|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Easter Message : Christ did not die for sin
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
That's a headline from today's Sunday Telegraph!
On a Lent talk to be broadcast on Radio 4 on Wednesday, Jeffrey John will be causing controversy again by speaking out against penal substitution.
What on earth the average newspaper reader will make of this story is beyond me, but it does seem regrettable to me to be stirring things up like this at Easter. According to the article the Rt Rev Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham would agree with me: quote:
Bishop Wright criticised the BBC for allowing such a prominent slot to be given to such a provocative argument. "I'm fed up with the BBC for choosing to give privilege to these unfortunate views in Holy Week," he said.
I know we have a wide variety of opinions on PSA (Penal Substitutionary Atonement is what I think it stands for!!) here on board Ship, and I don't want to debate the pro's and con's of different positions (personally I find SA to be a helpful way of looking at the atonement, but not without also encompassing other positions - Christ's sacrifice is bigger than any one 'explanation' I think)... I just wanted to hear what your thoughts were on this apparent desire to bring a theological debate to a secular audience - I just don't understand the point and what he is trying to achieve.
[ 09. August 2007, 23:58: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
At least it looks like good advertising for the BBC Lent talk on Wednesday.
At least the BBC publicity department need not pay for publicity, with journalists in the Torygraph doing their job for them.
I expect that JJ's broadcast will speak of more than just substitutionary atonement. I'm waiting till Wednesday till I comment further.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Once again this is old news to theologians being broadcast as new news by the media (rather like the 'shocking' story of Songs of Praise being pre-recorded).
I did wonder whether the paper decided it would be good April 1 material, the closest thing to a 'silly season' we get before August.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
It says it was last updated on 31/3 so this might not be an April Fools' "news" story.
What I find appalling is this phrase:
quote:
Christian theology has taught that because humans have sinned, God sent Christ as a substitute to suffer and die in our place.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It says it was last updated on 31/3 so this might not be an April Fools' "news" story.
What I find appalling is this phrase:
quote:
Christian theology has taught that because humans have sinned, God sent Christ as a substitute to suffer and die in our place.
Is there something wrong with this?
If you think there is, I take it you will not be singing 'In my place condemned he stood.'
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
I don't know what you people teach in England, but I get disappointed that someone would be ignorant enough to assume that this is the universal* teaching of the Christian Church.
*universal both in time and in space
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Oh, those liberal Orthodox. They don't do penal substitutionary atonement, you know. They don't do 'The Fall' or Original Sin in the same way either.
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I'm inclined to agree with JJ in theological terms, but I don't think this was the time to make such a controversial move. I'm not convinced by PSA, but I really don't think it's a good idea to brand those who are as believing in a "monster".
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Ah yes - one of the non-stipendiary clergy in my congregation has a bone in his throat over the whole substitutionary atonement thing. He stand there *not singing* during quite a large number of the hymns on Sundays.
Describing the alternatives of Penal Substitutionary Atonement might serve as a decent education to Christian laymen (and not a few clergy). Leading with 'Christ did not die for sin' starring Jeffrey Johns, however, seems a little provocative and terribly ill timed.
RR
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Given that penal substituionary atonement (or something like it) is a stickling point for many people outside the Church (it certainly is in my experience; and it is a favourite with atheist polemicists) it seems an excellent idea to point out to people that 'this isn't a necessary part of Christianity'.
The Telegraph has a track record of baiting 'liberalism' in the churches, a phenomenon it consistently mis-identifies. Saying that 'Christ did not die in order to bear the punishment owing to sin' is not saying 'Christ did not die for sin'. Nor, given a rather broader historical overview of Christian thought than is common in contemporary Anglicanism, is non-PSA atonement theory especially 'controversial'. The Bishop of Durham is an excellent biblical scholar. He is no systematician.
[ 01. April 2007, 16:41: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
Wright and Rod are quite wrong in saying that PSA is the fundamental gospel message - it is a perversion of it and there is another thread somewhere that goes into it all.
John is saying nothing that Steve Chalke, a member of the Evangelical Alliance, didn't say some time ago.
