-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
A Baha'i's view of atonement
- Thread starter smaneck
- Start date
If you are accepting God's Love simple as a child accepts a parent's love, No.
Mans objective while here on earth is to obtain and grow Godly type Love so man can Love God and secondly others with all his heart, soul, mind and energy.
This Godly type Love is not something man can even be born with, develop or payback for having. It is not instinctive to man (making it a robotic type love) nor can God force man to have this Love since that would make it like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun.
God is always Loving man with this unique huge Love, but since it comes to man as pure charity, man will not humble himself to accept pure Charity.
The only way for selfish man to initially obtain Godly type Love is through what Jesus has taught us (Luke 7: 36-50) he that is forgiven much Loves much , so when we accept an unbelievable huge forgiveness from God we automatically receive an unbelievable huge Love (Godly type Love), but that is not the result of our Loving God.
Upvote
0
There was a whole thread I participated in where I discussed this kind of thing. It is my belief that I really don't get the whole "love" thing. It isn't something in my experience. There might be a million reasons for this. My epilepsy. My visual snow. My childhood. Who knows why?
In essence, you're asking a blind man if he understands what blue is. So, I have no idea. I do my best with the tools I have been given and I don't begrudge others for the tools they have been given.
Upvote
0
light upon light
Baha'i
The core of love isn't an emotion but a desire to do right by others and for all.
It seems to me that this is something you do in your life, even if it doesn't feel the same way emotionally to you as to others.
That would be more laudible that you choose to do it because it is right, rather than just reacting to an emotional tug.
Upvote
0
If that bothers you Quran says it more explicitly.I imagine bahais like you will
have a hard time accepting that fact since bahai founder declared Quran to be true.
Here is what quran says about eternity of hell:
quran/72/23 (Mine is) but conveyance (of the Truth) from Allah, and His messages; and whoso disobeyeth Allah and His messenger, lo! his is fire of hell, wherein such dwell for ever.
quran 33:64-65 :Lo! Allah hath cursed the disbelievers, and hath prepared for them a flaming fire, Wherein they will abide for ever. They will find (then) no protecting friend nor helper.
quran 4/168-9/ Lo! those who disbelieve and deal in wrong, Allah will never forgive them, neither will He guide them unto a road, Except the road of hell, wherein they will abide for ever. And that is ever easy for Allah.
Upvote
0
light upon light
Baha'i
It is true, hell is real.
Our lives here do have eternal spiritual consequences. If we love the truth and serve it, our existence will be more elevated than if we are selfish and hateful. That's visible right here and now, if you have the eye to see it.
That is NOT to say that the hateful people cannot grow to become more loving, but in comparison the existence of a person whose life was full of hatred will be much less than a person who learned and lived lives of selfless love.
Upvote
0
I do not think it is possible to accept Christ/God without the experience of Godly type Love, so you might not even be accountable for not accepting His Love (interesting, this is my fault and not yours).
Thank you for commenting.
Upvote
0
I am not so sure.
I don't know what you are trying to convey.It appears truth is different for different people.When I read the quoted words of hell from Quran I am pretty certain it is not the work of a deity. I would not entertain any remote idea of supporting the ideas of a 7th century War lord.
Again I am not sure the relevance of your post in this context.Are you saying a person who made his living by looting and slave trading would have changed his views in his life time, given enough time ?.
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote
0
Language barrier. I don't want to make God an 'it.' I like Persian myself. Personal pronouns have no gender.
Upvote
0
- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,765
- 1,429
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
If I may say....
A good overview on the Orthodox understanding of salvation (written contra the Protestant notion of it being a once-for-all, moment-in-time event) was written by Pope Shenouda III (the book being here: http://www.saint-mary.net/books/Salvation in the Orthodox Concept.pdf
For many, what took them aback (if in the EO world) was seeing how startlingly close to "penal substitution" or at least an "Anselmian" sort of satisfaction theory the OO view is - seeing the "infinite payment of infinite debt" as an aspect of the whole picture of salvation...and typically, while I've seen Orthodox writers stridently reject any notion of crime-punishment as "Western legalism", it is often done in reaction...
