Checking for sound theology

[_Jordan_]

I am wanting to make a short video (~1-2 minute) with a concise, dense, accurate message of the gospel.I am aware it's possible to mistakenly write things which aren't true, which is why I'm asking this. My memory of specific verses isn't very good so making sure/biblically proving, all of which I am wanting to write is true is somewhat hard. Mishandling Gods word greatly worries me and I don't want to mistakenly eisegesis verses when I come to research/quote verses to back up this. The following script is what I've wrote so far and is the essence of the gospel how I've understood it from reading the bible and listening to sermons over the years. I would like as much people, preferably reformed/orthodox, to look at what I've wrote, tell me if I need correction, or need to add anything in? I want it to flow as logically and biblically as possible in a concise short fashion.



Man sinned against God

The nature of sin is infinitely evil, evidenced by the majesty of whom it’s against.

God is morally perfect in justice; the judgement of sin can’t be eternally postponed, which would be to disregard sin hence invalidate Gods justice.

The result of God’s justice and man’s sin is divine wrath.

Divine Wrath is the application of justice through retribution according to each’s deeds

Only God’s infinite worthiness could account for the atonement of the infinite weight our of sin.

God clothed himself in flesh so that he could physically bear Gods wrath

Therefore, Jesus’ death appeased the wrath of god for those who by faith repent and trust the propitiation provided by Jesus.

This was a free act of Grace, not deserved nor achievable, but brought about by Gods unfathomable love.

Through this, reconciliation to God is achieved and true enjoyment of God can be experienced

 

[dysert]

I am wanting to make a short video (~1-2 minute) with a concise, dense, accurate message of the gospel.I am aware it's possible to mistakenly write things which aren't true, which is why I'm asking this. My memory of specific verses isn't very good so making sure/biblically proving, all of which I am wanting to write is true is somewhat hard. Mishandling Gods word greatly worries me and I don't want to mistakenly eisegesis verses when I come to research/quote verses to back up this. The following script is what I've wrote so far and is the essence of the gospel how I've understood it from reading the bible and listening to sermons over the years. I would like as much people, preferably reformed/orthodox, to look at what I've wrote, tell me if I need correction, or need to add anything in? I want it to flow as logically and biblically as possible in a concise short fashion.



Man sinned against God

The nature of sin is infinitely evil, evidenced by the majesty of whom it’s against.

God is morally perfect in justice; the judgement of sin can’t be eternally postponed, which would be to disregard sin hence invalidate Gods justice.

The result of God’s justice and man’s sin is divine wrath.

Divine Wrath is the application of justice through retribution according to each’s deeds

Only God’s infinite worthiness could account for the atonement of the infinite weight our of sin.

God clothed himself in flesh so that he could physically bear Gods wrath

Therefore, Jesus’ death appeased the wrath of god for those who by faith repent and trust the propitiation provided by Jesus.

This was a free act of Grace, not deserved nor achievable, but brought about by Gods unfathomable love.

Through this, reconciliation to God is achieved and true enjoyment of God can be experienced

Imho, you've got it basically there. There are a few changes I'd make, but nothing major. For instance, I'd add "Jesus' death AND RESURRECTION appeased the wrath of God...". (It's not much of a gospel without the resurrection.) I'd also change the word "is" to "can be" in the last line (assuming you're not a universalist). Finally, please pay attention to the spelling. At least one place you did not capitalize "God", and something you forgot an apostrophe whereas others you added an apostrophe where it shouldn't be.

Who is the intended audience of this video?

 

[~Anastasia~]

You might be ok from a reformed standpoint, but that's not how the Church historically understood the death of Christ through the ages. Yes, He died a substitutionary death, but more importantly, He defeated death by His own death. That was the great victory.

There's a lot more to it - but if you go further back, we tend to consider sin as more of a sickness/wound needing healing, rather than seeing salvation as a contractual/legal issue. The work for "save" in the original Scriptures, soza, is the same as the word for "heal".

The emphasis was never on a God who refused to forgive until He got His "pound of flesh" from someone.

There is much more nuance and depth to God's work of salvation on our behalf.

 

[dysert]

You might be ok from a reformed standpoint, but that's not how the Church historically understood the death of Christ through the ages. Yes, He died a substitutionary death, but more importantly, He defeated death by His own death. That was the great victory.

There's a lot more to it - but if you go further back, we tend to consider sin as more of a sickness/wound needing healing, rather than seeing salvation as a contractual/legal issue. The work for "save" in the original Scriptures, soza, is the same as the word for "heal".