PSA puts people off Christianity so John is being more of an evangelist than Wright or Ron..
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
PSA wasn't taught by the church for the first 1500 years of its existence. It isn't believed by the majority of Christians today. Its a way of looking at things which is part of Western Christianity's emphasis on sin, depravity and punishment. Andreas1984 points out that there are other ways of looking at Christ's sacrifice which don't induce such an awful view of a cruel and incompetamt God. I hope the church does rethink its teaching here.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jael
Shipmate
# 99
|
Posted
I'm really glad that Jeffrey John is exploring the meaning of Atonement on the BBC. We hear far too much of Tom Wright who thinks that his views are the only ones allowed. JJ is a competent theologian, so let's hear what he has to say.
I also don't sing the ghastly hymns about SA, but then in my church we're careful enough about the choice of hymns not to have to. PSA is not what the Gospels say about the death of Jesus. He subverted the sacrifical/scapegoat system by dying freely and yet Christianity has reverted to the same old story that God is a nasty and violent patriarch who needs to be appeased by the death of someone. etc etc you've all heard the arguments before. The Gospels are the narrative into which we place ourselves as Christians so that by giving ourselves freely we defeat the powers of violence and oppression and that's what I shall be reflecting on on Good Friday.
Posts: 59 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
I think PSA is grounded in a specific culture and way of thinking (16th century, not 1st century). I think that we need new ways to express the meaning of the cross to our culture.
I need to wait to see how JJ puts his case across before I have a view. If the programme is mainly geared toward slagging off PSA, then I would see that as a largely unhelpful exercise. If the programme is geared toward trying to convey the theological significance of the cross in a different way, then I will applaud it.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
I would like to join the non PSA view, as far as saying that PSA is neither a necessary or even helpful part of christian teaching. But JJ will weaken the case if he over-simplifies, which is what the article implies.
All believers in PSA that I know emphasize that the substitue is God himself, so it's not as if God's picking on some third party scapegoat. OK I find the idea of God as his own "scapegoat" really rather odd, but hardly psychopathic.
[ 01. April 2007, 18:04: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Well, it's not actually God Himself, but the Son of God who gets crucified in the flesh... God's Son alone got crucified; not God.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
OK I find the idea of God as his own "scapegoat" really rather odd, but hardly psychopathic.
Masochism?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Well, it's not actually God Himself, but the Son of God who gets crucified in the flesh... God's Son alone got crucified; not God.
Are you saying Christ is not divine?
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
Well, it's not actually God Himself, but the Son of God who gets crucified in the flesh... God's Son alone got crucified; not God.
Andreas: As you know, you did in the end presuade me that most western christianity is unitarian, seen from the Orthodox viewpoint. And there a thread about this which I recommend to anybody: here .
So to me, it is God who dies, and I take Paul's words about "the church of God which he purchased with his own blood" at face value, but admit that an alternative translation exists. But the point is, that PSA is too often grossly misrepresented so as to imply God went to some third party and decided to punish him instead. That's all. you don't counter a belief unless you present it in its best light.
[fixed link]
[ 02. April 2007, 10:17: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
God went to some third party and decided to punish him instead.
Replace 'God' with 'the Father' and that seems a fairly accurate account to me.
Incidentally, the Telegraph seem to be under the curious misapprehension that Fr John is attacking 'the traditional understanding of the atonement'. How odd.
[ 01. April 2007, 18:50: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
H-m-m-m. I think I should reply, except that I think I shouldn't. It's rude to ignore, but really I think all that needs to be said on this has been said on the thread I cited.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Nightlamp: Of course He is divine. In the Creed we hear about Him in the words "true God from true God". What I was saying is that we are not hearing about Him in the words "We believe in One God"...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Well, it's not actually God Himself, but the Son of God who gets crucified in the flesh... God's Son alone got crucified; not God.
I can't remember what heresy this is - is it docetism? Whatever, it's the idea that only the human part of Jesus suffered while the divine 'Christ' bit sat talking to someone else while it as all going on, or that the Christ left the human Jesus to suffer alone.
