“Science without religion is lame”

Most people recognize this famous quote from Albert Einstein. Although Einstein was against organized religious dogma he believed that science was lame and disabled without embracing a moral element. In other words, science needs to go beyond simply increasing knowledge. Knowledge should bear the additional fruit of goodness

Materialistic science or naturalism often fails to see the deeper agency operating within its own endeavors. Science does not end its work with a new discovery. No sooner is something newly discovered than its focus changes over to making this knowledge beneficial and useful to the world.

In other words, science would indeed be “lame” if it had no application to serving humankind and the good of society.

Hmmm? Think about that.

It is said that science deals with facts and religion deals with values. Therefore the two truth-systems are mutually exclusive of each other. But isn’t serving humankind for the betterment of society a value? Isn’t a scientific discovery that improves the quality of our life the same enterprise as “loving the neighbor”?

You might criticize this assessment because a scientist may be driven by self-promotion, celebrity status and public reward but this overlooks the fact that even a selfish motive cannot succeed without bearing useful fruit. Besides, a motive deals with the human heart and its values.

A volitional element, such as intention, aim, purpose, desire, passion or disposition drives the whole pursuit of scientific discovery. These drives are all derivatives of LOVE!

Both the scientist and clergyman, both the atheist and believer, are driven by some agency of love. Evolution has taken the human species to exploit a unique niche in the world that embraces values not just information and data. The universe is more than computational—it is volitional.

Love can lead us to solving the mysteries of gravitational order as well as the mysteries of faith. I have addressed these topics in my upcoming book, Proving God. This blog was created to give you a small taste of how science and theology can be rationally united.

Unfortunately, many people’s oxen will be gored by this challenging project. Unifying science and religion will require changing our present assumptions about both.

In my next post I will address the other half of Einstein’s famous quote – “religion without science is blind.”


About thegodguy

EDWARD F. SYLVIA, M.T.S. Philosopher/Theologian Edward F. Sylvia attended the School of Visual Arts in New York and received his Master of Theological Studies at the Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, CA and a Certificate of Swedenborgian Studies from the Swedenborgian House of Studies. He is a member of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences (C.T.N.S.) and the Swedenborg Scientific Association (S.S.A.). Award-winning author of "Sermon From the Compost Pile: Seven Steps Toward Creating An Inner Garden" and "Proving God," which fulfills a continuing vision that God’s fingerprints of love can be found everywhere in the manifest universe. His most recent book, "Swedenborg & Gurdjieff: The Missing Links" is an edgy collection of anti-intuitive essays for personal transformation that challenges and inspires. He has been a student of the ideas of both Emanuel Swedenborg and George I. Gurdjieff for over thirty years. Read more about TheGodGuy, his books and his ideas at http://www.staircasepress.com
This entry was posted in god, Inner growth, love, metaphysics, psychology, Reality, religion, science, spirituality, unity and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to “Science without religion is lame”

  1. irishanglican says:

    Hi Ed, long time no talk! I see you are still pounding away at “your” idea of logic. Remember me? The “theological” guy that you deleted letters from, i.e. one’s that you could not answer!

    Fr. Robert

  2. thegodguy says:

    Hi Fr. Robert!

    Believe it or not I have missed your intelligent debate. I still consider you a friend.

    We simply have different doctrinal viewpoints – like the idea of “logic” in addressing faith. Unlike those who feel that the Lord God can suspend the laws of the universe my studies have led me to believe that God is Infinitely rational. The laws and forces of nature are the causal effect of laws and forces issuing out from God in the non-physical spiritual realm.

    God is law and order itself. To suspend the laws of the universe God would be destroying Himself. Miracles are not the suspension of the laws of nature, they are the result of higher spiritual laws supervening on natural law and removing constraints placed on physical action.

    Yes, after our lengthy discussions last year I deleted several of your responses after I realized they were actually addressed earlier in our discussions. I simply had to move on.

    FYI – You may remember that I was working on a new book. It is completed and I have already sent out “advance reading copies” to book reviewers. It will be made available to the public by Easter. My distributor has overseas connections as well (so you may see it in Ireland).

    Good to hear from you!

    Spiritually yours,

  3. JJthomas says:

    I agree 100 percent science without religion is lame.!

    We also believe in God and deterministic approach to explain how the Universe works.

    We are a group that is challenging the current paradigm in physics which is Quantum Mechanics and String Theory. There is a new Theory of Everything Breakthrough. It exposes the flaws in both Quantum Theory and String Theory. Please Help us set the physics community back on the right course and prove that Einstein was right! Visit our site The Theory of Super Relativity:

  4. thegodguy says:

    Dear JJthomas,

    While I applaud that your group believes in God and a deterministic approach to explain how the universe works I have found flaws with Einstein’s theories as well as with Quantum Mechanics and String Theory.

    For instance, Einstein was wrong that space is a continuum and that the speed of light was the maximum speed by which information could travel.

    These topics have been touched on through several of my posts and I provide greater detail in my new book “Proving God” which will be available to the public in Spring 2010.

    Furthermore, a real Theory of Everything breakthrough will have to portray how Holy Scripture contains the patterning principles and laws of a universe in dynamical process (spiritual causality). My new book does just that!

    Spiritually yours,

  5. irishanglican says:


    Thanks to reply. I am happy that you are still at it some. Though you might want to check with the pope about being “The God Guy” lol.

    As we had discussed before I am not without some knowledge of science, etc. Though modern science and Holy Scripture are not equal…Holy Writ being itself Divine Revelation in Itself. Scripture gives us God’s holy dogma and will. Thus very certain “spiritual” truth. This is given in many ways and different narrative structure stories, wisdom, lit., reconstruction etc. See Hebrews 1:1. Also, biblical “tradition” is seen here, which you reject in God’s Church and people.

    And by the way, God is not a “determinist” but a Sovereign and Almighty God. Again, we cannot live without a biblical theology that is revelatory in nature.

    Sincerely In Christ,
    Fr. Robert

  6. irishanglican says:

    PS That Scripture was Hebrews 1:1&2. The Son of God Himself being God’s final “amen” and “witness” to humanity. The Church is also within this voice and witness…the continued action of Incarnation.

  7. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    I do not reject God’s Church and agree with you that the Holy Word is revelatory. Where we differ is that I believe God’s Holy Word is MORE revelatory than traditional Christianity is prepared to accept.

