Public entry: Mind blowing Christology
Christ did not ultimately die for you. Christ died for God. When I heard that for the first time this week, my whole paradigm went for a wild ride.
Christ died for God, and God was satisfied with Christ ( Read more... )
Christ died for God, and God was satisfied with Christ ( Read more... )
We are almost always taught that Christ died for us on the cross, that this was his primary purpose in dying. But his purpose lay much higher. We are only saved so that God's glory might be greater. Christ died for us so that we might be saved so that God may be glorified. Christ died for God.
In a way this is true, yes, but everything is ultimately done for God's glory. That does not negate that Christ also died for US...you can't just toss aside the basic Rom. 5:8 and John 3:16. Those show the purpose Christ died.
I am not doing an in-depth dissertation here, just sharing what immediately sprung to my mind. And I also, though I'm not saying the song "Above All" is sound because I have not studied it out (somehow I guess I have better things to do, like study Scripture? :)) but I don't really see how that one line says Jesus died passively or not of His own choice.
I thought the line fits very well with what the Passion of the Christ portrayed: Christ's suffering and humanity.
Reply
I think we are actually agreeing, though, and that I just wasn't as clear as I could have been in saying what I did. I had trouble with the wording of this sentence: We are almost always taught that Christ died for us on the cross, that this was his primary purpose in dying. I didn't mean to say that Christ didn't die for us. What I meant was that he didn't die first and foremost for us. His first and foremost plan was to die so that God might be glorified. I know you agree with that. And just that was my point.
Christ definitely died for us. There wouldn't have been a purpose for Christ to die unless he was redeeming someone. But he wouldn't be redeeming anyone unless God would be glorified.
As for the line about the rose trampled, I don't think either of us know enough about it, more than what I already shared, to really argue more either way about it. And I haven't seen the Passion, so we're at a stalemate there also. ;-)
Reply
hehe, no. But it's not intentional! You know I don't enjoy disagreeing--but discussion is good. :-) And I think we aren't in as much disagreement as it appears on first look...I guess for me I agree with what you said above--of course Christ died for us and God was ultimately glorified....I guess I just don't...see why focusing on one at the expense of the other...keeps the balance. Anyway, I'm not going to dwell there. :-)
You haven't seen the Passion? Wow. :-) Maybe you posted about that and i didn't see it...is there a reason why? I mean, I'm assuming there is..:-)
The way I see that line about the rose, just as I was thinking here, is that I'll bet Michael W. Smith was trying to portray how something pure was unjustly destroyed....anyway, all songs have their faults because they are not Scripture, but that doesn't mean we don't sing them! As long as they fulfill their purpose--to glorify God--and are not clearly unscriptural, I'm not sure there is a reason to nitpick. Like, on Lord I lift your name on high...Jesus was the way yes, but he also showed the way...I don't think that is inaccurate. One would have a very strange song if it tried to portray clearly every instance of everything in the song...just like you don't take one line from a Psalm and say that is the complete doctine of anything, you don't do the same for one line in a song.
Reply
Well, making everything in my life glorifying to God is a good side to stress. ;-) But seriously, I'm just pointing out the opposite side of the issue that most people don't talk about to balance out ALL the me-centered cross messages out there. Once I've made my point, I'll live in the happy middle, yes. Christ died for God, and Christ died for me (in that order).
You haven't seen the Passion? Wow. :-) Maybe you posted about that and i didn't see it...is there a reason why? I mean, I'm assuming there is..:-)
How funny that Christians are expected to see this movie and that we must have a reason for not seeing it. ;-) Yeah, I did post about it, but quite a while back (when it came out). I won't go looking for it--too hard. ;-) Anyway, I did have a reason for not seeing it, which is the reason I have for not seeing a lot of movies with violence, especially torture in them: it really bothers me to see that kind of stuff in movies. I don't this it's wrong per say, but it's my personal preference not to watch heavily violent movies. As far as the crucifixion goes, I can't stand to READ any descriptions of it, much less watch it, so I think I'll stick with my gospel account. ;-)
Reply
Reply
New topic LOL: Did you see Luther when it was in the theaters last year? Now that was one good movie about Martin Luther! Unfortunately it's not out on DVD yet, though I don't know why not. :-( I heard The Gospel of John, which recently came out on DVD, is excellent also.
Reply
Reply
I haven't seen any movies in quite a while. I try not to watch them very much, if at all, during the semester. But the semester is coming to a close... :-D
Reply
Leave a comment