Comments on: God the Peacemaker: A Review

By: Brettongarcia

Brettongarcia — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 22:38:29 +0000

Harrisville’s point was that 1a) the partial kingdom of the church(es), and 1b) the eschatological hope of a future one, were a discontinuous “fracture” with the real promises of the Old Testament. Neither of these accomplishments or hopes, were ever quite as good as what the Bible promised, for the coming of God: when God “himself” would live, not die, on earth with us; and deliver a real – not “metaphorical” or “spiritual” – kingdom.

Given this discontinuity with God – the God of the Old Testament – New Testament claims appear simply illegitimate; as it might seem to readers of Harrisville.

While 2) if Christ is not part, but is all of God, then how and why, God would kill God, gets even more starkly incoherent.

By: Steve Duby

Steve Duby — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 21:17:22 +0000

Both of the concerns above betray a lack of awareness of important themes in biblical theology and dogmatics. The first needs to grapple with the New Testament’s (arguably justifiable) modulation of the Old Testament promises of deliverance in terms of an inaugurated eschatology. The second needs to grapple with the doctrine of divine simplicity (wherein no person of the Trinity is ‘part’ of God and the Father and Son share one will), the axiom that outward works of God are not divided among the persons, and the human nature of Christ (in virtue of which he serves as the second Adam leading God’s people to righteousness and eternal life by his active and passive obedience).

By: Flotsam and jetsam (1/4) « scientia et sapientia

Flotsam and jetsam (1/4) « scientia et sapientia — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 15:29:36 +0000

[...] Duby reviews Graham Cole’s God the Peacemaker: How Atonement Brings [...]

By: brettongarica

brettongarica — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:19:23 +0000

Harrisville’s “Fracture” might see SOME “atonement” in the cross; but suggests that 1) the cross otherwise and generally, violated promises that God himself would come down to earth, not to die, but to deliver an ideal kingdom.

Indeed, the 2) whole idea of atonement, deep down, seems incoherent. If Christ is all or part of God, then how and why does … God “sacrifice” (part or all) of God, to God, to atone for the sins of man?

At best, it sounds like God slapping his left hand, with his right.