Your video around Inclusivism where you mapped the different views and gave each one a value. I would love to see your fill that out more and talk about that more in-depth. That was by far my favorite video from you. Thanks for all the map building you are doing!
I find Caleb’s intellectual astuteness outstanding. I don’t know if this is the proper place where you recommend for him to review a book but this is the second time that I have made a request for him to do a review of a book on his review posts on RUclips. I personally have found the following book quite incredible even if it is somewhat controversial. It is Nicholai Berdyaev’s (1874-1948) book, ‘The Destiny of Man’. Berdyaev was regarded by some as one of the greatest Christian philosophers of the 20th century. The great mystery is that he was well known especially in the 1930s but now no one seems to read him at all. He has been accused of being a gnostic as well as being a universalist heretic by more conservative theologians in his day. He was accused of heresy by the Russian Orthodox church. He was critical of the church hierarchy. They wanted to send him to Siberia but the charges were dropped because of the 1917 revolution. He taught how Marxism was spiritually anti personalist at Moscow university after the revolution and that it was destined to fail. After his arrest, Stalin’s top interrogator was silenced by Berdyaev when Berdyaev took the offensive in this interrogation. Berdyaev spoke to him for 40 minutes straight. The interrogator then let him go. He was expelled from Russia in 1922 and during WWII the Nazi’s interrogated him in France and he was let go a second time. Berdyaev was known as ‘the philosopher of freedom’. He emphasised the eastern more incarnational view of redemption rather than the western judicial emphasis. He viewed the idea of an eternal hell as the only thing that should be consigned to the eternal fires of hell together with the sometimes vindictive attitude that some Christians seem to have where they will apparently gloat with joy for all eternity over the ‘justice of God’ in consigning the ‘damned’ to eternal torment as suggested by the likes of Jonathan Edwards and Thomas Aquinas. And yet Berdyaev believed in hell but as something that belonged on this side in fallen time into which all of us have been cast. We then have projected the tragedy of this fallen hell that we live in or rather we tend to anthropomorphise and then project our fallenness onto the eternal. A co-equal place existing with the eternal that is yet separated from the eternal cannot exist in terms of what is meant by the eternal or eternity. This would mean the utter failure of God to overcome the tragedy of man’s separation as well as the separation of the cosmos from the eternal . Hell is thus the state of separation from the eternal as is found within fallen time. Paradoxically however Berdyaev’s profound view of freedom made him also state the potentiality for mankind to be able to yield to the possibility of eternal separation from the eternal. The potentiality for primordial freedom to bring forth evil and eternal non being must be so otherwise freedom would not be genuine. By freedom Berdyaev meant something profoundly deeper than the usual traditional theology that explains freedom simply as ‘free will’ as a creation by God as part of the plan for human existence. Primordial freedom for Berdyaev was a potentiality for evil as well as for good that God has not ‘created’ nor does God exercise control over. This does not undermine God’s so-called absolute ‘sovereignty’ however because primordial freedom is not a created ‘thing’ but a potentiality that even God Himself exercised in a positive way when He brought the universe into existence out of the primordial ‘nothing’ which is this primordial unenlightened freedom. For Berdyaev this understanding of freedom offers the only satisfactory theodicy. All other traditional attempts to justify God tend to be disingenuous and have a measure of dishonesty about them and are more likely to encourage atheism rather than faith in God. Often God sides with the tormented atheist against the theological Job’s comforters of traditional theology with it’s usual attempts at trying to justify God in the presence of the horrendous innocent suffering and the appalling evil that is found in our fallen world. Traditional explanations often tend to misrepresent God’s character such as with the hideous Calvinistic theology of God’s predeterminism and absolute coercive sovereignty and predestination. This view of God demonstrates His total disregard of human freedom and free will and in this sense this view of God is a form of idolatry because it is presenting a false image of God. Reformed theology has a lot to answer to in relation to this view. Berdyaev fought all his life against anything that undermined the ‘unique, unrepeatable value of each human person made in the image of God’. The human ‘person’ is greater than any state or hierachical power found in a fallen world. Berdyaev believed that God will only operate on the principle of ‘God-manhood’. God has left it to mankind to discover this principle for itself without His interference or