|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Penal Substitution
|
Tyler Durden
Shipmate
# 2996
|
Posted
What (if anything) is the difference between Penal Substitution and Substitutionary Atonement in general?
I recently heard that many evangelical theologians (inc John Stott) reject PS and yet still hold to SA.
But to the extent that I understand either of them, they are pretty much the same: both say that someone had to die to pay the price of our sins and it was Jesus.
Am I missing something?
[ 08. January 2006, 22:00: Message edited by: Erin ]
--------------------
Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is a moron, while anyone driving faster is a maniac? Jerry Seinfeld
Posts: 509 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Substitutionary Atonement is a fairly general term, basically Christ died in our place. Penal Substitution is more specific in explaining how substitution works, with a legal meaning - ie: comparing sin to crime, and death as the punishment in a law court, with Christ paying the penalty for us.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
There is also a civil model of substituionary atonement that I "prefer" if one has to have substitutionary atonement.
E.g. God sues me in civil court for the harm that my sins have done to his Kingdom, but I can't give God anything that makes up for the seriousness of my sin, so his Son pays the price instead. In my understanding, this was the original model of substitutionary atonement and it was meant to address the shortcoming of the Christus Victor (Christ is victorious over sin and death) which didn't take sin seriously enough.
My problem with penal substitutionary atonement is that it makes God a cosmic bully who revels in the spilling of human blood instead of the Creator God who told us to forgive seventy times seven. It also goes totally against the Jewish understanding of the story of Moses and Isaac which Jews understand as YWH abolishing the sacrificing of one's children to the gods.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
As I understand it from The Cross of Christ, Stott does not reject PSA.
He says, in his view, that substitution is the central model for understanding the cross, and PSA (propitiation) is one of the important models that centres on Christ being our substitute. He also says that Christus Victor, Redemption and Justification are important models, but all depend on subsitution being true if they are to be effective.
I disagree with everything Seeker said about PSA, and am thoroughly committed to it as the central model of the cross, but all of those issues were discussed quite recently on another thread about the issue. I'm sure a kindly host will along soon, and tell us where to find it. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
PSA (propitiation) is one of the important models that centres on Christ being our substitute.
Propitiation is a ritual term rather than legal - so is a completely different model than PSA. It's a sacrifice that turns aside wrath. One of the classic propitiatory sacrifices is the Passover, the blood of a lamb that turns aside the wrath of God that struck the first born of Egypt.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tyler Durden
Shipmate
# 2996
|
Posted
I tend to agree with Seeker: I am uncomfortable with the idea of 'without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins'. This seems savage and abusive to me, violent and irreconcilable with the idea of a gentle loving God.
Also while Alan considers propitiation totally different from PSA/the legal idea, as I said before, it all seems much the same to me: the idea that God simply couldn't forgive sin unless someone died.
If this has all been thrashed out on a still-available post, please point me to it.
--------------------
Have you ever noticed that anyone driving slower than you is a moron, while anyone driving faster is a maniac? Jerry Seinfeld
Posts: 509 | From: Kent | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
PSA (propitiation) is one of the important models that centres on Christ being our substitute.
Propitiation is a ritual term rather than legal - so is a completely different model than PSA. It's a sacrifice that turns aside wrath. One of the classic propitiatory sacrifices is the Passover, the blood of a lamb that turns aside the wrath of God that struck the first born of Egypt.
I beg to differ. Propitiation is about God's anger (punitive reaction to sin) by a (IMO) substitutionary sacrifice. Stott (from memory) contends that propitiation only works because of substitution, and is the "penal" aspect thereof. I will go and check.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
I personally dont mind it as *an* analogy. and as all analagies a flawed one. AS i see it, Paul was trying to explain something amazing, miraculous, mysterious, and in doing so drew on many *different* analogies and different ways of trying to explain it.
I think its ok if its seen as *one* analagy, rather than *the* one, and to be taken literally....
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Propitiation is about God's anger (punitive reaction to sin) by a (IMO) substitutionary sacrifice. Stott (from memory) contends that propitiation only works because of substitution, and is the "penal" aspect thereof. I will go and check.
Heh ... that sent me delving into my copy of The Cross of Christ.
