How does God redeem us? - Recapitulation

[gtsecc]

I think Anglicans ought to have some knowledge of Irenaeus's doctrien of Recapitulation - even they don't agree with it.

[gtsecc]

Maybe one of the Seminary students could help us with this?

[gtsecc]

Paul sums it up by saying that Christ is the new Adam.

[gtsecc]

Here is a good start online:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Theosis

[AngCath]

Recapitulation in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (1st ed.):
"a 'summing up', summary. The term is used in its verbal form in Eph. 1.10, where God is said to sum up all things in Christ, and from this passage was taken over by the Fathers. The conception of recapitulation was elaborated esp. by St. Irenaeus, who interpreted it as both the restoration of fallen humanity to communion with God through the obedience of Christ and as the summing up of the previous revelations of God in past ages in the Incarnation. Besides these two meanings, which are common in patristic literature, there is a third found in St. Chrysostom, who applies the word to the reunion of both angels and men under Christ as their common head."

[karen freeinchristman]

That through the cross we are reconciled with God - who wouldn't agree with that? :scratch:

[Simon_Templar]

the concept I see in recapitulation, in addition to the above statements is that Christ is the recapitulation of history as it was meant to be.

Essentially, history begins again with Christ as the second Adam.. except where as it was all set wrong in the first Adam, it is all set right in the second Adam. thus Creation itself, and history, and humanity are all redeemed in Christ as the new beginning. Not only us as individuals, but all that God ever intended creation to be is being set right through the recapitulation in Christ.

[karen freeinchristman]

the concept I see in recapitulation, in addition to the above statements is that Christ is the recapitulation of history as it was meant to be.

Essentially, history begins again with Christ as the second Adam.. except where as it was all set wrong in the first Adam, it is all set right in the second Adam. thus Creation itself, and history, and humanity are all redeemed in Christ as the new beginning. Not only us as individuals, but all that God ever intended creation to be is being set right through the recapitulation in Christ.
I can fully agree with that. :thumbsup:

[karen freeinchristman]

I think the Easter Anthems in Common Worship Daily Prayer
(Morning Prayer: Easter Season) sum it up nicely:


1 Christ our passover has been sacrificed for us:
so let us celebrate the feast,
2 not with the old leaven of corruption and wickedness:
but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
1 Corinthians 5.7b, 8

3 Christ once raised from the dead dies no more:
death has no more dominion over him.
4 In dying he died to sin once for all:
in living he lives to God.
5 See yourselves therefore as dead to sin:
and alive to God in Jesus Christ our Lord.
Romans 6.9-11


6 Christ has been raised from the dead:
the first fruits of those who sleep.
7 For as by man came death:
by man has come also the resurrection of the dead;

8 for as in Adam all die:
even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
1 Corinthians 15.20-22

[gtsecc]

That through the cross we are reconciled with God - who wouldn't agree with that? :scratch:
no

[gtsecc]

Through the incarnation we are reconciled.
The marriage of divinity and humanity is how we are reconciled.
Death is just a normal consequence of being fully human.
I'm not saying the cross didn't matter.
I'm saying focus on the incarnation a lot more.
Many sort of evegelical Christians see Christ clearly as fully divine, but have little to no concept of him as fully human. They have a fundamentally Jewish view in the end. I think that is why many evagelicals are not really sacramentalist - they don't understand the incarnation.

[AngCath]

Vladimir Lossky talks about Christ's activity as unifier in Mystical theology of the Eastern Church.
to paraphrase he writes-
as the Incarnate Word he united God and man.
being man born of a virgin he united man and woman.
dying he united the dead with the living (God).
resurrecting he broke the bonds of death and united all people, dead and alive.
ascending he united earth and heaven.

this is a poor paraphrase but shows the Eastern Orthodox emphasis on Christ uniting all things unto himself.

[gtsecc]

Just as a aside, does it ever boggle your mind that some folks are reading Vladimir Lossky, and others are reading Beth Moore?

[AngCath]

Who is Beth Moore?

[karen freeinchristman]

Just as a aside, does it ever boggle your mind that some folks are reading Vladimir Lossky, and others are reading Beth Moore?
Oh, for goodness sake, Glen. Do you have to be so patronising?

Has it ever crossed your mind that not everyone is up to the intellectual challenge of reading Lossky? Has it ever crossed your mind that Beth Moore is someone who loves God with all her heart and is trying to help people (especially women) to come to a loving faith with God? Why do you have to criticize other people so much?

