tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post114487567354428373..comments2022-04-27T23:07:59.833-04:00Comments on Conversi ad Dominum: The Son is Not Forsaken by the FatherFr John W Fentonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01283787316830250866noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1147575875001713212006-05-13T23:04:00.000-04:002006-05-13T23:04:00.000-04:00If the Son is not forsaken by the Father, then we ...If the Son is not forsaken by the Father, then we are not accepted by Him.Rev. Paul Beiselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04678751687495292703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145497648152719552006-04-19T21:47:00.000-04:002006-04-19T21:47:00.000-04:00I wasn't trying to say that it is either or. I thi...I wasn't trying to say that it is either or. I think there are elements of both in the Scriptures. I asked if Anselm's theory of the atonement right or wrong. It can't be both. It is either right or wrong. But I'm not saying that is the whole story. I am critical of those who outright deny the anselmic theory, or refuse to say whether it is right or wrong. I think the mystery of our Lord's atonement is deep enough to be seen on several different levels simultaneously.Rev. Paul Beiselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04678751687495292703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145493879919792412006-04-19T20:44:00.000-04:002006-04-19T20:44:00.000-04:00Pr. Beisel,If I am forced to choose between Anselm...Pr. Beisel,<BR/><BR/>If I am forced to choose between Anselm and Aulen, I must admit...Anselm isn't going to make the cut. Why, you ask?<BR/><BR/>Because 95% of Lutheran hymnody reflects the Christus Victor view of the Atonement.<BR/><BR/>This is the Feast of Victory of our God = Christus Victor<BR/>A Mighty Fortress = Christus Victor<BR/>Lord Jesus Christ, My Life, My light = Christus Victor<BR/>Thy Strong Word = Christus Victor<BR/><BR/>etc etc etc.<BR/><BR/>Now don't get me wrong, I don't mean to suggest that there is zero Anselm in Lutheran thought...but if you're going to force people to pick one or t'other...well, I think it's clear which direction I will go...<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Keplerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12308499996726677265noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145415828542219422006-04-18T23:03:00.000-04:002006-04-18T23:03:00.000-04:00It pains me to read some of these comments. As I r...It pains me to read some of these comments. As I read them, I think to myself, "relativism is just as alive amongst Lutherans as it is amongst liberals and unbelievers." Why would Jesus have said, "Why have You forsaken Me?" if he did not mean it? Maybe He was talking "tongue-in-cheek." I agree with Peter's comments. The Anselmic theory of the atonement is either right or wrong. Which is it?Rev. Paul Beiselhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04678751687495292703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145130020171451152006-04-15T15:40:00.000-04:002006-04-15T15:40:00.000-04:00Concerning discussion about the will of Christ--I ...Concerning discussion about the will of Christ--I refer you to:<BR/><BR/>http://conversiaddominum.blogspot.com/2006/03/<BR/>understanding-not-my-will-but-thine-be.html<BR/><BR/>Concerning Fr Fenton's view of Anselm--I don't reject him entirely. I simply don't prefer his departure from the earlier interpretation of the Biblical data concerning the atonement. I would also say that, based on my readings, Luther would say the same--however, I am willing to be corrected on this latter score.<BR/><BR/>Concerning the Aramaic--I think the insight is brilliant, and I am grateful for it.<BR/><BR/>Concerning St Leo as the only father--each Lent I search out sermons from church fathers that I've not yet read concerning the passion and resurrection. Years past included St Bede, St Gregory, Martin Luther, St John Chrysostom, St Augustine, St Ambrose. This year happened to include St Leo and St Cyril of Alexandria.<BR/><BR/>Concerning Trinitarian questions--the past year or so I've been studying issues involving the 5th & 6th Ecumenical Councils and, no doubt, those readings have effected (in a salutary way, I hope) my approach.<BR/><BR/>I thank you all for your comments, which have helped carry the conversation. I apologize that I've not had the time to respond to each or every.Fr John W Fentonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01283787316830250866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145066117975615372006-04-14T21:55:00.000-04:002006-04-14T21:55:00.000-04:00It's worth noting that according to His divinity, ...It's worth noting that according to His divinity, Christ has the very same will as the Father, not just an identical will, just as He has the same essence (homoousios) and not an identical essence (homoiousios).