Certainly propitiation is substitutionary; I'm not sure what model of the Atonement isn't as there's nothing we can give or do that is sufficient without God doing something in our stead.
It's the penal aspect of propitiation I don't see, yes it averts Gods wrath which by definition his righteous and just reaction to sin. But penal implies a model relating to judgement in a law court or similar. Wrath is caused by an offense, it doesn't have to follow a legal judgement. I can't see anything in Stott to support linking penal substitution with propitiation from my all too brief skim through.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
[aside]One of the old threads on this sort of subject made it into Limbo, it may be of interest. Substitionary Atonement.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Heh ... that sent me delving into my copy of The Cross of Christ.
Me too. Stott actually makes a bigger deal of PSA than I had rememebered! So the chapter on "self subsitution for self satisfaction" is basically a defence of penal substitution, and then he has a chapter with 4 results of the cross - propitiation, redemption, reconciliation and justification, which he says all depend or hinge on PSA. As far as I can understand it.
In fact, as I read it I though "Hurrah - this is what I believe".
Certainly, it is not true (as the OP suggested) that Stott has rejected PSA, certainly not when The Cross of Christ was written, and AFAIK, he still sees that as his magnus opum.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
Penal substitution is often presented (eg in evangelistic talks) as involving an angry God (Father) who demands a blood sacrifice (of his own son). Hence the criticism of this as 'cosmic child abuse'. If you hold to a strong doctrine of the incarnation, then this is resolved, as God takes the punishment on Godself.
however, many of those who push PSA most strongly have (in practice) a weak doctrine of the incarnation, so (to use a technical term from theology) they are soteriologically stuffed.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
We have threads on this regularly Tyler!!
John Stott does indeed hold nearly and dearly to penal substitution, but makes some comment about how we must "hedge the doctrine around with every possible safeguard" in order to ensure that it doesn't become distorted. For example, he observes that believing in PS without believing in the Trinity makes it arbitrary and immoral because God is punishing someone else, whereas if Jesus is God he has opted to be punished out of love.
(I define Penal Substitution as the idea that on the cross Jesus is punished by God instead of us for sin, so that because the demand of God's justice for the punishment of sin is satisfied, sinners can now be reconciled to God. Therefore Jesus takes our punishment so we don't have to be punished by being excluded from God's fellowship.)
There is no need to believe in PS to believe in SA. I don't believe in PS because I believe it is not taught in Scripture and makes God out to be unjust. It undermines precisely what it seeks to uphold, the justice of God.
However, I equally believe that it is essential to uphold the idea of God's wrath against sin because his anger proceeds out of his love. It is not possible to see God as loving unless the messed up, hideous state of the world really pisses God off. If rape, torture, poverty and the like don't make him angry then how can he really love the people he has made?
God's anger does not proceed out of an arbitrary sense of justice which must be satisfied but out of a passionate love for humanity. The cross must therefore deal with sin on two levels to achieve atonement (i.e. reconciliation, the restoration of good relationship between God and humanity): it must somehow deal with the righteous and loving anger of God against sin, and it must subjectively transform human rebelliousness and ignorance, in which we have rejected God.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seán D:
it must somehow deal with the righteous and loving anger of God against sin, and it must subjectively transform human rebelliousness and ignorance, in which we have rejected God.
Charles - indeed! I have been guilty of this in the past myself. Like any doctrine, teach it at the expense of other doctrines and it becomes heresy.
Sean, just to clarify, how does the cross do the first of its "jobs" if not through PSA? (not being combative - its just that most non-advocates of PSA are such because they believe God is not angry IME)
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Nooo! Must....resist....
Oh, OK then.
I, and, I think, most of those people who think that PSA is not supported by scripture, don't have a problem with God being angry with sin . It's just that I don't believe He is angry with sinners. Or at least, that His anger with sinners would condemn them to hell unless someone else were to suffer punishment by God in their stead.
In answer, Lep, to your question, on the cross Jesus is, IMHO, doing battle against sin and death on our behalf; as our champion, if you like. Of course, in the sense that we don't really know what happened forensically at the cross (ie how Jesus accomplished this), this is a mystery, but it is not a more mysterious process than that demanded by PSA.