Christ became sin for us, took the punishment that was ours and suffered in our place - the PUNISHMENT that bought us peace was upon him and by HIS wounds WE are healed.
I ouldn't give a flying fig for what the church taught - the Bible clearly teaches the theory of PSA - amongst others. And Steve Chalke is not respected by many people for his iews which are an asurd charcaiture of what PSA is. He used the term 'cosmic child abuse' which shows he neither understands PSA nor the doctrines of the trinity, the incarnation nor the atonement.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Well, it's not actually God Himself, but the Son of God who gets crucified in the flesh... God's Son alone got crucified; not God.
I can't remember what heresy this is - is it docetism?
Orthodoxy, assuming that by 'God Himself' in this context, Andreas is following the dominant NT use of 'God' as meaning 'the Father' (Karl Rahner wrote a very good essay on this).
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Actually I think this whole thing is a plot to deal with the threat of schism and unrest in the Church of England by forcing veins to pop in the heads of a few choice evangelicals over at Anglican Mainstream.
RR
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Well, it's not actually God Himself, but the Son of God who gets crucified in the flesh... God's Son alone got crucified; not God.
I can't remember what heresy this is - is it docetism?
Orthodoxy, assuming that by 'God Himself' in this context, Andreas is following the dominant NT use of 'God' as meaning 'the Father' (Karl Rahner wrote a very good essay on this).
But wasn't God in Christ reconciling world to himself? The divine also suffered on the cross otherwise there was no incarnation, merely possession.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
What Divine Outlaw Dwarf said. The scriptures are clear. And so is the Creed. "We believe in one God" refers to the Father.
Also, do check Gregory the Theologian's two excerpts below:
Paragraph XIV in http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xvi.html
and
Paragraph XXII in http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207.iii.xxvii.html
Note the fact that Gregory the Theologian affirms that "But by what He suffered as Man, He as the Word and the Counsellor persuades Him to be patient." and "On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, Who would not receive even Isaac, when he was being offered by his Father, but changed the sacrifice, putting a ram in the place of the human victim?"
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The divine also suffered on the cross otherwise there was no incarnation, merely possession.
'Incarnation' in the Chalcedonian understanding, involves there being no confusion of the natures. God suffers as man on the Cross. But God, qua divine, does not suffer. Your position sounds like
Patripassianism.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
No, the incarntion means that the divine and human natures were united. The Son, being in the form of God, took on the form of a man and it is this incarnate God who suffered on the cross.
This is not the same a the father suffering in the guise of the Son. God the Son suffered which is much more than just Jesus the man which assumes, as the OP says, that the Christ did not suffer for sins.
[ 01. April 2007, 21:39: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Of course one of the Trinity got crucified... The question is why he got crucified... The ecumenical councils say "for us"; the concept of a God who demanded for absolute justice was not a concept they had... On the contrary, their God was one who can forgive for free. No retribution needed. No retribution asked for by God. He offers forgiveness for free.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Of course one of the Trinity got crucified... The question is why he got crucified... The ecumenical councils say "for us"; the concept of a God who demanded for absolute justice was not a concept they had... On the contrary, their God was one who can forgive for free. No retribution needed. No retribution asked for by God. He offers forgiveness for free.
That's how I see it too.
I am perfectly happy that JJ put out that message. Along with Andreas I am especially unhappy when PSA is claimed to be the standard Christian understanding of the cross.
I see the cross as Jesus' last of many battles with hell, from which He emerged victorious, in accord with His words:
quote:
John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be cast out.
When Jesus rose on Easter morning the "ruler of this world" had been defeated and cast out. Not, of course, in a way that anyone would be able to see.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, the incarntion means that the divine and human natures were united. The Son, being in the form of God, took on the form of a man and it is this incarnate God who suffered on the cross.
I can agree with all of that. What I cannot agree with, and your previous posts seem to imply, is that God suffered qua divine. I can assure you that my position is the Chalcedonian one. You might want to reject it nonetheless, of course.
Oh, and on the atonement, what Andreas said.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Salvation is free, atonement is not.
There was a price, a penalty, a ransom to be paid.
