Comments for Systematic Theology 1 http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com Course Website for THE 313 Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:30:50 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Journal Assignment 10 by Mark Reyes http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/journal-assignment-10/#comment-201 Mark Reyes Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:30:50 +0000 http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/journal-assignment-10/#comment-201 Mccabe states that through the work of Jesus, we see Jesus restoring broken people to wholeness (60). Moreover, he speaks on the issue of how Jesus looks on others. Many of the people during that time could be possessed or sick, but somehow they knew within themselves that Jesus still loved them. To Mccabe, it would seem that he believes that Jesus’ death meant forgiveness and freeing from the powers that possessed people. Ultimately, it seems like he believes that Jesus’ death would mean triumph over evil and the powers that influence the lives of someone. Mccabe’s belief should certainly not be looked at as God’s wrath being poured out, so Jesus had to die. He states that wrath was poured out “especially against those who oppress and exploit…the poor and unprotected; the widow and the orphan (61). Mccabe’s belief is different than how Williams would look at it. Williams believes that the purposes of God are peace and praise, reconciliation and delight. Jesus helped in fulfilling these purposes by dying as a sacrifice (Williams, 87). This can somehow tie in with what Mccabe says. One could takes Jesus’ work on the cross as God’s ultimate sign of love for all of humanity. We know the literal truth through the cross that “when God forgives us he doesn’t change his mind about us (61). We cannot just take his death alone as having the only meaning for Jesus, we must look at his entire life. Only by looking at his entire life are we able to “meet…someone who prays, who speaks of putting his will and his decisions at the service of his Father” (Williams, 65). 276 Mccabe states that through the work of Jesus, we see Jesus restoring broken people to wholeness (60). Moreover, he speaks on the issue of how Jesus looks on others. Many of the people during that time could be possessed or sick, but somehow they knew within themselves that Jesus still loved them. To Mccabe, it would seem that he believes that Jesus’ death meant forgiveness and freeing from the powers that possessed people. Ultimately, it seems like he believes that Jesus’ death would mean triumph over evil and the powers that influence the lives of someone. Mccabe’s belief should certainly not be looked at as God’s wrath being poured out, so Jesus had to die. He states that wrath was poured out “especially against those who oppress and exploit…the poor and unprotected; the widow and the orphan (61). Mccabe’s belief is different than how Williams would look at it. Williams believes that the purposes of God are peace and praise, reconciliation and delight. Jesus helped in fulfilling these purposes by dying as a sacrifice (Williams, 87). This can somehow tie in with what Mccabe says. One could takes Jesus’ work on the cross as God’s ultimate sign of love for all of humanity. We know the literal truth through the cross that “when God forgives us he doesn’t change his mind about us (61). We cannot just take his death alone as having the only meaning for Jesus, we must look at his entire life. Only by looking at his entire life are we able to “meet…someone who prays, who speaks of putting his will and his decisions at the service of his Father” (Williams, 65). 276

]]> Comment on Journal Assignment 9 by Joshua Kaasik http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/journal-assignment-9/#comment-200 Joshua Kaasik Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:24:24 +0000 http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/?p=423#comment-200 At first, the way Williams speaks about it, it seems like the fairer question would be “Why did Jesus die?” not “Why did He have to die?” The majority of his more directed comments seem to point to the fact that Jesus death was a result of the 'kind of life he had to live', not necessarily the death he had to die. He talks about our humanity being so fallen, that when confronted with true goodness, we don’t recognize it and/or feel threatened by it, and therefore act against it. He says that because Jesus lived a life of such pure goodness and love, it was inevitable that He was going to be in danger of losing His life at any given time. That being said, I don’t believe Williams is saying that this is the only reason for Jesus’ death – I think there is a definite necessity, in Williams’ opinion, for Christ to die. The reason is, however, not necessarily to appease any demand from an angry Father, but to defeat death and ‘fill all things’ by descending into even ‘the places beneath’. Williams says that through His death, while maintaining his own peace with the Father throughout, “Jesus has ‘filled all things’; he is there in every human experience, opening the door. And so every place has changed.” He fills every place in creation and thus everything is changed. Christ dies to reconcile creation to himself, and defeat death. At first, the way Williams speaks about it, it seems like the fairer question would be “Why did Jesus die?” not “Why did He have to die?” The majority of his more directed comments seem to point to the fact that Jesus death was a result of the ‘kind of life he had to live’, not necessarily the death he had to die. He talks about our humanity being so fallen, that when confronted with true goodness, we don’t recognize it and/or feel threatened by it, and therefore act against it. He says that because Jesus lived a life of such pure goodness and love, it was inevitable that He was going to be in danger of losing His life at any given time. That being said, I don’t believe Williams is saying that this is the only reason for Jesus’ death – I think there is a definite necessity, in Williams’ opinion, for Christ to die. The reason is, however, not necessarily to appease any demand from an angry Father, but to defeat death and ‘fill all things’ by descending into even ‘the places beneath’. Williams says that through His death, while maintaining his own peace with the Father throughout, “Jesus has ‘filled all things’; he is there in every human experience, opening the door. And so every place has changed.” He fills every place in creation and thus everything is changed. Christ dies to reconcile creation to himself, and defeat death.