Returning to the OP, I think that an often used analogy would be helpful in pointing up the differences between SA, which, given all the aforementioned caveats, I accept as scriptural, and PSA, which I do not. The story is that of a number of soldiers trapped, under enemy fire, in a foxhole. Suddenly, a live grenade is thrown into their midst. One of the soldiers, seeing the danger, throws himself over the grenade to smother its explosion. He dies, but his comrades survive. This is clearly substitutionary - he dies in the place of the others - but there is no way in which he is being punished, either for his own sins, or for those of the others. Thus we have a picture of SA, but not of PSA. I am not, of course, propounding this as an adequate picture of the cross, but I think it conveys a thinking wich allows SA to exist without its penal overtones.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
Sean, just to clarify, how does the cross do the first of its "jobs" if not through PSA? (not being combative - its just that most non-advocates of PSA are such because they believe God is not angry IME)
The Holy Spirit unites us to the death of sin in Christ on the cross: Jesus bears our sin but overcomes it. Thus, we also die to sin and our old, sinful selves are crucified. The sin is no longer attached to us, as it were, so God has nothing to be angry about against us. We are raised by union with Christ to the life he lives to God, we are thus in a right standing or relationship to God.
References: 2 Corinthians 5, Romans 5-6 and 8.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
JJ, you are tempting me!
The problem with the grenade analogy - is what is the grenade?
In a PSA schema the grenade is God's anger, it is ultimately God who sets the agenda.
In an SA, without the P, God is victim of circumstances, like the soldier, forced into an act of mercy by a terrible accident outside his control.
Ultimately then, I subscribe to PSA because of my view of God's power and ultimate sovereignty, (as well as believing it is taught by scripture!)
Anyway, enough, cannot do this again...no please...save me!
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
In an SA, without the P, God is victim of circumstances, like the soldier, forced into an act of mercy by a terrible accident outside his control.
In the analogy suggested by Jolly Jape the grenade could be human sin, which is destructive of life. What the analogy misses is that the grenade is the fault of the people who survive the explosion, and the soldier who died is innocent. But that could easily be built in to the story!
quote:
Ultimately then, I subscribe to PSA because of my view of God's power and ultimate sovereignty, (as well as believing it is taught by scripture!)
Where, exactly? I cannot find it and I looked for quite a long time.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634
|
Posted
Isn't there just the weeniest chance that God might be sad about sin and not just angry ? The Psalmist says that his sin is sinning against God first, before sinning against individuals/society/whatever. God has to deal with the hurt of the injustice we commit. What is forgiveness anyway? Doesn't the sin and the hurt have to be destroyed? Looks a bit closer to Christus victor. If we purely have this legal model then God loses his emotional involvement with his creation and just becomes a functional judge having to obey laws he created. I think he's a bit bigger than that.
Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Lep, indeed, the question you ask is relevant, and it is why I chose this analogy in particular. Of course, the grenade is sin. The more interesting question is, who threw the grenade. The answer: maybe another, equally terrified, soldier in another foxhole. At any rate, certainly not God. You see, I don't think these matters are primarily about moral culpability. They are about the effects of the fallenness of nature on those who God loves. We need saving because we need saving, because we live in, and are part of, a fallen creation. I really don't think God cares that much about whose fault it is, only about reversing the effects.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
The problem with the grenade analogy - is what is the grenade?
In a PSA schema the grenade is God's anger, it is ultimately God who sets the agenda.
Yes, but Gods wrath is a different concept to his justice. Penal substitution is a model derived from the court room where God is the judge passing sentance, and then the innocent bystander choosing to pay that in our place.
Propitiation, the turning aside of Gods wrath, has God as the aggrieved party justified in his response but appeased by a suitable gift (which as we're incapable of offering such a gift he himself supplies in Christ).
Expiation, the cleansing of sin (which Stott also acknowledges as valuable in The Cross of Christ) also has no penal component. It is closer to saying that Christ died to provide the medicine to heal us of the disease of sin, as we're unable to provide that medicine ourselves.