No, it doesn't boggle my mind. It is just another wonderful example of the glorious diversity God has given to his people.

[gtsecc]

Oh, for goodness sake, Glen. Do you have to be so patronising?

Has it ever crossed your mind that not everyone is up to the intellectual challenge of reading Lossky? Has it ever crossed your mind that Beth Moore is someone who loves God with all her heart and is trying to help people (especially women) to come to a loving faith with God? Why do you have to criticize other people so much?

No, it doesn't boggle my mind. It is just another wonderful example of the glorious diversity God has given to his people.
I can't read Lossky either, it makes my head explode.
Now, as far as Beth, if I thought she revealed truth, and it were harmless, I would let it go.

But,
If she is so smart, why doesn't she go to a church with Bishops?
Since she doesn't - she doesn't think they are necessary.

Now, people are going total apesht about gay marriage, including her – and she doesn't even have Bishops or know what a Eucharist is. So if she can’t even get the big picture, why on earth would I think she had anything meaningful to say about the faith?

[gtsecc]

Gregory the Great said the faith is like a river, both shallow and deep, in which a lamb may walk and an elephant swim.

But, that doesn't mean, "If it is shallow, it is the faith."

[ludovica]

It has always seemed to me as if the God of the Old Testament was a little bit like a boy with an ant-farm... fascinated and observing
and subsequently, by being incarnate in the person of Jesus, He actually experienced what it is like to be us.. to be weak, tempted etc, and in doing so, understood His creation fully by becoming a part of it and in understanding our weaknesses, pardoned them and excused them and recognised the imperfection of us all... accepted us for ourselves and still loved us.. loved us MORE because he too had endured that which we all must endure.. He didn't have to do that, he wanted to, to give us a direct relationship with him through his incarnation.

[AngCath]

Sorry if this detracts from the discussion but I felt like my paraphrase was not doing Lossky justice so I found the quotation to which I was referring:

By his birth of the Virgin, He suppressed the division of human nature into male and female. On the cross He unites paradise...with the terrestrial reality where the fallen descendants of the first Adam now dwell; ...At His ascension, first of all, He unites the earth to the heavenly spheres, that is to the sensible heaven; then He penetrates the empyreum, passes through the angelic hierarchies and unites the spiritual heaven... Finally, like a new cosmic Adam, He presents to the Father the totality of the universe restored to unity in Him, by uniting the created to the uncreated. In this conception of Christ, as the new Adam, who unifies and sanctifies created being, redemption appears as one of the stages in his work, a stage conditioned by sin and the historic reality of the fallen world, in which the incarnation has taken place.
:amen:

[gtsecc]

It has always seemed to me as if the God of the Old Testament was a little bit like a boy with an ant-farm... fascinated and observing
and subsequently, by being incarnate in the person of Jesus, He actually experienced what it is like to be us.. to be weak, tempted etc, and in doing so, understood His creation fully by becoming a part of it and in understanding our weaknesses, pardoned them and excused them and recognised the imperfection of us all... accepted us for ourselves and still loved us.. loved us MORE because he too had endured that which we all must endure.. He didn't have to do that, he wanted to, to give us a direct relationship with him through his incarnation.
please please please please please please please please please please read On the Incarnation.

[ludovica]

please please please please please please please please please please read On the Incarnation.Explain...?

[Mary of Bethany]

Vladimir Lossky talks about Christ's activity as unifier in Mystical theology of the Eastern Church.
to paraphrase he writes-
as the Incarnate Word he united God and man.
being man born of a virgin he united man and woman.
dying he united the dead with the living (God).
resurrecting he broke the bonds of death and united all people, dead and alive.
ascending he united earth and heaven.

this is a poor paraphrase but shows the Eastern Orthodox emphasis on Christ uniting all things unto himself.

Not too long ago, my Priest gave a sermon about this. How every great Feast we celebrate during the year shows another aspect of how Christ restores us and all of Creation to the Creator. Every aspect of his Incarnation was a necessary act by Him to allow us to experience the same in our own life, now and eternally.

I'm putting this very badly, as usual, but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to relate.

Mary

[karen freeinchristman]

Through the incarnation we are reconciled.
The marriage of divinity and humanity is how we are reconciled.
Death is just a normal consequence of being fully human.
I'm not saying the cross didn't matter.
I'm saying focus on the incarnation a lot more.
Many sort of evegelical Christians see Christ clearly as fully divine, but have little to no concept of him as fully human. They have a fundamentally Jewish view in the end. I think that is why many evagelicals are not really sacramentalist - they don't understand the incarnation.
OK, I can cope with this. :)

[erin74]

Who is Beth Moore?
No idea...