What often gets forgotten is that the Early Church didn't necessarily have a mindset that was opposite of crime-punishment entirely - for God is Justice...but he is also Mercy and focused on Healing when it comes to sickness.
To have some things established before going further, According to Anselm, "Nothing can be added to or taken from the honor of God. For this honor which belongs to him is in no way subject to injury or change...And [the sinner] disturbs the order and beauty of the universe, as relates to himself, although he cannot injure nor tarnish the power and majesty of God...It is then plain that no one can honor or dishonor God, as he is in himself; but the creature, as far as he is concerned, appears to do this when he submits or opposes his will to the will of God." This is an objective fact since the idea that God can be dishonored is an obvious anthropomorphism -- the Bible does that a lot, in trying to present God in a way we can understand Him according to our limited capacity as creatures. Anselm does not actually teach that God Himself somehow loses honor or has honor robbed from Him in any way....
That said....
St Peter writes concerning Christ "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." (1 Peter 2:24). And when it comes to substitution, I cannot avoid where it seems clear in the understanding of the Saints. I was actually happy to hear Bishop Suriel in his podcasts talk about salvation in a manner approaching the penal substitution theory - more in the podcast entitled Jesus the God of Love and Salvation. The thing that appeals to me about it is that it makes sense..for if God is infinitely holy then our sins infinitely offend Him, so there is an infinite reparation that needs to be made. Jesus was fully man, so He could take our place, and fully God, so that He could pay the infinite price of our reparation. ..for ALL time as the Book of Hebrews notes when showing the sheer scope of the Atonement and why it was significant for Christ to have the FINAL Sacrifice made.
In multiple respects, the Oriental Orthodox View is deeply rooted in the Christus Victor model (i.e. believing that in his death and ressurection Christ defeated the powers of evil and set us free..that Christ was meant to defeat death, by death and restore the image of God within man that was lost at the Fall), which has its roots in the E.O.C. and the early church fathers (and for that matter, is a view shared by many in the Protestant world as well - especially with the Anabaptist view)....but it has aspects from the Substitution model that tend to be emphasized at certain points.
Indeed, after the Fall, the Image of God in man, which was never lost, was healed; the likeness, which was lost, was restored. Both Eastern and Western theology make a distinction between "image" and "likeness"...although it wasn't until more recent times that the line between "image" and "likeness" became somewhat blurred.
But it does seem that many in the Eastern tradition have reacted to that blurring of distinctions - and created another scenario which is not adhered to when it comes to any talk of substitution. There are a number of Western theologies of redemption/atonement, a fact Orthodox polemics often ignores.....for the mystery of the cross is so rich and beautiful that no mere human explanation could ever capture all that it entails...and truthfully, the Oriental Orthodox approach to atonement tends to be closer to the Latin approach than the Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox one at various approaches...
Christ's death on the Cross was offered as a ransom to the Father through the Spirit for our disobedience (which is what sin is) - seeing that all mankind was held captive by the Enemy ( Acts 10:37-39, Hebrews 2:13-15 / Hebrews 2, 1 John 3:7-9 ). The ransom was, in a wider sense, given to the grave which held sinful humanity prior to the Redemption. By dying, and offering His life, signified by the shedding of His Blood, Christ entered into the grave and "bought" us out, so to speak.......legally allowing mankind to be restored fully to what He had lost (as man gave up that in exchange for bondage to the enemy and the Son of Man - the Second Adam- had to undo that as it concerns payment). He crushed death by His Divinity and by rising to heaven in His deified Humanity, which is our humanity as well, He brought us with Him to the Right Hand of the Father. Being the Divine Image of the Father, Christ restored God's image in us that was tarnished by sin and offers to us the opportunity to live in Him and experience His salvation and divinization through His Body and in the Holy Spirit.
In all of that, God the Father is not an "angry God." I appreciate how one theologian once wrote that God the Father sent His Son not only so that His Son might suffer, but that He also might suffer - for after all, what causes more suffering: to go yourself or to send your Son? However, one might interpret that, that is something truly impactful to me.....for God cried/grieved when His Son gave up His life - yet it pleased the Lord to crush him since we'd be redeemed and spared from the Lord treating us as our sins deserve.
