Now,
who in their right mind would ever hate Apple, Inc.? Well, only a
geeky PC lover, someone married to their PC (and probably to Microsoft
as well). After all, it would be adultery to even to look at an Apple
lustfully. But this poor guy
has gone beyond looking; he's touched and handled. And now, of course,
he's thinking about divorce. It's so predictable. What's our culture
coming to?
8:53 AM - Click here to link to this entry
| Discuss |
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Politics
Just now I ordered Political Visions and Illusions: A Survey and Christian Critique of Contemporary Ideologies by David T. Koyzis. It was recommended by my friend Travis Tamerius. Does anyone know anything about the author? Has anyone read the book?
2:24 PM - Click here to link to this entry
| Discuss |
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
Inside Look
12:41 PM - Click here to link to this entry
| Discuss |
Monday, August 16, 2004
The Impassible god of the Greeks
Most
modern scholars recognize that behind Arius's campaign to differentiate
Jesus from God was the Hellenistic theological conviction that the high
God cannot suffer. Rowan Williams argues that Arius had the right idea
about divine suffering, but the wrong idea of God, which “puts the
unavoidable question of what the respective schemes in the long term
make possible for theology.” One must honestly admit, according to
Williams, the “odd conclusion that the Nicene fathers achieved not only
more than they knew but a good deal more than they wanted.” (Rowan
Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition [London: Darton, Longman, and Todd, 198]), p. 22). Now, what does that mean?
The
Arians recognized the importance of the genuine sufferings and death of
Christ as God. R.P.C. Hanson notes that “at the heart of the Arian
Gospel was a God who suffered” (The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318-381 [Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1988], p. 121). Unfortunately, they would not (or
could not) go the whole way with this insight because they too were
under the control of the Greek philosophical impassability axiom. The
Arians argued that God must have suffered in Christ, but only a god
whose divinity was somehow reduced could suffer. Therefore, the Son was
god (theos), but not the one high and immutable God (o theos). He was something of a demigod: created by the high God, but not of the same substance or being as the impassible God.
Although
Hanson praises the Arians for not “shying away from the scandal of the
cross,” in fact, their own theological program was its own attempt to
explain away the scandal of the crucified God. If the Nicene
theologians, as Rowan Williams argues, did not fully understand the
implications of contending for the homoousios of the Father and
Son, they nevertheless rightly emphasized the unity of the one Lord
Jesus Christ in such a way that eventually the question of God’s
participation in the suffering and death of Jesus would have to be
addressed.
We're still addressing this issue. Many Christians
are still uncomfortable with affirming that God the Son experienced
death as a man (the theopaschite formula). They feel the need to
distance God from the suffering of the man Jesus. This is a huge
mistake. It's pretty close to Peter insisting that what Jesus had said
about his suffering and death in Jerusalem would "never happen" to him
(Matt. 16:22). Jesus pushes Peter aside as a Satan, saying that he does
not have "his mind on the things of God, but on the things of man"
(16:23). Indeed.
2:25 PM - Click here to link to this entry
| Discuss |
|
|
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар