God-in-the-Box
mousethief
Shipmate
in Purgatory
Someone posted on the book of faces a photo on which dialog had been imposed. A small child is lifting the lid of a box larger than she is, and peeking inside. The father asks, "What did you get?" and the child answers, "A Savior!"
Somebody had written in the comments, "Not for another 30 years."
This seems like a sort of adoptionism. Wasn't he the savior from birth (and before)? Or did he become the savior on the cross?
Somebody had written in the comments, "Not for another 30 years."
This seems like a sort of adoptionism. Wasn't he the savior from birth (and before)? Or did he become the savior on the cross?
Comments
Matthew and Luke, later still introduce the miraculous conception and so make him divine from the start of his life. John, written around the end of the first century, has him as the pre-existant Word of God, Son for all eternity. It's possible to make an adoptionist interpretation even of John if we take the view that God's Word incarnated in the man, Jesus of Nazareth.
The adoptionist view was quite widely held in the early church and is, IMO, quite scriptural. But it was made a heresy by the political bigwigs who ran things back then, and was no doubt the source of countless persecutions and deaths.
Personally I find accounts which see the entire Incarnation as inherently salvific by reuniting God and humanity in a single person more compelling.
Me too 100%.
But I think this is all pointless, because it is all in the past. From our perspective NOW, he is our saviour (if you accept that). From our position NOW we can see the entire incarnation as being his salvlific journey.
Yeah, I know, existentialism 101. But the only think we seem to get from discussions of when he became a saviour is either a) a dismissal of his essential incarnation; b) adoptionism in some form, providing support for ordination of "special" individuals; or c) glorification of suffering.
None of which seem to be helpful. All of which seem to lessen Jesus and lessen God.
In answer to "Why does a small child need a saviour" - have you met small children? They desperately need salvation.
Unless they also rail against "while shepherds watched" (and the angels in Luke 2), it might not be their core position (humour doesn't always come across either)
I think there is some sort of change between palm Sunday and Pentecost. From being a saviour who will do to a saviour who has done.
And a similar change over the gospels (bible?) with has come, will come
Agreed (interesting that it takes modern perspective) down to the last point. Why? I was one, had a baby sister, and have had three small children and now have a grandson. I'm caretaker for a pre-school. What small children need is unconditional positive regard.
Indeed. And I would say this wouldn't I, but for all @pablito1954's concerns about politicos and conciliar wranglings, I'd stress that this is very much embedded in Big T Tradition.
I'm not aware of the Orthodox executing anyone for being adoptionist but that isn't to let my own Tradition/tradition off the hook for exiling heretics (or 'heretics') and generally behaving appallingly at times.
I well remember attending a Christmas Day service at the Baptist church round the corner from my late mother's bungalow, a chapel where ancestors are buried and where one was a minister.
The pastor touched briefly on the Nativity, in as few sentences as possible, then launched rhetorically into, 'Come with me to a hill outside Jerusalem, some 33 years later. Three crosses standing at its summit ...'
Whatever happened to the 30 years before Christ's earthly ministry? To his moral teachings? To his acts of compassion, healing and mercy? To The Beatitudes? The parables?
No, it was enough of this Christmas card sentiment. Let's get to the nitty gritty. Let's get to the Cross.
When did Christ become our Saviour? He always was. 'The Lamb slain before the foundation of the world.'
'Before Abraham was I am.'
I am.
Who was and who is and who is to come.
This is our faith.
For many decades, I've had trouble understanding why we need a saviour at all. The name Jesus, Yahoshua in Hebrew means Yah saves, or Yah(weh) is my saviour. As @Gamma Gamaliel says, He who was, who is, and who will be is also our saviour. Some people may think He had to punch a hole in the Godhead, split Himself in parts and punish Himself in order to achieve salvation, on the proviso that you believe this story.
A much easier way would be for Him to forgive our sins. When John the Baptist preached repentance, many Christians think he was just introducing the coming saviour, but repentance for the forgiveness of sins was a long term message of both John and Jesus' backgrounds. As in Psalm 51. Repentance involving a broken spirit and a contrite heart, with a purpose to ammendment of life is both a Jewish and Christian formula for forgiveness of sins. Yah saves us indeed. Who is, was, and will be.
Although I still maintain that at its core, the Protestant evangelical cry of 'Repent and believe the Gospel!' is one we should heed. Even if we don't respond to it in the way they might expect.
It depends on how far we want to take these things. There was a vein in some Patristic thought that Christ would have become Incarnate even if Adam and Eve had never sinned.
Whatever the case, I don't think there's a great deal to be gained by filleting the whole thing into chunks to identify which aspect is more 'salvific' than any of the others. As Nick says, we need to look at the whole.
It's for us to forgive Him.
That's how I've been using it. The revelation of God would be salvation.