quote:

---

needs to effect a change

---

quote:

---

actually changes me, delivers me from my sin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
PSA isn't in any of the Creeds but it's certainly in the constitution of many evangelical churches and is the dominant note in evangelical understandings of the atonement... PSA is a Western feature and you won't find it among the Orthodox at all.

---

quote:

---

This is breathtaking coming from a professing Christian... God sent His Son to rescue me from His wrath and make me His child. How did He do it? He did it in the way Steve Chalke slanderously calls "cosmic child abuse".

---

quote:

---

He [Chalke] is giving away the heart of the Gospel. I would never agree to give my approval to anyone who denies penal substitutionary atonement to be an elder at a church I attended, or to be a pastor or Bible teacher, or to teach at a theological seminary where I had influence on the appointment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I was researching for an essay I had to write and found that some evangelical theologians apparently thought PSA was the only valid theory of the atonement. It seemed they were unaware that PSA has by no means been the main way that Christians through history have understood the atonement and, as Gamaliel said, large chunks of the worldwide church reject it as a theory.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Consider this:
If I was drowning in the sea and a man showed great courage and selflessness by jumping in to rescue me, dying in the process, that would be a tremendous example to theose standing on the shore - but it would be absolutely no use to me, still floundering in the water while my 'hero' disappears below the waves!

If I'm drowing, I want someone who will actually get me out of the water by using his every last ounce of strength, even though it means he dies in my place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Consider this:
If I'm drowing, I want someone who will actually get me out of the water by using his every last ounce of strength, even though it means he dies in my place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

As for applying this to Christ, it's really not a very good analogy.

---

quote:

---

The chief objection is that quite how punishing an innocent person instead of a guilty person can ever be said to be just

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Consider this:
If I was drowning in the sea and a man showed great courage and selflessness by jumping in to rescue me, dying in the process, that would be a tremendous example to theose standing on the shore - but it would be absolutely no use to me, still floundering in the water while my 'hero' disappears below the waves!

If I'm drowing, I want someone who will actually get me out of the water by using his every last ounce of strength, even though it means he dies in my place.

---

Did you lift this straight from Leon Morris's discuassion of one of Abelard's theories of the atonement in his The Cross Of Jesus, Mudfrog, or is it a case of great (theological) minds thinking alike?

---

Indeed. I'm writing a negotiated study essay at the moment on the wrath of God and PSA and, like every 'good student' I found the argument but forgot where I read it!


I found it online and have realised that in my quoting the argument from memory and paraphrasing it heavily I have actually done a disservice to the argument:

Here it is from the great man himself:

quote:

---

If Christ was not actually doing something by his death, then we are confronted with a piece of showmanship, nothing more. Someone once said that if he were in a rushing river and someone jumped in to save him, and in the process lost his life, he could recognize the love and sacrifice involved. But if he was sitting safely on the land and someone jumped into the torrent to show his love, he could see no point in it and only lament the senseless act. Unless the death of Christ really does something, it is not in fact a demonstration of love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

The chief objection is that quite how punishing an innocent person instead of a guilty person can ever be said to be just

---

Well, I don't object. I am grateful.The one volunteers to be punished; and the one who does so is not just a person, he is God incarnate giving himself to restore and redeem a sinful world. It would be very stupid to reject an offer like that. In being a man he identifies with our wakness and sin, in being God, he transcends it

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I have many, many problems with PSA, but the chief of them is this: there's no point to the resurrection.

Jesus died, for my sins, in my place.

Okay. Now what?

We're Christians because of the resurrection. Any atonement theory that relegates that to an afterthought isn't really a theory I want to hold.

---

I have never met an evangelical whom by believing in PSA, doesn't recognise the necessity and the glory of the resurrection!

By the resurrection Jesus was declared to be the Son of God in power! The resurrection is the vindication, the proof of his divinity and of the efficacy of the sacrifice! We even see it in Isaiah 53 v 11.

It's why evangelicals never have crucifixes - Christ is Risen! The tomb and the cross are empty!

Bearing shame and mocking rude
In my place condemned he stood
Sealed my pardon with his blood;
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!

Lifted up was he to die;
It is finished! was his cry;
Now in Heaven, exalted high;
Hallelujah! What a Saviour!

Nom you'll never find an evangelical - certainly not one who believes the classic PSA atonement - who does not glory in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ!

In fact, we are more likely to believe in the empty tomb than many a non-evangelical liberal

[ 29. June 2011, 08:49: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have never met an evangelical whom by beklieving in PSA, doesn't recognise the necessity and the glory of the resurrection!

By the resurrection Jesus was declared to be the Son of God in power! The resurrection is the vindication, the proof of his divinity and of the efficacy of the sacrofice!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I was researching for an essay I had to write and found that some evangelical theologians apparently thought PSA was the only valid theory of the atonement. It seemed they were unaware that PSA has by no means been the main way that Christians through history have understood the atonement and, as Gamaliel said, large chunks of the worldwide church reject it as a theory.

---

IME practically all evangelical theologians know that PSA is controversial outside (and sometimes within) evangelical circles. Most theologically-informed evangelicals also acknowledge and accept that PSA doesn't exhaust all that the atonement achieves.

Jesus' death and resurrection is also a victory over death and evil, and also an example for us, and also gives us new life, and so on. But that Jesus died in our place for our sins is a central and indispensable element of the Cross.

If Jesus hadn't taken our sins on himself and given us his righteousness, then we would still be guilty and unable to benefit from all the other blessings he won on the Cross. Jesus' victory over evil is only good news to us as sinners if there's a way for us to stop being evil.

So criticising PSA for not explaining everything is missing the point. Those, like me, who believe it think that it's true and important, but don't think that it says everything that could be said.

I think the debate really boils down to whether it's true both that (a) we're objectively guilty and sinful; and (b) if God has to punish sin somehow in order to forgive us. PSA depends on those two beliefs. If you've got a different view of the human condition, and/or a different view of justice and forgiveness, then your theology of the atonement will also be different.

[ 29. June 2011, 08:56: Message edited by: The Revolutionist ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
PSA is very much embedded in my psyche - I've been around the doctrine for all my Christian life and although it's been tempered by other models - and they aren't 'modern' ones, Mudfrog, PSA actually came on the scene later than other models/analogies that could be mentioned.

To be frank, I find it a hard one to shift, thanks, partly to the Romans passage that's been cited and other scriptures that can be taken to uphold this particular understanding. And I do know that there are Orthodox who would say, 'Well yes, I can see an aspect of that, however ...'

For me, though, it falls down (or at least weakens) for the reasons that have been listed here - it is very reductionist for a start and only deals with the juridical aspect - it doesn't take full account of the Resurrection and our ongoing life in Christ - a deficit, as Mudfrog will know, that the Wesleyan tradition tried to rectify.

Again, I'm afraid I'm going to sound awfully Ortho' here, but I do wonder whether it's one of those instances - like transubtantiation - where the West has taken things too far through the application of its cold, juridical logic?

RCs have taken certain things too far, Calvinists (rather than Calvin himself necessarily) have taken other things too far (double predestination anyone?) and so has the Wesleyan tradition on other aspects (conscious sinless perfection etc anyone?).

Could it be that the emphasis on PSA is just another of those Western, hyper-logical traits that effectively reduce everything to a set of propositions and squeeze the mystery out of it all?

All that said, I find it hard to understand how some people come away from the scriptures (and yes, we all read them through the lens of our own tradition) without any sense that there is a substitutionary aspect, and yes, I appreciate that a moderate and sensitive approach to PSA avoids the ghastly and grotesque aspects that accompanies a rather crass presentation of it.

But there's cuddly old Gamaliel taking a middle line again ...

I think there is something in PSA that lends itself to the 'crisis' style conversionism that is an inherent part of the evangelical package - and also explains the sense of release and relief that you often find in evangelical testimonies and conversion literature. That same 'crisis' sense then continues into some understandings of sanctification - witness the Wesleyan/Holiness/Pentecostal strand.

It's also easily easily packaged as a neat and convenient sound-bite to use in evangelism - but with the attendant difficulties that this brings.

Part of me still warms to some of the hymnody associated with it - 'Bearing shame and mocking rude/In my place condemned he stood' and 'In Christ Alone' (although I understand the objections to it).

But for my money, it can also lead to a kind of mawkish sentimentality - and I'm as sentimental and soulful as the next man, believe you me, perhaps more so as a South Walian ... we overdose on sentimentality ...

So it runs the risk of two dangerous extremes - a kind of mawkish sentimentality on the one hand (the holiness strand) and a very cold, clinical, almost brutally juridical sense on the other (the Calvinistic).

Both extremes are to be eschewed. And treading the fine line between them takes some doing.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jamat:

quote:

---

The chief objection is that quite how punishing an innocent person instead of a guilty person can ever be said to be just

---

Well, I don't object. I am grateful.The one volunteers to be punished; and the one who does so is not just a person, he is God incarnate giving himself to restore and redeem a sinful world. It would be very stupid to reject an offer like that. In being a man he identifies with our wakness and sin, in being God, he transcends it

---

It's not that it isn't a good offer. It's that it's not just.

God could just forgive us, like He taught us to forgive our brother seventy times seven. Or are we expected to be better than God?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have never met an evangelical whom by believing in PSA, doesn't recognise the necessity and the glory of the resurrection!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Sorry, Mudfrog - the more you try to explain it with the river analogy, the more stupid and wrong it sounds.

The analogy would work, of course, if there was a dammed river, where I lived below the dam, which I subsequently destroyed because of my rebellion and selfishness, and then there was a flood that threatened to drown me and I couldn't reach safe ground. If God then chose to help me when I tried to swim for it (but couldn't make it on my own because the water was too fast) by jumping in and rescuing me but drowning in the process.

You see how much better that is?

Except God is God, and He put the water there in the first place, so it still kind of sucks. I mean, why didn't He use a boat?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we forgive our brother 70 times 7 on the basis that we have first been forgiven by Gpod - we reflect his provision of salvation and grace.

But God's provision of such forgiveness lies not only ion love but in his own satisfaction of the law of justrice.

He judged sin in his Son so that we might be forgiven. There can be no forgiveness without the doing away of sin in a just manner that satisfies God's holiness and hatred of sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I was researching for an essay I had to write and found that some evangelical theologians apparently thought PSA was the only valid theory of the atonement. It seemed they were unaware that PSA has by no means been the main way that Christians through history have understood the atonement and, as Gamaliel said, large chunks of the worldwide church reject it as a theory.

---

IME practically all evangelical theologians know that PSA is controversial outside (and sometimes within) evangelical circles. Most theologically-informed evangelicals also acknowledge and accept that PSA doesn't exhaust all that the atonement achieves.

Jesus' death and resurrection is also a victory over death and evil, and also an example for us, and also gives us new life, and so on. But that Jesus died in our place for our sins is a central and indispensable element of the Cross.

If Jesus hadn't taken our sins on himself and given us his righteousness, then we would still be guilty and unable to benefit from all the other blessings he won on the Cross. Jesus' victory over evil is only good news to us as sinners if there's a way for us to stop being evil.

So criticising PSA for not explaining everything is missing the point. Those, like me, who believe it think that it's true and important, but don't think that it says everything that could be said.

I think the debate really boils down to whether it's true both that (a) we're objectively guilty and sinful; and (b) if God has to punish sin somehow in order to forgive us. PSA depends on those two beliefs. If you've got a different view of the human condition, and/or a different view of justice and forgiveness, then your theology of the atonement will also be different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we forgive our brother 70 times 7 on the basis that we have first been forgiven by Gpod - we reflect his provision of salvation and grace.

But God's provision of such forgiveness lies not only ion love but in his own satisfaction of the law of justrice.

He judged sin in his Son so that we might be forgiven. There can be no forgiveness without the doing away of sin in a just manner that satisfies God's holiness and hatred of sin.

---

Again, it's not just. If God loves justice, he doesn't punish the innocent. Even once.

This might be a problem with language, but I think it's a problem with the model.

If God demands perfect justice, then punishing the innocent, including Himself in the body of His Son, is wrong. It's simply not justice - it makes a mockery of justice.

Now grace and mercy can also make a mockery of justice, forgiveness that is freely given and not earned likewise...

There's cosmic significance in the death and resurrection of Jesus. I don't think it's what you think it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mudfrog, no-one is saying that evangelicals don't believe in the resurrection. Arguably, your tradition rejoices in it to a greater extent that some other evangelical traditions - believe me, I've often heard it tacked on almost as an after thought in some evangelical places.

---

Anecdotal evidence is valuable to the teller, but not to the hearer. I just do not recognise the analysis of evangelicalism that suggests the resurrection is an afterthought. What doctrinal statements do you know of rather than just what you've heard?

Having said that, I would suggest that many such statements are condensed versions of what we believe for pragmatic purposes. I might play devil's advocate here - and play into your hands too - by revealing that in the Salvation Army's eleven doctrines, there is no statement about the resurrection of Jesus Christ!! The only reference is in the last doctrine that says we believe in 'the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body'! And yet our worship is full of resurrection!

We enjoy Easter Sunday as much as anyone - even the Orthodox!

I think the reason it's not in, is that it wasn't an issue that needed to be defended when TSA started out - a bit like the classic creeds are defenses against heresy.
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have never met an evangelical whom by believing in PSA, doesn't recognise the necessity and the glory of the resurrection!

---

But it's not necessary.

All that's necessary is that Jesus dies in our place, facing God's wrath. The resurrection in the context of PSA is just a 'tada!" All the efficacy is in the death, none of it in the resurrection.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by tessaB
Personally I would prefer to have a theory of Christ's death and resurrection that did not involve a wrathful and rather petty sounding God making damn sure that someone paid for all the sins in the world.
However, I cannot quite bring myself to throw it all out particularly bearing in mind
Romans 3:24-26

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
we forgive our brother 70 times 7 on the basis that we have first been forgiven by Gpod - we reflect his provision of salvation and grace.

But God's provision of such forgiveness lies not only ion love but in his own satisfaction of the law of justrice.

He judged sin in his Son so that we might be forgiven. There can be no forgiveness without the doing away of sin in a just manner that satisfies God's holiness and hatred of sin.

---

Again, it's not just. If God loves justice, he doesn't punish the innocent. Even once.

This might be a problem with language, but I think it's a problem with the model.

If God demands perfect justice, then punishing the innocent, including Himself in the body of His Son, is wrong. It's simply not justice - it makes a mockery of justice.

Now grace and mercy can also make a mockery of justice, forgiveness that is freely given and not earned likewise...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jolly Jape:

quote:

---

originally posted by tessaB
Personally I would prefer to have a theory of Christ's death and resurrection that did not involve a wrathful and rather petty sounding God making damn sure that someone paid for all the sins in the world.
However, I cannot quite bring myself to throw it all out particularly bearing in mind
Romans 3:24-26

---

I think it's quite illuminating that you see that passage as supportive of PSA, whereas I see it is an important text in refuting the idea that PSA is a Scriptural doctrine. Surely, the point that Paul is making is that the death of Christ confounds human ideas of justice, subverting them away from punishment towards restoration. The Christ Event (His life, death, resurrection and ascension) reveals God's attitude to justice as being restorative and not retributive.

---

I would see it as being restorative as well - but using PSA.

People have a huge problem with the wrath of God. I don't. The reason being that God's wrath is 'slow' - slow to anger and swift to bless, etc.

The wrath of God against our sin is held back, not meted out - the Psalmist declared (with relief?) that 'he doesn't treat us as our sins deserve.'. Therefore God is NOT the vengeful, wrathful God that people who hate PSA charicature him to be.

His wrath was reserved for one moment in time - Calvary - and for one person - his Son. It is measured, restrained and proportionate and on the cross, the wrath of God, the curse, was levelled at Jesus who took upon himself the sin of the world. The very incarnation was God being made in the likeness of sinful flesh; Jesus was made sin for us so that the wrath of God would onece and for all be expressed against that sin, so that whosoever believes shall not perish but have everlasting life.

