The Name of God

A 50-minute podcast from "Hi-Phi-Nation". Very interesting and [to me, at least] very neutral. If anyone is struck by any of the points made and questions asked during the podcast, feel free to raise them on this thread.

@fmf said
A 50-minute podcast from "Hi-Phi-Nation". Very interesting and [to me, at least] very neutral. If anyone is struck by any of the points made and questions asked during the podcast, feel free to raise them on this thread.

@galveston75 said
I appreciate the post as it is very interesting. But the glaring pint is this: After so many years of study by man of this subject of God and who he is or isn't, still astonishes me because not even the so called experts can answer that.
Who is God? Is that his name? Is that his name or is Jesus his name? Is God the Lord or is he the LORD? Is Jesus the Lord or is he th ...[text shortened]... in the future, the holy spirit is hardly ever mentioned again.
And finally God's name is Jehovah.

@divegeester said
Are you going to come back to your car-crash of “Blood” thread, to answer the points put to you?

🙂

@galveston75 said
Only when somebody post something worth coming back too.

@galveston75 said
I appreciate the post as it is very interesting. But the glaring pint is this: After so many years of study by man of this subject of God and who he is or isn't, still astonishes me because not even the so called experts can answer that.

Two people can be in complete disagreement about how to describe something but still use the word 'God' to talk about the same thing. If 'God' is a describing word, then it matters what those descriptions are. Are they really simple, like 'the one and only deity'? Or are they complex, like 'the one and only deity who is merciful and who created the world'?

Most importantly, the descriptions that two religions give to their 'one and only God' must be compatible. The basic Christian teaching that God loves us so much that He took on human form and comes to Earth in the person of Jesus who is both God and human. For Christians, I would argue that is the foundational story just as much as the death and resurrection story.

That's a difficult story for Jews. And that's a difficult story for Muslims. For Muslims, Jesus is an important human prophet - but a human. Also, for Christians, this notion of Jesus being the saviour. In this case, Muslims and Jews are more like each other.

Both for Muslims and Jews, this notion of vicarious atonement doesn't work ~ yes, absolutely, we sin and we make mistakes, both against God and against other people, but we need to get right with God - we need to do it - there is not somebody else who can do it for us.

I think one of the great gifts of the Christian tradition - which is why it is the largest religious tradition in the world - is this idea that it's not up to you, it's up to God, which is a lovely idea. Except, theologically, it doesn't work for Muslims. It doesn't work for Jews. You can't atone for my sins. Jesus can't atone for my sins. I have to atone for my sins. ~ from the podcast

The story that kicks off the podcast is that of Larycia Alaine Hawkins, who in 2013, became the first female African-American tenured professor at Wheaton College, a Christian evangelical liberal arts college.

"In December, 2015, she became the center of a global controversy when Wheaton College suspended her after she wore hijab and claimed that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. Hawkins posted photographs of herself wearing a hijab and explaining her actions as Christian solidarity with Muslims during Advent on her personal social media page. Hawkins was placed on paid administrative leave on December 15 as the school determined whether her statement is at odds with the school's core beliefs. On February 8, 2016, Wheaton College and Hawkins issued a joint statement that they had "reached a confidential agreement under which they will part ways." On March 3, 2016, the Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia announced that Hawkins would be appointed as the school's Abd el-Kader Visiting Faculty Fellow." [wiki]

Both for Muslims and Jews, this notion of vicarious atonement doesn't work ~ yes, absolutely, we sin and we make mistakes, both against God and against other people, but we need to get right with God - we need to do it - there is not somebody else who can do it for us.

I think one of the great gifts of the Christian tradition - which is why it is the largest religious tradition in the world - which is a lovely idea. Except, theologically, it doesn't work for Muslims. It doesn't work for Jews. You can't atone for my sins. Jesus can't atone for my sins. I have to atone for my sins. ~ from the podcast

One common question that arises in many minds from the Western perspective about the atonement in Orthodoxy is where do the sacrifices fit in? Where do we plug in concepts like justification and the forgiveness of sins? When Westerners read Scripture verses like:

1John 1:7 ASV but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

They tend immediately to see the substitution and satisfaction understanding of the atonement. As has usually been understood in much of Western thought, the violation of the Law required the death of the violator. The animal is essentially taking the place of our death, dying in our place in order to satisfy the demands of the Law, and allow God to forgive us freely. However, they had to sacrifice repeatedly, but Christ comes and does it once for all, completing the work that the animal sacrifices could only do in an incomplete manner. In this understanding, God forgiving the person for breaking the Law and declaring him or her "not guilty" becomes the primary point of salvation. The death of the animal essentially takes our place and is guilty for us.
...
Though you can find this information in other articles on this site, first allow me to summarize here the Orthodox view of salvation. When Adam and Eve sinned, it brought about the fall. The fall was primarily the death of the soul "on the very day" they ate from the tree from which they were not to eat. This resulted in a separation from God, a corruption of the human nature, and the fall of all creation into corruption in order that we might continue to exist for a period in the hope of our salvation. Because of the fall and this corruption, we are prone to sin personally. Christ, through the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection, defeats death, gives us the means to unite to Him, and through Him to become reconciled to God, once again having His Spirit flowing through our souls and making it alive to God. At the Last Judgment, our bodies will also be renewed and freed from corruption for those in Christ, and reunited with our souls to complete the redemption and salvation of man.
...
It is important to understand a couple things about the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. The first thing to note is that all the sacrifices were pointing to a future reality. They themselves could not substitute for the death of the person, cleanse sins, provide forgiveness, or do anything. Their value lay in the concept of "icon" as understood in Orthodoxy. They were essentially windows that allowed those prior to Christ to participate in His sacrifice by faith through these icons. So, we read in Hebrews after St. Paul discusses the Old Testament sacrificial system:

Heb 9:9-14 EMTV which was symbolic for the present time, according to which both gifts and sacrifices are being offered, which are not able, in respect to conscience, to make perfect the one performing the service, (10) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances which are imposed until a time of reformation. (11) But Christ came as a High Priest of the good things to come, through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. (12) Not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered once for all into the Holies, having obtained eternal redemption.

He later says that the temple and its sacrifices were "copies" or shadows of the heavenly one. They point to the reality....

The required blood to forgive sins is not the animal's but Christ's blood. They did not need the icon of the sacrifice if it did not point to the reality. This is important to remember because some theologies would have these sacrifices actually accomplishing forgiveness of sins because of the blood of the animal rather than the blood of Christ.
...
The juridical context places forgiveness as the primary point of salvation. We have violated God's Law. God wants to forgive us, but is unable because to do so would violate His divine justice. Therefore, He has His Son die for us in our place, satisfying the demands of the Law and allowing God to forgive us.
...
This is what I would like to call the "simple" understanding of forgiveness. It is simply God forgiving us for breaking His Law. Most theologies go on from there to speak of cleansing and adoption and regeneration as flowing from that forgiveness even if happening about the same time. The Greek word itself, however, has more than just a simple forgiveness when discussing forgiveness of sins. From Thayer's:

aphesis:
1) release from bondage or imprisonment
2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty
As you can see, forgiveness is more than simply God pardoning us. It involves that, but is also includes the fixing of the problem, cleansing of the sin and its effects upon us. That effect is bondage to death. Forgiveness, then, includes our release from bondage.

Even in the juridical view, this understanding is inherent. The judge releases one from prison because God declares them "not guilty." Otherwise, there is no real forgiveness. By God's forgiveness becoming a reality in our lives, God doesn't just pardon us, but frees us from our bondage. In Orthodoxy, that bondage is to death that holds us captive. Forgiveness includes the concept of giving us life.

It is this fuller understanding of forgiveness of which the Scriptures speak in proclaiming that without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. Even the word used in Hebrews instead of forgiveness contains a medical meaning: the remission of a sickness. Our sins to be remitted and forgiven must also have their consequences and effects upon us remedied. Without that, such pardon is meaningless. As meaningless as if the judge said to someone he just declared "not guilty," "Take him back to his prison cell." What good does such forgiveness do if one remains in bondage?

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

@philokalia said
At least, this is how I understand the whole of it.

@fmf said
A 50-minute podcast from "Hi-Phi-Nation". Very interesting and [to me, at least] very neutral. If anyone is struck by any of the points made and questions asked during the podcast, feel free to raise them on this thread.

@fmf said
Mmm. Sounds to me like you didn't listen to the "very interesting" podcast.

@fmf said
Apologies to you galveston75, I hadn't posted the link to the podcast.

@divegeester said
As a side note on your omission; it does raise the question of what it was that Galveston75 found “very interesting”

@divegeester said
As a side note on your omission; it does raise the question of what it was that Galveston75 found “very interesting”