The Evangelical Universalist Forum

"NT conception of the atonement is defeat of dark powers"


#61

Yes, “the [size=150]whole fullness[/size] of the deity is the [size=150]one[/size] doing” Amen!

Thus, the the fullness of the Father, in Christ, suffered the cross. I tell ya, this “Christ and Cross” is veiled in much mystery! The intellect can never discern it, as only the “heart” can know it … the indwelling heart of the Father and the inward mind of Christ. The fullness of God even rests within us. We just haven’t realized it yet.

I love that by Weigelius and I have shared it often, illustrating the glory God has invested in man. My friend, allow me to share with you also, another favorite quote that often strikes the ire of those who believe that intellect and reason can open the mysteries of the Kingdom.

Jason, Jesus only spoke that, which He heard of the Father. Only by Jesus speaking to, through, and by the Father and vice versa, could we ever see the great truths of the Kingdom, where all is made ONE.

Surely the Father’s words through Christ, speaking of “abandonment” was the language of the last destruction. How can reason measure such Love, that [size=150]God would abandon Himself[/size] for our sake. On that rugged blood stained cross, did we not witness the very end of Himself and His love toward man. He gave to us, all of Himself. Oh, how this magnificent God of ours stooped in servitude, even to becoming nothing to Himself, that we might be entreated with His very All. Yes, Jesus gave His all for the very purpose Weigelius stated, “that Man should be God, and God, Man, neither without the other.” This unreasonable God of ours, is truly made up of the Nought as well as the All !

Lord, grant us such abandonment that we might experience the “NOUGHT of You”, to know “the ALL of You.” that we might be ONE.

John

PS. I am sorry to know of your pain Jason. Two months ago I found myself (supposedly) placed at the end of an oxygen line, 24/7, for the rest of life. Thus, I can empathize all the while, knowing there is healing in His wings as He carries us to Himself.


#62

How 'bout this ranran? Please define exactly what you mean by ‘abandoned’.


#63

Wow. I think I kind of get that. Somewhat. (Possibly).


#64

In the sense of ‘given over.’ As in given over (abandoned) to death. Before Christ’s resurrection, death was seen as a prison from which no one escaped. For example, the disobedient dead from the flood were abandoned - the same ones Christ preached to while with them.


#65

So, you’re going to deny that Christ was correct when He said that the Father was with Him after all? Oooookay then. But be clear that you’re rejecting that statement from Him on the topic.

True; the EOx believe (or some of them anyway) that Christ was abandoned. Plenty of trinitarians do–I’ve already mentioned that myself. And I’ve explained why it’s incompetent for a trinitarian to think so. That goes for the EOx, too, whenever they do it. I’ve certainly never yet seen an EOx or Roman Catholic or Protestant who stressed the schism of the Persons in abandonment while successfully explaining that a schism didn’t take place; nor one who emphasized the abandonment in terms that didn’t amount to a schism.

They do not in fact forget about Psalm 22, however; because they (and non-trinitarian Christians, for that matter) have no qualms at all about referring to Psalm 22 as being a prophecy fulfilled at the crucifixion of Christ. But referring all across Ps 22 for prophecy fulfillment, while completely forgetting about (i.e. ignoring) the whole theological and devotional point to Ps 22, is not what I consider to be good exegetics.

Though as I wryly noted earlier, obviously some other theologians do. :wink:

I would be more worried about this, if you had shown any facility at all at identifying and relating what “my arguments” are. (You didn’t bother to specify here what exactly Moltmann is complaining about, either, by the way. Edited to add: but I’m not particularly worried about someone finding an argument which involves the unity of the deity and the trustworthiness of the Father especially in regard to the innocent, to be essentially atheistic and better suited to the humanists. Atheistic humanists don’t usually bother affirming the unity of the deity, much less the trustworthiness of the Father especially in regard to the innocent. More likely, they’re going to be atheists because they think the Father abandons the innocent, or even is willing to punish the innocent and let the guilty go free.)

You’re certainly welcome to link to where they try to explain how a substantial schism of the Persons results in a much richer understanding of the Trinity than a lesser. Or where they try to explain how the abandonment of Christ isn’t really a substantial schism of the Persons. (Which can only be done by minimizing the supposed abandonment to the point where it can’t serve much help to penal substitution theory, among other things.)