As I said yesterday, these are all substitutionary in that Christ does for us that what we are incapable of doing ourselves. But they are not all penal.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Sorry for the double post - just re-reading the last sentence, I don't think I was sufficiently clear that by "reversing the effects" I meant reversing the effects of the fall, that is rebuiling creation in the image of Jesus, as per Colossians 1:20, not merely "redeeming" but "recreating"
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
I_am_not_Job: I think you're right but I also think it's a case of both/and. God must be angry about sin if he is truly loving and sad about it, in the same way a parent should be angry if he or she discovered their child had been hurt by another. They are angry because they love their child. That doesn't mean they aren't sad and loving as well. I believe my model eschews the problems of seeing it only as forensic/legal, but that if you don't include the legal side as at least a part of the whole you miss out.
Jolly Jape: of course moral culpability matters, otherwise what sort of a capricious and evil git would God be to not be bothered when we hurt one another?
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
I was going to get involved in the usual almost but not quite dead horse discussion, but I'd honestly rather that someone who understand PSA and its associated theology try to directly answer these questions:
1. How is justice served if God suffers the punishment due to me for my sins?
2. If the punishment for my sins is eternal death why is God not eternally dead, as he suffered my punishment?
3. If the punishment for my sins is temporal death why have no Christians evaded it?
That'll do for starters.
[ 11. May 2004, 10:21: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As I said yesterday, these are all substitutionary in that Christ does for us that what we are incapable of doing ourselves. But they are not all penal.
But Stott's point ( i think, at least it is my point!) is that all of the other substitutionary models rest on PSA being true.
Thus - expiation is a valuable model. But why could God not just expiate us? Why not just stoop down and cleanse, by his Spirit? Why the cross?
Because God's character must be vindicated in his expiating action - propitiation - God's anger poured out is a precursor of expiation - us being cleansed. God is just and the one who justifies - I think this is why Paul links this with propitiation in Romans 3.
I am not denying both are important in any way. But why was the cross the cost of our expiation? because God had to be propitiated before he could (in accordance with his character) come and expiate us.
It in this sense that, while I understand what you say about PSA being one "legal" model, I understand it to underlie all the other achievements of the cross.
[ 11. May 2004, 10:25: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
I_am_not_Job
Shipmate
# 3634
|
Posted
Sean, I agree, I was just agreeing with those who said it was a limited analogy, and Lep certainly seemed real hot on God being angry about sin.
I think we have to be really careful in trying to understand God's righteous anger because as sinful humans our anger tends to be fully pure and righteous for about 2 seconds (if we're lucky!) and then it's diluted by our natural/sinful bent towards wanting revenge (though we like to tell ourselves it's justice). I don't think we can 100% empathise with what God feels about sin. We can understand the basics but our understanding is muddied and though contemplating the meaning of the cross and ressurection will help us to mature and be repentant, ultimately we can only throw ourselves on his mercy in our inadequacy and praise him for it. And mercy generally ain't what happens in the law courts.
--------------------
Hope for everything; expect nothing
Posts: 988 | From: London | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Sean D, you wrote: quote:
of course moral culpability matters, otherwise what sort of a capricious and evil git would God be to not be bothered when we hurt one another?
Yes, but that's not quite what I said. I wrote, (referring to the Atonement) quote:
You see, I don't think these matters are primarily about moral culpability.
That doesn't mean that moral culpability is unimportant, or that God doesn't care about what we do to one another, merely that it is not that particular issue that is the number one driver for the Cross, as PSA would imply.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Hmmmmm. I think you're right in that it isn't the primary motive behind the cross: the motive or desired goal which God wants is reconciliation, restored friendship between himself and humanity.
But I guess the next crucial question is therefore what is the primary stumbling block which is preventing that restoration from taking place? I think it is two things: humanity's moral culpability is still one of them as God would be unjust (and hence unloving) to simply ignore that, and secondly our rebellious and proud stubborn refusal to turn back to God, so the God has to somehow deal with both of those things.
I'm sorry for misrepresenting you, but I guess what I disagree with in what you said was the implication (possibly one I misread into what you said!!) that God dealing with moral culpability was secondary to God dealing with the effects. To me they are one and the same, i.e. you cannot deal with the latter without first taking humanity away from a place in which we rightly should be condemned by God.