    Modern science and Holy Scripture are not equal because the modern world of academia fails to see how the laws and forces of the physical universe have emerged from the patterning principles and multi-leveled architect of Sacred Scripture. John 1:1-3 states all things “created” were created from the Word. This means there is more to Scripture then meets the eye.

    Both modern science and modern theology are inadequate to inform us of such things. Revelation and the Second Coming represents a new dispensation from God. The Holy City, the New Jerusalem, represents a new and fuller doctrinal teaching from heaven. A “city” represents doctrine because doctrine is a HABITATION for the human mind and spirit.

    I think you will want to respond to my newest post which focuses on the other half of Einstein’s quote “Religion without science is blind.”

    My apologies to the Pope – but I think he would feel less threatened with the name “Guy” attached.

    Spiritually yours,

  8. irishanglican says:

    Dear Ed,

    Again, thanks to reply. Yes we have very different presuppositions! Yours are based on just one man: Emanuel Swedenborg. Who also was a man of his time… Swedish, scientist, philosopher, and very religious. His personal views however cannot be sustained in any of these areas. We have been over this ground.

    Reading your letters is always interesting however also. Always your personal blend of certain metaphysics and new age ideas. Certainly popluar today, but not sound in the long history of Judeo-Christian theology to my mind.

    I have been very busy with pastoral needs and reality. As you can see I don’t have time for certain modern tranquilities. But try as Addison said “To rest in Heaven’s determination.” Like the Wisdom Lit. of Holy Scripture, we cannot see or state God’s transcendence save in the immanency of human language. But when I have time, I will try and read your posts. I do try and keep an open mind! (But always within my historical paradim)

    Always In Christ,
    Fr. Robert

  9. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    I am glad that you have an open mind. I could not ask for anything more from my readers. I think my ongoing blog and new book “Proving God” speaks for the sustainability of Emanuel Swedenborg’s systematic theology.

    The only thing that seems clear about the long history of Judeo-Christian theology is that God continually “tweaks” and augments theology. For instance, burnt offerings and sacrifices were replaced by the Holy Supper. Baptism replaced circumcision. Similarly, the New Jerusalem will replace the “old” Christian belief system.

    Besides, current theology is inadequate to respond to the ideas of the New Physics. We have been over this ground as well.

    Feel free to contribute as your schedule permits.

    Spiritually yours,

  10. irishanglican says:

    Dear Ed,

    The idea that the New Jerusalem will somehow ‘replace the “old” Christian belief system’ is simply a theological oxymoron, a most contradictory statement! Certainly heaven will be the sight and full reality of the Old and New Covenant. This is the theology of that wonderful book we see in the Letter to the Hebrews! A New Testamant or Covenant fulfillment. And nothing can ever superannuate or superimpose this! (Rev.1:8)

    The problem with all theosophy is its gnostic forms. Thus Swedenborgianism!

    Finally, Christian Theology does not really change, as it enlightens in God’s time or “light” by the Spirit of God Himself.

    “The Spirit and the Bride say, “Come”. And let him who hears say “Come.” (Rev.22:17)

    In Christ,
    Fr. Robert

  11. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    The Holy Word comes to us from God in HEAVEN.

    Heaven is beyond time and space. Therefore, if the Holy Word existed in this pre-space realm it could not have consisted of things that communicate physical or material qualities. Before the Holy Word was given to humankind it consisted purely of Spiritual and Divine qualities. These heavenly and spiritual qualities can take finite form in the terrestrial language of humans because all things in the physical world CORRESPOND to something in the spiritual word.

    The narratives of Scripture contain higher levels of meaning in order to preserve its pure spiritual content. The deeper sense of Scripture ALWAYS offers more doctrinal detail. I have written dozens of posts for this blog that offer powerful examples to prove my point.

    I wish you had read them. Find my blog “Keep Those Arms Up, Moses!”

    Meanwhile, nothing has been added or superimposed to Scripture. Higher meaning is simply distilled from the stories as we find them. The stories stay the same yet they can be understood to communicate the inexhaustible truth of an INFINITE GOD.

    God enlightens from the Word. Therefore, the Word must be constructed to reveal deeper truths!

    Spiritually yours,

  12. Fr. Robert says:

    Dear Ed,

    One of the amazing things about new age teaching, is the use of words into so-called “higher” or deeper truth. The basic use and study of epistemology cannot be diminished. For here we find our method and grounds of knowledge, and epecially with its limits to validity. You violate the whole hermeneutical principles of exegesis. And simply thumb your nose at this very important science and method. We have also been over some of this ground in the past (letters of mine which you have deleted). Thus again, we run into this much needed truth of epistemology. And without such there can never be any real biblical theology! And again, certainly this is the constant bane of theosophy, or any alleged knowledge of God and of the world or heaven, that is not historical and hermeneutical from God’s only revelation in Holy Scripture.

    I try not to be wordy in my writing now about God and theology. There have been volumes written here! And sometimes we must indeed tread thru “here”. But always within the desire for God and “His” simplicity!

    “But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning (words…”Has God said?), your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. For if some one comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received (Apostolic Preaching), or if you accept a different gospel (new age, etc.) from the ONE you accepted, you submit to it readily enough.” (2 Cor. 11:3-4, St. Paul)

    Yes, we have ONLY God’s once written revelation and word to see, know and understand God in Christ for our souls and eternal salvation. (Jude 1:3-4) And here alone is the Apostolic Faith!

    Sincerely In Christ,
    Fr. Robert

  13. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    Our words are our “swords.”

    That is, we fashion our words and forge our convictions into an epistemological implement to defeat each other’s position. We both try to speak the truth as we best understand it (and take “stabs” at each other).

    The Lord God certainly fights evil and falsity with Truth. Truth is God’s ONLY weapon. So why is Jehovah God often depicted with a sword to destroy His enemies? And, why is the Lord depicted in Revelation with a Sword coming out of His mouth unless it represented the TRUE Word of God? Is it so hard for you to believe that a sword symbolizes God’s heavenly truth forged into a doctrine to combat evil?

    This metaphor not only gives the word “sword” a higher, psycho-spiritual meaning, but such a distilled interpretation (exegesis) of Scripture allows us to retrieve real doctrine from words that would otherwise express far-fetched scenarios if left to their literal sense.


    Spiritually yours,

  14. Fr. Robert says:

    Dear Ed,

    Just a question, but do you believe in the use of Hebrew and Greek word studies? The Christian should believe in the biblical text. If not, then one rejects the real authority of God’s Holy Word!

    Fr. R.

