I went to a Party...
Dear everyone,
More esssay writing today (and being distracted by a rather intresting thread on the wrightsaid yahoo list)
What I would like to talk about, however is Ressurection.
Warning for all that dont know me THIS IS MY AXE and I WILL GRIND IT.
I had an intresting conversation at my friend John's house (if your reading this John, nice party). Some one who's dad is also studing at the same theological college as me. We got into a discusion after I said "I would rather burn in Hell than be a wesleyen" (NB-overstatement allert).
After some brief comments she started to expond conditional imortality (that man by nature is not imortal) and that those that are dammed would eventualy cease to exist. I suggested that as we would ALL recieve imortal physical bodies that the eventual distruction of the wicked was not possible (you'll have to wait for another blog entry for my views on the after life) because the had incorruptible bodies. She then said that she did not think that ressurection was physical (yes you should not talk to me at parties!) . I proceeded to say that the ressurection was definitely physical and that if you read 1 cor 15 then you will see it to be the case. However there is a bit of a mis translation in most english bible. In that they say that "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body". The actual greek is that it is sown a soulish body, and if you wanted to suggest non physicalness that was the term to use in greek.
However maybe I should shut up in parites but it was such a shame to see evangelical teaching having its ultimate conclusion. The popular soteriology focus on my personal relationship to Jesus so much that it only important that the 'essential I' is saved. This was my friends point that it did not matter if the physical body was saved , as long as she or anyone else was saved. Is general evangelical teaching gnostic. I do not know, maybe. What was even stranger was that she was prepared to accept the physical ressurection of Jesus ( as all good evangelicals are suppost to). But did not see that as the model of our ressurection. For those that are theologicaly gifted or what to set me straight why does the outworking of so much evangelical theology not see the essential physical nature of salvation.
I would love to hear anyones commments on this one.
I suggest that it is a poor atonement theolgy, 'stock exchange divinity'. Jesus died to take whipping that i diserved and so I am able to enter into relationship to God.
The question of why Jesus took flesh is only to be able to take the whipping for us , rather than to save it.
What was even more worring was that we had some lectures at college that suggested this too.
ARGGGHHH
I think that Tony Compolo was right when he said "evangelical spend loads of time and money to prove the bible is correct only to ignore it"
Johns blog is
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mkaibear/
More esssay writing today (and being distracted by a rather intresting thread on the wrightsaid yahoo list)
What I would like to talk about, however is Ressurection.
Warning for all that dont know me THIS IS MY AXE and I WILL GRIND IT.
I had an intresting conversation at my friend John's house (if your reading this John, nice party). Some one who's dad is also studing at the same theological college as me. We got into a discusion after I said "I would rather burn in Hell than be a wesleyen" (NB-overstatement allert).
After some brief comments she started to expond conditional imortality (that man by nature is not imortal) and that those that are dammed would eventualy cease to exist. I suggested that as we would ALL recieve imortal physical bodies that the eventual distruction of the wicked was not possible (you'll have to wait for another blog entry for my views on the after life) because the had incorruptible bodies. She then said that she did not think that ressurection was physical (yes you should not talk to me at parties!) . I proceeded to say that the ressurection was definitely physical and that if you read 1 cor 15 then you will see it to be the case. However there is a bit of a mis translation in most english bible. In that they say that "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body". The actual greek is that it is sown a soulish body, and if you wanted to suggest non physicalness that was the term to use in greek.
However maybe I should shut up in parites but it was such a shame to see evangelical teaching having its ultimate conclusion. The popular soteriology focus on my personal relationship to Jesus so much that it only important that the 'essential I' is saved. This was my friends point that it did not matter if the physical body was saved , as long as she or anyone else was saved. Is general evangelical teaching gnostic. I do not know, maybe. What was even stranger was that she was prepared to accept the physical ressurection of Jesus ( as all good evangelicals are suppost to). But did not see that as the model of our ressurection. For those that are theologicaly gifted or what to set me straight why does the outworking of so much evangelical theology not see the essential physical nature of salvation.
I would love to hear anyones commments on this one.
I suggest that it is a poor atonement theolgy, 'stock exchange divinity'. Jesus died to take whipping that i diserved and so I am able to enter into relationship to God.
The question of why Jesus took flesh is only to be able to take the whipping for us , rather than to save it.
What was even more worring was that we had some lectures at college that suggested this too.
ARGGGHHH
I think that Tony Compolo was right when he said "evangelical spend loads of time and money to prove the bible is correct only to ignore it"
Johns blog is
http://www.livejournal.com/users/mkaibear/
posted by xopher_mc | 11:13 pm
3 Comments:
Preach it brother.
Some interesting things about evangelicals, whether they are aware of it or not:
1. They have never gotten any further than the penal substitution model of the atonement.
2. They are all largely platonic dualists, and horribly individualistic. This is in radical disagreement with the Bible, yet they don't seem to have noticed.
3. A lot of charismatics are gnostics, again without realising it.
4. A lot of evangelicals place emphasis on making a 'decision for Jesus' as being the start point as regards their salvation. This is again terribly individualistic and also decidedly anthropocentric.
Good blog.
Hi, you dont know me but I read sven and jonny's blog, an it brought me to yours. For a very unintellectual explanation of the 'stock exchange divinity' view of the atonement, please see my blog. (hobbit's blog on Sven's site)
While it may be simplistic, you have to include the punitive aspect of the cross along with other theologies, otherwise it's just a divine PR excercise by God to associate with our weakness, and you're still left with the problem of sin, and how a Holy (and Wholly as in Other) God deals with it.
You're right about the physical ressurection of ALL though, this is in fact SO frightening, (eternal suffering of those with imperishable bodies who reject Christ) that as evangelicals, we've stopped preaching it, which in itself leads to these strange unbiblical gnostic theologies...
Christianity is as much about the body as the soul, the Incarnation of God should tell us that!! If it wasn't, God the Son wouldn't have "added" a physical body to His own essence, and He certainly wouldn't still have it now, which according to paul in his letters, He still does!
(Hobbit)
I think Penis Substitution is downright wrong - lets just leave it at that.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home