<BR/><BR/>According to His humanity, He also has a will, but a will that is never at variance with the divine will, but always in submission to it.<BR/><BR/>Will pertains to nature, not person.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145057210718713882006-04-14T19:26:00.000-04:002006-04-14T19:26:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.cherylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16583811501343752136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145056976712399842006-04-14T19:22:00.000-04:002006-04-14T19:22:00.000-04:00In my opinion it doesn't seem that he does, no. Ho...In my opinion it doesn't seem that he does, no. However, I myself am not a big fan of Anslem. (about the eighth/ninth century is when I start to cring--theology wise).<BR/><BR/>I realize that may make me a poor lutheran. It's something I personally struggle with.<BR/><BR/>In regards to my comments on calvinism. I was refering specifically to the notion of dividing up the Trinity/Christ. <BR/><BR/>I apologize if I came off as seemingly negating Scripture, when Christ said that He was forsaken. <BR/>I did not mean to indicate that His words were untrue. <BR/><BR/>With that said however, it has been my experience, that interpreting Christ's words within the context of the satisfaction theory (in it's various forms be that the anslem or lutheran one (which is not exactly the same)) has seemingly (even if not actually) divided up the Godhead, by separating one person from another.<BR/><BR/>There is but one-indivisable God.cherylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16583811501343752136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145052587487209172006-04-14T18:09:00.000-04:002006-04-14T18:09:00.000-04:00Dear Homebrew,About St. Leo, I think he would be f...Dear Homebrew,<BR/><BR/>About St. Leo, I think he would be fairly representative of the early Fathers on this question. Of course, I have only read a fraction of their writings.<BR/><BR/>About can the Fathers err, well, of course they can err. But one aspect of what makes the Church regard them AS Fathers is that they mostly didn't err. <BR/><BR/>About sola Scriptura, well, there is a sense in which it is quite Patristic (I have put together a collection of places where I note the Fathers speaking in this manner that floats around the Internet), and there is also a sense in which it can be the nasty door to private interpretation, which the Scriptures themselves rule out. I have no problem at all with sola Scriptura understood in the way the Fathers understood it, but I certainly do have a problem with every Christian armed with the Scriptures regarding THEIR interpretation as the infallible truth of God.<BR/><BR/>A blessed Good Friday to you!William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145048700051234562006-04-14T17:05:00.000-04:002006-04-14T17:05:00.000-04:00Moreover, is there room in your thinking at presen...<B>Moreover, is there room in your thinking at present to consider the idea that even the Fathers could be wrong (after all, Luther concluded as much). Will you ever afford them the freedom to be wrong?</B><BR/><BR/>Perhaps I am missing out on something. But the issue is not so much the fathers, but trinitarian theology. We have to be careful not to separate the Son from the Father. It's quite similiar to why the reform by and large deny Mary as Theotokos. <BR/><BR/>While it is true that Christ can be both said to be forsaken and yet not forsaken, we need to be careful how we conceptualize it. It is due to pastors ect. claiming that Christ was forsaken by the Father, without any clarification as to what that means in light of proper trinitarianism, that has lead many christians within the lutheran church even, to develope not only a very calvinistic trinitarianism, but a very calvinistic christology too.<BR/><BR/>And it's not just this passage which is employed in this manner, but others as well, such as the episode in the garden, where Christ cried out, "take this cup away from me..."cherylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16583811501343752136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145036778806929362006-04-14T13:46:00.000-04:002006-04-14T13:46:00.000-04:00Eric,I just thought it was a decidedly "Antiochian...Eric,<BR/><BR/>I just thought it was a decidedly "Antiochian" read, rather than the more, well, imaginative read from down south... <BR/><BR/>So the Council did nail his Christology. Pity.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145036035596480252006-04-14T13:33:00.000-04:002006-04-14T13:33:00.000-04:00Oh, and Peter, you might enjoy this writing by Met...Oh, and Peter, you might enjoy this writing by Metropolitan Anthony. I have found it to be wondrous in its probing of the Eli and its implications for the great exchange...