  15. Fr. Robert says:


    Thouche? Indeed, we are not on the same biblical ground. You need to see this with me at least. We are not engaged in opinions, but the very Word of God. Thus eternal realities!


  16. thegodguy says:

    Fr. Robert,

    Just before Emanuel Swedenborg began his Divine commission to bring the Internal Sense of Scripture to humanity he freshened up on His Hebrew and Greek in order to work from the original languages of both the OT and NT. (Swedenborg had mastered eight languages during his life.)

    That Scripture contains higher spiritual and heavenly meanings is evidenced by the effectiveness of his multi-leveled exegesis. Here is the daunting challenge that proved his interpretations were more than opinions – once you assign a higher meaning to a word, that higher meaning has to hold up everywhere it appears in the Holy Word. That kind of “fine-tuning” is not possible unless these things were built into the very architecture of Scripture. He not only provided this fine-tuning for one higher level of interpretation but for two higher levels contained within the literal sense of the words! Anyone who reads
    his writings quickly sees that he did not use arbitrary symbolism. It is all based on the Science of Correspondences in which everything in the physical universe corresponds to a psycho-spiritual reality.

    Swedenborg could not have made lucky (and coherent) guesses at developing such a vertical chain of self-similarity. He had to learn these things from divine revelation – which was his claim.

    Neither of us is rejecting the authority of God’s Holy Word! Swedenborg simply takes this authority deeper and deeper – so that we can obtain a fuller picture of the glory of God.

    Finally, your theology is inadequate for interfacing with science. That is why you always try to steer our discussions towards religious history (no matter what topic I happen to be addressing).

    You do keep things lively though!

    Spiritually yours,

  17. Fr. Robert says:

    Dear Ed,

    It is most obvious that we are not in a real dialogue here! How can we be? Neither of us have any real common ground, at least on the issues of biblical epistemology. For me there can be no real validity here without the historical grammatical reality. And this you negate as mere pedagogical even at best.

    And again, modern science tells us how the heavens go perhaps, but not the “way” to heaven. Heaven is a spiritual reality, and the only interface there is with the God who is thus ‘totally other’ and transcendent. And here all forms of theosophy fail!

    Perhaps your readers would enjoy the work of Karl Barth (pronounced Bart)? Perhaps the premier theological mind and father of modern times?

    Sincerely In Christ,
    Fr. Robert

  18. Fr. Robert says:

    PS…Also Ed, I don’t think you have ever used the word “genre” in your idea of biblical theology. In Judeo-Christian theology this word has become very important today. Check it out!


  19. Fr. Robert says:

    PS…”pyscho-spiritual”? The only place in the NT scripture that pyscho or “natural” (Greek word) man/person is used, is 1 Cor.2:14, etc. And it is used in a negative sense. Yes indeed, good theology must be based on the historical text of Holy Scripture!

    Fr. Robert

  20. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    I just gave you an example above of how the word “sword” in Holy Scripture can contain a psycho-spiritual meaning. In other words, a physical sword can be used to represent a mental or psychological quality like “Truth.” The image of a sword coming out of the Lord’s mouth (in Revelation) is used to creatively symbolize “God’s Truth.”

    That you cannot find the term “psycho-spiritual” in Scripture shows how handicapped one becomes from a mere literal grasp of the words. What doctrine does your theology extract from the the biblical description of our Lord having a sword sticking out of His mouth? Such an image makes no sense (doctrinally or otherwise) by its literal meaning alone.

    You have admitted in past discussions that Scripture does make use of some symbolism. Divine symbolism uses physical objects to represent higher, psycho-spiritual things.

    Your neurons are failing you!

    Spiritually yours,

  21. Fr. Robert says:

    Dear Ed,

    You have said and given me nothing! We can only let the Text itself speak. Indeed Scripture does use symbolism, but only within the genre and context of any given scripture text. Thus my whole point to genre, and thus any theological truth!

    And in the text of 1 Cor.2:14, “psycho” or nature (man’s). The Greek use of psycho or nature is in the negative. We cannot lift it to higher ground! The “psycho” or psychological nature of man or human kind, is the lower strata or stratum of man’s being. Yes man must bring his psychological nature to good will, but this is always within his spiritual being together: body, soul & spirit. See, St. Augustine’s work on will etc.

    Please “use” your intellect and mind Sir!

    Fr. Robert

  22. Fr. Robert says:

    PS…Ed, I have a saying taken from one John Nelson Darby, one time Anglican and later simple Christian “brethren”. He said, “I only think in scripture!” – Amen!


  23. Fr. Robert says:

    Ed, let’s discuss Swedenborg’s theosophical visions? Do they create any real Christian theosis, i.e. the making of the divine life in the Christian. As the Eastern Orthodox say: “Christ became as we are that we might become as HE is” (see 2 Pet. 1:3-4).

    Fr. Robert

  24. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    Oh, how I am trying to “use” my intellect and mind! The problem is you can’t read (or I can’t type). Why did you zero on the word “psycho”? The full phrase I used to express the symbolic language of Scripture is “psycho-spiritual.”

    All symbolism, including parable, makes use of mundane language to communicate psycho-spiritual truth. The Lord’s parable of the sower is not about proper planting technique but about how different soil conditions represent different dispositions of the human mind – to be either receptive to divine teachings or not letting them take hold. “Seeds” represent the spiritual truths God attempts to implant in our minds.

    Unfortunately, such deeper insights mean nothing to you. Nor does unifying science and theology. Once again you break in on my blog to change the direction of the topic. However, thanks to my Christian heart I can indulge you.

    Since Swedenborg wrote about thirty books on theology perhaps you have a particular burning question. Hit me with your best scholarly shot – I won’t spend all day defending my position. I have other blogs to write and a new book to promote.

    Spiritually yours,

  25. Fr. Robert says:

    Dear Ed,

    I really did not want to break into “your” blog. I can see that the blog is a very important element in your life. We just indeed have very different presuppositions and epistemological validity.

    I also consider all forms of theosophy to be false roads!

    My point “again” in the New Testament use of “psycho” or as St. Paul says “nature” or natural (unspiritual) mind in 1 Cor. 2:14, is that man’s mere cognitive nature and mind is totally flawed before God. There must be a spiritual and regenerative nature in man before he can understand God’s Word and Revelation. This is St. Paul’s whole argument in 1 Corinthians chapter 2, the mature or true wisdom of God, known by the “spiritual man” alone!

    We can take up Swedenborg’s ‘Heavenly Secrets'(8 vol’s) later.

