It seems in our theology we want everything to be all or nothing, but in reality, there are degrees of separation from God. The majority of life is lived in that gray area, not totally profane and yet, not fully holy either. We can see the original beauty of creation (including us), however, it is marred and tarnished. Sometimes the corruption runs deep, but it for the most part, it does not fully overtake everything in the world. That is what makes it difficult and confusing. It would be easy to say, well everything is rotten, but we know that even in the worst situations, you can find something beautiful and true, courage and bravery and holy people still out doing the work of God under fierce opposition and/or persecution, even if there are only remnants.
Richard, did you read father jonh behr presentation of the idea that creation happens in the Cross and ressurection? With the "it's finnished' line being about the work of creation. I think it helps a little with the dillema.
Creation is not 1’s and 0’s. There can be beauty and brokenness at the same time. I know these are written weeks ahead of time but with the current state of world events it is hard to see anything but brokenness.
I also have always thought the “good” and “beautiful” in mankind isn’t so much in what he is but rather what he was meant to be and what he can be. We were all made for glory, and by God’s grace, we will reflect it.
One of the things I really like about Methodist thinking is the idea of categorizing grace as prevenient grace / justifying grace / sanctifying grace, where, whether you are saved yet or not, God’s grace is always working to bring you to salvation. And once saved, His grace continues to make you holy, although that process is never really complete. Because there is prevenient grace, even though creation is fallen and marred and broken, God is still there illuminating good to draw us to Him.
The penal substitutionary atonement model theory strikes me as possibly unbiblical in two ways. Firstly it violates Gods own law to not put a person to death for someone else’s wrongs (Deuteronomy 24:16, jeremiah 31:30, Ezekiel 18:20). And second it seems to create a strange view of the atonement since our sins are literally paid for as opposed to forgiven. Then eschatologically God, it would seem, is obligated to let me in heaven because my sins are paid for. I agree with you that there must be a balance between grace as a default presence in creation and soteriological grace (and eschatological grace) , but for that to be accomplished the penal substitutionary theory has to be replaced with something better.
It seems in our theology we want everything to be all or nothing, but in reality, there are degrees of separation from God. The majority of life is lived in that gray area, not totally profane and yet, not fully holy either. We can see the original beauty of creation (including us), however, it is marred and tarnished. Sometimes the corruption runs deep, but it for the most part, it does not fully overtake everything in the world. That is what makes it difficult and confusing. It would be easy to say, well everything is rotten, but we know that even in the worst situations, you can find something beautiful and true, courage and bravery and holy people still out doing the work of God under fierce opposition and/or persecution, even if there are only remnants.
Richard, did you read father jonh behr presentation of the idea that creation happens in the Cross and ressurection? With the "it's finnished' line being about the work of creation. I think it helps a little with the dillema.
Creation is not 1’s and 0’s. There can be beauty and brokenness at the same time. I know these are written weeks ahead of time but with the current state of world events it is hard to see anything but brokenness.
I also have always thought the “good” and “beautiful” in mankind isn’t so much in what he is but rather what he was meant to be and what he can be. We were all made for glory, and by God’s grace, we will reflect it.
One of the things I really like about Methodist thinking is the idea of categorizing grace as prevenient grace / justifying grace / sanctifying grace, where, whether you are saved yet or not, God’s grace is always working to bring you to salvation. And once saved, His grace continues to make you holy, although that process is never really complete. Because there is prevenient grace, even though creation is fallen and marred and broken, God is still there illuminating good to draw us to Him.
The penal substitutionary atonement model theory strikes me as possibly unbiblical in two ways. Firstly it violates Gods own law to not put a person to death for someone else’s wrongs (Deuteronomy 24:16, jeremiah 31:30, Ezekiel 18:20). And second it seems to create a strange view of the atonement since our sins are literally paid for as opposed to forgiven. Then eschatologically God, it would seem, is obligated to let me in heaven because my sins are paid for. I agree with you that there must be a balance between grace as a default presence in creation and soteriological grace (and eschatological grace) , but for that to be accomplished the penal substitutionary theory has to be replaced with something better.