<BR/><BR/>http://www.metropolit-anthony.orc.ru/eng/eng_10.htmWilliam Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145035042298351122006-04-14T13:17:00.000-04:002006-04-14T13:17:00.000-04:00Pr. Weedon,You're very perceptive to guess that my...Pr. Weedon,<BR/><BR/>You're very perceptive to guess that my understanding of this passage had something to do with reading Theodore.<BR/><BR/>John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia were friends, yes, and I must say I learned a lot about the faith by studying Theodore's writings, but I'm not one of those who wants to rehabilitate him completely. I cannot agree with the condemnation of his _person_, and I find that in several cases his doctrines have also been unjustly criticized, but he does have some real doctrinal problems, especially when it comes to the big issue, the one that got him declared a heretic. His Christology is actually much better than any simple summary can make it sound, but it does suffer from a fatal flaw: in Theodore's understanding the Word did not _become_ a man, but rather _inhabited_ one.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145034860988558612006-04-14T13:14:00.001-04:002006-04-14T13:14:00.001-04:00Peter,The forsakenness IS necessary for the fulfil...Peter,<BR/><BR/>The forsakenness IS necessary for the fulfillment of the divine economy: for Christ must not be rescued from death itself, but go into it to destroy its power forever all His brothers and sisters. Glory to Him for that! <BR/><BR/>I am certain that Fr. Fenton my no means meant that St. Anselm should be entirely rejected (I posted from St. Anselm myself on my blog today), but what I reject is that the Father had a change of heart toward the human race effected by the sacrifice of the cross in the way that, for example, Pieper sets this forth. (See vol 2, p. 348ff.) Similarly the idea that the Father looks upon the Sacrifice of His Son with loathing as He made Him sin for us. Nowhere does the NT anywhere even come close to hinting at this. Rather, as the Canon expresses it, the Father looks upon the offering of His Son with a favorable and serene countenance. Upon the Cross He is and remains the Beloved Son (notice how this is stressed in the Gen. 22 prefigurement). <BR/><BR/>St. Anselm becomes a problem when his answer to Cur Deus Homo is exalted to being the ONE answer and all other answers are made metaphors of that one. I am not sure how successful we have been in escaping that. My $.02.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145034840514993702006-04-14T13:14:00.000-04:002006-04-14T13:14:00.000-04:00Perhaps Fr. Fenton and Rev. Weedon would care to e...Perhaps Fr. Fenton and Rev. Weedon would care to enlighten me by answering a few questions. Why St. Leo? Perhaps another Father's comments on Jesus' quotation of Psalm 22 would also suffice. Are St. Leo's two sermons sufficient enough grounds to support the claim that this was common thinking in the early church? Moreover, is there room in your thinking at present to consider the idea that even the Fathers could be wrong (after all, Luther concluded as much). Will you ever afford them the freedom to be wrong? Lastly, where is sola scriptura in the recent quasi-Orthodox leanings of many confessional Lutherans?<BR/><BR/>As a fellow Lutheran pastor, I guess I remain concerned that this kind of "orthodoxy" runs very closely with the true orthodoxy's alternative.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08867440078055329439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145033521104032532006-04-14T12:52:00.000-04:002006-04-14T12:52:00.000-04:00Peter,Obviously, "relationally" can be a very broa...Peter,<BR/><BR/>Obviously, "relationally" can be a very broad word. Technically, the expectation of a perfectly righteous man that God will rescue him from his enemies is a "relation," so when Jesus was abandoned to His enemies, you could call that "relational" if you want to. <BR/><BR/>I was using the word more specifically. I meant it 1) in a trinitarian sense: the Son did not cease to have the relation to God of Son to Father (thus I paired it with the word "ontologically"--the Son did not cease to be homoousios with the Father), and 2) in an affective sense: the Father's disposition toward the Son did not change.<BR/><BR/>I agree, though, that it is going too far to say, "The Son was not forsaken by the Father." Rather, we should clarify in what sense He was, as I've done above.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145027286573829612006-04-14T11:08:00.000-04:002006-04-14T11:08:00.000-04:00Peter,I do not think that St. Leo's words at all e...Peter,<BR/><BR/>I do not think that St. Leo's words at all evidence a desire to escape what the text says, but to understand the meaning of our Lord's use of Psalm 22 from His holy cross in light of the mystery of the God-man. Eric gave the explanation that fits exactly with the context of the Psalm being prayed (the rest of it together with the opening words) AND the dread and glorious crucifixion of our Lord. His Father abandons Him to His enemies.