#66

Jason, they’ve been saying that for 2000 years - not ‘some’ of them, but all of them. They literally wrote the book on the trinity and have defended it against all comers for centuries. So I’m always leery of an individual challenging orthodoxy with something new from without the church.

You have your own theories about the Trinity, that’s fine, Jason. But you shouldn’t make the claim that your theories are orthodox without a BIG asterisk.


#67

:open_mouth: and I tell others if the church taught it, you can bet it is a lie … It is wrong! It is blatantly wrong or by mixture it is has been made foul.

One comes into the truth of “Universal Reconciliation” and sees the error of “Eternal Damnation.” I often wonder why they don’t go further, recognizing all the apostasy held by the organized church. And more than likely the “individual challenging orthodoxy with something new from without the church” is actually sharing the “old truth” before the church changed it. And “from without the church” is good as we are bid to leave the camp and suffer reproach with Christ outside the gates. Outside the church, Truth dwells richly. Let us leave the church with it’s false doctrines and be enjoined to the “ecclesia” … the called out ones … the little flock of whom the Father desires to give the Kingdom.

Oh, how tight is the whore’s grip. I am ever astounded!

John


#68

I’m only a universalist (and a preterist, for that matter) because the church believed it. The greatest damage to Christ’s church has been through the ‘independents’ and their visions of truth. This ‘church of one’ stuff where every man is his own prophet with his own doctrine is a waste of one’s time - there’s a new set of foundations with everyone of them! There’s no agreement and thus no community and no real church.


#69

Oh no my friend, you will find community like no other, when you leave system. This spiritual community is small and very hidden, even one to a city and two to a family. God’s sons have been dispersed to the four corners where they had to learn that Jesus is enough. As far as being a preterist we all are to an extent, “is, was, and will be” being the operative words.

Having many times been around this mountain with those still hanging to the wrong tree and the wrong church system I will share an excerpt from a well used file made years ago as it also points to the season. This message has held truth for two thousand years but more so today as we come to the end of the “age of the wilderness church”

Mene, Mene, Tekel, Upharsin. The handwriting is on the wall. Thou art weighed in the balances and found wanting is the decree. Let us, therefore, go unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach. Let us flee to His mountain where we shall be taught of the Lord.

“Woman, believe Me, the hour cometh when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father … But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship Him. God is a Spirit; and they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:21-23.

And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: and upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. Rev 17:4,5

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. How much she hath glorified herself, Rev 18:4-7

And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.

And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: and they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God. And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters. And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, Rev 14:1-8

In His Sweet Lord Jesus,

Jack


#70

And, lo, I heard those who thought they could prevail with Satan against the gates of thy church but were crushed to the uttermost. Theirs bowels were scattered like worms and their eyes burned with unquenchable fire until consumed with a very bad case of blindness.

Thus spaketh the Lordeth through me-eth. Send me money and I will tell you more-eth.


#71

:open_mouth:

Sending money now

:laughing:


#72

I usually do qualify it with a significant comment; and I have done so when mentioning it in this thread, too. It would be unusual for me NOT to make a sigh-y observation about it, because of the irony of the relevant logical point: many (that’s “many” not “all”, by the way) of the same people who “wrote the book on the trinity and have defended it against all comers for centuries”–which involved centuries of fine-print miniscule debate against (that’s AGAINST) the notion of schisming either the Father from the Son or the two natures of Christ–did in fact turn around and teach exactly FOR the notion of schisming either the Father from the Son or the two natures of Christ (or both). Because that’s what an abandonment of the Son by the Father on the cross would entail.

It ought to be blatantly obvious, that when I strenuously affirm both the unity of the two natures of Christ, and the continuing union of the Father and the Son (both in substance and in intention), I am NOT “challenging orthodoxy with something new from without the church.” I am challenging a prevalent interpretation of what happened on the cross as being itself antithetical to the same trinitarian theism . (Even moreso than it’s antithetical to varieties of non-trinitarian Christianity, none of which could logically survive the Father actually abandoning the Son on the cross, for reasons I’ve already discussed.)

