Thread: Purgatory: At-one-ment. ONLY one? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000768

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
I thought it might be helpful to start this thread, following the er... "exotic" growth on the Ecclesiantics one '"In Christ alone" the wrath of God ' about the Stewart Townend hymn. A lot of tangential debate seemed to swirl there around PSA.

The specific relevance of all this to that thread was the worry that, since Townend seems to be explicit in his intention to make all or most of his hymns refer to Penal Substitutionary Atonement, this rendered it difficult or impossible for people with other views of the atonement to sing it wholeheartedly.

ISTM that the tangents were focusing on whether PSA can ever simply be one among many perspectives on what God was doing in Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection, or whether PSA necessarily claims to be such a complete theory of the atonement that to hold it is to claim that it exhaustively explains what God was/is doing in Christ.

Some of the possible positions seem to be:

1) PSA is the Scriptural doctrine of the atonement. It draws together all the threads exhaustively. Any other perspectives on the atonement are of the nature of poetic or ornamental elaborations of aspects of the story, and can't claim, rival or sustain the status or completeness of PSA.

2) (Relatedly, but not quite the same) Only a PSA doctrine of the atonement deals satisfactorily with the issue of sin.

2) PSA takes up the central strand of sacrifice which runs through both testaments. It's the way in which its advocates principally understand the atonement, but of course there are other valid ways of speaking of it.

3) Sacrifice is certainly a hugely important theme in Scripture, but there are many kinds of sacrifices, and a number of them are explicitly applied to the Christ-event in the NT.

4) There are several overlapping understandings of the atonement: sacrificial, "moral influence", Christus Victor and others. You have to do justice to the theme of sacrifice,but you also have to take into account the rich profusion of ways of talking about what God was/is doing in Jesus Christ, and PSA is reductionist, and effectively excludes other perspectives.

5) PSA is a depiction of a cruel, vindictive and sadistic God who is happy to punish the innocent so that the guilty can arbitrarily go free. This is an obscene distortion of the Christian faith.

Etc. etc. etc.

These are overstatements and simplifications, and are not meant as an accurate or exhaustive classification even of what appeared on the Ecclesiantics thread.

However this is clearly a live topic - there are other open threads on it in Purgatory. The only justification of another (apart from taking the strain off Ecclesiantics) is the specific issue of whether PSA is logically and necessarily an exhaustive treatment of the atonement (that is, you either hold it, in which case you understand all other ways of speaking of atonement as satellites of it - or you don't, because you object to its totalizing claims) or whether something approximating to a rounded Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory can be co-ordinated meaningfully with other developed understandings of atonement.

That's it launched. If it dies, it dies...

[ 05. November 2010, 00:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 

---

Posted by PhilA (# 8792) on :
 
If there is a theory of atonement that is The™ actual one, then we are too far removed from it to know it.

Any and all theories of atonement must be Biblical in origin because that is the only source of the narrative of the atonement story we have. It could be argued - quite successfully - that the entire Bible is the atonement narrative.

I personally find PSA to be unhelpful because it raises more questions than it answers, but I wouldn't go as far as to say its untrue. I personally find Christus Victor to be more helpful, but again, I find it an atonement theory I can wrap my head around and it be internally sensible. But just because I understand it doesn't mean I think it more true than any other, it just makes more sense to me.

I find the idea of being able to fully understand God and his ways to be unbiblical and bordering on blasphemous. I am quite happy with the 'many different paths' approach and think the discussions are purely academic rather than truth gaining.
 

---

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

2) PSA takes up the central strand of sacrifice which runs through both testaments. It's the way in which its advocates principally understand the atonement, but of course there are other valid ways of speaking of it.

3) Sacrifice is certainly a hugely important theme in Scripture, but there are many kinds of sacrifices, and a number of them are explicitly applied to the Christ-event in the NT.

---

quote:

---

I welcome the obvious corollary of that, that you feel able to work with other models of atonement.

---

quote:

---

Not sure if I would agree with that. Is God cruel, vindictive and sadistic? Or is he just the ultimate sovereign? These are knotty issues, and I don't think they're easily solved by turning Christianity into a "fluffy bunny" religion, which bangs on about how much "God is love" but is a million miles removed from the reality of everyday suffering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
It's not the passing of sin from one party to another that makes the sacrifice "substitutionary". The thing that makes it substitutionary is simply that one guy has died for some other guy's benefit; nothing more than that.

---

quote:

---

On a slightly different note and to carry something over from the other thread, you (Psyduck) said that

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I welcome the obvious corollary of that, that you feel able to work with other models of atonement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

which implies that you thought I was some sort of exclusivist fundie beforehand, no? I feel like I've been guilty until proven innocent, especially since I've never said anything to imply I'm an exclusivist, since I'm not.

Be very careful of interpreting people's words in the least charitable fashion. That way lie reds under the beds. I'm afraid all this is part of my little Mickey Mouse psych model that Seeker rubished other the other thread - you see PSA exclusivism everywhere because you want to see it and because it gets talked up.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
I go for the one first espoused by Peter Abelard. Its is that the Cross is a demonstration of an amazing love which will not cease to love even when crucified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The thing is whether the gospel is transfomative in that it actually alters one's basis of existence, or whether it is actually about Jesus as an example for believers to emulate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

But I don't want to divert from the central point that PSA is necessarily an all-or-nothing perspective, unlike the others.

---

quote:

---

For example, your own rejection of PSA centres on the model of the atonement ("modified moral influence") that you have chosen to adopt.

---

quote:

---

The terrible things that happened to Jesus at the end of his life were the result of human actions. They were not engineered by God. If we believe that God would do such a thing we end up worshiping a god who is nothing less than a heartless monster.

---

quote:

---

Jonathan is a heretic who, while taking the name of Christ, leads people to hell. So I am pleased that he may no longer have a pulpit from which to spew lies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Leprechaun:

quote:

---

For example, your own rejection of PSA centres on the model of the atonement ("modified moral influence") that you have chosen to adopt.

---

Actually, no. The moral influence model isn't really a model at all. It simply predicates everything on the incarnation of God - as does PSA. However, in PSA the real function of the incarnation is to guarantee the eternal worth of the atoning sacrifice as payment for sin. In a moral influence perspective, the whole articulation of the being of God in Jesus Christ, his Word, is recognized. Also, moral influence allows a full exploration of all the sacrificial themes of Scripture, and the other perspectives on atonement found there. It doesn't organize by excluding.

---

quote:

---

Curiosity killed quoted ...
The terrible things that happened to Jesus at the end of his life were the result of human actions. They were not engineered by God. If we believe that God would do such a thing we end up worshiping a god who is nothing less than a heartless monster.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Wrong. You can do something for somebody else's benefit without substituting for them. If I buy a bike for my son, that is for his benefit, but I'm not substituting for him in any way. This is one of the chief logical errors made by the PSA folks. They take all the language in Scripture in which Christ's death is for our benefit and twist it to mean that it is in our stead. The two are patently not the same thing. I'm amazed you fell into this trap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I charge you that your approach is, in fact, rather exclusivist!

---

quote:

---

I appreciate the honesty of Starlight and psyduck here - they are being clear about their desire to remove PSA from orthodox Christianity.

These discussions always begin with a complaint that PSA is exclusionist and they always end with the clear desire to exclude PSA.

---

I have no "desire to remove PSA from orthodox Christianity." Actually that post isn't just a bit disingenuous - it conflates sacrificial language and the perception of the reality of sin with PSA as things "we" want to get rid of - it's a dead giveaway! What "we" want, ISTM - and it's certainly what I want - is to give the whole rich sacrificial language and conceptuality its due place in the exposition of what God was doing with Christ. What you are saying here, albeit in a disguised fashion, from my POV, is that a theory which abstracts selectively from Scripture and constructs an exclusive rationale for the crucifixion is to be admitted on its own terms - which, we argue, start with the sufficiency of PSA as a theory of the atonement. "We've" begun to state the case - but ("as usual" ) what we get back are liminally personal recriminations that we're so nasty and unfair to PSA advocates and their theory - with the added innuendo no doubt in the mail that as liberals, we're being hypocritical in demanding freedom of expression for everybody but conservatives! There - I concede you aren't saying that (though I caught a whiff of implication, I thought) but I thought I'd head this off at the pass.

Just state how one can hold a full PSA theory and grant the full validity of other approaches, and we've got a debate.
 

---

Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
Hi Psyduck - thanks for starting this thread. How different atonement models can be related together is an interesting question, and the ever-controversial PSA model is a particularly tricky example.

I believe both that PSA is essential to a proper understanding of the Cross, and also that many other atonement models are essential to a full and rounded understanding of Jesus' death and resurrection.

I can understand to a point why you say that "PSA is necessarily an all-or-nothing perspective, unlike the others", because I believe that PSA gives a unifying basis from which to relate other models of the atonement to each other.

You might see this as exclusivist, but I don't think it is. There's a difference between PSA excluding other models, and PSA affecting the interpretation of other models.

Because I believe in PSA as a model of the atonement, my understandings of Christus Victor, Moral Example and so on are modified as I bring them into relationship with each other - but that goes the other way too. Other models deepen and inform my understanding of PSA - they complement each other.

You seem to me to have made two contradictory arguments against PSA. On the one hand you claim that PSA doesn't leave anything for any other perspective to account for:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
If you believe that that is what's really happening on the cross, then what's left for any other perspective on the atonement to acount for?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
The moral influence model isn't really a model at all. It simply predicates everything on the incarnation of God - as does PSA. However, in PSA the real function of the incarnation is to guarantee the eternal worth of the atoning sacrifice as payment for sin. In a moral influence perspective, the whole articulation of the being of God in Jesus Christ, his Word, is recognized. Also, moral influence allows a full exploration of all the sacrificial themes of Scripture, and the other perspectives on atonement found there. It doesn't organize by excluding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
I think of Moltmann's view of the Trinity, which, far from seeing God the Father as the just All-Holy whose wrath needs to be appeased by sacrifice, sees God, Father, Son and Spirit united in the sundering event of the cross. In the death of Christ, all pain and suffering is taken into the heart of God. This view of atonement rightly (in my view) points out that salvation is not just achieved by the death of the Son, but is the achievement of the Trinity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
Or take another view, that of James Allison (albeit that this is a modified and in some ways revisionist view of PSA). That Jesus' (self-sacrificial) death was the sacrifice to end all sacrifices, and that far from God needing to be appeased, it is the brokenness of sinful society which demands a scapegoat which needs to be appeased. He is therefore OUR sacrifice.

---

quote:

---

The terrible things that happened to Jesus at the end of his life were the result of human actions. They were not engineered by God. If we believe that God would do such a thing we end up worshiping a god who is nothing less than a heartless monster.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
As example is John Stott in his book The Cross of Christ. He adopts PSA as his overall model of that atonement. He then points out that a person holding PSA can affirm that Christ defeated the devil, or that that love of God was demonstrated in the atonement. He tries to convince the reader that to affirm such statements is the same as also holding the atonement models of Christus Victor and Moral Exemplar. His view then is that anyone who affirms PSA automatically gets CV and ME thrown in for free too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
My own position is a modification of "moral influence," understanding it as centred on the incarnation, and the question "How would the coming of God in incarnate fullness necessarily play out in a universe like this?" I completely agree that when you set the scope of atonement this broadly, you can co-ordinate all the scriptural perspectives on and insights into what God is doing in Christ, including the sacrificial ones, and deal completely with all the crucial issues, including human sinfulness.

I also think it's very enlightening to contemplate the attitude of Duns Scotus, developed by the Franciscan tradition, that the incarnation would have happened anyway, had there been no fall, as I understand it because the Son would have offered the Father the fulness of incarnate worship anyway, and also because God would always have revealed himself in love to his creation in this incarnate way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
These discussions always begin with a complaint that PSA is exclusionist and they always end with the clear desire to exclude PSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the Revolutionist:
Because I believe in PSA as a model of the atonement, my understandings of Christus Victor, Moral Example and so on are modified as I bring them into relationship with each other - but that goes the other way too. Other models deepen and inform my understanding of PSA - they complement each other.

---

quote:

---

I must say I find it rather funny that those on the more conservative end of the theological spectrum seem happier to accept insights from other atonement models, whereas people who reject PSA are very "all or nothing" about it!

---

quote:

---

I must say I find it rather funny that those on the more conservative end of the theological spectrum seem happier to accept insights from other atonement models, whereas people who reject PSA are very "all or nothing" about it!

---

Well, that's rather the point! "Accepting insights" from other perspectives on the incarnation is a bit like "accepting insights" from, say, contemporary culture. Jesus is the vanquisher of the forces that hold us captive, Jesus is the revelation of God's love, Jesus is the captain of the team, Jesus is the pilot of the ship, Jesus is the truthful newsreader, Jesus is the leader of my gang...

The point which still isn't getting addressed here is the charge that PSA must necessarily present itself as the only real understanding of the atonement, and it has to do this by reducing other understandings - including a complexified sacrificial understanding - to illustrative material that you can "accept insights" from.

What's fascinating, with respect, is that people who say that they are PSA adherents just don't seem to see this, and the reason seems to be that they consistently conflate PSA and sacrificial perspectives - or they conflate PSA with the issue of "having to deal satisfactorily with sin."

It's in some ways analogous to the arguments that used to rage around the respective validity of Anglican and Presbyterian orders in Scottish ecumenical debate bck in the 60s. The Anglicans would speak of each side receiving something from the other in the proposed rapprochement - but without giving up the insistence on the validity of Anglican orders and the implication of the invalidity of Presbyterian ones.

Prof. Ian Henderson characterized this perception as like two lifeboats meeting in the sea after a shipwreck, one with two barrels of water, and one with two gramophones. After the meeting, each lifeboat would have a barrel of water and a lifeboat. But it was obvious who had given the vital thing to the other and who had just enhanced the onboard entertainment.

The advocates of PSA do sound a lot to me like people saying "Have our life-giving water - we insist! And of course we respect your lovely little gramophones..."
 

---

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Thankyou Psyduck for your last four posts. Until those, I also felt that all I'd got was assertions that PSA was exclusive, which I couldn't engage with further than to simply deny. So, to engage...

I think there's a lot of sloppy wording on this thread. Do we see models/theories of atonement as theories or as models, or even as metaphors?

Theory: A proposed explanation of a mechanism functions. Once explained and proven/accepted, no further explanation is necessary.
Model: A simplified explanation of a phenomenon, describing one aspect of how it works.
Metaphor: An implied comparison with something else to give an idea of how the phenomenon in question works, because its function is similar to the more familiar example in the metaphor.

If we're talking about theories of atonement here, of course PSA is exclusive because all the other theories are exclusive as well. Just as (neo)Darwinism excludes Lamarckism, so would Lamarckism have excluded Darwinism had the former turned out to be true. That's not the fault of either theory, it's how logic works.

If, on the other hand, we take them as models, we can run explanations parallel to each other. Each is a simplified description of one or more aspect(s) the full atonement, which stands as what it is and is not confined within any of the models. Did Jesus pay for our in on the cross? Yes he did. Did he conquer death? Yes he did. Did he provide us with an example to follow? Yes he did. Did he come down from God to man, living with us, sharing our sorrows and bridging the gap downwards in a way that we couldn't achieve upwards? Yes he did, and none of these contradict any of the others. My work is in modelling, I can run any number of models of a situation and their results don't invalidate the other models' results but they can they inform them and give me extra insight into the phenomenon under test.

So, which is it to be? Is PSA a complete description, a theory, in which case all the other theories are also complete descriptions with no room for manoeuvre? Or is it a model, an incomplete description, in which case it can't invalidate another description as that would be outside its competence?

[X post - make that your last FIVE posts]

[ 25. June 2010, 11:48: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Can PSA be completely consistent with a full, orthodox Trinitarian view of the Godhead? ...A Chalcedonian understanding of the Incarnation to me seems to make PSA rather nonsensical

---

quote:

---

I think there's a lot of sloppy wording on this thread. Do we see models/theories of atonement as theories or as models, or even as metaphors?

Theory: A proposed explanation of a mechanism functions. Once explained and proven/accepted, no further explanation is necessary.
Model: A simplified explanation of a phenomenon, describing one aspect of how it works.
Metaphor: An implied comparison with something else to give an idea of how the phenomenon in question works, because its function is similar to the more familiar example in the metaphor.

---

quote:

---

whether PSA necessarily claims to be such a complete theory of the atonement that to hold it is to claim that it exhaustively explains what God was/is doing in Christ.

---

quote:

---

whether something approximating to a rounded Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory can be co-ordinated meaningfully with other developed understandings of atonement.

---

quote:

---

PSA is a theory of the atonement which by its own internal logic cannot but claim to be complete in itself,

---

quote:

---

a theory which abstracts selectively from Scripture and constructs an exclusive rationale for the crucifixion

---

quote:

---

the sufficiency of PSA as a theory of the atonement.

---

quote:

---

what we get back are liminally personal recriminations that we're so nasty and unfair to PSA advocates and their theory

---

quote:

---

Just state how one can hold a full PSA theory and grant the full validity of other approaches, and we've got a debate.

---

quote:

---

So, which is it to be? Is PSA a complete description, a theory, in which case all the other theories are also complete descriptions with no room for manoeuvre? Or is it a model, an incomplete description, in which case it can't invalidate another description as that would be outside its competence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seasick:
But the Chalcedonian definitions are what they are: they are the faith of the church. If - for whatever reason - PSA doesn't fit with them, then the problem is with PSA not with Chalcedon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:


As to the question of where the idea that 'Christ died for us' should re rendered as 'Christ died in our place' came from in the first place - I see that no one has taken up my offer in kergy to look closely at Isaiah 53.

---

quote:

---

I don't understand this discussion then. Not only are you now claiming that the model you have adopted isn't even a model, merely self evident truth based on believing the incarnation, but now you claim it is the only model that allows a full exploration of Scripture. I charge you that your approach is, in fact, rather exclusivist!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
The Revolutionist:

quote:

---

I must say I find it rather funny that those on the more conservative end of the theological spectrum seem happier to accept insights from other atonement models, whereas people who reject PSA are very "all or nothing" about it!