[erin74]

Through the incarnation we are reconciled.
The marriage of divinity and humanity is how we are reconciled.
Death is just a normal consequence of being fully human.
I'm not saying the cross didn't matter.
I'm saying focus on the incarnation a lot more.
Many sort of evegelical Christians see Christ clearly as fully divine, but have little to no concept of him as fully human. They have a fundamentally Jewish view in the end. I think that is why many evagelicals are not really sacramentalist - they don't understand the incarnation.
"For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!" Rom 5:10

"22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation--" Col 1:22

The bible doesn't seem to agree.
We were reconciled through his death, and saved through his life, in his resurrection.

[Tomoz]

"For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!" Rom 5:10

"22 But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation--" Col 1:22

The bible doesn't seem to agree.
We were reconciled through his death, and saved through his life, in his resurrection.


Yes, I agree with you Erin.
Biblically, I just don't think we can get away from the fact that before we can recieve the spirit and begin to be formed more into the likeness of Jesus, our estrangement from God needs to be dealt with. Our estrangement is caused by our sins (Isaiah 59:2). Our sins are dealt with on the cross (Isaiah 53, 1 peter 3:18 et al).
I will try and get my hands on The Incarnation and get a better understanding of what is being said. But we can't sideline the position of the apostles.

[brightmorningstar]

Dear erin74 and Tomaz,
It is not just that I agree with you both, rather that I agree with the Bible verses you cite. :thumbsup:
I will read the incarnation but I dont find Bible truths contradict Bible truths. Our estrangement is indeed caused by our sins, sin being rebellion starting with Adam and Eve.

[Iosias]

That through the cross we are reconciled with God - who wouldn't agree with that? :scratch:

You seriously want to know? This has been taken from Paul Enns Moody Handbook of Theology the relevant section also is online here (http://www.gotquestions.org/atonement-theories.html).

Ransom to Satan: This view sees the atonement of Christ as being a ransom that was paid to Satan to purchase man’s freedom from being enslaved to Satan. It is based on a belief that man’s spiritual condition is in bondage to Satan and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to secure God’s victory over Satan. This theory has little if any Scriptural support and has had few supporters throughout church history. It is heretical in that it thinks of Satan, rather than God as being the one who required a payment be made for sin and thus completely ignores the demands of God’s justice that are seen throughout Scripture. It also has a higher view of Satan than it should and views him as having more power than he really does. There is no Scriptural support for the idea that sinners owe anything to Satan, but throughout Scripture we see that God is the One who requires a payment for sin. One of the leading proponents of this theory was Origen.

Recapitulation Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as reversing the course of mankind from disobedience to obedience. It believes that Christ’s life recapitulated all the stages of human life and in doing so reversed the course of disobedience initiated by Adam. It has little if any Scriptural support. One of the leading proponents of this theory was Irenaeus.

Dramatic Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as securing the victory in a divine conflict of good and evil and winning man’s release from bondage to Satan. The meaning of Christ’s death was to insure God’s victory over Satan and provides a way of reconciliation of the world out of its bondage to evil. One of the leading proponents of this theory was Aulen.

Mystical Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as a triumph over his own sinful nature through the power of the Holy Spirit. Those that hold this view believe that knowledge of this will mystically influence man and awake his “god-consciousness”. Those that hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is not the result of sin but simply a lack of “god-consciousness”. Clearly this is one of the most heretical of all these theories because of the fact that to believe this one must believe that Christ had a sin nature. One of the leading proponents of this theory was Schleiermacher.

Example Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as simply providing an example of faith and obedience to inspire man to be obedient to God. Those that hold this view believe that man is spiritually alive and that Christ’s life and atonement were simply an example of true faith and obedience and should serve as inspiration to men to live a similar life of faith and obedience. This and the moral influence theory are similar in that they both deny that God’s justice actually requires payment for sin and that Christ’s death on the cross was that payment. The main difference between the moral influence theory and the example theory is that the moral influence theory says that Christ’s death teaches us how much God loves us and the example theory says that Christ’s death teaches how to live. Of course it is certainly true that Christ is an example for us to follow, even in His death, but the example theory fails to recognize man’s true spiritual condition and that God’s justice requires payment for sin. Some leading proponents of this view were Pelegius, Socinus, and Abelard.