    Fr. Robert

  26. Fr. Robert says:

    Note, in the Parable of the Sower only one ground or soil produced any real fruit or reality in growth…”As for what was sown on good soil, this is he who hears the word and understands it; he indeed bears fruit, and yields,..etc.” (Matt.12:23)

    From other NT scripture we know that only the heart of the regenerative person can respond and understand God’s word. (See Titus 3:3-7)

    FR. Robert

  27. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    Yes!!! Now you are cooking with gas!

    The “good” soil in the Lord’s parable represents the HEART of the regenerative person! This is exactly what the higher meanings of Scripture communicate!
    Regeneration takes place in the hearts and minds of men and woman who are receptive to the Lord’s teaching. One must translate the story of the sower to its psycho-spiritual equivalent (correspondence) because this is the plane on which “natural” men and women become spiritual.

    We don’t really differ in our symbolic exegesis of biblical parable. Where we part company is Swedenborg’s claim that ALL the events (historical and prophetical) depicted in Scripture are vehicles for communicating the dynamics and details of regeneration – even when the literal words seem to be saying something else.

    For instance, the Seven-Day Creation Story in Genesis inwardly addresses the steps individuals must go through to regenerate their hearts and mind. Each “day” represents a particular step by which individuals become spiritual. When interpreted from its higher, psycho-spiritual meaning, the story of Genesis represents the epigenesis of the human heart.

    Regeneration and salvation represent the Lord God’s total focus and divine need to reveal Himself to humanity. Therefore, no biblical story ever departs from this divine goal. This goal becomes infinitely more obvious when one has the key to opening up deeper levels of meaning within the literal sense of the biblical narratives.

    Spiritually yours,

  28. Fr. Robert says:

    Dear Ed,

    Yes we do indeed part company over Swedenborg’s idea of “correspondence” in God’s method of communication and regeneration. And this is no small matter! As I have stated over and over, theosophy is NOT a method of God! God can only be known by “His” revelatory power and choice. He does indeed choose those whom He desires, and this is again His work and not really man’s. Man is but a player in God’s cosmos! Yes, I am by theological definition an Augustinian myself.

    Also, even the cosothetic idealists deny that mind is immediately conscious of matter. This is in cosmothetic idealism…the doctrine that a real external world exists but the mind has direct cognizance of ideas or representations only.

    Finally, again the use of “psycho-spiritual” is just not good bibical theology. As man or humanity is simply fallen in nature. The doctrine of sin is almost nill in your use here. There can be no sound Judeo-Christian doctrine, theology etc. without a biblical doctrine of Sin!

    Fr. Robert

  29. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    It definitely is no small matter, since God’s true Word consists of correspondences throughout! Not having this knowledge leads to such misguided doctrines as “salvation by faith alone” and that God is “three Persons.”

    As to salvation and regeneration, men and women must reciprocate. Such reciprocal union is what God’s sacred covenant with humanity is all about.

    I have written more than two hundred posts for this blog. I doubt you have read them all. Therefore, you should not judge my doctrine as overlooking sin. (See my post entitled “Why Even Great Leaders Fall Into Scandal”.)

    Swedenborg goes into great detail about sin. It is a serious topic that the post-modern world is eager to reject.

    I try to give each of my topics a page-worth of discussion- to make it an easy read for my viewers to assimilate. To suggest that a post of mine lacks the rigor and comprehensive detail of a lengthy thesis is moot.

    Spiritually yours,

  30. irishanglican says:

    Dear Ed,

    First, since you are the Swedenborgian you should enlighten us on Swedenborg’s so-called systematic doctrine of sin? And agreed the postmodern world certainly rejects any real idea of sin and it’s reality. But, the biblical doctrine of Sin is very historical, Judeo and Christian…Old and New Covenant. And also the Ecumenical Church Councils.

    Again you should define “correspondences” as you contest: “God’s true Word…throughout!” As I have stated, this is really simply “theosophy”, and I have noted that you have said nothing about my reference here?

    Last, I do not completely follow a pop-evangelical view of justification by faith alone. But the best Anglican and it’s reformed view is stalwart and also really catholic. We have been over some of this before. But you could not engage or dialogue well here. Giving mere caricature of the stated doctrine. Also as you have the Trinity and Triune nature of God! Indeed the Trinitarian essence and constitution of God is very revelatory, especially in the NT. It is simply but profoundly THE doctrine of God! Loss here is catastrophic!

    Finally, I will say again.. what is, or can really Swedenborg’s doctrine bring the Christian to theosis…the making of the divine life in the Christian? Thus what is the Cross and Death of Christ for the Christian? Most, yes most important questions!!!

    Fr. Robert

  31. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    I do not appreciate your jumping from one theological topic to another – especially before a previous issue has been resolved. You are simply looking for any weak point in my theology you can find. We have moved a long way off from the original topic of this post.

    You continue to deny that Holy Scripture communicates on higher levels through the symbolic language of correspondences. Yet, you offer no rational reason why Swedenborg could ever hope to find any success at all in applying this unexpected tool for biblical exegesis. He not only succeeds in offering one higher level of coherent meaning for the Scriptural narratives but two! He should have fallen flat on his face for making the attempt – since no one is expecting to find these deeper things to begin with.

    I will not let you dictate what I should write (for your personal consumption and enlightenment). I have provided lots of details in my new book “Proving God” concerning Swedenborg’s doctrine of sin. However, a mere literal interpretation of the “Fall” leaves the reader with the horrific idea that a God of Infinite LOVE would damn the entire future generation of innocent humans because Adam and Eve disobeyed an order not to eat the fruit of a certain tree.

    That is nonsense (and catastrophic)! A psycho-spiritual interpretation of this same story reveals something more inherently deadly – why the Forbidden fruit was actually deadly to the soul. (Please seek out my post entitled “Was the Forbidden Fruit a crisp, juicy apple?”)

    Spiritually yours,

  32. irishanglican says:

    Dear Ed,

    True Judeo-Christian theology is ONE whole but always thematic therein…The Covenant God, who is always One & Triune. You are simply unable to really stand the biblical theology test! So goes theosophy…ALL!

    For your readers I will quote an older Merrian-Webster’s New International Dictionary Second Edition Unabridged (1960), 3,350 pages. (It was sent to my by my uncle from America for my 8th birthday)

    Theosophy; Alleged knowledge of God and of the world as related to God arrived at neither by external historic revelation nor by scientific induction, but by direct mystical insight or by philosophical speculation or by a combination of both.

