Suffering on the cross

SoulandForm · 11-01-2014 02:37PM

What exactly is Calvinist mysticism? Calvinism, unlike Lutheranism, is generally hostile to mysticism. I cant think of a single Calvinist mystic.

leonil7 · 11-01-2014 11:03PM

therein is your error, thinking 'faith' is some kind of religious gasoline necessary for doing good works. and also the word 'good' as if your presumption that you know what god thinks of your actions automatically qualifies as good with god. there must be a basis for both these words, and not necessarily relative based on opinion. hitler or stalin or pilate might have had good intentions in their pocket the reason they did what they did, but it was just their point of view which obviously most will not agree.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Er, never meant it to be against Protestantism tbh.
I don't think it's either/or, a bit of both more like. I think my thinking on this is a mix of Calvinist mysticism, orthodox Christus Victor and possibly growing up with the good news bible.
It's not a matter of faith alone or works alone. Faith is the grace of God prompting the works. Their not different things but rather the same thing expressed differently. If I do something because I think it's what God would want then that's a good thing, when I do something good because I know it a good thing to do then that's better. When my thinking is close to Gods thinking then it better again.
As to sorrow over sins? of course your sorry, hurt and ashamed, realizing the hurt you do to others is always going to be difficult but the message of the gospel is that we are not defined by our sins but by being made in the image and likeness of God. We are all sinners, it the nature of living in a fallen world, salvation is based on being forgiven our sins and given the chance to try again.
By the way I don't mean I think like God or actual, you know, do any good things, I'm using 'I' because it would be rude to tell others what to do.
Anyway I'm still thinking this through, it's a little hand wavie and mixed up.

lmaopml · 12-01-2014 01:18AM

SoulandForm wrote: »

What exactly is Calvinist mysticism? Calvinism, unlike Lutheranism, is generally hostile to mysticism. I cant think of a single Calvinist mystic.

Except "Calvin" himself!?

tommy2bad · 12-01-2014 02:05AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Except "Calvin" himself!?

I was about to post this in response to your question SoulandForm.
I think Calvin is misrepresented by the TULIP end of his follower.

tommy2bad · 12-01-2014 02:12AM

leonil7 wrote: »

therein is your error, thinking 'faith' is some kind of religious gasoline necessary for doing good works. and also the word 'good' as if your presumption that you know what god thinks of your actions automatically qualifies as good with god. there must be a basis for both these words, and not necessarily relative based on opinion. hitler or stalin or pilate might have had good intentions in their pocket the reason they did what they did, but it was just their point of view which obviously most will not agree.

To clear something up; I dont think faith is the fuel that powers good works. I think grace is. A basis for whats good? I would have thought God was the basis?
I never mentioned what God thought only that the works of man and the works of god must be one and the same. We must become christ like, not in a copycat way but by nature.
Anyway, whats your take on how good is judged, on what basis do we say something is good? Was the suffering on the cross 'good' because it brought salvation or was it 'evil' because it embodied all the evil of the world wrought on the innocent?

SoulandForm · 12-01-2014 10:58AM

lmaopml wrote: »

Except "Calvin" himself!?

What is mystical in Calvin's work?- Calvin is as dry a rationalist as they come (not that mysticism is anti-rational but that it transcends reason; there is nothing mystical about irrationalism).

SoulandForm · 12-01-2014 11:07AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

I was about to post this in response to your question SoulandForm.
I think Calvin is misrepresented by the TULIP end of his follower.

He is exaggerated but not misrepresnted by those who focus overly on TULIP; a subtle but important difference.

SoulandForm · 12-01-2014 11:10AM

http://www.catholicbishops.ie/wp-content/uploads/images/stories/features/Calvin_Loyola/calvinloyolaconferencebrochure.pdf

Very interesting if also ever so slightly sinister- those two figures could be said to represent all that is most distorted in western Christianity.

branie · 12-01-2014 12:02PM

martinedwards wrote: »

Any descriptions I've read of Crucifixion are horrifying.

bear in mind that it was pretty common in those days..... Nero had a party once and had an avenue of crucified Christians lining the way, and just so that the guests could see the way, he had them doused in pitch and set alight.

and the REASON that the legs were broken was to speed up the death so that no-one would be still alive on the crosses into the Sabbath, because people could survive for several days. Jesus's side was pierced by the spear because he was clearly already dead, and this was surprising to the soldiers on duty.