God said that without the shedding of blood therteis no remittance of sins.
The artonement had to be by the shedding of innocent blood.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
re: ransom
Mudfrog, do read those two paragraphs by Gregory the Nazianzen...
He asks an interesting question on what "ransom" means...
quote:
We were detained in bondage by the Evil One, sold under sin, and receiving pleasure in exchange for wickedness. Now, since a ransom belongs only to him who holds in bondage, I ask to whom was this offered, and for what cause? If to the Evil One, fie upon the outrage! If the robber receives ransom, not only from God, but a ransom which consists of God Himself, and has such an illustrious payment for his tyranny, a payment for whose sake it would have been right for him to have left us alone altogether. But if to the Father, I ask first, how? For it was not by Him that we were being oppressed; and next, On what principle did the Blood of His Only begotten Son delight the Father, [snip]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, the incarntion means that the divine and human natures were united.
I never took you to be a monophysite. They were united, but they were not combined.
[ 01. April 2007, 22:32: Message edited by: MouseThief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
No, the incarntion means that the divine and human natures were united.
I never took you to be a monophysite. They were united, but they were not combined.
I never said they were combined. I do maintain however that both the divine and the human, still united, were crucified and suffered on the cross.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Jesus himself said that he was giving himself as "a ransom for many." (Mark 10 v 45) We therfore have to deal with this. It is not enough, for example, to say that the theory of atonement began with Origen, nor that because Anselm didn't like it, we therefore have to discard it.
Maybe we ought to realise that when Origen said the ransom was paid to the devil (no wonder Anselm didn't like it, nor Gregory the Nazianzen!) he misrepresented what Jesus meant.
I too would have problems with the idea that the devil received the ransom, but that is not necessarily what Jesus meant. We are not slaves of the devil, but slaves of sin and of the Law which reveals what sin is. It is arguable that without the Law we would not know what sin is and so when Jesus gave his life as a ransom, the ransom was 'paid' to the Law so that we could be freed from sin's accusations and condemnations.
Paul speaks at lngth in Romans 6 about being slaves of sin and of being set free. It is this slavery that is ended with the ransom that Christ paid to the Law. The Law that required blood as a payment received that payment in full and we, who Jesus replaced, are set free, ransomed and redeemed.
If I were to speed in my car today and receive a £60 fine, the money doesn't go to the magistrate or the local Chief Constable, it goes into the treasury in order to satisfy the law. If I were to be bailed for a crime and a judge sets the amount, he doesn't personally get the money, again, it goes into the treasury so that I can go free.
Many arguments against Christian doctrine start from a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the original Biblical thinking. There is too much store placed on church fathers and not enogh placed on the original and plain meaning of Scripture. A careful study of the Bible shows that it interprets itself and the ransom theory is pefectly rational when you take the devil out of the payment scheme and show that it is the Law and the sin that has enslaved us, that we are ransomed from, not the devil.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Mudfrog, leaving aside your dubious scriptural exegesis, is your argument supposed to do anything to convince those of us who simply don't agree with you about how the authority of scripture relates to the authority of the Church?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselm
Shipmate
# 4499
|
Posted
Without entering into the debate over merits of the position...
It strikes me as incredibly insensitive and unnecessarily provocative to give (and broadcast!) such talks in the lead up to Easter.
By all means debate the issue, but to do so in the week before Easter, knowing that it was an understanding significant for a large part of the church, seems almost spiteful.
Not a great foundation for establishing dialogue, or presenting your arguement in a way that gives your 'opposition' the best chance to hear and understand it.
--------------------
carpe diem domini
...seize the day to play dominoes?
Posts: 2544 | From: The Scriptorium | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
Thank you Anselm. Those were the sentiments i was trying to express in the OP, but you said it so much better!
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
It strikes me as incredibly insensitive and unnecessarily provocative to give (and broadcast!) such talks in the lead up to Easter.
As I've said already, there seems perfectly good reason to do this - in order to communicate the Easter gospel effectively we need to respond to popular worries about it. Chief amongst these is PSA. If we are to spout anything other than pietistic drivel in our public Easter communication, we need to engage with this issue. And what better time to do it than Holy Week. I have certainly preached about PSA not being the only show in town during Passiontide. In fact last Sunday I heard an Anglican bishop* do the same.