coercion. This time it will be a revelation of man to God rather than of God to man. Berdyaev did not support the deification of man however in this view though he was accused of trying to do this. He believed that the Second Coming of Christ as well as the new heavens and the new earth will not come to pass without the involvement as well as the preparation of mankind on the basis of the principle of ‘God-man-hood’. Berdyaev stated that he was not a theologian but rather a philosopher though he read widely many theological authors. In summary then I find that Berdyaev felt that all traditional theological explanations of theodicy are unsatisfactory and tend to rather be an encouragement for atheism. Berdyaev seemed to struggle with the usual traditional theological arguments that try to justify God in the face of the appalling evil and suffering in the world and felt that they fail to address the injustice that is to be found in the tragedy of human existence. He was appalled at the often theological dishonesty and even the contentment of some Christians with their own blatant theological dishonesty. He puts forward and explanation for the origin of evil which I think is unique in the whole history of theological thought since the beginning of time. Why he is so neglected today I am still trying to understand. It may be something to do with the fact that theologians who have read him have not known what to do with him and thus tend to put him into the ‘too hard basket’ and then conveniently ignore him. I am curious as to what Caleb may think of Nicholai Berdyeav?
That comment took some thought and time. Thank you for making me aware of this man. I am already much in agreement with his basic ideas. Particularly his assessment of the -ism of Calvin, and his abject contempt for those who so glibly advocate for the utterly unthinkable (blasphemous?) mischaracterization of God in dealing “finally” with the wicked, which they seem to cherish the thought of. To which the true believers add such gratuitous piety as to suggest that God and his children will actually rejoice in this sublime “justice.” I hope young Caleb takes you up on your suggestion. I am greatly enjoying his very even-handed well-tempered tutelage.
Hey, I love your videos. Especially the series on NT Wright’s TROTSOG. Have you considered Clay Jones’s “Why does God allow evil?” It’s the best book I’ve ever read on the subject and would be easy to do a summary on. Thank you.
Hey bro. Just stumbled over your videos (they are very cool). I’m wondering what your thoughts are on studying philosophy at a secular university? I’m in my first year and am considering doing some philosophy papers at least as a start but some older Christians I’ve spoken to have warned against it as they say it can “take you away from Christianity if you’re not careful, or go too deep in the wrong direction”, or something like that. Thoughts? Will I be all good?? Cheers haha
Hey Caleb appreciate you working through such complex ideas with your audience. Wondered if you ever read "Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World" by Rene Girard, and what do you think of his ideas? Can penal substitution and a non-violent God coexist?
This was a fascinating topic. Though personally I think violent atonement theologies pull Jesus back into a system of legalism. It is the Law that brings about wrath and requires payment for sin. Whereas Love keeps no record of wrongs and forgives freely. So I think a Girardian view better exposes the heart of sacred violence. I think what Jesus taught was a desire for love and compassion, not sacrifice. Meanwhile when the threat of Eternal Torment is leveled at humanity, I don’t think a painful weekend of suffering actually pays the price. Personally I don’t understand why so many Christians think God is so vindictive and bound by legalism, He can’t forgive freely. Perhaps if Jesus had gone around healing folks by first slaughtering a lamb or a chicken, I’d buy into this necessity of violence and blood atonement a bit more. Such just seems kind of sick and twisted to me. And the threat of eternal hellfire seems entirely immoral to me. Such paints a picture of a God utterly void of compassion. Plus I think the idea comes mostly from simply taking the Lake of Fire way too literally. Rather than as a Refiner’s Fire spiritually smelting away the dross of the old nature, so that Christ might be revealed in our lives! Anyhow, the whole idea of CO leaves me feeling angry at theologians for not understanding God’s Love or Compassion or Gentleness or Kindness or Joy. That said, I loved the the discussion and arguments against CO. I just think one still needs to question processing the death of Jesus as juridical, if we are not under Law, for we have died to the Law and been redeemed from that realm of administration. For apart from the Law, sin is dead. And thus so are wrath and condemnation and punishment! Greg Boyd…”It’s just mean.” Gotta like that. Meanwhile, I think your final presentation of Jungian archetypes as mythos representing spiritual or metaphysical truths perhaps makes the most sense. But why then literalize the myth? Much of this does read as mythic narrative, does it not?