    This is simply not the way of the Judeo-Christian revelation! It always begins with the historic and biblical revelation, and always before any supposed science. And any mystical insight is also always in line with the historic revelation of the Scripture Text itself. And any philosophical ideas also. They both must be subservient to Holy Scripture! Even Roman Catholic mysticism stands before Holy Writ.

    I am only “dicating” the biblical text and revelation of God! And this I must do, as does the Word of God place all humankind before itself (Prophets, priests, Apostles..all true pastors & teachers, etc. Also your Swendenborg).

    And as to the real biblical God, He can and is horrific! Remember Jesus said, “Fear Him (God) who is able to cast both body-soul and spirit into Gehenna.” (I will let you check your concordance here) And Jesus is God!

    The Scripture always smarts! “For in many dreams and in many words there is emptiness (vanity). Rather fear God!” (Ecc. 5:7, and this genre is Wisdom Lit. And always applicable!)

    Fr. Robert

  33. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    Your theology of a horrific God is what is chasing people away from religion. You keep throwing biblical quotes at me to prove your point when these same quotes have deeper meanings. To fear God means to fear not living according to God’s Truth – which is not the “physical” fear of God coming at us with a butcher’s knife! (This genre is Common Sense and always applicable!)

    You keep shooting yourself in the foot with your misdirected education. Swedenborg received his revelations WHILE READING SCRIPTURE you knucklehead! As he read the historic parts of Scripture, all the events and individuals described in its narratives were “elevated” to represent different eternal truths concerning the Lord. No earthly individual is worthy or sacred enough to be mentioned in God’s Holy Word – unless they could be used to represent things about God Himself. God IS the Word (John 1:1-3). So how could finite worldly humans represent ONLY themselves in such a holy treatise.

    Furthermore, God’s Holy Word is from heaven, which is beyond the physical world of time and space. So how do you reconcile the “historic” Bible with God’s Infinite and eternal qualities?

    If, as you point out, the Judeo-Christian theology is ONE whole theme than Scripture’s history is intimately tied to its future. What future does Scripture point to? The answer is the Second Coming and the “end times.” Therefore, the historic inerrancy and authority of Scripture relies on the reality of such a grand cosmic event. Your theology, based on a literal interpretation of Scripture, sees this world-shaking episode as a physical event.

    Well, my God-fearing friend, time is running out. A thousand years from now people will still be waiting for such cosmic event to happen! That is why a theology based on a multi-leveled exegesis of Scripture is desperately needed before the world completely gives up on the biblical Creator.

    By the way, modern physicists, who concern themselves with foundational issues are coming to realize that the physical world must have emerged out of a realm where reality has removed itself from its involvement with time and space.

    That excites me! Up till now, only religion has embraced a non-physical reality.
    That is why my new book “Proving God” and many posts on this blog deal with the challenges of unifying science and theology.

    Spiritually yours,

  34. irishanglican says:

    Dear Ed,

    “Knucklehead”? “Misdirected education”? You are lucky that I have a good Irish sense of humor. Plus don’t forget I was a Royal Marine and officer. So I will let your ad hom pass this time. If we were at an irish pub talking, you might be on your ass! lol

    Once again it is you that mistake and don’t understand here. And my historic theology. The whole of Holy Scripture has it’s very important history, different genres etc. To miss this is the very bane of your Swedenborgan theosophy. Yes new age type’s hate a God that is just, sovereign and totally Holy. Your and Swedenborg’s loss of a God that has given His Son Jesus THE Christ in substitutional, vicarious atonement – the saving or redeeming work of Christ wrought thru his incarnation, sufferings, and death. And also reconciliation between God and men, as effected by Christ. Thus loss is certain without! The challenge and theology of St. Paul’s Letter of Romans will always speak over mere human and natural thought. Here we get all our clocks cleaned! But will we be good receipts?

    Yes, the world must come to an end! The Bible and Holy Scripture is certain on this. If one will read and take God at His Word, both physical (human death) and spiritual judgement (“the second death”) will come. And here “time” is really running out, both what we call physical and to eternity. I could quote verse after verse, but I will refrain. This is the duty of every human soul!

    I am not a scientist, but as I have told you my father (RIP) was a physicist. So I am not unaware of that whole world. But again, Holy Scripture stands above all…the Word and Breathe of God!

    “But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the Sacred Writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through FAITH in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for repoof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man (all people) may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (St. Paul, 2 Tim.3:15-16)

    Sincerely In Christ,
    Fr. Robert

    PS Your readers should also read the verses just before…2 Tim. 3:12 & 13 – “Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and imposters will go from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived.”

  35. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    I was simply trying to defend God’s honor and good name. Only a drunk in an Irish pub would call God horrific!

    Only a mind locked into literal and worldly thinking would preach that damning all humankind with original sin (for eating a stupid piece of fruit) represented the actions of a just God.

    Only a petrified mind would dismiss numerous examples of higher meaning in Scripture – not from offering any contrary proof but by debunking everything because it mocks your education.

    Only someone who hasn’t made a serious study of Swedenborg’s vast systematic theology would accuse him of not working directly from Scripture! He simply derived more inspiration and profitable teaching from Scripture than you have.

    So what if your dad was a physicist. God was the greatest physicist of all – He created the universe and all its laws. God did not make one set of laws to govern the universe and another set of laws to govern the hearts and minds of men and women. Dissimilarity of law would indicate imperfection. The laws of nature are actually spiritual laws put under the constraints of time and space. For instance, nature’s incessant drive to purify and renew itself is the physical equivalent (correspondence) of God’s perpetual activity to renew and purify the human spirit. Your theology cannot respond to such things nor does it even care about such things.

    You have even said to me there are questions that the human mind is not even allowed to ask. Your theology is archaic and promotes doctrinal inertia. But all is not lost. You have inspired me to write a new post entitled “How can God create a Son who is the same age?” I would like to take this discussion over to that new blog since it will allow you to put me on my ass from your doctrinal strengths. This is the second best thing to going to an Irish pub. “Burp!”

    Spiritually yours,

  36. irishanglican says:

    Dear Ed,

    I was seeking to add a bit of humanity to our discussion with my irishness, you have taken it down again into typical adhominem..to the man personally. Shame on you!

    My attack on Swedenborg is theological and biblical, not personal. As I have stated, Emmanuel was a man of “his” time. That he experienced strange dreams and visions, and thus his own spiritual crisis is historical, since after such he devoted the rest of his life to his interpretation of his visions. And this is certain “theosophy”, like it or not, admit it or not!