Is that self-sacrifice of Jesus, that satisfies justice, removes sin, gains a victory of death and evil, not the most wonderful act and example of love there has ever been? Is the fact that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself not too wonderful for words? Is the fact that sin is done away with, the price is paid and the wrath of God is propitiated not such good news that all we can do is worship Him?

Penal Substitutionary Atonement might make us feel a little queasy - and maybe it should - because grace does dlo things that are a bit over the top and, like so much, it's a mystery of faith; not least that it's a mystery that God did it at all:

Amazing love! How can it be that thou my God shouldst die for me?

The truth is this:
- We cannot fathom the love of God.
- No one theory can explain the atonement.
- Every theory has its limit before it is 'stretched'.
- No one theory alone is sufficient.
- Every theory finds a particular resonance with some and not with others.
- Some people just can't 'see' the value of particular theories.
- I might say that it doesn't matter! If moral influence brings you to the cross, then wonderful! If Christus Victor floats your spiritual boat and brings affirmation of salvation, then rejouce in it.
If ransom is the one that brings you to God, then glory in it. If PSA is the one that is precious to you and your need for forgiveness, then it's what you need to claim!
- The truth is it's the cross that saves you - however it works! and not the theories we use to make it understandable.

- and finally, in all these debates we need to remember that actually no-one truly understands and while we all preach Christ crucified (and totall risen again!), the cross is a scandal and it is utter foolishness to those who do not believe but it's the power of God for us!

Yes, it might offend the sense of justice.
Yes it might upset our ideas of what love is.
Yes, the idea of the innocent suffering might be a scandal.
Yes, the thought that God can indeed suffer might be a stumbling block, but hey, Paul had to cope with that and Jesus himself was crucified because religious people thought they know more about God than God himself!

When you kneel for the Eucharist next time does it really matter what theory you have in mid? What is important is that you trust him to save you and keep you in eternal life.

As for me, I like them all!


 

---

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

It's about a loving God dealing with his own wrath, willingly, on our behalf in the person of his life-sacrificing eternal Son.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scuffleball:
Is PSA bogie? Is it in the œcumenical creeds and if not can we consider it a necessary part of Christianity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lucia:
That is if you still have the will to live after you have read the 60+ pages of the Christus victor thread...

---

I really enjoyed that thread.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I won't say that PSA is a false Gospel, Johnny S, not because I lack the cajones but because I don't see bad fruit in everyone who espouses it - and it served me pretty well as a model for a long time. Not that you can argue from personal experience purely, of course, as Mudfrog has reminded us.

Incidentally, Mudfrog, your waxing lyrical reminded me of a good day in my GLE days ... and, yes, I can still go weak at the knees at all of that. I'm not sure I've rejected PSA so much as modified it a bit ... I agree with Johnny S that there are entrenched positions and binariness on both (all) sides of this one.

I would agree that if we accept the wrath and justice of God premise, then PSA does deal with that in a way that Christus Victor and some of the other atonement models don't. But taken on its own, I'd suggest that PSA doesn't adequately deal with the other aspects of the atonement that the other models convey.

For my money, I think John Stott is the best on this one in his 'The Cross of Christ' which does defend the classic PSA position whilst giving due weight to the other models and handling it in such a way as to avoid the grotesque aspects that often creep in to PSA language.

That said, PSA only 'works' as a model if you accept a Western juridical view of sin and salvation - it's something of a non-issue to the Orthodox because their whole anthropology and soteriology is expressed differently - the whole Original Sin thing is different - ancestral sin rather than original sin in the Augustinian sense.

I suspect that if one were to adopt the Orthodox line then PSA becomes a non-issue and a very bewildering concept. Just as, to those of us accustomed to the Western view, their way of handling these things appears unsettlingly different and peculiar.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AberVicar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

It's about a loving God dealing with his own wrath, willingly, on our behalf in the person of his life-sacrificing eternal Son.

---

...and that's the God you can keep.

BTW, when argued about on a thread like this, it might well look like a straw man, but it's when working with people who have been damaged by the angry God concept or who have lost faith because of it that I could easily despair.

He's a God of LOVE not of wrath, and the PSA analogy only works in the rarefied sphere of those who know what analogies really are. For the rest, a angry God is just about as much a distortion as a fluffy God!

---

quote:

---

"The first challenge comes...in the temptation to water down the message of the cross so that it becomes less offensive, more palatable to the ordinary sensible mind..."

He talks about caricatures, including the one of "an angry God and a loving Jesus, a loving God who demands blood and doesn't much mind whose it is along as it's innocent...But once we have got rid of the caricature, we are ready to face the reality...of the cross."

"Face it, to deny God's wrath is, at bottom, to deny God's love. When God sees human beings enslaved, if God doesn't hate it, he is not a loving God. When God sees innocent people being bombed because of someone's political agenda, if God doesn't hate it, he isn't a loving God. When God sees people lying and cheating and abusing one another, exploiting and grafting and preying on one another, if God were to say 'never mind, I love you all anyway', he is neither good nor loving. The Bible does not speak of a God of generalized benevolence. It speaks of the God who made the world and loves it so passionately that he must and does hate everything that distorts and defaces the world...
...The Bible tells the story about the creator God...finally stepping onto the stage to play the solo part (where) he would come and take upon himself, in the person of his Son, the pain and shame, yes the horror and darkness, yes, but also in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, in Paul and cts and Hebrews and I Peter and Revelation, in Ignatuis, Irenaeus and Augustine and Aquinas, in Luther and Calvin, and cranmer and Hooker, in Herbert and Donne and Wesley and Watts - that he would take upon himself the condemnation which, precisely because he loves us to the uttermost, he must pronounce over that deadly disease we call sin. To deny thism as some would do today as they have for hundreds of years, is to deny the depth and weight of sin and the deeper depth and heavier weight of God's redeeming love. The word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I won't say that PSA is a false Gospel, Johnny S, not because I lack the cajones but because I don't see bad fruit in everyone who espouses it - and it served me pretty well as a model for a long time. Not that you can argue from personal experience purely, of course, as Mudfrog has reminded us.

Incidentally, Mudfrog, your waxing lyrical reminded me of a good day in my GLE days ... and, yes, I can still go weak at the knees at all of that. I'm not sure I've rejected PSA so much as modified it a bit ... I agree with Johnny S that there are entrenched positions and binariness on both (all) sides of this one.

I would agree that if we accept the wrath and justice of God premise, then PSA does deal with that in a way that Christus Victor and some of the other atonement models don't. But taken on its own, I'd suggest that PSA doesn't adequately deal with the other aspects of the atonement that the other models convey.

For my money, I think John Stott is the best on this one in his 'The Cross of Christ' which does defend the classic PSA position whilst giving due weight to the other models and handling it in such a way as to avoid the grotesque aspects that often creep in to PSA language.

That said, PSA only 'works' as a model if you accept a Western juridical view of sin and salvation - it's something of a non-issue to the Orthodox because their whole anthropology and soteriology is expressed differently - the whole Original Sin thing is different - ancestral sin rather than original sin in the Augustinian sense.

I suspect that if one were to adopt the Orthodox line then PSA becomes a non-issue and a very bewildering concept. Just as, to those of us accustomed to the Western view, their way of handling these things appears unsettlingly different and peculiar.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

For my money, I think John Stott is the best on this one in his 'The Cross of Christ' which does defend the classic PSA position whilst giving due weight to the other models and handling it in such a way as to avoid the grotesque aspects that often creep in to PSA language.

---

Interesting. John Stott says that if you ditch PSA (or has he handily renames it, "self substitution for self satisfaction)you CANNOT have any of the other atonement models - they only "work" if PSA is central. He uses the image of the hub and spokes of a bicycle. Is that your position Gamaliel?
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I believe that outside academia, people do want a God who is angry at injustice, sin, filth and despair. They also want a God who has done something about it.

---

I'd sign up to that.

I'm just not sure that PSA deals with it - if anything, it colludes with it.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sure - sorry, we cross-posted Mudfrog.

Yes, the substitutionary aspect is emphasised strongly in the evangelical traditions - and doesn't appear to be there to the same extent (if at all? ) in the Orthodox take on these things. Could it be that they have gone to the other extreme? Or maybe it just isn't an issue with me nor something that they feel the need to thrash out necessarily.

MT can enlighten us, but from what I can gather it's more a case of 'on behalf of' rather than 'instead of'. God didn't kill Christ, it was wicked men. Yet it was God's set purpose and foreknowledge. All these things are mysteries before which it is wise, ultimately, to remain silent.

That's not to say that we shouldn't debate though, and I agree with Johnny S that some anti-PSA people are so intemperate in their views that rational debate becomes difficult. Illiberal liberals and all that ...

But it's all beyond me ...
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
I wonder if some evangelicals are so 'hot' on getting people saved and forgiven, that the cross is the BIG issue ands the resurrection is, well, that after-thought you spoke of. They are wrong of course!

I get annoyed when I hear people quoting verses like 'The wages of sin is death.' But then they don't say, 'but the free gift of God is eternal,life through Christ our Lord.'

why do people shout the bad stuff but never celebrate the good stuff!
'The end is nigh' - but about celebrating the wonderful and beautiful coming Kingdom?

It's true then, there are people who take the message and only highlight one part - which is, of course, how cults begin.

I also hate it when the holy Spirit is referred to as an 'it'
... and a 'she'.


 

---

Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In which case you have to make sure you define wrath properly.

snip

I believe that outside academia, people do want a God who is angry at injustice, sin, filth and despair. They also want a God who has done something about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
... most evangelicals would say that substitution (penal or otherwise) is the central one around which all the others are equally valuable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What I have SEEN and HEARD, and I made it clear I was going on anecdotal evidence, is quite definitely an overplaying of the Cross and a downplaying of the Resurrection in SOME (but by no means all) evangelical prayers, in sermons and in conversation.

---

This is my anecdotal experience, too, and I think it is inextricably bound up with the PSA understanding of the atonement. Jesus died for our sins, so it goes, but then what of the resurrection? A final 'ta-da' indeed...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well yes, that was certainly John Stott's position, Leprechaun but it's a long time since I read the book.

Is it mine? Well I honestly don't know. I honestly don't know what my position is on this issue than I know what it is on how the Eucharist 'works' or how grace, faith and works all hang together or how Christ can be God and man at the same time ... or any other mystery you might care to mention.

That's not a cop-out, just a statement of where I'm 'at'.

At one time I'd have pronounced John Stott's book as the last word on the matter. Now I'm not so sure ... much as I admire him and admire the book.

Want to make something of it?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Oh ... many evangelicals being in a hurry to see people 'saved and forgiven.' Tell me about it, Mudfrog ...

Hence the altar calls, frog-marching people 'down the front', the mood music and the peer pressure ... it's no wonder that people like AberVicar have to pick up the pieces afterwards ...

Your otherwise estimable organisation with its mercy-seats and what-have-you and its very militant approach (in the early days) went in for that big time ... as do contemporary Pentecostal evangelistic crusades and the like. 'Yes, I see that hand!'

Don't get me started. You can get a parrot to repeat the sinner's prayer. People will do anything under the right pressure and the right cues.

That isn't to say that people don't come to faith through these means - of course they do - but any 'crisis' type model is going to involve a lot of fall-out it seems to me ... and huge reserves of pastoral wisdom to deal with the consequences.

Of course, other models, such as the slow, gradual marination approach favoured by the Orthodox (and the RCs?) - salvation by Liturgy anyone? have attendant difficulties too ... nominalism, cultural Christianity etc.

But any tradition that's in so desperate a hurry that it elides or overlooks some pretty crucial aspects is bound to cause problems for itself ...
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I believe that outside academia, people do want a God who is angry at injustice, sin, filth and despair. They also want a God who has done something about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Oh ... many evangelicals being in a hurry to see people 'saved and forgiven.' Tell me about it, Mudfrog ...

Hence the altar calls, frog-marching people 'down the front', the mood music and the peer pressure ... it's no wonder that people like AberVicar have to pick up the pieces afterwards ...

Your otherwise estimable organisation with its mercy-seats and what-have-you and its very militant approach (in the early days) went in for that big time ... as do contemporary Pentecostal evangelistic crusades and the like. 'Yes, I see that hand!'

Don't get me started. You can get a parrot to repeat the sinner's prayer. People will do anything under the right pressure and the right cues.

That isn't to say that people don't come to faith through these means - of course they do - but any 'crisis' type model is going to involve a lot of fall-out it seems to me ... and huge reserves of pastoral wisdom to deal with the consequences.

Of course, other models, such as the slow, gradual marination approach favoured by the Orthodox (and the RCs?) - salvation by Liturgy anyone? have attendant difficulties too ... nominalism, cultural Christianity etc.

But any tradition that's in so desperate a hurry that it elides or overlooks some pretty crucial aspects is bound to cause problems for itself ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The sort of god (small g intended) portrayed in PSA is a monster who behaves in a worse, stricter manner than even the strictest of Edwadrian fathers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Do you really believe that I would subscribe to belief in a cruel and capricious god?

---

quote:

---

I would suggest that to be fair and even-handed in this debate, you really need to look at what theologians such as Stott and Morris and others are actualy saying.

---

quote:

---

You will see that I worship a God of abundant love,

---

quote:

---

a God of tremendous compassion

---

quote:

---

and indescribeable grace,

---

quote:

---

forgiveness,

---

quote:

---

mercy

---

quote:

---

and gentleness.

---

quote:

---

But in that love there is holiness that rejects sin outright, is burdened by its pain, is angry at its promotion and its effects.

---

quote:

---

It truly is amazing love and amazing grace that has taught us to fear and then removed that same fear.

---

quote:

---

There is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because our sins were laid on Him.

---

quote:

---

I truly cannot see why this work of atonement, so precious to millions is rejected - I can only think that it's because of a caricatured god who doesn't actually exist.

---

quote:

---

This is not what you intend to preach. It is not what you are worshipping. But it is a necessary consequence of what you are preaching.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
But that Jesus died in our place for our sins is a central and indispensable element of the Cross.

---

quote:

---

If Jesus hadn't taken our sins on himself and given us his righteousness, then we would still be guilty and unable to benefit from all the other blessings he won on the Cross. Jesus' victory over evil is only good news to us as sinners if there's a way for us to stop being evil.

---

quote:

---

I think the debate really boils down to whether it's true both that (a) we're objectively guilty and sinful; and (b) if God has to punish sin somehow in order to forgive us. PSA depends on those two beliefs. If you've got a different view of the human condition, and/or a different view of justice and forgiveness, then your theology of the atonement will also be different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Nope. It clearly isn't, since it was a latecomer to the discussion about the atonement.

---

Can you point me to the ecumenical council where that was agreed?

Hey, can you point me to any council where that was agreed?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I suspect MT is thinking of Anselm's 'Cur Deus Homo', Johnny S, which was written in the 11th century and so later than the Ecumenical Councils (if we're only going to include the Seven Councils that the Orthodox accept, of course).

If we are saying that the sort of ideas that Anselm promulgated there (which later developed to the PSA understanding as it now stands) are earlier then the onus is on us to prove that. There may well have been earlier echoes or foretastes among some of the Fathers, but by and large, as I understand it, they were primarily concerned with Christology and Trinitarian debates rather than establishing a particular view of the atonement.

The 'classic' or 'ransom theory' seems to have been the dominant model in the early centuries and this has problems too - and can be pretty grotesque as well, God setting Christ as 'bait' to hook and hoodwink the Devil etc.

Mudfrog - like your RC friend, I wouldn't want to deny the Salvation Army its mercy seat ... but you are beginning to sound pretty sacramental about it ...

In the same way that Baptists can get all dewy-eyed about the 'church meeting' and their congregational form of church government (other than when it's proving to be a pain in the neck and causing them problems that is ).

I'd sure the Mercy Seat can act as a means of grace if approached with faith and in the right attitude - just as the sacraments can be in the more sacramental settings. 'Holy things for those who are holy.' Or who are pursuing holiness.

But you know what I'm getting at.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well Moo ... that's an interesting insight and one you could have got simply by reading the scriptures or mugging up on mainstream Christian theology. It's called the Incarnation.