]]> Comment on Journal Assignment 10 by Aaron Johnson http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/journal-assignment-10/#comment-199 Aaron Johnson Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:34:50 +0000 http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/journal-assignment-10/#comment-199 In the beginning of McCabe’s argument he states by way of quoting some ideas of Adorno and Horkheimer. Adorno believed that “There can be no justice without a resurrection of the dead” (McCabe 42). This idea was brought up because in order for there to be complete justice the people who have already died would have to have a chance too. If there was resurrection of the dead then we would be able have true justice for forth. Otherwise we would find ourselves with an unfair unjust God, letting some people go, and others he made them still accept the “just” reward coming to them, good or bad. When Jesus died we find that Jesus really did make a way for the resurrection of the dead! He died himself and rose again. It is possible. McCabe even hits on this here as we can read: “This innocent sufferer has attained the certitude of hope: there is a God, and God can create justice in a way that we cannot conceive, yet we can begin to grasp it through faith. Yes, there is a resurrection of the flesh” (McCabe 43). Again Jesus has, as long as we are grasping it through faith made a way to have a resurrection of the flesh. The relationship between his death and the forgiveness of our sins lies within true justice and grace such as, “the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us forever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love” (McCabe 47). Here we see that yes our foul works do burn up in His presence, but because of the grace given to us as our foundation we are still able to make it in. Jesus death created a possibility for a true foundation of grace in the midst of a loving fiery justice that is in the eyes of Christ. Now Williams view is more one of God’s love prevailing through so much misery and crucifixion that his love is shown to go beyond any sin we could have ever committed, and we see McCabe’s view as more of a fiery burning of all of our terrible building, and yet a remaining of a foundation of Christ’s grace. These two views are a bit different but in the end I believe they accomplish the same thing. Gunton’s view was of Jesus obedience to death on the cross as a victory gaining authority and power, ending in a complete project to perfect all of creation. Definitely a different view, but also gets the job done. Lastly, I do believe that Jenson is arguing that Jesus was relating to humanity as much as possible through his death, therefore in relating to us he is now able to forgive us of our sins by faith because he is the one that ultimately overcame death. This is yet another different perspective other than McCabe’s, not necessarily wrong, but another great perspective. In the beginning of McCabe’s argument he states by way of quoting some ideas of Adorno and Horkheimer. Adorno believed that “There can be no justice without a resurrection of the dead” (McCabe 42). This idea was brought up because in order for there to be complete justice the people who have already died would have to have a chance too. If there was resurrection of the dead then we would be able have true justice for forth. Otherwise we would find ourselves with an unfair unjust God, letting some people go, and others he made them still accept the “just” reward coming to them, good or bad. When Jesus died we find that Jesus really did make a way for the resurrection of the dead! He died himself and rose again. It is possible. McCabe even hits on this here as we can read: “This innocent sufferer has attained the certitude of hope: there is a God, and God can create justice in a way that we cannot conceive, yet we can begin to grasp it through faith. Yes, there is a resurrection of the flesh” (McCabe 43). Again Jesus has, as long as we are grasping it through faith made a way to have a resurrection of the flesh. The relationship between his death and the forgiveness of our sins lies within true justice and grace such as, “the inter-relation between justice and grace also becomes clear: the way we live our lives is not immaterial, but our defilement does not stain us forever if we have at least continued to reach out towards Christ, towards truth and towards love” (McCabe 47). Here we see that yes our foul works do burn up in His presence, but because of the grace given to us as our foundation we are still able to make it in. Jesus death created a possibility for a true foundation of grace in the midst of a loving fiery justice that is in the eyes of Christ.
Now Williams view is more one of God’s love prevailing through so much misery and crucifixion that his love is shown to go beyond any sin we could have ever committed, and we see McCabe’s view as more of a fiery burning of all of our terrible building, and yet a remaining of a foundation of Christ’s grace. These two views are a bit different but in the end I believe they accomplish the same thing. Gunton’s view was of Jesus obedience to death on the cross as a victory gaining authority and power, ending in a complete project to perfect all of creation. Definitely a different view, but also gets the job done. Lastly, I do believe that Jenson is arguing that Jesus was relating to humanity as much as possible through his death, therefore in relating to us he is now able to forgive us of our sins by faith because he is the one that ultimately overcame death. This is yet another different perspective other than McCabe’s, not necessarily wrong, but another great perspective.