Was he pain free on the cross?

far from it.

was he having conversations?

hardly.

"Pete, look after my mum" was the height of it.....

but then there was the other two crucified along with him.....

they were chatting away, with one insulting Jesus, and the other one saying shut up, leave him alone. And we don't apportion any supernatural powers to THEM, do we?

He actually asked John to look after his mum

Safehands · 13-01-2014 12:22AM

jemlad wrote: »

Yes Jesus suffered excruciating pain on the cross. In Psalm 22 it gives you a bit of an idea of what He was going through.

Loads of His bones were dislocated and from personal experience of my kneecap taking a sudden trip around to the side of my leg while playing football I can assure you I've never experienced anything like it! You just lie there and scream until an ambulance arrives!

Yes but you wen't God, able to turn off pain if you wanted. We are told to believe he was God, as well as man. I accept he was man and that he felt pain. If he actually was God, with all his powers, then it would not have been so bad. I don't believe that you would be able to roughly drive big nails into two hands and two feet without breaking any bones.
If, as you say, they did manage to do it without breaking any bones at all, then that is more evidence that he was not behaving or being treated like a normal man, directing the large nails around the miriad of small bones in his limbs, without fracturing any of them.

tommy2bad · 13-01-2014 01:13AM

Safehands wrote: »

Yes but you wen't God, able to turn off pain if you wanted. We are told to believe he was God, as well as man. I accept he was man and that he felt pain. If he actually was God, with all his powers, then it would not have been so bad. I don't believe that you would be able to roughly drive big nails into two hands and two feet without breaking any bones.
If, as you say, they did manage to do it without breaking any bones at all, then that is more evidence that he was not behaving or being treated like a normal man, directing the large nails around the miriad of small bones in his limbs, without fracturing any of them.

The nails would be driven through the wrists and easily enough avoid bones. The feet would be nailed through the heels, this was to support the body weight and prolong the death, so would have also avoided bones.
As an after thought, I think the pain was not just the physical pain but the sense of abandonment and betrayal, remember that this was God being tortured and killed by his beloved creation and man being abandoned by God.
You do kinda need to be able to believe 6 impossible things before breakfast, but then again we are talking about a supernatural being so that's par for the course.

Safehands · 13-01-2014 11:26AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

The nails would be driven through the wrists and easily enough avoid bones. The feet would be nailed through the heels, this was to support the body weight and prolong the death, so would have also avoided bones.

Do you really think the Romans were trying to avoid hitting bones? Driving a nail through a bone would have been more secure and it would have inflicted more pain.

tommy2bad wrote: »

As an after thought, I think the pain was not just the physical pain but the sense of abandonment and betrayal, remember that this was God being tortured and killed by his beloved creation and man being abandoned by God.
You do kinda need to be able to believe 6 impossible things before breakfast, but then again we are talking about a supernatural being so that's par for the course.

Abandonment? Betrayal? He was God, a supernatural being, as you say. That is what I am talking about! He would have known exactly what was coming, so that idea of surprise betrayal doesn't hold true.

leonil7 · 13-01-2014 01:59PM

the suffering on the cross did not brought about salvation, it was God accepting the death of Christ as payment for the penalty of sin of his own, and accepting Christ's righteousness as our own. [Rom 3:20-25]

suffering is the consequence of sin. it is not 'good', God does not delight in the suffering . but christ's willfully subjecting himself to suffer [Rom 5:6]in our behalf, is the greatest good. honestly it is godly.

you must understand there is no scriptural teaching the cross of christ was the means to vanquish all evil in the world- the cross of christ ensures the salvation of his elect. all evil in the world will be vanquished eventually in the last days, but this is not the reason for the cross. evil and suffering will always be here with humanity throughout history. the wheat and the tares grows together until the last day [Matt 13:29].

tommy2bad wrote: »

Anyway, whats your take on how good is judged, on what basis do we say something is good? Was the suffering on the cross 'good' because it brought salvation or was it 'evil' because it embodied all the evil of the world wrought on the innocent?

Suffering on the cross

Comments