---

Well, that's rather the point! "Accepting insights" from other perspectives on the incarnation is a bit like "accepting insights" from, say, contemporary culture. Jesus is the vanquisher of the forces that hold us captive, Jesus is the revelation of God's love, Jesus is the captain of the team, Jesus is the pilot of the ship, Jesus is the truthful newsreader, Jesus is the leader of my gang...

The point which still isn't getting addressed here is the charge that PSA must necessarily present itself as the only real understanding of the atonement, and it has to do this by reducing other understandings - including a complexified sacrificial understanding - to illustrative material that you can "accept insights" from.

---

quote:

---

Well, I find conservatives are happy to add phrases to their list of things Jesus did but not to add ideas. So a conservative PSA advocate is happy to add the phrase "Christ defeated the devil" to his creed, and feels piously happy at gaining yet another way of speaking of Christ's penal substitutionary atonement. But the conservative PSA advocate will refuse to add the idea behind that phrase - they will not, for example, adopt the belief that after Christ died on the cross he entered hades with an army of angels and fought the legions of the devil and defeated them. They will instead use the idea of PSA as their theological explanation for why the new phrase "Christ defeated the devil" is true - they will say that Christ taking the punishment for sin frees the believers' conscience and thus they can no longer be taunted by the devil (or somesuch). Thus they will adopt a new atonement-phrase and tie it into PSA but will reject new atonement-ideas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Leprechaun:

quote:

---

I don't understand this discussion then. Not only are you now claiming that the model you have adopted isn't even a model, merely self evident truth based on believing the incarnation, but now you claim it is the only model that allows a full exploration of Scripture. I charge you that your approach is, in fact, rather exclusivist!

---

Hang on! I've never used the word "model" on this thread at all, except to deny that my version of "moral influence" is a model - to complete my thought, I would call it a "perspective" which is consistent with my usage elsewhere.

---

Which totally misses the point. You are using your "perspective" to rule out alternative "perspectives" with which it conflicts. Which is all any PSA advocate is doing.

Really, this does just seem to boil down to "wa wa wa, evangelicals do what we all do, but in an infuriatingly evangelical way."
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Interesting.

It never occurred to me to question PSA one iota during my full-on evangelical/charismatic phase ... which lasted around two decades.

I found John Stott's 'The Cross of Christ' utterly convincing when I first read it and, in fairness, it did help me over and away from some of the more grotesque language and imagery used by PSA advocates in popular worship and evangelism.

I was aware of Christus Victor and aware that many charismatics had moved more towards this position than the full-on evangelical PSA one. In my more Reformed, Calvinistic moments, I felt they'd moved too far away from what I took to be the central scriptural model of the atonement.

Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones doubted that C S Lewis was truly 'saved' as Lewis was squeamish about PSA and not rigorously wedded to any particular atonement model.

I wouldn't have gone as far as that.

If I'm honest, I am reluctant to abandon PSA wholesale ... such is its power as a shibboleth. Sure, I can see the pitfalls, particularly in popular sound-bite evangelism and dumbed down contemporary worship. I don't know why this should be. If I shrugged it off completely I'd either feel intensely liberated or else some sense of loss.

It's funny, peculiar, but there it is.

I'm sort of post-evangelical (pre-catholic? ) these days but the whole evangelical thing is part of the warp and woof of where I've come from. So even though I feel increasingly alienated from much evangelical worship and discourse, I retain elements of its ethos.

If my memory serves me correctly, Stott was effectively saying, 'all these other models are fine as far as they go and contain much truth, but the main point is that God in Christ was reconciling the world to himself and the means with which he did that was through a penal substitutionary sacrifice of God the Son.'

So, yes, that does sound pretty exclusivist. I suppose, to mix metaphors, he's not so much saying that PSA is 'first among equals' but much more than that ...
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
And this is all that seems to come back:

quote:

---

You are using your "perspective" to rule out alternative "perspectives" with which it conflicts. Which is all any PSA advocate is doing.

Really, this does just seem to boil down to "wa wa wa, evangelicals do what we all do, but in an infuriatingly evangelical way."

---

quote:

---

Really, this does just seem to boil down to "wa wa wa, evangelicals do what we all do, but in an infuriatingly evangelical way."

---

Did you mean to make PSA a touchstone of evangelicalism?

And FWIW, I'm not only delighted when evangelicals do things "our way", it often delights me to see evangelical influence disseminated through other traditions.
 

---

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Psyduck, this 'PSA' thing you keep talking about is starting to confuse me. You (and LSV and seasick) have given a very pedantic, tightly defined account of PSA that according to you is exclusive of any other model of atonement, then asked people to disprove this. Your 'PSA' is, however, not the penal substitution that I know. Whenever people who believe in PSA have told you that's not what they believe and set out why that's the case, you've come back and said that's not really PSA.

I'm afraid that's not how this works. PSA is arguably 'that which is believed by people who believe in PSA'. The believership gets to define PSA, not you. You may say that PSA is automatically exclusive but if a goodly proportion of its believers (all of the ones on this thread, for instance) don't treat it as exclusive, it's not. I'm afraid I don't see that it matters very much whether it's exclusive when held to the theoretical principles of Psyduck, what matters is whether Lep, The Rev. et al treat it as automatically exclusive. It is noticeable, once again, that PSA is being defined a lot more tightly by people who don't believe in it, which begs the question of why eg. LSV seems so desperately want to make it seem heretical. Does someone want to get rid of it, by any chance?

The sloppy language thing wasn't aimed at you by the way, I saw the two words being used interchangeably elsewhere on the thread.

That's all from me, I'm off for the weekend.

[X posted with Psyduck's last post]

[ 25. June 2010, 14:44: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

I'm afraid that's not how this works. PSA is arguably 'that which is believed by people who believe in PSA'. The believership gets to define PSA, not you. You may say that PSA is automatically exclusive but if a goodly proportion of its believers (all of the ones on this thread, for instance) don't treat it as exclusive, it's not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If I'm honest, I am reluctant to abandon PSA wholesale ... such is its power as a shibboleth. Sure, I can see the pitfalls, particularly in popular sound-bite evangelism and dumbed down contemporary worship. I don't know why this should be. If I shrugged it off completely I'd either feel intensely liberated or else some sense of loss.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
ISTM that PSA claims the following:
1) That there is a certain moral situation in the universe, created by two things:
a) Humankind's participation in a guilt incurred by an original act of rebellion, and necessarily reinforced by each individual's participation in that act of rebellion, against God's will, and
b) God's inability to overlook or mitigate the punishment for this rebellion without being untrue to his divine nature and the inexorable demands of his holiness and goodness.

2) The logic of 1a and 1b above lead to the prescription of a particular penalty. This is often described as death, though in fact it is physical death from the created universe followed by separation from God in Hell.

3) 1 and 2 above contribute to a situation in which God wills two contradictory things - the punishment and salvation of humanity.

4) The resolution of this impasse is that God's Son should undertake to be born into a humanity untainted by 1a, and should, undeservingly but freely, take upon himself the guilt of 1a and the punishment specified in 2 above.

And my point is this. If you believe that that is what's really happening on the cross, then what's left for any other perspective on the atonement to acount for?

---

quote:

---

ISTM that PSA claims the following:
1) That there is a certain moral situation in the universe, created by two things:
a) Humankind's participation in a guilt incurred by an original act of rebellion, and necessarily reinforced by each individual's participation in that act of rebellion, against God's will, and
b) God's inability to overlook or mitigate the punishment for this rebellion without being untrue to his divine nature and the inexorable demands of his holiness and goodness.

---

quote:

---

PSA is arguably 'that which is believed by people who believe in PSA'. The believership gets to define PSA, not you.

---

quote:

---

The first point I'd make is that this only make sense if the doctrinal basics - trinity, incarnation and so on are in place.

A low Christology leads to the problem of "cosmic child abuse", whereas a trinitarian understanding of PSA sees Jesus' death as a willing self-sacrifice, with Father, Son and Spirit working together to redeem the world.

On the other hand, neglect Jesus' full humanity, and it doesn't make sense how he can stand in our place as our representative. It is by being fully human, by being the new Adam, that he is able to die in our place on the Cross.

The second point is that PSA focuses on our standing before God, our relationship with him. But the Cross wasn't just about the forgiveness of individual souls, but a whole bunch of other stuff too that PSA doesn't directly deal with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Seems to me that, apart from the idea of appeasing a wrathful God etc, the PSA breaks down on a simple fact.

Guilt cannot be transferred. It can only be forgiven.

And the Cross, to my mind, shows what it cost God to offer us a free forgiveness.

---

quote:

---

Guilt cannot be transferred. It can only be forgiven.

---

quote:

---

You can do something for somebody else's benefit without substituting for them. If I buy a bike for my son, that is for his benefit, but I'm not substituting for him in any way.

---

quote:

---

a) Humankind's participation in a guilt incurred by an original act of rebellion, and necessarily reinforced by each individual's participation in that act of rebellion, against God's will, and
b) God's inability to overlook or mitigate the punishment for this rebellion without being untrue to his divine nature and the inexorable demands of his holiness and goodness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If my memory serves me correctly, Stott was effectively saying, 'all these other models are fine as far as they go and contain much truth, but the main point is that God in Christ was reconciling the world to himself and the means with which he did that was through a penal substitutionary sacrifice of God the Son.'

---

quote:

---

In Part Three we looked beyond the cross itself to its consequences, indeed its achievement in three spheres: the salvation of sinners, the revelation of God and the conquest of evil. As for salvation, we studied the four words 'propitiation', 'redemption', 'justification' and 'reconciliation'. These are New Testament 'images', metaphors of what God has done in and through Christ's death. 'Substitution', however is not another image; it is the reality which lies behind them all. We then saw (chapter 8) that has fully and finally revealed his love and justice by exercising them in the cross. When substitution is denied, God's self-disclosure is obscured, but when it is affirmed, his glory shines forth brightly. Having thus far concentrated on the cross as both objective achievement (salvation from sin) and subjective influence (through the revelation of holy love), we agreed that Christus Victor is a third biblical theme, which depicts Christ's victory over the devil, the law, the flesh, the world and death, and our victory through him (chapter 9).*

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
God's inability to overlook or mitigate the punishment for this rebellion without being untrue to his divine nature and the inexorable demands of his holiness and goodness.

This is the premise I reject. I think the idea of God having to punish somebody in order to forgive is out of keeping with the spirit of the New Testament. I don't think God "punished" the animals in the OT sacrifices. So the idea of them being a substitution is fallacious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
It's not the passing of sin from one party to another that makes the sacrifice "substitutionary". The thing that makes it substitutionary is simply that one guy has died for some other guy's benefit; nothing more than that.

---

Wrong. You can do something for somebody else's benefit without substituting for them. If I buy a bike for my son, that is for his benefit, but I'm not substituting for him in any way. This is one of the chief logical errors made by the PSA folks. They take all the language in Scripture in which Christ's death is for our benefit and twist it to mean that it is in our stead. The two are patently not the same thing. I'm amazed you fell into this trap.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
We see in the different models of the atonement different aspects of Christ's threefold ministry of Prophet, Priest and King reflected. PSA mainly describes his role as priest, but not so much prophet and king.

Christus Victor tells of the cosmic impact of the Cross - that Jesus defeated Satan, death, and evil. If you only had PSA as a model, then you could believe we'll be zapped off to heaven while creation goes to hell in a handcart, but CV tells us that "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of the Lord and of his Christ" (Rev 11:15). This describes the kingly aspect of Christ's death and resurrection.

Scapegoating theories of the atonement, such as that proposed by Girard, show the social impact of the Cross, that it is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices and exposes the cycle of violence and scapegoating in society. This reflects both on Christ's priestly role and his prophetic role.

Moral Exemplar tells of the ongoing impact of the Cross on believers lives. PSA tells us how we are forgiven, while Moral Exemplar shows us how our lives should be transformed. This reflects the prophetic aspect of the Atonement once more.

Other aspects that could be expanded on would be the idea of Union with Christ and also of the Resurrection, which aren't developed in detail by PSA, but are necessary for a full understanding of the Atonement.

---

quote:

---

On the antinomian thing, there is a strand within certain more 'Reformed' evangelical circles that suggests that if one hasn't strayed close to antinomianism in one's presentation of the Gospel, one hasn't presented the Gospel properly at all. I've heard this preached and the Apostle Paul cited as having done just that himself.

---

quote:

---

Christus Victor tells of the cosmic impact of the Cross - that Jesus defeated Satan, death, and evil. If you only had PSA as a model, then you could believe we'll be zapped off to heaven while creation goes to hell in a handcart, but CV tells us that "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of the Lord and of his Christ" (Rev 11:15). This describes the kingly aspect of Christ's death and resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I personally don't have any problem with PSA as a theory being exclusionist. I would say my own Moral Transformation view of the atonement is exclusionist. The truth is often exclusionist. It is kind of annoying however when advocates of PSA are exclusionist toward other people - ie it is unpleasant when they try to exclude me for not conforming to their beliefs.

---

So your problem with advocates of PSA is that they are consistent? Surely our beliefs are supposed to impact our behaviour?

"If only the followers of Jesus were more hypocritical then the world would be a better place."
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I offered but you didn't respond.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
heaven knows I'm no fan of PSA, but I do think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The most common meaning of substitution is that you accomplish something for somebody else that they could not do for themself.

---

quote:

---

Thus, a substitute is sent on to a soccer pitch when an existing player is injured, so that he can do what the injured player cannot do.

---

quote:

---

In that sense, Christ's death is, I would argue, sunstiturionary, since He accomplishes that which we cannot do, that is, in dying He defeats death.

---

quote:

---

He does indeed die in our place, since His death is efficatious in a way in which ours could never be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I offered but you didn't respond.

---

Sorry Leo I must have missed it.

I bumped the Isaiah 53 thread with a question two weeks ago and then PMed you for your comments. You haven't replied to these at all.

Or have I missed something?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Look in your mail box. The stuff was too long to post here.

---

quote:

---

Thanks for sharing that. You seem to be a prime example of someone who holds PSA as one among many models/theories of the atonement. I think that answers Psyduck's original question: It is possible to hold PSA non-exclusively.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist: We see in the different models of the atonement different aspects of Christ's threefold ministry of Prophet, Priest and King reflected. PSA mainly describes his role as priest, but not so much prophet and king.… The first point I'd make is that this only make sense if the doctrinal basics - trinity, incarnation and so on are in place.

---

quote:

---

A low Christology leads to the problem of "cosmic child abuse", whereas a trinitarian understanding of PSA sees Jesus' death as a willing self-sacrifice, with Father, Son and Spirit working together to redeem the world.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, neglect Jesus' full humanity, and it doesn't make sense how he can stand in our place as our representative. It is by being fully human, by being the new Adam, that he is able to die in our place on the Cross.

---

Absolutely. But Jesus being fully human for the purposes of PSA really means no more than a battery being fully charged, or a gold ring being fully gold. The other things about Jesus being fully human - like his capacity to understand our humanity, so stressed in Hebrews, or our oneness in his humanity so stressed by Bonhoeffer, are like nice collateral gains, bonuses which come our way accidentally. They are not materially relevant to the Atonement.
Further, the impulse for the incarnation is derived directly from the Fall – but the Fall understood according to a definition which is internal to PSA. Heck, Anselm even called his book Cur Deus Homo? ("Why did God become Man?") The incarnation is part of the solution of a problem which is defined exclusively by PSA. QED!

The point about PSA being a synthesis is vital, too. It's a fusion of the courtroom and the altar. Mousethief already made the point that animals being sacrificed aren't being punished. Jesus, in Hebrews, isn't being punished - he's the great High Priest offering the once-for-all sacrifice for our sin. By fusing - which very specifically isn't respecting the autonomy of - the themes of sacrifice, and of vicarious punishment found in Is 53, that you get to a sacrifice-punishment effected in/on a courtroom-altar which is simultaneously a green hill far away, that you get to PSA. (Again, Jesus the victim, but not really the priest.)

The early Church dwelt on all these themes as it struggled with the truth of the coming of the Saviour and his crucifixion. What it didn't do was make all the ingredients into a pizza, market it, and put Penal Substitutionary Atonement on the box lid. And trademark it! It’s an exclusive recipe! QED!

But look at The Revolutionist's post. It takes Biblical themes, treats them separately and with individual emphasis and respect. I know Calvin was capable of doing this as an expositor. But as a theorist of Atonement, that isn't how it works with him. And of course I'm not accusing Calvin of theological incompetence. He knew what he was doing, and thought it was legitimate. Atonement is the penal substitutionary act of Christ on the Cross.

Which is fair enough, but what it means is that you become completely liable for all the defects and moral and logical problems of PSA - which in the end only get solved by saying something like "God is God, and whatever God does, is moral, right and just."

(And I'm very clear that The Revolutionist isn't saying that!)

quote:

---

Another point is that PSA focuses on our standing before God, our relationship with him. But the Cross wasn't just about the forgiveness of individual souls, but a whole bunch of other stuff too that PSA doesn't directly deal with.

---

quote:

---

Christus Victor tells of the cosmic impact of the Cross - that Jesus defeated Satan, death, and evil. If you only had PSA as a model, then you could believe we'll be zapped off to heaven while creation goes to hell in a handcart, but CV tells us that "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of the Lord and of his Christ" (Rev 11:15). This describes the kingly aspect of Christ's death and resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Scapegoating theories of the atonement, such as that proposed by Girard, show the social impact of the Cross, that it is the sacrifice to end all sacrifices and exposes the cycle of violence and scapegoating in society. This reflects both on Christ's priestly role and his prophetic role.

---

quote:

---

Moral Exemplar tells of the ongoing impact of the Cross on believers lives. PSA tells us how we are forgiven, while Moral Exemplar shows us how our lives should be transformed. This reflects the prophetic aspect of the Atonement once more.

---

quote:

---

Other aspects that could be expanded on would be the idea of Union with Christ and also of the Resurrection, which aren't developed in detail by PSA, but are necessary for a full understanding of the Atonement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Further, the impulse for the incarnation is derived directly from the Fall

---

quote:

---

Further, the impulse for the incarnation is derived directly from the Fall

---

quote:

---

I also think it's very enlightening to contemplate the attitude of Duns Scotus, developed by the Franciscan tradition, that the incarnation would have happened anyway, had there been no fall, as I understand it because the Son would have offered the Father the fulness of incarnate worship anyway, and also because God would always have revealed himself in love to his creation in this incarnate way.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

heaven knows I'm no fan of PSA, but I do think you're barking up the wrong tree here. The most common meaning of substitution is that you accomplish something for somebody else that they could not do for themself.