]]> Comment on Journal Assignment 9 by Michael Rowley http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/journal-assignment-9/#comment-198 Michael Rowley Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:58:18 +0000 http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/?p=423#comment-198 Firstly, I would like to address the primary question of this journal entry. I do not believe that Williams believes that Jesus had to die, because if he did, would he not be assuming their was a rule that God himself had to abide by, and therefore would be inferior to? Williams, as discussed in class over the past couple of lectures, uses different illustrations to help facilitate the reader to better understand why Jesus died. He compares Jesus’ death to an Old Testament sacrifice and to a ransom being paid. After stating these illustrations, he states that the use of such images are limited in explanation of why Jesus died, and instead refers back to the Nicene Creed saying that he died “for us and for our salvation” (88). Next, Williams then moves on to state that: “…all we need to know is that whatever it took- and takes- for us to be set free from our destructive and deceitful traps has been done through what happened on Good Friday.” (88) By being released from these things (through Jesus’ death), God’s purpose for creation can be fulfilled in that all of creation is able to partake in the death of Christ (a death to sin) and become the new creation as always planned for. Through redemption and sanctification, the roadblock of sin is removed from God’s plan for all of creation, which results in absolute communion with him without the presence or existence of death. (248) Firstly, I would like to address the primary question of this journal entry. I do not believe that Williams believes that Jesus had to die, because if he did, would he not be assuming their was a rule that God himself had to abide by, and therefore would be inferior to?

Williams, as discussed in class over the past couple of lectures, uses different illustrations to help facilitate the reader to better understand why Jesus died. He compares Jesus’ death to an Old Testament sacrifice and to a ransom being paid. After stating these illustrations, he states that the use of such images are limited in explanation of why Jesus died, and instead refers back to the Nicene Creed saying that he died “for us and for our salvation” (88).

Next, Williams then moves on to state that: “…all we need to know is that whatever it took- and takes- for us to be set free from our destructive and deceitful traps has been done through what happened on Good Friday.” (88) By being released from these things (through Jesus’ death), God’s purpose for creation can be fulfilled in that all of creation is able to partake in the death of Christ (a death to sin) and become the new creation as always planned for. Through redemption and sanctification, the roadblock of sin is removed from God’s plan for all of creation, which results in absolute communion with him without the presence or existence of death.

(248)