If you want a Bible verse that supports what you're saying:

'But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.'

Hebrews 2:9 (NIV translation)

There's an old Patristic saying, 'that which he did not assume cannot be healed.' Christ took up our humanity, shared our life and suffered death - he 'assumed' all these things and through him we can be 'assumed' too into his resurrection life.

Mousethief - I do wonder, though, how the Orthodox handle this verse?:

'Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!'
Romans 5:9 (NIV)

Or as the old King James Version puts it: 'Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.'

I know the Orthodox don't like the idea of a wrathful God, but it's not as if the concept has no NT warrant.

Explanation?
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Nope. It clearly isn't, since it was a latecomer to the discussion about the atonement.

---

Can you point me to the ecumenical council where that was agreed?

Hey, can you point me to any council where that was agreed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Mousethief - I do wonder, though, how the Orthodox handle this verse?:

'Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him!' Romans 5:9 (NIV)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
But that Jesus died in our place for our sins is a central and indispensable element of the Cross.

---

Nope. It clearly isn't, since it was a latecomer to the discussion about the atonement.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Gamaliel:
Cue all the old revivalist songs - 'Are you washed in the blood?/In the soul-cleansing blood of the Lamb?/Are you sins forgiven, are they white as snow?/Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
But that Jesus died in our place for our sins is a central and indispensable element of the Cross.

---

Nope. It clearly isn't, since it was a latecomer to the discussion about the atonement.

---

Yeah, Paul and Isaiah were really late getting into the discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The sort of god (small g intended) portrayed in PSA is a monster who behaves in a worse, stricter manner than even the strictest of Edwadrian fathers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Paul and Isaiah do contribute to the I've been tempted to start a new thread on the 'blood' aspect ... I can remember lots of PSA/anti-PSA threads but don't recall one specifically about the 'blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin' and so on.

---

quote:

---

John 6:56 He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.

---

quote:

---

John 15:10 If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love, just as I have kept My Father’s commandments and abide in His love.

---

quote:

---

1 John 2:24 Therefore let that abide in you which you heard from the beginning. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, you also will abide in the Son and in the Father.

2 John 1:9 Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
But that Jesus died in our place for our sins is a central and indispensable element of the Cross.

---

Nope. It clearly isn't, since it was a latecomer to the discussion about the atonement.

---

Yeah, Paul and Isaiah were really late getting into the discussion.

---

Paul's 'sin offering' is not substitutionary - that is not how the OT sacrificialsystem worked.

Isaiah's Servant has been mistranslated so as to apply to PSA - a better translation (from my blog which quotes on this): 'But he was wounded from (NOTE: not “for”) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not “for”) our iniquities." Whereas the Gentile nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant's sufferings stemmed from their OWN actions and sinfulness against the nation. This theme is further developed throughout the Jewish Scriptures - see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25.' this

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
With respect to PSA, it is inconclusive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Indeed - but which Hebrew translations did you consult?

And how many of them were Jewish, as opposed to Christian?

---

Leo, don't link to a clearly biased source then accuse others of being biased.
 

---

Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on :
 

quote:

---

Indeed - but which Hebrew translations did you consult?

And how many of them were Jewish, as opposed to Christian?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
With respect to PSA, it is inconclusive.

---

As is every other scripture trotted out to support it. If you believe it, you can find scriptures to support it by the practice of eisegesis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
With respect to PSA, it is inconclusive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As is every other scripture trotted out to support it. If you believe it, you can find scriptures to support it by the practice of eisegesis

---

Eisegesis is fine if we've got a tradition to suppoprt it surely?
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
While I believe in PSA because most of the NT’s comments on the soteriological significance of the Passion only make sense in the light of it, there are undoubtedly problems with it, many of which have been discussed here and on previous threads.

There is the existence of alternative interpretations, all with at least some scriptural warrant, such as Irenaeus’s recapitulationism, Athanasius’s theosis model, and the two Cappadocian Gregs’ (slightly differing ) ransom theories.

There is the logical/moral problem of whether it is meaningful in any sense to speaking of someone taking on another person’s guilt and punishment.

There is the lack of any full-blown credal or other formulation of it (probably Augustine and Anselm came closest) prior to the Reformation.

(There is also the problem, for anyone with prostate difficulties, that PSA also stands for Prostate Specific Antigen, which is seared into the memory by the accompanying gross indignities practised upon the sufferer by doctors who are continually talking about it and measuring it).

The biggest problem for an evangelical, however, which I don’t think has arisen so far on this thread, is that PSA and justification by faith are barely, if ever, mentioned in the Synoptics.

This is a problem for non-evangelicals as well, of course, because the soteriology of the Christ of the Synoptics is pretty savage and demanding (eg sheep and goats in Matt. 25).

The prospect of having to accomplish our own salvation by “works” is alarming enough to drive anyone, if not to PSA, then at least to some sort of strongly grace and atonement based soteriology.

As the late Jesuit and Roman Catholic priest Richard John Neuhaus wrote: “When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ”.

Then, after explicitly repudiating any dependence on Mary, the saints, works, or church, he concludes: “…in seeking entry to that heavenly kingdom, I will plead Christ and Christ alone. 'Just as I am, without one plea/But that thy blood was shed for me/And that Thou bidd’st me come to Thee,/O Lamb of God, I come, I come.'”

It is a hymn which I grew to loathe when young, but coming from a Romish cleric it is quite moving.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Good points Kaplan. Thank God for fresh blood on this topic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

The biggest problem for an evangelical, however, which I don’t think has arisen so far on this thread, is that PSA and justification by faith are barely, if ever, mentioned in the Synoptics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

This is a problem for non-evangelicals as well, of course, because the soteriology of the Christ of the Synoptics is pretty savage and demanding (eg sheep and goats in Matt. 25).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

A grand unified theory of the atonement has to take all of the above in consideration. I see Christ's death on the cross as establishing a new covenant. Humanity's sin caused God's wrath. However, wrath means more of an estrangement that unbridled anger. Under the old covenant, sin leads to death. Jesus accepted the consequences of humanity's sin and died. At the same time, Jesus death served as a sacrifice to God that established a new covenant. From the new covenant, the world receives grace. Grace that allows us to become more and more like Jesus. Grace that allows us to receive forgiveness of our sins.

---

So the grace of God was not present before Jesus' death?

You mean, he didn't really save the Israelites from slavery in Egypt through grace?

You mean, he didn't really keep loving and aiding the Israelites when they kept screwing up?

You mean, because we now have grace and they didn't, we don't sin but the Jews still do?



 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't believe ecumenical councils make pronouncements on the dating of heresies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't believe ecumenical councils make pronouncements on the dating of heresies.

---

Right.

So you can't actually point to any council that declares PSA a heresy but you are convinced it is.

Any time you want to stop digging is fine by me.

---

Erm.

The point surely is that the councils couldn't pronounce on the heresy of PSA if the heresy of PSA hadn't been thought up by the time the council sat.

Unless the ecumenical councils had a Pre-crime division staffed by Philip K Dick and a bunch of pre-cogs...
 

---

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
It is tempting to go over well dug ground here, but there is an issue with PSA that I've pointed out in previous threads which I think is worth repeating and PSA proponents need to come to terms with, work through.

Calvin's Institutes, Book 3, Chapter 14.

In particular, this passage (scroll down to the long para 11)

quote:

---

Moreover, the message of free reconciliation with God is not promulgated for one or two days, but is declared to be perpetual in the Church (2 Cor. 5:18, 19). Hence believers have not even to the end of life any other righteousness than that which is there described. Christ ever remains a Mediator to reconcile the Father to us, and there is a perpetual efficacy in his death—viz. ablution, satisfaction, expiation; (boldening by B62)

---

quote:

---

18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. (boldening by B62)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. (boldening by B62)

---

Calvin simply got the direction of reconciliation wrong. In so far as PSA (popular or considered version) sees God as needing to be reconciled to people made in His image, it is in error.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm sorry I don't understand. It says God was reconciling the world to himself. Which means God and the world did need reconciling? Yes indeed, it says God did the reconciling himself, but not that God did not need reconciling to the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm sorry I don't understand. It says God was reconciling the world to himself. Which means God and the world did need reconciling? Yes indeed, it says God did the reconciling himself, but not that God did not need reconciling to the world.

---

The point is that it is about making people better, and so changing the condition of people on earth. It's not about changing God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

There's an old Patristic saying, 'that which he did not assume cannot be healed.' Christ took up our humanity, shared our life and suffered death - he 'assumed' all these things and through him we can be 'assumed' too into his resurrection life.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Kaplan Cordray:
The biggest problem for an evangelical, however, which I don’t think has arisen so far on this thread, is that PSA and justification by faith are barely, if ever, mentioned in the Synoptics.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Evensong:
So the grace of God was not present before Jesus' death?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

There's an old Patristic saying, 'that which he did not assume cannot be healed.' Christ took up our humanity, shared our life and suffered death - he 'assumed' all these things and through him we can be 'assumed' too into his resurrection life.

---

Well, what about 'assuming' our sin then? Which is one of the main points of PSA as far as I can see?

The taking on of our sin is the culmination of the Incarnation.

It also addresses DocTor's point about injustice. It is not unjust because Jesus really has taken on our sin. If we are united with him, it is not unjust.

Partial analogy. The closer you are to someone, the less unreasonable it is for you to take on responsibility for their actions. It is totally unjust to punish a random stranger for someone's actions. But it is less unjust for a parent to "take responsibility" for their child's behaviour. If we are to be one with Christ he too can "take responsibility" for our sins without it being unjust.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Evensong:
So the grace of God was not present before Jesus' death?

---

Grace was not present before the death of Jesus like it was after the death of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Evensong:
So the grace of God was not present before Jesus' death?

---

Grace was not present before the death of Jesus like it was after the death of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that it is about making people better, and so changing the condition of people on earth. It's not about changing God.

---

Which it doesn't explicitly say.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But even if that is what this passage means, and Calvin got it wrong, people being changed by the atonement is not at all ruled out by having PSA in the mix.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Evensong:
So the grace of God was not present before Jesus' death?

---

Grace was not present before the death of Jesus like it was after the death of Jesus.

---

How do you think it is different?

Please don't give me new covenant Jeremiah (written on their hearts). Surely there is no evidence in real life (fruits of the spirit) for that. Or is there? Are we better than the Jews?

---

quote:

---

Yes it is because PSA denies that ceasing to do evil and learning to do well in obedience to God is what salvation is all about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Holy Spirit is now among us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

Are we better than the Jews? No

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The Holy Spirit is now among us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

Are we better than the Jews? No
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the Holy Spirit is now among us and it wasn't among the Jews, why aren't we better than them?

---

If we said that we were then the Holy Spirit would then have to convict us of the sins of lieing and boasting
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
What do you mean by better? They were sinners. We are sinners. So...we are all equal.
 

---

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
PSA deals with one issue and one issue alone - how God can forgive sin. Which is one half of Justification - how we can stand in good relationship with God (the other half is by crediting Christ's righteousness to us).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Erm.

The point surely is that the councils couldn't pronounce on the heresy of PSA if the heresy of PSA hadn't been thought up by the time the council sat.

---

quote:

---

Clearly people have the freedom and the power, from God, to do this.

---

Pity about Romans 7 then

Why does Paul talk about people being slaves to sin and dead in sin if it's so easy-peasey to get right with God? Or Why would Jesus say that we must be born again? Or that it's nearly impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom?
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Yes it is because PSA denies that ceasing to do evil and learning to do well in obedience to God is what salvation is all about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
The taking on of our sin is the culmination of the Incarnation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Indeed - but which Hebrew translations did you consult?

And how many of them were Jewish, as opposed to Christian?

---

Leo, don't link to a clearly biased source then accuse others of being biased.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

Clearly people have the freedom and the power, from God, to do this.

---

Pity about Romans 7 then

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Why does Paul talk about people being slaves to sin and dead in sin if it's so easy-peasey to get right with God? Or Why would Jesus say that we must be born again? Or that it's nearly impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The sort of god (small g intended) portrayed in PSA is a monster who behaves in a worse, stricter manner than even the strictest of Edwadrian fathers.

---

That's a bit generous to PSA.

---

 

---

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
The thing I find frustrating on these threads is that PSA is changed every time somebody challenges it. PSA is not satisfaction theory. It is not Christus victor. It is not ransom theory. It is not exemplarism. It is PSA. If you don't believe Christ suffered and died to satisfy the legal demands of God's justice which means he can't forgive unless somebody is punished, please admit you don't believe PSA.

Can I ask the estimable resident Ship's defence team if they would consider atonement to have been achieved in the following alternative scenarios to what actually happened?

1. Christ was tortured and murdered in private by a gang of kidnappers/fundamentalists and nobody ever heard of it
2. Christ was crucified as it actually happened but never rose from the dead, just went directly back to Heaven sans Resurrection
3. Christ was taken by the Romans and crucified before he began his public ministry
4. Somebody other than the Son of God was crucified for our sins?
 

---

Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:


Can I ask the estimable resident Ship's defence team if they would consider atonement to have been achieved in the following alternative scenarios to what actually happened?

1. Christ was tortured and murdered in private by a gang of kidnappers/fundamentalists and nobody ever heard of it
2. Christ was crucified as it actually happened but never rose from the dead, just went directly back to Heaven sans Resurrection
3. Christ was taken by the Romans and crucified before he began his public ministry
4. Somebody other than the Son of God was crucified for our sins?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
PSA turns the Son against the Father - no, evangelicals believe in the Trinity as much (if not more) than other Xtians. (God was in Christ reconciling)

---

quote:

---

Again it's important to highlight that Evangelical theologians do accept and affirm the insights that the other models of the atonement offer and acknowledge the limits of any model.

---

quote:

---

What does all that sacrificial language in both testaments mean if the Evo's are wrong? (and why do some Sacramental Xtians borrow it to talk about the Lords Supper if they don't apply it to the cross?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
PSA deals with one issue and one issue alone - how God can forgive sin. Which is one half of Justification - how we can stand in good relationship with God (the other half is by crediting Christ's righteousness to us).

---

It deals poorly with this issue. The Bible's answer is that God forgives sin when people repent and stop sinning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]The question isn't what evangelicals believe about the Trinity. The question is what PSA implies about the Trinity. Most evangelicals would be outraged and indignant if a judge intentionally killed an innocent man and called it justice in any other circumstances.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What do you mean by better? They were sinners. We are sinners. So...we are all equal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
PSA deals with one issue and one issue alone - how God can forgive sin. Which is one half of Justification - how we can stand in good relationship with God (the other half is by crediting Christ's righteousness to us).

---

It deals poorly with this issue. The Bible's answer is that God forgives sin when people repent and stop sinning.

---

Yes but God doesn't forgive people because they repent. The Bible suggests that people repent because they have been forgiven.

---

quote:

---

Acts of the Apostles 2.38:

Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts of the Apostles 3.19:

Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out,

Acts of the Apostles 8.22:

Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:

---

18 All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. (boldening by B62)

---

Calvin simply got the direction of reconciliation wrong. In so far as PSA (popular or considered version) sees God as needing to be reconciled to people made in His image, it is in error.

---

I'm sorry I don't understand. It says God was reconciling the world to himself. Which means God and the world did need reconciling? Yes indeed, it says God did the reconciling himself, but not that God did not need reconciling to the world.

---

quote:

---

21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

---

quote:

---

Chrysostom shows by his comments his acceptance not only of the vicarious atonement, but also of the gratuitous justification, as set forth concisely yet distinctly in this pregnant utterance.

---

quote:

---

Seest thou love surpassing all expression, all conception? Who was the aggrieved one? Himself. Who first sought the reconciliation? Himself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But God's provision of such forgiveness lies not only ion love but in his own satisfaction of the law of justice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Again, it's not just. If God loves justice, he doesn't punish the innocent. Even once.

This might be a problem with language, but I think it's a problem with the model.

If God demands perfect justice, then punishing the innocent, including Himself in the body of His Son, is wrong. It's simply not justice - it makes a mockery of justice.