---

That's just not how the word is used in everyday life, nor is it the dictionary definition -- MW gives "a person or thing that takes the place or function of another". Dictionary.com says "a person or thing acting or serving in place of another" and "one that takes the place of another."

---

quote:

---

Again, PSA is seen as implicated in a narowing western focus on the fall as the objective guilt of sin, which must be removed to avert divine wrath.

---

quote:

---

PSA is the specific solution chosen by God for providing forgiveness of sin,

---

quote:

---

So yes, Moral Exemplar is the the main platform of his manifesto. PSA is just one plank (albeit an important plank) of the many planks that constitute that platform.

---

Not juggling with words, honestly.

[ 26. June 2010, 19:58: Message edited by: Psyduck ]
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Put it this way. Is this fair?
1) If you hold PSA, whatever else you believe it's important to say about Jesus, PSA is indispensable, because it is the way God deals with sin.

2) Therefore, if you believe in PSA you are committed to believing that people who don't believe in it are missing the point - the point - about what Jesus was all about in terms of our relationship with God.

I'm not trying to entrap anyone, but I don't see how this can be avoided.
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
In reductionist terms, I see

1. Not depending on God as leading to bad consequences.

2. Depending on God as having good consequences.

Sin and alienation are an expression of that bad consequence, just as pain, hunger and death are expressions of the bad consequences.

That's why I see PSA as secondary to exemplar.

God uses Christ like he used mud and spittle.

Just another cure...

[ 26. June 2010, 20:23: Message edited by: footwasher ]
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
Maybe I'm not seeing the problem. Will sleep on it!

Thanks for fleshing out the inbuit contradiction I may have made in my proposed solution. I agree it is a possibility and could have been avoided by a better wording of my understanding. Your explanation of the problem may sink in in the morning!

G'night.

[ 26. June 2010, 21:12: Message edited by: footwasher ]
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Sleep well!
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
I think what The Revolutionist is outlining is not a PSA understanding of the Atonement, but a balanced, rounded, personally-held evangelical theology with an emphasis on sacrificial themes,and that (in common with many evangelicals) he maybe uses PSA as a shorthand for this.

---

quote:

---

What Girard understands the cross as unmasking as human violence usually dealt with by the mechanisms of the sacrificial system is turned by PSA back into God’s violence.

---

quote:

---

Because that fairly explicitly downgrades moral influence, and subordinates it to PSA - in just the way I'd allege that PSA necessarily does with all other perspectives on the atonement! Moral example understandings of the atonement are viewed in this light as edifying examples for people who have already been reconciled to God through the blood of the cross. This is what PSA does. It starts with a problem, which is sin, and defines everything in terms of that.

---

quote:

---

PSA. Christ takes the punishment.

---

quote:

---

If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation and then if, having subsequently promoted him to great dignity, he had yet, after thus saving him and advancing him to that glory unspeakable, been outraged by the person that had received such treatment: would not that man, if he had any sense, have chosen ten thousand deaths rather than appear guilty of so great ingratitude?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

But I've always been uncomfortable with the P. It kind of crosses a line for me. I'm fine with "God hates the sin but loves the sinner" as a means of looking at the notion of wrath in God. The P does seem to suggest that the wrath moves from the deed to the perpetrator, which seems to me to be in such sharp contrast with the NT emphasis that God is Love.

---

At the risk of starting it all over again (well you brought it up
) - the reason you give is precisely why the P must stay. How can we be held responsible for what we do if we divorce our deeds from our very being?

"God hates the sin but loves the sinner" (ISTM ) is a meaningless aphorism. How is it possible to talk about sin without the sinner?
 

---

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
footwasher says

quote:

---

The problem with the transmission of information in Scripture is that it IS structural, depending on patterns, themes, motifs to convey information.

---

quote:

---

PSA is the specific solution chosen by God for providing forgiveness of sin, just as multiplying bread was the specific solution for the providing alleviation of hunger.

---

quote:

---

PSA is "God has been offended against, and because of his holiness cannot overlook this, therefore Christ, completely innocent, comes and dies in our place as a propitiating sacrifice, pays our penalty, and lets us go free. Etc. etc."

---

quote:

---

All I'm saying is that, speaking for myself, I'm still waiting for someone to (1) give me their exposition of PSA and (2) tell me how it can treat other perspectives on the atonement with equal weight. Nobody's yet done that, because nobody's yet done (1). I'm just saying...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

"God hates the sin but loves the sinner" (ISTM ) is a meaningless aphorism. How is it possible to talk about sin without the sinner?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Pretty easily. What we do certainly reflects something of who we are, but it is not the whole story of who we are. Any of us. It's not too trite to say that we are primarily human beings, not human doings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Pretty easily. What we do certainly reflects something of who we are, but it is not the whole story of who we are. Any of us. It's not too trite to say that we are primarily human beings, not human doings.

---

Come on B62.

'reflects something' ... 'primarily human beings' ... the defendant is perspiring under the faintest of pressure.

You're the one who is supposed to demonstrating that we are only human beings and not human doings.

I'm perfectly content to see humanity as both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

It's not "my thread" and I'm not trying to steer the argument, though it must look that way.

---

It does rather.

Anyway - I think my take would be this. Taking God's wrath is not the only thing Jesus' death achieves. But it's only because he does do that, that we are able to experience all the other blessings of the atonement - his victory over death, his lifting of the curse from us, his moral example. So, if that's what you mean, then you're right (about me at least)

But I don't think that means I don't see value in other persepctives on the atonement. Simply that I think we receive those other blessings cos PSA is true.
 

---

Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on :
 
Johnny S says

quote:

---

You're the one who is supposed to demonstrating that we are only human beings and not human doings.

I'm perfectly content to see humanity as both.

---

quote:

---

Anyway - I think my take would be this. Taking God's wrath is not the only thing Jesus' death achieves. But it's only because he does do that, that we are able to experience all the other blessings of the atonement - his victory over death, his lifting of the curse from us, his moral example. So, if that's what you mean, then you're right (about me at least)

---

quote:

---

footwasher: Thanks for that. My problem is that this:
quote:
PSA is the specific solution chosen by God for providing forgiveness of sin,
seems incompatible with this:
quote:
So yes, Moral Exemplar is the the main platform of his manifesto. PSA is just one plank (albeit an important plank) of the many planks that constitute that platform.
Not juggling with words, honestly.

---

quote:

---

Put it this way. Is this fair?
1) If you hold PSA, whatever else you believe it's important to say about Jesus, PSA is indispensable, because it is the way God deals with sin.

2) Therefore, if you believe in PSA you are committed to believing that people who don't believe in it are missing the point - the point - about what Jesus was all about in terms of our relationship with God.

I'm not trying to entrap anyone, but I don't see how this can be avoided.

---

quote:

---

You can see why strict and stern don't really cut it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Oh its a bit more than stern and strict, footwasher!

Here is a lovely quote from C S Lewis's "The Pilgrim's Regress" which illustrates the point. Here is a character called the Steward explaining to the hero John the Landlord's (landlord is a metaphor for God) attitude to sin. "He'd take you and shut you up for ever in a black hole full of snakes and scorpions for ever and ever. And besides, he is such a kind man, so very very kind, that I'm sure you would never want to displease him". Later the Steward explained to John that the Landlord was quite extraordinarily good to all his tenants and would certainly torture most of them for ever if he had the slightest pretext. In the story, John ends up very confused by all of this. And of course he's not the only one.

You can see why strict and stern don't really cut it.

---

quote:

---

The Christian story, on the other hand, starts off briskly in St. Matthew's account with a place and a date: "When Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the King." St. Luke, still more practically and prosaically, pins the thing down by a reference to a piece of government finance. God, he says, was made man in the year when Caesar Augustus was taking a census in connection with a scheme of taxation. Similarly, we might date an event by saying that it took place in the year that Great Britain went off the gold standard. About thirty-three years later (we are informed), God was executed, for being a political nuisance, "under Pontius Pilate"—much as we might say, "when Mr. Johnson-Hicks was Home Secretary." It is as definite and concrete as all that.

---

quote:

---

This is the dogma we find so dull—this terrifying drama of which God is the victim and hero.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Nice quote, footwasher. A neat fusion of moral influence, Christus Victor and sacrificial themes, but no trace of PSA that I can see...

---

And I thought it was just me! There I was, working through the quote and thinking "sooner or later the pro-P point will emerge". But it never did.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Jessie Phillips - it's Dorothy L Sayers. (I gave myself a vainglorious pat on the back for recognizing it before googling to check!)
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Sayers whupped Lewis's butt? Are you confusing her with Elizabeth Anscombe?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
"God hates the sin but loves the sinner" (ISTM ) is a meaningless aphorism. How is it possible to talk about sin without the sinner?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not at all - primarily doesn't mean only. I am without perspiration - even on this heatwave day in the UK. And I don't have to demonstrate anything when I'm expressing personal reservations about PSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Too judicial, Johnny S. Too penal! Try a little more forbearance ..

---

 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
"God hates the sin but loves the sinner" (ISTM ) is a meaningless aphorism. How is it possible to talk about sin without the sinner?

---

Would it be okay to say, "I love my father, but hate his lung cancer"? Certainly we can't talk about the lung cancer without talking about my father, because he is the one who has the lung cancer. But they are enough separable that I can hate the one and love the other.

---

We talked about this endlessly on the original CV thread ... but just for the record...

This is why we need several atonement models to explain the gospel. (And hence why PSA is not enough on its own and why other models are insufficient without PSA.)

I like the sin as a disease analogy and am happy to use it on occasions - after all the concept of 'salvation = healing' is found throughout the scriptures.

However, the problem with it (as with most models), is not so much what it affirms but what it denies. Cancer is not a moral agent. It's not that it is immoral, but simply amoral.

In what senses is the father responsible for his cancer? If he is not responsible then the analogy with sin breaks down. And if he is responsible (I suppose you could argue that if he has knowingly smoked etc.) then we have the issue that God created this cause and effect world in the first place so if he is hating the cancer (and its effects) he is hating himself.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
PSA is much more than "Christ takes the punishment."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Nice quote, footwasher. A neat fusion of moral influence, Christus Victor and sacrificial themes, but no trace of PSA that I can see...

And I thought it was just me! There I was, working through the quote and thinking "sooner or later the pro-P point will emerge". But it never did.

---

quote:

---

PSA is generally part and parcel of an entire system of theology, focused around how God can let humans into heaven.

---

quote:

---

But a person who holds PSA could add to that another system of theology like the bait-and-switch Ransom from Satan theology, focused around how Satan gets tricked out of his power over human souls in the afterlife.

---

quote:

---

Likewise a person who holds the PSA system of theology could also hold the theology of Christ storming hell between his death and resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Or a person who holds the PSA system could adopt Athanasius' theology of Recapitulation - that human souls would have faded out of existence entirely had not the Incarnate Christ joined humanity and God together by virtue of his incarnation.

---

quote:

---

PSA can theoretically be held in parallel with most theories of the atonement.

---

quote:

---

But in practice I think you're definitely right that most advocates of PSA don't hold any other theories.

---

quote:

---

Then you missed this

---

quote:

---

So that is the outline of the official story—the tale of the time when God was the underdog and got beaten, when he submitted to the conditions he had laid down and became a man like the men he had made, and the men he had made broke him and killed him.

So man deserves punishment, Jesus becomes a man and takes on all the punishment INSTEAD of all humanity. Punishment and Substitution: PSA in a nutshell.

---

quote:

---

became a man like the men he had made,

---

quote:

---

...and the men he had made broke him and killed him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
That's what it is, people. It distorts the way everything gets read and understood.

---

quote:

---

Or enlightens. Depending on your perspective.

Of course the way you have just used Moral Influence and Christus Victor to enlighten the quote in the same way footwasher did with PSA goes to show, I think, that this is true of any perspective.

---

quote:

---

16. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18. All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19. that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21. God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Or enlightens. Depending on your perspective.

Of course the way you have just used Moral Influence and Christus Victor to enlighten the quote in the same way footwasher did with PSA goes to show, I think, that this is true of any perspective.

---

D'you know - with respect, I'm seeing loads of assertions at the moment, but no argument.

footwasher's post is IMO just wrong in its interpretation of the quote. If you think there's PSA in it, show me where it is.

---

quote:

---

So man deserves punishment, Jesus becomes a man and takes on all the punishment INSTEAD of all humanity. Punishment and Substitution: PSA in a nutshell.

---

quote:

---

That's a complete importation. "Submitting to the conditions he laid down" means the conditions of actual historic human existence in the world (which is why DLS goes to such trouble to compare the Gospel time references to contemporary news-reporting of events) which the Christ enters - it's the incarnation, not PSA.

---

quote:

---

PSA is being set up as a straw man.

---

No, it's absolutely not. However much people wriggle about it, PSA as written up in any competent manual of theology, as taught in any decent Doctrine 101 course, and as expounded by its classic sources and everybody who commentates on them, is a very particular thing.

It's not "what evangelicals believe".

It's not "Jesus took my sins away."

It's not "Jesus' death can be understood as a sacrifice."

It's precisely what it says on the box. It's a Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement. All the irrelevant, disconnected citing of beside-the-point classical parallels, all the wailing about poor little evangelicals being persecuted by liberals who are really fundamentalists, all the tedious, unsubstantiated assertion in the world doesn't doesn't change that PSA is a defined, particular thing.

It isn't just me saying that. It's everybody who has ever actually studied it.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Footwasher's already shown how the quote can be made to fit with PSA if you already believe it. You have done the same with Moral Influence and CV.

---

I've shown that anything can be made to fit with PSA if you already believe PSA. Flying saucers, a young earth, the Rapture, the sagacity of George Bush, anything you like. That's what I said in the OP. As long as PSA describes what is actually, really, solely-significantly going on on the cross, you can fit anything you like in. The trouble is that all that other stuff, however much other Christians see it as part of the substance of the faith, is there just to bulk up the New Testament.

Or show me the contrary.

And did I say

?
 

---

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
But isn't that exactly what it is? Either Christ on the cross is paying for our sins in a combination sacrifice/death-sentence, and bearing the punishment that should fall on us - in which case everything else is footnotes - or something else is going on. Maybe a whole load of other things, some of which cover the same ground, and do the same job as PSA -like sacrificial and substitutionary themes - and all of them are a valid, truth-filled commentary on what is fact, that Jesus Christ hung on the cross and died.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Footwasher's already shown how the quote can be made to fit with PSA if you already believe it. You have done the same with Moral Influence and CV.

---

I've shown that anything can be made to fit with PSA if you already believe PSA. Flying saucers, a young earth, the Rapture, the sagacity of George Bush, anything you like. That's what I said in the OP. As long as PSA describes what is actually, really, solely-significantly going on on the cross, you can fit anything you like in. The trouble is that all that other stuff, however much other Christians see it as part of the substance of the faith, is there just to bulk up the New Testament.

Or show me the contrary.

And did I say

?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Footwasher's already shown how the quote can be made to fit with PSA if you already believe it. You have done the same with Moral Influence and CV.

---

I've shown that anything can be made to fit with PSA if you already believe PSA. Flying saucers, a young earth, the Rapture, the sagacity of George Bush, anything you like. That's what I said in the OP. As long as PSA describes what is actually, really, solely-significantly going on on the cross, you can fit anything you like in. The trouble is that all that other stuff, however much other Christians see it as part of the substance of the faith, is there just to bulk up the New Testament.

Or show me the contrary.

And did I say

?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Someone can say to me "Moral influence is my basic perspective on the atonement. ... What do I say? Probably "I think you're missing something very important. I'd say there are huge areas of yoru Christian life in the real world that will be hard to make sense of without CV."

But what happens when someone says something like " ... PSA I can't buy"? .. What would a PSA advocate say to me? Wouldn't they be bound to say "But you're missing the whole point of Christian faith? Everything turns on..." and then give me a fairly detailed account of PSA, and how it works, as a theory and a system?

And if they didn't do that, wouldn't I have grounds to wonder if they were really talking about PSA at all?

---

quote:

---

Matthew 5:18-19a
I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven

---

quote:

---

Revelation 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Well, Leprechaun, I'm not campaigning. But I did ask a specific question about who needs to be reconciled. Us to God - or God to us?

I don't know enough in detail about the theological defences and expositions on PSA to know how that question is answered. Currently, I'm looking through the Institutes (given the relationship between Calvinism and PSA this seems a good place to start) but so far haven't found anything all that clear relating to that question.

---

quote:

---

You're stereotyping here. You're also playing Richard Dawkins' trick of labelling people as woolly liberal half-believers if they don't fit with your stereotype.

---

quote:

---

However, to answer your point, recall that PSA tends to be an evangelical thang, for whatever reason. The evangelicals are more likely to recall biblical passages such as these:

---

quote:

---

For someone who is mindful of these passages

---

quote:

---

then of course it's really important if a person dispenses with PSA. Dispensing with parts of the faith is something that you simply don't do.

---

quote:

---

Jesus calls us to follow him and leave our nets on the shore, not to keep looking back like Lot's wife looking at Sodom. Truth is God's truth, doctrine is God's doctrine and to be fiercely protected. Doctrinal error is a very serious matter. If you've had the experience you describe with a PSA believer, try going back to the same person and telling them that you're a universalist or that you pray to the saints because you don't think God wants to hear your prayers, or that you believe our good works save us or that the trinity is bunkum, or any other doctrinal error that they'll recognise. You'll get the same response as you did with PSA.

---

It couldn't be clearer, could it?!? I'll range myself with the Catholics, and the Orthodox, and the moderate evangelicals, and the humble, middle-of-the-road people who try to cling to a faith because they haven't the time, energy or inclination to do PSA-orthodox theology, or are too stupid, wicked, reprobate or just plain unpopular with God and his Squad to understand that it isn't Jesus, dying and rising, who saves them, it's a correct doctrine about what Jesus does.

If you'd just posted this straight after the OP, we could have omitted the rest of the thread!

Bang to rights!
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 
Missed edit window.