It seems like you can pretty easily refute the Anselmian position by positing an even worse suffering than that which Christ actually underwent. That is, what if not only did Jesus undergo the hatred of mankind, separation from the Father, and outpouring of wrath from God, but also a truly maximal sacrifice of something like perpetual suffering in Hell for all time. That would ostensibly be a greater sacrifice than the finite suffering He endured, right? Since Christ isn’t suffering in Hell today, does that mean He didn’t bear the greatest weight of suffering possible, and therefore didn’t demonstrate maximal love in sacrificing Himself for us? Not sure if I buy it personally.
Let me take an illustration from Star Trek. The movie first contact. Data was tempted to become human but only for less than a half of a fraction of a second. Captain Picard didn't think that was very much, but data said that for an Android it was like an eternity. All that to say, for a human, it's an unfair comparison.
I buy Christus Odem simply because: 1) propitiation (Rom 3:25-26), by definition, turns away the wrath of God (Rom 1:18; 2:4-5). 2) why all the blood, suffering, and agony if simple judicial death would have sufficed? 3) Jesus saved us from hell, a place of eternal wrath (Rev 14:10).
It takes time to understand application of Christian laws in America set out to punitively punish wrongdoing as well as set a coarse toward redemption. I never understood how a Bible is used to be sworn on in cases involving judges and juries (as seen in Hollywood) when someone can be a moderate, atheist, or a follower of a different faith? I do know there exists an All Faiths Chapel (like the one at my university) that can make it easier to understand the concept of secularism and the juducial system. At any rate, I completely understand why a savior would need to be judged in this manner before God and man but am curious to know whether JC (PBUH) intended to have man reduced to an insect to prove it was divine intervention and your own drive that led to the moment in the first place? Does JC (PBUH) judge all men? My answer is yes -- in America. In other parts of the world the influence is acknowledged.
The Son bearing the Father's reproach against humanity in our place- so painful, so beautiful. I watched the video but didn't catch the converse: why is the state of the Son towards the Father while on the cross not included in these discussions? It would seem that you need that side of the equation in order to make sense of how the cross is a "reconciling" event. It would also address how "Christus Odious" would not "break" the relationship of the Father and the Son- the Son is not turning away from the Father, even if the Father is turning away from Him. Christ is not shrinking back from the pain of the Father's anger, He's loving Him. He still calls Him "My God" and "Father" even as He dies with the nails still pinning him to the cross. There's also the Son towards sinners aspect- he's bearing the enmity that humans have towards God. So as sinners pour out their anger/reproach on him, he's doing the same thing: not turning away from them, not rejecting them, wanting to be close again. Loving them. Appealing to them to drop their hostility to the true God and His will. The Son is mediating the relationship between both God and man- He's enduring the reproach of both parties against Himself because both parties are at odds with each other. But He's not allowing Himself to turn away from either one.
