wink ;): March 2005 Archives

The Nature of Wrath

| | Comments (16)

(I can't think of a better time to start posting again about my model of the Atonement than Easter, so here goes...)

The Father pours out His wrath upon the Son on Good Friday.

This statement, while accepted by most evangelicals as true, is very disturbing until we have a clear understanding of the nature and purpose of wrath. If wrath is seen as an expression of hostility and hatred, then the Cross must be seen as an event of hostility of the Father against the Son. Such a Trinitarian dynamic is contrary to all orthodox Trinitarian thought and must be rejected, for Trinitarian theology asserts that the Father is ever and always acting in love toward the Son.

Therefore, the wrath that the Father pours out upon the Son on the Cross must be an expression of the Father's love for the Son.

Rebecca is posting about environmental issues. Regarding our relationship to the earth, she says:

The earth belongs to the Lord, of course, but he's chosen to give human beings rulership over the plants, the animals, and the rest of the earth's resources. God told Adam and Eve to fill the earth and subdue it (Genesis 1:27), and we inherit that command. The idea of subduing the earth, in context, is that of managing the created order to our advantage, or harnessing it's potential for our continued benefit. We need what the earth has to offer us, and God have given us the authority and the responsibility to use the earth's many gifts as we see fit.

I disagree. In particular, I disagree with this statement: "The idea of subduing the earth, in context, is that of managing the created order to our advantage, or harnessing it's potential for our continued benefit." Basically, I don't think that the subduing the earth is primarily for our advantage or benefit. As Rebecca, rightly points out, "The earth belongs to the Lord". Therefore, our subduing the earth should be primarily for His benefit. We are stewards of His property; we are to manage it for His sake, not ours.

Making Abortions Rare

| | Comments (2)

When Democrats say that abortion should be "legal but rare", Republicans often point out (usually rightly so) that the Democrat who is saying "legal but rare" has done little or nothing to actually make abortions rarer. So I am baffled as to why Senate Republicans have blocked a Democratic amendment to the budget that would (as far as I can tell) actually make abortion rarer. This should be something that the Republicans should be cheering, not blocking.

Archives

Archives

Powered by Movable Type 5.04