Calvin says, for example: "If he had not come to reconcile God, the honour of his priesthood would fall" or "he declared the cause of his advent to be, that by appeasing God he might bring us from death to life".

"In fine, the only end which the Scripture uniformly assigns for the Son of God voluntarily assuming our nature ....is that he might propitiate God the Father to us by becoming a victim."

Which sounds rather like what Psyduck has been saying actually!
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Leprechaun:

quote:

---

"In fine, the only end which the Scripture uniformly assigns for the Son of God voluntarily assuming our nature ....is that he might propitiate God the Father to us by becoming a victim."

Which sounds rather like what Psyduck has been saying actually!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

You're stereotyping here. You're also playing Richard Dawkins' trick of labelling people as woolly liberal half-believers if they don't fit with your stereotype.

---

That is an absolutely imbecilic argument. You are accusing me of stereotyping people who agree with me as "woolly liberal half-believers."

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

then of course it's really important if a person dispenses with PSA. Dispensing with parts of the faith is something that you simply don't do.

---

Oh look! I didn't have to wait! I'm dispensing with parts of the faith because I'm dispensing with PSA! You said it, friend! It's there in your own words!!!

---

quote:

---

I'll range myself with the Catholics, and the Orthodox, and the moderate evangelicals, and the humble, middle-of-the-road people who try to cling to a faith because they haven't the time, energy or inclination to do PSA-orthodox theology, or are too stupid, wicked, reprobate or just plain unpopular with God and his Squad to understand that it isn't Jesus, dying and rising, who saves them, it's a correct doctrine about what Jesus does.

---

quote:

---

You've asked for someone to argue against you but I don't see that the burden of proof lies with anyone but you. You've made an accusation against a doctrine, now support it. Please spell out to me in words of one syllable precisely which bit of PSA makes it automatically exclusive of every other atonement model, and why.

---

quote:

---

It's precisely what it says on the box. It's a Penal Substitutionary Theory of the Atonement. All the irrelevant, disconnected citing of beside-the-point classical parallels, all the wailing about poor little evangelicals being persecuted by liberals who are really fundamentalists, all the tedious, unsubstantiated assertion in the world doesn't doesn't change that PSA is a defined, particular thing.

---

quote:

---

It isn't just me saying that. It's everybody who has ever actually studied it.

---

quote:

---

For someone who is mindful of these passages then of course it's really important if a person dispenses with PSA. Dispensing with parts of the faith is something that you simply don't do.

---

quote:

---

So man deserves punishment, Jesus becomes a man and takes on all the punishment INSTEAD of all humanity. Punishment and Substitution: PSA in a nutshell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
But a person who holds PSA could add to that another system of theology like the bait-and-switch Ransom from Satan theology, focused around how Satan gets tricked out of his power over human souls in the afterlife.

---

Absolutely. But that would really be a commentary on one of the collateral effects of PSA.

---

quote:

---

Whereas if you deploy a CV approach, you are treating evil as an imprisoning reality of oppressive structures in the world. Very much like an occupying power! And you can then speak of the Church as a resistance cell, struggling to be obedient to the forces of good, and of Calvary as the gigantic victory that's already been won, that renders the war unwinnable for the Dark Powers, and of the atonement on the Cross as a real - not metaphorical - victory.

---

quote:

---

If you hold a PSA understanding, then eventually, when you strip things down to basics, Jesus on the cross is a hybrid sacrifice/punishment, and everything else is metaphor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Likewise a person who holds the PSA system of theology could also hold the theology of Christ storming hell between his death and resurrection.

---

Yes - as a metaphor. And because you can't get away from it, because it's there in the Creeds, so you have to talk about it occasionally. But it isn't part of a huge, integrated cosmic act of atonement. It's a consequence of one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Or a person who holds the PSA system could adopt Athanasius' theology of Recapitulation - that human souls would have faded out of existence entirely had not the Incarnate Christ joined humanity and God together by virtue of his incarnation.

---

Indeed. Or any number of other perspectives - or none of them - because none of them is so crucial that they can't be done without. Because everything gets organized around PSA.

---

quote:

---

But what happens when someone says something like "I can work with CV, with moral influence, and with sacrificial themes, in Paul and in Hebrews. But PSA I can't buy"? (Which would be my position.)What would a PSA advocate say to me? Wouldn't they be bound to say "But you're missing the whole point of Christian faith? Everything turns on..." and then give me a fairly detailed account of PSA, and how it works, as a theory and a system?

---

quote:

---

But isn't that exactly what it is? Either Christ on the cross is paying for our sins in a combination sacrifice/death-sentence, and bearing the punishment that should fall on us - in which case everything else is footnotes - or something else is going on.

---

quote:

---

Does the New Testament say that Jesus Christ saved the world by paying for our sin in a death that was a sacrifice/punishment, or does the New Testament say that Jesus Christ saved the world by dying on the Cross?

---

quote:

---

No it wouldn't. A person holding the PSA theological system, could, really and truly add to that system the beliefs that (i) Satan had power over humans in the afterlife, (ii) After Jesus died on the cross as the penal substitute for humanity (PSA) Jesus went to Satan in the afterlife and offered himself in exchange for humanity, (iii) God resurrected Jesus out of Satan's grasp. (Or equivalent beliefs, pick your preferred Mousetrap model)

In this way they could add the fullblown Mousetrap-Ransom-From-Satan atonement theory to a complete PSA theology and hold both together. It is perfectly possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Would it be fair to say that PSA arises mainly out of Anselm? He presents a model of necessary 'satisfaction'. It's rather bound up in his own historical and social setting (feudalism mainly).

---

quote:

---

But it might help to unpack what Psyduck is trying to say. It requires (like PSA) that you hold core foundational beliefs about the nature of God and if you hold to these core 'principles' of belief about God then it doesn't exactly leave room for other expressions of atonement.

---

quote:

---

Satisfaction focuses on the idea of Christ gifting his obedient life to God, and that gift pleases God sufficiently to counteract the displeasure he got from our sin. So in Satisfaction, Christ doesn't take our punishment at all. Logically, Christ's actual death is not necessary in the Satisfaction model - it merely represents the culmination of his obedience - his obedience unto death is his gift to God.

---

quote:

---

The core foundational change introduced by Anselm that PSA inherits is the belief that God can't "just forgive" sin. Christians throughout the first millennia AD believed that God could freely forgive repentant sinners out of his love and grace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
the way you've explained it makes it sound to me that the difference between "Satisfaction" and "Penal substitution" isn't that minor or subtle at all.

---

quote:

---

You say that Christ's death is not logically necessary in Satisfaction, and that it merely represents the culmination of obedience - but I dare say that many people may have regarded "martyrdom" in the same way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
The core foundational change introduced by Anselm that PSA inherits is the belief that God can't "just forgive" sin. Christians throughout the first millennia AD believed that God could freely forgive repentant sinners out of his love and grace.

---

Are you sure about that?

---

quote:

---

Origen, Commentary on Romans 2.1.2-3:
“By common acknowledgement a good man ought not be punished, nor should an evil one obtain good things. Therefore, if, for instance, someone has done evil at some time, it is certain that he was evil at that time when he was doing evil things. However, suppose he, repenting of his past deeds, reforms his mind toward good things, behaves well, speaks well, thinks well, and turns his will toward the good. Is it not clear to you that he who does these things is a good man who deserves to receive good things? In like manner if someone should convert from good to evil, he shall no longer be judged as the good man he was and is no longer, but as the evil man that he is. You see, deeds pass away, whether good or evil... Accordingly it shall be unjust to punish a good mind for evils committed or to reward an evil mind for good deeds..... How will it be just to condemn a pious soul for ungodliness, or a just soul for injustice, or a soul practising moderation for excess?”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips
Because if that's true, then how did anyone ever come to think that it was necessary to make a sacrifice to God in the first place?

Surely the whole point of atoning sacrifices, in both the Old Testament and in Homer, is to placate a wrathful divine being? Or to derive some sort of advantage from the divine being that said being would not have otherwise given?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:


I don't deny that ancient pagan religions portray divine beings as a lot more capricious and unpredictable than Judaism and Christianity portray their God. But even in spite of that unpredictability, it seems that there's still a point in making sacrifices. Am I missing something? Thanks.

---

quote:

---

A particularly prominent doctrine in Judaism was "repentance and forgiveness". Jews believed that if a person sincerely repented, God would freely forgive their sins, remembering them no more. This is spelled out explicitly in the OT a few times, eg Ezek 18:21-23, and the book of Jonah.

---

quote:

---

Jewish belief was that God was interested in a person's current moral character. If that person changed their character, God's attitude to them likewise changed. Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33 spell this out in detail. God is only interested in the person's present state, their past is irrelevant in determining righteousness. Therefore if a person makes a real change, sincere repentence, their past sins are forgotten/forgiven.

---

quote:

---

Anselm had to deliberately formulate arguments against the existing doctrine of repentance and forgiveness. In his dialogue he lays out a number of alleged reasons why it would violate the customs of his day for God to freely forgive.

---

quote:

---

Thus the killing of an animal became naturally tied up with the idea of a big group celebration. It was considered only fair to invite the god(s) to the meal to join in the celebration, and thus choice bits of the animal were often dedicated to the god(s). The act of taking the animal's life would also become ritualized over time, and seen as sacred and performed by priests.

---

quote:

---

If a person believed in free forgiveness conditional on repentence, then why sacrifice? (1) They would still want to eat, so would still sacrifice for food. (2) They would still want ritual purification so would use blood in purification rites. (3) They would still want to obey the Law, and so would pay fines with the compulsory gift of crops or an animal. (4) They would still want God to answer their prayers so would gift him crops or an animal to bribe him / make him owe them a favour.

---

Thanks. That does make sense.

So perhaps I have overestimated the importance of the idea of sacrifice in Christian thought.

Sacrifice does seem to be a fairly central theme in the letter to the Hebrews. But admittedly, the theme of sacrifice is much more peripheral in the rest of the New Testament.

But in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the deaths of both Jesus and Polycarp are spoken of as "sacrifices".

And there's the thing Paul says about being living sacrifices in Romans 12:1 - although I grant that this might not be seen as so relevant to the death of Jesus, though.

It just seems to me that the medieval Arthurian legend of the Holy Grail, and the woodcuts of Albrecht Durer that portray angels holding cups up to Jesus on the cross so as to catch the blood from his wounds, all seems to hint at the blood of Jesus being poured out in sacrifice. But perhaps I just imagined all that. I guess I was also taken in by the idea that there were parallels between the story of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and the story of the sacrifice of Agamemnon's daughter Iphigenia to Artemis in the prelude to the Trojan War - and this made me imagine that sacrifice is more important in the understanding of the death of Jesus than it actually is.

But wait a minute - how can it be an "atonement" if there isn't a "sacrifice"? Doesn't the definition of the word atonement itself imply sacrifice? And what's the point of the Eucharist? Doesn't the eating of the body and drinking the blood of Jesus imply a sort of sacrifice too?

Thanks for the well-informed response.


[ 28. June 2010, 15:48: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
While singing the song on Sunday morning it occured to me that the contention in the OP is unfair to Stuart Townend, or at least to his song

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
...'"In Christ alone" the wrath of God ' about the Stewart Townend hymn. A lot of tangential debate seemed to swirl there around PSA.

The specific relevance of all this to that thread was the worry that, since Townend seems to be explicit in his intention to make all or most of his hymns refer to Penal Substitutionary Atonement, this rendered it difficult or impossible for people with other views of the atonement to sing it wholeheartedly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:

But wait a minute - how can it be an "atonement" if there isn't a "sacrifice"? Doesn't the definition of the word atonement itself imply sacrifice?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
What surprises me, though, is the idea that those who believe in PSA think that repentance is of no consequence. I suppose that would make sense if you took PSA to its extreme - but I'm wary of expressing spectra of belief as entirely one-dimensional.
...
It never occurred to me that repentance/forgiveness and PSA were at odds with each other. Whenever I've heard PSA explained, sometimes it's with the caveat that you're "saved" if you "believe it", but not saved if you don't. And I've always assumed that when PSA-adherents speak of "turning to Jesus", what they're actually talking about is "repentance". Have I got that wrong then?

---

quote:

---

So perhaps I have overestimated the importance of the idea of sacrifice in Christian thought.

Sacrifice does seem to be a fairly central theme in the letter to the Hebrews. But admittedly, the theme of sacrifice is much more peripheral in the rest of the New Testament.

But in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the deaths of both Jesus and Polycarp are spoken of as "sacrifices".

---

quote:

---

Hebrews 10:5-9:
when Christ came into the world, he said, "Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body you have prepared for me; in burnt offerings and sin offerings you have taken no pleasure. Then I said, "See, God, I have come to do your will, O God' (in the scroll of the book it is written of me)." When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), then he added, "See, I have come to do your will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second.

---

quote:

---

I guess I was also taken in by the idea that there were parallels between the story of the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross, and the story of the sacrifice of Agamemnon's daughter Iphigenia to Artemis in the prelude to the Trojan War - and this made me imagine that sacrifice is more important in the understanding of the death of Jesus than it actually is.

---

quote:

---

But wait a minute - how can it be an "atonement" if there isn't a "sacrifice"? Doesn't the definition of the word atonement itself imply sacrifice?

---

quote:

---

And what's the point of the Eucharist? Doesn't the eating of the body and drinking the blood of Jesus imply a sort of sacrifice too?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Missed edit window.

Calvin says, for example: "If he had not come to reconcile God, the honour of his priesthood would fall" or "he declared the cause of his advent to be, that by appeasing God he might bring us from death to life".

"In fine, the only end which the Scripture uniformly assigns for the Son of God voluntarily assuming our nature ....is that he might propitiate God the Father to us by becoming a victim."

Which sounds rather like what Psyduck has been saying actually!

---

quote:

---

... a trap I think you're falling into is over-defining the exclusivity of PSA. I think you're in danger of saying "PSA refers to a complete system of theology which affirms A, B, C etc and denies the truth or relevance of all other possible theological statements".

---

quote:

---

It's that last bit that concerns me - you're defining PSA as exclusive.

---

quote:

---

When really, the definition of PSA is only a series of affirmative statements.

---

quote:

---

PSA does not include, as part of its definition, that all other theories of the atonement are wrong, nor does it assert as part of its definition that nothing else meaningful can be said theologically apart from PSA.

---

quote:

---

A person holding the PSA theological system, could, really and truly add to that system the beliefs that (i) Satan had power over humans in the afterlife,

---

quote:

---

(ii) After Jesus died on the cross as the penal substitute for humanity (PSA) Jesus went to Satan in the afterlife and offered himself in exchange for humanity,

---

quote:

---

(iii) God resurrected Jesus out of Satan's grasp. (Or equivalent beliefs, pick your preferred Mousetrap model)

---

quote:

---

What is to stop a PSA believer also believing evil is an imprisoning reality of oppressive structures in the world?

---

quote:

---

What is to stop a PSA believer also speaking of the Church as a resistance cell, struggling to be obedient to the forces of good?

---

quote:

---

The core foundational change introduced by Anselm that PSA inherits is the belief that God can't "just forgive" sin. Christians throughout the first millennia AD believed that God could freely forgive repentant sinners out of his love and grace.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Sacrifice does seem to be a fairly central theme in the letter to the Hebrews. But admittedly, the theme of sacrifice is much more peripheral in the rest of the New Testament.

But in the Martyrdom of Polycarp, the deaths of both Jesus and Polycarp are spoken of as "sacrifices".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Whereas the 2 Cor 5 passage about the ministry of reconciliation (including the very significant 2 Cor 5:21 verse, with all it infers for substitution) shows at the very least that God being propitiated is not the only direction of reconciliation.

To nail the point down, all that is necessary to confirm Calvin's inaccuracy is for the phrase "We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God." to be taken at face value. We are the ones who are alienated.

---

I've never, ever, come across any advocate of PSA who claims that the task of reconciliation is only one way. I've no idea if any do, but it is certainly not my experience in lots of conevo churches across several continents. That quote from Calvin not withstanding, I've always seen reconciliation as being a a two-way thing.

So, I'm very happy to see 2 Cor. 5 as speaking of both sides of reconciliation, and stressing in particular the need for the Corinthians to be reconciled to God. What else would we expect Paul to say to the Corinthians? Unfortunately there no extant letters from the Apostle to God.

Surely (to use the analogy of human relationships) the most natural reading of reconciliation is that two parties are alienated from each other and that both need to be reconciled to one another?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
(And then of course there is Ephesians 2 again which speaks to the same theme). So scripture is not at all uniform re propitiating God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Both CV and the Devil’s lure accounts postulate something deeply wrong with the world that people live in and experience day by day. They start with a world that isn’t as it should be, a fallen world.

PSA defines a completely different problem – an offended God. And you can’t just put them together, because the offended God will always come first.
...
PSA – if you hold it - is inevitably a more basic understanding of the atonement than CV . These things are prioritized and rank-ordered by the internal logic of PSA. God can’t set the world free until he has dealt with his own issues. Which on a supralapsarian Calvinist reading has to happen before the world began. First things first

---

quote:

---

Either that, or you are postulating a PSA that holds that Jesus makes an incomplete penal sacrifice on the cross, which needs supplementing by dealing with other stuff, such as the Devil’s rights.

---

quote:

---

If the problem is an angry God, how can the problem be the enslaving power of sin over us?

---

quote:

---

And the fate of moral influence is even more precarious

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dayfd:
Nor does Paul use martyrdom tropes or language.

---

I don't understand how you can make this claim. I would consider it blatantly false.
I have been planning to start a thread on Paul's conception of Jesus' death as a martyr. The book I'm currently reading identifies 18 scholars who think that Martyr Theology formed the background to Paul's understanding of Jesus' death (in addition to the scholar writing the book). And cites a further 16 who concede that it is 'possible' that it did. So it isn't just me who sees the martyr language there...

quote:

---

The attempts by PSA-advocates - or Starlight above - to read sacrifice-language as actually about something else strike me as examples of what I hereby call 'tenorism': the belief that the meaning of a passage taken as metaphorical is unchanged by substituting for the vehicle a literal statement of the supposed tenor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
This is from 2 Cor 5.

quote:

---

16. So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer. 17. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18. All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19. that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20. We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21. God made him who had no sin to be sin[a] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

---

I've quoted the whole of the context, but want to look at verse 19 in particular. Others have observed this point so I know it is not a personal interpretation. It is clear that God was the reconciler, not the one to be reconciled. Yet I see PSA as arguing that God needed to be reconciled to human beings because we sin. The process of sinbearing, according to PSA, is somehow necessary for God in order that he be reconciled to us. Yet the central problem is that we are alienated from Him. We are the ones who need to be reconciled.