The emphasis was never on a God who refused to forgive until He got His "pound of flesh" from someone.

There is much more nuance and depth to God's work of salvation on our behalf.

Granted, there are plenty of nits we could pick, but remember his goal: "I am wanting to make a short video (~1-2 minute) with a concise, dense, accurate message of the gospel." Just the facts, Ma'am.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Granted, there are plenty of nits we could pick, but remember his goal: "I am wanting to make a short video (~1-2 minute) with a concise, dense, accurate message of the gospel." Just the facts, Ma'am.

Well ..... I'm not looking to argue.

As I said, he's ok from a reformed perspective. But since he asked in Traditional Theology, to be blunt, the ancient Church would consider the juridical emphasis on a wrathful God to be a distorted Gospel.

Just sharing the perspective.

 

[_Jordan_]

Imho, you've got it basically there. There are a few changes I'd make, but nothing major. For instance, I'd add "Jesus' death AND RESURRECTION appeased the wrath of God...". (It's not much of a gospel without the resurrection.) I'd also change the word "is" to "can be" in the last line (assuming you're not a universalist). Finally, please pay attention to the spelling. At least one place you did not capitalize "God", and something you forgot an apostrophe whereas others you added an apostrophe where it shouldn't be.

Who is the intended audience of this video?

Thanks! Yes definitely how could I have forgot; I will include the resurrection. I will also change that last phrase, didn't even realise that but yes it needs changed and I will also look over spelling and grammar, thanks man
Honestly not too picky about who will see it, I think it's appropriate for anyone I guess but I want it to help people who like to think things through (but may not want to invest time, such as many agnostics etc). I suppose the main gospel theme here I want to address is "what are people saved from? (gods wrath)" and how this was achieved.

 

[_Jordan_]

You might be ok from a reformed standpoint, but that's not how the Church historically understood the death of Christ through the ages. Yes, He died a substitutionary death, but more importantly, He defeated death by His own death. That was the great victory.

There's a lot more to it - but if you go further back, we tend to consider sin as more of a sickness/wound needing healing, rather than seeing salvation as a contractual/legal issue. The work for "save" in the original Scriptures, soza, is the same as the word for "heal".

The emphasis was never on a God who refused to forgive until He got His "pound of flesh" from someone.

There is much more nuance and depth to God's work of salvation on our behalf.

Thank you for the reply, Dysert also pointed me out also about forgetting out the resurrection, which I will add in and how this is the great victory over death.

Your second point I completely agree, I should try and include this, I think the point I was probably emphasising was that through Jesus' death God could still uphold his perfect righteousness in not holding the sins of his people against them. Should I perhaps rephrase something? any suggestions?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thank you for the reply, Dysert also pointed me out also about forgetting out the resurrection, which I will add in and how this is the great victory over death.

Your second point I completely agree, I should try and include this, I think the point I was probably emphasising was that through Jesus' death God could still uphold his perfect righteousness in not holding the sins of his people against them. Should I perhaps rephrase something? any suggestions?

I'm not sure how to answer this. I realize you are sincere, and I applaud that. And from a reformed perspective, this is what we are "saved from".

The problem from an Orthodox perspective lies in the extrinsic nature of salvation, and the mischaracterization of God. It essentially pits God the Father against the Son, which is impossible. It has God "needing" satisfaction, which He needs nothing, and is slave to no external cosmic "law" which ties His hands in the matter of forgiveness. It allows man, essentially unchanged and still sinful, to simply be "counted as righteous" even though he hasn't really changed at all. And somehow proclaims "just" the sacrifice and torture of one Man for the sins of others.

The Father and Son are in agreement and both desire the salvation of mankind. God needs nothing - rather it is mankind who is broken and enslaved to sin and needs rescuing from the curse of death. The process of salvation is worked out by Christ within us, changing us, making us truly in His image and likeness once again, as God intended.

It is a radical shift in paradigm on one hand, but in the end encompasses so much more of salvation and restoration.

Forgive me please, I realize this really wasn't what you were asking for. I suppose I am just unable to see the request and remain silent, since it came to us here. God be with you.

