Ship of Fools: Purgatory: PSA and Christian Identities

Thread: Purgatory: PSA and Christian Identities 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=000775

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

I don't know if it's a good or a bad time to launch another PSA thread (and can see arguments both ways) but here goes.

ISTM that one of the things that has emerged again on both the "In Christ alone" thread in Ecclesiantics, and the "At-one-ment - only one?" thread here in Purgatory, is the degree of personal investment that people have in Penal Substitutionary Atonement. ISTM that it has been cited as a crucial component, not just in the theology, but in the Christian identity of some evangelicals, in particular. The Ecclesiantics thread seems to suggest, for example, that for many Methodists, but by no means all, being "anti-PSA" (whatever that might mean) is seen as a component of Methodist identity. And some posters have spoken of their struggle to establish a Christian identity that excludes PSA, for reasons that were clearly compelling to them.

In an analogous way, perhaps, ISTM that Orthodox shipmates construct a distinctive Christian identity round the differences between western and eastern understandings of the Fall, [original] sin, and the relationship of Christ's death to the whole of his incarnation. Do "PSA Christians" (and by that I don't mean to imply that they reject or don't give a place to other perspectives on Christ's work) organize their sense of who they are - the people their faith makes them - around their understanding of PSA?

I'm very interested in this, and thought a new thread might be useful.

I don't think (but who am I to say?) it's helpful to pursue questions here as to whether PSA actually is a doctrine, theory, model, metaphor, trope, simile, discourse, or what have you. That seems to be happening quite satisfactorily elsewhere!

Maybe if people simply offered an outline understanding of what they take PSA to be as a component of the Christian faith as they see it we might open up a new line of discussion on it that doesn't get deadlocked, even in very interesting ways.

Maybe, too, if people could touch on why a Christianity with or without PSA seems not to be one they can espouse - bearing in mind that this is clearly really sensitive ground - we might actually get some sort of dialogue going.

What role does a PSA understanding of the atonement play in people's construction of their Christian identities? Why is it such a sensitive topic?

[ 16. December 2010, 13:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Interesting new thread with a different slant on the topic, Psyduck.

I'm fairly ambivalent about PSA these days but it was certainly a shibboleth with me in my more full-on evangelical days.

I suspect the reason is that, according to a certain evangelical mindset, anything less than full-blooded PSA somehow minimises the seriousness of sin and opens up the door to a 'works righteousness'. One reason, I suspect, why Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones of Westminster Chapel fame apparently doubted the reality of CS Lewis's conversion as Lewis was squeamish about PSA, and indeed unwilling to espouse any one particular atonement theory (trope, metaphor etc) over any other.

To evangelicals, like John Stott, PSA is a non-negotiable. For them it summarises the essence of the Gospel. Hence the value placed upon it.

Any view that doesn't take PSA seriously must, therefore, be seriously flawed and betokens a misunderstanding of the gospel of grace. That's how the argument runs.

I know. I was there.

And there's a residual element of that with me. However rational and objective I try to be about the whole thing there's still that nagging sense that to renege upon PSA is somehow to renege upon the Gospel itself.

I daresay there are parallel shibboleths in the fundamentalist espousal of scriptural inerrancy. If the Bible is wrong at one point then it must undermine the whole. That's essentially the argument.

So, by analogy, if you take out PSA you end up with a Saviour who cannot save for the wrath of God remains unsatisfied and unatoned for.

That's why it's such a big deal to many people. Like it or not.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Gamaliel - thanks for that.

quote:
And there's a residual element of that with me. However rational and objective I try to be about the whole thing there's still that nagging sense that to renege upon PSA is somehow to renege upon the Gospel itself.

... if you take out PSA you end up with a Saviour who cannot save for the wrath of God remains unsatisfied and unatoned for.

I've certainly heard people say that sort of thing. I wasn't brought up with PSA as a doctrine, and I would be in my teens when I first became aware of it - though oddly enough the sacrificial themes circling round the cross were familiar to me from childhood.

I can rationalize that to hold PSA - and other doctrines seem to have a comparable power to console (election, the "comfortable doctrine" was such apparently, in early C19 Scotland)- must offer a particular kind of stability to one's faith, which must be hard to relinquish. I've never been there, though.

[ 30. June 2010, 21:36: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

In the circles I grew up in (including the Baptist schools I went to), PSA was about as non-negotiable as the Trinity. I can't say that I understand why. In some cases, people seemed to believe that to deny PSA either denied the seriousness of sin (and hence a need for salvation) or failed to adequately express the depths of God's love for us. The second of those two I can sympathize with, as it has strong psychological components as well as faith commitments.

The centrality of PSA was enshrined in the very conversion process. In order to be "saved," you had to first admit you were a sinner deserving eternal hell. Then you had to believe Jesus died for your sin (usually explained in PSA terms, which were already implied in the "sinner deserving eternal hell" bit) and ask him to forgive you for your sin. Then you had to commit your life to him, with some public sign like baptism or confessing it publicly. "Believe with your heart and confess with your mouth..." was the biblical basis for that.

Take away PSA, and one's salvation comes into question because the terms of one's conversion are changed.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Forgive my ignorance, Psyduck, but I'd always been led to believe that PSA was the default Reformed or Calvinist position. Perhaps because such Calvinism that existed in the generally Armininian circles in which I moved came from a particular enthusiastic end of the Baptists and Brethren - who tended to be more Calvinistic than the Wesleyan/Holiness influenced Pentecostals.

Essentially, the restorationist 'house-churches' with which I was involved were an amalgamation of influences from independent evangelicalism per se.

I was listening to a recording of Paradise Lost the other day and was struck by how PSA in tone 'the Argument' that introduced Book Three (I think it was) sounded. Not that Milton can be taken as a representative of Reformed Puritan views per se ... he was pretty Arian in effect.

I suppose, however you cut it, then it's difficult to get around the substitutionary element ... it's whether it's 'penal' or not is where the rub lies. As has been rehearsed on other threads.

I'm interested in this identity thing, though. I'd suggest that differences in eschatology, pneumatology and church government aside, PSA was the singlemost important uniting feature when it came to pan-evangelical fellowship and co-operation. It was almost a 'given' and was generally never challenged or questioned.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

What Churchgeek said. It was generally believed that PSA was the sole basis of our salvation. So to question it would be to undermine any sense that we could be saved.

What Churchgeek describes is, once again, very much my own experience. Even though I've broadened out in my approach it's still there, niggling away.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Gamaliel:

quote:
Forgive my ignorance, Psyduck, but I'd always been led to believe that PSA was the default Reformed or Calvinist position. Perhaps because such Calvinism that existed in the generally Armininian circles in which I moved came from a particular enthusiastic end of the Baptists and Brethren - who tended to be more Calvinistic than the Wesleyan/Holiness influenced Pentecostals.

Indeed - and of course it's the official doctrine of the Westminster Confession, but the huge convulsion that John MacLeod Campbell's trial and deposition in 1831 effected theologically - basically kicking off the theological nineteenth century in Scotland - radically modified atonement thinking certainly in the lowlands.

And as for me - well, I was brought up a Welsh-speaking Welsh Congregationalist, in a liberal tradition and congregation, under a Barthian-influenced (but also P T Forsyth influenced) ministry. I'm pretty sure that my abiding fondness for Barth's "classical" doctrine of election is due to what I imbibed, subliminally, as a child.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

This is a very good question and I hope that it may help me work out my discomfort with those who stress PSA.

Although I was brought up in a tradition that believed in PSA I never found it central to faith. I came to view the metaphor (the little I bothered to understand) as useful for people from 1st century Judaism but quite alien to western culture and therefore a barrier to the Gospel.
I do go to churches where PSA is expounded and find myself thinking 'this is all gobbledegook for the average punter' and 'it is confusing even for the faithful'.

For a lot of churches the Good News can only be seen as good by first setting the scene with the Bad News. PSA seems to set a framework to allow this Bad News/Good News contrast which seems like a distortion of the Gospel to me.

Comments welcome. How can non-PSA Christians relate to PSA Christians?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Actually we Orthodoxen do not create a Christian identity out of being different from Western Christians. Our identity is tied to the beliefs of our forebears. While we wish y'all would see the light, so to speak, and stop being so wrong about things you disagree with us about, we don't create our identity from our difference with you. That's rather arrogant on your part, fondly imagining that we need you (or our differences from you) to have a Christian identity, if that's what you mean.

If it seems like we talk a lot about places where our beliefs differ from yours, it's probably because it's the differences that are interesting, and that are likely to be the places where arguments are generated.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It was generally believed that PSA was the sole basis of our salvation. So to question it would be to undermine any sense that we could be saved.

I don't think you have to agree with the first sentence to agree with the second.

All my life I've been taught that the gospel = Jesus.

Jesus + or Jesus - is not the gospel.

Passages like this are quoted:

quote:
I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Galatians 1: 6-9

So...

1. This is not just about PSA. (And I've no idea how many times psyduck needs to be told this.) If anything fundamental is either added to or taken away from the gospel then you'll find the same reaction. I think Paul's reaction was a fairly strong one too.

2. Whether or not PSA is a fundamental to the gospel is an entirely legitimate question. Indeed what is fundamental to the gospel is another fair question. There are / have been plenty of threads on the ship about that. However, if you think PSA is fundamental to the gospel is it really surprising that you kick up a fuss when it is rejected?

(Yet again I want to stress that doesn't mean that PSA is the only fundamental to the gospel - there are others too - but it is one of them.)

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

To me the issue is about the basis of forgiveness and therefore relationship with God.
On the CV thread, it was often asserted that God can forgive whomever he likes and does so. He doesn't need a reason or basis. The consequence was really a universallist gospel.
On the other hand, if God's forgiveness is extended on the basis of the fact that the cross deals with sin, one has a different scenario altogether. One must show acceptance of his offer by repentance now. Repentance, though, touches our human pride. It is a big ask.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
To me the issue is about the basis of forgiveness and therefore relationship with God.
On the CV thread, it was often asserted that God can forgive whomever he likes and does so. He doesn't need a reason or basis. The consequence was really a universallist gospel.
On the other hand, if God's forgiveness is extended on the basis of the fact that the cross deals with sin, one has a different scenario altogether.

Not necessarily. I know universalists who think that it is by Christ's death that our sins are remitted, and yet the remission of sins is for all, and not just believers in certain theological tenets. Not all universalists think the Cross is irrelevant to God's forgiveness of our sins.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

I managed to grow up as a Christian without any understanding of any model of the atonement. It was only when I discovered in my late teens that different Christian denominations believed different theologies that I became interested in studying theology, and in particular in studying systems of salvation.

For me, as I studied them all together, comparing their relative merits, the various models of the atonement were always pretty much on par (except for the moral influence view that Christ killed himself to make us love him, which I dismissed out of hand as a non-contender).

As I weighed the merits of the various theories, I concluded they all had pretty similar exegetical merit - they all could point to about the same number of supporting biblical passages. I also decided PSA had some logical issues, it struggled to work logically as a theory.

I decided to try to extrapolate backward from the Church Fathers, to look to the early post-biblical Christian writers to see what their model of the atonement was. I also continued to study the bible and modern scholarship on the subject. These lines of study both, independently yet around the same time, led me to dismiss all the different theories of the atonement I was looking at as invalid. As I continued these studies I realized I'd been over hasty in my earlier dismissal as the Moral Influence model as being without merit in any of its variants, and that the bible and the church fathers both pointed to a model that revolved around moral transformation.

Today I see PSA as being a controlling part of a lot of people's theologies. Since I now see it as an incorrect and illogical atonement theory, I try to convince people of this and encourage adoption of the original Christian model of Moral Transformation.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

Dr Richard Turnbull places PSA as being at the core of Evangelical identity, along with scriptural authority, relationship with Jesus and mission.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

tomsk:

quote:
Dr Richard Turnbull places PSA as being at the core of Evangelical identity, along with scriptural authority, relationship with Jesus and mission.

Thanks for that. So:
1) On what grounds does he say that - apart from that evangelicals believe it, that is! Or, to put it slightly differently -
2) What would happen if you took out PSA and only worked with scriptural authority, relationship with Jesus and mission?

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Sorry to double-post! [Hot and Hormonal]

TANGENT// (probably!) Starlight:

quote:
(except for the moral influence view that Christ killed himself to make us love him, which I dismissed out of hand as a non-contender).

I'm not sure how you're using the definite article there. Can I take it that you're not equating "moral influence" atonement as such with "the view that Christ killed himself to make us love him"? But if you are speaking of a moral influence view that "view that Christ killed himself to make us love him" - I've never come across such a formulation!

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Starlight: I also decided PSA had some logical issues, it struggled to work logically as a theory

Oh really? please demonstrate.

Regarding universalism MT, If you want to wade through the CV thread, there was an extensive discussion between JS and JJ about this point.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Hold on a second, Jamat.

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Starlight: I also decided PSA had some logical issues, it struggled to work logically as a theory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh really? please demonstrate.

OK, so people have problems with the logic of PSA. I do. But this isn't about that. This is about why people feel so strongly about PSA - for or against. ISTM that you feel very strongly that a passing observation about the logic of PSA is something you have to step in and defend against, very quickly. I don't understand that, when that isn't what we're talking about.

But what we are talking about, ISTM, is why people feel as strongly as that about PSA.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding universalism MT, If you want to wade through the CV thread, there was an extensive discussion between JS and JJ about this point.

Did they speak to what I said? If so you had no excuse for what you said. If not, then what I said adds to the discussion.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

And yes, I started a small possible tangent of my own, a few posts up!

But my thinking there was that this was a thread about atonement - narrowly, PSA - in the context of people's Christian identities, and it might be interesting to hear why a particular variant of Moral Influence was discarded by Starlight (especially when other variants grew to be important components of Starlight's thinking.)

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

What Johnny S said, plus a bit more. The people you're talking about are generally quite keen on doctrine. If you attacked another of their doctrines you'd get another harsh response.

There's a bit more to it than that. Firstly, the cross and atonement are such an important subject area that people are always going to be on a hair trigger when talking about them. Secondly, PSA is seen as a doctrine that is under attack at the moment. Steve Chalke's 'Lost Message of Jesus' was fine and made me go [Snore]

but others got het up about it. However, how many churches do you know that change the words to Townend's 'In Christ Alone' right now? How many threads appear on here questioning whether PSA is an evil, contorted doctrine?! As a doctrine that is perceived to be under attack, PSA gets very staunchly defended.

Anyway, I thought it was homosexuality that was meant to be the uniquely defining doctrine with which evangelicals obsessively got their knickers in a twist. Make your minds up guys, which is it to be?

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
What Johnny S said, plus a bit more. The people you're talking about are generally quite keen on doctrine.

And nobody else is?

quote:
If you attacked another of their doctrines you'd get another harsh response.

Why? Why does a questioning response need to be construed as an "attack"? Why, when it's a case of other Christians seeing things differently, does the response have to be so along-the-line defensive? And - is it? I see lots of PSA Christians who seem to be able to discuss and defend PSA quite robustly without insinuating this kind of thing.

quote:

There's a bit more to it than that. Firstly, the cross and atonement are such an important subject area

Indeed. No disagreement about that...

quote:
that people are always going to be on a hair trigger when talking about them.

Again - why?

And again - is that always true?

quote:
Secondly, PSA is seen as a doctrine that is under attack at the moment.

I don't understand the qualification "at the moment". PSA is always under attack, just like the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or the doctrine that Scripture isn't inerrant. And yes, that's a doctrine. (Or part of one.) Are you alleging a conspiracy?

quote:

[QUOTE] how many churches do you know that change the words to Townend's 'In Christ Alone' right now?

A comparable question might be how many churches change words of hymns in order to put them into their hymnbooks. A lot, I suspect. Between CH3 and CH4, we changed the words of "All my hope on God is founded" because some people didn't like "Me through change and chance he guideth." Presumebly they weren't quantum physicists. And I object to their change. But that's what happens.

quote:
How many threads appear on here questioning whether PSA is an evil, contorted doctrine?! As a doctrine that is perceived to be under attack, PSA gets very staunchly defended.

Well this one doesn't. Neither did the last one I launched.

quote:
Anyway, I thought it was homosexuality that was meant to be the uniquely defining doctrine with which evangelicals obsessively got their knickers in a twist. Make your minds up guys, which is it to be?

Doesn't that, on re-reading it, quite honestly sound a bit to you like the expression of a persecution complex?

Why is it apparently so threatening to you that lots and lots of Christians don't hold PSA? And if it's OK to feel threatened on grounds like these, what about Christians who have been given to believe that their Christianity is inadequate because they don't believe in PSA?

And is that really a helpful way in which to conduct a theological discussion?
What I personally am after here is the psychology - on both sides - of personal and identity investment, which in some cases seems to be huge.

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

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

IMO the reason people feel so strongly against PSA is because it seems to them to call the character / nature of God into question.

And that is the be all and end all. In the last analysis it is not whether or not I believe in God, but what kind of a God do I believe in.

[ 01. July 2010, 10:30: Message edited by: shamwari ]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

I can see that, shamwari - but I wonder just why a Christian God who is understood in the light of other perspectives is just quite so deficient. Or even, apparently, unrecognizable as the Christ-revealed God at all... [Confused]

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Can I take it that you're not equating "moral influence" atonement as such with "the view that Christ killed himself to make us love him"? But if you are speaking of a moral influence view that "view that Christ killed himself to make us love him" - I've never come across such a formulation!
...
it might be interesting to hear why a particular variant of Moral Influence was discarded by Starlight (especially when other variants grew to be important components of Starlight's thinking.)

Once upon a time, I had an initial ignorance of atonement theories, and became interested in learning about different theories. In order to do so I read whatever literature came most easily to hand on the subject. Much of that was quite popular-evangelical stuff. The understanding of the Moral Exemplar model I got from that literature was very badly flawed. That understanding was that Moral Exemplar taught "Jesus killed himself to inspire us to love him" and that the Moral Exemplar model had been invented by Abelard.

I was later to find that this was a terrible straw man of the Moral models of the atonement, and that Moral models of the atonement had been around long before Abelard. Apparently this misconstrual of the Moral Exemplar theory has been around a long time - Hastings Rashdall published in 1915 an excellent work on the atonement which had an appendix attacking exactly this straw man of the Moral view.

Probably the Moral view of the atonement is widely misconstrued due to insufficient people advocating it in popular circles. Unless more people teach it and make very clear what their definition of it is, it will not be enough to overturn the atleast a century old idea that the moral exemplar is nothing more than totally untentantable theory of Christ's suicide inspiring love. The atonement theory of moral transformation was very popular among German liberal scholars of the 19th century (including Kant), but its only significant English advocate has been Rashdall.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
What Johnny S said, plus a bit more. The people you're talking about are generally quite keen on doctrine.

And nobody else is?

Take a look at the plurality of evo statements of faith and make up your own mind on their eagerness for this sort of stuff.

quote:

quote:
If you attacked another of their doctrines you'd get another harsh response.
Why? Why does a questioning response need to be construed as an "attack"? Why, when it's a case of other Christians seeing things differently, does the response have to be so along-the-line defensive? And - is it? I see lots of PSA Christians who seem to be able to discuss and defend PSA quite robustly without insinuating this kind of thing.

I thought this thread was about how you thought people were very closely attached to PSA as part of their identity, precisely because they defended it vigorously like they felt they were under attack.

quote:

quote:
There's a bit more to it than that. Firstly, the cross and atonement are such an important subject area
Indeed. No disagreement about that...
quote:
that people are always going to be on a hair trigger when talking about them.
Again - why?

For the same reason as why people get more serious about voting in a general election than they do about deciding whether to buy Tetley or Typhoo tea: it's a more serious issue so the consequences are greater.

quote:

quote:
Secondly, PSA is seen as a doctrine that is under attack at the moment.
I don't understand the qualification "at the moment". PSA is always under attack, just like the doctrine of Transubstantiation, or the doctrine that Scripture isn't inerrant. And yes, that's a doctrine. (Or part of one.)

Like it or not, that's the perception. It could be because people's lack of understanding of their historical context but that's the perception. You asked about what these people think, I'm telling you what they think.

quote:

quote:
Anyway, I thought it was homosexuality that was meant to be the uniquely defining doctrine with which evangelicals obsessively got their knickers in a twist. Make your minds up guys, which is it to be?

Doesn't that, on re-reading it, quite honestly sound a bit to you like the expression of a persecution complex?

Not at all. In fact, this thread makes a pleasant change from the endless "Why are evangelicals so obsessed about sex" discussions. However, I'll be watching to make sure you never use that line in future - I think you've disqualified yourself by choosing PSA as your evangelical obsession of choice.

quote:
Why is it apparently so threatening to you that lots and lots of Christians don't hold PSA?

Who said I felt threatened? I was trying to answer your question and tell you what people believe.

Psyduck, I have never made this personal - if you reread the last thread carefully you'll see that I made an effort not to make it appear personal wheareas you were the one throwing around terms like "imbecilic" and "disreputable". I've posted in good faith and I'm interested in having a discussion. If you don't like that, call me to hell and stop accusing me of bad faith, a persecution complex or a "conspiracy theory", whatever that may be. Now, let's have a discussion shall we?

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
IMO the reason people feel so strongly against PSA is because it seems to them to call the character / nature of God into question.

And that is the be all and end all. In the last analysis it is not whether or not I believe in God, but what kind of a God do I believe in.

You have a point. A lot of the annoyance shown towards PSA deniers stems, I believe, from the idea that they are putting their personal preconception of God before the God that is revealed to them in the bible. The debate then becomes one of scriptural authority and of here we get our idea of God, rather than just one over PSA.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
However, I'll be watching to make sure you never use that line in future - I think you've disqualified yourself by choosing PSA as your evangelical obsession of choice.

Excuse me? Would you like to retract that? Or would you like me to refer you to the Purgatory guidelines again? Or something?

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
But what we are talking about, ISTM, is why people feel as strongly as that about PSA.

I enjoy reading threads about PSA because opposition to it is practically the whole basis of the New Church. Swedenborg wrote in 1771:

quote:
Believing that the Lord's suffering on the cross was redemption itself is a fundamental error on the part of the church. That error, along with the error about three divine Persons from eternity, has ruined the whole church to the point that there is nothing spiritual left in it anymore. There is no topic that fills more books by orthodox theologians today, that is more intensely taught and aired in lecture halls, or that is more frequently preached and pronounced from the pulpit than the following: God the Father was angry at the human race, so he not only moved us all away from himself but locked us into a universal damnation and cut off communication with us. Nevertheless, because he is gracious, he either convinced or goaded his Son to come down to take a limited damnation on himself and ritually purge the Father's anger. This was the only way the Father could look on the human race with any favor. So this was in fact done by the Son. For example, in taking on our damnation, the Son let the Jews whip him, spit in his face, and then crucify him like someone accursed of God (Deuteronomy 21:23). After that happened the Father was appeased, and out of love for his Son he retracted the damnation, but only from those for whom the Son would intercede. Therefore the Son became a Mediator to the Father for all time.
[2] These ideas, and others like them, resound in churches today and reverberate off the walls like an echo from a forest, filling the ears of all who are there. Surely, though, everyone with decent reasoning enlightened by the Word can see that God is compassion and mercy itself. He is absolute love and absolute goodness - these qualities are his essence. It is a contradiction to say that compassion itself or absolute goodness could look at the human race with anger and lock us all into damnation, and still keep its divine essence. Attitudes and actions of that kind belong to a wicked person, not a virtuous one. They belong to a spirit from hell, not an angel of heaven. It is horrendous to attribute them to God.
[3] If you investigate what caused these ideas, you find this: People have taken the suffering on the cross to be redemption itself. The ideas above have flowed from this idea the way one falsity flows from another in an unbroken chain. All you get from a vinegar bottle is vinegar. All you get from an insane mind is insanity.
Any inference leads to a series of related propositions. These are latent within the original inference and come forth from it, one after the other. This idea, that the suffering on the cross was redemption, has the capacity to yield more and more ideas that are offensive and disgraceful to God, until Isaiah's prophecy comes to pass:
The priest and the prophet have gone astray because of beer; they stagger in their judgment. All the tables are full of the vomit they cast forth. (Isaiah 28:7, 8)
(Emanuel Swedenborg, True Christianity 132, published in Amsterdam in 1771)

Curiously, New Church congregants often assert that no one believes in PSA anymore, and I have to show them threads like this one on the Ship to convince them that people do.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Dinghy Sailor: OK- and how about we make that "something" a discussion. I don't know why we are reading each other's posts in ways which the other professes not to mean them. I'm willing to back up. But I really don't like being threatened, and you did just threaten me. I'll walk away from it if you will.

[ 01. July 2010, 10:57: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Freddy:

quote:
I enjoy reading threads about PSA because opposition to it is practically the whole basis of the New Church.

Should have thought of that for the OP! That's exactly what I mean by a Christian identity with PSA - or its repudiation - as an important part of its construction.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Last time you referred to the guidelines you said this,

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

I didn't mind being challenged so that was you making a wrong judgement. I'll apologise for my more recent wording and assume that you've apologised for jumping to conclusions earlier.

Let me reword:

quote:
This should have been posted by me:
Many people frequently posit that conservative and/or evangelical Christians are "obsessed about sex". However, recently on the Ship, a spate of threads have arisen which posit that actually, PSA is the uniquely sensitive issue of which evangelicals and conservatives are disproportionately mindful.

These two ideas are mutually exclusive: you can be disproportionately protective of one or the other but not both - in that case you're just generally protective of your doctrine.

Since Psyduck has been the major proponent of these recent threads, I am delighted to hear that he shall never talk about other Christians being obsessed by sex, since that would invalidate the case he's been making on the recent threads. I can't remember if he's used the "obsessed about sex" line before but I'm glad that he won't do it in the future.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
I can't remember if he's used the "obsessed about sex" line before but I'm glad that he won't do it in the future.

OK, you have to allow me a [Paranoid]

and a

over that.

quote:
a spate of threads have arisen which posit that actually, PSA is the uniquely sensitive issue of which evangelicals and conservatives [I note you are collating all evangelicals under the PSA rubric] are disproportionately mindful.

Well, I only started one other, but as for this one, I'd express it like this. Affirmation of PSA does seem to be a - maybe the most - salient feature in the theological identity of many conservatives and evangelicals. It also seems to function as a criterion among some evangelicals and conservatives of a touchstone of - two separate but related things:

1) Who is "one of us" - i.e. who is "the same kind of Christian as us" and
2) Who is "a real Christian.

There are Christians - I'm one of them - who clearly affirm that people very unlike them in faith, practice and theology (like, in my case, conservative evangelicals) are real Christians, despite taking issue with them on (many) points of disagreement.

I don't think that the rest of your rewording is relevant to this thread, since I'm asking here why PSA is important in the sense of why it's a necessary, rather than a necessary sufficient, condition for being considered an evangelical Christian by some evangelical Christians.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

To expand on what I said to shamwari upthread, I think one aspect is that PSA is a well-regarded doctrine that is hard to dispute (according to the people you're talking about) that nevertheless says some things about God's character that can be difficult to swallow. This makes it a good test case of how people are developing their faith. People who subscribe to PSA are attempting to live under scripture whereas people who don't subscribe are making God in their own image.

All of this is still to be take with a sackful of salt stemming from my (and JS's) previous comment: the people you're talking about (evangelicals and conservatives, to use my shorthand) are very protective of doctrine in general.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
There are Christians - I'm one of them - who clearly affirm that people very unlike them in faith, practice and theology (like, in my case, conservative evangelicals) are real Christians, despite taking issue with them on (many) points of disagreement.

Good to hear it. So am I.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Why? Why does a questioning response need to be construed as an "attack"? Why, when it's a case of other Christians seeing things differently, does the response have to be so along-the-line defensive?

That is a really good question. And one that frustrates me too over this issue.

I don't think that it can be disputed that the NT as a whole, and the later letters in particular, that one of the major issues is that of warning about false teachers.

Now, taking that as a self-evident truth - personally I don't see how can it be disputed but feel free to disagree if you want to - I would think the following two principles apply:

1. It is not an 'attack' to question someone else's theology. We don't have to be all defensive, if someone asks questions we should have the humility to respond graciously and even be prepared to admit that we might be wrong. Just because there is such a category as 'false teacher' doesn't mean that they lurk under every bush nor does it mean that everyone I disagree with is one.

2. We shouldn't be surprised when other Christians try to establish boundaries over what it means to be a Christian - it is only natural if we take the warnings about false teachers seriously.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Freddy:
quote:
I enjoy reading threads about PSA because opposition to it is practically the whole basis of the New Church.
Should have thought of that for the OP! That's exactly what I mean by a Christian identity with PSA - or its repudiation - as an important part of its construction.

That's what I thought of immediately when I read the OP.

I'm not thinking that many will agree with our particular denominational stance, but I doubt that we are the only denomination whose identity is strongly bound up with PSA one way or another.

So the OP is right on target for me. Thanks!

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding universalism MT, If you want to wade through the CV thread, there was an extensive discussion between JS and JJ about this point.
Did they speak to what I said? If so you had no excuse for what you said. If not, then what I said adds to the discussion.

Mousethief, indeed you are right, I was the one who espoused exactly the position which you mentioned.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding universalism MT, If you want to wade through the CV thread, there was an extensive discussion between JS and JJ about this point.
Did they speak to what I said? If so you had no excuse for what you said. If not, then what I said adds to the discussion.
Mousethief, indeed you are right, I was the one who espoused exactly the position which you mentioned.

Paisano!

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

Psyduck

1) On what grounds does he say that - apart from that evangelicals believe it, that is! Or, to put it slightly differently -
2) What would happen if you took out PSA and only worked with scriptural authority, relationship with Jesus and mission?

Sorry, can't be much help as I only borrowed his book. I think, among other things, its centrality to Evangelical Anglicanism is tied up with the Reformed origins of the CofE, and particularly its Puritan heritage. I think it's more widely seen as the correct interpretation of scripture, so if you ditch it you may be ditching scriptural authority too (which would be really bad), presumably the relationship with Jesus would be wrongly understood too.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Freddy:
quote:
I enjoy reading threads about PSA because opposition to it is practically the whole basis of the New Church.
Should have thought of that for the OP! That's exactly what I mean by a Christian identity with PSA - or its repudiation - as an important part of its construction.
That's what I thought of immediately when I read the OP.

I'm not thinking that many will agree with our particular denominational stance, but I doubt that we are the only denomination whose identity is strongly bound up with PSA one way or another.

So the OP is right on target for me. Thanks!

That's interesting - I've been seeing internet ads for the New Church (sponsored link style ads, no graphics) that say just that. Something like "Jesus saves, but not by appeasing an angry father or paying for your sins" - I'm probably not quoting it exactly.

(Hey, this is my 5000th post! [Big Grin]

)

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding universalism MT, If you want to wade through the CV thread, there was an extensive discussion between JS and JJ about this point.
Did they speak to what I said? If so you had no excuse for what you said. If not, then what I said adds to the discussion.
Mousethief, indeed you are right, I was the one who espoused exactly the position which you mentioned.
Paisano!

I have always considered you so [Biased]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Regarding universalism MT, If you want to wade through the CV thread, there was an extensive discussion between JS and JJ about this point.
Did they speak to what I said? If so you had no excuse for what you said. If not, then what I said adds to the discussion.

Was anything stated or implied to the contrary?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Yes.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Freddy:

quote:
I enjoy reading threads about PSA because opposition to it is practically the whole basis of the New Church. Swedenborg...

It occurs to me - is it possible that Swedenborg's Swedish background is in play here in a particular way? I presume that Swedish Lutheranism had originally been steeped in Luther's CV understanding of the Atonement. Aulen, in Christus Victor, seems to me among other things to be trying to restore a lost Scandinavian heritage. I don't know if this is the case, but I wonder if Swedenborg's reaction against PSA was connected with either direct experience, or more likely some sort of folk-memory, of the encroachment of PSA thought on Scandinavian theology after the first generations of Lutheranism - which I presume would be a C17, not a C18 development? (Aulen may say something about this - time to update my CV!!! [Biased]

)

Posted by jrrt01 (# 11264) on :

Just musing about faith and identity in general. Here are some thoughts - I'm not putting them out as 'this is right' - more, 'this might be interesting, can anyone see any truth in this, or am I barking up the wrong tree?'

All of us have multiple identities through which we belong to groups. Any particular identity is based on a whole network of associated practices; beliefs; ideas; rituals etc.
A large part of any identity may be tacit identity: that is, it is not explicit or even conscious.
Defining who is in the group depends upon boundaries.
Some groups do have fairly definable boundaries (gender; whether you are a ‘bachelor’). However, even here the boundaries are less rigid than may appear (transgender individuals; someone who has entered into a civil partnership).
Many groups or identities have no clear boundaries (who belongs to the Church of England? Everyone in England? Those who attend occasionally? Those baptised in the CoE? Those on the electoral roll? Those who attend regularly? Those who are ‘real Christians’?).
Controversies and conflict arise when something associated with an identity is challenged. This challenge may be deliberate or not; it may be a challenge to an explicit part of the identity or to an element of the tacit identity. At this point, the element that is challenged can function as a symbol of the entire identity.
These elements then act as what have ben called boundary markers, oriIdentity symbols, or badges of identity. Whatever you call it, the element acts as an outward and visible sign of the inward ‘whole’ of the identity.
Religious controversies begin when an element of an identity is challenged. This can be an element which is practice (which day is Easter? Can we use icons?); which is linguistic (can we say ‘theotokos’ of Mary?); which is cognitive (is PSA the true model of the atonement) and of course all of these may overlap with others.
The element attacked then stands for the whole of the identity. It becomes fiercely defended (assuming the underlying identity is perceived as important) in the same way that an army will fight to retain or regain its standard.
So much energy and emotion may be invested in this that those involved will not be able or willing to dissociate the symbol from the underlying identity. The controversy will therefore last for the lifetime of those involved.
The group itself may be strengthened by the challenge and feed off the challenge: cf Social Identity Theory. This may create a snowball effect.
If there is a group which sustains itself based on that identity, the identity symbol may remain as such from then on (cf Orthodox and icons). It has become an explicit part of the identity.
On the other hand, subsequent generations may decide that the identity symbol isn’t essential to the identity after all, and it fades in power and significance into obscurity (are wedding rings bad?).
A third possibility is that, if the challenge disappears, then the identity symbol may appear to fade from view over time. However, it may remain as a tacit part of the identity and may be revived again if the challenge is repeated (cf the difficulty reconciling the Orthodox and RC churches).
PSA has become an identity symbol/marker for a large swathe of evangelicalism. To attack PSA effectively becomes an attack on the whole identity of evangelicalism. PSA was always fairly explicitly part of the evangelical stream.
Homosexuality has become another identity symbol for parts of evangelicalism. Again, the 'right' attitude to homosexuality stands for the whole.
Other strands/denominations/traditions will have their own symbols which will be as vigorously defended, again often to the bemusement of those not in that group.
This makes religious debate extremely hard - you are not criticising the logic of one model/theory - you are (socially and emotionally) attacking their entire religious identity.

What do people think?

JT

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

I think that's a smorgasbord of really helpful articulations, with a helpful connecting thread.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
It occurs to me - is it possible that Swedenborg's Swedish background is in play here in a particular way?

Good question. I don't really know.

My understanding is that PSA was the dominant theme not only in 18th century Swedish Lutheran theology, but also in all of the other protestant countries, notably England and Holland where he spent a good deal of his time.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

"Surely, though, everyone with decent reasoning enlightened by the Word can see that God is compassion and mercy itself. He is absolute love and absolute goodness - these qualities are his essence. It is a contradiction to say that compassion itself or absolute goodness could look at the human race with anger and lock us all into damnation, and still keep its divine essence. Attitudes and actions of that kind belong to a wicked person, not a virtuous one."

Swedenborg

Well said.

[Overused]

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
"Surely, though, everyone with decent reasoning enlightened by the Word can see that God is compassion and mercy itself. He is absolute love and absolute goodness - these qualities are his essence. It is a contradiction to say that compassion itself or absolute goodness could look at the human race with anger and lock us all into damnation, and still keep its divine essence. Attitudes and actions of that kind belong to a wicked person, not a virtuous one."

Swedenborg

Well said.

It may have been "well said", but it is not scripturally accurate.

Any argument that starts with words similar to "Surely, though, everyone with decent reasoning enlightened by the Word can see..." should be dismissed out of hand. Such an opening is tantamount to saying "You are an idiot if you don't believe what I do."

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Sharkshooter:

quote:
It may have been "well said", but it is not scripturally accurate.

So what is meant by "scripturally accurate"?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Any argument that starts with words similar to "Surely, though, everyone with decent reasoning enlightened by the Word can see..." should be dismissed out of hand. Such an opening is tantamount to saying "You are an idiot if you don't believe what I do."

Is it only me who sees this as self-contradictory? When you say that an argument should be dismissed out of hand, it sounds an awful lot like saying that you are an idiot if you don't believe that...

--Tom Clune

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Good post, jrrt01. Lots to chew on. It makes a lot of sense and fits well with what I know of church history.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
So what is meant by "scripturally accurate"?

I would take it to mean "supported by a study of the scriptures".

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
So what is meant by "scripturally accurate"?
I would take it to mean "supported by a study of the scriptures".

The problem with this is that nearly anything can be supported by a study of the scriptures. There are 1000x1000 different theologies and scraps of theologies out there, each one claiming to be supported by the scriptures, and most mutually exclusive with one another.

Or are you saying that what matters is that it is important enough to one to at least try to find a scriptural argument for one's position?

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
"Surely, though, everyone with decent reasoning enlightened by the Word can see that God is compassion and mercy itself. He is absolute love and absolute goodness - these qualities are his essence. It is a contradiction to say that compassion itself or absolute goodness could look at the human race with anger and lock us all into damnation, and still keep its divine essence. Attitudes and actions of that kind belong to a wicked person, not a virtuous one."

Let me get this straight. The more loving one is, the more evil one is prepared to permit, and the less justice one is prepared to exact. Surely the wilful permission of evil and refusal to exact justice as a penalty for wickedness is, in itself, indicative of a lack of love for the oppressed, the downtrodden, the sinned against, the overlooked, and exploited. If God has no wrath these people have no advocate or protector.

[ 02. July 2010, 17:26: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

God willingly permits evil now, Nump. Is that from a lack of love?

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
God willingly permits evil now, Nump. Is that from a lack of love?

No, it's patience.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

If you don't believe in God's wrath you cannot sing the Kýrie eléison with any real meaning.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

Not true. The Greek is more nuanced that a mere plea for mercy. Rather, is is a statement of faith. It echoes 1 Chronicles 16:34 and a psalm (136?) ...give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever...

Its an acknowledgment of what God has done, what God is doing, and what God will continue to do.

The idea that it is a plea for mercy is very Western, an appeal to an wrathful God. The Greek root is also the word for oil so you could translate it: ‘Lord, soothe me, comfort me, take away my pain, show me your steadfast love.’

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

If God has no wrath these people have no advocate or protector.

There are plenty of human beings who advocate for the poor, downtrodden, etc. without wrath. Indeed the ones with the least wrath are generally considered the most virtuous (e.g. Mom Teresa). Why does God need wrath to do the same thing?

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If God has no wrath these people have no advocate or protector.

There are plenty of human beings who advocate for the poor, downtrodden, etc. without wrath. Indeed the ones with the least wrath are generally considered the most virtuous (e.g. Mom Teresa). Why does God need wrath to do the same thing?

Yes, that because vengeance isn't evil; vengeance is God's.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not true. The Greek is more nuanced that a mere plea for mercy. Rather, is is a statement of faith. It echoes 1 Chronicles 16:34 and a psalm (136?) ...give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever...

Its an acknowledgment of what God has done, what God is doing, and what God will continue to do.

The idea that it is a plea for mercy is very Western, an appeal to an wrathful God. The Greek root is also the word for oil so you could translate it: ‘Lord, soothe me, comfort me, take away my pain, show me your steadfast love.’

You can read Wiki too - well done. Why the connection between God's mercy and our sin then? Why do we specifically entreat God's mercy when confessing our own sin? In what way does mercy deal with our sin? What would happen if mercy were withheld? What are the benefits of mercy bestowed? Why the Jesus prayer?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I'm interested in the responses Call Me Numpty gets to his questions. I've often wondered the same thing.

It strikes me that whilst 'the West', post-Augustine, may have overdosed to some extent on wrath, judgement and weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, the Christian East may sometimes run to the opposite error of acting as if everything's hunky-dory and that sin is no big deal.

The Eastern view is certainly more 'humane' ... which is enough to make some Westerners suspicious in and of itself. [Biased]

I've knocked around with the Orthodox sufficiently to pick up the fact that they do take sin seriously and aren't blaise about it. But I's so steeped in Augustinian influences that I still find their very unwrathful God hard to get to grips with, as it were. Of course, He's the same as ours, but seemingly in a better mood ...

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not true. The Greek is more nuanced that a mere plea for mercy. Rather, is is a statement of faith. It echoes 1 Chronicles 16:34 and a psalm (136?) ...give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever...

Its an acknowledgment of what God has done, what God is doing, and what God will continue to do.

The idea that it is a plea for mercy is very Western, an appeal to an wrathful God. The Greek root is also the word for oil so you could translate it: ‘Lord, soothe me, comfort me, take away my pain, show me your steadfast love.’
You can read Wiki too - well done. Why the connection between God's mercy and our sin then? Why do we specifically entreat God's mercy when confessing our own sin? In what way does mercy deal with our sin? What would happen if mercy were withheld? What are the benefits of mercy bestowed? Why the Jesus prayer?

Actually, I got it some time ago, for a sermon I was doing on the mass, from 'The Meaning of Kyrie Eleison by Anthony M. Coniaris'.

The Jesus prayer asserts the same feelings, otherwise I wouldn't use it because it would be reinforcing toxic, subChristian images of God, as does PSA generally.

[ 02. July 2010, 18:35: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've knocked around with the Orthodox sufficiently to pick up the fact that they do take sin seriously and aren't blaise about it. But I's so steeped in Augustinian influences that I still find their very unwrathful God hard to get to grips with, as it were. Of course, He's the same as ours, but seemingly in a better mood ...

He doesn't have to put up with Augustinianism when he's with us.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If God has no wrath these people have no advocate or protector.

There are plenty of human beings who advocate for the poor, downtrodden, etc. without wrath. Indeed the ones with the least wrath are generally considered the most virtuous (e.g. Mom Teresa). Why does God need wrath to do the same thing?
Yes, that because vengeance isn't evil; vengeance is God's.

Ah, it's the old "do as I say, not as I do." Because Jesus was so vengeful when he was with us. Like to the woman caught in adultery. And Zaccheus. Inter alia. And he never does anything he doesn't see his Father doing.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

No, it the old "what scripture says" not what I think is right canard, I'm afraid MT. It's actually quite simple. Vengeance isn't evil, but we are. Vengeance is good, therefore is requires that someone good should exact it. We must not take vengeance because we too are sinners in need of mercy. God, on other hand, can and will take vengeance because he is good.

quote:
Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.The Apostle Paul

Vengeance belongs to God; that's why we mustn't avenge ourselves. God intends to do it for us.

[ 02. July 2010, 18:56: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If God has no wrath these people have no advocate or protector.

There are plenty of human beings who advocate for the poor, downtrodden, etc. without wrath. Indeed the ones with the least wrath are generally considered the most virtuous (e.g. Mom Teresa). Why does God need wrath to do the same thing?
Yes, that because vengeance isn't evil; vengeance is God's.
Ah, it's the old "do as I say, not as I do." Because Jesus was so vengeful when he was with us. Like to the woman caught in adultery. And Zaccheus. Inter alia. And he never does anything he doesn't see his Father doing.

quote:
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. 1 Peter 2:23

How does this verse work then?

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't have to put up with Augustinianism when I knock around with you guys either, Mousethief. But I do see a lot that would probably make the Baby Jesus cry ... [Frown]

As indeed I do this side of the Schism ...

I'm still interested in the answers to Numpty's questions. It strikes me that people do get punished or zapped for wrong-doing in Orthodox hagiography and myth, so there must be a concept of 'vengeance is mine, I will repay' in there as well as within Western traditions.

Posted by tomsk (# 15370) on :

jrrt01

Some would say that controversies over apparent identity symbols are such problems because they are in fact representative of something else. For instance, as some see homosexuality as proscribed in scripture, the is issue is therefore about scriptural authority.

Don't know if that changes your analysis, but I think that for many identity does form about about the overt issue rather than the underlying one. Is that what you mean by tacit and implicit?

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
"Surely, though, everyone with decent reasoning enlightened by the Word can see that God is compassion and mercy itself. He is absolute love and absolute goodness - these qualities are his essence. It is a contradiction to say that compassion itself or absolute goodness could look at the human race with anger and lock us all into damnation, and still keep its divine essence. Attitudes and actions of that kind belong to a wicked person, not a virtuous one."
Let me get this straight. The more loving one is, the more evil one is prepared to permit, and the less justice one is prepared to exact. Surely the wilful permission of evil and refusal to exact justice as a penalty for wickedness is, in itself, indicative of a lack of love for the oppressed, the downtrodden, the sinned against, the overlooked, and exploited. If God has no wrath these people have no advocate or protector.

Numpty, could you please explain to me how "exacting justice" by "punishing wickedness" does anything whatsoever for any of the victims you describe. I can see how "punishment", as long as it is redemptive (in which case it is better called discipline) could be beneficial to the perpetrator, but hardly to the victim. It doesn't make their situation any better, and merely increases the net amount of suffering in the world. My understanding is that God "enacts" rather than "exacts" justice. Through the atonement he destroys the power of sin and death, freeing the sinner from the oppressing forces of sin.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

"Everybody loves to see justice done
On somebody else"

--Bruce Cockburn

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
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. 1 Peter 2:23
How does this verse work then?

Are you saying that Jesus was patiently waiting for the Father to zap those creeps, so therefore he didn't have to do it himself?

Is that why he said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do"?

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
"Surely, though, everyone with decent reasoning enlightened by the Word can see that God is compassion and mercy itself. He is absolute love and absolute goodness - these qualities are his essence. It is a contradiction to say that compassion itself or absolute goodness could look at the human race with anger and lock us all into damnation, and still keep its divine essence. Attitudes and actions of that kind belong to a wicked person, not a virtuous one."
Let me get this straight. The more loving one is, the more evil one is prepared to permit, and the less justice one is prepared to exact. Surely the wilful permission of evil and refusal to exact justice as a penalty for wickedness is, in itself, indicative of a lack of love for the oppressed, the downtrodden, the sinned against, the overlooked, and exploited. If God has no wrath these people have no advocate or protector.
Numpty, could you please explain to me how "exacting justice" by "punishing wickedness" does anything whatsoever for any of the victims you describe.

It releases them from the cycle of unjust destruction that ensues when sinners attempt to take vengeance upon each other. It also releases them from the pain of thinking that the injustices for which they refuse to take vengeance will be swept under the carpet of the universe. They can rest in knowledge that those offences will be paid for in one of two places: on the cross (meaning the ultimate redemption of their enemies); or in hell (meaning the eternal conscious torment of their enemies).

For the true Christian, this gives fresh impetus to pray for one's enemies because by God's grace we may come to a point of sincerely desiring their redemption not their destruction. However, it is also permissible for the Christian to "leave room for God's wrath" for those who've committed offences and who remain intransigently unrepentant, as Jesus did for those who were crucifying him.

[ 02. July 2010, 20:27: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
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. 1 Peter 2:23
How does this verse work then?
Are you saying that Jesus was patiently waiting for the Father to zap those creeps, so therefore he didn't have to do it himself?

Is that why he said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do"?

I'm saying that Jesus left that decision to the Father, who judges justly. That certainly doesn't preclude their being cast into hell.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Forgiven by God and cast into hell?

Interesting ....

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Forgiven by God and cast into hell?

Interesting ....

I didn't say that. I said that Jesus prayed that his enemies would be forgiven. But that doesn't mean his prayers were answered. Their forgiveness would be contingent upon their conversion and repentance, just like everyone else. As the Apostle Peter said Jesus entrusted himself to the One who judges justly. Sometimes condemnation is just; sometimes forgiveness is just.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Too many conditions there imo. Whatever happened to unconditional love?

Also - Jesus was able to forgive, was he not? If he said 'Forgive them' surely they were forgiven?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I think the only way to square this circle is to say Jesus wanted to forgive them with his human will, but not his divine will. Because his divine will cannot be out of synch with the Father's, and Numpty has said God might not forgive these people after all, even after Jesus asks him to.

But I think this ignores the second half of what he says, "for they know not what they do." Mitigating circumstances. Not "for they have realized what they do and have repented."

Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Too many conditions there imo. Whatever happened to unconditional love?

Also - Jesus was able to forgive, was he not? If he said 'Forgive them' surely they were forgiven?

Does unconditional love allow room for judgment, because Jesus was awfully judgmental sometimes.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Too many conditions there imo. Whatever happened to unconditional love?

Also - Jesus was able to forgive, was he not? If he said 'Forgive them' surely they were forgiven?

Jesus asked for the cup to pass him by, surely the cup he didn't have to drink it? Jesus asked for the cup to pass because he was scared: the Father said no. Jesus asked for his enemies to be forgiven because he is merciful: the Father may have said no - we don't know. Jesus tells us to pray for our enemies, I think because vengeance belongs to God. Does that mean that our enemies will repent? No, it doesn't. Doesn't that mean that our enemies won't go to hell. No, it doesn't.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Too many conditions there imo. Whatever happened to unconditional love?

Also - Jesus was able to forgive, was he not? If he said 'Forgive them' surely they were forgiven?
Does unconditional love allow room for judgment, because Jesus was awfully judgmental sometimes.

Well according to Jesus in Luke 12 it certainly does.

quote:
4"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him. 6Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies]? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.

[ 02. July 2010, 21:06: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
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. 1 Peter 2:23
How does this verse work then?
Are you saying that Jesus was patiently waiting for the Father to zap those creeps, so therefore he didn't have to do it himself?

Is that why he said, "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do"?
I'm saying that Jesus left that decision to the Father, who judges justly. That certainly doesn't preclude their being cast into hell.

So you are of the opinion that Jesus' prayer might be answered by the Father in the negative? How does this square with Jesus claim that God had entrusted Him with the Judgement, as per, for example, John 5:27

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Jesus will judge those people on the basis of regeneracy in the same way as everyone else. Jesus' prayer to the Father isn't a simple transaction by which Jesus says, "Father, please do this" and the Father does it. The way that Jesus' prayer was answered by the Father may, for example, have been their conversion on the day of Pentecost or some other later date. Or, it may transpire that Jesus will judge some them as unrepentant on the last day in which case the Father will throw them into hell.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Forgiven by God and cast into hell?

Interesting ....
I didn't say that. I said that Jesus prayed that his enemies would be forgiven. But that doesn't mean his prayers were answered. Their forgiveness would be contingent upon their conversion and repentance, just like everyone else. As the Apostle Peter said Jesus entrusted himself to the One who judges justly. Sometimes condemnation is just; sometimes forgiveness is just.

The problem with this argument is that if you define "just" in such a way that it allows for forgiveness to be just, (as I would) then you remove the need for a penal aspect to the atonement.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Jesus will judge those people on the basis of regeneracy in the same way as everyone else. Jesus' prayer to the Father isn't a simple transaction by which Jesus says, "Father, please do this" and the Father does it. The way that Jesus' prayer was answered by the Father may, for example, have been their conversion on the day of Pentecost or some other later date. Or, it may transpire that Jesus will judge some them as unrepentant on the last day in which case the Father will throw them into hell.

Jesus doesn't pray, "Father, bring these people to repentance and regeneration", He prays "forgive them", which is in line with all the other examples in the Gospels where forgiveness is freely dispensed by Jesu.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Not at all. Quite the reverse in fact. God's forgiveness would be unjust in every circumstance had not Christ paid the penalty for sin. God's forebearance isn't free floating - it is rooted in the penalty for sin paid at the cross. Unpunished sin is unjust.

God demonstrated his justice, precisely because he had left sin unpunished. God therefore demonstrated himself as just by presenting the Son as an atonement for that unpunished sin. God could be accused of unjustly forgiving sin has he not presented Christ as a propitiation for the sin that he had overlooked.

Now the Father can point to the cross as concrete evidence that he is both just and and the one who justifies.

quote:
25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.[i]Romans 3:25-26

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Jesus will judge those people on the basis of regeneracy in the same way as everyone else. Jesus' prayer to the Father isn't a simple transaction by which Jesus says, "Father, please do this" and the Father does it. The way that Jesus' prayer was answered by the Father may, for example, have been their conversion on the day of Pentecost or some other later date. Or, it may transpire that Jesus will judge some them as unrepentant on the last day in which case the Father will throw them into hell.
Jesus doesn't pray, "Father, bring these people to repentance and regeneration", He prays "forgive them", which is in line with all the other examples in the Gospels where forgiveness is freely dispensed by Jesu.

He was being crucified, I doubt he had much time to explain the complex process by which the Father leads people to repentance and the forgiveness of their sins! But the Father doesn't cut corners, even in response to the prayers of the Son. Everyone comes to him on the same footing, so the only way for those people to be forgiven is by grace through faith in Christ. There is no other way.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Call me Numpty:

quote:
But the Father doesn't cut corners, even in response to the prayers of the Son.

One of the huge reservations I have always had about PSA is connected with its implications for the doctrine of the Trinity. I think that there's something Trinitarianly wrong with this statement. I think it's extremely difficult not to set the Son over against the Father within a PSA framework in a way which violates the principle opera trinitatis ad extra non sunt divisa. It seems to me that you are further in real danger of subordinationism, and even practical Arianism, here. You don't just recognize the coequal homoousian divinity of the Son with the Father by saying you do. It has to permeate your theology. I think there is at least the danger of a serious distortion here.

[ETA that's a tad disingenuous. I don't have reservations about PSA - I reject it.]

[ 02. July 2010, 22:00: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not at all. Quite the reverse in fact. God's forgiveness would be unjust in every circumstance had not Christ paid the penalty for sin. God's forebearance isn't free floating - it is rooted in the penalty for sin paid at the cross. Unpunished sin is unjust.

God demonstrated his justice, precisely because he had left sin unpunished. God therefore demonstrated himself as just by presenting the Son as an atonement for that unpunished sin. God could be accused of unjustly forgiving sin has he not presented Christ as a propitiation for the sin that he had overlooked.

Now the Father can point to the cross as concrete evidence that he is both just and and the one who justifies.
quote:
25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.[i]Romans 3:25-26

Well that is, of course, the assertion behind PSA. But it does depend for its logic on a particular definition of justice which is rooted in retribution. The problem is that such a view of justice is woefully inadequate. Justice like that is of no benefit to any of the parties involved. For God, he ends up destroying the vast majority of those whom He loves, for the victim, their final state is no better than their first, and for the lost, they demonstrate that, in the end, evil can triumph over good. If, on the other hand, God is far wiser, more loving and more gracious than this schema allows for, then justice means, not retribution bust restoration.

And, of course, the very verse you quote is crucial to this understanding. God doesn't punish, because on the cross he shows a better way than retribution, demonstrating that there is nothing we can do that is so vile that cannot be dealt with by the unconditional forgiveness of God, who, in Jesus, overcomes evil not with the force of avengeing angels, but with the humilitu if love and self sacrifice. Anything leaa powerful than this would not be powerful enough to truely defeat evil and sin.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Sorry about the spelling - I'm posting on my Blackberry. Hope everyone gets the gist of it.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

That's lovely. It's creative. It's appealing. It's acceptably vanilla. It's just not in the bible.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Call me Numpty

quote:
That's lovely. It's creative. It's appealing. It's acceptably vanilla. It's just not in the bible.

Yes it is:

quote:
For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

For example Luke 19:11-27 simply doesn't read that at all! If justice is restorative and nor retributive why on earth is Jesus so misleading about it? I mean, what is he playing at? And there's loads like that.

quote:
11While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once. 12He said: "A man of noble birth went to a distant country to have himself appointed king and then to return. 13So he called ten of his servants and gave them ten minas.[a]'Put this money to work,' he said, 'until I come back.'
14"But his subjects hated him and sent a delegation after him to say, 'We don't want this man to be our king.'

15"He was made king, however, and returned home. Then he sent for the servants to whom he had given the money, in order to find out what they had gained with it.

16"The first one came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned ten more.'

17" 'Well done, my good servant!' his master replied. 'Because you have been trustworthy in a very small matter, take charge of ten cities.'

18"The second came and said, 'Sir, your mina has earned five more.'

19"His master answered, 'You take charge of five cities.'

20"Then another servant came and said, 'Sir, here is your mina; I have kept it laid away in a piece of cloth. 21I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did not put in and reap what you did not sow.'

22"His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? 23Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?'

24"Then he said to those standing by, 'Take his mina away from him and give it to the one who has ten minas.'

25" 'Sir,' they said, 'he already has ten!'

26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away. 27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Call me Numpty
quote:
That's lovely. It's creative. It's appealing. It's acceptably vanilla. It's just not in the bible.
Yes it is:
quote:
For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

Yes, but that verse doesn't go into how the world might be saved through him. You have to elsewhere for that. Remember: never read a bible verse. Jesus was sent into the world to save it. PSA explains how.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Call me Numpty:

quote:
Yes, but that verse doesn't go into how the world might be saved through him. You have to elsewhere for that. Remember: never read a bible verse. Jesus was sent into the world to save it. PSA explains how.

D'you know, I wish you'd posted that on the other PSA thread - the "Atonement - only one" thread. ISTM that what you are saying is that the Bible on its own is insufficient for an understanding of doctrine. You have to take verses out of the Bible, assemble them as a doctrine, then read them back in. And the doctrine is PSA.

In all seriousness, don't you think that that's an assertion that the significance of PSA is that it's the one approved, comprehensive way of understanding what God is doing in Jesus Christ? Is that what it means for you?

And BTW - "Remember: never read a Bible verse"! How condescending is that? I mean, seriously, doesn't it sound to you as though your post is saying "I/we have the key to understanding how the Bible works and what it says, and BTW you don't?"

In the interests of furthering the discussion here, can you not see that this is how a PSA stance is experienced by other Christians? "We're the real Christians, and you aren't real ones at all"? Isn't that one very practical - and divisive - way in which PSA contributes to a Christian identity?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I see PSA as more of an attitude than a doctrine.

It seems to cast God as annoyed and deeply unhappy with the human race, rather than loving us with the deepest compassion and providing us with everything we will ever need.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Not really. PSA simply says that those two things are not mutually exclusive and that dividing them does violence to one's theology because it constitutes an attempt the censor one of the divine attributes to which scripture bears more than sufficient witness.

In this respect I'd say that PSA is more doctrinal because it engages with the more difficult texts of scripture in humility, whereas the no-wrath approach is rooted in an a priori 'sense' that God just can't be angry even though the bible says that he can be.

[ 03. July 2010, 07:56: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes.

Be assured no offence was intended.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not really. PSA simply says that those two things are not mutually exclusive and that dividing them does violence to one's theology because it constitutes an attempt the censor one of the divine attributes to which scripture bears more than sufficient witness.

In this respect I'd say that PSA is more doctrinal because it engages with the more difficult texts of scripture in humility, whereas the no-wrath approach is rooted in an a priori 'sense' that God just can't be angry even though the bible says that he can be.

I don't think God can be angry with those s/he loves so deeply - but I do think s/he can be hurt by us. It is understandable to attribute anger to God, as many Biblical writers did - but I think that's putting onto God how WE would feel about situations.

[Smile]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Call me Numpty:
quote:
Yes, but that verse doesn't go into how the world might be saved through him. You have to elsewhere for that. Remember: never read a bible verse. Jesus was sent into the world to save it. PSA explains how.
D'you know, I wish you'd posted that on the other PSA thread - the "Atonement - only one" thread. ISTM that what you are saying is that the Bible on its own is insufficient for an understanding of doctrine. You have to take verses out of the Bible, assemble them as a doctrine, then read them back in. And the doctrine is PSA.

In all seriousness, don't you think that that's an assertion that the significance of PSA is that it's the one approved, comprehensive way of understanding what God is doing in Jesus Christ? Is that what it means for you?

And BTW - "Remember: never read a Bible verse"! How condescending is that? I mean, seriously, doesn't it sound to you as though your post is saying "I/we have the key to understanding how the Bible works and what it says, and BTW you don't?"

In the interests of furthering the discussion here, can you not see that this is how a PSA stance is experienced by other Christians? "We're the real Christians, and you aren't real ones at all"? Isn't that one very practical - and divisive - way in which PSA contributes to a Christian identity?

I think you are on shaky ground accusing anyone else of condescension.

If someone is convinced that there is scriptural evidence that Christ died as a substitue for a lost humanity who would otherwise have had to die, what right have you to cry foul because you disagree?

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Call me Numpty:
quote:
Yes, but that verse doesn't go into how the world might be saved through him. You have to elsewhere for that. Remember: never read a bible verse. Jesus was sent into the world to save it. PSA explains how.
D'you know, I wish you'd posted that on the other PSA thread - the "Atonement - only one" thread. ISTM that what you are saying is that the Bible on its own is insufficient for an understanding of doctrine. You have to take verses out of the Bible, assemble them as a doctrine, then read them back in. And the doctrine is PSA.

That's a bit of caricature of systematic theology, but essentially that is what I'm saying, yes. I'm saying that you can't build entire around theology one verse, like you tried to do with the one you quoted earlier. The doctrine of the Trinity being the preeminent example of what I'm trying to say.

quote:
In all seriousness, don't you think that that's an assertion that the significance of PSA is that it's the one approved, comprehensive way of understanding what God is doing in Jesus Christ? Is that what it means for you?

I didn't say that either, but I do think that it is the main and indispensable way of theologising the atonement though. Of course the cross can be understood in terms of victory and expiation, the bible contains those truths too.

quote:
And BTW - "Remember: never read a Bible verse"! How condescending is that? I mean, seriously, doesn't it sound to you as though your post is saying "I/we have the key to understanding how the Bible works and what it says, and BTW you don't?"

No, I'm saying that good theology is contextual. You shouldn't just find a "non-wrath text" a build a theology around it.

quote:
In the interests of furthering the discussion here, can you not see that this is how a PSA stance is experienced by other Christians? "We're the real Christians, and you aren't real ones at all"? Isn't that one very practical - and divisive - way in which PSA contributes to a Christian identity?

I could say the same thing. In fact, you're one using language of 'rejection' and 'sub-Christian' and arrogant and so on. That seems to me to be a much more aggressive and divisive stance than the one I'm taking.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not really. PSA simply says that those two things are not mutually exclusive and that dividing them does violence to one's theology because it constitutes an attempt the censor one of the divine attributes to which scripture bears more than sufficient witness.

In this respect I'd say that PSA is more doctrinal because it engages with the more difficult texts of scripture in humility, whereas the no-wrath approach is rooted in an a priori 'sense' that God just can't be angry even though the bible says that he can be.
I don't think God can be angry with those s/he loves so deeply - but I do think s/he can be hurt by us.

This view of God works well in middle England where everyone is 'nice', but it doesn't work in places like Serbia and Northern Iraq and parts of South London. These are violent places where tragedy happens on a daily basis. In these places PSA offers hope and alternative to human vengeance. Try telling someone whose child has been stabbed to death in a local park that God isn't angry about it, he's just sad. That will not help them overcome the impetus for vengeance, but PSA will and does. In other words, PSA is pastorally powerful when people are experiencing the deepest possible pain and loss at the hands of other people.

quote:
It is understandable to attribute anger to God, as many Biblical writers did - but I think that's putting onto God how WE would feel about situations.

I won't comment about this other than to say that I find it peculiar that you quote Jesus on forgiveness (which is the bible) as if his words carry some weight, but if presented with Jesus' words on hell for example you'll just attribute it to anthropomorphism. The question I have is why do you weigh up the veracity of Jesus' words on the basis of how closely they fit with the worldview that you like the most and which, by and large, you've created independently of scripture?

[ 03. July 2010, 08:46: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Call me Numpty:

quote:
I'm saying that you can't build entire around theology one verse, like you tried to do with the one you quoted earlier.

Actually, what I did was to bowl a verse at you that I don't see you can fit easily into the train of argument you were developing, and that I think contradicts you at a specific point in it.

As to my using the expressions "sub-Christian" and "arrogant" - I don't. The only use of "sub-Christian" is yours in that post, though leo uses "subchristian", and the only use of "arrogant" is Mousethief's - of, I think, an assumption in the OP, and therefore directed at me. I say that I reject PSA - do you think that that is aggressive or arrogant?

BTW, it's easy to check on usages even on a long thread - you just go to "printer-friendly" view, and use "Find" on that.

One of the things that I seem to note in some - only some - PSA advocates' posts is a distinct tendency to take an attack on PSA very personally, coupled with an unwillingness or inability to comprehend that the specification of PSA as central to Christianity is something that other Christians find personally threatening and aggressive.

Is that maybe why PSA threads spiral off into the old, undecidable territory of mutually exclusive exegesis of standard contested verses? Because that isn't where the problem actually lies?

But it's the assymetry I find really significant. ISTM that one side is saying "PSA is no way to do theology" but the other is saying, effectively, "PSA is a touchstone of what real Christianity is".

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Psyduck, your tone is very adversarial, and I can't work out why. If I've said something provocative or hurtful please show me what it is so that I can apologise. However, saying that you don't just have reservations about PSA but have arrived at a settled decision to reject it makes it very difficult to understand why your want to talk about it, or why I should take that as an outright rejection of my Christian Identity.

[ 03. July 2010, 10:08: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Numpty said -

This view of God works well in middle England where everyone is 'nice', but it doesn't work in places like Serbia and Northern Iraq and parts of South London. These are violent places where tragedy happens on a daily basis. In these places PSA offers hope and alternative to human vengeance. Try telling someone whose child has been stabbed to death in a local park that God isn't angry about it, he's just sad.

I was brought up in South Africa in the 60s where my Dad was a minister in Soweto, I now spend time working on the Kibera in Kenya - so I am not as closeted as you seem to imply.

I don't see any way that this God of wrath you portray would help my friends there.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

I'm talking about a God who is loving and wrathful, not just wrathful and not just 'loving'. I use inverted commas there because I simply fail to see how you can conceive of God who is loving if atrocities just make him feel sad as he watches impotently from the side-lines of the universe while waiting for the day when can just let everyone off without any meaningful reference to the death of his one and only Son.

[ 03. July 2010, 10:15: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I didn't say sad, I said hurt.

This pain is no small thing imo.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I didn't say sad, I said hurt.

This pain is no small thing imo.

Nor I. I'd say the eternal response of God to injustice is anger, not just hurt. God's compassion is connected to the pain he feels for the oppressed. God's wrath is connected to the justice he will exact for the oppressed.

[ 03. July 2010, 10:27: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

People don't opress others out of nowhere - there is always a history to it - often going round in cycles.

That is the power of the cross - it breaks the cycle.

Jesus absorbed the pain and didn't hurt back - he forgave his enemies. Jesus words in life and on the cross teach us to do the same imo.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Jesus didn't just absorb the pain, be 'absorbed' the sin that caused that pain in a vicarious sacrifice that propitiated the wrath of God against that sin which Christ willingly absorbed.

How else would 2 Corinthians 5:21 and 1 Peter 2:24 mean anything? And how else would 1 John 4:10 say anything consistently meaningful about love?

quote:
God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Cor. 5:21

quote:
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. 1 Peter 2:24

quote:
In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 1 John 4:10

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Lot of Biblical quotes CMN but I fear they dont mean very much apart from sounding well.

What precisely does "made to be sin" mean?

And how is it possible to bear anothers sins in ones body?

Sin is not a "thing"; nor can it be packaged, nor can it be transferred.

What biblical definition of sin are you working with?

And how do the biblical definitions (lawlessness: missing the mark: rebellion: transgression ) apply to Jesus? In "becoming sin" did he become any of these?

And what of the essential definition that sin is "unbelief"?

This selective (Pauline) theological package might resonate with certain people for whom substitutes and scapegoats are acceptable means of getting rid of their guilt feelings.

As I say. Sounds good. Has a great pyschological impact. But does it really mean anything?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Lot of Biblical quotes CMN but I fear they dont mean very much apart from sounding well.

What precisely does "made to be sin" mean?

And how is it possible to bear anothers sins in ones body?

Sin is not a "thing"; nor can it be packaged, nor can it be transferred.

What biblical definition of sin are you working with?

And how do the biblical definitions (lawlessness: missing the mark: rebellion: transgression ) apply to Jesus? In "becoming sin" did he become any of these?

And what of the essential definition that sin is "unbelief"?

This selective (Pauline) theological package might resonate with certain people for whom substitutes and scapegoats are acceptable means of getting rid of their guilt feelings.

As I say. Sounds good. Has a great pyschological impact. But does it really mean anything?

You do appear to have already decided the matter, based on your first paragraph. Do you really want to know, or is this just empty rhetoric?

I've no dog in the PSA fight, I'm not even entirely sure what the argument is about. But as for the Bible verses--

What precisely does "made to be sin" mean?

Scholars have been trying to unpack that one for two thousand years. It is certainly referring to some metaphysical issue, some transfer of evil between us and Christ. But being human, our direct knowledge of how metaphysical transactions work is rather limited.

And how is it possible to bear anothers sins in ones body?

Same answer. Actually, I think your difficulties turn on the definition of "sin," which you make dogmatic assertions about below.

Sin is not a "thing"; nor can it be packaged, nor can it be transferred.

And you know this how?

What biblical definition of sin are you working with?

Sin is a many-tentacled beastie, and can be seen from many different perspectives; but in this case I'd say Paul was working with a definition that addressed the phenomenon as a whole (that is, the sin of all humanity, not just one or a few) and that focused primarily on sin as an infection or corruption of human nature, rather than on the resulting sinful deeds. I see no reason why "sin" in this sense could not be a "thing" or be transferred. Again, we're talking about a metaphysical realm that we have no direct perception of, and what God chooses to reveal is bound to be couched in at least partly metaphorical language.

And how do the biblical definitions (lawlessness: missing the mark: rebellion: transgression ) apply to Jesus? In "becoming sin" did he become any of these?

Yes. But that is not the same thing as saying that he personally (that is, in his own personal nature) became lawless, missed the mark, rebelled, or transgressed. He himself committed no sin. But yes, he did "become sin" or "take on the burden" of sin.

And what of the essential definition that sin is "unbelief"?

Throw that one into the mix too. Yes, he became unbelief; no, he personally did not become an unbeliever.

This selective (Pauline) theological package might resonate with certain people for whom substitutes and scapegoats are acceptable means of getting rid of their guilt feelings.

Way to go with the kind insinuations. Thanks ever so.

As I say. Sounds good. Has a great pyschological impact. But does it really mean anything?

It meant enough to keep me from suicide at various points in my life. For whatever that's worth.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

I usually skip PSA threads, so y'all will have to forgive me if there's familiar territory that's been covered to death in other recent threads.

I think, when you're talking about doctrinal differences, it's useful to start talking, not about the difference itself, but about the assumptions or axioms that underlie the difference. When one person starts their reasoning from one set of axioms, and another person starts their reasoning from a different set of axioms, they are of course going to reason their way to an entirely different conclusion.

So I think you have to dig down to the axioms, to the things that are true by definition, that must be accepted and not proven. And it seems to me that the axioms of the people that believe in PSA -- things that don't have to be proven, but are just assumed as starting points -- are these:

1) The only accurate source of information about God is the Bible.
2) God is by nature just; it is impossible for him to act in a way that is not just.
3) Justice by definition means giving people what they deserve: people who do good deserve to be rewarded, and people who do evil deserve to be punished.
4) All people do evil.
5) God saves some people.

The problem is that, if you accept axioms 1 through 4, then axiom 5 is impossible. Logically, either one of the preceding axioms is wrong, or there's some other way to square the circle.

And that, it seems to me, is what PSA is. It's a theory -- perhaps the only theory -- that squares the circle, that reconciles the axioms, that allows them all to be true at the same time.

I think people always react badly to having their fundamental axioms challenged. Those who accept PSA accept it because they're working from a set of axioms that requires it. Those of us who reject PSA reject it because we're working from a different set of axioms.

I think, when you boil it all down to the absolute core of the dispute, it's really about justice. I think the PSA-ers consider justice to be a true good in and of itself. Therefore, if you say that God is not just, you are saying that God is not good. And you can see why that would make people who love God angry.

At least some non-PSA-ers (that would be me) consider justice to be what you might call an intermediate good. It's a step in the right direction, and better than the alternative, but it's certainly not something that is good in and of itself. Therefore, if you say that God is just, you are saying that God is not good. And you can see why that would make people who love God angry.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I find Josephine's post incredible. One example.

Josephine wrote

"Justice by definition means giving people what they deserve: people who do good deserve to be rewarded, and people who do evil deserve to be punished."

But the Christian gospel (and Jesus) go way beyond that. Consider the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard (Matt 20). The whole point of the parable is that God does NOT give us what we deserve but what we need.

And what we need is mercy, not justice.

The idea that this axiom of Josephine's must be accepted without any kind of proof is risible.

As far as I am aware Jesus taught that forgiveness from God is dependant upon our genuine repentance. He said God was always willing to forgive.

And that because it is His nature. (cf the communion prayer "whose nature is always to have mercy")

Methinks its about time we paid a bit more attention to what Jesus himself taught rather than the tortuous theological arguments of Paul.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Not really. PSA simply says that those two things are not mutually exclusive and that dividing them does violence to one's theology because it constitutes an attempt the censor one of the divine attributes to which scripture bears more than sufficient witness.

In this respect I'd say that PSA is more doctrinal because it engages with the more difficult texts of scripture in humility, whereas the no-wrath approach is rooted in an a priori 'sense' that God just can't be angry even though the bible says that he can be.

The problem is that this approach sets up irreconcilable contradictions.

Certainly the Bible bears ample witness to God's wrath.. The trouble is that if you take all of those statements at face value you end up in an impossible situation.

The idea, for example, that Moses persuaded God to relent from His desire to wipe out Israel by saying "What would people think of You if You did that?" is completely ludicrous. At least, to my way of thinking.

I prefer an approach that understands these expressions of anger as appearances that are similar to a child's understanding of parental concern as anger. They are like the view of a convicted criminal that the judge is somehow his personal enemy exacting retribution. Neither the parent nor the judge have anything like anger or retribution in mind, they are simply working to maintain order.

The truth is that evil is its own punishment. Foolish and wicked actions have inherent consequences. These consequences are called "God's wrath" and "God's judgment" but this is only because people to too limited to see them for what they are.

So the Bible consistently speaks as if this is the way it really is. This affirms that God is in fact the ruler of the universe, and it works just fine for children and uneducated people. But the thoughtful person will see the contradiction between God's love and this kind of judgment.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

An apology in advance.

It appears that the Josephine post I challenged is one in which she attributes axioms to PSA believers but doesnt necessarily subscribe to herself.

In which case I am not challenging Josephine but the axioms she quotes.

Apologies.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Why am I required to take statements about God's wrath at something other than face value when I am not required to the same thing with statements about God's love? Surely such a requirement is motivated by an a priori desire for God not be wrathful despite the fact that the bible says that he is.

Following such reasoning it would be equally possible and theologically permissible for someone to say that the bible is replete with references to God's love but that doesn't actually mean that he really is loving because you shouldn't take those texts at face value.

[ 03. July 2010, 14:54: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

God's love can be experienced every day - in the world around us and in the love of others.

I see no evidence whatever of God's wrath.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
God's love can be experienced every day - in the world around us and in the love of others.

I see no evidence whatever of God's wrath.

Really? I find that quite incredible. God's passive wrath is clearly visible in the mess that humanity is making of creation. God's active wrath is clearly visible in the crucifixion and in the weekly Eucharist through which that crucifixion is remembered and God's final wrath (as Jesus and the Apostle Paul say) is being withheld for the day of judgement. The Parable of the Ten Minas being one such example.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

No way - humanity is making the mess, not God.

The Earth will be fine if we wipe ourselves out - it has been before and will be again. (For example after each ice age)

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
An apology in advance.

It appears that the Josephine post I challenged is one in which she attributes axioms to PSA believers but doesnt necessarily subscribe to herself.

In which case I am not challenging Josephine but the axioms she quotes.

Apologies.

Thank you, shamwari. I think, though, that your response to my post illustrates the problem that arises when people discuss an issue where they start from differing axiomatic points. Instead of trying to understand the other person's starting point, they attack it or ridicule it. I don't think that's a particularly useful approach when you're trying to understand or to persuade.

Of course the other person's axioms are accepted without proof -- that's not risible, that's just what an axiom is. If your axioms are wrong, then your conclusions will be wrong. But telling someone, "You can't just accept that without proof!" isn't going to get you anywhere in a discussion. Exploring why they accept it, and how they handle data that seems to contradict it, is more enlightening, and I think ultimately has more chance of persuading.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Why am I required to take statements about God's wrath at something other than face value when I am not required to the same thing with statements about God's love? Surely such a requirement is motivated by an a priori desire for God not be wrathful despite the fact that the bible says that he is.

Following such reasoning it would be equally possible and theologically permissible for someone to say that the bible is replete with references to God's love but that doesn't actually mean that he really is loving because you shouldn't take those texts at face value.

Well, sure, Numpty. There's no logical reason to reconcile the differences one way or the other. It depends on what your starting point is. As I said before, it depends on what your axioms are, and what you consider true by definition.

If you consider justice (defined as punishing evil and rewarding good) as a fundamental characteristic of God, that will affect how you interpret verses about God's wrath. Likewise, if you consider love (defined as doing good to and for the other person in all cases, regardless of whether they deserve it or not) as a fundamental characteristic of God, that will affect how you interpret verses about God's wrath.

Neither one is logically superior to the other. It just has to do with the starting premises, the givens, the axioms.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
No way - humanity is making the mess, not God.

The Earth will be fine if we wipe ourselves out - it has been before and will be again. (For example after each ice age)

God has given humanity over to its own depravity for a time. One day he will call a halt to it and creation will be renewed and fully healed. In the meantime, the tension between the now and the not yet is, at least in part, a passive manifestation of God's wrath. That's what Romans 1 is all about.

[ 03. July 2010, 15:19: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Why am I required to take statements about God's wrath at something other than face value when I am not required to the same thing with statements about God's love? Surely such a requirement is motivated by an a priori desire for God not be wrathful despite the fact that the bible says that he is.

Following such reasoning it would be equally possible and theologically permissible for someone to say that the bible is replete with references to God's love but that doesn't actually mean that he really is loving because you shouldn't take those texts at face value.
Well, sure, Numpty. There's no logical reason to reconcile the differences one way or the other. It depends on what your starting point is. As I said before, it depends on what your axioms are, and what you consider true by definition.

If you consider justice (defined as punishing evil and rewarding good) as a fundamental characteristic of God, that will affect how you interpret verses about God's wrath. Likewise, if you consider love (defined as doing good to and for the other person in all cases, regardless of whether they deserve it or not) as a fundamental characteristic of God, that will affect how you interpret verses about God's wrath.

Neither one is logically superior to the other. It just has to do with the starting premises, the givens, the axioms.

It's not an axiomatic either/or option between love and wrath. If you want any axiom to hang PSA on is is this one: wrath and love as attributes of God are not antithetical. Any theology that asserts that they are will not arrive at PSA because they have an insufficiently robust theology (in the proper sense of the word) of God's attributes.

[ 03. July 2010, 15:25: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

'Creaation will be healed' sounds like a cliche to me - I can't see what it means. We may make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves - that won't spoil the planet, just our ability to live on it. The Earth has been set up wnderfully for regeneration - it's not going anywhere for a few billion years I don't imagine.

<apologies, this is a tangent I know - I'll drop it now. As Josephine says, CMN has a totally different world view from me.>

.... Boogie bows out (dis) gracefully ....

[Smile]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
It's not an axiomatic either/or option between love and wrath. If you want any axiom to hang PSA on is is this one: wrath and love as attributes of God are not antithetical. Any theology that asserts that they are will not arrive at PSA because they have an insufficiently robust theology (in the proper sense of the word) of God's attributes.

If "God is wrathful" and "God is loving" are both axioms in your system, then of course they are not antithetical. That's how axioms work.

They aren't antithetical in the system I'm working in, either. But God's wrath isn't an axiom in my system. It exists, but it's not a given. And because I have a different set of axioms, I've got a feeling that God's wrath works out differently in my system than in yours.

The biggest problems with the axioms that seem to me to underlie PSA have to do with justice. I honestly believe that justice is an incomplete, partial good. It is not good in itself, but only good in comparison with lesser alternatives.

Gratitude is good. Open ingratitude is bad. But there's a place where a child who doesn't like the sweater Aunt Martha gave them for Christmas can say "Thanks" politely. That's courtesy. Courtesy is better than open ingratitude, but it's not as good as gratitude. However, when you're raising your children, you normally consider courtesy a good step on the way to what you really want, which is gratitude.

That's how I see justice. It's like courtesy. It's a good thing, but only because it's a step towards what's really good, and a step away from evil. But confusing the partial, on-my-way-to-being-better good with the real thing, and then attributing that partial good to God, seems really wrong to me.

But if I saw justice as a good-in-itself good, the same way that I see gratitude as a good-in-itself good, then I would perhaps understand the wrath of God more like you do.

Telling me that if I had a sufficiently robust theology, like yours, then I would agree with you, addresses the differences in where we end up. It doesn't address the differences in our starting points. And the differences in where we start are the differences that really matter.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

I'm not saying that your theology is weak in toto; I'm suggesting that a theology that cannot - or will not attempt to - reconcile two divine attributes (love and wrath) to which scripture so consistently testifies seems (from my perspective) to be inadequate. Now of course you'll say that I've misunderstood wrath and that it's much less severe than I think it is. To which I could suggest that you've misunderstood love and that it is much less tolerant than you thin it is. So, yes, definitions and axioms are important and should drive us back to the witness of Scripture - and not tradition, reason, or experience - for clarification.

[ 03. July 2010, 15:57: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Now of course you'll say that I've misunderstood wrath and that it's much less severe than I think it is. To which I could suggest that you've misunderstood love and that it is much less tolerant than you thin it is.

Do you think you might want to wait to see what I say and to listen to find out what I think, rather than telling me?

If you'd rather just talk to yourself, that's fine. That's one reason I usually avoid discussions of PSA -- they look more like dueling monologues than like conversations.

If you're interested in a conversation, why don't you try responding to what I said, rather construct an imaginary conversation made up of things I didn't say?

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Call Me Numpty: God's active wrath is clearly visible in the crucifixion

It's not at all clear that 'God's active wrath [was] clearly visible at the crucifixion'. Much more evident was the wrath of men, especially that of the religious leaders, who accused Jesus of blasphemy and conspired with the Romans to have him done away.

God's wrath in relation to the crucifixion is the subject of Peter's sermon at Pentecost, when the apostle accused his hearers of being responsible for the event. In response to having learned that they had killed the Messiah they feared the consequences (God's wrath) and ask what they must do to be saved. (Act 2: 56-57).

ISTM, therefore, that according to Peter the crucifixion was a potential cause of God's wrath rather than being necessitated by it. But then, Peter was a simple chap who hadn't boned-upon PSA.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Call Me Numpty: God's active wrath is clearly visible in the crucifixion

It's not at all clear that 'God's active wrath [was] clearly visible at the crucifixion'.

Thank you! I was thinking that myself. As has been pointed out, what God said at the crucifixion was "forgive them." Not much wrath there.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Now of course you'll say that I've misunderstood wrath and that it's much less severe than I think it is. To which I could suggest that you've misunderstood love and that it is much less tolerant than you thin it is.

Do you think you might want to wait to see what I say and to listen to find out what I think, rather than telling me?

If you'd rather just talk to yourself, that's fine. That's one reason I usually avoid discussions of PSA -- they look more like dueling monologues than like conversations.

If you're interested in a conversation, why don't you try responding to what I said, rather construct an imaginary conversation made up of things I didn't say?

Sorry. Didn't mean to offend. Puritan rhetorical apologetics do tend to raise the ire. Of course I will listen to what you have to say, but with one caveat. You will need to justify what you say with scriptural evidence because I'm not really interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you think the bible says.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Of course I will listen to what you have to say, but with one caveat. You will need to justify what you say with scriptural evidence because I'm not really interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you think the bible says.

I'm interested in knowing what your axioms are. The givens. The starting points that you accept as true without proof, but just because they are self-evidently true, and which you use to explain, justify, or prove other things that you believe to be true. Things like a=a, or a+b=b+a.

I would guess that "Everything true about God is plainly stated in the Bible" might be one of them. I suggested upthread what other axioms I think underlie PSA -- but since those are not my axioms, and I don't hold to PSA, it's quite possible that I'm wrong.

Once we understand what each others' axioms are, I think it will be a lot easier to understand each other when we talk about what we think the Bible says.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Call Me Numpty: God's active wrath is clearly visible in the crucifixion

It's not at all clear that 'God's active wrath [was] clearly visible at the crucifixion'. Much more evident was the wrath of men, especially that of the religious leaders, who accused Jesus of blasphemy and conspired with the Romans to have him done away.

God's wrath in relation to the crucifixion is the subject of Peter's sermon at Pentecost, when the apostle accused his hearers of being responsible for the event. In response to having learned that they had killed the Messiah they feared the consequences (God's wrath) and ask what they must do to be saved. (Act 2: 56-57).

ISTM, therefore, that according to Peter the crucifixion was a potential cause of God's wrath rather than being necessitated by it. But then, Peter was a simple chap who hadn't boned-upon PSA.

22“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. Acts 2

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Posted by CMN

"You will need to justify what you say with scriptural evidence because I'm not really interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you think the bible says. "

Typical of the totally discourtesy way in which like-minded people think.

Can you not grant the possibility that some people may think a truth which is outside of the phraseology of the biblical record?

Else the Holy Spirit ceased to reveal anything after Revelation was completed.

Which is bollocks.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
22“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. Acts 2

Hmm. Looking for wrath. Hmm. Nope, don't see it. Let alone clearly.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Posted by CMN

"You will need to justify what you say with scriptural evidence because I'm not really interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you think the bible says. "

Typical of the totally discourtesy way in which like-minded people think.

Can you not grant the possibility that some people may think a truth which is outside of the phraseology of the biblical record?

Else the Holy Spirit ceased to reveal anything after Revelation was completed.

Which is bollocks.

I think it's possible to say true things in a way that accords with biblical record. I also think it's possible to say true things that do not appear in the biblical record.

I not accept that it is possible to validly assert that something is true if it is in direct contradiction to the biblical record. I do not accept that the Holy Spirit reveals anything outside of scripture that is in contradiction to the biblical record.