]]> Comment on Journal Assignment 9 by yelisey http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/journal-assignment-9/#comment-197 yelisey Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:21:21 +0000 http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/?p=423#comment-197 Williams begins by stating that our world is devoid of God’s purposes. He claims that humanity as a whole seeks the path of least resistance and forfeits little of themselves for the good of others. Our primary concern revolves around what benefits us, and the advantages we have over others. He claims that when circumstances become complicated, demanding, or put us at a real disadvantage, our primary response is to run. Largely, our wants and needs become what we see others wanting and competing for. With that said, Williams suggests that humanity is “so caught up in the cycle of rejection and defence, we are not human enough to perform… a tangible historical act to break through all of this.” (83) This in turn, leads us to the life and identity of the only one who is capable of such an act. Through his life of obedience, Jesus restores peace and communication with God and the world by reviving the reality within us. On page 88, Williams states “it isn’t that a vengeful and inflexible God demands satisfaction.” On the contrary, he suggests that both the will of the Father and Son are in sync. All in all, Williams portrays the death and resurrection as the “sheer toughness and persistence of God’s love.” (91) In short, the death of Jesus allows creation to once again communicate with God. When we consider Jesus, we see him and what he says and does as inseparable from what God is. Williams begins by stating that our world is devoid of God’s purposes. He claims that humanity as a whole seeks the path of least resistance and forfeits little of themselves for the good of others. Our primary concern revolves around what benefits us, and the advantages we have over others. He claims that when circumstances become complicated, demanding, or put us at a real disadvantage, our primary response is to run. Largely, our wants and needs become what we see others wanting and competing for. With that said, Williams suggests that humanity is “so caught up in the cycle of rejection and defence, we are not human enough to perform… a tangible historical act to break through all of this.” (83) This in turn, leads us to the life and identity of the only one who is capable of such an act. Through his life of obedience, Jesus restores peace and communication with God and the world by reviving the reality within us. On page 88, Williams states “it isn’t that a vengeful and inflexible God demands satisfaction.” On the contrary, he suggests that both the will of the Father and Son are in sync. All in all, Williams portrays the death and resurrection as the “sheer toughness and persistence of God’s love.” (91) In short, the death of Jesus allows creation to once again communicate with God. When we consider Jesus, we see him and what he says and does as inseparable from what God is.

]]> Comment on Journal Assignment 9 by Heidi Szyntar http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/journal-assignment-9/#comment-196 Heidi Szyntar Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:39:12 +0000 http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/?p=423#comment-196 Williams says that Jesus died, "for our sake." (88) Jesus is the example of what "the price of unrestricted love looks like." (88) Jesus is the example of the way humans should live. We are ambassadors for Him, so with that we learn from Jesus how we are to act in the world. "To meet a Christian in whom this spirit is working is to be contemporary with Jesus." (92) We have lost touch with the reality God wanted us to have that Jesus had to die to get us back on track; moreover, Williams states that "On Easter Eve, we begin the reading with the story of creation itself, because that's what we are now witnessing, the creative power re-establishing the whole world." (95) Further on William points out on page 96 that, "the reality of the new creation is that every moment of our history has now been opened to a future of healing and promise; but from moment to moment the possibility and the reality remain of struggle, uncertainty. The future is just that-the future: not something we can know and control." Jesus' death and the effect of his death for creation is summed up on page 100, "The purpose of Jesus' ministry and death and resurrection is to re-create the community of God's people, and the peace that he makes between God and us is a peace that is also made with other human beings and with the creation of which we're apart...The most important thing about the peace dividend, the life that is made possible as the result of Christ's death and resurrection, is that it is NOT a peace that is just the absence of rivalry and conflict; it is an active condition of loving and nurturing, giving, giving, and receiving, mutually."(102) Williams says that Jesus died, “for our sake.” (88) Jesus is the example of what “the price of unrestricted love looks like.” (88) Jesus is the example of the way humans should live. We are ambassadors for Him, so with that we learn from Jesus how we are to act in the world. “To meet a Christian in whom this spirit is working is to be contemporary with Jesus.” (92) We have lost touch with the reality God wanted us to have that Jesus had to die to get us back on track; moreover, Williams states that “On Easter Eve, we begin the reading with the story of creation itself, because that’s what we are now witnessing, the creative power re-establishing the whole world.” (95) Further on William points out on page 96 that, “the reality of the new creation is that every moment of our history has now been opened to a future of healing and promise; but from moment to moment the possibility and the reality remain of struggle, uncertainty. The future is just that-the future: not something we can know and control.” Jesus’ death and the effect of his death for creation is summed up on page 100, “The purpose of Jesus’ ministry and death and resurrection is to re-create the community of God’s people, and the peace that he makes between God and us is a peace that is also made with other human beings and with the creation of which we’re apart…The most important thing about the peace dividend, the life that is made possible as the result of Christ’s death and resurrection, is that it is NOT a peace that is just the absence of rivalry and conflict; it is an active condition of loving and nurturing, giving, giving, and receiving, mutually.”(102)