Adam's sin had a consequence, which is Divine Justice, that all men were to suffer death on account of Adam's sin. And Jesus Christ became the second Adam and suffered death on behalf of all men, thereby nullifying the effect of death upon all of humankind. Jesus Christ submitted himself to the satisfaction of Divine Justice, which was death, for the purpose of defeating death. No one can cannot ignore this since scripture is immensely explicit and it'd be a caricature to assume that it's simply a "Western mindset" or a matter of Westerners being merely juridical.
Adam was dead along with his descendants not because sin is infinite. But because sin was directed to the infinite Who punished him with an eternal death. ....this eternal death required God, the infinite, to abolish. Thus, when the Son died on the cross, He, being infinite, satisfied the punishment in place of Adam and thus was able to restore him back. This idea of one dying in place of another to bestow life was taught by God to Adam in the Garden of Eden when He made garments of skin. Later, God instituted the sacrificial system to teach mankind the idea of redemption. Finally, He appeared in the last days as the ultimate sacrifice.
As St Gregory the Theologian said about the "ransom.".:
Now we are to examine another fact and dogma, neglected by most people, but in my judgment well worth enquiring into. To whom was that Blood offered that was shed for us, and why was It shed? I mean the precious and famous Blood of our God and High Priest and Sacrifice.
We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause?
If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, then it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether!
But if to God the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only-begotten Son delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being sacrificed by his father, [Abraham,] but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim? (See Gen 22).
Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant (i.e., the devil) and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son who also arranged this to the honor of the Father, whom it is manifest He obeys in all things.
We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause?
If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, then it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether!
But if to God the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed. And next, on what principle did the Blood of His only-begotten Son delight the Father, who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being sacrificed by his father, [Abraham,] but changed the sacrifice by putting a ram in the place of the human victim? (See Gen 22).
Is it not evident that the Father accepts Him, but neither asked for Him nor demanded Him; but on account of the incarnation, and because Humanity must be sanctified by the Humanity of God, that He might deliver us Himself, and overcome the tyrant (i.e., the devil) and draw us to Himself by the mediation of His Son who also arranged this to the honor of the Father, whom it is manifest He obeys in all things.
The healing of humanity, and our subsequent deification via Theosis, is necessarily the result of Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection. It's not, however, the necessary result of Christ defeating evil. One can simply read St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" to understand - as it has to do with the Incarnate Word taking flesh, and sanctifying humanity from corruption, and our being joined with him. Further, the Fathers speak of sacrificial and substitutionary elements of the Atonement that would not be addressed with a solely Christus Victor atonement. Many aspects of the atonement (minus Penal Substitution/Satisfaction Theory) must be considered together to fully understand the atonement since you cannot just ascribe to "Christus Victor" to present an Orthodox atonement.
For me, I don't care for explaining the atonement in terms of penal substitution... but I don't see it as wrong per se. Christus Victor is a good model to consider - but Christ is only a victor if he had to deal with something. Otherwise there is no atonement, reconciliation to God, going on for the believer. The Cross is not merely dealing with death, but it is also dealing with sin and disobedience. ....for God is Holy/Perfect - and in light of the numerous scriptures of us being saved from God's Wrath (Ephesians 2:8-13, Ephesians 5:6, Colossians 3:5-7, Romans 9:21-23, Romans 2:4-6, etc.), to divorce the Atonement from a matter of the Lord taking out the consequences of our sin (which do deserve death) unto the Messiah so that we could be purified has to be taken into account.
There is definitely a place in the early Fathers for the idea that Christ is punished in our place or for us.
For places giving good review on the issue, one can go to Divine Justice - by Coptic Christian Hany Mina Mikhail ...or to the following:
As said best there:
Upvote
0
- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,765
- 1,429
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
The idea that the Justice of God must be satisfied because of the state of sinfulness (i.e., lack of Original holiness) into which each of us is born is an idea which seems to be missing from the modern Eastern Tradition in certain parts because of ignorance of history. For it is present in the Eastern Tradition as late as St. Gregory Palamas, but somewhere along the way, it seems to have disappeared or at least diminished to a point that you will find Eastern Orthodox controversialists disparage the Western Tradition on the Justice of God ...although you'll hardly find EO talk against the Oriental Orthodox Tradition on the Justice of God because many EO don't even know that such a teaching is found in the Oriental Orthodox Tradition and many EO think the only difference between EO and OO is Chalcedon.