It's strange. I don't find either set of arguments compelling. I'll run through them. I'm pretty sure the courtroom language in scripture is metaphorical. So the mistake would be to treat a metaphor as literal. It's a hermeneutic glitch. But that brings up a host of other issues which are, quite frankly, more interesting to me but directly relevant here. Breaking the Trinity-- this depends on what is meant by hatred. If hatred is understood as a fixed state of antipathy or rejection based ultimately on disgust, I can't go there. Genuine hatred is not only a desire that its object cease to exist but that it had never existed in the first place. That would break the Trinity for sure. Of course that is not what you mean by CO. You probably need to refine the language used to pin down exactly what you believe transpired between the Father and Jesus in terms of their relationship to avoid suggesting what I've written above. So I'll suspend judgement pending clarification on this one. The last two can be dealt with pretty easily. If CO is true, we've misunderstood Christianity and need to adjust our thinking. My preferences don't determine reality. Neither do anyone else's (except for God's). Arguing the consequence, in this context, is a fallacy. Arguments for: The text-- Why does God hate evil? This needs to be addressed before examining the scriptures in question. My view is that His hatred of evil emerges from His love for Creation, including us. Again, the question of hatred needs to be addressed here as well. But it is quite possible for God's outpouring of wrath against His covenant people to emerge from His love for them and certainly, at least according to the text, does not entail their ultimate rejection (hatred). Even in exile, for example, they are still His people. We've also imported a modernist/enlightenment assumption of the primacy of the individual into our reading of the text. And it colors the CO reading of these passages imho. Qua Christology-- this feels like special pleading. I can see the shape of the argument, but it seems to unnecessarily complicate an already complex question. I suppose one could use the kenosis to frame the argument, but that didn't include setting aside deity. The argument from Anselm won't do. If the greatness of love can be seen in the sacrifice made, wouldn't it be greater for Jesus to experience eternal separation from the Father rather than merely temporary separation during the crucifixion? If not, why not? If the Trinity can withstand the first, why not the second? And again why not? Jungian Archetypes-- This is a really creative move. But part of what Jung is getting at is the cathartic nature of our reaction to evil's destruction. Villians don't just die. They die horribly in our stories. I'm not comfortable tagging the Creator with such sentiment. Besides that, it might not be the best idea to understand God based on our knowledge of ourselves. I think the plan is for us to understand ourselves in light of who He is. Idolatry is the term that comes to mind. CO is a controversial claim, to say the least. It could still be true. But if I'm going to embrace it the arguments for doing so need to be a bunch stronger than what you've given me. I haven't closed the door, but am nowhere near ready to commit myself right now. So what? I find, as usual, that these battles generate a lot more heat than light. If you are convinced CO best fits the biblical witness, believe it. If not, not. I'm more than comfortable calling you brother despite being unconvinced myself.
Very nice summary! I agree that this should be held loosely. Some people who affirm C.O. make it a more divisive issue than it should be. I wanted to summarize the positions without putting off that derisive tone at all.
@@CalebSmith3 You did a really good job. My response was probably more detailed than you wanted. Sorry 'bout that. I'd never come across CO and found your presentation interesting. I decided to dig in a bit and share the process.
In most circumstances, being irenic is being a liar. I rarely see an admonition to be irenic used to tell someone to phrase what they have to say in a less aggressive manner. I see it used to either tell the person to change their opinions or stay silent. It's my experience that if you say something and someone responds that you aren't being irenic, what they want you to do is alter your thoughts, not your demeanor. Caleb tries hard to be neutral in his videos but that remark about the Holy Spirit regenerating him let slip his Calvinism.
I agree 1000 percent. Having been told about a million times that I was not loving for oppposing heretical preterists, I finally responded in an article with Tina Turner's great line: "What's love got to do with this?" How irenic was Jesus when he gave the Pharisees what-for?
I actually think the Anselmian reasoning is the strongest, but yeah, I don't think the word "hate" is applicable anyway. "Hate" seems to imply that you want someone to suffer for the sake of it, and I can't see how God can want that.
Just to note: I don't subscribe to penal substitution (but I do subscribe to substitutionary atonement in another sense), so I don't have a dog in the fight. However, I would say that most people who deny Christus odium, also deny penal substitution.
kinda funny that christians feels like turmoil and uncertainty are unchristianly mean . the Father has NEVER acted in a way that denotes a totally peaceful attitude , it honestly seemed like he had/has a lot of problems to unload . you can't stomp negative feelings out of reality , they exist here in perpetuity and must be a part of some Eternal Construct . that's why i think even a demon like me , if caught in Hell , would find themselves servinh Time for your God the Father , in Hell , the way humanity forces their hated ones into Jails here in reality , only forever . it is convenient to hate me so that I may serve a hatred that inconveniently must exist . god is not so powerful that he can choose not to hate . see you soon .
Your video around Inclusivism where you mapped the different views and gave each one a value. I would love to see your fill that out more and talk about that more in-depth. That was by far my favorite video from you.
Thanks for all the map building you are doing!