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145026698455632002006-04-14T10:58:00.000-04:002006-04-14T10:58:00.000-04:00Eric,Yes, I was thinking of your Theodore. The bl...Eric,<BR/><BR/>Yes, I was thinking of your Theodore. The blogosphere is small indeed. I was delighted to hear of your work. I am always haunted by Sasse's observation that a church without patristics is a sect. Now, there are those who would argue whether or not Theodore should be counted among the fathers (given what Constantinople II did), but I assume you are not among them? You know how highly I treasure Chrysostom's writings, and they were dearest friends in the faith, no?William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145024637803360892006-04-14T10:23:00.000-04:002006-04-14T10:23:00.000-04:00A very fitting passage, Pr. Weedon.Which Theodore ...A very fitting passage, Pr. Weedon.<BR/><BR/>Which Theodore did you have in mind? The one I did my dissertation on? I don't remember discussing that with you, but the Lutheran blogosphere can be a small place.Eric Phillipshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00234407421710211220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1145009223750966362006-04-14T06:07:00.000-04:002006-04-14T06:07:00.000-04:00beware of what?could you be more specific please?beware of what?<BR/><BR/>could you be more specific please?cherylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16583811501343752136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1144990271525044992006-04-14T00:51:00.000-04:002006-04-14T00:51:00.000-04:00Cheryl,Beware.Cheryl,<BR/><BR/>Beware.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1144985294023244122006-04-13T23:28:00.000-04:002006-04-13T23:28:00.000-04:00wow. I'm going to share that with my pastor.wow. I'm going to share that with my pastor.cherylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16583811501343752136noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1144984915924345672006-04-13T23:21:00.000-04:002006-04-13T23:21:00.000-04:00One more thought, in Scripture the bridge between ...One more thought, in Scripture the bridge between Psalm 22/Isaiah 53 and the Passion accounts is Wisdom 2:<BR/><BR/>Wisdom 2:12<BR/> “Let us lie in wait for the righteous man, because he is inconvenient to us and opposes our actions; he reproaches us for sins against the law, and accuses us of sins against our training. 13 He professes to have knowledge of God, and calls himself a child of the Lord. 14 He became to us a reproof of our thoughts; 15 the very sight of him is a burden to us, because his manner of life is unlike that of others, and his ways are strange. 16 We are considered by him as something base, and he avoids our ways as unclean; he calls the last end of the righteous happy, and boasts that God is his father. 17 Let us see if his words are true, and let us test what will happen at the end of his life; 18 for if the righteous man is God’s child, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries. 19 Let us test him with insult and torture, so that we may find out how gentle he is, and make trial of his forbearance. 20 Let us condemn him to a shameful death, for, according to what he says, he will be protected.” <BR/>Wisdom 2:21<BR/>Thus they reasoned, but they were led astray, for their wickedness blinded them, 22 and they did not know the secret purposes of God, nor hoped for the wages of holiness, nor discerned the prize for blameless souls; 23 for God created us for incorruption, and made us in the image of his own eternity, 24 but through the devil’s envy death entered the world, and those who belong to his company experience it.William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1144984488280332402006-04-13T23:14:00.000-04:002006-04-13T23:14:00.000-04:00Eric,You wrote:The Just Judge, the Defender of the...Eric,<BR/><BR/>You wrote:<BR/><BR/>The Just Judge, the Defender of the righteous, had abandoned Him--not ontologically or relationally, but to His enemies. It didn't matter that as God He knew the answer to the question already. He had much more right to this utterance than David had ever had, and by using it He made that point.<BR/><BR/>Rx.:<BR/><BR/>That is so exactly the truth! Thank you for putting this so very well. You've preserved exactly the point that St. Leo was at pains to preserve. Dude, you make Theodore proud!!!William Weedonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01383850332591975790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21841592.post-1144965851431630442006-04-13T18:04:00.000-04:002006-04-13T18:04:00.000-04:00The Just Judge, the Defender of the righteous, had...<B>The Just Judge, the Defender of the righteous, had abandoned Him--not ontologically or relationally, but to His enemies.</B><BR/><BR/>That kinda clears it up for me somewhat.<BR/><BR/>Thanks Eric.cherylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16583811501343752136noreply@blogger.com