As the Fathers note:
+"So he became sin to remit the sins of others: so also he paid the debt that was incurred for us, and we ourselves became righteousness in him; for those who have been freed from debts are righteous, and |203 are not termed liable. And, because during the time of his Humanization he did no sin, therefore also iniquity was not found in him, but he showed himself righteous, that is, he is righteousness; and, when he became flesh, all our nature again was justified in him as in firstfruits; and this is what the wise Paul said to the Corinthians about the Father, «He made him sin for our sake, who knew no sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him»"
-Saint Severus of Antioch, Letter 65, 6th Century
+"For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life of all satisfied the debt by His death"
-Saint Athanasius the Apostolic, On the Incarnation, 4th Century
Within the Oriental Orthodox Tradition, it seems this is generally more understood than in other circles. For the idea of a satisfaction theory of the atonement, Christ satisfying the Father's wrath/consistency/justice and paying the debt of our sins, is an Orthodox teaching so long as it is balanced with the ontological theory (that is, Christ heals human nature and rescues us from the snares of death).
According to what several OO Hierarchs and Theologians (from the Coptic, Syriac, and Armenian Churches) have to say on the Atonement:
Holy Communion is not only a Sacrament but also a Sacrifice. As Sacrifice, it is the continuation of the sacrifice of Golgotha. The very words used by our Lord clearly show this: My Body given . . ., or broken for you, My Blood shed . . . for many for the remission of sins. These expressions indicate that this Institution is itself a propitiatory sacrifice. It is not simply a representation of the death of our Lord, but actual and real sacrifice, in which The Offerer and the Victim are one and the same, our Lord, even if the sacrifice be offered by the priest. It is not simply a reminder or commemoration of the historical fact of Golgotha, but an actual and objective sacrifice. The purpose of the sacrifice on the Cross was the reconciliation of man with God, the atonement for the sins of man and their expiation, in general. Whereas the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is offered for specific people, it is the application of the general benefits of the sacrifice of the Cross, to those for whom the Eucharist is celebrated, both for the living and the dead.
-Bishop S. Kaloustian, Saints and Sacraments of the Armenian Church, 40
Redemption & Atonement
Redemption & Atonement
The cross derives its power from the merit of Christs death on it and His resurrection from the dead which announced the Fathers acceptance of the atonement of the crucified One and His redemption of humanity. As the apostle Peter expressed to the chief priests of the Jews about the Lord Jesus, The God of our ancestors raised up Jesus, whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior that He might give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins (Acts 5:30,31). For millions of people were crucified before Christ was crucified and after, but not one of them was raised from the dead but their names were wiped out and their souls went away and they left nothing but a memory behind. But only the Lord Jesus, who was crucified and died on the cross and was buried in a new tomb and rose from the dead on the third day, has raised us with Him and has seated us with Him in heaven. Since He was crucified for our sake and redeemed us from the curse of the law He became a curse for us as it is written, Cursed is anyone who hangs on a tree (Galatians 3:13 and Deuteronomy 21:23). So, Christ exchanged the curse of the cross for a spring of heavenly blessings and spiritual graces and the cross has become the banner of the Christian church, its symbol and the subject of its boasting. After it was a sign of weakness and humiliation it became a sign of the power of God and the glory of His church. This godly power is taken by everyone who believes to obtain salvation by the blood of Jesus Christ that was shed on the cross; that the blood of Christ is truly synonymous with the cross for it is the blood of the incarnate God, as the apostle Paul says to the priests of Ephesus: Keep watch over yourselves and over all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with his own blood (Acts 20:28).