It is indeed the God represented in the story of the lost son who we see here.

So my question is this. Does PSA really require God to be reconciled to us by the punishment of Jesus? Does He need to be satisfied in order to be reconciled? For if so, I can make no sense of the above passage. As I argued earlier, using John Chrysostom's exposition as an example, I do see 2 Cor 5:21 as clear evidence that substitution is scriptural and witnessed to by the Fathers. But the punishment comes from the unjust acts of people. He became sin for us, God made him to be sin for us, not to change God's heart, but rather that our hearts might be changed.

---

quote:

---

I think most of the confusion is coming because psyduck is confusing models with reality.

---

quote:

---

All models are, by necessity, merely analogies attempting to explain a reality. Therefore while they emphasise a helpful aspect they almost always (unintentionally) undermine another truth elsewhere. That is precisely why we need several models when trying explain complex truths.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I had a relatively modest aim in all of this, which was to reinforce the argument that PSA is not the sole message of scripture re the cross of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I cannot reconcile the Love of God and the Wrath of God except by separating sin from sinner (pace for a moment!). As one sees in the story of the Prodigal. The picture of a good God waiting for sinners to return to arms which are already open to receive conveys the love of the Father which we celebrate. Is this Father grieved by his son's desertion. Of course He is. Does that grief turn into alienation and wrath? In human parenting, yes, sometimes it does. But that seems to me to be a human fault, though often a very understandable one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I suppose I see the punishing images as a kind of affirmation that the experience of, and the practice of, human fathering (particularly of the stern, "withholding of approval" type,) has had a profound affect on the way folks have understood the Father heart of God. In pastoral work and counselling, it is very well known that for some folks, even the reference to God as Father can be a huge problem for those who have had bad human fathers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:


My problem is that I don't see how you can take PSA and turn it into one perspective among others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Johnny S. This is helpful. Thanks.

quote:

---

I think most of the confusion is coming because psyduck is confusing models with reality.

---

Honestly, I'm not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
You could say that CV presents what happens on the cross as the surrendering of the Son of God to the evil powers who exert control over us in our world. The cross/resurrection can be seen as a great victory over these powers, in which we participate by faith, because "our side" has won the decisive victory. This is a perspective on the atonement which lets us talk about a huge Christian truth, that God in Christ has set us free from all that enslaves us.
Etc. etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
PSA is still self-standing. At least, Calvin says it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
and, again, pace Starlight, is any advocate of PSA really prepared to step up to the plate and say that Christ's sacrifice on the cross didn't do everything that was necessary?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Thanks for sharing something of yourself B62.

Nevertheless both your negative comments here, and your positive comments about your own father, are all from your own personal experience (either directly or mediated). Personally I'd be very wary of extrapolating too far from my own experience.

Your argument seems to flounder on projection - namely that you are taking your own personal definition of what a good father should be and projecting it on to God, assuming that a perfect God can iron out the blemishes of imperfect human love. The problem with this is that you are assuming what it will look like ironed out. I agree with your method up to the point that you start commenting on which parts of human parenting are fallen. We can certainly use scripture and reason to make some good guesses, but more than that? How do we know what a truly divine father will look like?

---

quote:

---

Calvin is saying that the gospel is no less than PSA, but he is not saying that it is no more than PSA.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
and, again, pace Starlight, is any advocate of PSA really prepared to step up to the plate and say that Christ's sacrifice on the cross didn't do everything that was necessary?

---

You give the game away here - it isn't even a particularly PSA statement to talk about 'Christ's sacrifice on the cross'.

---

quote:

---

It depends a lot of what you mean by that phrase and how you use it - frequently evangelicals use that phrase as a summary of the Christ event. Maybe this is what is bothering you? (i.e. why sum up Christ's life, ministry, death and resurrection by just referring to his death?)

---

quote:

---

The reason is that (most) PSA advocates see the death of Christ as being the one aspect of the gospel most likely and tempting to drop or play down.

---

What - in CV? I don't see how you could do CV without an emphasis on Christ's death. Or moral influence. The only way in which you could elaborate an atonement that didn't emphasize Christ's death was to model Jesus as The Great Teacher, whose death was a terrible mistake put right by the Resurrection. Now that might have been a staple of C19 capital-l Liberalism, but that's a minority report and a half, in C21 Christianity!

Would a Patristic stress on his incarnate life really amount to a downgrading of his death?

Would a stress on the Resurrection? Well, yes, actually, I think it is possible to produce a distorted theology by stressing Easter Sunday over Good Friday - and some evangelicals are some of the worst offenders! "Through cross to crown!" But these are unsystematic distortions.

I will accept at face value your assertion that PSA advocates are worried about the downgrading of Christ's death - but I have to say, with due caution, that in my discussions with PSA advocates, it's precisely the PSA interpretation that they fear is being marginalized. See my "chat" with Dinghy Sailor, above!

quote:

---

Therefore the summary deliberately cuts the other way. Nevertheless, I've never come across anyone who would seriously try to divorce the death from everything else.

---

quote:

---

Again, this is the reason why PSA needs the other two models, to correct this perceived imbalance

---

quote:

---

Nevertheless both your negative comments here, and your positive comments about your own father, are all from your own personal experience (either directly or mediated). Personally I'd be very wary of extrapolating too far from my own experience.

Your argument seems to flounder on projection - namely that you are taking your own personal definition of what a good father should be and projecting it on to God, assuming that a perfect God can iron out the blemishes of imperfect human love. The problem with this is that you are assuming what it will look like ironed out. I agree with your method up to the point that you start commenting on which parts of human parenting are fallen. We can certainly use scripture and reason to make some good guesses, but more than that? How do we know what a truly divine father will look like?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Johnny S.

quote:

---

Calvin is saying that the gospel is no less than PSA, but he is not saying that it is no more than PSA.

---

Well, no. Absolutely. But we're not talking about the Gospel, we're talking about the atonement. And my contention isn't that PSA talks about nothing but the penal-substitutionary sacrifice, but that it organizes everything around it.

---

quote:

---

Oriinally posted by Psyduck:
I will accept at face value your assertion that PSA advocates are worried about the downgrading of Christ's death - but I have to say, with due caution, that in my discussions with PSA advocates, it's precisely the PSA interpretation that they fear is being marginalized. See my "chat" with Dinghy Sailor, above!

---

quote:

---

I have! But from the other side, de-stressing the death. So I'm not without sympathy - but I really, honestly wonder whether this is all that's going on, especially when - Dinghy Sailor again - some evangelicals seem to take any critique of PSA as a direct and personal assault on their faith.

---

quote:

---

What I specifically reject is the notion that you can abstract from this a "kernel" of law, sacrifice, punishment and substitution, etc. and turn that into a separate account of the atonement, called PSA, and then reintegrate that in among all the other themes without distorting and/or subordinating them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"I am a Baptist minister. I don't like mess".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:


A nuanced, comprehensive doctrine of PSA is not necessarily a terrible thing, but its pop-theology equivalent - and probably the one which is most widely understood by its adherents - is that self-same bar magnet in a bath of iron filings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
I'm not trying to replicate PSA language. I'm summarizing in my own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
OK - let's try this. My own approach to the atonement doesn't countenance PSA for that reason. I believe that you can - and have to -understand Christ's incarnation, death and resurrection in terms of sacrifice (Paul, Hebrews, the OT) Adam-Christ typology (Paul)
Christus Victor (Genesis, Colossians and elsewhere) Moral Influence (John, Hebrews, Paul, the Pastoral Epistles and elsewhere) Messiahship (Matthew, Luke) the transcendence of the messianic expectation in Jesus (Mark) Substitution (Isaiah 53) etc. etc.

What I specifically reject is the notion that you can abstract from this a "kernel" of law, sacrifice, punishment and substitution, etc. and turn that into a separate account of the atonement, called PSA, and then reintegrate that in among all the other themes without distorting and/or subordinating them.

So, given that that's what I mean when I say I reject PSA - what's wrong with my theology? And specifically - what am I failing to cover? What am I missing?

---

This is a more complex issue than just atonement models. ISTM you are asking about how biblical theology relates to systematic theology.

I'm happy to explore this further but for now ...

I think there is a danger if either side is stressed over the other. You seem to be reacting against systematic theology with its abstract philosophical descriptions. Yes there is a danger with systematics that we truncate the narrative of the bible to fit our neat little system.

However, I think there is a danger the other way too. I like (and agree with) the way you are building a description of Christ from the biblical categories of scripture. I would do the same. It is a particularly pomo thing to just leave it there though. I agree with B62 that we should be willing to tolerate a bit of mess. Just as long as it isn't an excuse for refusing to face the hard questions of putting these images together. If I just leave it as a collage of different pictures I think the 21st centuryite loves to grab the snapshot that they like. Nothing wrong with that per se, but we also need to show how these images fit together.

For example, when B62 talks about mess he means that he works hard at these tough questions but is prepared to live with some blurred edges. I respect that. However, I do frequently encounter some who mean by mess that we just don't have to face the tough questions.

In all of this there is also a sense of where our culture is going. I suspect (respectfully) that B62 is typical of a previous generation. I think the other view of messy is increasingly predominating.

[ 29. June 2010, 10:13: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Hi JJ,

Good to hear from you again. What is it about this topic that still has us going several years later?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
If, as you argue, we are (as humans) subject to God's wrath, we are subject to it because of what we do, not because of what we are. If we were "non-sinning sinners" (imagining for a moment this were possible) then we would not be subject to judgement, for, even to those who see God's primary disposition to be that of a judge, He is, at the very least, a just judge, and does not condemn the innocent.

But, of course, regardless of whether we sin or not, we are still subject to the law of sin and death which, ontologically, ties us in to decay and death. We would still have needed Christ to die and rise again, not because our sins needed forgiving, but because our human nature, decaying and stricken as it is, needs ontological transformation to become like His nature, so that, with Him, we can inherit eternal life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
the cross speaks powerfully of forgiveness, that it demonstrates forgiveness in the most powerful way possible, is without doubt. But that is a side effect, albeit a profound and glorious one. The cross (and resurrection) enables the renewing of the whole created order - that is its purpose (at least according to Paul, who is the writer with the most to say on the subject), but it demonstrates, rather than enables, forgiveness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
secondly, your argument from 2 Cor 5 depends on a non-natural reading of v19. Surely the point Paul is making is that not even the sins of human beings can obstruct God's reconciling nature. There is no suggestion here that the cross was necessary for God not to count those sins against humanity, merely that His "decision" was not to do so. Your discussion of whether we have a right to expect forgiveness (sorry, can't find the exact quote atm) is beside the point. Of course we do not have a right to forgiveness, but that doesn't prevent God, in His grace, bestowing it anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Apply that argument in its fullness, and we deprive ourselves of any ability to use language to describe transcendant truth at all! How do you understand (incompletely) what is the nature of God the Father. You do so from, presumably, Jesus saying "He who has seen me has seen the Father", and from stories like the Prodigal Son (which does seem, to me, to be given pride of place (along with the parable of the sower) in Jesus teaching, so I do think it is right to take it very seriously).

Now I am quite at ease with any parent, human or Divine, disciplining their children - even if it causes some disruption to their money-making scams in the temple courtyard. But disciplining, or correcting, if you wll, is not the same as punishment. Discipline is redemptive, and therefore about the child, punishment is all about the parent, the desire to hurt someone to make ourselves feel better.

---

quote:

---

Psyduck: I welcome the obvious corollary of that, that you feel able to work with other models of atonement.

DS: which implies that you thought I was some sort of exclusivist fundie beforehand, no?

---

quote:

---

I feel like I've been guilty until proven innocent, especially since I've never said anything to imply I'm an exclusivist, since I'm not

---

quote:

---

Be very careful of interpreting people's words in the least charitable fashion. That way lie reds under the beds. I'm afraid all this is part of my little Mickey Mouse psych model that Seeker rubished other the other thread - you see PSA exclusivism everywhere because you want to see it and because it gets talked up.

---

quote:

---

No, you're stereotyping me (and Lep, and The Rev ...) as a woolly liberal half-believer. According to you, anyone who believes in PSA is an exclusivist pig and anyone who isn't exclusivist, isn't a proper believer in PSA.

---

quote:

---

...you use different models to do different things. When I'm doing a job by running Modeling Program A, it doesn't admit the presence of Modeling Program B. B is however an equally valid way to solve the problem, so when I'm done with A I switch to B because I want to find out more. Neither of them has to say anything about the other or be "integrated" into each other, I just use both.

---

quote:

---

Theory: A proposed explanation of a mechanism functions. Once explained and proven/accepted, no further explanation is necessary.
Model: A simplified explanation of a phenomenon, describing one aspect of how it works…
So, which is it to be? Is PSA a complete description, a theory, in which case all the other theories are also complete descriptions with no room for manoeuvre ?

---

quote:

---

________________________________________
Oriinally posted by Psyduck:
I will accept at face value your assertion that PSA advocates are worried about the downgrading of Christ's death - but I have to say, with due caution, that in my discussions with PSA advocates, it's precisely the PSA interpretation that they fear is being marginalized. See my "chat" with Dinghy Sailor, above!
________________________________________
Sorry, what have I done to earn this insult? I was trying to explain to you how a certain subset of people think ... or are you referring back to earlier in the thread where you started off by assuming I was one of the PSA-only crowd?
What insult. I was responding to a harangue, which, by the by, effectively made my point for me! I highlight the relevant part below.
If someone believes in PSA then of course it's part of their faith. How could it not be? This was precisely my point: the average PSA believer (in whose mouth I put those words, in case you didn't notice) is very protective about all parts of their doctrine, it's nothing special about the particular doctrine they hold that is PSA…
For someone who is mindful of these passages then of course it's really important if a person dispenses with PSA. Dispensing with parts of the faith is something that you simply don't do. Jesus calls us to follow him and leave our nets on the shore, not to keep looking back like Lot's wife looking at Sodom. Truth is God's truth, doctrine is God's doctrine and to be fiercely protected. Doctrinal error is a very serious matter. If you've had the experience you describe with a PSA believer, try going back to the same person and telling them that you're a universalist or that you pray to the saints because you don't think God wants to hear your prayers, or that you believe our good works save us or that the trinity is bunkum, or any other doctrinal error that they'll recognise. You'll get the same response as you did with PSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
You are saying that dispensing with PSA is dispensing with an indispensable part of the faith.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Psyduck: I welcome the obvious corollary of that, that you feel able to work with other models of atonement.

DS: which implies that you thought I was some sort of exclusivist fundie beforehand, no?

---

No. It means what it says.

---

quote:

---

And this I reject utterly:

quote:

---

No, you're stereotyping me (and Lep, and The Rev ...) as a woolly liberal half-believer. According to you, anyone who believes in PSA is an exclusivist pig and anyone who isn't exclusivist, isn't a proper believer in PSA.

---

I refer you to the Purg. Guidelines about only posting if you don’t mind being challenged.

---

quote:

---

You say:

quote:

---

...you use different models to do different things. When I'm doing a job by running Modeling Program A, it doesn't admit the presence of Modeling Program B. B is however an equally valid way to solve the problem, so when I'm done with A I switch to B because I want to find out more. Neither of them has to say anything about the other or be "integrated" into each other, I just use both.

---

Faior enough. And I am arguing that, in your own terms, PSA is a theory, not a model.

---

quote:

---

Given everything else I’m happy to say about the atonement, I reject PSA. What is deficient in my theology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
What I have said, repeatedly, is that it's a complete doctrine of the atonement. Calvin says so – see Leprechaun's post above. I am happy to concede that people who hold PSA believe other things about God. They would have to, because PSA is not a complete theology. I never said it was.

[...] I'm inviting people to tell me how they can specify their belief in PSA and tell me that they can completely integrate other perspectives on the Atonement into it. Nobody's done that yet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
That's all very well, but at the core of PSA there is a fundamental problem about the very nature of God, in that it both explicitly and implicitly teaches that God is not free to act. God is in some way bound to structures and tiers of universal justice and is made subject to them in order to act in the interests of humanity. This presents a not insignificant problem of God not really being God, but rather a type of demi-god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
No, I think we are at cross purposes here.
What I was trying to say is that PSA involves ideas about the nature of God that are fundamentally flawed. It's not that God does not love us, but that within the PSA model, God is subject to a higher concept of justice ( 'subject to' being the operative words in this case). If that were so, God wouldn't really be God, because God would be unable to act freely (ie. love us freely and without condition) without first paying tribute to this 'higher justice' to which he is subject.

Does that explain it better, or does it just make things worse?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
No, I think we are at cross purposes here.

---

Ah, that makes it all worthwhile.

I'm off to bed.
 

---

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 

quote:

---

I have the perfect freedom to hit the person sitting next to me right now but I'm not going to, because gratuitous violence is against my nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Inherent in PSA is the idea that even though it is in God's nature to love us, he is still bound by something else outside of his control and is therefore not truly God and has no perfect freedom.

---

Isn't the point that for God to act unjustly* would be inappropriate and unworthy of him, so he doesn't? Not that he tries to act unjustly and finds that he can't?

The problem of God either doing something because it is right (and thus being subject to a moral law) or something being right because God does it (and thus 'right' being a matter of arbitrary whim) is hardly unique to PSA.


*begging the question that to remit a penalty is unjust, of course.
 

---

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Ah, but love is not the only aspect of God's character. Justice is another, which is why he can't simply let sin exist without dealing with it.

[x post]

[ 29. June 2010, 13:50: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]
 

---

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Yes, you can understand it in these terms, but it leaves a slight problem with previous understandings of God's freely given forgiveness before Christ. Of course, you could also jump through hoops and start to create a theology that works backwards by suggesting that what Christ does stands for all time (literally past, present and future). But then we enter into concepts of justice and what justice is and if it actually requires punishment in order to make retribution. You could also read your statement as suggesting that God is bound by the power of sin.