]]> Comment on Journal Assignment 9 by Mark Reyes http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/journal-assignment-9/#comment-195 Mark Reyes Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:22:09 +0000 http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/?p=423#comment-195 Williams believes that the purposes of God are peace and praise, reconciliation and delight. Jesus helped in fulfilling these purposes by dying as a sacrifice (Williams, 87). According to Hebrew Scripture, sacrifice is what makes peace with God. In essence, Jesus had to die so that we could be reconciled to the Father. Since we are alienated from the Father by the sins we commit or unknowingly commit, we must look at what it takes to restore that relationship. We are unable to be that sacrifice, so it appears like there must be an alternative. We know through this that reconciliation is costly and it is only possible if we see Jesus as the sacrifice (Williams, 87). Jesus may have also died as a ransom for the world. He was given up to the powers of destruction, though it is a punishment that we deserve (Williams, 87). The thing we must do, Williams says, is to notice that “the single central thing is the conviction that for us to be at peace Jesus’ life has to be given up (Williams, 88). In essence, he died so that those in the world could be at peace. The meaning of his death to creation is taken in may ways. Through his death, “Jesus has shown…what is means for God to be trustworthy by showing him at work in every human situation” (Williams, 93). Through his death, we also know that we live “in the strength of his holy breath…grow into intimacy with God” (Williams, 94). 253 Williams believes that the purposes of God are peace and praise, reconciliation and delight. Jesus helped in fulfilling these purposes by dying as a sacrifice (Williams, 87). According to Hebrew Scripture, sacrifice is what makes peace with God. In essence, Jesus had to die so that we could be reconciled to the Father. Since we are alienated from the Father by the sins we commit or unknowingly commit, we must look at what it takes to restore that relationship. We are unable to be that sacrifice, so it appears like there must be an alternative. We know through this that reconciliation is costly and it is only possible if we see Jesus as the sacrifice (Williams, 87). Jesus may have also died as a ransom for the world. He was given up to the powers of destruction, though it is a punishment that we deserve (Williams, 87). The thing we must do, Williams says, is to notice that “the single central thing is the conviction that for us to be at peace Jesus’ life has to be given up (Williams, 88). In essence, he died so that those in the world could be at peace. The meaning of his death to creation is taken in may ways. Through his death, “Jesus has shown…what is means for God to be trustworthy by showing him at work in every human situation” (Williams, 93). Through his death, we also know that we live “in the strength of his holy breath…grow into intimacy with God” (Williams, 94). 253

]]> Comment on Journal Assignment 9 by Aaron Johnson http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/journal-assignment-9/#comment-194 Aaron Johnson Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:19:24 +0000 http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/?p=423#comment-194 Jesus had to die in Williams view because he says that “If anyone takes on the responsibility for making peace they take on the risk of drawing out a violent ‘no’; so that to take responsibility for God’s credibility in the world, in the way we were thinking about earlier, is charged with risk. The more fully anyone takes this responsibility, the greater the risk” (Williams 85). He also says, “It isn’t that a vengeful and inflexible God demands satisfaction, more that the way the world is makes it unavoidable that the way to our freedom lies through the self-giving of Jesus, even to the point of death” (Williams 88). In this we find that Jesus did not necessarily have to die, but because of the world’s sin, the set up that was laid before him, and the world’s hatred for making peace he ended up being crucified. His death shows that it is his will for all creation to die to them in the long run and give up their lives for the one who gave his life for them. When Jesus dies in complete obedience to the Father, it also sets it up for creation to follow in Jesus’ footsteps and create another example for us to become obedient to the father in everything that we do. Also, because Jesus gave his life for us we should be involved in, “mutually giving, mutual nourishment and mutual dependence” with the Lord (Williams 101-02). Jesus had to die in Williams view because he says that “If anyone takes on the responsibility for making peace they take on the risk of drawing out a violent ‘no’; so that to take responsibility for God’s credibility in the world, in the way we were thinking about earlier, is charged with risk. The more fully anyone takes this responsibility, the greater the risk” (Williams 85). He also says, “It isn’t that a vengeful and inflexible God demands satisfaction, more that the way the world is makes it unavoidable that the way to our freedom lies through the self-giving of Jesus, even to the point of death” (Williams 88). In this we find that Jesus did not necessarily have to die, but because of the world’s sin, the set up that was laid before him, and the world’s hatred for making peace he ended up being crucified. His death shows that it is his will for all creation to die to them in the long run and give up their lives for the one who gave his life for them. When Jesus dies in complete obedience to the Father, it also sets it up for creation to follow in Jesus’ footsteps and create another example for us to become obedient to the father in everything that we do. Also, because Jesus gave his life for us we should be involved in, “mutually giving, mutual nourishment and mutual dependence” with the Lord (Williams 101-02).