 

[Catherineanne]

I am wanting to make a short video (~1-2 minute) with a concise, dense, accurate message of the gospel.I am aware it's possible to mistakenly write things which aren't true, which is why I'm asking this. My memory of specific verses isn't very good so making sure/biblically proving, all of which I am wanting to write is true is somewhat hard. Mishandling Gods word greatly worries me and I don't want to mistakenly eisegesis verses when I come to research/quote verses to back up this. The following script is what I've wrote so far and is the essence of the gospel how I've understood it from reading the bible and listening to sermons over the years. I would like as much people, preferably reformed/orthodox, to look at what I've wrote, tell me if I need correction, or need to add anything in? I want it to flow as logically and biblically as possible in a concise short fashion.



Man sinned against God

The nature of sin is infinitely evil, evidenced by the majesty of whom it’s against.

God is morally perfect in justice; the judgement of sin can’t be eternally postponed, which would be to disregard sin hence invalidate Gods justice.

The result of God’s justice and man’s sin is divine wrath.

Divine Wrath is the application of justice through retribution according to each’s deeds

Only God’s infinite worthiness could account for the atonement of the infinite weight our of sin.

God clothed himself in flesh so that he could physically bear Gods wrath

Therefore, Jesus’ death appeased the wrath of god for those who by faith repent and trust the propitiation provided by Jesus.

This was a free act of Grace, not deserved nor achievable, but brought about by Gods unfathomable love.

Through this, reconciliation to God is achieved and true enjoyment of God can be experienced

That is a very man-centric view of the gospel.

Why not start with God, and see where you end up?

 

[Cappadocious]

1. God created man so that God could love him and serve him and so that man could be be eternal divine high priest of creation, loving and serving God.
2. Man fell and became corrupt, dead, and estranged from God.
3. God did not abandon mankind but worked with mankind through his people.
4. This culminated in God sending his Word to become man and fill up man's corruption, death and estrangement with his holiness, life and communion in his Life, Crucifixion and Resurrection.
5. God was victorious, destroyed all of our enemies, and gives us the destiny which was from the beginning.
6. By uniting ourselves to Christ we can be adopted as God's sons, realize the destruction of our enemies, fulfill our destiny and manifest God's coming kingdom where he is all in all.

Or we can say of God:

You brought us out of nothing into being, and when we had fallen away, You raised us up again. You left nothing undone until you had led us up to heaven and granted us Your Kingdom which is to come.

 

[Catherineanne]

1. God created man so that God could love him and serve him and so that man could be be eternal divine high priest of creation, loving and serving God.
2. Man fell and became corrupt, dead, and estranged from God.
3. God did not abandon mankind but worked with mankind through his people.
4. This culminated in God sending his Word to become man and fill up man's corruption, death and estrangement with his holiness, life and communion in his Life, Crucifixion and Resurrection.
5. God was victorious, destroyed all of our enemies, and gives us the destiny which was from the beginning.
6. By uniting ourselves to Christ we can be adopted as God's sons, realize the destruction of our enemies, fulfill our destiny and manifest God's coming kingdom where he is all in all.

Or we can say of God:

You brought us out of nothing into being, and when we had fallen away, You raised us up again. You left nothing undone until you had led us up to heaven and granted us Your Kingdom which is to come.

A bit better, but still all about man and nothing about the rest of creation at all.

If we are to summarise the gospel surely it has to say more about God than about us, and place us within the whole of creation?

Alternatively, this:

http://biblehub.com/john/3-16.htm

 

[Hieronymus]

Imho, you've got it basically there. There are a few changes I'd make, but nothing major. For instance, I'd add "Jesus' death AND RESURRECTION appeased the wrath of God...".

But you shouldn't shoehorn the resurrection quite in there...
Because it is Jesus' death that appeases God's Wrath, not the resurrection.
The resurrection is the assurance for man in Christ to live.

(It's not much of a gospel without the resurrection.)

That's true!

 

[Catherineanne]

But you shouldn't shoehorn the resurrection quite in there...
Because it is Jesus' death that appeases God's Wrath, not the resurrection.
The resurrection is the assurance for man in Christ to live. That's true!

Appeasing God's wrath is one interpretation of the death and resurrection of Christ, but by no means the only one. A more mainstream view is that of reconciliation.

 

[Hieronymus]

Appeasing God's wrath is one interpretation of the death and resurrection of Christ, but by no means the only one. A more mainstream view is that of reconciliation.

What's the difference?

 

[Catherineanne]

What's the difference?

The difference is whether God is capable of wrath or not.

Many saints have said not, and I agree with them.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/st-isaac-the-syrian-the-hellish-scourge-of-divine-love/

 

[Hieronymus]

The difference is whether God is capable of wrath or not.