---

quote:

---

Originally quoted by Mudfrog:
I repeat however, that PSA does something that orther theories do not - it removes our sins and propitiates God's wrath.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
We enjoy Easter Sunday as much as anyone - even the Orthodox!

---

quote:

---

I believe that outside academia, people do want a God who is angry at injustice, sin, filth and despair.

---

quote:

---

Are there any groups that say ONLY PSA is a valid atonement theory? ... Having said that, most evangelicals would say that substitution (penal or otherwise) is the central one around which all the others are equally valuable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I recently attended an Orthodox service where they venerated the Cross at the end. I can't remember the words of the hymnody used to accompany this - Mousethief can enlighten us

---

quote:

---

Leprechaun said:
John Stott says that if you ditch PSA (or has he handily renames it, "self substitution for self satisfaction)you CANNOT have any of the other atonement models - they only "work" if PSA is central.

---

quote:

---

Doc Tor said:
I'm just not sure that PSA deals with it - if anything, it colludes with it

---

quote:

---

per Gamaliel:
MT can enlighten us, but from what I can gather it's more a case of 'on behalf of' rather than 'instead of'.

---

quote:

---

per South Coast Kevin:
There's an argument that all the atonement models are substitutionary; Jesus dying for us, in our place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The point surely is that the councils couldn't pronounce on the heresy of PSA if the heresy of PSA hadn't been thought up by the time the council sat.

---

quote:

---

Barnabus62 said:
We need to heave an amazing amount of both scripture and tradition into the lumber yard to remove the element of vicarious sacrifice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

originally posted by Kaplan Cordray:
The biggest problem for an evangelical, however, which I don’t think has arisen so far on this thread, is that PSA and justification by faith are barely, if ever, mentioned in the Synoptics.

---

Actually, that is only a problem for a particular subset of liberal Protestant. Not so much a problem for the rest of us. This is one reason issues like PSA get discussed over and over again. We don't all agree on what counts as good evidence.

---

quote:

---

Mudfrog said:
2. The sacrificial system in the OT was effectual/effective (i.e. it did what it said on the tin) because of the eternal sacrifice in the heart of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
The taking on of our sin is the culmination of the Incarnation.

---

Surely its culmination is the taking of our human nature into the Godhead at the Ascension.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Christians aren't in a contest with Jews or the adherents of any religion over who is better. We are measured against God and anything less than perfection is not good enough. Through the work of the Holy Spirit, orthodox Christians believe we are being made more and more like Christ.

I can't speak for Jews. I'm not sure if or how the Holy Spirit works in Judaism or any other religion. I'm sure it would be insulting to say they are being made more and more like Jesus. So, I won't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:
Yes but God doesn't forgive people because they repent. The Bible suggests that people repent because they have been forgiven. You are conflating causation with timing.

---

quote:

---

Ezekiel 18:21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Bingo. I would have thought this was so obvious as to not need saying. Clearly I was wrong. Johnny was reacting to a post of mine in which I said PSA was suspect because it's young. His response was, what ecumenical council said so? Which is inane.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Bingo. I would have thought this was so obvious as to not need saying. Clearly I was wrong. Johnny was reacting to a post of mine in which I said PSA was suspect because it's young. His response was, what ecumenical council said so? Which is inane.

---

It's really quite simple MT.

You called PSA a heresy.

I asked you for evidence that PSA has in anyway been declared a heresy by the church.

You have provided none.

But you still keep digging.

The only way you can possibly call PSA a heresy is in a 'well, this is my personal opinion and I'm an individual Protestant Pope' way that you love to accuse Protestants of doing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
The taking on of our sin is the culmination of the Incarnation.

---

Surely its culmination is the taking of our human nature into the Godhead at the Ascension.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Not only to identify with humanity but with sinful humanity?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:


So the direction of reconciliation is vital to a proper understanding of who is being reconciled (human beings) and who is the initiator of reconciliation (God). The vicarious atonement in 2 Cor 5:21 is an expiation, not a propitiation. Yes it's SA here. No, it's not PSA here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Leprechaun said:
John Stott says that if you ditch PSA (or has he handily renames it, "self substitution for self satisfaction)you CANNOT have any of the other atonement models - they only "work" if PSA is central.

---

Unless nobody anywhere agrees with John Stott on this, there's your answer, Mudfrog. If he doesn't say ONLY psa, he at least says NOT WITHOUT psa. I don't see a difference that makes a difference there.

---

quote:

---

But that's not all PSA gives us, is it? It also gives us a God who is angry at people, whose wrath is against particular humans -- so wrathful, indeed, that he will send them to Hell. I want God to hate sin. Sure. But I don't have a lot of time for a God who hates people. That's not the God of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

And that thou mayest learn what a thing it is, consider this which I say. If one that was himself a king, beholding a robber and malefactor under punishment, gave his well-beloved son, his only-begotten and true, to be slain; and transferred the death and the guilt as well, from him to his son, (who was himself of no such character,) that he might both save the condemned man and clear him from his evil reputation ..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I did read once in a book by Frederica Matthews-Green, a Protestant convert to Orthodoxy, how when she and her husband explained PSA to an Orthodox bishop (who hadn't heard the more evangelical Protestant approach explained before) he was non-plussed. 'Do they really believe that?'

He didn't condemn it as a heresy, unlike MT here, but thought for a moment and said, 'Well, I can see that there is an element of that there and how they might get an idea of that kind ... however ...'

Cuddly old Gamaliel is going for the middle ground again. Could it not be that there is certainly an element of NT support for such a view - and even some hints in Tradition (such as Chrysostom) but it is insufficient to bear the weight of the edifice that has subsequently been built upon it. Could it not be, contra Stott, that PSA is one of the spokes rather than the hub itself?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Let me enlighten you as to the difference. It means people can't use the argument "PSA doesn't deal with the cross's effect on us" against it.

---

quote:

---

My contribution to this debate is that the atonement has to actually do sosmething. It needs to effect a change, gain a result for me

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
[QB] he was in favour of striking the "P" from "PSA". From memory he observed that substitution was biblical and also referenced as a proper understanding by some of the Fathers. [I remember (it's buried somewhere in Christus Victor) /QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:
Jesus, on behalf of humanity, concedes that the harshest punishment is merited but informs the judge that he loves humanity so much that he would willingly bear such a punishment on it's behalf, unless there is any other way, and that in any event such Grace may persuade humanity to repent. The judge reasons that the demands of justice would be met in either scenario but prefers the submissions made by Jesus on the basis that he shares his love of humanity and agrees that repentance may be the outcome.

It seems to me that such a scenario is so far removed from any other circumstances that any comparisons are made redundant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Either call me to hell or get off my leg, Johnny.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I wouldn't see the Council of Trent as a council that has any bearing on a huge swathe of Christendom. It's the deliberations of the RC Church alone and has no relevence to Orthodox, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, Reformed, Salvationist, Pentecostal churches, etc, etc, etc.

Just because Trent disagreed with the doctrine of justification by faith, doesn't actually make it a heresy!

Just because a doctrine has been formally outlined within the last 500 years doesn't mean it's not Scriptural. Don't forget Christus Victor was only made popular in the 1930s(?) That doesn't mean it's not Scripturally based.

PSA is entirely scriptural, as are all the other theories.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What do you mean by better? They were sinners. We are sinners. So...we are all equal.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Either call me to hell or get off my leg, Johnny.

---

There is a third option of you explaining on what grounds you think PSA is heresy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
What do you mean by better? They were sinners. We are sinners. So...we are all equal.

---

So St Francis of Assisi was equal to Adolf Hitler. Check.

---

quote:

---

Sacramental Christians do apply the word sacrifice to the cross because they think that the cross was a sacrifice. Many of them don't think that the cross was penal substitution, because penal substitution is not sacrifice.

Evangelical Christians apply the word 'sacrifice' to the cross because sacrifice is one of those other models. Sacrifice is no part of the understanding of PSA and penal substitution is no part of the Biblical understanding of sacrifice.

(Animals killed as part of a sacrifice are not being punished. A fortiori, they are not being punished instead of anyone else.)

---

quote:

---

If punishment is merited, then it is precisely punishment of the guilty that is merited. Making an innocent person suffer the penalty assigned cannot change that.

---

quote:

---

Anselm's satisfaction view is slightly different. Jesus isn't punished as a substitute for humanity. Jesus is a human being, and so on that view of justice he is a perfectly proper object of retaliation. That's because Anselm has a feudal view of justice in which a family is collectively responsible for offering satisfaction to the offended party should one of its members offend. On this feudal view of justice, if my nephew kills a neighbour's child then the whole family is accountable to the neighbour for this. But we don't believe justice works like that any more: we don't think families are collective entities.

---

quote:

---

(a) selected passages of scripture can be adduced to support the theory of PSA, or

(b) PSA represents the entire consistent witness of scripture on the subject of atonement, in both spirit and letter?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Hitler .. St Francis - Is there a strawman smilie??? - Stroll on is that the best you can do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Ever paid for anything for someone else? was that unjust or simply kind?

---

quote:

---

The real problem is the fact that guilt cannot be transferred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Hitler .. St Francis - Is there a strawman smilie??? - Stroll on is that the best you can do?

---

quote:

---

Matthew 13.49:

So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous

Luke 15.7:

Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who need no repentance.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Justinian:
If we are all equal because we are all sinners then that isn't a strawman. It's an exact representation of the claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
At a guess that it is fundamentally incompatable with the nature of God as understood by the Orthodoxen. I doubt that anyone has bothered to formally declare that the claim that Jesus and Pontius Pilate were the same person to be a heresy because it's so far outside the normal understandings that it doesn't require that. But if someone were to claim that then it would be a heresy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
St. Francis received the grace of God. Hitler did not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
The real problem is the fact that guilt cannot be transferred.

No amount of Christ "paying the penalty" can alter the fact that the guilt lies with the sinner even when the penalty is paid..

Guilt can only be forgiven. Which God alone does. And He did it countless times long before Christ died.

---

• Rehabilitation - so the people will learn to be productive members of society
• Incapacitation / societal protection - keep them locked up so they can't do it again.
• Deterrence / prevention - a warning to others
• Restoration - paying back the damages
• Retribution - classical punishment
• Education - the Germans separate teaching people what societal norms are from rehabilitation. I don't see how/why.
• Denunciation / condemnation - expressing that something is wrong

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
St. Francis received the grace of God. Hitler did not.

---

So those that receive the grace of God (or the HS) are better than those that haven't.

You said Christians receive more grace (or have the potential to?) so taking this to its logical conclusion, surely Christians are better.

You really are being coy here BA and I'm not sure why.

Why all this political correctness all of a sudden?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
If I get a parking ticket anyone who wants to can pay it in my place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
The measure of goodness is God.

---

quote:

---

None of us are as good as God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Of course, theological what ifs are an unusually bad way to make doctrine. Were these trick questions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:
I sometimes wonder if this is a kind of party-political thing. You can't come out and criticise the tract version because that would be taken to be a denial of your Evangelicalism, even though the tract version isn't what you believe. Is there any truth in that?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:
Yes but God doesn't forgive people because they repent. The Bible suggests that people repent because they have been forgiven. You are conflating causation with timing.

---

God forgives everyone always. He never changes. He loves everyone.

But people don't receive that forgiveness and love if they don't repent.

So in practical terms people receive God's forgiveness only after they repent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
PSA deals with one issue and one issue alone - how God can forgive sin. Which is one half of Justification - how we can stand in good relationship with God (the other half is by crediting Christ's righteousness to us).

---

It deals poorly with this issue. The Bible's answer is that God forgives sin when people repent and stop sinning.

---

Yes but God doesn't forgive people because they repent. The Bible suggests that people repent because they have been forgiven.

---

Got some biblical quotes for that? That's not a majority position in the bible IMO.

I think these are the standard:

quote:

---

Acts of the Apostles 2.38:

Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts of the Apostles 3.19:

Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out,

Acts of the Apostles 8.22:

Repent therefore of this wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your heart may be forgiven you.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't shake it off, for instance, and were I ever to do so I'm sure I'd suffer intense guilt and painful soul-searching. I'm not exaggerating, but to many evangelicals it'd almost feel like abandoning a cardinal doctrine such as the Trinity or the deity of Christ. It is THAT central to evangelical thinking.

---

Come over to the dark side. We have cookies.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Makepiece said:
The verses say repent AND be forgiven. They do not say repent so that you may be forgiven.

---

quote:

---

Acts of the Apostles 3.19:

Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out,

---

quote:

---

Tangwist didnt get my point.

He still argues

"If I get a parking ticket anyone who wants to can pay it in my place."

True. But as far as the police are concerned the driver is still guilty. Nor can the driver convince himself otherwise.

Christ paying the penalty for our sins doesnt make any difference to the guilt.

I repeat the self-evident fact. Guilt cannot be transferred, it can only be forgiven.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Repeating that something is a self-evident fact doesn't make it one. Scripture and Tradition point very strongly to what happened at the cross involving a transference or a price being paid. Standing with your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you la la la" won't change that.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Twangist:
Hitler .. St Francis - Is there a strawman smilie??? - Stroll on is that the best you can do?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's not a strawman.

It's popular in Pauline terms to call us all sinners (we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of god)

But it's popular in other texts to distinguish the righteous from the sinners. Which rather indicates there is a distinction.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew 13.49:

So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous

Luke 15.7:

Just so, I tell you, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who need no repentance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

quote:

---

I would also dispute your assertion that PSA is the only model of atonement possible from the consideration of the witness of scripture

---

quote:

---

But still it all depends on this "satisfaction" thing which is part of the Roman legal system but not perforce part of Jewish thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

I would also dispute your assertion that PSA is the only model of atonement possible from the consideration of the witness of scripture

---

Which post did I make that assertion on???
I've consistently said, in line with the Evangelical consensus, that other models are available and helpful.

---

quote:

---

There are only a handful of classic reasons for punishment. And one person being able to pay for another undermines the moral standing of most of them. The reasons are:


Rehabilitation - so the people will learn to be productive members of society
Incapacitation / societal protection - keep them locked up so they can't do it again.
Deterrence / prevention - a warning to others
Restoration - paying back the damages
Retribution - classical punishment
Education - the Germans separate teaching people what societal norms are from rehabilitation. I don't see how/why.
Denunciation / condemnation - expressing that something is wrong

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
One meter looks much bigger than a millimeter but both look tiny compared to a light year.
All humans (bar a certian God-Man) are sinners in need of redemption. SO it is a strawman.

---

quote:

---

Just curious because I have not yet found a satisfactory answer to that question.

It seems pretty obvious to me that in the Old Testament there is both Grace and the Holy Spirit present in the lives of people before Christ.

We can argue that may be true but that in the "new" covenant there is more Grace as you imply but going about verifying that is impossible and also a little weird.

Why would God add more Grace to the equation after a certain point in time and not before?

The only reason I can come up with is perhaps because we needed more help at that point in time.

And that came in the form of Christ.

*shrug*

---

quote:

---

But the claim wasn't that they both look small compared to a light year, or that they weren't both sinners in need of redemption. The claim was that they were the same. So not a strawman.

---

quote:

---

My objection to PSA is the implication that there is a law that God must obey and therefore must precede and take precedence over God: in which case God isnot God, but this eternal law is!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

But the claim wasn't that they both look small compared to a light year, or that they weren't both sinners in need of redemption. The claim was that they were the same. So not a strawman.

---

If the ball's over the line it's over the line. (except at Old Trafford for any fellow Spurs fans).
I'll settle for a dumb, predictable category error rather than a strawman - sheesh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

My objection to PSA is the implication that there is a law that God must obey and therefore must precede and take precedence over God: in which case God isnot God, but this eternal law is!

---

And who's perfect righteouness and justice does the law express???

---

quote:

---

The question wasn't whether the ball was over the line. You're not listening. You are shifting the goalposts.

---

quote:

---

Then you've played right into the Schizophrenic God.

---

quote:

---

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;

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Oh yes indeed. PSA is such an entrenched evangelical shibboleth that to abandon - or even to modify it - is, to many evangelicals (and not just the tractists) to abandon the Gospel itself. It has a firm hold.