]]> Comment on Reading Assignment 10 by Kara Day http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/reading-assignment-10-2/#comment-193 Kara Day Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:16:36 +0000 http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/?p=425#comment-193 Is the "Justice" link dead? Is the “Justice” link dead?

]]> Comment on Journal Assignment 9 by Michelle Williams http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/journal-assignment-9/#comment-192 Michelle Williams Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:55:16 +0000 http://systematictheology1.wordpress.com/?p=423#comment-192 Jesus, by his actions and through His death redefined what it means to be God’s people. Through His sacrifices obedience is redefined from a legal and ritualistic emphasis to the open invitation by God to be His people. The Jewish community existed because God gave a promise and an invitation to Abraham. But with Christ, God further defined His promise and invitation. To be in Him meant that you must bind yourself to His Son. Adopted through Christ into a brotherhood; so that we might call God Father. Unlike a blood child, who could be disowned, under an adoption covenant the adopted child could never be disowned and the covenant could never be broken by either party. Christ’s death is the ink which scribed the autograph, the parchment on which it was written and the seal that completed the promise. Rowan Williams states, “He closes the gap between God’s promises and Himself….Christ is completely God, associated with God, able to do what God does so correctly address as if he were God” [Pp.63]. His divine purpose and His divine response to God is the fire that stokes our living flame. By His death we find the very essence of who God is. His selfless act of love removes the ‘mystery’ of the depth of God’s love towards us. To be in Christ is to be like Christ. Through the act of Christ dying on the cross God reshapes His chosen people and through them He plans to reshape the whole creation [Pp.71]. It is God’s Word, His living power expressed that transforms our relationship with the Father. Without this revelation we will never grasp the reality of Christ being fully man, fully God. God, being in Christ and acting through Christ and Christ, being in God and acting through God’s will has reshaped human history. This flow between Father and Son was active in Genesis 1. The same Spirit breath which created the earth and all its inhabitants breathed the Word into Christ. This inbreathing is available to us in order that we might become His perfection an embodiment of Christ in our world. Word Text: 357 Jesus, by his actions and through His death redefined what it means to be God’s people. Through His sacrifices obedience is redefined from a legal and ritualistic emphasis to the open invitation by God to be His people. The Jewish community existed because God gave a promise and an invitation to Abraham. But with Christ, God further defined His promise and invitation. To be in Him meant that you must bind yourself to His Son. Adopted through Christ into a brotherhood; so that we might call God Father. Unlike a blood child, who could be disowned, under an adoption covenant the adopted child could never be disowned and the covenant could never be broken by either party. Christ’s death is the ink which scribed the autograph, the parchment on which it was written and the seal that completed the promise. Rowan Williams states, “He closes the gap between God’s promises and Himself….Christ is completely God, associated with God, able to do what God does so correctly address as if he were God” [Pp.63]. His divine purpose and His divine response to God is the fire that stokes our living flame. By His death we find the very essence of who God is. His selfless act of love removes the ‘mystery’ of the depth of God’s love towards us.
To be in Christ is to be like Christ. Through the act of Christ dying on the cross God reshapes His chosen people and through them He plans to reshape the whole creation [Pp.71]. It is God’s Word, His living power expressed that transforms our relationship with the Father. Without this revelation we will never grasp the reality of Christ being fully man, fully God. God, being in Christ and acting through Christ and Christ, being in God and acting through God’s will has reshaped human history. This flow between Father and Son was active in Genesis 1. The same Spirit breath which created the earth and all its inhabitants breathed the Word into Christ. This inbreathing is available to us in order that we might become His perfection an embodiment of Christ in our world. Word Text: 357

]]>