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I was going to get involved in the usual almost but not quite dead horse discussion, but I'd honestly rather that someone who understand PSA and its associated theology try to directly answer these questions:
Well not sure about understand... but I'm the only advocate round here so...? Yep, thought so - ok
quote:
1. How is justice served if God suffers the punishment due to me for my sins?
Because justice is not about God being constrained by an external standard (contra Anselm) but about him vindicating his character. Our desire for justice as an objective truth is a flicker of the huge light of God's justice that demands his good holy and moral character be vindicated. It is HIS justice that is satisfied at the cross - his character, revulsion to sin, and perfect holiness are displayed and satisfied.
quote:
2. If the punishment for my sins is eternal death why is God not eternally dead, as he suffered my punishment?
Mystery is the short answer. Sorry. A longer answer would have a number of strands
- the fact that Jesus is a member of the Trinity, and the disjunction in the Trinity is so bad that it "counts" as eternal death.
- separation from God is the punishment - Jesus experienced and dealt with that once and for all
- the mysterious truth that Jesus bears the marks of this sacrifice right into eternity, and that in some sense, the sacrifice took place before the beginning of time - so somehow it is eternal in consequence even for him.
quote:
3. If the punishment for my sins is temporal death why have no Christians evaded it?
Death has lost its sting at the cross - eternal life lies beyond it, but it is the final enemy to be defeated. 1 Cor 15. In a sense Christians do avoid it now, one day we will absolutely avoid it completely.
I shall now go and take shelter in my evangelical bunker <runs away cowrering>
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
Wow Leprechaun, have you been reading John Piper?
(If you haven't, you should. He is the ablest defender of PS I have come across and is rabidly good on the concept of "righteousness" as "God's passion for his glory" etc. I disagree with about 40% of what he says but it's still inspiring and well worth reading.)
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Snared. I, after a stormy start, love Piper's work. He really brings a passion and Christian love to PSA and Calvinism that I love.
I'm temperamentally quite an emotional person, and found a lot of conservative evangelicalism a bit stunting of my nature in this. Piper really helped.
I thoroughly commend it to everyone, even those who will disagree, for a thoughtful passionate Biblical writer. "Let the Nations be Glad" is a great place to start.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
Thanks for the effort, L. I'll get back to you, no doubt
[keyboards and fingers don't always mix]
[ 11. May 2004, 11:41: Message edited by: GreyFace ]
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Sean you wrote: quote:
I'm sorry for misrepresenting you, but I guess what I disagree with in what you said was the implication (possibly one I misread into what you said!!) that God dealing with moral culpability was secondary to God dealing with the effects. To me they are one and the same, i.e. you cannot deal with the latter without first taking humanity away from a place in which we rightly should be condemned by God.
No apology necessary, I didn't so much think that you had misrepresented me, rather that I hadn't made the point with sufficient clarity. But I suppose it is true that I do tend to see the issues of forgiveness and salvation as seperate but linked, rather than two sides of one coin. As I see it, God deals with our culpability by forgiving us. End of story. However, that is not enough. We still need to be saved from the effects of our sin (well, not just our personal sin, actually, but everyone's collective sin, the fallenness of nature, the decay principle, entropy, whatever. "The wages of sin..." and all that. This is what the cross accomplishes - regeneration, restoration, healing, whatever you like to call it. I don't believe that the cross was necessary for our forgiveness, but it was for our "salvation" (ie being made whole).
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
I personally dont mind it as *an* analogy. and as all analagies a flawed one. AS i see it, Paul was trying to explain something amazing, miraculous, mysterious, and in doing so drew on many *different* analogies and different ways of trying to explain it.
I think its ok if its seen as *one* analagy, rather than *the* one, and to be taken literally....
Which is my view. But I think each theory of atonement has its problems.
This is also the way I was instructed by my denominationt to view atonement - that all theories are to be held in tension. We were specifically told not to preach "PSA only" and not to preach "blood only", so people from traditions other than mine can disagree all they want to and I care not.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But Stott's point ( i think, at least it is my point!) is that all of the other substitutionary models rest on PSA being true.