I can't shake it off, for instance, and were I ever to do so I'm sure I'd suffer intense guilt and painful soul-searching. I'm not exaggerating, but to many evangelicals it'd almost feel like abandoning a cardinal doctrine such as the Trinity or the deity of Christ. It is THAT central to evangelical thinking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
How would you like God to deal with sin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
How would you like God to deal with sin?

---

I realise this wasn't directed at me personally but my answer is by destroying it (in any way that can be done without destroying the sinner), by defeating it (that is, by healing the damage it does), by forgiving it (restoring our relationship with Him) but not by punishing someone who is sinless for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It depends on whether you think of sin in legal terms or other terms. In Orthodoxy we more think of it in terms of sickness. Thus God hates sin, not because he's an egoist and can't stand his will thwarted, or because he's a sheriff who can't stand to have the law broken, but because he loves us and loves the world he made, and it mars his good creation, and the people he loves.

Punishing for sin doesn't make it go away. If I break your window and you thrash me with a cane, that doesn't fix your window; it's still broken. God needs to destroy the power of sin and death. Which he did through Christ's death and resurrection.

When we sing about the cross we don't call it wrath-satisfying, but life-giving. By his stripes we are healed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:
Jesus, on behalf of humanity, concedes that the harshest punishment is merited but informs the judge that he loves humanity so much that he would willingly bear such a punishment on it's behalf, unless there is any other way, and that in any event such Grace may persuade humanity to repent. The judge reasons that the demands of justice would be met in either scenario but prefers the submissions made by Jesus on the basis that he shares his love of humanity and agrees that repentance may be the outcome.

It seems to me that such a scenario is so far removed from any other circumstances that any comparisons are made redundant.

---

If comparisons are made redundant then so are words like justice and love, since if the scenario is so far removed from any other circumstances then we simply wouldn't know how to apply the words.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Makepiece said:
The verses say repent AND be forgiven. They do not say repent so that you may be forgiven.

---

Did you read them? Here's one of them:

quote:

---

Acts of the Apostles 3.19:

Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out,

---

You're just flat-out wrong on this one. They say explicitly and directly what you say they do not. In almost the same words!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
It depends on whether you think of sin in legal terms or other terms. In Orthodoxy we more think of it in terms of sickness. Thus God hates sin, not because he's an egoist and can't stand his will thwarted, or because he's a sheriff who can't stand to have the law broken, but because he loves us and loves the world he made, and it mars his good creation, and the people he loves.

Punishing for sin doesn't make it go away. If I break your window and you thrash me with a cane, that doesn't fix your window; it's still broken. God needs to destroy the power of sin and death. Which he did through Christ's death and resurrection.

When we sing about the cross we don't call it wrath-satisfying, but life-giving. By his stripes we are healed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:
No, it simply means that there is a distinctive biblical conception of justice. The reason that we know how to apply the word in this context is that God has gradually revealed this through his relationship with his people leading to a full and complete revelation in his son. Had Jesus appeared in a vacuum you would be correct but he didn't he appeared as part of God's chosen people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

The real problem is the fact that guilt cannot be transferred.

---

If I get a parking ticket anyone who wants to can pay it in my place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
The OT Law is full of sin offerings and guilt offerings (not to mention the Day of Atonement and the scapegoat) which seem to involve a symbolic transfer of guilt. It's pretty clear that sacrifice is set up as a method to deal with sin (Hebrews in the NT takes this as read). How if there is not a transfer of guilt does this operate? Outside of a PSA typology it seems like a very bad form of bribery (apple for the teacher?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Makepiece said:
The verses say repent AND be forgiven. They do not say repent so that you may be forgiven.

---

Did you read them? Here's one of them:

quote:

---

Acts of the Apostles 3.19:

Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out,

---

You're just flat-out wrong on this one. They say explicitly and directly what you say they do not. In almost the same words!

---

??? Did you deliberately miss out the words be 'baptized in the name of Jesus Christ'? I understand baptism to be symbolic of both repentance and forgiveness. Baptism is symbolic of being made new- made new having been made clean (forgiven) and made new having repented.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Makepiece said:
The verses say repent AND be forgiven. They do not say repent so that you may be forgiven.

---

Did you read them? Here's one of them:

quote:

---

Acts of the Apostles 3.19:

Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out,

---

You're just flat-out wrong on this one. They say explicitly and directly what you say they do not. In almost the same words!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Makepiece said:
The verses say repent AND be forgiven. They do not say repent so that you may be forgiven.

---

Did you read them? Here's one of them:

quote:

---

Acts of the Apostles 3.19:

Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out,

---

You're just flat-out wrong on this one. They say explicitly and directly what you say they do not. In almost the same words!

---

??? Did you deliberately miss out the words be 'baptized in the name of Jesus Christ'? I understand baptism to be symbolic of both repentance and forgiveness. Baptism is symbolic of being made new- made new having been made clean (forgiven) and made new having repented.

---

According to Paul baptism is symbolic of death.

---

quote:

---

I don't believe guilt is even in the equation of OT sacrifices. Alot of it is ritual impurity. Which has little to do with moral guilt.

---

quote:

---

Sorry, reading back to the previous page I see you weren't saying this at all. The

---

quote:

---

Twangist, I can trot out all the same verses and references as you can but for some reason I don't feel a 'rise' or a warmth towards this as I once did ... well, I do in parts.

Why is that, d'you think? Have I come over all backslidden and everything?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:
Romans 6 begins as a rebuttal of the people who criticise the life of grace- 'What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning, so that grace may increase?'. When Paul describes baptism as dying with Christ then he means that when we received grace (forgiveness!) through his crucifixion we left our old lives behind and turned to new lives. It is not the case then that repentance is a condition for receiving forgiveness. It means that accepting forgiveness is repentance.

---

quote:

---

The reason's that's not considered an abuse is that it's to be supposed that the person who paid your parking ticket in your place might well have given you that same money for some other purpose. It was available to you before and now it no longer is.

Also, monetary fines are reserved for less serious misdeeds. Somebody can pay a fine for you in your place, but nobody can legally go to prison for you in your place. More serious crimes require the actual culprit to take the punishment.

---

It is an analogy. All analogies of things that God has revealed about himself don't tend to fit that well especially at the edges (Ice, Water, Steam anyone? )- just happens to be one that the Bible uses...

quote:

---

If a gang boss persuades one of his lieutenants to pretend to be him and serve his time in prison, the law doesn't take it that justice has been done when it discovers the deception. Both the gang boss and the lieutenant would be charged additionally with perverting the course of justice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:
Romans 6 begins as a rebuttal of the people who criticise the life of grace- 'What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning, so that grace may increase?'. When Paul describes baptism as dying with Christ then he means that when we received grace (forgiveness!) through his crucifixion we left our old lives behind and turned to new lives. It is not the case then that repentance is a condition for receiving forgiveness. It means that accepting forgiveness is repentance.

---

It may mean that to you, but it certainly doesn't SAY that.

---

quote:

---

It depends on whether you think of sin in legal terms or other terms. In Orthodoxy we more think of it in terms of sickness. Thus God hates sin, not because he's an egoist and can't stand his will thwarted, or because he's a sheriff who can't stand to have the law broken, but because he loves us and loves the world he made, and it mars his good creation, and the people he loves.

---

quote:

---

Punishing for sin doesn't make it go away. If I break your window and you thrash me with a cane, that doesn't fix your window; it's still broken.

---

quote:

---

God needs to destroy the power of sin and death. Which he did through Christ's death and resurrection.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

Punishing for sin doesn't make it go away. If I break your window and you thrash me with a cane, that doesn't fix your window; it's still broken.

---

God in the scripture that I quoted from Exodus, in reply to you sometime ago, you may recall, when he showed his glory to Moses declares that he is loving, compassionate, forgives sins and also punishes it. Punishment for sin is in the Scripture and (perhaps excessively graphically) in Tradition - Sorry.

---

quote:

---

suspect that if those who hold to a substitutionary (rather than penal substitutionary) atonement, a moral influence theory or a Christus Victor model were equally as evangelistic - in the more militant sense - as evos and charismatic evos, then we'd see sound-bite versions of those in circulation too.

---

That would make a great thread - bad tract writing in the style of ....


 

---

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
[QUOTE]

You said that the situation in PSA wasn't comparable to any other situation, and I said that if so, the words we use to describe it are merely nonsense syllables. If the Bible concept of justice gets its meaning from the whole of revelation, then any situation where it's used within revelation must be at least comparable to the other situations depicted within revelation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
You said punishment doesn't make sin go away (and by implication God doesn't punish sin - that would make Him schizophrenic (which you did also say) as He also forgives it).
I said God sez he does punish sin.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
You said punishment doesn't make sin go away (and by implication God doesn't punish sin - that would make Him schizophrenic (which you did also say) as He also forgives it).
I said God sez he does punish sin.

---

But that doesn't make it go away.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreyFace:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Of course, theological what ifs are an unusually bad way to make doctrine. Were these trick questions?

---

Trick questions? No, definitely not.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that... how can I put this diplomatically? To the more theologically literate defenders of PSA, the doctrine itself is poorly represented by the direct courtroom analogy you encounter in the tracts and from the guy with the loudspeaker on the street corner. When we scratch the surface of it on these threads I sometimes come away with the impression that what you're defending isn't all that close to what we're attacking.

---

quote:

---

Take an example - you seem to be saying, and +Wright seems to be saying, that what's going on on the Cross is God demonstrating his hatred of sin in the most emphatic way possible (well, other than obliterating the world I suppose). We could have a discussion about that. But in my head it has little resemblance to the tract version - our sins deserve eternal torment according to the heavenly law code, Christ suffers torment and death instead and that's penal justice satisfied (except as most of us except the tractists are agreed, it's stretched the analogy to breaking point).

---

quote:

---

I sometimes wonder if this is a kind of party-political thing. You can't come out and criticise the tract version because that would be taken to be a denial of your Evangelicalism, even though the tract version isn't what you believe. Is there any truth in that?

---

quote:

---

How about this for a starter?

'God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life ...'

Hey, where have I heard that before?

Now, let's see, how would it proceed in a classic, 'ransom theory' sound-bite way?

'And so God tricked the devil into having Jesus crucified. But because Jesus was completely innocent, he was God-made-man and completely innocent, God the Father raised him from the dead and ...'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
PSA is very much embedded in my psyche - I've been around the doctrine for all my Christian life...

All that said, I find it hard to understand how some people come away from the scriptures (and yes, we all read them through the lens of our own tradition) without any sense that there is a substitutionary aspect

---

What you and a few others said here and elsewhere on the thread really resonated with my experience. For a long time after I had become dissatisfied with penal substitionary theory and was beginning to doubt it was biblical, I could still not break the habit of reading it into every passage. Whenever I read my Bible and saw a word like "cross" or "sin" I would think immediately of penal substitution and have to quite consciously challenge myself to disassociate the two.

It seems to me that us humans, when we are really really familiar with a particular doctrine, we really do seem to be inclined to interpret almost anything as a reference to that. I can easily believe that a zealous evangelical when reading their Bible might well see a reference to penal substitution as much once per chapter on average, while an Eastern Orthodox believer who hasn't been exposed to the doctrine of penal substitution might simply never think of it even once when they read their Bible cover to cover. Our psyche and familiarity with doctrines seems to have a truly massive impact on how often those ideas trigger as we read the Bible. We read with the glasses of our mind, and our minds can be tinted.

I think the biggest thing that helps with this is knowledge of alternative views. Then when we hit a trigger-term, instead of our minds leaping straight to the only idea we're familiar with which fits that trigger-term, instead we get a diversity of possibilities brought to mind.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Interesting point, Starlight. We can each look at the same passages and come away with completely different views.

That said, I still think there are some verses about 'wrath' and so on that I find it difficult, if not well nigh impossible, to see in anything other than the standard evangelical way. I've not got time now, but I'll dig them out ...

Meanwhile, I liked your stab at a moral influence sound-bite tract.

Is it just me, but the sound-bite alternative theories we've had so far don't sound anywhere near as sound-bite-y as the standard PSA ones. Which may or may not tell us something ...


 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

I don't believe guilt is even in the equation of OT sacrifices. Alot of it is ritual impurity. Which has little to do with moral guilt.

---

What a lovely theory.

Let's examine the evidence: The Book of Leviticus contains much of the OT cultus. The first six chapters make frequent use of the following formula - "If anyone sins (or if a person sins) in a particular way .... he/she must do certain things (confession, restitution) and bring an offering to the priest (sometimes the phrase - that is to the LORD is added). In this way the priest will make atonement for him before the LORD and he will be forgiven of these things he did that made him guilty"
The rest of Chapters 6 and 7 explain how to do the various offerings which include the SIN offering and the GUILT offering.

Yes, clearly, guilt isn't even in the equation of OT sacrifices.

---

quote:

---

Leviticus 5.2:

Or when any of you touch any unclean thing—whether the carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean livestock or the carcass of an unclean swarming thing—and are unaware of it, you have become unclean, and are guilty.

Leviticus 5.3:

Or when you touch human uncleanness—any uncleanness by which one can become unclean—and are unaware of it, when you come to know it, you shall be guilty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
You said punishment doesn't make sin go away (and by implication God doesn't punish sin - that would make Him schizophrenic (which you did also say) as He also forgives it).
I said God sez he does punish sin.

---

But that doesn't make it go away.

---

Lots of things about Salvation and how it works don't make sense.

From an earthly point of view, the Cross didn't do a durned thing. It didn't conquer death- we still die. It didn't conquer sin- we still sin. The conquest of death and sin are only evident through the eyes of faith as a matter of hope in God's economy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Let's examine the evidence: The Book of Leviticus contains much of the OT cultus. The first six chapters make frequent use of the following formula - "If anyone sins (or if a person sins) in a particular way .... he/she must do certain things (confession, restitution) and bring an offering to the priest (sometimes the phrase - that is to the LORD is added). In this way the priest will make atonement for him before the LORD and he will be forgiven of these things he did that made him guilty"
The rest of Chapters 6 and 7 explain how to do the various offerings which include the SIN offering and the GUILT offering.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
We can each look at the same passages and come away with completely different views.

---

quote:

---

That said, I still think there are some verses about 'wrath' and so on that I find it difficult, if not well nigh impossible, to see in anything other than the standard evangelical way. I've not got time now, but I'll dig them out ...

---

quote:

---

Is it just me, but the sound-bite alternative theories we've had so far don't sound anywhere near as sound-bite-y as the standard PSA ones. Which may or may not tell us something ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Indeed - but which Hebrew translations did you consult?

And how many of them were Jewish, as opposed to Christian?

---

Leo, don't link to a clearly biased source then accuse others of being biased.

---

Fair point, though you haven't answered my first question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Interesting that this is still not answered. Rashi sees the servant as Israel, suffering because of the transgressions of other nations i.e. they transgressed by persecuting Israel.

So does Sanhedrin 98b in the Babylonian Talmud.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:1) says it's Rabbi Akiva.

Midrash Tana Devei Eliyahu says it's the righteous of Israel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Actually, Leprechaun, I'm not convinced that many contemporary evangelicals are 'terrified' into their conversion in the way that their forebears may have been.

[...]

My experience of conservative evangelicalism has been that there isn't a great deal of conviction of sin, wailing and gnashing of teeth their either - people tend to grasp the propositions intellectually through the preaching and teaching and conform to it as a consequence - and their hearts are often 'strangely warmed' in the same way that the charismatics' or the livelier bunches' are - only in a less demonstrative way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, I might be naive but I've tended to see the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel, but legitimately applied by the Christian Church to Christ in a similar way that other OT typology is applied to Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Interesting that this is still not answered. Rashi sees the servant as Israel, suffering because of the transgressions of other nations i.e. they transgressed by persecuting Israel.

So does Sanhedrin 98b in the Babylonian Talmud.

The Jerusalem Talmud (Shekalim 5:1) says it's Rabbi Akiva.

Midrash Tana Devei Eliyahu says it's the righteous of Israel.