Our Lord said, The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many (Mk 10:45), St. Paul said, There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all (1Tim 2:5-6). The word ransom suggests some kind of payment and someone to whom this ransom is paid. The question is, To whom was this ransom paid? Origen and some early fathers suggested that this ransom was paid to the devil but the Church rejected this idea. H.H. Pope Shenouda III clarified this issue and said, The ransom was paid to the Divine Justice. The Old Testament sacrifices were symbols of the sacrifice of the cross. These sacrifices were not offered to the devil but were offered to God. Hence, holy fire came down from heaven and consumed them (1Kg 18:38), and it is written that God smelled a soothing aroma (Gen 8:21) after the sacrifice of our father Noah. Since sin is committed against God (Ps 51:4) then the price of this sin should be paid to God Himself, the devil has no right to ask or to accept a ransom. The devil is just an accuser
(Rev 12:10; Job 1). On the cross our Lord offered Himself to the Father (Lk 23:46) and not to the devil.
- The Power of the Holy Cross - Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch
Our Lord said, The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many (Mk 10:45), St. Paul said, There is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all (1Tim 2:5-6). The word ransom suggests some kind of payment and someone to whom this ransom is paid. The question is, To whom was this ransom paid? Origen and some early fathers suggested that this ransom was paid to the devil but the Church rejected this idea. H.H. Pope Shenouda III clarified this issue and said, The ransom was paid to the Divine Justice. The Old Testament sacrifices were symbols of the sacrifice of the cross. These sacrifices were not offered to the devil but were offered to God. Hence, holy fire came down from heaven and consumed them (1Kg 18:38), and it is written that God smelled a soothing aroma (Gen 8:21) after the sacrifice of our father Noah. Since sin is committed against God (Ps 51:4) then the price of this sin should be paid to God Himself, the devil has no right to ask or to accept a ransom. The devil is just an accuser
(Rev 12:10; Job 1). On the cross our Lord offered Himself to the Father (Lk 23:46) and not to the devil.
The mediation of the Lord Jesus Christ is an atonement, which means that He mediates for the forgiveness of our sins, being the Atoner who paid our debts on our behalf. His mediation means that He says to the Father: "Do not count their transgressions because I have carried their iniquity" (Is.53:6). Thus He stands as a Mediator between God and men; or rather, He is the only Mediator between God and men; He fulfilled God's Divine Justice and granted people the forgiveness of sins, by dying for them.
-HH Pope Shenouda, Comparative Theology, p. 77
-HH Pope Shenouda, Comparative Theology, p. 77
Upvote
0
- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,765
- 1,429
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Good points and thanks for bringing them up in consideration....
Upvote
0
- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,765
- 1,429
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Perhaps others here feel differently - but from what I've seen, Christianity from an Eastern perspective tends to be radically different in emphasis than that from Western.....specifically as it concerns focusing on Guilt/Righteousness rather than Honor and Shame.
And having conversations with my grandmother (who was Bahai ), it was amazing how much she was able to relate to Christ when seeing the fullness of what he did rather than the legal aspect alone...
Imagine that youre the son of someone who did a heinous crime, regardless of what their motivations wereand the government decided to come against your parent due to the sins they committed...but as punishment for their crimes, the government decreed that the young son would serve out the man's life sentence thinking their descendants were also guilty....with the child spending the amount of their time in the amoral penitentiary environment. Not comforting in the slightest. However, many would be refreshed if the government found out the child was innocent and declared the child to be free of all charges of the crimes their parents had committed.
Wed think it was a blessing for the child to be declared Not Guilty ... However, for the child, whats done is doneas they can never take back the legacy they experienced in prison. They cannot change the damaging things done to them, or escape the feelings of dirtiness of being connected to others who caused them to be judged to begin with. And for them, what would matter above all else is being able to know theyre clean...without shame.
When you consider that reality, it may be easier to consider how one can best relate to those who are within Muslim cultures and their reaction to the Cross with Western Christianityor other cultures, for that matter, who have similar dynamics. Roland Muller, who wrote an excellent read on the subject entitled Honor and Shame once stated the following:
An individual can think of himself or herself as honorable based on his or her conviction that he or she has embodied those actions and qualities that a group values as honorable, as the marks of a valuable person. This aspect of honor is really self-respect. On the other hand, honor is also the esteem in which a person is held by the group he or she regards as significant othersit is the recognition by the persons group that he or she
is a valuable member of that group. In this regard, it is having the respect of others.