    I am unabashedly a Christian Churchman, Anglican and thus always a man of both history and God’s historic revelation. Covenant to Incarnation to Calvary, to Christ’s glory above (1 Tim.3:16). But always and forever from to time to eternity!

    Also the fact that you reject Original Sin, Vicarious Atonement, Christ’s eternal Sonship, and the Trinity and Triune nature of God, puts you and your Swendenborg outside the orthodox historic Christian Church. Simple as that!

    Sincerely In Christ,
    Fr. Robert

  37. irishanglican says:

    PS…I have read much more of Swedenborg’s writings than you are aware! It’s just that he is hardly a modern theological person, and certainly not historic at all. Thus theosophy, and I reject theosophy in full. It is not even good mysticsm, and again just not Judeo-Christian. Though I did find some thought in his idea of a spiritual world in which the living and the dead constitute one single being. In true Christian doctrine this the One Body of Christ, in heaven and on earth. But this is still hardly his thought.


  38. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    Are you aware that the Swedenborgian Church was first founded in England by members of the Anglican Church? They were looking for something better. Just a tidbit.

    Your opinion of Swedenborg is one thing but the idea of God being angry and seeking revenge is a horrific idea that no longer resonates with most believers in the world. Your exegesis is disguised naturalism.

    Yes, I am outside the orthodox historic Christian Church. Your church and its literal understanding of Scripture is what will be replaced by the New Jerusalem. Christian history is nothing to be proud of – perhaps past Christians were only trying to emulate their vision of a horrific God. But they were no doubt all saved through vicarious atonement. That is a club I care not to join.

    Spiritually yours,

  39. irishanglican says:

    Dear Ed,

    Yes I am aware of the fact that the Swedenborian Church was English, and thus Anglican. Most English were coming from the Anglican state Church in those days. Better? The English were suckers for many things in those days, Spiritualism, Theosophy etc. The list is long.

    The fact that God’s holiness needs propitation or expiation is biblical reality. See Romans 3:25; 1 John 2:2; and Heb.2:17. The primary biblical meaning however is to expiate or remove an obstacle on man’s part (sin) to his relationship with God. And it is God in Christ incarnate, the death of Christ and is ‘propitiatory’, and then the effective means in restoring the relationship between God and man, damaged by sin. And only Christ can do this! ” Behold The Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!” The horrific aspect is that a holy God can give His only Son for the sin of the world! And yet most men and people reject this. “And she shall bring forth a Son, and thou shalt call His name JESUS (Savior) for he shall save His people “from” their sins.” (Matt.1:21) And indeed real salvation demands true repentance and hatred of sin! In ourselves and the world.

    Yes truly the postmodern world hates the real biblical doctrine of sin and salvation. For it cost God His dear Son or the “Son of His love”! (See, Col.1:13-14). Again note the “death” of Christ was real, both the physical and spiritual suffering: “In Whom (Christ) we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” (verse 14) No mere naturalism here, but God’s redemptive love!

    By the way, please give us (your readers) some scripture support for your idea of Christ’s death. Just an example…moral atonement theory? You should read and older book (that I have and have read myself), The Atonement, Modern Theories of the Doctrine, by Thomas Hywel Hughes.

    “Reconciliation was not achieved without cost, and the Cross represents the pain of God.” The value of the Cross was the God-Man who died there…”I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” (St. Paul Gal.2:20)

    Sincerely In Christ,
    Fr. Robert

  40. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    A good example of spiritual atonement theory – right out of Scripture – is the Ten Commandments. The Lord, when in the world simplified these to two.

    Your idea of atonement and salvation makes Christians believe that they are above the Law and that making a personal inventory of their actions is unnecessary. The whole point of the Lord stopping the stoning of a prostitute and showing the hypocrisy of those who pointed out the splinters in other people’s eyes was His imploring people to practice sincere introspection. Clearly the Lord wanted people to change their sinful ways.

    The problem with exchanging quotes from Scripture with you is that we interpret them differently. For instance, your doctrine of the Trinity promotes the idea of God as three Persons. I see God as ONE Person. Therefore it was Jehovah God Himself who descended to earth and assumed a human body in order to effect salvation. Let me provide some biblical quotes where Jehovah claims that He alone is God and He alone is the saviour:

    “I am JEHOVAH; and besides me there is no saviour.” (Isaiah 43:11)

    In your Trinitarian doctrine Jesus is the saviour and redeemer instead of Jehovah because you split them up into different Persons and give them different chores.

    But things become more evident as to who came to earth from these passages:

    “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon His shoulder: and His name shall be called Wonderful . . . the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah 9:6)

    How the hell can the Son also be the Father? In your Trinitarian doctrine Father and Son are distinct Persons. According to your theology isn’t Jesus alone the Prince of Peace – not the father?. The next two quotes informs its readers who they should expect to come to finally save them:

    “It shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for Him, and He will save us: this is JEHOVAH; we have waited for Him, we will be glad and rejoice in His salvation.” (Isaiah 25:9)

    “Behold the days come . . . that I will raise unto David a righteous branch, and a king shall reign . . . and shall execute judgement and justice in the earth, . . . and this is His name . . . JEHOVAH our righteousness.” (Jer. 23:5,6 and 33:15,16)

    I thought the righteous branch raised from the house of David was Jesus? If so than it was Jehovah who came to earth as Jesus.

    Swedenborg then lists other passages where the “Coming of the Lord” is called the “Day of Jehovah” (list available upon request). In spite of this Scriptural support you will still insist that God is three Persons because this is what a bunch of Bishops decided at Nicea, and of course, you must play by the party rules.

    Furthermore, Swedenborg gives a much deeper and richer doctrinal account of the Lord’s life on earth and death on the cross than your materialistic exegesis can ever offer true seekers. Yes, Swedenborg believed that the “death” of Christ was real, but much, much more happened than meets the eye.

    Spiritually yours,

  41. irishanglican says:

    Dear Ed,

    Your so-called arguments are always poor in logic and typically ad hoc… mental ideas and personal metalogic phenomena (A material logic, esp. one confined to metaphysical abstractions and of doubtful validity, also, a spurious logic..Dictionary.) and having really no other application by which its validity can be tested. And since you reject the historical method, your so-called theology is as I have maintained always really “theosophy”.