At the end of the day, I think it's fair to say that most Christians believe that God's nature is revealed in Jesus Christ, and when we start to compare this to the ideas in PSA we see something quite different. Concepts of sacrifice in order to appease God even begin to be disapproved of and challenged by the prophets in the Old Testament (before Jesus). Sacrifice begins there to be understood as a sacrifice of thanksgiving and of the personal will in dedication to God. The Psalms even begin to question it with repeated phrases (like 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice') in differing forms. Some would say there is a very noticeable development from the Old Testament that is carried through into the New Testament that puts the final nail in the coffin of the ideas of having to appease an angry god with sacrifices in order to make him a happy god and play nice.

When we look at the life of Jesus it is not about keeping alive the old ideas that God might be constantly angry and wrathful because of a high sense of justice and order, but quite the opposite - that because of a high sense of justice and order, God is full of loving compassion, is merciful and accepts the contrite heart and the cross is an example of how far that love will go for us (of course it's more, but that would spin this thread off into a tangent)

The other issue with PSA in this regard is that it paints a picture of a god who only deals in violence. Jesus demonstrates the opposite; even when the mocking and the violence is at its very worst - he offers words of forgiveness. Jesus turns a symbol of torture and violence into a symbol of supreme love. Through weakness he is strong, overturning all our 'human' perceptions of strength and power. God enters in Jesus into our world to face the temptation of returning violence for violence, but instead shows us a way of living that subverts all normal expectation (on our part) and truly changes our world and how we think.

This is why I feel so strongly aggrieved by PSA, for to my mind it does actually subvert the Gospel in perpetuating a system of violence, but also one that doesn't match up to the life and example of Jesus and bangs on about old concepts and fears about the nature of God that were overturned in Jesus


........ I think I can hear the sound of someone lighting coals......

[ 29. June 2010, 14:15: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 
Hi Johnny,

Not sure how to respond to your posts without excessive and tedious (for the reader) quoting, so I'm just going to refer to paragraphs, if that's all right.

Para 1 Perhaps because you're a "2" (?maybe 3?)whilst I'm a "4" on B62's scale

Para 2 The point I was making was that I can readily see a way in which we can separate the sinner from the sin, something that you find problematic. Basically our sinful nature is dealt with by the atonement, whilst our sins are dealt with by forgiveness, which is always, has always been, and will always be (up their demise at the eschaton) dealt with by forgiveness. I agree the hypothetical has no practical realisation, but it is, I think, useful in clarifying the what and the how of the atonement. In treating the two aspects separately, we can see the issues with greater clarity, rather than conflating them. If you cry "foul" then my defence would be that this is just the sort of argument Paul used, in that he has far more to say about our sinful nature than about our sins.

Para 3 Yes, OK, I guess I did miss out a couple of steps in the argument. I guess the background I needed to fill in a bit was that my perception is that you see the Atonement as essentially a moral act, whereas I am quite happy to see it as a practical solution to a specific problem - how can mortal creatures come to share in the eternal fellowship of the Trinity, and to deal with the moral issues by unconditional forgiveness. Thus this little snip was a reinforcement of what I had written above. Any clearer?

Para 4 My point was not that Paul doesn't mention the cross here, but rather that he explicitly states that human sinfulness is not a block to God's redeeming nature. He dies for us in spite of, rather than because of, our sinfulness (to overstate for emphasis). With regard to reconciliation, surely Paul is saying "because you are reconciled (objective reality) so be reconciled (ie live out that reality practically in your lives). In other words, walk the talk.

Para 5 Well, of course, you aren't doing anything like that, are you :

Seriously, of course we bring our preconceptions with us to some extent. But I don't think that I've strayed beyond a reasonable and straightforward interpretation of what the scriptures say. What reason do you have for suggesting that the cleansing of the Temple or the cursing of the fig-tree are examples of punishment. In the first case, I suppose you could argue that Jesus' actions were tantamount to a fine, but they hardly amounted to fire from heaven, and the fact that He explained His actions to the money changers is a reasonable indication that he had in mind that they ammend their lives. In the second case, if, as you say, the fig-tree was an analogy for the system of Temple-worship (and I agree it was), then in what sense could we speak of a philosophy or a theological position being "punished"? Destroyed, certainly, even as sin and death will one day be destroyed, but you can only punish moral agents, personalities, if you will, not impersonal systems. Once we start treating systems as if they were personalities, ISTM we are getting close to idolatry.
 

---

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Ah, but love is not the only aspect of God's character. Justice is another, which is why he can't simply let sin exist without dealing with it.

[x post]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dayfd:
Nor does Paul use martyrdom tropes or language.

---

I don't understand how you can make this claim. I would consider it blatantly false.
I have been planning to start a thread on Paul's conception of Jesus' death as a martyr. The book I'm currently reading identifies 18 scholars who think that Martyr Theology formed the background to Paul's understanding of Jesus' death (in addition to the scholar writing the book). And cites a further 16 who concede that it is 'possible' that it did. So it isn't just me who sees the martyr language there...

---

quote:

---

But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example to follow in his steps.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The attempts by PSA-advocates - or Starlight above - to read sacrifice-language as actually about something else strike me as examples of what I hereby call 'tenorism': the belief that the meaning of a passage taken as metaphorical is unchanged by substituting for the vehicle a literal statement of the supposed tenor.

---

Me no understand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
"I am a Baptist minister. I don't like mess".

---

1. You've never seen my study.

2. Gaukroger lives much nearer to the floor than most of us and so it is hardly surprising that he doesn't like mess.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
You understand what a vehicle and tenor are?

---

quote:

---

You at least concede that there are sixteen scholars who think it not certain that there's martyr language there. So not blatantly false.

---

quote:

---

Jesus is not presented in the passion narratives as a hero to be admired, but as a victim to be pitied.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
and yet for me, it was an attempt to spot patterns across multiple martyrdom narratives (Jesus, Polycarp, 2 & 4 Maccabees and Socrates) that led me to the idea that the sacrifice of Iphigenia might be a model for the understanding of Jesus in the first place.

---

quote:

---

The question I originally posed was "where did the idea of martyrdom come from in the first place?" - and "What precedents are there for it?" As with martyrdom, so too with sacrifice.

---

quote:

---

Tangent: I don't entirely agree with Dafyd on the following point:

quote:

---

Jesus is not presented in the passion narratives as a hero to be admired, but as a victim to be pitied.

---

In Mark 14:48, Jesus makes the point that he hasn't been the shy retiring type in the immediate prelude to his arrest. The Last Supper legend suggests he knew his arrest was coming. And in the passages before that, Jesus does get into arguments with religious leaders and makes a stand now and then.

---

quote:

---

And my view is that a theology which has no pre-Christian precedent is a theology that the earliest Christians are unlikely to have applied to Jesus. And I believe that PSA falls into that category.

---

quote:

---

You understand what a vehicle and tenor are? In the standard analysis of metaphor or metonymy or synechdoche, there is the tenor - the thing signified - and then the vehicle - the language used to signify. Thus in a standard example such as 'my lawyer is an old shark': the tenor is a man lacking principles, while the vehicle is a kind of sea fish. The presentation of the vehicle alters the way in which the tenor is taken. It doesn't mean the same as 'my lawyer is an old unprincipled man': we're given a specific handle - our thoughts about a predatory sea-fish - as a handle to take hold of the idea of being unprincipled.
In the same way, language of sacrifice as applied to morality (or indeed, PSA) doesn't just convey thoughts that could be conveyed with less confusion without that language. The image of the animal on the altar is being offered as the right handle to get hold of what acting morally is. It's wrong to see it as just that sacrifice language is being moralised, if you don't recognise also that morality is being sacralised.

---

quote:

---

Starlight flags up a work about Maccabean martyr theology in Paul's understanding of Jesus - a work which I haven't read but which I was previously aware of the existence of

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
You are right that sacrifice and heroism can be very messily intertwined with the concept of martyrdom. A martyr is a hero, and a martyrdom is a self-sacrifice and thus warrants description with sacrificial language.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Para 2 The point I was making was that I can readily see a way in which we can separate the sinner from the sin, something that you find problematic. Basically our sinful nature is dealt with by the atonement, whilst our sins are dealt with by forgiveness, which is always, has always been, and will always be (up their demise at the eschaton) dealt with by forgiveness. I agree the hypothetical has no practical realisation, but it is, I think, useful in clarifying the what and the how of the atonement. In treating the two aspects separately, we can see the issues with greater clarity, rather than conflating them. If you cry "foul" then my defence would be that this is just the sort of argument Paul used, in that he has far more to say about our sinful nature than about our sins.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
para 3 Yes, OK, I guess I did miss out a couple of steps in the argument. I guess the background I needed to fill in a bit was that my perception is that you see the Atonement as essentially a moral act, whereas I am quite happy to see it as a practical solution to a specific problem - how can mortal creatures come to share in the eternal fellowship of the Trinity, and to deal with the moral issues by unconditional forgiveness. Thus this little snip was a reinforcement of what I had written above. Any clearer?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Para 4 My point was not that Paul doesn't mention the cross here, but rather that he explicitly states that human sinfulness is not a block to God's redeeming nature. He dies for us in spite of, rather than because of, our sinfulness (to overstate for emphasis). With regard to reconciliation, surely Paul is saying "because you are reconciled (objective reality) so be reconciled (ie live out that reality practically in your lives). In other words, walk the talk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Para 5 Well, of course, you aren't doing anything like that, are you :

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Seriously, of course we bring our preconceptions with us to some extent. But I don't think that I've strayed beyond a reasonable and straightforward interpretation of what the scriptures say. What reason do you have for suggesting that the cleansing of the Temple or the cursing of the fig-tree are examples of punishment. In the first case, I suppose you could argue that Jesus' actions were tantamount to a fine, but they hardly amounted to fire from heaven, and the fact that He explained His actions to the money changers is a reasonable indication that he had in mind that they ammend their lives. In the second case, if, as you say, the fig-tree was an analogy for the system of Temple-worship (and I agree it was), then in what sense could we speak of a philosophy or a theological position being "punished"? Destroyed, certainly, even as sin and death will one day be destroyed, but you can only punish moral agents, personalities, if you will, not impersonal systems. Once we start treating systems as if they were personalities, ISTM we are getting close to idolatry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I suspect Calvin is the first thinker who proposed it as a theory in the sense of theory defined in this thread.
(It might be briefly present as one of many metaphors in Isaiah 53. But it certainly never reaches the level of a model.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Thank you for that clear explanation. I didn't know what vehicle and tenor were, having no background in that area. A clarifying question... When you say that a 'shark' and an 'unprincipled old man' are not the same meaning, are you meaning (1) this is because the difference is that now we have two images in our head - a picture of a shark as well as that of the unprincipled man; or (2) this is because we might take more from the shark metaphor than just 'unprincipled old man', eg I might take the idea of 'sharpness' also, and see the sharp teeth of the shark as a metaphor for the sharpness of mind of the old man and see you as saying that he's not merely unprincipled but sharp too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
(It might be briefly present as one of many metaphors in Isaiah 53. But it certainly never reaches the level of a model.)

---

This is the kind of slight of hand that marks out a truly great theologian.

---

quote:

---

Isaiah 53 does contain both substitutionary and penal elements. Isaiah 53 is directly quoted numerous times in the NT in order to explain the good news of the gospel.... but no, it never reaches the level of a model?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
When the temple was sacked in 70AD it had people in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
I don't mind the implication that morality is being religiousised. As I pointed out earlier to Jessie, the type of sacrificial language almost exclusively used in the NT is purification language (not an 'animal on an altar' per se). Thus it covers things as diverse as talk of 'yeast' (1 Cor 5:7), 'sanctification', 'water' (Eph 5:26) etc and of course 'blood', all substituting in for 'morality'.

---

quote:

---

Personally, I have difficulty seeing how the phrase "take up your cross and follow me", repeated over and over in the gospels, can be interpreted as anything other than a call to martyrdom.

---

quote:

---

This inability to provide a 'mechanism' is, to my mind, just another good reason for thinking that the mystic-sacrificial language about Jesus was really meaning nothing more than morality and martyrdom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Isaiah 53 never settles down on any single image long enough for it to become a model. It doesn't stop to dwell on any image; it doesn't elaborate any image. It's not a model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
And saying that it's quoted "to explain" the good news of the gospel is a little tendentious. You'd have to show that it is quoted to explain, rather than quoted to illustrate, or quoted to show an OT precedent to show that the life of Jesus explains it (as with the eunuch in Acts).

---

quote:

---

Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

---

quote:

---

To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. "He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
When the temple was sacked in 70AD it had people in it.

---

That's what you get for hacking off the Romans, as Jesus repeatedly warned them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Without question Isaiah 53 is concerned with punishment.

The theme is there from the first of his writing ( Isa 40)

But is the punishment substitutionary or vicarious?

All the evidence points to vicarious.

Therefore not PSA

---

What translation are you using?

"he took up our infirmities" ... "the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all" etc.

The thing is that the Great Isaiah scroll from Qumran means that we can be pretty sure about the Masoretic text.

It does exactly what it says on the tin.
 

---

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :
 
I think Isaiah 53 is another example of what I call the "faithful remnant" model, exemplified primarily by the Maccabean Martyrs. If anyone can come up with a better name for it, I am all ears. It is very close to the "Satisfaction" model, but I am hesitant to label it that.

It's a pattern centered around honour/shame concepts. What happens is this:
(1) Some large proportion (eg majority) of a group (eg Israel) is unfaithful to God and offends God publicly by their actions, dishonoring him.
(2) God is socially obligated to act in public retribution to restore his lost honor through punishing the offenders. This is called "wrath". Emotional anger is optional.
(3) God punishes the offenders. The entire group suffers his punishment, including the proportion of the group who did not act to offend God.
(4) This punishment provides an opportunity for those in the group faithful to God to publicly demonstrate their faithfulness. Their steadfast obedience and loyalty during this time of suffering and testing becomes a public demonstration of their faithfulness and honors God.
(5)(a) God is socially obligated to respond to the faithfulness of his servants with public favour toward them and the group they are part of.
(b) He is socially obligated also to respond favourably to any request they make (eg that the time of punishment cease).
(c) Also the public honour that these faithful do to him balances the dishonour previously done, removing his previous obligation to be wrathful.
(d) The example set by these faithful inspires repentence within the remainder of the group, and they turn again to God. God is obligated to respond favourably to this, with a cessation of wrath.
(6) God responds favourably, bringing the time of punishment to an end.

That is pretty clearly the pattern followed in the Maccabean Martyr accounts. I believe it is also the pattern followed in Isaiah 53. I think Isaiah 53 is set in the Exile in Babylon. The Exile is seen as a punishment on Israel as a result of many in Israel sinning. The Exile gives the faithful remnant (the true 'Servant' few within the supposed "Servant" Israel) a chance to demonstrate their faithfulness. People around them laugh, thinking their faithfulness foolish, since their 'God' has abandoned them to exile in a foreign land. But in fact it is their faithfulness that brings to an end God's wrath against Israel. God then acts to restore Israel's fortunes.

Thus to sum up: The guilty sin. The innocent faithful remnant suffer the punishment of the guilty along with the guilty. Though this they are able to demonstrate their faithfulness. That faithfulness brings to an end the punishment and restores God's favour toward the group. That seems to me to be clearly the logic behind the Maccabean Martyr accounts, and seems to me likely the logic behind Isa 53. One of the few disagreements I have with Brondos's excellent work is that I don't think this theology is applicable to Jesus.
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

(3) God punishes the offenders. The entire group suffers his punishment, including the proportion of the group who did not act to offend God.

---

Where does it say that in Isaiah 53?

If you are going to interpret the Servant as a 'group' (which is entirely possibly since it is often used in Isaiah to stand for the nation of Israel) you still end up tying yourselves up in knots working out the us/him and we/them of the passage.

Modern Jews try to get around this by saying that it is the Gentile nations speaking here. Of course the rather major problem is that there is absolutely no textual evidence to suggest it.
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Starlight: Jesus' self-sacrificial martyrdom could be described using flowery sacrificial language, but was not meant to be understood as working like a sacrifice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The images of leaven suggests, as always, sin

---

quote:

---

So what do you do with verses from Paul such as 1Cor 5:7?
"Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, as you are unleavened. For even Christ, our passover is sacrificed for us."

The images of leaven suggests, as always, sin and guess what cures it? Christ's sacrificial death of which Paul clearly sees the passover as a type.

---

Mousethief is right, of course, but even with regard to the 1 Cor passage, what Paul seems to be talking about is an approach to participating in the Passover- sacrifice and all - preceded by a throwing out of the old leaven by us. As far as I'm aware, unleavened bread isn't made by starting with leavened, and sacrificing lambs!

And isn't the dominant typology here Exodus?

I know. I said I wouldn't post on this thread any more. I lied. Does that make me a bad person?

And yet

[ 01. July 2010, 07:41: Message edited by: Psyduck ]
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
And hence your attempts to sweep Isaiah 53 under the carpet need to be seen in that light.

---

quote:

---

Now that doesn't prove that Philip used Isaiah 53 to explain a PSA version of the gospel

---

quote:

---

Paul quotes from Isaiah 53 too (not to do with the atonement but it shows that it was a passage quoted by almost all NT writers.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
So the NT writers don't use the passage to explain a PSA version of the Gospel, and this proves that they understood the passage as promoting a PSA version of the Gospel?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Clearly Christ's death has achieved something objective out of which this behaviour flows.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I notice with interest that all the rather lame and half-hearted attempts to make Isaiah 53 say what it plainly doesn't have rather quickly run out of puff.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The images of leaven suggests, as always, sin

---

Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Jamat:

quote:

---

So what do you do with verses from Paul such as 1Cor 5:7?
"Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, as you are unleavened. For even Christ, our passover is sacrificed for us."

The images of leaven suggests, as always, sin and guess what cures it? Christ's sacrificial death of which Paul clearly sees the passover as a type.

---

Mousethief is right, of course, but even with regard to the 1 Cor passage, what Paul seems to be talking about is an approach to participating in the Passover- sacrifice and all - preceded by a throwing out of the old leaven by us. As far as I'm aware, unleavened bread isn't made by starting with leavened, and sacrificing lambs!

And isn't the dominant typology here Exodus?

I know. I said I wouldn't post on this thread any more. I lied. Does that make me a bad person?