But the basic point is this: for huge swathes of Christendom, Fr John's views are not 'controversial', 'upsetting' or disturbing to faith. The attempt to paint them as such is indicative of an aggressive and ecclesially imperialistic conservative evangelicism which seems to be ascendent within Anglicanism at the moment. It is sad that Bishop Wright seems to fancy himself as a cheerleader for it.
*A PEV, as it happens, which might suggest that opposition to PSA is not part of some uber-liberal conspiracy.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Low Treason
Shipmate
# 11924
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselm:
It strikes me as incredibly insensitive and unnecessarily provocative to give (and broadcast!) such talks in the lead up to Easter.
By all means debate the issue, but to do so in the week before Easter, knowing that it was an understanding significant for a large part of the church, seems almost spiteful.
What's this? Asking us to examine our beliefs and dogmas about the nature of the crucifixion during Holy Week? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Is outrage!! Why can't they just let us get on with believing what The Experts tell us we ought to believe, then there would be no need for all this nonsense!! ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
He brought me to the banqueting house, and His banner over me was love.
Posts: 1914 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
Oh moi oh moi. So the only thing to do in Holy Week is to present one way of understanding the cross. Doing anything else is being insensitive?! Oh excuse me while I listen to the sound of millions being quiet on behalf of those who get offended by people who have different views.
Nah, Jeffrey John's a star. He's spot on both in what he says and when he's saying it.
Even as a conservatively brought up kid I had problems with this what I later came to call 'this substitution atonement business'. The whole thing of God needing someone to suffer to suit his own system of belief was, even then, alien to me.
Well done Jeffrey John. Those who call him or his views names are in error.
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
I agree with Mudfrog.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The Law was a pedagogue to Christ. It was not the measure of absolute justice... The Law was made for man, not man for the Law... Saying that the ransom was paid to the Law misses focus on what the Law actually is. There is nothing that prevents God from forgiving for free.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Most Moved Mover
Shipmate
# 11673
|
Posted
I'm looking forward to hearing it - it seems to me that this week is precisely the week when we should be discussing this sort of thing.
I also reckon, that PSA is an idea that has increasingly had its day. There is often a delay of a generation or so between an idea becoming popular among those who teach theology and its becoming mainstream in the pews. I know a few people who do teach in what, once upon a time, were solid conservative evangelical colleges who are seriously opposed to PSA and my, admittedly anecdotal, experience would suggest their views are no longer in a minority.
--------------------
www.HOPEHIV.org
Posts: 169 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
...
Many arguments against Christian doctrine start from a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the original Biblical thinking. There is too much store placed on church fathers and not enogh placed on the original and plain meaning of Scripture. A careful study of the Bible shows .....
I cant quite believe the arogance of this post. It does suggest that how **your** read the bible is to understand it accurately but how anyone else does is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding.... including the early church and plenty of denominations today. Has it not occured to you that others think the "Plain meaning" of scripture is not the one that you see?!?!
Arent we lucky to have you, who must somehow have special insight to see a different meaning in scripture to what I/ many theologians/ early church see, here to enlighten us. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) Gah.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
I've always tended to think of PSA as a metaphor - a way of attempting to understand atonement. It's not a metaphor which I find helpful, and not an easy way nowadays for people to approach the cross. It's rather depressing that too many of my fellow evangelicals seem to want to pin down the mechanics of salvation, thereby, IMO, losing something of its mystery.
The BBC have done nothing wrong in hosting such a debate, especially in Holy Week. However, Jeffrey John really should know better. He seems to want to entrench division by insulting proponents of PSA and taking a tilt at strawmen. There are many better, more subtle, and helpful ways of opening up the debate especially when you've been given such a great opportunity by the BBC.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
Right. So if Jesus did not die for our sins, why did he choose to die on the cross and why on Earth would anyone be a Christian? It seems to me that one cannot have it and not have it.
Or did I just miss something....
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