    With this basis we are simply going in circles. You never even make valid statements about what I believe. You have not once made an objective statement about any real form of Catholic or Evangelical Christianity or its history. Again very poor logic and dialogue!

    Now as to God being One, of course historic and revelatory Christianity believe this. This is also historic Judeo truth..”The Lord our God is ONE!” And as Jesus said: You (Samaritans) worship you know not what: WE know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.” (John 4:22) And always the great Jewish mind…St. Paul: “But as for us there is but one God the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by Whom are all things, and we by Him.” But also, “Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge.” (1 Cor.8:6 & 7)

    Yes, this text shows us that God the Father, and His Son the Lord Jesus Christ are both ONE, but two persons. The Son is God, the Father is God, but the Son is not the Father, nor is the Father the Son, but yet they are One God together, (see St. John 17). And in other texts, the Holy Spirit is the same…God, but not the Son or the Father! Here we can see the very early but real genesis of the Trinity. God is One, but One in a triunity. And to reject this is certain loss, and the loss of revelation and truth!

    I cannot “prove” the Trinity, or really any truth of God in Scripture. Nor can you! Yes it is always based on good logic and valid sense. But it always transcends them also. And this is always that faith in a Transcendent God Who is always ‘Totally Other’! Thank God He cannot be put in a box, yours or mine. But mine is based upon the historic Apostolic Faith, and as you have admitted yours is not! And this is forever our difference. I can only pray for your sake, that you will not continue to reject this Judeo-Christian Faith and true revelatory, spiritually based reality!

    Sincerely In God Triune,
    Fr. Robert

    PS…Do you believe in the hypostatic union of Christ? The union of the divine and human natures in the person (prosopon..see also hypostasis) of Jesus Christ.

  42. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    Since when are God’s Commandments an outcome of metaphysical abstraction and spurious logic? You have once again artfully tip-toed around my challenge that vicarious atonement puts Christians above the Law. Shame on you and your theology.

    Furthermore, you cannot have things both ways – you cannot make the claim that three Gods are actually ONE God and say this is both logical and yet transcends logic. The term “hypostasis” and “hypostatic union” are manmade terms invented in an effort to make logical sense out of spurious Trinitarian doctrine and cannot be found anywhere in Scripture. We have had this discussion before and you seem to believe that if you keep pounding away at the fact that I reject your historic Apostolic Faith my readers will flee from this blog.

    But readers come to this blog precisely because it offers new ways to think about important topics. I have given you (more than once) a generous platform to make your case. Are Swedenborgians given similar “Christian” hospitality around your neck of the woods?

    Spiritually yours,

  43. irishanglican says:

    Dear Ed,

    I am an axillary bishop at present, and thus very busy. It is a very pastoral position. In our postmodern time, the work is tremendous in human ways. I have little time. If you note, I have not been on my blog much in the past year. So I have not run from your ideas and questions, but have not had time to answer all your querulous ideas and questions.

    I will put together some thoughts on the Law of God, and the Atonement. The subject is indepth however, and theological. I can only hope you even look and understand something of my reason and logic? You have yet to thus far. If you note, I did express a classic book for your readers on the Atonement! READ & STUDY!!! (See, 1 Tim.2:15)

    In my “woods” Swedenborgians are unheard of. Just part of the English history of their religious eccentricity in reality. But I am very aware myself!

    I will always restate “the common faith” (Titus 1:4)!

    Fr. Robert

    “Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handing the word of truth.” (2 Tim.2:14-15)

  44. irishanglican says:

    PS..”psycho-spiritual”? This term did not drop out of heaven! Save, again theosophy. Yes, we must have theological terms, words and understanding! ALWAYS, the historical-grammatical method and truth!


  45. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr.Robert,

    Congratulations on your position as axillary Bishop! I am busy too and am not a full time blogger. I am currently marketing my new book on unifying science and theology. We do not disagree on our sincerity of faith but in our doctrinal understanding of it.

    Again, I have attended Seminary and have been exposed to all the ideas of traditional Christianity. I know what your understanding on the Law of God is. Therefore, I suspect your motive for putting together your thoughts on the Law of God is to use my blog to tattoo your doctrines on it for perpetuity and get free advertising space.

    Second, what would you know about heaven (and what drops out of it)? Your theology has little to say about the topological qualities of the Spiritual World. Swedenborg has written many books on this topic.

    Heaven is not a place you go to – it is something you become. Heaven is reached through the inner qualities of a person’s heart and mind from following the Lord’s teachings. In other words, heaven is a psycho-spiritual realm devoid of spaces and times. Swedenborg’s published descriptions about the nature of the spiritual realm provide years of study on this “genre.” In a nutshell, the physical world is made of matter and the Spiritual World is made of psycho-spiritual substance. You wouldn’t know what that means.

    Your historical-grammatical buddies have no means of understanding how people can live and love in a world removed from the constraints of space and time. Swedenborg not only presents us with a much needed picture of the ontological status of heaven but puts it into rational scientific language!

    Spiritually yours,

  46. irishanglican says:

    Dear Ed,

    I have had this job before (Ax. bishop), and gave it back. But right now the Church is ever more in danger. So I stay in this position for the time being.

    I have no need for “perpetuity”, as God is sovereign! And you know really nothing of my doctrine of God’s Law. Also I am not after your blog people, only standing on the doctrines of grace. “The Lord knows those who are His!” (2 Tim. 2:19)

    The whole of the NT is founded on typology and revelation. Anything else is mere sand! There is simply no heavenly topological biblical ideas. Again, this is false theosophy! Also you are misusing the word and concept of “genre”. Swedenborg has no use of “genre” in his works.

    Also, your use of ontology might be metaphysical, but it is certainly not biblical. God alone is the true triune ontology and being!

    Fr. Robert

  47. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    Your whole theology is based on the assumption that Scripture does not contain higher meanings (even though God has Infinite and inexhaustible Wisdom). Your materialistic philosophy of Scripture is the breeding ground for ideas like vicarious atonement, appeasement, salvation by faith alone and the mind-numbing notion that God is three distinct Persons but really only one God.

    Ug! You are really confusing my readers when you say “God alone is the triune ontology and being.” Which God are you talking about? The only picture your Trinitarian doctrine presents to the human understanding is that of a gaggle of Gods.

    I presented Scriptural passages above showing that Jehovah God Himself came into the world and you admitted you could not prove otherwise. So why do you pretend your ideas are not built on sand?

    The history of Christianity is full of opposing doctrines (which is evidenced by all its denominations). And they all used the SAME historical-grammatical method of distilling Truth to get where they are!