"Bollocks" is just your opinion, but if you can support it with scripture I'll give it my consideration.

[ 03. July 2010, 17:31: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Of course I will listen to what you have to say, but with one caveat. You will need to justify what you say with scriptural evidence because I'm not really interested in what you think. I'm interested in what you think the bible says.
I'm interested in knowing what your axioms are. The givens. The starting points that you accept as true without proof, but just because they are self-evidently true, and which you use to explain, justify, or prove other things that you believe to be true. Things like a=a, or a+b=b+a.

I would guess that "Everything true about God is plainly stated in the Bible" might be one of them. I suggested upthread what other axioms I think underlie PSA -- but since those are not my axioms, and I don't hold to PSA, it's quite possible that I'm wrong.

Once we understand what each others' axioms are, I think it will be a lot easier to understand each other when we talk about what we think the Bible says.

Have you got any scriptural evidence that the identification of axioms is the solution to theological difference? If not, then I would have to reject the methodology as an attempt to assert the ideas of man over and above the revelation that God has provided in the Scripture.

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

I could not be any further from CMN's approach and remain Christian. I believe it's one of our greatest mistakes as Christians to have closed our canon of scripture in c. 120AD; I believe there was great wisdom in the record of Hebrew scriptures accumulating over centuries. This gives the OT a richness of history and of views of God which it is hard for the NT to match.

The only full revelation of God is Jesus Christ as he was, not as he is recorded in the Bible; the biblical record is necessarily partial: again, I see considerable wisdom in the fact that everything recorded in the gospels about Jesus's ministry could comfortably have happened in about 3 months. To find out the rest of the truth of Christ's incarnation, we have to become part of it, not read about it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Just out of curiosity, Nump, what would you say is the biblical method of solving theological differences? Please give specific verses showing theological differences between well-meaning equals in particular being discussed, and also verses that show resolution.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Reformation, and particularly Puritan, thinking is by and large consciously and intentionally non-axiomatic. However, the most pertinent "axiom" to this conversation - if indeed it is one - would, I think, appear in Article 6 of the 39 Articles of Religion.

quote:
Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.

However, I would also argue that Reformation thinking would hold the notion of axiomatic approach to theology with deep suspicion and would suggest that the only valid theological position regarding apparent axioms is to prove them by scripture thereby rendering them non-axiomatic.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Reformation, and particularly Puritan, thinking is by and large consciously and intentionally non-axiomatic.

Or so they think, foolishly, of themselves.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Reformation, and particularly Puritan, thinking is by and large consciously and intentionally non-axiomatic.
Or so they think, foolishly, of themselves.

You'd need to prove that assertion for me to accept it. Or is that just one of your axioms?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Prove it from the Bible? That's the only proof you accept.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Prove it from the Bible? That's the only proof you accept.

Yes, because you are making an assertion concerning the fundamental nature of theology (i.e. words about God). I would suggest that the assertion that all theology is fundamentally axiomatic would need some pretty heavyweight support for it to accepted. Otherwise it becomes a circular argument and, "All theology is axiomatic." simply becomes a self supporting axiom is exactly the same way as "Scripture is a self-interpreting document." becomes axiomatic. theonly difference being that the former axiom leaves the theologising subject without an anchor; whereas the second provides the anchor in an objective view of scripture as the ultimate rule of faith and theology.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Just out of curiosity, Nump, what would you say is the biblical method of solving theological differences? Please give specific verses showing theological differences between well-meaning equals in particular being discussed, and also verses that show resolution.

I'll take an answer to this, too, if you have one on tap.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Possibly Paul's encounter with the Berean Jews in Acts 17.

quote:
10(The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. 11Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

It seems that nobility in Luke's mind is associated with a willingness to study scripture.

Or Paul challenging Peter's hypocrisy recorded in Galatians 2.

Or the deliberations of the Jerusalem Council recorded in Acts 15.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Jesus's encounter with Satan in the wilderness would be another.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Acts 15 is a wonderful example. While scripture is quoted, a lot more practical experience is referred to, and in the end they describe their decision-making process not in terms of scripture but in terms of "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us."

Taking that as our example of how to resolve theological differences, we should talk for hours about our personal experiences of God working in our lives and the lives of others, find a single bible verse that seems to kinda sorta apply, then do what seems best to us, and what we feel the Holy Spirit would like us to do.

But then that would assume we're all on the same page spiritually and theologically, all have roughly the same direct experience of the incarnate Christ, the same theological formation, the same culture, the same language. Part of which is the very issue under contention here -- our theological backgrounds and how they colour how we see theology and scripture. But no, we're not allowed to talk about that, because that's not biblical.

Hey guess what. The situation Christianity finds itself in in AD 2010 never existed in the days when the Scriptures were written. So we might need to do some digging and conversing of a sort that the Bible writers never experienced.

Nah.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

The whole book of Hebrews would be yet another. What with it being a pastoral commentary on Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Just out of curiosity, Nump, what would you say is the biblical method of solving theological differences? Please give specific verses showing theological differences between well-meaning equals in particular being discussed, and also verses that show resolution.

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Jesus's encounter with Satan in the wilderness would be another.

Example of well-meaning equals working out their theological differences? [Ultra confused]

[ 03. July 2010, 18:54: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

The Jerusalem council studied Amos 9 and Jeremiah 12 as well as discussing their experience of God working in their lives. As you can see they looked into scripture to find biblical warrant for what they were experiencing. The judgement of Acts verse 19 was founded on direct reference to Amos 9:11, 12 and Jeremiah 12:15.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Just out of curiosity, Nump, what would you say is the biblical method of solving theological differences? Please give specific verses showing theological differences between well-meaning equals in particular being discussed, and also verses that show resolution.

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Jesus's encounter with Satan in the wilderness would be another.
Example of well-meaning equals working out their theological differences?

You always said that my Christology is out of whack! OK, I take that one back.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Josephine: But God's wrath isn't an axiom in my system. It exists, but it's not a given.

I think your analysis of the controversy is insightful.

The two concepts at issue are sin and justice IMV.

The question is perhaps where we draw our definitions of these.

If we do not draw them from the Bible then from where? You are Orthodox I take it Josephine so perhaps from your Fathers? You reject the Agustinian thinking so where do you go for axioms?

You see to me as for CMN, the wrath concept is axiomatic as there are countless egs of its affirmation in the Bible, yet Jesus essential mission was to reconcile.

To me Christ is actually about the negation of wrath which is a pejorative word, a human word.

From God's view, wrath might be simply an inability to reconcile without a means, which in evangelicalism is Christ alone.

[ 03. July 2010, 20:32: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Have you got any scriptural evidence that the identification of axioms is the solution to theological difference? If not, then I would have to reject the methodology as an attempt to assert the ideas of man over and above the revelation that God has provided in the Scripture.

Identifying axioms is not the solution to theological difference. Identifying axioms is a tool to assist in the understanding and communication of ideas. Once we've understood each other, and communicated our ideas clearly with each other, only then can we begin to look for a solution to our theological differences. Until then, we don't really know what our differences are!

Identifying axioms isn't the only thing that we can do to communicate more clearly and accurately. We can do a lot of things to make it easier to understand each other. We all use the English alphabet here, because that facilitates communication. There's no biblical mandate for that. And there's no reason that we couldn't all use a different alphabet -- I could write my words using katakana, another in could transliterate into cyrillic, another into Greek. Of course we don't do that, because it would make it harder to understand each other, and so would be counterproductive.

But if we all used different languages and different alphabets, if someone insisted that, at the very least, each of us identify what language and what writing system it is that we're using, would you say, "Have you got any scriptural evidence that identifying the writing system that you are using is the solution to theological difference?"

That would be nonsense! Just telling the other people, "I'm writing in English using katakana" and "I'm writing in Greek using English letters" and "I'm writing in English using Greek letters" and "I'm writing in pirate just for grins" -- making sure we know what language the other person is using makes it just possible for each of us to have a chance to understand what the other is saying.

It's even easier to understand each other, of course, if we can agree on a common language. In 1 Cor 14, Paul talked about this. It's more than just using a common language. It's choosing your words deliberately so that they are easy for the other person to understand. For "unless you utter by the tongue words easy to understand, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will be speaking into the air."

If you'd rather speak into the air, that's your call. There are plenty of people here who have an interest in getting their ideas across, and I can have interesting and fruitful discussions with them, and maybe learn something in the process. And, yeah, maybe we'll even work out some theological differences. Maybe not. But we'll at least make progress towards understanding what those differences really are.

While we do that, we can let you continue to be like that trumpet Paul talked about, that just made noise.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Footwasher, in response to my contention that 'God's active wrath' was not 'clearly visible at the crucifixion', whereas the wrath a some men clearly was, offers the following biblical quotation:

22“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. Acts 2.'

There is nothing in this quotation about the wrath of God. Indeed, 'you nailed [Him] to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death,' would seem to support my contention. That such actions were part of a 'predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God,' is evidence neither for nor against PSA or any other atonement theory.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
[QUOTE]If we do not draw them from the Bible then from where? You are Orthodox I take it Josephine so perhaps from your Fathers? You reject the Agustinian thinking so where do you go for axioms?

The thing about axioms is that you don't go anywhere for them. They are the things that are self-evidently true, or true by definition, or on the face of it so true that they can't possibly be false. You can't reason your way to axioms. Axioms are those points that you reason from.

So, for you, I'd guess that, "The Bible contains every true thing we need to know about God" is probably an axiom, and "The Bible contains nothing that is not true" is also probably an axiom. You can't go to the Bible to find those axioms. You go to the Bible because you hold those positions as axiomatic.

I hold three positions to be absolutely axiomatic. One of them is that reality is real. I realized that was an absolute given for me when I was a teenager, and I had friends who were exploring some of the New Agey mystical sorts of things where reality isn't necessarily real. Maybe it's an emanation of your thoughts, or, I don't know. I can't wrap my mind around that sort of thing, because for me, reality is real. Just like a=a. Anything that asserts otherwise is just nonsense.

Another thing that I treat as an axiom is that evil is truly evil, and good is truly good. Evil is not just a misunderstanding, it's not something that can be cleared up with a bit more information, and good isn't just a personal preference.

And my final axiom that doesn't come from anywhere is that there is more to this world than you can see or touch or even dream of. The things we can see and touch and hear and smell and measure are real. But there's so much more to reality than that.

I don't go to the Bible for those axioms. If the Bible required me to dump those axioms, I'd end up dumping the Bible. Because those things, to me, describe reality in such a fundamental way that, as far as I'm concerned, any position that denies them can't possibly be true.

Does that make sense?

Of course, my religious system (for want of a better term) is more developed now than it was when I was figuring out those fundamental axioms, and there are other things that I think of as axiomatic now.

For me, from a doctrinal point of view, the axioms are that God is, that he is not part of creation but is outside and beyond creation, and that we can nevertheless know him as he reveals himself to us. I can't make sense of anything else unless those things are true.

Most other things -- like where to go for reliable information about God -- are not axiomatic for me.

Remember, an axiom is something that is true by definition, like a=a. Other true things can be figured out and proven based on the axioms. But the axioms are necessarily true.

quote:

You see to me as for CMN, the wrath concept is axiomatic as there are countless egs of its affirmation in the Bible, yet Jesus essential mission was to reconcile.

I don't see how the fact that it's in the Bible would make it an axiom. Given certain other axioms, that might make it true. 3^2=9 is true, but it's not an axiom.

I don't think that most people who dispute PSA would say that God can't be angry, or is never angry. I would certainly never say that. I also wouldn't say that anger is an essential part of God's nature, that it is one of what we call his energies, the way that goodness or love or the uncreated light are. God is angry in response to evil. But he is not angry by nature.

quote:
To me Christ is actually about the negation of wrath which is a pejorative word, a human word.

All words are human words, aren't they? Except the Word himself.

See, to me, the Incarnation has nothing to do with wrath, and everything to do with love. God made us, and wanted to be united with us because of his love for us, but with him being God, and us being creatures, that wasn't possible. So God became one of us to unite us with him.

He didn't do it because he was angry, but because he loved us. And he'd have done it whether any evil ever existed or not, because evil and anger have nothing to do with it.

quote:
From God's view, wrath might be simply an inability to reconcile without a means, which in evangelicalism is Christ alone.

You might need to unpack that for me a bit. I'm not entirely sure what it means.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

The problem here Josephine is that I cannot accept that what you say about axioms is true because doing so requires that I place that idea above scripture in terms of authority. In other words an idea becomes the authority over scripture, rather than scripture being the authority that we place over our ideas. In this respect all I can say is that my conviction that no axiom can be placed above scripture in terms of authority is my chief, and perhaps only, axiom. However, as an evangelical I would want to suggest that my conviction that no axiom can be placed above scripture in terms of authority is not axiomatic because scripture itself is self-assesting in terms of it's ultimacy. Can you see my point?

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Once we understand what each others' axioms are, I think it will be a lot easier to understand each other when we talk about what we think the Bible says.

I agree about the value of getting to the axioms for a discussion of differences to be useful, and I'd be very interested in hearing what your axioms are, to the extent that you've figured them out and are willing to share them with us.

[ETA: missed the last page break - sorry if you've answered me in advance]

[ 03. July 2010, 21:54: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
scripture itself is self-assesting in terms of it's ultimacy.

How did you come to believe this? You surely weren't born believing it, so you came to believe it at some point. Why? A lot of things are self-attesting in terms of their ultimacy. I believe the Book of Mormon is, for example. Why did you believe that about the Bible but not the BoM? Clearly you weren't operating on a principle of "accept the authority of the first self-attesting book you find." But why is your acceptance of the Bible anything other than arbitrary, an accident of the family/country you grew up in, or something like that?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
The problem here Josephine is that I cannot accept that what you say about axioms is true because doing so requires that I place that idea above scripture in terms of authority.

No, it doesn't.

quote:
In other words an idea becomes the authority over scripture, rather than scripture being the authority that we place over our ideas. In this respect all I can say is that my conviction that no axiom can be placed above scripture in terms of authority is my chief, and perhaps only, axiom. However, as an evangelical I would want to suggest that my conviction that no axiom can be placed above scripture in terms of authority is not axiomatic because scripture itself is self-assesting in terms of it's ultimacy. Can you see my point?

No, I can't. I have no idea what "self-assesting in terms of it's ultimacy" means.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

OK, end of conversation.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

That was my ball. You may not take it and go home.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
scripture itself is self-assesting in terms of it's ultimacy.
How did you come to believe this? You surely weren't born believing it, so you came to believe it at some point. Why? A lot of things are self-attesting in terms of their ultimacy. I believe the Book of Mormon is, for example. Why did you believe that about the Bible but not the BoM? Clearly you weren't operating on a principle of "accept the authority of the first self-attesting book you find." But why is your acceptance of the Bible anything other than arbitrary, an accident of the family/country you grew up in, or something like that?

It's a conclusion that I've come to by reading scripture and reflecting on the relative inadequacies of tradition, reason, and experience.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That was my ball. You may not take it and go home.

Not sure what you mean, mousethief.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

You're right, the conversation is over. I wonder that you're so completely uninterested in talking about how you came to have the beliefs you do. Aristotle weeps.

ETA: Or is that Socrates?

[ 03. July 2010, 22:47: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
OK, end of conversation.

Well, since you're still taking, I put my reply to you on Dafyd's hell thread.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Keep casting the line, both of you. You're in for a long day's fishing. Have you checked your bait recently?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Josephine: See, to me, the Incarnation has nothing to do with wrath, and everything to do with love. God made us, and wanted to be united with us because of his love for us, but with him being God, and us being creatures, that wasn't possible. So God became one of us to unite us with him.

He didn't do it because he was angry, but because he loved us. And he'd have done it whether any evil ever existed or not, because evil and anger have nothing to do with it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From God's view, wrath might be simply an inability to reconcile without a means, which in evangelicalism is Christ alone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You might need to unpack that for me a bit. I'm not entirely sure what it means.

I agree with you totally BTW regarding God's motives and actions in Christ.

However, what if I loved pigs and really wanted to be with them and to have them share my house but I couldn't because of the filth and the smell. These things I love have qualities that are so offensive that despite my esteem I simply cannot share my house with them.

I just have to find a way that I can get the essential pigness, which I love and esteem without the smell and the filth that are their habitual and unwitting problems.

Now while the analogy is awful, if God is as we define him and we are pigs and his attitude to the smell is 'wrath' then perhaps one can see the problem a little as evangelical theology sees it.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Now while the analogy is awful, if God is as we define him and we are pigs and his attitude to the smell is 'wrath' then perhaps one can see the problem a little as evangelical theology sees it.

I don't think your analogy is awful. In fact, I think it works pretty well.

I'll agree that part of what God wants to do in becoming a pig and living with his pigs as a pig is to teach the pigs to quit living in filth, and to clean themselves up, so they can come into his house without tracking muck into it. He even provides a bath for them, so they don't have to do it themselves!

But what do you mean by wrath? Do you mean something other than anger? Why would God be angry about the pig-filth? Is he angry with the filth, or with the pigs?

It seems to me like PSA would require the Father to be so angry about the pig-filth that instead of bathing the pigs, he decides to kill them instead. But that's a disproportionate response, and he doesn't really want to kill the pigs anyway, so he kills his own son, the God-Pig, instead. And then all the other pigs still need a bath, so that doesn't seem to have accomplished much.

But maybe I'm missing something. What does punishment and anger have to do with cleaning up the mess?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

The mess is not really the only problem, It is the tendency to keep creating the mess as well.

If the God-pig could somehow translate the pig population into a state where their pigness is preserved and yet the offeding smell and filth are no longer an issue..

My point was only that to God, 'wrath' is probably something to do with his ability to coexist with us. ISTM that it is a mistake to attribute anger in a human sense to God.

[ 04. July 2010, 22:13: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The mess is not really the only problem, It is the tendency to keep creating the mess as well.

If the God-pig could somehow translate the pig population into a state where their pigness is preserved and yet the offeding smell and filth are no longer an issue..

My point was only that to God, 'wrath' is probably something to do with his ability to coexist with us. ISTM that it is a mistake to attribute anger in a human sense to God.

Then why use the word wrath at all? If what you mean is simply, "God requires the pigs who want to live with him to take a bath, and then keep themselves clean. If they won't take a bath, and if they don't want to stay clean, then they can't come in," then why don't you say that? Why use emotionally charged words like "wrath" if it's a mistake to attribute anger to God?

But if that's all you mean by the wrath of God, I don't see what it has to do with PSA.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Footwasher, in response to my contention that 'God's active wrath' was not 'clearly visible at the crucifixion', whereas the wrath a some men clearly was, offers the following biblical quotation:

22“Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death. Acts 2.'

There is nothing in this quotation about the wrath of God. Indeed, 'you nailed [Him] to a cross by the hands of godless men and put him to death,' would seem to support my contention. That such actions were part of a 'predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God,' is evidence neither for nor against PSA or any other atonement theory.

49But one of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all, 50nor do you take into account that it is expedient for you that one man die for the people, and that the whole nation not perish.” 51Now he did not say this on his own initiative, but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52and not for the nation only, but in order that He might also gather together into one the children of God who are scattered abroad. John 11

7John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Luke 3

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good? 14But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed. AND DO NOT FEAR THEIR INTIMIDATION, AND DO NOT BE TROUBLED, 15but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame. 17For it is better, if God should will it so, that you suffer for doing what is right rather than for doing what is wrong. 18For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; 19in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, 20who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water. 21Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who is at the right hand of God, having gone into heaven, after angels and authorities and powers had been subjected to Him. 1 Peter 3

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Footwasher, please, talk to us, don't just lob scripture at us. We are quite capable of reading scripture, and most of us have probably already read all of it. (Although I got bogged down in Sirach and skipped to the next book.) This is a discussion site, not a scripture-bomb site.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,

How is this going to happen?

Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

What is the coming wrath? Did the Cross take care of the consequences of the coming wrath? What comprises the nation of Israel, that Christ was supposed to have died in place of?

Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?

What is "what is good"?

But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed.
How is one blessed?

and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.

Why should a person be slandered for "good behavior in Christ?".

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

How did Christ die for sins?

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The mess is not really the only problem, It is the tendency to keep creating the mess as well.

If the God-pig could somehow translate the pig population into a state where their pigness is preserved and yet the offeding smell and filth are no longer an issue..

My point was only that to God, 'wrath' is probably something to do with his ability to coexist with us. ISTM that it is a mistake to attribute anger in a human sense to God.
Then why use the word wrath at all? If what you mean is simply, "God requires the pigs who want to live with him to take a bath, and then keep themselves clean. If they won't take a bath, and if they don't want to stay clean, then they can't come in," then why don't you say that? Why use emotionally charged words like "wrath" if it's a mistake to attribute anger to God?

But if that's all you mean by the wrath of God, I don't see what it has to do with PSA.

Well, exactly. The word is a misleading translation. IIRC the greek word (since we're mostly talking NT here) is "orge", which is a word for which, like, say, compassion, there is no real equivalent in modern English, but it is probably better translated as something like "indignation", the idea being that this is something which God cannot allow to continue and which He will act to rectify. But it carries no connotation of the means by which these things will be rectified. There is no particular link between "orge" and punishment, or even, for that matter, between "orge" and justice. The "orge" of God could be described as anger only in the sense that an oncologist is "angry" with the cancer that afflicts his patients, that is, it's one way of looking at his commitment to healing, and does convey something of his passion, but, deprived of the wider context of a commitment to his patients, it gives an unbalanced and misleading impression.

Yet it is quite clear that many advocates of a penal understanding of the atonement (and I speak as someone within the Evangelical tradition) take it for granted that the correct and sufficient translation of "orge" is "wrath, and that, furthermore, they regard wrath as a precise synonym with "anger".

In one sense, I could, I suppose, sing, "'til on the cross, when Jesus died, the wrath (ie "orge") of God was satisfied" without my fingers crossed. Because, clearly, Christ was indeed acting to rectify sin on the cross. I could, but I wouldn't, because that's not what ordinary people mean by the word "wrath" (if they even know what it means - it's pretty anachronistic), and to do so would be deeply misleading.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Footwasher, there is nothing in your quotations to indicate that Jesus died in order to appease the wrath of God.

The notion that Caiaphas' remarks about the necessity of someone dying for the people as somehow linked to the placating a wrathful God is simply not credible. The Jews did not practice human sacrifice, and a crucified blasphemer would hardly have been a suitably unblemished offering. The comments of Caiaphas are more within the realm of political expediency, because he is fearful that Jesus might promote a rebellion that would provoke the Romans to take severe action against the Jewish nation as a whole.

To the extent that Caiaphas speaks of the consequences of Jesus' death without knowing it he is, seemingly, anticipating the role of the cross in the atonement. He is not, however, enunciating a theory of the atonement, PSA, CV or whatever. The question of God's wrath doesn't enter into it.

Remember, also, the debate here is not whether or not God is wrathful, but whether or not the death of Jesus was necesssary to satisfy God's wrath. For that there is no manifest evidence in the gospel account.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation,

How is this going to happen?

From Caiaphas's point of view, killing Jesus would get the Romans off the back of the religious establishment. But the Gospel writer saw this as an unconscious prophetic utterance which he took to refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. I would have thought this pretty common ground.

quote:

Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

What is the coming wrath? Did the Cross take care of the consequences of the coming wrath? What comprises the nation of Israel, that Christ was supposed to have died in place of?

These are John's words, not Jesus'. John was clearly an apocalyptic preacher, so we can assume he was talking about "The Day of the Lord" or some such. But he was also a prophet, and I think we can safely assume that the Gospel writer read into this prophecy the destruction of the Temple under Titus.

The cross did not, in that sense, take care of the consequences of the rebellious nature of Judaean messianic expectations. Why do you assume that was even an issue at this point in the narrative?

I'm assuming that you refer back to Caiaphas' words in your last sentence above. Clearly, Caiaphas took the nation to mean the Jewish state, and maybe also the diaspora. I guess John probably included in his prophetic interpretation the nascent church. Since by the time of the writing of John's Gospel the Jewish state had been completely destroyed, I would risk a speculation that he had in mind that the church was the true Israel, the Godly remnant.

quote:
Who is there to harm you if you prove zealous for what is good?

What is "what is good"?

What is love? Why is this a meaningful question. Do you have a definitive answer in mind?

But even if you should suffer for the sake of righteousness, you are blessed.
How is one blessed?

Well, God comes along and blesses you. There are as many ways as there are people, and God's blessing to each is unique.

quote:

and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.

Oooh, is this a quiz? Or lifted from one of those Navigator Bible study aids. Where are you going with this?

[quote][qb]
Why should a person be slandered for "good behavior in Christ?".

Oh, it happens all the time - sometimes at the hand of other Christians. Ask Jeffrey John or Gene Robinson (or, for that matter, Steve Chalke).

quote:

For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

How did Christ die for sins?

Curious phraseology. I suppose you mean more than "He was crucified". The next stage answer is in the verse you quote, "to bring us to God", though what that has to do with he debate here I'm not sure. Again, it seems pretty common ground across all Christian traditions, rather than the exclusive property of any one "identity".

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Getting back to the question which kicked off this thread, ISTM that the battle over atonement theory is closely allied to the question of biblical inerrancy.

While I’m not suggesting that all supporters of PSA also identify with biblical inerrancy, or that all sceptics of biblical inerrancy are opponents of PSA, there is, nevertheless, a strong association between support for biblical inerrancy and support for PSA. Indeed, there are conservative Christian organisations that expressly include the two as part of their doctrinal bases. For them, to criticise PSA is to expose scripture to a heterogeneity of explanation that challenges biblical inerrancy and promotes heresy, given its doctrinal status. Consequently, PSA is bound up with core identity, which explains why its adherents have such a heavy emotional investment in the doctrine/theory.

Given that opponents of PSA tend to come from more liberal perspectives, they tend to regard PSA as theory or metaphor rather than doctrine, and while attracted to other theories their opposition to PSA is on the basis of its internal weaknesses rather than a desire to impose an incontestable alternative. At the end of the day, the atonement remains both fact and mystery because there is no unambiguous explanation for how it works in either scripture of theology. The battle is against those seeking to impose doctrinal conformity on this matter. Emotional resistance to PSA lies in a desire to preserve religious freedom against enforcers of conscience. That is a religious identity worth fighting for.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

The point of the questions is that some strange assertions crop up in odd places in Scripture. Of course the writers themselves are au courant with the issues and don't feel the need to expand on their views at that point of time, but it forces us to ask what they're referring to whe we bump into 'em.

Doctrinal conclusions are arrived from these asides: Trinity, KOG, Gospel are topics that come to mind, that enjoy this type of hermeneutic exploration.

[ 05. July 2010, 13:48: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Getting back to the question which kicked off this thread, ISTM that the battle over atonement theory is closely allied to the question of biblical inerrancy.

While I’m not suggesting that all supporters of PSA also identify with biblical inerrancy, or that all sceptics of biblical inerrancy are opponents of PSA, there is, nevertheless, a strong association between support for biblical inerrancy and support for PSA. Indeed, there are conservative Christian organisations that expressly include the two as part of their doctrinal bases. For them, to criticise PSA is to expose scripture to a heterogeneity of explanation that challenges biblical inerrancy and promotes heresy, given its doctrinal status. Consequently, PSA is bound up with core identity, which explains why its adherents have such a heavy emotional investment in the doctrine/theory.

Given that opponents of PSA tend to come from more liberal perspectives, they tend to regard PSA as theory or metaphor rather than doctrine, and while attracted to other theories their opposition to PSA is on the basis of its internal weaknesses rather than a desire to impose an incontestable alternative. At the end of the day, the atonement remains both fact and mystery because there is no unambiguous explanation for how it works in either scripture of theology. The battle is against those seeking to impose doctrinal conformity on this matter. Emotional resistance to PSA lies in a desire to preserve religious freedom against enforcers of conscience. That is a religious identity worth fighting for.

Kwesi, I think I agree wholeheartedly with you, but I'm still not sure the logic explains it all. After all, the evidence for PSA, even for an inerrantist, is pretty slim. As a doctine, it hangs well together, is, within its own terms of reference, logically consistant, and can be easily summed up in a couple of sentences. All these points favour it, and make it easy to teach and learn, but it certainly isn't the clear hingepin of scripture from any objective point of view. Which makes its totemic adherence a very strange phenomenom. Even those who are otherwise impeccable evos (such as Steve Chalke) can get in vey hot water when they argue (from scripture) that PSA is less than convincing as a biblical doctrine.

Posted by jrrt01 (# 11264) on :

There seems to be an assumption that PSA is vital because it is seen as doctrine. I would suggest that with many religious controversies the opposite is the case. Some identity symbol is seen as vital, and so a doctrine is created supporting it. This is not to say whether or not the doctrine is true; merely that the assault on identity is felt first.

Take the icon controversies. When icons were first banned, the bishops etc kicked up remarkably little fuss. Then one or two influential people objected, along with many ordinary folk who felt part of their religious identity being swept away. The theological justification for icons developed after people felt the affront/attack on their identity.

To bring this back to PSA, of course it's a doctrinal issue. But that tells us very little about why it's core to the identity of a large strand of current Christian tradition. It just confirms that it is important (any important religious symbol under attack will have a doctrine to defend it).

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Jolly Jape:

quote:
Kwesi, I think I agree wholeheartedly with you, but I'm still not sure the logic explains it all. After all, the evidence for PSA, even for an inerrantist, is pretty slim.

Jolly Jape, I think I agree with you! It puzzles me as to why Evangelicals of the inerrantist variety should have become furled to PSA given its Latin origin and questionable biblical basis. There must be an historical answer to the question. Perhaps other shipmates can help us. Of course, the slimness of the evidence can explain the dogmatism and emotional intensity of its assertion!

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

jolly jape wrote:
From Caiaphas's point of view, killing Jesus would get the Romans off the back of the religious establishment. But the Gospel writer saw this as an unconscious prophetic utterance which he took to refer to the death and resurrection of Jesus. I would have thought this pretty common ground.

That is what adherents of PSA would understand: the death and resurrection of Jesus would save the nation: Jesus had been seen as an acceptable sacrifice to take away the consequences of sin by God, by diverting wrath away from Israel and toward Himself. But the moral exemplarist would be put to difficulties to explain it as an example to follow
which in turn would lead to God rewarding them, as God rewarded Jesus, because the sum total of their failures would be more than that of successes (given the actual standards required by God, revealed at the Sermon on the Mount).

Starlight gives a description of what comprises being good:

Quote
Sanders pointed out that in ancient Jewish texts the word "sinner" means (to paraphrase) "a person who consistently rejects God and does what is wrong" and "righteous" means "a person who consistently obeys God and does what is right". In other words, they are equivalent to how we might talk about "good" and "bad" people today. Jews unanimously believed it was possible for humans to be "righteous" in this sense, and that such righteous people did exist. Similarly, it was firmly believed that not everyone is a sinner. The bible uses the terminology this way all throughout the old testament (and also the new testament). Proverbs is full of passages that contrast the behaviour of the righteous to the wicked / sinners. Jesus also, for example in the parable of the good shepherd speaks of the 99 sheep who did not stray and the 1 sheep that did, to explain to the Pharisees why he associates with social outcasts (ie the minority of people that the Jews labeled "sinners") and ignored everyone else (the 99 righteous). In Jewish / Biblical terminology, someone who at some stage in their life performs a sin is not thereby a "sinner" any more than a person who performs a righteous deed once is thereby "righteous". The terms summarize of a person's entire way of life. (See Sanders Paul and Palestinian Judaism on this, or even Origen's Commentary on Romans!) Never in the bible does it say anything remotely close to "if you've lied even once in your life, you're a sinner."

So in short, I don't think the bible says we're all sinners - far from it! But, if what you mean is that sometime in everyone's life we do something that is not right, then of course that's true - we're all human after all. But I don't think our occasional mistakes have any relevance to the theology of the bible which is concerned with making sure people are overall living rightly than about their every tiniest mistake. Of course, some people interpret Romans 3 or Romans 7 to be talking about this, but they're just wrong. Romans 7 even goes so far as to remote the blame from humans: "It is not I who do it, but the sin which dwells within me"... "I obey the law of God in my innermost mind". Romans 7 argues the person does not control their own actions (and so, just like Torah, are not to blame), the sinfulness that rules them does. The point of Romans 3 is not to prove universal sinfulness (as Sanders has pointed out at length in Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People, if that is the point of it, Paul's argument is an abysmally bad one!), but to show that if people live badly then God condemns them regardless of whether they are Jews or Gentiles. Paul has a series of quotes from the Old testament which are all taken from passages that contrast particular righteous people to particular sinners. ie all of them assert that some humans are righteous (so to read Paul as using the passages to say all humans are unrighteous reads him 100% dead against his own prooftexts!). Some of the passages show particular historical instances of Jews behaving badly and some show particular historical instances of Gentiles behaving badly, and all get condemned with roughly the same language - it is not the case that the Jews are liked by God because of their Jewishness (as Paul's opponents thought). In Romans 2 Paul says that whenever a person does good, be they Jew or Gentile they get a positive judgment from God, and whenever a person does evil, be they Jew or Gentile they get a negative judgment from God. Romans 3 follows that up with examples of Jews and Gentiles getting negative judgments for evil deeds. Paul's point is that being a Jew or Gentile doesn't matter, living as God wants does matter.

I firmly believe in God's love for everyone and so believe that such a person has an absolutely equal chance of redemption as everyone else. Perhaps after their death they will hear the gospel and have a chance to believe. Perhaps God judges everyone according to the amount of knowledge they had of Christ. I don't know. What is clear is that explicit knowledge of Jesus and his cross is not necessary for salvation, since presumably Jews who lived before Jesus, including Abraham, Moses etc will be in heaven. It is possible that Christ saves people who don't know about him - just as, as CS Lewis pointed out, people who don't know about oxygen can still breathe using it. Generally Jews thought that if a person was monotheistic and lived fairly morally then their outlook for the afterlife was pretty good. I see no reason to think Paul's view was any different, as at key points (eg Romans 2) he seems to endorse the idea that how a person has lived is key to how God will judge them.

The difficulty is then to explain the parable of the workers in the vineyard and the early clock punchers' whinge-ing, and the last minute repentance of the thief on the cross. And the elder brother's gripe in the tale of the Prodigal.

If God forgives on the basis of some success, then all men would be saved, since all men must have done some good in their lives. What then is an acceptable level of goodness? Clearly then, righteousness in God's eyes is not being good, but being dependent.

These are John's words, not Jesus'. John was clearly an apocalyptic preacher, so we can assume he was talking about "The Day of the Lord" or some such. But he was also a prophet, and I think we can safely assume that the Gospel writer read into this prophecy the destruction of the Temple under Titus.

The cross did not, in that sense, take care of the consequences of the rebellious nature of Judaean messianic expectations. Why do you assume that was even an issue at this point in the narrative?

I'm assuming that you refer back to Caiaphas' words in your last sentence above. Clearly, Caiaphas took the nation to mean the Jewish state, and maybe also the diaspora. I guess John probably included in his prophetic interpretation the nascent church. Since by the time of the writing of John's Gospel the Jewish state had been completely destroyed, I would risk a speculation that he had in mind that the church was the true Israel, the Godly remnant.

The Jews of the Gospel account were running hither and thither seeking a way to move out of the path of the coming wrath, having felt the warning temblors in Pilate's punitory actions AND the natural disaster of the Siloam Tower collapse. (The first was the sword bearing servant of God, and the second, the finger of God).

1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil. 5Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience sake."Rom 13

What is love? Why is this a meaningful question. Do you have a definitive answer in mind?

To me, the good is dependence on God, as opposed to what the opponents of Jesus believed, dependence on descent from Abraham and Moses: blood and culture.

Well, God comes along and blesses you. There are as many ways as there are people, and God's blessing to each is unique.

Suffering for righteousness is drinking the cup that Jesus drank, and as only a few are chosen for that path, only a few will sit close to the Lord.

Oooh, is this a quiz? Or lifted from one of those Navigator Bible study aids. Where are you going with this?

IN Christ is the differentiator. Are you going to share Jesus message: "Dependence on God", and not dependence on baptism or quote-unquote "Christian works"? Well, you're going to take plenty of flak for it.

Oh, it happens all the time - sometimes at the hand of other Christians. Ask Jeffrey John or Gene Robinson (or, for that matter, Steve Chalke).

Not as much as if you hold to "Dependence on God". Then the last three will probably join in the persecution. There seems to be some universally negative reaction to the "supernatural" these days. Ironically, even amongst the "theological" fraternity.

Curious phraseology. I suppose you mean more than "He was crucified". The next stage answer is in the verse you quote, "to bring us to God", though what that has to do with he debate here I'm not sure. Again, it seems pretty common ground across all Christian traditions, rather than the exclusive property of any one "identity".

The ME-ist would say, while adding many in betwen steps: "By being passive under persection, so being good, so being judged favourably by God. IOW, Christ died so that we would know how to behave, and thus deal with sin. But then why did Christ have to come? A moralist would easiy have come to this conclusion on his own.

The significant fact is that Christ was perfect in His dependence on God, and IN Him, we are also perfect. And potentially able to be the sin offering and share in His sin bearing work, and divert wrath to ourselves, and be resurrected, in our witness. IOW, we are going to be judged by the legacy we leave and acquitted favourably.

"The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church," Tertullian

30And He said, “How shall we picture the kingdom of God, or by what parable shall we present it? 31“It is like a mustard seed, which, when sown upon the soil, though it is smaller than all the seeds that are upon the soil,32yet when it is sown, it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and forms large branches; so that THE BIRDS OF THE AIR can NEST UNDER ITS SHADE." Mark 4

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

"The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church," Tertullian

It's hard to see what this has to do with PSA. The martyrs weren't slain to propitiate God's wrath.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church," Tertullian

It's hard to see what this has to do with PSA. The martyrs weren't slain to propitiate God's wrath.

Then how does Paul intend to share in Christ's suffering: Phi 3:10?

Also:
24Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I do my share on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Col 1

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

That is of course a very difficult verse. What could be lacking in Christ's afflictions? I would be very wary hanging anything on that verse.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That is of course a very difficult verse. What could be lacking in Christ's afflictions? I would be very wary hanging anything on that verse.

Sure, my life does not revolve around that verse, since only a few will be called to share Christ's Cup, and I'm not worthy: not even close.

Right now, concentrating on not grieving the Spirit and just showing the fruit of His indwelling. Can't go wrong there.
[Angel]

[ 06. July 2010, 06:41: Message edited by: footwasher ]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

footwasher, I'm not going to go through your post point-by-point, for to do so would surely produce a post so long that it would cause even the hardiest to scroll through it, but I have one or two observations, which I hope you will take in the constructive spirit in which they are meant.

1) There's no need to kick at an open door. Most, if not all of the people posting here believe in the objective saving act of the Atonement. This thread is about a particular theory of atonement. It is quite possible to reject PSA and yet believe that Christ died and rose again for our sake. Many posters have tried to explain this to you, but your posts still sound like you are in denial about this.

Linked to this:

2) It would be quite helpful if you refrained from telling other people what they believe. I have in mind this sentence:

quote:
The ME-ist would say, while adding many in betwen steps: "By being passive under persection, so being good, so being judged favourably by God. IOW, Christ died so that we would know how to behave, and thus deal with sin. But then why did Christ have to come? A moralist would easiy have come to this conclusion on his own.

though there are others.

3) I find this paragraph deeply ironic:

quote:
Not as much as if you hold to "Dependence on God". Then the last three will probably join in the persecution. There seems to be some universally negative reaction to the "supernatural" these days. Ironically, even amongst the "theological" fraternity.

The passage to which this refers was about being slandered for doing good. Let me ask you; have you ever heard John, Chalke or Robinson speak? Have you ever read any of their books? Have you ever heard anything of them that supposes they are negative towards the supernatural power of God? Have you any grounds to suppose they have ever been involved in persecution of others? Because, if you haven't any evidence that your accusations are true, and if all the evidence is that they do, in fact, live their lives in dependance on God, then how are your words not defamatory to their character in the way that Peter describes.

One final point. The besetting sin of evangelicals, it seems to me (and I speak as one who knows; as one, as it were, within the camp) is the fervent desire to conform reality to the theory. Now, on occasion, and where there is scriptural warrant for it, this can help us discern certain truths about the world in which we live, but sometimes it seems that we're addicted to it, that we have adopted a hermaneutic of denial. When the theory doesn't match reality, surely we are on safer ground to ditch the theory than to ditch reality. Surely it is time to diligently search the scriptures, berean style, to see where our interpretive error might lie.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

Jolly Jape wrote:

quote:
1) There's no need to kick at an open door. Most, if not all of the people posting here believe in the objective saving act of the Atonement. This thread is about a particular theory of atonement. It is quite possible to reject PSA and yet believe that Christ died and rose again for our sake. Many posters have tried to explain this to you, but your posts still sound like you are in denial about this.

Hi Jolly Jape, point taken about constructive criticism. Good post about the opposing view, but the spate of anti-PSA threads sounded like the posters are in denial that one can support PSA and still be Christian, going to the extent ofaccusing them of connecting the Cross with pagan sacrifice. In order for me to be in denial, THOSE views would need to be true.

quote:
2) It would be quite helpful if you refrained from telling other people what they believe. I have in mind this sentence:

quote:The ME-ist would say, while adding many in betwen steps: "By being passive under persection, so being good, so being judged favourably by God. IOW, Christ died so that we would know how to behave, and thus deal with sin. But then why did Christ have to come? A moralist would easiy have come to this conclusion on his own.

I apologise if my encapsulation of the views of the ME-ists was wrong, I simply chose the one that made SOME sense (Christ died so that we would love Him seemed vague) but then, what IS your version of the view?

quote:
3) I find this paragraph deeply ironic:

quote:Not as much as if you hold to "Dependence on God". Then the last three will probably join in the persecution. There seems to be some universally negative reaction to the "supernatural" these days. Ironically, even amongst the "theological" fraternity.

The passage to which this refers was about being slandered for doing good. Let me ask you; have you ever heard John, Chalke or Robinson speak? Have you ever read any of their books? Have you ever heard anything of them that supposes they are negative towards the supernatural power of God? Have you any grounds to suppose they have ever been involved in persecution of others? Because, if you haven't any evidence that your accusations are true, and if all the evidence is that they do, in fact, live their lives in dependance on God, then how are your words not defamatory to their character in the way that Peter describes.

Persecution takes place when an unpopular view is voiced in the midst of powerful people. Antinomianism seems to attract a wider group of opponents than any other doctrine I've come across. I think its the loss of control that they seem to object to, the "being still and trusting God fully". Pharisee or thief on the Cross, it seemed to rub them all the wrong way.

quote:
One final point. The besetting sin of evangelicals, it seems to me (and I speak as one who knows; as one, as it were, within the camp) is the fervent desire to conform reality to the theory. Now, on occasion, and where there is scriptural warrant for it, this can help us discern certain truths about the world in which we live, but sometimes it seems that we're addicted to it, that we have adopted a hermaneutic of denial. When the theory doesn't match reality, surely we are on safer ground to ditch the theory than to ditch reality. Surely it is time to diligently search the scriptures, berean style, to see where our interpretive error might lie.

Now THAT is ironical. The main support for anti-PSA adherents seems to be a worldview that depends on moralistic interpretation, NOT Scripture:
1. God would never punish an innocent person.
2, Forgiveness does not require setting to rights an unbalance in justice.
3. Punishment is against the character of God as revealed in Christ.

IOW, their interpretation hinges on a moral worldview. It might be a profitable exercise to discuss Morals and Ethics, and see how stable a system it is, when used as a benchmark, versus the revelation of the ways of God as recorded in Scripture.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

Also going back to the OP I find it strange PSA has become so important. In my Evangelical days I tended towards the Governmental view, which should be equally acceptable to any Evangelical who recognises Arminians and Wesley as fellow Evangelicals.

Personally I object to PSA because it is part of the Calvinist heresy. Sadly I can't seem to work out what is orthodoxy, Aquinas or Irenaeus ... :-)

[ 06. July 2010, 18:52: Message edited by: Edward Green ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I don't think I've come across the Governmental view, Edward, can you expand on that?

Thanks

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

This might help, Gamaliel. The Wikipedia article is "Atonement (governmental view)" (SoF doesn't seem to permit URLs with parentheses.) Hmmm - deliberate fuzziness (a bit like unsharp-masking to my mind) from Hugo Grotius, no less! And ISTM not to be unrelated to Barth's "classical" doctrine of election.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Hi Footwasher

I don't think that anyone has suggested that you can't be a Christian and yet believe in PSA. The thread is an investigation as to why PSA is so central to the identity of some evangelicals that they consider rejection of it as a doctrine as tantamount to apostasy. The puzzling thing is that it is, at first sight, an unlikely evangelical doctrine, since explicit support in scripture is so scant. I think that the fact that you read the thread in the way you do is some evidence for how totemic you, and by extension, presumably others, find this doctrine. I see questioning it as a reasonable and biblically defensible position; you see it as an attack on your identity as a Christian.

With regard to the ME view, I'm afraid you'd have to ask Starlight or one of the other posters who hold to a primarily subjective model of the Atonement. My primary understanding is CV, which, like PSA, is an objective view. Though it is worth noting that in practice most evos seem to me to operate out of ME in their day to day lives. Just think about the lyrics that quintessentially evangelical hymn "When I survey".

With regard to your points re: persecution, I'm not sure you are using antinomianism in quite the way I would understand it. But leaving that aside, I'm not sure I would totally agree with your summary on how persecution comes about. The main point I was making was that the three people whom I mentioned had been, at various times, slandered by other Christians, that is, things were said about them that were just not true, and the people who said those things about them knew they were not true. I saw echoes of that sort of attitude in your dismissal of them as denying the supernatural. It is an accusation that is just not justified. It might be an instructive exercise to read up a bit about Jeffery John, and the way he behaved over the Bishop of Reading affair, when subjected to such vitriolic abuse by those from whom we have every right to expect better. I think one would be hard-pressed to find a more apt description of his behaviour, than that he was "being still and trusting God fully", to use your own words.

With regard to the philosophical (if you like) basis for those who question PSA, I think that you are both right and wrong. I do think that the logical inconsistancy of the doctrine (as I see it) is often pointed out; what you describe as the moral case. Why should it not be? But there is a more substantive case to be answered than you admit. Are not your objections 1 & 3 objections from Scripture? I could easily find individual verses to give strong support to them, but the primay hermaneutical method used by evos is to let the whole counsel of scripture be our interpretive guide, and, by this standard, I consider that PSA is an unbiblical doctrine with little or no (depending on how you interpret one chapter in Isaiah) explicit scriptural support.

Of course, those on both sides of the argument have a moral worldview - why else would you make appeals like "God cannot allow sin to go unpunished", which is a moral statement rather than a biblical one. But it is a false dichotomy to set morality against scripture. Most christians, the vast majority, I would hope, have their moral landscape conditioned by how they understand the life and teaching of Jesus, the Word of God to whom the scriptures testify.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by footwasher:
Now THAT is ironical. The main support for anti-PSA adherents seems to be a worldview that depends on moralistic interpretation, NOT Scripture:
1. God would never punish an innocent person.
2, Forgiveness does not require setting to rights an unbalance in justice.
3. Punishment is against the character of God as revealed in Christ.

No I reject PSA because it is not historic Christian orthodoxy, it is a Calvinist innovation and deviation from the historic faith.

As I stated above your post the authentic orthodox Christian understandings have tended towards Aquinas' model in the West and Irenaeus' model in the East, which are quite different from PSA and from each other.

Which suggests that the exact nature of the atonement is not suitable as a touchstone compared to aspects where East and West are in agreement such as the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which to my mind should be a touchstone of Christian orthodoxy.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
To expand on what I said to shamwari upthread, I think one aspect is that PSA is a well-regarded doctrine that is hard to dispute (according to the people you're talking about) that nevertheless says some things about God's character that can be difficult to swallow. This makes it a good test case of how people are developing their faith. People who subscribe to PSA are attempting to live under scripture whereas people who don't subscribe are making God in their own image.[/quote

And people who subscribe to PSA are attempting to live under a monster who, according to Scripture, forced someone to change his mind ("God hardened Pharaoh's heart") in order to give himself an excuse to show off ("But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt") by murdering every single one of the first born of Egypt.

Such a God, who murders simply to show off, is an evil monster. PSA does indeed make a good test case of whether people are willing to live under Scripture by kowtowing to the biggest bully in the playground, or whether they are developing an actual moral sense by rejecting this approach.

So the reason PSA is such a flashpoint is that on one side you have people claiming it as a litmus test of those who believe scripture (and are therefore the only good people), and on the other you have people claiming it as a litmus test of those who see no harm in worshipping a monster as long as that monster is the All Highest.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Sorry, what have Pharoh and Moses got to do with anything?

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Justinian:

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
To expand on what I said to shamwari upthread, I think one aspect is that PSA is a well-regarded doctrine that is hard to dispute (according to the people you're talking about) that nevertheless says some things about God's character that can be difficult to swallow. This makes it a good test case of how people are developing their faith. People who subscribe to PSA are attempting to live under scripture whereas people who don't subscribe are making God in their own image.
And people who subscribe to PSA are attempting to live under a monster who, according to Scripture, forced someone to change his mind ("God hardened Pharaoh's heart") in order to give himself an excuse to show off ("But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you, that I may lay my hand upon Egypt") by murdering every single one of the first born of Egypt.

Such a God, who murders simply to show off, is an evil monster. PSA does indeed make a good test case of whether people are willing to live under Scripture by kowtowing to the biggest bully in the playground, or whether they are developing an actual moral sense by rejecting this approach.

So the reason PSA is such a flashpoint is that on one side you have people claiming it as a litmus test of those who believe scripture (and are therefore the only good people), and on the other you have people claiming it as a litmus test of those who see no harm in worshipping a monster as long as that monster is the All Highest.

Am I missing something, or (niceties of style and expression aside) are Justinian and Dinghy Sailor in complete agreement on this?!? [Ultra confused]

[ 07. July 2010, 15:30: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

As with any discussion hinging on moral arguments, God is seen to be described in unflattering terms in the OT. Seems like a good reason to chuck out entire chunks of OT passages.

To all, is stealing wrong?

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Ask Jean Valjean.

Javert isn't my theologian of choice.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Jolly Jape,

You suggest that wrath is better translated indignation. What do you make of these words from Romans 2?

quote:
6(I) He will render to each one according to his works: 7to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. 9There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil...

How should these words better translated in order to avoid giving the impression that God's wrath against people who do evil involves fury resulting in tribulation and distress?

[ 08. July 2010, 06:32: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

Psyduck wrote:

quote:

Ask Jean Valjean.

Javert isn't my theologian of choice.

Being just one example of the relativism that unavoidably exists in human morality? And as moral perpectivists, what makes us qualified to decide what mitigating circumstances justify Valjean' s (or God's) seemingly immoral actions?

That's why Adam was dead in the water as soon as he chose to strike out for himself: he wasn't equipped to make the right choice. And several generations later, the level of development we've managed to achieve in our moral sense still doesn't cut it.

It's the same argument God uses in Job: "Were you there when I set up Creation?"

[ 08. July 2010, 06:44: Message edited by: footwasher ]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Serving suggestion: read Bonhoeffer's Ethics. Then read Fletcher's Situation Ethics. Then see which of Job's comforters you can identify either of them with.

I actually agree with you that theodicy as conventionally done since Leibnitz is an impossibility. I believe that the only way to square that circle is by an incarnational atonement that basically takes Jesus Christ, and the whole of Jesus Christ as what God does to at-one the world with himself, by bearing the conditions of existence in a fallen world. PSA says there's no circle to square, and identifies God's justice with God's caprice and cruelty, simply because God is God and everything he does is, by definition, OK.

PSA is atonement for Zeus-worshippers. And it's not in the same moral universe as Job.

[ 08. July 2010, 06:58: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Call me Numpty:

quote:
How should these words better translated in order to avoid giving the impression that God's wrath against people who do evil involves fury resulting in tribulation and distress?

The point isn't how to translate them. It's the importance of understanding them in the Greek. The muslims put us to shame here. They are perfectly clear that the Qur'an is an Arabic text, and needs to be read in Arabic, and if you want to be a muslim, you need to learn enough Arabic to be able to do that.

There was a baker in London in the 1650s, Christopher Hill tells us, who had memorized the whole of the Greek NT as far as Revelation chapter 8. He clearly thought it was worth doing.

We are increasingly infantilized by third-rate targums like the GNB, which reads into the text everywhere the doctrines of its translators - including PSA. It's not something we've looked at on any of these threads yet, but it might be worth asking just how many people believe that PSA is Biblical because of crappy translations of the NT that do read it in in that way.

Asking how to translate, here, is equivalent to asking how to fix, in another form of language (indeed, another language altogether) a doctrinal formulation. That's not how texts work.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

So the solution to the problem of PSA is elitism and islamic notions of inspiration?

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

No, it's having the humility to sit on your arse, and do some really hard work. If you believe Scripture is worth it.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

As one of the fathers of NT textual criticism , J A Bengel puts it:

quote:
"Te totum applica ad textum : rem totam applica ad te."

Apply yourself to the whole text. [Then] apply the whole thing to you..."

[ 08. July 2010, 07:52: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

In fairness, Psyduck, writers like John Stott and other more nuanced and informed proponents of PSA do take full account of the whole 'Christ event' - the Incarnation etc. I would imagine that Numpty would do the same, he's smart enough not to dislocate his views on PSA from what he'd see as the apostolic testimony as a whole.

At least, that's how I read him. I'm prepared to cut him some slack on this one.

On the wrath thing, somewhere or other on the various atonement threads that have been looping around each other here for a while, Josephine suggested that none of us are saying that God cannot be angry nor that anger and indignation against sin (wrath if you like) would not be an appropriate response for the Almighty to take. But we have to be wary of anthropomorphism here, whilst at the same time being aware that, as embodied beings, we are ultimately only able to conceive of things in that way.

So, I would suggest that it is possible to interpret the verses Numpty cites as indicating that there is wrath, indignation and judgement - but that this doesn't necessarily mean that these elements are part of God's 'character' as it were ... but then we get into the whole 'essences and energies' thing.

As cuddly, fluffy ol' Gamaliel I might suggest that both Numpty and your good self are overstating the case - for and against.

But then, that's just me ...

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
To expand on what I said to shamwari upthread,<snip>

Am I missing something, or (niceties of style and expression aside) are Justinian and Dinghy Sailor in complete agreement on this?!?

I believe we do agree but I'm perplexed as to why Justinian posted what he did on this thread. It seems that his beef isn't with PSA but is with the trustworthiness of the bible, based on an unrelated OT episode that he doesn't like. As far as I can make it, his logic says that there are bits of the bible he doesn't like, ergo he doesn't believe the bible and if you believe in PSA, you are willing to believe the bible and therefore believe the bits he doesn't like, ergo he doesn't like you.

I think I should take that as a backhanded compliment, and I refer all here to Barnabas's discussion on the level of messiness in theology, back on one or other of these recent threads.

Justinian, have I got that correct?

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
PSA says there's no circle to square, and identifies God's justice with God's caprice and cruelty, simply because God is God and everything he does is, by definition, OK.

PSA is atonement for Zeus-worshippers. And it's not in the same moral universe as Job.

So remind me again, PSA believers are the exclusionist ones, yes? I like your style
[Yipee]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

I've never made any secret of the fact that I believe PSA to be a deeply and unworkably flawed version of the Christian story.

I don't see how rejecting one particular perspective makes me "exclusionary" - presuming that you mean "exclusive."

In my book, saying that I can work with everything else, but your one particular stance is one I can't entertain, doesn't make me exclusivist or exclusionary. It might suggest that you are thin-skinned with regard to your own position, though.

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
All these points favour it, and make it easy to teach and learn, but it certainly isn't the clear hingepin of scripture from any objective point of view. Which makes its totemic adherence a very strange phenomenom. Even those who are otherwise impeccable evos (such as Steve Chalke) can get in vey hot water when they argue (from scripture) that PSA is less than convincing as a biblical doctrine.

Oh JJ. How did this pass under the radar? Suffice to say here, there is plenty of Biblical evidence. Your constant apology for Isaiah 53 demonstrates that you know this, really.

But anyway, the fact is that arguments against PSA are rarely textual, but are much more like the infamous Chalke argument, or Justinian's argument on this thread: "I don't really like the God this represents, so I reject the doctrine." Unsurprisingly, to those who believe in the authority of Scripture this is an unconvincing argument.

What's more, I do find it interesting that those who reject PSA are those who are most likely to say that all of Scripture is littered with mistakes.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I've never made any secret of the fact that I believe PSA to be a deeply and unworkably flawed version of the Christian story.

I don't see how rejecting one particular perspective makes me "exclusionary" - presuming that you mean "exclusive."

In my book, saying that I can work with everything else, but your one particular stance is one I can't entertain, doesn't make me exclusivist or exclusionary. It might suggest that you are thin-skinned with regard to your own position, though.

That's why the PSA believers on these threads are the wet fluffy liberals who can find worth in all the major atonement models - at least, I know I can and I don't remember anything to the contrary from the others. You're the one who can't cope with everything which is absolutely fine, but which I find amusingly ironic since you're the one who started the thread about exclusivity.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Hi Lep, good to hear from you again.

I'm afraid this will have to be brief, as I'm off to work now-ish.

I'm not sure I am "constantly apologising for Is 53", but I do think that it's the only text that seems to have a natural meaning in line with PSA. I'm not saying other texts cannot be interpreted in that way, but it would not be their natural meaning, it would be eisegesis. We are where we are, but I still maintain if some alien were to visit us and try to understand Christianity given only the Bible (suitably and accurately translated into alien-ese, of course), PSA is not the account they would come up with.

But, of course, we've been round this loop before. I actually think there is quite a strong textual case against PSA, which doesn't rest on arguing away bits of scripture, even though, as you know, I'm not inerrantist, though I do think that scripture is authoritative. (Actually, I suppose the first part of that sentence is the wrong way round - it's not quite true to say that the scriptural evidence is against PSA, or at least it's only true to say that by extension. It is better to say that I don't believe that scripture supports PSA, in the way that it supports, say, CV or even Abelardian ME).

Of course, just because I think there is a moral argument against PSA (and I do) doesn't preclude that there is a textual argument against it as well. I tend to use the argument that is appropriate to the situation as I see it.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
As one of the fathers of NT textual criticism , J A Bengel puts it:
quote:
"Te totum applica ad textum : rem totam applica ad te."
Apply yourself to the whole text. [Then] apply the whole thing to you..."

Yes, and I know that I deserve God's wrath because I'm a sinner. And God's mercy would mean nothing to me if his wrath didn't present a very real possibility of his divine displeasure at my intransigence.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Let's get this absolutely straight, without distortions, once and for all.

Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
That's why the PSA believers on these threads are the wet fluffy liberals who can find worth in all the major atonement models - at least, I know I can and I don't remember anything to the contrary from the others.

That is a deliberate distortion of what I said. I said with total consistency that I completely accept that people who assert that you can hold PSA as a theory, and hold other perspectives on the atonement on the same level as it, are saying that in good faith.

What I don't accept - and I've still seen nothing to convince me to the contrary - is that you can actually hold PSA fully, and give equal, unsubordinated place to other perspectives. I maintain that if you actually hold full PSA you can't do that, however much you think you are.

That's a perfectly respectable claim to make. You have consistently taken it personally, and done so on behalf of other people. (BTW - why do you habitually set yourself up as the spokesman and defender of other people? It happens all the time in your posts.) Any speculations I might make on why are inappropriate to a Purgatory thread.

I'm not impugning these people's integrity, or impugning their intellectual capacity. I am addressing their arguments, which do not convince me. I'm perfectly able to do that with complete respect, and ISTM that that's how it's taken. There's an agreement to differ. With everyone but you.

quote:
You're the one who can't cope with everything which is absolutely fine,

Well, all evidence to the contrary, I think the dispassionate reader of your posts would have to say

quote:
but which I find amusingly ironic since you're the one who started the thread about exclusivity.

This is a moronic post. What you are effectively saying, here and elsewhere, is that anyone who disagrees with you is being exclusive, no matter how open they are to anyone else whose arguments convince them.

You haven't convinced me. I don't accept your argumts. I haven't actually seen any arguments in your posts, just bluster, abuse and the occasional threat.

I've said it before. It's in the Purg. guidelines. If you can't stand to be challenged...

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Call me Numpty:

quote:
Yes, and I know that I deserve God's wrath because I'm a sinner. And God's mercy would mean nothing to me if his wrath didn't present a very real possibility of his divine displeasure at my intransigence.

And... ?

Perhaps if you completed the thought...

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

The relationship between the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, the eschaton, the book of Joshua, and the wrath of God is a key consideration when thinking about the authority of scripture.

If God is not wrathful, then the book of Joshua really is just an exercise in Hebrew propaganda, a justification of genocide, and a clear demonstration that canonical scripture cannot be trusted.

However, if God is wrathful towards sinful people the book of Joshua becomes a trustworthy eschatological picture of God's coming wrath towards the unsaved. It becomes a picture of what is yet happen to humanity whose sins remain unforgiven through the rejection of Christ's atoning sacrifice. It becomes a picture of judgement.

[ 08. July 2010, 10:39: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Call me Numpty:
quote:
Yes, and I know that I deserve God's wrath because I'm a sinner. And God's mercy would mean nothing to me if his wrath didn't present a very real possibility of his divine displeasure at my intransigence.
And... ?

Perhaps if you completed the thought...

OK, Psyduck, how would you like me to complete the thought process? And why would you like to 'complete the thought' according to your set schema? Is it because it make your theology work better? Or is it because it would benefit me in some way? Would it perhaps be because my understanding of being a forgiven sinner who deserves God's wrath by is justified freely by his grace is an inconvenience to your systematised censorship of an attribute of God's character?

[ 08. July 2010, 10:44: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Call me Numpty - that's a clear, forthright statement that I can respect for its honesty and work with. It will probably come as no surprise to you that I can't accept such a line of theological reasons, but I would sincerely like to do it justice, and I'll take it away and think about it. You're owed a decent statement of why I reject it.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Call me Numpty - well, we cross-posted there, all right. So I'm going to do the Bobby Kennedy, Cuban-Missile-Crisis thing, and assume that the first one came from you, and the second from your trigger-happy military. And since I can actually work with the first one, I'll respond to that in due course, and - respectfully - ignore the second.

[ 08. July 2010, 10:46: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Yep CMN: the book of Joshua is an exercise in Hebrew propaganda.

But thats a loaded word. It is propaganda in the same sense that John said "these things are written in order that you might believe....."

Except that, in Joshua's case the belief system underlying his work is that God had promised this land; and that therefore all who attempted to prevent a take-over were the objects of His wrath and could be eliminated.

Hardly a Christian thing to do.

And utterly inconsistent with the God, who in Christ, taught the opposite.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Call me Numpty:

quote:
The relationship between the doctrine of penal substitutionary atonement, the eschaton, the book of Joshua, and the wrath of God is a key consideration when thinking about the authority of scripture.

Only, surely, if you elevate the doctrine of PSA to the authoritative status of Scripture. And on what grounds would you do that? And only if you take a very particular view of the Book of Joshua, which I would surmise has to be a component of an understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. An understanding, moreover, by which I don't feel bound, because it isn't scriptural. I concede that I may be reading you wrong here, and possibly imputing things you don't actually hold. In which case, please tell me.

quote:
If God is not wrathful, then the book of Joshua really is just an exercise in Hebrew propaganda,

Well, I'd dispense with the word "just", because I believe that this part of the Deuteronomistic history is much more than "just" that - it's also an articulation of Hebrew history within a tightly controlled theological schema, but other than that it certainly is also "Hebrew propaganda".

quote:
a justification of genocide,

In practice, it is that too. And I'm not afraid to say that I find it theologically compromised on that account. I think, if you are going to say that God's full revelation of himself is in Jesus Christ, you are bound to say that. The issue of what the New Testament revelation does to the Old hasn't figured much in these threads, beyond the bandying about of Marcion's name in places. Maybe it should.

quote:
and a clear demonstration that canonical scripture cannot be trusted.

As what? Canonical scripture can be trusted on all sorts of levels in all sorts of ways. Above all, it can be trusted to be what it is. I don't feel under any obligation to trust it as a faultless magic book, or as a Christian Qur'an, the product of one divine author in every way that matters. But I'd say that, since that is true to the way - the total way - the Bible presents itself, I'm bound by that.

quote:
However, if God is wrathful towards sinful people the book of Joshua becomes a trustworthy eschatological picture of God's coming wrath towards the unsaved.

Well, no... The people of Jericho weren't massacred because they were sinful, they were massacred because they were in the way. The promise in these narratives is clearly the possession of the land, and the theme of the wickedness of the inhabitants, such as it is, is clearly ornamental.

quote:
It becomes a picture of what is yet happen to humanity whose sins remain unforgiven through the rejection of Christ's atoning sacrifice. It becomes a picture of judgement.

Well, only if you start out from PSA. Which has been my point all along. If you start out with PSA you read it into Scripture absolutely everywhere. If you start from Scripture, you don't wind up with PSA. Neither Anselm nor Calvin actually started out from Scripture. Anselm started out from an understanding of problem and solution that was grounded in the society of his day, and so did Calvin - except that Calvin also started out from Anselm. But they both started out from a disguised assumption that Law has a univocal meaning in and out of Scripture. They actually start out from an extra-scriptural understanding of God.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

shamwari,

I disagree with you because I find nothing convincingly evidential in your propositions. They read simply a statements of your personal opinion which, with all due respect, carries no weight with me whatsoever.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
That's why the PSA believers on these threads are the wet fluffy liberals who can find worth in all the major atonement models - at least, I know I can and I don't remember anything to the contrary from the others.
That is a deliberate distortion of what I said.

Since it's not a quote of anything you said but rather a comparison of your own admission of your view of PSA versus the more laissez faire views held by PSA adherents on this thread, I don't see how logic could permit it to possibly be a distortion of anything you said.

quote:

What I don't accept - and I've still seen nothing to convince me to the contrary - is that you can actually hold PSA fully, and give equal, unsubordinated place to other perspectives. I maintain that if you actually hold full PSA you can't do that, however much you think you are.

This is actually relevant to this thread because it's a clue as to why people get so wound up by your claims. Telling people what they believe is bound to hack them off, they'd rather decide that for themselves. This can then provoke a strong reaction and appear like they have some close 'identity' with the belief under debate.

quote:
You have consistently taken it personally, and done so on behalf of other people. (BTW - why do you habitually set yourself up as the spokesman and defender of other people? It happens all the time in your posts.)

Yes, it does happen all the time that I try to explain the logic of people's belief. This is because you've asked why people believe what they do and how you can fit it in, so I've tried to answer you and explain why they believe what they do, based on spending a long time in churches with a lot of such people. I'm only trying to answer the question, what's wrong with that?

Handily, it also exonerates me of the accusation of "taking it personally". I haven't taken anything 'personally' and have said I haven't, but further, how could I possibly take anything personally while speaking in the third person? A classic example would be this post, which was a very stroppy response to my explanation as to why the con-evos in question think the way they do - because they don't like you dispensing with parts of their faith* and yet I still got accused of "taking it personally". Your post there also contained these:

quote:
imbecilic <snip> disreputable <snip> disingenous <snip> Bang to rights!

to which you've now added

quote:
Any speculations I might make on why are inappropriate to a Purgatory thread.
<snip>
moronic

and then there was your comparison to Zeus worship. Don't you think it's a bit rich to accuse anyone else of

quote:
bluster, abuse and the occasional threat.

after saying that? Now, once again, I've given an honest answer and you've jumped on me.

Physician, heal thyself. You asked a question, all the PSA adherents gave you their personal answers, that didn't satisfy you so I tried to explain why other people see things the way they do. It seems this is too much of you and you take to making insults, while at the same time accusing others of being insulting.

*Reading it now, I could have made the post a bit more crystal clear so sorry about that.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

May I ask what is 'evidential' in your statement?

As has been pointed out the Book of Joshua is part the the Deuteronomic corpus. Its a theological point of view based on a blessings and curses axis.

And the evidence is that Jesus of Nazareth would not have advocated that line of thinking. If its evidence you want then consult the Gospels for any evidence of the advocation of genocide.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

Psyduck,

quote:
And only if you take a very particular view of the Book of Joshua, which I would surmise has to be a component of an understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

No, you're right. My approach to the 'problem' of Joshua is informed by my understanding of the inspiration and authority of Scripture. However, I wonder if you are aware of the irony of your statement quoted above? The authority to which you appeal for your rejection of Scripture's authority (or a least a certain view of it) is Scripture! Why is that?

quote:
I think, if you are going to say that God's full revelation of himself is in Jesus Christ, you are bound to say that

I see no contradiction between what happens in Joshua and the Jesus who told the parable of the ten minas in Luke 19 or the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 or the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16 or the parable of the unfruitful fig three in Luke 13. Or the teachings of Jesus on hell. What is it about Jesus that leads you to believe that things have somehow got less 'wrathful' on his watch? i really do think that non-PSA models of the atonement rely on a gelded vision of Jesus that bears little resemblance to the Jesus that is portrayed in the gospel texts in the NT in general.

quote:
As what?

In this instance, as the reliable and trustworthy means by which God has accurately revealed his character.

quote:
The promise in these narratives is clearly the possession of the land...

Which can easily be read eschatologically.

quote:
...and the theme of the wickedness of the inhabitants, such as it is, is clearly ornamental.

Matt Black is good on the use of the word "clearly" as a rhetorical device. I've tried to stop using it for that reason. I would prefer to hear clear argument than freefloating appeals to clarity.

quote:
If you start out with PSA you read it into Scripture absolutely everywhere.

The same can be said for non-PSA models of the atonement. The implication of your claim is that the doctrine of PSA has ramifications for all other doctrines. I agree. The issue is whether PSA can be arrived at by reading Scripture accurately. I think it can, and the fact that it's you - rather than me - that has to do incredible amounts of mental and theological gymnastics to avoid it, suggests to me that you do too. For example, insisting that PSA wouldn't be arrived at if one reads the bible in the original Greek is an absolutely massive statement to make and which has huge pastoral, devotional, ecclesiological, theological ramifications.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Am I missing something, or (niceties of style and expression aside) are Justinian and Dinghy Sailor in complete agreement on this?!?

I've no idea whether it's complete agreement. But it's certainly complementary, starting at opposite ends. Dinghy Sailor's approach was coming from the side of what the pro-PSA camp thought of the non-PSA group whereas mine came from the non-PSA side regarding the pro-PSA/accept all scripture as inerrant. (And what Moses and Pharaoh have to do with this is what sort of God PSA + inerrancy requires accepting).

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
I believe we do agree but I'm perplexed as to why Justinian posted what he did on this thread. It seems that his beef isn't with PSA but is with the trustworthiness of the bible, based on an unrelated OT episode that he doesn't like. As far as I can make it, his logic says that there are bits of the bible he doesn't like, ergo he doesn't believe the bible and if you believe in PSA, you are willing to believe the bible and therefore believe the bits he doesn't like, ergo he doesn't like you.

My point is (and PSA alone (assuming that the existance of a populated hell necessarily flows from PSA) is enough, Exodus is simply much more clear cut) that under PSA God is a sadistic monster, full of his own importance and almost devoid of compassion. If you worship such a God you clearly have no problems worshipping a monster. And I have no time for the moral insights of people who have no problem worshipping monsters.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Justinian, surely that is then a problem not with PSA but with inerrancy or with any 'high' view of scripture (since I don't subscribe to inerrancy)? Again, what has it then got to do with this thread?

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Justinian, does this mean that your problem is with hell rather than PSA? Once again, it's a separate issue. PSA is by no means the only atonement model that can incorporate hell and I believe I've met people who hold all four possible combinations of belief in hell and PSA (Jesus paid for your sins whether you like it or not, Jesus paid for your sins but only if you accept it, Jesus [did something else on the cross] but you still have to accept it, Jesus [did something else] and you're automatically saved). Some of those people's theologies were slightly, well, fuzzy but as I'm speaking to someone who's recently conflated hell, atonement and OT genocide, I'm sure you wont' mind that [Biased]

The truth is that PSA is a description of how God saves us from hell, it's a description of a God who will not do violence against his people even to the point where it kills him. What's monstrous about that?

To drag this thread back nearer the OP about PSA and Christian identities. note that Justinian has just called God a monster. To many ears that is gets dangerously close to protest atheism, from which lots of Christians will want to steer very clear. I'd also like to flag up what someone else said a while back, if you go round using pejoratives like "monster", you shouldn't be surprised when people assume a bunker mentality and close ranks on you - another reason why a strong reaction can be provoked from the PSA crowd.

Yet another reason that PSAers can be worried is because they can have a sneaking suspicion that the objectors are actually like Justinian and want to throw out the doctrine of hell and the authority of the bible at the same time. That's not fair when someone wants to have a decent debate, but it's perfectly understandable if the PSAers have had this sort of experience before.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

Psyduck wrote:

quote:
Serving suggestion: read Bonhoeffer's Ethics. Then read Fletcher's Situation Ethics. Then see which of Job's comforters you can identify either of them with.

I don't get it, I must be not understanding your post. I suggested that going at the problem from a moral angle would be futile, given the limits to the access we have to the information about the number and type of interdependencies the action of an individual affects. You suggest I read some writings by Bonhoffer and Fletcher. Have they overcome the limitations? The last I heard, moral dilemmas have actually multiplied, become more complicated and study (including those by your, human, authors) hasn't solved the problem. And Job still remains the prime example of our limitations in understanding God: wrapping your mind about the killing of guilty people is sucking egg, compared to figuring out how He can justify killing Job's children.

And glad you agree that theodicy isn't the solution, but what exactly would the incarnation do in terms of bringing light to bear on the problem that God is a God of mercy AND justice?

quote:
The point isn't how to translate them. It's the importance of understanding them in the Greek. The muslims put us to shame here. They are perfectly clear that the Qur'an is an Arabic text, and needs to be read in Arabic, and if you want to be a muslim, you need to learn enough Arabic to be able to do that.

There was a baker in London in the 1650s, Christopher Hill tells us, who had memorized the whole of the Greek NT as far as Revelation chapter 8. He clearly thought it was worth doing.

The problem with this logic is that Islam requires complete, unquestioning surrender to Allah. So the Arabic-literate Muslim understands that you have to put your reasoning to one side and obey all of Quran, while the liberal Muslim cuts out large chunks of the teachings and listens to his own heart. Ironically, leading to quite an opposite result to the one you were attempting to arrive at. IOW, having the language doesn't necessarily lead to reconciling contradictions, and isn't THE key to understanding God's ways. Understanding how the body of Scripture was formed and the criteria used in the rejection of non-Canonical material is, however, helpful.

And where does your intense study of the text and acquisition of the language put you when you try to understand :

14But when Jesus saw this, He was indignant and said to them, "Permit the children to come to Me; do not hinder them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. Mark 10

For example, my younger son has LLD: does that make him ineligible for entry?

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

I'm sorry, can't read all 6 pages...
tried to google, see PSA definitions, or if you google 'PSA Christianity' you get this... so I understand it's something to do with justice and wrath... or not... Personal Saviour A_ _ _?

[ 08. July 2010, 14:46: Message edited by: Taliesin ]

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

and there was this one I can't believe that something everyone seems to understand is so unknown on the web!

Punitive Social Avatar...
Powerful Scary Angel
Probably Something Angry?

Posted by Taliesin (# 14017) on :

Ha! Found it. Knew if I avoided the housework for long enough I'd be rewarded. Now how did I survive in the church this long, without knowing that PSA stood for 'Penal Substitutionary Atonement' and that an exposition can be found here ?

[Big Grin]

no don't thank me, I know this explains all and we can go away happy. [Big Grin]

[ 08. July 2010, 15:04: Message edited by: Taliesin ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Taliesin, I've only come across PSA as an acronym for 'penal substitutionary atonement' here aboard Ship where it has been debated many, many times. It's a Ship's shorthand, as far as I can tell, so I'm not surprised you've not come across the acronym before.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not sure I am "constantly apologising for Is 53", but I do think that it's the only text that seems to have a natural meaning in line with PSA.

Perhaps you could inform Dafyd of that. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Of course, just because I think there is a moral argument against PSA (and I do) doesn't preclude that there is a textual argument against it as well. I tend to use the argument that is appropriate to the situation as I see it.

I don't think you meant it this way but the way you phrased this rang bells with me JJ. I assume that you mean that you hold your position because of both the textual and moral argument at the same time.

I am fully willing to admit that I read my preconceptions into the text and into discussions. However, I have an internal alarm that rings whenever I find myself arguing on a different basis in different situations. (I'm not saying that you are doing this - I'm merely speaking about myself.) When I trot out different responses in different situations it can often mean that I haven't really got a coherent and satisfying answer myself. It is usually a tell-tale that I'm arguing on an a priori basis that I must be right in this instance.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Call me Numpty:

quote:
I wonder if you are aware of the irony of your statement quoted above? The authority to which you appeal for your rejection of Scripture's authority (or a least a certain view of it) is Scripture!

Where’s the irony in that? What you say in brackets eviscerates your own argument! I’m not rejecting “the authority of Scripture” at all – as you yourself recognize (in brackets.) I’m rejecting your view of Biblical authority, on the basis of a scholarly consensus as to what the Bible itself presents itself to be, and a theological faithfulness to the understanding that its authority derives from its witness to Jesus Christ.

quote:
What is it about Jesus that leads you to believe that things have somehow got less 'wrathful' on his watch?

Less “wrathful” than what? Than a scenario of mass killing and dying in which you see the nature of God reflected? And not just in the generalized Sunday School “God brings his people through” sense, but in detail, in the detail of the human killing, dying and suffering?

What is it that would prevent one, in the light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, seeing something deeply obscene in any glorification in suffering? Your view of the Bible seems to mean that you have to accord equal weight to the values contained in the traditions of thirteenth and twelft-century BC tribes, reflecting the conditions of a culture-war against iron-age cities, filtered through a seventh-sixth century BC re-editing and re-theologizing of those traditions.

Aren't you saying, unlike the mainstream of twentieth-century Protestant theology, and, indeed, the New Testament itself, that God doesn’t reveal himself completely in Jesus Christ, but in the Bible? The NT is completely consistent in using the OT to eke out its understanding of the new thing God is doing in Jesus. ISTM you are re-embedding Jesus in a Bible which is homogeneously God’s revelation from end to end, and subordinating him to it.

quote:
I see no contradiction between what happens in Joshua and the Jesus who told the parable of the ten minas in Luke 19 or the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25 or the parable of Lazarus in Luke 16 or the parable of the unfruitful fig three in Luke 13.

That’s because as I see it, you are starting with an artificial unity imposed on the Bible from outside by a PSA perspective.

To take from the texts you cite just one example, for lack of space – the parable of the fig tree. The landowner wants it cut down. The actual horticulturist who has to deal with it says “Give it more manure, a bit of TLC and another year. In my experience that can work…” It’s a parable, not an allegory. It’s complete eisegesis to press on beyond that to “The owner is God, the nice horticulturist is Jesus, the fig tree is the soul, the incinerator is hell, the scenario is PSA.” The problem with approaches to Scripture like this is that you wind up doing wrought-ironwork to it, bending it to your preferred shape, without even realizing it – because it is approached in the belief that its truth is already known, and it must be saying in every particular instance what we already know it is saying in general.

And we know that it’s all about PSA. Joshua is about PSA. The gospels are about PSA. Every treatment of every text in support of PSA on every one of the current threads suffers from this. It’s the only way you can find PSA in the Bible. By putting it there.

quote:
I really do think that non-PSA models of the atonement rely on a gelded vision of Jesus that bears little resemblance to the Jesus that is portrayed in the gospel texts in the NT in general.

All of them? So you are fessing up to the accuracy of the charge that PSA can’t live with other perspectives on the atonement? That only PSA is “real” atonement, with its cojones intact? That’s what I’ve been saying of PSA since the recent threads began. Maybe you have already said this, and don’t disagree with me, but if so, I missed it, and I apologize. Beware, though - Dinghy Sailor will be down on you like a ton of bricks for being an “exclusivist”, you know! [Biased]

You won’t be surprised to know that I am quite clear that PSA depends on gathering together under its own rubric every instance of wrath-language, punishment-language, sacrifice-language, guilt-language, condemnation-language, eschatologically-tinged language in the Bible and making it all fit the PSA framework. As with the Parable of the Unfruitful Fig-tree above. And as with this:

quote:
quote:
________________________________________
The promise in these narratives [Joshua] is clearly the possession of the land...
________________________________________
Which can easily be read eschatologically.

If you want, if you really, really want. You can read anything any way you want. Ask the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Isn’t the important thing to read the texts for what they say, not for how they shore up doctrinal preconceptions?

quote:

quote:
If you start out with PSA you read it into Scripture absolutely everywhere.

The same can be said for non-PSA models of the atonement.

No it can’t. These are read out of – derived from – Scripture at the points where Scripture suggests them. They aren’t hegemonic, all-controlling, because they are parts of a whole, viz. the church’s response to the Scriptural witness to what God was doing in Christ. None of them claims to exhaust this inexhaustible subject. PSA, though, does. You have as good as admitted it:

quote:
The implication of your claim is that the doctrine of PSA has ramifications for all other doctrines.

I’d like to put the question of PSA exclusiveness again, but in a slightly different way. You say PSA is a doctrine. Presumably it is, for the people who hold it, the doctrine of the atonement There can’t be two doctrines of the incarnation, or of the trinity, held simultaneously, can there? The whole Eastern Church and the whole Roman Catholic Church couldn’t manage that over the filioque! How can you hold a doctrine of the atonement – like PSA – in conjunction with another understanding of the atonement on the same level? And BTW isn't it significant that the Concise Oxford DIctionary of the Christian Church says that there is no catholic (belived always, everywhere and by everyone) doctrine of the atonement? Isn't this maybe why? That holding a doctrine of the atonement is tantamount on some level to claiming that you have successfully exhausted the inexhaustible riches of Christ, and can sum it all up?

quote:

quote:
The issue is whether PSA can be arrived at by reading Scripture accurately
.
I think it can, and the fact that it's you - rather than me - that has to do incredible amounts of mental and theological gymnastics to avoid it, suggests to me that you do too.

Says you. Show me where I have done such gymnastics. For that matter, show me one place in Scripture from which you can derive PSA whole and entire. You can’t. Because PSA doesn’t derive from one place in Scripture. It’s a series of concepts and statements, abstracted from Scripture, put together in a theologian’s lab, and re-read back into Scripture, particularly Paul. Do that, and of course you will see it everywhere, even in Joshua. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
For example, insisting that PSA wouldn't be arrived at if one reads the bible in the original Greek is an absolutely massive statement to make and which has huge pastoral, devotional, ecclesiological,
theological ramifications.

That’s not what I said. I’m not saying you wouldn’t arrive at PSA if you read the NT in the original Greek. What I am saying is that you wouldn’t be able to sustain the claim that PSA is straightforwardly Biblical because it’s “there in the text.” You would have to fall back on the truth that PSA is an assemblage of perspectives drawn from both Testaments, and assembled into a synthetic doctrine.

My point was that behind the translations we use is a Greek text which doesn’t “have PSA in it.” If the purpose of a translation is not to allow access to a text to those who are unfamiliar with its original language, but to make such people believe that the text says things it actually doesn’t, on the basis that “that’s just ‘bringing out’ what ‘the Bible teaches’” then there is something deeply dangerous going on. In a sense, I was partially agreeing with you against Jolly Jape. It isn’t necessary to retranslate “wrath” as “indignation” or to search for other words to translate passages like Romans 2:6-9.

The point is that you don’t win battles over the meaning of texts by “spinning” our translations of them – though the GNB, and much conservative exegesis thinks you do – but by listening to them, and interpreting them faithfully. When you do that to the NT, PSA dissolves into its constituent themes, sacrificial, judicial, etc. and they become once more part of the repertoire of NT perspectives on what God was doing in Christ.

Where’s the gymnastics in that?

At a deeper level, of course, I was countering your implicit assertion that where the Bible says “wrath” it means (a) the unbridled fury that consumed the inhabitants of Jericho, only this time applied to God eschatologically (and C H Dodd knocks that one on the head) and (b) that wherever the Bible mentions any one of a number of concepts, it’s always referring by synecdoche (part-stands-for-whole) to PSA.

[ 09. July 2010, 05:22: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Psyduck posted:I’m rejecting your view of Biblical authority, on the basis of a scholarly consensus as to what the Bible itself presents itself to be, and a theological faithfulness to the understanding that its authority derives from its witness to Jesus Christ.

I'm not sure that there is "scholarly consensus" on the issue. There may be consensus among scholars of a particular theological stripe with which you agree, but I think a global statement such as this would need to be very well supported. At the moment you do seem to be suggesting that no scholars hold the same or similar view of biblical authority as me; which seems a a trifle inaccurate. Admittedly, it would be theologians and pastor whom I favour, but that's to be expected.

quote:
What is it that would prevent one, in the light of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, seeing something deeply obscene in any glorification in suffering?

I don't think suffering is 'glorified' in the book of Joshua, although some passages in Revelation certainly read that way. Take Revelation 14:9-12 for example:

quote:
9A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." 12This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.

Or Revelation 19:1-3:

quote:
1After this I heard what sounded like the roar of a great multitude in heaven shouting:
"Hallelujah!
Salvation and glory and power belong to our God,
2for true and just are his judgments.
He has condemned the great prostitute
who corrupted the earth by her adulteries.
He has avenged on her the blood of his servants." 3And again they shouted:
"Hallelujah!
The smoke from her goes up for ever and ever."

quote:
ISTM you are re-embedding Jesus in a Bible which is homogeneously God’s revelation from end to end, and subordinating him to it.

That would one way of putting it. Another way of putting it would be to say that Scripture has been given to us by God in order to reveal this Jesus. Jesus is not subordninate to scripture, but his lack of subordination to it never manifests itself in the diminution of its status and authority as divine revelation. After all, all Scripture is about Christ.

quote:
To take from the texts you cite just one example, for lack of space – the parable of the fig tree. The landowner wants it cut down. The actual horticulturist who has to deal with it says “Give it more manure, a bit of TLC and another year. In my experience that can work…” It’s a parable, not an allegory

Yes, but you didn't finish the parable! If you're going to read mercy from the text (and it is there to be sure) you should also read judgement too (and it is also there). Verse 9 says, "If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down." I am advocating a vision of God in which the manure of mercy and axe of wrath are coterminous non-contradictory attributes of God's holiness.

quote:
I’m not saying you wouldn’t arrive at PSA if you read the NT in the original Greek. What I am saying is that you wouldn’t be able to sustain the claim that PSA is straightforwardly Biblical because it’s “there in the text.” You would have to fall back on the truth that PSA is an assemblage of perspectives drawn from both Testaments, and assembled into a synthetic doctrine.