Critiquing a position not mentioned in the Creeds, by reference to positions explicitly mentioned (and debated) in the Creeds, is (I will repeat) not the same as critiquing a position (mentioned in the creeds or otherwise) by means of some innovation never heard of before in the Church. If you’re going to complain about what I’m doing, at least complain about what I’m actually doing instead of just the opposite of what I’m actually doing: complain about me calling in the ‘no schism’ rule, soundly attested to throughout millennia of orthodox theology, against the abandonment on the cross. (Like when you complained about me calling in the actual scriptural contexts against it, remember? At least you were complaining there about what I was actually doing. :wink: ‘Forget all the contexts! Just go with that verse by itself!’)

You forgot to link to where various Greek theologians try to explain how a substantial schism of the Persons results in a much richer under standing of the Trinity than a lesser. Or where they try to explain how the abandonment of Christ isn’t really a substantial schism of the Persons.


#73

Speaking of “the atonement” & “dark powers”, this post is from ChristianForums.Com:

[QUOTE=“Jason0047, post: 73372632, member: 356113”]
For the reason why Christ died was to make us holy, blameless (Ephesians 5:25-27), and zealous of good works (Titus 2:14).[/QUOTE]

So “the reason why Christ died was” not to save us from Himself, as in Him annihilating us out of existence for all eternity?

IOW was the reason He died for us so that His good side would save us from His dark side?

Or, OTOH, is God all good & ever loving, all the time, always & forever?


http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/unique_proof_for_universalism.html

http://www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html


#74

I think it is a mistake to take Jesus’ existential cry on the cross about feeling alone, something Christians feel when they are suffering and make a theology out of it. If you read the rest of Psalm 22 the writer only feels forsaken for awhile and remembers that God is with him. There is no place in scripture that teaches that Jesus was cut off from his father. I can accept the term propitiation if it is means "mercy seat,"but I think the Penal understanding of it is wrong. Jesus came to wipe away sin (expiate). He became a sin sacrifice (not sin). He destroyed sin so that our sinful bodies (Old Adam) can be restored by the New Adam. Jesus did not suffer the wrath of an angry God. But his destruction of sin does turn away the wrath of God from us. God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself by getting rid of sin. Jesus did not satisfy a debt, the debt was freely forgiven, by a forgiving father. Why do we need Jesus? Because he cleanses us from sin and gives us new life. The Christus Victor Model teachers that Christ reconciled the world by his blood. However, the model focuses on the great destruction of sin and evil by the Father through the Son, not an angry God pouring out his wrath on his own Son…


#75

I have found that, for me, the atonement ideas are deep and troubling waters. Quite frankly I’m having difficulty getting a good handle on the theological language. Paul is never easy, but on this subject he seems even more cryptic than usual. Maybe it’s just me.

In any case, it appears to me that the untangling of the language itself is convoluted, even following Paul along with the able help of NT Wright (can anyone say what ‘reconciled’ means in 2 Cor, or Romans? Did God change somehow? Did mankind change somehow? I don’t think so. I don’t get it.)

What I do get is that the picture is not complete until we recognize and welcome the pouring out of the Holy Spirit - that’s what matters, in the end - noone has to understand the mind of a first century Pharisee in all his details be right with God, and be filled with the Spirit. The Spirit and our welcoming Him and ‘sowing’ to Him is the sine qua non of a Christian life.
I hope someone agrees :slight_smile:


#76

Ya, davo told ya.


#77

Did you understand it? Please explain!


#78

What seem to have changed is that God made peace between him and his creation.


#79

You’re probably right - but I don’t know what that means. To make peace usually takes 2 sides. Is God no longer showing ‘wrath’ (and I think wrath in God is a good thing - His settled animosity as it were to attitudes and actions that are harmful to humans individually and collectively. We want Him to be involved against those things.)
Who did He make peace with? Was it one sided? Did both sides agree somehow?
I’m not badgering, I’m truly puzzled.


#80

If you want a really good technical book, Jesus our Redeemer by Gerald O’Collins is the best I have read. I am a huge fan of N.T. Wright, but I think O’Collins is much better on this subject.