Loved the Lake and the Sub. 😁
I find Caleb’s intellectual astuteness outstanding. I don’t know if this is the proper place where you recommend for him to review a book but this is the second time that I have made a request for him to do a review of a book on his review posts on RUclips. I personally have found the following book quite incredible even if it is somewhat controversial. It is Nicholai Berdyaev’s (1874-1948) book, ‘The Destiny of Man’.
Berdyaev was regarded by some as one of the greatest Christian philosophers of the 20th century. The great mystery is that he was well known especially in the 1930s but now no one seems to read him at all. He has been accused of being a gnostic as well as being a universalist heretic by more conservative theologians in his day. He was accused of heresy by the Russian Orthodox church. He was critical of the church hierarchy. They wanted to send him to Siberia but the charges were dropped because of the 1917 revolution. He taught how Marxism was spiritually anti personalist at Moscow university after the revolution and that it was destined to fail. After his arrest, Stalin’s top interrogator was silenced by Berdyaev when Berdyaev took the offensive in this interrogation. Berdyaev spoke to him for 40 minutes straight. The interrogator then let him go. He was expelled from Russia in 1922 and during WWII the Nazi’s interrogated him in France and he was let go a second time.
Berdyaev was known as ‘the philosopher of freedom’. He emphasised the eastern more incarnational view of redemption rather than the western judicial emphasis. He viewed the idea of an eternal hell as the only thing that should be consigned to the eternal fires of hell together with the sometimes vindictive attitude that some Christians seem to have where they will apparently gloat with joy for all eternity over the ‘justice of God’ in consigning the ‘damned’ to eternal torment as suggested by the likes of Jonathan Edwards and Thomas Aquinas. And yet Berdyaev believed in hell but as something that belonged on this side in fallen time into which all of us have been cast. We then have projected the tragedy of this fallen hell that we live in or rather we tend to anthropomorphise and then project our fallenness onto the eternal. A co-equal place existing with the eternal that is yet separated from the eternal cannot exist in terms of what is meant by the eternal or eternity. This would mean the utter failure of God to overcome the tragedy of man’s separation as well as the separation of the cosmos from the eternal . Hell is thus the state of separation from the eternal as is found within fallen time.
Paradoxically however Berdyaev’s profound view of freedom made him also state the potentiality for mankind to be able to yield to the possibility of eternal separation from the eternal. The potentiality for primordial freedom to bring forth evil and eternal non being must be so otherwise freedom would not be genuine. By freedom Berdyaev meant something profoundly deeper than the usual traditional theology that explains freedom simply as ‘free will’ as a creation by God as part of the plan for human existence. Primordial freedom for Berdyaev was a potentiality for evil as well as for good that God has not ‘created’ nor does God exercise control over. This does not undermine God’s so-called absolute ‘sovereignty’ however because primordial freedom is not a created ‘thing’ but a potentiality that even God Himself exercised in a positive way when He brought the universe into existence out of the primordial ‘nothing’ which is this primordial unenlightened freedom. For Berdyaev this understanding of freedom offers the only satisfactory theodicy. All other traditional attempts to justify God tend to be disingenuous and have a measure of dishonesty about them and are more likely to encourage atheism rather than faith in God. Often God sides with the tormented atheist against the theological Job’s comforters of traditional theology with it’s usual attempts at trying to justify God in the presence of the horrendous innocent suffering and the appalling evil that is found in our fallen world. Traditional explanations often tend to misrepresent God’s character such as with the hideous Calvinistic theology of God’s predeterminism and absolute coercive sovereignty and predestination. This view of God demonstrates His total disregard of human freedom and free will and in this sense this view of God is a form of idolatry because it is presenting a false image of God. Reformed theology has a lot to answer to in relation to this view.
Berdyaev fought all his life against anything that undermined the ‘unique, unrepeatable value of each human person made in the image of God’. The human ‘person’ is greater than any state or hierachical power found in a fallen world. Berdyaev believed that God will only operate on the principle of ‘God-manhood’. God has left it to mankind to discover this principle for itself without His interference or coercion. This time it will be a revelation of man to God rather than of God to man. Berdyaev did not support the deification of man however in this view though he was accused of trying to do this. He believed that the Second Coming of Christ as well as the new heavens and the new earth will not come to pass without the involvement as well as the preparation of mankind on the basis of the principle of ‘God-man-hood’. Berdyaev stated that he was not a theologian but rather a philosopher though he read widely many theological authors.