The Jehovah's Witnesses use tis argument in an attempt to refute the doctrine of the Trinity. It doesn't work.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Obviously I continue to differ from you in those points you've highlighted, but I'd just like to comment on this:

quote:
Yes, but you didn't finish the parable! If you're going to read mercy from the text (and it is there to be sure) you should also read judgement too (and it is also there). Verse 9 says, "If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down."

No, but I assume the ending; it's about expectation and the gracious extension of that expectation - in order that the expectation may be met. And, indeed, "or else..." I didn't leave it off to duck an issue, and it doesn't affect my interpretation in any way at all. It's about the expectation of fruit, not PSA.

quote:
I am advocating a vision of God in which the manure of mercy and axe of wrath are coterminous non-contradictory attributes of God's holiness.

That's an interesting expansion of the thought of the parable, but even it's nothing to do with PSA. The only way in which you get PSA in here is to import it.

[ 09. July 2010, 10:25: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

You're right, it's not about PSA, but is about judgement in precisely the same way as John 15:5-6 are about fruit and the consequences of fruitlessness.

quote:
5"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6If anyone does not remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned.

The parables I've mentioned (and others) speak of judgement to the consequences of judgement as well as righteousness and the fruit of righteousness. It doesn't take a great deal of biblical understanding to draw the link between the negative consequences mentioned in the parables and the wrath of God.

[ 09. July 2010, 12:35: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
That's an interesting expansion of the thought of the parable.

I would suggest that this isn't an expansion on the meaning of the parable; it is integral to the parable's meaning. It is something that you left out, not something I've added.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

I'm agreeing with you that your expansion is arguably an expansion of the thought of the parable.

I'm just saying that neither it nor the parable are anything to do with PSA.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I'm agreeing with you that your expansion is arguably an expansion of the thought of the parable.

I'm just saying that neither it nor the parable are anything to do with PSA.

I'd suggest they they are (at least in part) to do with the penal consequences of God's judgement. So, the parables may not be about substitution or atonement, but they are about penalty.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But anyway, the fact is that arguments against PSA are rarely textual, but are much more like the infamous Chalke argument, or Justinian's argument on this thread: "I don't really like the God this represents, so I reject the doctrine." Unsurprisingly, to those who believe in the authority of Scripture this is an unconvincing argument.

You miss the argument. If I believed in PSA I hope I would be a Satanist. Because your God is Evil to a level that nothing I have heard attributed to The Adversary comes close. And I hope I would have the courage to oppose God to the limits of my strength and beyond.

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Justinian, does this mean that your problem is with hell rather than PSA? Once again, it's a separate issue.

OK. Separate them. What you have left is the Abusive Spouse model of theology.

"Honey. You shouldn't have made me hit you."
"Honey. I wouldn't have to hit you if you just did what I say."
"Honey. You made me hit you again. You shouldn't have done that."
"Honey. I wish you'd love me and stop making me hit you."
"Honey. Good news. Our son just jumped in the way. So I hit him instead of you. And sent him to hospital for three days. Isn't that Good News?"

God sets the rules. God sets the punishment. God choses to punish us because we are flawed - and we are flawed because he created us as such. The power to punish and to decide who is punished is in God's hands. And he sets impossible standards and wants to be worshipped for not torturing people who don't meet them.

quote:
The truth is that PSA is a description of how God saves us from hell, it's a description of a God who will not do violence against his people even to the point where it kills him. What's monstrous about that?

Like hell it is! Under PSA, God is apparently so Graceless as to be incapable of simple forgiveness. Under PSA God's overriding desire is to inflict violence on people and it does not matter who. Because the one who sets the penalties is God and there is no need for him to set those penalties. If the Most High desired to not inflict violence, then in his Omnipotence it would be so. Instead he does violence against his people and then his Son (or himself if you want to argue that way).

At its best, PSA is the story of one flawed entity understanding and coming to terms with what a monster he's been and apologising in the grandest way he can. By sharing the suffering he has willfully and gratuitously inflicted on others as he frees them of their torment.

Posted by Fanged_Seraphim (# 15745) on :

What is PSA?

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Call me Numpty:

quote:
I'd suggest they they are (at least in part) to do with the penal consequences of God's judgement. So, the parables may not be about substitution or atonement, but they are about penalty.

See, this is my point throughout. PSA takes scattered references to sacrifice, substitution, wrath, penalty, etc. etc. out of the Bible - and the mindset which legitimates this is that the Bible consists of infallible univocal propositions which, being straightforwardly true can be assembled into compound true doctrinal statements - and (in combination with other explanatory frameworks - and Augustinian original sin is as important here as Anselmian satisfaction-theory) assembles them into a theory which is then re-imported into Scripture.

It's Biblical genetic engineering. You can see PSA resequencing the DNA of the Bible!

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Sorry, Fanged_seraphim. It's Penal Substitutionary Atonement. WIkipedia has an article on it but SoF won't let me post the URL because it has parentheses in it.

And BTW I agree with the substance of Justinian's criticism of it above, though I'd want to add also the damage it does to a trinitarian understanding of God, and several other things too.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Call me Numpty:
quote:
I'd suggest they they are (at least in part) to do with the penal consequences of God's judgement. So, the parables may not be about substitution or atonement, but they are about penalty.
See, this is my point throughout. PSA takes scattered references to sacrifice, substitution, wrath, penalty, etc. etc. out of the Bible - and the mindset which legitimates this is that the Bible consists of infallible univocal propositions which, being straightforwardly true can be assembled into compound true doctrinal statements - and (in combination with other explanatory frameworks - and Augustinian original sin is as important here as Anselmian satisfaction-theory) assembles them into a theory which is then re-imported into Scripture.

It's Biblical genetic engineering. You can see PSA resequencing the DNA of the Bible!

And as I've already said, the Jehovah's witnesses try this argument with the Trinity. It doesn't work.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

OK - I'll bite. Why doesn't it work - and how is this knowledge transferrable to the case of PSA?

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

The Jehovah's Witnesses say that:

quote:
The doctrine of the Trinity takes scattered references to God as Father, Jesus as a son, and the holy spirit as a person, etc. etc. out of the Bible - and the mindset which legitimates this is that the Bible consists of infallible univocal propositions which, being straightforwardly true can be assembled into compound true doctrinal statements - and (in combination with other explanatory frameworks - the church fathers and the creeds of the early church) assembles them into a theory which is then re-imported into Scripture.

It's Biblical genetic engineering. You can see the Trinity resequencing the DNA of the Bible!

[ 09. July 2010, 18:36: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

It's not engineering the bible to show that there is a penalty for sin, that Christ is spoken of as a substitute, and the Christ's death atones. And it not engineering the bible to show how these truths inform and affect one another.

Firstly, those are long established evangelical doctrines but we can't even begin to discuss or analyse them scripturally because you appear to have a vested interest in avoiding a systematic or biblical theological approach to the conversation. I suspect that this is because you will find it harder to refute each 'component' of PSA as it is presented to you.

However, in order for our conversation to bear fruit we need firstly to establish a scriptural vision of judgement and wrath, because the penalty aspect of PSA rests on an acceptance that this really is a scriptural attribute of God.

Secondly, it seems that you cannot allow me to show you the penal nature of God's judgement because you don't want me to then show you how substitution is presented in Scripture as a means by which the aforementioned penalty is taken by Christ on the sinner's behalf.

Consequently and thirdly, you appear to have a vested interest in not allowing me to show you from Scripture how this penal substitution effects atonement.

In other words you appear to be intentionally curtailing the attempt to engage with scripture in a systematic and biblical theological way. I'm finding the conversation difficult because you are essentially not letting me engage with scripture evangelically.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Call me Numpty:

quote:
The Jehovah's Witnesses say that:
quote:
[paraphrasing me] The doctrine of the Trinity takes scattered references to God as Father, Jesus as a son, and the holy spirit as a person, etc. etc. out of the Bible - and the mindset which legitimates this is that the Bible consists of infallible univocal propositions which, being straightforwardly true can be assembled into compound true doctrinal statements - and (in combination with other explanatory frameworks - the church fathers and the creeds of the early church) assembles them into a theory which is then re-imported into Scripture.

It's Biblical genetic engineering. You can see the Trinity resequencing the DNA of the Bible!

Yeah, well, that's a cheap shot, as you well know. I think there is something instructive to be had from discussing why my criticism of PSA here is not actually paralleled in JW criticism of the Trinity - but also how it is, to some extent. I'm a Nicene-Chalcedonian orthodox in the folmulation of my faith, but I would have to agree that the developed doctrine of the Trinity takes us beyond what Scripture explicitly offers. (The decision for homoousion, for example, over homoioousion, is not one that I think can be settled purely out of Scripture.) ISTM that this is amply justified by extrapolating from Jesus Christ as the revelation of God as Trinity, but yes, I would have to agree that my own Trinitarian faith, which is the faith of the Church is an extrapolation from Scripture, and not wholly contained within it.

There's actually an odd mirroring here, to some extent a symmetry, and to some extent an assymetry. I say that the Trinity, which I believe, is Christian truth, founded on Scripture but going beyond it, and I do this because for me, revelation is in Jesus Christ. ISTM that you, conversely, are asserting that PSA is wholly contained within Scripture, which I deny on the grounds that it is a reduction of Scripture, that is, less than the whole witness of Scripture to what God is doing in Christ. I presume you'd have no objection to my saying, without any derogatory intent, that revelation for you is in the first place Scripture as inspired.

quote:
It's not engineering the bible to show that there is a penalty for sin, that Christ is spoken of as a substitute, and the Christ's death atones. And it not engineering the bible to show how these truths inform and affect one another.

Indeed not. And I've never said the contrary. I worry about your word "truths", though, because it suggests to me the atomic infallibly-true propositions out of which I see PSA advocates building PSA.

My objection is that PSA abstracts from the Scriptures certain truths, and puts them together in a pattern, and with a logic, that is extra-Scriptural and (another difference from the Trinity) partial. It isn't just an extrapolation, it's a partial selection, a partial reading, and it's a partial (both in the sense of incomplete and partisan) re-reading of Scripture.

quote:
Firstly, those are long established evangelical doctrines but we can't even begin to discuss or analyse them scripturally because you appear to have a vested interest in avoiding a systematic or biblical theological approach to the conversation. I suspect that this is because you will find it harder to refute each 'component' of PSA as it is presented to you.

No, it's because there are very few components of PSA that I would want to refute; one would be the impossibility that God could be true to his own nature and simply forgive; I think that's clearly unBiblical, and that's what lands you with a monster-God and a child-abuser God. A God whose character was thus should never have created anything; saying that creation is "for his Glory" simply compounds the offence. And it's easily avoidable, because in evangelical terms, it's a human teaching, not required by anything in the Bible.

So I have no problem with any of the components of PSA. In fact, it's because PSA evangelicals have problems with any understanding of the Bible than their own - because of their huge theological, emotional, identity- and personal investment in PSA that we can't have a discussion. The ground constantly shifts between accusations of not taking the Bible seriously enough, and pressing the details of PSA too far (AKA calling a "model" a "theory.")

I do note, too, in passing, the persistent tendency of PSA advocates to project onto their interlocutors the attitudes and positions that are actually their own (and sometimes to get very het up about it!)

quote:
However, in order for our conversation to bear fruit we need firstly to establish a scriptural vision of judgement and wrath, because the penalty aspect of PSA rests on an acceptance that this really is a scriptural attribute of God.

Ah - here we are, you see. We have to establish the problem to which PSA is the answer. This is what I've said all along PSA is all about. It's not about integrating all the perspectives on God-in-Christ at-one-ing the world that Scripture offers. It's about defining the problem, so that PSA can be presented as the answer. Everything else will then duly be brought in, but as garnish. The meat is PSA.

quote:
Secondly, it seems that you cannot allow me to show you the penal nature of God's judgement because you don't want me to then show you how substitution is presented in Scripture as a means by which the aforementioned penalty is taken by Christ on the sinner's behalf.

Well, I've already said that I have no problem preaching on Isaiah 53. I think what you are really saying is that I don't want to sign up to PSA. Which we already agree on. Moving on...

quote:
Consequently and thirdly, you appear to have a vested interest in not allowing me to show you from Scripture how this penal substitution effects atonement.

Au contraire. I'm grateful for the offer, but I do know how PSA works. Mind you, if you really feel that you can offer me some epiphanic new slant on it - knock yourself out! [Axe murder]

It's what I've been asking someone to do for days now, and no-one has obliged.

quote:
In other words you appear to be intentionally curtailing the attempt to engage with scripture in a systematic and biblical theological way. I'm finding the conversation difficult because you are essentially not letting me engage with scripture evangelically.

Once again, knock yourself out. I'm all ears. Well, metaphorically, since I'm reading this. But I think your real beef isn't that I'm not listening, but that I'm not agreeing.

This too is something that is both mildly amusing and slightly frustrating about PSA advocates. They don't seem to be able to grasp that we don't not get it. We do get it. We just reject it. It isn't self-evident Scriptural truth. You may believe that it is Scriptural truth, and it may completely convince you. But nobody here is telling anyone to shut up, just that what you say isn't convincing.

But do feel free to have another go. [Smile]

Posted by Wisewilliam (# 15474) on :

I say that Psyduck has the best of that argument. Perhaps a good part of the disagreement is in different definitions of Justice. It is an absolute and therefore can only be defined by reference to itself.

We recognize Justice when we see it. sometimes Justice calls for punishment, sometimes for leniency and often - almost always for forgiveness. It was Christ's message of fogiveness that alienated the Pharisees. They wanted sacrificial atonement - they ate the meat from the sacrificed lambs.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Justinian, does this mean that your problem is with hell rather than PSA? Once again, it's a separate issue.
OK. Separate them. What you have left is the Abusive Spouse model of theology.

"Honey. You shouldn't have made me hit you."
"Honey. I wouldn't have to hit you if you just did what I say."
"Honey. You made me hit you again. You shouldn't have done that."
"Honey. I wish you'd love me and stop making me hit you."
"Honey. Good news. Our son just jumped in the way. So I hit him instead of you. And sent him to hospital for three days. Isn't that Good News?"

That's a very narrow doctrine of hell you've got there. It's also an incomplete doctrine of the trinity, the Son and the Father may be different but they are also one. Forget that last bit and you have the cosmic child abuse caricature of PSA. Remember it and the caricature doesn't work because you have God himself dying so that we don't have to.

quote:
God sets the rules. God sets the punishment. God choses to punish us because we are flawed - and we are flawed because he created us as such.

So now you want me to take on the whole of theodicy? It sounds like your problem is rather bigger than PSA.

quote:
The power to punish and to decide who is punished is in God's hands. And he sets impossible standards and wants to be worshipped for not torturing people who don't meet them.

Think of the last sin you committed, did you have to commit it? No, how about the one before that, did anyone force you to commit that one? If not, I don't think you can complain about the standard set since you've failed it anyway, as have I.

One important thing to bear in mind is that our sins are offences against God himself. He created the world and we're busy making it worse, who wouldn't be offended? We aren't talking about a disinterested judge here, we're talking about a wounded judge.

quote:

quote:
The truth is that PSA is a description of how God saves us from hell, it's a description of a God who will not do violence against his people even to the point where it kills him. What's monstrous about that?
Like hell it is! Under PSA, God is apparently so Graceless as to be incapable of simple forgiveness.

Err, he is, that's the whole point of the cross. God is able to offer us free forgiveness because God himself took the punishment for our sins. Before you answer that, remember that Jesus went through exactly the same amount of pain however you word it, so talking about nicer things like victory over death doesn't make the episode any less violent or horrible. You can't wish away the brutality of the cross by changing the wording. To channel Moltmann, the cross isn't glorious but is an awful event, but we've got to come to terms with that. Yes, God turned his back on God during the crucifixion and we've got to come to terms with a God who did that, our aversion doesn't change the way it is. Instead, I worship God because he was prepared to go through that for my sake.

quote:
Under PSA God's overriding desire is to inflict violence on people and it does not matter who.

It's about how God absorbs the pain that we've caused him in himself rather than inflicting it on anyone else, what more could you want?

quote:
By sharing the suffering he has willfully and gratuitously inflicted on others as he frees them of their torment.

What suffering is this that he's inflicted upon others? Where doesn't it appear in any of the other models we've talked about?

I'm beginning to think that your problem is actually with the concept of sin itself. Whatever it is, it's far larger than PSA so you'd do well to stop labelling PSA as the sum of all your problems with doctrine.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
That's a very narrow doctrine of hell you've got there. It's also an incomplete doctrine of the trinity, the Son and the Father may be different but they are also one. Forget that last bit and you have the cosmic child abuse caricature of PSA. Remember it and the caricature doesn't work because you have God himself dying so that we don't have to.

Which is why my point was that it was domestic abuse by God against humanity rather than that it was child abuse as opposed to self-abuse. We would only have to die because it was God's will that we do so.

quote:
Think of the last sin you committed, did you have to commit it? No, how about the one before that, did anyone force you to commit that one? If not, I don't think you can complain about the standard set since you've failed it anyway, as have I.

Now think about how impossible it would be to live a life without sinning. It would be the equivalent of rolling a hundred dice and having them all roll sixes. Yes, it can be done by an omnipotent being warping the rules of probability. But not by mortal man.

The way you break from perfection is part of the individuality. But that perfection is not a standard you can meet is part of being human. To put things another way, stand on one leg on tiptoes in a small box with your eyes closed. And I'm going to electrify the walls and hit you if you lower your foot and kick you if you get off tiptoes. Sure, you have a choice not to do any specific action - you can choose another. But you're going to do something wrong.

quote:
One important thing to bear in mind is that our sins are offences against God himself.

Absolutely. And your God is so petty that this is an issue. Rather than being large, powerful, confident, and able to take whatever you do to him without being hurt.

Seriously, under your system of morality it is worse to steal $50 from Bill Gates than from a homeless man because Bill Gates is more important.

quote:
He created the world and we're busy making it worse, who wouldn't be offended? We aren't talking about a disinterested judge here, we're talking about a wounded judge.

Were he human he ought to recuse himself. Not use his position to take revenge. And disinterest is an ideal to strive for. Apparently your God fails.

quote:
Err, he is, that's the whole point of the cross. God is able to offer us free forgiveness because God himself took the punishment for our sins.

Rather than simply freely offering forgiveness. Once again your God is petty and lacking in love, compassion, and grace.

Your God wants to punish. He is therefore a sadist. Now, if he's a sadist struggling to overcome his issues, he may be worthy of respect. But no more than that.

quote:
Before you answer that, remember that Jesus went through exactly the same amount of pain however you word it, so talking about nicer things like victory over death doesn't make the episode any less violent or horrible.

Classic double accounting. Jesus was dead for three days. Not eternity. Yes, it was a nasty experience. Especially as a clean reading of the Bible indicates that God withdrew from Jesus and therefore it was only the part that was man that suffered.

quote:
You can't wish away the brutality of the cross by changing the wording.

No. It was nasty. But to use an analogy, if Evander Holyfield got in the ring and faced Mike Tyson for three rounds (my boxing is woefully out of date) it would be unpleasant. If I got in the ring and faced Mike Tyson for a round I wouldn't get up again.

Or possibly your God is a pampered and weak little thing who had never before been hurt, rather than the Most High.

quote:
To channel Moltmann, the cross isn't glorious but is an awful event, but we've got to come to terms with that. Yes, God turned his back on God during the crucifixion and we've got to come to terms with a God who did that, our aversion doesn't change the way it is. Instead, I worship God because he was prepared to go through that for my sake.

And I revile a God who made that necessary. The punishment would be meted out by God. You don't praise someone every time they fail to commit abuse.

quote:
It's about how God absorbs the pain that we've caused him in himself rather than inflicting it on anyone else, what more could you want?

To turn the other cheek. To love those who persecute you. Not to parade up and down saying "Look how loving I'm being by not beating the shit out of you. I am Good because for once I am having mercy."

Unless your God is really petty, there is no way that anything I can do to him is as bad as simply raising harsh words to a friend. And my friends willingly forgive me for that. Why are your standards for God so mean?

quote:
What suffering is this that he's inflicted upon others? Where doesn't it appear in any of the other models we've talked about?

God demands retribution. God orders and commits genocide. God expects perfection from those he knows to be imperfect and then wants to inflict retribution on those who aren't inhuman.

quote:
I'm beginning to think that your problem is actually with the concept of sin itself. Whatever it is, it's far larger than PSA so you'd do well to stop labelling PSA as the sum of all your problems with doctrine.

No. My problem is that PSA necessitates that God has an evil system of punishment and generally a crabbed heart.

There are several moral reasons to punish people:
Rehabilitation. Nope. Not applicable here because it's not really punishment.
Social protection and prevention. Nope. It happens after death. God could just as easily be nice and still isolate people.
Deterrance. Is it working? Possibly for some.
Restoration. Hah! The person's dead. Unless God gets a kick out of punishing people then no one benefits. And if he does, he's a sadist.
Retribution. 1: This is evil - an eye for an eye will leave the whole world blind. 2: God's retribution goes way beyond balance.

Nope. The purpose of punishment is punishment here. The other purposes are all blocked by virtue of being after death. There is nothing to be gained from it. And your God is simultaneously extremely powerful and very petty, considering all bad acts to be bad acts against him. He's like a big toddler. He humbles the mighty because he can't stand the thought that any could grow without him. And because he can.

Worship him if you like. On the grounds that you will be eaten first. But whatever else can describe him, he's neither good nor loving if he's omnipotent. If your God exists, the best possible thing that could happen to him is that he be stripped of his power and position so that he does not have to be offended every time someone does something wrong.

(Classic conundrum: Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent - pick two, the third being impossible to reconcile. You've certainly gone without Omnibenevolent.)

Actually, my real problem with PSA is that it's feudal morality - kowtowing to the king because he is the king irrespective of what he does. And abdicating the responsibility to tell right from wrong to that king while justifying everything he does because he is the king. Screw that. Or just bring the guilotines.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
My objection is that PSA abstracts from the Scriptures certain truths, and puts them together in a pattern, and with a logic, that is extra-Scriptural and (another difference from the Trinity) partial. It isn't just an extrapolation, it's a partial selection, a partial reading, and it's a partial (both in the sense of incomplete and partisan) re-reading of Scripture.

I'm OK with PSA being a partial (meaning 'in part') reading of Scripture because that's what Saint Paul says concerning the nature of Christian knowledge, which must include doctrinal knowledge. I'm aslo OK with PSA being a partial reading of Scripture inasmuch as it isn't an in toto articulation of the entire biblical narrative - what doctrine is? I'm also happy to accept that PSA doesn't say everything to has to be said concerning the atonement or what the cross of Christ achieved (i.e.expiation, victory over Satan and sin and death etc.).

quote:
I have no problem with any of the components of PSA.

That's great! Because it's a good starting place for a discussion about PSA. So far I've been touching on the penal nature of judgement and have cited the parables of Jesus and some passages from the Revelation to John in support of that position. We should discuss it further.

quote:
It's about defining the problem, so that PSA can be presented as the answer.

Yes, that's right. Although I would say it is about showing how and why PSA is a biblical answer to a 'problem' that really is presented in the bible - hence my earlier attempts to drill down in the biblical presentation of God's wrath.

This is why PSA opens up such a huge debate. There is just so much to discuss. However, in order to discuss PSA we will need to critically discuss it's 'component parts' with an aim to either establishing or refuting them as being faithful to scripture (which is what I think you would call a legitimate extrapolation).

[ 10. July 2010, 06:10: Message edited by: Call me Numpty ]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Fascinating response to Justinian, Dinghy Sailor. Again, you remind me of Sir Walter Tyrrell, in the 1066 and All That account, who "took unerring aim at the apple on William Rufus's head, and shot him through the heart."

quote:
It's also an incomplete doctrine of the trinity, the Son and the Father may be different but they are also one. Forget that last bit and you have the cosmic child abuse caricature of PSA.

You are using the doctrine of the Trinity to write yourself a blank cheque here. Jesus suffers appalling things on the cross. But that's OK because Jesus is God. Hang on - isn't Jesus fully human? Well, yes - but he's really God, God in a meat suit. So that's OK.

I don't think you can square morally the PSA account of what is happening on the cross with a Chalcedonian Jesus, that is, a fully-human Jesus with a human soul. In fact, I'm sure you can't.

quote:
So now you want me to take on the whole of theodicy? It sounds like your problem is rather bigger than PSA.

No, your problem is the blank-cheque theodicy that PSA necessarily implies. God is God, and whatever God does is good and just. Not hiddenly and mysteriously, as Augustine says. Straightforwardly just, in such a way that agonizing about it is lack of faith.

quote:
Think of the last sin you committed, did you have to commit it? No, how about the one before that, did anyone force you to commit that one? If not, I don't think you can complain about the standard set since you've failed it anyway, as have I.

And we deserve all we get. So - the death penalty for parking tickets? Well, actually, no. You are prescribing an eternity of conscious punishment in hell for children stealing sweets from a sweet-shop. Literally.

quote:
One important thing to bear in mind is that our sins are offences against God himself. He created the world and we're busy making it worse, who wouldn't be offended?

Ah - see what you did there? You shifted the ground. And this, too, is a regular feature of PSA expositions. We suddenly de-emphasize original sin, which presumably is still in the background, and we emphasize "empirical" sin, the bad things in the world that reflect the conditions created by human estrangement from God. The question is, is it an incidental detail added by some expositors, or is it a necessary structural feature of the doctrine.

Well, CV of course tackles this from the perspective of a humanity which is unfree. Children starving in the third world, while food is dumped in the first, fat bankers profiting from the errors their greed led them into, while whole societies are put under stress, etc.etc. are manifestations of human bondage in hopelessness, from which the crucifixion and resurrection are God's great liberating acts. We live in the same world, but everything is strangely different. Resistance, to paraphrase the Borg, is not futile. God loves us enough to do this. The cross really is a manifestation of God's love for us as we are. Covered in pig-shit though we are, the Father embraces us prodigals because, straightforwardly, he loves us, despite all.

Now you can combine that easily with the strands of sacrifice, substitution and punishment that you find in the Bible. In fact, I combined it, right there, with the Prodigal Son, which isn't much if anything to do with Christus Victor, and I didn't have to distort the Prodigal Son to make it fit.

But on a PSA account, the Father doesn't straightforwardly love us. And he makes damn sure to turn the disinfectant-hose on us before he has anything to do with us.

In fact, it's worse than that. Jesus loves us. Indeed he does. Freely. And enough to go to the cross. But the Father can't look on us. Would have nothing to do with us if Jesus hadn't agreed - freely - to do that. And still won't, if we don't believe PSA, which is what faith is. God makes a penal-substitutionary sacrifice of his Son. And if we don't believe in that, we go to Hell, which on an Arminian showing God is quite happy with, and on a Calvinist one, he actually decided on, in detail, before the world began.
Behind the loving Jesus is a cold, sin-hating God who is incapable of loving except under the most carefully-prescribed of circumstances.

Ah but, you say - writing another blank cheque - Jesus, the loving, forgiving Jesus, is also God, and God is one.

Ah but. I say, you have already said that Jesus is a different bit of God. Your one trinitarian God is either a committee with an overbearing Chairman, or - if you stress the unity - one God with Multiple Personality Disorder.

Either way, behind the loving Son is a totally different Father.

So why did an all-knowing God create a world in which billions of souls would earn damnation, and billions of them fail to attain salvation by not believing in PSA? I do know the PSA "answer" to this, but it would be nice to hear it from you.

quote:
We aren't talking about a disinterested judge here, we're talking about a wounded judge.

You have no conception of the liabilities of mixed metaphor, do you? Well, how could you, when the whole of PSA is one giant mixed metaphor. And that's the point. One mixed metaphor. As I've been saying throughout, PSA takes all sorts of Scriptural threads and weaves them into one account of what God does in Jesus Christ. PSA is a single, exclusive account of salvation, which subordinates everything else to itself. It even subordinates the doctrine of the Trinity - because ultimately it is concerned with one monadic, offended God who basically splits into three (but the Spirit is only there "officially" for most of the time) so that one of him can become human (up to a point - because this is an Apollinarian Jesus, who knows and understands everything that's happening to him, and doesn't mind) and do what's been agreed by the trinitarian committee meeting in heaven to create the conditions for salvation.

quote:
Before you answer that, remember that Jesus went through exactly the same amount of pain however you word it, so talking about nicer things like victory over death doesn't make the episode any less violent or horrible.

And you might care to recall the huge spectrum of reflection on the Cross that all that generates in Scripture. In place of which, in PSA you get a concentration on the pain and agony as that which satisfies the angry God. Justinian has you bang to rights.

quote:

quote:
Justinian quote:

Under PSA God's overriding desire is to inflict violence on people and it does not matter who.
It's about how God absorbs the pain that we've caused him in himself rather than inflicting it on anyone else, what more could you want?

As we've said, PSA inevitably generates an unstable Trinity, so that the actual scenario is that the pain is borne by the Son to satisfy the Father. Patripassian models as early as the third century were striving to find ways to express the Christian conviction that the pain of Christ's suffering is that of the Triune God - and of course they went overboard in the opposite direction, compromising the trinity in favour of the unity of a suffering God in Modalistic Monarchianism. But that's a healthy impulse.

PSA sets the Son over against the Father in a functional tritheism, or even Arianism, so that the pain is not straightforwardly God's. And as several of you have been at pains to assert, God "turns away" from the suffering Christ not because of the horror of agonized fatherly love, but because of the disgusting spectacle of sin which Jesus of Nazareth has become to God.

I give you marks for wanting things to be as you say, but on a PSA account, they simply aren't. Statements to the contrary are, on the logic of PSA itself, a compassionate but total mis-selling of the product.

quote:

quote:
Justinian quote:

By sharing the suffering he has willfully and gratuitously inflicted on others as he frees them of their torment.

What suffering is this that he's inflicted upon others? Where doesn't it appear in any of the other models we've talked about?

As you well know, that's not the issue. The issue is the meaning of Christ's suffering as dealt with in the other models, e.g. and not exhaustively, in one Trinitarian moral influence model, (Herbert McCabe's) God the Son takes the risk (in which the Father and Spirit participate appropriately) of taking flesh and not only entering the fallen world as it is, but of living fully a human life of loving communion with, and obedience to, the Father. The cross is what happens when you do that (which is why disciples must take up their cross and follow.)

That's easily combined with a modified Christus Victor model (Leander Keck, in A Future for the Historical Jesus? in which Jesus lives fully the life God calls us to, is crucified -and far from the conclusion being that living openly and lovingly is a mug's game, the resurrection endorses this life as the subversive revolutionary life of love, and its victory as the turning upside-down of the values of the world (Nietzsche, eat your heart out!) so that loving, open, Jesus-led living is living the life that overcomes the world. Etc. etc.

In PSA, Jesus' life means only one thing. And we all know what that is. Everything else is just a proof of his divinity, (again, the Apollinarian theme) to underscore the value of his coming sacrifice on the cross. Nothing else really matters.

quote:
I'm beginning to think that your problem is actually with the concept of sin itself. Whatever it is, it's far larger than PSA so you'd do well to stop labelling PSA as the sum of all your problems with doctrine.

In other words: " 'Shut up!' he explained..."
You wish!

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

Seriously, under your system of morality it is worse to steal $50 from Bill Gates than from a homeless man because Bill Gates is more important.

Who says that Bill Gates is more important than a homeless man?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
Err, he is, that's the whole point of the cross. God is able to offer us free forgiveness because God himself took the punishment for our sins.
Rather than simply freely offering forgiveness. Once again your God is petty and lacking in love, compassion, and grace.

You seem confused over what exactly you are angry about. According to PSA God does 'simply freely offer forgiveness'. (It's free but it's not cheap.) You may disagree with the other bits PSA adds but either way God does offer it freely.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

Classic double accounting. Jesus was dead for three days. Not eternity. Yes, it was a nasty experience. Especially as a clean reading of the Bible indicates that God withdrew from Jesus and therefore it was only the part that was man that suffered.

No. It was nasty. But to use an analogy, if Evander Holyfield got in the ring and faced Mike Tyson for three rounds (my boxing is woefully out of date) it would be unpleasant. If I got in the ring and faced Mike Tyson for a round I wouldn't get up again.

It is interesting that none of the gospel accounts dwell particularly on the physical suffering of the cross. Mel Gibson was not one of the evangelists. Indeed OT allusions are chosen to emphasise the spiritual desolation which cannot be quantified.

And I'm not sure where you get this idea that it was only the 'man part' of Christ that suffered - such division of his nature was specifically outlawed as heresy by the church.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Unless your God is really petty, there is no way that anything I can do to him is as bad as simply raising harsh words to a friend. And my friends willingly forgive me for that. Why are your standards for God so mean?

Well if you compare your relationship with God to that of one of your mates (instead of the creator of the universe) then I think we've discovered where your thinking starts to go awry.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

Actually, my real problem with PSA is that it's feudal morality - kowtowing to the king because he is the king irrespective of what he does. And abdicating the responsibility to tell right from wrong to that king while justifying everything he does because he is the king. Screw that. Or just bring the guilotines.

And how do we know right from wrong in the first place? I fully concede that there are huge issues about how we ultimately discern morality but in principle at least Christians have always said that morality flows from "Thou shalt and thou shalt not".

At some point (and again I'm admitting that there is a discussion about where that point lies) one wonders what it means to say that God is God when it is me, and not him, who decides what is right and wrong in the first place.

[ 10. July 2010, 11:16: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

At some point (and again I'm admitting that there is a discussion about where that point lies) one wonders what it means to say that God is God when it is me, and not him, who decides what is right and wrong in the first place.

We all have that to do anyway on 99% of issues - there is very little that is black and white - most of life's decisions live in the grey areas. There is no rule book, however much some would like there to be one.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And that's the point. One mixed metaphor. As I've been saying throughout, PSA takes all sorts of Scriptural threads and weaves them into one account of what God does in Jesus Christ.

As I've said on the other thread this is not true for PSA.

However, I think it does explain more clearly what your problem is - and I think it is becoming a much more common problem due to the influence of post-modernity.

In the days of modernity over-arching, non-falsifiable theories like Evolution and Dispensationalism were all the rage. Therefore systematic theologies were also in. (I'm not a YEC btw - evolution is just an example.)

With the advent of pomo theory systematic theology is out and biblical theologies are in.

Now I think we need to learn from both approaches. As my Father used to say "a systematic theology is a contradiction in terms" ... i.e. the accusation that you are trying (unsuccessfully) to make about PSA. Of course we need to listen to all the biblical writers and hear the rich mosaic we discover there. Whenever we try to sum up the story of the bible we need to do so with great humility and with the ready admission that we crassly simplifying something far more profound.

That said, IME, it is a cop-out to just leave things like the atonement as 'different motifs' while making little attempt to join up the dots. If the process of abstraction runs the danger of truncating the message then leaving the message as only a story in history makes it so much easier to avoid its personal and corporate implications.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
We all have that to do anyway on 99% of issues - there is very little that is black and white - most of life's decisions live in the grey areas. There is no rule book, however much some would like there to be one.

That's why I said in principle earlier.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And that's the point. One mixed metaphor. As I've been saying throughout, PSA takes all sorts of Scriptural threads and weaves them into one account of what God does in Jesus Christ.

As I've said on the other thread this is not true for PSA.

Well all you are actually doing is asserting that.

quote:
However, I think it does explain more clearly what your problem is - and I think it is becoming a much more common problem due to the influence of post-modernity.

In the days of modernity over-arching, non-falsifiable theories like Evolution and Dispensationalism were all the rage. Therefore systematic theologies were also in. (I'm not a YEC btw - evolution is just an example.)

With the advent of pomo theory systematic theology is out and biblical theologies are in.

You do realize that that reinforces my argument? [Big Grin]

Now I think we need to learn from both approaches. As my Father used to say "a systematic theology is a contradiction in terms" ... i.e. the accusation that you are trying (unsuccessfully) to make about PSA.

Well, once again, you are
saying I'm doing this unsuccessfuly. But that's not the same as arguing, still less demonstrating my failure. I've argued exhaustively (!) [Biased]

here and elsewhere why, how, and in what sense I conclude that PSA is a complete-in-itself account of salvation, which necessarily absorbs or subordinates everything else in theology to itself. I've set a criterion by which I think it's reasonable to judge the success or failure of my argument. Either someone could give an account of PSA which demonstrates that what I have said is not the case, or they could take my summary of PSA, and demonstrate what you can remove and it still be PSA - but a PSA which you can integrate with other accounts of the atonement on their own terms.

It can't be done. That's the nature of PSA. And just saying that I've been "unsuccessful" or whatever is wishful thinking, I'm afraid.

And I do know that you acknowledge the need to do justice to all the Biblical themes, and I respect that:

quote:
Of course we need to listen to all the biblical writers and hear the rich mosaic we discover there. Whenever we try to sum up the story of the bible we need to do so with great humility and with the ready admission that we crassly simplifying something far more profound.

But then, you concede my basic point.

quote:
That said, IME, it is a cop-out to just leave things like the atonement as 'different motifs' while making little attempt to join up the dots.

If the process of abstraction runs the danger of truncating the message then leaving the message as only a story in history makes it so much easier to avoid its personal and corporate implications.

Why? And BTW, isn't what you are saying here, almost in so many words, is that the Gospel alone, heard and responded to, doesn't save, but right theology, unreservedly believed, does?

Put another way, aren't you actually saying here that you have to abstract what the story is really about from the story, to make Christianity work? And aren't you also saying that what you abstract from the story as the essence of Christianity is, actually PSA?

And wouldn't that be, as far as I can see, QED for my argument?

I really do want a discussion, but I can't currently read your post differently than that. And I don't think I'm distorting it.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Psyduck: In fact, it's worse than that. Jesus loves us. Indeed he does. Freely. And enough to go to the cross. But the Father can't look on us. Would have nothing to do with us if Jesus hadn't agreed - freely - to do that. And still won't, if we don't believe PSA, which is what faith is. God makes a penal-substitutionary sacrifice of his Son. And if we don't believe in that, we go to Hell, which on an Arminian showing God is quite happy with, and on a Calvinist one, he actually decided on, in detail, before the world began.
Behind the loving Jesus is a cold, sin-hating God who is incapable of loving except under the most carefully-prescribed of circumstances.

This statement is a trifle bitter.

I think John 3:16 sums up what you are trying to say you disagree with.

The issue is as others have stated, with the problem sin poses to God. In his love, God has provided an answer in Christ. He is the door of the sheepfold. All other doors are false no exit routes.

Incidentally it is God who loves in the first instance, not Jesus, he is the means of God's salvation, the answer to God's dilemma.

[ 10. July 2010, 12:34: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:

quote:
As I've said on the other thread this is not true for PSA.
Well all you are actually doing is asserting that.

No. I'm asserting it here, but I've demonstrated it on the other thread. As I said. It is getting rather hard work to continue this discussion when you don't seem bothered to read what I've actually written.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And BTW, isn't what you are saying here, almost in so many words, is that the Gospel alone, heard and responded to, doesn't save, but right theology, unreservedly believed, does?

Put another way, aren't you actually saying here that you have to abstract what the story is really about from the story, to make Christianity work? And aren't you also saying that what you abstract from the story as the essence of Christianity is, actually PSA?

No I'm not saying that, anymore than you are not saying that just because it is a story means that we have the freedom to pick and mix the bits we like.

What I am saying is that any abstraction must be fair to the whole story. Hence PSA must be consistent with that whole story but is not identical to it.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I really do want a discussion, but I can't currently read your post differently than that. And I don't think I'm distorting it.

Perhaps a good place to start would be actually reading what I post! [Biased]

Posted by FooloftheShip (# 15579) on :

I believe in one God, not one book (or indeed one library). As such, if a description of God or God's attributes, whether well founded in said book or not, makes God out to be abusive if not actually psychotic, I tend to reject it. Goodbye PSA.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

quote:
Jamat: Incidentally it is God who loves in the first instance, not Jesus, he is the means of God's salvation, the answer to God's dilemma.

Jamat, I find this sentenced somewhat confusing as you seem to be implying a distinction between God (the father, possibly), and God the Son. As we know from John's Gospel, the Word was in the beginning with God, and what God was the Word was. It seems to me a Freudian slip betraying a central weakness of PSA, as Psyduck has already pointed out.

What is God's dilemma? Perhaps you could be more explicit.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Seriously, under your system of morality it is worse to steal $50 from Bill Gates than from a homeless man because Bill Gates is more important.
Who says that Bill Gates is more important than a homeless man?

The amount of power he has. Because it's all "Worship God because God is God" boils down to.

quote:
You seem confused over what exactly you are angry about. According to PSA God does 'simply freely offer forgiveness'. (It's free but it's not cheap.) You may disagree with the other bits PSA adds but either way God does offer it freely.

No. The price is not cheap. But it is paid by God (Jesus) to God (the Father). It's an accounting/grace laundering trick.

quote:
It is interesting that none of the gospel accounts dwell particularly on the physical suffering of the cross. Mel Gibson was not one of the evangelists. Indeed OT allusions are chosen to emphasise the spiritual desolation which cannot be quantified.

Can not be quantified. Because only in that moment did God transcend God and join us mortals.

quote:
And I'm not sure where you get this idea that it was only the 'man part' of Christ that suffered - such division of his nature was specifically outlawed as heresy by the church.

"My God, My God Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?" And which church.

quote:
And how do we know right from wrong in the first place?

"That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others." "Love your neighbour as yourself." Just about every culture has come up with some form of The Golden Rule - that we should be trying for positive rather than negative feedback. This doesn't take some invisible and ineffible being, merely a modicum of thought or a successful society.

quote:
I fully concede that there are huge issues about how we ultimately discern morality but in principle at least Christians have always said that morality flows from "Thou shalt and thou shalt not".

Um. Jesus Christ came to fulfil the law not to do away with it. The Law, the Holiness Codes, and the rest are all about setting up guidelines to make things easier to not do that which is hateful. The rules flow from the principle rather than vise-versa and the fulfilment is about getting to those principles.

quote:
At some point (and again I'm admitting that there is a discussion about where that point lies) one wonders what it means to say that God is God when it is me, and not him, who decides what is right and wrong in the first place.

It means that you are surrendering your responsibility for discernment. There are times where this is good (the world's too complex to be able to thread your way through unassisted).

And from "That which is hateful to you, do not do to others" and PSA what can we learn? God punishes but finds it hateful to be punished. Therefore some part of God gives an escape so he can claim that he didn't have to punish. But if God wanted to not punish and is truly omniscient, there's a very simple solution. He could just stop. No posturing. No crosses. Just stop. And thereby stop repaying evil with evil and, by doing so, increasing the amount of evil being done. Or is that not within his capability.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Justinian:

quote:

quote:
Johnny S. said:
And I'm not sure where you get this idea that it was only the 'man part' of Christ that suffered - such division of his nature was specifically outlawed as heresy by the church.
"My God, My God Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?" And which church.

Actually, my problem with PSA is that its Christology seems to me to be Apollinarian - that is to say, Jesus Christ is God incarnate in such a way that God the Son is animating the whole being in the same way that the soul animates any other human being. On the way to Chalcedon, orthodoxy moved on from that to recognize that that represents an incomplete solidarity with us. Jesus knows what God knows, at any rate God the Son, and while his experience of the cross is certainly humanly physically complete, psychologically, it's God's experience of the cross. Which implies that there's a very important sense in which it's not fully God's human experience of the cross.

This might all sound like an arcane aspect of C4-5 philosophical anthropology and theology - but it's surprisingly relevant to the morality of PSA. I'm treating it as part of the "rules of the [language]-game that is Christian orthodoxy here.

PSA, to have any claim at all to a recognizable morality (if you don't just accept that anything God does is moral by definition - which neither you nor I do) needs to be able to claim Jesus' "informed consent." Jesus enters freely into the deal to free people from the consequences of sin.

But I would submit that for anything like a human psychology, such as a full incarnate submission to the terms of our human existence would imply, including limited knowledge and foreknowledge, makes a human submission to the terms of the PSA bargain inconceivable. We simply couldn't recognize a being capable of doing that as fully and recognizably human.

And of course, the PSA advocate will say that this is God, the pre-incarnate, and then incarnate Son, not a human being like you and me. But that is very specifically an Apollinarian formulation.

If you construct the incarnate Christ as possessing a fully human soul, as orthodoxy does, and if you understand the Christ of the Gospels, and particularly Gethsemane, as experiencing the growing horror of impending crucifixion as any human being would, ISTM that you completely undermine the morality of God’s incarnate intervention in the world if you construe this as PSA. It really is cosmic child-abuse.

If, on the other hand, you understand that God the Son lays aside his equality with God (Phil. 2) and enters the world in order to bear everything that happens (a) to God incarnate in a crucifying world and (b) everything that happens to a human life of open, vulnerable love and full communion with the Father in a world like this, then what happens humanly speaking to Jesus as he goes to the cross is precisely analogous to, say, what happens to the people who became involved in the resistance to Hitler. They were human beings who did what they saw had to be done in a dreadful situation, knowing the probable – indeed probably inescapable consequences – and they still did it.

Of course, what orthodoxy would say is that the fully human, human-souled Christ who comes into the world and dies on the cross is also fully God, (that’s what Chalcedon is all about) and that this experience of radical openness and living-out-of-God which gets Jesus crucified actually is God’s human experience. That’s how we can talk about the crucified God.

PSA advocates will want to say that they can say all of this, too. Indeed, God bless them, they will say it and mean it, and in a very devout and passionate way.

But none of this changes the fact that in PSA Christ goes to the cross to deal with the way God is, as much as the way the world is. In fact more so, because God, who had the option of not creating, created a world in sovereign freedom, which, in sovereign freedom he could have saved, and didn’t. As even PSA admits. The only way you can let God off responsibility for that, under PSA, is by writing him another blank cheque in terms of his Glory, and saying that morality (almost uniquely in terms of conservative Christian usage) has a completely different meaning applied to God and applied to anyone else.)

A fully-human Jesus just can’t work as the pivot of PSA atonement. It has to be God in a meat suit, an Apollinarian Jesus. And that’s why so much of conservative Christian apologetics is so tinged with Apollinarianism.

I remember years ago having to be physically stopped from throwing something at the telly when yet another of those Easter programmes – a “news report” of events in Jerusalem on Good Friday and Easter Sunday –came on. The “reporter on the scene” at Calvary was interviewing the centurion at the foot of the cross, who was re-expressing his awe at Jesus’ demeanour for the cameras. “I looked into his eyes, and saw there a serenity, as though nothing that was going on was affecting him” he said - in Welsh. I actually wrote it down.

I shouted at the TV “That’s blasphemy!” And I was right.

The problem, Justinian, is not that “only the human bit of Jesus suffers.” It’s that it’s practically impossible to understand Jesus on the cross as totally human, under PSA. And part of the reason for that is that even PSAers recognize that the only thing that even offers to save the morality of their position is being able to say “It’s God taking our punishment!” “It’s God doing this to himself, out of love for us!”

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
a clean reading of the Bible indicates that God withdrew from Jesus and therefore it was only the part that was man that suffered

Justinian, I'm not going to debate why there is a hell or why God allows suffering or the reason for and nature of sin on this thread because they're separate issues and however much you might like to label them as part of PSA, they're not. However, I'll say this one thing: I don't believe what you said in the quote, I hardly know any Christians who do, I think you're reading Jesus' words incorrectly and I think that hanging the veracity and morality of other people's beliefs on your own reading of those words is bound for failure.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

At some point (and again I'm admitting that there is a discussion about where that point lies) one wonders what it means to say that God is God when it is me, and not him, who decides what is right and wrong in the first place.
We all have that to do anyway on 99% of issues

Yebbut how do you decide? Where do you get your categories of right and wrong that allow you to decide those 99% of issues one way or the other? I believe that's what Johnny S is getting at, and my answer (I'm guessing the answer of the others on this thread too) is that we know these things because we're made in the image of God.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
PSA, to have any claim at all to a recognizable morality (if you don't just accept that anything God does is moral by definition - which neither you nor I do) needs to be able to claim Jesus' "informed consent." Jesus enters freely into the deal to free people from the consequences of sin.

But I would submit that for anything like a human psychology, such as a full incarnate submission to the terms of our human existence would imply, including limited knowledge and foreknowledge, makes a human submission to the terms of the PSA bargain inconceivable. We simply couldn't recognize a being capable of doing that as fully and recognizably human.

<snip>

The problem, Justinian, is not that “only the human bit of Jesus suffers.” It’s that it’s practically impossible to understand Jesus on the cross as totally human, under PSA. And part of the reason for that is that even PSAers recognize that the only thing that even offers to save the morality of their position is being able to say “It’s God taking our punishment!” “It’s God doing this to himself, out of love for us!”

Yes, it's God taking the punishment. That's because Jesus is both fully man and fully God. But you knew that.

Would it be fair to summarise the above as “No human could agree to go to the cross as part of PSA, therefore Jesus can't be fully human if PSA is true? It seems to me that you must know the mind of Jesus a lot better than the rest of us.

quote:
You are using the doctrine of the Trinity to write yourself a blank cheque here. Jesus suffers appalling things on the cross. But that's OK because Jesus is God. Hang on - isn't Jesus fully human? Well, yes - but he's really God, God in a meat suit. So that's OK.

No he's not. Once again, he's fully human and fully God.

quote:
Well, CV of course tackles this from the perspective of a humanity which is unfree. Children starving in the third world, while food is dumped in the first, fat bankers profiting from the errors their greed led them into, while whole societies are put under stress, etc.etc. are manifestations of human bondage in hopelessness, from which the crucifixion and resurrection are God's great liberating acts. We live in the same world, but everything is strangely different. Resistance, to paraphrase the Borg, is not futile. God loves us enough to do this. The cross really is a manifestation of God's love for us as we are. Covered in pig-shit though we are, the Father embraces us prodigals because, straightforwardly, he loves us, despite all.

Which is why CV is great and is a very useful atonement model.

quote:
But on a PSA account, the Father doesn't straightforwardly love us. And he makes damn sure to turn the disinfectant-hose on us before he has anything to do with us.

In fact, it's worse than that. Jesus loves us. Indeed he does. Freely. And enough to go to the cross. But the Father can't look on us. Would have nothing to do with us if Jesus hadn't agreed - freely - to do that. And still won't, if we don't believe PSA, which is what faith is. God makes a penal-substitutionary sacrifice of his Son. And if we don't believe in that, we go to Hell, which on an Arminian showing God is quite happy with, and on a Calvinist one, he actually decided on, in detail, before the world began.

Which is why PSA isn't a total description and we must also consider the other themes in the bible, such as CV. It does strike me that you're starting to conflate PSA and hell/universalism again. Please don't, they're different issues.

quote:
I've argued exhaustively (!) here and elsewhere why, how, and in what sense I conclude that PSA is a complete-in-itself account of salvation, which necessarily absorbs or subordinates everything else in theology to itself. I've set a criterion by which I think it's reasonable to judge the success or failure of my argument. Either someone could give an account of PSA which demonstrates that what I have said is not the case, or they could take my summary of PSA, and demonstrate what you can remove and it still be PSA - but a PSA which you can integrate with other accounts of the atonement on their own terms.

The problem is that you're effectively asking us to prove a negative. Every time someone's tried to explain how PSA is not the be-all and end-all of atonement and more important in its own estimation than everything else, you've come back insisting that it is that, leaving us (at least, certainly me) a bit stumped as to how to argue against that.

As far as I can tell, your argument is basically that once Jesus our substitute has paid the price for our sins, nothing remains to be done and so all the other models are merely window dressing, correct? You've then complained that this is actually an incomplete description since there's other stuff that goes on as well. I agree. As has been said on the other thread, in the cross Jesus pays the price for our sin and breaks the barrier of death and bridges down from the Father to us to share in our sufferings … all of which were necessary. Of course PSA is an incomplete description of the working of the cross, because the rest is outside of PSA's remit. That's precisely why we need the other models. Each model [u]can only deal in its own terms[/u], which isn't a disadvantage of any one model (though they are all incomplete and therefore imperfect), it's precisely the reason we need to be able to switch modes.

quote:
Fascinating response to Justinian, Dinghy Sailor. Again, you remind me of Sir Walter Tyrrell, in the 1066 and All That account, who "took unerring aim at the apple on William Rufus's head, and shot him through the heart."

For someone who has repeatedly complained about my posting style, that sort of ad hominem is a bit rich don't you think? .

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Dinghy Sailor.

quote:
Yes, it's God taking the punishment. That's because Jesus is both fully man and fully God.

Apollinaris said the same thing.

quote:
Would it be fair to summarise the above as “No human could agree to go to the cross as part of PSA, therefore Jesus can't be fully human if PSA is true?

No. The argument is that PSA pivots its ethics on two contentions.

(1) That anything God does is just and right by definition, because it's God who's doing it. (Of course, this really translates as "Anything PSA says God does is right by definition because it's God who's doing it." The answer to that, of course, is "Says you!"

(2) That the penal-substitutionary sacrifice/punishment is freely accepted in all its detail by the Son prior to the incarnation, so that it's God doing the whole of this, and so it's OK because only God suffers. (This of course leaves aside the ethics of a prescribed eternal hell and those who suffer there, but - heigh ho...)

Now even that formulation makes it clear why the Son must take flesh. Yes, it's an act of love, compassion and grace, yes it's the occasion of human solidarity with us which provides us with a saviour who understands us - but all of this is secondary to the fact that the Son takes flesh for the purpose of the atoning punishment/sacrifice.

Which means that - even in the way you repeatedly put it - yes, it's a human being, but it's really God.

And that undercuts the humanity of Jesus in a very specific way. It means that, in the end, there is a gulf between us and him even in terms of our humanity.

And there has to be. Because it isn't a human being agreeing before all time to sign up to this plan.

Which puts the focus on the Jesus who does appear at the Jordan, and shortly afterwards ends up on the cross. What manner of human being is this? Is his a human consciousness in perfect union with the Father, or is he basically and straightforwardly God in a meat suit, the Apollinarian Son-taking-the-place-of-the-soul? I think that PSA drives people inexorably in the direction of the second of these, and I gave a concrete example, which I note you don't answer.

But if you do reply that Jesus on the cross was possessed of a fully human psychology, then PSA is ISTM cosmic child abuse.

But I've already spelled this out, and you have simply ignored it, once again, in order to make mere assertions that you've dealt with it.

Yoh haven't.

quote:
that sort of ad hominem is a bit rich don't you think?

No richer than this:

quote:
It seems to me that you must know the mind of Jesus a lot better than the rest of us.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Psyduck, I've just been reading the "How can Jesus Christ be God" thread and I can see some parallels. Your contention seems to be that for PSA to work, Jesus had to be different from every other human being. Well (to borrow words from that thread) yes he was, and so are you. Neither of those facts makes a jot of difference.

Yes, it's really God, it really really is God, but he's also a human being.

By the way, I take it that by your point [1] you're referring to Divine Command theory? I agree that this can seem like a circular argument, but what wins it for me is that God was prepared to give up his own life in order to save us. That's a God whose idea of right I'm prepared to trust.

I must admit, when you start discarding a model with biblical support (yes, I'm going to stick to Isaiah 53 et al) on the basis of some fairly delicate reasoning about the preexistence of Jesus' divine to Jesus' human spirit and what that does for the consent of Jesus the man and God the Son to the crucifixion, while at the same time you accuse millions of Christians of effectively failing Christology 101, you're making rather bigger claims than are really permitted by the firmness of your logical base.

Posted by Lucia (# 15201) on :

Going back to the original question on page 1 of this thread

quote:

What role does a PSA understanding of the atonement play in people's construction of their Christian identities? Why is it such a sensitive topic? [/QB]

Ok to move away for a moment from theological argument to the personal...

I suspect I may be fairly typical of many whose understanding of the gospel was formed in evangelical circles in that until very recently I didn't even know that there were other ways of looking at the atonement. Questioning the PSA understanding initially left me somewhat baffled and confused as it seems to take away the very basis of what I have understood my relationship with God and salvation to be based on. So I can imagine that is why it is such a sensitive topic for many of us simpler souls who don't feel able to hold our own in the sort of complex theological discussions which have gone on on the last 6 pages of this thread. It's what our hope is founded on.

On an emotional level as someone who struggles with self-esteem and with it feelings of guilt and shame at all the failures I see within myself, PSA on one level is a great comfort. It fits with the sense of unworthiness before God and provides a solution to it. I know I'm never going to feel good enough to be acceptable to God but if Christ has taken my guilt and shame and recieved what I deserved then that sets me free and speaks to me of God's grace and love. I've never seen it in terms of God the Father being violent or abusive because I suppose I see such a close identification between the Father and the Son. It only seems a problem to me if they are seen as far more separate than the idea of the trinity suggests to me. Maybe I'm a bit sensitive to this as I live in a Muslim majority country and the oneness of God is important to me as Christians are often accused of believing in three gods. Anyway the Trinity is a whole other discussion.....

Now, I admit that reading stuff on SoF has got me thinking in all kind of directions that I haven't explored before. At first that felt a bit scary, feeling like "What if I believe the wrong thing ?? But I felt like I had a moment of revelation with the thought "What kind of God would reject us simply because we didn't believe just the right thing, even though we are sincerely seeking to know him and follow Jesus?(I dare say we will eventually find out we have been sincerely wrong about a large number of things!) How much understanding is needed? I think of the faith of my kids which at their young age is still a bit mixed up or my uncle who is mentally disabled yet seems to have a faith in as much as he can understand. If their salvation is not dependant on their ability to correctly understand theology than I suspect (and hope!) mine isn't either!

Perhaps to acknowledge Christ as Lord and to trust him as saviour are more important than getting our theology exactly right, even though trying to gain understanding is interesting.

Ok I throw this into the discussion with some trepidation but just wanted to add something personal into a discussion that seems very theoretical. Please be gentle [Tear]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:

What is God's dilemma? Perhaps you could be more explicit. [/QB]

The tension between his love and his holiness is what I think of as his dilemma butI'm sure he doesn't have a dilemma really

Assuming co-equality is not necessarily assuming equal partnership function but that's a thorn bush.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lucia:
On an emotional level as someone who struggles with self-esteem and with it feelings of guilt and shame at all the failures I see within myself, PSA on one level is a great comfort. It fits with the sense of unworthiness before God and provides a solution to it. I know I'm never going to feel good enough to be acceptable to God but if Christ has taken my guilt and shame and recieved what I deserved then that sets me free and speaks to me of God's grace and love. I've never seen it in terms of God the Father being violent or abusive because I suppose I see such a close identification between the Father and the Son. It only seems a problem to me if they are seen as far more separate than the idea of the trinity suggests to me.

Hey, great post Lucia.

I realise that others see it differently but your experience resonates with mine. Thanks.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The amount of power he has. Because it's all "Worship God because God is God" boils down to.

Says who? Any power Bill Gates has exists because we have given it to him, God's authority is his by right, it is a function of him being creator of all. You are talking apples and oranges here.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
No. The price is not cheap. But it is paid by God (Jesus) to God (the Father). It's an accounting/grace laundering trick.

It's not any accounting trick, it's a model. An analogy is being used to explain something complex - to say that it is an accounting trick seems to imply that you are confusing the model for reality.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Can not be quantified. Because only in that moment did God transcend God and join us mortals.

I don't get what this is about.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
And I'm not sure where you get this idea that it was only the 'man part' of Christ that suffered - such division of his nature was specifically outlawed as heresy by the church.
"My God, My God Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?" And which church.

Your position sounds a lot like Nestorianism to me - declared heresy in 431.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
"That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others." "Love your neighbour as yourself." Just about every culture has come up with some form of The Golden Rule - that we should be trying for positive rather than negative feedback. This doesn't take some invisible and ineffible being, merely a modicum of thought or a successful society.

Of course no society has actually been able to live up to that though. According to you we have no reason to think it possible ever to have a successful society.

The Golden Rule is certainly something I aspire to. The problem with it occurs when so many people in society completely ignore it. I have no idea what your background is Justinian but I mostly commonly hear these kinds of arguments from folk with comfortable middle-class backgrounds.

I talk to people who have had terrible things happen to them - either here in Sydney or in other parts of the world. Many of them, amazingly, still aspire to the golden rule. They want justice to be done though too - some things are so horrific that they can never be undone in this life. Often it is not so much revenge that they call for as for the evil to be dealt with.

IMO any view of morality or society that doesn't take this factor into account is naive.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
It means that you are surrendering your responsibility for discernment. There are times where this is good (the world's too complex to be able to thread your way through unassisted).

And from "That which is hateful to you, do not do to others" and PSA what can we learn? God punishes but finds it hateful to be punished. Therefore some part of God gives an escape so he can claim that he didn't have to punish. But if God wanted to not punish and is truly omniscient, there's a very simple solution. He could just stop. No posturing. No crosses. Just stop. And thereby stop repaying evil with evil and, by doing so, increasing the amount of evil being done. Or is that not within his capability.

Again your analogy only works if God is a human just like us. Instead the scriptures teach us that we are able to stop repaying evil with evil because God has decisively broken that cycle in Christ.

If human history teaches us anything it is that this cycle cannot be 'just stopped by human beings' - God has to stop it for us.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I talk to people who have had terrible things happen to them - either here in Sydney or in other parts of the world. Many of them, amazingly, still aspire to the golden rule. They want justice to be done though too - some things are so horrific that they can never be undone in this life. Often it is not so much revenge that they call for as for the evil to be dealt with.

I find this particularly easy to believe after hearing how some described the truth and reconciliation process in South Africa following apartheid as being rather effective.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

BTW, Lucia, I too appreciated your post.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:
quote: (Johnny S.)
And I'm not sure where you get this idea that it was only the 'man part' of Christ that suffered - such division of his nature was specifically outlawed as heresy by the church.

-
"My God, My God Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?" And which church.

Your position sounds a lot like Nestorianism to me - declared heresy in 431.

Maybe Justinian is criticizing a Nestorian position you don't hold. I think the real criticism of PSA is not a Nestorian one that it separates off the humanity of Jesus and nails that to the cross, but an Apollinarian one, that the being who goes to the cross is an incarnate God whose humanity is basically swallowed up in his divinity. And this, by the way, is a theological criticism of conservative Protestantism (not specifically related to PSA - that's a link I'm making) by T F Torrance, and Will Storrar (both of whom would count as pretty conservative.) I think Justinian is making an instinctively correct identification of a huge problem area in PSA - which others on these threads simply (and weirdly) dismiss by reasserting the problematic statement.

When you point out the cruelty God inflicts on Jesus on a PSA cross, the answer is always "But it's OK, because this is God doing this to himself. When you then ask "But what about the human Jesus on the cross...?" you seem to get a lot of bluster, and sometimes an imputation of something like Nestorianism, but it always boils down to "This is God, this is human flesh which eats, drinks and breathes, so it's all OK." Well, it's not. The Church had very good reasons for pressing on beyond Apollinaris's full recognition of Jesus' divinity to Chalcedon's full recognition of his humanity.

PSA certainly de-emphasizes, and I would say necessarily suppresses, the full orthodox humanity of Christ, in the interests of a being who ticks the boxes as human so as to satisfy the conditions of PSA, and go to the cross to perform the full-value punishment-sacrifice - but also ticks the moral box as God doing this to solve graciously his own problem with us. Even the doctrine of the incarnation is basically subordinated to the needs of PSA.

Christian orthodoxy, I often tell my congregation, is not that Jesus is 50% God and 50% man, a sort of semi-divine superhero, but that he is 100% man and 100% God. His humanity is as complete as ours.

I can't but see PSA as leading almost inexorably towards a Christ who is 100% God, but really only 50% human. It's difficult for it not to be, when one of the two pillar justifications of PSA morality is "It's OK with Jesus, because he is God - and because of that, it's really God saying 'I'm OK with this.'"

[ 11. July 2010, 06:13: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Lucia:

quote:
I felt like I had a moment of revelation with the thought "What kind of God would reject us simply because we didn't believe just the right thing, even though we are sincerely seeking to know him and follow Jesus?(I dare say we will eventually find out we have been sincerely wrong about a large number of things!) How much understanding is needed? I think of the faith of my kids which at their young age is still a bit mixed up or my uncle who is mentally disabled yet seems to have a faith in as much as he can understand. If their salvation is not dependant on their ability to correctly understand theology than I suspect (and hope!) mine isn't either!

Perhaps to acknowledge Christ as Lord and to trust him as saviour are more important than getting our theology exactly right, even though trying to gain understanding is interesting.

Ok I throw this into the discussion with some trepidation but just wanted to add something personal into a discussion that seems very theoretical. Please be gentle

All of this is exactly right! Faith is trust in Jesus. There is nothing in what you say that I or any other Christian could possibly disagree with.

The basic conviction that in Jesus Christ everything that separates us from God has been done away with is the truth. Nothing you read here should call that into question for you. Quite the reverse; one of the things that happens to all of us as we go on in our discipleship is that we find new situations in which our trust in Jesus brings us through.

What we're discussing here is how the Gospel should be proclaimed in and by the Church. It's extremely important, but it shouldn't for a moment shake your faith.

Gregory the Great said about Scripture (but ISTM it holds for the Christian faith) that it's water in which lambs may paddle and elephants swim. We're all sometimes lambs, and sometimes elephants. What you have here is a bunch of guys (male and female) in Elephant Mode! Take from it what's useful, and for the rest, don't worry about it. In fact, if you feel like an elephant, join in! There's days when I'll be in Lamb Mode, and just don't, because it's not what I need. (Have you seen how many lame Circus posts I put up on one evening last week?)
[Hot and Hormonal]

[ 11. July 2010, 06:27: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I am no lamb ...

I am a mouse who gets up elephants noses.

[Two face]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Well, bless mice too! Who else would teach elephants to dance? [Big Grin]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Psyduck:When you point out the cruelty God inflicts on Jesus on a PSA cross, the answer is always "But it's OK, because this is God doing this to himself. When you then ask "But what about the human Jesus on the cross...?" you seem to get a lot of bluster

This is a flawed reading IMV. There are many scriptures that suggest Jesus willingly subjected himself to the cross. The fact that he did so as a man is the great power of the identification he makes with humanity. The view that a cruel God put a helpless man on the cross is an interpretation that doessn't run. The question of God's will in the matter is a different point. God's will could be seen as his willingness for Jesus to make this voluntary sacrifice of himself for us.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Jamat:

quote:
There are many scriptures that suggest Jesus willingly subjected himself to the cross. The fact that he did so as a man is the great power of the identification he makes with humanity.

I absolutely don't disagree with this. It's clear that Scripture counterpoints the fact that Jesus is violently taken and subjected to human force and violence with the resolve and determination with which Jesus enters into and carries through the trajectory that leads him to the cross.

But you have to hold both those things together. Jesus doesn't commit suicide on the cross, and his insistence on committing to the course that leads to the cross doesn't make him a victim of Suicide By Centurion.

But the real questions here are:

1) Whose violence is this? Because even if in the first instance it's the violence of a violent world, ultimately in PSA it's the violence of a violent God's violent punishment, and

2) What presuppositions are you making about Jesus' humanity in PSA? This means - his psychology, his understanding of what's going on, his knowledge, and the relationship between his humanity and his divinity. It's a simultaneous equation you have to solve in terms of psychology, christology, theology, and morality, together with other factors we've listed already.

quote:
The view that a cruel God put a helpless man on the cross is an interpretation that doessn't run.

Well, I think it follows from the above that it does - even if the helpless man is the incarnate Son.

quote:
The question of God's will in the matter is a different point. God's will could be seen as his willingness for Jesus to make this voluntary sacrifice of himself for us.

Well, in trinitarian terms, you are separating the Father from the Son very radically there. The atonement is not the upshot of a single, integrated, loving divine will. It's the loving Son set over against a vengeful Father, who basically acquiesces. I don't see it much changes the picture who in the Trinity came up with the idea - or if they all came up with it. What kind of a picture of the Trinity can you square with PSA? I can't see how you could make it orthodox.

Also worth pondering: is our sin not an offence against the Son and Holy Spirit as much as against the Father? So how come PSA habitually sets the Son's love and grace, which consists in incarnating to die on the cross for us, over against the Father's punitive will? You could, of course say that both the Father and the Son are coequally gracious and punitive, it's just that the jobs are divvied up in different ways; but that doesn't seem to be the PSA way. Why is that? And what happens if you do?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Jamat: There are many scriptures that suggest Jesus willingly subjected himself to the cross. The fact that he did so as a man is the great power of the identification he makes with humanity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Psyduck:I absolutely don't disagree with this. It's clear that Scripture counterpoints the fact that Jesus is violently taken and subjected to human force and violence with the resolve and determination with which Jesus enters into and carries through the trajectory that leads him to the cross.

Well, there are many scriptures that contradict you. Shall we start a proof text war now? [Overused]

[ 11. July 2010, 09:28: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Psyduck: What kind of a picture of the Trinity can you square with PSA? I can't see how you could make it orthodox.

Also worth pondering: is our sin not an offence against the Son and Holy Spirit as much as against the Father? So how come PSA habitually sets the Son's love and grace, which consists in incarnating to die on the cross for us, over against the Father's punitive will?

the trinity is really 'our' model isn't it, for holding the tension of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. The principle involved is the mutual identity but differing functions of the persons of the Godhead. I'm unaware how their mutual cooperation could be seen as a theological problem.

The issue of the sin of man being close to God in Christ is somthing discussed on the famous CV thread but you'd have to trawl it. IMV, Christ the 'word', shielded his glory within his humanity in order to be able to come among us. The transfiguration is the indicator of the fact that he did so and at that point, for a short time, the disciples were unable to stand his presence.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
PSA certainly de-emphasizes, and I would say necessarily suppresses, the full orthodox humanity of Christ, in the interests of a being who ticks the boxes as human so as to satisfy the conditions of PSA, and go to the cross to perform the full-value punishment-sacrifice - but also ticks the moral box as God doing this to solve graciously his own problem with us. Even the doctrine of the incarnation is basically subordinated to the needs of PSA.

Sigh.

What does Substitution mean? What is the one and only atonement model that actually has the humanity of Christ built into its very definition?

Feel free to raise other questions about PSA but you're barking up the wrong tree here.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S. :

quote:
What does Substitution mean? What is the one and only atonement model that actually has the humanity of Christ built into its very definition?

Well, for starters, we don't get the humanity of Christ from a doctrine of the atonement, but from Scripture. But it's interesting and significant that you inadvertantly treat Scripture and PSA as equivalent.

To answer your question - all perspectives on the atonement have the humanity of Christ built into them, otherwise they wouldn't be about Jesus. The question about PSA is - how faithfully does it portray and explain the incarnate humanity of the Son of God. I've told you why I think PSA is doomed to be gravely deficient in this regard. Again, nothing you've said addresses my concerns. You are just asserting. And missing the point.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Jamat, thanks your reply re 'God's Dilemma', which you identify as a 'tension' between his love and holiness. In a later post you refer to the trinity as having 'different functions'.

In discussing the trinity in this way you are reinforcing Psyduck's contention that PSA presses the doctrine to distraction. The implication is that God in his holiness (the father) simply cannot abide sinful man, but in his love (the son)for humanity he is prepared to offer a human sacrifice to placate the anger engendered by his holiness. The point is that the Godhead (father, son, and spirit) is the quintessence of love, and his holiness, that which sets him apart, is that same characteristic. As Psyduck points out, the prodigal is received by the father stinking of pig. Jesus is no less holy when he actually goes to the 'far country' and consorts with publicans and sinners.

As for difference of function, what do you have in mind? Remember, 'the same was in the beginning with God, and without him was not anything made that was made...'

I would suggest that 'tension', 'God's dilemma', and 'differences of function', are less a problem for the trinity than PSA.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Is it allowed for a lamb to join the elephants on page 6?

The background to answer the OP: I was raised in an environment which certainly believed PSA but which did not self-evidently have the dour 'defend this to the death' feel that Psyduck claims to detect in some circles. While these days I would be a lot less categorical than I probably would have been then, I still find it hard to grasp some of the thought processes of non-PSA adherents.

A lot of the debate so far seems to have revolved around the wrath of God, and I would like to ask a question since this came up for me in my preaching this morning, which was from 2 Samuel 6.

This is the episode in which the wrath of God breaks out against Uzza for handling the Ark of the Covenant as it's being transported back to Jerusalem on a cart drawn by oxen.

My application of this was to say that while the message of the Bible is overwhelmingly about God's forgiveness, forebearance, mercy and grace, there are occasional hints of his wrath (such as this one, or Ananias and Saphira, or telling Moses he couldn't enter the promised land because of hitting the rock instead of speaking to it).

Where David went wrong (at Uzza's expense), I held, was to assume the Ark could be brought as he saw fit rather than following the original guidelines (to be carried on poles by Levites)[I also pointed out that what would have happened had one of the Levites stumbled is left unsaid [Biased]

].

My application of this was a warning that while we are encouraged to draw near to God as we are with an assurance of a welcome rather than rejection (which again I would say is 99% of my philosphy of ministry) we should not make the preumptuous mistake of having a smorgasbord faith in which we pick and choose the bits we like about God and expect him to accommodate himself to us, which is how it sometimes appears to me when people say "I couldn't possibly believe in a God like that" - often with regard to some tenet of PSA.

I appreciate that not all those elephants challenging PSA and its role in some christians' identities are coming at God in such an arrogant frame of mind (otherwise I wouldn't be stepping out and posting here) but I find it difficult to understand how they make sense of God's wrath as illustrated in a passage like this. All explanations welcome!

[ 11. July 2010, 16:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think the Trinitarian question in terms of its compatibility with a PSA model of the atonement is an interesting one. And I'm also interested in answers to Eutychus's question as I tend to find that many liberals and some of the Orthodox (who're not liberal but conservative, of course) don't seem to have any concept of God's wrath (or indignation if you prefer) or judgement whatsoever.

I'll let others handle that one, but I've another thought going through my mind, and it's this ... is there any correlation, do we think, that some traditions that espouse PSA (or variants of it) have tended, if not careful enough, to descend into Apollinarianism or worse, Socinianism and Sabellianism?

I've read sufficient non-conformist and Baptist history to find that 'orthodox' Presbyterians, Baptists and other groups that sprang from the more radical end of the Reformation or the later Puritans to see that they were always battling against an incipient Arianism.

Partly, I suspect, this was down to the lack of an 'episcopate' or corporate teaching authority (although Johnny S and others may dispute this) but equally I do wonder whether Psyduck's charge that PSA plays fast and loose with the Trinity holds to some extent?

I'm not saying that all PSA-ers are insufficiently Trinitarian but I can see this as a very real and present danger. Anyone agree?

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Eutychus, undoubtedly there is room for a discussion as to what is understood by the wrath of God, but ISTM that is not what is being discussed here. What is being disputed by the opponents of PSA is that God's wrath is satisfied with respect to the atonement.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

A quick glance suggests that at least Leo, mousethief, Freddy, and Boogie incline that way.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Sorry, ran out of edit time: I mean, the above-named seem to think that PSA goes wrong in assuming that there is any wrath of God to appease, not simply the extent to which it does so.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

If, by 'that way' you mean that I do not believe in a God that has 'wrath', yes.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Yes, that's what I meant (I'm relieved the first person I named to have responded hasn't complained I've misrepresented them!)

So would I be right in saying you think PSA is basically a waste of time because there is no divine wrath to satisfy?

And what's your take on incidents like the one in 2 Sam 6?

[ 11. July 2010, 17:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Sorry, ran out of edit time: I mean, the above-named seem to think that PSA goes wrong in assuming that there is any wrath of God to appease, not simply the extent to which it does so.

Yes - that's my first objection to PSA. I see no wrath whatever in God.

My second is simply that two wrongs don't make a right - the death of Jesus doesn't put anything right - it demonstrates God's love for us.

Thirdly, I see God as one God - with Christ and the Holy Spirit as facets of the same God, not separate persons. So I struggle to understand how He could somehow become split into three.

Lastly I don't believe Jesus
was God - but that he was full of the spirit of God. So that doesn't fit with PSA either.

[ 11. July 2010, 18:33: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I see no wrath whatever in God.

More relief on my part not to have misrepresented you, and the same question: how do you understand passages like 2 Sam 6 (for instance)? [Confused]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I see no wrath whatever in God.
More relief on my part not to have misrepresented you, and the same question: how do you understand passages like 2 Sam 6 (for instance)?

It's not surprising that ancient peoples saw God as wrathful. Even volcanoes and lightning were seen as caused by angry gods.

But surely we live in more enlightened times? - does anyone still think that bad things happening (including war) are God's will?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's not surprising that ancient peoples saw God as wrathful. Even volcanoes and lightning were seen as caused by angry gods.

But surely we live in more enlightened times? - does anyone still think that bad things happening (including war) are God's will?

Uzza's untimely demise is hardly the same as a natural disaster (and I can't think of anywhere offhand in Scripture in which volcanoes or lightning are attributed to the wrath of God). It seems pretty clear to me that it was understood as the wrath of God due to the prescriptions of the law not being observed. I don't like the idea much, but I find it hard to get away from the idea that that's the way it was.

If all that belongs to unenlightened times, what about Ananias and Sapphira?

(I mean, this gets me wondering whether those on this thread arguing that PSA identity is tied up with inerrancy don't have a point. I wouldn't describe myself as an inerrantist, but once you start consigning instances like that to unenlightement, it's hard for me to understand at what point, if any, you think Scripture or those who wrote it become 'enlightened').

[ 11. July 2010, 19:20: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

There is nothing enlightened about war and violence imo - so atributing it to God or God's will seems wrong to me (however Biblical)

ETA - this is looking prety off topic to me.

[ 11. July 2010, 19:30: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
ETA - this is looking prety off topic to me.

As I understand it, Psyduck's question was about why some christians seem to feel PSA forms an integral part of their identity.

I've noted that a number of posters who don't subscribe to PSA (not all, kwesi's objection duly noted) seem to feel this is because there is no wrath of God to satisfy.

I happened across an instance of what seems to me to be a pretty clear-cut instance of God's wrath and wondered how this fits into non-PSA views.

Your view (and please correct me if this misrepresents you) is that God can't be angry, therefore despite any evidence to the contrary in the Bible, any talk of his wrath is wrong.

Now, I realise that other critics of PSA may not hold to your view, but to me that this view seems to be a pretty fundamental calling into question of traditional christian identity*. ISTM your niggle is not with some finer point of PSA but with historic christianity as a whole.

Are there any other takes on this instance of God's wrath out there?

*ETA in other words, if that is what PSA objections come down to, I can understand why christians holding that view feel their identity is challenged!

[ 11. July 2010, 20:19: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Wisewilliam (# 15474) on :

Thank you Boogie for some down-to-earth comment. Some eighty years ago my father warned me against getting into arguments that rely on scriptural interpretation and this thread proves him right. PSA is arrogant nonsense. It asserts a narrow, unthinking, vengeful God with no compassion. It also assumes God had influence over the Romans and Jews who crucified Christ - God's hand was in the Resurrection.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

Your view (and please correct me if this misrepresents you) is that God can't be angry, therefore despite any evidence to the contrary in the Bible, any talk of his wrath is wrong.

Now, I realise that other critics of PSA may not hold to your view, but to me that this view seems to be a pretty fundamental calling into question of traditional christian identity*. ISTM your niggle is not with some finer point of PSA but with historic christianity as a whole.

I imagine God can be hurt and angry - but I don't think s/he would act on that anger by hurting us or casting us out.

Historic Christianity? There are so many shades, which do you think I niggling? (no need to answer, I think you can see where I'm at) But - yes - I have been called a heretic before now [Smile]

<edited due to dysfunctional spelling>

[ 11. July 2010, 20:33: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I imagine God can be hurt and angry - but I don't think s/he would act on that anger by hurting us or casting us out.

Historic Christianity? There are so many shades, which do you think I niggling?

I'd say the example of Uzza is an example of God's wrath breaking out where Scripture indicates not only the "what" but also the "why".

The niggle is that in order to support your thinking, you are obliged (by your own admission) to discount large chunks of the Bible*. I mean, how do you decide which bits of the Bible to keep and which not?

*I know we all have bits we like to gloss over to support our pet theologies, but the existence of the wrath of God (which seems to me to have at least something to do with PSA) seems like too large a theme in both old and new testaments to discount like that.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Jamat, thanks your reply re 'God's Dilemma', which you identify as a 'tension' between his love and holiness. In a later post you refer to the trinity as having 'different functions'.

In discussing the trinity in this way you are reinforcing Psyduck's contention that PSA presses the doctrine to distraction. The implication is that God in his holiness (the father) simply cannot abide sinful man, but in his love (the son)for humanity he is prepared to offer a human sacrifice to placate the anger engendered by his holiness. The point is that the Godhead (father, son, and spirit) is the quintessence of love, and his holiness, that which sets him apart, is that same characteristic. As Psyduck points out, the prodigal is received by the father stinking of pig. Jesus is no less holy when he actually goes to the 'far country' and consorts with publicans and sinners.

As for difference of function, what do you have in mind? Remember, 'the same was in the beginning with God, and without him was not anything made that was made...'

I would suggest that 'tension', 'God's dilemma', and 'differences of function', are less a problem for the trinity than PSA.

Im unsure here what the issue is. I see no problem between trinitarian belief and an atonement that has Christ dying for sin. Also, I don't claim to understand the trinity.

There may be, as stated, the paradox of God's glory being unable to coexist with human sin so how is it possible in Christ?

As stated also, I think that is the point of the transfiguration. God being God, can shield his glory in human form and in Christ he does this.. temporarily.

God of course is omnipresent (see Ps 139) yet this clearly doesn't mean his manifest glory is omnipresent. The words of the Christmas carol 'Hark the Herald Angels Sing' has an apposite line.
"mild he laid his glory by
born that man no more may die.."

Posted by Carys (# 78) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And that undercuts the humanity of Jesus in a very specific way. It means that, in the end, there is a gulf between us and him even in terms of our humanity.

And there has to be. Because it isn't a human being agreeing before all time to sign up to this plan.

Which puts the focus on the Jesus who does appear at the Jordan, and shortly afterwards ends up on the cross. What manner of human being is this? Is his a human consciousness in perfect union with the Father, or is he basically and straightforwardly God in a meat suit, the Apollinarian Son-taking-the-place-of-the-soul? I think that PSA drives people inexorably in the direction of the second of these, and I gave a concrete example, which I note you don't answer.

[/QUOTE]

This is particularly interesting to me given the questions I've asked here in the past about the Christology in the UCCF doctrinal basis (including on a ship thread) which says that Jesus is 'fully God' and that his humanity is 'real and sinless'. Which doesn't seem to be fully chalcedonian to me. Given that UCCF is one organisation for whom PSA is central.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I've noted that a number of posters who don't subscribe to PSA (not all, kwesi's objection duly noted) seem to feel this is because there is no wrath of God to satisfy.

This of course brings us back to where we started -- the lines 'til on the cross as Jesus died/ the wrath of God was satisfied' in 'In Christ alone' by Stuart Townend.

I have major issues with the idea of the 'wrath of God'. It is scriptural to say that God is love and so we can talk about the 'love of God' but I do not think 'God is wrath' is scriptural so I struggle with conceptions of God's wrath as something equal to his love.

Carys

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Jamat, the problem that has Christ dying for sin in the context of PSA is that it poses a wrathful God the Father unable to have positive dealings with sinful human beings without being satisfied with a perfect human sacrifice; and this sacrifice is provided by an incarnate loving God the Son, who has no problem sharing his life with publicans and sinners. PSA presents us, therefore, with two widely different personalities. Trinitarian doctrine, however, insists that the Father, Son and Spirit are essentially the same. If they are the same then there is no reason to believe the father is any less loving towards sinners than the son. Indeed, Jesus states this quite clearly in what is popularly called the parable of the Prodigal Son, where the father embraces the unclean son. What sets God apart from the rest of us i.e. his holiness, lies in his extent of his love revealed in Christ, not in his visceral inability to accept sinners. The tension PSA detects between love and holiness is a tension that arises from a weakness in the theory not in the nature of the trinity. The trinity does not have a 'dilemma', it is not schizophrenic.

The 'issue', then, is whether it's possible to believe both in the theory of PSA and in the Trinity. Indeed, it might be suggested from a Trinitarian perspective that PSA is a heresy.

Christus Victor, by contrast, can satisfy 'trinitarian belief and an atonement that has Christ dying for sin,' much more satisfactorily, as can other atonement theories, than PSA. In other words, you don't have to believe in PSA if you believe, as virtually all Christians do, that Christ died to save us from the consequences of our sin and bring us into fellowship with the Godhead.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
I have major issues with the idea of the 'wrath of God'. It is scriptural to say that God is love and so we can talk about the 'love of God' but I do not think 'God is wrath' is scriptural so I struggle with conceptions of God's wrath as something equal to his love.

I have found recent research particularly fascinating with regard to the word 'wrath'.

Ancient society (Greek, Roman and Jewish) was what anthropologists call an "honour-shame" society. The honour system was a paradigm governing expected public behaviour. Honour was akin to "reputation" or "status" or "public standing" and, in a way, acted sort of like a credit-rating. People were socially obligated to act publicly in certain ways based on their relative levels of honour. Honour is usefully conceived of as existing in finite fixed amounts that could be stolen. If a person acted in such a way to give someone less honour than was their due, this was perceived as an honour-challenge, an attempt at stealing some honour. If the defender failed to respond it would often result in the defender losing some of their honour and the challenger gaining honour. This is because people would see that the challenger had gotten away with dishonouring the person, and the public would regard the person's failure to prevent this a sign that he really didn't deserve the level of honour previously ascribed to him. The outcome of such challenges was always judged by popular opinion.

Therefore, when a person is dishonoured, ie when a challenger tries to "steal" some honour, the defender is socially obligated to "take back" that honour if he is to remain at his previous level of honour. He will seek to do this by causing public dishonour to the challenger, either through words or acts or doing material harm - ie demonstrating himself to be more powerful than the challenger and capable of defending his honour when it is challenged. The dishonour inflicted by the defender should be equivalent to the honour taken by the challenger. The name given to this behaviour of seeking to reclaim lost honour is called "wrath". Note that it refers to public behaviour, not a state of mind or character or emotion. Actual emotional anger was not at all a requirement for "wrath". A person could love dearly the challenger and feel nothing but positive emotions toward them, and feel great reluctance to act and feel upset about their social obligation to act, and yet such a person could still have "wrath" - ie a public action to take back their stolen honour.