Many saints have said not, and I agree with them.

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/st-isaac-the-syrian-the-hellish-scourge-of-divine-love/

I meant the difference between appeasing God and reconciliation.

 

[Catherineanne]

I meant the difference between appeasing God and reconciliation.

The first is us acting, the second is God acting.

The entire Gospel is the latter.

 

[Hieronymus]

The first is us acting,

No, it is both Christ dying on the cross.

 

[_Jordan_]

I'm not sure how to answer this. I realize you are sincere, and I applaud that. And from a reformed perspective, this is what we are "saved from".

The problem from an Orthodox perspective lies in the extrinsic nature of salvation, and the mischaracterization of God. It essentially pits God the Father against the Son, which is impossible. It has God "needing" satisfaction, which He needs nothing, and is slave to no external cosmic "law" which ties His hands in the matter of forgiveness. It allows man, essentially unchanged and still sinful, to simply be "counted as righteous" even though he hasn't really changed at all. And somehow proclaims "just" the sacrifice and torture of one Man for the sins of others.

The Father and Son are in agreement and both desire the salvation of mankind. God needs nothing - rather it is mankind who is broken and enslaved to sin and needs rescuing from the curse of death. The process of salvation is worked out by Christ within us, changing us, making us truly in His image and likeness once again, as God intended.

It is a radical shift in paradigm on one hand, but in the end encompasses so much more of salvation and restoration.

Forgive me please, I realize this really wasn't what you were asking for. I suppose I am just unable to see the request and remain silent, since it came to us here. God be with you.

It's exactly why I posted my question so I could be corrected where needs be, don't worry about it.

I actually agree with everything you've said so I am a little confused. This is what I intend to say in full, and I think it's appropriate to say that I want to focus on addressing a question many agnostics/atheists have proposed, "why can't God, if he exists, just forgive us, what does the cross or judgement have do do why anything if he's all loving"

I 100% agree that God doesn't owe us anything; in no way does he "need" us for his well being but God deciding to save a proportion of humanity for his good pleasure, not for any necessity. And as to the nature of salvation, yes I indeed say it's more than a "legal requirement meet". Romans 8:30, I don't affirm "easy believing" but all who are truly saved will show fruit of their salvation and are ever growing in this, in that sense salvation is a continuous process and healing all the way through to glorification. I simply wanted to state the beginning of this process, or what commonly referred to as "getting saved". That first someone born-again of the Holy Spirit (a work of God) responds to the gospel message in repentance and faith. Also on the son and the father having the same will, I 100% affirm, where did I hint otherwise? as I will need to change that if so

When trying to condense the message, it made sense to me, but I understand it can be perceived differently (especially if I haven't including some aspects). You could literally write a book on salvation, or what Jesus accomplished on the cross, or the wrath of God etc, but that's not what I want to do, the same way someone says "God is love" is true, although the statement doesn't imply other attributes of god, such as his Gods wrath, I am wanting to be true in what I'm addressing, that is "why the cross?". I hope this makes sense, I agree completely with what your saying and I will try and re-think how I phrase and mention things, but to keep it concise I may not be able to go into huge detail, which as long as what I say is still true, I think can be effective for people who may not have even heard the gospel, or the reasoning for it.

Thanks for your reply, again if I've said something wrong, don't be afraid to correct me

 

[~Anastasia~]

It's exactly why I posted my question so I could be corrected where needs be, don't worry about it.

I actually agree with everything you've said so I am a little confused. This is what I intend to say in full, and I think it's appropriate to say that I want to focus on addressing a question many agnostics/atheists have proposed, "why can't God, if he exists, just forgive us, what does the cross or judgement have do do why anything if he's all loving"

I 100% agree that God doesn't owe us anything; in no way does he "need" us for his well being but God deciding to save a proportion of humanity for his good pleasure, not for any necessity. And as to the nature of salvation, yes I indeed say it's more than a "legal requirement meet". Romans 8:30, I don't affirm "easy believing" but all who are truly saved will show fruit of their salvation and are ever growing in this, in that sense salvation is a continuous process and healing all the way through to glorification. I simply wanted to state the beginning of this process, or what commonly referred to as "getting saved". That first someone born-again of the Holy Spirit (a work of God) responds to the gospel message in repentance and faith. Also on the son and the father having the same will, I 100% affirm, where did I hint otherwise? as I will need to change that if so

When trying to condense the message, it made sense to me, but I understand it can be perceived differently (especially if I haven't including some aspects). You could literally write a book on salvation, or what Jesus accomplished on the cross, or the wrath of God etc, but that's not what I want to do, the same way someone says "God is love" is true, although the statement doesn't imply other attributes of god, such as his Gods wrath, I am wanting to be true in what I'm addressing, that is "why the cross?". I hope this makes sense, I agree completely with what your saying and I will try and re-think how I phrase and mention things, but to keep it concise I may not be able to go into huge detail, which as long as what I say is still true, I think can be effective for people who may not have even heard the gospel, or the reasoning for it.