I didn't read all of the book (I may be able to skim read stuff quickly but that was too much for a quick check what he said), so can't comment if that is Stott's point. If it is, then I disagree with him on that point at least. I just don't see how PSA is essential to understanding of the Cross such as Christ conquering death, or paying a ransom, or washing us clean in his blood ore several other such models. Substitution yes, but not penal.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
2. If the punishment for my sins is eternal death why is God not eternally dead, as he suffered my punishment?
I think this is why I prefer Christus Victor-style explanations to PSA. It makes more sense if we say that the consequence of our sins (which Jesus took in our place) should have been an eternity in hell; but hell coudn't hold him because he was too good/strong/both, and also in escaping from hell himself he broke its hold over us.
This eliminates one of the major problems with the criminal law metaphor: the objection "but he got off after only 3 days..."
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
I agree, Talitha. I'm a CV man myself, but I'm trying to get a handle on why so many people see sense in the PSA model.
I'm not succeeding yet, but that may be due to my small-brainedness.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sean D
Cheery barman
# 2271
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But Stott's point ( i think, at least it is my point!) is that all of the other substitutionary models rest on PSA being true.
I didn't read all of the book (I may be able to skim read stuff quickly but that was too much for a quick check what he said), so can't comment if that is Stott's point.
I can and it is. I also disagree!!
--------------------
postpostevangelical
http://www.stmellitus.org/
Posts: 2126 | From: North and South Kensington | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
I agree, Talitha. I'm a CV man myself, but I'm trying to get a handle on why so many people see sense in the PSA model.
I'm CV too! Just as a helpful model that rests on PSA having taken place.
[ 11. May 2004, 13:07: Message edited by: Leprechaun ]
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm CV too! Just as a helpful model that rests on PSA having taken place.
Can you explain why PSA is foundational? I suppose I could read Stott, but won't have time to do justice to that until the weekend.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I'm CV too! Just as a helpful model that rests on PSA having taken place.
Can you explain why PSA is foundational? I suppose I could read Stott, but won't have time to do justice to that until the weekend.
Ok, I'll try doing that for CV, but I don't have time to do the others, and I won't be as coherent as the lovely John.
CV - Jesus defeats death.
Death is, in a Biblical framwork, a result of sin. Specifically it is part of God's original judgement for sin in Genesis 3.
So the real problem here, of which death is a symptom, is God's reaction to sin - his righteous anger, and his right hatred of it.
God is also love. He wants us to escape the results of our sin. But he cannot just let us off without compromising his character.
He deals with his reaction to sin on the cross - in doing that, as a consequence of that, he deals with the root problem behind death, therefore he deals with death.
Ta da!
That is neither well crafted, nor ready to deal with the million questions that abound, but it is my best attempt on the hoof. Some of the others are easier.
The bottom line is - what is God rescuing us from. I think the Bible teaches that the bottom line answer is not sin, not death, but beneath all of those things - God himself. Thus while expiating us from our sin, and defeating death on our behalf, which the cross does, the basic issue is God's reaction to sin, to which PSA is the answer. (I hope this also makes clear why I think it is closely linked to propitiation.)
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zwingli
Shipmate
# 4438
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
But Stott's point ( i think, at least it is my point!) is that all of the other substitutionary models rest on PSA being true.
I didn't read all of the book (I may be able to skim read stuff quickly but that was too much for a quick check what he said), so can't comment if that is Stott's point. If it is, then I disagree with him on that point at least. I just don't see how PSA is essential to understanding of the Cross such as Christ conquering death, or paying a ransom, or washing us clean in his blood ore several other such models. Substitution yes, but not penal.
I'm not sure what exactly non- penal atonement is, or if it even exists. Paying a ransom, washing us in his blood, conquering death etc are outworkings of penal substitution, not alternetive theories to describe the Cross. Penal atonement means simply paying the legal penalty for sin. As was said earlier, this solves the original problem, what was seperating us from God in the first place. Paying a ransom (paid from God to God in effect; the idea that Christ paid a ransom to the Devil or was tortured by the Devil is a dangerous heresy) is an illustration of how we are freed from death, but it leads back to penal substitution. We are in bondage to death. Why? Because death is the effect of our sin. Pay the punishment for our sin, and you remove the threat of death.