A related word that it is worth mentioning is "satisfaction" ("kippur" in Hebrew). This was where the challenger or a 3rd party, in order to stop the wrath, acted to restore the lost honour of the defender. This restoration of honour usually took place publicly with a gift and words honouring them. When the defender's honour had been restored in this way, they no longer had a social obligation to pursue their lost honour and their wrath was thus "satisfied".

In the ancient world it was universally assumed that the gods followed this same system of behaviour. If humans acted to dishonour a god, the god was expected to respond with wrath. A human could satisfy that wrath by making a gift-sacrifice in honour of the god, thereby satisfying the god's wrath and preventing vengeance. In the Greek world basically all sacrifices were gift-sacrifices, and it was a very common type of sacrifice for Jews also.

So in summary, you are right to "struggle with conceptions of God's wrath as something equal to his love", as they are totally different kinds of thing. Wrath is an expected public behaviour conditional on circumstances with no necessarily connected emotional content.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

One wonders what the origins of PSA really are. No-one from the PSA camp seems to want to engage with the more honour based systems of SA found in Catholic teaching.

I tend to think that PSA is impossible to understand outside the context of Calvinism. I am not alone. Calvinism as a system is a unique a different understanding of the Christian faith compared to historic orthodoxy or other protestant variations. I don't think you can really 'get' PSA without buying into Reformed error.

Certainly Calvin was a Lawyer, so used the language of Punishment and Law to develop Luther's innovations. But then so was Finney and he was an Evangelical (an Arminian) in the Govermental / Moral Influence camp who questioned original sin and perseverance of the saints.

What Sin does PSA deal with? Both original sin and sins committed one assumes. Does PSA negate the need for Personal Judgement of Christians / Purgatory / Theosis after death (assuming these are variations on a theme found within Christian orthodoxy)?

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
a clean reading of the Bible indicates that God withdrew from Jesus and therefore it was only the part that was man that suffered
Justinian, I'm not going to debate why there is a hell or why God allows suffering or the reason for and nature of sin on this thread because they're separate issues and however much you might like to label them as part of PSA, they're not. However, I'll say this one thing: I don't believe what you said in the quote, I hardly know any Christians who do, I think you're reading Jesus' words incorrectly and I think that hanging the veracity and morality of other people's beliefs on your own reading of those words is bound for failure.

Sorry. I shouldn't mix snark about the absurdity of claiming a literal reading of the bible with theological discussion on PSA. Mea culpa.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The amount of power he has. Because it's all "Worship God because God is God" boils down to.
Says who? Any power Bill Gates has exists because we have given it to him, God's authority is his by right, it is a function of him being creator of all. You are talking apples and oranges here.

So. You try to rebut me by claiming that God is God and we should worship him because of who he is and what he has done. Were you trying to prove my point?

quote:
It's not any accounting trick, it's a model.

Accounting tricks almost invariably come from using aspects of the model in unintended and unwanted ways. Which is IMO exactly where PSA comes from.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
"That which is hateful to you, do not do unto others." "Love your neighbour as yourself." Just about every culture has come up with some form of The Golden Rule - that we should be trying for positive rather than negative feedback. This doesn't take some invisible and ineffible being, merely a modicum of thought or a successful society.
Of course no society has actually been able to live up to that though. According to you we have no reason to think it possible ever to have a successful society.

A Christian claiming that other societies don't live up to their preachings. Irony, thy name is Johnny S.

quote:
The Golden Rule is certainly something I aspire to. The problem with it occurs when so many people in society completely ignore it. I have no idea what your background is Justinian but I mostly commonly hear these kinds of arguments from folk with comfortable middle-class backgrounds.

And here you're changing the grounds of argument. You asked where moranity comes from without God. Not what we should do about people who live by smashing it into little pieces.

quote:
Often it is not so much revenge that they call for as for the evil to be dealt with.

And this is the second part. The practical issue for what you do when people have no desire to live up to the golden rule. Earlier in the thread I went (rapidly) over classical justifications for the penal system and why God's so-called justice demonstrably fitted few and those it fitted it fitted badly.

quote:
Again your analogy only works if God is a human just like us. Instead the scriptures teach us that we are able to stop repaying evil with evil because God has decisively broken that cycle in Christ.

Wrong. It assumes that God is a fully functional and moral entity. To take one trivial example, chimps aren't human just like us - but have their systems. If God can not follow what I have indicated, he is sub-human.

And what PSA does is means that God is able to stop repaying evil done to others with evil from himself.

quote:
If human history teaches us anything it is that this cycle cannot be 'just stopped by human beings' - God has to stop it for us.

That's because if PSA teaches us anything, it teaches us that God is a prime mover in repaying evil with evil - and until the sacrifice on the cross God was apparently unable to stop repaying evil with evil after it would do any good.

Also, if human history teaches us anything, IMO it teaches us that we can and are building a better future with every hundred years that passes with extremely rare blips caused by groups that were a few hundred years behind conquering those that have been civilising longer. So no, we will never be able to reach an inhuman level of perfection. But we are improving on our own.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I appreciate that not all those elephants challenging PSA and its role in some christians' identities are coming at God in such an arrogant frame of mind (otherwise I wouldn't be stepping out and posting here) but I find it difficult to understand how they make sense of God's wrath as illustrated in a passage like this. All explanations welcome!

Thank you for raising this Eutychus - I think it really brings the discussion back on track.

Personally I think this is the key issue. While I usually end up just defending PSA I think that is a red-herring. Although this probably doesn't come across I'm not too bothered about holding on to historic PSA per se - I'm more concerned about keeping our view of the atonement biblical.

When books like Steve Chalke's The Lost Message of Jesus came out I thought that all the fuss over PSA missed the point. The real issue is, as you have your finger on it, God's wrath. While there are several shipmates who don't fall into this category I increasingly get the impression (and not just from the ship) that is really about rejecting any notion of God's wrath.

AFAIC models schmodels. They are useful but they will always remain models. I'm more concerned with the issues behind the attack on PSA. It is my contention that unhappiness with PSA is largely (but not exclusively) down to a desire to remove God's wrath and (as an outworking of that) a sense that God is personally angry with our personal sin.

Indeed since I know this an issue that you feel strongly about - I notice that Justinian and others never speak about repentance in their descriptions of God ... i.e. they put forward a view of God who should forgive regardless of whether we admit our sin or ask for forgiveness. In my ministry I encounter hell relatively frequently - it is a place where there is no justice, the way some shipmates describe heaven.

As I said before that must not sweep the difficult questions under carpet. I'm not trying to put the doctrine of God 6 feet above contradiction, but I think we are losing any sense at all of God being God, of being other from ourselves. Again I don't think has anything to do with Apolllinarianism (although that is a side issue that I'm happy to take up if you are interested.)

In short, I defend PSA not because I'm wedded to it as a model or think it is beyond critique or some kind of metanarrative - indeed (although you may not notice it [Biased]

) I've actually changed my thinking a fair bit because of previous discussions on the ship. I defend PSA because I perceive that the attack on it comes from a shift in society that is increasingly uncomfortable with God's wrath - something that I find all over scripture and part of mainstream historic Christianity. Again I want to repeat - I'm not saying that this motivates all shipmates who reject PSA but I do think there is a trend.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I tend to think that PSA is impossible to understand outside the context of Calvinism. I am not alone. Calvinism as a system is a unique a different understanding of the Christian faith compared to historic orthodoxy or other protestant variations. I don't think you can really 'get' PSA without buying into Reformed error.

One thing is for certain - Calvin was about 400 years before Gustav Aulen. Does that mean we discount CV?

I know Aulen went back to the Church Fathers but that is the point - that is the game everyone plays. In fact ISTM that the entire notion of reading a model back into any writer before the 20th century is probably anachronistic. The Church Fathers didn't have models they unpacked scriptural metaphors.

If the lengthy CV thread taught me anything it was that this kind of 'historic orthodoxy point scoring' is completely pointless. I don't see any difference from your method here to that of Ian Paisley.

Instead let's continue the discussion drawing from scripture and tradition but without playing the intractable games.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So. You try to rebut me by claiming that God is God and we should worship him because of who he is and what he has done. Were you trying to prove my point?

I honesty don't understand most of your points so I'll reply to this one because (AFAIK) it sums up your position:

There really isn't anything more to say to this other than point you to Jesus.

In my branch of Christianity he is considered the main guy and saying that you are a Christian means following him.

We get the idea of God being King from him, it was his idea as he went around talking about the kingdom of God. In his culture kingship was an extremely authoritarian term. In his parables Jesus reinforced this idea of kingship being one of total authority since every time a king is mentioned he is described in such terms. The 'King' is kind and forgives, but there is absolutely no doubt that he is in charge and that disobey him is treason.

If you fundamentally have a problem with God as a king in this way then take it up with Jesus since we get this idea from him.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Also, if human history teaches us anything, IMO it teaches us that we can and are building a better future with every hundred years that passes with extremely rare blips caused by groups that were a few hundred years behind conquering those that have been civilising longer. So no, we will never be able to reach an inhuman level of perfection. But we are improving on our own.

Again what can I say to this?

I think it is a lie and I think that because almost every day I encounter empirical evidence to the contrary. I live in Sydney, a nice Western city with all the benefits on western civilization. I see and experience a lot of the huge benefits and advances we have made as a human race (e.g. the improvement in the way Aboriginals are treated here is a big step forward) nonetheless I have to say (from first hand experience) it is very hard to say that they outweigh the terrible things that we carry on doing to one another. Shocking things. Things that the only word I can use to describe them is evil. Sometimes these things are personal, but often they are actually results of the systems of society itself.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Kwesi:Jamat, the problem that has Christ dying for sin in the context of PSA is that it poses a wrathful God the Father unable to have positive dealings with sinful human beings without being satisfied with a perfect human sacrifice; and this sacrifice is provided by an incarnate loving God the Son, who has no problem sharing his life with publicans and sinners. PSA presents us, therefore, with two widely different personalities.

I don't see any problem actually because the love and the wrath are not directed at the same objects. The 'wrath' or orge is toward sin amd the love is towards humanity. Do you not think that the Son is angry at sin? Why do you suppose he wept at Lazarus' tomb? IMV, it was because what sin(in its totality) had done to his friend.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Starlight, I think the 21st century equivalent is called Whuffie [Big Grin]

quote:
Originally posted by Carys:
It is scriptural to say that God is love and so we can talk about the 'love of God' but I do not think 'God is wrath' is scriptural so I struggle with conceptions of God's wrath as something equal to his love.

It's not because we can't say "X is Y" that we can never talk about the "Y of X". The Bible itself says that God is 'slow to anger and abounding in love', so there's no question of them being 'equal'. If people are attacking the idea that "God is wrath", I think that's a straw man.

I think many parents (for instance) would have little difficulty in identifying with simultaneously feeling immense love for their children and wrath at their misdeeds.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
It is my contention that unhappiness with PSA is largely (but not exclusively) down to a desire to remove God's wrath

I certainly didn't post on this thread with that in mind, but I have to say that since that first post I've started to wonder the same thing.

quote:
Indeed since I know this an issue that you feel strongly about - I notice that Justinian and others never speak about repentance in their descriptions of God ... i.e. they put forward a view of God who should forgive regardless of whether we admit our sin or ask for forgiveness.

Get out of my head! It had also occurred to me that the two concepts might be linked, to the point that I was wondering about a "PSA and forgiveness" thread - but not right now.

quote:
I'm not trying to put the doctrine of God 6 feet above contradiction, but I think we are losing any sense at all of God being God, of being other from ourselves

That expresses my concern quite well.

Psyduck, it would appear you've read my previous contributions. You claim PSA is a 'genetic re-engineering' of Scripture which thereby modifies it out of recognition and therefore ask what all the fuss is about when it's challenged.

It would appear I've singled out a building block in this doctrine (God's wrath) which is (at least to my mind) all over Scripture, even if God's love is even more overwhelmingly present. What say you to that? Do you reject it, and if so why? Or if you accept it, how do you deal with it?

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
When books like Steve Chalke's The Lost Message of Jesus came out I thought that all the fuss over PSA missed the point. The real issue is, as you have your finger on it, God's wrath. While there are several shipmates who don't fall into this category I increasingly get the impression (and not just from the ship) that is really about rejecting any notion of God's wrath.

For the vast majority of history, the vast majority of humanity has believed in wrathful, vengeful gods. Clearly humans in general don't find the idea of a wrathful god objectionable or implausible. Furthermore, I'm sure the idea of a wrathful vengeful god huge explanatory assistance in explaining the Problem of Evil.

I think the reason a lot of Christians have an issue with the notion of a wrathful God is because they struggle to reconcile it with the biblical testimony about God's love. The more that one asserts God is all-loving the harder it gets to make sense of the idea that God is wrathful. People are happy to believe in wrathful gods, people are happy to believe in an all-loving God. What they are not happy to do is believe in a self-contradiction, a God who is allegedly both loving and wrathful.

I don't think you are right in claiming that this is the problem people have with PSA. The problem people have with PSA is a related self-contradiction. Does God want to forgive us or not? Either God is loving and wants to forgives people when they repent. Or God is wrathful and vengeful and wants to punish wrongdoers even after they repent. PSA asserts the self-contradiction that God both does and doesn't want to forgive. According to PSA this self-contradictory desire is founded in God's self-contradictory nature as loving and wrathful.

quote:
I know Aulen went back to the Church Fathers but that is the point - that is the game everyone plays. In fact ISTM that the entire notion of reading a model back into any writer before the 20th century is probably anachronistic. The Church Fathers didn't have models they unpacked scriptural metaphors.

If the lengthy CV thread taught me anything it was that this kind of 'historic orthodoxy point scoring' is completely pointless.

I find such a view very disappointing. Scholars in the field of history-of-theology are in pretty widespread agreement about what the Church Fathers thought. Just because every man and his dog likes to claim historicity for their views doesn't make them historical, and more importantly doesn't actually mean that the church fathers had no clear views.

I've encountered before the idea that the church fathers weren't really sure what they believed, and instead just used a confused jumble of imagery taken from the bible. My response now as then: [Roll Eyes]

Can you seriously think that Christians for hundreds of years at a time, in particular those taught by the original apostles, had almost no idea about the core doctrines of their faith???

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
I don't see any problem actually because the love and the wrath are not directed at the same objects. The 'wrath' or orge is toward sin amd the love is towards humanity. Do you not think that the Son is angry at sin? Why do you suppose he wept at Lazarus' tomb? IMV, it was because what sin(in its totality) had done to his friend.

See, here is a solution to the problem of wrath, one that accords with my understanding of God from what I have gleaned from the Orthodox Church (all the while admitting I may be wrong of course): God does not hate people, God hates sin. He hates what sin does to people. He doesn't hate the people. I mentioned our Lord's utterance from the cross, "Father forgive them for they know not what they do." This is not the word of a wrathful god. "What they [did]" was sinful. It was a sin. (Well, a bunch of sins all strung together.) But Jesus isn't wrathful at them, he is compassionate. At the same time he doesn't say that what they did was okay. Sin is still sin. There would be no need to forgive them if they hadn't sinned.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Indeed since I know this an issue that you feel strongly about - I notice that Justinian and others never speak about repentance in their descriptions of God ... i.e. they put forward a view of God who should forgive regardless of whether we admit our sin or ask for forgiveness.

You mean like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son?

Let me also point out that the "should" in "a view of God who should forgive (etc)" is a weasel. People putting forward this view aren't saying God "should" forgive. They're saying God DOES forgive. In PSA God does not forgive. God is bought off. To forgive a debt is not the same thing as accepting payment from someone other than the debtor. If I owe you $500 and my brother pays it for me, you don't get to say you have forgiven the debt. You haven't. You've collected on it. If on the other hand you say, "It's okay, you don't need to pay it back, you or anybody else" then you have forgiven the debt. PSA twists the meaning of "forgive" out of all recognition.

[ 12. July 2010, 06:37: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Eutychus

quote:
It would appear I've singled out a building block in this doctrine (God's wrath) which is (at least to my mind) all over Scripture, even if God's love is even more overwhelmingly present. What say you to that? Do you reject it, and if so why? Or if you accept it, how do you deal with it?

I don't for a moment deny that God is depicted as angry/capable of anger for a variety of reasons in Scripture. There are a huge variety of contexts for this, and I don't think you can talk of one thing called "wrath". I could respond to your question in terms of a very lengthy exegetical Kerygmania-type post, but I'm sure that would hinder this thread more than it would help. Perhaps a stripped down example might be more enlightening.

The Book of Amos has a clearly developed concept of the Day of the Lord; it seems that this is a traditional religious expectation of some form of vindication of his purposes in which, so Israel thinks, God will make things turn out pretty well for them. Amos stands this expectation on its head. "Why do you look for the Day of the Lord? It is darkness, and not light..." He connects this with the failure of Israel as a community to live ethically before God, and emphasizes especially the huge social imbalance between rich and poor.

Similar themes, obviously related, appear in the prophetic literature as a whole, and feed complexly into the New Testament.

I'd tend to think of the influences among such themes in terms of an "intertextuality" - the way in which any text is influenced by others existing in its culural field.

Likewise, when you come to think of Divine anger in the New Testament, "wrath" in Paul - who probably provides the locus classicus of "wrath of God" language - is no doubt influenced by the whole smorgasbord of OT applications of anger to God (inevitably as a rabbinically trained Jew). But I'm with C H Dodd, that a straight reading of Paul suggests that "wrath" in Paul functions almost as an impersonal counterforce to what sin produces in human beings. It's "the way things are". That's one of the reasons for the huge gulf I can't but see between Paul and PSA.

I don't think you can get from a plain reading of Paul to a vengeful PSA God. You have to start with PSA, and read that back into Paul - which means imposing on him an enormous amount of OT-inspired conceptualization of God's wrath (like Uzziah, like Saul's madness, like the murderous attack on Moses over circumcision) which Paul simply doesn't use in that way.

One of the huge theological liabilities of a doctrine of inerrancy is that you are obliged to give equal weight to everything the Bible says - even when there are clearly texts in the Bible itself that don't do that. (It's analogous to giving to Paul's words, e.g. about women in church, the status of God's authoritative utterance, even when Paul himself says it's just his opinion!)

So if you ask me about my understanding of the wrath of God, I'd say that I think Paul means by it what I said above, and I'd say that that makes a lot of sense to me.

If you ask me about the "wrath of God" - which I clearly don't think is "the same thing" as it is in Paul - in, for example, the Uzziah story, then I feel no qualms about saying that I believe that that's a story which illustrates certain Israelite understandings of holiness, but that it might also be properly understood as a report of something which happened, and which was incorporated into the traditions of Israel. Maybe the guy touched the ark, and died of shock! That still tells us something about the concept of holiness, and gives us something that, in terms of the Christian faith, we need to review through NT spectacles.

But I have no compunction in saying that I don't believe that Uzziah touched the ark, died, and God infallibly interpreted this for the human witnesses, or the human author of Scripture, as a man being struck down by a wrathful God for the tiniest of impieties.

I've never preached on that, and I might give some thought as to how I would. But then, I've never preached on the Rape of Dinah or the Sin of Onan either!

I suspect that the tack I would most likely take would be to set the OT over against the New. I might also follow up on the suggestion made by a previous poster on one of these threads, which I've been working with for a while myself, that our experience of God as implacably vengeful or suffering and reconciling is profoundly conditioned by our own psychology, as suggested in the work of Melanie Klein.

It seems to me that many Old Testament expressions of God's anger are out-of-control paranoid schizoid projections, whereas Paul's understanding is impressively rooted in Klein's "depressive position." Big subject, and Wikipedia is our friend!

But in terms of the extra-psychic world, confronting the political reality of sin as starving children, exploited poor, obscene wealth, meaningless lives and a globally unsustainable lifestyle, a Christianity without a sense of God's anger and outrage is, it seems to me, two-dimensional at best.

The question is: what sort of anger? An unbridled, Kleinian projection of monsters within onto a monstrous, all-consuming God outside? Or an anger at the way things are crucially tinged with guilt at our complicity, and a determination to make amends, and to heal?

I'd say the question from this thread is "Given all the range of Scriptural expressions of anger and wrath, which ones are we, maybe unconsciously, projecting onto God - and why?"

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Regarding Klein, Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras made a very similar point on the other PSA thread. [Overused]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Maybe that "PSA and forgiveness" thread is called for after all.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You mean like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son?

To my mind the prodigal son repents at the point he gets up and starts heading back home. The forgiveness of the father doesn't mean anything until he has recognised the error of his ways and started heading home.

quote:
In PSA God does not forgive. God is bought off. To forgive a debt is not the same thing as accepting payment from someone other than the debtor. If I owe you $500 and my brother pays it for me, you don't get to say you have forgiven the debt. You haven't. You've collected on it. If on the other hand you say, "It's okay, you don't need to pay it back, you or anybody else" then you have forgiven the debt. PSA twists the meaning of "forgive" out of all recognition.

But parables notwithstanding, isn't the issue at stake evil, not a debt? God is not wrathful because he's out of pocket, he's wrathful at evil. I don't think PSA is about God being bought off due to his essentially unforgiving nature, but about ensuring that the evil which necessitates forgiveness is dealt with and cannot come back and bite; "it is finished".

[x-post with Psyduck, I'll have to look more closely later!]

[ 12. July 2010, 07:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:

I think the reason a lot of Christians have an issue with the notion of a wrathful God is because they struggle to reconcile it with the biblical testimony about God's love. The more that one asserts God is all-loving the harder it gets to make sense of the idea that God is wrathful. People are happy to believe in wrathful gods, people are happy to believe in an all-loving God. What they are not happy to do is believe in a self-contradiction, a God who is allegedly both loving and wrathful.

I think that says as much about contemporary society than it does about atonement models. Exactly what people mean by love and wrath has changed considerably over the years. You are smuggling in a whole lot of assumptions when you baldly portray it as an apparently self-evident contradiction.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I don't think you are right in claiming that this is the problem people have with PSA. The problem people have with PSA is a related self-contradiction. Does God want to forgive us or not? Either God is loving and wants to forgives people when they repent. Or God is wrathful and vengeful and wants to punish wrongdoers even after they repent. PSA asserts the self-contradiction that God both does and doesn't want to forgive. According to PSA this self-contradictory desire is founded in God's self-contradictory nature as loving and wrathful.

Likewise I'm not convinced the contradiction is as clear as you make out here either. I would argue that PSA helps us to have categories that explain why God wants to forgive all but only forgives those who repent.

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
I've encountered before the idea that the church fathers weren't really sure what they believed, and instead just used a confused jumble of imagery taken from the bible. My response now as then: Can you seriously think that Christians for hundreds of years at a time, in particular those taught by the original apostles, had almost no idea about the core doctrines of their faith???

But I didn't say that. What I said is that it is anachronistic to take a fully developed model and then read it back into the church fathers. Of course they had a clear grasp of the core doctrines of their faith.

Indeed that is exactly what psyduck keeps complaining that PSA adherents do to church history and to scripture. Therefore it is ironic that Edward seemed to be actively asking us to do it here.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

MT - I was about to reply to you but I see that Eutychus has already said pretty much what I was about to say.

So... what he said.

Posted by jrrt01 (# 11264) on :

Starlight, you said:

quote:
The name given to this behaviour of seeking to reclaim lost honour is called "wrath". Note that it refers to public behaviour, not a state of mind or character or emotion.

I'd love to follow this up - could you give us a source for this information? Many thanks.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Maybe that "PSA and forgiveness" thread is called for after all.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You mean like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son?
To my mind the prodigal son repents at the point he gets up and starts heading back home. The forgiveness of the father doesn't mean anything until he has recognised the error of his ways and started heading home.

The vital issue here is that the father doesn't know what he said to himself whilst mucking out pig sties. For all the father knows, he's coming to ask for a handout. But he runs out to greet him with joy, before he delivers his repentence speech. There's nothing in the story to indicate the father knew he had repented when he was still in Porkistan. Further, the father's response to the speech is not to accept his repentence. He doesn't say, "now that you have repented I can stop being wrathful towards you" or "I accept your apology, but I wouldn't have welcomed you home had you not repented." He doesn't speak to the prodigal at that point at all. He tells the servants to throw a party. Because the prodigal has repented? No, because he was afraid he was dead, but here he is alive!

He gives NO INDICATION WHATEVER that his joy has anything at all to do with the PS's repentance in this pivotal story about forgiveness and reconciliation -- let alone with wrath, or with killing anybody. None of that is here.

You'd have to twist this story ten ways from Sunday to get PSA out of it (or into it). But it's clearly and directly about God's forgiveness, and desire for us to turn to Him. Whom does the father kill before he accepts the prodigal home again? Jesus tells a lot of stories about forgiveness, seeking after the lost, etc., but none of them require killing anybody. He portrays the Father as being overjoyed with finding us, with our loving Him. Which is humbling and profound at the same time.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

He gives NO INDICATION WHATEVER that his joy has anything at all to do with the PS's repentance in this pivotal story about forgiveness and reconciliation -- let alone with wrath, or with killing anybody. None of that is here.

Luke would seem to disagree with you otherwise why would he put this parable alongside the other two which both have the punch-line, "... rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents..."? I cannot see how you can read Luke 15 without seeing Luke's clear intent to rebuke the Pharisees over their refusal to show joy over sinners who repent. The assumption is that repentance is pivotal. The context demands it.

Indeed the one difference between the Parable of the Prodigal Son and the other two is that the Father does not go out looking for his son but waits for him to return (repent).

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.

quote:
The assumption is that repentance is pivotal. The context demands it.

You're doing it AGAIN!!!! It's like a pavlovian response. You see the word repent - or sacrifice, or forgiveness or punishment - and you jump to PSA.

[brick wall]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Johnny S.
quote:
The assumption is that repentance is pivotal. The context demands it.

You're doing it AGAIN!!!! It's like a pavlovian response. You see the word repent - or sacrifice, or forgiveness or punishment - and you jump to PSA.

Actually, I think it was mousethief who made the link by referring to the prodigal son, which I then jumped on. Johnny S is not directly talking about PSA at all here.

My reading of the prodigal son is that however disposed God or anyone may be to forgive, that forgiveness isn't meaningful until there's repentance. Mousethief argues that the father in the parable is going to accept the son regardless of the reasons for him coming back, but I agree with Johnny S that the context incontrovertibly shows that he is coming back repentant and therefore, that speculation about other scenarios is irrelevant.

As I said, I'm not sure what if any relationship exists between my views on forgiveness and PSA; my incursion into this thread has inadvertently suggested the answer might be "some" but it's probably a separate topic.

Back in a moment to try to address your answer to me.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Sorry, JS, if I jumped to conclusions there. This seems to be a jumpy topic for all of us.

Well, it's important to all of us, so... Understandable maybe. But sorry...

[ 12. July 2010, 10:03: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I'd say the question from this thread is "Given all the range of Scriptural expressions of anger and wrath, which ones are we, maybe unconsciously, projecting onto God - and why?"

Certainly a question which has come into my mind is the extent to which various posters' personal experience has led them to form specific views of what is meant by, for instance, 'wrath' and perhaps develop or reject theologies accordingly. (In fact I wonder if the OP couldn't be turned on its head to read "why does Psyduck react so virulently to any perceived mention of PSA as if it was an assault on his christian identity..." [Razz]

)

You say a lot about how prevailing culture may have influenced everyone from whoever wrote that bit in 2 Samuel to Paul, but surely the same applies to all of us, too?

quote:
a straight reading of Paul suggests that "wrath" in Paul functions almost as an impersonal counterforce to what sin produces in human beings. It's "the way things are" (...) I don't think you can get from a plain reading of Paul to a vengeful PSA God. You have to start with PSA

Maybe I'm just not PSA-hot enough, but you see this is where I feel you are setting up a straw man (or doing some projection of your own).

When I see you use words like "vengeful" (twice in that post), the impression I have is of God blowing his top, steam coming out of his ears, probably hurling a few lightning bolts and generally losing his temper, with angels cowering in some remote corner of the universe until he has calmed down.

Over and against that, you speak of wrath as something of an "impersonal counterforce" which somehow seems more clinical. While I might balk at "impersonal", I think wrath can me measured and reflected; it's not the same thing as a loss of self-control.

I don't see Uzza as having died because God was particularly tetchy about fingerprints on the Ark, I see it as you put it, as "the way things are": Ark holy, man not, death ensues. However disposed to forgiveness God might be, the issue of the evil which has stopped man from being holy needs dealing with if it is not to have the last word. I think Paul offers us some insights as to how the cross achieves that.

If all the arguments advanced by Paul or any other writer of Scripture are to be explained away as deficient on the grounds of their inability to escape their own neuroses, what's the point of trying to make any sense of Scripture at all?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Sorry, JS, if I jumped to conclusions there. This seems to be a jumpy topic for all of us.

Well, it's important to all of us, so... Understandable maybe. But sorry...

No worries.

Since you repented I unconditionally forgive you.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jrrt01:
Starlight, you said:

quote:
The name given to this behaviour of seeking to reclaim lost honour is called "wrath". Note that it refers to public behaviour, not a state of mind or character or emotion.
I'd love to follow this up - could you give us a source for this information? Many thanks.

You can find information on this sort of thing in the many scholarly books written in the last 30 years on the background culture of the New Testament era. The Context Group is a group of scholars who are actively studying this sort of thing, and you can find further reading on their websites if you wish it. Generally recommended introduction works include:
Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity by DeSilva
The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era by Jeffers

Now to be honest, I am not sure which of the many such books on my bookshelf I read about 'wrath' in particular from. However, with the aid of internet search-inside-book features, I've tried to search through them to find ones that deal most clearly with this subject. The clearest explanation seems to be:

quote:
Social Science Commentary on the Book of Revelation by Malina pg 103:
"Wrath" is part of the vocabulary of honor and shame interactions. It refers to the necessary satisfaction for offenses against a person's honor. Wrath is about revenge or vengeance that a person must take on one who dishonors in order to prove that one is honorable and thus maintain honor. The term does not connote anger or rage. Its focus is not the offender and the offense but the onlookers who acknowledge a person's honor. Throughout Revelation, God's (and the Lamb's) "wrath" is always met with accolades and acknowledgments of honor and praise by celestial beings.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.

quote:
Since you repented I unconditionally forgive you.

And since you are so gracious (and I do mean that sincerely) I will forbear to draw any theological conclus... No, I said I wouldn't, so I won't mention it! [Biased]

Actually, though, here's another thought, on what will, I hope, be a constructive tack. Doesn't Calvin say that God's forgiveness precedes our repentance, so that when we repent, we find that God has already forgiven us?

I imagine that he bases this on a PSA construal - that is, that when we repent we find that God forgave us 2,000 years ago - or actually, for Calvin, before creation.

I know that that sort of assurance is of huge importance to PSAers, and they see PSA as undergirding and guaranteeing it.

I have no hesitation in agreeing with Calvin on this - but I don't draw this assurance from PSA but from the character of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.

Serious question - do you find this an inadequate basis? If so - why?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Hey, can I have an answer to this question first?

quote:
If all the arguments advanced by Paul or any other writer of Scripture are to be explained away as deficient on the grounds of their inability to escape their own neuroses, what's the point of trying to make any sense of Scripture at all?

That wasn't a sarky comment on my part. I'm genuinely intrigued.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I honesty don't understand most of your points so I'll reply to this one because (AFAIK) it sums up your position:

There really isn't anything more to say to this other than point you to Jesus. We get the idea of God being King from him, it was his idea as he went around talking about the kingdom of God.

We also get the idea that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. *shrug* Jesus was talking to an audience living within a kingdom within an empire.

quote:
The 'King' is kind and forgives, but there is absolutely no doubt that he is in charge and that disobey him is treason.

And once again PSA demonstrates that it's stuck in a feudal morality where you should obey God because God is God. And you should obey the King because the King is the King. Didn't we sort this one out in the French Revolution?

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Also, if human history teaches us anything, IMO it teaches us that we can and are building a better future with every hundred years that passes with extremely rare blips caused by groups that were a few hundred years behind conquering those that have been civilising longer. So no, we will never be able to reach an inhuman level of perfection. But we are improving on our own.
Again what can I say to this?

I think it is a lie and I think that because almost every day I encounter empirical evidence to the contrary.

And I believe you consider this a lie because you are almost entirely ignorant of the darker side of history. Fifty years ago people were forced to commit suicide for being gay. A hundred years ago there was the Belgian Congo and more than a few artificial famines. Two hundred years ago the trans-atlantic slave trade was still going. I could easily go on. There is evil now, sure. And pretty black stuff (I have some stories I won't share about Britain and asylum seekers). But that doesn't mean that we aren't a hell of a lot better than we were as a species.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Indeed since I know this an issue that you feel strongly about - I notice that Justinian and others never speak about repentance in their descriptions of God ... i.e. they put forward a view of God who should forgive regardless of whether we admit our sin or ask for forgiveness. In my ministry I encounter hell relatively frequently - it is a place where there is no justice, the way some shipmates describe heaven.

And you really haven't understood the need for forgiveness and who it benefits, have you? The principle beneficiary of forgiveness isn't the forgiven - it is the forgiver. If they will not forgive then the act still has power over them and wrankles, warping their spirit into a mean one. Your God, who counts every grain of forgiveness out like a miser, is fundamentally mean-souled and petty.

As for hell being a place with no justice, wrong. What hell fundamentally lacks is mercy and compassion. You do not need justice if no one does anything to hurt others and no one gets hurt. Justice is a protection against the imperfections of the world. Heaven has no need of it because nothing happens there to trigger it. Or do you believe heaven also needs a standing police force?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I defend PSA because I perceive that the attack on it comes from a shift in society that is increasingly uncomfortable with God's wrath - something that I find all over scripture and part of mainstream historic Christianity. Again I want to repeat - I'm not saying that this motivates all shipmates who reject PSA but I do think there is a trend.

There's a reason Wrath is on the list of Deadly Sins. So you yourself openly worship a being, one of whose key attributes is that of a Sin. Fine. Just don't try to tell me that that makes him good.

Sure, I can see much worthy of respect in someone who takes on a sin so we don't have to. In much the same way I consider spies protecting their country worthy of respect. But this doesn't mean that they can ever be some platonic ideal of good. A monster on our side is still a monster. And a personification of a sin on our side is still a personification of a sin.

If I believed in your God I would pity rather than worship him.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Sorry, Eutychus. Didn't see your post. I'll get back to you when I can, K? [Smile]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

quote:
Psyduck: Doesn't Calvin say that God's forgiveness precedes our repentance, so that when we repent, we find that God has already forgiven us?

As does St. Paul: 2 Cor. 5:19 "Our message is that God was making the whole human race his friends through Christ. God did not keep an account of their sins, and he has given us the message which tells how he makes them his friends."

Similarly, Jesus implies that the Prodigal has been forgiven by the father even before he returns home and before he expresses his repentance.

The problem is 'reconciliation' rather than forgiveness because it requires action by both parties.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Eutychus:

quote:
If all the arguments advanced by Paul or any other writer of Scripture are to be explained away as deficient on the grounds of their inability to escape their own neuroses, what's the point of trying to make any sense of Scripture at all?

Well, I'd need to say that on a Kleinian template, Paul is psychically very healthy! It's other people in Scripture we need to be worried about. The Paranoid-Schizoid position is Klein's construal of the mind-state of the very young infant. It has no clear sense of the difference between itself and the universe, so that only it is really real. It encounters e.g. (and crucially) the mother as a collection of parts, the tending hand that sometimes obeys when it cries, sometimes doesn't, and above all the breast, which sometimes is there on demand, but horrifyingly, sometimes isn't. Now to the child, that latter circumstance is potential death, because despite its grandiose sense of itself as alone real and important, it also knows that it is totally dependant on the breast to feed it.

But it can't cope with the sometimes-present and sometimes-absent breast either. It has to split it into two mental objects, the good breast (which feeds it) and the bad breast, which doesn't.

This is because the earliest thing the child experiences after birth, that is, after life in the womb, where everything is provided by the mother-universe, is the trauma of birth into a world of deadly threat, in which it both still is, and yet clearly isn't, the centre of the universe. The child experiences rage and fear, which it can't cope with, and so it "projects" these out into the world. This is good, because the bad stuff is now outside the child, but bad, because the child is now in a universe populated with monsters which hate and seek to destroy him.

This, BTW, is why you can't persuade a child (as a friend of ours tried) that there are no monsters under its bed by sawing legs off said bed!

The child's response to the bad breast, likewise, is rage and fear. Klein's work with very young children is surprisingly convincing in this regard, and once you have read it, you won't look at a temper tantrum in quite the same way again! The kid really does want not just to kill you, but to do it in an incredibly brutal and sadistic way. (Is this ringing exegetical bells? Psalm 137, beyond the Boney M bit, maybe?)

But the point comes at which the child (hopefully) does begin to see the assemblage of hands, breast, face etc. as another complete human being. Sudden;y a penny drops. This is a human being like me!

And at that point, guilt sets in.

Now Kleinian guilt is a very particular concept. It's actually a Very Good Thing. The child realizes that it wanted to kill the mother, and worries that this uncontrollable rage might actually have hurt or damaged her. Kleinian guilt isn't paralyzing - it leads to the urge to make reparation, (one of Klein's books is actually called "Love, guilt and Reparation") and this is perfectly possible. Klein's rather unfortunate name for this is the Depressive Position.

Klein explicitly calls these "positions" rather than "stages" because they always remain as potentialities for the developed human being. It is always possible even for an adult to fall back into PS. Of course some people's development into D is compromised.

The point regarding your question is that, yes, this is human psychology, not theology, even if you buy into the conceptuality. However, it does illuminate several areas and pose questions in others.

Firstly, Paul is concerned with the way in which God, as it were, invites us into the Depressive Position by taking him in Christ, and each other, seriously. See 1 Cor 12 and Romans 12 for the Body of Christ, and the whole 1 Cor debate about strong Christians taking weak ones seriously. To say nothing of 1 Cor 13!

Secondly, a Kleinian typology lets us sort out very roughly types of "wrath" in the Bible generally. Wrath, it seems to me, is a hugely anthropomorphic concept to apply to God - which is not in itself a reason not to do it. At the very least, though, Klein's work invites us to examine the concepts of wrath we work with, and to ask just how we are conceptualizing God in terms of wrath.

There used to be a very good paper online co-authored by Donald Carveth and another Kleinian scholar whose name eludes me, called "Christianity: a Kleinian perspective." Alas now you seem to have to pay to view it.

I'm not confusing psychology and theology, but I do think it's legitimate to ask whether there isn't light to be had from this source. The more so, even if you have a particular view of Scriptural inspiration, if you are prepared to concede, even for argument's sake, that PSA is not the same as "the Biblical understanding".

If it really is only a model, as so many say here, it's worth dipping it in a beaker of Klein to see if it dissolves. [Biased]

[ 12. July 2010, 13:30: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
One thing is for certain - Calvin was about 400 years before Gustav Aulen. Does that mean we discount CV?

...

Instead let's continue the discussion drawing from scripture and tradition but without playing the intractable games.

But the game we are playing is trying to understand why PSA is so essential in some Christian's identities.

There have been a number of suggestions that rejection of PSA is ultimately about a rejection of God's Wrath. This is part of a general assumption amongst Reformed Evangelicals and Evangelicals in general that what they believe represents historic orthodoxy rather than being an innovation.

I have no issue with Wrath, it is just a different perspective on God's love, it is indeed sins experience of God's love.

But I am far more interested in why Calvin developed Anselm's and Augustine's thought in the way he did, why the doctrine of PSA has become so integrated within Reformed theology and, through what I shall now call 'The Reformed Plot', has found such a central place in wider Evangelicalism, to the point that classical Arminians such as Wesley and Finney (and though the former could be considered High Church the latter is certainly not) would be regarded with suspicion as 'unsound'.

Indeed many Evangelicals I know who are broadly Arminian in thinking and practice cling to PSA and consider any opposition to a clear sign of liberalism.

I suggest that it comes back to God's Wrath. PSA ultimately negates human personal responsibility for sin, for Christ carries it all. However we behave we will not have to experience the love of God as Wrath purifying the sin in us: for Catholic's Purgatory, for Orthodox Theosis, for some Arminians Personal Judgement, and for all three the journey towards perfection and holiness in this life.

Instead the system relies on imputation of Christ's sinlessness. Calvin writes:

quote:
I answer, that the grace which they call accepting, is nothing else than the free goodness with which the Father embraces us in Christ when he clothes us with the innocence of Christ, and accepts it as ours, so that in consideration of it he regards us as holy, pure and innocent. For the righteousness of Christ (as it alone is perfect, so it alone can stand the scrutiny of God) must be sisted for us, and as a surety represent us judicially.…Our imperfection and purity, covered with this purity, are not imputed, but are as it were buried, so as not to come under judgment until the hour arrive when the old man being destroyed, and plainly extinguished in us, the divine goodness shall receive us into beatific peace with the new Adam, there to await the day of the Lord, on which, being clothed with incorruptible bodies, we shall be translated to the glory of the heavenly kingdom." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, p. 82)

Indeed I have heard Calvinist preachers say that the only judgement Christians will face is 'Well done thou good and faithful servant'.

I can see the comfort in this. That upon death I will be some how instantly transformed into the person God always wanted me to be, as if my Sin and God's Holy Wrath had never existed.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I'm not confusing psychology and theology, but I do think it's legitimate to ask whether there isn't light to be had from this source. The more so, even if you have a particular view of Scriptural inspiration, if you are prepared to concede, even for argument's sake, that PSA is not the same as "the Biblical understanding".

Personally I have no problem in doing that. A lunchtime debate in the Euty household concluded that we had some problems with how the "penal" aspect was (at least) understood...

quote:
If it really is only a model, as so many say here, it's worth dipping it in a beaker of Klein to see if it dissolves.

Perhaps a Klein bottle would be more appropriate? This recipient (if it can be called such) seems particularly suitable inasmuch as you would apparently like to be dipping a model into another model...

Even if for my part I persist in thinking in my own naive way that God struck Uzza in an expression of his wrath, I certainly agree that psychological models can be useful tools to inform the way we look at Scripture and what is going on in the minds of the writers (they've certainly illuminated my latest trip through 1 and 2 Samuel!) - provided always that we remind ourselves that we too are subject to all the same sorts of things going on in our minds; we are not outside the scope of the models we are using.

I think too that there's room to believe that the writers of Scripture were subject to all these human influences and nevertheless somehow able to communicate God's revelation to us - like I say, if one doesn't believe that I see little point in bothering too much about the whole thing.

I suppose my concern is that at the end of all this (a lot of which, if I'm honest, is going well over my head) the lambs should not be left sinking amidst a maze of interlocking models with nothing of substance left in Scripture to hold onto. Does calling PSA into question make some people any more nervous than calling into question the doctrine of inspiration (however loosely defined)? I'm not sure.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes, that's what I meant (I'm relieved the first person I named to have responded hasn't complained I've misrepresented them!)

So would I be right in saying you think PSA is basically a waste of time because there is no divine wrath to satisfy?

And what's your take on incidents like the one in 2 Sam 6?

That God should strike someone dead simply because he steadied the ark of the covenant after an ox stumbled strikes me as a superstitious, primitive understanding of wat God is like - as does PSA.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That God should strike someone dead simply because he steadied the ark of the covenant after an ox stumbled strikes me as a superstitious, primitive understanding of wat God is like

Thanks for getting back to me with your appraisal.

Some PSA adherents get flak for being too abruptly dismissive of any alternatives; it seems to me that this view is equally dismissive in its own way.

What I find hard to grasp, if you take such a view, is how one decides on the point at which Scripture emerges (if ever) from superstition and primitivism and becomes worthy of consideration. But I think that's probably off-topic, if not a Dead Horse.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Eutychus:

quote:
What I find hard to grasp, if you take such a view, is how one decides on the point at which Scripture emerges (if ever) from superstition and primitivism and becomes worthy of consideration.

Does it have to? Why should we expect that of Scripture, when Richard Dawkins hasn't! [Biased]

Not that I'm arguing that Dawkins is worthy of consideration... [Big Grin]

[ 12. July 2010, 17:18: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Does it have to? Why should we expect that of Scripture, when Richard Dawkins hasn't!

Well, it all depends where you're starting from, doesn't it? (At some point I'll have to sit down and work out what my axioms are, I suppose...). If someone wants to say Scripture is not worthy of consideration, fair enough, but I think that if I held that view, I personally wouldn't have the motivation to invest a lot of time in discussing the more elaborate theories people have built on that basis.

If I can quote Boogie again for a minute, she says

quote:
There is nothing enlightened about war and violence imo - so atributing it to God or God's will seems wrong to me (however Biblical)

That suggests to me that for her, if the Bible account doesn't fit her idea of what God is like, then she's happy to disregard it.

If people hold that view, I can't see what the attraction of debating the Bible is at all, let alone PSA. It reminds me of the Silmarillion: a fascinating intellectual exercise in explaining the background to The Lord of the Rings, but of little practical use and pretty tough to read with it.

If some people are indeed approaching this as an intellectual exercise in which nothing more than that is at stake, while others are concerned that their eternal destiny is at stake, re: your OP, I again submit it's not surprising if the latter get more worked up about it than the former - but again, I don't think that's true exclusively of PSA aficionados.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I don't see Uzza as having died because God was particularly tetchy about fingerprints on the Ark, I see it as you put it, as "the way things are": Ark holy, man not, death ensues. However disposed to forgiveness God might be, the issue of the evil which has stopped man from being holy needs dealing with if it is not to have the last word. I think Paul offers us some insights as to how the cross achieves that.

This kind of obviates PSA entirely. It isn't God's wrath, just "the way things are" for non-holy men. But this makes me think of something else: PSA doesn't deal with evil at all. It's a mechanism for dealing with God's wrath because of evil. It placates the wrath. It doesn't do anything about the evil.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Mousethief argues that the father in the parable is going to accept the son regardless of the reasons for him coming back, but I agree with Johnny S that the context incontrovertibly shows that he is coming back repentant and therefore, that speculation about other scenarios is irrelevant.

I wasn't talking about other scenarios, except as illustrations. I was talking about what the father does with what the father knows. The father isn't responding to repentance. The father is responding to seeing his son. That the son knows he has repented doesn't signify; from the father's point of view, there may or may not be repentance, but there is acceptance and the outpouring of love (from himself). Inserting this into a series of parables about repentance may be to underscore the point: it's the coming back that matters. Repentance is one way of coming back. So is coming back.

The father's response to the son's actual repentance seems to be along the lines of "whatever; that's nice." He ignores it entirely and calls for a feast.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If I can quote Boogie again for a minute, she says
quote:
There is nothing enlightened about war and violence imo - so atributing it to God or God's will seems wrong to me (however Biblical)
That suggests to me that for her, if the Bible account doesn't fit her idea of what God is like, then she's happy to disregard it.

If people hold that view, I can't see what the attraction of debating the Bible is at all, let alone PSA. [snip part about silmarillion]

If some people are indeed approaching this as an intellectual exercise in which nothing more than that is at stake, while others are concerned that their eternal destiny is at stake, re: your OP, I again submit it's not surprising if the latter get more worked up about it than the former - but again, I don't think that's true exclusively of PSA aficionados.

I think you are equivocating on "that view" (2nd paragraph in immediately preceding quote). Boogie's view does seem to be that the biblical witness isn't a reliable indicator of God's nature (witness her "(however Biblical)").

Others, however, do take the biblical witness seriously and want to understand it and apply it to their lives. The problem is that people (not saying you) equate PSA with "the biblical witness". To them, if you reject PSA, you are rejecting the Bible. If you don't find PSA under every scriptural rock, you are rejecting the Bible. Making it hard to discuss at all, really.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Yep - I believe people/statements/ideas in the Bible can be wrong, but why would I read it with devotion every day if I don't take it seriously?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Good point, Boogie. Sorry for implying you don't take the Bible seriously.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
This kind of obviates PSA entirely. It isn't God's wrath, just "the way things are" for non-holy men. But this makes me think of something else: PSA doesn't deal with evil at all. It's a mechanism for dealing with God's wrath because of evil. It placates the wrath. It doesn't do anything about the evil.

Well, perhaps I'm even less PSA than I thought I was. I definitely believe the cross deals (somehow) with evil. Whather the cross also involves the PSA notion of satisfying God's wrath turns I suppose on what is meant by 'propitiation'. For which I have probably arrived several threads, if not several centuries, late.

quote:
Repentance is one way of coming back. So is coming back.

I don't understand what you mean by that. I come at the parable from the omniscient spectactor's point of view, in which we know what went through the son's mind. Plus it's a parable, so some degree of caution is required. I've little doubt its intent is to encourage us to return to a forgiving God, but I don't think it's sufficient in terms of examining all the theological ins and outs of forgiveness (in fact I'm not sure a parable in which the attitude of the king/master/creditor etc to someone who does not recognise their sin/debt/etc is to be found).

quote:
Others, however, do take the biblical witness seriously and want to understand it and apply it to their lives.

Granted - that's the people I'm hoping to engage with for my edification. I've had my mind changed by debates on the Ship too, you know!

quote:
To them, if you reject PSA, you are rejecting the Bible. If you don't find PSA under every scriptural rock, you are rejecting the Bible. Making it hard to discuss at all, really.

Yeah, I get that, too; but can feel some sympathy for them in the light of how my reading of Uzza (say) has been blasted out of the water by some.

[ 12. July 2010, 20:04: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yep - I believe people/statements/ideas in the Bible can be wrong, but why would I read it with devotion every day if I don't take it seriously?

Boogie, I'm sure that you do in your own way (and if daily reading is any measure, you are far more devoted than I am at this point!), but can you spell out to me what you understand by "taking it seriously" if you discount bits you find unpalatable? I just find that so hard to get my head round.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Eutychus: I think you took me the wrong way round, there! You saidL

quote:
What I find hard to grasp, if you take such a view, is how one decides on the point at which Scripture emerges (if ever) from superstition and primitivism and becomes worthy of consideration.

I saidL

quote:
Does it have to? Why should we expect that of Scripture, when Richard Dawkins hasn't!

I meant "Does Scripture have to emerge from superstition and primitivism to become worthy of consideration?" not "Does Scripture have to be worthy of consideration?" - which is what I think you thought I meant, from your response:

quote:
Well, it all depends where you're starting from, doesn't it? (At some point I'll have to sit down and work out what my axioms are, I suppose...). If someone wants to say Scripture is not worthy of consideration, fair enough, but I think that if I held that view, I personally wouldn't have the motivation to invest a lot of time in discussing the more elaborate theories people have built on that basis.

Actually, people do find Scripture fascinating on an antiquarian level, but my point was that Scripture is what it is. The presence in it of "primitive" and superstitious" elements doesn't in any way diminish its value or authority for faith. For instance, I don't feel obliged to accept as historical Elisha's making an iron axe-head float by tossing into the pool a stick which sinks; that seems to me to be quite clearly a story of sympathetic magic which got bundled in with the "Elisha cycle" of stories starting in 2 Kings 2. But I'd have no problem preaching on it if it came up in the lectionary. (Weirdly, though - it never does! How spooky is that?!? [Biased]

)

I don't feel that I have to endorse Elijah's ethical framework in massacring the priests of Baal after the Mount Carmel episode to be able to preach on that, either. And I wouldn't countenance expunging it from the record.

My understanding of Scriptural authority is that it's human - very human - material which bears the impress of what God has done. Abp William Temple says that "revelation is the coincidence of events, and minds divinely inspired to read them aright." For me, that means minds that glimpse what God means by something, and then seek to express it in the terms they have. Emil Brunner somewhere compares revelation to a bomb going off, and the Scriptural witness to it to the crater the explosion makes in the ground. The impression is conditioned (you might say "distorted" but I don't mean anything pejorative) by the uneven consistency of the earth, but given the material, it's a faithful impression of what happened. I'm not really happy with that, because it seems to me that it doesn't take adequately into account the role of extended periods of oral transmission for both Old and New Testament materials - but there is something there.

Likewise, the materials of the oral Jesus traditions, as they became fixed in the written Gospels, were passed through theological filters not just by "authors" but by their reception and transmission in the churches which shaped these written Gospels.

Case in point: Matthew, very much a Jewish-Christian Gospel, with a clear understanding that Jesus comes to deliver a Messianic Torah - in a five-"book" sermon delivered from a Moses-type "mountain" - and that the Messianic Torah is more than comparable with Moses'. Yet Matthew stresses that Jesus comes to complete the Torah, not to set even a jot or a tittle aside. And even so, at least three of the "antitheses" (you have heard it said... but I say to you...) which Jesus immediately utters, set aside Mosaic law, and not just in favour of a more rigorous reading. The tradition is clear - in Jesus, one greater than Moses is here - but Matthew can't bring himself to concede the supersession of the Law, despite the fact that his Jesus immediately does just that!

None of that diminshes Matthew's authority as what Matthew is, which is a canonical Gospel. Nor does the fact that apparently Matthew's Jesus rides into Jerusalem on two animals simultaneously!

The fact that the Scriptures are what they are doesn't diminish their authority in the least for me. But that's because for me, Jesus Christ is God's revelation, and Scripture is witness to that revelation. I don't understand, and never have, Scripture itself to be God's revelation. I am a Christian because I trust Jesus. (And I'm sure you are too!) But for me, that means that I don't need to understand the Scriptures as "trustworthy" in any special sense.

Hope that helps.

[ 12. July 2010, 21:49: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

I’ve been thinking of posting on this thread since page 2, but I’ve been reluctant to get mixed up with the elephants splashing around vigorously in the water. [Big Grin]

(I much appreciated Lucia’s post on page 6, and Psyduck’s response to it, including a reminder of the quotation from Gregory the Great.)

I reckon that PSA is closely linked to the concept of God’s wrath (and I accept that what exactly is meant by God being ‘wrathful’ needs careful scrutiny). On this subject I’d like to respond to what Kwesi posted:

quote:

Jamat, the problem that has Christ dying for sin in the context of PSA is that it poses a wrathful God the Father unable to have positive dealings with sinful human beings without being satisfied with a perfect human sacrifice; and this sacrifice is provided by an incarnate loving God the Son, who has no problem sharing his life with publicans and sinners. PSA presents us, therefore, with two widely different personalities. Trinitarian doctrine, however, insists that the Father, Son and Spirit are essentially the same. If they are the same then there is no reason to believe the father is any less loving towards sinners than the son.

by pointing out that according to John’s gospel*, Jesus is quoted as saying:“22The Father judges no one, but has given all judgement to the Son... 27And he has given him authority to execute judgement because he is the Son of Man. 28Do not marvel at this for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgement.” (John 5:22-29, ESV)

So it is Jesus himself who will, in the fullness of time, execute God’s judgement on those who have failed to avail themselves of the Atonement (of whatever sort it may be – I’m not going there at the moment!). And there are many other passages in the gospels where Jesus teaches on this subject. Therefore I see no conflict between the character of the two persons of the Trinity. I agree with Kwesi that “there is no reason to believe that the Father is any less loving towards sinners than the Son”, but I also think that there is no reason to believe that the Son is any less wrathful towards sinners than the Father. IMO both aspects of the paradox (as it appears in the limited understanding of the human intellect) between God’s love and wrath/judgement need to be held equally for a true understanding of God’s dealings with mankind. [Edit: I have just seen Edward Green’s observation that wrath is sin’s experience of God’s love – I like that.]

I would also like to comment on the subject raised in the OP regarding Christian identities, but that’s for another post.

Angus

* One of my axioms is to take the Bible as the primary reliable source of information and understanding about God. Other shipmates may disagree, in which case my argument may not be convincing.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
I have no hesitation in agreeing with Calvin on this - but I don't draw this assurance from PSA but from the character of God as revealed in Jesus Christ.

Serious question - do you find this an inadequate basis? If so - why?

This question helps to explain why we keep speaking past each other.

For me it is a non-question ... I would base everything on the character of God as revealed in Jesus Christ*.

Despite your repeated accusations I do not get anything from the model of PSA. I try to build all my theology on what I think scripture teaches. Models, like PSA, are only of any use in the degree that they fit scripture and parts of their analogies resonate with scripture.

That is why in our church we mostly work our way through books of the bible. Ideas like sacrifice, atonement, God's wrath etc. will only come up as often as they occur in the bible. Often you won't hear PSA at all in the sermon. However, the point is that if, week by week, the metaphors and analogies of scripture regularly undermined PSA people would notice. We do not have 10 minute homilies but usually 30 minute talks which work their way through (usually) a chapter of a book at a time. The bible passage will have been read carefully before the sermon too. Most weeks we have a Q&A at the end - no question barred. If reading through the Bible like this kept causing people to question PSA I think I would have noticed by now.

(*Like A.Pilgrim I would look to the scriptures for the revelation of Jesus Chtist, but that is another discussion.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If reading through the Bible like this kept causing people to question PSA I think I would have noticed by now.

Of course they won't question PSA. They are reading the Bible through the lens of PSA, so when they look they see PSA.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
We also get the idea that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds. *shrug* Jesus was talking to an audience living within a kingdom within an empire.

And once again PSA demonstrates that it's stuck in a feudal morality where you should obey God because God is God. And you should obey the King because the King is the King. Didn't we sort this one out in the French Revolution?

But you are completely ignoring the point. I'm fully aware that Jesus spoke into a particular context and that we need to make the hermeneutical shift to our context.

That said, Jesus was quite happy to critique all sorts of aspects of 1st century culture. If we claim to be followers of Jesus and his teaching we have to be at least able to show the continuity between what Jesus said about God as King and how we apply it today.

You just seem to be shrugging your shoulders and saying 'Jesus was wrong'.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And I believe you consider this a lie because you are almost entirely ignorant of the darker side of history. Fifty years ago people were forced to commit suicide for being gay. A hundred years ago there was the Belgian Congo and more than a few artificial famines. Two hundred years ago the trans-atlantic slave trade was still going. I could easily go on. There is evil now, sure. And pretty black stuff (I have some stories I won't share about Britain and asylum seekers). But that doesn't mean that we aren't a hell of a lot better than we were as a species.

Which means that one of us is deluded.

Note again that I'm not denying that we have made great progress in some areas, just that it has got worse in others. In fact I'd use the same examples as you. Just because Britain finally got around to making the slave trade illegal a couple of hundred years ago does not negate the colossal illegal slave trade that exists today. We feel better about ourselves because we've passed some laws but human nature hasn't changed.

What about war? The 20th century has got to go down as the worst on record. Statistics are hard to compare due to population growth but I'd say there is a very good case for saying that we killed more people (certainly more civilians) in the last century than any previously.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And you really haven't understood the need for forgiveness and who it benefits, have you? The principle beneficiary of forgiveness isn't the forgiven - it is the forgiver.

Principle beneficiary? Really?

I've met as many people who's lives have been destroyed by feelings of guilt and a desperate need to be forgiven. The Fisher King film I thought was a very good insight into the mind of someone dealing with these issues.

Both sides need releasing by forgiveness.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As for hell being a place with no justice, wrong. What hell fundamentally lacks is mercy and compassion. You do not need justice if no one does anything to hurt others and no one gets hurt. Justice is a protection against the imperfections of the world. Heaven has no need of it because nothing happens there to trigger it. Or do you believe heaven also needs a standing police force?

And you accuse PSA of dodgy accounting? [Roll Eyes]

You haven't mentioned what happens to all those who don't want to go to heaven.

According to your definition of heaven it will only contain those who want to be there and they will all transformed so that they do not a police force to enforce right behaviour. I actually agree with that definition but I can't see how that heaven can exist with God acting in some totalitarian sense.

The only way that could possibly come about without God's totalitarian intervention would be for the entire population of the world (at the same time) to stop hurting each other for ever entirely of their own free will. And at that point I have to say that anyone who really believes that is deluded.

[ 13. July 2010, 00:30: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If reading through the Bible like this kept causing people to question PSA I think I would have noticed by now.
Of course they won't question PSA. They are reading the Bible through the lens of PSA, so when they look they see PSA.

Then the only alternative is to surrender to pomo entirely and say that it is impossible ever to know anything.

Or instead, to add to my original post, I'm more than happy to admit that most people in our church will come to scripture expecting to find PSA there. I've got no problem admitting to that. What I said was that if we work our way through the whole bible book by book then we will increasingly feel at odds with any doctrine or model that doesn't fit with what we read week by week.

I realise that not everybody on the ship would be at all sympathetic to a Sola Scriptura position but the accusation has been that PSA is not scriptural and the church fathers didn't hold to it because it is not scriptural. My point is that if a church keeps reading and re-reading the bible then any dissonance over models should increasingly arise over time.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
But I am far more interested in why Calvin developed Anselm's and Augustine's thought in the way he did, why the doctrine of PSA has become so integrated within Reformed theology and, through what I shall now call 'The Reformed Plot', has found such a central place in wider Evangelicalism, to the point that classical Arminians such as Wesley and Finney (and though the former could be considered High Church the latter is certainly not) would be regarded with suspicion as 'unsound'.

Indeed many Evangelicals I know who are broadly Arminian in thinking and practice cling to PSA and consider any opposition to a clear sign of liberalism.

I don't understand what you are saying here Edward.

Apparently you are arguing that this 'Calvinistic plot' convinced Arminians too. Do you have a magic bullet theory that fits this conspiracy?

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I suggest that it comes back to God's Wrath. PSA ultimately negates human personal responsibility for sin, for Christ carries it all. However we behave we will not have to experience the love of God as Wrath purifying the sin in us: for Catholic's Purgatory, for Orthodox Theosis, for some Arminians Personal Judgement, and for all three the journey towards perfection and holiness in this life.

I'm hesitant to reply to this since we spent two years on these questions on the CV thread.

Short answer is that PSA certainly does not negate human responsibility, quite the opposite. According to PSA the human race, in Christ, receives the just punishment we deserve.

Here you seem, like others on this thread, to assume that PSA advocate have some kind of apollinarian christology and then read that back into the model. It simply isn't the case. PSA demands that Jesus is fully man as well as fully God. It is built in to the model.

You are critiquing a western individualistic view of PSA (which no doubt is common in some circles) however you won't find it in writers like Calvin.

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:

Instead the system relies on imputation of Christ's sinlessness. Calvin writes:

quote:
I answer, that the grace which they call accepting, is nothing else than the free goodness with which the Father embraces us in Christ when he clothes us with the innocence of Christ, and accepts it as ours, so that in consideration of it he regards us as holy, pure and innocent. For the righteousness of Christ (as it alone is perfect, so it alone can stand the scrutiny of God) must be sisted for us, and as a surety represent us judicially.…Our imperfection and purity, covered with this purity, are not imputed, but are as it were buried, so as not to come under judgment until the hour arrive when the old man being destroyed, and plainly extinguished in us, the divine goodness shall receive us into beatific peace with the new Adam, there to await the day of the Lord, on which, being clothed with incorruptible bodies, we shall be translated to the glory of the heavenly kingdom." (Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book III, p. 82)
Indeed I have heard Calvinist preachers say that the only judgement Christians will face is 'Well done thou good and faithful servant'.

I can see the comfort in this. That upon death I will be some how instantly transformed into the person God always wanted me to be, as if my Sin and God's Holy Wrath had never existed.

Again I'm not sure of your point here.

This quote from Calvin seems to show that PSA is not the caricature it is made out to be. Although Calvin says other things so I can't see how this one quote demonstrates anything significant.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
* One of my axioms is to take the Bible as the primary reliable source of information and understanding about God.

Cool! I thought that this axiom would be commonly held among people that believe in PSA and double predestination. I suppose the exact meaning of "primary" might vary, from "the one you'd turn to most" to "the only one that matters" and the meaning of "reliable" might vary from "accurate in a big-picture sort of way" to "accurate in every detail." But in general, I would expect people who believe in PSA to hold some flavor of sola scriptura and inerrantism as axiomatic.

Another belief that I would expect to be an axiom for people who believe in PSA is that anything that God does is by definition good, just because God did it. The question, "Is this thing that God did good or evil?" is a stupid question, if that's one of your axioms. It's like asking, "Is this dog an animal, or is it a plant?" Of course it's an animal! Dogs are animals by definition. Why would you even ask the question? The answer is as obvious as the nose on your face.

It has also occurred to me, when I've listened to people who believed in PSA and double predestination, that they appear to hold as an axiom the idea that God must punish sin. Or maybe the axiom is that God simply can't be in the presence of sin, and the necessity of punishment is a belief derived from that axiom and other axioms.

Anyway, Mr. Pilgrim, if you and Eutychus and anyone else with any sort of passing interest in the axioms that underlie beliefs could expand and explain the axioms that lead to PSA and/or double predestination, I'd appreciate it very much!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Um, poking my nose in for just a moment--

Not all the sola Scriptura types are Calvinists, or even double-predestinarians or PSA'ers. Just sayin'.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Um, poking my nose in for just a moment--

Not all the sola Scriptura types are Calvinists, or even double-predestinarians or PSA'ers. Just sayin'.

Gotcha. All Calvinists might be sola Scriptura, but it doesn't necessarily work in reverse. Like all ice is water, but not all water is ice.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

It has also occurred to me, when I've listened to people who believed in PSA and double predestination, that they appear to hold as an axiom the idea that God must punish sin. Or maybe the axiom is that God simply can't be in the presence of sin, and the necessity of punishment is a belief derived from that axiom and other axioms.

I'm not sure that it is an axiom that God must punish sin. Rather it is true in both the OT and NT that God does punish sin. God's judgment is specifically described as being punishment for sin on so many occasions that it is seen as something that happens. I don't think that is the same as saying that God must punish sin, although it is obviously logically related.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Not all the sola Scriptura types are Calvinists, or even double-predestinarians or PSA'ers. Just sayin'.

Yep, I'm not a Calvinist (I can't be because I don't believe all 5 points) or a double-predestinarian.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

It has also occurred to me, when I've listened to people who believed in PSA and double predestination, that they appear to hold as an axiom the idea that God must punish sin. Or maybe the axiom is that God simply can't be in the presence of sin, and the necessity of punishment is a belief derived from that axiom and other axioms.
I'm not sure that it is an axiom that God must punish sin. Rather it is true in both the OT and NT that God does punish sin. God's judgment is specifically described as being punishment for sin on so many occasions that it is seen as something that happens. I don't think that is the same as saying that God must punish sin, although it is obviously logically related.

So you're saying that the people I've heard say that God must, by his very nature, punish sin may be pushing the idea just a bit. But, given the first axiom -- that the Bible is the primary source of accurate information about God (and, I think, that it has no substantive errors about God), and given that many events in the Bible read most simply and clearly as God punishing sin, the idea that God punishes sin is a necessary conclusion.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Yep, something like that. The axiom about the Bible is the only starting point. I'm not sure the others are axioms.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think some are assumptions and some are theorems. Good or bad, well, I suppose that's for this thread to bring out. . .

But not axioms. (axiomata? whatever)

Those are supposed to be self-evidently correct. And in that case this thread would not exist.

[light bulb clicks ON]

Hey, maybe you meant postulates?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Yeah, postulate works.

I think it's possible to get more light and less heat out of a discussion of a contentious doctrine if you try to work out the underlying beliefs.

I'm not sola scriptura. There's nothing about the Bible that I accept as a given. The Bible isn't a starting point for me.

Which is not to say that I don't care about the Bible -- that's not true at all. It's just that I have other starting points, and get to the Bible from those points.

For me, the starting point would be the saints. They knew God, and they read the Holy Scriptures, studied them, analyzed them, venerated them, memorized them, used them for edification and instruction and comfort. Because I want to be like them, it would behoove me to do the same.

But because the saints are my starting point, my way of reading and understanding the Scriptures is going to be different than those who start somewhere else.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.

quote:
Then the only alternative is to surrender to pomo entirely and say that it is impossible ever to know anything.

And was that such a problem for Paul? [Biased]

quote:
I Cor. 13:12; For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.

Isn't it maybe only modernity that promises to take us beyond that?

One of the continuous undertones on these threads is that PSA allows the PSA-believer to "know" or "be certain" that her sin is dealt with.

Isn't there a homology here between that kind of "certainty" or "knowing" and the kind of "certainty" or "knowing" that an infallible, inerrant Biblical authority seems to offer?

Is there not maybe something there about why it is that PSA seems to be similtaneously read out of the Bible (and in ways the rest of us don't recognize as legitimate) and back into the Bible (in a way that baffles the rest of us, but seems perfectly natural to PSAers, because it's all one God-given knowledge-package, and to do with the way in which faith is grounded in God-given certainty.)

See, I don't think we have that "certainty". And I honestly don't think we need it.

Think of it this way.

It's only if you conflate the Synoptics and John that you get the idea that Jesus' disciples knew about Jesus, had some inkling of who he was, before he called them.

If you read Mark in isolation, for example, you would conclude that this guy floated into town, passed these two fishermen who knew nothing but fishing, and that life, and that place, and called them to come with him and be his followers - and they went!

But isn't that exactly what Mark is saying?

Yeah, right! [Roll Eyes]

And where else in the Bible do you get something like that?

Well...

quote:
Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves." So Abram went, as the LORD had told him;

Where's the "knowledge" or "certainty" in that? It's a pattern of faith that runs right through the Bible. Isn't that why Paul cites Abraham as the paradigm of faith?

But here's the weird thing.

Liberal preachers and commentators used to insist that the disciples must have known something about this Jesus, because it makes no sense for someone to do this kind of thing on the basis of no knowledge at all. And so John was invoked to "complete the picture."

I have heard lots of conservative preachers insist, when preaching on Mark, that the disciples knew Jesus beforehand - because John is scripture, and John's account needs to be harmonized with the Synoptics.

But then again, read Schweitzer's "Quest for the Historical Jesus" for an understanding of how powerful in the old "liberal Life of Jesus" tradition the urge to synthesize the Gospels was!

Conservatives tend to synthesize the Gospel accounts because everything in Scripture is of equal value, and must fit. (So, 2,000 years ago with Matthew, who, because Zechariah 9:9 mentions "an ass, the foal of an ass" has to make room for two animals on Palm Sunday!)

Liberals tended to synthesize the Gospel accounts, not because they were all equally true and certain, but because in them all were different perspectives on one truth that you could get at and elevate to the status of scientific certainty, by "scientific" historical study.

Schweitzer knocked that one on the head in "Quest" in what might almost have been the first work of postmodern theology, a century ago!!

But there's a double point here:

a) relinquish the quest for certainty, read each Gospel for what it is - i.e. for its testimony to Jesus the Christ (which, Eutychus, is where the value of Scripture lies for me) and you find, Johnny S., that not knowing stuff for certain is OK, which is good because it resonates with the human condition for most of human history apart from the interesting interlude which came to an end in 1963. Faith is all, and

2) Faith is what the disciples exhibit in Mark 1, and Abra[ha]m does in Genesis 12, both remarkable investments of trust which are followed by spectacularly uneven learning-curves. The disciples' learning-curve in Mark is particularly sinusoidal! And it leads up to what looks like a pinacle of knowledge at Peter's Confession - only for it to turn out that Peter's construal of Jesus as Messiah is itself a spectacular instance of "thinking you know when you don't". As Norman Perrin has demonstrated, one of the themes of Mark is that whatever knowledge category you try to pigeon-hole Jesus in turns out to be too small.

So knowing nothing for certain is actually OK.

Go on - ask me how I know!!! [Biased]

I know - OK... [Razz]

'Cos faith can say that. Even postmodern faith. [Angel]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
For me, the starting point would be the saints. They knew God, and they read the Holy Scriptures, studied them, analyzed them, venerated them, memorized them, used them for edification and instruction and comfort. Because I want to be like them, it would behoove me to do the same.

Which Saints? I know and have read several saints who believe in PSA. However, I guess you probably would not agree that they were saints. Who gets to define who fits in the 'Saint' category?

Your postulate strikes me as much weaker (or possibly much more sectarian) than Sola Scriptura.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And was that such a problem for Paul?
quote:
I Cor. 13:12; For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.

Isn't it maybe only modernity that promises to take us beyond that?

Actually that quote supports what I was saying earlier.

Paul does not say that we are blind, he says that we see dimly.

Hence if you are saying that we should give up (until heaven) on knowing absolute and exhaustive truth then I fully agree. Hence my comments about having models but reading the bible book by book. No model or doctrine will ever be The Truth (TM) and so we hold our beliefs with uncertainty and humility, but we do not give up on knowing truth truly (if not exhaustively).

The analogy I find helpful is that of an asymptote - a curve that approaches the axis but will only touch at an infinite distance - i.e. in this life we will only ever see dimly and we will only see face to face in heaven, however it is possible to see dimly on earth and for the blurry image to gain more focus.

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
But not axioms. (axiomata? whatever)

Those are supposed to be self-evidently correct.

Axioms aren't necessarily self-evident. For example the fifth axiom in euclidean geometry (unique parallel lines) can be replaced by either of two less obvious alternates (infinite parallel lines, or no parallel lines) resulting in consistent alternate geometries (hyperbolic or spherical). Certainly there is a desire to have axioms be simple apparently obvious statements, but mathematics teaches us that that is something of a chimera.

(More precisely, the three alternates are: for every line and every point not on that line, there exist one/infinitely-many/no lines through the point and not intersecting the line.)

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Your postulate strikes me as much weaker (or possibly much more sectarian) than Sola Scriptura.

Could be. I expect that it's fairly idiosyncratic. I also suspect that most people, if they worked out what their axioms (or postulates) are, would find that they're not nearly as neat as the axioms of algebra or Euclidean geometry. I suspect that most of us, if we looked hard enough, would find that we had postulates that were mutually exclusive, or illogical, or just plain odd.

That's what makes the discussion of your "givens" (whatever you want to call them) so very interesting.

And it is one of my "givens" that the things that the saints say and do are worthy of emulation. Not every word and every act of every saint, of course. But if you study the live of the saints, you'll find there a general pattern, and it's a good pattern to follow.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
My understanding of Scriptural authority is that it's human - very human - material which bears the impress of what God has done. (...)
The fact that the Scriptures are what they are doesn't diminish their authority in the least for me. But that's because for me, Jesus Christ is God's revelation, and Scripture is witness to that revelation (...) But for me, that means that I don't need to understand the Scriptures as "trustworthy" in any special sense.

Quite a few years ago now I was struck by these words of Jesus in John

quote:
You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

I think I was set against 'bibliolatry' from then on. While I generally move in evangelical circles, I also systematically avoid referring to the Scriptures as "God's word" because I too understand that to refer to Jesus.

Or as ChristinaMarie put it on these boards many years ago (and very memorably for me), the Bible is the map, not the terrain (which is why, Josephine, I'm not quite sure whether I can sign up to A.Pilgrim's axiom or postulate or whatever it is - at least, I found myself unable to do so reflexively).

In the terms of the passage in John, Psyduck, wouldn't you say you would identify with those who come to Jesus to have life and diligently study the Scriptures as a result?

You speak of the Scriptures as having 'authority' but not being 'trustworthy'. I sort of see what you mean, but I'm constantly concerned that I might inadvertently reject their authority - or distrust some aspect - sheerly on the basis of my personal preference or contemporary glasses - as you suggest the lectionary has preferred to with respect to the floating axe-head. It's a fine line.

(Mousethief, do you think your Orthodox congregation is any more neutrally-positioned with respect to Scripture than Johnny S's? It's just that you expect to see different things, isn't it?)

As the years go by, I've found the way I read the Bible to have changed (I find it hard to know whether this is a symptom of my various experiences with churches or a cause!). In short, I see many more human factors and a lot more shades of grey. (To take an example from where I came in here, 2 Sam 6, I used to think that "Michal never had any children until the day of her death" was God's Judgement™ on her for despising David; this time round, I think the reason was simply that David never touched her again after she bawled him out, arguably justifiably, for exposing a lot more of himself to the servant girls than she had seen herself in a long time). But now I see that as the great thing about Scripture. It can work on a 'primitive', Sunday School level, and then you can come back and revisit the same passages at a later stage in life and still find them to be a rich source of insights.

I grew up in the Brethren. Although they probably believed in some form of PSA, it's not a milieu in which doctrine plays a strong part (in many ways it's quite mystical, e.g. expecting the Spirit to lead in a 'morning meeting'); it was, dare I say it, primitive (deep suspicion of academia, particularly theological academia); and quite Jesus-centric.

Since then I've had my dose of Restorationism, Reformed Theology, John Piper, PSA, and lunch one day in Brighton with Stuart Townend (of the infamous "In Christ Alone"), but it all went horribly wrong.

I've returned more to my roots in the sense of not worrying too much about the finer points of doctrine, studying the Scriptures (but remembering that it is Jesus, not they, who is the Word and the source of eternal life) and trying (which is where I can identify with what Johnny S. is saying) to look at doctrinal issues as they emerge along the way rather than establish a set doctrinal framework.

This appears to have turned into something of a blogpost more than anything else, but perhaps understanding where people are coming from personally is not irrelevant to the debate, particularly as regards christian identity.

[ 13. July 2010, 06:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And it is one of my "givens" that the things that the saints say and do are worthy of emulation. Not every word and every act of every saint, of course. But if you study the live of the saints, you'll find there a general pattern, and it's a good pattern to follow.

Thanks. I'm sure many people regard my own 'givens' as equally idiosyncratic. All of our reasoning tends to be circular to some degree. I agree.

However, I did find this last paragraph rather odd. I may have misunderstood you but you seem to be taking circular thinking to an extreme:

The Saints are a category of people in which I see a pattern of living I want to emulate; and once I've got this group of people I then look for a pattern to emulate.

Or have I missed something?

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.:

quote:
The Saints are a category of people in which I see a pattern of living I want to emulate; and once I've got this group of people I then look for a pattern to emulate.

Or have I missed something?

The only thing I'd add - which I know is implied in what you say anyway - is that, this being the Church, we're emulating people who are emulating Jesus as best they can.

The image that falls into my head is that of John the Baptist pointing to Christ.

Freud's great French disciple Jacques Lacan uses - in connection with the infant's relation to the mother - the concept he gets from Plato of agalma. That's the quality Socrates is supposed to have possessed, which fascinated his contemporaries. It seemed to them that their gaze was drawn to him, because he was looking off away from them at something he could see, but they couldn't.

In the same way, the Church, ISTM, should possess the quality of gazing off away at Christ, as we are given to see him.

I was thinking about this in connection with the new BBC2 comedy "Rev." Why are people, whose cynicism is so well and accurately portrayed in it, still so fascinated with an institution it's so easy to dismiss, parody and mock? It's because the Church is a community of people who see something they don't.

And when we are hard-pressed ourselves, as individuals, it's no bad thing for us to be in the company of people who stare off away at something glimpsed in Christ.

This is where I think the quest for certainty is so misleading and the promise of certainty is so dangerous. What we have isn't certainty but an invitation to trust; but that's at least as good as anything else on offer, and enough to live and die for. Maybe that explains something of my personal aversion to PSA.

BTW, when Schweitzer had finished putting all the confident liberal "Life of Jesus" research through the scholarly mincer, and drawing the theological conclusions from that, he went off to Africa as a doctor, and a witness to his faith.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Freud's great French disciple Jacques Lacan uses - in connection with the infant's relation to the mother - the concept he gets from Plato of agalma.

I've done quite a few translations relating to Lacan. Our local Department of Psychology are great fans. It's like a whole religion in itself. One of the translations was a huge commentary on about one "verse" of Lacan (actually, I see from my records it was a "Commentary on pages 807 and 808 of The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire". Fascinating, and some fascinating insights, but once again, I'm wary of becoming trapped in a maze which is entirely man-made.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But you are completely ignoring the point. I'm fully aware that Jesus spoke into a particular context and that we need to make the hermeneutical shift to our context.

That said, Jesus was quite happy to critique all sorts of aspects of 1st century culture.

Jesus didn't speak out about slavery. And as historical models of slavery go, the Romans had a bad one. If you're going to leave what he didn't speak of as your limits then the poor shall truly always be with you.

quote:
You just seem to be shrugging your shoulders and saying 'Jesus was wrong'.

No. I'm shrugging my shoulders and saying 'Jesus was preaching 2000 years ago (or so) and even if he could see further than mortals that didn't mean that it was the right thing to preach, let alone to have filed in the bible.

quote:
Which means that one of us is deluded.

Note again that I'm not denying that we have made great progress in some areas, just that it has got worse in others.

Name three.

quote:
In fact I'd use the same examples as you. Just because Britain finally got around to making the slave trade illegal a couple of hundred years ago does not negate the colossal illegal slave trade that exists today.

Nor does it mean it's condones slavery, or slavery as big as it once was. In at least one of the Confederate states, more than half the population was enslaved. The Southern half of the United States went to war to preserve the insitution of slavery. (Anyone who wishes to dispute that is welcome to get their ass kicked on another thread - the primary sources are extremely clear).

quote:
We feel better about ourselves because we've passed some laws but human nature hasn't changed.

Human nature may not have changed - both both what is acceptable and where the incentives lie have. And humans respond to both those.

quote:
What about war? The 20th century has got to go down as the worst on record. Statistics are hard to compare due to population growth but I'd say there is a very good case for saying that we killed more people (certainly more civilians) in the last century than any previously.

You are aware that the 20th century is the most peaceful on record? I believe that even in absolute numbers of civilians (never mind the size of the world's population), the most dangerous century was the Thirteenth with the Mongols sweeping right across China and Asia to Europe. And literally wiping out cities who didn't surrender. (Even as late as the 30 years war, one of the rules of war in Europe was that if a city didn't surrender when the walls were breached it would be put to the sword). Or going back to the Romans, Caesar's Gallic Wars left over a million dead and between half a million and a million enslaved in one seven year period on one front. Civilian massacres being SOP. And Genocide being actively considered a good thing (try reading the OT and asking about civilian massacres - and ones ordered by God at that). This was just one of about twenty wars by that one empire in the first century BC.

Also in terms of War, Europe's been at peace this side of the Balkans for 50 years - an unprecedented event. For that matter, outside Africa the number of wars has been ... small.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And you really haven't understood the need for forgiveness and who it benefits, have you? The principle beneficiary of forgiveness isn't the forgiven - it is the forgiver.
Principle beneficiary? Really?

I've met as many people who's lives have been destroyed by feelings of guilt and a desperate need to be forgiven. The Fisher King film I thought was a very good insight into the mind of someone dealing with these issues.

Both sides need releasing by forgiveness.

Yes, principle. Forgiveness from the wronged is sometimes necessary for the offender to forgive himself. But it's the victim and forgiver who always benefits.

quote:
You haven't mentioned what happens to all those who don't want to go to heaven.

I don't believe heaven exists. So my views there are somewhat irrelevant. I believe this life is what we get and we can damn well make the best of it. This doesn't mean I can't deal with heaven as a theoretical construct.

quote:
The only way that could possibly come about without God's totalitarian intervention would be for the entire population of the world (at the same time) to stop hurting each other for ever entirely of their own free will. And at that point I have to say that anyone who really believes that is deluded.

Given that your God hurts people of his own free will and forever, I'm not surprised you think they are deluded.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Eutychus:

quote:
Fascinating, and some fascinating insights, but once again, I'm wary of becoming trapped in a maze which is entirely man-made.

I completely respect that. Credulity is always a potential pitfall. My own corresponding attitude is to be highly suspicious of all claims that something is not man-made! After all, we do, as 1 Cor. 13 reminds us, inhabit a hall of mirrors here on earth!

Absolutely right to avoid being trapped in it. But we do need to acknowledge that that's what we are in, and that it doesn't preclude learning to use some of the mirrors, however potentially distorting, to see round corners!

Well, that's another metaphor flogged to death... [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Well, that's another metaphor flogged to death...

Me, I'm disappointed you haven't picked up on the Klein bottle yet...

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Jesus didn't speak out about slavery. And as historical models of slavery go, the Romans had a bad one. If you're going to leave what he didn't speak of as your limits then the poor shall truly always be with you.

You've completely avoided the question twice.

Jesus did talk about kings and God as King. He talked about it a lot. Let's not talk about what he didn't talk about, let's talk about what he did talk about. God as King.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I'm shrugging my shoulders and saying 'Jesus was preaching 2000 years ago (or so) and even if he could see further than mortals that didn't mean that it was the right thing to preach, let alone to have filed in the bible.

Fine.

Generally Christians tend to be quite keen on what Jesus said. In fact they put rather a lot of store on it.

And since the OP was about PSA and Christian Identities (and not PSA and Justinian Identities) this point is rather relevant.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Name three.

1. Illegal drugs trade.
2. Infanticide (I'm including abortion obviously.)
3. Mental Health - the World Health Organisation thinks that Mental illness will be the second biggest cause of death and disability by 2020.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You are aware that the 20th century is the most peaceful on record?

Ah yes, Steven Pinker. He's not got an agenda in that piece has he? [Roll Eyes]

The direct attacks on the bible give it away a bit. He doesn't really give much actual evidence though does he?

My favourite quote from the piece has to be:

quote:
"Long-term trends can be discerned only by smoothing out zigzags and spikes of horrific bloodletting"

So, apart from the horrific spikes of bloodletting we are generally getting better.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I believe that even in absolute numbers of civilians (never mind the size of the world's population), the most dangerous century was the Thirteenth with the Mongols sweeping right across China and Asia to Europe. And literally wiping out cities who didn't surrender. (Even as late as the 30 years war, one of the rules of war in Europe was that if a city didn't surrender when the walls were breached it would be put to the sword). Or going back to the Romans, Caesar's Gallic Wars left over a million dead and between half a million and a million enslaved in one seven year period on one front. Civilian massacres being SOP. And Genocide being actively considered a good thing (try reading the OT and asking about civilian massacres - and ones ordered by God at that). This was just one of about twenty wars by that one empire in the first century BC.

Also in terms of War, Europe's been at peace this side of the Balkans for 50 years - an unprecedented event. For that matter, outside Africa the number of wars has been ... small.

All this stuff is generally about what soldiers did when they went off to war. It has taken modern times to introduce things like suicide bombers etc. What 'civilians' can do to each other now is even worse than what soldiers did in the past. The Genocide in Rwanda was so horrific precisely because it was not done by soldiers.

Just turn on the news. Every day I read of things that literally make me sick. Yes things are getting better in some ways, but I cannot look at society and say that I have any (human) confidence that it is definitely heading in the right direction.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I don't believe heaven exists. So my views there are somewhat irrelevant. I believe this life is what we get and we can damn well make the best of it. This doesn't mean I can't deal with heaven as a theoretical construct.

... Given that your God hurts people of his own free will and forever, I'm not surprised you think they are deluded.

You are still completely ignoring my question - on what basis do you have any confidence that human beings will ever stop hurting each other?