Moral Influence Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s love which causes man’s heart to soften and repent. Those that hold this view believe that man is spiritually sick and in need of help and that man is moved to accept God’s forgiveness by seeing God’s love for man. They believe that the purpose and meaning of Christ’s death was to demonstrate God’s love toward man. While it is true that Christ’s atonement is the ultimate example of the love of God this view is also heretical because it denies the true spiritual condition of man and denies that God actually requires a payment for sin. This view of Christ’s atonement leaves mankind without a true sacrifice or payment for sin. Some leading proponents of this view were Abelard, Bushnell, and Rashdall.

Commercial Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as brining infinite honor to God. This resulted in God giving Christ a reward which He did not need, and Christ passed that reward on to man. Those that hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is that of dishonoring God and so Christ’s death which brought infinite honor to God can be applied to sinners for salvation. A leading proponent of this view was Anselm.

Governmental Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as demonstrating God’s high regard for His law and His attitude towards sin. It is through Christ’s death that God has a reason to forgive the sins of those who repent and accept Christ’s substitutionary death. Those that hold this view believe that man’s spiritual condition is as one who has violated God’s moral law and that the meaning of Christ’s death was to be a substitute for the penalty of sin. Because Christ paid the penalty for sin it is possible for God to legally forgive those who accept Christ as their substitute. This view falls short in that it does not teach that Christ actually paid the penalty of the actual sins of any people, but instead His suffering simply showed mankind that God’s laws were broken and that some penalty was paid. A leading proponent of this view was Grotius.

Penal Substitution Theory: This view sees the atonement of Christ as being a vicarious, substitutionary sacrifice that satisfied the demands of God’s justice upon sin. In doing so Christ paid the penalty of man’s sin bringing forgiveness, imputing righteousness and reconciling man to God. Those that hold this view believe that every aspect of man, his mind, will and emotions have been corrupted by sin and that man is totally depraved and spiritually dead. This view holds that Christ’s death paid the penalty of sin for those whom God elects to save and that through repentance man can accept Christ’s substitution as payment for sin. A leading proponent of this view was Calvin.

[Iosias]

You may wish to read these articles here (http://www.monergism.com/directory/search.php?action=search_links_simple&search_kind=and&phrase=atonement). :)

[karen freeinchristman]

Thanks, AV1611 - most informative! :thumbsup:

[Iosias]

Thanks, AV1611 - most informative! :thumbsup:

My pleasure :)

[Simon_Templar]

I disagree that death is just a part of being human. mortality was not the original state of humanity. Humanity was originally in a state of communion with God, and had the eternal life of God when our race was first created. It was when Adam fell that man became mortal.

The curveball in the whole story of the fall for most people is that they think our mortality was a decree, or a punishment. In actuallity, our seperation from God, which is the source of our mortality was what Adam chose. He chose to know apart from God, and to will apart from God. His choice was seperation from God. The seperation was not merely the punishment, its what his action was.

In this case, death is not as much a punishment as it is a 'side effect'.

[Tomoz]

please please please please please please please please please please read On the Incarnation.

I may be misunderstanding things, but it seems to me that in On the Incarnation Athanasius fully holds to penal substitutionary atonement:

"Since the debt owed by all men had to be paid (for all men had to die), he came among us. After he had demonstrated his deity by his works, he offered his sacrifice on behalf of all and surrended his temple to death in the place of all men. He did this to free men from the guilt of the first sin and to prove himself more powerful than death, showing his own body incorruptible, as the first-fruits of the resurrection of all".

That seems to me to be a brilliant exposition of substitutionary atonement.

[Iosias]

I disagree that death is just a part of being human. mortality was not the original state of humanity. Humanity was originally in a state of communion with God, and had the eternal life of God when our race was first created. It was when Adam fell that man became mortal.

The curveball in the whole story of the fall for most people is that they think our mortality was a decree, or a punishment. In actuallity, our seperation from God, which is the source of our mortality was what Adam chose. He chose to know apart from God, and to will apart from God. His choice was seperation from God. The seperation was not merely the punishment, its what his action was.

In this case, death is not as much a punishment as it is a 'side effect'.

In the Covenant of Works (http://www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_49.html) made with Adam the punishment was death, physical and spiritual.

[erin74]

I disagree that death is just a part of being human. mortality was not the original state of humanity. Humanity was originally in a state of communion with God, and had the eternal life of God when our race was first created. It was when Adam fell that man became mortal.