And yet

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Translation: This text doesn't say what it should so let's force it to do so.

---

quote:

---

Starlight:There is a lot of scholarly debate about what Isaiah 53 was meant to mean by the original author. The major troubles seem to be that the identity of the Servant is not clear, and the precise logic of what happened to the servant is not very unambiguously spelled out.

(1) Of the various interpretations I have seen suggested of the original meaning of Isa 53 I would rank the following top four in order of most to least likely:

(i) It refers to the faithful remnant during the Exile in Babylon, as described in detail in my earlier post.
(ii) It refers to Israel as God's Servant among the nations, suffering for doing God's will.
(iii) It speaks of a particular prophet whose ministry involves a lot of suffering as he works to do God's will.
(iv) It speaks of PSA.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
Translation: This text doesn't say what it should so let's force it to do so.

---

How ironic! That's just what your bizarre exegesis of the parable of the leaven made me think! The scripture clearly says, the kingdom of heaven is like leaven. Not the kingdom of heaven is like a lump of dough into which leaven has been introduced. The kingdom of heaven is like the leaven that is worked into the dough. It's not the parable of the tares, and can't be made to resemble it without grave damage to the text. It just doesn't say what you want it to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The fact that the servant is spoken of in the singular rather precludes the Rabbis' view that the servant was Israel. They have rather a large vested interest in eliminating Christ as the one referred to.

---

quote:

---

The fact that the servant was a man, was God's appointed one, was rejected by men, was esteemed smitten by God, was said to bare the iniquities of all, was seen as a sacrificial lamb,was buried in a rich man's tomb while being killed with wicked men,was scourged,was pierced, willingly submitted to his ordeal and is promised a future position of greatness, would suggest that you are totally misguided in your conclusion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The fact that the servant is spoken of in the singular rather precludes the Rabbis' view that the servant was Israel. They have rather a large vested interest in eliminating Christ as the one referred to.

---

I didn't discuss post-Christian Jewish exegesis of the passage because, like you, I think that post-Christian Jewish exegesis has too much at stake to be unbiased.

However, the Servant is repeatedly identified as Israel explicitly throughout Isaiah. Referring to Israel in the singular as the Servant is done repeatedly throughout Isaiah, so the fact that Isaiah 53 speaks of the servant in the singular means nothing against it being Israel. It is not a long-shot to say Israel is the Servant, because Isaiah repeatedly says Israel is the servant. However in the lead up to Isa 53 there is a somewhat confusing passage which seems to indicate the identity of the servant under discussion has changed. That is about the only good reason to think that the Servant isn't Israel. My best interpretation of it is that the 'Servant' under discussion has moved from 'faithful Israel' to the 'core faithful remnant within Israel'.

quote:

---

The fact that the servant was a man, was God's appointed one, was rejected by men, was esteemed smitten by God, was said to bare the iniquities of all, was seen as a sacrificial lamb,was buried in a rich man's tomb while being killed with wicked men,was scourged,was pierced, willingly submitted to his ordeal and is promised a future position of greatness, would suggest that you are totally misguided in your conclusion.

---

You are cherry-picking, and twisting what is said in the passage, and resolving ambiguities in a way convenient to you, all in order to make Isa 53 have a more-obvious identification with Jesus than it really has. It is not manifestly obvious that the writer meant it as a prophesy of a particular single future individual. Christian usage of the passage in Martyrdom texts suggests they saw it as depicting a martyr-pattern rather than referring solely to Jesus. If they saw it as a specific prophesy of Jesus alone they would not have applied it to Christian martyrs.

---

quote:

---

Correct me please but ISTM no serious Christian Bible scholar doubts this prophecy refers to Christ.

---

I don't see how any competent post C19 Biblical scholar, Christian or otherwise, could assert that, in straightforward terms.

[ 02. July 2010, 05:10: Message edited by: Psyduck ]
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
"We have to look at what Isaiah 53 says" rather implies a lot of unspoken assumptions. Like, we can determine what Isaiah 53 says independent of the NT witness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
There is only one thing Isaiah 53 says, and it is easily determinable and universally agreed-upon. And so forth. None of which are true.

---

quote:

---

I was referring to that lazy type of scholarship, which is extremely prevalent, that says 'this passage says lots of things and therefore it doesn't say X'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
I notice with interest that all the rather lame and half-hearted attempts to make Isaiah 53 say what it plainly doesn't have rather quickly run out of puff.

---

Alright Johnny, if you want to go there, let's go there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
There is a lot of scholarly debate about what Isaiah 53 was meant to mean by the original author. The major troubles seem to be that the identity of the Servant is not clear, and the precise logic of what happened to the servant is not very unambiguously spelled out.

(1) Of the various interpretations I have seen suggested of the original meaning of Isa 53 I would rank the following top four in order of most to least likely:

(i) It refers to the faithful remnant during the Exile in Babylon, as described in detail in my earlier post.
(ii) It refers to Israel as God's Servant among the nations, suffering for doing God's will.
(iii) It speaks of a particular prophet whose ministry involves a lot of suffering as he works to do God's will.
(iv) It speaks of PSA.

---

Why can't it be a combination of those answers? I'd say it was all of the last three. I fail to see who demonstrating, for example, that Isaiah meant (i) changes the discussion over atonement models to any significant degree. The fact of the matter is that the NT church applied this category of suffering servant to Jesus.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
(2) As has been discussed on this thread already (or one of the recent PSA threads) the Greek version of Isa 53 lends itself to a PSA interpretation way less than the Hebrew version does.
(a) This suggests that the LXX translators did not understanding it to be speaking of PSA. This implies that a PSA interpretation was not the standard reading among Jews at that time.
(b) The NT writers and later Christians used the LXX as their bible. Hence they used a version of Isa 53 which did not lend itself well to a PSA interpretation, suggesting they would not have seen PSA in it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
(3) The New Testament totally fails to use Isaiah 53 that implies the writers saw it teaching PSA. In no way do they expand on or use the text in a way that implies PSA. The idea that the Servant "took away our sinfulness" (aka "bore our sins") is used in the gospels to refer to Jesus' healings of diseases. The most PSA-like part of Isa 53 is only quoted once in the entire NT, and as you have already pointed out that it is in a section all about Moral Examplar - with moral examples before it and moral examples after it. Hardly a stunning demonstration that Peter saw Isa 53 as PSA! This usage far more implies that he saw it as talking about a moral example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
(4) According to Markshies article in this book, the most common use of Isa 53 in the first couple of centuries of post-biblical Christianity was in Martyr texts to speak of martyrdom. Since the early Christian martyrs were not seen as a penal substitutionary atonement, the primary use of Isa 53 to refer to them implies an widespread belief that Isa 53 talked about martyrdom not PSA.

---

This argument only works if it is only possible to have only one atonement model.

It's rather like saying that analogies only work if they are exactly the same in every degree. Of course if they really were then there'd be no need for analogies!
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
So the NT writers don't use the passage to explain a PSA version of the Gospel, and this proves that they understood the passage as promoting a PSA version of the Gospel?

---

Did you read what I said?

---

quote:

---

1. A passage like Acts 8 doesn't tell you anything about how Isaiah 53 was used. But it does tell you that it was foundational to their understanding of the gospel.

---

quote:

---

Hence you've got to look carefully at Isaiah 53 to see what it says. I notice with interest that all the rather lame and half-hearted attempts to make Isaiah 53 say what it plainly doesn't have rather quickly run out of puff.

---

quote:

---

4: surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted.

---

quote:

---

5: But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises are we healed.

---

quote:

---

6: All we like sheep have gone astray; we have all turned to our own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

---

quote:

---

7:

---

quote:

---

8: By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people.

---

quote:

---

9:

---

quote:

---

10: Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain. When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring and prolong his days; through him the will of the Lord shall prosper.

---

quote:

---

11: Out of his anguish he shall see light: he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. The righteous one, my servant, shall make many righteous, and he shall bear their iniquities.

---

quote:

---

12: Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

---

quote:

---

2. 1 Peter 2 does very clearly read PSA into Isaiah 53. That fact that Peter talks about Christ's stripes healing us in a passage about example only serves to highlight and strengthen it. Clearly Christ's death has achieved something objective out of which this behaviour flows.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
(hi there, Mousethief! See what I did there?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Eisegesis has a long and well-attested history. No need to be ashamed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Jamat:

quote:

---

Correct me please but ISTM no serious Christian Bible scholar doubts this prophecy refers to Christ.

---

I don't see how any competent post C19 Biblical scholar, Christian or otherwise, could assert that, in straightforward terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Eisegesis has a long and well-attested history. No need to be ashamed.

---

So, how do you see the leaven concept in scripture?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

4: surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases; yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted.

---

Bearing someone's disease is not a penal metaphor at all. The suggestion that it is punishment from God is the false assumption of the speaker.

---

What on earth is that?

If you think the writer is mistaken about God's action that is fine by me, but it is an entirely different matter. How has saying 'the speaker got it wrong here' got anything to do with whether PSA is in the text or not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

5: But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises are we healed.

---

The first half of this verse is in isolation a fairly good statement of PSA. However, then it starts talking about the punishment 'making us whole' and the bruises 'healing'. Healing and making whole are not penal metaphors: we've gone back to the health and disease frame of verse 4.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

6: All we like sheep have gone astray; we have all turned to our own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

---

A sheep might get killed because it's gone astray, but that's not punishment. The second half of the verse is probably a metonymy for 'the punishment due the iniquity', but could also be 'the consequences following on from the iniquity'. If someone commits a crime against me, I suffered their iniquity in a straightforward sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

7:

---

Nothing about substitution or punishment in this verse. It's obviously of considerable importance to the way the passion narratives are written in the gospels. But a lamb led to the slaughter is not being punished.

---

How can an Israelite not read substitution in a lamb being lead to slaughter? Maybe not punishment but this verse surely has sacrificial undertones?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

8: By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people.

---

Saying he was 'stricken for the transgression of my people' is susceptible to a PSA reading. On the other hand, it's described as a 'perversion of justice' - which may be how detractors of PSA think of it, but isn't a description that would be accepted by PSA's advocates. There's nothing to rule out the entire people being punished alongside the servant in this verse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

10: Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain. When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring and prolong his days; through him the will of the Lord shall prosper.

---

This is sacrifice imagery, not punishment imagery. The animal that is killed in a sin offering is not punished.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

12: Therefore I will allot him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he poured out himself to death, and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

---

This seems to imply the satisfaction or similar model that Starlight has been talking about. The servant seems to have earned the right to make intercession by his undeserved suffering. There is no suggestion that works by substitution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
So the first time PSA type imagery is introduced it is immediately converted to healing/wounds imagery. And it isn't developed to any greater extent in any of the following verses. There's no grounds in the passage for picking out only the PSA imagery, rather than the sacrifice imagery or the health-healing imagery or the intercession imagery, and turning it into a worked out model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

2. 1 Peter 2 does very clearly read PSA into Isaiah 53. That fact that Peter talks about Christ's stripes healing us in a passage about example only serves to highlight and strengthen it. Clearly Christ's death has achieved something objective out of which this behaviour flows.

---

This use of 'very clearly' to mean 'not' is something I was not previously familiar with. Talking about Christ's stripes healing us has no place in PSA. PSA means penal substitutionary atonement; not healing atonement.
The passage seems to me clearly about sanctification not justification. Jesus bore our sins - not the punishment due our sins - and we are freed from our sins to live for righteousness - not freed from the punishment due our sins. The passage leading up to this has been about us receiving undeserved punishment. It's not about us being spared punishment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
To conclude: I have never claimed PSA, however both Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter 2 do very clearly have PSA elements in them. No one (yet) has been able to provide any clear evidence to the contrary.

---

Oops, that should be '... never claimed PSA only.'

[ 03. July 2010, 04:40: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Jamat:

quote:

---

I find it hard to see how you can reject Christ's death as God's 'just' way of dealing with human sin.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps I should add the word 'evangelical' to the the 'Christian Bible Scholar'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
The fact that the servant is spoken of in the singular rather precludes the Rabbis' view that the servant was Israel. They have rather a large vested interest in eliminating Christ as the one referred to.

---

I didn't discuss post-Christian Jewish exegesis of the passage because, like you, I think that post-Christian Jewish exegesis has too much at stake to be unbiased.

However, the Servant is repeatedly identified as Israel explicitly throughout Isaiah. Referring to Israel in the singular as the Servant is done repeatedly throughout Isaiah, so the fact that Isaiah 53 speaks of the servant in the singular means nothing against it being Israel. It is not a long-shot to say Israel is the Servant, because Isaiah repeatedly says Israel is the servant. However in the lead up to Isa 53 there is a somewhat confusing passage which seems to indicate the identity of the servant under discussion has changed. That is about the only good reason to think that the Servant isn't Israel. My best interpretation of it is that the 'Servant' under discussion has moved from 'faithful Israel' to the 'core faithful remnant within Israel'.

quote:

---

The fact that the servant was a man, was God's appointed one, was rejected by men, was esteemed smitten by God, was said to bare the iniquities of all, was seen as a sacrificial lamb,was buried in a rich man's tomb while being killed with wicked men,was scourged,was pierced, willingly submitted to his ordeal and is promised a future position of greatness, would suggest that you are totally misguided in your conclusion.

---

You are cherry-picking, and twisting what is said in the passage, and resolving ambiguities in a way convenient to you, all in order to make Isa 53 have a more-obvious identification with Jesus than it really has. It is not manifestly obvious that the writer meant it as a prophesy of a particular single future individual. Christian usage of the passage in Martyrdom texts suggests they saw it as depicting a martyr-pattern rather than referring solely to Jesus. If they saw it as a specific prophesy of Jesus alone they would not have applied it to Christian martyrs.

---

Correct me please but ISTM no serious Christian Bible scholar doubts this prophecy refers to Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think many Hebrew Bible scholars would say that the original writer of Isaiah identified the Servant with Israel. From what I read, Isaiah was not referring to the future when writing the Servant Songs. Rather, it was referring specifically to Israel in exile as an explanation for why the nation was suffering if it was chosen by God. First Isaiah would assert that Israel was punished for its iniquities, Second Isaiah would argue that Israel was suffering as an example for the world.

Later Christians would reinterpret the Servant Songs to apply it to the person of Jesus. IMHO, what later Christians did is entirely legitimite, and has to do with reinterpreting the Scriptures in light of their contemporary situation. It has less to do with Isaiah looking through a crystal ball and seeing a crucifixion and more about Christians reading the Scriptures in light of their experience of the crucified and risen Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Bearing someone's disease is not a penal metaphor at all. The suggestion that it is punishment from God is the false assumption of the speaker.

---

What on earth is that?

If you think the writer is mistaken about God's action that is fine by me, but it is an entirely different matter. How has saying 'the speaker got it wrong here' got anything to do with whether PSA is in the text or not?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The first half of this verse is in isolation a fairly good statement of PSA. However, then it starts talking about the punishment 'making us whole' and the bruises 'healing'. Healing and making whole are not penal metaphors: we've gone back to the health and disease frame of verse 4.

---

When was the last time you went to your GP and instead of offering drugs he/she suggested hitting you to make it better? Of course it is a metaphor of healing but it is inextricably linked to punishment in the writers' mind. I don't see how this can be disputed.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

A sheep might get killed because it's gone astray, but that's not punishment. The second half of the verse is probably a metonymy for 'the punishment due the iniquity', but could also be 'the consequences following on from the iniquity'. If someone commits a crime against me, I suffered their iniquity in a straightforward sense.

---

I agree that both readings are possible from the text but your reading leaves you with greater problems. If your reading is correct then it stresses even more that it is the LORD punishing him (and not us). And again it is a huge cop out to simply say that the writer was mistaken - he may or may not be mistaken but we are discussing what he is saying, not what he should have said.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

But a lamb led to the slaughter is not being punished.

---

How can an Israelite not read substitution in a lamb being lead to slaughter? Maybe not punishment but this verse surely has sacrificial undertones?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Saying he was 'stricken for the transgression of my people' is susceptible to a PSA reading. On the other hand, it's described as a 'perversion of justice' - which may be how detractors of PSA think of it, but isn't a description that would be accepted by PSA's advocates. There's nothing to rule out the entire people being punished alongside the servant in this verse.

---

Come on, this is special pleading. 'Susceptible to a PSA reading' sounds a lot like it is a natural reading but you don't have to read it that way. Which hardly adds anything to the debate.

(BTW The fact that Jesus was innocent (and human justice was perverted is a fundamental plank to PSA and so causes no problems here.)

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

10: Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him with pain. When you make his life an offering for sin, he shall see his offspring and prolong his days; through him the will of the Lord shall prosper.

---

This is sacrifice imagery, not punishment imagery. The animal that is killed in a sin offering is not punished.

---

And? It is clearly substitution imagery. Don't forget that Starlight (and others) are attacking the S as well as the P. Therefore how you view this verse will depend on how you understand Leviticus 16 and the sacrificial system.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So the first time PSA type imagery is introduced it is immediately converted to healing/wounds imagery. And it isn't developed to any greater extent in any of the following verses. There's no grounds in the passage for picking out only the PSA imagery, rather than the sacrifice imagery or the health-healing imagery or the intercession imagery, and turning it into a worked out model.

---

I am amazed that you cannot see the irony of this paragraph. This thread is about whether or not PSA claims to be the only atonement model. And here you are saying that in Isaiah 53 one analogy has trump all others and squeeze everything into one model.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

2. 1 Peter 2 does very clearly read PSA into Isaiah 53. That fact that Peter talks about Christ's stripes healing us in a passage about example only serves to highlight and strengthen it. Clearly Christ's death has achieved something objective out of which this behaviour flows.

