Monday, July 17, 2006

Dare I post this?

It's just that I'm a bit nervous to mention this a propos perhaps the one American in connection to whom it is least OK to mention anything less than complimentary. But I forge on.

See if you can guess who wrote the following words (based on my hint) before you click on the link:

Hence, we must affirm that Christ is a unitary personality, and this unity we find in his own ego. There is nothing in rational speculation nor New Testament thought to warrant the view that Jesus had two personal centers. We must then think of Christ as a unitary being whose divinity consists not in any second nature or in a substantial unity with God, but in a unique and potent God consciousness. His unity of {with} God was a unity of purpose rather than a unity of substance.

Another weakness in this theory of atonement is that it is based on the assumption that the chief obstacle to man's redemption is in the nature of God. But there was never any obstacle to man's redemption in God himself. The real obstacle to man's redemption has always lain in man himself. It is from this standpoint, therefore, that the death of Christ is to be interpreted. Christ's death was not a ransom, or a penal substitute, or a penal example, rather it was a revelation of the sacrificial love of God intended to awaken an answering love in the hearts of men.
We are compelled, therefore, to reject the idea of a catastrophic fall and regard man's moral condition from another point of view. Man's fall is not due to some falling away from an original righteousness, but to a failure to rise to a higher level of his present existence.
In the same vein we must reject Luther's and Calvin's view that man is incapable of performing any saving good, and that man can do nothing to save himself. Certainly we must agree that the image of God is terribly scared in man, but not to the degree that man cannot move toward God.

Written by: Mystery Author


Marc said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marc said...

Wow...I never would have guessed. On the other hand, I have never read any of his theological writings until this moment. I guess he did not believe John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

Rhology said...

I know. Sad.
I knew he was a wife cheater, but I didn't know he would have taught heresy.
On the other hand, he was an amazing social leader.
On the other hand, he was a heretic.
On the other hand, maybe he didn't believe this later in life.
But if he did, I don't know if I'd expect to see him in heaven. And that's a dang shame.