The curveball in the whole story of the fall for most people is that they think our mortality was a decree, or a punishment. In actuallity, our seperation from God, which is the source of our mortality was what Adam chose. He chose to know apart from God, and to will apart from God. His choice was seperation from God. The seperation was not merely the punishment, its what his action was.

In this case, death is not as much a punishment as it is a 'side effect'.
That's a bit like Romans 1 isn't it - the consequence of sin is being handed over to that sin.

[Simon_Templar]

That's a bit like Romans 1 isn't it - the consequence of sin is being handed over to that sin.
yes, and especially, look at Romans 5 with regard to the relationship between sin and law.


Tomoz,

I'm not an expert on Athanasius, but I think he probably reflects both sides of the issue. East and West have long put different emphasis on the attonement. Penal substitution has been the more popular emphasis in the west, while the idea of humanity (and all creation really) being united to God through the incarnation of Christ, that in becoming united to Christ we become united to his immortality, his godliness etc.

Often called theosis.

in my opinion, both are true, and both should be understood as aspects of the redemption. The emphasis of one to the exclusion of the other causes problems, in my opinion.

So just as Athanasius had the quote you gave, he also said that God became man, so that man could become God. This of course has to be understood in terms of theosis, not in the mormon sense of actually becoming of the essense of God, but rather becoming like God, because we partake of his nature through Christ.

[Mary of Bethany]

I disagree that death is just a part of being human. mortality was not the original state of humanity. Humanity was originally in a state of communion with God, and had the eternal life of God when our race was first created. It was when Adam fell that man became mortal.

The curveball in the whole story of the fall for most people is that they think our mortality was a decree, or a punishment. In actuallity, our seperation from God, which is the source of our mortality was what Adam chose. He chose to know apart from God, and to will apart from God. His choice was seperation from God. The seperation was not merely the punishment, its what his action was.

In this case, death is not as much a punishment as it is a 'side effect'.

I agree completely with this post. Death is not the natural state of humanity. It is actually the "unnatural" separation of soul from body.

Mary

P.S. I'm only posting these things because I believe that the Orthodox view also happens to be within accepted Anglican views. If that is not true, then please let me know and I will not post in this thread any more.

[AngCath]

Mary,
I quite enjoy your posts and think they are beneficial in this thread.

[Tomoz]

yes, and especially, look at Romans 5 with regard to the relationship between sin and law.


Tomoz,

I'm not an expert on Athanasius, but I think he probably reflects both sides of the issue. East and West have long put different emphasis on the attonement. Penal substitution has been the more popular emphasis in the west, while the idea of humanity (and all creation really) being united to God through the incarnation of Christ, that in becoming united to Christ we become united to his immortality, his godliness etc.

Often called theosis.

in my opinion, both are true, and both should be understood as aspects of the redemption. The emphasis of one to the exclusion of the other causes problems, in my opinion.

So just as Athanasius had the quote you gave, he also said that God became man, so that man could become God. This of course has to be understood in terms of theosis, not in the mormon sense of actually becoming of the essense of God, but rather becoming like God, because we partake of his nature through Christ.

I think I agree with you simon - perhaps many people misunderstand theosis; I think I do and I need to do more reading to grasp it's subtleties, especially in maintaing the uniqueness of God, and our separateness from him. The idea of 'union with God' sounds in the first instance like something I would have heard from Swami Venkatesananda a few years ago and I believe God has made us to be in a relationship with him, not simply absorbed into him (I know this isn't what theosis is all about, but I'm just thinking my own 'ground rules' out aloud).
I DO think it is just incredible that not only has God reconciled us to himself through the cross, he has made us his children, co-heirs with Christ and he has called is to Christ's eternal glory! Just think about that for a second - it blows my mind. ESPECIALLY considering what we deserve.
Do those sorts of ideas, of being co-heirs with Christ and being like him when all things are made new, tie in with theosis?