You'd think thousands of years of human history would give you enough evidence to the contrary.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
The only thing I'd add - which I know is implied in what you say anyway - is that, this being the Church, we're emulating people who are emulating Jesus as best they can.

That's what I wondered but I suppose it is up to Josephine to say where she gets the notion of saint from.

Of course if it is from Jesus then the next question is - how do we know what Jesus is like? If the answer is 'from the gospels' then congratulations, you're virtually a Baptist already. [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:

The image that falls into my head is that of John the Baptist pointing to Christ.

Where on earth did you dig up such a camp picture of JtB? I've always pictured him as a lot more rugged.

Mind you that may well be a bit of projection since JtB was one of my nicknames at school.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Eutychus:

quote:
Me, I'm disappointed you haven't picked up on the Klein bottle yet...

OK - on it. Get back to you soon...

(I'd been going to say something about non-Euclidean geometries earlier on, and can't remember why I didn't...)

I liked the picture of an actual glass Klein "bottle" in your link!

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Jesus didn't speak out about slavery. And as historical models of slavery go, the Romans had a bad one. If you're going to leave what he didn't speak of as your limits then the poor shall truly always be with you.
You've completely avoided the question twice.

Ok. I'll put my answer very very simply this time. Jesus did not say anything about remaking the world or upsetting the status quo. He did not condemn any number of evils ingrained into society then (poverty, slavery.) He accepted it as it was. We've moved past the Romans.

quote:
Jesus did talk about kings and God as King. He talked about it a lot. Let's not talk about what he didn't talk about, let's talk about what he did talk about. God as King.

And I'm pointing out that he was talking to an audience at the time and leading them forward rather than utterly upturning more of their preconceptions than they could handle.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Name three.
1. Illegal drugs trade.

I assume that this is some sort of Libertarian dig at the foolishness of making drugs illegal rather than anything to do with the Opium Wars

quote:
2. Infanticide (I'm including abortion obviously.)

OK. If you want to redefine things as sins simply because they are now possible then of course your perceptions are going to skew. The Abortion debate is for Dead Horses.

quote:
3. Mental Health - the World Health Organisation thinks that Mental illness will be the second biggest cause of death and disability by 2020.

The WHO is probably right. We've cured most of the diseases that historically have killed people. Which more or less leaves the mind or the body coming to the end of their useful lifespan. This doesn't mean that things are getting worse. It means that they are getting better and that Mental Health is what we have left to worry about when we don't have bubonic plague, polio, influenza, et al killing off swathes of the population.

We can not change the fact that the mortality rate is 100%. Or that this means that as we cure one disease we'll get other forms of death to take their place.

quote:
Ah yes, Steven Pinker. He's not got an agenda in that piece has he? The direct attacks on the bible give it away a bit. He doesn't really give much actual evidence though does he?

My favourite quote from the piece has to be:

quote:
"Long-term trends can be discerned only by smoothing out zigzags and spikes of horrific bloodletting"

So, apart from the horrific spikes of bloodletting we are generally getting better.

Yes. There have been horrific spikes of bloodletting in every century. And each person only dies once. You need to take stretches of time to get anywhere. Basic statistics when dealing with discrete incidents.

quote:
All this stuff is generally about what soldiers did when they went off to war. It has taken modern times to introduce things like suicide bombers etc.

Um. You aren't familiar with the terms "militia" and "levy" are you? Or even the works of Kipling (to come from a different angle)?

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier. "

For that matter, why are you making such a difference between soldiers and civillians when historically a professional standing army is a new thing (with rare exceptions such as the Romans)?

quote:
What 'civilians' can do to each other now is even worse than what soldiers did in the past.

Find a historical account of a sack of a city and read it. Then come back to me with that claim about what soldiers did to civilians. By those standards a suicide bombing is clean.

quote:
The Genocide in Rwanda was so horrific precisely because it was not done by soldiers.

Huh? How?

quote:
Just turn on the news. Every day I read of things that literally make me sick. Yes things are getting better in some ways, but I cannot look at society and say that I have any (human) confidence that it is definitely heading in the right direction.

I have a lot. Because of where we've come from.

quote:
You are still completely ignoring my question - on what basis do you have any confidence that human beings will ever stop hurting each other?

Oh, that's your question. Nice of you to finally explain that you equate improvement with perfection. Simple answer. I don't. I just look back over history and see less deliberate cruelty and less acceptable cruelty over time. I do not believe perfection to be possible. And apparently you believe anything short of absolute perfection to count for nothing.

(Second simple answer: If you kill or lobotomise everyone.)

quote:
You'd think thousands of years of human history would give you enough evidence to the contrary.

That humans aren't perfect? Sure. That humans are improving? Not a contradiction.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

quote:
A. Pilgrim: there is no reason to believe that the Son is any less wrathful towards sinners than the Father. IMO both aspects of the paradox (as it appears in the limited understanding of the human intellect) between God’s love and wrath/judgement need to be held equally for a true understanding of God’s dealings with mankind.

[Edit: I have just seen Edward Green’s observation that wrath is sin’s experience of God’s love – I like that.]

Two questions:

1. Where in PSA theory do we find the wrath of Jesus? Is he having himself killed in order to satisfy his own wrath?

2. Regarding the Green quotation: As I understand PSA theory Jesus died to satisfy God's wrath consequent on his honour being offended. How can God be wrathful if it's 'sin's experience of God's love?'- unless, of course, God is sinful. Or, in this formulation, what is being satisfied on the cross? God's love?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

My PSA:

We don't believe God.
We don't trust Him.

We hate Him. Resent Him. Writhe and rebel against Him. Re-invent Him in one of two basic self-images which are sides of the same coin.

We're - reasonably - terrified of Him: He's a killer. THE Killer. The Punisher. We're all doomed, depraved, lost, incipient or actual psychos since Eden after all.

As soon as we got the opportunity we got our retaliation in early and tortured Him to death.

He's cool with that.

That's pretty cool.

The alternative (if we think we're not broken) is He's just-this-guy ZaGod and is waiting for us to evolve to be cool, where Jesus fits in with that I haven't faintest idea. To suffer with us ? OK.

Either way everyone HAS to suffer. There is NO other way.

I'm broken me.

He's fixed and fixing me to go.

His most inclusive Kingdom come.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Where in PSA theory do we find the wrath of Jesus? Is he having himself killed in order to satisfy his own wrath?

If part of that question is about whether we have evidence of wrath on the part of the Son, perhaps Psalm 2 would count?

quote:
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry and you be destroyed in your way, for his wrath can flare up in a moment. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Surely nobody still thinks that verse should be translated "kiss the son"?

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:

quote:
A. Pilgrim: there is no reason to believe that the Son is any less wrathful towards sinners than the Father. IMO both aspects of the paradox (as it appears in the limited understanding of the human intellect) between God’s love and wrath/judgement need to be held equally for a true understanding of God’s dealings with mankind.

[Edit: I have just seen Edward Green’s observation that wrath is sin’s experience of God’s love – I like that.]
Two questions:

1. Where in PSA theory do we find the wrath of Jesus? Is he having himself killed in order to satisfy his own wrath?

2. Regarding the Green quotation: As I understand PSA theory Jesus died to satisfy God's wrath consequent on his honour being offended. How can God be wrathful if it's 'sin's experience of God's love?'- unless, of course, God is sinful. Or, in this formulation, what is being satisfied on the cross? God's love?

Life has caught up with me but I'll attempt a quick answer of this one.

Jesus was made to be sin as he was on the cross, see 2 Corinthians 5:21 hence yes, wrath was sin's experience of God's love on the cross.

Your final sentence brings this back to an objection some people (including me) have had to the alteration to the Townend hymn (yes that one again) that changed "The wrath of God is satisfied" to "The love of God is satisfied". I can understand God's wrath to be pretty nasty but if you look at a crucifixion and see it as a loving act, I'm not sure I want much more of your 'love'. The crucifixion (as has been said before) is a nasty thing that nice wording can't rationalise away, its beauty is that the nasty stuff (wrath) was dealt with there so that we don't have to be on the end of the receiving end of it, but can instead experience God's love.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Your final sentence brings this back to an objection some people (including me) have had to the alteration to the Townend hymn (yes that one again) that changed "The wrath of God is satisfied" to "The love of God is satisfied". I can understand God's wrath to be pretty nasty but if you look at a crucifixion and see it as a loving act, I'm not sure I want much more of your 'love'.

But God didn't kill Jesus, the Romans did. The love aspect was that Jesus willingly went through with it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Jesus was made to be sin as he was on the cross, see 2 Corinthians 5:21 hence yes, wrath was sin's experience of God's love on the cross.

I don't think that answers question 1. though (I was going to try to post something along the same lines as you, then realised that probably wasn't the question). I think the question is whether the wrath PSA claims is satisfied on the cross is the preserve of the Father (which I suppose leads to the charges of non-Trinitarianism) or whether this wrath is shared by the Son (and I suppose the Spirit).

In which case, I think argues kwesi, Jesus could in some sense be seen as putting himself to death in order to be the object of his own wrath.

Or maybe it's just my thinking which is warped...

Posted by Wisewilliam (# 15474) on :

I equate wrath with anger and I believe it is offensive to claim that God is so imperfect as to grow angry and thereby overcome the virtue of forgiveness.
I was quite innocent about PSA until I started reading the SOF's blogs. I find it repulsive. After consulting two priests and doing some agonizing I have concluded that the Bible encompasses so many diverse elements one can read what one seeks into it one way or another. Those for whom sado-masochism is powerful attraction will thoroughly enjoy PSA. Those with healthier psyches will decide that is is insupportable.

As for the matter of the world being worse than it was, two items come to mind. The Thirty years war killed forty percent of the people of Central Europe and the Moravian Missions restored that area to civilization. Life expectancy is very considerably longer than it was one hundred years ago on every continent and in every country. China has improved the standard of living for thirty MILLION people from rural abject poverty to a reasonable middle class existenc in the forty years. No such gains have ever been recorded in so short a time inn recorded hsitory.
God IS good and progress is being made. Bless God's love - it is beneficial to humanioty.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

It's incidental. PSA. Post hoc. All our narratives of justice and judgement are. God just uses them. He's THAT pragmatic.

Our inevitable crazed depravity made it inevitable via His inevitable death. Yeah and I know God can't die. Even though we killed Him good.

God's 'justice', God's 'wrath', God's 'sovereignty' are facets of love, outworkings of perfect, healing, all but inexorable, unstoppable love:

Forgiveness cannot compromise our ultimate free will. Forgiveness ultimately has to be accepted. What is the point of an entity that refuses it ? Spurns it ? Laughs and spits in its face. Says, yeah, I nailed you up and wished you'd stayed there, what of it ? LEAVE ME ALONE. Let me be, what I am, what I will.

God's forgiveness cannot run out, we can run away from it forever.

Love has to grant us that freedom.

The vast majority of us won't exercise it.

Hopefully NONE.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's incidental. PSA. Post hoc. All our narratives of justice and judgement are. God just uses them. He's THAT pragmatic.

That I like.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Eutychus yeah I know I only answered the second question. It seemed easier to answer.

quote:
Originally posted by Wisewilliam:
I equate wrath with anger and I believe it is offensive to claim that God is so imperfect as to grow angry and thereby overcome the virtue of forgiveness.

You could say that. However a lot of people would say that any God would be deficient, unfeeling and amoral if s/he didn't feel angry at the things his creatures do to each other, they way we spurn God and the way we've treated the world. PSA is an attempt to explain how the cross reconciles this anger and his love, which is one of the things it does though not all of what it does. As you say, the bible contains several themes about the workings of the cross.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

We're instructed to love the sinner and hate the sin. God gets to hate the sinner, too. Indeed, hate them so much he would torment them excruciatingly FOREVER for even one sin, no matter how petty. That kind of god doesn't sound mentally stable. And yet we're asked not just to love and worship It, but admit that whatever it does is "good" by definition. And people wonder why others are turned off by PSA. Can't imagine.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Delta Sierra - you differentiate God's anger from His love.

How ?

Why ?

Like the fiorst point. Even we get angry over injustice, abuse.

[ 13. July 2010, 21:35: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Mike Papa Charlie & november Sierra Bravo, I thought that was my point. A loving God can't not feel angry precisely because he's a loving God. The day I don't get angry when I something bad is the day I'm a heartless bastard, not the day I somehow achieve perfection.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

I beg your pardon Delta Sierra. Absolutely.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

Apparently you are arguing that this 'Calvinistic plot' convinced Arminians too. Do you have a magic bullet theory that fits this conspiracy?

Where are the evangelical Arminians arguing against PSA. What is the response to them?

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

You are critiquing a western individualistic view of PSA (which no doubt is common in some circles) however you won't find it in writers like Calvin.

Fair enough. But my question about personal judgement remains. See below.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Again I'm not sure of your point here.

This quote from Calvin seems to show that PSA is not the caricature it is made out to be. Although Calvin says other things so I can't see how this one quote demonstrates anything significant.

Honestly not interested in scoring points. I tend towards SA with Orthodox insights anyway and I am trying to put my finger on how the Calvinist model differs. The issue of the nature and extent of imputation seems key. In what way are many saved as if through fire? How does this relate to say Wesleyan understandings of holiness.

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
The crucifixion (as has been said before) is a nasty thing that nice wording can't rationalise away, its beauty is that the nasty stuff (wrath) was dealt with there so that we don't have to be on the end of the receiving end of it, but can instead experience God's love.

I agree with your post in general. However I have known a number of non-PSA Evangelicals who prefer changing Wrath to Love in the hymn In Christ Alone. I am happy with either. But it is not a liberal plot if anyone thinks it is.

Nice to be engaged with though. I admit that my anti PSA prejudice stems from my Wesleyan Arminian background and I have always been highly suspicious of Calvinism. I never fitted in NFI!

I also find it interesting how the Love/Wrath concept ties into the Orthodox river of fire.

My real concerns about the PSA and the theology it is embedded in still rests with the area of Theosis/Purgatory/Personal Judgement as I expressed earlier in the thread.

I am interested in what holders of PSA believe about personal judgement of Christians.

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

Eutychus, you get me wrong when you suggest it’s my position that ‘Jesus could in some sense be seen as being put to death in order to be the object of his own wrath.’ I was really attempting to show the difficulty of PSA in sustaining the doctrine of the trinity. Pilgrim, in order to meet the objection that PSA poses on the one hand a wrathful father as against a loving son, suggests that Jesus was as wrathful as the father. In which case Jesus goes to the cross in order to satisfy his own wrath, which seems odd (if not absurd), and does not accord with PSA theory as far as I’m aware.

Dinghy Sailor, regarding your defence of Green’s position that wrath is sin’s experience of God’s love, you argue that Jesus was subject to God’s wrath on the cross because he was ‘made sin’: he experienced God the Father’s love for him as wrath. PSA, however, claims that God needs his wrath to be satisfied because his honour has been offended. How then can God, on Green’s formulation, be wrathful if he is not sinful? It seems to me nonsense. Perhaps I’m missing a point.

More generally, PSA cannot be sustained simply by demonstrating that the Father’s wrath and judicial function are also characteristics of the Son, thereby demonstrating that wrath is, indeed, a characteristic of the Godhead. God’s judgement and wrath, however, could just as easily fit into a Christus Victor model as PSA, though, of course, in a different way.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Eutychus, you get me wrong when you suggest it’s my position that ‘Jesus could in some sense be seen as being put to death in order to be the object of his own wrath.’ I was really attempting to show the difficulty of PSA in sustaining the doctrine of the trinity. Pilgrim, in order to meet the objection that PSA poses on the one hand a wrathful father as against a loving son, suggests that Jesus was as wrathful as the father. In which case Jesus goes to the cross in order to satisfy his own wrath, which seems odd (if not absurd), and does not accord with PSA theory as far as I’m aware.

It's not just absurd. It turns Jesus' death from a willing surrender to suicide. It means he did a suicide-by-cop because of self-loathing.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Kwesi I'm afraid you've lost me. Are you saying that God cannot be wrathful unless he is sinful? Otherwise, what's your problem?

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

Hi Josephine! [Smile]

Lamb Chopped and JohnnyS have already pointed out what I would have done – I’m pretty certain that I’m not a Calvinist, and my thinking on predestination is too complex (and possibly not robust enough) to post here – but I don’t think I’m a double predestinationist.

I must admit that I couldn’t say whether my reliance on the Bible as ‘primary reliable source’ is an axiom or a postulate (or a given) – I just recognise it as something that I take as a starting point. I guess that this comes from the tradition ( [Biased]

) that I was brought up in, and I still think that there are good enough reasons to base my own faith on it, while not being so dogmatic as to try to impose an expectation of that on others. I used the deliberately vague words ‘primary reliable source’ in the hope of being uncontentious, and avoiding a tangential debate. I’m not an inerrantist, and even if I’m sola scriptura on the substance of God’s revelation of Himself, understanding in the 21st century the text of that revelation requires linguistic and historical information that comes very much extra scriptura.

Josephine, I thought that it was a pity that your posts earlier in this thread didn’t get a perceptive response to what you were asking – not your problem, I think, as I found your posts to be entirely coherent and well-expressed – and I’m in total agreement with you when you say: “I think it's possible to get more light and less heat out of a discussion of a contentious doctrine if you try to work out the underlying beliefs”. I could say ‘Amen, sister’, except that isn’t quite my style. [Big Grin]

Making a more general response: I was brought up being taught PSA, and it came as a big surprise to join the Ship and find that there were Christians who rejected it (sometimes vehemently!) And some of the points made by those who reject it (hello Psyduck! [Smile]

) have given me pause for thought. I’ve started re-reading some pro-PSA books with a more critical attitude, and I need to read some anti-PSA books as well. (Can any shipmates recommend any, other than Steve Chalke’s?)

I’ve tried to follow the arguments in this and other threads (including dipping into the CV thread in Limbo), and I’ve come to the conclusion that a shipboard thread isn’t the best source for understanding. In order to understand the debate in the thread one needs to know the subject already, especially when much of the debate seems to consist of mutually misunderstood contradictions. I’m as much seeking after enlightenment as Josephine is, the two of us are just coming from opposite viewpoints. I don’t think I can do justice to explaining the basis for PSA, so perhaps I could suggest the book Knowing God by J I Packer (Hodder & Stoughton, 1975) which is certainly written from a PSA viewpoint. Another source is chapter 16 of: Know the truth : A handbook of Christian belief by Bruce Milne (IVP, 1998) Again, can shipmates suggest others?

I guess that I do believe that God defines right and wrong, evil and good, and that whatever He does is by that definition good. There’s a thread going on at the moment in Keryg on ‘A Sovereign God’, in which I hope to say more about this.

As for who was responsible for Jesus’s death, I refer to this passage in Acts 2: “22Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, ... 23this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.”(ESV) Yes, the Romans (the lawless men) did the dirty work, but they were politically manipulated into it by the Jews, so it’s all rather complicated, and is yet another example of the paradoxical relationship between God’s sovereignty and human responsibility.

Angus

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, I did find this last paragraph rather odd. I may have misunderstood you but you seem to be taking circular thinking to an extreme:

The Saints are a category of people in which I see a pattern of living I want to emulate; and once I've got this group of people I then look for a pattern to emulate.

Or have I missed something?

Sorry; I was dashing off the post, sidetracked myself with a tangent, and didn't say it at all clearly.

My point was simply that, for many questions about what I should do or how I should live, I start with the saints, because I want to be like them.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Kwesi I'm afraid you've lost me. Are you saying that God cannot be wrathful unless he is sinful? Otherwise, what's your problem?

Given that wrath is a sin (hardly a contentious issue given that wrath is on the list of deadly sins) then yes God can not be wrathful unless he is sinful.

The alternative is a system which says "If God orders rape and genocide then rape and genocide cease to be evil." For all the bile thrown at post-modernism for moral relativism, if you take that approach you're left with far less to work with than any post modernist. You're left unable to tell the difference between good and evil when you commit it as well as when others do unless you have perfect knowledge of their situation.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
Hi Josephine!

Hi, Angus! Thanks for your kind words.

quote:
Making a more general response: I was brought up being taught PSA, and it came as a big surprise to join the Ship and find that there were Christians who rejected it (sometimes vehemently!) And some of the points made by those who reject it (hello Psyduck! ) have given me pause for thought.

Isn't that fun? When I first started joining in online discussions of religious matters (in the very early 1980s), I learned so much from all the people who didn't believe all the same things I did, and hadn't grown up being taught all the same things I had been taught. I was surprised to find out how much I had in common with pious pagans and Baha'i. And I was even more surprised to find out that other Christians didn't necessarily agree with some of the beliefs that I thought just about everyone believed.

I find that PSA threads usually go too fast and furiously for me -- I just don't have the background to participate with the way they usually go, or the interest, really. They're too fast and too furious.

A book would certainly go at a better pace for me, but I'm not sure that a book explaining PSA would tell me what I want to know. I understand the doctrine well enough. It's the assumptions that are under it and behind it that I want to know.

I can't make it make sense. The retired Presbyterian missionaries that I mentioned early believed it, I think, out of a belief in the absolutely sovereignty of God. They talked about God being the potter, and people being the things that God made out of the clay. If God wanted to take one lump and make it into a work of beauty, and if he wanted to make another lump for no reason other than to smash it into bits once it was dry, who is the clay to tell the potter he can't do that? That's his right; we belong to him, and he's God, and he can do as he pleases.

I can see the logic in that. But it seems to me that when you push the sovereignty of God that far, it takes away human responsibility, and makes God the author of evil.

One way around that problem is to say that anything God does is by definition good, because he's God, and he can do it by right, and that makes it good. But saying that makes evil subjective in a way that doesn't work for me. As I said earlier, among the axioms, or postulates, or givens that I recognized early on, is that good is good, and evil is evil.

To say that, if God does something that would otherwise be evil, it's good, because God did it -- that makes about as much sense to me as saying that, if God drew a square, and called it a circle, that would make it a circle, because that's what God said it was. That's not sovereignty and power and kingship -- that's nonsense. A square is a square because it has four congruent sides and four congruent angles. That's what a square is, and if God himself called it a circle, it would still be square.

So if it's evil, it's evil, whether I do it or God does it. And I take it as a given that God doesn't do evil. He does only good.

That means that if the Bible says that God did something that is evil, then either I have misunderstood what the Bible said, or the Bible is wrong in that point. God is good. That's bedrock for me.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Surely nobody still thinks that verse should be translated "kiss the son"?

1. Why not? I've not got my handy dandy references out, but I don't recall anything that takes that option forever off the table. Pray fill me in. Always interested in hearing any new insights and evidence.

2. Why the scornful tone??????? A wee bit rude, don't you think?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I was more surprised than scornful. I apologize for the tone; I wasn't trying to be haughty. Although my besetting sin is pride which sometimes comes through even when I have all the filters in position and the gaskets newly replaced. Anyway, I apologize.

The main problem with "kiss the son" is that the word translated "son" is "bar". The normal Hebrew word for son is "ben". "Bar" is Aramaic. "Bar" as "son" occurs only in Ezra, Daniel, (both post-exilic) once in Proverbs 31 (believed by many to be a codicil), and this single Psalm. "Ben" as "son" occurs in the Psalms 98 times.

Further, there is no marker for a direct object (usually "et" but "l" for the verb "kiss"), making it more likely to be an adverb ("b[a]r" as an adverb means "purely" or "sincerely"). This too is a problem, although much less of one.

The LXX renders it "receive instruction".

Douay-Reims (as you know a translation of the Vulgate, which in the OT was made from Hebrew originals (except the Apocrypha but there's no need to go there)) gives "embrace discipline" (same roughly as the LXX).

The 1917 "Jewish Bible" renders it "do homage in purity" (obviously using "b[a]r" as discussed above).

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

quote:
Kwesi I'm afraid you've lost me. Are you saying that God cannot be wrathful unless he is sinful? Otherwise, what's your problem?

Dinghy Sailor: My remarks were apropos of Green's observation that 'Wrath is sin's experience of God's love.' (At least that's how it's reported by A. Pilgrim). You then state: "Jesus was made to be sin as he was on the cross, see 2 Corinthians 5:21 hence yes, wrath was sin's experience of God's love on the cross." I took this to indicate you regarded this as support for PSA, and that it removed the objection that there is a distinction in PSA between a wrathful father and a loving son. Hence, after Green, the doctrine of the trinity is strenthened because both the father and the son are equally loving.

The point I was making was that Green's formulation does not convincingly support PSA, which claims that because God has been offended by human sin his wrath needed to be satisfied. Green, however, claims that wrath is 'sin's experience of God's love'. Wrath, then, is something to do with sin and sinful people, not God: it is not one of his qualities. The only way God could be wrathful in Green's definition, is by being sinful himself. Also there would need to be a love other than God for him to exhibit his wrath. While we may be happy to support Green in detaching God from his wrath, his formulation cannot be offered in support for PSA. Green's formulation, therefore, does not solve the problem of the personality difference between the father and the son in PSA theory, which remains weak from a trinitarian perspective.

Personally, I don't think the cross had anything to do with God's wrath, but had much to do with the wrath of men.

I hope that helps.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Eutychus, you get me wrong when you suggest it’s my position that ‘Jesus could in some sense be seen as being put to death in order to be the object of his own wrath.’ I was really attempting to show the difficulty of PSA in sustaining the doctrine of the trinity.

Sorry, that latter insight was the one I was acknolwedging really. You summed up something others had said in a way that made sense to me. It at least shows some limits to the theory.

quote:
PSA, however, claims that God needs his wrath to be satisfied because his honour has been offended. How then can God, on Green’s formulation, be wrathful if he is not sinful? It seems to me nonsense. Perhaps I’m missing a point.

If the question here is how wrath at having one's honour offended can not be sinful, one PSA answer is that God is he (unlike anybody else) to whom all honour is due. God upholding his own honour is thus not prideful but just.

I too have been digging around in books. The one I've been looking at to revisit PSA following this thread is John Piper's The pleasures of God, which has a chapter on 'the pleasure of God in bruising the Son'. For further details (for instance, a discussion of exactly what 'propitiation', as in Romans 3:25, which Piper interprets as "appease (God's) wrath", means), the footnotes direct us to his much denser book and expanded doctoral thesis The justification of God. I haven't plucked up the courage to look in that one again yet, nor check out one of the books it tries to rebut which I also have to see if it deals with PSA at all.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
I’ve started re-reading some pro-PSA books with a more critical attitude, and I need to read some anti-PSA books as well. (Can any shipmates recommend any, other than Steve Chalke’s?)

Here are a few:
Recovering the Scandal of the Cross by Green and Baker
Proclaiming the Scandal of the Cross, ed. Baker
The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology by Rashdall
Beyond the Passion by Patterson
Paul on the Cross by Brondos

[ 14. July 2010, 07:38: Message edited by: Starlight ]

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

Can I just add to the book list and the following to some degree put an almighty question mark next to the question of 'did God need Jesus to die?'

Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World by Rene Girard
Violence Unveiled - Gil Bailie (Bailie's book is another take on Girardian thinking.)

Both address the question of how embedded in our most corrupt perceptions sacrificial logic is(that the gods or God can be bought off through blood sacrifice.

They will probably be a shock to the system and suggest that much Judeo-Christian history is only one step away from Human/child sacrifice.

Luigi

[ 14. July 2010, 07:53: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Kwesi - your last line - [Overused]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
originally posted by Dinghy Sailor
You could say that. However a lot of people would say that any God would be deficient, unfeeling and amoral if s/he didn't feel angry at the things his creatures do to each other, they way we spurn God and the way we've treated the world.

You see, I just don't understand this logic DS. I agree that God would be deficient if He did not do something about the things you mention, but what has anger got to do with this?

Of course, as human beings, somettimes we need anger to stir us up to do something (for example, Bob Geldof and Live Aid seems to have been spurred on by a sense of anger), but, surely, you aren't arguing that God needs any such motivation to do good.

Furthermore, for every positive outcome of anger, such as the one I have just mentioned, there are many, many more negative outcomes. The truth is that, usually, anger actually militates against doing the right thing in terms of positive outcomes. It distorts our poerspectives, with the result that the good which might have been done is not done.

Of course, we can speak of anger in metaphorical terms, (such as a surgeon being "angry" at cancer) but we don't think of the surgeon "punishing" cancer.

It is for all the above reasons that I don't think anger is a terrifically good way of translating "wrath", not necessarily because it is a poor translation in itself (though it probably is) but because it carries with it a whole lot of associated thinking which is clearly inappropriate when applied to God.

[ 14. July 2010, 08:58: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Argh. So much of this comes back to definitions.

It wasn't until I was outside full-time christian ministry and working in the business world that I discovered the possibility of people saying "I'm angry" (and presumably feeling angry), meanwhile not losing their self-control and acting to identify and/or deal with what was causing them anger. I wonder whether a lot of the disagreement on this thread doesn't have to do with perceptions of 'anger' being equal to 'losing one's temper' and acting in a resultingly disproportionate manner.

In addition, you've re-introduced another word, "punishment" (the "penal" bit of PSA). I think almost as much hinges on that as on how we understand "wrath". In French, the word "correction" has come to mean "physical beating" just as often as it means "to right what is wrong" (as in correcting spelling mistakes). That's an awful lot of semantics to unravel.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Eutychus:

quote:
It wasn't until I was outside full-time christian ministry and working in the business world that I discovered the possibility of people saying "I'm angry" (and presumably feeling angry), meanwhile not losing their self-control and acting to identify and/or deal with what was causing them anger. I wonder whether a lot of the disagreement on this thread doesn't have to do with perceptions of 'anger' being equal to 'losing one's temper' and acting in a resultingly disproportionate manner.

I think that's a very valid point, but ISTM it comes out robustly against the plausibility of PSA. It isn't "just" (!) the punishment borne by Jesus on the cross, it's the eternity of conscious punishment in hell that is the expression of God's wrath against sin, in the first instance against all of humaity in their solidarity with Adam in Original Sin, and then against those who are not saved by faith in Christ's PSA-atoning death.

An eternity of punishment, in scope as well as in temporal extension (and I know that this is a naive presentation of the implications of missing salvation under PSA, but ISTM that it's difficult to discuss the scope of an eternal hell without some acknowledgement of its unboundedness as a punishment) is hard to see as other than disproportionate to the offence of any finite being - including, I would argue, Augustine's originally-sinning Adam in his pristine human perfection, which amplifies his infraction into such a vast offence against God.

On the other hand, the colossal weight of punishment borne by Christ on the cross (and I've heard enthusiastic PSA sermons specify the grimaces and contortions far beyond the pain of mere crucifixion (!!!) supposedly evident in the dying Jesus as he bears, quite literally, the weight of the universe's sin and guilt and its allegedly condign punishment) seems to be matched to the scale of such a disproportionate punishment, because it's understood as an infinite punishment falling on, and borne by, the infinite God. Yet ISTM that the offence is still finite.

Unless you argue that any offence at all against God is infinite in scope and liability, because this is God we're talking about. I'm not trying to produce a straw man here. I will cop to pushing the logic of PSA to its limit, but it seems to me that it does that all by itself, and that it's the stopping-off places, postulated by PSAers to this singularity of sin with its infinitely strong, all-consuming gravitational field, that are arbitrary,* not my postulation of infinities. I think the infinities are there in the maths of PSA, and that they arbitrarily either ignore or misrepresent the necessarily finite nature of human sinning.

See what happens when you get me thinking about Klein Bottles? [Biased]

Here's a thought. I think (not polemically - bear with me!) that there is a default conservatism about the sort of thinking that sustains PSA, which inclines to dismiss both the idea of the applicability of the insights of other disciplines to what are postulated as Biblical, and therefore unalterable, concepts, and the idea that there can really be anything corresponding to progress in theology, including Biblical theology. I acknowledge that several people with big manifest investments in PSA struggle valiantly to accommodate new insights, and I don't want to diss that.

But I do find myself thinking; if PSA is necessarily constructed around notions of the proportional relation of finite human actions to infinite divine demands, and infinite human liability in the face of infringements of those demands, isn't it possible that advances in mathematics - since Anselm or Calvin - have led to a situation in which such understandings are no longer mathematically tenable? (I'm no kind of historian of maths, and can't substantiate that.)

Alternatively, is PSA maybe intrinsically just mathematically incoherent?

I think that an instinct that it is may power some objections to PSA, and certainly mine.

It's one thing to say that science cannot offer a valid critique of theology. Wouldn't a mathematical critique be a whole different ball-game? [Ultra confused]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Missed the edit window to add:

* it reminds me of Chandrasekhar's run-in with Eddington over the postulation of black holes. Chandrasekhar insisted that there was nothing beyond the neutron-star stage to prevent a star above a particular mass collapsing to a singularity. Apparently this angered Eddington, who insisted that there just had to be. I seem to remember that the junior scientist at one (maybe this) point in the argument, said "Now, see here, Eddington..." [Eek!]

And he was right. There is nothing to prevent the collapse. Just an analogy...

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Thanks, Mousethief. Let me do a little digging today (if they don't chain my feet to the floor). I'd like to see what else might be going on possibly in other textual streams.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

...and furthermore...

To link back to Melanie Klein:

I said:

quote:
this singularity of sin with its infinitely strong, all-consuming gravitational field

Unrelated to any theological perspective, Klein unearthed a locus in the human psyche for infinite, uncontained wrath, infinite punishment, and infinite fear. It's the infantile Paranoid-Schizoid position, in which, after the "fall" out of the heaven-like prenatal inter-uterine existence, the infant finds itself in a world of immeasurable and infinite threat, and itself consumed by immeasurable rage and fear, which it projects out into the universe.

It's only when the child can suddenly put bits together and distinguish a complete human being like itself that it has moved to the Depressive Position, where it can recognize a need for reparation and begin to make it.

I can't but think that, in a Kleinian template, we move from understanding God as boundless wrath and threat (PSA) to being able to respond to God as hurt and wounded by our actions - the Depressive Position - when we understand Christ on the cross as God bearing the consequences of what we have made of the world (Moral Influence).

In other words, a Kleinian Moral Influence theology recognises wrath and the boundless liability to punishment not as something in God, but as something in us, and the atonement as something that changes us, not God's attitude to us.

A Kleinian reading of the Bible would proceed analogously - and with total respect for the jagged, ill-fitting but necessary wholeness of Scripture. I for one would never countenance losing the last, very Paranoid-Schizoid, bit of Ps. 137. We need it. And the story of Uzza. It's part of the integrity of the impact of God on crazed, broken souls, human like us.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Euty, I wasn't so much thinking about being so angry that one loses self control (what you might call "rage"), but rather the more subtle distortions of perspective which are the rusult of being angry. Thus, we might not actually give in to the anger, and strike out at the one who has angered us, but the anger often does make us see things in a somewhat distorted light. This, in turn, leads to us acting, not necessarily irrationally, but certainly in a less rational way than if we were a dispassionate observer. In short, istm, there is too much of the "self" in anger for it to be a useful way of describing God who is, ultimately, self-less.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

In addition, you've re-introduced another word, "punishment" (the "penal" bit of PSA).

1 John 18

There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The main problem with "kiss the son" is that the word translated "son" is "bar". The normal Hebrew word for son is "ben". "Bar" is Aramaic. "Bar" as "son" occurs only in Ezra, Daniel, (both post-exilic) once in Proverbs 31 (believed by many to be a codicil), and this single Psalm. "Ben" as "son" occurs in the Psalms 98 times.

Further, there is no marker for a direct object (usually "et" but "l" for the verb "kiss"), making it more likely to be an adverb ("b[a]r" as an adverb means "purely" or "sincerely"). This too is a problem, although much less of one.

The LXX renders it "receive instruction".

Douay-Reims (as you know a translation of the Vulgate, which in the OT was made from Hebrew originals (except the Apocrypha but there's no need to go there)) gives "embrace discipline" (same roughly as the LXX).

The 1917 "Jewish Bible" renders it "do homage in purity" (obviously using "b[a]r" as discussed above).

Wow - I can't believe that I've never come across this before. Thanks MT. I don't think the MT is much of an issue, but the LXX certainly is.

Like LC I'll go and look into it.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
In short, istm, there is too much of the "self" in anger for it to be a useful way of describing God who is, ultimately, self-less.

I agree with Eutychus that I think this has a lot to do with exactly what we mean by wrath / anger or punishment.

Taking anger as example... the famous usage of 'orge' in Ephesians 4: 26 - "in your anger do not sin."

This seems to assume that it is possible to be angry and not sin, but also to assume that the two are usually closely linked.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Where are the evangelical Arminians arguing against PSA. What is the response to them?

Sorry, I still don't get you. You said earlier that plenty of Arminians support PSA. I was agreeing. That fact alone seems to undermine the idea that it is a Calvinistic plot.

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I tend towards SA with Orthodox insights anyway and I am trying to put my finger on how the Calvinist model differs. The issue of the nature and extent of imputation seems key. In what way are many saved as if through fire? How does this relate to say Wesleyan understandings of holiness.

Read some Michael Bird, he's pretty good on imputation.

quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
I am interested in what holders of PSA believe about personal judgement of Christians.

I can't speak for all PSA advocates but generally I'd say something like, "Saved by faith, judged by works."

As I said earlier this idea that PSA is some huge meta-theory just doesn't square up in my experience. PSAers would clearly say that salvation is by faith alone, and that their righteousness is Christ's. However, they then read Jesus' + Paul's teaching about rewards in the new heaven and new earth and therefore they are cool with that too.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
... Klein unearthed a locus in the human psyche for infinite, uncontained wrath, infinite punishment, and infinite fear. It's the infantile Paranoid-Schizoid position, in which, after the "fall" out of the heaven-like prenatal inter-uterine existence, the infant finds itself in a world of immeasurable and infinite threat, and itself consumed by immeasurable rage and fear, which it projects out into the universe...

Can we have a translation of that into English please? Reads more like Vogon from here.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Well, apart from Paranoid-Schizoid, which I explained in a post above, which Eutychus and I were discussing, which words are a problem?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

(Apologies, RL intervened and I'm catching up so (x-posting aside) this will be my fourth in a row.)

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Ok. I'll put my answer very very simply this time. Jesus did not say anything about remaking the world or upsetting the status quo. He did not condemn any number of evils ingrained into society then (poverty, slavery.) He accepted it as it was. We've moved past the Romans.

Jesus didn't upset the status quo? He wasn't an apocalyptic preacher speaking about the coming kingdom of God? Have you read a gospel?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And I'm pointing out that he was talking to an audience at the time and leading them forward rather than utterly upturning more of their preconceptions than they could handle.

Yes. So as I have said twice before you should be easily able to show how he was pointing forward away from the idea of God as king then.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
I assume that this is some sort of Libertarian dig at the foolishness of making drugs illegal rather than anything to do with the Opium Wars

I know about the Opium wars. Instead of countries fighting over it in Asia now people are now abused and killed in cities all over the world. Progress?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
OK. If you want to redefine things as sins simply because they are now possible then of course your perceptions are going to skew. The Abortion debate is for Dead Horses.

That's right, because saying advances in technology have (alongside bringing lots of good) also increased our opportunities to do harm - is exactly my point. [Roll Eyes]

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
The WHO is probably right. We've cured most of the diseases that historically have killed people. Which more or less leaves the mind or the body coming to the end of their useful lifespan. This doesn't mean that things are getting worse. It means that they are getting better and that Mental Health is what we have left to worry about when we don't have bubonic plague, polio, influenza, et al killing off swathes of the population.

So why are suicides increasing in lots of these countries where life is supposedly so much better now? Like Australia, where I live.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
For that matter, why are you making such a difference between soldiers and civillians when historically a professional standing army is a new thing (with rare exceptions such as the Romans)?

Find a historical account of a sack of a city and read it. Then come back to me with that claim about what soldiers did to civilians. By those standards a suicide bombing is clean.

What does this prove? People did really horrible things to one another back then and they still do now.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Oh, that's your question. Nice of you to finally explain that you equate improvement with perfection. Simple answer. I don't. I just look back over history and see less deliberate cruelty and less acceptable cruelty over time. I do not believe perfection to be possible. And apparently you believe anything short of absolute perfection to count for nothing.

This is now getting absurd. I never brought in this assumption about perfection - you were the one who attacked PSA with regards to heaven. Apparently any God who just a angry tyrant forcing people to do stuff is unworthy.

This is what you said earlier ...

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
As for hell being a place with no justice, wrong. What hell fundamentally lacks is mercy and compassion. You do not need justice if no one does anything to hurt others and no one gets hurt. Justice is a protection against the imperfections of the world. Heaven has no need of it because nothing happens there to trigger it. Or do you believe heaven also needs a standing police force?

It was this that I was replying to. You were the one who came up with the notion that justice is a protection against imperfections.

You can't have it both ways - if you concede that coercion is necessary to make people behave better on earth why is it unworthy of God?

[ 14. July 2010, 14:32: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

I'm on a roll now!

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
My point was simply that, for many questions about what I should do or how I should live, I start with the saints, because I want to be like them.

Sorry to be a pain about this but you still haven't answered my question.

I'm not being argumentative, I'm genuinely interested:

Who do you define as 'Saints'?

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Ken:

quote:
...translation...yadda yadda... English... yadda yadda... Klingon...

OK: I recognize the passive-aggressive "psychobabble" move. Happy to help.

quote:
... Klein unearthed a locus

Klein found a place

quote:
in the human psyche

in the human mind, considered from a psychoanalytic standpoint, Klein being a psychoanalyst, as Wikipedia could tell us

quote:
for infinite, uncontained wrath,

for a wrath (are we OK with "wrath" seeing that it's a technical term in PSA, it seems?) that goes on for ever and doesn't have any limits

quote:
infinite punishment,

punishment that goes on forever

quote:
and infinite fear.

and fear that goes on forever.

quote:
It's the infantile Paranoid-Schizoid position,

It's the Paranoid-Schizoid position found in very youg children, literally ones who can't speak ( infans in Latin)

quote:
in which, after the "fall"

in which, after an event which, as the quotation-marks suggest, is possibly analogous to another "fall," in this case that of Adam

quote:
out of the heaven-like prenatal inter-uterine existence,

out of the pre-birth existence in the womb, which in some respects is a bit like heaven

quote:
the infant finds itself in a world of immeasurable and infinite threat,

the very small child finds itself in a total environment with so much danger that it has no idea actually how much there is, and thinks it might go on forever

quote:
and itself consumed by immeasurable rage and fear,

and having so much anger that is so much that it doesn't know how much there is, only that there's an awful lot, and being about that frightened, too,

quote:
which it projects out into the universe...

Which its mind copes with by thinking of it as not inside it, where it hurts too much, but out there in the big wide world, as the article on Klein in Wikipedia that would have explained what Paranoid-Schizoid was would also have told you...

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Argh. So much of this comes back to definitions.

It wasn't until I was outside full-time christian ministry and working in the business world that I discovered the possibility of people saying "I'm angry" (and presumably feeling angry), meanwhile not losing their self-control and acting to identify and/or deal with what was causing them anger. I wonder whether a lot of the disagreement on this thread doesn't have to do with perceptions of 'anger' being equal to 'losing one's temper' and acting in a resultingly disproportionate manner.

Even as someone who uses his anger in just such a way, I consider it a bad thing. It's the equivalent of using nitrous oxide in a petrol tank. Sure it gives a powerful kick and helps move things. But it doesn't do the engine any good at all.

quote:
In addition, you've re-introduced another word, "punishment" (the "penal" bit of PSA). I think almost as much hinges on that as on how we understand "wrath". In French, the word "correction" has come to mean "physical beating" just as often as it means "to right what is wrong" (as in correcting spelling mistakes). That's an awful lot of semantics to unravel.

Except that punishment is always painful and post-mortem punishment has no benefits. And I am utterly unaware of any exegesis that turns this punishment into rehabilitation.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

(To Psyduck) Still makes no sense as a model of human behaviour. Really, minds just don't work that way. Better than Freud I suppose. But still quite unbelieveable flat earther stuff. And completely irrelevant here I think.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Ken:

quote:
(To Psyduck) Still makes no sense as a model of human behaviour. Really, minds just don't work that way. Better than Freud I suppose. But still quite unbelieveable flat earther stuff. And completely irrelevant here I think.

"'Shut up!' he explained..." (Ring Lardner, The Young Immigrants, 1920)

quote:
Really, minds just don't work that way. Better than Freud I suppose. But still quite unbelieveable flat earther stuff.

You really don't like this stuff, do you?!?!? [Big Grin]

[ 14. July 2010, 15:01: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Unless you argue that any offence at all against God is infinite in scope and liability, because this is God we're talking about.

Psyduck, please bear in mind I'm not defending PSA. I'm not sure what I think (more of which later*). That said, most of the books I have to hand here do. Regarding that point, in The Pleasures of God in this context John Piper unequivocally states

quote:
the righteousness of God is his unswerving commitment to uphold the worth of his glory,and that the desecration of his glory can indeed be "made up" by a just punishment - a corresponding loss of glory. An eternal hell is not unjust, because the sin of man against an infinitely glorious God is deserving of an infinite punishment

So Piper at least defends this very position.

quote:
Alternatively, is PSA maybe intrinsically just mathematically incoherent? I think that an instinct that it is may power some objections to PSA, and certainly mine.

I've heard many people object the opposite - that it's too mathematical.

*Digging through these books made me think again about mirrors and credulity. When I was in NFI I devoured everything written by John Piper (often recommended and once a guest speaker for them) available. Inasmuch as I have a theological understanding of PSA, it comes from Piper. It didn't correspond to my theological roots in many ways, but I remember being swept along by his arguments, drawn to worship God and getting high on his (as I saw it) soaring theological insights.

I became suddenly and completely disenchanted with NFI for reasons I won't rehash here. A knock-on effect was a sudden and complete disenchantment with the attendant theology. I've tried Piper again a couple of times, and all I can see is his harshness, smugness, and the gaps in his logic (shifting for instance from describing 'propitiation' as 'averting' God's wrath to 'appeasing' God's wrath).

I guess that's why I'm now so sceptical about being caught up in following others' teachings; Psyduck, your enthusiasm for Klein reminds me of mine for Piper (although of course you may be less naive than me!). As the internet meme has it, "I want to believe"...

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Eutychus:

quote:
Psyduck, please bear in mind I'm not defending PSA.

Sorry - I tend to post in "written spoken English"; "you" here means "one"!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Taking anger as example... the famous usage of 'orge' in Ephesians 4: 26 - "in your anger do not sin."

Goodness, what a lot of cross-posts! I can remember why I don't usually get into these threads...

I've grabbed the above post as a starting point to look at some terminology.

anger/wrath: Johnny S's point needs addressing. Not all anger is sin, contra whoever keeps saying it's one of the deadly sins (not in my Bible [Biased]

). I learned that anger is primarily about a perceived injustice. If the perception is spot-on, might it not be assumed that the anger is righteous? And 'appeasing the wrath' would then mean the injustice is righted? (btw I reiterate [but do not necessarily subscribe to!] Piper's view, consistent with this, that hell is fundamentally just, not unjust).

punishment: Evensong, thanks for the verse. But I don't think it says anything directly about what's happening on the cross, does it? The nearest thing I could find offhand was Isaiah 53 where it talks about "the punishment which brought us peace was borne by him"; in my French Bible it says the Hebrew word there is for "correction". Is there anywhere in Scripture where punishment rather than correction is clearly related to the cross? (this has big implications for the prison chaplaincy part of me!). Justinian, that question goes to you too. Have the PSA people just made the 'punishment' aspect up, or is there some good exegetical basis for it?

Psyduck: the great thing in French is that we use on for 'one' in current language. Very useful for evading responsibility, as in "on a cassé la fenêtre..."

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Eutychus: I was going to digest your post and respond to it later (just about to go out) but TBH there isn't much I would argue with there, and when I do re-read (which I certainly will) it will be to see how much of your trajectory I can retrace. It's very interesting.

quote:
I guess that's why I'm now so sceptical about being caught up in following others' teachings; Psyduck, your enthusiasm for Klein reminds me of mine for Piper (although of course you may be less naive than me!).

This is fair comment, though I'm actually more of a Freudian than a Kleinian! [Eek!]

The value of Klein's thought here, ISTM, is as follows.

If one is prepared to consider that PSA is neither a straightforward lift from the Bible nor a set of utterly compelling deductions which sum up the core of the Biblical logic of salvation, Klein, ISTM, suggests where the core of PSA might come from. A fundamental reality which is violent, capricious and untrustworthy, and fuelled by a boundless rage such as properly to inspire boundless fear, can be found inside our own heads,a nd in a stratum of the makeup of our own personalities.

Klein's understanding is based on very extensive and pioneering work into the psychology of young children; Klein herself moved to Britain to practice, and contributed powerfully to the evolution of British psychoanalysis. If Ken is junking Klein, he's junking a lot more than maybe he realizes.

But hey! If it makes his universe more comfortable...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Well, apart from Paranoid-Schizoid, which I explained in a post above, which Eutychus and I were discussing, which words are a problem?

Odd. I understood the whole thing, and I'm hardly a scholar of psychology.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And I'm pointing out that he was talking to an audience at the time and leading them forward rather than utterly upturning more of their preconceptions than they could handle.
Yes. So as I have said twice before you should be easily able to show how he was pointing forward away from the idea of God as king then.

Of course. He was pointing to the idea of God as father. Indeed, as daddy. One's relationship with a loving father is quite different from one's relationship with a distant (and tyrannical) king.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
In other words, a Kleinian Moral Influence theology recognises wrath and the boundless liability to punishment not as something in God, but as something in us, and the atonement as something that changes us, not God's attitude to us.

The bit I put in italics is very much bog-standard Orthodox teaching, although we don't understand it in the Kleinian way you have put forth. I'm not entirely certain I understand what the "Moral Influence" model is, so I can't be sure we clock together there. I believe, if I'm using the words correctly, we would describe the atonement as more of an ontological change, than a moral influence.

quote:
Originally spouted by John Piper:
the righteousness of God is his unswerving commitment to uphold the worth of his glory,and that the desecration of his glory can indeed be "made up" by a just punishment - a corresponding loss of glory. An eternal hell is not unjust, because the sin of man against an infinitely glorious God is deserving of an infinite punishment

This reminds me of a self-important potentate (king of someplace, governor, burgomeister) who is looking at himself in the mirror and adjusting his eyeliner when a peasant in the street below does something that makes a loud noise which causes the potentate to smear his makeup. So he has the peasant killed. Can God have a loss of glory? It's asinine. Why should anything a finite ant do cause any loss at all in an infinite God? Delicate little thing, isn't he? Really this "god" comes across nothing so much as a self-important fop.

The problem is that God isn't nearly so hung up on his "glory" or "sovereignty" as his supporters suppose. This is the God who condescended to become man -- kenosis. The PSA "god" is like VGer in the first (and execrable) Star Trek movie, that keeps repeating in a shrill voice, "obey me! obey me!"

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
originally posted by Eutychus
anger/wrath: Johnny S's point needs addressing. Not all anger is sin, contra whoever keeps saying it's one of the deadly sins (not in my Bible ). I learned that anger is primarily about a perceived injustice. If the perception is spot-on, might it not be assumed that the anger is righteous? And 'appeasing the wrath' would then mean the injustice is righted?

But that just emphasises my point that anger is a very counter-productive translation of "orge". It's no good keep banging on about anger being potentially righteous. It's just not the way that people understand it. Furthermore, it's not the way that advocates of PSA normally understand it, witness the reluctance to use a less loaded word such as "indignation". They clealy have some investment in maintaining the common understanding of anger.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
They clealy have some investment in maintaining the common understanding of anger.

I can certainly see some perverse benefits of maintaining such a stance, but I genuinely don't know whether the theology requires it.

As to "indignation", to me that smacks of 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells', which is possibly worse not better (though it perhaps suits mousethief's pastiche above).

What do you understand by "in your anger do not sin"?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Actually, I've just found Piper quoting Dabney on God's "moral indignation"...

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
They clealy have some investment in maintaining the common understanding of anger.
I can certainly see some perverse benefits of maintaining such a stance, but I genuinely don't know whether the theology requires it.

As to "indignation", to me that smacks of 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells', which is possibly worse not better (though it perhaps suits mousethief's pastiche above).

What do you understand by "in your anger do not sin"?

Hmmn, maybe there's a point about the mythical newspaper complainant, but indignation is, at least, construable as something which has an emphasis on causing action to remedy the wrong or injustice, rather than just getting mad with the perpetrator. Incidentally, I think that to talk of moral indignation is to miss the point. God, it seems to me, is concerned with righting wrongs, rather than the moral position per se.

"In your anger, do not sin" - do not let your zeal for righteousness lead you to forget that we have to "love our neighbour as ourselves". How about that?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Hmmn, maybe there's a point about the mythical newspaper complainant, but indignation is, at least, construable as something which has an emphasis on causing action to remedy the wrong or injustice, rather than just getting mad with the perpetrator.

At which point damnation to eternal torment falls completely flat. It's not required to remedy wrongs or injustices.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
"In your anger, do not sin" - do not let your zeal for righteousness lead you to forget that we have to "love our neighbour as ourselves"

So 'orge' = 'zeal for righteousness'? (I remember a discussion on the meaning pages back, but I admit I wasn't paying attention at that point).

If that's defensible, why not? But I as far as I can see, that would fit into the way Piper views PSA perfectly. God acts to restore righteousness and defend his own honour. The death of Christ is seen as a means of satisfying God's zeal for righteousness (somehow 'dealing' with it rather than 'sweeping it under the carpet') and demonstrating the enormous value of his own glory.

Please don't shoot the messenger!

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Euty, I have difficulty with the concept of God "defending his own honour". It seems so at odds with Jesus, who willingly subjected Himself to humiliation. Now, if Piper were to define God's honour as His humiliation, (just as His power is most manifest in weakness) then I think he would be onto something.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Well, IIRC it's central to Piper's thinking. God rightly delights in his own honour, glory, name and fame; it is because his people have his name invoked on them that he is committed to them; actions are performed "for his name's sake" and Jesus, in going to the cross, seeks to bring glory to the Father. Piper sees God's commitment to his own honour as foundational to just about everything.

[ 14. July 2010, 18:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Why would the creator and sustainer of the universe need anyone to defend him?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
My point was simply that, for many questions about what I should do or how I should live, I start with the saints, because I want to be like them.
Sorry to be a pain about this but you still haven't answered my question.

I'm not being argumentative, I'm genuinely interested:

Who do you define as 'Saints'?

The saints are the people who have achieved theosis. The holy ones, the people who, when you see them, you know that you're seeing more than just them; you're seeing God in them and through them.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

With due respect Josephine the NT definition of a "saint" is one who has responded to the call of God and has thereby become separated from the world to God.

The issue of any kind of moral / spiritual attainment is irrelevant.

The hebrew first fruits dedicated to God were designated as "holy" (= saint) simply because they were "separated to".

Theosis is a state of holiness way beyond that.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Why would the creator and sustainer of the universe need anyone to defend him?

Well, why indeed? And why would he be so self absorbed as to want that?

In fairness to Piper, his argument is a bit more nuanced, but I still think it founders on the rock of the revealed character of Jesus. If the Father is so radically different from the Son, hoiw could Jesus say, in any meaningful way, "He who has seen me has seen the Father?

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Eutychus:

quote:
Well, IIRC it's central to Piper's thinking. God rightly delights in his own honour, glory, name and fame; it is because his people have his name invoked on them that he is committed to them; actions are performed "for his name's sake" and Jesus, in going to the cross, seeks to bring glory to the Father. Piper sees God's commitment to his own honour as foundational to just about everything.

I suspect that's an accurate reading from the little I know. I've invoked more than enough psychological terminology here already, but i can't let this pass without writing the word "narcissism." And maybe, in the 12-Angry-Men spirit of "running it up the flagpole and seeing who salutes it" preceding that with the word "pathological."

And of course, in doing so, I'm absolutely not insinuating anything about the people who adhere to PSA. It's the character of the Gopd PSA presumes I am interested in, and concerned by.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Wikipedia on NPD
From Wikipedia:

quote:
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder... as "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy."

The narcissist is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige. [It] is closely linked to self-centeredness.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
With due respect Josephine the NT definition of a "saint" is one who has responded to the call of God and has thereby become separated from the world to God.

With due respect, shamwari, words can have more than one meaning. I wasn't telling Johnny S "the NT definition" of a saint. I was telling him what I meant by the word when I used it in my earlier post.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

OK

I understand that

But for any discussion to proceed words must have some basic meaning apart from "what I mean when I use the word".

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
(Apologies, RL intervened and I'm catching up so (x-posting aside) this will be my fourth in a row.)

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Ok. I'll put my answer very very simply this time. Jesus did not say anything about remaking the world or upsetting the status quo. He did not condemn any number of evils ingrained into society then (poverty, slavery.) He accepted it as it was. We've moved past the Romans.
Jesus didn't upset the status quo? He wasn't an apocalyptic preacher speaking about the coming kingdom of God? Have you read a gospel?

You mean the gospel which says things like "Render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's" and "The poor shall always be with you"? Yes I have. And he was always careful to avoid upsetting the overtly secular authorities.

quote:
I know about the Opium wars. Instead of countries fighting over it in Asia now people are now abused and killed in cities all over the world. Progress?

Oh, so numbers don't matter as long as the problem is restricted to Asia? Nor does the fact that multiple countries went to war to support the drug trade?

quote:
That's right, because saying advances in technology have (alongside bringing lots of good) also increased our opportunities to do harm - is exactly my point.

And by and large we use them to do good.

quote:
So why are suicides increasing in lots of these countries where life is supposedly so much better now? Like Australia, where I live.

Because the mortality rate is 100% - and there are fewer outlets for "suicide by enemy soldier" and the like. Also because it's a gradual process subject to statistical variation.

quote:
What does this prove? People did really horrible things to one another back then and they still do now.

So it only matters whether horrible things are done, not how often, how much, or how regularly? Right. The small and illegal slave trade now is exactly the same as the massive trans-atlantic slave trade before it was banned?

quote:
This is now getting absurd. I never brought in this assumption about perfection - you were the one who attacked PSA with regards to heaven. Apparently any God who just a angry tyrant forcing people to do stuff is unworthy.

This is what you said earlier ...

Assuming that God is meant to be perfect, yes. Assuming that he's fallible like the rest of us and the Cross was his act of repentance to man rather than the other way around then that's fine. God ceases to be a monster and merely becomes someone who fucked up spectacularly and is endeavouring to atone for his mistakes - that I can respect.

As I said earlier, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent - choose two at most.

quote:
It was this that I was replying to. You were the one who came up with the notion that justice is a protection against imperfections.

You can't have it both ways - if you concede that coercion is necessary to make people behave better on earth why is it unworthy of God?

Because God is (unless you are far more heterodox than I believe) perfect. If you want to say that God is a fallible individual who fucks up and admits it then he's allowed to use imperfect methods to protect people. The sort of methods we need to use. If he is perfect then he does not have that excuse. He should not be using methods with nasty side effects when there is no need to.

And because God's punishment protects precisely no one. It is after the event and after the possibility of subsequent events has finished. The justice system is part of a wide array of feedback loops protecting people - something that your God is outside.

Is your God perfect?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Wikipedia on NPD
From Wikipedia:
quote:
Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder... as "a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and a lack of empathy."

The narcissist is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, and prestige. [It] is closely linked to self-centeredness.

That's interesting and something I actually know a little bit about!

I've studied NPD in counselling training and at one point I was on the receiving end of someone displaying its characteristics.

I suppose Piper would argue that God is an exception to the rule because he is worth being 'self-absorbed' in, and Piper would also say God's own fullness does not prevent his glory overflowing to others.

Whether the whole thing is just a projection of some sort of collective NPD by PSAers (a conclusion it's certainly tempting to draw from my experience, but probably much too hasty a one) onto God is hard to tell.

On a brief personal note, I have to have some minor surgery tomorrow. Hopefully it's same-day stuff and I'll be back posting here very soon, but if not it's not simply because I'm being rude!

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Eutychus:

quote:
On a brief personal note, I have to have some minor surgery tomorrow. Hopefully it's same-day stuff and I'll be back posting here very soon, but if not it's not simply because I'm being rude!

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
OK

I understand that

But for any discussion to proceed words must have some basic meaning apart from "what I mean when I use the word".

I hardly think the way I was using it was obscure or unintelligible. In fact, my usage was pretty darned close to its basic meaning, quite apart from "what I mean when I use the word."

Dictionary.com has, as its first definition of saint, "any of certain persons of exceptional holiness of life" and as its second, "a person of great holiness, virtue, or benevolence."

Merriam-Webster has as its first definition of saint, "one officially recognized especially through canonization as preeminent for holiness" and as its fourth entry, "one eminent for piety or virtue."

If you want to restrict the meaning of "saint" to what you consider to be the NT meaning of the word, feel free. Just don't expect everyone else to go along with you.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Bible:

1 Samuel 2:9 He will guard the feet of his saints, but the wicked will be silenced in darkness. "It is not by strength that one prevails;

2 Chronicles 6:41 "Now arise, O LORD God, and come to your resting place, you and the ark of your might. May your priests, O LORD God, be clothed with salvation, may your saints rejoice in your goodness.

Psalm 16:3 As for the saints who are in the land, they are the glorious ones in whom is all my delight.

Psalm 30:4 Sing to the LORD, you saints of his; praise his holy name.

Psalm 31:23 Love the LORD, all his saints! The LORD preserves the faithful, but the proud he pays back in full.

Psalm 34:9 Fear the LORD, you his saints, for those who fear him lack nothing.

Psalm 52:9 I will praise you forever for what you have done; in your name I will hope, for your name is good. I will praise you in the presence of your saints.

Psalm 79:2 They have given the dead bodies of your servants as food to the birds of the air, the flesh of your saints to the beasts of the earth.

Psalm 85:8 I will listen to what God the LORD will say; he promises peace to his people, his saints— but let them not return to folly.

Psalm 116:15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.

Psalm 132:9 May your priests be clothed with righteousness; may your saints sing for joy."

Psalm 132:16 I will clothe her priests with salvation, and her saints will ever sing for joy.

Psalm 145:10 All you have made will praise you, O LORD; your saints will extol you.

Psalm 148:14 He has raised up for his people a horn, the praise of all his saints, of Israel, the people close to his heart. Praise the LORD.

Psalm 149:1 Praise the LORD. Sing to the LORD a new song, his praise in the assembly of the saints.

Psalm 149:5 Let the saints rejoice in this honor and sing for joy on their beds.

Psalm 149:9 to carry out the sentence written against them. This is the glory of all his saints. Praise the LORD.

Daniel 7:18 But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and will possess it forever—yes, for ever and ever.'

Daniel 7:21 As I watched, this horn was waging war against the saints and defeating them,

Daniel 7:22 until the Ancient of Days came and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came when they possessed the kingdom.

Daniel 7:25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.

Daniel 7:27 Then the sovereignty, power and greatness of the kingdoms under the whole heaven will be handed over to the saints, the people of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will worship and obey him.'

Daniel 8:12 Because of rebellion, the host of the saints and the daily sacrifice were given over to it. It prospered in everything it did, and truth was thrown to the ground.

Acts 9:13 "Lord," Ananias answered, "I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem.

Acts 9:32 [ Aeneas and Dorcas ] As Peter traveled about the country, he went to visit the saints in Lydda.

Acts 26:10 And that is just what I did in Jerusalem. On the authority of the chief priests I put many of the saints in prison, and when they were put to death, I cast my vote against them.

Romans 1:7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 8:27 And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.

Romans 15:25 Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the saints there.

Romans 15:26 For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the saints in Jerusalem.

Romans 15:31 Pray that I may be rescued from the unbelievers in Judea and that my service in Jerusalem may be acceptable to the saints there,

Romans 16:2 I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been a great help to many people, including me.

Romans 16:15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the saints with them.

1 Corinthians 6:1 [ Lawsuits Among Believers ] If any of you has a dispute with another, dare he take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the saints?

1 Corinthians 6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases?

1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of disorder but of peace. As in all the congregations of the saints,

1 Corinthians 16:15 You know that the household of Stephanas were the first converts in Achaia, and they have devoted themselves to the service of the saints. I urge you, brothers,

2 Corinthians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, To the church of God in Corinth, together with all the saints throughout Achaia:

2 Corinthians 8:4 they urgently pleaded with us for the privilege of sharing in this service to the saints.

2 Corinthians 9:1 There is no need for me to write to you about this service to the saints.

2 Corinthians 13:13 All the saints send their greetings.

Ephesians 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints in Ephesus, the faithful in Christ Jesus:

Ephesians 1:15 [ Thanksgiving and Prayer ] For this reason, ever since I heard about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints,

Ephesians 1:18 I pray also that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened in order that you may know the hope to which he has called you, the riches of his glorious inheritance in the saints,

Ephesians 3:18 may have power, together with all the saints, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ,

Ephesians 6:18 And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.

Philippians 1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, To all the saints in Christ Jesus at Philippi, together with the overseers and deacons:

Philippians 4:21 [ Final Greetings ] Greet all the saints in Christ Jesus. The brothers who are with me send greetings.

Philippians 4:22 All the saints send you greetings, especially those who belong to Caesar's household.

Colossians 1:4 because we have heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love you have for all the saints—

Colossians 1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has qualified you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the kingdom of light.

Colossians 1:26 the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations, but is now disclosed to the saints.

1 Timothy 5:10 and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

Philemon 1:5 because I hear about your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints.

Philemon 1:7 Your love has given me great joy and encouragement, because you, brother, have refreshed the hearts of the saints.

Jude 1:3 [ The sin and doom of Godless men ] Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.

Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

Revelation 8:3 Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.

Revelation 8:4 The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of the saints, went up before God from the angel's hand.

Revelation 11:18 The nations were angry; and your wrath has come. The time has come for judging the dead, and for rewarding your servants the prophets and your saints and those who reverence your name, both small and great— and for destroying those who destroy the earth."

Revelation 13:7 He was given power to make war against the saints and to conquer them. And he was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation.

Revelation 13:10 If anyone is to go into captivity, into captivity he will go. If anyone is to be killed with the sword, with the sword he will be killed. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.

Revelation 14:12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.

Revelation 16:6 for they have shed the blood of your saints and prophets, and you have given them blood to drink as they deserve."

Revelation 17:6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of the saints, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus.

Revelation 18:20 Rejoice over her, O heaven! Rejoice, saints and apostles and prophets! God has judged her for the way she treated you.' "

Revelation 18:24 In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth."

Revelation 19:8 Fine linen, bright and clean, was given her to wear." (Fine linen stands for the righteous acts of the saints.)

Saints means God's people. Not some lesser decreasing circle.

[ 14. July 2010, 21:51: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You mean the gospel which says things like "Render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's" and "The poor shall always be with you"? Yes I have. And he was always careful to avoid upsetting the overtly secular authorities.

He was so successful that he got himself killed for it.

quote:
I know about the Opium wars. Instead of countries fighting over it in Asia now people are now abused and killed in cities all over the world. Progress?

Oh, so numbers don't matter as long as the problem is restricted to Asia? Nor does the fact that multiple countries went to war to support the drug trade?

quote:
That's right, because saying advances in technology have (alongside bringing lots of good) also increased our opportunities to do harm - is exactly my point.

And by and large we use them to do good.

quote:
So why are suicides increasing in lots of these countries where life is supposedly so much better now? Like Australia, where I live.

Because the mortality rate is 100% - and there are fewer outlets for "suicide by enemy soldier" and the like. Also because it's a gradual process subject to statistical variation.

quote:
The small and illegal slave trade now is exactly the same as the massive trans-atlantic slave trade before it was banned?

2-4 million people are trafficked every year (src)

quote:

quote:
You can't have it both ways - if you concede that coercion is necessary to make people behave better on earth why is it unworthy of God?
Because God is (unless you are far more heterodox than I believe) perfect. If you want to say that God is a fallible individual who fucks up and admits it then he's allowed to use imperfect methods to protect people. The sort of methods we need to use. If he is perfect then he does not have that excuse. He should not be using methods with nasty side effects when there is no need to.

So you're saying that if God is perfect, he'll somehow be able to make us all behave nicely all the time of our own free will, without being robots? Sorry, that doesn't wash. God may be perfect and omnipotent but that doesn't give him the ability to do the logically impossible like make people behave how he likes when he doesn't control their behaviour.

In fact, God is doing precisely what you say. However, it means that creation is a two stage process and the cross is central to that process.

[ 14. July 2010, 23:28: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Ah sheesh, I've really botched the code there. I shouldn't post while tired. Could a kindlly host just delete that post please?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Yet again, when I manage to get back to this thread there has been a lot of activity.

Apologies for this inevitable litany of multi-posts.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Of course. He was pointing to the idea of God as father. Indeed, as daddy. One's relationship with a loving father is quite different from one's relationship with a distant (and tyrannical) king.

Does your bible have some kind of footnote explaining that when Jesus says father he means father but when he says king he means father?

Or alternatively he used more than one analogy and we need to fit them all together.

God is both my father and my king.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

(I don't know why I'm getting into this...)

PSA is not pretty and kind of icky to really think about.

BUT, why else did Jesus allow himself to be crucified? I haven't heard anything but PSA actually answer that question for me.

Jesus could have just walked out of the trial, or just disappear, or just not go to Jerusalem if it was that Jesus was crucified because he was simply arrested.

If it was to prove that Jesus was God, I'm still stuck thinking that there were plenty of other ways besides resurrection.

There has to be a reason Jesus allowed himself to die.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The saints are the people who have achieved theosis. The holy ones, the people who, when you see them, you know that you're seeing more than just them; you're seeing God in them and through them.

I'm sorry that this turned into an argument over 'Saints' - that wasn't my intention.

However, do you notice that you have answered my question by simply giving another synonym for saints?

My question was - how do you recognise people who have achieved theosis when you meet them or read of them? (Is it a subjective feeling, "I just know", or do you look for certain qualities? If the latter then where do you get this definition from and how do you know how much of a quality is enough for theosis?)

[ 15. July 2010, 00:21: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
There has to be a reason Jesus allowed himself to die.

He allowed himself to die so that he could destroy death.

From the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom:

quote:
He that was taken by death has annihilated it!
He descended into Hades and took Hades captive!
He embittered it when it tasted his flesh!
And anticipating this Isaiah exclaimed: "Hades was embittered when it encountered thee in the lower regions".
It was embittered, for it was abolished!
It was embittered, for it was mocked!
It was embittered, for it was purged!
It was embittered, for it was despoiled!
It was embittered, for it was bound in chains!
It took a body and came upon God!
It took earth and encountered heaven!
It took what it saw but crumbled before what it had not seen!
O death, where is thy sting? O Hades, where is thy victory?
Christ is risen, and you are overthrown!
Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen!
Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice!
Christ is risen, and life reigns!
Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in a tomb!
For Christ, being raised from the dead, has become the first-fruits of them that slept.
To him be glory and might unto ages of ages. Amen.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

If Dinghy Sailor was defeated by the code, I'll have a try:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You mean the gospel which says things like "Render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's" and "The poor shall always be with you"? Yes I have. And he was always careful to avoid upsetting the overtly secular authorities.

No he wasn't. Herod was a secular authority. Indeed all talk of God as king was highly seditious. What inscription did Pilate put on the cross?

And when we get to the book of Revelation Rome and the Emperor are specifically targetted. However late you date Revelation Christianity was still a minority taking very dangerous pot-shots.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Oh, so numbers don't matter as long as the problem is restricted to Asia? Nor does the fact that multiple countries went to war to support the drug trade?

You're doing it again. My point is that people were good and bad then and they still are now. No change.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Because the mortality rate is 100% - and there are fewer outlets for "suicide by enemy soldier" and the like. Also because it's a gradual process subject to statistical variation.

Statistical variation? Do you really believe this stuff or are you just winding me up?

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So it only matters whether horrible things are done, not how often, how much, or how regularly? Right. The small and illegal slave trade now is exactly the same as the massive trans-atlantic slave trade before it was banned?

Small, who said anything about small? The whole point of it being illegal is that it is harder to trace and quantify, but even with that it is certainly not small.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Assuming that God is meant to be perfect, yes. Assuming that he's fallible like the rest of us and the Cross was his act of repentance to man rather than the other way around then that's fine. God ceases to be a monster and merely becomes someone who fucked up spectacularly and is endeavouring to atone for his mistakes - that I can respect.

As I said earlier, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnibenevolent - choose two at most.

You're bring up your definition of perfection again. One I never used.

Let's get this straight. You fully admit that the only way we've seen any progress is through coercion. Parliament didn't pass a bill saying that we need to be nice to one another, it made slavery illegal and it had the authority to back it up.

So, based on the evidence of human history you have no evidence at all, not slight evidence, none, that humans will get better without coercion. But you still have the notion that God should be able to do it differently because of your definition of perfection. Why? What reason do you have for saying God can't act this way?

Your definition of perfection seems to be a square-circle.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Because God is (unless you are far more heterodox than I believe) perfect. If you want to say that God is a fallible individual who fucks up and admits it then he's allowed to use imperfect methods to protect people. The sort of methods we need to use. If he is perfect then he does not have that excuse. He should not be using methods with nasty side effects when there is no need to.

And because God's punishment protects precisely no one. It is after the event and after the possibility of subsequent events has finished. The justice system is part of a wide array of feedback loops protecting people - something that your God is outside.

Is your God perfect?

Overall you sound rather like a re-hash of Bertrand Russell, “I can imagine a sardonic demon producing us for his amusement, but I cannot attribute to a being who is wise and omnipotent the terrible weight of cruelty and suffering of what is best that has marred the history of man.”

I have to agree with Russell here. It is why I can't stomach liberal Christianity.

Let's go back to your statistical variation earlier. Let's assume for a moment that I accept your premise that humans are getting morally better on their own. (You may have noticed that I don't agree but let's just assume it for now.) Life is still a massive lottery. Billions of people live with the daily reality of starvation, disease, rape, war ... and worse. Their fate is a simple lottery of their birth. To me they are people. To you they are statistics. What comfort to them is it if we do get a bit better in the next thousand years?

If I am to believe in God at all in this world then there has to be another factor that Russell had not considered - and I think that it is justice. God is loving, powerful and just.

That's the God I believe in. The God you are describing stands at the gates of Auschwitz and just shrugs his shoulders while adding a few more data entries to his statistics.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
However, do you notice that you have answered my question by simply giving another synonym for saints?

Yes -- you asked for a definition. I gave you a definition. If you wanted to know how I recognize saints, you should have asked that.

The way you recognize saints is the same way you recognize people from any other group -- you spend time with them and get to know them. I started with the people who have been glorified as saints by the Orthodox Church. As I read their lives, and asked for their prayers, and spent time with them, I got to know some of them.

And once you get to know people in a group, it's easier to recognize other people in that same group. Like Sunday -- we had a bunch of friends over. Two of them had been to the same university, several decades apart. They had never met each other, but they recognized each other as Aggies right away.

It's the same thing with the saints. The more time you've spent with them, the more time you've spent around holiness and love, the easier it is to recognize when you encounter it again.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Yes -- you asked for a definition. I gave you a definition. If you wanted to know how I recognize saints, you should have asked that.

Okay, I obviously wasn't clear enough when I said this earlier:

quote:
Originally posted by me:
Who gets to define who fits in the 'Saint' category?

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The way you recognize saints is the same way you recognize people from any other group -- you spend time with them and get to know them. I started with the people who have been glorified as saints by the Orthodox Church. As I read their lives, and asked for their prayers, and spent time with them, I got to know some of them.

Thanks, this is what I was after. So you start with people given the official 'Saint' (TM) by the Orthodox church and work backwards from there? I can understand that.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

Josephine, why did Jesus have to die to destroy death? God is omnipotent, isn't he? Couldn't he have just snapped his fingers and made death go away?

I can't think of any scriptures that explain that well. (Yeah, I'm going back to the Bible...)

It seems to me that either (1) it just is, accept it on faith or (2) death is a result of the Fall (Adam's Sin) and Jesus's death reversed that.

The second explanation gets us to PSA in some form, as we are all fallen creatures in need of God's grace.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

BUT, why else did Jesus allow himself to be crucified? I haven't heard anything but PSA actually answer that question for me.

Because if he ran away, he wouldn't have been standing up to evil and injustice.

He proclaimed the Kingdom in the most powerful way he could by not running away.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
Josephine, why did Jesus have to die to destroy death? God is omnipotent, isn't he? Couldn't he have just snapped his fingers and made death go away?

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by omnipotent. There are certainly things that God can't do -- like making a square circle. And there are things that he chooses not to do -- like making us into puppets. He respects our choices, and that means he allows us the consequences of our choices. He doesn't seem to undo the things that we do.

Could he? I don't know.

quote:
It seems to me that either (1) it just is, accept it on faith or (2) death is a result of the Fall (Adam's Sin) and Jesus's death reversed that.

Number 2. Death is a result of the fall, and Jesus's death reversed it.

quote:
The second explanation gets us to PSA in some form, as we are all fallen creatures in need of God's grace.

No, it doesn't get us to PSA. There's no P and there's no S. We were trapped by death, with no way to escape, and we needed someone to rescue us. And the way God chose to do that was to give himself over to death -- not as a substitute for us, mind you, but for us, because he knew that if he did that, he could destroy death from the inside.

For substitution to work, you have to believe that God is demanding someone's death, and he doesn't care whose. He's like the death camp guards who is going to kill 10 prisoners in the morning, and he doesn't care which 10, so if you want to substitute yourself for one of the other ones, go right ahead. But we know that's not what God is like.

Jesus's sacrifice wasn't one of substitution, but rather, it was like a man who throws himself in the path of a speeding car in order to save the life of a child standing on the road. By throwing himself into the way, he can hurl the child to safety at the cost of his own life -- and he is feels a kind of joy and honor at being able to do that. His death is for the sake of the child, but not as a substitute for the child.

That's what Jesus did -- he threw himself into death. And when death swallowed him, it got a meal it couldn't digest. It was ripped apart from the inside, and can no longer hold any of us.

So that's why Jesus died. Your other question -- did God have to do it that way? I don't know. I just know this is the way he did it. For whatever reason, it was the way he chose to do it. Whether there was another way, I can't say. But I suspect that this is the way it had to be.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
He respects our choices, and that means he allows us the consequences of our choices. He doesn't seem to undo the things that we do.

Could he? I don't know.

So when we mess up, God has us take the consequences of our actions. True. And as sinful human beings our messing up takes us into sin and separation from God. (Kind of like a Penalty..)

quote:

quote:
The second explanation gets us to PSA in some form, as we are all fallen creatures in need of God's grace.
No, it doesn't get us to PSA. There's no P and there's no S. We were trapped by death, with no way to escape, and we needed someone to rescue us. And the way God chose to do that was to give himself over to death -- not as a substitute for us, mind you, but for us, because he knew that if he did that, he could destroy death from the inside.

For substitution to work, you have to believe that God is demanding someone's death, and he doesn't care whose. He's like the death camp guards who is going to kill 10 prisoners in the morning, and he doesn't care which 10, so if you want to substitute yourself for one of the other ones, go right ahead. But we know that's not what God is like.

But God did care whose, otherwise Jesus would not have come down from heaven and become incarnate and then die for us. If he didn't, then you seem to be separating God and Jesus, which doesn't seem to fly.

quote:
Jesus's sacrifice wasn't one of substitution, but rather, it was like a man who throws himself in the path of a speeding car in order to save the life of a child standing on the road. By throwing himself into the way, he can hurl the child to safety at the cost of his own life -- and he is feels a kind of joy and honor at being able to do that. His death is for the sake of the child, but not as a substitute for the child.

That's what Jesus did -- he threw himself into death. And when death swallowed him, it got a meal it couldn't digest. It was ripped apart from the inside, and can no longer hold any of us.

In your illustration Jesus Substituted himself for the life of the child (one of them was going to die). Jesus substituted his death for ours.

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Because if he ran away, he wouldn't have been standing up to evil and injustice.

He proclaimed the Kingdom in the most powerful way he could by not running away.

And by living and preaching and healing for more years wouldn't have proclaimed the Kingdom??

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
He respects our choices, and that means he allows us the consequences of our choices. He doesn't seem to undo the things that we do.

Could he? I don't know.
So when we mess up, God has us take the consequences of our actions. True. And as sinful human beings our messing up takes us into sin and separation from God. (Kind of like a Penalty..)

I guess, if you drop a knife and it lands on your foot and cuts your foot, and you have to go get stitches, you could say that the injury is the penalty for dropping the knife. But I don't think that, when you talk about a penal system, you're talking about natural consequences. Instead, I think you're talking about consequences imposed by an authority. They're not the same thing.

quote:

quote:
For substitution to work, you have to believe that God is demanding someone's death, and he doesn't care whose. He's like the death camp guards who is going to kill 10 prisoners in the morning, and he doesn't care which 10, so if you want to substitute yourself for one of the other ones, go right ahead. But we know that's not what God is like.
But God did care whose, otherwise Jesus would not have come down from heaven and become incarnate and then die for us. If he didn't, then you seem to be separating God and Jesus, which doesn't seem to fly.

Okay, I didn't understand that at all. Are you saying that God wanted to kill Jesus, instead of us, and that's why Jesus came, so God could kill him? But if that's the case, then Jesus wasn't a substitute for us, but rather he was the victim that God chose. But I don't think that's what you mean.

And when you say, "If he didn't," do you mean, "If he didn't die for us?" I'm reasonably sure we both think that he did die for us.

So I'm confused. Could you try again?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

I guess, if you drop a knife and it lands on your foot and cuts your foot, and you have to go get stitches, you could say that the injury is the penalty for dropping the knife. But I don't think that, when you talk about a penal system, you're talking about natural consequences. Instead, I think you're talking about consequences imposed by an authority. They're not the same thing.

They are the same thing if you believe that God created the world in the first place. By 'natural' you then mean 'according to the pattern that God imposed onto the world by his authority.'

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Jesus's sacrifice wasn't one of substitution, but rather, it was like a man who throws himself in the path of a speeding car in order to save the life of a child standing on the road. By throwing himself into the way, he can hurl the child to safety at the cost of his own life -- and he is feels a kind of joy and honor at being able to do that. His death is for the sake of the child, but not as a substitute for the child.
In your illustration Jesus Substituted himself for the life of the child (one of them was going to die). Jesus substituted his death for ours.

Indeed, John Piper uses a very similar analogy in support of PSA.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The main problem with "kiss the son" is that the word translated "son" is "bar". The normal Hebrew word for son is "ben". "Bar" is Aramaic. "Bar" as "son" occurs only in Ezra, Daniel, (both post-exilic) once in Proverbs 31 (believed by many to be a codicil), and this single Psalm. "Ben" as "son" occurs in the Psalms 98 times.

Further, there is no marker for a direct object (usually "et" but "l" for the verb "kiss"), making it more likely to be an adverb ("b[a]r" as an adverb means "purely" or "sincerely"). This too is a problem, although much less of one.

The LXX renders it "receive instruction"

Okay, I've had a few minutes to read up on this now.

MT (as in the Hebrew text, not as in you) - as you have noted the aramaic expression is definitely used to mean son in Proverbs 31: 2 (I'm not sure there is much evidence of it being a codicil there other than wanting to undermine a Christian reading of Psalm 2). I think "kiss the Son" is a pretty good translation of the MT.

LXX - this is much more problematic. However, since the rest of the Psalm uses 'Son' language and has been interpreted by both Jews and Christians as Messianic I think you have to do more work than just pointing to it - which translation is correct? MT or LXX?

Most textual critical techniques would point to the MT since it is a lot easier to see how a translator would move from a metaphor (kiss the Son) to explaining it's meaning (accept discipline from the Son) than the other way round.

Indeed I'd go further to say that to translate it "receive instruction" is deliberately misleading if aware of the MT. It is clear in the LXX that one we are to receive instruction from is 'the Son' and (if anyone is aware about the translation debate) to put it that way seems to intentionally draw the reader away from that fact.

In short there is no such thing as a neutral translation. I'd have to say that how you render Psalm 2: 12 reveals more about your preconceptions than about your translating skills whichever option you go for.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Jesus's sacrifice wasn't one of substitution, but rather, it was like a man who throws himself in the path of a speeding car in order to save the life of a child standing on the road. By throwing himself into the way, he can hurl the child to safety at the cost of his own life -- and he is feels a kind of joy and honor at being able to do that. His death is for the sake of the child, but not as a substitute for the child.
In your illustration Jesus Substituted himself for the life of the child (one of them was going to die). Jesus substituted his death for ours.
Indeed, John Piper uses a very similar analogy in support of PSA.

You know, I heard a story on NPR some time ago, about what happens when people from North Korea and South Korea visit each other. The two countries were so isolated from each other that their languages have diverged. They said that people will find that they're speaking what seems to be the same language, but they won't be able to understand each other.

I think I know how they felt.

It seems to me that you and Pata and Johnny S are all taking things that, to me, are clearly different, and insisting that they're the same thing.

Johnny says that punishment and natural consequences are the same thing. But, to me, it's obvious that they're not! Natural consequences are what happens after you do something if no one intervenes. Punishment is an intervention. It is an intentionally aversive consequence that someone in power or authority imposes in response to unwanted behavior. If there is no one imposing the consequence, if it's just a matter of what happens because of the way creation works, then it's not a punishment.

You and Pata say that a sacrifice is the same thing as a substitution. To me, again, it's obvious that they're not the same thing at all. If you have a recipe that calls for sour cream, you could substitute plain yogurt for the sour cream and see how it turns out. If you have an academic schedule that calls for so many hours of math, you can substitute formal logic for the math. You can do these substitutions because you had a recipe or a rulebook that called for one thing, and you put another thing in its place.

That's what substitution is. But if you're making chicken soup, you didn't replace beef with chicken. You just used chicken. You could have used beef, but using one thing instead of another thing isn't the same thing as substituting one thing for another thing.

And the man who threw himself in front of the car to save the child didn't substitute the child's life for his. There was no "life" slot that he was giving up so the child could fill it; there was no "death" slot that he was taking so that the child wouldn't have to. There was no substitution at all.

I don't know why I see differences that you don't see. Whyever it happens, it sure makes communication difficult.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I think the idea that an aramaic word was used --hapax in the psalms, and ungrammatically at that-- in psalm 2 is ludicrous. I think you should investigate more about Proverbs 31 before you dismiss it as having anything to do with Psalm 2. That's a kneejerk reaction. The fact that the word is so rare in the OT, and the vast bulk of the uses are in post-exilic books, should give pause for thought. That the Vulgate also differs from the MT indicates there was a hebrew text extant in Jerome's day that had the LXX reading. No matter how you slice it, it's a troublesome verse. Saying all translations indicate preconceptions is true but wide of the mark. Some translations really are better than others. (None are perfect.)