In summary then I find that Berdyaev felt that all traditional theological explanations of theodicy are unsatisfactory and tend to rather be an encouragement for atheism. Berdyaev seemed to struggle with the usual traditional theological arguments that try to justify God in the face of the appalling evil and suffering in the world and felt that they fail to address the injustice that is to be found in the tragedy of human existence. He was appalled at the often theological dishonesty and even the contentment of some Christians with their own blatant theological dishonesty. He puts forward and explanation for the origin of evil which I think is unique in the whole history of theological thought since the beginning of time. Why he is so neglected today I am still trying to understand. It may be something to do with the fact that theologians who have read him have not known what to do with him and thus tend to put him into the ‘too hard basket’ and then conveniently ignore him. I am curious as to what Caleb may think of Nicholai Berdyeav?
That comment took some thought and time. Thank you for making me aware of this man. I am already much in agreement with his basic ideas.
Particularly his assessment of the -ism of Calvin, and his abject contempt for those who so glibly advocate for the utterly unthinkable (blasphemous?) mischaracterization of God in dealing “finally” with the wicked, which they seem to cherish the thought of. To which the true believers add such gratuitous piety as to suggest that God and his children will actually rejoice in this sublime “justice.”
I hope young Caleb takes you up on your suggestion. I am greatly enjoying his very even-handed well-tempered tutelage.
Hey, I love your videos. Especially the series on NT Wright’s TROTSOG. Have you considered Clay Jones’s “Why does God allow evil?” It’s the best book I’ve ever read on the subject and would be easy to do a summary on. Thank you.
The first 2 minutes are intro. If you want to skip to the arguments go to 2:00
Hey bro. Just stumbled over your videos (they are very cool). I’m wondering what your thoughts are on studying philosophy at a secular university? I’m in my first year and am considering doing some philosophy papers at least as a start but some older Christians I’ve spoken to have warned against it as they say it can “take you away from Christianity if you’re not careful, or go too deep in the wrong direction”, or something like that. Thoughts? Will I be all good?? Cheers haha
Hey Caleb appreciate you working through such complex ideas with your audience. Wondered if you ever read "Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World" by Rene Girard, and what do you think of his ideas? Can penal substitution and a non-violent God coexist?
This was a fascinating topic. Though personally I think violent atonement theologies pull Jesus back into a system of legalism. It is the Law that brings about wrath and requires payment for sin. Whereas Love keeps no record of wrongs and forgives freely. So I think a Girardian view better exposes the heart of sacred violence. I think what Jesus taught was a desire for love and compassion, not sacrifice.
Meanwhile when the threat of Eternal Torment is leveled at humanity, I don’t think a painful weekend of suffering actually pays the price.
Personally I don’t understand why so many Christians think God is so vindictive and bound by legalism, He can’t forgive freely. Perhaps if Jesus had gone around healing folks by first slaughtering a lamb or a chicken, I’d buy into this necessity of violence and blood atonement a bit more. Such just seems kind of sick and twisted to me.
And the threat of eternal hellfire seems entirely immoral to me. Such paints a picture of a God utterly void of compassion. Plus I think the idea comes mostly from simply taking the Lake of Fire way too literally. Rather than as a Refiner’s Fire spiritually smelting away the dross of the old nature, so that Christ might be revealed in our lives!
Anyhow, the whole idea of CO leaves me feeling angry at theologians for not understanding God’s Love or Compassion or Gentleness or Kindness or Joy.
That said, I loved the the discussion and arguments against CO. I just think one still needs to question processing the death of Jesus as juridical, if we are not under Law, for we have died to the Law and been redeemed from that realm of administration. For apart from the Law, sin is dead. And thus so are wrath and condemnation and punishment!
Greg Boyd…”It’s just mean.” Gotta like that.