[Simon_Templar]

I think I agree with you simon - perhaps many people misunderstand theosis; I think I do and I need to do more reading to grasp it's subtleties, especially in maintaing the uniqueness of God, and our separateness from him. The idea of 'union with God' sounds in the first instance like something I would have heard from Swami Venkatesananda a few years ago and I believe God has made us to be in a relationship with him, not simply absorbed into him (I know this isn't what theosis is all about, but I'm just thinking my own 'ground rules' out aloud).
I DO think it is just incredible that not only has God reconciled us to himself through the cross, he has made us his children, co-heirs with Christ and he has called is to Christ's eternal glory! Just think about that for a second - it blows my mind. ESPECIALLY considering what we deserve.
Do those sorts of ideas, of being co-heirs with Christ and being like him when all things are made new, tie in with theosis?
Relationship is key. Its something I never really thought about till I began to consider the trinity more, rather than just viewing it as a doctrine to which I was supposed to subscribe, but relationship is a part of the very nature of God. He is eternally in relationship. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all in perfect relationship, unity of purpose, will, and essense, yet each maintaining their distinctness... sharing communion, but not being absorbed into nothingness, or losing personality.

through being made Joint heirs with Christ, we are given the chance to participate in that. We won't share in the essense, but in the purpose, the will, and to some degree the glory.
We will also share in the truth, justice, love, mercy, and eternity of God. Those things that we commonly think of as attributes of his nature.

We will share in them in the sense that we experience them in him, and the more we are in relationship, the more those things become a part of us. It is the one and only satisfactory answer to the meaning of existence. It is the only cause which truly meets the human need of persuit, exploration, discovery and reward. At each turn, we find greater wonders, yet there are always more to find. It is quest that is always fulfilling, yet never ending.

I'm sure I've only scratched the surface of the ideas and teachings in "theosis" in my own studies so I'm hardly the person to elucidate it. But those are the things it means to me thus far.

We were made to be in relationship, just as relationship is part of God's eternal nature. We were made to be partakers of his nature in the sense that we are vessels to carry it and express it (his love, wisdom, truth, light, etc etc), in the sense that we can enjoy it, experiencing those things, and coming to new levels of sight and understanding of them, and in the sense that we are transformed by his nature, and conformed to his nature.

In a sense we were created to be a reflection of Him... thus as he is personal, so we are personal, as he is in relationship, so we are meant to be, as he has will, so we have will, as he has moral attributes so we have them.
We, and all of creation with us, were marred by the choice to 'go it on our own'. The Choice to be apart from God. Christ came to reverse that choice. In so doing we do not lose personality, rather our personality is perfected. I love the paradoxes of Christianity, and this one is one of my favorites... he who seeks to keep his life will lose it, but he who loses his life for my sake, shall find it.

The more we strive for personality of our own apart from God, the more we are robbed of our true self. The more we give up our will, our self, the more we become truly unique and personal.

Budhism has alot of similarity to Christianity on the surface, and in ethical terms. There are some key differences, however, that highlight the truly unique aspects of Christianity.

Both recognize that self must be given up in order to achieve some kind of unity with something higher. In budhism, personal desire is seen as the root problem which causes all evil and suffering. Suffering is synonymous with evil.
Thus budhism ultimately recommends detachment. Detachment from all desire, ultimately ending in detachment from self until one loses self in enlightenment.

christianity on the other hand recognizes that the problem is not 'self' in the sense of personified existence, but rather selfishness. The desire of self to be at the center of everything, and to serve self above all else. Thus christianity does not advocate detachment but rather submission. Self does not need to be done away with, or escaped from, it needs to be put in its place, knowing that when it is in its rightful place, it will flourish and be what it was intended to be.

Unity with the higher, and enlightenment thus is not attained by detachment from self, but rather attachment of self to that which is higher. Your self is reformed, and retained.

Thus while both budhist and christian eschew lust.. the budhist ultimately shuns love as well, while the Christian presses in to deeper love, and truer love

The irony is that the ultimate attainment of budhism is essentially indiference. Complete indifference to everyone and everything. What most of us would consider the ultimate selfishness.

The end of Christianity is an intense love of everyone and everything.. the very love that said "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life". The ultimate in unselfishness.

(when I say everything there I of course don't mean evil and such, I mean creation, the universe etc).

talking about the difference of Christianity and other religions, and the uniqeness of Christianity reminds me of a book. "Jesus among other gods" by Ravi Zacharias... I highly recomend it.

The last thought, and the point of the book is that Jesus himself is the center of the uniqueness of Christianity... all religions have teachers and founders who "showed the way"... Jesus is the only one who didn't 'show the way' but he himself IS the way.

Zacharias focuses alot on John chapter six... Jesus alone says "I am the bread of heaven" "partake of me and you will have everlasting life".

[erin74]

Excellent post Simon

It is that relationship within the trinity that makes me marvel at marriage, and how he made us to relate in the image of how he relates to himself and to us.

It blows me away frankly.

what a huge privilege.