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
You and Pata say that a sacrifice is the same thing as a substitution.

Hey, my day job depends on people not understanding each other [Big Grin]

However, here, I didn't say anything of the sort*. I merely pointed out that your illustration was a lot like one John Piper uses, and he is a fan of PSA. That might mean you have thought this example through more than him, or it might be that your example (which, after all, is only an illustration) includes the idea of substitution as well as that of sacrifice.

*Just to make things clear again, I'm not sure what I think about PSA; it's just that it happens to be the worked-out doctrine of what went on at the cross I'm the most familiar with. Reporting and reformulating its ideas here is helping me to clarify my thinking, but I'm not defending it to the hilt.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Josephine:

quote:
You and Pata say that a sacrifice is the same thing as a substitution.

And clearly it's not, or the World Cup would have been a very different event. Probably with fewer red cards... Sorry... [Hot and Hormonal]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I have made a new thread in Keryg about the "kiss the son" verse so we needn't keep dragging out the tangent here. With apologies for all for creating the tangent in the first place. Those interested, please join us there to chew over this particularly meaty bone.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

I guess, if you drop a knife and it lands on your foot and cuts your foot, and you have to go get stitches, you could say that the injury is the penalty for dropping the knife. But I don't think that, when you talk about a penal system, you're talking about natural consequences. Instead, I think you're talking about consequences imposed by an authority. They're not the same thing.
They are the same thing if you believe that God created the world in the first place. By 'natural' you then mean 'according to the pattern that God imposed onto the world by his authority.'

Which is fine, in and of itself. But you then can't bring in concepts of volitional punishment and pretend that you're talking about the same thing. Either punishment means "natural consequences", or it means what everyone else in the world except apologists for PSA think it means, which is, a "judicial" type intervention. It can't be both non-intervention and intervention at the same time. That would be sophistry, not logic.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

Johnny says that punishment and natural consequences are the same thing. But, to me, it's obvious that they're not! Natural consequences are what happens after you do something if no one intervenes. Punishment is an intervention. It is an intentionally aversive consequence that someone in power or authority imposes in response to unwanted behavior. If there is no one imposing the consequence, if it's just a matter of what happens because of the way creation works, then it's not a punishment.

Does punishment always have to be an intervention?

For example lots of car parks these days have 'one way spikes' preventing people from going out the entrance and avoiding paying. If you try to you are 'punished' by having your tyres burst. This punishment is not intervention in the way you describe it - it is built into the system. It is purely impersonal and yet at the same time it was set up with intent to 'punish'.

BTW (and this in response to JJ's post too) we are using human analogies to describe God here. If you are are pointing out the limitations of such an approach then I agree. However, it is not sophistry to use analogies on the one hand and then to be aware of their limitations on the other.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.

quote:
For example lots of car parks these days have 'one way spikes' preventing people from going out the entrance and avoiding paying. If you try to you are 'punished' by having your tyres burst. This punishment is not intervention in the way you describe it - it is built into the system. It is purely impersonal and yet at the same time it was set up with intent to 'punish'.

I think that's akin to C H Dodd's understanding of "wrath" in Paul. But I don't think you can square it with the specifics of PSA. The key word, I think, is perhaps "substituton". It's specific, and personal. Jesus is on the cross in my place, for my sin, because that's what God wants in my case. Forgiveness, yes, but also punishment, without which I, specifically, can't be forgiven. The test of this is that that, ISTM, is precisely what the "governmental" understanding of atonement rejects. There is sin in the universe, an offence against God - but it's generalized, and Jesus' death deals with it in general terms.

The only way you could plead impersonal operation in PSA is to say that PSA is the same thing as governmental atonement, and it clearly isn't. PSA inevitably implies a personal, willed element, not just to salvation, but also to punishment.

Again, the giveaway is the line in the Townend hymn: God "turns his face away" - because he can't look at sin. It's personal - in our case, and in that of the dying Jesus.

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

Mousethief wrote:

"this meaty bone"

While the rest of us chew on this:

The Wrath of the Lamb (Revelations 6-19)

15Then the kings of the earth, the princes, the generals, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and every free man hid in caves and among the rocks of the mountains. 16They called to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17For the great day of their wrath has come, and who can stand?” Revelations 6

BTW, Sayers seems to think that the Cross was the consequence of Israel's disbelief:

Quote
Now, nobody is compelled to believe a single word of this remarkable story. God (says the Church) has created us perfectly free to disbelieve in him as much as we choose. If we do disbelieve, then he and we must take the consequences in a world ruled by cause and effect. The Church says further, that man did, in fact, disbelieve, and that God did, in fact, take the consequences.

Dorothy L. Sayers, in "Drama and Dogma".

Only disbelief in the Gospel? Anything to do with the Sin that can never be forgiven?

[ 15. July 2010, 08:00: Message edited by: footwasher ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'm very soon going to be out of here and into hospital, but Psyduck ISTM that you have shifted from talking about "punishment" (which is what Johnny S is talking about) to "wrath", as has footwasher.

I asked a question a while back about whether for the cross, there was evidence for "punishment" as in "infliction of suffering" (possibly with the idea of some redemptive value) as opposed to "correction" meaning "righting a wrong". As far as I can tell, Evensong offered a verse in 1 John but it has nothing to do with the cross.

Where's the evidence for this understanding of "punishment" at the cross, either in Scripture or in the PSA literature?

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

On a tangent that's maybe not, ISTM that Dodd's understanding of wrath in Paul as impersonal (and maybe a thread on the Biblical compatibility of governmental atonement would be a good plan soon!) explains why he treats the issue of same-sex sexual relations the way he does.

ISTM that Romans presents a "natural law" (AKA "blank cheque"! [Biased]

) approach to this issue, but in conjunction with another component, an "empiricist" approach which seems to look for substantiation to the physical and pathological consequences of promiscuous sexual relations in the ancient world. What he seems to be saying is "This is what happens, because this is the way the universe is set up."

Paul obviously personally disapproves of same-sex relationships, and has no conception of homosexual agapeistic love in a stable relationship; but he doesn't invoke OT law here, because he can't, because of the relationships among law, faith and grace that he elaborates in Romans itself, which he sums up in I Corinthians as "Everything is lawful for me, but not everything builds up."

ISTM that despite his personal strong aversion, Paul necessarily sets his (actually very oblique and "for example" obiter dictum style) treatment of homosexuality in a framework of impersonal wrath.

If this is even distantly analogous to aspects of "governmental" atonement - and I haven't remotely looked at this - then the question seems to arise quite naturally:

Does the shift from a generalized, Biblical-compatible, understanding that empirical sin in the universe earns by way of reaction the "governmental" wrath of God, to a personalized PSA understanding that it's my sin that's being specifically punished in Jesus on the cross also lead to a framework of thought in which homophobia is inevitably ramped up to a huge degree?

Put it this way. Paul has strong anti-same-sex-relationship feelings, and an understanding that these things are "against nature." That's obvious. I take the view that, in his "proto-governmental" understanding, we can view his attitude to what we (two millennia later) call homosexuality is a personal take with the same force as his attitude to women's hairstyles and suitability as preachers.

However, if PSA is about seeing ourselves with the same contempt that God sees us as sinners, up until Jesus dies for us, takes our sin away, and God can look "graciously" on us again, doesn't that inevitably make us look at our own sexuality as something that must disgust God, and homosexuality all the more? Especially if we ourselves have homosexual inclinations... (And I'm not saying that by way of anti-PSA innuendo, but it is something that in honesty needs to be looked at.)

PSA is specific and personal. It needs an understanding of sin as specific and personal. The natural framework for such an understanding is Law.

Isn't it almost inevitable that PSA constitutes a covert or even overt attempt to smuggle the Law back into Christianity?

And isn't homosexuality in Paul as compared to contemporary conservative Christianity a test-case?

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Either punishment means "natural consequences", or it means what everyone else in the world except apologists for PSA think it means, which is, a "judicial" type intervention. It can't be both non-intervention and intervention at the same time. That would be sophistry, not logic.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Again, the giveaway is the line in the Townend hymn: God "turns his face away" - because he can't look at sin. It's personal - in our case, and in that of the dying Jesus.

Ah yes, that would be the hymn that name checks "ransom" [Biased]

[ 15. July 2010, 08:22: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I'm not sure PSA is personal in the way you describe. Certainly I think the calvinists I used to know mostly regarded the sort of declaration that "if I was the only sinner in the world, Jesus would still have come and died for me" with considerable distaste. I would have said that was a more Arminian perspective. Again, the criticism I've often heard is that it's too impersonal, cold and calculating.

And I'd still like to know about 'punishment'...

[ 15. July 2010, 08:23: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

X-posted with Eutychus:

quote:
Where's the evidence for this understanding of "punishment" at the cross, either in Scripture or in the PSA literature?

I think the key question is the "personal" (in the sense of "character-of-God" revealing - the expression used by several posters here) or "impersonal" (in the Doddian, Pauline sense.)

ISTM that as soon as you invoke glory, God's jealousy for his glory, or "offence" in the personalized, against-God-as-God sense, you have highlighted a retributive aspect of punishment, and made wrath into a divine attribute which has all the theoplogical and moral liabilities that this thread has recently been exploring. God's anger against sin raises questions of motivation. Is it like my anger at starving children in the third world, or my anger at someone who disses me?

I completely agree with the need for careful distinction of terms, but implications are just as important. Though yes, they should be highlighted as the argument evolves!

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Ah yes, that would be the hymn that name checks "ransom"

Huh?

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Ah yes, that would be the hymn that name checks "ransom"
Huh?

quote:
Originally written by Stuart Townend:

(V1)

How great the pain of searing loss,
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the chosen One,
Bring many sons to glory

(V3 4 & 5)

Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom

All this from the supposed master of hymns about how PSA is certainly the only atonement doctrine ever. It makes me laff when I sing it.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Eutychus:

quote:
Certainly I think the calvinists I used to know mostly regarded the sort of declaration that "if I was the only sinner in the world, Jesus would still have come and died for me" with considerable distaste. I would have said that was a more Arminian perspective.

One of the things that I'm taking from these threads is that thee's a big - and for them often suspiciously convenient - gulf between what people who embrace PSA say about it, and what, according to its classical expositions, it actually is. I hope it's clear I'm not aiming this at you, and I'm not "having a go" at anyone, but ISTM there's a regular, essentially unconscious, commutation between assertions of PSA and conflations of it with other, strictly incompatible, approaches to atonement when that conveniently "lets off the hook." I can't but see this in connection with the consistent refusal of people who say they believe in PSA to specify what it actually is and says.

quote:
Again, the criticism I've often heard is that it's too impersonal, cold and calculating.

Well, let's go back to the narcissism thing. Pathological narcissists don't take others seriously as persons. Others don't really exist for them, except as opportunities or obstacles.

However narcissists in relationships (and that's only an oxymoron on one level! People have to work with them, and are married to them!) treat people badly in highly personal, focused and destructive ways.

That is, pathological narcissism models a kind of "impersonal personal" that I think fits the profile of the PSA God horrifyingly well.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Ah yes, that would be the hymn that name checks "ransom"
Huh?
quote:
Originally written by Stuart Townend:

(V1)

How great the pain of searing loss,
The Father turns His face away
As wounds which mar the chosen One,
Bring many sons to glory

(V3 4 & 5)

Why should I gain from His reward?
I cannot give an answer
But this I know with all my heart
His wounds have paid my ransom
All this from the supposed master of hymns about how PSA is certainly the only atonement doctrine ever. It makes me laff when I sing it.

I've no idea how that quote is meant to be relevant to anything we're talking about.

But the last two lines of the Townend lyric make the point about the personal aspect of PSA.

PS I think Townend's theology is execrable, but it doesn't make me laff. [Killing me]

[ 15. July 2010, 08:48: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

Psyduck, do you mean the very two last lines? My point is that there, just after admitting agnosticism about quite how the atonement works ("I cannot give an answer") he name checks a different atonement model, Devil's Ransom. Yes there's PSA imagery in the hymn but we have to be careful when quoting from it, there's other stuff as well. The bit about the Father turning his face away, for instance, ISTR being quite a feature in Moltmann's TCG, which wasn't exactly PSA either.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[qb]Either punishment means "natural consequences", or it means what everyone else in the world except apologists for PSA think it means, which is, a "judicial" type intervention. It can't be both non-intervention and intervention at the same time. That would be sophistry, not logic.

This touches on the theology of miracles in general. There it can be argued that the natural order of things is simply the way that God usually chooses to work, miracles are when he chooses to do things a bit differently for a change. Shouldn't the same apply here? Just because something's part of God's created order doesn't mean that he's not the author.

The logical conclusion of conflating punishment with natural consequences is to say that God was punishing the people of New Orleans for the sin of building on a flood plain. I presume you wouldn't be happy with such an analysis, and, if so, then clearly, in your own mind, you draw a distinction between the two.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Sorry, made a hash of the code through posting an a Blackberry.
Some kindly passing host might like to edit, ince the window has passed.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Dinghy Sailor:

quote:
Psyduck, do you mean the very two last lines? My point is that there, just after admitting agnosticism about quite how the atonement works ("I cannot give an answer") he name checks a different atonement model, Devil's Ransom.

Now we're getting down to it.

You're seriously telling me that Townend's hymn envisages Jesus settling up with God for our sins, and then going back to the court cashier, and paying off the Devil, too? I suppose that might be what Townend means, but I always took it that he meant ransome as a convenient rhyming metaphor for the penalty he pays to God for our sin. You'd have to ask him.

But seriously, I ask you - do these two perspectives not occupy the same space? Can you really believe the one without the other? I'd make the same criticism of "Devil's Ransome" as of PSA if it seemed to me that it was a precise specification of what Christ's death actually, precisely accomplished. In fact - bring on a Church Father who does specify that, and I will make the same criticism.

It's to do with quantizing. That's the implicit claim in PSA, and it comes from the elaborate setting up of the theory. Jesus' death is measured, prospectively, to see if it will fit the bill. His sacrifice/penalty has to be paid by humanity. So he is incarnated. Check. The offence against God is infinite, so the value of his sacrifice has to be infinite. But it's OK - he's God, so the cheque is blank. Check. He must be sinless - but that's OK, also because he's God. Check. (And note how the Apollinarianism of the whole does away with the need to have an immaculate conception! You can account for the necessary sinlessness simply in terms of Jesus' being God. And to get round those irksome accusations of cruelty, well - he's God, so this is God doing it to himself. Check.

No room for anything else. That's the balance sheet. If you want to doodle CV or Moral Influence in the margins, knock yourself out - the only important thing is - the sums add up.

Now AFAIK, "Devil's ransome" is always presented in terms of unstructured, understood rights that the Devil has acquired over humanity. It's very much analogous to slavery, in a situation in which everybody agrees that slavery is just the way things are. Jesus puts submits himself to the power of the devil, but the devil can't hold him. Fair enough. Jesus escapes this condition by bursting out of its hold. The rights expire. It's all very approximate, and "just one way of telling the story."

Whereas PSA is always the story.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where's the evidence for this understanding of "punishment" at the cross, either in Scripture or in the PSA literature?

Okay. Just so that you've got something to read while you recover from your op... although we've gone over this at some length on the Cv and more recently other PSA thread.

1 Peter 2: 24 speaks of Christ's death on the cross in these terms (quoting Isaiah 53) - 'by his wounds you have been healed'. Literally the Greek is singular (by the wounding of whom / by the beating of whom) it is a clear reference to Christ receiving punishment.

Now, as we have discussed at length before, in the context of 1 Peter 2 the suffering Jesus endures is unjust, it is the punishment of the Romans of which he is innocent. Nevertheless Peter is specific it is Christ being punished that enables our healing.

In Galatians 3: 13 Paul says that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us. Paul uses the word 'curse' here because of the Deuteronomy quote but any Jew familiar with the Law would think in terms of the punishments for disobeying and the blessings for obedience.

This is certainly how Justin Martyr, Eusebius and Hilary of Poitiers understood Galatians 3 so it is not some Reformation invention.

Indeed PSA, while not a dominant theme, is present even in the church Fathers. John Chrysostom's famous king-robber illustration uses the language of punishment very clearly.

Then we have 2 Corinthians 5: 21 - what does it mean to say that Christ 'became sin for us'? Is Christ still sin for us? How can become sin for us and not still be sin? PSA is an attempt to come up with an analogy to help us have a category for that. At this point opponents of PSA will say that the text does not allude to any penal motif. And they are correct. However, when they go on to use analogies like "Christ sucked all the sin into himself" they, likewise, have absolutely no textual evidence for saying so.

Now I'm not saying that they are wrong to use these CV type medical metaphors. I have many times. (Spiderman 3 anyone?) But at this point I have to admit that I'm using a model to try and explain the text, I have no biblical warrant to do so. The question is does this model fit the rest of scripture? Again I'd say 'yes', but that it is insufficient.

At the same time I'm also looking for a model that answers what I think is the big mystery of the bible - how does God deal with sin? I'm not posing this like some abstract philosophy as psyduck suggests, I mean it as a recurring textual problem. For example, my wife led a prayer meeting tonight and started with Psalm 103. I was struck as we read it by its strong emphasis on God's compassion, that he is slow to anger and that he does not treat us as our sins deserve. I affirm all of that as true. I love to hear that. However, how do I reconcile it with all the many, many passages in both OT and NT that speak very directly about God punishing sin?

This is a genuine hermeneutical problem for me. If we say that the judgment passages reflect a mistaken view of God how do we know that the compassionate passages are not also mistaken? (Especially since Jesus spoke so many times about God's judgment.)

On face value if we are to allow for any kind of consistency at all then we are forced to accept a view of God who is fickle and mostly loving but loses his temper every now and then. PSA is an attempt, I think to reconcile them in a way that listens to all voices from scripture and still maintains a consistent and yet compassionate God.

So in short:

1. I think there is biblical support for Christ bearing punishment for us in 1 Peter 2, Isaiah 53, and Galatians 3.
2. There is support for the notion of Christ bearing our punishment throughout church history too.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:

No room for anything else. That's the balance sheet. If you want to doodle CV or Moral Influence in the margins, knock yourself out - the only important thing is - the sums add up.

Would you rather that it didn't add up?

I thought the major complaint against PSA was that it didn't add up? (e.g. it is not fair for an innocent man to die for a guilty one.)

Your major accusation against a model is that it is consistent?

Of course PSA doesn't add up in this exhaustive sense. How could it? It's just a model!

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
If Dinghy Sailor was defeated by the code, I'll have a try:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You mean the gospel which says things like "Render unto Caeser that which is Caesar's" and "The poor shall always be with you"? Yes I have. And he was always careful to avoid upsetting the overtly secular authorities.
No he wasn't. Herod was a secular authority. Indeed all talk of God as king was highly seditious. What inscription did Pilate put on the cross?

And yet, Pilate wanted nothing to do with the trial and washed his hands of it. INRI was a slap in the face of the priests as much as anything.

quote:
And when we get to the book of Revelation Rome and the Emperor are specifically targetted. However late you date Revelation Christianity was still a minority taking very dangerous pot-shots.

And was already being persecuted. In for a penny, let's rob the bank!

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Oh, so numbers don't matter as long as the problem is restricted to Asia? Nor does the fact that multiple countries went to war to support the drug trade?
You're doing it again. My point is that people were good and bad then and they still are now. No change.

And if by that you mean humans are not perfect, either perfectly good or perfectly evil, I agree. But simply because you don't have and can never have perfection while being human doesn't mean that there isn't a difference between Jack the Ripper and Mother Theresa.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Because the mortality rate is 100% - and there are fewer outlets for "suicide by enemy soldier" and the like. Also because it's a gradual process subject to statistical variation.
Statistical variation? Do you really believe this stuff or are you just winding me up?

Yes. That you don't understand it and don't seem to want to try to understand the world you live in is a failing in you.

Without using statistics you can't work out what's going on. To take another example, we can say things about the prevalence of hurricanes in florida and whether they are becoming more or less frequent. But at any given time there either is or isn't a hurricane. You need to use statistical variation to tell the long term trends.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
So it only matters whether horrible things are done, not how often, how much, or how regularly? Right. The small and illegal slave trade now is exactly the same as the massive trans-atlantic slave trade before it was banned?
Small, who said anything about small? The whole point of it being illegal is that it is harder to trace and quantify, but even with that it is certainly not small.

No. The whole point about it being illegal is that the incentives (social, legal, and economic) are massively changed. It being harder to trace and quantify is a side effect, not the goal.

quote:
You're bring up your definition of perfection again. One I never used.

Let's get this straight. You fully admit that the only way we've seen any progress is through coercion.

As normal you're creating a strawman. I have never said the only way we have seen any progress is anything. One way we've seen progress is through coercion - but moral progress comes from changing the incentive structure against win-lose towards either win-win or forcing a lose-lose (as banning things tries to do). It's much more like gardening - planting seeds, spreading fertiliser, and nurturing. Rather than just weeding, which is all justice amounts to.

quote:
But you still have the notion that God should be able to do it differently because of your definition of perfection. Why? What reason do you have for saying God can't act this way?

Because banning something is a crude tool that has unwanted side effects (the sending things underground as you have so helpfully mentioned). And because retribution is not prevention.

quote:
Your definition of perfection seems to be a square-circle.

Possibly. It certainly requires great subtlety. On the other hand claiming your God is perfect is trying to pass off a pentagram as a circle.

quote:
Overall you sound rather like a re-hash of Bertrand Russell, “I can imagine a sardonic demon producing us for his amusement, but I cannot attribute to a being who is wise and omnipotent the terrible weight of cruelty and suffering of what is best that has marred the history of man.”

I have to agree with Russell here. It is why I can't stomach liberal Christianity.

Neither can I. On the other hand, my response to Conservative Christianity is to want to storm the gates of heaven - and if that means allying with Satan, so be it. He literally can not be more evil than God.

quote:
Let's go back to your statistical variation earlier. Let's assume for a moment that I accept your premise that humans are getting morally better on their own. (You may have noticed that I don't agree but let's just assume it for now.)

Fair enough.

quote:
Life is still a massive lottery. Billions of people live with the daily reality of starvation, disease, rape, war ... and worse. Their fate is a simple lottery of their birth. To me they are people. To you they are statistics.

People are people to me. On the other hand there are more tragedies than I have tears to shed. And more acts of grace than I have smiles to give. I simply can not comprehend ten million people at once. My brain is limited. But this doesn't mean I can not engage with that sort of level through statistics. A hundred million people alive who would otherwise be dead through starvation is not nothing. It's overwhelming. And nothing compared to what we have accomplished. I literally can't comprehend 300 million deaths from Smallpox (the estimated total for the 20th centuryn before we wiped it out).

By blithely dismissing statistics, you fail to see the wood for the trees. But the wood is nothing more than trees. Lots of them. More than I will ever directly see in my lifetime. But does that mean I'm meant to ignore them simply because they aren't right in front of my nose?

quote:
What comfort to them is it if we do get a bit better in the next thousand years?

That depends on how compassionate they are. On whether they want revenge or things not to repeat.

quote:
If I am to believe in God at all in this world then there has to be another factor that Russell had not considered - and I think that it is justice. God is loving, powerful and just.

Except the God of PSA isn't just. He considers his wounded pride to be more important than just about anything else. He judges for eternity for finite offences.

Now if hell were instead purgatory, and sin was judged on works and he didn't care about faith in himself he might be getting somewhere towards justice.

quote:
That's the God I believe in. The God you are describing stands at the gates of Auschwitz and just shrugs his shoulders while adding a few more data entries to his statistics.

No. The God you believe in objects to Auschwitz, granted. He considers it a flawed attempt to usurp behaviour that should by rights belong to him.

Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent. Pick two at most. The Liberal God discards potence. The Conservative one discards benevolence.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
So when we mess up, God has us take the consequences of our actions. True. And as sinful human beings our messing up takes us into sin and separation from God. (Kind of like a Penalty..)

I guess, if you drop a knife and it lands on your foot and cuts your foot, and you have to go get stitches, you could say that the injury is the penalty for dropping the knife. But I don't think that, when you talk about a penal system, you're talking about natural consequences. Instead, I think you're talking about consequences imposed by an authority. They're not the same thing.

God created the world and set up the laws and functions by which it works. I'm not using penal to mean punish, but to correct. I'm sure that you would stop dropping the knife if it kept hurting. Unfortunately, we seem to be unable to stop sinning.

quote:

quote:
But God did care whose, otherwise Jesus would not have come down from heaven and become incarnate and then die for us. If he didn't, then you seem to be separating God and Jesus, which doesn't seem to fly.

Okay, I didn't understand that at all. Are you saying that God wanted to kill Jesus, instead of us, and that's why Jesus came, so God could kill him? But if that's the case, then Jesus wasn't a substitute for us, but rather he was the victim that God chose. But I don't think that's what you mean.

And when you say, "If he didn't," do you mean, "If he didn't die for us?" I'm reasonably sure we both think that he did die for us.

So I'm confused. Could you try again?

I think that we are coming at this from two very different places, so what you see and describe and what I see and describe are quite different even though we are looking at the same thing.

God knew that our sinning would kill us and that we were unable to stop sinning without his direct intervention. God loves us so much that he did not want us to die, so he intervened. He sent Jesus, or Jesus came, to help right our thinking about God and to take our place in death. By Jesus taking our place, death is no longer a penalty (consequence) of our sin as long as we accept what Jesus did for us. God changed the rules about sin and death due to his great love for us. I don't know how else to explain it...

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.:

quote:
PSA is an attempt, I think to reconcile them in a way that listens to all voices from scripture and still maintains a consistent and yet compassionate God.

I wouldn't deny that myself! I'm sure that's what PSAers aim at. Even - and maybe especially - Calvin.

I think, though, that it is an attempt that completely fails, because it necessarily separates Father from Son and compromises the Trinity; it sets Jesus over against us by compromising his humanity, and it sets the Father's consistency - which is understood as his consistent holy wrath against sin - over against his love, which may actually be the worst consequence, because it gives us a Paranoid-Schizoid, or even pathological-narcissistic Father, with a Son whose love for the Father might actually be pathological co-dependency. Which oddly enough is about all he shares with us, and not as human beings, but as members of the elect.

The problem arises, ISTM, when you ask what you are calling loving and compassionate in this God. Despite the best efforts of genuine PSAers, God's "love" and "compassion" are something far different from what ours could ever be - whereas the love of God of which I John and I Cor speak are clearly differet from ours in respect to the failure of our love to be the perfect agape of God, but not a love which coexists consistently with a murderous concern for glory, and can be reconciled only because God is good by definition? God's love is always bounded and determined by his concern for his own justice in regard to his glory. Love is never the last word with a PSA God.

BTW - and not in any spirit of gloating - doesn't what you say about PSA being "an attempt... to reconcile them in a way that listens to all voices from scripture and still maintains a consistent and yet compassionate God"
an implicit concession that PSA really does present as a total theory of the way that Scripture and the Christian faith hang together, rather than just one useful perspective among many?

[ 15. July 2010, 12:58: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The logical conclusion of conflating punishment with natural consequences is to say that God was punishing the people of New Orleans for the sin of building on a flood plain. I presume you wouldn't be happy with such an analysis, and, if so, then clearly, in your own mind, you draw a distinction between the two.

But probably not the distinction you'd make.

I'd respond in the way Jesus did at the beginning of Luke 13. Of course the people of New Orleans are not being punished for any specific sin. They are no more guilty than the rest of us. To say otherwise is monstrous.

Nevertheless (according to Paul and through scripture) death is the 'natural' consequence to sin (in general terms). It is built into humanity. We have a 100% sin rate matched with a 100% death rate.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:

BTW - and not in any spirit of gloating - doesn't what you say about PSA being "an attempt... to reconcile them in a way that listens to all voices from scripture and still maintains a consistent and yet compassionate God"
an implicit concession that PSA really does present as a total theory of the way that Scripture and the Christian faith hang together, rather than just one useful perspective among many?

I said that PSA was an attempt to reconcile two themes in scripture. If the entire 66 books of the bible are made up of those two themes and absolutely nothing else; if scripture has nothing else at all to say about God or the world apart from those two themes then yes your theory is right.

However if there is anything else to the vast story of scripture then your theory is dead in the water.

(At this point I drew a magnificent pastel impression of your theory lying dead in the water and me, on the bank, gloating over it ... but I don't think you are allowed to upload pictures.)

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
[qb]Either punishment means "natural consequences", or it means what everyone else in the world except apologists for PSA think it means, which is, a "judicial" type intervention. It can't be both non-intervention and intervention at the same time. That would be sophistry, not logic.
This touches on the theology of miracles in general. There it can be argued that the natural order of things is simply the way that God usually chooses to work, miracles are when he chooses to do things a bit differently for a change. Shouldn't the same apply here? Just because something's part of God's created order doesn't mean that he's not the author.

The logical conclusion of conflating punishment with natural consequences is to say that God was punishing the people of New Orleans for the sin of building on a flood plain. I presume you wouldn't be happy with such an analysis, and, if so, then clearly, in your own mind, you draw a distinction between the two.

I prefer to think in terms of 'double effect' - gravity is a good and useful thing, without which the universe wouldn't exist in recognisable form, and we could never have happened. However, an unintended but unavoidable consequence of the way the universe works is that if you drop a knife, or jump off a cliff, Bad Things happen.

This isn't the same as Johnny S's "spikes in the car park to stop you driving out of the entrance." Selective gravity that doesn't work on knives is a nonsense: the consequence (one could argue) is wholly unintended by God, not a punishment. The spikes are one step down from an automatic speed camera, and exist only to punish.

I wonder how the language of Romans 1, where Paul talks about God "giving people over" to the consequences of their actions, could be better understood in this light. Just as light creates shadow, having the potential for fulfilling relationships unavoidably creates the possibility of those potentials being abused.

Johnny S, I hesitate to add to the host of people arguing with you, but when you say

quote:
If I am to believe in God at all in this world then there has to be another factor that Russell had not considered - and I think that it is justice. God is loving, powerful and just.

That's the God I believe in. The God you [Justinian] are describing stands at the gates of Auschwitz and just shrugs his shoulders while adding a few more data entries to his statistics.

Was your God of Justice gnashing his teeth in impotent fury at the gates of Auschwitz? Because he certainly didn't stop it happening. I imagine you'll find few "Liberals" prepared to say they don't believe in a divine justice, merely that inflicting suffering for suffering inflicted at some unspecified point in the future is a poor vision of Justice.

You're right about coercion. Humans do seem to need coercing and legislating into behaving better, and even then it doesn't work very well. It makes you wonder what God was playing at with this non-coercive love thing...

- Chris.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.

quote:
I said that PSA was an attempt to reconcile two themes in scripture. If the entire 66 books of the bible are made up of those two themes and absolutely nothing else; if scripture has nothing else at all to say about God or the world apart from those two themes then yes your theory is right.

However if there is anything else to the vast story of scripture then your theory is dead in the water.

(At this point I drew a magnificent pastel impression of your theory lying dead in the water and me, on the bank, gloating over it ... but I don't think you are allowed to upload pictures.)

Not what I said, and I know that you know it. Why does that get to you so much?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

I really need to go to bed. So this will be my last post for a while.

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
I wonder how the language of Romans 1, where Paul talks about God "giving people over" to the consequences of their actions, could be better understood in this light. Just as light creates shadow, having the potential for fulfilling relationships unavoidably creates the possibility of those potentials being abused.

I like Romans 1 too and would go some distance along the road with you but I think it is a cop out to use it as a way of making God's punishment totally impersonal.

It's as if God is shaking his head in horror - "I had no idea that the consequences would be that horrible. Oops."

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Johnny S, I hesitate to add to the host of people arguing with you

They're not arguing with me. They're compassionately loving me. [Axe murder]

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
Was your God of Justice gnashing his teeth in impotent fury at the gates of Auschwitz? Because he certainly didn't stop it happening.

Er, that was my point. Don't steal it.

Whatever you say about this you have to say something. I'd say that he was doing something about it in Christ Jesus - suffering to take away the injustice in the world.

Not an answer, I admit, I find completely satisfying; just a lot more satisfying the pathetic old man whining for them to stop while everyone ignores him.

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
I imagine you'll find few "Liberals" prepared to say they don't believe in a divine justice, merely that inflicting suffering for suffering inflicted at some unspecified point in the future is a poor vision of Justice.

How about a better one then? A better vision that is actually grounded in reality? I haven't come across one yet.

This discussion feels a bit like someone wanting to go on holiday on Pandora. It's not a real place.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Not what I said, and I know that you know it. Why does that get to you so much?

I'll have to pick it up tomorrow. Bed time. [Snore]

For now - that was what you said.

I'm not playing games. I said PSA reconciled two themes in scripture fairly. You tried to make out that this means it is attempting to explain all of scripture.

It bugs me because it isn't true.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
You and Pata say that a sacrifice is the same thing as a substitution.
Hey, my day job depends on people not understanding each other

However, here, I didn't say anything of the sort*. I merely pointed out that your illustration was a lot like one John Piper uses, and he is a fan of PSA.

I'm sorry! You're right, your post should have been sufficiently clear that you were talking about his position, not quoting him in support of yours. Sorry for misunderstanding you!

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Whatever you say about this you have to say something. I'd say that he was doing something about it in Christ Jesus - suffering to take away the injustice in the world.

It didn't work. There's still injustice in the world. Auschwitz still happened.

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

There are times that I think that we aren't arguing for or against PSA on this thread, but why bad things happen to good people.

And I'm not sure how rejection of PSA makes bad things happening better (or worse).

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.:

quote:
I'm not playing games. I said PSA reconciled two themes in scripture fairly. You tried to make out that this means it is attempting to explain all of scripture.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there are lots of things that happen, in Scripture and in life in the world, that PSA is not about. PSA is not about why my car's battery won't hold its charge. It's not about why the southerly dark belt on Jupiter appears to have faded. It's not about the dead bird lying in the forest across the road to our house. It's not about the Book of Proverbs.

But it is about how God's purpose for us is fulfilled, both in our salvation and our damnation. It is about what Christians, both PSA and non-PSA hold to be the central aspect of our existence, our relationship with God. And yes, I still maintain that in this regard PSA makes exclusive claims to be the explanation for this central area of existence as the Christian faith sees it - our relationship with God.

And it's about the nature and, if you like that word and think it can be used theologically, the character of God. And it's about why the Son took flesh and dwelt among us.

So yes, it does claim to be about everything that really matters.

And BTW, I repeat that it only "reconciles" the two themes of God's love and God's punitive, wrathful attitude to sin - which is what his justice means in PSA-speak - by separating his love from his justice in such a way that his love isn't just subordinated to his justice, but is actually subverted by it.

In other words, it doesn't do what you say it does, and insisting it does isn't an argument, only an assertion. But I said all that above.

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
There has to be a reason Jesus allowed himself to die.
He allowed himself to die so that he could destroy death.

It didn't work. People still die.

Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Psyduck, do you mean the very two last lines? My point is that there, just after admitting agnosticism about quite how the atonement works ("I cannot give an answer") he name checks a different atonement model, Devil's Ransom.
Now we're getting down to it.

You're seriously telling me that Townend's hymn envisages Jesus settling up with God for our sins, and then going back to the court cashier, and paying off the Devil, too?

I'm saying that "Why should I gain from his reward // I cannot give an answer" admits the imits of any of these models, opening up the pitch for multiple allusions in the rest of the song.

quote:
I suppose that might be what Townend means, but I always took it that he meant ransome as a convenient rhyming metaphor for the penalty he pays to God for our sin.

he appears to be theologically literate, he'd have been aware of the implications of his use of the word "Ransom".

As for "Ransome", the only Ransome I know wrote books about children in the Lake District, I know he was a spy as well but didn't realise he also had theological significance [Biased]

Anyway, I'm away for a few days.

[ 15. July 2010, 23:05: Message edited by: Dinghy Sailor ]

Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
There has to be a reason Jesus allowed himself to die.
He allowed himself to die so that he could destroy death.
It didn't work. People still die.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Whatever you say about this you have to say something. I'd say that he was doing something about it in Christ Jesus - suffering to take away the injustice in the world.
It didn't work. There's still injustice in the world. Auschwitz still happened.

Precisely my point. The kind of atonement model that stops there has nothing to say to these horrible things. There is no hope that they will ever be put right (which requires intervention) or that they will ever stop happening.

By entering another aspect into the view of atonement - that of justice (which supplements rather than subverting the other elements) - then our view of the cross does have something to say into these situations.

Namely that, in Christ, God was judging the world at the cross. He has seen these things and he will do something about it - but that must involve some kind of apocalyptic intervention in the future. We can argue over whether the word 'punishment' has the right connotations today if you like but some kind of coercion must be involved. Yes God is incredibly patient. But either things like Auschwitz try his patience terribly or it doesn't, and eventually that patience will come to an end.

I suppose the alternative is that God is not able to act at Auschwitz. That I take as an even more frightening prospect. For then we have no confidence that good will win out at all in the end. As I said previously he becomes one of those pathetic old men at the bus stop being abused and spat at by teenagers who just laugh and turn away.

I pick that deliberately as an illustration because, in one sense, it is how God responded to the problem at the cross. Jesus does model to us the non-coercive love that Chris spoke of earlier. This is the life that Christians are called to follow. However, ISTM, that model only makes sense with the backdrop of God's intervention in the future. This is not some petty revenge, this is about good winning out in the global battle between good and evil. If evil is allowed to triumph over good forever then in what sense does good ever win?

Now at this point I'm sure that Chris (and others) will say that I don't really believe in non-coercive love, that this is just a charade and that at the end I show my hand that I really believe in tyrant. That is a charge I take seriously because it does bother me. Nonetheless, from both human experience and the scriptures, I have no evidence to believe that human beings can just get better without God's dramatic intervention.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And BTW, I repeat that it only "reconciles" the two themes of God's love and God's punitive, wrathful attitude to sin - which is what his justice means in PSA-speak - by separating his love from his justice in such a way that his love isn't just subordinated to his justice, but is actually subverted by it.

In other words, it doesn't do what you say it does, and insisting it does isn't an argument, only an assertion. But I said all that above.

Once again you are framing the discussion in such a way to prove your assumptions right from the start.

All I did was talk about two apparently contradictory issues in scripture - God's love and his judgment. How does one reconcile apparently contradictory statements? Is it any better (logically I mean) to subordinate his justice to his love?

What about God's sovereignty and human responsibility? I'd say they were two apparently contradictory issues in scripture. Do I need PSA to reconcile them? No.

If you are unhappy with the way PSA resolves the issue, fine. That's where the discussion lies.

But to say that because a model is used to try and reconcile two issues that means it must be a meta-narrative to the whole of scripture is logically false.

We keep going in these circles because you keep on framing the discussion according to all your assumptions.

[ 16. July 2010, 00:20: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
There has to be a reason Jesus allowed himself to die.
He allowed himself to die so that he could destroy death.
It didn't work. People still die.

Numpty, there's still a hell thread open with your name on it. If you have anything to say to me, you can say it there.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Psyduck: the consistent refusal of people who say they believe in PSA to specify what it actually is and says.

You don't want to hear because you've so busily prejudged the whole issue.

I'm not actually sure whether PSA or your pejorative take on it is something I fully understand but I do know that in Christ, sin is dealt with and those who trust in him are reconciled to the father.

Here are what I think are a few wise words on the matter:

"Theories about Christ's death are not Christianity:they are explanations about how it works... The theories are not themselves what you are asked to accept...the thing itself cannot be pictured..a man can accept what Christ has done without knowing how it works..We are told that Christ was killed for us, that his death has washed out our sins and that by dying he disabled death itself..That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are in my view quite secondary:mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us and if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself."

CS Lewis. Mere Christianity Ch 4

[ 16. July 2010, 07:33: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Call me Numpty (# 3012) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:

quote:
Originally posted by Call me Numpty:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by PataLeBon:
There has to be a reason Jesus allowed himself to die.
He allowed himself to die so that he could destroy death.
It didn't work. People still die.

Yeah.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Jamat (quoting C/S/ Lewis, said

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that his death has washed out our sins and that by dying he disabled death itself..

Who told us that?

If the answer is Paul then I ask whether or not we regard Paul as the final authority when it comes to interpreting the meaning of Christ's death.

Certainly I do not regard C.S. Lewis as an authority - he was simply an apologist.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Jamat, the passage you cite from 'Mere Christianity' is precisely the one that an arch PSA proponent, Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones of Westminster Chapel fame, used to question C S Lewis's salvation.

The good Doctor felt that because Lewis was too squeamish to ally himself behind a fully-orbed PSA position then it was doubtful whether Lewis was truly saved.

This sort of attitude, I submit, lies behind the OP and Psyduck's continuing discomfort with PSA. For it sets PSA up as the arbiter of orthodoxy, and in Lloyd Jones's case, the touchstone belief for whether one is truly 'saved' or not.

It's this all-embracing element that non-PSA-ers are finding difficult. It's a form of reductionism.

I would hasten to add that I do not consider Matt Black, Johnny S nor even Numpty on a good day, as caricature PSA flag-wavers. Their view is much more nuanced than that and Johnny, for one, insists that his view of the atonement encompasses PSA but is actually much bigger than that. John Stott and other PSA proponents would say the same.

Nevertheless, Psyduck will still insist - and with good reason, I can understand his arguments and his strength of feeling - that whatever people like Johnny S, Numpty or your good self say on the matter, PSA must, ipso factor, be their dominant model to the virtual exclusion of anything else. PSA = The Gospel.

Now ... this puts someone like me in an awkward position. PSA is part of my spiritual DNA in terms of where I've come from, but it certainly isn't in terms of where I'm headed as a post-evangelical (pre-catholic?) dude who finds much to admire within evangelicalism per se but now considers it far too reductionist as an overall schema.

It means I'm cursed with the ability to see both sides of the argument. Reading this thread for me brings out very ambivalent feelings. At one point I'm going 'Psyduck! Psyduck! Psyduck!' (football supporter chant mode) and the next I'm going 'Johnny! Johnny! Johnny!'

[Two face]

Can I have it both ways? Probably not, ultimately.

Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Sorry, I still don't get you. You said earlier that plenty of Arminians support PSA. I was agreeing. That fact alone seems to undermine the idea that it is a Calvinistic plot.

Historically however Arminians do not support PSA. So when did it happen? I am still on the OP here, asking when PSA became part of an Evangelical identity, when I see it as a particular understanding of SA that only makes sense within a (Calvinist) Reformed theological framework. Evangelical writers such as Brow and Pinnock and others have tried to keep the debate open on the Atonement, but SA and especially PSA have become a shibboleths.

In engaging in this debate John F. MacArthur states that:

quote:
The doctrine Anselm articulated, known as the penal substitution theory of the atonement, has long been considered an essential aspect of all doctrine that is truly evangelical. Historically, all who have abandoned this view have led movements away from evangelicalism.

[URL=http://www.ondoctrine.com /2mac0103.htm]Source[/URL]

All three statements here are untrue.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

As I said earlier this idea that PSA is some huge meta-theory just doesn't square up in my experience. PSAers would clearly say that salvation is by faith alone, and that their righteousness is Christ's. However, they then read Jesus' + Paul's teaching about rewards in the new heaven and new earth and therefore they are cool with that too.

Not sure I really have an answer here about personal judgement. But my suspicions are growing that the emotional attachment many hold to PSA is that it removes all punishment or penance or judgement for sins committed in this life.

[ 16. July 2010, 13:37: Message edited by: Edward Green ]

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Jesus does model to us the non-coercive love that Chris spoke of earlier. This is the life that Christians are called to follow. However, ISTM, that model only makes sense with the backdrop of God's intervention in the future. This is not some petty revenge, this is about good winning out in the global battle between good and evil. If evil is allowed to triumph over good forever then in what sense does good ever win?

Now at this point I'm sure that Chris (and others) will say that I don't really believe in non-coercive love, that this is just a charade and that at the end I show my hand that I really believe in tyrant. That is a charge I take seriously because it does bother me. Nonetheless, from both human experience and the scriptures, I have no evidence to believe that human beings can just get better without God's dramatic intervention.

On the face of it, it seems we have a choice between the love of God as bait-and-switch trick, or a God powerless to effect change and to combat evil.

To try to dig down to the axioms that shape my viewpoint - an exercise which, along with Josephine, I consider profoundly helpful - I tend to assume that God's nature is consistent. If he is concerned with justice, he cannot then give an unjust punishment on the pretext that he's infinitely offended because He's God. That just boils down to an argument from power, and I don't have much truck with Divine Command theory. God may be omnipotent, but I would say He is still constrained to act in accordance with His nature.

Now, human language is a poor tool to describe God - but it's the only one we have. If the author of 1 John went so far as to say that God is love, then I assume he's saying that our concept of love ("agape") is the best approximation in our language to God's character, his essence. Nowhere in the Bible dies it say "God is wrath" or even "God is justice" - even though God may be both wrathful and is just. I freely admit that I wouldn't be terribly interested in knowing the god of some theologies, because ISTM that if God isn't better than us then the best I can do is just hope he doesn't exist. Think of the best love you've ever had for anyone: if you're a parent, think of how you feel for your children. If God is worthy of our worship, or of the name even, his love is better even than that, for each one of us, concentration camp guards and innocent victims alike.

For me, any ass-kicking that God will do at some future date must fit into this picture. Otherwise most of what we understand about God's character is lies, and the morality of the sermon on the mount is just something for the little people: that Jesus will repent of the "forgive them, Father" approach and start condemning instead.

The impossible thing seems to be that any humans at all will ever be so brought into alignment with God's character such that evil can be eliminated. I don't think of evil as a thing, or only embodied in bad people (which a lot of the judgement language seems to presuppose: "get rid of Them and everything will be ok." To me, that attitude is part of the problem, not the solution). Solzhenitsyn was right when he said that the line between good and evil ran through every human heart. If God is to do away with evil, the big problem is not doing away with all of humanity at the same time.

Now of course, this is where justification comes in. But it strikes me that justification only makes sense in a forensic world-view (hey, at least I didn't say paradigm). If the problem is to stop God condemning you (i.e. get "saved" from His wrath and eternal punishment) then only a forensic solution will do, and Jesus "getting us off on a technicality" despite us being guilty as all hell fits the bill. If, OTOH, the problem is making us not want to sin any more, then saying the Jesus Prayer or making a Decision doesn't by itself do a damn thing for us. And to judge from the church as a whole, and its history over the past couple of millenia, there's no irresistible movement towards perfection going on.

I can only conclude that either (1)sanctification doesn't work for most people, and therefore most people are condemned, certainly including me, so I'm back to hoping that it's not true again, or (2) for most/all people sanctification is only accomplished after death (this isn't as heretical as it sounds: CS Lewis thought so).

So, I find myself thinking that Christ's death is vital, not because of justification (the legal trick) but because it enables sanctification. How it does that I have no idea: if it's accomplished by the Holy Spirit, did Jesus have to die before God could send Her/Him? The one thing I do take away from the incarnation is the opposite of the commonly expressed "God can't look upon sin" (which seems to underpin a lot of PSA-style thinking, and I don't see that Isaiah 59:2 will bear the weight of all that baggage). God got involved in us, in all our sin, personally. The initiative seems always to be with him, and he's not stand-offish. But might it not turn out that all the argument over atonement theories hides the fact that we should be asking a different set of questions?

I can't help think that if God was about stopping evil by force, we'd know about it by now. We probably wouldn't even exist.

- Chris.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Jamat, the passage you cite from 'Mere Christianity' is precis
It means I'm cursed with the ability to see both sides of the argument. Reading this thread for me brings out very ambivalent feelings. At one point I'm going 'Psyduck! Psyduck! Psyduck!' (football supporter chant mode) and the next I'm going 'Johnny! Johnny! Johnny!'

It's very simply Gam.

Support me, or you will be punished. [Devil]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

Now, human language is a poor tool to describe God - but it's the only one we have. If the author of 1 John went so far as to say that God is love, then I assume he's saying that our concept of love ("agape") is the best approximation in our language to God's character, his essence. Nowhere in the Bible dies it say "God is wrath" or even "God is justice" - even though God may be both wrathful and is just.

Speaking of "a dominant model to the virtual exclusion of anything else" (*cough* psyduck *cough*) doesn't anybody notice that John similarly defines God as light in the very same letter - 1 John 1: 5. The context being one of holiness such that he cannot tolerate sin.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it is the advocates of PSA who have the nuance.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

Now, human language is a poor tool to describe God - but it's the only one we have. If the author of 1 John went so far as to say that God is love, then I assume he's saying that our concept of love ("agape") is the best approximation in our language to God's character, his essence. Nowhere in the Bible dies it say "God is wrath" or even "God is justice" - even though God may be both wrathful and is just.
Speaking of "a dominant model to the virtual exclusion of anything else" (*cough* psyduck *cough*) doesn't anybody notice that John similarly defines God as light in the very same letter - 1 John 1: 5. The context being one of holiness such that he cannot tolerate sin.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it is the advocates of PSA who have the nuance.

Johnny, as you probably noticed from my long and rambling post, I have nothing like a dominant model that excludes everything else: I'm just groping around, trying to find a way of looking at this that makes sense to me. I don't know if you're saying I come over in a glib monotone here, or if you're just quoting me but only addressing psyduck. "Doesn't anyone notice" comes over a bit passive-aggressive if you're actually trying to contradict me, and not at all like your normally gracious self! Perhaps I am grabbing the wrong end of the stick. If this is starting to feel like a pile-on, then I apologise for exacerbating it, and I'll shut up. But I'd rather talk.

To address your point, you reference 1 John 1:

quote:
This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.

(vv 5-7, NIV) If you're accusing me of proof-texting 1 John 4:16 to support a point - then I'm probably guilty. My roots are showing. However, I'm not sure that a bald assertion that "God cannot look upon sin" is the only way to read 1 John 1:5 is any better. A major theme in 1 John (going from memory) is that one's lifestyle must be compatible with one's faith, or one is living a lie: "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness" (1 John 2:9). I would tend to read the verse you quoted in that light.

- Chris.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sanityman! Sanityman! Sanityman!

Sorry Johnny, I've switched allegiance ...

[Two face]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Sanityman:If he is concerned with justice, he cannot then give an unjust punishment on the pretext that he's infinitely offended because He's God. That just boils down to an argument from power,

I don't think it does. There is this 'holiness' thing isn't there? It would be something like the sun inviting us to tea but knowing that in his present state he would destroy us through his largesse if he somehow didn't give us some protection. Not about power games at all.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Except the sun would simply give us suncream to put on first ...

[Biased]

I take your point though. All these analogies will only take us so far.

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

(I could start with a ‘long post’ warning, but the last time I did that I got a rather sniffy response from a shipmate, so I won’t this time. But readers might like to ensure they are sitting comfortably... [Biased]

)

I can see why Josephine said that she normally doesn’t get involved in PSA threads because they move too fast – just as this one has done! And all the more difficult for someone such as me, who can’t get on here very often, and who takes ages to think about and compose a post.

So, briefly to catch up: thanks to Starlight for the suggestions of anti-PSA books. Josephine, thanks for your response – I guess that what might be happening is that what you call the ‘assumptions’ behind PSA are what the proponents of it might prefer to describe as the aspects revealed to us of the character and nature of God. As Psyduck pointed out in a post two pages later: “And it's about the nature and, if you like that word and think it can be used theologically, the character of God. And it's about why the Son took flesh and dwelt among us. So yes, it does claim to be about everything that really matters.”

But where do you go to get a coherent doctrine of the nature and character of God, and of the reason for the incarnation and crucifixion? The Bible isn’t a systematic theology, you have to extract bits and pieces from it, and over the centuries theologians have taken bits and pieces of evidence (aka ‘proof texts’) and tried to arrange them into a coherent structure. But the systematic structure is the product of the theologian’s mind, and the way that the mind has been trained to think will influence the structure perceived in the pieces of evidence.

My knowledge of the history of theology is rather shaky, so I hope I’m not going too far wrong if I say that although the doctrine of substitutionary atonement existed before the Reformation, it was Calvin that fully developed the penal aspect and brought it to the centre of the Reformed Christian faith. I’ve just found out that Calvin was trained as a lawyer, and I really could believe that PSA as a coherent, structured doctrine is the product of a legally-trained mind, and into this structure the pieces of evidence were arranged to fit (or not, as the case may be).

But if you don’t have a lawyer’s mind, the structure won’t make so much sense, and any mis-fitting pieces may be of greater significance to you than to the lawyer that proposed the structure in the first place. The TULIP formulation is highly logical and satisfying to the legally-trained mind, but it holds on to the sovereignty of God while completely eradicating human responsibility – that latter piece of evidence just doesn’t fit it. (This is where I agree with Josephine in her reply to my post: “... we belong to him, and he's God, and he can do as he pleases. I can see the logic in that. But it seems to me that when you push the sovereignty of God that far, it takes away human responsibility ...”).

And one of the things that I suspect a lawyer’s mind just will not be able to comprehend, is paradox. There isn’t, for example, a trace of paradox in the TULIP formulation – it’s all completely logical. However, when I look at the pieces that seem to be irreconcilable: God’s sovereignty vs. human responsibility, election vs. free will, etc, etc, I’m quite happy to accept them as both equally true, yet apparently paradoxical. Maybe in my case, I can do this because my study of quantum mechanics (including the wave/particle duality of light) as part of a physics degree has formed my mind into a state in which paradox is acceptable to it. The natural world (God’s creation) has something very paradoxical (light) at the centre of its nature, so why not find that God’s spiritual nature is also paradoxical?

Incidentally, when I read the section in Chris(Sanityman)’s post:

quote:

Now of course, this is where justification comes in. But it strikes me that justification only makes sense in a forensic world-view (hey, at least I didn't say paradigm). If the problem is to stop God condemning you (i.e. get "saved" from His wrath and eternal punishment) then only a forensic solution will do, and Jesus "getting us off on a technicality" despite us being guilty as all hell fits the bill.

The legal turn of phrase really struck me. Very appropriate to the doctrine. [Big Grin]

Now to respond to Kwesi’s questions (sorry for the delay!):

quote:
1. Where in PSA theory do we find the wrath of Jesus? Is he having himself killed in order to satisfy his own wrath?

When you put it like that, it does seem nonsensical. But there is a reflexive nature to the atonement, to quote 2Cor5:18-19 “All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself ... 19that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them...”(ESV) And it’s worth remembering that there is an ambiguity in the use of the word ‘God’ – it can refer to just God the Father, or to the whole Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. So I’d regard it as another paradox – or rather, a mystery that appears paradoxical from the human point of view. The best way that I could express it (and this is just a suggestion) is that the atonement was the result of an interaction between the three Persons of the Trinity, whereby each one of the Three was acting as a unity with the others by co-operation, equal nature, and equal intention, but expressed as what appears from a human point of view to be different roles or functions of the different Persons. Now, what was the nature of that interaction? Was it punitive?... Hmmm....

quote:
2. Regarding the Green quotation: As I understand PSA theory Jesus died to satisfy God's wrath consequent on his honour being offended. How can God be wrathful if it's 'sin's experience of God's love?'- unless, of course, God is sinful. Or, in this formulation, what is being satisfied on the cross? God's love?

Yes, my affirmation of EG’s quotation was an impulsive one, and I shall have to consider it more fully. But, thinking on my feet here, if we take 2Cor5:20-21 “... We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (ESV – and yes, working out the antecedents of the pronouns ‘he’ and ‘him’ is a little tricky, but that represents how the Greek text words it.) Christ (who knew no sin) was ‘made to be sin’ so that (following the formulation suggested by EG) when Christ was subjected to God’s love, the sin which was imputed to Christ meant that he experienced that love as God’s wrath.

But I take the point previously made in this thread to question whether reconciliation requires the ‘penal’ part of PSA. I think that here I’m in exactly the same position as Eutychus (hope you recover soon! [Smile]

) and say 'me too' to this:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Just to make things clear again, I'm not sure what I think about PSA; it's just that it happens to be the worked-out doctrine of what went on at the cross I'm the most familiar with. Reporting and reformulating its ideas here is helping me to clarify my thinking, but I'm not defending it to the hilt.

I found Psyduck’s suggestions about the possible relevance of Kleinian theory to be interesting and quite comprehensible, but then, I have some prior knowledge of psychoanalytic theory. Now if we get on to psychology, I might at last get to addressing the subject of the OP, rather than PSA itself, but that will have to wait until next time

Angus.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
if you're just quoting me but only addressing psyduck. "Doesn't anyone notice" comes over a bit passive-aggressive if you're actually trying to contradict me, and not at all like your normally gracious self!

It wasn't meant to be aggressive but yes, it was addressed to psyduck, not to you.

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
However, I'm not sure that a bald assertion that "God cannot look upon sin" is the only way to read 1 John 1:5 is any better

You are over-stating my case here. I was not claiming that this is the only way to read 1 John 1: 5.

My point was much more modest. Psyduck, and others, have accused PSA of being an overarching system into which all biblical data must be forced to fit.

I was pointing out that, in effect, you (and if I was a bit snarky it was because it is not the first time I've heard it, on the ship or elsewhere) were doing the same to the maxim 'God is love'.

All I was doing was noticing that, in the very same letter, John defines God as light. Of course we can debate what John means by that - I gave one suggestion that I think is consonant with John - but the point remains that here is another fundamental definition of God's character that stands alongside 'love'.

According to John we cannot just sum up God as love, he is essentially light too (whatever that means). And even with your explanation of that verse you agree that there must be something exclusive to what John is getting at.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My point was much more modest. Psyduck, and others, have accused PSA of being an overarching system into which all biblical data must be forced to fit.

I was pointing out that, in effect, you (and if I was a bit snarky it was because it is not the first time I've heard it, on the ship or elsewhere) were doing the same to the maxim 'God is love'.

All I was doing was noticing that, in the very same letter, John defines God as light. Of course we can debate what John means by that - I gave one suggestion that I think is consonant with John - but the point remains that here is another fundamental definition of God's character that stands alongside 'love'.

According to John we cannot just sum up God as love, he is essentially light too (whatever that means). And even with your explanation of that verse you agree that there must be something exclusive to what John is getting at.

Fair enough. Yes, I was being selective, as a lot of people are: you don't really see "God is light" quoted around as much. Not as useful, I suppose. And to say "the bible says 'God is love'" - or to say "the bible says" anything for that matter - presupposes a monolithic view of the bible that I don't really have. So perhaps I ought to knock it off [Razz]

.

- Chris.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
And to say "the bible says 'God is love'" - or to say "the bible says" anything for that matter - presupposes a monolithic view of the bible that I don't really have. So perhaps I ought to knock it off

Okay, but I don't think my point is dependent on this monolithic view of the bible.

There is a tension within one letter - 1 John. You don't have to have any view of inspiration at all to pick this up. Either John was too stupid to notice it or he was comfortable with competing tensions in his theology.

For example he states that everyone is a sinner in chapter 1 - indeed we are liars if we claim otherwise (v 8). Then in chapter 3 he claims that no-one who is born of God will continue to sin (v 9).

I don't think it is too much to attempt a rationalisation of apparent contradictions within one letter.

And once that is conceded I think it is only fair to concede that the kind of rationalisation (between God forgives and God punishes sin) that goes on in PSA is a perfectly normal hermeneutical process.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S. :

quote:
John... was comfortable with competing tensions in his theology.

Quite likely. Like many of us.

quote:
For example he states that everyone is a sinner in chapter 1 - indeed we are liars if we claim otherwise (v 8). Then in chapter 3 he claims that no-one who is born of God will continue to sin (v 9).

OK.

quote:
I don't think it is too much to attempt a rationalisation of apparent contradictions within one letter.

Well - "rationalization" or "exploration of how the letter integrates its own tensions" are not the same thing.

quote:
And once that is conceded I think it is only fair to concede that the kind of rationalisation (between God forgives and God punishes sin) that goes on in PSA is a perfectly normal hermeneutical process.

In PSA and only in PSA is what you are saying - whether that's what you mean or not. I'm searching here for how you integrate the tensions in what you are saying. And I can't get past the answer "PSA. It's all PSA!"

You put love and punishment together in the one sentence - or the one book, or the one Bible - and out comes PSA. And it happens every time! It's enough - as it is quite explicitly in this post of yours - that we have God, love and justice close enough that their parking sensors are bleeping, and out comes PSA!

And then you accuse me of being obsessive about reducing everything to PSA!!!

[brick wall]

[ 17. July 2010, 11:10: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Psyduck I see your [brick wall]

and raise it [brick wall]

.

You started a thread on PSA and Christian Identities. This thread is about PSA. There it is in the title and the OP. The fact that I keep mentioning PSA is because, I thought, we were discussing it.

All I did in my last post was point out that it is a very normal thing to attempt to rationalise apparently contradictory issues in scripture.

When I say that PSA is an attempt to do just that, this is all I am saying. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not saying that PSA is the only way you can try to rationalise these issues, or even that these two issues are the key ones we need to fit together.

All I'm trying to do is explain why some Christians find it a helpful concept. I don't see how this means that it has to explain everything. Seriously, how do make that connection from what I've said? (As it happens I've got to do a talk tomorrow as the end to our Bible Overview series. I've got to summarise the entire bible in 10 minutes. The talk I've prepared does not mention PSA, at all. Even slightly. I can't see how that would be possible if I thought it summed everything up.)

There does seem to be something rather perverse about starting a thread about PSA and its relationship with our Christian identities and then start [brick wall]

when people keep talking about PSA.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.

quote:
There does seem to be something rather perverse about starting a thread about PSA and its relationship with our Christian identities and then start when people keep talking about PSA

I'm making a serious point, and that's not it. This is:

quote:
You put love and punishment together in the one sentence - or the one book, or the one Bible - and out comes PSA. And it happens every time! It's enough - as it is quite explicitly in this post of yours - that we have God, love and justice close enough that their parking sensors are bleeping, and out comes PSA!

You just got Penal Substitutionary Atonement out of I John!

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
You just got Penal Substitutionary Atonement out of I John!

No I didn't.

Chris brought up 1 John - where God is described as both light and love.

I said that that in 1 John we have a contradiction between all being sinners and no one born of God continuing to sin.

That was an illustration of trying to resolve a contradiction in scripture.

Then I said that PSA is about trying to resolve the apparent contradiction of God forgiving and God judging. Where did I say that I get that from 1 john?

You are the one who keeps jumping ahead.

(If I wanted to get PSA out of 1 John I'd go to 1 John 4: 10, but that is another story. [Razz]

)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:

quote:
Really, minds just don't work that way. Better than Freud I suppose. But still quite unbelieveable flat earther stuff.
You really don't like this stuff, do you?!?!?

Actually the clinical practice may well be worthwhile in some cases. What I really don't like is the fundamental dishonesty of dressing up the models of development or the mind they have as a kind of pseudo-scientific theory, even though it has not biological basis. That goes for Freud, Jung, Klein, the Gestalters, the lot of them.

Freud may or may not have done good for his patients but his attempt at scientific description of mental development is simply not believeable any more, as obsolete as young-earth creationism. We know more than he did and we know he was overwhelmingly wrong. (Though we still don;t really know very much about how brains work)

Considered as a sort of mental structure to order the world it makes sense, in the same sort of way that astrology or alchemy or "The Old Straight Track" or freemasonry might. (Though its a lot more boring and depressing than they are) Goes along with surrealism and poetry, not anatomy and physiology. I LOVE surrealism and poetry and poetry, but I don't pretend they are geography or engineering.

I also don't like the inherent dishonesty and secrecy of some kinds of psycho-theraputic practice, (and its bastard offpring "counselling"), the way it reinforces power structures, the controlling nature of it, the cult-like transmission of secret knowledge, the inward-looking traditional schools.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Ken:

quote:
I also don't like the inherent dishonesty and secrecy of some kinds of psycho-theraputic practice, (and its bastard offpring "counselling"), the way it reinforces power structures, the controlling nature of it, the cult-like transmission of secret knowledge, the inward-looking traditional schools.

Yeah, whatever.

As a matter of fact, I agree with you. As would any number of Freudians, who would be equally bored (frustration seems beside the point, really) by the sort of scientistic rot that that post distils down into.

Have a look at e.g. Lasch's critique of therapeutic society - dating from 1979, BTW, and erected on a Kleinian basis. One of many, BTW. And for a look at the really radical implications of Freudian thought, you might try Jacoby's Social Amnesia.

And BTW as a piece of ideological pontification, that post was up there.

ETA: if you think I didn't spot the weasly get-out "some kinds of" - I did. Guilt by association is always a desperate tactic, and isn't vidicated by small print.

[ 17. July 2010, 14:05: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
According to John we cannot just sum up God as love, he is essentially light too (whatever that means). And even with your explanation of that verse you agree that there must be something exclusive to what John is getting at.

Fair enough. Yes, I was being selective, as a lot of people are: you don't really see "God is light" quoted around as much.[/quote][/qb]
You don't spend much time in Orthodox circles, do you? For us, references to God as light are pretty common. One of the Great Feasts, the Transfiguration, is all about the uncreated Light. It shows up in the lives of the saints (read Seraphim of Sarov), in our prayers, even in what we call the rite of Baptism and Chrismation (Illumination).

And I have never heard anything to suggest that "God is light" means "God's holiness is such that he cannot tolerate sin." Or maybe I have -- I'm not entirely sure what "God's holiness is such that he cannot tolerate sin" means. It's vague and abstract -- useful, perhaps, as a summary statement when you already know what is meant. But it could be fleshed out with a few examples and such, for those of us who may not already know.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.:

quote:
All I'm trying to do is explain why some Christians find it a helpful concept. I don't see how this means that it has to explain everything. Seriously, how do make that connection from what I've said?

OK - I didn't catch your drift originally. I now assume that what you mean here:

quote:
And once that is conceded I think it is only fair to concede that the kind of rationalisation (between apparently conflicting statements in Scripture) that goes on in PSA is a perfectly normal hermeneutical process.

is that if, as has been thrown up in this thread, I John holds together the assertions that "God is love" and "God is light" he is holding together prima facie contradictories, which stand in need of some sort of rationalization, yes?

And you are saying that, taking Scripture as a whole, PSA is no more than an attempt to provide such a rationalization between the statements that God is love, and that God punishes sin. Yes? (And please do correct me if I'm wrong.)

OK - please bear with me, because I want to offer a critique of this that's constructive enough for you to be able to engage with (and I note in passing that the use of "shorthand" - the perhaps-too-concise expression of things we understand but only assume that others will - on all sides is possibly a cause of misunderstanding).

quote:
For example he states that everyone is a sinner in chapter 1 - indeed we are liars if we claim otherwise (v 8). Then in chapter 3 he claims that no-one who is born of God will continue to sin (v 9).I don't think it is too much to attempt a rationalisation of apparent contradictions within one letter.

Is it absolutely clear that this is a contradiction? I'd see it more as an aporia - the difficult, thought-provoking juxtaposition of apparently contradictory assertions, which, in classical rhetoric is meant to produce a variety of effects, including dissatisfaction with one's present position, a questioning of one's thinking, and even entertainment of the possibility that there is something here that can't be resolved.

quote:
(1) No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God. (2) If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (3) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Isn't seeking to "resolve" this contradiction to miss what I John is saying?

But OK - let's call it a contradiction - and note that I John doesn't seem to feel the need to address it, let alone resolve it. If we do note that, that's exegesis. However this doesn't follow.

quote:
And once that is conceded I think it is only fair to concede that the kind of rationalisation (between God forgives and God punishes sin) that goes on in PSA is a perfectly normal hermeneutical process.

It's not. It's not a hermeneutical process, it's a dogmatic theological process. ISTM it's characteristic of conservative evangelical theology to fuse hermeneutics and the articulation of "Scriptural" (and those aren't meant as "scare-quotes" - they mark something that's openly in dispute here) dogmatic theology. In a sense, if you take a "monolithic" view of Scripture, and if that means for you that Scripture is a repository of infallibly-true statements, then you are virtually bound to see hermeneutics as the task of clarifying scriptural statements, and translating them into suitable terms to provide articulations of dogmatic theology.
In other words, they have to fit together. They can't be poetic articulations of truth - or at least, if they are, they have to be capable of translation out of their poetic form into a truth that is unitary, or monolithic. And aporia is something that such an approach can't countenance.

I will cop to jumping a bit ahead of the argument here, and sorry about that. But actually the reason was because I was still thinking in terms of what you said about I John I:5:

quote:
Speaking of "a dominant model to the virtual exclusion of anything else" (*cough* psyduck *cough*) doesn't anybody notice that John similarly defines God as light in the very same letter - 1 John 1: 5. The context being one of holiness such that he cannot tolerate sin.

Now sorry, but that really is eisegesis! Here's the verse:

quote:
This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.

But what follows is about our choice to walk in the light or in the darkness:

quote:
If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.

There's absolutely nothing there or elsewhere in I John to substantiate your statement that God "cannot tolerate sin." It's just not what I John is about. It's about how sin is dealt with in us. Sin is never God's problem, always ours. It's entirely consistent with John's Gospel:

quote:
In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.

quote:
(John 12) And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And he who sees me sees him who sent me. I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.

I submit that if you read either John or I John closely, there is nothing to justify straightforwardly summarizing any part of it as "God cannot tolerate sin". You have to import that notion from outside.

So I really have to ask: where did God "not being able to tolerate sin" come from in your exegesis?

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

[butt in]
Sorry to butt in, but aporia deals with weighing of two or more choices, both of which have positive properties. Tevye's dilemma comes to mind: on one hand should his daughter marry for love? On the other hand, financial security is not a bad thing.

On the other hand(!)1 John is John making category jumps. Its intriguing to spot the shift in the issues.

[/butt out]

Otherwise, actually enjoying the discussion, please don't mind me.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
[quote from Johnny S]
quote:

According to John we cannot just sum up God as love, he is essentially light too (whatever that means). And even with your explanation of that verse you agree that there must be something exclusive to what John is getting at.
Fair enough. Yes, I was being selective, as a lot of people are: you don't really see "God is light" quoted around as much.

You don't spend much time in Orthodox circles, do you? For us, references to God as light are pretty common. One of the Great Feasts, the Transfiguration, is all about the uncreated Light. It shows up in the lives of the saints (read Seraphim of Sarov), in our prayers, even in what we call the rite of Baptism and Chrismation (Illumination).

No, I'm afraid I don't know any Orthodoxen IRL, and haven't had any exposure to Orthodox theology apart from on these boards. Apologies if I come over as misinformed because of this.

quote:
And I have never heard anything to suggest that "God is light" means "God's holiness is such that he cannot tolerate sin." Or maybe I have -- I'm not entirely sure what "God's holiness is such that he cannot tolerate sin" means. It's vague and abstract -- useful, perhaps, as a summary statement when you already know what is meant. But it could be fleshed out with a few examples and such, for those of us who may not already know.

I can try: I'm sure some proper evangelicals will correct me if I go wrong...

God is Holy: set apart, and perfect. In His perfection, he cannot tolerate the presence of anything imperfect ("You must be perfect" Matthew 5:48; "your iniquities have separated you from God" Isaiah 59:2). Anything imperfect cannot come into the presence of God (Psalm 24:3-4), or dwell with Him: they would be consumed by his presence (Hebrews 12:29).Therefore, if we are to be accepted by him, we must be presented to him as perfect and blameless in his sight (Eph 5:27), which is achieved through Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice (1 John 4:10).

I'm a bit rusty, so I'm sure that someone else can do better. Does that help in understanding the context at all?

- Chris.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

footwasher:

quote:
Sorry to butt in, but aporia deals with weighing of two or more choices, both of which have positive properties. Tevye's dilemma comes to mind: on one hand should his daughter marry for love? On the other hand, financial security is not a bad thing.

On the other hand(!)1 John is John making category jumps. Its intriguing to spot the shift in the issues.

Interesting observation - and potential Kerygmania thread! Not sure I... Nah - I'll give it some thought! But how is this an intrusion?!? [Smile]

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

Are you kidding? This is better than a ringside seat at a Tyson-Holyfield main event!

Johnny! Johnny!

Psyduck! Psyduck!

Fight! Fight!

[ 17. July 2010, 16:52: Message edited by: footwasher ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:
God is Holy: set apart, and perfect. In His perfection, he cannot tolerate the presence of anything imperfect ("You must be perfect" Matthew 5:48; "your iniquities have separated you from God" Isaiah 59:2). Anything imperfect cannot come into the presence of God (Psalm 24:3-4), or dwell with Him: they would be consumed by his presence (Hebrews 12:29).Therefore, if we are to be accepted by him, we must be presented to him as perfect and blameless in his sight (Eph 5:27), which is achieved through Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice (1 John 4:10).

I'm a bit rusty, so I'm sure that someone else can do better. Does that help in understanding the context at all?

It helps very much. Thank you.

The funny thing is that I'm sure that I once would have given these verses the same interpretation you're giving them here. But now I find that I have trouble wrapping my mind around them. It's obvious to me that that's not what they mean!

I'll try to do a verse-by-verse; I'm not really good at this. (I didn't like proof-texting even when I was an evangelical.)

quote:
In His perfection, he cannot tolerate the presence of anything imperfect ("You must be perfect" Matthew 5:48; "your iniquities have separated you from God" Isaiah 59:2).

If God could not tolerate the presence of anything imperfect, then he could not have been Incarnate. By coming down to be with us, he was immersing himself in the presence of the imperfect, of the damaged, of the twisted, of the sinful. It's because he was with the imperfect that he felt it necessary to give them the command to be perfect, and to instruct them how to do it:

quote:
43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

We're to be perfect as God is perfect -- loving enemies, doing good both to those who are good and to those who are evil. This command isn't about not letting evil into your presence, it's about being in the presence of evil and doing good in return.

Isaiah 59 is part of a long passage giving instruction on holiness as well, and, more to the point, it's poetry. Saying, in the course of the poetic instruction in how to be holy, that your sins have separated you from God does not in any way say that God can't tolerate the presence of anything that's not perfect. God could tolerate Isaiah's presence just fine -- it was Isaiah who could not tolerate God's presence. The holy angels don't cower when they meet sinners; sinners fall on their faces and cower before the angels. Jesus didn't have any trouble talking to demons.

If we want to be in communion with God, we need to do something about our sins. If your deeds are evil, you prefer darkness. God tells us what we need to do so we can come out into the light.

Next:

quote:
Anything imperfect cannot come into the presence of God (Psalm 24:3-4), or dwell with Him: they would be consumed by his presence (Hebrews 12:29).

Anything imperfect? or anyone? It makes a difference.

The end of that Psalm (starting at verse 7) is used in the celebration of Pascha -- it's about the Resurrection. I'll quote the whole psalm:

quote:
1 The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it,
the world, and all who live in it;
2 for he founded it upon the seas
and established it upon the waters.
3 Who may ascend the hill of the LORD ?
Who may stand in his holy place?
4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart,
who does not lift up his soul to an idol
or swear by what is false. [a]
5 He will receive blessing from the LORD
and vindication from God his Savior.
6 Such is the generation of those who seek him,
who seek your face, O God of Jacob. [b]
Selah
7 Lift up your heads, O you gates;
be lifted up, you ancient doors,
that the King of glory may come in.
8 Who is this King of glory?
The LORD strong and mighty,
the LORD mighty in battle.
9 Lift up your heads, O you gates;
lift them up, you ancient doors,
that the King of glory may come in.
10 Who is he, this King of glory?
The LORD Almighty—
he is the King of glory.
Selah

The Psalm doesn't say that the imperfect can't be in the presence of God, or dwell with God. Yes, it's an exhortation to worship God rather than idols, to avoid sin if you want to receive God's blessing -- but the only way to hear it (at least for me) is in the context of the Paschal Homily of St. John Chrysostom. Everyone is summoned to the feast.

As for our God being a consuming fire -- yes, he is. He's also the fire that burns and does NOT consume. How is that? He's like a refiner's fire, burning away the dross, and leaving the good parts. That's something we should all seek (but we don't, because it's scary and painful, even if we know it's good for us).

Moving along:

quote:
Therefore, if we are to be accepted by him, we must be presented to him as perfect and blameless in his sight (Eph 5:27), which is achieved through Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice (1 John 4:10).

Okay, here's the passage from Ephesians:

quote:
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless.

It doesn't say "to be accepted, we must be presented to him as perfect and blameless." It says that Christ loved us and gave himself up for us and made us holy and blameless. He had accepted us already, and out of that, and out of his love for us, he did everything that needed to be done.
Of course, there was more to "everything" than the Cross. That's only part of Christ's giving himself up for us. As John said:

quote:
9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him.

The Incarnation is how God showed us his love. Going on:

quote:
10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

Yes, Jesus was the Lamb whose sacrifice took away the sins of the world. And since God loved us by sacrificing himself for us, we ought to love each other.

The if clause in what you said, "If we are to be accepted by God" -- that's the problem. There's no "if." The problem is not whether God can accept us -- he's already proved that he can and he does. The problem is whether we can accept him and his love. Do we want to give up the darkness and come out into the light? That's the question. It's about how we respond to God, not about how God responds to us.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Josephine, that post is magnificent. Wholly, totally, profoundly magnificent

[Overused]

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

footwasher:

quote:
Are you kidding? This is better than a ringside seat at a Tyson-Holyfield main event!

Johnny! Johnny!

Psyduck! Psyduck!

Fight! Fight!

OK - I can [Killing me]

at that - and then I can [Hot and Hormonal]

too.

I don't - I really don't - want to "defeat" Johnny S.

I do - I really do - recognize and respect his integrity as a Christian.

My huge problems with PSA are indeed founded on a perception that PSA inevitably is a way of looking at the atonement which joins all the dots, but in a pattern of its own making, and distorts even those parts of Scripture (Romans in particular) that seem (only seem, mind!) to come close to it.

I have a double problem with Johnny S.'s posts. (I hope you don't mind me referring to you in the plural for a moment.) None of this stops me recognizing the real depth of biblical knowledge and theological acumen and instinct that there is behind them - but that's part of the problem.

Maybe if I put it impersonally it will appear less confrontational.

I accept that there are people who earnestly believe that they can fully embrace PSA while doing justice to other themes in Scripture, themes that I am convinced PSA either subordinates or, in practice drives out.

I believe that part of the problem is that PSA really is such a tight, interconnected set of propositions that even people who obviously can think very clearly and analytically don't pick up on the way in which they are actually assuming connections - and then assuming they aren't making them, but that they are really there in Scripture.

Part of the problem is that a position that Scripture is "monolithic" masks the connections that PSA imposes on the bits, because the assumption is there that these connections are those that derive from the integrity of the Bible itself.

I'm not sure that's terribly clear; I'm off on a fortnight's holiday as of now, basically, and might not get a chance to put it any more clearly.

One last try: if you assume that the Bible is "one thing" with a particular kind of God-guaranteed integrity - say, because it springs from the mind of God, or however you want to put it - you already assume that the bits of the Bible hang together in a particular way.

So when you assume this coherence in the process of your explaining what bits of the Bible mean, it's very difficult to spot when the coherence is actually being supplied by something which is (in my contention) being read into the Bible, like PSA.

There's more to say about that, but - bucket and spade time.

footwasher - I'm packing my towel, not throwing it in! [Biased]

I'm

Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on :

I kinda empathise with the "share the gentle Gospel" thingie. Reminds me of the days I broke out of Calvinism and the schizophrenic mindset adopted in evangelisation. Hyper-Calvinism anyone?

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

OK - serious question: I don't think it's a tangent - footwasher:

quote:
I broke out of Calvinism and the schizophrenic mindset adopted in evangelisation.

Could you specify what you think was schizophrenic about it?

Back to packing...

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Anyone who is evangelical and hyper-calvinist is schizophrenic. The two aren't actually compatible.

The drive to convert at all costs, is really anti the idea of the Predestination and the Perseverance of the Saints. Predestination says that your salvation is due to God alone and not a matter of your choice. Perseverance of the saints says that the way to guess at whether someone is converted is whether they persevere.

Jengie

Posted by A.Pilgrim (# 15044) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Josephine, that post is magnificent. Wholly, totally, profoundly magnificent

You know what, I think I agree... [Big Grin]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Josephine! Josephine! Josephine!

[Big Grin]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Psyduck:if you take a "monolithic" view of Scripture, and if that means for you that Scripture is a repository of infallibly-true statements, then you are virtually bound to see hermeneutics as the task of clarifying scriptural statements, and translating them into suitable terms to provide articulations of dogmatic theology.

Psyduck, the first assumption in this quote is true IMV but the second is not.

You are assuming in it that a systematic theology is the object of our Bible study. For me this has never been the case. The object of Bible study is devotional.

However, I think you are right in pointing out that there are theological assumptions behind hermeneutical concepts.

I do not think that this, carries your argument that PSA is the totality of evangelical thought. I do assume that Christ took my sins upon himself. I do not believe this because of any systematic theology, but because pretty well all the apostolic writers state or imply it and it comforts me greatly to know that I no longer need bear the guilt of my sin.

[ 17. July 2010, 21:48: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Josephine:If God could not tolerate the presence of anything imperfect then he could not have been incarnate

I think that this misunderstands the incarnation. IMV Christ became a man at the Father's direction SO THAT he could tolerate us. The one form he could take that allowed it was the incarnation. The point of it was to hide the glory in human flesh that was sinless.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Hiding the glory in human flesh (veiled in flesh the Godhead see; hail th'incarnate Deity!) protects us from the full glory of God. At the Transfiguration, the disciples saw our Lord as he really was, with the fully Glory not being veiled.

The flesh of the human man protected us from God, so to speak. I can't see how it protected God from us. God was still rubbing elbows with sin. So much so that it killed him. The idea that God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin falls flat on the fact of the incarnation. God was in the presence of sin. In fact he seemed to seek it out -- eating with tax collectors and prostitutes and what-not. And, as I said, the full presence of sin crucified Him.

[ 18. July 2010, 01:37: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Hey Psyduck, have a great holiday.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Johnny S.:

quote:
All I'm trying to do is explain why some Christians find it a helpful concept. I don't see how this means that it has to explain everything. Seriously, how do make that connection from what I've said?
OK - I didn't catch your drift originally. I now assume that what you mean here:

quote:
And once that is conceded I think it is only fair to concede that the kind of rationalisation (between apparently conflicting statements in Scripture) that goes on in PSA is a perfectly normal hermeneutical process.

is that if, as has been thrown up in this thread, I John holds together the assertions that "God is love" and "God is light" he is holding together prima facie contradictories, which stand in need of some sort of rationalization, yes?

No, I don't think I would say there contradictory, but rather that they are different analogies for his nature and so when talking about God we need to allow both to speak equally without letting one swallow up the other.

To say, for example, that 'God is love' sums up God and then applying that to atonement models seems just the same as those who start with the model of PSA and read scripture in the light of it.

Of course God is love, but he is other things too and a proper theology of God will listen to all aspects of his character.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
And you are saying that, taking Scripture as a whole, PSA is no more than an attempt to provide such a rationalization between the statements that God is love, and that God punishes sin. Yes? (And please do correct me if I'm wrong.)

Yes, pretty much.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:

quote:
For example he states that everyone is a sinner in chapter 1 - indeed we are liars if we claim otherwise (v 8). Then in chapter 3 he claims that no-one who is born of God will continue to sin (v 9).I don't think it is too much to attempt a rationalisation of apparent contradictions within one letter.
Is it absolutely clear that this is a contradiction? I'd see it more as an aporia - the difficult, thought-provoking juxtaposition of apparently contradictory assertions, which, in classical rhetoric is meant to produce a variety of effects, including dissatisfaction with one's present position, a questioning of one's thinking, and even entertainment of the possibility that there is something here that can't be resolved.

You're hiding behind the word aporia here. Maybe John is engaging in this kind of rhetorical device (I think you're probably right) but it is still apparently contradictory and therefore there must be some level of interpretation going on here. I don't see how what you've said makes any qualitative difference to my point.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:

quote:
(1) No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God. (2) If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (3) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Isn't seeking to "resolve" this contradiction to miss what I John is saying?

But OK - let's call it a contradiction - and note that I John doesn't seem to feel the need to address it, let alone resolve it. If we do note that, that's exegesis.

Of course that's exegesis. Unless you are the most rabid fundamentalist that ever existed all reading of scripture involves interpretation. There is no 'plain meaning of the text' in that absolute sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
However this doesn't follow.

quote:
And once that is conceded I think it is only fair to concede that the kind of rationalisation (between God forgives and God punishes sin) that goes on in PSA is a perfectly normal hermeneutical process.
It's not. It's not a hermeneutical process, it's a dogmatic theological process. ISTM it's characteristic of conservative evangelical theology to fuse hermeneutics and the articulation of "Scriptural" (and those aren't meant as "scare-quotes" - they mark something that's openly in dispute here) dogmatic theology. In a sense, if you take a "monolithic" view of Scripture, and if that means for you that Scripture is a repository of infallibly-true statements, then you are virtually bound to see hermeneutics as the task of clarifying scriptural statements, and translating them into suitable terms to provide articulations of dogmatic theology.
In other words, they have to fit together. They can't be poetic articulations of truth - or at least, if they are, they have to be capable of translation out of their poetic form into a truth that is unitary, or monolithic. And aporia is something that such an approach can't countenance.

Actually that is very helpful in clarifying your position. I can see your problem with my position in assuming that the bible has one message. However, you've got your argument back to front here. Take on the 'one voice of scripture' if you want but that is not the fault of PSA. Any evangelical doctrine is based on this assumption, PSA is nothing special.

But on that note I don't think it is fair to caricature evilgelicals like that. I'm happy to allow for scripture to be blurry around the edges and to leave some of these apparent contradictions unanswered.

Indeed you have raised another one of the large intellectual flaws of liberal theology. While I can appreciate aspects of apophatic theology there is something different going on here. This is not talking about what God is not like, it is simply leaving apparent contradictions unanswered.

In reality everyone[/i[ engages in rationalisation. Even the statement 'God is love' can be one. It is assuming that this statement sums up God and it assumes that other factors are to be subsumed to it.

Can you really imagine what theology would be like if we gave up [i]altogether on the 'one voice of the bible' or 'one voice of Christianity'? (NB I'm not discounting your point about aporia here, but I am taking it to its logical conclusion.) Then it would be impossible to speak of God or Christ at all? We could only answer in terms of what Mark's Jesus said or what the early church fathers said. (Of course even then we are admitting to some rationalisation within Mark etc.)

I repeat, I agree that theology is messy and sometimes we are left with surds. However, I've never met a Christian or a theologian who both aspires to your position and consistently applies it. Everybody engages in this process to some degree, it is just that evilgelicals are honest about it.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:

quote:
Speaking of "a dominant model to the virtual exclusion of anything else" (*cough* psyduck *cough*) doesn't anybody notice that John similarly defines God as light in the very same letter - 1 John 1: 5. The context being one of holiness such that he cannot tolerate sin.
Now sorry, but that really is eisegesis! Here's the verse:

quote:
This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all.
But what follows is about our choice to walk in the light or in the darkness:

quote:
If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
There's absolutely nothing there or elsewhere in I John to substantiate your statement that God "cannot tolerate sin." It's just not what I John is about. It's about how sin is dealt with in us. Sin is never God's problem, always ours.