---

Do you have any citations that take the group view from sources dating before the current era?

On their own it is impossible to say whether or not these particular sources take the view that they do as a form of Jewish apologetic against the views Christianity held of the same passage (which date from fairly early on).

Even within sources from the current era, the earlier sources are more likely to claim a particular individual as subject of this passage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

The reason's that's not considered an abuse is that it's to be supposed that the person who paid your parking ticket in your place might well have given you that same money for some other purpose.

---

It is an analogy. All analogies of things that God has revealed about himself don't tend to fit that well especially at the edges

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If a gang boss persuades one of his lieutenants to pretend to be him and serve his time in prison, the law doesn't take it that justice has been done when it discovers the deception.

---

Jesus wasn't pretending to be a man last time I checked the creeds .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So how do we deal with Ephesians 2:3 which apparently tells us that we 'were by nature objects of wrath' - presumably that means that we were objects of God's wrath whilst we remained in our unregenerate state. That's how it reads to me - and, admittedly, I'm reading it through Western and particularly evangelical (somewhat post-evangelical) lenses.

What do we make of that passage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:
The court room analogy I used shows that I believe the situation can be comprehended even using a purely secular conception of justice.

---

quote:

---

I believe it is incomparable because I do not believe that an advocate like Jesus would exist in a human court room and I do not believe that a judge like God would either.

---

quote:

---

Do you believe that the demands of justice are fully met in human court rooms? How does anyone know whether 'justice' is anything more than a lofty ideal that few aspire to and even fewer attain?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
How about Ecclesiasticus/Sirach 49:10 written in 180-190 BCE, wwhere the Servant is identified as Elijah, who will return to “restore the tribes of Jacob” (quoting Isa 49:6)?

Or 1 Enoch 71:14-17, just on the cusp of BCE/CE where Enoch is the Servant?

Then again, the Dead Sea Scrolls show the Qum'ran community itself as the Servant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Posted by Twangist

Ever paid for anything for someone else? was that unjust or simply kind?

The real problem is the fact that guilt cannot be transferred.

No amount of Christ "paying the penalty" can alter the fact that the guilt lies with the sinner even when the penalty is paid..

Guilt can only be forgiven. Which God alone does. And He did it countless times long before Christ died.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


PSA does make sense in the way The Revolutionist has described it here if, and it's a big IF, we take a Western rather than an Eastern view of original sin. Whatever the case, I do like The Revolutionist's emphasis on our union with Christ - as that is something that can get overlooked in some evangelical presentations of these issues. Some, but by no means all.

I dunno where that leaves me though...

---

Me neither.

But, I do think the classic evangelical approach has been to start with PSA and then when questioned on "how can one person take the punishment of another?", follow it with union. (Or actually, not follow it with union, but just say "God says it works so it does" )

I often wonder and consider what it would mean to start with union - you can be part of God's trinitarian life - and follow with PSA as a means.

If we did that more maybe all the anti-PSAers on this thread would be less hopping mad about it!
 

---

Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on :
 
I think the reason evangelicals often begin with (and sometimes don't go any further than) a basic explanation of PSA is because the question that they're trying to answer is "how can I be forgiven?" But as Tim Keller pointed out - himself an evangelical - that's not the question most people in our culture are asking.

Maybe a generation or two ago, a Christian sense of morality was more widely accepted. Being a moral, upstanding person was one of people's deepest values and concerns

But today, people are less likely to think that way. For most people, their happiness, freedom and autonomy is much more important than objective notions of morality. So evangelical Christians spend a lot of time trying to convince people of objective morality. They try to get people to ask "how can I be forgiven?" so they can give PSA as the answer.

While getting people to recognise objective morality is important in the long run, it's a rather round-about way of doing things. Why not focus in on those aspects of the Atonement that speak to the questions and concerns of the present generation, not that of 50 years ago?

For a culture that places a high value on freedom and autonomy, it's more relevant but no less Biblically faithful to explain sin in terms of slavery. Rather than focusing on sin as law-breaking, explain how sin enslaves and controls us. Rather starting with PSA as a model, focus on the Exodus, and how Jesus is our Passover lamb who brings us out of slavery, for example. True freedom is found in knowing and trusting Jesus.

The best way to explain the Cross will vary according to situation, to culture and to individual. We need the full palette of metaphors and images, to find out what people value most, and show how the Gospel both subverts and fulfils that desire.

And evangelicals do understand this need for different models: Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church, Seattle, another prominent evangelical, wrote a book called "Death By Love", which has 12 chapters on different aspects of the Cross applied to different real life situations. It begins with Substitutionary Atonement, and covers Christus Victor, Redemption, Sacrifice, Ransom, Revelation and several more. So even among conservative evangelical writers and preachers, there's an acceptance of the importance of multiple metaphors.

I think that sooner or later any explanation of the Gospel has to tackle our own personal sin and guilt, and that PSA is a true and helpful way of explaining that dimension of it. PSA is helpful, but isn't always the place to start.
 

---

Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I know I often sound like I'm vacillating - 'how long must you waver between two opinions?' - but the way The Revolutionist puts it does make a lot more sense to me than the way Makepiece does (sorry Makepiece) and fits with John Stott's approach in 'The Cross of Christ' - where he is quite scathing of crude analogies like the commonly used court-room one. I was instinctively never very happy with that one even before I started reading around the subject and trying to make more sense of these matters.

---

Just to clarify I wasn't putting the forward the court room analogy as a way of promoting PSA I was just criticising Dafyd's original statement that evangelicals are being hypocritical because they would not see that as justice in any other context. Personally I think PSA can be perceived as just in spite of the unique scenario it applies to but I think me and Dafyd will have to agree to disagree about that.

In relation to PSA itself I'm sitting on the fence but the really angry people seem to be against PSA and that is making me more inclined emotionally to agree with it.
 

---

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
The atonement is our way of describing the significance of Christ and the cross.
We consider the atonement in terms and ideas we can comprehend and relate to. It is often described in terms of our government or legal system- as we (think we) can understand that.

All our descriptions are wrong and incomplete. PSA is just one more.
Jesus wept.
 

---

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
Seems to me that we have got ourselves into a quandary.

PSA implies that sin must be punished and a penalty paid.

That punishment is dished out by God.

But what if we query the whole idea that we are punished for our sins with the consequent argument that Christ was punished "for our sins"?

What if we argue that we are punished BY our sins?

The punishment we bring upon ourselves being separation from God.

What then of an atonement doctrine?

[ 03. July 2011, 21:03: Message edited by: shamwari ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well I can understand that, Makepiece, it's partly a tribal thing and partly because some of the anti-PSA-ers can be pretty darn smug about their opposition to it ...

I'm like you, if people attack something I'll often rally to its defence, even though it might be a position I'm not that comfortable with myself.

I don't have the visceral, appalled reaction to PSA that some of its opponents have - perhaps because I've been marinated in it for so long myself. Or perhaps because, psychologically, the sin/guilt thing does resonate with me ... I do have a tendency to beat myself up and to suffer from evangelical guilt - which can be just as debilitating as Catholic guilt ...

But then, the atonement is meant to free us from all that - the guilt and the shame.

I think The Revolutionist is onto something in terms of starting from a different place. A lot of evangelical preaching seems to me to be trying to catch people out on very minor technicalities - 'You might not have murdered anyone but you might have stolen a paper clip from work - that's just as bad in God's book ...'

Well, no it isn't. One of the daftest things anyone ever said to me was when someone I still greatly respect, told me that God had shown him that being into steam engines and being something of a steam enthusiast and geek was just as bad as being into pornography. Well, no it isn't ... it isn't anything like it at all.

Ok, so I can see that extreme steam geekery could be harmful but it's nowhere near the same thing as being into hard-core porn. There's no comparison.

Ok, so I know what he meant and where he was coming from, but his observation revealed what I now take to be a fundamental flaw in the evangelical approach. It doesn't take creation and God's good gifts seriously enough (very often) and becomes binary and dualistic. However you cut it, that remains the case.

The mileage varies, of course, and there have been many notable evangelical hobbyists, stamp collectors and so on ...



But c'mon ...
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Ok, so I know what he meant and where he was coming from, but his observation revealed what I now take to be a fundamental flaw in the evangelical approach. It doesn't take creation and God's good gifts seriously enough (very often) and becomes binary and dualistic. However you cut it, that remains the case.

---

Okay if I steal that for my Greenbelt talk this year?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Go ahead, Doc Tor, as long as you credit me. Use my Ship name if necessary ...

But money would be better. Is there a market for conference speakers on this subject?
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

there have been many notable evangelical stamp collectors

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, I might be naive but I've tended to see the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel, but legitimately applied by the Christian Church to Christ in a similar way that other OT typology is applied to Christ.

---

quote:

---

Coming back to the wrath thing - yes, those verses in Romans and Thessalonians were among those I had in mind.

So how do we deal with Ephesians 2:3 which apparently tells us that we 'were by nature objects of wrath' - presumably that means that we were objects of God's wrath whilst we remained in our unregenerate state. That's how it reads to me - and, admittedly, I'm reading it through Western and particularly evangelical (somewhat post-evangelical) lenses.

What do we make of that passage?

---

quote:

---

Gamaliel said:
I don't have the visceral, appalled reaction to PSA that some of its opponents have - perhaps because I've been marinated in it for so long myself.

---

quote:

---

On a juridical understanding of sin, this is nonsense. You can't be held accountable for something you didn't do intentionally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mousethief

quote:

---

On a juridical understanding of sin, this is nonsense. You can't be held accountable for something you didn't do intentionally.

---

I thought that "ignorance of the law is no defence".

---

quote:

---

I've never had a western Christian admit there could be such a thing as involuntary sins, and the reason given was always that sin was knowingly disobeying God. I have a feeling we're about to find out what people think about this subject.

---

quote:

---

Only the most casuistical exegetical contortions can get around the PSA in verses such as II Cor. 5:21 (“made him…to be sin for us”) and I Pet. 2:24 (“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree”).

The choices, then, are rejecting PSA because it is logically and morally meaningless even though the Bible teaches it; pretending that it is not in the Bible at all; or accepting it because it has prima facie scriptural attestation.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

The choices, then, are rejecting PSA because it is logically and morally meaningless even though the Bible teaches it; pretending that it is not in the Bible at all; or accepting it because it has prima facie scriptural attestation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

The gospel tract encapsulates evangelicalism’s alleged absence of theological sophistication, and certainly by its very nature the tract suffers from many limitations, but let it not be forgotten that James Hudson Taylor, second only to William Carey as the most influential figure in modern missiology, was converted through a tract in 1849

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Mousethief

quote:

---

On a juridical understanding of sin, this is nonsense. You can't be held accountable for something you didn't do intentionally.

---

I thought that "ignorance of the law is no defence".

---

I dunno. That looks good in print. I've never had a western Christian admit there could be such a thing as involuntary sins, and the reason given was always that sin was knowingly disobeying God. I have a feeling we're about to find out what people think about this subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
This is where I think PSA particularly misses its focus. For PSA is overly concerned at atoning for the guilt of sin. Whereas the Bible seems more interested in behaviour and achieving a positive change in that behaviour. God doesn't seem particularly interested in guilt, and numerous passages speak of free forgiveness conditional only on repentance (ie a change in behaviour). But God does seem very interested in people changing their behaviour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Sinners cannot be united to a holy God without first being forgiven of their guilt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Only the most casuistical exegetical contortions can get around the PSA in verses such as II Cor. 5:21 (“made him…to be sin for us”) and I Pet. 2:24 (“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree”).

---

Even the most dedicated attempt to get PSA out of those verses would have to explain them as figures of speech. 'He made him to be sin' simply does not literally mean 'He made him suffer the punishment for our sins'. Likewise, 'he himself bore our sins' does not literally mean 'he himself bore the punishment for our sins'.

1 Peter talks about how this enables us to live righteously free of sin, so it seems to me that the problem being dealt with is not so much, 'I am about to be punished for my sin,' but, 'I do not do what I want, but the evil that I do not want that is what I do'. 2 Cor 5:21 is one of Paul's more compressed statements, but again I think the emphasis is on us acting on behalf of God rather than any forensic status.
 

---

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :
 
There is a world of difference between saying that Christ was our substitute and saying that his death was vicarious. (i.e.. representative and on our behalf. PSA says " instead of")
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Mousethief, I think you'll find that there are plenty of Western Christians who have a concept of involuntary sin - and indeed, there are plenty of 'who can discern his errors? forgive oh Lord, my hidden faults' type theology in various liturgical prayers.

The RCs have the concept of sins of omission as well as commission. And the idea you express of our stepping outside the will of God without realising it is certainly common currency within those Western Christian circles I'm aware of.

You've been an Episcopalian. You'll be familiar with some of the Anglican prayers of confession that deal with this sort of thing. 'We have left undone that which we ought to have done ...' etc.

There are also general prayers for forgiveness and absolution in the Western churches in a similar way to those you describe at the Orthodox baptism service.

I really don't see how your critique applies to Western Christianity at this point.

Kaplan - well yes, but I for one aren't snobbishly opposed to churches on council estates with basketball rings on the floor. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick when it comes to those who favour icons and incense - many RC churches, for instance, are far more working class than Protestant ones. And worldwide, Orthodoxy is quite a working class phenomena. Like Pentecostalism, both the RCs and the Orthodox have elements of folk-religion in some places.

Within the CofE it's often the case that the 'Highest' churches are in inner city areas. I know of one not a million miles from here where a nose-bleed High Anglican priest is doing a sterling work with so-called 'under class' and working class people that other churches wouldn't touch with a barge-pole.

If anything, it's the HTB type charismatics who're fairly well heeled. As for the Brethren and the Baptists in the UK - they do tend to be reasonably middle class these days. The Pentecostals are more working class but even there they're becoming more suited, booted and established.

So that particular criticism of yours is a value judgement and doesn't wash. Aesthetics and 'taste' comes into it - but it ain't the whole story. I've been to Russian Orthodox services that are pretty 'raw' and visceral as well as highly aesthetically pleasing.

As I've said several times on this thread, I do find it hard to abandon aspects of PSA - but I am trying to get to grips with the theology and not just going with things because they look pretty or are less offensive to my aesthetic sensibilities.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
And another thing ... no-one is saying that the gospel tract is without value. But I'd imagine the one that Hudson Taylor read, marked and inwardly digested wasn't quite what some contributors here have in mind.

Just because some people have difficulties with the style or theology, doesn't mean that we're 'writing off' people like Taylor or William Carey - no, I think those two would be generally accepted as outstanding missiologists by most sectors of Christendom. I've heard Orthodox priests cite them both, in fact.

How often will you get evangelical commentators returning the favour and citing St Hermann of Alaska or St Nicholas of Japan as good examples of cross-cultural mission?

It strikes me that there are specks and planks on both sides of this debate.

MT is finding it hard to recognise aspects which are thoroughly 'orthodox' (small 'o' and possibly Big O) on the Western side at times and the pro-PSA brigade are trying to dismiss any challenge or critique by resorting to accusations of consumerism and fey aestheticism ...

Neither of which give due weight to the actual position on these things.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
Your irenicism and ingenuousness are a rebuke to us all, Gamaliel.

Seriously.

[ 04. July 2011, 09:40: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

There are only a handful of classic reasons for punishment. And one person being able to pay for another undermines the moral standing of most of them. The reasons are:


Rehabilitation - so the people will learn to be productive members of society
Incapacitation / societal protection - keep them locked up so they can't do it again.
Deterrence / prevention - a warning to others
Restoration - paying back the damages
Retribution - classical punishment
Education - the Germans separate teaching people what societal norms are from rehabilitation. I don't see how/why.
Denunciation / condemnation - expressing that something is wrong

---

How would you like God to deal with sin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
How about
The Devil has captured you, he doesn't love you and has a rather nasty plan for your life ..

---

quote:

---

Or Hypercalvinist
God might love you (we can't be sure of His eternal decree) and has inscrutible plans for your life

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Not only to identify with humanity but with sinful humanity?