Th slave market model has a similar result. We are slaves to sin, yet sin, like death, is an abstract concept, rather than a person or an entity, thus it has no property. No ransom can truely be paid to it. To say we are ransomed from sin is to illustrate the effects of the penalty for our sin being paid; it effectively causes us to be freed from the effects of sin and the threat of death, eventually causing our complete sanctification.
Why are we slaves to sin, in need of ransom, stained and in need of washing etc? Because these are the effects of our sin. Take away our guilt by paying the penalty for sin and we are freed from the other effects of sin as well.
Sorry Alan Cresswell, even as I write this it seems an ill thought out response to what you said. I hope I am on the right track though.
Leprechaun, I was thinking much the same as you in response to GreyFace's questions, I have never read much of Piper though except Future Grace I read many years ago and hardly remember.
Posts: 4283 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I recently read Cyril of Jerusalem's "Mystagogical Catechesis" and Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" (I lead an exciting life), and it struck me that, though often objected to by those who claim to stand in the catholic tradition, the notion that Jesus somehow took the blame for something that wasn't his fault and somehow substituted himself to satisfy a notion of divine justice is pretty fundamental to understanding what the Fathers were trying to say about salvation*. Whether that somehow is enough to push them from believing in substitutionary atonment to penal substitutionary atonement I'm not sure, but what it does do is convince me that PSA isn't some idea that's been pulled from someone's rectum. There is legitimate basis for it in both Scripture and Tradition.
* and, going back to a side-issue raised a few months back, I think they also firmly believed that the method of Jesus' death was as important to that salvation - the notion of sacrifice must, it seems to me, imply death by suffering.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Paying a ransom (paid from God to God in effect; the idea that Christ paid a ransom to the Devil or was tortured by the Devil is a dangerous heresy) is an illustration of how we are freed from death, but it leads back to penal substitution.
I know that people hate answering this question, but I can't get around it. First, let me make it clear that I don't believe that Jesus was tortured by Satan. But to me, you've basically just put God the Father in the torturer's seat.
Seriously, I can't get my head around it. There are people in this world who are noble enough to forgive unconditionally, with no reparations and sometimes humban beings are called to do just that. But apparently God isn't that noble. Why do I want to worship a God who thinks that only extensive harm / torture can serve Justice? And did God really say that he cannot be honourable unless he hurts people? To me, this sort of idea of "justice" seems to come from the depths of a sinful heart.
I know that people who believe passionately in this think people like me are boring and perhaps simply trying to be a pain the behind, but I really wish I could understand the reasoning.
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli*:
Penal atonement means simply paying the legal penalty for sin. As was said earlier, this solves the original problem, what was seperating us from God in the first place.
Except it doesn't really solve the problem. If we stick with the legal scenario we end up with all sorts of problems. For a start sins are acts against others as well as God. God acts as judge and declares us guilty of our sins and passes the just sentance (death), I have no problem with that. But, He then pays that penalty himself - that is the basis of penal substition, is it not.
Now how does this align with justice? Can a just judge do that without the agreement of the aggrieved parties? If I murdered your sister, was justly convicted to spend the rest of my life in jail but someone else volunteered to do the time for me letting me go free, would you consider justice done? I wouldn't.
Then there is the other aspect. People sin against us, and we are called to forgive them. Do we need to find someone else to punish in their stead everytime? If we don't, then why should God?
And, finally, penal substitution addresses the problem of our sinful acts (even thoughts that themselves don't lead to acts). But sin is not just what we do. It's far more subtle and insiduous than that. It is far more like a disease that needs a cure than a crime to be punished. Or, like a stain that needs laundering.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boopy
Shipmate
# 4738
|
Posted
PSA/PA/Christus Victor - no, not for me. Just can't do it.
Is there room for a model which says that, Jesus opted to live out what he saw as his calling to the full - eg the way of ultimate love and sacrifice of self in response to God - rather than be pushed into starting a (military) revolution?
That's the only model I can even begin to work with.
Who will be first to tell me the above model is a classic heresy? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 1170 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fiddleback
Shipmate
# 2809
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zwingli*:
I'm not sure what exactly non- penal atonement is, or if it even exists.
Really? Well lets try forgetting all of this metaphysical stuff, and think about the change the cross brings about in us rather than what it does to God. It moves us to repentance and love of God. But how?