Thanks for your reply, again if I've said something wrong, don't be afraid to correct me

I agree with you. It is good to see what you've expanded here. And yes, the truth is that an entire book could (and has been) written and not say everything. I suspect we don't even quite grasp EVERYthing, but thankfully that is not necessary.

The only problem then, from my point of view (and many others who hold to the traditional teachings of the faith through the centuries since it was first delivered to us) is precisely the question you say the atheists ask. Why can't God just forgive us, if He is loving and merciful?

Actually, He can. He does not have a "wrath" that must be satisfied before He will allow Himself to forgive us. That's not actually true "forgiveness" is it? If somebody owes me a debt, and I say to them, "yes, I'll 'forgive' the debt, but somebody is going to have to give me my money first, even if it's not you!" then I'm not forgiving them. I'm just demanding/accepting payment from somebody else. Did Christ demand anything from the woman caught in adultery, the one who washed His feet with her tears, the man who was lowered on his bed through the roof, or anyone else He forgave? No, He simply forgave them. God can actually do that if He wants to. He really is the supreme authority of what can be and can't be done.

We look at the Scriptures and develop our understanding of God through Christ, Who is God revealed to us. The Gospels are our lens for viewing the rest of Scripture. As far as I can tell, it is looking at Christ (and God) through the lens of the Old Testament that has led to the penal substitution model of atonement (which is what you describe when you talk about God needing to pour out His wrath upon someone).

I grew up with that model myself, and I found it difficult answering atheists (or even myself) concerning why God couldn't just forgive, if He is loving, or why He felt the NEED to hurt someone first (which honestly seemed a petty desire for revenge).

I realize this may sound even like a blasphemous question to you, to speak of God in that way. But it IS a stumbling block for atheists. And I would never come out and admit it, since I had been Christian since childhood, but deep in my heart it had bothered me too.

But that is precisely why, now that I have learned that no such belief existed for centuries of Christianity, and now that I have finally learned to see God through Christ, truly, and KNOW Him as a good and loving God, Who desires to save mankind, so much so that He DID condescend to take on human flesh, living as one of us, and then dying a horrific death, JUST SO that we could be resurrected as well and have eternal life, which we lost through sin. Yes, ALL of this is Truth! It is just that it is not driven by some petty sense of wrath and revenge, but by love. Christ died because His death and Resurrection destroyed the curse of death, and opened the way for our ultimate resurrection too, joining Him as the Firstborn of many brethren.

So maybe you can seem the punitive revenge aspect has a particular bad taste it leaves in my mouth. To me, that is the blasphemy (please forgive me, I know that may sound harsh) but it truly does turn a loving, selfless act of ultimate sacrifice and love (no man hath greater love than this - that he lay down his life for his brethren) ... into something quite different. Namely an angry God who is bent on destroying us, only prevented by Christ stepping between and bearing the brunt of His supposed anger and getting torn to shreds in the process, which somehow "pleases" God the Father, we are told. Forgive me, but yes, I can see no other interpretation than this does pit God the Father against God the Son. I just never admitted it to myself for decades of my Christian life.

But atheists DO see this. They DO ask, and they are right to do so. Sometimes they are not far from the Kingdom. But if that's all we have to offer them, this distorted Gospel that was not taught by the early Church - many conclude we are simply crazy and turn away. We refuse to acknowledge the inconsistency in our "Good News".

Anyway, that is my explanation. I realize it is probably surprising, may sound harsh in places, and might even sound like it ignores Scripture. I thought the same thing. I spent a great deal of time "examining to see if these things could be true" according to the Scriptures. In some places our Bibles were translated into English with these new ideas already in place, so prejudice was given to word choice. It is not something I could have found on my own. But I'm so very thankful there were 20 centuries of witness by the Christians who have gone before to help me understand.

God be with you, and please forgive me if I offend in any way.