Thursday, October 13, 2005
Two Sides Of the Same Coin - Theologically Speaking
Adrian Warnock and Allthings2all are circling the same place theologically. Adrian is talking about penal substitution -- again, and Catez is discussing original sin - continuing a look she started last week. Both doctrines are under severe fire these days and the source of that fire is, I believe, related.
The similar theme that runs through the opposition to these both of these doctrines is that people do not want to admit how utterly and completely God wants to transform us. Both schools of thought approach things from a view that God just sort of wants to clean things up around the edges, not really change the very nature of who we are.
It is in the idea of transformation, that I find the ideas of penal substitution and original sin irrefutable. If God needs to remake us, totally and utterly, then certainly there must be something terribly wrong with us. Building anew means prior demolition, so Christ must have died for us, elsewhile God would have to kill us to transform us.
Rom 12:2 - And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
2 Cor 5:17 - Therefore if any man is in Christ, {he is} a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
Eph 4:22-24 - that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in {the likeness of} God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.
Col 3:9-10 - Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its {evil} practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him
The other thing that all these schools of thought have in common is that they start in the wrong places -- they start by what we think instead of by seeking what God thinks. So, in the case of Catez' post they seek to answer the question of what happens to persons lacking the capacity for intellectual ascent to the gospel - instead of relying on the fact that God's wisdom will do the right thing. In Adrian's case they seek to deal with evil done in God's name - as if they are unable to distinguish between God and those that claim Him.
The problem is that these schools of thought are just that -- schools of thought instead of schools of God. Why, oh why do we let our tools become more important than our goals. In theology we let our questions and thoughts cloud our view of God. Science has become a means unto itself instead of a means to find God in His creation.
Maybe, in the end, that is the best argument for original sin we can come across. We want to place ourselves in God's place -- that pretty much is original sin. And that pretty much is why He had to die to remake us.
O Lord, do remake us.
The similar theme that runs through the opposition to these both of these doctrines is that people do not want to admit how utterly and completely God wants to transform us. Both schools of thought approach things from a view that God just sort of wants to clean things up around the edges, not really change the very nature of who we are.
It is in the idea of transformation, that I find the ideas of penal substitution and original sin irrefutable. If God needs to remake us, totally and utterly, then certainly there must be something terribly wrong with us. Building anew means prior demolition, so Christ must have died for us, elsewhile God would have to kill us to transform us.
Rom 12:2 - And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.
2 Cor 5:17 - Therefore if any man is in Christ, {he is} a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.
Eph 4:22-24 - that, in reference to your former manner of life, you lay aside the old self, which is being corrupted in accordance with the lusts of deceit, and that you be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and put on the new self, which in {the likeness of} God has been created in righteousness and holiness of the truth.
Col 3:9-10 - Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its {evil} practices, and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him
The other thing that all these schools of thought have in common is that they start in the wrong places -- they start by what we think instead of by seeking what God thinks. So, in the case of Catez' post they seek to answer the question of what happens to persons lacking the capacity for intellectual ascent to the gospel - instead of relying on the fact that God's wisdom will do the right thing. In Adrian's case they seek to deal with evil done in God's name - as if they are unable to distinguish between God and those that claim Him.
The problem is that these schools of thought are just that -- schools of thought instead of schools of God. Why, oh why do we let our tools become more important than our goals. In theology we let our questions and thoughts cloud our view of God. Science has become a means unto itself instead of a means to find God in His creation.
Maybe, in the end, that is the best argument for original sin we can come across. We want to place ourselves in God's place -- that pretty much is original sin. And that pretty much is why He had to die to remake us.
O Lord, do remake us.