I missed out a few steps in my argument, I admit, but I still stand by my basic premise.

Remember all I was doing was demonstrating that the metaphor of 'God is light' brings a very different nuance to the character of God as does 'God is light'.

I can argue with you about how sin fits into this if you want, but the main point is that 'God is love' is an inclusive metaphor, whereas 'God is light' is an exclusive metaphor. I don't see how you can dispute that from the way John handles either metaphor.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
It's entirely consistent with John's Gospel:

quote:
In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.
There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came for testimony, to bear witness to the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness to the light. The true light that enlightens every man was coming into the world.

quote:
(John 12) And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me. And he who sees me sees him who sent me. I have come as light into the world, that whoever believes in me may not remain in darkness. If any one hears my sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. He who rejects me and does not receive my sayings has a judge; the word that I have spoken will be his judge on the last day.
I submit that if you read either John or I John closely, there is nothing to justify straightforwardly summarizing any part of it as "God cannot tolerate sin". You have to import that notion from outside.

So I really have to ask: where did God "not being able to tolerate sin" come from in your exegesis?

As I said above this is a red-herring. However, you interpret 'God is light' you come up with something different to 'God is love'.

In answer to your question, though, verse 7 of chapter 1 makes the link between 'walking in darkness' and 'sin'. The analogy is, I think, fairly clear, John is saying - either you walk with God in the light or you walk in the darkness and therefore you are not with God. Elsewhere John says (in chapters 2 and 3) that following Jesus means being 'in him' (= in God). You can quibble over the exact connotations of 'tolerate' but John's image is pretty clear here - you can't have light with darkness.

Jesus, on the other hand, put it much more strongly in John's gospel. I've got to go now (RL) but I'm happy to come back to John's gospel if you want me to.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Mousethief:I can't see how it protected God from us. God was still rubbing elbows with sin. So much so that it killed him.

Neither can I but doesn't that reinforce the point of the incarnation?..essentially we cannot know how God manages stuff. We do know from scripture that he is holy and we aren't and that's a problem.

John's prologue is about as far as we can get in it.. "the word was God..and the word became flesh and tabernacled with us." the only conclusion is that somehow, being born as a man God was able to separate his glory from humanity by means of humanity, for a time.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

Josephine, what a great post in reply to my rather hurried and crass bit of Google proof-texting! I hope my summary wasn't a strawman: I was trying to do the position justice, although I'm much more in sympathy with what you said. Thanks for your time and effort.

Johnny S, I'm interested in what you're saying about 1 John. I've always thought it was a bit of a janus-faced book: very comforting verses mixed with stuff that hard and/or frightening. I felt you captured the dichotomy well in your posts to Psyduck.

I'm a bit confused as to how the atonement (/whatever theory) deals with the problem you bring up, though. the author clearly says that no-one born of God continues to sin. Whatever we think about the atonement's efficacy in covering our sin, it cannot be denied that we all continue to sin. The logical implication is that none of us are born of God. It seems that the aporia mentioned by Psyduck doesn't just go away, even if one accepts PSA?

- Chris.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

I'm a bit confused as to how the atonement (/whatever theory) deals with the problem you bring up, though. the author clearly says that no-one born of God continues to sin. Whatever we think about the atonement's efficacy in covering our sin, it cannot be denied that we all continue to sin. The logical implication is that none of us are born of God. It seems that the aporia mentioned by Psyduck doesn't just go away, even if one accepts PSA?

I quite agree. Aporia don't just go away. Remember you first brought up 1 John. All I was doing was trying to show that, even in this one letter, there were 'competing voices' that need to be listened to.

I certainly wouldn't try to answer that tension by appealing to PSA. I think you misunderstood why I pointed out those verses. I don't think they have anything to do with PSA. I was merely saying that seeking to rationalise apparent contradictions is something we do all the time and so for PSA to try do so is not per se a terribly abnormal thing to do. This was about methodology not necessarily about seeing PSA in certain proof-texts.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
where did God "not being able to tolerate sin" come from in your exegesis?

Actually, reflecting upon the incarnation forces me to agree with MT ...

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea that God cannot stand to be in the presence of sin falls flat on the fact of the incarnation. God was in the presence of sin. In fact he seemed to seek it out -- eating with tax collectors and prostitutes and what-not. And, as I said, the full presence of sin crucified Him.

I think you're right. 'God not being able to tolerate sin' is evo-speak and it is not biblical. If that is what Psyduck meant by importing PSA that I think he has a grain of truth here.

MT and Josephine make a good point by stressing the incarnation - it does not make sense to say that God cannot tolerate sin.

However, I do think the prologue to John's gospel does bring out the issues I'm talking about. So, I agree that phraseology is wrong, but I'm not letting go of the concept.

At the risk of turning this into a keryg thread there is no doubt that John expected his readers to pick up on a OT background to John 1: 1-14.

I'd like to concentrate on the background of the tabernacle / tent of meeting in particular in verse 14 - "The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. We have seen his glory."

Immediately you think tabernacle and you think of God's OT glory. The amazing, nay mind-blowing, point John is making is that Jesus is the same glorious revelation!?

Of course it should also make the reader think - in the OT there was a mixed message in the tabernacle (God was saying come, but don't come ... i.e. the tabernacle was in the middle of the camp, surrounded by God's people, but there were all these rules stopping people from entering.) In particular sacrifice was necessary.

So when you read John 1 you're thinking, "How come the disciples didn't get smote, like in the OT?" Sin needed to be dealt with for the Israelites to meet with a holy God. And then you read, John 1: 29, "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

Considering that John has spent so much time setting up JtB in the prologue as the 'witness to the light' it cannot be a coincidence that JtB says this in chapter 1.

So I'll rephrase what I said earlier. It is not that God cannot tolerate sin. But I think it is true to say that God cannot dwell with mankind without sin being dealt with by sacrifice. I do think that is the message of John (both the gospel and 1 John.)

Of course that is just sacrifice and doesn't necessarily prove PSA but (for the moment) I'm just clarifying what I mean by 'God cannot dwell with mankind without sin being dealt with by sacrifice'.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

Johnny S, you're quite right, the 1 John tangent is my fault, and has turned into a bit of a derail. My apologies, and thanks for discussing it. Perhaps I ought to call myself to Kerg! Anyway, you're right, I had misunderstood your point.

quote:
I think you're right. 'God not being able to tolerate sin' is evo-speak and it is not biblical. If that is what Psyduck meant by importing PSA that I think he has a grain of truth here.

MT and Josephine make a good point by stressing the incarnation - it does not make sense to say that God cannot tolerate sin.

I aspire to this level of grace and non-partisanship. I'm also very happy you think that what MT/Josephine wrote is evangelical-compatible, as I could always do with things to agree on with my evo friends! This has been really insightful and helpful for me; thanks to all for keeping the discussion at this level [Cool]

.

- Chris.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

At the risk of turning this into a keryg thread there is no doubt that John expected his readers to pick up on a OT background to John 1: 1-14.

I'd like to concentrate on the background of the tabernacle / tent of meeting in particular in verse 14 - "The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us. We have seen his glory."

Immediately you think tabernacle and you think of God's OT glory. The amazing, nay mind-blowing, point John is making is that Jesus is the same glorious revelation!?

Of course it should also make the reader think - in the OT there was a mixed message in the tabernacle (God was saying come, but don't come ... i.e. the tabernacle was in the middle of the camp, surrounded by God's people, but there were all these rules stopping people from entering.) In particular sacrifice was necessary.

So when you read John 1 you're thinking, "How come the disciples didn't get smote, like in the OT?" Sin needed to be dealt with for the Israelites to meet with a holy God. And then you read, John 1: 29, "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

Considering that John has spent so much time setting up JtB in the prologue as the 'witness to the light' it cannot be a coincidence that JtB says this in chapter 1.

So I'll rephrase what I said earlier. It is not that God cannot tolerate sin. But I think it is true to say that God cannot dwell with mankind without sin being dealt with by sacrifice. I do think that is the message of John (both the gospel and 1 John.)

Of course that is just sacrifice and doesn't necessarily prove PSA but (for the moment) I'm just clarifying what I mean by 'God cannot dwell with mankind without sin being dealt with by sacrifice'.

This makes a lot of assumptions though. Were the exclusive rules God-made or man-made? I would tend to say 'man-made' as we are very good at making up these kinds of exclusive rules.

God's glory is and always was here with us imo. It's recognising it that we struggle to do.

I don't think God ever 'withdraws' from the world. S/he is here, now, available, loving and guiding 24/7.

The 'Here and not here' of the OT is typical of human emotion and felt experience - but not any actual withdrawing from us by God imo.

[ 18. July 2010, 14:41: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
So I'll rephrase what I said earlier. It is not that God cannot tolerate sin. But I think it is true to say that God cannot dwell with mankind without sin being dealt with by sacrifice.

I think, perhaps, if you turned it around, it would be more accurate. I think it's fair to say that man cannot dwell with God without sin being dealt with by sacrifice.

And he wants to dwell with us, and to have us dwell with him. That's the whole point of the Incarnation; it's why the Word of God would have taken on human flesh even if Adam had never had a bite of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

After Adam ate the fruit, God still came to be with him. And didn't just come, but sought him out, and called for him. But what did Adam do? He hid! The problem isn't on God's side; it's not that God can't or won't come to us or dwell with us. The problem is on our side. When we know our sin, we won't dwell with him.

Christ's death puts that all right. When we die with him in baptism, when our death is joined to his, then the sin and guilt and shame that would keep us away from God dies, too. When we're raised up out of the water and our lives are joined to his resurrection, then sin can never be part of us in the same way again. As a result, we can come into God's presence with joy instead of hiding from him in terror and shame.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The problem is on our side. When we know our sin, we won't dwell with him.

That statement is only possible with a very selective reading of the OT.

Adam & Eve - why did God cast them out of the garden then?

Tabernacle - why was sacrifice required when the people (Priests) wanted to come in?

10C - why does the text of Exodus 19 have God telling Moses to warn the people about approaching God?

Uzzah - what about Eutychus' original passage? The whole point of the story seems to be a warning against thoughtless approaching God - i.e. again that it is not an easy thing to be in God's presence.

ISTM the entire OT has the problem on both sides.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
This makes a lot of assumptions though. Were the exclusive rules God-made or man-made?

Yes, lots of assumptions. That always cuts both ways.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Adam & Eve - why did God cast them out of the garden then? [/QB]

Doesn't God say why he cast them out of the garden?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The problem is on our side. When we know our sin, we won't dwell with him.

That statement is only possible with a very selective reading of the OT.

Adam & Eve - why did God cast them out of the garden then?

Tabernacle - why was sacrifice required when the people (Priests) wanted to come in?

10C - why does the text of Exodus 19 have God telling Moses to warn the people about approaching God?

Uzzah - what about Eutychus' original passage? The whole point of the story seems to be a warning against thoughtless approaching God - i.e. again that it is not an easy thing to be in God's presence.

ISTM the entire OT has the problem on both sides.

No, the problem is entirely on our side.

God sent Adam and Eve out of the Garden to protect them. If they had stayed, they might eat of the tree of life and so live forever in their broken state.

Likewise, the priests and the people were warned not to approach the mountain or enter the Holy of Holies to protect them. You'll notice in Scriptures that people fall on their faces in terror at the presence of an angel. What would happen to them in the presence of God himself? Being around holiness, when you're not holy, is terrifying and painful. God doesn't want to cause us terror and pain, so he warns us off.

The case of Uzzah is a difficult one. One of the early fathers (can't remember which one now) pointed out that David never asked God why he had been angry at Uzzah, he just became afraid that if God would do that to Uzzah, he might do it to him, too. But the implication is that we don't really know the whole story; we don't know why God struck down Uzzah for touching the ark. Some of the fathers suggested that it was for over-reaching. He was called to walk in front of the ark. He wasn't called to steady it when it fell. Maybe there was someone else called to do that.

Whatever the reason was that God struck down Uzzah, I don't think you can use that one story to prove that God wants to keep us away from him, when the clear message of everything else God has ever said and done is that he wants to be with us, and has done everything he can to make that possible for us.

Just keep thinking about the Incarnation. That's the central fact of God's relationship to us and to all of Creation. Everything in the Bible, everything in Tradition, everything in our relationship with God has to be viewed in the light of the Incarnation. That's the key.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
God sent Adam and Eve out of the Garden to protect them. If they had stayed, they might eat of the tree of life and so live forever in their broken state.

Likewise, the priests and the people were warned not to approach the mountain or enter the Holy of Holies to protect them. You'll notice in Scriptures that people fall on their faces in terror at the presence of an angel. What would happen to them in the presence of God himself? Being around holiness, when you're not holy, is terrifying and painful. God doesn't want to cause us terror and pain, so he warns us off.

We seem to be missing each other here. I agree that God did all this for their protection.

However, I think you are playing with words when you say "Being around holiness, when you're not holy, is terrifying and painful. God doesn't want to cause us terror and pain, so he warns us off."

God is holy. It is his very character. Describing his holiness in this impersonal way makes it sound as if God's holiness is outside of his control (... rather like flatulence? [Big Grin]

)

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Where's the evidence for this understanding of "punishment" at the cross, either in Scripture or in the PSA literature?
Okay. Just so that you've got something to read while you recover from your op... although we've gone over this at some length on the Cv and more recently other PSA thread.

Thanks. There were some complications and in the time taken to sort those out, this thread has grown by two pages! I'm going to be away for a while now and hopefully convalescing. If I gather the strength to jump in again I will, but I'm glad to note in the mean time that Uzzah is still on the agenda [Biased]

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

Just to double back on a point. What is just about one person taking the punishment for someone else? If the punishment is meant to be instructive or protective then the substitute will not learn and doesn't need to learn that lesson - therefore it's pointless. And doesn't help. If the punishment is for vengeance (itself unjust) then clearly the punisher doesn't care who suffers the vengeance, only that they get their catharsis. This isn't justice, it's a temper tantrum. Therefore if substitutionary atonement worked then the punishment was never just in the first place. The one exception is where the punishment isn't a punishment, it's damages. And God's so concerned about the damages inflicted by the comparatively powerless that he doesn't care who fixes his window as long as it's fixed. This makes Jesus the side of God that got so fed up of punitive and arbitrary fines leading to starvation and debt-slavery that he paid out of his own pocket, taking away God's excuse to gratuitously torture for something that was, to him, trivial. (Or God is much, much less powerful than even the Liberal God.)

If the punishment is one where one person can legitimately suffer in someone else's place then it is inherently unjust.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
God is holy. It is his very character. Describing his holiness in this impersonal way makes it sound as if God's holiness is outside of his control (... rather like flatulence? )

That's ironic because when you say God's justice has to be propitiated before God can love us, it makes God's justice sound outside of his control.

The cutesy aside about flatulence comes across as passive aggressive, by the way.

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Anyone who is evangelical and hyper-calvinist is schizophrenic. The two aren't actually compatible.

Anyone who is evangelical and a universalist is schizophrenic. The two aren't actually compatible.

So?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
[/qb]

That's ironic because when you say God's justice has to be propitiated before God can love us, it makes God's justice sound outside of his control.
[/QB][/QUOTE]

I don't see why his love has anything to do with it. That love, at least, we agree is beyond question. The issue for me is how the two are maintained in tension. As was stated above, the aphoria (nice word) or paradox does not go away.

I actually thinK C S Lewis had it right. The thing itself is what we must accept, viz that God in Christ has reconciled the world to himself. Our models of how it works are not really that important.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Anyone who is evangelical and hyper-calvinist is schizophrenic. The two aren't actually compatible.
Anyone who is evangelical and a universalist is schizophrenic. The two aren't actually compatible.

So?

Indeed they are - very much so if you read Jn 12:32m Mt. 19:28, 1 Cor 15:22, 1 Jn 2:2 and The Evangelical Universalist by G. MacDonald

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's ironic because when you say God's justice has to be propitiated before God can love us, it makes God's justice sound outside of his control.
I don't see why his love has anything to do with it. That love, at least, we agree is beyond question.

Because He can't simply forgive us, the justice comes first. Like the justice is something he can't help -- he wants to forgive us, but the impersonal justice has to be served first.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

So Almighty God is limited by the Law?

Not much of a God, is he?

Even human beings are capable of forgiving without seeking repentance first.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
What is just about one person taking the punishment for someone else?

This was gone over at great length on the CV thread. It assumes an individualistic view of salvation.

However, the NT has a corporate view. In Christ we receive the punishment we deserve. That is why, according to PSA (and despite some protestations on this thread), it is absolutely essential that Jesus is fully human.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

The one exception is where the punishment isn't a punishment, it's damages.

Or maybe some kind of vindication?

A close member of my family is still stuck in a lengthy legal case. Although the defendant (who harmed them in someway) has been found guilty they are refusing to pay up. (There are all sorts of legal loopholes that he can exploit in this situation to drag this out.) It's not about the money. It is about justice being done and being seen to be done. I can feel for them - the defendant has done some terrible things and is refusing to face up to his actions. Even after a unanimous verdict against him.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
God is holy. It is his very character. Describing his holiness in this impersonal way makes it sound as if God's holiness is outside of his control (... rather like flatulence? )
That's ironic because when you say God's justice has to be propitiated before God can love us, it makes God's justice sound outside of his control.

Actually that is precisely my point. It's his love, his justice and his holiness.

God is not some popularist politician who refuses to own up to and stand behind who he is and what his policies are.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

The cutesy aside about flatulence comes across as passive aggressive, by the way.

Well it certainly wasn't meant as such. It was a just joke. I thought that the Orthodox were supposed to enjoy a joke? I also thought it was supposed to be the evilgelicals that were so straight-laced that they disapproved of such frivolity when discussing God?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

The cutesy aside about flatulence comes across as passive aggressive, by the way.
Well it certainly wasn't meant as such. It was a just joke. I thought that the Orthodox were supposed to enjoy a joke? I also thought it was supposed to be the evilgelicals that were so straight-laced that they disapproved of such frivolity when discussing God?

I didn't say it wasn't funny, nor did I say it was inappropriate to have fun when discussing God (this would be a strange thing for the inventor of online Orthodox humour to say).

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's ironic because when you say God's justice has to be propitiated before God can love us, it makes God's justice sound outside of his control.
I don't see why his love has anything to do with it. That love, at least, we agree is beyond question.
Because He can't simply forgive us, the justice comes first. Like the justice is something he can't help -- he wants to forgive us, but the impersonal justice has to be served first.

Now you seem to be equating love and forgiveness. Love is God's unchanging attitude. forgiveness though is surely conditional upon repentance. Otherwise wouldn't you have to say that God has actually stopped loving the lost which contradicts John 3:16.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

But not just conditional on repentance (which I think is arguable but leave that for the moment), but on justice being fulfilled. God wants to forgive us but his justice kept getting in the way, until he killed Jesus.

But as has been noted above, killing one person in place of another isn't terribly just. There is nowhere in human jurisprudence where we'd say that was just. We must be redefining "just" to mean "what God does" -- which is as meaningless as redefining love as "what God does".

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But not just conditional on repentance (which I think is arguable but leave that for the moment), but on justice being fulfilled.

Getting back to 1 John for a moment I was struck by 1 John 1: 9 recently:

quote:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

It seems a very odd turn of phrase. Why does John say that, if we confess our sins, God forgives us out of his faithfulness and his justice / righteousness?

According to your reading it would be more natural to say that out of his grace or his mercy he forgives those who confess their sins. And, again, I would say that is still true (his grace and his mercy) but that John deliberately seems to bring justice / righteousness into the discussion at this point.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But not just conditional on repentance (which I think is arguable but leave that for the moment), but on justice being fulfilled.
Getting back to 1 John for a moment I was struck by 1 John 1: 9 recently:

quote:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
It seems a very odd turn of phrase. Why does John say that, if we confess our sins, God forgives us out of his faithfulness and his justice / righteousness?

According to your reading it would be more natural to say that out of his grace or his mercy he forgives those who confess their sins. And, again, I would say that is still true (his grace and his mercy) but that John deliberately seems to bring justice / righteousness into the discussion at this point.

You're right, this does argue against PSA. Thank you.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You're right, this does argue against PSA. Thank you.

Come on MT, you can't one minute complain that a weak joke I make is passive-aggressive and then reply like this the next.

If this argues against PSA then explain how. I obviously don't think it does.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Mousethief" he (God) killed Jesus.

I don't think he did. I don't think a PSA reading thinks he did either.

Jesus was actually not killed IMV; he chose precisely when he would give up his spirit

The guilt of the crucifixion was on both Roman and Jew but I don't think he died by crucifixion. It was more likely blood loss. He was dead when they pierced his side.

Submitting to the process was Jesus' choice. Remember the legions of angelic help he turned down?

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
What is just about one person taking the punishment for someone else?
This was gone over at great length on the CV thread. It assumes an individualistic view of salvation.

However, the NT has a corporate view. In Christ we receive the punishment we deserve. That is why, according to PSA (and despite some protestations on this thread), it is absolutely essential that Jesus is fully human.

quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:

The one exception is where the punishment isn't a punishment, it's damages.
Or maybe some kind of vindication?

A close member of my family is still stuck in a lengthy legal case. Although the defendant (who harmed them in someway) has been found guilty they are refusing to pay up. (There are all sorts of legal loopholes that he can exploit in this situation to drag this out.) It's not about the money. It is about justice being done and being seen to be done. I can feel for them - the defendant has done some terrible things and is refusing to face up to his actions. Even after a unanimous verdict against him.

Actually, the point you make has some strength, but it is not a point in favour of a penal understanding. I actually don't disagree that sin was judged on the cross (or, to put it more accurately from my perspective, the cross announces God's judgement on sin). It is the nature of that judgement which is at issue. Is sin overcome by being punished, or by being forgiven? PSAers say the former, those favouring other models would probably say the latter. I guess it boils down to whether or not you believe punishment actually acheives anything at all, other than making the punisher feel better/superior/pick your own attitude. To me, it seems an admission of failure, since punishment (as opposed to discipline) is entirely non-redemptive, and totally unhelpful to the wounded party.

Thus, in summary, I think that the paschal event demonstrates in the most stark way possible, that evil can never overcome good, that God is able to redeem every situation. It is a vindication of the power of good to overcome evil. It is the true judgement of God on sin.

BTW, my recollection of the CV thread is that it was those who favoured a PSA understanding (in fairness, primarily Jamat, rather than yourself) who felt that CV was flawed precisely because it was felt to be to impersonal, that it didn't deal so explicitly with my sin. This seems at odds with your first paragraph, but perhaps I have misunderstood you.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
originally posted by Jamat

Now you seem to be equating love and forgiveness. Love is God's unchanging attitude. forgiveness though is surely conditional upon repentance. Otherwise wouldn't you have to say that God has actually stopped loving the lost which contradicts John 3:16.

Sorry, Jamat, could you unpack this a little. I know that you don't accept (as I do) that repentance is a response to forgiveness rather than the grounds of it, but even within that framework, I'm not sure I get the point that you were making.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Actually, the point you make has some strength, but it is not a point in favour of a penal understanding. I actually don't disagree that sin was judged on the cross (or, to put it more accurately from my perspective, the cross announces God's judgement on sin). It is the nature of that judgement which is at issue. Is sin overcome by being punished, or by being forgiven?

Actually I think it does favour a penal understanding. The reason I used the court case is that here, even though the defendant has been found guilty, he is not admitting guilt nor admitting liability.

How much more when there is no punishment at all?

When someone apologises to us today for some trivial inconvenience (e.g. bumping into us in the street) the normal repsonse is - "it doesn't matter" ("no worries" in Australia) - which I think is telling. We are forgiving them because, we say, it cost us nothing to do so. However, in more serious cases it does matter. In fact the severity of the punishment tells us something about the seriousness of the crime. By using a penal metaphor as part of the atonement I think we are saying something about how much it cost God to forgive us. Or to put it the other way round, if God 'just forgives' everything then our sin is equally not very serious as opposed to PSA where our sin is equally terribly serious. Does that make sense?

Now I realise that I'm stretching the definition of the word 'punishment' here but then it is a 'model' and therefore feel at liberty to do so.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
BTW, my recollection of the CV thread is that it was those who favoured a PSA understanding (in fairness, primarily Jamat, rather than yourself) who felt that CV was flawed precisely because it was felt to be to impersonal, that it didn't deal so explicitly with my sin. This seems at odds with your first paragraph, but perhaps I have misunderstood you.

I think we are using personal in two different ways here. I do think CV does has the danger of lessening a sense of personal responsibility for sin (and in that sense impersonal) but my comments about corporate identity in Christ was more to do with individualism than being personal.

I wouldn't really put it like this but to stretch the analogy the PSA model involves debt and so Christ pays the sum debt for the whole humanity but that includes, exactly, my contribution to it.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Sin is overcome by forgiveness, as the cycle of retribution is then broken.

Jesus forgave sin - well before going to the cross. So the cross wasn't necessary for sin to be overcome.

The cross demonstrated the lengths He would go to not to give to, or relatiate against, His enemies. Which was consistent with His life and teaching.

IMO

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

That should read -

The cross demonstrated the lengths He would go to not to give in to, or relatiate against, His enemies. Which was consistent with His life and teaching.

of course [Smile]

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Boogie [Overused]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
originally posted by JohnnyS
Actually I think it does favour a penal understanding. The reason I used the court case is that here, even though the defendant has been found guilty, he is not admitting guilt nor admitting liability.

How much more when there is no punishment at all?

When someone apologises to us today for some trivial inconvenience (e.g. bumping into us in the street) the normal repsonse is - "it doesn't matter" ("no worries" in Australia) - which I think is telling. We are forgiving them because, we say, it cost us nothing to do so. However, in more serious cases it does matter. In fact the severity of the punishment tells us something about the seriousness of the crime. By using a penal metaphor as part of the atonement I think we are saying something about how much it cost God to forgive us. Or to put it the other way round, if God 'just forgives' everything then our sin is equally not very serious as opposed to PSA where our sin is equally terribly serious. Does that make sense?

Now I realise that I'm stretching the definition of the word 'punishment' here but then it is a 'model' and therefore feel at liberty to do so.

There's that problem with the scare-quoted "just forgive" shorthand again. The point is, surely, that the seriousness or otherwise of an offence is not measured by whether it can be met with forgiveness, but rather by the cost of that forgiveness to the forgiver. Nobody is arguing (at least, I haven;t met anyone here arguing) that forgiveness is an easy or cost-free option. On the contrary, with regard to the cross, the very enormity of the offence is what makes the forgiveness both so incomprehensibly generous (from our point of view) and so absolutely essential (from God's point of view) since only the full power of God could could triumph over the offence, and the full power of God can only be manifest, not in strength, but in self sacrifice, and what seems, to human eyes, weakness.

In other words, what Boogie said.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The cross wasn't necessary to forgive sin -- God forgives sin because he is a forgiving God, not because something enables him to. The cross is necessary to break sin's power over us, power to come between us and God, power over us in death.

JohnnyS: i apologize for being snarky.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The point is, surely, that the seriousness or otherwise of an offence is not measured by whether it can be met with forgiveness, but rather by the cost of that forgiveness to the forgiver.

I suppose I'm asking whether that cost has to be quantified or not? I think that part of repentance involves a deliberate recognition of the cost involved in forgiveness.

Another illustration - my youngest daughter broke something precious to her sister to the other day. It was an accident in the sense that she didn't intend to break it, but it was her fault in that it was broken in a fit of temper. What was interesting was watching the dynamic of forgiveness in operation. At the time she said she was sorry and her big sister forgave her. However, the next day I was talking with her suggesting that she pay towards a replacement. At that point she got angry because she didn't think she should have to pay. It soon became clear that it was only being confronted by the cost of restitution that she understood what repentance meant.

Now, I'm sure you will say that restitution is not the same as punishment, and you are right. However, it still feels like punishment to my daughter. My question is whether or not 'punishment' (in this category sense of the word) is a necessary thing for us to appreciate the cost of forgiveness. Not that God demands a punishment per se but that we human beings need to see a cost paid to understand how much God loves us.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The cross wasn't necessary to forgive sin -- God forgives sin because he is a forgiving God, not because something enables him to. The cross is necessary to break sin's power over us, power to come between us and God, power over us in death.

JohnnyS: i apologize for being snarky.

No worries.

Although you haven't explained what this has to do with 1 John 1: 9. There John says that God forgives because he is just, not because he is merciful.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

And lots of other passages speak of his being merciful to us and forgiving us.

quote:
Numbers 14:18-19:
The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.

(Interesting about "clearing the guilty" while at the same time forgiving iniquity and transgressions! What's that about?!)

quote:
Psalm 103:
8The LORD is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy.

9He will not always chide: neither will he keep his anger for ever.

10He hath not dealt with us after our sins; nor rewarded us according to our iniquities.

11For as the heaven is high above the earth, so great is his mercy toward them that fear him.

12As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.

13Like as a father pitieth his children, so the LORD pitieth them that fear him.

14For he knoweth our frame; he remembereth that we are dust.

This Psalm is worth reading in full -- it too also talks about executing judgment for the downtrodden.

I remember reading that when people in the OT talked about justice and righteousness, it had to do with the judging/condemning of their enemies, not themselves. The day of judgment, for them, was a happy day because they would be set free from their oppressors and their oppressors will get their comeuppance. Because of course the people speaking/writing are the Hebrews, the chosen race, and their enemies are God's enemies.

They speak about God's mercy towards US, and his justice being rendered on THEM. We get off scott-free, while they are destroyed. And it's the same thing, two sides of the same coin. What is mercy for us is judgment and condemnation for them. God's mercy IS God's justice. Mercy is our experience of God's justice; condemnation and destruction is THEIR experience of God's justice. God shows his mercy to US by bringing THEM to justice. Or to put it another way, God's justice means acquitting us (in mercy) and convicting them.

In the NT, judgment is seen as a frightening thing because God is going to judge not our oppressors, but US. The Christian God isn't necessarily less of a smiter than the OT God; he just turns the smiting from our enemies onto us. When the gospel moved to just being for the Jews to being for all the nations (gentiles), the judgment of the nations ends up being the judgment of US.

In the NT, both God's mercy and her justice are directed towards US. Are they still the same thing?

(I'm sorry if some of this is repetitive but I'm tired and not functioning on all 2 cylinders.)

(Bruce Cockburn: "Everybody loves to see justice done on somebody else.")

[ 21. July 2010, 06:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The point is, surely, that the seriousness or otherwise of an offence is not measured by whether it can be met with forgiveness, but rather by the cost of that forgiveness to the forgiver.
I suppose I'm asking whether that cost has to be quantified or not? I think that part of repentance involves a deliberate recognition of the cost involved in forgiveness.

Another illustration - my youngest daughter broke something precious to her sister to the other day. It was an accident in the sense that she didn't intend to break it, but it was her fault in that it was broken in a fit of temper. What was interesting was watching the dynamic of forgiveness in operation. At the time she said she was sorry and her big sister forgave her. However, the next day I was talking with her suggesting that she pay towards a replacement. At that point she got angry because she didn't think she should have to pay. It soon became clear that it was only being confronted by the cost of restitution that she understood what repentance meant.

Now, I'm sure you will say that restitution is not the same as punishment, and you are right. However, it still feels like punishment to my daughter. My question is whether or not 'punishment' (in this category sense of the word) is a necessary thing for us to appreciate the cost of forgiveness. Not that God demands a punishment per se but that we human beings need to see a cost paid to understand how much God loves us.

Well, if you are saying that the cross demonstrates the cost of forgiveness, or rather, as you say, of restitution, you'll get no argument from me. As I think I said above, free forgiveness does not mean cost-free forgiveness. But I don't think that's PSA. In fact, your train of thought here seems towards an Abelardian, subjective understanding of atonement. Which is certainly part of the story, though not, as we would both agree, the whole story.

quote:

Although you haven't explained what this has to do with 1 John 1: 9. There John says that God forgives because he is just, not because he is merciful.

Not wishing to put words in Mousethief's mouth, but I think your're putting way more theological weight on this text than it is intended to stand. What John is saying, surely, is that forgiveness is compatible with the faithfulness and justice of God, and for that reason we can have confidence. He isn't saying anything about the mechanism of forgiveness. Of course, we can both affirm that verse without crossing our fingers, but we have very different notions of what it means when we say "God is just".

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But I don't think that's PSA. In fact, your train of thought here seems towards an Abelardian, subjective understanding of atonement.

Don't be misled by 'feels like punishment to my daughter' - it is punishment. This is still PSA.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Of course, we can both affirm that verse without crossing our fingers, but we have very different notions of what it means when we say "God is just".

Sure. I wasn't trying to 'proof-text' PSA here.

The fact that we have different notions is precisely the point. Psyduck's original hypothesis lies in tatters on the floor - everybody comes to these issues with very different notions. Therefore it is unfair to suggest that only one side has a theological grid through which they filter everything.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'm not sure that's what Psyduck was saying, or at least not entirely. It has been shown a couple of times here that at least some PSA advocates (for want of a better term) actually question the Christianity of those who do not hold PSA -- it seems to them an integral and necessary part, a sine qua non, of Christianity. Which is wrong-headed and historically indefensible.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
PSA advocates (for want of a better term) actually question the Christianity of those who do not hold PSA -- it seems to them an integral and necessary part, a sine qua non, of Christianity.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by integral and necessary then.

ISTM (but he can correct me when he comes back from holiday) that Psyduck was suggesting that PSA is integral to some people in the sense that it is a controlling hermeneutic.

However, for those who have creeds and doctrinal statements of faith, PSA could be a sine qua non simply by being one thing you believe out of a long list of other things you believe without it controlling the way you think about everything else.

Some might argue that it is impossible to be a RC without believing in the Immaculate Conception but they wouldn't then go on to argue that this view of Mary controls Catholic thinking about everything else.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

PS I realise that sine qua non literally refers to 'one thing' but my point is that you can have a whole lot of 'non negotiables' so that to remove any of them is to fundamentally destroy the whole.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I guess I'm not seeing what the point of that point is. I wasn't referring to the "controlling hermeneutic" thing, just to the sine qua nonity of PSA to some persons, to where if you tell them you don't believe in some aspect of PSA, they deduce from that that you are not a Christian. I'll leave the "controlling hermeneutic" thing for Psyduck to defend, and confine myself (for the time being) to attacking the necessity of PSA to Christian-ness. If it ain't in the Creed, you'd better have a Really Good Reason for its being necessary to Christian belief.

ETA: And Augustine is NOT a Really Good Reason.

[ 22. July 2010, 03:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'll confine myself (for the time being) to attacking the necessity of PSA to Christian-ness. If it ain't in the Creed, you'd better have a Really Good Reason for its being necessary to Christian belief.

Now we're getting down to the real issues, ISTM.

1. I'd never say that you have to believe in PSA in order to be a Christian. However, I would say that I think it likely that you have a deficient understanding of the gospel if you don't.

(And at this point I think 'necessary' is in danger of becoming a weasel word - there is a big difference between saying that ascribing to one particular atonement model is not necessary for salvation and what has been said on this thread about PSA being actively wrong and harmful. At the point that PSA is described as being 'subChristian' then it is being made a sine qua non by its opponents - i.e. that you cannot believe in it and be a 'real' Christian.)

2. I don't see how PSA is any different to evangelicals as (for example) acceptance of certain Bishops and Patriarchs are to the RC or the Orthodox. At this point I think it is mis-direction to say that the RC (again, for example) regard me as belonging to a church that is in error rather than regarding me as not a real Christian. At the present, and throughout Church History, many think that there is no salvation outside of the true church (TM), and so, ISTM, it amounts to the same thing.

In other words your statement - "If it ain't in the Creed, you'd better have a Really Good Reason for its being necessary to Christian belief. - seems to fall foul of pretty much every single denomination and Christian group on the face of the planet.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. I'd never say that you have to believe in PSA in order to be a Christian. However, I would say that I think it likely that you have a deficient understanding of the gospel if you don't.

In other words you are making PSA a shibboleth for right theology. Forget "in order to be a Christian" -- that's clearly a red herring that it's better not to get into (although as has been demonstrated above, some proponents of PSA do think that way, but I'll take it as read that you do not). You're saying that PSA is an essential part of the Christian Gospel. I would never say anything like that about any bishop or whatever it is you're alluding to. That's why I took it back to the Creed. There's no PSA in the Creed. But you say any understanding of the Gospel that lacks it is deficient. Therefore you're saying the Creed is deficient. I have to say this, you got balls.

quote:
(And at this point I think 'necessary' is in danger of becoming a weasel word - there is a big difference between saying that ascribing to one particular atonement model is not necessary for salvation and what has been said on this thread about PSA being actively wrong and harmful. At the point that PSA is described as being 'subChristian' then it is being made a sine qua non by its opponents - i.e. that you cannot believe in it and be a 'real' Christian.)

True. But I don't believe that ascribing to any atonement model is necessary for salvation. Indeed I don't think that any particular atonement model is an essential part of the Christian gospel (unlike some I could mention). But I do think PSA is wrong and harmful. That doesn't mean I think you can't believe in it and be a 'real' Christian. You can believe in lots of wrong and harmful things and be a 'real' Christian. I think 'real' Christian is a red herring here (as I said above).

quote:
2. I don't see how PSA is any different to evangelicals as (for example) acceptance of certain Bishops and Patriarchs are to the RC or the Orthodox.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying here. I've pointed out above how I don't think that any particular bishop or patriarch is part of the essential Christian gospel (or faith-- I'm kinda using those interchangeably; we can argue about the merits of that some other time).

quote:
At this point I think it is mis-direction to say that the RC (again, for example) regard me as belonging to a church that is in error rather than regarding me as not a real Christian. At the present, and throughout Church History, many think that there is no salvation outside of the true church (TM), and so, ISTM, it amounts to the same thing.

But it's a total red herring. You're confusing the contents of the Gospel on one hand with ecclesiology on the other hand. Ecclesiology isn't part of the Gospel. It might be better to say that the Gospel is part of the church, rather than the church being part of the gospel. But what does the Creed say about the Church? That it's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. That's all.

quote:
In other words your statement - "If it ain't in the Creed, you'd better have a Really Good Reason for its being necessary to Christian belief. - seems to fall foul of pretty much every single denomination and Christian group on the face of the planet.

I don't see this, unless we mix up "who is saved" or "who is in the One True Church™" with "What beliefs form part of the Christian faith?" PSA (and the Creed) is about the latter; dragging the former into it is just throwing sand in the eyes of the discussion. That belongs on another thread. You might as well drag in closed communion and ordination of women and sacramentalism versus memorialism in the eucharist, and 1000 other things that divide Protestants from R.Catholics from Orthodox (from Nestorians from Monophysites...).

But I'm beginning to think if you think any understanding of the gospel which leaves out PSA is deficient, then maybe Psyduck is right -- maybe it is an overarching hermeneutic through which its advocates view the entire Bible and the entire Christian faith.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But I don't think that's PSA. In fact, your train of thought here seems towards an Abelardian, subjective understanding of atonement.
Don't be misled by 'feels like punishment to my daughter' - it is punishment. This is still PSA.

Well, no, actually. What would be analogous to PSA would be for the offended daughter to be forced to replace her own toy.

Now, of course, you will say, I am pushing the analogy too far, and I agree. But I think you have already pushed the analogy too far by introducing the concept of punishment. Surely, a better atonement analogue in this would be for the offended daughter to volunteer to buy her own replacement toy. This would rightly be described as her bearing the cost of restoration, but no-one would be punishing her. In the same way, Christ (willingly) bears the cost of our restoration, but it would be quite wrong to say that He is punished.

Furthermore, It would be bizarre to think that your elder daughter could only forgive her offending sister if she buys her own replacement. On the contrary, it's pretty clear that, if she does do so, she must have already forgiven the offender.

BTW, I'm not sure anyone has labelled PSA as sub-christian, though I have, from time to time, asserted (like +Tom Wright] that it is sub-biblical, which is an equine of a totally different hue.

[ 22. July 2010, 09:03: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
BTW, I'm not sure anyone has labelled PSA as sub-christian, though I have, from time to time, asserted (like +Tom Wright] that it is sub-biblical, which is an equine of a totally different hue.

JJ, I apologise in advance for asking as I'm sure you've answered this already (although no-one has on this thread), but could you give a brief outline of how you understand the suffering servant verses in Isaiah 53? They seem to be key to the argument for PSA being 'sub-biblical' or otherwise. If you've answered this before then a link would be fine!

Many thanks,

- Chris.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Therefore you're saying the Creed is deficient. I have to say this, you got balls.

Of course the creed is deficient. I would take that is a given from the fact that there is and never has been in the history of Christianity a church that has not added to the creed. It must be deficient.

(Last time I counted, I've got two.)

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
True. But I don't believe that ascribing to any atonement model is necessary for salvation. Indeed I don't think that any particular atonement model is an essential part of the Christian gospel (unlike some I could mention). But I do think PSA is wrong and harmful. That doesn't mean I think you can't believe in it and be a 'real' Christian. You can believe in lots of wrong and harmful things and be a 'real' Christian. I think 'real' Christian is a red herring here (as I said above).

But I don't think that you have to believe in PSA in order to be a Christian or be saved or however you want to put the question.

So yes, let's just drop the 'real' Christian bit.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But it's a total red herring. You're confusing the contents of the Gospel on one hand with ecclesiology on the other hand. Ecclesiology isn't part of the Gospel. It might be better to say that the Gospel is part of the church, rather than the church being part of the gospel. But what does the Creed say about the Church? That it's one, holy, catholic, and apostolic. That's all.

I don't think I'm confusing them here. My point is that many do. Indeed since we are only going on the Creed I agree entirely with your paragraph here.

It leaves a big problem for the Orthodox and RCs who do not recognise all other Christian denominations who do believe in the Creed as part of this one catholic church. And yes this is saying that ecclesiology is part of the gospel when you are told that there is no salvation outside of the church (TM). And yes this is my current experience - I could list all sorts of examples of this locally but I'm not sure it would be helpful.

Now, I'm not raising this to take pot shots at the RC or the Orthodox. Let them be. I'm just saying that most major historic denominations have their equivalent of PSA.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't see this, unless we mix up "who is saved" or "who is in the One True Church™" with "What beliefs form part of the Christian faith?" PSA (and the Creed) is about the latter; dragging the former into it is just throwing sand in the eyes of the discussion. That belongs on another thread. You might as well drag in closed communion and ordination of women and sacramentalism versus memorialism in the eucharist, and 1000 other things that divide Protestants from R.Catholics from Orthodox (from Nestorians from Monophysites...).

But as you can see I do think it is often all mixed up and yes, I am drawing in all denominations. We all have all sorts of shibboleths PSA is no worse or better than any of those on your list.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Now, of course, you will say, I am pushing the analogy too far, and I agree.

Yes, it's a model. I've never said that it doesn't break down if you stretch it.

In a similar way that ransom and CV break down if you stretch them. For example I love the Narnia Chronicles and have used them many times in talks etc. However, that doesn't mean that I'm oblivious to the obvious limitations to the ransom motif in the LWW - the white witch is tricked because she was ignorant of some deeper magic? Come on, even children see the pitfalls here.

But that is not to say that it isn't helpful or even a majestic and dramatic depiction of the atonement. It just shows why we need all the atonement models. Even PSA.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
BTW, I'm not sure anyone has labelled PSA as sub-christian, though I have, from time to time, asserted (like +Tom Wright] that it is sub-biblical, which is an equine of a totally different hue.
JJ, I apologise in advance for asking as I'm sure you've answered this already (although no-one has on this thread), but could you give a brief outline of how you understand the suffering servant verses in Isaiah 53? They seem to be key to the argument for PSA being 'sub-biblical' or otherwise. If you've answered this before then a link would be fine!

Many thanks,

- Chris.

I accept that Isaiah 53 is problematic from my POV, as it is the one passage in Scripture which, when read in a straightforward way, could be said to imply a Penal model of the Atonement. I suppose the big question is whether such an argument is in harmony with the rest of scripture or not, pace the proof-texting thread.

I think the Girardian interpretation (that the wrath, the stripes and so on are what we do to the suffering servant, and that, in some way, that is healing for us), has some merit, and seems to fit in quite well with the Hebrew, in as much as I can make sense of it from the interlinear translation that I'm using. Try reading v 4 as a contrast with v 5, as in, "we thought God was punishing Him, but really it was our iniquites". The Hebrew does seem to say that the wounding is "from us" rather than "for us", for example.No doubt leo will be along soon to point out the place of the suffering servant in Jewish thought, something about which I'm not qualified to have an opinion.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Now, of course, you will say, I am pushing the analogy too far, and I agree.
Yes, it's a model. I've never said that it doesn't break down if you stretch it.

In a similar way that ransom and CV break down if you stretch them. For example I love the Narnia Chronicles and have used them many times in talks etc. However, that doesn't mean that I'm oblivious to the obvious limitations to the ransom motif in the LWW - the white witch is tricked because she was ignorant of some deeper magic? Come on, even children see the pitfalls here.

But that is not to say that it isn't helpful or even a majestic and dramatic depiction of the atonement. It just shows why we need all the atonement models. Even PSA.

Yes, but the point I was making was not that what you were offering was a model, with the limitations of a model. I'm fine with that. My argument is that it is an inappropriate use of the model; as you stated it the perpetrator is the one who is punished. This is quite different to PSA, in that it is the innocent victim, if you like, who is punished. I'm not sure what theory of atonement your model is analogous to, but it certainly isn't PSA. Your model is penal, but not substitutionary. My re-imagining of it is substitutionary, but not penal.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But as you can see I do think it is often all mixed up and yes, I am drawing in all denominations. We all have all sorts of shibboleths PSA is no worse or better than any of those on your list.

Except PSA is wrong and harmful. It attributes things to God that it is blasphemous to attribute to God. It obviates forgiveness. It makes. no. sense.

[ 22. July 2010, 15:37: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on :

What would the Jews have understood by Isaiah 53? As I understand it, they would not have regarded it as relating to the Messiah. If so, why should we?

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What would the Jews have understood by Isaiah 53? As I understand it, they would not have regarded it as relating to the Messiah. If so, why should we?

Um, because we're Christians, not Jews? Also someone (I think it is tclune) will be around in a minute to explain that modern-day Jews have had 2000 years of divergent history from NT Judaism to come up with revised explanations, in the same way that we have, but leading to different conclusions for obvious reasons. Their take on it is no more authoritative than ours is - and you'll notice that "we" don't have a single take on it, and quite possibly they don't either.

If you mean, what would NT Jews have understood by it? then that's a historical guessing game.

- Chris.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What would the Jews have understood by Isaiah 53? As I understand it, they would not have regarded it as relating to the Messiah. If so, why should we?

I have posted at length on how Isa. 53 has been mistranslated and how Jews see it.

PM me if you want more detail.

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

[QUOTE]In His perfection, he cannot tolerate the presence of anything imperfect ("You must be perfect" Matthew 5:48; "your iniquities have separated you from God" Isaiah 59:2).
If God could not tolerate the presence of anything imperfect, then he could not have been Incarnate. By coming down to be with us, he was immersing himself in the presence of the imperfect, of the damaged, of the twisted, of the sinful. It's because he was with the imperfect that he felt it necessary to give them the command to be perfect, and to instruct them how to do it:

Great post Josephine. I'm also not convinced that the verse quoted above means that God could not be in the presence of evil but it does appear to say that he can't tolerate evil. Does everyone agree then that, whilst Jesus came to save, God will one day have to judge sin?

I totally agree with your comments that that how we respond to God's love is the key. You mention turning from darkness to light. It seems to me, from the bible, that when we come into God's presence our imperfections are highlighted in contrast to his holiness and that some people don;t like this because they would rather remain in the idolatrous belief that they are perfect by themselves. It seems then that the reason some refuse to come into the presence of God's love is because they refuse to depend on him for salvation. I assume that this is agreed by all and that what is being disputed here is the mechanism by which God delivers us from sin?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
es, but the point I was making was not that what you were offering was a model, with the limitations of a model. I'm fine with that. My argument is that it is an inappropriate use of the model; as you stated it the perpetrator is the one who is punished. This is quite different to PSA, in that it is the innocent victim, if you like, who is punished. I'm not sure what theory of atonement your model is analogous to, but it certainly isn't PSA. Your model is penal, but not substitutionary. My re-imagining of it is substitutionary, but not penal.

Sorry, got you now.

I wasn't using my interaction with my children as an analogy for the atonement earlier - I don't have a Messiah complex. [Big Grin]

All I was trying to do there was establish 'punishment' as some kind of unit of measurement that plays an important part of the process. If I was then applying it to PSA you are quite right I'd have to say that in Christ the victim pays the punishment themselves.

And, going back to my daughter for the sake of argument, yes I would still say you could use the word punishment to describe it even if the elder daughter paid for the replacement herself. It's not how we normally use the word but I hardly think it outside the semantic range of the word if it has a direct equivalence with the punishment I actually gave my other daughter. (That was the point I was trying to make earlier.)

I get this idea from passages like Revelation 18: 6:

quote:
Give back to her as she has given; pay her back double for what she has done.

Here John is describing the judgment that will fall on Babylon (Rome) for her sin. Although 'double' is not a good translation. The word has the sense of 'a duplicate' or 'a matching pair'. In other words the judgment Rome will experience is a punishment that exactly matches her sin.

If the scriptures can use this kind of 'moral accounting' then I feel at liberty to do the same with PSA - i.e. to put our sin down in one column deserving punishment and then to put down a matching punishment in the credit column under Jesus. Of course I'm not saying that it actually works like that but as a model it has merit.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But as you can see I do think it is often all mixed up and yes, I am drawing in all denominations. We all have all sorts of shibboleths PSA is no worse or better than any of those on your list.
Except PSA is wrong and harmful. It attributes things to God that it is blasphemous to attribute to God. It obviates forgiveness. It makes. no. sense.

In other words you think your shibboleths are better than mine. Doesn't that explain why you are in your church and I am in mine?

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
originally posted by JohnnyS
And, going back to my daughter for the sake of argument, yes I would still say you could use the word punishment to describe it even if the elder daughter paid for the replacement herself. It's not how we normally use the word but I hardly think it outside the semantic range of the word if it has a direct equivalence with the punishment I actually gave my other daughter. (That was the point I was trying to make earlier.) (Emphasis mine)

Well, actually, I rather think it is. Punish is a transitive verb. If someone voluntarily "pays" a "reparation" for a "sin" of which they were a victim, then to describe that as "punishment" is to completely stand normal sematics on their head. There is no punisher, so there can be no punishment.

(btw, ISTM that what you did to your daughter was not punishment but discipline.)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
But as you can see I do think it is often all mixed up and yes, I am drawing in all denominations. We all have all sorts of shibboleths PSA is no worse or better than any of those on your list.
Except PSA is wrong and harmful. It attributes things to God that it is blasphemous to attribute to God. It obviates forgiveness. It makes. no. sense.
In other words you think your shibboleths are better than mine. Doesn't that explain why you are in your church and I am in mine?

To me the biggest problem is that it looks like we worship completely different Gods.

Which makes the argument that God is a human construct much, much stronger imo.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Mousethief: The cross wasn't necessary to forgive sin -- God forgives sin because he is a forgiving God, not because something enables him to. The cross is necessary to break sin's power over us, power to come between us and God, power over us in death.

And just how does it break sin's power and remain irrelevant to forgiveness?

It is quite difficult IMV to hold what you state in the quote above alongside a rather straightforward statement in 1 John 4:10 that the love of God was shown by the fact that he sent his son into the world to be the propitiation for our sins.

Indeed,Peter tells us specifically that Christ died for sins (1Pet 3:18). Now why would he say that if breaking the power of death was not essentially to do with dealing with sin by forgiving it?

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

In His perfection, he cannot tolerate the presence of anything imperfect ("You must be perfect" Matthew 5:48; "your iniquities have separated you from God" Isaiah 59:2).
If God could not tolerate the presence of anything imperfect, then he could not have been Incarnate. By coming down to be with us, he was immersing himself in the presence of the imperfect, of the damaged, of the twisted, of the sinful. It's because he was with the imperfect that he felt it necessary to give them the command to be perfect, and to instruct them how to do it:

Great post Josephine. I'm also not convinced that the verse quoted above means that God could not be in the presence of evil but it does appear to say that he can't tolerate evil. Does everyone agree then that, whilst Jesus came to save, God will one day have to judge sin?

I would understand it that Jesus has already judged sin, and, on the cross, He delivers God's verdict, that is, He destroys its power (what Paul calls its "sting") by overcoming death.

quote:
I totally agree with your comments that that how we respond to God's love is the key. You mention turning from darkness to light. It seems to me, from the bible, that when we come into God's presence our imperfections are highlighted in contrast to his holiness and that some people don;t like this because they would rather remain in the idolatrous belief that they are perfect by themselves. It seems then that the reason some refuse to come into the presence of God's love is because they refuse to depend on him for salvation. I assume that this is agreed by all and that what is being disputed here is the mechanism by which God delivers us from sin?

I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem to me that this bears any relationship to life as it really is. People don't become Christians for one of two reasons, in my experience. One is that they don't believe in God, the other that they see the church as boring, out of touch, judgemental and cliquey, and want nothing whatever to do with it. I have never, ever met anyone (in forty years as a Christian) who has said anything which even remotely approximates to "I refuse to become a Christian because I'm already perfect, much less "I refuse to depend on Him for salvation". It's just not how people think.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Because you are conflating "dealing with sin" with "forgiving sin". In my understanding, God forgives sin when we sin, before or after the Incarnation. Forgiveness doesn't require anything other than God's forgiving nature. Dealing with sin was what Christ did on the cross and in the resurrection, because God already forgave us. Forgiving us wasn't something he was finally set free to do once Christ died. Forgiveness lead to the cross; it didn't follow from it.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because you are conflating "dealing with sin" with "forgiving sin". In my understanding, God forgives sin when we sin, before or after the Incarnation. Forgiveness doesn't require anything other than God's forgiving nature. Dealing with sin was what Christ did on the cross and in the resurrection, because God already forgave us. Forgiving us wasn't something he was finally set free to do once Christ died. Forgiveness lead to the cross; it didn't follow from it.

Yes, absolutely - and PSA attributes to God an unforgiving nature imo.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Mousethief: The cross wasn't necessary to forgive sin -- God forgives sin because he is a forgiving God, not because something enables him to. The cross is necessary to break sin's power over us, power to come between us and God, power over us in death.

And just how does it break sin's power and remain irrelevant to forgiveness?

Not irrelevant to forgiveness, just not necessary for forgiveness. The Cross demonstrates that God had already forgiven us. But, primarily, the cross (and resurrection) is about salvation, not forgiveness.

quote:
It is quite difficult IMV to hold what you state in the quote above alongside a rather straightforward statement in 1 John 4:10 that the love of God was shown by the fact that he sent his son into the world to be the propitiation for our sins.

Ah, good old "hilasterion" again. The exact meaning of the word that is rendered in English as "propitiation" is hotly debated, but the closest is probably something like "the place where mercy is found", what the old-time evangelicals would call the "mercy seat". Such a translation is quite in keeping with a non-penal view of the atonement.

quote:
Indeed,Peter tells us specifically that Christ died for sins (1Pet 3:18). Now why would he say that if breaking the power of death was not essentially to do with dealing with sin by forgiving it?

Because our sins cause us to die eternally. Even our forgiven sins. The atonement is about destroying the consequences of forgiven sins. As one C Wesley onece put it "He breaks the power of cancelled sin."

eta: Sorry, x-posted with Mousethief, who makes the point so much more concisely.

[ 23. July 2010, 08:50: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Because you are conflating "dealing with sin" with "forgiving sin". In my understanding, God forgives sin when we sin, before or after the Incarnation. Forgiveness doesn't require anything other than God's forgiving nature. Dealing with sin was what Christ did on the cross and in the resurrection, because God already forgave us. Forgiving us wasn't something he was finally set free to do once Christ died. Forgiveness lead to the cross; it didn't follow from it.

Indeed I am conflating the two but could it not be equally said that you are separating the two without scriptural warrant?

You see, in my understanding of scripture, all things look both forward to the cross and back to it. Sin committed before the cross was held in abeyance by animal sacrifice until the cross. Sin committed after the cross, is forgiven because Christ cancelled it by means of the cross.

And forgiveness of sin is an analogous act to breaking the power of death as Paul says to the Corinthians the sting of death is sin.(1Cor 15:56)

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Here is a discusssion of the use of "hilasterion" in Paul's writings, if anyone is interested.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
originally posted by Jamat
And forgiveness of sin is an analogous act to breaking the power of death as Paul says to the Corinthians the sting of death is sin.(1Cor 15:56)

I don't see how you can conclude from 1 Cor 15:56 that forgiveness is an analogous act with breaking the power of sin. Paul doesn't mention forgiveness in 1Cor 15:56 at all. The NIV has (in immediate context):

quote:
54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."[a]
55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?" 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

Which is pretty well a proof text for Christus Victor

[ 23. July 2010, 09:26: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

Hi JJ. My point was merely that death and sin are associated rather than separated ideas. I don't think one can argue that Christ's victory over death is not connected to the forgiveness of sin.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Because our sins cause us to die eternally. Even our forgiven sins. The atonement is about destroying the consequences of forgiven sins. As one C Wesley onece put it "He breaks the power of cancelled sin."

This is too much of a stretch for me.

if forgiven sins have consequences,(and I think they do,)then the atonement does not expiate them.

The atonement does what it says, brings us and God into unity. (at-one-ment)

Actually, Wesley J wrote a book called 'The Doctrine of Original Sin' which is a refutation of one John Taylor who seemed to hold a CV view or an anti penal view anyway. I'd be surprised if his brother diasgreed with him.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Boogie:PSA attributes to God an unforgiving nature imo.

That is certainly one way to look at it but it depends on what your understanding of PSA is.

The usual strawman of it states that God acts unjustly to punish and kill his son in order that atonement be made for the sin of the world.

This assumes many things that I don't believe.

Most of its adherents actually believe the basis of the Gospel is in Jn 3;16.

God sent Christ from a motive of love to and for a world that could not be redeemed any other way.

Christ accepted a path of suffering in order that that redemption could be effected.

God allowed the unique son of his love to do this thing that caused the Father,in fact, to suffer as much as his Son would have..through the sense of loss he would have felt at the disconnection created at the cross. It is this that makes sense of Jesus' words on the cross about being forsaken.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Hi JJ. My point was merely that death and sin are associated rather than separated ideas. I don't think one can argue that Christ's victory over death is not connected to the forgiveness of sin.

I never argued that they were not related, just that, as mousethief said, forgiveness was not conditional on the Atonement, rather the grounds for the atonement lie (partially) in God's forgiving nature. The Atonement demonstrates that God has forgive us, and that He, having forgiven us, wants to free us from the consequences of our sin.

quote:
if forgiven sins have consequences,(and I think they do,)then the atonement does not expiate them.

I'm not following your drift here. If the atonement does not, at the very least, free us from the consequences of our sin, then what does it accomplish? Does not "At-one-ment" (a word invented by Tyndale) imply reconciliation to God? And if we are to be reconciled to God, does that not mean that the consequences of our sin need to be dealt with?

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Boogie:PSA attributes to God an unforgiving nature imo.
That is certainly one way to look at it but it depends on what your understanding of PSA is.

The usual strawman of it states that God acts unjustly to punish and kill his son in order that atonement be made for the sin of the world.

This assumes many things that I don't believe.

Most of its adherents actually believe the basis of the Gospel is in Jn 3;16.

God sent Christ from a motive of love to and for a world that could not be redeemed any other way.

Christ accepted a path of suffering in order that that redemption could be effected.

God allowed the unique son of his love to do this thing that caused the Father,in fact, to suffer as much as his Son would have..through the sense of loss he would have felt at the disconnection created at the cross. It is this that makes sense of Jesus' words on the cross about being forsaken.

Well, like the charge of the Light Brigade, "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre". I'd probablu rephrase the last sentence, but, semantics aside, I could sign up to everything you have written there. But it's not PSA, not even nuanced PSA. Sacrifice, yes, the ultimate demonstration of God's love, yes, all that and more. But it has nothing whatever to do with sin being punished.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Boogie:PSA attributes to God an unforgiving nature imo.
That is certainly one way to look at it but it depends on what your understanding of PSA is.

The usual strawman of it states that God acts unjustly to punish and kill his son in order that atonement be made for the sin of the world.

This assumes many things that I don't believe.

Most of its adherents actually believe the basis of the Gospel is in Jn 3;16.

God sent Christ from a motive of love to and for a world that could not be redeemed any other way.

Christ accepted a path of suffering in order that that redemption could be effected.

God allowed the unique son of his love to do this thing that caused the Father,in fact, to suffer as much as his Son would have..through the sense of loss he would have felt at the disconnection created at the cross. It is this that makes sense of Jesus' words on the cross about being forsaken.
Well, like the charge of the Light Brigade, "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre". I'd probablu rephrase the last sentence, but, semantics aside, I could sign up to everything you have written there. But it's not PSA, not even nuanced PSA. Sacrifice, yes, the ultimate demonstration of God's love, yes, all that and more. But it has nothing whatever to do with sin being punished.

All of which kind of confirms that there are many shared assumptions. What I have written would also be agreed upon by PSA proponents.

Going back to your earlier post JJ, when I said the idea of the cross breaking the power of sin,was linked to forgiveness,it was in response to Mousethiefs assertion that forgiveness was possible without the cross. I think there is scriptural warrant to disprove this. I would see the ideas of the breaking of evil and the forgiveness of sin as corelatives and inextricably bound together.

Evil, after all, is built upon sinfulness.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Jamat: if forgiven sins have consequences,(and I think they do,)then the atonement does not expiate them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jolly Jape: I'm not following your drift here. If the atonement does not, at the very least, free us from the consequences of our sin, then what does it accomplish? Does not "At-one-ment" (a word invented by Tyndale) imply reconciliation to God? And if we are to be reconciled to God, does that not mean that the consequences of our sin need to be dealt with?

I thought you said this. IMV God can forgive a murderer but still approve of the jail sentence for the crime. The consequences of sin are not erased by forgiveness. Forgiveness has to do with right standing with God not the erasure of consequence imv.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Ah, sorry, with you now! You were talking of temporal punishment for crimes, whereas I had in mind the "wages of sin is death", eternal consequences, which, as I see it, is what the atonement is about remitting.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
IMV God can forgive a murderer but still approve of the jail sentence for the crime. The consequences of sin are not erased by forgiveness. Forgiveness has to do with right standing with God not the erasure of consequence imv.

Yes. Exactly! Forgiveness is one thing, erasure of consequence (accomplished through the cross and resurrection) is another.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, actually, I rather think it is. Punish is a transitive verb. If someone voluntarily "pays" a "reparation" for a "sin" of which they were a victim, then to describe that as "punishment" is to completely stand normal sematics on their head. There is no punisher, so there can be no punishment.

(btw, ISTM that what you did to your daughter was not punishment but discipline.)

And that is why I think we're at the end of the road pursuing this analogy. I think you demand far too much from an analogy - surely if something had exactly corresponding equivalence with something else there would be no need to draw on an analogy to help us to understand it?

Again I agree with all that you say concerning my illustration about my daughters but feel that you are missing what I'm saying. In exploring an analogy I'm trying to move beyond that which is simply true from direct equivalence.

There are questions here about justice that break down for all forms of human justice. For example what does compensation or restitution really mean? When a manslaughter conviction is gained what does it mean for the family of the bereaved to get compensation? How can a sum of money compensate for the life lost? And if even if it were possible for the person to be brought back to life again, what about the pain and loss experienced during the period of bereavement? etc. etc.

IMO an atonement model needs to address these questions as well as all the others.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
You see, in my understanding of scripture, all things look both forward to the cross and back to it. Sin committed before the cross was held in abeyance by animal sacrifice until the cross. Sin committed after the cross, is forgiven because Christ cancelled it by means of the cross.

In the Gospels, Jesus made it absolutely plain that he had the power to forgive sins, and that he DID forgive sins. He wasn't holding them in abeyance. He said, over and over again, "Your sins are forgiven."

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

The standard PSA answer to this one, Josephine, is that Jesus could forgive sins during his earthly ministry because the effects of the cross were working retrospectively.

Jamat would probably be able to articulate this position more clearly than I can.

Psyduck will no doubt say that this proves his contention that PSA is the over-arching trope for those who espouse it and hence it is read into or applied to all scriptural references as the central principle which explains their meaning.

I remember a chap who'd been to a very evangelical Bible college telling me how they'd been set, as an exercise, how to 'preach the Gospel' from the story in Genesis 24 of how Isaac met Rebekah. Obviously there was deemed to be some typology and symbolism in there that could be used to illustrate 'effectual calling' or propitiation or some such. I was dashed (ooops, I nearly said 'damned' [Hot and Hormonal]

) if I could see it though.

Perhaps one of our very conservative evangelical friends could come along and explain it to us?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The standard PSA answer to this one, Josephine, is that Jesus could forgive sins during his earthly ministry because the effects of the cross were working retrospectively.

Hmmm. I can see what they mean -- Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. The Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection from the dead, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand of the Father, and the Second and glorious coming -- these acts are not limited by time.

But I can't manage to squish that idea in with this:

quote:
2And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

3And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

4And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? 5For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

7And he arose, and departed to his house.

God said, "Your sins are forgiven" and "Rise up and walk" the same way he had said, "Let there be light." This isn't a secondary thing, it's not the result of something else. It's something that he does as God.

At least that's how it seems to me.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

It seems that way to me, too. God is God so he can forgive however he likes and isn't bound by any higher authority as to how he can do this.

How all that squares with the cross, the atonement etc is beyond me. All I do know is that we have to take the whole thing together - his glorious Incarnation, life, teaching, death and glorious Resurrection and his coming again in glory.

How we do that, I suppose, is the work and journey of a lifetime.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Josephine: God said, "Your sins are forgiven" and "Rise up and walk" the same way he had said, "Let there be light." This isn't a secondary thing, it's not the result of something else. It's something that he does as God.

Well, its round in circles really, time to call quits. But for the record, I would take the line Gamaliel suggested. To me it does 'squish' quite well with all Jesus forgiveness claims when one accepts his authority claims and the fact that his actions on earth were those of a man not as God. The incarnate Christ voluntarily limited himself to actions initiated by God and did not act in the flesh as God but acted as an obedient servant of God. Thus, his action of forgiveness is based on the foreknowledge that the forgiven person has accepted his messianic claims at the time and would later be a beneficiary of the cross event.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Doesn't that make it a bit conditional Jamat?

'He will have mercy upon whom he will have mercy ...'

I would submit that his healings and pronouncements of forgiveness were not conditional on foreknowledge necessarily of whether or not they would have accepted his Messiahship or Godhead, but purely out of his love and compassion. The man born blind didn't appear to have a fully developed Christology or a theology of the atonement but he was still the recipient of divine grace:

'One thing I know: that though I was blind, now I see.' John 9:25.

Ok, he gives a pretty good account of things within the limits of his understanding at that stage - John 9:30-33. But surely that's incidental? Whether he would prove a 'witness' or not, the healing was performed 'that the works of God should be revealed in him.' John 9:3.

We don't have any neat sound-bite formula in any of this. Jesus saw that Nathanael was 'an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit' (John 1:47) but he also healed the ten lepers even though only one would return to thank him. Any foreknowledge he may have had about that didn't stop him performing the healing.

You might very well be right, Jamat, that some of the people healed or forgave during his earthly ministry would have responded in faith in some kind of 'evangelical' sense. But others didn't. And how do we know that some of those who rejected his message did not later repent?

As an RC priest once said to me, 'We don't know where the Rich Young Ruler was on the Day of Pentecost. For all we know he may have been one of the 3,000 who repented and were baptised.'

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well, but that's where I'm at with these things. They're all too gloriously mind-blowingly and apparently contradictory to fit into any of our neat formularies. And the whole we've-got-it-all-neatly-battened-down approach that we often encounter in Calvinistic circles and various forms of evangelicalism fail to do justice to the fullness that is revealed in the Gospels and the epistles.

That said, I do believe that evangelicalism with its emphasis on 'repent and believe the Gospel' does embody an essential truth ... but it's much bigger and wider than that.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

Fair comment. I certainly don't have all the categories sorted. Regarding foreknowledge, In my mind God and Christ are separated in his incarnate state. Thus, foreknowledge would be God's not Christ's. He actually seemed in the gospel to often simply react to the situation. It is certainly true that not all were touched based on their faith. Quite a hopeful sign really!

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:

In His perfection, he cannot tolerate the presence of anything imperfect ("You must be perfect" Matthew 5:48; "your iniquities have separated you from God" Isaiah 59:2).
If God could not tolerate the presence of anything imperfect, then he could not have been Incarnate. By coming down to be with us, he was immersing himself in the presence of the imperfect, of the damaged, of the twisted, of the sinful. It's because he was with the imperfect that he felt it necessary to give them the command to be perfect, and to instruct them how to do it:

Great post Josephine. I'm also not convinced that the verse quoted above means that God could not be in the presence of evil but it does appear to say that he can't tolerate evil. Does everyone agree then that, whilst Jesus came to save, God will one day have to judge sin?
I would understand it that Jesus has already judged sin, and, on the cross, He delivers God's verdict, that is, He destroys its power (what Paul calls its "sting") by overcoming death.

quote:
I totally agree with your comments that that how we respond to God's love is the key. You mention turning from darkness to light. It seems to me, from the bible, that when we come into God's presence our imperfections are highlighted in contrast to his holiness and that some people don;t like this because they would rather remain in the idolatrous belief that they are perfect by themselves. It seems then that the reason some refuse to come into the presence of God's love is because they refuse to depend on him for salvation. I assume that this is agreed by all and that what is being disputed here is the mechanism by which God delivers us from sin?
I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem to me that this bears any relationship to life as it really is. People don't become Christians for one of two reasons, in my experience. One is that they don't believe in God, the other that they see the church as boring, out of touch, judgemental and cliquey, and want nothing whatever to do with it. I have never, ever met anyone (in forty years as a Christian) who has said anything which even remotely approximates to "I refuse to become a Christian because I'm already perfect, much less "I refuse to depend on Him for salvation". It's just not how people think.

Oh come on...I don't see things as being black and white like that. There are obviously people who call themselves Christians who actually dislike the idea that they are less than perfect.

I'm also not saying that people refuse to depend on God because they believe they are perfect. What I am saying is that people dislike the fact that they are evidently not perfect but that they only become conscious of this when they feel God's presence. What could make people feel God's presence more than the words of his son (eg only the ill need a doctor)? People wouldn't say that this is the reason they reject God because

1. No one who is acting out of pride admits that this is their motive. It's far too humiliating.

and

2. It's not a process that people are really aware of.

Did any of the Pharisees say 'You know Jesus the reason you rub me up the wrong way is because you are perfect and I'm not'? I don't recall anyone saying that to Jesus, and yet that is the implication of many, many of his parables.

Also when you say 'It's not how people think' I disagree. Social psychology has shown time after time that people dislike hearing bad things about themselves. No wonder you never hear a counsellor criticize someone!- That is how people think.

In relation to judgement, it sounds like you are saying that Jesus judgement on the cross was to forgive everyone? If so how would you explain passages like Matt 25?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

A busy weekend over, now I've got time to get back to this ...

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
Hmmm. I can see what they mean -- Christ is the Lamb slain before the foundations of the world. The Cross, the Tomb, the Resurrection from the dead, the Ascension into heaven, the Sitting at the right hand of the Father, and the Second and glorious coming -- these acts are not limited by time.

But I can't manage to squish that idea in with this:

quote:
2And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

3And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

4And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? 5For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

7And he arose, and departed to his house.
God said, "Your sins are forgiven" and "Rise up and walk" the same way he had said, "Let there be light." This isn't a secondary thing, it's not the result of something else. It's something that he does as God.

At least that's how it seems to me.

I'm not sure that is what that story is about though. I agree that it says nothing about PSA (and I certainly would never claim that you can get PSA from this passage).

However, one of the main points is that forgiveness is meaningless unless it deals with the consequences of sin. Anyone can say "your sins are forgiven" but if it is actually true then there is an objective component too.

Now this story raises loads of other hard questions - e.g. what is the relationship between sin and sickness? If my sins are forgiven how come I'm not healed? etc. - which I'm not addressing.

Likewise I know that JJ (and others) are very explicit in agreeing that God has to deal with sin. So I'm not saying that this necessarily proves PSA.

However, this passage does undermine your main point that God can just forgive. I'm happy to agree with you that forgiveness is not a secondary thing. But surely this story is an example where Jesus doesn't just forgive someone but has to actually do something to enact that forgiveness?

Again, this doesn't prove PSA at all but it is consistent with PSA. Even the way Jesus speaks seems strange if we take your handling of the passage: "Son, your sins are forgiven" is ambiguous. It could mean - 1. Know that your sins have already been forgiven because God is a God who just forgives. or 2. Know that now I, by my authority, am declaring that your your sins are forgiven at this moment.

Two things in the story strongly suggest the latter: 1. The reaction of the teachers of the law. (either of the two options above could be considered blasphemous but the second one much more so.) 2. The comparison with "get up, take our mat, and go home."

Yes the story teaches that God is primarily in the forgiving business. Yet it seems to deliberately undermine the concept that we are all permanently in a state of 'being forgiven by God'. Quite the opposite the story suggests that it is something that needs to happen to us.

Now I'm sure that you would see that 'happening to us' as our acceptance / experience of God's continual forgiveness. And in a sense I'd agree with you. But the aspect left over is that of forgiveness necessarily involving sin being dealt with. I know that JJ disagrees with me over the semantics of punish but that is ISTM where PSA comes in - God is always ready to forgive and he he does so as sin is dealt with. Not in the sense that he is unable to forgive until then, but in the sense that forgiveness is meaningless without dealing with sin (as this story from Mark 2 illustrates.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Are you saying his crippledness was due to his sin? What else can you mean by "dealing with the consequences of sin" in this particular passage?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you saying his crippledness was due to his sin? What else can you mean by "dealing with the consequences of sin" in this particular passage?

Not his sin personally, but sin generally.

Otherwise it's apples and oranges. Jesus does not say that he performed this miracle to demonstrate that he was God generally, he specifically says that it proves that he has authority to forgive sins. There must be some connection between the two otherwise his claim doesn't make sense.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Also I've been thinking about why PSA uses 'punish' instead of other restorative images.

I suppose the answer comes from OT passages such as this:

quote:
And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

Exodus 34: 6-7

This is not some proof-text plucked out of context. So much of the OT wrestles with the tension in these verses. ISTM most of Ezekiel is trying to hold together God's gracious nature and the fact that he does not leave the guilty unpunished.

Keeping punishment in the model is a way of remaining faithful to a large strand of OT/NT teaching.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Are you saying his crippledness was due to his sin? What else can you mean by "dealing with the consequences of sin" in this particular passage?
Not his sin personally, but sin generally.

Otherwise it's apples and oranges. Jesus does not say that he performed this miracle to demonstrate that he was God generally, he specifically says that it proves that he has authority to forgive sins. There must be some connection between the two otherwise his claim doesn't make sense.

I think it makes sense in exactly the same way as, "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except God" makes sense. He has power to forgive sins because he is God. Being God gives him the power to heal the sick. Healing the sick therefore shows he has the power to forgive sins.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I think it makes sense in exactly the same way as, "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except God" makes sense. He has power to forgive sins because he is God. Being God gives him the power to heal the sick. Healing the sick therefore shows he has the power to forgive sins.

But you are filling in all those bits yourself. There is nothing in the text to suggest that train of thought. And against it you have the prevailing culture that did tend to assume that someone was ill because of sin - hence John 9 and the man born blind, for example.

I'm not saying that they were correct to assume that but that is surely the way those present would have understood it.

I'd suggest that your interpretation fits Psyduck's thesis about reading your own model back into the text. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I'm guilty of doing the same. Let's stop pretending that that it is only one side who does it though.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Not to the OP, but to the passage (tangent alert)__

This is how I read it rhetorically. Jesus says "Your sins are forgiven," who knows why he said it? Maybe the guy had a rep, maybe Jesus (being God) knew something about him that others didn't, maybe the sin/forgiveness thing was just clearly (to Jesus, anyway) the major crying need this poor guy had--even above physical healing. Anyway, he says it. Leading to---

Someone gives Jesus grief for saying it, since "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" In other words, you are a presumptuous, blaspheming whadjamacallit. The question is clearly rhetorical.

Surprisingly (to them, anyway) Jesus takes them up on it. "Well now," he says, "Which is easier to say, 'your sins are forgiven,' or 'be healed'?

This is where the catch comes in. Both are equally easy to pronounce--forming the words with one's mouth and tongue is equally easy, duh. Both are equally impossible to say and have them come true --unless the speaker is God.

In this test, the two expressions have become equivalent. The only difference between them is that it is humanly, physically possible to see whether one of them has come true (the healing thing). The other remains invisible, and therefore arguable, whether it happens or not.

Jesus has already said the first (invisible results, no proof) statement. And he's gotten very predictable crap for it.

So after getting no response to his "which is harder" challenge (hard to think of one, I must say, I'd probably just gibber), he turns to the guy and says the one God-statement that remains, and that CAN be physically verified: Be healed.

The guy walks out, a bunch of tiny minds are blown, and the rhetorical exercise is over. Q.E.D.

[ 26. July 2010, 00:28: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Interesting how you turn this from an exegesis into a personal attack, or at least personal swipe.

We have to make sense of our Lord's connecting "forgiveness of sins" and healing this man. Healing this man shows that he has power to forgive sins, according to the text. Is it eisegesis to say that only God can forgive sins? Indeed if we look at Mark instead of Matthew, our Lord's detractors say exactly that: "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2:7). How is it eisegesis then to say that Christ's healing the man was a demonstration of his divinity?

On the other hand, connecting the man's condition to the results of sin to the remission of sins on the Cross, and then linking that remission back through the chain to the forgiveness of sins, is a far bigger leap.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Sorry; crosspost. This was in response to Johnny S, not Lamb Chopped.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Interesting how you turn this from an exegesis into a personal attack, or at least personal swipe.

Where was the personal attack? The OP and this thread is about a very direct charge that those who support PSA read their model into scripture everywhere.

All I said was I think you are doing it here and I happily conceded that I'm doing the same. How is that a personal swipe? Surely part of the response to such a charge is to show that others do it too and that it isn't a problem particular to PSAers?

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
We have to make sense of our Lord's connecting "forgiveness of sins" and healing this man. Healing this man shows that he has power to forgive sins, according to the text. Is it eisegesis to say that only God can forgive sins? Indeed if we look at Mark instead of Matthew, our Lord's detractors say exactly that: "Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only?" (Mark 2:7). How is it eisegesis then to say that Christ's healing the man was a demonstration of his divinity?

It is not eisegesis to say that Christ's healing was a demonstration of his divinity. (BTW I'm happy with LC's reading with the passage.)

The extra step you are inserting is that this passage demonstrates that God's forgiveness is unconditional in the sense of automatic. I'm saying that this passage could mean that, but I don't think it does.

The fact that Jesus says this directly to only one man out of a crowd combined with the fact he never once said something to the effect of "everybody is already forgiven" are two issues that your interpretation has to wrestle with. Yet again none of this proves PSA it just raises questions about the way you are handling the passage.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
On the other hand, connecting the man's condition to the results of sin to the remission of sins on the Cross, and then linking that remission back through the chain to the forgiveness of sins, is a far bigger leap.

Except I specifically didn't do that. Jamat did. I didn't.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
It is not eisegesis to say that Christ's healing was a demonstration of his divinity. (BTW I'm happy with LC's reading with the passage.)

The extra step you are inserting is that this passage demonstrates that God's forgiveness is unconditional in the sense of automatic. I'm saying that this passage could mean that, but I don't think it does.

I don't remember ever saying God's forgiveness is automatic. I certainly don't think that this passage proves it. I used this passage to show that God's forgiveness can be separated from God's dealing with sin. I thought I made that explicit; sorry if I was unclear.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
2And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

3And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.

4And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? 5For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? 6But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

7And he arose, and departed to his house.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God said, "Your sins are forgiven" and "Rise up and walk" the same way he had said, "Let there be light." This isn't a secondary thing, it's not the result of something else. It's something that he does as God.

So you would say he just chose to forgive sins here without needing any reason or basis?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't remember ever saying God's forgiveness is automatic. I certainly don't think that this passage proves it. I used this passage to show that God's forgiveness can be separated from God's dealing with sin. I thought I made that explicit; sorry if I was unclear.

Okay, well then I'm saying that although I think it is possible to read Mark 2 that way I think it is not a very likely reading.

Your argument rests on the likelihood that his hearers would make the assumption that only God can heal. However, while the assumption that only God can forgive sins is referred to there is no such assumption given about healing. Quite the contrary just over the page in the next chapter (Mark 3: 22) the same group (the teachers of the law) are now trying (rather pathetically) to claim that Jesus gets his miraculous powers from Beelzebub.

On the other hand there is evidence from the gospels (e.g. the passage from John 9 I mentioned earlier) that his hearers would automatically assume that there was some connection between sin and this man's suffering. Is that any surprise when you read the OT, the Psalms especially? (e.g. Psalm 103 v 3).

Jesus says, specifically, "that you may know that the son of man has authority to forgive sins ..." He does not say anything about claiming to be God here. That is an inference, probably a legitimate one to draw here, but not the main point of what Jesus is saying here, ISTM.

Jesus is proving he has the power to forgive sins by dealing with the symptoms of sin.

So yes, I suppose that this passage could possibly mean what you are suggesting but the balance is definitely against it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Your argument rests on the likelihood that his hearers would make the assumption that only God can heal. However, while the assumption that only God can forgive sins is referred to there is no such assumption given about healing.

Jesus himself makes the connection. "So that you can see the son of man has the power to forgive sins," he said to the man, "take up thy mat and walk". He directly ties the power to forgive sins (which his adversaries themselves said only God could do) with healing. He doesn't say anything about remitting sins. My interpretation is right there in the pericope itself. You are importing yours from outside (Psalms, etc. as you admit).

quote:
Jesus says, specifically, "that you may know that the son of man has authority to forgive sins ..." He does not say anything about claiming to be God here. That is an inference, probably a legitimate one to draw here, but not the main point of what Jesus is saying here, ISTM.

Because you are reading it in from elsewhere. My interpretation is right there in black and white. Jesus ties forgiving sins with healing, and his adversaries claim only God can forgive sins. It's a neat and tidy little syllogism.

1. Only God can forgive sins (supplied by adversaries)
2. If you can heal, you have the power to forgive sins (said by Jesus)
3. Jesus can heal (shown by his actions)
4. Jesus can therefore forgive sins (from 2 and 3)
5. Therefore Jesus is God. (from 1 and 4)

quote:
Jesus is proving he has the power to forgive sins by dealing with the symptoms of sin.

There is just absolutely nothing in the passage to suggest that reading.

quote:
So yes, I suppose that this passage could possibly mean what you are suggesting but the balance is definitely against it.

Only if you use PSA as an overriding hermeneutical principle. As Psyduck says.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

2. If you can heal, you have the power to forgive sins (said by Jesus).

Where does Jesus say that?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."

He quite explicitly says that the healing will show them that he has the authority to forgive sins. If ability to heal, then ability to forgive sins. I fail to see what you're not getting.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home."

He quite explicitly says that the healing will show them that he has the authority to forgive sins. If ability to heal, then ability to forgive sins. I fail to see what you're not getting.

What I'm not getting is this ...

Going from

He quite explicitly says that the healing will show them that he has the authority to forgive sins

to

If ability to heal, then ability to forgive sins

seems to be a logical fallacy to me. It may be true but it does not necessarily follow.

I repeat what I said earlier - the very same teachers of the law in chapter 3 attribute Christ's healing power to Beelzebub. Clearly the link from 'Jesus healed this man' to 'Jesus must have the authority to forgive sins' was not obvious to them.

What I am calling into question is how Jesus expected his hearers to get from 'healing' to 'authority to forgive sins'. you are assuming a generic connection automatic to healing, I'm not convinced that makes sense of Mark 2 - in the very next story Jesus describes himself as a 'doctor for sinners'. ISTM that in Mark's gospel there is a connecting idea between physical healing and dealing with sin.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

So you say you don't see it at all, then immediately turn around and say you see it, if you import this other PSA-like idea from somewhere else. We've probably gotten as far as we can on this.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Um (edges in where angels fear to tread)...

I think you guys have got a confusion going between cause and effect and correlatives.

Being able to heal and being able to forgive sins are logically two separate things; neither causes the other, neither implies the other, but a relationship does exist. The relationship is that they are correlatives--each is a consequence of the same third, causal fact (being God almighty).

Being God, therefore Christ can forgive.
Being God, therefore Christ can heal.
Being God, therefore Christ can (do any number of other things we can't).

The forgiveness doesn't flow out of the healing or vice versa. They run in parallel. But either, or both together, make a clear statement about the person doing them: He's God.

What I was suggesting was simply that in terms of rhetoric, Jesus chose to swap out one parallel correlative for another that happened to be more visible (and therefore more convincing to stubborn minds). Take that last sentence of his, "But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins... Get up and walk." If you parse it out and fill in all the understood bits from the discussion they've all just had, it might well come out this way: "But tht you may know that the Son of Man (aka Me) has the authority to forgive sins--that is, duh, I AM GOD, connect the dots with me, folks--I am going to do in front of your everloving eyes something else that even you can't deny is a prerogative of Godhood: I'm going to heal someone with the mere power of my word, thus: Get up and walk. Do you geddit now???"

[ 28. July 2010, 03:34: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

That's what I meant and what I thought I had said.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think you guys have got a confusion going between cause and effect and correlatives.

Being able to heal and being able to forgive sins are logically two separate things; neither causes the other, neither implies the other, but a relationship does exist. The relationship is that they are correlatives--each is a consequence of the same third, causal fact (being God almighty).

Thanks LC. That is the issue I was talking about and you have articulated it much more clearly than I did.

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Being God, therefore Christ can forgive.
Being God, therefore Christ can heal.
Being God, therefore Christ can (do any number of other things we can't).

The forgiveness doesn't flow out of the healing or vice versa. They run in parallel. But either, or both together, make a clear statement about the person doing them: He's God.

And that is the bit of the argument I'm not convinced about from Mark's gospel.

