This is a very annoying website. I do need to sit down and engage with some of the arguments contained therein at some point, but not tonight, not tonight.
(posting so that I can discard the paper printouts from the site).
Found this at Monergism.com. Seems to be a useful, clear overview of the main elements of heresies over the past twenty centuries. Has given me a few distinctions upon which to build a more detailed framework/understanding (e.g. the idea that heresies are either soteriological or Christological [or sometimes both]) and the link between 'historic' heresies and their modern-day offspring.
Some links:
Lent Talks on Radio 4
Jeffrey John's talk (15 mins) is here.
I managed to snaffle the last copy of PfoT at church this morning - hurrah!.
Apparently WesleyOwen sold out 175 copies in 24 hours at Spring Harvest this week. On which note, Word Alive will be separate next year - see here.
Ooohhh, getting very annoyed now.
Just listened to the whole discussion here
Transcript (by my own fair hand, using Real Player and speedy typing)just in case the link disappears at a later stage.
Quotes:
"even at the age of 10 I thought that this explanation was pretty repulsive, as well as nonsensical. What sort of God was this, getting so angry with the world and the people He created and then to calm himself down demanding the blood of His own Son? And anyway, why should God forgive us through punishing somebody else? It was worse than illogical; it was insane. It made God sound like a psychopath. If any human being behaved like this, we'd say they were a monster - well, I haven't changed my mind since. That explanation of the Cross just doesn't work though sadly it's one that is still all too often preached"
Then "Reverend Rod Thomas from Reform, and Jonathan Bartley who edited a book called "Consuming Passion, why the killing of Jesus really matters" and also a director of Christian thinktank Ekklesia (sp?) and frequent contributor to Thought for the Day.
RT - God not casual about sin. Doesn't mean God wants to go around zapping people - He holds people responsible. JJ is making the good news of the gospel bad. His argument is inconsistent - is Jesus God or separate from God? Why should God be satisfied on inflicting punishment on someone else? Jesus is not someone else - He is God.
JB - would associate himself with JJ - we misunderstand him. JJ says "on the cross Jesus died for our sins" - JJ actually taking issue with the idea of justice as only being done when someone smacks you over the head/punishes you. Actually about making things right - entirely consistent with Christian story - all will be made right when Jesus returns. JJ not confused about the Trinity - just grappling with the mystery.
Today presenter: So - what this argument is really about is about the sort of God one believes in?
JB - Yes - it's about the character of God and Jesus Christ (God incarnate) - do we believe that Jesus was someone who ate with tax collectors and sinners or would He have campaigned against the Sexual Orientation Regulations and tried to withhold hospitality from the unrighteous - I believe He was the former.
Today presenter: Rod Thomas - I imagine that you regard that as a rather unkind caricature of what you were getting at when you referred to the God of Justice?
RT - Exactly the word. The whole point of this is that God shows His love for us by exempting us from His righteous punishment for sin. You've got to decide whether you think sin is a big issue or not. For Jesus Christ it was a big issue. To the woman about to be stoned for adultery whom He saved, He said "go and sin no more" - He cares very much about it - that's why it's good news.
Today presenter: Righteous punishment - slightly frightening idea?
RT: If you remove punishment, you forgo justice and end up with a terrible society where morality doesn't matter.
================================================================================
Thought that RT was very clear. Question would be - for those who hold to the other view - how will things be made right when Jesus returns?
It would seem that my dismay was not premature.
I caught the last half of a discussion on the Today programme this morning (at about 7.30am) where someone was putting up a decent defence against what Jeffrey John is reported to be saying. I'm hoping to be able to find it on the Listen Again section of the BBC R4 website here.
Useful links: Pierced for our transgressions.
The authors have recently published a book.
Nice and chunky [and that's just the list of endorsements], it could be used as a doorstop, but probably much better to read [mark, learn] and inwardly digest instead....
Apparently not...
Telegraph article here.
Trying to remain calm to wait and see if this is mis-reporting, or not.
I should know better than to read an article featuring Jeffrey Archer, but it was lunchtime and I was flicking through the internet when I found the Times article describing Mr Archer's recent collaboration with the Catholic Church on "The Gospel of Judas".
Fits of apoplexy ensued as I read:
Although the idea that Jesus's miracles did not happen and were pure invention have been common in academic circles for decades, for many of the faithful it will still come as a shock..... Turning water into wine at a wedding feast came "out of a profound desire to show that Jesus, like the God of Israel, is the messianic giver of all good things". Walking on water and calming the seas stemmed from a desire to prove that Jesus had the same mastery over nature as the God of the Hebrew Bible.
Umm... perhaps the Bible records it because Jesus is the God of Israel?
Directed by a learned friend to Ruth Gledhill's blog where the assertion that "Of course, as we reported two years ago, the Catholic Church no longer swears by the truth of the Bible in any case.... Nor does any respectable Biblical scholar as a matter of fact." made my blood pressure soar even further as I stifled squeals of outrage, I was cheered substantially by some very sensible comments suggesting that perhaps the range of 'respectable Biblical scholars' consulted was a tad too narrow.
You scored as Chalcedon compliant. You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.
Are you a heretic? created with QuizFarm.com |