---

That is the anti-Chalcedonian heresy of which Edward irving was allegedly guilty, and for which he was excommunicated by the Presbyterians in 1830.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
However on the other hand, several key statements in the NT, and a number in the OT, such as the scapegoat ( or as our friend’s small son once complained, “Why am I always the skateboard?”) don’t make any sense without the assumption of the possibility of the transfer of guilt.

---

quote:

---

Only the most casuistical exegetical contortions can get around the PSA in verses such as II Cor. 5:21 (“made him…to be sin for us”)

---

quote:

---

and I Pet. 2:24 (“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree”).

---

quote:

---

One of the most interesting aspects of this discussion has been the way in which it has (once again) exposed all the latent anti-evangelicalism on the Ship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Johnny S:
Shhh ... we were trying to keep the Baptist plan to take over the world on the down low. Otherwise people may work out what all those swimming pools are really for. (Of course this means that revival is very unlikely in northern Europe.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Rather, forgiveness is the basic qualification that allows us to receive all the rest of God's gifts - new life, transformation by the Holy Spirit, union with God and so on. Sinners cannot be united to a holy God without first being forgiven of their guilt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
And here I can't tell God from Cthulu.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Not only to identify with humanity but with sinful humanity?

---

That is the anti-Chalcedonian heresy of which Edward irving was allegedly guilty, and for which he was excommunicated by the Presbyterians in 1830.

---

No, Irving was saying (if I understand correctly) that Jesus's own nature was capable of sin (though he chose not to sin). The Presbyterians of the time thoroughly disagreed with this.

This is different - this is Jesus taking on *our* sin - "he who had no sin became sin". Taking on not just the punishment for sin but the sin itself.

If we are really to be one with him, then this is not unjust. It would be unjust if it were a transfer to an unconnected, innocent person.

Is this idea heretical? (This is a genuine question, I am sure I am a fount of heretial ideas). But what's the alternative - what, in your view, does "he who had no sin became sin" really mean?

---

quote:

---

‘it is sometimes objected that God is thus shown to be unjust in that he allows the innocent to suffer for the guilty, this is not a valid objection to the theory as stated by the Reformation divines’
(St) Paul, in saying that the sinless Christ
‘was made to be sin for us’ (2 Corinthians 5:21), did not hesitate to assert that Christ so completely identified himself with mankind that he was also identified with sin: Christ is a sinner himself.’
Thus Luther says: "This saw all the great prophets, that Christ was to be of all men the greatest robber, murderer, thief, profaner, blasphemer and so on...who bears in his own body all the sins of men - not in tha he committed them, but in that he took upon his own body the things committed by us, to make satisfaction for them with his own blood."

from Creeds in the making, Alan Richardson (former Dean of York and Professor of Christian Theology in the University of Nottingham)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makepiece:
Just to clarify I wasn't putting the forward the court room analogy as a way of promoting PSA I was just criticising Dafyd's original statement that evangelicals are being hypocritical because they would not see that as justice in any other context.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Not at all! This is perfectly OK. I'm just in the middle of a 4000 word essay on this subject! I found this:

quote:

---

‘it is sometimes objected that God is thus shown to be unjust in that he allows the innocent to suffer for the guilty, this is not a valid objection to the theory as stated by the Reformation divines’
(St) Paul, in saying that the sinless Christ
‘was made to be sin for us’ (2 Corinthians 5:21), did not hesitate to assert that Christ so completely identified himself with mankind that he was also identified with sin: Christ is a sinner himself.’
Thus Luther says: "This saw all the great prophets, that Christ was to be of all men the greatest robber, murderer, thief, profaner, blasphemer and so on...who bears in his own body all the sins of men - not in tha he committed them, but in that he took upon his own body the things committed by us, to make satisfaction for them with his own blood."

from Creeds in the making, Alan Richardson (former Dean of York and Professor of Christian Theology in the University of Nottingham)

---

Christ was indeed made in the likeness of sinful flesh, was made to be sin for us, took upon himself the curse because he had also taken on our sin. He wasn't an Innocent murdered by a vengeful Father. He gave himself up for us, knowing what the wrath of God - his own wrath indeed - would do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
First by looking hard in a mirror and realising that repaying evil with greater evil is itself evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:


Then by changing from an abstract pass/fail approach with random loads of so-called grace lumped in so he can actually pass some people from his ridiculous test to an education/rehabilitation model.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

One in which no one ultimately ends up in hell; everyone spends the amount of time in purgatory it takes them to learn and repair what they need to.

---

That idea isn't tho. That's Catholic theology.


I've come to the conclusion you aren't a Justinian at all. You're just a hard core left wing Christian.

 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
sorry for dreadful spelling
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


‘it is sometimes objected that God is thus shown to be unjust in that he allows the innocent to suffer for the guilty, this is not a valid objection to the theory as stated by the Reformation divines’
(St) Paul, in saying that the sinless Christ
‘was made to be sin for us’ (2 Corinthians 5:21), did not hesitate to assert that Christ so completely identified himself with mankind that he was also identified with sin: Christ is a sinner himself.’
Thus Luther says: "This saw all the great prophets, that Christ was to be of all men the greatest robber, murderer, thief, profaner, blasphemer and so on

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:


‘it is sometimes objected that God is thus shown to be unjust in that he allows the innocent to suffer for the guilty, this is not a valid objection to the theory as stated by the Reformation divines’
(St) Paul, in saying that the sinless Christ
‘was made to be sin for us’ (2 Corinthians 5:21), did not hesitate to assert that Christ so completely identified himself with mankind that he was also identified with sin: Christ is a sinner himself.’
Thus Luther says: "This saw all the great prophets, that Christ was to be of all men the greatest robber, murderer, thief, profaner, blasphemer and so on

---

That contradicts the creed of the council of Chalcedon.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
I do not see an anti-evangelicalism on the Ship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
No, there is a default consensus hereabouts that a sort of theologically-liberal "Catholic Lite" is the standard norm of Christianity. And a lot of very nice people here say very nasty things about Protestants, Calvinists, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists (especially American ones) and suchlike that they would never dream of saying about any ethnic group or about a non-Christian religion or about gays. Though a few of them manage to be quite nasty to women as well - it seems that liberal solidarity overwhelms feminism sometimes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
No, there is a default consensus hereabouts that a sort of theologically-liberal "Catholic Lite" is the standard norm of Christianity. And a lot of very nice people here say very nasty things about Protestants, Calvinists, Evangelicals, Fundamentalists (especially American ones) and suchlike that they would never dream of saying about any ethnic group or about a non-Christian religion or about gays. Though a few of them manage to be quite nasty to women as well - it seems that liberal solidarity overwhelms feminism sometimes.

---

It's true

---

Well yes. But those of us with evangelical convictions know what we're getting if we hang around for more than 5 minutes. The reason I'm posting here rather than fundyweb is so that I can engage with views different from mine.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I would tend to agree, although I am partial myself to some of the sniping at evangelicals and fundamentalists - particularly those of the US variety. But c'mon ... loosen up ... some people deserve a kick up the butt.

I wouldn't generally quote P J O'Rourke but do agree with him when he said that taking the rise out of fundamentalists was rather like shooting cows in a field with a .22 rifle ... they're too easy a target.

And I am dealing with 'issues' from my own more evangelical past.

That said, I don't like it when there is flagrant misrepresentation of evangelical positions or evangelicals themselves. The liberal catholic-lite vicar near here was very surprised to find that there were evangelical charismatics around who read The Guardian, for instance. He was even more surprised when I told him that I'd been in a mildly charismatic, evangelical/post-evangelical Baptist church with some emerging tendencies where not reading The Guardian would almost have been an excommunicable offence.

I agree with Mudfrog that liberals can often be very illiberal indeed.

But then, I do try to be even handed ... . I don't always succeed.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Okay, point taken about involuntary sins. I'm not sure where that idea crept in, but I've sent it crawling back out again.
 

---

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by shamwari:
Kaplan Corday cannot be allowed to get away with his rant.

I do not see an anti-evangelicalism on the Ship. What I do see is an antipathy towards the anti-intellectualism expressed by such remarks.

Best illustrated by the remark that it is OK to believe in something logically and morally meaningless if it is attested in the scriptures.

---

Well, you prove his point.

Let's accept for the sake of argument that scripture teaches PSA and nothing else. Evangelicals, or any other Protestant embracing sola scriptura, would certainly believe it. You are prepared to reject it just because you think it is morally and logically meaningless. This is an example of you being more intellectual than evangelicals. This is an example of you being arrogant.

Nothing in scripture suggests the actions of God must make sense to humans. Scripture establishes that God can impose rules on humans and punish them when they are broken. Rejecting that premise means rejecting whole portions of scripture. So, if instead of punishing sinful humanity, God becomes human and accepts the punishment of those sins in the place of sinful humanity that is God's prerogative. Being as how God has chosen to offer grace instead of instant destruction of humanity, the proper response would be to accept the offer of forgiveness. Furthermore, regardless of the rules imposed by God, humanity time and time again proves incapable of following them. Why would God keep expecting humanity to be able to follow any new ones? The new covenant allows for humanities imperfections and provides a means for humanity to be made more like Christ. All seems perfectly reasonable to me.

You may not believe PSA. More often than not, I use the language of CV when preaching on the atonement. However, those who do aren't anti-intellectual. The definition of anti-intellectualism is not disagreement with shamwari. Sorry, if everybody else doesn't hold your opinion in the same high esteem as you seem to do.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well said, Beeswax Altar. There can certainly be an anti-intellectual note in contemporary evangelicalism - something many evangelicals are aware of themselves. Mark Noll's book 'The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind' went some way to redressing this imbalance.

"The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there is not much of an evangelical mind," he wrote in the tones of a "wounded lover".

Evangelicalism is essentially a populist movement and therefore you're bound to find a certain amount of anti-intellectualism there ... but I certainly don't find that here with The Revolutionist, Ken and Leprechaun ...

On occasion Mudfrog will come close to it, in my not so humble opinion, but that's part and parcel of having an activist faith which borrows heavily from militarist imagery ...

But he is certainly not frightened of robust debate and is currently studying for a BA. It would seem churlish to accuse him of abandoning his brain when he takes up his tambourine. And he generally isn't as snarky about other traditions as some posters are about his.

Ok, so there's a kind of Wesleyan pietism run riot there at times ... but I can think of a lot worse things.

Sorry Mudfrog ... but I am rallying to your defence, although it might not sound like it!
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Sorry, I inadvertently left Kaplan out. An oversight ...

I don't always agree with Kaplan and I think he over-eggs things at times to make a point. But he isn't the only one who does that. We all do it at times. But again, whilst he sometimes misses the mark (in my not so humble opinion) in his critiques of other traditions and viewpoints, he is generally less snarky about them than Shamwari is when he's discussing evangelicalism.

Like Ken and some of the other evangelical posters, I sometimes get the impression that with some Liberals you can be anything the heck you like ... a wife beater and a child batterer - just as long as you aren't an evangelical.
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I sometimes get the impression that with some Liberals you can be anything the heck you like ... a wife beater and a child batterer - just as long as you aren't an evangelical.

---

quote:

---

The difference lies in the tentacles.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe guilt is even in the equation of OT sacrifices. Alot of it is ritual impurity. Which has little to do with moral guilt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a lovely theory.

Let's examine the evidence: The Book of Leviticus contains much of the OT cultus. The first six chapters make frequent use of the following formula - "If anyone sins (or if a person sins) in a particular way .... he/she must do certain things (confession, restitution) and bring an offering to the priest (sometimes the phrase - that is to the LORD is added). In this way the priest will make atonement for him before the LORD and he will be forgiven of these things he did that made him guilty"
The rest of Chapters 6 and 7 explain how to do the various offerings which include the SIN offering and the GUILT offering.

Yes, clearly, guilt isn't even in the equation of OT sacrifices.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My point was that guilt in Leviticus has different connotations to guilt today because Leviticus was often concerned with the pure and impure.

You're right the word appears, but the meaning is different.

e.g.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leviticus 5.2:

Or when any of you touch any unclean thing—whether the carcass of an unclean beast or the carcass of unclean livestock or the carcass of an unclean swarming thing—and are unaware of it, you have become unclean, and are guilty.

Leviticus 5.3:

Or when you touch human uncleanness—any uncleanness by which one can become unclean—and are unaware of it, when you come to know it, you shall be guilty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We don't do pure and impure today.

---

quote:

---

“If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the LORD by deceiving a neighbor about something entrusted to them or left in their care or about something stolen, or if they cheat their neighbor, 3 or if they find lost property and lie about it, or if they swear falsely about any such sin that people may commit— 4 when they sin in any of these ways and realize their guilt, they must return what they have stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted to them, or the lost property they found, 5 or whatever it was they swore falsely about. They must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the owner on the day they present their guilt offering. 6 And as a penalty they must bring to the priest, that is, to the LORD, their guilt offering, a ram from the flock, one without defect and of the proper value. 7 In this way the priest will make atonement for them before the LORD, and they will be forgiven for any of the things they did that made them guilty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Obviously a lot of OT cultus is about the issue of ritual purity which is about who's "in" and who's "out" and who therefore can be a part of the worshipping community and have access to God. A lot of Jesus' healings served to remove ritual impurity and restore outcast's to being fully part of the people of God. s - "what they did (sin) .. made them guilty".

---

quote:

---

Ancient sacrificial systems can be difficult for modern readers to understand. English translations of ancient Hebrew terms and concepts do not always do them justice. So be careful of naively reading Leviticus and assuming you've got the right understanding of it. I feel your post indicates significant errors in understanding. In light of that, I have a book recommendation for you: Milgrom's Commentary on Leviticus.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Twangist:
Obviously a lot of OT cultus is about the issue of ritual purity which is about who's "in" and who's "out" and who therefore can be a part of the worshipping community and have access to God. A lot of Jesus' healings served to remove ritual impurity and restore outcast's to being fully part of the people of God. s - "what they did (sin) .. made them guilty".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you sure about that? Contacting ritual impurity was simply part of life for Jews in the ancient world… E. P. Sanders observes that ‘All the Jews, including Pharisees, were impure more or less all the time….“all the holy scriptures render the hands unclean. The rabbis certainly did not refrain from contact with the Scriptures for fear of getting their hands dirty. … Christian interpreters do not need of ritual purity laws to avoid Using them superiority. We do need to remember that these laws, which seem to us strange and archaic, were not uncommon in the ancient world. It is anachronistic to suppose that Jesus dismissed them as irrelevant. Undoubtedly there was diversity with respect to attention to observance, some were more meticulous than others, and certainly there differences in Diaspora customs.’ Preaching without Contempt: Overcoming Unintended Anti-Judaism – M. Salmon (Fortress 2006) pp. 100-101

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
The thing that gets me is that the Bible nowhere indicates forgiveness is hard or a problem for God. Forgiveness is repeatedly indicated as being free. It freely flows from a loving and gracious God, who is always prepared to forgive. He is depicted as not wanting to have to punish people and preferring that they instead repent and be forgiven. eg:
“21 But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" (Ezekiel 18)

Jonah gets upset with God for forgiving Ninevah rather than punishing them when they repented. For he says he knew God was the kind of God who would rather forgive than punish. Jesus pronounces to many people in the gospels that God has forgiven their sin. The notion of forgiveness being free was so ingrained in Judaism that they used the idiom "repentance and forgiveness" to refer to the simple fact that all a person needed to do to gain God's free forgiveness was repent. This phrase is used approvingly several times by the gospels, and implicitly referenced by Paul approvingly in Romans 2.

In short, there is never any suggestion in the New Testament or the Old Testament that forgiveness is anything except free. God likes forgiving, and does forgive. There is no quandary depicted... God never says "well I would really like to forgive you but my justice demands punishment". There is no "we have a big problem of forgiveness that needs a solution, who will solve it for us?" There is no "woe is me, for I don't know of any way to gain forgiveness!" For the Jews knew perfectly well how to gain free forgiveness, there was no shortage of it. It was only centuries later, when the Church had forgotten the doctrine of free forgiveness and added a whole edifice of teachings on penance, that Luther could wrestle with the perceived difficulties of gaining forgiveness. But it was a problem that just didn't exist in the first century. And that is my single biggest difficulty with PSA: It's unnecessary - God's free forgiveness is available already so there's no need for PSA.