Time to expound the Liberal Protestant subjective theory of atonement. As I understand Herr Schleiermacher telling it, I think it goes like this:
Sin = selfishness.
Holiness = selfless love
Salvation = God consciousness
Jesus is divine in the sense that he is 100% holy (selfless). His selfless life inevitably leads to his cruel death because it comes into conflict with selfishness. If he had avoided that death when he knew it was coming (which was easy enough for him to do) that would have exhibited selfishness, and said to his disciples that he didn't really stand by all those things he taught them about forgiveness and the kingdom of heaven. He was obedient even unto death on the cross, as S.Paul writes to the Philippians. Jesus is the supreme martyr and brings us back to the Father through the moral influence he exerts on us.
Quite simple.
God isn't changed. He was always nice. Jesus in his life and teaching reminds us of that. The death on the cross is nothing other than an act of revelation.
[ 11. May 2004, 23:07: Message edited by: Fiddleback ]
Posts: 2034 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fish Fish
Shipmate
# 5448
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fiddleback:
If he had avoided that death when he knew it was coming (which was easy enough for him to do) that would have exhibited selfishness...
How would avoiding death be a selfish act? If that’s the realm we're dealing with then I'd argue it was actually a very selfish thing not to avoid death because of all the pain and anguish he inflicted on his friends and disciples by dying. If that was avoidable, then he was selfish not to take their thoughts into account.
Jesus' death is not selfish because it actually achieves something beyond the death of the man - the propitiation of God's wrath against sin. If its only achievement is plain demonstration of love, then its a bizarre, perverse and pointless love. It's like standing on a pier with your wife, and saying "I love you so much - let me show you how much" and then jumping into the sea and drowning. Pointless.
--------------------
Thought about changing my name - but it would be a shame to lose all the credibility and good will I have on the Ship...
Posts: 672 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Jesus' death is not selfish because it actually achieves something beyond the death of the man - the propitiation of God's wrath against sin. If its only achievement is plain demonstration of love, then its a bizarre, perverse and pointless love. It's like standing on a pier with your wife, and saying "I love you so much - let me show you how much" and then jumping into the sea and drowning. Pointless.
So this makes sense? You're my wife and I hate, loathe and despise you because you're not perfect. I'm afraid I'm going to have kill you in the most horrific way I can conceive. But wait! I love you! So I'm going to kill myself instead. Then I won't have to unleash my unlimited wrath on you.
For me, the problem is the total schizophrenia of trying to figure out how God could both hate humankind with an eternal wrath and love humankind at the same time. I don't know if there is a more sophisticated way of looking at this and that's what I'm searching for in trying to understand PSA.
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
I know that people hate answering this question, but I can't get around it. First, let me make it clear that I don't believe that Jesus was tortured by Satan. But to me, you've basically just put God the Father in the torturer's seat.
I know that people who believe passionately in this think people like me are boring and perhaps simply trying to be a pain the behind, but I really wish I could understand the reasoning.
Oh no - not boring! Interesting! Even though we disagree! Because I think this is the very nub os the issue - it is what Stott calls "self-subsitution for self satisfaction". God the Father is responsible for Jesus death in some sense (Jesus himself seems to be at pains to make that clear, especially as we have him recorded in John's Gospel) but because the Saviour and the Father are one, it is God resolving his own reaction to our sin in himself
So, and I said this on the other PSA thread, forgiveness is unconditional to us the cost is ultimately all God's - but he can forgive us without any condition we have to meet, only at a very great cost to himself.
Alan, I think you are getting caught up in seeing PSA as merely a legal model. Its much more than that, and actually draws as much from the sacrificial model, of propitiation, as I have said. I don't think its true to say it doesn't take sin seriously. It merely sees that our problem with sin is ultimately even more than the mess it makes of us but the mess it makes between us and a holy God. It is not saying that we do not need to be expiated, rather answering the question, how CAN a holy God come to us and make us clean? Answer, his anger is propitiated, as a precursor to him coming and cleansing us - and in fact its all one process, which is why I think the writers talk about us being cleansed by his blood.
But tha's why I see PSA as the central model, rather than just one of many.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
