. See Question 3 for the first question Chalke's book raised. Chalke is fairly critical of the Westminster Confession of Faith and other Western Church creeds that claim that God is impassible, or without passions.I guess I'm really wondering if Chalke is right in claiming that the major creeds assert the impassibility (and by implication the inability to suffer) of God. If he is, I suppose my issue is not so much with Chalke as it is with the creeds. I can see why they would want to shield God from suffering - in general, suffering is seen as a deficiency - if God is perfect and full of goodness and joy within himself, how could he suffer?
On the other side, though, there is the sense that suffering is often brought about not by a deficiency in the person who suffers, but by wrong committed against them by another. My understanding of forgiveness is that it involves acknowledging the cost of what was done to us and the pain it causes, and committing to absorb that cost ourselves rather than demand payment from the offending party. If this is so, God's commitment to forgive us would involve a significant amount of pain...rather than exacting vengeance on us, he absorbs the cost of the wrong we've done. Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously, someone please correct me), but isn't it generally regarded as orthodox to believe that God did not separate himself from the person of Jesus on the cross, but that it was in fact God himself who suffered for us on the cross? (My appologies to my systematics professors at WTS if I have just put forth a grave heresy. It's not their fault.)
4 comments:
I have no idea what is considered Orthodox, and i maybe oversimplifying things, but it seems to me that the actual seperation on the cross (if it happened) would be a cause of suffering to both the Father and Christ. Like having apart of yourself ripped away. I dont know the WCF all that well, so i guess i dont understand how the cross could NOT have been painful to God. So maybe you could explain it to me more, why it would be undesirable for God to suffer.
Krissy
Dan:
If you can track it down, check out Richard Bauckham's excellent little book, God Crucified, and especially chapter 3 ("God Crucified: The Divine Identity Revealed in Jesus"), where he argues that the death of the Suffering Servant is the revelation of God himself. A quote or two:
"The profoundest points of New Testament Christology occur when the inclusion of the exalted Christ in the divine identity entails the inclusion of the crucified Christ in the divine identity, and when the christological pattern of humiliation and exaltation is recognized as revelatory of God, indeed as the definitive revelation of who God is" (46)
"The identity of God -- who God is -- is revealed as much in self-abasement and service as much as it is in exaltation" (61).
In other words, not only can God suffer, the suffering/death actually reveals who God is. The death of Christ, far from being some laying aside of his divinity, is in fact the moment of the revelation of his divine glory.
Doug
Jeff:
I think that's a fair way of putting it. Another way of saying it: when we are united to Christ in his sufferings we also reveal to the world who God really is.
Doug
Yes, and when we partake of Christ's sufferings his glory is revealed in us. Right?
Btw, Dan I think the whole problem is that in the theological circullum. Attributes come before Trinity. One thing that I like about Oliphint's class is that they begin with the Trinity, not names or attributes. If you start with the Trinity, then attributes have to go through that grid. It is not an East/West thing so much as a Scholastic thing. The openness of God movement still does not begin with Trinity and are fighting the battle only on the Attributes.
This may also be an issue of narrative versus abstarctions as question one. In God's narrative, the Bible, God's pain is in our sin and obstinance, and God's calmness is amidst our distress. So that is my two cents.
Post a Comment