I think it is true and also think that is part of the conclusion Jesus was hoping his hearers would draw. But I also think Mark 2 must be more complicated than that.

It is clear from Mark's gospel that it was not a common assumption to say that only God can heal. The teachers of the law were quite happy to attribute the power to heal or cast out demons to either a divine or demonic source. The logical fallacy I think is being made here is this:

1. Only God can forgive.
2. Only God can heal.
3. Jesus can heal.
4. Therefore Jesus is God.
5. Therefore Jesus can forgive.

But as I keep saying point number 2 is not a given - in fact the text of Mark's gospel itself seriously undermines it. And hence the whole argument falls.

[tangent/] (BTW I also think this kind of arguing is what atheists and agnostics pick up on quickly when Christians far too quickly jump to - "See Jesus must be God." But that is a tangent.) [/tangent]

Therefore I think from the text that there must be something else going on here.

Now I repeat. None of this has got anything to do with PSA. I'm arguing this from the text of Mark. I remember preaching a sermon on this 20 years ago and saying pretty much the same thing - namely that the link is not just that God is in the forgiving business but also the connection of symptom and disease.

Again, I'm sure that was because of my preconceptions. I freely admit that. But my point is that I came to those conclusions when being asked to preach on this story from Mark 20 years before we had this conversation. I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it and looking for every opportunity to disagree with MT and others who reject PSA - this is the way I have always read this passage.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

But Jesus says, "to show you that the son of man has authority to forgive sins, get up and walk." How does that show he has the power to forgive sins? Do you think his listeners really said, "well, it's because lameness is the result of sin, and removing lameness means he has the ability to remove sin"? REALLY?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But Jesus says, "to show you that the son of man has authority to forgive sins, get up and walk." How does that show he has the power to forgive sins? Do you think his listeners really said, "well, it's because lameness is the result of sin, and removing lameness means he has the ability to remove sin"? REALLY?

Well as you say you've gone as far as one can go if the discussion is limited to this passage alone. If as you put it, your reading is 'right in the passage' and other readings are not, you are claiming some authoritative interpretive ability that you are denying others.

The thing is that no one takes a passage in isolation and if you don't, if you look at the rest of what Jesus said and did, and what others said about him, the reading that forgiveness is his perogative is certainly reached, but the basis of that forgiveness is also clarified.

It is worth mentioning, I think, that healings were not altogether uncommon and nor was the casting out of demons. By linking healing and forgiveness Jesus was getting political for the fact was that only God could forgive even if healing was otherwise possible.

He was therefore making a messianic claim in this passage. It was not that his hearers would have made connections regarding the lame man and his sin..though of course the disciples did exactly this with the blind man in John 9, it is rather that Jesus is emphasising by the forgiveness statement that this particular healing was done by God. He was anticipating the very thing they suggested a bit further on, that his healings were satanic, that he was demon possessed.

Sorry for tangent.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
What I'm not getting is this ...

Going from

He quite explicitly says that the healing will show them that he has the authority to forgive sins

to

If ability to heal, then ability to forgive sins

seems to be a logical fallacy to me. It may be true but it does not necessarily follow.

I won't claim to have followed the entire argument, but I'm reading and re-reading these two sentences and they look like they do logically follow, because they say one and the same thing.

This is because actual healing is a proof of 'ability to heal'.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Addendum: Whether you think either sentence is CORRECT is a different issue, and I do understand some of the points being made about whether 'only God can heal' is a correct statement.

But I think I'm with mousethief. I'm not sure there's any basis for saying that, eg, healings were attributed to demons. Driving out demons was attributed to demons, yes... and elsewhere Jesus states that this is an incorrect attribution.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
IMV God can forgive a murderer but still approve of the jail sentence for the crime. The consequences of sin are not erased by forgiveness. Forgiveness has to do with right standing with God not the erasure of consequence imv.
Yes. Exactly! Forgiveness is one thing, erasure of consequence (accomplished through the cross and resurrection) is another.

Forgive me [Biased]

as I catch up here on a few things.

Jolly Jape referred to having a model that was 'substitutionary' but not 'penal'. Is that what this fits with? That the cross involves Jesus taking on the consequence, hence 'substitutionary'?

If so, I'll have supplementary questions about what critics of 'PSA' see as being the difference between 'PSA' and plain 'SA'...

[ 28. July 2010, 08:26: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Apologies for yet another post. But I was reflecting further on this as I drove home. And yes, I did somehow keep my eyes on the road and think about PSA at the same time - in the rain no less. There's an argument for the existence of miracles right there...

I'm beginning to wonder whether some of the arguments here are making distinctions that normal English word order doesn't cope well with, and it's just creating confusion.

"Penal substitionary atonement" contains 2 adjectives then a noun. And it's perfectly possible to read the 'penal' in 2 different ways. You can link it to the 'atonement', and see it as meaning that the process of atonement involved paying a penalty. You can also link it to the 'substitionary' and say that the atonement was in substition for a penalty.

It seems to me at the moment that there is some argument against 'PSA' that is based on an assumption that 'PSA' involves Christ paying a penalty (cf Jolly Jape's posts on the previous page). I'm wondering if this is a a bit of a straw man, though, because if you argue that Christ did something 'substitutionary', then you end up asking 'what was it in substitution for'. And if it was in substitution for a 'penalty', then 'Atonement in substitution for a penalty' or 'ASP' is in fact one version of what 'PSA' could refer to. As soon as you remove the prepositions, it's not self-evident that 'ASP' and 'PSA' are different things.

And a 'penalty' and a 'consequence' are much the same thing. So I find myself looking at what mousethief has said, and feel as if he's arguing vigorously against 'PSA' while subscribing to 'ASP'.

Now, these are just initial thoughts, and I'm quite willing for someone to start presenting the reasons why 'PSA' is completely different to 'ASP', or why the atonement is not 'in substitution for' a penalty/consequence. But 2 adjectives preceding a noun is a good recipe for ambiguity.

Mousethief's distinction between 'forgiving sins' and 'dealing with the consequences of sin' is one that I think might be more substantial.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

orfeo, I know that myself and mousethief think slightly differently about this, but I think that the "substitution" in SA is about Jesus substituting for us. To put it crudely, we are unable to defeat death, because we are not God. But if death is not defeated (if you like, the consequence of sin is not overthrown or healed) we cannot experience eternal life, since we are slaves to death, and will inevitably (pace St Clive) diminish to, presumably, non-existance. Therefore, because God's desire is for us to have eternal life, Jesus "substitutes" for us, does what we are incapable of doing, defeating death on our behalf.

I'm not at all sure that a penalty and a consequence are the same thing. Surely a penalty requires a penaliser. This penaliser could be God (PSA) or Satan (Ransom). A consequence, on the other had) carries no sense of an external agent acting from outside the system under consideration. It is merely the natural outworking, in the absence of external constraint, of that system. Which is how I understand the relationship between sin and death. As Paul points out, they are basically the same thing, but the one (sin) is the cause and the other (death) is the effect.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I would say forgiveness of sins has temporal benefits. As each person lets go and is able to forgive something, the whole of humanity improves by a step.

The consequences of sin are temporal too and affect us all in many interconnected ways. (Often long lasting but still 'of this world')

So Jesus showed us the way to forgive - He didn't remove any of the consequences as can be seen all around us, imo. We still suffer.

The eternal, spiritual effects/consequences are unknown and the cleverest of theology can only, in the end, be speculation.

Is 'disconnection from God' sin anyway? Who decided so? There are so many reasons a person may be an unbeliever - why would it be considered a cause for God to reject them?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not at all sure that a penalty and a consequence are the same thing. Surely a penalty requires a penaliser. This penaliser could be God (PSA) or Satan (Ransom). A consequence, on the other had) carries no sense of an external agent acting from outside the system under consideration. It is merely the natural outworking, in the absence of external constraint, of that system. Which is how I understand the relationship between sin and death. As Paul points out, they are basically the same thing, but the one (sin) is the cause and the other (death) is the effect.

Okay, I see what you're saying here...

Thanks. Seriously, this is as much about me trying to wrap my head around it as anything else.

So maybe I can sign up for believing in 'ASC' - Atonement in Substitution for a Consequence. [Big Grin]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
.

So maybe I can sign up for believing in 'ASC' - Atonement in Substitution for a Consequence.

But what consequence?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
.

So maybe I can sign up for believing in 'ASC' - Atonement in Substitution for a Consequence.
But what consequence?

Well, you've already made your views clear on that. You don't accept 'death' as a consequence, so you clearly wouldn't accept Jesus' death as a substitution.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Okay, moving on... if PSA is incorrect, then what would be the point of the Old Testament animal sacrifices? What purpose do they serve, and why did God require them?

Genuinely curious now. And sorry if that's been addressed any more than a page and a half back, I just can't process all the material in this thread. I didn't keep track of it when it started and I probably should have.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

So what would you mean by 'death'?

(I am not being awkward - just trying to get my head round why you would think that God would cut Himself off from anyone)

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Many, many cultures had animal sacrifice to appease gods. Surely the OT stuff was no different?

I see it as part of the history of the Jewish nation which brought us Jesus.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So what would you mean by 'death'?

(I am not being awkward - just trying to get my head round why you would think that God would cut Himself off from anyone)

Well, as Jolly Jape has put it, we are talking about death as a natural consequence of sin. In that situation, asking 'why would God cut Himself off from anyone' is a bit like asking 'why would someone who jumped off a building then choose to fall towards the ground instead of floating upwards'.

As to what 'death' means - whether it means eternal separation from God in Hell, or whether it ultimately means oblivion - is another question which I don't think it's essential to go into for these purposes.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, moving on... if PSA is incorrect, then what would be the point of the Old Testament animal sacrifices? What purpose do they serve, and why did God require them?

Genuinely curious now. And sorry if that's been addressed any more than a page and a half back, I just can't process all the material in this thread. I didn't keep track of it when it started and I probably should have.

Sacrifice was a means of re-presenting the covenant, which was establihed by sacrifice. Sacrifice was commonly used in the ancient near east as a means of solemnizing a covenant. It spoke of the investment which the participants held in the covenant.

The purpose of sacrifice was not that it was salvific, but rather it reminded the sacrificers of the covenant, which was salvific. Think the Eucharist here. We aren't saved by the eucharist, but by the eucharist we participate in the life of Christ, who does save us.

Not sure I've explained this well, but hope you get the picture.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Okay, moving on... if PSA is incorrect, then what would be the point of the Old Testament animal sacrifices? What purpose do they serve, and why did God require them?

Genuinely curious now. And sorry if that's been addressed any more than a page and a half back, I just can't process all the material in this thread. I didn't keep track of it when it started and I probably should have.
Sacrifice was a means of re-presenting the covenant, which was establihed by sacrifice. Sacrifice was commonly used in the ancient near east as a means of solemnizing a covenant. It spoke of the investment which the participants held in the covenant.

The purpose of sacrifice was not that it was salvific, but rather it reminded the sacrificers of the covenant, which was salvific. Think the Eucharist here. We aren't saved by the eucharist, but by the eucharist we participate in the life of Christ, who does save us.

Not sure I've explained this well, but hope you get the picture.

Hmm, okay...

...and the scapegoat?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So what would you mean by 'death'?

(I am not being awkward - just trying to get my head round why you would think that God would cut Himself off from anyone)
Well, as Jolly Jape has put it, we are talking about death as a natural consequence of sin. In that situation, asking 'why would God cut Himself off from anyone' is a bit like asking 'why would someone who jumped off a building then choose to fall towards the ground instead of floating upwards'.

As to what 'death' means - whether it means eternal separation from God in Hell, or whether it ultimately means oblivion - is another question which I don't think it's essential to go into for these purposes.

Yes - I understand.

But that is PSAs or ASPs problem for me. I can't see death as a bad thing (Except when it happens to deprive me of my loved ones!) just as a natural consequence of life.

<I will leave it at that as I ddon't think there is a way past our different assumptions really [Smile]

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Hi orfeo,

The scapegoat itself wasn't killed, let alone sacrificed. Indeed, as a sin-bearer, it was unclean, and so could not have been sacrificed. It was driven out into the desert as a symbol of the putting away of sin. I'm sure Girard has something to say in this. The goat that was sacrificed pointed to the covenant promise to remember their sins no more.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Boogie, I'm not sure how you square your understanding of death with the thrust of the NT that death is the enemy to be defeated, that which would ultimately destroy God's handiwork. What of the promises that death will be no more? Of course, we arn't talking about "physical" death primarily, but I think it still stands that death, whether temporal or eternal, is something outside God's best intention for us.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I believe the promise that death will be no more - but I think this will be for every one of us - no conditions attached. I don't think one, brief, confused lifetime is enough to get it all sorted - whether that means believing the right things or doing the right things.

I think God is much bigger and better than that. S/he wants all of us to live with him/her in love - and has eternity to win us over [Smile]

Those (of whatever faith) who are closest to being 'won over' by God are at peace.

Jesus did (get it all sorted) - and showed us the way, but He was pretty rare.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I believe the promise that death will be no more - but I think this will be for every one of us - no conditions attached. I don't think one, brief, confused lifetime is enough to get it all sorted - whether that means believing the right things or doing the right things.

I think God is much bigger and better than that. S/he wants all of us to live with him/her in love - and has eternity to win us over

Those (of whatever faith) who are closest to being 'won over' by God are at peace.

Jesus did (get it all sorted) - and showed us the way, but He was pretty rare.

Hmmn, methinks you are kicking at an open door here. The Atonement is an account (or maybe several alternative or complementary accounts) of how God brings about the promise that death will be no more. Belief in an objective atonement doesn't preclude any of the things you have written above. Nor does it suggest necessarily that God's offer is anything other than unconditional. Of course, there is debate about this, but it is not a debate upon which the atonement depends, but rather one about what the consequences of the atonement are.

[ 28. July 2010, 14:40: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The purpose of sacrifice was not that it was salvific, but rather it reminded the sacrificers of the covenant, which was salvific. Think the Eucharist here. We aren't saved by the eucharist, but by the eucharist we participate in the life of Christ, who does save us.

Don't want to open a can of worms here, but isn't the point of Christ's death that is was a sacrifice that was salvitic? Or am I reading too much into Hebrews? I can grok that Hebrews was a way of explaining Christ's death in terms of temple sacrifices for people for whom that was profoundly appropriate, but if Christ's death enacted the New Covenant, that seems to be at odds with what you said.

- Chris.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Jolly Jape referred to having a model that was 'substitutionary' but not 'penal'. Is that what this fits with? That the cross involves Jesus taking on the consequence, hence 'substitutionary'?

If so, I'll have supplementary questions about what critics of 'PSA' see as being the difference between 'PSA' and plain 'SA'...

But I don't believe I said Jesus "took on" the consequences, but rather that he "dealt with" the consequences.

But even if we say he "took on" the consequences, is that substitutionary? I think there is a great deal of confusion between doing something for or on behalf of someone, and doing something in place of someone. Part of this is because most of the things people do for us, we could have done for ourselves, so the distinction can be blurry. So to show they are two different things, it is necessary to find examples where one couldn't have done it for oneself. My wife's going to the store to get a soda for me when I'm sick can be taken either way. Her throwing me a surprise party cannot -- there is no way I can throw myself a surprise party, so there is no sense in which she did it instead of me. She did not substitute for me, she merely did it for me.

So with the atonement. Jesus did it for us but did not do it in our place. This can be seen partly because our dying wouldn't destroy sin, and partly because what he did isn't what he's saving us from. He didn't spend an eternity in torment in place of us. That would be substituting.

He spent about 48 hours dead, and we have no indication at all that during the time he was dead he underwent the famed torments of Hell. Peter says he went and preached to the spirits in bondage, which rather indicates he was in charge of the situation. It's people like Benny Hinn who preach that he was tormented by Satan. Heretics.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
The purpose of sacrifice was not that it was salvific, but rather it reminded the sacrificers of the covenant, which was salvific. Think the Eucharist here. We aren't saved by the eucharist, but by the eucharist we participate in the life of Christ, who does save us.
Don't want to open a can of worms here, but isn't the point of Christ's death that is was a sacrifice that was salvitic? Or am I reading too much into Hebrews? I can grok that Hebrews was a way of explaining Christ's death in terms of temple sacrifices for people for whom that was profoundly appropriate, but if Christ's death enacted the New Covenant, that seems to be at odds with what you said.

- Chris.

Well, of course sacrifice is one (legitimate) way of understanding the Atonement, but the question was about OT sacrifice. Viewed from our perspective (and that of the author of Hebrews) we can see that Christ offers Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, and so demonstrates God's covenant committment to humankind, but to those before Christ, it was faith in the covenant, or rather the faithfulness of God in honouring His covenant, which was salvific. But as well as a Sacrifice, Christ is also the personification of that covenant, so, in Him, the salvific purposes of God and the sacrifice which directs us to Him, come together.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Sorry that most of my posts are rather hit and run at the moment. RL is keeping me busy. So I'll make several posts now and then come back to this later.

quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
But Jesus says, "to show you that the son of man has authority to forgive sins, get up and walk." How does that show he has the power to forgive sins? Do you think his listeners really said, "well, it's because lameness is the result of sin, and removing lameness means he has the ability to remove sin"? REALLY?

No, I haven't said that. What I said was that they would not have made the logical connection that you are suggesting. Pretty obviously really or their response to Jesus would have been rather different at the time.

Remember I was not the one who brought Mark 2 up - it was brought up, apparently, to show that God does not have to do anything (i.e. deal with sin) in order to forgive. What I'm saying is that you can't deduce that from this passage.

Indeed you haven't engaged with the context of the surrounding chapters. It is interesting to notice that in the 'beezebub' passage in chapter 3 Jesus himself talks about the unforgiveable sin. I realise that there is much debate over what Jesus means by this but I would have thought that to have the category of an unforgiveable sin at all is a fatal wound for your argument.

Clearly God is not willing / able to forgive some people. What else can an unforgiveable sin mean?

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Addendum: Whether you think either sentence is CORRECT is a different issue, and I do understand some of the points being made about whether 'only God can heal' is a correct statement.

But I think I'm with mousethief. I'm not sure there's any basis for saying that, eg, healings were attributed to demons. Driving out demons was attributed to demons, yes... and elsewhere Jesus states that this is an incorrect attribution.

I'm really surprised that there is even any discussion about this.

My argument is simply that healing someone was not considered proof of divinity since healing could be attributed to other sources. I would have thought this was one of the easiest things to demonstrate in the gospels, e.g.:

1. Jesus sent out the 12 and the 72 to, amongst other things, heal people (Mark 6: 13). Were people to think that the disciples were God too?

2. In the Sermon on the Mount (end of Matthew 7) Jesus himself talks about people who will not enter the kingdom because they do not even know God, and yet they have performed miracles in his name. Jesus didn't think that miracles were even proof of knowing God, never mind being God.

Therefore the link between healing and forgiving sins cannot have included the step 'only God can heal' because it was not an accepted axiom at the time. Hence the connection must be more complicated than is being made out.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not at all sure that a penalty and a consequence are the same thing. Surely a penalty requires a penaliser. This penaliser could be God (PSA) or Satan (Ransom). A consequence, on the other had) carries no sense of an external agent acting from outside the system under consideration. It is merely the natural outworking, in the absence of external constraint, of that system. Which is how I understand the relationship between sin and death. As Paul points out, they are basically the same thing, but the one (sin) is the cause and the other (death) is the effect.

Please forgive me for being repetitive JJ but this is still one massive cop-out.

How can the creator of the universe not be responsible, at least in some sense, for the consequences that exist in his creation?

Even them most open of open theism still sees God as creator and therefore outside of his creation. I'm not aware of any form of orthodox Christianity that would have a doctrine of God that would enable you to make this claim.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not at all sure that a penalty and a consequence are the same thing. Surely a penalty requires a penaliser. This penaliser could be God (PSA) or Satan (Ransom). A consequence, on the other had) carries no sense of an external agent acting from outside the system under consideration. It is merely the natural outworking, in the absence of external constraint, of that system. Which is how I understand the relationship between sin and death. As Paul points out, they are basically the same thing, but the one (sin) is the cause and the other (death) is the effect.
Please forgive me for being repetitive JJ but this is still one massive cop-out.

How can the creator of the universe not be responsible, at least in some sense, for the consequences that exist in his creation?

Even them most open of open theism still sees God as creator and therefore outside of his creation. I'm not aware of any form of orthodox Christianity that would have a doctrine of God that would enable you to make this claim.

Huh???

Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by God being not outside His creation. It sounds like some form of panentheism, which is not, I assume, what you mean.

Secondly, I'll see your Open Theism, and raise you a Hypercalvinism. The logic of your position is that, when a person falls off a high building, he or she is being punished by God for the sin of trying to violate the law of gravity, He ordered the world in that way, so clearly anyone who dies in that way must do so by volitional act of God! Again, I assume, this is not a position that you hold. If a sin/punishment paradigm is not valid for this situation, why is it so incredible to you that it is not valid in the context of the things we are discussing here?

Furthermore, there is an ocean of difference between God being responsible for His creation in the widest sense, and assigning to every detail of its workings a volitional component. Not even the good lawyer of Geneva went that far.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

[x-posted with JJ]

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, of course sacrifice is one (legitimate) way of understanding the Atonement, but the question was about OT sacrifice. Viewed from our perspective (and that of the author of Hebrews) we can see that Christ offers Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, and so demonstrates God's covenant committment to humankind, but to those before Christ, it was faith in the covenant, or rather the faithfulness of God in honouring His covenant, which was salvific. But as well as a Sacrifice, Christ is also the personification of that covenant, so, in Him, the salvific purposes of God and the sacrifice which directs us to Him, come together.

Thanks, JJ, that's very helpful. I suppose I'd always read Hebrews as saying that Christ's death was ontologically like OT sacrifices, but more efficacious. If I understand you correctly, that may be so, but it's not the basis of the forgiveness of sins. The confusing thing is that - unlike the Mosaic covenant - the enactment of the new covenant and the once-for-all sacrifice are the same event.

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
How can the creator of the universe not be responsible, at least in some sense, for the consequences that exist in his creation?

Even them most open of open theism still sees God as creator and therefore outside of his creation. I'm not aware of any form of orthodox Christianity that would have a doctrine of God that would enable you to make this claim.

Not wishing to speak for JJ, but I don't think you need to have a God divorced from His creation to look at it like this. If someone jumped off a cliff, most people would not say "God threw him down and dashed him on the rocks below" - they'd say he fell. God is not required to be happy about the chain of events, but he did put in place the system that makes jumping off cliffs possible, together with the physical consequences. It's part of the way the world works, and in this case we understand why it could not really be otherwise, gravity being generally considered necessary.

In the same way, might not "the wages of sin is death" be part of the moral, rather than physical, created order?

- Chris.

[ 29. July 2010, 08:26: Message edited by: sanityman ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by sanityman:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Well, of course sacrifice is one (legitimate) way of understanding the Atonement, but the question was about OT sacrifice. Viewed from our perspective (and that of the author of Hebrews) we can see that Christ offers Himself as the ultimate sacrifice, and so demonstrates God's covenant committment to humankind, but to those before Christ, it was faith in the covenant, or rather the faithfulness of God in honouring His covenant, which was salvific. But as well as a Sacrifice, Christ is also the personification of that covenant, so, in Him, the salvific purposes of God and the sacrifice which directs us to Him, come together.
Thanks, JJ, that's very helpful. I suppose I'd always read Hebrews as saying that Christ's death was ontologically like OT sacrifices, but more efficacious. If I understand you correctly, that may be so, but it's not the basis of the forgiveness of sins. The confusing thing is that - unlike the Mosaic covenant - the enactment of the new covenant and the once-for-all sacrifice are the same event.

Hmm. This reminds me of something. Many, many years ago (like, when I was a teenager) I went through a course of study that argued there were 2 distinct functions of the cross, and that we tended to mix them up.

Pity I don't have the course materials to hand, I think they're still at my parents house somewhere!

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
originally posted by sanityman
I suppose I'd always read Hebrews as saying that Christ's death was ontologically like OT sacrifices, but more efficacious. If I understand you correctly, that may be so, but it's not the basis of the forgiveness of sins. The confusing thing is that - unlike the Mosaic covenant - the enactment of the new covenant and the once-for-all sacrifice are the same event.

Thanks, Chris, for that summary. Yes, I think that this is what I am saying, but I sort of shot from the hip a bit, and haven't really thought this bit through in a systematic way as yet. I do, though, think there is some mileage in the idea of Jesus as the Promise, the personification and not just the authenticator of the covenant. It gives an interesting new emphasis to verses like 1 Cor 1:20

quote:
For no matter how many promises God has made, they are "Yes" in Christ. And so through him the "Amen" is spoken by us to the glory of God.

[ 29. July 2010, 08:48: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

orfeo - I'm intrigued: it's a new idea for me, coming out of what JJ said. Would be interested if you felt like saying more.

JJ: thanks, and sorry for the tangent. I like your idea and quote about 'promise' - need to think more about this.

- Chris.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Mousethief:So with the atonement. Jesus did it for us but did not do it in our place. This can be seen partly because our dying wouldn't destroy sin, and partly because what he did isn't what he's saving us from. He didn't spend an eternity in torment in place of us. That would be substituting.

I think this is hair splitting but even if it is not, you seem to be confusing Jesus as God with Jesus as man.

The atonement works before God because Jesus walked through the cross as man. It was in the generic sense, as a representation of human kind that he was able to offer himself as the propitiary sacrifice. He certainly did not have to undergo eternal hell torment on our behalf but he did taste death.

However, the reason his death did destroy sin is quite evident. He was a sinless man. The consequences of sinful men could not be applied to him. The fact that the benefit of this victory is ours by faith is the supreme testimony to the Father's grace towards us. He sees Jesus' death as sufficient for the purpose of destroying sin. We benefit if we believe it.

Incidentally I think you are absolutely right regarding any assertion that the devil was allowed to torment him. Colossians deals with that idea pretty well. If there was any tormenting, Jesus did it when he led captivity captive!

[ 29. July 2010, 09:54: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

So - if you are bad enough Jesus is happy to torment you?

Comforting if you feel like you are on the good side.

I take comfort from God's forgiveness and mercy as I'm not one of the good guys.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
So - if you are bad enough Jesus is happy to torment you?

Comforting if you feel like you are on the good side.

I take comfort from God's forgiveness and mercy as I'm not one of the good guys.

I think Jamat was referring to the Harrowing of Hell

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Secondly, I'll see your Open Theism, and raise you a Hypercalvinism. The logic of your position is that, when a person falls off a high building, he or she is being punished by God for the sin of trying to violate the law of gravity, He ordered the world in that way, so clearly anyone who dies in that way must do so by volitional act of God! Again, I assume, this is not a position that you hold. If a sin/punishment paradigm is not valid for this situation, why is it so incredible to you that it is not valid in the context of the things we are discussing here?

Furthermore, there is an ocean of difference between God being responsible for His creation in the widest sense, and assigning to every detail of its workings a volitional component. Not even the good lawyer of Geneva went that far.

There is no need for any determinism at all.

I said responsible in some way. I'm not saying necessarily that God is physically doing the punishing, but I stick by my point that it is a cop-out to hide behind the word 'consequence' in the way that you are doing.

If a law is passed and the punishment set for breaking the law, it is usually up to others to enforce the law but the one who made the law in the first place still takes responsibility for it. In such a case people are still free to choose whether they will keep or break the law.

However, you are using the word law in a completely different way when speaking of gravity. (Indeed talking of laws of physics is dying out now to avoid precisely this confusion.)

Gravity is not a moral law and therefore I'm not clear what it is that you are comparing. It's apples and oranges.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Secondly, I'll see your Open Theism, and raise you a Hypercalvinism. The logic of your position is that, when a person falls off a high building, he or she is being punished by God for the sin of trying to violate the law of gravity, He ordered the world in that way, so clearly anyone who dies in that way must do so by volitional act of God! Again, I assume, this is not a position that you hold. If a sin/punishment paradigm is not valid for this situation, why is it so incredible to you that it is not valid in the context of the things we are discussing here?

Furthermore, there is an ocean of difference between God being responsible for His creation in the widest sense, and assigning to every detail of its workings a volitional component. Not even the good lawyer of Geneva went that far.
There is no need for any determinism at all.

I said responsible in some way. I'm not saying necessarily that God is physically doing the punishing, but I stick by my point that it is a cop-out to hide behind the word 'consequence' in the way that you are doing.

If a law is passed and the punishment set for breaking the law, it is usually up to others to enforce the law but the one who made the law in the first place still takes responsibility for it. In such a case people are still free to choose whether they will keep or break the law.

However, you are using the word law in a completely different way when speaking of gravity. (Indeed talking of laws of physics is dying out now to avoid precisely this confusion.)

Gravity is not a moral law and therefore I'm not clear what it is that you are comparing. It's apples and oranges.

I'm not at all sure that the difference that you see between the law of gravity, and what Paul calls the law of sin and death is a real difference. For such a difference to exist, istm that it requires some volitional input into the outworkings of the second that is not present in the outworkings of the first. That is far from self-evident. Indeed, istm that it is this very point which is under debate - is moral law descriptive or prescriptive. I would argue the former.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However, the reason his death did destroy sin is quite evident. He was a sinless man. The consequences of sinful men could not be applied to him. The fact that the benefit of this victory is ours by faith is the supreme testimony to the Father's grace towards us. He sees Jesus' death as sufficient for the purpose of destroying sin. We benefit if we believe it.

1. The reason his death destroyed sin was that he was God. A merely sinless man could not have taken death captive. He wouldn't have the power.

2. Jesus death doesn't destroy sin because the Father sees it as such. The father sees it as such because it destroys sin.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
However, the reason his death did destroy sin is quite evident. He was a sinless man. The consequences of sinful men could not be applied to him. The fact that the benefit of this victory is ours by faith is the supreme testimony to the Father's grace towards us. He sees Jesus' death as sufficient for the purpose of destroying sin. We benefit if we believe it.
1. The reason his death destroyed sin was that he was God. A merely sinless man could not have taken death captive. He wouldn't have the power.

2. Jesus death doesn't destroy sin because the Father sees it as such. The father sees it as such because it destroys sin.

This is really just doublethink. You obviously enjoyed Orwell.

however, The objection of Eleonore Stump (among her many) that debt forgiven is not debt repaid is at the heart of your objection. ISTM that the only reply to that is that the Bible writers do not agree. Paul in Romans creates an extensive argument "(Just as through one man ,Adam...etc.. So through one man,,Christ ..etc)

I totally agree with you that he was God BTW. It is just that the achievement in my mind of the cross event was somehow (it is a mystery) created by the chemistry between his true nature (God) and his incarnate identity) man. If he wasn't both, it wouldn't have worked.

Posted by sanityman (# 11598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Gravity is not a moral law and therefore I'm not clear what it is that you are comparing. It's apples and oranges.

St Clive make the point (Mere Christianity?) that what we describe as moral laws are very different from physical laws, in that phsical laws describe the way things actually behave, whereas moral laws tell us the way we ought to behave, and don't. So far, apples and oranges.

However, neither JJ nor I were using 'moral law' in that sense. I (and I think JJ) was trying to allude to a 'law' in the sense of 'the way the moral universe works,' in a direct analogy to gravity being the way the physical universe works. I freely admit to not knowing much about how that universe works, but something along the lines of 'make toxic life decisions and there will be consequences that are a direct result of those decisions' (shades of Romans 1?), leading up to 'the wages of sin is death,' in the same way that the wages of jumping off a cliff is death - it's just the way the moral universe is wired.

I hope that clarifies a bit. Of course, you're right about it being an invalid comparison in the sense of the Golden Rule or equivalent.

- Chris.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not at all sure that the difference that you see between the law of gravity, and what Paul calls the law of sin and death is a real difference. For such a difference to exist, istm that it requires some volitional input into the outworkings of the second that is not present in the outworkings of the first.

Yes I am saying something similar to that. Or rather I am saying that God is able to use natural cause and effect for his own purposes. That must be the case for grace to operate (in the opposite direction) where he prevents us from 'reaping what we sow'.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
That is far from self-evident. Indeed, istm that it is this very point which is under debate - is moral law descriptive or prescriptive. I would argue the former.

I agree it is not self-evident. But only in the way that not everyone looks at creation and self-evidently declares that there must be a God.

Whether or not one accepts an evangelical doctrine of scripture, I am assuming that, at some level at least, Christians ascribe a revelatory function to scripture.

I think part of the confusion here is happening because of the role of scripture in all this. You are accusing me of stretching the semantics of 'punishment' outside of it's legitimate range; I think you are doing the same to the word 'consequences' when translating 'punish' that is actively attributed to God in both Testaments.

quote:
Originally posted by Sanityman:
However, neither JJ nor I were using 'moral law' in that sense. I (and I think JJ) was trying to allude to a 'law' in the sense of 'the way the moral universe works,' in a direct analogy to gravity being the way the physical universe works. I freely admit to not knowing much about how that universe works, but something along the lines of 'make toxic life decisions and there will be consequences that are a direct result of those decisions' (shades of Romans 1?), leading up to 'the wages of sin is death,' in the same way that the wages of jumping off a cliff is death - it's just the way the moral universe is wired.

Yes, that is helpful Chris - I think I understand a bit better the distinction you are making.

Romans 1 is a good example. I'm agreeing with both you and JJ that God is not standing behind this sense of punishment in the same way as a headmaster wielding the cane. However, he is still actively standing behind it - it may be in a secondary sense but the verb in verse 24 is still active, and not passive.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This is really just doublethink. You obviously enjoyed Orwell.

You lose. Thank you for playing. I will not be discussing this with you any further.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I'm not at all sure that the difference that you see between the law of gravity, and what Paul calls the law of sin and death is a real difference. For such a difference to exist, istm that it requires some volitional input into the outworkings of the second that is not present in the outworkings of the first.
Yes I am saying something similar to that. Or rather I am saying that God is able to use natural cause and effect for his own purposes. That must be the case for grace to operate (in the opposite direction) where he prevents us from 'reaping what we sow'.

I never said or even implied that God cannot intervene in the system, I believe that is just what He did in Christ. What I said was that the natural trajectory of sin and death (that is, the path that would be followed without His direct, volitional intervention), is towards death, just as the natural trajectory of a man falling off a building is towards a mess on the pavement.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
That is far from self-evident. Indeed, istm that it is this very point which is under debate - is moral law descriptive or prescriptive. I would argue the former.
I agree it is not self-evident. But only in the way that not everyone looks at creation and self-evidently declares that there must be a God.

Whether or not one accepts an evangelical doctrine of scripture, I am assuming that, at some level at least, Christians ascribe a revelatory function to scripture.

I think part of the confusion here is happening because of the role of scripture in all this. You are accusing me of stretching the semantics of 'punishment' outside of it's legitimate range; I think you are doing the same to the word 'consequences' when translating 'punish' that is actively attributed to God in both Testaments.

OK, I will rewrite the first sentence for clarity. "That is far from self-evident from Scripture... As you know, by and large I do have an evangelical view of scripture, that is, I believe it to be authoritative and revelatory in purpose (though I'm not an inerrantist). Furthermore, though I wouldn't want to speak for mousethief, I suspect, within the context of the general Orthodox hermaneutic framework, he has a pretty high view of scripture as well. So no-one is trying to edit or discard scripture, rather we are trying interpret scripture. It's all very well accepting that scripture is revelatory, but just what does it reveal? That is the point at issue.

On your detailed point, it sometimes seems to me that you want to retain the concept of "punishment", whilst at the same time arguing away the common meaning of the word. Sort of "it's punishment, Jim, but not as we know it."
From my point of view, it is your argument that stretches, not the biblical semantics, but the normal English useage.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Sanityman:
However, neither JJ nor I were using 'moral law' in that sense. I (and I think JJ) was trying to allude to a 'law' in the sense of 'the way the moral universe works,' in a direct analogy to gravity being the way the physical universe works. I freely admit to not knowing much about how that universe works, but something along the lines of 'make toxic life decisions and there will be consequences that are a direct result of those decisions' (shades of Romans 1?), leading up to 'the wages of sin is death,' in the same way that the wages of jumping off a cliff is death - it's just the way the moral universe is wired.
Yes, that is helpful Chris - I think I understand a bit better the distinction you are making.

Romans 1 is a good example. I'm agreeing with both you and JJ that God is not standing behind this sense of punishment in the same way as a headmaster wielding the cane. However, he is still actively standing behind it - it may be in a secondary sense but the verb in verse 24 is still active, and not passive.

Don't get that. In what sense is "to give them up" the same as "to punish"? Surely Paul is saying here that God does not intervene? [Confused]

OK, He actively does not intervene (iyswim) but it really is stretching things to describe such an event as punishment rather than consequence.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
This is really just doublethink. You obviously enjoyed Orwell.
You lose. Thank you for playing. I will not be discussing this with you any further.

I do apologise Mousethief. That was a 'smart alecky' comment in the context of this discussion.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
On your detailed point, it sometimes seems to me that you want to retain the concept of "punishment", whilst at the same time arguing away the common meaning of the word. Sort of "it's punishment, Jim, but not as we know it."
From my point of view, it is your argument that stretches, not the biblical semantics, but the normal English useage.

...

Don't get that. In what sense is "to give them up" the same as "to punish"? Surely Paul is saying here that God does not intervene? OK, He actively does not intervene (iyswim) but it really is stretching things to describe such an event as punishment rather than consequence.

Okay, I think we are getting there. (Slowly. [Big Grin]

)

In what sense is "to give them up" the same as "to punish"? - when you say, "Okay, eat that extra helping of ice-cream and you will be sick." And they are sick. Except you created the world where these rules apply in the first place.

Of course human analogies break down a bit at this point - we are not God, and we didn't create the world.

I still don't understand how it is possible to actively not intervene? Or rather Romans 1 does not have God standing back, it has him (subject) actively handing them over (verb) to the consequences of their actions. Or maybe we should bring back hanging - after all it is just gravity isn't it? It's not really punishment, it's just the consequence of falling with a rope round your neck?

By way of analogy it is as if you are saying the wages of sin is death. Okay you murder someone, you get hung. God sees us murder and he actively hands us over to the hang-man but because he isn't the executioner he is not punishing us.

If you can think of a better word that does not negate the many, many times God is described as punishing in both OT & NT, and still maintains God as the active subject to this then I'm all ears.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Romans 1 is a good example. I'm agreeing with both you and JJ that God is not standing behind this sense of punishment in the same way as a headmaster wielding the cane. However, he is still actively standing behind it - it may be in a secondary sense but the verb in verse 24 is still active, and not passive.

You know, I find myself a little surprised to be saying this. I'm a writer, and words are not only how I make a living, but they are my primary means of understanding and interacting with all of Creation, including other people. The fact that God used words to create all that there is makes sense to me in a really fundamental way.

But I think, maybe, perhaps, that it's possible that the reason for the difference in the way you see the atonement and the way I see the atonement is that you ponder all the subtle nuances of the words in the Bible. Is there an article here? Is that verb active or passive? Which form of what adjective is used?

Because I'm a writer, that focus on the nuances of the words seems almost misguided to me. Words change in meaning over time. Linguistic structures change in meaning. People in one town don't use words in quite the same way as people in the next town over. And when you translate words, things change all over the place.

It's not that the words aren't important -- they are. But they can't be the starting point. You have to have a context, a frame of reference, something real to attach them to so that you know what they mean.

I suppose that's why, in the Epistles, we are told not to trust our own private interpretations of Scriptures. It's just too easy to get it wrong. We need the Church, the Body of Christ, all together, working together to hear the Holy Spirit and to understand what God wants us to understand.

And when we want to understand what Jesus did for us, and how it "works," we don't start diagramming sentences. You can't diagram the Word of God. He's alive.

And that's where we start. With the Incarnation. What does it mean, that God became man? There's not some mysterious interplay in his person, no chemistry between his divine and human natures. We confess that there is no mingling, no change in his humanity or his divinity. But because he became man, we are now united with the Word of God through our human nature, in much the same way that the Father and the Spirit are united with the Word of God through their divine nature.

And because God is Life and the source of all life, death could not hold him. Because we are united to him, because he shares our nature, death can't hold us, either. "Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death, and upon those in the tombs bestowing life!"

Think about it. He became everything that we are (except sin) so that we could become everything that he is.

And we are. That's why, when you give food and water and shelter to the poor and hungry, it's as if you gave it to Jesus -- because you did. Because of the Incarnation, because Jesus shares both our nature and the divine nature, you can't do anything to another human being without also doing it to God.

That's how the atonement -- the "at-one-ment" works -- God doesn't punish us. He doesn't pay our debts. He takes on our nature. He becomes one of us. Through the Incarnation.

That's the good news -- Immanuel. God with us.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Josephine:And because God is Life and the source of all life, death could not hold him. Because we are united to him, because he shares our nature, death can't hold us, either.

No problem with anything you wrote in that post except this little sticking point. It is certainly true that Jesus taught that out of our unity to him, he touches the world through us. The question though is about what creates that unity. Now you can say that it is his identification with us. If you do you have to consider how him becoming a man joins us to him so that we somehow partake of his Godness and in a sense, become empowered to do the works he did..as he taught would happen.

To me that is where communication breaks down if you don't have a mechanism. The PSA model does provide this key. But it is only a model. As C.S. Lewis said it is the thing itself one must grasp and experience.

The issue with what you wrote ISTM is the old chestnut, that it glosses sin. No other model but some form of penal substitution actually takes into account the seriousness of our sin to God. It is the impenetrable barrier between us and him that only Christ's blood could atone for.

The issue I have with non subscribers to this is not that they are not believers as I'm sure some here think, but that they have not grasped the extent of their salvation. Now that may seem very patronising but it is not intended that way at all. No one needs to know how an engine works to drive a car. My mother recently died and in praying a goodbye to her I became convinced in my heart she was with the Lord. Subjective I know but she, as far as I knew, never tried to understand any atonement theory. She just knew Jesus was her Lord.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Given that we acknowledge that our salvation (from sin-and-death) required the God-man Jesus Christ to suffer and die, how can we be said to not take into account the seriousness of sin, including our own personal sin?

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
The issue with what you wrote ISTM is the old chestnut, that it glosses sin. No other model but some form of penal substitution actually takes into account the seriousness of our sin to God.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something somewhere, but it seems to me that PSA fails entirely to take into account the seriousness of our sin. In that model, sin is such a trivial thing that God can treat it with a wink and a nudge. He declares you "Not guilty" when you and he both know you're guilty. And because of this lie, you never have to do the hard work of becoming holy. You can stay mired in sin, and it doesn't matter. Nothing has to change. You and God will just pretend that everything is all right.

In what I wrote, sin is dealt with by being destroyed. Christ takes on our nature, and the glory of his divinity burns away everything in humanity that is corruptible, everything that is evil, everything thta is broken and damaged by sin and bound by the power of death. At that point, with all the rot and brokenness cleared away, we are free to start doing good, to start becoming holy.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And that's where we start. With the Incarnation. What does it mean, that God became man? There's not some mysterious interplay in his person, no chemistry between his divine and human natures. We confess that there is no mingling, no change in his humanity or his divinity. But because he became man, we are now united with the Word of God through our human nature, in much the same way that the Father and the Spirit are united with the Word of God through their divine nature.

Yes I do think that explains a lot about the differences between us.

I too 'start' with the incarnation - the fact of Jesus Christ, the Word become flesh. I do not worship the bible, I worship the risen Lord.

However, the question still remains - how I do I know Jesus? Well the only way, ISTM, is through words. Through the words of the bible and the words of the church. But still through words.

The only alternative is mysticism. Here I agree - I'm no mystic. Indeed I'm not sure how your comments fit in a bulletin board like the ship - what else do we have to communicate with here apart from words?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

We can only communicate here through words. It does not follow that our only experience of God is through words.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Jamat:

quote:
The issue with what you wrote ISTM is the old chestnut, that it glosses sin. No other model but some form of penal substitution actually takes into account the seriousness of our sin to God.

OK - genuinely, seriously, if that were so, how come it took Christianity until the sixteenth century (or 12th if you think that what Anselm taught can be counted PSA) to produce it?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
Jamat:
quote:
The issue with what you wrote ISTM is the old chestnut, that it glosses sin. No other model but some form of penal substitution actually takes into account the seriousness of our sin to God.
OK - genuinely, seriously, if that were so, how come it took Christianity until the sixteenth century (or 12th if you think that what Anselm taught can be counted PSA) to produce it?

Simply not true!
(Paul believed it)
BTW Hope you had a great holiday. Nice to see your logo again.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

I did, actually. Thanks for that.

Sorry though. I simply don't think it's possible credibly to assert that Paul held to Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Nothing I have ever read has led me to think differently.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Welcome back Psyduck.

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:
OK - genuinely, seriously, if that were so, how come it took Christianity until the sixteenth century (or 12th if you think that what Anselm taught can be counted PSA) to produce it?

I thought we had been round this several times before?

We're talking about models here. The question is how well they fit the data.

You seem to be saying that there was no such thing as gravity before Newton discovered it. Equally the same can be said about Gustav Aulen - whether CV existed (as a model) before the 20th century is virtually impossible to prove either way. All one can do is demonstrate that certain metaphors and images were used in a certain way.

Therefore I think it won't get us very far arguing whether models existed in the early church. ISTM that there is far more traction in discussing doctrines and metaphors that the early church used.

For example, when discussing PSA one key question is this - does God (personally) punish sinners? If you could demonstrate that until the 16th century the majority view of Christians would be to answer 'no' to that question then I think your point about PSA being a late invention holds water. Otherwise it is the rejection of PSA which is likely to be the recent phenomenon.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Sorry to go back to this, but RL intervenes sometimes [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
On your detailed point, it sometimes seems to me that you want to retain the concept of "punishment", whilst at the same time arguing away the common meaning of the word. Sort of "it's punishment, Jim, but not as we know it."
From my point of view, it is your argument that stretches, not the biblical semantics, but the normal English useage.

...

Don't get that. In what sense is "to give them up" the same as "to punish"? Surely Paul is saying here that God does not intervene? OK, He actively does not intervene (iyswim) but it really is stretching things to describe such an event as punishment rather than consequence.
Okay, I think we are getting there. (Slowly. )

Oh, not at all sure we are. I still think that you are being inconsistent. Either God has to be volitionally responsible for things that happen in His creation as a result of what we would call cause and effect, or He does not have to be responsible in this way. If He does not have to be responsible (and you seem to imply that you do not believe that, for example, tsunamis are a result of His volitional will), then why is it a cop-out when I suggest that there is a similar cause-and-effect mechanism at work in "moral" matters. After all, it seems to be a natural reading of Paul that he considered that there was some mechanism at work which linked sin to death in a very intimate and inexorable way.

ISTM that, if you apply your own logic, you could be described as "copping out" on God's responsibility for natural disaters. At this point, we are really straying into discussing theodicy rather than PSA directly,

quote:

In what sense is "to give them up" the same as "to punish"? - when you say, "Okay, eat that extra helping of ice-cream and you will be sick." And they are sick. Except you created the world where these rules apply in the first place.

Of course human analogies break down a bit at this point - we are not God, and we didn't create the world.

But you underestimate the closeness of the link that exists between sin and death. They are really the same thing in many ways. To posit a universe where the two are separate is not to posit an alternative universe, but an absurd universe. Even God cannot create a square circle.

quote:

I still don't understand how it is possible to actively not intervene? Or rather Romans 1 does not have God standing back, it has him (subject) actively handing them over (verb) to the consequences of their actions. Or maybe we should bring back hanging - after all it is just gravity isn't it? It's not really punishment, it's just the consequence of falling with a rope round your neck?
By way of analogy it is as if you are saying the wages of sin is death. Okay you murder someone, you get hung. God sees us murder and he actively hands us over to the hang-man but because he isn't the executioner he is not punishing us.

I find it incredible to believe that you have never encountered situations where a person might have intervened, but perceived that it would be counterproductive to do so at that time, which I what I would regard as active non-intervention. Your point about hanging ignores the question of volitional intent, which is really the point at issue.

quote:

If you can think of a better word that does not negate the many, many times God is described as punishing in both OT & NT, and still maintains God as the active subject to this then I'm all ears.

There are many times in the scriptures where God is seeen as actively volitional in causing, in response to sin, what we would now see as natural events. It seems Jesus was pretty keen to dismiss this sort of thinking. The question is not so much "what does the text say (important though that is) but how do we interpret what the texts says, what words do we us in translating the text, and are we, by using those words, distorting meaning.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Josephine: He declares you "Not guilty" when you and he both know you're guilty.

Well that depends which part of the elephant the blind folded man is holding.

I rather like to think that If God declares you righteous then righteous you are!

This must be true since God cannot lie or deceive by definition of his character.

Regarding sin, It's chicken and egg stuff. From where I look the amazing efficacy of the saviour's blood cleanses my sins and his cross deals with my sinfulness.

The PSA model deals with sin's seriousness through the value that God puts on that blood as the sole means of cleansing it. But while this is a bit circular, we know from the mechanisms put in place by Moses to deal with sin, how serious it is and what a barrier it forms between the creator and his creatures.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Jolly Jape: how do we interpret what the texts says,

OK interpret the story of Eli's sons for me.

My interpretation is that God purposed to kill them for the way they cheapened the priesthood.
He intended to punish them personally and Eli as well for allowing the abuse.

What about the action of Phineas? he turned God's wrath away from the nation through and act of violence that pleased the Lord..because it punished sin. What is your interpretation of that?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
ISTM that, if you apply your own logic, you could be described as "copping out" on God's responsibility for natural disaters. At this point, we are really straying into discussing theodicy rather than PSA directly,

Maybe I didn't make myself clear.

I said that God does not stand behind natural disasters in the same way that he stands behind his acts of love, but I still think these terrible events must happen due to his sovereign purposes.

And yes I agree this is now theodicy, but theodicy is one of the major reasons why I accept PSA - if evil is outside of God's control then I have no reason to believe he can conquer it once and for all.

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I find it incredible to believe that you have never encountered situations where a person might have intervened, but perceived that it would be counterproductive to do so at that time, which I what I would regard as active non-intervention. Your point about hanging ignores the question of volitional intent, which is really the point at issue.

Okay, active non-intervention is not the right description then - according to Romans 1 (and elsewhere) God actively hands them over - i.e. he is not non-interventionist (there's a double negative for you).

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
There are many times in the scriptures where God is seeen as actively volitional in causing, in response to sin, what we would now see as natural events. It seems Jesus was pretty keen to dismiss this sort of thinking. The question is not so much "what does the text say (important though that is) but how do we interpret what the texts says, what words do we us in translating the text, and are we, by using those words, distorting meaning.

I really don't understand why Luke 13 is so readily wheeled out at this point. I remember spurting my coffee all over my keyboard as I read Jeffrey John's Easter address on PSA a few years ago. I couldn't believe that he would try to use this passage against PSA. Jesus doesn't just say it once, he says it in verse 3 and then repeats himself in verse 5. According to Jesus the mistake in his listeners thinking was not that of linking this tragedy with God's judgment of sin, but rather to think that they weren't equally guilty and equally deserving of the same fate. How else can you make sense of verses 1 to 9 as a whole? If ever there was a proof-text for PSA I'd say Luke 13 has got to be up there in the top 10.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Psyduck:
I simply don't think it's possible credibly to assert that Paul held to Penal Substitutionary Atonement.

Well, I don't think its credible to assert that he believed any other version you care to make up.

There is quite an interesting book I found called "Pierced For Our Transgressions"(2007) by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey and Andrew Sach that might conceivably challenge your assumptions.

[ 28. August 2010, 04:34: Message edited by: Jamat ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Josephine: He declares you "Not guilty" when you and he both know you're guilty.
Well that depends which part of the elephant the blind folded man is holding.

I rather like to think that If God declares you righteous then righteous you are!

This must be true since God cannot lie or deceive by definition of his character.

Jamat, if God were to declare a fish to be a fox, that wouldn't make the fish a fox. If God were to declare a circle to be a square, the circle would still be a circle. God spoke, and said "Let there be light," and there was light. But he never said, "Light is granite" or "volcanoes are vegetables."

You want God to play Let's Pretend. I don't think God plays Let's Pretend. I don't think he would call you righteous, if you were not righteous, any more than he would call a volcano a vegetable.

You would like to believe that he would, and that his pretense would make it so. I understand why you would like to believe that. What I don't understand is why you think that your belief is the only one that takes into account the seriousness of sin.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Josephine: He declares you "Not guilty" when you and he both know you're guilty.
Well that depends which part of the elephant the blind folded man is holding.

I rather like to think that If God declares you righteous then righteous you are!

This must be true since God cannot lie or deceive by definition of his character.
Jamat, if God were to declare a fish to be a fox, that wouldn't make the fish a fox. If God were to declare a circle to be a square, the circle would still be a circle. God spoke, and said "Let there be light," and there was light. But he never said, "Light is granite" or "volcanoes are vegetables."

You want God to play Let's Pretend. I don't think God plays Let's Pretend. I don't think he would call you righteous, if you were not righteous, any more than he would call a volcano a vegetable.

You would like to believe that he would, and that his pretense would make it so. I understand why you would like to believe that. What I don't understand is why you think that your belief is the only one that takes into account the seriousness of sin.

Well, I don't quite get your logic here Josephine. I think that on the basis of the fact that God declares you righteous, not by means of your own virtue, which will always be insufficient, but on the basis of the fact that he sees Christ's righteousness as imputed to you, then that righteousness is genuine.

Paul states as much in Romans 3:22 "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe.." and also suggests it in Gal 2;29 "If any be in Christ he is a new creation."

It is rehashing old ground from the CV thread but the 'sin' issue probably comes down to the disagreement Evos like me who follow the Augustinian line on the fall, would have with Orthodoxen theology.

IMV, sin, as imputed to the human race through Adam and Eve,is a major problem for God's desire for reconciliation with humankind.

This is seen clearly in the hoops required by Mosaic law if worship was to be acceptable. Christ is the solution to this problem in that he satisfies the requirements of both God's love and justice as detailed elsewhere.

Thus, IMV, the seriousness of sin required that the blood of a perfect sacrifice be shed and that the righteousness thereby secured should be imparted to humans who accept it by faith. This is detailed by Peter when he says we were: "redeemed with the precious blood of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ." (1 Pet 1:19) and also, in much detail by the writer to the Hebrews.

This is not to say that I think everyone who doesn't see things like I do is in trouble with their salvation only that they don't 'get' its proper basis. Above, I mentioned my Mum who recently died who was RC all her life and I don't think would ever have agreed with me over this issue. Yet she knew the Lord in a powerful way. So what can I say? I certainly don't claim to know everything.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Thus, IMV, the seriousness of sin required that the blood of a perfect sacrifice be shed and that the righteousness thereby secured should be imparted to humans who accept it by faith.

So, do you think righteousness is a thing-in-itself? It sounds as though you do. It sounds like you think righteousness is something that exists independently of the person who is righteous. Like it's something that you can get, or save, or give away. Like it's a substance, and if you have that substance, that's what makes you righteous.

So Jesus's sacrifice bought a bunch of righteousness, and he gives that righteousness to people who will accept it. And then, as you say, they really are righteous, because the righteousness he gave them is real righteousness. He wouldn't give them a fake, after all.

Is that what you mean? If so, then I know why it doesn't make any sense to me. As I understand it, righteousness is not a thing-in-itself.

Let's take a different word, one that's not so loaded. Kindness. Having kindness isn't what makes you kind. There's no such thing as kindness in that sense. It doesn't exist as something you can have. Rather, if you're kind, it's because you do kind things. We apply the word to you because it describes the things you do. It's doing kind things that makes you a kind person.

It would make no sense at all for me to say that you take candy away from babies, and kick puppies, and make old women cry, but you are kind because someone else, who was indeed very kind, imparted some of his kindness to you. Kindness doesn't work that way. You're kind if and only if you consistently behave in a kind way.

It's the same thing with righteousness. Righteousness isn't something that someone can give you. You're righteous if and only if you consistently behave in a righteous way.

At least, that's the way I understand it. But if you see righteousness as a thing-in-itself, you'd naturally understand it differently.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

Well it, 'righteousness', is an abstract noun coined really to explain the way God sees a Christian. I suppose, like any abstraction, (faith is another one,) that to say it is a 'thing,' pulls it from the realm of the abstract to some degree.

If we do this we somehow forget we are talking about a model and the thing itself cannot really be contained in language. The idea of righteousness seems to derive from the Mosaic law and the Psalms. In the first instance it describes an aspect of God's nature I think.

But I do see your issue.

The usual response to it is to see righteousness as both something conferred (indeed, a thing in itself,) that we cannot earn, and also as something that must be outworked as well.

In other words it is indeed hollow to say you believe in Christ and are therefore righteous if you are an unrepentant criminal.

I think most who take this line would see that as old fashioned hypocritical denial.

Being a believer in Christ though, means that you have the Holy Spirit indwelling you and the expectation is that one, albeit slowly, gradually brings an outworked righteousness into line with that imputed by one's faith in Christ as Saviour.

IOW, you have a righteousness imputed (KJV word) that you spend a lifetime actually coming to experience or outwork with lots of failures and hissy fits along the way.

To call it a thing like kindness though is not always apples with apples. Kindness is certainly an action of both God and man and I suppose I could act kindly and righteously towards you as well, but there is a further dimension of meaning when something becomes a way to describe God.

Righteousness as I am using it pertains to the way God views us so though both are abstract conceptualisations, they can be quite dissimilar depending on the use one makes of them.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
You're kind if and only if you consistently behave in a kind way.

It's the same thing with righteousness. Righteousness isn't something that someone can give you. You're righteous if and only if you consistently behave in a righteous way.

I think that this is one of the core issues here.

I agree with you, but PSA hangs on the assumption that righteousness can be transferred from one person to another.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

It's the same thing with righteousness. Righteousness isn't something that someone can give you. You're righteous if and only if you consistently behave in a righteous way.

I don't have any problems with your logic here but I cannot square it with Romans 4. I realise that Romans is hotly disputed but I don't think you have to subscribe to a traditional Protestant position (Old Pauline Perspective) to say that you seem to be directly contradicting the apostle here.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

Johnny, Paul is, in this passage, talking about the controversy between those who thought the Gentiles had to keep the Jewish law, and those (like Paul) who felt it unnecessary. He was talking about righteousness in the limited sense of keeping the Jewish law. He was making it clear that Gentile believers would be accepted by God, not because they kept the Jewish law, but because they trusted God. That's why the example of Abraham was so important -- he trusted God, and was accepted by God, before he was ever circumcised. In the same way, Paul argues, we can trust God, and be accepted by God, without circumcision (and by extension, without keeping the rest of the Jewish law).

In other words, there are two ways to be righteous in this sense of the word. One is to keep the Jewish law. The other is to trust God to keep you.

Maybe that's the only sense in which you ever mean the word, like the way some people use the word "salvation" only in the sense of "forgiveness of sins." I have a different understanding of those words. That sometimes makes communication problematic -- we find that we weren't really agreeing, or disagreeing, at all, but rather that we were talking about different things entirely. Perhaps that's the case here.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well it, 'righteousness', is an abstract noun coined really to explain the way God sees a Christian.

No it's not. Even the Greek word dikaiosune was used to mean "righteousness" by such writers as Theognis (6th century BCE) and Herodotus (5th century BCE). And the Hebrew equivalent(s) (which I can't remember) were also used long before the word was used by Christians.

Righteousness is a property. It's what righteous things have in common. Just as redness is what red things have in common, and Left-handedness is what left-handed people have in common. It is not a thing. It is, if anything, a shorthand way of talking about being righteous. Making it into a thing that can be transferred is Platonism, not Christianity.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

It also translates as 'justice' - and justice is something you DO.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
In other words, there are two ways to be righteous in this sense of the word. One is to keep the Jewish law. The other is to trust God to keep you.

Yes, and the analogy the Apostle uses in Romans 4 is of wages being paid / given. He applies that directly to righteousness. This righteousness is like money which can be given to your account; only you can't earn it, it is a gift received by faith. MT may says this kind of talk is Platonic, maybe it is, the point is it is what Paul says.

I just don't get where you are going with this. You appear to one moment concede that righteousness can be used in this way, only then to say it can't.

AFAICS either Paul is correct or you and MT are correct but I can't see the remotest glimmer of reconciliation.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I just don't get where you are going with this. You appear to one moment concede that righteousness can be used in this way, only then to say it can't.

I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I'll try again. But before I do, a question: Have you read Studies in Words by C.S. Lewis?

Righteousness, of course, can mean a lot of different things. And what it means to us now is not necessarily the same thing that it meant to Paul, or to the people he was arguing with.

One possible meaning of righteousness is "keeping the Mosaic law in all its points." I believe that's the meaning that Paul was using in Romans 3 and 4.

But "keeping the Mosaic law in all it's points" is not the only meaning of righteousness, and I don't think it's the most common or the most important meaning today.

It probably was the most common meaning among the Jews that Paul was talking to, though, so we have to understand their point of view to understand Romans 3 and 4.

They understood righteousness to mean "keeping the Law." The Jewish Christians believed that Christians had to be righteous, in this particular sense. That's why they wanted Gentile Christians to be circumcised. There was no other way, they thought, for them to be righteous. Paul said there was no need for the Gentile Christians to be circumcised, because trusting God counts as righteousness.

You'll notice what Paul does NOT say. He does not say that trusting God makes you righteous. He said that if you trust God, it counts the same as being righteous.

And I think that would have made perfectly good sense to the Jewish Christians who were arguing that Gentile Christians had to keep the Law. For example, two doves count the same as a lamb for an offering for a firstborn child. That doesn't mean that two doves are the same thing as a lamb. Rather, under the Law, God would accept either two doves or a lamb. They counted the same.

So keeping the Law is righteousness, and trusting God counts as righteousness.

But that's not the only meaning of righteousness, and I doubt it's the first meaning that comes to mind for most Christians today. We would define righteousness as virtue or moral excellence.

It's righteousness in that sense that God doesn't just assign to someone. You can't be virtuous if you are in fact greedy, grasping, angry, lustful, slothful, and hateful. If by righteousness, you mean virtue or moral excellence, then you are only righteous if you are humble, generous, kind, and so on. Because that's what the word, in this sense, means.

So, yes, God can and does count you as being righteous simply because you trust him, if what you mean by righteousness is keeping the Law.

But God does not count you as being righteous simply because you trust him, if what you mean by righteousness is virtue and moral excellence. If you want to be virtuous, you have to do the hard work of being virtuous.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Thanks for the clarification Josephine now I think I understand you more.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
But God does not count you as being righteous simply because you trust him, if what you mean by righteousness is virtue and moral excellence. If you want to be virtuous, you have to do the hard work of being virtuous.

But this point doesn't follow from what you've said. You've argued that Paul's use of righteousness is very nuanced and then claimed that you can clearly differentiate between the two useages of 'righteousness'.

It is simply not that clear cut. If we then add passages like this one (below), Paul seems to mix up the uses.

quote:
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

Philippians 3: 4-6

Paul does sometimes use obedience to the Torah as a mark of moral excellence, as righteousness. And then elsewhere (e.g. Romans 4) he uses the same word for righteousness when talking about this being given as a gift to believers in Christ.

I'm not disagreeing that the word righteousness can be used in these two different senses just that the distinction is no way as neat as you are making out.

[ 30. August 2010, 05:37: Message edited by: Johnny S ]

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Well it, 'righteousness', is an abstract noun coined really to explain the way God sees a Christian.
No it's not. Even the Greek word dikaiosune was used to mean "righteousness" by such writers as Theognis (6th century BCE) and Herodotus (5th century BCE). And the Hebrew equivalent(s) (which I can't remember) were also used long before the word was used by Christians.

Righteousness is a property. It's what righteous things have in common. Just as redness is what red things have in common, and Left-handedness is what left-handed people have in common. It is not a thing. It is, if anything, a shorthand way of talking about being righteous. Making it into a thing that can be transferred is Platonism, not Christianity.

Thank you MT, for the etymology. I didn't know that.

I certainly understand that righteousness is a property. Really this seems to be straining at gnats though. A property is, in this case, a thing conferred by God upon believers in the Christ. It is nonetheless an abstraction, a semantic term that signals a reality beyond semantics. Justice, Leo, is a similar property as far as I can see. It too can be a noun when upheld as an ideal.

However,regarding the Pauline use of the term,Josephine, even if denoting the proper keeping of the Mosaic law, Paul's whole argument here and elsewhere is that faith in Christ confers that self same quality since Christ has all that righteousness inherent in himself since he kept the law perfectly.

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Josephine:You'll notice what Paul does NOT say. He does not say that trusting God makes you righteous. He said that if you trust God, it counts the same as being righteous

When Paul refers to Abraham's faith being counted to him as righteousness, does not this analogy imply the very thing you are denying? (Ro 4:5,11,22.) It is Paul's point that this righteousness conferred by faith, in fact existed before the law did.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I think it would help if we defined Jamat's use of the term 'righteousness' as a kind of 'righteous status' or 'righteous standing' - which is, of course, the old, 'forensic' understanding of these issues in the Reformed tradition.

Through the merits of Christ, God confers a status of righteousness upon you which you have not earned by your own efforts. You are justified in his sight - 'just-as-if-I'd-never-sinned.'

But of course, as former Protestant Christians, MT and Josephine will be well aware of that.

Along with Jamat and Johnny S, I still feel, deep down, that there is merit in the Reformed position but that it too easily becomes a 'get-out-of-jail-free-card' or the kind of dumbed-down 'legal fiction' that its critics accuse it of.

I agree with Josephine that 'righteousness', like 'kindness', isn't an abstract noun or a substance - but a 'state of righteousness' is. I suppose it's similar to what RCs would call a 'state of grace'.

Of course, the different takes on 'original sin' adopted by the Orthodox and the Reformed tradition (from which Johnny's and Jamat's evangelicalism derives) means that we are necessarily going to be talking past each other on this one.

I'm no scholar in these matters but I've heard it said by some who've studied these things that the 'Old Perspective' on Paul's soteriology as expressed in his epistles would have appalled the apostle himself. That notions of imputed righteousness and a forensic, 'legal-fiction' justification weren't at all what he was about.

I've always read Paul that way, but then, that was in a context that was accustomed to doing so. I'd be interested if someone could show me an alternative way to read it.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It also translates as 'justice' - and justice is something you DO.

Good point. PSA has warped the word "righteousness" into a state where we are considered righteous even though we are not.

The logic, of course, is that none are truly righteous but God.

The same logic applies to "just" - that we are considered "just" and our acts "justice" even though they are not. That's "justification."

I think that people intuitively see the logical trap but can't get out of it. Only God is righteous, only God is just. So, they wonder, how do we get some of that?

I don't know why the answer "God has given you the freedom to behave justly if you so choose" is not the easiest one to grasp. [Confused]

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've always read Paul that way, but then, that was in a context that was accustomed to doing so. I'd be interested if someone could show me an alternative way to read it.

Actually I'm not advocating the 'Old Perspective'. I'm just not completely convinced by the 'New Perspective'. I'd highly recommend Michael Bird on it - google him, he'd give you a comprehensive reading list!

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You've argued that Paul's use of righteousness is very nuanced and then claimed that you can clearly differentiate between the two useages of 'righteousness'.

It is simply not that clear cut. If we then add passages like this one (below), Paul seems to mix up the uses.

quote:
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
Philippians 3: 4-6

I think it's clear here that he's talking about righteousness as a synonym for keeping the Law. He's repeating himself to make a point. He is emphasizing that he is at least as good as, if not better than, any other Jew, as the Jews would have counted it.

I would agree that Paul sometimes equivocates on the word righteousness. That happens when you've got one word with two meanings. That's why rhetorical equivocation is always something you watch for in any kind of argument or debate. (To be clear, I'm using equivocation in the technical sense of using one word to mean two different things in the course of the same argument.)

But I do think it's fairly clear, most of the time, which sense of righteousness Paul is using.

And if all JohnnyS and Jamat mean by righteousness means "being acceptable to God in the same way that someone who keeps the Jewish law is acceptable to God," and nothing else, then I'll concede that righteousness, this sort of righteousness, is conferred by God on the basis of our trust in him. You don't have to do anything else to be righteous in this sense.

quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:
Josephine:You'll notice what Paul does NOT say. He does not say that trusting God makes you righteous. He said that if you trust God, it counts the same as being righteous
When Paul refers to Abraham's faith being counted to him as righteousness, does not this analogy imply the very thing you are denying? (Ro 4:5,11,22.) It is Paul's point that this righteousness conferred by faith, in fact existed before the law did.

Okay, let's back up a bit.

I'm saying that righteousness means two different things. Let's call the first one R1 and the second one R2.

The Jews that Paul was arguing with were most concerned about R1. For them, "R1 = that which is necessary to be pleasing to God." They figured God himself had told them what to do to achieve R1: they just had to keep all 600+ laws that God had given them. That's what Paul is talking about in Romans 3 and 4, and in the bit of Philippians quoted above.

And that's what the Jews Paul was arguing with were talking about. They were arguing that Gentile Christians had to be circumcised. Paul argued that Gentile Christians did NOT have to be circumcised. For his fellow Jewish Christians to accept that, he had to tell them how the Gentile Christians could have R1 without being circumcised.

What Paul told them is that there is a second way to achieve R1: they could simply trust God. Right off the bat, they'd have said "No way." So Paul pointed out exactly what you just said: R1 existed before the Law and without the Law. They knew that, because they knew that God had counted Abraham as being R1. He used Abraham as his proof that God could accept the Gentile Christians without circumcision.

It's exactly the same argument that people who think that baptism isn't necessary make about the thief on the cross. If someone says that baptism is necessary for Christians, someone else will immediately point to the thief on the cross, and note that Jesus accepted him, and said he'd be with him in Paradise that very day. Clearly, then, baptism is NOT necessary.

That's the argument Paul was making: To be accepted by God, you don't have to be circumcised, because Abraham was accepted by God before he was circumcised.

I think most people, when talking about righteousness today, are not talking about R1. They're talking about R2. R2 has nothing at all to do with circumcision. It has nothing at all to do with the Jewish law. It is not what Paul was talking about.

And R2 is not bestowed on us by God. Rather, as Freddy says, God frees us from sin and makes us able to do the things that are R2.

If JohnnyS and Jamat say that they're only talking about R1, then I will apologize for totally misunderstanding them. It's quite possible that's the case.

(Gamaliel, I'll have to admit that, even back when I was a Protestant, the idea that God made you righteous by calling you righteous never made sense to me. I accepted it, but I was, I think, more tolerant of cognitive dissonance then than I am now.)

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I think it's clear here that he's talking about righteousness as a synonym for keeping the Law. He's repeating himself to make a point. He is emphasizing that he is at least as good as, if not better than, any other Jew, as the Jews would have counted it.

Counted what? Morally righteous that is. Paul is saying that the way Jews measured moral righteousness was their adherence to the Law. He kept the Law and so by their standards he was morally righteous too.

You are even starting to fall into this use of language yourself when you say that he was 'as good as' - good, another 'moral' word.

Your R1 / R2 distinction is there, but it is not as clear cut as you make it. It is quite possible for Paul to be using both at the same time.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

That's the argument Paul was making: To be accepted by God, you don't have to be circumcised, because Abraham was accepted by God before he was circumcised.

Yes that is true, but what has happened to the 600+ laws that you had to keep to be 'righteous'?

Again, you are right in critiquing the traditional Protestant view but you haven't done nearly enough to overturn it.

(Right, time for bed.)

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You are even starting to fall into this use of language yourself when you say that he was 'as good as' - good, another 'moral' word.

Negatory. I can say that my wife's cheesecake is "as good as" my mother used to make. That's not moral. I can say that non-moral righteousness (following the law) is "as good as" some other kind of non-moral righteousness. It means as "good" on the relevant scale. Not necessarily morally good.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

To be fair, Josephine, I think the Protestant view isn't simply that God declares us righteous - ie. calls something that isn't so as though it were so - rather, it's that he provides us the means to become what he has declared us to be - ie. given us new birth through his Holy Spirit.

Through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit he transforms us from the inside, as it were, from one degree of glory to another.

The mileage varies on how the various Protestant traditions understand this but there is some notion of being 'in Christ' and sharing his resurrection life etc - particularly in the more Wesleyan traditions.

It's rather a caricature of Protestantism, I feel, to write it all off as some kind of 'legal fiction' - although I think that critique does hold water in some cases.

I agree that it can be used as a cop-out, some kind of easy-believism, get-out-of-hell-free card. Which is one of the things that Bonhoeffer was exercised about, of course.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I remember back when I was a protestant the discussions/arguments about imparted versus imputed righteousness. So it's certainly not true that all protestants believe in imputed righteousness. But I can testify that some do, and treat subsequent sanctification as something of a footnote.

Which is another thing you could criticize certain forms of Protestantism for: the idea that what's really important is getting out of Hell, more so than becoming more like God. Sometimes this is not stated that flatly, but it forms an underpinning of all theological discourse (for some).

But, being Orthodox, I would say that.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not necessarily morally good.

Thanks for arguing my point MT. The 'necessarily' gives it away.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not necessarily morally good.
Thanks for arguing my point MT. The 'necessarily' gives it away.

No it doesn't.

It's not just that "as good as" doesn't necessarily mean morally good. In most cases, when you say that one thing is as good as another, you mean that one thing works as well as the other for a given purpose.

So, someone might say that margarine is as good as butter in a cookie recipe. Or an old bike is as good as a new one for getting around town. Or a netbook is as good as a laptop if all you want to do is surf the Net.

There are no moral implications in any of those cases.

When you're talking about a person, though, as I was, when you say that one person is as good as another, you're usually talking about one person having the same level of skill in some area as another person. So a self-taught programmer might be as good as a programmer who has a master's degree. You're not talking about the programmers' moral characteristics, but their abilities to get a computer to do what they want it to do. If the mechanic I go to is as good as the mechanic you go to, we're probably talking about their ability to repair cars, not their humility or generosity.

That's the kind of good I was talking about when I said that Paul was arguing that he was as good a Jew as any other Jew. He wasn't arguing that based on his morals, but on his keeping of the Jewish Law.

Yes, there were moral components of the Law, but that wasn't what I was talking about, and it's not what Paul was talking about. And I'm quite sure you knew that.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
To be fair, Josephine, I think the Protestant view isn't simply that God declares us righteous - ie. calls something that isn't so as though it were so - rather, it's that he provides us the means to become what he has declared us to be - ie. given us new birth through his Holy Spirit. Through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit he transforms us from the inside, as it were, from one degree of glory to another.

I don't have any problem with that.

quote:
It's rather a caricature of Protestantism, I feel, to write it all off as some kind of 'legal fiction' - although I think that critique does hold water in some cases.

I certainly don't write all of Protestantism off that way. If it sounds as if I'm doing so, I apologize.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Not necessarily morally good.
Thanks for arguing my point MT. The 'necessarily' gives it away.

Can you be less telegraphic here? Gives what away?

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:

That's the kind of good I was talking about when I said that Paul was arguing that he was as good a Jew as any other Jew. He wasn't arguing that based on his morals, but on his keeping of the Jewish Law.

Yes, there were moral components of the Law, but that wasn't what I was talking about, and it's not what Paul was talking about. And I'm quite sure you knew that.

Yes you are right - it was a distraction talking about 'good'. It was merely another example of a word that can be used in two different ways so let's drop it.

However, Paul definitely was talking about the moral components of the Law as well - especially in Philippians 3.

There is no doubt that he was trying to impress his audience with how 'righteous' he was. Now, the horror of his conversion was to discover that doing what he thought was good (persecuting Christians) was actually bad, but his point was that according to Jewish criteria of morality he was outstanding.

To say that he was only talking about keeping the Law in some cultural sense is to make a category error. Paul was certainly not a modern westerner with an innate sense of liberal morality. For a 1st century Jew the two uses of the word 'righteous' coincide (even if they are not co-terminus). You do these things to be righteous and they are your standard of what being morally good looks like.

Again Paul's argument is far more nuanced than you are making out.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.

quote:

However, Paul definitely was talking about the moral components of the Law as well - especially in Philippians 3.

There is no doubt that he was trying to impress his audience with how 'righteous' he was . Now, the horror of his conversion was to discover that doing what he thought was good (persecuting Christians) was actually bad, but his point was that according to Jewish criteria of morality he was outstanding.

To say that he was only talking about keeping the Law in some cultural sense is to make a category error. (emphases mine)

I've been following this part of the debate with interest and a weird dizzy feeling, finding myself apparently at points agreeing with Johnny S. against Josephine, and similtaneously with Josephine against Johnny S.!

I agree with Johnny S. that what God declares righteous is righteous. I've been clear on that since I came across virtually a verbatim statement of that in Bultmann's Theology of the New Testament, years ago.

Bultmann, however, if I remember correctly, is conducting a debate at that point with the Protestant tradition of "imputed righteousness" - and he's doing it from an inner-Protestant but Lutheran perspective.

ISTM that Josephine is talking about a righteous character that belongs to the believing soul because of the work of God within it - a righteousness that is real in that sense.

ISTM that Johnny S. is talking about a righteousness that is real because God says it is - and I don't put it that way in order to diss it; an awful lot of things, to the Protestant theological mind, are real because God says they are. I'm not sure that Johnny S. is really talking about "imputed righteousness" here though, and maybe because he senses the problems with it.

However, ISTM that Bultmann might actually be very helpful here - and in a way that helps me reiterate that, opponent of PSA that I am, I in no way want to ditch the undoubted forensic themes that there are in Paul; it's just that I still believe that you can't do them justice through PSA because PSA turns the whole of Scripture and the whole Christian tradition into a court report on The Trial Of Humankind.

That said, Paul's legal use of concepts deriving from δικαιοσυνη demands that we entertain the perspective of the courtroom while we consider them. I think Bultmann helps because he clarifies Paul's concepts in a particular way.

What men (sic!) seek, the Jews seek, what the Pharisees - of which Paul was a very good one - is righteousness, δικαιοσυνη, before God.

Righteousness is the approving verdict handed down on us and our existence. It;s a forensic term, so it puts us within the ambit of the law. Puts us in court, you might say.

However, what the Law inevitably offers is something else which we would desperately like - in fact it's what the Pharisaic mentality, understood not as the mindset of a first-century Jewish party, still less as the whole of Judaism, but as what H H Williams memorably deracializes as "the Pharisee within all of us" - is a ground of righteousness over against God - a righteousness which is proper to us, which belongs to us, so that the justifying verdict of the court over us and our lives is properly ours.

You can look at that as our own achievement, or you can look at it as our reassuring guarantee that we are living/will have lived in a way that pleases God, so that we earn/deserve our justification.

You might say that, so far from being smug superiority, what Paul is desperately worried about is the mentality that filled him - and that fills the whole of Psalm 119! (Yes, bits of it look smug and judgmental - read it side by side with Jesus' encounters with Pharisaism in the Gospels, and you get a weird dizzy feeling, especially if you believe that the whole Bible is saying the same thing from the same perspective!)

But Paul explores at length especially in Romans, but also in Philippians, the terrible internal contradictions that go along with trying to achieve righteousness - both in failure ("I do what I do not want to do") and in success ("I was a superb Pharisee - the best! For what it was worth...")

And Paul scouts an impasse. Even to seek a righteousness-over-against-God is to emphasize the gulf between ourselves and God - even if it could be done...

And this was Martin Luther's in cloaca discovery; "The Righteousness of God" doesn't mean "The Righteousness God Demands Of Us" but "The Righteousness That Originates With God."

And that righteousness is appropriated by faith - trust in the promise.

So to believe what God has promised - and the fulfilment of the promise in Christ - is to receive the righteousness of God, which of course is real, absolutely real.

But that verdict of "Righteous!" (δικαιοσ)is just exactly that; it's what Bultmann refers to as "the eschatological verdict" which transforms the basis of our living so that, with "nothing between us and God" - no issues, no impediments - we embark on a transformed existence, in which the reality of what we are (sinners) coexists with the reality of what God says we are on the basis of the real righteousness which is his.

We are, as Luther says "simul justi et peccatores".

Now, all of that sounds like PSA. But it's not. It's both very much less than PSA, becuae you can articulate it without reference to any of Paul's sacrificial themes. In fact, you can't fit Paul's sacrificial themes into it, because it's set in a courtroom, not at the Altar, or the Passover meal.

I wonder, though, if that helps with the state the discussion has reached.

ISTM that both Johnny S. and Jospehine were circling around the moral components of both Christian existence / God's work in us and God's demand.

I don't think you can make sense of "righteousness" unless you treat it - as Bultmann does - as a purely forensic term, in which case the decisive thing is the verdict that's handed down that either confirms or breaks a relationship. So I would agree with Johnny S. that what God declares righteous is righteous.

However I think Johnny S. may be in danger of intruding a moral dimension into this that just isn't there. And that, I suspect, may be coming from the old Calvinist distinction between moral and ceremonial law. I think that's an invalid distinction, tailored in the chaos of the 16th century to assert that God's demands are still in force and still to hand as a basis for human living, even though we can now eat black pudding and get away without circumcision. I don't think there is a Biblical ground for distinguishing between moral and cerermonial. dura lex, sed lex.

And I think that Paul's solution to the "hardness of the Law" takes us in a very different direction.

I wonder if, rather than disagreeing over "righteousness" here, maybe we need to see Johnny S. and Josephine actually agreeing over something much more constructive, the necessity of what the Orthodox, I think, would call theiosis, and the Calvinists, I know, would call "sanctification"?

Righteousness - the "righteousness of God" - is what God does to transform the situation, break the deadlock, restore our relationship with him, and create a space in which transformation has already begun.

And I think you can have all of this, including the forensic conceptuality of δικαιοσυνη and its kin, without PSA. In fact, I don't see how you can have it all with PSA. (You knew I was going to say that, right?) [Biased]

[ 31. August 2010, 08:17: Message edited by: Psyduck ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I've found this latest post helpful, Psyduck, as it helps resolve the apparent impasse between Johnny and Josephine yet still within a Protestant paradigm - but, to echo MT, I would say that ... [Big Grin]

I do find the Orthodox position attractive but do wonder whether it does full justice to the forensic aspects that I still (through much conditioning no doubt) find in the apostle Paul.

I do recognise that both MT and Josephine aren't dissing the Protestant tradition wholesale, whilst accepting that there are differences at issue from each perspective.

I don't pretend to understand the Orthodox position on 'theosis', for instance, but it strikes me as different to Protestant models of 'sanctification.'

As far as I can tell, 'sanctification' approximates to the Orthodox position on 'theosis' but isn't a direct translation, if I can put it in those terms.

I don't think it's an accident that many Orthodoxen feel closer to the Wesleyan strands in Protestant theology and pneumatology than they do to the often cold, clinical, juridical Calvinist/Augustinian models.

I've heard it said by several Orthodoxen that they often find ecumenical dialogue more conducive with Protestants influenced by the Wesleyan tradition than they do with high and dry Calvinists. Although, tell it not in Gath, some will concede that the Reformed positions hold an inner logic that they can understand, even though they don't share it themselves.

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :

Psyduck - [Overused]

Maybe it's because we are both Protestants, but I'd agree with almost all of your analysis (even if not your conclusions!)

quote:
Originally posted by Psyduck:

However I think Johnny S. may be in danger of intruding a moral dimension into this that just isn't there. And that, I suspect, may be coming from the old Calvinist distinction between moral and ceremonial law. I think that's an invalid distinction, tailored in the chaos of the 16th century to assert that God's demands are still in force and still to hand as a basis for human living, even though we can now eat black pudding and get away without circumcision. I don't think there is a Biblical ground for distinguishing between moral and cerermonial. dura lex, sed lex.

Except for this bit. I thought I had emphatically said the opposite to what you suggest here. My point was the same as yours - you cannot distinguish the moral from ceremonial (e.g. the Sabbath in the 10C anyone?) I think this is one area where the classic reformed position is wrong.

But if we are agreed on this matter then your conclusion doesn't seem to follow - if you cannot distinguish between the two then how can I possibly be intruding a moral dimension that isn't there - you've just agreed that it has to be there because it cannot be distinguished from ceremonial obedience.

Posted by Psyduck (# 2270) on :

Johnny S.

quote:
Except for this bit. I thought I had emphatically said the opposite to what you suggest here. My point was the same as yours - you cannot distinguish the moral from ceremonial (e.g. the Sabbath in the 10C anyone?) I think this is one area where the classic reformed position is wrong.

But if we are agreed on this matter then your conclusion doesn't seem to follow - if you cannot distinguish between the two then how can I possibly be intruding a moral dimension that isn't there - you've just agreed that it has to be there because it cannot be distinguished from ceremonial obedience.

Well if we can't, you're not! And I accept what you say, but actually I must still be reading what you said inside out, because bits of it still look that way to me. Sorry if I got you wrong.

But I'd also like to repeat the extent of my agreement with Josephine, and maybe to add a wee footnote to this sudden explosion of agreement; I do really wonder - and I want to say again that I am absolutely not dissing anyone by suggesting this - whether what a lot of people are calling PSA is really just doing justice to the Pauline forensic themes. Thanks to Bultmann, I have always felt able to do that without recourse to PSA, and since I was brought up in a liberal tradition which didn't really entertain it (but did, I would say, adequately explore this aspect of Paul and Christian thought) I never felt any sort of imperative to go forward and embrace PSA. It always seemed to me to be (as I've said before, and I know people disagree with me!) a "complete package" which however much it does give space to the other Biblical themes organizes them around the central "courtroom" themes, which really arise out of Paul's discussion of the Law in relation to Jewish faith and hope, and are only then generalized into a connection with the human striving for autonomy over against God AKA "rebellion".

And again, I'm wondering if that is part of what underlies the odd disagreement between you and Josephine here, and the weird feeling I have that I am agreeing and disagreeing with both of you simultaneously!

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

I'll have to confess that I've never read Bultmann, or probably any of the theologians I'd need to have read to participate in a discussion of PSA properly. (I think I acknowledged as much early on this thread.) I also have no Hebrew or Greek.

Is Paul's word that gets translated as "righteous" roughly the equivalent of "not guilty" rather than the equivalent of "virtuous"?

Posted by Jamat (# 11621) on :

quote:
Psyduck: Now, all of that sounds like PSA. But it's not. It's both very much less than PSA, becuae you can articulate it without reference to any of Paul's sacrificial themes. In fact, you can't fit Paul's sacrificial themes into it, because it's set in a courtroom, not at the Altar, or the Passover meal.

You can, if you want to suggest that that very righteousness you so ably articulated, is somehow impossible apart from God's justice component which required that Christ die AS a sacrifice (1Pet 2:24 and 2:18)

By the way did you check out that book I referred to above?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0