---

This use of 'very clearly' to mean 'not' is something I was not previously familiar with. Talking about Christ's stripes healing us has no place in PSA. PSA means penal substitutionary atonement; not healing atonement.
The passage seems to me clearly about sanctification not justification. Jesus bore our sins - not the punishment due our sins - and we are freed from our sins to live for righteousness - not freed from the punishment due our sins. The passage leading up to this has been about us receiving undeserved punishment. It's not about us being spared punishment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think you have managed to misunderstand me.
'Yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God' - my emphasis - is in the past tense. It is a past judgement of the speaker's people, which the speaker now realises was wrong. The sense of the passage is:
we used to think he was struck down by God (and, as in Isaiah 53:3 we despised him for it);
we were wrong to think this - he was not struck down by God - while we were despising him the irony is that he was bearing our diseases;
we now see that we were wrong to despise him.
This reading I think is obvious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
And I don't see how you can't see it. And, if you want to play the [a priori] card, one of us isn't committed to a predefined doctrinal position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
If you object to the GP hitting someone else to make you better model of the atonement on the grounds that it doesn't work physically you must equally allow the objection to PSA on the grounds that it doesn't work morally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
And how does the alternative reading stress that the Lord is punishing the person? If Nero burns a Christian at the stake, that Christian suffers Nero's iniquity. If anyone is punishing the Christian, it's Nero (and not the Lord). How do you get the reverse?

---

Because that is what the text says! "The LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all".

The writer of Isaiah goes out of his way to ascribe this action to God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Even sin offerings, scapegoats, offerings to redeem the firstborn, etc can only be called substitution in the most abstract sense and with considerable imprecision... Sacrifice is not substitution.

... As you say, it is only substitution imagery if you read Leviticus 16 in a particular way. And I do not think there is any textual warrant in Leviticus 16 to justify reading it in that way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I am presupposing the metaphor to model distinction laid out earlier in the thread by Dinghy Sailor. A model is a simplified explanation. In order for something to be an explanation, it has to be laid out and dwelt on long enough to explain. The point I believe and want to argue is that while the passage uses metaphors that could in a different context be built up into a PSA model the passage does not in fact put them together in such a way as to build up a model. The passage does not build up any model.

And no, that is not equivalent to saying that one analogy has to trump all others.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Isaiah 53 and 1 Peter both contain punishment metaphors and healing metaphors.
So if the punishment metaphors amount to the PSA model, then the healing metaphors equally amount to a GP model. That is, Jesus' death is like when a GP stabs one patient to cure another patient of a knife-wound or cures one patient of plague by giving the plague to another patient.

GP is of exactly the same status in Scripture as PSA.

If Christians are required to accept PSA as a model by the text then they are equally required to accept GP.
If Christians are not required to use GP as a model by the text neither are they required to use PSA.
If Christians can dismiss GP as nonsensical or monstrous on the grounds that medicine does not work that way they can equally dismiss PSA.

---

None of this 'logic' follows at all. You are deliberately setting up false dichotomies. The scriptures are literature not scientific textbooks containing formula from which we derive mathematical models.

I'd love to see you apply this kind of logic to a poem by Tennyson or Wordsworth.

A far more normal approach (to literature) would simply say that the writer uses both penal and medical metaphors and therefore both should be incorporated into any overall model.

I'm away for a few days but will be keen to return to the fray when I get back.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb]If Christians are required to accept PSA as a model by the text then they are equally required to accept GP.
If Christians are not required to use GP as a model by the text neither are they required to use PSA.

---

None of this 'logic' follows at all. You are deliberately setting up false dichotomies. The scriptures are literature not scientific textbooks containing formula from which we derive mathematical models.

---

quote:

---

I'm away for a few days but will be keen to return to the fray when I get back.

---

quote:

---

The scriptures are literature not scientific textbooks containing formula from which we derive mathematical models.

---

quote:

---

Has been forgiven..but how do they know they have?

Is in relationship with God..but how does she/he know it?

You see, I believe that there is an experiential component to our faith.

---

quote:

---

You see, I believe that there is an experiential component to our faith. Witness the descent of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. There is also the powerful separation of the early church from society so that people feared to be part of what was happening.

---

quote:

---

What made these people so unique and how is that uniqueness evident in believers today?

---

quote:

---

More to the point; what assures you that you are a Christian as you state above?

---

quote:

---

Psyduck: Jesus does. And I believe him.

---

Ah but Nicodemus thought he had all the categories sussed as well I recall.

BTW, experience isn't something to necessarily boast about.. what an extraordinary conclusion to jump to.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
What the hell are you talking about?

In Christian love...

[ 07. July 2010, 20:03: Message edited by: Psyduck ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Psyduck, I think Jamat and your good self are talking past each other ...

He's trying to establish whether you are truly 'saved' - which essentially means whether you are a truly a Christian by his definition of the term.

At least, that's how I read it.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I suspect Jamat it talking about 'assurance of salvation' as the experiential element.

John Wesley seems to have had that at times. But not at others. Like most evangelicals, I would imagine. I was always taught that we shouldn't go by 'feelings'. And this in a fairly experiential outfit.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Gamaliel:

quote:

---

Psyduck, I think Jamat and your good self are talking past each other ...

He's trying to establish whether you are truly 'saved' - which essentially means whether you are a truly a Christian by his definition of the term.

At least, that's how I read it.

---

Thank you, Gamaliel. I'm pretty sure you are right. Sadly, this means that while perhaps I was talking past Gamaliel - or perhaps he has temporarily "stepped aside" (I Kings 18:27*) - he wasn't talking past me. I was pretty sure that someone had straightforwardly challenged someone else's claim to self-identify as a Christian, in Purgatory.

Nice.

If he wishes to pursue this line of thought, I suggest we do it elsewhere.

However, it is perhaps germane to this thread that an equation is assumed here between "Christian" and "saved". It might be worth developing that. Or not.

*The expression here seems to mean "gone to the loo."
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Strangely enough, to develop the point in Gamaliel's second post there, the Office NT reading this morning was Romans 9. ISTM that in this passage, if one substitutes "respectability" for "righteousness" one has - from Paul - precisely the objection that I was making to Jamat's remarks, ostensibly about an "experiential" component of saving faith, but actually about the distinctive behaviour of early Christians.

quote:

---

Jamat

quote:

---

You see, I believe that there is an experiential component to our faith. Witness the descent of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2. There is also the powerful separation of the early church from society so that people feared to be part of what was happening. What made these people so unique and how is that uniqueness evident in believers today?

---

You're not asking there about experiential Christianity. You're asking about turning faith into a work in which people may boast.

---

quote:

---

30 What then are we to say? Gentiles, who did not strive for righteousness, have attained it, that is, righteousness through faith; 31 but Israel, who did strive for the righteousness that is based on the law, did not succeed in fulfilling that law. 32 Why not? Because they did not strive for it on the basis of faith, but as if it were based on works.

---

quote:

---

[11] For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
[12] Now if any one builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw [13] each man's work will become manifest; for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test what sort of work each one has done.
[14] If the work which any man has built on the foundation survives, he will receive a reward.
[15] If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
I'm not sure what you mean by a false dichotomy, but I'm pretty sure that's not what I'm doing.

---

quote:

---

originally by me
A far more normal approach (to literature) would simply say that the writer uses both penal and medical metaphors and therefore both should be incorporated into any overall model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
I agree with this completely. But I'm pretty clear that, in intention, PSA was originally advanced as an early modern theological attempt to treat Scripture as equivalent to a "scientific textbook containing formulae from which we derive mathematical[ly precise] models" - or indeed theories.

<snip>

I've seen nothing in all these recent PSA threads to shift my opinion that PSA really isn't a biblical theme, or poetry, or literature. ISTM that it does claim to be a mathematically precise description of the core of the salvation event, to which everything else is either subsidiary or ultimately irrelevant.

It's the component themes of PSA - the Biblical themes - which you rightly say are the poetic-literary expressions of truth.

---

quote:

---

Using Isaiah 53 as an example no one has demonstrated that there is not any penal language being used. And if so it is entirely appropriate for that language to be included in our atonement models.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
But however much you guys try to wiggle out of it - or genuinely think the contrary - PSA is a theory.

It says (does it not?):

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:


a) is a self-contained theory, which subordinates everything else in Scripture to itself, and

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:

b) is a theological construct, assembled outside the Bible, out of selected Biblical bits, then reimported so that everything in the Bible is interpreted in terms of it?

And once again - no PSA advocate has remotely addressed this.

---

All you've done is defined a model here. I'm beginning to wonder if you are using the term differently to how everyone else uses it?

Having studied Chemistry and then taught it I'm used to dealing with models as attempts to explain data. Once a model is adopted the whole point is to 'reimport it in order to explain the data' - that is what a model is for and how it works. However, if the model repeatedly does not 'work' then it needs to be either refined or replaced with a better model.

If you have problems with PSA you need to show how it fails to 'fit' the biblical data. But you have not done that. All you have done is claimed outrage that PSA is a model... yep, all atonement models are, well, models.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Johnny S. :
Me the only one calling it a theory? Actually, not. Not even on these threads, but certainly not in the big wide world. Just a first few googles, and not venturing into the study:

quote:

---

Penal substitution is a theory of the atonement within Christian theology (Wikipedia)

---

quote:

---

The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement... (Theopedia, An Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology)

---

quote:

---

The Penal-Substitution Theory of the atonement maintains that Christ died on the cross as a substitute for sinners.(Wikia.com,[ who add “Remember, this is a Christian site, and as such, all articles must reflect a Christian Point of View. Thank you for cooperating.”])

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
Johnny S. :
Me the only one calling it a theory? Actually, not.

---

I said that no one was disputing that PSA is a theory.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
Sorry, so you did.
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
So, for clarification, you are equating theory and model? I'm maybe conforming more to Dinghy Sailor's classification for the purposes of this thread,and making a distinction.

Just to reiterate, my position is that, whatever terminology is used, PSA can't be reduced [much if at all] beyond the components-list I offered a few posts ago without turning into something else (which I would perhaps think of as a model.

If PSA has to be stated as fully as I claim, then I argue that it is a self-contained and exhaustive selective abstraction from Scripture.

Regarding models in Scripture, I think you could argue that Scripture itself offers a number of these. But the point would be that they would not be exhaustive in the way in which, I still argue, PSA has to be.
 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Psyduck, I think Jamat and your good self are talking past each other ...

He's trying to establish whether you are truly 'saved' - which essentially means whether you are a truly a Christian by his definition of the term.

At least, that's how I read it.

---

The question is what defines you as a Christian..for you.

For me it was a conversion experience. It was subjective, powerful and undeniable. The cerebral theological categories while interesting came later.

The question for me is actually about experience. The verse that sums it up is from Song of Solomon.

"He brought me into his banqueting house and his banner over me is love."

The relevance to the discussion is really to make one stop and think of whether the discussion about PSA is of any import. One's life changes, moves towards a spiritual dimension; the question is why. Having read the first 10 chapters of Hebrews lately, it seems inescapable that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for sins and that's the basis of the transaction.

But can one be assured one is connected to the infinite on the basis, Psyduck, of what you state above, that you simply chose to believe what somepone told you? (Sorry if I'm oversimplifying what you said.)

BTW, I couldn't give a toss whether you are truly saved..none of my beeswax.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
But can one be assured one is connected to the infinite on the basis, Psyduck, of what you state above, that you simply chose to believe what somepone told you? (Sorry if I'm oversimplifying what you said.)

---

quote:

---

The question is what defines you as a Christian..for you.

---

quote:

---

For me it was a conversion experience. It was subjective, powerful and undeniable. The cerebral theological categories while interesting came later.

---

quote:

---

The question for me is actually about experience. QUOTE] Experience - not trust?

[QUOTE] The verse that sums it up is from Song of Solomon.[/"He brought me into his banqueting house and his banner over me is love."

---

quote:

---

The relevance to the discussion is really to make one stop and think of whether the discussion about PSA is of any import.

---

quote:

---

One's life changes, moves towards a spiritual dimension; the question is why.

---

quote:

---

Having read the first 10 chapters of Hebrews lately, it seems inescapable that Christ offered himself as a sacrifice for sins and that's the basis of the transaction.

---

quote:

---

But can one be assured one is connected to the infinite on the basis, Psyduck, of what you state above, that you simply chose to believe what somepone told you? (Sorry if I'm oversimplifying what you said.)

---

quote:

---

BTW, I couldn't give a toss whether you are truly saved..none of my beeswax.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
BTW, I couldn't give a toss whether you are truly saved..none of my beeswax.

---

That's not really a very nice thing to say. "I don't give a shit about whether or not you are going to roast in excruciating, eternal pain in the fires of Hell. Sux2BU." Why would you say something like this?
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
It's the smilie I don't understand.

Maybe Jamat is role-playing the PSA God...
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
So, for clarification, you are equating theory and model?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
just to reiterate, my position is that, whatever terminology is used, PSA can't be reduced [much if at all] beyond the components-list I offered a few posts ago without turning into something else (which I would perhaps think of as a model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
If PSA has to be stated as fully as I claim, then I argue that it is a self-contained and exhaustive selective abstraction from Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Psyduck:
models in Scripture, I think you could argue that Scripture itself offers a number of these. But the point would be that they would not be exhaustive in the way in which, I still argue, PSA has to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus suffered the just punishment of God in our stead in order to reconcile us to God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus suffered the just punishment of God in our stead in order to reconcile us to God.

---

This says nothing about why God should need to punish those s/he loves. It says nothing about why s/he would need to be reconciled to those s/he loves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

If a Father loves his children he loves them whatever they do - and welcomes them with open arms whenever they come into the house. He doesn't question their actions or morality - he just loves them and gives of himself to them. He forgives them when they wrong him personally and guides them when they wrong others.


If a human father can do this, surely it's not beyond God?

---

Because he's God and not a human being.

What if the child killed his father? What then?
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
God can't love unconditionally, forgive and guide because s/he's God?

eh?


 

---

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
BTW, I couldn't give a toss whether you are truly saved..none of my beeswax.

---

That's not really a very nice thing to say. "I don't give a shit about whether or not you are going to roast in excruciating, eternal pain in the fires of Hell. Sux2BU." Why would you say something like this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:
But can one be assured one is connected to the infinite on the basis, Psyduck, of what you state above, that you simply chose to believe what somepone told you? (Sorry if I'm oversimplifying what you said.)

---

1. Why does "being assured one is connected to the infinite" matter?

2. Isn't that how we all become Christians? Or at least find out about Christianity? Some claim to have direct experience of God that drove them into the circle; blessed are those of us who have not seen, yet still believe.

---

quote:

---

Regarding Hebrews, I think it is very difficult to look at chs 1-9 and deny that the writer believes certain tenets about Christ's person and function.

I don't want to start proof texting but the message is actually that his unique function of combining incarnation, and sacrificial death and priesthood creates for believers in him, an access into the heavenly throne room since he has gone there first with a blood sacrifice.

Why don't you read it as a narrative and see what you think?

---

I did Hebrews as a Greek text at university thirty-two years ago. Best Greek in the New Testament - and if Harnack is right, written by a woman!

I don't dispute the accuracy of your summary. But it's not PSA. It's sacrifice. And it's the supersession of the Jewish sacrifices in Christ and the New Testament.

This is really one of the points I've been making throughout. Hebrews is Hebrews and Isaiah 53 is Isaiah 53. And the Passover Lamb is John - and one strand of Paul.

Isaiah 53, Hebrews, John and Paul aren't PSA - even if PSA is a fusion of elements drawn from Isaiah 53, Hebrews, John (though where in John I wouldn't know) and Paul, and other stuff. PSA is a synthesis.

quote:

---

BTW 'I don't care about your salvation' is nothing personal, I just don't see it as my business.

---

quote:

---

You do seem very cerebral though Psyduck and that is what prompted the question about experience. To me theological models have to have lifestyle consequences. I was curious about your story. But feel free to ignore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
God can't love unconditionally, forgive and guide because s/he's God?

eh?

---

quote:

---

When it's put that way it does sound ugly.

This then, must appear to come across in the same vein:

10For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. Hebrews 2

Note that it is God perfecting the Son.

---

quote:

---

Instead of MAKING (bad God) him suffer and die,

---

quote:

---

He couldn't arm Jesus with body armour and an assault rifle, and let him waste all those bad demons?

---

quote:

---

Isn't this morally reprehensible of God to do this too, requiring Christ to suffer,

---

quote:

---

The brethren would be the preceding prophets, I suppose...

---

quote:

---

Seems like you can't make omelettes without breaking eggs. Christus Victor requires God to use the Romans to do bad things to Christ so that he is empowered to liberate His People, by defeating the Adversary, so that they could build temples for the Holy Spirit, to bring forgiveness to the world.

---

quote:

---

Just as He used the Babylonians to do bad things to the faithful remnant, so that they were enabled to liberate Israel, by defeating the forces that held them captive, so that they could return to Jerusalem, rebuild the Temple and bring forgiveness to the world.

---

quote:

---

Job, the remnant, Jesus, all cast from the same mould...dangerous radicals with a dangerous motto: we take the good readily from the Lord, should we not take evil? No wonder the Comforters, the Exiles and the Pharisees were worried. It could catch...and it could cause trouble, threaten the existing world order.

---

quote:

---

Ooops, I tried to hold back, but that one got loose and set off a whole chain of thought.

---

Shame you couldn't stop that, too, Because it got us precisely nowhere.

[ 10. July 2010, 19:01: Message edited by: Psyduck ]
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
That was a combative post. I've re-read yours, and I suspect you might not have intended it as combatively as it comes over. I apologize for adding unneccessary heat to the debate.

Nonetheless, whether you meant it or not, there was an element of parody and serious misrepresentation in what you said. Yoru line of thought did run away with you. As perhaps did my response with me.
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 
I meant that I found it strange that Boogie found it upsetting that God needed to punish, but not that He needed for Jesus to undergo suffering.

Couldn't a more civilised way have been found?

The other material materialised when I read the relevant passages.

Shalom...
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I don't believe that God did need Jesus to undergo suffering - Jesus suffered (imo) at the hands of men, not the hands of God.
 

---

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't believe that God did need Jesus to undergo suffering - Jesus suffered (imo) at the hands of men, not the hands of God.

---

I respectfully submit that this would require us to chuck out a large chunk of Hebrews.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
That's OK by me - if you feel the need
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Jesus needed to die to harrow Hell. That's the way you get there.
 

---

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
care to explain what you mean MT?
 

---

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :
 
footwasher:

quote:

---

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't believe that God did need Jesus to undergo suffering - Jesus suffered (imo) at the hands of men, not the hands of God.

I respectfully submit that this would require us to chuck out a large chunk of Hebrews.

---

quote:

---

In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard for his godly fear.
Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchiz'edek.

---