    Spiritually yours,

  48. irishanglican says:

    PS..holding back my most theological letter I see? This is not open minded or seeking truth!


  49. irishanglican says:

    Dear Ed,

    Sir, I do not like spiritual cowardice! You are really running scared, or you would simply print all my theology, and let the readers decide.

    Fr. Robert

  50. thegodguy says:

    Dear Fr. Robert,

    Once again you are trying to dictate the flow and parameters of this discussion. Apparently, only YOUR arguments count. You are the one who has avoided the tough questions and have given my readers a “head-fake.” I am still waiting for you to answer the question of whether your theology puts Christians above the Law. That was no small matter.

    Another problem we have is that your impatience is an obstacle to waiting for me to reply (I do not spend all day blogging). This causes you to send two or three comments before I can respond to any one of them. So when I do respond I find myself having to address an overload of issues. Sometimes you will have sent me new comments when I am in the process of answering a previous request. Since this blog AUTOMATICALLY publishes comments in the order they come in I often find my responses two or three steps behind the material I am addressing. This makes it look like I have ignored the other two comments. So my seeming cowardly behavior is nothing more then a technological idiosyncrasy.

    Your most recent response (which you claim I am scared to publish) came right after telling me how busy you were. However, you sneaked it in before I had a chance to respond to your previous contribution.

    You fail to grasp that you are a guest on my blog and are mistaken to believe that you are entitled to use this space to share ALL YOUR THEOLOGY with my readers. This blog was not set up to be a “brain dump.” It is my responsibility to manage this blog and keep it as interesting as possible to my readers. Your latest theological letter brings nothing new to the discussion. I will publish it in awhile but it will not APPEASE you – trust me.

    Meanwhile, I think my readers would be interested in why your Church is in DANGER since you have such a convincing command of true Christian Doctrine. No head=fakes please!

    Spiritually yours,
    The God Guy

  51. irishanglican says:

    Dear Ed,

    First, I am by providence home today.

    Head fakes? Hardly, the only head fake here has been your lack to grasp my statements. One of your problems is that you constantly make a caricature of historical Christianity. And then apply it in whole to me. This is certainly unfair, and lacks theological honesty to say the least.

    In the past, you have done what I mentioned. Sat on my letters, and then acted as if your were the ponificate and the great spiritual advisor. This will never fly with me, perhaps with some of your fellow new agers and Swedenborgans you are the “man”. (Thus “your blog”). There are many other real bloggers that give the real open forum. So I can but hope that you will come back to earth from your so-called theosophy of heaven? At least on a blog.

    Again, I wrote on the subject of the Atonement and the forenic somewhat, but you are sitting on it! (Moderation? I think not!)

    Finally, I will proceed with “my” letters, and try to answer the reality of “danger” in all the postmodern churches. Yours as well as mine. When you “moderate” my letter. (The one your sitting on) And yes, this is your blog, and I am your guest. But you are hardly upfront and honest toward me, at least in the area of both theology and again your constant ad hominem appeal (to one’s passions or prejudices rather than the real intellect and subject.)

    Sincerely In Christ,
    the Rev’d Fr. Robert K. Darby,

  52. thegodguy says:

    Dear interested readers,

    Here is the “famous” letter that Father Robert accuses me of being scared to share with you – the one I am sitting on. By delaying the publication of his theological views on God’s laws I have done Him a big favor – I have actually moved to draw more attention to it. Forgive my indulgence for the dramatic (and please forgive Father Robert for his bearing false witness). I reproduce below Father Robert’ letter in its entirety.

    Dear Ed,

    First, the Church, at it’s Councils, has never made a definite sacrosanct doctrine of the Atonement. This no doubt surprises you. But, the Church has always demanded that the death of Christ was in some way vicarious or representing others. But not so much in a forensic manner, but in the sense of “Christus Victor”. See Bishop Gustav Aulen in his book under this title. This was perhaps the first main theory of the Atonement. See Col.2:13-15. Note St. Paul still speaks of the legal demand. But the conquest and overcoming force was the victory of Christ in His death and resurrection. But again, the value of the Atonement was the “person” who died there – the Lamb of God Himself! See, such texts as 1 Peter 2:22-24, and 3:18..”For Christ also died for sins once for all, ‘the righteous for the unrighteous’, that HE might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit or Spirit.”

    Indeed what could be more simple, but or so profound!
    We simply cannot escape the thought of Christ’s substitution that is representative. It is really a vicarious obedience, so potent that it revolutionized the eternal foundations of our moral world. The “moral” law of God is met and exceeded! His obedience and death is the essential spiritual meaning of the OT and ancient sacrifices. The virtue lies in the obedience to God’s will, and this is the supreme value of the death of Jesus Christ. It was a real inner sacrifice, Christ’s self-oblation and the efficacy lies in His complete, central, vital obedience to the holy will of God in a necessary act on the eternal scale. Here is the real lasting “objective”, that God and Christ make it together (see Gen. 22:6-8, “So they went both of them together” A beautiful type and picture of the love of both the Father and the Son, for us and each other!). It is the satisfaction which the Son Himself gives in His willing and absolute obedience, even unto death, to the Father…themselves both God. Thus it is total and final victory over sin and evil itself! God wins, as do the people of God. Here is supreme grace, mercy and love!

    And here we can be stand and say “amen” and worship!

    Yours In Christ,
    Fr. Robert

    Dear readers, what Father Robert is saying is that a true theology of God’s laws throws the Ten Commandments out the window! God’s commandments are of no account when it comes to salvation (like bearing false witness). The crucifixion has replaced any moral obligations to live as Christians – we simply just “believe” in Christ and forget introspection. This strange theology was concocted from the minds of “canonized” Christian authors and not from any actual words spoken by Jesus Himself.

    Instead, one is saved because the Father was so moved and touched by His Son’s suffering and death on the cross that He decided to give humans another chance – as long as Jesus put in a good plug for you to His Father (vicarious atonement). This is “hocus-pocus” redemption and causes Christians to take on the snooty stance that they represent the “elect.”

    The theological problem here is that the Christian understanding of “Glorification” has been confused and downgraded to represent mere “appeasement.” Since I have addressed Glorification elsewhere on this blog I will not repeat it here and respect Father Robert’s wishes that my readers now make their important decision after reading his letter. With that said, I hope Father Robert seeks out other blogs with more open and honest dialogue and I will end our discussion here!

    Spiritually yours,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s