George MacDonald

[BBBrad007]

I think I’ve identified a theological hurdle which makes a meeting of minds almost impossible while it remains in-place.

The following three doctrines are all like pieces in a theological puzzle that fit nicely together: Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Imputed Righteousness, and Eternal Torment.

But if you try to fit just one of those pieces into George MacDonald’s theology it won’t fit.

MacDonald’s view of atonement, righteousness and punishment after death are also like pieces in a puzzle which fit nicely together. But if you try to insert his view of atonement or righteousness or punishment after death into the traditional view it won’t fit.

Because of this people often reject MacDonald without giving him a fair hearing. Each puzzle and all their pieces must be looked at as a whole.

Which of the two views is the better fit?

I think MacDonald’s view fits the three doctrines of atonement, righteousness and punishment after death more nicely than the traditional view. I also think his views regarding these issues have far more biblical support than the traditional view.

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=1625

If MacDonald is right many things have to be relearned.

Talbot describes how MacDonald turned his theological world upside-down.
malone.edu/worldview-forum/hell.php

The following is also helpful.

experimentaltheology.blogspot.co … l-and.html

[Paidion]

The following three doctrines are all like pieces in a theological puzzle that fit nicely together: Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Imputed Righteousness, and Eternal Torment.

But if you try to fit just one of those pieces into George MacDonald’s theology it won’t fit.

RIGHT! Thank God!

He rejected all three and clearly explained why. He also wrote in such a way as to convict me of my wrongdoing, and to help me to overcome by explaining the real reason Christ died. That is how he became my mentor.

[Paidion]

To say on the authority of the Bible that God does a thing no honourable man would do, is to lie against God; to say that it is therefore right, is to lie against the very spirit of God.

[Paidion]

George MacDonald on Penal Substitution

…that I might win Christ, and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. (Philippians 3:8,9)

WHAT does the apostle mean by the righteousness that is of God by faith? He means the same righteousness Christ had by his faith in God, the same righteousness which God himself has.

In his second epistle to the Corinthians he says, 'He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him;—‘He gave him to be treated like a sinner, killed and cast out of his own vineyard by his husbandmen, that we might in him be righteous like God.’ As the antithesis stands, it is rhetorically correct. But if the former half means, ‘he made him to be treated as if he were a sinner,’ then the latter half should, in logical precision mean, ‘that we might be treated as if we were righteous.’

‘That is just what Paul does mean,’ insist not a few. ‘He means that Jesus was treated by God as if he were a sinner, our sins being imputed to him, in order that we might be treated as if we were righteous, his righteousness being imputed to us.’

That is, that, by a sort of legal fiction, Jesus was treated as what he was not, in order that we might be treated as what we are not. This is the best device, according to the prevailing theology, that the God of truth,the God of mercy, whose glory is that he is just to men by forgiving their sins, could fall upon for saving his creatures! . . . They say first, God must punish the sinner, for justice requires it; then they say he does not punish the sinner, but punishes a perfectly righteous man instead, attributes his righteousness to the sinner, and so continues just. Was there ever such a confusion, such an inversion of right and wrong! Justice could not treat a righteous man as an unrighteous; neither, if justice required the punishment of sin, could justice let the sinner go unpunished. To lay the pain upon the righteous in the name of justice is simply monstrous. No wonder unbelief is rampant. Believe in Moloch if you will, but call him Moloch, not Justice.
—George MacDonald, “Righteousness” in Unspoken Sermons III

[Paidion]

I think GMD’s top theological treatise is his work entitled “Justice”.

See attachment.
translation Series 3 - Justice.pdf (157 KB)

[BBBrad007]

I do too Paidion. But it’s a bit too much for a lot of people. They need to be introduced slowly.

I’ve been putting MacDonald quotes on my Facebook wall. It’s also good to give people his fictional books as a gift.

And I’m hoping that someone who is much wiser than I am is able to take up the idea of the opening post and spread it in theological circles. If we can get people to consider MacDonald’s theology as a whole I’m sure many more will see that it is sound.

[Paidion]

But it’s a bit too much for a lot of people. They need to be introduced slowly.

Maybe. But unfortunately many of those who have read just a little of his writings reject him as a heretic or even a non-Christian.

i1098.photobucket.com/albums/g374/Paidion9/Photos/george-macdonald_zps053a3a29.jpg

By the way, you can read any of GMD’s writing free online by going to the website at the bottom of GMD’s photo.
…Okay, I tried it and it’s not so easy to find. Try clicking on the link below:

online-literature.com/george-macdonald/