creator. If God was not first of all holy, mighty, majestic, creator, then His love would be less. In such a way, God’s love is so much more than our love, so much more than even our concept of love.
The basis of theology is that God is a rational Being. While I have made it clear that God does need anything from us or the Creation, it seems to be clear that God does not do anything for no reason or purpose. Now the difference between our two theologies is that I believe God created us and the world because God loved us, and desires fellowship with us, while you seem to think that God did so to receive our praise and honor.
I agree that the coming of Jesus is more than just His death. The coming of Jesus was to establish a new covenant between humanity and God to create a new relationship between us and God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in order to establish the Kingdom of God on earth based on love.
Highest form of worship that we have as the Church is Holy Communion, the Lord’s Supper, where Christians renew their covenant with Jesus the Messiah by sharing His Body and Blood.
There is a fundamental question that seems to have been avoided in this discussion. “Is man the measure of all things?” Does man have the right to define God? If our logical deductions lead us to redefine 2000 years of Christianity, then somehow we feel justified that our conclusions represent reality. Can the ant define the existence of a man? Can man tell God who He is and how He is to behave? The only way these arguments make sense is, if indeed, our logic is the standard of the universe and our deductions define the world as it is. Wait a minute, isn’t that what Adam did?