---

quote:

---

God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished — he 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.

---

quote:

---

But I think the question of "how can God forgive and be just?" is thoroughly Biblical - Paul answers that question in Romans 3:25-26:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:
Oh, those deceptive Bible translators using words we think we understand in ways we clearly don't....

---

quote:

---

Oh, those naughty Reformers encouraging us to read, mark and inwardly digest Gods Word for ourselves.

---

quote:

---

Let me get this straight ... I quoted a repeated formula directly from the text regarding "sin and guilt" and then said that this showed that the text is concerned with .. well .."sin and guilt". I don't recall specifying how or even defining the concepts. Oh what a naive fool I must be.

---

quote:

---

Darn, there goes my adherence to any concept of the perspicuity of Scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The reason I'm posting here rather than fundyweb is so that I can engage with views different from mine.

---

Where is this cool site of which you speak, that I've been missing all these years?
 

---

Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on :
 
Actually, I've found it.

Fundyweb is a website about the Fundy National Park in Canada.

Strange but true.

Back to RL.
 

---

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

and I Pet. 2:24 (“He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree”).

---

I believe that this is by far and away the best passage in the Bible in PSA's favour. A PSA reading of it seems straightforwardly intuitive. There are about four alternative interpretations I can think of for this passage, but I'm not convinced as to which is right. I would be really interested to hear the non-PSAers here explain in detail how they read this verse.

---

quote:

---

When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered he did not threated; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly.

---

quote:

---

He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
But I think the question of "how can God forgive and be just?" is thoroughly Biblical

---

quote:

---

Paul answers that question in Romans 3:25-26:
"God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished — he 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."

When it says "God justifies those who have faith in Jesus", I understand justify to mean declaring righteous, announcing that they are forgiven. God forgives us freely not because there is no price to be paid, but because he has paid it for us already.

---

quote:

---

What was the purpose of the sin offerings, if forgiveness carries no cost?

---

quote:

---

It seems to me that the whole sacrificial system was precisely to illustrate that as sinful human beings, we cannot simply come before a holy God.

---

quote:

---

Both Old and New Testament are very clear that unforgiven sin is a barrier to us coming to God, and that forgiveness, while freely offered to us, does not come without a cost. Sin can't just be ignored.

---

quote:

---

You mention the medieval belief in penance. The reason Luther was so passionate about the "great exchange", about the imputation of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us, was precisely because it means that forgiveness is an unearned, free gift. We don't have to agonise and work and labour to achieve forgiveness - that's liberating! Forgiveness is free not because there's no price to pay, but because Christ paid the price for us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
You do realise that idea is in scripture don't you?

---

quote:

---

As is that idea.

---

quote:

---

That idea isn't tho. That's Catholic theology.

---

quote:

---

I've come to the conclusion you aren't a Justinian at all. You're just a hard core left wing Christian.

---

Justinian was the self-mocking name I picked in Orthodox Week, sending up my arrogance. And I vary between hard line atheist, rejecting the Calvinist Anglo-Catholicism of my father (and yes, he is all of that) and going with the ultra-liberal Quakerism of my mother. I'd not call myself a Christian, but a lot of strands of Christianity have shaped my beliefs and I often do end up near the ultra-liberal end.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Like Ken and some of the other evangelical posters, I sometimes get the impression that with some Liberals you can be anything the heck you like ... a wife beater and a child batterer - just as long as you aren't an evangelical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
A sin is not the same as its punishment; if Jesus bears our sins that's not the same as Jesus bearing the punishment of our sins.

---

quote:

---

It's true that 'sin' is a possible metonymy for 'punishment', but it doesn't seem to me that you'd get that from the context. There are other things that 'sin' could refer to by metonymy: consequences of sin, root causes of sin, etc.

---

quote:

---

Indeed, the context seems entirely wrong.

---

quote:

---

When he was abused, he did not return abuse; when he suffered he did not threated; but he entrusted himself to the one who judges justly.

The natural reading of that is that Jesus' innocence is vindicated by God. That is very much not the same as Jesus being punished for the guilt of other people.

---

quote:

---

He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, so that, free from sins, we might live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

The problems are apparently that sin is constraining us so that we can't live righteously, and that we're wounded or damaged in some way. If you think of sin as a mental compulsion or illness - a conception not unattested in the NT (Romans 7 being the locus classicus) - the material following 'so that' seems straightforward.

---

quote:

---

The PSA reading has to gloss 'free from sins' as 'free from punishment for past sins' or 'free from the fear of punishment for past sins' neither of which seem strictly to prevent us from being righteous now.

---

quote:

---

'By his wounds you have been healed' is figurative on any reading, but on the PSA the figure is contorted: 'because he was wounded we will never be wounded at all'? - not satisfactory.

---

quote:

---

Mind you, I can't imagine how to begin getting a moral influence view out of it. This despite the fact that the passage starts out as an explicit injunction to imitate Jesus.

---

quote:

---

The idea that we want to live for righteousness and find that we can't is explicit in Romans - that's quite the most explicit statement of any problem facing humanity in the NT.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

Justinian was the self-mocking name I picked in Orthodox Week, sending up my arrogance. And I vary between hard line atheist, rejecting the Calvinist Anglo-Catholicism of my father (and yes, he is all of that) and going with the ultra-liberal Quakerism of my mother. I'd not call myself a Christian, but a lot of strands of Christianity have shaped my beliefs and I often do end up near the ultra-liberal end.

---

A most excellent combination.

Liberal Christianity is of course, the way, the truth and the life and when we get to heaven we get "very quiet while passing the rooms of conservative Christians, so as not to wreck the conservatives' fantasy that they're the only ones who got in, and the extra bonus fantasy that liberal Christians (and everyone else) are off writhing in the pain of hell's eternal torture. By staying quiet the liberal Christians ensure the conservative Christians can keep their divine punishment hardons raging for all eternity."
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
I've never had a western Christian admit there could be such a thing as involuntary sins, and the reason given was always that sin was knowingly disobeying God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Kaplan - well yes, but I for one aren't snobbishly opposed to churches on council estates with basketball rings on the floor. I think you've got the wrong end of the stick when it comes to those who favour icons and incense - many RC churches, for instance, are far more working class than Protestant ones. And worldwide, Orthodoxy is quite a working class phenomena. Like Pentecostalism, both the RCs and the Orthodox have elements of folk-religion in some places.

Within the CofE it's often the case that the 'Highest' churches are in inner city areas. I know of one not a million miles from here where a nose-bleed High Anglican priest is doing a sterling work with so-called 'under class' and working class people that other churches wouldn't touch with a barge-pole.

If anything, it's the HTB type charismatics who're fairly well heeled. As for the Brethren and the Baptists in the UK - they do tend to be reasonably middle class these days. The Pentecostals are more working class but even there they're becoming more suited, booted and established.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Darn, there goes my adherence to any concept of the perspicuity of Scripture.

---

I certainly hope so. A document written in a foreign language, in a foreign culture, two or three thousand years ago needs a lot of careful study and expert knowledge to determine the original meaning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwesi:
Revolutionist

quote:

---

But I think the question of "how can God forgive and be just?" is thoroughly Biblical - Paul answers that question in Romans 3:25-26:

---

At the risk of returning to a hobby horse: Can I remind us that Jesus unconditionally forgave those who nailed him to the cross. There is no evidence that the soldiers repented or accepted any need for the proferred forgiveness. Forgiveness was unmerited and free. In the parable of the Father and Two Sons, the father's response to the prodigal on his return indicates there is a presumed forgiveness ever before he asks for it.

St Paul in 2 Corinthians 5 argues that God does not keep a record of wrongs: a charge sheet of crimes or sins to be judicially satisfied. What he does say is that people are to be reconciled to God: to make a conscious decision to respond to God's love demonstrated by Christ's death and resurrection.

The essence of atonement is not forgiveness but reconciliation.

For me the atonement is best expressed by Isaac Watts great hymn "When I survey the wonderous cross", and the crucial couplet of reconciliation "Love so amazing so divine/Demands my soul, my life, my all". So I guess I line up with Abelard!

---

Just a quick response...

It's not a question of whether God forgives freely, but how God forgives freely. God forgave before the Cross and God forgives after the Cross because rather than punishing our sins, Christ self-sacrificially gave himself to die on the Cross.

Similarly, it's not an either/or between forgiveness and reconciliation. Rather, forgiveness is a necessary part of reconciliation.

I'll try to reply to what Starlight and others said when I've got time to read and respond properly.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Kaplan Corday wrote:

'... I would rather listen to a doctrinally dodgy (if there is such a thing) piece of Gregorian chant than a doctrinally sound (if there is such a thing) Hillsong ditty, while au fond realizing that it is the doctrine that counts in the end.'

Get off my turf, Kaplan.


 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Indeed, one also needs to take into account the grounds for forgiveness.

On what grounds, on what basis does God forgive?
Is it arbitrarily, out of his great love? He smply says, 'Oh I love you and so I'll just forgive you anyway?'

If that is the case, what of holiness? What of justice? Indeed, what of wrath? The kind of wrath that has God's heart burning at the sin, the injustice, the brutality, the murder, the rape, the jealousy and immorality of this world?

If God has no reaction to these things, no sense of judgment upon them and those who perpetrate even the least act of hatred, then what sort of weak, shallow, pale kind of 'love' does he possess?

I would strongly suggest that the ONLY basis for God's forgiveness is that out of his eternal love he gave his Son to suffer the curse of his wrath, in substitution for us, that the record of our sins might be wiped out.

The cross is where both love and justice meet - where mercy and wrath are revealed. It is the place where forgiveness is made possible because our sins are nailed there, the penalty is paid, Satan is defeated and the love of God is shown to be supreme.

If God could simply forgive, with no thought for his holiness or justice and righteousness, then there was no need for the brutal charade of the cross.

quote:

---

He died that we might be forgiven,
He died to make us good,
That we might go at last to heaven,
Saved by his precious blood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On what grounds, on what basis does God forgive?

---

quote:

---

If that is the case, what of holiness? What of justice? Indeed, what of wrath? The kind of wrath that has God's heart burning at the sin, the injustice, the brutality, the murder, the rape, the jealousy and immorality of this world?

---

quote:

---

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

---

quote:

---

Ezekiel 18:
21 “But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. 22 None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

24 “But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will die.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If God has no reaction to these things, no sense of judgment upon them and those who perpetrate even the least act of hatred, then what sort of weak, shallow, pale kind of 'love' does he possess?

---

quote:

---

If God could simply forgive, with no thought for his holiness or justice and righteousness, then there was no need for the brutal charade of the cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, I'd agree that Abelard's moral influence theory was a later development than the seeds of PSA

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Either Mudfrog is saying that Christians who don't hold to a PSA approach are somehow defective in their faith, or he needs to appreciate that oranges are not the only fruit and there are ways of looking at things other than his own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On what grounds, on what basis does God forgive?

---

On the basis of repentance.

---

Ask, seek, knock. Repent and believe in the gospel.....

It's pretty old..... in the synoptics especially....


 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

How the cross and resurrection 'works', I don't know. But however it does 'work' then I suspect it both encompasses and transcends any atonement model or theory we may care to throw at it.

---

True.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Oh dear, Evensong agrees with me. I really must have backslidden ...

Actually, I don't agree with the analysis on Evensong's Liberal Christianity uncyclopaedia link ... I thought that the only people Liberal Christians thought of as going to Hell were evangelicals ...

Evensong's Liberal Christianity can't really be the real thing, because in her version everyone gets to go to heaven - including the evangelicals ...
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Evensong's Liberal Christianity can't really be the real thing, because in her version everyone gets to go to heaven - including the evangelicals ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

'By his wounds you have been healed' is figurative on any reading, but on the PSA the figure is contorted: 'because he was wounded we will never be wounded at all'? - not satisfactory.

---

I think it's easier than that to get PSA out of this phrase. You just need to gloss 'wounds' as 'punishment' and 'healed' as 'released from guilt' and you're there.

---

quote:

---

Well the context both before and after is some of the most full-blown moral influence passages in the NT. So the core passage seems to be surrounded by moral influence - marinaded in it if you will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On what grounds, on what basis does God forgive?

---

On the basis of repentance.

---

Ask, seek, knock. Repent and believe in the gospel.....

It's pretty old..... in the synoptics especially....

---

quote:

---

He died that we might be forgiven,
He died to make us good,
That we might go at last to heaven,
Saved by his precious blood.

That's not evangelicalism.
That's Christianity

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Twangist:

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Twangist:
Obviously a lot of OT cultus is about the issue of ritual purity which is about who's "in" and who's "out" and who therefore can be a part of the worshipping community and have access to God. A lot of Jesus' healings served to remove ritual impurity and restore outcast's to being fully part of the people of God. s - "what they did (sin) .. made them guilty".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you sure about that? Contacting ritual impurity was simply part of life for Jews in the ancient world… E. P. Sanders observes that ‘All the Jews, including Pharisees, were impure more or less all the time….“all the holy scriptures render the hands unclean. The rabbis certainly did not refrain from contact with the Scriptures for fear of getting their hands dirty. … Christian interpreters do not need of ritual purity laws to avoid Using them superiority. We do need to remember that these laws, which seem to us strange and archaic, were not uncommon in the ancient world. It is anachronistic to suppose that Jesus dismissed them as irrelevant. Undoubtedly there was diversity with respect to attention to observance, some were more meticulous than others, and certainly there differences in Diaspora customs.’ Preaching without Contempt: Overcoming Unintended Anti-Judaism – M. Salmon (Fortress 2006) pp. 100-101

---

Sorry Leo, I'm not sure which bit's of my post you are addressing?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Where, I suspect, Mudfrog might fall down (if indeed he does fall down) is his somewhat sound-bite-y, reductionist approach.

'That's not evangelicalism, that's Christianity!' he trumpets...

Evangelical sound-bites and Cecil Frances Alexander hymns may take us so far - but there're not the last word on the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
That's committing the same mistake as Mudfrog makes when he says that no PSA means no cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Indeed, one also needs to take into account the grounds for forgiveness.

On what grounds, on what basis does God forgive?
Is it arbitrarily, out of his great love? He smply says, 'Oh I love you and so I'll just forgive you anyway?'

---

quote:

---

If that is the case, what of holiness?

---

quote:

---

What of justice?

---

quote:

---

Indeed, what of wrath? The kind of wrath that has God's heart burning at the sin, the injustice, the brutality, the murder, the rape, the jealousy and immorality of this world?

---

quote:

---

If God has no reaction to these things, no sense of judgment upon them and those who perpetrate even the least act of hatred, then what sort of weak, shallow, pale kind of 'love' does he possess?

---

quote:

---

I would strongly suggest that the ONLY basis for God's forgiveness is that out of his eternal love he gave his Son to suffer the curse of his wrath, in substitution for us, that the record of our sins might be wiped out.

---

quote:

---

If God could simply forgive, with no thought for his holiness or justice and righteousness, then there was no need for the brutal charade of the cross.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
On what grounds, on what basis does God forgive?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the basis of repentance.

---

quote:

---

That Jesus's healings weren't primarily about impurity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
[qb] That's committing the same mistake as Mudfrog makes when he says that no PSA means no cross.

---

I was not aware I had said this.

---

quote:

---

If God could simply forgive, with no thought for his holiness or justice and righteousness, then there was no need for the brutal charade of the cross.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You can't make 'There is a green hill ...' speak for Christendom as a whole. I doubt that the Orthodox would sign up for it for a start.

---

quote:

---

originally posted by Twangist:
Milgrom – unfortunately Google books only let you view p1 which seems to say “Everyone else in history has translated this word as “sin offering” but I think “purification offering” would be more accurate because of the root of the word” – is this a fair reading?
Not being a Hebrew scholar I can’t comment on the veracity of this – Although he seems to be influential and respected.

---