There are many ways that honor within Eastern cultures is given. In example, honor can be ascribed to a person on account of accidents of birth or grants bestowed by people of higher status and power. A persons parentage and lineage became, in many ways, a starting point for honor: A persons honor comes from his father, wrote Ben Sira (Sir 3:11), a fact confirmed by the practice of the eulogy, which began celebrating the deceased persons honor by recalling the honor of his or her ancestors and immediate parents. Thus a person of the house of David begins with a higher honor in the Jewish culture than a member of the house of Herschel, and thus insults (or assaults on a persons honor) often involve ones descent (You spawn of snakes [Mt 3:7, my translation]; You are of your father, the devil [Jn 8:44]. Honor can also be ascribed later in life, whether through adoption into a more honorable family (as Octavian, later the Emperor Augustus, had been adopted by Julius Caesar as a son: Octavians honor rating rose considerably by that grant), through grants of special citizenship status or through grants of office. All of these are, again, prominent in the New Testament, as Christians are said to be adopted by God, made citizens of heaven and given the honorable office of priesthood (see, for example, Gal 4:4-7; Phil 3:20; 1 Pet 2:9). There are many instances, of course, where the New Testament authors merely mention that someones name is so-and-so. In these places a name is just a name. Where a name represents a person, or the estimation of a person in the eyes of others, it is a cipher for the honor and worth of that person. The symbolizing of honor in name is ancient, as attested by the very frequent (and almost exclusive) use of name in this manner in the Psalms.
Brother Ravi Zacharias noted similar dynamics in a book he did entitled Walking from East to West: God in the Shadows - Ravi Zacharias - Google Books as he discussed how the mindset of those in the East is very collective whereas the Western mindset is indeed more individualistic---and in the Eastern context where scriptures were written, one would naturally have not seen the individuals as seperate from the legacy of those who went before them.
Ravi Zacharias, who is originally from India, says that we in the West sometimes miss the Eastern undercurrent of the biblical narratives. For instance, he writes, Most people I have met who have grown up in a Western culture dont seem to be nearly as aware of their ancestry as those from the East. This connection to ancestry is a tendency that has both a good and bad side, for in the East history and ancestry never die. Family ties are of utmost importance for many cultures. And in many ways, as we in the West lack familiarity with things such as sovereignty, monarchy, and lordship.... so also weve long lost the idea of familial hierarchy. Yet each of these things come in to play when we talk of Jesus being the Son of God and the Mission He had.
As a side note, this is why it is important to view the title Son of God in its Eastern, Jewish, biblical context....for as Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-37 discuss, the subject of understanding one's past/ancestry was key in understanding the very nature of what the Messiah was going to be. There's a reason the scriptures place so much high importance on geneologies when it comes to showing who a person is fully. The passage of Hebrews 11-12 comes immediately mind, especially when the author encourages the people to not give up on their faith in light of the fact that they were "surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses."...
Honor can also be achieved as well as ascribed. In the first instance this occurs as one persists in being virtuous in ones dealings, building up a reputationa namefor being honorable and embodying virtues prized by the group (i.e. the soldier who displays above-ordinary courage is singled out for special honors, the generous benefactor is proclaimed at public festivities and commemorated in inscriptions, Torah-observant Jew is seen to be pious and held in high regard by fellow Jews, etc). Within Muslim scenarios, a Muslim who denounces his father could be seen as dishonorable in what they did due to not seeming to show thankfulness for what their father has done for them
Again, one important aspect of honor is relationship within a community. David McIlroy says, Honour is a relational concept. It is a way of maintaining a groups reputation and identity. There must be a recognition of honor by others for someone to truly be honored, meaning; someone cannot honor himself if no one joins him. Unlike in the West, in the Muslim world ascribed status is more important than achieved status.
Most Muslims come from cultures of shame whereas we in the West tend to come from a culture of guilt..
