'A Hidden God' revealed through the Cross?
Gamma Gamaliel
Shipmate
in Purgatory
As if there haven't been enough bend-mending threads recently, here's one more.
As if I haven't got all on in reading some Marian material during this Dormition Fast ...
As if I haven't already got enough to do ...
Here's another question.
I very much admired @Gramps49's outline of some Lutheran emphases on one of the threads about God's 'feelings' and 'emotions'. I can't remember which one as they all entwined!
There was much there that resonated with me as an Orthodox Christian and I'm sure much that resonated with believers from other Christian traditions too.
Something that struck me as 'distinctively Lutheran' though, was the point about God being 'hidden' in some way until revealed through the Cross of Christ. I'm not expressing that very well and I'm sure Lutherans would be better equipped with the necessary vocabulary and conceptual framework to expound this point.
I am vaguely aware of Luther's 'theologiae crucis' - that God is supremely and concretely revealed through Christ's sufferings on the Cross and not by abstract or 'human philosophy'.
I wonder whether Lutheran (or Shipmates of other traditions) could elucidate this some more in order to demonstrate how it might accord with - or differ from - understandings in other mainstream Christian traditions such as Roman Catholicism, the Reformed (and small r reformed) traditions and Orthodoxy?
My intention is not combative, nor am I trying to catch anyone out in a Big O Thought-Police kind of way.
I think I can grasp how or why this became a particular emphasis within the Lutheran side of the Protestant Reformation given the rather abstract way late medieval Western theology had developed.
There are those who might accuse the Christian East of being overly philosophical too, no doubt, but obviously we don't see things that way ourselves!
As with the question on the essence/energies distinction, is it 'necessary' and how does it help (or hinder?) us in our understanding of God's self-revelation in Christ?
Was there anything new or innovative in Luther's approach at this point or was he redressing some kind of imbalance?
Over to you my dear sisters and brothers ...
As if I haven't got all on in reading some Marian material during this Dormition Fast ...
As if I haven't already got enough to do ...
Here's another question.
I very much admired @Gramps49's outline of some Lutheran emphases on one of the threads about God's 'feelings' and 'emotions'. I can't remember which one as they all entwined!
There was much there that resonated with me as an Orthodox Christian and I'm sure much that resonated with believers from other Christian traditions too.
Something that struck me as 'distinctively Lutheran' though, was the point about God being 'hidden' in some way until revealed through the Cross of Christ. I'm not expressing that very well and I'm sure Lutherans would be better equipped with the necessary vocabulary and conceptual framework to expound this point.
I am vaguely aware of Luther's 'theologiae crucis' - that God is supremely and concretely revealed through Christ's sufferings on the Cross and not by abstract or 'human philosophy'.
I wonder whether Lutheran (or Shipmates of other traditions) could elucidate this some more in order to demonstrate how it might accord with - or differ from - understandings in other mainstream Christian traditions such as Roman Catholicism, the Reformed (and small r reformed) traditions and Orthodoxy?
My intention is not combative, nor am I trying to catch anyone out in a Big O Thought-Police kind of way.
I think I can grasp how or why this became a particular emphasis within the Lutheran side of the Protestant Reformation given the rather abstract way late medieval Western theology had developed.
There are those who might accuse the Christian East of being overly philosophical too, no doubt, but obviously we don't see things that way ourselves!
As with the question on the essence/energies distinction, is it 'necessary' and how does it help (or hinder?) us in our understanding of God's self-revelation in Christ?
Was there anything new or innovative in Luther's approach at this point or was he redressing some kind of imbalance?
Over to you my dear sisters and brothers ...
Comments
'Mind-bending' of course!
Goodness me, I must be tired ...
Luther believed that the “Hidden God” (his language I believe) was supremely revealed in Jesus and that revelation overshadowed abstract (Greek) philosophy. That revelation was most significant at the Cross.
Any more than that is best left to Lutherans! Luther’s writings were complex and nuanced, particularly when considering the cross and the Trinity.
I would contend of course that it wasn't so much the influence of Greek philosophy on Patristics that he objected to - Luther, like all the Reformers was steeped in the Fathers - but rather the way the Aristotelian dimension had become overgrown in late medieval Scholasticism.
But then, others may know better than me on that score.
But yes, a complex and intriguing character.
It's the term 'hidden' that I'm interested in exploring.
I'd forgotten about the thread but as I read it it began to feel more familiar, particularly when it came to your martyred mother-in-law - may her memory be eternal!
I then came across some posts by a fella called Gamma Gamaliel who made some comments about things being 'both/and'.
I didn't pay much attention to him but his stock phrase sprang to mind when I read what you'd posted here about not separating out the Cross and Resurrection.
That seems to be an aspect where both the Lutherans and the Orthodox are very much on the same page.
This makes sense to me.
This is all very helpful and I appreciate all the comments plus the reminder of the excellent 2024 thread.
With my limited knowledge of Lutheranism I had wondered whether the 'Theology of the Cross' might be overly crucicentric in some way without due emphasis on the Resurrection so I am reassured that this isn't the case.
Not that it's any business of mine, but you know what I mean.
My heart is warmed at the resonance and congruence between our respective Christian traditions on this - and other - points, whatever our differences might be otherwise.
The emphasis on God's glory revealed through suffering, weakness, kenosis and humility is also a very powerful insight and point of congruence.
I don't think the Lutherans are saying that God is 'only' revealed through the Cross or that he is 'completely hidden' without it as it were.
What I understand the Lutheran tradition to be saying is that the Cross uniquely reveals something exceptionally profound about God - divine self-emptying and humility, Christ's sufferings for our redemption - and his raising to life for our justification.
The Orthodox might differ with them in the way these things tend to be 'separated out' to some extent in some Western approaches to these things - and some of those might be later iterations, I don’t know.
Whatever the case I don’t take it that 'traditional' Lutherans are playing down the Incarnation in any way. Quite the opposite.
Whatever you've got right remember we were there first. 😉
But I can go on and I can be a pain in the butt at times.
Some Lutherans have issues with his orthodoxy or lack of it, but Forde's On Being a Theologian of the Cross isn't bad, and is quite a short read.
I'm tired and I'm sure I've been tiresome but FWIW @Gramps49 and @Lamb Chopped we are all 'one of us' in the sense of all being in Christ.
God in his time or out of time (as R S Thomas put it) can straighten the rest out.