
Sorrow is an emotion that exists because of suffering, and suffering is the result of the existence of sin in the world. But there is such a thing as godly sorrow over sin. What is it, and what does it look like?
This morning’s sermon by Pastor Charmley, Bethel Evangelical Free Church, Hanley.
Amen – and thanks for posting this. Well worth listening to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you Jock, he’s very sound.
LikeLiked by 1 person
An excellent idea, and sermon.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Glad you liked it, Neo. I think we may make a regular Sunday feature of this.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I was rather hoping you would.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I really enjoyed this, got a lot from it xx
LikeLiked by 3 people
On the topic of `Godly sorrow’, this seemed to be the basis of what Moltmann was writing in his `The Crucified God’, which I read earlier this year (it had lain for 20 years on my bookshelf unread – and when I read it I discovered that it was well worth reading).
Briefly – in exploring the Trinity, he deals with the first and second person in that book – the agony and all the tribulation of the Son in the crucifixion; at the same time, the grief of the Father, when he deals with the role of the Father in all of this.
I saw on the brief summary of Gervase Charmley that one of his points of interest is the doctrine of Penal Substitution. I don’t exactly understand what this is. I know that Christ had to die because I am a sinner; in His crucifixion and resurrection my sin has been dealt with, but I’m not prepared to say that this is `punishment’; at least it was certainly punishment by the Roman authorities because they perceived that Jesus was a dangerous political activist (as Motlmann points out, stoning (c/f Stephen) is the punishment for blasphemy; crucifixion is the punishment for political activities that are perceived to pose a danger to the Roman state), but I don’t think it makes much sense to say that this is punishment by God the Father.
LikeLike
Isaiah 53 seems to affirm something along the lines of penal substitution. Christ bore the chastisement for our transgressions according to Isaiah. Isaiah seems to have in mind transgression of the spirit of the Law, since he talks in general terms.
LikeLike
Nicholas – yes – Isaiah 53v10 in particular (the other verses are in the passive voice); v10 `it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief’.
LikeLike
Nicholas – after some thought, I’d say that the `substitution’ part of it doesn’t work for me. This is because `substitution’ is morally dubious. If somebody commits a murder, you don’t bang up somebody else in chokey; that would be considered morally wrong.
Somehow, when Christ was undergoing the crucifixion, on our behalf, he reached into the depths of our beings in such a way that we actually participated in it (in some sense).
I think this might basically have been what Anasthasius and that crowd were getting at when they were working out what they understood by the second person of the Trinity, what it meant for him to be fully human.
Of course, however one understand it, the basic core of Christian belief remains the same; I am a sinner. I know that my sin was dealt with in the crucifixion and by the resurrection I know that I have communion with God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What about 1 Peter 3:18?
LikeLike
Well, I don’t see any contradiction here – Christ, the righteous, reached into the very depths of our beings (the unrighteous). The righteous did suffer for the unrighteous.
But in some sense we do have to (somehow) participate in this (in a way that I do not understand). If I were to commit a murder, it would be quite wrong if my granny were to get banged up in prison on my behalf instead of me.
LikeLike