Shame is more than just an absence of honor. It is both a feeling and a state of being. To be shamed is to be abased and dishonored, to be rejected from the community. To feel ashamed is to feel the pain and embarrassment of this disapproval and rejection. We feel the power of shame in Psalm 44. You [God] have rejected us and disgraced us and have not gone out with our armies . . . You have made us a byword among the nations. . . All day long my disgrace is before me, and shame has covered my face at the sound of the taunter and reviler. . . (Psalm 44:9, 14, 15-16).
In order to fully understand honor and shame, we must see that they are both experienced in relationship with others.
It one of the most difficult aspects of evangelizing Muslims is getting them to appreciate their need for a savior. I have found the Islamic doctrine of God and Man to be such that Muslims tend to be unaware of their sinfulness and inability to save themselves. As a result, convincing a Muslim to embrace Jesus as the blood sacrifice for his sins usually requires considerable time and pre-evangelistic effort. In observing one particular culture, something many have been puzzled by is why many Muslim friends and neighbors do not worry much about little sins like lying and cheating, and yet their daily lives and religious rituals seem to revolve around something others would consider to be even less significant, namely their ceremonial purity. Perhaps the greatest need felt by these Muslim people is not for assurance of salvation from sin but for deliverance from the tyranny of being in a near constant state of defilement. Every element of their daily lives is ordered by this insecurity; the direction to face when falling asleep, the Arabic words uttered when beginning a task, speech, or greeting, and even the way to blow your nose or wipe your bottom. Defilements come in various levels and for each level there is an appropriately matched cleansing...
One individual had it once where they were witnessing to a Muslim friend of theirs who asked quite sincerely why Christians insist that Jesus is God and that He was crucified for us. For substitutionary punishment is an enigma to our Muslim friends. They cannot understand how anyone can suffer punishment for another. Their schema for thinking about punishment is shaped by the premise that the one who does wrong is the one who should be punished. They have biblical justification for thinking this way. The fundamental thrust of Ezekiel 18 is that the one who sins is the one who will be punished.
When the Muslim asked his Christian friend how to handle things, the answer the believer gave moved the Muslim visibly. Instead of beginning by saying all have sinned and that the wages of sin is death, the individual waxed eloquent on what the Muslim knew, that all flesh is defiled. He nodded knowingly as the believer affirmed that from the day we are born we continually carry inside us the very substances from which we need to be cleansed. He squirmed as the believer illustrated the futility of ceremonial rituals for such internal cleansing, and concluded that human flesh cannot cleanse itself for either God or heaven any better than darkness can make itself light. He was still and attentive when the believer climaxed by saying that just as a candle drives the darkness from a room by entering it, God drives defilement from human flesh by becoming it. In other words, the very thing that Muslims object to most in Christianity, shirk the identification of God with his creation, is the solution to mans most basic problem as perceived by these Muslims.
The believer noted that if he had thought of it at the time he would have gone on to show how the nature of Jesus miracles healing blindness with His spit and leprosy with His touch proves who He is..and the fact He was willing to defile Himself by touching those deemed to be untouchable and taking away shame....thats significant. See, when Adam and Eve sinned, the first thing they felt was shame, not guilt. Before the fall The man and his wife were both naked [arowm is the Hebrew word] and they felt no shame (Genesis 2:25, NIV). After the fall, The eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked [now the word is eyrom]; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves (Genesis 3:7, NIV). They were still naked, but tried to hide it. ...Adam and Eve hid after they sinned because they were afraid, and were afraid because they felt naked. Interestingly, shame over nakedness, which preceded feelings of fear, alienation, and separation, appears stronger than shame over the sin of disobedience.
The concept of original defilement makes total depravity more sensible. There is no one righteous, not even one (Romans 3:10) and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6), because we are defiled. Sin is not inherited but stems from our being. We are unclean and everything we touch or do, even with good intent, becomes contaminated. Even The Muslim who understands that the ground is cursed wherever he steps if he has not bathed after having had sex is showing an understanding of how bondage to unrighteousness stems from defilement....