Meanwhile, I think your final presentation of Jungian archetypes as mythos representing spiritual or metaphysical truths perhaps makes the most sense. But why then literalize the myth? Much of this does read as mythic narrative, does it not?
It seems like you can pretty easily refute the Anselmian position by positing an even worse suffering than that which Christ actually underwent. That is, what if not only did Jesus undergo the hatred of mankind, separation from the Father, and outpouring of wrath from God, but also a truly maximal sacrifice of something like perpetual suffering in Hell for all time. That would ostensibly be a greater sacrifice than the finite suffering He endured, right? Since Christ isn’t suffering in Hell today, does that mean He didn’t bear the greatest weight of suffering possible, and therefore didn’t demonstrate maximal love in sacrificing Himself for us? Not sure if I buy it personally.
Very interesting thought!
Let me take an illustration from Star Trek. The movie first contact. Data was tempted to become human but only for less than a half of a fraction of a second. Captain Picard didn't think that was very much, but data said that for an Android it was like an eternity.
All that to say, for a human, it's an unfair comparison.
I buy Christus Odem simply because:
1) propitiation (Rom 3:25-26), by definition, turns away the wrath of God (Rom 1:18; 2:4-5).
2) why all the blood, suffering, and agony if simple judicial death would have sufficed?
3) Jesus saved us from hell, a place of eternal wrath (Rev 14:10).
This should be great.
Before you get into it, was God’s abandonment (forsaking) of Christ not attached to Gods hatred for sin?
Yeah, I have no way of buying that God can in any sense of the word abandon God.
It takes time to understand application of Christian laws in America set out to punitively punish wrongdoing as well as set a coarse toward redemption. I never understood how a Bible is used to be sworn on in cases involving judges and juries (as seen in Hollywood) when someone can be a moderate, atheist, or a follower of a different faith? I do know there exists an All Faiths Chapel (like the one at my university) that can make it easier to understand the concept of secularism and the juducial system. At any rate, I completely understand why a savior would need to be judged in this manner before God and man but am curious to know whether JC (PBUH) intended to have man reduced to an insect to prove it was divine intervention and your own drive that led to the moment in the first place? Does JC (PBUH) judge all men? My answer is yes -- in America. In other parts of the world the influence is acknowledged.
The Son bearing the Father's reproach against humanity in our place- so painful, so beautiful. I watched the video but didn't catch the converse: why is the state of the Son towards the Father while on the cross not included in these discussions? It would seem that you need that side of the equation in order to make sense of how the cross is a "reconciling" event.
It would also address how "Christus Odious" would not "break" the relationship of the Father and the Son- the Son is not turning away from the Father, even if the Father is turning away from Him. Christ is not shrinking back from the pain of the Father's anger, He's loving Him. He still calls Him "My God" and "Father" even as He dies with the nails still pinning him to the cross.
There's also the Son towards sinners aspect- he's bearing the enmity that humans have towards God. So as sinners pour out their anger/reproach on him, he's doing the same thing: not turning away from them, not rejecting them, wanting to be close again. Loving them. Appealing to them to drop their hostility to the true God and His will.
The Son is mediating the relationship between both God and man- He's enduring the reproach of both parties against Himself because both parties are at odds with each other. But He's not allowing Himself to turn away from either one.
It's strange. I don't find either set of arguments compelling. I'll run through them.
I'm pretty sure the courtroom language in scripture is metaphorical. So the mistake would be to treat a metaphor as literal. It's a hermeneutic glitch. But that brings up a host of other issues which are, quite frankly, more interesting to me but directly relevant here.
Breaking the Trinity-- this depends on what is meant by hatred. If hatred is understood as a fixed state of antipathy or rejection based ultimately on disgust, I can't go there. Genuine hatred is not only a desire that its object cease to exist but that it had never existed in the first place. That would break the Trinity for sure. Of course that is not what you mean by CO. You probably need to refine the language used to pin down exactly what you believe transpired between the Father and Jesus in terms of their relationship to avoid suggesting what I've written above. So I'll suspend judgement pending clarification on this one.
The last two can be dealt with pretty easily. If CO is true, we've misunderstood Christianity and need to adjust our thinking. My preferences don't determine reality. Neither do anyone else's (except for God's). Arguing the consequence, in this context, is a fallacy.
Arguments for:
The text-- Why does God hate evil? This needs to be addressed before examining the scriptures in question. My view is that His hatred of evil emerges from His love for Creation, including us. Again, the question of hatred needs to be addressed here as well. But it is quite possible for God's outpouring of wrath against His covenant people to emerge from His love for them and certainly, at least according to the text, does not entail their ultimate rejection (hatred). Even in exile, for example, they are still His people. We've also imported a modernist/enlightenment assumption of the primacy of the individual into our reading of the text. And it colors the CO reading of these passages imho.
Qua Christology-- this feels like special pleading. I can see the shape of the argument, but it seems to unnecessarily complicate an already complex question. I suppose one could use the kenosis to frame the argument, but that didn't include setting aside deity.
The argument from Anselm won't do. If the greatness of love can be seen in the sacrifice made, wouldn't it be greater for Jesus to experience eternal separation from the Father rather than merely temporary separation during the crucifixion? If not, why not? If the Trinity can withstand the first, why not the second? And again why not?
Jungian Archetypes-- This is a really creative move. But part of what Jung is getting at is the cathartic nature of our reaction to evil's destruction. Villians don't just die. They die horribly in our stories. I'm not comfortable tagging the Creator with such sentiment. Besides that, it might not be the best idea to understand God based on our knowledge of ourselves. I think the plan is for us to understand ourselves in light of who He is. Idolatry is the term that comes to mind.
CO is a controversial claim, to say the least. It could still be true. But if I'm going to embrace it the arguments for doing so need to be a bunch stronger than what you've given me. I haven't closed the door, but am nowhere near ready to commit myself right now.
So what? I find, as usual, that these battles generate a lot more heat than light. If you are convinced CO best fits the biblical witness, believe it. If not, not. I'm more than comfortable calling you brother despite being unconvinced myself.
Very nice summary! I agree that this should be held loosely. Some people who affirm C.O. make it a more divisive issue than it should be. I wanted to summarize the positions without putting off that derisive tone at all.
@@CalebSmith3 You did a really good job. My response was probably more detailed than you wanted. Sorry 'bout that. I'd never come across CO and found your presentation interesting. I decided to dig in a bit and share the process.
In most circumstances, being irenic is being a liar. I rarely see an admonition to be irenic used to tell someone to phrase what they have to say in a less aggressive manner. I see it used to either tell the person to change their opinions or stay silent. It's my experience that if you say something and someone responds that you aren't being irenic, what they want you to do is alter your thoughts, not your demeanor.
Caleb tries hard to be neutral in his videos but that remark about the Holy Spirit regenerating him let slip his Calvinism.
I agree 1000 percent. Having been told about a million times that I was not loving for oppposing heretical preterists, I finally responded in an article with Tina Turner's great line: "What's love got to do with this?" How irenic was Jesus when he gave the Pharisees what-for?
I actually think the Anselmian reasoning is the strongest, but yeah, I don't think the word "hate" is applicable anyway. "Hate" seems to imply that you want someone to suffer for the sake of it, and I can't see how God can want that.
Also, we shouldn't be excited about the bad guy getting it. We should pity the bad guy, shouldn't we? We should be more excited to see him redeemed.
Just to note: I don't subscribe to penal substitution (but I do subscribe to substitutionary atonement in another sense), so I don't have a dog in the fight. However, I would say that most people who deny Christus odium, also deny penal substitution.
kinda funny that christians feels like turmoil and uncertainty are unchristianly mean . the Father has NEVER acted in a way that denotes a totally peaceful attitude , it honestly seemed like he had/has a lot of problems to unload . you can't stomp negative feelings out of reality , they exist here in perpetuity and must be a part of some Eternal Construct . that's why i think even a demon like me , if caught in Hell , would find themselves servinh Time for your God the Father , in Hell , the way humanity forces their hated ones into Jails here in reality , only forever . it is convenient to hate me so that I may serve a hatred that inconveniently must exist . god is not so powerful that he can choose not to hate . see you soon .