Jesus not only bore our sins; he bore our shame. As the author and perfecter of our faith He endured the cross, scorning its shame (Hebrews 12:2). What did it mean for Him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians 5:21, NIV)? Both Paul (Romans 9:33) and Peter quote Isaiah on the subject. See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame (1 Peter 2:6, NIV ).
Christ was not only pierced for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities; he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows (Isaiah 53:4-5). The atonement is not just the simple matter of someone taking our punishment, a concept which Muslims find extremely distasteful. We often are not able to communicate with many Muslims because we have limited ourselves to describing what Christ did for us in substitutionary terms, by saying that Jesus took the punishment of our sins upon himself.
But we don't discuss the ways the atonement had a focus on the way Christ LIVED - transforming the honor and shame dynamic when it comes to the Image of God in others.
Upvote
0
Gxg (G²);64931190 said:
That is, of course, the essence of Anselm's argument. I'm just not sure I buy it. I very much believe that God is free to forgive sins in whatever manner He wishes.
That I find more easier to grasp. It seems to me that what the whole Suffering Servant motif attempts to express is that God suffers with and for us.
I think the issue lies in how we put those scriptural pieces together. Where exactly do you find a verse which states that Jesus death was for the purpose of satisfying Divine Justice?
Where does the Bible indicate this was the reason God gave Adam skins to wear?
But not all sacrifices in the Bible were sin offerings. And I'm not sure that the word "redemption" is used for any of them. Can you give me some examples?
Thanks for jumping in here. Your contributions are always appreciated.
Upvote
0
Gxg (G²);64931289 said:
I did not know your grandmother was a Baha'i!
I would put it very never differently. Islam places a great deal of emphasis on human dignity. Hence God is depicted as 'concealing' our sins, something I think would be a hard thing for a Christian to understand. Likewise Baha'u'llah says:
O COMPANION OF MY THRONE! Hear no evil, and see no evil, abase not thyself, neither sigh and weep. Speak no evil, that thou mayest not hear it spoken unto thee, and magnify not the faults of others that thine own faults may not appear great; and wish not the abasement of anyone, that thine own abasement be not exposed.
or
O SON OF SPIRIT! I created thee rich, why dost thou bring thyself down to poverty? Noble I made thee, wherewith dost thou abase thyself? Out of the essence of knowledge I gave thee being, why seekest thou enlightenment from anyone beside Me? Out of the clay of love I molded thee, how dost thou busy thyself with another? Turn thy sight unto thyself, that thou mayest find Me standing within thee, mighty, powerful and self-subsisting.
I don't think that is your biggest problem. Most Muslims, like myself, do not believe that God requires a blood sacrifice in order to forgive. But as far as recognizing their individual and collective sinfullness, there is significant divide between Sunnis and Shi'ites on this issue. Sunnis tend to be triumphalistic, assuming that if you are doing the right thing God will bless your affairs and make you successful. Consequently the conquests of Islam are evidences of its validity. Shi'ites, on the other hand, assume that if you are doing the right thing, following the right religion you will be the most persecuted. They believe that the martyrdom of the Imam Husayn demonstrated the depths of sinfulness to which Muslim community had fallen and that identifying with his suffering was redemptive.
I don't think this so much has to do with taking sin lightly in comparison with say, ritual purity. Let me speak to the situation in Iran, since these are the Muslims I know the best. Persian etiquette, or ta'aruf, involves the concealment and control of one's personal feelings or opinions in service of smooth public interactions. At times this may amount to no more than refusing refreshments when initially offered no matter how hungry the person may be; at other times it involves much more complex social interactions where relative status is determined. Iranians often tend to reserve access to their inner self to a small circle of intimates. Among these persons, interactions ought to be pure and constant, maintaining a spiritual integrity. With those outside that circle one behaves with reserve and formality, concealing one's true intentions. Westerners often interpret this behavior as hypocritical. When ta'aruf is combined with a market place shrewdness, zerangi, which is often marked by a lack of social responsibility, this negative impression is further reinforced. Iranians deem such behavior as courteous, prudent, and necessary when dealing with an uncertain and treacherous world. Far from being cynical and insincere, they see themselves as simply conducting themselves with wisdom.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
